Iraqi civilian deaths down amid crackdown
U.S. officials cautiously optimistic that Baghdad operation is working
BAGHDAD - Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed Sunday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital.
But American casualties are running high as U.S. forces step up pressure on Sunni and Shiite extremists in and around Baghdad.
At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 policemen and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s operations room said. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures.
That represented a 36 percent drop from the ministry’s May figures — 1,949 civilian deaths along with 127 policemen and 47 soldiers.
This fits with the figures I reported a few days ago and that I am updating today. Using casualty figures found in media reports as tabulated by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, here are the numbers for June in perspective (important details about how I arrive these figures can be found here):
As usual, the black bar shows the month in which al Qaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- a critical event that triggered the upsurge in sectarian violence (which was al Qaeda's goal, in case you didn't know). The blue bars represent the months during which the troop surge has unfolded, with June being the first month during which the surge became operational.
My figures are similar to those reported in the MSNBC story, which were supplied by an anonymous Iraqi official. My chart shows 1752 casualties in May (compared to 1949 cited by that Iraqi official) and 1146 in June (compared to 1227). The numbers in the chart show a 35% drop from May to June (about the same at the change noted by that Iraqi official), which means that the method I use to track casualties is sensitive to change. It's always that way, and that's why I have come to trust the figures supplied by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. These numbers are all the more remarkable given that the Golden Mosque was bombed yet again this month, presumably by al Qaeda (though we don't yet know that for a fact). I thought we might see another explosion of violence (again, that's al Qaeda's goal), but it didn't happen.
Harry Reid declared that the troop surge was a failure on the basis of a single bombing attack -- by al Qaeda, no less -- that occurred back before the troop surge became operational and before we had barely half of the new troops on the ground. On April 19, he said "...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." The violence he was referring to (which had occurred on the previous day) was this:
Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad
Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:42 PM EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Jihadist web sites celebrated this premature declaration of surrender and defeat, as Reid must have known they would. Now that the troop surge is finally operational, civilian casualties are way down. What does Harry Reid -- the man who declares a one-day attack by al Qaeda as proof of our defeat -- have to say about this development? I could not find anything, except for this:
Democrats to focus on Iraq as polls sag
...
Over the weekend, Reid called on Republicans to support legislation that will force the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Starting next week, Democrats are planning weekly votes on the issue.
Pathetic.
We are at war with al Qaeda in Iraq, and Harry Reid needs to wake up to that fact and then choose sides. When al Qaeda bombs unarmed civilians in an attempt to incite civil war, he should not immediately cooperate with them by declaring that we have been defeated. And when successes are achieved against al Qaeda by the U.S. military, as they were in June, he should cooperate with America's efforts and say something positive about that. And make no mistake about it: our success in June came at the expense of al Qaeda in Iraq, as I will now explain.
First, let's look at civilian casualties in Baghdad:
You can see that casualties in Baghdad are down somewhat. Why? Let's take a closer look:
This is the same graph as the one above, except that I have broken down casualties by type. The blue segments of the bar show execution-style killings by the Mahdi Army (probably) against Sunni males. As you can see, those killings came back down somewhat after spiking up a bit last month. But what really dropped were "other" killings in Baghdad (shown by the red segments). The reason is that spectacular mass-casualty attacks by al Qaeda against innocent men, women and children of the Shiite sect were quite limited this month. Harry Reid didn't notice this (instead, he takes notice when al Qaeda succeeds), but I did. Casualties outside of Baghdad were also way down in June:
Again, the figures improved largely because al Qaeda was unable to pull off the usual number of mass-casualty attacks against Shiite civilians. Why is al Qaeda having trouble? Because a major component of the troop surge is directed against them:
10,000 troops launch assault on al-Qaeda
June 19, 2007
ABOUT 10,000 US and Iraqi troops today launched a major air and ground assault on al-Qaeda networks in and around the restive city of Baquba, northeast of Baghdad.
Stories like this must seem odd to you if think of Iraq as being one big civil war. If that's how you think, you need to wake up to the fact that there is another force operating in Iraq. It happens to be the major force underlying sectarian violence there, and it is the same force that attacked us on 9/11. Wishing it were not true is not going to make the problem go away. But the troop surge might. As a result of the troop surge, al Qaeda's ability to pull off suicide bomb attacks have been seriously affected. I do not know if it will last, but look at the number of suicide bomb attacks that occurred in June compared to the prior months:
Virtually all of these attacks are by al Qaeda (it is their method, along with the truck bomb), and it seems that they are being hit hard. What do the Democrats say about this good news? Their silence is thundering, and I'll never cease to be amazed by that. The mainstream media lets them get away with it because -- well, I just don't know why, really. If the Democrats were in charge, they'd go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan (it's where they think the "real terrorists" are) even though al Qaeda has chosen to fight us in Iraq. I have trouble understanding how Democrats think on the issue of national security, and I guess I always will.
Finally, U.S. military casualties were down by 20% in June compared to the prior month (101 killed in June, compared to 126 in May), which is remarkable given that the offensive against al Qaeda began in June. Still, overall casualties are up in the 6 months since the surge began. Here are those casualties averaged over 3-month blocks (with the last two points representing the 6 months of the troops surge):
Our casualties are higher because we are fighting back hard against al Qaeda in Iraq. Our choice is to win that war or to accept defeat at their hands. It is extremely painful to see more U.S. soldiers killed in action, but it would be even more painful to prove to al Qaeda that we do not have the will to fight them. Al Qaeda already believes that to be true. God help us if we prove them right once again.
21 comments:
"Our casualties are higher because we are fighting back hard against al Qaeda in Iraq. Our choice is to win that war or to accept defeat at their hands. It is extremely painful to see more U.S. soldiers killed in action, but it would be even more painful to prove to al Qaeda that we do not have the will to fight them."
This is too much to simply let slide. Before I say what I strongly suspect needs to be said, let's clarify terms: who is the "we" that will be fighting Al-Qaeda? Are you going to fight them? Your children? Your children's children, as may very well be a possibility with the way things are going now?
In what way are you going to fight?
Warrior-Poet,
Oh, feel free to say what you "strongly suspect needs to be said." I'm sure we've never heard it before, and it will probably make you feel better.
No, I'm not going pick up a rifle and fight al Qaeda. It makes a whole lot more sense for our trained soldiers to do that. And I cannot say if my children will take up arms when they get old enough to decide the matter for themselves. Ask me again in 10 years or so.
If we (i.e., Americans, collectively) do not have the will to send our soldiers against al Qaeda now, we are undoubtedly going to have a much bigger and much more deadly fight on hands in the future. That's the alternative you seem to favor, and it's a really bad idea. You seem to think that the choice is to fight or not to fight, but the real choice is fight them now (when they are vulnerable) or fight them later (when they are much stronger as a result of our having surrendered them to them in Iraq).
My role in this fight is to do what I can to open eyes that are mostly closed and to vote for politicians who are unwilling to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. That's the way in which I am going to fight.
How are you going to fight al Qaeda?
As I suspected.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: if you've ended up so misguided over the Iraq war that you're willing to spend this much time prattling on about Al-Qaeda being some hidden secret in Iraq that only you and the neocons know about it, that's your business. Your words will not change any minds, and history will look back on this debacle and be grateful for that. Personally, I think your take on Iraq is oversimplified wishful thinking. I just don't have the time, energy or desire to sort through it all. Besides, everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?
Right. Today, though, you crossed a line. It's one thing to crunch numbers, attempting to analyze the situation, even if you're doing so with an agenda and like to pretend that you've found some irrefutable nugget of truth. Giving your readers some rah-rah pep talk, lecturing us on the cost of "surrender" if "we" lose our will to fight - regurgitating all of the nonsense I hear from all of the chickenhawks who want to impress me with their willingness to fight to the last drop of other people's blood - is another thing.
You aren't fighting anyone. You risk nothing by posting on a blog read mainly by pro-war intellectuals looking for any outlet to avoid confronting the folly they made in supporting the war. You aren't mourning children who died because the same clowns whose war you want to glorify couldn't pay to train them properly or armor their humvees properly. You aren't sitting in an inadequately funded VA hospital, disabled forever with nothing but neocon talking points to rationalize your sacrifice. You aren't an Iraqi civilian, caught in the crossfire between an occupying foreign entity that isn't welcome in your country and the thugs who have been unleashed onto your streets because of their presence there. Instead, you sit in the safety of a university, with three meals a day and a warm bed each night regardless of the day-to-day events in Baghdad, saying that it's "painful" to see other people's children die so that you can feel safe and then proceeding to tell your readers why "we" can't lose the will to fight.
Now, of course, you'll just repeat yourself, as seems to be a common trend in your posts, reiterating how "surrender" to "Al Qaeda" in Iraq will doom us all - that it couldn't possibly be that you're exaggerating things to satisfy some part of yourself that emerged in the aftermath of 9/11 - whatever. I feel sorry for whoever believes that. I, personally, don't. I am not a warmonger and want to see US forces withdraw from Iraq. To me, that's the right course of action. I'm not a soldier - I'm not fighting anyone, nor do I intend to. I suppose that much we two have in common. Our opposing stances on the war could just be called a difference of opinion.
The real difference, though, between you and I, is that I, regardless of which side of the debate I stand on, for whatever reason that may be, would never presume to lecture others on losing "our" will to fight in a war in which I have sacrificed nothing.
Gee, you're fun! Predictable, too. And I knew you'd feel better if you got that chicken-hawk nonsense off your chest, even though it's not like we haven't heard it all before (over and over and over again). I thought you might have some novel twist on that tired argument, but I was wrong.
I didn't quite catch how you plan to fight al Qaeda (or how cooperating with their efforts to oust us from Iraq will set back their cause).
And if you really think that the Democrats have opened their eyes to al Qaeda in Iraq, you should read this post, and this one, too. Like you, the Democrats are in an eerie state of denial. You should ask yourself why that might be. You might not like the answer.
Oh, I'm no democrat, and this has nothing to do with the democrats. Your obsession with them coupled with your self-referencing speaks volumes.
Your silence with respect to the real issue - accompanied by childlike wincing after the obvious striking of a nerve - speaks even louder.
"I feel sorry for whoever believes that."
Thank-you for your sympathy, warrior-poet, but really it is misplaced and inappropriate. It will be much more apt if one day you come to appreciate the sacrifices of those who are laying down their lives, suffering crippling injuries, or just giving of their time to clear up the blind spots in the mainstream media's template-driven narrative. I know that you don't appreciate it now, but your future is being rescued from your own current folly and ignorance. I speak as one who for many years subscribed to the same folly you do now.
The "self-referencing" you refer to involves me sending you to posts where all of the evidence is cited, and I provide links to the sources (which you are supposed to go read). I'm not just citing my own words. Geez!
And you should say what I should do in order for me not be (in your mind) a chicken hawk. Imagine that I really believe that al Qaeda is a major threat and is the major force in Iraq. Further imagine that I believe that they will be greatly strengthened if we allow them to evict us from Iraq, which means that we are only delaying a fight with them (one that will be much worse later -- involving many more casualties). I realize you disagree with all of that, but imagine that I believe it. What, exactly, would you have me do at this stage of my life in order to confront al Qaeda? Quit my job and book a flight to Iraq? And is that how we should fight all wars in the future? Everyone who agrees with taking military action should rush off and join the fight, no matter what, but those who disagree get to stay home and reap the benefits? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think I should do, exactly (and what everyone else who supports the war should do).
"The "self-referencing" you refer to involves me sending you to posts where all of the evidence is cited, and I provide links to the sources (which you are supposed to go read). I'm not just citing my own words. Geez!"
I am not "supposed" to read any of it. Your comment about the democrats was a red herring - an attempt by you to shift the goalposts to safer ground. The fact that you were merely directing me to more of your rambling was just the icing on the cake.
"I realize you disagree with all of that, but imagine that I believe it. What, exactly, would you have me do at this stage of my life in order to confront al Qaeda? Quit my job and book a flight to Iraq? And is that how we should fight all wars in the future? Everyone who agrees with taking military action should rush off and join the fight, no matter what, but those who disagree get to stay home and reap the benefits? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think I should do, exactly (and what everyone else who supports the war should do)."
They should wake up.
That, however, is not the issue. This isn't about you simply agreeing with the war, no matter how deluded you and your friends may be. It's about you talking to your readers like you're their platoon sergeant, practically putting a sign around your neck that says CHICKENHAWK in gigantic letters. It's other people who are doing the fighting and the dying. You are risking nothing - so don't speak to your readers as though your will to fight factors into the equation. It doesn't.
Oh, I see. You are upset and you are calling me names (like people used to do to people on the playground in elementary school) because you actually thought I was misleading my readers by implying that I, myself, was actually shooting a rifle or throwing hand grenades at al Qaeda operatives? Thank you for clearing that up.
What I find really interesting is that for months the news has given reports of the form "nn Americans killed in Iraq yesterday." -- where nn ran typically in the low teens.
But for the last few weeks, the reports have been in the form "nn Americans killed in Iraq in the last two days." Or maybe "...in the last three days." The size on nn seems roughly stable -- but the length of time to reach it increases . . . without particular notice.
This is good news. Best of all is that the decline in civillian deaths is due to a decline in AQ attacks. This is much better than if it were due to a decline in executions since, as you have shown, AQ attacks are the heart of the problem, and executions are largely a reaction to them.
The only thing is -- so far it's just one month. One month is good, but it doesn't make a trend. So I think it's still early to say this means the surge was a success.
Warrior Poet,
You might be a poet, but you ain't no warrior.
Please rename yourself.
By the way, we've been ignoring these chaps for thirty years. They ain't gone away. They aren't going away peacefully. And, yakking with them hasn't seemed to help much - I mean we've been active in the 'peace process' for thirty years.
In fact, some of these slugs have even become more violent!!! Ever here the term 'The Great Satan'. That would be you, and me, and even The Great ChickenHawk Engram!!!
To deal with your Chickenhawk argument….
How many more ground forces are you willing to pay for? Are you willing to cut some 'benefits' to pay for an enhanced military capability? Let me think back a bit. Those of your opinion had a nice run in the 90’s – but, how well funded, manned, and equipped was our military in your grand era of peace and freedom when we were repeatedly hit by these self-same Islamists, eh? How well funded was the CIA? Those with close ties to the military in the 90’s oftentimes use a phrase such as ‘I survived the Clinton Legacy’ to express their respect for that era. To Bush’s credit, we now have about 140,000 more active duty ground troops than we had on 9/10 (Those stats can be found at the DOD website but I will not link here because I know you will not research it - you are a poet; not a scientist, not a researcher, not a curious observer, or even a warrior. The USMC has grown from 162,000 to 185,000, the Army from 380,000 to 505,000 in actual numbers. Just think, enough growth to support the 140,000 troops in Iraq, eh.). Thus, we don’t have to draft Poets as Warriors in America. Keep to writing your prose, but please try to spend some time with Warriors before scribbling about them…
Another point Poet…
Military recruiting has been very good. The quality of recruits is very good. Active duty retention is exceptional. And, if/when we miss a recruiting goal remember that we are attempting to grow the ground forces by a significant number. The manning structure - and in particular the teeth side of the military staffing structure – are growing rapidly, but in a sustainable manner. My guess is that your 2008 vote will reprioritize Federal spending a bit, eh…
Finally…
The only time you will start bloviating about 'defending democracy' and ‘fighting evil itself’ is when the enemy pushes us into a Total War that cannot be ignored. Your threshold of ‘acceptable casualties’ is much, much higher than mine. You will be conflicted till Iran nukes someone before you act. Even then, I am not certain. What is your tolerance level Poet?
A mass casualty hit in Toronto?
A mass casualty hit on an America college?
A nuke in Tel Aviv by unnamed terrorists?
A nuke in Tel Aviv by prancing and dancing terrorists?
A nuke in New York and Tel Aviv by unnamed terrorists?
A nuke in New York and Tel Aviv prancing and dancing terrorists?
Add on London, Los Angeles, New Deli, Paris, Moscow, San Francisco, etc…
Where is that threshold? I do know that it must be greater than 3000 fatalities. That is something I do know. Japan killed 2100 at Pearl Harbor. But, our population was about half what it is now. Maybe your threshold is 4200. Actually, my guess would be much higher!!!
What do you think the reaction will be when we cross your threshold? Do we wait till they have the capability to cross that threshold every year, every month, every week, or every day? Been there, done that, and lost hundreds every day for that folly. And, the enemy lost thousands daily. Not a happy time for anybody.
Personally, I’d rather not wait.
Warrior Poet,
You might be a poet, but you ain't no warrior.
Please rename yourself.
Bite me, dickhead. At least a poet can resist the urge to use "ain't" in place of "aren't", unlike certain macho idiots who think that it makes them look tough.
By the way, we've been ignoring these chaps for thirty years. They ain't gone away. They aren't going away peacefully. And, yakking with them hasn't seemed to help much - I mean we've been active in the 'peace process' for thirty years.
Which chaps? Hmm?
In fact, some of these slugs have even become more violent!!! Ever here the term 'The Great Satan'. That would be you, and me, and even The Great ChickenHawk Engram!!!
Once again, which "slugs"? How many of them were even alive 30 years ago?
To deal with your Chickenhawk argument….
How many more ground forces are you willing to pay for?
Try asking yourself that question. Or try asking Bush, since he seems more concerned with putting them on the ground than with actually funding them properly.
Are you willing to cut some 'benefits' to pay for an enhanced military capability? Let me think back a bit.
Don't try too hard - you might hurt yourself.
Those of your opinion had a nice run in the 90’s – but, how well funded, manned, and equipped was our military in your grand era of peace and freedom when we were repeatedly hit by these self-same Islamists, eh? How well funded was the CIA? Those with close ties to the military in the 90’s oftentimes use a phrase such as ‘I survived the Clinton Legacy’ to express their respect for that era. To Bush’s credit, we now have about 140,000 more active duty ground troops than we had on 9/10 (Those stats can be found at the DOD website but I will not link here because I know you will not research it - you are a poet; not a scientist, not a researcher, not a curious observer, or even a warrior.
And you are an apologist for the incompetent morons who send soldiers into battle over wars they didn't have any business starting, without proper equipment or training and then send them home minus a few limbs without taking proper care of them. It's inexcusable. What's most telling here is that the same idiots - the "military historians" like you who try to shove this rah-rah crap down everyone's else throat and teach them to appreciate the value of service and sacrifice of the armed forces will, when confronted with reality incompatible with their delusions, swallow whole the kind of bullshit that you just tried to force-feed me.
The USMC has grown from 162,000 to 185,000, the Army from 380,000 to 505,000 in actual numbers. Just think, enough growth to support the 140,000 troops in Iraq, eh.). Thus, we don’t have to draft Poets as Warriors in America. Keep to writing your prose, but please try to spend some time with Warriors before scribbling about them…
Oh, I'm crushed that Mr. Military Historian, with his "prose" consisting of "ain't" and "eh" finds my courage wanting.
Another point Poet…
Oh, you mean there's more? Just how far into the toilet bowl are you going to reach to produce these gems?
Military recruiting has been very good. The quality of recruits is very good. Active duty retention is exceptional. And, if/when we miss a recruiting goal remember that we are attempting to grow the ground forces by a significant number. The manning structure - and in particular the teeth side of the military staffing structure – are growing rapidly, but in a sustainable manner. My guess is that your 2008 vote will reprioritize Federal spending a bit, eh…
Try looking into recruiting practices and see what kind of answers you come up with. See how much the Pentagon is spending to try to get soldiers to re-up. Also - why don't you try spending some time with "Warriors" before scribbling about them, "eh", jackass? Do you think most soldiers pay much attention to the politics involved - do you think they really care?
Oh, and while you're at it, ask them what they think about Bush and his cronies, leading troops into battle from safety in Washington, not even spending the money to take care of them. I'm sure they'll be comforted by your laundry list of excuses.
Finally…
The only time you will start bloviating about 'defending democracy' and ‘fighting evil itself’ is when the enemy pushes us into a Total War that cannot be ignored. Your threshold of ‘acceptable casualties’ is much, much higher than mine. You will be conflicted till Iran nukes someone before you act. Even then, I am not certain. What is your tolerance level Poet?
For bullshit? None. That's why your opinion means nothing to me. This is the same scaremongering crap that people like you were trying to push on everyone to get us into the war in Iraq. I'm sure you were here in 2003, hard at work, taking the fight to the forces of reason, regurgitating all of the neocons' bullshit about Saddam's WMD's that were never found and the Saddam-9/11 link that didn't exist. I'll also bet that when you were proven wrong, you didn't have the balls to admit it, either. You just clung to your same old crack-ridden armor. Do go on, though, talking to me like you're the real man.
A mass casualty hit in Toronto?
A mass casualty hit on an America college?
A nuke in Tel Aviv by unnamed terrorists?
A nuke in Tel Aviv by prancing and dancing terrorists?
A nuke in New York and Tel Aviv by unnamed terrorists?
A nuke in New York and Tel Aviv prancing and dancing terrorists?
Add on London, Los Angeles, New Deli, Paris, Moscow, San Francisco, etc…
Where is that threshold? I do know that it must be greater than 3000 fatalities. That is something I do know. Japan killed 2100 at Pearl Harbor. But, our population was about half what it is now. Maybe your threshold is 4200. Actually, my guess would be much higher!!!
Unfortunately for you, you didn't specify what kind of fatalities. 3000 soldiers? We're already well past that mark in Iraq. How about Iraqi civilians? People who died in a needless war started by people like you, most of whom are risking nothing? Whether you place the number at 60,000 or 600,000, it's far, far in excess of 3,000. All those lives gone forever - people who will never see or be seen by their friends and family ever again. People whose only crime was wearing skin of the same color as those who killed 3,000 innocent people in this country almost 6 years ago. All for what? A war that shouldn't have been started and has produced almost no positive results, nor much of anything aside from dead bodies. A war with no foreseeable end in sight.
A war that, thankfully, most people - everyone except you and the other fools - Bush's 20% or so of "Old Guard" drones - have come to see for what it really is. Nobody's listening anymore, "Boghie", and by coming out swinging at me like some drunken idiot and producing no real substance - only tired, bullshit talking points and scare tactics - you just showed why.
Poet,
We would still be demanding the extradition of Osama bin Laden from Taliban ruled Afghanistan if we refused to use force. Osama bin-Laden was under extradition orders for four years prior to 9/11. We tried for a month to have him extradited after 9/11. Arresting folks like bin Laden, Zawahiri, Nasrallah, Yassin, etc. doesn’t seem to have worked real well in the near and distant past. Shall we continue to condemn them? Tell me that police work actually functions when terror leaders seek asylum in state sponsors of terrorism. Your single example will be the Blind Sheik – who never got out of America after he bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Had he bolted to Syria would he have been captured and convicted – or should we send in super top secret hit teams to wipe folks like Rahman out.
Now, you really can’t figure out who I meant by the ‘chaps’ reference. Sorry. Here is a hint. I don’t care if the ‘chaps’ are al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, etc. They have all killed Americans and they all kill civilians as standard operating procedure. They make absolutely no attempt to avoid civilian casualties. They aim at them. Additionally, till recent times they could run to some Middle East kleptocracy and thumb their noses at us. It seems like Syria, Iran, parts of Somalia, and parts of Lebanon are all that is left where they can peacefully arm, recruit, and plot – and because of internal tensions, such state sponsors of terror are not all that conducive to such guests. They can try to build their Theocratic Caliphate out of those rump states. Even someone as distrustful of American power as you should be able to discern that even Sunni Iraqis have tired of their extremist brethren. Where shall Osama go when either the Iranians or Pakistanis tire of him?
Also, Poet, why do you reference two theaters of combat as two separate wars. You know there are other theaters of combat as well. The Philippines, Indonesia, parts of Africa. We are in action in all those regions. Are they all different wars? Is Osama jet-setting around and personally attacking civilians in those regions? Shall we send in the extradition lawyers? Why do these ‘chaps’ constantly create terror cells in Spain when Spain yelled ‘no mas!!!’. Is Spain and Europe as a whole another theater of war – or part of a larger conflict?
You never did define the limit of your tolerance. Is it the equivalent of the invasion of Austria, the reassimilation of the Rhineland by force, the Czech assimilation, the Munich Agreement which gave a sovereign nation to Hitler, the attack and partition of Poland, the submarine attacks on our shipping, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the attack on the Philippines, or even further along. Hitler took the Rhineland with tractors and ill-supplied ground forces. He took part of Czechoslovakia and assimilated Austria because they spoke German. He took the rest when the Eurotrash Great Powers wanted another year without war. Then they got war when he had tanks and planes and automobiles and additional resources. Hitler actually thought the peace loving fools in the West still would not fight. Tell me your strategy to solve the radical Islamist problem. Tell me your point at which physical conflict, not verbal sparring, is warranted. Are we to wait another thirty years?
Poet, go vote for Dennis Kucinich. You are free to. He will give you some government cheese to feed yourself and your family and some rags to wipe the spittle off your chin. We are a big and powerful country. We can vote for a fool and suffer through four years of a Carteresque presidency. One where we get attacked on the home front by the chaps I speak of. They don’t seem too concerned with Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, or that wacky guy from Alaska. America can suffer a million (or millions) of fatalities without actually destroying our nation. And, it is unlikely I will die or get injured if they attack the population centers in the Northeast – an area they seem to have an affinity for. However, my tolerance point was reached on 9/11. That is where I stand. Yours might be Atlanta. Or Atlanta and Detroit. Don’t know. Where is it???
I tire of your ramblings, boghie. Saddam wasn't Hitler. Bin Laden wasn't Hitler. Iraq wasn't Afghanistan. Hamas isn't Hezbollah. There's no golden rule about when use of force is warranted. You should know these things. You should know that the world isn't black and white. It's many shades of grey - but the complexity of that scares people like you. It scares a lot of people.
You want things to be simple. You want to solve every problem in the world through military force. You'd see everyone in the world who hates America dead because they might do something bad. After all, they're just ragheads, right? Their blood doesn't weigh as much as yours, does it? Any other American's? One of your friends over in Israel's?
That's your problem: you don't see the big picture. As long as extremists are dying, you're satisfied. If there aren't enough of them dying, you aren't happy. I don't have bloodlust. I don't buy flyswatters when I'm living next to a swamp. I won't kill one pest at the cost of creating 10 more, which is what your idiotic policy is doing. I look for ways to drain the swamp. You and the clowns who you've thrown your lot in with will use as many flyswatters as you can find, even if someone else is paying for it, because you like the feeling you get when you kill something with it. It's all you know.
Sometimes it is necessary to fight. In those cases, by all means, do what you need to do. Don't, however, start invading Iraq or lobbing missiles at Iran because you think they "deserve it". Use your head and not your adrenaline. Someday, perhaps, we'll be on the same side of the trenches - but we'll never be allies, for I would never ally myself with those who would have war whether it's necessary or not.
WaPo,
You are neither a warrior nor a poet. By your own standards, your opinion in this matter is moot as you have no horse in the race. The chickenhawk argument is inherently self-defeating. You acknowledge that only warriors have a right to make these decisions, so please be quiet and let the warriors decide without the distraction of your yipping before we remove your yipping forceably.
What? You don't like the idea of military rule after all? I didn't think so. Either you are truely simple and don't understand the contradiction that your position poses, or you do understand and choose to be disingenuous about it. I can tolerate ignorance, but liars are not worthy of debate. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Now if you were a soldier or a veteran, you would be able to make your argument for facism without contradicting yourself, but then you wouldn't make it because you would not be willing to sacrifice the ideals for which you had sacrificed some part of yourself.
My father fought in Korea and Vietnam, eventually dieing of complications from wounds sustained there. I served for six years during the cold war. My oldest is currently Marines special forces and is awaiting orders for deployment to Iraq.
By your standards, I have the right to make the decisions. Lucky for you, I am benevolent. I have decided that you and all of the other civilians who have not served your country in the armed forces may have an opinion on the Iraq war, and that you may express it at will, even if you're foul-mouthed and plainly stupid.
I love this country and I love its people. I love the concept from which it grew, codified by the Constitution. I cherish the idea of freedom of speech, and find the chickenhawk argument to be a frontal assault on that idea--an attempt to silence those who disagree.
Again, bottom line, either dispense with the chickenhawk argument and focus on the merits, or shut up in deference to the chickenhawk argument, since you are not qualified to comment due to your lack of military credentials.
As a veteran, WP, I guess I have a right to a position. Since apparently you have not made a sacrifice, you do not have a right to a position, by your argument.
Grouping all who support this war "Neocons" or "Chickenhawks" demonstrates your inability to make a rational argument. "Bush lied, people died" sounds cool, but it just isn't true. Listen to Colin Powell's recent interview.
If you choose to continue name calling, let's get them straight: I'm not a "Neocon", I'm a conservative. Perhaps you don't know this, but a Neocon is someone who was a liberal or moderate but converted to the conservative cause. Many Neocons appeared during the Reagan era. There is nothing wrong with being a Neocon - it just reflects the recency of their decision to support the conservative cause. Why you think it is pejorative is beyond me.
Ironically, I find it fascinating that many of your stripe refuse to accept the label "Liberal", finding more comfort is such misleading labels as "Progressive".
So I am a conservative, and in this war I happen to be a hawk. Since I'm a veteran, I am not, by your definition, a Chickenhawk.
You, on the other hand, are not a hawk, and apparently are not a veteran.
I guess that makes you a Chicken.
I applaud this blog for analyzing the data and presenting a rational picture of the situation in Iraq. It is early but promising. It is unfortunate that most in the media, and none in the liberal noise machine, can do nothing but spin the most negative possible conclusion out of what in any other theater of war, under any other administration, would be deemed success. I am so thankful that such voices could not gain ground during World War II. If they had, we would likely be living under a world fascist government today.
It is my sincere hope that today's liberal voices do not result in our children living under a global Caliphate within a generation.
That is what the Islamofascists are fighting for. They chose war. They chose Iraq as their battleground. (If they (Al Qaida in Iraq, and Iran) had not chosen thusly, Iraq would be a stable democracy today.)
This is not a war with Iraq. It is a war with Islamofascism that unfortunately for Iraq has taken up the battle in that country.
If we walk away from that battle, it will be taken up somewhere else. The Islamofascists have western civilization in their sights, and that will not change with our withdrawal in Iraq. It will merely embolden them, just as our acquiescence after the 93 bombing, the Cole, and Somalia, among others, emboldened them before.
You clowns just don't learn, do you? You think if you have enough people repeat the same bullshit, the outcome will change? Nice try.
There is no contradiction, "immolate". I'm not the one advocating war. Therefore, I don't qualify for the "chickenhawk" category. My military service record is irrelevant. Consider your entire post void and null. Now pack your shit up and crawl back to wherever it is that you and these other idiots came from.
veteran: My original reason for posting here had nothing to do with any "position" on the Iraq war. It was engram's chickenhawkishness. As for you, well, you're just another dumbass here to pound your chest and then disappear after one or two comments when the heat is too much for you to handle.
Like boghie, you used a lot of words to say nothing at all. Knowing the word "Caliphate" doesn't make you smart. It doesn't mean that you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. The same goes for "Islamofascism" or any other one-word neocon tidbit. On the contrary, all it does is raise a flag to those who actually follow these politics with a keen and honest eye, indicating that you really have nothing to say at all, but are just another propaganda spewing tool. It shows that you're a tool for neocons - not "ex-liberals", not "conservatives", but neocons who think that it's the job of the United States to bring order to the savages in the world, to launch "pre-emptive strikes" under false pretenses, to act as mouthpieces and apologists for the Israelis, even at the cost of American lives, and to dominate other countries because it's in our "best interests" to do so. I don't give a damn what you think about gay marriage or the economy. It's these issues - issues like Iraq - where peoples' true colors are shown. In the case of you and your friends, it's red - the color of anger and aggression, as they triumph over reason, and blood. The blood of innocent people who died needlessly.
Then again, you don't care if anyone thinks you have half a clue, do you, "veteran"? You just want to look tough, right? You want to show how eager you are to go rip some Islamofascists' hearts out, right? Point out how cowardly everyone who chooses to use their head first and fists second is, right? Never mind that your policy doesn't fucking work - that it's actually making the world more dangerous and causing more death and destruction - as long as you get to feel tough, it's all good, isn't it?
It is my sincere hope that voices like yours fall silent or are simply ignored, so that we don't end up with our children serving in Iraq for the next 40 years, or in Iran, or in occupation after occupation of Muslim countries brought about by people like you, with daily car bombings back home in Washington and London because the neocons were permitted by the rest of us to make a bad situation worse.
Warrior-Poet,
It is unfortunate that some people refuse to believe that true evil does in fact exist in this world, and that all others can be reasoned with. Truly evil people do not have a moral foundation which prevents them from doing whatever they want, regardless of what pain is inflicted on others. They want what they want, everyone else be damned. It matters little how they come to this belief, their actions are more important than whatever reasoning, or thought process they use to guide the behavior.
Some men are rapists. It does not matter that they are harming someone. It only matters that they get what they want, and they will rape as frequently as they think they can get away with it. They are usually armed, and even if the person being raped tries to “reason” with them, even begs for them to stop, it never helps. The only time the rapist is stopped is if the victim is armed, or someone interrupts the act, etc.
The Islamic-fascists have a belief that their particular brand of Islam MUST reign supreme, and it is their DUTY to subject all other people in the world to it. They will NOT listen to our requests for dialog, except where it is to their total benefit, since our western concept of “reason” does not match their requirement to subject the entire world to their will.
The jihad has been going on for almost 1400 years, with only a few breaks when they were too weak to continue. Even if they were to sit down and “reason” with the West, they are free to lie and deceive, because their religion says it is ok. After all, we are only infidels, and not worthy of any honor, or even life itself, if it does not advance Islam.
I served 10 years in the military, and my youngest son is serving now, with one tour in the Middle-east, so I think I have as much or more right to speak about this than most. I am an engineer, and my son has a Master’s degree.
I have to agree with some of the other comments about your name. “Warrior-Poet” is not a good fit. It might fool some people for a blog or two, but not for long.
The Islamists will attack us again, probably sooner than later. They have been attacking America since the founding of our nation, and you have the sure belief that if we “just sit down with them and talk”, everything will work out for both parties. Negotiations are about give and take for both sides, right? We would have to give up everything we have, everything we are, including our liberty, and all beliefs that run counter to their brand of Islam, before they would be satisfied.
If you think that withdrawing from Iraq would be enough, think again. If you think that withdrawing from Afghanistan would be enough, try again. If you think that withdrawing from the entire Middle-east would do it, you would be wrong. They will not be satisfied until we are all dead or subjugated. They have been trying to conquer the Philippines for over 200 years. They also believe that Spain belongs to them, and will stay active trying to reconquer it until they are defeated, or until they win.
"I have to agree with some of the other comments about your name. “Warrior-Poet” is not a good fit. It might fool some people for a blog or two, but not for long."
I don't give a shit what you or any of these other twats think about my name. Since none of you are willing - or are perhaps simply unable - to invest enough brainpower into this discussion for me to distinguish between you, but instead keep posting the same, long-winded verbal bowel movement as the person before you, it's better for you if you didn't start discussing names.
"The Islamists will attack us again, probably sooner than later. They have been attacking America since the founding of our nation, and you have the sure belief that if we “just sit down with them and talk”, everything will work out for both parties. Negotiations are about give and take for both sides, right? We would have to give up everything we have, everything we are, including our liberty, and all beliefs that run counter to their brand of Islam, before they would be satisfied."
I said nothing of the sort. That's all you attempting to stuff a turd sandwich in my mouth. I have never advocated "negotiating" with terrorists - not on a scale like this. Show me where I did that, and perhaps you'll have a leg to stand on. We both know that you don't, however.
There is no point in talking to terrorists. What you and your ilk seem to have trouble getting through your thick skulls is that nobody is born a terrorist. They're turned into one through brainwashing and frustration. These "Islamists" that you and your friends complain about aren't attacking us because we're "free". While many of them would like a world united under Islamic rule, there's a reason why they're attacking us and our allies instead of everyone else. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims, law-abiding people furious over our policy, teetering on the edge of extremism and terrorism. Until the reasons for their anger are acknowledged and addressed, there will never be peace. Every man you kill will be replaced by ten. Every act of aggression on a Muslim country will be answered with in blood. You will attempt to fight a war that cannot be won through force of arms and sink ever deeper into the quagmire. Your friends have already given you a head start on that - with your support, they'll get you in neck-deep. Remember that I told you that 10 years from now, when the situation is far worse than it is now.
While you might enjoy the rush you get from seeing your comrades blowing up ragheads in Iraq, that does nothing to address the larger problem. You were correct about one thing: leaving Iraq will not fix the problem. Neither will staying. Staying, like the original choice to invade, will make the problem worse. Get it through your head. This isn't about being a pacifist or advocating appeasement, it's common fucking sense. If a policy is not successful, and is just giving people like you a hardon while they watch the news, then it needs to be reworked. You neocons think that you're warriors, when in fact most of you will never fight at all, and the ones that do are just foot soldiers being led around by fools with no strategic foresight or sense, only an interest in self-preservation.
酒店打工酒店兼差酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店打工酒店上班酒店經紀酒店小姐酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐 酒店經紀 酒店經紀 酒店經紀酒店 酒店酒店
Post a Comment