There is a lot more to consider seriously, than just quick and blanket condemnation of the US military actions in Iraq. Troops on the ground may be more blood thirsty and vicious than in previous wars. That all may well to true. The problem is that this war is different than many others. It was an unprovocated invasion, drummed up with lies, and carried out for no military purpose. The military is an occupation force, a military police.
So, I think the context itself generates the kinds of murderous atrocities that we read about almost every day. Since there is no formally constituted military enemy, literally everybody is the enemy. It follows as a practical matter that in any given confrontation between US troops and Iraqis the balance of power is such that it is always safer to kill the Iraqis.
The context itself automatically generates the conduct. So, then it is not a good idea to start talking about the blood thirsty US military, without sitting up the situation in advance.
Personally I think it is a serious political and ethical mistake to treat troops on the ground to these condemnations. We are going to be living with them as police, teachers, business people, trades people, and so forth when they get out and they are going to remember their own experiences and how their actions were judged.
Also as this war deteriorates further and further, there are going to more and more of these atrocities, and the righwing, the GOP, and especially the current jerks in power are going to be looking for a scapegoat for this disaster, and that animal is certainly not going to be them. They are already trying their best to manuver the Democrats into a corner over Iraq where if they vote against appropriations, then they are not supporting our troops. If they vote for the appropriations, then they have signed on to an atrocity and disaster.
Further on down the road, this war will be formally judged as a crime against to humanity---unless the US can bring about a success, with a stable government, and peace on the street with a well behaved civilian police force, etc, etc. That is not going to happen. So we will continue kill Iraqis and destroy their country until the Iraqis manage to get rid of us. We are going to lose this one, and the world will be waiting at the Hague with miles and miles of briefs to file.
All of this gets back to the point that George Bush is a war criminal and deliberately pursued policies that created the conditions of war such that the only possible actions of the US military would be war crimes large and small, one way or another in almost every act and encounter. So the assignment of condemnation has to follow in proporition to the personal power of the actors involved at each level. Once down to the individual soldier, we are a very long way down the ladder of responsibility.
In terms of power relations, consequences, and responsibility, individual soldiers face a series of bad choices. Either they shoot first and ask questions later, or they risk death. Either they carry out their field orders, or they face imprisonment for disobediance. Either they leave the military, AWOL and don't come back and face possible prison or death for desersion. Now, compare those choices with the choices, consequences, and responsibilities of those in power who planned, lied, and carried out this war. Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld never facef the direct physical threats that follow from all the of the soldier's choices.
So, as for me, the indiviual soldier, gets cut a fair amount of slack, up to a point. And that point has to be looked at individually, which I suspect is exactly what most of the US troops are going right now. How far am I willing to wade into this horror? When do I call it down, and refuse?
I gotta go back to work...
CG