February 9, 2007
"We will not escape the damage we have done to the people of Iraq in our prisons."
"I am desperate to get on with my life and erase my memories of my experiences in Iraq. But those memories and experiences do not belong to me. They belong to history. If we're doomed to repeat the history we forget, what will be the consequences of the history we never knew? The citizens and the leadership of this country have an obligation to revisit what took place in the interrogation booths of Iraq, unpleasant as it may be. The story of Abu Ghraib isn't over. In many ways, we have yet to open the book."
Posted by Eric at 9:37 AM
November 12, 2006
Is Bill Stuntz Right About Military Strategy In Iraq?
Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt -- after all, when you're looking for expert advice on military strategy, you probably shouldn't expect much from law professors.
Still, I find two basic flaws in Stuntz's argument.
First, it's hard to understand why the single historical example in the piece is the Civil War. Seems to me that American military strategy in Vietnam might have been a more pertinent example, given that it was a war overseas that had the American military intervening in another nation's civil war, and given that American did pursue Stuntz's ratcheting-up strategy without success. Perhaps Soviet military strategy in Afghanistan might have been a more pertinent example as well. (And we all know how that venture ended.)
But more importantly, I question the accuracy of Stuntz's use of the American Civil War as an example in the first place. The American Civil War did not include a protracted insurgency. As Jay Winick's April 1865 makes clear, the Civil War might have included such an insurgency after the fall of Richmond -- Jefferson Davis was urging just such a strategy -- but his top generals refused that strategy for reasons that had nothing to do with their belief that a numerically superior Union force would succeed in crushing a Confederate insurgency.
I'm no expert in military strategy. But Stuntz's arguments strike me as deeply flawed.
Posted by Eric at 10:57 AM | Comments (9)
October 10, 2006
Another 60 Bodies Found in Baghdad
''We anticipated it and we expect it to continue,'' said chief U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell.
Good to know we're on top of it! Excellent work!
Posted by Eric at 5:39 AM
August 4, 2006
Freedom Is On The March!
From the linked article:
Angry protesters chanted slogans, burned Israeli flags and waved Lebanese and Hezbollah flags in the Iraqi capital's densely populated Shiite enclave of Sadr City. They also held up placards with the portrait of Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah.Now you must excuse me. I have a very, very bad headache.
Posted by Eric at 10:28 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 9, 2006
The Broadcasting Arm of the American Nazi Party
Should the body of Zarqawi be smeared with bacon fat and dropped over Detroit?He devoted most of last night's radio program to calling repeatedly for the government to shut down CNN and arrest its reporting staff on sedition charges.
Posted by Eric at 8:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 7, 2006
It Worked Beautifully Last Time ...
Hmm....
Why do I think I've heard this before?
UPDATE: The death of al-Zarqawi, by contrast, is great news.
Posted by Eric at 10:07 PM | TrackBack
April 6, 2006
This Is Not A Guarantee of Actual Results. Investment Involves Risks. Consult An Investment Professional Before Investing.
(Thanks to buddy Brad for the pointer.)
Posted by Eric at 10:24 AM | Comments (1)
March 27, 2006
*sigh*
It is a comfort, at least, that they did not discuss taking twelve prisoners out of Guantanamo, poisoning them, dressing them in Iraqi military uniforms, shooting them just inside American borders, and then maintaining that Iraq had tried to invade the United States.The memo also shows that [President Bush] and the prime minister [of England] acknowledged [in a meeting on Jan. 31, 2003] that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
(Yes, this is deliberately provocative, and very exaggerated. I know it.)
Posted by Eric at 8:54 AM | Comments (2)
March 20, 2006
This Day In History
Posted by Eric at 7:28 AM
December 2, 2005
I Believe This Is Called "The Base."
I would say that support for the war is slipping a tad bit.
Posted by Eric at 3:35 PM | Comments (4)
September 30, 2005
The Corpses-for-Porn Story Keeps Moving.
Read it.
Check out this piece from The Guardian too. An excerpt, describing one of the images submitted by what seems to be a U.S. soldier so that he could get 90 days of free amateur pornography:
"A burnt and crumpled Arab face rests in a blue kitchen bowl. It doesn't look as if the back of the head is there, but it's impossible to be sure because everything behind the eyes is hidden in a pool of blood and everything below the jaw is missing."
Morley's piece adds this:
"There's some dispute about whether all of the pictures are real," Brown wrote [in The Guardian], "but it seems beyond doubt that most of the posters claiming to be soldiers actually are, not least because the American Army tries to stop its soldiers accessing the site and posting captions like "this is an Iraqi driver and passenger that tried to run a checkpoint during the first part of OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom]. The bad thing about shooting them is that we have to clean it up. The car was shot at with 5.56mm and 7.62 mm rounds. The 7.62 did his head' - but the viewer must take on trust that the head existed."
Note Morley's conclusion: "At home and abroad, this story may be far from over."
Posted by Eric at 8:20 AM | Comments (3)
September 29, 2005
Corpses-for-Porn Is Not Upsetting Just to Muslims!
It is not just "Muslim advocacy groups" who are outraged by the notion that American soldiers are using photographs of pieces of enemy soldiers as tokens to stick into the pay slot of an amateur porn forum.
Does this story concern or upset or sicken you? If so, call or write to your media outlet(s) of choice, and your Representative and Senators, and tell them. You might even mention that you're outraged, and you're not a Muslim advocacy group (if in fact you are not).
Posted by Eric at 9:09 PM | Comments (2)
September 28, 2005
Gory-Photos-for-Porn: Let's Hear From W. Hays Parks
The military inquiry into the gore-for-porn photos lasted a couple of days, and it's over. Nothing to see here, says the military.
Oh really?
I call for commentary from W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, who gave the following testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs back on April, 10 2003:
In addition to the GPW, there are other Geneva Conventions relevant to the current conflict. In particular, the United States and Iraq are both parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. The title of this Convention is a bit misleading because it also provides protection for the dead. In particular, this Convention:
-- Requires parties to the conflict to protect the dead against pillage and ill-treatment; and
-- Requires parties to ensure that the dead are honorably interred, their graves respected, and information as to their identity, etc., provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross.DOD Policies in Conflict with Iraq
The United States and Coalition forces conduct all operations in compliance with the law of war. No nation devotes more resources to training and compliance with the law of war than the United States.
Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the GPW, which the United States fully observes in this conflict....
Our aims and acts are precisely the same in the current conflict [as in Desert Storm]: We are providing, and will continue to provide, captured Iraqi combatants with the protections of the Geneva Conventions and other pertinent international laws. ...
Iraqi Violations of the Geneva Conventions and Related Laws of War
Unfortunately, the Iraqi regime is not complying with the Geneva Conventions. Before turning to a summary of the Iraqi violations, I should note that in Desert Storm in 1991, the Iraqis mistreated U.S. and Coalition forces in numerous respects, including physical abuse and torture, forced propaganda statements, food deprivation, denial of ICRC access until the day of repatriation, and much more. The Iraqis similarly mistreated Iranian POWs during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. The Iraqi regime has thus displayed a pattern of systematic disregard for the laws of war.
Based upon briefings and reports in the media, it appears that Iraq has once again committed violations of the Geneva Conventions and related laws of war. I will mention just three.
-- First: Iraqi Television and al-Jazeera have aired a lengthy tape of deceased U.S or coalition service members. I understand that some of you have seen the tape; I will not describe it in any detail. Suffice it to say that this tape, which was apparently made with the consent or at the direction of the Iraqi regime, shows fundamental violations of the Geneva Convention obligations, including prohibitions on pillage and ill-treatment of the dead, the duty to respect the personal dignity of all captured combatants, and possibly the prohibition against willful killing, torture, inhumane treatment, or the willful causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health of a POW.
Mr. Parks? Your thoughts about the photos on nowthatsfuckedup.com? (Note: the offending site is currently down.)
Posted by Eric at 7:32 PM | Comments (5)
Gore-for-Porn Hits the MSM
Not sure why the role of bloggers in developing the story isn't getting more attention ... maybe if Powerline had discovered the story it'd be different.
In any event, I'm pleased to see that the story is getting the attention it deserves.
UPDATE: CNN has the story now too.
Posted by Eric at 1:20 PM | Comments (4)
September 20, 2005
The Next Abu Ghraib?
Respect for remains means, among other things, preventing the remains from being despoiled and from being exposed to public curiosity.
At this website, which in the last hour seems to have (temporarily?) gone belly-up,** U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are encouraged to send in gory pictures of dead enemy soldiers.
And they do. Lots and lots of them.
Why? So that they can get free access to pornography.
Here's the invitation the site issues to American soldiers:
"If you are a U.S. Soldier stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other combat area and would like free SUPPORTER access for the site, you can post real pictures you or your buddies have taken while you have been deployed.This section is for the gory ones so that people who do not wish to see that kind of stuff can just not go in here. I also do not want already published pictures that were taken by news people. This is supposed to be an area where we can see pictures posted by the solders themselves.
Just post your pics like you normally would and when I see them I will approve you for free access to the wife and g/f area. There have only been a few people cheat from this but I do now know what kind of pics to expect from the guys over there. So please do not waste my time if you are not a military person by just posting iraq pics you found on CNN or something."
Note that the site only wants photos of enemy dead. You don't get your free porn if you post a photo of a dead American, and they take the pictures down as quickly as they can.
"This site will not let pics of our dead or wounded be posted here. That is watched very close, and if someone did sneak one in, just PM a mod and they will get it taken off right away."
I did not have the stomach to check out more than two of the photos, and even those two I looked away from almost immediately. (It seems, though, that there's a lot of this sort of thing going around: U.S. soldiers are making a regular practice of filming and photographing enemy corpses and sharing the images with each other, their friends, and their families.)
If publishing photos of dead enemy soldiers on the web in order to get free porn is not disrespecting their remains and "exposing them to public curiosity," I do not know what is.
Is this the next Abu Ghraib?
**UPDATE: At 9:15 p.m. Eastern, the site is now up again, but in case it goes back down, I've got a cache of the picture forum index page here.
Posted by Eric at 9:00 PM | Comments (22)
August 30, 2005
Joining Michelle Malkin's Photo-Caption Contest
Posted by Eric at 2:00 PM
August 23, 2005
A Grave Situation.
Why didn't they think of this sooner?
(My point, incidentally, is not to compare the war in Iraq to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. It's to show the Orwellian outrageousness of using a gravestone for propaganda.)
Posted by Eric at 10:45 PM | Comments (9)
July 2, 2005
Liberate the Ragheads
I hesitate to begin drawing Big Conclusions based on two weeks of barracks chatter and PowerPoint presentations, but it does seem to me that there's a problem with the idea that American military power is the right tool for a pedagogy of liberation. We are partners in freedom with the fucking ragheads, teaching those sneaky little fuckers about the values of a constitutional republic. Something seems a little off, there.
Posted by Eric at 3:37 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Where They Were From.