What diplomatic efforts are being made to soothe anger at urination incident?

[Bonobo]

It seems pretty obvious that this kind of corpse desecration and insult to pride would be enormously insulting to not only Afghans but to other countries who might identify with the Afghans.

What diplomatic steps is the Obama Administration taking to soothe this anger?

If this had been done to US soldiers or citizens after they were killed, would we not be demanding an apology at the highest levels?

Does anyone remember our anger at the treatment of the US mercenaries in Fallujah that then led to us our massacre there and US using white phosphorus in violation of international law?

As usual, the US is focusing on Domestic reactions to this incident and its effect on politics, but are they considering the TREMENDOUS anger this is likely creating?

[Riftaxe]

1. I am sure Mohammad Ahkund has been

invited over to the White House for a beer and a chat over it...

[Bonobo]

2. Are you suggesting that only terrorists would be offended by this? nt

[Robb]

3. Frankly it rather sounded like Taliban leadership were nonplussed.

[Bonobo]

6. I think it goes way beyond Taliban leadership. nt

[Robb]

10. Clearly you do.

Unintended, I'm sure, but you're falling victim to the common Western problem of projection.

Western nations are rightly appalled by this. Afghanis, at least those lacking Western influences, not as much. I suspect if you gave it a moment you'd intuit why.

[Bonobo]

12. A cursory scan of headlines suggests you are underplaying their reaction.

"Afghan president Hamid Karzai condemned the video as "completely inhumane", while the Afghan defence ministry called it "shocking".

The Taliban issued a statement accusing US forces of committing numerous "indignities" against the Afghan people.

"First they killed the Afghans with mortars, and they then urinated on their bodies," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said. "We strongly condemn this inhumane action by the wild American soldiers.""

[Robb]

14. And yet, with the toss of a hand

... they also say peace negotiations will continue uninterrupted.

Think upon this for a while, see what comes to you.

[Bonobo]

18. What comes to me is that it is possible to be outraged while still wanting

a giant superpower to stop bombing the fuck out of you.

But NONE of that has anything to do with the thrust of my OP which is that the rest of the Muslim world is probably also furious at the US for this kind of behavior.

[JoePhilly]

4. Suggest the "right" action please.

Can you outline the "diplomatic steps" you seem to be screaming for?

[Bonobo]

5. "Seem to be screaming for"?

I think I am suggesting that it is a problem.

I would add that we have a State Dept. which has the purpose of making these kinds of diplomatic efforts.

Are you saying the issue is a non-issue or should somehow be ignored?

is it REALLY up to me to "suggest" what should happen?

[JoePhilly]

8. Clearly you want an action ... describe it.

It has not been ignored, and I did not suggest that it should be.

We've had multiple generals denounce it. They are investigating it.

I asked YOU a simple question .... what specific actions are you calling for?

And yes ... if you are going to demand "action" then you should be able to provide some description of what kind of action you are demanding.

If not, then yes, you are just "screaming".

[Bonobo]

11. So in your topsy-turvy world, asking a question is "screaming". Gotcha. nt

[JoePhilly]

16. Apparently, you don't want an answer.

You asked an ambiguous question.

I asked you to clarify it.

You can't ... or won't.

You are demanding an action, but you can't or won't describe the characteristics that action should have.

And my world is the "topsy-turvy" world.

[Bonobo]

17. No, YOU asked ME for an answer. I DO want an answer, but..

That doesn't mean I should have to answer my own question.

Are you able to understand that, Joe Philly?

[JoePhilly]

20. You are claiming that nothing is being done ... I'm asking you ...

"what should be done?"

Clearly you think that not enough HAS been done ... so what action would be ENOUGH??

What response would YOU like to see?

BTW ... others in this thread added more to what I did earlier, and they've descried some of the other actions that have been taken.

Do you find those actions insufficient, if so, please explain why.

Or, are you just howling at the moon? Which is fine btw. Just say that.

[Bonobo]

21. Where did I say nothing was being done?

Oh... I didn't.

[JoePhilly]

24. Please ...

This is the last line in your OP ...

"As usual, the US is focusing on Domestic reactions to this incident and its effect on politics, but are they considering the TREMENDOUS anger this is likely creating?"

And so again ... if the US is not doing ENOUGH ... what is it that YOU think they need to be doing?

Well?

[Bonobo]

25. My OP asks a simple question. If you cannot answer it, please just say so. nt

[JoePhilly]

28. Actually, you start to answer me in your post #22 ... you want an "Obama statement" ...

And I respond to that.

[Bonobo]

29. Actually I found Josh to ask marginally better questions than you, so I answer him.

You just sound like you are bullying and dodging, so I respond in kind.

Have a nice day.

[JoePhilly]

32. Humm ... You dodged ... I asked direct questions.

And I asked another in the thread with Josh. What does Obama need to say? Nevermind.

Your OP starts with how we need more diplomatic action ... but when pressed, you did come around and say that what you actually wanted was for Obama to say something. So you wanted an action, not by diplomats or the State Department, but by Obama. Fine.

You think I am bullying you ... no ... I'm trying to directly ask you what response you think would be appropriate, and by who.

In the end ... you wanted Obama to make a statement. Ok.

Josh is right ... that's not likely to happen ... although, I can imagine Obama making a subtle reference at some point.

But this issue will be handled lower in the chain of command, probably and at a minimum, dishonorable discharges, or more serious outcomes for those involved.

[joshcryer]

33. Hey, I also told you what the State Dept. was doing so far, as opposed to rhetoric.

I found it helps to just answer the question straight up if you want people to respond to inquiries.

[gratuitous]

7. We're sweeping as hard as we can

It's just that there's so much under the rug already, there's just not much room. Look for the old reliable "What would you do, smart guy?" retorts.

[joshcryer]

9. Hillary called it a possible war crime and that the marines were ID'd.

[Bonobo]

13. That's the level of outrage I want to hear. nt

[joshcryer]

15. Afghanistan commander said it broke the rules of military law. These guys are done.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/corpse-abuse-a-war-crime-20120114-1q0j1.html

Obama != Bush...

[joshcryer]

19. They'll get court martialed and probably sent to Levenworth. My question...

Is that enough for you?

[Bonobo]

22. That punishment itself is fine, but...

I do not think a simple punishment is enough to fully show US contrition for that.

In order to fully address the issue, I feel that the President Obama should make a statement directly to the rest of the world where the US military is currently active.

[joshcryer]

23. That is highly unlikely to happen, and you have unsurprisingly set the bar to an impossible level.

It's not the first time these sorts of abuses have happened, it will not be the last time it will happen, and the President is not going to take it to a level that indicates any level of control by him or even his generals at that level (though we know this is systemic and for every video that gets out there are probably dozens of acts like this that happen that are covered up).

The most notable thing is that this may be prosecuted as a War Crime, in which case the actors could spend the rest of their lives in jail. Certainly more jail time than those got for Abu Ghraib.

[Bonobo]

27. The POTUS is the face of the US to the rest of the world.

If a French soldier urinated on a US citizen, I would fully expect the French President to make a comment.

I do NOT think that is an "impossible level".

But to do less certainly does send the message that it is not worthy of his time or attention.

[joshcryer]

31. I think he will answer the question if asked, but he's not going to go out of his way...

...to "make a statement directly to the rest of the world where the US military is currently active."

If asked, however, I expect him to denounce it as always, and if asked "do you have control over that" he'll dismiss it as rank behavior.

Whether he'll take responsibility for the ranks not being as disciplined as you'd want, I cannot say. It is election season. I would be surprised if he did that.

You have placed it at an "impossible level." Can you show me one instance in the past 50 years where a President directly apologized to another country for actions by his military? And not actions by past military, actions that actually happened under the military the President controlled.

The last time the our troops in Afghanistan did this sort of abuse our military apologized, but the President did not do so.

If there was any a time the president could've been expected to personally apologize it should've been when those mass drone killings happened.

It didn't happen.

You've just placed the bar beyond any reasonable reach.

[Bonobo]

34. Obama was supposed to be about "change".

You cannot say that it is an unreasonable expectations SIMPLY because it has not happened before.

US military pisses on corpses and hell yes, I expect him to make a statement.

Call me a dreamer, but that is the way I see it.

NOT an impossible bar to reach.

BTW, I never said "direct apology".

[joshcryer]

36. Yes, a lot of people were fooled by the rhetoric.

Obama will not apologize. The troops will go to jail, possibly get life imprisonment, certainly more jail time than any previous cases (30+ years or more). The US military has and will apologize.

More troops will do similar actions. We will be in Afghanistan at least 2 more years. You will remain disappointed.

Glad I didn't intend to change your mind here, just wanted to confirm what I already had suspected.

Politics for me is almost solely entertainment, predicting the hard to predict. Obama has been overwhelmingly predictable. Only thing that really got me was the recess appointments. I'd be pleased to be wrong on this count, but I don't see it happening.

Election season.

[JoePhilly]

26. AHHHH .... FINALLY ... you actually described an action you think needs to happen.

"In order to fully address the issue, I feel that the President Obama should make a statement directly to the rest of the world where the US military is currently active."

See ... was that so hard?

Hilliary's statement was good, but not enough. Potential court martial trials are good, but not enough.

What you want is a statement from Obama. Excellent. We are making progress.

Can you describe what should be in that statement?

[Bonobo]

30. Now I am supposed to do the work of the State dept? Talk about setting the bar high.

No, I cannot at this time make a full response.

It is "beyond my pay grade" to do that work.

However, it does not prevent me from feeling that there has been an insufficient diplomatic response to assuage the anger of the rest of the world.

[JoePhilly]

35. Good ... I'm glad that you finally said that.

Clearly, you want "more" ... but you can't define what "more" is.

That is ok.

Earlier, you said you wanted "more" ... and I pressed you to describe what "more" means to you.

You then asked me if I thought this was all a non-issue. And then we went down a very different path.

Your last sentence sounds sincere ... "However, it does not prevent me from feeling that there has been an insufficient diplomatic response to assuage the anger of the rest of the world."

And its ok that you can't describe exactly what you think SHOULD be done. But I'd suggest that you can't get upset when others ASK you to describe what you think should be done. You could simply say ... I don't know ... or I'm not exactly sure, ... or ... something else.

I suspect that the administration is struggling with these same issues. A few marines, who have probably been in some very dangerous situations, screwed up BIG TIME. Do we just throw them under the bus ... are any of them suffering from PTSD? ... what actually happened? Who was in command?

All tough questions that need to be answered BEFORE the President jumps in.

[Bucky]

37. What idiot thought we'd send troops into an endless war and that this would NOT happen?

I mean, look, I don't excuse it, I don't condone it, and I think the troops involved should be punished. But that said... when you subject normal citizen soldiers to the stress of fighting against an indigenous insurgency for a decade, this sort of thing is bound to happen. While the troops who did this should face appropriate punishment, let's not pretend that this sort of atrocity wasn't inevitable. Good people will, on occasion, do bad things given the right menu of stresses.

You can't vote to go to war and sustain that war for ten years and then get shocked that abuses happen. No war happens without such minor atrocities (and pissing on corpses, on the grand scheme of things, is a minor atrocity) and the longer the war, the more atrocities you get... and the more atrocious they'll get. To deny this is to deny the facts of human nature. Punish the men, yes, civility demands it. But learn the lesson, too. Don't start wars we're not, as a nation, willing to accept the consequences of.