The security situation in Iraq appears to have deteriorated rapidly over the past few days -- not so much because of the insurgents (although the toll of dead and wounded Americans continued to grow) but because the accumulated anger and frustration is beginning to boil over among a number of groups and in an number of places.
Large portions of central Baghdad were in turmoil after attackers earlier fired an explosive into the Foreign Ministry compound, former intelligence officers demanding back pay or jobs hurled paving stones at American forces and U.S. soldiers confronted a big demonstration of Shiite Muslims....In southwest Baghdad, U.S. soldiers in about 20 Humvees with two helicopters overhead confronted some 600 demonstrators at a Shiite Muslim mosque, with protesters claiming the Americans had illegally detained their imam.
Sheikh Mohammed al-Sudani said mosque preacher Moayed al-Khazraji was arrested Monday as he lead a 12-man delegation to negotiate with the Americans in the municipal council building.
Meanwhile, in the oil refining city of Beiji:
Soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division inside the city's heavily fortified police headquarters withstood a 75-minute barrage of mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and light arms fire a day earlier. Witnesses said the firing was so intense that police reinforcements from Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown to the south, could not reach the police building.
All this follows on the heels of riots in Baghdad, Basra and al-Hilla over the weekend by ex-Iraqi soldiers trying to collect the last of their $40 severence payments.
And the invaluable Juan Cole has more violence to report:
Guerrillas fired grenade launchers at Bulgarian troops in Karbala and at US troops in Kirkuk on Monday. Early Monday morning grenades fell on a city square where US troops were deployed in the northern, largely Kurdish city. The US took no casualties in the attack. Rioting unemployed Iraqi former military men were dispersed by US troops in Kirkuk, who killed two of them.
Grabbing the Shia cleric Moayed al-Khazraji was a particularly inflammatory move. Apparently, the Army tried twice last week to arrest him. The second attempt sparked a confrontation that reportedly led Iraqi police to turn their own guns on the Americans:
When the U.S. soldiers arrived, the crowd surged toward them, pelting their vehicles with stones. A soldier on one vehicle responded by firing a .50-caliber machine gun over the demonstrators' heads.The situation gave the Iraqi policemen standing about 100 yards away little choice, the officers said.
"When they started shooting at the mosque, we started shooting at them," said Jassim Mohammed, 35, an Iraqi police officer. "We started shooting because we are Muslims first and policemen second. Besides, our job isn't to protect the Americans. It is to protect Iraqis."
The same story notes that over the past few weeks, openly armed Shia militiamen have become common sights on the streets of Baghdad and other cities -- despite the Coalition's vow to disarm and arrest them. Apparently, the Army respects that old line about discretion being the better part of valor. But the result appears to be an increasingly explosive situation on the streets.
Room at the Top
Loss of control in the Iraqi streets increasingly is mirrored in the palace suites. The Interim Governing Council, notionally an arm of the American occupation goverment, today rejected the idea of allowing Turkish troops into Iraq -- even as the Turkish parliament was voting to send them. (It's amazing what $8.5 billion in loans will do for a country's fighting spirit.)
Iraq's Governing Council said on Tuesday it would not accept troops from any neighboring state on its soil -- hampering U.S. efforts to get Turkish soldiers to share the burden of policing Iraq.The Governing Council was appointed by the U.S.-led administration in Iraq, and U.S. governor Paul Bremer has the final say on policy, but the Council's position will make it harder for the administration to persuade Iraqis to accept Turkish soldiers.
It also suggests the long honeymoon between the Americans and the Kurds may be about to hit the rocks:
Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish councilmember, said the members reached consensus on the statement but he indicated that U.S. pressure kept them from releasing it. "The council already has said it does not want other foreign troops in the country because it believes such a move will complicate the issue," Othman said.
One wonders how the relationship will fare if the Coalition lives up to its promise to the Turks and tries to root out the Kurdish (or as the Turkish government prefers to call them, "Mountain Turk") guerrillas of the PKK, who have taken shelter in Northern Iraq.
Some Iraqi Kurdish groups are already dropping ugly hits -- suggesting, for example, that the killing of four Turkish truck drivers in the Beiji riots might not have been entirely the work of Saddam die hards:
Safeen Diyazee, the Ankara representative for the [Kurdish Democratic Party] ... pointed out that the district where three Turkish truck drivers were killed on Monday was a region mentioned as a possible area for Turkish forces to be stationed. “Is this a coincidence or a message? This attack should be taken very seriously,” he said.
To add insult to injury, the interim council -- which neocon dreamers once dreamed would quickly sign a peace treaty with Israel -- also issued a statement condemning the Jewish state's attack on Syria. Puppet strings, it seems, can be stretched only so far.
Finally -- and again according to Juan Cole -- Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (and brother of the cleric assassinated back in August) has issued his own statement, calling on Iran (aka Axis of Evil Member #2) to play a "major role in Iraqi reconstruction."
Al-Hakim said that Iran had stood with the Iraqi people against the Baath regime throughout the past two decades. He said that the old historical ties between the two countries make it natural for Iran to contribute in key ways to putting Iraq back on its feet. Al-Hakim is a hardliner close to Iran's Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei.
Which might not be so remarkable, given Al-Hakim's history as an Iranian ally (some would say "stooge") but Al-Hakim is also a member of the interim council -- appointed to that post by Jerry Bremer himself. Is Al-Hakim off the American reservation? Or is the Coalition trying to send a (dare I say it?) appeasing signal to the Iranians? Juan Cole says he's not sure.
The Fire Next Time
Opposition in the suites is embarrassing, but not deadly. At the end of the day, the interim council is still tied to the American apron strings. Its members can squawk as much as they like, but they know (or should know) what will happen to them if the occupation fails.
In the streets, though, the risks appear more serious. I know some blogarians have speculated about the possibility of a "Tet offensive" by the Sunni insurgents -- a series of coordinated attacks that would demonstrate the fragility of the Coalition's position. And Gen. Sanchez, the American commander in Iraq, did recently suggest the war might be about to turn more bloody:
"As long as we have American forces here we'll be taking casualties in some form or another. And we should not be surprised if some morning we wake up after the coalition has had a significant engagement where tens of American soldiers or coalition soldiers have been killed."
But an actual Tet-style offensive seems very far fetched. This isn't Vietnam, and the Sunni insurgents, whoever they are, don't appear to have the men, the resources or the command-and-control networks needed to launch anything so ambitious.
A more plausible risk would seem to be something comparable to the 1968 urban riots here in America -- a wave of civil unrest that breaks out in many cities at once, and quickly spirals out of control. The insurgents, no doubt, would be happy to fan the flames any way they can.
Such a scenario could leave the Coalition with two choices: Crack down very hard, with indiscriminate use of lethal force, or, let the riots burn themselves out before trying to restore order. Either way, the Bush administration would be looking at a PR disaster, one that would make it impossible to pretend that things are gradually "getting better" in Iraq.
Don't have cable, but I'm guessing Fox News is doing a hard-hitting report showing how things are getting better in Iraq right about now.
Many shots of US soldiers and Iraqi children throughout the piece.
I've read others who've posited that when temperatures fall in Iraq, things will start to heat up. Is this the beginning?
From the referenced Chronicle article:
"The Bush administration has been especially eager to recruit troops from Muslim countries, such as Turkey, hoping they would be more welcome."
If this entire affair wasn't so incredibly sad, this could well be the running joke of the week. I keep wondering where the chickenhawks get the information that these kind of statements are based on ... un-fscking-believable.
I've read others who've posited that when temperatures fall in Iraq, things will start to heat up
Exactly my thought. If these guerillas can stage coordinated, sustained, efficient ambushes and attacks in a sweltering heat, then it should only get easier for them when the temps drop a bit.
On it goes kids, check out Israel, that's Iraq's future an endless spiral of violence.
How long before the US starts bulldozing "Baathist" homes?
The citizens are throwing paving stones?
Mon Dieu! Vive la revolution!
Um, Billmon, "Burn, Baby, Burn"???
We all want smirky the chimp out of office. But we don't want Iraq to fall into chaos -- especially if it's our friends and neighbors over there in uniform whose heads are the targets for those paving stones.
We need to try and remember that. Liberalism is patriotic, too.
I know that this idea has already been mentioned, but I believe it bears repeating.
Suppose you are a high-ranking member of the military. It is a known fact that your country is about to be invaded by an adversary which has vastly superior weaponry. The chance of your armies emerging victorious from a direct confrontation is nil. What course of action should you take?
Perhaps you would put up a token resistance, both to show your compatriots that you are not surrendering and to fool the enemy into believing they will achieve a quick and easy victory. Let the invaders to capture your out-classed tanks, missiles, and other weaponry that is difficult to hide. Allow your soldiers to desert their positions - bringing their small arms with them.
Wait. Study the enemy's methods and behavior. Begin small-scale guerilla attacks. Evaluate the enemy's response. Refine and escalate your guerilla attacks. Force the enemy into attacking civilians. Sabotage any enemy efforts to export your country's resources to pay for their invasion.
Eventually, you hope, the cost to the enemy in lives and money forces them to leave. You allow the enemy to save face - you declare victory privately, not publicly.
So far, it appears the Iraqis are winning the war.
You wonder whether the arrival of 10,000 Turkish troops is going to help. They are not going into Kurdish areas, but I cannot believe their presence will be welcomed anywhere in Iraq. Maybe pouring gasoline on fire?
Um, Billmon, "Burn, Baby, Burn"???
We all want smirky the chimp out of office. But we don't want Iraq to fall into chaos -- especially if it's our friends and neighbors over there in uniform whose heads are the targets for those paving stones.
We need to try and remember that. Liberalism is patriotic, too.
I'm way beyond the point where I give a rat fuck what anybody -- conservative or liberal -- thinks about my patriotism. But the title of the post was meant to be an allusion to the riots of the '60s, not a command to repeat them.
In any case, the Iraqis don't seem to need any guidance on that score.
there is a sound being heard in the White House.....drip.....drip.....drip.....drip...
Oh man, what about this? Two Iraqis demanding army pay shot dead by US forces:
Two Iraqi army veterans, awaiting a back salary payment, were shot dead and eight others wounded late Sunday by US forces who thought the men were about to riot, a police officer told AFP.
Because they thought they were about to riot? Unbelievable. Sounds like a breakdown of discipline, which indicates everyone's worst fears of the stress the American soldiers are experiencing.
openly armed Shia militiamen have become common sights on the streets of Baghdad and other cities -- despite the Coalition's vow to disarm and arrest them
why isn't the NRA saying that Iraqis should have the right to bear arms? Isn't Iraq supposed to be America Done Right (TM)?
I think it's pretty clear that a lot of American troops now look upon the Iraqis as some lesser species of insect -- like cockroaches, but not as cute.
This is a time-honored recipe for war crimes.
Which of course, will have to be feverently denied by the American people.
how much do you think it will take to set off the iraqis against the turks? i figure that the iraqis will take a certain amount of guff from the 'murricans, but god help the turk that so much as steals an apple...
there is much bad blood and this 'hey, they're all muslims, they'll get along' is only so much more of the deep thinking that got us where we are today.
i can only hope that this doesn't set off a civil war.
I'm way beyond the point where I give a rat fuck what anybody -- conservative or liberal -- thinks about my patriotism.
I've got to side with billmon on this. Lest any of you forget, Dems who attempted to save face by siding with Dubya to remain 'patriotic' got screwed and landed our country in this sh*thole it is in today.
Make no mistake about it; regardless of whether they find WMDs and justify the 'war', it's a sinkhole of lives and money.
Global relations? Shot.
Long term domestic financial situation? Shot.
My retirement? Shot.
Social services? Shot.
So go ahead and be nice and civil and proper. Hopefully the Republicans and idiot Dems who elected these morons will pat you on the head as they kick your teeth in. Personally, I'm just pissed off and don't care who knows it.
hmmm... Billmon channelling Steve Gilliard.
The only way we will lose this war is retrospectively. Hasn't anyone learned the lesson of WWI or Vietnam. Germany didn't lose the war: it was stabbed in the back. WE won the war in Vietnam, if only those peaceniks hadn't sabotaged things at home.
The whole problem with the war in Iraq is that it has always been an extension of the war in Washington DC.
now i haven't been around the blogosphere very long, so i'll have to ask you guys...
i've always considered myself a moderate. i hardly ever got upset about the clinton wars, despite all of the shenanigans that went on. truth be told, i didn't follow it all that closely.
but lately, i've become obsessive, and shrill about what's been going on, and other moderates i know are feeling the same. i certainly see it happening on weblogs--daniel drezner, not exactly a leftwinger, posted something positive about Sully today and every single poster jumped down his throat.
i've read a few columns, mostly about howard dean, that suggest this is a verifiable trend.
so i'm wondering, has anyone seen any hard evidence suggesting that people are angrier now than in the past?
praktike: I don't have any evidence, but I am certainly more radicalized (if that is the right word for a politically energized moderate?), and I know several other people who feel the same way.
WE won the war in Vietnam, if only those peaceniks hadn't sabotaged things at home.
Are you serious? Or sarcastic? We got our asses handed to us in 'Nam, any way you look at it.
You cannot win a popular counter-insurgency. It has never happened, and will never happen.
You can be as brutal as you like, and you will still lose. Look at Chechnya. Think Putin has been pulling his punches? Is he winning? Or just holding on, looking for a way out?
We are facing a popular insurgency against an Occupier. You can't defend against these types of attacks without making yourself more hated, thus ensuring the continuation of violence.
You can drag it out for years, but eventually you will be going home, ass in hand.
I cannot believe people still think we "won" Vietnam. Aren't they Communists? Wasn't that what we were trying to stop?
If you were serious, I suggest you bone up on your history.
I didn't take billmon's title to be an injunction to burn but rather an observation of burning. As long as the neocons are in power subverting the will of America there is nothing we can do but watch it burn.
Iraq has failure written all over it for reasons best articulated by Clausewitz nearly 200 years ago. First, his thoughts about concluding a war.
But even when both these things are done, still the War, that is, the hostile feeling and action of hostile agencies, cannot be considered as at an end as long as the will of the enemy is not subdued also; that is, its Government and its Allies must be forced into signing a peace, or the people into submission; for whilst we are in full occupation of the country, the War may break out afresh, either in the interior or through assistance given by Allies. Oops, we are trying to kill Saddam and not get him to surrender.
The other principle that Clausewitz outlined has to do with the will of the enemy and the will of one's own troops. Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Our troops want out of Iraq. Most of America wants out of Iraq. Guess what will happen sooner or later? The only reason we are continuing with Bush's war crime is when it is all over, he wants to own Iraq's oil.
If only Bush remembered some of his utterances during his debates with Gore:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221011.html
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military's meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops."
"But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."
"I want to make sure we rebuild our military to keep the peace. I worry about morale in today's military. The warning signs are clear. It's time to have a new commander in chief who will rebuild the military, to pay our men and women more, and make sure they're housed better, and have a focused mission for our military."
Don't have cable, but I'm guessing Fox News is doing a hard-hitting report showing how things are getting better in Iraq right about now.
Many shots of US soldiers and Iraqi children throughout the piece.
Actually, yeah... well, it was on yesterday, but NECN had some stupid home decorating show on, so I switched to (shudder) Fox News.
You nailed it. Exactly. Their "report" from Iraq was like an infomercial for the Rumsfeld Army. This school reopened after being rebuilt by the heroes at Halliburton! This hospital got a fresh coat of paint! Iraqis love Americans and are learning to play basketball! Gee, isn't everything just SWELL?!?!
Made me absolutely sick, it was an utterly transparent attempt to whitewash the war.
I think it's pretty clear that a lot of American troops now look upon the Iraqis as some lesser species of insect -- like cockroaches, but not as cute.
This is a time-honored recipe for war crimes.
From Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq (pp. 168-9):
Author Sam Keen, who examined the iconography of war in his 1986 book Faces of the Enemy, noted that during wartime, countries frequently produce cartoons, posters, and other art that attempt to dehumanize their enemies by "exaggerating each feature until man is metamorphosized into beast, vermin, insect.... When your icon of the enemy is complete you will be able to kill without guilt, slaughter without shame."
As Instahack likes to say, "indeed."
praktike -
I'm not familiar with specific polls showing increased polarization, only articles indicating that either the country seems more polarized or both major parties are strategizing based on what they see as increased polarization. I've certainly been radicalized by BushCo, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
WE won the war in Vietnam, if only those peaceniks hadn't sabotaged things at home.
Are you serious? Or sarcastic?
I'm guessing sarcastic.
WE won the war in Vietnam, if only those peaceniks hadn't sabotaged things at home.
Are you serious? Or sarcastic? We got our asses handed to us in 'Nam, any way you look at it.
go to Tacitus and make that comment. my point is that the facts on the ground are really irrelevant. what is driving all of this is the unending political war for power in Washington DC. Your opinion of whether we are winning or losing/have won or lost in Iraq, Vietnam, anything anywhere depends on who you want to be powerful in our government.
the US will never have a war of necessity as long as geography means anything...
If only Bush remembered some of his utterances during his debates with Gore
Bush vs Bush
did anyone read david brooks’ column in the times comparing the iraqis drafting their constitution to the founding fathers?
http://nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/07BROO.html
this guy is definitely living in fantasyland . . .
You wonder whether the arrival of 10,000 Turkish troops is going to help. They are not going into Kurdish areas, but I cannot believe their presence will be welcomed anywhere in Iraq. Maybe pouring gasoline on the fire?
Bob H. 2:52
One theory is the the Bush administration doesn't have a clue about what it is doing. But maybe it does. Maybe the doctor ordered gasoline. From A Clean Break, Richard Perle et al's insufficiently famous position paper for Netanyahu (1996):
Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Turkish troops in Iraq may be unwelcome to Iraqis and resisted by the Turks, but they may have a role in a neocon fantasy about a redrawn Middle East.
4:21 post mine; name inadvertently omitted
praktike>
From what I can see, yes people are getting very pissed off.
From my point of view its like the little rich kid always mouthing off about how his position is superior and how dumb you are with that stupid know it all smirk on his face
At some point you just wanna bitch slap the little punk.
TedL,
" ... especially if it's our friends and neighbors over there in uniform whose heads are the targets for those paving stones."
Excuse me while I dare to doubt the humanitarian aspect of your post - but I sure am glad that you reminded us of just how much the life of your average Iraqi civilian counts - even in the eye of a so-called "liberal". Who gives a flying fsck about bullets, grenades and cluster bombs ripping thousands of civilians to shreds as long as your "neighbors" are in peril?
I don't want anyone to die in Iraq - neither civilians or coalition soldiers - but let's not forget who, tricked into it or not, is the occupying force here. And I am just beyond sick of these hollow-politically-correct-suburban-yuppie-bullshit phrases like "our friends and neighbors". Half of the people spouting this crap (not necessarily you, Ted) wouldn't have touched a GI with a 10ft pole two years ago - and now their eyes get all watery whenever they see a uniform. Bunch of fscking hypocrites.
At some point you just wanna bitch slap the little punk.
that's the best answer i've heard so far, shaun.
quote from http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6917585.htm
"We started shooting because we are Muslims first and policemen second. Besides, our job isn't to protect the Americans. It is to protect Iraqis.".
It's Rumsfield "we do'nt need any more troops" who intends to raise the number of soldiers in the Iraq army right?, to releave the pressure on the US army, right?
The Race Riots of the 1960s Civil Rights Struggle Were Motivated by the Same Alienation That Fueled the September 11 Attacks
by Walter Mosley
Burn Indeed
my point is that the facts on the ground are really irrelevant
Ah, yes, the favorite excuse of people with the facts against them. Facts prove you wrong? No problem! Just say facts don't matter. I suppose you (whoever you are, nameless troll*) will next argue that whether the British won or lost in India, or the French in Algeria, or the Soviets in Afghanistan, are entirely subjective because "the facts on the ground are really irrelevant." And, nameless troll, there really are people who decide based on evidence rather than cynical, Machiavellian political calculation. We may sound mythical to you, but we really do exist.
Afterthought: Taken to it's logical conclusion, this bit of nonsense says that the answer to the question "who won WWII?" is subjective and doesn't depend on facts, only political motives (emphasis added): "Your opinion of whether we are winning or losing/have won or lost in Iraq, Vietnam, anything anywhere depends on who you want to be powerful in our government." You're basing your entire argument on radical epistemological relativism, nameless troll. I guess Alan Sokal got his wish ("But my main concern isn't to defend science from the barbarian hordes of lit crit (we'll survive just fine, thank you). Rather, my concern is explicitly political: to combat a currently fashionable postmodernist/poststructuralist/social-constructivist discourse -- and more generally a penchant for subjectivism -- which is, I believe, inimical to the values and future of the Left."), just not quite how he intended.
*If you don't want me to call you "nameless troll", use a name. I can't just put a blank space.
condi, the fabulous, is gonna take charge, i say her and w and the gang on the tube, w was joking with colin about something funny. the chuckles went around the cabinet table. something about never finding out who leaked on the american people, snicker, snicker.
spring time for hitler, i mean arnie.
turks in iraq.... burn baby burn. i just wonder what the world will look like a year from now.....
condi, the fabulous, is gonna take charge, i say her and w and the gang on the tube, w was joking with colin about something funny. the chuckles went around the cabinet table. something about never finding out who leaked on the american people, snicker, snicker.
spring time for hitler, i mean arnie.
turks in iraq.... burn baby burn. i just wonder what the world will look like a year from now.....
" ... especially if it's our friends and neighbors over there in uniform whose heads are the targets for those paving stones
TedL, I agree with eff that I don't want anyone to die over in Iraq. But I will remind you that we have a volunteer Army, Reserve and National Guard. They have been receiving and spending their monthly checks all this time, many for decades, and now have finally been called to earn them irregardless of the rightness or wrongness of this war. It is what they agreed to, just like any contract you sign. Our local firemen get paid every month whether there are fires to go to or not, but for them to bemoan their cruel fate when they get to fight a fire is ridiculous. For our young men and women over there, it is like my son said when he marched off to Gulf War I: "Bad timing, mom, bad timing."
I hope we get them all back soon; yesterday would be quick enough for me. May they all be safe, and may the Iraqi people be safe as well. How did it go, hmmmmm, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
Germany didn't lose the war: it was stabbed in the back. WE won the war in Vietnam, if only those peaceniks hadn't sabotaged things at home.
I don't think Geos is making this argument, he's commenting on the mindset of someone who would make this argument. The stabbed in the back comment was made by Hitler in 20's and 30's
"The Bush administration has been especially eager to recruit troops from Muslim countries, such as Turkey, hoping they would be more welcome."
Albsolutely! Turks will be as welcome in Iraq as the Serbian troops being sent to muslim Afghanistan.(http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~1676498,00.html
Who's running this circus anyway? Condi?
But the title of the post was meant to be an allusion to the riots of the '60s, not a command to repeat them.
In any case, the Iraqis don't seem to need any guidance on that score.
Right. How could anyone possibly get the idea you were happy about it? I mean, I must have just pulled that one out of my ass.
As for the other folks who pointed out that I should have expressed some concern for the Iraqis, I agree. I focused on the troops because I figured Billmon had already made it clear he did much care what happened to the Iraqis; can't see any other way to read his glee about riots getting started.
How could anyone possibly get the idea you were happy about it? I mean, I must have just pulled that one out of my ass.
Well, yes, I think you did -- since that's where your brain seems to be located.
monkey, the point geos was making is that many americans believe that the us could have won the war in vietnam if it hadnt been for a bunch of sissy longhair freaks who were egged on by communist college professors. a similar argument was believed in post wwi germany, substituting jewish bankers and "politicians" as the villains. when the usa finally withdraws in disgrace from iraq, it will be blamed on people who opposed the war instead of the megalomaniacs who started it.
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
(via Atrios) New York Post: AWOL STATE OF MIND: CALLS FROM SOLDIERS DESPERATE TO LEAVE IRAQ FLOOD HOTLINE
....So worried is military brass about the prospect of desertion that many soldiers say they have been encouraged to take their leaves in Germany - a stopover - to avoid temptation stateside.
"The military is aware of how low troop morale is," said Teresa Panepinto, program coordinator of The GI Rights Hotline, a service that dates back to the Korean War. "They're concerned these people are going to come home and not go back."....
"But I will remind you that we have a volunteer Army, Reserve and National Guard."
Disclaimer: not for the faint of heart!! pulled from Al Jazeera under US pressure into The Memory Hole
via Cursor.org
Sorry, I lied!
The link to "The Memory hole" came from Agonist.org.
Apologies.
has anyone seen any hard evidence suggesting that people are angrier now than in the past?
No, this is almost exactly like the anger and deceit running loose through the Nixon/Viet Nam era.
The key difference, I think, is that after going through that particular hell once, our BS detectors are forever set to go off instantly whenever conditions indicate we are about to make a return trip through Satan's domain.
Werner, great cartoon. It would have also been perfectly appropriate during the American Civil War in the 1860s when new immigrants, mostly Irish, were pulled off their arriving ships, slapped into uniforms, and dropped off at the nearest battlefield. History continually repeats itself, unfortunately.
To answer praktike, has anyone seen any hard evidence suggesting that people are angrier now than in the past?, I agree with the above anonymous post that those of us who went through the Vietnam era have a distinct tendency to jump up a lot quicker this time around; we have been preconditioned to protest bullshit wars.
The deterioration in security was predicted, I think on Kos. Someone posted that, once the temperature eased down a little, it would be time for all hell to break loose. Things being too hot during mid summer.
Looks like someone knew their onions.
I think it's pretty clear that a lot of American troops now look upon the Iraqis as some lesser species of insect -- like cockroaches, but not as cute.
From Scott Taylor:
"When you've got Iraqis in civilian clothes and driving civilian cars ... you can't blame (the 82nd Airborne) for greasing those guys, even if they turned out to be policemen," said Sgt. Kostens, a section commander with the 1st Armored (Old Ironsides) Division. Kostens was hit by two grenade fragments during an ambush in late May. "Our guys are not about to start taking any chances. We are planning to survive the tour, get home safe and get the hell out of the army," Kostens concluded. "And God help any Iraqis who get in the way of that plan."
I repeatedly harped upon war crimes and the ineluctable cost to the souls (or spirit if you will) of our occupying forces well over two months ago; I'm saddened (but not surprised) to see that my worst fears have or soon will come true, and that bloggers are now catching up -- it will probably take mainstream media another six months.
Project for a New American Cemetery
Burn, baby, burn. . . I immediately thought of the following Bruce Cockburn song, which seems really on topic right about now.
Look away across the bay
Yankee gunboat come this way
Uncle Sam gonna save the day
Come tomorrow we all gonna pay...
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
Something dead under the bed
Local diplomats hang their heads
Never mind what the government said
They're either lying or they've been misled...
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
Phillipines was yesterday [updated lyrics June 2003] - Vietnam was yesterday
Santiago and Greece today [updated lyrics June 2003] - Kabul and Baghdad today
How would they ever make the late news pay
If they didn't have the CIA?
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
Here it comes, the loaded gun
"Must keep the Commies on the run " [updated lyrics June 2003] - gotta keep the bad guys on the run
You'd buy or bury everyone
For liberty and life
And just plain fun
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
gotta keep the bad guys on the run
The operational slur-term now is "Hadjis".
I read a great article about this several days ago, ( I'm searching in vain right now )including a decisive analysis how the Slur helps in dehuminizing the "Enemy". Resultantly for many GI's, there is no ethical dilemma in killing "the wrong guy/gal/baby" anymore, most GI's just want to survive their tour of duty and get out of the Army.
This is, what "bad morale" means in practice, and not Starship Troopers composing sombre Haikus.
I'd like to say a few words in defense of cockroaches: We're tough, adaptable and prolific. We've been around a lot longer than you have, and will without doubt inherit this planet after you're done trashing it.
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy."
I'd like to say a few words in defense of cockroaches: We're tough, adaptable and prolific. We've been around a lot longer than you have, and will without doubt inherit this planet after you're done trashing it.
Hah! A few more years, a little DNA surgery and voila, cockroach man -- an organism fit to survive for the next million years, come what may.
Hail! To cockroachman
For the Millenia Neocon
Right Wing Superman!
oops, Haiku cradit to me!
--"has anyone seen any hard evidence suggesting that people are angrier now than in the past?"--
Yeah. My index is my neighborhood church where back in 2001 I had to choke back my gall as folks would say "lord knows I love George Bush". Now at the Wednesday night suppers all I have to do is drop a starter pill and the whole table gets spittin' mad about Bush and his administration. They're not voting for him again because of the War and the economy... and because they think they've been lied to.
-- "I think it's pretty clear that a lot of American troops now look upon the Iraqis as some lesser species of insect -- like cockroaches, but not as cute." --
In that same church there's a guy who went ashore in the Iwo Jima invasions. He's talked about how it was drilled into them that the Japs were subhuman. He openly attestes that the mindset led to many many atrocities committed by American troops. No more so than the Japanese, mind you, but still a bit off from the legends that have since been drawn. I also remember my mother's WWII commercially produced scrap books where both the Germans and the Japs were cartoonized with pointed teeth and animalistic features. Then there were my father's astonished letters from just weeks after the war with Germany was over saying that they were pretty much just like us and that he liked them much better than the French and British. The truth is, and should be expected, that we all villianize those who think are a danger to our survival. It is the animal in us... the snarling dogs we become when threatended. Opportunistic Manicheism?
Billmon: American troops think of Iraqis as cockroaches?
First, that's inaccurate and insulting to me as a retired veteran.
Second (and more importantly): Comments like that fall so easily into the neocons' "If you're against this war then you're against the troops" trap. It's a nonsequitor but they love to use it.
Remember the real enemies are the chickenhawks and their policies. Not their pawns.
http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp09132003.html
'National Geographic reports that 85% of young Americans (18-24) cannot identify Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel on an unmarked map.'
Despite everything that's rumored about the most powerful of people in the world, I was secretly hoping that 6 months after the invasion of same country, well into a bloody war, this number would have improved somewhat. But i guess you should never misoverunderestimate the George Bush Electorate.