How Feminist Liberalism Supports Misogynist Terror
It’s very simple.
Step One, rig a girls’ school with explosives.
Step Two, blow up the school and a few dozen little girls, and bask in the fascination (three parts horror, one part masochistic adoration) of news media everywhere.
Step Three, wait for for Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barbara Boxer to declare you the victor. Wait for atrocities to be rewarded and mass murder to be misdiagnosed as a liberation struggle. Wait for Michael Moore to call you and your fellow terrorists “Minutemen” again.
So who has really done more to give those girls a future: “feminist” politicians, or the men who preempted Step Two?
The really surprising part of this story is not that a bunch of delusional madmen would consider doing something so horrible as blowing up a school full of children to advance their sorry cause…frankly we’ve kind of come to expect things like this.
What is really shocking is that an outlet like CNN would report the story in such a way that portrayed these would-be murderers as actual no-kidding bad guys. No “Minutemen” or oppressed freedom fighters here.
The US troops who saved the day are actually the heroes of the story.
Did Ted Turner retire or something?
Yeah, but I think I probably overstated my point. It’s not the “ism” I really have a case against here, it’s a few specific “ists,” namely the three politicians I named. Not sure Camille Paglia or Tami Bruce would react the same way.
I’m not sure a Michael Moore link would legitimate the claim that Minutemen are a group of gun-toting vigilantes on the US-Mexico border.
This might be a better one.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=13
Hey Joseph, did I say anything about immigration in my post?
I think you see where I’m headed here.
I thought step one was the invasion.
I thought step one was the invasion.
Yes of course, because we all know that senseless acts of murder for political/ethnic/religious reasons never happened in Iraq before the invasion.
Sonagi, Do you really think the invasion is what made Al-Qaeda blow up girls’ schools?
No. The girls managed not to get blown up, but their future in Iraq is still very insecure.
Your post is loaded with presumptions:
1) The US is capable of establishing a peaceful and secure Iraq friendly to the US.
2) A blank check from Congress is needed to achieve this.
3) Anyone who refuses to sign the blank check is therefore helping the enemy.
Al-Qaeda is obviously trying to make the war as bloody as possible to erode further the already eroding support for the war. However, speaking as someone who has been against the invasion from the beginning, I believe the biggest factor in the decline of domestic support is the fact the the administration has not convinced Congress nor the American people that the war is “winnable” – that there really is a concrete plan to end the sectarian violence and bring stability to the country. Before you blame the “liberal media,” remember that that same “liberal media” served as a highly effective medium for the Bush administration’s laying the groundwork for the invasion.
However, speaking as someone who has been against the invasion from the beginning, I believe the biggest factor in the decline of domestic support is the fact the the administration has not convinced Congress nor the American people that the war is “winnableâ€
Blah, blah, blah. Real cute. Being against the war “from thebeginning” puts you on sucha lofty moral high ground, doesn it? Kinda like Howard Dean. How many times have we heard that line from the clean hands crowd over the past couple of generations?
As someone who is related to a soldier who has yet to return home from the Korean War after being reported MIA in 1952 [you’re welcome] I’d say that your purposely ambiguous comments could easily be turned around to apply qite well to another little unpopular war; one that you and millions of other Koreans never seem to complain about much, and hardly even consider anymore when speaking on political topics.
Would you have been as steadfastly against the US “invasion” of North Korea in 1950 as you are against the war in Iraq? It turned out not to be “winnable” either, didn’t it? Was it therefore not worth the effort?
Are you satisfied that the US stopped at the DMZ instead of eliminating Kim Il Sung and reuniting both halves of Korea under a free and democratic government?
Was it okay for American blood and money to be spilled to protect your own ancestors, but not for others facing a similar plight?
Did North Korea pose a real threat to US safety and welfare in 1950 such that we had to throw 500,000 young troops into the fire for you?
Can you even distinguish between the two wars without sounding like you’re simply parroting sound bytes to be part of the politically in crowd?
I was going to bring in the Korean War too.
I also don’t remember the media laying the ground work for this war ahead of time. I thought they were against it, but with the Democrats inability or unwillingness to carve out a clear, distinct path against – opting instead for talk of half measures that would “solve the problem without war” – the media wasn’t sure how to take a clear position itself. Meaning: the media isn’t a Howard Dean-er but a Hillary Clinton-er.
As far as winning the war and the other 2 points – the media is both playing on and creating contemporary American society’s inability to do anything that takes time, money, and effort.
One specific, the media clearly chose a running body count as a way to chip away at support for the war. And they began this before the war started.
Predictions of how bloody the conflict could be were not egregious acts to undermine the effort, but it did become fairly clear in short hindsight that all the doom-n-gloom the media was POUNDING us with soon after the war began was media-hope rather than real news. We were bogged down, not going anywhere, facing things we did not war-game for, facing stiffer opposition than we had anticipated, supply lines were stretched way too thin, we obviously should have brought more troops to handle this disaster, we need to go back to the drawing board and perhaps get some new generals to head the effort ——– and then Baghdad fell….
And what happened? The press gave the administration and the fighting men about 12 hours of positive press coverage.
Then they tainted the fall of Badhdad and the end of primary fighting days with, what? ———- bleeping looting!!
And every day we get a running body count in the same, continuous, constant effort to weaken public support for the war and place pressure on the administration.
They use the dead bodies of US soldiers (and Iraqi citizens) not only to tell the American people the struggle is in fact impossible to win but that the effort itself is, was, and will continue to be —– too costly.
3,000 something soldiers killed so far!!! Goodness gracious! Whodathunk that before the war begain? That it would take so long and cost so much?
Well, if we compare it to predictions about how long the main war fighting days would be and how many would most likely be killed, reality has been far less deadly — but that’s not the point.
Neither is the point that we lost a lot more people in less time in the Korean War and Vietnam and if other wars.
Basically, the press wants to convince (and has done a good job of convincing) the American people that all wars are Grenada or Panama or Iraq War I or Bosnia —– if you can’t fight them from the air alone or they are not over within 100 hours or so – the chance of winning is nil and the costs too high…
Basically, what we have today is ——- the press and other elements of the society controlled by a majority of people who were in the minority during WWII.
There were people who said we should cut deals with Hitler and Japan. There were people who argued a good bit that unconditional surrender was wrongheaded – that we should save time, money, and lives by cutting a peace deal with Germany and Japan since those nations were clearly defeated and unconditional surrended was immoral or unnecessary.
But, thankfully for the US and for millions of people around the world, those voices were in the minority back then.
If we had the same conditions back then but we had the same press corps and same type of leadership in Congress, the lists of failures we would have seen unfold would be impressive — filled with erasures of the accomplishments that did in fact take blood, sweat, tears, time, and money.
And it was the accomplishments that did come — that we had the patience and fortitute to see through – that not only gave America justified pride – but also set the conditions for a better world for millions and millions of non-Americans.
If we had the same society today back in the Korean War and the aftermath of WWII (or during WWII) — it is reasonable to argue you would not see democracy and powerful economic growth and better living standards in Japan, Germany, and South Korea (just to name the 3 direct recipients of American non-defeatism).
Bush hasn’t shown the war is winnable? But the press and others sure have tried to convince the people it is unwinnable, too costly, and not worth it to begin with, no?
Blank checks?
Is that the cover for holding up funding in an effort to put pressure on the government either for political gains or to really force a pull out?
If the Dems and others believe the war is unwinnable and/or too costly, and they want to attack the war effort, they should do so unambigiously – cut the funding – period. End it.
But, that might lose votes. And since being against the war, after the conditioning of the public by the press has had years to work itself into the fabric of the society, does in fact seem to play fairly well with the voters, let’s talk about blank checks and timetables and the threat of cuts in funding…..let’s tinker here tinker there with funding, and say things that will play good to voters and score our political points while we can, but lets not actually put forward any agenda on the war we believe in, because that could cost votes. Let’s be Derridian and talk about all the cracks in Bush administrations war effort, but let’s not be constructive and lay out an alternative plan that we will fight for or tell the voting public we are against the war and will pull troops out soon after we are elected to the White House….No…..deconstruction is what plays best in the press….
If the war is unwinable and/or too costly for what might be gained, and the Dems and media came out full swing against the effort, they would be doing the nation a service – as well as aiding the enemy.
They might at least have some integrity that way.
But, by playing politics with the war effort, by refusing to either support or not support it, but contantly making moves to undermine the American voters’ support for it, and by talking about things like funding cuts and timelines, they are aiding the enemy for…..what? Political gains? Votes?…….I think so….
I can at least give Howard Dean some respect.
The media and most of the Dems are just playing (deadly) games.
[^^^that’s almost a good campaign speech!^^^]
To the liberals. it’s OK if Iraqi girls are killed by terrorists. After all, they’re not white…
I stated my opposition to the war to put my views on context. In no way did I imply any moral superiority over those who supported at first but now oppose and those who continue to support the war. Intelligent, reasonable, good-hearted people can take opposing sides on an issue. Our blogger Joshua and I are two examples.
I will ignore all your red herrings about old wars fought on other continents under different circumstances. This thread is about Iraq.
James, I know some on both sides of the political spectrum — the Buchananites, the Ron Pauls, and the Kossacks — may see things that way, but Sonagi has been commenting here long enough with sincere compassion for the North Koreans for me not to agree with the application of your criticism to her.
I do disagree with her strongly on the war. I see her view as infinitely superior to those who voted to send us to war and turned on this noble effort when it became politically expedient to do so. Based on the best facts we knew at the time, the President and Congress agreed to take this war on. We knew we weren’t invading France. We must have expected that there would be ethnic conflict, ancient and modern hatreds, and terror in an underdeveloped Middle Eastern nation. No one can claim to be astonished that we found those things there. No one can seriously suggest that they could be tamed in a year or three.
Is it still in our interests to stay in Iraq? I emphatically believe that it is, despite the cost. For all the steps back, there are more steps forward. There are signs of progress as we drive back Sadr and AQI, even in Anbar. Nothing will be instantanous, and it will continue to be bloody, but consider the alternative:
– Al Qaeda with a new safe haven and an inestimable pychological boost, with God-knows-how-many of its people headed for Afghanistan and for our shores.
– In Iraq, genocide; for Iraq’s neighbors, hundreds of thousands of refugees spreading poverty and instability.
– Iraq’s southern oil fields dominated by a nuclear Iran.
– American power so weakened globally that terrorists and dictators everywhere are emboldened to new aggression, as we saw in the 1970’s. Kim Jong Il, for one, would have a new lease on life.
How, then, does withdrawal end war, bring peace, or make us safe?
In response to Sonagi’s “blank check” argument, McCain and Lieberman have both been critical of the war’s conduct while still understanding the importance of stabilizing the country and defeating al-Qaeda there.
Please, let’s be civil with each other here. I’m hoping to persuade Sonagi that I have a point, not to drive her away. How much thinking would we do on these threads be if everyone agreed with everyone else?
The history of other conflicts is not a redherring – if for no other reason than you can’t cut away the parts of our collective psyche that has memory stored from both Vietnam and the Korean War. It is memory of the Vietnam War that has made our society so risk adverse.
Looking back at previous conflicts can also give us at least some idea of the costs vs benefits – which was my whole point in bringing them up.
If American society in those past conflicts had followed today’s lead of the press and dems, how much worse off would the world be in today? What if we had foregone unconditional surrender?
The whole of Korea might still be under Japanese rule. I do not think that is hyperbole.
Establishing a Muslim democracy (or even semi-democracy) in that part of the world could have a very significant impact for the better of not just the US. The costs of trying to achieve that end in part have not been that high. Definately not too high.
I will ignore all your red herrings about old wars fought on other continents under different circumstances. This thread is about Iraq.
Nice try at ignoring the relevant questions posed to you. But it won’t work. Inquiring minds want to know.
Joshua may have loads of respect for you for whatever contributions you’ve made here in the past, but I think you’re pretty arrogant for assuming/implying that geography “other continents” is a primary reason for why the Korean War and the Iraq War can’t be spoken of in the same discussion. Follow it out and see where it leads.
That assertion, boiled down to its most basic nationalistic elements, is merely your way of stating–
“Koreans, by definition, are simply more important than Iraqis and so of course the US needed to become involved in 1950, but not in 2003. 50 million Koreans are worth the price of 40,000 American lives, but 50 million Iraqis are not worth even a single soldier’s stubbed toe. ”
Or something like that, right?
Am I getting close? Did I strike a nerve?
Tell me I’m wrong by answering the questions posed above instead of repeating the party line.
By extension of your Iraq War logic you also have to answer the question of whether you would have preferred your ancestors to continue living under Japanese rule or North Korean rule.
Did my great uncle [and 40,000 others like him] die in vain only so that you could have the freedom to express your non-interventionist preference not to have freedom? Or was it so that you and yours could have that freedom, but no one else? Koreans have long been accused [by both sides of the aisle] of considering American protection as their birthright. Is that the position you are trying to advocate here?
Does that not strike you as a bit weird?
Joshua,
I was actually referring to Pelosi, Boxer, et. al. with my comment about “It’s OK if they die-they’re not white”. As A Northern California resident, it’s easy to see what motivates them. All you have to do is watch them vote with their feet. As a Washington DC resident (I think), you know exactly what I mean.
Whenever us non-white folks move into their neighborhoods, or start sending our kids to their schools, we witness white flight at its extreme. Which leads me to my conclusion: “If they won’t even send their kids to school with our non-white kids, why would they even care about some Arab children living on the other side of the world?”
The answer is, they don’t care. Not about the Iraqi children, the North Korean children, or the non-white kids in Oakland, California. It’s that simple.
Basically, it’s about Boxer, Clinton, Pelosi–multi-millionaires all–maintaining their grip on our lives, so that their children and grandchildren will continue to dominate us–the great unwashed– while maintaining a safe distance between our living spaces.
Let me pose a few questions to our blogger:
1. What are the possible and likely outcomes if we stay?
2. What are the possible and likely outcomes if we leave?
3. How is the war “winnable”?
“I’m hoping to persuade Sonagi that I have a point, not to drive her away. “
I’ve been reading and commenting here in the hopes of meeting a nice man, but judging by this thread, I’ve been fishing in polluted waters. These blue waters look well stocked with clean fish:
http://www.democraticsingles.net/home.php
Who is “Our blogger”?
Considering I think the regulars are married….what kind of nice man were you hoping to meet? and do what with?
Since democracy was eventually established in the mega fascist states of Germany and Japan and feudalistic South Korea, I’d say the goal of a fairly democratic state in one of the most undemocratic regions of the earth would be both worthwhile and doable.
I think history does could here.
Look back and tell me how these other achievements were doable from what we knew then…
I was addressing my questions to Joshua, but a blog thread is an open conversation, so anybody can chime in.
‘”I’d say the goal of a fairly democratic state in one of the most undemocratic regions of the earth would be both worthwhile and doable.”
Worthwhile, yes. Doable? Explain.
On today’s Yahoo News, I saw this headline:
“Bush Says He’ll Seek Agreement on Iraq Benchmarks ”
Benchmarks. Now there’s a word I want to hear more about. At school, on the playing field, and at work, we set benchmarks – verifiable short-term goals to be achieved within a certain time frame . We do this to evaluate whether what we are making progress towards our long-term goals. The Yahoo story was short on details, but these benchmarks will be goals set for the Iraq government to achieve by a certain timeframe.
Benchmarks. I am very interested in hearing more about this. This is what I’m talking about by “no blank checks.”
How about explaining why not? I understand the dems are avoiding alternative plans in favor of deconstruction – they don’t want to alienate votes.
I would hope for more than “how?” and “explain?” especially when you chop off historical reference to the past…
How many people were saying democracy in nations like Japan, Germany, and Korea was undoable?
Undoable? Explain…
Benchmarks – yes – but when did benchmarks become a dividing line to admitting defeat?
In a game or at work, we set goals to guide planning and gauge progress. They are not set up to show how impossible something is and chide us for the effort in reaching them – then demand that the effort come to an end when they are not met.
I don’t see you (Sonagi) are using “benchmarks” in this manner, but it is what we are getting from the dems and press.
It is ear candy. It sounds good to the public, because it makes believe that the opposition is set on achieving the goals, but they don’t want to explain it too much, because it is ultimately not goals they are hoping to reach – not the same goals as the “Bush-led war”. Their goal is to create on-going pressure points from which they can obtain victory over “the Bush-led war” by means of increasing disappointment with “how the war is going” — as progress to “benchmarks” is not met – until defeat is accepted and the government pressured to withdraw.
Just look at the running body count.
You would think the press was describing the carnage of WWI.
They have gotten more social benefit to the reaching of their goal (acceptance of defeat) out of 3,000 dead than the millions who were slaughtered in WWI.
Judging by how much they have succeeded in making the 3,000 seem monstrously high, I wonder if contemporary society has any conscious inkling of what other wars have cost….
USinKorea pro-war debate strategy:
1. Talk about Korean War instead.
2. Hmmm. Sonagi didn’t bite the red herring. Even worse, she asked me directly to defend my view that the war was “doable.” Oh, s***! I don’t have an answer. I know! I’ll ask her and then shoot down whatever response she gives and therefore “win” the debate. Oh yeah, and let’s throw in some anti-dem, anti-liberal media smacktalk distractors. That’ll throw off Sonagi ’cause I’m sure she’s never heard it before, and we all know how Sonagi loves to roll in the sort of partisan mudslinging that started this thread.
I asked two very relevant questions. I will be glad to share my views after you and Joshua have responded directly to the questions.
I answered your blanket question by referring back to other situations in which things (you know, wars and nation building) was accomplished when you had many intelligent people saying it was not “doable”.
I feel absolutely no pressure whatsoever to engage in answering your “question” beyond that.
Doable? How so?
Yeah. That lays a good case for giving up on Iraq.
Sonagi, this is the only case I can think of where your comments have come off wrongheaded. Do you really not see the relavance of previous wars and nation building efforts and democratization efforts in a debate about whether or not there is hope that Iraq can be developed into one?
Thank you for your brief answers. To make sure I understand why you think the war in Iraq is “doable,” I have paraphrased your responses:
We were able to establish democracies in Japan and Germany and our military support of South Korea enabled the development of democracy there.
Therefore,
We can establish democracy in Iraq, too. In other words, because Japan, Germany, and South Korea became democracies under the US military umbrella, Iraq will, too.
Is that your argument?
I will wait to see what Joshua has to say and then I’ll respond. I’ll tell you where your argument is flawed and I’ll explain directly and as concisely as possible why I think the war is not “winnable.”
That would be better than just asking “Doable?”
I would also say that it isn’t simply “we established” —- the primary force behind the establishment of democracy in those nations – I’d say any nation – is the people themselves. However, outside powers providing resources, stability, and guidance can help.
I think ultimately, your question isn’t valid.
Stated as it has been so far, it asks for a black or white answer – more than that – it demands to have laid out in detail a answer as to why it is “doable” and if not given, then it is undoable by default.
A better question or discussion would be cost/benefit analysis. What are the risks? What are the costs? What are the benefits? The chance of success or failure —- or even more true to reality – levels of success and failure – would be a much better, useful debate….
What are some likely outcomes if we stay?
Those political forces, and people, in Iraq who want democracy and a nation-state approaching the stability and prosperity and freedom along Western lines (like Japan and South Korea moved for) will have some faith that if they stand up and try to take active part in building such a nation-state, they will not have the US and other nations back out on them and leave them to the wolves.
Take a look at the C-Span video put up recently from the NKHR Week. Listen to one of the strong comments made by the head(s) of the North Korean defectors groups about how important it is for the North Koreans who want change to know they are not alone….
Setting time tables to leave accomplishes exactly the opposite of this. It tells those who might be willing to risk their future (and their lives) on a democratic (or even semi-somewhat democratic) Iraq that such risk could very well be suicide.
Time tables also tells those who might be willing to compromise – and cut the best deals they can for their power base by participating in a more democratic process – that it is smarter for their self-interests to wait it out and then apply the type of brute force that has been their political way long into the past.
Staying in Iraq makes real civil war unlikely. We have civil war already? Fine. But, it certainly isn’t hard to place bets on a more real civil war minus the US and allies. We can look back at some things Hussien did in the past for some examples….
And if the Iraqis can pull together enough under some confidence they will not be abandonned, we have a reasonable chance of seeing success come in Iraq, (as good or better a chance than what we predicted in Japan and South Korea in 1945), and the benefits of that could be major.
You would have Israel, Turkey, and Iraq. You would growth in democracy in that region. It would begin to look more like an East Asia or other areas where democracy has grown in other regions — in regions where the growth has not been painless or assured by any measure…..
Success in Iraq would help encourage those in Iran who have already been showing signs of wanting to join the rest of the world.
If we leave Iraq, we have virtually no chance of seeing it more toward democracy and toward a global community.
If we leave, we do the opposite of encouraging progress in that region. We teach those forces who were willing or might have been willing to reform toward a global democratic standard that they can’t count on that global community to help them. We end up giving a boost to the forces who crave power on an individual, tribal or limited regional scale.
I asked two very relevant questions. I will be glad to share my views after you and Joshua have responded directly to the questions.
Buwahahaha…you like to demand answers from others, but persistently refuse to respond to questions posed to you some days ago.
That takes guts…as well as a certain amount of disdain for other participants in the discussion.
Okay, Joshua, I see you’re not going to wade into this. I understand why. Debates about the war generate far more heat than light. However, I leave this thread with a friendly warning that I will be back next time you take partisan pot shots to the incestuously amplified applause of your comment section. 😉
Uh, Sonagi…
I understand you were responding to Joshua’s post and specifically named him as the target after we his kin chimed in….
So, I’ll just take it that you got sucked into the juvenile, incestuous, (one would have to guess homo-erotic) useless banter against your will. I will not demand or expect a follow up and will kindly wave goodbye until the next thread-discussion pops up……They (usually) are thought-provoking and useful.
…but…..seeing as how you sent the AA up to shoot my participation down as nothing more than red herrings and demanded that I explain myself more before you expounded your understanding of why the war is so clearly undoable —– I kinda hoped I’d get such an explanation….
(I also don’t think I applauded anybody involved in this thread…..)
However, I leave this thread with a friendly warning that I will be back next time you take partisan pot shots to the incestuously amplified applause of your comment section.
Well heee-hawww and howdeee-hooo, Sonagi done gone and guessed all about my messed-up parentage. No more hidden family secrets for me, no-sir-ee.
Then lookee there, she done think she gone and whooped mah redneck ass in this here fair de-bate. Here I is all inbred and toothless and too stoopid to know any better, and yet…..
Sonagi, chasing after Elvis, is the one who has left the building.
And she did so without even answering the questions posed to her.
Soo-prise, soo-prise.
Well gaw-lee Sergeant Carter, my neck may be too red to have much blood flow above shoulder level, but I think I can recognize who the winner of an argument is by who is left standing on the field when the whistle blows.
She who runs away may live to fight another day, but her reputation suffers from the nasty little darts she throws at others as she runs away like a scalded cat in her haste to avoid harsh reality.
You know, Sonagi…..that there old kognitiv distonanse stuff that them psych doctors talk about so much on the tee vee sure can be a real bitch, cain’t it?
Ya’ll come back now, ya hear?
Sonagi, I’m going to wade in, because your questions deserve good answers, but I just haven’t had the time to do it yet.
Billy, Please, no personal attacks on other commenters.
Billy, Please, no personal attacks on other commenters.
??? Where did I do that?
Ugggh, whatever…I suppose being part of the inbred, or rather incestuously amplified comment section, I had it coming.
Gotta run plow the back 40 now.
Sonagi,
Who art thee,
So coyly chastening me?
Love do we,
Billy and me,
To applaud with glee–
Our own blogger, Joshua.
Yet pity me,
For I may be
In love with thee–
Homo-erotically.
In thee I see,
A wild wild faery,
La Belle Dame sans Merci–
La femme fatale, oui, c’est toi.
I pine for thee,
Sonagi,
Thy eloquent commentary,
Thou with thou I disagree.
So rain on me,
Sonagi.
Ever so thunderously.
_____
Sorry. My poor attempt at humor and poetry.
OK, here’s a rough response, which probably blends responses to all three more than I’d like.
I’d like to start with a more general discussion of guerrilla warfare, how it is fought, and some of the ways in which it’s typically resolved. Of the many works I’ve read on the subject, the one I recommend most highly is Sir Robert Thompson’s “Defeating Communist Insurgency,†which is of course not uniquely a response to communist movements, and which is based on Thompson’s own lessons learned from quelling the Malayan insurgency in the 1950’s.
First, guerrilla warfare is a very different thing from a series of terrorist acts directed against a civilian population. Guerrillas depend on the support of the local population for money, shelter, recruits, and above all, intelligence. Mao’s famous expression was that the people are the sea in which the fish (guerrillas) swim. If the government and the local population are sufficiently weak and vulnerable, the guerrillas can get those things through intimidation alone, but as we’ve started to see, in Anbar and Diyala, an alienated population turns against an insurgency when given an opportunity to do so. The same happened in Peru in the 1990’s, when President Fujimori ordered the creation of armed civilian militias. It was these, more than it was Fujimori’s authoritarian measures, that really defeated the Shining Path. The civilian militias we armed in Viet Nam, though almost wholly ineffective in the early-to-mid 1960’s, became increasingly disillusioned with the Viet Cong and thus far more effective by 1970. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the wanton brutality of the Russian army in both Afghanistan and Chechnya deprived the Russians of much substantial popular support, aside from some militias that were fairly labeled as gangs of criminals. In other words, guerrilla warfare is not won by brute force but by influencing the population that your vision of the future provides hope, peace, and prosperity; that the guerillas’ vision provides only terror and squalor; and that it’s safe to take the government’s side.
The guerrilla support network is normally an underground political organization to gives the support network discipline and cohesion, and to spread the guerrilla army’s promise of a better life under the new regime. In Iraq, some of the Sunni tribes were and are a ready-made organization of this kind, one that could exist for a while without spreading a hopeful message of the better political future it offered. This worked for a while because the presence of a foreign occupier — especially one so many Iraqis were inculcated by Saddam to hate — is always a propaganda advantage for a native insurgency. For a while, that was enough to paper over ideological differences between foreign Al Qaeda jihadis, disgruntled Baathists, secular nationalists, and ordinary unemployed schmoes who plant IED’s for spare change. Certainly, the limitations of Iraqi governance have contributed to the ambivalence of some of the tribes and the hostility of others. That’s especially so when under Saddam, news about corruption, instability, crime, and inefficiency wasn’t printed in the papers.
Whereas I don’t credit the Iraqi government or the U.S. military will much effectiveness in the all-important propaganda war, the same tribal structure that worked against us is now starting to work in our favor. For this, I credit the brutality of Al-Qaeda’s terrorism against the civilian population. Perhaps the most positive development of the war so far is the formation of the “salvation councils,†which are anti-Al Qaeda militia organizations that fight against the jihadis. By the accounts of Bill Roggio (www.billroggio.com) and yes, the New York Times (I linked it here recently), those groups have done terrific damage to Al-Qaeda’s mobility and ability to find food and shelter, or storage for its weapons. Many of those groups are themselves composed of former insurgents, meaning we now have fewer targets to chase with more troops. With time – and this will be the hard part – the government will be able to forge lasting alliances with those groups. Whether the country holds together will depend on this. If we stay, and if we keep the pressure on the Iraqis to share their national resources, there’s a chance, though I can’t quantify it. This will probably mean a great deal of regional or local autonomy. As long as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey don’t end up dominating various regions, that would be fine. Although partitioning Iraq would end up looking like Bosnia before 1996, the presence of NATO in Bosnia after 1996 allowed a sort of quiet and gradual shifting of populations that Iraq should quietly seek to avoid all-out bloodletting and the predation of its neighbors. If we stay, there’s some chance that can be achieved. Again, I don’t know how great. If we don’t stay, there’s almost no chance.
Of course, that same AQ terrorism directed against Shiites, Christians, and Kurds wasn’t designed to win hearts and minds, but to play badly on television, and to inspire a sectarian backlash. The point I made in the made post is not an original one — that terrorists who want to impose a medieval order are using the most liberal elements of our society to achieve their ultra-reactionary goals. From many of those who are opposing Bush and this war with such determination, I don’t hear a plan for defeating AQ. That’s not a problem you can solve with diplomacy or law enforcement.
This latter part of the AQ strategy has been effective to a degree – especially the media strategy — but it’s not the civil war that the media have tried to tell us it is. If you want to see that, and ethnic cleansing that would dwarf Bosnia, you’ll see that if we leave summarily. I don’t know how that’s even something people can deny, or fail to consider, at this point. Only by restoring some semblance of order in Iraq can we prevent that result, but it will take at least several more years of robust U.S. presence to achieve that. Furthermore, we have to stay at least long enough to destroy AQ as an effective fighting force, or we’re simply going to be fighting the same people in Afghanistan next. Here, the cooperation of the Sunni tribes will be essential, and the hopeful signs from Anbar and Diyala suggest this part of the war may be winnable sooner than it had looked a year ago.
Now, I have some questions for you:
– Who are our main enemies and threats in Iraq?
– What happens if we leave summarily?
– Would those results have implications for the security of our nation and others?
– What alternative do you propose?
“Yet pity me,
For I may be
In love with thee–
Homo-erotically.”
Does that mean you pee while sitting down, too, Wolmae?
Mais, oui, Sonagi. And I’d recommend it to all the guys out there, too, most ingenuously.
But seriously, Sonagi, speaking of timelines and benchmarks and accountability for the United States in Iraq, what do you think should be the timeline for U.S. nuclear diplomacy vis-à -vis North Korea? Ten years, twenty years, fifty years—or blank checks in perpetuity? If North Korea’s blatant violations of the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Agreement, the 1994 Agreed Framework, the NPT, the 2000 North-South Joint Declaration, and an assortment of other “breakthrough agreements†in recent years all count for naught, can anyone really say that there exists a breaking point in actuality? Won’t there always be people only too glad to point the finger at the Bush administration for its “ideological rigidity,†its linking of nuclear talks with North Korea’s illicit activity, “axis of evil†or other examples of rhetorical bellicosity like “outpost of tyranny,†even in the face of continued North Korean apostasy or even nuclear calamity? Do you suppose the folks who defy the laws of gullibility and to kingdom come call for equanimity in the face of hostility can ever adopt some semblance of accountability and volunteer to put down their own money as they insist betting on successful diplomacy? Tell me, Songai, what are the benchmarks for accountability when it comes to nuclear diplomacy? I should think that resigning ourselves to counter-proliferation or continuing to negotiate on hope and faith alone would prove to be a most unproductive national policy.
Below are the answers to your questions, Joshua:
Who are our main enemies and threats in Iraq?
Al-Qaeda, Muqtada Al-Sadr’s organization, Sunni-Shia conflict, power struggles within Sunni groups and Shia groups, and in the background Iranian influence and Saudi money, lawlessness.
What happens if we leave summarily?
An extremely fractious civil war would break out, involving Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Would those results have implications for the security of our nation and others?
Yes, of course.
What alternative do you propose?
I propose that we realize that the fate of Iraq is really in the hands of the Iraqis. If they can cooperate in spite of religious and tribal differences, then we can leave Iraq a with a better future than present or past.
We must, however, see signs of tangible progress. Show us more working alliances like the Anbar Salvation Council. Show us a map marking the parts of the country that have been stabilized in the past year. Show us an Iraqi police force capable of maintaining public safety. Show us declining casualties.
The people of Iraq know better than any of us whether life is getting better, whether the streets feel safer, whether economic life is returning. Show us that the people of Iraq believe things are getting better. If they believe so, I will, too.
I don’t favor an immediate pullout, but I can’t call myself a war supporter because I believe it was an ill-conceived idea from the beginning and wish the troops to stay for now only because leaving would almost certainly result in an extremely violent civil war.
It’s really the Iraqis, not US troops, I’m putting on a timetable of sorts. If they want peace and stability, they need to make it happen. If they don’t or can’t, there’s no point in staying.
I don’t check them often, but apparently from some of the military (and Iraqi) blogs out there, if our media were not so strongly against the war, you might see a fair amount of all the things you want to see. ..
As I suspected, Sonagi, we really don’t disagree all that much when we think hard about alternatives and consequences. For that matter, I agree that everything depends on the Iraqis. In historical terms, however, I don’t think it’s fair to expect that much after a 3-year experience with civil democratic government.