Our troops right or wrong?

Today, in a front page article, the Los Angeles Times reported that a battalion of the California Army National Guard is being investigated for extorting money from Iraqi-owned businesses in Baghdad.

The article by Scott Gold mentions that the U.S. military has attempted to minimize the incidents which gave rise to the investigation and suggests that military spokesmen have refused to discuss those incidents.

Here's a link to the article:  Guardsmen Took 'Rent' From Iraqi Businesses .

•  Support the troops,

  but not all of them.

  Not the murderers, torturers, thieves and liars. They're a minority, but they are criminals who disgrace the uniform and our country.

  by devtob on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:30:19 PM PDT

  •  I support the

    troops on a case by case basis.

    Brave diary - This really is the elephant in the room that is the Democratic party. While we unconditionally support the troops we are wide open to attack from the Repugs.

    by stevej on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:53:02 PM PDT

•  Supporting the troops

  Doesn't mean to support criminals. This'd be wrong no matter where it was done at or who was doing it.

  At my home base of Kadena, there's been a major scandal while we've been over here in Iraq. Apparently some asshole sleazeball staff sargeant was using his camera phone to take lewd pictures of an underage Okinawan girl. This has, predictably, led to massive protests against the base and against the U.S. presence on the island.

  That's not an airman I'm going to support.

  by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:57:50 PM PDT

  •  I have heard nothing of this

    and I remember that incident when a couple of sailors raped a girl and an Admiral said it would have been much cheaper for them to get a cab out to town to get a hooker.  Have you got an english link for this??
    

    by calipygian on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 05:38:46 PM PDT

    •  Sure do

      The whole base was on lock-down, curfews were enacted, and so forth.

      Here's the really really messed up thing, The molestor was a Staff Sargeant, an E-5. As a result of his actions, a curfew for all airmen E-3 and below has been enacted.

      Here's links:
      Officials: Molestation accusation adds to delicate situation on Okinawa
      Kadena sets curfew, plans to issue liberty cards
      Kadena airman charged with molesting 10-year-old girl
      Commander's trust is key to valuable silver-card freedom

      So yes, because of the actions of an E-5, ranks E-1 to E-3 have a liberty card system.

      Seems pretty messed up to me, but I'm an E-4 looking at E-5 in a few days, so I'm not sweating too bad about it. Besides, logical or not, it's something the bosses can do if they wanna.

      by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:25:24 PM PDT

      •  Blood alchohol level was

        five times Japans legal limit?  Holy shit!

        by calipygian on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:36:27 PM PDT

        •  From one of the stories

          [quote]A Breathalyzer test detected five times more than the legal limit of 0.1 milligrams of alcohol on his breath, police said.[/quote]

          Which I guess would mean it was .5 milligrams of alcohol on his breath, but I don't know what that means for his blood.

          Really, I'm fucking astonished he wasn't in a coma.

          Anyway, to review:
          An E-5 molests a girl at 0730 and is apprehended at 1100.
          as a result
          Airmen E-1 to E-3 are restricted to base from 0100 to 0600.

          February 2006 is when I go back to the States, and March 2007 is when I get out. Reasoning like that is why.

          by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:46:37 PM PDT

          •  Seventeen years in the military

            and I have quit reasoning...

            by calipygian on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:52:14 PM PDT

            •  Took you that long?

              I did it in a third of the time ;)

              by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:57:06 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        "There are some staff and tech sergeants that have clearly shown that they are not ready to handle their responsibilities and will receive a blue card," Olivares said.

        These are supposedly the "backbone" NCO ranks.  If they cant handle their responsibilities, why did you promote them motha fucka????

        by calipygian on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:41:17 PM PDT

        •  In my ideal air force

          If you can't handle being an E-5 or E-6, you'd get busted back down to E-3 or E-4.

          The serious problems are with the NCO ranks anyway. But they're usually better at weaselling their way out of trouble.

          by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:51:32 PM PDT

•  Military sociopaths

  I was very disturbed by the following quote in the Chicago Tribune ("U.S., Iraqi forces press assualt, August 6, 2005, p.3), which I am typing rather than linking because the online Trib is subscriber's only...

  "Talking to a truckload of troops, sitting in the predawn darkness in a desert staging area Friday morning, Sgt. Marcio Vargas Estrada made the point in plain language..."When you go back to Camp Lejeune [in North Carolina], these will be the good old days when you brought death and destruction to- what is this place called?"

  A Marine aswered in the darkness: "Haqlaniyah."

  Estrada continued: "Haqlaniyah, yeah, that.  And then we will take death and destruction to Haditha. Hopefully, we'll stay until December so we can bring death and destruction to half of Iraq."

  The flatbed truck erupted in a storm of "Hoo-ahs."
  

  Is Estrada's comment and his men's enthusiastic response a window into the mindset of the majority of our troops?  What proportion of our  soldiers revel in inflicting "death and destruction"?

  by acquittal on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:10:07 PM PDT

  •  Marines

    That's what the marine Corps tries to do to its marines. I'm sure any former marines who may be here on dkos can go into greater detail.

    There's a reason for the term jarhead.

    by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:36:20 PM PDT

•  The problem with unqualified support

  The problem is, "Support the troops" provides cover all the way up the chain of command.

  The Pentagon and the White House want to keep things simple, to maintain the myth they foster that the military is composed entirely of brave enlisted personnel and wise leaders.  They want a free pass for every mistake they have made, which includes the political mistake of relying too heavily on Reserve and National Guard units and personnel.

  People who have served on active duty realize that military service, like other human activities, takes place with a range of personalities, under different forms of stress, led by superiors who not only can be wrong but occasionally malicious or obsequious.

  I am a veteran who was stationed overseas during the Vietnam War, and I think that "Tigerland" is the film which best represents my experience with military service.

  The military under the Bush administration not only tries to bury the truth about abuses taking place in Iraq but also about the extent of political interference with military policies and decisions.

  by JTML on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:29:43 PM PDT