An interesting observation from Ilan Goldenberg: When Ahmadenijad is planning to visit Iraq, he announces his trip well in advance much in the way that leaders normally do before visiting foreign countries. But when George Bush goes to Iraq, security concerns dictate that the visit take place in secret with no advance notice. This even though the country in question is currently under US military occupation. Or perhaps rather than "even though" we should say because.
« In Context | Main | Sebelius: We Count! »
Walking the Streets
16 Feb 2008 03:07 pm
Comments (27)
Fair point. But enough people in Iraq may want to take a crack at Ahmadenijad that's it not necessarily wise from the point of view of his own security.
If Iran had invaded Iraq, I'm sure Ahmadinejad would have the same problem.
Iran didn't invade Iraq? Let me check into that and get back to you.
IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often, and spread it around.
Dana, yes of course Iran has in the past invaded Iraq. But Iran, unlike the US, I not currently at war in Iraq. I'm just puzzled as to why Ilan and Matt think it is an interesting observation that the president of a country that is at war in Iraq would have somewhat less freedom to move about than the president of a country that is not at war in Iraq.
That's understandable - there's only so many hugs, candies and flowers George W Bush can take in a short visit. He should be bringing the Cheneys, the Kristols, the Kagans and other famous Iraq benefactor with him to share all that chocolate and roses.
"when a country is at war its head of state cannot just waltz into the war zone?"
This is inadvertently funny, as it seems to say that Bush is the Iraqi head of state. I realize that isn't the meaning intended by the writer, but in fact, the US isn't "at war" in Iraq. It is an occupying military power in a country that is in a civil war. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is the head of state of a country at war. He can't just waltz into the war zone that is his own country, either.
As far as I'm aware, we are not currently at war with Iraq. The government of Iraq is friendly to us - in fact, we've installed it.
Well, as I've said before, I think a case can be made that the Iraqi Resistance to American occupation is about the most ferocious and effective of that of any conquered country seen in modern historical times.
In relative terms, America's occupation of South Vietnam really was a case of rose-petals and kisses and the same could probably be said of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
The "resistance" to the Nazi Occupation of most of Western/Central Europe was so non-existent that it didn't even really exist.
As far as I'm aware, we are not currently at war with Iraq.
Correct. That is why I said we are at war in Iraq.
"That is why I said we are at war in Iraq."
Of course, "we" aren't at war *in* Iraq, either. We are *in* Iraq as an occupying military power, but the "war" in Iraq is a civil war being fought among Iraqis, principally between Sunni and Shia.
Of course, "we" aren't at war *in* Iraq, either.
Tell it to thousands (or, probably, tens of thousands) of Iraqis killed by American bombs last year.
I think the neocon response to this observation is going to be that it proves Iran is behind the insurgency.
If Iran is supplying weapons and aid to the insurgency, why should Ahmadenijad be afraid to visit? What's Matt's point?
"Tell it to thousands (or, probably, tens of thousands) of Iraqis killed by American bombs last year."
I'd prefer to be able to tell them that we're sorry and we're leaving ASAP.
Is your point that because we blow up Iraqi civilians, we're at war with Iraq?
Well, obviously the American government is involved in some kind of large-scale military operation in Iraq, there's no sense denying it, right? With shootings, bombings, thousands of casualties, the whole enchilada. So, if that's not 'war', what does the word 'war' mean, then?
Iran invaded Iraq? Wasn't it the other way around?
He likely has reason to fear for his safety during an advance publicized visit to certain U.S. locales. Clear line of sight scouting by a courageous patriot might constitute an excessive, imprudent risk.
"Well, obviously the American government is involved in some kind of large-scale military operation in Iraq, there's no sense denying it, right?"
Who's denying it?
I'll post it here for the third time: the American government is involved in a *military occupation* of the nation of Iraq. Yes, it is a "large-scale" military occupation. The occupation, like all military occupations, involves lethal force. People die as a result of lethal force.
Concomitant with the US military occupation of Iraq, there is a civil war going on in Iraq. As with all civil wars, the combatants are citizens of the same country. That's what we mean when we say "civil war."
I hope this helps.
Matt's point is that because of this war, Iraqis hate Americans - and will for generations - while even after the Iran-Iraq war which killed about as many Iraqis as this war, Iraqis don't hate Iranians.
Well, the Sunnis do, of course, so Matt isn't entirely correct. And I assume some Shia do, too.
But I understand his point.
America has almost totally DESTROYED Iraq as a country. The Iran war didn't.
Uh, here's a thought: Al Qaeda (remember those folks?) would love to kill Bush. They couldn't give too shits about the junior leader of Iran.
As for how much the Iraqis supposedly hate Americans, you'd figure they'd want to kill the top general in America's dreaded "occupation" army, right? So it figures if that general showed his face in public, he'd be wrapped in armor. Yet, according to that right-wing network called ABC News:
"If you're looking for one measure of the impact of last year's troop surge in Iraq, look at Gen. David Petraeus as he walks through a Baghdad neighborhood, with no body armor, and no helmet."
"... with no body armor, and no helmet."
surrounded by armed Marines with Abrams tanks fore and aft and heavy Blackhawk surveillance/cover, maybe. no general walks anywhere within 10 miles of a war zone, let alone in the middle of a city suffering an insurgency, without body armor unless they have a large and thorough guard on point.
add in the fact that there were reporters there and you have your reason for the symbolic gesture of not wearing his vest: publicity stunt. in other words, the same reason why John McCain went to a Baghdad market to buy a rug, and was able to do so without risking his safety. does that mean that Baghdad markets are safe?
"The government of Iraq is friendly to us - in fact, we've installed it."
Technically, I think they subsequently had something called an "election".
But when George Bush goes to Iraq, security concerns dictate that the visit take place in secret with no advance notice...
And when George Bush goes to Anytown, USA, "security concerns" dictate that he be whisked through town in his motorcade, and that he show his face only in front of vetted crowds of known supporters.
This White House deals with Iraq the same way they go about everything else. They can't really deal with anyone who isn't "on our side." In a sense, they regard the U.S. itself as hostile territory under their occupation.
"And when George Bush goes to Anytown, USA, "security concerns" dictate that he be whisked through town in his motorcade, and that he show his face only in front of vetted crowds of known supporters."
This brings up a relevant comparison which deflates Goldenberg's point further. Whenever a U.S. President (not just Bush) is in New York City, not only does he travel in a motorcade, but traffic is temporarily shut down through the corridors that motorcade passes through. Last time Ahmadenijad was in New York City (during the UN session, when he took his jaunt uptown to Columbia), he didn't get this same level of protetion. Even though the city in question is in the U.S. Or perhaps should we say, because.
Bush was recently in my midwestern town. His advance people reserved a small restaurant for breakfast. They didn't tell the proprietor that the President of the USA was coming in. "because".
Joel's point is really excellent, here:
"Is your point that because we blow up Iraqi civilians, we're at war with Iraq?"
The obvious answer is no, we are doing this because we are being led by a psychopathic terrorists. I'm glad that is cleared up. The will of the people has been, for a long time, that we begin withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and it has been signally ignored by the same terrorist groups in the White House.
Those groups also explain our helpful gesture of demanding that the Iraq government give carte blanche to private security firms so they, too, can blow up Iraqi civilians without any system of justice whatsoever, which is otherwise known as condoning murder for sport.When you host a genocide party, the invites should go out to all of your buddies, especially the ones who contributed so bountifully to the GOP party.
Comments closed March 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
But when George Bush goes to Iraq, security concerns dictate that the visit take place in secret with no advance notice. This even though the country in question is currently under US military occupation. Or perhaps rather than "even though" we should say because.
Well, yes, obviously. I don't understand Ilan's point here. Is it really so unusual that when a country is at war its head of state cannot just waltz into the war zone?
If Iran had invaded Iraq, I'm sure Ahmadinejad would have the same problem.
Posted by Dan Kervick | February 16, 2008 3:28 PM