loki09789
Senior Master
upnorthkyosa said:
Based on the number of open criticisms to the war, outrage and protest to the number of dead and the comments on the attrocities by both sides.... I would say that we do, it just isn't perfect.
Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
Based on the number of open criticisms to the war, outrage and protest to the number of dead and the comments on the attrocities by both sides.... I would say that we do, it just isn't perfect.
Speaking of criticisms of the war, have people seen the outrage over this:
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/
I was too young to know Vietnam at the time it was happening. But learned of the war and various events through various sources (friends who are veterans and others). Mai Lai was horrific in it's day (still is).
The thought of american soldiers doing these types of acts makes me think we're no better than the communist russians and chinese and WWII Germans and Japanese.
I hate having this "we're the good guys" bubble bursted but it would be stupid to deny even these pics.http://members.iinet.net.au/~sauterp/iraq/
Real question is... what do we the average american citizen do about it?
What can we do about it?
awfully damn sad IMO
The thought of american soldiers doing these types of acts makes me think we're no better than the communist russians and chinese and WWII Germans and Japanese.
I hate having this "we're the good guys" bubble bursted but it would be stupid to deny even these pics.http://members.iinet.net.au/~sauterp/iraq/
Real question is... what do we the average american citizen do about it?
What can we do about it?
awfully damn sad IMO
M
MisterMike
Guest
arnisador said:
Heard about that on the radio. Of course Tillman died protecting the right of people to print this type of thing.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I have nothing much to say about the torture stuff. You KNOW this stuff happends, but it's still hard to believe none the less when it is right in your face. The whole thing disgusts me. I don't know what the answer is, but I think a good start would be to stop making excuses for their behavior (not pointing fingers, just speaking generally).
loki09789
Senior Master
I haven't heard anything but outrage over this stuff, rightfully so as far as I am concerned. Where have you heard excuses being made? The closest I know of is one mother in an interview was quoted as saying that "her boy wouldn't do anything like that".... How many times I have heard that in school.Tulisan said:
M
MisterMike
Guest
All the headlines are now reading that Rumsfeld is not apologetic. Wouldn't apologizing be an admission of guilt on his behalf? Certainly the resposibility goes up the chain, but to say it came from the Secretary of Defense or the President....it's just ludicrous.
loki09789
Senior Master
I haven't read this stuff as much as stories about the incident themselves.MisterMike said:
It is stupid and a bit inflammatory, possibly anti Bush Administration again too.
If he is not apologetic, is he upset or outraged or having some other emotional reaction that would seem 'sympathetic' to the moral reaction and the violation of every professional military code/law - not to mention the humanitarian issues, without apologizing. Apologies should come from those who swore an oath to be professional and weren't.
So much for fixing the problem and not the blame.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
loki09789 said:
Well, "Cobra" made a few excuses here on this thread; basically saying "Oh Well" to the whole thing because of the way Saddam treated his own people. I wish I could say he was alone in his mentality, but there are a too many people out their who basically feel the same way. The media has expressed outrage, but what people say and what people do are different. The media will move on to the next sensation over the next few weeks, and all will be forgotten. But...what about those who are guilty? How seriously will this be taken by the military?
It seems that it will be taken very seriously, yet, attrocities like this and worse have been commited by both sides in almost every conflict. Sure, when caught, people are punished. But, we don't seem to treat this problem in a preventative way; we use the excuses like, "Well...they are criminals," or "We can't really DO anything to prevent this sort of thing other then punish afterwords." There seems to be a major paradox here. In order to enable soldiers to "Kill," the military not only allows, but propigates a level of dehumanization of the enemy to occur. In Vietnam, we killed "Gooks" not people. My friends over there right now aren't killing men with families either, they are killing "rag heads." Yet, when you have effectively dehumanized, things can go to far. So, there has got to be some different preventative solutions, as it would appear that our current solutions aren't working.
My suggestion would be that men should be ordered to to stop the offenders on the spot through use of force, and by any means nessicary, otherwise they could be charged along with the offenders. I am sure that my answer is not the right one, though.
I really don't know what the answer is here. :idunno:
loki09789
Senior Master
The military has and will uphold the professionalism in this case. Like any institution with people in it, the military has been described as a "microcosm of the culture" how this is handled, how the military is structured is all a reflection of the society of the time (or at least the powers of the time).Tulisan said:
The suggestion you made is already in place because every serviceman or woman has the obligation, according to the values and such along with UCMJ regulations depending on rank, to uphold those values - even to the point of reporting, detaining or restraining those conducting themselves outside of said conduct. It is even justified for a leader to shoot subordinates if they are not compliant to the lawful order to stop such action and continue to pose a deadly threat to a POW entrusted in his/her care.... does it happen often - thank god no. But the guidelines are clearly written and clearly communicated in Professional training. The preventative measures are the professional training, focus on values and the reflection of your conduct on the country, military, branch and unit you are with.
The term "gook" was never used professional military training documents/programs because it was a slang term adopted from Korea and such that the troops used. It is derogatory and it is disrespectful. It has been suggested that such language has been used - not just to dehumanize the 'enemy' - but also to avoid inflating the enemy to mythical/unbeatable status in the mind of the fighting man (fear coping).
As far as the 'they deserved it' mentallity presented here and elsewhere. I can tell you from experience that the majority of servicemen and women saw this kind of stuff as unjust because it was a demonstration of the lack of self discipline, professionalism and would impact the overall campaign support and military image negatively - as much as they thought it was unjust because of sympathetic feelings ("I would hope that I would be treated decently as a POW, so I treat others decently").
Cruentus
Grandmaster
As it pertains to this discussion, by Vietnam the U.S. Military raised its rate of fire by infantry men from around 20% in WWII to over 95%. This means that in WWII, around 80% weren't firing their weapons at all.
This increase in firing rate was enabled through a variety of training methods, and factors that were put in place to enable soldiers to fire on their fellow man. Some of these were pressence of a higher authority, psychological desensitization, responsability towards fellow soldiers, etc. One of these factors that determines the ability for a soldier to fire is distance from the enemy.
Distance from the enemy can be both physical as well as emotional and psychological. A way to distance yourself psychologically and emotionally from your enemy is through dehumanization. Your not killing a person, your killing a "rag head." Now, the men will dehumanize on their own to emotionally be able to handle the fact that they may have to kill these people, but from day one in basic training, the military helps this along.
This information can be found in a wealth of different places, but a good book to read on the subject is "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman
This "Dehumanization" is a psychological method of coping; I have 5 friends/aquaintances active right now in Iraq, and I don't find it offensive that they refer to their enemy as "rag heads," because they haven't (yet) projected their stereotypes to other middle eastern people who they aren't fighting. I understand it is their way of coping for what they may have to do, and the military encourages this so that they can do their jobs. This is something I accept.
Yet, this dehumanization is not without consequence, as we can see from these photo's. Some simply brainwash themselves into believing that these people aren't human, so all becomes fair game. When authorities break down and combat stress kicks in, they are enabled to commit attrocities that they would never commit under different circumstances.
Hey...war is hell. Attrocities occur due to this "dehumanization of the enemy" factor, added with combat stress, on both sides. However, this is no excuse, just an explaination. So, the real question is, what do we do?
We are experts at enabling our men to kill, but not so good at preventing attrocities. This is just something that needs to be worked on, IMHO.
This increase in firing rate was enabled through a variety of training methods, and factors that were put in place to enable soldiers to fire on their fellow man. Some of these were pressence of a higher authority, psychological desensitization, responsability towards fellow soldiers, etc. One of these factors that determines the ability for a soldier to fire is distance from the enemy.
Distance from the enemy can be both physical as well as emotional and psychological. A way to distance yourself psychologically and emotionally from your enemy is through dehumanization. Your not killing a person, your killing a "rag head." Now, the men will dehumanize on their own to emotionally be able to handle the fact that they may have to kill these people, but from day one in basic training, the military helps this along.
This information can be found in a wealth of different places, but a good book to read on the subject is "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman
This "Dehumanization" is a psychological method of coping; I have 5 friends/aquaintances active right now in Iraq, and I don't find it offensive that they refer to their enemy as "rag heads," because they haven't (yet) projected their stereotypes to other middle eastern people who they aren't fighting. I understand it is their way of coping for what they may have to do, and the military encourages this so that they can do their jobs. This is something I accept.
Yet, this dehumanization is not without consequence, as we can see from these photo's. Some simply brainwash themselves into believing that these people aren't human, so all becomes fair game. When authorities break down and combat stress kicks in, they are enabled to commit attrocities that they would never commit under different circumstances.
Hey...war is hell. Attrocities occur due to this "dehumanization of the enemy" factor, added with combat stress, on both sides. However, this is no excuse, just an explaination. So, the real question is, what do we do?
We are experts at enabling our men to kill, but not so good at preventing attrocities. This is just something that needs to be worked on, IMHO.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Ive read Grossman too 
.... just be aware that not everybody buys into his theory.
The 20% firing rate in WWII comes from SLA Marshalls "Men Against Fire", which has experienced some criticism regarding its sources. And that 95% rate in Vietnam... its also been stated that very few of those rounds were aimed. The % could just as easily be attributed to every trooper carrying a select fire weapon with a ton of ammo as it could be to any "desensitization program". Not to say that there is nothing valid in Grossmans work, just like everything else though....nothing is so simple or "cut and dry".
What do we do? The only thing we can. Fight and win quickly...and stop the killing as soon as possible. Whats going on is War....always been this way. We do the best we can and abide by a system of (military) law. Hell..look what our own countrymen do to each other every day. What do we do about that? The best we can. And live by a system of law.
That being said, what these soldiers did was wrong. Not to mention stupid....take photos of what you are doing??? There should be a punishment just for the stupidity.
.... just be aware that not everybody buys into his theory. The 20% firing rate in WWII comes from SLA Marshalls "Men Against Fire", which has experienced some criticism regarding its sources. And that 95% rate in Vietnam... its also been stated that very few of those rounds were aimed. The % could just as easily be attributed to every trooper carrying a select fire weapon with a ton of ammo as it could be to any "desensitization program". Not to say that there is nothing valid in Grossmans work, just like everything else though....nothing is so simple or "cut and dry".
What do we do? The only thing we can. Fight and win quickly...and stop the killing as soon as possible. Whats going on is War....always been this way. We do the best we can and abide by a system of (military) law. Hell..look what our own countrymen do to each other every day. What do we do about that? The best we can. And live by a system of law.
That being said, what these soldiers did was wrong. Not to mention stupid....take photos of what you are doing??? There should be a punishment just for the stupidity.
Tulisan said:
Thanks Paul, for backing up the point I was trying to make earlier. I think your word choice "dehumanization" works better then mine "hate". Are these two words so different though?
loki09789
Senior Master
Paul and UpNorth:upnorthkyosa said:
I have a copy of "On Killing" and the interview, survey info that Grossman cites has as much to do with the difference in reaction training because of technology (WWII: smaller magazines of ammo, single shot, greater distances because of more open battle fields = more selective, lower rates of fire COMPARED TO Vietnam: Full auto weapon, less marksmanship training time relative to WWII soldiers, Closer contact distances and differences in tactical SOP's.... = more general, suppression and higher rates of fire).
The number of rounds thrown down range equating to more troops firing because of dehumanization training being more 'effective' is an assumption - supported with other data to prove a thesis. This means that the point is presented in a one sided manor. There are some valid things in Grossman's book, but I have a problem with the majority of data being from interview sources years after the events (time and distance adding color and nostalgia to the interviewee's interpretation - so some of the assumptions are that what the interviewee is saying he/she was going experiencing 'then' could really be what he/she is going through now in relation to the memories).
Technology has been attributed to the amount of Post Traumatic Stress/Shell Shock... because the speed with which the individual is reintroduced into the mainstream after combat service. WWII the transition was slower because of ship travel, slower planes.... the pace of travel alone, also units from Basic to dibanding moved together (Better espirit de Corps which aids in coping). Korea/Vietnam and after, the individuals could be leaving combat and dropped off within a very short period of time. That means that all those decompression things that you are going to go through will happen in the company of civilians and family who don't understand instead of fellow soldiers/Marines... Personally, we came back from Bosnia and I still don't like crowd all that much (just as an example), and my tour was nothing like what WWII, Korea, Vietnam or any of the more modern conflict were/are like.
As far as us, meaning the USA being not so good at stopping these attrocities: It is aweful, but I think it is to be expected - not tolerated - but expected. That is why I emphasize the importance of professional training of individuals and leaders as the preventative measure in place. They should (there will be some NCO's and Officers tagged on this stuff for not staying at the switch) be aware and adjust duties and assignments based on the signs that individuals are getting too wound up.
I think that, since it is going to happen, comparing our track record as a modern military force to that of other countries is the only realistic way to decide 'good at it' and based on that I would say that we are. Also, I think the punitive actions taken when an incident occurs sets a tone of intolerance of unprofessional, inhumane behavior.
Remember too, that these detention guards aren't in 'combat stress' conditions as much as they are the equivelant of Corrections Officers. The Stress syndrome excuse, the fatigue excuse and all that is BS as far as I am concerned. My old MP unit had the EPW/POW mission before it was redesignated to general/combat support missions. POW camp mission is almost like a regular job at times.
These individuals got too high on the amount of control they have over these prisoners and basically were the same as a predator playing with their food. This is different in nature to battlefield attrocities because the stress and fatigue and the environment is very different. That is not to say that any of these actions are to be tolerated.
What do we do? We, as in you and I, very little. They, as in the powers that be, review the training, the leadership and the schedule.... and make sure that the system you have set in place isn't the problem. If it is, fix it. If it isn't, did the NCO's / Officer's follow said procedures. If they did, and they can prove it, did the troops responsible KNOW what they were doing was wrong, if so nail them to the wall within the UCMJ.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
upnorthkyosa said:
Kind of, I think.
If someone were to kill a loved one, I would hate them. I would want to see that person dead. I would recognize that the person who took the life of someone I love is a human being, even though I would hate that person. I may be able to kill that person, but I would have to muster up a lot of energy to torture that person, or sexually abuse that person. Even if I was able to muster up that energy, I wouldn't be able to derrive enjoyment from it.
Dehumanizing is different. If you see someone as lower then a human being, you could do a lot of things to them, and possibly derive enjoyment from it. When I was a kid, I had a friend who was the pull the legs off spiders kind of kid. He derived enjoyment from torturing small animals, yet he showed remorse if another kid was hurt while we played. A kid that was hurt was human to him, animals were not.
You have Iraqi soldiers in a prison. They are probably unbathed, they probably don't smell good, they are unshaven, they speak a different language, and they glare at the american soldiers in hate. It would be very easy to see them as less then human. Add this to the dehumanization of the enemy that occurs in the military, and it is clear that the prisonors are seen as animals. Now, most people don't torture animals. But, if you throw in the factor of combat stress, you now have a recipe for disaster. There is a factor in Combat stress (forgot the term for it) where basically you see humor in extreme violence or attrocity; it's the minds way of coping with the violence that is around you every day. Put someone who is under combat stress who is at the point where their way of coping is by finding gross violence and attrocity humorious in charge of prisoners who are seen as "less then human" and you have a recipe for attrocities like what we have seen in those photos.
This is much different then "hate." Dehumanization is "hateful", and hate can be involved, but you don't really have to "hate" someone to commit violent acts towards them. I think that dehumanization is far more dangerous then hate. In our history, it has been what allowed mass genocides like in WWII, the near extermination of Native Americans, and things like slavery.
loki09789
Senior Master
On the point of professionalism and personal responsibility as the source of such attrocities and not the big bad military machine, there are more than one account of SF forces during the first gulf war who were comprimised on missions by children and old men out herding goats or what not. These SF forces could have simply shot these people and would have been justified by military technicallity, but they didn't. They either detained them, refused to shoot even in light of the consequences, or simply left.
I think imposing your will whether through violence or in general, regardless of war, is dehumanizing to a degree. We 'dehumanize' children in order to punish them or justify creating stress and discomfort in their lives as consequence to inappropriate behavior. If we over empathized, we would never take any corrective actions.
In war, the act of dehumanization is stock and trade, just as it is in martial arts training for reality.
I think imposing your will whether through violence or in general, regardless of war, is dehumanizing to a degree. We 'dehumanize' children in order to punish them or justify creating stress and discomfort in their lives as consequence to inappropriate behavior. If we over empathized, we would never take any corrective actions.
In war, the act of dehumanization is stock and trade, just as it is in martial arts training for reality.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Side Note here: I am not rebuking the military at all by talking about "dehumanization." This is just a product of both training and war. I do believe that soldiers certianly intend to do more good then harm.
Not that anyone said I was rebuking the military, but I just wanted to clear that up.
Attrocity is a bi-product of combat stress and "dehumanization." Combat Stress and "Dehumanization" are both bi-products of war.
My question still is, what can we actually DO about it?
:asian:
Not that anyone said I was rebuking the military, but I just wanted to clear that up.
Attrocity is a bi-product of combat stress and "dehumanization." Combat Stress and "Dehumanization" are both bi-products of war.
My question still is, what can we actually DO about it?
:asian:
loki09789
Senior Master
This part of my last post addresses my view of what was going on in these cases and my answer to the what can we do question.loki09789 said:
Cruentus
Grandmaster
loki09789 said:
Those solutions sound like a good start.
Well, I listened to the Senate hearing with Secratary Rumsfeld. It looks like military intelligence ordered the MP brigade to do the things they did. The purpose was for interrogation. Now what? What if this is systemic? How far does this go up the chain of command? Mr. Rumsfeld himself dodged mightily when Senator McCain questioned him directly, "Who was in charge of these soldiers?"
Similar threads
