Using unsavory methods, threatening to do terrible things, faking it, twisting it, propaganda, lying—all of these things are fair in war. (Not in love, but yes, in war.) So, when two American Soldiers were accused of turning two dead Taliban bodies away from Mecca and burning them; it got my attention and probably yours.
I like the idea of letting the Taliban think we are burning bodies. I like the idea of adding things to the fire so that it smells like we are burning dead bodies. . I like the idea of showing the pictures of the burnt, dead bodies. I like all of it, right up to the time when we actually burn the bodies. Actually burning the dead bodies is a HUGE no-no.
We are a nation of laws. We have rules. We have a thing called the code of conduct, and the rules of land mine warfare and the Geneva Conventions. All of those things say that mutilating the enemy is wrong. All of them say that it is actually a crime.
It is very difficult to regulate, legislate or otherwise control the manner in which a human being kills another, be it in War or any other time. It is even more difficult to control soldiers fighting an enemy that does not share the same belief system, laws or concerns.
However, we, as Americans, are expected to do just that. It might not be fair but it is the law.
Our government will investigate and prosecute those responsible, if in fact one of the good guys went stupid and actually burned an enemy soldiers’ body. First let us make sure its true then, punish the guilty and move out.
This is an aberration and should not reflect on the entire American Military but like Abu Ghraib it will to some countries and of course the always "fail" New York Times.
Links to discussions on this topic:
Two events.
1. Terrorists killed. Hurrah! After the locals were asked to care for the bodies, (and usually offered money if they would do so) and turned it down.... think of that for a minute, quietly. Then the US soldiers as a sanitary measure disposed of the bodies. No dirt, only rocks, so can't bury them without explosive. A few pints of fuel then.
2. Next event: later, Psyops did what they do, to get the maximum benefit for our country out of it. If they dragged a few pigs over to ghe corpses, it would not have been out of line, and it could have dissuaded a potential terrorist. If it saves one child.... then why not do it?
The locals hate these terrorists so much that they refused to bury them, as they are heretics, who attack Muslims, women, children in pursuit of their heresy. The terrorists deserve the worst we can give them. I guess the soldiers didn't have a vulture or two in their pocket.
Posted by: Don Meaker | October 23, 2005 at 05:43 PM
Colonel Hunt said: "As a leader, we protect our guys. The leaders here hurt their guys."
So, Colonel Hunt, are you saying that the LT and his NCOs deliberately hurt their guys withtout thinking about it? If not deliberately, then because they are pure idiots? Which is it? It sounds to me like the LT is the one with his ass on the line.
I'm more inclined to think that 1) they had given the Afghanis every opportunity to pick up the corpses and no one was interested; 2) they needed to get rid of the bodies. In case you hadn't noticed, they were on the top of a mountain - a huge hill of rock. I don't know how long it would take you to chisel two cairns out of rock, but that's not a mission I'd want to give my Airborne troops. 3) they didn't really think it would turn into a frickin' international incident - because after all, they didn't really do anything WRONG! and 4) they weren't trying to hide anything from camera crews, because (did I say this already)THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!
Jail time? No.
Posted by: Redhead Infidel | October 23, 2005 at 06:15 PM
Redhead Infidel: I hope you are correct and I am wrong.
Col. Hunt
Posted by: Col. Hunt | October 23, 2005 at 07:12 PM
Jason:
Fair point I will look at him again.
Posted by: Col. Hunt | October 23, 2005 at 07:13 PM
Jason...I saw the interview with Dupont. And as much as he defended the actions of our soldiers, he knew publishing this piece of film would put our soldiers in a bad light. As far as I'm concerned his words mean nothing. Even soldiers from his own country wouldn't talk to him let alone allow him in as an embed. That should speak volumes.
Posted by: Lisa | October 23, 2005 at 07:24 PM
Yes Lisa, Dupont did use his film to hurt out soldiers. I pointed this out in my first post on the issue. The "interview" piece was after that where I went back and listened over and over again to pull out those things that he just couldn't get around. They are buried in a bunch of troop-bashing, and he tried to whitewash the reality, but he couldn't help but admit.
1. That the soldiers Airborne soldiers and the PsyOps soldiers are two different troops working on two different timelines.
2. That the Airborne troops DID IN FACT burn them for hygiene issues - he's even forced to say he believes that, before he tirades against the "older" PysOps guys.
3. That the PsyOps guys distort the propaganda broadcast toward the Taliban to "smoke em out" and that they were trying to incite anger.
4. He also admits it's his job.
Yeah, I think Dupont was out to get our boys, but if yoou listen closely and pay attention to the facts he can't get around, then he destroys his own anti-american arguments for us.
Martinkus is just Dupont times 10, but Dupont is stil has very questionable journalistic optimism. Please don't misinterpret my words to be a defense of Dupont, I'm very critical of him, but just wanted to point out the facts he couldn't spin.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman | October 24, 2005 at 12:07 AM
Here is what I have been able to find out so far based on a whoooole lot of deconfliction (sorting through a whole bunch of information from various sources)and photo evidence.
The ground there is very rocky. You ARE NOT GOING TO DIG A HOLE IN IT. You could blast one with C4 but why should you waste explosives which you might need to pursue your mission? From most all of the reliable accounts, they had two bodies which had been decomposing for a while in front of their positions and they decided to burn them to get rid of a MAJOR health hazard. Rotting bodies attract insects, which then try to land in your chow, or on YOU. If you have any open sores, you will probably get an infection. You will then get sick and possibly have to be medivac'ed, which will reduce your unit's efficiency. Everyone following me here? This should be confirmed, but if that is why they did what they did, nobody is gonna lose any of their humanity, and no war crime was committed.
If their own people didn't want them (wow what a surprise, the locals didn't want two taliban terrorists' bodies back) then it was reasonable that the troopers got rid of the bodies in whatever way was most expedient, and there is nothing to see here folks.
Posted by: USMC Steve | October 24, 2005 at 10:24 AM
Col. Hunt:
Burning bodies is not against the Geneva Conventions. Do a google search and read the relevent articles.
Posted by: ken | October 24, 2005 at 04:45 PM
Having been one a long time ago in another life...Lieutenants make decisions sometimes that aren't always as reasoned out as say a Capt/Maj/LtCol/Col/etc., might make at their level of expertise. That is why Lts don't command large units. They (it is hoped) learn from the decisions they make as Lts so they don't repeat them in the future and become better at leadership. Leadership and decision making are learned through trial and error. Even in the miltary.
I wasn't on the ground and therefore will not criticize this young lad for a decision he made. I would critique (different than "criticize" him if I were in a position of leadership over him. I will not condemn him.
Posted by: jestplainol'bill | October 25, 2005 at 02:45 AM
The comment I posted was from 2Slick ( Former Army Black Hawk Pilot. Deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne from Feb '03 to Jan '04 (OIF 1), and Kuwait (with 3rd Army HQ) from Aug '04 to Jan '05.)
Those were his comments, which I stated before I posted.
All I wanted to know is what were the facts, and I agree the soldiers in the field should have taken the cameras. No pictures, no filming. I think I would have let them rot, food for the scavengers.
Posted by: Rita | October 25, 2005 at 08:30 AM
I would agree with you Colonel IF
the troops committed a violation of the Geneva Convention. From what I have read is that this situation has been blown out of proportion. The bodies were rotting and the locals refused to bury them. The ground is hard and rocky so the decision is made to burn the bodies in keeping with the hygene provision of the GC. Sometime later the PsyOps guys arrive at the scene. Personally its smarter to wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions.
Posted by: tomahawk6 | October 25, 2005 at 11:31 AM
I would agree with you Colonel IF
the troops committed a violation of the Geneva Convention. From what I have read is that this situation has been blown out of proportion. The bodies were rotting and the locals refused to bury them. The ground is hard and rocky so the decision is made to burn the bodies in keeping with the hygene provision of the GC. Sometime later the PsyOps guys arrive at the scene. Personally its smarter to wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions.
Posted by: tomahawk6 | October 25, 2005 at 11:33 AM
Tamahawk 6--it is you who don't have the facts. The bodies had been there 24 hours. The temperature during the day was 60 degrees and at night 40. There was no bloat and rot. This was unnecessary.
Posted by: Chris | October 25, 2005 at 11:34 AM
Dead bodies usually do not pose an infection control threat, unless the dead person had the plague or something, and even then you would need a vector to transfer the disease. And the cool, high, dry, rocky, mountainous region the bodies were found in is not conducive for insects. So I would say the hygiene argument is a very weak one.
If the ground was too dry and rocky to dig a grave, all the guys had to do was cover the bodies with a bunch of those rocks that I see lying all over the ground in the photos. That is what our early American pioneers in the West use to do for their dead, when the ground was too rocky and dry to dig a grave.
Posted by: Nurse Judy | October 25, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Correction: It was 90 degrees.
Posted by: Redhead Infidel | October 28, 2005 at 12:27 PM
Colonel Hunt, life in Lala land would be easier if officers stuck up for the troops. Yours is just an extension of bringing charges against the sentry who shot that Italian blockade runner and the Marine who was brought up for shooting an injured man who made a movement.
Draw a line from the Naktong to Kunuri back to Chipyongni and tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
STAND BY YOUR MEN, ASSHOLE!!!
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis | October 28, 2005 at 04:14 PM
What is Accutane?
Isotretinoin is a form of vitamin A. It decreases the amount of sebum (oil) that is released by the sebaceous (oil) glands, and it increases that rate at which the skin renews itself.
Isotretinoin is used to treat severe nodular acne that has not responded to other treatments, including antibiotics.
Isotretinoin may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
Buy Accutane http://bestaccutane.fora.pl>Buy Accutane
Buy Accutane http://acne.fora.pl/>Buy Accutane
Posted by: boureauri | July 23, 2007 at 08:51 AM
Good afternoon twobabesandabrain.typepad.com!.. It's pitty, but I'am fat a little:) I wanted to start a new diet two days ago, and when I search for it i found this http://www.buydietbook.com>diet loss plan wegiht book... than I read about this diet on another sites and it looks to be true.. why i'am here? - cause I visit your site two dayys ago and saw a theme about diets, but I can't find it now.. emm.. sorry for offtopic..
I want just to know is it true that I can lose weight a little faster & for a long time with this
http://www.buydietbook.com>low carb diet or anohter diet..
oh.. please give me know that it's true... thank you very much & have anyone a story or http://www.buydietbook.com>weight loss diet like this, the main question is how to loss weight more productive without trainings?
ps. yeah, I'am blodny :) Goodbye!
Posted by: Assuthhor | August 14, 2007 at 08:13 PM
Hi all!
My children told me a few times that they had been
teased at school about my weight. Obviously at this point denial wasn't going
to work anymore.
I heard about a Bariatric Clinic that is local that prescribed Phentermine.
More about of phentermine - http://jacob-weight-loss.blogspot.com/>Phentermine (http://jacob-weight-loss.blogspot.com/ )
Bye
Posted by: jacobtortog | August 20, 2007 at 07:13 AM
http://digg.com/celebrity/Lisa_Ann_2
Posted by: | April 15, 2008 at 02:09 AM
http://internationalacademyoforalmedicineandtoxicology.press-blog.com > international academy of oral medicine and toxicology
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM