This morning on the radio I heard some excerpts from a conversation [NPR "U.S. Soldiers Try to Bridge Cultural, Military Divide in Iraq," Philip Reeves] of a US Soldier speaking to an Iraqi in English, chastising him for ripping a newspaper in his face, presumably as a gesture of defiance. The Iraqi man was speaking back in Arabic. The Soldier paused from his scolding to comment to the recording reporter about how what he's doing is effecting cultural exchange and if they (the military) don't keep up this sort of interaction, neither one of them (the military or the Iraqis) will understand each other. Um, Staff Seargent? They don't understand you and you don't understand them. That's very clear. "We're trying to help you... we're doing the right thing." Props, but it's not that easy.

Then, there's this: Gitmo: SouthCom Showdown, Newsweek and the resultant Afghan Protest over Quran Turns Deadly, Washington Post. Apart from the enemy combatant issue (ie not being w/i the scope of the Geneva Convention), doing things like flushing the Quran down the toilet to get a rise from detainees is not only pointless, it has repercussions in the "moderate" muslim sphere. Personally, it makes it harder for me to justify the ends via these means. It makes it even more difficult than it already is to explain my positions on why projection of American intent in a predominantly muslim area of the world is justified. If this is the views muslims are given, it's very easy to see how the American military is incorrect. If the only opposing views muslims are given are bleeding heart, socialist, Canadian NGOs, it's a travesty to an American cause.

When the Abu Ghraib incidents happened, I was of the opinion that prosecution by the military would be an example of how rule of law is implemented - abuses of power are acknowledged and punished within the system. The conclusion would be that there are idiots but that an organized system can do something about it. Additionally, it was mistreatment of individuals which, no matter how many pictures are taken, is a reality of our world.

I don't read any positive effects -- or even positive spin -- of how American organizational constructs are effecting Iraq or Afghanistan. There's a new government in Iraq, sure, yet our own leftists decry it as a puppet government and that trickles down to the Iraqi people. Both the Afghanis and Iraqis are tolerating the US military - where's the external organization promoting the benefits of building a stable state? The military's scope on promoting the US can only be decried as "disinformation." Organizations that promote an appealing version of democracy to the middle east while acknowledging the strides in political change over the years in that region are non existent, leaving as an exercise for the reader to weave some sort of positive effects from scattered reports.

Without some sort of actual external framework to win the peace, there will be no peace and the people supporting the concept will cease to exist.

A report's soon to be issued by US SouthCom on events at gitmo. For this incident, legal proceedings aren't going to be enough to assuage level headed people. The military or the government's going to have to make some sort of gesture tantamount to a religious apology. The President made some comment that the events of Abu Ghraib don't reflect the attitude of the American people. That was enough for something that can be conceived as being an isolated incident. To miss this PR opportunity will be tantamount to an overt converse gesture and will fan the flames of the notion that this is just a modern Crusade.

The apology should not be made by Army Lt. General William G. Boykin who's on record as saying:
  • "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." - with regards to a Muslim warlord in Somalia. [Sir, it's the same God.]
  • "We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said wrt the War on Terror, 2002.