Best piece on Iraq yet: Hail the Generation Scum!

[Davos]

Natural-born killers will not win hearts and minds

By Charles Clover

Financial Times

Published: June 25 2004 21:14

One of the more jarring memories from my experience covering the war in Iraq as a reporter "embedded" with US troops was of a young American soldier after a firefight in the streets of Najaf. During a shootout with a sniper, a blue Fiat raced into the the street, trying to escape. The soldier fired 15 rounds from his SAW (squad automatic weapon), killing the driver, who we found out was an unarmed university professor. An hour later, I heard the soldier complaining that his weapon had jammed, preventing him firing off more rounds. Meanwhile, fellow soldiers clustered around him, congratulating him on "busting his cherry" - making his first killing. It was not clear at the time i f he knew who he had killed and if it mattered.

I have always had difficulty understanding how someone like this, an American teenager who probably grew up in some suburb, like me, could have this attitude toward taking a life. I saw plenty more like him.

This group of young, violent Americans is the subject of one of the best books to come out of the Iraq war: Generation Kill by Evan Wright, who covered the war for Rolling Stone magazine as an embedded reporter with a US Marine reconnaissance battalion. One does not know quite how to categorise Generation Kill. It is not anti-war in its exposition, but the s um total of Wright's observations lead to a harsh indictment of US conduct in Iraq. Like the generation it observes, the book has no moral compass, it is simply a grim ledger of conversations, deeds and misdeeds - all recorded in an adrenaline rush of intelligent prose.

The title says it all: this is a book about the contemporaries of the Columbine high school massacre in Colorado, blitzing their way across Iraq to spearhead the US campaign last year. They "represent what is more or less America's first generation of disposable children", says Wright, who estimates that half his platoon are from absentee, single-parent homes: "Many are on more intimate terms with the culture of video games, reality TV shows and internet porn than they are with their own families."

The core of Generation Kill questions the dark intersection of war-making and this generation's obsession with violence - how the largely virtual world of America's teens seamlessly transposes itself onto the battlefield. Early on , Wright records one of the soldiers enthusing "I was just thinking one thing when we drove into that ambush . . . Grand Theft Auto: Vice City", referring to a popular computer game. "I felt like I was living it when I seen the flames coming out of the windows, and the blown-up car in the street, guys crawling around shooting at us. It was ****ing cool."

This generation will play a decisive role in America's open-ended war on terror - for better or for worse. As Wright observes, the soldiers are so cynical they need no reason to do their grim jobs. Unlike the Vietnam generation for whom the war represented a loss of innocence, the Iraq generation has no innocence to lose, they are a generation "for whom the big lie is as central to government as taxation", according to Wright, and are perfectly happy to contemplate that the war is entirely a grab for oil.

From my perch covering the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past two years, I have seen this group of socially maladjusted, heavily armed youths become America's main international liability. Violent youth subculture in the US has long been a curiousity abroad, but it has now been driven to unprecedented levels of contact with an ancient civilisation which it does not understand, and which does not understand it. The result is grisly and tragic, and ultimately self-defeating for the US and its allies. More than anything, the decisive shift in Iraqi public opinion against the occupation in recent months has come about due to contact between Iraqis and these young men and women.

Rather than winning hearts and minds abroad, America's military has become the most acute source of anti-American rage. It neatly symbolises the US national priority of producing missiles and aircraft carriers at the expense of education highlights the income inequality that has made mercenaries out of the poor.

The 374 men of the First Marine Recon battalion, in which Wright was embedded, epitomise the violent youth subculture. "We've been brainwashed a nd trained for combat. We must say 'Kill!' 3,000 times a day in boot camp. That's why it's so easy", a soldier tells Wright.

Nathaniel Fick, a 25-year-old lieutenant and platoon leader, also explains the point. "In World War Two, when Marines hit the beaches, a surprisingly high percentage of them didn't fire their weapons . . . Not these guys . . . These guys have no problem with killing."

Amid the bravado, however, there are powerful moments of remorse. One sergeant who mistakenly orders his turret-gunner to shoot a civilian house has to confront the consequence: a critically injured 12-year-old boy and a sobbing mother. "A pilot doesn't have to go down and look at the civilians his bombs have hit. Artillery men don't see the effects of what they do. But guys on the ground do. This is killing me inside," admits the sergeant.

But, observes Wright, this was not the first time innocent lives were taken, only the first time anyone got caught at it: "This only happened because this time, the battalion stopped moving long enough for the innocent victims to catch up with it."

'Generation Kill' is published by Bantam Press in the UK and by G.P. Putnam's Sons in the US

The writer, an FT editor, was the FT's Iraq correspondent in 2003-04

[Ex-FB]

It is my experience that on the whole US troops are actually fairly well behaved. Unfortunately, if you throw 250,000 people together, if only 1% of those people are unprofessional hacks, then that's 2,500 people running around shooting civilians.

Although the US soldiers/air force does have a reputation for being unproffesional, I think it is an unfair image and one created by this 1% (the one's who bomb freindly troops rather than following orders etc.). It is unfortunate that these instances happen, but it is not unforseen.

When the British army where in Northern Ireland, one of the major problems was that we were putting combat soldiers into a civilian environment. These troops, who excel in a conventional warfare scenario such as the Falklands, were in an environment that does not suit the day to day soldier. All his life he is trained to believe that camoflage is one of the best weapons a soldier has and to "watch and shoot" (i.e. identify your target, then put one or three rounds into him and then stop). Now, he is thrust into a situation where he has to walk down a city street dressed in his (ironically) camoflage jacket which makes him stand out like a sore thumb, and he has no way of identifying the enemy until they have actually fired upon him. This makes a young soldier very jumpy, and prone to being a bit more trigger happy than might otherwise be the case. This in turn, unfortuantly results in innocent casualties, which in turn serves the purposes of the terrorists even more powerfully than another dead soldier. Either way the terrorists win.

But back to my main point. I'm guessing the soldier in the above example is young and jumpy. I'm not excusing the killing of innocent bystanders, but I can understand how in a terrorist based conflit, the soldiers are far more on edge and prone to making rash mistakes than if this was conventional urban combat where soldiers are fighting other uniformed soldiers, and you know you are in a progressive fire-fight.

Of course, having said all that, like I say, with 250,000 troops, you're always going to get some arse-holes. Reminds me of an incident many years ago. I wasn't there, but it was recounted to me that night. Basically there was a bunch of US soldiers guarding a US airbase in Scotland. I guess one of them got bored and started taking pot shots at local cows with his sidearm. The farmer seeing this called the local constabulary who went to the airforce base. When the cops interrogated the soldier in question, he was apparently at a loss as to what the big deal was (two of the cows had to be destroyed). It was the cop telling me this story and he was recounting that this lad was basically saying "I'm on US property now (he was back on base) and I'd like to see you try and take me into custody". As if Britain and the US are going to go to war over this little pillock. The police had a meeting with the base commander and the lad was duly handed over to the authorities and taken down the local police station to face charges. He was also apprently charged by the air force for negligent discharge of his weapon.

My point here is that, his actions were not tollerated by the US Airforce, and where in no means typical of the average US serviceman (there were thousands stationed there and very little trouble), but in his tiny arrogant mind, he was untouchable and stuff the local farmer's losses. Yet, this is the type of person you read about in the newspapers as it makes a lot more interesting reading than "249,000 US troops didn't accidently kill anyone today."

[CORONA BEER]

So many words but so little meaning

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
So many words but so little meaning

What bits are you having trouble with, I'll try and explain them clearer.

[yrwyddfa]

I think that Ex-FB makes a very good point here: it is the minority of US military personnel that are 'trigger-happy yanks'; although each conflict we hearof 'friendly' fire incidents which is a little disconcerting.

I noticed that British soldiers, because of their training and experience in Northern Ireland, managed to wander around Basra with their guns pointing at the floor whilst American soldiers would point their guns directly at people whom one presumes were in the majority innocent. One assumes this promotes afore-mentioned 'accidents.'

America is a teenage nation. As a collection of wonderfully diverse people it neither has the experience, nor internal commitment to successfully navigate world affairs or politics; and I suspect nor should she wish too. She is, after all, the last remaining super-power - so why should she. It seems lost that her super-power status is result of accidental geographic wealth and not political or intellectual kudos.

Where as 100 years is 'old' there, it is yesterday here - for instance England and Portugal have been allies since 1386. We therefore keep our long experience to hand when dealing with politics internationally.

As with all teenagers you have to let them grow and try to 'manage' them. A very difficult task, indeed.

But we are all people and we all share the same home - Earth. It seems to me that America fights for the biggest bedroom with the most plug sockets; it does not fight to keep the mortgage paid, or to keep the garden clean and tidy - or even the dish washing . . .

Acne is incident and ugly; fortunately it passes with time and age.

[davebat]

Thats a really good argument and I enjoyed reading it. Cheers

[yrwyddfa]

Just an observation . . . nothing more.

[NotLKH]

I would suppose then that, due to the experience and internal commitment that england has, then that this was just an accident, as opposed to the US's friendly fire incidents being somehow less than an accident???

In a third incident, two British soldiers from Staffordshire - Corporal Stephen John Allbutt, 35, and 19-year-old Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke - were killed when their Challenger II tank was mistakenly fired upon by British comrades in another tank

[EDIT]
Hmmm,
Is Badger related to SenorBadger?
Is Maven related to Bradley?

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...?TOPIC_ID=1030


-Lou

[yrwyddfa]

I would suppose then that, due to the experience and internal commitment that england has, then that this was just an accident, as opposed to the US's friendly fire incidents being somehow less than an accident???

I did not imply that the US friendly fire incidents where 'somehow less than an accident' rather I imply that the incidents are likely because of inexperience and incompetence.

You do not mention your source but I include all friendly fire accidents under the categories of inexperience and incompetence. US, UK or otherwise.

[Ex-FB]

I would say that many of the US "friendly fire" incidents are less of an accident.

For example:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/06/pi...ire/index.html

The US pilot who killed those 4 Canadians on a training exercise. This is no accident, it is a deliberatly stupid act by a pilot who disobeyed orders.

What I was saying earlier is that if you get enough people together, then you're always going to get a few idiots (regardless of nationality) and they are the ones the press loves to focus on. Not on joe blow soldier who is acting professionally and doing a good job.

[Memnoch1207]

One of the featured soldiers in the book "Generation Kill" is the son of one of my co-workers.
He has been traveling with the author of the book to promote it.

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
One of the featured soldiers in the book "Generation Kill" is the son of one of my co-workers.
He has been traveling with the author of the book to promote it.

I'm reading that book now, it's very good, highly reccomended. Finished Jarhead not long ago and this one blows Jarhead away, hands down.

If they ever come to St. Louis to promote, lemme know.

And of course, the quotes from the book that started this thread are highly selective. I'd stick in some that aren't as easy to bend into an anti US armed forces thread, but can't remember any off the top of my head. But, these definitely aren't the same types of guys that fought in WWII, I'll give you that. Then again, it's not the same world as it was in WWII.

And for the Marines - GET SOME!!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Just read a book called ON Killing by a retired US Army Airborne colonel. The book goes into some detail documenting non-firing and non-killing and research about such in wars prior to Vietnam, along with examination of how this was overcome by conditioning for soldiers from Vietnam on. His final chapter explains that the techniques used to increase the firing rate of modern soldiers are also being used in modern culture.

Basically a book that ties together what has been stated in the first few posts of this thread, written by one who has been a part of it.

Good reading, pretty interesting. Time to play Wild Divine