Unfortunately, It Isn't All Made Up

Instapundit links to Bob at Confederate Yankee and I agree. Unfortunately, I've also been reading and contemplating two other links via email.

BOB OWENS: Choose your own narrative, but quit attacking the troops.

See here

New documents released Tuesday regarding crimes committed by U.S. soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a troubling pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.

and also here and here for the case by case files. I'm not a fan of the ACLU but I can't rail against what they're doing when there are underlying crimes. All I can really do is hope that enough Americans understand war is brutal and can be ugly, but sometimes it is necessary and we have to steel ourselves, as well as look at every opportunity to improve our military and its directives to avoid problems and even crimes.

For now, I'll save my powder for the liberals who will tear these documents apart and look for every opportunity to undermine the war. It leaves me wondering if we could have even won a WWII in an information age ... and how the hell we're going to win WWIII, which we are basically already fighting against radical Islam. Nothing at the links above does anything to weaken my resolve in that regard.

Comments

[nowingker]

I predict the librul war hating media won't give this story much play, despite what you wingers think, the MSM is full of fearful cowards, all you have to do is accuse them of hating the troops and they will stop covering anything but the most sensational and egregious issues.

It sure looks like our troops have some problems though, and judging by past practices of the Bush Administration I have to believe that what was released to the ACLU is the bare, absolute minimum and that there are probably dozens more incidents that DOD simply reclassified and refused to release.

Throwing an unarmed man off a bridge and watching him drown because he was out after curfew? Hmmmm, they must have gone to the George W. Bush School of War. Sad

[Ken]

"It sure looks like our troops have some problems though, and judging by past practices of the Bush Administration I have to believe that what was released to the ACLU is the bare, absolute minimum and that there are probably dozens more incidents that DOD simply reclassified and refused to release."

Pure speculation there. Putting this in perspective, we have had well over 100,000 troops in a war zone for years now and there are 22 cases of soldiers acting criminally. You have hundreds of thousands of fighting men and women in a war, with bullets, mortars, rockets and IEDs that must be dealt with daily, and our troops -- for the most part -- are professional enough that the level of bad-actors is statistically insignificant.

And the "repeated examples" statement of that report -- is anything more than one example a "repeated example?"

[jj]

I don't like the flavor of these reports myself, but these things happen all too often in war, and our troops in Iraq have been quite restrained, nowingker. I had a conversation recently with a WWII vet, a member of Patton's 3rd Army, and he admitted that he and others in his unit not only raped German women, but stole everything of value they could get their hands on, much of it brought back to the US as war souveneirs. This behavior, although not widespread, was still all too common as US troops entered Germany. Of course, none of these reports were given any publicity, nor were the Germans allowed to complain or file any charges.

This does not excuse any actions by US soldiers in Iraq that are illegal, but we should be willing to admit that this behavior, if true, is not unheard of, even in the 'good' wars of the liberals.

[Kevin Baker]

Actually, this is WWIV. WWIII was the Cold War (which we also won.) But your point is well taken.

[BobInStamford]

That is quite a confession that you coaxed out of that old man. The COLLEGE NEWSPAPER EDITOR in you is shining through! Well done!

[charles martel]

ken, i am proud that he and i share the same first name, i used to go by just charles here but it didn't annoy the moonbats as i desired, that is if they even know the history or importance of "the hammer" which i doubt,so there you go

and that aclu article that dan linked is a bunch of contradictory statements attempting to make a bonfire out of a lit match

the only reason the info is even available thru the foia is because the military is already investigating, but that doesn't fit their template so it just ain't good enough

they're going to add some kindling and apply the bellows no matter who the fire may burn, because of the truthiness,,,,, and the children

100,000 is a good number, but let's count the actual number of troops who have cycled through since jump street - not just boots on the ground at any particular stitch in time - the statistics become even more miniscule that way

[nowingker]

You guys are so funny.

So a handful of incidents out of 100,000+ troops means nothing, can't be generalized.

But a handful of incidents out of MILLIONS of muslims in the U.S., well, that's a disturbing pattern and we need to keep an eye on all of them.

If applied your Muslim Paradym to US troops I would conclude they all probably had criminal tendencies.

[jj]

Why, thank you, Bob. You might just improve if you will just keep thinking this way, complimenting people for their achievements, getting along with others, and generally getting a better outlook on life.

[charles martel]

"ken, i am proud that he and i share the same first name" oopsie, that's actually for jj

"So a handful of incidents out of 100,000+ troops means nothing, can't be generalized."

no you moron, bad things are bound to happen in a war, it is acknowledged to be expected,
the fact is there is a large branch of the military dedicated to deal with this and the military does an outstanding job of policing themselves and bringing the bad actors to justice

in a population of x amount statistically a certain number of incidents are to be expected, it's pretty amazing that the amount of these incidences are so much lower than the general population is next to amazing, it is awe inspiring the restraint and discipline displayed by our troops

but you just can't seem to get your head around that

and the word is "paradigm" you pompous ass, you're fooling no one here but yourself, the stitch mahoney school of multisyballic preening is where you belong

[charles martel]

now go back to your well displayed ignorance and continue to live in scrollover territory, i've had enough of your ridiculous posturing and moral equivalence

[nowingker]

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

My larger point seems to have been lost on you.

If a handful of incidents out of our occupation in Iraq can't be generalized to reflect on all soldiers or all soldiers in Iraq because the number is so small compared to the overall population, why does it make perfect sense to you wingers to generalize the behavior of an EVEN SMALLER portion of the muslim population that have committed terrorist acts to ALL muslims. The former you find offensive and the later makes perfect sense to you.

[bloodrage bob]

*you're* one to talk, nowinkie. you call folks who minimize 22 incidents done by 200,000+ troops "generalizers". as if pointing out that any bad troops might - MIGHT - add up to .00001% is somehow ludicrous.

but when a caring, kind, committed (or should be) intellectually dishonest person such as - well, such as *you* - refers to the tiny handful of arab/islamites arrested and prosecuted for possible nefarious terroristic activites ...

well, then! you tell us that's just awful, and "on a scale with what the nazis did!" how many american hajis have been held? 20? 50? naturally, to someone like you, that's exactly equivalent to nazi death camps, or the ww2 *democrat-mandated* internment of tens of thousands of jap-am citizens.

yeah, you're right, nowinkie. no intellectual dishonesty THERE. you're CERTAINLY not trying to have it both ways. no absurd "generalizing" on *your* part, no sir!

[charles martel]

"My larger point seems to have been lost on you."

no, your larger point is still comfortably residing atop that empty cavern you so facetiously refer to as your cranium

bada bump *cymbal splash*

[nowingker]

*you're* one to talk, nowinkie. you call folks who minimize 22 incidents done by 200,000+ troops "generalizers". as if pointing out that any bad troops might - MIGHT - add up to .00001% is somehow ludicrous.
---------------

No, I'm saying if 22 out of 200,000 is .00001% a number so small as to be meaningless as to overall troop behavior.....then 20 or 50 out of 2 or 3 million muslims is .000000001% a number so small as to be meaningless as to overall muslim behavior. See, its EVEN A SMALLER NUMBER OUT OF A BIGGER POPULATION.

Get it?

[Super-Electro-Magnetic Midget Launcher]

nwkr - According to polls, support for terrorism against civilians among Muslims all over the world is quite high. There is no such general support for atrocities in the US military. The Koran explicitly encourages atrocities, taking of slaves, etc. Current mainstream thought among Islamic scholars emphasizes those parts and downplays the more sane parts. By contrast, again, the UCMJ explicitly calls atrocities crimes.

Your analogy is breathtakingly stupid and ill-informed. Your specialty, I gather.

Finally, either deliberately, or through stupidity, you're grossly misrepresenting what conservatives actually think about Muslims. I read a number of conservative blogs, and the party line is generally that there are plenty of reasonable Muslims who deserve better. Like, for example, the ones who are fighting AQ alongside us in Iraq. For example. The ones the left believes to be too inherently violent and stupid to be capable of governing themselves.

Anyhow, the same lefties who claim Muslims don't support terrorism inevitably turn around and brag about how bin Laden has universal support in the Islamic world because the USA is just sooooo darn evil and stuff. Universal... er... small universal... minority... er...

Heh. Idiots. Can't even keep your lies straight.

[charles martel]

"meaningless as to overall muslim behavior"

meaningless as to overall radical islamic behavior - there, fixed it for ya

well then you can explain that to the russians, the thais, the indians, the sikhs, the french, the british, the chinese, the lebanese, the israelis, the americans, the balinese, the indonesians, the phillipinos, the afghanis, the iraqis, the pakistanis, and the sauds and anyone else who's innocents have died at the hands of the salafists

and just about anywhere else that bumps bloody borders with radical islam

[bloodrage bob]

well, crud. was going to eviscerate nowinkie's latest absurd denial, ("i didn't say what i said!"), but no WAY can i top what the super midget launcher wrote. "(nowinkie's analogies are) breathtakingly stupid and ill-informed."

THAT'S good writin', folks. like hemingway. like trevanian. the wise poster just steps back, and lets the master have room to operate.

[nowingker]

I read a number of conservative blogs, and the party line is generally that there are plenty of reasonable Muslims who deserve better.
----------------------

That's funny, all I ever read is how the mainstream Muslim organizations are all terrorist front groups, and how ALL MUSLIMS believe in Sharia law, and how ALL Muslims should be suspected of being terrorist sympathizers until they prove themselves innocent. I also read repeatedly that there are NO MODERATE MUSLIMS.

Depending on what day it is the Iraqis are either subhuman barbarians incapable of self government, radical terrorist killers or good people who love America and want democracy.

[kl]

"That's funny, all I ever read is how the mainstream Muslim organizations are all terrorist front groups, and how ALL MUSLIMS believe in Sharia law, and how ALL Muslims should be suspected of being terrorist sympathizers until they prove themselves innocent. I also read repeatedly that there are NO MODERATE MUSLIMS."

Links?

[charles martel]

"Depending on what day it is the Iraqis are either subhuman barbarians incapable of self government, radical terrorist killers or good people who love America and want democracy"

see that? if you stick around long enough the truth emerges

winkie - don't blame your lack of reading comprehension and confusion on some form of internet boogeyman you have constucted in your mind

it's very juvenile tactic to blame ones personal failings on others

if you think i'm mistaken why don't you take kl up on his simple request

[tally]

"a troubling pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions."

if the rules get much tighter, we really won't be able to fight. of course, this is probably the goal.

[Robert]

This doesn't add-up coming from the "only black and white" crowd.

I, being against the Iraq war, am told by the B&W's that if I'm against the war, I'm against the troops.
Conversely, if you support the war, you support the troops.

All of them. Even the rapists and murderers.

After reading about the terrible actions by the troops, I sure am glad not to be a supporter of rapists and murderers.

[Synova]

"...Iraqis are either subhuman barbarians incapable of self government,.."

I only hear that from the left.

It's part of the belief in losing.

[Synova]

I assume (since I only know for the Air Force) that all of our military services, along with military police, maintain FBI analogues to investigate crime within the military. Our base newspaper at Clark had the "blotter" feature on the back page... sort of a dumb criminal tricks section. Usually it was stupid stuff or domestic abuse of one sort or another. The paper also covered an exposed prostitution ring run by wives and a fellow who had his wife killed for her life insurance money. That was an interesting one... he'd put evidence on a *floppy disk* and then cut it up with pinking shears. The destroyed floppies were sent to a crime lab and put back together. Cool, eh? Like CSI.

And this is during *non* war. And true... it's wasn't a *small* base.

Wrap that outrage around you, Robert. I'm sure it feels good. The truth is that the military is made up of people and people sin. The military, however, has no sympathy and very little forgiveness available for criminals and a large cadre of people who's only job is to investigate and arrest them.

People know about the JAG, but how many have even a clue about the OSI?

[bloodrage bob]

just for fun, someone should tot up the number of rapes & murders done by amerian GI's over there. i've read 22; let's quintuple it & make it an even 100 to allow for the ones we haven't heard about.

so now we're talking about *100* rapes & murders over a 4-year span.

now let's add up the total number of internet column inches abhorring this "proof of US imperialist militaristic hatemongering etc etc." as a rough guess, i make it about 3 trillion posts/stories/whines.

THEN, let's add up all the rapes&murders done by american *gang members*, shall we?? as a wildly low guess, i'm going to assign "10,000 per year" to the crips & bloods & vice lords & disciples & all the other alleged humans. in 4 years, that's 40,000. wow! 40,000 rapes and murders in 4 years! that's a LOT less than 100! as for the total number of internet mentions/whines/column inches? well, it's not "zero", but it IS considerably less than the whines about the military. let's call it "ten thousand".

40,000 rapes and murders done by minority gang members, resulting in 10,000 stories .....
versus 100 rapes & murders done by US military, resulting in 3,000,000,000,000 stories.

why might that be? could there be a double standard here? MIGHT the leftwing be exaggerating the miniscule # of mil crimes *for political purposes*? or is it just that they're minimizing the # of minority gang crimes *for political purposes*? gotta be one or the other, right? if 100 is absolutely horrible, then 40,000 should be 400 times worse, right?

yet we never hear the left mention THAT, do we. odd. they SAY they're against that sort of thing ... for example, "robert" above assures us that he "doesn't support military rape and murder", yet he never mentions the many many **many** more done by gang members. almost as if they don't count, somehow. gee whiz, might it all be just political???

[brian]

After reading about the terrible actions by the troops, I sure am glad not to be a supporter of rapists and murderers.

Very nice, Robert. So if you support civil rights, then you support everything blacks do, including Michael Vick? Glad to know you support the torture and murder of dogs.

Because of the nuance.

[jj]

..., I sure am glad not to be a supporter of rapists and murderers."

So am I, Robert. I believe in prosecuting rapists and murderers to the full extent of the law. I sure wish we would do that right here is the USA, too. But, then again, the criminals here are not soldiers, and they mostly vote Democratic. So let's look at the gray, no B& W for you, Robert.

[Jay]

Dan, tried to trackback...

Here is the link

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/09/04/aclu-accuse-long-list-of-war-crimes-on-american-troops/

[seekeronos]

"--- People know about the JAG, but how many have even a clue about the OSI? ---"

Here, here. The JAG are plenty good, but they are the military's analogue to lawyers and not the investigators.

It's the OSI that gets called in when the really dirty work of finding out who did what and where and when. They are as capable, if not more so, in my opinion, than the Army's CID or the Navy's NIS.

I can particularly vouch for the OSI, being ex-USAF myself, and having been privy to some of their functions. They are thorough in their investigations, and then some.

So yeah, if you do something truly idiotic as an airman, a soldier, or a sailor or Marine... the odds are pretty good that any of the US Military's investigative services WILL find out, and you WILL get your butt stood up on a stand for a court-martial, or a Captain's Mast/Office Hours/Article 15 if you're lucky. For rapists and murderers - so convicted - and remember that courts-martial do not have the same leeway and loopholes that state and federal criminal law do - the UCMJ is built to keep military members accountable and on a VERY short leash... most likely, a long haul making big rocks into pebbles at Ft. Leavenworth, and a dishonourable discharge/big chicken dinner to boot, just to ruin their chances of ever gaining lawful employment outside the military.

That said, I think our boys overseas are conducting themselves in combat conditions far more judiciously than our forefathers did in VN, KR, or any of the theatres of WW2. And before that time, soldiers were known to exact their wants and desires quite viciously and mercilessly upon the gentler sex far more often than history can gently record for tender ears: the years 1861-1865 saw a swell in unwanted babies born to war-spawned bastardy on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but especially so amongst the women of the would-be Confederacy.

Compared to the gang-related deaths and drunk driving deaths and cancer deaths incurred by US citizens during Gulf War II, I'd say the figures are quite insignificant by comparison.

Compared to the deaths and misfortunes perpetrated by the sizeable fraction of Muslims who are practicing jihadists against non-Muslims in the world, that might be a different story. Heck, the warring between radical Shia and Sunni factions alone might tally up to be quite the nasty body count, to say nothing of the manner in which killings and non-mortal actions are carried out, don'tcha think?

[seekeronos]

EDIT:

"Compared to the gang-related deaths and drunk driving deaths and cancer deaths incurred by US citizens during Gulf War II, I'd say the figures [[ for US war crimes against Iraqis ]] are quite insignificant by comparison."

[LOL]

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/02/04/why-they-hate-us-some-examples/

i posted this before and this wingers scoffed. But oh well. Bottom line, we're a bunch of foreigners over there, why should they respect our authority? We wouldn't support any of that behavior from a foreign army here.

"how the hell we're going to win WWIII, which we are basically already fighting against radical Islam"

Funny shit. A good question though, because if this is WWIII (or 4 or maybe 7) as you wingers claim it is, many of you sure aren't acting like it. I see an awful lot of talk from the winger crowd, few results.

[bloodrage bob]

when someone known for resorting to sockpuppetry bitches about 'too much talk' from the right ...

dude! that's like the sockpuppets-got-no-shame **hall of fame**, LOL/legaleagle/chris/yyy/et al. congratulations! will you be wearing the tiara?

[Rich Casebolt]

LOL: "Why should they respect our authority?".

Because, despite the few rogues in our midst, we have now earned the trust of many, many Iraqis.

They know we are not there for the oil.

They know we are not there for "empire".

They know we don't even want to stay there forever.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

*** "al-Ameriki" tribe ***

Google it.

[kl]

"Links?"

Guess not...

[jj]

bb, the tiara would look oh-so-nice on chris/BobinStamford when he makes his next foray into the city. Can you make sure it matches his/her/it's blue dress?

[chris]

Foray? VERY impressive use of a VAST vocabulary. Kind of like 'airborn'.