Too Much To Dream

Well, we know the US will be blamed for it. They never would have acted this way if not under the psychic distress of a unilateral attack.

Kos is already in hell. Bush is still the prez, the Republicans won in November, and his anti-American rants have not changed one single mind about the war in Iraq, and the American public is firmly behind it. He's still using the "chickenhawk" trump card. Oh, he's in hell, all right. He might have some good military insight, but it's hard to read it through the red mist of anger at BUSH he sprays all over the screen.

Kos' site is so full of Bush administration hatred it's unreal. When you read it you see all the loons in full flight. They are so rabid they don't make any sense, just a lot of invective. They've kicked off all the conservative voices except for Tacitus and he's fighting a losing battle. Interesting though to see their mentality.

Kos is an unrepentant jackass, and Tacitus comes close to sullying himself by not treating Kos as such. Tacitus places Kos on a higher level than Sawicky or Hesiod, but from what I've seen, such treatment isn't warranted.

Kos is the typical partisan: using the deaths and torture of American soldiers as a vehicle to criticize Bush. That is the hallmark of his type and why I say that he, CalPundit and others have nothing but contempt for us. Next time you see them mention American soldiers, notice how it's only in a context of criticizing Bush.

One feels obligated to point out that the Geneva Conventions cut both ways. Nations at war are obligated to uphold them as long as the enemy does. But anyone who violates them has no rights and may be executed on the field.

What this means to me is that any surrendering Iraqi soldiers (regulars) should be treated as have the ones before, but that the Republican Guard is fair game (reports have said that they were executed by the RG).

Regarding the reports of Iraqis opening fire after having waved a white flag, this also violates the Geneva Conventions and American troops are under absolutely no obligation to take them prisoner. Should they so decide, the troops are also under no obligation to keep them alive after taking them prisoner. (Note that this is not a judgement on whether Americans should execute them, it is only a recognition that they have a right to do so).

I'm seeing a turning point in the "debate," a public and international argument whose disintegration has been exacerbated by the consequences Saddam has brought upon himself, the reality of his horrid rule, and atrocities committed by the Near East Culture of Death - recently and soon to come. Well-meaning people who had reservations about an offensive have understood the necessity, but a group of intransigents are growing more hyperbolic as they lose all dignity.

To wit: what the dickens to call them? They're not antiwar, for they fail to condemn to shadowy campaign being waged by terrorists and source states. They're not humanitarians: neither the Ba'athists nor the DPRK nor the Tehranian Islamic Republic nor the PRC covet their attention like the United States of America. They're not confined to one belief, for anarchists, nihlists, Stalinists, religious extremists and sociopaths can claim membership. They do all seem to hate Jews, America, free elections, markets and worship.

"Anti-Americans" is too good. "Slime of the earth" is too ad-hominem and adolescent. But this group, evil's nescient pawns and patsies, needs to be defined and identified - and if need be, denied the benefit of the doubt through polite public debate they have been graciously granted. Debate should be moving to the best ways to cultivate a free society in Baghdad, not perverse adventures in comparing elected men with usurping butchers. They're hardly concerned citizens at this elucidating point in time; they're angry, incoherent people with frightening agendas. Free speech extends to informing them with a kind "You're out of your mind!"

Any ideas?

Kos is quite the armchair general. To summarize his wisdom:

1. It's our fault.

2. War is unpleasant.

3. The logistics tail is an easier target than the combat formations.

If he's in hell now, wait a couple of weeks. He'll scarcely be able to live with himself.

Rather than address Kos, I'd like to address the Geneva Convention. None of our enemies have ever abided by it. None.

The Vietnamese pretended they weren't at war with us, so it didn't apply.

The WWII Germans came the closest to abiding by the convention, but still managed to throw a few of our POWs into concentration camps, and slaughtered our surrendered soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge.

Every other enemy we have fought since the ratification of Geneva has violated it. If there is an exception, name it.

I would toss out Geneva, but for the fact that by conforming to the treaty, we encourage enemy surrenders.

Hi Anna,

Civilization is fragile. The Geneva conventions tend to be upheld by countries in the West. But as humans we all fight our baser urges. I remember when I was a kid I talked to Korean vets and heard tales of prisoners being dispached. This is probably true in all wars and needs to be tempered.

Kos won't go to Hell.

I know a few prime candidates for Hell, and none of them would tolerate being anywhere near subhuman filth such as he.

I think I saw something in a blog that Iraq never signed the Geneva convention - and therefore neither they nor we need to follow it in this war. (Of course of WE will.)

For Anna,

To a great extent you are right. The regular German army mostly followed it because it was in their best interest when they surrendered (it largely did not exist in the east).

Regarding the Battle of the Bulge, it was the SS that slaughtered prisoners at Malmedy and other places. The Allies knew this, and stopped taking SS prisoners (they continued to take Wehrmacht prisoners). It's just a case of battlefield justice, and well-deserved.