Dammit, she makes you think, that Anna Raccoon!

I am distinctly wary of offering any personal opinions on the particular subject of the American soldiers accused of murder, amongst other things, whilst serving in Afghanistan, not least because I know next to nothing of the details.  However, it seems clear that a particular squad of US soldiers agreed on a plan to murder unarmed Afghani civilians and make it look as though the victims were in fact armed and belligerent at the time of their deaths.  One of their number has, in Brit terms, turned 'Queen's evidence' and ratted out his former comrades.  As a result he avoided the death penalty, drew a sentence of 27 years but is likely to be released in 7.  So far, so predictable - but Ms. Raccoon poses some questions which, if nothing else, ensures that we realise that what appears to be a clear cut case is, in fact, loaded with difficulties (my emphasis throughout):

Let us take ‘Afghan civilian’ first.  The forces in Afghanistan are not fighting the Afghan army, the men they are supposed to kill don’t wear uniforms, and therefore technically, everyone they kill is a civilian. That is what we have sent them out there to do. I will grant you that they are supposed to establish the thought pattern of their victim first and make sure he is a civilian that is opposed to the allegedly ‘democratic government’. In condemning Jeremy Morlock, are we saying this is the first time a mistake has been made as to which side this civilian is supporting? Obviously not, for American forces – and British – have been responsible for many civilian deaths. Some ardent supporters of the ‘legitimate’ government.

'Establishing the thought pattern' of anyone is something which appears to be quite beyond the skills of most trained psychologists, let alone 'grunts' in the field.  I suppose the only 'fail safe' way is to wait until the 'civilian' pulls a gun or grenade and on that evidence shoot him before he shoots you provided you are quick enough - and brave enough!  However, that does not, and cannot, apply to, say, our "bravest of the brave" ('Field Marshal' Cameron's emotive hyperbole) as they sit in their submarines several hundred miles away, or in their cockpits at 40,000 feet, firing off missiles which will vapourise anyone in the vicinity of a radar or command bunker in Libya assuming, of course, that it actually lands where it is supposed to.  How do they establish the "thought pattern" of their victims?  Part of the repugnance the actions of this squad have raised stems from their efforts to be photographed with their 'trophies' and their obvious enjoyment of what they had achieved:

Given that ‘planning to kill people’ is not a crime we generally hold against soldiers, nor is killing unarmed people, nor is killing civilians, given that we have not, since Iraq, actually sent any soldiers out to kill other soldiers, I am left with the inescapable thought that Jeremy’s real crime was to ‘enjoy’ his work, to be photographed smiling alongside of it.

Personally, I have lost count of the number of YouTube films shot from aircraft tracking the movements of various civilian 'baddies' (or assumed 'baddies'!) in Iraq all of whom, after being filmed from a distance for several minutes, simply disappear in a cloud of smoke and, I assume, human detritus, as a missile hits.  I must confess that the first one or two fascinated me but then I reminded myself that these were human beings who had been blown assunder and increasingly I found the 'yippety-doo-dah' cheers and hollerin' from the aircraft crews to be irritating at first and then nauseating.  Don't misunderstand, I would have no compunction about pulling the trigger or pressing the button myself and thus I offer no legal or even moral impeachment of their behavior.  As Ms. Raccoon puts it:

It is a topsy-turvy world when the main stream media can take delight in blowing up sailors on the Belgrano, can cheer on the snuff porn footage of a Libyan pilot crashing to his death, but a soldier who admits to having enjoyed killing people, only narrowly escapes a life sentence. It reminds me of our convoluted morals whereby we condemn a Doctor who purposefully ends a painful life, yet sanction, nay force, another Doctor to end a life by dehydration and starvation in a prolonged manner.

And there, of course, she raises yet another mirror up to our convoluted moral souls and the image being, as always, intensely complicated, we will no doubt avoid the hard thinking that any contemplation of these difficulties entails.

 

Comments

[hank]

A better discription of the incident. If his testimony gets SSG Gibbs, the primary culprit, convicted and the death penalty I'm OK with 24 years. What the story doesn't really spell out is that it took the SSG Gibbs some time and effort to break down unit disciplin enough to get to start this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers

Also. One wonders about a press that much of which can't be bothered with highlighting a story in public domain until they get some graphic photo's

[dearieme]

Did you see Alex Massie's recent remark?

"A Half-C*cked Operation in Pursuit of Half-Formed Goals. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"

[dearieme]

I find that you're using childishly prudish software, David. American I suppose.

[JK]

I can't help you much with David's software limitations DM. Lemme see...

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/25/losers_in_the_libya_time_limited_scope_limited_military_action_so_far

[JK]

Had to click "Refresh" to make the link work.

[JuliaM]

The Belgrano, of course, wasn't stuffed full of civilians.

[David Duff]

Quite right, Julia, but I think the point she is making is her distaste for the media's 'enjoyment' of killing which, of course, merely imitates our own.

"I find that you're using childishly prudish software". Sorry, DM, you'll have to explain that one.

Hank, I suspect that there is the makings of a very good play or film about that squad and the personalities in it.

[dearieme]

It let through "Half-C*cked" but demurred at Massie's spelling of the word.

[David Duff]

Oh, fuck off, DM - er, just testing, old chap!

[David Duff]

Well, it didn't faint at that one, DM, so I think it must be your end. Obviously your keyboard was assembled by a 'WeeFree' spinster from Dundee!