I want to say coming out of the chute on this that I am very heartsick for the families of the latest two soldiers killed in Iraq.  I won’t dwell on their brutal deaths, enough other people are doing that. What I am concerned about is the reactions.

There are a lot of conflicting emotions that people are going thorugh on this.  I have seen reactions from the simple heartfelt comments of a friend of mine in my comments to the blistering calls for retaliation I read in another blogger’s trackbacks.  Obviously I consider one a bit more appropriate then the other.

As another of my commentors has said noted, this kind of brutality thing tends to inflame even the pacifist into action.

But it does once again illustrate just how differently we and the terrorists see conflict.  Our goal is to have the terrorists stop, either by capture (preferred) or death (acceptable).  There goal is just for us to die.  There is no effort made to capture the enemy (us) and hold us in camps, our people, whether contractors, soldiers or reporters are just slaughter victims.

Let’s also be clear, and this is brutal but true:  In the end death is death, and it is normally pointless to debate the moral superiority the method.  In other words, asking "Was it more humane to drop a bomb on Zarqawi’s head then it was for them to behead these two soldiers?" leads us into a kind of moral relevency that has no practical benefit.  And even if we did make that comparison, and if we all agree they are cruelanimals, I don’t feel comfortable suggesting we can take the gloves off now and nuke Mecca, or to make Gitmo into a killing field.

Part of my beliefs aer that we do as a rule hold our actions to a higher standard.

People are demonizing the Marines accused in Haditha, for example, and that proves my point.  Leaving aside the matter of whether the allegations will be found to be true for a moment, we as a country hold a standard that deliberate brutality is wrong, and we back that up with our laws and our courts.  The mere fact we soseriously investigate this is proof of our difference in our moral stance in that regard.

So I find the vengence basedreactions to be wholely understandable, because we are angry, but also inappropriate because to do so would make us no better then the murderers we fight.

The politicians have been mostly quiet.  Thank God.  The left though, has been busy.   The people at Daily Kos have begun bloviating, and some of it is typically outrageous.

A commentor names Occams Hatchet said this:

The bodies of the two captured U.S. soldiers were found in Iraq - bearing signs of "barbaric torture."

How "quaint."

His comment is directed towards the accusatoins of torture against the US, obviously.  Typical really, but noteworthy in this case because of the pure callousness and lack of sensitivity.

What burns me is the pure lack of compassion here, and not just from him (or her).  Some of the comments on this are as bad.  This is just another example of the famous Bush Derangement Syndrome, where it is more fun to blame Bush then weep for the dead.

And even one of the family members has fallen for the trap of this:

Wizbang has the original quotes from the AP story, which the AP has apparently now edited:

AP Only Telling Half the Story On Soldier’s Uncle

The AP’s story on the uncle of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca criticizing the U.S. for not "having a plan" pretty much portrays him as a sympathetic fellow. For the purpose of context, I’ll clip the whole thing here:

Missing Soldier’s Uncle Criticizes U.S.

DALLAS — The uncle of a U.S. soldier who disappeared after a firefight in Iraq lashed out at the government Tuesday after learning two bodies had reportedly been found not far from where his nephew and another soldier were last seen.

"The news is going to be heartbreaking for my family," Ken MacKenzie, uncle of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, told NBC’s "Today" show. "Because the U.S. government did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid for it with his life," he said.

"I think the U.S. government was too slow to react to this," MacKenzie said. "They should have had a plan in place."

But as Wizbang also points out, Newsbustes shows the whole interview that the uncle had with Matt Lauer, and position on the kidnapping was rather unhinged.

Lauer Challenges Uncle’s Call for $100 Million Ransom for Kidnapped Soldiers

For a TV host, there’s nothing much more difficult than interviewing a family member of someone who has been killed or seriously harmed. So when the uncle of one of the US soldiers kidnapped and killed in Iraq called for the offering of a massive ransom and a prisoner exchange, give Matt Lauer credit for having had the courage to challenge him.

Here’s how it went down.

Lauer was interviewing Ken MacKenzie, a well-spoken, well-informed uncle to PFC Kristian Menchaca. Asked Lauer:

"A group linked to al-Qaeda on its website has claimed that they actually took Kristian and another soldier. What’s your reaction to that?"

Replied MacKenzie::

"My reaction is the United States government should have immediately notified these Shura Council mujahadeen that the United States government was offering a $100-million reward and offering to exchange the 2,500 mujahadeen detainees that Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq plans to release several weeks from now. I think the U.S. government was too slow to react to this, they should have had a plan in place. Because the U.S. government did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid for it with his life."

Lauer:

"Let me just interrupt for a second. Obviously the U.S. has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We do have reports that up to 8,000 troops, U.S. and Iraqis, are out searching for your nephew and also reward money is being offered in Baghdad or in the area for any information leading to the finding of your nephew. Are you suggesting that you think the U.S. government should pay a ransom?"

MacKenzie didn’t mince words:

"Yes. The ransom is available from Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party funds seized by the U.S. government. More than $100 billion in cash and gold, that the U.S. government apparently had plans to return to the government of Iraq. I would think that that money, part of it, could be used to pay ransom. That would not be coming out of U.S. taxpayer pockets, by the way. It could be paid out of the bank account where it now reposes. I think that that money should have been earmarked for this type of a hostage situation."

Lauer again challenged the suggestion:

"Mr. MacKenzie, obviously you are dealing with this as a personal and a family tragedy. I can certainly understand that, but wouldn’t that then make it very profitable for terrorists in Iraq and other parts of the world to kidnap westerners because they could reap huge amounts of money from it?"
MacKenzie:

"Yes, but they are doing that anyway. I don’t know if that would escalate or encourage them to kidnap more westerners and more U.S. soldiers. But I rather doubt it. My concern is the humanitarian concern. This money will be used of course by whoever’s going to use it in the future and it won’t go toward saving lives. I am more interested — was more interested in seeing my nephew saved with some combination of ransom and prisoner exchange. Apparently the Prime Minister of Iraq planned to release these 2,500 mujahadeen without any so-called quid pro quo, something for something."

Rantingprofs, The Huffington Post, NewsBusters.org, Wizbang, The Sundries Shack, TBogg, Power Line, The Horse’s Mouth, The Heretik, Brilliant at Breakfast, Crooks and Liars, Daily Pundit, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, Captain’s Quarters, QandO

Trackback URI | Comments RSS