BAGHDAD – US Army Sgt. Evan Vela was sentenced by a court-martial jury to 10 years in prison for fatally shooting in Iraq. The shooting occurred on May 11, 2007.
If you recall, the war in Iraq had spiked sharply upward in Iraq during the spring of 2007. Atrocities occur in ALL wars, on both sides. A direct correlation exists between the amount of training a unit and/or soldiers receive and the number of atrocities committed by that unit/soldier. The greater the amount of training, the fewer atrocities committed. Training does not eliminate atrocities. Training reduces the occurrence of them. This is why atrocities are committed by irregular troops far more frequently.
Atrocities tend to be committed more frequently when the units/soldiers are under the greatest pressure. Greater amounts of combat will result in a larger number of atrocities. The longer the period of intense combat lasts, the greater the chances of atrocities. After all, everyone has a limit. Stress and fatigue impact decision making in a negative way. The greater amount of stress and fatigue, the more likely mistakes in judgement will be made. Toss in the fact that war tends to bring out the best and worst in people. Stress and fatigue will exaggerate any flaws that everyone has, and these are many times impossible to see beforehand.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Women in Iraq
Attacks upon women in Basra are up since the withdrawal of British forces. They are killed in brutal fashion, all bearing signs of torture. When I came to Basra a year ago," Basra's police chief, Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf says, "two women were killed in front of their kids. Their blood was flowing in front of their kids, they were crying. Another woman was killed in front of her 6-year-old son, another in front of her 11-year-old child, and yet another who was pregnant."
The reasons for the killing vary. Some are ‘Honor killings’. Many are violations of Islamic teachings. No headscarf, or the wrong color of headscarf. Some were killed because they wore makeup. Some were "Politically active women, those who did not follow a strict dress code and women [who are] human rights defenders were increasingly at risk of abuses, including by armed groups and religious extremists," Amnesty said in a 2007 report.
The reasons for the killing vary. Some are ‘Honor killings’. Many are violations of Islamic teachings. No headscarf, or the wrong color of headscarf. Some were killed because they wore makeup. Some were "Politically active women, those who did not follow a strict dress code and women [who are] human rights defenders were increasingly at risk of abuses, including by armed groups and religious extremists," Amnesty said in a 2007 report.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Islamic law in UK
The Archbishop of Canterbury called Thursday for Britain to adopt aspects of Islamic shariah law alongside the existing legal system. He said that introduction of shariah in family law was "unavoidable". That such "constructive accommodation" should not deprive Muslims of their right to take their cases to their own court system. This is similar to how Orthodox Jews refer religious disputes to rabbinical courts. This is a discussion that will not last very long.
The Islamic legal system is inherently hostile to that of Britain. So many of the ‘authentic’ laws have to be ignored in order to be compatible with the English (And the U.S) legal system as to make it a sure thing that violence will result from any attempt like the experiment in Iraq. A political solution is not available for those who follow the ‘authentic’ law that a married, convicted adulteress is to be stoned to death. You either enforce it, or you do not. No gray area to work with. Islamic law has this problem as a general rule. If you decide not to enforce, you are an Apostate. Islamic law is so precise that it requires a great deal of ignoring laws in order to be compatible with the rest of the world. This places anyone who agrees with this, extreme liberal ‘version’ of Islam in the category of Apostate. No wonder a civil war is going on in Iraq and the rest of the Islamic world. Here are some examples of 'authentic' shariah law:
1) Illegal to charge or be charged interest on a loan. (A new, liberal idea is to allow an exception for first time homebuyers.) Modern economic theory demands this concept. No wonder the economies are so bad in the areas where this ‘religion’ is strong.
2) 2 Women testimony equals one man. No way will Britain allow this. To ignore this law (As with many others) is to become an Apostate. See problem # 6.
3) Beat your wife. OK, this is being debated because the phrase can be read multiple ways. The fact that this argument is so widespread indicates that millions of men do believe that this is the correct way to interpret this law. This must be ignored.
4) Tribute. Payment of infidels living in (Or passing through?) Muslim land. So anyone who is not Muslim must make payments. This requirement is being discussed in today’s Iraq. This must be ignored.
5) Moral obligation to kill occupiers of Muslim lands. That no other requirements seem to exist is a BIG problem. In other words, even if a Muslim government launches what we would consider a war of aggression, the occupation of the country triggers the obligation to kill occupiers. Assuming that this would occur outside of Britain, it would not matter. By the way, this is a contributing reason for the constant Arab-Israeli wars.
6) Penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate) This dooms anyone who is Muslim to death if they don’t interpret the law in the same way. No wonder they kill each other as well as fighting the rest of the world. This is a major contributing factor in the Civil War going on throughout the Islamic world. Want to start it up in Britain?
7) Marry for 1 hour and divorce as long as payment is made. I do not know how strong this law is. However, it is sanctioned prostitution. It must be ignored by Britain.
8) Multiple wives. OK! Now we are talking! (Just kidding, I can’t handle the one I have.)
9) All references to women and infidels as property. (Slaves) Must be ignored.
10) Mecca and Medina being illegal for anyone besides a Muslim. Britain will not be impacted.
11) Married woman convicted of adultry is to be stoned to death. 'Authentic' law that must also be ignored.
12) The four ‘legal’ enemies to wage war against:
a) Infidels
b) Apostates
c) Rebels
d) Bandits
(The first two qualify for ‘Jihad’.) "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Page 31, copyright 2003.) So you can wage war against infidels, Apostates, Rebels and Bandits. This means to kill. The entire concept of Jihad must become internal. History has demonstrated that this is not the case throughout the Muslim world. This must be ignored. This is an additional reason for the constant Arab-Israeli wars.
Many of the items in this list are worth dying to protect or to obtain. No wonder the United States and Britain are involved in a war. I am surprised that the war itself is this small. No wonder a Civil war is going on in Iraq and throughout the Islamic world. If Britain ever attempts to accommodate this 'legal' system, it would not be surprising if a Civil War resulted.
The Islamic legal system is inherently hostile to that of Britain. So many of the ‘authentic’ laws have to be ignored in order to be compatible with the English (And the U.S) legal system as to make it a sure thing that violence will result from any attempt like the experiment in Iraq. A political solution is not available for those who follow the ‘authentic’ law that a married, convicted adulteress is to be stoned to death. You either enforce it, or you do not. No gray area to work with. Islamic law has this problem as a general rule. If you decide not to enforce, you are an Apostate. Islamic law is so precise that it requires a great deal of ignoring laws in order to be compatible with the rest of the world. This places anyone who agrees with this, extreme liberal ‘version’ of Islam in the category of Apostate. No wonder a civil war is going on in Iraq and the rest of the Islamic world. Here are some examples of 'authentic' shariah law:
1) Illegal to charge or be charged interest on a loan. (A new, liberal idea is to allow an exception for first time homebuyers.) Modern economic theory demands this concept. No wonder the economies are so bad in the areas where this ‘religion’ is strong.
2) 2 Women testimony equals one man. No way will Britain allow this. To ignore this law (As with many others) is to become an Apostate. See problem # 6.
3) Beat your wife. OK, this is being debated because the phrase can be read multiple ways. The fact that this argument is so widespread indicates that millions of men do believe that this is the correct way to interpret this law. This must be ignored.
4) Tribute. Payment of infidels living in (Or passing through?) Muslim land. So anyone who is not Muslim must make payments. This requirement is being discussed in today’s Iraq. This must be ignored.
5) Moral obligation to kill occupiers of Muslim lands. That no other requirements seem to exist is a BIG problem. In other words, even if a Muslim government launches what we would consider a war of aggression, the occupation of the country triggers the obligation to kill occupiers. Assuming that this would occur outside of Britain, it would not matter. By the way, this is a contributing reason for the constant Arab-Israeli wars.
6) Penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate) This dooms anyone who is Muslim to death if they don’t interpret the law in the same way. No wonder they kill each other as well as fighting the rest of the world. This is a major contributing factor in the Civil War going on throughout the Islamic world. Want to start it up in Britain?
7) Marry for 1 hour and divorce as long as payment is made. I do not know how strong this law is. However, it is sanctioned prostitution. It must be ignored by Britain.
8) Multiple wives. OK! Now we are talking! (Just kidding, I can’t handle the one I have.)
9) All references to women and infidels as property. (Slaves) Must be ignored.
10) Mecca and Medina being illegal for anyone besides a Muslim. Britain will not be impacted.
11) Married woman convicted of adultry is to be stoned to death. 'Authentic' law that must also be ignored.
12) The four ‘legal’ enemies to wage war against:
a) Infidels
b) Apostates
c) Rebels
d) Bandits
(The first two qualify for ‘Jihad’.) "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Page 31, copyright 2003.) So you can wage war against infidels, Apostates, Rebels and Bandits. This means to kill. The entire concept of Jihad must become internal. History has demonstrated that this is not the case throughout the Muslim world. This must be ignored. This is an additional reason for the constant Arab-Israeli wars.
Many of the items in this list are worth dying to protect or to obtain. No wonder the United States and Britain are involved in a war. I am surprised that the war itself is this small. No wonder a Civil war is going on in Iraq and throughout the Islamic world. If Britain ever attempts to accommodate this 'legal' system, it would not be surprising if a Civil War resulted.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Terrorists in Jail
One area of argument in the ‘war on terror’ is that terrorists should be prosecuted as common criminals. To do otherwise is to give them a status that they do not deserve. (POW) Not to mention the risk incurred by placing them in facilities outside of the law. Theoretically, this precedent could be expanded to include U.S. citizens, or the citizens of other countries. A valid, long term concern.
The other side of the argument is that prison is a breeding ground for rebellion in all cultures. To place terrorists into the prison population is to run the risk of spreading the ‘religion’ that they believe so strongly in. Terrorists don’t carry their arms openly and do not wear uniforms. Yet terrorists use military weapons and tactics to prey upon civilians. They enjoy no official government support. This line of thinking goes on in that terrorists are similar to pirates. The difference of political objective as opposed to obtaining loot is not important because it is what you do as what defines you more than the justification of your actions. For thousands of years, it was accepted that pirates who were captured were then hung. Today, this is not really accepted, so interrogation and separation from society for the rest of their lives seems a more humane way of dealing with them. Useful information may be obtained through means that would not be available to use on ‘terrorist’ prisoners who are outside of legal boundaries. This idea can be seen as being potentially VERY dangerous.
During World War II, Japanese soldiers gave no quarter. To surrender or be captured was the height of dishonor. They expected to fight to the death, and expected the enemy to do likewise. This is why they tended to mistreat prisoners. By being captured alive, they forfeited any and all consideration. In general, Japanese soldiers would kill themselves before being captured. As a result, the United States captured few Japanese soldiers. Usually, they were captured because they had been knocked unconscious. Because they were not expected to survive, Japanese soldiers received no training in prisoner’s rights. They did not know that all they had to say was name, rank and serial number. So it was not uncommon to obtain all sorts of information. Sometimes, this information saved some of our men’s lives. Today’s terrorists probably have better education in this regard. However, have you noticed that the terrorist organizations are not screaming about their prisoners’ treatment? I suspect that at least part of the reason is that it is so dishonorable. Like the Japanese soldiers, many terrorists prefer to die fighting. Because they do not have any government support, their legal rights and position are unknown. Giving them civil protections would change this equation drastically.
The other side of the argument is that prison is a breeding ground for rebellion in all cultures. To place terrorists into the prison population is to run the risk of spreading the ‘religion’ that they believe so strongly in. Terrorists don’t carry their arms openly and do not wear uniforms. Yet terrorists use military weapons and tactics to prey upon civilians. They enjoy no official government support. This line of thinking goes on in that terrorists are similar to pirates. The difference of political objective as opposed to obtaining loot is not important because it is what you do as what defines you more than the justification of your actions. For thousands of years, it was accepted that pirates who were captured were then hung. Today, this is not really accepted, so interrogation and separation from society for the rest of their lives seems a more humane way of dealing with them. Useful information may be obtained through means that would not be available to use on ‘terrorist’ prisoners who are outside of legal boundaries. This idea can be seen as being potentially VERY dangerous.
During World War II, Japanese soldiers gave no quarter. To surrender or be captured was the height of dishonor. They expected to fight to the death, and expected the enemy to do likewise. This is why they tended to mistreat prisoners. By being captured alive, they forfeited any and all consideration. In general, Japanese soldiers would kill themselves before being captured. As a result, the United States captured few Japanese soldiers. Usually, they were captured because they had been knocked unconscious. Because they were not expected to survive, Japanese soldiers received no training in prisoner’s rights. They did not know that all they had to say was name, rank and serial number. So it was not uncommon to obtain all sorts of information. Sometimes, this information saved some of our men’s lives. Today’s terrorists probably have better education in this regard. However, have you noticed that the terrorist organizations are not screaming about their prisoners’ treatment? I suspect that at least part of the reason is that it is so dishonorable. Like the Japanese soldiers, many terrorists prefer to die fighting. Because they do not have any government support, their legal rights and position are unknown. Giving them civil protections would change this equation drastically.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Best and worst for U.S. Military
Best surface on Earth for U.S. Military to fight.
1) Over water: It requires warships to control the surface. It requires submarines and torpedoes to fight under the surface. It requires aircraft and missiles to fight above. All aspects are high tech and heavy on mechanization and equipment.
2) Desert: It requires heavy mechanization to supply and support any sizable force in the desert. Thermal imaging and other ‘High Tech’ devices are at their best in this type of environment. Mobile forces are free to maneuver at will.
3) Open land: The Great Plains in the United States and the steppes in Russia. The only natural obstacles are rivers.
The worst:
1) Mountains: Aircraft can’t maneuver well. Uneven ground makes heavy weapons unstable and blocks line of sight. Low-tech men and weapons are easy to hide and move.
2) Swamps: Marginally better than mountains because of ability of aircraft to maneuver.
3) Cities and forests: Line of sight is basic problem. Trees and buildings provide protection for the defense.
1) Over water: It requires warships to control the surface. It requires submarines and torpedoes to fight under the surface. It requires aircraft and missiles to fight above. All aspects are high tech and heavy on mechanization and equipment.
2) Desert: It requires heavy mechanization to supply and support any sizable force in the desert. Thermal imaging and other ‘High Tech’ devices are at their best in this type of environment. Mobile forces are free to maneuver at will.
3) Open land: The Great Plains in the United States and the steppes in Russia. The only natural obstacles are rivers.
The worst:
1) Mountains: Aircraft can’t maneuver well. Uneven ground makes heavy weapons unstable and blocks line of sight. Low-tech men and weapons are easy to hide and move.
2) Swamps: Marginally better than mountains because of ability of aircraft to maneuver.
3) Cities and forests: Line of sight is basic problem. Trees and buildings provide protection for the defense.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
War on terrorism
So far, the war on terror is a classic guerrilla war. Irregular troops are pitted against civil authorities and the military of various countries. If you listen to what the terrorist organizations are saying, it becomes apparent that the motivations for terrorist actions are based upon Islamic doctrine and culture. The wild card here is the repeated suicide attacks. This is only the 2nd time in all of recorded history that this phenomenon has been seen. The 1st occurrence had its basis in the culture of Bushido. This prior occurrence was eventually defeated through massive violence. The entire political, educational and economic systems of the area that produced these attackers were changed completely. It is unlikely that this type of change will occur in the areas that are producing the current crop of suicide attackers.
The widespread occurrence of this phenomenon indicates that the population that is supplying these attackers is so large that it is most likely to continue into the indefinite future unless some cataclysmic event occurs. The population that is supplying these attackers is so large that it would take World War III for this event to take place. The eventual spread of weapons of mass destruction makes the likelihood of another world war almost inevitable. Warfare is a basic part of human nature. As technology increases, our ability to kill each other is enhanced. As a result, our wars are becoming more and more destructive. How do we prevent the next BIG war?
I like to use the analogy of earthquakes. If you keep having small ones, you are probably OK. Once you notice that it has been some time since the last one, WATCH OUT. This is because the pressure is not being released, and a build up occurs. Human nature is not so precise, however it does not change. It has been more than 4 generations since the last world war. People forget what it is like. They forget how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Although history can never repeat itself exactly, patterns do emerge. Warfare is a part of us, despite the fact that most people do not want it to occur. The issues that trigger war many times cannot be resolved except through warfare. Slavery in the United States is one obvious example. No political solution was available to end slavery. This is a common feature with most wars. The issues that are underlying the current war on terror today likewise will not be resolved without violence. Attempting to stall the resolution or preventing the violence that it triggers just may end up making the overall effect much larger than it already is. The fact that so many people are involved in these issues already can be an indicator of just how large this war can eventually become.
The widespread occurrence of this phenomenon indicates that the population that is supplying these attackers is so large that it is most likely to continue into the indefinite future unless some cataclysmic event occurs. The population that is supplying these attackers is so large that it would take World War III for this event to take place. The eventual spread of weapons of mass destruction makes the likelihood of another world war almost inevitable. Warfare is a basic part of human nature. As technology increases, our ability to kill each other is enhanced. As a result, our wars are becoming more and more destructive. How do we prevent the next BIG war?
I like to use the analogy of earthquakes. If you keep having small ones, you are probably OK. Once you notice that it has been some time since the last one, WATCH OUT. This is because the pressure is not being released, and a build up occurs. Human nature is not so precise, however it does not change. It has been more than 4 generations since the last world war. People forget what it is like. They forget how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Although history can never repeat itself exactly, patterns do emerge. Warfare is a part of us, despite the fact that most people do not want it to occur. The issues that trigger war many times cannot be resolved except through warfare. Slavery in the United States is one obvious example. No political solution was available to end slavery. This is a common feature with most wars. The issues that are underlying the current war on terror today likewise will not be resolved without violence. Attempting to stall the resolution or preventing the violence that it triggers just may end up making the overall effect much larger than it already is. The fact that so many people are involved in these issues already can be an indicator of just how large this war can eventually become.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Reasons to be against war in Iraq
With your help, I have identified 17 reasons to be against war in Iraq.
(Note – I placed an asterisk in front of item #12 – it is a little far-fetched)
1) Breeds new terrorists.
2) Undermines the U.N.
3) Undermines moderate Arabs.
4) Gives POW status to criminals. Civil authorities should handle.
5) Diverts resources away from civil authorities and puts these resources into the military. This is counterproductive.
6) No WMD. War is unjustified.
7) Undermines Civil liberties.
8) This is a Civil War. Not our fight.
9) We are creating new enemies in addition to new terrorists.
10) We took a good leader out and replaced it with anarchy. I am defining anarchy in this case as being constant warfare, chaos and civil strife.
11) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01.
*12) President Bush is a warmonger. He started the war to get back at Saddam. After all, Saddam took a shot at killing his father.
13) Destabilizing the region.
14) Undermining the security of NATO Turkey.
15) Emboldening Iran.
16) Weakening reform movement in Iraq.
17) Strengthening Islamist militants in Pakistan.
(Note – I placed an asterisk in front of item #12 – it is a little far-fetched)
1) Breeds new terrorists.
2) Undermines the U.N.
3) Undermines moderate Arabs.
4) Gives POW status to criminals. Civil authorities should handle.
5) Diverts resources away from civil authorities and puts these resources into the military. This is counterproductive.
6) No WMD. War is unjustified.
7) Undermines Civil liberties.
8) This is a Civil War. Not our fight.
9) We are creating new enemies in addition to new terrorists.
10) We took a good leader out and replaced it with anarchy. I am defining anarchy in this case as being constant warfare, chaos and civil strife.
11) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01.
*12) President Bush is a warmonger. He started the war to get back at Saddam. After all, Saddam took a shot at killing his father.
13) Destabilizing the region.
14) Undermining the security of NATO Turkey.
15) Emboldening Iran.
16) Weakening reform movement in Iraq.
17) Strengthening Islamist militants in Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
