Hey I got an award
By Libby
Well this is a first. I don't think the Little Green Footballs have ever noticed me before. Sorry, I can't bring myself to link to that cesspool. But's here's the entire post.
By the way, this is my post that has them so outraged. Meanwhile, Cernig is stuck moderating the comments because I don't have a clue about how to do it. I suppose I should learn. It seems like my posts are always the ones that draw in the wingnuts and it doesn't seem fair to make Cernig do all the work.
Well this is a first. I don't think the Little Green Footballs have ever noticed me before. Sorry, I can't bring myself to link to that cesspool. But's here's the entire post.
Moonbat of the DayThat Jammie guy has a hard on for me. He shows up to bitch in comments at NH somewhat regularly and also links once in a while. Like today. I'm not even going to repost his. He and his cretin commenters are always calling me a whore and stuff. Gotta love the civility of wingnuttia.
Sat, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:49:17 am PST
The coveted award for leftist moonbat of the day goes to The Newshoggers, where they applaud the “brilliant” tactic of using women with Down’s Syndrome to perpetrate suicide bombings.
For the record, assuming it’s true, I think it’s just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down’s women to perpetrate the bombings but I don’t see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that.
And looking down their front page, packed with progressive talking points, I see some love for LGF: The Newshoggers: A Liberal Among The Lizards.
(Hat tip: JammieWearingFool.)
By the way, this is my post that has them so outraged. Meanwhile, Cernig is stuck moderating the comments because I don't have a clue about how to do it. I suppose I should learn. It seems like my posts are always the ones that draw in the wingnuts and it doesn't seem fair to make Cernig do all the work.
posted by Libby Spencer at 3:06 PM
20 Comments:
lol LGF is like the last neocon site. them and protest warriors and a few others were popular between 9/11 and when Iraq started to S___ the bed, that is more or less immediately.
their big claim to fame is they figured out the Dan Rather memos were fake about 5 monutes before everyone else did. for the next year they were finding fraud and conspiracy under every rock. they had slo motion video of john kerry holding a pen in the first presidential debate, the one where he kicked Bush's ass. They wereconvinced he's smuggled some sort of way to cheat in through the pen.
Yeah, they're the nuttiest of the wingnuts for sure Lester. I think it's rather amusing. I feel almost honored to get the award.
Did you express similar admiration for the “adaptation” employed by the Columbine killers? Did you say, “It IS a brilliant tactical move.” Did you expound on the utter futility of security in America’s schools and then proceed to castigate our police for their incompetence?
The nihilism and ignorance that is evident in Libby’s question is a sad commentary “Maybe you can tell me how our troops are supposed to counter the tactic because I don't see how they can. That's been the problem with this stupid occupation from the beginning of the insurgency. We've got a brass heavy, stationary military force fighting roving bands of nimble guerrillas. By the time we adapt to their tactics, they're already moving on to something new.”
The strategy employed since all additional troops have been in place in July 2007 has not been a “stationary military fighting force”. To say so shows willful ignore of Petreaus’ COIN design and implementation. Our troops are out amongst the Iraqi population in small forward operating bases working with Iraqi troops.
Your question shows an ignorance of the history of counterinsurgency as well. It always a matter of adapting to mistakes and changing tactics. Did you ever stop to think they are having to adapt to our successful strategies as well? The side that doesn't give up usually wins. The fact that AQI is largely foreign makes easier still. Iraqis know they have a foreign cancers; on one side various Sunni extremists, on the other Iranian agents of sedition. The elements of the Mahdi army who have resorted to terrorizing and stealing from their fellow Iraqis are now viewed as traitors and thugs.
How do you ‘counter this kind of attack’? The Iraqi people will now have to protect their mentally diminished citizens from outside influences. That is how you prevent this abomination from happen again. Al Qaeda has exposed themselves as monsters without equal, which Libby and your buddy Cernig are too blind to see. For some time now, the Iraqis have seen the American Soldier is there to help them and we are the "strong horse", while al Qaeda is strapping bombs to retarded women and detonating them by remote control. This will reverberate through the Middle East.
Maybe you missed the national news today: “A gunman fatally shot five people in an apparent robbery at a store in a suburban Chicago strip mall and fled Saturday, prompting police to sweep through neighboring shops as terrified customers watched” Would you call that, “Brilliant tactics” and wonder “how do our police stop that?”
This is not the work of “insurgents” but a new form of evil… Worse than Iran’s actions in the 1980’s; Iran tried using donkey trains to set off mines in the Iran/Iraq war without success because even donkeys will run after one gets blown to bits. Therefore, the Iranian leadership came up with the Basiji youth, which would be indoctrinated to march blindly into minefields and machinegun fire.
Ponder that…
I hope you feel better after getting that off your chest kaw. That's a long answer to one simple question and you still didn't answer it. What is the counter to this new horrible tactic.
As for the rest of your rant, read my comments at the NH post. I think I made myself clear. But word up, don't confuse ordinary crime with terrorism and don't confuse evil with stupid. The truly evil are generally pretty smart. It's better not to underestimate them.
Cobwebs indeed.
Don't try to sell the perpetuation of this idiocy as patriotism or courageous resolve when it's only an argument for continuing the rape until the bitch learns to love you.
Only a liar or a salesman would make the comparison between fighting crime in our own country and destroying another country for its resources and for our military advantage in the region. If undaunted persistence were a virtue, There would be an odd group of heroes in the history books.
Cynicism is a cheap sort of cosmetic, but it doesn't cover up the warts and zits and blotches on a tendentious, straw stuffed scarecrow of an analogy. You're simply painting a false face on that old, syphilitic whore of imperialism and trying to pass her off as a debutante.
Seems to me that all occupations eventually fail because one side is fighting for survival, for home, for family, for religion, culture and tradition and has nothing to lose - and the other for money and when money costs more than it's worth - it's obviously not worth it.
Every occupation is sold as a gift of liberty and always turns to brutality and violence to maintain that "liberty." Ours started out with wanton destruction and moved directly to brutality - destroying the cities while bragging about building schools, while the people sit in the dark and sweat in fear and privation; dependent on handouts from the infidels who demand the right to be immune from law if they shoot your grandmother for sport.
Al Qaeda, my ass. Might as well blame the loss of the French and British empire on bandits or the Boy Scouts. Iraqis and the people who consider themselves to be patriots and the warriors of God will do and will continue to do anything and everything they can to throw us out of a country we never had any business being in. A hundred years or a thousand years or two - it doesn't matter.
Iraq is so obviously an attempt at a petroleum empire dressed in a stinking threadbare fleece that it hides it's greedy lupine heart only from idiots and mental defectives and dishonest ones at that.
The least you could do is to admit that your opinion is possessed by such a small and shrinking minority that it's time to return your high horse to the stable and pay your bill.
I did answer the question--"How do you ‘counter this kind of attack’? The Iraqi people will now have to protect their mentally diminished citizens from outside influences. That is how you prevent this abomination from happen again."
Do you think that the "insurgents" or "nimble guerillas" or al Qaeda are going to farm Iraq's mentally handicapped population to carry out this new and brilliant method of attack? Is this your thesis, Libby? You would be a laughing stock if you weren't so ideas weren't so repugnant. Your totally lack reasoning and morality have set a new standard.
Captain Fogg, good day to you. I always enjoy your writing, even as you tear me to shreds.
My analogy was that in any 'free' society mass murder attacks are always possible. You can't prepare for every eventuality. Even in police states like the USSR there are serial killers. Japan even had a sarin gas attack on its subway by a death cult that killed 12 and severely injured 50. How do you prevent that?
Kabwetz, you are reading more into what Libby writes than what is there. She never implemented the style of the attacks, AQI did, and by pointing out that they are capable of changing strategies that do get around the security systems of not only the American forces, but also of the Iraq Forces, she is merely pondering how successful will be the US in foiling similar attacks.
Your post shows what has been the problem with US strategy all along, the failure to take into account that AQI will use methods that are abhorrent to US. If the political leaders, and the citizens who hold them responsible, ignore what is happening because it interferes with what they believe should happen, then it is merely a rush to disaster. Using the less fortunate is abhorrent, but unless you are willing to see that is a successful strategy, and work at coming up with a means to counter it, it will continue to be successful.
Simply saying you are evil for pointing this out is ridiculous, I could say the same about you for ignoring what is a successful strategy. As long the civilian administration restrains the military from implementing new strategies in favor of ones that are created through personal political ideology, and refuses to listen to advise from experts on COIN, and on the countries that are occupied, there is bound to be failure. Effective strategies have been implemented either haphazardly or too late to work effectively.
Now you not only missed the point and direction of what she is saying, but you failed to even come close to a cognitive and reasonable answer of what can be done to counter these bombings. Placing mentally deficient people under supervision may work, but it is hard to implement and very likely a staggering loss of personal freedom, even as regards to the general populace's basic rights in Iraq.
I may suggest, Libby, two possible alternatives that may work. One is the outright banning of all clothes. Of course it would likely produce another serious problem of it's own.
On a more serious note, would the use of trained explosive sniffing dogs provide security from suicide bombers? Why haven't they been used more often? Also, are there not devices that can detect explosive material before they are exploded? Seriously, I have never seen an answer to these questions.
On a personal note, came over from Newshoggers link to check out the site. Will be revisiting whenever I can.
BTW, congrats on the 'Moonbat' award. Perhaps you can make it a weekly thing :)
Filcher—
I never said Libby was “evil”, or that she “implemented these strategies”. However, it is clear she admires the “nimble guerillas” that conceive of such “brilliant” attacks. In response, I said she was immoral in that regard.
If your downs syndrome sister or daughter were a potential target of these jackals would you consider walking her to bus “a staggering loss of [her] personal freedom”, hardly. Extended family, caregivers, members of the community would have to look out for these easy marks. That is not civil rights crushing surveillance. If there were a child molester loose, you’d do the same for your children and your neighbor’s children.
My best friend’s sister who is now in her thirties has downs syndrome. She lives away from her parents in a group home but would need some one to watch over her if this was going on. She’s not high functioning enough to sell wares in a market like the victims of the this atrocity but could be duped into carrying a package.
You make an interesting suggesting with the bomb-sniffing dogs. There are currently 2000 bomb sniffing dogs in Iraq. The US Armed forces uses them to great success. However, your idea may run into some problems. Islam and Arab culture view the dog as the second dirtiest animal just ahead of the pig. A Hadith states that an angel will not enter a room where a dog has been. Americans who befriend street dogs in Iraq and pet them are seen as unclean as well; after doing so they must wash thoroughly. Iraqis keep their distance from dogs.
And now you want hyperactive bomb-sniffing dogs sticking their noses in women’s garments? That will go over well. Have you ever seen bomb or drug sniffing dogs in action? I assure you, they are not discreet.
Oh, and Libby will be glad to know the insurgents already took to strapping bombs to live dogs back in 2005. Google “Servants -- and Weapons -- of War”
Even the Iraqis were disgusted by this tactic. Like this latest tactic it worked for a short time, then it disappeared. That is my point.
The military has known that our enemies like al Qaeda would use abhorrent methods all along. Professional soldiers are not shocked by war as civilians are. Are we supposed to opt out of fighting such enemies? The Japanese in WWII used chemical and biological weapons on the Chinese. They had beheading competitions on captives. They conducted experiments on Chinese civilians just like the Germans did on Jews--Google “Unit 731”. So, should we not have fought Japan because they were too diabolical?
If Petreaus co-wrote the COIN doctrine and has many experts of said field on his staff, what are you talking about here:
“As long the civilian administration restrains the military from implementing new strategies in favor of ones that are created through personal political ideology, and refuses to listen to advise from experts on COIN, and on the countries that are occupied, there is bound to be failure. Effective strategies have been implemented either haphazardly or too late to work effectively.”
The whole change in strategy came from listening to COIN experts, and continuing day-to-day operations are at their discretion. “Haphazard”… “too late” … time will tell.
I'm working today so I can't answer this until later this evening, but thanks Fogg and filcher for the help here.
I'm certainly not gleeful about this development. I think people got too excited about using the word brilliant. It wasn't meant to imply admiration, but rather to underscore how serious a problem I think it is.
kawbwebz, I have heard that Iraqi's are not pleased with dogs, in fact I understand many other cultures also view the keeping of dogs as pets as a disgusting and dirty habit. Still, it does provide one method of protecting against suicide bombers. Now what you say is true also about the problem of identifying potential suiciders; do we infuriate the locals by implementing tactics that are anathema to them, or do we try the best we can to minimise the danger? Either way, in my opinion, it seems they win. A very effective strategy IMO.
I have heard that other armies have used dogs as bomb propellants, mainly the German army in WW2 (or was it the resistance?)
You seemed to say that simply saying the strategy being used was brilliant equates to admiration of those using it. No, this is a false perception, for even as one can admire a shark or a rattlesnake one also knows that they are deadly and not to be trusted. No, acknowledging the truth about an enemy is the only true way to beat them. Saying they are evil, without the added words, 'but capable at spreading terror' is missing the true point of using the less mentally capable; the very act is destined to terrify. They use very effective strategies that do work.
Now the problem you have with me saying the strategy was all wrong in Iraq.
It was obvious long before the Surge that the tactics being used were simply not working. However, rather than use a tested method that may have worked, such as those used by Col MacMaster at Tal Afar,(2005) the WH continued conducting the war as a personal battle, without regard to safety or rights of the Iraqi peoples. This led to abusive treatment of the peoples and disrespect of their customs, and flaunting of international and American ideals. Experts on the area, who knew local customs, histories and tribal rivalries, and who had the temerity to criticise the strategy used, were marginalised, ridiculed and defamed by not only the administration but by certain facets of the media, and in some cases lesser esteemed colleagues.
2 years after MacMaster showed that his tactics worked, the WH has decided to use them. While they may have been effective 2 years ago, the situation is different today. It is a case of not implementing effective strategies when they should have been implemented.
I am not saying that the Surge has failed yet, although all indications are that the Iraq government has failed to use the opportunity of lessened violence to enact reforms that are badly needed.
Col MacMaster himself even while showing his tactics worked, was not embraced but rather marginalised by the politicians, simply because he was courageous enough to criticise their strategy.
My point is that after the war, when 'mission accomplished ' was declared by Bush, there was a real chance of affecting change. Rather than take this opportunity the politicians cast all hope of reconciliation with the sects aside, created lines which would effectively cause sectarian divides, and incorporated policies that would empower those who were capable of doing so, to raise private militias. They based strategies on a personal ideology, rather than on the reality of the situation. Many US commanders, more interested in their positions simply allowed this, although they have since given interviews that suggest they personally disagreed with tactics used.
Filcher--
You present a well reasoned argument.
You and Libby are correct that these are very effective tactics. But to what end? Terrorism is by definition making a population lose faith in their governments ability to provide security. But Libby's point was that the this was "nimble" guerilla warfare and an insurgency. This pure terror for terror's sake.
What is insurgency? An insurgent attack must serve a political end. This does not. This kind of attack further drives the population away from AQI. AQI realizes it has lost the popular support of the Sunni population and now conducts these attacks out of pure spite.
Are they "Brilliant"?--This is only brilliant in effecting mass murder. Just as when the Nazis switched from the ineffective method of driving Jews and other undesirables around in the back of a truck for several hours breathing the exhaust to using industrial scale killing systems like implimented at Auschwitz.
To call the Nazis "brilliant" for doing so would be immoral.
Filcher, you sight MacMaster at Tal Afar. He is an irreplaceable member Petreaus' team. He's a walking war college. I've read he will be advanced to full General.
Petraeus as well understood you don't kick in doors with the work he did in Mosul 2003-4. Sanchez did not, but when asked if he needed more troops or assistance, he declined. The insurgency took root under his command.
As far back as 1993, people like Dr. Steven Metz saw global insurgencies and the next big threat we were unprepared for. Major John Nagl was also sounding the alarm. After Vietnam, counterinsurgency was stripped out of military training.
This is brief on Petraeus in Mosul 2003-4.
"...David Petraeus is America’s so-called last hope for victory in Iraq. His approach is remarkable for its focus on the “heart” of the population, substantiated by the theory that this will deny the insurgent safe haven. A Newsweek cover story in 2004 said: “Virtually everybody” agrees that his command in Mosul “was a textbook case of doing counterinsurgency the right way. When troops went on cordon-and-search operations, they took care to tell each homeowner, ‘Thank you for allowing us to search your home …’ Posters were displayed in the 101st’s barracks, saying, ‘What have you done to win Iraqi hearts and minds today?’”
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/01/29/what-have-you-done-to-provide-security-today/
kawbwebz- fuck david petreaus and fuck the surge.
Lester--
That's precisely what al Qeada was articulating by sending those down syndrome women to kill the very Sunni population that now rejects them.
Like a rejected lover sending dead animals in the mail..."this will show her/him. That bitch/jerk" This is all AQI has left.
IMHO You are wrong when you say there is no political objective to simply instilling fear in Iraq. AQI, and the original AQ, see the Afghanistan and Iraq conflict as the best way to defeat the US. It launched a counter war that served to bankrupt the USSR, and there is a good possibility, combining the cost of the wars and other economic problems looming for the US, that it willserve to greatly diminish US's economy, influence and foreign policy. I believe IIRC that one of binLaden's tapes expressed this very sentiment.
That the actions are vile and evil is not in doubt, yet the simplicity that it shows in advancing the agenda, mainly destabilize the Iraq government, marginalize the US, and force them to leave combat troops in Iraq for years to come, is unquestioned. Brilliant maybe is too strong a word, I would consider Machiavellian a better phrase.
Now as for the insurgency, you have to decide if there is only one force at play in Iraq, namely AQI, or are there sectarian militias that still are capable of attacking. I have seen no evident that AQI is capable of all the violence in Iraq, so much of what is happening is surely by militias, that are either sectarian in nature or criminalized, or both.
Now you miss my point about MacMaster; it is not that he and Petraeus used tactics that worked as early as 2004, it is that these tactics were ignored for so long in favor of tactics that were not working. MacMaster was vocal in his criticism of the way the war was run, and he was moved out of the reach of the media, Petraeus supported the Bush style, and was complicit in ignoring exactly what should be done (corruption of officers under his command, lack of accountability of money, and arms). If he had pushed for a change to different tactics in 2004, there is a good chance the insurgents would have been marginalized; this did not happen.
While I do not intend to criticize Gen Petraeus I do feel he did not serve the interests of the troops in Iraq in a proper manner.
“Like a rejected lover sending dead animals in the mail..."this will show her/him. That bitch/jerk" This is all AQI has left.”
Let us hope you are right.
david petreaus had a sex change!!!
That is nice, Lester.
Does your mommy know you are playing on her computer?
Filcher—
Thanks for the education.
And no, you are correct that there is a political objective here. Upon reflection, I realized my posting was naïve to state that there is no political gain from the bombings. Anarchy and mayhem serve a purpose in themselves. Your description as of the perpetrator’s actions as Machiavellian is dead on.
You are correct as well that there are numerous criminal groups and militias operating in Iraq. It will be interesting to see if the Mahdi Army goes back on the offensive February 8th when their six month truce ends. MNFI has already sent out a release to warn them about the dire consequences of any such actions.
Admittedly, I was dense to your point about McMaster. Earlier today, I came across Lt. Col. Yingling’s article that started the firestorm about a “A failure in generalship” in Iraq.
HTTP://WWW.ARMEDFORCESJOURNAL.COM/2007/05/2635198
I’ll grant you Petraeus, as commanding officer, is ultimately responsible for any malfeasance under his watch. From my perspective, “complicit” is too negative a term for that situation.
Petraeus did take a TIME magazine reporter on a helicopter tour over Northern Iraq pointing out unguarded ammunition dumps in 2003-4 stating, ‘we don’t have the troops needed to guard those. That will probably come back to haunt us.’ It did. If Petraeus were a Bush/Rumsfeld team player, he would have kept that to himself. People as disciplined as Petraeus don’t say something like this without considering the ramifications. In hindsight, he could have been more vocal.
Yingling stands out as the real advocate for the troops.
“…Yingling said he decided to write the article after attending Purple Heart and deployment ceremonies for Army soldiers. "I find it hard to look them in the eye," he said in an interview. "Our generals are not worthy of their soldiers."
Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602230_pf.html
Wow you guys. Thanks for the civil and informative commentary. I'm having a brutal week and you two know more about this than I do. Filcher is doing so well in articulating the points I might have made, that I have nothing to add.
Kawbwetz:
Thanks to the link about Yingling, I do not remember reading it before. I also want to commend on your civility. Too often forum or blog debates desend into simple insult matches.
Libby, you are welcome. I came here because of reading Newshoggers, and Amnesty Day; I think I may hang around for a while although likely be far less vocal. :)
Thanks for dialogue Filcher.
One last word, or two.
I should have said Yingling stands out as the real advocate for our troops, the US taxpayer (the citizenry) and the occupied population.
This piece by historian Victor Davis Hanson runs along a parallel track to the Yingling paper--"In War, Resolution"
"...What can be done about our impatience, historical amnesia, and utopian demands for perfection? American statesmen need to provide constant explanations to a public not well versed in history — not mere assertions — of what misfortunes to expect when they take the nation to war. The more a president evokes history's tragic lessons, the better, reminding the public that our forefathers usually endured and overcame far worse. Americans should be told at the start of every conflict that the generals who begin the fighting may not finish it; that what is reported in the first 24 hours may not be true after a week's retrospection, and that the alternative to the bad choice is rarely the good one, but usually only the far worse. They should be apprised that our morale is as important as our material advantages — and that our will power is predicated on inevitable mistakes being learned from and rectified far more competently and quickly than the enemy will learn from his.
Only that way can we reestablish our national wartime objective as victory, a goal that brings with it the acceptance of tragic errors as well as appreciation of heroic and brilliant conduct. The Iraq war and the larger struggle against the anti-American jihadists can still be won — and won with a resulting positive assessment of our overall efforts by future historians who will be far less harsh on us than we are now on ourselves. Yet if as a nation we instead believe that we cannot abide error, or that we cannot win due to necessary military, moral, humanitarian, financial, or geopolitical constraints, then we should not ask our young soldiers to continue to try. As in Vietnam where we wallowed in rather than learned from our shortcomings, we should simply accept defeat and with it the ensuing humiliating consequences. But it would be far preferable for Americans undertaking a war to remember these words from Churchill, in his 1930 memoir: “Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.”
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122307.html
Post a Comment
<< Home