Category: World Politics
US Military Might be Catching a Clue
| 7/25/2007 | Posted by Patti under War on Terror, World Politics |
One of the problems with have a strong level of confidence of who you are is that instead of carrying that awareness with humility there can be a tendency to want to carry a big stick to make sure that no one dares to challenge your confidence. So it has been with the US for a long time. They have consistently blundered into situations with an attitude of ‘we are the superpower and we will be obeyed’ which only serves to seriously blur the line between being confident and being arrogant bullies.
Once that line is blurred into oblivion, the people being subjected to the arrogance and bullying will resist no matter how much the bully thinks they are there for the people’s own protection. Thus is how it goes in Iraq and likely would be in Afghanistan if not for the moderating presence of NATO. An article in today’s Toronto Star talks about how the US military are starting to realize that branding themselves as a “force” rather than “we’re here to help” is contributing to the failure of the occupation in Iraq.
(more…)
Unlawful Death? Whose Law?
| 3/17/2007 | Posted by Patti under War on Terror, World Politics |
A British inquiry into the death of a young British soldier, as the result of U.S. military action during the first week of the Iraqi war in 2003 has ruled the death as unlawful in that the pilot didn’t take steps to identify the target as a ‘friendly’ that could have been taken. The U.S. meanwhile has concluded their own inquiry and decided that the death was a ‘tragic accident’.
In some circles the response was outrage and anger at the US. In response, some US based bloggers sort of basically suggested that these things happen and get a life. While it would have behooved the US authorities to have provided full disclosure to the British authorities as allies and brothers-in-arms in the Iraq war, I rather doubt that the two responses would have changed.
For those who rail at the US, they may want to have a look at the response and outcome to ‘friendly fire’ deaths among their own service people. Had it been an American killed rather than a Brit, I suspect the outcome of their inquiry would have been the same.
Therein lies the problem. It has become abundantly clear that the British (and Canadian as our standards tended to be inherited from the Brits) standards of discipline and conduct are set higher than our US allies.
Just last week as the British inquiry was wrapping up their inquest, the Canadian military wrapped up an inquiry into the death of a young Canadian in a ‘friendly fire’ incident last year in Afghanistan. A Canadian soldier stands charged with manslaughter and neglect of duty in that death. In civilian life, the accident would have been a tragic accident, the soldiers weapon went off in a vehicle and killed his mate seated near him. In the Canadian military that is a serious breach of discipline.
The British military would likewise take the dropping of a bomb onto a position which had taken the necessary measures to identify themselves as ‘friendly’ as a very serious breach of discipline. Their US allies takes it seriously but provided with what they consider to be reasonable doubt decline to hold their service person to account for their actions.
I’m not particularly passing judgement on either system. There are those who would consider the Canadian & British standards harsh while there are others who would consider the American system, too forgiving. It appears the bigger question is when you have military service people of one country killing those of an ally, which standard takes precedence? Which laws govern the outcome?
It’s not an issue that it easily resolved. Had it been a British flyer killing an American soldier it seems that there would be a trial happening by now. Anything less would be contrary to order and good discipline so prized in the British military. Those are standards that their military has adhered to for generations just as the standards the Americans adhere to have been there for generations.
It seems that before one country agrees to be an ally of another, these are the sort of things that need to be agreed upon.
U.K. Veil Debate Heightens
| 10/16/2006 | Posted by Patti under World Politics |
Jack Straw started a bit of a firestorm last week when he disclosed that he asks Muslim women to remove their veil in his office as he perceives it as a barrier to communication. The debate has widen some this week with a teacher in a public school insisting on wearing the veil. She said she will remove it in the classroom as long as there are no male teachers present.
The teacher has been suspended and has taken the case to an industrial tribunal. The race and faith minister says she should be sacked (fired) if she wont remove the veil at work. Read the rest of this entry »
Follow Me!