TT: Berg execution no surprise so time to leave Iraq

So says this Guardian editorial.

The execution of Nick Berg, watched by appalled viewers all over the world, should not have come as a surprise. Berg was an innocent bystander, a civilian, but as tragic instances from many conflicts, both modern and ancient, have shown, in war there are no hard and fast rules and civilians can become targets at any moment.

This is, quite frankly, astonishing. The editorialist refuses to recognize the distinction between an army, according to the Geneva convention, and terrorist combatants. Worse yet, is the moral equivalence that equates collateral damage with kidnapping for the purposes of execution.

Let us not fool ourselves, Nick Berg was never going to be freed alive. The Abu Ghraib mistreatment was merely handy justification for an execution that was going to occur anyway. Look to Daniel Pearl and Chechnya.

That this editorialist can say that "there are no hard and fast rules" to war demonstrates an abysmal ignorance. What is Geneva Convention about, if not rules for war? What is the military code of justice about but a check to atrocities to the atrocities that used to be part of war? The civilized world has decided that war is to occur within a certain framework. The U.S. is abiding by that. The Islamist mufsidoon are not.
...
The writer continues:

While nobody could condone that act, there are Iraqis who clearly feel they need to take the law into their own hands.

What is this statement but a condoning of murder? Even more, the writer ignores the presence of foreign terrorists in Iraq, and ignores the possibility that Jordanian Abu Mus'ab al Zaqrwi actually did perform Berg's execution himself. How can he do so, when the title of the video proclaims a foreign Islamic terrorist as Berg's executioner? This morning Fox News confirms that the title of the video that claimed al Zaqrwi as the killer is accurate, for the killer himself has confirmed it. Though the editorialist could not know this, that does not excuse his pretense that the title of the video asserts that foreign jihadis, not Iraqis, were responsible for the execution.

Here is more moral equivalence again; in fact, the editorialist is actually following Democrat talking point with his blather of "cycle of violence." By his rationale, the U.S. is the cause of violence in Iraq, and, it seems to be implied that the terrorism is defensive military action. Well, Saddam's army had the chance to wage war like men. Some died like men in a vain cause; many abandoned uniforms and left the field, only to return as terror-thugs wreaking violence on their fellow Iraqis.

This latest event is, unfortunately, just the latest in a cycle of violence that will continue as long as the US-led coalition remains in Iraq. Although the coalition is due to hand over power by June 30, questions are still being asked as to whether that can be achieved.

It seems that the editorialist is not clear about what he wants, and this sentence is a fine example of John Kerry decisiveness. Leave now; oh, nobody to hand over to, stay. BTW, did the editorialist at any time call for Saddam's resignation? Most likely, he parroted the line about Saddam being the legally elected president.
...
More proof that Caribbean journalists only get their information from Democrats, CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera and other liberal, America-hating media outlets.

The war was misguided from the start and the US administration has since brushed aside the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. It is now struggling to bring its occupation to an end because its mission moved from finding weapons to a very unclear one of defeating terrorists and letting a "peaceful Iraq" emerge.

The war was indeed misguided, and I do think the Bush administration ought to apologize for going in to Iraq. The apology could read thus: I apologize for liberating Iraq from Saddam's rape rooms, vicious murders, filling of mass graves, looting of Iraq's treasury, starvation of the average Iraqi, murder of unsuccessful athletes, tossing of men and women to dogs to be killed and eaten by them, unlawful seizing of the property of Iraqis.... That would make a great apology.

Mr Bush's claim that the beheading is a reminder of how "desperately parts of the world need free and peaceful societies"; as he said yesterday, is not reassuring. The coalition seems no nearer to achieving that in Iraq than six months ago.

If the beheading is not proof that Islamic societies need to be brought into the 21st century, what is? I would suggest that Caribbean journalists spend time reading Iraqi bloggers in order to obtain a non-CNN/BBC/Al Jazeera view of what's happening in Iraq.

He writes:

The public should also be reminded that the US investigation of who is to blame for the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners is taking place in the US, not Iraq.

This is the rankest sort of lie. The Pentagon began the investigation several months ago at the site of the mistreatment ... Iraq. The editorialist, I'll be generous here, might be mistaking the congressional investigation taking place now for the actual military investigation that began before the turn of the year. However, a little bit of research would've informed the writer that public court martials are scheduled to begin later this month ... in Iraq. Perhaps the writer wants the soldiers to be subject to Iraqi courts; however, the U.S. has never signed on to the ICC, and the U.S. military courts are the proper venue for the trial of American soldiers who have flouted the Code of Military Justice.

Then comes this bit of folly:

The prisoners who figured prominently in the photographs remain prisoners with, seemingly, no recourse to compensation.

Why should the U.S. pay recompense to thugs who, in the first place, were imprisoned for terrorist activities against Iraqis and U.S. soldiers? There are those innocents who were jailed in Abu Ghraib and were mistreated; recompense will be made to these. One man, in fact, says he would not mind if part of that involves a green card. Besides, I don't see the editorialist calling for Islamists to pay recompense to Nick Berg's parents for his murder.

Karbala, Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr city in Baghdad are not all of Iraq.

Both the maltreatment of the prisoners and Mr Berg's death demonstrate that the situation in Iraq remains out of the control of the coalition.

Again, Caribbean journalists could benefit from reading Iraqi bloggers.

It is time to withdraw, to offer whatever help is needed, and to let the Iraqi people decide their own destiny.

Read history, man. Read history.