(deleted)

Some people really are impolite. Doesn't he know that all upper-case is interpreted as shouting on the Internet?

Either way, he must notice that text written in a more civilised way (i.e. per the rules) is easier to read. But perhaps his message is not supposed to be read. Perhaps the world is better of not reading him.

I'm not sure our friend here has sent his reply to the right forum. He seems to be trying to make the point that there are no terrorists in America (because, presumably, if there were, we would see more bombs).

He is right, of course, there have been no major terror attacks in America since George Bush brought to war to Asia. But how that would be entirely relevant here, I don't know.

Michael,

I am a bit worried. I'd rather have you report from less dangerous places with a lower risk of the reports failing to come in the future, if you know what I mean.

But I am looking forward to reading about Arab Iraq.

Good luck!

We got no terrorists in America cause they're all flocking to Iraq, ya kook.

MT, I along with you don't know a heck of a lot about war or military actions, but I do like to think that I am not a complete ignoramus. Perhaps our initial poor strategy of trying to let the Iraqi's "police their own" delivered a hard message to the Iraqi's that they do in fact need the US if they are going to rule Iraq. Maybe it took letting Al Qaeda take over and letting them see what life would be like without coalition help to get them on the bus. It sure seems that way to me. Seemed to be the reason we didn't have many problems in Afghanistan. Once somebody has lived under what Al Qaeda calls Sharia the occasionally hassling by US doesn't seem so bad. Sure, in hindsight we might have been able to convince them in a different way that wouldn't have lead to hundreds on innocent civilians dying at the hands of Al Qaeda, but like the wise man said, experience is the best teacher.

First off, I would like to throw a shout out to Dean for giving me the heads up. I will leave my vest at home today. In regards to your trip to Anbar. I'm extremely interested in your comments from there. The recent very positive media reports have made me question some of the accuracy though. My brother spent nine months in Fallujah as a Marine this past year, and I have talked to him, and others in his unit about the the "successes" they witnessed. Not to sound too cynical, but they could not name many. The comments about their Iraqi counter-parts were even lower. I have read Michael Yon, Bill Rogio, and a couple other embeds and I try to take their information and paste together with actual comments from marines who have just come back from the Anbar province (most of way they say tends to be extremely negative). It may be that there is a true Anbar Awakening that will signal a new day for Iraq, but at the moment, I think it is way too early to tell if this is just a momentarily aberration from the successive killings, or a new trend which could bring a much needed change in the region. As always, great writing, and I look forward to your new post.

"...In 2006 the focus was on training the Iraqi military and transitioning responsibility for security to the Iraqis. It was hoped that the results of the 2005 elections would lead to the political progress that was seen as the key to reducing violence, and Generals John Abizaid and George Casey believed that an active American presence was an irritant that caused more trouble than it cured. ..."

And here you have the exact strategy that is being pushed by the Democrats and their left wing.

They scream that we make mistakes and then want to duplicate the worst of them.

Fresh ideas anyone?

Apropos of nothing on this thread... the Hamas "Mickey Mouse" has apparently breathed his last!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6257594.stm

(heh heh.... and I've put a dreaded BBC/Stasi/Gestapo link on this site)

Apparently "Abu Mickey" (or whatever) was beaten to death by an Israeli agent in the last episode.... nice kid's TV...(sigh)

How nice. The paleos teaching their kids how to be genocidal maniacs just like their parents.

"Abu Mickey" (or whatever) was beaten to death by an Israeli agent in the last episode.... nice kid's TV...(sigh)

Actually he was beaten to death by the Jewish "murderers of children"....

microraptor, wasn't it you who denied any racist / genocidal intent on the part of Hamas several posts ago? I offered you evidence that it was in their charter, printed in their newspapers and taught to their children, to which you never responded. Now you post a story about a martyred puppet. Do you still think this is simply part of a nationalist political campaign rather than the actions of genocidal fanatics?

I didn't read DEAN'S blog, but I suspect it has something to do with Ron Paul. Just a guess.

MT, it's been a long time since you last commented on the Iraq war, and now I remember why I used to dislike your blog so much. For the last few years you have done probably some of the finest blogging out of any blogger out there today, with all of your travels across the middle east. And then you go and screw it all up by posting a couple posts like this over the last couple days! J/K - I will still read your blog even if you keep posting stuff like this.

There are three main problems with this line that you tote. And I don't see you really answer them, other than to say just give the surge and occupation more time. Forgive us all for our pessimism but that's the same thing we've been hearing for the last 4 years - what makes this time any different?

1) It's too late for new strategies. 4 years of daily ethnic reprisals have ruined any chance to secure the country or create a functioning democracy. Iraqis just went through 4 years of having their friends and family members murdered by other tribes and ethnic groups simply because of their ethnicity. You think that some small surge of 30,000 troops and small shifting of resources is going to somehow stop this cycle of violence now that we are four years into it?

2) No amount of new troops or new strategies will work. We have already lost local support. At the point where the vast majority of the local populace wants us gone, there is nothing good being done by us staying there. 80% of Iraqis want us gone, 40% think it is justified to kill Americans. This isn't just some outlier terrorist group we are fighting. We are viewed by the entire country as being an evil enemy occupying army. Which leads into point 3...

3) We create more terrorists and insurgents over there everyday just by being there than we kill or capture in combat.

in this climate there is no point in staying or giving new minor strategic changes a chance. all we are doing is killing more young americans for nothing. we are wasting lives on a lost cause. the vast majority of americans have come to accept this fact. yet for some reason beyond me you have not. I would like to see some "plan B" ideas from you - what should we do if the surge fails - increase troop levels? pull out completely? withdraw to kurdistan or kuwait?

Judging by your post Michael, we should let Al Queda rule over all of Iraq. This will definitely cause the Iraqi's to finally join the Coalition. Those Iraqis are quick learners; it took 70 years of Communism before people realized how much it sucked.

amouse,

Sorry you're ready to give up and I'm not and that it's annoying. What can I say? I'm tempted to give up, too, but I can't quite bring myself to do it. The consequences for us and Iraq will be severe.

As far as my own personal Plan B, I say withdraw to Kurdistan and partition the country in two. I just finished a 9,000 word (24 pages) article making the case for it. It will be published this summer (not on my blog).

Anyway, amouse, when I get to Iraq I will try to keep my opinion out of it as much as I can so the material isn't too polarizing, but I can't be (and don't want to be) bloodlessly neutral.

If/when I see bad stuff and/or get a bad feeling, I will not try to hide it, I promise. I'm not going as a cheerleader for the war or the military.

Honestly, I'm not optimistic and don't want to write anything that embarrasses me later.

Well, at the risk of getting battered on this site again, I am still not convinced of thre "genocidal" aspect of Hamas... insofar as to whether they are a threat to all Jews everywhere, much as the Nazis were. There are Hamas supporters in London, UK, where I live -- but they don't attack Jews in our city. I also don't see Hamas launching attacks on Jewish targets throughout the world, which might be easier than trying to attack Jewish targets in Israel proper -- and this makes me think that their intent is not "genocidal" as I understand the word...

I think Hamas are undoubtedly murderous.... I think they are most probably anti-Judaic and probably racist in the context of the Middle East.... but I am yet to be convinced that they are actually "genocidal" or that they pose a clear and present and on-going danger to Jewish people wherever they are in the world.

A quarter of my family are Jews and some of this group escaped the Shoah -- and some didn't... THAT was a genocide as I understand the word.... But I feel and continue to do so, that certain supporters of Israel over-use, or abuse the term when talking about the current situation in the Middle East.

It's the same thing with the term "anti-Semite".... I have been called an anti-Semite for disgagreeing with certain Israeli policies (not even for questioning the country's right to exist, which, for the record, I don't). It's got to the stage that if an idiot got into his car drunk and ran someone over and killed them, and it transpired that the victim was Jewish, certain posters here would call it an "anti-Semitic attack" and if the notional drunk mowed down two Jewish people it would be "genocidal in its intent."

I think words are powerful tools, and although I see what emotional strings the Isreali supporters are trying to tug, I think they are cheapening the lexicon...

Now if you'll excuse me, I've just got to put my flame retardant jacket on... Good day one and all!

Just to add... Thanks Mertel if it was you that posted the clip from the Hamas Charter. I did respond - saying that it was just this sort of informative and information based, factual posting that makes for proper coherent arguments.... but at the time I was also under fire with any number of childish, highly emotional personal attacks, so it may have been lost in the mire. I appreciate your civilised methodology. Thank you for taking the time to broaden my understanding.

Microraptor, Hamas doesn't have be gunning for my Jewish neighbors in Oregon to be considered genocidal.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Also, see Samantha Power's The Problem from Hell for a book-length examination of the subject and how its definition came to be what it is.

Samantha Power is working for Barak Obama, by the way, as a foreign policy advisor.

That's very interesting MJT... but I'll have to read what the rest of the convention says otherwise it would seem to me that much of the violence in today's world could be counted as "genocide," which it clearly (and rightly?) is not.

We hear nothing of the Al-Qaeda genocide of Shia Muslims in Iraq and in Pakistan, or the on-going genocidal campaigns perpetrated by both sides in, say, the Sri Lankan civil war, the current genocide against Roma Gypsies throughout central Europe (with respect to preventing births, tranfering children etc) and so on.

Perhaps it is the phrase "with intent" that is key? Clearly the Israeli military campaign against Gaza has at one time or another fulfilled many of the criteria laid out here -- but few would describe it as deliberately "genocidal.

And Israel's defenders would most probably argue that all the deaths, privation, mental anguish and so on that the Palestinians on the receiving end have faced, are an unfortunate by-product of the necessary campaign against terrorists, as opposed to the desired end in itself.

So is "genocidal" violence all about "intent" as much as it is about outcomes? Because IMO Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank have suffered all the fear and violence that Israeli civilians have done over the years (I would even suggets they have come off worse) but few here would describe Israel's actions as genocidal, though they could be seen to fit the criteria of Article 2 as you have laid it out.

Well, at the risk of getting battered on this site again, I am still not convinced of thre "genocidal" aspect of Hamas.

Take what Hamas did to their fellow paleos Fatah (i.e., chuck them off skyscrapers, lynch them in front of their families), and multiply that by ten if they could do it to the Jews. They've been trained for precisely that since childhood.

"we are wasting lives on a lost cause. the vast majority of americans have come to accept this fact."
Whether a cause is lost or not is not a fact if there is still a choice available.
We are fighting a Limited War. The choices are:
a) fight, or
b) lose.

Please point me to a poll that asks Americans whether they would rather continue to fight, or to lose now. Without such an honest poll question, I dispute your assertion that most Americans are willing to lose, now.

Remember Joe Biden saying it would take 10 years to achieve success (before the war)? Creating democracy, and self-reliance, takes some time. My view of Fallujah was that NOT taking it in April 2004, but waiting until Nov, was the right choice -- because it allowed (a la Ross above) the Iraqis to see the alternative to American supported rule...

Nobody knows, because it's never been done, how long it takes a non-democratic Arab people to be liberated from a dictator and then accept and support democracy (and human rights). Support meaning willingness to fight, kill, and die for the democratically elected leaders -- who are likely to be corrupt, incompetent, and/or cowardly (but PR savy! and power hungry!) (all too familiar to Americans).

If the democracy crop takes 10 weeks to ripen, it's silly to expect it to be ready after 4 weeks. I notice the "bring the troops home" folks are NOT talking about Germany (62 years of occupation now?) or S. Korea (55 years).

Rather than just 2, or 3, splitting the country into MANY cantons (Tribal), like the Swiss, should be the alternative. The desire of the "international" community of elites to have huge central power has been terrible.

Besides time, where are the metrics of how well the US is doing? I've long said mine: 2500 or less (Americans killed), Bush gets an A; 5000 or less, a B, 10 000 or less, a C.

I certainly consider losing 10 000 American volunteers over 10 years fighting for a successful democracy in Iraq to be "worth it" (far more than the D-Day invasion of France rather than containment, for example). Of course: a) it's not me, and b) what is "success".

MJT, GREAT work on being honest, observant, and such a great writer. Such traits, when used supporting a conclusion one disagrees with, will of course be annoying -- but the essence of great journalism. Thanks again.

Your reading and occasionally responding to comments is VERY highly appreciated.

MR,

That al Queda intends to wipe out all Shia Muslims is not really in question. In Iraq, they seem to be attempting not so much to wipe them out personally as to (sucessfully) foment fighting between Sunnis and Shias -- in the expectation that someone else will do the work for them. Whether this action still constitutes genocide in the legal sense, I leave to the lawyers. That it is genocide in intent is beyond doubt.

But you are correct that, perhaps because aQ is so obviously genocidal, it doesn't get mentioned as often as it might.

Microraptor,

Another key phrase in that convention is "as such." The language is old and lawyerly, sorry, not my fault, I didn't write it.

Which means, you are genocidal if you kill Jews because they are Jews.

To use another example, if the United States military made every Iraqi Arab a military target for whatever reason, the US would be guilty of genocide even if the US did not gun for Arabs in Egypt and elsewhere.

Saddam Hussein is guilty of genocide of Iraq's Kurds, even though he did not try to extreminate the Kurds of Turkey.

Israelis would be guilty of genocide if they tried to exterminate the Palestinians of Gaza, even if they left the Palestinians of the West Bank alone.

Etc.

If you're sincerely interested in this subject, do read Samantha Powers' book. It's a good book, and she's a good liberal.

Al Qaeda is definitely genocidal in their thinking. The only reason we don't often think to label them this way is because they lack the physical strength to make it happen, so it doesn't register. If they had the strength of, say, the Russian conventional army, it would be much more commonly noted.

Microraptor,

I appreciate your perspective, but it is somewhat narrowminded to refuse to view Hamas as genocidal because there supporters are not killing people in Europe. Europe provides many moderating influences and has the political means and control of state authority necessary to diminish such acts to a minimal level.

Below is a link to a survey of antisemitic crime throughout Europe (actually a compilation of many such surveys)
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/reports.asp?country=multi&id=38&misc1=survey-antisem6

Not surprisingly, the data is not specific enough on the whole to draw broad conclusions, but a few notes were interesting. Antisemitic crime peaked in 2004 throughout the world, then dipped, and then started climbing back. Increases in anti-semitic crime appeared tied to actions in the middle east (suggesting support of terror groups like hamas results in anti-semitic violence elsewhere). In 2006 in Britain, 29% of violent anti-semitic crimes for which an identification was provided were committed by "Asians," a number I believe to be significantly in disproportion to their representation in the community at large.

Certainly, nationalist and neo-nazi groups are largely responsible for anti-semitic hate crime throughout Europe, but there does seem to be a suggestion that it is disproportionate amongst Muslims in Europe (though hardly pandemic). Moreover, to the extent that violent hate crime in Europe has no impact on Israeli policy, despite the fact that it may be triggered by acts in the middle east, suggests that aim of such hate crime is not political, but racist and genocidal (see the 2006 Halimi murder in France).

Again, there are too few data points to draw any conclusions and the supporters of Hamas throughout Europe are likely to have far different motivations than those in Gaza, but there can be little doubt that the leadership of Hamas holds a genocidal intent toward Jews as reflected in their charter and frequent public comments.

Microraptor,

I appreciate your perspective, but it is somewhat narrowminded to refuse to view Hamas as genocidal because there supporters are not killing people in Europe. Europe provides many moderating influences and has the political means and control of state authority necessary to diminish such acts to a minimal level.

Below is a link to a survey of antisemitic crime throughout Europe (actually a compilation of many such surveys)
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/reports.asp?country=multi&id=38&misc1=survey-antisem6

Not surprisingly, the data is not specific enough on the whole to draw broad conclusions, but a few notes were interesting. Antisemitic crime peaked in 2004 throughout the world, then dipped, and then started climbing back. Increases in anti-semitic crime appeared tied to actions in the middle east (suggesting support of terror groups like hamas results in anti-semitic violence elsewhere). In 2006 in Britain, 29% of violent anti-semitic crimes for which an identification was provided were committed by "Asians," a number I believe to be significantly in disproportion to their representation in the community at large.

Certainly, nationalist and neo-nazi groups are largely responsible for anti-semitic hate crime throughout Europe, but there does seem to be a suggestion that it is disproportionate amongst Muslims in Europe (though hardly pandemic). Moreover, to the extent that violent hate crime in Europe has no impact on Israeli policy, despite the fact that it may be triggered by acts in the middle east, suggests that aim of such hate crime is not political, but racist and genocidal (see the 2006 Halimi murder in France).

Again, there are too few data points to draw any conclusions and the supporters of Hamas throughout Europe are likely to have far different motivations than those in Gaza, but there can be little doubt that the leadership of Hamas holds a genocidal intent toward Jews as reflected in their charter and frequent public comments.

Sorry about the double post.

I think they are most probably anti-Judaic and probably racist in the context of the Middle East....

And why not anti-semitic. Why only "probably" racist? And why then only in "the context of the Middle East". It's starting to sound like you're making excuses for them.

Let's be clear, it's written in Hamas' charter that every good muslim should kill a Jew, "any Jew", and that Jews around the world participate in a massive conspiracy as outlined in the protocols of the elders of zion. As some Israeli prof noted (can't remember his name off-hand), your comments seem to reflect a phenomenon whereby educated, intellectual people can't recognise anti-semitism unless comes accompanied with a Nazi salute. So before we turn to genocide, lets at least acknowledge the fundamental anti-semitism at the core of Hamas' ideology.

So, if you accept that Hamas is racist and murderous, the combination of the two can only equal genocidal. Whether they act on that fundamental has more to do with their resources and ability than anything else.

Michael. Good piece, thanks. I'll privately send you my son's unit and location. It would be nice if you could stop in on them.

As for the very first comment, it is a non sequitur. 'Nuff said.

Michael,

I'm unclear as to why you let the top post survive since it violates a number of courtesy conventions that help keep comments sections useful exchanges of information. It just bothers me to give any success to people who use rude methods, even if there is robust denouncement of the individual and their methods.

amouse,

I will give you a lot more credit if you support your contentions with reasoning beyond suicidally depressive self-reference. At some point your examples impose a strict regime of bed rest for all westerners until their jihadi overlords give them direct supervision or personally applied extinction.

Imagine supporting decency instead of world peace.
Imagine standing up to brutal tyrants.
Imagine living according to your choices instead of your fears.
Imagine telling the barbarians and murderers to go to hell and making it stick.

There are better choices than surrender, there are not many worse ones with this set of opponents.

I concur with Ross's speculation. Suppose from the begining we had a "heavier footprint" with "sufficient" US troops to impose domestic order and expel more foreign fighters, as many administration critics argue.

Given the enemy's pick-off and hit-and-run tactics, with drastically more US troops in country, the casualty number likely would have been greater. Meanwhile, shooting looters and other aspects of doing what would have been necessary to impose order may have fanned the domestic insurgency more than a light footprint did.

Not knowing the alternative for certain, has a light footprint and al Qaida in Iraq proven to be a mixed blessing, eventually enlisting both Shia and Sunni arabs (along with Kurds) at the front line of the global battle against Islamic extremism?

I mean, who'd thunk it?

Clearly we all view things differently so I will take a shot at how I seethese matters. Hamas is out to destroy Israel, wipe it off the face of the earth and "reclaim" a land they never owned but which they believe is theirs. After that, who knows what they want but clearly they would impose sharia law. By contrst, Al Qaeda wants to spread fundamental Islam world-wide, destroy the West and in a dream-like future have a caliphate to rule worldwide, that is, accomplish that which a long long time ago was begun but which failed.

Iraq: a stupid invastion that will not work and is not working but which those still supporting Mr Bush believe in. How can it work when (1) the inhabitants have yet to show they understand or appreciate democracy (2) can not agree on who gets what as far as oil is concerned, (3) there are three groupings that detest one another (Shia, Sunnis, Kurds). Meantime, the Kurds would like to have their own nation and Turkey is clamping down on guerilla forces coming out of N. Iraq (we hear almost nothing of this in our press), and Iran has gained the most because Saddam, a counterveiling force to Iran was removed by the US. We will leave Iraq and will not have accomplished anything that was the Bush claim for our going into that country. Another black eye for America.

LBJ (remember him, of one elected term?) tried the heavy footprint in Vietnam.
It was not obviously better -- but it was clearly more costly in American lives. Though the USSR supported N. Viet were far better proxy-war fighters than the Iran / Wahabbi supported terrorist Arabs.

Only Iraqis can "win" in Iraq.

The Sunnis in Iraq must realize their choice:
a) democracy and human rights allows them to live in Iraq as a minority, or
b) become the target of the majority Shia in a probable genocide. (If a majority votes for genocide is it OK? I think no, but who would stop the Shia, then? What if it's called "justice for Saddam supporters?")

Some 4 mil. Iraqis are reported to have run away -- the vast majority of whom are Sunni. (How many left?)

I think more Sunnis are choosing support for democracy. I also hope so -- so fear my optimistic bias.

Iraq is not about Bush any longer. Most intelligent people have figured that out, but a lot of die-hard BDS sufferers are stuck on "Bush's Vietnam" and cannot move-on.

Iraq is about whether the Kurdish and Arab people of Iraq can live in peace and divide the oil spoils, while holding off aggression from Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

Bush will be gone long before the Iraqis have figured out whether they are willing to make this opportunity work for them or not.

Just as a lot of people died in Algeria, and a lot of people continue to die in Darfur, many more Iraqis will die before they decide if they can get it together or no.

Iraq is not about Bush any longer. Most intelligent people have figured that out, but a lot of die-hard BDS sufferers are stuck on "Bush's Vietnam" and cannot move-on.

Wars are messy business. Very few plans survive contact with the enemy, and many of the plans our warfighters have drawn up match that category.

We are in the middle of a conflict that we are likely to lose only if we decide to quit. It may take longer to win depending on how much more bungling we get from the current president. But it is not a war we can afford to lose.

Most of what has happened in Iraq was inevitable.

It was all part of the Iraqi and American learning curve. If we'd gone in with 500,000 troops, there's no doubt our casualties would've been much higher, as the Iraqis banded together to expel the occupiers.

If we hadn't let the Sunnis see just how bad al Qaeda could be, they would never have joined us. Same as with the Shia militias. The Shia had to be extorted and killed by their own before they turned on al Sadr.

It was all part of an evolving continuum, not a series of starts and stops. Heck, it took us thirteen years to get our act together after we declared our independence, and we weren't even fighting Syria, Iran, and the global jihad movement.

As for this war's mistakes, well, there's wasn't a single one that could compare with the blunders we committed in World War II. We began the war with obsolete weapons, and after it ended we let Europe starve and fend for itself for over two years before we came up with the Marshall Plan.

We let 100,000 German POWS die in our detention camps. Our torpedos and tanks were horrible. Our daylight bombing raids cost us more than 50,000 airmen and didn't achieve their goals. We killed thousands of our own in friendly fire incidents. We sacked commander after commander before we found ones who could get the job done.

This war was almost miraculously blunder free compared to World War II. We should all be thankful that the people in charge know much more about war fighting than we Internet generals do.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A top special operations officer from Lebanon's Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah has been captured in Iraq, where U.S. officials say he played a key role in a January attack that killed five Americans.

hmmmm.... it's interesting how reluctant the US is to attack those who are so happy to kill Americans....

fred lapides,

1. There are millions of Iraqis who are ardently interested in and quite fully informed about democracy. Are we to abandon them because after decades of brutal dictatorship, most of the country is still unclear about the capacity of democracy? Or do you actually believe democracy can be made in the microwave.

2. The Iraqi Oil Ministry is engaged in fraud, not so much because they hate the Kurds, but because if they have to make an honest accounting of income, they get to steal less. The Kurds want a fair share of all income, and the Oil Ministry officials want to avoid acknowledging any firm figures for funds. People are bitching and moaning about who is in charge in Parliament, they should be watching who is handling most of the money in the country: the Oil Ministry.

3. Just for reference, most of the Kurds are Sunni. There are Shia and Yezidi Kurds as well. You need to be more aware of the tribal nature of the conflict and stop looking at the broader sectarian divisions. Additionally, the Iraqi Police are starting to form non-sectarian units for settling troubled regions. There are a lot more dimensions of the conflict than are presented in the media and by the various foreign ministries. The solution to this war is in the details, and that is what the surge is about. Playing large sides off of each other is no longer a functional strategy, hopefully the State Department will pick up on this.

Perhaps the Sunni needed to undergo the terror of AQ to become strong just as te Jews needed to wander in the wilderness to be able to enter the Promised Land,
BTW the Hamas Mickey Mouse was killed by Hamas and not by any Israeli.

Patrick: Or do you actually believe democracy can be made in the microwave.

That's funny.

Mertel,

"And why not anti-semitic. Why only "probably" racist? And why then only in "the context of the Middle East". It's starting to sound like you're making excuses for them."

Starting!?!? That's all that 'raptor has ever done. He effuses about "broaden[ing his] understanding" but in reality he has not changed his position one iota despite being repeatedely confronted with the murderous nature of Hamas' charter. That's why I don't waste my time trying to reason with him.

Mertel, I say "anti Judaic" because the standard response of Hamas/Hezbollah to charges of anti-Semitism is that they cannot possibly be, because Arabs are also Semites...

You write "...racist and murderous, the combination of the two can only equal genocidal." Not so.... is the KKK described as genocidal? Were the racists thugs who murdered a black teenager in London called Stephen Lawrence genociodal?

Despite your reasoned arguments, I still don't buy the "genocidal" label. I think it is highly emotional term and belittles what happened to the Jews in WW2. There is a material difference between vicious bus bombs/crappy rockets and wholesale industrialised slaughter.

As for Gary Rosen, calling me a "weasel" among other insults doesn't count as having a reasonable argument. All you tend to do is come on this site, look for people who don't share your point of view and then flame them. It's childish and boring.

With regards to the Hezbollah / Iraq / CNN link.... I was in deep south Beirut Dahiyeh myself, earlier in the year, filming with a bunch of guys who were ex-Amal and now on Hezbollah's payroll.

They were selling light weapons on the black market and one day a gun came to light that cost $10,500.... it was a brand new M-4 rifle/Grenade launcher combo: the latest spec.... stamped Property of the US Govt. which they said had been taken from a dead American soldier in Iraq and trafficked to Lebanon because the prices were so good for weapons like that.

I contacted Colt who make the weapon and they said only US military weapons are stamped thus, I contacted sources close to the IDF (Israel also uses the M-4 system) who said the weapon was NOT one of theirs... so I contacted CentCom's offices in Baghdad with the serial number of the weapon, but citing security concerns, they'd not tell me any more....

But at the time I thought it could have been looted from one of the "Karbala 5." Maybe it was...

If you want to SEE this weapon, you can do on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jtsJgFePB8&mode=related&search=

scroll forwards to 03:00. If you want to watch the whole documentary on Hezbollah type in "Hunting for Hezbollah" and it is in 3 parts.

A general question for the better informed- there's a lot of conjecture concerning the surge and its potential for success, but what would that entail? A stable democracy seems to be the consensus, but if you'll forgive my cynicism, that didn't seem to be the war's purpose circa 2003. Weren't the Shi'ite majority badly oppressed during Saddam's rule? What would stop them, in a free and democratic Iraq- post-Coalition withdrawal- from forming a close alliance with Iran and nationalising its oil? I would have thought that would have a pretty serious impact on America's energy security, which was surely one of the motives for the war in the first place.

So does America really want a democratic Iraq? After all, look at who the Palestinians managed to elect! Please note that I'm a pretty green 19 year old just trying to get a bit more of an idea of America's long-term goals for Iraq. Christ knows you can't trust the media.

.... is the KKK described as genocidal?

Yes. I'd certainly describe the KKK as genocidal. Google KKK and genocide and you'll see others do too. They have even advocated the sterilisation of all black people - a classic example of genocidal intent. I see no difference in the ideology between the KKK and Nazis, and see no reason why they would employ different policies if they obtained political power. The only difference is one of power and opportunity. It seems to me that your argument relies on the fallacy that one can only be genocidal if one actually commits genocide.

The fact is, that while the Nazis attempted genocide, they seemed to be aware of the outrageousness of their crime and therefore kept it secret. Hamas, on the other hand, openly endorses genocide, and does not express one morsel of shame or regret for their views.

Another quote for you from, Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council
"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness."

If that isn't a call for genocide, then what on earth is?

[...] that didn't seem to be the war's purpose circa 2003.

We must act responsibly to address the current situation on the ground, and our interests are in a stable government that can successfully fend of the al Qaeda threat that is now in that country as a result of the power vacuum left by our initial invasion. If we do not, we will have a 10x worse situation than we had when al Qaeda was free to operation in Afghanistan, because of the far greater strategic value of Iraq.

We cannot afford to lose.

Al Qaeda cannot defeat us, but we can choose defeat by a misunderstanding of how war works. War in a theatre where there are two competent enemies looks nothing like the sanitized History Channel version. It is a complex, constantly evolving conflict, in which each side continues to adjust to the others tactics.

The end is determined when one side loses the capability to fight any further. Unfortunately even a marginally capable enemy is always capable of targeting women and children. So attacks on civilians in Baghdad will be one of the last things to go. Even if the insurgency at large is totally defeated, that could take additional years before all of the die hards and dead-enders are caught or killed.

Entertaining BBC doc posted by microraptor.

It is entirely amusing that the obvious hizblow master of ceremonies, is just an average Shia dude from the hood who just happens to magically get everywhere to enable the filmaker to see the unseeable.

There is not one thing in that piece that the hizblow ministry of propaganda doesn't want anyone to know.

Quite the contrary. The message is quite clearly provided, that "Crazy D" was briefed to do:

"Don't fuck with us."

The filmakers are either incredibly naive or totally fucking stupid.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/02/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Justin: So does America really want a democratic Iraq? After all, look at who the Palestinians managed to elect!

Democracy requires more than one election. It also requires the rule of law, separation of powers, a free press, peaceful transfer of power, the right to dissent, and minority rights -- none of which exist in Palestine.

A real democracy in Iraq would be terrific, though it is unlikely any time soon.

Right now we would settle for a cessation of violence and a moderate government.

There is not one thing in that piece that the hizblow ministry of propaganda doesn't want anyone to know.

Intersting then, isn't it, that Hezbollah wanted us to know this:

They were selling light weapons on the black market and one day a gun came to light that cost $10,500.... it was a brand new M-4 rifle/Grenade launcher combo: the latest spec.... stamped Property of the US Govt. which they said had been taken from a dead American soldier in Iraq and trafficked to Lebanon because the prices were so good for weapons like that.

"They were selling light weapons on the black market and one day a gun came to light that cost $10,500.... it was a brand new M-4 rifle/Grenade launcher combo: the latest spec.... stamped Property of the US Govt. which they said had been taken from a dead American soldier in Iraq and trafficked to Lebanon because the prices were so good for weapons like that."

Firstly, in respect to that issue. How would that play to the Lebanese audience? Fear perhaps of what these people can do and they have lots of weapons to do whatever they want.

How about all the other parts? This guy just happens to find an abandoned bunker that is such a great showpiece?

They somehow get around to all these sensitive areas right in the middle of their heartland?

Oh, yes, they briefly get "arrested".

You've been there. Do they really not know what's going on in that part of the country? He just drives around?

The import of the whole guided tour, is the message that these people don't fool around. They are indomnitable. They can stand up to anyone. They have what it takes. They are even stronger than before. etc. etc.

They can build bunkers like that anywhere without detection and they can get all the weapons they want, even ones taken from American soldiers that are killed by people they are connected with. Interesting image, isn't it.

Maybe I'm from the woods, but this one doesn't pass the smell test for me

Man, the film pretty much opens with a Hezbollah MP saying there is no black market for weapons and he is then made to look either a liar or a fool in short order....

Not exactly what they'd want is it?

The bunker that was found was this one in the linked article. Nick Blanford (who is a well known Lebanon reporter) mentions 2 other people accompanying him... these were the Producer and "Crazy-D," It was a bunker that had been already located by Unifil and the Lebanese Army. They gave Blanford the GPS co-ordinates:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0511/p01s02-wome.html

The secret zone is around Al Qotrani/Rihane and the BBC Producer filmed it with Crazy-D as a follow up on another of Nick Blanford's reports.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1438090.ece

I also undertsand that Hezbollah internal security caught this team filming at the M-4 location and threw them out, telling them never to film in the Dahiyeh again.

...as for it being Hezbollah approved propaganda, my understanding is that there is an embargo on sales of that film to ANY Middle Eastern broadcaster in order to protect the principal character (Crazy-D) from come back. The BBC could have sold that film for good money to any Israeli network, to Al Jazeera and to any Lebanese station. Just today Al Arabiya tried to buy it from the BBC and were told it is a no go.

And one last thing... the "Crazy-D guided tour" is a televisual conceit. Half the characters and situations were fixed up by the Film's Producer, not by the Lebanese driver dude.

He (Crazy-D) knew the Amal/Hezbollah arms dealers, but not the martyr's mother, the Bint J'beil commando, the bunker locations, the UN, the northern Litani security zone... or, indeed, Ashura and Jihad al Bina'a... all those were set up by the Programme Producer through other contacts.

MR,

I somehow doubt that the survivors of the Holocaust would feel belittled by the use of the term "genocidal" to describe Hamas. The survivors swore "never again." This was not a mere slogan, but a commitment to remain vigilant and identify similar genocidal mindsets and movements, to identify them in their nascency and prevent their aims.

To say that calling those who would destroy that jews "genocidal" belittles the holocaust is akin to saying that calling the murderer of one person a "murderer" belittles the survivors of Columbine or some other mass murder. Because one lacks the means to carry out genocide on the scale of Nazi Germany, does not mean that one cannot aspire to it. To label that aspiration as "genocidal" is to honor those who were victims of the Holocaust, by working to assure that others cannot amass the power to do the same to their ancestors.

IMFink'sPa....

That's an interesting line of argument you made RE: Colombine etc..

Let me consider it. Thanks, though...

Thanks for the report, Michael. Although I can't share your guarded optimism regarding the surge -- the safe bet is on "too little, too late" -- I do appreciate your reporting. Keep your head down.

(Of course, I will be overjoyed if the longshot won. I just don't favor setting policy based on the longshot.)

MR,

That is why I appreciate your input. You appear legitimately open minded. Thank you for taking the time to consider a different perspective. In addition to considering the Columbine example, I would ask you to take a little time to put yourself in the position of a Polish Jew who listened to similar rhetoric in 1927, but wrote it off, only to see 3/4 of his family killed over the next 18 years before founding a new life in Israel. I have a number of friends to whom this story is not at all uncommon and I can assure you that they have little hesitation to describe Hamas as genocidal. I think their opinion carries a lot more weight then my own.

MT

IMHO Insurgencies can not be 'won', only 'lost'. This rule applies to all the various groups including the US military.

The Marines spent 3+ years just barely not losing in AlAnbar, AlQueda spent 3+ years demonstrating to the Anbarians what lifestyle they would have when the Marines were finally defeated. AlQueda lost 'passive' support, without which an insurgency can not succeed.

Everywhere AlQueda has had a 'heavy' footprint, they have lost.

Microraptor-

I still don't buy the "genocidal" label. I think it is highly emotional term and belittles what happened to the Jews in WW2. There is a material difference between vicious bus bombs/crappy rockets and wholesale industrialised slaughter.

And that they only want to kill Israeli Jews makes it less genocidal? Do you really believe that Hamas wouldn't engage in "industrialized slaughter" if they had the means and opportunity?

Hamas is a genocidal organization; they regularly call for the wholesale slaughter of Jews. That they can't and won't match the level of attrocity of WWII Nazis doesn't change that. The difference between the two has less to do with intent than ability.

No one's trying to minimalize the fate of those who suffered and died in the Holocaust; why are you trying to minimilize the suffering and death of those who fell victim to Hamas bombings?

MR

Thanks for the info. It makes more sense now.

Although I didn't necessarily see the contradiction of what the politician said and the gun dealing, as the implicit double message could be useful as a threat, but any way... it was just my interpretation given what it all appeared to be.

I don't see who how a proscription on distibution by BBC is any kind of protection when anyone can download it and distribute it .

Well.... the thinking is that it is more the reaction from "the street" than Hezbollah higher-ups, that might be a safety issue.

The top leadership are quite educated and might slap this guy's wrist and say "No more access to our areas, your media credentials as a fixer are revoked, you bad boy"

...but some of the average work-a-day Hezbollah supporters in south Beirut might say "You dreadful traitor, you helped a Westerner find our secret bunkers etc. etc."

...and as a lot of these types are armed (many, many Lebanese civilians are armed) it could cause worries for "Crazy-D."

In Lebanon there is not very good broadband... especially in the poorer districts, like many Shia areas, as landlines are very cruddy.

So the main worry was not Youtube etc, but that this programme would get on a mass media channel (Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya) or on a Lebanese one that might re-edit it for political reasons and then the average Joes/Alis in Hezbollah areas might have a swipe at the guy.

I would ask you to take a little time to put yourself in the position of a Polish Jew who listened to similar rhetoric in 1927, but wrote it off, only to see 3/4 of his family killed over the next 18 years before founding a new life in Israel.

Good points IMF. My grandfather was one such Jew. He recounted with disgust the rallies he attended where members of a socialist Jewish group (the "Bund") encouraged all Jews to stay in Poland, explaining that the anti-semitic rhetoric they heard was merely rhetoric, and that it was inconceivable would never be acted upon. He lost over 200 members of his family including his wife and daughter. He always believed the leaders of the Bund held a large responsibility for the loss of life - that if it weren't for them hundreds of thousands may have been saved.

If you are concerned with offending his memory, I have no doubt that he would have been most offended by a failure to recognise the genocidal intent and anti-semitism (lets avoid pedantics and just call it what it is) of the jihadists in Hamas and elsewhere.

Mertel, my grnadfather was a German Jew who also made it through the war... but I don't think personalising the debate about lexicon is very helpful in this instance.

Obviously, I have no desire to insult or offend an old man, least of all one I have never met. But that doesn't mean I am going to shape my views to conform to theirs, simply to avoid upsetting them either...

So guys.... Does it all boil down to INTENT rather than actual effect?

I ask this because statistics suggest that the IDF/IAF has killed more Arab civilians than Hamas/Hezbollah has killed Israeli civilians. But no-one here talks about the "genocidal" Israeli military, even though their behaviour would on many occasions seemingly fulfil a number of the Article 2 criteria MJT listed above....

Microraptor, genocide is all about intent.

Israel could easily commit genocide against Palestinians at any time, but does not.

Adding up body counts means very little here, if anything. The reason there are fewer dead Israelis is because Hamas and Hezbollah are less military competent, not because they fight more decently or carefully.

Hamas, as you well know, kills as many Israeli civilians as possible. The Israelis, by contrast, try very hard to kill as few Palestinian civilians as possible. The Israelis may not be as careful as you would like, but you know Hamas isn't careful when they pack bombs with nails and rat poison and explode them in coffeeshops.

Article 2 above hinges on the following clause:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

MR,

Michael has more than adequately cited the definition of genocide, but you appear to be unconcerned with the nature of intent. Virtually all societies, however, have defined crimes and moral culpability in terms of intent. A homicide is murder only if the intent was to unlawfully kill. Homicide may be a lesser crime if the intent is less culpable such as reckless (manslaughter) or criminally (ie. grossly) negligent (negligent homicide). A death that results from simple negligence may be tortious, but it is not criminal (eg. falling asleep at the wheel when you thought you were not too tired to drive home and causing a death).

There is a simple premise behind the treatment of intent as a matter of culpability. Those who intend their antisocial acts are more likely to repeat them. This can be seen in the confrontation between Israel and Hamas. Since Israel does not intend to kill civilians, it is highly unlikely to do so unless it is the unavoidable and tragic consequence of a defensive action. In other words, if Hamas were to cease in its efforts to kill Israelis, there would be no threat to Palestinian civilians. Hamas, on the other hand, intends the death of Israelis, and, according to its charter and a great many statements by its leadership, all Jews. In other words, circumstances short of the death of Jews will not appease Hamas because it is their intent to cause such deaths. Israel, is readily appeased on that front. For a measure of the truth of these statements, just count Palestinian civilian deaths before and after both the first and second intifadas.

Moreover, under common principals of law (both national and international), many of the Arab/Palestinian civilian deaths you attribute to the IDF and IAF, would be attributable to the Arab/Palestinian instigators of violence (certainly not all, and maybe not even the majority, but a substantial number). Human shields are the most obvious example, but their are numerous other circumstances where culpability for civilian deaths, however tragic, but incidental to an exigency created by another individual lays at the hand of the person creating the exigency.

Assume for a moment a terrorist operating an explosives operation out of the home of a family member in Jenin. The terrorist has successfully assisted in one suicide attack resulting in 5 deaths, 1 failed attack resulting in injuries to one Israeli officer at a border crossing, and with plans for innumerable further attacks. Barring capture or targeted killing, this terrorist would likely be responsible for on-going murders for an indefinite period of times, perhaps in the dozens. The IDF and IAF are only able to track this terrorist for short periods and have concluded that an arrest operation would likely lead to several injuries, if not deaths, of their own personnel and, likely, bystanders in the fairly well populated area in which this terrorist operates. Accordingly, they wait for information with the intent of targeting the explosives operation when the terrorist is present, thereby eliminating an imminent threat and a substantial capacity to build more bombs. A call is received by an informant and a gunship is sent. If fires one missile, killing the terrorist, two assistants and eight members of the militants family in the home. Who is responsible for his dead family members? International norms of law say the terrorist is. Moreover, eight civilians are dead (compared to only five Israelis so far), plus the terrorists. Additionally, the threat to hundreds of Israelis is ended. Of course this whole sad scenario could have been avoided if the Palestinian government had taken steps to reign in its own fanatics. The point being, take hundreds of these episodes in various permutations (rocket brigades, cells attacking border points with guns, etc...), some more or less aggregious than others and you will have an awfully unbalanced civilian death toll, but absent that toll, the scales would fall perilously far to the other side.

With regards to mentioning the Polish person in the 20s who ignored the calls to genocide saying that it wasn't possible, the point was not to personalize the question, though a real life example is useful as anecdotal evidence of the underlying point, but to draw an analogy. Hamas may not have the capacity today to commit its intended genocide (only mass murder and mayhem), but neither did Hitler and Germany in the mid-20's. Who is to say whether an Iranian backed Hamastan will have the capacity to commit genocide in 10 or 20 years? and aren't we better off to confront that ideology now than to allow their capacity to grow to their aspirations?

You can't confront and reform an ideology today that you refuse to give its proper name. If I label that tiny brown bump on your arm a mole when, in fact, it is melanoma, I am taking a grave risk. Sure, it can't kill me today, but if I let it fester and spread, it can effect other organs and lead to my death. Even if caught before it is fatal, it can do permanent and irreparable damage. Likewise, Hamas may not look like Nazi Germany and, presumably, should be much easier to deal with today, but if we refuse to name its ideology, that cancer, as genocidal, racist, supremacist, hate-filled, all those things that it is, because it can't kill us today, we risk letting it spread.

[sarcasm on]

The KKK is an ineffective would-be genocidal killers.

For the industrial strength versions of killing, you need Nazi like Hitler, Himmler and Mengele. Or the equal Eugenics industrial style killers like Margaret Sanger and her planned parenthood organization.

Her Planned Parenthood manages to kill a million and a half inferior blacks per year, year in and year out.

I assume since Jews in the USA are one third the numbers of Blacks, Margaret Sanger's Eugenics theories manage to kill only a half million Jews a year or so. Himmler had a higher annual peak rate but Sanger has been at it much, much, longer so leads in total numbers. Since 1976 over the intervening 31 years, that means Sanger has killed 15.5 million Jews. It makes Himmler a piker, with his paltry 6 million.

For industrial scale Jew killing, you can't beat Margaret Sanger's efforts in Eugenics; the same warped theory that Hitler adopted. Eugenics teaches that the inferior races (blacks, Jews gypsies etc.) or the retarded or crippled should not live. In the discussion of the Nazi regime, seldom is their any mentions of their liquidations of the retarded and crippled. The truly forgotten ones.

[satire off]

Microraptor

The genocidal fever/fervor of hamas or others around has many layers, given a chance, they would do it

1. Once and for all ie rational brutality
2. Pure joy of doing it, an irresistible dream dreamt for decades
3. To brag about for centuries to come
4. It is soooo quranic cf. jews hiding behind a stone, tree in the quran, being killed or Kheibar oasis etnic cleansing remembered by hizbo fighters recently
5. Inferiority complex / an apalling source of brutality
6. No ability of these folks to have a disdain for group mentality, ie sense for personal responsability, the crowd will decide.

7. Love of looting, a natural right of the beast

8. I don't see any quality or reason which would counter these above

Microraptor

The genocidal fever/fervor of hamas or others around has many layers, given a chance, they would do it

1. Once and for all ie rational brutality
2. Pure joy of doing it, an irresistible dream dreamt for decades
3. To brag about for centuries to come
4. It is soooo quranic cf. jews hiding behind a stone, tree in the quran, being killed or Kheibar oasis etnic cleansing remembered by hizbo fighters recently
5. Inferiority complex / an apalling source of brutality
6. No ability of these folks to have a disdain for group mentality, ie sense for personal responsability, the crowd will decide.

7. Love of looting, a natural right of the beast

8. I don't see any quality or reason which would counter these above

Tom W;
You match my thinking very closely. The learning curve is a very apt image or description here, and numerous educated and pro-democracy Iraqis have commented on how much they and their countrymen/women have to learn to appreciate the broad aspects of living in and running one, much less the grotty details. Like Parliamentary procedure and jockeying and running of ministries answerable to the House, etc.

And that's the educated "class". As for the rest, they loved their purple fingers, but are on the front lines of security breakdowns.

The big picture for the US and the West is simple: "Pay me now, pay me later." And later will/would be MUCH more. But the short of sight are always willing or even eager to roll the dice and hope the bill never comes due.

Michael,

The Hamas thing was a throwaway comment, and I'm aware elections alone do not make a democracy. I was just asking what America's long-term goals in Iraq really were. Which is why, Carrick, the original intentions of the war are important. If we accept the hypothesis that this was an 'imperialist' war intended to secure Iraq's oil reserves- and there is much to suggest this- then what is the US plan for Iraq? Surely it's not as simple as saying democracy in Iraq would be great- I think that, you think that, the US military even think that, but do the people who started this war?

I know I'm aware I'm talking in absurd generalities, but like I said, I'm just trying to learn a bit more about the Middle East in general; your blog answers all my questions on the minutiae, but not the big picture.

They were selling light weapons on the black market and one day a gun came to light that cost $10,500.... it was a brand new M-4 rifle/Grenade launcher combo:

That's a completely insane price for an M4/M203. The price for a basic M4 (no scope/rails) is about a grand, the M203 a little under a grand.

our war in Iraq has really been 4 different wars
the first, against Saddam Hussein's regime was won in miraculously short order.
the second, against Sunni's who hoped to maintain political power by driving us out through killing and sabotaging our efforts to rebuild infrastructure appears to be almost over. it is interesting to note why that is so. First, the enemy found that the Americans were not so bad. Second, they found that their allies, al Quaeda was much worse, and far more of a threat to their ways than we were. Third, wayward Shiites, not the government but renegade followers of Sadr started murdering Sunni's in retaliation, and it became clear to the Sunni's that our leaving, and leaving them in the hands of armed Shiites, would be a disaster to them.
They have been won over through these influences, the futility of fighting us, and through diplomacy. As you mention, some of the most militant at the beginning are now fighting al
Quaeda on our side in cooperation with the government.
In retrospect, these Sunni's made a terrible mistake in fighting us rather than laying low until we leave, and then attempting to take over. That has been the classic successful technique for displaced ruling elements: witness the triumph of the KGB in Russia recently, the analoguous success in Nicaragua, the victory of the KKK over the "carpetbaggers" and blacks in our South in 1868-1880, etc.
Now, they need us to protect them from Shiite power.
The third war is that against "terror" that is, against al Quaeda. For reasons obscure al Quaeda chose Iraq as THE place in which to concentrate its major efforts against us. This alone makes our presence in Iraq valuable. Is there another place we would rather fight them in? This fact explains why we did not close the Syrian or Iranian borders, nor threaten the Syrians, etc. for permitting al Quaeda infiltration.
As far as war in Iraq is concerned keeping al Quaeda out is highly desirable (as Imam Hakim has recently noticed), but as far as war on terror is concerned it is a bad idea.
This war is going very well, as it now has the support of a vast majority of the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis.
Finally there is the war against the followers of Sadr, and this does not look like a difficult one at this point in time. The Shiites may support it, but it is fueled mainly by Iranian support, and the desire for revenge against the Sunnis who murder Shiites, who are more and more dominated by al Quaeda, supported by Iran.
Diplomatically the war so far has brought about a dramatic shift in international opinion in favor of our efforts. France and Germany have elected governments far more supportive than their predecessors. The Sunni governments in Arab nations have switched from opposing us in fear of democracy and of Shiites, to supporting us out of fear of Iran. They even beg Israel to attack Iran.
The situation in this country is even looking more positive for continuing the war until Iraq is stable and free from threats, either from Iran or from al Quaeda or from Sadrites. Much of the opposition to the war has come from sufferers from BDS and as Bush becomes less and less relevant, that opposition will dwindle.
The opposition cannot get around the fact that al Quaeda must show successes to continue to recruit, and giving them a big success in Iraq would 1. vastly increase their recruitment,2. provide them with a huge safe base with enormous oil wealth,3. allow them to extend their bombing etc throughout the Western world.
The idea that success would cause them to give up their successful ways is polyanna-ish wishful thinking, and the American public will not stand for it.
At this point in time it is hard to see how this war could have gone better, despite all our "mistakes".
Now, both Sunni and Shiites are thoroughly sick of bombings and terror. Contact with al Quaeda domination has soured our former Sunni enemies on allying with them against us. The apparent economic success of the Kurds has given the Arabs the (probably correct) impression that peace would be a very positive thing for them as well. The time is ripe for winning this war. If the government can create a fair oil revenue sharing scheme that appeals to all with the scent of money, prospects for peace look very promising.
This will certainly require some good luck, some more fighting, and some time, but it is hard to spot a negative trend at this time.

Rosignol writes: "....That's a completely insane price for an M4/M203. The price for a basic M4 (no scope/rails) is about a grand, the M203 a little under a grand."

I agree, but apparently it's down to supply and demand. This rifgle does have a scope too, however.

I was told that the going rate for a decent (Russian made) AK-47 from a "good year" - yup, like fine wines, Kalashnikovs have good years, apparently (look for the 1977 'Circle 11' gun fans) was currently USD 800, which was up from about USD 250 in December 2006, which is when the latest political crisis really broke in Lebanon.

I saw used AR-15 "Super-Commando" assault rifles and the asking price for those was about two or two and a half grand or more depending on condition.

Conversely, they were selling Heckler and Koch G-3 assault rifles for USD 250.

I think the M-4 was overpriced, but in part BECAUSE it was a trophy weapon.... a rarity with a gruesome back-story.

What suprised me most was the high price of handguns. I saw Glocks going for well over a grand each and the Colt 45 "American Eagle" that the driver buys at the end of the "Sopranos" pastiche was closer to $1,800.

If you can be bothered to look at the Youtube clips you can see the mentality of the men concerned in this particular scene.... they are basically red-neck gun nuts, who in this case happen to be ex-Amal Shia Muslims from south Beirut. Look at the arms dealer's home: broken machinery in the yard, snotty nosed kids running about in their underpants.... and adult males lounging about talking cyclical fire rates.

Just the way they encourage the toddler to pose for the camera and play with the M-4 says it all.

ImFinl'sPa wrote.... a hell of a lot.

Thanks for that and taking the time. Brilliantly argued... are you a lawyer? (I mean that in a nice way)... And very convincing on Hamas....

Less so, however, on the idea that the IDF/IAF try to avoid civilians casualties at all costs and feeling bad when they do kill civilians. That's a hackneyed old argument that I do not buy into anymore.

If it's the genocidal intent that differentiates the two sides - and maybe it IS - then Hamas are racist, murderous and genocidal, the IDF are merely racist and murderous.

Saying that the Israelis could kill many more Arab civilians if they set their minds to it, isn't an argument that proves they value Arab lives as far as I am concerned.

An obvious example would be the utterly cack handed - or deliberately callous - use of Cluster Munitions in Lebanon in 2006.

The UN estimated that the Israeli military seeded south Lebanon with about 3 million bomblets prior to the end of fighting, and that the bulk of these were dropped in the last 72 hours of the war, when both sides were counting down to a ceasefire. On top of that, old stock was used, so many of the BLUs failed to explode properly.

According to some reports the Israeli side says all this happened "by mistake"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/26763D65-7F65-4848-9819-CCC4678CCC3A.htm

So what is this... Criminal negligence? How can you take Peres' argument seriously.... How can you take the IDF/IAF seriously.... this is not Springfield.

"Where d'ya put those past-their-sell-by-date cluster bombs Bart?"

|"Hey dad, what, those 3 million BLUs? I chucked them wily-nily into Lebanon."

"Doh!"

Anyway, I am starting to see things differently with regards to Hamas -- certainly I can better understand the Israeli POV.

So... thanks to all for the time taken.

Microraptor,

I hate cluster bombs, too, but using them isn't a war crime. Maybe it should be, at least in certain types of areas, but right now it isn't.

To my knowledge, cluster bombs were not used in urban areas in South Lebanon, but I'm not sure. Do you know?

MR,

I, too, was deeply disturbed by Israel's use of cluster bombs at the end of the war, but I do not think it smacks of murderous intent, as much as pale desperation.

It was a horrible tactic that was unlikely to result in any desirous ends. I suspect the purpose was to flush out Hezbullah for one, last sweep and expose entrenched positions. Perhaps, there was some thought that there should be little in the way of civilians remaining in the areas where they were dropped. In any event, to the extent that Israel might be able to inculcate any good will amongst free thinking Lebanese who were opposed to Hezbullah, this tactic was highly counterproductive and, potentially, inhumane.

I think it is dangerous to ascribe a homogeneous motive to the IAF or IDF in the same manner as one can with Hezbullah. The Israeli armed forces, unlike Hezbullah, are ultimately responsive to the Israeli electorate. Moreover, it is composed of a highly diverse group of people, even at the highest levels who legitimately debate tactics.

For what its worth, I don't take Peres' arguments seriously and, at a time of war, I will readily concede that the Israeli military will not value Arab life (at least not non-Israeli Arab life) as highly as their own. Michael's point is well-taken. Had Israel truly devalued Arab life to the extent you seem to believe, it would not have limited its targeting to suspected Hezbullah strongholds. It would be worthwhile to compare the locations of cluster strikes with locations of Hezbullah ambushes of IDF personnel, suspected tunnels, munitions storage areas, and launching sites. It is nearly impossible to assess Israeli strategy in that regard without that information, nor to assess whether the attacks were, in fact, indiscriminate.

If the cluster attacks were indiscriminate and targeted areas with known civilian populations, then they would be criminal and those responsible for planning (and perhaps executing) them should be held liable. If, on the other hand, they were not indiscriminate, even if they were excessive or disproportionate, then they are probably not criminal, nevertheless, the planners should be held accountable by Israel, because it was stupid, at least based on the evidence I've viewed to date.

I greatly appreciate your new perspective on Hamas and the passion with which you invoke your concern for the Arabs in Lebananon. There are many of us who care for Israel and are deeply convinced that cooperative and friendly relations with Lebanon is a natural partnership that would benefit both peoples and, in the long run, the region. Hezbullah is opposed to this and makes it impossible for others in Lebanon to agree with this. Moreover, Israeli misjudgments further harden Lebanese opinion. There is no easy solution, but I am certain that removing Hezbullah from the equation is a prerequisite, whether through confrontation with Syria and Iran or through a strong, independent Lebanese movement confronting them internally.

To answer your previous question, I am an attorney and take no offense. Moreover, in the spirit of disclosure, since I know something of you from previous posts, I am Jewish and reside in the Northwest. I have substantial family who have made Aliyah to Israel and continue to reside there. They are largeley Modern Orthodox , while I am liberal, zionist, and Conservative (in my Judaic practice and belief). By zionist, I mean I am generally, though not blindly, pro-Israel, and support its right to exist with a Jewish character. I support a viable Palestinian state, but I am not convinced that Palestine has adequate leadership at this time to maintain a state. I believe that the "right of return" is a sham and that Palestinian "refugees" (in quotes because the definition used for Palestinians is different for any other group and I do not recognize generational refugees) have received more than adequate compensation since '67, but would nevertheless support additional compensation if it were part and parcel of a sustainable peace. I do believe there needs to be an equitable exchange of land to facilitate a Palestinian state, but the proportions from the '67 borders, including resources, should be maintained.

I would very much enjoy continuing this conversation off-line and learning more about what informs your opinions. Feel free to link me from my name if you are interested and send me a brief note.

Thank you again for your perspective.

I think the M-4 was overpriced, but in part BECAUSE it was a trophy weapon.... a rarity with a gruesome back-story.

Yeah. The trophy factor is the only thing that explains that price.

In Marine squads, the guy with the M203 is the squad leader, maybe even an officer. The Army probably allocates them in a similar manner.

During WW2, the Germans prized 1911 pistols (the 'colt 45') for similar reasons- if a german had one, he got it by killing or capturing a US officer. US troops prized Lugers for similar reasons.

Still, such an exorbitant price is encouraging, in a way- it means such prizes are rare. If we were getting our asses kicked US-made firearms wouldn't be something worth paying a premium for.

"Less so, however, on the idea that the IDF/IAF try to avoid civilians casualties at all costs and feeling bad when they do kill civilians. That's a hackneyed old argument that I do not buy into anymore."

How about the Jenin "massacre"? Palestinians tried to inflate this into something like 500-1000 deaths but in fact there were only a few dozen, nearly all, uh, "militants", not civilians and that was because the IDF went house-to-house risking their own lives instead of bombing the place to smithereens as Assad did to Hama. What would the other states in the ME do against a violent group trying to overthrow them?

With respect to Rosignol's latest post about the M-4 etc.

This is pretty much what the guy says in the film.... he is translating for the owner of the M-4, and basically they tell him that "... there are some Iraqi groups out there, they don't really care why the Americans are there or the political situation, all they are interested in is that they want their weapons. They want to kill American troops so they can take their weapons and sell it..."

Now obviously there could be bravado and BS in this statement, but on the other hand it does raise an interesting and disturbing idea, namely that the modern American combat soldier is draped in so much hi-tech and high value kit - from bulletproof jackets/helmets, night vision, walkie-talkies, M-4s Grenade launchers, Glocks... even the US military back packs have Camelbak hydration systems and their combat jackets are made of Goretex - that in the eyes of some Third World/Majority World/cash poor combatants, the American combat troops are walking cash cows.

Now obviously you want your guys on the ground to have the best gear for the job, and I don't know what the answer would be to this problem. But if it IS true, it's an angle not much discussed... that the very nature of all this expensive equipment MAKES the soldiers attractive targets to bandit elements.

Watch the M-4 on YouTube at 03:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jtsJgFePB8

With regards to Mr Rosen's comments of Jenin... I agree that using house-to-house tactics is preferable and usually more proportional than a Hama style approach.

But I also think that it is less and less common that the IDF do take these risks, when stand-off weapons are easier and safer (for them)...

Jenin was some time ago, wasn't it?

Now, micro, don't be disingenuous. You know very well that the point of the Jenin reference was that the pro-Pal-ganda machine invents, inflates, and generally lays it on as thick as it thinks the Western media and anti-Israeli community will take. Which is very thick indeed.

I doubt a court of law would find Hamas genocidal. Speaking strictly academically, Israel is a political entity, and to speak of 'destroying' Israel as a state probably refers to political and military conquest. It is not consistent with historical standards to refer to genocide when attempting to destroy a political organization - only when attempting to destroy a subsection of a population based on their ethnic and religious character.

Hamas can still be anti-Semitic, xenophobic, motivated by irrational hatred of Jews, and out to destroy Israel, but it doesn't help clarify what's going on by conflating Israel the political entity with Jews, the population and identity group.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that "in part" cannot, should not, and is not stretched to include individual killings based on ethnic motivation. If you kill a black person because he's black, you've commited a hate crime, but not genocide. The KKK is not a genocidal organization, just a racist one.

I'm pretty sure "in part" refers to "all of the subgroup that you control, even if there are other members of the subgroup in places you don't control."

I don't think Saddamn's mass murder should be confused with genocide, either. I'm not up to date on whether or not he was convicted of it, but his Iraqi court was widely acknowledged as drastically flawed, so pardon me if I'm not swayed by their logic.

Intent is important, but when attempting to understand, and therefore control, societal conflict, it is not sufficient to control conflicts. Therefore, to focus exclusively on intent is to effectively make conflict more likely and more deadly.

For example: let's say, hypothetically, Hamas has killed one Israeli this year, because they really hate Jews and talk all the time about how they want to kill them all. They've tried to kill a bunch more, but they haven't succeeded. Meanwhile, Israel has killed, hypothetically, five thousand Palestinians, two-thirds of them civilians. Intent here is all very well on a moral level, but on a practical level, Israel is inflecting, in this hypothetical example, vastly greater pain on Palestinians than Palestinians are on Israel.

Even if every death in this hypothetical is morally justified, it's easy to forget that killing lots of Palestinian civilians makes it unlikely that they will see their own fanatics as they enemy, instead of you. Every civilian you kill is a victory for the bad guys, morally justified or not. It sends the message that there's no point or safety in being a civilian, so you might as well be a terrorist and bring some motherf***ers down with you.

"I doubt a court of law would find Hamas genocidal."

Now I'm satisfied. You are officially not worth talking to. How can someone as stupid as you perform bodily functions unaided? (Or do I assume too much?)