Life on the Ground in Iraq

[Case]

The reality on the ground (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/a_marine_in_ira.html#more) in Iraq.

The name of the Marine officer is redacted, but maybe Lizard_King could comment on how accurate this seems.

Really interesting, weird, funny, uplifting and tragic, but also seems real.

[Lunch of Kong]

nice find.

[bigdruid]

It's interesting that we don't see many blogs, etc from soldiers in Iraq. I heard a Ken Burns interview (the documentary maker) on NPR where he said that the military forbids soldiers from keeping diaries now (he was lamenting the fact that diaries were a huge part of the historical record for WWII, but now that source is lost).

Can anyone corroborate this (that diaries are forbidden now)?

[mouselock]

I hope that whatever else happens with this quagmire we've gotten ourselves into, and no matter how much of a mess the military operations end up being, we all manage to never go back to the place where people think it's okay to personally revile the men and women over there doing this stuff. I sure as hell wouldn't hold up under that type of pressure with the grace that's portrayed in that article.

It's weird to have the utmost respect for the people over there doing the work while having the utmost contempt for the people directing that the work be done.

[Charles]

Coolest Insurgent Act - Stealing almost $7 million from the main bank in Ramadi in broad daylight, then, upon exiting, waving to the Marines in the combat outpost right next to t he bank, who had no clue of what was going on. The Marines waved back. Too cool.

Awesome.

[Kyle Wilson]

It's interesting that we don't see many blogs, etc from soldiers in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Wired is writing stories about how very many blogs (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/milblogs.html) from active-duty troops stationed in Iraq there are. Have you tried, you know, Google?

[bigdruid]

Sigh, time to go back and ninja-edit yet another one of my stupid posts.

[Jason McCullough]

The millitary forbids diaries? What's up with that?

[bigdruid]

The millitary forbids diaries? What's up with that?

Or maybe I'm an idiot, and he was saying the military forbid diaries during WWII. Clearly I shouldn't post the morning after staying up until 2AM playing Advance Wars.

[Rimbo]

Awesome find, Loyd.

[Lizard_King]

He's definitely right about Ramadi, that's for sure. This city is fucking great! I think people demanding realistic AI in video games have not realized that there are, in fact, cities filled with endlessly respawning enemies that all look alike who attack you by running blindly at you and spraying rounds until you deign to take them down with vastly superior firepower. Even the gay ROE's they seek to hamstring us with (because god forbid you trust the judgment of people on the ground as to what consists a threat, far better some lawyer decide it) are barely a hindrance most of the time, simply because the enemy is so dedicated to the martyrdom part of his equation. You'd think hanging out of a window to fire an rpg less than 200m from multiple marine machine gun positions would just automatically be a bad idea, but it appears to be a popular pastime here nonetheless.

The military is really missing out on recruiting opportunities in this town. How many people would enlist just to see rag doll physics in real life? I mean, I thought bodies only got blown out of windows in Black.

Anyhow, that's the upside. The downside is just about a lot of what this guy writes about, minus the genial adoration of enlisted marines that most good officers share. Every time I deal with local children I am reminded of just how little we are able to do for these people, and as a corollary how little we stand to gain from our efforts here. The absence of purpose here on a strategic level really gets to me.

On the plus side, more of the original bad guys in Iraq are filtering back from their hideouts these days, and they seem to have a much bigger hard on for AQ Iraq than for us for the time being. Red on Red action is even more entertaining than shooting insurgents from post.

Mind you, the threat level from IED's and ambushes for patrols on foot is through the roof here (never mind for vehicles...they've gotten to the point where they can take out the Abrams relatively reliably for an insurgency). I can honestly say the feeling of being hunted by an entire city is most unpleasant, even if some of it is surely imagined. But without foot patrols, we can't fill the quota for minimum number of actions that create the illusion of stability and progress in the city, so what the hell.

[bago]

Disable of actually puncture? If it is puncture time on an Abrams it is definately time to leave unless you want to spend a LOT more blood and money.

[Kalle]

It's weird to have the utmost respect for the people over there doing the work while having the utmost contempt for the people directing that the work be done.

I'm sorry, did anyone force your soldiers into doing something? They're all volunteers, like Lizard King here, and certainly responsible for their personal choice to go to Iraq and be part of the work you find so contemptuous.

Theirs is a much smaller responsibility than the people who give the strategic orders, and whatever blame should be handed out for the operations is proportional to that, but you can't simply excuse people from blame for just following orders as you seem to imply.

[Nick Walter]

I certainly can excuse the soldiers for following orders as long as we aren't discussing criminal orders like an order to torture. I seriously doubt most of them made a personal choice based on a deep knowledge of the issues to sign up for the army and go to Iraq and do what they are doing.

They signed up and made a commitment to obey orders. Now they are fulfilling that commitment even when it's a lot harder than what most of them probably anticipated when they signed up. I have quite a bit of respect for those who follow through on their commitments like that.

[ydejin]

I'm with Nick. What separates a democracy from a banana republic is the military in one is subject to civilian rule, the military in the other does whatever they think is right and is willing to override civilian leadership when they deem it appropriate.

Our soldiers are pledged to follow any legal order given to them by the civilian leadership of our country. In this case the failure was of the civilian leadership and of the civilians who put them in office not the servicemen and women in the military. The military are quite rightly following the orders that have been given to them.

[Kalle]

Our soldiers are pledged to follow any legal order given to them by the civilian leadership of our country. In this case the failure was of the civilian leadership and of the civilians who put them in office not the servicemen and women in the military. The military are quite rightly following the orders that have been given to them.

If there was a failure then the people who facilitate it through their actions in the military share part of the responsibility. I am not advocating a military command that refuses to obey orders, I am saying that the individual soldier who joined by his own free will is responsible for his actions. Serving in Iraq means supporting the current US policy in Iraq in the most direct manner possible.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

If there was a failure then the people who facilitate it through their actions in the military share part of the responsibility. I am not advocating a military command that refuses to obey orders, I am saying that the individual soldier who joined by his own free will is responsible for his actions. Serving in Iraq means supporting the current US policy in Iraq in the most direct manner possible.

So, the guy who signed up right after 9/11 before Iraq was even on the table is culpable for the commander in chief's decisions? That's some grade-A thinking there.

I was going to respond to mouselock to say that I didn't really think anybody reviled the soldiers as individuals. Thanks for proving me wrong.

[Kalle]

Please tell me where I said I reviled the soldiers as individuals. I just don't share the seemingly common meme that soldiers are beyond reproach for their actions simply because they are not making the decisions. They are still enforcing those decisions, and I don't see how they can do that without having to take some degree of responsibility for those decisions too.

[Flowers]

Hmm. Kalle said that individuals are responsible for their actions. Hawkeye surmised that this means Kalle hates soldiers.

Hawkeye, why are you accusing the soldiers of doing bad things?

[Flowers]

I realize that the previous post may disappoint. Without further ado;

"I never killed someone I don't know, just 'cuz someone told me to."

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Please tell me where I said I reviled the soldiers as individuals. I just don't share the seemingly common meme that soldiers are beyond reproach for their actions simply because they are not making the decisions. They are still enforcing those decisions, and I don't see how they can do that without having to take some degree of responsibility for those decisions too.

You seemed to imply it in your response to mouselock. But seriously, address my other point - you hold a soldier responsible for following orders in a war that wasn't even a possibility when he/she signed up, and is in no way what he/she signed up for?

I mean - if I sign up after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and then get sent to, I dunno, Chile or something, I might get a little annoyed when people say to me "Well, if you don't agree with fighting the war in Chile, you shouldn't have enlisted!"

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Hawkeye, why are you accusing the soldiers of doing bad things?

The eternal flame at the tomb of the unknown solder burned my dog.

[Flowers]

I think Kalle's position is that, if you want to retain your moral rectitude, occasionally you must break a tiny rule, such as going AWOL, to avoid breaking a big rule, like "Don't throw grenades where there are children."

It's tough, and it's not fair, but sometimes you get put between a rock and a hard place with your morality. Oftentimes, through no fault of your own, you can end up with the decision to steal or starve, kill or be killed, fight or be imprisoned. Some people believe that circumstances entitle individuals and groups to more of a pass than others. Either way, you are asking Kalle to excuse the deaths of children and innocents. For that, you better have something more substantial than, "Nobody told me there'd be days like these."

[Kalle]

You seemed to imply it in your response to mouselock. But seriously, address my other point - you hold a soldier responsible for following orders in a war that wasn't even a possibility when he/she signed up, and is in no way what he/she signed up for?


Yes, I do. If you sign up as a soldier and think you get to pick where you're sent or against whom you will fight, you're an idiot. Following orders never excuses you from the responsibility of your own actions. And yes, this might be tough on people who don't want to fight in Iraq but don't want to desert either. But they ended up where they are by their own free will and no one ever said being moral was supposed to be easy.

[Nick Walter]

Yes, I do. If you sign up as a soldier and think you get to pick where you're sent or against whom you will fight, you're an idiot. Following orders never excuses you from the responsibility of your own actions. And yes, this might be tough on people who don't want to fight in Iraq but don't want to desert either. But they ended up where they are by their own free will and no one ever said being moral was supposed to be easy.

Very interesting Kalle, but you seem to be self contradicting. I might not be reading you right, so feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

You are holding soldiers morally responsible for the action of an organization to which they belong, implying that you believe in an organizational shared responsibility, but then taking a sudden individualistic tack and saying that the soldiers are individually responsible for their own actions and cannot use shared organizational responsibility as an out for the immorality of being in Iraq. This doesn't make sense to me.

If morality is to be judged on the individual level, then the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq are blameless, they are simply there being cooks or mechanics or drivers or whatnot. If they've taken a life, it's been in self defense. So there is no way to morally condemn them.

If morality is to be judged on a group level, the individual soldiers may well be participating in an immoral war but they are not individually morally responsible because they aren't the ones with the power to decide what happens. In that case, only the leaders and decisionmakers can be held morally responsible.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

I think Kalle's position is that, if you want to retain your moral rectitude, occasionally you must break a tiny rule, such as going AWOL, to avoid breaking a big rule, like "Don't throw grenades where there are children."

It's tough, and it's not fair, but sometimes you get put between a rock and a hard place with your morality. Oftentimes, through no fault of your own, you can end up with the decision to steal or starve, kill or be killed, fight or be imprisoned. Some people believe that circumstances entitle individuals and groups to more of a pass than others. Either way, you are asking Kalle to excuse the deaths of children and innocents. For that, you better have something more substantial than, "Nobody told me there'd be days like these."

All well and good - and I'm not saying that soldiers don't have to make difficult moral decisions and often times would make decisions that I wouldn't agree with. But I wouldn't presume to judge them based on the fact that our leaders have placed them in a position where they have to make those sorts of choices, which is why I take issue with Kalle's position. I'm not saying you have to excuse them for what they have to do over there, but you shouldn't call them idiots or blame them for supporting the war. Kalle's very first post implied that mouselock should have the same contempt he has with the leadership for the common soldier.

[Squirrel Killer]

I realize that the previous post may disappoint. Without further ado;

"I never killed someone I don't know, just 'cuz someone told me to."
I'm going to buy a house right next to Mister Flowers.

[Octonoo]

Yes, I do. If you sign up as a soldier and think you get to pick where you're sent or against whom you will fight, you're an idiot. Following orders never excuses you from the responsibility of your own actions. And yes, this might be tough on people who don't want to fight in Iraq but don't want to desert either. But they ended up where they are by their own free will and no one ever said being moral was supposed to be easy.

Yes, I do. If you get a job and become a US Taxpayer and think you get to pick whether your tax money goes to building flower parks or purchasing more frag grenades for the GWOT, you're an idiot. Following the law and paying your taxes never excuses you from the responsibility of your own actions. And yes, this might be tough on people who don't want to file but don't want to go to federal PMITA prison either. But they ended up where they are by their own free will and no one ever said being moral was supposed to be easy.

If you really believe that the common soldier should be held responsible for following legal orders, then those that enabled him or her by funding their operation by paying legal taxes should be held responsible as well.

Are you responsible for this war, Kalle?

[ydejin]

Are you responsible for this war, Kalle?

I thought Kalle was scandinavian, which would mean he is neither responsible for the war, nor should feel any need to support US troops. I could be wrong though.

Otherwise I completely agree on your point on taxes and the analogy with the military. IMO a soldier should absolutely not follow rules like explicitly trying to shoot unarmed civilians. But as far as when to go to war, that decision must be made at the civilian level. Soldiers pledge to follow civilian leadership. They don't have the option to resign before the end of their term of service. They volunteer to put their life and limb in danger to protect the republic, and I honor them for it. The blame for this war falls clearly on our civilian leadership.

[shift6]

Shit LK, I didn't know you had shipped back over. Be safe, man.

[Lizard_King]

Please tell me where I said I reviled the soldiers as individuals. I just don't share the seemingly common meme that soldiers are beyond reproach for their actions simply because they are not making the decisions. They are still enforcing those decisions, and I don't see how they can do that without having to take some degree of responsibility for those decisions too.
You're arguing a largely semantic point for the sake of appearing controversial. It's really some trick to get people riled up about yet another secular moralist lecturing from on high. No one claims soldiers are beyond reproach and no one absolves them of responsibility for the wars they take part in. Well, no one other than Fox, perhaps. You've just decided to cross the streams with hints and suggestions of deeper blame and derision that you attach to our profession as American servicemen...that's fine but just muscle up and say what you really mean instead of dicking around with word games.

[bago]

No, but spending 2 years being shot at by the populace tends to cause hostility. I might not be able to deprogram the haji response in my brother because of the psychic damage it might cause. He needs a reason to support the things he did over there. This is how he justifies sleeping at night.

This is the damage the bush doctrine causes beyond the 20 thousand limbs lost, beyond the 2700 dead bodies.