I just read an interesting although somewhat confusing article on slate.com regarding the arming of Sunni Insurgent groups that I posted on yesterday:
http://www.slate.com/id/2168400/fr/flyout
This article seems at times to make opposing points, and may simply be a symptom of how confused and hopeless our entire Iraq situation has become, but it suggested one interesting point to me that I thought worth making here.
The article says that "The main Bush argument for the surge has been that a withdrawl would embolden Al Qaeda in its actions in Iraq and around the world." I've heard Bush make versions of this argument many times, some version of the idea that "Iraq is the frontline of the war on terror and the fight against Al Qaeda."
Now, hardly anyone disputes that Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq until we arrived there. Even the idea that Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism has been disproven, much less the idea that there was a terrorist presence actually inside the country. So we created the Al Qaeda presence there by going there and setting up shop.
Now if I, as a member of society, start a fight. If I throw a punch on someone, and they start to fight back, and they get the upper hand, and then I kill them, I get charged with murder. That is, the fact that the person was fighting me and might have killed me is not a mitigating circumstance, because I started the fight. The situation would never have existed had I not thrown the first punch. Yet it seems that in the case of nations, such behavior is justified, at least according to the logic of this administration.
Why is it that behavior not allowed within a country is nonetheless practiced by the country. Doesn't this seem hyperbolically hypocritical? We should not be able to use Al Qaeda as a justification for our continued presence in Iraq, because we brought them there and inflicted them on the Iraqi people.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, June 15, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Footsteps of the Apocalypse
I just learned about this story on "The Daily Show", and I had to google it to find it on any mainstream news website. Here is the NYTimes link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper
This is a story about how the US Military is now arming the Sunni insurgeny that was killing our troops scant months ago, on the condition that those troops promise to fight only Al Qaeda from here on out. The US commanders supporting the plan admit that it is "fraught with risk."
Did I miss the part where we lifted the prohibition in the Army against hallucinogenic drugs? What are these guys fucking on? I mean look, I know the blogosphere is generally blowing up about this, and I know at least 99% of the comments are exactly the same as this one, but the reason for that is simple: People who take the time to write blogs also generally take the time to read at least a little bit of history. Read about ANY time in the history of this or any other country that we have provided weapons to an insurgent or revolutionary group. The result is ALWAYS that group using the weapons to our desire in the short-term, then turning them on us in the long term. There's one group that everyone knows that has followed this pattern: The Taliban.
So the question isn't whether the Sunni's will break their word, but when they will do it. It's a simple issue of the moral scale: If you're willing to kill someone, it means nothing to lie to them, especially when needed supplies and weapons hang in the balance. It's the same principle that allows our soldiers to abuse and torture Iraqi prisoners with such apparent disregard. Torture is less than murder, so what's the problem?
The lack of understanding on the part of our generals is gross and disturbing. In fact, it is unbelievable. The only logical conclusion is that they aren't ignorant. They're desperate. This is a last resort, it has to be. If not it is the single stupidest, most unnecessary blunder in the history of organized warfare.
This is the last gasp of a dying fish lost in an endless desert. The come-down from a crack binge that started at the edge of memory. It's not hyperbole to say that this is the lowest point in American history since I was born.
Chris Matthews did an hour long show today without mention of this story. It's not leading on any of the news web sites right now. I follow news rabidly, and I didn't hear about this until just now. That's trouble for this country. Big trouble.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper
This is a story about how the US Military is now arming the Sunni insurgeny that was killing our troops scant months ago, on the condition that those troops promise to fight only Al Qaeda from here on out. The US commanders supporting the plan admit that it is "fraught with risk."
Did I miss the part where we lifted the prohibition in the Army against hallucinogenic drugs? What are these guys fucking on? I mean look, I know the blogosphere is generally blowing up about this, and I know at least 99% of the comments are exactly the same as this one, but the reason for that is simple: People who take the time to write blogs also generally take the time to read at least a little bit of history. Read about ANY time in the history of this or any other country that we have provided weapons to an insurgent or revolutionary group. The result is ALWAYS that group using the weapons to our desire in the short-term, then turning them on us in the long term. There's one group that everyone knows that has followed this pattern: The Taliban.
So the question isn't whether the Sunni's will break their word, but when they will do it. It's a simple issue of the moral scale: If you're willing to kill someone, it means nothing to lie to them, especially when needed supplies and weapons hang in the balance. It's the same principle that allows our soldiers to abuse and torture Iraqi prisoners with such apparent disregard. Torture is less than murder, so what's the problem?
The lack of understanding on the part of our generals is gross and disturbing. In fact, it is unbelievable. The only logical conclusion is that they aren't ignorant. They're desperate. This is a last resort, it has to be. If not it is the single stupidest, most unnecessary blunder in the history of organized warfare.
This is the last gasp of a dying fish lost in an endless desert. The come-down from a crack binge that started at the edge of memory. It's not hyperbole to say that this is the lowest point in American history since I was born.
Chris Matthews did an hour long show today without mention of this story. It's not leading on any of the news web sites right now. I follow news rabidly, and I didn't hear about this until just now. That's trouble for this country. Big trouble.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Shrine Attacks and the Definition of Insanity
Today's attack on one of the holiest shrines in Baghdad underscores a transition in my understanding of US policy in Iraq in general -- What was once merely misguided is now teetering on the brink of insanity.
The definition of insanity is repetition of the same action over and over with the expectation of different results. Today, after the shrine was bombed, General Petraeus said on ABC that he was optimistic, and that Iraq's leadership had done the right thing in universally condemning the attacks and calling for calm.
Is this some sort of new step? Was there a time at which Maliki's government was not condeming terrorism and not calling for calm? I hardly think so. So, Petraeus should not claim optimism in the face of renewed tactics that have proven ineffective in the past. Ineffective at least in the sense that today's attack was part of the result. Calling for calm and condemnation, sad to say, just doesn't mean anything to terrorists. And the regular people of Iraq have no reason to believe those calls will be effective, since we have shown no ability to enforce that calm.
Petraeus also claimed that the attacks today were the work of Al Qaeda. Maybe he's right, maybe not. But whether they were or not is immaterial, because either way it's bad news. I'm not even sure which would be worse: Either our forces are so ineffective against Al Qaeda that they were able to carry out a major attack against a known target in the center of the city which is the lynchpin of this entire conflict, or a homegrown terrorist cell is operating within the context of the greater civil war happening there. Wow, what a shitty set of options.
If we examine this in the context of our options going forward, we see that the result is the same in either case. Let's say it was Al Qaeda. They are doing this to stir up the ethnic hatreds that fuel the civil war, to make our situation there more untenable. The silver lining is that in doing so, Al Qaeda is itself stirring up the ire of the Iraqis, which means that when we leave, Al Qaeda is likely to find no firm purchase for recruiting or other operations.
If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then it is clear that the civil war is escalating, and it is equally clear that when we leave, things are going to get a lot worse, and in a hurry. What we must have the courage to face is that this is going to happen no matter when we leave, whether tomorrow of fifty years from now. This conflict has been going on for hundreds of years, so waiting even fifty years for us to leave means nothing to the Sunni or Shia.
Either way, this is yet another sign that it is time to get out -- Immediately. A failure to do so at this point, and insistence on the same optimism and impotent calls for a truce that have led us to this point, is a textbook case of insanity.
The definition of insanity is repetition of the same action over and over with the expectation of different results. Today, after the shrine was bombed, General Petraeus said on ABC that he was optimistic, and that Iraq's leadership had done the right thing in universally condemning the attacks and calling for calm.
Is this some sort of new step? Was there a time at which Maliki's government was not condeming terrorism and not calling for calm? I hardly think so. So, Petraeus should not claim optimism in the face of renewed tactics that have proven ineffective in the past. Ineffective at least in the sense that today's attack was part of the result. Calling for calm and condemnation, sad to say, just doesn't mean anything to terrorists. And the regular people of Iraq have no reason to believe those calls will be effective, since we have shown no ability to enforce that calm.
Petraeus also claimed that the attacks today were the work of Al Qaeda. Maybe he's right, maybe not. But whether they were or not is immaterial, because either way it's bad news. I'm not even sure which would be worse: Either our forces are so ineffective against Al Qaeda that they were able to carry out a major attack against a known target in the center of the city which is the lynchpin of this entire conflict, or a homegrown terrorist cell is operating within the context of the greater civil war happening there. Wow, what a shitty set of options.
If we examine this in the context of our options going forward, we see that the result is the same in either case. Let's say it was Al Qaeda. They are doing this to stir up the ethnic hatreds that fuel the civil war, to make our situation there more untenable. The silver lining is that in doing so, Al Qaeda is itself stirring up the ire of the Iraqis, which means that when we leave, Al Qaeda is likely to find no firm purchase for recruiting or other operations.
If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then it is clear that the civil war is escalating, and it is equally clear that when we leave, things are going to get a lot worse, and in a hurry. What we must have the courage to face is that this is going to happen no matter when we leave, whether tomorrow of fifty years from now. This conflict has been going on for hundreds of years, so waiting even fifty years for us to leave means nothing to the Sunni or Shia.
Either way, this is yet another sign that it is time to get out -- Immediately. A failure to do so at this point, and insistence on the same optimism and impotent calls for a truce that have led us to this point, is a textbook case of insanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)