Over the Top
It seems that at least a few blogs on the left side of the blogosphere have taken offense to Mort Kondrake's recent editorial in the Pasadena Star-News.
Mort, it seems, has had it with those on the political left that he feels have taken partisanship to the extreme:Liberal State of the Day doesn't quite agree trying to make a parallel between the presidential administrations of WWII and the War on Terror:
ENOUGH already! It's harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now it's threatening our national survival.
State's Jeff doesn't quite seem to grasp that his hyperbole would seem to bear out Kondrake's point about extreme partisanship to the letter, but let's focus merely on what he understands to be facts. Did the United States "strictly adhere" to the Geneva Convention in World War Two? We would certainly like to think so and indeed in the vast majority of cases we did, but as Victor David Hanson notes:
… back then the US attempted to strictly adhere to the Geneva Convention. The US populace was not concerned that "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" was torturing its enemies. We weren't trying to form opinion and policy based on the latest episode of '24'. Now we have a Torture Veep; back then we had a something completely different - a reasonable and honest human being.
Biscari. Dachau. Chenogne. Very un-Geneva massacres did occur, and those involved, when tried, suffered few lasting penalties. We occasionally murdered, and we did in dire situations torture our enemies if we thought it could save American lives. The U.S population, at the time, certainly wouldn't have blamed Presidents Roosevelt or Truman for that if they knew the details, if it meant Johnny would come marching home instead of being unloaded from a train's baggage car. Then, at least, partisanship has its limits. Kondrake was imperfect in his arguments, as Bill Quick notes, but his overall argument remains:
We know about the horrific German massacres of American prisoners, but little about instances of Americans' shooting German captives well before the Battle of the Bulge. Such murdering was neither sanctioned by American generals nor routine — but nevertheless it was not uncommon in the heat of battle and the stress of war. No inquiry cited Generals Hodges, Patton, or Bradley as responsible for rogue soldiers shooting unarmed prisoners.
I await a point-by-point rebuttal from the media, the Congress, and political liberals of these basic charges. It should be easy to prove that these claims are false… shouldn't it?
…the fundamental problem infecting much of Congress, the media and the political class - especially those left of center - is that they are consumed with loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:16 PM
Comments
1
Since 9/11, I've found the level of mythology about WW2 to be rather irritating ... on both sides of the political aisle. Many lefties hold up the conduct of Allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines during WW2 as somehow exemplary, while many righties complain vigorously about how much more divided the country is now, with an attendant suggestion that this proves the war against islamism is somehow less justified than WW2 was. Both claims are a crock.
Even the illustrious VDH doesn't get the whole picture, because his column focuses on the European war. On this specific topic (US servicemen's treatment of the enemy), I think a better comparison is the Pacific War. Killing of wounded Japanese was not uncommon, in large part because Japanese soldiers generally didn't surrender. Much like islamists today, many Japanese soldiers would do anything to kill just one more American, even when it meant his own certain death. American and Australian soldiers and marines responded by demonizing the enemy to a truly frightening extent.
Even the illustrious VDH doesn't get the whole picture, because his column focuses on the European war. On this specific topic (US servicemen's treatment of the enemy), I think a better comparison is the Pacific War. Killing of wounded Japanese was not uncommon, in large part because Japanese soldiers generally didn't surrender. Much like islamists today, many Japanese soldiers would do anything to kill just one more American, even when it meant his own certain death. American and Australian soldiers and marines responded by demonizing the enemy to a truly frightening extent.
Posted by: wolfwalker at May 24, 2006 03:26 AM (zBdvW)
2
Soldiers are not saints (in the secular sense)… even today’s volunteers come from the same population as those that have gone before them. In society there are people who have low or weak moral values and our military reflects the same. The big difference is in individual control; the military because of regimented discipline is usually able to ignore or overcome impulses that are contrary to warfare ethics. War and specifically combat are not your everyday shopping trips to Wal-Mart. There is a big difference between resisting the urge to shop lift and fighting the compulsion to blow up everyone and everything remotely associated with the attack that just took several of your buddy’s lives. Our Soldiers are not perfect, but they are head and shoulders above the cowardly enemy they engage today.
Anyone who would condemn the actions of our soldiers should volunteer to serve in the military and experience the same gambit of emotions that our uniformed folks experience every day. Then and only then can they appreciate and understand soldiers' actions on the battlefield.
With all that said, I do not condone atrocities or the practice of torture. Our military leadership investigates and concludes with the appropriate actions any abnormality brought to their attention; and they do so with far greater determination and success than their civilian counterparts.
Anyone who would condemn the actions of our soldiers should volunteer to serve in the military and experience the same gambit of emotions that our uniformed folks experience every day. Then and only then can they appreciate and understand soldiers' actions on the battlefield.
With all that said, I do not condone atrocities or the practice of torture. Our military leadership investigates and concludes with the appropriate actions any abnormality brought to their attention; and they do so with far greater determination and success than their civilian counterparts.
Posted by: Old Soldier at May 24, 2006 06:29 AM (X2tAw)
3
You ask "Did the United States "strictly adhere" to the Geneva Convention in World War Two?"
I reply - did you intentionally skip the word "attempted" or did you honestly not see it?
"Such murdering was neither sanctioned by American generals nor routine..."
Exactly!!
So what's your point? I said "...the US attempted to strictly adhere to the Geneva Convention." Do you dispute that?
Oh, I see your point: "The U.S population, at the time, certainly wouldn’t have blamed Presidents Roosevelt or Truman for [torturing war prisoners] if they knew the details, if it meant Johnny would come marching home instead of being unloaded from a train’s baggage car."
You condone torture and feel you can speak for a different generation. Got it. I disagree. I do not condone torture (and I served). I do not feel I can speak for a different generation. Most people I know of that have served in the Armed Forces do not condone torture. Even "old soldier" above, does not condone torture.
But you & Cheney do. Good to know.
I reply - did you intentionally skip the word "attempted" or did you honestly not see it?
"Such murdering was neither sanctioned by American generals nor routine..."
Exactly!!
So what's your point? I said "...the US attempted to strictly adhere to the Geneva Convention." Do you dispute that?
Oh, I see your point: "The U.S population, at the time, certainly wouldn’t have blamed Presidents Roosevelt or Truman for [torturing war prisoners] if they knew the details, if it meant Johnny would come marching home instead of being unloaded from a train’s baggage car."
You condone torture and feel you can speak for a different generation. Got it. I disagree. I do not condone torture (and I served). I do not feel I can speak for a different generation. Most people I know of that have served in the Armed Forces do not condone torture. Even "old soldier" above, does not condone torture.
But you & Cheney do. Good to know.
Posted by: Jeff at May 24, 2006 09:43 AM (m2diX)
4
So what's your point? I said "...the US attempted to strictly adhere to the Geneva Convention." Do you dispute that?
Yes, I do. As noted in the main article above, U.S. soldier faced minor penalties, even when convicted of performing an atrocity. Even U.S. generals felt this way (my bold):
"When we land against the enemy, don't forget to hit him and hit him hard. When we meet the enemy we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender- oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him."
As Wikipedia continues (again, my bold):
After the [Biscari] massacre Patton was said to have stated that shooting the prisoners in ordered rows was "an even greater error". This was, it has been claimed, because Patton realised that leaving such evidence clearly indicated the POWs were shot in cold blood. If it appeared they had been shot in battle, it would have allowed the killings to escape detection. Neither Patton nor the unit commanding officer, Colonel E. Cookson, was held officially responsible in any way.
Whether cold-blooded murders of large groups or refusing to take prisoners in combat (not that this was much of a concern in the Pacific theater, as the Japanese often refused to surrender), American soldiers violated the Geneva Convention from time to time, and they made no special effort to “strictly adhere” to it while in combat, a sentiment echoed from their top commanders like General George S. Patton above.
Now, do I condone torture as a general policy? Of course, I do not and I never stated or insinuated anything that a rational person would construe in that manner. But I’m not dealing with a rational person, am I? I’m dealing with someone who makes irrational, unsupported claims that people who oppose his liberal viewpoint must be monsters that condone torture. This is precisely the kind of blind partisanship that makes up Kondrake’s underlying premise. You once again support his charges.
Thanks for being an excellent example.
So what's your point? I said "...the US attempted to strictly adhere to the Geneva Convention." Do you dispute that?
Yes, I do. As noted in the main article above, U.S. soldier faced minor penalties, even when convicted of performing an atrocity. Even U.S. generals felt this way (my bold):
"When we land against the enemy, don't forget to hit him and hit him hard. When we meet the enemy we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender- oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him."
As Wikipedia continues (again, my bold):
After the [Biscari] massacre Patton was said to have stated that shooting the prisoners in ordered rows was "an even greater error". This was, it has been claimed, because Patton realised that leaving such evidence clearly indicated the POWs were shot in cold blood. If it appeared they had been shot in battle, it would have allowed the killings to escape detection. Neither Patton nor the unit commanding officer, Colonel E. Cookson, was held officially responsible in any way.
Whether cold-blooded murders of large groups or refusing to take prisoners in combat (not that this was much of a concern in the Pacific theater, as the Japanese often refused to surrender), American soldiers violated the Geneva Convention from time to time, and they made no special effort to “strictly adhere” to it while in combat, a sentiment echoed from their top commanders like General George S. Patton above.
Now, do I condone torture as a general policy? Of course, I do not and I never stated or insinuated anything that a rational person would construe in that manner. But I’m not dealing with a rational person, am I? I’m dealing with someone who makes irrational, unsupported claims that people who oppose his liberal viewpoint must be monsters that condone torture. This is precisely the kind of blind partisanship that makes up Kondrake’s underlying premise. You once again support his charges.
Thanks for being an excellent example.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 24, 2006 11:13 AM (g5Nba)
5
Jeff, do not mistake my statement of not condoning torture to mean that condemn it or that I do not believe it could have its uses. Given the right set of circumstances, I might have been tempted to employ unorthodox techniques. Classroom and field training are entirely different from life and death combat. Different people react different ways. Doctrinally I do not condone torture or murder; on the battlefield people do what is necessary to survive and succeed. When it comes to combat, I'm not a romanticist who believes my side should die so some innocent is spared; I'm a realist that believes warfare/combat is that absolute failure of humanity.
Your contention that WWII was much more ethically executed does not account for the lack of news coverage then as compared to today. You are trying to compare two distinctly different battlefield environments with different microcosms. As Wolfwalker pointed out, the Pacific WWII Theater experienced was significantly different from the European Theater with a totally different enemy. How we conducted operations in the Pacific differed from Europe. We did employ some unorthodox techniques in the Pacific – like flame throwers to clear spider holes and caves of personnel.
My one question would be, do you want us to win the war against radical Islamic terrorists with a minimum loss of our Soldiers? Or do you content ethics above our Soldiers’ lives?
Your contention that WWII was much more ethically executed does not account for the lack of news coverage then as compared to today. You are trying to compare two distinctly different battlefield environments with different microcosms. As Wolfwalker pointed out, the Pacific WWII Theater experienced was significantly different from the European Theater with a totally different enemy. How we conducted operations in the Pacific differed from Europe. We did employ some unorthodox techniques in the Pacific – like flame throwers to clear spider holes and caves of personnel.
My one question would be, do you want us to win the war against radical Islamic terrorists with a minimum loss of our Soldiers? Or do you content ethics above our Soldiers’ lives?
Posted by: Old Soldier at May 24, 2006 11:16 AM (X2tAw)
6
I'm disappointed that Victor David Hanson feels the need to smear the honor of our WWII Patriots. Even more disappointing is you feel the need to repeat his lies.
Otherwise, you are spot on. The situation in politics today of extreme partisanship, backbiting, angry rhetoric, is entirely the fault of the Angry Left.
Otherwise, you are spot on. The situation in politics today of extreme partisanship, backbiting, angry rhetoric, is entirely the fault of the Angry Left.
Posted by: stockressy at May 24, 2006 04:52 PM (cg8tr)
7
No nations in the world with the exceptions of the United States and the U.K. have ever made the slightest pretense of following the Joke called the Geneva Convention. Someone please name another country that has even read the Geneva convention for any purpose other than to use it as club against us. It's time to flush it along with the Koran.
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 24, 2006 09:04 PM (y6n8O)
8
The comment by stockressy sums it up...
" The situation in politics today of extreme partisanship, backbiting, angry rhetoric, is entirely the fault of the Angry Left."
Really? There has never been any extreme partisanship or angry rhetoric from the right.
What bullies you all are. You don't mind the michele malkins or rush limbaughs, or anne coulters of the world but when you're on the recieving end, you whine about how angry those on the left are. I wonder if any of you will remember this call to bipartisanship should Hillary or Al Gore become president. Frankly, I don't know why I'm suprised, to conservatives, the fault always lies elsewhere.
" The situation in politics today of extreme partisanship, backbiting, angry rhetoric, is entirely the fault of the Angry Left."
Really? There has never been any extreme partisanship or angry rhetoric from the right.
What bullies you all are. You don't mind the michele malkins or rush limbaughs, or anne coulters of the world but when you're on the recieving end, you whine about how angry those on the left are. I wonder if any of you will remember this call to bipartisanship should Hillary or Al Gore become president. Frankly, I don't know why I'm suprised, to conservatives, the fault always lies elsewhere.
Posted by: nick f at May 25, 2006 12:51 PM (vgzEN)
9
"Congressmen [and government officials] who willfully take actions during wartime that damage the morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
- President Abraham Lincoln
Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Carter, Gore and Co... someone upstairs has your number.
"Congressmen [and government officials] who willfully take actions during wartime that damage the morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
- President Abraham Lincoln
Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Carter, Gore and Co... someone upstairs has your number.
Posted by: K-Det at May 25, 2006 07:34 PM (aaP7C)
10
K-Det, why stop there? That list should include names like Hagel and Specter and many other republicans. Odd ommision wouldn't you agree? Or does god only seek vengence on democrats?
Posted by: nick f at May 26, 2006 11:23 AM (vgzEN)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0124 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0094 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 16 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.