I received a comment today on
this entry from two months ago, and I thought I'd bring attention to the exchange to the front. I had been reacting to a NYT story about Dustin Berg:
So what did Dustin Berg do? What is it that Mr. Hendrix thinks people are unduly criticizing about?The soldier, Cpl. Dustin M. Berg, fired three times at his Iraqi partner, Hussein Kamel Hadi Dawood al-Zubeidi, and killed him. As Corporal Berg ran away, he picked up Mr. Zubeidi's AK-47 and shot himself in the side.
In the days that followed, Corporal Berg lied about what happened, saying Mr. Zubeidi was the one who had shot him. And for months he went right on lying, after he recovered from his wound, after he left Iraq, even after he received a Purple Heart he did not deserve with his parents watching at a solemn ceremony back home in Indiana.
I can't believe there's a controversy over criticism of this guy. But there is."In earlier wars, I don't think some of these homicide cases would be prosecuted at all," said Guy L. Womack, a Houston lawyer and retired Marine lieutenant colonel who prosecuted marines and has represented the Army reservist accused of being the ringleader of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. "We're second-guessing things we don't need to second-guess."
I wonder what sort of action would be worthy of second-guessing.
I received a comment from one
Sgt. F. Emall, apparently an anonymous American university professor, who didn't at all take kindly to my remarks. Here's what he said:
Read the entire article from today's TImes and you will see what the controversy is about. The Iraqi officer, according to Berg, attempted to prevent Berg at gunpoint from reporting a suspected insurgent they had seen on the street. I.e., according to Berg, the dead Iraqi was an insurgent collaborator, minimally. But of course, to some Americans, it's easier to suspect fellow Americans than it is to suspect foreign nationals, especially when the former are in the military.
Brown University in philosophy, eh? Why do I feel like I can predict most of what you think without having even read anything beyond your note on Dustin Berg? Some of us, and even some who've been through grad school ourselves, trust guys like Mr. Berg A LOT MORE than we trust philosophy grad students at Brown University. Go figure.
And here's my response:
Thank you, I have read the article, which is here. You suggest that this will explain to me what the controversy is about, but on the contrary, the article confirms that Cpl. Berg shot and killed his Iraqi colleague, then shot himself to cover the crime, repeatedly lying about the incident to his superiors. Furthermore, the article expresses Cpl. Berg's full admission of guilt and remorse:
"I should have considered the Iraqi police officer to be an ally and not a threat," Corporal Berg said in court. "I believe I am negligent for the shooting. I should have used reasonable care. I should not have killed Mr. Zubeidi. I acted too quickly."
Today's article shows that I was rigt when I wrote this post two months ago: Cpl. Berg's actions were deplorable, and it's absurd to complain about the fact that he's being criticized.
Some of us, and even some who've been through grad school ourselves, trust guys like Mr. Berg A LOT MORE than we trust philosophy grad students at Brown University.
My credibility is not at issue. I've made no factual claims; I'm interpreting the news as I read it. So whether you trust me has nothing to do with anything at all.
But of course, to some Americans, it's easier to suspect fellow Americans than it is to suspect foreign nationals, especially when the former are in the military.
Yes, it's quite easy for some of us to suspect fellow Americans who admit to having committed every element of the alleged crime. But yes, there are also Americans for whom it's difficult to suspect even dishonorably discharged American former soldiers who are serving prison sentences after admitting to grave misconduct. I'm comfortable in the camp I'm in.
Brown University in philosophy, eh? Why do I feel like I can predict most of what you think without having even read anything beyond your note on Dustin Berg?
Tempting as it is, I won't speculate as to the inner workings of your psychology, Sergeant.
Usually I let heavily-worded responses sit for an hour or two, to allow myself more time to carefully choose my words; this time I did not. I don't regret it yet, anyway.
I read the artile today in the web edition of the New York Times and I did a google search, and I came to your interesting interpretation of the events in this case. I will concur with you that the Army should and must punish a solider who lies in an investigation and who harms himself. Both of those acts are not in line with the good order and discipline needed to maintain a strong military force. However, the real question, or at least as I see it, is rather the solider was correct in shooting this Iraqi police man. I admit have no first hand knowledge but I will base my argument off the incidence as reported in the NYT, which is as follows;
ReplyDelete“The shooting occurred in November 2003 while Corporal Berg and Mr. Zubeidi were on patrol outside a flea market. The soldier testified that he had seen a suspected insurgent and moved to retrieve a radio to call his unit for instructions, but that Mr. Zubeidi had pointed a rifle at him and told him not to inform his superiors.”
If this is true, the policeman raised his weapon at the solider, showing hostile intent. At this point, we have to trust our soldiers and understand this is positive identification of an enemy target in the current environment in Iraq. I have been working in the city of Ramadi for the past year, and we have on numerous occasions arrested former or current Iraqi policemen. Being a policeman in Iraq is by no means insurance that the Iraqi national isn’t an insurgent. In my view, the Iraqi national in this story showed hostile intent and was therefore killed. This is the type of second guessing that I believe the SGT was writing about.
Hi there, yes, I think that's an important point. It seems to me that it's still an open question whether it was appropriate to interpret the police officer as threatening him. This is, to my mind, one of the more confusing parts of this story. Because on the one hand, there is a story on the table according to which Berg acts appropriately, up until the point where he shoots himself and starts lying. But if that's the truth, then why would he say something like this:
ReplyDelete"I should have considered the Iraqi police officer to be an ally and not a threat," Corporal Berg said in court. "I believe I am negligent for the shooting. I should have used reasonable care. I should not have killed Mr. Zubeidi. I acted too quickly."
I have no good answer either way, here; it seems to me that you're right that if the facts are as he described them, the shooting itself may have been justified. But if that's the case, it's surprising that he's backed off on that part. He now seems to be admitting to two wrongdoings (the shooting, the lying) instead of just one.
“"I should have considered the Iraqi police officer to be an ally and not a threat," Corporal Berg said in court. "I believe I am negligent for the shooting. I should have used reasonable care. I should not have killed Mr. Zubeidi. I acted too quickly."
ReplyDeleteIn this, he doesn’t recant that the Iraqi national raised a loaded AK-47 to him. That, I believe is the key, if he isn’t lying. A lawyer can convince a 19 year old kid that he acted to quick (And it may have been in his best interest to admit that. I assume that this was a plea bargain, and I am sure that part of it was that they needed him to say in open court that he was guilty and felt remorse, if only for political reasons). However, are the actions that he did, shooting an Iraqi police officer who raised a loaded AK-47 truly criminal in the environment that we have sent our armed forces to operate in? I do find fault that the military did find him guilty (This is again based only on this one article, and there could very well be more evidence or more of the story) of the actual killing. In my view, justice would have been served if they found him guilty of a cover-up and lying. It is unreasonable to not think our troops are going to make honest mistakes in Iraq. This is a dirty war. The insurgents don’t wear uniforms and use the civilian population. As long as the lawfully elected government of the United States decides to keep troops in Iraq, we should all remember what type of environment they have to operate in. While, I don’t want you to take this out of context and pretend that I am writing some justification for a Meigh Leigh type event, I would ask what should the punishment be for someone who kills a civilian in Iraq and makes an honest mistake? I believe that is the core question that those who you disagree with are upset about.
The only other thing that bothers me about his story is that he says he is unfamiliar with the AK-47. I do find it very hard to believe that any infantryman in Iraq is unfamiliar with an AK-47 and doesn’t know how to use it.
Thanks very much for your insight -- these are good points. Obviously, there is much that we don't know; presumably, the relevant courts do know these things.
ReplyDeleteYour reading skills are selective, as you've simply ignored the part of the article most relevant to your insinuation that there's absolutely no reasonable way to see Berg's action as understandable (not to mention that you make Berg into someone already sentenced and serving the sentence, when this is not so).
ReplyDeleteDid you miss this part of the article?: "The soldier testified that he had seen a suspected insurgent and moved to retrieve a radio to call his unit for instructions, but that Mr. Zubeidi had pointed a rifle at him and told him not to inform his superiors. Corporal Berg said he had been in fear for his life, and in a "split-second decision," shot Mr. Zubeidi three times."
Berg's admission of the fact of having killed him and then covered up the act does not settle the question of whether or not the killing made sense on the scene; he provides the reason for doing so--i.e., fear that he would not be believed, and the issue of the Iraqi's strange actions is unresolved. A reasonable person who had any understanding of the reality of the situation on the ground there, or in any similar military situation, would recognize the need for further information before moral judgment can be made. A leftie grad student is, in my experience, generally quicker to imagine he knows things he doesn't know, especially when they concern the actions of American soldiers.
You ask in your response to another poster, roughly, why would Berg admit guilt though he still holds to his story about the Iraqi's action? C'mon, you're supposed to be a philosopher interested in morals, and you can't envision a scenario here? Berg is a soldier and he has been told by his superiors that he has done something wrong, so he's likely to accept that judgement, on at least some level. Nonetheless, it is sometimes the case that there is a disconnect between the judgment of legal professionals (some of the people Berg likely feared would never accept the truth in the beginning because of their own politics and manner of understanding the world) and the business of judging military facts on the scene.
Berg may well himself be split on this--both desirous to be a good soldier (and hence obedient to the will of superiors and military hierarchy) and aware of the heightened complexity on the ground in Iraq that makes that legalistic worldview rather quaintly insufficient in many cases. The central rule on the field of war is "survive." Legal scholars seldom have to face such a question, and they are thus freer to hold to standards of right and wrong conduct unencumbered by such nasty dilemmas.
There is much that is correct about this last comment, although I could do with a lot less insult. I have never claimed that the shooting was unjustified. There's not compelling evidence either way, it seems to me. All we have is the soldier's testimony, which is at least a little contradictory: he tells us that he was threatened, and he also tells us that he shouldn't have shot him.
ReplyDeleteSgt. Emall gives some plausible explanations as to why we should discount that admission of guilt, and maybe he's right.
None of this threatens the point I began with, which I stand by: it is ridiculous to complain that Sgt. Berg is being criticized. There's room for reasonable people to disagree about whether the killing was justified -- and I think that the most reasonable thing to do is to suspend judgment in this matter -- but it is undeniable that after he killed the Iraqi police officer, Dustin Berg constructed an elaborate lie, and went so far as to frame the dead officer by shooting himself to corroborate it.
There is just no denying that this was a terrible thing to do. It's not justified by the confusing situation in Iraq, and it's not justified by a motivation for survival. He has admitted to all of this. Furthermore, all of this is obviously true. That's why I think it's ridiculous to claim, as the person I quoted in my initial entry did, that it is inappropriate to prosecute soldiers in these circumstances. (The context suggested that the quote's author was also referring to Abu Gharab prisoner abuse.)
I welcome further discussion of this issue, but I will delete any further insulting comments. You may email me as many insults as you like, identifying me with any stereotypes you feel are applicable. My email address is ichikawa@brown.edu. Or you may post mean things about me in your own blog. This thread is for discussion of the issue.
Our grad student clearly doesn't understand the first thing about the magnitude of the American culture war or its consequences in the Iraq situation. Why was Berg fearful of presenting the situation factually from the first? Because he feared his superiors, and the American media, would immediately see things from the abstract, legalistic, and essentially leftist perspective represented also by our philosophy grad student blogger.
ReplyDeleteHe was of course correct in his fear. Our grad student thinks this was a "terrible thing" to do--in this, he demonstrates an unconditional faith in just the authorities Berg feared would have just the perspective they in fact have of the situation. Many Americans are considerably less faithful about the ability of those authorities to understand things adequately.
Those soldiers are in an essentially impossible position--attempting to stay alive in a situation where friend and foe are basically indistinguishable, and all the while being evaluated according to ridiculous standards invented by people with little awareness of what the ground situation is like.
This is nothing less than a small version of the larger cultural war going on in our country right now. It's Dustin Berg vs. the legal eagles and philosophy grad students. The funny thing is that if the latter win, they will be defenseless against the terrorist enemy because they require the Dustin Bergs to defend them from same. You see, they would never get around to picking up a gun and doing that dirty work themselves, preferring to sit in judgment from afar of those poor slobs on the ground.
I'll stand with Dustin Berg any day.
http://thewarzone1.blogspot.com/
Let me make sure that I understand you, Sgt. Emall.
ReplyDeleteIs it your position that Cpl. Berg did the right thing, or at least a blameless thing, when, after shooting the Iraqi police officer, he shot himself and lied about it?
Sgt. F. Emall,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I really don’t know why you feel to insult this guy for being a philosophy student. Either his arguments are good or not, however I really don’t understand the need to come on his page and show no respect whatsoever. Anyway, my first point to you is that I don’t know what type of leadership this guy had, but I know if I shot a guy or any of my soldiers shot a policemen when they raised a loaded AK-47 in a threatening manner, no one would question it. At least I know in my AO, Ramadi, if you raise a loaded AK-47 towards a US solider, you are a dead man. So, I don’t know what “superiors” you are talking about. I know I am not and my soliders are not scarred to shot. I do agree that we don't need to second guess soliders in these siturations, however, I don't think the problem is as bad as you make it. Also, I really don’t understand how you can just excuse the guy shooting himself. If I remember UCMJ, that is called malingering. That solider, did an act that made him unfit for his duty. How can you just excuse that?
1LT,
ReplyDeleteI'm not insulting anyone for being a grad student--I was once one myself, and he claims the fact on his blog, so I use his own descriptive to describe him. I am simply making the obvious point that those people (i.e., graduate students in the humanities) very generally tend to have a knee-jerk anti-military, leftist perspective on the world. I have seen it a million times in my experience in the university, which dates from the late 1980s, i.e., going on 20 years now. This guy evinces all the relevant traits--his original article makes NO reference at all to the details of the case and ridicules the notion that anyone might be troubled by the way in which Berg is being treated by the judicial system and the media, then he again refuses to even acknowledge the account Berg gives to explain why he did what he did in responding to me, until it is explicitly put before him by the two of us.
I think the military leadership (here I mean mostly the folks who are far from the battlefield) is FAR more affected by the attitudes prevalent in the mass media and in the intelligentsia than you do. In fact, I think ALL quarters of American leadership are so infected, and seriously so. My own research has to do with this topic. In broad terms, this is an attitude that celebrates abstract, legalistic principles more than it respects lived, practical knowledge. In simpler terms, Red State thinking vs. Blue State thinking.
Our philosophy student will perhaps have read Hume or Wittgenstein on this. Edmund Burke is another good source he might consult if he has not done so.
I don't think we have yet gotten a good account of precisely what situation Berg found himself in, so I'm hesitant to judge his act of covering up the facts of the case, as I already told the grad student. I am not arguing for complete carte blanche for soldiers on the ground, but I am certainly saying that the tendency in leadership circles and the media is to be too ready to apply principles that have little business being applied in a field of war, and I think we are in a potentially socially suicidal mode when we begin to see the opinions of philosophy grad students about what's going on on the ground in Iraq as having any serious merit, at least when compared to those of the soldiers who are actually there. I criticized his position just because, like you, I googled Berg and got his blog site, saw his simplistic 'analysis' of the situation, and shot off a quick reply, as I like to challenge such things when I get the opportunity.
I vastly respect the fact that you are apparently there yourself and hope these remarks clarify where I'm coming from.
Sgt. Emall,
ReplyDeleteCould you please explain what it is for "an attitude [to celebrate] abstract, legalistic principles more than it respects lived, practical knowledge"?
Also, could you please briefly describe a real or possible case wherein you think it is or would be permissible to criticize the actions of military personnel in covering up facts surrounding a killing?
Since you think that U.S. soldiers (and presumably military personnel from other branches, as well) in Iraq are in "an essentially impossible position," does that mean you support efforts to withdraw them? After all, it makes no sense--practically or theoretically--to insist on remaining in an impossible situation.
--John