They don't give the Pentagon points for seeking to understand and address issues of stress suffered by those serving, nor does it get credit for examining ethical concerns in the combat environment.
This is the FIRST time (MHAT IV) that an assessment of Battlefield Ethics and combat leader behaviors has been done.
Unfortunately, some are choosing to politicize the results of the study and exploit them to advance the anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, anti-war agenda.
WASHINGTON -- In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.
More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.
"It is disappointing," said analyst John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think tank. "But anybody who is surprised by it doesn't understand war. ... This is about combat stress."
The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
It must have felt good for AP reporter Pauline Jelinek to bring up Abu Ghraib and other abuses by the military.
Personally, I think there should be a mental health and well-being survey done on members of the press.
So many seem to have serious issues.
"I don't want to, for a minute, second-guess the behavior of any person in the military — look at the kind of moral dilemma you are putting people in," Christopher Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, said of the mission in Iraq. "There's a real tension between using too much force, which generally means using force to protect yourself, and using too little and therefore exposing yourself to greater risk."
I wonder what the results would have been if the same questions were posed to the troops that were part of the D-Day invasion or the Battle of the Bulge, or those that fought at Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal.
What were their stress levels?
Was everything hunky dory for them?
I don't think so.
...The study team also found that long and repeated deployments were increasing troop mental health problems.
Gee, what a surprise that is!
OF COURSE THAT'S THE CASE.
Common sense would tell anyone to expect that.
The AP article highlights some other findings:
_Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.
_About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.
_About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.
_Forty-four percent of Marines and 41 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or Marine.
_Thirty-nine percent of Marines and 36 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to gather important information from insurgents.
None of this comes as a shock to me.
First of all, it's important to remember that the findings in studies like this give an overall picture, not hard facts.
Many factors are at play when people give their responses to surveys. For example, some take the survey seriously and put thought into their replies; others don't. Some try to give what they perceive to be the "right" answers. Others haven't really examined their hearts and minds on the issues. The responses can vary widely based on an individual's recent experiences and general mood on a given day.
In short, even an extensive study provides only a general assessment, not an objective, totally accurate picture of a reality.
With that qualification in mind, let's look at the findings of this study.
Many of the sound bites on this study that I've heard in the media deal with the torture issue.
That had to be an extremely tough section of questions for the troops to address.
Should torture be used to SAVE THE LIFE of a fellow Soldier or Marine?
I would say, "Hell, yeah."
If my husband were in harm's way, would I prefer that his fellow Soldiers or Marines not do all they could to save his life? The answer is simple: NO.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't combat about killing the enemies before they kill you?
I'm not advocating any sort of gruesome torture techniques like those employed by Saddam Hussein's regime, but get real. This is war. The troops have an allegiance to each other, to protect and defend.
American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman said it best: "War is hell."
Hell isn't very nice.
I think everyone is pretty much on the same page when it comes to that, right?
War is no picnic. It's not pleasant business.
One must be seriously delusional to think otherwise.
Sherman understood war.
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
That does sound harsh.
Why?
WAR IS HARSH.
As Sherman says, it's not easy or safe. War isn't about being a nice guy at the expense of securing victory and peace.
Bottom Line: I think rather than being critical of the military, a tremendous amount of credit should be given for its efforts to address the mental health status of the troops and their needs.
Attempts to wage war with as much compassion to the civil population as possible are commendable. Being mindful of ethical standards while conducting war is noble.
This study shouldn't become a political football.
Most importantly, it does NOT make the case to surrender in Iraq.
________________________
In looking up Sherman quotations, I found this one to be interesting:
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast."
Generals did battle with the press even in Sherman's day.
Reporters -- I guess you can't live with them, but you can't live without them.
No comments:
Post a Comment