|
Petraeus’ Moral High Ground
The oh so well regarded General Petraeus writes a letter:
The top U.S. commander in Iraq admonished his troops regarding the results of an Army survey that found that many U.S military personnel there are willing to tolerate some torture of suspects and unwilling to report abuse by comrades.
"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we — not our enemies — occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.
Thomas Ricks writing the above says the Army report was released last week. The casual reader will conclude that the General wrote a " and conquered this particular high ground pretty fast.
But that isn’t so. The Mental Health Advisory Team finished the final version of its survey report on November 17, 2006. Are we to believe it reached Petraeus only last week?
Not really. So it took nearly six month and some public outcry for the commanding officer in Iraq to stump up to the moral mole hill he now pretends to occupy. Predictably he does so to the opposite effect.
"Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge," he wrote.
The General lowers the moral base line by denigrating the enemy as "barbaric." Is the resulting standpoint really moral high ground?
Or is it a further inducement to fight the designated barbarians by all means?
Iraq. War …is WAR…
You have to bomb, target, attack, intimidate, control, kill, and kill more, imprison, torture, raze; deprive of food, of movement, of electricity, energy, boot out; murder on street corners; rape; be as arbitrary as possible, to instill fear and submission; control….
sow contempt, always, for all adversaries or resistance; you need to flatten hospitals, kill children, throw women down in the street, face down, decimate towns, villages, destroy agriculture, water points; put up check points so that everything breaks down; squash medical services absolutely, as that throws people into howling despair; deprive them of a ‘voice’ or any free press or TV; kill anyone who might gain power or help (except for some chosen adversaries who will play their role); raise prices for basic commodities, so that ppl buckle down to survive best as they can and become ineffective; refuse to accord dignity (eg proper burial, etc.); and imperatively, shut down previous commerce, open and close the borders at will, stop the low level trade that kept ppl alive….
Insulate the powerful, provide them with protection, goodies, privilege, whisky money, status -say-, so that they get a thrill and will continue to be confusedly sadistic (today, they have to have a residence abroad in a civilized place guaranteed, to get away from the horror and believe they can bring their children up ‘right’ with plasma TV screens and recalcitrant English nannies), they need to be able to justify their actions by the return of piles of money, social advancement, a fantastic life choice with great rewards!
It is also vital to smash schooling, close libraries, destroy archives, kill professors, doctors, stop medecines coming in, get rid of experts, such as engineers who know the machines, and import slave labor, to deprive ppl of jobs.
It is an ‘illegal’ occupation (though what exactly ‘illegal’ now means is a moot point, and what occupation could be ‘legal’?) – it is modern War.
What do ppl expect? Non-barbaric enemies? Soft tutelage, with free clinics and seminars for women so that they can take control of their lives? The destruction of agri but the oh-so-much better food, all imported and processed and very expensive, gobbled up gleefully? The natives keeping some of their quaint roots traditions, to high fives and clapping – cute newsletters on the internet?
Posted by: Noirette | May 12 2007 14:36 utc | 15
|
