The Truth About Smart Bombs
March 15, 2006 6:01 PM Subscribe
Or how I got comfortable with living six city blocks in any direction from insurgents. You’re sitting down for afternoon coffee in Baghdad. The Americans no longer come into the neighborhood anymore. Instead, it’s the Iraqi security forces now. No big deal, you can handle that. They’re your people. Or maybe they’re not. At least the Americans help out with air strikes against the insurgents. It’s a shame no one has a way of determining whether they’re within six and a half blocks of an insurgent until it’s too late, because that’s the blast radius of a 2,000 lb bomb equipped with JDAM smart technology to make sure it doesn’t ruffle any feathers of anyone close by. Precision weapons? Hardly. The minimum safe distance with the smartest of the smart bombs is three city blocks. Any closer than that and you can look forward to the strong possibility of a permanent dirt nap. Does that sound fair to you? As you’re sitting there reading this now take a moment to think of three city blocks from your job, from your home, from where you shop for groceries. Does this sound like a situation you can remove yourself quickly from on foot? To avoid being tagged in death as being ‘one of the insurgents or an insurgent sympathizer?’
Of course, failing all that we can just send in the sharks with laser beams on their foreheads. They'll fix everything.
I think that editorialization is well warranted in our current situation. You really can't hyperbolize, the VP shot someone in the face.
posted by twjordan at 6:13 PM on March 15, 2006
posted by twjordan at 6:13 PM on March 15, 2006
Maybe. But the blue is not the place for it. Read any one of a dozen recent MetaTalk threads.
Which is where this sort of discussion belongs.
posted by S.C. at 6:15 PM on March 15, 2006
Which is where this sort of discussion belongs.
posted by S.C. at 6:15 PM on March 15, 2006
True that, but at least someone looked into that shooting.
posted by twjordan at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2006
posted by twjordan at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2006
Sorry, just trying to put it into perspective. None of us here can empathize with Iraqi or Palestinian or other civilians worldwide experiencing an airstrike unless we know what's involved. That was my intent here. To make people think about walking a block (or six) in another person's shoes with death and destruction raining down overhead.
This is a statement from a military briefer that I thought had significance:
"The change in nomenclature reflects internal angst about whether or not it is appropriate to give the specific types of ordnance dropped,'" said Air Forces spokesman Maj. Robert P. Palmer in an e-mail exchange.
In other words, their conscience is bothering them and they want to divert attention away from that.
posted by mk1gti at 6:46 PM on March 15, 2006
This is a statement from a military briefer that I thought had significance:
"The change in nomenclature reflects internal angst about whether or not it is appropriate to give the specific types of ordnance dropped,'" said Air Forces spokesman Maj. Robert P. Palmer in an e-mail exchange.
In other words, their conscience is bothering them and they want to divert attention away from that.
posted by mk1gti at 6:46 PM on March 15, 2006
RoboCop: [after stabbing Clarence] Lewis! Lewis!
[looks up]
Lewis: Murphy... I'm a mess...
RoboCop: They'll fix you. They fix everything.
And yeah, too much editorializing. You weren't quoting from anything, and putting yourself in Baghdad as an exercise was a bit much. *sigh*
posted by dhartung at 6:46 PM on March 15, 2006
[looks up]
Lewis: Murphy... I'm a mess...
RoboCop: They'll fix you. They fix everything.
And yeah, too much editorializing. You weren't quoting from anything, and putting yourself in Baghdad as an exercise was a bit much. *sigh*
posted by dhartung at 6:46 PM on March 15, 2006
Here's some additional info for rumination.
Info on precision guided munitions
The missing air war in Iraq.
What's new with Smart Weapons.
JDAM's from Wikipedia
Some of this may have been repeated from what I posted originally, but I think it's important for all of us to be aware that when the military, either here in the U.S., Israel or other countries says 'minimal collateral damage' that it is simply not true. Many innocent people are being killed and we need to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
posted by mk1gti at 6:55 PM on March 15, 2006
Info on precision guided munitions
The missing air war in Iraq.
What's new with Smart Weapons.
JDAM's from Wikipedia
Some of this may have been repeated from what I posted originally, but I think it's important for all of us to be aware that when the military, either here in the U.S., Israel or other countries says 'minimal collateral damage' that it is simply not true. Many innocent people are being killed and we need to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
posted by mk1gti at 6:55 PM on March 15, 2006
I don't mean to discount what the original post says, but to give some perspective from my own experience. The typical hand grenade (at least in Canada) has a lethality radius of 18m, but a danger radius of 300m. Do you think they would authorize the use of such a hand thrown weapon if they really thought you'd hurt everyone 300m within the radius of the grenade?
No doubt there is a risk of being hurt by being 6 1/2 blocks away from one of these bombs, but I'm betting the real life potential is rather slim at that point. Having said that, I wouldn't wish that sort of situation on anyone.
posted by furtive at 7:06 PM on March 15, 2006
No doubt there is a risk of being hurt by being 6 1/2 blocks away from one of these bombs, but I'm betting the real life potential is rather slim at that point. Having said that, I wouldn't wish that sort of situation on anyone.
posted by furtive at 7:06 PM on March 15, 2006
No doubt there is a risk of being hurt by being 6 1/2 blocks away from one of these bombs, but I'm betting the real life potential is rather slim at that point. Having said that, I wouldn't wish that sort of situation on anyone.
posted by furtive at 7:06 PM
-----------------------------------------
I was thinking about what this poster said when he commented about air dropped munitions during his service in the military.
'When you drop a 2000 lb warhead into a city, you're going to kill civilian non-combatants. The blast radius of such a munition is such that our forces have to keep a minimum of 500 meters or more distance for safety. If you're 400 meters away, there's a 50% chance you'll die. 40 meters or less--your chances of survival do not exist.'
posted by mk1gti at 7:11 PM on March 15, 2006
posted by furtive at 7:06 PM
-----------------------------------------
I was thinking about what this poster said when he commented about air dropped munitions during his service in the military.
'When you drop a 2000 lb warhead into a city, you're going to kill civilian non-combatants. The blast radius of such a munition is such that our forces have to keep a minimum of 500 meters or more distance for safety. If you're 400 meters away, there's a 50% chance you'll die. 40 meters or less--your chances of survival do not exist.'
posted by mk1gti at 7:11 PM on March 15, 2006
Maybe. But the blue is not the place for it.
Oh, fuck off and get a clue. It's a great post.
posted by Decani at 7:29 PM on March 15, 2006
Oh, fuck off and get a clue. It's a great post.
posted by Decani at 7:29 PM on March 15, 2006
Y'see the problem with the cat bombs is those suckers look for the nearest warm body under a blanket. They don't discriminate. Let's say you're tucked away all safe and warm in your bedroom at night, snoring away and all of a sudden someone drops a dreaded cat bomb in through the chimney. The cat bomb skitters about, looking left and right until it detects. . . a warm body. And *blankets*!!! Right away it's like a guided missle with only one thought on it's mind: warm feet. Off it goes, through the door, under the covers, warm feet and *Boooooom*! ! ! Don't let this happen to you. Guard yourself against the lurking nightmare of the cat bomb. . .
posted by mk1gti at 7:32 PM on March 15, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 7:32 PM on March 15, 2006
I think the decision to shoot missiles and drop bombs ends up being a decision about whether we'd rather risk our troops or their civilians. It's not safe to just leave the insurgents alone, they kill civilians too; possibly more than we do.
I can't say for sure what's the right decision, but I do know which one makes the most sense for the military brass; the American public they answer to cares very much about the first and not a lot about the second. So the status quo there is unlikely to change.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:35 PM on March 15, 2006
I can't say for sure what's the right decision, but I do know which one makes the most sense for the military brass; the American public they answer to cares very much about the first and not a lot about the second. So the status quo there is unlikely to change.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:35 PM on March 15, 2006
Which is why 'the right decision' question bothers me. In this story we have 11 civilians killed by airstrikes, 4 civilians killed by the insurgents. 1 insurgent captured alive. 15 innocent people killed. 1 insurgent captured. Not a good ratio.
Which is why the story I've posted above and the stories that journalists are writing about now are important: To put things in perspective for those who aren't aware of just how high and terrible these costs are that are being paid, in spite of the claims of 'a sanitary and clean war.'
posted by mk1gti at 7:43 PM on March 15, 2006
Which is why the story I've posted above and the stories that journalists are writing about now are important: To put things in perspective for those who aren't aware of just how high and terrible these costs are that are being paid, in spite of the claims of 'a sanitary and clean war.'
posted by mk1gti at 7:43 PM on March 15, 2006
mk1gti: Which is why 'the right decision' question bothers me. In this story we have 11 civilians killed by airstrikes, 4 civilians killed by the insurgents. 1 insurgent captured alive. 15 innocent people killed. 1 insurgent captured. Not a good ratio.
No, you're right, it does suck, and you'd think we could have done better (if the insurgent's known to be inside the house, I'd recommend using snipers and catching him when he leaves.) One presumes it was bad intelligence that led to this mistake.
I think a lot of the problem is the civilians themselves; a lot of them are covering up for the insurgents, or at least not actively helping us against them, and without that help, we can't fight them effectively. Not to mention that some will give bogus intelligence for money, and some are happy to sic us on anyone they don't like.
None of this makes civilian casualties ok, of course, but I really wish the civilians over there would understand that we could do a hell of a lot better job if they'd help us, and that they need to actively fight the insurgency, which can never promise them anything better than anarchy.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:56 PM on March 15, 2006
No, you're right, it does suck, and you'd think we could have done better (if the insurgent's known to be inside the house, I'd recommend using snipers and catching him when he leaves.) One presumes it was bad intelligence that led to this mistake.
I think a lot of the problem is the civilians themselves; a lot of them are covering up for the insurgents, or at least not actively helping us against them, and without that help, we can't fight them effectively. Not to mention that some will give bogus intelligence for money, and some are happy to sic us on anyone they don't like.
None of this makes civilian casualties ok, of course, but I really wish the civilians over there would understand that we could do a hell of a lot better job if they'd help us, and that they need to actively fight the insurgency, which can never promise them anything better than anarchy.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:56 PM on March 15, 2006
Oh, fuck off and get a clue.
Such hostility! It's a good post; less heavy-handed, it would have been great. I was offering constructive—if perhaps misplaced—criticism.
I didn't insult your mother or kick your dog. Simmer down.
posted by S.C. at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2006
Such hostility! It's a good post; less heavy-handed, it would have been great. I was offering constructive—if perhaps misplaced—criticism.
I didn't insult your mother or kick your dog. Simmer down.
posted by S.C. at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2006
Guard yourself against the lurking nightmare of the cat bomb. . .
Cats are hopefully a bit like canaries. Thank goodness for chronic night time flatulance. I never thought I'd hear myself say that. Or write. Whatever.
posted by NailsTheCat at 8:10 PM on March 15, 2006
Cats are hopefully a bit like canaries. Thank goodness for chronic night time flatulance. I never thought I'd hear myself say that. Or write. Whatever.
posted by NailsTheCat at 8:10 PM on March 15, 2006
I thought the 2nd person narrative "editorializing" was effective, except for its interruption with the question "Does that sound fair to you?," which begs the question of the original premise of "that this isn't fair one bit."
posted by mrmojoflying at 8:13 PM on March 15, 2006
posted by mrmojoflying at 8:13 PM on March 15, 2006
You see, because of the chronic nighttime flatulence this is why I've lived so long. Just as another slow, hot burner rears it's ugly head. Damn. . . .
posted by mk1gti at 8:14 PM on March 15, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 8:14 PM on March 15, 2006
What mitrovarr said. And if they won't cooperate, we'll have no choice but to keep blowing them the fuck up. Goddam ungrateful ragheads.
Do you people ever even listen to yourselves?
posted by flabdablet at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2006
Do you people ever even listen to yourselves?
posted by flabdablet at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2006
Kevin Drum just linked to a story reporting that our use of bombing is going up.
You can not defeat an insurgency with bombs. That the US military is increasing their use is indicitave of their effort in Iraq. That is to say, it's going very badly.
You don't win hearts and minds by killing innocent civilians. Every time we drop a bomb, we're quite likely killing innocents -- Iraq is very starkly divided between empty and urban.
We've lost. The military is just trying to not get overrun before somebody in the brass admits we've lost and gets 'em the fuck out.
The dead Iraqis? Don't talk about the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) we've made.
Very good post. I wish more Americans would actually think about what is going on in Iraq, rather than live in their current fantasy land of bearded evil doers getting what they have coming, and grateful Iraqis kissing our troops feet.
posted by teece at 8:22 PM on March 15, 2006
You can not defeat an insurgency with bombs. That the US military is increasing their use is indicitave of their effort in Iraq. That is to say, it's going very badly.
You don't win hearts and minds by killing innocent civilians. Every time we drop a bomb, we're quite likely killing innocents -- Iraq is very starkly divided between empty and urban.
We've lost. The military is just trying to not get overrun before somebody in the brass admits we've lost and gets 'em the fuck out.
The dead Iraqis? Don't talk about the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) we've made.
Very good post. I wish more Americans would actually think about what is going on in Iraq, rather than live in their current fantasy land of bearded evil doers getting what they have coming, and grateful Iraqis kissing our troops feet.
posted by teece at 8:22 PM on March 15, 2006
Mitrovarr, if the 'good guys' are killing 15 innocents for every bad guy they kill or capture it's not a good record. Look at the Israelis with the Palestinians since 1948 or so. The argument of 'If they don't help us, we'll have to keep on killing them' is not valid. It hasn't worked for almost sixty years now with the Palestinians, it didn't work the the Irish during the British occupation, it didn't work with the British when the occupied the U.S. prior to it's formation.
The 'help us or we'll kill you' rational simply does not work and it's a lazy and dishonest way of framing the question. It Does Not Work. Killing Innocents To Persecute The Guilty Does Not Work.
The airstrikes need to stop, and introducing 'robocops' will not solve the problem either. The only thing that will work is face to face, human to human interaction, verbally without weapons. Until any aggressor or self-identified 'peacekeeper' faces that and acknowledges that, they are no better than the enemy they face.
posted by mk1gti at 8:38 PM on March 15, 2006
The 'help us or we'll kill you' rational simply does not work and it's a lazy and dishonest way of framing the question. It Does Not Work. Killing Innocents To Persecute The Guilty Does Not Work.
The airstrikes need to stop, and introducing 'robocops' will not solve the problem either. The only thing that will work is face to face, human to human interaction, verbally without weapons. Until any aggressor or self-identified 'peacekeeper' faces that and acknowledges that, they are no better than the enemy they face.
posted by mk1gti at 8:38 PM on March 15, 2006
mk1gti: The airstrikes need to stop, and introducing 'robocops' will not solve the problem either. The only thing that will work is face to face, human to human interaction, verbally without weapons.
If we try that, they will kill us. Seriously, the leaders of the insurgency aren't interested in any kind of debate. They want to rule the country and they will quite happily kill anyone who gets in their way.
You're right that the other approach, bombing them until they like us, won't work either. It'd be nice if they'd help us track down the insurgents, but at this point, it's not likely. Hell, half the insurgents are probably in it for revenge at this point. What we needed to have done was to convince the Iraqi population that they had to help us, so we could help them create a country for themselves. It's too late now.
Really, it shows the hell that nation building is. We weren't really to commit enough personnel and lives to really free Iraq, and we alienated the Iraqi pretty early on, losing their support. It really shows why we should have just stayed the hell away from the country, if the complete lack of WMDs wasn't enough of a reason.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2006
If we try that, they will kill us. Seriously, the leaders of the insurgency aren't interested in any kind of debate. They want to rule the country and they will quite happily kill anyone who gets in their way.
You're right that the other approach, bombing them until they like us, won't work either. It'd be nice if they'd help us track down the insurgents, but at this point, it's not likely. Hell, half the insurgents are probably in it for revenge at this point. What we needed to have done was to convince the Iraqi population that they had to help us, so we could help them create a country for themselves. It's too late now.
Really, it shows the hell that nation building is. We weren't really to commit enough personnel and lives to really free Iraq, and we alienated the Iraqi pretty early on, losing their support. It really shows why we should have just stayed the hell away from the country, if the complete lack of WMDs wasn't enough of a reason.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2006
Mitrovarr
You're thinking with a Vietnam mindset on this. They want to kill us now because we kill too many innocent civilians and have done so since the sanctions far in advance of the actual invasion itself. They have very good reason for wanting to kill 'us'. And let's leave that 'us' out of the discussion. They want to kill those who blindly murder without thought or reason. Insurgents and the occupying military, whether they're U.S., British, Polish, Italian, Spanish, mercenaries (oh, excuse me, Private Military Contractors), it doesn't matter. There is no 'nation building' going on, it's a blind, raw, thoughtless grab for power in a country the U.S. foolishly thought would 'throw rose petals at our feet' when they were occupied.
The bottom line is this: Using airstrikes will only make the problem worse and the comeuppance at the end that much more expensive both financially and spiritually. Look at Vietnam and the cost that was incurred at the end from using airstrikes instead of ground troops. It made no difference in the outcome but this country left a lot of military equipment behind and lost a hell of a lot of morale and goodwill afterwards. If a country's not willing to commit it's troops face to face with an enemy, perhaps it shoudn't leave the kitchen. Or the redneck bar where it comes up with the foolish notion that 'we'll show'em who's boss.'
When this invasion started, for the most part the Iraqis were glad to see Saddam go. Then they wanted us out. We should have left. Staying behind like an unwanted guest after a party has only led to understandable resentment. No sense in trying to bully someone out of their home afterwards. It only makes one look like an ass.
posted by mk1gti at 9:07 PM on March 15, 2006
You're thinking with a Vietnam mindset on this. They want to kill us now because we kill too many innocent civilians and have done so since the sanctions far in advance of the actual invasion itself. They have very good reason for wanting to kill 'us'. And let's leave that 'us' out of the discussion. They want to kill those who blindly murder without thought or reason. Insurgents and the occupying military, whether they're U.S., British, Polish, Italian, Spanish, mercenaries (oh, excuse me, Private Military Contractors), it doesn't matter. There is no 'nation building' going on, it's a blind, raw, thoughtless grab for power in a country the U.S. foolishly thought would 'throw rose petals at our feet' when they were occupied.
The bottom line is this: Using airstrikes will only make the problem worse and the comeuppance at the end that much more expensive both financially and spiritually. Look at Vietnam and the cost that was incurred at the end from using airstrikes instead of ground troops. It made no difference in the outcome but this country left a lot of military equipment behind and lost a hell of a lot of morale and goodwill afterwards. If a country's not willing to commit it's troops face to face with an enemy, perhaps it shoudn't leave the kitchen. Or the redneck bar where it comes up with the foolish notion that 'we'll show'em who's boss.'
When this invasion started, for the most part the Iraqis were glad to see Saddam go. Then they wanted us out. We should have left. Staying behind like an unwanted guest after a party has only led to understandable resentment. No sense in trying to bully someone out of their home afterwards. It only makes one look like an ass.
posted by mk1gti at 9:07 PM on March 15, 2006
mk1gti:
You ascribe excessively positive motives to them and excessively negative ones to us. We didn't murder without cause or reason, the sanctions were intended to limit Saddam's power and keep him from starting pointless wars of aggression with his neighbors in the Middle East. The insurgents are not purely in it for revenge, they want to sieze control of the country, either for an Islamic theocracy or for a military dictatorship (it depends on the group.) I'm willing to believe most of the rank and file are in it for revenge, but not for the leaders. Look at how many Iraqis the insurgents kill; they kill too many, and often the wrong targets, for them to be merely attacking collaborators. A lot of the insurgency violence is racial or tribal conflicts.
It wouldn't have worked to just run in there and take Saddam and his forces out. If the insurgency shows anything, it's that the country was anarchy waiting to happen. Taking Saddam out without filling the power vaccuum would probably not have accomplished anything except causing a long, violent civil war.
We should have never attacked the country to begin with. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, and we should probably just have left him alone. Now that this mess is going, I don't know what to do. Bombing isn't working, and that's all we're good at. We could cut and run, but the place is almost guaranteed to turn into a theocratic wreck that would be a huge source of terrorists for generations. We could put a big wall around the country; terrorists can't hurt you if you don't let them enter your country, but that just feels like screwing over the Iraqi people yet again. If you have any better ideas, I'd like to hear them.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:36 PM on March 15, 2006
You ascribe excessively positive motives to them and excessively negative ones to us. We didn't murder without cause or reason, the sanctions were intended to limit Saddam's power and keep him from starting pointless wars of aggression with his neighbors in the Middle East. The insurgents are not purely in it for revenge, they want to sieze control of the country, either for an Islamic theocracy or for a military dictatorship (it depends on the group.) I'm willing to believe most of the rank and file are in it for revenge, but not for the leaders. Look at how many Iraqis the insurgents kill; they kill too many, and often the wrong targets, for them to be merely attacking collaborators. A lot of the insurgency violence is racial or tribal conflicts.
It wouldn't have worked to just run in there and take Saddam and his forces out. If the insurgency shows anything, it's that the country was anarchy waiting to happen. Taking Saddam out without filling the power vaccuum would probably not have accomplished anything except causing a long, violent civil war.
We should have never attacked the country to begin with. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, and we should probably just have left him alone. Now that this mess is going, I don't know what to do. Bombing isn't working, and that's all we're good at. We could cut and run, but the place is almost guaranteed to turn into a theocratic wreck that would be a huge source of terrorists for generations. We could put a big wall around the country; terrorists can't hurt you if you don't let them enter your country, but that just feels like screwing over the Iraqi people yet again. If you have any better ideas, I'd like to hear them.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:36 PM on March 15, 2006
re-read above:
'And let's leave that 'us' out of the discussion. They want to kill those who blindly murder without thought or reason. Insurgents and the occupying military.'
That means Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurds, flavor of the month, everyone wants to kill everyone at this point. It is, to use an old Vietnam war era term 'a cluster fuck'.
As far as killing without cause or reason? That's what got this mess going in the first place. Everyone is currently running around killing everyone else. At this point there are no good guys or bad guys, there's just murderers killing the innocent, and quite frankly those innocents being killed really don't care who flys what flag at this point, just that they're getting murdered by some self-righteous idiot claiming to do it to 'save them'. There is never a good 'cause or reason' for the kind of response that is going on now.
posted by mk1gti at 10:16 PM on March 15, 2006
'And let's leave that 'us' out of the discussion. They want to kill those who blindly murder without thought or reason. Insurgents and the occupying military.'
That means Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurds, flavor of the month, everyone wants to kill everyone at this point. It is, to use an old Vietnam war era term 'a cluster fuck'.
As far as killing without cause or reason? That's what got this mess going in the first place. Everyone is currently running around killing everyone else. At this point there are no good guys or bad guys, there's just murderers killing the innocent, and quite frankly those innocents being killed really don't care who flys what flag at this point, just that they're getting murdered by some self-righteous idiot claiming to do it to 'save them'. There is never a good 'cause or reason' for the kind of response that is going on now.
posted by mk1gti at 10:16 PM on March 15, 2006
I think a lot of the problem is the civilians themselves; a lot of them are covering up for the insurgents, ... None of this makes civilian casualties ok, of course, but I really wish the civilians over there would understand that we could do a hell of a lot better job if they'd help us, and that they need to actively fight the insurgency ...
Perhaps, just perhaps, this is because the Iraqis would like to handle it without our help. Maybe they think that we've done enough. Maybe they are kind of like Americans who, I would guess, would in no way appreciate the help of a foreign power in settling internal disputes.
It might even be that the whole "the civilian population is not helping us against the insurgents" thing can be considered a clue.
posted by moonbiter at 12:04 AM on March 16, 2006
Seriously, the leaders of the insurgency aren't interested in any kind of debate. They want to rule the country and they will quite happily kill anyone who gets in their way.
Sentence 1 = "We don't negotiate."
Sentence 2 = US foreign policy.
posted by biffa at 2:26 AM on March 16, 2006
Sentence 1 = "We don't negotiate."
Sentence 2 = US foreign policy.
posted by biffa at 2:26 AM on March 16, 2006
The bottom line is this: Using airstrikes will only make the problem worse
I agree with that sentence. Airstrikes in an urban environment where you kill people not directly involved makes for resentment, revenge, and general hostility.
If you are going to do that, you might as well carpet bomb the whole city and kill everyone.
I think we have done just about all we can do in Iraq. We foolishly wrapped democracy in a box and tried giving it to them like a christmas gift. And now they resent the act.
Either all parties in Iraq are going to have to figure things out, or gear up for a long protracted civil war. Either way, we should leave and let them figure it out for themselves.
I think in the end, that the insurgency would be put down, and that the different religious groups/political parties would eventually work out some comprimises and stabilize things.
The concept that you can take powdered democracy and just add water and p00f! instant democracy is silly. It has taken the United States 200+ years to evolve to where we are now, and we are far from perfect. It is just retarded to think you are going to waltz in to a nation, take out a dictator and BAM! Here is your democracry all nice and neat. Not going to happen, never was. Time to leave and let the Iraqi nation find its way.
posted by a3matrix at 7:31 AM on March 16, 2006
I agree with that sentence. Airstrikes in an urban environment where you kill people not directly involved makes for resentment, revenge, and general hostility.
If you are going to do that, you might as well carpet bomb the whole city and kill everyone.
I think we have done just about all we can do in Iraq. We foolishly wrapped democracy in a box and tried giving it to them like a christmas gift. And now they resent the act.
Either all parties in Iraq are going to have to figure things out, or gear up for a long protracted civil war. Either way, we should leave and let them figure it out for themselves.
I think in the end, that the insurgency would be put down, and that the different religious groups/political parties would eventually work out some comprimises and stabilize things.
The concept that you can take powdered democracy and just add water and p00f! instant democracy is silly. It has taken the United States 200+ years to evolve to where we are now, and we are far from perfect. It is just retarded to think you are going to waltz in to a nation, take out a dictator and BAM! Here is your democracry all nice and neat. Not going to happen, never was. Time to leave and let the Iraqi nation find its way.
posted by a3matrix at 7:31 AM on March 16, 2006
Time to leave and let the Iraqi nation find its way.
Problem with that (strategically, for the world, region, and not just the US) is that leaving now basically hands the southern 1/3 of the country to Iran or at the very least Iranian interests. Strenghthening Iran at this time (which has already happened in Iraq, Lebanon, and with their border situation with Afghanistan) is probably something the US, regardless of who's in power, does not want. It's also not what Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. do not want.
So, what to do? The easiest thing, and what has happened in geopolitical situations like this for eons, is to install either a Sunni or secular, anti-Iran Shi'a-- Saddam Hussein Jr. so to speak. Good times.
posted by cell divide at 8:04 AM on March 16, 2006
Problem with that (strategically, for the world, region, and not just the US) is that leaving now basically hands the southern 1/3 of the country to Iran or at the very least Iranian interests. Strenghthening Iran at this time (which has already happened in Iraq, Lebanon, and with their border situation with Afghanistan) is probably something the US, regardless of who's in power, does not want. It's also not what Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. do not want.
So, what to do? The easiest thing, and what has happened in geopolitical situations like this for eons, is to install either a Sunni or secular, anti-Iran Shi'a-- Saddam Hussein Jr. so to speak. Good times.
posted by cell divide at 8:04 AM on March 16, 2006
these shrill, editorializing posts are ruining MetaFilter -- war (especially a war America is losing) is a downer. what this site needs is more youtube.com posts about car crashes, Flash games with dancing chipmunks and the new new Apple product
posted by matteo at 8:31 AM on March 16, 2006
posted by matteo at 8:31 AM on March 16, 2006
Of course, we could all go here and just post links to this site all the time, then comment on them. And here.
posted by mk1gti at 9:52 AM on March 16, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 9:52 AM on March 16, 2006
MetaFilter: ruining MetaFilter
Actually, when you consider the actual objective they’re doing well.
Bear with me here:
From the military POV the colonels are backing off to the apolitical “For every ‘X’ number of our guys killed we kill ‘Y’” to show they are operating efficiently.
That’d be on the ground engagements. Civilians don’t enter into it because insurgents would kill them too.
So from that perspective - the military is (saying it is) doing it’s job, killing bad guys and protecting the civilians it can. At the very least, not willfully slaughtering large swaths of the populace.
They are, insofar as that discussion can go, neutral. Because they are doing the job.
In a sense they are serving several masters. They must mitigate their own casualties while inflicting as many on the enemy as possible while minimizing (if possible) civilian casualties and expending enough big ticket ammunition to justify the defense industry and our budget (which has the ancillary objective of fighting for funds to be directed to men rather than material).
So - neutral, because they are pulled so many different ways it balances out. Either way the machine is running and no one wants to be the bad cog problem child.
The real overall objective in Iraq, as far as I can see, is to stomp on the insurgents and shatter their organizational capacity in order to pre-emptively prevent attacks on the oil infrastructure.
In those terms, the bombing is working well. As a cost benefit analysis - the dead civilians don’t matter because they themselves are no longer even a potential threat to the oil flow. Perhaps their families are, but typically if we’re killing young men in bomb attacks the survivors (women, older or younger folks) while potential threats to ground troops aren’t capable of mobilizing, so they aren’t a threat to the oil flow. And we don’t have to worry about it being OUR ground troops since the Iraqi forces are taking over.
Indeed the tribal attitude of killing “three or four in return” only helps here, because it distracts from doing damage to the oil infrastructure.
Building and public utility infrastructure costs are also negligible - we’d rather have less hardened positions and a more dependent populace anyway.
So if we kill or capture (even better) one insurgent who does have the ability to organize and plan for even a ratio of 20 or so civilians to 1, we’re ahead.
Depending of course on the threshold of killing necessary for a popular uprising which is likely higher, but can be modulated by (as above) fostering dependency on the U.S. which (ironically) bombing produces as well.
This is of course, besides the point raised here about the morality of killing civilians.
Like Mitrovarr I would prefer using snipers and intelligence, obviously to mitigate innocent casualties, but also because it’s simply good practice, would breed professionalism, and would lend itself well to U.S. troops’ empathy with the population and vice versa. It would certainly begin to win hearts and minds as well without any dependency costs that arise from bombing.
Given the actions by the administration and command* - one can only assume the objective is not to ‘win’ in the sense the term is being used here, but instead to maintain a level of chaos in order to force reliance on us (not necessarily for troops) - and to maintain control over the flow of oil.
*actions that is - not statements or agendas, etc. If it walks, swims, flies, and looks like a duck, it’s a duck regardless of whether it quacks or crows.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:11 AM on March 16, 2006
Actually, when you consider the actual objective they’re doing well.
Bear with me here:
From the military POV the colonels are backing off to the apolitical “For every ‘X’ number of our guys killed we kill ‘Y’” to show they are operating efficiently.
That’d be on the ground engagements. Civilians don’t enter into it because insurgents would kill them too.
So from that perspective - the military is (saying it is) doing it’s job, killing bad guys and protecting the civilians it can. At the very least, not willfully slaughtering large swaths of the populace.
They are, insofar as that discussion can go, neutral. Because they are doing the job.
In a sense they are serving several masters. They must mitigate their own casualties while inflicting as many on the enemy as possible while minimizing (if possible) civilian casualties and expending enough big ticket ammunition to justify the defense industry and our budget (which has the ancillary objective of fighting for funds to be directed to men rather than material).
So - neutral, because they are pulled so many different ways it balances out. Either way the machine is running and no one wants to be the bad cog problem child.
The real overall objective in Iraq, as far as I can see, is to stomp on the insurgents and shatter their organizational capacity in order to pre-emptively prevent attacks on the oil infrastructure.
In those terms, the bombing is working well. As a cost benefit analysis - the dead civilians don’t matter because they themselves are no longer even a potential threat to the oil flow. Perhaps their families are, but typically if we’re killing young men in bomb attacks the survivors (women, older or younger folks) while potential threats to ground troops aren’t capable of mobilizing, so they aren’t a threat to the oil flow. And we don’t have to worry about it being OUR ground troops since the Iraqi forces are taking over.
Indeed the tribal attitude of killing “three or four in return” only helps here, because it distracts from doing damage to the oil infrastructure.
Building and public utility infrastructure costs are also negligible - we’d rather have less hardened positions and a more dependent populace anyway.
So if we kill or capture (even better) one insurgent who does have the ability to organize and plan for even a ratio of 20 or so civilians to 1, we’re ahead.
Depending of course on the threshold of killing necessary for a popular uprising which is likely higher, but can be modulated by (as above) fostering dependency on the U.S. which (ironically) bombing produces as well.
This is of course, besides the point raised here about the morality of killing civilians.
Like Mitrovarr I would prefer using snipers and intelligence, obviously to mitigate innocent casualties, but also because it’s simply good practice, would breed professionalism, and would lend itself well to U.S. troops’ empathy with the population and vice versa. It would certainly begin to win hearts and minds as well without any dependency costs that arise from bombing.
Given the actions by the administration and command* - one can only assume the objective is not to ‘win’ in the sense the term is being used here, but instead to maintain a level of chaos in order to force reliance on us (not necessarily for troops) - and to maintain control over the flow of oil.
*actions that is - not statements or agendas, etc. If it walks, swims, flies, and looks like a duck, it’s a duck regardless of whether it quacks or crows.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:11 AM on March 16, 2006
I’m hoping folks were as concerned when the Clinton admin was bombing the crap out of Iraq as well.
But then I’ve always been deleriously optimistic.
...well, maybe not the optimistic part.
*deprecates self*
posted by Smedleyman at 10:13 AM on March 16, 2006
But then I’ve always been deleriously optimistic.
...well, maybe not the optimistic part.
*deprecates self*
posted by Smedleyman at 10:13 AM on March 16, 2006
Like Mitrovarr I would prefer using snipers and intelligence,
----------------------------
I didn't respond to Metrovarr's comment on snipers and intelligence because I thought it was self-evident why it was incorrect, basically tossed out there like: 'okay, but if this won't work, then we should try this. Okay, but if this doesn't work, then we should try this, and so on and so on.
The reason why the snipers wouldn't work is because a scout sniper team needs to be able to infiltrate the building or area they are going to use for operations without being seen. In this case I think they would be risking their lives for to little purpose. Remember, there is a lot of training that goes into making a successful scout/sniper team, from a monetary and strategic standpoint it wouldn't make sense to throw away that asset on a chance.
As far as intelligence goes, read Robert Baer's books about his life in the CIA and the west's lack of contact with middle easterners of any type. Westerners don't understand the language, the culture, cannot 'pass' for Iraqis (unless they're hispanic or of an arab nationality themselves). I don't think that Special Forces will have much success either.
I have given this quite a bit of thought as you can see by reading the above and hopefully my past posts have seemed more informed than not. At this point, after considering all the options and looking at Israel's very unsuccessful attempts to solving 'the palestinian problem' it would really be a good idea to stop beating these people up and start helping them instead. It would look good for us, for them and for the world. Everybody wins! Cake and ice-cream for everybody!
But instead we have conservatives who stupidly think that if persons or a country is beaten and beaten and beaten again and again they will somehow win. As evidenced in the U.S. revolutionary war, the British occupation of Ireland, Russia/Afghanistan, and who knows how many other examples that is simply not the case. You can't watch everyone, you can't steer them in every little action, you cannot make them live in a prison forever. By doing so you've lost every right to call yourself a proponent for freedom.
If the U.S. is sincere about providing the Iraqis with the freedom to make their own decisions, I think they've spoken quite clearly since the occupation began: They want us out so they can work out the ultimate resolution for themselves. By staying in place the U.S. is just an arrogant, murderous bumbler. Nothing more. The time for the military application of force has ended. Now the time is needed for the application of 'you're on your own, we're outta here.'
posted by mk1gti at 11:15 AM on March 16, 2006
----------------------------
I didn't respond to Metrovarr's comment on snipers and intelligence because I thought it was self-evident why it was incorrect, basically tossed out there like: 'okay, but if this won't work, then we should try this. Okay, but if this doesn't work, then we should try this, and so on and so on.
The reason why the snipers wouldn't work is because a scout sniper team needs to be able to infiltrate the building or area they are going to use for operations without being seen. In this case I think they would be risking their lives for to little purpose. Remember, there is a lot of training that goes into making a successful scout/sniper team, from a monetary and strategic standpoint it wouldn't make sense to throw away that asset on a chance.
As far as intelligence goes, read Robert Baer's books about his life in the CIA and the west's lack of contact with middle easterners of any type. Westerners don't understand the language, the culture, cannot 'pass' for Iraqis (unless they're hispanic or of an arab nationality themselves). I don't think that Special Forces will have much success either.
I have given this quite a bit of thought as you can see by reading the above and hopefully my past posts have seemed more informed than not. At this point, after considering all the options and looking at Israel's very unsuccessful attempts to solving 'the palestinian problem' it would really be a good idea to stop beating these people up and start helping them instead. It would look good for us, for them and for the world. Everybody wins! Cake and ice-cream for everybody!
But instead we have conservatives who stupidly think that if persons or a country is beaten and beaten and beaten again and again they will somehow win. As evidenced in the U.S. revolutionary war, the British occupation of Ireland, Russia/Afghanistan, and who knows how many other examples that is simply not the case. You can't watch everyone, you can't steer them in every little action, you cannot make them live in a prison forever. By doing so you've lost every right to call yourself a proponent for freedom.
If the U.S. is sincere about providing the Iraqis with the freedom to make their own decisions, I think they've spoken quite clearly since the occupation began: They want us out so they can work out the ultimate resolution for themselves. By staying in place the U.S. is just an arrogant, murderous bumbler. Nothing more. The time for the military application of force has ended. Now the time is needed for the application of 'you're on your own, we're outta here.'
posted by mk1gti at 11:15 AM on March 16, 2006
The real overall objective in Iraq, as far as I can see, is to stomp on the insurgents and shatter their organizational capacity in order to pre-emptively prevent attacks on the oil infrastructure.
If that's the objective, it's not working. The insurgency has prevented oil production from recovering to pre-war levels: "Home to the world's third largest oil reserves, Iraq pumped some 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) and sold 1.7 million bpd before the 2003 U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam. ... Now, output fluctuates below 2 million bpd and the country supplies world markets with just over one million bpd."
And the insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker. "The insurgency is increasingly optimistic about victory. Such self-confidence was not there when the war was conceived as an open-ended jihad against an occupier they believed was determined to stay. Optimism stems from a conviction the legitimacy of jihad is now beyond doubt, institutions established under the occupation are fragile and irreparably illegitimate, and the war of attrition against U.S. forces is succeeding."
Before the US toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq wasn't a base for jihadists. But it is now, and it's a better one than Afghanistan ever was. According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, the jihadists are acquiring practical experience in urban warfare at an incredibly rapid pace, using both American and Iraqi targets. There were more suicide bombings in one month in Iraq than there were in several years of the second Palestinian intifada.
It's a no-win situation for the US. If it stays, the jihadists will continue to wear it down, and anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Muslim world will continue to intensify. But if the US leaves, it'll be a major victory for the jihadists, a major defeat for the US (on par with Vietnam), and the jihadists can continue to strengthen their position in Iraq.
I'm guessing that eventually, the US is going to concede defeat and withdraw from Iraq. Even if the US had unlimited manpower and money (which it doesn't), without popular support among the Sunnis, it cannot defeat the insurgency.
posted by russilwvong at 11:24 AM on March 16, 2006
If that's the objective, it's not working. The insurgency has prevented oil production from recovering to pre-war levels: "Home to the world's third largest oil reserves, Iraq pumped some 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) and sold 1.7 million bpd before the 2003 U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam. ... Now, output fluctuates below 2 million bpd and the country supplies world markets with just over one million bpd."
And the insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker. "The insurgency is increasingly optimistic about victory. Such self-confidence was not there when the war was conceived as an open-ended jihad against an occupier they believed was determined to stay. Optimism stems from a conviction the legitimacy of jihad is now beyond doubt, institutions established under the occupation are fragile and irreparably illegitimate, and the war of attrition against U.S. forces is succeeding."
Before the US toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq wasn't a base for jihadists. But it is now, and it's a better one than Afghanistan ever was. According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, the jihadists are acquiring practical experience in urban warfare at an incredibly rapid pace, using both American and Iraqi targets. There were more suicide bombings in one month in Iraq than there were in several years of the second Palestinian intifada.
It's a no-win situation for the US. If it stays, the jihadists will continue to wear it down, and anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Muslim world will continue to intensify. But if the US leaves, it'll be a major victory for the jihadists, a major defeat for the US (on par with Vietnam), and the jihadists can continue to strengthen their position in Iraq.
I'm guessing that eventually, the US is going to concede defeat and withdraw from Iraq. Even if the US had unlimited manpower and money (which it doesn't), without popular support among the Sunnis, it cannot defeat the insurgency.
posted by russilwvong at 11:24 AM on March 16, 2006
More on life in Iraq from the viewpoint of someone in the press trying to write a story. It sounds like they were so restricted on what they wanted to do they had no choice but to write a story about how constricted life is there for westerners.
posted by mk1gti at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2006
Can someone tell me why we don't count the number of Iraqi civilians that we kill? I don't mean that rhetorically, I want to know what the official excuse is. In light of this excellent post, I don't know why Americans don't demand to know.
Oh, yeah... because it's the evil vs. the gutless in Congress. Still, I'd like to hear the explanation for not keeping track of how many innocents we kill.
posted by squirrel at 12:28 PM on March 16, 2006
Oh, yeah... because it's the evil vs. the gutless in Congress. Still, I'd like to hear the explanation for not keeping track of how many innocents we kill.
posted by squirrel at 12:28 PM on March 16, 2006
I think it's the same rational that doesn't explain the size of smart bomb used now: They don't want civilians aware of and moralizing over how much destruction is being wrought in their government's name.
No body counts, no concern about numbers killed. Using 'collateral damage' instead of 'enemy killed' or 'civilians killed'
'coalition forces' instead of 'just a few small countries being paid and subsidized to help our cause.'
Lies and obfuscation that fools no one and insults everyone.
posted by mk1gti at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2006
No body counts, no concern about numbers killed. Using 'collateral damage' instead of 'enemy killed' or 'civilians killed'
'coalition forces' instead of 'just a few small countries being paid and subsidized to help our cause.'
Lies and obfuscation that fools no one and insults everyone.
posted by mk1gti at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2006
People are massively apathetic.
----------------------
right there with ya, bro.
posted by mk1gti at 12:56 PM on March 16, 2006
----------------------
right there with ya, bro.
posted by mk1gti at 12:56 PM on March 16, 2006
Iraqi casualties and the Lancet study on This American Life.
It's not listed in the summary, but in Act 1, they interview a man whose job was to project civilian casualties for individual missile strikes.
He says this is the rule: if 30 or fewer civilians are projected to die, a strike intended for even one target will go through.
If over 30 civilians are projected to die, they would not do the strike.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:59 PM on March 16, 2006
It's not listed in the summary, but in Act 1, they interview a man whose job was to project civilian casualties for individual missile strikes.
He says this is the rule: if 30 or fewer civilians are projected to die, a strike intended for even one target will go through.
If over 30 civilians are projected to die, they would not do the strike.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:59 PM on March 16, 2006
“If the U.S. is sincere about providing the Iraqis with the freedom to make their own decisions...”
I thought I made my position on that rather clear.
I agree with you mk1gti. I was using ‘snipers and intelligence’ as shorthand for a variety of low intensity warfare tactics as well as the general practices from the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual in winning ‘hearts and minds’ (more shorthand).
I’m well aware of intel shortcomings in the Arab world (Ollie North offering some folks a chocolate cake during the day during Ramadan comes first to mind).
So my fault for not explicating all that. There are other tactics that can be used to ‘win’. That we’re not using them is a clear sign that something else is going on. We’re not capable of ‘winning’ or maintaining the moral high ground doing what we’re doing now - agreed.
“Now the time is needed for the application of 'you're on your own, we're outta here.'”
I disagree. In part because I believe Iraq would become utterly unstable, quite possibly fractured, and the flow of oil would become completely chaotic. If Iraq remained fractured it would completely destabilize the price of oil.
“If that's the objective, it's not working.”
The objective /= the goal. The goal isn’t production, but stability. But that is a whole other ball of wax.
It is possible Iraq would be open to outside attack if we left - Iran perhaps, the Saudis maybe. Other interests. I don’t think that would be good for the people.
“I'm guessing that eventually, the US is going to concede defeat and withdraw from Iraq.” - russilwvong
You might be right. I hope not.
Perhaps what should occur is a reframing of the war - we get the people back on their feet, create a stable government we can do business with and of course not bomb the hell out of them.
But that’s mostly off the cuff. I have no idea how the hell to do that. Not to mention minimizing the loss of life or actually cleaning up any of the mess we made without spinning the U.S. and the world into economic disarray.
And just trying to point out the gross mechanisms as they relate to the terms “defeat” or “victory” vs. what’s being espoused. I guess supporting mk1gti’s point on obfuscation through use of terminology.
Now, if you will excuse me I have to deliver some soft ordinance to the men’s room.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:15 PM on March 16, 2006
I thought I made my position on that rather clear.
I agree with you mk1gti. I was using ‘snipers and intelligence’ as shorthand for a variety of low intensity warfare tactics as well as the general practices from the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual in winning ‘hearts and minds’ (more shorthand).
I’m well aware of intel shortcomings in the Arab world (Ollie North offering some folks a chocolate cake during the day during Ramadan comes first to mind).
So my fault for not explicating all that. There are other tactics that can be used to ‘win’. That we’re not using them is a clear sign that something else is going on. We’re not capable of ‘winning’ or maintaining the moral high ground doing what we’re doing now - agreed.
“Now the time is needed for the application of 'you're on your own, we're outta here.'”
I disagree. In part because I believe Iraq would become utterly unstable, quite possibly fractured, and the flow of oil would become completely chaotic. If Iraq remained fractured it would completely destabilize the price of oil.
“If that's the objective, it's not working.”
The objective /= the goal. The goal isn’t production, but stability. But that is a whole other ball of wax.
It is possible Iraq would be open to outside attack if we left - Iran perhaps, the Saudis maybe. Other interests. I don’t think that would be good for the people.
“I'm guessing that eventually, the US is going to concede defeat and withdraw from Iraq.” - russilwvong
You might be right. I hope not.
Perhaps what should occur is a reframing of the war - we get the people back on their feet, create a stable government we can do business with and of course not bomb the hell out of them.
But that’s mostly off the cuff. I have no idea how the hell to do that. Not to mention minimizing the loss of life or actually cleaning up any of the mess we made without spinning the U.S. and the world into economic disarray.
And just trying to point out the gross mechanisms as they relate to the terms “defeat” or “victory” vs. what’s being espoused. I guess supporting mk1gti’s point on obfuscation through use of terminology.
Now, if you will excuse me I have to deliver some soft ordinance to the men’s room.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:15 PM on March 16, 2006
“If over 30 civilians are projected to die, they would not do the strike.”
Sounds about right.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:16 PM on March 16, 2006
Sounds about right.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:16 PM on March 16, 2006
/I realize that sounds cavalier - just pointing to the usefulness of the matrix devoid of the moral implications. And of course not in the context of other, and I think, superior, tactics.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:22 PM on March 16, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 1:22 PM on March 16, 2006
Smedleyman
Sorry if it seemed I was disagreeing with you, no intention re that. I guess it was just a misunderstanding of a misunderstanding, nothing more.
I think the best way to do this thing, and again I'm sounding like an 'armchair general' here (what else is new) is get out, let things settle out and offer support from the standpoint of offering, not shoving it down someone's throats like is happening now. As far as getting the oil flowing, I think the insurgents have pretty much taken care of that for the time being.
I and many others don't see any benefit to keeping the troops tied up in this thing, the only thing it does is inflame opionion against 'those who are trying to help.' There is no cutting and running here, just admitting that a mistake was made and the best way to resolve it for the time being is to remove oneself from the scene. Kind of like a domestic dispute that's gotten out of hand and is best resolved by giving both parties some breathing room. Hubbie has to leave because wifie owns the house. . .
posted by mk1gti at 1:29 PM on March 16, 2006
Sorry if it seemed I was disagreeing with you, no intention re that. I guess it was just a misunderstanding of a misunderstanding, nothing more.
I think the best way to do this thing, and again I'm sounding like an 'armchair general' here (what else is new) is get out, let things settle out and offer support from the standpoint of offering, not shoving it down someone's throats like is happening now. As far as getting the oil flowing, I think the insurgents have pretty much taken care of that for the time being.
I and many others don't see any benefit to keeping the troops tied up in this thing, the only thing it does is inflame opionion against 'those who are trying to help.' There is no cutting and running here, just admitting that a mistake was made and the best way to resolve it for the time being is to remove oneself from the scene. Kind of like a domestic dispute that's gotten out of hand and is best resolved by giving both parties some breathing room. Hubbie has to leave because wifie owns the house. . .
posted by mk1gti at 1:29 PM on March 16, 2006
Could well be mk1gti. Sorry I didn’t read as closely as perhaps I should have. It is just hard to kick over someone’s tea wagon and, recognizing the error, not acting to try to fix it. That’s a more of a visceral response and I’m used to acting rather than not. Or what seems as not acting (if that’s clear).
But perhaps indeed we would and maybe are doing more damage in trying to rectify the situation than we would do in leaving.
It’s a very tough one to call right now.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:50 PM on March 16, 2006
But perhaps indeed we would and maybe are doing more damage in trying to rectify the situation than we would do in leaving.
It’s a very tough one to call right now.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:50 PM on March 16, 2006
You're right, it is a very tough one to call. Developing story, stay tuned and all that. . .
posted by mk1gti at 3:45 PM on March 16, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 3:45 PM on March 16, 2006
A better name for Operation Swarmer, billed as "the largest air assault operation" since the end of major combat operations, would have been Operation Potemkin, since it was mostly for show.
...according to a colleague of mine from TIME who traveled up there today on a U.S. embassy-sponsored trip, there are no insurgents, no fighting and 17 of the 41 prisoners taken have already been released after just one day.posted by kirkaracha at 12:11 PM on March 17, 2006
...
As noted, about 1,500 troops were involved, 700 American and 800 Iraqi. But get this: in the area they’re scouring there are only about 1,500 residents. According to my colleague and other reporters who were there, not a single shot has been fired.
I didn't insult your mother or kick your dog
I don't have a dog because I hate the fawning little beasts. If I had one you'd be more than welcome to kick it, right after I'd finished. As for my mother, you can insult her all you like. Such absurd and empty behaviour doesn't bother me in the slightest.
posted by Decani at 4:33 PM on March 18, 2006
I don't have a dog because I hate the fawning little beasts. If I had one you'd be more than welcome to kick it, right after I'd finished. As for my mother, you can insult her all you like. Such absurd and empty behaviour doesn't bother me in the slightest.
posted by Decani at 4:33 PM on March 18, 2006
« Older Who wants to be a superhero? | Rent-a-Realdoll Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by S.C. at 6:05 PM on March 15, 2006