saddam is the bravest leader of all

[vimothy]

Has anyone read Cohen's book (What's Left?) yet? Any good?

 

[crackerjack]

Has anyone read Cohen's book (What's Left?) yet? Any good?

been reading his stuff on Iraq for years weekly in the Obs, so don't really see the point in shelling out to see it again. I'm more interested in what he has to say on the post-60s development of the left, the way in which a creed that was once all about activism and solidarity has become (in some cases) characterised by a sort of selfish nihilism that thinks blowing raspberries at authority constitutes a political programme.

I had a huge row with a mate recently who slated Nu Lab for its lack of socialism while defending a friend of his who systematically and massively cheats on her tax.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

I had a huge row with a mate recently who slated Nu Lab for its lack of socialism while defending a friend of his who systematically and massively cheats on her tax.

But what actually was it that upset you so? Somebody criticising New Labour for appropriating and normalising Thatcherite ideology while hanging out with a greedy, egotistical tax evader, or the unpleasant witnessing of the schizophrenic societal norm we call hypocrisy?

Not that the citizens of Iraq are intensely angst-ridden in making these finer distinctions at the moment.

 

[crackerjack]

But what actually was it that upset you so? Somebody criticising New Labour for appropriating and normalising Thatcherite ideology while hanging out with a greedy, egotistical tax evader, or the unpleasant witnessing of the schizophrenic societal norm we call hypocrisy?QUOTE]

People can hang out with whoever they like. But condoning tax dodging (and we're talking here about a very, very comfortably off tax dodger, not somone earning an extra £20-30 on the sly) while calling yourself a socialist is like fucking for virginity.

 

[Guybrush]

People can hang out with whoever they like. But condoning tax dodging (and we're talking here about a very, very comfortably off tax dodger, not somone earning an extra £20-30 on the sly) while calling yourself a socialist is like fucking for virginity.

Absolutely. You won’t see me defending it, anyway, that’s for sure.

 

[Guybrush]

Let’s discuss the ‘surge’.

Yesterday’s toll. Sadly, pretty much business as usual:

A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest single ground attacks on U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq, military officials said early Tuesday.

...

Another car bombing Monday at an Iraqi police checkpoint near Diyala's provincial council headquarters in Baqubah killed seven Iraqi policemen and wounded 13, the military said. The council was about to begin a meeting to discuss its 2007 budget, the U.S. military said.

...

Bombings in different parts of the country Monday killed at least another 44 people and wounded more than 100, police said. Twin car bombings killed at least 19 outside Ramadi, about 60 miles west of Baghdad, and a suicide bomber detonated explosives inside a restaurant near Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, killing seven and injuring 14.

I find this story even more worrying, for some reason:

A few days ago, a Yazidi woman from Beshiqa, a nearby village populated mostly by Yazidis, eloped with a Muslim man and converted to Islam. To punish her, Jabouri said, the woman's family stoned her to death.

On Sunday afternoon, workers from a Mosul textile factory were heading home to Beshiqa when gunmen stopped their bus, police said. After checking passengers' identifications, the gunmen drove them to an isolated Mosul suburb, then lined up 23 of them and shot them to death, said Abdul Kareem al-Kinani, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

And now they are planning on raising walls round certain Baghdad neighbourhoods, West Bank style. Wise, or vain attempt at displaying decisiveness?

Here is the War Nerd (thanks for the tip Vimothy) on the ‘surge’:

The Surge. Jeez, just that title, "the Surge" - what Stan Lee fan thought of that? The DoD is addicted to these corny titles. Can't just say we're going to increase troop numbers in Baghdad. No, it's "The Surge"! Like the name you'd give some lame X-Man added for ethnic balance, maybe a gay Samoan cripple who can turn himself into a tidal wave when danger threatens. One minute he's a mild-mannered Green-Zone accountant making $800 a day, and then -- Kaboom! he becomes a Tsunami of freedom, washing the scum off the "Arab Street."

If only. Unfortunately, this isn't a surge, just a reinforcement, and a pretty small one. And if you have to ask whether it'll work, you don't understand guerrilla war. Of course it won't work. Classic guerrilla doctrine - Hell, plain common sense - says when the occupier floods the city with troops, the guerrilla lays low. Which the Iraqis are doing. And yet people are so stupid they're already crowing that "incidents are down" since the Surge.

Well, duh. That's the idea: avoid battle, watch the Arabic-subtitled Dynasty reruns, let the clueless foreigners zoom up and down the alleys. Meanwhile, every soccer-playing kid in the street is memorizing patrol times and tipping his uncle off about the vulnerable small outposts we're now occupying as part of our meet-&-greet policy. Just yesterday the Sunni hit one of those mixed Iraqi/US outposts in daylight: two GIs killed, 17 wounded.

There's no point watching this like a Dow Jones graph, because any sane primate knows where it's going. Bush drove our car into a tree, and it's not going to un-total itself. All the crazies on Free Republic who screech "Nuke it from orbit!" are actually talking sense compared to Cheney & co. Because nuking the Sunni Triangle would work - might cause trouble elsewhere, but it would solve our problems in places like Ramadi. Whereas feeding more troops in, putting them on show to be blasted by IEDs - that's not warlike, that's...see, I can't even come up with a word for what these neocons are. They're not warmongers, that's for sure, because they'll never use our nukes. They're tinkerers, that's what it is - home improvement assholes who hit the sewer main with their first dig, then try to pretend the shit isn't filling up the basement. They won't nuke or leave, just hope their salaries rise faster than the sewage level.

He is right, isn’t he?

 

[crackerjack]

And now they are planning on raising walls round certain Baghdad neighbourhoods, West Bank style. Wise, or vain attempt at displaying decisiveness?

Hasn't the Iraqi govt put a stop to that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6582225.stm

He is right, isn’t he?

(sigh) Yes. The situation is irredeemable. i've always thought the US morally olbiged to stay as long as the Iraq govt want them, but I'm now convinced that even with the best will in the world (let's just pretend, ok) they're just prolonging the agony. They should leave. If Iraq is destined for all-out civil war then it might be better to get it over with.

 

[vimothy]

Let’s discuss the ‘surge’.

Ok, but let's also remember that the USAF is finally getting its finger out, finally fighting COIN, finally appointed some good commanders (Petraeus, Nagl, Kilucullen) who understand and study COIN, and so on. Counterinsurgency warfare is rock solid, especially for 2GW army like the USAF, especialy in an area were they are completely outside public and cultural life. NI took thirty years, Baghdad might well take longer, if the coalition can hold

Is it being fought properly? Probably not, but fighting it badly is all part of the process.

He is right, isn’t he?

Right about what? Brecher is a nihilist and an imperialist - he wants war to be pure heart of darkeness - I love his writing, but I don't think that anybody should be asking him for solutions to the violence in Iraq. Do you seriously think that we should drop a nuclear bomb on the sunni triangle?

 

[vimothy]

Hasn't the Iraqi govt put a stop to that?

It was pretty depressing watching the news last night (al Jazeera mostly), hearing everyone compare it to Palestine, no one comparing it to Algeria, no one mentioning counterinsurgency warfare. People apparently complaining that it will shut them off from the community(!)

I think it just goes to show you how badly the US are doing in the propaganjda war, that it can't even justify its best ideas to the people who's lives it's trying to protect.

Having said that, Robb thinks that the Algerian solution won't work because we're too networked nowadays, even in places like Iraq, and that gated communities will prevent economic activity in that particular area from functioning properly.

 

[crackerjack]

Ok, but let's also remember that the USAF is finally getting its finger out, finally fighting COIN, finally appointed some good commanders (Petraeus, Nagl, Kilucullen) who understand and study COIN, and so on. Counterinsurgency warfare is rock solid, especially for 2GW army like the USAF, especialy in an area were they are completely outside public and cultural life. NI took thirty years, Baghdad might well take longer, if the coalition can hold

Is it being fought properly? Probably not, but fighting it badly is all part of the process.

Do you think any amount of brilliant generalship can turn this situation around? Just seems to me the US presence is a busted flush and the only thing left to do is leave.

 

[vimothy]

Do you think any amount of brilliant generalship can turn this situation around? Just seems to me the US presence is a busted flush and the only thing left to do is leave.

Yep, but it's going to take a very long time and probably a lot of changes to the military and to the way that the campaign is being fought (for instance, civilian involvement).

Anyway, it seems obvious that US troop withdrawal would make the situation for Iraqis worse, so no one should be aiming for that.

 

[crackerjack]

Anyway, it seems obvious that US troop withdrawal would make the situation for Iraqis worse, so no one should be aiming for that.

A year, even 6 months, ago I'd have agreed with that but I honestly think they're now just delaying the inevitable.

 

[crackerjack]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2064354,00.html

 

[matt b]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2064354,00.html

damn those ungrateful arabs

 

[Mr. Tea]

A year, even 6 months, ago I'd have agreed with that but I honestly think they're now just delaying the inevitable.

I think I'd probably agree with that. Not so long ago I thought the anti-war slogan "Bring the troops home now!" (for the good of Iraq, not the good of the troops) was an extremely irresponsible thing to be saying, as it would just remove the one thing preventing the country from completely falling apart. Now it's looking increasingly as if the best thing to do is to let them get on with it (horrible thing to say, I know) on the basis that only a violent solution is going to ease the tentions, and that the American presence is just delaying the inevitable.

 

[vimothy]

One more from the War Nerd:

http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-13/war_nerd.html

I think you can see where I'm going here, folks. That's right: Bring back Saddam!

Look at the man's record! He came up from nowhere, a peasant boy from the boondocks (Tikrit) and took control of the craziest country on the planet. Better still, he kept control for decades. He survived every crisis a ruler could have: rebellions in Kurdistan and the Shiite zone, all-out war against Iran, American bombing and invasion, CIA assassination plots, blockade. None of it even fazed him. There were literally hundreds of attempted coups against him - and the guys who planned them are fertilizing the desert now - some of them taken out by our own guy, Doctor Allawi.

 

[Guybrush]

One more from the War Nerd:

http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-13/war_nerd.html

Another brilliant column! Funny thing is, despite being hilarious as hell, all of his predictions were, and are, much better than the so-called pundits’ blindly fumbling.

I, too, started favouring a partial troop withdrawal about half-a-year ago. My reasons?

1. Those who could have helped making the surge work are either dead, have fled, or are to terrified to come forth. (As all agree, the surge will fail unless we see some constructive political development.)

2. The surge is way, way too paltry.

3. I don’t know of any historical example where a country has gone straight from anarchy to something resembling democracy. I am not saying it cannot happen, but I am pessimistic. Therefore, the best we can hope for, I think, is for a strong semi-authoritarian cabal to gain control of Iraq, and pray that they go easy on their adversaries. Some Shiite constellation would be an obvious candidate, were it not for Iran.

Some U.S. officer commented on the car bombings a month or so ago, and he said that under the best of circumstances it would take at least six months for their numbers to start going down.

 

[crackerjack]

1. Those who could have helped making the surge work are either dead, have fled, or are to terrified to come forth. (As all agree, the surge will fail unless we see some constructive political development.)

A very good point. the professional classes have been leaving Iraq in droves. I read there are almost 1m in Jordan alone.

 

[crackerjack]

Another brilliant column! Funny thing is, despite being hilarious as hell, all of his predictions were, and are, much better than the so-called pundits’ blindly fumbling.

btw, who is this guy? Don't have the time to go through his stuff now.

 

[Mr. Tea]

A very good point. the professional classes have been leaving Iraq in droves. I read there are almost 1m in Jordan alone.

What a slaaaaaaaaaaaaag!