I’m completely baffled by the attitude of the people who keep stating that the torture and abuse of people at Abu Ghraib was nothing special, and besides was only being carried out on hardened terrorists who more than deserve any bad treatment they may receive. So far, apparently, not a single prisoner there has been formally charged with a specific crime (feel free to correct me if this is not so), and both the ICRC and the captors themselves are in full agreement that well more than half the persons imprisoned there were in fact no danger to anyone. If this is not so, why are so many to be released?
I fully expect that at some point it will become apparent that similar abuses have occurred at the Gauntanamo Bay detention facility, as well as other, less-well known prison camps.
But up until the beginning of April, our overall strategy in the WoT had seemed clear, whether or not one regarded Iraq as part of the WoT, and whether or not one regarded the war in Iraq as a good idea.
The idea was to isolate the terrorists within the Islamic world, sufficiently winning hearts and minds in that world so that the vast majority of Muslims would regard al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations as their enemies rather than their allies. Such isolation would enable US and Western intelligence services to find allies in the Islamic world that would help them track down and capture/destroy al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers.
Anyone think I’m way off on this, or is that pretty much how everyone here understood the plan?
Now, before I continue, I’d like to say that I opposed our invasion of Iraq, and regard it as neither part of, nor completely separate from, the War on Terror. Rather, I see it as an enterprise that had interfered with and to a great extent undermined the War on Terror, even if we don’t consider the events of the past six or seven weeks and the revelations of the past 2+ weeks.
But you can at least make an argument that if the real world and the neocon fantasy world were somewhat similar, the War in Iraq could have dovetailed with the War on Terror - in that we could have won over Iraqi and Islamic hearts and minds by getting rid of one of the nastiest dictators in their world, freeing his people, and bringing self-determination to their nation. This would have provided clear and tangible evidence of our good will towards the Islamic world, thereby contributing towards the ‘winning hearts and minds’ part of the WoT.
But this would have required that our intent infuse our actions: that our responses to assaults on peace and order be narrowly focused on those who fomented violence, even if we paid a price in lives lost; and that our reconstruction and democratization efforts put Iraqi well-being and progress towards self-determination and self-sufficiency first, and that we set aside things like our desire to determine for Iraqis things like what sort of tax and tariff structures they should have.
So now we come to al-Zarqawi’s savage murder of Nick Berg.
The thing about genuine Bad Guys is that - get this - they’re bad. They’re going to be bad and do bad things, unless good people prevent them from doing so. I can write a letter to the editor complaining about the evils of bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, or whomever, but what’s it going to change? They’re not going to change their actions in response to American public opinion. Meanwhile, the appropriate branches of the U.S. government are presumably already doing all they can to track these guys down, and capture or kill them. If they didn’t seem so inclined, then I’d put pressure on my government, the U.S. government, to do so. And that gets me to one key point.
From my point of view as an American citizen, the actor I have the opportunity to influence is my government. Not al-Qaeda, not al-Zarqawi, but the U.S.A.
So, in the case of Nick Berg, how should I try to influence my government?
Second, I’m going to insist we keep our tactics in line with our strategery: that of winning (or at least not alienating) hearts and minds.
IOW, if we can track down Zarqawi and kill him, then let’s do it. But the New York Post’s editorial (with extra carriage returns removed) says:
And this isn’t talking about a surgical strike at this particular murderer and his henchmen. This is talking about bringing in enough troops to overpower the insurgents in Fallujah, and the al-Sadr brigade as well, and then crushing them.
Yeah, that’ll teach Zarqawi a lesson, alright. He’ll be laughing his fucking head off, when our sowing the wind causes us to reap yet another whirlwind in Iraq, with the whole frickin’ country rising up at that point to bodily throw us out.
I’ll be damned if I know what this has to do with Berg’s murder. All it really has to do with is the continued conflation of Iraqi resistance to our continued occupation of their country with the terrorist actions and plans of al-Qaeda.
And it totally loses sight of what ‘winning’ is. ‘Winning’ is exiting Iraq in a way that doesn’t give bin Laden’s recruiting pitches any more new material than we absolutely have to, and retains what remaining good will we still have in the Islamic world. So that there will come another day when that world thinks better of us than they do of terrorists such as al-Qaeda, and we have a chance to fight a war against such terrorist organizations that doesn’t create new terrorists faster than we capture and kill the old ones.
Every coalition force in Iraq should be in AFGHANISTAN. Remember those guys? Remember the Taliban? Remember the international headquarters of Al Quaid? :smack:
We don’t have the will to keep up the fight there because we don’t have the man power. They can send in guys to fuck with us in Iraq because we didn’t finish Afghanistan first.
I suspect we’ll find out in about 4-6months, after we turn the country over to whoever at the end of June and then slowly begin pulling our troops out. Along about October our Fearless Leader will once again be able to confidently stride before the Ah-mur-kin public and say “Mission Accomplished.” And if we find that Americans don’t have the hearts and minds to continue the fight, it will probably be becasue we’ve come to the realization that we had no business there in the first place.
If any sort of backwards ME newspaper or whatever would have published such an “article” regarding the US, and even one single US media would discover it, it would be in no time all over the US media under titles such as
JIHAD!!!
and described as : "See how they preach killing everyone in the USA!!
Yet when a US media publishes such crap, you find US’ers who applaud it and support it and advocate whatever torture possible to do as those “thugs” (seen the average stage of non-education about the region in the US, as being meant to be “All Arab Thugs”)
And then you people wonder why the world looks with unbelief and contempt at the mass of the US citizen that is incapable to detect its own hypocrisy and double standard reasoning. Which is the TM of the US governments since decades in a row.
You’re assuming moral equilavancy between the US and the terrorists there is none.
The author is calling for a renewed attack against those who try to kill Americans, not against all Arabs. The terrorists are trying to kill all Americans, not just the Bushies (they’d prefer innocent civillians because they’re easier to get than the military folks). If innocent Iraqis die as a result of the author’s proposal, it would not be because people tried to kill them - on the contrary, efforts are always made to minimize casualties.
A silly proposal, maybe. The same as the terrorists, definitely not.
Can we really let comments by overly emmotional Americans represent all of us?
If we do then we might be stupid enough to let the actions of a group of masked Arabs represent everyone in Iraq.
By “the world’s most hated individual” I assume you are talking about Ossama Bin Laden. If so, I doubt he qualifies. At this point in time, George Bush probably leads the race for that title.
Olentzero forgive me if I’m being dense, but I’m understanding the form of your post above as inplying that it is a statement that actually appeared in the editorial linked to by Reeder.
I am unable to find it. If that is because it isn’t there, but is merely what you view as a logical extrapolation of what is there, please advise. Otherwise, please point ot the paragraph I should be looking in.
Newspaper editorials are not bylined if the management wants them to represent a pronouncement of the full moral authority of the paper, not just some individual staffer’s say-so. That said, the *NY Post * is owned by Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation, of whom you must have heard. He is most certainly not a Democrat. Draw your own inferences about his vengefulness or his neocon credentials.
BubbaDog, your points are almost all dead on, except for the one about Iraq trying to assassinate GHW Bush. That story turns out to have been a fabrication by Kuwaiti intelligence.
Zebra, is Al Quaid the less-successful brother of Randy and Dennis Quaid?
Well, I’d probably calm down a lot more, dear, once you kindly take your condescending metaphorical arm from off my shoulder and shove it up your ass. (Sigh! There’s nothing a quote from The Four Seasons can’t fix.)
LOL, no, I really don’t. I think it’s much more untoward to have a problem with emotions being high while talking about death, violence, and the possible destruction of our future. If this shit doesn’t make you angry, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
I’m upset because you and others are spouting the same tired old canards that have been refuted months ago. But you’re too lazy reading the talking points from BushCo and Limbaugh to think for yourself and learn some real facts.
And reading this sort of crap gets fucking tiring, yo.
The Post editorial was talking about going after a dozen guys who commited an atrocity against one man by resuming full invasion mode in Iraq, a mode that killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians.
Right. I’m the one who’s lost perspective.
I guess that’d be the place where you brought up bin Laden and al Qaeda in a discussion about Iraq.
You need to get glasses, then, because it is indeed a stretch. People who are geopolitically aware (or who at least read books other than The Way Things Ought To Be) can see the inescapable, irreconcilable incompatibility between religious wackos and secular wackos. Bin Laden (the religious wacko) hates Sadaam (the secular wacko). HATES him. Osama’s goal is to form a Caliphate, an empire entirely ruled by his particularly foul flavor of fundamentalist religion. Sadaam doesn’t meet his criteria. To arch-religious fruitcakes like Osama, having a common enemy is not enough to make Sadaam “good people.”
Y’know, even if one can’t be bothered to inform oneself of these fundamental differences in ideologies and goals, at least use your logic. Was it just a coincidence that al Qaeda couldn’t take root in Iraq while Sadaam was still there? If Sadaam and Osama were really best friends 4eva, why weren’t Osama’s homies hanging out in Baghdad, instead of waiting until we thoughtfully cleared the way for them?
… Oops! You forgot to add “falsely” in there. You remember that part? The part that this was a FALSE BELIEF? Brought on by lies and/or obfuscations, or (I’ll be generous here) an honest mistake brought on by really craptastic intelligence?
Jesus fucking christ, don’t you keep up with the news AT ALL?
And you wonder why I’m not “calm.” Because people like you keep perpetuating these utterly inaccurate fantasies long after they’ve been shown up to be myths. And then the cycle of ignorance continues.
(nods) … while we turned our backs, right, I’m with you so far …
BZZZT! Sorry, I gotta throw a flag on that play.
Okay buddy, be honest with me. You’ve been in a bubble, right? One of those hermetically sealed dealies that, for some reason, you have no access to books, newspapers, TV or the Web? 'Cause that’s the only explanation for someone to be so completely unaware that this “Iraq was trying to buy WMD technology!” meme has been debunked.
I know, it’s not nice to argue with a bubble boy. (Although for the record, it’s “moops,” not “moors.”)
So I’ll simply smile sweetly and ask: Cite? And please, NOT a cite from freerepublic or HannityLimbaughSavageDrudge.com, or the National American Spectator Enterprise Institute Review?
In the meantime, here’s a fun quiz to keep you occupied. Wanna know which country we know for an irrefutable fact has actually supplied WMD-related materials to Iraq, and not just through undercover backdoor operations but through its own government’s federally licensed private companies?
Wanna know which government was so, so very concerned about Iraq having WMDs that it took a company that sold WMD materials to Iraq for use in gassing his own people and … um … gave it some nice juicy contracts to help rebuild Iraq?
Hint: The answer’s already been posted.
A country’s leaders were interested primarily in money and power?! Heavens to Murgatroyd!!! Won’t someone think of the children?
Oh wait … this is different from George H.W. Bush and his sons … um, how, exactly?
Ahhh, I see. It all falls into place. You’re right, it made perfect sense to invade their country, kill thousands of citizens and set light to a powderkeg – not just before they sold the weapons to al Qaeda, but before they even showed the slightest inclination to be aligned with al Qaeda, and before they made the weapons so they could sell 'em, and before they even acquired the materials to make the weapons …
Sigh. Can someone please remind me when Bush hired Sylvia Browne to be his Middle East Policy Advisor?
Again, Iraq and its people – the ones who would suffer worst in the invasion advocated by The New York Compost – have fuck-all to do with al Qaeda and the bastards who murdered Berg. But you don’t care, the Post doesn’t care, Rush Limbaugh et al don’t care. You want blood and you want it NOW, no matter how much worse it makes things, no matter how many more innocents die. Faster, pussycat! Kill! Kill!
You’re right, you are an individual shitwit. Such an individual shitwit that you didn’t notice that I was talking to someone else.
:wally
Turning to others: Thanks Zoe and a big air kiss to American Maid. My first sig quote! Now I’ve really made it. I knew my hatred would make me famous one day.
'Cause it’s an editorial, not an op-ed piece.
OMG, that it would be, except that the Murdoch-owned New York Post isn’t exactly jam-packed with Democrats writing its editorials. (I suppose Ed Koch might be a guest editor now and then, but he’s a DINO – Democrat in Name Only.)
But hey, why let that stop us from imagining the potential comedy gold? Think of the hijinks that’d ensue if it turned out to have been written by Jimmy Carter himself. Or Nelson Mandela! Or – or Hillary! Or even Jesus!!!
What a shame it’s not going to happen. Fun thinking 'bout it, tho.