US troops' anguish: Killing outmatched foes

revramrod

US troops' anguish: Killing outmatched foes
Coalition forces wonder why more Iraqis didn't surrender to survive. Trauma may linger as soldiers return.

Source: The Christian Science Monitor | http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p03s01-woiq.html

The Christian Science Monitor wrote:

As the 3rd Infantry quickly advanced north along the Euphrates and west toward the capital, some soldiers began to describe the battles as almost disturbingly unfair.

The Christian Science Monitor wrote:

For some soldiers, trauma is already sinking in. "For lack of a better word, I feel almost guilty about the massacre," says one soldier privately. "We wasted a lot of people. It makes you wonder how many were innocent. It takes away some of the pride. We won, but at what cost?"

I feel bad about mowing down down a hopeless foe and helpless civilians. Boo-hoo.

Hey, Private Clueless. You wanna know why they keep fighting? In simple military terms: Honor. It's the difference between killing for a G.I. Bill and dying to protect your homeland.

bemisnorris · Posted: 13 Apr 2003 02:28 PM Post subject:

I remember back after the 9/11 attacks Bill Maher said that the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC might have been evil and stupid, but that you couldn't call them cowards, because it takes balls to fly a plane your on into a building.

He said that the U.S. military were the cowards, because we bomb enemy cities from high above or far away before actually sending in our troops.

I was in the Army and am currently in the National Guard, and I have to say that I agree with Bill Maher's observation. This war was a good example of what Bill Maher said.

How many times did coalition forces come under enemy sniper fire from a building, and instead of rushing the building and flushing the sniper out, they call in air support and bomb the building? Does that sound brave to you? Does it even sound cost efficient?

Now, don't get me wrong...if I was the one under enemy fire I would rather have a tomahawk blow the enemy away, than go after him myself, but it still seems to me that it's a bit of overkill.

elchrist · Posted: 14 Apr 2003 08:07 AM Post subject:

Are the ally soldiers feeling remorse? What happened to all the enthusiasm they built up as they were pumping themselves up for the "big game?"

It's now a good time to put in all the second-string players. We can't have anyone on the field with second thoughts about what they're doing.

Jock-O-Rama

Mr.Tasty · Posted: 14 Apr 2003 08:32 AM Post subject:

If the “enemy” had the resources that the US army has, they would be bombing the shit out of the coalition troops as well. They don’t face the advancing troops head-on because they have higher “battle ethics,” but because they have no other options. Just like the Palestinian extremists have resorted to blowing themselves up in public places to take some of the opposition out; that is about all they can do to fight back. Throwing rocks at armored tanks does not yield very high results.

revramrod · Posted: 14 Apr 2003 10:51 PM Post subject:

Mr.Tasty · Posted: 15 Apr 2003 01:26 PM Post subject:

Then again, they could hijack a couple of commercial airliners and crash them into tall buildings.

Mr.Tasty

Mr.Tasty · Posted: 15 Apr 2003 01:41 PM Post subject:

elchrist · Posted: 15 Apr 2003 02:17 PM Post subject:

revramrod