Seriously?
I am still waiting for the shock, outrage, and condemnation over the way the enemy has desecrated our people in places such as Mogadishu, Fallujah, and at all those secret tents and outdoor be-headeries throughout the war zone.
Oh. I forgot. There's a double standard. And the Taliban sets the rules. Their people are allowed to get caught up in the heat of war. Ours are not. In the grand scheme of things, though, which gets you more riled up: someone chopping the head off a live person; or a couple of warriors supposedly peeing on dead enemies?
37 comments:
Well said. From one who has seen combat.
Anyone who is shocked by this should watch the videos of the Taliban beheading non-combatants.
What does the Geneva convention say about pissing? Is that allowed if one of the parties involved is not a signatory?
They were stupid to make a video of this and put it on YouTube.
Put me down for a OH YEAH!
They SHOULD make vids and they SHOULD put this up for everyone to see. We want the enemy to fear us because we are the baddest motherfuckers on the planet. Fuck with us and pay the price.
Iconoclast, you have a point, there. It certainly has worked for Israel.
Well said SKK...the comments at Yahoo.com say it all. Guess the nation is tired of the double standard. Since it's not Jihad then it's bad...
S/F
Taco
Well, everyone likes discussion, so allow me to offer a different point of view.
Of course there is a double standard. And there should be. We are the United States of America, not some underdeveloped part of the World. We are the guys wearing the "white hat" not a thug regime. We are the one there attempting to uplift a faltering nation and culture, not those supposedly in need of help. I would expect poor behavior from them, not from us.
Also, when your opponent is dead, your dispute with him is over. Everything now is between him and God. At that point, his corpse should be treated with the dignity befitting a human being created in the image of God. Further, desecrating a corpse similarly demeans the humanity of the individual carrying out the desecration.
All that being said, I can understand the emotion and motivation for what they did, even being wrong. All part of the horrors of warfare. And if they were under my charge and I caught them carrying out such acts, I would take appropriate action locally and informally to set them straight on what is and what is not honorable behavior.
Unfortunately for these guys, they not only were foolish enough to videotape it BUT to let it get released to the public long after the act when their own cooler minds with better judgment should have prevailed. Major below on headwork for them.
Stu! We've missed you! As always, a most thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Thank you.
I agree emphatically with Stu. We should be held to a different stnadard and be proud of upholding that type of standard. I'll bet if Senator McCain were willing to comment here, he would agree with Stu and me.
We have, as a society, strongly condemned other countries for such vulgar/offensive behavior in our national rhetoric.
Where were the officers charged with controlling this type of juvenile behavior? Were some of them standing to the side, out of view of the camera, laughing? I hope not.
Hello Susan. I've been lurking. :)
Anon,
Don't know if I want to categorized with Senator McCain in general, but on this issue he would probably agree.
I saw the same act done in Vietnam in 1967. It was done as a sign of contempt to some VC a-wipes who used villagers as a shield, but their attempt failed. Heard about the same action from my Dad who was a combat engineer in New Guinea in WWII. These marines just made a mistake of having their act recorded and then posted. I am curious as to how many of those aghast have ever been in a situation similiar? If you have and you object, your opinion counts. If you haven't been there, stiffle!
Allen said..I am curious as to how many of those aghast have ever been in a situation similiar? If you have and you object, your opinion counts. If you haven't been there, stiffle!
----------------
I'm not an alcoholic, but I do know that addicts need help.
I'm not a womanizer, but I do know that such behavior is wrong.
I'm not politician, but I know that taking monetary perks for votes is wrong.
And yes, I have never been a Marine in ground combat, but I do know that desecrating a corpse is wrong.
Now we can talk about what motivates a person to carry out such an act and understand the situation that led to the decision, but morality is objective.
Stu said....Now we can talk about what motivates a person to carry out such an act and understand the situation that led to the decision, but morality is objective.
Morality??? General Curtis Lemay said it best: "....all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
They express outrage because several marines pissed on their dead, but they seem to overlook their ethnic cleansing, brutal repression of peoples, destruction of antiquities, beheadings, etc.
The Taliban need to be wiped off of the face of the earth.
Here is what bothers me about this incident in its entirety (incident + aftermath).
If, for example, someone walked up to a corpse at a civilian funeral and urinated on the corpse, everyone would be horrified - just as everyone is horrified by murder.
In war, though, we ask our troops to become savages on our behalf. We ask them to live like beasts, and to cast aside the mores they grew up with, and to kill other people. We tell them it's okay - in fact, we want them to be able to willingly take on the role of professional savages.
They do. But they do so in a controlled fashion. If a couple of warriors get caught up in the heat of the battlefield and do something outrageous, like pee on enemy KIA, we all can recoil, but should we condemn? I say, no. Our warriors do not strap suicide vests to noncombatants; they do not attack civilians; they do not chop off heads nor eviscerate people nor drag their bodies through the streets.
I understand what Stu is saying about the higher standard, but I also believe that we are allowing the enemy to use our standards against us. We can't ignore the fact that the enemy really has been genuinely barbaric - and has done so as a matter of policy. We cannot allow them to accuse our men of misbehavior when they themselves have violated the very standards they pretend to hold us to.
Susan, well said!
I agree with the moderator in her run up logic to making her point.
I disagree with her final contention. You cannot justify desicrating the body of an enemy who has fallen in battle.
Well, Allen, I wouldn't get my guidance on morality from General Lemay. Problem with such a sentiment is that it becomes an excuse to pretty much abandon all morality in warfare so it becomes very easy to justify the intentional targeting of civilians, rape, murder of children, executing prisoners and so forth. It's the thought process of our enemy and if we agree with it, then I'm not sure why we take any offense when they commit such acts other than we are mad that "they got one up on us." So if Lemay actually did make that statement it was idiotic and doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.
Warfare can indeed be a moral cause as is any forceful act (even lethal) taken to defend innocent life or uphold justice. But the ends never justify the means. I would dump Lemay as your guidance on such matters and look into Augustine or some other Christian-rooted philosopher.
Susan,
This isn't about our enemy accusing us. We accuse ourselves. The Marines in question carried out the act. It was immoral. Those our are standards. If we are going to fall to the level of the enemy, then I really question what we are doing there because our net effect should be bringing them up to our level instead.
Again, I understand how the situation can lead men into making such poor decisions, but that understanding doesn't equate into approval. We are a professional military, not a bunch of brigands.
1. For pissing on Taliban corpses, a severe talking-to by the Company Commander.
2. For taking a video, and
3. Posting it to YouTube, a court-martial for being just too damn stupid and 'failing to meet the standard'.
4. Suggest they transfer to the TSA.
Cheers
Did any of you hear what was said re this incident on many of the national news outlets on Friday evening? Active and retired senior military officers were universally condemnatory of this behavior. The retired guys are not under and political pressure to take an opinion position.
I am an active military officer. I have never experienced ground combat, but all of my training since I was a plebe at the Naval Acacemy had led me to abhor this type of performance.
It brings great discredit on our military society to encourage and rationalize support for this type of behavior. Those classmates of mine who are Marines, at least those I have talked to, seem to share my views, and I am not trying to put words in other people's mouths. Leave the crude language at home.
Yes, I saw the comments from the military officers, along with those of enlisted combat veterans. They came down on both sides of the issue.
I am not suggesting that we integrate this behavior into our training, or that we encourage it. Merely that we place our response in context.
We tell the Taliban and their fellow travelers: You have no standing whatsoever to accuse us of barbarism.
As for the Marines: Send 'em to the company commander. He knows his men, and he knows how to proceed.
Although, I have a feeling he may not be in a position to handle this anymore.
If you earned the attention of a Sniper Platoon, you probably also earned having your face pissed on.
Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
If General Pershing did a stupid stunt like that, he would have never risen to the position he finally did in his career.
That is sick theatre.
Would the moderator please indicate where and on what conventional news forum someone has voiced any support for these guys doing what they did? Even conservative outlets like the Fox Network have been universally condemnatory. I am not questioning the truthfulness of the statement, I am just asking where.
You might see support in some internet forums like Military Corruption, but even that imature, raving character has been silent on this issue.
The company commander is indeed unable to do anything about this at this point. He is porbably preparing for his own hanging.
Anon, the reactions have taken three general tones, as I'm sure you know. Condemnation; support; contextual perspective. You can find all three of these on just about any forum you visit, but Marine Corps Times is a good place to start.
The militarycorruption site doesn't present a forum for anyone but the proprietor.
As for that company commander... I agree with you on that. And maybe even his commander also is on the line, just for good measure.
The Pershing story may or may not be true. Snopes could neither confirm nor deny.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp
In war, though, we ask our troops to become savages on our behalf. We ask them to live like beasts, and to cast aside the mores they grew up with, and to kill other people. We tell them it's okay - in fact, we want them to be able to willingly take on the role of professional savages.
What a crock. The mark of a soldier is that he *resists* becoming an animal, despite being subjected to conditions and requirements which all push him in that direction. In war, killing is necessary, and you come to terms with it, but if you revel in it, you're in the wrong line of work.
The Pershing story is apocryphal. What he *did* do was threaten to sprinkle pigs' blood on the wives of the local imams, in two days' time, which would render them ritually impure for thirty days -- and then come back on the thirtieth day and do it again, unless attacks on US troops stopped.
The attacks stopped almost immediately.
Dirty Little Secret: Whoever thinks the Taliban (or Al-Q) is upset with this "desecration" has led too sheltered a life. The Tali-Qaeda's imams preach that the body of a "martyr" -- whether killed in battle or by his own bomb vest -- is so sacred that *nothing* can desecrate it...
What a crock.
What. We don't ask them to live in foxholes; go for weeks/months on end without a shower or a hot meal; kill the enemy; and carry out the gritty work of maintaining our ability to live in civilized comfort? We don't tell them that despite having been raised on the 10 Commandments, it's okay now to ignore one of the edicts we hold most sacred?
I am a senior Navy officer, (carrier , fixed wing aviator } and I have been waiting for this forever.
I wholehartedly agree with Bill T.
Anon, thanks for popping in, and thanks for your service.
Umm... what have you been waiting for forever?
What a crock.
Poor choice of wording on my part. Mea culpa.
We don't ask them to live in foxholes; go for weeks/months on end without a shower or a hot meal; kill the enemy; and carry out the gritty work of maintaining our ability to live in civilized comfort?
Yes, all of that and more -- that we are *not* to become animals, even though we might be living like them. That we may *not* become savages, even though we will be expected to act savagely when necessary. That we will be required to both kill when necessary and refrain from doing so when it is unnecessary -- we are permitted to slay, but forbidden to murder.
And even though the Commandment is more aptly translated as "Thou shalt not murder," there's still the internalized compunction to refrain from killing another human being.
It's strong.
I knew men who would not kill to save their own lives, but did so to defend their friends -- and when they suddenly had to defend their own lives, they let themselves be killed rather than take another's life.
And then people wonder why we snap, years later...
You're right. There is an unjust double standard. To rectify it, let's bomb Iraqistan's madrassas, target the innocent men, women and children of any Middle Eastern country that that doesn't agree with us or our religion, and publicly behead anyone who is seen associating with those we don't like. That should do the trick.
There is a double standard. But I have seen our enemies in action with my own eyes and have heard their blasphemy with my own ears and I will be the first to admit that I (and the vast majority of Americans) are NOTHING like them. Because I'm not feeling particularly PC or mature at the moment I will put it like this - we hold ourselves to a higher standard than them because we aren't terrorists...we are better than that and better than them. We can't control their actions, only our own. Disclaimer: I'm speaking about Taliban and Al-Qaeda and not the run of the mill Middle Easterner.
Is urinating on a corpse comparable to killing innocent civilians? Not at all, but it's still pointless, stupid, and immoral. If the Marines hadn't of video taped it, I'd say give them NJP with their commander and let him take care of it. But being a knucklehead and causing international incidents does have it's consequences...
Col Kurtz: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene!"
Bill T and I have sparred over Graf for some time. He even called me a twit one time. I have been waiting for a long time to agree with him without reservation on an issue agrued about here.
I said above that since I was a plebe at the Naval Academy I have been trained to abhor behavior like this. I would deal very severly with anyone under my command that engaged in this type behavior. I don't think the crude comments give dignity and credibility to those who make them.
It is sometimes hard to stand up for what is rignt and gentlemanly, but I will do it and have done it successfully my whole career. It has served me well.
Anon - Ah, I see. There is a break in the sparring, then.
You know... if you give yourself a handle (just click the Name/URL slot), you won't have to register, and we will know it is you when you come in.
Squid - Yes, the knucklehead factor is very, very prominent.
Post a Comment