Let the discrediting and cries of liberal bias media begin. The New Yorker is running this story as a fact.

Today\'s New Yorker on Abu Ghraib

Rummy and Bush must think we are pretty stupid if we are going to believe seven enlisted men acted of their own accord committing these crimes.

Seriously have you seen an interview with Lynndie whatsherface? Does anyone really believe she was capable of knowing enough about the Iraqi culture to put her captors in the most humiliating poses imaginable, those that offend the very fabric of islamic culture?

Bush and Rummy stepped in it here and I don't think they make a hose big enough to wash it off.

I heard one of the ex-soldier commentators on tv news today pointing out that he could shoot one of these terrorists in the head 23 times and be called a war hero....if the prisoner lived and he stripped him nude and took his picture he could be court martialed....So H2O clap clap clap your hands in glee that your gotcha game is working....how many American service members will be innecessarily killed in the future because of your crusade to blame the US military and exhalt the enemy....Reminds me so much of Viet Nam and how the Jane Fondas and John Kerry's of the world gave comfort to the enemy and got American GIs killed in the process....Oh and then spit on the ones who came home alive....

I remember the Americans that these Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians strung up and burned and the guy who got his head sawed off on tv...I would throw these animals to the hogs and I certainly wouldn't apologize for them and snivel about how they are being treated...

What do you want to do ? Set them up in a posh hotel with room service and color tv? probably....get them ACLU attorneys and pay for their defense....unbelieveable....

Again, see what you wish in my writings...

I don't blame soldiers for following orders. The military is clearly and distinctly NOT to blame on this one, especially not the soldiers that will invariably be held out to be the bad guys. Read the link...they were following orders!

If this story turns out to be true and the orders to carry out these acts truly did come from the highest levels of our government will you be making excuses for them? Making excuses for that which the entire congress of the united states and nearly every american down to the man/woman condemned as abhorrent, the epitome of anti-american.

I'll bet you will.

This isn't politics or a game, it goes way beyond that. This is the future of the united states...how ironic would it be if it turns out to be true that Bush's own 'security' policy led to what has to be seen as the biggest terror recruitment weapon to come down the pike since the creation of israel?

Who on the right is listening? or even cares? If this is true there's no way you can argue that Bush has led to safer America. Well ...I suppose you can and will but that is clearly not what the evidence suggests.

REMEMBER! your president just went on national television repeatedly condemning these acts. Was he lying gpa? Wouldn't he have had to approve any policy change as significant as the one suggested in the article?

If it hadn't led to the senseless of of life on a grand scale the fall of this keystone cops administration would be comical.

Instead, its a frickin american tragedy.

Oh and for the record...

"I would throw these animals to the hogs and I certainly wouldn't apologize for them and snivel about how they are being treated..."

When I call you a racist grandpa its because of statements like the one above.

Are you defending the actions of those in the photos on the basis that that kind of treatment is what America stands for? You are saying that every us senator and representative is off base in condemning them? If so, please explain...only this time don't talk about the barbary of the enemy, this isn't about what they did. This about what WE did, apparently at the behest of our highest leadership.

I'll bet it makes you proud to be american.

Bush was a lame duck out of the gate until 911...this "war" on terrorism is all he has.

I think the treatment of prisoners at the iraqi jail was stupid and obviously not right. The flap created afterwards is also stupid after a point. So many have taken up this cause and just another arrow in their quiver to shoot down an administration they oppose.

Let me ask you Aunty...what if your husband was the one burned to a crisp and handing upside down from the bridge in Iraq? Would you argue that he deserved it? Or would you be pissed and want revenge? Really....Stow your personal attack venom for a bit and think about it . You don't have to be for the war of apathetic for the plight of innocent Iraqis to be upset by that.

Give the white sheet , supremecist crap a rest too... can you say hackneyed?

Main Entry: hack·neyed
Pronunciation: 'hak-nEd
Function: adjective
Date: 1749
: lacking in freshness or originality
synonym see TRITE

"You may not like it, but my views are the views of a moderate, not an extremist liberal."

It's not that he doesn't like it, but he has demonstrated on this board on numerous occassions he is only capable of painting people with one brush.

"I think the treatment of prisoners at the iraqi jail was stupid and obviously not right."

If it turns out your president authorized the actions in the photo, will you still support him? Would you consider that a decision that has imperiled the lives of soldiers on the ground? How about us citizens across the world? If you answer any way other than yes, you are deluding yourself...

You keep bringing up how the enemy treats our men and women when captured as if that somehow justifies the policies that created the atmosphere in which these abuses were carried out. This isn't about the enemy, gpa. Its about who we are as a nation.

You didn't even read the story did you grandpa? If its true, and I believe it is, Rummie authorized 'the stupid and not right' treatment'. He's the one who disgraces the sacrifices made by our own POW's to keep the world free from this kind of mistreatment. He's the one who disgraces the dead us veterans that sacrificed their lives so in the name of these cherished american values.

Turning his back on those very same values upon which he so proudly stands will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions ever made by any functionary in government.

The reaction from the soldiers in Iraq was nearly universal to a man. Disgust......and the realization that attacks against them will likely increase. Who gets the blame for creating the situation?

The media?

The whistleblower?

AuntyM?

Face it, you voted for a poor leader that has lied to you, misrepresented the truth, avoided telling you how much money will spend on this war and created policies that endanger the lives of our soldiers.

Syurely, even the staunchest of republicans can see that there is merit to what I am saying.

Except gpa. He'd rather wrap himself up in the flag and clutch his Bible while going down with the ship. Perhaps its better that way.....

I wonder how seriously John McCain takes it, having been captured and treated badly himself....BY THE ENEMY!!

It's going away everywhere but in the media.
Quit watching TV and reading papers and you will not hear about it. My friends and assoicates never bring it up. It serves a political purpose for the left so they will ride the horse into the dirt. Even Powell said this AM that theis merits a blip on the radar screen vs. the beheading of Berg. He wants to know where the Islamic outrage is and points to severe issues in Islamic society that is directly reflective of the lack of concern for this act.

Elvis - Let me take a slightly different tack on the Abu Gharib vs. Nick Berg story (I know, you are shocked that I would have a different take ). My point is simple - the horrific, animalistic, basta*ds that beheaded Nick Berg deserve to be hunted down and killed - no question. However, I can't really do anything about them other than to support the folks that are doing the hunting down and killing. Now, American troops (maybe even American Cabinet members) I can do something about. These folks work for me and I daresay that my thoughts and beliefs have a great deal more impact upon them than on the Islamic extremists that beheaded Nick Berg. So, as much as the right wing wants to marry the two issues and then state - "See, they are worse than us!!" - I can't buy into it. Two seperate issues, both extremely important. One, I can do something about directly, the other is far more out of my control.

Eddie,

You can do something about both but you CHOOSE to address one and not the other. If you and other Americans addressed your outrage at the Berg beheading proportionate to your outrage at the "abuse" issue they would here your outrage in proportion. Since you do not one is escalated above the other.

Elvis, please clarify. Who is the "they" you are referring to in this statement?

"If you and other Americans addressed your outrage at the Berg beheading proportionate to your outrage at the "abuse" issue they would here your outrage in proportion."

Thanks

Eddie,

Elected officals in the US Govt.

Just like they do on most issues where an organized and loud public exists.

Elvis, with that clarification in, I would agree with your previous post. The more fundamental question is could they (the elected officials) have any more impact in finding the guilty than I?

eddie...I heard on the news this morning an interview with the young lady soldier who is seen giving the thumbs up that she and others who did those crazy things to the prisoners thought it was funny looking and that is why they took pictures...likening it to a college hazing....Now in the absence of proof that Rumsfeld planned all those dumb things and signed them into orders for our military at large I think the overwhelming attention given these incidents smells of partisan politics to me. Many in congress we alerted to these abuses in January and February and yet no outrage was heard until the photos hit the news media and the internet...then the photo ops were flying....Such as Teddy Kennedy...saying the prisons were not shut down but under new management....purely partisan attack speech...

So we , then , have the beheading and no such outrage was heard. Condemnation for sure but a measured response only when directly asked.

Because of that lopsided and obviously partisan nature of the debate it is fair to ask where is the outrage for the acts of the Islamists? It smacks of opportunistic partisan politics at its worst.

College hazing huh?

So who do I get ahold of to pledge the Abu-Ghraib house?

Eddie,

Yes but we risk opening up a wider conflict which we are clearly not ready to do as Iraq has proven. Bush is taking so much heat for his second foray into answering this question and it is clear that the understanding is not there with the American people so the will to proceed is following way behind. I mean who honsestly wants to be at war? One side does moe than the other. But regardless of want when the bell rings you have to be willing to fight or accept the consequences. Giving them what they want presents more risk to us than doing what we have to do now.

Oh I am all for getting to the bottom of the stupid stuff done the the prisoners. I think what I am hearing is contradictory but what I saw in the pictures was just plain degrading and stupid. As much as some of us may talk about what we would do to one of those who killed a loved one we wouldn't actually carry any of that out becuase we are civilized I would hope. If some higher ups ordered the stupid behavior then Iam sure that will come out and they will get the ax. I don't think I am disagreeing on this. Just wish the situation would not be siezed upon for politics. The service people overseas cannot be happy with all the bad publicity surrounding their efforts over there.

DanS..just the messenger here....don't agree with the hazing analogy.

I agree that morale will suffer if higher ups get off when they were the ones who ordered the treatment we saw on film....Would not surprise me though...In the service as in business the little people often take the fall for those higher up the food chain.

Aunty, I agree with you. What this administration has not learned in their hubris and arrogance is that the American electorate is the most forgiving around. How many Presidents have offered sincere apologies and found themselves in a worse position? I can't think of any. We are suckers for a good apology.

Eddie and Aunty...I'm sorry for everything I have done to rile you up . Now I am going fishing with a clear conscience.....

...while your up, fetch me the Necronomicon too, wouldya?

"Monday, May 17, 2004

News Coverage as a Weapon

Historian John Terraine notes that unit casualty rates during the Civil War were close to those experienced by the British Army on the Somme. The 1/Newfoundland Regiment lost 84 % of its men on that fatal July 1, 1916. But the 1st Texas Regiment lost 82.3% in Antietam and the 1st Minnesota lost 82% at Gettysburg. Nor were these exceptional. "In the course of the Civil War 115 regiments (63 Union and 52 Confederate) sustained losses of more than 50 percent in a single engagement". Losses during World War 2 were just as brutal. Although the average loss per individual mission was often under 5% for the pilots who flew in the British Bomber Command, the fact that they flew 30 missions per tour meant a crew had less than a 1 in 4 chance of completing it. Once you signed on, there was a 75% statistical chance you wouldn't survive. Nor were these estimates far from the truth. Almost sixty percent of Bomber Command, a total of 55,000 men, were killed. They had an easy time compared to German U-boat crewmen, who lost 630 men out of every thousand. Nations required a huge pool of manpower and high birthrates to sustain losses on this scale. Russia alone suffered twenty million deaths during World War 2. Even Yugoslavia, a country whose role in the conflict is hardly remembered as central, lost 1.6 million killed. Defeat in that conflict came to those whose armies were driven from the field, whose cities were reduced to rubble and whose manpower resources could no longer continue the struggle.

Viewed in this context, the American "defeat" in Iraq projected by the press must be understood as being something wholly different from anything that has gone before. The 800 odd US military deaths suffered since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom a year ago are less than the number who died in the Slapton Sands D-Day training exercise in 1944. The campaign in Iraq has hardly scratched American strength, which has in fact grown more potent in operational terms over the intervening period. Nor has it materially affected the US manpower pool or slowed the American economy, which is actually growing several times faster than France, which is not militarily engaged. The defeat being advertised by the press is a wholly new phenomenon: one which leaves the vanquished army untouched and the victor devastated; the economy of the vanquished burgeoning and that of the victor in destitution; the territory of the loser unoccupied and that of the winner garrisoned. It is an inversion of all the traditional metrics of victory and defeat. That the assertion is not instantly ludicrous is an indication of the arrival of a new and potentially revolutionary form of political wafare.

It was during the Vietnam War that the Left first discovered the potential war-winning ability of media coverage. The concept itself is merely an extension of the blitzkrieg notion that the enemy command structure, not his troop masses, are the true center of gravity on the battlefield. During the campaign of 1940, Heinz Guderian's panzers bypassed many French formations, leaving them unfought, knowing that if their command structure were severed, the whole musclebound mass would fall to the ground headless. What the Left gradually discovered during the course of the Vietnam war was that Guderian had not been bold enough. Guderian still felt it necessary to win on the battlefield. He had not realized that it was possible to ignore the battlefield altogether because it was the enemy political structure, not his military capability, that was the true center of gravity of an entire campaign. It was General Giap during the Vietnam War who first planned a military operation entirely around its possible media effect. The Tet offensive was a last desperate attempt to gain the upper hand in a war he was losing.

The Communist forces had taken a series of military defeats. the US/ARVN forces had pacified much of the south by the end of 1967 (222 out of 242 provinces). Operation Junction City (February-March 1967) and other sweeps had seriously disrupted NLF activity in the south and forced the COSVN into Cambodia.

At a July 1967 meeting the Communist Party leadership recognized their failures and decided to re-orientate their operations to target two key political weaknesses. Firstly, the deep gulf between the US public and the US government over support for the war and its actual progress. Secondly, the tensions existing between the US military and their Vietnamese allies.

The leadership decided to concentrate on a few high profile operations, that would take place in the public (and the US media) eye rather than fighting the conflict away from major urban centres. This would bolster Northern moral, possibly inspire uprisings in the South and provide the impression, and hopefully the reality, that the US/ARVN were not winning the war and it was likely to be a long time before they did. The new policy also marked a victory for the 'hawks' over the 'doves' in the Communist Party leadership, in late 1967 around 200 senior officials were purged.

Although Giap failed in every military respect, he succeeded in providing the press with the raw material necessary to alter the dynamics of American domestic politics. While he could not alter reality, the Giap could alter the perception of reality enough to give anti-war politicians a winning hand which they played it to the hilt.

The NLF and the NVA lost around 35,000 men killed, 60,000 wounded and 6,000 POWs for no military success. The US and ARVN dead totalled around 3,900 (1,100 US). But this was not the conflict as the US public saw it. Without there being an active conspiracy the US media reports were extremely damaging and shocked the American public and politicians. Apparently the depth of the US reaction even surprised the North Vietnamese leadership, as well as delighting them.

The emergence of the press and media as decisive implements of warfare arose from changes in the nature of late twentieth century war itself. If battlefield reality was paramount in earlier wars it was because literally everyone was there. During the Civil War 15 percent of the total white population took the field, a staggering 75% of military age white males. During the Great War the major combatants put even higher proportions of their men on the line. Even after World War 2 it was still natural for children to ask, 'Daddy what did you do in the War?' and expect an answer. Reality affected everybody. But beginning with the Vietnam War and continuing into the current Iraqi campaign, the numbers of those actually engaged on the battlefield as a proportion of the population became increasingly small. Just how small is illustrated by comparing a major battle in the Civil War, Gettysburg, which inflicted over 50,000 casualties on a nation of 31.5 million to a "major" battle in Iraq, Fallujah, in which 10 Marines died in the fighting itself, on a population of 300 million. A war in which the watchers vastly outnumbered the fighters was bound to be different from when the reverse was true. A reality experienced by the few could be overridden by a fantasy sold to the many. This exchange of proportions ensured that the political and media dimensions of the late twentieth century American wars dwarfed their military aspects.

But whereas General Giap was forced to rely on the Western media to carry his message home, modern day Jihadis have decided to create their own media outlets like Al Jazeera to shape public opinion. Moreover, they have extended proven methods of intimidating the Western media, described by CNN's Eason Jordan in his article in the New York Times to a standard operation of war. This set up a clash between two forces, one enjoying a preponderance in every area of military capability and skill but failing to recognize news coverage as a strategic weapon; and another whose military strategy was literally made for television.

The US discovered how expensive it was to be wholly outmatched in this key combat system. Just how expensive was underscored by the media coverage of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incident in which newspapers in the United States and Britain published fake abuse photographs on top of the genuine ones without a rapid rebuttal. This blindness sprang not only from the tradition of keeping the military apart from civilian activities, but also from a reluctance to venture into areas protected by the First Amendment. It was nearly a year after OIF before the US began halting steps to redress the balance by establishing the Arabic Al Hurrah media outlet and creating a series of local television stations under the Spirit of America initiative.

Yet the extension of warfare into the area of media coverage is fraught with great danger, in no small part because it subtly alters the definition of where the battlefield lies and who an enemy combatant is. One of the enduring strengths of Western democracy and of the US Constitution in particular is the delineation between legitimate dissent and enemy activity, a boundary which enables a democracy to continue functioning, albeit in an impaired state, even in wartime. But the changing balance between the political and military aspects of war means that this line will begin to blur as military activities cross over into the political. Already, the Pentagon is beginning to offer direct news from Iraq. It has also reorganized its command structure in Iraq to explicitly recognize the role of political warfare.

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2004 – Two new military commands will stand up in Iraq May 15, replacing the current coalition military organization.

Multinational Corps Iraq and Multinational Force Iraq will replace Combined Joint Task Force 7.

Coalition military spokesman Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, at a Baghdad news conference today, said the change addresses a concern that a combined joint task force headquarters was not sufficient to handle the military workload in Iraq efficiently.

"It's certainly more than a formality," he said. "It is trying to get the proper command structure for the days, weeks and months ahead."

Kimmitt explained that Multinational Corps Iraq will focus on the tactical fight -- the day-to-day military operations and the maneuvering of the six multinational divisions on the ground. Army Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz will command the corps. Meanwhile, Multinational Force Iraq will focus on more strategic aspects of the military presence in Iraq, such as talking with sheiks and political leaders, and on training, equipping and fielding Iraqi security forces.

The Left's very success at using the media as an arm in hyper-blitzkrieg inevitably invited, indeed necessitated, a riposte, with far reaching and probably regettable effects. One day Al Jazeera may be remembered in the same manner as the Dreadnought: the first in a series of ugly fusions between newly available technology and age-old malevolence; the vanguard in a flotilla of lies.

AM,

You are a liar and a coward.

You should try a challenge that you yourself could accomplish if you expect others to do the same.

Speaking of enlisting at 45 I would bet you everything you own ( which could not be much selling tacky scroll saw animals) that I could keep up with the 20 year olds in basic and that you could not keep up with a recruit in the worst possible shape. I doubt you could even run a mile to save your life. Wanna walk your talk or just flap your lips.

Your hate for all that is christian and holy is showing aunty.

HERETIC!!

AM,

Yes calling someone a liar and a coward when they tell lies and hide behind little word games is Christian. You can only forgive someone when they repent and ask for forgivness.

fun AND easy

AM,

So now calling someone who lies and then hides behind more lies is foul mouthed.

You claimed I intentionally removed a post here to justify your whish that I be dead. That is a lie and a cowardly act. If it gets me banned from anything I am in the wrong place. A place where lies and cowardice are promoted and the truth is punished . I would not be upset with that.

AM,

No post is missing except in your mind. I have never threatened violence against you except in your mind. What I do with other people is none of your business. Stop the sillyness and keep to the topic at hand or just be quiet where I am concerned or apologize and we can move on!

Any chance of getting back to the topic here?

I imagine bush supporters would just as soon keep this where it is....

What is the topic anyway? Something about the USA being bad and the terrorists being misunderstood and taken advantage of?

Read somewhere yesterday that the US is anxious to turn Abu Ghraib over to Iraqi forces.

Let that soak in for a second.

And they're upset over our mistreatment of prisoners? The hand-off will have two significant results: the abuse will continue to escalate, and it won't be reported in the US media so as far as we're concerned it doesn't happen.

I'm confused (probobly won't suprise many of you... LOL) - why will it be worse for them if the white supremist US soldiers hand them over? (white supremist - never mind that those involved included women and people of color... LOL)

So what do these innocent Iraqi citizens have to fear from their own people?? Or could it be that the people of the New Iraq know exactly who the Saddam loyalists are - the same guys who raped their wives and daughters, cut off their right hands, kept the people in fear and submission, and murdered thousands each year?

Well, you're probably right then. What the Iraqi people do out of revenge to those animals is probably going to be much worse than panties over their heads. And I really don't need to know the details...

Abu Ghraib is a bad place. I think everyone should clear the prison area and let us, along with the help of the new wannabe Iragi security forces, turn it into a sand box.

Sanchez........GONE!!

Spin: "It was just part of 'the normal rotation'.....mmmm, hmmmmm..... wanna bet he 'just fades away'?

Next!!

Nice of GW to finally pay attention to my posts