« day 2: stressed out already | Main | whew »

i'm confused....

So, let me get this straight.

When the media showed pictures of Palestinians dancing in the street on September 11, 2001, we were admonished by the politically correct left to remember that those revelers shown only represented a small faction of all Palestinians and/or Muslims and that we should not judge an entire area by a small handful of zealots.

But when the media shows members of the Iraqi resistance dancing in the streets after 15 American soldiers were killed, we are told by the left that they are a represention of all Iraqis.

Just a thought.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference i'm confused....:

» Spin cycle from Inoperable Terran
Michele from you lefties out there.... [Read More]

» Once Around the Alliance from Captain's Quarters
A collection of links to interesting posts around the Alliance and other great blogs this morning ... Michelle at A Small Victory wonders how to determine when ululating Arabs is a good or bad sign ... and also has a [Read More]

» Media Matters from Dean's World
Michele makes a fabulously on-target point, in her wonderfully pithy way. Meanwhile, Cori Dauber makes more excellent points about media influence in wartime here and,... [Read More]

» I'm confused, too... from Sheila Astray's Redheaded Ramblings
Michele cuts to the heart of the matter ... This is a point I had missed up to this point - a hypocrisy which eluded me ... but there it is. Clear as day. Hypocrites.... [Read More]

» Hypocrisy from VodkaPundit
Michele is confused, but shouldn't be.... [Read More]

Comments

That about sums it up. Additionally, the government know what's best for you, especially where your money is concerned.

The politically correct interpert events in two ways: "This shows America bad" and "This shows America's enemies good".

You're absolutely right, there is a huge PC-related disconnect between media interpretations of those two scenes.

However, I don't believe the general Arab public is necessarily opposed to our action in Iraq at this point. There's always plenty of vitriolic anti-American rhetoric in the Arab world, but I think the lack of any mass demonstrations (in spite of constant flow anti-American railing in the Arab media) shows that most regular people are witholding judgement. If we can get our act together in Iraq and Afghanistan and get some meaningful economic development started, it is possible that we could see a sort of democracy domino-effect in the Middle East.

Being anti-american should always exact a price. Now, it never does.
As a start, we should videotape all such crowds and make as certain as we can that the celebrants never visit the U.S. nor profit from any assocation with the U.S.

Can't you say the same thing about the right? That certain right wing . . . um extremist . . . pointed to Palestinians dancing in the street as an indication that the entire arab/Muslim population (in the Mid East & the US) were anti-american, terrorist-in-waiting. Aren't the same right wingers insisting that the resistance fighters/killers in Iraq are NOT true representations of the Iraqi people?

I don't believe that all Muslims are full of hatred of Americans. I personally have friends who are Muslim and they don't share the same responses to our military deaths as the punks in Fallujah exhibit. Maybe its time for us to do a surround and drown military operation on Fallujah in order to flush out the assholes who continue to give us grief.

It's just like the time Americans poured out into the streets to dance and celebrate the deaths of Uday and Qusay...oh, wait, that didn't happen. The only time I've seen such joy at the death of others was in the horror movies that were on all last week.

What we think of as normal for a psychotic killer, they just think is normal. How am I supposed to understand a culture like that?

For someone at war with the U.S., the "resistance" sure seems to kill a lot of Iraqis.

The islamofascists in Iraq and other parts are at war, but not with the U.S. Their war is with freedom and modernity and, while they're destined to lose, only America is working to speed that result. Showing hesitation and indecision is the surest way to prolong the war, and increase the bloodshed.

The terrorists will never accept that the centuries will not be turned back, and we're not going to party like it's AD 999, so they must be rooted out and destroyed. To those who refuse to recognize this fact, what part of "It is our duty to kill Americans wherever we find them" do you not understand? As has been said about the Halocaust, when someone says he intends to kill you, believe him, and act accordingly.

I think a more appropriate interpretation of the more recent 'celebrations' is: we just flat out do not know what most Iraqis really think about the situation. But it's clear that some significant fraction of them are determined to make things very difficult.

"We are told by the left that they are a represention of all Iraqis"

Where?

I, for one, reject the following assertions: all Iraqis are revelling in the downed helicopter, all Israeli generals support the policies of Ariel Sharon, all Palestinians support suicide bombers, all right-of-center think tanks support our current foreign policy, all Lebanese supported blowing up the Marine barracks.

Fallujah.
MOAB.
MOAB.
MOAB.
FAE.
MRLS.
Salt.

I haven't heard this from the left. I guess you pay more attention to them than I do.

Why must there always be shots at either the Right or Left when it comes to people leaving comments? Cant we as Americans just be concerned about our soilders dying on a daily bases without taking it as a opportunity to try to one up the opposing side of the isle? Its gets really thin after a while.

Do you just make this shit up or could you give us a few quotes to back up your theories?

Just a thought.

Not really, Concerned. It's all in the way its phrased. When you state, "Americans just be concerned about our soilders dying on a daily basis" rather than, "Americans united against an enemy that is attacking our soldiers fighting for freedom and our survival" it shows where we disagree.

It's a glass half full, half empty disconnect. It makes us enemies--in every sense of the word.

I could give two shits how you find my wording. Bottom line is all i hear is AntiBush this and ProBush that. It dosnt matter whether it was wrong or right how we got to iraq but matters where we go from here.

All this is making my poor military brain hurt. I cannot help but see the double standard in reporting. It is obvious to the point of satire and I do not think the Big Three and CNN are indulging in satire.

I am seeing daily reports on successes in Iraq and none of it is being reported in our media. I am sick of all of them. Do they really think that their defeatist posturing doesn't encourage doubts in the minds of the troops?

Good grief people, get behind your country and your soldiers.

You make me laugh, Stroessner.

I am seeing daily reports on successes in Iraq and none of it is being reported in our media. I am sick of all of them.

"WHAT ABOUT THE SCHOOLS???"

Shyeah.

Americans are getting killed. That's the story. Period.

Do they really think that their defeatist posturing doesn't encourage doubts in the minds of the troops?

I don't think they need anyone's assistance to have doubts.

Good grief people, get behind your country and your soldiers.

We are. It's the morons commanding them that we're against.

Wow, Thlayli. "Americans are getting killed." That's all this means to you. The fact that they are soldiers, and that they are fighting for something they believe in, and that if they die they are at least dying with honor, means nothing to you. The fact that men and women fought and died so that you could sit there pounding your keyboard in the complete trust that you will not be dragged off in the night to prison for calling the members of the current administration "morons" because they have chosen a course of action that you would not have chosen were you in charge, means nothing to you. The absolute worst thing that can happen, since you keep harping on it, is for someone to die in a war you don't believe in. What. Ev. Er.

And by the way -- Iraqis are getting killed too. I suppose they mean even less than nothing to you, since pulling the troops out at this juncture will result in even more deaths of Iraqis. But who cares about them, right?

Listen it dosnt matter whether you supported the war or not...were there. Just for the record I do support the troops, I want to give them all they need to complete there jobs and I even support bring back the draft if we need more folks over there...but tell me what at this point is the objective? what at this point is our exit strategy? I mean isnt that the goal of all eventual military action to have a exit plan? Without internation troops should we expect to be there 1 yr 4 yrs 10 yrs? What will the long term cost in money, men be? What do we expect at the end of the day when we are ready to leave iraq? Do we expect to have gain a new ally in the Middle East when its all done or will contries like syria and iran look to move in when were ready to move out and force us to station perm troops over there. Similar to Germany and Japan after WWII?

I am not a Democrat or Republican I just want to hear straight answers...

We're still in Korea. The exit strategy for Iraq is that when we win and all is safe, we'll leave. Here's straight answers:

Duration: It will take as long as it takes.

Costs: It will cost as much as it costs.

How much will the next car you purchase cost you when you get into a car accident in it?

They're stupid questions being asked by people who do not support the war effort, even though they support the troops "in principle," just not what they're doing. If you do not support the goals of why the troops are over there, you aren't really supporting them--you're undermining their efforts and sabotaging their morale by distracting the attention away from what is being done. Want them to worker harder, speed up the assembly line? Want to give the troops poor performance appraisals? You're asking business context questions about war. That's ridiculous.

Why are you asking those questions when they clearly cannot be answered. They've never been answered during any war, at any time in history. So their purpose is either to demonstrate ignorance or undermine the will of the people to support the effort until it's done--however long that takes.

War isn't a production line. You cannot set fixed costs to it, or measure against some fictional Gantt chart to determine if you're on task.

"...but tell me what at this point is the objective?"

To create a non-islamofascist republic that's not only [hopefully] allied with us, but that commands the strategic high ground in the middle east from which to prosecute actions/reprisals against terrorist sponsoring nations?

"what at this point is our exit strategy?"

An "exit strategy" is a $20 word for "retreat". That may not be a viable option for us.

" I mean isnt that the goal of all eventual military action to have a exit plan?"

It's good to have a worst case plan... but the "goal of all eventual military action" is to win the damned military action. Otherwise, you are wasting time and lives. An exit plan's not a "goal", it's a contingency. Failure's not a "goal", it's a possible result.

The result of a loss, which soldiers generally aren't in the habit of planning to do.

" Without internation troops should we expect to be there 1 yr 4 yrs 10 yrs?"

Long as it takes? How long did the rebuilding of Germany and Japan take?

Dunno 'bout you - but I saw a generational effort coming the minute the first plane hit the towers.

[continued... I evidentally hit the text buffer]

" What will the long term cost in money, men be?"

Expensive. Objective is to make it more expensive for the enemy.

"What do we expect at the end of the day when we are ready to leave iraq?"

A functioning representative republic where people aren't fed into treeshredders and women aren't herded into rape rooms. One that can stand on it's own feet. And potentially, bases we can operate out of if needed.

" Do we expect to have gain a new ally in the Middle East when its all done"

Would be nice, but it's peripheral. A country that no longer funds terrorist groups and acts as a state terrorist backer is probably the expectation.

" or will contries like syria and iran look to move in when were ready to move out"

Sounds like a good argument to not leave Syria and Iran capable of moving in to me... but I was a grunt. Fine points of strategy are for generals.

" and force us to station perm troops over there. Similar to Germany and Japan after WWII?"

We may have to. Just as in Germany or Japan post WWII.

"I am not a Democrat or Republican I just want to hear straight answers..."

I'm a libertarian and an independant. And those are as straight as I can give you, from the perspective of someone who once carried a weapon in combat.

No one, including Bush, promised a short or easy task in the middle east, nor in combatting terrorism. We have no choice: we fight to win, or we may as well pull back to our own borders and wait for the enemy to come to us... I don't see another option.

Mrs. duToit, Mr. Stroessner, are my assessments reasonably "on"?

IronBear & Mrs. du Toit you can take ur holier then thou attitude towards this and shove it up ur asses. If your not in a positon to have a conversation with sarcasim or preteaching from top of the mountain please feel free not to answer my questions. An E.S is not retreat and all wars have plan which includes a beginning and end. Just because I am asking question dosnt make me any less supportive or my country and troops. So take ur view and stop trying to shove it down people fucking throats. Otherwise enlist go over and it will be two less asshats i have to listen to.

That was straight up, Concerned, not Holier than Thou. I can do holier than thou for you, if you're unclear on the difference.

Those were answers to your questions: problem seems to be that they're not answers you're predisposed to hear.

I'm not in the habit of mincing words on important questions, but I assure you that my responses were neither abusive [as your response was], nor a flame. I can do both effectively, and you'll have no doubts you've been flamed when I'm done.

If you don't care for the answers, then maybe you should ask around until you get the answers you like? Or just list the answers you want, and we can parrot them back.

There are no simple black and white answers to what you're asking. It'll cost as much as it costs, take as long as it takes, there's no guarantees it'll suceed, we'll probably have to maintain a presence in that region for decades [As in Korea, Post War Germany and Japan and elsewhere], and considering that roughly 75% + of the curent conflicts going on in the world invlove radical islam vs western non-islam, we're probably going to be involved in future military actions vs countries like Syria, Iran, and maybe Saudi Arabia eventually. Best answers you'll get, having done a lot of reading on this, and on military history in general.

On "What the Plan" is for Iraq, there's a ton of articles on just that: google. If you haven't run across any, you're not looking hard.

As far as "two less asshats i have to listen to", you've got options on that also. Excercise some. I already did my combat time: I have no bonafides I need to prove to you or anyone else.

Ah yes. Telling "Concerned Citizen" what he doesn't want to hear is "holier than thou." You see, you were supposed to fall apart at his verbal kung fu, not answer his questions. He doesn't really care about the answers.

Concerned Citizen -

I seriously respect GEN Powell, but I do have a beef with him, because he popularized "exit strategy" with the Powell Doctrine.

There is no such thing as an exit strategy on the battlefield - there is victory, and there is defeat.

Any loser can quit the field.

So, every war has a plan which includes a beginning and an end?

Do you think that the war planners in the Pentagon in 1942 wrote out a plan that included US troops still in Germany and Japan 60 years later? Do you think that they had a plan for Douglas MacArthur to be military governor in 1945?

Of course not - they didn't know if he would still be alive. Things were pretty dicey in the beginning.

"Plans" do this - set your course to achieve victory. Plans rarely survive contact with the enemy.

Our plan for Iraq is to set the conditions for victory.

Leaving any time short of that is a loss.

Last time I checked there were no post war casualties in either Japan or Germany. As far as why we stayed in Germany it was to prevent communism from sweeping over Europe and we use the Marshall Plan to rebuild much of Europe.

Japan is another story all together.

As far as a Exit Strategy I think we needed to have had a plan on how to occupy Iraq so of course there Exit plan. U.S. interest dictate we have a presence in the Middle East. Wheither that plans include Iraq I doubt it. As soon as the U.S. pulls out you will Civil War. So much so that it wouldnt supprise me if Iraq was divided into two countried (similar to Pakastan and India). There is alot of hatred there but right now but its seems united in getting there country back (similar to how the Communist Chinese and Nationlist united to work to remove Japan). The more the minority causes us to clamp down and make life harded on the average iraqi the more nationalism will set in.

As far as long as it takes I dont think anyone has an idea of that that means since as long as it takes depends on who's in charge at the time.

Of course having us there is a good thing. We bring an influx of jobs, cash and hopfully in the long run breach culturial misunderstanding. Im not talking about the zealots over there but the average iraqi trying to raise a family and make ends meet.

Ah, Andrea. You again.

Before I get into answering you, I'm confused about something. Usually, we over here are accused of being happy about American casualties, because they make Bush look bad. Now here I am, explicitly saying I'm not happy about the casualties, and I get attacked for that. Make up your minds, please.

Now then:

"Americans are getting killed." That's all this means to you.

Well, yes. I think it's a bad thing when Americans get killed. YMMV.

... they are fighting for something they believe in, ....

They're just following orders. Orders which were based on lies.

... men and women fought and died so that you could sit there pounding your keyboard in the complete trust that you will not be dragged off in the night to prison for calling the members of the current administration "morons" ....

This has exactly what to do with Iraq? The soldiers in Iraq are not "defending our freedom". They're not "defending" anything. They are OCCUPYING.

And by the way -- Iraqis are getting killed too. I suppose they mean even less than nothing to you,....

That's right. I do think American lives are more important than Iraqi lives. Clearly, I'm the only one here honest enough to say so. Everyone else is making a big show of "caring" about the Iraqis, because after all the other reasons for this war have turned out to be lies -- the chemical weapons, the nuclear weapons, al-Qaeda -- it's all they have left.

"As far as a Exit Strategy I think we needed to have had a plan on how to occupy Iraq so of course there Exit plan."

So, you ask a question, get answers you don't like, and then decide that you get to define what the answer is?

"As far as long as it takes I dont think anyone has an idea of that that means since as long as it takes depends on who's in charge at the time."

Really? You really think that? You're an idiot. Our opponents have a say on the issue. They'll do whatever they want, regardless of who's in charge over here. Case in point: 9/11. Our opponents initiated this action. How would "who's in charge" in the US have changed anything? Remember, the first WTC attack was in 93, when Clinton/Gore were "in charge".

"...but the average iraqi trying to raise a family and make ends meet." Yeah, so?
Are you saying that him making ends meet is our responsibility?
The duty and responsibility of the US Government is to ensure the safety of US citizens. Period.

My reply got deleted when I went to open a new browser so this will be a shorter post:

Fred you have some pented up anger. Calling me an idiot was not necessary to make your point. As far as not liking what I write feel free not to read it.

As far as U.S. interests they can be the same as Iraq interests. Isnt in the U.S. interest to improve the daily living conditions of the avg Iraqi? I mean isnt part of the 84 Billion to build schools, inferstructure, postal system, electrical system, internet, ect.

As far as opponents I was talking about who will be in charge of the country in either 2004 or 2008 not "us" v. "the bad guys". Personally I think both major parties at times seem more interested in serving there own interests then that of the country. Who's in charge does make a major difference as far as what direction U.S. policy goes.

As far as what I wrote it is simply my opinion. As long as Michele does not feel the need to remove it then I am entitled to express my view on it.

I am sure you will pull it apart pointing at only the things that allow you to belittle what I write. Prehaps next time you feel the urge to call me an idiot you will do it in person and not behind a computer monitor.

Ah, yeah, Andrea. Twas tres tacky of me to take the questions seriously and attempt to give a serious analysis, wasn't it? My bad. ;]

I don't think I've fallen apart at verbal kung fu since pre-Usenet... I'm kinda er... out of the habit. ;)

Ah yes, the exit strategy. The military necessity of the 21st century.

The answer to the question is that the US does not currently have an "exit strategy" for Iraq because we are not, in fact, planning to exit.

As far as I know the plan is to stick around until things calm down. Note that virtually every war barring Vietnam and WWI we fought in the 20th century ended with us keeping troops there for an extended time.

Germany? Still garrisoned.
Japan? Ditto.
South Korea? Bosnia? Kosovo? Afghanistan?

From where I'm standing, it's the people that want us to "exit" Iraq that need to explain what their "exit strategy" is. Hand things over to the UN and hope this will be the one reconstruction they do not gratutiously fuck up? Leave Iraq to its own devices? Let the French/Germans/Russians set up the next strongman du jour? If you want the US to evacuate Iraq, I believe you're the one who needs to explain how you envision it happening.

Good point Sparcvark. I dont think we shall be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon.

Last time I checked there were no post war casualties in either Japan or Germany.

So what you're saying is you never bothered checking.

When you do, try to look past the one slate article and go further in the links.

Also make sure you level Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iran before you start making apples to apples comparisons with WWII.

Will do skippy

In case anyone doesn't get the Yeti's point:

Yes, there were casualties in occupation Japan and Germany after WWII.

There was also widespread crime, looting, and corruption. Oh, and also, starvation and rioting.

Just in case you didn't know.

Because it looks like everyone is having so much fun, here's my tuppence.

It's not like I wasn't aware of the fact, but I have just had it reinforced that I have yet another price on my head. And, by the way, hears a hearty "Thanks" to the French, Germans, and Russians, who supplied these guys with the means to blast a dozen of my associates out of the sky as they were getting ready to go visit their families. How do you SGT. Rock's kids that Daddy was coming home this week, but he isn't now because some Al Qaeda c**kbite promised a grand to anyone that could take down a 'copter? And who's going to explain it to my sons if somebody get off another lucky shot?
War sucks, and half of Europe can bite my ass for making it possible.

/Deep Breath/

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Back to the issue at hand.
You didn't see the footage of Iraqis dancing in the street when the hotel took fire, or when the Red Cross was bombed? Well, that's because no one was dancing in the streets there. Did you see the demonstrations over the weekend during the Days of Protest? They didn't happen either. The people of Baghdad were in their homes over the weekend, because the word on the street was that anyone who went to work, or even let their kids go to school, would be killed buy the bully boys that are acting out this delusion that they can one day get back into power.

You don't see a lot of Pro-Coalition demonstration here. People demonstrate their approval of the Coalition by going on with their normal lives. And you know what is changing the opinions of the undecideds? School supplies. They start to believe the Coalition really means what they say about self rule when they see us trying to educate the populace, and they believe the Coalition cares when they see their own children being taken care of.

Do you think Bush is a Nazi? Great. I'll see you on election day. You think we shouldn't ahve made this move? Lobby to get the law changed, or run for office yourself. Would you have prefered Saddam to stay in place? There is an election here next year. You have enough time to get here, establish residency, and vote for him, or what's left of his staff.

I've gotta go. CNN just told me we're taking fire.

Can we please stop using the word "resistance" in talking about various terrorists, goons, and thugs? I think it's really an inappropriate word.

"Resistance" has a specific resonance to the resistance movements of WWII: in France, Poland, Norway, and elsewhere. The participants in this resistance were doing things like blowing up German trains; not attacking civilians at random. Many of the resistance members were highly civilized people who loathed violence: very different from those who enjoy killing and find in it the basic meaning of their lives.

While there were some casualties in Germany and Japan after the end of the war, AFAIK there weren't increasing amounts of 'Werewolf activity' in Germany the way there has been in Iraq lately.

Setting that aside, a major difference between WWII and the current conflict was that the goverments of Germany and Japan surrendered, while Saddam has gone into hiding, and is in all probability directing some of the anti-Coalition activity that is currently taking place there.

If someone refuses to concede defeat, how do you achieve victory?

If we don't have the forces there to seal off the borders to prevent jihadis from crossing over to make their bones killing kufr American soldiers, then the attacks will continue and probably increase in the near future.

hi