One difference between here and there is the manner and reason the violence is being conducted. There’re apparently signs of organization and coordination in the attacks on a scale rarely seen in used the US on law enforcement officers. Second, the use of fatal force is done in the name of a country, (even if only ostensibly). Violence against law enforcement officials is by and large engaged in to advance personal/private interests. A third improtant difference is the nature of the weaponry in use. I don’t recall the last time I heard of RPGs being fired at our city’s finest.
So, given that the violence is being conducted with tactics consistent with warfare, conducted for reasons consistent with warfare, and with implements consistent with warfare, I’d say it was a duck.
The press talk about law enforcement woes every single day. The headline stories, every single day, are about crime and when officers are injured in the line of duty it at least makes local headlines.
In regards to crime, Lawmakers constantly talk about stiffer sentences for offenders. Prison/Jail population tops 2,000,000. The issue is out in the open and it is discussed.
Now, if George Bush claimed that we have won the “war on crime” and that it is over, you may have a minor point if the media was not calling him on it. But he did not do this.
You are comparing apples and toyotas. In other words, I cannot even give you the points for talking about different types of fruits.
I don’t see how anyone cannot call this a guerilla war. Just this morning on CNN:
U.S. military vehicle hits landmine- 2 injured.
Grenade attack on U.S. vehicle, 1 dead, 1 injured.
Major pipeline destroyed, allegedly by anti-american guerillas.
Shiite protests against Americans. (these are the group we were supposed to have freed, now even the oppressed masses under Saddam are protesting us)
Vows by an underground “Iraqi Commando” unit to kill Americans. One for every Iraqi person they have hurt or humiliated.
U.S. Troops arresting and placing in custody 500+ suspected dissidents in the last few weeks.
These are all of the signs of a guerilla war. Please let me know how I am wrong on this?
Remember, my points are not designed to discredit the soldiers, they are trying to stay safe. What I am trying to point out is that GWB called this a victory and has moved on. It is not even close to being over and if we leave now to reduce casulaties, Saddam, or someone worse, will be in power in a few months.
Also, the point about Afghanistan is correct. True, we have scaled back our forces to avoid any issues, but as a result of this we have allowed the country-side to be totally uncontrolled. The groups we went over to eradicate are still active and they are controlling vast parts of the country. If we put enough troops in that theatre to quell these problems, it would be the same thing as Iraq (if not worse). The Soviets learned that a long time ago.
(Disavowal: I am not a Saddam fan.)
I think Aldebaran says a lot of things which are very true.
The days when an England or a France or a Germany, and now a USA, could just go about conquering other countries, with their big guns and superior warfare, for all kinds of self-righteous causes, and keep these lands subdued, are forever over.
My suggestion is that the USA for its own safety from the Muslim world must go back to square one. Start again with enlisting the anthropologists to find out what’s bugging the Muslim world against the USA, and what can be done.
So far it has employed only political ideologues, military strategists, ‘free’ market economists, and imperialist enthusiasts, maybe also Christian scenario-ists, to arrive at peace with and acceptance from the Muslim world. This policy is not working and will not work.
Unless of course the USA believes that it can continue to push ahead, going about with its big guns and superior warfare, to beat down Muslim vindicators into sheepish submission, whatever the costs in repeated and accelerated and magnified terrorism from the Muslim world, whatever the armageddon of the clash of civilization between Muslims and Christians.
USA has cornered itself. They should have waited for UN. (2 additional months? - half a year?, more than 45 minutes anyhow).
Now it has asked a lot of countries, not only India, if they could send troops to Iraq. They asked also my country, Finland for troops.
We have a law that forbids us to send troops over our borders unless UN asks for it.
I see only 2 options:
USA begins a massive operation in Iraq, more soldiers to cover more expertise for water, electricity, hospitals, what-ever humanitarian. This means a lot of money. Shortly to try cool down the situation. Also more Iraquian police-forces (which I think means more foreigners trying to secure that the police is not turning against the USA, begin to rob the Iraqian people etc.
Go to UN and do everything above.
Maybe there is also other options, but I think the UN option is in this given situation the best.
USA is the biggest power in the world. It can attack any country, but can’t even keep one under control, if that one is from a totally different culture.
It is also obvious that the troops never got any education about the culture they were to free.
It seem also obvious that ‘only in the western countries’ there are people that are ‘patriots and defends their country’?
It seem not surprise anyone that the press calls them “rags-what-ever” or “die-hard-baathists”.
Imagine the situation where You have been “freed” and You think that You would be occupied, and they would call You “die-hard-reps” or “-dems”?
Btw. if I would be in Your country, what-ever that might be, that would be near my culture, when it would be occupied…
Well, I would most probably be building together with You bombs.
Or anyhow I would try to get You whatever You need for Your fight.
Yes, we would be called terrorists…
Logic? No?