70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Coalition military intelligence officers estimated that “between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.
And these people are or have been held in a situation where torture is deemed acceptable.:O
Ofcourse that's what we get with Bush as President.:'(
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Bush is a friggin' puppet. It's the idiots he appointed that are feeding him their lies, so he can do his RELIGIOUS RIGHT thing.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Its unfortunate that many of these law abiding citizens have been put through the wringer by our military. The military man power could have been used for something more useful than terrorizing peaceful Iraqi citizens. Especially when you think the US invading Iraq under the premise of "liberating" them from the torture of Saddam and his army.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Oh, I do think Saddam had to go. But it was an immeasurably stupid mistake to do it the way Bush/Rumsfeld did. And violate our Constitution and our world standing in democratic and cooperative principles in so doing.
I also think the N. Korea admin. has to go, but I've thought that for decades. Same as for many in Africa and other places.
But I guess if you can and want to fight a war, it is better to do one your Daddy didn't finish, rather than make up a bunch of fake evidence and fight one against a completely new sparring partner.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
They do these sweeps and just round up muslims like cattle and then put them in camps ( a little to familar to 1940's Germany for me- yikes ! ) and over 70% of the people have no intelligence value to the US military. Some of these innocent people are not only held against their will ( kidnapping)but they are tortured under BRAND NEW BUSH CREATED interrogation policies .
Its not like they rode in sidesaddle,on horseback,singing "git along lil doggies",while twirling a lasso above thier cowboy combat helmet.
It was a war zone.Alot of people were detained for security reasons,then released.Those who were a possible problem,or suspected problem ,were detained.
I see no problem with that.I think its text book, SOP,military 101, in how to do it.
Would you suggest a "dont ask dont tell"when dealing with terrorist??
Quote:
All hail Bush ( or else ):killer:
Ok this is funny,i dont care who ya are!
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
First practical problem is sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. Your average terrorist is not exactly going to announce himself as such when arrested. In effect this means having good intelligence - but the more you alienate the population, the more difficult this intelligence is to come by.
Second practical problem is to have a regime that allows rigorous questioning, without stepping outside the bounds of acceptability. Skilled interrogators can often get answers without recourse to brutality, deprivation, etc.
Third practical problem is how you ensure that the people operating the system stay within the specified rules. A lot of the Abu Ghraib abuse seems to have come about because the chain of command failed, leading to relatively junior ranks being allowed a free rein without the more senior ranks checking, (as opposed to just asking), what was going on.
I'm from the UK and I tend to note very different operating philosophies between the British and American armies. The British approach is more "softly, softly" and perhaps because of this, there are far fewer problems around Basra, etc., than where the American army is in control.
Which begs the question - if the US army operated more on the lines of the British army, would it be more effective in the counter insurgency role?
Phil W.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil-W
Which begs the question - if the US army operated more on the lines of the British army, would it be more effective in the counter insurgency role?
Phil W.
NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be our guest!!!!!!
Take the lead,
instead of having your role given to you.
You just got my vote.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
I think if I were put in the situation of a soldier I would have the same approach they are useing now . How do you know who the enemy is ? I wouldnt want to find out after a bullet has gone through my head . I read the article on how the prisoners were given clothing for information well so be it I guess its easier to judge from a warm house with food in the fridge then a live battle ground . Yes war sucks but we are in one and quite honestly I wish they would just send all the media liberals home.Do you appreciate your military your freedom ?
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil-W
A lot of the Abu Ghraib abuse seems to have come about because the chain of command failed, leading to relatively junior ranks being allowed a free rein without the more senior ranks checking, (as opposed to just asking), what was going on.
Given the administration's requests, prior to the war, for formal legal opinions from the Justice Department re just how far they could possibly go while still maintaining some semblance of plausible authority, what we know about Gitmo, the lengthy period of time over which the abuses at Abu Ghirab occurred, what's become public thus far re the Company's involvement in the running of the facility, and the claims made by the junior rank soldiers that have been charged, I seriously doubt that Abu Ghirab occurred due to a failure of the chain-of-command. Instead, it seems fairly apparent to me that the truth is quite to the contrary, i.e., the soldiers charged with the abuses were following the orders that they'd been given, and those orders originated in the political part of the command structure, not the military chain-of-command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil-W
I'm from the UK and I tend to note very different operating philosophies between the British and American armies. The British approach is more "softly, softly" and perhaps because of this, there are far fewer problems around Basra, etc., than where the American army is in control.
Which begs the question - if the US army operated more on the lines of the British army, would it be more effective in the counter insurgency role?
Unfortunately, no. First, and foremost, pretty much anytime anyone anywhere is being occupied by both the U.S. and the British, the level of animosity and violence aimed at the U.S. soldiers is going to be significantly higher for a variety of reasons (including "reality" re who's making the decisions, "payback" for past transgressions, our widespread reputation as "the Great Satan," etc.). Second, in this particular case, the marked differences between the areas the British are holding and the areas the U.S. are holding make such comparisons completely invalid. Basra is largely populated by a people who have borne the brunt of much of the prior regimes' repressive measures, the city was largely cut-off and then bypassed during the invasion such that it suffered relatively minimal damage, and the city sits at the head of the northern supply train such that its needs are pretty much taken care of before anything manages to make its way north. You'd be amazed how much easier it is to walk "softly" when people's homes are intact and you have lots of food, medicine, etc., to give them to keep them pacified. Contrast that with Fazullah, etc.; it was Saddam's powerbase, there was heavy and prolonged fighting, such that the infrastructure has basically been destroyed and much of the populace made homeless, and between the continuing security problems and the geographic location, many of the most basic needs of the people are simply not being met. Under such circumstances, I'm fairly certain the Brits would not only fare no better, but also quickly find themselves being forced to adopt the U.S. approach due to the basic nature of the existing situation (witness the "operating philosophy" that was eventually adopted and then employed for a prolonged period in Northern Ireland).
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
send all the liberal media home , eh ?
Why? Afraid of what they might see and report ?
And what of the conservative media? I guess it is better to only hear one side huh ?
Liberal, Conservative, Foreign, U.S.... doesn't really matter - the methods we're currently employing to gain control of the more problematic areas are about as harsh as we'll be able to get away with, regardless of who it is that's doing the reporting, without being subjected to a much higher and more widespread level of criticism around the world. And as the methods we'd necessarily be required to employ to rapidly and effectively gain control of the more problematic areas are a quantum leap beyond those now being used, no amount of media "slant" or "bias" would suffice, i.e., while the capabilities exist, we just can't operate that way in front of the media, period. So, while we'll probably eventually get there, we're going to have to do so over an extended period of time, enduring something along the lines of the same kind of steady level of casualties as we are right now - and it matters not who's reporting it, as little will change from here on out regardless.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by GnBeret
...while we'll probably eventually get there, we're going to have to do so over an extended period of time, enduring something along the lines of the same kind of steady level of casualties as we are right now - and it matters not who's reporting it, as little will change from here on out regardless.
A colleague of mine was over in the US on business recently and got talking to an infantry major in a bar. The major's take on the war was that the casualties being suffered by the American army in Iraq were roughly those that would be suffered by a comparable sized force in the US when you took into account training accidents, car crashes, suicides, etc. He reckoned that although each casualty was a personal tradgedy for the familes involved, the military effectiveness of the army was not being affected. A cold blooded, but very practical point of view.
Phil W.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by GnBeret
Given the administration's requests, prior to the war, for formal legal opinions from the Justice Department re just how far they could possibly go while still maintaining some semblance of plausible authority, what we know about Gitmo, the lengthy period of time over which the abuses at Abu Ghirab occurred, what's become public thus far re the Company's involvement in the running of the facility, and the claims made by the junior rank soldiers that have been charged, I seriously doubt that Abu Ghirab occurred due to a failure of the chain-of-command. Instead, it seems fairly apparent to me that the truth is quite to the contrary, i.e., the soldiers charged with the abuses were following the orders that they'd been given, and those orders originated in the political part of the command structure, not the military chain-of-command.
The nature of the abuse makes me think otherwise. If the abuse came via the chain of command I would have expected sleep deprivation, white noise and other disorientating methods to be used with a view to gaining information. Interrogation techniques have got more sophisticasted over the years.
The human pyramids, etc., seem more characteristic of soldiers operating without proper supervision. Plus, I seem to remember the official US army investigation censured specific officers for failures of leadership. Abuse of this nature seems to me to be more likely to make prisoners withhold information rather than give it.
If the military and/or political chain of command intended to use Abu Ghirab to gain information, they don't seem to have done it in a very smart or effective way. What they got was a first class scandal that fuelled the insurgency.
Phil W.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by GnBeret
...First, and foremost, pretty much anytime anyone anywhere is being occupied by both the U.S. and the British, the level of animosity and violence aimed at the U.S. soldiers is going to be significantly higher for a variety of reasons (including "reality" re who's making the decisions, "payback" for past transgressions, our widespread reputation as "the Great Satan," etc.). Second, in this particular case, the marked differences between the areas the British are holding and the areas the U.S. are holding make such comparisons completely invalid....Under such circumstances, I'm fairly certain the Brits would not only fare no better, but also quickly find themselves being forced to adopt the U.S. approach due to the basic nature of the existing situation (witness the "operating philosophy" that was eventually adopted and then employed for a prolonged period in Northern Ireland).
Your points are well taken. I don't think you can militarily crush any insurgency, given that a few men with access to explosives and small arms can create a disproportionate amount of destruction. All you can do it militarily contain the insurgency, while trying to create the political conditions where it withers away.
You do get an idea of the different operating philosophies of the armies if you look at Fazullah and Basra. Basra was taken by the British Army nibbling at it - this was slower probably than the American chain of command liked, but it did minimise civilian casualties and damage to property. As a result the resent from the cities civilian population was minimised.
Fazullah was taken by a full on assault with heavy damage to the infrastructure and significant civilian casualties. I can understand why it was done in that manner - it minimised US military casualties during the assault - but did the means of taking the city fuel the insurgency and increase American casualties elsewhere?
I guess the underlying point I'm making is that the American army can win any military engagement it gets involved in - such is the degree of it's technical superiority. Does it however operate with the political skills needed to deal with the Iraqi insurgency?
Phil W.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil-W
I guess the underlying point I'm making is that the American army can win any military engagement it gets involved in - such is the degree of it's technical superiority. Does it however operate with the political skills needed to deal with the Iraqi insurgency?
Phil W.
IMHO, the answer to your query is "no," at least insofar as the Corps and the regular Army line units go. Unfortunately, the military can't always be everything to everybody, for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is funding - and despite the significant strides that have been made over the past 10-15 years in the still-ongoing restructuring of our basic force concept from the cold war model upon which it was formerly based to the rapid response/multiple regoinal conflicts at once model upon which we're currently trying to reorganize things, we're not there yet. As such, the large mech infantry and heavy divisions are still based entirely upon the concept of taking ground as rapidly and as efficiently as possible, with little to no thought, planning or training directed toward prolonged occupations and/or dealing with and ultimately putting down a sustained insurgency. And then, of course, comes the Corps, which, for some reason, seems to find itself being grossly misused, over and over again - simply stated, the Corps is built to TAKE ground, PERIOD, not to hold it as an occupying force or serve in the capacity of a quasi-police force.
So, while the units we've fielded are fairly ill-suited to deal with the situation they're currently facing, both the current force structure and existing political considerations prevent us from turning the entire operation over to SOCOM, even though it's the only division of the military specifically geared toward dealing with these kinds of circumstances.
Ten years from now the restructuring of forces will have been accomplished, and I suspect you'll see a radically different approach being employed if and when these kinds of situations are encountered thereafter.
Re: 70%-90% of US held prisoners in "War on Terror"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil-W
First practical problem is sorting out the good guys from the bad guys.... In effect this means having good intelligence - but the more you alienate the population, the more difficult this intelligence is to come by.
On a domestic level I can tell you that, because of the terrorist paranoia and the extreme consequences of being suspected by hair-trigger DofHS "experts" etc., that if I even suspected someone that I knew of odd activities, I very well may not directly announce that information to authorities. (Since I don't get around too much anymore, that situation is not likely anyhow.) But that is how I feel, and I don't believe this is uncommon.
It's the guilt by association thing. I would have to find some fool-proof way and that would take valuable time. Sorry, but it is not my idea to run the govm't like this.