On my morning commute the other day I snapped this quick photo of a lone, brave citizen providing an almost unheard of dissenting message. If only I could reduce my understandings to a bumper-sticker mentality...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Simply put for a very unsimply problem. I want out of Iraq, but it is very compicated. What will happen to the region? The world is ours, we can't just let it be. Can we?
Howdy, Anon. It seems that you have a great dilemma on your hands.
On the one hand, you wish for our disengagement from Iraq, which is probably a universal wish in the abstract among anti and pro war advocates alike (one can obviously be for military intervention and recognize its necessity, while at the same time wishing it wasn’t necessary to be there). And yet on the other hand, I believe you question whether we can afford to leave that backwards area of the world (and elsewhere) to the devices of illiberal regimes and movements. So...
Q: What do you think the consequences would be for us in adopting an isolationist strategy in an age of terrorism and nuclear proliferation?
Update:
April 6, 2007
Notes from the Pentagon
Iraq backlash
Military officials in Baghdad say Iraqi insurgents have had limited success in stepped up attacks since the U.S.-led efforts to stabilize the Iraqi capital.
"The last week or so has seen significant activity in Iraq, possibly the start of the backlash we have been expecting, as extremists react to the surge," one military officer said.
Recent attacks in Fallujah, Khalis and Tal Afar, were outside the surge area of Baghdad and surrounding areas and "don't directly affect the Baghdad security operation," said the official, who provided a situation report on the condition of anonymity.
However, the bombing of a Baghdad market March 29 was likely a terrorist reaction to "improvements in Baghdad," the official said.
"The insurgents may be switching to easier operating areas outside the capital, and trying to discredit the feeling of security brought about by the surge," the official said.
Is Baghdad safer?
"In general, yes. Four days ago I walked unarmed with a small group on Haifa Street, in broad daylight, talking to local people going about their business," the official said.
By contrast, two months ago fighter jets were strafing targets, and major gunbattles were fought in the same location.
Where two months ago about 15 corpses would turn up on the streets of a U.S.-Iraqi controlled neighborhood almost daily, now groups of 20 children regularly play soccer. Bodies are still seen on the streets but in far fewer numbers.
"By getting in at the grass roots and competing for influence, securing the population, we threatened the extremists' ability to dominate and intimidate the people," the official said. "So they struck back — initially in Tal Afar and Fallujah, later in Baghdad and Khalis."
The attack in Fallujah was an utter failure, with two suicide car bombs stopped and detonated killing only the terrorists.
"Overall, it has been a tough 72 hours," the official said. "We expected a backlash, and this may be the start of it. The pattern is one of extremists targeting ordinary people, trying to provoke sectarian violence, and intimidate them to regain influence. They succeeded initially in Tal Afar. But the government's rapid action kept casualties much lower than in similar incidents last year. Fallujah showed how extremists will prey on their own people without compunction, but also showed their loss of skill and increasing marginalization."
That's a great photo.
Oh yes and "US out of North America".
Lips,
To answer your question, I think it would have devastating consequences. I am very afraid of the economic ramifications of such a move. If the region goes up in smoke, do our wallets suffer? What about the Isreal question? I don't think we can adopt an isolationist strategy. historically we have tried to inorder to avoid past foreign conflicts. Sometimes, the economic factors (partly) have brought us into these conflicts. I also feel like it would put us in a "come and get me" mode. I guess I would be a more of a proactive rather than reactive person. However, I am agianst the war in Iraq, so I guess you can add hypocrite to the list.
Anon, regardless of economics, do you believe our security depends on bringing that part of the world out of the middle-ages and into modernity?
Its greatest export these days, besides oil, seems to be a radical Islam that's willing to engage in mass killings of innocents in order to make the world more to their fashion, order, and liking. Politics abhors a vacuum, and if we pull out of the region, they're the ones who are going to fill the void. I don't believe that's acceptable, and in fact, I'm certain that doing so would enable worse acts than 9-11 in the future.
What other alternatives do you suppose?
Lips,
I agree with you. Islamic Fundamentalism would increase with us out of the picture. Taking the conomic side out of it, and jsut dealing with the fundamentalist issue, I would like to here you opinion on the following. It seems that these yahoos will not stop by force. There has to be a change in their ideological thinking. If the use of force or presence in the region has not not dettered this, then why are we there? How do we change their minds? Should we change their minds? Is it us that need to change?
"It seems that these yahoos will not stop by force."
Really? Have you gotten any body counts which might support this notion?
"There has to be a change in their ideological thinking."
This ideological calculus existed during our own civil war, in which 872,000 Americans died. Some were forced to change...well,.... by force.
"If the use of force or presence in the region has not not dettered this, then why are we there? "
This assumes that there are never ending resources of man and material on the other side.
"How do we change their minds?"
Lead by example, promote democracy, zero toleration of terrorism, reward nations who support the effort.
"Should we change their minds?"
If there's an element which sees all of the world as "dar al-Harb"... the "house of war", then what choices do we have?
" Is it us that need to change?"
Yes, we need to change the 1930's appeasement attitude taken by the Hollywood/Liberal/Left/Internationalist set before we lose what we've inherited by the previous generations.
American troops swept into the troubled, predominantly Shiite city of Diwaniyah before dawn on Friday, killing three militia fighters and capturing 27 in the first day of the assault, the military said. The attack — named “Operation Black Eagle” — targeted gunmen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Fighting continued Saturday.
"It seems that these yahoos will not stop by force. There has to be a change in their ideological thinking. If the use of force or presence in the region has not deterred this, then why are we there? How do we change their minds? Should we change their minds? Is it us that need to change?"
Anon, those are great questions which I think we all must ask ourselves, but I, like Dhun, respectfully question the premise inferred by some of your questions. Indeed, I do believe these Jihadists can be stopped by force; actually, they have been and continue to be killed, their leadership, and their foot soldiers. However, this for some reason does not seem to be worthy of reporting or emphasis by the media, and as a result much of the American public has an incomplete and skewed picture of what exactly is happening in Iraq. And relating a similar negligence with our political leadership in Congress: It’s one thing for people to disagree on policy; it’s quite another to advocate legislation that would guarantee failure even before a new strategy is given a chance to work, especially when the trajectory of events in Iraq appears to be encouraging.
On your question of changing hearts and minds: I don’t believe anyone suggested at any point after September 2, 1939 that we must change Hitler’s and the Nazi’s ideological thinking in order to end the conflict that found its very source in said ideological thinking. I do not believe it is possible to change –by definition—a fanatic’s mind, particularly the type of religious fanatic that is willing to strap on a bomb belt and intentionally blow themselves and innocents up for the sake of their cause. Although I personally abhor violence, simply put, they need to be stopped with force. We need to directly confront and defeat such evil, just as we have in the past, and just as we will have to in the future. People, of course, may reasonably disagree over what shape and form this confrontation should take, but in any event there is no escape from history, no escape from the moral dilemmas history presents, and the judgments and related actions they necessitate.
In contrast to the daily and mindless drumbeat of body counts which give no context or cause to what is happening in Iraq, here's some alternative reporting from Bill Gertz:
April 6, 2007
Notes from the Pentagon
Iraq backlash
Military officials in Baghdad say Iraqi insurgents have had limited success in stepped up attacks since the U.S.-led efforts to stabilize the Iraqi capital.
"The last week or so has seen significant activity in Iraq, possibly the start of the backlash we have been expecting, as extremists react to the surge," one military officer said.
Recent attacks in Fallujah, Khalis and Tal Afar, were outside the surge area of Baghdad and surrounding areas and "don't directly affect the Baghdad security operation," said the official, who provided a situation report on the condition of anonymity.
However, the bombing of a Baghdad market March 29 was likely a terrorist reaction to "improvements in Baghdad," the official said.
"The insurgents may be switching to easier operating areas outside the capital, and trying to discredit the feeling of security brought about by the surge," the official said.
Is Baghdad safer?
"In general, yes. Four days ago I walked unarmed with a small group on Haifa Street, in broad daylight, talking to local people going about their business," the official said.
By contrast, two months ago fighter jets were strafing targets, and major gunbattles were fought in the same location.
Where two months ago about 15 corpses would turn up on the streets of a U.S.-Iraqi controlled neighborhood almost daily, now groups of 20 children regularly play soccer. Bodies are still seen on the streets but in far fewer numbers.
"By getting in at the grass roots and competing for influence, securing the population, we threatened the extremists' ability to dominate and intimidate the people," the official said. "So they struck back — initially in Tal Afar and Fallujah, later in Baghdad and Khalis."
The attack in Fallujah was an utter failure, with two suicide car bombs stopped and detonated killing only the terrorists.
"Overall, it has been a tough 72 hours," the official said. "We expected a backlash, and this may be the start of it. The pattern is one of extremists targeting ordinary people, trying to provoke sectarian violence, and intimidate them to regain influence. They succeeded initially in Tal Afar. But the government's rapid action kept casualties much lower than in similar incidents last year. Fallujah showed how extremists will prey on their own people without compunction, but also showed their loss of skill and increasing marginalization."
More unimportant news:
Taliban Casualties
April 10, 2007: This year's Taliban offensive in Afghanistan is shaping up to be as much of a bust as last years. So far this year, about 900 people have died from Taliban related violence in Afghanistan. About two thirds of those have been Taliban, and most of the remainder civilians. Last year, there were 4,000 dead, with two thirds of them Taliban. In other words, this year is starting off looking like a repeat of last year. One difference is that the Taliban are not as numerous as last year. Recruiting, especially in Pakistan, has been more difficult.
Dhun,
The fact that their has been a bomb that has gone off with the intent to or has killed someone in that region since I have been alive tells me the strength of this resolve. I do not believe we should leave the region nor do I support legislation that would cripple our current strategy there. Combine with our presence in the region, there has to be a ideological change by both parties. Obviously by ideological change I mean that both sides need to develop an undersanding of each other. I believe we are trying to do this on multiple levels but this should continue to be as high as a priority as occupation/assistance. Lips, this is not the same situation as in 1939. The dynamics of this are far more involved. Otherwise, I think we are all on the same page.
Post a Comment