If ever there was a leader who understood how to conduct both military operations and humanitarian missions, it was George Marshall. Marshall was the architect of the D-Day military invasion of Normandy during World War II, but he also came up with, as the name implies, the Marshall Plan for how to deal with the chaotic aftermath of World War II. The Marshall Plan used positive incentives, redeveloping conquered territory, to turn former opponents into allies.
That George Marshall’s insights have been lacking in the American occupation of Iraq goes a long way toward explaining why the American military has not been able to control post-war chaos in Iraq in the same way that chaos was contained in post-war Germany. What Marshall understood, and George W. Bush and his Republican followers have never understood, is that a population will not retain positive feelings toward an occupying force when that occupying force is perceived as inhumane.
George Marshall held a strict line against acts of inhumanity by the American military, declaring that, “The United States abides by the laws of war. Its armed forces, in their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, in the spirit and the letter. In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid doing so. Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified under any circumstance. Likewise, respect for the reign of law, as that term is understood in the United States, is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes.”
George W. Bush and the Republican-appointed civilian leaders of the Pentagon never understood this simple lesson from George Marshall. They thought that they could recreate the Marshall Plan just by providing economic reconstruction in Iraq, while maintaining an inhumane treatment of Iraqis in prisons like Abu Ghraib, hoping that no one would ever find out.
Iraqis did find out about Abu Ghraib, and the military occupation of Iraq turned sour. The trust that Europe felt for American soldiers after World War II became impossible because American rule of Iraq was seen as no more humane than the regime of Saddam Hussein.
In 2008, America must elect a progressive candidate who understands that the wisdom of the Marshall Plan was not just in its economic development, but also in its absolute rejection of the abusive treatment of prisoners and occupied populations.
(Source: American Bar Association, August, 2007)
Yes, because George Marshall understood that by abiding by the laws of war, other nations would also abide by the laws of war. Sure, abuses happened on all sides back then, but overall it was a good idea to follow the lwas of war.
Since this war isn’t against a nation. And our enemies put captured non-combatants on TV and behead them, I think George Marshall would have rethought his opinion today.
What part of “not justified under any circumstance” do you not understand, Joseph?
You think the Nazis weren’t nasty?
I did NOT write post #1. Stop it!
There was still a tit-for-tat in WW2. The US knew that if we systematically tortured and abused Germans, that they would do the same to our troops that were captured. Marshall doesn’t live today, so as nice of a quote as that is, it doesn’t have any factual applicability.
I’m sure plenty of great historical leaders said that it was patently dishonorable to not place all of your troops in a line before engaging in combat (pre American Revolution), and we all know how many casualties that caused. It’s highly likely those leaders opinions would have changed if they were alive for TODAYs warfare. Different times change perspective.
And yes, all people should be treated with respect. But dealing with terrorists requires a new convention of some sort to deal with the type of “warfare”. There is no foreseeable “end of hostilities” in sight, so what do you do with these terrorists? Give them American Constituional protections and put them in jail? So we start giving them lawyers and food and court trials? How do we afford that? Do we want to give U.S. children more money via Head-start, or do we want to give thousands upon thousands of anti-American extremists their day in court to scream about how much they hate America, and then provide for them after they are found guilty? Do we have lawyers stopping our intelligence services from getting information on the location of terrorist leaders?
I mean, read the Geneva conventions. I read parts of it a few months ago, and I was interested in what happened to insurgent groups/people dressed in opposing uniforms/people that weren’t clearly demarked as belonging to a nation’s army. If I remember correctly: THEY WERE EXECUTED. Sure, maybe we shouldn’t be torturing them, but maybe we should actually have a good public discussion on what we do with foreign terrorists or foreign terrorist suspects instead of just saying “What Bush is doing is wrong, follow internationla law” or “What bush is doing is right, kill the terrorists”.
When did Iraq stop being a nation–or was that a tongue-in-cheek comment?
1. The US isn’t at war with Iraq. Iraq already lost any semblence of a war, they have a new government, which we are at peace with. The US and Iraq are both fighting terrorists, who are a part of no nation.
1b. Even if we were at war, the “troops” being used do not affiliated/are not affiliated with Iraq. i.e. It’s totally different than the situation that Marshall was in, and, as I stated earlier, would typically lead to them being shot.