war crimes committed by the U.S. occupiers - is it a consequence of invasion and illusions of supremacy?

Question

the war crimes committed by the U.S. occupiers. In the months since, revelations of U.S. soldiers committing mass killings, torture in Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities, and now rape have only become more pronounced in their brutality.
The latest atrocity to come to light took place March 12 in the town of Al-Mahmudiyah. According to reports, then-Private Steven Green and at least two other soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division allegedly stalked 15-year-old Abeer Kasim Hamza for a week.

Green and other soldiers then raped and murdered Abeer--after first killing her mother Fakhriya Taha Muhsen, father Kasim Hamza Rasheed and 5-year-old sister Hadel. In an attempt to cover up the crime, the soldiers then burned the lower half of Abeer’s body and set the famiily’s farmhouse on fire.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/595/595_03_WarCrimes.shtml

Answer 1

If I could categorize them, I would say atrocities are consequence of invasion in the illusion of supremacy.
American army does not have any strategy in Iraq, Special forces are trained in psychological aspect of war and its effects on mind and psyche, but the rest of the army is not, they find reason for war from holy war to bringing democracy to "animals", it seem that Little by Little they are desensitized about worth of Iraqi citizens as human beings. To belittle their soldiers duty as they have, they are thinking of all non American in this area as enemy, and since an enemy is an alien without no rights except to receive "divine" punishments from right army they think that everything is a video game , non real, without consequences moral , law or any other.
They by day they sink lower.
There was a study that said that human can only endure up to 60 non stop days of combat experience , after that he becomes psychological casualties,( combat experience meaning head to head fight, but when you every time when you look in the faces of Iraqi see enemy and expect knife, bullet or hatchet?)
So I would think that this war will bring another dump of psychological combat cases, for USA psychiatrist to work and find new things about human psyche in war.
Atrocities also can empower all that have made them, and they will not say that this is wrong except they loose , or they finally being judged and named for the wrongdoings, then they will acknowledge by themselves their wrongdoings otherwise there will be more and more atrocities.
It is obviously that the only reason for prolongation of occupation of Iraq by US army is oil, and not democracy , but human psyche needs clear victory to justify all deaths of Friends in war, and how can you morally justify an oil war, no they will be there till there is something new that will give them moral justification for they vacation in middle east, will that be perhaps Iran, or Syria, who knows.

Answer 2

The incidents you have mentioned constitute two different types of crime.

There are human rights violations, such as what has happened and is happening at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other US detention centers around the world, including denial of due process and torture. These violations are institutional and systematic; the most likely result is what we've already seen: a few low ranking soldiers get prosecuted for torture and everyone else, including the system itself, escapes prosecution.

Then there are actual war crimes. In Iraq, these primarily consist of soldiers who rape, murder, and/or otherwise terrorize non-combatant civilians. There are probably many more of these instances than have been uncovered thus far. Again, the problem is systemic as it appears that soldiers are not receiving adequate instruction as to the Code of Conduct, specifically in how to regard and treat non-combatant civilians. Rather, it would appear that many of them are arriving in Iraq with an attitude of "let's eliminate the ragheads." Until those in command make it painfully clear to the soldiers on the ground that mistreatment of noncombatants will not be tolerated and will be punished severely, incidents of abuse will persist. Soldiers that do get prosecuted for these crimes will likely face punishment; yet the system that tacitly encourages the abuse will remain unchanged.

What causes both of these types of crimes to happen? In the case of the systemic human rights violations, it could be argued that the present administration and its lack of regard for human rights standards, such as the Geneva Convention, and its apparent willingness to "see what it can get away with" is responsible.

As to the war crimes committed in situ by soldiers against non-combatant civilians, this is only in part caused by the system's lack of proper indoctrination on treating civilians. The real cause of this type of crime is war itself. Soldiers driven to the breaking point by long periods of boredom punctuated by the sheer horror of combat, particularly after they lose friends and respected leaders, are particularly prone to acting out this way. More specifically, most participants in this kind of war crime when asked why this happened will respond that they were "jacked up" by the loss of a friend or leader and that they were looking for "pay back." It is unlikely that this kind of war crime will ever be prevented until such time as war no longer happens at all.

Answer 3

The stress of war can make people do bad things but there has been nothing like this happening on a large scale basis. The so called torture at Abu Ghraib was just a little humiliation and our troops get treated worse than that by their own peers during initiations for advancement, getting service pins and for welcome aboard celebrations, Abu Ghraib was not torture. I am tired of all the judgments being passed on these people by liberals who don't have the courage to serve in the military. I do not condone the rape of civilians but I am also not in a position to pass judgment on people that are dealing with the conditions over there like being shot at and watching my friends being killed. I think that having to watch that might make me hate some of the people that appear to be the enemy.

Answer 4

The short answer is yes. U.S. involvement in Iraq is the definition of hubris. Thinking that we know what's best for the world when, in fact, we have innumerable unsolved problems on our own soil is not only disastrous from an international standpoint, but dangerous for our own citizens. The US is the sole super-power left in the world. That means that our citizens and representative government should lead by example through forging relationships with other nations diplomatically instead of jumping the gun into military conflict. Our government and, by proxy, our citizenry spends roughly the same amount per year on military expenditures, as all other nations combined. The idea that Iraq, namely Saddham Hussein, was ever a threat to US national security is laughable on its face. This Iraq adventure has been a diversion from the "war on terror" whose debt will be paid in a diminishing respect from other nations, as well as lives unnecessarily lost.

Answer 5

I love how people like you do nothing but point out the bad things that we're doing there; never anything good. My cousin just came back from Iraq (with severe wounds covering his body) and said that it's just pathetic how bad our media makes our own soldiers look. He said that there were so many people who are totally grateful for the troops' presence. Oh yeah, and don't forget the schools that he helped reopen and all of the people that he fed and clothed.

It also doesn't seem like they have much mercy when it comes to our soldiers. I love to hear about marines' bodies being drug through the streets with people CHEERING.

How did the old saying go? I think it was "all is fair in love and WAR."

Answer 6

And if you had watched the news you would have seen that these soldiers are facing charges that carry the death penalty.
The Military Command is not taking this incident lightly.
I suspect one or two of them will be facing a firing squad or a hangman.
The Military will execute.......to make a point.
excerpt from link..

During World War II, 21,049 American military personel were convicted of desertion, 49 were sentenced to death, but only Pvt. Slovik paid the ultimate price. In fact, he was the only American soldier to be executed for desertion since the American Civil War.
http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=103&category=people

It is a case of rape and murder.
Not policy.

Answer 7

There is an unsolved problem here, a young, under-educated military with lack of leadership at higher levels. I understood that the rapist killer had already been discharged on psych issues. Such behavior shames us all. No one in the Bush administration seems to understand that our military forces are unprepared for the ruthlessness of the insurgency, this is not a gentleman's war. I grieve for that family

Answer 8

Mental illness kicks in after a few months of continuous fighting and patrolling in a land where people want you out or dead no matter what help you've given them. Soon, they feel dead. Possibly feeling as though they are never gonna see their own families ever again since they aren't allowed to go home in DECENT incriments while on tour.

Answer 9

No country is without its criminals. It's not a "U.S. thing" - it's a world fact. And the U.S. doesn't just say, "Oh well," and forget about it. Those soldiers WILL be tried, it WILL be a fair trial, and the punishment WILL be appropriate. Which is more than I can say about some other countries.

Answer 10

I agree with tripping judy. They will be punished. Do other countries punish their soldiers for the same thing? NOOOOO!!!
Crimes like that are sicking and it happens all over, not just in war situations.