The Mosul Attack

[rikzilla]

Rewind to the Abu Ghraib photos; there were no less than 7 different threads here complaining of the fact that these soldiers had broken the GC rules against torture. Yet when the terrorists saw off an innocent captive's head, when they blow up their own civilians in the streets with IED's, or when they use their own civilians as human shields there is little to no outcry here or in the media. Why is that? Do terrorists get a free pass because they are terrorists and we must expect this behaviour?? Yet when US forces do anything remotely suspect....from subjecting detainees to sleep deprivation, to being filmed shooting a wounded yet possibly still dangerous enemy soldier on a battlefield...they are pilloried in the media as well as right here by many posters.

Yesterday the US suffered an attack that left the most American casualties yet taken in a single event since the invasion. Yet until I began this thread we are not even talking about it here. I suppose I should be thankful that Demon has not started a thread crowing about this great insurgent success?

The latest news is that the chow-hall explosion could have been a planted bomb, or a suicide bomber setting himself off...maybe a well aimed rocket. The casualties were then airlifted to a local CSM (Combat Surgical Hospital)...kind of like a MASH unit on steroids. Just like in MASH, the choppers come in bearing casualties. Out in the open by the CSM were many caregivers...nurses, doctors among the wounded doing triage.

Here is what happened next:

The scene was little more than controlled chaos. Helicopters landing, people shouting, wounded screaming, bodies everywhere. As the staff began to triage the dead and wounded I found the chaplain and offered my assistance. He directed me to where he needed me and I dove in. I would be hard pressed to write about every person I had the opportunity to pray with today but I will try to relate a few.

I found "Betty" on a stretcher being tended by nurses. I introduced myself and held her hand. She looked up at me and said, "Chaplain, am I going to be alright?" I said that she was despite the fact that I could see she had a long road to recovery ahead of her. Most of her hair had been singed off. Her face was burnt fairly badly, although it didn't look like the kind of burns that will scar. What I do know is that it was painful enough to hurt just by being in the sun. I prayed with Betty and moved on.

"Ilena" (a made up name. She spoke very softly and had a thick accent so I couldn't really hear her) had been hit by a piece of shrapnel just above her left breast causing a classic sucking chest wound. The doctors said she had a hemothorax (I think that's what they called it) which basically meant her left lung was filling with blood and she was having a very hard time breathing. For the next 20 minutes I held her hand while a doctor made an incision in her left side, inserted most of his hand and some kind of medical instrument and then a tube to alleviate the pressure caused by the pooling blood. It was probably the most medieval procedure I have ever been privy to. In the end she was taken to ICU and will be OK.

"Mark" was put on a stretcher and laid along a wall. A small monitor on his hand would tell the nurses when he was dead. Even a cursory glance said it was inevitable. Mark had a head wound that left brain matter caked in his ear and all over the stretcher he was lying on. I knelt next to Mark and placed a hand on is chest. His heart was barely beating but it was beating so I put my face close to his ear to pray with him. If you've never smelled human brain matter it is something unforgettable. I had something of an internal struggle. He's practically dead so why stay? He probably can't hear anything! A prayer at that point seemed of little value. But I couldn't risk it. I prayed for Mark and led him in the sinners prayer as best I could. There are few things in this life that will make you feel more helpless. After that, I needed some fresh air.

I stepped outside and found the situation to be only slightly less chaotic. The number of body bags had grown considerably since I first went inside. I saw a fellow chaplain who was obviously in need of care himself. I stopped him and put my arm around him and asked how he was doing. A rhetorical question if ever I asked one. He just shook his head so I pulled him in close and prayed for his strength, endurance, a thick skin, and a soft heart. Then I just stood and breathed for a few minutes.

Regardless of what some may say, these are not stupid people. Any attack with casualties will naturally mean that eventually a very large number of care givers will be concentrated in one location. They took full advantage of that. In the middle of the mayhem the first mortar round hit about 100 to 200 meters away. Everyone started shouting to get the wounded into the hospital which is solid concrete and much safer than being in the open. Soon, the next mortar hit quite a bit closer than the first as they "walked" their rounds toward their intended target...us. Everyone began to rush toward the building. I stood at the door shoving as many people inside as I could. Just before heading in myself, the last one hit directly on top of the hospital. I was standing next to the building so was shielded from any flying shrapnel. In fact, the building, being built as a bunker took the hit with little effect. However, I couldn't have been more than 10 to 15 meters from the point of impact and brother did I feel the shock. That'll wake you up! I rushed inside to find doctors and nurses draped over patients, others on the floor or under something. I ducked low and quickly moved as far inside as I could.

So, first bomb produces a "mass casualty event"...bad guys know what happens next so they have other bad guys in place....

This suggests that the target was under observation so either the first firing team, or a second enemy mortar team tasked with a followup attack could adjust their fire until they hit the hospital. It will be interesting to see whether the enemy fire originated from a populated area, preventing counterbattery. Many American bases are routinely patrolled by RPVs that run a circuit around possible firing positions. Mortar or rocket positions in the open would be easily detected. But there is no data and it would be useless to speculate on what actually happened. However, it is safe to say that the attack demonstrates assymetrical warfare in action. The enemy chose the weakest point he could find to attack; exploited the known limitations of the American response; and understood that he was to all intents and purposes exempted from the condemnation attendant to attacking the wounded and medical personnel. The chaplain and the medical personnel knew this and did not mill around expecting the Geneva Convention to protect them from those who have never heard of it, except as it applies to their own convenience. They knew the true face of the enemy; a face which bore no resemblance to the heroic countenance often presented by the media to the world.

-z

 

[Lothian]

The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war. I believe neither side in the War on Terror upholds it. The terrorists ignore it because they are terrorists and America ignores it because the prisoners are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants.

 

[c0rbin]

I voted for "Sometimes"

Our foes in the field do not have a standing army that can face us like our foes in the past.

We are fighting a guerrilla force. One of the most potent weapons for guerrilla forces is public perception. They will use the media and the lives of civilians to make it unpleasant and expensive politically to be there.

When a pitched battle comes along--conventional battles in which conventional forces fight for conventional objectives like territory--like Faluja(sp?), the smart and expirienced leardership melts away and leaves the young fanatics to man the kill zones and pre-coordinated mortar ranges.

There is no doubt that the territory (city) will be taken by the superior force, but the guerillas will bloody our nose for it and walk away with more footage of the big mean US killing young men "fighting for their homes" (remember the US soldier killing a wounded Iraqi?).

So now the US "has control" of the city, a body count of insurgents and the election can move ahead, right?

Nope. All the smart and expirienced guerrillas had long since slipped away to organize the festivities like the ones in Mosul and it will go on like this until another pitched battle comes into play. Bloddy nose to the US, we hold the town, the leadership slips away, the cycle repeats.

Our enemy is not fighting a conventional war and the same rules do not apply.

 

[rikzilla]

The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war. I believe neither side in the War on Terror upholds it. The terrorists ignore it because they are terrorists and America ignores it because the prisoners are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants.

The GC also applies, IIRC, to "war crimes". I believe the purposeful targeting of a clearly marked medical facility is such a crime. Of course, if the GC were respected by the insurgency they'd have to scrap more than 90% of their tactics and retool their forces to fight like conventional forces...which would be their demise.

Living in the real world as I do, I know that that is as likely to happen as the "Rapture". So, the next questions are predictable but the answers are still important:

• Should we abide by the GC no matter what the enemy does?
  
• Is strict adherence to rules of war in the face of enemy intransigence a strength, or a weakness? Why?
  
• Were the GC's ever intended to be applied unequally?
  

Personally, I believe that we can continue to follow GC rules as long as we are not again badly hurt by the insurgents/terrorists. As long as our team is ahead in the game of war they can carry the chains of the GC and still kick the ass of the enemy, but if they start beating us down I think the proverbial gloves will come off.

But is it fair? Is it worth spending the lives of American troops in order to maintain the PR-PC benefits of attempting to fight a "clean war"?? Are these "benefits" worth it??

My answer to all of the above is no.

-z

 

[karl]

The "War on Terror" is a "war" only in the sense that the "War on Drugs" or "War on Crime" are. The tiny part of it that qualified as an actual war (confrontations between official military forces) was in the spring of 2003 and lasted only about six weeks. The rest is a World Police operation that the US and some of its allies have taken on. The way I see it, rikzilla's comments don't pertain to the Geneva Convention but to the more general question whether the police should be held to a higher standard than the criminals.

 

[Lothian]

I think it depends on what you want to achieve. There is more than one objective in Iraq.

Bear in mind that you are trying to replace a tyrant that ignored international law. Do you want to show that you are different and set and example or do you prefer an approach of Look this isn’t the way we want you to behave but… .

 

[rikzilla]

The "War on Terror" is a "war" only in the sense that the "War on Drugs" or "War on Crime" are. The tiny part of it that qualified as an actual war (confrontations between official military forces) was in the spring of 2003 and lasted only about six weeks. The rest is a World Police operation that the US and some of its allies have taken on. The way I see it, rikzilla's comments don't pertain to the Geneva Convention but to the more general question whether the police should be held to a higher standard than the criminals.

True Karl,
The law is a great equalizer. Police are perhaps held to a higher standard morally but in truth they are held to an equal standard. That's what justice is all about. The police are not always right, the criminal is not always a criminal.

But only a stable and just society can produce such equality. War creates such chaos that societal controls no longer work. The police become out-gunned. Martial law ensues. What I am describing is war. A low-level war to be sure....but it cannot be equated to the "War on____" that's a political label. We have never had the Army searching our neighborhoods for drug dealers in the "War on Drugs"....the Marines never stormed inner-city projects in the "War on Poverty"....perhaps they made a big PR mistake calling this the "War on Terror"....or maybe those other wars-not-wars were unfortunate mis-uses of the term???

Make no mistake, we are still fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan...a war writ small, but still a fighting war. We Americans lost well over 6,000 men in two days fighting a single battle in WWII (Okinawa invasion)...so the Iraqi situation is not nearly as bad for us as have been past wars. The people who have always been predicting doom in Iraq and Afghanistan are,... surprise,... still doing it. They've been proved wrong so many times that I'm confident they will remain so.

The insurgents are doing their best to disrupt the coming elections, so it will be an exciting month...but in the long run it's a war of attrition. As long as we can stabilise the country long enough to knock down the insurgents while building up Iraqi police and Army strength we'll succeed. It will be hard, but a whole lot easier than those 2 days in Okinawa!

-z

 

[rikzilla]

I think it depends on what you want to achieve. There is more than one objective in Iraq.

Bear in mind that you are trying to replace a tyrant that ignored international law. Do you want to show that you are different and set and example or do you prefer an approach of Look this isn’t the way we want you to behave but… .

That's the importance of adherring to the law...the PR-PC benefit. But then again we can change bad laws. The GC applying to only one side is unfair...any law that is itself unfair is not enforceable, nor should it be. Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to move to the back of the bus. So,...should she have?

-z

 

[hgc]

Let me summarize for rik: Stoop to their level. It feels good.

 

[Tmy]

Emotions aside. Since when is attacking a military base considered a terrorist attack.? Isnt that the opposite of the definition of a terror attack?



back to the Mosul attack.

When I heard this story I was shocked on how easy it was to hit the troops. Im tired of the fake picture thats painted of Iraqi that its alot safer and happier than the reality.

I fear the violence thats bound to occur in next months election. I think its time we seriously look at withdrawing. Funk Iraq!

 

[karl]

What I am describing is war. A low-level war to be sure....but it cannot be equated to the "War on____" that's a political label. We have never had the Army searching our neighborhoods for drug dealers in the "War on Drugs"....the Marines never stormed inner-city projects in the "War on Poverty"....perhaps they made a big PR mistake calling this the "War on Terror"....or maybe those other wars-not-wars were unfortunate mis-uses of the term???

Well, the WoT label seems to have convinced you at least.

Whether it's the US Army or the LAPD SWAT team that does the storming is not relevant to the issue. That your guys wear military outfits doesn't make it a "real" war. The criminals may be more violent than what you are used to, but the US activity in Iraq is still a police operation.

 

[rikzilla]

That is your opinion Karl, yet it is not based in reality and as such I do not agree.

Police vs Crime is not what is going on in Iraq. Criminals act in a limited fashion. Limited by their own self interest. War fighters are acting in a larger context...not limited self interest. The weapons, tactics, and goals are completely different...and of a different scale.

The police operate within a larger working system of justice in which society dictates rules that insure justice is served.

They cannot operate thusly in absence of a stable society. Until a civilian Iraqi police force is capable of providing security...it's war.

Word History: The chaos of war is reflected in the semantic history of the word war. War can be traced back to the Indo-European root *wers-, “to confuse, mix up.” In the Germanic family of the Indo-European languages, this root gave rise to several words having to do with confusion or mixture of various kinds. One was the noun *werza-, “confusion,” which in a later form *werra- was borrowed into Old French, probably from Frankish, a largely unrecorded Germanic language that contributed about 200 words to the vocabulary of Old French. From the Germanic stem came both the form werre in Old North French, the form borrowed into English in the 12th century, and guerre (the source of guerrilla) in the rest of the Old French-speaking area. Both forms meant “war.” Meanwhile another form derived from the same Indo-European root had developed into a word denoting a more benign kind of mixture, Old High German wurst, meaning “sausage.” Modern German Wurst was borrowed into English in the 19th century, first by itself (recorded in 1855) and then as part of the word liverwurst (1869), the liver being a translation of German Leber in Leberwurst.

So war is literally chaos. Whereas order would be it's opposite. Policemen keep law and order...but they don't create it...society does. The chaos of war destroys the order of society. Winning the war...is literally the only way to win the peace. The police can't keep a peace which does not pre-exist.

-z

 

[gnome]

Regarding the lack of outcry... to conclude that the terrorists get a free pass for their crimes, I believe is being willfully ignorant in order to score points against the voice of restraint.

Terrorists make most people angry--why else the popularity of the War on Terror? Heck, I'm a fan of the basic idea (seriously stepping up action against terrorists) even if I have a problem with the execution.

But what makes people stand up and say "hey!" is when your own country, that is supposed to be the "good" side, is suddenly doing things you were taught that only evil countries do. Things we were taught to hate other countries for doing.

I feel outrage because people trusted to lead us are damaging my ability to love my country... and that hits harder than a violent attack.

 

[rikzilla]

Regarding the lack of outcry... to conclude that the terrorists get a free pass for their crimes, I believe is being willfully ignorant in order to score points against the voice of restraint.

War is not about restraint. Can you please list for me the wars which have been won (country not important) by exercising restraint? You may reach as far back into history as you like.

Terrorists make most people angry--why else the popularity of the War on Terror? Heck, I'm a fan of the basic idea (seriously stepping up action against terrorists) even if I have a problem with the execution.

Well since over 75% of Al Qaeda leadership have been killed or captured....the Afghan people freed to elect their first democratically elected president ever,...and Saddam's terrorism-supporting regime has been toppled,...I must ask you; "What problem do you have with the execution of the WOT?"

But what makes people stand up and say "hey!" is when your own country, that is supposed to be the "good" side, is suddenly doing things you were taught that only evil countries do. Things we were taught to hate other countries for doing.

Look, this is almost not worth commenting on. The above thought is, at it's heart, hopelessly naive. All countries do evil things from time to time in support of their nation. All

I feel outrage because people trusted to lead us are damaging my ability to love my country... and that hits harder than a violent attack.

No, not really. The leadership of this country is tasked to do what needs to be done to benefit the nation,...not to make sure that gnome can still love some naive illusion that he worships as "his perfect country". Wake up...you can't have it both ways. If you're for the war then you have to fight it with both eyes open and win. The only purpose of waging a war is to win.

-z

 

[AtheistArchon]

That's the importance of adherring to the law...the PR-PC benefit. But then again we can change bad laws. The GC applying to only one side is unfair...any law that is itself unfair is not enforceable, nor should it be.

- HGC nailed it. What, exactly, is the gripe here? That they get to torture people and we don't? That they get to target civillians and we don't?

- Wah, so unfair.

- And here I was thinking that one of the main reasons terrorists were hated 'round the globe is because they have no reguard for rulesets like the GC.

 

[DavidJames]

In Rik's world, we are superior to them because we say so, not because of what we do. I think there are a lot of things that differentiate us from "them", but people and attitudes like Rik's are not one of them. You could take Rik and move him to any totalitarian society in history and he will fit right in. We live in the same country Rik, but in different worlds.

 

[rikzilla]

I hear the dry rustling of the wings of moonbat trolls...but since they are busy trolling and not addressing the points I made then I will leave them to their mindless twittering.

Gnome, I appreciate your effort to address the topic. I regretted shooting you down. But please feel free to try again.

-z

 

[Mr Manifesto]

You'll find, in the Convention, this passage:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Fourth Geneva Convention

So, it doesn't matter if those insurgents don't play fair, the US is required to abide by the GC. If you don't like it, maybe you should have thought of that before supporting a war against Iraq.


edit Removed "Your poll is - surprise! - badly worded. A better poll would be, "Should all Signatories to the Geneva Convention Adhere to the Geneva Convention"." Bah! Didn't read the poll properly.

 

[Tmy]

In order to connect your topic to the poll you have to make the big assumption that the Mosul attack was perpetrated by terrorists. Do we know who was responsible for the attack? Was it Alqueda.??

You say that the US shouldnt follow the Gen convention becuase the terrorists dont. I dont believe that the MOSUL mortor attack on a military post is a violation of the rules of war. Its kinda hypocrtical to complain "Look at these guys. They are following the rules war. We should then be able to NOT follow those rules in order to defeat them."

Just cause a tree falls in Iraq does not mean that AlQueda caused it. Even if you eliminated every AlQueden today, our troops would still be in mortal danger tomorrow. THere are alot of P.O.ed people in Iraq who hate us for different reasons.

 

[jj]

The only lesson this provides, I think, is that we're more and more rapidly completely losing control of the ground in Iraq.

In other words, we are starting to be completely, absolutely defeated. We are losing. The USA is a loser now.

We're a joke.

That's what I see happening.

We're a nation of losers. Bankrupt Government (both financially and ethicallhy), currency failing, at risk of both stagflation and now hyperinflation, and our military visibly falling apart.