Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 211 To 220 Of 246 Comments
NIE ON IRAQ PUTS BURDEN FOR PROGRESS ON IRAQIS
Oh, and on the Karbala attack, re:insurgent spec ops;
http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/4-us-troops-announced-killed-troops.html#c117044156539816444
Interetingly complex operation run by Sunni insurgents. I don't see why they could do this but not the Karbala raid.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.02.2007 @ 04:51
"And at the moment, amnesty is a non-starter for Maliki who would have to please both the radical Shias represented by Sadr and the Americans who would not look kindly on pardoning insurgents who killed our soldiers."
I am curious why you never comment on the Badr Brigade,
"Because of their opposition to Saddam Hussein, the Badr Brigade was seen as a U.S. asset in the fight against Baathist partisans. After the fall of Baghdad, Badr forces reportedly joined the newly-reconstituted army, police and Interior Ministry in significant numbers..[snip]..The Badr organization has allegedly been involved in many incidents of kidnapping, beating and torturing Sunni Iraqis, reports appeared that they were also attacking and murdering gay Iraqis. [1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Organization
It strikes me that these guys are at least as much trouble as Sadr's lot. Why do you not concern yourself with them?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 2.02.2007 @ 14:19
THEY JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES
"I lost a friend in this war, but I don’t think even I’m able to fathom the feeling of betrayal and rage Arkin’s comments have engendered in those who’ve seen themselves and friends bloodied and broken in front of their own eyes"
They feel betray more by some journalist than they do by the administration who put them in harms way in such a mendacious and careless manner?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 2.02.2007 @ 02:41
"Did you notice that the Washington Post article was in the Metro section? Can you say ‘buried it’?"
What do you think is front page worthy about it?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.02.2007 @ 16:01
"Do you seriously not understand why the Code Pinko protests at Walter Reed might reflect poorly on the anti-war “movement,†or are you simply trying to provoke an argument?"
Are you seriously suggesting that the US media as a whole is anti-war?
Or that Code-Pink would not want their demo publicised?
Hell, they've been there since at least 2005. I mean, I don't know much about Code Pink, but the photos at the link aren't exactly inflammatory;
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=476
As for the MSM not reporting the vigil, well, I found the Washington Post article after about a minute's googling (circulation 600,000 odd);
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901250.html?referrer=emailarticle
And, from the Fox news (biggest TV news share isn't it),
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167017,00.html
It isn't as if the vigil gets front page every day, but it is, frankly, very old news.
Fron the Fox article,
"Maimed for a Lie" that the wounded soldiers come in and out of the main entrance at Walter Reed Hospital, that's hard to say they're putting on a vigil. They don't like the word "protest." I heard chanting that night that George Bush — last Friday night — "George Bush Kills American Soldiers."
Well, since the case for war was pretty much based on, at least, deliberately scewed facts, "Maimed for a lie" is accurate if not nuanced. It doesn't mean that they deserved it. As for "George Bush Kills Americans", hyperbole perhaps. "George Bush send Americans into harms way without sufficient planning, equipment or mission and ends up getting them killed for no good reason" is more accurate, but not really snappy enough for a banner.
And no, I don't think that protesting for veteran's benefits does hurt the Anti-War case. It isn't as if they are screaming "Baby Killers" at them.
"They successfully fooled enough of the American people into actually believing they cared a tinkers’ damn about the troops or about the United States for that matter."
Is it possible for you to believe that the majority of people on the left do support the troops as individuals while not supporting the way that they have been used? And that they honestly believe that it is America's best interests not to get involved in no-win wars like Iraq? Or do you think that it is more likely that they are self-righteous liars who hate soldiers and want the USA to go down the pan?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.02.2007 @ 11:28
"The press was extremely careful not to report these demonstrations. Gather half a dozen anarchists, greens, or moveon.org types on a street corner asking people to “honk for impeachment†and that will get you a page 3 write up in most newspapers. But somehow, there were no reporters available to cover these demonstrations at Walter Reed that showed such monumental disrespect for the volunteers who have suffered wounds in service to their country."
Colour me confused, but, since the whole point of demonstrations are to gain publicity, how can not reporting a demo be an act in its favour?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.02.2007 @ 10:00
"We haven’t seen many operations that showed the kind of intensive training and discipline that would be the hallmark of Special Forces. In fact, the insurgents and militias are so ill trained and undisciplined that whenever they stand toe to toe with our boys, we win easily. Unless one speculates that this is among the first operations carried out by a Special Ops force that has been in hiding for nearly 4 years, it just isn’t likely that Saddam era commandos were involved in the Karbala attack."
Well, again there are possible responses to this.
Say, for example, that a couple of ex-spec ops guys were running their own little local insurgent groups. Staging this sort of action would be very tricky, while running some of the constant IED attacks (and there are a lot more of these than there are, say, car bombings) would probably take up a great deal of your working life. It is possible that this is a sign that groups are simply becoming more sophisticated in their organisation and daring, along with an opportunity presenting itself.
On the other hand, the fact that no-one has stepped up and said "It was us! Allah Akbar!" doesn't lend support this line. I'm still agnostic about this one. Awaiting further information.
"A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News... for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it."
Or, and I put this out merely as speculation, because it is an unconvincing pile of the proverbial.
Of course, this is unlikely. Since when has the Bush administration deliberately twisted intel to paint a picture that they wanted painted?
This is one of my problems with drawing conclusions on these reports. Every side has such clear motives to lie that pretty much nothing any of them, Iran, US military, Iraqi government, Sadr, Al-Q, any of them, says can be trusted. They are all fighting propeganda wars in their own way.
"With Iran contributing to the deaths of Americans and Iraqis, it makes pacifying the country even more of an imperative."
With all respect, it is also a feat of the imagination. If Iran is truly playing in Iraq as a destabalising force then there is no hope. We already clearly cannot cope with the Sunni nationalist insurgency, nor can we deal with Jihaddist insurgents, nor can we deal with Al-Sadr. We have dealt with the Badr by simply rebadging them the "Iraqi Police Force", and, frankly, we are propping up a Pro-Iranian regime in Bagdhad. If the Iranians really want to play then who do we support? Al-Sadr is obviously out, Malaki (Dawa, SCIRI, Sistani, et al) are on the wrong side so aren't our buddies, Jihaddis would rather eat GI eyeballs on a stick than cooperate, Sunnis are too weak. Even the Kurds are clearly standing in the dark corner of the pub watching the fight and keeping protective hands in front of their pints. Who's left? All the power blocks in Iraq are ranged against us, just some of them want us to obliterate (or provide cover for them to obliterate) their enemies.
Frankly, it is looking more and more likely that a secular nationalist Sunni strongman would be the only thing that could truly be called a US victory.
And if anyone thinks "Traitor, you just don't want to win", I desperately wish my assesment of the situation wasn't true, and that Iraq could be a secure, stable place to live. It isn't going to happen though. In fact, I'll happily put down $100 that next year things in Iraq are as bad or worse than they are today.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 31.01.2007 @ 12:04
"By using the military resources we currently have staged in that area; two Aircraft Battle Groups, 4 minesweepers, two Marine Amphibious Assault Groups and what we are currently sending that way we could take over Iran’s offshore oil production platforms and offshore terminals. This could be accomplished with minimal collateral damage to civilian population and infrastructure."
There is the teensy point to be made that this would be blatant aggressive warfare and occupation no better than Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and of course it would put the seal once and for all on America's ability to project "soft" power.
Also the minor point that you'd be facing a constant fourth generation war while you held the bases.
"If this were done I believe that that we would mitigate the ill will of the Iranian populace generated by the initial military action."
You dream I am afraid. The Iranians would think of this just as you would think of an Iranian government force taking most of Texas and promising to share the proceeds on the provision that you accept Sharia law in the US.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 31.01.2007 @ 16:08
"I often wonder what the “anti-war†opposition would look like, or if it would exist at all, if Sen. Kerry was the 43rd President of the United States, and had done the same thing as the current President."
www.antiwar.com is a good example of an anti-war stance carried through by non-liberals throughout democratic and republican governments.
Plus, anti-war feeling in the UK is strong even though it is the party of the left running the government.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 30.01.2007 @ 10:37
"Would we be “overreacting†if we took the action we are taking now – including the invasion of Iraq – after a couple of our cities are destroyed? This is the essence of our strategy – pre-emption."
Well, if Iraq wasn't involved in the attacks in any way, yes, it would be an overreaction.
Or are you claiming that Iraq *was* involved in the 911 attacks?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.01.2007 @ 18:09
