Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Fallujah, Juan Cole and Intellectual Dishonesty
Juan Cole is at it again. “It does not matter that some Fallujans are trying to kill Marines. You cannot punish the entire city for that. … Although about 1/3 of Fallujans have reportedly left the city, that would leave 200,000 or so inside.” If I wanted to be an ass, I would say that they are being collectively punished because they are collectively guilty. However, the fact of the matter is that the city as a whole is not being “punished”. The fighting as a whole has been fairly localized and by pointing out that 200,000 are still left in the city Cole is being deliberately deceptive. The majority of those in the combat zones have fled. Another thing that is particular irksome is that while Cole and others stress the number of combatants to give the impression that the US is using “a jack hammer to crack a walnut” and that the rest of population is completely without guilt, they invariably fail to mention the large number of people connected to the guerrillas in some form. Such a policy is direct contrast of to his usual policy of debunking the ridiculous claims of Rumsfeld and others that the insurgency is limited to terrorists and thugs. Indeed this is what Juan Cole said in regard to claims that Sadr ‘only has 10,000 militia men under his command. “In fact that is the size of his formal militia. Muqtada's movement is like the layers of an onion. You have 10,000 militiamen. But then you have tens of thousands of cadres able to mobilize neighborhoods. Then you have hundreds of thousands of Sadrists, followers of Muqtada and other heirs of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr." Yet another form of intellectual dishonestly engaged in by Cole is to say that what is happening to Fallujah is an extreme response to what happened to those four contractors. This is ridiculous. The Americans did not go into Fallujah because of what happened to the contractors. Fallujah has been a source of trouble for over a year now and what happened to the contractors was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
(0) comments
Juan Cole is at it again. “It does not matter that some Fallujans are trying to kill Marines. You cannot punish the entire city for that. … Although about 1/3 of Fallujans have reportedly left the city, that would leave 200,000 or so inside.” If I wanted to be an ass, I would say that they are being collectively punished because they are collectively guilty. However, the fact of the matter is that the city as a whole is not being “punished”. The fighting as a whole has been fairly localized and by pointing out that 200,000 are still left in the city Cole is being deliberately deceptive. The majority of those in the combat zones have fled. Another thing that is particular irksome is that while Cole and others stress the number of combatants to give the impression that the US is using “a jack hammer to crack a walnut” and that the rest of population is completely without guilt, they invariably fail to mention the large number of people connected to the guerrillas in some form. Such a policy is direct contrast of to his usual policy of debunking the ridiculous claims of Rumsfeld and others that the insurgency is limited to terrorists and thugs. Indeed this is what Juan Cole said in regard to claims that Sadr ‘only has 10,000 militia men under his command. “In fact that is the size of his formal militia. Muqtada's movement is like the layers of an onion. You have 10,000 militiamen. But then you have tens of thousands of cadres able to mobilize neighborhoods. Then you have hundreds of thousands of Sadrists, followers of Muqtada and other heirs of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr." Yet another form of intellectual dishonestly engaged in by Cole is to say that what is happening to Fallujah is an extreme response to what happened to those four contractors. This is ridiculous. The Americans did not go into Fallujah because of what happened to the contractors. Fallujah has been a source of trouble for over a year now and what happened to the contractors was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Fallujuh is not under seige nor is it encircled.
The media is getting on my nerves. Everyone one from the NY Times to CNN is calling what is happening in Fallujah as a siege. The thing is that it is just plain silly to describe what is happening in Fallujah as a “siege” and it is even more ridiculous to say that the Americans have the city encircled. Yes, the Americans do have enough troops to seal off the major roads. However, the population of the city itself is around 300,000 and when the surrounding area is included you are talking about 500,000 people. 3500 could not possibly encircle the area. Once more, the area to the east is flatland with plenty of back roads still left open. As for siege tactics, the US is not using any. The Americans have little in the way of amour and basically no artillery. For the most part, small teams of American foot soldiers trade pot shots with insurgents armed with AK47s and RPGs. Not surprisingly, a disproportionate number of Iraqis have been killed by snipers. When insurgents attempt any sort of board scale attack, the marines call in air support.
(0) comments
The media is getting on my nerves. Everyone one from the NY Times to CNN is calling what is happening in Fallujah as a siege. The thing is that it is just plain silly to describe what is happening in Fallujah as a “siege” and it is even more ridiculous to say that the Americans have the city encircled. Yes, the Americans do have enough troops to seal off the major roads. However, the population of the city itself is around 300,000 and when the surrounding area is included you are talking about 500,000 people. 3500 could not possibly encircle the area. Once more, the area to the east is flatland with plenty of back roads still left open. As for siege tactics, the US is not using any. The Americans have little in the way of amour and basically no artillery. For the most part, small teams of American foot soldiers trade pot shots with insurgents armed with AK47s and RPGs. Not surprisingly, a disproportionate number of Iraqis have been killed by snipers. When insurgents attempt any sort of board scale attack, the marines call in air support.
A reply to Gatehouse
"Like the know-it-all neighbour who never misses a chance to bend your ear over the back fence or critique your yardwork, Canada has become the block bore. The "special" status that we once took for granted, able to withstand even the frankest disagreements, seems in doubt. Things between our countries are apparently getting worse all the time. And, the evidence suggests, the attitude problem is almost entirely our own." http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canada/article.jsp?content=20040503_79671_79671
Only a former National Post reporter could be so arrogant, ideological and out of touch as to place the blame for worsening ties with Washington solely at the feet of Canadians.
One of the many failings of Gatehouse’s piece is that he fails to place Canada’s declining opinion of the US into any sort of context. Indeed, he never mentions what other countries think of Bush and company; even though, outside of the US, Bush is one of the least liked US Presidents in history and it is hard to think of a country, save Israel, that has a higher opinion of the US today than prior to George Bush taking office. Several current heads of state have road Anti-Bush sentiment to power, most notably President South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun in 2002 and German’s Schroeder that the same year. It is not just populations of many of the world’s countries that disapprove of Bush it is also their governments. When John Kerry claimed that he had the backing of several European heads of state, even those on the right recognized (e.g., American Specter) that the right question to ask was not who is on this list but who, if anyone, is not. US journalist Fareed Zakaria, who is hardly a leftist, put the matter succinctly. Bush’s policies have “alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.”
Another of failing of Gatehouse’s piece is that he makes it out to seem that Canada along with the rest of the world has no real reason to gripe about Mr. Bush. Now, a Bush apologist like Gatehouse might think that the reason British Columbians loath Bush like no other group of Canadians is because we are a bunch of tree hugging granolas and, well, Bush is not. However, the fact that it is no longer viable to cut down nearly so many trees since Bush slapped down a soft wood lumber tariff, which is in clear contravention of the NAFTA agreement, has a lot more to do with our dislike of the man than his environmental policies, which are about as environmentally sound as those of China.
Vancouverites also have reason to gripe about Bush setting the US drug Czar on us. Shortly after giving the mayor of Vancouver an unprecedented mandate to set up safe injection sites, Walters told a board of trade audience, in what amounted to a thinly disguised threat not to take things too far, that we were only making matters worse. Just to make sure his message was not misconstrued as the view of a dissenting friend, he repeated the US mantra, which is so out of touch with any sort of scholarly research that it has for some thirty years now served as a pop culture symbol of government imperviousness to reality, viz., that marijuana is as dangerous as any drug out there including heroin and coke. In one foul swoop, Walters had tired to undermine the mandate given Mayor Campbell, challenge the findings of Canadian Senate report declaring marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol and to derail a plan by Parliament to decriminalize marijuana.
Paul Cellucci, another of Bush’s henchmen, was equally disrespectful of Canadian democracy. Despite the fact that it was becoming obvious that it would be politically impossible to for the government to back the US adventure in Iraq without a UN mandate, Paul Cellucci continued to brow beat the Liberals into becoming one of the coalition of the willing. In deed, Cellucci went so far as to politically damage the government by pointing out that Canada was aiding US efforts on the sly in Iraq and the help they we were giving was in many respects greater than what many in the collation of the willing were providing. “The Canadian naval vessels will provide more support to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our effort there.” Now, that is gratitude.
(0) comments
"Like the know-it-all neighbour who never misses a chance to bend your ear over the back fence or critique your yardwork, Canada has become the block bore. The "special" status that we once took for granted, able to withstand even the frankest disagreements, seems in doubt. Things between our countries are apparently getting worse all the time. And, the evidence suggests, the attitude problem is almost entirely our own." http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canada/article.jsp?content=20040503_79671_79671
Only a former National Post reporter could be so arrogant, ideological and out of touch as to place the blame for worsening ties with Washington solely at the feet of Canadians.
One of the many failings of Gatehouse’s piece is that he fails to place Canada’s declining opinion of the US into any sort of context. Indeed, he never mentions what other countries think of Bush and company; even though, outside of the US, Bush is one of the least liked US Presidents in history and it is hard to think of a country, save Israel, that has a higher opinion of the US today than prior to George Bush taking office. Several current heads of state have road Anti-Bush sentiment to power, most notably President South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun in 2002 and German’s Schroeder that the same year. It is not just populations of many of the world’s countries that disapprove of Bush it is also their governments. When John Kerry claimed that he had the backing of several European heads of state, even those on the right recognized (e.g., American Specter) that the right question to ask was not who is on this list but who, if anyone, is not. US journalist Fareed Zakaria, who is hardly a leftist, put the matter succinctly. Bush’s policies have “alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.”
Another of failing of Gatehouse’s piece is that he makes it out to seem that Canada along with the rest of the world has no real reason to gripe about Mr. Bush. Now, a Bush apologist like Gatehouse might think that the reason British Columbians loath Bush like no other group of Canadians is because we are a bunch of tree hugging granolas and, well, Bush is not. However, the fact that it is no longer viable to cut down nearly so many trees since Bush slapped down a soft wood lumber tariff, which is in clear contravention of the NAFTA agreement, has a lot more to do with our dislike of the man than his environmental policies, which are about as environmentally sound as those of China.
Vancouverites also have reason to gripe about Bush setting the US drug Czar on us. Shortly after giving the mayor of Vancouver an unprecedented mandate to set up safe injection sites, Walters told a board of trade audience, in what amounted to a thinly disguised threat not to take things too far, that we were only making matters worse. Just to make sure his message was not misconstrued as the view of a dissenting friend, he repeated the US mantra, which is so out of touch with any sort of scholarly research that it has for some thirty years now served as a pop culture symbol of government imperviousness to reality, viz., that marijuana is as dangerous as any drug out there including heroin and coke. In one foul swoop, Walters had tired to undermine the mandate given Mayor Campbell, challenge the findings of Canadian Senate report declaring marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol and to derail a plan by Parliament to decriminalize marijuana.
Paul Cellucci, another of Bush’s henchmen, was equally disrespectful of Canadian democracy. Despite the fact that it was becoming obvious that it would be politically impossible to for the government to back the US adventure in Iraq without a UN mandate, Paul Cellucci continued to brow beat the Liberals into becoming one of the coalition of the willing. In deed, Cellucci went so far as to politically damage the government by pointing out that Canada was aiding US efforts on the sly in Iraq and the help they we were giving was in many respects greater than what many in the collation of the willing were providing. “The Canadian naval vessels will provide more support to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our effort there.” Now, that is gratitude.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
I watched Wolf Blitzer today. He led with a story about the US launching a “major” attack on Fallujah using AC 130 gun ships. An LA Times reporter set him straight. The Times reporter said that AC 130 gun ships had carried out similar raids every night for the last two weeks and on the scale of 1 to 100 this one was about a 50. Blitzer ignored him. He had pictures after all. Look at those things blowing up. If that is not a major attack, I do not know what is. Throughout the day CNN carried on with the same headline. Other networks were equally guilty of running equally sensationalist headlines. However, they did not have someone correct them on air.
(0) comments
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Bin Laden gears his message to a Western Audience
If there was any doubt that Bin Laden is trying to drive an electoral wedge between the US and Europe, I think that was put to rest yesterday. That said, what was surprising was not what he said per say, but how he said it. His message was geared to a Western audience, albeit not a very sophisticated one, and contained none of the fruit loopian tropes that characterized his early messages. Hell, he sounded a little bit like Chomsky (e.g., “if you describe us and our actions as terrorism, you should describe yourselves and your actions that way also.”
”THIS is a message to our neighbours north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.
What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all and we do not accept that you monopolise it for yourselves, and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.
Be aware that if you describe us and our actions as terrorism, you should describe yourselves and your actions that way also.
Our actions come in response to your actions of destroying and killing our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. It is enough to witness the event that shocked the world, the killing of the elderly, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, God have mercy on him, and we pledge to God to take revenge on America.
Under what grace are your victims innocent and ours dust, and under which doctrine is your blood blood and our blood water? Reciprocation is just and he who starts is more unjust.
As for your leaders, and those who adopt their strategy, who insist on ignoring the real problem of the occupation of all of Palestine and who exaggerate in lying and denying our right to defend ourselves and to resist, they have no self-respect and belittle the faith and minds of people.
Their fallacy increases the shedding of your blood instead of stemming it. A review of the deaths in our land and your land reveal an important truth that there is injustice done to both us and you by your leaders who send your sons, despite your objections, to our land to kill and be killed. It is in the interest of both parties not to give a chance to those who shed the blood of nations for their limited personal interest and obedience to the gang of the White House.
This war earns millions of dollars for big companies, whether those who manufacture weapons or those involved in reconstruction such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries. It becomes very clear who benefits from igniting the fires of this war and bloodshed, it is the traders of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind a curtain.
President Bush and leaders in his sphere, big media institutions, and the United Nations which entrenches the relationship between the veto masters and the General Assembly slaves, are all instruments in deceiving and abusing people.
All of them are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous and difficult member, and we insist, God willing, on continuing to fight them.
Based on this, and to deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders to establish a permanent committee to build awareness among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources.
I offer a truce to them [Europe] with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including [participating] in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world. This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. The announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.
Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its [war’s] sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it.
Stop shedding our blood to save your own and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands. You know matters will escalate the more you delay and then do not blame us but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.
The killing of Russians came after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the killing of Europeans came after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The killing of Americans on the day of New York came after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian peninsula. Their killing in Somalia came after they invaded it in an operation to "restore hope", so we returned them without hope, thank God.”
(0) comments
If there was any doubt that Bin Laden is trying to drive an electoral wedge between the US and Europe, I think that was put to rest yesterday. That said, what was surprising was not what he said per say, but how he said it. His message was geared to a Western audience, albeit not a very sophisticated one, and contained none of the fruit loopian tropes that characterized his early messages. Hell, he sounded a little bit like Chomsky (e.g., “if you describe us and our actions as terrorism, you should describe yourselves and your actions that way also.”
”THIS is a message to our neighbours north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.
What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all and we do not accept that you monopolise it for yourselves, and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.
Be aware that if you describe us and our actions as terrorism, you should describe yourselves and your actions that way also.
Our actions come in response to your actions of destroying and killing our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. It is enough to witness the event that shocked the world, the killing of the elderly, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, God have mercy on him, and we pledge to God to take revenge on America.
Under what grace are your victims innocent and ours dust, and under which doctrine is your blood blood and our blood water? Reciprocation is just and he who starts is more unjust.
As for your leaders, and those who adopt their strategy, who insist on ignoring the real problem of the occupation of all of Palestine and who exaggerate in lying and denying our right to defend ourselves and to resist, they have no self-respect and belittle the faith and minds of people.
Their fallacy increases the shedding of your blood instead of stemming it. A review of the deaths in our land and your land reveal an important truth that there is injustice done to both us and you by your leaders who send your sons, despite your objections, to our land to kill and be killed. It is in the interest of both parties not to give a chance to those who shed the blood of nations for their limited personal interest and obedience to the gang of the White House.
This war earns millions of dollars for big companies, whether those who manufacture weapons or those involved in reconstruction such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries. It becomes very clear who benefits from igniting the fires of this war and bloodshed, it is the traders of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind a curtain.
President Bush and leaders in his sphere, big media institutions, and the United Nations which entrenches the relationship between the veto masters and the General Assembly slaves, are all instruments in deceiving and abusing people.
All of them are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous and difficult member, and we insist, God willing, on continuing to fight them.
Based on this, and to deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders to establish a permanent committee to build awareness among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources.
I offer a truce to them [Europe] with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including [participating] in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world. This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. The announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.
Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its [war’s] sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it.
Stop shedding our blood to save your own and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands. You know matters will escalate the more you delay and then do not blame us but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.
The killing of Russians came after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the killing of Europeans came after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The killing of Americans on the day of New York came after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian peninsula. Their killing in Somalia came after they invaded it in an operation to "restore hope", so we returned them without hope, thank God.”
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Bush's Timing is Terrible
The Bush Administration is perhaps the most incompetent administration in modern US history. However, what they did today really takes the cake. With the cease fire in North breaking down, and the situation in the Southern Iraq precarious, what does Bush do? He throws his weight behind an Israeli plan to strengthen several major Israeli settlements in the West back and repudiates the notion that Palestinians (and their families) ethnically cleansed from what is Israel in 1948 have the right to return to Israel.
Now, whatever one thinks about the Israeli occupation (I think it is high time the Americans force the Israelis to leave the Occupied Territories) and the idiotic notion of the “right of return”, the simple fact of the matter is that support Israel and tacit support of the Israeli occupation is one of the major gripes the Arab world has with the US and as such the Bushies timing could not be worse. As Juan Cole pointed out, the pretext, although I do not think the motivation, for the attack on the 4 private soldiers in Fallujah was the Israeli killing of Yassin. Many, Arabs, wrongly, believe that America and the “Zionists” are one and the same and to strike the Americans is to strike at the Israelis.
Not to be out done, Kerry announced his approval.
Once again, both parties place politics before policy. Only this time such pathetic politicking will likely mean the death of a few more GIs. To rub salt in the wound, there is still little chance the Bushies will be able to swing Jewish voters his way. Ethnic Jews will, as always, vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
(0) comments
The Bush Administration is perhaps the most incompetent administration in modern US history. However, what they did today really takes the cake. With the cease fire in North breaking down, and the situation in the Southern Iraq precarious, what does Bush do? He throws his weight behind an Israeli plan to strengthen several major Israeli settlements in the West back and repudiates the notion that Palestinians (and their families) ethnically cleansed from what is Israel in 1948 have the right to return to Israel.
Now, whatever one thinks about the Israeli occupation (I think it is high time the Americans force the Israelis to leave the Occupied Territories) and the idiotic notion of the “right of return”, the simple fact of the matter is that support Israel and tacit support of the Israeli occupation is one of the major gripes the Arab world has with the US and as such the Bushies timing could not be worse. As Juan Cole pointed out, the pretext, although I do not think the motivation, for the attack on the 4 private soldiers in Fallujah was the Israeli killing of Yassin. Many, Arabs, wrongly, believe that America and the “Zionists” are one and the same and to strike the Americans is to strike at the Israelis.
Not to be out done, Kerry announced his approval.
Once again, both parties place politics before policy. Only this time such pathetic politicking will likely mean the death of a few more GIs. To rub salt in the wound, there is still little chance the Bushies will be able to swing Jewish voters his way. Ethnic Jews will, as always, vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Monday, April 12, 2004
British officer alleges US Racism
A British officer says that many Americans soldiers look on the Iraqis as Untermenschen (A German term used by Hitler to describe inferior human beings). There is probably a grain of truth to this.
The average GI is less educated, younger, and less worldly than the average American. Add to this the fact that their job is to kill people and the likelihood that they have been trained for basically nothing else you do not have the makings of a bunch of great cultural ambassadors.
Juan Cole notes that what the British officer says jives with what he knows of the US military. “This attitude tracks with what I know of racial attitudes that are all too common (not universal) in US military ranks. Press reports speak of US troops and some officers routinely denigrating Arabs. Even calling them "hajjis" and "Ali Babas" betrays the attitude. (Hajji is a strange thing to call Iraqis, who have lived under a militantly secular socialist regime for 35 years and most of whom couldn't have gone on the pilgrimage to Mecca even if they wanted to). The contempt for Iraqis and Arabs and Muslims that is widespread in the ranks, the British maintain, spills over into operational plans, creating a contempt for human life and a willingness to endanger and kill civilians in a ruthless effort to get at insurgents. This approach produces, of course, further insurgents.” However, Cole as usual over states his case. The problem is not their back ground per say, or for that matter the ingrained military ethos that they have foisted upon them. Rather it is they are ill-equipped to be put in an environment where many of the people they are there to “liberate” loath them. (It is a mistake to believe, as many on the left do that Iraqis mistrust and hatred of the US stems only from US misdeeds. Many Sunnis hate the Americans because they, rightly, feel that their privileged place is being taken away and that, rightly or wrongly, their lives will be worse off because of it. Another thing is that as a group the Iraqis are even less prepared to deal with the Americans then the American GIs are them. American misdeeds have magnified the shortcomings of a society that is much more xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, and sexist than a far from perfect US society.) It is only natural to despise those that wish you harm and who openly celebrate, as the Iraqis do, every time one of your fellows is killed or maimed. It takes training counteract this tendency. It also helps to have trusted cultural ambassadors from the other side to help them navigate the pitfalls of racism and xenophobia. The problem in this regard is that many of their interpreters are likely to hate for many of the same reasons they do and many of them are not exactly sympathetic to all sectors of Iraqi society.
Now without accusing the author of the following piece as being a racist or anything like that, I truly have no idea, it seems to me that the situation he describes and the general frustrations he reveals gives an insight into what I am talking about.
“The convoy was made up of 2 Bradleys, one at each end of the small column and a few Hmmwv's. It came under attack from RPGs and the attackers quicker ran into the side streets and got away. …. It was … very frustrating to see all the Iraqis just walking around like nothing had happened at all. Guys were still selling goods in their carts right by the roads, they totally seemed oblivious. One of the hit Hmmwvs didn't look anything like a vehicle, just a hunk of burning and smoking rubble. I can never forget the pieces of brain matter that was on the ground and people were unintentionally stepping on. It was very frustrating for me and my friends. We wanted to go after those responsible. They didn't even kill any military personal, they were Civil Affairs. Luckily only 1 died, the loses are always small. We fight a group that claims to be brave and fighting for Iraqis, and yet, in alot of their own ambushes they set up against military convoys they kill more of their own and seem to think of it as acceptable. However, if we get into a fire fight and some Iraqi bystander dumb enough to watch gets wounded, we are murders. Their logic just doesn't seem right most of the time. Alot of people you talk to who are not Iraqi and have been to Iraq talk about how frustrating their people's logic is.” http://bootsonground.blogspot.com/
(0) comments
A British officer says that many Americans soldiers look on the Iraqis as Untermenschen (A German term used by Hitler to describe inferior human beings). There is probably a grain of truth to this.
The average GI is less educated, younger, and less worldly than the average American. Add to this the fact that their job is to kill people and the likelihood that they have been trained for basically nothing else you do not have the makings of a bunch of great cultural ambassadors.
Juan Cole notes that what the British officer says jives with what he knows of the US military. “This attitude tracks with what I know of racial attitudes that are all too common (not universal) in US military ranks. Press reports speak of US troops and some officers routinely denigrating Arabs. Even calling them "hajjis" and "Ali Babas" betrays the attitude. (Hajji is a strange thing to call Iraqis, who have lived under a militantly secular socialist regime for 35 years and most of whom couldn't have gone on the pilgrimage to Mecca even if they wanted to). The contempt for Iraqis and Arabs and Muslims that is widespread in the ranks, the British maintain, spills over into operational plans, creating a contempt for human life and a willingness to endanger and kill civilians in a ruthless effort to get at insurgents. This approach produces, of course, further insurgents.” However, Cole as usual over states his case. The problem is not their back ground per say, or for that matter the ingrained military ethos that they have foisted upon them. Rather it is they are ill-equipped to be put in an environment where many of the people they are there to “liberate” loath them. (It is a mistake to believe, as many on the left do that Iraqis mistrust and hatred of the US stems only from US misdeeds. Many Sunnis hate the Americans because they, rightly, feel that their privileged place is being taken away and that, rightly or wrongly, their lives will be worse off because of it. Another thing is that as a group the Iraqis are even less prepared to deal with the Americans then the American GIs are them. American misdeeds have magnified the shortcomings of a society that is much more xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, and sexist than a far from perfect US society.) It is only natural to despise those that wish you harm and who openly celebrate, as the Iraqis do, every time one of your fellows is killed or maimed. It takes training counteract this tendency. It also helps to have trusted cultural ambassadors from the other side to help them navigate the pitfalls of racism and xenophobia. The problem in this regard is that many of their interpreters are likely to hate for many of the same reasons they do and many of them are not exactly sympathetic to all sectors of Iraqi society.
Now without accusing the author of the following piece as being a racist or anything like that, I truly have no idea, it seems to me that the situation he describes and the general frustrations he reveals gives an insight into what I am talking about.
“The convoy was made up of 2 Bradleys, one at each end of the small column and a few Hmmwv's. It came under attack from RPGs and the attackers quicker ran into the side streets and got away. …. It was … very frustrating to see all the Iraqis just walking around like nothing had happened at all. Guys were still selling goods in their carts right by the roads, they totally seemed oblivious. One of the hit Hmmwvs didn't look anything like a vehicle, just a hunk of burning and smoking rubble. I can never forget the pieces of brain matter that was on the ground and people were unintentionally stepping on. It was very frustrating for me and my friends. We wanted to go after those responsible. They didn't even kill any military personal, they were Civil Affairs. Luckily only 1 died, the loses are always small. We fight a group that claims to be brave and fighting for Iraqis, and yet, in alot of their own ambushes they set up against military convoys they kill more of their own and seem to think of it as acceptable. However, if we get into a fire fight and some Iraqi bystander dumb enough to watch gets wounded, we are murders. Their logic just doesn't seem right most of the time. Alot of people you talk to who are not Iraqi and have been to Iraq talk about how frustrating their people's logic is.” http://bootsonground.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Fallujah
Many pundits have said the US must be careful in Fallujah. The killing and injuring of civilians will only make the US more enemies there. Strictly speaking this is false. 70% of people inside the notorious Sunni triangle approve of attacks on US troops and of the remaining 30% it is a safe to assume that they are no fan of the Americans. The numbers in Fallujah are bound to be even worse, making it hard to see how the population there could be further mobilized against the US. That said, even if it was conceivable, this would make things easier for the Americans not more difficult. Indeed, the problem facing the US in Fallujah, as in everywhere else in Iraq, is that there is no clear line of demarcation between civilians and enemy combatants. The more Fallujahians that the Americans can provoke into joining the rebels, the clearer things become and the easier it is to crush them. From a US perspective, aggressive action has had the added benefit of driving women, children and the elderly out of town and so further clarifying things. Kurd and Shia rebels armed with RPGs and A47s were no match in pitched battle for Saddam’s aged T72 tanks and helicopter gun ships in 1991. Sunni and Shia rebels are even less of a match for Abrams tanks, AC 130 gun ships, laser guided bombs and apaches.
The pundits are right in two respects though. Letting loose in Fallujah does not play well in the rest of the Middle East. Encouraged by Arab rhetoric doubling as news, which suggest the Americans are targeting anything that moves, the “Arab street” is up in arms and the Arab rulers worried. (Some of the 4000 pound bombs the Americans dropped left craters that were thirty-five feet deep and sixty feet across. Even without resorting to carpet bombing of cities, something the US has not done since WW2 and something which resulted in more than a 100,000 on a few nights, it would be ridiculously easy for the Americans kill everyone in Fallujah if that is what they truly wanted. Allegedly, 400 Fallujahians have been killed so far. Far from revealing a massive American onslaught, this figure, which is likely too high, shows just how localized the fighting has been. As one American soldier said about the Fallujah operation, “we have to be very precise in our application of combat power. We cannot kill a lot of innocent folks (though they are few and far between in Fallujah).”)
The other major problem facing the US with regard to Fallujah is the IGC. Several IGC council members have threatened to resign for what they see as the Americans collectively punishing the citizens of Fallujah. Some do this for political reasons, others for seemingly personal ones. Opposition is not unique to the IGC. Some ministers have resigned, or threatened to resign.
Moving on, I still think the US will have little choice but to kill Sadr. However, there is no immediate need to subdue his militia. By kicking the crap out of anyone that does not adhere to their brand of fundamentalist Islam, they are doing a far better job of undercutting their message, at least outside of Sadr city, than the US ever could. Moreover, in contrast to Fallujah, aggressively targeting Sadr's forces really does have the potential for disaster.
(0) comments
Many pundits have said the US must be careful in Fallujah. The killing and injuring of civilians will only make the US more enemies there. Strictly speaking this is false. 70% of people inside the notorious Sunni triangle approve of attacks on US troops and of the remaining 30% it is a safe to assume that they are no fan of the Americans. The numbers in Fallujah are bound to be even worse, making it hard to see how the population there could be further mobilized against the US. That said, even if it was conceivable, this would make things easier for the Americans not more difficult. Indeed, the problem facing the US in Fallujah, as in everywhere else in Iraq, is that there is no clear line of demarcation between civilians and enemy combatants. The more Fallujahians that the Americans can provoke into joining the rebels, the clearer things become and the easier it is to crush them. From a US perspective, aggressive action has had the added benefit of driving women, children and the elderly out of town and so further clarifying things. Kurd and Shia rebels armed with RPGs and A47s were no match in pitched battle for Saddam’s aged T72 tanks and helicopter gun ships in 1991. Sunni and Shia rebels are even less of a match for Abrams tanks, AC 130 gun ships, laser guided bombs and apaches.
The pundits are right in two respects though. Letting loose in Fallujah does not play well in the rest of the Middle East. Encouraged by Arab rhetoric doubling as news, which suggest the Americans are targeting anything that moves, the “Arab street” is up in arms and the Arab rulers worried. (Some of the 4000 pound bombs the Americans dropped left craters that were thirty-five feet deep and sixty feet across. Even without resorting to carpet bombing of cities, something the US has not done since WW2 and something which resulted in more than a 100,000 on a few nights, it would be ridiculously easy for the Americans kill everyone in Fallujah if that is what they truly wanted. Allegedly, 400 Fallujahians have been killed so far. Far from revealing a massive American onslaught, this figure, which is likely too high, shows just how localized the fighting has been. As one American soldier said about the Fallujah operation, “we have to be very precise in our application of combat power. We cannot kill a lot of innocent folks (though they are few and far between in Fallujah).”)
The other major problem facing the US with regard to Fallujah is the IGC. Several IGC council members have threatened to resign for what they see as the Americans collectively punishing the citizens of Fallujah. Some do this for political reasons, others for seemingly personal ones. Opposition is not unique to the IGC. Some ministers have resigned, or threatened to resign.
Moving on, I still think the US will have little choice but to kill Sadr. However, there is no immediate need to subdue his militia. By kicking the crap out of anyone that does not adhere to their brand of fundamentalist Islam, they are doing a far better job of undercutting their message, at least outside of Sadr city, than the US ever could. Moreover, in contrast to Fallujah, aggressively targeting Sadr's forces really does have the potential for disaster.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Naomi Klein's Conspiracy Theory
It appears as if Naomi Klein has spent too much time in Iraq and has developed a particularly virulent strain of conspiracy fever.
“At first, Mr. Bremer responded to Mr. al-Sadr's growing strength by ignoring him; now he is attempting to provoke him into all-out battle.
The trouble began when Mr. Bremer closed down Mr. al-Sadr's newspaper last week, sparking a wave of peaceful demonstrations. On Saturday, Mr. Bremer raised the stakes further by sending coalition forces to surround Mr. al-Sadr's house near Najaf and arrest his communications officer.
Predictably, the arrest sparked immediate demonstrations in Baghdad, which the Iraqi army responded to by opening fire and allegedly killing three people. It was these deaths that provoked yesterday's bloody demonstrations.
At the end of the day on Sunday, Mr. al-Sadr issued a statement calling on his supporters to stop staging demonstrations "because your enemy prefers terrorism and detests that way of expressing opinion" and instead urged them to employ unnamed "other ways" to resist the occupation, a statement many interpret as a call to arms.
On the surface, this chain of events is mystifying. With the so-called Sunni triangle in flames after the gruesome Fallujah attacks, why is Mr. Bremer pushing the comparatively calm Shia south into battle? Here's one possible answer: Washington has given up on its plans to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, and is now creating the chaos it needs to declare the handover impossible.
A continued occupation will be bad news for George Bush on the campaign trail, but not as bad as if the handover happens and the country erupts, an increasingly likely scenario given the widespread rejection of the legitimacy of the interim constitution and the U.S.-appointed government.
It's a plan that might make sense in meetings in Washington, but here in Baghdad it looks like pure madness. By sending the new Iraqi army to fire on the people it is supposed to be protecting, Mr. Bremer has destroyed what slim hope it had of gaining credibility with an already highly mistrustful population. On Sunday, before storming the unarmed demonstrators, the soldiers could be seen pulling on ski masks, so they wouldn't be recognized when they returned to their neighbourhoods.”
The supposition that Iraqi troops were ordered to fire on protestors by the Americans is categorically false. What were the Americans going to do? Kill the Iraqi soldiers with knowledge of such an order to keep them from talking. Klein, I hope, is not dumb enough to be saying this.
More plausibly, what she is saying is that in sending Iraqi troops to stop a protest, Bremer and company purposely fostered, the US knew that the shooting of protestors was a likely result and that, indeed, that is what they coveted.
Now, there is some evidence to suggest that the troops were shot at, but Klein could say that far from diminishing her argument such a possibility made the American plan all the more likely to succeed; what matters is the likelihood of the results and not whether the troops were provoked.
The problem with all of this is that what Klein is saying rests on the fanciful notion that what is happening now is exactly what the US wanted and that the reason they wanted such a rebellion was not so they could draw the rebels into an open fight -- the only half plausible reason for wanting it. Rather she believes that the Bushies were worried that the country may erupt if they stuck to the June 30th deadline and if the country erupted that this would call into question the legitimacy of IGC -- as if the current situation is not doing this anyway. They hoped that by fermenting a rebellion they would not need to stick to the June 30th deadline, which, by the way, only they support, and thus in the process avoid in June what is happening now. It is always best to get things over with. The fact that the legions of Bush haters the world around would feel that a decision to abandon the June 30th dateline is proof that Bush has great plans for a new American Empire, would never occur all those PhDs in Washington.
(0) comments
It appears as if Naomi Klein has spent too much time in Iraq and has developed a particularly virulent strain of conspiracy fever.
“At first, Mr. Bremer responded to Mr. al-Sadr's growing strength by ignoring him; now he is attempting to provoke him into all-out battle.
The trouble began when Mr. Bremer closed down Mr. al-Sadr's newspaper last week, sparking a wave of peaceful demonstrations. On Saturday, Mr. Bremer raised the stakes further by sending coalition forces to surround Mr. al-Sadr's house near Najaf and arrest his communications officer.
Predictably, the arrest sparked immediate demonstrations in Baghdad, which the Iraqi army responded to by opening fire and allegedly killing three people. It was these deaths that provoked yesterday's bloody demonstrations.
At the end of the day on Sunday, Mr. al-Sadr issued a statement calling on his supporters to stop staging demonstrations "because your enemy prefers terrorism and detests that way of expressing opinion" and instead urged them to employ unnamed "other ways" to resist the occupation, a statement many interpret as a call to arms.
On the surface, this chain of events is mystifying. With the so-called Sunni triangle in flames after the gruesome Fallujah attacks, why is Mr. Bremer pushing the comparatively calm Shia south into battle? Here's one possible answer: Washington has given up on its plans to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, and is now creating the chaos it needs to declare the handover impossible.
A continued occupation will be bad news for George Bush on the campaign trail, but not as bad as if the handover happens and the country erupts, an increasingly likely scenario given the widespread rejection of the legitimacy of the interim constitution and the U.S.-appointed government.
It's a plan that might make sense in meetings in Washington, but here in Baghdad it looks like pure madness. By sending the new Iraqi army to fire on the people it is supposed to be protecting, Mr. Bremer has destroyed what slim hope it had of gaining credibility with an already highly mistrustful population. On Sunday, before storming the unarmed demonstrators, the soldiers could be seen pulling on ski masks, so they wouldn't be recognized when they returned to their neighbourhoods.”
The supposition that Iraqi troops were ordered to fire on protestors by the Americans is categorically false. What were the Americans going to do? Kill the Iraqi soldiers with knowledge of such an order to keep them from talking. Klein, I hope, is not dumb enough to be saying this.
More plausibly, what she is saying is that in sending Iraqi troops to stop a protest, Bremer and company purposely fostered, the US knew that the shooting of protestors was a likely result and that, indeed, that is what they coveted.
Now, there is some evidence to suggest that the troops were shot at, but Klein could say that far from diminishing her argument such a possibility made the American plan all the more likely to succeed; what matters is the likelihood of the results and not whether the troops were provoked.
The problem with all of this is that what Klein is saying rests on the fanciful notion that what is happening now is exactly what the US wanted and that the reason they wanted such a rebellion was not so they could draw the rebels into an open fight -- the only half plausible reason for wanting it. Rather she believes that the Bushies were worried that the country may erupt if they stuck to the June 30th deadline and if the country erupted that this would call into question the legitimacy of IGC -- as if the current situation is not doing this anyway. They hoped that by fermenting a rebellion they would not need to stick to the June 30th deadline, which, by the way, only they support, and thus in the process avoid in June what is happening now. It is always best to get things over with. The fact that the legions of Bush haters the world around would feel that a decision to abandon the June 30th dateline is proof that Bush has great plans for a new American Empire, would never occur all those PhDs in Washington.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Forcing Sadr's hand: A Gamble that Failed?
BBC has continually questioned the wisdom of closing down Sadr’s paper and arresting one of his top aids. Following the lead of the American press, they contend that Sadr is in the greater scheme of things a marginal figure and his paper was viewed as little more than a “tabloid”. By closing down the paper and arresting his aid, the Americans make Sadr seem more important than he truly is and more importantly they needlessly forced a show down with the cleric. Simply put, they are wrong.
As Juan Cole explains, the minimizing of Sadr by noting that he “only” has 10,000 militia is basically lying by omission. “In fact that is the size of his formal militia. Muqtada's movement is like the layers of an onion. You have 10,000 militiamen. But then you have tens of thousands of cadres able to mobilize neighborhoods. Then you have hundreds of thousands of Sadrists, followers of Muqtada and other heirs of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr. Then you have maybe 5 million Shiite theocrats [, a disproportionate number of whom are young males,] who sympathize with Muqtada's goals and rhetoric, about a third of the Shiite community.” Needless to say, if Cole is right this is sizable base of support.
Now, without knowing the papers circulation numbers etc, I will take the word of a recognized Iraqi Shiite expert and assume that the paper is as well received as the man.
As for the claim that the US had nothing to gain by forcing a show down with the cleric this is simply not true. Sadr city has been a hot bed of Anti US activity. Indeed, one US soldier notes that Sadr city “is where the most resistance can be find in Baghdad. In fact, the military pulled out of that area awhile ago because of the attacks. It is considered to be even a little more dangerous than Fallujah, but Fallujah is a big city, and Saddam City is a neighborhood.” http://bootsonground.blogspot.com/ Juan Cole also notes that given population breakdown and the way Shiites and Sunnis responded to a poll asking them whether they approve of the targeting of American troops, more Shiites than Sunnis approve of such measures. (1.6 million vs 1.2 million). While, he says that “the numbers bring into question the official line that there are no problems in the South, only in the Sunni Arab heartland.” the actual distribution of coalition causalities suggests that the official line is true, but the polls results are entirely consistent with the soldier’s observations and with there being a disproportionate number of those in Sadr city supporting such action.
In a country where saving face is extremely important, the US seems to have reasoned that given the current situation is a mess and the fact that a showdown with Sadr sometime down the road was all but inevitable, it was worth gambling that they could force Sadr to back down and in the process cause him to loose face with his followers. He called their bluff and now they have no choice but to kill him. Holding him for trail would be disastrous. The IGC has enough baggage as it is.
(0) comments
BBC has continually questioned the wisdom of closing down Sadr’s paper and arresting one of his top aids. Following the lead of the American press, they contend that Sadr is in the greater scheme of things a marginal figure and his paper was viewed as little more than a “tabloid”. By closing down the paper and arresting his aid, the Americans make Sadr seem more important than he truly is and more importantly they needlessly forced a show down with the cleric. Simply put, they are wrong.
As Juan Cole explains, the minimizing of Sadr by noting that he “only” has 10,000 militia is basically lying by omission. “In fact that is the size of his formal militia. Muqtada's movement is like the layers of an onion. You have 10,000 militiamen. But then you have tens of thousands of cadres able to mobilize neighborhoods. Then you have hundreds of thousands of Sadrists, followers of Muqtada and other heirs of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr. Then you have maybe 5 million Shiite theocrats [, a disproportionate number of whom are young males,] who sympathize with Muqtada's goals and rhetoric, about a third of the Shiite community.” Needless to say, if Cole is right this is sizable base of support.
Now, without knowing the papers circulation numbers etc, I will take the word of a recognized Iraqi Shiite expert and assume that the paper is as well received as the man.
As for the claim that the US had nothing to gain by forcing a show down with the cleric this is simply not true. Sadr city has been a hot bed of Anti US activity. Indeed, one US soldier notes that Sadr city “is where the most resistance can be find in Baghdad. In fact, the military pulled out of that area awhile ago because of the attacks. It is considered to be even a little more dangerous than Fallujah, but Fallujah is a big city, and Saddam City is a neighborhood.” http://bootsonground.blogspot.com/ Juan Cole also notes that given population breakdown and the way Shiites and Sunnis responded to a poll asking them whether they approve of the targeting of American troops, more Shiites than Sunnis approve of such measures. (1.6 million vs 1.2 million). While, he says that “the numbers bring into question the official line that there are no problems in the South, only in the Sunni Arab heartland.” the actual distribution of coalition causalities suggests that the official line is true, but the polls results are entirely consistent with the soldier’s observations and with there being a disproportionate number of those in Sadr city supporting such action.
In a country where saving face is extremely important, the US seems to have reasoned that given the current situation is a mess and the fact that a showdown with Sadr sometime down the road was all but inevitable, it was worth gambling that they could force Sadr to back down and in the process cause him to loose face with his followers. He called their bluff and now they have no choice but to kill him. Holding him for trail would be disastrous. The IGC has enough baggage as it is.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Juan Cole: “It turns out that the Plus Ultra base [the Spainish base] where the Sadrists protested was called "al-Andalus." That is a reference to Arab Spain, to which the Catholics of the Reconquista put a bloody end in 1492. Although much has been written about the Jews forcibly converted to Christianity in the aftermath, it is not realized that many more Muslims stayed and were forced to convert under the watchful eye of the Inquisition.”
This reminds me a story Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair a few years back. A French diplomat said it bothered him that in taking a train from Paris to London he arrives at Waterloo Station. (Just a historical refresher, the battle of Waterloo effectively ended Napoleon’s rule and ever since then “Waterloo” has been synonymous with downfall. For example, the 1979 budget proved to be Clark’s Waterloo.) His English counterpart fired back “do not be such a sensitive frog
(0) comments
This reminds me a story Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair a few years back. A French diplomat said it bothered him that in taking a train from Paris to London he arrives at Waterloo Station. (Just a historical refresher, the battle of Waterloo effectively ended Napoleon’s rule and ever since then “Waterloo” has been synonymous with downfall. For example, the 1979 budget proved to be Clark’s Waterloo.) His English counterpart fired back “do not be such a sensitive frog
Al Qaeda's Letter to Spain
Well, no sooner had I written about Al Qaeda’s lack of coherent strategy in Spain when they send a letter to a Spanish newspaper spelling out their demands. Claiming responsibility for the “blessed attacks on March 11”, the group said that if Spain does not "completely and immediately" withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, “we declare war and we swear by Almighty God that we will turn your country into an inferno and we will make blood flow like rivers." It also claimed that they “placed bombs on the high-speed line near Toledo and … [they] could have made the trains that passed there Thursday or Friday blow up, but we didn't because our objective is only to warn you and show that we have the force and capability — with permission of Allah the Highest — to attack whenever we want and however we want." It is not clear yet whether this is true. It is just as likely that, as Intelligence agents cited by the Spanish news agency Efe say, the letter's objective is to "derive some profit for the frustrated attack on the Madrid-Seville line." In any case, the group announced that the “truce” between Spain and Al Qaeda ended yesterday. (I do not really know what to make of claim of there ever having been a truce other than the not very credible claim made by Abu Hafs al-Masri that Spain would no longer be targeted if it follows through on a pledge to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_canadawide_archive.html Scroll down to "Spain off limits?")
Now, it is not clear, whether the group that sent the letter was involved in Madrid attack. However, authorities are not ruling out the possibility that they were. The letter's purported author, Abu Dujana al Afgani, is believed to be the same person who appeared in a videotape claiming responsibility for the Madrid attacks. Found two days after the bombing in a garbage can near a Madrid mosque, Abu Dujana al Afgani says that the bombings were revenge for the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq.
What is clear is that Morocco-based Islamic Combatant Group, which the authorities linked to last year's suicide attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, were the core group that carried out the bombing.
(0) comments
Well, no sooner had I written about Al Qaeda’s lack of coherent strategy in Spain when they send a letter to a Spanish newspaper spelling out their demands. Claiming responsibility for the “blessed attacks on March 11”, the group said that if Spain does not "completely and immediately" withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, “we declare war and we swear by Almighty God that we will turn your country into an inferno and we will make blood flow like rivers." It also claimed that they “placed bombs on the high-speed line near Toledo and … [they] could have made the trains that passed there Thursday or Friday blow up, but we didn't because our objective is only to warn you and show that we have the force and capability — with permission of Allah the Highest — to attack whenever we want and however we want." It is not clear yet whether this is true. It is just as likely that, as Intelligence agents cited by the Spanish news agency Efe say, the letter's objective is to "derive some profit for the frustrated attack on the Madrid-Seville line." In any case, the group announced that the “truce” between Spain and Al Qaeda ended yesterday. (I do not really know what to make of claim of there ever having been a truce other than the not very credible claim made by Abu Hafs al-Masri that Spain would no longer be targeted if it follows through on a pledge to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_canadawide_archive.html Scroll down to "Spain off limits?")
Now, it is not clear, whether the group that sent the letter was involved in Madrid attack. However, authorities are not ruling out the possibility that they were. The letter's purported author, Abu Dujana al Afgani, is believed to be the same person who appeared in a videotape claiming responsibility for the Madrid attacks. Found two days after the bombing in a garbage can near a Madrid mosque, Abu Dujana al Afgani says that the bombings were revenge for the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq.
What is clear is that Morocco-based Islamic Combatant Group, which the authorities linked to last year's suicide attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, were the core group that carried out the bombing.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Spain did not buy its Safety
Spain’s pledge to remove its troops from Iraq appears not to have bought its safety. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001894758_spain03.html I was wrong in this regard, but possibly also right. I will say exactly what I mean in a second.
The fact that Islamo-Fascists attempted to hit Spain again is hardly cause for celebration. It proves that all of us in the West are potential targets. At the same time, it also greatly undermines Al Qaeda’s ability to manipulate Western elections and, in the end, will do more to unite us than Bush could ever hope to do. That is the bright side of it.
Now, the reason I say I may be right is a few posts back I said that Al Qaeda’s transformation from a organization into almost a kind of ideology, may limit its ability to stick to a strict course of action and this be hurt Al Qaeda strategically. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_canadawide_archive.html Scroll down to "Is Spain off Limits"
Some have said that there is a Moroccan nationalist angle to the Madrid bombing. http://slate.msn.com/id/2097370
(0) comments
Spain’s pledge to remove its troops from Iraq appears not to have bought its safety. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001894758_spain03.html I was wrong in this regard, but possibly also right. I will say exactly what I mean in a second.
The fact that Islamo-Fascists attempted to hit Spain again is hardly cause for celebration. It proves that all of us in the West are potential targets. At the same time, it also greatly undermines Al Qaeda’s ability to manipulate Western elections and, in the end, will do more to unite us than Bush could ever hope to do. That is the bright side of it.
Now, the reason I say I may be right is a few posts back I said that Al Qaeda’s transformation from a organization into almost a kind of ideology, may limit its ability to stick to a strict course of action and this be hurt Al Qaeda strategically. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_canadawide_archive.html Scroll down to "Is Spain off Limits"
Some have said that there is a Moroccan nationalist angle to the Madrid bombing. http://slate.msn.com/id/2097370
Friday, April 02, 2004
Juan Cole
“Deaths of Americans in Fallujah: In revenge for Sharon's Murder of Sheikh Yassin?
There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a "gift to the Palestinian people."
You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.' And all the commander's hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much.”
The pretext for killing the Americans might have been Yassin’s killing. However, to say that this motivated them to target those Americans is just plain silly. The rebels in Fallujah have been gunning for Americans all along and had the Yassin killing not taken place they still would have been targeting them.
That said, did the Yassin killing undermine, if only somewhat, American efforts in Fallujah? Undoubtedly it did.
Switching gears, as to the so called Mogadishu effect, first let me say that people seem to misread Clinton’s motives for pulling out. As Samantha Power pointed out, the vast majority of Americans (74% if I remember correctly) supported the US continuing on in Somalia after Mogadishu and this represented an 8% spike. Seeing the bodies of dead Americans dragged through the streets, naturally enough, made many Americans blood boil and they wanted to see some “skinnies” killed in reprisal. The reason Clinton pulled out is that the optics of the operation had changed. The focus had shifted from stopping famine to the battle between Mohammed Farah Aidid’s guerrilla’s and the US. In the long term, Americans would come to question America’s reason for being involved in what was bound to be a protracted guerrilla campaign for a place that had little strategic value. What is more, there was very little upside politically. The more successful they were in defeating Aidid the more responsibilities they would have to take on and so the more tied down they would become. Where Clinton erred, politically, is that the optics of pulling out before dealing Aidid one last blow was not good.
As for Iraq, Bush obviously has to stay the course; he has too much resting on Iraq politically not to. However, Fallujah does hurt. Being able to cite polls detailing just how pleased Iraqis are to have Saddam gone and how hopeful they are about the future is nice, but polls are not tangible. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
People are more apt to judge the Iraqi mindset from what they see on TV and what they see is a bunch of young Iraqi males treating the bodies of American soldiers (private soldiers) like an out of control two year old treats his sister's doll and dancing around like a bunch of circus monkeys. People are certainly going to want revenge, but if this is repeated several times some are going be saying “lets get out of there. If civil war erupts, so what. A few dead Iraqis are alright with me.”
As a closing note, what Juan Cole forgot to mention is that the dehumanizing pictures coming out of Fallujah give Sharon, a la 911, the ability to strike Palestinians even harder. If the pretext for the attack is widely determined to be revenge for Yassin’s killing, the Palestinians, a la Arafat on 911 giving blood for the victims, would do well to distance themselves from the attack.
(0) comments
“Deaths of Americans in Fallujah: In revenge for Sharon's Murder of Sheikh Yassin?
There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a "gift to the Palestinian people."
You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.' And all the commander's hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much.”
The pretext for killing the Americans might have been Yassin’s killing. However, to say that this motivated them to target those Americans is just plain silly. The rebels in Fallujah have been gunning for Americans all along and had the Yassin killing not taken place they still would have been targeting them.
That said, did the Yassin killing undermine, if only somewhat, American efforts in Fallujah? Undoubtedly it did.
Switching gears, as to the so called Mogadishu effect, first let me say that people seem to misread Clinton’s motives for pulling out. As Samantha Power pointed out, the vast majority of Americans (74% if I remember correctly) supported the US continuing on in Somalia after Mogadishu and this represented an 8% spike. Seeing the bodies of dead Americans dragged through the streets, naturally enough, made many Americans blood boil and they wanted to see some “skinnies” killed in reprisal. The reason Clinton pulled out is that the optics of the operation had changed. The focus had shifted from stopping famine to the battle between Mohammed Farah Aidid’s guerrilla’s and the US. In the long term, Americans would come to question America’s reason for being involved in what was bound to be a protracted guerrilla campaign for a place that had little strategic value. What is more, there was very little upside politically. The more successful they were in defeating Aidid the more responsibilities they would have to take on and so the more tied down they would become. Where Clinton erred, politically, is that the optics of pulling out before dealing Aidid one last blow was not good.
As for Iraq, Bush obviously has to stay the course; he has too much resting on Iraq politically not to. However, Fallujah does hurt. Being able to cite polls detailing just how pleased Iraqis are to have Saddam gone and how hopeful they are about the future is nice, but polls are not tangible. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
People are more apt to judge the Iraqi mindset from what they see on TV and what they see is a bunch of young Iraqi males treating the bodies of American soldiers (private soldiers) like an out of control two year old treats his sister's doll and dancing around like a bunch of circus monkeys. People are certainly going to want revenge, but if this is repeated several times some are going be saying “lets get out of there. If civil war erupts, so what. A few dead Iraqis are alright with me.”
As a closing note, what Juan Cole forgot to mention is that the dehumanizing pictures coming out of Fallujah give Sharon, a la 911, the ability to strike Palestinians even harder. If the pretext for the attack is widely determined to be revenge for Yassin’s killing, the Palestinians, a la Arafat on 911 giving blood for the victims, would do well to distance themselves from the attack.
