again, the "whole story" thing comes into play, and this one is going to be analyzed to death (pardon the pun) i'm sure.
the 'post was saying that the marines didn't want to do it, but sniper fire from the building had injured or killed 5 grunts already.
every war has had the situation where a church is being used as a refuge from which attacks are launched, from the crusades to the american revolution, from the wars of the roses to the sandinistas and contras in central america. in every case, soldiers decide to we take them out (civilian losses being considered) or do we leave them in there, take our lumps, and watch a hostage situation grow out of it.
at some time as a soldier you have to say "our lives come first or the job will never get done".
now, the strike may have been at the wrong time, but to my mind the arrival of such a time is a given, no matter what the circumstances.
mind you, its a reason (among many) i would never be a soldier.
heck, consider the most famous case of soldiers using a church as a base of operations for military action: The Alamo.
now, mind you, Santa Ana at least spared the civilian women and children and all that, but it was still techincally a church mission being used as a military base.
Of course, maybe that makes us today worse than Santa Ana then, because he spared the non-combatants and we just bombed the heck out of this thing outright. maybe.
That's a good point, and I'll hold off my judgment of the situation until I know more. However, no matter what the reason for the attack, it's going to play bad in the media.
yeah, the updated 'post story is saying "after taking several hours of fire from insurgents who were using it as cover to attack Marines advancing through the city."
MSNBC: Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne told The Associated Press that he ordered the mosque attacked after his men came under fire from 30 to 40 insurgents inside and militants left the compound in an ambulance and shot at U.S. troops. "If they use the mosque as a military machine, then it's no longer a house of worship and we strike," he said.
If I recall correctly, that was a concern in the early days of the war last year, that they said they would strive to leave mosques alone, but would not tolerate the abuse of that amnesty where iraqi soldiers would use the mosques as a shield. Now the issue never came up to this degree during the "war"; the few times, it was only one or two soldiers who could be taken out without harming civilians or the building (*too* much). This was certainly different, both in the # of fighters inside it, and the action taken by the marines.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-07 09:49 am (UTC)the 'post was saying that the marines didn't want to do it, but sniper fire from the building had injured or killed 5 grunts already.
every war has had the situation where a church is being used as a refuge from which attacks are launched, from the crusades to the american revolution, from the wars of the roses to the sandinistas and contras in central america. in every case, soldiers decide to we take them out (civilian losses being considered) or do we leave them in there, take our lumps, and watch a hostage situation grow out of it.
at some time as a soldier you have to say "our lives come first or the job will never get done".
now, the strike may have been at the wrong time, but to my mind the arrival of such a time is a given, no matter what the circumstances.
mind you, its a reason (among many) i would never be a soldier.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-07 09:52 am (UTC)now, mind you, Santa Ana at least spared the civilian women and children and all that, but it was still techincally a church mission being used as a military base.
Of course, maybe that makes us today worse than Santa Ana then, because he spared the non-combatants and we just bombed the heck out of this thing outright. maybe.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-07 12:02 pm (UTC)That's a good point, and I'll hold off my judgment of the situation until I know more. However, no matter what the reason for the attack, it's going to play bad in the media.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-07 12:09 pm (UTC)MSNBC: Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne told The Associated Press that he ordered the mosque attacked after his men came under fire from 30 to 40 insurgents inside and militants left the compound in an ambulance and shot at U.S. troops. "If they use the mosque as a military machine, then it's no longer a house of worship and we strike," he said.
If I recall correctly, that was a concern in the early days of the war last year, that they said they would strive to leave mosques alone, but would not tolerate the abuse of that amnesty where iraqi soldiers would use the mosques as a shield. Now the issue never came up to this degree during the "war"; the few times, it was only one or two soldiers who could be taken out without harming civilians or the building (*too* much). This was certainly different, both in the # of fighters inside it, and the action taken by the marines.