NationStates Jolt Archive

More evidence of abuse. This time it's within the vaunted 82nd airborne

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/politics/24abuse.html?ei=5094&en=661326ef9747a50a&hp=&ex=1127534400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

All I can see is this sentence: "The soldiers told a human rights group that prisoners had been beaten and abused to help gather intelligence and for amusement." Doesn't sound good but not exactly detailed...

Anyway, the British aren't doing too well either with their recent conflict with the Iraqi police, and breaking 2 Brits plus 150 Iraqi criminals out of a prison. That's not likely to make the average Iraqi think that the UK or US have their interests in mind.

"Since then, the Army has opened more than 400 inquiries into detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and punished 230 enlisted soldiers and officers."

just how many 'bad apples' are there in this here military organization?

"Aren't we supposed to be 'winning hearts and minds' in Iraq?"

Nah, that excuse had its 15 minutes. Right now we're in the last throes of the "gotta clean up our own mess" excuse. Almost can't wait to see what they dream up next.

"Aren't we supposed to be 'winning hearts and minds' in Iraq?"

Nah, that excuse had its 15 minutes. Right now we're in the last throes of the "gotta clean up our own mess" excuse. Almost can't wait to see what they dream up next.

ooh, let's do WMD again! i loved that one.

ooh, let's do WMD again! i loved that one.

i'm hoping for a solid round of "the lord your god commands that we stay the course!"

"Since then, the Army has opened more than 400 inquiries into detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and punished 230 enlisted soldiers and officers."

just how many 'bad apples' are there in this here military organization?

Don't you think though that part of the problem is that there is a cold war army, dealing with a post cold war situation? From what I understand about modern millitary training, it is still emphasizes large scale warfare with other conventional armies, and not the fulfilling the type of role that is needed by peace-keepers in Iraq.

ooh, let's do WMD again! i loved that one.

Actually, WMDs have been found. And I even have sources.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123

Don't you think though that part of the problem is that there is a cold war army, dealing with a post cold war situation? From what I understand about modern millitary training, it is still emphasizes large scale warfare with other conventional armies, and not the fulfilling the type of role that is needed by peace-keepers in Iraq.

Economics probably factors into it. If the American military were to change their operational planning for peacekeeping operations, there would probably be a big chunk of downsizing and reduction in the sales of heavy artillery and advanced air power. It's not like your average insurgent has a F-16, SU-27 and T-90 tank stashed in his garage does he?

I doubt the companies like McDonnel Douglas and other arms industries would be happy if American forces scaled down their training and armament stockpiles to border defense and peacekeeping since that would mean less sales of the real money makers. And the arms industries have got powerful lobby groups don't they?

Actually, WMDs have been found. And I even have sources.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123

I think Insightmag has been established by the members of this board already as one of little real credibility.

Economics probably factors into it. If the American military were to change their operational planning for peacekeeping operations, there would probably be a big chunk of downsizing and reduction in the sales of heavy artillery and advanced air power. It's not like your average insurgent has a F-16, SU-27 and T-90 tank stashed in his garage does he?

I doubt the companies like McDonnel Douglas and other arms industries would be happy if American forces scaled down their training and armament stockpiles to border defense and peacekeeping since that would mean less sales of the real money makers. And the arms industries have got powerful lobby groups don't they?

Yeah, I can see that up to a point. But you wouldn't have to convert the whole army, and you would still have the airforce and the navy - which I understand gets the bulk of the peacetime budget anyway.

Or, even just change the training, and concentrate on peacekeeping more as well as conventional warfare. I would imagine that part of this arises from the fact that the NCOs and COs are completely unprepared in reality to deal with the situation in at hand. Surely the career soldiers have time during their enlistment to get training to prepare them better for this kind of deployment. From what I gather, some of these problems arise simply because there is no adequate direction from the senior NCOs and officers.

Yeah, I can see that up to a point. But you wouldn't have to convert the whole army, and you would still have the airforce and the navy - which I understand gets the bulk of the peacetime budget anyway.

The problem is that by standing down from the Cold War mentality, is that there is less focus on getting the bigger and better equipment that fast anymore. I mean, back then during the era of the Cold War, arms development and procurement was at its highest was it not? The collapse of the Soviet Union meant a drop in sales and demand for the newest and best as soon as possible. But the mentality still remained, albeit in a less focused way than before. If that mentality fully changed, that would be a big blow to the companies.


From what I gather, some of these problems arise simply because there is no adequate direction from the senior NCOs and officers.

If I'm not mistaken, the senior NCOs would have to convince their seniors and it would keep on going up until it finally reached the heads of the DOD since such a shift means a policy change in the training at the least. Here, it won't be just economical problems that will face the hopeful. It will also be warhawks who go "What? Peacekeeping training? Winning their hearts and minds? We don't need that kind of training. Just train them to kill as fast and as efficient as possible." That would be the end of that idea.

The difficulty in getting it accepted would be Herculean to say the least.

Don't you think though that part of the problem is that there is a cold war army, dealing with a post cold war situation? From what I understand about modern millitary training, it is still emphasizes large scale warfare with other conventional armies, and not the fulfilling the type of role that is needed by peace-keepers in Iraq.That and the basic problem the end of the cold war brought about: No enemy. Time and time again, the American public seeks some enemy to define itself. Cuba and other "rogue states" just don't compare to the military threat of the Soviet Union. But now that we have terrorists about, the nuclear threat is back, the justification for deploying troops overseas is back, and the need for the public to be behind the government is back, since now it's not just a war against an enemy that hates our way of life and could anihilate us with their nuclear arsenal, its a war against an enemy that hates our way of life and the only thing stopping them from anihilating us with their nuclear arsenal is the US military and intelligence services preventing them from getting any.
And it always helps to gloss over mistakes one has made in the name of national unity against a common foe.

ooh, let's do WMD again! i loved that one.

LMAO :D

I think Insightmag has been established by the members of this board already as one of little real credibility.

Really? How was that proven?

Really? How was that proven?
No matter, what is provided in these articles is nothing of substance.

"Laboratories that could have been used to...", "prison complex that may have been used to test bio-weapons", "not fully declared unmanned aerial vehicles", "reference strains of biological agents", "plans to build missiles" etc

"Sharon accuses", "pictures confirm vehicle traffic", "dismissed as lacking credibility"...

Really? How was that proven?


How about "becuase if it were true, every news agency would be doing countless stories about it to get ratings?"

If that had ANY credibilty to it at all, the networks would have been all over it like flies on shit.

Anyway, the British aren't doing too well either with their recent conflict with the Iraqi police, and breaking 2 Brits plus 150 Iraqi criminals out of a prison. That's not likely to make the average Iraqi think that the UK or US have their interests in mind.

That "150 criminals" thing was found to be false, and they did have a reason to bust them out of prison - they found they were to be handed over to local militia, who would most likely torture and kill them, from what i've gathered.

It's a bit different from beating and abusing Iraqis for fun, not that British troops are completely innocent of this - it just generally happens less often since they are more disciplined.

That "150 criminals" thing was found to be false, and they did have a reason to bust them out of prison - they found they were to be handed over to local militia, who would most likely torture and kill them, from what i've gathered.

It's a bit different from beating and abusing Iraqis for fun, not that British troops are completely innocent of this - it just generally happens less often since they are more disciplined.

British troops have hardly been saints in this conflict, but the recent action was needed.

What was kinda cool to see was the footage of the SAS troops sat there...totally relaxed.

I reckon the British need to take direct control of the police. To stop the average constable joining a faction, knowing that he has power to back him up. It may sound a little imperialistic but if it maintains law and order and stops people getting killed then perhaps it nessisary.

Anyway, the British aren't doing too well either with their recent conflict with the Iraqi police, and breaking 2 Brits plus 150 Iraqi criminals out of a prison. That's not likely to make the average Iraqi think that the UK or US have their interests in mind.

No, but neither does the events at Abu Ghraib, and indiscriminate slaughters of cars full of Iraqi families at US Army Checkpoints, or the US Army flattening of Fallujah, or indeed the continuing US-led occupation of Iraq altogether.

I would say that the British have some way to go before they are as hated in Iraq as much as the Americans, but they're getting there.