Atheist Meditations

I'm just doing the blogmad thing, and I've come across a few of the neoconned bloggers who are posting about the recently publicized problems in Haditha. I like how they all act like this is something new, when the alternative press covered it within a month of the allegations coming to light. Just because this atrocity has only just pierced their 'stupidity bubble', does not mean that us liberals are 'rushing to judgement.'

Anyways, I spent about forty-five minutes trying to explain to this young man some of the errors in his logic, and then was left with the unsatisfying realization that he may never approve it for publishment on the web. Hey, it's his blog and he can do whatever he likes. I needed to post today anyway, so I thought I'd just paste it here. If a few of my statements don't make much sense, just assume they'd be great insights into his flawed understanding of how war operates in the real world.

I began by addressing some of the previous commentators on how liberal blogs are wacky rants that delete 'the truth', then tried to address his three points on why terrorists in Iraq are bad cuz they don't follow the rules of war. This is the link to his blog.

ctrl-v:

I find things are quite the opposite, many of the conserative blogs I find don't allow any comments, or delete them. Usually, they talk about some set of 'rules' they enforce, then use them to justify their selective editing. It is part of the definition of Liberalism, that we not only permit points of view we dislike, we actually take some time to engage them and try to understand them.

Your 3 points about the rules of war may be rational, in that you provide justifications for them, but unfortunately they expose a rather simplistic view of war.

Yes, the wearing of uniforms does have some bearing upon the Geneva Conventions and an army's responsibilities. To say that that's the reason a state dresses up their military, however, is laughable. Far more important than any potential protections that might be gleamed from said conventions is the need for an army to be organized and obedient. Advertising campaigns about 'An Army of One' notwithstanding, soldiers need to supress their individuality and act as a group - uniforms and shaved heads are part of that process.

Secondly, far more important than following rules of war is the need to win. Armed groups that confront the U.S. military are so unbelievably out gunned that they have to be more than a little crazy - or desperate - to take up arms. If using a mosque buys them any tactical or strategic advantage they will do so without hesitation. The Irish resistance used churches when fighting the British. The history of our own revolution contains numerous examples of civilian, religious, and other 'off limits' structures being used to house supplies and provide military infastructure.

Your third point, that one someone surrenders the fighting is over. Come on! We're not talking about a game of checkers here. How many groups of confederates adopted terrorist tactics and continued to fight after the 'official' surrender in the Civil War. Or take any example from the Indian Wars, when a tribe was crushed not every brave shuffled off to the reservation to starve to death. Many adopted guerilla tactics, after all they really had nothing to lose.

My main point is not that you might not have the most developed understanding of how armed conflict works, my point is that our military leadership does. The kind of warriors who graduate from West Point have studied historical battles and wars to a level that makes both of us look like ignorant children. When they planned for the invasion of Iraq then never expected to fight an insurgency that wore uniforms, they knew the enemy was going to use every aspect of Islam to shield their activities, and they bloody well knew that things would not be over once Saddam fled to a spider hole. They had an extensive plan for the occupation of Iraq, Bush and Rumsfeld threw that plan out and came up with a new one. One that placed more of an emphasis on how they could sell this war, and less on what the realities were going to be. Remeber the whole, 'they'll greet us as liberators with flowers and candies' line of crap. Nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of the middle east believed that.

So now we have a christian army (that's how the insurgents are going to play it) in the heart of the muslim holy land. These kids are raised on stories of Salidin kicking out the Crusaders like we watch cowboy movies and Rambo.

We never had a chance of making that country better with a military intervention. We just didn't. Liberals were saying that for months in the lead up to the war, but not the liberals someone like you listens to.

You have to realize that a corporate media - one which will profit from a war - is going to find it much easier to provide you with dork liberals (and sell you on the notion that liberals want to kill babies or root for terrorists - damn that's offensive ) than to allow their ideological opponents an actual opportunity to confront their spin. I may well be the first real liberal you have ever interacted with. Liberalism is a complicated, and noble ideology.

Finally, if you want to focus on the rules of war, you should understand that an occupying army has a responsibility to provide security. The Bush administration chose not to send even a quarter of the troops necessary for that obligation, and their refusal to prevent looting or even leave the Green Zone permitted these terrible things to begin in the first place. Death squads are active in Iraq, with killings that sometimes number 1000 a month. Hands tied behind their back, tortured with power tools, gunshot to the head. This is the Iraq of today. Not the Iraq your going to see on MSNBC.

Sorry to take up so much of your time, but I've wandered across your blog quite a few times and been bothered by it. I finally got a typepass or whatever, so I finally have a chance to try to save your soul.

Stay groovy, and remember that the world is not that complicated, you just have to get out of the mainstream press to get a more accurate view.