Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What we need are the Selous Scouts from the Rhodesian Bush War era... now those people knew how to fight an insurgency... and how to win hearts and minds without getting touchy-feely...

What about the ethics of this one?

What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.

Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.

The problem was that the war was very controversial.

And very profitable too... If you happened to be in the arms trade.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.

The problem was that the war was very controversial.

Dogma's got it in one.
Hard to find support for an unpopular war, as history has shown us time and time again.

Unpopular!? Have you seen how many movies they made about it?? Damnit if that war didn't have the best soundtrack in history... >.>

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.

The problem was that the war was very controversial.

Well anytime you bungle a war it's going to be controversial. Excuse me, police action

Yes, I think they should hold service members to a higher standard than normal people.

Of course, there will always be people who can't stick to the plan and go out of their way to demonize the Natives... It's understandable that they have some resentment towards them, but for the sake of peace, it's best to hide those sentiments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like soldiers have the biggest problem with this out of the branches?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Unpopular!? Have you seen how many movies they made about it?? Damnit if that war didn't have the best soundtrack in history... >.>

All of those movies were made long after the war ended. It was possibly the most unpopular war in american history, probably because there were so many baby-boomers to complain about it.

Samus... it was a joke... sheesh...

chaos0xomega wrote:Unpopular!? Have you seen how many movies they made about it?? Damnit if that war didn't have the best soundtrack in history... >.>

I'll...I'll allow it.

chaos0xomega wrote:Samus... it was a joke... sheesh...

Oh.... Lol.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like soldiers have the biggest problem with this out of the branches?

Probably because the air force and navy aren't close-up, on-the-ground fighting. Thats where you see the real evil of the enemy.

On topic now, beheading isn't the worst death you can face in a warzone, to be honest. Even if it was, that isn't a justification for torturing any of them that we capture.
Let's be honest, the rhetoric used by our side focusses on the freedom we're trying to bring to an oppressed people, in other words, that we are the "good guys" in this tale.
How, therefore, can we justify such rhetoric if torture becomes a method we're happy to use? It's not an effective means of getting information by any stretch of the imagination, and without that to justify it, it becomes an exercise in vengeance, a very cruel act indeed. An eye for an eye, if you will
If you're claiming to be the good guy, you cannot do bad-guy things. Is that a tad idealistic? Of course, it's a warzone after all and rules like that are flouted all the time.
However, even in war some standards should be maintained.

So torture is worse than beheading? since when?

Thats a big over-generalization considering both of those branches have guys in the gak with the army and marines every day.

So torture is worse than beheading? since when?

No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics while hamstringing our guys and enforcing a no tolerance policy. Its classic.

Andrew1975 wrote:No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics

Probably not.

"So many other people" don't agree with this statement. Daemonizing anyone opposed to torture like that is just abhorrent.

Vietnam... I think we have all just had about enough of Surffin' Bird.

Andrew1975 wrote:No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics while hamstringing our guys and enforcing a no tolerance policy. Its classic.

That's a pretty ridiculous mischaracterisation of the issue.

No-one thinks it's okay for insurgents to behead people. It's just that we all recognise they are bad people doing a bad thing and the discussion ends there. Soon as someone turns up to argue in favour of beheading captives, then we'll get an argument on the subject and you can see everyone trot out there arguments why beheading is bad. In the meantime stop making that silly claim.

In the second part you assume away the key point of debate on the issue when you claim a no torture policy is 'hamstringing' our guys. Abu Ghraib did not help quell resistance, it was very fething obviously counter productive. The only win condition for this operation is when the terrorists have been isolated from the general population to the point where they are no longer capable of operating meaningfully. That cannot be accomplished by a code of behaviour that figures our side can be as bad as the terrorists.

Our enemy is so terrible that we must spend our time, moneny, and lives fighting them. Also, we must become them, they are so heinous. If we do not act like the thing we despise, how can we ever defeat it?

Abu Ghraib did not help quell resistance, it was very fething obviously counter productive.

Only once some idiots pictures got out. Do you seriously think we got no good information from those sessions? The torture that the US was doing was for the most part psychological, which is actually pretty effective and not the same as just senselessly beating people.

I'm not saying we have to be as bad as the enemy, I never said we should be beheading people. Keeping people awake and uncomfortable for hours on end though is not comparable to beheadings in any way. Waterboarding is not the same as pealing someones fingernails off or hitting them with blowtorches.

The problem is there are people that would object to a soldier screaming "Die Raghead!" while shooting at the enemy. Its naive.

I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.

My favorite was when people were up in arms over some soldiers that were performing mercy killings by shooting enemy combatants in the head that had basically been eviscerated and had no chance or survival.

I agree with andrew on that last bit (Mercy killings) I know of a junior officer that got hit hard because he put a round into what remained of the head of what was at that point a bloody, twitching, mess of a human to "put the guy out of his misery".... it just so happens that there was a UAV flying overhead with a direct video feed to the Brigade commander who watched it occur in realtime and (I think) overreacted to the situation.

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.

The problem was that the war was very controversial.

Well anytime you bungle a war it's going to be controversial. Excuse me, police action

Eh, Vietnam wasn't handled in the best fashion, and the justification for intervention was flimsy, but it was hardly bungled. Probably the most significant issue was the way advances in media technology took the government unprepared, thereby providing a sort of ready-made anti-war propaganda that united the anti-war movement, and allowed it to easily expand.

Andrew1975 wrote:Only once some idiots pictures got out. Do you seriously think we got no good information from those sessions? The torture that the US was doing was for the most part psychological, which is actually pretty effective and not the same as just senselessly beating people.

I'm not saying we have to be as bad as the enemy, I never said we should be beheading people. Keeping people awake and uncomfortable for hours on end though is not comparable to beheadings in any way. Waterboarding is not the same as pealing someones fingernails off or hitting them with blowtorches.

Okay, so you accept the limits on what we can do, just overstated your position before. That's fair enough.

I don't really have a problem with dedicated psychological techniques either (sleep deprivation mostly), provided they are employed on specific targets for the purpose of attaining specific information.

I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.

See, I just don't think it matters how poorly the enemy behave. We don't act well for the sake of tit for tat, but because we believe that in order to be a force for good one must, well, be good. And that acting in that way actually makes winning easier, in the long run.

My favorite was when people were up in arms over some soldiers that were performing mercy killings by shooting enemy combatants in the head that had basically been eviscerated and had no chance or survival.

Sure, but that kind of silliness will always be around. It's important to remember they're a noisy fringe, and not use it as an excuse to ignore the more sensible arguments being made. Just like PETA being completely bonkers doesn't mean there's no need for animal welfare at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Eh, Vietnam wasn't handled in the best fashion, and the justification for intervention was flimsy, but it was hardly bungled. Probably the most significant issue was the way advances in media technology took the government unprepared, thereby providing a sort of ready-made anti-war propaganda that united the anti-war movement, and allowed it to easily expand.

In all the years since Vietnam I've not read anything that really adequately answered how the war might have been won any better than what was attempted. I mean, how do you defeat an enemy that's getting supplied from the North, another country you do not want to expand the war into, and who is willing to basically just wait and accept losses until you leave.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.

There are rules?

We put restrictions on our own behavior in combat, and information gathering because we want them there. They're defining characteristics of our behavior, and the sort of conduct we wish to adhere to. Any protection it gives to an adversary is secondary.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not saying we have to be as bad as the enemy, I never said we should be beheading people. Keeping people awake and uncomfortable for hours on end though is not comparable to beheadings in any way.

I would actually argue that psychological torture if worse than beheading someone. Its not a great way to die, but at the end of the process you're still dead, so any trauma you suffered in the process is irrelevant. Compare this to waterboarding, which potentially produces many lasting effects. Its not as bad as taking a blowtorch to someone, but its definitely still torture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
In all the years since Vietnam I've not read anything that really adequately answered how the war might have been won any better than what was attempted. I mean, how do you defeat an enemy that's getting supplied from the North, another country you do not want to expand the war into, and who is willing to basically just wait and accept losses until you leave.

Yeah, the assumption that a stalemate could be forced in a manner similar to that in Korea was one of the fundamental flaws in the reasoning behind pursuing containment in Vietnam.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.

There are rules?

Rules of Engagement (RoE) perhaps?
Well, more guidelines, but GoE doesn't slip of the tongue as easily.

Covering the targeting of civilians, where and when you can engage the enemy, exactly what determines whom an enemy combatant is, that kind of thing.

Stuff like arty strikes on orphanages to take out the enemy AAA crew who are ensconced within, counting on the meat-shields for cover and western unwillingness (especially with the media around) to engage in the face of such collateral damage and negative PR. They say "innocence is the first casualty of war" - it should be the media (especially if you take a camera to a gunfight).

IMHO,The best solution is to pull out of the sandpit and let the locals annihilate each other (like they've been trying to do for the last couple of thousand years anyway). It will know peace one day - the peace of the graveyard, but peace nonetheless.

chromedog wrote:
Rules of Engagement (RoE) perhaps?
Well, more guidelines, but GoE doesn't slip of the tongue as easily.

Covering the targeting of civilians, where and when you can engage the enemy, exactly what determines whom an enemy combatant is, that kind of thing.

Stuff like arty strikes on orphanages to take out the enemy AAA crew who are ensconced within, counting on the meat-shields for cover and western unwillingness (especially with the media around) to engage in the face of such collateral damage and negative PR. They say "innocence is the first casualty of war" - it should be the media (especially if you take a camera to a gunfight).

I suppose my point is that the rules exist only insofar as we apply the to ourselves explicitly because of, for the most part, public relations. Friendly fire and military morale is important too, but I think that public opinion is ultimately the driving factor.

To some degree there is a concern regarding international perception. If we started gunning down civilians in the streets of Kabul the already fragile coalition would disappear overnight. But ultimately that is a secondary concern, at least for the United States, due to being the prime actor in most military adventures.

dogma wrote:Yeah, the assumption that a stalemate could be forced in a manner similar to that in Korea was one of the fundamental flaws in the reasoning behind pursuing containment in Vietnam.

Or that there was a man in South Vietnam who was capable of giving effective resistance to the North.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I suppose my point is that the rules exist only insofar as we apply the to ourselves explicitly because of, for the most part, public relations. Friendly fire and military morale is important too, but I think that public opinion is ultimately the driving factor.

Morality matters too. The morality that causes the general population to condemn the army for killing civilians is the same morality that makes soldiers, and those commanding soldiers, to not want to kill civilians either.

Andrew1975 wrote:

So torture is worse than beheading? since when?

No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics while hamstringing our guys and enforcing a no tolerance policy. Its classic.

Hardly. I'm just able to recognise that torture has no real value.
The studies and experts agree with me, not you, chap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Our enemy is so terrible that we must spend our time, moneny, and lives fighting them. Also, we must become them, they are so heinous. If we do not act like the thing we despise, how can we ever defeat it?

Nice nod to Nietzche there.
However, I believe his words were slightly different.

To answer OP's question, I think the armed services should have a higher standard in conduct, especially the airmen.

In fact, just the other day, I oveheard an airman telling his friend that sprite was mountain dew for homosexuals. this made me upset, since he later went on to make jokes about the other branches of the military. the airmen at the nearby base go to the mall every weekend, and many of them act up. I've even seen them hitting on girls who were with their boyfriends/ fiance/ husband.

Hardly. I'm just able to recognise that torture has no real value.
The studies and experts agree with me, not you, chap.

I say it depends on what kind of torture you are looking at. Do you really believe that there would be entire schools of torture if there was absolutely no value in it? Yeah beating a guy to death may not be very effective, but the more modern techniques do produce results.

I would actually argue that psychological torture if worse than beheading someone. Its not a great way to die, but at the end of the process you're still dead, so any trauma you suffered in the process is irrelevant. Compare this to waterboarding, which potentially produces many lasting effects. Its not as bad as taking a blowtorch to someone, but its definitely still torture.

Why are you dead at the end of physiological torture, unless of course that was the goal, which it obviously wasn't. If death were the goal Abu would have been full of dead bodies, not tortured souls.

I'm not going to say that nobody dies from psychological torture, but it's not the intended outcome (unless of course it is in some cases) it's used to get information. Of course it's still torture, its just more effective. The use of extreme discomfort, extreme temperature change, sleep deprivation, and body contortion can have serious lasting effects including death in some cases and permanent mental and physical disability in others.

I would have no problem outlawing torture versus a state army that does the same. Many times war comes down to how far you are willing to go to win, I don't want to give the enemy an advantage. Rules or war are not only there to attain a moral high ground, in fact I see that as more of a secondary effect. The rules are there to protect the combatants and civilians form some of the more ugly aspects of war. I see no reason to offer this protection to the enemy while we do not receive the same in response. At the same time I don't believe our soldiers should ever degenerate into complete savagery either, but I think the way our soldiers handled themselves vs the Japanese in WW2 was fine. I'm still amazed that we bother to patch up their wounded, as they have no ability or inclination to provide this same service to our soldiers. If the enemy starts using chemical weapons because of the advantage gained in using it, im not going to remove that option from the table until they do.

When fighting savages you should not become one, this is true, but you don't need to extend them all the courtesies either.

Or that there was a man in South Vietnam who was capable of giving effective resistance to the North.

I think the lesson is don't go into a war when you are not prepared to take the steps to win or don't know what those steps are. Unfortunately we have not really learned that lesson.

There is evidence that the continued bombing of the north would have turned the war.