The LA Times reports on an Iraqi doctor’s experiences inside Fallujah. (via Brian Leiter )
Member name “blogreader” and password “blogreader” still work.
Thanks motoko.
Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility.
I anticipate that the bracing rationalizations of your man sebastian holsclaw or his ilk will appear here soon enough, featuring the greater good and it should have happened in April and the doctor is clearly exagerating anyhow.
Peter, I’m surprised that they’re not here now, denouncing the doctor.
A quick check reveals that they are busy arguing the case for an invasion of Iran.
The report is clearly worthless because it doesn’t tell us how many of those doctors and how many of those patients were insurgents. You know. The bad, bad people. You have to sort them from the good ones when you’re counting the dead and wounded and inconvenienced. Otherwise, what’s the point of criticising wars.
Something like that.
However, I feel compelled to highlight the positive note in the article: at least the Americans were Not As Bad ™ to the doctors as the Iraqi guardsmen. Hurrah! Praise be to the Lord Bush.
It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government” to authorise (“order”) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities.
If we drop the “by a foreign army” condition, the last person to do this in Iraq was Saddam. How brutal were they then, and how does this compare with the current American/Kurdish assault?
The TV told me that there were only 12 civilian deaths in Falluja so far. Why would they tell me that if it weren’t true?
Here in the US, the media is doing its usual job of passing on official (dis)information. Not necessarily on purpose, but perhaps because they don’t have any other sources, there’s no US polictical opposition to “peg” a contrary line on, and reporters seem unwilling to challenge assertions with basic logic or factual context. Either b/c they lack such understanding, or don’t want to editorialize, or won’t risk upsetting editors/owners/advertizers/consumers.
So the reporters repeat (seemingly) incongruous facts, like, “all roads into and out of Falluja are sealed by US forces, and only women and children have been allowed to leave.”
Then in the next sentence they’ll report that “everyone has left the city and the only people remaining are foreign terrorists and insurgents.” Doesn’t seem that both things could be true, unless all 150,000 men in Falluja are fighters. Easy to see why it would be convenient for the US population to believe this.
I don’t know what is true, but I know enough to not believe anything that comes from an American official, the US military, or the caretaker Allawi govt.
They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power. People who died in each case - who they were, how many, how they died - don’t matter, it’s not really the point. It had to be an important symbol and it had to be dramatic enough. Same idea, same barbarism.
But at least we’re safer now.
“They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power.”
I’m not sure I understand, abb1; destroying theocratic and nationalist fascists is the same as slaughtering 3000 innocent people? Surely one would like to know the intentions in engaging in combat, and the nature of the parties involved, their plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict during and after battle, etc. Wouldn’t these be relevant to an analysis, or does the left just smear it all together for ease of thought?
John Quiggin attempted to make the same argument in prosecuting the case against fighting Sadr, and got rightly blasted for failing to consider the theocratic fascism and brutality of Sadrs proposed rule. Remember when the left fought against fascism, instead of lending support?
I’m not sure I understand…
posted by Mark November 17, 2004 01:56 AM
Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility.
Get it now?
It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government” to authorise (“order”) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities.
Doesn’t that make the Americans the new Hessians?
It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government” to authorise (“order”) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities.
Doesn’t that make the Americans the new Hessians?
‘Fascist’ label is often being applied to both sides of this conflict, Mark.
“Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility” is a predictable consequence of using a known medical facility for military purposes. Which even the doctor kind of half admits was the case.
Brett,
The doctor doesn’t claim the facility was being used for military purposes.
He says that he may have treated some of the insurgents as he was treating anyone who came in.
Treating wounded does not make the medical facility a military target.
Article 1 and Article 2 of the Geneva convention explicitly state that hospitals — even military hospitals for the express purpose of treating enemy soldiers — are to be treated as neutral.
This neutrality is only waived if the hospital is under military occupation and being used as a military facility. If, for example, the insurgents had taken over the medical facility and were using it as a fire base then it would no longer be neutral under the Geneva convention.
The doctor’s statement emphatically does not support the view that that was the case.
Where is your evidence that the medical facility was being used for ‘known miltary purposes’?
Article 1 and Article 2 of the Geneva convention explicitly state
Awww…isn’t that quaint.
Surely one would like to know the intentions in engaging in combat, and the nature of the parties involved, their plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict during and after battle, etc.
Mark, do you happen to know with any certainty the US military’s “plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict” where Fallujah is concerned? I sure as hell don’t—we’re told that most of them “fled,” and that’s about it. Where are they now? Are they being adequately cared for?
Maybe you take the Pentagon’s word for it that there’s nothing to worry about. I don’t.
Brett, a predictable consequence of the US scorning the Geneva Conventions is their replacement by lex talionis: Soon we’ll hear of videos of captured US GIs being murdered and mutilated, but you’ll only see them on al Jezeera, because the Pentagon will suppress broadcasts in the US.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.hassan/index.html
Quote:
“They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power. People who died in each case [. . .] Same idea, same barbarism.”
I am firmly against the war, but thankfully I don’t need to believe this moral crock to sustain my position.
In the dichotomy you have set up, only one side chose what the “symbols” were going to be.
These hospitals, schools, and Mosques were occupied by the “Arab resistance” for the maximum shock value that would result from their subsquent targeting.
And where exactly does the murder of an anti-war charity activist fit into your economy of symbols?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.hassan/index.html
Nonesuch:
I don’t think we’ve heard any evidence yet that this medical centre or the hospital were ‘occupied’ by anyone other than the US military. It was the US military that occupied the main hospital in Fallujah.
There is a difference between a medical clinic treating insurgent fighters and the clinic itself being a legitimate target.
The US actions with respect to the hospital and medical clinic in Fallujeh, based on the evidence cited so far, do seem to constitute a clear violation of the Geneva conventions and as such, are war crimes.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the insurgents were occupying mosques and using them to fire upon US troops. In those circumstances I have no personal problem with the US troops returning fire — once the mosque is being used as a place to attack from, it ceases to deserve any special consideration.
Well, Nonesuch, OK, my comment was a stupid rhetorical comment that can easily be challenged from multiple angles. The angles you picked aren’t even good ones: the murder of the charity activist has absolutely nothing to do with it; are you suggesting that destroying the city was justified by that murder?
However, there is no doubt in my mind that symbolism was a part of it; Fallujah, apparently, has been a symbol of anti-imperialist Arab resistance since the 1920s and has become especially significant in that respect in the last few months. You can’t deny that.
To solve these difficulties of evidence and Geneva Convention-based rules of engagement we need officials - just as we have in professional sports - paid professionals themselves, wearing easily identifiable uniforms, unbiased toward either team, and fully cognizant of all appropriate laws and regulations.
Then armchair combatants can concentrate more readily on the thrills and excitement of what is, after all, the thing out of which the metaphor of sport was born.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review