(no subject)
2/11/18 14:03![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dexeron posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBy 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:
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.
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.
