Via Drudge — And Damn Near Everyone Else
July 22nd, 2003 - 2:56 pm
Here’s the news we’ve been waiting for all day from CENTCOM:
July 22, 2003
Release Number: 03-07-68FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT REGARDING OPERATION IN MOSUL, IRAQ
Statement from US Central Command:
On Tuesday, July 22, forces associated with the 101st Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces conducted an operation against suspected regime figures at a residence in Mosul, Iraq. The site is currently being exploited. Four Iraqis were killed in the operation. We have confirmed that two of the dead were Saddam
Uh huh. We knew what about these two? That they’re assholes and the world is better off without them and that there may be some kind of divine justice? Sure. What else?
The assumption that their deaths will significantly improve security in Iraq and facilitate the move towards Democracy is unfounded. I’m glad they’re dead (although now that I think about it I’d much, much rather have seen them interrogated and on trial), but I don’t see how it establishes in any way at all that Iraq is ultimately winnable.
I actually try to address schrifty’s point in a comment over at Steve Verdon’s (http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/2003_07.html#000266)
The point is that at least some of this resistance is founded on the belief that if we can get the Americans to withdraw, we can reestablish the former regime (either literally or behind the scenes).
Eliminating the sons (and Dad, eventually) means that we eliminate any prayer of such a reconstituted regime (since there wasn’t much of a party underneath that wasn’t responding directly to the Husseini al-Tikriti).
*mixes up a Mexican Martini* (sorry Stephen, tequila’s my drink)
Salud! May those two get the treatment the Sept. 11 hijackers got in the Onion’s satire of their trip to hell.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surprised.html
That’s well said and the deaths certainly can’t hurt our cause. The question is how much of the resistance is founded on reestablishment (rational) versus resentment (irrational). I believe (based on nothing but the same information that others have) that it’s more of the latter, but only time will tell.
Heard the news on the car radio. The announcer was quoting General Sanchez who confirmed that the “boys” as CNN called them this morning were killed.
Don’t know who the good general is, and it doesn’t much matter. What matters is in our country, we have Americans from every ethnicity, gender, race, religion and natinal origin in every walk of life.
Why can’t the left stop carping about diversity. We got it and don’t even notice it anymore.
Because they’re right.
Well, there were a LOT of celebrations around Baghdad, which is where a lot of the discontent has been noticeable…that says something about how the people feel. The fact that it was an informant who turned those two also says a lot.
And the left weeps like little girls.First Amin now Saddam’s boys.Bad week to be a lefty hero
It’s the news we’ve been waiting for, but what about the headline we’re waiting for?
“The assumption that their deaths will significantly improve security in Iraq and facilitate the move towards Democracy is unfounded.”
The experience of Romania in shedding the shackles of communism indicates this is wrong. Resistance by supporters of Ceacescu collapsed once he was dead. With the sons out of the way, if the US forces kill or capture Saddam, the “guerlla” war may end quickly.
excellant
make mind a double
ha
two down
one huge ass mofo to go
excellant
make mind a double
ha
two down
one huge ass mofo to go
Yeah, I have to agree: not *THE* news we are waiting for, but pretty close. I will be lifting a toast to the Screaming Eagles of the 101st on Friday night (when I get my next alcohol pass)
Hooah!
buck – i hope you’re right, but Romania is truly a poor analogy since Romania’s liberation marked the end of occupation, rather than the beginning. Killing the sons was certainly a worthy goal, and perhaps it will break the backs of the guerillas as you suggest, but perhaps they’ll follow the Palestinian model instead, and fight back all the more desperately.
The celebration is extremely premature. Catch Saddam and I’ll pour. Catch bin Laden and I’ll buy. Bring peace to the middle east and I’ll convert.
Schrifty:
The track record of insurgencies is that they succeed, in no small part, b/c they are supported by outside efforts. The Palestinians have been the recipient of Arab aid since at least ’67 (and arguably since ’48).
The reason is simple: They are easier than domestic reform in most Arab regimes. So, the Israelis provide a convenient scape-goat.
Yet, what we have seen, even in the short time since the fall of Saddam’s regime, is that the amount of aid has been reduced.
The easiest was cutting off the $25K per suicide bomber (and isn’t it interesting that there are now fewer of them going off?).
Syria, of a sudden, finds its cont’d support questionable. Not to mention their continued occupation of Lebanon. Even Hamas has been reporting some, ah, financial difficulties, of a sudden. Could it be that the elimination of one bad-ass regime has served pour encourager les autres?
The problem w/ your “assessment” is that it presumes stasis in a dynamic environment. The very actions you decry are ones that influence and affect other states and neighbors. If you think the Iraqis are going to be like the Palestinians, methinks you’ve not been looking very closely at how the latter have been operating.
Dean,
Stasis in a dynamic environment? I don’t think so. What I see is the continuation of a fifty year trend which has empowered and will continue to empower terrorists not politically or economically, but technologically. Your assumption, along with most of the stupider neocons is that when faced with a little stiff resistence, the Iraqi ‘insurgents’ (who secretly respect our strength) will be cowed into giving up, or living with, their hatred of America. In a static world, I suppose that might work, but the ever-increasing availability and power of weaponry along with the ever-decreasing cost destabilizes the equation. I think it’s absurd to suggest that the insurgents will just take their hatred and go live under the American occupiers, when guerilla terrorism is so easy and works so well.
Have you been paying attention in the middle east at all? Years of terrorism/resistance there are in the process of paying off handsomely for the Palestinians. In Afghanistan, stability seems less and less realistic every day. To have any chance of ‘winning’ in Iraq at all, we need to remove the targets, and replace US soldiers with an Iraqi and UN force ASAP.
Your ‘assessment’ is really just a collection of possibilities that you’d like to see happen. Optimism is a great way to live, but it makes for lousy policy.