July 12, 2007
The Enemy Within
The Nation: Valiant Iraq War Veterans Talk Of Abuses Against Iraqi Citizens
-
Play CBS Video Video Marines Charged In Iraq Deaths Eight marines have been formally charged in connection with the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians. The killings occurred more than a year ago in the town of Haditha. David Martin reports.
-
Video The Abu Ghraib Whistleblower In Full: Joe Darby, the man who first exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, tells CNN's Anderson Cooper he faced hostility and lived in fear after blowing the whistle on his fellow soldiers.
-
Iraqis protesters hold banner reading "No Freedom with Occupation" outside Abu Ghraib prison, Baghdad, Iraq. (AP)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
One day in January 2005, an elderly couple was driving down a road in Mosul, Iraq, when without realizing it they passed through a makeshift US military checkpoint. The checkpoint, recalled a sergeant who came upon the scene, was "very poorly marked." Yet, he said, the soldiers "got spooked" and opened fire. The bodies of the couple sat in the car for three days, the sergeant said, "while we drove by them day after day."
That incident was no Haditha or Abu Ghraib. It was a fairly typical day for Iraqis under U.S. occupation. As Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian make clear in their exhaustive investigation in this issue, the degradation and killing of civilians by U.S. troops have become commonplace in Iraq. At tense checkpoints, in futile house-to-house searches, as convoys and patrols hurtle down the roads, the official rules of engagement and unofficial day-to-day practices of the occupation often add up to shoot first and ask questions never. The results make for tough reading: a family's dog gunned down for barking, a 2-year-old shot in a spray of gunfire, the terrified scream of a father awakened in a midnight raid. Few such incidents were reported, according to most of those interviewed; even fewer resulted in discipline.
This Nation investigation, based on interviews with 50 soldiers, sailors and marines, marks the first time so many veterans have spoken on the record about civilian casualties at the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq. They have shown notable courage in speaking out about the horrors they witnessed. Most insisted that only a minority in their ranks have killed civilians indiscriminately. Yet such abuses are common enough that many veterans have returned home with deep emotional scars.
It is time to reckon with the weight of evidence that American forces regularly kill Iraqi noncombatants. Occupying armies with little knowledge of the local culture, fighting guerrillas who mingle among the population, have usually meant disaster for civilians. In Iraq, the impossible mission, poor training and inconsistent and irresponsible rules of engagement have compounded the problem, leading many American soldiers to conclude that endangering civilians is simply the cost of staying safe; to consider all Iraqis the enemy; or, under extreme stress, to lash out in revenge after insurgent attacks.
As described by these veterans, the occupation of Iraq has become a classic example of what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton calls an "atrocity-producing situation." Their testimony of eroding moral constraint, a direct consequence of the untenable position in which they've found themselves, was confirmed recently by the Pentagon. A May survey by the U.S. Army Medical Command that should disturb every American found that just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.
Veterans of conscience deserve encouragement for speaking up. Instead they face a Congress that has been willfully blind to civilian casualties and has tolerated virtually no reporting on this matter from the Pentagon. It is time for a Congressional inquiry into these daily attacks on Iraqi civilians, one that traces responsibility up the chain of command. Most important, we need to wake up to the true costs of this war. If the President and his aides lie about the war with no consequence, if troops are deployed again and again to prop up a deteriorating occupation, if the rules of engagement guarantee frequent brutalization of noncombatants, then it is no wonder some soldiers conclude that their conduct has few limits. And it should come as no surprise that an occupation of this sort continues to inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. The problem is not a few "bad apples" (Bush's phrase after Abu Ghraib) but the occupation itself. It needs to end.
By the editors of The Nation
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation.
 | If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
More From Opinion
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 43 CommentsGreat posts, keep it up.
Get our military out of Iraq before we suffer anymore loses. We can't sustain the ground were holding, without the support of the locals. It's evident because we can't even effectively protect the Green Zone. They are able to penetrate the inner circles of our defense, and its just a matter of time before something really bad happens. Bring them home as soon as we can load the freedom birds, and the ships with equipment. This isn't another war our soldiers lost, its a war our leaders should have never let happen to begin with, and the planning was derelict.
We got to bring them men and women out, and let Iraq play it out on its own. We also need to ask ourselves just what were our leaders thinking. Theres a lot more here than the press has ever let out, believe me on that. This situation has been ugly for a lot longer than the media, and the government has acknowledged. Our soldiers aren't just fighting an Army, or insurgents, they are fighting a whole country, in a civil war, and bent on destroying itself, because of a lack of leadership, and a big religious divide.
Not the way this war has been fought. The difference between Vietnam and Iraq was, we could have controlled Iraq, had we done it right, and sent in enough troops in the beginning. Because we didn't, there were in some cases, days, even weeks before places in Iraq knew who was in control, or what was going on. Military bases were raided, weapons stolen, along with ammunition, and other weaponry. Now every body has got a gun, a bomb, and lots of ammo, even the crazies and the criminals. We might as well of put our soldiers in a barrel, the outcome is the same.
But it defines the difference between Conservative and Liberal well. The Conservative sees things in black/white and extremes: killing civilians is bad, these are bad people, this is negative, please don't tell me about it, I want to pretend the truth isn't ugly.
The Liberal reads this and thinks, what have we done to our soldiers who are good people to drive them to do these things? how will we as a society deal with the legacy we are creating? how will we help the soldiers regain humanity and fit into society after this? Liberals listen to the truth, to soldiers' stories of the hell of being caught up in a civil war, not knowing who is good or bad, having to regard every car or person as a potential bomb, living with that fear and stress.
When this many bad things are happening, Liberals ask "why? and how do we fix it?" Conservatives say "Please don't tell me, it must be the story/media fabrication."
When the soldier returns home, Liberals say "thank you for your service, how can we help you now?" Conservatives say "Hey get back to work, counseling? medical care? c'mon toughen up! that stuff is expensive!"
Personally I am proud to be a Liberal.
Posted by dogsoul
And they'll all laugh while Rome is burning. Haunting post. Well said.
The reasoning for war in Iraq was a complete distortion of the facts. Bush might not have lied but his administration did. They refused to listen to intelligence reports and had a battle plan for Iraq long before 9-11. This is an unnessicary war and it will have reprecussions for the next century. Oh and Clinton didn't invade Iraq...the mrs may have voted for it, but you can only fool some of the people some of the time.
Spreading Democracy in this fashion is no different than the Reich's quest to conquer the world in the name of a superior culture.
Night night.
Excellent Post, dogsoul.
It should be read twice a day, slowly, out loud, by everyone posting on this board.
...
It was the SAME evidence that convinced Clinton & the rest of the Democrats - the very same evidence that convinced Bush, in fact, while Clinton disagreed w/ Bush on certain tactical measures, he himself said that he would have absolutely invaded Iraq in a post 9/11 world... I know liberals' collective memory generally goes as far as the last headline, but people PLEASE! Point being that this whole liberal mantra the "Bush lied Bush lied" is absolute nonsensical banter that simply has to be applied against the overt facts. In fact, I WISH Clinton were in office post 9/11, because since according to Clinton himself - he would have also invaded Iraq - we would at LEAST have the support of BOTH liberals and conservatives... but since that is not the case, instead we are facing a united coalition between the American Left and Radical Islam to defeat Bush & the Republican Party... unfortunately for liberals (and every other American), while they may gain the Presidency, they'll have bolstered Islamic terrorism significantly in the long term...
And really, blaming 9/11 on Bush while he was in office a matter of months after 8 years of Clinton is like blaming a loss on the pitcher you put in the game during the bottom of the 9th instead of the one who gave up 26 runs thru the 8th inning....
There is no greater ally for Al Queda & radical Islam than the American Liberal & his media machine...
All the loser conservatives like dogsoul can come up with quotes of democrats why Iraq has wmd. Unfortunately, Bush with his mis-intelligence was the person who pushed for the war in Iraq, not the Democrats. We can discuss about it all day, but we won't have a war with Iraq if Bush was not President.
Posted by afsc30574 at 11:43 AM : Jul 13, 2007
I once worked next to a guy that said the Holocaust in World War II Nazi Germany never took place- but I don't think it is afsc30574, or is it?
March 3, 1999
In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power %u2014 America in an Arab land %u2014 with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." -Wikipedia
must be referring to bushit and warmongering henchmen - they're the real enemy.
And they say Bush lied? Thanks for shoving the facts in their faces; doesn't matter though, they'll dismiss it as usual.
Posted by Gaye5 at 06:58 AM : Jul 13, 200
And as a supporter of the war, what the heck are you doing still here in the US? You should have volunteered for the US military and be on active duty in Iraq.
You do realize that the press is sequestered in the green zone, unable to venture out on their own because there is so much chaos that anyone (especially Americans) not in armored vehicles die.
After all, both he and his national security advisor completely ignored the bi-partisan report on terrorism that warned that american buildings were going to be attacked by terrorists using planes as weapons.
The neocons are running out of excuses for the BUsh administration. All they can do is reply with "But Clinton...."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 43 Comments