Steve,
Rick Barton and Sheba Crocker at CSIS have proposed that Iraqis have a national referendum every 90 days on when it is time for the US to go home. Rick and Sheba are onto something, but we also have an American responsibility for regularly reviewing when the benefits of staying-on are outweighted by the costs as measured on the American side.

Some of your readers, of course, will say that the costs exceeded the benefits when the first American soldier (or perhaps the first Iraqi civilian) died.

The Iraqis should certainly have a venue for considering the merits of having us around, but perhaps American citizens should have a venue to ask and answer the same question.

W believes that the presidential elections provided such a venue, but I don't buy this. He did win by a small margin, but one senses that issues like abortion, taxes and marriage won the day for W, not Iraq.

Perhaps we could expand Sheba and Rick's proposal and have simlutaneuous Iraqi and American referenda on the time-to-come-home.

John Stuart

John -- I think that this idea has real merit. Actually, by making such a process regular -- it lowers the symbolic value of disrupting a single election as the insurgents seem to be successfully doing with the January 30 election. It also keeps the door open to Sunnis and others who want to co-mingle their interests with the legitimacy creation of the new state.
I like the idea.
Steve

I don't support them anymore, Steve. I'm a veteran of the Vietnam era. I used to "support the troops but not the war". Not anymore.

The atrocities have been documented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/1.stm

BushCo is ruining a generation of young people. I no longer support the atrocities committed by the troops, any more than I support the atrocities of the administration that dumped them into the situation.

Richard,
before you abandon them, please remember that our troops are you and me (or 18 and 19 year old iterations of you and me). They are a cross section of American high school kids who bring the same virtues and vices that our cohort had when we were that age.

The ugliness in Iraq arises from the policy and from the highest leadership.

I served for four years in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and I knew many good kids, a few bad kids and plenty of regular kids who fell somewhere along the middle space on that spectrum.

When they were well-led, they rose to the challenge and performed creditably. When they were poorly-led they sometime performed less creditably. And when they had terrible leadership they were occasionally guilty of some terrible things.

But don't give up on them. Many are scared, lonely, and wondering "why in God's name am I here and what in God's name are we trying to accomplish."

Save your anger, Richard, and your contempt, for the civilian leadership and the policy makers.

JohnStuart

I don't buy the line from some on the left that these soldiers made their own calls regarding military service and should suffer quietly the consequences of their enrollment as spear-carriers for American empire.

Uh, Steve, this is not an argument I've seen anyone on the left make. Though I have seen quite a few of the brave fighting 101st Keyboarders of the right make it. Especially after the Rumsfeld armor flap.

Barry -- I have about fifty emails, some from prominent commentators, who made the case to me that these soldiers are complicit and must suffer the consequences of their decision to support Bush's policies. But your comments about some on the right making similar comments are appreciated. best, Steve Clemons

Barry is quite right to dismiss the notion that " these soldiers made their own calls regarding military service and should suffer quietly the consequences"

Most are too young fully to grasp what choice they are making. A ticket out of Horseshoe Falls, Minnesota sounds pretty good when you are 18.

I went to the war in Indochina after graduating from an Ivy League university and I knew (pretty much) what I was getting into. But few of the youngsters I led had a clue when they signed up. And this is still the case.

Unless one is a true pacifist and believes that the United States should not have an Army, we citizens will have to accept that our children, or our neighbor's children, will make up the Armed Forces that our nation requires.

Our job, as citizens, is to use our voice and our vote to shape the policies that determine where our daughters and our sons may be sent to serve.

JohnStuart

The cost of the war, in lives, especially Iraq civilians, is higher then most Americans are willing to realize. I do not question that, but I think the bigger cost was succinctly outlined in the following sentence:
“Friends will not trust our ability to deliver on our commitments -- and foes will be more cavalier in their goals, thinking that America, while it talks a tough line, simply has too many self-inflicted constraints on its actions."

The National Security devaluation identified above, in conjunction with the long term financial outfall of this "Wrong War at the Wrong Time in the Wrong Place" are what more Americans will feel than the truly few that are currently bearing the cost of this action.

Democrats -- the Congressional elite of my party -- bought into the "all volunteer military" back in the early 70's. It was part of their get-out-of-Vietnam "deal" and was perpetuated by their willingness to tolerate only such military reform after that as was consistent with their "Hold Harmless" doctrine of bi-partisan concession-tending.

That has been all over and done with -- 120 years of it really -- since the Republican "Revolution" of 1994. So, now, the Congressional Democrats practice unilateral bi-partisanship. In fact, they have no principled opposition and, so, nothing constructive or even hopeful to contribute to our military operations and posture today.

No, the cornpone "Jes he'p ever'body" fools in Washington sit there between the far-left and the far-right utterly paralyzed.

In fact, polar partisans use each other for foils. In the middle is a demoralized majority of voters (potentially Democrats, actually just people regarded as "losers" by the political professionals in both camps). Also, in the middle today -- but only a very small percentage of Americans and mostly non-voters -- are the families of men likely to have been killed or now just stuck in Iraq.

Actually, I am not one of the non-voters. But, my older son is an Army officer. I resent the people who will not pay higher taxes to support a war of choice but are happy to wear flag pins and little yellow ribbons on their cars. There is a word for them: Jingoists.

As for our costume-left. If I were Karl ROVE, I would pay them to do what they do.

Again, as in Vietnam, we could deal with these matters better if we had a universal franchise coupled with a universal military obligation --"a republic, if you can keep it".

That is to say, I do not think a republican democracy with the military insitutions of the British monarchy can work. But, then, as I say, I am not a Federalist, or a Whig, or a washed-up concession-tender in Washington, D.C. I have a party run by office-squatters, by self-perpetuating fools who run my party in the absence of a credentialed nominating, rule-making, party governance, and platform-building convention.

Getting rid of those was part of the end-the-war-in-Vietnam deal, too.

::JRBehrman

One minor point: As far as exposing the financial limits of American power, well, I think in this case we literally have not been overtaxed to fund the war.

By the way, screwy margins make your comments very difficult to read all of a sudden.

Steve,
I was interested in your comment: " don't buy the line from some on the left that these soldiers made their own calls regarding military service and should suffer quietly the consequences of their enrollment..."
I teach in a University where there are many strong Bush supporters who strongly favor the war in Iraq. I am one of those teachers who sometimes
talks about politics before class, even though it is my subject---because I really want to know what they think about the issues.
What I have found, over and over again, is that the right wing, pro-Bush students are the ones who don't have sympathy with the plight of the soldiers. They are the ones who spout variations of Rumsfeld's "going to war with the army you have" argument; they are the ones who don't bat an eyelash if they hear about a 70 year old doctor being called up and sent to Iraq; they are the ones who won't care about exposure to DU or other toxic substances; they don't care about the lack of armor; last, they certainly don't care about the high Iraqi civilian casualty rate.
I don't know what leftists you talk to, but your experience is not the same as mine.
On the flip side, I did have one ROTC student last term who is leaving school so that he can go over to Iraq and fight with his friends, which is very admirable.
I just think that trying to keep positive about a war that is going so poorly has really hardened the hearts of these people, and I think it's a shame.

Did the military vote overwhelmingly for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. If they did, then they are getting what they voted for. Please tell the World War Two victims of Wehrmacht atrocities that those soldiers were just 18 to 20 year olds.

John S,

We may disagree on Alliwa's merits, but I am with you on your post above. That said, anybody who is saying they support the war and is unwilling to raise taxes on themselves to pay for it, is just blowing smoke.

To be clearer, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and this Administration in it's entirety, are blowing smoke like an F-4 phantom on take off.

Whatever your feelings on the war, it has to be paid for and not pawned off onto a generation who never had a chance to vote for or against the clowns who got us into this mess. I'm not sure how I would have voted in regard to Viet Nam had I been of age at the time, but I sure as hell got stuck with the bill.

Many a soldier has defied an illegal order, at great risk to him/herself. If you behave in accordance with UMCJ you will have nothing to be ashamed of and every reason to be proud of your service.

Soldiers and Marines are to be shown respect, unless proven otherwise.

Steve,
I am with Barry. I have not heard much of that sort of silliness from the left (and I have definitely heard it from Bush apologist/enablers). Sticking it to those on the left seems inaccurate.

How about "I don't buy the line from some that . . ."

regards,
jason

And the military personnel who voted against Bush? Will they be excused from the exercise? Will the insurgents inquire as to who they voted for before exploding their roadside bombs, and politely wave them on their way if they voted against Bush?

Any garbage about how the soldiers chose this and will get what they deserve, from the right or the left, is just the narrow-minded and childish rot of the privileged or inexperienced. Have some sympathy and respect for crying out loud, they are human beings, they don't deserve to die.

Steve, let me join those objecting to your attribution of the attitude that 'GIs made their bed, let them lie in it' only to "some on the left." And I for one would like some specifics on who the "some" are. Surely the "prominent commentators" among them have made the point in public forums, not only in emails to you.

U.S. soldiers have been badly let down -- primarily by this reckless warmongering administration, secondarily by Congresspeople and Senators who allowed the war to happen, and now by everyone who prolongs it. They did not create this horrible situation, and don't deserve what is happening to them.

But they do share SOME responsibility for their actions; abuses can't be laid completely at the foot of the civilian leadership. As more and more information comes out every week about humiliation, torture, and murder of detainees, and bombings and shootings of civilians, it becomes more and more difficult to summon up respect and sympathy for the troops. It's necessary, but it's difficult.

From JR Berhman: " Also, in the middle today -- but only a very small percentage of Americans and mostly non-voters -- are the families of men likely to have been killed or now just stuck in Iraq."

John, due to the high percentage of National Guard members involved in this conflict, the percentage of families, friends, and coworkers affected is higher than you might think, and the soldiers serving are women as well as men. I don't know much about the typical full-time soldier and his/her family and why you think they are likely to be nonvoters. But the people my sister drills with are a broad swath of America -
systems analysts, lawyers, various administrators, roofers, plumbers, assistant professors, mechanics. I don't think you can make the same assumptions of the voting habits of this group as you make about full-time military families.

This highly unusual reliance on the National Guard and the reservists, most of whom are employed full-time in the civilian sector, has greatly expanded the number of people affected by service people "killed or stuck in Iraq." In addition, not only is the military presence in Iraq over 40% Guard and reservists, these two groups are also being activated to cover activities in areas like Bosnia as full-time soldiers are sent to Iraq.

WhoTF on the left do you know that think our troops deserve what they are getting? You said "left" commentators. Well in politics these days, there are no more "left" democrats anywhere.

I agree with Marky. It is the rightwing students that don't care about the troops and agree with Rummy. They have this Rambo ideal. In the GOP mythology, Vietnam was lost because of guys like John Kerry who got shot at everyday and then came home after getting hit three times instead of dying in Vietnam. If only our Vietnam soldiers had been more like Rambo and more willing to sacrifice their lives in Nam, we would have won. This is the hard core GOP belief. Don't deny it.

The GOP wants to blame the soldiers for losing Nam when all the blame begins and ends with the politicians. The GOP will want to blame our troops for the mess in Iraq, when the mess begins and ends with GW BUSH. The GOP always seeks to shift the blame from politicians (like themselves) onto any convenient scapegoat (Vietnam vets like John Kerry). This is because the current GOP leadership is noted for an absence of military service. Now that Powell and Ridge have left the cabinet, that number in the cabinet is down to one. In Congress, it is a big FAT ZERO. In contrast, the Democratic leadership was filled with vets like Daschle.

Steve --
You need a resizable comment window. Horizontal scrolling is really a drag.

I've never crossed so many naysayers in such brief exposure, I must delve into this.

The sad thing is the all-volunteer service. This robs you(that have never served) of so much potential-therefore-understanding. You see, when you enter military service(Army&Marines) you are handed a rifle. Why do you think they do that-to shoot mistletoe? No, it is solely to kill another human being. Now, if you have an eighth of an intellect you learn that the opposition has a weapon, also. So, if you agree to continue on this course, what am I to think? Should I be siding with the aggressor? Not me. But it doesn't surprise me that most of you do.

To ask sympathy for the devil shows an utter disregard for humanity and I'd like to pose two questions:
Steve, when you write "They should not have been there -- not under the terms they are there now" you suggest that there is something legitimate about their mission. What would that be without your having to reconstruct history or propounding some utopia?
JohnStuart, you say you served FOUR(!) years in VN, Laos, and Cambodia? FOUR? YEARS? And you are still fairly lucid? If you were truly in Laos and Cambodia you weren't attached to HQ-at least not then. I find that REAL hard to believe but if that is the truth, you should publish a memoir. I'll gladly buy it.

Steve,

I certainly don't think that our soldiers "deserve" what they get in this war - at least not most of them. Most simply signed up to serve the country, not to join Bush's crusade. It is the responsibility of policy makers to do right by them by using them appropriately and for legitimate missions.

But I also recognize that no matter how much the military has, no matter how well-equipped they are, there will always be limits. Helicopters will crash, tires will rupture, guns will jam, food will spoil - and people will get killed. Thus I worry about a kneejerk response toward providing more and better equipment every time it emerges that our soldiers are not immortals, riding in golden chariots, outfitted in the armor of the gods. Coughing up more money only rewards bad foreign policy decisions. If we increase the military's capabilities to some given level X, Bush and company will increase our commitments to level X+1, exposing yet other "needs" and generating further calls to meet those needs.

Of course FOX is all over this story. Coincidently it occurs just as Bush is about to ask Congress for another $80 billion for the war. So it is not surprising that Murdoch and Co. are willing to exploit this loss to shill for the administration as it passes the plate for the one variety of government spending they can't get enough of.

Bush knows many in the military were, and are, opposed to his vaulting ambitions. That's a good thing in my book. Thus, in the circunstance, I'm not inclined to help Bush by funding his efforts to buy off the dissenters by stocking up the gravy train. This war has already produced a dangerous, massive shift of power and resources toward the Pentagon and away from other sectors of our economy. Pretty soon they are going to get to like this war quite a bit, o long as there is endless money for exciting new projects, and contracts galore for the guys spinning around in the revolving door.

As it is, far too much of our material resources, our capital, our brain-power is invested in the military machine. The tremendous inertial mass of this leviathan, and the vested interests it represents, is one reason that American society is stuck in the mud, grasping at a vanishing past, nostalgic for its post WWII status of global boss, and unwilling to adapt to a new world.

I also deeply skeptical about the suggestion that US power, whether based on hard assets or illusion, is the only thing standing between order and chaos in much of the world, and to keep chaos from emerging it is thus important that we continue to project an image of overwhelming US power. You say:

"This is such a mistake because other powerful players will not be able to resist their ambitions and will move to secure territory, dominance over ethnic minorities within their borders, the ingredients to a wide variety of WMDs, and many other nasty goals because America has knotted up its attention and military capacity in Iraq."

But might there not also be global benefits that come from a more realistic global perception of US power? Maybe people will begin to take steps to throw off their corrupt leaders, without as mcuh fear that the US will step in to prop up its clients. Maybe bureaucrats will take steps to organize their economies in ways that are most beneficial to their own countries, rather than the needs of US corporations, without as much fear that the mandarins in Washington will send in troops to enforce Washington-style economic "discipline". Maybe other countries will take a more active role in organizing and fully funding their own defenses, individually or collectively.

You say:

"The smart thing to do was to hide the boundary lines of American military and financial capacity. Bush and those who supported his decision made a stupid and ill-informed choice because American interests have been terribly undermined by showing all our limits. American power is deflating because of these unwise decisions."

Bluffing the world may be a good tactic for short-term exigencies, but I doubt this sort of approach is healthy in the long run. It relies on a sort of Enron-style technique of building confidence and exerting power by cooking the books. It's phony power on paper - an unsustainable bubble of power. And just as it is important for an overheated stock market bubble to burst, so that stock prices come to reflect real value rather than unsustainable speculative enthusiasm, so I suspect it is good that an illusory bubble of projected national power is popped, so policy makers can get their feet back on the ground and deal with the real world.

Once the current US fever of misguided megalomania has broken, perhaps US policy makers will get on with the business of rejoining the rest of the world, cooperating with other nations to build strong and revitalized international institutions, developing tools of global governance, negotiating treaties that require compromise and a global outlook, sticking to those treaties, opening the country to ideas from abroad, investing in our intellectual capital, investing in our infrastructure and and spurring more non-military technological innovation.

I believe that in all government, transparency is best. Illusory power on paper seduces policy makers into leveraging that illusion, making commitments it may not be able to keep, embarking on projects it can't complete and incurring costs it cannot bear. It is also impossible to fool the world without fooling your own people, and this violates the core principles of American government. We need no pretentious swagger, no Oz-like light and magic show to direct the world's eyes away from the curtain, no airs of mystery and coy silence. I believe in an America that lays its cards on the table, that foregos comlicated Machiavellian scheming and says to the world honestly and directly: this is what we've got; this is what we are. Beyond this line we do not reach; cross this line, and suffer the consequences.

Dan -- Your post is excellent has had me thinking all morning. I mostly agree with you. I too prefer transparency and, in general, a public accounting of what government does. I don't think that we are going to get that sort of government and accountability for a very long time if ever -- but it is what I would prefer. My comments criticizing Bush for showing the limits of American power also could be read as criticism of those who see absolutely no limits. You do implicitly see them, and what them more transparent -- and other countries and ours organize accordingly. But the Bush team seems to be unaware of such. I have written several times on this blog that American pretensions were far beyond our means -- and that America enjoyed status and leverage because of a mystique that had developed. You see that as bad (I think -- or at least an illusion). I guess I see it as an illusion that had some benefits -- but that illusion has been dashed by what we have seen unfold in Iraq.

I'm rambling. I just wanted to acknowledge that your post was useful -- and while I disagree somewhat with you about what is achievable near term, I think we are on a similar page regarding goals.

All the best,
Steve Clemons

It's somewhat interesting to see the different voices of the left in such passionate argument about perceptions. I have to agree with Steve Clemmons that I have seen many posts, for instance on daily Kos and Eschanton, where the sentiment has been voiced "well the military supported Bush, they're over there, they deserve it." I'm not going to list names or links but I pay attention to the military threads and the voices are there. I don't think it's a majority view (thank god), and I haven't seen this sentiment expressed in direct connection to this accident.

To yahaddasayit, I would say that you're missing the point about the question of legitimacy. From the foxhole position, these soldiers received lawful orders from their superiors to deploy on a mission that was authorized by their commander-in-thief (okay I couldn't resist) and approved by Congress (at least tacitly if not a direct vote for war). They volunteered, they understand it's a high-risk job, and it's just the nature of war that some will get pulled down into the morass of responding to insurgency fighting with illegal tactics. War's not pretty but they are legimately engaging in state conflict.

I'll note to "affected family member" that the high percentage of NG and Reserve troops was not accidental. General Abrams deliberately crafted the post-Vietnam Army to be downsized and to require major support from the Guard/Reserve so that the Army would not be engaged in a war without the full support of the public (as had happened in Nam). It is just this strategy that has successfully gotten the public more engaged in not supporting an open-ended engagement but rather begun expressing their dissatisfaction with the current situation. Now if only the political leadership would listen.

Even in peacetime, vehicles overturn, planes and helos crash, military personnel die. All of us that wore a uniform understand the risks. But it's really cold when one cannot express sympathy for the untimely deaths of these military personnel, who were just doing their lawfully-appointed jobs, instead of supporting the desire that they return to the United States in full health. It's the policymakers you should be venting at, not the warriors.

Sy Hersh reports:

I get a call from a mother in the East coast, Northeast, working class, lower middle class, very religious, Catholic family. She said, I have to talk to you. I go see her. I drive somewhere, fly somewhere, and her story is simply this. She had a daughter that was in the military police unit that was at Abu Ghraib. And the whole unit had come back in March, of -- The sequence is: they get there in the fall of 2003. Their reported after doing their games in the January of 2004. In March she is sent home. Nothing is public yet. The daughter is sent home. The whole unit is sent home. She comes home a different person. She had been married. She was young. She went into the Reserves, I think it was the Army Reserves to get money, not for college or for -- you know, these -- some of these people worked as night clerks in pizza shops in West Virginia. This not -- this is not very sophisticated. She came back and she left her husband. She just had been married before. She left her husband, moved out of the house, moved out of the city, moved out to another home, another apartment in another city and began working a different job. And moved away from everybody. Then over -- as the spring went on, she would go every weekend, this daughter, and every weekend she would go to a tattoo shop and get large black tattoos put on her, over increasingly -- over her body, the back, the arms, the legs, and her mother was frantic. What's going on? Comes Abu Ghraib, and she reads the stories, and she sees it. And she says to her daughter, “Were you there?” She goes to the apartment. The daughter slams the door. The mother then goes -- the daughter had come home -- before she had gone to Iraq, the mother had given her a portable computer. One of the computers that had a DVD in it, with the idea being that when she was there, she could watch movies, you know, while she was overseas, sort of a -- I hadn't thought about it, a great idea. Turns out a lot of people do it. She had given her a portable computer, and when the kid came back she had returned it, one of the things, and the mother then said I went and looked at the computer. She knows -- she doesn't know about depression. She doesn’t know about Freud. She just said, I was just -- I was just going to clean it up, she said. I had decided to use it again. She wouldn't say anything more why she went to look at it after Abu Ghraib. She opened it up, and sure enough there was a file marked “Iraq”. She hit the button. Out came 100 photographs. They were photographs that became -- one of them was published. We published one, just one in The New Yorker. It was about an Arab. This is something no mother should see and daughter should see too. It was the Arab man leaning against bars, the prisoner naked, two dogs, two shepherds, remember, on each side of him. The New Yorker published it, a pretty large photograph. What we didn’t publish was the sequence showed the dogs did bite the man -- pretty hard. A lot of blood. So she saw that and she called me...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/26/1450204

There are costs to Iraq that most reporters are too squeemish to report.

Dear Yahaddasayit,

you wrote “If you were truly in Laos and Cambodia you weren't attached to HQ-at least not then. I find that REAL hard to believe but if that is the truth, you should publish a memoir”.

I was not in a HQ. I ran a small Intel field detachment doing long-term, sustained collection on NVA logistics and NVA command and control- sometimes on the PDJ (and along the northern reaches of the Truong Son Trail), sometimes on the Bolovens Plateau and the southern Annamese Cordillera (the lower half of the Truong Son Trail), and often in the area north of the Tonle Sap where the trail fanned out through Cambodia.

As a fluent Lao and Cambodian speaker, I found my work quite interesting. And as a young chap who was a bit brainier, better educated and more worldly than many of my peers, I was able to carve out some space for myself and establish my own obscure but interesting niche in the secret wars in Laos and Cambodia.

Memoirs?... someday. The Vietnam theater of the Indochina war has produced some excellent books, but Laos and Cambodia have yielded mostly mush and cowboy stories to date.
JohnStuart

Thanks very much for your response Steve. I think we are probably roughly in agreement. I suppose I could summarize my main point in a more cautious, less doctrinaire way as follows:

Although the power that is based on erroneous perceptions is real power, because it can be used successfully in the short term to influence others, it is dangerous to stake one's long-term strategic goals on the indefinite perpetuation of this kind of power, because it is inherently ephemeral, and the bubble of perception will burst eventually. It is also particularly difficult (though clearly not impossible) for an open, democratic society to wield this sort of power, since it depends to some extent on disinformation and secrecy.

Just an interesting cultural note: It seems intersting that at a time when the the role of bluff, perception, scheming and secrecy are at the forefront of debates about US foreign policy, we seem to be in the midst a national poker craze.

I suppose the subtle and wily riverboat gambler is one iconic American type. But so is the straight talking, square dealing, completely above board Sheriff, who aims to extend the rule of law rather than his personal rule, and who has nothing to hide because he is confident and unashamed.

JohnStuart,
I believe you are being a bit modest in your self-appraisal. Closer to the truth would be "much more educated and wordly".
It still astounds me-the four years. Those were spent in country(ies), or, in the service?

Al,
I have to acknowledge the "thief" remark. It is more appropriate than the original.

Thanks for the suggestion that I may be missing the point of legitimacy. Seems to me you are going to have to rely on personal opinion and unless you can furnish some credentials beyond "Al", I will have to stick to my original reasoning. Who made America's adventure into Iraq "legitimate"? Let me say that if you believe our domestic government is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, I can get you to the front of the line for all the people waiting to purchase this bridge available in Brooklyn.

Keep following comfort. Soon we'll all be living out on the street-deservedly.

With all due respect to those serving in Iraq, it's hard to rationalize deliberately and repeatedly running over Iraqis with a tank
(CAUTION: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES http://www.undermars.com/gallery53.html -- look for "december 9, 2003, ok so i backed up and did it again" and others from this series on adjoining pages 52 - 60 as well, it's clear that more than one American soldier is complicit in mutilating dead Iraqis entirely for the purpose of mutilating dead Iraqis; if this isn't a war crime it should be, and for someone to think highly enough to post it to a public website is just enough to make me ill)

No one has any idea how common this kind of incident is, but taken along with the more famous video footage of the G.I. shooting a wounded man in a mosque, it's very clear that at the very least some fraction of our forces have developed a tolerance for something which folks in the American heartland probably aren't prepared to stand behind.

Given that there really is no rational basis for this war, such inhumanity is even harder to fathom. Why, if the Iraqi people were no threat to us, nor were they at all even implicated in any direct harm to the US, why does our military vilify these people to the point of laughing at them as so much "splater" on the end of a tank (and, yes, all that red on the many photos of the tank is what you think it is...)

Mr. Appleton,
You awake? I like very, very much your post, but... You write:"...for something which folks in the American heartland probably aren't prepared to stand behind". Well, who agreed to send them there with guns? And who re-elected the Commander-in-Chief-knowing full well what is going on? And you write the above? How stupid of one of you is that? Keep seeking comfort among the barbarians. Rest easy.

Yahd --

Maybe I was too subtle, or maybe it really is news to you that millions of Americans saw through the lies behind the invasion of Iraq from the very first hints by Dick Cheney in mid-2002. For many of us, it's been a long wait for something -- anything -- which could rock the complacency of our countrymen who even now think and speak of "goals" for American forces in Iraq. The only "goals" have always had nothing to do with anything except the narrow political objectives of a handful of civilian policymakers in Washington. Whether to redraw the map of the Middle East for highbrow security reasons, or simply to replace an inconvenient despot who happened to sit on one-fifth of the world's oil, none of this was even remotely justifiable even from the outset, before the enormous cost in lives and money -- to be sure, some of the "goals" may be worthy at face value, but not as justification for launching a war. From this perspective, documentation of the regretable (and presumably infrequent) instances of disrespect for Iraqi war dead by our troops may still bring the senselessness of this war home to Americans who (I don't know how) have failed to understand that they have been lied to, and that our own soldiers continue to die for no good reason. Sadly, I won't rest easy for a very long time. Peace.