ABE: Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West - a conversation with director Wayne Kopping

". . . And I always thought Churchill looked a little Jewish . . ."
Jerusalem's Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler in 1941

Classicist and military historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently:

“The great lesson of September 11 was not that the jihadists ever believed that they could kill us all. Rather, they trusted that enough of the West and indeed enough of us here in America, might at the end of the day declare that we had it coming.

In this long war, that belief was — and is — far deadlier even than an unhinged murderer at the controls of an airliner.”

“The greatest deeds are thoughts,” said Aristotle. For the substantial number of Westerners whose thoughts veer towards the “we had it coming” end of the spectrum, the newly available documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West should go a long way in changing minds.  I often hear things like, “Of course al Qaeda’s crazy, but if we change our policies in the Mideast they’ll keep their craziness to themselves.” Others offer, less delicately, “Let them rot.” Obsession, (available at Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, Blockbuster, and other major outlets as of September 11 of this year) forces the viewer to confront the fact that our policies are beside the point, and that the rotting—well underway—refuses to be contained.

On the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks I spoke with the film’s director Wayne Kopping.

“A lot of people are getting terror fatigue or ‘war on terror’ fatigue,” he said, “and people are switching off, and then you get something like Obsession which is coming from an angle that they’ve never seen before and it makes them sit up and take notice.”

Here’s the fresh angle: taking jihadists at their word. It’s one thing to hear George W. Bush declare for the umpteenth time that Islamists hate us for who we are, not for our policies. It’s quite another to see a score of imams and Muslim leaders preach death to all non-Muslims and broadcast dreams of world domination to roaring crowds. There’s no escaping the conclusion that radical Islamists want us dead simply for not being them. What occurs between this film’s opening and closing credits is baptism by truth.

“Obsession shows how radical Islam views this war,” Kopping said. “Once you plug in that understanding it changes the whole equation.”

From Europe’s loudmouth imams, to Chechen terrorists, to the Secretary General of Hezbollah, the documentary lays bare the jihadist mindset and plan of attack.

Another key factor in the equation is the Islamists’ public relations savvy and their awareness of the West’s self-criticism and capacity for guilt.

“As you saw from Bin Laden’s recent communiqués to us infidels in the West he definitely knows how to play the game and play the Republicans off the Democrats, and he knows our weakness—our political correctness. Which is how groups like CAIR make charges of Islamophobia.”

Obsession reveals the Islamist double-talk that’s served jihad’s PR campaign so well these past years. We see footage of Muslim leaders condemning the September 11 hijackers amongst Westerners, before praising the “holy 19” when amid their own.

“We can almost be forgiven for misunderstanding the war. I’m not saying we in the West are perfect. We’ve made mistakes for sure, but we can’t seem to see the world through their [Islamists’] eyes,” said Kopping.

Americans’ reliance on reason and sense of compassion often make it impossible for us to comprehend the true nature and goal of the enemy.

“You often hear people say, ‘When they [Islamists] say you must slit the throat of the infidels and death to America, you see, they don’t really mean that. They mean the Palestinians should have a state, or they mean that America should be less involved around the world.’ No, they mean you must slit the throat of the infidels and death to America.”

Kopping is a thoughtful man. He’s not blind to the credible gripes of Muslims. Indeed, the film opens with a disclaimer of sorts, citing the peaceful Muslim majority. I asked him how he feels about the “root cause” arguments that adduce poverty and lack of education as catalysts for Jihad. “

“For sure these things are factors, but they aren’t the root causes,” he said. “Present and mitigating factors, but not root causes. The root cause is an ideology to defeat the West and spread Islam around the world. Period. End of story.”

Obsession shows this ideology for what it is, using a great deal of footage which captures the genocidal hate broadcast on Arab television. Why, I wondered, have we not seen more of this footage in the mainstream media?

Kopping said, “If I were a conspiracy theorist I would say that the mainstream media has been withholding this information, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think they’re just not aware of it. When they do become aware of it, they broadcast it as new news. Part of what’s compelling about Obsession is that it puts this footage into a larger ideological framework. It makes sense in a large way. If news programs were to just broadcast a hateful speech from some cleric in, say, Saudi Arabia, it may seem like a random provocation.”

And context is critical. Obsession doesn’t offer a static snapshot of radical Islam, but rather a multi-contextual backdrop against which one can more clearly appreciate the nature of the beast. The documentary details the foundational bond between today’s jihad movement and Nazism. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was not only a friend and ally of Adolf Hitler, but also a Nazi officer in charge of several all-Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans. This operational connection is only the most tangible example of the Nazi-jihad connection. The ideological ties are numerous: a commitment to fascist rule, the will to domination, and an ever-seething anti-Semitism.

The film includes interviews with several worried and informed Muslims, including journalists, a martyr’s daughter, and a repentant terrorist. Walid Shoebat, formerly of the PLO, offers testimony that’s chilling in its credibility. Shoebat describes the wholesale fabrications used to indoctrinate Muslims into jihad. I wondered if Kopping got any sense from Shoebat about how he reconciled himself to his past.

“I spoke to him at great length about that. As he explains in the film he was a product of this propaganda and hate speech from the PLO at the time. It was only after he came to the U.S. and began to see how the culture worked—that if two people have an argument you don’t have to kill the other person, that there are other ways—that he began to appreciate Western values. He’d been told so many awful things about Christians and Jews, then he read the Bible and said, what’s so bad about these people.”

I mentioned to Kopping that I recently heard preeminent Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis say he’s less confident today about the West’s ability to beat radical Islam than he was about the free world’s ability to defeat Germany in the thirties.

“Yes, I heard him say something similar. He said if Winston Churchill had to deal with the kind of media and press that hounds George Bush today he would have lost the war. It comes down to our inability to see ourselves as being in the right. We don’t recognize the righteousness of our cause, the preciousness of our values—the freedom of speech, women’s’ rights, the right not to be raped, not to be stoned. This is what they want for the U.S.—that the Koran replace the Constitution. We only have to look at Gaza to see what happens when that takes over. They took down the Russians and they think why not the U.S.”

What’s next for Kopping?

“Well, I wish I could say I was working on a happy film, but alas we are working on a another film that takes a deeper look at things. It may make Obsession look like a romantic comedy. So much has happened in the past few years, so much new info. We’re going to turn up the heat,” he said.

An historian in the film points out that in the 1930s Hitler had announced everything he planned to do to European Jewry, but no one really listened. I urge readers to click on the ad to the right and purchase the film. Let’s help Mr. Kopping turn up the heat.

Comments

[The Major]

When I returned from Iraq last year, my home town newspaper sent a reporter and photographer to interview me and my wife about the experience.

My town is famously liberal, and a great place to live. The local paper spends an awful lot of ink on the war, so it wasn't surprising that they'd want to interview someone who was born in the town and went through the public schools, and actually served in Iraq. After all, this was a rare occurrance. Most folks in my town were too "enlightened" to serve.
I am so far the only one.

The reporter arrived with a photographer, and began asking questions about my experience. I served inside the city of Fallujah, and spent my time either going on combat foot patrols, kicking in doors, or conducting raids.

It became apparent after a few questions, that our reporter was not well informed... She had never heard of "Fallujah". She did not know what an "IED" was. She asked if Fallujah ("how do you spell that?") was dangerous.
Hmmm.

I showed her some photos, and explained some of them to her. I showed her a Mosque where the local Imam would hand out grenades to kids, to be thrown at the Marines on patrol. He encouraged the younger kids to throw "grenade-sized" rocks at the patrols, too -in hopes that the Marines would learn to hesitate, or better accidentally shoot one of the kids, scoring a propaganda victory for the insurgents.

This is where we got into a little disagreement. She said that you can't really blame them for doing that, they were just defending their country. "I would never let my kids do my fighting", I countered. She said that you never know what you'll do.

"Well what about the beheading of the Korean journalist?" I asked. There's nothing that could compel me to lose my humanity in a way that would justify the beheading of innocents.
"You never know, what you'll do in such situations", again she countered.
At this point, I could see that the photographer was becoming uncomfortable, and a bit embarrassed. They decided to wrap it up.

As she was leaving, I offered her a copy of Big West's book "No True Glory". It is an accurate account of the battles of Fallujah. Mr. West lived with us for a week in Jolan. I told her that it was very informative, and might give her an idea of where I had served.

Here's where it got weird...
On the back of the book is the infamous photo of the charred mutilated remains of the four Blackwater contractors, hanging from "Blackwater Bridge". The people in the photo are all dancing and laughing, playing with the remains...

I told her that a little known fact about these photos, is that we used them to track down every single person in the photo. We got them ALL...

Upon hearing this she asked, "Why? To give them copies of the photo?"

She was serious. I didn't know what to say. I think I sputtered something along the lines of "No, to kill them or capture them...".
She just shrugged, sai "oh..." and strolled out of my house with her embarrassed photographer.

The interview was never published.

[Abe Greenwald]

Aristotle was wrong. The greatest deeds can't be thoughts, because tracking down the scum from Blackwater Bridge is a greater deed than I'll ever know. And I've had some good thoughts.

[Interloper]

For the sake of argument, let's say that it was somehow necessary to hunt down and capture and/or kill all the men in the "Blackwater Bridge" photo. And let's, again for the sake of argument, assume that they were each granted due process and their appearance in the photo, and involvement in the incident, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fine. With the above accepted as fact -- for the sake of argument, mind -- I would at best respect the fact that the Major has a very difficult job that involves some exceedingly ugly tasks. But to celebrate that as a great deed? That's just fucking sickening.

Celebrating the capture and murder of these gentlemen makes you different from them how?

[Jamieson]

And your solution is?

This is a great deed to eliminate those who certainly would act again if given the chance. Did you even read Abe's post? I admire the Major for all his work and the difficult task of defending our freedom. The fact that you would question our military's integrity is fucking sickening!

[Jamieson]

And your solution is?

This is a great deed to eliminate those who certainly would act again if given the chance. Did you even read Abe's post? I admire the Major for all his work and the difficult task of defending our freedom. The fact that you would question our military's integrity is fucking sickening!

[Interloper]

Did you, Jamieson, even read my fucking comment? I reserved judgment on the deed, merely the celebration of it as "great." And then I drew a parallel between those men at "Blackwater Bridge" and those would ***celebrate*** as "great" their apparent capture and murder (I say apparent, as it's a bit of a leap of faith to assume the men they captured and killed were 100% the same as those in the photo).

[The Major]

Interloper,

Here is a photo of the men you describe as "gentlemen":

http://blackwatervictims.com/pics/Bridge.jpg

That you describe these individuals as "gentlemen" speaks volumes about who you are.

That you would describe the killing of any of these savages -DURING war- as "murder", also speaks volumes about who you are.

It also is the perfect illustration of the point being made in Abe's post.

And NO, it is NOT a "leap of faith" to assume that the men we captured and/or killed wre the same man that were in that photo.
Multiple photos, all source intelligence, etc. It's not a leap at all.

Calling the Marines who killed these savages "murderers" is low.
Shame on you.

[Jamieson]

Yes, I read your for sake of arguement crap and that is why I asked for your solution. I still haven't heard one yet!

But your doubt that our military could determine who was responsible with the help of a photo questions their competence.

So my opinion is that you are a disgrace!

[The Major]

Here are more photos of the atrocities committed by Interloper's "gentlemen"...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/art/highriskp.jpg

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/3178653.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193F669B259AB992A04AB95F60CCF8532C160695E8EB05F83E4

http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/mutilated.jpg

http://www.newsdesigner.com/blog/images/wapofall.jpg

You describe them as "gentlemen", and the Marines are "murders".
Got it.

[The Major]

Here are more photos of the atrocities committed by Interloper's "gentlemen"...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/art/highriskp.jpg

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/3178653.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193F669B259AB992A04AB95F60CCF8532C160695E8EB05F83E4

http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/mutilated.jpg

http://www.newsdesigner.com/blog/images/wapofall.jpg

You describe them as "gentlemen", and the Marines are "murderers".
Got it.

[The Major]

Interlopers moral relativism proves the thesis of Abe's post.

He sees no moral difference between the savages that ripped apart those four Americans and then gleefully toyed with their charred remains, and those Marines who were tasked with capturing and/or killed the perpetrators of these atrocities.

...except that he calls the individuals who committed the atrocities "gentlemen", and the Marines who subsequently may have killed them, "murderers".

So in a sense, Interloper is not guilty of Moral Relativism. He places the men who ripped apart his fellow Americans on a higher plane.

[Abe Greenwald]

Yes, a great deed. As was downing Nazi U-boats, or shooting down Japanese pilots in the Pacific.

[King]

Our failure, as Westerners, to comprehend the threat we face from the radical Islam is rooted in our understanding of terrorism and the misapplication of the word "terrorist" to describe jihadists. Our cultural understanding of terrorism is based on our experience with the terrorist groups of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Groups like the PLO, IRA, Black Panthers, Red Brigade, ETA used hijackings, bombings and kidnapping in an attempt to achieve some stated and even potentially achievable goal. The goals were varied socialism, civil rights, independence, control of teritory. The implicit quid pro quo was if entity being attacked acceded to the demands the attacks would stop. The American policy of not negotiating with terrorist was to demostrate that we would never capitulate, so as not to foster more terror and more demands. The mere existence of a policy not to negotiate implies that negotiation could resolve the conflict. Other governments do negotiate with terrorists. Jihadists do not operate in that paradigm. They have no demands. There is no potential to negotiate. I advocate a two pronged approach. First kill the immediate threats. Second have a foreign policy that attempts to address the root causes. As an extension of that policy, we need to conduct ourselves in the Iraq war in a manner that doesn't create more enemies. If we make the mistake of killing the moderates and destroying their society we simply increase the the number of radicals and immediate threats. While the Major may be good at the first prong, he clearly fails to grasp the second.

[Abe Greenwald]

King,

What do you believe are these "root causes" that need addressing?

And as for the U.S. Armed Forces' conduct in Iraq, it's been overwhelmingly honorable. If anything, all the media scrutiny has contributed to a dangerously soft standard of engagement. In terms of "creating more enemies," Iraqis now know they have no worse enemy than al Qaeda and they're acting accordingly. Not bad for a war that supposedly played into Bin Laden's hands, huh?

[Interloper]

Major,

Fair enough. Shame on me.

I don't cry for these men. The men in that photo are/were pieces of shit.

If you're 100% confident that the marines have only killed the right men, that not one innocent man has died in this war, believed a terrorist erroneously, then I will dance in the streets in your honor.
But, since innocent men have died, assumed guilty of crimes they did not commit, then I find it no great deed at all, but a fucking travesty. Because this shit happens during times of war, it's one more reason why we should avoid war at all costs.

The bloods on my hands too, no doubt, but you're bathing in the shit.

[The Major]

Interloper,

You've shown your true colors.
You describe the savages who with smiling faces, slaughtered and mutilated your countrymen, as "gentlemen", and the Marines who brought them to justice as "murderers".

You can now try to obfuscate and squirm away from your own words -it will do no good.

You've tipped your hand.

[The Major]

"While the Major may be good at the first prong, he clearly fails to grasp the second" -King

On what basis do you make this claim?
Please explain how I have "failed" to grasp your second prong.

As I have exhaustedly expressed, time and time again, the key to our success lies in adhering to Counterinsurgency doctrine.

That means not only must we kill those who are unreformable, we must sit down with and reconcile with, those insurgents who are willing to rejoin civil society.
-I have done this. As unpleasant as it seems, you have to have "chai" with men whom you are certain had killed your friends. This is part and parcel of COIN.

[Interloper]

I would also describe you and your fellow Marines as "gentlemen." That's just needlessly formal jargon on my part. Sorry Mr. Major.

Having not described you and your fellow Marines as murderers as such -- but merely the action of taking a human life with malice aforethought as "murder" -- I shouldn't even humor your second point. But I WOULD describe the men in that picture as murderers, and NOWHERE DID I APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR EVEN FUCKING IMPLY OTHERWISE.

You didn't ask, and you twisted my words, as you twist the words of so many here.

No one is squirming, and only one of us has taken human lives and is proud of that fact. So, it would seem to me you've much more in common with the men in that photo -- gentlemen and murdered each of them -- than I.

[Interloper]

"So, it would seem to me you've much more in common with the men in that photo -- gentlemen and murdered each of them -- than I."

As it changes the meaning of my sentence radically, I MUST correct the typo here and -- although I'm sure the Major would insist that it's a telling slip -- and make it clear that this should say: "gentlemen and murderers each."

[The Major]

Keep it coming Interloper.
Dig, dig, dig.
Deeeper and deeper.

I love it when people show their true colors.
I appreciate your honesty.
It's rare these days.

[Interloper]

Dig? I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of a hole am I digging? Are you going to KILL ME?

OH NO! The MAJOR'S GOING TO KILL ME!!!

True colors? I don't apologize for terrorists. I have no problem whatsoever with our military. I have a problem with your macho bullshit bragging of having killed a bunch of guys, and my friend's sycophantic response.

I am NOT digging a hole for myself, unless there's some consequence for what I've typed here of which I'm unaware... Like you're going to kill me...

You dig your own hole, Major. I realize your job entails killing people, and I realize that sometimes that may have been necessary -- although not nearly to the extent that you think -- but even when the killing was "righteous," celebrating it puts you right in a class with the men we're supposed to hate.

How many different ways can I say this?

I'm not sure what I'm "digging" -- the implication being that I'm making things worse for myself -- as my stance hasn't changed a bit.

[King]

The Major " I think I sputtered something along the lines of "No, to kill them or capture them..."."

While it is a difficult task to convince someone who believes they understand a concept that they don't. Here I go.

First Blackwater USA employees and other "private security" contractors are in Iraq plain and simple mecenaries. Read The Prince by Machiavelli to hear a timeless opinion of mecenaries. From the Washington Post.com in 2005 "We're seeing personal security teams are getting hit more," said Richard Hicks, Blackwater's operations manager in Baghdad. "There's been a definite increase in attacks, to hit us where it hurts the most."

At the same time, Hicks said, contractors are under pressure to curb their aggressive methods, although they lack the firepower and backup enjoyed by the U.S. military. Early in the Iraq conflict and up until last year, "there were no rules" limiting contractors' use of force in Iraq, Hicks said. More recently, the State Department imposed restrictions discouraging the contractors from firing warning shots. There are still daily reports of contractors running Iraqis off the road or injuring or killing innocent people, he said."

From the Canadian Press today:
"BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister Wednesday disputed Blackwater USA's version of a weekend shooting that left at least 11 people dead, saying he cannot tolerate "the killing of our citizens in cold blood.""

They are valid targets in a war and their conduct certainly is not conducive to good relations with the Iraqis and probably fosters just a little bit of hatred towards Americans. If Blackwater were occuppying my country, I would celebrate the death of people who displayed such a wanton disregard of the lives of my countrymen . So it is a strecth to link the people who appear in the pictures to the insurgency.

Second I have looked at every picture you have posted. I seriously doubt that anyone pictured participated in the killing. Mostly the people are young and all are unarmed. Usually insurgents display thier weapons and hide their faces in propoganda. Some of their behaviour in defiling the corpses can be explained by crowd psychology. In the south in the first half of the 20th century, it was not uncommon for large groups of men, women and children to pose by the corpse of a lynching victim. The picture was not prima facie evidence that they participate in the lynching or were in the Klan. The same holds true here.

Third, under state law in the United States desecration of a corpse is a relatively minor offense a low level felony or a misdemeanor. It is an offense against sensiblities and civility. The people were already dead.

Therefore rounding up and killing those pictured probably served little purpose other than satisfying an urge for vengence and most likely inflamed the populace of Iraq against America and America's occupation of Iraq. Our occupation of Iraq and the conduct of our military and subcontractors is one of the root causes of the rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world and their hatred of us.

I will expand on my views of the root causes but I wanted to address this ancillary issue.

[The Major]

Never have I said anything that could possibly be construed as "celebratory" -in the context of this thread, or "killing". If I have, QUOTE ME. Show me where I engaged in "macho bullshit bragging of having killed a bunch of guys". You can't, because it's not true.

Do I think that our hard work as Marines in tracking down and captureing/killing dangerous terrorists who slaughtered and mutilated four Americans is a GOOD thing?
Why, yes. Yes I do.

But I've done nothing in terms of "celebrating" or "bragging". That you perceive it as such is as telling of your character as is your description of the Marines as "murderers" (and YES, when you say someone "murdered" someone, you are calling them a "murderer").

The hole you are digging is a rhetorical hole. It is a filthy pit where you have decided that Marines are "murderers" and terrorists are "gentlemen".
While engaging in this morally dubious exercise of slander, you even go so far as to equate me with the savages that butchered your countrymen.

[The Major]

So King, let me see if I understand where you're coming from....

You are saying that Blackwater's conduct from 2003 until the Spring of 2004 when the four were killed in Fallujah is what sparked the attack?

The people who initiated the attack had no idea who these men were. They did not know who Blackwater was, nor was there any way to identify them as such. Blackwater had not engaged in any behavior in that area that would contribute to any rage expressed by the crowd. Blackwater had never operated there.

You cannot go back to 2004, and view the intent of the crowd through the lens of the past three years. That is a faulty way to make such determinations. You need only to look at the days leading up to the ambush, the acts and intent of Sheikh Janabi and his follows, and the foreign fighters who were operating freely within the city. Look also to the recent clashes with American at the Gov Center and the School -people had been killed. Americans were responsible.

But Blackwater? They had nothing to do with it. They were not a contributing factor to the situation.

As I said, it is NOT a "stretch" to link the people in the photo to the insurgency. We had realtime observation of what was occurring, and when these individuals were captured, they told their stories.
Were ALL of them insurgents? No. But those who were NOT insurgents helped to identify those who were. THAT is why we "tracked down every single person in the photo".

The Marines did not KILL anyone who happened to be in the photo. I did not say that nor dod I imply that. We captured and/OR killed them. Those who died were the ones who fought. Either way, each person in these photos was eventually identified and tracked down. Some of them were identified after they had been killed fighting in Al Fajr -months later.

Your insistance that I don't understand so simple a concept is faulty. It is as faulty as your revisionism regarding the motivations of the attackers of the Blackwater employees.

[The Major]

Here's the message written on the Bridge by the Marines of 3/5...

http://www.sondrak.com/archive/fallujafuckyou

[King]

Simple concepts

1) The people in the photo are not the killers.
2) I never spoke to the motivations of the killers, I postulated the military and paramilitary activity in Iraq might inspire opposition. The specific conduct of Blackwater may or may not have prompt the specific attack. They didn't start behaving badly just yesterday. The general conduct of American mercenaries inspires hatred of Americans among ordinary Iraqis.
3) The act of capturing everyone in the photos engenders hatred of Americans. I'm sure you arrived at their homes during the day, knocked on the door, waited for someone to answer, politely showed the photo and asked where the person was. Reality: you broke down the door at 5 am, yelled and screamed in a foreign language, pointed your weapons at women and children, removed the military aged males from the home. You didn't make any mistakes raid the wrong house or take away any of the wrong men. The point being that this kind of tactic while defensible as a military action fuels the fundamentalist hatred of America.

[King]

Graffiti

P.S. exactly my point vengence and retribution, not the conduct of a professional soldier

[The Major]

I'll address your points one at a time:

"1) The people in the photo are not the killers."

Not true. The killers ARE in the photo. True, ALL of the people in the photo are not the killers. But it was the capture of the "non-killers" which led us to the ACTUAL killers.
Additionally, those in the photo WERE active insurgents. This was established.

"2) ... The specific conduct of Blackwater may or may not have prompt the specific attack. They didn't start behaving badly just yesterday. The general conduct of American mercenaries inspires hatred of Americans among ordinary Iraqis."

Again, you are attempting to view the events of 2004 through the lens of 2007. The conduct of contractors, or "mercenaries" was not a contributing factor to the attack. That was established via the statements of the attackers. At that time, there was NOT any reports or instances of BW misconduct anywhere near this area, or in the Arab media, so NO, "The specific conduct of Blackwater" DID NOT "prompt the specific attack".

"3) The act of capturing everyone in the photos engenders hatred of Americans. I'm sure you arrived at their homes during the day, knocked on the door, waited for someone to answer, politely showed the photo and asked where the person was. Reality: you broke down the door at 5 am, yelled and screamed in a foreign language, pointed your weapons at women and children, removed the military aged males from the home. You didn't make any mistakes raid the wrong house or take away any of the wrong men. The point being that this kind of tactic while defensible as a military action fuels the fundamentalist hatred of America."

You seem blissfully unaware of the situation on the ground in THAT particular neighborhood of Fallujah. That's the same neighborhood where Nick Berg was beheaded. That's the same neighborhood where Foreign Fighters where imposing Sharia Law on behalf of Janabi, and beating uncovered women. That's the same neighborhood where the heaviest fighting during Al Fajr occurred.

That phase of the war was a kinetic phase. We had not yet transitioned to a COIN approach. Nor should we have, at the time, given the situation.

Remember what those men in the photo were doing. They were laughing and ripping to shreds the body of another human being. There is no excuse for such behavior -ever.

I have spoken with MANY Iraqis about this incident. Like most people, they are disgusted and cannot imagine such behavior.
Can you? Are you capable of such behavior? I'm not. No way.
Nothing could motivate me to do such things. Those who do are savages.

[King]

You are dealing on the tactical level. My point is that we are in 2007 and are examining what inspires people to embrace a fundamentalist Islamic view and why that fundamentalist view focuses on a hatred of western civilation and the United States of America in particular. You are discussing tactics and I am discussing how those tactics fit in a macro perspective. Every Iraqi who perceives that they were wronged, directly or indirectly by the American military is a more likely convert to a fundamentalist position. Every Muslim who perceives that ordinary Iraqis are being harmed is another potential insurgent, al-Qaida sympathizer. The tactical solution to the problem, the "insurgency" in Iraq is in opposition to potential macro solutions for reducing the threat of terrorist attacks in United States by Islamic fundamentalists.

[The Major]

For every "Strategy", there are appropriate "Tactics".
And yes, the wrong tactical decisions can indeed have strategic consequences.

I "deal with" this issue on many levels. Not strictly tactical. But in a tactical situation, of course there are "tactics" to be dealt with. Every PFC is told of the "Strategic Corporal" concept. Trust me, you haven't made any Earth-shattering discoveries here.

To claim that "the tactical solution to the... "insurgency" in Iraq is in opposition to potential macro solutions for reducing the threat of terrorist attacks in United States by Islamic fundamentalists" -simply demonstrates a lack of awareness of the current tactics being employed, and the nature of the overall strategy. It also demonstrates an inappropriate, monolithic view of the people of Iraq, Islam, and the Arab World.

Not every situation fits so neatly into your assumptions.

I've read Bernard Lewis, Lawrence, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Bard O'Neil, Galula, Ricks, The Koran, etc...
I see your point. I get it. It's nothing new, nor is it entirely accurate.

One of the problems with the political side of this debate, is that it makes people stop paying attention to the reality on the ground, and just rely upon their political assumptions.

It is a dynamic environment. Such static thinking does not work. Especially when used in hindsight.

[GI Joe]

The "reality on the ground" is that we attacked a sovereign nation that had neither done us harm nor threatened to do so. Over two million of their people have been driven out of their country because of this (and we've taken in almost none), they have less electricity, less water and less infrastructure than before we got there. The country is torn apart by sectarian fighting, because our government pushed for an election long before they were ready (or even had a chance to know any more about their candidates than their sect - Shia or Suni?) which guaranteed even more sectarianism.

Because we're there, Al Qaeda had been able to recruit thousands and we celebrate cities like Falujah - which makes up about 5% of the population - which "eliminated" sectarian violence in large part because they've driven out virtually all the Shia.

The political solution, which even General Petraeus says is absolutely necessary, is no where in sight and the Iraqi government is insisting Blackwater leave and OUR government is saying no, despite our claims they have a "sovereign government".

Want to argue that, Major?

[The Major]

You're willful ignorance on this subject is astounding.

Your contention that the Iraqi people never "had a chance to know any more about their candidates other than their sect - Shia or Suni" -is flat out false.

It demonstrates a simplistic and erroneous viewpoint.

The "political solution" that General Petraeus spoke of IS occurring -from the bottom up. Reconciliation is happening at the local level.
When seen through the context of an overall Counterinsurgency Strategy, this makes perfect sense, and is almost predictable.

But when viewed through the lens of Washington politics, it makes no sense at all. From that perspective, solutions come from the central government.

Think about that. We implement a Counterinsurgency (COIN) plan, that like ALL COIN plans encourages and supports progress from the bottom up.
Then to measure the success of this plan, we come up with a metric that looks at progress from the TOP DOWN.

Does that make sense?

[The Major]

My apologies for that mess of spelling errors.
Shame I can't edit.

[GI Joe]

First, let me start by saying I meant to type "Anbar" where it says Falujah above. Now let me reply to Major:

Hmm. I notice you didn't bother to respond to most of my comments, since apparently you didn't have a stock answer for them. As far as the elections went, virtually every expert on geopolitics agree that forcing such an early election -yes, with hardly any time to learn much about the hundreds of candidates - caused a sectarian outcome that only intensified the animosity between the sects. . . as evidenced by the ethnic cleansing going on. It's no coincidence that there is less sectarian strife in Anbar. There are almost no Shia left there.

The political situation is working??? Because Anbar, a city that contains about 5% of the Iraqi population now has an "alliance" with us? An alliance bought with billions of American tax dollars and that is about as stable as a three-legged armchair?

Why is it that EVERY Anbar respondent to a recent poll done by 3 news sources oppose the US being there? Yes, EVERY one.

And if this "bottom up political solution" is working, why is it that, again, EVERY Anbar respondent felt that attacks on coalition forces were ACCEPTABLE?

Does that sound like it's working?

Do you honestly believe that, once Al Qaeda in Iraq is vanquished, the Anbaris won't turn on the US troops?

And what exactly did this "bottom up political solution" cost us? How is it that we are giving tons of money to Iraqi's who - just months ago - were killing our soldiers?

You don't have to answer. We already know what you'll say.

[The Major]

There's nothing to answer.
You entire premise is just too deeply flawed and inaccurate.

If you can't speak to the issue with even the SLIGHTEST evidence of familiarity that goes beyond disjointed blurbs that you've gleaned from Leftist blogs -PLEASE, do some reading. Try a little genuine research Pick up a book for goodness sake.
Anything.

Make an honest effort to learn, or sit quietly in the corner while the adults talk.

[GI Joe]

The major said: "If you can't speak to the issue with even the SLIGHTEST evidence of familiarity that goes beyond disjointed blurbs that you've gleaned from Leftist blogs -PLEASE, do some reading. Try a little genuine research Pick up a book for goodness sake."

Boy, if that isn't calling the kettle black. To begin with, I don't even READ other blogs, but get my news from respected news sources: Reuters, BBC, ABC, Washington Post, NY Times, Wall St. Journal, etc., although no doubt you'd dismiss all of them, as well.

Are you trying to say that Anbar province contains more than about 5% of the Iraqi population?

Are you trying to say that Anbar's population isn't almost exclusively Sunni?

And are you trying to say that the Bush White House and Pentagon's claim that there's been a "75% decline in sectarian attacks" DOESN'T LEAVE OUT Sunni-on-Sunni and Shiite-on-Shiite attacks? Do you claim the GAO is merely a "leftist blog", because that's where that info comes from, calling the Pentagon's numbers "fuzzy math".

And the poll numbers I quoted above don't - I'm sorry to inform you - come from some "leftist blog" either. They come from a survey conducted by ABC News, the BBC and NHK, the Japanese broadcaster which was done August 17-24 with a random national sampling of 2,212 Iraqis:
- 72% had no confidence whatsoever with US forces
- 76% said the US should withdraw now (up from 49% in March)
- EVERY Anbar respondent opposed the presence of US troops in Iraq and called attacks on coalition forces "acceptable"

I could go on, but you are too busy reading the Pentagon's rosy scenarios or basing your opinions on the narrow view that any one person - no matter how "involved" - can have.

In fact, let me end with another cliche: you can't see the forest for the trees.

[The Major]

When a poll states that 100% of the respondants want us out, yet there is no end to the evidence that says otherwise...
...what does that say about your poll?

How exactly DOES one conduct a poll of Anbar residents?

I realize that you believe Anbar is a city:
"...Anbar, a city that contains about 5% of the Iraqi population...?"

Trust me, it's a bit bigger than a city.

How does one conduct such a poll?
Door to door?
Via telephone??
How?

There is SO much REAL evidence to the contrary.

All one really needs to do is speak with someone who is there (I do every day).

Your belief in that poll, and therefore LACK of critical thinking ability (more likely a willful ignorance), your description of the elections, your reference to Anbar as a "city", your inability to use the conventional spellings of the words "Shi'ite" or "Sunni" (indicator that you actually do NOT read the Journal, the Times, or any other paper with an editor)...

...all of this adds up to ignorance.

It

[The Major]

...fact is Joe, you know and I know, that there is NO metric, poll, evidence or report that could ever convince you of progress in Iraq.

You will dismiss, doubt and deny ANY positive news.
You know this.

You will claim that positive news is IMPOSSIBLE, therefore your reaction is justified.

You will NEVER challenge any of your assumptions.

When in doubt, you will fall back on ad hominum.

Good lord man, you've even gone so far as to refer to MY service as "in the rear with the gear", and YOUR 1970's peacetime service in BERLIN as having your "ass in the grass".

[The Major]

...actually Joe, I just mixed you up with Arnie.
I get you Far-Left anti-war types mixed up. Heh heh...

My bad.

[Maxi]

Major:

You seem quite willing to dismiss findings of three well respected media outlets and call any belief in them as a "lack of critical thinking", and instead take anecdotal evidence that you personally have come across as MORE accurate. To me, this seems like YOU are less willing to accept any information that contradicts YOUR beliefs. You are guilty of what you accuse GI Joe. There is obviously no "metric, poll or evidence of a report" that will convince you otherwise.
Can't you see the irony?

As for your criticisms on GI Joe's spelling - petty. Especially after you've misspelled plenty (try using the "preview" button before you post, by the way). Joe also corrected himself by calling Anbar a province in his last post. Those criticisms by you just make it seem like you can't argue on the facts.

If you want to question the results of this survey done by three different media sources, does that mean you'll only take as fact what comes from the military or what you can see with your own eyes?

Think about that. I think that's what Joe meant by not seeing the forest for the trees.

[The Major]

There's a world of difference between sloppy spelling, and misspellings based on unfamiliarity with a topic. You know this.
But you have a point, and I will avoid such criticisms in the future.

And YES, I have challenged my own assumptions on MANY issues surrounding the war, and the way we measure progress. But I did so based on not just "anecdotes" as you call them. I base it on TONS of assessments, reports, and raw observations from the field.
NOT biased, editoriazed and politicized articles.

The poll is ridiculous. Period.

The idea that EVERY "Anbar respondant" claims to want us out is preposterous. There has been way too much reporting that contradicts that. Read how the poll was conducted. It is COMPLETELY unscientific. The poll uses locals to go out and conduct "interviews". They then come to their conclusion based on these interviews. Biased?

Everyone is so quick to speak of sectarianism and civil war, and the lack of trustworthiness of the Iraqi government and people with whom we have contracts in Iraq.
Yet when the locals are hired by news organizations to go out and come back with "poll results", where is the skepticism?

Much of the Intel work being done in Anbar involves assessments of "atmospherics". This also comes via interviews, but our interviews are ALWAYS rated and WEIGHTED according to reliability. We also report on sermons in the mosques, and the feelings and opinions of the local tribes, police, and governments.

We do not candy coat our results, because we depend on their accuracy for our very safety.

We also look to the remarkable number of tips coming from the locals. They are helping us.

Sure, if you ask them whether they would like us to eventually leave, they always respond "Na'am".
But if you ask them if they want us to leave immediately, the answer is almost always "La".

The BBC poll is conducted with SO MUCH LESS of a scientific method than those of the military and HUMINT operators.

The reason that people are so willing to "suspend their disbelief" in order to believe this poll, is because they WANT it to be true. This is based on a political agenda.
You cannot deny this, because it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

You may think that we in the military lie to ourselves or that we make our assessments based on pressure from the Pentagon and the Whitehouse -that is just not true. Individual Intel Analysts (Sgts, Lts, Capts, etc.)are just too far removed from the politics of this war to be affected by such things.

You would know this if you knew an Intel Analyst, Commander or Grunt in Iraq. You would know this if you regularly spoke with one of these ladies or gentlemen.
But you don't, do you?

You base your assumptions on editorialized, politicized, assessments of flawed and biased polling coming from VERY dubious sources, conducted with VERY dubious methods.
You accept this assessment, however, WITHOUT QUESTION.
Because it satisfies your partisan agenda.

[Maxi]

Actually, I've made my "assumptions" based not on "editorialized, politicized, assessments of flawed and biased polling", but on history. Go back and read Gen. Westmorland's testimony to Congress about Viet Nam and tell me it doesn't sound familiar:

"Given the nature of the enemy, it seems to me that the strategy that we are following at this time is the proper one, and that is producing results. While he is obviously is far from quitting, there are signs that his morale and his military structure are beginning to deteriorate. The rate of decline will be in proportion to the pressure directed against him….
As you know, we are fighting a war with no front lines, since the enemy hides among the people, in the jungles and mountains, and uses covertly border areas of neutral countries. One cannot measure progress by lines on a map. We therefore have to use other means to chart progress. Several indices clearly point to steady and encouraging success. As an example:

Two years ago the Republic of Vietnam had fewer than 30 combat-ready battalions. Today it has 154.

Then there were three jet-capable runways in South Vietnam. Today there are 14.

…

As I have said before, in evaluating the enemy strategy it is evident to me that he believes our Achilles’ heel is our resolve. Your continued strong support is vital to the success of our mission..
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen are the finest ever fielded by our Nation….Those men understand the conflict and their complex roles as fighters and as builders. They believe in what they are doing. They are determined to provide the shield of security behind which the Republic of Vietnam can develop and prosper for its own sake and for the future and freedom of all Southeast Asia.

Backed at home by resolve, confidence, patience, determination, and continued support, we will prevail in Vietnam over the Communist aggressor."

Sound familiar?

[King]

Iraq is just one battlefront on the Global War on Terror. In addition the Counter-Insurgency strategy is inapplicable to the larger conflict. What are we going to do, invade Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Indonesia, and Iran and roll out COIN? Without opining on the long term effectiveness of the Counter-Insurgency strategy, even if we achieve victory in Iraq we may lose the war on terror due to the strategies employed. Remember the adage about winning the battle but losing the war.

Among the root causes of fundamentalism are a sense of powerlessness against external forces, marginalization in a rapidly changing world, and expatriate communities seeking to maintain their identity. These conditions are prevalent in the Middle East and the Middle Eastern communities in Europe. U.S. foreign policy exacerbates the problem and provides a focal point for fundamentalist hatred. In particular, the war in Iraq polarizes the Muslim world against America as they witness civilian casualties and the destruction of the infrastructure.

Some potential specific root causes are, in no particular order, extremely skewed distribution of petroleum based wealth, oppressive and or corrupt governments, a lack of self-determination, i.e. a lack of democracy. The foreign policy of the U.S. with respect to the Middle East can be reduced to one factor, oil. The U.S. has repeatedly stated that our national interest is the free flow of oil out of the region. The U.S. projects military force into the region in furtherance of this policy. In addition, we have supported a variety of regimes in the name of stability, the Shah of Iran, Sadam Hussein, the House of Saud. U.S. military action and support of the status quo provide a focal point of hatred for individuals inclined to become adherents to fundamentalist Islam and ultimately jihadists.

[The Major]

King says: "Iraq is just one battlefront on the Global War on Terror. In addition the Counter-Insurgency strategy is inapplicable to the larger conflict. What are we going to do, invade Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Indonesia, and Iran and roll out COIN?"

Major: King, you are confusing the tactics you are seeing employed as part of the COIN approach in Iraq, with the overall concept of COIN. Irregular Warfare, and Asymmetric Warfare and COIN are all inter-related. They are also very applicable to the Larger Conflict. COIN is about transitions and also the application of the right scenario within that transitional phase. Some call it "the three block war" (google it).

King: "...Without opining on the long term effectiveness of the Counter-Insurgency strategy, even if we achieve victory in Iraq we may lose the war on terror due to the strategies employed."

Major: Don't you mean "due to the TACTICS being employed"?

King: "Remember the adage about winning the battle but losing the war."

Remember the much more common adage...
"losing the battles AND losing the war"

If we lose in Iraq, how will that help to win the GWOT? If we retreat from Iraq, and al-Qa'ida hails it as a victory in the first major battle of their DECLARED WAR (1998) against the West, igniting a massive euphoria across the Global Jihadist Movement...

...how will that help us to win this War?

[Maxi]

Interesting.

No answer to my Westmorland quote.

I guess that's my answer.

[The Major]

No Maxi,
It's just a boring and hackneyed comparison, that's all.

Good in terms of innuendo and spin...

...worthless in terms of real analytical value.

Fluff.

[Maxi]

"A boring and hackneyed comparison'?

Even the Major can't come up with a comeback, because it's all too familiar to those of us who lived through Viet Nam. The same kind of lies, the same "military victories", the same "combat ready" locals. The same "predictions" that "we will prevail" if Americans could only stop "helping" the enemy with their lack of support.

Like I said, no answer.

[The Major]

The comparison is still trite.

Are you saying that any testimony about "military victories", "combat ready" locals and "predictions" that "we will prevail" will always be false, because Westmoreland once said the same thing, and you think he was wrong?

It makes no sense. It's not a logical argument. It's nostalgia.

If what Petraeus said was wrong, erroneus or a lie -make an argument. If you intend to impugn his integrity, make it a good one.

But to simply put forth Westmoreland's testimony and declare, "Viola!" -just doesn't cut it as an argument.
It's nothing more that something you read from a Leftist blog, or editorial and chose to repeat it here.

-Hence my apt labelling of it as "borring and hackneyed".

[Maxi]

Gee, your response is pretty trite and boring and hackneyed. Simply SAYING General Petraeus is giving an accurate picture, and not simply attempting to please his boss is illogical and counter to historic reality, because that's what generals do and have done before (just like Westmorland did to please Johnson), and it's something you'd hear on a right-wing radio talk show.

Hence, you bullshit.

[King]

The Major
"If we lose in Iraq, how will that help to win the GWOT? If we retreat from Iraq, and al-Qa'ida hails it as a victory in the first major battle of their DECLARED WAR (1998) against the West, igniting a massive euphoria across the Global Jihadist Movement...

...how will that help us to win this War?"

It will help us win the war by extracting our country from an untenable situation. We eliminate some of the root causes of Islamic fundamentalist hatred of Americans, e.g. the presence of the infidel in Muslim lands, the killing of innocents. A withdrawal might force some of the oppressive governments that we support, partly because they are allies in the Iraq war, to become more democratic for fear of internal insurrection with the support of Al Qaeda.

From the COIN school textbook

The school's textbook, a huge binder, offers the example of a mission that busts into a house and captures someone who mortared a U.S. base.

"On the surface, a raid that captures a known insurgent or terrorist may seem like a sure victory for the coalition," it observes in red block letters. It continues, "The potential second- and third-order effects, however, can turn it into a long-term defeat if our actions humiliate the family, needlessly destroy property, or alienate the local population from our goals."

Focus on the last sentence. THe continued presence of the United States creates just those second and third order effects.

I pose the question, If the United States was not in Iraq who would Al Quaeda in Mesopotamia fight? Once the U.S. is gone the Iraq militias will eliminate their former allies. In a tribal society outsiders are not welcome.

Finally, while a withdrawal from Iraq will be a short term setback, it is not an impediment to victory in the global war on terror. The U.S. withdrew from Vietnam yet slightly more than a decade later the Cold War ended.

[Abe Greenwald]

I have to point out that Maxi, King, etc. make their claims with no recourse to the continued flow of data from Iraq. Okay, weeks before Petraeus' report you say he'll be lying. Day's before - lying. The day of - lying. A few days later - lying. I mean, at what point after seeing the evidence flow in from Iraq, day after day, are you just human enough to say, "As much as I was against this war, it seems things have changed"? Not only would it make you a more reasonable interlocutor, but such an admission would be a long overdue show of gratitude to the warriors who fight, kill, and die for your very way of life. I guess I just don't get the investment in ensuring American hubris. Come on. Look at the news. The War, thank god, has changed.

[The Major]

Abe,
As I have stated again and again and again. This discussion always hinges on the FACT, that there is no evidence that could ever convince Maxi or King that there is progress.

Maxi takes the approach that any report that speaks of progress will be a lie, because Generals like Petraeus and Westmoreland before him, will always lie.

King on the other hand deconstructs the COIN doctrine, and then draws from his parsed results the conclusion that progress in Iraq is IMPOSSIBLE, because the means to achieve that progress will cause more damage to the Global War on Terror, in the long run.

They both refuse to acknowledge not only the evidence, but the metric by which one could measure such evidence.

Coincidentally, these are the exact same arguments being trotted out by Pelosi, Reid and MoveOn.

Now, I never realized that Pelosi, Reid and MoveOn were such experts in the field of Counterinsurgency doctrine, warfighting, operations and strategic planning.

I always thought their strong suits were Partisan Politics and short term electoral advantage schemes.

[The Major]

Here is some recommended reading, to put the concepts of Counterinsurgency into proper context with the Global War.

www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdf

[King]

We've now been in Iraq longer than we were involved in World War II, where by the way we and our allies vanquished two major military and industrial powers. So please explain our "success" against a commodity based economy with essential no military power and a relatively small number of foreign insurgents. Yes they had one of the largest armies in the world, but they had no airpower, no means to project force beyond their border, no domestic armament industry. Not to reflect to much on past mistakes because our only recourse is to adapt to the present, did our military and the commander in chief just realize that we need to pursue counterinsurgency tactics. After all we had Vietnam and Northern Ireland as good examples to study.

I am sure we are making progress, how could we not. We are spreading money around to make friends. The Sunnis anticipate that we will withdrawal so the usefulness of Al Qaeda jihadists as allies is limited. Why not take American money now to consolidate power. The military should rename COIN, why not call it what it really is DOLLARS. The real measure of success will be what type of government the Iraqis form when we leave. When we grant them true self-determination (I don't mean leaders vetted to support the American agenda), we may not like the results.

Our policy is to maintain some semblence of the status quo ante, just with a different leader/ruling sect. This is untenable. The Kurds would like independence and they have the oil. What is in it for them to maintain a unified Iraq? We should allow Iraq to partition itself, but we can't do that since Turkey our NATO ally strongly opposes a Kurdish state with money on its border as that would threat their status quo. We fear that Iran would invade altering the balance of power.

What we really need to do is to rebuild the country similar to the Marshall Plan for Europe after WWII. That actually might endear the U.S. to populace and might be the best way to insure the territory integrity of Iraq. Why can't we do manage to rebuild? Partly because the war wasn't suppose to cost us anything, we were going to use Iraqi oil revenues to rebuild what we destroyed. Since we can't get the oil flowing that hasn't happened. The Iraqis look to their neighbors to see the great prosperity that $80 per barrel oil brings, yet they live without electricity and a functioning economy.

[The Major]

Your description of our current policy, how it is being employed, and what is happening on the ground militarily and politically is completely erroneous.
It certainly explains your many false assumptions, though.

King: "What we really need to do is to rebuild the country similar to the Marshall Plan for Europe after WWII. That actually might endear the U.S. to populace and might be the best way to insure the territory integrity of Iraq..."

What you are describing, is part and parcel of a comprehensive COIN strategy. That you don't even realize this is also quite telling.

[King]

I need not tell you gentlemen that the world situation is very serious. That must be apparent to all intelligent people. I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. Furthermore, the people of this country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard for them to comprehend the plight and consequent reaction of the long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their governments in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the world.
-George C. Marshall June 5th 1947

It is just as applicable now.

Major,
Do tell what is happening "on the ground" with respect to:
1)electricity production
2)gasoline availability
3)employment
4)the availability of health care
5)the number of internally displaced people

In case you don't have the answers here is the link to the Iraq Weekly Status Report published by the State Department.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c22988.htm

And just for Abe some of the continued flow of data out of Iraq.
It is such a rosy picture

Electricity
Suppply for July-August was below previous years.

Healthcare
Kurdistan's health minister reported ...that the region had between 800 to 1,000 confirmed cases of cholera. (There must be a Taco Bell in the neighborhood)

Kirkuk
The Kirkuk PRT reports that consumers currently wait 4-6 hours to purchase fuel at stations. (Can a Prius fully charge on 6-8 hours of electricity a day?)

The economy
The year-on-year inflation rate was 30.2%

All this great news out of a country with the third largest proven reserves of oil. Anyone think Iraqis will look back at this Pax American fondly and thank us for all we've done? Or will they join the jihad against the great Satan?

Counter Insurgency has to deliver one result in order for these problems to be addressed. That result is internal security. Once security is established we need to pour money in for the reconstruction. And I don't mean essentially bribing tribal leaders for their assistance in fighting the estimated 850 Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

Bush has always been reluctant to spend the money on reconstruction (a significant amount of current funding goes to pay the mercenaries that provide security) because he knows exactly what it means to Americans, higher taxes or larger deficits. Either one goes against his core values. If and when there is security and real reconstruction then maybe Iraq won't be a breeding ground for future jihadists.

What we need is am intellectual visionary, a modern George C. Marshall, to present an innovative plan to secure our future. All we've been offered has been simplistic "Stay the Course".

[Maxi]

Hey, Major, do I hear crickets?

[Maxi]

By the way, major, I'm curious why you had no comment when Shrub, the Decider said "CHILDRENS DO LEARN WHEN STANDARDS ARE HIGH AND RESULTS ARE MEASURED". (Sort of reminds you of when he asked "Is our children learning?")

Or are grammatical and spelling errors only laughable when they're typed?

Interestingly, the official transcript left off the "s" on "children", so apparently that's the official stance, too.

You're bound for high office!

[The Major]

Maxi,

I'm too multi-culturally sensitive to join in your ridicule of Presidet Bush's choice to use ebonics.

Frankly, I find your criticism of it to be elitist and racist.

Shame on you.

[The Major]

King,

It's all true. It sure does suck to live in Iraq. Your point?

Speaking of which, I will be leaving for Iraq again, next week.
When I get back, maybe you guys can tell me how my trip went.

[King]

My point is that it shouldn't and that is the failure of our policy, strategy and tactics.

[The Major]

"My point is that it shouldn't and that is the failure of our policy, strategy and tactics."

You fail to make your point.

If your point is that living conditions would have better, had we not ivaded, make that point. Open that debate, it's a valid one. Of course it doesn't speak in any way to what is happening now, and how to proceed.

If your point is that what we are doing NOW is making living conditions unecessarily worse, you need to prove that. If we left, would these conditions improve or get worse?

The opposite of "We are there and conditions are bad" is not "When we leave conditions will be better".
The logic just isn't there yet.

You haven't made the case that our chosen, COIN strategy is the cause -compared to any other COA.

[Johnny boy]

ivaded
Why can't the major learn how to spell???????

Presidet
This spelling obviously means he hates America.

[The Major]

Slip of the finger from haste, junior. Otherwise known as bad typing skills.

But thank you for your insightful and well considered comments. It's comments like yours that keeps this discourse lively and on the right track.

Cheers, Johnny.

[The Major]

"ivaded

Presidet"

The agai, Johy maybe you've oticed that a certai key o my keyboard is't quite as resposive as I would prefer.
Thaks agai, Johy.

[Professor]

The major said:
"I'm too multi-culturally sensitive to join in your ridicule of Presidet Bush's choice to use ebonics."

Ah, finally, the racism comes out. I had a feeling it would eventually. I'm not surprised. People like the major, who are followers, tend to gravitate toward racism.

They giggle over their use of the word "ebonics", or "cultural sensitivity" or anything that is related to race. I wouldn't be surprised if he also engages in racist jokes. . . claiming, all along, that some of his best friends. . .

What other groups does he like to make fun of? Women? Jews? Poles? But, of course, all in good fun, right major?

Guess what, major. You're not funny nor is your racism.

And the fact that you're willing to ignore Bush's painful syntax and poor use of the English language (while you chatise those who misspell Sunni), just shows us a face of hypocrisy that you've kept very thinly veiled.

[The Major]

But Professor...

...I'm a Black Man.

Your assumption that a military officer must be white is hypocritical and racist.
All of your above stated assumptions are the products of lazy and biased stereotyping -which is often the at roots of such bigotry.

Shame on you.

[King]

The point is that in the four plus years we've occupied Iraq living conditions have gotten worse. Our watch, our responsibility. Look at the graphs in the State Department report. The justification of the war on the basis of removing a tyrant has no bearing on whether the current living conditions under our rule inflame Mulsim hatred of America. Living conditions prior to the invasion are to some degree our responsibility, since we led the UN to impose sanctions that harmed the average Iraqi in an attempt punish the regime.

[Professor]

I never claimed the Major was White, just racist.

And while the Major claims to be Black, he offers no proof. I simply don't believe him. But it doesn't really matter. One can certainly be Black and racist - even against your own race. History shows us this.

Who do you think came up with this saying: "If you're Black, stay back; if you're brown, stick around. . ."?

So, my charge stands. He's a racist - Black or White - even if he doesn't know it or won't admit it.

[The Major]

Proffessor, black people can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not ''racist''. Racism involves systemic oppression -the wielding of power. As we neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond our ability to be racist.

Then again Whitey, I'm not on the internet demanding "proof" of somebody's race, am I?

[King]

Some people need to lighten up. I didn't see anything remotely racist in the Major's remark and it was somewhat funny. Political correctness will be the death of the influence of the left.

[Jamieson]

The professor has some issues to work out.

[Professor]

And, who said I'm white? - or rather "whitey" - except the Major? Who's making assumptions now?

Once again, the major shows how he resorts to name calling when he's called out. And don't go defending him simply because he is - or claims to be - Black. Hate talk is hate talk, no matter who it comes from.

And, yes, his comments fringed on outright hate talk. That's the way hate talk is most effectively used; as a throwaway line that can be denied as simply "a joke". . . like calling me "whitey". Does that mean it's okay to call him N.....?

I wonder how forgiving Abe would be if the comment was about big noses and free air.

Not so funny, huh?

[The Major]

Eat my beautiful black balls, Professor.

[Shoelady]

Well, after reading this very good example of the failed educational system in America, I see that resorting to personal insults is the only path you have. Neither Ebonics nor traditional English can make up for such crass and vulgar comments.

You must be very motivational to the people under your command.

[The Major]

There's only two things I've got to do in this life:

1) Be black
2) Tell Shoelady to shut the fuck up!

[Jamieson]

Does that make him anti-gay?

[The (Black) Major]

I ain't got no beef with no homos.

[The Major]

That last comment wasn't me. I also, however, have no problem whatsoever with my homosexual brothers and sisters. I think they're just lovely, lovely people.