This fits well with the botched Nord-ost rescue; of course, this doesn't lift any blame off the chechen jihadis, who are ultimately responsible for this barbaric tragedy.
But, again, Russia is not our friend, and is not a western country (yet, the rightwingers here who wish a close pan-european alliance with Motherland do so in rejection of the "euro-atlantists", IE the US Hegemon and its perceived vassal, the EU... because Russia supposedly has more in common with us than us with the USA). By David Satter
On September 1, 2004, the children of School Number One in Beslan, a town of 30,000 in the Russian republic of North Ossetia, gathered to go in for the first day of school. Suddenly, the air was filled with machine gun fire. A military truck pulled up and two dozen men with Kalashnikov assault rifles jumped out. Other terrorists appeared out of nowhere. The terrorists herded 1,200 students and parents into the school gymnasium, where they were held for 52 hours before a pitched battle broke out between the terrorists and Russian forces. The fighting led to the deaths of 332 people, including 186 children. It was the worst terrorist act since September 11, 2001.
While it was going on, the Beslan standoff riveted the attention of the world. Once it was over, however, the incident was largely forgotten. The day after the storming of the school, on September 4, bulldozers gathered the debris of the building, including children's notebooks and the body parts of the victims, and removed it to a garbage dump on the outskirts of town.
The survivors, however, wanted justice, and they were plunged into emotional turmoil as they listened to the version of events propagated by the Russian authorities, who put the blame entirely on the terrorists, exonerated officials of any wrongdoing (many of them were later promoted), and refused to listen to the survivors' accounts of what they had seen and experienced.
#1
So what I'm reading is that we should focus all of the blame on the authorities who made some mistakes for an action that few in western civilization could have been prepared for, simply because it was, at that time, unimaginable.
Who cares who didn't respond perfectly? Let's keep the focus on where it belongs: Islamic fanatics will do anything, absolutely anything to fight their war. They are the most brutal and ruthless enemies we have ever faced. This was not the fault of those who didn't wave a wand and make magic happen, this is what it was, one of the most cruel, heartless, ruthless actions imaginable and we should expect more of it.
The day after the storming of the school, on September 4, bulldozers gathered the debris of the building, including children's notebooks and the body parts of the victims, and removed it to a garbage dump on the outskirts of town.
Sounds more like a hasty removal of evidence than any reverential treatment of the dead.
The survivors, however, wanted justice, and they were plunged into emotional turmoil as they listened to the version of events propagated by the Russian authorities, who put the blame entirely on the terrorists, exonerated officials of any wrongdoing (many of them were later promoted), and refused to listen to the survivors' accounts of what they had seen and experienced.
Coverup, pure and simple.
It is now all but certain that the terrorists' attack on the school could have been prevented. According to internal police documents obtained by the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in Moscow knew four hours in advance that an attack on a school in Beslan was planned for September 1, 2004. The information came from a man named Arsamikov who had been arrested in the city of Shali in Chechnya. The information, however, was not acted upon.
Insane, until you reach this article's conclusion.
The [military launched] explosions, according to Saveliev, caused a catastrophic fire and the collapse of the roof of the school gymnasium, which led to the deaths of the majority of the hostages. The order to put out the fire did not come for two hours. As a result, hostages who could have been saved were burned alive.
More incompetence. Or destruction of evidence.
According to Saveliev, another 106 to 110 hostages died after terrorists moved them from the burning gym to the school's cafeteria, which came under heavy fire from security forces using flamethrowers, rocket launchers, and tanks. His analysis thus supports the view of human rights activists that at least 80 percent of the hostages were killed by indiscriminate Russian fire.
More incompetence.
It is also possible that the ease with which the terrorists took over the school was not solely the result of official incompetence. The Russian authorities may have deliberately allowed the terrorists to take over the school in order to have an excuse to destroy them.
Knowing Putin, this is not out of the question.
The sad reality is that 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the role of the individual in Russia has not changed. He is seen as a means to an end, not an end in himself.
Has it ever been any different thoughout Russia's entire history?
So what I'm reading is that we should focus all of the blame on the authorities who made some mistakes for an action that few in western civilization could have been prepared for, simply because it was, at that time, unimaginable.
Sorry, anon, this goes well beyond "some mistakes". Yes, the terrorists caused this incident but that in no way exculpates the military's incompetence or callous disregard for human life.
Who cares who didn't respond perfectly? Let's keep the focus on where it belongs: Islamic fanatics will do anything, absolutely anything to fight their war. They are the most brutal and ruthless enemies we have ever faced. This was not the fault of those who didn't wave a wand and make magic happen, this is what it was, one of the most cruel, heartless, ruthless actions imaginable and we should expect more of it.
All of us should care. If Russia is going to be just another incarnation of the Soviet Union wolf in capitalist's clothing, we need to take note. Putin's underhanded dealing with respect to Iran are of nearly equal if not greater significance than international terrorism. Are you acquainted with how the Soviet Communists are largely responsible for the ascendancy of Islamic terrorists? Here's some background just in case you are not:
Although terrorism originated centuries ago, modern international terrorism orchestrated by the Soviet Union arguably began at the Tricontinental Conference conceived by Moscow and conducted in Havana, Cuba during January l966.13 The purpose of the conference was to devise a "global revolutionary strategy to counter the global strategy of American imperialism."14
It resulted in the creation of an African, Asian, and Latin American Solidarity Organization based in Havana. The Conference also passed resolutions advocating outside aid for groups fighting for "liberation". During late l966, the Cubans opened a number of training camps for guerrilla fighters in Cuba that were under Soviet supervision. Palestinian groups began sending students to these facilities on the "Isle of Pines" during l966, and upon graduation, those students spawned the terrorist groups that xploded in the Middle East during the l97O's. Castro's terrorism schools were under the supervision of the Direcion General de Intelegencia (DGI). Students were flown into the country from connecting airports, or arrived in Cuban harbors by boat. Upon debarkation in Havana, they were segregated by nationality and moved to their individual training locations. The guerrilla courses lasted from three to six months. Subject material included "tactics, weapons training, bomb making- particularly how to blow up oil pipelines, map reading, cryptography, photography, falsification of documents, and disguise." Illich Ramirez Sanchez, a.k.a. Carlos the Jackal, is reputed to have received instruction at Camp Mantonzas, Cuba, prior to further education in the USSR.15
In addition to operating a series of such camps in Cuba, Castro exported instructors to newly opened sites in Angola and Mozambique. Cuban instructors arrived at locations in the Middle East after the October l973 War. During December of that year, 4O Cuban terrorist instructors arrived in South Yemen. South Yemeni desert training sites were protected by the Soviet and East German secret police, and became the focal point for instructing and sheltering terrorists from nations including Germany, Ireland, Japan, Turkey, Iran, Italy, France, Belgium, and Palestine.16
When the Lebanese Civil War broke out it created an opportunity for terrorist groups to operate from that country. In l978 the Palestine Rejection Front was firmly established at a number of sites there. In March, l978 the first team of Cuban instructors arrived at Tyre, Lebanon. They presented a detailed eight month course of instruction to their first class of perspective Arab terrorists. The curriculum included street and desert fighting, attacking people and buildings, demolitions, and sabotaging oil installations. Graduates of the school were supplied with false passports and work permits, and sent to various Persian Gulf countries that they were familiarized with during training.17
If Putin is returning Russia back to Soviet style political chicanery (something he was trained in as a KGB officer), then we had damn well be ready to begin assessing his actions on a whole different level. Russia's support for Iran smacks of the terrorist facilitation mentioned in the above article and it is a major concern if this is going to become an additional aspect of the War on Terrorism.
Commies INVENTED modern terrorism (by the way, terrorism was invented by french revolutionnaries, as in "terrorize the people into submission through organized political bloodshedding).
#4
Except that this article doesn't mention some key things that we already know. On the micro level, the sexual abuse of hostages of all ages from baby to adult, for instance, to the point where some were actually raped to death. The random shootings of hostages. Withholding of food and water -- food I can understand, I'm sure the cafeteria was not supplied for a lengthy siege, but water? What odds that the hostage takers would have bargained in good faith, given the opportunity? I have absolutely no doubt that Russians were bribed to look the other way, that the siege and rescue were handled as ham-handedly as could be done, and that there was indeed a cover-up afterward. Russia has never been civilized, and is not yet; it is naive to the point beyond which even I am capable of reaching to think that they would care more for the hostages than for resolving a situation they found an embarrassing. On the macro level, the Russians are mortified by their reduction from rulers of the Soviet Empire, co-equal to the United States, to merely first among equals in a poverty stricken version of the toothless European Union, having to bargain and bully those who used to stand silent before any whose native tongue was Russian.
The facts do not reveal anything new about Putin's Russia, just provide details of yet another example that Russian is far from what we would wish her to be.
#5
Except that this article doesn't mention some key things that we already know
I absolutely agree, the blood is ultimately on the hands of the jihadis, this was a monstrous event carried out by thugs and barbarians, no doubt about it.
But I wouldn't qualify the rescue as ham-handed, it was both criminal (saving the hostages was apparently not a priority) and incompetent, like the Nord-ost raid.
#8
Well, thank you for the links, anyway. I certainly want to thank whoever it was that posted the original article, it was an eye-opener.
If Russia is merely devolving back into a reincarnation of the Soviet Union, we had better be ready for some real shit to start flying. From all indications, this is exactly what is happening.
#9
Well, thank you for the links, anyway. I certainly want to thank whoever it was that posted the original article, it was an eye-opener
My problem is that I read much, but retain very little; still, this issue of soviet/islamo-terrorism is a pet subject of mine, I had discovered the two articles above at the Global Politician website (very interesting, different pov, with semi-conspiracy undertones) a couple of years ago, I might even have posted them here under one of my non-fixed nicks then, can't remember. I think it was reading an article by Ion Pacepa which opened my eyes.
#11
WTF do you think the outcome was going to be if the Russians had done nothing. Arrests? Warrents? CSI:Beslan finding out who the perps were?
The central issue here is that Muslims who care nothing about anything but Allah staged this attack full with the intent of murdering children, to produce terror, the only thing islam can ever create.
Yes, the Russians were incomptetant, and yes Russians have moles and yes the Russians probably knew about the attack beforehand, but do you really think the Russians wanted this outcome?
#12
do you really think the Russians wanted this outcome?
Yes.
Posted by: Mr. Flamethrower ||
11/10/2006 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
TW and Bad make good points. Think...you gonna sit around and negotiate while toddlers are being raped, shot and dumped thrown out windows? The Russian response was poor because their training is poor...regard for citizenry is low...but the full weight of responsibility for Beslan lies with the terrorists. This article is mostly crap.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/10/2006 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I believe that we face a perfect storm: revanchist Russia, ambitious China, envious EU, lunatic Norks and Islamists and feckless and self-loathing elites.
It may not be all bad that we withdraw from Iraq since we clearly were not prepared to do what it takes to win. We need to look to our own.
#15
9/11 has also been blamed on the U.S. government. It's also been noted that it could have been prevented. Further, it's been charged that the U.S. government welcomed it as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some things to consider when we read these articles and we judge the Russian response.
#16
Some things to consider when we read these articles and we judge the Russian response.
Nice try, DoDo. America isn't facilitating the acquisition of nuclear arms by one of the world's first and foremost sponsors of international terrorism. Your argument, intentionally or not, smacks of moral equivalency.
Further, it's been charged that the U.S. government welcomed it as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
This reeks of wilfull complacency or outright conspiracy in the 9-11 WTC attacks. Understand one thing, WE NEEDED NO "PRETEXT" TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ.
#17
So instead of knuckling under to eminently reasonable Islamic "negotiators", the Russians decide to just randomly bombard the school with tank cannons and explosive flame throwers.
This article smells like a steaming pile! Explosive flamethrowers? WTF? The gymnasium was blown up by Ruskie tank fire and rocket launchers? No mention of the Chechen's own suicide bombs placed among the hostages.
I think y'all need to take this article with a grain of salt... grain of salt about the size of a basketball!
#18
troubled, but I doubt there was a peaceful resolutionif th toddler-rape stories and deprivations stories are true (and I have no reason to say they weren't). Seems like major league corruption/incompetence in Russia. That's not news. People are expendable, the power of the Putin State is all
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/10/2006 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
#19
People are expendable, the power of the Putin State is all
End of story. Terrorists are evil, Putin is just as evil. Period.
Ask yourself this same question again when Iran goes nuclear with Russia's help.
At a luncheon on the Hill today sponsored by FreedomWorks, Republican pollster Ed Goeas said that the losses we saw last night are average for mid-term elections, particularly mid-term elections in a time of war. He also said, One of the things that is different from 1994, is that in 1994 when Republicans won 56 House seats, all but a handful were won by a range of 10 or more percent. Last night if you look at the election, of those 28 House seats, 22 were won by 2 percent or less 22 of the 28. And of those, 18 were won by less than 5,000 votes, and four of those by less than a thousand votes. Later he went over the numbers again, and concluded, In other words you can basically go back and say that we lost control of Congress by 11 seats. Youre talking about less than 50,000 votes.
I NOTED EARLIER that Ann Althouse is depressed about the elections, and looking around it seems that a lot of people feel that way. Well, I understand that, God knows. But one iron rule of elections is that you win some and you lose some. And people tend to exaggerate their importance and, if they're on the losing side, catastrophize.
I remember lots of gloom-and-doom and catastrophization in the gun rights community ten or twelve years ago. Defeat seemed inexorable, the media were all on the other side, the politicians who were supposed to be on the right side of the issue couldnt' be trusted, the electorate seemed easily manipulated, and --- well, enough. Sound familiar?
Ten years later the Democrats won't touch the gun issue, right-to-carry laws are passing in state after state, and the "assault weapons ban" -- once seen as the camel's nose in the tent -- has expired. How did that happen? Not because of gloom and doom, but because people worked to make it happen: worked politically, worked in terms of communications and media, worked in terms of not getting discouraged but just plugging away. Want the electorate to come around to your views? You've got to persuade them. Over the years, I've seen this hold true for one issue after another.
Is this a "detached and academic" perspective? Well, I am an academic, after all, and I'd probably be detached about the end of the world, which this isn't. Maybe I "lack fire," but I think it's a realistic perspective, borne of experience. It's okay to feel bad for a while. Maybe it's even therapeutic. But ultimately, things happen because people want to make them happen, and work to make it so.
Meanwhile I note that Rush Limbaugh, who was complaining about my pre-mortem before, now says he feels "liberated" because he's able to say things like . . . what I said back before the election. Well, better late than never, but one problem with the GOP is that it lost touch with the things it was supposed to stand for, and a little more tough love from Limbaugh before the election might have done some good. To which I would add: avoid the temptation to succumb to Pelosi Derangement Syndrome. They're our political opponents, but not all of the Dems are necessarily our enemies. Critique 'em strongly when they are wrong, don't go along just to get along by any means, but be sure to give 'em props when they get something right--especially the new folks in town, some of whom (e.g., Heath Schuler, Joe Lieberman) are more with us than against us on the big things, and can be separated from the crazies with a little judicious persuasion. Going all moonbat on every little thing in our rhetoric ("Pelosi = Osama!") is a sure path to a long time in the wilderness, while a touch of rationality goes a long way--especially if the Donk leadership comes off as unable to restrain its moonbat fringe.
AoS at 1345 CST: hilite fixed.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/10/2006 09:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Duh-oh! That last paragraph is me, not Prof. Reynolds; it should be hilited, but I hit "submit" too fast.
Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/10/2006 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Surely it's not the election people are reacting so strongly to, but Bush's reaction to it.
#3
I have to agree with that this is not a catastrophe. The average loss in a 6th year election is actually slightly larger than this. When you add in the gains from the 2002 election, the Rupubs are actually in better shape than they should expect.
Don't forget that Zel Miller wrote a book about how the Dems were a "National Party No More".
I think Pelosi Derangement Syndrome is justified, but this can be an oportunity. If she keeps the conservative/moderate Dems out of positions of power, it will confirm the Dems as the Party of Children.
This may be the Dems last chance to prove they can act like adults.
Al
Posted by: frozen Al ||
11/10/2006 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The biggest issue is that the U.S. will no be able to undertake offensive operations against the jihadis. The initiative has passed to al-qaida and Iran.
They have no reason to let up in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are on the offensive in Somalia. They can hit Isreal as soon as the Hezbollah recover their strength (or they may wait for a more sympathetic president). Syria and the Hezbollah can recover ground in Lebanon.
The Democrats agree with the European position that terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a war. If they are wrong we are going to lose a lot more people because of this and, yes, this is a catastrophe.
#5
MARY MATALIN was simply awesome on FOX, among other things making it crystal clear to the audience that the Dems win was NOT a vote or mandate for the traditional Liberal-Alternatist agenda. The Dems are already engaging in attempting to "clarify" their stance on the WOT + putting the burden on Dubya-GOP for any problems. NOT EVEN 2007 or DE FACTO SWORN IN, AND ALREADY CHICKEN LITTLE IS CROSSING THE ROAD. KEEP BUYING THE POPCORN.
How serious is the "thumpin'" the Republicans took on Tuesday? Losing one house is significant but hardly historic. Losing both houses, however, is defeat of a different order of magnitude, the equivalent in a parliamentary system of a vote of no confidence.
On Tuesday, Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. As of this writing, they won 29 House seats (with a handful still in the balance), slightly below the post-1930 average for the six-year itch in a two-term presidency. They took the Senate by the thinnest of margins -- a one-vote majority, delivered to them by a margin of 7,188 votes in Virginia and 2,847 in Montana.
Because both houses have gone Democratic, the election is correctly seen as an expression of no confidence in the central issue of the campaign: Iraq. It was not so much the war itself as the perceived administration policy of "stay the course,'' which implied endless intervention with no victory in sight. The president got the message. Hence the summary resignation of the designated fall guy, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Nonetheless, the difference between taking one house versus both -- and thus between normal six-year incumbent party losses and a major earthquake that shakes the presidency -- was razor thin in this election. A switch of just 1,424 votes in Montana would have kept the Senate Republican.
A margin this close should no longer surprise us. For this entire decade the country has been evenly divided politically. The Republicans had control but by very small majorities. In 2000, the presidential election was settled by a ridiculously small margin. And the Senate ended up deadlocked 50-50. All the changes since then have been minor. Until now.
But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.
This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.
The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic congressman.
The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republican. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.
Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain.
To muddy even more the supposed ideological significance of this election, consider who is the biggest winner of the night: Joe Lieberman. Just a few months ago, he was scorned by his party and left for dead. Now he returns to the Senate as the Democrats' 51st seat -- and holder of the balance of power. From casualty to kingmaker in three months. Not bad. His Democratic colleagues who abandoned him this summer will now treat him very well.
Lieberman won with a platform that did not trim or hedge about seeking victory in Iraq. And he did it despite having a Republican in the race who siphoned off 10 percent of the pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state.
The public's views on what we ought to do with the war remain mixed, as do its general ideological inclinations. What happened on Tuesday? The electorate threw the bums out in disgust with corruption and in deep dissatisfaction with current Iraq policy. Reading much more into this election is a symptom of either Republican depression or Democratic wishful thinking.
The electorate threw the bums out in disgust with corruption and in deep dissatisfaction with current Iraq policy. Reading much more into this election is a symptom of either Republican depression or Democratic wishful thinking.
The challenge for the Dems (and the opportunity for the Trunks) is to keep their moonbat Left from running wild.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/10/2006 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right.
I dunno if that's true... here in France, the "fight" is between the social-democrats and the democrat-socialists... there's a joke about the "UMPS" unique party, IE the sharing of the power between the "conservative" UMP and its precedent incarnations, and the socialist PS plus its commie & green suppletives.
The "fight" is fought only INSIDE the mainstream, by people who come from the same social background, from the same schools, from the same trade (huge majority of Mp and gvt officials are lifer civil servants), from the same networks ("old boys" school network, plus the ubiquitous free masonry),... IMHO, the "Republic" is more of an oligarchy than anything else.
Those at the extremes are pretty much excluded from that system.
Bear in mind that with 10 millions electors the National front hasn't a *single* MP, because there's a standing agreement among the mainstream parties to systematically prevent its candidates to be elected (last time, ruling UMP made 16% or so IIRC, yet it has about 380 Mp on 577... yup, we've got 577 Mp for 60 millions french, makes you wonder, no?).
Pépé Le Pen made 18% in the 2002 presidential run, yet he's a pariah, almost completly absent from the msm, while the Establishment candidate are offered the bully pulpit again and again.
With the appointment of Robert Gates--CIA director from 1991 to 1993--to succeed Don Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, George W. Bush has brought upon himself much talk about sons in the shadow of their fathers. His presidency has turned Shakespearean, allowing all to tell sad stories about kings haunted by the ghosts they have deposed.
Alone, the Gates appointment might have passed as a necessary, post-election expedient. But it is not alone. Pressed for a new direction in Iraq, Mr. Bush routinely draws attention to the imminent post-Thanksgiving report of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Survey Group. "Baker" is Jim Baker, who was his father's secretary of state from 1989 to 1992. The ISG's formal charge does not include finding a "way out" of Iraq for Mr. Bush, but all now assume this is what they intend to produce.
The village elders on the Iraq Survey Group who will perform this duty are Lee Hamilton, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, former Clinton Defense Secretary Bill Perry, former Sens. Chuck Robb and Alan Simpson, and the secretary of defense designate, Robert Gates.
#1
This does concern me. Realpolitik has always been a disaster, because its proponents are so fond of making "We're all men of the world" compromises that harm all concerned.
#2
"The village elders on the Iraq Survey Group who will perform this duty are Lee Hamilton, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, former Clinton Defense Secretary Bill Perry, former Sens. Chuck Robb and Alan Simpson, and the secretary of defense designate, Robert Gates."
I'm not just "concerned": I'm wondering what the hell Bush could possibly be thinking.
But I know what I think: I think we're fucked.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/10/2006 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
End of post WWII US supremacy? End of Pax Americana?
Boy, am I going to miss Rummy and not just because his post-election exit looks like a square-jawed head on a platter served up by the president to the incoming Democratic leadership on the Hill. If the president thinks Donald Rumsfeld is a sacrifice tasty enough to satisfy ravenous Democrats, he is dead wrong. "Let them eat Rumsfeld" isn't going to stop the Democratic power grab in progress. As incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it on hearing the Rumsfeld news: "I welcome the long overdue change in leadership at the Pentagon now we need a change in policy."
And so, as I have argued before, we do. But we need to make changes in order to accomplish the civilization-saving mission of neutralizing jihad in the Middle East and Islamization everywhere else, not to placate Democrats jabbering about (to quote Mrs. Pelosi's Rumsfeld statement again) a "change in policy, a "fresh start," "a better way forward," a "new direction" and offering no plan.
Certainly, there's been intense dissent over Mr. Rumsfeld's belief in the efficacy of a smaller, more maneuverable, more high-tech army. Indeed, his policy has frustrated many military minds who have seen a dire need in Iraq for additional "boots on the ground." As an admittedly nonmilitary mind, I don't believe more troops alone would have changed Iraq for the better. After all, common sense tells us we haven't unleashed the ones we already have there. Otherwise, Fallujah, for example, would no longer exist. For my money, the day we "lost" Iraq or lost control of Iraq by showing we didn't really mean business was back in 2003 when top man L. Paul Bremer wanted the military to shoot some of the looters who were ripping Baghdad, and U.S. military commanders put the kybosh on the tactic for being too severe. Not exactly Patton-esque.
I suppose Donald Rumsfeld is ultimately responsible for that, too the kind of policy that indicates 21st-century America may be simply too pc-sensitive to actually win wars. But this a generational flaw, and not why Mr. Rumsfeld is leaving. I've always liked the steely, jaunty face Donald Rumsfeld presented to the world a face for jihadists to fear. There is the inimitable way he has taken on his media inquisitors, turning Gotcha Journalism back on its own. There was his unforgettable dig about "Old Europe" that once upon a time sent France and Germany into cardi-plomatic arrest. There is his almost sub rosa understanding of the moral bankruptcy of the misnamed Israeli-Palestinian "peace process," signaled by a deft discussion of "the so-called occupied territories." Maybe most important, however, is that I can actually imagine Donald Rumsfeld counseling the president to push the button, or whatever it is presidents must do, to eliminate Iran or other foes who threaten our security a tactic that will increasingly present itself as a dire but salvational option.
The same, alas, is unlikely to be said about his proposed replacement, Robert Gates. That's because Mr. Gates, known as a "consensus-builder," is all for "sustained engagement" with the nuking dervishes in Iran. Indeed, such engagement apparently looms large in his strategic thinking about stabilizing Iraq. Particularly in the immediate aftermath of GOP defeat, this shift at the Pentagon looks like presidential retreat, and not only where Mr. Bush's domestic critics are concerned, but also our jihadist foes.
One of Mr. Rumsfeld's supposed offenses (to Democrats) came when he compared critics of the president's war efforts to appeasers who allowed fascism to spread unchecked in the 1930s. Now, it can be argued, it is Mr. Rumsfeld himself whom the president has offered to appease those same war critics. But there is more to it than that. Mr. Bush postponed his decision to replace Mr. Rumsfeld until after the election so as not to appear to play politics with American military command. Certainly, the president should have taken the same pains to avoid signaling a diminution of political resolve to jihadists the world over, particularly with this post-election timing.
I don't think Mr. Bush has lost his resolve in the fight against what he persists in calling "terror," and what I call global jihad. But he has lost his way. He can't see that Rumsfeld in command is better for America than Rumsfeld on a plate, no matter how happy it makes Democrats.
#1
Iran's theocracy is a lot closer to representative government than the dictatorships of Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. One naturally wants a free, democratic middle east, but as they say, you can't get there from here -- not directly, anyway.
#2
...FWIW though, at least one fairly well plugged-in site is suggesting that what may be next is a massive re-deployment of every unit that can pick up a rifle, whether they just came back or not, whether or not they're rested or refitted, and the orders will be to stomp as much sh*t out of the bad guys before we get dragged back.
Frankly, IF that's true, it would be nice to simply kill as many jihadi as possible before we leave, and screw the Donks.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/10/2006 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
During a lull between smart bombings, Jihadi sniper post 13, Ramadi.
Achmed: My brothers did you see this news?A great victory!The Pelosi has defeated the Bush of Amerikiyah!
Farouk: But Achmed, why do we care when the Christian dogs squabble among themselves?
Achmed: Because the enemy of my friend ... no, wait ... the friend of my brother-in-law ... no, thats not it ...
Ali: ... The enemy of my enemy is my friend, you donkey.It is like listening to the chattering of gerbils.Yes, brothers, this is a great victory.The Democrat Pelosi has delivered the Mother of All Thumpings to al-Bush, of the Republican tribe.I have seen it on the CNN. Al-Bush has even fired the Rum-esfeld war criminal, who will soon be sent to the hated Crusader gulag of Guantanamo!
Farouk: So ... al-Pelosi is our friend!
RAT-TAT-TAT-TAT-TAT-TAT-TAT-TAT!
Achmed: By the beard of the Prophet!That pork-eating infidel of a Marine is getting better!
Ali, picking himself up from the floor: Well, Farouk, it is true al-Pelosi is very useful, and she is the enemy of our enemy. Soon, the "Why Do They Hate Us" Commission will be formed to study the crimes of the Cheney-Bush.And then, these Crusader Ameriki boots will no longer soil the ... er ... soil of Iraq.They will be gone!This makes the Pelosi our friend.
Farouk: Ali, why do they hate us?
Achmed: Incoming, my brothers!
KABOOM!
Ali, dusting himself off: Farouk, you goat, it is WE who hate THEM!
Farouk: Even this Pelosi?But if the Crusader boots are to be gone, can we not then join the dhimmi in singing "Kumbaya."
Ali: No. No "Kumbaya" singing.
Farouk: But Ali, I like this song. It is fun to sing!
Go read it all . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/10/2006 07:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Sunday started out with a horrific report on the grisly discovery of a missing four year old boy. He was found dead in a garbage dumpster in the Beduin city of Rahat. The father of the young boy reported that one of his wives (he has three of them) had stabbed to death the child of another wife, because she was jealous and unable to conceive. Police believe that at first the child's body was stored in the washing machine, but was later dumped in the garbage.
On Monday, a female suicide bomber blew herself up near Israeli soldiers in Beit Hanoun. Lucky for us, she goes to paradise a bit unaccomplished after having only lightly wounded one our soldiers.
That same day it was reported that an all-women's cell of Islamic Jihad terrorists was discovered and apprehended. The women were handlers of several terror cells in the areas of Jerusalem and Judea. Among other activities, they were involved in the transferring of funds from Syria to be used for the families of suicide terrorists, and for the funding of terror attacks. One of the arrested women also oversaw the building of an explosives laboratory. The less capable women have been relegated to the position of acting as human shields for terrorists -- but hey, it's a job.
On 1 November 1921, General Lejeune, 13th Commandant of the Marine Corps, issued Marine Corps Order No. 47, Series 1921. The order summarized the history, mission, and tradition of the Corps, and directed that it be read to every command on 10 November each subsequent year in honor of the birthday of the Marine Corps. This order has been duly carried out.
#1
1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.
2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on then alert and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.
3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.
4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.
5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.
6. To receive, obey, and pass on the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the commanding officer, officer of the day, and officers and noncommissioned officers of the guard only.
7. To talk to no one except in line of duty.
8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.
9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.
10. To salute all officers and all colors and standards not cased.
11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.
#2
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.
My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.
Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy.
#4
Thank you Oldspook. You have just reminded me to write to our friend the marine, on his second tour. His mom is going to Baghdad airport with the Air Guard in a few weeks. Our Bible study just packed a massive care package, to which our youngest added four good-sized chocolate bars and tied them together with a gold ribbon.
Everybody call up or write to your veterans tomorrow!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
With the appointment of Robert Gates--CIA director from 1991 to 1993--to succeed Don Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, George W. Bush has brought upon himself much talk about sons in the shadow of their fathers. His presidency has turned Shakespearean, allowing all to tell sad stories about kings haunted by the ghosts they have deposed.
Boy, am I going to miss Rummy and not just because his post-election exit looks like a square-jawed head on a platter served up by the president to the incoming Democratic leadership on the Hill. If the president thinks Donald Rumsfeld is a sacrifice tasty enough to satisfy ravenous Democrats, he is dead wrong. "Let them eat Rumsfeld" isn't going to stop the Democratic power grab in progress. As incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it on hearing the Rumsfeld news: "I welcome the long overdue change in leadership at the Pentagon now we need a change in policy."
