The middle east is full of a people who very much believe conspiracy theories. They believe the Jews commited 9/11. They believe that American soldiers come to rape. These stories move around rapidly with no basis and are beyond offensive. In terms of this image you keep describing, we lost before we ever even arrived.
As for being the good guy...what does that mean? Would you let this man kill again after he killed before just so you could say you're the good guy? Would people support you because you let this killer live?
I don't see our troops' actions as the same as the enemy's. This was a murderer and a terrorist. Odds are that he probably would have acted again in the same manner. Who would have punished him for the acts he has perpetrated? The US military is stretched thin and we should be worrying about implications of a US soldier liquidating a terrorist that was unarmed because of some false notion of honor? In Japan they cut off their fingers and stab themselves all in the name of honor.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
Well other than the moral, ethical, legal, and strategic reasons you mean? 
Okay morally in seizing and keeping the morally superior postion is always benifical to both your cause and to your troops morale - as long as the troops can see themselves as the "good guys" morale and combat stress issues appear at a much lower rate.
Ethical speaking holding yourself to a high standard is not only seen by your own troops, but by the "enemy" and civilians - while some of the enemy may exploit this, it is important to note that it is harder to kill someone that you have at least some respect for... hence the constant barrage of proganda meant to demonize the "enemy" (on both sides). Further it is hypocrytical to demonize the enemy for actions that your own troops commit as well... again it is import to maintain the ethically superior position as well.
Legally... well I know Ashcroft's successor feels that the Geneva Convention is quaint, it is still applicable to all signatories. Now putting aside the Geneva Convention the Marine in question almost certainly violated US Military Code as well... even that aside this was also a violation of the Nuremburg Laws concerning war crimes - again which the US is a signatory to.
Strategically it is important to demonstrate to both your allies and the civilians that you are the "good guys" - to secure both continued support and to erode the support base of the enemy. In this case who knows what the victim or any of the other wounded would have done had they be processed through regular chanels... maybe they might have begun to question their hatred of US forces or the propaganda that they where fed - however I can say that now they (and many in the Arab world) probibly have a much less favourable view of US forces, now have a concrete example to focus on. So now there is fresh material to incite both the enemy, civilians, and the Muslim community; and another blow to the reputation of the US forces has been made - both of which do not help both the battle for "hearts and minds" nor in breaking the insurgents will to fight.
|