talkpolitics | (no subject)

dexeron posting in

By now, of course, everyone has heard the most recent horror to utter from Trump's mouth: he wants the soldiers of the United States military (recently deployed to confront the "caravan" of Central American refugees) to treat anyone throwing rocks as if they are holding a rifle. Setting aside for a moment the fact that Trump's characterization of the refugees as violent is completely unfounded, Trump was, in effect, giving orders to the United States military to respond to rock throwing with lethal force. This violates not only U.S. military law, but all known rules of engagement as well as the values military personnel subscribe to. Many veterans have spoken out, decrying Trump's statement, and noting that they were often subject to rock throwing in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet refrained from using their firearms because they knew it would be a war crime. One would hope that the training and values of the U.S. military would likewise protect the Central American refugees should some of them actually throw rocks or appear in any other way potentially threatening, but I fear that the situation is far more complicated, and dangerous, than that.

There is a scene in the 1990 film "The Hunt for Red October" when Richard Jordan's character, National Security Advisor Jeffrey Pelt, warns the Russian Ambassador to the United States of the risk of the two countries' military forces operating in such close proximity. Even though the two countries are not at war, the tensions created by such proximity could lead to someone shooting, despite orders not to.

"Wars have begun that way," he warns.

One scene later these fears are validated when a Russian aircraft comes too close to a US flight group, and ends up bumping a US F-14 Tomcat, critically damaging the F-14. The plane doesn't make it back safely, and ends up crashing on the carrier deck. That's tragic, but what's really essential to note here is a bit of background dialogue as the crisis is unfolding.

"His wing man kept requesting permission to fire."

These pilots were professionals, and under orders not to engage unless fired upon first. They were the best in the business - and that wing man was still ready to fire regardless in the tension of that moment. Had he fired upon the Russian aircraft, the cold war would have turned immediately hot, and it's entirely possible that it could have led to World War III.

As Fred Thompson's character Admiral Painter remarks: "Somebody messes up, we'll be in the biggest naval battle since the Jutland." A more often quoted line happens right afterwards, as fire crews race to put out the burning wreck of the F-14 on the flight deck:

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it."

My government is sending thousands of troops south to deal with a situation that is outside of the scope of normal military affairs. We have a President who claims to have given them orders that are against the rules of engagement, against U.S. military laws, and against every military value sworn to by U.S. military personnel. Now, the U.S. military is highly trained and is generally calm under all kinds of stressful conditions. As noted above, U.S. veterans have already spoken up about how they were trained to respond to stressful situations such as facing a hostile crowd where some are throwing rocks. These veterans have proudly spoken of holding their fire, because they knew that firing upon civilians is not merely illegal: it is morally wrong. I actually have a trust that the officers of the U.S. military would likewise refuse to obey Trump's instruction to treat rock throwers as if they were armed. The vast majority of U.S. enlisted men and women would almost certainly refuse to follow such a blatantly unlawful order if it were given.

The danger here is that not everyone in the U.S. military has always been so professional. While the majority of U.S. service men and women have remained professional under the most demanding conditions, there have also been the inevitable bad seeds who have acted dishonorably towards civilians or have otherwise acted outside of the rules of engagement. The torture at Abu Ghraib was carried out by U.S. service men and women. Former representative (and veteran) Allen West abused his authority and tortured an innocent civilian. Some of these people were rightly punished, some not harshly enough. In some cases, soldiers have committed murder, and in those cases no punishment undoes what they have done.

The danger here is that regardless of orders, Trump is putting troops needlessly into a tense and potentially hostile situation where tempers and emotions can run high. We don't need for troops to willingly follow Trump's terrifying suggestions in order for a tragedy to occur. All we need is for one person on the line to be nervous, to misread a cue or action from someone in the crowd, to react wrongly to something he or she thinks they saw. All we need is one mistake, or even perhaps just that one aforementioned "bad seed," that one person who never should have been handed a gun and who thinks Trump is right. It just takes one person to kill, and while his fellow soldiers would almost certainly immediately take him into custody, the damage would already have been done.

And there's always the chance that one man firing might lead to confusion or otherwise somehow cause others to fire in turn. This is what happened in Boston on March 5, 1770. This is what happens when a non-military matter is placed in the hands of armed forces.

There are any number of other possible responses to the approaching group of refugees, none of which require an armed response. We are lighting matches perilously close to a powder keg here, and the innocent men and women of the "caravan" are the ones who will pay with their lives if we are not careful.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

halialkers

Eh, honestly, it's no different than what European states are doing on their borders with Syrians.

If the EU sees closing its borders as moral and the people there are in favor of such things enough they can't make Brussels change its mind (assuming such sorcery is possible to begin with) then why is it only immoral for the USA to do what Europe does uncaringly?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/border-barriers/europe-refugee-crisis-border-control/

And here there's the President of Austria, not sure if this is the fascist or not, arguing for well, troops on a border with clear intent to open fire and reload methods.

Orban's Hungary has also done this. To be fair Orban is an outright dictator reliant on this kind of thing but the EU's ignored him for a decade so there's no innate European opposition to people intent on reverting the continent to the 1930s again:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/migrant-crisis-hungary-to-deploy-military-to-secure-borders-1.2359862

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/austria-send-troops-stop-refugees-protect-eu-borders-immigration-military-forces-migrants-a7568736.html

From:

halialkers

Then there's Greece:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/29/greece-reinforces-land-border-with-turkey-to-stem-flow-of-migrants

And the EU collectively:

http://time.com/5392444/eu-border-force-migration/

And yet only the USA doing this is called a slide into fascism (the actual slides to fascism are not troops on the border, otherwise everywhere in the Western world *including the entire EU that approved of this* is fascist now).

What is a morally acceptable movement of troops to a border to deal with a crisis and what isn't? Why the PR difference between the USA and the EU using solutions to a crisis differing mostly in that the EU people are hopefully smarter than lil' Trumpy?

I'd rather not see new iron curtains rising but it seems a great many do.

From:

kiaa

"And yet only the USA doing this is called a slide into fascism"

https://www.salon.com/2016/06/12/fascism_is_rising_in_the_u_s_and_europe_and_donald_trump_is_the_face_of_this_disturbing_new_reality/

I would've argued more, but I know it's no use. You're already on a roll and there's nothing that can stop it at this point. So do go on as you please.

From:

halialkers

Honestly, I knew Orban was criticized for it but Orban is a dictator already and criticized for other things as well and the easiest low-hanging fruit here.

It also seems two years later that much of the European element of this is relatively taken for granted and the use of that new 10,000 strong border force is less newsworthy than the US deployment of a smaller force chiefly of military engineers where rules of engagement forbid the scenario the dipshit wants.

The two years because that article was written in 2016, long after Orban was already doing his thing and evidently not a worthy enough face of it.

Multiple European states have done this. At least with the Turks and the Greeks a real shooting war is not entirely improbable there. I literally don't see a moral difference, save that the US version gets about five posts in two days here and these European analogues have gotten what? Mentions in my comments because I actually looked it up hoping Europeans would be different?

Edited Date: 2/11/18 20:32 (UTC)

From:

kiaa

Depends which news outlets you're following. It's all over the news around here. It's THE only thing people are talking about during vast periods of the time they dedicate to politics.

But why am I even trying to convince you of anything? You've already made up your mind. Europeans are a bunch of hypocrites. Fascism is on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic, but only the US gets the slack for it. Fascists are sending troops to shoot at migrants at the EU borders. War is peace. Etc. Say whatever you want. I've learned my lesson at this point.

From:

halialkers

The Beeb is the main European media I check other than Der Spiegel and I must have missed it then. I was hoping Europe would be smarter than us. We know fascism mostly from Hollywood. You saw the real thing and fell back into it. :/

From:

kiaa

Are you saying the outside EU borders should be uncontrolled and anyone could cross wherever they want, whichever way they want? Even those between Greece and Turkey, and between Italy and Libya? Are you being serious?

From:

asthfghl

Our Roma population has proven a worthy substitute for any border control. When asked if they don't want to stay in Bulgaria rather than proceeding with their dangerous trip further inside the EU, a number of Syrians have responded, "NO WAY!!! They rob and beat us down there!" In fact, our Roma have specialized in ambushing the Syrians a bit behind the border line, knowing they carry money and valuables for their trip, so they rob them and beat them up and leave them only with their shirt on their back. Who'd want to stay in such a place?

Edited Date: 2/11/18 21:07 (UTC)

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

(no subject)

Credits & Style Info

Links

Summary