Article

2003-11-03 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Murat 2003-11-03 5:03:52 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Screw you,Gollum!

Posted by Raptor 2003-11-3 7:26:21 AM|| 2003-11-3 7:26:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Murat, great pick to post but you need to do some work on your comments:
Shooting down a military target of an occupier is called terrorism?By the definition those that attack what is deemed the (and I hate to use this label) legitimate Goverment are isurgents. Those that bomb Hospitals, Schools, and police stations are Terrorists. I thnk we both know which group they fall into.

Turkey to seize the Iraqi oil fields, Turkey is not USA you know, but a thief sees everybody as a thief.
Do I have to review Turkish History versus U.S.? Do they teach about the Ottoman Empire and how it cam into being? No Murat we are not on the same moral level here. We are not expanding an Empire and not raping the country to serve our own ends.
Safire is correct that Failure is NOT an option in Iraq and we won't fail.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2003-11-3 7:28:55 AM|| 2003-11-3 7:28:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Cyber Sarge,

Apart from the cost of lives (I wished all loss of live was avoidable, including that of Iraqis), to the definition shooting (down) an enemy military vehicle being a land or aerial vehicle in a war zone can hardly be called terrorism. Also bombing of police and police stations who are regarded by many Iraqis as collaborators of the enemy is debatable.

On the bombing of schools and hospitals I agree these are terrorist deeds, but realise that the US have hit hospitals and schools during the bombing campaign too, albeit we might accept these as misfortunate errors it tastes bitter.

Posted by Murat 2003-11-3 8:27:18 AM|| 2003-11-3 8:27:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 ...the US have hit hospitals and schools during the bombing campaign...

Name one.

Posted by Parabellum 2003-11-3 8:53:40 AM|| 2003-11-3 8:53:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hey, he saw it on al'Jazeera! That makes it true!

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-3 8:57:45 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-3 8:57:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 All in all, not a terribly interesting column. It was obvious within weeks after the fall of Baghdad that a Baathist/Sunni insurgency was happening. It will probably last for years. However, I rather imagine that it will be a predominately Iraqi army fighting the Baathists and terrorists within a year or two.

Violence and instability is endemic in the region thanks to the it's history of tribalism, tyranny, and brutality. Sometime soon there will be a civil war in Iran -- and that will be a bloody farce that go on for years. A coup of some kind is obviously brewing in Saudi Arabia. Syria is a crackup waiting to happen. The Israeli's will eventually tire of constant terrorism do something serious to the Palestineans. And the Kurds will soon begin their long fight again -- I think that this time they will succeed.

Truly, one fouled up part of the world.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-11-3 9:15:44 AM|| 2003-11-3 9:15:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "but realise that the US have hit hospitals and schools during the bombing campaign too, albeit we might accept these as misfortunate errors it tastes bitter."

-gimme a break Murat. We don't target caregiving instalations, never have. Even when the enemy puts a tank in one (like in Nasiriya). The terrorists clearly target their own Red Crescent centers, big difference.

"John Abizaid, our commanding general, speaks fluent Arabic. He should be on radio and television regularly â answering questions from Iraqi reporters in their native language."

-That's a good idea actually. Broadcast him into the triangle. Put it to them in black and white that they're the minority in Iraq. If we leave the revenge killings from the other groups are gonna start back up. Shit, the Sunnis don't really see that far down the road. We leave, the Iranians back the Shiites and then a good battle ensues between them and their former oppressors.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-3 9:20:35 AM|| 2003-11-3 9:20:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Murat. Genius that you are, do you think you can get that link/title thing down?
On second thought, don't. One look and I know it's you and I don't have to waste my time.

Posted by tu3031 2003-11-3 9:31:50 AM|| 2003-11-3 9:31:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 My guess is Murat doesn't know what you're talking about, tu3031. He's probably never bothered trying to read an original linked article himself - he's one of those folk who don't enjoy having to consider evidence in order to form an opinion.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-3 10:52:58 AM|| 2003-11-3 10:52:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 WND has an article fromthe Scotsman that has some insight into or speculation on the pattern of the attacks: Mosques under suspicion

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-3 10:53:34 AM|| 2003-11-3 10:53:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Super Hose -- Mosques? Involved in terrorism?

Pshaw! It must be a mistake!

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-3 11:01:13 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-3 11:01:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 It must be a mistake!

It must be Ramadan.

Posted by Rafael 2003-11-3 11:16:28 AM|| 2003-11-3 11:16:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Hi Bulldog I enjoy the liberty of not being prejudged because of being an American, British or Iraqi. Maybe because I am anti-war I am a bit prejudged I wont deny. The Americans and Britons however are seeing their countries of being in the right just because they blind themselves with nationalistic feelings. What right do they have, did Iraq posses WMD, if yes where are they. Did Iraq have any guild in 9/11, if yes where is the prove, even Bush admitted no links existed. Iraq was just a country bog down in misery due to US sanctions and in no position to form any danger to anyone. Sorry but I don't see the US and Britain as liberators at all, al the propaganda about WMD turned out empty balloons.

Posted by Murat 2003-11-3 11:21:41 AM|| 2003-11-3 11:21:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Folks, technically Murat is correct about the shooting down of a helicopter: IF it was done by remenants of the Iraqi army, Ba'ath party, etc., as part of their not-ended fight against us, and if they did so under a command, wearing a uniform, etc., then it was a military operation and not terrorism. So says the Geneva convention.

However, if it was done by foreign jihadis coming into the country, or by Ba'athist irregulars out of uniform, etc., such jokers are illegitimate combatants; it isn't terrorism in the way we use the word. Because they're illegitimate, we'd be justified under the Geneva convention, on capturing them, to execute them in the field without benefit of tribunal or hearng. The commanding officer at the scene would have the right under international law to shoot them himself.

The difference is an important one to make: not for us, but for Y'urp-peons and for Murat. They think that the proper response to "terrorists" is police action, trials, hearings, etc. These jokers are illegal combatants, and as such they have no rights under international law.

As to the article, Safire makes some sense as usual, though he's too much of a hand-wringer for my taste.

Murat: if we did bomb a hospital or school, it's because Saddam and his boys were hiding arms and troops in them. That is well-documented. Think about that.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-3 11:27:43 AM|| 2003-11-3 11:27:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 It looks to me as if we are following a pretty smart strategy. Our goal is to drain the swamps, not swat at mosquitos.

All these Jihadis are leaving the rest of the islamic world, and that alone will have an impact, as they wont be back in their home countries continuing their reign of blackmail and extortion against the host governments. Those governments once free from the actions of the local gang members, will be able to make the type of reforms that will assist in getting rid of the jihadis support structures.

The Jihadis are playing our game, we have set the tune and they are dancing. If they do nothing, Iraq becomes a secular democracy, they lose, and they know it and they are scared to death of such a thing. If they are forced to leave their comfy enclaves around the world and go to iraq, where they will be killed in large numbers, where they are not welcome by most of the local populace, and where after being chased continually by the US and ratted out by the same locals will get tired and try to go home, only to be met by restrictions to their travel from their one time helpful host governments. The Jihadis are now forced to kill Islamic people ( not jews, or infidels) at an increased rate to be able just to operate in that formally safe country. The irony is not lost on me that the same islamists that insisted that we could not invade afghanistan during Ramadan because it would "inflame the arab street", now hide behind the holiday to give their attacks some from of legitimacy. I dont think its lost on the Islamic world either.

We are killing the jihadis faster thn they can be replaced by drawing them out in one place that we can move freely. We are drawing them into a place where they stand out from the local populace and thus can be eliminated or outright captured to provide more intelligence to their operations back in their host countries.

This is much smarter more effective strategy that trying to send in swat teams into 50 countries around the world.

To paraphrase JFK: "Let them come to Iraq"

Posted by frank martin 2003-11-3 11:40:46 AM|| 2003-11-3 11:40:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 "Iraq was just a country bog down in misery due to US sanctions and in no position to form any danger to anyone."

-actually it was UN Sanctions, and they were a danger to their own citizenry.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-3 11:47:55 AM|| 2003-11-3 11:47:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I enjoy the liberty of not being prejudged because of being an American, British or Iraqi.

LOL! Where on earth do you get that idea? We all carry our prejudiced baggage around with us, but most people in here try to leave as much of it as they can at the door, whereas you swan around with your anti-American, anti-UK, anti-secular rucksack sitting proud on your shoulders and full-to-bursting with cliche and dogma. Apparently you're the only one who can't see it.

Maybe because I am anti-war I am a bit prejudged I wont deny. The Americans and Britons however are seeing their countries of being in the right just because they blind themselves with nationalistic feelings.

Can't dismiss it as easily as that ol' boy. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and tyrant who destroyed his own once-proud country through senseless wars, embezzlement of the national wealth, and imposing a culture of terror and suspicion on his people. He attempted genocide against the Kurds, and attempted to eradicate the Marsh Arabs (and was stopped only by the US and others who protected these people by imposing no-fly zones). He invaded two neighbouring countries and in the process killed millions. Only a force led by the US liberated Kuwait and restored her sovereignty, and pervented further Iraq military campaigns. His regime divided the country and he, his family and his cronies behaved with a level of depravity unusual even by the standards of the Middle East. Invading Iraq with the sole purpose of removing Saddam and replacing the Ba'athists with a representative government was the best thing that could be done for Iraq. Supporting the war was right, and of that there is no logical counter-argument to that, that does not entail leaving the Iraqi population to continue their miserable existence or worsen it. Nevertheless, it's what you were opposed to. So cry me a crocodile-tear river.

What right do they have, did Iraq posses WMD, if yes where are they.

Did you believe that Iraq had no WMD, before the war? Nobody doubted it. Most people still don't. Saddam's not turned up yet either - didn't he exist either? Either the WMD are well-hidden, were destroyed, or were spirited out of the country during the many months' advance warning Saddam had before the war began.

Did Iraq have any guild in 9/11, if yes where is the prove, even Bush admitted no links existed.

That's totally irrelevant. 9-11 wasn't the justification for the war.

Iraq was just a country bog down in misery due to US sanctions and in no position to form any danger to anyone.

As SW pointed out, Murat, that's UN sanctions. UN. Get it? UN. Suffering caused by sanctions, and Saddam's syphoning off what was left for himself, was the fault of the UN. Sanctions imposed because Saddam reneged on the cease-fire conditions after the First Gulf War. The US could have resumed hostilities a lot sooner than 2003, and put an end to the UN-imposed sanctions and all that suffering. Is that what you'd have preferred? Also, as SW pointed out, Iraq under Saddam remained a threat to its own people, and it also remained a threat to its neighbours, not least of which, Israel.

Sorry but I don't see the US and Britain as liberators at all, al the propaganda about WMD turned out empty balloons.

You're entitled to your disgustingly unsympathetic attitude towards the ordinary citizens of a neighbouring country, and it's what I've come to expect from you. You opposed the war because you supported Saddam. You supported Saddam because he was in opposition to the US, and for that you were prepared to the excuse him all manner of barbarity and cruelty towards ordinary, faceless Iraqis whose plights you weren't interested in. You chose to ignore what really constitutes evil because your prejudice against America has blinded you to it. And you speak only for yourself, and care only for yourself. That's what it means to have been anti-war.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-3 12:47:40 PM|| 2003-11-3 12:47:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "We are killing the jihadis faster thn they can be replaced by drawing them out in one place that we can move freely."

You know, this (the "flypaper theory") seems complete bull to me. It seems founded on the idea that there's a finite number of terrorists (or jihadis) out there, and that providing them with a cause somehow takes them away from their remaining "causes".

You can be pretty sure that any action (e.g. the invasion of Iraq) that convinces jihadis to leave their own countries so as to fight abroad is at the same time an action that creates atleast as many *new* jihadis from the nearly unlimited basis of support in the Arabic/muslim populations.

This isn't a finite number of terrorists/jihadis fighting that we should be glad huge numbers of them are heading to Iraq. That's like being glad of Soviet Union becoming communist or whatever, because that means a smaller number of communists will remain to trouble the rest of the world. Bull, bull, bull.

Now, if a great number of jihadis were suddenly *afraid* or unwilling to act in Iraq, then I could very well believe that an equally large number of the population in other countries would be unwilling or afraid to ever *turn* jihadi.

So... any reason whatsoever to think that recruitment of jihadis/terrorists has gone down in Arabic states after the invasion of Iraq?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-3 1:00:20 PM|| 2003-11-3 1:00:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Aris,

An even better point is that the "flypaper" strategy and the "rebuilding Iraq" strategy would seem to be prima facie contradictory.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2003-11-3 1:17:52 PM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2003-11-3 1:17:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Did Iraq have any guild in 9/11, if yes where is the prove, even Bush admitted no links existed.

Uh, so what? Is there a point here?

Posted by Raj 2003-11-3 1:30:48 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2003-11-3 1:30:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I have no problem with a partitioned Iraq. Screw the current Iraqi borders. If those in the south want to be Iranian, have at it, prayers at noon. If they want to be free, we do that well. Kurdistan invaded by Turkey, not over US military protection. Hell, they would rather benifit from Kurdish oil exports. Those Kurds in Turkey will do well when Kurdistan welcomes them home with good jobs. Sunniland with it's capitol in Bagdad, maybe a divided Bagdad like Berlin, as a mecca for terroist, now there is a target rich enviroment. If Sunnilanders wants to have it's Nazi's back, let them. It wont be long until they commit suicide. I fully support our efforts to take dowm saddam, but we don't have to slaveishly remake that pisshole. When can help those who will help themselves.

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-3 1:34:49 PM|| 2003-11-3 1:34:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Well, we COULD just turn the Kurds loose, and let Turkey reap it's whirlwind...

Posted by mojo 2003-11-3 1:48:47 PM|| 2003-11-3 1:48:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I've been having a hard time deciding how to label Moo-Rat. Either he's a dairy farmer, or a goatherder - He's always so full of bullshit, but then he bleats a lot, too. I've finally opted for Moo-rat - a half-assed know-nothing that's full of bulls$$$.

William Safire is a cautious old man who has a hard time getting a grasp on what's actually taking place. He's been in the Washington, DC, area far too long for clear thinking. I read articles similar to this from other pundits four months ago. Safire's finally getting a bit of a clue.

IF you really want to see what's happening in Iraq, you don't listen to the paid pundits. There is more than enough information in the blogosphere to provide some very definite data - from both Iraqis and soldiers in Iraq, and from people around the world who are keeping very close eyes on every little bit of information.

Two points: the majority of the problems currently bugging both the people and the coalition are in the Sunni Triangle. We're slowly coming to grips with that reality, and hopefully, soon, some young officer will have the guts to say "we need to do this". The current battle plan isn't working, and the guys actually implementing it are the ones who probably can come up with a solution for correcting the problem. No matter how or when, or who comes up with the idea, sometime, probably within the next couple of months, the correction WILL be implemented. Watch the Sunni body-count go through the roof when that happens. Second point, the US needs more boots on the ground in the Sunni Triangle. They don't necessarily need to be US boots. Maybe they'll be Japanese or Korean boots - if so, the Sunnis are going to learn a very HARSH lesson, very quickly. Those troops don't play nice - they play to win.

We're winning the war of attrition, too. The number of people going to Iraq to "make jihad" almost equals the number of jihadis killed. Pretty soon, the tipping point will be reached, and there will be more dead jihadis than infiltrators. It won't take long after that to end the constant barrage of terrorist acts against US forces.

The more I think about Safire's words and Moo-rat's comments, the more I see how they appeal to each other. What a couple! May I be excused to throw up now???

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-3 2:38:46 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-3 2:38:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 It may make more sense to consider the bombing in Beruit as the first shot of WWIII. Looking at the conflict as continuous it makes the losses in Somalia less of a waste. Military.com has this article that provides some grieving advice for spouses: look behind but don't stare. The story of the kid's school project is tough to read. We are passing it around the assembly line where I work.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-3 2:53:27 PM|| 2003-11-3 2:53:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Were there an infinte number of Sioux? Apache? Mafiosi? German Nazis?, Confederates?,Japanese Imperiaists? in their time, each of these people were wrapped in cloak of invinciblity, and given powers well beyond their means.

We need not paint the Jihadis has 10 foot tall supermen. They are a criminal enterprise, more in tune with the 'barbary pirates' of 200 years ago. The natural desire of the leftists to paint all anti-civilization forces with powers of moral superiorty is just evidence of their asininity. We need not attribute to them powers they do not have. I doubt there are as many Jihadis as we would think there is. I would have to be a racist ( as I suspect "murat" is) to believe that all Arabs are jihadis, I would have to be a bigot ( again, as I believe "murat" is) to believe that all of Islam is bent towards Jihad.

To paraphrase Enrico Fermi, "if there are so many, why are they so hard to find"?

The question is, How are you going to fight them? I do believe that some of you really do not consider what it will mean to lose this war against civilization. This is not a war of choice of political systems between the communists and the capitalists for example, in that war, what saved us all was that in the end, both sides wanted to live. We could count on the Soviets actually desiring to live and fight another day. What we all have to understand is that the enemy we are fighting today does not want to live, they want to kill us, all of us, not just the 'right' or the "left", but all of us. There is no 'peaceful coexistance' out there awaiting for us. They, the Jihadis, cannot exist if we exist. Its that simple.

So, the question for you is this :

How do you fight them? How do you eliminate them as a threat to our lives?

and remember, we can't afford to lose or to experiment with "shiny happy talk". I suggest you look at 10,000 years of human history for your inspiration. And remember, they is no peace without capitulation. Someone has to 'give up', and decide to live a different way.

Heres a few approaches to the problem that have been tried:

1) Give up.

Thats right, surrender. Drop support of Israel, remove all military assets, no longer support the 'peace process' in the middle east.

Just say its impossible and run away. Im sure it will all work its way out, besides what right do we have to interfere? Please visit the holocaust museum nearest you when you consider this approach. This war is no longer about 'the jews',its about us. the Jihadis make no delination between us and the Jews, we are all infidels. If we allow the jihadis to 'deal with the jews', how can we stop them if they decide to go after someone else? Will it be our business then? At what point are we compelled to act?

2) Hide behind your shores

Well, if we just stay home they wont kill us. Since theres all that open land on Mahattan island where the WTC used to be, we should have plenty of room to put all of our once overseas military assets. This plan worked really well in the past. until we forced the Japanese to go to war against us. (They were victims of our imperialst schemes you know, "why do the japs hate us?" my grandfather used to ask......).

3) Arrest them, put them in a world court tribual.

Sure, I'm positive that the governments of the world will cooperate as they have done in the past. Why, look at what fine job the milosevic trials have done in europe.

4) kill them all, let God sort them out.

Well - I have to admit this did occur to me on September 11th, the idea of unleashing all of those OHIO class nuclear submarines was mighty appealing. Much as I want to start flattening everything from Morocco to Malaysia, Im afraid my Capitalist Imperialist Military-Industrial heart cant quite stomach the act of killing BILLIONS of people, when I know that only about 400,000 are actually my enemy.

What we will likely do is put our men an women at risk, spend money and time being 'surgical' in our apprach. How devious of us. How "civilized".

<<>>

We are winning this battle, and we will win this war. We have met this challenge before and we will succeed again.

Posted by frank martin 2003-11-3 3:10:43 PM|| 2003-11-3 3:10:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Frank ^5's you wrapped that up into a neat little package. Those idiots chanting anti-war slogans two weeks ago would be the FIRST that the Jihadis would want dead. I do agree that not all Moslems want to go kill infidels but you forget the fence sitters in this game. There is a LARGE number of undecided in Iraq that could care less whom rules the country, only that it not be an infidel. They wonât take up arms against us, but they wonât stop people who do. We need to win this group over but so far we have had little to offer them.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-3 3:47:16 PM|| 2003-11-3 3:47:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Three points: (1) A terrorist is someone who generally targets civilians. Its a job title. If they attack military target it doesn't make them a terrorist, but it doesn't disqualify them from being terrorists either. (ii) The big news here is not that the article is interesting, or newsworthy, but that it was printed in the New York Times. (iii) Murat, you have no baggage from being American or British or Iraqi but you do have some serious baggage from being anti-American with every letter you type, practically masterbating at the thought of American military casualties.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-3 4:30:57 PM|| 2003-11-3 4:30:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Uh, Bulldog, I actually pointed out the UN sanction thing. SW pointed out the terrorists deserving death upon capture.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-3 5:02:32 PM|| 2003-11-3 5:02:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 frank martin> You go on a tangent, but nothing you wrote has any relevance to my point -- namely that the "flypaper" tactic doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

I don't remember in any Cold War conflict to actually *want* communists to come into a country just so that fewer communists remain doing mischief in their own ones. Perhaps my knowledge is lacking or something. I don't remember the Allies wanting the Nazis to annex Austria so that fewer Nazis remain in Germany. And yet that's exactly what you seem to be discussing. That if Islamofascists come looking for trouble in Iraq, fewer would remain in places like Yemen or Saudi Arabia or whatever.

"Were there an infinte number of Sioux? Apache? Mafiosi? German Nazis?, Confederates?,Japanese Imperiaists?"

You'll find out that in all those examples, the entirety of Germany, Japan, Confederate South, etc, needed to be occupied, not just a small piece of it from which we "could drain the swamp" by luring fighter to come attack us away from their homes.

No such occupation can occur with the entirety of the Arabian nations, the same way it couldn't occur with the entirety of the Warsaw Pact nations. Just as was the case with communism, the fight against islamofascism is a war of ideologies, not a nationalistic conflict where a single enemy government or single enemy leader can be defeated and his country occupied. Or even a single group of people.

It's with that reasoning that creating an Iraqi "flypaper" doesn't make any sense to me.
How does giving the jihadis one more cause help defeat their ideology?

Of course the invasion of any muslim nation would have created and lured those jihadis. It's inevitable. I'm not saying that this would have sufficed as a reason to cancel the War on Iraq. What I'm saying though is that it's one of the negatives, not one of the positives of the Iraq invasion, as you seem to be bizarrely claiming.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-3 6:19:15 PM|| 2003-11-3 6:19:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Please accept my apologies, Jarhead.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-3 6:35:51 PM|| 2003-11-3 6:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 It's with that reasoning that creating an Iraqi "flypaper" doesn't make any sense to me.
How does giving the jihadis one more cause help defeat their ideology?

It's not giving them a cause that helps defeat them - there's no shortage of causes around world, ranging from Chechnya to East Turkistan - it's showing them that the US, like Russia and China, will not be deterred by Muslim terror attacks. We will also topple the governments that sponsor them, not necessarily simultaneously, but one government at a time. (Note that almost 16 months went by between the toppling of the Taliban and the war in Iraq. I would expect the next campaign to occur no later than 2005). Jihadis have had no shortage of causes over the years - everywhere they've retreated, they've been defeated by superior force, including the numerous jihads against Israel.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-11-3 7:07:58 PM|| 2003-11-3 7:07:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Ultimately, what we are trying to destroy is a sentiment that still exists in many Muslim minds - the hope of defeating us via terrorist attacks. We are in the business of extinguishing the hope of Muslim victory in the same way that Lord Kitchener destroyed the hope invested in a Muslim Messiah (Mahdi) in the Sudan almost 100 years ago.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-11-3 7:12:45 PM|| 2003-11-3 7:12:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Some Japs were still ready to fight on even after Nagasaki. They felt they could handle that much damage and continue the struggle. Lee only needed to get some chow for his army after fleeing Richmond and he would have carried on. Mead offered President Lincoln a great victory after Gettysburg, Lincoln could have cold-cocked him, "You ass, the war goes on, It is Lee's army I want." The Germans needed total devastation to pacify them. Sunniland is waiting to feel the truth, they think they can take what we have so far handed out. Well, "those people" seem to think that they are safe enough. Mr Bush, I know you check in to Rantburg, how could you not, please finish the Iraqi campaign. Please finish this war quickly. It is not a great battle victory we want. It's Islam's army. Kill it!

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-3 8:02:50 PM|| 2003-11-3 8:02:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Quick Aris! what was the first country we invaded in WWII? France? Italy? nope.

Morocco(operation torch). Why? They never declared war on us, they werent going anywhere, they were no threat to us!

We invaded Morocco because it was in the way. We needed it as a beachhead to attack our enemies, the Axis powers. Morocco, occupied by the Vichy French were marginally aligned with our enemies. There was no connection at all between Vichy France and the attack on Pearl Harbor, but we invaded and took the country anyway. Why? Bacasue it was the smart move.

Iraq, is also in the way. Iraq is also a beachhead. We now have the borders of both Iran and Syria, both countries host bodies for the islamo-fascist terror parasite networks. With our troops now encamped on those borders, we are now able to operate clandestine operatives into both countries and to gather the one thing we have been in short supply, real intelligence operatives on the ground to find out whats going on, and to perhaps, tip things over our way. Spying is a game of relationships, you need to know people. You cant get to "know " people from a satellite up in space. I suspect that Iran will fall in this fashion, from the inside, with our operatives, courtesy of the easy routes now in place in Iraq. ( and I think it will be very soon)

I dont think the Jihadis are communists or anything like them. They are criminals, a better comparison could be made to the mafiosa of sicily or yakusa of Japan.

The Jihadis survive because they can intimdate their local governments and populace; "do what we say or we will blow up your stuff". This was the exact goal of the 9/11 attacks. Did 9/11 effect our miltary ability to wage war, did 5,000 deaths impede our ability to survive?; Hardly. but it did put the fear into many small marginal governments they "if they can get the Americans, they can get me". That kind of fear and intimidation their own populace is what feeds the Jihahdis.

You ever wonder why Saudi Arabia has millions of miles of pipelines and refineries spread out wide open desert, but pipelines are ever blown in SA?

Simple - Because the Saudi family buys these guys off.

Thats how its done in every country in Africa, and even some European countries ."Do what you want to the infidel, but leave us in peace- heres your honorarium to the madrassas", they say.

The world held its breath after 9/11. Some in fear of the rage we would enact on the world, innocents and guilty alike. Many more were in fear that we would do nothing.

We did act. We didnt send the USS Los Angeles to target Syria and Iraq and turn their cities into fused glass, as I honestly expected in the cold days after 9/11. We have instead done it judicially and surgically. Despite having weapons of ulitmate distruction, we have chosen to not use them. We now routinely drop concrete and not explosives, in the goal of not killng anymore than we need to. We are the first Power in history to spend billions of dollars making weapons LESS distructive. What kind of people would do that?

The Jihadis are now stuck with a different 'inner dialog"; fight the Americans - and die. There are many in the world, even our own country, who are not convinced of our resolve, and I have no doubt that the Jihadis are testing that resolve.

I ask anyone who doubts that Americans will stand and fight and sacrifice for the right things to go to the cemetary in Gettysburg. Unlike Vietnam, We have no choice this time but to fight. The question of whether or not to fight was solved on 9/11, the only question now is - how and where. I prefer to take the war to them. I believe that we are better off attracting them to fight in Iraq, instead of letting them attack LA harbor. I believe its very hard to run an extortion ring in Tunis, and control of the local city government if all your "muscle boys" are in Iraq, "fighting the infidel". By waging a war in Iraq, we can in some ways starve out the Jihadis.

They have their weaknesses, and we should exploit them.
<<>>
( BTW : I've never used the term "flypaper",thats something youve brought to the dialog. Its my belief that our strategy against terror has many levels and methods.From my perspective, we are doing amazingly well, my estimate was that we would lose 5 to 7,000 troops in the initial occupation of Iraq. I know its tought to watch bad things happen, but I also know we are at war. and "War is all hell and it cannot be refined". We are at war not for ideology or "oil" but for nothing short of survival. I pray every day for it to end, but I also pray for total victory. )

Posted by Frank Martin 2003-11-3 8:22:51 PM|| 2003-11-3 8:22:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Good thread, guys.

Posted by Matt 2003-11-3 8:40:27 PM|| 2003-11-3 8:40:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 No sweat Bulldog, it's just that I don't come up w/many good ones so gotta get the credit when I can bro!

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-3 10:38:11 PM|| 2003-11-3 10:38:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Great summarization of what a lot of us think Frank M. Thanks. BTW - unless my history is off, didn't we go into Guadalcanal before Torch?

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-3 10:44:30 PM|| 2003-11-3 10:44:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 We did, I just dont think of it as a country-style entity. I believe it was a territory of Australia at the time. I also think we occupied Iceland before Morocco, but it was a mutual defense thing.

I actually think, from a military standpoint and place in history, Iraq is very similar to Guadalcanal. The Jihadis have to hold it, and we cant afford to let them keep it. Considering how bloody guadalcanal was , can you imagine how the modern day sensitivities to casualties would be if we face a battle of that magnitude? I think I mentioned it earlier, but I expected it to be 5-7,000 KIA going into Iraq, so even though every death is a tragedy, when all our KIA could fit the seats of one 737, by comparison to something like the bloodbath of guadalcanal, it makes you wonder.

Posted by Frank Martin 2003-11-3 11:26:14 PM|| 2003-11-3 11:26:14 PM|| Front Page Top

07:18 B
03:09 Anonymous
23:48 tipper.
23:38 Traveller
23:37 tipper.
23:37 Anonymous
23:34 badanov
23:27 mojo
23:26 Frank Martin
23:19 badanov
23:10 Frank G
23:06 Frank G
23:00 Robert Crawford
22:59 Frank G
22:59 Robert Crawford
22:58 Robert Crawford
22:54 Robert Crawford
22:54 Frank G
22:53 Frank G
22:50 Fred
22:48 Jarhead
22:47 CrazyFool
22:46 Old Grouch
22:44 Jarhead