Making a mockery: terrorism in Iraq
Today there was a car bomb attack in Iraq characterized as the largest terrorist act there since May, when the new government took office. Over sixty people were killed in the blast, which occurred in a street market located in the troublesome and poverty-stricken Shiite area of Baghdad known as Sadr City.
This is just business as usual for the terrorist “insurgents” of Iraq. And no one should be the least bit surprised, for it’s been said time and again that these attacks will continue for a very long time.
What struck me–other than the tragic human cost of the ongoing struggle to set up a relatively democratic government in Iraq–is the fact that attacks of this magnitude used to be much more common. That seems to represent progress, although I have no illusions that the situation couldn’t reverse itself. The truth is that car bombs are relatively easy to set and difficult to intercept. The fledgling government and security forces in Iraq are up against a group that is not going to go gentle into that good night; and so we can expect more of this. I say “we” but, of course, it’s the Iraqi people who suffer.
Terrorists themselves know that the odds are in their favor as far as successfully mounting an attack: those who defend against terrorism have to be lucky (and smart) all the time, and terrorists only have to get lucky once, or occasionally. That’s one of the appeals of terrorism, and one of the reasons it’s called asymmetrical warfare. And it doesn’t take a giant brain to figure that out.
Those who would fight against terrorists have to–they must–keep this in mind. But when I read the linked Reuters article that began this post, I wondered about what the journalists at Reuters are keeping in mind when I saw the following sentence [my emphasis], “No one claimed responsibility for the attack but it had the stamp of al Qaeda and made a mockery of a three week-old security clampdown in Baghdad.”
The increase in the sort of editorializing represented by the phrase “made a mockery,” occurring in a straight news article, is one of the reasons many of us criticize the MSM, including Reuters. And it’s not just that the statement seems out of place; it seems unintelligent and simplistic, at best. A security clampdown in the sort of atmosphere that is present-day Baghdad is, by definition, not going to be perfect, and anyone who expects it to be is naive and unrealistic.
Yes, it would be wonderful if no bombs were ever to kill innocents in Iraq again. But to call this particular attack a “mockery” of security efforts is precisely the sort of thing the terrorists are aiming at, and represents an almost hysterical overreaction that, unfortunately, makes a mockery of coalition and Iraqi efforts to reverse the situation–efforts that have been showing some slow, difficult progress lately.
That’s what the elected government is there for – to make decisions for the entire nation of Iraq based on all the interests represented. No group that has shown itself to be beyond any claim of human decency (i.e. those who blow up pet markets) should ever get veto power over that. Who says that they “speak” for “the people of Iraq”? By that logic, if I form a group and go blow up the mayor’s office in Chicago then I’m speaking for the people of Chicago and Mayor Daley should resign – and the will of the voters be damned.
Am I just naive or could automobiles be banned from all the major market areas? It would seem to me that this step would make the areas where most people gather, such as the markets, less subject to large quantities of casualties.
I put the blame for this kind of thing squarely on the US’s attempt to do “nation-building on the cheap”. Cherry-picked intelligence before the start of the war was used to build the misimpression that “Iraqis would greet us as liberators”.
Of course the terrorists are to be condemned, but this is what terrorists do. The US ought to have known that these things would happen in the aftermath of the invasion, but no proper planning was ever done.
Meanwhile the poor innocent people in Iraq continue to die and have no proper protection.
No wonder that there’s so much anger at the US in Iraq now from common Iraqis. The New York Times reports at its website (in the report about this attack):
“Shiite militiamen tried to coax angry mobs of onlookers to leave, fearing that another bomb would go off. A tarpaulin covered the body of a donkey in a pool of blood.Children threw rocks at American and Iraqi soldiers who drove up in Humvees. One American soldier pointed an assault rifle with a grenade launcher at the children to scare them off. Men and boys screamed slurs about the Americans and the new Iraqi government.”
Time to leave Iraq. The Iraqis themselves don’t seem to want the US there anymore — and it is THEIR country, so if they want US troops to leave, the troops should leave.
Brilliant logic Roger. The US leaves and peace reigns. You appear to be Confud on acid. How a story about ruthless killers murdering dozens of people could lead you to that conclusion, rather than they must be stopped, is an example of of borderline Psychosis Grandius, or maybe sheer stupidity. The US should not have gone into Iraq, but you appear to want more hell for the people, not less.
Brad says, “Brilliant logic Roger. The US leaves and peace reigns.”
Brad, the decision is for the Iraqis to take. Whether “peace reigns” or not, I don’t know and I don’t care to know, and the point is, it is the Iraqis and Iraqis along who should decide whether we should leave. It is THEIR country. Iraq is not Alaska or California. It’s not part of the USA. It’s a sovereign country, and if the people of that country want us to leave, then we should have the decency to leave.
> And it doesn’t take a giant brain to figure that out.
It does, however, appear to take one notably larger than that possessed by most Democrats, I’d point out.
> It’s not part of the USA. It’s a sovereign country, and if the people of that country want us to leave, then we should have the decency to leave.
As I said…
Roger, when a consistent number of Iraqis indicate that they want us to leave, then sure, it’ll be time.
Extending from an upset group that just momentarily before suffered a severe trauma to an entire nation’s will, however, takes the kind of tiny brain usually reserved for the T Rex.
Whack.
“Roger, when a consistent number of Iraqis indicate that they want us to leave, then sure, it’ll be time.
Extending from an upset group that just momentarily before suffered a severe trauma to an entire nation’s will, however, takes the kind of tiny brain usually reserved for the T Rex.”
Of course. I’m not basing myself on this one incident. But opinion polls show that more than 50% of the Iraqis do want us to leave. Now of course opinion polls are not reliable, but that’s exactly why the honorable thing to do would be to hold a referendum in which the Iraqis vote on whether we stay or we go, and if they say we go, we should go.
kcom wrote: “That’s what the elected government is there for – to make decisions for the entire nation of Iraq based on all the interests represented.”
A majority of Iraqis voted in the election for a political party, the United Iraqi Alliance. The second plank of their platform was calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Then you have all the people who boycotted the elections because they believed that a clear statement about withdrawal was the prerequisite for having elections, that you couldn’t have elections before you had that commitment.
Roger, we have no intention of leaving. Get used to it. You can enjoy reliving Vietnam. Makes you hate America a little more, no?
As for the Reuters story, who expects the MSM to do other than manipulate the thinking of the reader?
I also read the story with the ‘made a mockery’ line as well. It struck me at the time that it was an example of pure editorializing with a story.
At the same time an 18 year old Jew is kidnapped and murdered and the report is that authorities “found the body”. Or a suicide bomber kills 7 in a restaurant and it is on page 1 as a “Fatal Blast in Israel”.
Sadly, these are times of widespread use of language and the press for plain deceit.
“opinion polls show that more than 50% of the Iraqis do want us to leave.”
Hmm, that’s odd, Murtha has been spouting off an 80% number I think, have you called him and told him it’s only 50%?
“Now of course opinion polls are not reliable, but that’s exactly why the honorable thing to do would be to hold a referendum in which the Iraqis vote on whether we stay or we go, and if they say we go, we should go.”
Dear PM Maliki, Congratulations on your new government, that the people held multiple elections and voted on the constitution is a good thing, but I’m afraid that’s not going to cut it. Why, you may ask? Well, Roger says the only honorable thing to do is step back and hold a referendum, you know, you should tell the people that their newly elected government shouldn’t govern because, well, just because.
Sincerely,
The Cut and Run Party.
Mark H. wrote:
” “opinion polls show that more than 50% of the Iraqis do want us to leave.”
Hmm, that’s odd, Murtha has been spouting off an 80% number I think, have you called him and told him it’s only 50%?”
Please read more carefully. I wrote “more than 50%” above.
The last time I checked, 80 was still more than 50, unless the rules of arithmetic have undergone a sudden change!
Brilliant. Iraqis “want us to leave”. No kidding. But what does that really mean? It’s not a simple question with a simple yes or no answer- sorry to complicate your life Roger. First, they need to be asked when- and If you check, I think they have been and most aren’t in a big hurry for us to leave. But of course, they do want it EVENTUALLY. They want lots of things. Then of course, you have to consider what you mean by “they”. Some of the “they” are former Baathist Sunni’s who had it relatively well under Saddam, and don’t want us there helping the new government get it’s feet under it. Some of them take up arms in that cause. I don’t care what they want. Some are Shia extremists who want to get it on with the Sunni’s. I don’t really care what they want either. I’m also not going to get carried away by the reactions of a few people at the aftermath of a bombing (who may have been there precisely to get some images out to the media machine). Emotions are raw, they are, culturally, a rather demonstrable people, and what they do at any one moment isn’t necessarliy, or even likely to be reflective of their overall views.
It’s just not as simple as you’d like it to be- welcome the the real world.
host86-142-98-185.range86-142.btcentralplus.com
Alert sent.
What the attack really makes a mockery of is al Qaeda’s claim to be defending muslims against ‘crusaders’. It shows yet again that what they are really about is imposing something on muslims that most of them don’t want. Surely this should be obvious to any commentator.
Roger:
I think we should and will leave when the democratically-elected government of Iraq asks us to leave. So far, they have not done so. I wouldn’t act on your (or my) impressions of public opinion, nor on vaguely-worded polls that don’t specify a timeframe.
And need I bring up the fact that, under Saddam, the Iraqi people had no sovereignty at all?
By the way, I just wanted to comment on how refreshing it is to have someone like Roger here representing a dissenting point of view, rather than the trolls we’ve had. No insults, no taunting, no hate. It’s remarkable. Let’s remember to treat him with respect, and not let our annoyance at our dearly-departed trolls color our dealings with this totally unrelated person.
You know I always disliked confude, but I used to think neoneoconned at least had an ounce of sense in him. But man, have I been disabused of that notion! Now, even after he’s politely been shown the door, he comes back to try and vandalize? Can you say pathetic? If there was ever any doubt the guy was a troll, that doubt is long gone. It’s just sad to watch someone sink so low.
The new edition of the DSM will include “Trolls” as a psychopathology category in the family of obsessive compulsive disorders.
As for Iraq, I agree that when a significant majority of Iraqis (not just one of the three main groups that happens to hold the upper hand momentarily) wishes the coalition to drop the ball, the coalition should run like hell and leave the tribes to their silly infighting.
If it turns out that arabs are not ready for democracy (Amy Chua), perhaps Kurdistan can be salvaged as an island of rationality.
Alex wrote:
“I think we should and will leave when the democratically-elected government of Iraq asks us to leave.”
See the article from MSNBC below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/
By Rod Nordland
Newsweek
Updated: 3:17 p.m. ET June 26, 2006
June 24, 2006 – A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.
Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they’re also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq — but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers.
NEWSWEEK has obtained a draft copy of the national reconciliation plan, and verified its contents with two Iraqi officials involved in the reconciliation process who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the plan’s contents.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/
—–
Notice something? The article says, “the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables”. Why should this be? Iraq is a sovereign country, and its government is sovereign and duly elected. Why should we “fiercely oppose” something that the sovereign government is proposing?
Roger,
It’s reasonable that the US would reject a specific timetable due to the uncertainty of the timetables of developement of the institutions of Iraq, in particular the Interior Ministry. With Osama calling for Sunni violence towards Shia’s, getting the Interior Ministry to behave equally to all groups within Iraq will be challenging. However, there is potentially positive political reasons from an Iraqi perspective to have a timetable, as you correctly note that no one wants to be occupied. Perhaps a reasonable middle course can be found.
Below is an interesting article by Michael Totten (as always). He is talking to two members of an Islamacist political party in Kurdistan. Interestingly, they do not think it would be wise for us to leave now, but want it eventually.
On another note, the main point of the article is the moderate, level-headed nature of the group. Perhaps we should exercize caution when referring to Islamism. It reminded me of Neo’s post on Islamic totalitarianism. I would hate for truly moderate Islamic groups to be lumped in with the hard-liners in our thoughts and vernacular.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001170.html
Alex, well put, I agree.
Would it be too much to give the commenter’s name at both the beginning and the end of his remarks? That way I can skip over malarky without scrolling through all the sophistry.
Roger,
I forgot to mention, I believe it would be dishonorable to leave now, as removing a countries totalitarian government and then leaving the country in chaos could be considered rude. If it takes a couple more years of our presence till they can manage their own affairs, so be it. Despite your conspiracy theory innuendos, I don’t believe our people, our government, their people, or their government want our continued military presence – long term. Another couple of years is no big deal in the big picture.
To Roger: The US is not in Iraq by invitation and I don’t think the US should leave by invitation. If doing the honorable thing is your worry, then you should want the US to stay until a US-friendly government can sustain itself. The US is there because a dangerous despot heading an unfriendly government needed deposing. It would be folly to leave until there is reasonable assurance that the US won’t have to repeat the deposal in a few months. As for “sovereign government” – Saddam and the Baathists were “sovereign,” weren’t they? To clear up more of your confusion: All elections so far in Iraq have had huge turn-outs. If there were boycotts of any elections they must have mustered insignificant numbers.
Brad, the decision is for the Iraqis to take. Whether “peace reigns” or not, I don’t know and I don’t care to know, and the point is, it is the Iraqis and Iraqis along who should decide whether we should leave. It is THEIR country.
If it is their country, who is Roger to decide that Iraq should be a direct democracy when Iraqis have elected to vote in a representative republic? Who is Roger to decide that Iraqis need a referendum if it is their country, rather than Roger’s? Is Roger an Iraqi, has he bled and killed for the country of Iraq? Who is he to judge what the Iraqis need, is he an Emperor, an Imperial Governor perhaps?
In addition to the moral position of Roger’s, his “I don’t know and I don’t care to know”, we have a rather good description of someone who is unwilling to see people killed but is willing to know that his decisions may bring that out, but that it would be okay so long as he doesn’t see it. Is that “honorable”?. It is a perversion of the meaning of honor in my view.
Great, Newsweek. Here’s another Koran flushing story.
Why should this be?
Why should Newsweek be saying Korans are being flushed down toilets?
Why should we “fiercely oppose” something that the sovereign government is proposing?
Why should the US government be flushing down Korans in toilets just because Newsweek said they did? Why should Democrats be fiercly opposing, based upon fake rumours, Iraqis granting amnesty to those who killed Americans? Is it their country or is it your country, and the country of the Democrats’?
Roger should find better arguments, I could come up with better arguments for Roger’s position than Roger, and I’m not kidding.
kcom said:
“By that logic, if I form a group and go blow up the mayor’s office in Chicago then I’m speaking for the people of Chicago and Mayor Daley should resign -”
I can’t argue with that, but I think that if your group blows up the Wrigley building instead, many Cubs fans would be happy.
Grackle wrote:
“If doing the honorable thing is your worry, then you should want the US to stay until a US-friendly government can sustain itself.”
The longer the U.S. troops stay in Iraq, the worse the situation becomes. The situation is continuously deteriorating: In the last weeks we have seen again new stages in this deterioration, which are really very worrying. For people to say “Well, the U.S. troops should stay to prevent a civil war” is completely absurd.
On the one hand, Iraq is steadily moving towards civil war, arguably because of the presence of the U.S. troops in Iraq. On the other hand, Rumsfeld himself said, “Well, if there is a civil war we won’t intervene” — so, the question is, what are U.S. troops for in that country?
EXHIBIT ONE:
” “Sectarian fault lines in Iraq are inexorably pushing the country towards civil war unless we actually intervene decisively to stem it,” explained one U.S. Army official.”
EXHIBIT TWO:
” US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war ”
Do you see the contradiction between EXHIBIT ONE and EXHIBIT TWO above?
Roger,
One is speaking in the present and the other in the future. No contradiction. Are you a Cubs fan by any chance?!?!?
“I don’t know and I don’t care to know”
This seems to be the left’s prescription for everything.
Roger, I think you do know what would happen if we left Iraq. Look what happened in Indochina in the 1970s.
If the terrorists represented the majority of Iraqis, they would have obtained their objectives through the ballot box like civilized human beings.
Sure, the Bush administration could have planned this better. But now that’s we’re there, we need to make sure we finish the job. We’re a wealthy country, and staying there will be worth it in the longterm.
“Roger, I think you do know what would happen if we left Iraq. Look what happened in Indochina in the 1970s.”
When we left Vietnam (after Saigon fell), the country returned to the people who were its rightful owners — namely, the VIETNAMESE. That is exactly as it should have been. We, and before us, the French, were occupying the country, which was not morally and ethically wrong, and no amount of spinning is going to change that.
“If the terrorists represented the majority of Iraqis, they would have obtained their objectives through the ballot box like civilized human beings.”
This sentence is true, but a non sequitur. No one disputed the fact that the terrorists do not represent the majority of Iraqis. However, while the terrorists may want us out because of reasons of their own, most ordinary Iraqis want us out (as shown by opinion polls) for the simple reason that no one likes to be occupied by another country. That’s completely natural. If Iraqis were occupying the US, I bet we wouldn’t have liked it either. This wish of Iraqis should be respected. As I said, it is THEIR country, not OURS.
Which is not to say, at all, that the majority of Iraqis support the terrorists. Of course they do not. The majority of Iraqis want the US to leave, and the terrorists want the US to leave too, but that’s where the similarity ends. For one thing, Al-qaeda is Sunni, and the third of Iraqis who are Shia have absolutely no affinity for them. Even for the third of Iraqis who are Sunni, remember that the Sunni arabs of Iraq were/are one of the most secular people in the Arab world, and by and large they have little desire to submit to the strict Sharia laws that the terrorists want to impose upon them.
So, the terrorists’ desire to see the US leave happens to coincide with the general Iraqi population’s desire to see the US leave, but there is very little else in which the two coincide. In fact, once the US leaves, this small coincidence too will disappear.
And what, exactly, do you mean by “We’re a wealthy country, and staying there will be worth it in the longterm”? “Worth it” for whom?
When we left Vietnam (after Saigon fell), the country returned to the people who were its rightful owners — namely, the VIETNAMESE. That is exactly as it should have been.
So this is Roger’s idea of honor. Returning Vietnam to the VIetnamese, like returning Iraq to the Iraqis. Death, bloodshed, destruction, well Roger won’t care about that and won’t care to know either. What matters is “honor”. You know, the “honor” of letting the Vietnamese run things their way.
Like I said, a perversion of honor.
Like I said, some people can waste their time arguing over the facts, I’d prefer to go straight to my opponent’s philosophy and logical premises. FInd the problem in their logic, everything else follows.
“So this is Roger’s idea of honor. Returning Vietnam to the VIetnamese, like returning Iraq to the Iraqis. Death, bloodshed, destruction, well Roger won’t care about that”
Death, bloodshed, destruction? During the Vietnam War, we dropped more bombs on the Indochinese peninsula than were employed by all sides during World War II! We shed more Vietnamese blood (mostly civilian) than we have in any previous war.
This is what the Asia Society has to say about the death, bloodshed and destruction in Vietnam, on its website:
“During the war, the United States alone dropped several times the tonnage of bombs that were dropped by both sides in the Second World War. By the end of the war, there had been an estimated 2.5 million casualties among the Vietnamese and 58,000 among the Americans.”
— “Vietnam 25 Years Later”
April 26, 2000
Asia Source: A Resource of the Asia Society
http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=18414
[The Asia Society is an international organization dedicated to strengthening relationships and deepening understanding among the peoples of Asia and the United States. Founded in 1956 by John D. Rockefeller 3rd, the Society reaches audiences around the world through its headquarters in New York and regional centers in Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Hong Kong, Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai and Shanghai.]
Hard to see a happy ending in Iraq whatever decision is made. Leave now or in a couple of years. Don’t think it matters.
Although it will matter to those American soldiers and their families who will still be alive if the US goes earlier.
Millions were executed and millions fled the region in boats because of the oppressive regime we allowed to take over after we left.
If that’s what you consider “the way it should be” that’s your business. You obviously don’t care about anything other than a very narrow scope (for isntance – what does tonnage of bombs dropped matter at all? We could drop 1/8 the tonnage and kill 10 times more people now, drop ten times the tonnage and not destroy a single bunker – tonnage is a useless metric). The consequences are irrelevant, of course that is the same attitude that killed millions of Vietnamese.
You have decided that this war is wrong (maybe just that war is wrong) and go backwards from there. Much of your arguments are irrelevant or incomplete – but it supports your conclusion so you run with it ignoring all else.
strcpy wrote: “Millions were executed and millions fled the region in boats because of the oppressive regime we allowed to take over after we left.”
A reliable reference, please, for “millions were executed”?
strcpy wrote:
“what does tonnage of bombs dropped matter at all? We could drop 1/8 the tonnage and kill 10 times more people now, drop ten times the tonnage and not destroy a single bunker – tonnage is a useless metric”
Okay, fine, but the number of civilians killed by the bombing is an important metric.
From Howard Zinn’s _A People’s History of the United States_. Author of 20 books, including _A People’s History of the United States_, Howard Zinn is Professor Emeritus in the Political Science Department at Boston University:
“Large areas of South Vietnam were declared “free fire zones,” which meant that all persons remaining within them-civilians, old people, children-were considered an enemy, and bombs were dropped at will. Villages suspected of harbouring Viet Cong were subject to “search and destroy” missions – men of military age in the villages were killed, the homes were burned, the women, children, and old people were sent off to refugee camps. Jonathan Schell, in his book The Village of Ben Suc, describes such an operation: “a village surrounded, attacked, a man riding on a bicycle shot down, three people picnicking by the river shot to death, the houses destroyed, the women, children, old people herded together, taken away from their ancestral homes.”
“The CIA in Vietnam, in a program called “Operation Phoenix,” secretly, without trial, executed at least 20,000 civilians in South Vietnam who were suspected of being members of the Communist underground. A pro-administration analyst wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs in January 1975: “Although the Phoenix program did undoubtedly kill or incarcerate many innocent civilians, it did also eliminate many members of the Communist infrastructure.”
“After the war, the release of records of the International Red Cross showed that in South Vietnamese prison camps, where at the height of the war 65,000 to 70,000 people were held and often beaten and tortured, American advisers observed and sometimes participated. The Red Cross observers found continuing, systematic brutality at the two principal Vietnamese POW camps-at Phu Quoc and Qui Nhon, where American advisers were stationed.
“By the end of the war, 7 million tons of bombs had been dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia – more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II. In addition, poisonous sprays were dropped by planes to destroy trees and any kind of growth – an area the size of the state of Massachusetts was covered with such poison.”
— From Howard Zinn’s _A People’s History of the United States_. Author of 20 books, including _A People’s History of the United States_, Howard Zinn is Professor Emeritus in the Political Science Department at Boston University.
“A reliable reference, please, for “millions were executed”?”
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
It also includes statistics on US and her allies killings of both combatants and civilians. Granted several million of the millions were outside of vietnam (cambodia and laos), but then our enemy didn’t stop at the line on the map and our withdrawel prompted and allowed it.
Lots and lots and lots of groupings in deaths since sometime in the 40’s. It’s even scholarly work instead of repeating stories from individual sources, even if the person collecting them is a professor.
I prefer something more substantial than what you quote. It may be isolated, it may be widespread – of course you want/believe it to be widespread. The above hard numbers are much more telling – which says you are wrong. Of course, that’s why what you quote are not refereed scholarly articles – they would all have been rejected.
But then, I don’t really have an axe to grind over vietnam so I tend to not care about sensationalised reporting. I wasn’t alive then so I don’t have preconcieved notions, it was neither the Great Time or Bad Time for my political beliefes so I don’t need it to be anything.
Personally I think we should never have gotten involved, but once we did we should have fought to win so can’t say I’m happy with it either (we didn’t do either one). But just because I don’t like the Veitnam war doesn’t mean that I have to accept vague or incorrect data and ignore valid stuff.
strcpy, you had written, “Millions were executed and millions fled the region in boats because of the oppressive regime we allowed to take over after we left.”
I then asked you to post a reliable reference for this claim that “millions were executed” after we left.
You then cited the URL http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
in reply.
However, that URL (which is Chapter 6 of Rummel’s book) says nothing of the sort. In fact, if you actually look at what is on that page, you’ll notice that he says: “Finally, I can calculate the overall democide of Vietnam in the post-Vietnam War period (lines 762 to 764)” and estimates this number to be “probably about 1,040,000.” Notice also that in this number he includes not only people who were executed but also people who died of disease in prison camps as well as those who died at sea while fleeing due to their flimsy boats capsizing. So the number of those executed in the post-Vietnam war period is even smaller than this 1.04 million number. Nowhere near the “millions were executed” that you wrote.
Hi Neo,
I stumbled across an archive of one of your 2005 blogs, and it brightened up my day. The blog series itself (about Robeson) was distrubing, yet predictable for liberals/communists, but the fact you were a screamin liberal from Jersey and you saw the light(reality), gave me hope for many out there. I just hope it doesn’t take something bigger than a 9/11 to wake up more liberal democrats. Keep up the good blogs.
Robert
Polls in Iraq? You can’t be serious about citing them! What percentage of women were interviewed? Under what circumstances? Were male relatives present or not? Were polls conducted at market places? Hospitals? Schools? How did ethnicity factor in? Any polling done on prayer day? Does that influence an opinion? How near to a recent attack were respondents when interviewed? Age distincitions? How about deaths of extended family memmbers from bombs and fire fights as a factor? How much significance does that have? How about military service? How many former military people who engaged the US during the Gulf war or this current one were interviewed? How much of a bias would that be and how do you determine who has had prior military service in which they engaged or were prepared to engage US forces? How many respondents were fluent in English and how many not? What impact and affect does using an interpertor have with non-English speakers in a survey? Would a non-English speaker be biased thinking the pollster and his interpretor are secretly looking for people who oppose the current Iraqi government? How many current government employees were interviewed? How many respondents were denied employment with the government? How many respondents were employed and how many not? Does this creat a bias? If so, how much? All I can say to people who cite polls in Iraq is skew you, buddy!
Roger –
“When we left Vietnam (after Saigon fell), the country returned to the people who were its rightful owners — namely, the VIETNAMESE.”
Ah, the old lie.
I think we’re all pretty much agreed on the right of self-determination.
But that’s not what happened in Vietnam. What happened was that one group of Vietnamese decided it was their right to run all of the country and were perfectly happy to lie, kill and explicitly use as much terror as they could muster to achieve this end.
You can go on for forever and a day – and probably will – that the South was corrupt, it was a puppet, the elections were never held, blah blah blah.
The fundamental point, the one that denies the lie of northern Vietnamese propaganda, is that the country wasn’t returned to the Vietnamese. There wasn’t an “old Vietnam” to return to: there was only 100+ years of colonial history under the Japanese and the French. Vietnam as a political entity was the misbegotten child of the end of colonialism and was divided by the cold war. It was divided because one side was ruthlessly dedicated to eliminating the other, and no one in charge wanted to sign off on the bloodbath. Uncle Ho was nothing less than a ruthless dictator, murdering his own when they were in his way and dedicated to achieving complete and total political power over all of Vietnam regardless of what it cost his fellow countrymen.
To claim that the North, breaking the peace accords by sending more armor and artillery south than the Germans had at the beginning of WW2, was “returning” Vietnam to the people of Vietnam is disingenous at best and propaganda-based apologetic at worst. The North didn’t “liberate” the South: it conquered it. What little was left of an independent Viet Cong in the South was decimated after Tet and were purged ruthlessly after the war: they were, after all, Southerners and hence implicitly not trustworthy for the Northerners.
There is no rightful “owner” of a country, plain and simple. The only legimitate government is one by the consent of the governed.
To even think of who “owns” a country is intellectually sloppy and can be easily used to justify any kind of attempt to dominate without regarding the consent of the governed.
John
Roger said: This wish of Iraqis should be respected. As I said, it is THEIR country, not OURS.
Not exactly – “THEIR country” lost a war to the US and the Coalition. WE should leave only when we are reasonably certain we won’t have to be coming back and having to do the same thing all over again. As far as the Iragis are concerned – they are a defeated population and as such have little to say about when the coalition leaves. We leave at our convenience, at a time and manner of OUR choosing, not due to the “wishes” of Iraqis, however they might poll.
I see also that Roger is splitting hairs over whether a mere 1.5 million suffered after the fall of South Vietnam instead of “millions.” Only the anti-war crowd would think to quibble so
I’m not surprised that Roger likes Zinn. Zinn is a major apologist for the Communists in Vietnam and of course fits ALL events into the Anti-American Vietnam Template. He also has some cockeyed beliefs about WW2. Wikipedia sez, “Instead of bombing civilians, he[Zinn] contends that the Axis powers could have been opposed during World War II through popularly organized acts of nonviolent resistance.”
Yeah, sure, the Allies should have demonstrated in front of the Japanese embassy after Pearl Harbor – THAT would have been real helpful.
John Opie,
Consider what President Eisenhower wrote:
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh.”
— Eisenhower’s memoir, _Mandate for Change_, p. 372
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/ike1.html
Also quoted in: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
grackle wrote:
“I’m not surprised that Roger likes Zinn. Zinn is a major apologist for the Communists in Vietnam and of course fits ALL events into the Anti-American Vietnam Template. He also has some cockeyed beliefs about WW2. Wikipedia sez, “Instead of bombing civilians, he[Zinn] contends that the Axis powers could have been opposed during World War II through popularly organized acts of nonviolent resistance.”
“Yeah, sure, the Allies should have demonstrated in front of the Japanese embassy after Pearl Harbor – THAT would have been real helpful.”
Zinn wasn’t saying that the Allies should have resisted non-violently — obviously that’s absurd. What Zinn likely meant was that the firebombing of cities like Dresden by Allies “to destroy civilian morale” was not very productive — what would have been more useful was to have organized popular acts of resistance by the citizens of these cities against their government. You can disagree as to whether this would have been an effective strategy, but it is not an absurd one. Recall that there was considerable internal opposition to Hitler by German citizens — such as the the German-led White Rose movement, which opposed Hitler from inside Germany.
By the way, I knew that someone was going to make an ad hominem attack on Zinn. The point is, everything that Zinn says is backed up in his book with references and copious footnotes. You may disagree with Zinn’s political views, but that does not automatically disqualify his argument. Keep the man and his argument separate — the first lesson in argumentation.
I could have raised similar objections to Rummel (who was cited in this thread) as you did to Zinn, you know? Rummel is a right-wing conservative/libertarian. I could have said, “Oh, isn’t it natural that you guys like Rummel, since he shares your political views!” But I would not and did not do so, because that would have been an ad hominem attack, and I never stoop so low.
Roger,
Quoting Howard Zinn never helps to strengthen an arguement. In fact, it exposes the weakness of the case.
Roger: Zinn wasn’t saying that the Allies should have resisted non-violently — obviously that’s absurd. What Zinn likely meant was that the firebombing of cities like Dresden by Allies “to destroy civilian morale” was not very productive — what would have been more useful was to have organized popular acts of resistance by the citizens of these cities against their government. You can disagree as to whether this would have been an effective strategy, but it is not an absurd one. Recall that there was considerable internal opposition to Hitler by German citizens — such as the German-led White Rose movement, which opposed Hitler from inside Germany.
Such “internal opposition” as existed did so only in secrecy. Roger’s example, the White Rose movement, was a tiny group, the members of which were all caught and executed or given prison sentences; so much for “organized popular acts of resistance” in Nazi Germany. I will not dispute that there were Germans who abhorred the Nazi regime but the fact that such groups or individuals were never able to cause Hitler any problems only strengthens my viewpoint.
Roger: By the way, I knew that someone was going to make an ad hominem attack on Zinn. The point is, everything that Zinn says is backed up in his book with references and copious footnotes. You may disagree with Zinn’s political views, but that does not automatically disqualify his argument. Keep the man and his argument separate — the first lesson in argumentation.
I’ll readily concede that Zinn’s works contain “references and copious footnotes.” As for what is done with such materials, how such facts(if they are true) are interpreted – THAT depends on judgement and credibility and I have to question the judgement of someone who thinks that Nazi Germany could have been stopped(or even slowed down) through “popularly organized acts of nonviolent resistance.” Yes, “absurd” it most decidedly is, but ambiguous it isn’t – which is why Roger has such a difficult time trying to parse the statement into something else.
grackle wrote:
“Wikipedia sez, “Instead of bombing civilians, he[Zinn] contends that …”
You should also keep in mind that Wikipedia is (as you surely know) freely editable by anyone with access to it. You shouldn’t necessarily trust all that you read in Wikipedia. It is good to locate information, but before using the information the best way to proceed is to always double-check any information you find there against more reliable sources.
Death, bloodshed, destruction? During the Vietnam War, we dropped more bombs on the Indochinese peninsula than were employed by all sides during World War II! We shed more Vietnamese blood (mostly civilian) than we have in any previous war.
It was all down the toilet, Roger, you know why? All those deaths meant nothing, because the United States did not do the honorable thing and uphold Presidential guarantees of safety to South Vietnam. Which allowed Norther Vietnamese and communist reprisals which slaughtered more people than the United States ever could with saturation bombardment of VIETNAMESE ROADS. Ya, roads, that was to cut the guerrila supply lines off, but their safe havens in Cambodia and China prevented that. Then for some odd reason Vietnam invaded Cambodia after we left. Now why would they do that, I thought they just wanted VIetnam….
Maybe all those people who believed that were just plain wrong, let’s say it like that. Google Vietnam invades Cambodia, I’m pretty sure it’s on a regular timeline of events.
Although it will matter to those American soldiers and their families who will still be alive if the US goes earlier.
Them and their children will be sent back into the meat grinder 10 years from now. It’s better to finish it now. It certainly does matter to those American soldiers and their families to understand that leaving now just means they are going to come back in 10 to 20 years, after another terroist attack has pushed the US government into invading, just like 9/11 pushed Bush to invade Afghanistan.
Someone should have already pointed Roger to Neo’s a mind is hard to change thingie.
“The CIA in Vietnam, in a program called “Operation Phoenix,” secretly, without trial, executed at least 20,000 civilians in South Vietnam who were suspected of being members of the Communist underground. A pro-administration analyst wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs in January 1975: “Although the Phoenix program did undoubtedly kill or incarcerate many innocent civilians, it did also eliminate many members of the Communist infrastructure.”
The Phoenix Program was quite effective, if Bush had implemented one in Iraq, there would be no insurgency. I advocated the implemntation of a Phoenix Program a few months ago, if people here might recall. It broke the back of Vietcong cells, that and Tet basically disappeared the Vietcong from the battlefield. After Tet, only the NVA was carrying out regular missions. The war had become symmetrical, and that was the perfect time to push a victory. Ah, but the wise KKK people in Congress decided they had enough.
Nowhere near the “millions were executed” that you wrote.
When the NOrth Vietnamese government decided to send all those people in the cities out to the boondocks to farm with zero knowledge, they executed them. You think they died from hunger, but they were executed as much as someone sent to a deserted island with no food a
no food and water has been executed.
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh.”
That’s like Bush saying, “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Weapons of mass destruction programs that did not agree that Iraq had WMDs”.
You won’t find out until you go there and get an election. That’s also like saying, “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable of Southern politics, who did not agree that had elections taken place without federal troop protection, the blacks would be intimidated into not voting and a racist segregationist Democrat government would be installed in the South during reconstruction”
Elections are great, until some black dude gets executed for voting Republican that is.
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh.”
That’s like Bush saying, “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Weapons of mass destruction programs that did not agree that Iraq had WMDs”.
——————-
You’re forgetting that the quotation was from President Eisenhower, who had no conceivable interest in making it appear that Ho Chi Minh enjoyed 80% support.
Furthermore, Eisenhower was a shrewd man and had the opportunity and curiosity to talk with whomever he wanted, unlike our own Incurious George, from whom Cheney and the inner circle seem to have kept many of the facts hidden anyway, and fed him only cherry-picked information.
So yes, while George W. Bush can probably say this in complete honesty and truthfully, Eisenhower was no George W. Bush.
That’s where the analogy you are making breaks down.
Roger,
Did you somehow skip over the logic that says it doesn’t matter what Eisenhower’s biases are, what he said still doesn’t justify leaving Vietnam. It’s called logic, and Eisenhower’s logic, or at least how your logic functions when you use his quotes, are flawed. They are mistaken, they are not grounded upon correct premises, and do not reason well.
My analogy breaks down? You did remember that there are more bullets in the chamber than just Bush, that I shot at you with? There’s also the American South and elections there. It’s by far the stronger caliber round.
So, you picked the weak logical analogy between how Eisenhower was certain of elections and how Bush was certain of WMDs, and state that the difference is that Eisenhower is more connected while Bush was in a bubble. So this means we should have held elections in Vietnam and left, which is ROger’s opinion, and ot backed up by Eisenhower quotes. That flimsy argument doesn’t work for the elections in the South after Reconstruction.
Weak arguments don’t work against strong arguments, after all. You forgot the second arrow that was being shot at you.
You left Vietnam to the racists (racist? Yes, look up the story of half American children that got to America), to the sadistic men who purged all dissent as well as anyone who aided the Americans. You justify it by saying that so long as the country was in VIetnamese hands, you don’t care to know what happens afterwards, you don’t know and you don’t care to know whether peace happens or not when Americans leave. While that’s not my ethical standard, the argument isn’t about that.
The argument is simple. I want the human rights of blacks and whites protected, with US federal troops, before elections are held, in order to safeguard the democratic process. You want US troops to leave, to allow the “locals” to handle things, while you turn a blind eye.
That worked quite well in Rwanda to be honest, but people like me is not going to allow that to happen, and my beef isn’t with Vietnam in the first place. Don’t have a dog in that fight, happened before my time. There are others, Vietnam veterans however, who might differ. But regardless of all that, I’m not going to turn a blind eye to the Iraqis while people like you pull American troop protection from Iraq, to allow the purges to begin. You have a chance in two years with the elections, make your play then.
Iraq has inadvertently become the battleground of a long overdue reckoning, a bellwether of the future of the Middle East. If the constitutionalists win, then the jihadists will be in retreat and there will be at last a third way between radical Islam and dictatorship.
….There are a million Muslims in Israel — the mother of all evils in the radical Islamic mind. Yet very few have turned themselves into global jihadists, and hundreds are not blowing themselves up daily in Tel Aviv, much less in London or New York. Why? Perhaps the twofold knowledge that they have rights in Israel not found in the Arab world that they don’t wish to forfeit, and they are surrounded by people who would not tolerate their terrorism.
For the first time, Afghans and Iraqis have a stake in their own future — and know the United States is at last on the right side of history and intends to stay and win by their side.
So we press on.
– Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507290803.asp
…
One more poll, though Brookings is left-leaning:
QUESTION TO IRAQIS: THINKING ABOUT ANY HARDSHIPS YOU MIGHT HAVE SUFFERED SINCE THE US-BRITAIN INVASION, DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK THAT OUSTING SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS WORTH IT OR NOT?
(chart shows Iraqis who responded “worth it”)
Overall: 77%
Kurds: 91%
Shia: 98%
Sunni: 17%
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Brookings Institute – June 19, 2006
More:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/unlike-murtha-iraqis-say-they-are.html
Via: http://www.squiggler.com/2006/06/murtha_kerry_wr.html
“However, that URL (which is Chapter 6 of Rummel’s book) says nothing of the sort. In fact, if you actually look at what is on that page, you’ll notice that he says: “Finally, I can calculate the overall democide of Vietnam in the post-Vietnam War period (lines 762 to 764)” and estimates this number to be “probably about 1,040,000.” Notice also that in this number he includes not only people who were executed but also people who died of disease in prison camps as well as those who died at sea while fleeing due to their flimsy boats capsizing. So the number of those executed in the post-Vietnam war period is even smaller than this 1.04 million number. Nowhere near the “millions were executed” that you wrote.”
First, he limited his discussion on that page to democide. If you would look at the raw data linked at the very beginning (I know, lots of numbers there, hard to follow) it goes into the millions.
Secondly, th number you quote is also restricted in area, once more if you look into his data you will see the democide that reached in cambodia amounted to around 3 million alone, let alone a less restrictive definition.
Of course, it helps you if you restrict it to limited area’s – the number is much smaller.
In this case I’m not using Rummel’s conclusions for anything – simply his raw data. I chose it because it is considered one of the most complete compilations out there – it’s been used for both left and right wing stuff.
Why would he care about the numbers strcpy? I mean after all, it doesn’t seem to matter based upon ROger’s philosophical principles. Whether 1 or 1 million or 10 million, what does it matter to someone who believes that everything is justified because the VIetnamese was finally in power? So long as the VIetnamese don’t bother Roger or his family, why should Roger care when he clearly does not?
Thanks to ghost, for the brookings institute pdf. I’ve derived some good extrapolations from that data.
Roger –
First: what Eisenhower said about Vietnam is completely and totally irrelevant. How about adressing instead what I said?
Second: wide-spread opposition to Hitler in Germany during WW2?
Das ich nicht lache! Absurd. There was virtually NO opposition to Hitler during WW2 from the German populace: it lies in the nature of fascism to make sure that your population is acquiescent and obeys the Leader. Sure, there *was* some opposition: when it was found out, it was ruthlessly supressed and the participants brutally executed. Read about the purges in the German General Staff after the assasination attempt on Hitler: many senior officers were strung up with piano wire around their necks and suffocated a slow, lingering death with as much pain as deliberately possible, usually after severe torture. And the White Rose group? They were caught after the first time they spread around some pamphlets and were more or less summarily executed: arrested, tried, sentenced and executed within 4 hours, if I remember correctly, and they were a bunch of kids.
The idea that civil disobedience was an alternative in Germany at that time is about as believeable as seeing Kos admit that he really works for Rove.
I really wish that those who are so eager and ready to label a political opponent a fascist would bother to learn what fascism really meant and how it really worked. Fascism is everything about political control and suppression of all alternatives in society, forcing a population to literally obey the wishes of the party’s leader without ANY questions and without ANY hesitations. It’s about ruthless repression and of making sure that any dissent leads not only to the punishment of the dissenter, but to his entire family and those who failed to report him when they knew he had a different opinion.
PS: Ymar, good arguements as well! 🙂
John Opie,
How do you explain the widespread resitance by civilians in Nazi-occupied France?
The answer to Brian DIxon’s contested contention is simple. When Stalin told his communist agents that Russia is friends with Germany against the Imperialist Americans and British, then that meant Russia has ALWAYS been friends with Germany. When Stalin told his agents in France that Russia is now enemies with the fascistic Germans, aided by the uh British and uh American comrades, that meant that RUssia has ALWAYS been enemies with the fascistic Germans…
Does anyone else have a question about communist guerrila agent networks in France?
John, thx.
I just think it is weird. People have always complained about Americans being hypocrites for siding with dictators and what not, when we are supposed to be fighting for tyranny. But the second that Stalin and the communist agents in France goes into play, oh now it is “why didn’t we work more with our future Cold War enemy”. Ridiculous, dangerous even.
You want us to work with our future Cold War enemies? Why don’t people blame us for allying with Stalin and then almost destroying humanity with nukes in the Cold War, given the amount of complaint they have that the “US sold chem weapons to Saddam”. Does anyone remember hearing “dissent” about how the US by working with Russia gave Russia the secrets to the nuke bomb and this almost destroyed all of humanity? Compare this with Saddam’s weapons, which weren’t going to destroy humanity.
Obviously, the people fighting for humanity, isn’t fighting for the same humanity I am.
You’re forgetting that, while there were communists among the French resistance, a major part of the resistance was led by Gaullists, and that Charles de Gaulle, in exile in London, was the titular leader of the French Resistance during the Nazi occupation of France.
And de Gaulle had no love for the Communists — he was allied to Churchill and Roosevelt.
DeGaulle was allied to himself. As he proved after WWII. Again, DeGaulle couldn’t prevent the French government from transfering French weapons and munitions and armies to German hands, relying upon the French Resistance to reason with the Germans is another good way to lose.