CNN reports a study done in Iraq

[caroline]

this study has no meaning. It was done by a person already with the intention of "attack" the american army. so, lol, how can anyone take this seriously?

The Pentagon has the intention of "attack" on the american army?

wow. I did not know that. Can you please expound?

 

[caroline]

hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:



from page 35

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1861/newbitmapimagexj7.png

from page 36

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/1899/newbitmapimage2rd7.png

que Dios te bendiga

Thank you for getting us back on topic.

Anybody have the courage to address the color coded statements?

 

[MTAFFI]

hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:



from page 35

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1861/newbitmapimagexj7.png

from page 36

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/1899/newbitmapimage2rd7.png

que Dios te bendiga

He is actually not lying, take a look at the wording on page 35 that you just linked.. did you even read it? The article in the LA Times is an opinion piece which is worth no more than the individual writing it... If you look on page 35 it says clear as day "non combatant" not "innocent civilian", which is a pretty huge difference since who the heck knows who is innocent and guilty in Iraq anyways.

This was a pentagon study, not a CNN study

This was 20 months ago, not today, when the violence in Iraq was at its worst.

It also does say do you agree with torture to save the life of a fellow marine or to obtain important information about insurgents.

Take a look again, you may wish to apologize for calling someone a liar.

NOW CAROLINE

Rather than divert the topic as you claim everyone is doing, I will happily discuss this with you on the grounds that we stick with the actual study and not an opinion piece written by some liberal flower power freak in LA, because I dont agree with his/her opinions and his opinion is no better than yours or mine. So please do tell, what are you questioning here, the integrity of the troops? The integrity of the government? Whether or not we should be in Iraq? What exactly?

 

[caroline]

I think the only thing left is the fact that I titled the post
"CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq" instead of "CNN REPORT of a study of American Soldiers in Iraq"

Apparently that invalidates the whole thread and proves some sort of evil ulterior motive.

And they call ME a conspiracy theorist!

LOL

 

[MTAFFI]

I think the only thing left is the fact that I titled the post
"CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq" instead of "CNN REPORT of a study of American Soldiers in Iraq"

Apparently that invalidates the whole thread and proves some sort of evil ulterior motive.

And they call ME a conspiracy theorist!

LOL

i wasnt aware it had to do with CNN I thought it was an opinion piece in the LA Times, all the same though since I think the core issue is the actual study findings from the pentagon, so please answer my post above so we can effectively tackle this thread.

 

[Keltoi]

Thank you for getting us back on topic.

Anybody have the courage to address the color coded statements?

It has already been addressed. This is an opinion survey of 1,000 troops who had recently returned from active front line duty. This isn't about the percentage of non-combatants being insulted, tortured, or whatever, these are opinions..probably more like attitudes, of soldiers who were recently engaged with the enemy, an enemy that looks like, blends in with, and sometimes recieves aid from non-combatants. What would your attitude be?

The only reason you started this thread was to attack the U.S. military, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Perhaps I would be more impressed with the little survey if it was about soldiers actually acting upon any sort of negative attitude towards non-combatants. Personally, I think even the use of the word "non-combatants" is a little vague in the context of this conflict. The enemy pretends to be a non-combatant in most instances.

 

[caroline]

What goes around, comes around... sort of. If this continues US will collapse like USSR sooner or later.

What I would like to know is how much effort has been put into studying possible links between the tortures that were exposed at Abu Ghraib and the results of this study. I think this is much too obvious of a possible correlation to be ignored. We also have this issue of water boarding and other reports of torture and human rights abuses. The very fact that we went to war against the United Nations ruling and waged that war based on a pack of lies is bad enough. Now we've been exposed as torturers, a study supports this and anybody speaking about it is jumped by a pack of attack dogs desperately trying to prop up the crumbling facade of American military HONOR. Have we forgotten about international human rights? Are we just going to ignore the Geneva Convention and pretend there was never such a thing as the Nuremberg Trials?

Where are these soldiers getting these ideas? I come from a military family. Every male in my family for as long as any of us can remember has been career military. I was raised in a very patriotic atmosphere and I can tell you my father would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening today.

My question is, where are these attitudes coming from and what can we as US Citizens do about it?

Respectfully

c

 

[caroline]

PS: I do believe that there is extraordinary stress being put on our soldiers today and that many of them are victims of a corrupt government. But the fact remains that, if they can't handle themselves according to international law then they shouldn't be soldiers. I don't think the Geneva Conventions put forth any clauses allowing for torture and infractions of international law in the case of extreme stress or fatigue. The fact is that a war crime is a war crime regardless of how overworked and stressed out you are. It doesn't excuse it. Ever. And that is not MY ruling. It is the ruling of the International Court at The Hague.

 

[caroline]

i wasnt aware it had to do with CNN I thought it was an opinion piece in the LA Times, all the same though since I think the core issue is the actual study findings from the pentagon, so please answer my post above so we can effectively tackle this thread.

Both Jayda and I have posted the link to the study several times. And I've written several posts outlining my thoughts and what I feel the issue is.

 

[MTAFFI]

Study of Soldiers in Iraq Uncovers Troubling Findings about Ethics and Mental Health
First Ever Battlefield Study of Ethics Brings Troubling Results
By LUIS MARTINEZ
May 4, 2007


The Pentagon's first-ever survey of the battlefield ethics of American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq has uncovered troubling findings about their attitudes toward Iraqi noncombatants, and the mental health risks raised by the continued redeployment of troops to Iraq.

NOTE: I think this shows that the problem is recognized and something must be being done about it

Only a third of Marines and roughly half of the soldiers surveyed said they believed that Iraqi noncombatants should be treated with dignity. Up to 40 percent of Marines and soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a colleague.

NOTE: While this may be troubling to some, I dont find it troubling at all. These men are at war, their enemies are better off dead, if my best friend or the guy watching my back was abducted and to save his life I would have to torture someone else to get the necessary info, plain and simple, I would do it and quickly.

The ethics findings are included in the fourth Mental Health Assessment of U.S. forces in Iraq, which the Army first began conducting in late 2003 after questions were raised about the mental stress on deployed soldiers in Iraq.

NOTE: I think that is important to remember

For the first time, this year's survey was conducted jointly with the Marine Corps. More than 1,300 soldiers and 450 Marines were surveyed last fall for the assessment. The questions on battlefield ethics were included at the request of the then-top U.S. general in Iraq, Gen. George Casey.

One in 10 soldiers and Marines surveyed for the study said they had mistreated Iraqi noncombatants. Mistreatment was defined as damaging or destroying property when not necessary, or hitting or kicking a noncombatant when not necessary. Forty percent of Marines and 55 percent of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for unethical behavior that included killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

NOTE: This isnt exactly a positive light on our country or troops is it? I would agree with that, and disagree that this should occur... I feel sorry for any legitimate non combatant that was ever mistreated. I still keep in mind however that we are at war, non combatants are only that way until they fire on you, and that these soldiers never really know the difference. I could see why they may be overly aggessive or seem even cruel, because war is just that.

At a Pentagon briefing, Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, acting Army surgeon general, expressed understanding of the high levels of anger among some troops that may have led to the troubling answers on the ethics front.

"These men and women have been seeing their friends injured, and I think that having that thought is normal. But what it speaks to is the leadership that the military is providing, because they're not acting on those thoughts," he said. "They're not torturing the people. And I think it speaks very well to the level of training that we have in the military today."

I think this speaks highly of our military servicemen and country, and should be recognized and talked about just as much as the negative aspect of this story.

One of the study's authors, Army Col. Carl Castro, believes soldiers and Marines answered the ethical question on the survey honestly. But he said they are also astute enough not to act out their feelings because "there's nothing gained for them to do that. & You know, yes, we may think it. We may want to do it. But we don't do that because that jeopardizes ourselves or the selves of our other teammates."

Rear Adm. Richard Jeffries said the answers in the survey pertaining to ethics had raised awareness within the Marine Corps, "and they're looking very closely at this, with several groups and several teams & to see what this means and what we may do differently if there is a problem here."

It looks as though they are doing something to correct the situation

The report also found that long and repeated deployments are having an impact on the mental health of affected troops. Soldiers who had redeployed multiple times reported higher levels of acute stress than first-time deployers. Deployment lengths were related to higher rates of mental health problems and marital problems.

Pollock said the study recommended that "shorter deployments or longer intervals between deployments would allow soldiers and Marines better opportunities to reset mentally before returning to combat."

NOTE: Something that should most definitely be corrected by our country

That will prove difficult, as the Army has recently extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 months and troops are only given a year in between deployments, not the 18 to 36 months the study recommends. However, Pollock noted that the Army's plan to expand should help alleviate the current strains on the force in the future.

Among the study's other conclusions: Overall, soldiers experienced higher rates of mental health problems than Marines did. The study's authors hypothesized the Marines' seven-month tours may have been a factor when compared with the 12 to 15 month tours Army soldiers undertake in Iraq. Deployment length was directly linked to morale problems, and again the Army had lower morale than did the Marines.

Iraq suicide rates were still higher than the Army average but lower than last year -- 17.3 per 100,000 soldiers last year down from 19.9 per 100,000 in 2005. The Iraq numbers are higher than the Army average of 11.6 per 100,000 soldiers. The study also found that the current suicide prevention training program is not designed for a combat environment.

NOTE: This is a sad fact, think of how distressed some of these guys must have been, they may have just not been as mentally strong or may have seen some horrible things to bring them to this, but I think it highlights the stress these guys are under. The fact that our country has used the restraint on these places is honorable in itself since if we truly wanted to we could literally level these countries with half the money in a fraction of the time. Do you not agree with that?

Post-traumatic stress disorder is present in 15 to 17 percent of respondents. The study's authors say that figure is consistent with the numbers seen since the start of the war in 2003.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3141157&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

This may be a more accurate article

 

[snakelegs]

What I would like to know is how much effort has been put into studying possible links between the tortures that were exposed at Abu Ghraib and the results of this study. I think this is much too obvious of a possible correlation to be ignored. We also have this issue of water boarding and other reports of torture and human rights abuses. The very fact that we went to war against the United Nations ruling and waged that war based on a pack of lies is bad enough. Now we've been exposed as torturers, a study supports this and anybody speaking about it is jumped by a pack of attack dogs desperately trying to prop up the crumbling facade of American military HONOR. Have we forgotten about international human rights? Are we just going to ignore the Geneva Convention and pretend there was never such a thing as the Nuremberg Trials?

Where are these soldiers getting these ideas? I come from a military family. Every male in my family for as long as any of us can remember has been career military. I was raised in a very patriotic atmosphere and I can tell you my father would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening today.

My question is, where are these attitudes coming from and what can we as US Citizens do about it?

Respectfully

c

frankly, i don't believe there is anything we can do.
when their government wages a war based on lies and openly condones torture, what can you expect from the soldiers?
i am not justifying their behaviour but i am not shocked (anymore) when i hear these things. and that disturbs me even more.

 

[Jayda]

He is actually not lying, take a look at the wording on page 35 that you just linked.. did you even read it?

did you? i lined up caroline's statements against the statements from the report. they are identical. it's in plain and inescapable language. i even went to the trouble of highlighting... not for the naysayers in the audience but for the benefit of those people who might actually believe the nonsense you (collectively) keep pushing about the truth of her original post.

regarding your other 'points,' you seriously want us to make a big deal out of it because she said 'a cnn report about a pentagon study' versus just calling it 'pentagon study...' how is this relevant? like i said before... you people seem to dwell on spelling mistakes to get us to ignore the completely legitimate (and highly disturbing) content of the 'report'/'study'/'survey'/'whatever doesn't get me in trouble with the spelling gestapo' thing.

 

[MTAFFI]

did you? i lined up caroline's statements against the statements from the report. they are identical. it's in plain and inescapable language.

I did indeed, and yes the words she posted match however she left out key information and changed non combatant to "innocent civilian", anyways it isnt really the issue here, I was just pointing it out to you, I am not sure why you are having a hard time seeing it. I quoted an ABC report on the same thing, it seems pretty unbiased to me since it criticized the government for not doing more while at the same time takes an understanding tone to the troops since they are in fact at war and having longer stays in these countries.

 

[Cognescenti]

hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:

Perhaps my Spanish is rusty, but doesn't "hola" imply some degree of warmth or affection? If so, why would you use that salutation then accuse me of lying in the next phrase?

From the Pentagon study there is this question:

"All noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect"

Caroline claimed "47% of all soldiers and only 38% marines think innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect".

Does one of us having a reading disorder? There is clearly a substituion of "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". I am sorry but when use an absolute phrase like "NO question was changed" I interpret that as "no question was changed". It is just my math and science training, when I hear an absolute I naturally assume it means in all cases. To me, "no" means "no". You may think the substitution trivial. I don't. To me it is neither trivial nor accidental. It is designed to inflame and misinform (which is, of course, the whole purpose of this thread) .

Note also the clever context change. The original question asks about "all noncombatants". It is that pesky business about the use of absolutes in the language. To me that indicates the question applies to every noncombatant...no matter how odious or how much the level of suspicion. That is, of course, the goal to which to aspire, and must be the goal of training, but, honestly, if you were an infantryman who had seen combatants blend back in to the population right after your friend's Humvee was blown up...how would you answer tha question. Caroline's phrase is clearly spun to make the soldiers and Marines look bad.

Take this phrase for eg., "Nearly half of all soldiers and over 1/3 of the Marines agreed that all noncombatants deserve diginity and respect even if they have a look of venom in their eyes, spit as you pass by and have suspcious bulge around their midsection." Technically, that would still be true as the question was about all noncombatants. Woudl you accept that as an accurate portrayal?

BTW...I think you have something to learn about he concept of context too. You can't simply leave of a modifying phrase like "in order to save the life of a Marine or soldier" and pretend you have captured the essence of a quote. that is the oldest trick in the book.

Lastly, as has been stated by others, this isn't an expose on torture by US servicemen as has been implied in this thread. The question was clearly directed toward policy. Nobodoy is going to change the policy...it's already in the Army Field Manual. This was a tool to assess the state of mind of the soldiers and Marines.

I will now go back to my hole to await further insults and caterwalling to the mods about the mean guy.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

This is not a CNN sponsored survey. The official military link is as follows. The portion of interest appears under Battlefield Ethics, page 34:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/MHAT_IV_Report_17NOV06.pdf.

The Ninth Scribe