Stephen LaTulippe has some interesting thoughts.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that he i s telling the whole story, and using numbers and factoids outside of a larger context as he does in some places can be misleading, but the article has some interesting insights.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
My Top Ten List
Rolling Stone has released their 500 Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Songs of all time.
My choices for top ten (although they may not all qualify as Rock 'N' Roll):
(Not necessarily in order)
1. Ordinary World - Duran Duran
2. Shadows of the Night - Pat Benatar
3. Ask the Lonely - Journey
4. Peace of Mind - Boston
5. And We Danced - The Hooters
6. Friday I'm in Love The Cure
7. Your Love - The Outfield
8. I Wanna Go Back - Eddie Money
9. Jocko Homo - Devo (laugh if you want, but it started off new wave)
10. Video Killed the Radio Star - The Buggles
That is all.
My choices for top ten (although they may not all qualify as Rock 'N' Roll):
(Not necessarily in order)
1. Ordinary World - Duran Duran
2. Shadows of the Night - Pat Benatar
3. Ask the Lonely - Journey
4. Peace of Mind - Boston
5. And We Danced - The Hooters
6. Friday I'm in Love The Cure
7. Your Love - The Outfield
8. I Wanna Go Back - Eddie Money
9. Jocko Homo - Devo (laugh if you want, but it started off new wave)
10. Video Killed the Radio Star - The Buggles
That is all.
Some Good News and Some So-So
The daily death toll in Iraq appears to have gone down over the past few days, compared to where it was during the incursion into Fallujah. This is good news, although it remains to be seen how long it will last. Currently this is the second deadliest month for the Coalition in terms of hostile deaths, and tied for second with last Novemer for total deaths. Most commentators will tell you that it hit 2nd place status days ago.
That is because they count only American deaths, and last November there were 28 non-American deaths compared to this November's 4.
By the way, the graph on the Hostile-non-hostile timeline needs to be made Mac-compatible!
That is because they count only American deaths, and last November there were 28 non-American deaths compared to this November's 4.
By the way, the graph on the Hostile-non-hostile timeline needs to be made Mac-compatible!
On a More Personal Note
Apple stuff sure is expensive! But I still like it better than Windows. I've had to get a new keyboard because my old one had something spill on it.
New Hampshire has a very diffficult highway system. Getting to Salem (NH, not MA) from Durham is a er - female dog. But at least they usually put up a sign or two to tell you where you are going, unlike a certain other state that shall remain nameless but that rhymes with Bassachusetts.
That is all.
New Hampshire has a very diffficult highway system. Getting to Salem (NH, not MA) from Durham is a er - female dog. But at least they usually put up a sign or two to tell you where you are going, unlike a certain other state that shall remain nameless but that rhymes with Bassachusetts.
That is all.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Andy and Happy Thoughts
Here are a few pieces from Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew is apparently upset with Bill Kristol. The only complaint I have about that is that when he points out that Bill has been unwillingto criticize Bush before the election, he does not also point out that Bill did disagree with Bush on troop levels since - well, at least several months ago and quite possibly last (i.e. 2003) summer. I remember him constantly beating the drums for more troops, so his belief that Bush has not put enough troops on the ground is something that he has been implicitly announcing for a while now; he's not a Billy-come-lately.
As to the issue of more troops itself, I sort of agree with Andrew and sort of don't. While I think that it is true that we will need more troops if we are to keep order Iraq over the next few months (at least unless we decide to keep order through collective punishment and mass slaughter), I think that it will be a temporary solution at best.
Ultimately, the longer we are in Iraq, the more the populace will turn against us. Unless we can pinprick our attacks enough to cause very, very little collateral damage, each of our campaigns will probably create more terrorists than they kill.
I think that in any counter-guerilla campaign, the military aspect can only provide a solution once enough people are killed that it becomes hard to garner new recruits. This happens either because potential new recruits see the cause as hopeless, or because everyone who could potentially join the insurgency is dead. In other words, our efforts against the insurgency will further enrage the soldierable* populace until there is no one left to enrage. So until we kill, let's say, 2 or 3 million Iraqi males, I have a feeling that military solutions alone won't work.
*Apt to fight in a war.
Andrew is apparently upset with Bill Kristol. The only complaint I have about that is that when he points out that Bill has been unwillingto criticize Bush before the election, he does not also point out that Bill did disagree with Bush on troop levels since - well, at least several months ago and quite possibly last (i.e. 2003) summer. I remember him constantly beating the drums for more troops, so his belief that Bush has not put enough troops on the ground is something that he has been implicitly announcing for a while now; he's not a Billy-come-lately.
As to the issue of more troops itself, I sort of agree with Andrew and sort of don't. While I think that it is true that we will need more troops if we are to keep order Iraq over the next few months (at least unless we decide to keep order through collective punishment and mass slaughter), I think that it will be a temporary solution at best.
Ultimately, the longer we are in Iraq, the more the populace will turn against us. Unless we can pinprick our attacks enough to cause very, very little collateral damage, each of our campaigns will probably create more terrorists than they kill.
I think that in any counter-guerilla campaign, the military aspect can only provide a solution once enough people are killed that it becomes hard to garner new recruits. This happens either because potential new recruits see the cause as hopeless, or because everyone who could potentially join the insurgency is dead. In other words, our efforts against the insurgency will further enrage the soldierable* populace until there is no one left to enrage. So until we kill, let's say, 2 or 3 million Iraqi males, I have a feeling that military solutions alone won't work.
*Apt to fight in a war.
It's a Windows World
My keyboard broke and I went to Wal*Mart to get a replacement (wanting a replacement before the morning and not having anywhere else open).
So almost all of the keyboards were for IBM or 100% compatible computers only.
Thank God for Spongebob Squarepants.
That is all.
So almost all of the keyboards were for IBM or 100% compatible computers only.
Thank God for Spongebob Squarepants.
That is all.
Kevin Sites: His Own Words
Kevin Sites speaks out on his blog and explains the story behind his taking the photograph of the soldier shooting the wounded insurgent.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
How Sweet it is
These losers went all out to make certain that the left kept it within the two-party spectrum.
Well, pragmatism lost, you wimps. Kerry would have lost to Bush if every Nader voter had gone for Kerry.
As much as I hate Bush, it's always nice to see jerks lose.
Now, if somehow Bush can get caught in a trist with a nubile young Mexican who is here illegally, my year would be made. (Although this is very unlikely).
I feel about Bush and Kerry the way that Kissinger felt about Iraq and Iran.
"It's too bad they both can't lose."
Well, pragmatism lost, you wimps. Kerry would have lost to Bush if every Nader voter had gone for Kerry.
As much as I hate Bush, it's always nice to see jerks lose.
Now, if somehow Bush can get caught in a trist with a nubile young Mexican who is here illegally, my year would be made. (Although this is very unlikely).
I feel about Bush and Kerry the way that Kissinger felt about Iraq and Iran.
"It's too bad they both can't lose."
NRO Comments on the Shooting
Mackubin Thomas Owens and
Jack Dunphy on National Review explaining the actions of the soldier who shot the wounded Iraqi. In both cases, they make the point that the soldier was justified in assuming, based on past experience, that the insurgent was faking it in order to get to attack him.
But both avoid the trap that Hack Kelly falls into by stating definitively that the insurgent was "feinting death."
(I don't have the references right now, but I recall reading or hearing reports that definitively identify this man as an insurgent rather than a civilian, so I am now comfortable definitively calling him an insurgent).
Michael Ledeen, on the other hand, offers something that I'm not certain I understand. He points out that a certain British soldier, by the name of Henry Tandey, could have killed Adolph Hitler way back in World War I, and by sparing his life, allowed him to take over Germany.
I am not entirely certain what the point is here.
In all due fairness, this was an excerpt from his book Machiavelli and Modern Leadership, and contains no commentary except for the passage in the book, so it doesn't comment per se on the current issue of the Marine shooting the wounded Iraqi. moreover, it is not clear whether Mr. Ledeen chose to put this comment on NRO, or whether it was the editors.
Nonetheless, in the context of the current situation, what is Mr. Ledeen's point? That we should never take prisoners but kill everyone associated with the insurgency? That we should kill anyone that we suspect might become Hitler in the future? I'm not certain I get it.
In any case, I am troubled by the idea, implied by the article, that we should think about preventively killing anyone who might become Hitler in the future.
Jack Dunphy on National Review explaining the actions of the soldier who shot the wounded Iraqi. In both cases, they make the point that the soldier was justified in assuming, based on past experience, that the insurgent was faking it in order to get to attack him.
But both avoid the trap that Hack Kelly falls into by stating definitively that the insurgent was "feinting death."
(I don't have the references right now, but I recall reading or hearing reports that definitively identify this man as an insurgent rather than a civilian, so I am now comfortable definitively calling him an insurgent).
Michael Ledeen, on the other hand, offers something that I'm not certain I understand. He points out that a certain British soldier, by the name of Henry Tandey, could have killed Adolph Hitler way back in World War I, and by sparing his life, allowed him to take over Germany.
I am not entirely certain what the point is here.
In all due fairness, this was an excerpt from his book Machiavelli and Modern Leadership, and contains no commentary except for the passage in the book, so it doesn't comment per se on the current issue of the Marine shooting the wounded Iraqi. moreover, it is not clear whether Mr. Ledeen chose to put this comment on NRO, or whether it was the editors.
Nonetheless, in the context of the current situation, what is Mr. Ledeen's point? That we should never take prisoners but kill everyone associated with the insurgency? That we should kill anyone that we suspect might become Hitler in the future? I'm not certain I get it.
In any case, I am troubled by the idea, implied by the article, that we should think about preventively killing anyone who might become Hitler in the future.
Victor Davis Hanson
As usual, VDH spouts a lot of conventional wisdom that is not entirely correct.
For one thing, he apparently belives that the elections in Afghanistan are showing that Afghanistan is creating a real democracy, and that they prove wrong those who said:
"They said the country had descended into rule by warlords, and called the very idea of scheduled voting a laughable notion."
The possibility that the elections were rigged or that to a great extent, the way people voted was directed by their warlords:
"And there are those who will be happy to help - notably warlords who have already been reported using their militias to ensure local people vote in the required fashion."
He also gives the impression that Afghanistan has suddenly gone out of the media spotlight now that the elections have proven the medai wrong.
Actually, Afghanistan went out of the spotlight shortly after the fall ofthe Taluban in 2001, and only a few people have commented on it since.
Hanson also says: "Instead, Westerners simply now assume that there was never any controversy, but rather a general consensus that Afghanistan is a "good thing""
With the implication that many of the people who condemn the war in Iraq but who support the one in Afghanistan didn't initially support the war in afghanistan and are now trying to get on the train.
I don't know about everyone, but I know that I supported going to war in Afghanistan in 2001, although I never shared the beleif that it would turn into a democracy and I ahev always been skeptical of reports that Afghanistan is becoming a free nation. In fact, I got some people angry at me for supporting the war.
I will admit, though, that at one point I opposed bombing, preferring that we put in ground troops, because of the fear of massive starvation (a fear that did not materialize; I should have been more skeptical); however, unlike some of the leftists, I did not see the possibility of massive starvation from bombing as a reason to simply let the Taliban stay in power and to be nice and charitable. We lost lives, damnit, and we needed to make an example of those who were sheltering bin Laden.
In any case, there were several people who supported going into Afghanistan who later turned against going to war in Iraq. And I wager that a good number of those opposed to Afghanistan have not changed their tune, so Mr. Hanson's implication is wrong.
Also, any attempts to prove the success of Iraq based on the "People doubted we could win in Afghanistan, too" - type arguments falter on the grounds that Afghanistan doesn't seem to be worsening in the same way as Iraq.
A look at fatality metrics suggests that in Afghanistan a steady average of around 45 troops a year are being killed. I can try to crunch the numbers month-by-month later (click on the "+" signs for a day-by-day dropdown count of deaths) to see if there were any spots at which things seemed temporarily to go downhill, but I doubt there were.
On the other hand, in Iraq the rate at which soldiers are killed has kept going up.
Looking at total coalition fatalities, American fatalities, coalition hostile fatalities (my preferred metric), or whatever metric shows a marked increase in fatalities over time. This first started in October 2003, when the monthly hostile fatalities broke 30, and only went below once (February 2004, with 16, probably largely because we pulled all our troops back into their bases) and increased again after April, at which point monthly hostile fatalities never went below 40, and then in August, after which monthly fatalities never went below 58.
I'm sorry if I seem pessimistic, but very little irks me more than Utopian triumphalism of any stripe, including Messianic Democratism.
For one thing, he apparently belives that the elections in Afghanistan are showing that Afghanistan is creating a real democracy, and that they prove wrong those who said:
"They said the country had descended into rule by warlords, and called the very idea of scheduled voting a laughable notion."
The possibility that the elections were rigged or that to a great extent, the way people voted was directed by their warlords:
"And there are those who will be happy to help - notably warlords who have already been reported using their militias to ensure local people vote in the required fashion."
He also gives the impression that Afghanistan has suddenly gone out of the media spotlight now that the elections have proven the medai wrong.
Actually, Afghanistan went out of the spotlight shortly after the fall ofthe Taluban in 2001, and only a few people have commented on it since.
Hanson also says: "Instead, Westerners simply now assume that there was never any controversy, but rather a general consensus that Afghanistan is a "good thing""
With the implication that many of the people who condemn the war in Iraq but who support the one in Afghanistan didn't initially support the war in afghanistan and are now trying to get on the train.
I don't know about everyone, but I know that I supported going to war in Afghanistan in 2001, although I never shared the beleif that it would turn into a democracy and I ahev always been skeptical of reports that Afghanistan is becoming a free nation. In fact, I got some people angry at me for supporting the war.
I will admit, though, that at one point I opposed bombing, preferring that we put in ground troops, because of the fear of massive starvation (a fear that did not materialize; I should have been more skeptical); however, unlike some of the leftists, I did not see the possibility of massive starvation from bombing as a reason to simply let the Taliban stay in power and to be nice and charitable. We lost lives, damnit, and we needed to make an example of those who were sheltering bin Laden.
In any case, there were several people who supported going into Afghanistan who later turned against going to war in Iraq. And I wager that a good number of those opposed to Afghanistan have not changed their tune, so Mr. Hanson's implication is wrong.
Also, any attempts to prove the success of Iraq based on the "People doubted we could win in Afghanistan, too" - type arguments falter on the grounds that Afghanistan doesn't seem to be worsening in the same way as Iraq.
A look at fatality metrics suggests that in Afghanistan a steady average of around 45 troops a year are being killed. I can try to crunch the numbers month-by-month later (click on the "+" signs for a day-by-day dropdown count of deaths) to see if there were any spots at which things seemed temporarily to go downhill, but I doubt there were.
On the other hand, in Iraq the rate at which soldiers are killed has kept going up.
Looking at total coalition fatalities, American fatalities, coalition hostile fatalities (my preferred metric), or whatever metric shows a marked increase in fatalities over time. This first started in October 2003, when the monthly hostile fatalities broke 30, and only went below once (February 2004, with 16, probably largely because we pulled all our troops back into their bases) and increased again after April, at which point monthly hostile fatalities never went below 40, and then in August, after which monthly fatalities never went below 58.
I'm sorry if I seem pessimistic, but very little irks me more than Utopian triumphalism of any stripe, including Messianic Democratism.
Iranian Feelings
Nicholas Schmidle offers an interpretation of the Iranian situation that seems reasonable to me - most Iranians like us, but they wouldn't respond well to the US trying to interfere in their government - this is a lot more believable to me than the Perle/Ledeen argument that the Iranians (like the Iraqis) want nothing else more than they want a US puppet regime, (because they love the US so much that a puppet regime would automatically have great legitimacy).
On the other hand, one of the examples that Mr. Schmidle gave of an Iranian expressing doubts about the US is rather poor, as the Iranian could just be criticizing the US to appease the regime (as they were under surveillance). I suppose mr. Schmidle assumes that the person is critical of both the Iranian regime and the US and that he wantd to make certain that both sides of his criticism were known, but he really never addresses the question of the man's sincerity.
On the other hand, one of the examples that Mr. Schmidle gave of an Iranian expressing doubts about the US is rather poor, as the Iranian could just be criticizing the US to appease the regime (as they were under surveillance). I suppose mr. Schmidle assumes that the person is critical of both the Iranian regime and the US and that he wantd to make certain that both sides of his criticism were known, but he really never addresses the question of the man's sincerity.
US Boosting Troop Levels?
This article is cheerful.
In the last 2 paragraphs, they talk about Iraqi commando units. How much does anyone want to bet that these units are mainly Kurdish?
In the last 2 paragraphs, they talk about Iraqi commando units. How much does anyone want to bet that these units are mainly Kurdish?
Friday, November 19, 2004
Jack the Hack is Back
Another waste of good bandwidth.
Some of the things he says don't make sense:
For example, he quotes john Thompson saying that a guerilla force must cause seven casulaties for each casualty on their side to remain viable.
Uh - doesn't that depend on how many insurgents there are and how big the enemies' force is, and on how quickly the guerillas can recruit more?
He also states that 1200 insurgents have been killed and 1100 captured, which sounds nice, but which assumes that the army isn't assuming anyone it finds who is dead to be an insurgent. Without some official estimate of civilian casualties, it is difficult to believe that some number-fudging isn't going on.
He quotes Ralph Peters saying that as a rule of thumb, a force taking a city suffers 1/4 to 1/3 its strength in casualties.
Again, an impressive rule of thumb, seeing as it doesn't take into account the size of the forces.
He also mentions that the police stations that were overun in Mosul were recaptured the next day. This ignores the fact that one probable reason for caputring them was for the insurgents to resupply themelves with ammunition. It is doubtful that they ever intended to hold them.
He also makes the statement, apparently backed up by Centcom, that there were only 5000 insurgents in Iraq and that, with the implication that, having eliminated 2000 of them, we are sitting pretty. (He acknowledges that some estimates are higher, but does not elaborate).
Wasn't that 5000 figure given back in January? And it's interesting that he dismissively states "other estimates were higher," as if it isn't worth analyzing.
I don't recall where this came from, but I thought that the last official estimate was 20,000. If this came from centcom, then Mr. Kelly is using old, out-of-date information. Does anyone know if this was a centcom figure or not?
He also sneers at the idea that Fallujah will help the insurgents by making the Arabs mad by saying that "By this logic, once we've killed all the terrorists, they'll be invincible."
Except that the process used for killing all of the "terrorists" may wind up helping them recruit more. Is this too hard for his little brain to understand? Oh, wait, they can't recruit Iraqis because the Iraqis love us. Kenneth Joseph told him so. And we all know how reliable ol' Ken is.
(Some may fault me for trusting Counterpunch, a very leftist site. But why has no one on the pro-war side mentioned Mr. Joseph, or the "hours of videotapes" of Iraqis pleading with us to conquer them, for more than a year?)
I also find it interesting that he is so certain that the wounded Iraqi was "feinting death." That of course means that he was entirely at fault for getting shot. It seems to me more likely that he was unconscious, and that his shooting was a mistake (in that if the Marine had had perfect knowledge, he wouldn't have shot), although it was justified under the circumstances (we don't have perfect knowledge).
UPDATE: I am not denying that the soldier thought that the Iraqi was feinting. I just find it irritating that idiots like Jack Kelly make the statement that he was faking when we don't know that. My perception was that the soldier's assumption was in error, but it was a good faith error, and one based on the actual behavior of other insurgents.
Some of the things he says don't make sense:
For example, he quotes john Thompson saying that a guerilla force must cause seven casulaties for each casualty on their side to remain viable.
Uh - doesn't that depend on how many insurgents there are and how big the enemies' force is, and on how quickly the guerillas can recruit more?
He also states that 1200 insurgents have been killed and 1100 captured, which sounds nice, but which assumes that the army isn't assuming anyone it finds who is dead to be an insurgent. Without some official estimate of civilian casualties, it is difficult to believe that some number-fudging isn't going on.
He quotes Ralph Peters saying that as a rule of thumb, a force taking a city suffers 1/4 to 1/3 its strength in casualties.
Again, an impressive rule of thumb, seeing as it doesn't take into account the size of the forces.
He also mentions that the police stations that were overun in Mosul were recaptured the next day. This ignores the fact that one probable reason for caputring them was for the insurgents to resupply themelves with ammunition. It is doubtful that they ever intended to hold them.
He also makes the statement, apparently backed up by Centcom, that there were only 5000 insurgents in Iraq and that, with the implication that, having eliminated 2000 of them, we are sitting pretty. (He acknowledges that some estimates are higher, but does not elaborate).
Wasn't that 5000 figure given back in January? And it's interesting that he dismissively states "other estimates were higher," as if it isn't worth analyzing.
I don't recall where this came from, but I thought that the last official estimate was 20,000. If this came from centcom, then Mr. Kelly is using old, out-of-date information. Does anyone know if this was a centcom figure or not?
He also sneers at the idea that Fallujah will help the insurgents by making the Arabs mad by saying that "By this logic, once we've killed all the terrorists, they'll be invincible."
Except that the process used for killing all of the "terrorists" may wind up helping them recruit more. Is this too hard for his little brain to understand? Oh, wait, they can't recruit Iraqis because the Iraqis love us. Kenneth Joseph told him so. And we all know how reliable ol' Ken is.
(Some may fault me for trusting Counterpunch, a very leftist site. But why has no one on the pro-war side mentioned Mr. Joseph, or the "hours of videotapes" of Iraqis pleading with us to conquer them, for more than a year?)
I also find it interesting that he is so certain that the wounded Iraqi was "feinting death." That of course means that he was entirely at fault for getting shot. It seems to me more likely that he was unconscious, and that his shooting was a mistake (in that if the Marine had had perfect knowledge, he wouldn't have shot), although it was justified under the circumstances (we don't have perfect knowledge).
UPDATE: I am not denying that the soldier thought that the Iraqi was feinting. I just find it irritating that idiots like Jack Kelly make the statement that he was faking when we don't know that. My perception was that the soldier's assumption was in error, but it was a good faith error, and one based on the actual behavior of other insurgents.
Thomas Sowell is Wrong
Thomas Sowell's latest column, Unlimited Enemy, is incorrect in my opinion for a number of reasons.
"Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices."
What Mr. Sowell fails to recognize is that (a) the insurgents in Iraq don't need a lot of resources, and (b) the issue isn't that no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will be more, the issue is that as long as a you occupy the country, it is difficult to kill insurgents without creating more. Methods of killing those who pose a threat to the US that do not involve occupying foreign countries for long periods tend to cause less regeneration, methinks.
Moreover, the point is also being made that a successful strategy needs a good political component, not just "kill 'em all." As Afghanistan is proving, you can avoid increasing the insurgency too much if you avoid leaving too big a footprint.
Put another way, if you choose to occupy a foreign counry, there are less costly and more effective ways to defeat those who would attack you than trying to "kill 'em all."
Of course, there is a way that "killin' 'em all" would work; if we assume that the entire populace of Iraq is our enemy (or at least particular segments, e.g. the Sunni Arabs, and go about wiping them out).
He also resuscitates the old canard, "If Iraq is not connected to terrorism, why are so many terrorists desperate to drive us out."
Uh - Mr. Sowell, terrorists don't fight "for terrorism." They fight for causes. There are a lot of people who hate the idea of the US occupying an Arab country. The fact that they may be willing to use terrorism to accomplish that goal does not mean that Iraq was essential to their plans previously.
Also, not everyone who attacks the US in Iraq is properly labeled a "terrorist." People who deliberately kill innocent civilians, like the ones who set of bombs in Kurdistan in February and who set off bombs against the Shiite cleric back in August of 2003, or the people who blew up a children's bus, presumably to force the British troops out in the streets where they could get a better shot at them definitely are, but I don't think that attempting to kill occupying military troops is properly classed as terrorism.
Which is not to say that our soldiers shouldn't kill people who fight against them, but let's call the insurgents what they are, and not use labels that are essentially propaganda. (That also goes for those antiwarriors who call the insurgents "freedom fighters").
"Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices."
What Mr. Sowell fails to recognize is that (a) the insurgents in Iraq don't need a lot of resources, and (b) the issue isn't that no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will be more, the issue is that as long as a you occupy the country, it is difficult to kill insurgents without creating more. Methods of killing those who pose a threat to the US that do not involve occupying foreign countries for long periods tend to cause less regeneration, methinks.
Moreover, the point is also being made that a successful strategy needs a good political component, not just "kill 'em all." As Afghanistan is proving, you can avoid increasing the insurgency too much if you avoid leaving too big a footprint.
Put another way, if you choose to occupy a foreign counry, there are less costly and more effective ways to defeat those who would attack you than trying to "kill 'em all."
Of course, there is a way that "killin' 'em all" would work; if we assume that the entire populace of Iraq is our enemy (or at least particular segments, e.g. the Sunni Arabs, and go about wiping them out).
He also resuscitates the old canard, "If Iraq is not connected to terrorism, why are so many terrorists desperate to drive us out."
Uh - Mr. Sowell, terrorists don't fight "for terrorism." They fight for causes. There are a lot of people who hate the idea of the US occupying an Arab country. The fact that they may be willing to use terrorism to accomplish that goal does not mean that Iraq was essential to their plans previously.
Also, not everyone who attacks the US in Iraq is properly labeled a "terrorist." People who deliberately kill innocent civilians, like the ones who set of bombs in Kurdistan in February and who set off bombs against the Shiite cleric back in August of 2003, or the people who blew up a children's bus, presumably to force the British troops out in the streets where they could get a better shot at them definitely are, but I don't think that attempting to kill occupying military troops is properly classed as terrorism.
Which is not to say that our soldiers shouldn't kill people who fight against them, but let's call the insurgents what they are, and not use labels that are essentially propaganda. (That also goes for those antiwarriors who call the insurgents "freedom fighters").
Roach and Glaivester Agree
Chris Roach appears to agree with me on the issued of the photograph of the Marine.
Bock to the Future
This article is worth a read.
Alan Bock (this link takes you to his most recent article; the first link was a permalink) is probably the best writer at antiwar.com, not least of all because he doesn't tend to write articles along the lines of "why do the Israelis like to kill Arab children?"
I am worried about what Bush might do in his second term, as are a lot more conservatives than you might think.
That is all.
Alan Bock (this link takes you to his most recent article; the first link was a permalink) is probably the best writer at antiwar.com, not least of all because he doesn't tend to write articles along the lines of "why do the Israelis like to kill Arab children?"
I am worried about what Bush might do in his second term, as are a lot more conservatives than you might think.
That is all.
Latest Statistics
95 US dead, 4 UK dead this month. 91 hostile deaths (i.e. the enemy killed them), 8 were non-hostile deaths (e.g. accidents). All non-hostile deaths were American.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Tsk, Tsk, Mr. Fisk
I am antiwar, and I find this article to be disgusting.
Fisk is actually accusing the US of murdering Margaret Hassan to use as propaganda.
Maybe I am wrong and he is accusing Allawi or some other group in Iraq that supports us of doing it (Lord knows, anytime you occupy a foreign country, you have to be careful about whom among the natives you trust, as a lot of people who claim to support you may be doing so for their own reasons and might manipulate you or sell you out if they saw it being in their interests).
However, he does nothing to suggest that he is not accusing America, and offers no evidence other than a highly speculative motive to support his claim; the only evidence he offers is why he feels it unlikely that Zarqawi did this, and he appears to think that the coalition therefore must be responsible by default.
In any case, I can see why people like Andrew Sullivan equate the name "Fisk" with lies and inaccuracies.
Fisk is actually accusing the US of murdering Margaret Hassan to use as propaganda.
Maybe I am wrong and he is accusing Allawi or some other group in Iraq that supports us of doing it (Lord knows, anytime you occupy a foreign country, you have to be careful about whom among the natives you trust, as a lot of people who claim to support you may be doing so for their own reasons and might manipulate you or sell you out if they saw it being in their interests).
However, he does nothing to suggest that he is not accusing America, and offers no evidence other than a highly speculative motive to support his claim; the only evidence he offers is why he feels it unlikely that Zarqawi did this, and he appears to think that the coalition therefore must be responsible by default.
In any case, I can see why people like Andrew Sullivan equate the name "Fisk" with lies and inaccuracies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)