Time to Get Mad

Eric Martin reviews the latest out of Sadr City and waxes indignant:

So let's recap the scene: the US military and its Iraqi "allies" are laying siege to a sprawling neighborhood in Baghdad housing roughly 2.5 million Iraqis, launching air strikes, artillery attacks, tank shells and other assorted ordnance, shutting down hospitals and bombing others, cutting off the supply of food and walling off entire sectors of the embattled region, causing a refugee crisis by their actions - and now actually pursuing a policy with the intent of creating a larger refugee crisis!

For what reason: because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence. Can't have that. Because we have to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to safeguard the Iraqi people. After all, whose gonna set up the tents in the refugee catch basins we so magnanimously helped set up to receive the overflow from our relentless assault on political movements that would make it harder for us to stay in Iraq. To safeguard the Iraqi people.

Indeed. One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq. The big achievement of the past 18 months, after all, has been to convince many Sunni insurgents to stop allying with Al-Qaeda in Iraq. But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause. Now our guns are aimed at the Sadrists because they want us to leave. And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved "victory" defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave.

Comments

"But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause."

I think we may be overlooking the seeking-to-regain-minority-power-over-the-Shi'ites motivation for Sunni violence. They have been dislodged from the top of the heap after decades and were unlikely to accept it with a smile. It is coincidence that America is allied with their new Shi'ite overlords.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | May 9, 2008 6:16 PM

"But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause."

I think we may be overlooking the seeking-to-regain-minority-power-over-the-Shi'ites motivation for Sunni violence. They have been dislodged from the top of the heap after decades and were unlikely to accept it with a smile. It is coincidence that America is allied with their new Shi'ite overlords.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | May 9, 2008 6:19 PM

Yes. And THAT'S why it'll take a hundred years to harass, bomb, shoot, impose nutball neo-con economic policies on, and lecture the Iraqis into liking us. We wont leave until John Bolton's on the Iraqi One.

Posted by RoboticGhost | May 9, 2008 6:19 PM

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | May 9, 2008 6:26 PM

because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia

If Eric Martin can't understand that there is a gigantic qualitative difference between "political movement" and "militia", then he's not as smart as I thought.

If all the people there are doing is support a political movement, then we wouldn't care at all. The people in Sad City could vote for whoever they want in the next elections, and we'd support their right to do so, even if the party they voted for wants us to leave. But Eric Martin doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept that a militia is fundamentally different. And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia. I would think that would be an easy thing for most people to grasp, but apparantly for those on the left-wing, it is too complex.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 6:32 PM

But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause.

Uh, no. The primary driver of Sunni Arab violence wasn't opposition to the US presence, it was opposition to the rise to power of the Shiite and Kurds.

I would have thought this to be completely obvious to anyone who is even casually observing the situation in Iraq, but I guess when you've got anti-war blinders on (like Matthew does) you think our military is the cause of every single problem that exists.

Posted by Al; | May 9, 2008 6:40 PM

I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

That is, of course, equally stupid. It has the benefit of appearing less bloodthirsty on the surface, but in practice, anyone who knows a damn thing about counter-insurgency knows that occupied countries "get tired" of fighting for their country extremely rarely. And thus it just becomes a new version of kill everyone who opposes our presence.

Posted by DivGuy | May 9, 2008 6:42 PM

And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia.

So much for the American Revolution. Apre toi...

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 6:55 PM

I suppose Matt would have had kind words for southern irredentists circa 1877 as well. In his view, it would have been just swell to watch the occupation end, because it worked out so well for the people the US army was defending.

The eras change, but the wrong-sidedness of Democrats remains the same

Posted by James Robertson | May 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Why are we there again? Seems to me that our continued presence there is the main objective of the continuation of our presence there. Heller and Kafka and The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson must be rolling in their graves.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 6:58 PM

But what if the militia is well-regulated?

Posted by Steve V | May 9, 2008 6:58 PM

It worked really well for George III 230 years ago, didn't it?

Posted by Bill Ridge | May 9, 2008 7:01 PM

What Eric Martin describes is called "war".

Iraq will never get up and running with armed militias under the command of malcontents. See Lebanon. We have practiced a policy of divide and conquer. First Al Quada and now Sadr. We should have killed him four years ago in Najaf.

Sadr is the cause of the fighting, not us. The Iraqi government is elected and wants us in the country. The vast majority of the Iraqis want us there; regardless of what the MSM would have you believe.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2008 7:05 PM

And don't forget, Obama wants to stay in too. All that 16 months withdrawal stuff is just feed for the rubes, according to her advisor, Samantha "Monster" Power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__STTpG-qFw

Well, I guess that's what he means by audacity.

Posted by Potato Head | May 9, 2008 7:11 PM

I suppose Matt would have had kind words for southern irredentists circa 1877 as well.

Apparently, Jim-Bob's history books describe a US Civil War that began with a foreign invasion. Perhaps all the crayon annotations made him misread.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 7:12 PM

This sort of policy is precisely why the initial attacks on Fallujah - which caused a massive refugee problem - were contributory to the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.

Asia Times had an analysis of this issue, showing clearly that Sunni refugees from Fallujah ended up in Baghdad, causing friction with the Shia in Baghdad - which is mostly Shia due to Sadr City. Then when the US troops attempted to clean the Fallujah insurgents out of Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad, they removed the only protection the Sunni neighborhoods had from the Shia death squads of ISCI, Dawa, and the Mahdi Army. This allowed the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, which aggravated the refugee crisis of the entire country.

Nothing the US has done in Iraq has achieved anything but aggravating the situation.

"Danceswithgoats" is a moron. The vast majority of Iraqis in the country want the US out. Every Iraqi poll has said so.

Al is another moron. He claims the primary motivation for the Sunni insurgency was the rise of the Kurds and Shia, not the US presence. This nitwit forgets that it was the US who overthrew the Sunnis from the dominant position.

What part of Al's puny brain can't grasp this self-evident fact? What part of Al's puny brain can't grasp the fact that the insurgency - the Sunni insurgency, not Sadr's - started long before the Kurds and Shia put together the present government?

Can you say "Al is an ignorant moron"? I knew you could.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 9, 2008 7:14 PM

Al and Danceswithgoats,

One big thing - the US is an occupier. As such, we aren't legitimate. "malcontents" especially, could have come from some British Raj, or some Roman proconsul, regarding their imperialism.

Recognize it as such.

Posted by JC | May 9, 2008 7:17 PM

The U.S. military will be killing people somewhere, all the time. Better I guess killing Iraqis over there. After all, they could be over here killing Americans pushing back against their bankrupting of this nation. Not that they won't get around to that sooner or later.

Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2008 7:19 PM

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

Hey, it worked in Vietna...uh, um, never mind.

If that's the "plan," it's insane. Just when do we expect the Iraqis to get tired of fighting for their families and faith? After all, they're the home team.

Posted by Stefan | May 9, 2008 7:20 PM

The U.S. cleared out all the women and children from Fallujah (forcing men of fighting age to stay and be slaughtered) and then bombed the city into the Stone Age (twice). One wonders if commenter "danceswithgoats" is being facetious, but I think it's likely he is another one who keeps drinking the Kool-Aid. The U.S. is acting in a savage manner and has been from the beginning of this misguided invasion. Iraqis absolutely do not want us there. Americans, by and large, do not want us there. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell should be tried for war crimes.

Posted by steve evfuture | May 9, 2008 7:23 PM

And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia.

United States Constitution, 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by Stefan | May 9, 2008 7:23 PM

Al sez: The people in Sad City could vote for whoever they want in the next elections, and we'd support their right to do so, even if the party they voted for wants us to leave.

Oh really! Tell that to Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

In the real world, meanwhile: we supported and encouraged Israel into refusing even to talk with the popularly elected (Hamas) party - and still call them terrorists that have to be eliminated.

Al and his tribe are for democracy until democracy is anti-US, and then they are for Warsaw Ghetto solutions to wiping out those who won't kiss the US ass.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 9, 2008 7:29 PM

In the real world, meanwhile: we supported and encouraged Israel into refusing even to talk with the popularly elected (Hamas) party - and still call them terrorists that have to be eliminated.

Not only that, we armed and funded the terrorist PLO in a violent coup in an attempt to overthrow the legitimately-elected Hamas government.

Posted by Stefan | May 9, 2008 7:33 PM

And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia.

So much for the American Revolution. Apre toi...

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 6:55 PM

"A well-regulated militia being essential to...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."

And no, well-regulated doesn't mean what it says, it means anyone can have a gun, according to SCOTUS.

Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 9, 2008 7:35 PM

to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia. I would think that would be an easy thing for most people to grasp, but apparantly for those on the left-wing, it is too complex

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Wouldn't want these people to have the same kind of freedom we have, do we? Including the Second Amendment?

There goes any argment that we want to export "democracy." We want these people to be unarmed and to obey our orders.

Posted by Repack Rider | May 9, 2008 7:40 PM

"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence."

Why do I get the feeling that was a popular opinion at the Kremlin when the Soviets were in Afghanistan?

Posted by GaryML | May 9, 2008 7:40 PM

Al: a militia is fundamentally different. And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia. I would think that would be an easy thing for most people to grasp, but apparantly for those on the left-wing, it is too complex.

Every political party of any significance in Iraq has a militia. The US isn't choosing its targets because they have a militia, it's choosing its targets because they oppose permanent US bases & US control over the oil spigot. (c.f.) What's more, your argument is patently circular - if an occupation provokes armed resistance then it must continue, because after all a stable democracy wouldn't have any armed parties.

Al: The primary driver of Sunni Arab violence wasn't opposition to the US presence, it was opposition to the rise to power of the Shiite and Kurds. I would have thought this to be completely obvious...

It's completely obvious only to people whose nationalist blinders prevent them from seeing that Iraqis might get just as upset at a US occupation as we would at an Iraqi occupation.

Nir Rosen, one of the very few reporters in Iraq to speak Arabic and actually talk to resistance fighters about their motivations, writes:

[US] tactics of handing out candy to children during the day and arresting their fathers at night were not winning hearts and minds. It was hard to be patient when mosques were raided, protesters shot, innocent families gunned down at checkpoints or by frightened soldiers in vehicles... By the fall of 2003 up to ten thousand Iraqis were detained by American forces and thousands more had gone through the system. Many languished in prisons indefinitely, lost in a system that imposes English-language procedures on Arabic speakers with Arabic names not easily translated... Most were innocent. Many were arrested simply because a neighbor did not like them. There was no judicial process for them... Most of the men arrested were not on any target list, and the lists themselves were suspect.

... from In the Belly of the Green Bird, pp. 92-93, and 99. Would this kind of treatment not piss you off? See also the Winter Soldier testimony.

danceswithgoats: The vast majority of the Iraqis want us there; regardless of what the MSM would have you believe.

Ah, the ever-so-convincing bare assertion. From the BBC's last comprehensive Iraq poll: 70% of Iraqis believe the surge has made things worse, while 11% believe it has had no effect. 57% of Iraqis support attacks on Coalition soldiers, 79% oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition troops in Iraq, and 85% have little or no confidence in Coalition occupation forces.

But I suppose the BBC is lying because it hates America. Let's go check what Michael Yon's translator told him!

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 7:42 PM

As a few others have alluded to there's a difference between "wanting us to leave" and killing people and blowing things/people up (not only, or even primarily, our troops) with the (supposed/stated) intent of getting us to leave. Just like there's a difference between a 'political movement' and an extralegal, semi-terrorist militia.

That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 7:47 PM

Geez, if you can't understand the difference between a militia in the Revolutionary War (and Second Amendment) sense and the Sadrite sectarian militia, I'm not sure that to tell you.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 7:49 PM

And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved "victory" defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave.

And this would be in line with what our great-grandfathers, and other great-greats did in/with the Philippines. At least then, our great-grandmothers weren't leaving their children at home to go join in the fight. The more things change, the more they change! Oh, and it has been 100 years, John.

Posted by John | May 9, 2008 7:50 PM

I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

How did that work our for ancient Rome? Greece? England in the 20th Century? The French in Mexico? The French in Indochina? Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Us in Vietnam?

Are you sensing a pattern?

Posted by Repack Rider | May 9, 2008 7:51 PM

yeah sonic charmer, never in the history of the humankind have the people of an occupied land used violence to declare their intents and tried to achieve their ends. all freedom movements have been peaceful and respectful of the occupiers.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 7:52 PM

C'mon, Al: edjumacate us. Tip-off's not for another hour and a bit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 7:52 PM

I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

I believe the Iraqis might have the same idea, especially since it is their homeland.

Toughness should not be confused with immorality and abject bad judgment. What, weather it takes five years or a hundred years? Whether it turns our country into a third-world, despotic nation?

Posted by rollotomasi | May 9, 2008 7:52 PM

Maliki beats Sadr again:

In big concession, militia agrees to let Iraqi troops into Sadr City
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, May 9, 2008
BAGHDAD — Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

So again, Matthew proves, when he writes "And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved 'victory' defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave", that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Iraq.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 7:55 PM

Geez, if you can't understand the difference between a militia in the Revolutionary War (and Second Amendment) sense and the Sadrite sectarian militia, I'm not sure that to tell you.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 7:49 PM

Go ahead and tell us.

Does it have something to do with being pro as opposed to anti-American?

Or are you one of those tards who believes that the Second Amendment is a sportsman's rights clause?

Posted by Charlie H. | May 9, 2008 7:58 PM

Here we go again,

Matt writing about the disaster that he cheerleaded at the onset.

FAO MATT: You have ZERO credibility when writing about this. To be so insanely wrong about something so obvious, should have disqualified you from ever pontificating on any IR topics forever.

If I were you I'd stick to sports.

Posted by volum | May 9, 2008 8:03 PM

Few can imagine the mountains of bodies that are going to pile up from Gaza to Lebanon to Syria to Iran. A bloodbath of historic proportion which only just began with the Iraq invasion is going to gather a lot of steam now.

Peak oils brother is peak protein.

Posted by rapier | May 9, 2008 8:03 PM

Al, assuming the parties in Sadr City make a deal to end the horrible slaughter and displacement of people, how does that make said slaughter/displacement OK in the first place?

The point is, that you actively approve of the decision of the Iraqi "government" (no, it's not a real government if it's controlled by a foreign occupation force) to slaughter and displace its own people in an attempt to crush its political rivals. (And you've fallen in love with Iranian sock puppet Maliki.)

The fact that the slaughter may (hopefully) come to an end hardly changes the fundamental difference here: you approve of the killing and displacement of Iraqis, and you oppose the only thing that could create a real government in Iraq, an American withdrawal, because you are committed to American defeat.

Posted by T.B. | May 9, 2008 8:07 PM

gregor: what, are you trying to generalize from history? Don't you know the US is special and magical and unlike any past empire and only ever interested in helping the people it occupies if they would just stop being so ungrateful?

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 8:12 PM

Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

Let's see how many heavy weapons they actually find, and how many people they arrest. Then we'll see what's what and what just seems to be. I mean, it seems as if you haven't paid attention at all.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 8:12 PM

So, Sadr's cut a deal again. That in itself is hardly surprising - it's not exactly the first time. At this point he's conclusively demonstrated his unwillingness to wage a prolonged guerrilla war against the US.

I will admit surprise if this really amounts to a defeat for Sadr, and immense surprise if it means the end of him as a political force. But we've heard that predicted weekly by Al & his friends - a prediction that alternates with steadily increasing levels of fearmongering about the Sadrist menace.

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 8:19 PM

There are somewhere between four and a half and five million refugees from Iraq already, including large parts of the professional and functional class.

I think we can, with a little effort, push that up to six, seven, maybe eight million people.

Gentlemen, we are in the midst of a great social experiment! To see how much damage we can inflict upon a country before it collapses utterly.

Ah the consequence, mass starvation, chaos, epidemic violence, a living hell on earth. Doctor Mengele could only have wished to be an American.

We will win. We will rule the earth for the next century. We will build a tyranny for a thousand years in the name of freedom and democracy. We are America, and because we are America, whatever we do, no matter what, is right.

Posted by Skeptic | May 9, 2008 8:20 PM

Following up on JimPortlandOR's reference to the Palestinian elections fiasco that brought Hamas to power, the U.S. should humbly (and quickly!) retreat from Bush's doctrine of spreading U.S.-style democracy around the world.

The fact that a switch to Western democracy worked in some parts of the world such as in Eastern Europe is no guarantee that it's suitable elsewhere. Indeed, the former Soviet republics -- Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc. -- are de-facto dictatorships. Russia, fairly democratic under Yeltzin, has retreated into an authoritarian, near-single-party rule state with a capitalist economy, a model more resembling mainland China, Malaysia or Singapore than anything we are familiar with in the West.

Let's face it: despite AI's illusions Iraq is not a democracy now, nor will it be after the next elections. Clearly, in many parts of the world the U.S. model of government and civil society hasn't taken root and is being rejected. Who knows, maybe Islam and Western-style democracy don't mix...

So, JimPortlandOR's right: the U.S. is not too crazy about democracies that refuse to kiss our ass, e.g. Chile in 1973 or Venezuela now.

However, he's completely wrong about Hamas.

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah. Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip. Also, Hamas openly advocates the establishment of an Islamic republic in Palestine, i.e. its participation in the democratic process is merely a means to achieving absolute power. In this, they are more like the 1933 Germany's Nazi party.

Posted by Gary S. | May 9, 2008 8:22 PM

gregor,

yeah sonic charmer, never in the history of the humankind have the people of an occupied land used violence to declare their intents and tried to achieve their ends.

When did I say it's never happened? What I said was that this sort of violence, when it is used (and you are right that it is used), is different from merely "wanting" something, i.e. is not the equivalent of mere political opinion. And I do not have to pretend that they are the same thing.

Again: why can you not see that distinction?

all freedom movements have been peaceful and respectful of the occupiers.

What "freedom movement" are you talking about exactly? Yet another bizarre conflation. Apparently, killing people and blowing stuff up (while saying 'Americans get out') automatically makes any group a "freedom movement" in your eyes.

Fascinating!

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 8:23 PM

JimPortlandOR asks:

Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?

The answer is 'yes', but only when Israel does it, especially if the Palestinians are involved. If more than one Palestinian gets hurt in the process, it becomes a Holocaust.

When the U.S. does it, there is a suitably poll-tested, Pentagon-approved euphemism which makes it look less like a war crime and more like an exercise in 'crowd control', 'civilian population management', etc.

This was another edition of 'simple answers to simple questions'.

Posted by Gary S. | May 9, 2008 8:36 PM

That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.

This is a false dichotomy because the people of an occupied land do not, by the very nature of their circumstance, have the resources to organize non-randomly directed violence. Which is not to condone such violence, or to classify all violence in an occupied land as a freedom movement.

In your zeal to support the unsupportable, you are making statements that appear to be intentionally and remarkably uninformed of historical precedence.

It would be nice if a Mahatma Gandhi sprung up in Iraq out of nothing. Even in that case, we all know what the neocon hero Churchill thought of a guy like Gandhi.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 8:43 PM

Must go - so if Al ever replies, I won't be able to rebut. It is after all a Friday night. But, last post:

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah.

Hamas won the parliamentary election quite clearly. The only reason it had to share power was that Abbas' presidency wasn't up for election.

Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip.

As a recent Vanity Fair article made quite clear, this was a deliberately-provoked reaction to a US-inspired plan to consolidate Fatah power by force.

Also, Hamas openly advocates the establishment of an Islamic republic in Palestine, i.e. its participation in the democratic process is merely a means to achieving absolute power. In this, they are more like the 1933 Germany's Nazi party.

An Islamic republic is no more necessarily anti-democratic than the Christian one advocated by the Christian right or the Jewish one advocated by... pretty much all Zionists. Any such religious republic is certainly imperfect in its democracy, and something I am opposed to, but that hardly justifies the Nazi comparison. Your better case for a Nazi analogy rests on Hamas' anti-semitism, though even there the power differential and the fact that Palestinians really are oppressed by a state claiming to act in the name of all Jews makes the parallel not so apropos.

The answer is 'yes', but only when Israel does it, especially if the Palestinians are involved.

I wonder who you're referring to here. I really can't think of any harsh critic of Israel who isn't also a critic of the US. I'm sure such people exist, but are there any of them on this blog? Do they include anyone well known or respected by US progressives? Neither the left Chomsky types nor the liberal Yglesias types would fit the bill...

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 8:57 PM

gregor,

This is a false dichotomy because the people of an occupied land do not, by the very nature of their circumstance, have the resources to organize non-randomly directed violence.

First, I don't know how it can be a "false dichotomy" when I state what are, on the face of it, two extremes of behavior that have no overlap: (a) holding an opinion without using violence and (b) using violence, and observe that Matthew (and you) make no distinction between them. It's like me saying "you can't tell 3 from 7" and you saying "that's a false dichotomy!" No, 3 is different from 7. Not using violence is different from using violence. By definition. Please let me know if you need me to explain further.

Anyway, you might be right that the people of an occupied land do not "have the resources to engage in non-randomly directed violence". Well: you're NOT right, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. (You're not right because it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence: just don't attack indiscriminately, pick your targets carefully. duh.)

So anyway, what you're trying to say is something like, 'this sort of violence is their only option'. And that's true - if they must engage in violence. But why must they engage in violence? Why is that a given? To you, the fact that they 'want' U.S. troops to exit Iraq means they MUST engage in violence (oddly, mostly against other Iraqis, but let's leave that aside for now). You can't tell the difference between 'wanting' U.S. troops out and violent action with that intent. To you, the one necessitates the other. This is what I find fascinating.

Here's an idea: Why don't they express this opinion of theirs at the ballot box? You know, like we do? You're all broken up that they don't have the "resources" to engage in non-random violence, but they certainly do have the resources to....engage in a peaceable political movement.

But that's all water under the bridge. Folks in Iraq who 'want' the U.S. occupation ceased will either choose peaceful means or they will not. My only point is that there is a difference between the two which you guys (for some reason) do not apprehend, and I am not required to treat people who choose the latter as if they are equivalent to those who choose the former.

Which is not to condone such violence, or to classify all violence in an occupied land as a freedom movement.

You're right, you haven't condoned all such violence. As for classifying all violence in an occupied land as a freedom movement, well, if that's not what you're doing then you certainly haven't explained why the violent people we're talking about qualify as a freedom movement in your eyes.

It would be nice if a Mahatma Gandhi sprung up in Iraq out of nothing.

This isn't about whether there's a Gandhi in Iraq. Maybe there is maybe there isn't. This is about whether one is required to treat everyone who says 'Americans out' while engaging in barbaric acts as if there is no meaningful difference between him and Gandhi.

One is not.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 8:57 PM

Gary S.,
Your grasp on reality is really slim isn't it? Hamas won the election by a friggin land slide, it was in all the papers. Is was Fatah, the US, and Israel that started screwing with them that caused things to go down hill. As for, Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?
The answer is 'yes', but only when Israel does it

Really? The US and Israel are both guilty of Collective Punishment. How's that! Do you suffer from some sort of Israel attachment syndrome? I see a pattern, that pattern, in your posts. You should get over that, 'cause Israel will be the victim of demographic forces, eventually.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 9:01 PM

I see Kalkin beat me to the punch. Nice job.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 9:03 PM

"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence."

So when people are no longer opposed to our presence, THEN we can leave?

Posted by DoktorN | May 9, 2008 9:03 PM

I see Kalkin beat me to the punch. Nice job.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 9:03 PM

"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence."

So when people are no longer opposed to our presence, THEN we can leave?

Posted by DoktorN | May 9, 2008 9:05 PM

You're not right because it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence: just don't attack indiscriminately, pick your targets carefully. duh.)

Not to engage in moral equivalence and all, this statement once again betrays profound ignorance of even the recent history.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 9:17 PM

The unspoken premise of Al et al is that America has a right to empire and those who oppose it must be killed. No less an imperialist than Niall Ferguson laughed over American imperialists' aversion to the word "empire". They (American imperialists) are like whores who dress up in school girl plaids and knee sox. Calling things by their right names makes them antsy. Civil War can't be "civil war" because once one has the habit of plain speaking there's no telling where it'll go.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 9, 2008 9:26 PM

gregor

[You're not right because it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence: just don't attack indiscriminately, pick your targets carefully. duh.)]

Not to engage in moral equivalence and all, this statement once again betrays profound ignorance of even the recent history.

Educate me then: what exactly in recent (or non-recent) history disproves the statement 'it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence'?

Just for the record though, this is all beside the point anyway. Whether or not you're right that people in Iraq somehow 'can't' engage in non-random violence, the fact remains, when they choose to do so they are doing something over and above merely expressing an opinion, engaging in politics, or 'wanting' something.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 9:34 PM

bliekker writes:

Hamas won the election by a friggin land slide, it was in all the papers.

Well, not really a landslide: Hamas got 44 percent of the popular vote, Fatah got 42 percent. You shouldn't believe everything that's written in the newspapers.

bliekker continues:

Do you suffer from some sort of Israel attachment syndrome? ... You should get over that, 'cause Israel will be the victim of demographic forces, eventually.

The answer to your question is 'yes, I do, and am very proud of it'. As to your prediction re: Israel's grim future -- whether due to demographics or something else, I've been hearing this for the last 35 years, virtually my entire adult life.

Well, guess what: it hasn't happened yet -- the nay-sayers were wrong. But then 2000 years ago, who would have bet that the Jews would survive this long -- in Diaspora, without their own country?

There must be truth in the saying that after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem the power of prophecy was bestowed on fools.

Posted by Gary S. | May 9, 2008 9:35 PM

If Eric Martin can't understand that there is a gigantic qualitative difference between "political movement" and "militia", then he's not as smart as I thought.

Since when are politics and violence mutually exclusive?

Posted by jack fate | May 9, 2008 9:52 PM

jack fate,

Since when are politics and violence mutually exclusive?

They're not mutually exclusive but neither are they synonymous.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 9:59 PM

"because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia

If Eric Martin can't understand that there is a gigantic qualitative difference between "political movement" and "militia", then he's not as smart as I thought." says Al, who is obviously poorly informed.

Actually, our governmental allies core power is built around the BADR militia, which is actually closer to Iran than Sadr.

So, basically, we are supporting Maliki-Badr for the purpose of "real politik". The fact that the largest plurality, if not majority, of Iraqis support Sadr is of no interest to either fools like Al, or the depraved power mavens running our government.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 9, 2008 10:01 PM

Yeah, by the way, that was due to a flawed parliamentary structure that gave Hamas a
larger than warranted majority. I try to figure out Matthew, "the Ostrichist" what you consider a legitimate regime. Hamas, is a theocratic paramilitary organization, premised on the destruction of Israel. It's based on the Moslem
brotherhood variant of Salafi Egyptian Islamists nurtured by Al Azhar University graduates like
the late Sheikh Yassin. It has no real program for sanitation, education (besides madrassas)
or anything else that does involve killing Jews.
Mind you, Fatah, typified by former Black September Munich massacre logistics man, Abu Mazen, doesn't have much to recommend it; in addition to the corruption, earned over nearly
a decade of P.A rule, Your preferrred rulers in Somalia, the Islamic Courts movement follow the same principles. As would the Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines. Hezbollah in Lebanon operates under similar principles for the Shia as do the
Sadrists. That's why Basra was liberalized by the incursion of Iraqi soldiers, which filled the vaccuum of the vacilating Brits.

Posted by narciso | May 9, 2008 10:03 PM

"Apparently, Jim-Bob's history books describe a US Civil War that began with a foreign invasion. Perhaps all the crayon annotations made him misread."

Read the history, and you'll learn that southerners of the era considered northern troops to be foreign invaders.

I think the one using crayons might be you.

Posted by James Robertson | May 9, 2008 10:07 PM

Tim Connor writes,

Actually, our governmental allies core power is built around the BADR militia, which is actually closer to Iran than Sadr.

I can only assume he has a magical "Closeness-to-Iran-of-a-Militia Measuring Stick". How else could he know how "close" this or that faraway militia is "to Iran" (whatever that means, or however it is defined exactly), without just making it up of course?

Anyway, sounds neat. Can I borrow it, Tim?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 10:10 PM

Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?

Anti-semite!

Posted by justinb | May 9, 2008 10:31 PM

That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.

You mean like "wanting" a pro-American government in Iraq? "Wanting" a permanent presence there? Seems like a distinction lost on much of the right wing...

Posted by Snidely Whiplash | May 9, 2008 10:35 PM

[That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.] You mean like "wanting" a pro-American government in Iraq? "Wanting" a permanent presence there?

Sure - another fine example where there is a clear distinction between merely 'wanting' and using violence. What's your point?

Seems like a distinction lost on much of the right wing...

Obviously I can't speak for "the right wing" but the distinction is certainly not lost on me. Were you trying to suggest/imply that it was, or something?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 10:55 PM

Sonic, I know at least on the surface you seem to be engaged in defending the fact that there is a difference between "wanting something" and using violence to achieve it. Fair enough. I grant you this point. I'm pretty sure everybody else would, too, IF ONLY...

...they could ignore the fact that what you're really getting at, is that the various Iraqi factions don't have any right to use violence to get what THEY want, but the Americans do in fact have that right. I mean, you remember all that shock'n'awe stuff, yes? Was that not violence taken to an extreme? So, how can you say (imply, rather) that the Iraqis (if I may use such a term, really what I mean is, all the various factions taken individually) don't have a right to use violence to regain their independence, but we do have a right to use violence to, uhm, what is it we were doing? Imposing democracy or something?

Posted by SJohn | May 9, 2008 11:02 PM

Holy shit, one of you "expert" motherfuckers noticed!
It's been going on for a while now.

Posted by seth edenbaum | May 9, 2008 11:03 PM

But hey, the US is going to build an amusement park in Iraq. Why, because killing Iraqis, taking their oil, while delivering NO electricity to them, whereby none of their children can attend school because it's too dangerous just isn't enough punishment for these people.

US millionaire plans Disneyland-style park in war-torn Iraq
RIA Novosti, Russia - May 5, 2008
DAMASCUS, May 5 (RIA Novosti) - A US millionaire plans to revive a zoo and build an amusement park similar to Disneyland in the capital of war-torn Iraq, ...

I think maybe that I'm the ONLY American that is truly appalled by this current announcement as NOBODY else seems to want to mention it all.

I wonder, is this another one fo those unbid contracts? Does anyone care? Hello!

Posted by me-again | May 9, 2008 11:42 PM

Sayeth Matthew:

One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq.

Wonderful. They hate us because we're there. They want us out so much they kill their fellow citizens or coreligionists or fellow supreme Arabs. And this killing we should always correctly interpret as a message that we must leave. Which will presumably result in them loving us.

Right. Just like they loved us after leaving Beirut or Somalia. They'd practically declared peace on us until someone served the wrong drink in first class and they had to run four airliners packed with American passengers into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, or Pennsylvania dirt. This, of course, was a subtle message that only the American and international political left was smart enough to comprehend: We still needed to leave a few more places in the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa, the Americas, the Galaxy, the Universe, and then all would be well.

My, my. If we'd only possessed the interpretive capacity of our fellows. We'd have already obligingly committed suicide for fear of impending death.

Posted by MarkG | May 9, 2008 11:45 PM

EXFUCKINGSCUSE ME but

it's their country

we are ILLEGAL occupiers

they have every right under ALL RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL LAW to oppose us, even violently.

Posted by sheeshyoupeoplearestupid | May 9, 2008 11:53 PM

EXFUCKINGSCUSE ME but

it's their country

we are ILLEGAL occupiers

they have every right under ALL RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL LAW to oppose us, even violently.

Posted by sheeshyoupeoplearestupid | May 9, 2008 11:53 PM

I grant you this point. I'm pretty sure everybody else would, too, IF ONLY..[..] they could ignore the fact that what you're really getting at, is that the various Iraqi factions don't have any right to use violence to get what THEY want, but the Americans do in fact have that right.

Thanks for reading my mind re: what I'm 'really getting at', but FYI even I don't know whether I believe either of us 'have the right' to engage in the behaviors you refer to. Well, I know I don't believe that terrorist militias in Iraq (or anyone anywhere else) 'have the right to' kidnap and behead people or to bomb marketplaces with the intent of killing civilians; but nor am I even sure I believe that the U.S. 'had the right' to invade Iraq, etc. 'Rights', as such, simply don't much enter the issue for me either way.

But that wasn't my point in this thread, which (again) is simply that people who use violence (especially the sort of indiscriminate violence we're really talking about) are not merely people who 'want' something, as Matthew denoted them. There is a distinction there, and it's an important one, and the fact that Matthew (and others) either can't or won't acknowledge it, strikes me as significant. Really: that's my point here. We don't oppose these groups because of what they 'want', we oppose them because of what they do in the service of (or supposedly in the service of) that 'want'. If they merely 'wanted us out of there', but DIDN'T FRICKING KILL PEOPLE AND BLOW THINGS UP, would there really be a problem here?

Really. Claiming that the campaign against the Sadr militia means we oppose "everyone who wants us to leave" is like claiming that the government's arrest of Charles Manson proves that the government wants to arrest "everyone who is a songwriter". In both cases the two sets may overlap but that doesn't mean they are identical. Perhaps it would help if I draw y'all a Venn diagram?

So, how can you say (imply, rather) that the Iraqis...don't have a right to use violence to regain their independence,

Well I'm not sure I did. But since you brought it up, what makes you convinced that (most? all?) the people engaging in violence in Iraq are doing so "to regain their independence" (rather than, say, to seize oil wealth)? Why does every single person who kills someone in Iraq get a "he's doing it to regain his independence" stamp of good-motive from you? This gets back to gregor's earlier attitude that anyone who blows something up while saying 'Americans out' must be a freedom fighter. Iraq has an elected government at whose request the U.S. maintains a military presence. I'm not sure what more 'independence' is required, but if some Iraqi really believes that it requires there being no U.S. military bases there (is Germany not 'independent'?) then I invite and encourage them to work through persuasion and the political process to bring that about. I know they have the right to do that.

Why exactly is that ruled out as a valid option on their part, especially by (supposedly) peace-loving lefties?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 12:20 AM

s.y.p.a.s.,

Putting words in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't make them true. If we are ILLEGAL occupiers someone should inform the UN under whose mandate we maintain a military presence; meanwhile, you should be easily able to post a link to the LAW that we're VIOLATING by doing so.

I don't know whether Iraqis have the right to "oppose us..violently" but what bothers me is why does every single act of violence in Iraq get lumped into that category?

A bomb is detonated in a market, or gunfire sweeps a funeral, or whatever, in any case, dozens of Iraqi civilians are the intended and actual victims. I point out that such people are not well-described by the words 'they want us to leave'. And then you come along: "They have the right to oppose us, even violently". Somehow there seems to be a crossed wire here; at best you are committing a mega non sequitur.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 12:26 AM

I don't know whether Iraqis have the right to "oppose us..violently" but what bothers me is why does every single act of violence in Iraq get lumped into that category?

Too easy. Anything violent or off schedule is a protest statement, political protest, or other similar critique of what the global Western left thinks America should refrain from. This applies not only to international terrorist and domestic murderers but also to weather events that result in death anywhere in the world.

It pure sophistry that the left offers to replace the Enlightenment, democracy, and modernism.

Posted by MarkG | May 10, 2008 12:33 AM

This is the whole point I made in response to Rick Santorum's piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/67286
No, the struggle between the US and Iraqi insurgents is NOT an ideological struggle. It's a war with very ancient roots. It's a war for economic advantage, otherwise known as oil. Ain't nuthin' ideological about it.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 12:33 AM

This is the whole point I made in response to Rick Santorum's piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/67286
No, the struggle between the US and Iraqi insurgents is NOT an ideological struggle. It's a war with very ancient roots. It's a war for economic advantage, otherwise known as oil. Ain't nuthin' ideological about it.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 12:36 AM

Hey Sonic Charmer, your claim that I claimed that anyone who blows things up is a freedom fighter is blatantly false. Just one in a long list of nonsensical claims that you have made here. No wonder you believe that we are there at the 'invitation' of the local government. Given the idiocy of your basic premise (I heard one of the Kagans claim that too some time ago)no wonder the conclusions that you derive are all along the lines of lefties want Iraqis to blow us up. Unblemished popycock. Typical libelous nonsense.

Posted by gregor | May 10, 2008 12:47 AM

Sorry for the duplicate. It didn't appear to go through the first time. In response to Sonic Charmer's

Iraq has an elected government at whose request the U.S. maintains a military presence.

I seem to remember that Eastern Europe also had elected governments (They appeared to have won 100% of the vote) that also asked Soviet troops to stay in their countries. For some strange reason, right-wingers didn't regard these requests as really representing the will of the people.
I agree that insurgents may just want to get their hands on some of that oil wealth, but remember, it's their country.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 12:49 AM

someone should inform the UN under whose mandate we maintain a military presence;

Perhaps you forgot that George was going to call for that vote until he found out that he would lose it. The UN never voted to invade Iraq. Bush decided to "enforce" UN resolutions without a resolution for him to do so.

This history is only five years old. No wonder you never heard of Vietnam.

Posted by Repack Rider | May 10, 2008 12:56 AM

I don't believe that terrorist militias in Iraq (or anyone anywhere else) 'have the right to' kidnap and behead people or to bomb marketplaces with the intent of killing civilians

Also, you don't believe that zombie militias in Syracuse 'have the right to' eat the brains of random passers-by. Well done you.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 10, 2008 1:01 AM

@ Gary S

Thank you for your excellent demonstration of Godwins's law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The law also states that you have lost the argument. Your lack of knowledge would have brought you there anyways,so dont feel too bad about it.

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah. Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip.

This is pure bs. The election was the best monitored ever, and Hamas won the majority of seats.Hamas invited Fatah to form a coalition ,the same way Winston Churchill did during WWll. The very opposite of Israel' and the roman's ancient strategy.Divide et impera—divide and conquer.

Your next assertion is party correct. The following violence in Gaza can be described as a "mini civil war" But how can an elected government instigate civil war ?
Try Elliot Abrams and see if the shoe fits.

The former Preventative Security Chief for the Gaza Strip is one of the youngest Palestinian leaders and has the confidence of the United States and, to some extent, Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2068270.stm

In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank.
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/elliot-abrams-uncivil-war/

Posted by Daga | May 10, 2008 2:20 AM

@ Gary S

Thank you for your excellent demonstration of Godwins's law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The law also states that you have lost the argument. Your lack of knowledge would have brought you there anyways,so dont feel too bad about it.

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah. Hamas then used violence (