A DIFFERING VIEW: The ‘surge’ is making progress in Iraq
Disappointingly, the Rocky Mountain News has joined the bulk of the media in its studied imperviousness to the realities of war. In its July 7 editorial (“Iraq, the reassessment”), the Rocky asks forgiveness “for doubting that two more months of the surge — or 10 more — will prove decisive.” This is an easy conclusion to come to when one is willfully ignorant of facts on the ground.
For instance, in the month since the fifth brigade of the surge joined the fight, civilian casualties in Baghdad and in Iraq in general were both down (according to icasualties.org) over 20 percent from the previous two months.
Likewise, the Rocky has completely ignored the reporting of Michael Yon, who, while embedded with the 1st Cavalry, is now reporting that the people of recently reliberated Baqubah are “jubilant” at the American presence, and that the people of Diyala province “put their trust in the Americans as arbiters of justice.” This sounds to me like progress — if not “decisive,” certainly substantial.
But, more important, the Rocky fails to note the enemy. The same enemy, Yon reports (with photos) that beheaded four children before leaving their bodies next to their parents’ in an unmarked grave; the same enemy that slaughtered all the livestock in one village; the same enemy that booby-traped an entire village as the American and Iraqi forces closed in; the same enemy that baked an Iraqi boy, and then served him to his family as lunch.
This is the enemy that we have an obligation — a moral duty — to eradicate from the face of the Earth while we have them in our crosshairs, as we do now in Iraq.
Before the Rocky gives credibility to the calculations of old men more desperate to hold on to their senatorial careers than they are for American victory, it ought to get its facts straight; or, at least, if it won’t do its own reporting, read the reporting of people who are on the ground.
Michael Alcorn lives in Arvada.
"The same enemy, Yon reports (with photos) that beheaded four children before leaving their bodies next to their parents’ in an unmarked grave; the same enemy that slaughtered all the livestock in one village; the same enemy that booby-traped an entire village as the American and Iraqi forces closed in; the same enemy that baked an Iraqi boy, and then served him to his family as lunch."
The surge is working Michael???
Posted by conservative media on July 11, 2007 05:30 AMIt does not matter what is reported from Iraq. Those who oppose not only the war but the Bush administration like the Rocky does. Will never admit to any progress. Thier blind obediance to the left clouds not only thier judgment but thier morals too.
Unfortunately they will only be nhappy when these terrist thugs strike here in America. Then they wil say why didnt we stop them over there.
Posted by on July 11, 2007 06:32 AM6:32 you should buy a clue. RMN endorsed Bush TWICE
Posted by just sayin' on July 11, 2007 07:22 AMI shifted from the Denver Post to the Rocky Mountain News because of the Post's unabashed liberal bias and Bush hating. Now the Rocky Mountain News seems to be drifting toward the perspective of the Post.
The liberal perspective is selfish and shallow. The need is for policy based upon what is in the long term best interests of this country and its citizens. The cut and run growd who turned Vietnam into a total disgrace for our country are still here and they refuse to learn from their mistakes.
And the unintentional irony award goes to: John Klinowski!
"The liberal perspective is selfish and shallow. The need is for policy based upon what is in the long term best interests of this country and its citizens. The cut and run growd who turned Vietnam into a total disgrace for our country are still here and they refuse to learn from their mistakes."
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 08:20 AMjust sayin--the EDITORIAL board endorsed GWB. The average writer for the RMN tilts liberal (maybe not 90% like most of the country, but much more than half) and that's the issue here, not the editorial page.
Posted by Bunny Slippers on July 11, 2007 08:38 AMApparently, the truth has a liberal bias.
That's why I will get all my information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly from now on.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 11, 2007 08:41 AMIt is common knowledge that facts have a liberal bias.
Posted by Stephen Colbert on July 11, 2007 08:56 AMBuny Slippers where do you get your statistic that 90% of the writers in this country have a liberal bias.? I'm guessing it was from the last circle jerk at your Young Republicans meeting.
Posted by just sayin' on July 11, 2007 09:21 AMHow does anyone know for sure how good or bad things are going in Iraq? I doubt anyone here would qualify as an expert on foreign and military policy. All any of us knows is what we're spoon fed by the media. Not exactly a reliable source of information for seeing the overall big picture.
So I'll just sit back and watch with amusement as all the armchair experts slug it out with each other.
Posted by Dez on July 11, 2007 09:31 AMWatch Telamundo, they show pictures the American media would censor for sure.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 09:38 AMLets see, the last 3 months have been the deadliest as far as civilian casualities go. June was what, the 3rd deadliest month for troops in Iraq?
If this is success, I'd hate to see failure.
Oh yea, BTW, when are the Iraqi's going to stand up so we can stand down? How many Iraqi troops have we trained? How many benchmarks did the Iraqi gov't meet?
Oh wait, those talking points are SO 2005.
Posted by Tbone on July 11, 2007 09:42 AMStephen Colbert said:
"It is common knowledge that facts have a liberal bias."
That makes no sense. Please explain.
Posted by conservative media on July 11, 2007 10:01 AMAll we hear about are how many US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers die. I don't think we get a balanced report, which would include how many of the enemy die every day.
If we can get the full picture, we might have a clearer idea of whether or not there's been some progress against the insurgency.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 10:01 AM10:01 it is something that Stephen has said on his show several times. (He's a comedian)
Posted by Stephen Colbert on July 11, 2007 10:05 AMGreat comments everyone. How in the world can we do a comparison contrast of what is happening in Iraq? Information is limited at best, censured and fabricated at worst (or edited to demonstrate a predetermined cause or outcome).
I can honestly say, that I don't know what to think of the situation in Iraq. We really can't call it a "war" anymore, as the enemy (Saddam in this instance) was defeated, and a new government of representatives was freely elected by the people of Iraq. Is this now an occupation? A training mission? Augmentation and support by the "allied forces" to assist in civil and religious conflict? Manifest Destiny? I don't know anymore.
What I would like to see is an actual mission statement (not just "we are going after the terrorists", because that is crap as there are terrorists all over the world in which the US has not committed military personnel), defining what the purpose of the troops still stationed in Iraq is, and what measurable goals will determine success or failure. To sit in quagmire is repulsive, and to have no measurable tenets is just plain stupid. Do I think we should just leave Iraq, with as little plan as we had when we went in? That would be a resounding no, but we need to have a plan, with measurable progress or regress, and then act accordingly in regard to those goals.
Posted by Dan2 on July 11, 2007 10:06 AMGail K,
Perhaps you can tell us just which "side" of the Iraqi civil war we are supporting, and which "side" are the "insurgents"
Oh! And of course, just by the way, perhaps you can enlighten us as just why we are supporting ANY particular side in another nation's civil war, at the cost of American lives.
Didn't I read somewhere - the RMN, if memory serves - that the current Iraqi Parliament voted to ask/tell us go "get out and go home"? (After which vote, it went on a two month "vacation", I believe the news story said.)
And didn't I also read somewhere - again, the RMN, if memory serves - where almost 90% of the goals set for the Iraqis to meet, by this Administration, were as yet un-met; along with the report that, even with the presence of added troops from America, the Iraqis were doing little, or nothing, to try to improve their own performance?
Ah! Well! What's another 3, or 4, or 5 - or even 30, 40, or 50 thousand - more body bags being off-loaded here in the U.S., so long as we "win" in Iraq? The Administration won't allow them to be photographed, or publicized, anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 10:22 AMA suggestion, it might help if we keep a semi-permanent garrison in the towns we re-take from the insurgents or Al Qaeda.
The garrison should not be made up of Iraq citizens. That way, no religious infighting.
Towns could hold an election to ask for the garrisons, that way there is no sugestion of force on our part.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 10:51 AMDear Old Grouch,
This is not merely a civil war in another country, and it is not about oil or greed. Our stake in this is American safety home and abroad. That's what soldiers fight for. I cannot believe I have to explain that. Our war is against terror supporters. It's better over there than on our soil. I seriously doubt those who are dedicated to extremist muslim domination to the point of suicide would be gracious and say, "since the Americans have left, we'll leave them alone and get on with our 'civil' war."
No, we heard from them before we went over there, and will continue to hear from them in the form of attacks, or stifled attempts, here at home. They do not like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or most of the other freedoms we enjoy in our country. They seriously believe they have a mandate from their god to destroy anybody who does not submit to their views, and will take out any living innocent being who gets in their way. It will happen to our children, our elderly parents. They will take us captive. They will attempt to force us into submission. They will torture us and decapitate us. It has been done thousands of times, and will not stop because we are no longer present in Iraq.
I'm sure we can agree that this is a war unlike any in history. We cannot easily identify the enemy, because they hide in plain sight, and wear a civilian camoflauge. It will no doubt be a very, very long fight. In fact, I often feel I will not in my lifetime see an end to the fight against terror. But I do submit that it cannot be given an ounce of tolerance. We can't trust them or hold "talks" with a movement like that.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 11:08 AMHow could anybody not hate Bush? I have my own business and would never get a job if I had his language skills.
This guy is an idiot. How could you possibly beleive otherwise?
Posted by rick on July 11, 2007 11:41 AMOh goodie--another wrong-wing bed wetter has joined the ranks!
Hey Gail, remember Afghanistan? That's where the real terror supporters were--and still are. What about Saudi Arabia--why aren't we at war with them since that's where the 9/11 bombers came from.
Somehow, I just don't picture boatloads of Iraqis crossing the wide oceans to bring their civil war over here. It is a civil war--Sunni v. Shiite--that conflict has been going on for hundreds of years.
I'm more worried about getting stabbed by an ice pick by some run-of-the-mill nutcase while walking the streets of Denver than I am any "terrorist" coming to get me.
The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are roughly the same as being hit by a comet, about 1 in 80,000. Chance of dying from an assault: 1 in 16,421. Chance of dying from heart disease: 1 in 3.
Are you one of these people who are actively hoping for another terrorist attack on US soil?
Hello No-Name of 11:44,
I certainly pray that you are right. I prefer not to take risks, or deny what I do know has already happened, and is likely to happen when an opportunity arises for them.
Posted by on July 11, 2007 11:49 AMDan2,
Good points. I'm no military strategist. I doubt most on this board have had much experience in that regard. I agree we need a plan, and that it does need to be global, as there are cells of terrorists all over the world.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 11:53 AMGail K.
Wow,
you sure look to be a prime example of the outer party loyalist. Keep up your good work, once the Thought Police recognize your obedience you may be a candidate for the Inner Party. Indeed only through eternal war will we see eternal peace, our freedom is slavery, and our strength is from ignorance.
How far are we from the Two Minute Hate? Winston Smith would be proud.
Posted by Holy Reality on July 11, 2007 11:58 AMrick said - "This guy is an idiot. How could you possibly beleive otherwise?"
Just a suggestion rick, before you start bashing the intelligence of others, you might want to check your spelling.
Pot meet kettle.
Posted by on July 11, 2007 11:59 AMHoly Reality,
Wrong. That's not my religion. I don't go for the inner and outer rise among the ranks or anything. Your slavery and ignorance idea actually better represents the jihadists.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 12:07 PMGail K,
Well then, I'll just have to ask you - as I have asked others before - how all this projected "captivity, etc.," is going to happen in the real world.
Please tell us how:
without any navy or sea transport to speak of;
without an organized armed force of any major significance;
without arms, armored vehicles, amunition, and the other necessary supplies;
without a significant air force;
without an industrial capacity able to provide the basic necessities in the first place, and also able to maintain supply lines for replacement of war materiel;
without competent and capable military leadership, other than that "leadership" approved by competing religious leaders and warlords, among the constantly quarreling internal tribes, factions, schisms, and religious divisions that have been fighting with each other FIRST for nearly 1200 years now;
HOW are the "jihadists" going to cross the Mediterranian and the Atlantic?
HOW are the "jihadists" going to first conquer the European Nations? (Logically necessary before venturing on a conquest of the Western world.)
HOW are the "jihadists" going to conquer the whole of the former Soviet Empire, China and South East Asia? (Equally logically necessary to avoid constant warfare on multiple fronts.)
AND, while keeping these territories subjugated and pacified;
HOW are the "jihadists" then going to invade and conquer any part of the American Continents?
HOW is this scenario of "America in captivity" going to happen?
No one can dispute the possibility of individual terrorist acts - equal to, or even exceeding, the atrocity of the World Trade bombings - which, terrorist acts can happen anywhere in the United States. And, no one is offering to dispute this unfortunate reality, or deny the possibility there.
BUT! Other than setting up a Flying Carpet Alert - and setting one off every time some "Jihadist" makes great and fearful proclamations of "what's going to happen, when . . ." - your projections lack even a grain of real facts to back them up.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 01:18 PMTree Hugger says with sarcasm:
"Apparently, the truth has a liberal bias. That's why I will get all my information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly from now on."
So out of the umpteen major news outlets you could only cite a whopping TWO that are considered conservative?
Thanks for proving the point that all the rest have a liberal slant.
And to back up Bunny's contention of 90% of reporters being liberal, here's the MSNBC report showing 87% support left or liberal canditates (or both).
You can also visit Media Research Center. They compiled a study back a year or so ago although you might consider them to conservative for your tastes.
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 01:25 PMOG - How are they going to use our own planes to bring down the WTC and who's going to train them how to fly? Could never happen in a million years, could it?
Why do you think they will ever stop trying?
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 01:29 PMOld Grouch,
They don't need a traditional military to conduct their business. They're creative and resourceful. A sword and a video are sufficient. If you think they won't you're in dangerous denial.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 01:29 PMGail K,
You seem like a nice person, but I think based on the talking points you throw out that you've been getting your info from sources that only affirm what you think. And what you think, frankly, is a bit ridiculous.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 01:43 PMMr Acorn: You should realize this "bad news" is even worse than the media portrays. US forces do not keep body count for civilian casualties, which is one major place they lost this war. The whole "hearts and minds" piece of an occupation. Troops handing out candy to kids does not bring back all the innocent victims the US has killed in crossfire, bombings, and oh yeah, do not forget the raping of a young girl & the murder of her family. These injustices are seared into the consciousness of a majority of Iraqis, and the "enemy" you suggest wiping off the face of the earth includes millions of angry Iraqi civilians who are simply defending their honor & homeland against an often-hostile occupying force.
Posted by hikingartist on July 11, 2007 01:50 PMback to Michael Alcorn...
quoting you: This is the enemy that we have an obligation - a moral duty - to eradicate from the face of the Earth........
doesn't that statement make you a terrorist?
To Dave P:
That's a fitting question from one who wishes us failure. Dave, isn't that exactly what our enemy is saying?
Troutman
Gail K,
Please keep an open mind to the posts of Dan2, Old Grouch, and Charles B.... they speak a lot of truth and are not just "knee-jerk liberals". There are a great many who have succumbed to the fear-mongering of the current administration without critically assessing the validity of such war hysterics and propaganda. If this were truly a "war on terror", we would be focusing our efforts to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. with more Special Operations maneuvers, and deal less with war surges that have no strategic impact on an enemy that has no sovereignty.
The problem many war supporters have is not understanding that this method of fighting terror (with round after round of ground troops) is out-moded. When those against the war explain as much, instead of listening to reason, these war hawks instead attack non-supporters as "commie, leftist, pansy, terrorist"-- you name it. These war supporters need to take the time to understand that fighting terrorism in the 21st century does not entail sending more and more troops to die. It means strengthening our national intelligence, improving our spy networks, cutting off enemy financial networks, improving diplomacy with allies and neutrals, and surgical strikes on terror targets with Special Ops. It's a war of pinpoint attacks, not brute force theatrics.
As a non-war supporter, my problem isn't with fighting terrorism, it's how this war is being fought. We have complete idiot throwbacks in office who have yet to understand the threat, and instead just toss more money and bodies at it, all the while breaking laws and covering up their mistakes to justify their erroneous strategies. These people are costing American lives and threatening the American sovereignty they have sworn to protect with their blatant, stubborn, possibly criminal ignorance. They have failed as leaders and should step aside, letting those with the intelligence, ability, and experience in dealing with 21st century conflicts lead the way.
Posted by Dan on July 11, 2007 02:59 PMGail,
I referred to Orwell, 1984 describes your world. One where your fear overrides your need for liberty. The points you make of jihadist threats, to take over America, are all Big Brother needs to keep you in line.
Once Americans unanimously follow jingo chants, and wish for the death of the 'enemy', we will be ready for our two minute hates, the Big Brother surveillance, and the ministries of love, truth, to direct our thought police.
A national craven war cry, does not fly with the last two lines of our national anthem. Why fear an attack as likely to kill you as that of dying from a lightning strike?
One last question, if "they" don't need a traditional military, why would our military prove efficacious against "them"?
Posted by Holy Reality on July 11, 2007 03:04 PMGail, your post of 11:08 fascinates me.
Could you give me a little biographical detail about yourself in terms of age, study direction, occupation, and what media you generally use and how often?
I quite understand that you may be nervous about giving out info, but I truly find your position fascinating.
Fine Holy Reality. You don't have to worry then. Nothing will happen.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 03:26 PMWhy Bango Shank,
Thanks, but I'm not looking for any dates. I'm happily married. Shall we play a guessing game about one another's backgrounds and educational level?
First, give me a clue about yourself.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 03:29 PMThe far right is going to assure a Democratic President in 08. Keep up the good work.
Posted by rick on July 11, 2007 04:30 PMA little mental exercise for conservatives.
Imagine that some of Americas hard core Evangelicals from Georgia flew planes into the mosque at Mecca. Then Arabs invaded and occupied the south land, but not the states where the Evangelicals came from.
Do you not think that people from all over the country would go to the south to fight the invaders.?
Please don`t tell me that this is America and Arabs can`t invade us. Just think about what I have proposed.
HOw would you, as a Coloradian feel? What would you do?
As a private citizen not part of an official army, who would sit around and not join the fight?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 05:05 PMConservatives are in favor of protecting our borders and the safety of the American people. They will probably be first in line to fight for their country.
Coloadian?
Gail K said:
"Conservatives are in favor of protecting our borders and the safety of the American people. They will probably be first in line to fight for their country."
Ok, so I guess you don't really want to have a conversation...
Shall we count up the draft dodging deferment happy chicken hawks who label themselves "conservative"?
I would run out of fingers just with the higher ranks in the Bush administration.
Now REAL conservatives might line up, but these pseudo-conservatives wouldn't.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 06:20 PMGail, I wasn’t asking for a date, but trying to gauge where you are coming from.
Simple biographical details often explain and contextualize.
I am happy to go first:
I am in the 45-55 age group, military background, and studies in aerospace and avionics, psychology, philosophy, and information science/technology amongst others, and use scientific journals like Science and Nature, British Medical Journal, JAMA, NEJM, read papers including NYT, Rocky (obviously), Guardian, and some european online newspapers. Listen to PBS, Air America, 630KHOW, KVOD classical, and 1390KGNU.
Your turn.
Gail, so then the people in the Middle East who have gone into Iraq to fight us are "Conservative"?
I think you inadvertently answered my question and may not even know it.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 06:34 PMAs far as I can tell, everyone who has spoken publicly about the surge agrees that it cannot be successful unless the Iraqi government is successful in meeting the various demands we have made on them. As I understand it, after five months they are making little or no progress in that direction. At best, to say the surge is working or making progress is to say only that some of the cylinders on the surge engine show promise, but others do not.
Posted by Truth on July 11, 2007 06:54 PMTruth, must be like that Ehrlich engine used with the old Steyr Daimler Puch motorcycle.
Two pistons of different sizes in a shared-vent two stroke configuration.
The one just does a whole lot less compression than the other.
Posted by Bango Skank on July 11, 2007 07:08 PMKW,
Do check the posting itself. An invasion of the American continent, and "American captivity", are one form of fantasy. Acts of terrorism, as such, are possible.
Dan answers your question quite well. And I covered the separate acts of terrorism already.
Unless, that is, you think we are in need of a round of "The Flying Carpets are Coming!" alerts, every time someone screeches about, "what the jihadists are threatening to do", just to keep up the fear level - or, perhaps, stimulate the idea of a vast regression to an new era of Crusades.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 07:17 PMOkay Bango.
Same age group as you. My military family includes a Navy lifer dad, uncles and a grandpa, two of my three brothers and a couple of nephews. One has served two tours and has re-inlisted in the reserves. He'll go in a heartbeat if called back. He's a chemistry major at Virginia Commonwealth U and intends grad study in pharmacy.
Psych was my first major, then I switched to business, graduated with a BA in Mgmt, and also have a post-grad paralegal certificate and have taken a couple of grad courses. I've worked in corporate accounting and non-profit planned giving. I was a Girl Scout leader for 4 years, and have been a church volunteer all my adult life.
I get most of my news online - included in my favorites are the Rocky, cbs4denver.com, thedenverchannel.com, 9news.com, CNN.com, and Foxnews.com. I do not watch much TV, but I think I favor Hannity and Colmes over most programs. My subscriptions are Colorado Dog, Writers Digest, The Lutheran Witness, Readers Digest, and others irrelevent to this topic.
I listen to 850KOA, KLOVE and COOL105.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 07:52 PMSharon, who has gone into Iraq to fight us?
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 08:01 PMGail, men from Syria, Lebanon and others that I don`t recall right off hand. That is one reason the troops try to keep close watch on the borders, but they sneak in any way .
We both messed up the state name for us. Coloradoans. Is that right/
Posted by Sharon B. on July 12, 2007 01:06 AMOG:
"Unless, that is, you think we are in need of a round of "The Flying Carpets are Coming!" alerts, every time someone screeches about, "what the jihadists are threatening to do"
I can't remember who, but someone refered to these terrorist who supposedly going to "follow us home" from Iraq as "puppies of doom". Heh.
Posted by Charles B on July 12, 2007 08:10 AMI haven`t turned on the TV yet today, so I don`t know how the surge is working on July 12, but it didn`t look to good on July 11, 10, 9...
I think "puppies" would insult an Islamic terrorist. they think dogs are unclean. Double insult there. Love it!
Posted by Sharon B. on July 12, 2007 11:41 AMhoo-yah!
Gail thanks, your background actually gives a context that is very coherent to your stated views, which as I said, I found fascinating.
” it is not about oil or greed”
So if the national product of Iraq was asparagus and the country was located in the Polynesian islands, we would have done the same?
Don’t you think that strategic control over oilfields and having a large permanent military base in Iraq wasn’t the main driver?
”… this is American safety home and abroad”
If so then we have achieved the exact opposite of the intention since Iraq had very little to do with threats to the US, whereas some of the countries we claim are friends have been.
Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. The Saudis actively sponsor jihadist groups and actively support the Maddrasa schools that foment hate against the US specifically. Not only does Pakistan do the same but they actually gave out nuclear weapons technology to countries hostile to the US.
So if safety was a concern then our choice of targets was irrational.
” It's better over there than on our soil”
Better for whom?
There are now over 650,000 Iraqi dead that would not otherwise have died, their infrastructure has been ruined, and life expectancy at birth is now one of the lowest in the world. Who are we to decide to stage a battle “over there” that was none of their fault and not of their choice?
Please explain the morality of such a choice to me, and if you base this moral choice on Christianity, please refer me to something Jesus said that would make this a moral choice.
” I seriously doubt those who are dedicated to extremist muslim domination to the point of suicide would be gracious and say, "since the Americans have left, we'll leave them alone and get on with our 'civil' war."
“Muslim domination” is not a common theme of those who strap on explosive vests, but defense and revenge for acts committed against their fellow Muslims is. Strangely enough the history of conflicts suggests the opposite of what you say about “following us home”. In fact all the hostilities I have read of or been involved with show that when you stop killing a population and take your foot off their throat, they generally try to pick up their lives and go back to normal.
The Xhosa, Zulu, Boer, Turks, Mau Mau, etc didn’t follow the Brits home.
The Congolese, Vietnamese, Morrocans, etc didn’t follow the French home.
The Namibians, the Jews, the French, the Russians didn’t keep attacking the Germans after the various wars.
And the Vietnamese, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, etc haven’t followed the US home.
So what is it about this enemy that makes you think what you do?
” No, we heard from them before we went over there….”
Heard from whom, the Iraqi?
I think you are conflating a particularly Saudi branch of Wahhabism with Iraq.
Iraq was a secular country remember, Quaida was outlawed there. Remember also that we were in the Middle-east long before Quaida started up. Remember also that Quaida was part of our adventure into making Afghanistan a Russian “Viet Nam”.
In fact all these attacks on the US were semaphored by Quaida who made no secret of why they wanted us out of their holy places and that they wanted us to stop propping up despots in their countries. Read up about Mossadeq and Kermit for example.
Truth is, we can’t or don’t want to give up our influence in the Middle-east, so we would never have agreed to what Quaida wanted.
It’s called “strategic interests”
” They do not like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or most of the other freedoms we enjoy in our country”
Qaida don’t for sure, but billions of Muslims the world over love the idea.
Trouble is that we won’t let them have it because if they had democracy and freedom of speech they would get rid of the despots we are in business with, and our oil contracts and military bases may evaporate. So it’s a case of “yes they are bastards, but they are our bastards”. Billions of Muslims love the American freedoms, they just want some of them and to decide for themselves which.
” They seriously believe they have a mandate from their god to destroy anybody who does not submit to their views, and will take out any living innocent being who gets in their way.”
Qaida and the fundamentalists certainly do, but billions of Muslims are happy to ignore those violent texts and to assume that they only counted for the period during the Crusades. They are perfectly happy to live along with others. They do in fact live this way in dozens of countries. The current conflict of course stirs things up, but there is no reason to suppose that it wouldn’t return to normal if the conflict was over.
” They will take us captive. They will attempt to force us into submission. They will torture us and decapitate us. It has been done thousands of times, and will not stop because we are no longer present in Iraq.”
Who, the Iraqi?
The Iraqi are going to invade the US and “force us into submission”?
Or do you think that all these different language groups and different Muslim countries are going to form a coalition to do this?
They haven’t all piled into Iraq in their hundreds of thousands, or sent the Indonesian army in, or even thrown our ambassadors out of their countries – so what gives you the idea that there is a large invasionary and occupation force being mustered?
” I'm sure we can agree that this is a war unlike any in history”
Nope, actually it looks a whole lot like dozens that I have looked at or been involved in.
It is a classical case of invasion-occupation-insurgence, and the claim that this is something unique is just a bunch of eyewash to excuse abnormal and irrational thinking.
We are approaching a point at which it either becomes a war of attrition which we lose, or a sudden escalation which neither has resources for.
They are slowly denying us operational freedom – note how they have started blowing up roads and bridges to shape our travel options. We upgrade tactics and armour, they upgrade tactics and explosives. Every time we use the only weapons that we have superiority with, we kill bystanders and they get free publicity and more recruiting tools.
War by shoulder arms and landmine is a very familiar game to me, I know it well.
This can go on another thirty years.
” But I do submit that it cannot be given an ounce of tolerance. We can't trust them or hold "talks" with a movement like that.”
Tough luck, eventually we will.
We have no stomache to carry out the escalation in tactics and troop numbers that we would need to win, and there is no proxy nation available to do it for us.
Your thinking that they “cannot be given an ounce of tolerance” is irrational and leads directly to atrocity and barbarity. If you go down that road you will soon become the Nazi. Our allies have already warned us that we are going down this path, there is still time to avoid becoming what we claim to abhor.
As a Christian, you should be ashamed of having said that.
Bango Skank,
Most of your remarks are mixing up the Iraqi people with terrorists. We are not fighting Iraq as a country, nor the people of Iraq. We are not fighting those of the muslim faith, but those who are militant extremists. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. I'm sure that you know that as well as I do, but you will not concede that fact. Instead, your only argument with me has no water. Your whole approach is so off base. That's a pretty cheap shot.
Regarding your last jab against me - being intolerant of wickedness is not a sin.
Posted by Gail K on July 12, 2007 05:10 PMHo-hum
” Most of your remarks are mixing up the Iraqi people with terrorists. “
er..no Gail, you are the one getting them mixed up with all your “over there” thinking.
There were no significant numbers of “terrorists” in Iraqi prior to the invasion, and the continued occupation is a magnet to people who feel the need to fight or have an agenda to foment conflict.
”We are not fighting Iraq as a country, nor the people of Iraq. We are not fighting those of the muslim faith, but those who are militant extremists. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.”
You don’t need to explain it.
We are not fighting in “Terroristland” or “Jihadistan”, we are physically in the country of Iraq and there are now estimated to be over 650,000 Iraqis dead because of our actions. Every roadblock, house search, or operation against “terrorists” inconveniences, hurts, and kills Iraqi civilians. This breeds hatred and fuels support of the many different kinds of fighters that then take up arms against us. Some are hardened jihadis from Afghanistan vintage, some are insane religious nuts, some are young firebrands and adventurers, and then there are also nationalists and people whose friends or family we have (perhaps inadvertently) killed, maimed, or embarrassed.
”I'm sure that you know that as well as I do, but you will not concede that fact. Instead, your only argument with me has no water. Your whole approach is so off base. That's a pretty cheap shot.”
What I know well is that you are either monstrously misinformed or deliberately squirming away from what is plainly obvious. Not only is your approach “off base” but teeters on the insane. To think that you can morally start a war in another country to attack “terrorists” that weren’t there and then claim that you have no conflict with the people who live and die there is not rational. It isn’t a cheap shot to ask you for your moral argument for this and neither is it cheap to call you to account for this irrationality.
”Regarding your last jab against me - being intolerant of wickedness is not a sin.
Indeed, but intolerance to people and taking actions that kills hundreds of thousands of people who were actually the victims is most certainly a sin.
Sin is most certainly and most decidedly what you are busy living with this thinking.
Apparently many of you failed to read Michael's letter. He outlined in that letter the progress we've made so far. In fact, at least one of you either ignored the letter, or is outright lying when you say that civilian casualties are up. Michael states (and offers proof) that civilian casualties are down 20%.
As far as US casualties being up; yes they are up. That's what happens when you leave your bases and confront an enemy determined to kill and maime as many Americans as possible.
Making sure that Iraq becomes a stable nation is in our best interests as a country. If Iraq is allowed to fall into chaos and become either an Iranian proxy state, or worse yet an unchallenged Al Qaeda training ground, the US will be far worse off than we are now. If that is allowed to happen, we will end up back in Iraq again, and the fight to wrestle the country from the hands of Islamofacists will be that much more difficult. Like it or not, we are in Iraq, and we MUST win.
Posted by Jim C on July 20, 2007 10:16 AM