How the Iraqi insurgents treat American soldiers
A sad, horrific story, no matter what your position on the Iraq War:
Although details remain sketchy, it seems that privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker were captured by insurgents, brutally tortured, and beheaded.
Perhaps these two men never should have been there in the first place, just as all U.S. troops never should have been there in the first place, but there is absolutely no moral equivalency here, whatever the inclination of some of the war's anti-American critics to suggest otherwise. Yes, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were (and, in the case of the former, still is) bad -- and I've made that case repeatedly here at The Reaction, arguing that the U.S. should be held to, and should aspire to, higher standards -- but we do not do this to our enemies.
This is not a justification for the war, just some necessary perspective (of which there is often far too little).
Two U.S. soldiers, missing for three days since their abduction in an insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad, were found dead, a military spokesman said Tuesday, and a top U.S. commander ordered an investigation into why the men were isolated from a larger force in such a dangerous part of Iraq.
Although details remain sketchy, it seems that privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker were captured by insurgents, brutally tortured, and beheaded.
Perhaps these two men never should have been there in the first place, just as all U.S. troops never should have been there in the first place, but there is absolutely no moral equivalency here, whatever the inclination of some of the war's anti-American critics to suggest otherwise. Yes, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were (and, in the case of the former, still is) bad -- and I've made that case repeatedly here at The Reaction, arguing that the U.S. should be held to, and should aspire to, higher standards -- but we do not do this to our enemies.
This is not a justification for the war, just some necessary perspective (of which there is often far too little).
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
1:12 AM
2 Comments:
Sadly, our attitude towards torture has also played a role in encouraging this kind of outcome. Fanaticism breeds more fanaticism. Iraq is a pressure cooker of frustration among people who just don't see the path to any kind of real autonomy any more.
By
thehim, at 6:07 PM
Ironically, this is likely to help Bush. I'm sure Al Quaeda thinks this kind of brutality will scare Americans into getting out, but I suspect it will make people mad and lead them to support staying, if for no other reason that to say F*** you (do I have to do my own asterisks?) to the terrorists.
Dylan makes an interesting point and one that I have often considered in the context of the treatment of Viet Nam POWs (ie, how would we feel about pilots that were bombing our country?), but, in this case, there is some difference. How much of Al Quaeda is from Iraq? They seem to be more of a transnational movement. So, I'm not sure you can really say this is a reaction to having "their" country occupied. Moreover, this is clearly not an emotional reaction--this was a deliberate policy.
It seems to me that the people actually committing these acts get a psychotic pleasure out of killing. I mean, you could have killed them without torturing them; that didn't accomplish anything except to give some sort of pleasure to the killers. Even if you accept that US policy plays a role in things like this, it is difficult for me to fathom the kind of hatred that these people have.
By
Anonymous, at 2:56 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home