Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think the saying "don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his boots" comes into play here, I think that in the 21st century there is a real mis-conception of the battlefield, and an even bigger one about the role of a soldier.
The misconception comes from what was generally considered nearly 30 years of peace punctuated by small regional wars far away from our front doorsteps. The concept of using soldiers as peacekeepers is an exact opposite of what soldiers are actually trained for. J.L. Grananstein probably said it the best. If you ask a soldier what his job is, every soldier will tell you "Killing people and blowing up things". Not to stand in between two warring people and praying that you don't get shot because your role is a relatively passive one.
Its actually pretty rare that you find someone joining the armed forces with a vision of peace keeping. The majority of new recruits do have a good theoretical understanding of his job description, however in peace time its easy for any soldier to fool himself with the concept that his high ideals of not inflicting civilian casualties and protecting his humanity is going to survive in a modern battlefield where half the time you see your tent mate, or squad mate blown to pieces by an enemy that you can't see, and that dosen't stand out among civilians.
I will be frank, when your dealing with an enemy that dresses like a civilian, and is more then likely to creep up and kill you and your buddies and everyone around you in one explosive blast, your ability to dicern between threat and non threat drops through the floor.
When you capture someone thats not in a uniform, but has information that might mean life and death for you and your mates, your not going to treat him like a soldier and your going to do what needs to be done to get that information.
Its easy to do surveys, and spins and make these kids out to be monsters and butchers, but until you see someone dressed like your grandfather ignoring road blocks, or until you see suspected militants gathering in the middle of civilian housing, its a snap decision, and it mostly comes down to you or them.
There's no such thing as a suicide mission anymore. You do what you need to do to live in a unconventional battlefield, and you get home with your body intact. Thats the extent of it.
|
Right.
I didn't post the article to make soldiers out to be horrific government-sanctioned serial killers, but as an illustration of how wholly wrong this war effort is. Like peter said, it's pretty much common sense that in a war environment, you're going to have what some would call atrocities or eggregious acts. What the point of the article is, is that there is now scientific data as to just how bad the effects are of this war and the way it is implemented. The article goes on to compare how much lower the mental anguish is of marines who only serve 6 month intervals, compared to those who are serving up to a year or longer. The report is essentially a scientifically enforced rebuttal of this 'surge' strategy.
From Shock and Awe onwards, pro or anti-war, it's pretty clear things have been screwed up since the beginning. Even if you agree with the war ideology, it's pretty clear that the war effort is being bungled at every step.