- This topic has 3 voices and 17 replies.
-
Posts
-
How low will we go? This article just popped up on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html, I would really love to know which article of the UCMJ was violated by the soldier shooting a Koran. This is simply one more example of the west bending over backward to avoid giving offense while accepting any offense against our own society and beliefs. I was dumbfounded when I heard a US Major General “humbly begging forgiveness' for one soldier?s actions. It is no wonder we get no respect in the Middle East, the only thing that Arabs respect is strength, something we are signally failing to show there.
Not exactly a way to wins hearts and minds.Let me ask something, when Petraeus commands his soldiers to remove their shoes before entering a mosque, is that a sign of weakness or bending over backwards too? Or is it a sign of respect and cultural awareness?Yes, Arabs respect strength, but don't you think they would also like to be repected? And I disagree we get no respect in the Middle East. As Petraeus once mentioned, Americans are considered the strongest tribe in Iraq and that's why they are coming to our side. The whole Anbar Awakening happened because they saw how the Marines fought, and we gained their respect because of that.Apologizing for some moron who disrespected their religion by using their holy text as a target is a perfectly appropriate thing to do, IMO. Apologies require humility in order to be sincere.
Ah, but what is the difference between apologizing and groveling? The soldier should be disciplined for being not stupid, not for disrespecting what is in the end, just a mass of printed paper. The question is, would we reasonably expect the Iraqi equivalent of a two-star to apologize to us if it was discovered that Iraqi's were useing the bible for target practice? I think we would not, because we are big enough to see beyond the stupidity of the indivindual, and that he does not represent the entirety of the Iraqi population. The problem with an official apology I see is that it seems to legitimize the act. I think it would be more effective to acknowledgin it happened and say the soldier was reprimanded without tendering an official apology. It is not US policy to desecrate Korans after all, so why is the US apologizing for the act of an individual. Apologizing is tanatamount to admitting that they are culturally superior instead of being equals as we contend.
The whole Anbar Awakening happened because they saw how the Marines fought, and we gained their respect because of that.
The way we fought is a sign of strength, something they understand. However, respecting their values and norms does not mean we jettison our values in favor of theirs or place our values in a subservient position.
However, respecting their values and norms does not mean we jettison our values in favor of theirs or place our values in a subservient position.
How are we compromising our values, though? I don't see it. We are in their country and should respect their government and culture and ways of doing things. I think the apology was a good idea because now the insurgency/terrorists can't use this incident as a recruitment tool.
I think the apology was a good idea because now the insurgency/terrorists can't use this incident as a recruitment tool.
They will use the indcident as a recruiting tool anyway, our apology just makes us look weak.
Diplomatically it was prudent to apologize. Strategically it was prudent to apologize. Morally it was prudent to apologize. Does it show weakness? Some will see it that way I'm sure, but the majority of the people should see it as doing the right thing and trying to co-exist under tense circumstances. Not everyone is going to be happy over there….all that can be hoped for is to keep the majority in line.
I think the apology was a good idea because now the insurgency/terrorists can't use this incident as a recruitment tool.
They will use the indcident as a recruiting tool anyway, our apology just makes us look weak.
Without a doubt they'll use it as a tool. But they will have no legitimacy in doing so. They accuse us of being Western imperialists. This apology, along with everything else we've been doing, will prove that is incorrect.We'll have more trouble convincing Nancy Pelosi and the Leftists that we're not imperialists.
Legitimacy and weakness are, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. A common mistake made by westerners when dealing with different cultures is the assumption that they share our perceptions. They do not.
Without a doubt they'll use it as a tool. But they will have no legitimacy in doing so. They accuse us of being Western imperialists. This apology, along with everything else we've been doing, will prove that is incorrect.We'll have more trouble convincing Nancy Pelosi and the Leftists that we're not imperialists.
Terrorists and insurgents derive the legitimacy of using this incident as a recruiting from the fact that it happened. Our apology means less than nothing to them, and in fact, they do see it as weakness. They are still using the events at Abu Ghraib against us despite the public apologies, prosecution, and imprisonment of the perpetrators. To our opponents our nation building activities are portrayed as imperialism not benevolent aid. Do not forget that perception is everything.
Diplomatically it was prudent to apologize. Strategically it was prudent to apologize. Morally it was prudent to apologize. Does it show weakness? Some will see it that way I'm sure, but the majority of the people should see it as doing the right thing and trying to co-exist under tense circumstances. Not everyone is going to be happy over there....all that can be hoped for is to keep the majority in line.
How does apologizing keep anyone in line? My basic point is that we can acknowledge the occurrence and prosecute the individual but a collective apology serves no practical point. In fact, the apology lowers our standing by making us look weak. I don?t see how the apology makes sense either diplomatically or strategically, it is neither a diplomatic nor a strategic issue. I see your point about morality, but I think you are falling into the trap of assuming they believe as we do. They see incidents of this kind as a wedge. This is much like the cartoons of a few years ago or the recent video by the Dutch politician. Many Muslims did not see either thing but the terrorists use these things to stir up hatred and we continually back down. When the people concerned stand their ground, they are called hatemonger?s or worse. It becomes a question of what is more important, our freedoms or their supposed right to not be offended?I go back to my original question: what law was broken by the shooting of a Koran? I agree it was a stupid thing to do. I disagree in that I think the US government has no requirement to accept collective responsibility for the actions of one idiot.
To our opponents our nation building activities are portrayed as imperialism not benevolent aid.
I have doubts that most of them view us that way. There's just too may Iraqis helping us and friendly towards us and fighting with us now to convince me that they view us as imperialists. Let's look at their point of view. Many of them had jobs and homes before we invaded. Now many of them are unemployed or refugees. If I'm not mistaken, Baghdad University attendence dropped like 90% after the invasion and for a few years after. That's sad...especially for those who were in their last year of studies. How is it even possible that a lot of them don't view us as Imperialistic Crusaders who have destroyed their country? Many of them helped us and supported us when we removed Saddam. Many of those same people have been killed or fled so they won't be killed. (did anyone watch 60 Minutes last night about this?)
Our apology means less than nothing to them, and in fact, they do see it as weakness.
I think this is a generalization. Our apology only means nothing to those who already hate us. In a general cultural sense, apologies and loyalty mean a lot to Arabs. For the past century, the Iraqis have been ruled or controlled or used by the West. It's going to take some time to gain their trust. Once we do, we'll have it forever. T.E. Lawrence proved this. And it lasted until the British lied to them.What they view as weakness is not doing anything even after we've been attacked. Reagan not doing anything about the Marine barracks, Clinton not doing anything after Al Qaeda bombed all those embassies, that's what they viewed as weakness and that's what empowered them...the terrorists anyway. It's different for the insurgents, they just want us out of there.What if we didn't apologize? What if we brushed it aside or covered it up like we did Abu Ghraib? The situtation, I think, would be far worse. Yes, they are still mad about prisoner abuse, but I think their anger comes more from the fact that we tried to cover it up or, as in Rumsfeld's case, tried to deny it even happened.
I am not saying cover it up. I am simply saying we (meaning the US military or government) should not accept responsibility for the act of one individual. The responsibility belongs squarely on the shoulder of the soldier who used the book for target practice, not his superiors or by extension, the entire US government. By publicly apologizing the military is accepting responsibility for something the military did not do. I am saying the military should acknowledge that yes, it happened, and the offender has been reprimanded. That is all. I have serious doubts that shooting the Koran is punishable under the UCMJ, I guarantee you that it is unpunishable in US criminal courts. He is beholden to US Law, not Iraqi or Sharia law. The most that soldier can get is an official Letter of reprimand. They may weasel their way into charging him under Art. 132, The general Article.
By publicly apologizing the military is accepting responsibility for something the military did not do.
But I don't think that was the reason for the apology. They apologized for the actions of that one soldier not the whole military. The Army acknowledged it, sent the guy home, and apologized for his stupidity. That's good, and it shoudl be over with, but I don't think we should forget the fact that this incident will probably put troops in more danger. Yes, shooting the Qur'an may not be punishable under US law (although one could make the argument this is in violation of FM3 24), but putting troops in danger could be worth the Article 15.I've made my points and I don't mean to drag this out. It's just that stuff like this gets on my nerves because the situation is so delicate over there, and we're making such good diplomatic progress, and something like this could set it back.
Should not the soldier himself then apologize? I would not have a problem with that. I only have a problem with the command apologizing.
I'd only have a problem with apologizing or being humble if we were at war with Iraq. But we're not.I'm sure the Civil Affairs, PSYOP, and HTT's have been busy the past few days because of this. (like their job isn't hard enough to begin with 🙂
At any rate it is moral….and we go by our morals not theirs, and our morals say apologies are a good thing. The Iraqis are our hosts. We are in their house, so an apology is required.
At any rate it is moral....and we go by our morals not theirs, and our morals say apologies are a good thing. The Iraqis are our hosts. We are in their house, so an apology is required.
Fuzzy thinking. They believe our morals are decadent and a source of weakness so how does applying our morals in their country help us?
