Genesis

This is about one thing. Have you ever heard the saying 'two brains are better than one'? or, heard someone ask for help, 'I could sure use a second pair of eyes...'? That's what this is about. I've seen the Sineman's signs for a long time now. He's lucky to have access to such a good location. He can inject his thoughts into unsuspecting motorists minds 7-days a week. The trouble is, I think some of those thoughts are down right wrong. Full of false accusations, exaggerations, and misrepresentations.

I intend to add that second brain. I don't expect everyone to like what I say or agree with it. I would like it if everyone who went to Sineman's site and read or commented came here and read or commented. I think, in the long run, the more information we all take in, the more points of view we all consider, the better off we'll be.

This is the sign that got me thinking of finding a forum to voice my opinion re:Sineman's messages.

The original post is here.

At face value, I get this sign. He doesn't like innocent people being intentionally killed. Neither do I. In fact, I don't like innocent people being accidentally killed. Come to think it, I'd prefer nobody got killed.

"So now, at least, we have a concrete case to consider where troops on the ground appear to have created the Iraqi equivalent of a Mai Lai massacre."

There are two problems:

1. Haditha was no Mai Lai.


2. The implied meaning is fundamentally wrong.

Let's start with the mistake of comparing Haditha to Mai Lai.
Wikipedia reference on Haditha

Wikipedia reference on Mai Lai

I don't want you to think Wikipedia is the be all and end all of facts but, lets get some basic ones out in the open and go from there. Wikipedia is convenient for doing that ok?

Read these two articles and note the total lack of similarity. 24 people killed in Haditha, 500+ people likely killed in Mai Lai...nobody really knows for sure because of the vast cover up. There was no cover up in Haditha. The Sineman sees deferral and cover-up in the case of Haditha. I see the slow moving behemoth that the US Military is. Everything takes time. Far longer than anyone wants. It's just the way it is. With Mai Lai, one man served 3 years house arrest. I have a funny feeling that several people will spend many years in prison over Haditha (and rightfully so!). There's not much more to say about this. Read the articles, the scope and scale of the killings and subsequent actions are vastly different. The involvement of the US Government at the highest levels just isn't there re:Haditha whereas in the Mai Lai case, clearly the Government failed miserably and at nearly all levels.

Now, regarding the implied meaning of the sign. As a former member of the US Armed Forces this really irritates me. "How may other Hadithas have there been?" = "How many other murderers are there in the US Military?".

I'm sorry to say that this is simply not based in reality. There are millions of people who have served in the US military over the years and never fired a shot (outside of boot camp). Even more have never fired a shot in anger. Of the few who have been involved in armed conflict the vast majority have acted in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The internationally recognized LAW by which our armed forces willingly choose conduct themselves when engaged in conflict. Compare the discipline and behavior of today's modern, all-volunteer force to armed forces of the past or modern militant/terrorist groups. You simply can't. I wonder if Hezbollah has a UCMJ?

When you compare Haditha to dropping 500lb bombs on militant strongholds (suggesting there's no difference) you must recognize that one tactic used by these fighters is to place equipment and people of military or political value on top of or near civilians to attempt to deter western militaries from attacking. It's simple. The militants are betting that the political cost of killing the civilians is higher than the military or political gain of destroying the equipment or killing the fighters. Where is the morality in that? What part of the Geneva Convention does that follow? I'd say that it's a qualitative difference that we need to do a better job communicating to ourselves and the muslim world.

When does it become beneficial to attack? When can the innocent casualties be tolerated? When militants kidnap Israeli soldiers (inside their own border) they build support for action against them regardless of collateral damage. When tyrannical governments fail to live up to international agreements of which they are a part of, they build support for action against them regarless of the cost. When militants explode car bomb after car bomb they build support for action against them nevermind the consequences. Suddenly, the cost of attempting to destroy would be attackers is lower. There is little or no domestic price to be paid for innocent deaths overseas. This is terrible. This is the result of terrorism.

This another way of thinking about things.

Having said this, please remember, I'd prefer nobody get killed. I'd prefer nobody felt the need to terrorize another.