h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/05/africa/web0505-ethics-46348.php

According to the above article, which may dissapear shortly, "fewer than half of marines and a little more than half of soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian".

In this survey, conducted by the Pentagon, it was also revealed that "more than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians".

Discuss.

TRiG.

"In this survey, conducted by the Pentagon, it was also revealed that "more than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians"."

The BBC reported this story on the radio but mentioned that the "some cases" meant a situation where it could lead to saving the lives of colleagues. The "abusing Iraqi civilians" percentage is worrying, although it'd be interesting to know what constitutes abuse. Manhandling someone who isn't a threat is not in the same league as administering a severe-beating or rape and for all I know all could constitute "abuse".

It'd also be interesting to compare these statistics with similar reports for other armies involved in conflicts in civilian areas - eg British and Polish forces in Iraq, forces in Afghanistan, UN forces in The DR Congo etc.

I don't have any real experience of the military, so I'm guessing here, but I think one problem with having a professional army rather than a conscript one is that it isn't full of "ordinary" people but rather those that specifically want to serve and there's a danger of getting people who are naturally-aggressive. I also think soldiers still aren't trained-enough to regard abusing a civilian as as potentially-damaging to their career as slapping a superior officer.

"Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."

That is worrying and suggests the problem is one of attitudes.

Incidentally, what is the meaning of this:

"According to the above article, which may dissapear shortly..."

Why on earth do you think that?

I also think it's interesting what they say about the lack of "rotation", ie troops spend too long on the frontline without proper chance to recuperate which leaves them more likely to snap or be abusive.

A lot of online newspapers have articles which disapear after a short spell. I think the IHT is such a newspaper. I wans't implying anything special about this article.

TRiG.

I too would be interested in compairing similar surveys on different armies in different situations. I think the general 'dehumanize the enemy' thing is almost always at work.

And yes, the end of the article did have some interesting things to say about the stresses soldiers can go through.

TRiG.

"I too would be interested in compairing similar surveys on different armies in different situations. I think the general 'dehumanize the enemy' thing is almost always at work."

Except the Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy but abusing them is likely to change that which is why soldiers must have it drummed into them that this sort of thing isn't just morally wrong but also increases the dangers to them and their colleagues.

I think one problem might be that the Iraqis are dehumanized not as "enemies" but as arabs/muslims. I've seen some demented nazi-ish racist comments about arabs/muslims recently and snopes.com (for example) is full of articles about round-robin emails painting these groups as essentially subhuman or evil. That sort of thing tends to trickle-down through the social psyche. One of the reasons Germans treated Slavs so abysmally was that the Nazi's ideology painted them as animals. Conversely, Soviet propaganda (and actual German acts against Soviet citizens) left the Germans dehumanised to the Russians and lead to appalling crimes against German civilians once the Red Army pushed into Germany.

not forgetting that the Germans/Russians didn't have the Geneva conventions to fall back on.

And again - although we know it to be wrong, we can't put ourselves in the shoes of those marines/soldiers in Iraq, can we?

Actually I think there have been a number of 'Geneva Conventions', and at least some pre-date WWII - it's just that the rules were ignored by Nazi Germany when fighting the Soviet Union and vice versa.

Something that I've picked up from various accounts of military training and from the media in general is that loyalty to one's comrades is paramount. You have to be able to trust these people with your lives. Ex-soldiers of various generatiosn and vintages always talk very warmly about friendships and loyalty to comrades. It seems to me that generating this kind of loyalty is vital (for frontline units at least), but unfortunately that loyalty can extend to turning a blind eye.

'Dignity and respect' sounds a little officious don't you think? I expect if you were a US soldier in a Muslim country, probably fairly often harassed and obstructed by civilians, you might not feel so disposed towards them.

I rather suspect that this has been one of the more humane wars. The armies involved are officially committed to behaving themselves, aware of the importance of PR, and are very well trained.

For all the claims about hearts and minds, air superiority, precision strikes, or shock and awe, there is never going to be such thing as a safe, sanitised war. Nice people will get hurt. That's something you have to bear in mind when you start one. Or when you sign up to join the services.

<<'Dignity and respect' sounds a little officious don't you think? I expect if you were a US soldier in a Muslim country, probably fairly often harassed and obstructed by civilians, you might not feel so disposed towards them.>>

Has everyone forgotten that this all began as an illegal invasion, founded on lies, to overthrow a government? Does no one realise that the current "legitimate Iraqi government" is merely an American puppet one? That the average Iraqi in the street is therefore pretty damned cynical about it, and that the American occupiers should consider themselves lucky if "harassed and obstructed" is all they are.

<>
Please, I beg you, tell me you're kidding!

<< Nice people will get hurt.>>


Nice? There are nice occupiers? Next thing you'll be saying that Reinhard Heydrich was a nice guy, or that the Vichy government were well intentioned. Please, don't tell me you believe that!
I was afraid that 5 years on, everyone would accept the American actions and their results as simply the way things are. That's exactly what has happened and it just goes to show, do something foul enough, with plenty of force and confidence and the whole world will just apathetically accept it.
I never will, no matter how long it goes on.

Vicky

"Reinhard Heydrich was a nice guy, or that the Vichy government were well intentioned. Please, don't tell me you believe that! "

I think to quote anhaga, "you lose."

<>

Also keep repeating it often enough and have the press in your pocket. Watch this excellent programme ...



"Buying The War

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a "breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won.

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported?"

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Thank you for that link azahar... Brilliant!

Vicky

"I rather suspect that this has been one of the more humane wars. The armies involved are officially committed to behaving themselves, aware of the importance of PR, and are very well trained."

Compared to some wars, yes. But then we have huge questions looming about the US military's attitude towards defeating the insurgency in Fallujah and the infamous Abu Graib revelations. Both of those, taken alone, arguably fit into the sort of things that happen in "dirty" wars.

Again, though, compared with reports I remember seeing about the Russian war in Chechnya in the mid-1990s and (more recently) the UN-supported war against rebel forces in the DR Congo the US comes out looking comparatively well but we mustn't simply weigh up outrages and then say that less of them makes you "good". These remain things that simply shouldn't happen. It's also increasingly clear that they damage the war effort so even the most cynical argument for them holds less and less water.

"For all the claims about hearts and minds, air superiority, precision strikes, or shock and awe, there is never going to be such thing as a safe, sanitised war. Nice people will get hurt. That's something you have to bear in mind when you start one. Or when you sign up to join the services."

True, but a lot of the things that have happened in the Iraq war were completely unnecessary and have undoubtably damaged the American mission there. This is something the Americans (and any other world power) need to understand and take on board.

This is a central part to the allies' problems in Iraq. You cant police a country where you have no personal involvement.

In times gone by police officers gave a cr@p about wherre they worked because they lived there or nearby, now that very few leave near their beats they feel no shame operating with a similar attitude to the soldiers interviewed for the Pentagons poll.

It matters not what the abuse is, insults or physical assault it all give the impression of animosity and make it easier for Iraqis to think of you as the enemy.

Its gone past the time for kidd gloves in Iraq but more money should be spent on enabling even a theocratic government in Iraq that wil give those people peace because i dont know anyone other than people like Bush who lets face it has a track record of lying at every turn about iraq who see a way of bringing peace to the people who live there. While less and even tually no money is spent paying for troops whose intentions are not to act in a way the people who are paying for them dont want them to. Unless of course there happens to be anyone who is happy with the way personnel from the squaddies tot he top brass have gone about turning welcoming crowds into people who are either resentful all the way up to actaully trying to kill allies?

one love

People seem surprised. Why?

Consider: if you really did see a fellow soldier kill a civilian, what would YOU do?

And before you get on your high horse and say "I'd report him" or whatever, think on this:

1. that fellow soldier may have saved your life the day before. He may save your life tomorrow. The civilian will not ever have done, and would never have done, anything for you beyond rude hand gestures.

2. that fellow soldier has suffered the same hard training regime as you, has the same commitment to the unit as you, wears the same clothes, speaks the same language, beds down in the same bunk, eats the same food and carries the same weapon. That civilian has done no training, no hard work like you, doesn't wear clothes like you, jabbers incomprehensibly, lives in weird squalor and eats stuff you wouldn't step in.

3. that fellow soldier looks and sounds exactly like the people standing shoulder to shoulder with you. That civilian looks and sounds exactly like the people who fire mortars and rocket propelled grenades at you EVERY DAY, who place bombs by the road that injured your best friend. Even if that particular civilian is not directly responsible, they could be protecting those that are, or at the very least they probably sympathise with them, rather than you.

4. that fellow solider is your comrade, on whom you depend. It's vital that you can trust him with your life. It's equally vital that he trusts you with his. Are you going to betray that trust by snitching? Do you want a reputation in your unit for being a grass? Could be dangerous if you ever need their backup.

5. Tomorrow, YOU might have to shoot a civilian. Do you want to get reported?

Still going to report your brother for shooting that potential insurgent? Think about it...

SoRB

Problem is in the case of Iraq, the civilian population are the ones you are meant to be doing it all for. They are not just the civilians of an enemy country.

Read my list again. It's not about Iraq, because Iraq is in no way special, different or even unusual in this regard. It's generic. Ly list would apply perfectly equally (with the possible exception of coming under fire *every* day) to, say, a lance corporal from Hampshire posted to Northern Ireland in the 1970s - where the civilians were (on paper at least) his own countrymen.

SoRB

Why do we get our knickers in a twist when a squaddie shoots a civilian? In every case with the British & US Armies, if a mistake has been made, an apology is issued, compensation is paid and if an illegal act has taken place, criminal procedures follow. A teenage soldier living in hellish conditions and constant fear makes a mistake and shoots someone. Chances are his feet won't touch the ground. However, an older, more mature, better educated and highly trained pilot flying thousands of feet above lets fly and nothing happens.

Just so we are clear, the "shock & awe" of Iraq was very reminiscent of the thinking behind bombing in WWII where the Allies tried to shock the Germans and Japanese into submission. Forget the fancy videos, the bulk of bombs dropped in Iraq were dumb and every time you drop more than 6 bombs into an inhabited area, it is statistically certain you will kill & maim scores of civilians. The number of dead killed from the air far outnumbers by orders of magnitude those killed by soldiers. And all those dead have got angry and upset relatives, many with guns. Guess who the first target for their anger is? The poor bloody squaddie who has to go in and pick up the pieces.

But hey, soldiers are easy targets. Usually young, usually poorly educated, they're easy to pick on.

The real criminals are the Generals and Air Marshalls who insist on using WWII tactics to justify the massive expenditure on whizz-bang planes and artillery.