August 31, 2006
I Didn't Know This Was Going To Be On the Quiz...
But Dr. Perlmutter
gives me an "A" all the same:
I first talked about the blogger-driven battles over the Israel-Hezbullah war imagery in an essay for Editor & Publisher and then here and here in PBB.
And the controversy continues--with a constructive object lesson for us all.
I don't think blogs will replace big media, but the small blogger can, with moxie and smarts, shame the big boys and girls by doing the job that we trained the professionals to do in journalism school. Every good J-School teacher I know instructs her/his students to think, question and dig. Don't just accept the press release or the face value of an event. Scratch your head and ask: “Where can I go besides the usual sources to get the information that will better reveal the truth?”
Sometimes the answer is simple, and you think “Wow, why did nobody else think of that?” The answer is sadly that industrial journalism breeds laziness and routine. There are many hard working journalists out there; but the system undercuts their inventiveness and encourages them to walk the rut of what everybody else is doing.
Not so with the nimble, one wo/man blog enterprise. Consider the case of Mr. Bob Owens, aka, "ConfederateYankee."
As they say, read it all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:55 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
August 30, 2006
Hit-and-Run in California
I'm admittedly late to commenting on the story of 29-year-old Omeed Aziz Popal, an Afghan native that went on a
hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, wounding 14, after running down and killing a man in Freemont, California.
The immediate conclusion that some jumped to was that this was a Left Coast replay of March's Jeep Jihad in Chapel Hill, where Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar decided to run-down UNC-Chapel Hill students because he did not like how Americans were treating Muslims.
I don't think that the motives in this case are clear yet, but he had been reported missing three days ago, and there are early explanations range from saying that he was under a great deal of stress having recently gone through an arranged marriage in Afghanistan, to possibly being mentally ill by relatives.
If it is indeed the case that Popal's family sent a mentally ill man into an arranged marriage, I hope that the bride can get a mulligan. Somehow, I doubt his claimed history of mental illness was revealed to his new in-laws.
Michelle Malkin has the round-up.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:34 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Didn't we here something recently about a Muslim who killed jewish people in Seattle? Didn't they (the authorities and family members)also say he was "mentally ill"?
Posted by: Ray Robison at August 30, 2006 04:21 PM (CdK5b)
2
The
simplest way to evade being disliked is to mind your own business and keep
from giving good advice.
tubal reversal
Posted by: tubal reversal at December 31, 2012 10:16 AM (fmihR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 28, 2006
Israel Deploys Top Secret "Fast Rust" Missiles
Reuters claims this armored car was hit by two missiles from an Israeli helicopter.
As you can see, Isreal's new missiles are quite different than the standard Hellfire and TOW ATGMs of the past, both of which, designed for tanks, would have minced an armored car such as this one. Ths armored car is said to have been hit not once, but twice by missiles, and the only apparent damage is a hole that seems to be surrounded by rust. Corrosion, or explosion?
I think it is fairly obvious that if the Israelis did fire two missiles at this armor car, that the car did not take a direct hit. Tanks can't survive the ATGMs Israel uses on their helicopters, and armored cars have much thinner armor than tanks. It would have cut through one side, detonated, and left a shattered, burning hulk. There was no explosion, and even a dud would have completely punched through the vehicle, exiting the other side with a noticable hole. The photo below shows no such penetration on the opposite side.
Powerline has more. I'd consider the possibility of a near miss causing some damage, but this vehicle was not directly hit by any known missile, and I don't know of any weapons system that would cause a vehicle to apparently rust by the next morning.
To put it mildly, I view the Reuters claims of an successful pair of Israeli missile strikes on this vehicle as highly unlikely.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:29 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Oh for God's sake, the windows aren't even shattered.
They aren't even trying any more.
Posted by: monkeyboy at August 28, 2006 08:29 AM (w4rJE)
2
"highly unlikely" is a good way to state it. Understatement is fun.
Posted by: brando at August 28, 2006 08:36 AM (K+VjK)
3
Pretty cheesy "armored" truck. The damage looks like something done with a can opener. Maybe a near-miss from a case of UN-provided relief supplies.
Posted by: old_dawg at August 28, 2006 10:28 AM (mvlLy)
4
Is it possible that the vehicle was entirely rusted out, only to be painted over by Reuters hastily (w/o removing the rust), so that when it got hit, the blast simply ripped off the paint, exposing the pre-existing rust?
Posted by: Bret at August 28, 2006 11:17 AM (JHRJI)
5
If this is the damage that two anti-armor guided missiles do, then I'd say Israeli weaponry is not even as useful as the Hezbolla rockets.
Love the quick-rust chemical they add though. Those Jooz, what evil will they think of next?
Posted by: Mark at August 28, 2006 11:45 AM (+45yf)
6
What's amazing is they're puling this crap even after all the negative exposure they've received recently. And it's such lame crap. What are they thinking? And do you think they ever actually manage to do a good job faking the news? Imagine what they could accomplish with a little effort.
Posted by: Mark at August 28, 2006 12:00 PM (+45yf)
7
Two missle hits and this is the level of destruction? No one killed? After two explosive missle hits, the white paint is still white...
Who makes these vehicles and when can we rearm our troops in Iraq with them?
We would be invincible.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at August 28, 2006 01:02 PM (jHBWL)
8
Another reutered incident!
(I linked to your post but I don't know how to do trackbacks)
Posted by: Helmer Fudge at August 28, 2006 04:16 PM (bW9IA)
9
I wish Adnan Hajj was still around to help clear this matter up.
Posted by: jay at August 28, 2006 07:00 PM (UUITu)
10
Rust is commonly seen where explosives or high-velocity debris has made contact with steel. The phenomeon is known as heat oxidation. Look at any welding job, vehicle burned in a wildfire, or detonation of military ordnance, and oxidation is readily evident.
The nature of the hole in the roof of the Reuters vehicles is inconsistent with penetration by shrapnel. There would be more than one hole, a larger one surrounded by many smaller ones. This single hole, its shape and the initial gray color of the damage area are more consistent with a vehicle struck by a large piece of masonry striking the top of the vehicle at high velocity, possibly dislodged by a rocket blast. It is clear that the vehicle, itself, was not struck by missiles or rockets (there is an important distinction between the two).
I implore all bloggers who keep making an issue of rust in this case and that of the Qana ambulances to refrain from speculation. The media is thoroughly clueless about anything military, particularly weaponry. They will mix the terms rocket and missile without any inkling of the important distinctions, and they will claim that something "hit" a vehicle or other target when it actually just got close or was nearby. It is not necessarily dishobesty, but often inexcusable ignorance. Their credibility is gone. Please don't let the bloggers wind up in the same situation by wild speculation.
I do not like to use the term "expert" because it is overused and presumptuous but, for purpose of establishing credentials, I can be considered a subject matter expert on ordnance. delivery systems, military vehicles and weapons effects.
Credentials: 6 years USAF Armament Systems Technician
6 years USAF imagery interpretation with heavy BDA of targets
1 year Army Battlefield Intel Analyst
13 years Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) analysis
Ronald Lewis
MILITARY/OSINT ANALYST
Posted by: RONALD LEWIS at August 31, 2006 12:28 PM (xGZ+b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 25, 2006
Cluster Bomb Inquiry?
According to the
New York Times, the United States has initiated an investigation into the
use of cluster bombs in South Lebanon during the recent Israeli War against Hezbollah terrorists:
The State Department is investigating whether Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.
The investigation by the department's Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.
For those of you that might not be familiar with the concept of cluster munitions, they different than more traditional explosives in that instead of relying on one large explosive projectile or multiple large explosive projectiles to destroy a target, they deploy a shell or bomb containing many smaller grenade-like bombs (submunitions) over a wider area, saturating a larger area with one cluster munition, theoretically decreasing the number of large explosives needed to take out an area target, such as a troop concentration, or in this instance most likely in the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah, rocket-launching sites. It may be simpler to compare it to the difference between using a rifle and a shotgun.
The recognized downside of cluster munitions are two-fold:
- cluster munitions are designed as area weapons, and are not capable of a pin-point strike to their wide dispersal
- the submunitions in traditional cluster bombs have a failure rate of between 2%-4% according to my subject matter expert, John Donovan. this means that between 2% and 4% of the submunitions fail to explode, essentially "mining" the area struck with unexploded ordinance
This does not mean cluster bombs are "bad" any more than any other physical object can be "good" or "bad," but knowing the characteristics of such weapons prescribes how they should be used.
It is generally accepted conventional wisdom that cluster munitions are acceptable area munitions against area targets such as troop and enemy vehicle or supply concentrations and certain kinds of entrenched positions. They are recognized as being dangerous to use in areas where civilians may fall victim to the immediate widespread blast pattern, or may return to encounter unexploded submunitions before engineering units can dispose of them. It is also not advisable to use cluster munitions in areas where you expect that your own troops may advance, as these same submunitions could cause casualties to friendly troops.
It is worth noting that no munition of any design is "dud-proof," but cluster munitions are more prone to fail to detonate simply because they require a larger number of separate charges to work, and some more modern cluster submunitions are designed to self destruct to reduce risk to civilian and soldier alike.
Back to the Times article:
The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.
David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, “We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond.”
Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.
The agreements that govern Israel's use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970's, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.
A Congressional investigation after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.
Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.
The question seems to be precisely what the language of any such agreement would be, especially in how the agreement describes what constitutes "clearly defined military targets."
I'm merely pontificating here, but I suspect that if such an inquiry is underway, Israel will likely make the argument that a mobile missile launching platform constitutes a "clearly-defined military target." One could easily make a strong case that a mobile Katyusha rocket launcher away from a civilian concentration is a legitimate target, as shown in the this example from camera.org:
This example of a short-range Qassam rocket firing site from weaponssurvey.com apparently located in an orchard would also seem to be a valid target:
And at least some of the cluster munitions used by Israel in Lebanon seem to have been targeted at rural areas, as is the case of this unexploded M-42 submunition found in a banana grove near (but not in) the village of El Maalliye. If this banana grove was away from homes and the banana grove was being used as a site to launch rockets against Israel, the Israelis can likely make a case that the use of cluster munitions in this instance is acceptable.
This however, is much more difficult to justify. The munition is undoubtedly a cluster munition, and the site is said to be just 100 meters from the main Lebanese hospital in Tibnin. John Donovan identified this exact submunition as an M-42.
The Times article states further:
But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.
The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42's, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77's, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63's, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85's, an Israeli-made submunition.
What the Times article does not state is precisely where 1,835 were found.
If the majority of these submunitions were found to be in locations consistent with what the agreement shows to be viable military targets, then Israel should be cleared fairly simply. If however, a substantial number of submunitions were recovered from villages and cities, then Israel's use of cluster munitions may have a legitimate basis to be called into question.
It is important to note, however, that at this time only United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations (perhaps Hezbollah itself) have raised these allegations.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:47 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1180 words, total size 9 kb.
1
It is also possible that an Improved Conventional Munition such as the M483 155mm projectile could have been used. The M483 also uses the M77 submunition. Check out this link for more detailed info: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dpicm.htm
Posted by: Wiskey-88 at August 25, 2006 11:28 AM (pz11M)
2
The sad thing is, that no matter whether or not it is proved that these were "valid military" targets, nobody will ever know - at least not the people who follow MSM. That's because they will never, ever report that Israel had the right to use these weapons.
Posted by: Specter at August 25, 2006 12:25 PM (ybfXM)
3
FYI: The article is accompanied by a map which shows where the cluster bomb evidence has been found.....some of which is north of the Latani.
Posted by: Donna at August 25, 2006 01:11 PM (yU1kU)
4
One "human factors" issue not mentioned is that unexploded cluster munitions can be picked up and placed in another location without the bomblet ever exploding. Given the fauxtography going on in Lebanon, this wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Of course one must be careful in handling the buggers. One of my field engineers experienced one detonating after it was picked up by a companion in the first Gulf War and placed under his car seat. Alan got away with long term ringing in his ears, while the driver (who had picked it up) was killed.
Posted by: sammy small at August 25, 2006 03:39 PM (nyxv/)
5
“This does not mean cluster bombs are “bad” any more than any other physical object can be “good” or “bad,” but knowing the characteristics of such weapons prescribes how they should be used.”
These weapons, which Israel has been dropping in civilian areas of Lebanon are bad objects. Man-made objects are created with intent, and the intent in this case is to kill or wound as many people as possible. This is a cowardly weapon, the type that is well suited to imperial wars, where the consideration of protecting soldiers outweighs any thought of preventing injury to civilians.
That Israel would use this kind of “shotgun” weapon in civilian areas shows how little regard it has for innocent life. And to justify it by saying Hezbollah is using civilians as “human shields” suggests even that civilians are being directly targeted. Shouldn’t a “rifle” approach be used instead of “shotgun” if you truly care about the civilian population?
And how ironic that you are trying to avenge suicide bombings which use shrapnel by killing other innocent civilians with shrapnel bombs.
Oh yes, these are bad objects and the blood is partially on our hands.
Posted by: Onray at August 25, 2006 11:43 PM (3J9mN)
6
Do you think the Islamist and the DisUnited Nations will lie about where they find the cluster bombs? They will lie 100% and the gullible public will eat it up. I read today where they displayed one of the 'cluster' bombs which was accurately identified (not by the lying Islamist or PC news crowd) later as a battery.
How many more lies will he antique MSM have to tell, and get caught, before even the left wingers will admit that all they read and hear from the antique media types is 99% lies and 1% hype? Not enough lies can be broadcast or printed, as long as it fits their anti-American, anti-Israel rants.
Posted by: Scrapiron at August 25, 2006 11:56 PM (fEnUg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 24, 2006
Hezbollah's White Phosphorus Lies: Part 2, the Conclusive Debunking
Remember less than a month ago when I wrote
this?
It was only a matter of time before Hezbollah and their gullible dupes in the media began applying the Terrorist Propaganda Cook Book to the present war in Lebanon, accusing Israel forces of using chemical and other "illegal weapons" against civilians.
The Sydney Morning Herald was all too willing to print these suspiciously vague allegations:
Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.
Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.
He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.
Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."
"If you burnt someone with petrol their hair would burn and their skin would burn down to the bone. The Israelis are 100 per cent using chemical weapons."
I stated that:
The arguments are recycled, the evidence contrived; there is no credible evidence that chemical or white phosphorus weapons are being used to target Lebanese civilians, and it is telling that the media are all too willing to be led down this same path of lies again.
It turns out that I was right (thanks to LGF for finding the video). The debunkings of the Greg Mitchell's of the world are coming so fast I can hardly keep up with them...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:02 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
1
White phosphorous in contact with human skin burns all the way through and keeps burning until the phosphorous is consumed. The obvious sign is big, gaping, burning holes, not what was described.
Posted by: olddawg at August 24, 2006 08:32 PM (Si1mC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 23, 2006
"Backdoor Draft?" Marines Respond
Marines on the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) are being
recalled to active duty consistent with the commitment they signed up for, and some of the
predictably clueless are claiming that this constitutes a "backdoor draft," when it is of course nothing of the sort.
Two very irritated Marine bloggers, Paul and Brando of Brandodojo ripped into these folks last night.
From Paul in the comments of that post:
People like to call this a "back door draft" because they're idiots and are intentionally using misleading rhetoric to bring up emotions from the Vietnam war, which is the last time a draft was used. They use "backdoor" as if the government is using some sneaky loophole, but this also isn't true. All a servicemember has to do is open up their SRB and look at their contract and read what it says. It's not even in "fine print." It's right there. In my case it says, plain as day, 5 years active, 3 years IRR.
Back to my main point: The offensive part of the "backdoor draft" bullshit is that it's used by two groups of people: 1) People who have never served 2) People who have served and refuse to be accountable for their signature.
I don't have a problem with people being pissed about it -- they're leaving their new lives or whatever and going to a shithole country where they might blow up -- everyone I know was pissed but they still went. That's what matters.
In no uncertain terms, this is something that every Marine signs up for, and is clearly part of their commitment. Implying this is sneaky or underhanded behavior and not a standard part of a Marine's service commitment is simply dishonest.
* * *
Interestingly enough, liberal Ron Chusid cites the CNN article linked above and then states:
If actions such as this continue the trend towards decreased voluntary recruits, this could be yet another way in which George Bush is underming [sic] our long term national security.
But if you follow Mr. Chusid's link, you will find it is obsolete, being over a year old, and concerning only part of the year at that. I last wrote about military recruiting a little over a month ago, and it shows Ron's "truthiness" deserves to be called into question:
Military recruiting for June once again met or exceeded goals across all four branches (h/t Paul at Adventurepan:
- Marines: 105%
- Army: 102%
- Air Force:101%
- Navy: 100%
You'll note that the Marine Corps and Army, responsible for fielding most of the forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, have exceeded their goals by the largest margins, despite having higher target numbers than the other branches. They achieved this in the face of a mainstream media attempting to portray the military as rapists, racists, and murderers based up the alleged actions of a handful of men.
Since October 1, all four branches have met or exceed their goals:
- Army: 104%
- Marines: 101%
- Air Force: 101%
- Navy: 100%
Reserve forces recruiting has not been as even, but interesting enough, the Reserve and Guard forces most likely to be called upon for ground combat overseas (Army National Guard, Army Reserves, Marine Corps Reserves) have been the most successful in recruiting.
One could argue that this also represents only part of the year, but it is the most current data; far more relevant than statistics over a year old that were not reflective of the overall year's total.
About.com's U.S. Military Recruiting Statistics page confirms that recruiting for 2006 (so far) and 2005 were either met or exceeded for both years by all active duty branches. Funny how Mr. Chusid was unable to find those figures, isn't it?
Chusid cherry-picked a story concerning several months in 2005, ignoring the overall 2005 and 2006 recruiting data that undermines his chosen storyline. Honesty is apparently not high on the list of Liberal Values.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:33 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 5 kb.
1
A "shithole country"? Two U.S. Marines called Iraq a "shithole country"?
I don't understand. I thought Iraq was supposed to be a democracy now, a free country whose people have hope for the first time in their lives and are free to live however they want to live.
How can a country like that be called a "shithole country"? And what if Iraqis were to read that U.S. Marines are calling their country a "shithole country"? Wouldn't that increase anti-American feeling in the Middle East? Are these Marines trying to sabotage the U.S. mission in Iraq?
Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2006 05:14 PM (GdRpd)
2
I think I had maybe 7 years on the inactive reserve...but that was well over 20 years ago and I can't remember anymore ;->
Carter was prez around that time...I remember that much ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 23, 2006 05:22 PM (c/xwT)
3
Kathy--
Stop being silly. You seem pretty enamoured with the place -- spend a week in Iraq (or Afghanistan), witness the poverty, the corruption, and the lack of sanitation, and tell me I'm wrong.
Uh oh, some Iraqis might read Confederate Yankee and be outraged? An outraged Iraqi -- that'd be new. I understand it's pretty hard to get those guys excited and violent, so I hope I didn't overstep my bounds.
And FYI: Yes, we are both (former) Marines. One of the many honors that comes with claiming the title "Marine" is the privledge of being on the edge of history, seeing these places first hand, and having a hand in changing things. The only edge you'll ever be on is your seat, hoping US troops get killed so some cretin with a bad comb-over can win the next election.
Any Marine who's been over there will tell you the country is a shithole, but at least they're doing something to change it.
Posted by: paully at August 23, 2006 05:41 PM (yJuX3)
4
Ha ha ha!
Kathy = pwnt
Just shut up.
Idiot.
Posted by: Jinxy at August 23, 2006 05:54 PM (Gxzfi)
5
Gosh, Paul. I don't understand why you are angry at me. I know from reading conservative blogs that conservatives are very concerned about the harm to our troops that can be done when Americans say things or express opinions that could increase anti-American feeling among Iraqis (and others in the Middle East). For example, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. These things make Muslims think we don't respect them, and then they get more anti-American. So I was just surprised that you guys would call Iraq a "shithole" when, number one, you know that could increase anti-American feeling, and number two, you know it's not true that Iraq is a shithole! Iraq was a shithole under Saddam! Now it's been liberated and democracy is on the march and things are getting better all the time. And Iraqis love Americans so far, so let's not make them think we don't like them.
Make sense?
Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2006 06:38 PM (GdRpd)
6
Kathy,
Your line of typical liberal speutum isn't even engaging or interesting.
It's just dull and inarticulate pure sarcasm that reveals a deeper truth about you which is that you obviously don't know jackshit about what the world is like outside the narrow confines of your no doubt cat-filled, lonely city apartment.
Get outside once and a while and maybe you'll see what the rest of the world is actually like, instead of wrapping yourself in the comfortable sweater of your own smug sense of superiority and self-righteousness.
Then maybe you won't spout off again as you just did and reveal your complete and utter ignorance of the greater world at large.
I weep for your future students.
Posted by: Jinxy at August 23, 2006 07:02 PM (B+qrE)
7
Kathy... It's really hard for me to tell whether you're joking or not, or whether your comments are being made tongue-in-cheek. If you're being serious, all I can say is that I envy your naivety, and wish I could spend a few weeks in your Candyland world, frolicking in butterscotch waterfalls.
Let's talk about "shithole". I worked in Afghanistan for 7 months. I think Afghans are stand-up people. I liked them a lot. Karzai's a dapper dude and know's what's going on. Kabul's insane, but it's relatively safe....but I would still consider Afghanistan a shithole. There is filth, garbage, and feces everywhere, poverty, the traffic is insane, etc.. When I say "shithole" I'm not referring to the political situation -- not everything is political with me -- I'm referring to the general state of cleanliness. It's similar to when my mother would tell me my room looked like a "shithole." She was referring to its general state of cleanliness, not the political regime under which my room was being ruled.
I'm not sure how to respond to you because of statements like "...Iraqis love Americans so far, so let's not make them think we don't like them. Make sense?" No, it doesn't make sense. Some like us, some don't. Would you feel safe as an American walking down the street in a major Iraqi city in broad daylight? Until you can answer "yes," you might want to rethink your assessment on Iraqi attitudes towards Americans.
Posted by: paully at August 23, 2006 07:14 PM (yJuX3)
8
Paul's mom told him his room was a "shithole"?
Bwahahaha.
Oh, too much.
Posted by: Jinxy at August 23, 2006 07:42 PM (B+qrE)
9
When I say "shithole" I'm not referring to the political situation
Most people would agree Juarez and Tijuana are "shitholes".
The Arbor Hill neighborhood in Albany NY is a "shithole".
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 23, 2006 07:45 PM (c/xwT)
10
"...you obviously don't know jackshit about what the world is like outside the narrow confines of your no doubt cat-filled, lonely city apartment."
Wow, Jinxy. Nail right on the head. Yet another reason why I enjoy talking to conservatives so much. You guys are so perceptive.
"Get outside once and a while and maybe you'll see what the rest of the world is actually like, instead of wrapping yourself in the comfortable sweater of your own smug sense of superiority and self-righteousness."
Well, I don't know about the getting out part, because I haven't left my lonely city apartment in 10 years. That said, though, I have to tell you I *love* that metaphor: I think I'll use it with my students this fall.
"Let's talk about "shithole". I worked in Afghanistan for 7 months. I think Afghans are stand-up people. I liked them a lot. Karzai's a dapper dude and know's what's going on. Kabul's insane, but it's relatively safe....but I would still consider Afghanistan a shithole. There is filth, garbage, and feces everywhere, poverty, the traffic is insane, etc.. When I say "shithole" I'm not referring to the political situation -- not everything is political with me -- I'm referring to the general state of cleanliness. It's similar to when my mother would tell me my room looked like a "shithole." She was referring to its general state of cleanliness, not the political regime under which my room was being ruled."
Okay, how would you characterize the political situation? I have read and heard so much here in the U.S. about how much better life is for Afghans now. The women have been liberated; they can wear Western clothes, go to school, hold jobs, walk by themselves, marry whoever they like. I've read that Afghanistan is a democracy now.
From what you've said above, it doesn't sound like this is true.
"I'm not sure how to respond to you because of statements like "...Iraqis love Americans so far, so let's not make them think we don't like them. Make sense?" No, it doesn't make sense. Some like us, some don't."
Well, from everything I read on the conservative blogs (and they are the ones who generally support the U.S. being in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that's why I specify them), the vast majority of Iraqis are happy that Americans are in Iraq, and they don't want us to leave. I mean eventually, yes, but the vast majority want us to stay as long as the U.S. government thinks it's necessary to stay. They're not in any burning rush for Americans to leave, iow.
So when you say that some Iraqis like Americans and some don't, that doesn't sound like "the vast majority like Americans." Which is it?
"Would you feel safe as an American walking down the street in a major Iraqi city in broad daylight? Until you can answer "yes," you might want to rethink your assessment on Iraqi attitudes towards Americans."
To your first question, no, definitely not. But I question my own sense that I would not feel safe in Iraq as an American, because I read so much about how the violence there is greatly exaggerated, and that Iraqis can move around freely without fear, go where they want, do what they want. I read that Iraq is a free country now, that it's a democracy, that Iraqis are finally free. That doesn't sound like a dangerous place. It sounds like a good place to be. Plus, if the vast majority of Iraqis are happy Americans are there, doesn't that mean I *SHOULD* feel safe there?
And to your second question, I have a return question: Why do I read on so many conservative blogs that most Iraqis are happy U.S. troops are there, and that it's no more dangerous there than in your average big city in the U.S.?
Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2006 07:54 PM (GdRpd)
11
The single biggest factor in any country are the actual people living there, and by that standard, Iraq is a shithole.
About a year ago, I was reading comparisons of post war Germany or Japan, and juxtaposing them with postwar Iraq. The conclusions the writer made was that the important variable that made Iraq construction weak, and Germany/Japan construction strong, was the effort of the US. Not the actual people living there.
Comparing the 2 most industrious and productive peoples in recent history with Iraqis, and then pretending to be confused about the difference is disingenuous.
I know that there are those of you out there that are screaming "Racist!" out there. I didn't say that the cause of the difference was genetic, and I don't even feel that way. What I'm saying is that there are cultural differences between Iraqis, and Japanese, and one of those differences is productivity.
Back to the topic of the draft. The draft is a very bad thing. Please don't misuse the word, or it loses all of its bite. Heinlein had the coolest quote about it.
"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!" -RAH 1961
Posted by: brando at August 23, 2006 08:18 PM (K+VjK)
12
Are you citing right-wing blogs in the hopes of finding some sort of solidarity with me? Or are you going to try and "trick" me into agreeing with me so you can launch some sneaky counter-attack, punctuated with a triumphant "AHHA!!"? It's not going to work, because I'm not as conservative as you think, and I'm not the type to agree with someone just because they're "conservative" or whatever. Hell, I think this blog is great, but I don't necessarily agree with everything he says. Furthermore, if the left can skew numbers to mean what they want them to mean, so can the right. I'm not going to rally in the streets based on what some "pundit" is bleating about. I won't base my opinions off of political blogs* -- most are far leaning and have an agenda. I'd much rather base my opinions off of what I've seen and people of integrity and credibility who have been over there. Your buddy Eugene Debs might agree -- being a citizen of the world gives one an opportunity to meet such people.
The political situation in Afghanistan is better, and I have no idea how you would arrive at the assumption, based on what I wrote, that women can't go to school or that Afghanistan is not a democracy. Just because you make a country a democracy doesn't mean that public sanitation and equality rights will magically those of the USA in 2006. Expecting as much is unreasonable, naive, and ethnocentric. I'm not going to get into it any deeper than that because that's not the topic at hand, and at risk of sounding condescending, the socio-political situation there is too complicated to explain in simple terms that you can relate to or understand. I'd hate to give you information to misuse posted by a "Marine on a Conservative Blog".
* - ...this isn't exactly true -- I have formed the opinion (from blogs) that most people have no idea what they're talking about and have absolutely no concept or idea of what anyone is like outside of the USA.
ps: jinxy, my mom also used to say that it "looked like a hurricane went through my room". clearly she is a racist.
Posted by: paully at August 23, 2006 08:56 PM (yJuX3)
13
Kathy, although I think that you are asking questions from a liberal viewpoint, (i.e. rejoice when Americans are killed) I'll do my best to answer one of your questions as though you are honestly asking it. Maybe someone else will read it too. Here's your question.
"Why do I read on so many conservative blogs that most Iraqis are happy U.S. troops are there, and that it's no more dangerous there than in your average big city in the U.S.?"
I don't know about the blogs, but I can tell you what I perceived in Iraq. Iraqis want us there, but they want us to absolutely rule them. They want us to take care of everything, and make Iraq into a little America, while they are safe to sit back and complain. The concept of civic duty or paying taxes would be completely lost on them. I equate it to the mind set that happens to lifetime prison inmates. You get 3 squares a day, a bed, a roof over your head, and you never have to lift a finger. Even if you are in a relatively safe prison, you're still in prison. I think you made the equivalent of freedom and safety, when I doubt that they're even correlated. I'd rather be shoved out the door, and have to find a meal and a place to sleep, than be a slave. So you're question is complicated. Do Iraqis like us? Well, yes, but only because they like power, and we are the most powerful faction right now. And a temporary faction. Can't blame 'em for being fickle. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably hedge my bets too.
You asked about what the correct or incorrect things are to do, when it comes to inspiring terrorists. This comes from direct observation with dealing with arabs. Most people that have been to the middle east will tell you the same thing.
Weakness. Draws. Aggression.
As for the danger level, yeah it's dangerous, but it's not exactly like we were unarmed. However if we're viewing a people or place from a distance it's easy and convenient to view it as homogeneous, when itÂ’s actually really fragmented. Iraq is a country with 25 million people. That's a lot of folks of all different types, and a lot of areas with very different danger levels.
Chicagoland has only about 6 million people or so. Would you feel safe walking at night in Chicago? It would make a big difference if I was talking about Evanston or Gary.
The short version is that the North (kurds) is pretty productive, and the extreme south (shia), is clipping along like a normal country. It's just where there is a fault line of different sorts. They want to butcher each other, and we're throwing a monkey wrench in their plans. I think that splitting it up into 3 countries would be a great idea, but that's up to the Iraqis.
I hope that helps a little, and I didn't just muddy the waters more.
Posted by: brando at August 23, 2006 09:03 PM (K+VjK)
14
"You're" is actually "your" Dangit.
Posted by: brando at August 23, 2006 09:08 PM (K+VjK)
15
Recruiting goals, 2003-2006, for the army: 73,800; 77,000; 62,385; 60,150. The other services see similar reduction in goals. It's obviously good they're able to recruit, but one wonders just how meaningful this metric is.
Posted by: jpe at August 23, 2006 09:53 PM (Tk5Zz)
16
Brando,
Re your comments about the industriousness and productivity of the Iraqi people compared to those in Germany and Japan, and that explaining why postwar reconstruction worked so much better in the case of the latter two countries:
It might also have helped that, in the case of Germany and Japan, (1) those two countries were crushed, completely and utterly defeated, with no insurgency or guerrilla resistance taking money and troops to put down; (2) the United States had planned the reconstruction of postwar Germany and Japan for years before it took place, (3) that millions of dollars were spent on the reconstruction, and (4) that there were considerably more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Europe and the Pacific theater in 1945.
You might have picked up that I disagree with your assessment of the Iraqi people as being unproductive, inefficient, and lazy. I don't think you can use such words to describe people who built the kind of infrastructure Iraq had before 1991. Iraqi engineers are (or were; there aren't many left now, since they tended to be more affluent and mostly have left the country) second to none in the world. I don't think it's fair (to put it very, very mildly) to look at the condition of a people after the 1991 Gulf War (in which Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed) and after this latest U.S. invasion and war and occupation and insurgency and sectarian violence, which has now lasted longer than the entire U.S. involvement in WWII, and make the judgment, from your perspective as a member of the military that invaded Iraq, that Iraqis are inferior in terms of productivity, industriousness, and efficiency. I could say more, but I'll stop, since I've probably enraged you enough for ten replies. Sorry about that, but your comments enraged me.
Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2006 10:40 PM (GdRpd)
17
Here is my reply to Paul's latest:
No, Paul, I am not citing right-wing blogs to trick you with a sneaky counterattack. I was genuinely flabbergasted to find you describing conditions in Iraq as being exactly the opposite of how conservative bloggers describe it (and since Bob linked to you and Brando seemingly because he approved of and agreed with your military point of view, I did assume you feel comfortable with the political leanings of this blog). Even more than this, though, I was astonished to find YOU describing conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq to ME in a manner that I have been attacked for using myself.
To untangle that sentence a bit: I have been attacked on conservative blogs for writing that conditions in Iraq are terrible (and in Afghanistan, but I haven't written on Afghanistan as much). The same things you said, Paul. I have called Iraq a hellhole (I believe that has approximately the same thing as "shithole") and been called un-American, a traitor, a left-wing moonbat, and other assorted appellations. Now here I find out that Iraq most certainly is a shithole -- and from a U.S. marine, no less.
You might understand why I was a bit confused.
Also, I did not assume that you thought Afghan women could not go to school, etc. I was telling you that YOUR description of Afghanistan as a shithole contradicted what I had heard from conservative bloggers about Afghan women being liberated from oppression, and being able to do all the things Western women can do.
Basically, *I* think that conservatives are very, very conflicted in the way they characterize Afghanistan and Iraq. When reacting to people who oppose the war and believe that conditions there are horrendous, they say that everything is much, much better and so much progress is being made and the people who live there are happy and free and strong and making great strides to protecting themselves. When talking to each other, or when not aware that you may be talking to -- gasp! a liberal -- there is a very different tenor to the talk: Iraq is a shithole, Iraqis are welfare queens, can't do anything for themselves, want us to stay and be Big Daddy, etc.
Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2006 10:59 PM (GdRpd)
18
"...as a member of the military that invaded Iraq..."
This statement tells me exactly where she's coming from.
Now, clean up your room, Paully.
Posted by: Jinxy at August 23, 2006 11:09 PM (B+qrE)
19
Shame on you. Using Liberal and Honest in the same sentence.
Posted by: Scrapiron at August 23, 2006 11:48 PM (tt0Pe)
20
Kathy, I'm not attacking you, but you've been misinformed. Please don't be angry. I'm not your enemy. I sure hope you don't see US Marines as your enemy. I'm simply stating my first person experiences. I hope they hold more weight than Michael Moore rants.
I was in Mahmudiyah (15 miles south of Baghdad), so I'll only speak to what I know. Maybe the rest of the country was rock solid. There's a reason I don't like to use the world "re-construction". I don't think that Mahumdiyah ever had a working sewage treatment facility. They dumped buckets of feces and urine directly into the streets. People literally lived in mud huts. To say that Iraq was not just a 1st world country, but on par with Japan, Germany, or the US is not only untrue, but laughably untrue. I saw no indication that pre 1991 Iraqi was a 1st world country, and certainly no indication that it's engineers were "second to none". We took over a power plant on the Euphrates river, which I think was build and run by Soviets because all the books in the library were in Russian. Don't believe me? I even have
one. Not Iraqi technicians. Russian. I worked with Iraqis on a nearly daily basis for 7 months, and I can assure you that they are indeed unproductive, inefficient, and lazy. ItÂ’s really hard to exaggerate. I could put together a stronger fighting force with an American Jr. High football team. Please understand that this is a general theme. They do have their all-stars, just like any population. I feel a little bit bad about making fun of them, because some of them were my boys. I actually liked some of them, and wrote my own
little post about it.
Again, I'm not attacking you. I'm saying that the picture that's been painted for you is untrue. I don’t see CY as a “conservative” blog, although I suppose it is. I get a kick out of him because he’s so completely anti-terrorism.
Anyway, don't worry about enraging me. I sort of dig it when liberals say really insane anti-military stuff. It makes me mad a little, but it gives me stuff to repeat. Tell me the real deal.
Posted by: brando at August 23, 2006 11:50 PM (K+VjK)
21
Would you feel safe as an American walking down the street in a major Iraqi city in broad daylight?
I don't feel safe walking down the street in major American cities in broad daylight.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 24, 2006 04:40 AM (c/xwT)
22
Brando,
The tone of your response to me is respectful and even charming, and I appreciate that.
I don't want to say to you that your own experience holds no weight with me, and I won't. Of course, your experience is your experience, and it's valid.
Third, about Iraqi technicians being unproductive, inefficient, and lazy, and not being capable of building bridges, tunnels, highways, power plants, etc.: Your conclusions contradict the memories and knowledge of others, who are Iraqi. There are many such, but one in particular whose writing I know very well is Riverbend at Baghdad Burning. She is an Iraqi computer programmer (former computer programmer; she can't work at her profession in Iraq anymore) who writes a blog of the above name. She was living in Baghdad with her family when the U.S. invaded. She experienced everything that happened there. And, with specific regard to Iraqi engineering talents, she wrote one particular blog post about that very subject, taking issue with this idea Americans have that Iraqis can't do anything for themselves and have to have Halliburton come in and rebuild their infrastructure for them. Who do you think built all the bridges, roads, buildings, tunnels, sewage treatment plants, telecommunications facilities, power plants, etc., that were in Iraq before the Gulf War?
Your observations and impressions are the result of your experiences in Iraq NOW. They are not informed or given texture or context by a deeper understanding of Iraq's history BEFORE you were there.
Consider also the possibility that the Iraqi men who "work for you" (you are their boss, right?) are "lazy, unproductive, and inefficient" because they have no motivation to be otherwise. Would you be motivated to work your butt off, be productive, industrious, and efficient, if the work you were doing was at the order and instruction of a foreign occupying army? No disrespect intended to your service, Brando, but facts are facts. This is what the U.S. military IS in Iraq, and it's certainly how it's perceived by Iraqis. Maybe the Iraqis you know would be motivated to work harder and strut their stuff if they felt that they were autonomous, independent, free human beings working to rebuild their own country, rather than working to do the projects the U.S. decides they are going to do.
I realize that this sentiment is generally regarded by war supporters as being "anti-military," but it isn't. I just am used to putting myself in the other person's position, when I'm inclined to judge them harshly. And I know I would not like to be supervised and ordered around by Iraqi military officers in my own country. I take it as a given that Iraqis feel similarly about being ordered around by Americans in *their* country.
Finally, Brando, you write this: "I feel a little bad about making fun of them, because some of them were my boys."
Brando, "your BOYS"? I have to tell you, your use of the word "boys" to describe grown men is not only offensive but highly revealing of the way you view them. Do you call your fellow Marines who serve under you "your BOYS," or do you call them "your MEN"? Do commanding officers in Iraq generally call the U.S. troops under them their "boys" or their "men"? Do officers say "the boys in my unit"?
I want to say one more thing. You tell me "the picture that's been painted for me" is wrong. Brando, *no picture has been painted for me.* I am a grown woman, an educated woman, an intelligent woman, and a reasonably well-informed woman. I read voraciously, of my own free will, and nobody tells me what to read. I don't read Michael Moore, btw. I don't read MoveOn, or DU. I read widely, from all different kinds of print material -- books, articles, blogs, newspapers, journals, magazines, etc. -- and from many different perspectives. I don't have your direct experience, but that does not mean I am misinformed.
Respectfully,
Kathy
I don't doubt that you've seen what you describe having seen; but it seems to me that you are drawing larger conclusions from what you've seen that are not informed by a larger context, and that are not necessarily true.
First, your remarks about Muhmadiyah. You say you don't think they ever had a working sewage treatment plant. You say they dump buckets of feces and urine directly into the streets. This does not surprise me at all. Are you aware that, in the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. bombed and destroyed almost all, if not all, of Iraq's infrastructure? I mentioned this before, but I repeat it because I wonder if you know what that implies. There were any number of articles and reports (many by firsthand witnesses) written at the time about sewage running raw in the streets because sewage treatment plants had been destroyed. Water purification facilities were also destroyed. This is not what public health conditions were like in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War.
Furthermore, Iraq was never able to rebuild the infrastructure satisfactorily because of the sanctions, which went on for 12 years.
So to look at the sewage treatment facility in Muhmadiyah now, and conclude that it was never a working facility, based on what you see now, is to view conditions totally out of context. You say that you see no indication from conditions now that Iraq was ever a first world country or that its engineers were second to none, but how can you even begin to make that judgment when you do not know what Iraq was like pre-1991? It was not a first world country, true, but neither was it the cesspool it is now.
Re the power plant on the Euphrates: Obviously I believe you about the books in the library all being in Russian, and I don't know why that was, but as far as I know the Soviets were never in Iraq and did not build any power plants there. And regardless, you cannot draw sweeping conclusions about all of Iraq's pre-1991 infrastructure based on one facility.
Second, I did not at any time say that Iraq was a "first world country" of the kind that Germany and Japan were. I said that your using the example of the success of postwar reconstruction in Germany and Japan to support your argument that the German people and the Japanese people were and are more industrious and productive and efficient than the Iraqi people is incorrect, and misleading, because the United States planned Europe's reconstruction for literally YEARS, and devoted money and resources to that reconstruction that were not even dreamed of in the case of Iraq. To that, I might add that Germany and Japan were real, legitimate nations with centuries of history before WWII. Iraq has *never* been a real, legitimate nation. It was cobbled together from the remains of the old Ottoman Empire by Britain after WWI. Iraq has always been a Western colonial creation. Comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan is both unfair and misleading.
Posted by: Kathy at August 24, 2006 06:36 AM (GdRpd)
23
The order in my post somehow got completely garbled. It's all there, but it's out of order. I'm going to fix it and repost.
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy at August 24, 2006 06:38 AM (GdRpd)
24
Brando,
The tone of your response to me is respectful and even charming, and I appreciate that.
I don't want to say to you that your own experience holds no weight with me, and I won't. Of course, your experience is your experience, and it's valid.
I don't doubt that you've seen what you describe having seen; but it seems to me that you are drawing larger conclusions from what you've seen that are not informed by a larger context, and that are not necessarily true.
First, your remarks about Muhmadiyah. You say you don't think they ever had a working sewage treatment plant. You say they dump buckets of feces and urine directly into the streets. This does not surprise me at all. Are you aware that, in the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. bombed and destroyed almost all, if not all, of Iraq's infrastructure? I mentioned this before, but I repeat it because I wonder if you know what that implies. There were any number of articles and reports (many by firsthand witnesses) written at the time about sewage running raw in the streets because sewage treatment plants had been destroyed. Water purification facilities were also destroyed. This is not what public health conditions were like in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War.
Furthermore, Iraq was never able to rebuild the infrastructure satisfactorily because of the sanctions, which went on for 12 years.
So to look at the sewage treatment facility in Muhmadiyah now, and conclude that it was never a working facility, based on what you see now, is to view conditions totally out of context. You say that you see no indication from conditions now that Iraq was ever a first world country or that its engineers were second to none, but how can you even begin to make that judgment when you do not know what Iraq was like pre-1991? It was not a first world country, true, but neither was it the cesspool it is now.
Re the power plant on the Euphrates: Obviously I believe you about the books in the library all being in Russian, and I don't know why that was, but as far as I know the Soviets were never in Iraq and did not build any power plants there. And regardless, you cannot draw sweeping conclusions about all of Iraq's pre-1991 infrastructure based on one facility.
Second, I did not at any time say that Iraq was a "first world country" of the kind that Germany and Japan were. I said that your using the example of the success of postwar reconstruction in Germany and Japan to support your argument that the German people and the Japanese people were and are more industrious and productive and efficient than the Iraqi people is incorrect, and misleading, because the United States planned Europe's reconstruction for literally YEARS, and devoted money and resources to that reconstruction that were not even dreamed of in the case of Iraq. To that, I might add that Germany and Japan were real, legitimate nations with centuries of history before WWII. Iraq has *never* been a real, legitimate nation. It was cobbled together from the remains of the old Ottoman Empire by Britain after WWI. Iraq has always been a Western colonial creation. Comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan is both unfair and misleading.
Third, about Iraqi technicians being unproductive, inefficient, and lazy, and not being capable of building bridges, tunnels, highways, power plants, etc.: Your conclusions contradict the memories and knowledge of others, who are Iraqi. There are many such, but one in particular whose writing I know very well is Riverbend at Baghdad Burning. She is an Iraqi computer programmer (former computer programmer; she can't work at her profession in Iraq anymore) who writes a blog of the above name. She was living in Baghdad with her family when the U.S. invaded. She experienced everything that happened there. And, with specific regard to Iraqi engineering talents, she wrote one particular blog post about that very subject, taking issue with this idea Americans have that Iraqis can't do anything for themselves and have to have Halliburton come in and rebuild their infrastructure for them. Who do you think built all the bridges, roads, buildings, tunnels, sewage treatment plants, telecommunications facilities, power plants, etc., that were in Iraq before the Gulf War?
Your observations and impressions are the result of your experiences in Iraq NOW. They are not informed or given texture or context by a deeper understanding of Iraq's history BEFORE you were there.
Consider also the possibility that the Iraqi men who "work for you" (you are their boss, right?) are "lazy, unproductive, and inefficient" because they have no motivation to be otherwise. Would you be motivated to work your butt off, be productive, industrious, and efficient, if the work you were doing was at the order and instruction of a foreign occupying army? No disrespect intended to your service, Brando, but facts are facts. This is what the U.S. military IS in Iraq, and it's certainly how it's perceived by Iraqis. Maybe the Iraqis you know would be motivated to work harder and strut their stuff if they felt that they were autonomous, independent, free human beings working to rebuild their own country, rather than working to do the projects the U.S. decides they are going to do.
I realize that this sentiment is generally regarded by war supporters as being "anti-military," but it isn't. I just am used to putting myself in the other person's position, when I'm inclined to judge them harshly. And I know I would not like to be supervised and ordered around by Iraqi military officers in my own country. I take it as a given that Iraqis feel similarly about being ordered around by Americans in *their* country.
Finally, Brando, you write this: "I feel a little bad about making fun of them, because some of them were my boys."
Brando, "your BOYS"? I have to tell you, your use of the word "boys" to describe grown men is not only offensive but highly revealing of the way you view them. Do you call your fellow Marines who serve under you "your BOYS," or do you call them "your MEN"? Do commanding officers in Iraq generally call the U.S. troops under them their "boys" or their "men"? Do officers say "the boys in my unit"?
I want to say one more thing. You tell me "the picture that's been painted for me" is wrong. Brando, *no picture has been painted for me.* I am a grown woman, an educated woman, an intelligent woman, and a reasonably well-informed woman. I read voraciously, of my own free will, and nobody tells me what to read. I don't read Michael Moore, btw. I don't read MoveOn, or DU. I read widely, from all different kinds of print material -- books, articles, blogs, newspapers, journals, magazines, etc. -- and from many different perspectives. I don't have your direct experience, but that does not mean I am misinformed.
Respectfully,
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy at August 24, 2006 06:42 AM (GdRpd)
25
Kathy--
Referring to someone as your "boy" is a term of endearment used among today's youth. Didn't you say you were a teacher? You should spend more time listening to them. Right now everyone who read how offended you got at brando's use of the term is laughing at you, probably like your students do when you no doubt sprew equally ridiculous garbage in class.
"Consider also the possibility that the Iraqi men who "work for you" (you are their boss, right?) are "lazy, unproductive, and inefficient" because they have no motivation to be otherwise."
You mean like having a part in creating a good place for you and your family and future generations to live? How about showing the "occupying army" that they can handle things by themselves? Maybe you should re-read your paragraph for a verbatim answer as to why Iraqis should be motivated?
You really showed your ass on that last post, so I'm gonna quit this thread because I'm a bit flabbergasted right now. It hurts me that you are educating our future. Peace n chicken grease. (hopefully you find that offensive somehow too)
ps. riverbend is a nutjob
Posted by: paully at August 24, 2006 10:02 AM (dhl+a)
26
"(hopefully you find that offensive somehow too)"
Not at all; I always consider the source before getting offended.
Regards,
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy at August 24, 2006 10:15 AM (GdRpd)
27
"You really showed your ass on that last post..."
And you showed your true colors; it was amazing to see the mask drop.
"(hopefully you find that offensive somehow too)"
Not at all; I always consider the source before getting offended.
Regards,
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy at August 24, 2006 10:16 AM (GdRpd)
28
As I have seen southern Iraq first hand ( I flew with a Naval Squadron over southern Iraq doing multiple missions) I will say that the Marines assesment of Iraq is dead on it is a shithole, there is sewage all over, the rivers have dead animal carcauses in them, there is garbage all over the place.
Also while some Iraqis do want us there, there are many who dont I dont propose to know why but I have been shot at by all tpyes from young to very old so to say they all want us there is wrong to. I am neither far left or far right I am middle of the road I see points from both sides and as the Marines said it is easier when you have seen the outside world firsthand. This is just my two cents worth think of it what you will.
Posted by: 81 at August 24, 2006 10:49 AM (lNB+R)
29
One last note each and everyone one of us who have served were told and know that while you may be enlisted from four to five years active service you are a part of the IRR for a period of a total of eight years. (That does include your active time) So if you served for five years they have the right and obligation if need be to recall you at anytime for the next three years. Its in black and white and all of us are told about it!
Posted by: 81 at August 24, 2006 10:53 AM (JSetw)
30
Kathy,
You are obviously well read and well informed. It's the accuracy of your info that I have to question.
"Who do you think built the roads, bridges..."
I happen to be an engineer. I have both studied and personally seen modern, middle-eastern construction and engineering. Nobody is doubting the ability of an Iraqi to get an education if they so desire, but Iraqi's did not build their modern country. Their American and Western European educated engineers did the planning, and the construction was done on the backs of "guest workers" from other Arabic and Persian countries that had the misfortune of not being parked on top of a sea of oil.
You say that you are just "... trying to put myself in the other person's position" but I think you only manage to succeed in highlighting your cultural "American-style" ignorance. How the holy hell could you ever imagine what their position is. Did somebody blog it? Are you reading this in the safety and comfort of your air conditioned McMansion? Please tell me that you are not so naive as to base your obviously passionate beliefs on something you read? If this is true, I know a few Japanese with some very informative bits of info on their Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere.
You harpooned Mr. Brando for his comments on his time spent at the sunny, fun-filled, Muhmadiyah crap cleaning plant. Since you feel that he can't see past his nose, or the year 1991, I challenge you to tell me who built that plant? Was it the undereducated, wellfare state populace of Iraqis that were used to their nuevo riche government handing them modern day conviences, or maybe a Russian government that was scared shitless by the thought of a muslim uprising because they were busy bombing the shit out of one of their neighbors?
Kathy, you are dealing with a group of people that have experienced a culture that is so foreign to our Western way of living as to be almost unimaginable. You are attempting to tell these people that their experiences aren't valid because of their preconceived notions about a foreign culture that you yourself have only read about. On top of this, you allowed yourself to get suckered into a name calling contest. Honestly now.
Posted by: Joe at August 25, 2006 03:10 PM (1I80M)
Posted by: john smith at August 25, 2006 06:46 PM (byFw2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
F-16s Escort NW Flight to Amsterdam
Could be something,
could be nothing:
A Northwest Airlines flight bound for India was escorted back to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport by F-16 fighter jets on Wednesday.
The plane was turned around after "a couple of passengers displayed behavior of concern," according to Northwest Airlines.
"Northwest is cooperating with the appropriate government officials," the company said in a statement.
The DC-10 plane, bound for Mumbai, was carrying 149 passengers, Northwest said. Flight number 42 has been canceled and will be rescheduled for Thursday.
The airport spokeswoman said the pilot had requested to return to Amsterdam and after the plane landed, there were some arrests.
She would not specify if those arrested were passengers.
Sources told Dutch journalist Marijn Tebbens that the disturbance was the result of some unruly passengers. The plane landed safely at 11:39 a.m. (5:39 a.m. ET), the sources said.
This sounds supicious, but at this point we have very little concrete information to go on. I'm am curious about odd sentence from the airport spokeswoman, "She would not specify if those arrested were passengers."
Who else would it be, an errant dogwalker?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:50 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Who else would it be, an errant dogwalker?"
Flight crew?
Posted by: Jimmy at August 23, 2006 01:09 PM (+aO9k)
2
The sentence doesn't actually say that those arrested were on the plane, only that after the plane landed, there were some arrests.
They could have arrested ground crew or others at the terminal as well...
Posted by: matt a at August 24, 2006 10:23 AM (GvAmg)
3
Time for an update.
--
Early on in the flight, the Northwest Airlines crew decided to turn around and head back to Amsterdam, where the men were then taken into custody.
A statement from the prosecutor's office now says the phones were examined, and they hadn't been manipulated. Authorities also found that there were no explosives on the plane.
The statement says "no evidence could be brought forward that these men were about to commit an act of violence."
--
Might want to put that on front page, a few folks around here seem, uh, RIDICULOUSLY paranoid about brown people. Pointing out another false alarm might help return a few of them to rational thought.
Posted by: wah at August 24, 2006 02:30 PM (/Mtjv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 22, 2006
Not Even Phoning It In
Rusty and
Allah are all over this example of just how lazy Hezbollah has become in their efforts to provide fake news. The official
Hezbollah web site (with an appropriate Iranian URL) is showing a picture of a ship being ripped apart in an explosion. Hezbollah claims that the ship was an Israeli ship hit by a Hezbollah missile.
Here is the picture as shown on Hezbollah's site:
And Hezbollah did hit an Israel ship, the INS Hanit, a Saar 5 class missile boat, most likely with an Iranian-made C-701 "Kosar" type missile, on July 14, 2006.
This is the INS Hanit (photo credit: Sweetness & Light):
Note the damage (most noticeably the scorch marks) near the waterline directly under the Hanit's helicopter hanger, roughly three-quarters of the way to the stern. Note also that while the ship was reported to have serious internal damage and four Israeli sailors died in the attack, the ship is largely intact, the keel unbroken, and the ship otherwise, from this view, externally undamaged, where the ship in the Hezbollah photo to has literally been broken by the blast, the aft half of the ship behind the explosion several degrees out of alignment with the fore.
The two ships, as noticed by Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald-Sun, are not nearly the same.
HMAS Torrens, a decommissioned Australian destroyer escort, was purposefully sunk in a torpedo test on June 14, 1999. If you look at first picture in the second row on this page, it becomes quite likely that Hezbollah stole the image from this wikipedia entry, cropped it, and then enlarged it to get their end result.
A ship built in the mid 1960s and decommissioned in 1971 is not going to be mistaken for a modern vessel launched in 1994.
Of course, seeing is believing.
The INS Hanit (picture mirrored 180 degrees from above for comparative purposes):
HMAS Torrens, just prior to the torpedo test:
Not even close. You would expect that a recently unemployed Adnan Hajj would have been make it at least this close:
These days, Hezbollah isn't even phoning it in.
Update: Blue Crab Boulevard uncovers more Hezbollah pictures.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:37 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 4 kb.
1
They chose that particular picture of the HMAS Torrens because that's the only one where the bow numbers aren't visible.
Posted by: Jim at August 22, 2006 07:26 PM (2cwjl)
2
I thought I read somewhere the Israeli ship was hit at night?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 22, 2006 07:28 PM (c/xwT)
3
Indeed, the INS Hanit was attacked during the Sabbath Supper. The sailors who were supposed to be on duty were in the mess hall with everybody and ALL anti-missile, early warning and defense systems were shut down (because the ship's captain belived an attack was impossible).
Know the fool is facing the court martial he deserves.
Regards, F. Sgt. Alex
Posted by: First Sergeant Alex at August 22, 2006 07:39 PM (ri/u4)
4
Whoa there, Wilbur! You digitally manipulated the image. Anything, then, you may have to say about the picture is clearly a lie!
Why do you hate America? Why do you denigrate our troops?
Et cetera, ad infinitum.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at August 22, 2006 09:41 PM (tkLOh)
5
It's not such a big deal that they're lying, because that is sort of par for the course. What I find insulting is that they're lying so badly. If someone's going to lie to me, at least they should put forth some effort. Great post, btw.
Posted by: brando at August 23, 2006 04:39 PM (K+VjK)
6
Well, when your only strategic weapon is bullshit, you gotta pile it on...thick.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 23, 2006 05:24 PM (c/xwT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iran Assaults Oil Rig, Captures Crew
I hope that the Left will condemn this obvious
war for oil:
A Romanian oil rig off the coast of Iran came under fire from an Iranian warship and was later occupied by Iranian troops, a company spokesman said.
The Iranians first fired into the air and then fired at the Orizont rig, said GSP spokesman Radu Petrescu. Half an hour later, troops from the ship boarded and occupied the rig and the company lost contact with the 26 crew members shortly afterward.
Petrescu said he had no information about any injuries or deaths. The Orizont rig has been moored near the Kish island in the Persian Gulf since October 2005, he told the Associated Press.
Eugen Chira, the political consul at the Romanian Embassy in Tehran confirmed the incident, but provided few details.
"Some forces opened fire. That an incident has happened is true. We have no details or the reason yet," he said.
If this is the first stage of an attempt to shut down the Persian Gulf, the Iranian's picked an odd place to start, as Kish is to the northwest of the Straits of Hormuz.
More as this develops.
Update: This is still something of a "non-story," that I'm not seeing widely reported, for whatever reason. I'm not sure if it is a lack of information, or a determination by the news Powers That Be that this is a minor story. More info comes from Bloomberg, indicating that this might be a business/teritorial dispute:
Iran attacked and seized control of a Romanian oil rig working in its Persian Gulf waters this morning one week after the Iranian government accused the European drilling company of ``hijacking'' another rig.
An Iranian naval vessel fired on the rig owned by Romania's Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP) in the Salman field and took control of its radio room at about 7:00 a.m. local time, Lulu Tabanesku, Grup's representative in the United Arab Emirates said in a phone interview from Dubai today.
[snip]
Iran urged the United Arab Emirates last week to help it return another oil rig owned and operated by the Romanian company in the same waters close to the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's daily oil supply moves on tankers.
Grup said it recovered its rig last week because of a contractual dispute with its Iranian client, Oriental Oil Kish.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suspended Oriental Oil's activities in 2005 on alleged corruption activity and ties to Halliburton Co. of the U.S. The U.A.E.-registered drilling company had signed a preliminary contract with Halliburton after winning an estimated $310 million contract to develop phases 9 and 10 of Iran's offshore South Pars gas reservoir.
Mircea Geoana, the head of the Social Democratic Party, the main opposition party in Romania, called on the government to ``undertake all diplomatic measures necessary'' to persuade the Iranians to release the rig.
He also called on President Traian Basescu in a news conference broadcast on Realitatea television to invite all political party heads to the presidential palace to "discuss what Romania's reaction will be to this provocation."
You just knew Halliburton would get dragged into this, didn't you? I suspect that it is just a matter of time before the accusations start to fly that this is a set-up by the Bush Administration to use as a justification to go to war.
Andy Sullivan, your newest conspiracy theory awaits...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:11 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I'm curious about the double standard here. If the U.S. can forbid companies from working with other countries, why is it forbidden for other countries to do the same thing?
Also, it would seem that Halliburton dragged themselves into this mess. Finally, you may want to highlight some of Halliburton's
other deals with Iran, you know, if you into that whole intellectual honesty thing.
Posted by: Wah at August 22, 2006 11:04 AM (/Mtjv)
2
so in "Wah world," a warship
purposefully firing into a structure that they
know to be populated entirely by civilians is the
exact same thing as a diplomatic resolution to a multinational business/trade issue.
Funny, I always thought folks like yourself were
against wars for oil.
I guess that only applies when you can find an excuse to paint America as the bad guy, huh?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 22, 2006 12:28 PM (g5Nba)
3
Wah,
I'm curious about the double standard here. If the U.S. can forbid companies from working with other countries, why is it forbidden for other countries to do the same thing?
This is relevant to Iran's pirate action against Romanian GSP how exactly?
Also, it would seem that Halliburton dragged themselves into this mess.
But we're talking about GSP here not Halliburton; the only reason Halliburton is even mentioned is because both it and GSP share the same Iranian client Oriental Oil.
Finally, you may want to highlight some of Halliburton's other deals with Iran, you know, if you into that whole intellectual honesty thing.
So, because Halliburton is shoehorned into the original story by very tenuous means, it nonetheless becomes the sole story for you - and CY should aid and abet the MSM in its efforts at sidetracking by piling on random dirt about Halliburton.
Does any of this have some bearing on the story about Iran and GSP or were you just hoping for more dirt on Halliburton?
If any of these GSP riggers come to harm at the hands of the Iranian navy, will you just cover your ears and chant "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!"
Posted by: Scott at August 22, 2006 02:43 PM (f8958)
4
Con Yank
so in "Wah world," a warship purposefully firing into a structure that they know to be populated entirely by civilians is the exact same thing as a diplomatic resolution to a multinational business/trade issue.
How did you pull that out of what I said?
(which was...
If the U.S. can forbid companies from working with other countries, why is it forbidden for other countries to do the same thing?)
Besides, all Iran has to do is say they suspected terrorists might be involved and that clears them of any wrongdoing (if I am to understand your position on the 1,300 civilians killed in Lebanon correctly).
From what I can tell, Iran said Company A can no longer work here, as they are a front for VP Cheney's company (and were defrauding the gov't...heh..
it's almost like a pattern). Company A was doing work for Company B. Company B decided that assets used by Company A should be seized...and had already done so with another rig. Iran, said "No, I don't think so."
Hence, it's not much of a war for oil (which you rightly, congrats, have assumed that I think is wrong. Why do you think killing people to take their stuff is o.k.?).
I guess that only applies when you can find an excuse to paint America as the bad guy, huh?
Oh lordy, lordy, the strawmen are out in force today. Remember folks, anybody who disagrees with anyone on a right-wing blog HATES AMERICA.
They hate America so much, they even hate watching America make horrid mistakes.
--
Scott
This is relevant to Iran's pirate action against Romanian GSP how exactly?
Interesting, where did you get your pirate information from? What about the other rig? The point being that there are many questions remaining on this story. Especially regarding the "hijacking".
But of course, anyone asking questions about why Halliburton is being paid by Iran
obviously HATES AMERICA.
If any of these GSP riggers come to harm at the hands of the Iranian navy, will you just cover your ears and chant "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!"
Ohh looky, looky, another wonderful strawman, wandering away. If any of those GSP riggers come to harm, my hope would be that those who did so are brought to justice for it.
But glad to see you have absolutely no idea what I think. Guess I'll have to share more.
And may I ask you as well...why do you think it's o.k. to kill people and take their oil? (for the U.S. I mean, it's obivously wrong for Iran to do. Duh, even AMERICA HATERS can see that...)
Posted by: wah at August 22, 2006 07:01 PM (/Mtjv)
5
wah spelled backwards is haw - as in Lord Haw-Haw?
Lord Haw-Haw
Posted by: SouthernRoots at August 22, 2006 10:32 PM (jHBWL)
6
Wooho, Godwin.
I win.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: wah at August 23, 2006 12:21 PM (/Mtjv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 20, 2006
When E.F. Hezbollah Speaks...
...people
listen.
I guess that answers this.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:29 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Never would've guessed.
I thought that the Lebanease army delivered Hizb'Allah radar readings data and let them use the army's radar station for an attack on the Israeli warship INS Hanit just for fun.
Regards, F. S. Alex
Posted by: Fisrt Sergeant Alex at August 20, 2006 02:24 PM (UuKve)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 19, 2006
Photojournalism in Crisis
David D. Perlmutter in
Editor and Publisher:
The Israeli-Hezbollah war has left many dead bodies, ruined towns, and wobbling politicians in its wake, but the media historian of the future may also count as one more victim the profession of photojournalism. In twenty years of researching and teaching about the art and trade and doing photo-documentary work, I have never witnessed or heard of such a wave of attacks on the people who take news pictures and on the basic premise that nonfiction news photo- and videography is possible.
I'm not sure, however, if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:15 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's not the craft, it's the craftiness.
Posted by: jay tel aviv at August 19, 2006 05:40 PM (1TMJI)
2
It is good to see this reaction inside the world of reporters and journalists. I am sure they don't like the idea of being used as tools by an enemy loke a jihadist terrorist group - especially being used to disseminate lies. They are, after all, professionals. Professionals who hold freedom and truth as their highest values, as well.
Posted by: Jersey Dave at August 20, 2006 01:07 AM (xIz9u)
3
CY gets props (of a sort) from E&P. Outstanding.
What is disturbing about Perlmutter's piece is that he thinks it should somehow be painful for the journalism business to implement actual integrity.
The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school...
Why should it be "painful", as he says, unless he believes there are some sort of
valid conflicting goals here?
IMO, its only "painful" if you're a lying scumbag being
forced down that path by a public weilding red hot pokers.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 20, 2006 12:18 PM (c/xwT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 18, 2006
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fisk
As the Islamic Armegeddon apparently approaches just
four days hence,
I thought I'd take this opportunity to mention all the thinks I'm going to miss as a result.
Car Swarms
Sadly, this uniquely Palestinian cultural curiosity is about to expire, along with those who practice it. I never quite understood the odd fascination with retrieving bits of flesh from martyrs "liberated" of their earthly chains courtesy of the Israeli Air Force, but it was an interesting custom to view all the same. I'll have to find another pointless expression of impotent rage to fill this void in my life. Is Randi Rhodes still on the air?
"Differently-Abled" Suicide Bombers
Say what you will about their people skills and willingness to accept those of other beliefs, the various terrorist groups in the Middle East have always believed in diversity, even allowing the mentally infirm and gullible a direct shot at paradise.
If only we cared enough to extend equal opportunities across all strata and mental levels of our society, perhaps we could be as great a culture. Then again, Cynthia McKinney was elected twice, so perhaps we're doing better in this regard than I originally thought.
Sand
The price is certainly going to go up. Of course, glass will become much more economical, so it might balance out.
Arab Media
I'll be honest: they've provided me a lot of material in past weeks, and I'm going to miss their fine original craftsmanship, which was openly appreciated in our own media outlets as well. Bill Keller is going to have to find a new mentor, but no doubt he'll land on his feet on a nice marble floor. So long, Qana Chameleons, and thanks for all the Fisk.
Hummus
No, not really.
You may look at this admittedly short list and ask, "hey, what about all the things in the "Great Satan" and the "Little Satan" that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadabbracadabrajad has promised to destroy as he brings forth the holy cleansing fire of the Hidden Imam?"
And I'll look back at you with a smile on may face and say those four sweet, magic words, "North Korea-designed missiles."
I'll see you on the 23rd.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:09 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Cy, a great post again, though I got to disagree with you.
Even if Mahmud Ahmadinif@cked will launch an attack on Israel we have some means to defend against it (the Hetz 3 ani-ballistic missile).
But yes, the Israeli response will be quite quick and definatly devastating.
Albeit, you'll still have your palestinians and at least a part of the Arab media so don't be so sad.
See you on the 23rd.
F. Sgt. Alex
Posted by: First Sergeant Alex at August 18, 2006 12:12 PM (2pCwu)
2
You have the audacity to disparage the great and powerful hummus!?!? To the streets my brethren. The comic strip jihad will be nothing compared to the hummus one!
Posted by: The Moderate Muslim at August 19, 2006 10:48 AM (++0ve)
3
I couldn't get your trackback to work, so just wanted to let you know that I linked to you in a post I did about the irony that, within weeks of Hezbollah's being accused of shipping handicapped kids into Qana to use them for Israeli target practice, the "Arab Group" at the UN made a medium to-do about occupation forces abusing handicapped people during times of war. http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/a-bizarre-juxtaposition-or-the-chutzpah-of-it-all/
Posted by: Bookworm at August 19, 2006 11:18 AM (i/AgA)
4
hummus has been known to raise HDL. thats why these creeps only die from strapping ecplosives around their chests.
Posted by: jay tel aviv at August 19, 2006 05:43 PM (1TMJI)
5
Mee...mee...mee...
Happy trails to you,
Until we meet again.
Happy trails to you,
Keep smilin' until then.
Posted by: Eg at August 19, 2006 08:10 PM (JROsA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Southern Hospitality
The Lebanese Interior Minstry is outraged over a video showing Lebanese soldiers offering tea to Israeli soldiers during the invasion of Marjeyoun on August 10. The Interior Ministry is ordering the base commander, Gen. Adnan Daoud, to be placed under arrest.
Here is an account of what transpired via CNN:
There have been conflicting accounts of what happened at Marjeyoun.
In the video, two Israeli tanks roll up to the gate of the Marjeyoun garrison, where a white surrender flag flutters outside the barracks.
Inside, Lebanese soldiers hold trays with glasses of tea, which they offer to the Israelis. The encounter appears merely social.
However, it is possible that unpleasant parts of the video were deleted during editing.
This is in opposition to accounts of what happened when Israeli soldiers arrived according to several Arab media outlets.
Arab-language network Al-Jazeera has quoted Hezbollah as saying "violent battles" took place with their militants, and Arab news networks Al-Manar and Al-Arabiya reported at least two Israeli tanks were destroyed in the fighting.
Apparently, the new Arab media definition of "destroyed" has been expanded to cover the spilling of milk and sugar on army vehicles. That, or they are lying, and who would expect that from professional media organizations?
While I certainly wouldn't want American soldiers extending this amount of hospitality to foreign invaders, I can't say I blame the Lebanese. They are, after all, only following our example.
The Administration has taken the "tea and cookies" route in dealing with the invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern border for years, so perhaps this model behavior explains this exchange between the Israeli and Lebanese commanders on the scene, as captured on the video:
At one point in the video, Daoud and an Israeli soldier have the following exchange, as translated by CNN's Octavia Nasr:
Daoud: "Don't we need to tell our bosses?"
Israeli soldier: "Tell whoever you want."
Daoud: "We need to brief them on what happened."
Israeli soldier: "We briefed (U.S. President) Bush. You brief whoever you want."
Daoud: "We need to brief Bush too."
While translating democracy to Arab culture continues to be problematic of the President, at least it appears his overly friendly "southern hospitality" is finding admirers around the world.
That, or Lebanese soldiers with small arms don't feel like getting themselves killed for nothing. And after all Hezbollah has done for Lebanon...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:37 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.
1
CY, great post again.
One thing that I'd like to clear out. The "Isreli soldier" talking to the Lebanese general on the video is in fact an IDF Colnel (you can clearly see the 3 leaves on his shoulder).
Note, that during the entire war Lebanease army did little to try and hinder IDF's effort against Hizb'Allah.
Mabe it's because former Lebanease army General Antuan Laheed is currently living in Israel. Who knows, mabe he still has connections back at home.
Regards, F. Sgt. Alex
Posted by: Fisrt Sergeant Alex at August 19, 2006 05:47 AM (Qp1AX)
2
The Lebanonese Army has always been allies with the IDF, and served as a buffer against Syria for the IDF for several years when Israel last occupied Southern Lebanon.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 19, 2006 03:18 PM (uV5RC)
3
Mike,
During the Southern Lebanon ocupation of 1982-2000 Israel used 2 devisions of the Lebanease army (that broke away from the bulk of the Lebanease army when Siria occupied most of Lebanon) to create the Southern Lebanease Army, which was placed in the buffer zone between Hizba'Allah with Sirian forces and Israel alongside Israeli forces.
The commander of this rouge force was no other then General Antuan Laheed.
When Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 it evacuted the SLA to Israeli territory and then disbanded it. Most of SLA personnel still leave in Israel with their families, some SLA forces have been integrated into the IDF.
It's quite possible though that Israel has a strong connection to Lebanease Army via Gen. Laheed and other former LSA officers, though they are considered traitors in Lebanon.
Regards, F. Sgt. Alex
Posted by: First Sergeant Alex at August 20, 2006 08:10 AM (yyjbD)
4
First Sergeant Alex:
I just imagine that after 18 years in one spot someone had to make a few friends and contacts even if it's just business. There's probably less of that now than 3 months ago. It's looks like the IDF has worn out its welcome, again.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 20, 2006 12:17 PM (stNIg)
5
Mike,
You said:
I just imagine that after 18 years in one spot someone had to make a few friends and contacts even if it's just business. There's probably less of that now than 3 months ago. It's looks like the IDF has worn out its welcome, again.
Well, so it seems, my friend.
Or so it's intended to seem, if only to protect the lives of those involved and their families (you know, the Hizb'Allah can be quite ruthless at times). One can only wonder how the target bank was replanished during the war and other minor things like deep inteligence data and etc.
I won't and can't add any other word on this due to obvious reasons. Drive your own conclusions on this one.
Regards, F. Sgt. Alex
Posted by: Fisrt Sergeant Alex at August 20, 2006 02:09 PM (UuKve)
6
First Sergeant Alex:
Take Care my Friend.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 21, 2006 05:48 PM (HH7vy)
7
Thank you Mike, I'll certainly try.
Thou as things look to be developing - my stay in relative safety will soon come to an end.
"But somebody has to do this hard and dirty work, or nobody will do it" - my CO always says.
Regards, F. Sgt. Alex
Posted by: Fisrt Sergeant Alex at August 21, 2006 06:27 PM (r4IwI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 16, 2006
"I'm Going to Die, Aren't I?"
Almost five years after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in lower Manhattan,
the release of 1,613 emergency calls made under that bright blue September sky are like ripping scars:
"Listen to me, ma'am," that operator told a panicky Melissa Doi during a 20-minute phone call. "You're not dying. You're in a bad situation, ma'am."
A portion of Doi's end of the conversation was played for jurors in April at the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
"I'm going to die, aren't I?" Doi asked the dispatcher.
"Ma'am, just stay calm for me, OK?" the dispatcher said. The conversation ended with the operator trying vainly to speak with Doi, a financial manager for IQ Financial Systems: "Not dead, not dead," the operator said to no response. "They sound like deep sleep."
The phone line cut out. Doi never made it out of the World Trade Center.
"Oh, my lord," said the operator, whose words to Doi were previously not made public.
At Hot Air, AllahPundit managed to listen to about 90 seconds of Doi's 24-minute call before he had enough.
I admire him for getting as far as he did.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:25 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.
1
5 years and STILL no capture of OSAMA BIN LADEN. How will these families EVER have closure if he is never brought back to New York for trial and execution?
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 16, 2006 06:25 PM (ZJubN)
2
How long did it take to find Eric Rudolph? How long did it take to find the Unabomber? They were in the US... Finding Osama is a bit more difficult. Back to the topic - I don't know how anyone could listen to more than a few seconds of those tapes. I heard bits on the news, and that was enough.
Posted by: Baldy at August 16, 2006 07:40 PM (vFS/o)
3
Those 911 operators are some of the true unsung heroes of that day... talking with those people through the last moments of their lives... God bless them. I'm sure many of them needed counseling afterward. I know I would have.
Listening to even the briefest of tidbits of these 911 calls has served to rekindle some of the hotness of my anger and resolve against the Islamofascists who did this to us.
Posted by: GradualDazzle at August 16, 2006 08:51 PM (yIU8a)
4
Yeah, I guess you're right, we'll just have to wait until he sends his manifesto to the Washington Post, or we catch him dumpster diving.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 16, 2006 10:35 PM (aQWns)
5
My God, what kind of subhuman would see the comments on THIS post as nothing more than an opportunity to spew puerile anti-Bush talking points?
Posted by: zara at August 19, 2006 10:35 PM (ZGpMS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Reality Check
While the war between Hezbollah and Israel seems to be on an
increasingly temporary hiatus, the public relations battle over who actually came out ahead in this latest Arab-Israeli conflict seems to depends on whether or not you give military successes or temporary political successes more weight.
Leftist poster boy in favor of Islamic oppression, Robert Fisk:
The truth is Israel opened its attack on Lebanon by claiming the Lebanese government was responsible for Hizbollah's attack - which it clearly was not - and that its military actions would achieve the liberation of the captured soldiers.
This, the Israelis have signally failed to do. The loss of 40 soldiers in just 36 hours and the successful Hizbollah attacks against Israeli armour in Lebanon were a disaster for the Israeli army.
The fact that Syria could bellow about the "achievements" of Hizbollah while avoiding the destruction of a blade of grass inside Syria suggests a cynicism that has yet to be grasped inside the Arab world. But for now, Syria has won.
Was Lebanon's government—the same government which refuses to disarm Hezbollah—aware of Hezbollah's plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers?
Fisk says they weren't complicit.
Hasan Narallah, leader of Hezbollah, indicates otherwise (my bold):
I told them on more than one occasion that we are serious about the prisoners issue and that this can only solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Of course, I used to make hints in that respect. Of course I would not be expected to tell them on the table I was going to kidnap Israeli soldiers in July. That could not be.
[Bin-Jiddu (Al-Jazeera)] You told them that you would kidnap Israeli soldiers?
[Nasrallah] I used to tell them that the prisoners' issue, which we must solve, can only be solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.
[Bin-Jiddu (Al-Jazeera)] Clearly?
[Nasrallah] Clearly. Nobody told me: no, you are not allowed to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I was not waiting for such a thing. Even if they told me no you are not allowed [nothing would change]. I am not being defensive. I said that we would kidnap Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the key political leaders in the country.
To call Robert Fisk a liar would be redundant.
Is the loss of 40 soldiers in 1 1/2 days a "disaster" as Fisk states? To the family members of the soldiers it undoubtedly is, but otherwise, the lost of 40 men in a close quarters ground assault against the entrenched positions is hardly a disaster, even if the overall outcome of the battle was not the total destruction of Hezbollah in South Lebanon. "We won because we didn't all die" is hardly the most convincing victory speech for Hezbollah and their Syrian and Iranian patrons, not matter how the politics of the situation are spun.
Of course, that is just the political angle played up by Hezbollah's supporters.
Let's look at another view, based on the facts:
Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less.
While Hizbollah can declare this a victory, because it fought Israel without being destroyed, this is no more a victory than that of any other Arab force that has faced Israeli troops and failed. Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel for over half a century, and Hizbollah is the latest to fail. But Hizbollah did more than fail, it scared most Moslems in the Middle East, because it demonstrated the power and violence of the Shia Arab minority. Sunni Arabs, and most Arabs are Sunnis, are very much afraid of Shia Moslems, mainly because most Iranians are Shia, not Arab, and intent on dominating the region, like Iran has done so many times in the past. Hizbollah's recent outburst made it clear that Iran, which subsidizes and arms Hizbollah, has armed power that reaches the Mediterranean. This scares Sunni Arabs because a Shia minority also continues to rule Syria (where most of the people are Sunni). The Shia majority in Iraq, which have not dominated Iraq for over three centuries, is now back in control.
Hizbollah did enjoy a victory in its recent war, but it was over Sunni Arabs, not Israel.
Two different reactions, one based in leftist cant sympathetic to terrorists, and another based on the actual physical damage and the political resonance felt throughout the region. At the end of the day, I think the Israelis came out far better in their "defeat" than did Hezbollah's military wing in their corpse-riddled "victory."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:39 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Islam's Eternal War Against Israel and the Jews
Recent events in the Middle East have caused old questions to resurface. Why the Arab obsession with Israel and the Jews? Why the blinding hatred and calls for genocide and slaughter? Even "moderate" Islamic states have become much more hostile in the past week. Turkey, a nation which has enjoyed a close relationship with Israel over the years has turned violently anti- Jewish. The Turkish army has paid Israeli military contractors tens of millions of dollars to refurbish their tank corps. The Turkish Coast is a popular vacation spot for Israelis. But still, cries for Jihad resound.
To believe the answer is about land or occupation is to be simplistic. Recent events prove land has nothing to do with it (see Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals). The answer begins with a historical event that took place approximately 3,700 years ago, the birth of Abraham's two sons Isaac and Ishmael. God promised Abraham that amongst other things he would be the father of great nations. However there was one blessing that was to be passed on to one son only; the blessing of being the chosen people who would receive the land of Israel. The Judeo-Christian belief is that Isaac, one of the Jewish Patriarchs, was the chosen one. Ishmael was banished to the desert. Islam has distorted this through centuries of propaganda. Until Mohammad crawled out from under a rock in the desert about 2,500 years later, the Arabs were nothing more than nomadic pagans (exactly the opposite of Abraham's greatest legacy, monotheism). The Jews went on to settle in Israel for the next 1,600 years.
The Islamic conquest of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain raised the spirits of the desert killers. The Jews, like the Christians were treated better than the pagans, but were still discriminated against. The Jews were to be kept in check. No need to kill them. As long as Israel as a state did not exist, there was no proof that God's promise to Abraham was to be realized through Isaac.
In 1948, the modern State of Israel was born. Arab armies came from as far as Yemen and Iraq to destroy the Jewish State. The Jews who has lived in Arab countries for centuries no longer felt safe and fled for the lives. (Ironic we only hear about Palestinian refugees.) Why the sudden changes from mild tolerance to a blood thirsty cry of "slaughter the Jews"? Simple, the Jews were back in Israel. Isaac was the chosen one, and Ishmael's descendents are banished to the desert. Israel's being destroys the false Arab dreams of being the "chosen one". Why the Arab infatuation with Jerusalem when it is not even mentioned once in the Koran? Why are the mosques in Jerusalem built specifically on the Temple Mount? Because everything that is Jewish that is connected to the land must be "Islamisized".
Now that the Jews have returned, keeping them "in check" like in the middle ages is not enough. They must be destroyed, because the fact that they are alive and well in Israel is living proof that the Arab nation is not the chosen one. DonÂ’t believe anyone who tries to sell you a story about occupation.
Posted by: jay at August 16, 2006 02:16 PM (Vdp8K)
2
Israel's supporters will [mostly] say Israel won, its acknowledged enemies will say Hezbollah won, and from all sides - including the US - come the words "disproportionate response" as if the whole thing was only about the two kidnapped soldiers.
It is too early to tell. Unfortunately, Israeli governments have a terrible record of PR - they should hire a big firm to help. And it is PR that keeps the money flowing to Hamas and Hezbollah and all their ilk.
And the compromise/UNresolution is already dead. The Lebanese government has said it will not seek to disarm Hezbollah, UN resolutions or no UN: Kofi has said Israel must pull out now, even though he also says the proposed UN force will not be deployed for about a year (if at all) and will not seek to disarm Hezbollah anyway, and will probably be under the usual "fire only if fired upon" orders that allow non-UN-staff people to be shot down yards away: Secretary Rice seems to be saying the same as Kofi: Syria is rattling its tiny sword about the Golan Heights again.
Meanwhile, we almost daily have interviews with Muslim "victims" and none with Israeli ones (discounting politicians and published authors).
Posted by: teqjack at August 16, 2006 08:11 PM (oHkbn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 12, 2006
A Ringer in Qana?
Ah, Qana... the staged massacre that won't go away.
Bernice S. Lipkin, editor of Think Israel wrote to let me know that I was one of several bloggers cited in her newest article, The Bloggers Take on The Qana Massacre. It's worth a read if you haven't been following the story, and probably a nice way to tie everything together if you have.
Due in part to this article and Kathy Gannon's shamefully lightweight defense of AP's reporting (thinly veiled as an article about Slam Daher, AKA "Green Helmet"), I decided to revisit the Qana photostream on Yahoo!, when I noticed something that hadn't quite caught my eye before.
This photo got my attention.
A female victim is being carried out of the naturally lit, open-air basement. Her legs are covered with a white sheet and her torso with a black one, but an armed encased in a black-full length sleeve all but points at the cameraman.
And on the third finger of her left hand, what do you see?
A simple band of gold. A wedding ring?
Aren't wedding bands are Christian tradition?
The 28 named dead were all reported to belong to the same Shiite Muslim family.
Update: Could be dead wrong on this; I dont know. I figured it was better to put it out there and let folks debate it.
Update: CY reader Bruce sends me this link, which seems to indicate that the use of wedding rings in Muslim culture is a flagrant violation of their cultural norms:
The following are some of the practices that are meticulously carried out during matrimonial affairs despite the fact that they are either expressly forbidden in Shariah, or have no bases in Islam:
The engaged couple meet at a public gathering where the boy holds the girl's hand and slips a ring onto her finger whilst the two look romantically at each other. This act is void of modesty and completely [sic] foreign to Islamic culture. It is furthermore, a flagrant violation of the Quranic Law of Purdah. It is an evil innovation of the godless west , and those indulging in it should take cognizance of the Prophet's stern warning that "those who imitate others will rise on the Day of Judgement as of them".
If this is correct, then the use of wedding rings in the strictly Shiite Hezbollah-dominated culture of south Lebanon very unlikely, begging the question, "where did this body, with an apparent wedding band, come from?"
Now more than ever, I strongly suspect this body, among others, may have been "planted" at Qana.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:01 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.
1
There's Christians in Lebanon. Smart bombs don't know the difference.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 12, 2006 03:15 PM (rUHlk)
2
The bombs do not make a difference, but people should. A simple application of however limited brain capacity would help.
According to ALL sources reporting from Qana
the victims were sleeping in one basement and belonged to Shiite. It is also well known that the Shiites are responsible for brutal killings of Christians in Lebanon. How come a christian woman would sleep among members of the Shiit family ? A 'multi-cultural media show ?'
Posted by: Peter at August 12, 2006 03:25 PM (5sCbj)
3
I really have no idea. Maybe she was seeking shelter from the bombing. Ever been in a bombing? A person will do anything to have a place to hide and probably won't mind who's company they keep to have it. From the picture, I can't tell if it's a man or a woman. (of course that's not unusual, ever been to Denver?) The ring being only a Christian thing is only the mearest speculation on the part of the poster. Unless you were there, you're ALL just guessing. You don't really have any idea what the truth of the matter is either way.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 12, 2006 05:52 PM (TCz1O)
4
Well Mike, it may not be exclusively a christian thing, but the question is --
is it a muslim thing?
The answer apparently is its not prohibited, so it may be "it depending on local custom".
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 12, 2006 06:59 PM (c/xwT)
5
Most very devout Muslims reject the wearing of wedding rings as haram, forbidden. Not all Muslims may take this tradition as seriously as others, however. Still, the Shiites in Lebanon tend to be exceptionally religious so it does seem very unusual.
Posted by: mike at August 12, 2006 08:16 PM (CRG6u)
6
It's not necessarily a wedding band. It may be just a ring period.
More to the point, I can't see any significance.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 12, 2006 10:24 PM (S1ka/)
7
http://blogs.20minutos.es/enguerra/post/2006/08/13/mensaje-la-aviacion-israeli-disculpe-senor-nos-equivocamos
*********Head of missile*******
¡Fraud!
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fab at August 12, 2006 11:00 PM (qDqDD)
8
Your headline should read "Ah, Qana... the massacre that shouldn't go away.
We should find out who was responsible and hold them accountable. Even in war there are codes of conduct.
Posted by: ClearwaterConservative at August 13, 2006 06:29 AM (92quE)
9
Hezbollah is digging up corpses to parade them as civilian casualties. This means that they are desecrating graves.
You don't think Islamics warriors in Lebanon would desecrate
Muslim graves for their propaganda, do you?
-Steve
Posted by: Steve at August 13, 2006 09:30 AM (5kFGJ)
10
Wedding rings (worn on the third finger) are not a christian monopoly. If you have seen pics of a muslim bride in the arab countries, they are dressed in white wedding gowns like in the west. Most have wedding rings - I know several muslims who wear wedding rings.
Steve, what a sick mind to think that 'Hezbollah is digging up corpses to parade them as civilian casualties' - there have been only a few mass graves in Lebanon in recent times. The incessant bombing of anything that moves prevents the people of Lebanon taking their dead to cemeteries for burial.
The attack on Qana civilians was one of the brutal acts in history. Would you have been equally joyfull if something like this happened in Georgia? in If you don't have the moral fiber to condemn the carnage, at least dont desecrate the sanctity of the dead.
Posted by: Joe at August 13, 2006 11:35 AM (nnEcx)
11
The attack on Qana civilians was one of the brutal acts in history.
Oh please, you're making me laugh.
Qana is a pimple on the ass of a gnat compared to most things that go on in the world today. Even worse is the fact that it was half fake.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 13, 2006 01:25 PM (c/xwT)
12
According to a photographer who has done work for the NY Times in the past, they are indeed digging up bodies for show and tell:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/192229.php
Posted by: mike at August 13, 2006 02:14 PM (CRG6u)
13
Joe, it's time to take your head out of the bag, and face the world.
The pathologies of the region will not abate by denying them, nor blaming them on externalities like 'colonialism' or 'Zionism.'
Arabs and Muslims worldwide need to decide
for themselves if they will accomodate
themselves to the modern, global order. In many ways our task as Americans is simply to avoid as much collateral damage to our own populations as possible, while the Arab societies resolve this nasty internal dispute. In fact, all the violence and "lashing-out" from Islamic radicals appear more and more to resemble a big child's temper tantrum. And we just want to be out of the way of the flailing arms and unaimed stones.
Wild proxy attacks on externalities, like civilians in Tel Aviv, New York and Mumbai only distract the middle eastern populace from the fractous
internal debate that the region so badly needs.
-Steve
Posted by: Steve at August 13, 2006 03:14 PM (SDhNB)
14
Now if my memory is correct there were christians in southern Lebonon. However, they were often treated poorly and some even were supportive of Hezbollah as well. Still this being said, I would not be surprised to see this as a set up photo as well. Perhaps a willing, live western accomplice is the "victim" on the streacher. Or perhaps they are using a dead christians body to ralley support from "those people". The only thing that is sure is that any picture coming from there is suspect and needs to be more or less disregarded from the ranks of truth.
Posted by: Carnivore at August 14, 2006 08:28 AM (Ht3uJ)
15
I'm not sure about this one. Osama bin Laden wears a ring, and we all know he's about as fanatical as they come. The 9/11 deniers try to use pictures of him wearing a ring as proof that he is an American 'psy-ops' creation. I'd hate to think that we're going down a trail that was blazed by that that looney bunch. I'm not saying this isn't a good observation. It's just that we're going to need more proof.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at August 14, 2006 12:14 PM (vpndg)
16
I don't get the fuss about this?
Why would someone put a ring on a dead body? Do you think they flew the hand in from Europe? Many Muslims wear rings. And there are also lots of Christians who got killed by the airstrikes. I don't understand how this is evidence of fakery.
There are lots of dead people in Lebanon these days and the house looks pretty smashed. And airstikes tend to kill indiscriminately. They were bombed for about a month straight.
Are you trying to say that Israel never went to war and that this is all some kind of liberal media conspiracy? If you supported the war, big deal, you got what you wanted. Here's the proof. Pictures of dead people. It's like renting a porno and being scandalized by nudity.
Or is this like Queer Eye for the War Reporter, where you snark at the fashion blunders and poor housekeeping of the deceased? Seriously, this either really loopy tinfoil hat "we never landed on the moon" conspiracy talk... or just a satanic joke that you are playing on dead people.
Posted by: Grizzly at August 15, 2006 06:15 PM (DwFzZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 11, 2006
Precarious Road
Michael Yon issues a
stark warning about the growing civil war in Iraq. His comments are disturbing, to put it mildly, but I trust his analysis. We have soldiers and commanders on the ground that know how to succeed, and it seems they are not being allowed to complete their mission.
I've made it apparent in the past that I've had my disagreements with the present Administration, and while I've been impressed with the efforts of our soldiers on the ground, the leadership—primarily the political leadership—seems to have misjudged how best to conduct this war time and again, and quite frankly, seems on the verge of blowing it if they haven't already.
I think it is time for Donald Rumsfeld to consider retiring. He presided over two very successful and very different military invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, winning each handily with minimal loses to men and equipment on both sides. I think it highly unlikely two countries the size of Afghanistan and Iraq can easily be dispatched as well by any other nation, and Rumsfeld ran two excellent invasion campaigns. The performance of our individual soldiers and commanders on the ground have also been phenomenal as well, and I cannot say enough about their professionalism or the degree of restraint and respect for civilian life with which they have fought these on-going wars.
But I do doubt how our political leadership have run the occupations and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan after we established a large degree of control over these nations. Too many mistakes have been made.
The Sunni insurgency and their al Qaeda allies have been dealt crippling blows during the rebuilding of Iraq, but no rational person with any knowledge of history expects them to completely go away for years to come. But during this same time, Kurdish forces in the north have been allowed to engage in raids into Turkey with little or no repercussions, setting a stage where Turkey may invade northern Iraq. Shiite militias in Baghdad and southern Iraq have been allowed to exist and strengthen ties with Iran. The country is on the verge of collapsing into sectarian genocide, and our political leadership doesn't seem to have the stomach to crack down on these groups with the force necessary to literally kill the private sectarian armies that are ripping the country apart.
The Administration isn't wholly to blame for the situation in Iraq—it is after all their country and they are the ones killing each other—but it is responsible for Iraq to the point where some people have come to view private armies instead of a national government is in their best interests, as many Iraqis obviously do. The person most directly responsible for these failures in Iraq are not the soldiers on the ground, but their senior leadership in the Pentagon, and the man sitting at the desk of the Secretary of Defense. It is his job to run the military's wars, and he has allowed Iraq to reach its present state.
Perhaps it isn't entirely Rumsfeld's fault—he does take orders from the President, after all—but he is most directly in charge of a situation growing increasingly out of control, and I think it is time to have a fresh set of eyes look at the problem, and seek a better resolution. We must win in Iraq, and by "we", I mean the coalition and the Iraqi people. Their lives matter to me. They deserve a chance to live in a society without fear.
We cannot win this war for the Iraqi people by withdrawing. The "nediots" chanting on a Connecticut stage, and mewling around the anti-victory left, refuse to address the genocide that could certainly occur if we heed their calls for a headlong, cowardly retreat. And yet, we cannot win by slowly reacting or failing to act to changing situations. The 25 million people of Iraq deserve the free nation they braved bombs and bullets to vote for, and we owe it to them as much as to ourselves to make sure they succeed.
Our present top level military leadership is failing at that task, and we need fresh eyes on the ball. I thank Donald Rumsfeld for his many years of hard work and dedication to our great nation, but I think it is time for him to pursue other opportunities.
We owe that to our Iraqi allies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:22 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I appreciate Micheal Yon's percspective, but I disagree with both his and your analysis of the SecDef's role. I'm finishing my third year in the building and haven't seen a single case of him countering the guys on the ground (he does ask some very tough questions of his commanders). Do you expect him to have townhall meetings with all the guys in the field on a weekly basis? Tactical operations require a tactical perspective and the SecDef shouldn't be in that business (and isn't). If there are problems at the operational level, those operational commanders need to fix them. I understand the adage of "the buck stops at the top"; so why not take your shot at POTUS. It would be as off the mark as this one is against the SecDef.
So what would you have your "replacement SecDef" do?
Posted by: Sluggo_f16 at August 11, 2006 10:54 AM (VE5vJ)
2
There was an article I read on an Iraqi General that got support from the locals in his area, I can't remember his name but maybe if he had a larger role or we could find a couple more like him.
Support from the Iraqi people could be a lot higher. That would go a long way in helping.
Posted by: Retired Navy at August 11, 2006 12:52 PM (nFSnk)
3
CY - My first thoughts after reading this was, "OMG, those damn Lamontites have hacked CY's website too!"
Responsibility and accountability, are 2 words with no meaning in this administration. POTUS, Rummsfield, Chenney, Rove, etc. no one is responsible for what is going on over there. Just the "terrorists". Unfortunately, the only way you have been able tell when someone in this administration is being held "accountable" for their job is when they are given a medal.
I agree that fresh eyeballs are needed but we also need a well articulated, thought out, financially scoped (how and who will pay for this) plan, not 3 second media clips. We stand down when they stand up is a nursery rhyme not a plan. Stay the course is a bumpersticker slogan, not a plan. we can't cut and run is simply pointing out another non-solution, not offering one.
Posted by: matt a at August 11, 2006 01:32 PM (GvAmg)
4
Why all the blame on Rumsfeld? Hasn't State had a role in the post-war period? What about the CIA?
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 11, 2006 01:57 PM (n5eDP)
5
Given Rumsfeld's strength in successful invasions, perhaps we need him for a couple more.
While the Long War erodes our liberties at home (mainly because our Politically Correct elites won't concentrate our domestic countermeasures against our Islamist enemies), terrorists abroad create instabilities that raise the price of oil and thereby increase terrorist funding. What America needs is a Short War. And a quick victory in a Short War is well within our grasp, since winning the war on terror requires controlling a relatively small amount of territory occupied by a relatively friendly population.
We can seize our enemies' center of gravity by liberating the oppressed Shia Arab majorities in Iran's Khuzestan province and Saudi Arabia's Hasa province. These provinces also happen to be the sources of the oil that funds the mullahs and sheiks who run the Islamist terror programs. They are compact, and their populations have no love lost for the imperialists in Teheran and Riyadh who seized these provinces in the early 20th century.
The oil revenues could then fund an infrastructure for peace in the Middle East, with funds going to roads instead of nukes and engineering schools instead of madrassas. A coalition of the willing -- an Anglosphere+ Alliance with the US-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ-India + Japan + Germany -- could administer the funds, paying for schools and hospitals and highways throughout the region.
The Khomeinists and the Wahabbis would have a choice of resisting our liberation of those provinces and suffering the consequences in Teheran and Riyadh -- think shock and awe -- or submitting to our control of those limited territories and living in peace with their palaces and offshore bank accounts intact (or with whatever their citizens will allow them to escape with after leading their nations into a disastrous confrontation with the West). They'll probably submit, but if they don't, the Army and the Marines could sweep their forces aside, and our Iraqi allies could help restore order among their Shiite cousins.
The same coalition of the willing could form the nucleus of a new United Democracies organization, withdrawing from the United Nations and setting high standards for membership in the new global community. With control of Persian Gulf oil revenues, this community could offer real benefits to nations that meet membership standards. The Islamist threat would fade with the end of Islamist funding, which has never had anything to do with earned wealth and productivity.
Would any politician embrace using our overwhelming power to convert this Long War into a Short War? It smacks of Teddy Roosevelt, who liberated Panama when it was a Colombian province and Colombia wouldn't let the USA build a canal. Teddy didn't believe in limits on governmental power, which was not such a good thing domestically but earned the USA tremendous respect internationally. As we face radical Islam again, it's time to for a leader to arise who would fulfill a promise "Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead." Donald Rumsfeld, as you rightly note, seems to be the man. If he's been biding his time waiting for the opportunity, we should see that very soon. Both al-Quaida and Hezbollah have given us plenty of reason to go after Saudi and Iranian oil revenues.
Posted by: Mark White at August 11, 2006 04:05 PM (ELhCH)
6
GO her
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/
Go her
http://www.defendamerica.mil/
War world 4 Began on sevtember 11. 2001
Posted by: KJW at August 11, 2006 05:28 PM (PRAE3)
7
I agree with Sluggo and Old Soldier in a certain light: The most significant problems in Iraq aren't of a military nature nor are amenable to a military solution, so firing Rumsfeld isn't likely to change much. Rumsfeld's errors were in the planning of the war and the management of the initial occupation period were extensive, but his ability to influence events are minor at this point.
As I understand it, the problem is not with Iraqi army but with the disparate Iraqi police units. These Shite units compound the Sunni terrorist problem both by recklessly lashing out at Sunnis and more generally by being in the indirect control of corrupt local chieftains.
Unlike Confederate Yankee, I don't think the question here is whether we (US military) have the stomach to crack down on these renegade police units and de facto militias like Sadr's men. Somehow we have to assist the Iraqi government in co-opting these elements into the political process, to divert their energies into more legitimate channels.
It's not an ideal solution, and will require giving these thugs a dignity they don't otherwise deserve. But in my opinion, if the US army cracks down on the militias it risks being seen by the Shites of Iraq (the majority of Iraqis) as agents of the Sunnis. That is not good.
If we are going to choose sides, we should choose now, and relocate a significant force to Kurdistan while the Sunnis and Shites solve their age-old grievances. This might also solve the question of tension on the Turkish border. It's the best solution I've seen so far.
Posted by: Nate at August 11, 2006 06:06 PM (zoPvQ)
8
I must whole heartedly agree with CY. Rummy needs to find a new place to go. He FAILED to capture Osama bin Laden when Bin Laden was most vulnerable while on the run in Afghanistan. He FAILED to maintain control over the populace in Iraq early on in the summer of 2003, before an insurgency could organize. We ARE the world's most powerful nation, the world's ONLY superpower. We HAVE the greatest military in the history of Planet Earth. There IS no room for such FAILURE and incompetence. It's time for Donald to take that fishing trip, and leave the business of war to those better suited.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 11, 2006 10:05 PM (VYkB5)
Posted by: guinsPen at August 12, 2006 11:35 AM (IqvU+)
10
I can not figure out how babysitting the Iraqis while they have a civil war helps us fight the war on terrorism.
Posted by: ClearwaterConservative at August 12, 2006 02:07 PM (92quE)
11
There is no civil war, they're just shooting each other.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 12, 2006 03:19 PM (rUHlk)
12
It is not time for the SOD to resign. It's time to get the politicians out of the war. Let the SOD and the more than capable military get the job done. It's extremely hard on the military when 45% of the members of congress are betraying them on a daily basis. And they are betraying the members of the military and causing 75% of the deaths that occur in Iraq. If the idiots would shut up for 60 days the war would be over and the troops on the way home. With the lefties help, god help us all, it'll take 50 years and we'll still lose. Cut and Run is the option of cowards (democrats) and cowards only.
Posted by: Scrapiron at August 13, 2006 08:34 PM (Ffvoi)
13
It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault, isn't it?
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 14, 2006 12:28 AM (HCr2q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Flipside of the Ghost War
I spoke several days ago about the
Ghosts in the Media Machine, and how media coverage of the war between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon is heavily slanted in favor of Hezbollah.
Scan the photos coming out of Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, and you'll see and unending stream of dramatic photos of dead women and children and anguished rescue workers climbing through the remains of bombed-out residential buildings, and you will see heart-rending photos of toys in the rubble. You will see mourning. You will see pain. You will see a civilian infrastructure in tatters.
What you will not see, except in very rare cases, is Hezbollah.
There is a flipside to that coverage as well, coming from the same photostreams. Photographers chronicling the war from the Israeli side of the conflict also seem to have their own agenda, geared toward the same end.
The photos of Israel's participation in this war are interesting in that they are heavily invested in showing the army component of the Israeli Defense Forces in an odd light.
There is an old maxim that says life in any military is very much a "hurry up and wait" prospect, where soldiers experience an existence that intersperses long periods of boredom with short, intense periods of combat. The photos coming out of Lebanon and northern Israel certainly capture the boredom aspect of military life, to an extent that seems contrived. The same photostream that has provided the scenes of dead and dying Lebanese civilians and bombed out buildings shows a IDF army on the ground that seems to spend a considerable amount of time marching in an out of Lebanon, or sitting around waiting for something to happen. Time and again, the photos show soldiers that seem equally spent and bored... or worse. Certainly, a large part of the IDF soldier's life in this war is sitting around waiting for something to happen, but what this war is not providing scenes of IDF soldiers engaged in the intense, often close-quarters ground combat that has caused most of the IDF's casualties and many more Hezbollah casualties on the ground.
We do not see photographers following the IDF into action; we have not a single photojournalist comparable to a Michael Yon following IDF soldiers into close combat. We have no Kevin Sites embedded with IDF forces as they clear enemy villages (as a side note, while Sites was vilified by many for shooting the footage of a U.S. Marine killing a wounded insurgent in Fallujah, the Marines he was embedded with seem to have no hard feeling, and Sites himself certainly had no animus towards the Marines). There are no stories telling of the bravery or selflessness that so many soldiers display in their character in the heart of war, no stories of individual courage, though almost certainly these events have transpired.
Instead, the media covering Israel's army seems focused on showing the bored, the wounded, and the dead. Proof is simple enough to find. At the time this post was written, the first 15 pages of the Yahoo! News photostream showed 57 photos of Israeli soldiers and their families, some of them duplicates.
Eight photos showed Israeli military vehicles driving, nine showed Israeli soldiers walking. 15 pictures showed Israeli soldiers sitting, or otherwise stationary. Four photos showed wounded IDF soldiers being evacuated. Nineteen photos--the most of any category--were focused on the death of Israeli soldiers and the anguish of their families and friends. One photo showed an IDF artillery round being fired.
Only one photo--a single, solitary photo--showed an IDF soldier in action.
If the IDF itself is not allowing media to accompany soldiers into Lebanon, this perception of a feeble, ineffective army is proof that the IDF itself does not know how to fight a postmodern media war, and the Israelis have only themselves to blame. If, however, the IDF will allow embedded photographers and journalists to accompany their army into Lebanon (and the photo linked above of an IDF soldier advancing in Qlai'a suggests that it does), and the media is refusing to either accompany IDF forces, or else refuses to distribute the stories and images they gather, then we have something else entirely.
An argument can be made that the media photos coming out of Lebanon and Israel of the IDF's ground forces are meant to show an ineffective force that spends most of its time sitting around doing very little when it isn't burying its soldiers. Obviously, "something" is occurring between the sitting and the dying, and the world's media is failing to tell that story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:47 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 771 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Maybe it's hard to get dramatic action shots of an army that does most of its killing with 155mm howitzers miles from the front line, F-16s making high-altitude bombing attacks, and unmanned drones piloted from who knows where (but presumably somewhere safe).
Methinks the IDF has developed an aversion to firefights.
Posted by: Dan at August 11, 2006 10:54 AM (VRb5p)
2
Ignorant much, Dan?
Read up a bit on the news. The Israelis have been mounting commando raids and taking Hezbollah strongpoints with ground forces.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 11, 2006 01:58 PM (n5eDP)
3
Dan,
You're right, those cowards, they are nothing like Hezbollah soldiers who personally carry the bombs into the marketpleces to blow the civilians up. And they take great pains in seeing that the hundreds of missles shot daily, hit only military targets.
Idiot.
Posted by: Pat at August 11, 2006 02:24 PM (6oYv5)
4
Your ignorance is grandiose
Try reading some books about IDF instead of groaning stupidities
Yes,,I forgot that lefties hate books...
Posted by: DAN FROM EURABIA at August 11, 2006 03:28 PM (aEC+W)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
194kb generated in CPU 0.0884, elapsed 0.1697 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.1335 seconds, 305 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.