SCOTUS says POWS have US Rghts

[Bret4207]

By now I'm sure most of us are aware of the SCOTUS 5-4 decision granting the Gitmo terrorists POW's/Detainees Habeous Corpus rights. My initial reaction is that this is wrong because they aren't US citizens or even captured within the US. OTH- I suppose I could look at it as taking a strict interpretation of the Constitution...sort of. But it's not following the Constitution as I understand it. For now I guess I'll have to stick with "MISTAKE!!!!". My more pressing concern is how does this decision bode for the Heller case? If the SCOTUS can side with McCain-Fiengold and this case I'm not as hopefull as I was......:(

[Forester]

By now I'm sure most of us are aware of the SCOTUS 5-4 decision granting the Gitmo terrorists POW's/Detainees Habeous Corpus rights. My initial reaction is that this is wrong because they aren't US citizens or even captured within the US. OTH- I suppose I could look at it as taking a strict interpretation of the Constitution...sort of. But it's not following the Constitution as I understand it. For now I guess I'll have to stick with "MISTAKE!!!!". My more pressing concern is how does this decision bode for the Heller case? If the SCOTUS can side with McCain-Fiengold and this case I'm not as hopefull as I was......:(


Strangely, the longer we wait for a decision the more hopeful I am of a clear cut and definitive ruling in Heller. I just can not believe the case will go against us so thats a good thing. If it goes against us in a clear cut and definitive way...all I can say is start reloading and buy what guns you can afford quickly.

As far as the decision in question here, I have mixed feelings. I think classifying them as POWs is not quite right/accurate since they are not uniformed fighting men directly tied to one country. If they are essentially criminals then Habeus Corpus should apply, if for no other reason than not moving down that slippery slope any farther.

On the other hand, as you say they are not US citizens or operating inside the US so what gives them those rights?

Now if they start being allowed to draw social security and vote, then we really have problems:roll:

[Bret4207]

I've listened to a bit of both right and left leaning radio comentary on this. A sticky point is that the SCOTUS said some time ago they had no authority over persons captured and held in a foreign land (the Afgan prison issue) and now they seem to say they do. I think my initial feelings were correct. I want to read Kennedys opinion before I say for sure.

[bc3660]

I've listened to a bit of both right and left leaning radio comentary on this. A sticky point is that the SCOTUS said some time ago they had no authority over persons captured and held in a foreign land (the Afgan prison issue) and now they seem to say they do. I think my initial feelings were correct. I want to read Kennedys opinion before I say for sure.

They ARE being held on US teritory. That is what gives them rights. If we would have left them in Afganistan then they would have no rights under US law.
But would still fall under Geniva Convention rules as Enemy combattint.

[Swagerman]

Let me put this is my lop sided perspective as I see it.

The terrorist have the right to lop of captured American heads, fly hijacked airliners into our Twin Towers, and the Pentagon, and almost the White House except for the intervention of some brave airline passengers.

But our elitist supreme court says we can't give them the punishment they so deserve...is that about what it is???

Jim

[Tiger]

The way we see over here is that your countries rights are slowly but surely being eroded away by one certain political party. Sad because much of the world looks up to your freedoms.

I understand that gitmo is not U.S. held territory but leased from Cuba. This should mean that your supreme court should have no juridication. They only have so because none of your people will stand up to them or the particular part that put them in power. That is how people in my country see it.

Do not let them win. Believe or not much rest the world depends on you not counting your people.

Ralf

[Bret4207]

Check this article out- http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080612163731.sn58q011&show_article=1

So Congress passes a law in response to a SCOTUS decision and then the SCOTUS says despite that law they're still wrong!!! I've got to find both Kennedys opinion and Roberts dissent. This stinks to high heaven!

[Bret4207]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

Don't have time to read it now, but here it is.

[montana_charlie]

They were 'captured on the battlefield', but they are not 'soldiers' serving under the flag of an opposing State. That description leaves me wondering how to classify them.

If they are 'common criminals', I suppose they should get the same treatment as others of that class. However, they were not engaged in a 'criminal activity' within our borders.
Instead, they were 'resisting' (attacking) our military forces while we were engaged with opposing, uniformed, Iraqi 'soldiers'.

That would seem to place them in a category similar to the French Resistance fighters during World War 2.

When they were taken by Germans (who were, like our troops, engaged in fighting uniformed soldiers of the Allies), those 'irregulars' were often shot on the spot...if memory serves.
Any who might be of value in the way of 'information' were held by the Germans, interrogated (with lavish amounts of torture), and then executed.

The Germans, you will recall, were fairly civilized in their treatment of captured Allied military personnel. They may have stepped on the Geneva Convention at times, but on the whole our troops generally survived their tours as POW's in fairly good health.

If 'precedent' is as valuable as some like to think, the foregoing one might be the most correct way to handle 'resistance fighters/terrorists' who choose to operate in a battlefield environment to pursue the goals of their agenda...while their 'victims' are engaged in other military matters.

I am all in favor of Americans holding to a sense of 'fair play' in all matters. But, I would only offer fairness to those who also 'play (or fight) fair'.
I think we have already been much 'too nice' to the detainees at Gitmo. They should have been 'questioned professionally' for information, and then released (perhaps to be shot another day)...or punished for any known 'war criminal' activities.

Holding onto them for so long just leaves time for the 'do-gooders' to think up ways to protect them from their just rewards.

I think the best course of action left to us is to release the whole bunch...somewhere in Israel.
CM

[Forester]

I will have to do some reading myself to really form any strong opinion.

Guantanamo Bay is under perpetual US territorial control per the 1903 Cuban-American treaty. The current regime in Cuba considers it an illegal occupation but they are both wrong in a legal sense and unable to do anything about it in any real sense.

Without having done the reading I need to, I think the point that bringing them to Gitmo (US territory) is what gave them the rights is correct, if they had stayed in some prison in Kuwait or Iraq it would not be an issue.

[Forester]

They were 'captured on the battlefield', but they are not 'soldiers' serving under the flag of an opposing State. That description leaves me wondering how to classify them.

If they are 'common criminals', I suppose they should get the same treatment as others of that class. However, they were not engaged in a 'criminal activity' within our borders.
Instead, they were 'resisting' (attacking) our military forces while we were engaged with opposing, uniformed, Iraqi 'soldiers'.

That would seem to place them in a category similar to the French Resistance fighters during World War 2.

When they were taken by Germans (who were, like our troops, engaged in fighting uniformed soldiers of the Allies), those 'irregulars' were often shot on the spot...if memory serves.
Any who might be of value in the way of 'information' were held by the Germans, interrogated (with lavish amounts of torture), and then executed.

The Germans, you will recall, were fairly civilized in their treatment of captured Allied military personnel. They may have stepped on the Geneva Convention at times, but on the whole our troops generally survived their tours as POW's in fairly good health.

If 'precedent' is as valuable as some like to think, the foregoing one might be the most correct way to handle 'resistance fighters/terrorists' who choose to operate in a battlefield environment to pursue the goals of their agenda...while their 'victims' are engaged in other military matters.

I am all in favor of Americans holding to a sense of 'fair play' in all matters. But, I would only offer fairness to those who also 'play (or fight) fair'.
I think we have already been much 'too nice' to the detainees at Gitmo. They should have been 'questioned professionally' for information, and then released (perhaps to be shot another day)...or punished for any known 'war criminal' activities.

Holding onto them for so long just leaves time for the 'do-gooders' to think up ways to protect them from their just rewards.

I think the best course of action left to us is to release the whole bunch...somewhere in Israel.
CM

I think you are on the crux of the issue. Those that were captured fighting alongside the Iraqi army are easier to classify in my mind. What about those caputered since there ceased to be an Iraqi army to fight? or those captured in Afghanistan?

The whole issue is a mess, and I think releasing them in Israel may be a good plan...or maybe France would like to have them?

[Boerrancher]

The way we see over here is that your countries rights are slowly but surely being eroded away by one certain political party. Sad because much of the world looks up to your freedoms.

Gentlemen,

Once again with the latest decision by the SCOTUS we have lost a bit more of our country. I guess when it is all gone and evil has triumphed for good, We can all say that "we did nothing"

Now I wish I would have killed every one of those towel heads that I had my doubts about, maybe there would be a few less in gitmo that my tax dollars are going to have to pay legal fees for.


Joe

[Boz330]

Gentlemen,

Once again with the latest decision by the SCOTUS we have lost a bit more of our country. I guess when it is all gone and evil has triumphed for good, We can all say that "we did nothing"

Now I wish I would have killed every one of those towel heads that I had my doubts about, maybe there would be a few less in gitmo that my tax dollars are going to have to pay legal fees for.


Joe

Joe,
I think there is a good possibility of that in the future now. Sort of like all the Japanese prisoners shot while trying to escape.

Bob

[10-x]

The body count will go way up after this, wait and see. G.I's ALWAYS find a "Solution " to any problem[smilie=1:

[MtGun44]

Yep - simple solution. Stop taking prisoners if they are going to be released
to kill Americans again.

Our Marines and soldiers are pretty smart guys, this should not be too hard
to fix "in the field".

Bill

[Scrounger]

Maybe I'm a heathen and a fool, but I endorse that philosophy. I could never understand why the Israelis kept taking prisoners since it only brought them more trouble. I guess they have the Peter Principle there too. And I'd like to see some stateside LEOs use it too. We all know there are plenty of criminals out there who won't be changing their ways no matter what, and even as prisoners they will be causing much trouble and costing money. Just like in the old days, shot resisting arrest is a desirable outcome.




Yep - simple solution. Stop taking prisoners if they are going to be released
to kill Americans again.

Our Marines and soldiers are pretty smart guys, this should not be too hard
to fix "in the field".

Bill

[montana_charlie]

Our Marines and soldiers are pretty smart guys, this should not be too hard to fix "in the field".
The thing which could put the kabosh on that philosophy is 'scrutiny'.

It seems there is always one individual who's 'consience bothers him' if an enemy is killed for less than 'good' reason. He may be truly troubled, or just looking for five minutes of fame. But mere mention of the 'possibility' of impropriety can hamstring a whole unit.

Also, there is the malcontent who sees an opportunity to bring down a superior NCO or officer, if that superior kills, or orders the killing of, an enemy...under less than 'rock solid' circumstances.

And, there are those pesky cameras.
Whether mounted on the shoulder of a news photographer, or hand held cell phones, they are everywhere.

Nope...the soldier's job is to do 'the soldier's job' as well as he can, under the rules of engagement he has been given. To do otherwise takes him out of the 'soldier' role, and places him in a position he is not trained for...or equipped to defend if confronted.

There are days when 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out' is the only way.
But (as I can confirm) there are many other faces of war...
CM

[Scrounger]

True. I myself couldn't pull the trigger on someone with their hands in the air. I meant "with malice aforethought", while the action and shooting is going on, and making sure those on the ground stay there. For the few who evade fate and successfully surrender, I'd plan to give them a good opportunity to try to escape. Guess I just can't break that habit of thinking for myself and not following orders I think are stupid.

[Bret4207]

"Guess I just can't break that habit of thinking for myself and not following orders I think are stupid."

And there is the reason for pretty much all the trouble I ever got into! Problem was just 'cuz I thought it was stupid didn't mean everyone else did....



Considering all the Marines and Soldiers we brought to trial in this war already, I see even more of that BS coming now. We don't want any more Mai Lai type incidents, but there has to be a bit more room for our guys to operate. I think they call it "war" and not "policing" for a reason.

[felix]

When was the last war? You know, the last one declared by Congress? If the battle/action ain't legit, then it has to be police action by default? Something for someone like Ron Paul to sort out. Those in the service are soldiers or policemen? ... felix

[Bret4207]

Soldiers Uncle Felix. They have no police training, and aren't acting as police. I'm not one who subscribes to the theory that you need a declaration of war to act. Our Nations history is full of "actions" that were perfectly legal and were small wars and yet "war" was not declared. Haiti, Nicaragua, the Mexican expeditions of Pershing vs. Villa, Korea I think and the concurrent early Viet Nam "Assistance Groups". Go back further to the early century and you have the Seminole War, The Barbary Pirates expeditions, the Boxer Rebellion, goodness knows what else as my interest lies with the USMC and I'm sure the Doggies and Squids must have done something all those decades other than bad mouth the finest fighting force know to ever exist. (HAR!) Humor aside I think there's precedent set from long ago to allow action with out a formal declaration of war. For that matter there is still the question of just who we would declare war against. "Evil Doers"? "Terrorists"? A little vague for a formal declaration, what?

Semantics is what has brought us to many of the screwy ways e think these days. Lets not let another mess start over these words.

[felix]

Using your point of view, which has been in vogue like you say for quite some time, my opinion respectfully suggests we use professional special force folks (hired guns, if you will), and not the regular troops reserved for constitutional protection. Naturally, these folks must be trained in police duties, as well as creating total implosions when necessary to meet objectives. Implosion here means destruction of the target from "within". ... felix

[waksupi]

Clue me in. What prevents the government from movng the prisoners from Gitmo, to Afghanistan? Ruling would then be void.

[Forester]

Clue me in. What prevents the government from movng the prisoners from Gitmo, to Afghanistan? Ruling would then be void.

Politics:roll:

[montana_charlie]

When was the last war? You know, the last one declared by Congress? If the battle/action ain't legit, then it has to be police action by default?
Taking Korea as an example, it was a 'defense of a country under attack by another'. No declaration of war (on the aggressor nation) was approved by Congress, and the action occurred under a U.N. mandate.

Now, how about you defining "legit" for those of us who are too ignorant to know the difference between a soldier and a policeman...
CM

[MT Gianni]

Clue me in. What prevents the government from movng the prisoners from Gitmo, to Afghanistan? Ruling would then be void.

The Island of Diego Garcia is where the current crop of bad guys are rumored to be held. Gianni

[Bret4207]

Clue me in. What prevents the government from movng the prisoners from Gitmo, to Afghanistan? Ruling would then be void.

Better yet, turn them over to the Iraqis. I understand their idea of prison and civil rights differs from ours a bit.

No easy answers to this type stuff because the traditional notions of justice, war, soldiers/spies all seem to have changed or are undergoing change.

[bruce drake]

Guys,

we have a UN Mandate still to be here in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now let the One World Government people freak out on the suggestion of sending the bast@rds to New York for a hanging in the UN's front arch.

That should interest a few people to respond.

Bruce

[Ricochet]

If they're going to move 'em back to Afghanistan, they should try to fix things so the Taliban can't spring 1200 of 'em like they just did.

[Scrounger]

And just who here gives a dog turd about what the UN thinks or does?

[hpdrifter]

SCROTUM strikes again.

[Ricochet]

Did any of y'all read the news this morning about the Taliban blasting into the Afghanistan prison and getting 1200 prisoners out?

[Scrounger]

But the Taliban are our friends, we helped them take over the country... Like we helped Castro, Noriega, whoever the hell we put into Nicaragua, and a dozen other countries around the world. We help assholes take over a country and then we're surprised when the Communists come in and help the underdogs. Maybe the message is, "Get the Hell out of other countries and let them manage their own affairs." In the end, the only thing we accomplish is to lose American money and blood for zero gain.

[bruce drake]

Scrounger,

I won't second-guess the CIA's actions in the 80's to deter Soviet aggression around the world, but I do think they failed us in Afghanistan after the Soviets were forced out in 1989 by the Mujahadeen that the CIA supported. We failed by not developing a valid democracy as a replacement option. We failed by pulling the economic and material support for the forces that we developed over there. G. Bush I and the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time failed to stay true to an ally.

Faced with a loss of economic assistance and diplomatic recognition by thier allies (CIA and Pakistan - an ally of ours when the Indians were developing multiple defense contracts with the soviets in the 80-90s), can you blame them for going to someone who had deep pockets to pay for their governments (Osama) in return for an influx of "teachers" from Saudi Arabia (remember the Soviets-Afghan government killed a large number of madras teachers during their occupation) of which the Taliban are the result of those Wahabi teachers. The Mujahadeen that we supported in the 80's lost a civil war in 94 (The Clinton years) and the Taliban took control of the country after that. The US never supported the Taliban and actually lead the fight in the UN to refuse recognition of their government. Only Pakistan (At the time not in our good grace for selling atomic secrets to other countries) ever recognized the Taliban as a government.

Now we are back in Afghanistan and Iraq and General Petraus has the right plan going. We are reinforcing the Governments and ensuring that they receive the training and support they require to conduct a valid democratic government.

In Kirkuk Province where my Brigade is stationed in Iraq, we have an effective Provincial Government that provides basic services to the population. Kirkuk has 24 hour electric power, clean water and trash removal and an effective Emergency Services Team (Fire, Police and Ambulance) and it has an fully functional oil refinery that pushs nearly 1.5 million barrels of oil a month to the world's markets.

The Iraqi Army is in the lead on all operations regarding terrorists within the Province. Our Brigade is in an overwatch capacity advising and assisting them when they request it. We have shifted our focus from the kinetic-lethal operations over to the rebuilding and strengthening of the civil agencies of Iraq. We are starting a Literacy Program this month within the province to counter the 70% illiteracy rate among the peasants where education will free them from Al Qaida's clutches. We have regular Rule of Law Council meetings with the Iraqi Police and Judges to ensure that detainee abuse and reported and is not condoned and that the Civil and Criminal Courts are held in open session and that everyone gets a fair representation - this even includes the Al Qaida duds that we capture.

I foresee that this province will probably soon move into the self-governance stage along with the other 9 (of 18 total) provinces currently run by the government of Iraq. We are past the half point to this country running on its own. In our time, if we aren't forced to cut and run, this country will be a strong democracy. Not like the democracy we have, sort of a hybrid between Great Britain and our own, but still a democracy.

Bruce

[Bret4207]

Thank you for the excellent report Bruce. Maybe at last we are learning from our past mistakes. Regardless of how anyone feels about the circumstances surrounding our entry into Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the responsibility to leave them in better shape than when we got there. Lets hope we can do it.

[dakotashooter2]

My initial reaction is that this is wrong because they aren't US citizens or even captured within the US.

Why shouldn't they have the same right to be MISTREATED and CRAPPED ON as us citizens do?

[Scrounger]

Why do we have the responsibility to leave them in better shape than when we got there? Only if this is an admission that we were wrong in going in there in the first place. If we were justified in going in, it would mean that they did something to cause us to be there, and the resultant damages is all on them. If Washington has a surplus of money and effort to expend on rebuilding, it could better be used here at home.

[Scrounger]

"When we leave it will be a democracy". The next day it is once again an Arab state that hates Westerners. What was that line from Kipling, "A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East".

[Bret4207]

Why do we have the responsibility to leave them in better shape than when we got there? Only if this is an admission that we were wrong in going in there in the first place. If we were justified in going in, it would mean that they did something to cause us to be there, and the resultant damages is all on them. If Washington has a surplus of money and effort to expend on rebuilding, it could better be used here at home.

Because leaving a mess will breed more of what we got when we foolishly abandoned the Afgans. Despite the differences in culture I think it's possible to achieve something better there. It worked in Japan and they were night and day different from us. I don't expect perfection, but maybe we can create a country that sees us a bit differently than they did prior to the war. Since Bruce is there and seeing it first hand and since his statements line up with what I hear form returning 10th Mountain Soldiers, I have to assume they might just have a better handle on this stuff than we do.

[Scrounger]

And it just might be that guys in the military for a career have noticed how costly it can be to not spout the company line... Was it Churchill who said, "War is too important to be left to the army" or something like that.
I am adding to my post here.
How long were we in Viet Nam, 10 years, 15? As far back as the mid 60s according to one 'great' military man, there "was light at the end of the tunnel'. Quite a few years later we withdrew American troops and shortly thereafter the opposition calmly collected the country. We blew trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and changed nothing. Yet every career soldier said we could have won if we had stayed a little longer, same line of crap we're hearing now about Iraq. And if we stay 10 more years and your sons and grandsons are the ones dying, they will be saying the same thing. Churchill was right and there is a good reason our government mandates political control of the military. The only way we can ever change Iraq and make it useful to us is to permanently occupy it as an American state. Yes, Germany and Japan worked out well, so did South Korea, but they are not Arab countries whose entire history is war, and whose peoples are taught from their birth by their religion to hate us. Walk away; if it gives us problems, 'nuke' it.

[Black Prince]

Fellas, war is the total absence of sanity. War is the total destruction of those with whom you are at war. War is not limited to soldiers or those in uniform. Soldiers and armies could not be in the field if it were not for the support they get from the civilian population. There has never been and there can never be an army in the field without the support of a civilian population somewhere giving them material aid and moral support. It therefore follows that anyone giving support to the soldiers are your enemy just as much as the soldiers in uniform.

W.T. Sherman knew and understood that and it is why he waged war on old men, children and women during the Civil War in his march through Georgia. When R.E. Lee learned of what Sherman had done, he surrendered simply because he could not tolerate any more of it and he knew more was coming if he didn't quit fighting.

The US military is not out there to be meals on wheels. It is not there to rebuild power plants and hospitals or fix the water system. Its job is to break things and kill people. If we as American citizens are not going to tell the military to go do that, then we SHOULD NOT send them there at all. If we are not going to let them do the job they have ben trained and equiped to do, then we should bring them home.

If we had gone into Iraq and simply destroyed everything in sight, killed everybody we saw, and left that nation who had declared a holy Jihad war against us in complete destruction and then come home, we could have been there and done that in about a year at most. The war in Iraq would heve been over and done. There would have been no long war and many deaths like we have had. There would have been a GOOD LESSON and a CLEAR MESSAGE to the rest of the muslim bastarts about what they could expect if they continued to screw with us. There would have been a clear message to the rset of the world that we Americans didn't need them as allies and we don't care what they think about us. They were not attacked on 9/11 and we can and will take care of those who attacked us without their help or approval.

Being the most powerful nation does not mean much if you are not going to use that power and we have NOT BEEN doing that. Bush squandered our military. He refused to let them wage all out total war. He tied their hands behind their backs and sent them out to be blown up by IED's. If we had waged total war from the begining, there would be no IED's because there wouldn't be anything left to hide one under or behind. And anyone left alive after we packed up and left that wasteland would be so concerned with trying to get something to eat and get water that they dam sure wouldn't have time to even so much as think about planting any IED's.

The goal of war is to cause your enemy to lose the capacity to wage war and the will to wage war. Sherman caused the South to lose the will to wage war. The Union Army had already destroyed its capacity to do that but the South was stubborn and continued to fight. Sherman knew he had to cause them to lose that will to continue to fight and he did. It was terrible what he did, but war is hell. Modern wars are no less so and the methods of accomplishing the goals of war are unchanged. They are terrible and it boggles the minds of sane men to contemplate doing what is necessary to cause a determined enemy like the muslims to lose the capacity and the will to wage war, but we have a choice: either we do that, or they are going to kill us all. There is no third option despite what Obama thinks he can accomplish by talking to them.

If we don't deal with these muslims, they are going to deal with us. I don't want to have to kill anyone. I spent six years in the brown water Navy up close and personal with war. I've come close to going out in a body bag and I've carried several friends off the Swift, MIke or PBR in a body bag. I don't want to see my nephews have to do that even though they are all in the military now. BUt I don't want to see this nation destroyed. So the hard decision must be made to quit pussy footing around and wage war. If we are not going to do that, then we should bring our people home instead of useing them as "peace makers." The Military isn't there to make peace. It is there to make WAR. After they have made war, then the civilians can make peace.

When we have killed enough of the muslims and destroyed enough of their ability to feed, house, and clothe themselves, when they have no capacity to wage war, THEY WILL DEMAND THAT PEACE BE MADE. BUT we ain't gonna get them to that point by doing what we have been doing or what we are doing now in my opinion.

The Supreme Court has absolutely no business or Constitutional authority to become involved in military decisions. How to handle military prisoners is the job of the military. As a member of the US Navy, I had only the UCMJ to go by when outside of CONUS and Gitmo is dam sure outside of it. I didn't have access to civilian judges. So why in hell should our enemies have access to what our own uniformed people do not? What kind of insanity is it to give your enemies rights you don't give your own soldiers?

Boys, there couldn't be a more clear or defining issue in the upcoming elections than the kinds of people whomever is elected president will appoint to the Supreme Court than that stupid decision last week. I know that all of you have as strong opinions about this as I do and I hope that the majority of you have enough brains to understand that this election could well be a watershed for this nation. I do not like John McCain and swore that I'd never vote for him. I am eating crow on that simply because the next four years are going to be critical to the survival of this nation and if Obama is elected, bend over and kiss your ashes goodbye. He is going to make that idiot Jimmy Carter look like an intelectual giant!

[bruce drake]

Scrounger,

I don't have anything to lose. I'm a Mustang officer with just a few years left to retirement. I completed my Company Command and I'm not worried about picking up Major.
Sounds like after being here for the first Gulf War and then coming back here for three additional deployments to Iraq since 2003, I probably have a dang good idea on how it looks like here. I physically want to get sick every time I hear a politician who comes in here for a whirlwind tour get up in Congress or the Senate and start talking about how they think the war is going and what we need to do to fix Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe they should come over here for a year at a time to partner with an Iraqi and learn what it takes to operate a country that doesn't have an esablished history of independent thought like Americans do. People here still vote the way their tribal sheiks tell them to. (Oh wait, we have straight ticket Republicans and Democrats as well, and we still have voter fraud in several of our own states; aka Illinois and Massachusetts)

The Tactics of the Past will not win the Wars of the Present or the Future. You need to adapt to the changing environment or you lose. We went in to this current fight, remembering the glories of GW1 and it costs us for a couple of years.
Lightning strikes to destroy the Hammurabi Division of the Republican Guard is one thing. Rebuilding a community to provide basic services so that the peasant farmer isn't forced to become an IED maker to support his family is totally different. The regular joe (here and in the US) thinks about his family and how he can support them before he thinks of waging jihad or rebellion. If the man is satisfied with his community, he isn't going to try to lay a bomb on the road to take down one of my soldiers.

People complain and moan about how we don't need to improve the Iraqi. Cut and Run and other isolationist thoughts won't cut it. If we don't rebuild this society to the point where it can rejoin the world community, we will be back here within a period of time to fix it again. I bet people forget that this was exactly how some people thought after the Second World War when Europe and Japan were in shambles. We enacted the Marshall Plan then and laid millions at the doorsteps of other governments with long-term 100-year loans so that they could rebuild themselves (in 2000, Britain actually paid off her War Loans ahead of schedule, Shortly after that Denmark and Sweden both paid theirs as well). What would the world have been like if we had shut our ports and factories and economic loans and grants out after the Second World War like we did in 1918 after the First World War?

Yes, I said earlier that democracy in Iraq is not the same as the United States. They still have tribal affiliations here that are respected and enforced. By knowing the culture we strengthen our approach on rebuilding them.

I for one prefer to hand a child a soccer ball and teach his father to read and write when I visit thier village that has mud-brick houses over having to lay an ambush to catch him at night trying to lay a bomb for $50 dollars that Al Aqaida offers him to feed his family.

An average Iraqi peasant farmer makes an equivalent of $1200 a year to feed his family and to prepare for the next farming season. $50 is a lot of money to a farmer that can't read or write past simple numbers and he can't work in the fields due to other peasants laying bombs on the roads. We remove those blocks to his security so he can provide for his family and he will become empowered to support the government that has let him do for his family.

Bruce

[felix]

Yes, indeed! "teach them to fish...". ... felix

[bruce drake]

BP,

We posted over each other. Sherman advocated Total War. It was a thought process of the 19th century. That War cost us more deaths than any other war in the history of the US. My job is to ensure that every Soldier that works for me comes home. We are an extension of the United States Will. If the Will of the Nation dictates that we destroy something, we have the technology and desire to do it. If the Will of the Nation as dictated to me by the Superiors appointed over me (You remember that part of the Oath of Service) says I must serve as an example of how a Soldier of a Democratic Nation is expected to behave respecting the rights and liberties of all men (including those men I have been told are my enemy) than that is what I do. If the Will of the Nation changes to say "come home", than I march home. That is my job as a servant of the nation. I subjugate my individual desires to the will of the nation so that others may have the freedoms to have their own individual desires achieved.

By not respecting the inalienable rights of the men I am fighting here in Iraq, I sink down to the level of those who do not respect the rights of Democracy. I become a tool of an authoritative state such as the likes of 1939 Germany, 1941 Japan, 1950's era Soviet Union and its Gulags and recent dictatorships such as Communist China (Tiamenan Square and Tibet), Rwanda, Myanmar, and just today in Zimbabwe its President for Life Robert Mugabe has declared that he will call out the troops to fight the opposing political party that won a recent election that was monitored by the UN so that he can stay in power. Do I advocate attacking everyone. It's not my job. I fight when told and heal when told.

Today in Iraq, we are healing that nation by removing sectarianism (sunni versus shia) and removing extremist thoughts from their muslim idealogy. We have many Muslims in America and serving within our Armed Forces that do not believe in the ideology of hate that Al Qaida and Wahhabism espouse. If you sit down and talk to them, you will many similiar ideals and desires in their lives as well.

If you read our Old Testament, you will find it just as bloodthirsty towards unbelievers (especially towards Eqyptians, Canaanites, Phillistines and Babylonians). Remember, Moses and Joshua dictated that the Isrealites were required by GOd to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan in order to create living space for the twelve tribes of Judah. Mohammed said the same things to his own followers when they came out of the Saudi desert to sieze the cities of Medina and Mecca from the idol worshippers that lived there at the time.

Both books are several thousand years old. I think we have progressed as humans since those books were written. The main tasks in our lives as Modern Christians is to ensure that we don't digress backwards like the Wahabbi's did.

Bruce

[bruce drake]

Felix,

One of our programs is called "Fish in a box".

Its an aquaculture package that we build with the US State Department, USAID and an entire village. We go in, help them setup their dikes and ponds and provide them with Carp, Talapia, Shrimp and pumps (they have a lot of water with the Tigris and Zab rivers nearby) and they can run an fish farm in addition to their corn and wheat productions.

For those who squirm about Soldiers being a 'fancy Peace Corps" remember that our Special Forces people have been doing this since the 60's with indigenous tribes throughout the world very successfully.

Bruce

[Black Prince]

Bruce

You are there and know the situation so I of course, defer to your specific observations. But I am of the opinion that the farmer that you are tyring to help ought to be doing the job of building his country himself instead of forcing an American to put his life on the line for some Illerate bastard who'd take money from either side. The only reason they go along with Americans is because we offer them more.

There are two great motivators: Greed and fear. What you are suggesting it seems to me anyway, is the greed appraoch. Offer them more not to fight than the other side offers them to fight. I would be in complete support of that but for one thing, we have to get our people killed to do it. If we could take all the money we spend to wage war and use it to helpeople NOT make war, I would MUCH RATHER spend the money that way.

The other approach is to kill them to such an extent that they are AFRAID to take the other side money because they know they are gonna die if they do. Or take it even firther, there isn't going to be any other side to offer anybody anything because we are going to kill the other side and the whole country is going to be a wasteland and there isn't going to be anything left for anybody to offer. It isn't the poor farmer who has the will to wage war. It's those who live to become the top dog that do that and it then becomes necessary to kill the farmer so the other side can not use him against us.

I said war is something that is difficult for sane people to contemplate. It does not make any sense that human beings will go to such an extent to be the top dog. It defies logic. But if we don't contemplate it, we are going to die. When it comes to some poor illeterate basnard over there dying or me, guess what? Since the begining of time, there has been, and the bible says there will be wars and roumors of wars. We are not going to stop wars by teaching illerate basnards to read or help him grow food. Even when he can read and has food, somebody will be out there trying to be the top dog and the way that is done is by killing all others who might like to be top dog. That is the way it's always been done and unless you know something about human nature that I do not, you ain't gonna change that. We have NOT PROGRESSED beyond that point and I challenge you to give me an example of where we have and it has worked. Mankind is still as base as it ever was despite the passage of time. Modern men like to think they are different, but that simply is not true when you get right down to the brass tacks of it.

So if we want to remain a free nation, we are going to have to remain the top dog and we are going to have to kill those who want to wage war against us. The British Empire was strong and virorous when they ruled the world. They were merciless and ruled completely. When they decided to be nice and give their colonies some leeway, the whole empire crumbled. That goes to my assertion that as the most powerful nation now, if we don't use our power, and if the world doesn't understand that we will do it, then we are going to go the same way as the Brits and for the same reason.

It's all fine and dandy for some think tank type to say that we can't wage war the old fashioned way and that we have to understand the culture of our enemies and work with it. BS. Those muslim bastards are going to have to understand OUR CULTURE and LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT because they are the ones who are going to die if they don't and it's time they learned that, and learned to live accordingly or die. We ought not give them any other option because if we do we are following the British example and we already know what will come of that approach.

And I would simply ask how in hell does the think tank types know that the old way of war won't work? When have we tried it since the end of WWII? Since Truman, we have fought "limited wars." You can't do thatand win. It doesn't work. All you get is a stalemate and Korea is a good example. You have to destroy their capacity and will to wage war because if you don't do both, they are going to wage war no matter what they have or don't have and that is the human condition today just as it has been throughout history.

I'd rather give a child a soccer ball than kill him too, but if it is necessary to kill him, then let's get on with it and quit pussy footing around until that childs uncle, or brother, or cousin gets a nuke into one of our major cities and sets it off. Unfortuanately, THAT is the option we have because THEY DECLARED WAR ON US. We didn't start this. They did and they are the only ones who can stop it but they are not going to do that as long as they have the capacity or the will to wage war against us. You are not going to stop that with any dam scoccer ball or school teaching them how to read and write, or grow fish in my opinion, or in the recorded written history of warfare since the begining of time.

God bless and keep you brother. We can disagree on what should be done, but you should NEVER doubt that I am going to demand that you are supported in your efforts and I don't think that you have been supported, or that you are being supported enough now and that I want this crap to end and for you to come home safely. I think we should kill'em all and then you come home. You think we need to take another path. Your way has never succeeded. My way has ALWAYS succeeded. There is nothing like a total surrender to end wars as the example of WWII clearly shows and we didn't use any scoccer balls or build any schools to accomplish that. We kicked their ashes until they just couldn't stand it any more. The Japs were ready to fight to the last man until those two nukes caused them to lose their will to fight. We had already destroyed their capacity to wage war, but until those nukes showed them what was coming if they didn't surrender, we still had an armed and dangerous enemy dedicated to destroying us. As soon as we waged all out war, they surrendered. I think I am on firm ground saying that approcah works and we have had no more problems with the Japs since then. That same approach will work in Iraq or any other place on earth no matter what their culture. ALL CULTURES understand a thorough and complete ash whipping and it's time we made examples out of the muslims and lay one on them because if we don't, they are going to lay one on us.

What galls me is that our political leaders don't seem to understand any of that. They put you out there in the way of the bullets while they stand back here and try to figure out what to do next. All of that should have been figured out BEFORE you were sent out there where bullets fly and soldiers die. I don't think it was and I don't think they have a clue now. My position is that we ought to either wage total war or stay home. We ought to go to war with the intent of completely destroying the enemies capacity and will to wage war or we ought not go to war in the first place. And when we do decide to go to war, that there be NO RESTRICTIONS on the military to defeat the enemy. I understand there are differing opinions about that, but I've yet to see any positive results of any of those differing opinions when they are tried. Everytime we try limited or restricted war, we get people killed unnecessarily. We see body bags and continued war. We don't see a clear victory and a total surrender. WWII was fought and won in less time than we've been getting people killed in Iraq, and it was accomplished because we did what I am suggesting that we SHOULD DO now.

Like you, I followed orders in the military. If you follow your oath, you have no choice in the matter. Now that I am a civilian, I can take issue with decisions I think are screwball and those I think are wrong. We SHOULD have invaded Iraq, but we should have also waged total war and that we OUGHT to do that EVERY time we put our soldiers in harms way. If we had, you would not be there now and you'd be home for father's day like I think you and all of the others in uniform over there today should be.

[Scrounger]

So we agree to disagree without rancor. I would like to think time would tell us who was right but that isn't true. Some people still debate the causes, actions, and results of the Civil War. As long as there are two people alive on this planet, disagreement will be guaranteed. I wish I had the good sense not to discuss things here; like all the rest of you, I have opinions and I cannot change the way I feel about things; but my emotional part overrules my logical part which says,"Let it be, you can't change his mind", and another pointless discourse ensues. I'm outa here...

[floodgate]

Fellas: let the above discussion be an example of how two members with strongly different views of an idea or situation can still communicate fairly and with mutual respect and courtesy!!

Floodgate

[Black Prince]

You can ALWAYS count on me having respect for all of our people in uniform because when I was mustered out on 17 June, 1967, I was not given any respect. I was in fact advised not to wear my uniform home because people would spit on me in the airport. I did wear it home and swore to kill any sumbitch that spit on me. I STILL swear to do it!!

I believe as American military, we ought to fight to win. I know all too well how good men died when ordered to accomplish an objective only to have us ordered the next week to give it back to the Viet Cong. I was absolutely furious the entire time I was in the service because I saw first hand how the stupidity of the civilian and military politicians were trading our lives and blood for political gain and position. They didn't give a dam about us and they STILL DON'T.

If we old guys who have been there and seen all of that don't step up and speak up for our comrades who are still out there fighting the fight, nobody else will because nobody else knows or understands the absolute horrors and insanity of war, or the political maneuvers that knowingly result in military deaths just to score political points. You just can not begin to understand how it affected those of us who stood watch all night and went on patrols every day and all the time knowing it was just a big political game with Lyndon Johnson, General Westmoreland and that complete idiot Robert Strange McNamara. McNamara got more people killed for no reason other than politics and stupidity than anybody in that whole dam FUBAR situation.

And when Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Madam Commrade Jane Fonda got away with blatant TREASON, we all knew it was just a big game. If it had been serious, they would have hung as the Constitution and our laws say thay should have. But Clark, as the attorney general, was the chief law enforcement officer in the United States at the time. As military members, we would dam sure have hung if we had done what they did, so why didn't they hang? Because it was just a big political game, that's why and John Kerry is another example of that game. It was all just for political posturing and I'm not convinced that this business in Iraq isn't the same thing. I am not as sure of that as I am about Nam, and even though I am a republican, I think Bush has made a mess of this war for no other reason than he has no yet actually waged war. I am tired of seeing our military sacrificed for the politicians and it doesn't matter whether they are democrat or republican politicians. They aren't worth a pimple on a private's ash as far as I am personally concerned and I have more respect for that private than I'll ever have for any politician.

For those of you who have not been in the military, you have no idea of how we NCO enlisted pukes respect mustang officers. They are the ones who didn't go to a military academy or enter the military with a commission. They came in just like the rest of us pukes. They pulled themselves up by their own boot straps and worked harder than anybody to EARN their officers gold braid and there isn't an enlisted man out there who doesn't know and understand how difficult that is. There isn't one who doesn't have tremendous respect for that accomplishment, or for the man who is responsible for it.

[sundog]

Bruce, I'm do not know when 'herself' comes up for reelection or you retire, but you should consider running for the Senate from what was, and could be again, the Great State of New York, where I grew up, and now hardly recognize (mostly because of NYC). If Bloomberg is McCain's running mate, I may not vote this go'round.

[Black Prince]

If Bloomburg is McCain's running mate, you won't need to vote because Obama is going to win. McCain already has enough baggage to keep some conservatives from voting for him. If he adds the rabid left wing Marxist, anti-Second Amendment Bloomburg to his ticket, it will put Obama in the White House even if Obama gets a BJ in Times Square at noon on live TV between now and the election.

[10-x]

BP,
Amen Brother. I say, all we have to go on is our own experiences and what history tells us.
Every war I have read about was won by the use of "Total War", "Kill em all and Let God Sort them out".
WWI and WWII.
On the other hand I suggest everyone so inclined read "The War of The Running Dogs",the Brits war against the commies in Maylasia in the early 50's. They won a similar war We fought in RVN and it dealt with muslems.(sp?)
Their exception was the &^%#+ politicians were kept out of it, SAS and the RAF had their way.
I have nothing but respect for all our service persons?(cant say servicemen any more), I support them 100% and hope they whack every "raghead" that needs it.May God watch over and protect them.:drinks:

[bruce drake]

When we were going over how to fight the current war in Iraq after the insurgents started laying IEDs everywhere, The Malaysian conflict was an primary resource of how to deal with the insurgents. It does work over time and it shows in our province.

Judicial application of extreme force - we do it every day. Since last September when we've arrived we have killed or captured over 600 insurgents. Nearly every one of them was hit after we developed a complete target package on each of them in cooperation with the local Iraqi Army and Police units.

I agree that politicians should have a limit in the roles they have when it comes to warfare. But in final conversation regarding it though, if we don't have civilian oversight of our actions we run the risk of become a military junta.

Our system of checks and balances with civil control of the military mirrors the rest of our government. Remember that the Roman Republic failed once the military was subverted to the individual desires of select generals (Caesar, Marc Antony and Agrippa were all military consuls) Remember that Gen Douglas McCarther (bad spelling here) was fired by Truman for his Generalissimo-like actions in Korea. We work for the country and not for our own individual power.

I think that is the reason that you'll never see GEN Powell go up for VP or President. It is not in this countries best interest to have a former general in the top tier of government and he understands it. GEN Clark the democrat, is an aberation of the citizen-soldiers within the Army. He was always a political officer when he was in the service. Its my job as a military officer to balance my personal political feelings with the official stance of political nuetrality.

Now one way to bypass the SCOTUS's plan to give these b@stards excessive rights to the criminals could be to complete the Status of Forces Agreements with Iraq and Afghanistan. Once those agreements are in place (sometime this fall), we can just ship them back to Iraq for trial here. The Iraqi's have the death penalty and they apply it on a regular basis.

The only people I would keep for trial in the US would be those directly involved with terrorist attacks against Americans like Khalid Sheick Muhammed who already admits to planning the 9/11 attack. THey get one trial. One day of prayer. and then one long drop with a short rope.

Bruce

[10-x]

BD,
Mac was a self centered individual, BUT a Hell of a Good General Officer.
As stated before we only have history to look at.
Consider if Mac had gotten his wish to use tac nukes on the gooks in Korea. Would have been the end of Red China's meddling.
That with the Brits win in Mayalsia just may have prevented Vietnam???? Have wondered that many times.

IMHO we need to go back to the "War Department" not "Department of Defense". Sure civilians are and should be involved BUT leave the fighting to the "War Fighters".

You guys need anything? Just let us know.

Be Save.:drinks:

[Boerrancher]

The Tactics of the Past will not win the Wars of the Present or the Future. You need to adapt to the changing environment or you lose. We went in to this current fight, remembering the glories of GW1 and it costs us for a couple of years.
Lightning strikes to destroy the Hammurabi Division of the Republican Guard is one thing. Rebuilding a community to provide basic services so that the peasant farmer isn't forced to become an IED maker to support his family is totally different. The regular joe (here and in the US) thinks about his family and how he can support them before he thinks of waging jihad or rebellion. If the man is satisfied with his community, he isn't going to try to lay a bomb on the road to take down one of my soldiers.

People complain and moan about how we don't need to improve the Iraqi. Cut and Run and other isolationist thoughts won't cut it. If we don't rebuild this society to the point where it can rejoin the world community, we will be back here within a period of time to fix it again. I bet people forget that this was exactly how some people thought after the Second World War when Europe and Japan were in shambles. We enacted the Marshall Plan then and laid millions at the doorsteps of other governments with long-term 100-year loans so that they could rebuild themselves (in 2000, Britain actually paid off her War Loans ahead of schedule, Shortly after that Denmark and Sweden both paid theirs as well). What would the world have been like if we had shut our ports and factories and economic loans and grants out after the Second World War like we did in 1918 after the First World War?

Yes, I said earlier that democracy in Iraq is not the same as the United States. They still have tribal affiliations here that are respected and enforced. By knowing the culture we strengthen our approach on rebuilding them.

I for one prefer to hand a child a soccer ball and teach his father to read and write when I visit thier village that has mud-brick houses over having to lay an ambush to catch him at night trying to lay a bomb for $50 dollars that Al Aqaida offers him to feed his family.

An average Iraqi peasant farmer makes an equivalent of $1200 a year to feed his family and to prepare for the next farming season. $50 is a lot of money to a farmer that can't read or write past simple numbers and he can't work in the fields due to other peasants laying bombs on the roads. We remove those blocks to his security so he can provide for his family and he will become empowered to support the government that has let him do for his family.

Bruce
Bravo Bruce, well said.

This may sound harsh to some of you, but at this point I don't care. Many people I know wonder why I don't talk about the war. They seem to think that alot of it is due to PTSD and the fact that I don't want to remember. It is not that at all. It is just that I don't want to have a conversation about something with someone who is totally ignorant of the situation over there and laps up the slop that is spoon fed to them by a liberal media with an agenda.

Bottom line until you put on 100+ pounds of gear, in 130 degree F heat, and spend a year or more over there, on occasion sending a friend home in a body bag don't even bother to talk to me about the war, because all you are is an arm chair quarterback on Monday morning. Your opinions about the state of affairs of the war mean positively nothing and in most cases if you are against the war serve only to cause more problems for those of us who, are/were fighting it.

Respectfully from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

[sundog]

Joe, Hooah!

[WildmanJack]

On Feb. 3rd of 2005 my nephew ( my sisters oldest) was KIA by an IED in Mozul. AS far as I'm concerned if they wiped out the entire friggin country of Iraq and paved over it, it would be too good for those ba$tards. I say Kill em all and let Allah sort them out. Sorry for the attitude but I've had it with "lets help the poor people of Iraq" screw them, they won't even stand up to help themselves.... To hell with them all....

[bruce drake]

Reports out today are that a couple of provinces may be going over to Iraqi control this summer. That will make 10-11 of 18 provinces that they have control over. Our province may go over to Iraqi self-control shortly as well. Provinces under Iraqi self-control only have small US MITT teams that provide oversight to the local forces. The large US combat units get pulled out and either sent home or moved to help settle additional provinces. Its like the snowball theory of paying bills. Take one province and settle it and then add those forces to another province to settle it a little quicker than the last, etc, etc. We'll soon be over the crest and on the way to completion.

WMJack, I understand your pain. I've lost 8 soldiers in my three tours here. I hate the bastards that set the bombs that took those young men and women away from their families (and I include thier military units in that as well - we care and grieve just as much) but I know that the majority of the Iraqis here should not be painted with such a broad brush. I find evidence and witnesses and target the ones who caused my unit pain and remove them from the gene pool.

Your reasoning would be the equivalent of my unit shooting every resident in southern Florida simply because Florida is a major chain in the drug trade that comes in from the caribean from central america. Because the drugs come in from Southern Florida, the same logic you stated would mean I would have justificiation to kill every resident because they are party to drug trafficing due to their being located in the same area that drug traffickers are residing and distributing that form of death to our American citizens.

We are succeeding in working our way out of Iraq. It may take longer than people wish but when we do leave it will be with success and not with our tails between our legs or with a mark of a failed government over here.

Bruce

[WildmanJack]

Bruce, I guess your right. I didn't look at it like that. There's good and bad in every group of people. I ought to vent differntly I guess. Thanks for the wake up call..God Bless over there and keep your head down..
Jack