Saturday, May 17, 2008
Jihadi mores
Among the delights of counterinsurgency in a Muslim country, there is the problem of weaponized children:
Military sources say a bomb that wounded two Canadian soldiers near Kandahar on Friday was carried by an 11-year-old boy and was detonated by remote control, killing the boy.
The two Canadian soldiers were not badly hurt, but the blast also struck two Afghan soldiers patrolling with them, one of whom later died.
Jeez. When we catch the guys who did this we should toss them in Gitmo and throw away the key, or at least put them at the end of the line for a tribunal. I really do not care if that pisses off the Europeans or the Democrats or the Canadians who do not care about children or their own soldiers, I don't see how we can do less. Hey, I can see keeping them in there three or four years before they're released. Really. Turning children into bombs? That's bad shit.
29 Comments:
By 
Escort81, at
Sat May 17, 09:15:00 PM:
Agreed, bad shit.
But, perhaps no worse than the well-documented and widespread use of 12-15 year old boy soldiers in the various recent conflicts in West Africa (and other parts of the continent). The movie "Blood Diamonds" of a few years ago did a reasonable job of depicting one such case. It's a toss up as to whether it is more despicable to use a child as a bomb delivery device or as semi-trained militia carrying AK-47s and high on khat. I think I would say the that bomber is worse, because there is virtually no chance of survival.
Then again, I have an ancestor of Dutch extraction, born in NJ in 1757, who served in Spencer's Regiment (on the colonial side) in the American Revolution. He undoubtedly fought alongside 15 and 16 year-old soldiers in a war that had its share of hit and run tactics. Somehow, I'm OK with that.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat May 17, 09:29:00 PM:
But, perhaps no worse than the well-documented and widespread use of 12-15 year old boy soldiers in the various recent
Or in the Iran-Iraq war where Iranian children marched across minefields with plastic keys around their necks.
The keys were to help them "access" or unlock the door to heaven after being killed.
By SR, at
Sat May 17, 10:57:00 PM:
Escort,
Given the average life span in 1757, a twelve to 15 yr old boy was practically middle aged.
By 
, at
Sat May 17, 11:28:00 PM:
Well, the Royal Navy, at least, used boys as "powder monkeys" to haul bags of black powder from the magazines to the guns on Napoleanic era ships of the line.
And both the South and the North used younger -than -18- year olds as "drummer boys" in the Civil War. You could get killed doing that sort of thing.
The "child" soldiers are tragic and sad.
The children used to clear mines in the Iran-Iraq war and as suicide bombers is grotesque beyond belief.
The people that do this sort of thing do not belong in Gitmo. They should be shot on site.
-David
By Escort81, at
Sat May 17, 11:48:00 PM:
SR -
Of course you are correct. Life could be nasty, brutish and short in the 18th century.
One of the great benefits of fighting in the American Revolution, besides helping to found one of the really cool countries in the world (despite Howard Zinn's characterizations), was the granting of land in the "west" in lieu of back pay. My ancestor eventually moved to Circleville, Ohio, and later his family went a bit further west to Covington, Indiana, on the Wabash River. Any adolescent soldier that took a similar deal probably did just fine.
Thankfully, that line of my family was often blessed with longevity, with folks living into their 80s and 90s, even in the 19th century. When I was a young child in the 1960s, I knew my great-great aunt, who was born in 1880, was a flower child at my great-grandparents wedding in 1885 (30 years after the end of the Civil War!) and died at 95, still sharp as a tack. My father was born in 1915 (before U.S. entry into WWI!) and will be 93 years old later this year.
David - midshipmen (ostensibly officers, future lieutenants) on board those same Royal Navy warships were also barely into puberty.
The Germans were putting out Hitler Youth types to defend the Fatherland by March 1945, clearly an act of desperation.
As we are saying, that was then and this is now.
I thought "mores" meant norms or customs. Jihadi mores, indeed -- a wonderful contradiction of terms. What is taboo for them?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat May 17, 11:54:00 PM:
There's an enormous difference between teenage boys, on the cusp of adulthood, signing up for a cause they believe in (in the Civil War, for instance... there were also numerous examples of kids forging papers and signatures in order to enlist during World War II) and being used as a delivery device. The fact that the kid was detonated by remote sort of demonstrates that his heart was not in it; he was either unaware of what he had, or he was coerced into the trip and couldn't be trusted to follow through with it.
But sending the folks that do these things to places like Camp X-Ray is too harsh; they get yelled at and when they attack the guards they get their asses kicked, and that's, you know, inhuman.
I've said it before. We're too weak and squishy to play in the Middle East. We foolishly believe in things like fair contests of arms and honorable victories. But much of the world doesn't work that way.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat May 17, 11:57:00 PM:
Escort: We were apparently posting at the same time, else I'd have answered this before.
"What is taboo for them?"
Nothing. Dying in the cause of Allah (jihad) guarantees entry into Paradise. Literally nothing (except apostasy) is unforgivable. And even pretending apostasy is acceptable if moving amongst enemies, so that cannot be trusted either.
By randian, at
Sun May 18, 12:24:00 AM:
The average lifespan in 1757 may well have been in the 30s, but the median was much higher. If you survived to adulthood, you didn't ordinarily die at 35, more like 65.
By Noumenon, at
Sun May 18, 05:47:00 AM:
Just want to add the caveat that Gitmo being appropriate for these people does not mean that Gitmo is actually a good idea. Just as David's desire to see them shot on sight does not mean the government should be shooting people on sight. Or is that coming next?
By Country Squire, at
Sun May 18, 07:03:00 AM:
I can't believe we're talking about sending animals like this to Gitmo.
Strap explosives to children and detonate them remotely?
Sorry Noumenon, the mere fact that you question whether these animals should be shot on sight by "the government" makes me wonder what, if anything, is beyond the pale for you.
By , at
Sun May 18, 11:26:00 AM:
Or... it could be just another example of American propaganda, similar to the story, reported here on this blog, of the two women suicide bombers with Down's Syndrome, now discredited. The problem with doing propaganda in a foreign country - which may be morally defensible - is that it doesn't stay there anymore in this hyper-connected world, but instead comes back to the home country and can result in government performing psyops on its own people.
Not saying it's untrue. I just don't know anymore.
By , at
Sun May 18, 01:11:00 PM:
Squealer, these quotes are from the AP article you cited:
The U.S. military said Wednesday that two women used as suicide bombers in attacks earlier this month had undergone psychiatric treatment but there is no indication they had Down syndrome as Iraqi and U.S. officials initially had claimed.
"Both had recently received psychiatric treatment for depression and/or schizophrenia. From what we know now there's no indication that they had Down syndrome," Smith said, citing records obtained by the military.
The amended information also comes from the U.S. military, and is it any less heinous because the women were merely depressed and/or schizophrenic?
The real triumphant psyop is the one that has you looking at our military with the ever jaundiced eye.
By joated, at
Sun May 18, 01:48:00 PM:
TH, I'd be willing to forgo the waterboarding of these cretins and go straight to the pirhana tanks.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun May 18, 06:05:00 PM:
Dawnfire82: "We're too weak and squishy to play in the Middle East."
So are the Israelis these days. They should have wrapped up things in their neck of the desert a long time ago.
I know a sizable number of businessmen and government officials in Arab countries, including veterans of the 1967 and 1973 wars. I can't think of one who truly gives a damn about the Israelis or the Palestinians. My Arab acquaintances want nothing to do with either of them. (Yes, the Arab officials will exploit the Palestinian issue for domestic political purposes.)
By Escort81, at
Sun May 18, 07:08:00 PM:
DEC -
Most successful Arab businesspeople (especially considering those not in the oil & gas industry) over the past generation or two have not cared a great deal about the Palestinian Arabs. They might not particularly like the overall situation in the Middle East, but they will happily do business with anyone, including Jews (American Jews obviously in that group) as long as the transaction makes sense. I am thinking of one businessman who helped pioneer the Chilean winterfruit business in the U.S. over 25 years ago, and several others in banking and publishing. Many were educated in the U.K. and are quite westernized in dress, speech and attitudes.
Ideology has replaced the desire to lead a normal working life among many or most Wahabi Arabs and Hamas Arabs, your acquaintances (and the international businesspeople I allude to) excluded.
I think this (Palestinian Arab - Israeli conflict) is a problem without a solution. It ends because of exhaustion many years in the future, or it ends with a big and massively deadly boom. It is hard to see a negotiated deal at this point.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun May 18, 07:35:00 PM:
Even more than the difference in centuries, there is difference in ages. We would today consider 15 & 16 year olds too young by one or two years. There is an enormous difference between 11 and 15. We think in terms of law, so that "anyone under 18" seems equivalent. They aren't.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun May 18, 07:52:00 PM:
"...a problem without a solution."
Ancient Palestine included contemporary Israel, the Palestinian territories, part of Jordan, and some of Lebanon and Syria. Let the Israelis keep Israel. Give the rest of the land in ancient Palestine to the Palestinians for a new country.
Offer contracts and financing to joint business ventures between Israeli and Palestinian entrepreneurs. Encourage them work together in the global marketplace.
Turn Jerusalem into an international city under the supervision of the Dalai Lama and/or other Buddhists. They'll take good care of it. (And even the Democrats and many left-wing Europeans would help the Dalai Lama.)
That's a start. Feel free to make improvements.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun May 18, 10:43:00 PM:
"We think in terms of law, so that "anyone under 18" seems equivalent. They aren't."
heh. I had that very argument with Cassandra here last week...
"That's a start. Feel free to make improvements."
Unacceptable to both parties.
For one thing, it asks Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan to all sacrifice their territory, so that's a fat chance. Also, what do you define as Israel? Do you count the Golan? The West Bank? Parts of the West Bank that are Jewish majority? What if that majority was created by 20th century settlement? What if there was a majority in the past that was destroyed in the 48 war?
Further, it asks the Arabs to give up territory whereas the Israelis aren't. Especially the Syrians, who have lost the Golan. Honor won't allow that. It's also not conducive to regional power politics.
Then there's the problem of defining 'Palestinian' for those incentives. Do the 'refugees' in Lebanon count? Jordan and Syria? Egypt? Just Gaza and the West Bank? What about Israeli Arabs? Could they fulfill both criteria of Palestinian and Israeli? How about Palestinian-born Arabs who live abroad?
And then, asking the Jews to give up Jerusalem and the Western Wall is probably a show stopper. It took them almost 2 millennia to get it back. I'm sure the Chinese would object to the Dalai Llama's involvement with anything, and the Muslims probably wouldn't tolerate handing over the Haram al-Sharif to not only an infidel, but an idolator.
And finally, there is the flat unwillingness to compromise like with Hamas, who continually murdered Jews throughout the vaunted 'peace process' of the 90s specifically to derail it and force further conflict.
The only real solution is for one side to win. But in today's modern, touchy feely, and enlightened world, no one is allowed to win. It's unfair to the loser. So the bleeding continues.
By randian, at
Sun May 18, 10:59:00 PM:
Making Jerusalem an "international city" would require removing it from Muslim control. What army do you propose accomplish that?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon May 19, 12:20:00 AM:
Sniping is a cop-out, folks. Come up with a plan other than genocide. There never is a morning you wake up without options.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon May 19, 01:00:00 AM:
Sniping? You tossed out a half-baked 'solution' and asked for improvements. Unfortunately, you cannot improve an impossibility. Genocide? Never mentioned, though since you bring it up you apparently realize that it's a possibility. There was a famous Arab quotation in 1948 to the effect of 'we will put the massacres of the Mongols to shame.' There are always options? Goodness, DEC, you're starting to sound like a Democrat. Can't we all just get along?
As you are fond of pointing out, you're a businessman. You're always trying to view things in a rational, dispassionate way by examining how people can profit, mutually or otherwise.
But as such, it seems that you don't really grasp the irrationalities of a situation. For instance:
Two different peoples believe that a certain portion of land is theirs by divine right, and are willing or even eager to fight for that land, Holy land, and death in its defense is a sacred thing.
If you can solve that, you deserve the Nobel Prize. But this problem is now 60 years old. Don't you think that if it were solvable then someone would have done it by now?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon May 19, 01:24:00 AM:
"DEC, you're starting to sound like a Democrat. Can't we all just get along?"
Not in the least, DF82. But I expect more than body counts from Republicans. I don't have a problem with reasonable military solutions--if they actually solve the problem. Let me know when you get Osama.
What you're telling me is that you don't know what to do in the case of Israeli-Palestinian issue. Okay.
Re: "Don't you think that if it were solvable then someone would have done it by now?"
No. Nobody in government thinks outside the box--you included (on this thread).
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon May 19, 01:35:00 AM:
P.S. This will help you keep your blood pressure down in the future, DF82. I am always smiling when I write comments--always.
By Escort81, at
Mon May 19, 02:04:00 AM:
AVI - good point. I'm still not going to date a 17 year-old female, though -- I don't care how much she throws herself at me. LOL. Can't blog from jail.
I have to say I admire DEC's optimism, even if I don't share all of it. I didn't mean to get us all off on that tangent. I was just expressing frustration.
DEC reminds me of someone I worked with when I was right out of B school -- "don't bring me a problem until you have a few possible solutions in mind." As in, "I'm giving you no budget to work with, but I want that system up and running by next month," or, "have that underperforming subsidiary sold by next quarter, with minimum proceeds of $X." It actually makes you pretty entrepreneurial, but I don't know how helpful it is in international relations.
Even as a businessman, DEC, you can appreciate that some situations are brutally competitive and effectively binary. I remember a B school prof who loved to quote the line from Goldfinger to some of my more naive classmates, when they discounted the competitive response (i.e., sometimes, your competition is trying to get you out of the marketplace altogether) that might result from one of their case study proposals -- he would say, "Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger?," "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" Heh.
But if Northern Ireland can come around, anything is possible. I suppose the Hamas Arabs hate the Jews more than the Irish Catholics hated the Protestants/Brits, but the situations have a few historical similarities. I think the resolution as it stands now is a good example of both sides being exhausted and working out a political agreement. I frankly think that's the best we can hope for in the Middle East, and it will take much more time, and there are external players (Iran) that could possibly do a great deal of damage in the meantime.
I think that at a very basic level, it will be hard to have a settlement until Hamas Arabs (shorthand for Palestinian Arabs who support or are a part of Hamas) believe that Israel has a right to exist, and are willing to even consider a two state solution roughly along the lines of the 2000 proposal, perhaps with some sweeteners. It's hard to even negotiate until both sides can acknowledge the existence of the other.
On the Israeli side, the question of the settlements remains. The fact that they have not been rolled back to any great extent means, evidently, that there is no political consensus to do so (and I am not rendering an opinion on the settlements here, just pointing out the obvious that they are a sticking point in any prospective negotiations). Quitting Gaza is one thing, the West Bank another.
By , at
Mon May 19, 08:56:00 AM:
There is a metaphysical or spiritual imperative for the Arabs and Israeli Jews to fight over the same land. They derive a 'reward', though somewhat perverse, from this struggle.
The reward the Israeli Jews get is not quite as abstract, as they get to maintain a homeland and their lives. But there is still a metaphysical component, as they prefer the riskier life in Israel to the life in other parts of the world, the reverse of the Diaspora.
So to be imaginative, a solution must give them a reason or incentive to stop fighting; i.e., give them all something to LIVE for rather than die on the barricades for. I recall Eisenhower had some ideas for building massive de-salinization plants to provide immense amounts of fresh water and make Gaza, etc., "bloom". It's not impossible, just extremely difficult, with plenty of wealthy Arabs (Saudi's , etc.) and Iran willing to contribute small change from oil money to encourage the fighting to continue.
-David
By randian, at
Mon May 19, 11:31:00 AM:
The concept of "negotiation" between Israel and its enemies supposes that the parties intend to abide their agreements. The reason Israel should not be negotiating with anybody is that Muslims have no intention of abiding by their agreements. All peace agreements between Muslims and unbelievers are hudna: temporary truces, made only when the believers are weak or need time to regroup. They will be, as Muhammad's example amply shows, broken as soon as it is convenient for the Muslims to do so. Indeed, to drive the point home can anybody here point out where previous agreements between Israel and its neighbors weren't immediately broken by them in one or more particulars moments after signing? Besides which, there can be no settlement because (according to Muslim theologians) any land, once conquered by Muslims, remains forever theirs. Why else do you imagine that Arab television always refers to Spain as al-Andalus? The mere existence of Israel repudiates that notion. Until you can disabuse Muslims, which is in my opinion impossible, of the idea that the land on which Israel sits is forever theirs the idea of a "settlement" or "two-state solution" is frankly pissing in the wind.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon May 19, 11:59:00 AM:
Okay, give the Israelis New Jersey. That works for me.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon May 19, 01:05:00 PM:
P.S. Thanks for the contribution, David.
Beyond that, you can see one of the reasons why the Republicans are in trouble. They have run out of creative ideas.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon May 19, 07:27:00 PM:
"What you're telling me is that you don't know what to do in the case of Israeli-Palestinian issue. Okay."
I did have an idea. It's even original. One side has to win so decisively that the other side has no hope of recovering and claiming victory, because as long as there is hope of winning on both sides there will continue to be bloodshed.
But you didn't like it.
"No. Nobody in government thinks outside the box--you included (on this thread)."
That's pretty high handed and arrogant, DEC, to simply proclaim that if I (or anyone) can't deliver a solution that you approve of then I must be deficient in my thinking. If only I were more creative, I could solve the most intractable international problem in modern history.
Well, some of the greatest diplomatic minds of the time worked on this issue, and everything they have come up with has failed.
In 2000, the Israeli Prime Minster sacrificed his political capital to offer the Palestinians a golden deal; sovereignty over Gaza, East Jerusalem, and 95% of the West Bank with the remaining 5% exchanged on a 1:1 basis for Israeli land. Everything they ever asked for that didn't require the destruction of Israel. And the Palestinians walked away and started launching suicide bombs. (and all of this was under a Democratic administration) Now, the terrorist factions are even killing each other.
But if only I were able to think outside of the box, I could deliver these people from their problems. Damn my narrow thinking! Perhaps I could find a way to fit the Dalai Llama in, somehow?
