NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I was reading this report in the Guardian, about how a UK officer believes that the US military is "institutionally racist". Has a very cogent observation about how our military is designed and built to respond to problems by use of force (hey, it's the raison d'etre of a military), but has the comment that we're "inadvertently" racist and culturally insensitive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1684561,00.html

Ok, as long as you say inadvertently. He did note that we were unfailingly polite and courteous. Something we can work on - after all, we're also accused of having an overeager "can do" attitude.

So, I was thinking about institutionalized racism. Doing a parade in the US in blackface, for example, hasn't happened in decades because of the outrage it would provoke.

Guess they have that problem: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4603886.stm

Doesn't look "inadvertent" to me...

But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population.
Bingo!

I still remember when they first started doing house searches on the news. I was thinking then "They can't do that! Why the f*ck isn't anyone telling them?".
I mean, I'm really not an expert, but I've been around Muslims and people from Muslim countries for as long as I can remember (my mum teaches "bellydance" for want of a better word and has a lot of connections to Egypt etc because of that), and you don't just barge into a place like that. I would've expected the US Army to be aware of things like that, but initially it didn't look like they were.

I think this British officer is pretty much spot on. Not that I can really talk, cuz I haven't been there, but it seems to me what he's saying is pretty much true.

I think "peacekeeping" is just not enough of a priority for the US Military Heads at the moment, although I'd argue it is one of the most vital jobs a modern military has to perform.
Perhaps guys like this one can slowly affect some change in training methods and the whole outlook on things.

As for the other link...I don't think he's talking about the traditional Black vs White type of Racism. Just the total lack of awareness displayed sometimes, coupled with various methods and views supported by the army, it sometimes comes out as what can amount to "Racism". Be honest, have you ever heard US Officers use the term "raghead"?

Well, I was reading this report in the Guardian, about how a UK officer believes that the US military is "institutionally racist". Has a very cogent observation about how our military is designed and built to respond to problems by use of force (hey, it's the raison d'etre of a military), but has the comment that we're "inadvertently" racist and culturally insensitive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1684561,00.html

Ok, as long as you say inadvertently. He did note that we were unfailingly polite and courteous. Something we can work on - after all, we're also accused of having an overeager "can do" attitude.

So, I was thinking about institutionalized racism. Doing a parade in the US in blackface, for example, hasn't happened in decades because of the outrage it would provoke.

Guess they have that problem: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4603886.stm

Doesn't look "inadvertent" to me...

The second article doesn't seem to have much to do with the first...
One is about cutural racism, something Americans on the whole are a lot more conscious of due to the diversity of cultures within their country. The other refers to rascism in the military, and the general attitude towards "the enemy". An overly patriotic attitude, being counterproductive in this modern war, in which the "winning" parties are currently struggling to win over the population to their cause so that necessary reforms will be widely accepted as improvement and not be seen as put in place by the enemy.
Personally, I understand what the UK officer is talking about, as it is not something that's unique to the US military. It can also be observed in its diplomacy...

The comments made about the way the US works in Iraq appear to be based on evidence and experience.

The folk traditions of blacking up and wearing costumes go back hundreds of years and have nothing to do with race. Stopping it is along the lines of not saying Black board, when the board is evidently black!

So do we stop saying white chocolate? No. Because even though it is not white it is as near as it gets.

It's like saying happy holidays rather than happy Christmas. Do we have to pander to the intolerences of others? If you have a faith and wish me a happy day on one of your festivals, 'I'll say thanks very much' and 'what's all this about then?'

Bingo!

I still remember when they first started doing house searches on the news. I was thinking then "They can't do that! Why the f*ck isn't anyone telling them?".
I mean, I'm really not an expert, but I've been around Muslims and people from Muslim countries for as long as I can remember (my mum teaches "bellydance" for want of a better word and has a lot of connections to Egypt etc because of that), and you don't just barge into a place like that. I would've expected the US Army to be aware of things like that, but initially it didn't look like they were.

I think this British officer is pretty much spot on. Not that I can really talk, cuz I haven't been there, but it seems to me what he's saying is pretty much true.

I think "peacekeeping" is just not enough of a priority for the US Military Heads at the moment, although I'd argue it is one of the most vital jobs a modern military has to perform.
Perhaps guys like this one can slowly affect some change in training methods and the whole outlook on things.

As for the other link...I don't think he's talking about the traditional Black vs White type of Racism. Just the total lack of awareness displayed sometimes, coupled with various methods and views supported by the army, it sometimes comes out as what can amount to "Racism". Be honest, have you ever heard US Officers use the term "raghead"?

"Peacekeeping" is not a role for the military. Our military has been decades in the making - and all of its tools and training over the years are geared towards warfighting. You can't expect to take that military and then use it for "peacekeeping". I believe that a completely separate organization should be created for "peacekeeping". I would also submit that a military that is trained to be good at "peacekeeping" will get its ass kicked in a real war.

Never heard an officer say 'raghead'. Nope.

"Peacekeeping" is not a role for the military. Our military has been decades in the making - and all of its tools and training over the years are geared towards warfighting. You can't expect to take that military and then use it for "peacekeeping". I believe that a completely separate organization should be created for "peacekeeping". I would also submit that a military that is trained to be good at "peacekeeping" will get its ass kicked in a real war.

Never heard an officer say 'raghead'. Nope.

Don't know about the rest of the world, but the German military is trained exclusively for peacekeeping. Nothing else. And it doesn't look as if they got their ass kicked in Afghanistan...

Don't know about the rest of the world, but the German military is trained exclusively for peacekeeping. Nothing else. And it doesn't look as if they got their ass kicked in Afghanistan...
And the German military is incapable of offensive operations.

As an example, it couldn't invade and take over any country on earth.

You have to see what the US military was designed for. It's not designed for peacekeeping, and suddenly wanting it to change overnight with no doctrine and no training is wishful thinking at best.

And the German military is incapable of offensive operations.

As an example, it couldn't invade and take over any country on earth.

You have to see what the US military was designed for. It's not designed for peacekeeping, and suddenly wanting it to change overnight with no doctrine and no training is wishful thinking at best.

Wouldn't it then be best not to try and employ it in peacekeeping missions?
And, most of all, not to invade countries with intention to keep the peace afterwards for long enough for the political climate to stabilise?

"Peacekeeping" is not a role for the military. Our military has been decades in the making - and all of its tools and training over the years are geared towards warfighting. You can't expect to take that military and then use it for "peacekeeping". I believe that a completely separate organization should be created for "peacekeeping". I would also submit that a military that is trained to be good at "peacekeeping" will get its ass kicked in a real war.

Never heard an officer say 'raghead'. Nope.
UK forces have years upon years of peace keeping opps, and man for man I'm afraid I'd put them ahead of the US in a fight any day.
And in the modern world every responsible major power should have an army trained for peace keeping ops. And the US are trained for it, they may not have the experience, but it will come.

Wouldn't it then be best not to try and employ it in peacekeeping missions?
And, most of all, not to invade countries with intention to keep the peace afterwards for long enough for the political climate to stabilise?
I'm not arguing that - the US military should never be used for anything remotely related to peacekeeping.

It was a disaster in Somalia. It was (to my mind) a clusterfuck in Kosovo.

"Peacekeeping" to me is about as inane a concept as the "United Nations". To me, and to a lot of people in the Third World, it translates as "the foreigners are here to watch us get killed".

Think of the US military as a large hammer. It's very good at driving nails - and not much else.

I'd say that the military is racist, but no more so than the civilian population is.

I'm not arguing that - the US military should never be used for anything remotely related to peacekeeping.

It was a disaster in Somalia. It was (to my mind) a clusterfuck in Kosovo.

"Peacekeeping" to me is about as inane a concept as the "United Nations". To me, and to a lot of people in the Third World, it translates as "the foreigners are here to watch us get killed".

Think of the US military as a large hammer. It's very good at driving nails - and not much else.
In that case, think of the UK forces as a surgical tool. Does what it needs to without emotion and as efficiently as possible.

"Peacekeeping" is not a role for the military. Our military has been decades in the making - and all of its tools and training over the years are geared towards warfighting.
See, that's what the guy means. You can win a war, but you sure do lose the peace.

You can't expect to take that military and then use it for "peacekeeping". I believe that a completely separate organization should be created for "peacekeeping". I would also submit that a military that is trained to be good at "peacekeeping" will get its ass kicked in a real war.
Whatever you call it, it will have to work together closely with the military, and the soldiers are already there from Zero Hour onwards. Plus they are the first impression a civilian gets of you.
I can't see a practical way in which another organisation can do these things, especially if the military will stay around and possibly destroy all the good work done towards building a working relationship with the people.

As for the effectiveness regarding warfare, I don't see how training in local customs, a bit of respect and acceptance and that sort of thing will make a man a worse solder. Unless of course you think that ignorance, blind patriotism and one-sided views are necessary to make one a good soldier.

Fact is that the Bundeswehr does most of its work in peacekeeping, yet has so far been able to defeat any enemy it has faced since it was started. Which was admittedly not all that many.
Nonetheless, KSK special units for example are trained in both, and they seem to be able to both do the ugly stuff and get locals to like them if required - I suspect the same to be true of other special forces, thus showing that with enough training, it's certainly possible to be good at both.

Probably an even better example would be the Brits. Using simple techniques (like wearing berets rather than steel helmets) in their area they managed to get much greater acceptance from the locals than was found in areas under US control. You wouldn't say the British army would get its ass kicked in a real fight, would you?

Never heard an officer say 'raghead'. Nope.
Was it tolerated if soldiers said derogatory things?

Anyways, I hope you see what I mean with "institutional racism". It's not because they all hate brown people - it's because if they don't try to understand them and at the same time do all the "can-do" things they do, you will get very similar effects at the end.
And then you'll have Iraqis who are pretty certain that the US Soldiers are racists in one way or another, which doesn't help.

Never heard an officer say 'raghead'. Nope.
What about "Hadji?" Don't know if they were officers, but I've heard US troops refer to Iraqis using that term more than once. That's just as offensive.

I'm not arguing that - the US military should never be used for anything remotely related to peacekeeping.

It was a disaster in Somalia. It was (to my mind) a clusterfuck in Kosovo.

"Peacekeeping" to me is about as inane a concept as the "United Nations". To me, and to a lot of people in the Third World, it translates as "the foreigners are here to watch us get killed".

Think of the US military as a large hammer. It's very good at driving nails - and not much else.

Peacekeeping only works once there IS peace... or at least a reliable ceasefire. That wasn't the case in Somalia nor in the Kosovo.
You see, one of the things that has turned the US military from one of the most admired to one of the most despised planetwide in the last half century is the simple fact that they never again managed to get their peacekeeping organised after WW II. Germany was the last country in which peacekeeping after establishing peace was successful. All other wars (Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, First Gulf War...) were simply abandoned, and consequently in a number of cases flared up again.

If you want your militay to be efficient you better get that sorted out, or else you'll never be able to successfully get rid of any threat.

"darkies"...*L*

As for the effectiveness regarding warfare, I don't see how training in local customs, a bit of respect and acceptance and that sort of thing will make a man a worse solder. Unless of course you think that ignorance, blind patriotism and one-sided views are necessary to make one a good soldier.

US troops do get training in local customs, etc. What I'm saying is that the very act of "peacekeeping" is a non sequitur for a military.

It's essentially a license to sit around and get shot at while being under orders to remain a target.

I guess none of you have been to the sandbox, nor know anyone there. There are classes for US soldiers about cultural respect. There are severe restrictions on what you can put on signs or t-shirts - to ensure that there's no violation of cultural respect.

What I'm saying is that if you want a force that's designed for invading and blowing things up in very short order, it's not going to be any good at occupation - and if it's good at occupation, it's not going to be good at invading and blowing things up in very short order.

The Bundeswehr couldn't invade anyplace on earth as rapidly as the US can (well, France, but that goes without saying).

On top of that, anything more than a few thousand peacekeepers is an extremely expensive operation - far, far more expensive than an actual invasion (while the actual invasion of Iraq may have only cost around 50 billion, the occupation may cost over 1 trillion dollars!).

I think that the US, if it ever invades anyone again, should not stick around for the "peacekeeping". Just crush the government, destroy the infrastructure completely, annihilate the organized military, and move on.

Otherwise, don't invade (if the end result of blowing the place up isn't acceptable).

I believe that "peacekeeping" should be the realm of countries that want to fashion forces to do only that. The US should reserve its military for actual war.

"Peacekeeping" to me is about as inane a concept as the "United Nations". To me, and to a lot of people in the Third World, it translates as "the foreigners are here to watch us get killed".
Which is where things get a little iffy.

Peacekeeping in my mind needs to also include peacemaking sometimes, meaning that the local commanders must be authorised to do what it takes to protect the population. That was not the case in Africa, nor was it the case in Srebrenica, and we know how it turned out.

Nonetheless, by "peacekeeping" I mean primarily the concept of establishing good and friendly relations with the locals, as well as providing security for them.

To me it seems like in Iraq, the focus has always been on always going on the offensive, on destroying the enemy. That means that the relationship with the Iraqis has suffered...turned out they were little more than providing the ambience for US operations. And not only has that neglected the relationship, it has also neglected their security, because everytime you go and fight somewhere offensively, you're not somewhere else defensively.

US troops do get training in local customs, etc. What I'm saying is that the very act of "peacekeeping" is a non sequitur for a military.

It's essentially a license to sit around and get shot at while being under orders to remain a target.

I guess none of you have been to the sandbox, nor know anyone there. There are classes for US soldiers about cultural respect. There are severe restrictions on what you can put on signs or t-shirts - to ensure that there's no violation of cultural respect.

What I'm saying is that if you want a force that's designed for invading and blowing things up in very short order, it's not going to be any good at occupation - and if it's good at occupation, it's not going to be good at invading and blowing things up in very short order.

The Bundeswehr couldn't invade anyplace on earth as rapidly as the US can (well, France, but that goes without saying).

On top of that, anything more than a few thousand peacekeepers is an extremely expensive operation - far, far more expensive than an actual invasion (while the actual invasion of Iraq may have only cost around 50 billion, the occupation may cost over 1 trillion dollars!).

I think that the US, if it ever invades anyone again, should not stick around for the "peacekeeping". Just crush the government, destroy the infrastructure completely, annihilate the organized military, and move on.

Otherwise, don't invade (if the end result of blowing the place up isn't acceptable).

I believe that "peacekeeping" should be the realm of countries that want to fashion forces to do only that. The US should reserve its military for actual war.

Nobody doubts US efficiency in destruction, be that of objects or lives. You have proven that beyond doubt numerous times.

"You win the war but lose the peace" is very accurate.
Don't you feel that it is rather ineffcient to have a military that will only serve itself in creating ever more enemies every time it is employed, and therefore creating future threats for your country, rather than actually protecting the country by making sure that former enemies are turned into friends and no longer pose a threat at all (for example Germany)?

I guess none of you have been to the sandbox, nor know anyone there. There are classes for US soldiers about cultural respect. There are severe restrictions on what you can put on signs or t-shirts - to ensure that there's no violation of cultural respect.
Then the question is...how can it happen that US Forces initially raided houses disregarding all cultural norms and rules? They didn't start out all respectful in the early weeks, that came a bit later.

Whatever these classes are - they don't seem all that effective to me, if even your Allied Commanders notice it.

What I'm saying is that if you want a force that's designed for invading and blowing things up in very short order, it's not going to be any good at occupation - and if it's good at occupation, it's not going to be good at invading and blowing things up in very short order.
But that's hardly a logical proof.

The Bundeswehr couldn't invade anyplace on earth as rapidly as the US can (well, France, but that goes without saying).
Which is due to its equipment, and the fact that its leadership is not into that sort of thing. Hardly due to training.
The German Army has shown itself to be capable of everything NATO wanted of it, and that was all it was ever meant to do. So in that respect, the additional focus on peacekeeping operations has not weakened it.

On top of that, anything more than a few thousand peacekeepers is an extremely expensive operation - far, far more expensive than an actual invasion (while the actual invasion of Iraq may have only cost around 50 billion, the occupation may cost over 1 trillion dollars!).
It's always easier to destroy than to mend, that works on all levels. A good idea would be to minimise destruction of course, but I doubt you'll warm to that idea.

I think that the US, if it ever invades anyone again, should not stick around for the "peacekeeping". Just crush the government, destroy the infrastructure completely, annihilate the organized military, and move on.
So that ends the debate then?
You have shown yourself to be exactly the type of person this British officer described in a bit of rosy language - all the more proof that the US Military needs a re-think, if people with opinions like yours come out at the end.

So that ends the debate then?
You have shown yourself to be exactly the type of person this British officer described in a bit of rosy language - all the more proof that the US Military needs a re-think, if people with opinions like yours come out at the end.
No, it doesn't end the debate. You're just not reading the part where I say that the US military, if it's to be good at crushing a country in two weeks, isn't going to be able to use the same units and equipment to occupy a country.

Sitting around in a bunch of stealth bombers and M1 tanks isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds - and when all you have is hammers, everything looks like a nail.

If you've read my posts, you'll realize that I'm saying that there should be other organizations - completely separate organizations - that do peacekeeping. Either a completely separate organization in the US, or the militaries of other countries that like doing that role.

Not the US.

Want someone to stop North Korea from invading South Korea, and in two weeks bring an end to the conflict? Call the US.

Want to rebuild the nation of North Korea afterwards? Call someone else.

Oh, and great job that the UK did in "peacekeeping" in Northern Ireland.

Either a completely separate organization in the US, or the militaries of other countries that like doing that role.Why couldn't the UN be reformed in such a way to make this conducive for the UN to do? (Peacekeeping)

As an American, and one who wished to be a soldier(actually got turned away, even with a 98 on the ASVAB...), I think the issue is that everyone is overy tolerant, especially concerning those that are intolerant of our very existence. Turn about, in my book, is ALWAYS fair play.

The US is THE premier nation at projecting power. Don't get whiny at us when we do what we're best at. If you want to keep the peace so well, do it yourselves, don't bitch at us for fighting back with every weapon in our arsenal when our boys are out there fighting and dying by the hands of cowards.

Yes, I'm a little opinionated, tough.

As an American, and one who wished to be a soldier(actually got turned away, even with a 98 on the ASVAB...), I think the issue is that everyone is overy tolerant, especially concerning those that are intolerant of our very existence. Turn about, in my book, is ALWAYS fair play.

The US is THE premier nation at projecting power. Don't get whiny at us when we do what we're best at. If you want to keep the peace so well, do it yourselves, don't bitch at us for fighting back with every weapon in our arsenal when our boys are out there fighting and dying by the hands of cowards.

Yes, I'm a little opinionated, tough.

A little? Compared to who, Hitler? :rolleyes:
You invaded their country, and they feel that they need to defend themselves. Understandably, really.

The task ahead is to convince them that they don't need to defend themselves against you any more, because you want to help them. Otherwise, your "boys" will be stuck in that dessert forever, just to prevent the place from becoming a very real threat to your country again.
Basic, simple psychology, and a little bit of common sense is all it takes...

A little? Compared to who, Hitler? :rolleyes:
You invaded their country, and they feel that they need to defend themselves. Understandably, really.

The task ahead is to convince them that they don't need to defend themselves against you any more, because you want to help them. Otherwise, your "boys" will be stuck in that dessert forever, just to prevent the place from becoming a very real threat to your country again.
Basic, simple psychology, and a little bit of common sense is all it takes...

Say that bit about hitler again, see what happens... Remember boy, NEVER risk comparing someone with Hitler online, you may just piss off someone with some Jewish ancestry.

The task a head is to kill anything that lifts a gun in our direction. Do that, and there'll be no more insurgents left. It's not like we can do otherwise anyway, as has been noted previously, the army is a Hammer, not a precision instrument.

Say that bit about hitler again, see what happens... Remember boy, NEVER risk comparing someone with Hitler online, you may just piss off someone with some Jewish ancestry.

I'm a German/Austrian woman, so yes, I can make that comparison when warning people without pissing off any Jews.


The task a head is to kill anything that lifts a gun in our direction. Do that, and there'll be no more insurgents left. It's not like we can do otherwise anyway, as has been noted previously, the army is a Hammer, not a precision instrument.

That is why the US hasn't effectively won a war since the end of WW II. Back then, you made sure to stay in the occupied countries and to build up a system that would never again pose a threat to you.

To relate that to a current example : If George Senior had finished his war in the Gulf and made sure to establish a democratic and stable system via a peacekeeping operation, do you think you'd be in quite that mess right now?
Back then the Iraqi population was still convinced through years of pro-American propaganda, back then you had the support of the international community (and I'm talking soldiers, weapons AND money here), and back then Iraq hadn't been starving under a US-originated and maintained embargo for more than a decade.
But I somehow have the feeling that you won't learn that lesson anytime soon, more's the pity.

The task a head is to kill anything that lifts a gun in our direction. Do that, and there'll be no more insurgents left. It's not like we can do otherwise anyway, as has been noted previously, the army is a Hammer, not a precision instrument.

Let me explain:

1. There is one insurgent, you kill him.
2. His death is portrayed as martyrdom and encourages two more men to become insurgents.
3. They die but they inspire four more young men...

As you can see it is a vicious circle and the only way out is to convince the general population that you aren't an enemy, as Neu Leonstein just explained.

Let me explain:

1. There is one insurgent, you kill him.
2. His death is portrayed as martyrdom and encourages two more men to become insurgents.
3. They die but they inspire four more young men...

As you can see it is a vicious circle and the only way out is to convince the general population that you aren't an enemy, as Cabra West just explained.

Oops, wrong name. Sorry I can't edit, my Jolt account is screwed.

I'm a German/Austrian woman, so yes, I can make that comparison when warning people without pissing off any Jews.



That is why the US hasn't effectively won a war since the end of WW II. Back then, you made sure to stay in the occupied countries and to build up a system that would never again pose a threat to you.

To relate that to a current example : If George Senior had finished his war in the Gulf and made sure to establish a democratic and stable system via a peacekeeping operation, do you think you'd be in quite that mess right now?
Back then the Iraqi population was still convinced through years of pro-American propaganda, back then you had the support of the international community (and I'm talking soldiers, weapons AND money here), and back then Iraq hadn't been starving under a US-originated and maintained embargo for more than a decade.
But I somehow have the feeling that you won't learn that lesson anytime soon, more's the pity.

And I'm an American, guess what, you managed to piss me off. The fact that you're German and saying that is NOT helping your case in my eyes either.

If George senior had stayed in we likely wouldn't be in this mess, true, but you know what? He didn't, and now we are, so we play with the hand we've been dealt. Why don't YOU go do some peacekeeping if you think you're so damned good at it?

@guy who doesn't have the right SN right now:

And, eventually, you run out of people who are either insane enough, or stupid enough, to fight back.

And I'm an American, guess what, you managed to piss me off. The fact that you're German and saying that is NOT helping your case in my eyes either.

If George senior had stayed in we likely wouldn't be in this mess, true, but you know what? He didn't, and now we are, so we play with the hand we've been dealt. Why don't YOU go do some peacekeeping if you think you're so damned good at it?

The German army is doing so right now. They obliginly took over command in Afghanistan, so your army would be free to concentrate on Iraq.
And I don't honestly see why my nationality should piss you of, after all the arguments I provided and that you could get pissed off at.


@guy who doesn't have the right SN right now:

And, eventually, you run out of people who are either insane enough, or stupid enough, to fight back.

Israel is still waiting for that to happen...

Indeed, Affirmative Action or Positive Discrimination are tantamount to institutional racism.

The German army is doing so right now. They obliginly took over command in Afghanistan, so your army would be free to concentrate on Iraq.
And I don't honestly see why my nationality should piss you of, after all the arguments I provided and that you could get pissed off at.



Israel is still waiting for that to happen...

They did indeed, and I think it's wonderful, but I meant you personally. If you can see the right way to do everything, then why don't we just leave and let you handle it?

Israel is another story entirely. They are unique among nations in the middle east, in thast they are predominantly Jewish(or whatever you want to call them, I'm descended from German Jews, and jewish has always been good enough for me, I'm sure there's a more PC way to say it, but I really could care less) and a Democracy. They are a natural target for any hostility in the region, and their previous stance towards the palestinians didn't help.

Oh, and great job that the UK did in "peacekeeping" in Northern Ireland.
I'd say they did. They weren't perfect, but without them things could have been a whole lot worse, really.

I'd say they did. They weren't perfect, but without them things could have been a whole lot worse, really.

I profess to considerable ignorance as to the situation in Ulster, however the mere existence of disarmament and a viable and teneble peace process is testament to the conduct of the British.

I'd say they did. They weren't perfect, but without them things could have been a whole lot worse, really.

I profess to considerable ignorance as to the situation in Ulster, however the mere existence of disarmament and a viable and teneble peace process is testament to the conduct of the British.

They did indeed, and I think it's wonderful, but I meant you personally. If you can see the right way to do everything, then why don't we just leave and let you handle it?

When did I ever say I saw everything? But now and again it does help to open your eyes, and you tend to have a different perspective on the whole picture if you're not in the middle.
Btw, I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so, if you read the article this thread is about. And I could recommend a few books on the subject, if you want.


Israel is another story entirely. They are unique among nations in the middle east, in thast they are predominantly Jewish(or whatever you want to call them, I'm descended from German Jews, and jewish has always been good enough for me, I'm sure there's a more PC way to say it, but I really could care less) and a Democracy. They are a natural target for any hostility in the region, and their previous stance towards the palestinians didn't help.

And you think that the largest democracy in the world, and one that a good number of violent nutcases love to assume is run by a global Jewish conspiracy, is less of a target?
Israel tried to defend itself using all its military power and punishing every attack draconianly. As a result the violence spiralled out of control.
The thing about fanatic terrorism is, you cannot crush it by force. You can keep it in check for a while, but to eliminate it pure force simply doesn't suffice.

I'm not overtly familiar with the situation in Ulster, but I'd say our army has done a far better job of 'peace-keeping' in Ulster and Northern Ireland for nearly a hundred years than the US ever has. Admittedly we've had a lot more time to gain experience, and we've had our noses bloodied a lot of times; we've had our share of bad moves (Bloody Sunday), and it helps that the Irish aren't quite as fanatical at times.

However, we seem to have been able to generally keep the peace, and even gain peace accords and various disarmament treaties in Ireland without using brute force all the time; the British Army has also been able to continue offensive and other peace-keeping missions without compromising the peace-process majorly in Ireland. And our army is far, far smaller than the US's.

Deep Kimchi refers to the US Army as a 'Hammer'. Yes, its a hammer, and it very effectively knocks out anything it rumbles across. But it doesn't do anything else, and thats the major problem. You can't just bomb something flat and then expect everything to be fine, then start raiding houses and abusing prisoners and wonder why the insurgents are still fighting. Yes, we did some sbusing as well, and yes many insurgents are outside influences, but still, its obvious the US army needs to adapt, and quickly. Learn from the British Army; god knows we've spilt enough blood to gain these lessons, and perhaps if you act quickly enough you won't have to spill as much as we did.

The task a head is to kill anything that lifts a gun in our direction. Do that, and there'll be no more insurgents left. It's not like we can do otherwise anyway, as has been noted previously, the army is a Hammer, not a precision instrument.

If the Union had that attitude during the 2nd civil war, there wouldn't be such a thing called a "natural born Southerner" today. Too bad. It might have been a good lesson.

I profess to considerable ignorance as to the situation in Ulster, however the mere existence of disarmament and a viable and teneble peace process is testament to the conduct of the British.

As is the length of the conflict.

I think the U.S military is an excellant fighting army.For peacekeeping it is kinda like a bull in a china shop.There is absolutly no tact in the way they handle things.It has to be one side or the other without any grey areas or neutral ground.The germans have a pretty good peace keeping force as do the irish and even the pakistanis.

http://www.nigelcarr.co.uk/papabig.jpg
Papa Lazarou says: You're my wife now Dave. (The second article in the OP reminded me of this character from The League Of Gentlemen)

As for the first article, I think it was obvious but at least it is prompting a debate and hopefully helps the US military evolve into something better in the long run. Glad to hear that US military leaders agree with the assesment.

Say that bit about hitler again, see what happens... Remember boy, NEVER risk comparing someone with Hitler online, you may just piss off someone with some Jewish ancestry.

The task a head is to kill anything that lifts a gun in our direction. Do that, and there'll be no more insurgents left. It's not like we can do otherwise anyway, as has been noted previously, the army is a Hammer, not a precision instrument.

My word, we truly are facist aren't we?

The task ahead (inherently ungainly phrase to my mind), is to engender a peace wherein you can withdraw ultimately and leave behind a "western" democracy imposed upon an Arabic Land.

Incidentally, why do you have the right to "lift agun in someone's direction" and not expect opposition, and yet if they "lift a gun in our (your I can assure you, the USA stands, and has always stood, alone upon Iraq) direction", you have the right to respond? A somewhat odd sentiment from one from the land of equality and freedom no?

Say that bit about hitler again, see what happens... Remember boy, NEVER risk comparing someone with Hitler online, you may just piss off someone with some Jewish ancestry.

The task a head is to kill anything that lifts a gun in our direction. Do that, and there'll be no more insurgents left. It's not like we can do otherwise anyway, as has been noted previously, the army is a Hammer, not a precision instrument.

My word, we truly are facist aren't we?

The task ahead (inherently ungainly phrase to my mind), is to engender a peace wherein you can withdraw ultimately and leave behind a "western" democracy imposed upon an Arabic Land.

Incidentally, why do you have the right to "lift agun in someone's direction" and not expect opposition, and yet if they "lift a gun in our (your I can assure you, the USA stands, and has always stood, alone upon Iraq) direction", you have the right to respond? A somewhat odd sentiment from one from the land of equality and freedom no?

So far as I can ascertain it would be an oddity if the US military wasnt characterised by a degree of institutional racism.

The US is THE premier nation at projecting power. Don't get whiny at us when we do what we're best at. If you want to keep the peace so well, do it yourselves, don't bitch at us for fighting back with every weapon in our arsenal when our boys are out there fighting and dying by the hands of cowards.

Yes, I'm a little opinionated, tough.

"Cowards"..thats a good one. When it was all too apparent that Iraqi forces lacked the firepower to penetrate US armour, I don't recall scenes of Abrams tanks abandoned in the desert as their crews sought to engage their foe "mano a mano".

Say that bit about hitler again, see what happens... Remember boy, NEVER risk comparing someone with Hitler online, you may just piss off someone with some Jewish ancestry..

"Boy"....?

Its an oft made comparison. Be offended by seeing Hitler praised is fair enough, but if somebody is offended by such a comparison as uses him as a standard of evil, I fear that internet message boards will be the cause of their emotional demise - in short order.

The fact that you're German and saying that is NOT helping your case in my eyes either...

So its "ALL GERMANS ARE GUILTY" time.....quite apt in a thread about reprehensible Institutional attitudes towards races/groups etc....

Israel is still waiting for that to happen...


Given the option between going down, or going down fighting, many will choose the latter.

I would argue that from an Iraqi perspective there still is uncertainity as regards the good or bad of the US presence within the Shia community, and the occupation is not as destructive or intrusive as the Israeli one. Hence the US has some hope of at least stabilising the situation. The Israelis on the other hand, actively want Palestinian land within the occupied territories with no doubt about their intentions, so there isnt really any ambivalence possible. Hence the endless nature of the Palestinian resistance. There is no "peace dividend" for them.

I'm not overtly familiar with the situation in Ulster, but I'd say our army has done a far better job of 'peace-keeping' in Ulster and Northern Ireland for nearly a hundred years than the US ever has...

Damned by faint praise, then.

Northern Ireland has actually only existed since 1922 and only saw British intervention in 1969. Preceding this they were perfectly happy for a system of indirect rule to arise which effectively created second class citizens along sectarian lines.

However, their late intervention notwithstanding, the Bloody Sunday massacre and internment ruined any chance of their being seen as a even handed arbitrator, and various other "Faux Pas" did nothing to remedy this. Hence 30 years of conflict.

If I want something destroyed or shot to hell, really quickly- I'll call on the Americans,

If I want something fixed and sorted for the long term- I'll call the Europeans.

No, it doesn't end the debate. You're just not reading the part where I say that the US military, if it's to be good at crushing a country in two weeks, isn't going to be able to use the same units and equipment to occupy a country.
Of course not...but there is something that is useful in both situations: A well-trained soldier.
Peacekeeping is not a matter of equipment, it's a matter of attitude and of training. The Military goes there, saying it wants to help the people...but it doesn't behave like it.

If you've read my posts, you'll realize that I'm saying that there should be other organizations - completely separate organizations - that do peacekeeping. Either a completely separate organization in the US, or the militaries of other countries that like doing that role.
And if you read my posts, you'll realise that that is an impossibility. The military is there, it's on the ground, it is supposed to handle security (the number one iffy subject in peacekeeping) and it makes the first contact with the civilian population.
Sure you can send in others later...but if the first impression the people got was of a horrible military, they'll have lost already.

Want someone to stop North Korea from invading South Korea, and in two weeks bring an end to the conflict? Call the US.
Others would argue that it is the US presence that has stopped the two governments from approaching each other and normalising relations. But that would require shades of grey to exist of course.

Given the option between going down, or going down fighting, many will choose the latter.

I would argue that from an Iraqi perspective there still is uncertainity as regards the good or bad of the US presence within the Shia community, and the occupation is not as destructive or intrusive as the Israeli one. Hence the US has some hope of at least stabilising the situation. The Israelis on the other hand, actively want Palestinian land within the occupied territories with no doubt about their intentions, so there isnt really any ambivalence possible. Hence the endless nature of the Palestinian resistance. There is no "peace dividend" for them.



To be honest, it is my impression that the current attitude of many Iraqis towards the American occupation army at the moment is not that vastly different from the attitude the Palestinians have towards the Israelis. The Americans are regarded as trying to extend their influence at the expense of independent nations and, bluntly, imperialism.
The fact that the reasons given before the invasion and the reasons given now to justify the invation don't correpond, the fact that the majority of the international community opposed the invasion, the fact that it is the second invasion, the fact that America used its influence on the UN to more or less starve the country for more than a decade and the fact that the US army really does act like a hammer where a scalpel would be required only support this image in the general public.

Israel has/had clearly outlined its plans regarding the Palestinian territories. But to many in the Middle East, that just makes them a little less hypocritical than the Americans, who seem to come up with a new justification and a new excuse every 5 minutes...

To be honest, it is my impression that the current attitude of many Iraqis towards the American occupation army at the moment is not that vastly different from the attitude the Palestinians have towards the Israelis. The Americans are regarded as trying to extend their influence at the expense of independent nations and, bluntly, imperialism.
The fact that the reasons given before the invasion and the reasons given now to justify the invation don't correpond, the fact that the majority of the international community opposed the invasion, the fact that it is the second invasion, the fact that America used its influence on the UN to more or less starve the country for more than a decade and the fact that the US army really does act like a hammer where a scalpel would be required only support this image in the general public.

Israel has/had clearly outlined its plans regarding the Palestinian territories. But to many in the Middle East, that just makes them a little less hypocritical than the Americans, who seem to come up with a new justification and a new excuse every 5 minutes...

True to an extent, but you don't get Americans bulldozing villages and setting up colonial suburbia with a Wallmart and starbucks in Iraq in their place...

True to an extent, but you don't get Americans bulldozing villages and setting up colonial suburbia with a Wallmart and starbucks in Iraq in their place...

*lol
I'm not saying that they are the same objectively, I'm saying that they are percieved similarly...
And I'm sure that to many Iraqis, America's intention behind the war was to ensure that they will continue to have control over the oil in the region and that they will eventually be able to establish both Wallmart and Starbucks in the country. Right after they set up MCDonalds....

And the German military is incapable of offensive operations.

As an example, it couldn't invade and take over any country on earth.

You have to see what the US military was designed for. It's not designed for peacekeeping, and suddenly wanting it to change overnight with no doctrine and no training is wishful thinking at best.

Then you actually AGREE with Brig Aylwin-Foster, but turned up your nose at his use of the word "racism."

Indeed, Affirmative Action or Positive Discrimination are tantamount to institutional racism.

Wrong.

Wrong argument. Wrong time. And just wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong argument. Wrong time. And just wrong.

It's the wrong time and place I'll admit but...

rac-ism, noun

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Positive discrimination seems to fit that definition excellently.

*lol
I'm not saying that they are the same objectively, I'm saying that they are percieved similarly...
And I'm sure that to many Iraqis, America's intention behind the war was to ensure that they will continue to have control over the oil in the region and that they will eventually be able to establish both Wallmart and Starbucks in the country. Right after they set up MCDonalds....

I'd still say theres far more ambivalence about the Amerikans eg amongst the Kurds, some Shias....However, in the long run you may well be entirely correct.

It's the wrong time and place I'll admit but...

rac-ism, noun

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Positive discrimination seems to fit that definition excellently.

Affirmative action doesn't fit that definition at all. Renaming it "positive discrimination" is cute, but doesn't change what affirmative action is or does.

Affirmative action actually helps makes discrimination illegal and fights prejudice.

Affirmative action doesn't fit that definition at all. Renaming it "positive discrimination" is cute, but doesn't change what affirmative action is or does.

Affirmative action actually helps makes discrimination illegal and fights prejudice.

Positive Discrimination is the first thing I heard it called, before they made it more PC.

If you artificially accelerate the careers of a racial minority because they are of that race, then you are discriminating on grounds of race, and hence that is racism.

Positive Discrimination is the first thing I heard it called, before they made it more PC.

If you artificially accelerate the careers of a racial minority because they are of that race, then you are discriminating on grounds of race, and hence that is racism.

It was called affirmative action when it was invented in the 1960s. :headbang:

If you hire a less qualified minority over a more qualified white because of race, you have violated the laws and principles of affirmative action. You have discrimated. But that isn't affirmative action.

(But this discussion is not appropriate to this thread. If you want to argue about AA, create your own thread.)

It's the wrong time and place I'll admit but...

rac-ism, noun

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Positive discrimination seems to fit that definition excellently.

Thank you,

Admittedly a tad oppurtunist and out of place, however both in terms of intention and idiosyncrasy Affirmative Action/ Positive Discrimination is inherently racist.

rac-ism, noun

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Positive discrimination seems to fit that definition excellently.
Or at least seems so to you. If the point of your post is to demonstrate that positive discrimination is racism, you have not done so.


[snipage]...both in terms of intention and idiosyncrasy Affirmative Action/ Positive Discrimination is inherently racist.
How do you figure?

Thank you,

Admittedly a tad oppurtunist and out of place, however both in terms of intention and idiosyncrasy Affirmative Action/ Positive Discrimination is inherently racist.

You are both off-topic and wrong.

See my separate thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463872

Or at least seems so to you. If the point of your post is to demonstrate that positive discrimination is racism, you have not done so.

What I mean by positive discrimination, is the act of deliberately promoting those of an ethnic minority over those of the ethnic majority, in order to try and get it up to a certain %. By the act of discriminating on the grounds of race, they are comitting racism.

That is what I know as positive discrimination, affirmative action may be a wider term, but I'm talking of the specific situation above.