Well this isn't very good...

[This is an old post which I'd started on earlier and saved in my drafts folder. It's a bit outdated now but I think I'll post it anyway as there are still a few things relevant which you may find interesting. I've also linked to a number of articles which are worth reading for those interested in some dilemmas of contemporary warfare.]

Many of you will of course have heard no end of this already but I can't help remarking on it as it speaks to a number of things which I've been writing/thinking about lately.

First, it helps bring into focus one of the things which bothers me about this otherwise very good critique of the US in Iraq which has been doing the rounds: the implicit message that whereas the British Army has a sort of omni-cultural sensitivity that allows it to be more flexible in stability ops, the US Army is by contrast culturally deaf, if not ignorant, and as a result is hamfisted in its relations with the local populace. Don't get me wrong, there's a kernel of truth here--but it really ought not to be overstated. As we see after a day in the hot sun having home-made hand grenades and used hypodermics pitched at you by a braying mob British troops are not immune to the desire to lash out.

Which brings me to my second, somewhat more general, complaint about current events in Iraq. I find it increasingly difficult to say much about Iraq with the confidence of thinking I know all, or at least most, of the facts. There's a paradox here: we can see what has happened in these cases which gives us the illusion that we understand what is going on. The truth is that we do not. The recent episode is a case in point. Were the soldiers we saw part of the snatch squad we saw earlier in the clip or just opportunistic bullies? Were the guys they captured the riot's ringleaders or just the least fleet of foot? Was there an officer present? Where? A subaltern or a company commander. It's impossible to know from the clip. But it's crucial to understanding the event in context. I can fairly easily construct a hypothetical scenario around this which is consistent with everything on the tape and with which I have no great problems. British army position is continually harassed and attacked by organized local youths. Levels of violence are below that which would justify shooting back. But local police do nothing to stop/prevent riots (in fact, may be the among the main organizers) or capture ringleaders. Sergeant hatches cunning plan to snatch what he thinks are the most regular participants and give them a hiding. Officer says, I didn't hear that; I shall be in my tent. (No doubt this is why I should never hold a commission). On the other hand, you could construct an equally consistent narrative: soldiers hot, pissed-off, jerks who decide to take their frustrations out on a group of innocent local boys. The trouble is knowing which is closer to the case: generally what happens is that these things confirm and deepen whatever opinion the viewer had before they saw the clip. The clip from a year ago which showed a marine in Fallujah shooting a wounded insurgent in the head was even more marked in showing this contrast.

Third, I find it interesting that what has really upset people about the clip is not the beating being unleashed but the commentary by the soldier filming it. I recollect this old opinion piece by Andrew Marr (not someone I normally would link to) which captures something important, I think. Technology, specifically digital cameras and the internet, are changing something very fundamental about the way the Western world at least experiences war. As Marr puts it:

But warfare has depended for centuries on a rampart of silence, a wall of willed
incomprehension, between civilians at home and those killing. In a small way,
the arrival of digital photography has broken through that wall.

In the past, war happened 'over there' and while dreadful things were done, sometimes by one's own side, one tended not to hear about it until well after the fact, if ever. Now, the incomprehension remains but the wall is gone.