In the wake of the release of video of an Apache gunship slaughtering Iraqi civilians (and the medical personnel who came to help them), it seems like an appropriate time to revisit this posting from 2006.
11 thoughts on “Support the troops redux”
Comments are closed.
Unfair to the gunship guys! Those weren’t medical personnel, it was just some father in a van driving his kids to be tutored.
LikeLike
Oops, did that phrase make it into the final posting? I’d changed it but apparently didn’t save that version. I’ll leave it as is so your comment will still make sense.
That was going to be part of a longer comment pointing out that killing people who are trying to help the first round of victims is nothing new:
(This is in reference to NATO killing paramedics in Yugoslavia in 1999, not shooting pregnant women and trying to cover it up in Afghanistan in 2010.)
LikeLike
Are those really innovations? I’m sure Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. must have tried something like that. Wow. See, America really DOES think outside of the box. Even outside the evil box.
LikeLike
“Innovation” is probably going too far on Parenti’s part, but while Hitler et al definitely attacked civilian centers, this tactic is particularly well-matched to the US’s modus operandi of attacking civilian populations that are all but entirely undefended by actual armies (and more importantly, actual air forces). Swinging back around to kill paramedics is a luxury you don’t have when you know you’ll face a genuine threat from aircraft or anti-aircraft.
This is a tactic we share with our Israeli friends, by the way, which is no surprise given that they’re attacking similarly defenseless targets.
LikeLike
According to Chomsky the slaughter of first responders has been resorted to in southern Lebanon on many occasions by some .. errr … aggressive power.
LikeLike
In case you miss it, my comment on your post at ATR wasn’t meant to be a criticism of what you wrote–I meant that Americans often seem to talk as though one either “supports the troops” or else goes to the other extreme and talks about them all as crazed babykillers who enjoy their work, but I wasn’t putting you in the latter category.
I also think NE often makes sense, when he talks about something other than the Vast Conspiracy and Obama’s inability to do anything about it.
LikeLike
I read your 2006 posting for the first time. I don’t think it’s good news that one day all these killers are gonna be “coming home”… Add these guys (and gals – no sexism here!) to the social unrest currently represented by T Partiers for example, and things could get interesting indeed. Or am I being alarmist?
LikeLike
Well, you and the alarmist Department of Homeland Security (PDF):
Which predictably raised the hackles of right-wing extremists, who vehemently maintain that neither they nor the disgruntled ex-soldiers they worship could ever carry out any kind of violence here (and if you disagree, they’ll firebomb your house).
LikeLike
NATO innovative? Sadly, no. But the belligerent powers of WWII had a great desire to try out new things:
LikeLike
“The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.”
Note the “small percentage” – presumably these were vets of Desert Storm. Even on a “small percentage” basis, this time around there’s gonna be a much greater number to choose from. And our society has obviously advanced so far technologically and sociopathically that the potential for gleeful empathy-less mayhem scares the crap outa me.
Also, seems to me a similar unrest among military and paramilitary types (all veterans) occurred in Germany in the early 1920s…need I say more?
LikeLike
Donald Johnson: understood.
N E seems to make sense now and then, like a stopped clock is correct twice a day. But since he doesn’t understand (or distorts) what he learns, it makes little difference.
LikeLike