Pissed On or Just Pissed Off?

I have a difficult time getting too exercised over Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters.

Especially when I hear that the Taliban denounced this as particularly barbaric. Apparently they are about as self-aware and lack as much a sense of irony as leftist columnist and self styled civility fashionista, Froma Harrop.

Unlike the Taliban spokesman, Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal could not be reached for comment…you see, he was kidnapped and then beheaded on video 10 years ago in Pakistan by Talibanistas. Following that, his body was hacked into 10 pieces and buried in 10 different places in Pakistan. Remarkable civil, wouldn’t you say?

Nor can Scott Helvenston, Jerko Zovko, Wesley Batalona and Mike Teague speak out. These are the names of the 4 Blackwater contractors who, in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004, were dragged from their cars, beaten, shot and then set ablaze. Their burned corpses were then dragged through the streets before being hanged over a bridge crossing the Euphrates.

My initial thoughts were that getting pissed on after you’ve been killed is sort of the least of your problems.

The realization that arises is that our “modern” concept of war does not match the reality of the act. In history, war had a definite purpose; it was defense from an advancing enemy, the resolution of a political dispute or in support of an advancing empire. There was a prize to be won, something residual of value to the winner of the conflict, something concrete to be gained…no more. Now, our definitions of war are political system change, no collateral damage, police actions and nation building. These all come with indefinite time tables and lack a clear objective – there is no metric to determine when the war is over.

Only under this perspective can skulking out of Iraq and Afghanistan while getting lectured by the little tin-pot leaders of those countries be classified as “victory”. It also allows presidents to engage in a little “kinetic military action” in opposition to the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

This modern definition will guarantee that conflicts are prolonged, expensive events, costing billions of dollars in treasure and even more in human lives.

Why is this case?

The primary reason is that the people we are fighting never know that they are defeated.

  • There is not sufficient damage to a country or society for it to truly suffer the costs of war. The purpose of a military action is to break things and kill people. Our modern sensibilities are geared around preventing damage and reducing the impact to infrastructure to protect the “innocent”. Our precision guided munitions, our precise battle plans and our soldier’s training and pristine execution minimize damage to the point that war has become an inconvenience rather than a traumatic event to the general population. As a result the psychological cues that signify defeat are never recognized. Contrast and compare the death and devastation of Germany in WWII to Iraq. The Nazis knew that they were defeated on a physical, material and emotional level due to the sheer devastation of their country. It seems cruel because we know that not all Germans were Nazis but the society shared the blame and the defeat. There was a clear cut winner and loser and both parties knew who they were – not so today.
  • Our adversaries know that we are more focused on restitution and rebuilding and we will start that activity before the overall mission is completed. I’ve heard reports from Iraq that locals almost hope that their homes and businesses are damaged by US action because this is the quickest way to get it rebuilt faster and better than could ever be expected otherwise.
  • Our opponents know that a significant segment of our society is weak and can be easily manipulated, eventually resulting in restrictive rules of engagement built on the fear of political fallout at home. This handcuffs our soldiers in the field and puts them at unnecessary risk. We prolong conflicts (we create a “soft” war) because our “evolved” society simply does not have the stomach for the violence, devastation and collateral damage that a decisive victory requires. Political forces at home decry “occupation” and rail against the massive costs yet do not possess the strength and political will to do what is necessary to end the conflict quickly. The longer a conflict goes, the more soldiers die. I would argue that this is more of a sin to subject our soldiers to this than the aggressive prosecution of a conflict.
  • We “individualize” war, essentially making it an aggressive crime management activity. We try to investigate and determine responsibility on an individual level. I do realize that we are facing an enemy who does not subscribe to any of the accepted definitions of organization or rules of combat. I realize that we aren’t fighting a state based enemy, rather one who is indistinguishable from the indigenous population, but if we are after the individual and the greater population does not also pay a price, there is no societal pressure on the bad guys to stop. The locals can separate themselves from the conflict going on right outside their door and  take a position that it doesn’t impact them, an “I don’t want to get involved” mentality. This makes it a police action, not a war.
  • We de-personalize war. Our remote attack capability through stealth aircraft, unmanned drones and satellite intel remove us from the harsh nature of war and disincentivize massive, violent action to render a concrete conclusion. We have turned a shooting war into an X-Box game. War must be felt by both sides. It necessarily must become personal or it can be ignored and will become protracted.
  • We don’t keep score in public. I remember the body counts in the Vietnam War; I’ve seen the dispatches from WWII and Korea. Our casualties vs. their casualties. It sounds morbid but it gave the American public an idea of the success of our troops. We release our casualties but because there are no opposing numbers to balance them against, we distort the levels of our soldier’s effectiveness. Again, I know that it sounds bad but the military’s purpose to the break things and kill people. We need to keep score.

It is clear that the rules of war are different today. We know that the Geneva Convention means little to Al Qaeda, their affiliates, Hamas or Hezbollah. They have actually been pretty successful in using our own adherence to these rules against us but this is not the first time that the rules of war have changed in history. The Greeks, Persians, Roman, British and Native Americans all have changed them. We changed them in the Revolutionary War from a formal war of attrition, fought on an open battlefield by a troop of highly trained soldiers with rigid rules of engagement to a guerrilla war fought by militia across the countryside behind fences, trees and hedgerows.

The item to note is that, almost without exception, the entity changing the rules is the one who wins. He who defines the battlefield has a strategic advantage over the party who doesn’t.

I do not like where this leaves us as a society.

I abhor the very savagery that I propose but we simply can’t be stuck in the middle here. War does not favor the moderate.  I do not want another soldier to die when we have the power to prevent it so in the event we decide to go to war, we owe our troops the political will to commit enough destruction so that both our enemies and the societies that they live among know that they are defeated. They need to know exactly what price they will pay if they decide to continue. It is distasteful, it is harsh and it is inhuman but to do less creates a prolonged, protracted event that never will be resolved to an endpoint.

I’m sorry but I say piss on them…and those on our “side” who would condemn our Marines.

Semper Fi, Marines…

25 thoughts on “Pissed On or Just Pissed Off?

  1. While I’d like to think this would have never happened in MY Marine Corps, I know better. Still, this story leaves me thinking that, if the enemies of this nation do not want to be treated this way, they have on two options:

    1 — They had better be able to defeat the U.S. Marines!

    2 — They had better not get killed.

    And, for those who think they can pull off #2, I refer them back to #1.

    (Seriously, though I do not personally condone this sort of behavior, this nation’s over-sensitivity to something like this only shows how far we’ve sunk as a society. This was most likely nothing more than a stress relief – a function made necessary by US! As we sent and allow them to stay there on our behalf.)

  2. This behaviour is uncivil on both sides……then again, I’ve never been in combat so I wouldn’t know what my actions would be in that situation.

    The important question is: Why the hello did you block out their merry-makers?

  3. I agree with you. If you want to go to war the objective should be to devastate their ability to wage war. In this case the civilian population harbors the enemy. You can see where the logic goes.

    While I don’t agree with the war in Afghanistan, I do agree that if you do go, get it done and over with so you can get home. No military in history has made good policeman.

    • I concur with U.

      So, U., no curiousity about their merry-makers?

      Guess I’m the only perverted, I mean, curious reader in the bunch. Truly, it’s all for my research. I try so hard to be thorough.

    • I believe you missed my first comment. Basically, I find the act of desecrating a body to be deplorable whether coming from Christians or Muslims. I try to be light-hearted about things, but now I know to keep it serious around you……. U.

      I must say this is going to be terribly diificult for me (being serious, that is). Then again, how hard can it be to portray M and B.? One word: Very.

      M.- How can you not be surprised that she would be turned on? Shall I give you the data and graphs of Muslim attacks and American deaths to support her enthusiasm?

      B. – You must NOT listen to this WOMAN! She IS evil! (I have a first-hand account of this event and I DO have information that is NOT common knowledge)

      Thank God I’m going to a show, cause if the boys pulled a Kells, you’d really want to go away from me …. yeah 🙂

      • Jokes work both ways. I was as serious to your response as you were to mine [not at all] when you get the chance can you send me a kellsbells says decoder ring? Instead of saying what you mean when you mean it I have to decipher your fucking posts like a damn N.S.A.codebreaker!

        So from now on we will assume that U, and K, will not take what each other say seriously on blogs by TL when we talk after B fair enough?

  4. But I want to play with you, U. I promise to behave and to relinquish my most prized possession: The Kellsbells Decoder Ring. Oh, I can also tell you about the show I saw tonight 🙂

    • at least I really love lobster.

      So does my wife. The other night, she had two lobsters* for dinner and I had a Pastrami on Rye with Provolone Cheese that I made myself.

      *The Food Lion in Clemson has live Lobsters…50 bucks worth. We did have Cheesecake for dessert, though. 😉

      • Ha! I solved the problem! Actually, I had to get my husband to fix it and show me what I had done that turned me into a lobster.

        Just out of curiousity, Guy, how do you kill your lobsters? Different chefs claim there are humane ways, but it seems they all have their own different humane ways…..

        You make provolone? Geez, here I was happy with myself for making paneer. Don’t know if y’all dig Indian food, but I think you’d like the cheese 🙂

        • How to kill a lobster…first you get a large pot of water and get it to a furious boil. Then you drop the live lobster(s) into the pot head first and let ’em cook for a while. That’s the way my wife does it anyway.

          You can cook dead lobster if they’ve only expired a very short time, minutes, before cooking, but live is best.

          And before you get the wrong idea, I was talking about having to make my own sandwich. The Pastrami and Provolone came from the local Deli. 😉

          Mike G.

          P.S. I don’t particularly care for lobster myself, preferring Fish or Shrimp instead. I do like fried Clams, too.

            • I don’t know this Joey of whom you speak. My friends call me Mike. 🙂 My brothers and I were raised on seafood. Originally from So Cal. Our Dad would go out with his buddy and which ever brother’s turn it was to go, and catch about 40 or 50 pounds of Fish every time We went out.

              And to keep this on topic, sometimes we had to piss over the side of the boat. The boat was an open seventeen foot Dinghy with a 25 hp Johnson motor. Good times.

              Mike G.

  5. Now, can you imagine Kells taking a leak over the side of a boat? It happened. In high school I had some boys that took me gator giggin. Can you believe? I should’ve been born with a penis…….

    Pal Joey is an affectionate name that I tend to call people. I don’t know why. It’s not my favorite musical. I suppose it just rolls off my tongue nicely. But here is a sample from the musical Pal Joey if you’re curious……

  6. Pingback: Responding to McPherson, Progressive Ph.D. | The Rio Norte Line

  7. Pingback: Obama Outsources The War On Terror To Individual American Citizens | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.