The pictures and story from Falluja are horrible. As we should, we recoil from the rage and inhumanity of the actions that led to them, and try to figure out how to respond. On one of my email lists, the discussion is between those who want to respond with massive destruction and those who – equally hopeless about the future of Iraq – want to simply leave.
I’ll offer the photo linked here (note that it is slightly, but not horribly, graphic) as evidence why we shouldn’t do either.Note the dateline: Marietta, GA, 1915. That’s where Leo Frank was brutally lynched.
In case you think those horrors are in our distant past, I’ll suggest that Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner would probably feel differently – if they were alive.
While some might disagree, I think I can safely say that the American South is, today, civilized.
Actually international law restricts “occupiers” like the US from any sort of punishment other than
identifying the attackers, or the persons who mutilated bodies and prosecuting them for war crimes. Even blowing up people’s houses is a grey area. Most international law on “occupation” was written by the U.N. to disadvantage Israel so its highly restrictive.
I think the US should blow up all entry and exit points to Fallujah bar one. Surround it with mines and barbed wire. Prevent all travel until the town is fully searched (a 22 hour curfew?). Arrange for the town to survive off rations only in the meantime. Pass a law that Fallujah is the one town in Iraq where residents are not permitted even one firearm. Then sweep through arrest anyone with a firearm, blow up the houses of anyone who doesn’t surrender, and detain anyone whose face appeared in the videotape for at least 60 days. Crowds of protestors should be sprayed with tear gas and yellow dye. Dyed individuals showld be detained for at least 60 days. Persons who through interrogation of witnesses are identified as taking part in the mutiliation should be detained as long as legally possible. It may be illegal to confiscate assets but massive fines enforced by seizing assets might be legal.
Actually international law restricts “occupiers” like the US from any sort of punishment other than
identifying the attackers, or the persons who mutilated bodies and prosecuting them for war crimes. Even blowing up people’s houses is a grey area. Most international law on “occupation” was written by the U.N. to disadvantage Israel so its highly restrictive.
I think the US should blow up all entry and exit points to Fallujah bar one. Surround it with mines and barbed wire. Prevent all travel until the town is fully searched (a 22 hour curfew?). Arrange for the town to survive off rations only in the meantime. Pass a law that Fallujah is the one town in Iraq where residents are not permitted even one firearm. Then sweep through arrest anyone with a firearm, blow up the houses of anyone who doesn’t surrender, and detain anyone whose face appeared in the videotape for at least 60 days. Crowds of protestors should be sprayed with tear gas and yellow dye. Dyed individuals showld be detained for at least 60 days. Persons who through interrogation of witnesses are identified as taking part in the mutiliation should be detained as long as legally possible. It may be illegal to confiscate assets but massive fines enforced by seizing assets might be legal.
thought experiment – what if the “laws of land warfare” existed prior to the state of Israel?
Would american involvement with such laws of land warfare be any different?
A.L.,
Why are you surprised or shocked? This is what barbarians do.
It was only a matter of time before some group of American contractors “Volunteered” to be the subject of a tale of “Evolution in Action.”
Like the Jessica Lynch ambush got American military rear service forces to take seriously their security measures in Iraq, so too will this incident get American contractors to be serious about their security.
This is what Strategypage.com said on the subject:
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM
IRAQ: Sunni Arabs Demonstrate Their Political Skills
April 1, 2004: When the 82nd Airborne division left the Sunni Arab region, and was replaced by the marines, lots of data on who is who in places like Fallujah was turned over. Some army intelligence experts stayed behind to work on some of the continuing information gathering operations. The armed gangs in places like Fallujah are a complex brew, since nearly everyone has a gun and a large percentage (perhaps as many as twenty percent of adult men in places like Fallujah) are willing to use them. Moreover, the gangs (some of which are clan or family organizations) are always jockeying for position. There are also illegal rackets (extortion, smuggling, kidnapping) to fight over as well. The marines are using aggressive patrols to gain undisputed and 24 hour control of the streets. This involves a lot of night operations, where the marines have an edge with their night vision equipment. The Sunni Arabs do not have to come to terms with the marines, they have to come to terms with the rest of Iraq, and themselves.
March 31, 2004: Four Americans, security managers in charge of protecting food convoys moving through the hostile Sunni Arab region west of Baghdad, were ambushed in Fallujah. The four men were shot, burned in their two SUVs, then their bodies were mutilated, dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge. Sunni Arabs, who have ruled Iraq for centuries using such brutal methods, are terrified at the prospect of what will happen to them when an Iraqi government is formed by a democratic vote. Wander into any market or coffee shop in Sunni areas and you’ll hear talk of “war crime” trials and revenge attacks from Kurds and Shia Arabs (and Christian Arabs, and Turkomen and even Iraqi Jews). The Sunni Arabs have a lot to be scared about, and the attack on the four Americans in Fallujah shows why. The video of the four Americans murdered in Fallujah will be shown throughout Iraq. Sunnis will see it as a victory over the invaders. Most other Iraqis will see it an another example of Sunni Arab cruelty and barbarism. Or, as many Sunni Arabs see it, the killing was a demonstration of their political skills. Scare people enough and they will obey.
What this is all about is the “negotiation” of the Arab Sunni’s final political status in Iraq. Will they reconcile with their reduced status in a democratic Iraq or will they be so nasty that when Americans leave Iraq, their Kurdish and Arab- Shia will ethnically cleanse them in self-defense.
Whatever else happens, the Arab-Sunni men in that “death swarm” in Falluja are dead men walking. Either we will run them down and kill them, or five years after we leave their neighbors will.
Trent, I’m not surprised at all…I’m simply puttingthis into a bit of historic context. We seem to be pretty good at brutality as a species…
A.L.
Hearing someone say “let’s kill ’em all” reminds me of this amazing exchange from David Lean’s 1965 classic film.
Zhivago: “It seems you bombed the wrong village.”
Strelnikov: “They always say that. And what does it matter? A village betrays us, a village is burned. The point made.”
Zhivago: “Your point. Their village.”
Of course we are AL. How else do you explain our getting to the top of the food chain? In nature, only the nastiest, most brutal species can get to the top. And no other known species can beat Man in that respect.
Researcher,
Fallujah has a population of about 500,000, hardly a “town.” How many people would it take to search it?
I thought it was 200,000. Perhaps that number includes all the nearby villages and towns…
We seem to be pretty good at brutality as a species.
Absolutely true. Among the important issues of our time are: (i) Have Western and Westernized societies (despite the Holocaust, despite colonialism, despite other wrongs) gotten essentially beyond “species brutality”? (ii) More particularly, are American values – and U.S. foreign policy as it reflects those values (despite similar caveats) – represent a level beyond species brutality or are we “just as bad or worse than everybody else, ie, equally engaged in species brutality in one form or another? (iii) Is a liberal political and social order the only just, viable and virtually morally necessary societal model in a globalized world?
How you answer these questions will say a lot about where you stand on the issues of the day.
besides the romans, the most prolific modern practitioners of the burn any village to make a point are the soviet union and mainland china. In all, 120 Million points made as people were freed from the constraints of their villages and lives.
But hey, I was off topic, the US is actually the major source of evil in this and the last century. 😉
How many people here think there will be more than 10,000 Sunni Arabs living in Fallujah five years after American forces leave Iraq?
The temptation to imitate the German Army, WW II, and flatten the city, is tempting, but that would probably lead to the necessity of flattening the whole country. Look through today’s news for the reaction of Gen. Kimmit, who said, “We will come in, at a time and place of our own choosing, it will be methodical, it will be precise, and it will be overwhelming.”
Works for me.
Let’s not do Somalia all over again.
If they get away with this one, there will be dozens more, and I’m not going to support that.
Those people understand raw power; they do not understand inaction or absorbing your losses.
Americans never miss an opportunity to feign innocence, especially when it comes to American presence (and occupations) around the world. And some are ignorant enough of world affairs that they genuinely feel that the US government is innocent and noble in its global interventions. Yes, the pictures in Iraq yesterday were horrific and gruesome, but so were the non-pictures of US killing of more than 30 Iraqis in that same Falujah only last week. How many of you were also horrified at that killing of Iraqis? Oh, but let us now pretend, a la Israel, that all Iraqis killed are terrorists, and all Palestinians killed are terrorists. Yes, it was awful how people were cheering the killing of people yesterday in Falujah, but I can render that judgment myself because I do not cheer the killing of people in general, any people. So let me ask you: how many of you cheered the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq? How many of you saluted the troops in the course of the wars, which resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis? You are then just like the cheering crowd in Falujah. No different whatever. So stop feeling superior. Come down from your high-horse, and count the civilian toll of the Iraqi war. According to one estimate, the results of the war have killed more than 10,000 civilians. But maybe the scenes of burning Iraqi bodies do not evoke emotions in people who only mourn victims who belong to the superior master race. How many of you readers knew that more than 30 Iraqis were killed last week in Falujah, and how many of you care? It is time that Americans, people and media especially, take another look at Iraq. It is time that we dismiss the silly and idiotic scenarios, according to which Saddam in his hole, and later Abu Mus`ab Az-Zarqawi, directed all attacks on Americans. Even the most pro-war journalist, John Burns of the New York Times, has figured it out finally. Here is his conclusion from today’s piece: ” Several Iraqis interviewed on Wednesday, including middle-class professionals, merchants and former members of Mr. Hussein’s army, suggested that the United States might be facing a war in which the common bonds of Iraqi nationalism and Arab sensibility have transcended other differences, fostering a war of national resistance that could pose still greater challenges to the Americans in the months, and perhaps years, ahead.”
posted by As’ad @ 10:51 AM link
It’s the ‘precise and overwhelming’ parts that are the most necessary, Mike. They understand raw power, and respect it, because of their culture. But because they are human they also get a LITTLE UPSET when their spouses, parents, children, and friends are harmed.
Let’s try to keep the upset to those who should be upset at the harm their spouses, parents, children, and friends have done.
The American South only became civilized when the KKK could no longer operate with impunity. Many southerners had to be jailed, and many more had to be killed or driven from their homes, before they finally realized that they could not lynch all the blacks they wanted and get off scott free every time.
As’ad, Americans, and Westerners in general, don’t blow themselves up in restaurants, don’t tear bodies apart with their bare hands and hand the remains from lampposts. As AL points out, a small percentage of us did similar things 100 years ago, but our culture as a whole repudiated it and we dont’ do it anymore.
Arab culture doesn’t repudiate such savagery, it celebrates and encourages it and makes excuses for it. If you can’t tell the difference, may God have mercy on your soul.
AL:
What’s the difference between the people we are fighting, and the people we are (supposedly) fighting for?
What would you do to mercenaries who invaded your country and shot up your home-town?
We haven’t read much about the “operations” in Fallujah before this outrage. Our army bombed Fallujah and killed 18 people in the previous week. These were ordinary people at home, not terrorists.
Yehudit:
Cut the crap. Westerners killed 2 million Vietnamese, defoliated thousands of acres of jungle, and damn near destroyed a country to save it from itself. We may not be bloody-minded fundamentalists NOW, but we are more than willing to subcontract out our murders to professionals.
A SMALL PERCENTAGE of us did this 100 years ago? This is ignoramus talk. The entire black population of the American South was effectively terrorized by the prospect of lynching until well into my lifetime.
Arab culture is a very violent, act-out type of society and no one would deny that. (Have you ever actually *been* to an Arab country, or to Israel, even?) But to accuse them of being uniquely prone to territorial violence is delusional. It’s human, all too human.
As’ad’s argument is at best NAIVE – the very essence of JIHADISM is FAITH-BASED, ARABIC-SEMITIC-BEDOUIN IMPERIALISM and EXPANSIONISM, no different than Communist China’s fallacious criticisms of potsmodern JAPAN! In true Lefty alteriorism, Communist China’s desires for Chinese-centric REGIONAL HEGEMONY has no relation to Japan’s periods of aggressive or violent militarism, never mind China’s own historic and longer periods of agressive or violent militarism! If As’ad’s premise is “IRAQ FOR IRAQIS” or similar, activists who proclaim dedicated supported for this nationalist adage have yet to show how they intend to credibly avoid any repeat of the mistakes that led to Saddam’s rise to power and the entrenchment of his brutal regime, short of claiming that Iraqis in general are for death camps, torture, and wanton brutality! Exclusive of AS’AD, I strongly agree with RESEARCHER – cordon FALLUJAH off, deny any and all outside, non-domicilic IRAQ-MUSLIM ACCESS, and conduct repeated HTH and Underground searches and investigations until the area is completely pacified. I strongly believe that if LBJ had authorised the creation of a nation-wide, excessively defensible perimeter fence around the whole of South Vietnam, the USMACV and the SVN army would’ve been able to internally defeat the Communist VietCong and NVA forces – the long term benefits would’ve far outweighed the EXCESSIVE COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION! Contary to popular misconception, the French MAGINOT LINE did its job – it deterred and intimidated Hitler’s casualty-fearing Wehrmacht so much as to cause it to seek attack through the barely defended Ardennes Forest. Despite having many of the best mfgd tactical warfighting assets in the whole of Europe, the French government and army were ideologically, culturally, and organizationally UNPREPARED TO FIGHT AGAINST ANY BREAKTHROUGH LET ALONE POST-WW1 STRATEGIC-OPERATIONAL WARS OF MANEUVER! In Vietnam the US didn’t find out until the mid-1970’s that North Vietnam was running out of available manpower, and that eventually North Vietnam would’ve had to either give up its effort to conquer the South or else seek out manpower-intervention from the major Commie states, espec CHINA – I believe a strongly defended and properly prepared and supported security line around the whole of SOuth Vietnam could’ve ended the Communist effort long before 1973! In IRAQ as shouldve been in Vietnam, THE ABSOLUTE SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF US-ALLIED MILFORS/CIVFORS IS PARAMOUNT AND SUPERIOR TO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE – as an American and ex-SpecOps vet I am absolutely willing to screw the deficit a few percentage points if it means an democratic and Westernized IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, etc. as achieved by letting the Army behave like a bastard when it needs to be, and blowin’ America’s enemies to smithereens! ITS ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE TOO MUCH THAN TOO LITTLE, AND BETTER “OVER THERE” THAN “OVER HERE”, THE LATTER OF WHICH IS WHAT THE PC COMMIE CLINTONS WANT, WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT, LIKE IT OR NOT, BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Sun Tzu rightly teaches the enemy is NOT responsible for any state’s, government’s, leader’s, or army’s strengths andor weaknesses – IF AMERICA AND AMERICANS WANT TO WIN, WE HAVE TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO “WIN”!? The Iraqis in Fallujah are lucky America is NOT Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan – if we were, untold hundreds, thousands, or millions of ordinary Iraqis would’ve been CRUCIFIED or EXECUTED ALREADY while we Net posters sit safely behind our computers and argue-debate the merits!
Diana –
Um, no. Yes, I read about the firefight in Falluja last wek – the one in which fighters dressed as civilians attacked a patrol and engaged them while standing in the midst of the civilian population – assuming that our guys then couldn’t shoot back.
The reason that kind of warfare was outlawed was simple; historically, when that happened, entire populations were killed; it was called banditry, not warfare. The obligation ot protect civilians has to be bilateral.
And I’m deeply sorry that the population of Falluja is unhappy about the firefight and the war; I’d suggest that they undertake a political set of acts to regain control of their city and country – not a military one.
A.L.
Joseph –
As I noted in the email I sent you, I’m really interested in the points that I can vaguely discern below your torrents of prose.
They’re drowning!! Let them breathe!!
To borrow a style criticism from Truman Capote: That’s not writing, that’s typing.
A.L.
As’a, you said:
“According to one estimate, the results of the war have killed more than 10,000 civilians.”
Which estimate is that? Define “results of war”, and further how the US is solely responsible for every death occurring in Iraq since last year. Finally, how many corpses have been found thus far in Baathist created mass graves? More than 10,000? I think so.
” But maybe the scenes of burning Iraqi bodies do not evoke emotions in people who only mourn victims who belong to the superior master race.”
That shite is weak, sport. How do you presume to speak for 300+ million Americans? You can’t and don’t. Further, your lame attempt at “nazifying” the US by throwing the intellectually bankrupt “master race” insult is absurd both historically and in the instant case. The US defeated Nazism in the 40s. We are in the process of flushing it in Iraq- perhaps you could tell me different, but weren’t the Baathists the National Socialist (ergo Nazi) party in Iraq? As for this “master race” claptrap- My wife and I are both Americans- I have Irish/English/German/Cherokee heritage. She has African/Japanese/Choctaw heritage. Hmmmm- see any commonalities there? Yet we’re both part of the same “master race”. Perhaps you’re a geneticist, so you could tell me how we both are part of the same “master” race with no common heritage.
” How many of you readers knew that more than 30 Iraqis were killed last week in Falujah, and how many of you care?”
Who killed them? Under what circumstances? Enlighten me please. Most certainly I care, as Iraq is a fledgling democracy that is wounded deeply by any death- life is a precious thing, a concept that escaped those that ruled Iraq previously- surely you agree.
” It is time that Americans, people and media especially, take another look at Iraq.”
And what is it we’re supposed to be looking for? What is this extra look supposed to accomplish in your opinion?
” It is time that we dismiss the silly and idiotic scenarios, according to which Saddam in his hole, and later Abu Mus`ab Az-Zarqawi, directed all attacks on Americans.”
I wasn’t aware these scenarios were given any widespread credence- perhaps you could illustrate where this has been stated, and by whom. Remember, we’re talking about ALL attacks on Americans, not just those in the Sunni triangle, etc.
” Even the most pro-war journalist, John Burns of the New York Times…”
Uh, a NYT writer pro-war? No sale, bub. As evidenced by his hack quote to follow, you lose on this one- badly.
“… has figured it out finally. Here is his conclusion from today’s piece: ” Several Iraqis interviewed on Wednesday, including middle-class professionals, merchants and former members of Mr. Hussein’s army, suggested that the United States might be facing a war in which the common bonds of Iraqi nationalism and Arab sensibility have transcended other differences, fostering a war of national resistance that could pose still greater challenges to the Americans in the months, and perhaps years, ahead.”
Several Iraqis? How many would that be- four? How many of these “several” were former members of Hussein’s army versus the stable citizens Burns lumps them in with? And how is it these “several” Iraqis suffice to speak for millions of Iraqis? Bit of a stretch, don’t you think? “Common bonds of Iraqi nationalism?” That’s a lovely phrase, but what the hell does it concretely mean? I’ll buy into common Iraqi nationalism when you can confidently tell me that Kurds are safe in Falujah, and Sunnis are safe up north- night or day. As for this cosmic Arab sensibility that apparently will have all Arabs holding hands and singing together (at least those Arabs that aren’t Wahabi and allow singing)- I’ll believe it exists when Arabs fleeing from the psychopathically governed Palestine are welcomed into other countries in the middle east instead of chucked into refugee camps, and when I believe it’s Jordan hands back all the Palestinian land that they grabbed a couple decades ago (speaking of that, why no Jihad for stealing Palestinian land? tsk tsk tsk- how inconsistent).
But back to the hack quote- “suggested”? Why no direct quotes from the unquantified several? What a load of tripe- and given the NYT’s stellar reputation for rock solid yet wholly fabricated “quotes” (think Jason Blair), think I’ll ignore this pseudo quote barfed up by the Times ideologue you cite.
Dunno what you’re trying to say here, As’a- near as I can figure, you hate the US. That’s okay, you can do that. I only ask that you cogently and lucidly spell out your hatred and the reasons for it. And do us all a favor…. you seem to be a clever (though somewhat misguided and delusional) sort, so be a little creative and sidestep the whole Nazi thing- it’s weak and it’s bogus, and causes yawns more than anything else.
I never thought I’d post such a lame comment but…
Really great reply Idler… What you said.
As someone born and raised in Louisiana and living in the Florida panhandle, I resent being called “uncivilized.” True, the South can’t escape the stain of slavery and Jim Crow, but read your history books. Slavery was practiced everywhere in America until the mid 19th century and was technically legal in many non-Southern places until the 13th amendment. One of my favorite historical images is the Northern abolitionist getting up in the morning, drinking coffee grown by slaves sweetened with sugar grown by slaves, putting on clothes made of cotton grown by slaves dyed with indigo grown by slaves, and going out to make anti-slavery speeches. As for Jim Crow, I’m deeply ashamed of it, but you “civilized” yankees aren’t entirely free from blame either. Y’all are the ones who made it possible by selling out the freedmen at the Tilden-Hayes compromise in 1876. As for lynchings, do the names Sacco and Vanzetti mean anything to you? What was their death but a legal lynching?
And relations were more complex than you imagine even within the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow (this is no defense of either). African Americans sometimes owned slaves as did Creek Indians. The Creek wouldn’t associate with the Seminoles because the latter accepted escaped slaves into their tribe. The Creeks, who intermixed heavily with whites, considered them “nigger Indians.” Relations were just as complicated in Jim Crow. I suggest you read William Faulkner. Which brings me to my final point. My civilization cannot be completely defined by slavery and Jim Crow. The Southern ideal of the gentleman/lady entails a certain refinement. We pride ourselves on our manners, friendliness, and hospitality. We are more spiritual than most places in America. Admittedly, that spirituality often takes the form of a willfully ignorant Baptist fundamentalism, but you would probably be surprised how tolerant even the fundamentalists can be. They take the attitude, “if some damn fool wants to condemn himself to eternal damnation, that’s between him and God.” We have produced some of the most beautiful architecture in the world (have you ever been to a plantation house?) And we have produced William Faulkner, Flannery O’Connor, Allen Tate, Caroline Gordon, and Robert Penn Warren among others in literature. Not bad for a bunch of savages eh? I suggest you arrogant yankees learn a little more about the South and look in the mirror a bit before calling us “uncivilized.”
AL:
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1184260,00.html
Last week the troops launched aggressive raids through one eastern district of Falluja that left at least six Iraqi civilians dead, including an Iraqi cameraman working for America’s ABC television. It was enough to convince the people of Falluja there had been no change in the military’s approach
Saying that the people of Falluja shouldn’t resist a military occupation they never asked for is really a species of gall. (This is not to be construed as a defense of barbarously savaging corpses.) They are not obligated to behave according to our standards, only to leave us alone. Which country invaded which?
Finally, AL, should the world community have bombed the southern states of the US when we had legal segregation? Or did the US have the right to sort out its own problems in its own way?
The Jim Crow American South is what we got when America slacked off on reconstructing the Confederacy. Terrorist movements (such as the KKK) started during Reconstruction and were not stamped out by the occupiers.
Reconstruction of the Confederacy took about a hundred years, mainly because we sat on our hands for about 80 of them.
In fact, the Confederacy reminds me an awful lot of our current opponents. The murderous rage at the sight of those other guys doing outrageous things like behaving like free men and women, traveling where they pleased, bettering themselves, and so on. The use of shadowy terrorist groups during the war (they called themselves “partisans” back then, and the Confederate Congress “condemned” them (wink, wink)) and after (the KKK) with tacit approval by the states involved.
The Confederates weren’t big into suicide tactics (well, unless you count things like Pickett’s charge, which like another failed attack on American soil came to grief in Pennsylvania 🙂 ), and there wasn’t any danger of nukes coming into the picture (although Sherman did his best to simulate them; hopefully a tactic we won’t have to repeat), but otherwise, we’ve been through all this before, and we can fix things better (and much faster) this time.
Oh my God! We killed six whole people in Fallujah? Quick, let’s get the hell out of Iraq so the terrorists and Ba’athists we are fighting can take over. They’ll treat the Iraqi people with the proper respect and be much more kind to civilians than we are. Just look at Saddam’s record. He liberated a couple of hundred thousand people from their lives (saving them from the misery we caused by imposing sanctions on Iraq). Our evil accidental killing of civilians is no doubt the cause of the Fedayeen’s deliberate use of women and children as human shields during the war and their blowing up innocent worshipers at Shi’ia mosques. And don’t forget the evil UN, which no doubt deserved to have its headquarters blown up. The people who committed those acts are the ones who should be running Iraq, not us evil, imperialistic Americans who want nothing more than to steal their oil. Good thinking, Diana.
Diana
While you may not think that it is a “defense of barbarously savaging corpses”, it is. You say that that should resist an occupation. They are, and this is the method they have chosen to use. The occupation is intended to bring democracy and freedom to all, so they shouldn’t be resisting at all.
Whose standards, exactly, are they obligated to behave according to? Saddams? Stalins? Hitlers? I agree they should leave us alone, you got that one right.
The coalition of the willing invaded Iraq. Yes, the coalition is largely made up of US forces, but don’t discount the actions being taken by the other nations. We invaded with the intention of removing a murderous regime, with the hopes of planting the seeds of democracy and tolerance in the region. Are these not laudable goals?
Lastly
This is an easy one, and I’m glad you brought it up. The simple answer is no. This country has the system in place to make nastiness (however legal), which exists today – go away (become illegal) tomorrow. We have a system accountable to the people, and it has become one that is accountable to ALL the people. And we did it ourselves. Yah US!!!
“What’s the difference between the people we are fighting, and the people we are (supposedly) fighting for?”
Diane, why don’t you ask Salam? Two of the other Iraqi bloggers have already stated clearly that the Fallujah irredentists don’t speak for them, but since you know Salam, his opinion might mean more to you.
A. L.,
I always liked the Bagavad Gita, Mascaro translation.
Krishna tells Arjuna – you are a man, you must fight. It is your nature. The only choice we have is the cause.
We better get use to it. The ins are always attacking the outs. It is our nature.
We have civilized it a bit by having elections instead of wars. But we are still men.
As’ad,
I cheered the killing of insurgent Iraqis and Palestinians the same way I cheered the killing of Germans and the Japanese in WW2 (ex post facto).
Done right (perseverance furthers) it brings peace and prosperity in its wake.
Americans are the most successful practitioners of this art and movies have been made about it: “The Mouse That Roared”.
No doubt that ill deeds have been done. The record and results of American intervention are mostly good.
Hell, even the Vietnamese are asking for an American base.
Diana,
The residents of Fallujah ought to resist the military occupation of their country.
They should kill any one who brings them food.
=================================================
I’m with you. The Americans ought to get out of Fallujah. No more food deliveries. Let armed gangs take control of the city. Let them maintain their own infrastrucre. Let them earn the money for their gasoline and power plants and water and sewage.
Once they are happy being free of occupation they can teach the rest of the country by their fine example.
Yehudit,
Ask Salam yourself.
Meanwhile, no one has answered my question, which I think is the central one of this war.
I don’t keep up with all the Iraqi bloggers but I’ll take Yehudit’s word for the fact that some of them decried the corpse defilement, which would tend to undercut her pronouncement that “Arab culture doesn’t repudiate such savagery.”
As for all the rest of the comments, they stand for themselves in sheer incoherence.
Dr. Laz’s posts are excellent.
Diana,
Care to elaborate on the incoherence you detect? Any fool can say “you’re incoherent.” Enlighten us poor ignorant fools with your wisdom. Show us our incoherence. Thank you.
Not before you answer my question: what is the difference between the people we are fighting and the ones we are supposedly fighting for?
And I’ll ask another one, warfloggers:
When we “bring” democracy, and when they use it to impose Islamic law, and when they enact their deadly hatred for America and for Israel politically, what will you say then?
And I’ll ask this one:
Do you not recognize that even if not all Iraqis would do what that crowd in Falluja would do, they hate you with a deadly passion?
What is the difference between the people we’re fighting and the people we’re fighting for? Is that some sort of racist comment on Iraqis? We’re fighting a bunch of brutal savage fascists that killed a couple of hundred thousand people. We’re fighting for the kind of people they killed, i.e. kurds, turkomen, shi’ia, anybody who looked like they might disagree with Saddam. Duh.
As for question #2: If you’re not naive enough to believe we went there to bring democracy, then why are you naive enough to believe we will allow an Iran style Islamist theocracy?
Finally, I’m glad to hear you’ve got your finger on the pulse of Iraqi public opinion. Please present some–any at all–evidence that “all Iraqis” hate us.
Can you show us our incoherence now? Thanks.
It’s painful to read you Fred. Painful.
Regarding question #1, I note that you leave out the Sunni Arabs. I didn’t mean or imply that my question had an ethnic component. Whatever…your examples are fraudulent. We didn’t fight for the Kurds in 1988. You are terribly naive to think that any American president would put Americans in harms’ way for another group of people. Duh.
#2. Thanks for admitting that this has nothing to do with democracy.
They hate us. Look what they did to American corpses in Fallujah. Duh.
You are too stupid to bother with further.
Re: “What is the difference between the people we’re fighting and the people we’re fighting for?”
We’re not fighting for a people. We’re fighting for ideas. The idea of freedom. The idea of tolerance. The idea of free expression. The idea of responsibility.
I know you won’t believe this explanation. But I’m going to try anyway.
I believe in your natural law right as a human to exist, and to be free. Unfortunately, there are others who disagree with us. Those others range from viruses and bacteria through rapists, robbers and murderers to fascists and fundamentalists who think you should shut the hell up, throw a sheet over your head, and quietly raise kids and cook for your man.
I disagree with all three groups. When bacteria invade your body, they get surrounded by white blood cells and killed. I think we both agree on this response.
I think we disagree on what should happen to the other two groups. I think that the same reponse is appropriate to the other two groups as well. My only concession is that humans should be warned. Once.
What do you think?
I’m so sorry I’ve caused you pain. BUT many Sunni Arabs are included in the “look like they might disagree with Saddam” category.
You’re certainly right that we didn’t explicitly fight for the people I mentioned; we fought for ourselves. Nevertheless, they absolutely, undeniably benefited from our destruction of Saddam’s regime. Can you possibly deny that?
As for question #2: One man, one vote, one time is not democracy. Our not allowing an Islamist theocracy is not necessarily denying Iraqis democracy. Remember, Hitler was elected chancellor in 1933.
As for my stupidity, insults, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, are the last refuge of a scoundrel, or at least someone who has no more legitmate arguments.
And another thing, Diane. Stupid as I am, I’m smart enough to recognize a fallacious argument when I see one. The events in Fallujah certainly prove that some Iraqis hate us, but logically, they do not even prove that all Iraqis in Fallujah hate us much less all Iraqis. I’m also smart enough to read (been doing it since I was five) and the opinion polls I’ve read about say most Iraqis believe they are better off now than before the war and nearly 3/4 of them believe they are going to be better off in a year than they are now. And while they’re not crazy about the occupation they are smart enough to know what will happen if we leave. Most of them want us to stay at least for now. But I’ll stop before the pain my stupidity causes you becomes unbearable.
Fred,
I fight fire with fire. You started the “duh” business and the implications about my intelligence. Cut the crap.
Now that at least you are speaking to the merits of my comments, I can respond.
Iraqis may be quite happy that we did them the favor of getting rid of Saddam. But that doesn’t mean they like us. Fallacious arguments, anyone?
It goes like this: “Thanks for getting rid of Saddam. Now get out of Iraq while we create a new America-hating, Jew-hating hellhole of our own.”
Or this:
“Americans had nothing essential to do with the downfall of Saddam. That was the will of Allah and Americans were His agents. Now get out fo Iraq while we create a new America-hating, Jew-hating hellhole of our own.”
I’m aware of the one-man one-vote one-time thing, thanks a lot, but I read too. What you are basically saying is that in order to ensure democracy, we’ll have to stay in this place forever. I agree with you there. The problem is, Bush, if he has any political smarts whatsover, doesn’t. I’d love to see the look on your sad little faces when your fearless leader betrays you.
I never said they love us. I just don’t believe you’ve presented any evidence that they all hate us. I also still see no evidence to support your contention that us “war-floggers,” whatever that means, are presenting incoherent arguments.
I don’t know you well enough to comment on your intelligence. But to assert any moral equivalency in accidentally or mistakenly killing civilians despite making every effort to avoid such killing (efforts which often put our soldiers at more risk) and deliberately hiding among civilians, using them as sheilds, and indiscriminately (or even discriminately) blowing them up at worship is, in my view, rather dumb. So is the idea that the savages who do that should be running Iraq, which they will if we leave now, or that they would run Iraq in a more humane way than we do. Hence my sarcasm.
Just to make sure I understand you on the democracy argument, are you saying the Iraqis are incapable of a decent, sane democracy? You may be right, but time will tell. As for us being there forever, frankly, I’ve got no problem with that. We will eventually be able to reduce our forces there, but having a permanent base in a part of the world as important to us as the ME is not necessarily a bad thing.
Re your comments about Viet Nam, ask the boat people (or just about any rank and file Vietnamese) if they wish we’d have “saved Viet Nam from itself.”
The way I understand it, this is the “new” strategy being employed against peoples who have become so enamored of thuggery that they have no hope of governing themselves. it’s approxiametly (precisely?) the strategy adopted toward Palestine by the Sharon administration, and has a decent chance of working as long as the “humanitarians” don’t intervene to re-enable the thugocracy’s long term strategy of “suicide by cop.”
Did I say that out loud again?