NATO orders potty training for Marines
Our buddy, Jeff Schogol, formerly of the Stars & Stripes and currently of the Air Force Times sends us a link from the Marine Corps Times which reports that the three-star commander of all NATO has ordered potty training for the Marines;
[Army Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti] said in his letter that all commanders should ensure their subordinates understand what the law of armed conflict includes, “especially regarding the appropriate treatment of the dead.” He added that “defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use” bodies of dead insurgents is a “grave breach” of that law, and should be reported by those who see it.
“Such actions bring dishonor to those who commit them, and violate the core values of all military services, regardless of service or nation,” the general said. “Such actions break our faith with the Afghan people, who trust us to uphold standards of law and decency, and to treat the living and the dead with dignity and respect.”
Oh, ok, so the general didn’t order potty training, it’s just that I couldn’t resist. Sorry. Call me names.
So, like I said on the radio, this has all been blown out of proportion by the media hungry for writing about images of pee-pees and wee-wees of Marines. So, the investigation is being handled by Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of Marine Corps Forces Central Command, according to Stars & Stripes, the Defense Secretary has condemned the video, the NATO commander has ordered that the Law of Land Warfare training is reinforced among the troops still in theater. So can we all move along and let the wheels of military justice turn?
I noticed in the reportage, because I had to watch VTWoody on CBS this morning, that the two day old story still led CBS’ news, but they’d changed the story to “the video appears to show…” instead of “the video shows”.
Like I said initially, it might be that we’re being pranked. We won’t know until Jethro Gibbs and Ziva at NCIS finish their sweat box questioning with Abby in the lab testing the urine while “Probie” McGee works his computer magic.
Category: Military issues
@49 So true Old Trooper…So true. If you are not willing to use everything you have to win then stay home. You can work ou the consequences after the victory. I as much as one hates to admit it the victors have always written the history.
@51: Yes they have. As the old saying goes “to the victor goes the spoils”. Timeless words
Seems to be quite a bit of dichotomy at play. On one hand, it’s a common theme to disregard the Islamic faith at large, and the validity of Afghan determination to be anything but a backwater theocracy.
On the other hand, we wax eloquently of vague notions of victory. It’s a bit difficult to obtain any standard of victory against a self-defeating metric.
But this is a side effect of of propelling the Taliban as public enemy #1, at the expense of al Qaeda’s continued evolution.
A stable Afghanistan [if ever to come to fruition] will be an Islamic state. There’d no way around that. Dispelling notions that we’re engaged in a 21st century Crusade is every bit as important as a well aimed shot, when convincing the population to accept new forms of governance and societal norms.
The enemy in Afghanistan has every reason to believe that we won’t stay another decade or two…because they realize they aren’t the threat to US national security that al Qaeda is. We’re far past the time when we should have shifted our focus from nation building to eradication of those who attacked us, and will seek to do so again.
The taliban was protecting al Qaeda and refused to kick them out of Afghanistan after 9/11. That is why we went to war with the taliban. AQ is still around and if the taliban get back any control in Afghanistan after we leave, AQ will be back in business training the new recruits at camps inside Afghanistan. What will we have gained for 10 years of fighting and dying? The same thing we gained in Vietnam, which was nothing. The women of Afghanistan will be back where we found them 10 years ago. What will that do to “hearts and minds” for us with those people?
Have we reduced/removed AQ and the taliban ability to wage war against us or our interests? Have they given up the desire to wage war against us? Do they fear retribution from us? Have they agreed to unconditional surrender? The answer to those questions is no. So we can’t claim victory for anything. As I have said many times, victory is when you reduce/remove your enemies ability to wage war against you or their will to continue to wage war against you. That doctrine works whether you are fighting a standing army or a ragtag bunch of rock farmers. Since we are all about the proper application of the rules of warfighting (Geneva Accords) and all that; then why the hell are we treating them better than they are entitled under those accords? Have they signed the accords? No. Are they adhering to the spirit of the accords? No. Yet, we have decided to treat them better than what we are bound to by those same accords. Whose the chump?
Here’s a question one hates to ponder, though it may have been best thought about 5 to 6 years ago. Does anyone believe that Afganistan will be any different than it was before, once we leave. Maybe the cities will have changed somewhat, though I personally think the Taliban will regain the same power they had. In the frontier areas, will it not be the wild west again, with which ever warlord is the strongest on that particular day. I see in Iraq and Afganistan (maybe not as much in Iraq) the same thing we did in with the Vietnamazation of the war, spelled the end for S.V. which I believe it will also spell the end of the Afganistan which we hoped and fought for.
@OT – I seem to get into this discussion near weekly. The points you raise in your first paragraph has always been the stock answer to keep us involved in Afghanistan…the spectre of a return to Taliban rule over even part of the nation, would equal a return of al Qaeda.
But the narrative doesn’t match the reality. The Taliban elements want a return to some semblance of power, to be sure, but they also don’t desire to be forcibly removed from that power again. Claims that the QST hosting AQ in even an autonomous Pashtunistan are fear based, not reality based. That doesn’t make the Taliban nice guys, or that we should abet their goal….but al Qaeda doesn’t need Afghanistan…and perpetually occupying Afghanistan does not weaken al Qaeda.
Going in after 9/11 was the right thing to do, we dismantled al Qaeda’s operating structure in that country. Staying in Afghanistan this long has diverted our attention from the most dangerous threat [diverted yet again by Iraq]. It’s long past time to extricate ourselves and repeat our actions of late 2001 in the other areas that provide home to al Qaeda or it’s franchises’ operational and support zones.
Lastly, if you wish to tailor our actions to the standards, conduct or treaty agreeing of the enemy….you’re going to have to find a way to revamp decades of institutional training and core values….and then find away to manage the outcomes.
I haven’t wanted us to continue to be in Afghanistan. My philosophy has always been that we needed to do what was necessary to vanquish AQ and the taliban, period, end of story, so that they wouldn’t have the desire to come after us ever again, or with the impunity they have. You don’t do that by apologizing and getting your undies twisted over the small stuff. They need to fear our retribution. They don’t, because we haven’t really given them a reason to and have done more to show weakness than strength in their eyes. That is the part of my discussion that doesn’t seem to register with you. Romans could walk freely anywhere in the known world at the time without fear of being attacked because those that would attack would have the Roman Legions down on them, their families, and their region, with no quarter offered or given. No one fears us, because they know we aren’t willing to do what is necessary. Do the bad guys in that region respect us? Do they ever fear what the consequences would be for attacking us?
As the great philosopher Topper Harley said “playing not to win is like sleeping with your sister.”
My “buddy” who was an I&R platoon leader (also abn/rgr qualified) fought with the 25th Infantry Division during the Korean War. While retuning from a patrol, he shot at the the bloating dead Chinese bodies. He said the guts would spew about the body. I asked him why he did that… He simply said that it was COMBAT and that he wanted to demoralize the enemy. Years later in Vietnam, while as a company commander of a gunship unit, he helped set up an orphanage.
Sebastian Junger has a pretty good article on this in today’s Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-all-guilty-of-dehumanizing-the-enemy/2012/01/13/gIQAtRduwP_story.html
[…] meets my expectations January 16th, 2012 The other day, I put in the comments that I was waiting for dicksmith to write a post at VetVoice before I commented on Allen […]