US soldiers "killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies"

September 9, 2010 6:20 AM

The Guardian reports allegations that a group of US soldiers in Afghanistan killed civilians for sport and collected their fingers as trophies.

(The same story in the Seattle Times.)

posted by Zarkonnen (87 comments total)

"They hate us for our freedom."
posted by nevercalm at 6:22 AM on September 9, 2010 [6 favorites]

Now?
posted by DU at 6:24 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

"They hate us for our freedom."

Well, if it's the freedom to shoot them for sport, you can hardly blame them.

Ugh. This story is equal parts adolescent idiocy and horror. Yay, us.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:25 AM on September 9, 2010

Hearts and minds.....


?
posted by Doohickie at 6:26 AM on September 9, 2010

here's the army times article
posted by ennui.bz at 6:29 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

I can't believe that this whole story came to light as a result of a report of these guys smoking hashish. Wouldn't the senseless murders be higher on the priority list of offences to report to one's superiors?
posted by Pseudology at 6:31 AM on September 9, 2010 [8 favorites]

One is from Wasilla, Alaska. Boy, that town's really been pulling more than its weight as far as destroying America's image both here and abroad.
posted by nevercalm at 6:32 AM on September 9, 2010 [39 favorites]

Gibbs is alleged to have shot him and placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to justify the killing.

Er, say what? I know about war trophies, but it sounds kind of weird that anyone would happen to be carrying an AK-47 out in the bush on top of all their other weapons and field gear. I wish they would have elaborated on this a little.
posted by crapmatic at 6:32 AM on September 9, 2010

I'm sure this revelation won't cause Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or any of the other war criminals, to lose one second of their precious sleep. When Obama announced that he called the former president, to tell him we were "leaving" Iraq, and stated that no one could doubt Bush's commitment to our military, it literally made me gag. What the fuck science fiction story do I live in?
posted by dbiedny at 6:35 AM on September 9, 2010 [11 favorites]

Er, say what? I know about war trophies, but it sounds kind of weird that anyone would happen to be carrying an AK-47 out in the bush on top of all their other weapons and field gear. I wish they would have elaborated on this a little.

If you already killed a guy carrying an ak-47.
posted by empath at 6:37 AM on September 9, 2010

Hashshashin
posted by aught at 6:42 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Morlock has made extensive statements to investigators — statements that his attorney, Michael Waddington, said he hopes to have suppressed because they were made under the influence of prescription drugs taken for head injuries sustained in battle. "Our position is that his statements were incoherent, and taken while he was under a cocktail of drugs that shouldn't have been mixed," Waddington said.

I know that after I take Nyquil, I babble about committing imaginary war atrocities. That stuff really packs a wallop.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:45 AM on September 9, 2010 [5 favorites]

Is anyone really surprised by this allegation? When mainline political parties and religions are advocating the kind of hate that we've seen in the past years, why wouldn't a 19 year old with a gun in a strange country see that as encouragement to partake in this type of behavior?
posted by HuronBob at 6:46 AM on September 9, 2010 [18 favorites]

.
posted by Erroneous at 6:46 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

sory to be so callous about this sort of thing but if you read up on what our soldiers did in the Pacific with collecting japanese "parts" and esp. skulls this would be no big surprise.
posted by Postroad at 6:47 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

You can't trust everything you read. The real story is almost certainly far worse.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:54 AM on September 9, 2010 [13 favorites]

Yeah, they collected Japanese parts during the war with Japan.

Not during the occupation of Japan, or later when based in an allied Japan. (Yes, there were rapes, a lot of them, but noit roving packs of killers.)

Supposedly, Afghanistan is a allied country, where our soldiers are based to support our ally and protect allied civilians, not to thrill kill them.
posted by orthogonality at 6:54 AM on September 9, 2010 [4 favorites]

Dehumanization of "the enemy" happens so, so incredibly easily. Something inside everyone, I guess.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:58 AM on September 9, 2010

Even though they don't allow pictures of blood and dead bodies or unfiltered interviews of real soldiers on the propoganda channels doesn't mean that this and worse, way way worse isn't happening every single day. Just because our American soldiers come prepackaged with Divine Approval and preapproved Department of Justice opinions doesn't mean that in reality theyre any different than other historical fighters in the region.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Dehumanization of "the enemy" happens so, so incredibly easily. Something inside everyone, I guess.

That is not an excuse. That is not EVER an excuse.
posted by SPUTNIK at 7:10 AM on September 9, 2010 [10 favorites]

Sure it's not an excuse. Just a sad truth.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:13 AM on September 9, 2010

Dehumanization of "the enemy" happens so, so incredibly easily.

It doesn't "happen," it's taught and encouraged. You can well argue that, much like the breaking down of an individual identity, this is necessary to have a functional armed force. The problem comes when you realize that these are barely-not-children out there and something like this happens. And has happened before. They used to collect ears in Vietnam. Tarantino didn't exactly pull the whole Nazi-scalping thing out of his ass for Inglorious Basterds.
posted by griphus at 7:19 AM on September 9, 2010 [10 favorites]

I'm detecting some rather repulsive echoes of 'Tiger Force', during the Vietnam war.
posted by FatherDagon at 7:24 AM on September 9, 2010

All we have to do is find a way to reanimate dead soldiers who have ptsd and we'll have the plot for Universal Soldier, creepy story.
posted by Fizz at 7:24 AM on September 9, 2010

Morlocks.
posted by hermitosis at 7:27 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

"One is from Wasilla, Alaska"
Yeah, just pass that buck and gimme your change will ya!
posted by Student of Man at 7:27 AM on September 9, 2010

Or the Buffy Sainte-Marie song, which is even creepier for being true.
posted by orthogonality at 7:27 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

I so hope the US Army will come out strongly and show soldiers that this is unacceptable. I don't know if they will. When military culture gets this rotten, it corrupts soldiers. This should never have been allowed to happen. Tragic for all of them, including the perpetrators, who must be held responsible, but who may have been acting out what they believed was an acceptable standard.

I have a son in the Army. The intensely macho, insular culture makes me uneasy. It's very hard for young people to resist a message of hatred and disrespect. It's not excusable, at all, but I also feel compassion for the soldiers.

Members of the US military don't have the same protections as other US citizens, so I'll be surprised if the confession is set aside.
posted by theora55 at 7:29 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

crapmatic: "Gibbs is alleged to have shot him and placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to justify the killing.

Er, say what? I know about war trophies, but it sounds kind of weird that anyone would happen to be carrying an AK-47 out in the bush on top of all their other weapons and field gear. I wish they would have elaborated on this a little."

Sounds like a "ham sandwich" although in this case, more of a "party sub."
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:39 AM on September 9, 2010

It doesn't "happen," it's taught and encouraged.

Yes, it's taught and encouraged, but it does "happen". If humans really needed a specific syllabus to learn to mentally dehumanize other people, it wouldn't be such a consistent feature of the human experience. I'm sure the US military is good at encouraging the process, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that humans just don't do this kind of thing without evil superiors cackling over army training manuals.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:44 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

My point is, we shouldn't pretend that this is a procedural problem with the US military. This is a problem with people in violent situations. This happens, and it will happen again. That doesn't excuse this particular gem of a human being, and he should be held responsible for his actions, but prosecuting him doesn't excuse us from considering the inevitability of this kind of atrocity in the situation we all have created.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:48 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

"What's everyone so upset about? I mean, Christ, I'm just a boy!"
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:50 AM on September 9, 2010 [5 favorites]

Command failure. It's always command failure.
posted by dglynn at 7:53 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Is anyone really surprised by this allegation? When mainline political parties and religions are advocating the kind of hate that we've seen in the past years, why wouldn't a 19 year old with a gun in a strange country see that as encouragement to partake in this type of behavior?

I am not seeing expressions of surprise so much as expressions of horror and anger.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:04 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

theora55: I so hope the US Army will come out strongly and show soldiers that this is unacceptable. I don't know if they will. When military culture gets this rotten, it corrupts soldiers. This should never have been allowed to happen. Tragic for all of them, including the perpetrators, who must be held responsible, but who may have been acting out what they believed was an acceptable standard.

It was documented in Japan. It was documented in Viet Nam. It's been happening all over Iraq and Afghanistan, too. This isn't a secret, the people who do this aren't sneaking around absolutely unknown to their fellow soldiers 'warfighters' and superiors. I'm not saying that our entire armed services are in on it, but this is not just a handful of super-seekrit bad apples. Not by a long shot.

The simple fact is that now, more than any other point in history the US armed forces are not recruiting people who want to defend this country, but recruiting people who want to kill human beings. Vice Lords and Gangster Disciples join the army to practice killing people without the risk of prison time, and they even blood in new recruits while they're over-seas. Fundamentalist and Islamaphobic nut-bags join because they want to kill Muslims. People who are mentally unbalanced with regard to anger and emotional stability are not only given a blind eye, but are given lower requirements for entry. And the people who served in despotic foreign armies citizenship as long as they do a few tours for us and do whatever they're told. All of which is before we even get to the army of unmonitored and outside the law mercenaries. With a need for so so many troops to fight such a stupid and unnecessary war, the army has no choice but to take anyone with a pulse who shows up. Anyone who is surprised that this kind of thing is happening right now today in our names has their head in the sand.

The US Army is not capable of fixing this problem, because the problem is the US Army.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:04 AM on September 9, 2010 [26 favorites]

Vice Lords and Gangster Disciples join the army to practice killing people without the risk of prison time, and they even blood in new recruits while they're over-seas. Fundamentalist and Islamaphobic nut-bags join because they want to kill Muslims. People who are mentally unbalanced with regard to anger and emotional stability are not only given a blind eye, but are given lower requirements for entry.

That seems like a great example of othering and dehumanization right there. I don't pretend to know the causes of this sickening behavior, but this sort of rhetoric puts off more heat than light.
posted by reverend cuttle at 8:19 AM on September 9, 2010 [9 favorites]

This story makes my heart hurt. I don't say that lightly.

It is terrible on so many levels. Of course, it is terrible because it happens, it is happening and will likely continue to happen. Those soldiers should be tried, and if convicted, serve out their sentences. We, as a nation, are supposed to be better. And their superiors should be questioned, investigated, etc. Of course. I'd like to believe we all agree on that.

However, it is also terrible because it allows people like paisley henosis here to completely disregard the people in uniform who are overseas doing good work. Those are some real sweeping generalizations you've made there. I recently met a US Major who is now stationed in Pakistan. And, you know what, he wasn't interested in cutting off the fingers of Pakistani's. Instead, he was getting ready to go live there for 14 months, separated from his new bride, and will likely spend most of his time helping flood victims. Obviously, the US has ulterior motives there in befriending the locals, but come on. Not every US soldier signs up so they can practice shooting at real live targets. This is more than insulting.
posted by fyrebelley at 8:38 AM on September 9, 2010 [9 favorites]

reverend cuttle: That seems like a great example of othering and dehumanization right there. I don't pretend to know the causes of this sickening behavior, but this sort of rhetoric puts off more heat than light.

Are you kidding? People who hunt humans for sport should be Other.


If you think all I'm doing is spouting rhetoric about and not being painfully exact and honest then you are very, very misinformed on this subject.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:41 AM on September 9, 2010 [4 favorites]

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be in the U.S. Army, especially when unconscionable shit like this takes place. Oh man.
posted by SeanMac at 8:47 AM on September 9, 2010 [6 favorites]

People who hunt humans for sport should be Other.

I was not defending the murderers, I was objecting to your characterization of the U.S. Army personnel as largely "nut-bags" and "gangster disciples." I teach many of these service personnel before and after their deployments, and I assure you they are 3-dimensional human beings with complex worldviews, feelings, and values.

and, I'd like to throw in the radical proposition that even those who hunt others for sport are the same species as us, and deserve to be treated as human beings, despite their heinous crimes.
posted by reverend cuttle at 8:48 AM on September 9, 2010 [4 favorites]

If I may play the mild contrarian here, I think it's silly to blame army culture, or even US culture. These soldiers, especially the ringleader, Gibbs, are obviously sociopaths who feel free to indulge their darkest urges in a warzone. There are always going to be guys like this, in every army.

My position is that this is the sort of thing that happens when you go to war. That doesn't mean it should be tolerated for one second. But beyond the perpetrators themselves, if we're to blame anything, it should be the policy of war itself, the sheer fact of our presence in Afghanistan.

It was documented in Japan. It was documented in Viet Nam. It's been happening all over Iraq and Afghanistan, too. This isn't a secret, the people who do this aren't sneaking around absolutely unknown to their fellow soldiers 'warfighters' and superiors. I'm not saying that our entire armed services are in on it, but this is not just a handful of super-seekrit bad apples. Not by a long shot.

This is, in my opinion, very hysterical and wrongheaded. First of all, you don't think this is a small group of bad apples? So you really think that this is common behavior for our soldiers? That's absurd; do you have any factual (non-purely anecdotal) reason to suggest so? Second, I'm sure this kind of behavior was documented in all those wars, because it's probably been documented in EVERY war. War is hell, and things like this are part of the reason why.

Of course the army teaches soldiers to view the enemy as less than human. Show me the army that doesn't do this, and I'll show you a history of defeat. It's not easy to get most people to shoot at strangers. So if you're going to fight a war, that's how you're going to do it.

If you want to indict anything, indict US policy for being in Afghanistan in the first place. Of course, Afghanistan isn't Iraq, and it's hard to imagine a real world scenario for the post 9/11 years that wouldn't have us occupying Afghanistan right now. Personally, I always opposed invading Iraq, but my feelings about the invasion of Afghanistan have been a lot more complicated.
posted by Edgewise at 8:52 AM on September 9, 2010 [4 favorites]

Salvor Hardin : but I don't think there's any reason to believe that humans just don't do this kind of thing without evil superiors cackling over army training manuals.

Yeah, humans have collected trophies from the dead for as long as humans have been killing other humans. It's a grim reminder of how thin the veneer of civilization is on us, and how little it takes to get us back to our dark roots, and the fastest way for us to get there is by taking the thing we are fighting and making it something other than a thinking feeling creature.

Still, it can't be tolerated. Once you've made the shift from "that person is my enemy and I must shoot them to protect myself and the people around me", to "that thing is something that needs to die" you've lost that bit of civilization, and become a threat to everyone.
posted by quin at 8:59 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

it sounds kind of weird that anyone would happen to be carrying an AK-47 out in the bush on top of all their other weapons and field gear

I don't remember whether it was a movie or some story that I read (and I'm sure someone will correct me in either case) that mentioned that it was a common practice among even well-intentioned soldiers to carry one or more confiscated AK-47's around in their humvee so that in the case of an accidental civilian killing they could drop it by the body and not get written up.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:03 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

If you want to indict anything, indict US policy for being in Afghanistan in the first place.

Which is exactly why the "most US soldiers are well-intentioned" line that invariably gets trotted out in these discussions is so wrongheaded.

Their intentions count for nothing. What counts is that they are voluntary participants in and facilitators of a war crime. As Obama put it with unintentional honesty, they are the "steel" in our imperial sword that is cutting innocent Muslim throats each and every day. They can not escape their moral complicity in this.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:07 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

reverend cuttle: I was not defending the murderers, I was objecting to your characterization of the U.S. Army personnel as largely "nut-bags" and "gangster disciples." I teach many of these service personnel before and after their deployments, and I assure you they are 3-dimensional human beings with complex worldviews, feelings, and values.

So what you are saying is that you are simply ignorant of the fact that Gangster Disciples (an actual group, not a denouncement of 'urban gamg types') are indeed known to be very active in the military, and you're further ignorant of examples like:

Here are two examples:

Last year, the New York Times reported that two Ohio recruiters were quick to sign up a recruit "fresh from a three-week commitment in a psychiatric ward ... even after the man's parents told them he had bipolar disorder - a diagnosis that would disqualify him". After senior officers found out, the mentally ill man's enlistment was canceled, but in "interviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states", the Times heard others talk of "concealing mental-health histories and police records", among other illicit practices.

This May, The Oregonian reported that army recruiters, using hard-sell tactics and offering thousands of dollars in enlistment bonus money, signed up an autistic teenager "for the army's most dangerous job: cavalry scout". The boy, who had been enrolled in "special-education classes since preschool" and through "a special program for disabled workers ... had a part-time job scrubbing toilets and dumping trash", didn't even know the US was at war in Iraq until his parents explained it to him after he was first approached by a recruiter. Only after a flurry of negative publicity did the army announce that it would release the autistic teen from his enlistment obligation.

Of certified mentally unstable people being actively recruited? (From here, with many other great examples)

So, next time, before you start telling me that I am full of shit, feel free to fucking check.
posted by paisley henosis at 9:12 AM on September 9, 2010 [4 favorites]

If as you say, it's common of every fighting force-- then there should be a great deal of oversight into limiting the chances of these events happening unnoticed.

What happens when a soldier comes back minus two grenades and a clip of ammunition? There should be an independent (of the soldiers immediate peers) review, if that means there's a recording device on each soldiers helmet that gets reviewed after any combat incidents, then do it.

To shrug if off as "There's always a few bad apples" when America seems addicted to an ever-larger military seems a bit weak. If there are bad apples, you need to remove them as efficiently as possible, starting with more strict psychological tests before they even join. But if they're already loose in the fighting force, you need to get them out as soon as possible-- a bad apple spoils the bunch.
posted by Static Vagabond at 9:13 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

PH's point about the quality of recruits is true. The US military is desperate for new bodies, and as a result has greatly lowered it's standards. There are inevitable consequences to that decision, and it ultimately hurts the nation.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:13 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Their intentions count for nothing. What counts is that they are voluntary participants in and facilitators of a war crime. As Obama put it with unintentional honesty, they are the "steel" in our imperial sword that is cutting innocent Muslim throats each and every day. They can not escape their moral complicity in this.

Even the people in uniform who reported, investigated and will prosecute this crime are morally complicit in it? Then so are you, for paying taxes, or for voting, or for living in America, or some other stupid excuse, so clearly you're a legitimate target for anyone who hates anything about America or the government at any given moment. Because your intentions don't count for anything either.
posted by Etrigan at 9:22 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

PH's point about the quality of recruits is true. The US military is desperate for new bodies, and as a result has greatly lowered it's standards. There are inevitable consequences to that decision, and it ultimately hurts the nation.

So perhaps more good people should sign up?
posted by Anything at 9:24 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

What horrors will come back with these vice lords, gangsters and murderers when they return to the soil of their native land. After the occupation and pacification of the Philippines we saw water cures come to a segregated south. We have collected an assembly of maniacs and set them loose upon our enemies. Perhaps this was the dread Alexander felt when his eyes gazed out and he had no more worlds to conquer. Or maybe this was the truth in Bush's fight them over there so we don't fight them here (see: McVeigh).
posted by humanfont at 9:33 AM on September 9, 2010

Still, it can't be tolerated.

Which is why the Army is prosecuting this.

Which has not always been the case. Far from it.

So two cheers for that, at least. Other armies have not always cared.

(I can remember how relieved the military was once the draft was ended because it meant they didn't have to deal with low lifes who didn't care to or know how to dodge the draft. For a few years at least, they took a pride in the quality of their recruits. War changes everything.)
posted by IndigoJones at 9:40 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

I don't remember whether it was a movie or some story that I read (and I'm sure someone will correct me in either case) that mentioned that it was a common practice among even well-intentioned soldiers to carry one or more confiscated AK-47's around in their humvee so that in the case of an accidental civilian killing they could drop it by the body and not get written up.

Also cell phones, wire, batteries and other "incriminating" items of hardware.
posted by notreally at 9:41 AM on September 9, 2010

So perhaps more good people should sign up?

We try, but none of you people of concience seem to be joining. We would be better off if more were in. Creating a culture that is the reflection of the best of America means we need more of the best of America in it.

On the plus side, there still are good people that join, and if enough are in it, they can fight the good fight to make the military more humane.

Not blaming you guys or telling you to join, but the culture of the servicemembers would probably be better if you did.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:48 AM on September 9, 2010

Even the people in uniform who reported, investigated and will prosecute this crime are morally complicit in it? Then so are you, for paying taxes, or for voting, or for living in America, or some other stupid excuse, so clearly you're a legitimate target for anyone who hates anything about America or the government at any given moment.

Of course I'm morally complicit in this. Did you expect me to disagree? The knife that severed those fingers was paid for with my taxes.

But let's be frank. These soldiers did not display any greater callousness towards innocent life than the men who sent them there. The soldiers' transgression was being caught enjoying it. Their transgression was intruding into our media-sanitized view of the war with the actual body parts and gore.

To be a just representation of reality, Obama's "mission accomplished" speech should have been delivered from behind a row of Iraqi skulls - the hands folded on his desk saturated with dripping human blood.

You liberated us from "dictatorship" with 5 times the size of a Hiroshima and a Nagasaki...you liberated us until there was no space left in our morgues, and 7 and half years later, we still search for the dead...you liberated us until our streets turned into pools of blood, and mosques became torture dungeons where those hajjis were having their eyes plucked out and their flesh drilled, you liberated us so we can be abducted, raped and murdered for a 1000$ or for wearing lipstick...you liberated us so our bodies can float on the Tigris and Euphrates, mutilated unrecognizable...you liberated us alright...stuffing us in prisons cells, covering us with your piss and excrements, or handing us to your mercenaries and your pimps and whores in turbans, while you fucked the prostitutes specially brought to you in your Green Fortress... and while the rest of us lived in walled ghettos that you constructed for us...
posted by Joe Beese at 9:51 AM on September 9, 2010 [5 favorites]

What happens when a soldier comes back minus two grenades and a clip of ammunition?

Does the military track ammunition like this? I honestly have no idea what goes on in a war zone. How hard would it be to just go around killing people without higher ups finding out, especially in situations where the soldiers are fairly isolated like some parts of Afghanistan?
posted by Mavri at 9:55 AM on September 9, 2010

So perhaps more good people should sign up?



Or perhaps people are shaped by their material circumstances.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:59 AM on September 9, 2010

Joe Beese: "I know that after I take Nyquil, I babble about committing imaginary war atrocities. That stuff really packs a wallop."

You take Nyquil for head injuries?
posted by pyrex at 10:10 AM on September 9, 2010

What happens when a soldier comes back minus two grenades and a clip of ammunition? There should be an independent (of the soldiers immediate peers) review, if that means there's a recording device on each soldiers helmet that gets reviewed after any combat incidents, then do it.

I have to disagree. This is how the military is different from the police. You WANT cops to think twice about discharging their weapons. Soldiers...not as much. A soldier needs to be able to react quickly and decisively. Yes, this will result in unnecessary death and destruction, which is just one of the burdens of war. Thinking twice is what our politicians should do before sending our boys into these situations. By the time they're on the ground, it's too late to do a lot of soul searching.

It's arguable that maybe we should have some kind of policing force for situations like this. But then, that starts to look to a lot of people like some kind of 'colonial police force,' and signals an intent to occupy other nations. I don't know if that kind of thing is diplomatically viable. But if we keep getting involved in conflicts like these, it would certainly be practical.

So perhaps more good people should sign up?

A nice idea, but a hard sell when one political faction is glorifying the military and screaming for blood, and the other faction is equating soldiers with murderers and besmirching the institution.
posted by Edgewise at 10:19 AM on September 9, 2010

and the other faction is equating soldiers with murderers and besmirching the institution.

Are Democrats doing this, really?
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:27 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

The kind of behavior these five young men engaged in is a disgrace. They need to be tried and punished.
I want to mention also that when similar behavior became rampant in the Soviet forces in Afghanistan, they began to lose their war.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 10:30 AM on September 9, 2010

This would never have happened if the US military uniform was business casual.
posted by srboisvert at 10:36 AM on September 9, 2010

The kind of behavior these five young men engaged in is a disgrace. They need to be tried and punished.

If by "punished" you mean "hung by the neck until dead, Dead, DEAD!", then I concur.
posted by mikelieman at 11:00 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm glad these guys were caught, and hope they're fully prosecuted. There's already a perception, at least as far as I can tell from America, among Iraqis and Afghans that Americans do this shit and get away with it all the time (which may be true, though I tend to doubt it on the whole). It's important to make an example of these guys and say, look, we're at war, but we don't tolerate this shit. This isn't a fucking video game, those are real people who we're here to protect, not kill.

The only real problem is that the Army's gonna be seen as soft on these guys for anything less than the death penalty.
posted by klangklangston at 11:25 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

The killings came to light in May after the army began investigating a brutal assault on a soldier who told superiors that members of his unit were smoking hashish.

As someone who may or may not have indulged in high quality Afghan hashish, I'm curious...

How the hell does this stuff NOT soften one's urges to kill another human being, let alone do anything at all?

I'm sorry, but if we have people who smoke that stuff and still do horrendous things like this, I don't know if I can buy the idea that the Army alone is responsible for encouraging this behavior. These guys obviously were already swinging the hammer, the military just pointed at nails.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 11:42 AM on September 9, 2010

those are real people who we're here to protect, not kill

That they happen to be living on top of a trillion dollars worth of minerals is probably a coincidence.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:45 AM on September 9, 2010

Some soldiers, in conversations with families, attorneys and investigators, have vigorously rejected the charges filed against them.

The principal source appears to be Morlock. And Morlock's attorney says he had four concussions, that he made his statements under the influence of medications for his head injuries, and "that Our position is that his statements were incoherent, and taken while he was under a cocktail of drugs that shouldn't have been mixed," Waddington said. "What he said is not consistent with other evidence that comes out of the case."

These are allegations. The military hasn't even decided yet if it has enough evidence for a court martial. I hope to God the tale is untrue. If these charges are proved, that would be a fine time to talk about appropriate punishment.
posted by bearwife at 11:49 AM on September 9, 2010

The remaining seven soldiers are charged with participating in the cover-up, which included smoking hashish stolen from the civilians

I guess when you are killing people and claiming parts of their bodies as trophies, smoking their hash probably does not register as a "this is wrong" sort of thing.
posted by Danf at 12:00 PM on September 9, 2010

Vice Lords and Gangster Disciples join the army to practice killing people without the risk of prison time, and they even blood in new recruits while they're over-seas.

Do you have a citation for this, other than that four-year-old report from a local TV news station which only cites a hick-town cop? Because I'd like to hear more about this.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:02 PM on September 9, 2010

There is a lot of info on gangs in the military available via Google. Here's an article from Stars & Stripes on the subject.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:05 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

"That they happen to be living on top of a trillion dollars worth of minerals is probably a coincidence."

In this case, yeah, it's a coincidence. Or are you saying that these Army assholes were intentionally killing civilians and collecting their fingers in, what, some sort of long-term laptop battery plan? Because the minerals have fuck all to do with what I said or what these guys did, despite your glib half-assertions to the contrary.
posted by klangklangston at 1:12 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Of course the army teaches soldiers to view the enemy as less than human. Show me the army that doesn't do this, and I'll show you a history of defeat. It's not easy to get most people to shoot at strangers. So if you're going to fight a war, that's how you're going to do it.

The list of cultures that "didn't do this" includes the classical Greeks, the classical Chinese, and the Americans and British in the European theater in WWI and II. Even in total war, respect for the enemy is more than compatible with victory -- it's often a contributing factor.

There's a good deal of evidence that dehumanizing the enemy decreases combat effectiveness [PDF] and contributes to PTSD. The devaluation of the enemy's life and contribution leads naturally to a devaluation of one's own life and contribution, which leads to risk-taking, disobedience, and disorder... and, worst of all, inevitably leads to misjudging the enemy. Soldiers who are taught to disrespect the enemy develop habits like transmitting sensitive information in the clear because they believe the enemy to be ignorant or stupid... something very few enemies actually are.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu

War is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making War; therefore, what we have just said as to the aim of action in War applies to both parties. Here, then, is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, he may defeat me; then I shall be no longer my own master; he will dictate the law to me as I did to him. - Clausewitz

You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I say unto you: it is the good war that hallows any cause. - Nietzsche
posted by vorfeed at 1:28 PM on September 9, 2010 [5 favorites]

How Do Long Wars Become So Long?

There are no "do-overs" in long wars
posted by homunculus at 1:51 PM on September 9, 2010

In this case, yeah, it's a coincidence. Or are you saying that these Army assholes were intentionally killing civilians and collecting their fingers in, what, some sort of long-term laptop battery plan? Because the minerals have fuck all to do with what I said or what these guys did, despite your glib half-assertions to the contrary.

You said American soldiers were there to protect Afghani civilians. (Which isn't what we were told in 2001, of course. But that's what Time magazine says now, so why not.)

I offered an alternate theory.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:31 PM on September 9, 2010

"The list of cultures that "didn't do this" includes the classical Greeks, the classical Chinese, and the Americans and British in the European theater in WWI and II. Even in total war, respect for the enemy is more than compatible with victory -- it's often a contributing factor."

Americans and British in Euro WWI and II? Dude, have you not heard of The Hun? He is bad and here to rape your children. Likewise, for Greeks pretty much everyone not of the Polis was less than human, likewise plenty of people in the Polis (women, slaves). I don't know enough to speak on the Chinese, but I'd bet there was more than a little demonizing there too.
posted by klangklangston at 3:33 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

"You said American soldiers were there to protect Afghani civilians. (Which isn't what we were told in 2001, of course. But that's what Time magazine says now, so why not.)

I offered an alternate theory."

Oh, bullshit. You lazily snarked and got caught slipping. Not only did your comment not make sense in the context of mine (which you quoted), but it still doesn't make sense outside of that context—that there are minerals in Afghanistan has nothing to do with whether or not these soldiers were acting either immorally or as representative of the US Army as a whole. Save your third-rate talking points for Kos diaries.
posted by klangklangston at 3:38 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh, bullshit. You lazily snarked and got caught slipping. Not only did your comment not make sense in the context of mine (which you quoted), but it still doesn't make sense outside of that context...

You said:

It's important to make an example of these guys and say, look, we're at war, but we don't tolerate this shit. This isn't a fucking video game, those are real people who we're here to protect, not kill.

I disagree with your assertion that American soldiers are in Afghanistan to protect Afghani civilians. I counter-assert that American soldiers are in Afghanistan to advance American business interests. I do so by suggesting that a trillion dollars in mineral wealth is something in which American business might be particularly interested. Though there's the long-dreamed pipeline. And the lucrative military contracting itself, of course.

If you insist that I confine my comments to these particular sociopaths: Yes, they acted immorally. [Though again, no more so than their Commander in Chiefs.] And yes, their wanton butchery quite representative of the effects of the American military presence in Afghanistan.
posted by Joe Beese at 4:56 PM on September 9, 2010

Are Democrats doing this, really?

I didn't say republicans and democrats. I'm talking about vocal extremists. There's more on the right than the left, but you don't have to go very far to see left wing hostility towards the military as an institution.
posted by Edgewise at 8:17 PM on September 9, 2010

There is a lot of info on gangs in the military available via Google.

Of course there are gang members in the military. What I find dubious is the claim that gangs have their members "join the army to practice killing people without the risk of prison time." That sounds like Fox News fear-mongering.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:04 PM on September 9, 2010

Americans and British in Euro WWI and II? Dude, have you not heard of The Hun? He is bad and here to rape your children. Likewise, for Greeks pretty much everyone not of the Polis was less than human, likewise plenty of people in the Polis (women, slaves).

I'm talking about the attitudes of the people fighting, not state propaganda. Despite the idea of "the Hun", the treatment of Germans captured by the British and Americans during WWI and II was largely respectful. And no, the Greeks didn't respect women or slaves, but they did show respect toward warriors on the field of battle, even those outside the polis (Persians, for instance)... which is, again, the topic at hand.

The idea that the enemy is bad is one thing -- that's perfectly natural, given that you're trying to convince everyone to kill them -- but the idea that they're not worthy of respect as opponents is folly.
posted by vorfeed at 10:00 PM on September 9, 2010

And no, the Greeks didn't respect women or slaves, but they did show respect toward warriors on the field of battle, even those outside the polis

Where do you think the Greeks got their slaves from?

The greeks often slaughtered every adult male after a resisted seige, as well, as did almost all ancient cultures. You are seriously looking at the past with rose colored glasses. There is no such thing as an honorable war.
posted by empath at 10:18 PM on September 9, 2010

As I get older, I become more supportive of mandatory military service. I think our society would be more conservative in its use of military conflict. I also suspect that if used for peace-keeping, military service to other nations will develop a society more interested in global welfare. Pretty much a win-win for everyone everywhere.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:08 PM on September 9, 2010

Where do you think the Greeks got their slaves from? The greeks often slaughtered every adult male after a resisted seige, as well, as did almost all ancient cultures. You are seriously looking at the past with rose colored glasses. There is no such thing as an honorable war.

The idea that there is no honor in war does not fit with actual behavior in war, which has always involved ritualization as well as brutality. If you mean to say that there's no entirely honorable war, sure... but that's not a particularly meaningful statement, seeing as how there's no entirely honorable human being, either.

I'm not claiming the Greeks didn't kill or enslave their enemies; simply that they did place cultural value on respecting their enemies as enemies when on the battlefield.
posted by vorfeed at 12:25 AM on September 10, 2010

I wish we had an all-female army, a la God Emperor of Dune.
posted by diocletian at 12:26 AM on September 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

So perhaps more good people should sign up?

Why? The last ones came back all fucked up.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 10:46 AM on September 10, 2010

...there's no entirely honorable human being, either.

Clearly sir, you have not met my father, sir.

As to the Greeks ill treatment of their enemies, you need only go to the end of the Peloponnesian war to confute that. Despite the calls from Corinth and Thebes to enslave the defeated Athenians, Sparta refused to let it happen. Sparta honored Athens for its past service to all Greeks (and presumably to her potential future contributions).
posted by IndigoJones at 4:18 PM on September 13, 2010

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war
posted by homunculus at 10:11 AM on September 22, 2010

Young Soldier Both Revered and Reviled
posted by homunculus at 10:04 PM on October 4, 2010