Iraq and London
Patrick Belton at Oxblog takes the other side of a Belmont Club argument that the London attack was mitigated by the absorption of enemy resources in Iraq.
The second reason the enemy is weaker is Iraq. It is widely accepted that thousands of Al Qaeda fighters, the cream of their rancid crop, is fighting to expel the American infidel from the Land Between the Rivers. A moment's reflection will show that if they are there they cannot be elsewhere -- in London, Paris, Rome or Boston -- sowing bombs on buses and trains.
Belton asks why this is necessarily true. Perhaps Iraq hasn't siphoned off Al Qaeda strength but augmented it.
How do we know that Al Qaeda hasn't reserved its best operatives for attacks against Europe and the United States while sending its foot soldiers into the trenches in Iraq? And how do we know that Iraq doesn't serve as an effective training ground for Al Qaeda, where those who survive gain the ability to operate in much less supportive enivornments, such as London or New York? In a limited sense, the "flypaper theory" is most certainly right; the war in Iraq is chewing up a lot of jihadist manpower. But is it chewing up enough to ensure that there aren't 19 more terrorists ready and able to carry out another 9/11?
The underlying idea is that Iraq is not Al Qaeda's unwanted 'second front' but its Fort Benning. The logical extension of the argument is that without Iraq Islamism would produce fewer or possibly less capable cadres. It's possible isn't it, Belton asks? So then how do we know which interpretation is correct. The definitive way to answer Belton's question would be to present numbers, a balance sheet so to speak, of that movement's assets and liabilities. It would be even better if we could construct some kind of 'income statement', which showed the delta in the movements value over a period. But I don't have that data and assert that in all probability, neither does Osama Bin Laden or any mortal man. It's hard enough to create an honest management information system for companies that deal in dollars and cents. The set of books which could answer Mr. Belton's valid question probably does not exist.
So we must do the next best thing. We must measure Al Qaeda's strength by the perturbation it creates; by the power it exercises; by the strength and capability it displays. Absent the books, we measure what we can measure by proxy. One way to do this is to create a column of countries: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc. and ask ourselves whether the fortunes of Islamism in general and Al Qaeda in particular have prospered in these places since September 11 and especially after OIF. My personal subjective judgment is that Islamism has weakened across the board in nearly all of these places even after OIF. If we consider the nearest thing to referendums on Al Qaeda (as a component of the general question) available in the Islamic world -- the Iraqi, Afghan and Lebanese elections -- it is safe to assert that they are not ringing endorsements of radical Islamism, but rather reflect its relative decline. Bin Laden was, until the London bombings, almost a forgotten man in comparison to his celebrity in 2001. The wisdom of the Western 'crowds' with respect to trends in the War on Terror was measured in the Australian, US and British elections. The proposition that Iraq was Islamism's Fort Benning, its recruiting station and training ground, was articulated with all the considerable fluency that its proponents could muster. Yet Howard, Bush and Blair were re-elected. If the proposition was true the electorate was not convinced.
From a technical point of view the London bombings, when compared to their counterparts in Iraq, the West Bank or Beirut, have the look of marked poverty. The quantity of explosives employed was in the tens of kilos max. This is far less than the Canary Wharf bomb employed by the IRA which was rated at 500 kg. For that matter, it was much less powerful that Timothy McVeigh's device at Oklahoma city. It was nothing compared to what blew Hariri sky-high in Beirut. The weapon of choice in Iraq, the trademark of Zaraqawi, is the car bomb. If we had seen a car bomb used in London, then we might say, 'aha! An Iraqi insurgent has come to mentor the British Al Qaeda cell'. That might still be true; but there is no obvious way one can get from Iraq to the London operation. Occam's Razor urges a simpler conclusion: that Al Qaeda's British minions either didn't have enough explosive to do worse or they didn't have the know-how to assemble a bigger bomb. It might still be argued that Al Qaeda is 'holding back' -- that it "reserved its best operatives for attacks against Europe and the United States while sending its foot soldiers into the trenches in Iraq" -- toying with the West really, teasing it with these tiny little bombs when it was capable of much more. Mark Steyn in the Telegraph argued that this self-restraint theory made no sense. The London attack was as deadly as Al Qaeda could make it. They would have blown up 30 trains if they had the means. Certainly it was not the milk of human kindness that stayed their hand.
Yesterday, al-Qa'eda hit three Tube trains and one bus. Had they broadened their attentions from the central zone, had they attempted to blow up 30 trains from Uxbridge to Upminster, who can doubt that they too would have been successful? In other words, the scale of the carnage was constrained only by the murderers' ambition and their manpower.
The inevitable question then is 'why could Bin Laden not find the means to attack 30 trains?' The answer it seems to me, must be Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and hundred other places where he is engaged without quarter by US forces. Resources, whether Jihadi or no are not infinite. They do not have some magical machine that allows them to be everywhere at once, to sustain losses yet grow. There's no free lunch, not even, and especially not for Bin Laden. If it were true that Islamism would shrivel faster were it pursued more passively, then pre-911 policy should have finished it by now. But what we empirically observe is that ignoring them allowed them to mount 911-scale attack. Hit them continuously and in four years they could scrape together enough to blow up a London bus and some subway trains.
I realize that this is not the unassailable proof that Patrick Belton seeks. I cannot provide that. But the practice of engaging an enemy on one front to weaken him on another has been tested from antiquity and is more natural than the alternative. The idea that fighting the enemy makes him stronger everywhere is a curious one and I've often wondered about the battlefield arithmetic that would make it possible. There are many who accept without question the proposition that the US Armed forces are being 'bled dry' in Iraq; that it has become over extended. They would accept, without reservation, the idea that using the US Army in Iraq would weaken it with respect to Korea. One Swedish researcher kept writing to me privately, 'proving' from all kinds of weird arithmetic that the USMC had been annihilated in Fallujah. Yet the very same persons will vehemently reject the idea that Al Qaeda can also be spread thin; that its cadres are subject to death as wastage; it is as if one set of natural laws operated for the Jihad and another for the blundering Americans. But mental honesty will compel us to accept that this can't be true: that the sun rises and sets on one man as for another: that if we thought about it really hard, everyone who lives peacefully in a Western city owes it to the men out on patrol tonight.
191 Comments:
Sure, Al Qaida is probably gaining some operational skills with its work in Iraq. But at what price? Certainly the development of skilled personnel is considerbaly more expensive than the training camps were in Afghanistan. Not only in the basic resources but in attrition, loss of captured intel, and so forth. And without the urgency of OIF drawing jihadis to Iraq, and the subsequent pressure brought to bear on Islamic countries, it's probably reasonable to assume that training camps would have spread out elsewhere.
It's also reasonable to assume that there would be different classes of jihadis for both the west and for Iraq; a jihadi operating in the West undoubtedly needs some cultural and language skills that wouldn't be required of a suicide bomber in Iraq.
To pull off another 9/11 would take a lot of rare resources that would need to be carefully screened, trained, and guided over a long period of time. The more Iraq occupies their attention, the less resources they have to apply to cultivating such talent.
Lastly, the idea that OIF is just a huge win for AQ because it's such a learning center totally overlooks the fact that it's just as much a learning laboratory for the US. In fact, it's more of a learning/testing laboratory for the US than it could ever possibly be for Al Qaida. The ability of the US armed forces to mine data from conflicts, synthesize it, and then develop new techniques and rapidly train people in them is simply higher than AQ could ever match.
The idea that OIF is or has made AQ stronger or provided them with some enhanced capabilities or experience relative to the US military just doesn't hold up.
Of course Cat man, the Opfor is omnipotent and we are inept. Our million man Army is at the breaking point, but their 50,000 man Afghan trained force is everywhere.
We bring thousands into our military system each month and are told that is failure, they send in a dozen suiciders and are reported to be on the verge of defeating US.
Fox News reports that the bomb were in the 10 pound range. To many booms in my youth. I loved that stuff, the ultimate pyro.
Well-argued, Wretchard. Belton-type serious conjecture aside, I think--from reading much blog commentary yesterday--that most of the child-like "yesterday London proved OIF was a mistake" is mere partisan political opportunism.
The only serious charge coming from the pacifist-left is that GWoT itself recruits more terrorists.
As you say, the 90s are the anecdotal rebuttal--but still there is no way to definitely quantify the negative.
In fact it is generally true that the sooner one surrenders, the smaller an enemy army will have been needed to win.
Saying that the Islamofacists are training fighters in Iraq is rather like looking at the Kamikaze attacks off of Okinawa in 1945 and saying "Boy! These guys are getting a lot of experience in mounting these kinds of attacks. Imagine how good they will be in a few months."
But they did not get better at attacking, even though they were developing specialized aircraft for that mission. We got better at at stopping them.
Even if Iraq is Al Qaida's Ft Benning, all the more reason to prosecute the war with greater and greater enthusiasm. What kind of coward could advance that proposition and at the same time suggest it as a reason for shameful retreat???
This is a ridiculously flawed analysis. The idea that the resistance in Iraq is de facto Al Qa'ida is ludicrous if not idiotic and completely blind to readily availabe facts and even Pentagon statements. Al Qa'ida has nothing to do with the resistance in Iraq and work not only independently off it, but usually against it. The Pentagon recently estimated that maybe 8% of those in Iraq fighting american and their puppet Iraqi troops are foreign. They also estimate that Al Qa'ida has at most a couple hundred people operating in Iraq who are largely responsible for things like car bombs and executing diplomats. Those attacks comprise around 2% of total attacks by the resistance.
In fact many resistance groups have put hits out on any Al Qa'ida guys. Al Qa'ida is targetting Iraqis as much as the Americans and most resistance groups have put Al Qa'ida on par with the Americans and their Iraqi puppets.
Al Qa'ida from neighbouring countries would have gone to Iraq, but as said earlier, it's hardly any, a couple hundred according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon also estimates the resistance is at least 14,000 strong in terms of fully active committed fighters.
Iraq would have no effect in weakening Al Qa'ida in Europe. The only thing it did was breed hostililty towards the UK which can be used as a starting point for Al Qa'ida recruiting, and make them more attractive.
You also claim that the US is hitting Al Qa'ida constantly and this is reducing their strength. This claim is obviously completely false. Where is the US hitting Al Qa'ida? Invading Afghanistan was targetting the Taliban, Al Qa'ida and Bin Laden had a few shots taken at them, but were generally left alone by the US.
Then Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qa'ida, and took resources away from any possible fight against Al Qa'ida. The fact remains is that Bin Laden is still on the loose, and the US has no interest in capturing him. Nor have their military attacks been targetting Al Qa'ida in the least. The US is not engaging Al Qa'ida on any front, not militarily anyway.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You're right, iotm, none of this is really happening--it's like the Moon Mission. All fantasy.
My take on Al Qaida's recruiting and Iraq is that Iraq may be a source of low-value recruits but that the "War on Terror" is depleting the operatives with the organizational skills needed to give the new recruits much useful to do. (Useful, obviously, from an Al Qaida point of view.)
Anyone who has ever worked in a volunteer organization knows that without leadership resources additional volunteers are difficult to employ. An AlQaida recruitment in Iraq might go something like this.
Volunteer: I am here to join the struggle against the puppets of the Zionist Entity; What shall I do?
Recruiter:Give us your name and address and we'll call you when we need you.
Volunteer: I was rather hoping to begin smashing the infidel today...
Recruiter: Yes, Yes, we are putting together an operation and we will let you know when we are ready. We're in a planning phase right now.
Volunteer: I have some gasoline at home, and some bottles and rags. I have a good throwing arm and I have heard that if you hit a Bradley on the right side, under the turret -- near the chain gun -- the heat of the fire will ...
Recruiter: Yes, fine. That sounds good. You do that. Praise be to Allah.
NEXT
Of course, the war does wear on our side too. The human-resources part is not so bad, actually. I worked the math and the risks faced by US forces in the war on terror, from an actuarial point of view, are comparable to the things they would be doing as civilians. (See teleoscope: Dangerous Things) But I am not sure we are winning the propaganda war since most of the MSM seems to be on the other side.
- - - -
Does anyone have a good source for the statistical risks of extreme sports? I wonder how the risks involved in Special Forces ops compare to gas-mixture cave diving? Might be an interesting blog topic if I could find the data.
re: Saddam and AQ and IOTM.
Nothing?
I'd wager that if Iraq had a mind to, they could have stopped 9-11 - esp. given Iraq's / Al-Duri's intelligence fingers being in every pot (& when not spying, bribing).
In a time when nations must choose sides, uncertainty warrants decisive action even with its occassional regrets, v. the certain regret otherwise. And the left has shown nothing about Iraq to regret to date, save a reminder that perfection is not of this earth.
To me the attacks show organisational weakness rather than strength, but on a technical point it doesn't make sense to compare the Canary Wharf bomb of '96 with yesterday's bombs; the Canary Wharf was a truck-based fertilizer bomb (like Oklahoma), which no-one could possibly get onto a bus or train. 10lb of high explosive in a train carriage could well cause more destruction than 1000lb of fertilizer on a street corner.
On the whole, though, I more or less agree
Again and again
"Ali el Babba is an Al Qaida". Oh no he is not, he is Taliban.
"Ali el Tikriti is Al Qaida". Oh no he is an Iraqi Insurgent
"Ali el Londoni is Al Qaida" Oh no he is a home grown loner.
Granted I have argued that for each different group there are different tactics and skill sets required in this war. There is, however, a overlay that encompasses them all. Islamic Radicalism.
My understanding was that Al Qaida is / was an umbrella group that was more an intellectual force than an active combat force. In Somalia they employed the local warlords, In Afghanistan the utilized the Taliban, in Egypt they are fronted by the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, etc, etc.
To a degree iotm is correct, the majority of the insurgents in Iraq are not imported fighters. Those that come incountry are the suiciders and kidnappers. If we can shut the Syrian border or in some other way discourage the Syrians from allowing the transit of these combatants the suicide bombing would drop off. The Sunni insurgency will be solved either politically or by blood. US prefers political solutions, I'm not sure that either the Sunni or Shia agree.
Good point George1776! We really knew we had the Luftwaffe beat when we were shooting down their training planes over their own airfields.
Kill'em early when they are inexperienced; it's easier.
When Western feminists believe that Muslim women should be subjected to 'Honor Rape' there is something amiss...
It's not that they love honor rape, it's that they hate GWB. Don't you see, the Taliban women have to be sacrificed for the Higher Good? Western Feminist-Lefties are abstractly sacrificial that way.
GWB then becomes the rapist, through the mechanism of the amorphous free-floating hatred that his being creates and forces upon more complex and 'feeling' people.
Andrew Sullivan has many great quotes from Brits today. Feels good to read them, some are so good they bring a tear to the eye. A cold tear.
For example: "QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I have a prediction to make, that tomorrow we'll find out whether Britons are, still, in fact, Britons. Many years ago I was working in The City and there were two events that made travel into work almost impossible.
The first was a series of storms that brought down power lines, blocked train routes and so on. Not surprisingly, the place was empty the next day. Why bother to struggle through?
The other event was an IRA bomb which caused massive damage and loss of life. Trains were disrupted, travel to work the next day was horribly difficult and yet there were more people at work than on a normal day. There was no co-ordination to this, no instructions went out, but it appeared that people were crawling off their sick beds in order to be there at work the next day, thrusting their mewling and pewling infants into the arms of anyone at all so that they could be there."
God love those Brits. And God love "the men out on patrol tonight." It's a world war, and not fighting our enemies will not make them not fight us. Excellent, common sense post, W.
Wretch:
I've read many tributes to you, but this one is the best. In case you haven't been alerted already:
Weaponized Wretchard
chthus said:
Let us hope that it never gets that far, but hope alone won't help avoid that path.
Just thinking out loud, it seems that the jihadi style of war requires people, skill and organization; the other inputs -- airplanes, explosives -- are all provided gratis by us as a by-product of our daily lives.
The supply of people is a function of the ideology that animates them. Is the ideology of jihad among young men in the Muslim world in decline? My best (which is not based on much) guess is no. I think it's a mistake to suppose that the enemy just has X divisions which, once annihilated, end the threat. In the short run, people are in seemingly endless supply. Eventually, some of them will come along who have the charisma and brains to plan something much more elaborate.
Organization is a different matter. 9/11 took years of planning, and probably required the control of territory in Afghanistan to serve as a planning base. So for now attacks will probably look like London.
Can they pull off something spectacular, something that might kill thousands or tens of thousands? Probably not yet, but if the ideology is appealing enough for long enough, new tactics of organizing attacks -- new ways to cause mass casualties, new ways to obtain the materials needed for urban WMD attacks -- may be found. The jihadis appear to possess far less knowledge of the art and skill of war then Western societies do. But when your only goal is to kill as many people as possible rather than to achieve a specific military objective (the unconditional surrender of the Japanese, say) you can learn by doing. (When we went to bed on 9/10, how many of us thought a handful of box cutters could bring down the WTC?)
The democracy project and the taking of the battle to the heart of Islam are an attempt to beat the jihadi ideology to the finish line, which is the minds of young Muslim men.
But if the ideology and the young men it generates continue to be a compelling force, so that the race toward preventing a spectacular mass-casualty attack (orders of magnitude beyond London) in the US or Europe is lost, the only way forward will be to end the appeal of the ideology once and for all, by demonstrating conclusively that it does not pay. And that will be an ugly day. I wish there were a happier ending, but that seems to be the most likely one.
Lee Harris writes that from the Islamic perspective this is not a war, but a blood feud. An interesting idea, check it out at
http://www.techcentralstation.com/070805LH.html
Wouldn't you just love to know iotm in real life? Here I'll bet we finally have a buyer for that proverbial bridge everyone's been trying to sell for the last century or so.
Nice pointer, Desert. At the risk of sounding like a Southerner still groaning over Antietam, we'd be a lot further along if we had responded much more decisively in Afghanistan before the sun had even set on the smoke rising from NY and DC and PA on 9/11/01.
Like this article you point to, Christopher Hitchens writing from London compares yesterday's bombings to IRA attacks, which was very much a "blood feud" that looked back to the past for motivation. But unlike the IRA, our Islamofascist enemies are far beyond any hope for a political settlement.
As these attacks continue, and as the war grinds along in Afghanistan and Iraq, Harry Truman's reasoning on the alternative methods of ending the war becomes more relevant.
I detect a schism in the left nut party.
iotm argues that Osama's buddies are not in Iraq, but his coconspirators insist that Iraq is their training ground.
The tendency for the left to assume the terrorists have infinite resources and we have very limited resources is not a new thing.
I recall a comment by the late Shelby Foote about a conference that US Grant was in when he took command of the Army of the Potomac. The talk essentially was focuesed on RE Lee and Foote characterized the talk as RE Lee & the Army of NV is going to do a double summersault and end up in the rear of the GAP.
Grant is reported to have gotten fed up with it and retorted don't worry about what the enemy is going to do to you, worry about what YOU are going to do to the enemy.
Patton has a lot of good talk on this as well. The staunch Democrat always said do not be afraid, as the sound of fear is always magnified in our heads.
If you are responding to the enemy you are at least working in a way that is known.
Defense is fine but if you are perpetually on the defense you are forever cringing awaiting the attack or you let your defenses down (guess which one), or the enemy finds a way run around your defenses.
The claim by IOTM we are not engaging Al-Qaida is completely silly. What just happened in Afghanistan? Does that have anything to do with Al-Qaida? Does US assistance to the Army of the FIlipines have anything to do with Al-Qaida? Do you have complete knowledge what is going down covertly? I think not.
The President said the WOT was going to be fought on two stages. A visible stage and a stage known only to the participants in the fight.
The attack in London is not as devastating as it was in Spain and only injured and killed as many as it did due to some clever engineering on part of terrorists. One of the trains were reported to be in a tight tube underground and that directed the blast up & down the length of the train. The others were in a less restricted area so the blast was not as focused.
No, this is not as even as big a setback in terms of the WOT as The Ardennes was in December of '44 for the Allies.
Old Dad, only the anti-Bush AQ's stay out of Iraq. I think that's how it works. If you're a pro-Bush terrorist, you can go train there.
Marcus: The Ardennes was not a setback for the Allies. When Eisenhower heard what the Germans and done he all but cheered; he knew that they had come out where they could be killed. And then he unleashed Patton. The Battle of the Bulge destroyed the German Army in the West as well as the Luftwaffe; they were never more than a shattered shell after that.
Now, if we are to take that same approach now, what would we do? Wretchard offers some suggestions: more of the same, faster, and round 'em up at home, cowboys!
The "CSI Factor" may be at work here. Just as prosecutors across the country are complaining that shows like CSI with pat, perfect, scientifically unasailable endings are prompting juries to demand proof beyond all doubt, not just reasonable doubt, skeptics of our efforts in Iraq are demanding the same level of proof before they lend the full weight of their support.
The flypaper theory is valid in my opinion. The field commanders and those in training for combat/terrorism leadership roles are engaging and dying and I would say at a much higher rate than our forces. Plus some of them are being captured.
I just posted a time sensitive recommendation for a program in the previous thread, (What the Butler Saw) so check it out if interested.
>Al Qa'ida has nothing to do with the resistance in Iraq and work not only independently off it, but usually against it.
The flaw in your argument is that you ignore that, even if the actions in Iraq don't strike directly at Al-Queda, they do attack the same recruitment and financing pools.
Money sent to Iraq is money deprived of Al-Queda. Men going to Iraq to fight there are people Al-Queda isn't recruiting.
Note: Your argument about the makeup of Iraqi terrorists is disingenuous. The vast majority of all suicide bombers in Iraq are foreign-born, non-Iraqis. The WaPo had an article about this more than two months ago, and the subject made the papers again a week or two ago.
Anyone who blows themselves up in Iraq is one less person ready, able, and willing to do so in London or New York or Sydney. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Marcus, how was toppling the Taliban engaging Al Qa'ida? How was invading Iraq engaging Al Qa'ida? How was overthrowing Aristide in Haiti engaging Al Qa'ida? How was attempting a coup on Chavez engaging Al Qa'ida? Hopefully the UK will have enough sense to follow Spain's lead and gosh golly, launch an investigation into who did it, find them, give them a trail, and have the guilty put in jail, and not go off starting invasions that have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. I get the feeling you're all a bunch of WWII era types who can't comprehend the notion of a multi-faceted stateless group. If you do understand, you're not being honest with yourselves, and should simply say, "hooray another terrorist attack we can use as a reason to invade some other country that had nothing to do with it, but the public is stupid and our corporate media drones will brainwash them into believing it".
The US has nothing to gain from engaging them, likewise they haven't bothered capturing Bin laden when they could most likely scoop him up in an operation that wouldn't take more than a couple days. If Bin laden were captured, Bush might be viewed as a hero in the US, but continuing the war on terror would lose legitimacy among the american population. Not only that it would likely put Musharaf in danger, and the US wants to keep that puppet around.
Old Dad said...
I detect a schism in the left nut party.
iotm argues that Osama's buddies are not in Iraq, but his coconspirators insist that Iraq is their training ground.
First of all I didn't say Al Qa'ida wasn't in Iraq, I said there weren't very many, and certainly not every Al Qa'ida guy in the world.
Second of all, who are my co-conspirators? And if I disagree with them on this, as I obviously do, how are they my co-conspirators?
You wouldn't happen to be lumping all opposition to Bush into one group would you? I know Bush's bonehead binary thinking is popular these days, but it's still the logical fallacy of false dichotomization.
I know americans have trouble with this left/right thing, because they think the opposite of one of Bush's hacks, is one of the Democrat's hacks who is equally idiotic and has the exact same policies and beliefs.
The amount of space seperating you from your alleged left is miniscule, the amount seperating me from your alleged left is virtually infinite.
PS my original statements definitely blew a big hole in Wretchard's arguments, no response on that?
Kadnine,
Could not disagree more:
I (and most of my friends on the left) will judge Bush a failure unless Iraq turns out like the ending of a
Sesame Street Episode.
"PS my original statements definitely blew a big hole in Wretchard's arguments, no response on that? "
---
No response needed:
We are so used to it that all that needs to be said is:
"PRAISE BE TO IOTM.
IOTM, IOTM, IOTM!"
"...they haven't bothered capturing Bin laden when they could most likely scoop him up in an operation that wouldn't take more than a couple days."
"...my original statements definitely blew a big hole in Wretchard's arguments...."
Well, I can't top those, iotm, that's for sure.
Don't we all owe Zapatero and the selected not elected Philippine leader thank you notes for London?
"Terrorism is a result of this war..."
Boxer said, amid applause at the Commonwealth Club of California-sponsored speech at the Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel.
___SF GATE___
RWE,
" The Ardennes was not a setback for the Allies. When Eisenhower heard what the Germans and done he all but cheered."
Huh? A suprise winter attack by the Germans that bags two whole divisions? Not a setback?
The British wanted to fall back. Much of the American staff was gloomy. However, in the midst of this they made some great decisions - notable holding Bastogne.
The problem with Eisenhower was his broad front strategy.
And particularly his response on the Ardennes Offensive - the correct response was to attack into Germany at the Southern hinge of the penetration, not push the Germans back.
Prior to this Eisenhower made several strategic blunders along these lines - not reacting to a deep German counterattack to enlarge his strategic position. The failure to close the Falaise Gap or trap the Germans West of the Seine were all due to his inability to focus on the destruction of the German Army. He then failed to cross the Rhine in September.
The blunders in August and September led directly to the Ardennes Offensive in December.
The lesson for the GWOT is to always press the attack and to use all attacks as a means to further enlarge the strategic position - to weaken the enemy and to strengthen our hand.
iotm,
I blushingly must admit that I was engaging in mild ad hominem. Your posts here suggest to me that you are a leftist and a nut, and, thus, a member of the left nut party.
It was wrong of me to make any assumptions about the homogeneity of the left nut party. In fact, a moment's reflection should have convinced me that homogeneity among nuts, left or not, is a questionable theory. I retract my claim that there is schism. Rather there appears to be a general and inconsistent nuttiness.
As to your argument, you presume that you made one. Your unsubstantiated claims blow holes in nothing other than your "de facto" credibility.
I agree with George1776 this attack should only cause us to prosecute the war more vigorously. Other posters have made that point. Patrick Belton argument is the classic circular argument or a "gotcha" argument. His argument is essentially "destroying terrorists only increases their numbers." It's clear the more terrorists that drawn to Iraq and killed leads to less terrorists are over all. And, to stop killing them would certainly increase their numbers. Sure, there are some terrorists who enjoy the pleasant English life style and who are willing hide in the shadows and detonate bombs using timers or remote controls. Given that fact, we must be prepared for such a situation.
One of the UK soft parts is the large groups of Muslims that inhabit portions of the country. Given UK laws it has made it difficult to surveil the bad guys (unless they are preaching in some public Mosque). The UK must do a better job of surveillance. Further, their laws must be adjusted to combat this type of terrorism.
I will say that's it's disturbing to hear reports of Gitmo terrorists released that who could have played a role in this horrific attack.
[NIN]:
7 July 2005; 12:54 ET: Preliminary reports from a source inside the Pentagon indicate that one of the operatives involved in this morning's bombings in London was recently released from the prison at Guantanamo.
UPDATED 10:35 PM ET: A clarification was made by the source providing this information, noting that "one of the bombers who is believed to be involved in this attack was recently released from the prison at Guantanamo, Cuba." The source did not elaborate about how the suspect was reportedly identified so early, although suggested he was onboard bus 30 that exploded outside of the British Medical Association at 9:47 local time. We are continuing our investigation.
See: UK Bomber Was Recent GITMO Release
No one responds to iotm on his blog and now no one responses to his drivel here. Obviously that means iotm is one step short of god.
Rat, between posts, why don't you run out, pick up some pizza, drop off the laundry, and snatch up bin Laden?
not much more at the link than you delivered, ledger.
If that snippet is true...
Uzbeckistan, rendition to that paradise on earth, for all the Gitmo detainees, would mean never having to think of them again.
Can Do, me, Jr. and the replacements for the 16 operators that went down last week. We'll swing in and pick him up before dinner.
Notin' to it, but to do it.
There ya go...easy as pie.
yeah, then the whole war will be over. The other side will give up and crawel back into their mud hut hovels as soon as UBL head is on a pike.
Just like the Brits and Gordon Pasha
Where's a moti to go?
Doug, apreciate it; made a comment about your time sensitive info on the previous.
What do Gitmo, iotm, and moti have in common?
Have the latter 2 ever been seen together at Gitmo?
True,
Did moti chime in yet?
moti would do it if he knew how to it.
Well, as I mentioned Gordon Pasha I read up on the situation that caused his final demise.
Strikingly familar to the current situation with the Mahommedan world the cause of his return to the Sudan is interesting reading
http://www.bartleby.com/189/401b.html
Haven't read everything yet:
Has anyone noted the Brilliance of Cutting Off the Head of the
SUNNI Ambasador from Egypt?
Their Allies, Indeed!
It doesn't hurt the arc of the argument, which I find persuasive, but it's David Adesnik who wrote the specific post you're replying to, Wretchard, not Belton.
WWSH
They said it couldn't be done...
but with a smile, he went right to it!
He tackled that job that "couldn't be done"!
(he couldn't do it)
chop chop spin spin
oh what a relief it is
This paragraph hits close to home
"...the English were masters of Egypt. 36
Nevertheless, the English themselves were slow to recognise this fact. Their government had intervened unwillingly; the occupation of the country was a merely temporary measure; their army was to be withdrawn so soon as a tolerable administration had been set up. But a tolerable administration, presided over by the Pashas, seemed long in coming, and the English army remained. ..."
I have made countless critiques of IOTM's silliness over the months, to which he has never responded. He seems incapable of grasping real thinking from anyone here. He is only marginally interesting as a psychological case study of what we are fighting at home. Otherwise, I think we are doing him or ourselves little good by goading him on. Ignore Or Trade Madness
Here is another part of the historical guide.
"...what steps were they to take? A small minority of the party then in power in England—the Liberal Party—were anxious to withdraw from Egypt altogether and at once. On the other hand, another and a more influential minority, with representatives in the Cabinet, were in favour of a more active intervention in Egyptian affairs—of the deliberate use of the power of England to give to Egypt internal stability and external security; they were ready, if necessary, to take the field against the Mahdi with English troops. But the great bulk of the party, and the Cabinet, with Mr. Gladstone at their head, preferred a middle course. Realising the impracticability of an immediate withdrawal, they were nevertheless determined to remain in Egypt not a moment longer than was necessary, and, in the meantime, to interfere as little as possible in Egyptian affairs. ..."
Have we heard this lately?
"... He was by no means in favour of withdrawing from the Sudan: he was in favour, as might have been supposed, of vigorous military action. It might be necessary to abandon, for the time being, the more remote garrisons in Darfour and Equatoria; but Khartoum must be held at all costs. To allow the Mahdi to enter Khartoum would not merely mean the return of the whole of the Sudan to barbarism, it would be a menace to the safety of Egypt herself. To attempt to protect Egypt against the Mahdi by fortifying her southern frontier was preposterous. “You might as well fortify against a fever.” Arabia, Syria, the whole Mohammedan world, would be shaken by the Mahdi’s advance. “In self-defence,” Gordon declared to Mr. Stead, “the policy of evacuation cannot possibly be justified.” The true policy was obvious. A strong man—Sir Samuel Baker, perhaps—must be sent to Khartoum, with a large contingent of Indian and Turkish troops and with two millions of money. He would very soon overpower the Mahdi, whose forces would “fall to pieces of themselves.” For in Gordon’s opinion it was “an entire mistake to regard the Mahdi as in any sense a religious leader”; he would collapse as soon as he was face to face with an English general. ..."
Here's another part of the historical guide, a funny picture of a Communist Youth Rally in Berlin, May 28, 1950, protesting the Marshall Plan:
America Go Home
Re: Nathan
Josh Chafetz at Oxblog was a college friend of mine, and I've corresponded with David, which is probably why I saw Wretchard's error so quickly. I actually read the Oxblog post _first_, and I was a bit taken aback at how upset Adesnik seemed to be about the tone of the Belmont Club post in question.
Wretchard's post was harsh, but it's not like the topics we're dealing with are liable to sugar-coating. If the Galloways of the world want to make their points, then obviously their opponents have every right to respond.
On the issue of terrorism's strength or weakness, if you had told me that four years after 9/11, there would be _no_ major attacks on US soil, and only this strike against the UK, I would have been thrilled.
WWSH
"The Mahdi" Gen. Chinese Gorden vs a charismatic religious leader (Charleton Heston vs Laurence Olivier, IIRC). Olivier had the numbers, and won.
You're right, Truepeers--name-calling as an argument burns out pretty quickly.
"Ignore Or Trade Madness"
---
I am incapable, could you provide some madness for me?
How 'bout, the London FTSE 100 stock index was up almost two percent today (annualized, oh hundreds of percent), to close at a three-year high. Go, John Bull!
Red River,
He was absolutely correct in the "big picture" view. By using up so much of their capability in their attack, rather than conserving it for defensive purposes, the war ended much sooner, with far fewer U.S. casualties.
Doug, remember the DS treatment? Having a little fun with the mental patients is one respectable way to trade in madness, though perhaps indecent with pagan buffoons who can't wait for the blood to dry before blaming then worshipping around the victims. Incorrigible Onanist Typing Molotovs.
Incorrigible Onanist Typing Molotovs? Indecent of Truepeers, Mates!
Yes, Buddy, I om to Maim
I only tickle masochists
Heather
Your history is on the mark. To me the interesting thing is the rise of the Mahdi and the misunderestimating of the Islamists or Mohammedans, by the Brits.
The divisions within the British Government are similar to our own.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Fox News reports Scotland Yard reports the bombs were homemade.
Chickens..t and accelerant are the easiest type of homemade explosive to produce. They also report size of bomb to be around 10 pounds.
Fertilizer bombs ARE highly explosive.
Wayne,
I'm not sure what part of my argument was 'harsh', perhaps it was the suggestion that we ought to find some way, some legal and civil way, of dismantling the political support infrastructure of radical Islamism in the West.
Tom Friedman, via Glenn Reynolds, makes nearly the same point.
"Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists - if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings - or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent."
One of the constant themes of the Belmont Club is that unless we are reasonably harsh to the guilty, a frustrated and possibly hysterical public will eventually be unreasonably harsh to the innocent. Better to come down hard on the Captain Hook imam than see patriotic Sikhs mistakenly thrashed by ignorant but desperate members of the public.
Political correctness is a form of tacitly mandated ignorance. An earlier word for this condition was "a fool's paradise". Unfortunately it sets up a discontinuity whose built-up pressure will be relieved, not by gradual accomodation, but in a tectonic snap.
The easiest way to end the "Culture of Hate" professed by some radical clerics in the West to to amend the Tax Code that exempts religious organizations from taxes to include a provision that the religion must renounce violence.
A related notion is that it's more humane, ceteris paribus, to the enemy (at least, the rank & file) to get it over with sooner rather than longer, bloodier, later.
This is what Rumsfeld would call a known unknown: is OIF generating more terrorists than non-OIF would have?
Critics of the war, a camp I am not a part of, never make the effort to define for themselves "non-OIF". What would 2005, 4 years into the GWOT, have looked like with Saddam still in power, our bases still on Saudi soil, with 4 years of Saudi propaganda filling the minds of the young and unemployed with tales of our crimes against Islam and no fresh examples of American power and resolve? What about the sanctions dissolving, Saddam's weapons programs blooming and his prestige solidifying? What would have happened after we turned our focus to Saddam, talked the talk from 2002 through 2004, then backed down to let the UN take over? What about Iran, with no forward bases next door to deal with the worst contingencies? Would not our actions have forced Saddam into an alliance with Al'Qaeda, even assuming no such thing existed before? What would we have done otherwise? War with Korea? We simply do not know how many terrorists would have joined the cause in the cause of "non-OIF".
The strategic analysis of "what might have been" becomes even more complicated than "what is", because it involves so many variables that a few minutes thinking about it can make you throw up your hands and turn to FoxNews for some easy Natalie Holloway stories. You quickly realize how many "unknown unknowns" accrue to this type of analysis.
Therefore, even the argument that Iraq creates terrorists seems to me besides the point. The terrorists we generate today are stateless. Had we sat on our laurels, terrorists today would most certainly be more powerful, with greater weaponry, regardless of their number. We may have augmented their number, but we have greatly diminished their effect...on us.
Buddy,
In my youth, I had a bad case of ceteris paribus. It stung like hell and was hard to get rid of.
Another known unknown--how many potential terrorist recruits have been deterred--by the rough treatment they're likely to get from the coalition soldiers? A few? Many? Somewhere in between?
Yeh, Old Dad--ya hafta outgrow it, for sure.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nice post, Sargent.
That's what I would like to hear from the anti-war: what exactly we should be doing instead. And don't give me any of that "catch Osama" BS. You might as well be saying "stop using oil!" or some other silly wish (and as if we aren't trying to get him).
Wait, before the anti-OIF types propose an alternative to our present course, I'd just like to hear their opinion of what is really going on in the world. What was happening before OIF? Was that a good and acceptable situation?
Ah yes, nice post, Sargent.
Exactly. To argue that that removing incentives increases participation is to throw away everything we know about human nature. Even hatred is bound with incentives: peer respect and group identification. Winning is the biggest incentive of all, and any Muslim with half a brain must be rethinking the likelihood of Islamist victory after what we have done to Iraq and what the Iraqi people have shown at the polls.
apropos
I should have put this into my last post; Buddy's post reminded me.
Democratic Leadership. I respect a loyal opposition, but the short-sightedness of these people is astounding. We are dealing with an incentive structure in the participation and actions of the radical jihadists. Their perceptions matter, as they mull their choices and make decisions. To openly trumpet losses, to claim imminent defeat, to chalk off every American dead soldier, to rush attacks to the front page...everytime this happens we add twice as many jihadists to the movement than we ever could with 500lb bombs and midnight raids. These Muslims that are on the brink are backwards, insulated, and uninformed. When their local Imam can point to wobbliness in the American capital, and a recruiter is standing by asking them to be a part of the inevitable victory, they will decide to go.
When the Islamists finally perceive the inevitability of our victory, when the ignorant young men of Arabia and Southeast Asia see a lost cause instead of a distant hope, we will win.
The Islamist leadership, however, is not backwards and uninformed, though they are insulated. They must be destroyed.
But sarge, if are to believe Lee Harris, the Islamists are not vying for Victory, just blood. I am not 100% convinced by his thesis but there is does seem some basis to it.
They are not planning or playing to win, just maintaining a low intensity fight, forever.
Like the Plains Indians would count coup on, but not always kill their opponent. A cultural difference that is hard for us to understand.
IOTM,
If you can not understand the connections between Al-Qaida and the Taliban then you are nothing more than a MoveOn/CodePink nutter.
Al-Qaida provided cash to the Taliban.
The Taliban provided sanctuary to Al-Qaida & Bin Laden
They allowed Al-Qaida to run its camps
They allowed Al-Qaida fairly free run of Afghanistan
FWIW I can see how one may think Iraq is completely disconnected from the GWOT but if you can not make the Al-Qaida/Taliban connection...
I will not even try to explain anything else to you.
Go on, the terrorists can defy the physcal and economic laws at will, the West not only must obey them, they must obey a more draconian version of them, so on and so forth.
One last thing. Lets get started with your Arabic lessons, all good Muslims must know Arabic.
Repeat after me:
Asalam Alaykoom
Wa Alykoom Salam
Shookron
Al hoomduallah
Bis-mi-allah
Good!
'Rat: I have no good answers to your point, except to retreat to the ambivalence of "it depends on how you define victory", for even a blood feud has a goal, even the slow attrition dealt out by the Plains Indians had a point. The Islamists are not acting blindly; before every action is a thought, a belief system. Within those spaces we can find our incentive structure.
Wretchard points to Tom Friedman's article today, and Tom writes of the power of shame. Is not apparent futility something shameful?
If their is no deterrence, nothing we can do to change the balance, then I am afraid that Wretchard's three conjectures will come to pass. Iraq was our hope of avoiding Tarmon Gaidin, the last battle. Pippen asks Gandalf, on the eve of the Battle of Pelennor Fields, if there was ever any hope. Gandalf replies, "Only a fool's hope." That is OIF for me.
While still in this golden hour, I must adhere to hope, even as the darkness moves our way. We still have time to act.
Charles at lgf covers jihad deception tactics after a terror attack.
[Charles notes the limp condemation by the Muslim Council of Britain and highlights canned letters of the same nature in 2004]:
The SoundVision radical Islamic discussion forum for budding young mujahideen, hosted in Bridgeview Illinois, has a helpful Sample statement Condemning Terrorism, for those times when the infidels ask uncomfortable questions after a jihad operation.
...notice: these prefab statements are intended to be used after a terror attack... Gotta get the story straight in advance.
{Islamic website with canned letter}:
Your Islamic center can adopt, rewrite and issue the following statement to your local media.
Please replace "Muslims of America" with the Muslim community of your city. Type this or your modified version on your Masjid or Islamic center's letterhead.
Fax this to the news desk of your local media outlets (newspapers, radio and television). You can Find the fax numbers in your yellow or white pages.
Do add the name of a contact person and a cell number on which that person can be reached. This person should be able to speak on your community's behalf as a spokesperson. If the media is interested in visiting your Masjid, Islamic center or school, welcome them.
Sample statement:
The Muslims of America join their fellow Americans today in condemning these dastardly acts of terrorism and share the grief and sorrow of the nation. Our hearts go out to the friends and families of those who are victims of this despicable tragedy. Obviously this seems a well-planned and well-coordinated act of terrorism and we are confident that the law enforcement authorities will soon discover the identity of perpetrators responsible for this contemptible act and bring them to task with the full force of the law.
At this moment of confusion, uncertainty and naturally highly charged emotions, we earnestly appeal to the media not to rush to judgment, as was done in the wake of the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Let the response of our nation be mature and thoughtful. This is a moment of prayer and unity not of hasty reaction.
We pray to God to give strength to all of those who have suffered during this catastrophe.
{and a 2nd statement}
The Muslims of [write name of your city] unequivocally and strongly condemn any and all terrorist action against innocent civilians here in America, and abroad. These coordinated and concerted attacks in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania are a tragedy for the entire nation. We extend our most heartfelt condolences to the victims of the nightmarish terror of September 11th, and to their families.
American Muslims remembering the events immediately following the 1995 attack on the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, are naturally concerned for their safety as well. In the first few days after the incident, the American Muslim community was under attack from almost all sides, as the perpetrators were originally thought to be Middle Eastern terrorists. We sincerely hope that violent attacks of revenge against American Muslim schoolchildren, women clothed in Islamic attire, Muslim-owned businesses, mosques and Islamic centers - which did occur in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing - will not be repeated in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks.
It is important for the nation to remain calm in the face of tragedy. All citizens must unite to condemn this terrorist action and extend their condolences to the victims and to those who lost loved ones in this tragedy.
See: Jihadis Get Their Ducks in a Row
[and]
See: LAT White Washes Muslim Council of Britain
Hewitt has Oliphant on explaining why Iraq is responsible for more recruits around the world in addition to London and Madrid.
Very Enlightening.
He takes himself very seriously, anyway.
Maybe Ledger can teach moti Yackety Yack,
(don't talk back)
humiliation, death, poverty, etc. are commonplace in the Islamic world. Some claim they are the reasons for the challenges we face. Mismanagement of their world heads my list.
Look to the Zionists to see how a worthless piece of desert can bloom. The Zionists are not even full fledged Capitalists, more Euro Socialist than anything else. They do get population increased thru immigration, though, unlike their Euro cousins.
Even if most of C4's rants are accurate they have done a better job than any of their neighbors.
The Islamists have deep challenges that may or may not be addressed by Bushes policy of liberal progress.
In my youth we had an easy answer to this type of challenge, but as I have gotten older I may have mellowed a bit.
Kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out
Tough love for sure.
I still believe 100% in this maxim
Peace though Superior Firepower
CAHMD52,
That is EXACTLY what Oliphant is doing right now.
Extrapolating numbers at this level multiplied many times yearly then saying it's just as bad or worse than 9-11. (Unaddressed is possibility of millions, via WMD, if nothing is done.)
Also touting how troubled he is by the "security failure."
More like an enforcement failure, IMO, ie if a bunch of the folks promoting this stuff were either in prison, dead, or gone, life would be more secure in Britain.
(a goodly percentage of the Muslims in London, 30%, think 9-11 was justified, and more of same is fine.)
Peace through submission!
Praise be to Allah!
Scott Ott:
Leaders of the world's major industrialized nations, meeting in Scotland at the G8 Summit today, said
they would consider al-Qaeda's latest proposal to
"end modern civilization and return to the glorious days of feudalism."
feudalism, futilism, all the same to me.
My mistake,
It is ADE that might be able to teach moti the lyrics to
"Yackety Yack."
...and do get him to take out the trash.
BTW,
Oliphant's "solution" will be posted at RadioBlogger.com.
---
Short version:
Put NATO on Syrian Border!
Returning to Wretchard's first post, all things held equal, the more thugs taken off the playing field, the less total amount of thugs available. Now as others have pointed out, more thugs could be poured on the playing by state sponsors, or other large entities. The players are well known: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. If one is going to halt the number of thugs on the field then we must shutoff the source - the state sponsors.
To key of Dan's post, "I do hope Britain takes the opportunity to bring the hammer down..." I think this should be done across the Coalition board including the US. Take a look at this Washington Times piece:
A U.S. official said recent intelligence shows that Syria is the home to Web sites that exhort militants to come to the country for preparation to fight and die in Iraq... Syrians also are providing barracks-like housing as the recruits from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Morocco and other Muslim countries prepare for a jihad, or holy war. The fighters also receive weapons, training and money in Syria...
See:Syria 1
[and]
See: Syria 2
Why not get the job out of the way quickly. Destroying these state sponsored breeding grounds. They are not going away by themselves. Maybe a night air raid with the correct ammunition. Then give the jihadists a little of their own deception.
Give them some unofficial explanation like, "Oh, sorry. It was night a job and we may have got the coordinates wrong." And, if they rebuild the barracks repeat the process. Deception is not a commodity solely owned by the Jihadists. Let's give them a taste of their own medicine. Further, the quicker the war is over the more American and British (and other) lives will be saved.
'Rat: Your man Hitch was at it again.
Ron Reagan just proved that brilliance is not hereditary.
On MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair was involved in a complete verbal undressing of Ron Reagan. Reagan, like all the other feel first, hate Bush second, think last lefties, is so intent on re-writing history to make the case that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, got boxed around the ears by Hitchens.
Here's the exchange:
. RadioBlogger.
Ledger,
Don't THEY have free speech rights too?
The problem with Bush & Co. is that we stopped, well before the job was done. we got bogged down in this 'nation building' program in Iraq before the war was over.
When I read reports that the USMC is great at building soccer fields and schools I cringe.
We take the best shock troops in the world and assign them Peace Corps missions.
If we need soccer fields and schools in Iraq we had best hire contractors.
The very problem that Rummy laments, misuse of the Military in lieu of Civil Service types in the US, we implement in the war zone.
Cahmd52,
We ARE living in Bizarro world.
Half of the people in the US think this world war is OPTIONAL, and they are opting out.
Isolationism is a familiar American propensity. After all, everyone who emigrated here did so to get away from all the rest of the world's BS.
But in a world war, burying one's head in the sand of TV-nirvana and People magazine is not a helpful option.
While the last exercise of this tendency of the American public to disdain war (cut'n'run) led to horrific death and destruction when we "lost" the war in Vietnam, it really worked out okay for the liberal Anti-War people. >>Hey man, the war ended, what could be better than that?<<
I'm afraid if that same attitude of "I'm okay, f- everyone else" prevails in this war, or this decade, it's not going to work out okay for anyone.
Does anyone know where I can buy a bumper sticker that says:
WE ARE AT WAR AND THE OUTCOME IS TBD?
Whoops my bad.
At the end of my last comment I should have said.
Inta (??, I don't know if IOTM is a boy or girl, so I default to the masculine pronoun) assan talib, mumtaz hada!
Well London's Over.
Will Wretch do a piece on Aruba?
Anybody here threatened by the hurricane?
How's Cheney's ticker?
...oh yeah, one more
London-Related Item:
.FEAR OF BACKLASH AGAINST MUSLIMS.
Crap, how am I going to sleep tonight?
I am consumed with fear of a backlash, and of course, anxiety over Aruba.
Marcus,
Ta Da!
After the storm floods the island that missing young lady may just wash up, or not.
CAHMD52, "If we were not living in Bizarro world, the Syrians would have been taken out at least two years ago by a combined Israeli-American operation."
You got it!
desert rat, "The problem with Bush & Co. is that we stopped, well before the job was done. we got bogged down in this 'nation building' program in Iraq before the war was over."
Well, I guess we will just have to pickup were we stopped - at Syria's door.
Will someone clue Cahmd52 in on the fact that we don't use demeaning terms like euroweenies in the rarified strata of discourse pertaining here.
Ceteris paribus, of course.
C4
It isn't that there are not enough troops in Iraq, it is that they are being misused.
I read of garbage collection, soccer field and school construction, road building and city government advising as well as a litney of other non combat tasks as being the major missions of our forces.
From my experiences in the Army, I am sure that out of 130,000 men deployed we could find the 5,000 that would be required to close the Syrian border. Heck the Kurd milita could be tasked with that mission. It would only utilize about 10% of the existing Kurdish force.
On to Damascus
I don't think Galloway cares what tiger he rides just as long as isn't the tiger most of those in the US or the UK would prefer him to be on.
I have this sneaking suspicion if we let Saddam out of jail, put him and his cronies back in charge of Iraq and buggered out we would see Galloway damn us for that and become a foe of Saddam's.
He is no more than a lion that roars just because he can and it doesn't pay to roar at a mouse.
Hey Cahmd52,
It's not nature playing the cruel joke, it's known people spreading specific germs of diseased ideas.
I don't know who she is fred, though i noticed some ridiculous post a couple back. Best to ignore twits unless they can find an idea worth a moment.
was she the one that claimed she represented the billions of folks that were anticapitialist?
And used that real intellectual retort Fu.. You?
CAHMD52,
The first one is too long for me to comprehend, but the second one is fine.
Way back on the Mosul thread,
RWE said,
"The latest VDH piece in National Review Online quotes some interviews that say that the Saudi terrorists are greatly valued, not the least of which because they bring lots of money with them to pay for the whole operation.
One wonders how much longer the Iraqis - whatever their religion - will put up with this kind of thing coming from their neighbors and instead start using their newfound special ops skills to start doing some highly selective urban renewal activity next door.
If you start a sectarian civil war, there is no guarantee that it will stay in one country."
I got through to the Hugh Hewitt show this evening right after the Tom Oliphant interview. I really wanted to ask Mr. Oliphant to define the similarity between the Afghanistan training camps of the 1990s and those of post invasion Iraqi. This canard is constantly promoted - and is addressed indirectly in Wretchard's post. Here are the differences as I see them:
The Afghani training camps of the 1990s were conceived, built, funded, and activated with government support (Taliban). It was during this period that al Qaeda birthed and grew into manhood as a ‘fighting’ force. The Taliban government fully supported their efforts. We watched from afar with our eyes focused on the stock market.
The Iraqi ‘training’ camp is a live fire zone. American forces are not helping improve the terrorist training curriculum. But, more important, the sovereign state of Iraq is actively recruiting, training, and equipping hundreds of thousands of military and police personnel in the effort to hunt and eradicate the terrorists. I am thinking that Iraq is recruiting more soldiers and police than al Qaeda is. My guess is that the training provided to the Iraqi forces is better than that provided by al-Zarqawi.
While we slumbered one country actively supported al Qaeda (and probably other charming groups as well – that is why it is called the GWOT). While fully alert, two nations are actively killing terrorists.
I think that is a huge strategic victory… We are winning...
No one wants to count the Iraqis, or count on them.
Our Dem Senators demean them at every opportunity that they get.
When the first Iraqi interium Prime Minister came and addressed Congress JFKerry did not bother to attend and their National Chairman, Terry McCallouf (sp) announced that the man was a Bush puppet. No wonder Sistani and his people have been as standoffish as they have been.
That we have done as well as we have is a testament to our troops. The blame for the failures and the fact that we have not done as well as we could have can be spread far and wide.
The important question is, realisticly, what comes next?
To Cahmd52, Doc, as a writer, I read you loud and clear.
It wouldn't be the first time our nascent intellect was surpassed by superstition, it would be the nth time. All of human history is the story of the destruction of the preceding civilizations by the succeeding civilizations.
Like biology, or ecology, sort of sad, eh? Makes God look like a mean SOB.
Would a eurocaniscalorisminor pass as a Greenieweenie?
The left is destroying biology and ecology in the public's perception of them.
no doug
a greenweenie is what the Army used in my day to motivate the troops.
"Stalin, even though initially surprised, was not shy about expending a lot of human capital to kill the Nazi tiger. I don't think there is anybody on the left today that could or would do the same today."
---
Yeah, BUT:
If they *Could,* would they, if instead of the Nazi tiger it was Bushitler?
Rat, I remember it well. To make a false political point against a wartime President, those two top Dems--on the world stage--insult and delegitimize the brand new Iraqi PM on his state visit, without a second thought selling out the blood and treasure and the national effort to re-route world history from a proven spiral into hell.
Hey, I didn't realize that the Left Nut Party was officially recognized as a party.
Did the Peanut have anything to do with that?
again, no doug, they would not take any risk at all. Neither themslves nor their friends will stand up to a real threat. They claimed Ashcroft was dangerous to liberty, but that UBL is innocent til proven guilty.
Maybe they won't stand up because they are the Left Nut Party ONLY?
Or would we have to say the party of only The Left Nut?
Buddy,
Make that the blood and treasure of many countries, esp Iraq and the US.
fred made an obscure reference, which might confuse others as it did me.
To avoid such confusion, I am pointing of an example I found:
---
Xanthippas said...
"Some of you guys are so full of bs it's leaking out your eyeballs. I read this and all I see are the tired old right-wing standbys about "the Left" wanting Islam to win, or retreating in the face of terror, xenophobic fears of women in veils, the need to stop being "soft" on terrorists, yadda yadda, blah blah blah...I mean seriously guys, get a clue. I don't even know where to start with some of the tripe I'm reading here, except to say that some of you seriously need to pull your heads out of your asses."
---
Really leaves me quite disappointed with my fellow Belmonteers.
And with sharp pains in my eyes.
I heard Cofer Black say that while the number of Jihadists and AQ operatives may have increased, the quality of the operatives has been greatly diminished
On another line I heard of a 42 page alQaida straegy document found by Norwiegan Intel in the fall of 2003.
This document lays out the battle plan for the next few years. Starting with the Madrid attack and listing England and Poland as the next targets. The plan was to let the US rest while attempting to alienate our allies.
Does anyone else have information on this?
fred said,
"As if one is supposed to confront state sponsors of terrorism in a manner which does NOT stir the enemy up? What of it? Is he saying that our more aggressive engagement with Islamic terror makes the problem bigger? "
fred,
Buddy has a post way uptop that answers this in a nutshell, imo.
---
"As you say, the 90s are the anecdotal rebuttal--but still there is no way to definitely quantify the negative.
.In fact it is generally true that the sooner one surrenders, the smaller an enemy army will have been needed to win."
---
Simple, huh?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"iotom can't be blamed for trying, since it must be awfully difficult to throw aside delusions that seem so reasonable to political activists, lawyers, and other sycophants."
fred,
You left out idiots.
Hey, thanks for reading my sentence, Doug.
rat, I recall the news of that document--it made quite a stir for a few days. betcha it's on google somewheres.
The disloyal oppossition indeed!
Hugh Hewitt considers Chris Hitchens to be the loyal oppossition!
...would that they could all be so well-informed!
And Smart.
Blogging Made Difficult.
After 23 years in the British Army (Queen's Own Highlanders etc) now training as English/History teacher. 80% disabled (55% deaf and 25% lame) due to Army service so don't expect me to run if there's a bomb....throw me on top of it and save yourselves!
"In a dizzying, energising and raucous return to the pamphleteering days of the 18th and 19th centuries, the people have, through the worldwide web and easy-to-use publishing software, been given a voice.
They will not easily be silenced." (The 'Scotsman')
Fred, yes, In an Other Terrible Monde is deluded. The question is whether it is possible to reach such a person. If it is, I think the key would be to first show him the basis of delusion in general, without making it always about him.
We are all deluded to some degree. This is not a claim for any moral or conceptual relativism, but rather a call to understand how history never completely unfolds human self-knowledge. Since history never completes its revelation into our purpose in this world (unless and until we destroy ourselves), it leaves us uncertain about where we are going and where we should be, i.e. what we should desire and resent when desire is frustrated. There is always a basis for delusion before the unfolding paradoxes of human interaction, (but those who don't learn from history will be much more deluded than others, which is my point against relativism)
Anyway, long story short, at root, the basis of all our delusions is our resentment. We always try to justify our resentments and we may do a fair enough job of this to some degree. But it is always the nature of resentment that it deludes us to some degree. Just try reflecting intelligently on your resentment while you are resentful. Can't be done. You have to snap out of it and see your humble reality. Only a very learned humility can escape most of the delusion that inheres in our resentful beings. So, to reach someone like In Other TM, you have to get him to see how resentment and egotism is a sure sign of delusion and then use this as a basis to move from the general to the particular resentments that delude in the specific instance, and which in this instance you have just ably outlined, Fred, if only he would listen. Gotta to run for the night. Take care.
Eternal Damnation for the spouter of pornographic blasphemy!
Hey Guys,
Says anyone can become an immam.
I humbly as the Belmont People for your support.
72 pigs in every pot,
and a Porsche on the Porch.
Vote Doug,
Immam, 2006.
Seems like we'd have plenty of insight into Blood Feuds, don't it?
If we accept your model, can we still kick the left?
Now, ADE, since you think you're so smart, could you tell me who did
"The Angels Listened In"?
The Boston Globe's Tom Oliphant spends most of the hour with Hugh on the War on Terror.
Spread this one far and wide, folks. Tom is not a rabid twit of a lefty, using Hugh's new definition. He's wrong, but he's not insane. This is the view of the left in America today. Go forth and dissect:
HH: For a different take, now, on the war against terror, joined by Tom Oliphant, who is a columnist for the Boston Globe.
. RadioBlogger.
Wretchard,
Hewitt is looking for people to Fisk Oliphant in that interview.
Got the time, and or interest?
ADE,
Thanks for your support.
This reply autogenerated by the Doug for Imam PAC.
Did you have to look up the Crests?
No, just checking out a 3 CD set cover.
Didn't you say you grew up listening to Doo Wop?
The Baghdad challenge must represent the most significant task remaining.
(along with infiltration)
Good to see significant progress.
Imam Al Doug.
(just practicing,
and seeing how it sounds)
"oppossition"
must be the opposition's fault,
But I don't resent that, Truepeers,
...much.
Tony,
Your post reminded me of quote below from Wretch's Easter Post.
(It was on Wretchard.com and not available I think.
...good old desktop cache.
---
Paul Tillich emphasized the theme in Shaking the Foundations.
Why is nature tragic? Who is responsible for the suffering of animals, for the ugliness of death and decay, for the universal dread of death?
Many years ago I stood on a jetty with a well-known psychologist looking at the ocean. We saw innumerable small fish hurrying toward the beach.
They were pursued by bigger ones, who, in turn, were chased by still bigger ones.
Aggression, flight, and anxiety a perfect illustration of the old, often used story of the big fish devouring the small ones, in nature as in history. The scholar, who, in many discussions, had defended the harmonious structure of reality, burst into tears, saying,
"Why are these beings created if they exist only to be swallowed by others?"
In this moment the tragedy of nature forced itself upon his optimistic mind, and he asked, "Why?"
---
At first I was fairly sure the shrink must be old Fritz Pearls, but guess it could be lotsa pop shrinks of the day.
...but I'd BET it was at Big Sur!
and while looking, I found this gem:
I hate to say this to Iraqis, but I pray for chaos and civil war: it's the only way to stop Bush's policies and show that peace can never come through force.
If Iraq gets peace, Bush wins credibility. It cannot be allowed to happen.
Nina, Toronto Canada
iotm's sister?
Peters doing an Islamic Elmer Fudd.
'Rat, 7:16 PM,
The question then is will Nahncee be there to Aruba Gahrib her to death?
Peter,
Iswamic Tewwer?
---
Now please teach us how to say Islamofacism.
(shoulda stuck w/iotm, was a lot easier)
Iswawofashwism?
No,
Iswamofashwism.
Imam Al Dwug.
D'Rat wrote: On another line I heard of a 42 page alQaida straegy document found by Norwiegan Intel in the fall of 2003.
Hmmm, here's a starter link at least:
Qaeda plan: pre-emptive strategy?
SNIP: "Tape urges Muslim youths to take initiative and strike West
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates An audio tape that surfaced Friday, purportedly by Al Qaeda's second in command, urges Muslim youths to take the initiative and strike the United States and its allies rather than attack in response to perceived past injustices.
Analysts say pre-emptive strikes - a longstanding American policy the Bush administration defends for its war on terrorism - would be a new strategy for Al Qaeda.
The tape aired by Al Jazeera television identified the speaker as Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, an Egyptian-born surgeon and confidante of the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
It was the second message said to be from Zawahri to surface in less than a month. The voice on the tape, which refers to "crusader America," says: "We should not wait until U.S., British, French, Jewish, South Korean, Hungarian or Polish forces enter Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen and Algeria before we resist. The interests of the Americans, British, Australians, French, Polish, Norwegians, South Korean and Japanese are spread everywhere.
"We can't wait or we will be eaten up country by country.
"People of knowledge and experience should organize their efforts and form a leadership for the resistance to combat the crusaders."
Not so sure,
Maybe Belmonteers can have a confwence to decwide the isweu.
Doug,
I hope I didn't annoy Cahmd52, I would like to hear more of his thoughts.
"As a physician, I view people as extensions of the natural world: endowed by a creator but grounded in "clay" and subject to a litany of evolutionary constraints and adjustments. I think we are at an inflection point...."
Ha,
The Proverbial Islamic Fly in der Ointment:
"People of knowledge and experience should organize their efforts and form a leadership for the resistance to combat the crusaders. "
---
Just what they regularly CAN'T do.
(I think Atta was an exceptional specimen)
Doug, since we're being light this morning, I just heard a song on the radio and it occurred to me it would be a perfect song for Slim Pickens in a remake of "Dr. Strangelove" with '80's music. It's Modern English:
I'll stop the world and melt with you
You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time
There's nothing you and I won't do
I'll stop the world and melt with you
Slim getting ready to ride
It might even relate to evolutionary theory:
We should know better
Dream of better lives, the kind which never hate
We should see why
Trapped in a state of imaginary grace
We should know better
I made a pilgrimage to save this human's race
We should see why
Never comprehending the race had long gone bye
tony -- thanks for that al reuters piece; i'm still shaking my head in disbelief-but-should-be-used-to-it-by-now at this line: "Analysts say pre-emptive strikes - a longstanding American policy the Bush administration defends for its war on terrorism - would be a new strategy for Al Qaeda."
Sure -- absolutely nothing "preemptive" about 9/11, for example.
I'll vote for Ali doug Belmonti to the post of Imam of the Inet
He promises
no fatwa against viagra
serving wenches and mead for all
two pigs in every pot
& pot for pigs
Oink Oink
Excellent column by Melanie Phillips on this. An excerpt:
The reason why blaming al Qaeda’s terror on the war in Iraq is morally so obtuse goes deeper than the astonishing historical amnesia displayed by those who appear to airbrush from their memory the declaration of war upon the west and associated acts of terror over more than a decade culminating in 9/11. It is because it takes an element of truth and then draws from it a perverse and amoral conclusion. The element of truth is that the west’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq undoubtedly have exacerbated jihadi fervour and drawn more into the cause. The amoral conclusion is that therefore these actions by the west were wrong.
The truth is that, for countries that believed Afghanistan and Iraq had already inflicted aggressive acts of violence upon the west and were poised to inflict even worse, there was no reasonable or principled alternative but to wage war upon them. The fact that any attempt by the west at self-defence would enrage yet more Islamists was merely the other prong of Morton’s Fork, and illustrated the dilemma posed by all terrorism – if its victims defend themselves, this recruits more to the terrorist cause, but if its victims don’t defend themselves this encourages the terrorists to redouble their attacks because their whole strategy is to demoralise their victims in every way in order to finish them off altogether. This is, after all, the terrible dilemma faced all the time by Israel – a choice between, on the one hand, protecting its citizens from genocidal attack by means which inflame the Arabs in the territories simply because they perceive any self defence by the Israelis as aggression thanks to the warped ideology with which they have been brainwashed, and on the other hand, appeasing terror by a variety of means which are all taken as a sign of weakness and which act therefore as a spur to redouble the terrorist war.
Faced with this intrinsic dilemma posed by terrorism, in which both courses of action have a downside, the only moral choice is to fight terror by the most vigorous means of self-defence possible. This is because while in the short to medium term this may recruit more to the terrorist cause, the alternative route of appeasement is to commit cultural or national suicide. In other words, for free peoples there is no alternative. That is why blaming the continuing war by al Qaeda on the west’s actions in Iraq is such a degraded and disgusting position to take.
Melanie Philips is one smart lady
US Launches Operation Scimitar in Anbar Province
Hey, my mum cooks a mean sweet and sour pork dish!
Yum, yum!
Ninny fantasts such as Belton told us that ObL was operating from Dr. No-like fortified mountains; drawings of such places were published in the tabs and we were to be concerned that they were of solid German construction (anybody remember Normandy?).
Ninny fantasts such as Belton told us before Desert Storm and OIF that we would be fighting forever to take Kuwait/Iraq and that American blood would run in rivers (anybody Google "Highway of Death" or review how the insurgents fared in Fallujah once we got serious?).
Ninny fantasts such as Belton remind me of the Black Knight in "Monty Pytheon & the Holy Grail".
If aQ and ObL are so gawd-awful powerful and frightening: why do they spend SO much time hiding?; why do they attack unarmed civilians?
If the Swedish ninny fantast is correct, what have aQ and ObL to fear? The USMC is annihilated.
Perhaps all the ninny fantasts should get together, go to Iraq, and suurender to Zarqawi and aQ...maybe that would stop the madness. ;-)
Christopher Hitchens addresses the asinine “no terrs in Iraq before Bush” meme
tony - further up that page is an interesting interview by Hewitt of Tom Oliphant, discussing (in part) that Hitchens exchange:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000818
Ex-dem,
Right, Radioblogger is a great site for those of us who can't stand commercials. What's Limbaugh's show up to now, 37 minutes per hour of commercials? Can't stand it. Radioblogger solves it.
tdave
We are on track, the indigs are working on their own and in conjuction with US troops.
Better late than never.
After the elections in December the deal should be done, for US.
The Iraqis will be standing on their own, dealing with the Syrians, Saudis and yes, the Iranians.
In that vien the question will be which side has a greater influence on the other, in both Government and Mosque.
New Skill sets required.
In order to assess the difficulty of Al Qaida sending out a group of terrorists to sabotage London, You might imagine sending a group of Americans incognito with mostly non-military resources into Iraq to blow themselves up. They would have to learn enough of local language in order to speak it without being blatantly suspicious, find a way to smuggle themselves into Iraq (i'm sure their tourist body is small) stay in Iraq long enough to co-ordinate the attack and carry it out, and also find the resources there to build a bomb or whatever their means of attack is. And add to that the fact that they have American soldiers up in their grill constantly waging war.
No wonder that was all they could do in London (which was pretty weak).
Drew,
I don't think that's a good analogy. London, and the UK as a whole, has a very large immigrant/recent immigrant population. The reverse is not true in Iraq. It would be very easy for someone to blend in there. In addition, it is vastly more likely for someone from the Middle East to know English, than for an American to know the language of a middle eastern nation.
'Anybody got any views on how you fight a blood feud? (which OIF is not, of course).
Chicago rules. (From the Untouchables). "They come at you with a knife, you use a gun. They put a cop in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the ground."'
You can rest assured that EVERY Marine out in the Euphrates River valley (and anywhere else you'll find U.S. Marines) understands that the vermin they pursue are directly related to the perpetrators of the October 23, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Marines have LONG memories. I'd say there's a blood feud there. aQ, Zaqawi and UbL understand that, so they hide real good and attack innocents.
fred,
My wife just told me about someone she met recently that was there also. I'll ask her more about him.
---
A security gaurd she knows was a NY City Policeman, I think, and lost his brother there.
---
Only those who have gone out of their way to separate themselves from the general populace can forget, but of course that includes most all the elites and a damn big number of democrats.
"They put a cop in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the ground."
Heh,
Some punks recently jumped some mainland guy, as is the local custom, and he turned out to be a martial artist or something, and ended up putting at least one of them in the hospital.
Sweet.
(now prepare for lawsuit)
Tony,
Each "hour" of Limbaugh takes 36 minutes on the web, or his downloadable mp3s.
He does like to promote you know who, but he also gets fed a lot of good info.
Worth the $30 bucks a year or so to me, at least.
I used to listen to the radio a lot, now hardly at all.
Hooray for the internet and KRLA.com!
"Ninny fantasts such as Belton remind me of the Black Knight in "Monty Pytheon & the Holy Grail."
---
Belton's "logic" is hard to distinguish from that of the MSM.
Maybe they are all losing conciousness from massive blood loss from that minor flesh wound.
One metric we could use to judge the strengthening vs. weaking debate is quite simple. If Iraq is really a training ground, this would logically imply that at a certain point the Al-Qaeda terrorists "complete their training" and depart for parts unknown to do their work.
Have we found Iraq conflict "veterans" among Al-Qaedists captured outside Iraq, let alone anyone who survived to tell the tale? Or, to paraphrase the old "Roach Motel" tag line, we know the terrorists are checking into Iraq, but are they checking out? From all that I've heard, the answer is no. The trip into Iraq for Al-Qaeda loyalists appears to be one-way, ending either in a jail cell or a grave.
Can anyone provide a verified story of an Al-Qaeda veteran who finished his "tour" in Iraq and moved on to another assignment?
Tony,
How do you think all those transcripts get made?
---
Theif,
All that makes too much sense for the MSM to pursue.
Wouldn't stop bloggers though, so hope the idea becomes widespread.
This is a new war. Via the use of proxy fighters and state sponsors of terror cells things have changed.
There are not map like boundaries to define who is friend and who is foe. Clearly, Syria is state sponsor of proxy fighters against the US and the UK - yet they claim friendship. As one website notes:
Assad threw a gala banquet for Palestinian terrorist leaders after London bombing
Thursday night, July 7, as London counted the victims of four terrorist bombings, Syrian president Hafez Assad entertained a group of hard-line Palestinian terrorist leaders at a banquet in Damascus. Although he claims to be a close friend of Britain, it did not cross his mind to call off the occasion or remove from its guest list the heads of organizations which Britain as well as the United States have listed as proscribed terrorist groups.
See: Assad threw banquet for terrorists
Also see ledger's post 6:63 PM
This new type of warfare consists of attack, hide and deceive - then repeat the process.
Hence, it is necessary to think beyond the old warfare box and invent methods to counter the new type of warfare. Here are a few posts that could help solve the problem:
trangbang68 said... "there are rat's nests like the Bekaa valley in Lebanon or the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia that vote about 100% Wahhabi in every election. Send in the B-52's for a show of what a real explosion looks like. The frontier of Pakistan is reputed to be ungovernable, utterly lawless. There may not even be media access to film it being turned into the darkside of the moon."
[and]
jakita said... "As I've remarked earlier, now would be a good time to administer a few well-chosen teeth-knocking bruising blows to remind the Muslims that we can crush them, if necessary... I personally vote for shutting down the Finsbury Mosque, imprisoning or departing murder spouting imams, and--perhaps a "mistakenly dropped" MOAB in Syria or Hezbollah-land."
[and]
desert rat said... "Peace though Superior Firepower"
[and]
Peter UK said... "The blood feud model will not fly..."
[and]
3Case said... "Ninny fantasts such as Belton told us before Desert Storm and OIF that we would be fighting forever to take Kuwait/Iraq and that American blood would run in rivers (anybody Google "Highway of Death" or review how the insurgents fared in Fallujah once we got serious?)... You can rest assured that EVERY Marine out in the Euphrates River valley (and anywhere else you'll find U.S. Marines) understands that the vermin they pursue are directly related to the perpetrators of the October 23, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Marines have LONG memories..."
[and]
TallDave said... "Operation Scimitar... So far, 22 suspected insurgents had been detained...
Have you noticed things in Iraq seem qualitatively different in the last month or so? It looks like the democratic gov't is now mostly taking the fight to the insurgents, rather than mostly the other way around. From the pace of operations, commentary fom milblogs and Iraqis, and the way the raids are being handled, I get the impression they actually have far more intel from the populace than they can act on. That strikes me as a very good sign. Once most Sunnis get on board, the insurgency is over and Iraq can be on the way toward the prosperity and freedom that will make it a democratic beacon in the Mideast... If they [Sunnis] vote this time, the effect could be to essentially end the Baathist portion of the insurgency by suborning all the moderate elements into the political process, which will further facilitate the process of capturing/killing the few remaining die-hards."
[and]
fred said... "We are MOST FORTUNATE that Marines have long memories..."
From the above one could grasp the following:
1) The war is like a body infected with pathogens. Thus, anti-pathogens musts be inject to the body and circulated throughout the infected body to destroy the harmful pathogens.
There are no boarders in this war. This is not a superficial matter, or a legal matter, it's a military matter.
2) The enemy does not respond to words. The enemy only responds to action. Use hard and fast force against the enemy. Shorten the war!
3) Deception is one of the enemy's most potent tools. Thus, treat the enemy's words with caution. Recognize the enemy uses the media to spread propaganda. If the enemy uses deception then use deception against the enemy. Close down said enemy mouth pieces of the enemy like the Finsbury Mosque Instigators of Violence (or Mosque itself).
Although, some say keep the enemy's website running - it's a bad policy - they are modern command and control centers. Close down any/all source of command and control centers of the enemy (that includes TV networks who spread violence).
4) Politics works to an extend - but only after the enemy has seen the highway of death. They must feel the possibility of death. Or, "Peace through the demonstration of superior fire power."
5) Respect the guys in uniform - they don't forget. Give them the latitude to do their jobs fully. That would include the realization that certain countries sponsor terrorists and must be neutralized (regardless of some line drawn on a map).
sometimes i wonder if all this talk from wretchard re credible elections in iran or democracy in iraq, is just that...
All talk.
History In London
Charles M. Province Recounts Gen. Patton's Speech:
...General Patton arose and strode swiftly to the microphone. The men snapped to their feet and stood silently. Patton surveyed the sea of brown with a grim look. "Be seated", he said. The words were not a request, but a command. The General's voice rose high and clear.
"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players.
Americans love a winner.
Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."
The General paused and looked over the crowd. "You are not all going to die," he said slowly. "Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen."
"All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken shit drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a fuck for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit!" The men roared in agreement.
Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent. "But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did". The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!"
The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!
"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.
"My men don't surrender", Patton continued, "I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"
Patton stopped and the crowd waited. He continued more quietly, "All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands". But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'."
Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?" He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!" Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."
The General paused and stared challengingly over the silent ocean of men. One could have heard a pin drop anywhere on that vast hillside. The only sound was the stirring of the breeze in the leaves of the bordering trees and the busy chirping of the birds in the branches of the trees at the General's left.
"Don't forget," Patton barked, "you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton'."
"We want to get the hell over there", Patton continued, "The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit."
The men roared approval and cheered delightedly. This statement had real significance behind it. Much more than met the eye and the men instinctively sensed the fact. They knew that they themselves were going to play a very great part in the making of world history. They were being told as much right now. Deep sincerity and seriousness lay behind the General's colorful words. The men knew and understood it. They loved the way he put it, too, as only he could.
Patton continued quietly, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"
"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"
"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed.
Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that."
The General paused. His eagle like eyes swept over the hillside. He said with pride, "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana." No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"
The Speech, Somewhere in England, June 5th, 1944
With Saddam's $25K subsidies to suicide bomber families no longer propping up one critical part of the market for Islamofascist foot soldiers, it's no wonder that the enemy's resources are showing signs of strain. What we need to guard against now is a leftie backlash that agrees on this point and then draws the incorrect conclusion that we shouldn't keep the pressure up as high if they're starting to look like rats (or fire ants) rather than the wolves or velociraptors we once thought they were.
Good writing & analysis Richard/Wretchard... from a once-upon-a-time near-neighbor in the Boston area.
Fred, you are right on about the left seeing the Islamicists as victims who must however be treated as criminals, since the left don't understand the religious motivations. Victims and criminals: the categories of those who are ultimately scapegoaters, finger pointers; and while Islamicism is massively a scapegoating operation against non-believers, Islamicists, at least, put their faith in Allah, often with suicidal conviction. So one can say they are not victimizing and scapegoating for this-worldly rewards, which is what can be so grating about our elites. Or do you think i'm naive?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ah yes, what are the "root causes" of terrorism? for those who use the term, t'is always a Marxist explanation of cause that is called for. Resentment is never its own cause; iow, the basic choice between resentment and love is never taken by the secular left as the starting point of the human before the sacred; instead, resentment must be explained away with blame games that assert their own primacy. But this is to confuse sacred cause and sacrificial effects, a confusion on either an anthropological or religious level.
Fred wrote:
I do, however, advise caution in the matter of possibly roughly equating "Allah" with the Lord God Creator, Yahweh, and the Father of Jesus of Nazareth. I am decidedly not one of those people who equate Islam with an "Abrahamic faith." If one reads the Bible thoroughly and the Qur'an thoroughly, the differences are far more numerous and profoundly at variance.
...
For me, the jihadis religious fervor is to be taken at its face value. However, in no way do I accord any religious legitimacy on their motivations because I consider the religion to be at the very least a heresy and at the extreme probably idolatry.
Fred, I found this statement of yours an interesting expression of religious consciousness, since it implies a distinction between religious truth (in which the Islamic representation of Allah is heretical from a perspective in which God is, e.g., love) and the presumable historical truth (or do I put words into your mouth?) that Islam could not have been conceived apart from the Judeo-Christian tradition, of which it is thus a part; it is at least a reaction to, and in this sense at least a part of, the Abrahamic and monotheist tradition,
Given that you are presumably a strict monotheist, how can the Islamic representation of Allah be for you anything else than a misguided worship of the one God? and even as misguided, how can you separate it as something other from the Abrahamic tradition of which, historically, it must be a part (if only a corrupted part)? Mohammed could not have invented Islam if Judeo-Christianity were not already in existence. Despite Islam's own claims to be eternal and universal, it is not historically an entirely (or very) original form of monotheism for reasons I don't think I need to go into with you. Its derivative (if heretical) nature is what it must deny in order to assert its "eternal and uncreated" primacy.
So sure, Islam may be a corruption of Judeo-Christian tradition, but how can we speak of it, as you seem to want to, as apart from this tradition? Shouldn't our challenge in reaching out in hope that Islam can find a road to a peaceful and moderate place in the monotheist tradition be to convince that all our religions are trying to speak to fundamental or universal human truths, and that their differential capacity and skills in doing this reflect their differential historical emergence in the monotheist progress from God's peculiar people, through Christ's universal love, to Mohammed's cry to those yet left out of the communions created by the first two monotheisms.
Or do you think this is a hopeless dream, and that the only hope is for Muslims to convert to Christianity?
My hope (not sure how realistic it is) is to pit, against Islam's claim to be eternal and uncreated, a re-assertion of Judeo-Christian historicism and point out that Islam must understand itself as coming third, a position which leaves Muslims at risk of a great deal of resentment towards the older faiths. And it seems to me we need to relate all religious truths to secular understandings of humanity and history in order to bring Muslims into a common brotherhood on some level, even if we refuse to recognize those who act violently as being in any sense equals or duly initiated into universal human truths.
We need to assert a common historical narrative to help explain the differences among the religions and get people to see how history has shaped the expression of their faiths. Islam comes third. Dare I say, that's the cross it has to carry?
Post a Comment
<< Home