The Answer as per Robert H. Jackson

Hello people, thanx for stopping by. My last post was end of March, unreal how time seems to fly when you’re having fun. Been overseas on business for a week, moved into a new place, and then 9 days with my daughter Indiana (who turned eight a few weeks back), we had a ball. Can't wait to see her again in July.

Now, what really jolted me back into writing a post was a most interesting thread I've read on Moon of Alabama . It's titled In Favor of Killing American Troops. The gist of the original post is that the more US troops die in Iraq, the quicker the US regime will withdraw its troops. Of course, with the MoA's readership being largely left leaning US American, the ensuing discussion turned into a moral minefield.

How can it be right to wish for the death of US soldiers, who are only in Iraq because they were ordered to, and who, despite mistakes by their political puppeteers, are trying to be the good guys in the scenario.

Is it ethically alright to argue that the way out of the chaos in Iraq is more death and carnage?

As the post’s title clearly shows, the MoA’s author, the in Hamburg living Bernhard, takes the stance that it is. He got mega flak in various of the comments and the blog’s generally pretty united community took this home hitting opinion piece to reveal that when it comes down to it, like if it is desirable to see US soldiers killed to stop Iraq’s invasion, some of their viewpoints are actually worlds apart. Well written and imho quite valid arguments on both sides of the fence.

It really is a hard one. I understand Bernhard’s logic, it’s based on the assumption that the occupation itself is largely to blame for the bloodshed amongst Iraqis. The facts speak for themselves. The invasion of Iraq is a self-perpetuating disaster, brutally initiated and maintained by US forces. Every day since Invasion-day four years ago hundreds of innocent Iraqis had to die needlessly in the clashes, and, so the line of thought goes, the longer the US occupation of Iraq continues the more people will die. Hence, whatever helps to end the occupation is good for the Iraqi people.

And loosing steadily more instead of less US troops means the impact of the sheer numbers of GI’s killed will, as it did in Vietnam, finally ween the 30 or so percent left of the war supporting US public from any support for a continued large scale military presence in Iraq . The hope is that enough public outcry would eventually force the White House to bring the troops home. The more GI’s die in Iraq, the quicker that will happen.

On the other hand - and also quite plausible for people without crystal balls - a withdrawal of US troops could actually turn out to be the shifting from 2^nd to 3^rd on the ride down nightmare alley. Opposing militias and other violent elements could act with even less constraints, unleashing a civil war of unseen proportions, causing more hardship to the general populus than if the US troops were there.

Also, the majority of US voters, some 70% percent of the population is already in the "Bring’em Home"-camp, no more casualties needed to convince them. The remaining 30%, the ones who want to see the troops stay on till Christmas and Easter fall on the same day, are largely hardcore "USA Ueber Alles" punters, and more US deaths might not make a crumb of a difference to them.

And who’s to say that the US government, republican or not, would give in to increased public pressure. I certainly haven’t noticed any such inclination in the Bush/Cheney admin, and the current gang of leading Democrats haven’t shown the guts yet either to use the tools at their disposal to force the WH to start pulling out the troops. Be that Obama or Hillary, the political establishment in the US plans to have troops there for decades to come. The booty of having the finger on Iraq’s oil valves is simply too precious, too important is Iraq as a square on the strategic chess board to withdraw the troops in a hurry.

Now, many of the troops caught up in the Iraq quagmire are probably really nice people, citizens who joined the US, Polish, British or Australian Armed Forces for all the right motives, as in protecting their countries and people etc. However, they find themselves being used by their respective leaders to occupy foreign countries instead, fighting a civilian population. I understand that in many a soldier's case Iraq is not their war of choice, just people doing a job to feed their families back home. Is it right to hope for their deaths?

Hmmm, lets see. What are they guilty of? Lets ask a person with a bit of authority on the subject of war and guilt, Robert H Jackson, Chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials 1945:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." - Nuremberg Tribunal

Aha, according to the rules back then, they are part of a group of people who are committing what can be described as a war crime, the army conducting an aggressive war. The argument that the soldiers are simply following orders is in my eyes only mildly mitigating, they are still the ones committing the crime, the executioners. If you don’t want to be part of it, don’t be!! At least the soldier has a choice and a protective jacket, the many thousands of now dead Iraqis who died at their hands did have neither.

The Secret Carnage.

By SHERWOOD ROSS

An estimated 78,000 Iraqis were killed by U.S. and Coalition air strikes from the start of the war through June of last year, an article in "The Nation" magazine says.

The estimate is based on the supposition that 13 percent of the 601,000 Iraqis who met violent deaths reported by The Lancet study released last October "had been killed by bomb, missile, rocket or cannon up to last June," author Nick Turse writes in the June 11th issue of the weekly magazine...

With their decision to sign up with the military, in other words their expressed willingness to learn how to kill fellow humans as effectively as possible, their implied readiness to leave brains and hearts at the barracks gate, soldiers forfeit the entitlement to sympathy when KIA on foreign soil for no other reason than a decent pay cheque, owing it to the squad and family honour. They were dumb enough to let themselves be made lackeys of people with as little scruples as they can possibly get away with.

So, despite the harshness of it all, soldiers on the aggressor side are fair game. The laws established and applied in Nuremberg made sense then and do so today. Justice Jackson’s definition of war crimes does include what’s going on in Iraq and by inference legitimises the country’s resistance, at least in as much as it targets only occupation forces.

But the armed resistance doesn’t stop there, and that’s where the whole guilty and not guilty thing unravels. Nothing is as clear cut in Iraq.

Many of the same militias and insurgents who fight the occupiers are also engaged in atrocities amongst the civilian population, displaying a cruelty and indifference to innocent civilian lives which compares easily with the US brutality. These monsters also have to be stopped, if not brought to justice. Who’s gonna do that? Maliki’s goons? Blue Helmets? Hardly.

As the occupying force it is the US troops duty to provide security for the occupied nation’s population. Which requires and consequently legitimises their presence.

So, as twisted as it sounds, the resistance to the occupiers is legit, but so is the effort of the US to stop the resistance. How do you solve that one? A cat chasing its tail.

To conclude, imho the US and allied troops are guilty of instigating an armed conflict, causing the death of thousands of innocent people and wounding many thousands more, which by established measures can be classed as a war crime punishable with, depending on the degree of involvement, possibly even death (see Nuremburg). Should a US or allied soldier die in Iraq, he or she had it coming. Do I wish for their death? A slightly wavering No, on the grounds that I don’t wish for the death of anyone who isn’t really a vicious and savagely murderous person, which I don’t belief a great many of the soldiers are, such a blanket approach is idiotic.

I can’t really make up my mind if a complete withdrawal of US troops will benefit the general population. Despite my readings, I am too far removed from Iraq to make a really informed judgment, my prediction being though that the situation in Iraq - the current civil war between the various factions - will not change. It's hard to imagine that it could get much worse.

It is not that the US troops currently provide a great deal of security, if anything it’s the opposite. You don’t want to drive too close to a US army convoy. To an Iraqi hearing an Apache helicopter circling above is probably also not causing feelings of protection. I therefore believe that a withdrawal presents more a chance for the Iraqi people to come together and move forward as it does represent the loss of an effective and well-meaning guard of Iraqi rights and safety.

Naturally, the home coming soldiers should not be prosecuted, just as the ordinary German soldier wasn’t 60 years ago. But also just as 60 years ago, the leaders who orchestrated this war crime should be held accountable by some form of peoples court, maybe not to face the gallows like the Nazis back then, but at least with a decade of having to wear orange jumpsuits while living in a mesh cage the size of a single car garage, and if naughty (like talking without permission) being chained with both hands to the floor for hours on end.

Fat chance though guess, so the best I can realistically hope for is that as few as possible innocent Iraqis will have to pay with their lives the price levied by the parties involved in the process of the country finding its feet. At the same time I do hope that not more than necessary US and allied troopers will die in the time it takes for the WH to recognise the darkness of its decision to stay on, and issue the inevitable order to start with the occupation’s end.

I hope the goodwill left between the waring camps will be enough to allow a return to senses, particularly the one responsible for recognising that fishing for a positive way forward starts with throwing in a line.