Thank you for the excellent dissenting opinion. I agree with quite a bit of what you said, but I'll really quickly pick out a few points. I'm going to copy and paste them because I always spend almost as long on formatting quotes as I do typing if I do it that way.
Thanks to you as well for an opportunity for intelligent discussion on the topic.
There was an infantry patrol that had received fire recently. The helicopter pilot spots a group of men carrying items which are admitably hard to distinguish through a camera. They are actually cameras on shoulder straps and briefcases which were mistaken for weapons. They open fire on these men after receiving permission from someone who can't see these people who is likely a few miles away. Despite not being able to clearly identify the items. This was an honest mistake, and as such it probably wouldn't have ruined any careers.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The mistake was in keeping it from the people. Are we so weak that we can not handle the fact "War is Hell?" If the military had released it on their own, and said, sorry guys we screwed up and we'll try not to do it again, I for one would have been, meh, war is hell and this happens, and they are trying to do the best they can. That's not what I'm arguing about. The thing I am arguing is the fact that "War is Hell" does not give anyone the right to make it look anything but what it is.
My point later in my post was that the alternative to keeping it from the people would be to show everyone every mistake we make. We are gradually 'declassifying' footage, or more or less just controlling its flow to the media to the American public, so it's not like all of the footage from our occupation in the middle east is never going to be released. I myself have seen some on the History channel within the past couple months. As for the "War is Hell" statement, who are you saying is making it look like anything but? MetalSlimeHunt was saying that politicians/the government/the military were trying to play it down by yelling "Traitor!", so is that what you're kinda saying?
Also, when I said "not a major screw-up", I meant that it wasn't a screw-up on a major scale, like some of the events that have happened in the past with a lot more lives. Just didn't want it to sound like I was taking people's lives for granted.
If my screwup involved people's deaths, and it was caught on camera, yes, I believe people should know of what I did. Also, the Japanese example is a bit different, as there were no enemy combatants anywhere visible at any time on the video. All that was known is that in the prior half hour a foot patrol was fired upon from the vicinity, and the Apache crew fired upon the wrong group of people in what appears to be an honest mistake. Saying war is hell is a fine truth, but should that fact be used as an excuse for every death, mistake or not? Should that fact encourage us to allow ourselves to do nothing when things like this happen, or would we rather be well informed as to the bad, as well as the good they trumpet whenever they can find it? Also, I believe the way the "powers that be" are doing wrong in this is the very fact we are still there, influencing people who live on the other side of globe from our own homes.
"In other news, Apache Gunship operators in Iraq misidentified a potential target and fired upon X civilians. Lieutenant Yname stated that the incident was an honest mistake: A ground patrol had been fired upon earlier from the position that the civilians were occupying, and the film equipment they were carrying was misconstrued as armaments. General Zname assured us that such events were very rare, and that the civilian casualties were very regrettable... Could chemicals in your food encourage you to watch summer blockbuster films? The story at 10."
I just can't imagine that something like that would be beneficial to... anything. Of course, I'm just a lone member of the American public, and if the rest of the American public feels in necessary to be informed of such events, then it's certainly not like my opinion matters. Well, it does, but it's more of what I view personally rather than what's best for the American public.
As for still influencing, I can understand and agree with several of the things that we're doing there, but our continued presence also makes sense. I'll elaborate later.
We do a lot of positive things, don't get me wrong, but all the electricity in the world won't make up for a dead son or father. At least until we have robots that you can cram the deceased's brains into.
Or we finally realize that we're all just brains in a tank (referencing another thread). I agree with that statement completely though.
Probably in the other documents, although releasing footage taped from an Apache helicopter could be problematic in and of itself. I'm not sure about our declassification of the Apache's various systems, but we have a policy of not giving the enemy anything they can use against us. Again, didn't see the video, which would probably help me give some credit to that statement, but.. meh. As for the military operating without the input of honest, interested, and concerned citizens, you forget that U.S. soldiers are citizens of the United States, many of which have those qualities. If you suggest that we have every operation or whatnot first brought up to the American people... It's just not a situation I want to argue, because it's a horrible idea for what should be very obvious reasons, so I hope you're not suggesting that. I didn't include the government in that statement because the government does not have a direct hand in military operations; historically, politicians that focus on politics tend to mess up war efforts when they start meddling.
The points about not wanting to bring up the issue of military action before the American public are good ones, as well as the military being made up of citizens who likely have the qualities mentioned. I'm not suggesting we put entering into war to a vote or something like that. Like you said, that would probably be a bad idea. HOWEVER, what I think is that if bad things happen in the war we are supposed to be supporting, we should be allowed to know about it. Sure, it means people won't support an unnecessary war. That would be the point and sems to me to be a very good thing for everyone but the war material companies. People during World War 2 listened and read from the war correspondents of the horrors of war, and they didn't quit because it seemed important to them to continue the war effort. All I'm asking is the ability to make the same decisions.
I was meaning that individual military operations shouldn't be consulted with the public first, but you still got my point. Sure, we should be allowed to hear all the bad that's going on about the war, but it seems like I've already heard a lot about it. Everyone jumped on the "Gang-up on Bush" train during his office, and there was no end to the "Bad things going on in Iraq" content. If you feel, though, that you and the American public should still be able to know about this instance and however other many others like it, then I can't really argue with that. If anything, you're being a better American because of it.
As for individuals in the military : the problem is that it's a job, and that you can be "fired" or at least treated very poorly if you break the mold they set.
For many others, it's not just a 'job', especially considering you're put through hell and you sacrifice the natural instinct for safety and survival in the service of symbolism and belief. Then again, I'm only speculating, as I'm not in the military myself.
The point about the video is moot, I think. The worst the enemy can see is how quality (which doesn't seem to be too high, but then again they were probably a mile away) the gun cameras are, as you can't see anything attached to the helicopter. Theoretically they could figure out how fast the gunship was moving at the time, and perhaps use the recoil shake on the camera in some nefarious plot involving the amount of recoil on an Apache's 20mm cannon (I think that's what they are armed with).
Ah, alright. Probably with the other documents then, unless officials are just BSing to give him some major criminal charge. If that's the case, which it might be, I'd definitely call such BS, but I still think that the soldier in question is a traitor to the US for doing what he did.
Also, I agree on your point about Israel. I understand they are between a rock and a hard place, so they have my support simply because the world will have to live with the decisions made fifty years ago, as it always has and will. The problem is they've been whacking the beehive for as long as I can remember and they will either kill the bees or be stung. Possibly both. With a little help to the bees, they could be making honey, and make even more if they give them a place to live that benefits both parties. What they need is to encourage industry to develop and get the Palestinian economy going. The way it is, they are treating them the same way the American Indian was treated.
Yeah... makes me think that God is pretty much pissed at all of us. After all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims pretty much worship the same god, we just tell the story a bit differently, yet there's been untold deaths over centuries over who's right.
I would say all politicians are "fake." They won't even swear around voters, gosh darn it. Also, politicians are power hungry, otherwise they wouldn't be politicians. The issue I think that is more important than the fact that they are power hungry, is the reason BEHIND why they are power hungry, or rather what they hope to do with the power. Is it to do good for the world and ensure a positive place in history with a marble shrine in D.C., or to make your pals a whole lot of money? If you can enlighten me on Mrs. Clinton I'd be happy to read it.
I absolutely agree with you. As with Mrs. Clinton, other than some things I've heard about shady actions concerning missing persons and whatnot, there was a big scenario in Congress/Senate/what have you where she was just completely reaming this intern, screaming at him with the nastiest face possible. The scene was caught on air, and continued for a short while before someone tapped on her shoulder and whispered in her ear. She then, in the wink of an eye, plastered the same old smile it seems she's always wearing, looking around for the camera that caught her behavior on national television. That was just disgusting. A similar thing happened with Nancy Pelosi. Now, I understand that every politician had their unseen side, and a lot happens under the table. I certainly don't like that, and I also hate the fact that speechwriters exist, so I know that politicians are fake. However, when you witness it first hand... it's just so unsettling, and I don't want her acting like that in a position of wordly power.
I'm not saying we underestimate their ability to attack the U.S. I'm saying we focus on defense, instead of causing the same troubles in other countries that we would like to avoid in our own, while inflicting the same feelings against our own country that we all felt on 9/11 for the terrorists.
My only problem with that statement is in bold. Inflicting similar pain, preferably far, far worse, is the
point.
Links? I never heard that and I've tried to fairly up to date on current events since these wars started. Not doubting you, I'd just like to read it myself.
A google search of "US satellite truck syria lebanon" yields some results. I think the article that was read was in Rolling Stone, though. Some of the sites that turned up on the search seems sketchy, so that probably doesn't help the validity. Again, my point was simply that there's evidence suggesting, not that it's proven.
Right. So let us view what happens in our wars so that we are encouraged to make a decision whether it is worth fighting or not, instead of being asked to blindly support such things as what we are involved in right now. Perhaps one day it will shorten a war.
If I remember correctly, which I may not, because I was young, public approval of Bush was quite high pre-war and most of the populace desired war after what happened on 9/11. I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not so sure we were "asked to blindly support such things."
Well, I was referring to a World War III type situation, where two or more sides with heavily industrialization on both sides, do their damndest to put that industry out of operation. That wasn't neccessary because we basically can blitzkrieg these smaller countries to the point where it would be counter productive to destroy the territory we seize. For instance, if I remember correctly the Germans hardly damaged French infrastructure during the blitzkrieg. What I propose is that if a country requires a regime change, like Iraq probably did, that you simply get right the hell out after taking it down and disarming them to the best of your ability. If it reforms, who cares, their forces are absolutely wrecked and it should deter them for the next ten years or so. If they go into a civil war, well... I hesitate to say let them, but I wonder if leaving them to their own affairs might not be a better option than occupation. This would also keep the "playing pancake" as you put it to a minimum.
The problem with this strategy isn't just that we or the people of a given nation desire a regime change. Imagine this: We go into Iraq, seize the country quickly after disabling/destroying its forces, arrest Saddam for public trial outside the country, and
leave. Great, handy dandy for us, we're out, we accomplished whatever. HOWEVER, the government-sponsored police force disappears, crime skyrockets out of control as many areas are looted before religious militia declare martial law and someone steps up to the mantle shortly thereafter, crying out against the vile westerners that caused all of these problems for their nation, etc. etc. The big problem would be that medical care and policing would disappear until far worse alternatives than Saddam showed up. By staying in Iraq, we were able to accomplish what we and the Iraqi people desired, while also ensuring that people would be taken care of and that their view of the US/west wouldn't be one of hatred or malcontent. I know that these things would have happened, because they happened while we were still in occupation. The lives and livelihood of the Iraqi people was protected by Coalition forces.
By "playing pancake", I was referring more to Afghanistan, where it seems like we're doing worse than what we could be doing in terms of military safety and aggression. Then again, I'm neither a general nor a politician, so... yeah. There could be deeper meaning to our actions that I have yet to understand.
The PFC in the story is a good example I think. I agree that if he could have gone to his superiors about the incident, he should have. The problem is I can't think of a logical reason why he wouldn't if that would have been possible; with the consequences being what they are.
...
I agree with the theory of your post, but the problem is this is more than one soldier. This is whether the system wherein any soldier in the army can report wrongdoing to his superiors and have them take actions to correct it, is working or not. If the PFC feels the need to break the law and compromise his future because he feels he is witnessing terrible things done and he can't go to the ONLY people he is lawfully allowed to contact with the issues, then isn't the system broken, even if theoretically only within the chain of command as high as he is allowed to contact?
Is there ever mention that the PFC goes to his superior officer, or desired to? What would come of it?
"Hey, Sarge. We really botched that last Apache mission."
"Yeah, we did."
...
"Anything else, Private?"
"No sir, just figured I'd leave the video footage with you to deliver to top brass."
"... Alright, carry on then. *Looks at video tape/disquette* ... *Shrugs, puts it in a draw in his desk*"
I just don't think the military would dwell on it too much, other than keep it in mind not to be too hasty next time, and get better confirmation of a potential target. As for why the PFC had to endanger his future, I don't know, but the sheer number of documents he leaked is bugging me.
Oh, I understand perfectly. It was a very well done post, good sir, and I appreciate being able to hear an excellently composed and thought out opposing argument. My post was meant in the same fashion.
Thanks for your understanding.
They were not armed insurgents, the apache officers thought that they had weapons. I saw nothing of the sort. They were innocent civilians, but the practically blind apache pilot thought they had weapons.
A lot can happen in a warzone, and hasty minds with fingers on the trigger can make poor decisions, but please don't criticize the pilot's eyesight when you're not hovering in the air in a potentially hostile environment, threatened with death at any second while staring into a small viewport of a potential target a good distance away. Things always look different in hindsight, and they also appear different when you're not in that moment.
Author
Topic: U.S. Soldier who leaked war video + other documents charged (Read 6764 times)