A few Bad Apples?

[Flash Walken]

"Only 47 percent of soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."

The study also reports that only 55 percent of soldiers and just 40 percent of Marines would report a unit member injuring or killing "an innocent noncombatant," and just 43 percent and 30 percent, respectively, would report a unit member destroying or damaging private property.

It is not just that we are not winning; we are helping the enemy. When the historians explain why America lost the war in Iraq, this study should be prominent evidence.

...

If he read the entire study from the surgeon general, Petraeus probably hopes that no one else reads it. The study seeks to explain the reasons for our troops' abusive behavior, and that explanation casts devastating illumination on the logic of this war. It also provides a prospective explanation for why the "surge" of American troops in Iraq, which Petraeus has accepted as his mission, can only make things worse.

Page 38 of the surgeon general's study states that "soldiers who screened positive for a mental health problem (anxiety, depression or acute stress) were twice as likely to engage in unethical behavior (i.e., abuse of Iraqi civilians) compared to those soldiers who did not screen positive." Subsequent pages make the same point about Marines.

What causes the "anxiety, depression or acute stress" that can result in the abuse? For Army personnel, deployment tempo is a major factor: "Soldiers deployed to Iraq more than once were more likely to screen positive for acute stress," notes the report. And perhaps even more significantly, given the rotation schedule in Iraq: "Long deployment length [described as one year] continues to be the top concern for … soldiers."

The study recommended extending the period of time soldiers spend at home with their families to 18-36 months, while also decreasing the length of deployments in Iraq to under one year.

...

It must be noted that the study was written in November 2006, shortly before President George W. Bush announced the "surge" that Petraeus would command. The surge, as implemented by Petraeus, is doing everything exactly wrong for the soldiers and Marines described in this study, namely:

• The surge has increased the frequency of soldier deployments; it requires them to serve 15 months in Iraq on each deployment, rather than 12, and it reduced to 12 months the period they can expect to be at home with their families to recuperate.
  
  Most importantly, for both soldiers and Marines, the surge exacerbates their already prolonged exposure to combat. It is not just a question of operations being more intense; a fundamental aspect of the surge is to locate soldiers and Marines outside their base camps and garrisons into forward locations, in the middle of towns and cities, in civilian neighborhoods.

One-Third of Troops in Iraq Support Torture, Majority Condone Mistreating Innocent Civilians

[Ayrahb]

Some of the reader's comments on that article are absolutely disgusting.

[peter12]

What a silly article. Why is it a surprise that man's darkest side emerges during times of war. This is the human story.

Silly and obvious.

[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.

[Flash Walken]

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.

[Azure]

This war?

I'm pretty sure you would have stuff like this happen in 'every' war. Of course, we'll leave it in your hands, and the hands of this writer, to think that the Iraq war, is the ONLY war where something like this happens.

Saying that is just as stupid as saying that you lose a conflict BEFORE it even begins because it wasn't justified.

What has been screwed up is the reasons for going in, what they're supposed to be doing, and the eventual withdrawal plan. The soldiers doing the dirty worked aren't 'screwed up.' They're simply doing their job..and from all accounts, with their hands tied behind their backs.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

This war?

I'm pretty sure you would have stuff like this happen in 'every' war. Of course, we'll leave it in your hands, and the hands of this writer, to think that the Iraq war, is the ONLY war where something like this happens.

Neither myself nor the writer of the article made any such claim.

Got any straw left?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

What war were you talking about Flash?

This war, meaning the Iraq war, or any war in general?

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.

What war? The writer is talking about the Iraq war, nothing else.

In fact..

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.

Are you saying that if the this 'wholly war effort' wasn't wrong, such things wouldn't happen?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

What war were you talking about Flash?

This war, meaning the Iraq war, or any war in general?



What war? The writer is talking about the Iraq war, nothing else.

In fact..



Are you saying that if the this 'wholly war effort' wasn't wrong, such things wouldn't happen?

Ugh, I don't know why I bother.

Read the entire article, please. It's about the deployments of troops and reasons for the behaviour, which now can be linked to deployment time and scenarios.

[Azure]

I only had to read until the writer mentioned 'battlefield ethics.'

There are no ethics in war...its kill or be killed. Always been that way, and it will ALWAYS stay that way.

I like what CC said...never judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Sure I can agree that extended tours may be a factor in all this...but war has always created atrocities...and innocent people have ALWAYS died.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I only had to read until the writer mentioned 'battlefield ethics.'

There are no ethics in war...its kill or be killed. Always been that way, and it will ALWAYS stay that way.

I like what CC said...never judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Sure I can agree that extended tours may be a factor in all this...but war has always created atrocities...and innocent people have ALWAYS died.

Wow.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Azure

I only had to read until the writer mentioned 'battlefield ethics.'

There are no ethics in war...its kill or be killed. Always been that way, and it will ALWAYS stay that way.

I like what CC said...never judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Sure I can agree that extended tours may be a factor in all this...but war has always created atrocities...and innocent people have ALWAYS died.

Which is why a war like Iraq is so disgusting and all the rhetoric about doing this for the people of Iraq is complete BS.

Originally Posted by peter12

What a silly article. Why is it a surprise that man's darkest side emerges during times of war. This is the human story.

Silly and obvious.

Clearly not obvious to the millions of people who thought and may still think this war was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Maybe articles like this can open a few more eyes.

[Azure]

Why is it that we think the Iraqi war is the single issue here?

I'm sure WW2 had innocent civilians being killed as well....and MANY atrocities were committed.

I wonder if the media of today...you know all those pundits that seem to think battlefield ethics have eroded...would call the greatest generation known to man 'ethical.'

I guess there is a reason they're called the 'greatest generation' in history.

To think that these things only happen in a war like the one in Iraq is stupid.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why is it that we think the Iraqi war is the single issue here?

I'm sure WW2 had innocent civilians being killed as well....and MANY atrocities were committed.

I wonder if the media of today...you know all those pundits that seem to think battlefield ethics have eroded...would call the greatest generation known to man 'ethical.'

I guess there is a reason they're called the 'greatest generation' in history.

To think that these things only happen in a war like the one in Iraq is stupid.

You arrogantly refuse to read past the second paragraph of the two page article I linked (and the two paragraphs you did you read you clearly do not comprehend), and continue to bleat the some argument that has little if anything at all to do with the topic at hand. Your constant derailment and obfuscation are growing increasingly irritating. Please stop posting in this thread if you're going to continue to troll.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You arrogantly refuse to read past the second paragraph of the two page article I linked (and the two paragraphs you did you read you clearly do not comprehend), and continue to bleat the some argument that has little if anything at all to do with the topic at hand. Your constant derailment and obfuscation are growing increasingly irritating. Please stop posting in this thread if you're going to continue to troll.

What does the second page say? That military members who are exposed to longer tours..longer then 6-7 months suffer more mental issues? Well no Sherlock...my point is that while very true...by no means is the Iraqi War the ONLY war where something like that has happened.

The whole article is BS.

It is impossible for our soldiers and Marines to endure it without great cost to themselves or the civilians who surround them, almost certainly both.

But it is possible for any soldier to endure ANY war without making such a great sacrifice? Every war, and I mean EVERY war(since you don't seem to get that)...results in a great loss, both in military and civilian life. Like I said before, this issue should not be based on the Iraq war. War is war.

I find it highly encouraging that even WITH the extended tours and all the factors these soldiers are exposed too....the 'bad apples' as you specify them...are still at a very low percentage. If anything...the discipline of todays military is at a MUCH higher standard then it ever was before.

I like this comment.

There is nothing new in this article at all..These kinds of behaviors have been going on for as a long as man waged war. You will find the same or worse actions in other wars. It's not a product of IRAQ

How could one expect a 20 year old marine or soldier to say lets not torture this poor soul even though he has info that might save one of our own.. Ask the mom of that poor soldier just found murdered how she feels about torture if it would have saved her son.

To use this study to suggest that this war is causing these feeling among our military is nonsense. We should be pulling out of Iraq because American lives should not be wasted on a country unwilling to help themselves. Not becasue this study suggest that not every soldier is Mother Teresa.

You send in military to "FIGHT" a war.. send in humantarians to help the population and pass out good will.. Dont degrade out military for doing what they are trained to do! - fight!

We cannot and should not be the policemen of the world - we should not be the first country people turn to when a crises demands enormous financial resources and aid. Our military should not be wasted in a conflict with no resolution and an outcome that in 10 years everyone will not even remember..

Liberals as well as Bush are at fault here.. OUR GREATL LEADERS - all of them - went on the war path and Bin Laden is still floating around and making threats to this country. THAT is where our military should be! Let the Iraqi's continue to kill each other if they so desire..it's not our concern!

Should I point out again that the military is not trained to be a police force? They are trained to act with aggression, and to kill people.

And that is not to say that I 'agree' with torture....since thats the first thing you're going to accuse me of. Point is...being in the middle of such a hellish fight, I'm not surprised these Marines seem to support torture. In the end, they're fighting for those beside them, not any civilian.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

What does the second page say? That military members who are exposed to longer tours..longer then 6-7 months suffer more mental issues? Well no Sherlock...my point is that while very true...by no means is the Iraqi War the ONLY war where something like that has happened.

The whole article is BS.



But it is possible for any soldier to endure ANY war without making such a great sacrifice? Every war, and I mean EVERY war(since you don't seem to get that)...results in a great loss, both in military and civilian life. Like I said before, this issue should not be based on the Iraq war. War is war.

I find it highly encouraging that even WITH the extended tours and all the factors these soldiers are exposed too....the 'bad apples' as you specify them...are still at a very low percentage. If anything...the discipline of todays military is at a MUCH higher standard then it ever was before.

I like this comment.



Should I point out again that the military is not trained to be a police force? They are trained to act with aggression, and to kill people.

And that is not to say that I 'agree' with torture....since thats the first thing you're going to accuse me of. Point is...being in the middle of such a hellish fight, I'm not surprised these Marines seem to support torture. In the end, they're fighting for those beside them, not any civilian.

Dude, just read the article already. Far as I can tell, you agree with the guy, but you refuse to even read it so you can continue this "it's a stupid article bashing the soldiers" lather you've worked yourself into.