I won't denigrate the soldiers who wrote this opinion piece. However, I would like to remind all that many other Veterans of this and every other conflict have stated opposite views and their views also need respected.

With that being said, history shows us of Veterans of war, both honorable and some that we may consider not so honorable, that have stated opposition to a conflict that history now shows how wrong they were. Two that come to mind immediatley would be Charles A. Lindbergh, for his anti-war stance prior to WW2 and of course, John 'F'in Kerry, whose rhetoric helped cause the fiasco of the fall of South Viet Nam.

Maybe that is why we entrust leadership of battles to our Presidents and Generals, and not Junior Officers or Enlisted men.

Lew,

It can be tricky, and it does take a fine sense of what is fitting both for these soldiers to write their dissent, and for us to cross-examine it. On the whole, I view their opinions as honorable but misguided - but I also think it important to do here on Blogs for Bush what simply will not happen on the anti war blogs: allow dissenting opinions to be expressed without hitting the expression with a string of insults.

Qoute from the article - We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

These men show us exactly what makes them soldiers. They have their personal feelings, but they wont shirk their duty to their country or to the men standing next to them.

I wish Reid and Murtha would learn something from this.

I agree, Mark. Just being a Veteran doesn't automatically make one right. If that were so, the left would have embraced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth instead of denigrating over 250 highly decorated Viet Nam Veterans.

As on my own small blog, I welcome dissent. A discussion cannot take place if only one view is aired. I see that on every left wing blog or forum I visit. Dissension is grounds for banning on them.

Looking back 37 years ago, I can see many of the things we said to each other in Viet Nam weren't exactly accurate. I can also see that much of what we were told by the anti-war left, both then and now, is equally inaccurate. Still, without the dissenting views, how can we arrive at the best possible solution? We can't.

Personally, I appreciate that dissenting views are allowed here, even if they irritate me at times. I've seen many comments that I felt should have been deleted and commenter banned, but were allowed to remain. So much for just who really stifles open discussion.

Keep up the good job, though. It is great to be able to address both views.

Come on now, don't swift-boat these guys. I know you haven't -- yet. I hope we can take Mark at his word. But it sounds like both Mark and Lew are awfully close to the cusp. Read what they said and appreciate it as part of the whole. Appreciate as well that they could get in a whole lot of trouble for what they said (they are, after all, active military and are speaking out outside of the established CoC). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, appreciate the fact that they're saying essentially the same thing as just about everyone that doesn't wear a pleated skirt and carries pom poms (or wears a slinky black coctail dress at 7 am, lol!): there are several parts of Iraq that are still hell holes.

These guys are from the 82nd Airborne, which presumably puts them somewhere in Baghdad or in one of the nearby belts. And from the sound of it, they're in some neighborhood where various factions mix, where militia infiltration of the Iraqi military and police forces are worst, and where they get to see the dysfunctionality of the central government up close and personal. That makes for a very toxic environment.

Nonetheless, although the story they tell might differ from other sources in terms of its relentless degree, it doesn't differ so much in terms of its overall substance. Everyone that doesn't wear a pleated skirt and carries pom poms (or a slinky black coctail dress at 7 am, lol!), which is to say, everyone worth listening to -- up to and including Gen Petraeus -- pretty much agrees that "we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear." As I said in a comment in another thread earlier today, even under the best of circumstances, this battle is nowhere near over. And we are nowhere near the best of circumstances. To think we are, and to think that the end is near, is pure fantasy.

At the end of Page 1 these "dissenting voices" (a description which is oh so carefully folded into some kind of "anti-war" implication) pregnantly point out, "While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force."

Yeah, that's the voice of a bunch of anti-war types. Fer sher.

And mind you, the "we" they're talking about is not their little gang of 7, but the greater "we", as in the USA and the rest of western civilization. Moreover, if you've read the new army counterinsurgency manual, that sort of restraint is exactly what's recommended to fight a counterinsurgency, because fighting a counterinsurgency is much more about winning hearts and minds than it is about killing bad guys. Because if you concentrate on the latter to the detriment of the former, there will always be "a few thousand more ragged bad guys" to kill.

If there is a main point of contention that I would take with respect to what this "gang of seven" has say it would be this: Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

I disagree on two levels. First, the military situation is obviously designed to reduce the military flux by empowering those that have been heretofore least attended to by the central government (or us): the Sunni tribesmen and the Shiite urban poor. Second, I firmly believe that significant movement to a political settlement CAN be achieved IN SPITE OF the military flux. In fact, I would argue that it is essential BECAUSE OF the military flux. The two are not mutually exclusive, but intimately conjoined. In the same way that self-fulfilling prophesies often cause things to spiral out of control, self-fulfilling prophesies (so to speak) can often cause things to spiral into control. And to the extent that we compartmentalize the two will enhance the possibility that we will ultimately fail.

Damn, I should have stuck to one draft, lol!

Maybe that is why we entrust leadership of battles to our Presidents and Generals, and not Junior Officers or Enlisted men.
Posted by: Lew Waters [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 19, 2007 06:11 PM

Right on screw theses grunts!

My nephew is the embedded intelligence guy in an Iraqi unit. He says they're lazy. They do what you tell them - but thats it. And yes, he's sick of the place. It is his second tour there.

He comes home soon. But his mother, a Navy warrant officer will be going over soon to work in Baghdad (we think). I hear frustration. But more of a "what can we do now to fight better, or how to win" frustration. Don't know how to explain it.

"There is, of course, no way that 7 soldiers of the 82nd Airborne can know what even a small minoriy of Iraqis want, let alone the vast majority. As we try to determine the best way to proceed in Iraq, the very last thing we should believe is that we know what Iraqis want"

I think we need another vote in Iraq to determine what the Iraqis want. This one asking the Iraqi people if they want the US to stay or to leave. It is their country. They have the right to ask us to leave. Let us have a vote to determine the will of the Iraqi people.

Kahn,

It is hard to build a western-style military force without the underlying civic militarism available in the west. For all of human history, the common man of the middle east has been fooled or flogged into battle by his overlords; he's never been a real, professional soldier fighting under a constitutional government which secures his rights as a citizen. An American soldier volunteers and as he holds his position to be one of intrinsic worth, he carries out his duties to the best of his ability - an Iraqi soldier has to be taught from the ground up not just how to fight, but why to fight.

But they are fighting - not as well as American and other Coalition troops, but fighting pretty well all the same: right now, I would stack up any Iraqi unit against any other military unit in the Arab world. Man for man, I think this is the best Arab army ever seen - finally, an Arab army which, at least in part, is willing to close with the enemy in head-on battle. In the end, it will be 20 years before the Iraqi army will build up the internal culture necessary for it to be a military force comparable to the American army.

Right now, we just want enough of them to fight hard enough to ensure that the Iraqi government can sustain itself against armed, internal challenges.

Christian,

If the Iraqi government chooses to have such a vote - they are not our puppets to dance to our tune.

Kahn: He [your nephew] comes home soon. But his mother, a Navy warrant officer will be going over soon to work in Baghdad (we think). I hear frustration. But more of a "what can we do now to fight better, or how to win" frustration. Don't know how to explain it.

Thank you for being honest. I do some work that occasions me to visit a nearby Marine base. I don't interact with grunts all that often (hardly ever), mostly brass. I don't know if you know anything about the guy that runs the place, but questions like, "WTF??" are perfectly appropriate -- even when expressed quite literally, lol! And the short answer is usually some variation on FUBAR -- with conditions of course. Anyway, the frustration is palpable, at least at the top. Like I said, I don't interact with the grunts (except what I hear from my sweetie's daughter, who has a jarhead for a boyfriend, who can't say much of any import beyond "I miss you"). And it has nothing to do with the performance of our troops. It has a lot to do with the performance of theirs, and their government.

Mark,

You must be kidding about the Iraqi army being the best in the Arab world. Iran for one would destroy them. They have a far more technologically advance military. Minus American hardware in the region, they have some AKs and grenades, unless you were referring to the Iranians being Persian and not Arab.

Peace, Gaijin

However, then one would have to take into account Pakistan which has something in the neighborhood of 50 nuclear weapons. I'm no military genius (that’s a soft ball pitch for Khan and Keefer Madness, have fun), but I think Nukes trump AKs any day of the week.

With ridiculous statements like that, it just goes to show how much of an unthinking cheerleader for Bush and this war you really are. Your biases will not let you think in the realm of logic

By the way, MarkofZero played you guys for fools last week. It was like watching a Troop of Girl Scouts try to box Mike Tyson in his prime：one by one each mustering up all her strength, only to be knocked out cold.

Gaijin,

The conscripted slaves which make up the Iranian army couldn't even make a dent in Saddam's worthless military - I doubt much they can do anything against the current Iraqi army.

Ricorun, let's just say I support these Troops, but not their opinion?

If you didn't know, every war has Troops in disagreement with the effort and who think there is a better way to fight it, or it isn't worth fighting. Most still perform their duties admirably, some giving their lives.

Since these Troops aren't running for office or trying to hide pertinent records or history about them, they cannot be swift boated at all.

Disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't belittling them. Only the leftists think that way.

Diana Powe: I didn't preserve screenshots...

Sometimes I leave web pages open all day long while I go about my work, and sometimes forgetting they're there. So sometimes I end up with two versions of the same page. As it so happens, I believe the day you're talking about was one of those days. It was July 19, and the topic was "W" Still Stands for "Win". When I reproduced that page late in the day I noticed that it was different than the one earlier in the day. It sounds like the one you're talking about, because there were two long posts by one commenter. The first was deleted as off topic and the second was purged completely. And neither one of them seemed particularly off-topic or particularly hostile. So I decided to save them. Are those the ones you're talking about?

I want all dissenting posts to be deleted; they're making the place smell!

Just kidding; I always just miss the deleted posts, and it makes me curious. Basides, can they be as ridiculous as some of the garbage the seminar-blogger troll pukes post here? A lot of the posts should be deleted, but they remain.

btw, what happened to the requirement for troops to clear public statements? These folks need to be questioned by the proper military authorities...

"The ability of an American observer to walk where it was certain death to walk before cannot be other than a positive indicator."

Men walked on the moon. I'm not sure it's a wise decision to move there. It's possible to more or less shut a city down so Lieberman or mcCain can have a photo op, but that does not mean the country is secure. If any of us can safely walk down the streets of an Iraqi city when we are accompanied by a battalion and attack helicopters, that does not equal safety for the average citizen.

Iraqis aren't dumb. So long as Bush is in charge, we won't cut and run. Or cut off funds. Or troops. We will provide soldiers and money so long as they need them. I'd take off some time if I were in parliament there as well. Nice deal

Ricorun,

Diane, who has posted here under various names, has been excised, again - and will continue to be exised, again and again (if she wishes), just so long as she comes here to complain about what we do.

Right now, it is 156,627 comments, 1,214 which didn't make the cut - and that since 2003; bit more than 300 a year, or less than one a day.

Noonan: For all of human history, the common man of the middle east has been fooled or flogged into battle by his overlords; he's never been a real, professional soldier fighting under a constitutional government which secures his rights as a citizen.

Do not write on what you know so little about. Constitutional governments are a fairly recent invention, but they're not the only way soldiers have earned rights in history's armies. In fact, the "common man" of the middle east has often chosen soldiering as a means itself to acquire rights not available to non-soldier subjects.

The armies that have crossed the middle east--and they've crossed the middle east more than any other region in the world--have often been composed of soldiers who weren't "flogged or fooled," but men who got a relatively decent deal out of this employment. (See Akkadians, Hittites, Achaemenids, Hellenes, Ummayyads, Mamelukes, Saljuqs, Crusaders, and Ottomans...)

Lew Waters writes:
"I agree, Mark. Just being a Veteran doesn't automatically make one right. If that were so, the left would have embraced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth instead of denigrating over 250 highly decorated Viet Nam Veterans."

This is such a highly suspect group, I am amazed that you would find them credible in their actions.

A major part of the SBVT controversy centered on the group's testimony. Among the first to question the first ad was Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter, Vietnam veteran, and former POW. He said, "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong".[44] As a naval aviator in Vietnam, McCain had no firsthand knowledge of Kerry's service. The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.[45]

The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.

Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies."[46] ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."[47] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[48] stated, "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." The editorial argued this position on the basis that "Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation." On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: "An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar."[49]

The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.[50] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke "in the presence of a Communist official",[51] but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter[1][not in citation given] and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee.[52][53][54][55]

Jerome Corsi has said that a picture of Kerry's 1993 visit to Vietnam hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a gesture of "honor" by the Communists "for his contribution to their victory over [the] United States",[56][57] and John O'Neill has stated that Kerry "is in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero. . . . one of the heroes who caused them to win the war in Vietnam".[58] The statement is also repeated in "Unfit for Command" (pp 167-174). However, Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard:

“ While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.
It was apparently taken as Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials
”
— Josh Gerstein[59]

In this connection, the webpage Corsi and another anti-Kerry veteran originally published on the Kerry museum photo contained the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with General Giap, who was misidentified as Mao Tse Tung.[57](Photo #10).

In addition, John O'Neill said that in 1971 John Kerry "wanted to abandon ship and leave the POWs [in Vietnam]" and that "[o]n the Dick Cavett show and elsewhere, John Kerry‘s position was that we should accept the Madame Binh seven-point proposal, which called for unilateral withdrawal, setting a date after which at some future time, we‘d negotiate the return of the POWs. So we would set a date. We would withdraw and then we would begin to discuss how to bring them home".[60] However, in the Cavett debate, Kerry actually said:

“ Now, if we were to set a date for withdrawal from Southeast Asia, we can – the Vietnamese, first of all, have said it will be settled prior to the arrival of that date, but we can set a time limit on that. If the prisoners of war aren't back prior to the arrival of that date, then I think we would have – for the first time in all of our history in Vietnam we would have a legitimate reason for taking some kind of reaction to it. ”
— John Kerry[61]

Early in the advertising campaign, Time magazine surveyed public credence in the SBVT advertisements among those who viewed them. The poll, conducted August 24 through 26, showed that about one-third of viewers believed there was at least "some truth" to the allegations. Among swing voters, about one-fourth felt there was any truth to the ads.[62]

More recently, an early member of the group, Steve Hayes, stated that he came to believe that the group was twisting Kerry's record, and broke with the group and voted for Kerry. Hayes told the New York Times:

The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' Mr. Hayes said this month. It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.

Hayes also told the New York Times that he provided a long interview to Kerry's supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Kerry received the Bronze Star.[63]

sunshin,

Get over Kerry, would'ya? He's yesterday's news, and the SWVT did a great job countering the drive-by media's relentless attack on President Bush during the '04 campaign.

Don't worry--soon your favorite girl, Her Thighness, may be occupying 1600. Then you can watch as she dives into your wallet...

Fats,

Well, I know enough to know that Hellenes and Crusaders were not of the middle east - and, in fact, prove my point: the free soldiers of the west, in the form of Alexander's Greeks and the Crusaders, made short work of the slave armies of the middle east.

The Seljuks were also not of the middle east, but of the Eurasian Steppe, as were the Ottomans; and both Seljuks and Ottomans fell into decline as they, following the common practice of the ME, started using slaves flogged into battle to fight their wars.

No, Fats, that Iraqi army and that Afghan army - those are the first middle eastern armies to be made up of free men who made a decision to join.

First: Fooling, flogging, and “free” crusaders.

Pope Urban (1095) [and many variants of this passage exist]: "All [crusaders] who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans [the Muslims], shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."

Ekkehard of Aurach (1101), on the miracles accompanying the launch of the first crusade—proof that it was worthy in the eyes of God: “I may also report that at this time a woman after two years gestation finally gave birth to a boy who was able to talk,; and that a child with a double set of limbs, another with two heads, and some lambs with two heads were also born; and that colts came into the world with great teeth, which we ordinarily call horses' teeth and which nature only grants to three-year old horses.”

Looks like the Westerners were fooled into serving.

( Or maybe they were pretty cagey, if we look at this evidence from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)): “Since it is certainly right that those who give their allegiance to the heavenly Emperor should enjoy a special privilege: when the time of the expedition shall exceed one year in length, the crusaders shall be free from collections, tallages and other taxes.”

But those Crusaders weren’t ever flogged were they?

After losing a battle, the clerical leaders decided it was due to the Crusaders’ licentiousness. So: “Some [crusaders] were chained, some had their heads shaved, some were beaten or branded. As an object-lesson, a man and woman caught in adultery were driven with whips all around the camp.” -Walter Porges, “The Clergy, the Poor, and the Non-Combatants on the First Crusade.”

“[The Canons of the Council of Nablus in Jerusalem (laws set up by the Crusader state, ca. 1120)] impose rhinotomy [nose-removal] on adulterers … also be flogged and shorn of their hair.” [Some also recommended castration or expulsion.]
-Benjamin Kedar, “On the Origins of the Earliest Laws in Frankish Jerusalem”

“The penal code of the Order of the Teutonic Knights [borrowed from other Crusader orders] … A minor offense was committed if a brother carried a letter for a stranger …consorted with bad women … ate or drank outside the house with lay folk….” -Indrikis Sterns, “Crime and Punishment among the Teutonic Knights”

“Hospitallers [for sinning with a woman] were punished with flogging in public and expulsion from the order.” - Sterns

In a besieged town, during the fifth crusade, if guards left their posts they would be hanged; if knights loafed their arms and horses were to be seized, and the knights banished; footmen, women, and merchants who failed to serve on the walls would lose their belongings and a hand. All of the above would be excommunicated.
-R. L. Wolff and H. W. Hazard, The Later Crusades

You really have no grasp of what military discipline was like several centuries ago. Your ideas about the crusader armies are fantasies, including your thesis that their freedoms led them to victory. First, the soldiers that fought against them were often military elites of very similar social rank, with similar freedoms. Second, most of the crusades were military disasters, embarrassing defeats. Part of the First Crusade was successful, but another part of it was obliterated. From that point the only really successful Crusades were the Crusades that didn’t make it to the Levant (the Fourth Crusade—Christian-on-Christian violence at Constantinople; the Albigensian Crusade—French v. French; and the German stuff against the Baltic peoples).

Fats,

And yet they did volunteer - and all of them, from lowliest peasant to most noble lord were free from arbitrary execution or confiscation of property: something no middle easterner could claim.

It was, after all, a Chrstian army which transported itself across thousands of miles and launched an offensive in the heart of enemy territory...the slaves of the middle east couldn't even take Constantinople until they had the help of free westerners who would forge proper cannon for them...and even then, the few defenders of Constantinople filled ditches with the bodies of the slave soldiers of the Ottoman Sultan before they were finally overcome by sheer weight of numbers.

And yet they did volunteer -

They volunteered because
a) they were fooled [i.e., promised heaven]
b) they got real perquisites [i.e., loot, tax breaks, land]
c) they got marching orders from social superiors
These motivations are absolutely no different than those inspiring the soldiers who were convinced to fight against the Crusaders.

all of them, from lowliest peasant to most noble lord were free from arbitrary execution or confiscation of property:

Do you have any clue what European peasants’ lives were like in the 11th century? The Church kept begging the military elites not to randomly slay peasants. (In fact, some historians argue that one of the Pope’s motivations in calling the First Crusade was to make Europe safer by turning the noble classes onto an outside enemy.) No confiscation of property? (Did you read what I posted?) Where do you think the grain that fed the elites came from? Confiscated peasant produce. Peasants were also very often subject to the rule of their own lord as the judge, jury and executioner. No arbitrary execution? I suppose failing the ordeal of fire is a good reason to be declared guilty in your mind.

something no middle easterner could claim.

Yes. There were never ever ever laws written in the middle east about property and execution. EVER! (tip: look into a fellar named Hammurabi)

It was, after all, a Chrstian army which transported itself across thousands of miles and launched an offensive in the heart of enemy territory...

Relevance to the discussion? It was, after all, a Mslim army which transported itself across thousands of miles and launched an offensive in the heart of enemy territory…[Spain.]

the slaves of the middle east couldn't even take Constantinople until they had the help of free westerners who would forge proper cannon for them...

And those freedom-loving Westerners couldn’t even defend North Africa, Anatolia, the Balkans, or Spain against a bunch of ...um, slaves?

even then, the few defenders of Constantinople filled ditches with the bodies of the slave soldiers of the Ottoman Sultan before they were finally overcome by sheer weight of numbers.

Strange how those slave soldiers kept right on marching to the gates of Vienna. Twice! Launching offensives in the heart of enemy territory!

The Seljuks were also not of the middle east, but of the Eurasian Steppe, as were the Ottomans; and both Seljuks and Ottomans fell into decline as they, following the common practice of the ME, started using slaves flogged into battle to fight their wars.

If you get Afghanistan, I get the “Eurasian Steppe.” (Besides, we’re talking about people who resided in the Middle East, not just the origins of their people.) Yes, the Ottoman Empire, that short-lived ol’ thing, lasting from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth. Not sure where you get these images of people flogging janissaries.

that Iraqi army and that Afghan army - those are the first middle eastern armies to be made up of free men who made a decision to join.

Afghan men have joined armies freely to resist Macedonians, Mongols, Persians, Brits, Soviets, and others. “Iraqis” are a rather new invention, but their ancestors joined plenty of armies of their own free will as well.

And yet they did volunteer -

They volunteered because
a) they were fooled [i.e., promised heaven]
b) they got real perquisites [i.e., loot, tax breaks, land]
c) they got marching orders from social superiors
These motivations are no different than those inspiring the soldiers who were convinced to fight against the Crusaders.

all of them, from lowliest peasant to most noble lord were free from arbitrary execution or confiscation of property:

Do you have any clue what European peasants’ lives were like in the high middle ages? The Church kept begging the military elites not to randomly slay peasants. (In fact, some historians argue that one of the Pope’s motivations in calling the First Crusade was to make Europe safer by turning the noble classes onto an outside enemy.) No confiscation of property? (Did you read what I posted?) Where do you think the grain that fed the elites came from? Confiscated peasant produce. Peasants were also very often subject to the rule of their own lord as the judge, jury and executioner; different rules applied to different social classes. No arbitrary execution? I suppose failing the ordeal of fire is a good, non-arbitrary reason to be declared guilty.

something no middle easterner could claim.

Yes. There were never ever ever laws written in the middle east about property and execution. EVER! (tip: look into a fellar named Hammurabi or say what we here call the Old Testament.)

It was, after all, a Chrstian army which transported itself across thousands of miles and launched an offensive in the heart of enemy territory...

Relevance to the discussion? It was, after all, a Mslim army which transported itself across hundreds of miles and launched an offensive in the heart of enemy territory…[Spain or Austria, take yer pick.]

the slaves of the middle east couldn't even take Constantinople until they had the help of free westerners who would forge proper cannon for them...

And those freedom-loving Westerners couldn’t even defend North Africa, Anatolia, the Balkans, or Spain against a bunch of camel jockeys. Or figure out zeros.

even then, the few defenders of Constantinople filled ditches with the bodies of the slave soldiers of the Ottoman Sultan before they were finally overcome by sheer weight of numbers.

Strange how those slave soldiers kept right on marching to the gates of Vienna. Twice! (And if you look into the memoirs of the Crusades, you’ll find Christians fighting until their own corpses form hills on the battlefield…)

The Seljuks were also not of the middle east, but of the Eurasian Steppe, as were the Ottomans; and both Seljuks and Ottomans fell into decline as they, following the common practice of the ME, started using slaves flogged into battle to fight their wars.

If you get Afghanistan, I get the “Eurasian Steppe.” (Besides, we’re talking about people who resided in the Middle East, not just the origins of their people.) Yes, the Ottoman Empire, that short-lived ol’ thing, lasting from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century. Not sure where you get these images of people flogging janissaries on the battlefield.

that Iraqi army and that Afghan army - those are the first middle eastern armies to be made up of free men who made a decision to join.

Afghan men have joined armies freely to resist Macedonians, Mongols, Persians, Brits, Soviets, and others. “Iraqis” are a rather new invention, but their ancestors joined plenty of armies of their own free will as well.

Fats,

But they never actually managed to take Vienna, now did they?