home

Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountability

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:13:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Have U.S. troops been held accountable for civilian deaths in Iraq?

The majority of U.S. service members charged in the unlawful deaths of Iraqi civilians have been acquitted, found guilty of relatively minor offenses or given administrative punishments without trials, according to a Washington Post review of concluded military cases. Charges against some of the troops were dropped completely.

Though experts estimate that thousands of Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of U.S. forces, only 39 service members were formally accused in connection with the deaths of 20 Iraqis from 2003 to early this year. Twenty-six of the 39 troops were initially charged with murder, negligent homicide or manslaughter; 12 of them ultimately served prison time for any offense.

Is accountability a military goal?

"I think there are a number of cases that never make it to the reporting stage, and in some that do make it to the reporting stage, there has been a reluctance to pursue them vigorously," said Gary D. Solis, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former Marine prosecutor. "There have been fewer prosecutions in Iraq than one might expect." ...

Top military officers, military lawyers, experts and troops say the number of homicide cases prosecuted probably represents only a small portion of the incidents in which Iraqi citizens were killed under questionable circumstances. Officials also say privately that some cases have not been investigated thoroughly because there has been a tendency to consider Iraqi civilian deaths an unintended consequence of combat operations.

"I think there were many other engagements that should have been investigated, definitely," said an Army major who served in Iraq in 2004, speaking anonymously because he fears retribution. "But no one wanted to look at them or report them higher. . . . It was just the way things worked."

< Can CA Farmers Grow Hemp? | Harris Clarifies Her Religious Bigotry >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountability | 55 comments (55 topical)
    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:44:36 AM EST
    Anyone concerned about the American military disaster in Iraq should read FIASCO by Thomas E. Ricks.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    The only "accountability" bush, his republican guard, and his generals worry about is how to escape accountability and not be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the struggle to maintain control of Iraqi oil. To us former military men it is inconceivable that not a single general officer has been held to account or actually prosecuted despite the now almost innumerable offenses committed by soldiers under their direct command. In our formerly great military, before bush broke and corrupted it, an officer knew it was his responsibility to maintain control of their troops and that if they failed to do so, they themselves faced courts martial or Article 15 non-judicial punishment, either of which would be career ending. No, in the bush and his republican guard era, accountability is nonexistent, and those perpetrating the greatest wrongs are rewarded instead of facing prosecution. That ensures the loyalty of the officer corps, who now know they can literally commit murder, or allow murder to be committed by their troops, without repercussion.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:21:27 AM EST
    Of course there is no accountability just as there was none during Vietnam. The people who should be held directly accountable are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled and the rest of the cabal that got us into this mess. Its there policies which have directly lead to these problems.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:39:53 AM EST
    horrible as this all is, i am sympathetic to the military. they were given a task, with little to no "after action" planning, insufficient troops, and dwindling recruitment base. they've had to lower their standards, to come anywhere close to their recruiting needs, keep people in after their terms were up, and recall troops from the ready reserve. they know that a draft is not likely, because it would be a political death knell for the republican party. and so, they are stuck, attempting to do the nearly impossible, with negligible help from the civilians in charge. really, the surprising thing is that there haven't been even more wrongful civilian deaths. all of those deaths are wrong, no question about it. those directly responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. that said, let's not forget who bears the ultimate responsibilty: g.w. bush

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:43:04 AM EST
    Bill Arnett - You beat me to it, Bill. You said all the good (and true) stuff!
    In January 2005, on the heels of his second inauguration, George W. Bush was asked by the Washington Post about the declining situation in Iraq, and if anyone in his administration should be held accountable.

    Specifically, a reporter from The Washington Post stated: "In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?"

    Bush responded "Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election." Bush's message was clear: The only time he thinks he is accountable to the American people is on election day. He doesnt' believe he's accountable any other time. More...



    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#6)
    by Rational on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:54:53 AM EST
    It is a disgrace that murderers are getting off with slaps on the wrists and true heros such as Lt. Wataba are facing General court martials. This is the inevitable result of the US going to a mercenary force and separating the military from the citizenry. The US has cultured the worst of america in the mercenary force we jokingly refer to as "our" military and are protecting this scum with cliches, blind jingoism and short sighted rationals. They are pursueing an illegal war, obeying illegal orders and are engaged in murder for hire. War criminials to the individual. The military is not the "best" of America they have shown themselves to be ethically defiecient, morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. That, hopefully, is not the best anyone can do. The military are NOT doing a a great job in Iraq they are engaging in the destruction of a country and people that will rank with the Chinese miltary, butchering their own citizens, at Tiananemen Square, the Indonesian military, engaged in unspeakable brutality, in East Timor and Iryan Jara, the Rwandan military, who engaged in genocide against thier neighbors, and the Serbian Military, who practiced ethnic cleansing, as classic and shameful examples of war crimes. The merc's disgracing the uniform of the USA voted 80+ for the junta in 2000 and 70%+ for the same crooks in 2004. They voted for a war monger and got the war they asked for now they are whining about how unfair it is for people to shoot back. The only individuals who have any honor are Lt. Wataba and his patriotic companions who are fighting and sacrificing to save the soul of the country. The rest are nothing more then glorified gang bangers or mafiosa thugs whose behavior is disgrace to the human race.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#7)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    You will note that the conviction rate for those charged seems about right for serious crimes. Lefties think any civilian who dies in this war "at the hands of US troops" was a victim of premeditated murder. Now, that can be a belief, if you're deluded and nuts. But that's not the same as reality. We know, in addition, that the insurgents know how much you like to have dead Iraqis to use as political points. So, by fighting from among civilians, they give you what you want--tough luck for Iraqi civilians whom you only pretend to worry about--and the more the merrier. By forcing people to drive explosive-laden vehicles at check-points (by threats to their families and all the other revolutionarily virile methods of inducements you all admire so much), they put US troops in the position of knowing they have to shoot sooner rather than later in order to survive. Then they force some other unloaded vehicle to high-ball at a checkpoint and, presto, more dead Iraqis for the left. Your problem is that you haven't figured out that normal people have got you figured out. During WW II, civilians were mostly able to flee ahead of ground combat. One exception was Holland, where the Germans refused to allow refugees to leave. Consequently, even ground fighting in that heavily-populated country did result in civilian deaths. These might have been "at the hands of" US troops, but in no way were they the kind of murder you so long to see. Same here. Of course, for you guys, a dead civilian is an insurgent whose weapon has been removed by the Iraqi stringer for Reuters before the picture is taken. Give it up. Everybody knows better. I don't tell you this stuff because I think you don't know it. I tell you because you think the rest of us don't know it. Wrong.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    Aubrey: You will note that the conviction rate for those charged seems about right for serious crimes. You forget your coffee this morning? You will note (if you read it) that the first sentence of the WAPO artice TChris linked to says:
    The majority of U.S. service members charged in the unlawful deaths of Iraqi civilians have been acquitted, found guilty of relatively minor offenses or given administrative punishments without trials, according to a Washington Post review of concluded military cases.
    The conviction rate seems about right I suppose, if you think it seems about right that there be as little accountability as possible.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Richard and "they" are all onto us. Again. We're not fooling anybody. And everybody is nobody's fool. Call those Rueters Iraqi stringers and tell em' they've been compromised.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    You will note that the conviction rate for those charged seems about right for serious crimes.
    reminds me of the LA cops calling black on black homicide 'misdemeanor murder.'

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:02:47 PM EST
    I live next door to Camp Pendleton and I can tell you for a fact that Bushco is definitely holding soldiers accountable for his crimes. None over the rank of Sgt.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 05:58:10 AM EST
    Edger - You quoted a link that has six links, none of which opens to anything. Plus it claims that a reporter from the Washington Post asked a question about accountability, and Bush supposedly said:
    Bush responded "Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election." Bush's message was clear: The only time he thinks he is accountable to the American people is on election day. He doesnt' believe he's accountable any other time.
    Now that looks like a question from a WP reporter and a somewhat snarky reply from Bush. Then when I open the next link, "More...." I find it opens to Demopedia, not the Washington Post the part of the article you quote leads you to believe it will. Now the opened (linked) article is loaded with links, giving it the appearance of great research and accuracy. Yet none that I could find linked to any WP article that contained the comments Bush supposedly said. Now it may not be deliberate, but the result of all of that is misleading. Can you help your friends out and provide the proof they fail to? As for his comment, he was, and is, correct if he said it. But with all the links, you would think that one would have the quote in them.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 06:45:35 AM EST
    Bush + accountability moment + 2004 election. Takes 2 minutes. Of course, if he said it, it's correct.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 06:48:29 AM EST
    Someone else been doing your searches for you all this time?

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 06:50:41 AM EST
    any civilian who dies in this war "at the hands of US troops" was a victim of premeditated murder.
    The premeditated part was from the PNAC gang and those that are implementing the plan. Those are the ones that need to go on trial first.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:11:33 AM EST
    Here's another search: Nuremberg chief prosecuter + Ferencnz + Bush.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:32:25 AM EST
    et al.... Though experts estimate that thousands of Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of U.S. forces, "Experts"? You mean the news media and liberal politicians? "Estimate"? A nice fancy word that actually means "advancing your political agenda". Look, I know this is hard for some of you to comprehend, but we are in a war! And, in wars, civilians are killed. It's a shame, but unavoidable. Just like in Lebanon, where everyone killed was labeled a "civilian", the casualties in Iraq have been severely overblown. Most of the "actual" civilian casualties are caused by other Muslims. (aka .... suicide bombers in police stations...markets...etc.) But any opportunity to blame Bush is welcomed by most here....so go right ahead and point those nasty little fingers that you all like to do so much.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:47:50 AM EST
    Who declared this war? Chirp. Chirp.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#19)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:38:45 AM EST
    Che. The UN. In 1991. The armistice lasted until 2003 when part of the SH's requirements were not done. You will recall he was supposed to prove no WMD. He finessed the libs into implicitly agreeing that hide and seek was just fine and if he hid stuff faster than the UN could find it, he won. That wasn't the original intent, which pictured the UN guys being chauffered from place to place and given unrestricted access and full accountability. There have been all manner of discussions about the WMD issue, from the Russians helped get it to the Bekaa Valley to his scientists had to fool him because they were afraid to admit the programs couldn't be made to work, to SH was trying to fool everybody and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. There have been recent reminders that Bush and Co. knew about what the dems knew in 1998, and so, since Clinton and Kerry and so forth never lie, saying the same thing is necessarily the truth. Anyway, if you folks were worried about Iraqi civilians except as political pawns, you'd be upset with the slaughter of civilians by the terrorists. But, no suprise, you're not. Ditto Lebanon. The point isn't what you say. The point isn't that you call me a meanie. The point is nobody's buying what you say, whatever you say. You're bus tid. As the problems with Reuters and the fake ambulance missile hit and the fake press vehicle missile hit proves, you guys need dead civilians, if the circumstances are right, and the other side knows it. So, when there aren't enough, they fake it and you pretend to believe it. But nobody believes you. Bus. Tid.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#20)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:51 AM EST
    Oh, yeah. "unlawful death" could mean murder in the worst degree, or could be the equivalent of negligent homicide, or something else. You guys think any charge--why would he be charged if he wasn't guilty?--ought to generate a first-degree murder verdict, irrespective of circumstances. Note second graf: Twenty-six charged, twelve convicted, precise verdict and crime and sentences not specified. Thirty-nine originally accused. Thirteen were not seen to have had sufficient evidence to charge. You guys sure turn your defense attorney principles around pretty quickly when the need requires. But it's been obvious your priniciples are pretty loose. Situation: A patrol is moving down a street at night. It's considered enemy territory. Dark. Seeing is difficult. Somebody in a building jerks open a door as the patrol passes. One of the soldiers fires into the door, killing the individual. If the individual proved to be a soldier, that would be okay, right? If he proved to be a civilian that would be....? If the US soldiers held fire and the guy in the building was a terrorist and shot an American in the time he'd been given, that would be....?

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    RA appears to be off his meds again and the delusions are back.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#22)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    Soc. Soc. So good to see you. And not answering questions, just like in the old days. As if time hasn't really passed. I feel as if I'm not getting any older. This is great!

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:25:48 AM EST
    Bus. Tid. Nobody buys what we say. Nobody. And Richard's a nation of one. Him and his Delta Force pals "Grim Resolve" and "Wolfblood" over at LGF. The terrorists are just lucky they decided to sit this one out.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    SD, yes, I agree.
    There have been recent reminders that Bush and Co. knew about what the dems knew in 1998
    maybe, but UN and IAEA inspection went on till the start of the war when bush kicked the inspectors out. The inspectors said they found no evidence of WWMDs but they need more time to make sure. bush, threatening America with a mushroom cloud, kicked them out and guess what? ... go ahead guess ... there were no WMDs. BTW, RA, SITUATION: two young co-eds drop by your place and insist on giving you lap dances ... I mean as long as you're fantasizing, fantasize about something fun;-)

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:31:06 AM EST
    You quoted a link that has six links, none of which opens to anything. Try google. We'll have a snap quiz later.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    Aubrey- I don't know if you have ever been in the military and served in a war zone, but there ARE constraints and limitations placed on our troops that must be complied with, and if not, the offender prosecuted and his chain of command investigated to see how far up the rot goes. They are called "rules of engagement", the "rules of war", and the Geneva Conventions, which lay out the responsibilities of our troops. You can't just go around killing people for the sake of killing people alone; there must be a military objective and every effort must be made to minimize civilian casualties. The officer corps are responsible for the conduct of those under their command and if they command so poorly that their troops violate the rules, they too face punishment. "Same here. Of course, for you guys, a dead civilian is an insurgent whose weapon has been removed by the Iraqi stringer for Reuters before the picture is taken." Aubrey, above. Comments such as these expose your blind hatred of a race of people and a situation about which you know nothing but your own preconceived prejudices. Are YOU of military age? If so, why haven't you enlisted to fight for the president in whose illegal policies you have reposed such faith that you gladly believe the government propaganda, for which bush spends 1.6 BILLION dollars a year. It obviously has persuaded you that you must believe everything the gov't says, as you made so many unsupported statements that you lack credibility. In the example you give to allegedly support your position you say: "Situation: A patrol is moving down a street at night. It's considered enemy territory. Dark. Seeing is difficult. Somebody in a building jerks open a door as the patrol passes. One of the soldiers fires into the door, killing the individual. If the individual proved to be a soldier, that would be okay, right? If he proved to be a civilian that would be....? If the US soldiers held fire and the guy in the building was a terrorist and shot an American in the time he'd been given, that would be....?". This again shows your lack of knowledge. A good soldier will not fire on an unidentified target since the soldier could indeed be aiming at a civilian, along with the fact that the gunfire immediately gives away their location and arms the enemy with the knowledge of their presence that could quite possibly lead to an ambush. It unnecessarily endangers the whole unit. I hope you can see the flaw in your thinking and it is obvious you have no military experience or you would not ask such silly questions. Jondee- well, we have certainly shown that ppj has no clue on how to use a search engine the last couple of days, and his failure to respond to you signifies, by his silence, complete agreement with everything you have said. Morning, everybody!

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    For thos who have difficulty with complicated search engines like google, here are 88 pages of reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq. Yeah, sh*t definitely happens...

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    Aubrey says: "Che. The UN. In 1991. The armistice lasted until 2003 when part of the SH's requirements were not done. You will recall he was supposed to prove no WMD. He finessed the libs into implicitly agreeing that hide and seek was just fine and if he hid stuff faster than the UN could find it, he won. " Aubrey, when did you stop beating your wife"? Why do you keep kicking the dog? Are you still dating underage women? Are you still hanging out at all the gay bars? How many times have you dated Jeff Gannon? These are all questions that require you to prove a universal negative, something which cannot be done. These types of questions are are used to give a false impression which the accused can't possibly disprove. SADDAM DID NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR OTHER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. This was reported before the war by Elbaradei, after the war by David Kay, and has been admitted by g.w. bush. But by framing the question to Saddam in a manner he could not possibly give an answer to (extremely difficult, you know, to give up something you don't have), bush used this most sophomoric "straw man" argument to justify invading a country that posed no threat to us whatever. Three weeks before the war Saddam asked that the U.S. send in CIA AGENTS if they wanted, since the U.S. CLAIMED to know the location of the nonexistent WMDs. Of, course, war is what bush wanted, not proof that Saddam was no danger. Anyway, when you answer all the questions above, and figure out how to disprove a universal negative, then your comments might earn some credibility (and some kind of Nobel prize for figuring out something no one else in the history of man has been able to do).

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    And for the doubters and those (ppj) unable to use a search engine, google: Saddam+inspections+pre-war+invitation to CIA which will lead you directly to the BBC article (among others) that shows Saddam indeed invited the CIA to send agents to work with the UN inspectors since the CIA "knew" where the WMDs were. How do you reconcile that with all the other false information in your comments, aubrey?

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    edger, Jondee, soccerdad, Sailor, Oscar Wilde, Che's Lounge (and anyone I forgot): I still ain't able to do links, but I'm hell-on-wheels with search engines! ;-)

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    Bill, I will type something up for you, I am not savy but I have cracked that much, give me ten.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    Bill - try this.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#34)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    Arnett. I'm past military age, but when I was younger, I enlisted. I asked for Infantry and Viet Nam. I was on orders when my brother, a C130 nav, was killed. I got off orders. The situation was one which my father had to face. The door-jerker was a Dutch civilian who figured that pulling a door open when armed men were about was a great idea. One of the Americans shot into the door, killing the civilian. In no way was this a war crime. It's in the stuff happens category. As I say, the complete lack of interest in civilians killed by terrorists means the interest in those killed by US troops is bogus. Only as a political point score are the dead interesting to you. And with the point about a civilian being any terrorist whose weapon was moved by the Iraqi stringer for Reuters: That wasn't racist. That was iraqistringerforreutersist. Or leftyliarjouroist. Has nothing to do with race. Which, by the way, is another point. Accusing people of racism when you have nothing else doesn't work any more, either. You didn't get the memo, apparently.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    How about chickensh*thawkb.sartistwithnothingtobackitupist. Little long, but about sums it up.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#36)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    So, Jondee. Got anything substantive? You know, like all the uproar you've made about the killing of Iraqi civilians by terrorists. Show me that and I'll apologize. If not....

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:06:10 AM EST
    I know this is an advanced concept difficult for some, but the killing of Iraqi civilians by terrorists is the topic of this thread.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#38)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    Arnett. SH had years to quit messing around. Yes, he had to prove a negative. That was part of the 1991 agreement. He didn't. Still, given the logistics of WMD there were many places you probably wouldn't think you needed to search. Once you found the buried MIGS, you might think otherwise, but then it would be too late. The likelihood that he'd have jerked any new agents around is above 99%. The BBC has never been particularly reliable. The plummy accent, notwithstanding. See Kay and Duelfer who point to programs, crumbling sanctions, EU countries on the take, and the certainty of rejuvenated WMD programs when there would be no inspectors. Well, if stuff happens is callous, then....it's callous. Nobody gets undead by finding somebody to blame after the fact. War is not pleasant. Part of war is confusion. Those who choose to fight from among civilians in order to increase confusion and provide lefties with dead civilians have some blame in this matter. But, as I say, I am not interested in arguing with you about the civilian toll in war. You are as callous as anybody I've ever met. More dead civilians, please, we need to blame Bush this week. Oops. Nope, those you terrorists kill don't do us any good. Fake some up, will you. If we have to we'll consider all deaths, even those murdered by terrorists as being "at the hands of" the Americans.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    Bill, if you are going to link to more than one simple link then you will need a notepad to put your various linked or quoted items on. I open a blank page in "word" and that becomes my notepad. The following is for one link to a web page. For one link to an article, place your cursor over the address in the address bar (top) Right click and the menu will drop down, left click on copy, the address is now saved. Proceed to write your scribblings in the comments box, at the end of your piece you can simply write "link" or for instance you could write, The BBC had this to say.... In the text you have written place the cursor adjacent to the word "link" or BBC Left click and hold and pass the cursor over the word, it will turn into a black box. Above the comments box you will see URL left click in this and a new small window will open, http will be flashing, press delete on the keyboard. Place the cursor in the box, right click, the menu drops down, left click paste and the address of the linked article will appear in the box, left click OK, and then you're cooking with gas.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#40)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    You are a brave man, Oscar, and run the risk of enduring great suffering from being unable to sufficiently educate me to be able to do a "link", but thank you. I look forward to your next post, as always. aubrey: you did not respond to the issues of universal negatives or Saddam inviting in inspectors. According to ppj, your silence indicates complete agreement. Aw, shucks, I hate to win a debate by default. Also the topic of this thread is "accountability for the military" and not about how many, according to you, phony photos were set up accomplices to photographers. And to assume that all those civilian deaths in Iraq or Lebanon are just a natural consequence of war is ridiculous, and that every photo showing all the dead women and small children and babies are fake denies reality AND the admissions/confessions of the Israelis and the Pentagon. But, of course, admissions of wrong-doing on the part of gov't don't fit within the framework of your comments. Are you still beating your wife? "That was iraqistringerforreutersist. Or leftyliarjouroist" Uh, aubrey, are these supposed to be reputable sources or are they just sites or site commenters with the same twisted viewpoints? Yes, bad things happen in the fog of war, but when troops stalk 14-year old girls, break into her house, shoot dead her family, then gang rape her, kill her, and then roast chicken over the fire they set to destroy evidence, well, if that fits your definition of collateral damage or civilians getting killed because they got in the way, you truly deserve pity, for you have willingly abandoned your humanity. "Same here. Of course, for you guys, a dead civilian is an insurgent whose weapon has been removed by the Iraqi stringer for Reuters before the picture is taken. Give it up. Everybody knows better. I don't tell you this stuff because I think you don't know it. I tell you because you think the rest of us don't know it." aubrey, when you make blanket statements like this, specifically identifying dead civilians as "insurgents" who have had their weapons removed by "Iraqi" stringers, coupled with the "give it up, Everybody knows better. etc." you are using the language of racists and bigots, whether that was your intent or not. Try to stay on topic and talk about whether or not the military is being held accountable for civilian deaths, Abu Ghraib, deaths resulting from torture or other actions of our soldiers. As for not showing empathy for the dead civilians resulting from insurgent action, I would remind you that NONE of those deaths would have occurred without America's illegal attack on Iraq. That is why most decent people decry the deaths of innocents, whether it be by American or "insurgent" hands. Ditto for Lebanon.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    More dead civilians, please, we need to blame Bush this week. The last refuge of the desperate is repeatedly trying the same thing that has never helped them in the past, and the best definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:40:50 AM EST
    Thanx, Oscar, I have copied that over to a WP file for further study. Maybe someday soon I'll surprise you (and myself) by actually linking something! aubrey, you say: "But, as I say, I am not interested in arguing with you about the civilian toll in war. You are as callous as anybody I've ever met. More dead civilians, please, we need to blame Bush this week. Oops. Nope, those you terrorists kill don't do us any good. Fake some up, will you." Having never met me it is a-m-a-a-a-z-z-z-i-i-i-n-n-n-g-g-g that you can claim that I am the most callous person you [n]ever met. You do not "know" me, you are neither intelligent enough, nor intuitive enough, nor qualified in any manner to adjudge me "callous". Please quote just ONE sentence of anything I have said here that would prove I am callous. Put up or shut up.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    Bill, here's a one page tutorial on How to Make Hyperlinks.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    Thanx, Anonymous, edger, and Oscar. And for aubrey: callous (I thought you should probably make sure of the definition of a word before you callously make accusations you cannot back up.) I hope this is my first successful link!

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#46)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    Success! Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Tomorrow I take over the world!

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    Sorry Bill, I was the 'anonymous' in that post. ;-)

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    At least you weren't callous about it! (-;

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    Bill- I only get calloused on my fingertips from shooting the ducks 'round chere! Fun with links! ;-)

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    Aubrey- Did you give up? Why don't you read this for a little more accurate representation of what's going on in Iraq. You will notice that, "The Iraqi death rate of the last two months translates to 40,000 a year, Diamond said, and "if that isn't civil war, I don't know what is." How do you reconcile a number that hugh as being a propaganda tool to knock the U.S. military? This is also an excellent recitation of bush's failed doctrines, which is where accountability for the military's actions should start: at the top.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    Anonynous:
    Aubrey- Did you give up? Why don't you read this for a little more accurate representation of what's going on in Iraq.
    He's never come here for understanding. Only to bait and troll.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#52)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    edger- This time it was ME that posted the last anonymous comment, although how that appellation came to be ascribed to me is beyond the capacity of my calloused brain to finger out. But you have obviously reached the right conclusion.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    Don't feed him... ;-)

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    Just keep repeating that over & over (DNC talking points) as if it were actually true!
    Funny, it's not a DNC talking point, it's a Iraq Survey Group, DoD, CIA and Bush talking point. Go peddle the lies somewhere else.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#55)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    Sorry to have to do stuff in the meat world. The projection to a year's casualties is interesting, not to mention catastrophic for those effected. The US civil war had real, not projected, death rates of about 180,000 a year. Spain's was less, I think. But it's irrelevant. The point is that we have terrorists slaughtering civilians. This isn't a civil war, since they aren't attacking the government forces primarily. And they don't have an army, a patch of land they can call their own, nor a government, all of which are necessary to distinguish a civil war from terrorism. Your heroes are using indiscriminate slaughter to ignite really, really massive slaughter on a scale not visible from the current unpleasantness. Try not to drool at the prospect, will ya, guys?

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    Your heroes are using indiscriminate slaughter to ignite really, really massive slaughter on a scale not visible from the current unpleasantness. They sure are. Bush has said that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths attributable to the war is about 30,000. One more "statistic" to add to his lies. No big deal though. After all, they're not really "real" people are they? Just "collateral damage", people put through George's "industrial sized people shredder" and as Brigadier Gen. Mark Kimmitt has suggested to Iraqis, we can just "change the channel" if reality is inconvenient: The Real Iraq Body Count

    In 2004, the highly respected British medical journal "Lancet" reported the results of an epidemiological study...of post-invasion mortality in Iraq...the researchers estimated that the total number of deaths that can be attributed to the invasion and occupation may have been as high as 194,000, with a conservative estimate set at about 100,000. 2005 was far more violent in many areas of Iraq than 2004...it can be safely assumed that the number of civilian occupation deaths in the nearly 15 months since the study has increased by at least another 50,000 (and this is conservative) given the trend identified in the study. This means that the total body count is now at least 150,000, but could be as high as nearly 250,000. That's up to ONE-QUARTER OF A MILLION LIVES.
    The Lancet Sudy (PDF) Maybe it has something to do with your hero's mood swings? Try not to drool at the prospect, Aubrey.

    Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountab (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    This is a very interesting thread, but I do not think most of the writers (on the left and right) have an accurate picture of the military. I would like to add my two cents as a military professional and a historian who has extensively studied the challenge of conducting operations while avoiding civilian casualties. While many of you may not have a favorable opinion of the military, I just ask that you keep an open mind. First, almost all officers and non-commissioned officers want to avoid casualties to civilians. The actions of the Marines at Haditha and the soldiers who raped a girl and killed her and her family are abhorrent, a clear violation of the Law of Land Warfare, and should be and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent through the military justice system. Likewise the actions of the guards at Abu Ghraib were wrong and the soldiers got what they deserved. I think the chain-of-command, especially battalion and below, got off light. However, much like civilian courts, one must have proof in order to ensure prosecution. Not being privy to the details of the case, I do not know what led to decisions to not prosecute more of the chain-of-command. However, in this case, they received at least some level of punishment or censure up to the one-star level, effectively ending the careers of these officers. To better understand our approach to civilians on the battelefied one should examine our doctrine, education, and training before jumping to the conclusion that we indiscrimantly use force. The Army's doctrine is under constant revision and significant changes have been made in the past fifteen to twenty years to better deal with civilans and avoid what is often called "collateral damage". These changes are based on lessons learned in Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Desert Strom, and are even continuing during current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe it or not we are often more critical than civilians when it comes to our operations, particularly when the death of civilians are involved. Two of the most significant changes to doctrine were codified in the operations manual in the early 1990s with a more formal consideration of civilians and the introduction of Rules of Engagement. When we plan for an operation we conduct an analysis of the assigned mission, enemy, terrain, troops available, time and civiilians. We call these the factors of METT-TC. In the past the civilians were considered during the analysis of terrain, but recognizing the increasing importance of civilians on the battlefield due to increased urbanization throughout the world, civilian considerations were made a separate factor. On an interesting side note one of the first to recognize the importance of and argued for adding civilians as a separate and distinct consideration was BG Strom Thurman in an article in Military Review in the early '60s. Who would have thought? Although Rules of Engagement are often discussed today, I could not find any mention of the them in Army doctrine until the early 1990s. Again lessons learned in Grenada, Panama, and Somalia led to changes in the way we operate and make it easier for soldiers to understand when they should engage a potential target, and when they should withhold fire. Even today, we continue to try to improve with emerging doctrine to include Escalation of Force which seeks to use non-lethal means before using lethal force even when authorized to under the ROE and Law of War. Doctrine does little without education and training which never stops. Cadets at West Point are required to take classes in Law to include Military Law. They are also required to read and discuss military ethics to include books such as Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer and Man the State and War by Kenneth N. Waltz. All soldiers recieve Law of War Training in basic training to include instruction that they are obligated not to follow orders that they know are illegal. Despite the arguments by the defendants in the Abu Ghraib case that they never recieved such training, it is so fundamental and ingrained in our training and education systems it made their defense on this grounds rediculous to the majority of soldiers. Leaders in todays Army are required to conduct on line course and participate in seminars on counter-insurgency. We recognize that this type of war cannot be won based on traditional operations and what we call kinetic solutions. Instead, we try to focus on non-kinetic solutions particularly improvement in infrastructure, governance, and unemployment to remove some of the underlying causes that have led to a rise in Islamic extremisim and continue to feed insrugency in Iraq. One book that is almost required reading today is Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Viet Nam by Lieutenant Colonel John A. Nagle. I highly recommend this book. Training also includes classes for all Soldiers on cultural awareness to include customs and some of the basics of language. The Army also encourages Soldiers to conduct language self-study by offering Rosetta Stone free on-line to all Soldiers. Training exercises also include scenarios that include complex situations that Soldiers and their leaders have to deal with. We deliberately try to stress them to better enable them to make the right decisions in a combat environment. Mission Rehearsal Exercises at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California and the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana include hundreds of civilian role players to include civilians from Iraq who are paid to give us tough and very realistic training. Leaders conduct negotiations with town counsels who may or may not be cooperative. Soldiers are put in tense situations where they have to decide when to use deadly force. Every time a civilian is wounded or killed on this virtual battlefield we conduct an investigation just as we do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Detailed after action reviews are conducted to learn from our mistakes. On a final note, I take exception to characterizing the military as a mercenary force. Everyone in the military takes an oath to defend the Constituion against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While this oath states that we will obey the Orders of the President of the United States, the oath is not to him. It is also not sworn to any political party. The citizens of the United States have decided they want a volunteer force. What they have is a very dedicated officer corps seeking solutions to achieve stated national goals. We try to stay out of political discourse out of tradition and our value system which ensures civilian control of the military. If you don't like the goals we are trying to achieve, fine, work it out with your elected leaders who have given us our mission. Our non-commissioned officers are also a dedicated group of professionals. We often call them the back-bone of the Army and are essential for instilling discipline in our soldiers. A break down in NCO leadership can lead to problems such as Abu Ghraib. Finally, our soldiers are a reflection of our American society. Ninety-five percent of them are great kids who are trying to do the best they can in stressful and ambiguous situatuions. We bring them into the Army and try to ensure they have basic values often absent from our society such as loyatly, duty, respect for others, honor, integrity, and personal courage. We are asking them to go into dark alleys and dangerous streets and hold their fire until they know that they or their buddies are at personal and imminent risk of losing their life. Having trained, lived with, and walked the streets of Baghdad with some of these young Americans, I am impressed with their sense of duty, compassion and desire to make the world a better place. If you do not agree with the reasons for sending them in harms way, fine. Continue to use your right to free speech and right to participate in our political process. However, do not blame the Soldier, he is there because we as a society have sent him where others fear to go.

    Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Military Accountability | 55 comments (55 topical)