In view of the 415 victims terrorism killed by terrorism during April and yesterday’s sensational, gruesome display of American civilian contractor’s remains on news networks-
What is the emerging Slowtwitch consensus on our course of action going forward?
Just asking, but what 415 victims?
I saw a report on CNN last night to the effect that the “Death toll from terrorist attacks for the month of March was 415” (paraphrasing).
Now, I do not know how they arrived at that statistic- if it includes only Americans or the Madrid victims or whatever…
If my memory serves me correctly it was on the scroll banner at the bottom of the screen.
The process is slow, but is moving forward. We need to stay the course or Iraq will just turn into another country that is not friendly. We have a small hope of establishing a country we can work with in the region and if we pull out now, it will collapse into anarchy with another dictator rulling it.
It is extremely difficult to temper an emotionally charged reaction to those horrifying images.
As a soldier on the ground in Iraq my inclination would have been to key the bridge’s GPS coordinates into my DMDG transmitter and call in an airstrike on the entire grid square.
Those people on the bridge were smiling. A few thousand pounds of FAE and HE would wipe the smile off their faces.
Intellectually, however, your response seems to be the appropriate one.
Conversely, there is an emotional repsonse that suggests, “Fine, we got the message- we’re outta here- you can have your country back. Rebuild it yourself.”
I was reading last week that a lot of Iraqis are quite optimistic about things now. Things are quite messy, but keep in mind that the media only report on the bad stuff going on.
Also keep in mind what happened in the Balkans once the USSR collapsed. If Iraq can be forged into a semblance of a self-governed nation where the various factions live in relative peace, it will be a minor miracle. And there are lots of people who do not want it to happen.
Hmmm. . .I guess I’ll go ahead and say it. I don’t think there were any American victims of terrorism last month. There were a good number of Americans killed by guerillas.
What’s your definition of terrorism?
Stay the course. Add more troops. Minimize timing/number of rotation of troops as the troops in Iraq know the local people/contacts and are building relationships. Work very hard on winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Pour resources and time into training the local police force and the army. The British control the southern part of Iraq, and one reason they’re doing well is that they work hard to have local support, and try their best to stay out of local disputes - they rely on the police force a lot more. The more you see American troops in full combat gear patrolling neighbourhoods and storming houses (even if they are fully justified in certain cases), the more they appear as invaders to locals, as opposed to liberators and/or allies.
Wow, that is an excellent question and a good comment.
I need to make a phone call. Wait one.
Standing by to stand by.
“The systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective.”
“Military or paramilitary operations conducted by irregulars with no distinction between civilian and military targets usually outside the normal conduct of warefare: Operations other than war.”
There’s two possibble definitions.
Conversely, there is an emotional repsonse that suggests, “Fine, we got the message- we’re outta here- you can have your country back. Rebuild it yourself.”
That is exactly the response that the terrorist/guerrillas/baathists or what ever you want to call them are going for. We just need to stay the course and keep working to establish a stable government.
Hmmm. . .The first one is circular, so let’s toss it. ( Terrorism= “the systemic use of terror . . .” ?)
The second one is equally unsatisfactory, IMO. For one thing, who determines if the operation is an operation “other than war”? For another thing, by this definition, the only thing keeping the bombing of Nagasaki from being a terrorist attack is the fact that it was carried out by “regular” forces. While we’re at it, who determines what a “regular” force is? We seemed to have a hard time (the US govt, I mean) coming up with a good defintion of that as recently as the Afghanistan campaign.
How about something along these lines: “Terrorism is the use of violence against an innocent third party in order to achieve a political/religious/etc goal.”
That’s isn’t perfect either, I know. But before we start labeling every objectional act “terrorism,” we should know what we’re talking about.
A guy I know’s face showed up on a wanted poster in another (mean) country once with some of my friends. We thought it was funny and it rapidly became a collector’s item among our associates. They were wanted for “terrorism” I was told by an interpreter.
“One man’s terroist is another man’s freedom fighter”, I don’t know who said that.
**“One man’s terroist is another man’s freedom fighter”, I don’t know who said that. **
Every nutcase who wanted to justify terrorism, if you ask me. There is a difference, and we really should be able to come up with a definition better than, “I know it when I see it.”
We’re screwed. Damned if you stay, damned if you leave. Junior’s dad knew it, gave the reasons why you don’t go in when he wrote his book. Junior, not being much for books, apparently didn’t read it.
We need to suck it up and get some help. The attitude has to be changed that this is US v. Iraq situation. We need to have other countries help take part. Now that we are there we can’t just cut and run it will haunt us for decades.
I have to agree with the question about calling this terrorism. They would call themselves freedom fighters. The victor gets to write the history.
I’m generally a bleeding heart liberal but stuff like this latest attack sets me off. I’ve heard it equated with Mogadishu but I really don’t think the Iraquis want that kind of response. If you ever read what really happened when we went in to get the pinned down troops out there was only one side that lost mny people and after we got the troops out there were some pissed off Rangers (I think they were Rangers but I may be mistaken) who were very interested in finishing the job. The quote I read was, “There would not have been a Mogadishu left.”
The solution may be to give everyone that wants out 3 days to seeks shelter with the US military and then we can load up the bombs and make it into Lake Iraq. (You know you’ve gone too far when you make the pacifist say, “Kill 'em all”)
That is exactly the response that the terrorist/guerrillas/baathists or what ever you want to call them are going for. We just need to stay the course and keep working to establish a stable government.<<
You are most likely right. But that is very difficult to come to grips with right now with a good friend (Marine and Ironman) in Fallujah right now.
clm
**I have to agree with the question about calling this terrorism. They would call themselves freedom fighters. The victor gets to write the history. **
To clarify, I don’t give a rat’s butt what they would call themselves. I’m sure Bin Laden doesn’t call himself a terrorist, either, but he sure as hell is one. And if his side ends up winning and they crown him king of the world and write all the new Islamist history books, guess what- he’s still a murdering terrorist.
What I’m saying is that not every act we find barbaric, or wrong, or evil, or hurtful, or whatever, is terrorism. Just like not every evil tyrant is the next Hitler.
I just think the language we use is important to the way we think about the world, and we should try to think about the world as clearly as possible. Since terrorism is a big part of our world right now, we should get a handle on what we mean when we use the word.
I know this is coming across as me being difficult, but I think it’s important.
What happened yesterday is confined to a small part of the population in a pocket of Iraq. I for one don’t understand how it all happened. How and why were 4 civilians driving through a hot spot like that? Why were cameras there so soon? Have any of the dead been identified? Not that any of that is improtant in comaparison to what happened but I have to wonder if they were not civilians and were set up. Maybe too much consipiracy theory? Why couldn’t our military get there at least in enough time to keep them from desicrating the bodies? A couple of tanks or gunships and those people would have left. Those who didn’t would have got the message clear.
I hope the military follows through with their promise that the response will be “deliberate, precise and it’s going to be overwhelming.”
Stay the course.
I don’t know if our international reputation can withstand another pullout immediately after the reality of the horrors of war are displayed to the world. Mogadishu, its display of dead Rangers and D-Boys, and our immediate pullout was bad enough; but to quit now would further erode our military power. (I’ll bet there were people in that mob who remembered what the skinnies did, and decided to recreate that scene in hopes that it would trigger another US retreat.)
Another point: Fallujah is part of the so called “Sunni Triangle” northwest of Baghdad where most of the violent resistance continues. Sadaam Hussein showered that city and its inhabitants with gifts of power, position, and prestige. As soon as his regime fell, the people of Fallujah were stripped of that status. They’re pissed, and they’ve remained extremely loyal to the Baathists. So, I can’t imagine that what is happening in Fallujah is typical of the rest of Iraq and its people. (Like a previous poster wrote: the US media only focuses on the bad. They seem to portray the situation as if all Iraqis were on that bridge, taunting the US. It’s too bad that many casual observers and “arm chair generals” believe what they’re being spoon fed.)
From what I understand from people who are in Iraq or who have recently returned, the majority of Iraqis are glad we’re there. The violence is being conducted by a very small contingent of people, many of whom aren’t even Iraqi. But again, the media outlets ignore this fact and focus on the daily attacks.
I say stay the course (“No better friend”), but be sure to crack down hard on the Triangle and its insurgents (“No worse enemy”).