[IRAQ] US Forces with an example of "Collateral Damage"

That saddens me that there are people like this in the United States. And that people around the world see this and think that we all think like that. I'm not even going to argue anymore, this statement is what's wrong with people.

 

What's even sadder is John McCain once said this during the campaign before somebody corrected him

 

I'm going to respond out of order. I'm doing it because it makes my response more orderly, at least to me. Hopefully that isn't a problem.

Among other things I was a psychology major in college. If I had to sum up the entirety of that education in one sentence it would be, "People are irrational." So if your goal is to prove irrationality, I'll concede that, but to me it is a meaningless label.

I am much more interest in whether they are acting normally or aberrantly. To that goal, I can only describe normal behavior by providing examples of what others do in similar situations - by examining case studies. It seems to me by trying to limit the scope, you are trying to do everything you can to avoid having to actually examine what is "normal" for that situation, and rather decide whether it would be a normal response for someone of your training and experience. I absolutely agree that if you did what they did, it would be abnormal. If you start killing people, it is murder. But generally, this is not the case for soldiers. More on this below.

I don't mean to be cynical, but it seems to me that in practical terms in today's world, "insurgent" means our irregular fighter, and "terrorist" means the other side's irregular fighter. It gets really tiring after awhile trying to remember the politics of which version I'm supposed to be using in each case.

This comes back to contextualization. "Rushed"? Relative to what? "Disturbing?" There are many things that I find disturbing in the world. I find head-to-toe burkas fundamentally disturbing on an emotional level. "Distubing" doesn't mean "wrong". I appreciate that my emotional response indicates exclusively my perspective and experiences, and doesn't accurately reflect the realities of the situation for a woman in the ME. So what is "disturbing" to me, is perfectly rational for someone who'se in a different situation. So I don't try and tell women who want to wear burkas to not wear them.

Similarly, you are judging what "case studies" (my word - you'd call it "other irrational behavior") show to be perfectly normal combat soldier behavior from the perspective of someone who, I assume, has never been in combat, and so has no context to know what "normal" behavior is in that situation.

I've also provided a link to a former US Army officer who describes their eagerness as "what a commander wants, because otherwise, you can't count on a soldier to pull the trigger when they have to." Again this goes to the disconnect between the actual experience of a combat solder and what would be described as "normal" modes of cognition to that individual, as opposed to the way it looks to somebody with no relevant experience looking on from behind a computer in an office somewhere.

I can provide you several examples of soldiers in Iraq being prosecuted for murder, etc. And this is pretty much the way wars have operated in perpetuity. It is certainly an area worthy of examination, but at this point, the issue is more one of "smoke" than "fire". If you dig and find some actual wrongdoing, that would be the time to declare a conflagration. I appreciate that at fist blush it is unsettling, but I think evidence shows that (so long as you aren't a high ranking officer) the US Army will send you to jail for crimes in war.

As you have pointed out adroitly, comparing police and soldiers isn't a 100% equivalency. Police are told to use their weapons as a last resort, whereas when they are "in combat", soldiers are operating under rules of engagement which require them to use their weapons as a primary tool.

You are correct, that the analogy breaks down after a certain point. But in my opinion, the fundamental difference in missions and job requirements balances out the equation.

Now, see, I never said they were brainwashed. I said, desensitized. The analogous situation I provided was an ER doctor. If you want to provide a definition of brainwashing that would encompass the cognitive state of ER doctors, then maybe I can address the "brainwashing" of combat soldiers.

I also said they have been trained to kill, and that the job of combat soldiers in combat situations, as it is commonly understood, is to kill. If you think these things are contrafactual, I'm reasonably sure that I could document both of these.

 

Poignant cartoon:

 

I think everyone should read this (click link to read interview):

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/