catapult magazine

Much of the Iraq war commentary lately has centered on the ?unsportsmanlike? way that the Iraqis are running their side of the conflict. The locals are not in uniform; they ambush the American and British troops; they make sneak attacks, and then they run away. They conscript other local people to fight on their side. They even take their anger out on their neighbors who do not want to resist the Coalition forces.
This sounds a lot like the rebels in the American Revolution. The British were incensed that the American rabble dressed like farmers; shot from behind trees, rather than standing up in rows to fight ?like civilized men;? made sneak attacks, and ambushed the stodgy British when they least expected an attack. The rebels did not allow their fellow citizens to be loyal to the British. Those who tried were forced to fight with the rebels because the alternative was to have your neighbors burn your house, seize your property, tar and feather you, and occasionally shoot or hang you.
So, why is it all right for American patriots to ignore all the ?rules of war? when defending their country (which, by the way, wasn?t ?their? country; they were lawless rebels), but those evil doers in Iraq can?t defend their country from invaders in the same fashion? And, by the way, isn?t it pretty hypocritical to have any ?rules for war?? Presumably this is not just some game.

I don’t want to sypathize with either side, because there is no right vs wrong here. Just wrong vs. wrong. But I’ve seen way too many American movies glorifying the outgunned underdog — Russell Crowe vs the Roman empire, Mel Gibson vs the English, Keanu Reeves vs the aliens, Frodo vs Mordor…

Dan,

Your “wrong vs. wrong” idea is the one I’ve been struggling with here (as I hear it expressed in many anti-war stances). Are you equating Saddam’s regime with Bush’s administration in terms of evil? If so, that’s just as much a broad sweep as the “right vs. wrong” stance. Or would you suggest that, in order to recognize the complexity of the situation, right and wrong must be judged according to degrees of right and wrong on some sort of pragmatic relative scale (“when in war, one may do as he wishes to reach the desired end result: victory against the opponent”)? If this is true, how can we have any standards in times of peace or war? Indeed, how could we even define anything as peace or war or freedom or slavery?

No I don’t equate Bush with Hussein. But at this moment, it is Bush that is causing the damage, not Hussein.

I fully support international standards in peace and war. However, both Bush and Hussein don’t leave much room for moral high ground since both have repeatedly disregarded international standards and institutions.

The original post of this thread presupposes that there’s a moral equivalence between the generation of the American Revolution and Saddam Hussein’s regime. This is complete nonsense.

American Revolutionaries didn’t use suicide bombers, didn’t torture POWs, didn’t use women and children as human shields and it was a volunteer army. There were no forced conscripts of this fashion.

If you read British accounts of the American revolution, you’d find that they saw American tactics as brutal, uncivilized, and unfair. Isn’t that how Americans see Iraqi tactics? Like you said earlier, times change, but the underdog still does what he can to gain what advantage he can.

Right, but by saying simply Bush and Saddam both have violated international standards, we’re not making sufficient distinctions. Just because the U.S. has used guerilla tactics that the British considered unfair in the past, this does not make the U.S. indistinguishable from Saddam’s regime now, which is using civilians as human shields and shooting those who want to surrender.

Checking in from the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, CA. Our brigade is training up for a future deployment.

People in Canada and France can sleep well. If they get invaded they won’t have to worry because the US will be there to protect them.

Continue with the US bashing. I’m going back to training We’ll be there to protect you. Don’t worry.

Hi Jason—This protection you’re talking about is the concern exactly. Since Iraq is being ‘preemptively protected’, isn’t it reasonable for Canadians and Europeans to be concerned about being protected from America rather than by it? I’m sure it’s hard to see that perspective from inside the military.

hey buurs: we’re praying for you and all soldiers (american and iraqi) involoved with the war. may God bring you home soon.