I am providing a link to this Independent article even though they have taken a Salon-like step and decided to force people -- or at least, Americans* -- to pay a pound for the dubious privilege of reading their columns in their entirety. (I'm surprised they don't charge in Euros.) I could not read the paragraphs whence Peter Briffa (warning: Blogspot busted-archive-workaround link will rot, it's the post for April 22, 2003, 10:45:03 AM) derived these tantalizing quotes:
"I thought this war justified, until this evidence that it was being conducted in an improper and uncaring way".
And,
"It would not have been hard to foresee that law and order would have been difficult to maintain in the wake of the collapse of the Iraqi regime, and it would have been quite proper for American troops to have shot looters in these circumstances. That is what war consists of, and it would have saved a culture from this catastrophe".
(Bolds mine in both cases.) The header to the article reads: "Crimes against culture are remembered for ever -- The Muslim world will ask why US forces let the looting happen and produce a simple answer: they hate Islam." On the contrary, many "crimes against culture" are either forgotten or attract scabrous debunkers (cough the Holocaust cough); and in any case the Muslims who think that will, as usual, be wrong, especially considering that the looters were fellow Muslims.
But I am intrigued by the idea that the column's author, one Philip Hensher, apparently thinks that 1) it is possible to fight a "caring" war (how? Drop sympathy cards and flowers along with bombs?) and 2) that the best way to show "caring" would have been to shoot more civilians. The ways in which the minds of anti-Americans work never cease to cause amazement.
*In the comments to one of his posts, Peter Briffa expresses surprise that a reader was confronted by the demand for cash from the Independent, so I have therefore brilliantly concluded that British readers are identified by their IP addresses and not charged.
Posted by Andrea Harris at April 23, 2003 12:02 PMNope - they're asking for a quid as well so it's not just non-Brit readers. Article is part of their 'portfolio' collection. In other words it's just as cretinous as everything else in the Indy only they expect cash for their cretinousness.
All together now: fuck that!
Posted by: Steven Chapman at April 23, 2003 at 02:15 PMAh, I see. I expect all the Indymidiots will be using daddy's credit card. Or are the anti-everything crowd ib the UK not spoiled upper middle class kids like they are here?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 23, 2003 at 02:24 PMThe image of flowers and Hallmark1 cards following the missives out the bomb-bay doors will live with me forever.
1"Blood for Hallmark!" will then become the critique, natch.
Posted by: Porphyrogenitus at April 23, 2003 at 09:33 PMThe best source on how to fight a caring war remains the half-hour video Barney's Small-Unit Tactics:
I shoot you, you shoot me
We're opposing infantry
With a mortar shell and a slug from me to you,
Won't you say surrender's due?
For further information consult the self-help best-sellers Chicken Soup for the Brigadier General's Soul and Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Basic.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at April 23, 2003 at 09:52 PM"...it would have been quite proper for American troops to have shot looters in these circumstances. That is what war consists of...."
Conspicuous nonsense. My favorite concise definition of warfare is "killing foreigners for political reasons." Shooting looters to preserve some artifacts is much better described as desperation law enforcement. It might be an adjunct to a military operation, but protecting that museum from the neighbors (or employees) deserved to be far down the task list. So low is my concern about this issue that I propose we blame the Turks: Had they allowed 4th ID into the fight on time, we would have gotten around to securing the Museum. As it happened our Marines were busy with being wounded and killed as they extended themselves beyond their usual role.
Posted by: Dave Himrich at April 23, 2003 at 09:59 PMAs Patton says, at least in the movie 'Patton' (rough rendering): "patriotism isn't dying for your country, it's having the other poor bastard die for his."
Posted by: Daniel Messing at April 23, 2003 at 10:17 PMI uncovered a universal explanatory priniciple in this post: Whenever anything unpleasant or undesirable occurs, "The Muslim world will ask why ... and produce a simple answer: [outsiders, infidels, Zionists, Americans, etc.] hate Islam."
Posted by: Tresho at April 24, 2003 at 01:11 AMThe old saying that "you can't please everyone" is relevant at this point, but when dealing with Anti-Americans, you can't please any of them, ever.
Has Mr. Hensher said how he would have reacted to the news that American troops had shot Iraqis for theft? Or how his Leftist kindred would have reacted? Our own police aren't permitted to do that. A private citizen can be indicted for murder for doing so, though the goods be his, taken from his home under his eyes.
Has Mr. Hensher had anything to say about the antiquities taken from nominally locked vaults? Where the possession of keys to the vaults was restricted to a supposed, trusted few?
Has Mr. Hensher had anything to say about the Baathist torture chambers found by the coalition's forces? About the copious supples of automatic rifles, suicide-bomber belts, and plastic explosives found in Saddam's government-run schools? About the children's prisons opened by American troops, which spilled forth captives as young as ten, whose parents had not seen or heard of them in years?
One can only wonder about how ethical numbness could be combined with rabid anti-American viciousness in a human mind...until one encounters sentiments like those of Mr. Hensher.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at April 24, 2003 at 08:01 AMhttp://www.rense.com/general37/forever.htm
You can read it here in its entirety.
Posted by: Peter Briffa at April 24, 2003 at 08:28 AM