Is Crushing the Insurgency a Realistic Goal?

[Mattius_]

With the toppling of Fallujah, The army is saying that it can be crushed, but it seems to me that things just keep escalating. I don't know, is it that we don't have enough troops within Iraq to lock the country down? One of the principals we saw working was that when the vacuum was created when many forces moved towards fallujah and away from the smaller towns, the insurgency bit at our heels immediately. Does this mean that future actions towards progress will be held back by the insurgency keeping us at our posts?

Secondly, and maybe another point entirely, is that the insurgency seems to be reaming the new Iraqi police and military. Ofcourse many don't care for a body count of their forces lost, but it seems like every day a police station is attacked effectively. You always hear more stories about the insurgents actually killing the police as opposed to a whimpy mortar attack that is mostly for show.

 

[plover]

Report by Tom Lasseter of Knight-Ridder

Military officers, however, see little change in guerrilla tactics [since Fallujah].

"We haven't seen any recent difference in insurgent organization or tactics in our (area)," said 1st Lt. Wayne Adkins, a spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division. From the area the 1st Division oversees, stretching from north of Baghdad to north of Tikrit, "They are using the same intimidation tactics against Iraqis you see elsewhere in Iraq."

There are some bright spots. The once-volatile Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City is largely quiet now, thanks to a cease-fire between American troops and the militia of renegade cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

On Wednesday, gunmen battled American troops in Ramadi and fought with Iraqi police in Samarra, where a suicide bomber attacked a U.S. convoy. In Baghdad, two American soldiers were wounded when a car bomb struck their patrol.

 

[Bilal]

As person who knows well about Iraq, I can say the problem of American is the understanding of Iraqi society.

In this society if you kill one person or mistreat other, then all his cousins or his town should revenge, it is called ''sharaf or Karamah'' in Arabic .. which something close to ''honor'' . Unfortunately, the American do not have suitable advisers to tell them about the situation. They keep hearing the propaganda machine and ignoring the facts on ground.

People of ME do not live ‘’individuals ‘’, they live as small communities, and if one of these communities suffered, the others should not hesitate to help even if they lose their lives.

American came to Iraq thinking ‘’that evil Arab’’ understand only force, so kill more Arab to get more peace!

Unfortunately they are completely mistaken, and it is too late to correct the situation.The image of American solider in ME is link with (murdering civilians, bombing houses, raping, Sodomising …..)

Most of Iraqi police are rejected by society. People see them as tortures because they joined the occupation army. Such feelings are the same for all nations under occupation. You can not tolerate with Iraqi solider who fight with ‘’occupation’’ against his nation.

Freedom, war on terrorism, democracy, liberations….. is great principles t used by American, as all occupation armies through history did , to give moral background for their occupation.

It is difficult to tell people I come to occupy your country because I want you to accept my will and to work for my own interest. Through history, all invaders used to say we invaded others to liberate them or to modernize them.

 

[russ_watters]

Freedom, war on terrorism, democracy, liberations….. is great principles t used by American, as all occupation armies through history did , to give moral background for their occupation.

The US is the first country in history to actually mean it when we said it: in WWII.

 

[russ_watters]

With the toppling of Fallujah, The army is saying that it can be crushed, but it seems to me that things just keep escalating. I don't know, is it that we don't have enough troops within Iraq to lock the country down? One of the principals we saw working was that when the vacuum was created when many forces moved towards fallujah and away from the smaller towns, the insurgency bit at our heels immediately. Does this mean that future actions towards progress will be held back by the insurgency keeping us at our posts?

To some extent its like trying to put out an oil fire with water: you just splash the still-burning oil around.

Secondly, and maybe another point entirely, is that the insurgency seems to be reaming the new Iraqi police and military. Ofcourse many don't care for a body count of their forces lost, but it seems like every day a police station is attacked effectively. You always hear more stories about the insurgents actually killing the police as opposed to a whimpy mortar attack that is mostly for show.

This is of much larger concern than insurgents attacking American forces: if they were just attacking us, we could fix the problem by leaving. But clearly, this isn't just about killing Americans, its about preventing democracy.

The only solution I can see is martial law until the country can be rebuilt and government established. Prosperity tends to lessen hatred.

 

[wasteofo2]

.The image of American solider in ME is link with (murdering civilians, bombing houses, raping, Sodomising …..)

Most of Iraqi police are rejected by society. People see them as tortures because they joined the occupation army. Such feelings are the same for all nations under occupation. You can not tolerate with Iraqi solider who fight with ‘’occupation’’ against his nation.

So you don't believe the Americans are trying to help Iraq and that the Iraqi police and army are just puppets of America?

What if elections are held in January, what would your opinion of the new government be? Would you and others you know just automatically think they're also American puppets and can't be trusted, or will you have faith in them because they were voted in by the Iraqi people (assuming they are elected fairly)?

 

[kat]

Hmm Bilal...since the "insurgents" some even from Palestine (are you proud of them or?) are attacking civilians and not just Iraqi Police and army..the families of those murdered by the "insurgents" are going to want revenge against who? and support who?

 

[setAI]

of course it can be crushed- but since killing them only breeds more as a result of the memetic reaction- you would need to exterminate the majority of the Earth's populaton ANTZ style- bassicaly you would have to kill everyone who thought that killing billions was wrong-

if you had a good self-maintaining technological infrastructure you could just kill all but the few millions that you could tolerate and leave perhaps another billion for slaves

technology might allow you to avoid killing alltogether- if you could engineer a neural virus [prion nanotechnology? ]which turns it's victims into easily brainwashed/re-programmed meat-puppets- this has been a dream of the CIA for decades-

 

[Bilal]

Unfortunately, USA lost the war since Abu Gharib! , you can not liberate people by violating their basic rights.
It is war of choice … USA started it against the will of most of the people in the world. It is similar to the German invasion of Poland in 2WW.

2WW is completely different story ... otherwise why USA do not invade the other 90 countries in the world who suffer under dictatorship? What about N. Korea?

The US is the first country in history to actually mean it when we said it: in WWII.

 

[Bilal]

Election will not provide magic solution! Germany had election in 1933, and we know what the results!

I hope to see Iraq peaceful country after all these wars, but hopes are far from reality. The situation in Iraq is very bad …. May be we should wait many years to hear that Iraq is stable again (if Iraq still exists on the map in that time!) …..

We should face the reality instead of fooling ourselves … media just showing you what you like to hear …. But the real winner of occupation of Iraq is OBL and his supporters..!

So you don't believe the Americans are trying to help Iraq and that the Iraqi police and army are just puppets of America?

What if elections are held in January, what would your opinion of the new government be? Would you and others you know just automatically think they're also American puppets and can't be trusted, or will you have faith in them because they were voted in by the Iraqi people (assuming they are elected fairly)?

 

[Bilal]

The world is not only white and black! Or If you are not with me, then you are against me!

In Falluja , American sources admitted that only 25 non Iraqi fighters exist among 2500 fighters ...

I do not support bombing civilians, kidnapping workers and journalist, bombing mosques and churches ... of course I do not support also the American occupation and murdering of 100000 civilians /destruction of the country in the name of ''liberation''! I do not support the barbarism in Abu Gharib and the complete destruction of Falluja !

UN with help of Europe and ME should control Iraq till it become stable country. USA/UK has nothing to do in Iraq; they started this war to remove MDW, which they did not find them. Therefore they should withdraw after paying compensation to Iraqi people.

Hmm Bilal...since the "insurgents" some even from Palestine (are you proud of them or?) are attacking civilians and not just Iraqi Police and army..the families of those murdered by the "insurgents" are going to want revenge against who? and support who?

 

[klusener]

"Election will not provide magic solution! Germany had election in 1933, and we know what the results!"

Bilal, that's a classic point, there are people here proclaiming that the elections will bring about a new dawn of hope, as if right after the elections are held, all the Iraqis will rush to the American troops and throw flowers over them.. If the elections are held, they will only be nominal, not legitimate, US wants to hold elections for the sake of saying that elections have been held and iraq is now a democracy, but even if the elections are held, it will not be the voice of the whole people, maybe a few cities will participate, but again only the Shiites will control the new gov., the Sunnis will be ignored...

 

[Hurkyl]

I do not support bombing civilians, kidnapping workers and journalist, bombing mosques and churches ... of course I do not support also the American occupation and murdering of 100000 civilians /destruction of the country in the name of ''liberation''! I do not support the barbarism in Abu Gharib and the complete destruction of Falluja !

Did you support Saddam?

UN with help of Europe and ME should control Iraq till it become stable country. USA/UK has nothing to do in Iraq; they started this war to remove MDW, which they did not find them.

What leads you to believe that group would fare any better?

 

[klusener]

What leads you to believe that group would fare any better?

I really don't think that many Iraqis, except for those who can personally gain some hard cash or power from this occupation( invasion ), have a tiny bit of respect for the troops or the US administration anymore, when they have seen the lies and despicable actions of these aggressors in every day life, how can they respect them? How can they follow a country that has humiliated them...

now, i do feel that the iraqis want a democracy, every human being yearns for that freedom, but they don't want to get it through somebody who has degraded them in the name of "liberation."

Maybe someone with more respect, who doesn't say that there are WMDs in their country and doesn't waffle on the reasons, would be well received in Iraq... Like bilal says maybe Europe is the right continent do it, who knows, maybe Asia is..

P.S - I really don't want to place the blame on the Anglo-American troops that much, they are just following orders...

I am not supporting the insurgency either, as you can see from the second paragraph...

edit: oh god, i am waiting for the backlash from the Bush supporters and the people with "support the troops" signs here, i can almost sense it coming soon... but i will get through it by any means necessary.. (just reading up on M X Shabazz, so i had to slip that phrase in)

----------------------------------------
When the Europeans came, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said that this is the book of God and asked us to meditate. When we opened our eyes they had the land and we had the Bible.

- Jomo Kenyatta

 

[Hurkyl]

Looking back, I realize Bilal didn't even suggest that UN+Europe+ME was more capable, just that the USA/UK didn't have any business doing it. Sorry I misread you.

 

[Bilal]

Did you support Saddam?
What leads you to believe that group would fare any better?

-I hate Saddam more than any other human on the earth. I never respect any bloody dictator.. I hate Saddam since his war with Iran, since his crimes against his people, unlike Ramsfield who used to have 'warm' relations with him in 80s! Saddam supported Palestine, but I never welcome his support. I take my decision based on "human principles " not based on my own interests.

- Europe (except British government) has a lot of respect in ME. It is wise and old Continent and it is the origin of new civilization ... Just check how people in Algeria, Egypt and Palestine wave with French flags ... May be the sympathy and support of French journalists in Iraq from all the Islamic /Arab organization is another proof. Even Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah .. asked to release the French journalists...

- The other ME countries has strong relations with Iraqi people: Iran can control the Shia , Syria can control the Sunni and Christian, can control the Turkmen .. so most of Iraqi people will be under control of the neighbors ..

Simply, Iraq should be divided temporary among these countries (Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia) based on cultural/historical and religious relations for several years. Europe can help in establishing Federal democratic system based on Iraqi culture … this system should respect the rights of every individual in Iraq.

 

[plover]

Bilal:

What do Sunni think of Ayatollah Sistani? Do they respect or trust him? Or do Sunni mostly think of Shi'i leaders as heretics?

Do Iraqi Sunni think of Sistani differently than Sunni outside Iraq?

 

[Bilal]

Hi plover,

In fact what called shia / Sunni is new issue in Iraq. This country was the most secular in ME. People rarely care about religions or sectors. In, mid 90s, Saddam encouraged them to be religious, also the environment of war force people to return to the god.

Ayatollah Sistani is not Iraqi, he is Iranian. This is could be enough reason that many Iraqi (Sunni, Shia and others) can not trust him. (He care about Iran more than Iraq).

The Iraqi Shia leaders who were fighting Saddam are (Sadr family). Muqtada Sadr is looks like ‘’child’’ but because of the history of his family, he got a lot of respect among Shia and Sunni.

Mohammed Sadr and his sister Zaynab (Uncle and aunt of Muqtada Sadr) were arrested both in 1981. Saddam cut Zainab into pieces and burned her brother by acid.. till his bones disappeared.

Frankly, most of those new leaders of Iraq including Kurds leaders had shameful history; Allawi , Shaalan (defense Minister) , Chalabi …were former Baathists who murdered many innocent Iraqi people in 80s. Kurds leaders shake their hands with Saddam several times and accepted to be his alliance. Ayatollah Sistani did not do anything against Saddam; he showed his support because he wants to survive …

Failure of USA to find trusted and respectful alliance among the Iraqi people is one of main reasons that Iraqi resistance got more strength.

Bilal:

What do Sunni think of Ayatollah Sistani? Do they respect or trust him? Or do Sunni mostly think of Shi'i leaders as heretics?

Do Iraqi Sunni think of Sistani differently than Sunni outside Iraq?

 

[Hurkyl]

I hate Saddam more than any other human on the earth.

Okay, so you hate Saddam, and you don't support the American invasion -- fine. It's still important to ask yourself which one you prefer.

Here's a philosophical question to ask yourself: is it better to support the lesser of two evils, or to allow the greater to perpetuate?

I would expect that most people who supported the invasion merely found it to be a better alternative, rather than a desirable state of affairs.

Just check how people in Algeria, Egypt and Palestine wave with French flags

What about, say, Côte d'Ivoire? Most of what I read about modern African history suggests an intense hatred of Eurpoeans.

But anyways, you're speaking about (your perception of) popular opinion, but I had asked what makes you think Eurpoeans and the U.N. are more capable of mounting an effective occupation, and more capable of building a new nation?

And, frankly, as far as I can tell, only a small percentage of the current violence in Iraq is against the Americans, and only a small percentage of that would change if you replaced the Americans with some other western power.



Addendum: I focus on these two particular issues, rather than others, mainly because in my eyes they appear to be heavily influenced by propaganda and public opinion rather than substance, a particular pet peeve of mine.

 

[Bilal]

Dear Hurkyl,

Okay, so you hate Saddam, and you don't support the American invasion -- fine. It's still important to ask yourself which one you prefer.

Here's a philosophical question to ask yourself: is it better to support the lesser of two evils, or to allow the greater to perpetuate?

I would expect that most people who supported the invasion merely found it to be a better alternative, rather than a desirable state of affairs.

To compare who more evil USA or Saddam, we should wait till the end of American occupation to count who murdered and destroyed more …

- Do we know what really USA planning for? If USA just wants to establish democratic State in Iraq and withdraw within short time, I do believe that nobody will opposite them! The problem that we can not trust USA government. The speech of Bush about Freedom, liberation, is the same speech of French-English Imperialist before just 50 years. USA is not charitable organization to waste hundreds billions of Dollars and thousands of soldiers for the ‘’interest of Iraqi people’’. To know why people can not trust the invaders, just check the modern history of ME and compare it till now. I wish you know the story of Palestine and how the British occupation army broke its promises and gave our country to the European Jews?
- Why USA did not let the UN to be responsible about Iraq?
- Why USA did not create democratic government in Kuwait (liberated by USA in 1990)?
- Why USA allows Israel to 90 UN resolutions and let them to get nuke?
- Why the war in Iraq is got ‘’religious and racist cover’’ … (e.g. Crusade, Christian activities in Iraq, anti Islam and anti Arab propaganda in USA…)
- Why USA using the same tactics of Israel in Iraq?
- Why only Zionists/extremists Christian is enthusiastic for this war? Is it accidentally that the people who planned this war are extremists Zionist who hate Arab and Islam? (E.g. Wolf, Fieth , Perele?)
- If American are liberators, why the last pictures of tutoring the Iraqi prisoners dated: May 2003, which means the American soldiers came to punish the Iraqi and they did not do their crimes as reply on Iraqi resistance ….


What about, say, Côte d'Ivoire? Most of what I read about modern African history suggests an intense hatred of Eurpoeans.?

Europe has not peaceful history in the third world countries … but the situation changed after 2WW. At least they learned from their history….


But anyways, you're speaking about (your perception of) popular opinion, but I had asked what makes you think Eurpoeans and the U.N. are more capable of mounting an effective occupation, and more capable of building a new nation?


Because people trust UN and Europe more than USA and UK. The problem is not with removing of Saddam, but with the hidden agenda of the neoconservatives (who are full by hate and racism against our nations). If the Palestinian resisted the British occupation in 20s, they could live in peace in their homeland now! Unfortunately, they believed the British and they let them to stay several years till they created Israel and caused permanent conflict for generations … simply , the Iraqi do not want to repeat the Palestinian mistake.

And, frankly, as far as I can tell, only a small percentage of the current violence in Iraq is against the Americans, and only a small percentage of that would change if you replaced the Americans with some other western power.

I did not say to replace American occupation by western occupation! Just I want UN to arrange everything without USA and UK : Arab and Muslims countries should send armies to replace the Anglo American forces, then Europe should provide experts to establish new democratic Iraq …..

 

[daster]

Hurkyl, I'm Iraqi and I detest Saddam. However, I'd rather have him rule Iraq tyrannically than have the USA, or any other country for that matter, destroy it. That's just my opinion.

The damage the USA has done while "liberating" Iraq is irreparable. Iraqi culture, one of the most vital elements in the Iraqi society, is simply something the USA doesn't understand. The Iraqi people aren't seeing the occupation as a ray of hope for freedom, democracy and justice. They're seeing an enemy trying to force its ideals into their way of life, and fiddling with their culture in that process. And like other Middle-Easterners, Iraqis will not forsake their culture and way of life that easily. Sure, some might support the ideals imposed by the USA, but many would rather die than see their ideals lost.

Many Middle-Easterners blame the USA for the unfortunate state the Middle-East is in. Let me elaborate... The rising generation of Arabs/Muslims is arguably the worst one yet. This generation has abandoned the Arabic & Islamic way of life and replaced them with some of the worse Western aspects. Now, when an old-fashioned Arab/Muslim comes along and sees all these teenagers picking up these bad habits, what do you suppose goes through his mind? He'd think that the youth is leaving the proper traditions behind and is picking up the traditions of those who are killing Muslims, attacking their countries and aiding Israel in occupying Palestine. He'd feel that the Arabic and Islamic world is losing to a horribly cunning enemy, and he doesn't intend to sit there and watch it happen.

You might not like it, but this is a very common mindset in the Middle-East. And the actions of the U.S. Government are not making the situation any better.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[plover]

In fact what called shia / Sunni is new issue in Iraq. This country was the most secular in ME. People rarely care about religions or sectors. In, mid 90s, Saddam encouraged them to be religious, also the environment of war force people to return to the god.

Did Saddam encourage religion because life in Iraq was bad under sanctions? So, before the mid 90s, he encouraged secular culture? Did Saddam ever try to prevent Shi'i pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala?

Ayatollah Sistani is not Iraqi, he is Iranian. This is could be enough reason that many Iraqi (Sunni, Shia and others) can not trust him. (He care about Iran more than Iraq).

I thought Ayatollah Sistani was the most influential person among the 'ulama in Iraq. He is organizing most of the Shi'i candidates for the election (plus some from other factions), so many people must trust him – or is this description too simple?

Frankly, most of those new leaders of Iraq including Kurds leaders had shameful history ...

Failure of USA to find trusted and respectful alliance among the Iraqi people is one of main reasons that Iraqi resistance got more strength.

Even to some in America, it was obvious that invading Iraq using advice from Chalabi would be a disaster. I do not know why the neocons believed that the Iraqis would trust him.

 

[Bilal]

Dear plover,

Did Saddam encourage religion because life in Iraq was bad under sanctions? So, before the mid 90s, he encouraged secular culture? Did Saddam ever try to prevent Shi'i pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala?

Baath ideology based on ‘’anti religion’’ especially the political Islam. They succeeded to rule Syria and Iraq in 60s. In both countries , they destroyed completely the Islamic organizations (with zero tolerance) … also they trust the religious minorities more than majority (Sunni in Syria and Shia in Iraq).

Saddam rejected any kind of political Islam; even he did not let Muslims to practice their religion freely. Of course, he prevents Shi'i pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala, beside that he did not let Sunni Muslims to use their mosques in education or any religious activities except short time for daily sermons . He did his best to convert the Iraqi society into extreme secular. He gave complete rights for women (the same as western women) and religious minorities (especially Christian). Also he provided free education for females/males till they get their PhD degree (no wondering that Iraqi was the most educated people in ME with many well known scientists).

He got support of the West because he was secular, so he tried to play with this card against USA/UK during the sanction in 90s; also he wanted to let his nation to return to the religion to reduce the suffering due to the sanction and the daily bombing by UK-USA air forces.


I thought Ayatollah Sistani was the most influential person among the 'ulama in Iraq. He is organizing most of the Shi'i candidates for the election (plus some from other factions), so many people must trust him – or is this description too simple?

Muslims Shia (unlike Sunni) follow completely their religious men or leaders of their religious schools. In Iraq, there are several shia religious schools … Sistani , Hakim and Sadr are the most popular. Of course all the supporters of Sistani and Hakim schools (Iranian schools) will follow their orders. I do not know about their popularity, but I do not deny that Sistani representing one of most popular religious shia schools in Iraq …

Even to some in America, it was obvious that invading Iraq using advice from Chalabi would be a disaster. I do not know why the neocons believed that the Iraqis would trust him.

USA accepted those Iraqi because they have strong relations with Israel. Every Iraqi accepts to have strong relation with Israel will be good candidate for American goverment. No wondering that Chalabi and others are working together with Israeli business men and politicians. Even they talk a lot about giving Iraqi nationality to the Israeli from Iraqi origin, paying compensation for the Iraqi Jews and to export Iraqi oil through Israel ….. This means they (Chalabi … etc) care about Israel more than the Iraqi people who need every cent in this hard time.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do we know what really USA planning for?

Nope.

Do we know that the U.N. will set up a government with Iraq's best interests at heart?

Do we know that, given your plan, Iraq's neighbors would be willing to give up their control of Iraq?

I've already read reports that Iran is trying to gain as much control of Iraq as it can...

USA is not charitable organization to waste hundreds billions of Dollars and thousands of soldiers for the ??interest of Iraqi people??.

It's been done before. *shrug*


- Why USA did not let the UN to be responsible about Iraq?
U.N. had been responsible for... 10 years, was it?

- Why USA did not create democratic government in Kuwait (liberated by USA in 1990)?
I didn't realize that there was a problem with Kuwait's current government.

- Why USA allows Israel to 90 UN resolutions and let them to get nuke?
Forgive me, there seems to be a word or two missing, and I can't figure out just what you mean. As for the existence of a nuke, I've only heard conspiracy theories, but I can't say I've looked into it.

- Why the war in Iraq is got ??religious and racist cover?? ? (e.g. Crusade, Christian activities in Iraq, anti Islam and anti Arab propaganda in USA?)
I live in the US, and haven't seen any of these. In fact, there is pro-Muslim, pro-Arab propaganda, to counter the fact that some individuals misplace their anger against terrorists.

- Why USA using the same tactics of Israel in Iraq?
I didn't know they were the same. Besides, the way the US coalition and Israel have handled insurgency is pretty dang mild compared to just about every other historical example I can remember at the moment.

- Why only Zionists/extremists Christian is enthusiastic for this war?
I didn't know that was the case. But it doesn't matter who's enthusiastic for war -- it matters who thought war was the better alternative. Most of them weren't enthusiastic.

- If American are liberators, why the last pictures of tutoring the Iraqi prisoners dated: May 2003, which means the American soldiers came to punish the Iraqi and they did not do their crimes as reply on Iraqi resistance ?.
Again, I can't figure out exactly what you mean. Media, in general, likes to report bad stuff, especially the al-jazeera network. You can find plenty of good stuff too, if you want to look for it.

Because people trust UN and Europe more than USA and UK.

You missed it again. Trust does not equate to greater capability. Nor does ulterior motives equate to lesser capability. Frankly, I'd imagine that all the scrutiny would make it more likely that the US would do it right.

 

[plover]

- Why the war in Iraq is got ??religious and racist cover?? ? (e.g. Crusade, Christian activities in Iraq, anti Islam and anti Arab propaganda in USA?)
I live in the US, and haven't seen any of these. In fact, there is pro-Muslim, pro-Arab propaganda, to counter the fact that some individuals misplace their anger against terrorists.

Bush has used the term 'crusade'. And this statement by Ann Coulter has apparently become notorious in some circles in the ME: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." While you or I might not take her seriously, how will people who have never been to a Western country and have no predisposition to trust us interpret her outward popularity here?

And as someone else who lives in the US, the statement that there is any pro-Arab or pro-Muslim voice with much influence in our public discourse seems a bit bizarre. What are you referring to?

Because people trust UN and Europe more than USA and UK.

You missed it again. Trust does not equate to greater capability. Nor does ulterior motives equate to lesser capability. Frankly, I'd imagine that all the scrutiny would make it more likely that the US would do it right.

The scrutiny you mention was not the engine that brought the horrors of Abu Ghraib to light—let alone it having the ability to prevent them. As far as I can tell, however much Americans may have let Abu Ghraib be swept into the background, for many in the ME (and I suspect, the rest of the world), it remains the foremost example of the level of respect the US government holds for Iraqis. Why should people in the ME trust the US government when there has been no action—either symbolic, or in the form of some real redress—that comes even close to acknowledging the degree to which the Arab world felt wounded by these events? (And why anyone would think putting Lynndie England & co. on trial sufficient is beyond me.) Why should people in the ME trust the US government when even Bush's most visible opponent (Kerry) could not be heard condemning Abu Ghraib with any vigor?

While ulterior motives per se does not equate to lesser capability, it seems to me that you are defining "capability" to be such things as physical resources and expertise (both technical and organizational). I think a better term for this might be "means". Overall "capability" or "effectiveness" most certainly includes trust—it is much easier to accomplish something if the people you are working with accept your motives as honorable, and thus if (or, in any real world: when) things go wrong, you can receive the benefit of the doubt and keep the lines between mistakes, petty corruption, and ulterior goals clear. The way the Bush administration waffles over or outright denies their mistakes makes it impossible to determine those lines with any meaningful certainty even for those of us in America, how much more difficult must it be for those who have much less reason to trust us?

 

[Hurkyl]

Bush has used the term 'crusade'. And this statement by Ann Coulter ...

I'm not familiar with either, but I'm hardly omniscient and won't attempt to deny it.

And as someone else who lives in the US, the statement that there is any pro-Arab or pro-Muslim voice with much influence in our public discourse seems a bit bizarre. What are you referring to?

I was referring to the television ad campaigns. Maybe I'm just the only one that pays attention to commercials. *sigh*

 

[russ_watters]

Bush has used the term 'crusade'.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417.html !

“Leading a Global Crusade Against Terrorism” [emphasis added]

Are you saying Islam is synonomous with terrorism, plover?

I didn't pick that site intentionally to pick on Kerry (it came up high on a google search for "bush iraq crusade quote"), but Kerry's attempt to imply religious motivation for the war made him look really bad.

 

[plover]

russ:

The main instance of Bush using the word 'crusade' is in http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html shortly after 9/11. (I thought this was well known—plus, it's also mentioned in your link. I was not actually aware of the campaign flap.) Bush released the word into the world press ecosystem and that's what is remembered, not his later statement that he regretted saying it—especially given that the original statement was made live for the cameras, and the retraction seems (I haven't done an exhaustive search) to have been just a press release.

 

[russ_watters]

russ:

The main instance of Bush using the word 'crusade' is in http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html shortly after 9/11. (I thought this was well known—plus, it's also mentioned in your link. I was not actually aware of the campaign flap.)

Right, and the context is exactly the same:

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.[emphasis added]

So I ask you again: are you equating Islam with terrorism? (or are you just falsely accusing Bush of doing that?)

 

[Bilal]

Right, and the context is exactly the same: So I ask you again: are you equating Islam with terrorism? (or are you just falsely accusing Bush of doing that?)

May be I can say my opinion about this comment:

The neoconservatives (who rule USA) believe that Islam (even Arab culture) and terrorism are the same. Of course top politician (e.g. Bush) can not say that frankly (at least now!) but you should read for those who plan the strategy of the government.

Here are just examples of books and articles, which written by people who represent the ideology of neoconservatives:

1) Richard Perle , one of well known neoconservatives and one of three people who planned the war on Iraq wrote recently book called end of evil :

DAVID FRUM, RICHARD PERLE "



If you read this book which is considered as ‘’strategy of neoconservatives’’, they ask to destroy all the Muslims countries and to force them to live under military American rule. They believe that Islam as religion and Arab as race are the sources of evil and terrorism.(beside France and Russia)


2) Ann Coulter : one of representatives of the neoconservatives ideology :

http://www.anncoulter.org/

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'). She also referred to: "(The Prophet) Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill non-believers whenever possible."


3) Graham – spiritual father of Bush:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/93/story_9367_1.html

NBC News" reported Friday that when asked to clarify his statement, Graham repeated his charge that Islam, as a whole, was evil. "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn't Lutherans," he said. "It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."
Here is one of articles about those evangelical Christian (Church of Bush):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081432
((Graham is also, he says, "poised and ready" to send representatives of the charity he runs to Iraq as soon as possible. His primary purpose is humanitarian aid—providing food and shelter—but he also admits, "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. … We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian, I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."))

 

[Bilal]

What about bio-terrorism? What about Anthrax letters?

As we know that bio-Terrorism is the most dangerous thread on humanity, so why we did not know anything about the people who did such attacks?

Those terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder, so they can use it to kill millions of people …..

Will the white house react the same if Muslims behind the anthrax letters or they will use it as excuse to destroy another countries?

Why terrorism is get attention ONLY if Muslims behind it?
Why the USA ask the Arab and Muslims to change everything (media, textbooks …. Etc) and they let Hollywood and many journalist to attack the Arab and Islam by showing them as terrorists, savages and evil people?

Why anti Jews (or what called anti Semite) is crime, while anti Arab or anti Islam is accepted and encouraged by neoconservative and their spiritual leaders?

Why USA force Muslims countries to respect the resolutions of the UN (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan …) and throw in the trash the anti Israeli resolutions?

 

[plover]

are you equating Islam with terrorism?

I'm not quite sure what to do with a question like this. The first time you asked, I assumed it was just random nastiness. Is this the case? I find it hard to believe your lack of insight into my thinking is so great that you can ask this seriously. Am I wrong? Perhaps there's some grand motive here beyond 'bait the liberal' that I'm missing?

So here's an answer: no. So do you know anything you didn't know before? Or is it just satisfying to manipulate me into making an answer? (Maybe I should start giving false answers to obviously illegitimate questions, just to see what kind of screwed up positions you're willing to attribute to me.)

(or are you just falsely accusing Bush of doing that?)

Was there something ambiguous about the sentence "Bush has used the term 'crusade'"? I imputed no motive to Bush. The overall purpose of the post was to propose an explanation of how actions by Americans have translated into perceptions in the ME. The part that's least likely to be lost in translation is the symbolism, not the context. Saying that 'jihad' means 'holy war' is like saying 'weather' means 'hurricane'—sure it's an example of the concept (an especially violent one), but it doesn't explain the concept, and doesn't show what it means to people on an everyday basis. But how do most Americans react to the word jihad? Why should most Middle Easterners react differently to the word 'crusade'? If I'm accusing Bush of anything, it is of making a grand rhetorical error, the negative effects of which might have been prevented by a far more humble public apology than Bush has ever shown himself capable, but which more than likely were overdetermined from the moment he opened his mouth.

 

[Hurkyl]

Those terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder, so they can use it to kill millions of people ?..

Any references? I don't remember it being any more than a handful (and a huge scare), and I would like to know if it was otherwise.

 

[plover]

Why terrorism is get attention ONLY if Muslims behind it?

Do you know about Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Kaczinski (the "Unabomber")? They are both American terrorists. McVeigh killed over 200 people when he blew up a government building in Oklahoma. Kaczinski killed several professors with mail bombs. Both received a lot of attention in America. There are certainly groups in America that the FBI considers to be potential terrorist groups—largely what are called "white supremacist" groups (meaning groups who believe white Europeans are a favored race, and often take parts of their philosophy from Nazism; their hatred is largely directed against black Americans, but also Jews and sometimes Catholics; the best known example is the Ku Klux Klan). McVeigh was connected with such groups. Kaczinski was motivated by his own peculiar (and extreme) theories of environmentalism and hatred of corporations.

However, it is also true that since 9/11, the American people and media have focused on Muslim terrorists. And I doubt any white supremacist group has ever been arrested on evidence as flimsy as that which was used to justify imprisoning Arab-Americans (and Canadian and British Arabs) in Guantanamo.

Will the white house react the same if Muslims behind the anthrax letters or they will use it as excuse to destroy another countries?

I think (though I may be wrong) that the FBI believes that the anthrax letters were not sent by Muslims, but rather by an American group (perhaps one with aims similar to McVeigh's).

 

[plover]

Those terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder, so they can use it to kill millions of people ?..

Any references? I don't remember it being any more than a handful (and a huge scare), and I would like to know if it was otherwise.

I think Bilal's sentence was intended to mean:

Since we know that 'terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder', they could use that knowledge to make enough 'to kill millions of people'.
​

This, at least, is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me in context.

I was referring to the television ad campaigns. Maybe I'm just the only one that pays attention to commercials.

I don't think I've seen anything like this. Do you remember when (and on what channel(s)) you saw them?