From Michael Massing's guardedly-positive review of Tom Ricks's new book, The Gamble, in the New York Review of Book– the full text of which is not on-line:
It's striking to see the extent to which Ricks, in assessing the work of the US military, relies on the views of the US military. We see the performance of the Iraqi army, the attitudes of Iraqi tribal leaders, and the views of Iraqi citizens almost exclusively through the eyes of US generals, colonels, and captains, or of civilians working with them. In the rare instances where we're offered a quote from an Iraq, it's usually taken from articles in The Washington Post or some other paper.
The absence of Iraqi voices seems especially serious in light of the emphasis Ricks places on the military's new policy of protecting the people. Since, according to him, a central goal of the surge was to improve the military's image in the eyes of everyday Iraqis, it would certainly be useful to hear what those Iraqis themselves thought of that approach–to learn, for instance, whether the locals who saw that platoon sergeant pick up the wounded girl actually regarded that as a turning point. When I visited Iraq last year, it seemed clear that, while the US military had made significant changes in its treatment of Iraqis, many Iraqis were far less sanguine about the American presence than Ricks suggests. While relieved that the US forces had curtailed their earlier aggressiveness, they continued to see them as an occupying force–one that had committed grave abuses in the past and that was still very capable of doing so.
The absence of Iraqi voices seems especially serious in light of the emphasis Ricks places on the military's new policy of protecting the people. Since, according to him, a central goal of the surge was to improve the military's image in the eyes of everyday Iraqis, it would certainly be useful to hear what those Iraqis themselves thought of that approach–to learn, for instance, whether the locals who saw that platoon sergeant pick up the wounded girl actually regarded that as a turning point. When I visited Iraq last year, it seemed clear that, while the US military had made significant changes in its treatment of Iraqis, many Iraqis were far less sanguine about the American presence than Ricks suggests. While relieved that the US forces had curtailed their earlier aggressiveness, they continued to see them as an occupying force–one that had committed grave abuses in the past and that was still very capable of doing so.
All government employees, high and low, from time immemorial, have towed the company line, same as in private corporations. If Eichmann had worked in our government, any private annoyance he secretly nursed (other than not getting promoted or a higher paycheck) against the company spiel and its arraying of facts or ignoring them to support same, would at most come out only after retirement. It's not called "towing the party line" for nothing. Following orders always
should only be a defense for real foot soldiers, not metaphorical ones. Otherwise, what was the point of Nuremberg?
"what was the point of Nuremberg?"
Good one, citizen. The then responsible chief justice, an American, said that from then on, everyone, especially the Americans who sent the Nazi criminals to death, should be jusged by the same standards.
This is still not the case after all those years, decades even. And a real shame.
"When I visited Iraq last year, it seemed clear that [Iraqis] continued to see [U.S. forces] as an occupying force…"
Could that possibly, maybe, perhaps be due to the fact that they continue to BE an occupying force, and will continue to be an occupying force as long as they are present in Iraq? I mean, how else should Iraqis see the U.S. forces who are holding their country under military occupation?
Good God!
"Following orders always should only be a defense for real foot soldiers"
Why should it be a defense for foot soldiers? I believe they do have a legal duty to refuse illegal orders, and they certainly have moral obligations as well. Letting them off the hook for their crimes and atrocities with the "following orders" defense is a bit like prosecuting the guy who ordered someone murdered while letting off the hook the guy who actually pulled the trigger.
This puts me in mind of some lines from the song Universal Soldier, a song about individual responsibility for war:
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls
But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on
He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame…
I don't disagree with you, Shirin. I don't mean to say a common soldier should follow any order he or she finds immoral, unethical, against associated principles. But, having been a foot soldier, I do know that each rank up you go, the more information you have access to and the more discretion is afforded you. Also, the lower your rank, the more strictly you are dealt with for perceived violation of any order.
Is it wrong to hold the high brass, the political leaders, the corporate leaders to more responsibility than their lowest flunkies? If the higher ones's activity doesn't have wider affect and effect than any flunky's why do they get paid more, have more perks, etc? Why are they more admired and catered to?
Why did we hang only a handful of Germans? Why didn't we implement the Morgenthau plan and reduce the whole land to potato fields and turn all Germans into serfs?
I would not have followed Lt. Calley's order. But that fish stunk from the very top of the head that was never punished, as is usual; ditto I would not have done what that handfull of GI Joes and Janes did to those Iraqi prisoners; again, nobody paid but those few universal soldiers…