KANDAHAROutside the little clapboard church on base, Dutch soldiers gather to commiserate and mourn. One, squatting on his haunches, sobs into his hands. A colleague wraps comforting arms around his shoulders. They are not accustomed to this grieving for the dead, their own.
Early last Friday, the Netherlands suffered their first combat casualty in Afghanistan, a soldier killed when he stepped on a roadside bomb. It happened less than two kilometres from Forward Operating Base Robinson where Canadians troops are deployed in the Sangin River Valley, just over the border in Helmand province. Last night, the remains of Cpl. Cor Strik were flown out of Kandahar Airfield following a ramp ceremony that was closed to the media, save for a Dutch TV crew and they can only broadcast their footage after the 33-year-old victim's funeral is held back in Holland on Friday. They do things differently, the Dutch.
That idiosyncrasy in approach rightly or wrongly, defensible or questionable also explains why this was their first combat fatality, compared with 54 deaths for Canadian troops in the same period, just over a year in the volatile southern provinces of Afghanistan. The Dutch, with some notable and under-reported exceptions, do not fight. This is not meant as an indictment or slur against their character because it has nothing to do with courage or lack thereof. It's all about orders, rules of engagement determined by The Hague, and caveats imposed on Holland's contribution, some 2,000 troops in all, to the NATO coalition.
These caveats and most alliance nations have insisted on them have been tremendously frustrating to NATO command and most especially Canada, whose soldiers are doing so much of the heavy combat lifting, with casualties to match. "What are we doing here?" a young Dutch infantryman asked rhetorically yesterday when approached by the Toronto Star. "That's a good question. Who knows? "Is this a war or is this nation-building? On the Dutch news, that's what everybody is asking. The Hague seems uncertain what they want from us. There are forces pulling in both directions. Our country is torn over this mission. But I am just a soldier and we do what we are told."
Sound familiar?
This young Dutch soldier a driver with an infantry logistics crew can't give his name because those are the media rules of engagement as ordained by Dutch military command. The hierarchy is in strict control of all information dissemination. The aforementioned TV crew was actually flown into Afghanistan by the military, although they were allowed unusual freedom of movement with Dutch troops deployed in Uruzgan, the increasingly tumultuous province north of Kandahar. Video shot shows Dutch troops doing remarkably un-Dutch things, including kicking open doors in an aggressive village search for Taliban militants and then, by way of atonement for damage inflicted, handing out money to civilians to pay for the damages just caused.
The soldier interviewed by the Star, and a mate, are both with Task Force Uruzgan. They were just 700 metres from the improvised explosive device that killed their compatriot (and an American soldier who arrived shortly thereafter, part of the counter-IED crew, who also stepped on a mine.) "I heard the big bang but I didn't know the bad news until a few hours later, that he was one of ours," he says. "Very sad."
The Dutch are a solid NATO ally in the Afghanistan coalition of 37 nations though the brunt of security, patrol and combat assignments fall to the Canadians, Americans and British. Helicopter transportation the lifting and delivering of troops is also largely a Dutch responsibility, using mostly Chinooks purchased from Canada. But there has been keen anxiety, and conflict, back in Holland about the nature of Dutch activity in Afghanistan. The Hague's decision to deploy troops, last February, came only after intense parliamentary debate, a wrangling that had extended for six months.
Just as the disaster of Somalia still resonates with Canadians, the Dutch are haunted by the "Srebrenica Factor," where Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia-Herzegovina failed to prevent the massacre of thousands of Muslims by Serb forces a decade ago.
In the end, the Netherlands sent 1,400 extra troops to southern Afghanistan, on top of the 600 they already had in place in Kabul as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The Dutch are currently in overall command of NATO troops in southern Afghanistan, Maj.-Gen. Ton van Loon taking over from Canada last fall in the rotating formula. The myth is that Dutch forces have essentially shunned combat, emphasizing make-nice reconstruction and redevelopment projects in Uruzgan, for which Holland has primary responsibility, concentrating their efforts in the less dangerous areas earlier "pacified" by Americans, especially in the basin around Tarin Kowt, the provincial capital.
It's an approach that appeals to many Canadians, some of whom earnestly call for this country's troops to do ditto, as if any of these benign undertakings could be launched without somebody first assuming the perilous security duties which, yes, do involve raids and searches and sometimes disgruntled civilians.
In truth, Dutch troops have shown their mettle in Uruzgan how much of this has been explained to folks back home is difficult to ascertain from here and, while generally not provoking or firing first, they have certainly fired back. So, they do fight, somewhat, sporadically. Certainly, a tip of the sword component Tiger Company, the Dutch airborne infantry unit operating out of FOB Robinson, and several hundred other troops attached to Operation Achilles in Helmand province fight as required, according to interviews conducted by the Star. They conduct patrols and secure zones in hostile environments. Yet other soldiers who've returned from those areas continue to grumble that their Dutch colleagues often prefer to withdraw from enemy range when things heat up.
The last time the Star was at FOB Robinson was a year ago so this reporter has been unable to independently confirm either version of events. But the Dutch have spilled their blood here: Three killed in aviation accidents, one in an armoured car crash and an apparent suicide. Now, their first hardcore insurgent-caused casualty.
Combat virginity lost.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/24/2007 08:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Their first hardcore insurgent-caused casualty."
Listen closely. Hear that sloshing sound? It's from where all the blood leaking from my heart for these poor Dutch has pooled in my shoes and is getting splashed as I walk.
What a bunch of wimps in both their government and their military!
Posted by: Mac ||
04/24/2007 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's not their war Mac. Just as it's not our war when their cities erupt. Brussels, the formerly Dutch speaking majority city is now 56% foreign. The tipping point approaches. Better get moving on relocating NATO headquarters.
Posted by: ed ||
04/24/2007 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The funny thing about "surrender" is that, whether the enemy kills you = enslaves/controls you + your society, etc. THE FINAL DECISION ON ONE'S [FINAL]FATE BELONGS TO THE ENEMY, NOT TO YOU, NOR YOUR SOCIETY, NOR YOUR GUBMINT.
Happy St George's Day. You are, no doubt, preparing to wear your red rose to work or are packing the children off to school sporting a corsage of bluebells and primroses that they will proudly show off to their friends.
Tonight, there will be a splendid supper party with such English culinary delights as Lancashire hotpot or shepherd's pie followed by readings from the works of the Bard, whose birthday also happens to fall today.
In London, Ken Livingstone will lead the taxpayer-funded celebrations as Morris Dancers and hobby horses process through a capital festooned with flags bearing the cross of St George, while revellers will drink far too liberally of those quintessential flat bitters that knock other, darker, ales into a leprechaun's cocked hat.
Dream on. This is the day that dare not speak its name. If you turned up at work with a rose in your lapel it would be assumed you were on your way to a wedding. While the Welsh would feel naked on St David's Day without their daffodils or leeks, and the Irish are happy to wander around in the middle of March wearing what looks like a handful of wilting spinach, the English would merely be embarrassed sporting their floral equivalents.
A Scot reciting Scots Wha Hae or Ye Banks and Braes o' Bonnie Doon might have a tear in his eye and a tremor in his voice; most Englishmen would have trouble remembering more than a few lines written by their greatest writer. And an invitation to celebrate both the English national day and Shakespeare in a combined replication of St Andrew's and Burns nights would be regarded with a mixture of puzzlement and deep suspicion.
Unless Richard II is being performed somewhere tonight, there will be few extempore renditions of John of Gaunt's speech about "This royal throne of kings, this sceptr'd isle/This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars/This other Eden, demi-paradise...This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...'' (OK. I looked it up.)
To be fair to Mayor Livingstone, he has made a gesture towards St George. At the weekend there were a number of events in the capital, including a formal march organised by the Royal Society of St George; and English music and dance was performed in Covent Garden.
The Globe hosted a birthday party for Shakespeare and the cast of Spamalot, the Monty Python musical, will tonight seek to break the world record for the number of people playing in a coconut orchestra. Now, that must make you feel proud to be English.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/24/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sweeden is getting exactly what they asked for: a muslim-cockroach infestation that could turn Sweeden into an islamic theocracy within a generation.
The only thing militant islam understands is the hammer.
#3
Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party said during a debate in Swedish radio in 2004 that We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.
This is self-delusion at a totally suicidal level.
#4
This is chilling. Europe and Scandanavia are doomed unless they get tough, very tough and soon. But that won't happen unless something major occurs.
You get those Malmo "youts" pulling that crap over here and they are going to be shot dead. Over and over again.
#5
"The (Muslim, of course) boys explain, laughingly, that there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you're robbing, you feel satisfied and happy"
Historically, this attitude would result in a most harsh response, against the immigrant punks, their families, and their entire group, until they learned to assimilate and behave or until they were exterminated. In today's multi-culti world, the immigrant thugs and their 'culture' teach the natives to assimilate or be exterminated. The Second Amendment, plus rural America, has so far kept the US government from going all the way down this self-destructive road. It may not be enough for long.
#6
Compare to WAFF.com > TURKISHDAILYNEWS > ISLAM's GROWING RISE GIVING RUSSIA HEADACHES. Up to 30Milyuuuhn Muslims in Russia, espec emigres from all over Central Asia. Muslims as a class bearing the brunt of local phobias.
"We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let's put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."
Sen. John McCain, speaking at the Virginia Military Institute, April 11, 2007
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007
"This war is lost."
Reid, April 19, 2007
Usually, politics is a murky business--gray upon gray, one set of mixed motives jostling with another. But sometimes there is a time for choosing--between courage and cynicism, between honor and disgrace.
John McCain's speech to the cadets of the Virginia Military Institute is the best single analysis by any political figure of where we stand in the war in Iraq. It is a serious and sober attempt to persuade the American people that the war is winnable, that we should give Gen. Petraeus a chance to win it, and that accepting defeat would be both ignoble and disastrous to American interests. With this morally and intellectually impressive speech, John McCain took leadership of the fight for victory in Iraq.
McCain was hard on the opponents of the war here at home. He didn't just describe troop withdrawal proposals as unwise. He derided "the fanciful and self-interested debates about Iraq that substitute for statesmanship in Washington." And he suggested that the Democrats had decided "to take advantage of the public's frustration, accept defeat," and hope that "the politics of defeat" would benefit them.
McCain continued: "In Washington, where political calculation seems to trump all other considerations, Democrats in Congress and their leading candidates for President, heedless of the terrible consequences of our failure, unanimously confirmed our new commander, and then insisted he be prevented from taking the action he believes necessary to safeguard our country's interests....I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering."
Tough words--especially because, here in America, much of the mainstream media was also cheering. McCain, a onetime media favorite when he last ran for president, was effectively forswearing the possibility of regaining their favor.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media paid little attention to Harry Reid's comments quoted above. Republican criticisms of them were treated as the normal tit-for-tat of partisan politics. Reid's cynicism wasn't thought noteworthy, and his defeatism wasn't thought extraordinary. Apparently, cynicism in the service of the defeat of Republicans is no vice. Undercutting the efforts of American troops you have voted to send to fight in a war is a virtue.
Earlier this month, the "surge" was beginning visibly to work. Al Qaeda fought back, with massive slaughter of civilians, whose purpose was in part to undercut support for the war against al Qaeda on the home front. Harry Reid followed script.
Now we are at a moment of truth. There is McCain's way, a way of difficulty and honor. There is Reid's way, a way of political expediency and dishonor. McCain may lose the political battle at home, and the U.S. may ultimately lose in Iraq. But some of us will always be proud, at this moment of choice, to have stood with McCain, and our soldiers, and our country.
But I did manage to send it to everyone in my e-mail address book, and make a few printed copies for the office. And e-mail this to Harry:
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007
"This war is lost."
Reid, April 19, 2007
That's all I need to know about you, Senator.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/24/2007 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And Senator Schumer can also receive e-mails thru congress.org. Like this one:
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007
"This war is lost."
Reid, April 19, 2007
So you were the start of it, Senator? Picking up Senate seats is the ultimate factor? No matter how many US service personnel it takes? No matter how many Iraqis die?
I hope the voters of your state find the article in The Daily Standard.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/24/2007 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Between McCain's speech above and his acknowledgement of how Iran must be taken offline, he seems to be one of the few frontrunners who has a clue.
#5
Dreadfully so, DF. Far more deadly is the cluelessness currently playing in the MME (Muslim Midle East). We might suffer from it, but they're going to die from it.
#6
I'm a Nevada voter and I will tell you this: he is freaking done. Assuming the Republican party runs a credible, well-liked candidate, the number of votes Reid gets in his next election (outside of Las Vegas and Incline Village) will be in the triple didgits.
Devestating, especially the last part with arguable the 'quote of the year'. Just devastating.
The lefty story line is that the Iraqis want us to leave. If only Americans go home, the war will end.
They said the same thing about Vietnam. We left. Thousands of people were slaughtered. A million took to the sea to escape and millions more were forced into re-education camps. Then came the killing fields of Cambodia, where Hanois surrogates slaughtered 2 million more people.
That was the peace the American left brought to Southeast Asia. They cut off funding.
Arabs are not dummies. They know our history. They know the situation.
The numbing significance of the statement from Senate Plurality Leader Harry Reid that the war is lost was not lost on the head of the only relief agency in Iraq: In Washington for a series of advocacy meetings in Congress, Said Hakki, the president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, expressed concern that by setting a withdrawal timetable, the U.S. would abandon Iraq at the height of a humanitarian crisis.
It is important to remember that Reid voted for this war, when that was popular. Now that it is unpopular, he seeks to shrug it as if it were last years hot new dance craze. Ouch! Yowza!
Ah yes, the UNs vaunted humanitarian effort. It made Kofi Annans son rich and kept Jacques Chiracs pockets lined, but it starved thousands of Iraqi children. Pow!
Look, it is up to the United States to help Iraq. No one else will.
Too much of the political debate in America is focused on old issues WMDs and whether Hussein was a major tyrant or a third-rate dictator. People truly concerned about peace about the fate of the Iraqi people would stop discussing the past and begin working on the future. I find it interesting that the left is so concerned about carbon footprints.
What about humanitarian footprints?
What sort of tree do you plant as penance for turning your back on 24 million people? Just savor that sentence.Think about it. Wizardry with words. Delicious. Parsimonious. Thoughtful. Niice. It is THE question every Presidential Candidate should be asked. So easy to set up, so devestating to see the bumbling responses of the dhimms. Will the MSM ask?
#5
FeralCat is right. It is up to the Iraqis to get their shit together, and fast. I dont see where it says we agreed to provide security for them forever. They have had enough time to put together a million man army by now but they still cant even defend their own capital.
Posted by: Oscar Snomosh6362 ||
04/24/2007 3:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You're right, Oscar. It's time to cave in to bin Laden's prediction.
Go plant a tree.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/24/2007 5:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
FeralCat: The picture of Maliki with Ahmanutjob changes nothing. Iran would fuel the sectarian violence with or without Maliki's help. He was obligated to talk to the guy because he is the country's PM, and he had to be diplomatic. Don't be suckered into just looking at this kind of picture and taking it at face value. The logical conclusions will not model reality.
I'm sure Maliki doesn't want the violence to continue, but he is doing what every other politician whose job is insecure in that part of the world does which is to try to develop a safe place to stand. Unfortunately every other faction there seems to have no compunction about pulling others down so they can be on top. Maliki has a huge problem given the circumstances and his psychology for dealing with the problem. Remember the world around Maliki is mostly Sunni, not Shiite. If Iran went ape on Iraq right now it would be all over before the news got back to us here in our armchairs. And it would be even worse if the US left. Maliki is having to consider that more because of US indecision brought on by some clueless prostitutes spineless politicians.
Liberating the country from Saddam was only a gesture. The real obligation was to stand up the country on its own two feet. Bush understood that. Congress naively hoped it would be over in a couple of years, but that is irrelevant to a promise that is made in good faith. It went longer than the Congress would have liked and they have decided they are going to walk away from their obligations, so now they think are to saving face for acting in bad faith and are desperately trying to pin responsibility for this on everything but their own naivete.
What is stopping us? The liberal mainstream media feeding susceptible liberal minds, and their willingness to suspend reason and be pulled along by their noserings. Who is taking advantage of it for pointless political gain? The likes of Reid, Murtha, and Pelosi. They are the epitome of bad faith. They have no plan, but they whore themselves out by trading their cheap pandering to the same susceptible liberal minds for their votes.
All the US has to do is get over our denial, grow some balls, stop giving off signals like we are quitters, and be firm. The media has to stop slanting stories in whichever direction they think will pull the most consumers that week. Liberals have to accept that people will have to die so that many more will be able to live, and that it is not Bush's fault that a relatively small percentage of savages with guns are making all the problems. They must die or they will kill and make miserable many more. We will win eventually if we do this. Part of doing this will be to pacify Iran, and that will take some blood too probably. It would be less expensive in all respects, blood and treasure, if we just went in and did it. The whole world, including most Iranians, would breathe a sigh of relief. But no, we have to assuage the fears of this symbiotic liberal/media relationship who are afraid of their own shadow, who think that if we are "nice" that everyone else will be "nice" too and not understand that they will just kill us last, who can't tell wrong from right, and who love humanity so much that they don't care that many more would die and live in misery if we walk away from what we started. And they will be happy to adopt any half-baked rationale to justify such inhuman inaction.
I don't understand how some people can be so blind or willing to look the other way about these matters, but they are.
Oscar Snomosh6362: Putting guns in the hands of a million Iraqis does not mean they have the million man army. I hope you meant something other than what you wrote. And the bad guys in the capital aren't exactly walking around in uniforms. This is fourth-generation war, not the war your grandparents fought.
I will agree that if they do seem to not appreciate the opportunity they have been given that we should leave, but I don't think we have come to the point where we can draw any firm conclusions about that yet, and we will never be able to say when that point will come. But be patient. Look at things through more than just your own eyes. We will know the time when we see it.
"I don't understand how some people can be so blind or willing to look the other way about these matters, but they are."
That makes two of us. How Harry Reid et al can be so damned blind to the consequences of showing weakness to our enemies, is beyond me. And if it doesn't stop soon, we will pay a horrible price for that lack of resolve.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/24/2007 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This comment thread illustrates the great lie of the last House election, viz that the Democrats won because of "anti-war" sentiment. In fact, the Jacksonians - some in evidence here - turned against the Republicans because of a half-hearted war (and, of course, an undefended border).
#10
Harry Reid and Queen Nancy aren't blind. They know exactly what they are doing and what the effect it has on our troops. This is exactly why they are doing what they are doing.
The fact that they don't bother to attend a Iraq briefing by the general in charge in Washington DC but are more then willing to go halfway across the planet to visit (and kow-tow to) the enemy shows exactly where there loyalties lie. (Hint: its not with america)
#11
The answer is simple. Harry Reid is a liberal Democrat, a self-absorbed, power-hungry hedonist who enjoys taking other people's money for fun and profit, and, most of all, enjoys telling other people how to live their lives. He is part of the VietNam generation, the part that assuaged its conscience and justified its cowardice by demonizing the men who went to war when their country called, the part that feels it is smarter and more deserving than everyone else, that it can do and say anything to get what it wants and the world will be a better place for it. Sometimes, in the dark of the night, I wonder if the world would have a been a better place if American troops had come home from VietNam and turned their guns on the real enemy here at home.
#13
If they choose to make $hit out of their gift then that is on them not on our troops.
The Iraqi people have had years to figure out that the terrorists are not their friends. How many more will have to die needlessly horrible deaths for them to begin acting upon it and snuffing jihadis at every opportunity? If murderous sectarian strife seems so reasonable to the majority of Iraqis, then we have ZERO hope of overcoming their current instability.
From all indications, they simply cannot desist in their petty quarrels long enough to unite in a common quest for national security. It is a Nanny State mentality to protect people from themselves. Only the prospect of substantial Iranian intervention provides any real incentive for us to remain. Let's neutralize Iran, halt that devisive influence and then see if things improve in Iraq. If they do not, it's time to let them twist gently in the breeze.
We've planted over 3,000 trees precious soldiers in our quest to stabilize Iraq. Perhaps it will require a massive number of Iraqis to die for us to demonstrate that Islamic government of any sort will never work and, based upon that proven notion, begin dismantling all of them.
If it isn't obvious by now, massive carnage in the Muslim Middle East is no longer a top contender on my list of concerns. Keeping Muslims occupied and the fuck out of our hair is job #1. If setting them at each other's throats is the only way of doing this, short of glassing over the entire Middle East, then so be it.
I'd love to see us succeed in Iraq. It would be a vital asset to our foreign policy portfolio. I'm just not prepared to hold their hand for another five damn years waiting for them to stop squabbling like a bunch of infants. Either they show some real determination to quell the renegade militias and other terrorist groups or they reap the whirlwind. So far, the Iraqi government has acted more like our enemy than our ally. That is simply unacceptable.
#14
What about the Sheiks in Anbar who turned against AQ? Is that real determination?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/24/2007 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Bobby, you ask the $million question. It is early in the Anbar transition. Who knows if it will last, but there is evidence that the other sheiks/tribes in areas like Diyala have seen Anbar and want no part of the thug/sharia rule of AQI. Will this attitude spread? How permanent is it? Can it overcome the cash/meddling of Iran's Al Qud's provacateurs? Can it overcome the generally screwed up nature of islamic societies enough to represent any kind of stability to the western world? I don't know.
Zenster and Feral Cat raise the very fair point that this can't go on forever. But it has to go on for some time longer. I think (hope) the wartime fatigue is setting in for the Iraqis as well as us. The facade is off of AQI and hopefully the mahdi army / shiite douchbags too (a stretch, I know).
Regardless, Reid, Pelosi and the swine in the media (who only know how to highlight the negative, regardless of subject matter) deserve a great deal of credit for our being where we are today. Had they been foursquare in the pursuit of success the enemy would be more disheartened and Iran/Syria would be far more reticent about involving themselves too overtly in Iraq.
#16
#8: "How Harry Reid et al can be so damned blind to the consequences of showing weakness to our enemies, is beyond me."
Then I'll explain it to you, Dave. They're not blind. They. Don't. Care.
No harm to America is too great if it appears to the DemocRats that it will help them get back in power.
It's not like the Iraqis are white people can vote for them, y'know.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/24/2007 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#17
You are expecting too much. The Iraquis are a confused people. They saw we spared them from Saddam, and they like that. They saw we helped them establish an elected government - remember the purple fingers - and they kind of liked that. But the Sunis hate the Shiites and the Shiites hate the Sunis, and al Qaeda keeps pointing out that some of the womens' ankles are showing and this outrages all of them. Then they all get to thinking about the crusades, not inventin anything, Hollywood movies, losing respect, and how hot it is - then they start killing each other to get us to leave. It is not a humanitarian crisis, it is a psychiatric crisis.
#18
I think a part of the problem is that with their tribal mentality they always follow the strong horse. The strong horse isn't necessarily the one that can pull the hardest, you also have to throw in stamina. The way the US is behaving it may have the most talent and firepower, but its stamina is constantly in question. This is one of the fundamental problems with our democracy, our inability to commit fully. Many Iraqis live their lives not far from the stone age. Tribal/gang politics and social structures demand the kind of behavior you are seeing. They have to be made to understand that the US Military is the new boss and that this is the way it is going to be. Then they will have to be exposed to and practice more modern forms of civilization for at least two generations (probably more) to see, understand, and adopt a new way of life that they hopefully will view as superior. There will have to be a transitional generation that will insulate the kids modern thinking from the grandparents tribal thinking, and what age group that is is hard to pin down. But I digress. :-)
In any case, it is the Pelosis, Reids, and Murthas and their mindless minions who can't think for themselves (not that I'm suggesting these three can reason well in the first place) who are creating the appearance of always being on the breaking point, which we would not be if we didn't have this fifth column working against the greater good both here, in Iraq, and for the rest of the world for that matter.
How can you tell? Superficially, yes. Then again, the vast majority of Iraqis (save the Kurds), have shown themselves to be shameless opportunists. So, how can you tell that the Anbar phenomenon isn't just a calculated response to temporarily gain favorable treatment by Coalition troops. The rewards are palpable. Quicker installation of infrastructure like sewage processing, electrical grid and water purification. Once those are in place, will the sheiks still be against al Qaeda? By that time, will the Sunnis have taken too many hits and decided to once again embrace al Qaeda?
Muslims, in general, are far too craven to be dealt with diplomatically. Koranic doctrine is far too hostile to us outsiders, no matter how sterling our intentions. They are permitted taqiyya and a host of other subversive methods that mask or conceal their real intentions. None of these subterfuges are even seen as morally reprehensible.
I think a part of the problem is that with their tribal mentality they always follow the strong horse.
While I certainly agree that American democrats are undermining our prerceived resolve in Iraq, exactly how much weight are we supposed to pull? We are doing all of the heavy lifting while our Iraqi "allies" sit back as they rake in the largesse. Yes, the Iraqi police are taking some major hits, but it's not in combat. Being blown up in front of a recruiting station isn't the same as actually going door-to-door in Sadr city.
Too often, these new recruits are applying because like with Mexican Federales Iraqi law enforcement offers an unrivaled opportunity for graft, bribery and extortion. Those seeking police work for such dishonest reasons are also the ones likely to be shrugging off any obligation to report terrorist activity. Therefore, when these saps get fragged at the job shops, it doesn't really count as combat.
Beyond that, this is borne out in how the Iraqi police even in their functional operation have proven to be nothing but a revolving door for Iraqi terror suspects. Only by changing the ROE during The Surge have we begun to kill our foe in effective numbers
Many Iraqis live their lives not far from the stone age. Tribal/gang politics and social structures demand the kind of behavior you are seeing. They have to be made to understand that the US Military is the new boss and that this is the way it is going to be. Then they will have to be exposed to and practice more modern forms of civilization for at least two generations (probably more) to see, understand, and adopt a new way of life that they hopefully will view as superior.
There is no way America is going to hold Iraq's hand for another "two generations". This points up the need for some other approach than the one we are using. In light of early results, I'm willing to give the surge strategy another six to twelve months. Yet, in a culture so fixated upon violence, it may well prove that extreme demonstrations of military might will be required to subdue the terrorists. Long ago, hellholes like Falluja and Najaf should have been leveled with the insurgents left inside. Only such heavy-handed tactics will likely deliver the sort of obedience we require in order to get the job done. Such an approach may be needed in Sadr City, especially if we do not have the determination to off Moqtada Sadr the next time he rears his ugly head.
A must see exhibit on the web. Disturbing as all get out but also fascinating if you're medically inclined. Hat tip LGF.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/24/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a good find Doc. These are Israelies, but one has to wonder when the first boomer will erupt here. This isn't gonna be pretty. Will make Virginia Tech look mild.
#3
It wouldn't be very well recieved. But then again, arabs never miss an oportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. I have no doubt that they could get us pissed off enought to totally obliterate them if they tried just a little.
#4
Allen must be very proud of his Lions of Islam.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/24/2007 6:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The purpose of terrorism is to create victims. The goal is to murder and maim as many innocent people as possible. It is a political tool that has worldwide appeal, because it works. We have allowed it to work by not condemning and isolating those who use it.
Nice sentiment, but to hell with "condemning". What about embargoes, boycotts, deportations and military retaliation? Those are far more effective tools. The MME (Muslim Middle East) must be made to feel our pain.
#6
Those who have perpetrated these atrocities have rendered the Geneva Conventions an anachronism. The West urgently needs to address the issues raised by those who wear no uniform, who swear no allegiance to a state, and who wage war on civilians. The sound of crickets is not an acceptable response.
#7
The West urgently needs to address the issues raised by those who wear no uniform, who swear no allegiance to a state, and who wage war on civilians.
The lack of political will to do this must eventually be construed as betrayal. Worst of all is how those civilians amongst whom these terrorists operate make no significant effort to discourage it. At some point, they must be made to pay a price for their complicity. By their silence, they abet the terrorists and their atrocities. Not enough of them are being punished for being accessories. This lack of reprisal only hastens the day when huge numbers of them will die for their perfidy. Better to give them a taste of the desolation to come than placidly await the final curtain.
#1
Interesting interview. They seem like they have their heads on straight--except for wanting women in combat. That is absolutely wrong and nothing anyone can argue will change it. When it comes to close-quarter fighting, women AREN'T equal to men and that's just how it is. Period. Any military policy that contradicts that basic fact is wrong and puts both sexes at greater risk.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/24/2007 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Excellent interview, Chuck. I'm going to make sure my daughter reads this one.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/24/2007 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sure will, Chuck. Tell them to come to South Korea and I'll be glad to. I'll come prepared with the information from the Israelis about what happened when they had a position loaded with women overrun in the 73 war. I'll also have the information on what happened when the morticians started dealing with the female corpses after the SCUD hit in Gulf War I. They may think it's a good idea now; I think this stuff would change their mind. It's not a good idea for a lot of reasons, most of which have to do with their male comrades' response to what will happen to them once captured by the enemy.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/24/2007 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
information from the Israelis about what happened when they had a position loaded with women overrun in the 73 war
Jeez, what you got on that? They manned the Bar-Lev forts? The Golan? Is it secret? I really would like to know about this. IDF policy since 1949 is to keep women away from combat.....
#7
Ship, I'm not home now so I don't have access to the article I read. The gist, though, was that (I believe) Egyptians overran a position in the rear that had numerous IDF women soldiers in it. They were abused and killed, IIRC, and it left some serious scars on those who had to deal with both the action and its aftermath.
The IDF, to that point, had been very up-front with women soldiers, not to the point of deliberately having them in combat but allowing them to serve in close support. After the 1973 war they quietly decided to place women in situations where they would be much less likely to be caught up in direct combat.
I read this quite some time ago. That was why it didn't surprise me when I read about the Reserve morticians at Dover AFB who also had some real problems with seeing women ripped apart by the Scud that hit the occupied building in the first Gulf War. Those guys also needed psychiatric counseling after dealing with the carnage. I gather it's something having to do with the fact that lots of men get really hammered when trying to deal with the ugly things that happen in combat happening to women. There was a long article in Proceedings about this incident in probably 1993-4 or so.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/24/2007 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I really would like to know about this. IDF policy since 1949 is to keep women away from combat.....
Seems I read somewhere about IDF units taking heavier casualties than the norm, 'cause Arabs didn't want to be 'captured by a girl'.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
