Possible retaliation for killed American contractors

[Rich Parsons]

I read the whole document. That was something that I heard about in South America, but had no idea how widespread it had become. Some questions... How long will it take for two multinational corporations to actually wage war on each other through these private military firms? Can anyone see how these firms could undermine the soverienty of a nation? Does anyone see something new on the evolutionary horizon? How about a corporation/state?

upnorthkyosa

I know it is a Fantasy RPG, yet read about Shadowrun, they have novels and books for the game. The game is set in the future where basically the Big Corporations control most if not all of the power. There are still powerful countries, only it is harder to decalre war against a multination corporation, when your neighbor might work for the company, versus those other people that are different. It even discusses the corporate states and enclaves, and wage slaves, or those who are born and live and work their entire life for and around a corporation. The game is about the Shadowrunners and those who are outside of the society and live on the edge of criminal or quasi criminal activity to try to take down the corps.

Funny how art and life sometimes reflect each other.

 

[Tgace]

Another article on the subject....yes upnorth yet another bell ringing the chimes of doom .....

The New York Times
MOYOCK, N.C. -- Nestled inconspicuously amid the pinelands and horse farms of northeastern North Carolina lies a small but increasingly important part of the nation's campaign to stabilize Iraq.

Here, at the 6,000-acre training ground of Blackwater U.S.A., scores of former military commandos, police officers and civilians are prepared each month to join the lucrative but often deadly work of providing security for corporations and governments in the toughest corners of the globe.

On Wednesday, four employees of a Blackwater unit - most of them former American military Special Operations personnel - were killed in an ambush in the central Iraqi city of Falluja, their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by chanting crowds.

The scene, captured in horrific detail by television and newspaper cameras, shocked the nation and outraged the tightly knit community of current and former Special Operations personnel. But it also shed new light on the rapidly growing and loosely regulated industry of private paramilitary companies like Blackwater that are replacing government troops in conflicts from South America to Africa to the Middle East.

"This is basically a new phenomenon: corporatized private military services doing the front-line work soldiers used to do," said Peter W. Singer, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who has written a book on the industry, "Corporate Warriors" (Cornell University Press, 2003).

"And they're not out there screening passengers at the airports," Mr. Singer said. "They're taking mortar and sniper fire."

The Associated Press identified three of the victims as Jerry Zovko, 32, an Army veteran from Willoughby, Ohio; Mike Teague, a 38-year-old Army veteran from Clarksville, Tenn.; and Scott Helvenston, 38, a veteran of the Navy.

Blackwater declined to identify the dead men, but issued a statement: "We grieve today for the loss of our colleagues and we pray for their families. The graphic images of the unprovoked attack and subsequent heinous mistreatment of our friends exhibits the extraordinary conditions under which we voluntarily work to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people."

Though there have been private militaries since the dawn of war, the modern corporate version got its start in the 1990's after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

At that time, many nations were sharply reducing their military forces, leaving millions of soldiers without employment. Many of them went into business doing what they knew best: providing security or training others to do the same.

The proliferation of ethnic conflicts and civil wars in places like the Balkans, Haiti and Liberia provided employment for the personnel of many new companies. Business grew rapidly after the Sept. 11 attacks prompted corporate executives and government officials to bolster their security overseas.

But it was the occupation of Iraq that brought explosive growth to the young industry, security experts said. There are now dozens, perhaps hundreds of private military concerns around the world. As many as two dozen companies, employing as many as 15,000 people, are working in Iraq.

They are providing security details for diplomats, private contractors involved in reconstruction, nonprofit organizations and journalists, security experts said. The private guards also protect oil fields, banks, residential compounds and office buildings.

Though many of the companies are American, others from Britain, South Africa and elsewhere are providing security in Iraq. Among them is Global Risks Strategies, a British company that hired Fijian troops to help protect armored shipments of the new Iraqi currency around the country.

Blackwater is typical of the new breed. Founded in 1998 by former Navy Seals, the company says it has prepared tens of thousands of security personnel to work in hot spots around the world. At its complex in North Carolina, it has shooting ranges for high-powered weapons, buildings for simulating hostage rescue missions and a bunkhouse for trainees.

The Blackwater installation is so modern and well-equipped that Navy Seals stationed at the Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Va., routinely use it, military officials said. So do police units from around the country, who come to Blackwater for specialized training.

"It's world class," said Chris Amos, a spokesman for the Norfolk Police Department.

In Iraq, Blackwater personnel guard L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the civilian administration, among their other jobs. Around Baghdad, the Blackwater guards, most in their 30's and 40's, are easily identified, with their heavily muscled upper bodies, closely cropped hair or shaven heads and wrap-around sunglasses. Some even wear Blackwater T-shirts. Like Special Operations Forces, they use walkie-talkie earpieces with curled wires disappearing beneath their collars and carry light-weight automatic weapons.

In the northern city of Mosul, where Mr. Bremer met with about 130 carefully vetted Iraqis on Thursday, Blackwater guards maintained a heavy presence, standing along the walls facing the Iraqi guests with their rifles cradled. More than once, Iraqis and Western reporters moving forward to take their seats in the hall were abruptly challenged by the guards, with warnings that they would be ejected if they resisted.

The company also received a five-year Navy contract in 2002 worth $35.7 million to train Navy personnel in force protection, shipboard security, search-and-seizure techniques, and armed sentry duties, Pentagon officials said.

The rapid growth of the private security industry has come about in part because of the shrinkage of the American military: there are simply fewer military personnel available to protect officials, diplomats and bases overseas, security experts say.

To meet the rising demand, the companies are offering yearly salaries ranging from $100,000 to nearly $200,000 to entice senior military Special Operations forces to switch careers. Assignments are paying from a few hundred dollars to as much as $1,000 a day, military officials said.

Gen. Wayne Downing, a retired chief of the United States Special Operations Command, said that on a recent trip to Baghdad he ran into several former Delta Force and Seal Team Six senior noncommissioned officers who were working for private security companies.

"It was like a reunion," General Downing said.

Sheriff Susan Johnson of Currituck County, N.C., where the entrance to Blackwater is situated, said several of her deputies had been lured away by the company to work overseas.

"It's tough to keep them when they can earn as much in one month there as they can in a year here," Sheriff Johnson said.

But critics say the rapid growth of the industry raises troubling concerns. There is little regulation of the quality of training or recruitment by private companies, they say. The result may be inexperienced, poorly prepared and weakly led units playing vital roles in combat situations. Even elite former commandos may not be well trained for every danger, those critics say.

Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, has also argued that the United States' growing use of private military companies hides the financial, personal and political costs of military operations overseas, since the concerns face little public scrutiny.

In particular, Ms. Schakowsky has objected to administration plans to increase the number of private military contractors in Colombia, where three American civilians working for a Northrup Grumman subsidiary have been held hostage by Marxist rebels for more than a year. The three were on a mission to search for cocaine laboratories and drug planes when they were captured.

"I continue to oppose the use of military contractors who are not subject to the same kind of scrutiny and accountability as U.S. soldiers," Ms. Schakowsky said last week. "When things go wrong for these contractors, they and their families have been shamefully forgotten by their American employers."


Eric Schmitt, in Washington, and John F. Burns, in Baghdad, contributed reporting for this article.

 

[Makalakumu]

Another article on the subject....yes upnorth yet another bell ringing the chimes of doom ...

Perhaps doom, perhaps not, perhaps something else...you might find this paradoxical, but I would say that I am a martial artist who is deeply affected by the ability to perform violence. The thought of these groups running around doing violence at the behest of an unelected corporate board room is very disturbing. The use of force, on a large scale, should not be a quick decision, in my opinion. And it should not be a decision made by a handful of powerful individuals without the oversight of democracy. This is just my opinion, though, and I have been ignorant up to this point, in regards to this issue. hmmm, perhaps I'll change that.

For what it's worth

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

The big horror is the mutilation and parading of corpses. Ferret them out and charge them accordingly under what ever Jurisdictional law is in place and leave it at that. Any other response would seem over the top and an attempt to gain approval points.

I find it interesting that different press organizations have been critical of other press groups who made the choice to use certain images in reporting the story, or in how they have modified the images to reduce the graphicness of the images. We were bombarded with images of people throwing themselves from the WTC's and this is too much?

At this point, I am not certain what 'Jurisdictional Law' is in place in Iraq. Currently, the country is under the authority of the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' (aka Paul Bremer). The response to this will be 'military'. And while it will, for a short time, bring a bit of stability to Fallujah, it is going to breed increased resentment at the occupation of US Military (& sub-contractors). As I understand it, the United States is currently constructing more than 10 new military bases in the country of Iraq, for the US forces that will remain in the country while authority is transferred and the Nation is Built. And to be able to launch the next wave of attacks at Iran and / or Syria (or to rapidly deploy to Arjirbizion (wow that was bad spelling)). Somebody mentioned this is going to spiral into a situation that parallels the Isreali/Palistinian conflict, and I am afraid they are correct.

The draft Iraqi constitution is being challenged by a variety of fronts. If the grand ayatolah Ali-Sistani says that Ahmed Chalabi does not have the authority to govern the people of Iraq, the United States is going to have to continue to hire the Blackwater type organizations to protect Chalabi and the members of the Iraqi National Congress (as they are doing in Afghanistan).

And every day, Al Qaeda will gain new recruits, because this is exactly what Osama bin Laden said would happen.

On the bright side --- the tax cuts that are set to expire will be made permanent soon. (sorry - that was a cheap shot).

Mike

 

[loki09789]

And while it will, for a short time, bring a bit of stability to Fallujah, it is going to breed increased resentment at the occupation of US Military (& sub-contractors).
Mike

From the description in an NPR report on Fallujah and it's history prior to this Iraq war, it would bristle at any form of occupation or law enforcement. I don't remember the advisor's name but he basically described it as a frontier town of the old west. Black market trading, corruption/organized crime.... which SHussein turned a blind eye to, and possibly manipulated while he was in power (which translated to a 'pro Hussein' image). From the sounds of it, Fallujah is like the 'money militia' of the American Revolution: it will support who ever will give them the best opportunity to make the most profit the way they like doing it - gangster style.

Privatization/contracting looks good on the balance sheet, but like charter schools and such educational incentives, it also tends to create a 'dollar value' image to the integrity of certain services. Seeing the number of 'mercenary' comments here, I don't think boiling down the services of protection/operations to money would be well recieved on a mass scale.

 

[loki09789]

I know it is a Fantasy RPG, yet read about Shadowrun, they have novels and books for the game. The game is set in the future where basically the Big Corporations control most if not all of the power. There are still powerful countries, only it is harder to decalre war against a multination corporation, when your neighbor might work for the company, versus those other people that are different. It even discusses the corporate states and enclaves, and wage slaves, or those who are born and live and work their entire life for and around a corporation. The game is about the Shadowrunners and those who are outside of the society and live on the edge of criminal or quasi criminal activity to try to take down the corps.

Funny how art and life sometimes reflect each other.

The game is based on 'modern feudal' Japanese and 'business is war' practices in the Japanese corporate culture made infamous during the big 80's. The 'fringe' culture in the game/serials is a reinvention of the ronin/ninja types. The 'magic' aspect combined with the 'bioengineering'/'bionic implanting' was an attempt to expand the marketability of the game to both Fantasy and Sci Fi enthusiasts.

Unless I start metamorphisizing into a Dwarf (no jokes) or an Elf (not the Keebler type now), I don't really see reflection as much as creative leap.

 

[Tgace]

Perhaps doom, perhaps not, perhaps something else...you might find this paradoxical, but I would say that I am a martial artist who is deeply affected by the ability to perform violence. The thought of these groups running around doing violence at the behest of an unelected corporate board room is very disturbing. The use of force, on a large scale, should not be a quick decision, in my opinion. And it should not be a decision made by a handful of powerful individuals without the oversight of democracy. This is just my opinion, though, and I have been ignorant up to this point, in regards to this issue. hmmm, perhaps I'll change that.

For what it's worth

upnorthkyosa

Actually, I agree with you on much of that. This stuff walks a fine line. If all they provide is security/bodyguards thats one thing. Active military ops. would be another.

 

[Tgace]

At this point, I am not certain what 'Jurisdictional Law' is in place in Iraq. Currently, the country is under the authority of the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' (aka Paul Bremer). The response to this will be 'military'. And while it will, for a short time, bring a bit of stability to Fallujah, it is going to breed increased resentment at the occupation of US Military (& sub-contractors). As I understand it, the United States is currently constructing more than 10 new military bases in the country of Iraq, for the US forces that will remain in the country while authority is transferred and the Nation is Built. And to be able to launch the next wave of attacks at Iran and / or Syria (or to rapidly deploy to Arjirbizion (wow that was bad spelling)). Somebody mentioned this is going to spiral into a situation that parallels the Isreali/Palistinian conflict, and I am afraid they are correct.

The draft Iraqi constitution is being challenged by a variety of fronts. If the grand ayatolah Ali-Sistani says that Ahmed Chalabi does not have the authority to govern the people of Iraq, the United States is going to have to continue to hire the Blackwater type organizations to protect Chalabi and the members of the Iraqi National Congress (as they are doing in Afghanistan).

And every day, Al Qaeda will gain new recruits, because this is exactly what Osama bin Laden said would happen.

On the bright side --- the tax cuts that are set to expire will be made permanent soon. (sorry - that was a cheap shot).

Mike

As we all agree the op was f'ed up from the get go....what do y'all think the solution should be now.....havent designed a time machine yet so that options out....what would you do??

 

[michaeledward]

As we all agree the op was f'ed up from the get go....what do y'all think the solution should be now.....havent designed a time machine yet so that options out....what would you do??

I am not sure that we all agree that the operation was a bad call from the get-go. I remember having a pretty heated discussion with a good friend of mine in September 2002 where he was convinced that the Administration had information we didn't, and we needed to do this. I, of course, was vehemently opposed to an invasion.

As for what is the solution now ... Hmmm ... the longer we stay, the harder it becomes to find a good solution. In the NH Primary, I voted for Kucinich because he wanted all US forces out in 90 days ... An Invasion that was wrong can not lead to an occupation that is right.

My recommendations would look like this;
* Drop the one Iraq policy. The geography and history is divided along ethnic lines, move for a three state solution - Kurds in the North - Sunni in Baghdad - *****e's in the South. This would require a great deal of diplomatic pressure on Turkey, who will resist an independent Kurdish state because of the local Kurdish polulation.
* Stop building the US Military Bases in the country and significantly reduce the US military presence of Central Command. Yes, we can keep the base in Diago Garcia, Quatar, and perhaps Kuwait. We should perhaps plan on having two carrier battle groups in the Gulf region & one in the Eastern Mediterrainian Sea. But remove the rest of the forces from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emerate and other Gulf states.
* Build up the military in Iraq for the short term. This is required to ensure the safety of our forces, and help to establish local security. We perhaps should add another 70 - 80 thousand US troops, and request of NATO or the UN as many troops/peacekeepers as they can afford (this, of course, means the US has to pay its overdue UN dues).
* Announce that all US Military will be removed from the country by a certain date. Timewise ... these activities would require at least 9 months, maybe 12 to accomplish, but a shorter time period is better.
* The United States should commit to rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, through the United Nations Non-Governmental Organizations in amounts equal to the Iraqi Gross Domestic Product, approximately 40 Billion dollars a year for the next 4 years, when complete, severs all US-Iraqi interactions.
* The United States should raise taxes on all citizens and corporations to pay for this ... the ongoing police actions to eliminate terrorism organizations with Global Reach.

That would be a quick start. But, like Representative Kucinich said and invasion that is wrong, can not lead to an occupation that is not wrong.

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

I* Build up the military in Iraq for the short term. This is required to ensure the safety of our forces, and help to establish local security. We perhaps should add another 70 - 80 thousand US troops, and request of NATO or the UN as many troops/peacekeepers as they can afford (this, of course, means the US has to pay its overdue UN dues).

Mike

Mike,

I know why the US is not paying its' dues in part. All the countries that promised to reimburse the US and the British and the Canadians et al for the ODS (* Both Shield and Storm *) operations, have only paid bak part if any. Why should the Japanese the second largest economy and financial partner in this with the UN not have to pay its' bill the the US first?

The US was/ is trying to make a point that for the UN to work everyone has to follow the rules not just the US. The US will not and should not have to pick up the complete bill for most of its' operations. My understanding was that the agreement was based upon the economies of the countries and also what the Ambassador's approved. Yet, the US is still holding the bag for adventure, and no one claims we should not have gone in to free Quwait.

When there were more big boys on the block, people paid and belonged to keep the balance. Now that there is one big boy, the security council which included China and the other Nuclear weapon capable nations, (* Should we add in Korea now? *) Chna's econmy has taken off so much in the last few years even more than anyone predicted, and those were optomistic predictions. A lot of that has come from investments from The USA and Japan and the British, all trying for the various markets. Yet, THe Japanese cannot do well because of the social tensions. The US does well as no racial issues, and we agree to the 50% ownership by local companies. My point is that either the other big boys are now dependant upon the USA or they really are nto big boys any more.

Why should the rules only apply to one and not all? Why can any country still vote and get aid, and not pay their bill to the UN? Very difficult more to accept this one sided rule.

Mike, this is not a personal attack on you, or your point(s). They were good points and your opinion, as it was asked


Best Regards
:asian:

 

[michaeledward]

I'm not sure that United States is witholding its payment of United Nations dues to prove a point. As the Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since 1994, and the House of Representatives controls the purse strings, and the Republicans in general do not favor allowing the UN to have any control, it could be they just don't want to participate.

I just did a quick search of the net on UN Funding and Member contributions ... because of the various UN organizations and responsibilities, it is difficult to get a handle on how much is owed by each member nation. Although, it does seem that as many as 2/3rds of the members do owe something to the UN. (There was a report of some 50 or so countries that had paid in full).

One chart I found, dated year 2000, shows the peacekeeping arrears as follows:

US - owes 54% of of the top 12 outstanding nations - $1,142,585,319.00

Japan - owes 14% of the top 12 outstanding nations - $301,768,231.00

Ukraine - owes 9% of the top 12 outstanding nations - $191,024,682.

If I can, I'll post the slide.

I do not allow my children to use the excuse that the other child has not, so I'm not going to. Our obligations are our obligations. To not honor them, regardless of the reason, is to behave in a way that is not honorable.

As another side note, there was a note that in the year 2002, the US made a substantial payment toward the amount owed in arrears. I could not quantify that number, and I could not find the current amounts owed. I wonder if those payments came about because, for a brief time, the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2002 ... hmmm ?

Mike

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/pub/pdf/9.pdf
Can't attach this file, its too large.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I'm not sure that United States is witholding its payment of United Nations dues to prove a point. As the Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since 1994, and the House of Representatives controls the purse strings, and the Republicans in general do not favor allowing the UN to have any control, it could be they just don't want to participate.

I just did a quick search of the net on UN Funding and Member contributions ... because of the various UN organizations and responsibilities, it is difficult to get a handle on how much is owed by each member nation. Although, it does seem that as many as 2/3rds of the members do owe something to the UN. (There was a report of some 50 or so countries that had paid in full).

One chart I found, dated year 2000, shows the peacekeeping arrears as follows:

US - owes 54% of of the top 12 outstanding nations - $1,142,585,319.00

Japan - owes 14% of the top 12 outstanding nations - $301,768,231.00

Ukraine - owes 9% of the top 12 outstanding nations - $191,024,682.

If I can, I'll post the slide.

I do not allow my children to use the excuse that the other child has not, so I'm not going to. Our obligations are our obligations. To not honor them, regardless of the reason, is to behave in a way that is not honorable.

As another side note, there was a note that in the year 2002, the US made a substantial payment toward the amount owed in arrears. I could not quantify that number, and I could not find the current amounts owed. I wonder if those payments came about because, for a brief time, the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2002 ... hmmm ?

Mike

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/pub/pdf/9.pdf
Can't attach this file, its too large.

Mike,

I agree with the point if you owe it then you should pay it. I live by this rule and it would be nice if everyone could do the same.

As to the senate being Republican, and not paying, That I cannot answer, yet it is a feasible reason, just as the one I heard nad or read some where.

Now here is the kicker, most of the money would go right back to the US if we paid. We laid out the most in peace keeping, if I rememebr correctly. Not saying we should not pay ourselves, or pay our debts. Even to the French for our Revolution , when they turned around and ignored their debts to teh USA after their revolution years later.

Best Regards

 

[Tgace]

I am not sure that we all agree that the operation was a bad call from the get-go. I remember having a pretty heated discussion with a good friend of mine in September 2002 where he was convinced that the Administration had information we didn't, and we needed to do this. I, of course, was vehemently opposed to an invasion.

I mean f'ed up in an operational sense, where we agree. We would probably argue over the right/wrong issue . :jedi1:

 

[michaeledward]

Now here is the kicker, most of the money would go right back to the US if we paid. We laid out the most in peace keeping, if I rememebr correctly. Not saying we should not pay ourselves, or pay our debts.

Actually, the US contributes very few personel to Peacekeeping missions, which is why I think it is so important that US Dues be paid in a timely manner. Of course, I would settle for having more bodies participate, with lesser monies.

This is from the UN Web Site, emphasis mine. It is interesting to see who contributes the people.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The United Nations Charter stipulates that to assist in maintaining peace and security around the world, all Member States of the UN should make available to the Security Council necessary armed forces and facilities. Since 1948, close to 130 nations have contributed military and civilian police personnel to peace operations.

As of 31 December 2003, 94 countries were contributing a total of some 45,472 personnel, including 39,329 troops, 4,632 civilian police and 1,771 military observers. As of 31 December 2003, the five main troop-contributing countries were Pakistan (6,248), Bangladesh (4,730), Nigeria (3361), India (2,882) and Ghana (2,306).

Of the 45,472 troops and civilian police serving in UN peace operations, only 5,200 come from the European Union and only 518 from the United States (494 civilian police and 22 military observers).

Although 94 Member States contribute to current UN peacekeeping operations, the greatest burden in the form of troops is borne by a core group of developing countries. Noting a hesitancy on the part of developed countries to commit their troops to UN peacekeeping missions, in March 2003 the UN senior peacekeeper, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, reminded Member States that “the provision of well-equipped, well-trained and disciplined military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations is a collective responsibility of Member States. Countries from the South should not and must not be expected to shoulder this burden alone”.[/size][/font]

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4657113/

It seems like everyday we get another article like this. Iraq is certainly turning into the quagmire predicted from these images. Is there anything good happening from this invasion? Other then the removal Saddam, what is the good that is coming from this? Is it worth the price we are paying and will pay in the future?

 

[OULobo]

Sorry guys, I've been away for the weekend and missed most of this one, so I'll try to catch up in a few posts.

The military already has soldiers trained as bodyguards. Why aren't they using these people. If they don't have enough, then train more. The only reason I can come up with is the restrictions of the Convention and Uniform Code.

On the subject of these contractors, has everyone seen all the kukris hanging from these guys sides in the video footage of some of the contractors. I read an article saying that a significant amount of these guys are ex-brit Gurkhas. they are highly motivated, well trained, not squeemish, diciplined, most have no families to pay death benefits to and they are underpaid by the Brits. Perfect for this kind of work.

That idea of "corporate armies and wars" that upnorth and Rich mentioned has been around for a while. Hell, sci-fi writers and game designers have been drawing plot lines from it for a few decades. The problem is that politicians and generals don't like citizens playing with too many guns, even when a corporation can grease all the palms in the world. There have been too many coups started that way. Besides corporations and corporate armies still have to deal with civil liability and criminal charges.

 

[Tgace]

The military already has soldiers trained as bodyguards. Why aren't they using these people. If they don't have enough, then train more. The only reason I can come up with is the restrictions of the Convention and Uniform Code.

Take a look at that link I posted earlier...it explains the concept fairly well.

The military dosent really have "bodyguards" per se. Some MP's and maybe spec op's might be tasked with personal security, but in my experience thats mainly for high rank military personel. When it comes to guarding non-military persons and sites, the issue of chain of command, supply, ROE and just plain ole "dedication to one principal/site" vs. a large plate of military commitments and demands that split attention. Not saying the military couldnt do it, its just not designed quite right for it as is.

 

[8253]

i believe there should be a retaliation, they killed civilians on purpose. the main thing is though. we should quit screwing around and go in and take care of the problem areas since the resources are already there.

 

[loki09789]

i believe there should be a retaliation, they killed civilians on purpose. the main thing is though. we should quit screwing around and go in and take care of the problem areas since the resources are already there.

Total agreement on both counts. I don't know if all the resources are really there or not, but I do think that we need to take care of business on a real scale. POTUS really shot himself in the Georgieboys though with the timing and politics that he used to get into Iraq, so further support will be hard to find. In for the wrong or right reasons, we are there now. The only hope we, as a country - not just the President, have is to finish this right regardless of how it started. I do think that we can take this negative and turn it into some kind of positive - as long as we don't ***** foot around or leave too early and old business starts right back up.

The problem now is that there is not so much an 'upsurge' of resistance as there are new areas that the military is either focusing on or moving into with force. There will be an increase in casualty reports and contacts because the new operations make it inevitable and honestly desireable. The bee hives have always been there, they just haven't had many stones thrown at them until now. THere is also the problem of handing control over to new units, gotta test the new teacher in the class kind of mentallity in places like Fallujah.

It is hard to say whether it is time for it or not, but humanitarian efforts consistently performed or increased could be a way to reduce the local outrage. Again, though, remember just because someone is screaming about the "American Infidel" and "Get out" doesn't mean that what they are really upset about it that their family/friends got caught doing wrong and grief/insult/shame are motivating the comments. Sort of like the guy who talks about 'paying your salary' to the cop who is writing him a ticket for speeding. He really did something wrong, but he is embarrassed/ashamed and can't accept responsibility for his actions. This can happen on an individual, regional, cultural and national level. I think at the national level it is usually called Ethnocentrism (in an extreme sense).

 

[Tgace]

Just came across this and thought it would fit here...for anybody that still cares about this sissue.

http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/297009-1/fm/3-100.21/toc.htm