Firstly from Power Line
W]hat is not being reported is the calling for calm and cooperation by all Sunni & Shiite religious leaders (except the young Alsadar who remains a thorn). The demonstrations of national unity. The mullahs in Sunni & Shiite mosques calling for support for injured brothers and sisters, national calm. They do not report on the Shiites standing guard outside of Sunni mosques in the south. Etc...There are two sides to this incident. The side of revenge, anger and the much larger side of unity and support. This bombing in Samarah has brought more unity amongst Iraqis than any other incident since the stampede on the Kahdumiah bridge (when Felujans [mostly Sunni] donated blood for the wounded in Kahdumiah [mostly Shiite] in Baghdad). Iraqi political parties, community leaders, religious leaders, political leaders all are strongly condemning this bombing and asking for national support and help for the people of Samarah. This outpouring of compassion, support and help is what is not being reported.
Secondly, the only one who had anything to gain from this attack is al Qaeda. That they did not even claim this attack speaks volume, having learned that there is such thing as bad PR (as was after their wedding bombing in Jordan earlier). They are now operating in silence even in Jihad central.
It really is as simple as that. Not to say that Iraq will soon be a tourist paradise, but it will be more like what Afghanistan is now. The emphasis will now be on the nation building rather than national existence. The battle ground has already slowly shifted, partly eastward to Iran, and far westward to Europe.
16 comments:
You do know that the Coalition is about to send troops back in to Afghanistan?
the coalition has always had troops in afghanistan. what is happening is a redeployment of US troops to be replaced with a greater number of NATO troops. why more? quality of performance.
No, they are upping their presence because the current government cannot support itself. If Iraq does end up like Afghanistan (and I'm not saying it will) it's gonna cause all sorts of problems for the US. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the US cannot fight wars of attrition. For some reason Americans seem to have this idea that so long as there are no US soldiers dieing everythings good, but as soon as there are any casualties the war isn't worth fighting.
all lives are worth something. but in the real world almost with everything team work is necessary. sometime you take one for the team, sometime another member take one for team.
What relevance does you post have to do with anything? My point is that Americans seem unable to accept the fact the in a war soldiers die. This makes them unable to fight wars of attrition
It is the left and the media that cannot accept the fact that people die in war, soldiers and civilians. It is pathological to try to fit perception of reality over actual reality.
No, it isn't. America, as a whole, supports a war until people start dieing.
the American public is not foolish enough to think wars can be fought without deaths.
Then explain Vietnam. Or, better still, explain what happened to Bush's popularity once soldiers in Iraq started dieing. America feels it is invulnerable. Once somebody starts to hurt them, it feels it is too hard, and gives up.
Even at the height of the Vietnam war the American public remain largely supportive. Americans have always understand that great sacrifices are occasionaly required to achieve great goals. I think you have mistaken the publicity of demonstrations with actual public sentiments. No persons of sane mind would demonstrate for any war. And for that same reason no wars should ever be popular. But that doesn't mean it needn't be fought.
Wars should be unpopular. Defeat should be even more so.
So then why did America pull out of Vietnam?
Because sentiments was directed by the media. This was during the rise of the media power in American politics. TV images entered the American households like never before and allowed the media to control the perception of the war. The politicians genuflexed appropriately.
The media thus learn they can shape and direct public opinion rather than merely report and inform. Talk about propaganda.
So then Americans couldn't stand seeing casualties on the news. And they are (I assume) starting to see casualties on the news from a Iraq. What's the difference between not being able to stand casualties and not being able to stand seeing casualties?
It was new. Thus a bit shocking, especially as reported by the media. Once the war was told by those who fought it, who understood both why they fought and the sacrifices necessary. The media then was focused on the image, and as an observer felt neither the reason nor the necessity.
Now the images means much less then before. We have become less sensitive to images of violence and casualty. Also thanks to the media and film entertainment industry. The pendulum has shifted back to neutral. The novelty and shock has expired.
We are also more appreciative of the consequences of withdraw and defeat.
Like, shock horror, not having permanent army bases in the middle east? And admitting you aren't invincible. To win, all the insurgents have to do is fight long enough for America to collapse, it happened to the Roman empire, the Chinese empire, the British empire, and the Russian empire. It *will* happen to the American empire.
Certainly the American era will end. But inaction and lack of resolve to confront our enemy will bring that day sooner.
I'd much rather we fight and lose than to surrender prematurely.
Post a Comment