I have no problem with using appropriately harsh tactics against insurgents anywhere. No matter whether they're domestic terrorists, like the Weathermen or Earth Liberation Front, or foreign terrorists, our government -- any government -- must ensure the safety of its own people. Those who make war on a society by killing officials and the innocent should be imprisoned or eradicated.
That said, articles like this disturb me. I find it unlikely that bulldozing civilian houses or arresting relatives of suspected insurgents is going to make murderous thugs go away. It's all well and good that the Israelis have used similar tactics in the last few years against the Palestinians, but one might ask whether their campaign has been a success.
Other observations:
1. The Army is no good at counterinsurgency operations. They are good at destroying large formations of troops, wrecking equipment, and smashing their way into enemy-held territory. They aren't good at the delicate, murky, gut-level actions that must be used against insurgencies. The Marine Corps is the only U.S. force that is good at such things, as they have proved in every clime and place (though usually the clime is hot and/or topical, e.g. Haiti, Nicaragua, Vietnam.)
2. Nobody ever rooted out a vicious band of thugs by cordoning off villages and monitoring who comes and goes. True, the British made similar moves in Malaysia, and defeated the Communist insurgency there. Anyone who thinks Malaysia -- where the Chinese minority lives under an apartheid regime -- is a model society, you're welcome to explain why.
3. An officer who makes an asinine statement such as, "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them" should be shuffled off to a desk job in the bowels of the Pentagon, where he can exchange impolitic e-mail messages with colleagues instead of talking to New York Times reporters.
Another way not to win is for Bush to appoint Howard Dean as civilian administrator. The upside would be that the American people would see how unfit he would be to lead our nation, the downside is that it might give Ralph Nader a shot at winning the general election.
You've got to be kidding. Please? Is that article for real? Are American soldiers really violating the unalienable rights of the Iraqis, and violating the Laws of War?
What specific rights and laws are you referring to, Steve?
Eric,
See the Declaration of Independence and Lex, Rex.
To enumerate, but not limit, such things as life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue. Trial by a jury of 12 good men who know the law, representation by counsel, facing ones accuser, safety in ones person, property and effects without a duly sworn-out warrant specifically describing those things to be searched for, freedom from double jepardy, right to self defense and the defense of ones' family, a speedy trial, and so forth.
Yeah, those are unalienable, not granted by the civil government, but by our Creator.
Eric,
With respect to Malaysia, I think you're confusing the two quite different issues of modern-day Malaysia with the British military success in ending the Malayan Emergency. As you noted, the British were militarily successful, in part due to their forced resettlement of villagers into new villages. But to link the British military success with the current Malaysian political structure is a red herring. It's not as if the Chinese in Malaysia were well-loved before the emergency began.
That's also not to say the Chinese aren't poorly treated in Malaysia today (although I wouldn't go so far as to call it apartheid). I would hold up Malaysia as an illustration of the wrongfulness of affirmative action, the tendency of parliamentary systems of government to function as elected dictatorships, and as an example of just what lengths the dictator will go to in order to stay in power and fend off his rivals.
Steve,
The only inalienable rights I would recognize on your list are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As for the rest, where do you get the idea that those come from God? They're rooted in a particular conception of law and justice which ultimately descends from feudal England.
There is a better case that the American military is facially violating provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949 (Geneva (Red Cross) Convention IV), specifivally articles 31-34 of that convention.
Steve, as Bill points out, God did not create the 12-member jury, and it's not a human right. You might be right about the violation of the Geneva accords, but many of the things you list are not human rights.
Bill, I take your point about Malaysia. My reference to "apartheid" was not to say that Malaysia's present government is a replicat of South Africa's previous regime, but that there is a racial caste system dedicated to keeping the Chinese in their place. I would like our government to shoot a little higher than the Malaysian standard when helping Iraq's reformation.