Earlier this week, a Marine invaded our television sets by killing a wounded and unarmed insurgent in a Fallujah mosque. Naturally, the Muslim world is shocked, shocked. But so are many Americans, unaccustomed perhaps to seeing war on something other than the silver screen.

From my living room, it appears that the Marine acted callously and without regard for human life...from my living room. But the disturbing incident took place in a much less controlled environment than from where I witnessed it. Consider that the Marine shooting the unarmed fighter was wounded in the face the day prior, that a block from where the mosque incident took place a booby-trapped body had killed another Marine, and that the Marines had just been warned to look out for Iraqis feigning death to inflict death.

Our enemies get to decapitate, kidnap, and intentionally blow-up civilians. Americans are to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Marines are to be cautious, indulgent, and willing to give the enemy the benefit of the doubt. In other words, they are to be reckless with their own lives.

Should those employing every dirty trick in the book be surprised when Americans react to them as if they are capable of employing every dirty trick in the book?

You also must consider the fact that enemy insurgents often fake being wounded in order to draw our troops in for easier kills. If you listen to the tape, the Marine shooter is saying something to the effect of, "He's faking." The Marine honestly believed the man was armed with intent to kill.

Your question is an irrelevant one: whether the enemy is surprised or not matters little. What matters is that our soldiers are allowed to defend themselves.

I've never been in combat and never hope to be; still, I can't help but think that, in a similarly stressful situation, I would have acted similarly. That is, I would have acted to save my own life.

This is the same principle under which, when a motorist is pulled over, a cop has his hand on his pistol. Even if the motorist a benign 80 year old woman, cops are trained to protect their lives; why should our soldiers be expected to perform any differently under admittedly more severe and more violent conditions?

This is the problem with having new technologies in war and using the modern media that allow us to sit in our living rooms and observe real men in real combat situations.

Incidences like this should not be broadcast and then be subjected to public opinion. The general public is not qualified with enough information and incapable of making a judgment call based on a real combat scenario.

Never mind the fact that the sole purpose of us having troops in Iraq is to kill the bad guys. ALL OF THE BAD GUYS!!! That includes anybody who is even suspected of being an enemy.

This should not even be an issue.

Anybody who’s ever been in a hot combat zone know that everything is a split second decision and it’s kill or be killed.

Marine did the right thing and I hope they continue to act accordingly.

Although I agree with Dan's post, some of these comments do show a reckless attitude toward human life. The previous entry is an example. If we can do our job of pacifying the country and get out without killing every bad person there, we should. Moreover, being suspected of being a bad guy does not make a person's killing A-OK.

This is one of the reasons we have civilian oversight of the military, because civilians err on the side of being disgusted at unnecessary killing, when desensitized soldiers, whom we've paid to become killers, don't.

War is ugly, and this kind of thing happens. It's one good reason not to get involved in unnecessary wars.

Short,

I think there are very few people who really want to go to war. However, there are many more reasonable people who understand that sometimes we need to go to war.

Justified or not, now that we’re there, I would rather see dead Iraqis than to see dead Americans.

So whatever our forces deem necessary to defend themselves and win, I’m all for it.

Sometimes discretionary combat is possible. Most times it is not.

Your attitude typically reflects the armchair generals among us who sit comfortably at home and opinionate about something that they have no clue about.

If you want to get right down to it, to ‘win’ and create a truly orderly and peaceful environment in Iraq, nuking Falluah would have been a means to reach an end.

Then, our young men would not have to make the kinds of decisions that some people in this country are so upset about.

ASDF:

"[N}uking Fallujah would have been a means to an end," namely the end of creating a "truly orderly and peaceful environment" in Iraq, is this DB/Apu mocking us conservatives by disguising himself as a hardliner?

Granted, a city is a pretty "peaceful" environment after a nuclear attack, it is also desolate and uninhabitable. You seemed to be trying to make a reasonable objection to Short but if that is your attitude towards Iraqi lives your callousness speaks against taking your criticisms seriously.

Short,

I really like Sgt. Schultz's comments, particularly because I do find the idea of "imbedded" reporters troublesome and think that the presence of journalists in war zones is not the best of ideas generally.

One example from Nam is the horrific and famous photograph of the Sth Vietnamese officer shooting an ununiformed VC in the head in a summary execution. You know, the photo where the bullet is actually still in his brain before it exits. Anyway, the photographer who captured what became the quintessential image of the unjustice of that war is moved to tears by his regret at ever having taken that picture. He tells the story of how it ruined the life of that officer b/c images are inherently distorted and misleading views of reality (ala Plato :) ). The context of that execution actually justified it in war but the photo doesn't give us that, just as a few seconds of NBC video don't in the current case.

The point is that civilian oversight of the military does NOT mean demotic oversight of the military by means of popular media or the press in general. It means oversight by the President, Congress, and the Secretary of Defense.

As to your comment about not engaging in unnecessary wars, absolutely, but even in a just war I would find the invasion of the camera and the press troublesome.

Brian: I agree with almost everything. But the fact of the matter is that Schultz and asdf show an incredibly imprudent deference to the judgment of soldiers: whatever they deem appropriate, including nuking a city, if it saves one american soldier's life, must be granted . . . blah blah. This is just soap boxing, showing no sensitivity to the personhood of their enemies.

It is an ambiguous situation, of course. I would probably acquit. But be honest, it looks like that soldier made a wise-crack killing of a person, who seemed to not be a threat. He probably killed him so easily because he has been killing and been shot at constanty for a week and a half. I'm not judgmental toward him, but it is tragic, and I find it disgusting that some people want to add more wise cracks -- amen lines to his clever "well, he's dead now."

To Schultz and asdf: Don't we need to draw the line somewhere? Your rheroric seems to think that all's fair in war. That's terrifying.

I suppose I don’t mean ‘Nuking’ literally so let me put it this way: Leveling.

The best way for us to take control over there is to show resolve by making a violent statement. Leveling Fallujah with bombs, tanks, whatever it takes would warn these so-called insurgents that we mean business.

It makes less sense that we have 19 year old Marines engaging in hand to hand combat with these animals.

The majority of the population over there wants to be able to live without constant war and death and the only way to deliver a relatively peaceful existence is to eradicate the people causing the chaos.

In our perfect world, a sit down discussion over a couple of beers would be best. But, that ain’t going to happen as we don’t live in our perfect world.

Short: the kind of attitude that you have (and I do respect it, really) is what lost us Viet Nam and will eventually lead to more soldiers getting killed in Iraq for eventually the same results we had in Southeast Asia.

Short,

Maybe Sarge will post again as I took him to be saying something different than ASDF and to be venting an understandable frustration at the way in which the media impacts (like Sowell discusses) the safety and morale of the troops. Maybe he is making a stronger and harsher statement like ASDF, I dunno.

As for your additional comments, ASDF, I thinking that I would still have the same objection to your approach to war. It is a frequently taken stance (and I understand the cold pragmatic logic of it) to basically say "war is hell so we have to act like the devil to win."

A Civil War general (I can't remember which, I believe it was Lee) said something to the effect that "War is Hell which is a good thing as I fear we should else grow to desire it so." But this view of war isn't a justification for practicing terrorism on the civilians of the South as Sherman and the Yankee army did; nor does it justify carpet bombing in Dresden by Churchill; or the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is the old issue of the jus bello, the just means of fighting a war. The basic (and wholly Christian) principle involved is that evil actions only beget evil and fighting a war justly is a crucial part of being a just people.

Otherwise, we will see little difference between us and those "animals" you talk of.

The fact that liberals are squeamish and would rather take all of our guns away, and abolish the death penalty, and ban spanking, and I dunno, mandate vegetarianism, certainly justifies treating their shock at the violence of war skeptically and even mocking them when appropriate. However, a pacifist's inability to understand violence and war doesn't mean we should err on the other extreme and become bloodthirsty.

Dude I can't believe how preachy my post sounds, I will try to avoid that in the future!

Good and noble thoughts and observations. Just a quick finish to my rag and then I’m off to enjoy the weekend.

I would only be an advocate of using nuclear weapons when necessary (and, yes there might be times when they are necessary). The examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are good ones and the same effect could be gotten with the right conventional weapons.

Both instances proved the shock value provided by such a display will stop an enemy dead in their tracks. Force is the only thing that some less enlightened cultures respect.

Sorry, but that’s the truth.

Why so much rumination about a man who deserved death and received it? He was only unarmed and wounded because his weapon (fired at U.S. soldiers) and his health were taken from him in the course of combat. There's a military slogan I'm searching for here - something about letting God sort them out.

I seriously do understand righteous indignation against our legitimately recognized and targeted enemies, but the problem Brad is that God will be sorting us all out.

(I know Brad will appreciate the reference so: Mt. 5, verses 7, 9, and conclude with verses 16 and 20, 44-45.)

Bush is and will be much more effective at fighting international Islamic terrorism than Kerry would have been but we should still do it with, well, class.

I personally try to always give our soldiers the benefit of a doubt, for at least 3 reasons. (1) Most media sources are anti-war and anti-America. (2) Our soldiers are facing a very, very evil enemy that has shown time and time again that it has no conscience and is willing to kill women and children. (3) Like many Americans, I have had the privelige of meeting some of our soldiers.
Always remember that most major media sources, here and in Europe, have an anti-America bias. Call me naive, but I try to take media reports from Iraq with a grain of salt, until our troops and commanders have a chance to set the record strait.

(1) We are following Geneva Convention (GC) rules and we should be insisting on using the relevant GC rule - that unlawful combatants are NOT protected and can literally be treated in any way we like.
(2) We are not. Instead, we are binding our soldiers by the UCMJ's internalization of the GC. We need to change that.
(3) BUT to do so we have to come up with new rules. NO rules would be incredibly corrosive for our troops. In the almost-lawless stress environment of combat, we have to have rules. We just need new ones for this kind of war.
(4) No one sitting here can judge the Marine. We see the clip and nothing else. The Marines have been pretty good, historically, about assigning tough lawyers to defend marines, promoting those who win (no matter how unpopular the case) and running hard-nosed investigations. Give them time.
(5) Finally, if the Marine knew the guy was unarmed, knew he was harmless, and still shot him - then hang him. That's against the rules, he knew it, and that rule makes good sense, even in this war.
But we don't know that's what happened.

BEEN THERE.

To get to the other side?