"They are the closest thing Iraq has to Quakers."

Wasn't it the Yezidis who stoned that girl to death for dating a Sunni?

Or was that a different sect?

I am strongly against killing innocent people especially if they are a minority in a country. Regarding Yazidi, they are not Quakers!!! And yes, they almost lynched one of their girls when she told them she wants to marry someone outside her sect.

I don't think that they live in camps. I thought that these are/were their houses (anyone can help on this issue?)

Michael,

They are not "kind and gentle" people. If similing Yazidis serve you tea and cookies it doesn't turn them into care bears.

Unless of course, the Yazidis who stoned the girl to death and captured it on camera phone were part of an extremist fringe and don't represent the majority.

I don't think so.

Edgar,

They are not "kind and gentle" people.

All Yazidis? Some Yazidis?

Out of curiosity, what generalizations would you ascribe to my "people", the American WASPs? Are "we" "kind and gentle"? If so, am I "kind and gentle" by accident of birth?

The general mysogyny that afflicts the middle-east is evident here too. The Yazidis may be better or worse than their non-Yazidi neighbors in this regard. I don't really know.

Creamy Goodness: All Yazidis? Some Yazidis?

My point is that this same community is capable of barbaric violence.

I know someone will start with the moral equivalence thing ("we're all capable of violence," etc.)

Don't bother. WASPs are often as hospitable as the Yazidis but they don't get together and stone women to death.

People should realize that it's not "Islam" that is the problem--it's the backwardness of the region. It's violent tribal attitudes that result in bombings like this.

Michael, I'm not sure why you felt the need to speculate on a few possible reasons for the massacre. There's been enough meaningless barbarity in Iraq to make any attempt at explanation pointless. The Sunnis want the Yazidis dead. They don't care about the media. And as you correctly pointed out, they media doesn't care about Iraqis either.

Maybe this is an appropriate benchmark for the success of the surge: when Iraqis start having valid reasons--something beyond ethnic/religious hatred--to kill one another.

I'm surprised that the stoning attack was not mentioned in your article, Michael. The attack on the Yezidis was horrific and cowardly, but was undoubtedly in response to the attack. Other killings were also triggered by the video. Surely that was noteworthy in the piece?

And to make it clear, I don't think these attacks are in any way excusable, or justifiable in any way, nor do I think that the stoning was in any way representative of the the Yezidis.

DPU: nor do I think that the stoning was in any way representative of the the Yezidis.

Uh, how was that stoning "not in any way representative" of the Yazidis? A village gets together and stones a girl to death. Was that village not representative?

The stoning attack is irrelevant. It was an honor killing.

Christians in the Middle East commit honor killings, too. Anyone want to dismiss them as a bunch of savages while you're at it?

Obviously I don't approve of that practice, but I'm not going to single out the Yezidis for criticism, especially in an article about how 500 of their innocents were murdered.

Honor killings deserve a separate article.

DPU: The attack on the Yezidis was horrific and cowardly, but was undoubtedly in response to the attack.

I highly doubt it. Honor killings go on in the region all the time, every day. You only know about that one because it was one in thousands that was reported.

Almost none are reported. It happens a lot more often than you probably think.

The honor killing of that young girl is relevant, but not the cause of this particular horrible attack. That has more to do with geo-politics. Sunnis are flexing their muscles, shall we say. This attack would probably have happened regardless of whether or not the Yazidis killed that young Sunni girl.

However, both incidents should show that Iraq is not a country that is ready, or was even ready in 2003, for what the United States wanted to bring. This is not to say that democracy couldn't work in Iraq. It will, someday. However, if our real goal was truly democracy promotion in the Middle East, we would have been served far better to have begun with our allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

But see, we're not really in the business of promoting democracy, because real democracy would put people like Hezbollah and Hamas in power, or in Egypt people like the Muslim Brotherhood. We don't really want democracy in the Middle East.

Dan: We don't really want democracy in the Middle East.

Yes, we do. If more Hamas-like governments are elected, the people who voted for them will bear the consequences.

I think Gazans are getting a great lesson in democracy right now. They'll learn sooner than the Iraqis will.

I highly doubt it. Honor killings go on in the region all the time, every day. You only know about that one because it was one in thousands that was reported.

I know about it because there was some grotesque cell phone videos of it available. The availability of that video was also likely the cause of the murder of some twenty-three Yezidi on a bus in April, so I don't think that it was just another honor killing.

Michael - thanks for writing this. Your article on the Yazidis was the first I'd ever heard of them. Given the media's drive-by evaluation of the attack, I doubt that many of them ever visited their camp.

WASPs are often as hospitable as the Yazidis but they don't get together and stone women to death.

Yet hundreds of WASPs were murdered in the 9/11 attacks. Most of the victims in London's 7/7 attacks were WASPs. Thousands of black christians were murdered and enslaved by al Qaeda-allied Islamists in the Sudan. Hundreds of peace-loving Thai buddhists have been murdered by Saudi-sponsored 'militants'.

For decades, Al Qaeda and their Islamist state sponsors have been systematically cleansing any patch of earth they can get their hands on of insufficiently-"Islamic" elements like Christians, Jews, Americans, Zoroastrians, Copts, 'insufficiently' Muslim Muslims, Communists, Buddhists, Sudanese blacks and Yezidis.

Al Qaeda and their Islamist state sponsors are genocidal supremacists. Eliminating minorities and 'inferior, anti-Islamic' types is just what they do. Our existence triggers these attacks.

Congratulations on getting a shot at a wider audience. (And I'm sure the added cash-flow doesn't hurt either.)

Uh, how was that stoning "not in any way representative" of the Yazidis? A village gets together and stones a girl to death. Was that village not representative?

In the same way that if a few thugs go gay-bashing in my community, it is not representative of my community as a whole.

DPU: In the same way that if a few thugs go gay-bashing in my community, it is not representative of my community as a whole.

"[Doaa Aswad Dekhil] was met in Bashika by a large mob of 2,000 people led by members of her family."

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2519070.ece

Now, let's see. There are about 100,000 Yazidis in Iraq. That means 1 in 50 Yazidis were personally involved in that attack . Who knows how many more approved of it?

We're not talking about a few thugs.

That's quite a large number. I hadn't realized the scope of the incident.

Christians in the Middle East commit honor killings, too. Anyone want to dismiss them as a bunch of savages while you're at it?

Sure, I'll go out on a limb and state that anyone involved in honor killings are ignorant savages in my books, no matter what their faith.

For the record, Pakistan is the country with the biggest number of honor killings of women.
Honor killings are virtually unknown in Indonesia, a majority Muslim country.

DPU: Sure, I'll go out on a limb and state that anyone involved in honor killings are ignorant savages in my books, no matter what their faith.

Sure, that's fine, no argument. I only brought up the Christians for context. The entire region suffers from this savagery. It is older than the religions and has nothing to do with the religions.

My point is that it's not fair to single out the Yezidis. If I'm going to drag the honor killing into this article, I'll need to drag in honor killings into every article written about Middle Easterners murdered by terrorists. All groups there are guilty of it, though I should also add that it is illegal. It is a very old world "tradition" that is slow to change.

You folks are assigning significance to that honor killing because you happen to be aware of that one in particular. It stands out for you because of You Tube and the media and for no other reason.

In the Middle East it is sadly typical, and a lot less significant. You're horrified by it, as am I. For others it is depressingly routine and normal.

ZZZ: Honor killings are virtually unknown in Indonesia, a majority Muslim country.

That's because it's regional, not religious.

"[Doaa Aswad Dekhil] was met in Bashika by a large mob of 2,000 people led by members of her family."

That is a wildly inaccurate account. There couldn't have been more than 400 people in the crowd on the video, only 40 of whom were committing acts of violence. There are closer to 400,000 Yezidi followers in Iraq, but many of them pose as Muslim to avoid harassment.

If you want to talk about savage stoning and mob violence, you don't need to go far from home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny I remember that riot and seeing useful idiots in San Diego of every race trying to cause problems. The Rodney King riots failed in San Diego for a number of reasons, largely because the active duty military constituted about 10% of the population in 1992 and they weren't going to put up with that crap.

Don't go off on the Yezidi because you saw a cell phone video. Get to know the people and talk to them. Life is more than 10 minutes on YouTube.

Honor killings are usually not performed in groups but quietly by the family members. There are exception to the rules, but this is pretty standard.

Anyway, it's hard for me to swallow that al-Qaeda would care about a girl who was stoned by whoever..

Michael,

The issue (at least for me) is not honor killings.

You expressed sympathy for the Yazidis. Fine. I think almost everyone feels the same way. But you presented them as gentle, peace-loving Middle Eastern "Quakers."

The Yazidis may have no political power or militia, as you state, but IMO they can be every bit as vicious as the other players.

Edgar, I said they are the closest thing in Iraq to Quakers. That is a relative statement. Iraq is a backwards and violent country.

If you can name another group in Iraq that is more like Quakers than they are, please do. Otherwise, you aren't arguing with my statement as it was written, you are arguing against something I didn't write.

You folks are assigning significance to that honor killing because you happen to be aware of that one in particular.

Well, that, and because the incident generated more publicity and anger in Iraq than usual as well due to the video. And due to the fact that there were killings in retaliation directly after the video surfaced, and because some Yazidi themselves have said the bombings were retaliation.

Anyway, it's hard for me to swallow that al-Qaeda would care about a girl who was stoned by whoever..

Even though she was martyred for converting to the true faith? Besides, al Qaeda's involvement is suspected at this point. There's also speculation from some Kurdish quarters that Turkey was involved in some way with Sunni elements.

dpu - In your opinion:
why are Islamists are currently targeting blacks in the Sudan?
Why are Islamists currently targeting Buddhists in Thailand?
Why do Islamists target Hindus in India?
Why does Hamas want to drive the Israelis into the sea?
Why did this Sunni Islamic group target the Yazidis?

so nobody knows anything really and Michael had a nice cup of tea with some lovely Yezidis once

Michael had a nice cup of tea with some lovely Yezidis once

And the Yezidis are not at war with anyone, yet they are the victims of the worst terrorist attack in the world since 9/11. And no one really cares. And the media shrugged, which probably disappointed Al Qaeda.

If Al Qaeda wants their own "Tet Offensive" they'll need to kill 500 Marines apparently, or stage their attack in the Green Zone.

There's a lot going on here. That notorious honor killing is a major distraction from the real story, which is why I didn't mention it at all. I'm sorry to see that my point was totally missed by, apparently, everybody.

While it's very convenient to have "Al Qeada in Iraq" around to blame for every attack that happens in Iraq, they wouldn't have much to gain from this particular attack.

The Kurds are the obvious "winners" from the bombings, and the Kurds are now blaming Turkey for it:

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-28366.html

I'm sorry to see that my point was totally missed by, apparently, everybody.

Not everybody, some of us understand context!

While it's very convenient to have "Al Qeada in Iraq" around to blame for every attack that happens in Iraq, they wouldn't have much to gain from this particular attack.

First, I don't think there is anything convenient about innocent men, women and children being slaughtered.

Second, Al Qaeda likes big soft targets that produce high body counts because one of their goals is to convince American media and members of Congress that all is lost in Iraq, so America should high-tail it home.

While their actions may be barbaric, their attempts to use car bombs to manipulate the media and Congress are quite sophisticated and have been effective until recently.

hey man, you're putting this terp's life in risk when you show his face. just in case you don't know...

you're putting this terp's life in risk when you show his face

Sigh.

He didn't mind. He didn't cover his own face outside. Maybe he's an American citizen. I don't know.

I don't publish pictures of Iraqi faces without permission unless the pictures are innocuous.

MJT, I think most of the posters here DO get the context you see. We know who Quakers and Amish are, how truly peaceful they are, and how shocking it seems to Americans when members of those groups are attacked. The Yezidi may seem savage in comparison to the Quakers, or even to much of general American society, but in the context of Iraq and the non-Israeli middle east, they are very peaceful.
But, the context of the bombing and the stoning of the girl are also relevant. Middle-eastern Islam seems to have a one-way ratchet. If you are Muslim and you convert to any other belief, you are subject to death. If you are any other belief and you convert to Islam, you are protected; and, if not, you are avenged. AQI may have been looking for a bit of a sympathetic resonance with the Sunni population by being ‘defenders of the faith.’ Sure, they were looking for a mass casualty target for maximum media coverage, and if it were not the Yezidi, it would have been someone else (or some other excuse for the same target).
The context provides some color to the main story, but should not detract from it: AQ in general, and AQI in this particular case, are a bunch of stone killers, they commit horrific mass casualty attacks for little or no justification, and they need to be exterminated.
And the reason you are worth listening to when you tell that story is you’ve been there, lived in areas where they and their like live, and your stories tell us about real people and how they are impacted.

eiphla,

Michael and I have had numerous contacts with Yezidi and talked with them at length about a variety of subjects. We were greatly impressed by their struggles and their decision to avoid violence in resolving them.

Just so you know, there are other ancient religious groups in the region that we haven't made contact with yet. When I see this kind of discrimination by dismissal, I wonder if it is worth going out and reporting on them. I know there are people commenting on this thread with open minds, but they seem to be awfully quiet today.

Dogwood,

I didn't say Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't a suspect, but the most important upcoming event in the districts of Nineveh where the bombings took place is the vote to join the Kurdish Regional Government.

Sinjar and Tel Afar districts (which I believe could split off from Nineveh governate and join the KRG on their own) are right across the border from Syria's Kurdish populated areas.

Syria, Turkey, Iraq, America, the Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkomen all have interests in how the Yezidis vote in the upcoming (December?) referendum.

To just say the attack was an attempt by Al Qaeda in Iraq to influence a few votes in Congress seems rather American-centric.

Your article on the Yazidis was the first I'd ever heard of them. Given the media's drive-by evaluation of the attack, I doubt that many of them ever visited their camp.

And the media shrugged.

Maybe you're reading the wrong newspapers. The Guardian, the newspaper I read (sue me), has so far published at least 6 original pieces on the Yezidis, 3 of them by a reporter on site, 1 in-depth background piece on Yezidi culture and religion and 2 covering the wider political implications. Additionally they ran wire stories and op-eds. That's a lot more than I'm getting from MJT's piece, which is fair enough since he isn't there and he isn't a newspaper. But claiming that this story is being ignored and that he is providing you with information not covered by the media is a bit rich.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2151455,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2150076,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2149699,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2149206,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2149391,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2149172,00.html

To just say the attack was an attempt by Al Qaeda in Iraq to influence a few votes in Congress seems rather American-centric.

Wow. You certainly filter your current events through a very specific set of criteria. To paraphrase Freud: Sometimes an Al Qaeda attack is just an Al Qaeda attack.

Or don't you think that Al Qaeda attacks people in Iraq just to kill and intimidate?

Novakant,

I didn't say it was ignored, I said it got a lot less play than Bali and London. You know damn well I'm right.

Try to respond to what I actually wrote, not what you have to pretend I wrote so you can take a cheap shot.

When I see this kind of discrimination by dismissal, I wonder if it is worth going out and reporting on them. I know there are people commenting on this thread with open minds, but they seem to be awfully quiet today.

I come to this blog for two reasons: MJT is a fabulous writer, and MJT fulfills Martin Luther King's exhortation to judge people by the content of their character.

I have lower expectations for the commentariat.

Patrick, lack of comments is not indicative of the impact that MJT's reporting has on his readers. Some of the posts that generated the most comments (multiple hundreds) were, in my opinion, comments I thought on balance to be the most divisive, biased, ill-informed and without value.

M.Yons blog generates a rather small number of comments, yet his reports are meaningful to a lot of people.

Patrick,

I think anyone who leaves off "in Iraq" from Al Qaeda when talking about attacks in Iraq is selling something.

And that something is endless war.

I didn't say it was ignored, I said it got a lot less play than Bali and London. You know damn well I'm right.

And the war in Congo, which killed 4 million people, got a lot less coverage than 9/11 or just about everything else. The closer something hits to home, the more intensive the coverage, you don't need a degree in media studies to figure that out.

It's been ten days since the attacks and The Guardian has covered the story from every possible angle. What do you want The Guardian to do, have their on site writer publish a front page article every single day for the next 6 months? There is only so much to be reported after a single attack. Not so long ago on this very blog the Guardian would have been accused of playing up the bad news from Iraq with their incessant coverage - so what is it?

why are Islamists are currently targeting blacks in the Sudan?

Islamists are not currently targetting blacks in Sudan. Black Islamists are fighting other black Islamists in Sudan.

Why are Islamists currently targeting Buddhists in Thailand?

Because there is a violent separatist movement in Thailand. Why did the IRA target the British and protestants? Why did the FLQ target Canadian and British institutions?

Why do Islamists target Hindus in India?

That is pretty much a back and forth thing, Mary.

Why does Hamas want to drive the Israelis into the sea?

Duh, I don't know. There was something about some political and nationalist issues about this in the media recently...

Why did this Sunni Islamic group target the Yazidis?

I think that is the topic of discussion, is it not? If it was al Qaeda, I suspect rather than a totally random attack, the intent was payback for the stoning incident by a group they consider heretics. Why do you think they did it?

Novakant: And the war in Congo, which killed 4 million people, got a lot less coverage than 9/11 or just about everything else.

Of course. But a mega attack in Iraq by Al Qaeda is close to home, especially while we're debating whether the surge works or whether to stay or withdraw from Iraq.

What do you want The Guardian to do

I didn't say anything about the Guardian. You did.

And I did not say "ignored." You did.

Looks like the Guardian is doing good work. Terrific.

Most of those articles you linked to were written by a very good friend of mine, Michael Howard, who does excellent work in Northern Iraq, better than any other journalist in the world. I sure as hell wasn't picking on him. I am 100 percent certain he would not read my piece and think I was picking on him or his newspaper. He knows me, he knows how I think, and his reading comprehension is better than yours.

As a matter of fact, Novakant, I wasn't picking on anybody.

I did not say journalists should have spent more time on the story. I simply noted that they treated it with less intense coverage than previous smaller attacks, and probably less intense coverage than the perpetrators may have wished.

You're arguing with me either because you don't like me or because you're hallucinating words I didn't write, not because I'm wrong.

If you would get that chip of your shoulder and read a little more carefully we could have a more intersting and worthwhile conversation. Ready when you are.

Novakant: Not so long ago on this very blog the Guardian would have been accused of playing up the bad news from Iraq with their incessant coverage - so what is it?

Michael Howard doesn't "play up bad news from Iraq." I will never, ever, accuse him of doing any such thing.

You can't read my mind, so stop trying.

Why do you think they did it?

Why do I think Islamist paramilitaries are targeting Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India, Jews in Israel, blacks in the Sudan and Yazidis in Iraq?

Gee, maybe the fact that they all share the same ideology, the same weapons, the same tactics, similar poorly-designed websites and the same funding source might provide a clue.

To just say the attack was an attempt by Al Qaeda in Iraq to influence a few votes in Congress seems rather American-centric.

I believe what I said was "...one of their goals...", I didn't say influencing Congress and manipulating the media was just their goal.

Please, don't put words in my statements that are not there.

Of course, they have many reasons for doing what they do, but make no mistake about it, driving the U.S. out of Iraq is one of their goals.

And since they can't defeat us militarily, they must defeat us politically, hence, spectacular bombings that kill a lot of people, thus giving Congress and the American people the impression that we can't prevail, so we should just leave.

Our enemies learned many lessons from Vietnam, Somalia, and other military engagements. The question is, have we?

Dogwood,

What "lesson" from Vietnam?

Do you think the people of Vietnam would have been better off if the war ws stil going on today, 30 years after it ended?

Please, don't put words in my statements that are not there.

Lots of that going around.

This for example from e: Do you think the people of Vietnam would have been better off if the war ws stil going on today, 30 years after it ended?

Please. Does someone need to hit e in the head with the clue bat?

Edgar,

I think Gazans are getting a great lesson in democracy right now. They'll learn sooner than the Iraqis will.

Signs are pointing to Hamas gaining strength in the West Bank, not vice versa. It seems that Hamas' staying power is far greater than Westerners want. Perhaps it is time to let the Palestinians truly decide for themselves whether they want Hamas to lead them or the inept Fatah.

Gee, maybe the fact that they all share the same ideology, the same weapons, the same tactics, similar poorly-designed websites and the same funding source might provide a clue.

I think that is a fairly over-simplistic analysis of the problem. If you think that the conflict in Sudan is driven by the same issues that drive the violence in Thailand, then you're not looking too hard.

Religious extremists may be exploiting different political issues to further their own agendas, but the underlying problems that are fueling these conflict are quite different.

E,

There are lots of lessons to be learned from Viet Nam, specifically how a militarily inferior force can win a war against a superpower by undermining political support for the mission in America.

Al Qaeda doesn't have to win on the battlefield if it can win politically in the U.S. If it can get the U.S. government to capitulate and withdraw, then Al Qaeda wins on the ground.

Viet Nam, and to a lesser extent Somalia, demonstrated how to do it.

No one paid much attention to the Somalia mission until dead American pilots were being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Once those images soaked into the American psyche, Clinton had no choice but to pull the troops.

And for the record, I think Viet Nam would have been better off if millions of people had not died in re-education camps or while fleeing the country after the communists invaded the south.

Also, Cambodia would have been better off if nearly 2 million people out of a population of 7 million had not been systematically murdered in the killing fields of the Communist Khmer Rouge.

Leaving the battlefield in the hands of barbarians cost Southeast Asia millions of innocent lives.

I prefer we not callously walk away from Iraq and allow such things to happen again.

There are lots of lessons to be learned from Viet Nam, specifically how a militarily inferior force can win a war against a superpower by undermining political support for the mission in America.

So how many more years would have been required to win in Vietnam if the US not eventually pulled out?

Viet Nam, and to a lesser extent Somalia, demonstrated how to do it.

Vietnam demonstrates it twice, actually.

Also, Cambodia would have been better off if nearly 2 million people out of a population of 7 million had not been systematically murdered in the killing fields of the Communist Khmer Rouge.

It's somewhat ironic that the Cambodian horror keeps being presented as something that the Vietnam war would have prevented when it was largely caused by the Vietnam War and US actions in Cambodia at the time. Doubly ironic because it was communist Vietnam that ended the horror by invading and overthrowing the Khmer Rouge.

Leaving the battlefield in the hands of barbarians cost Southeast Asia millions of innocent lives.

Whereas another decade of war would have patched things up nicely.

I prefer we not callously walk away from Iraq and allow such things to happen again.

I agree, but not for exactly the same reasons, obviously.

Deadwood,

You realize what you're saying is madness, right?

The goal of the "surge" was to reduce violence in Iraq.

The fact that violence has actually increased doesn't mean that the "surge" has failed.

Rather, it's just the insurgents playing politics.

Of course, they have many reasons for doing what they do, but make no mistake about it, driving the U.S. out of Iraq is one of their goals.

In the long term, yes, but I think that al Qaeda is quite happy with the US in Iraq for the time being.

The fact that violence has actually increased doesn't mean that the "surge" has failed.

What would?

This history lesson from The Daily Show seems appropriate right now.

Funny how reports of atrocities on this blog seem draw the Left commentators who yes-but and make excuses. This isn't exactly new, the Left has been making excuses for slaughter since 1917 and whistling cheerfully past the graves of some 100 millions, whom they no doubt think deserved what they got. Some might find such a role disquieting, but not the Left, they revel in it.

Funny how reports of atrocities on this blog seem draw the Left commentators who yes-but and make excuses.

You must be new here. Nothing "draws" commentators from the left or right. This blog section has a healthy smattering of both ideologies, most with something intelligent to say, that is it's appeal.

If you think someone said something that is incorrect, unjustified, or that you disagree with, you might find it more profitable to say why, and to counter argue than to simply make broad generalizations.

If you can, that is.

So how many more years would have been required to win in Vietnam if the US not eventually pulled out?

Hard to say how much longer the fighting would have gone on, but the Viet Cong were destroyed during Tet, and conventional battles versus North Viet Nam regulars were more accomodating to American tactics and air power.

In terms of troop presence, we'd still be there just like we are still in South Korea. Hold and stabilize the south, then begin working on long-term political solutions that could eventually lead to a stable, democratic South Viet Nam.

...was largely caused by the Vietnam War and US actions in Cambodia at the time...

Of course our actions in Cambodia had nothing to do with the fact that North Viet Nam was using the country as a staging area for attacks. Nope, all our fault.

...but I think that al Qaeda is quite happy with the US in Iraq for the time being.

That's fine, they're getting their asses kicked by American and Iraqi troops and police, while their barbaric attacks are costing them support among Iraqis and other Arab Muslims. Iraq appears to be going quite badly for Al Qaeda right now. If they had limited their car bomb attacks to just American forces, then they probably wouldn't have lost the support of so many Iraqis.

Their plan to start a civil war looked good on paper, but it doesn't appear to be playing out quite like they intended.

The goal of the "surge" was to reduce violence in Iraq.

The goal of the surge is to provide security and stability by launching offensive military operations against AQI and Iraqi insurgents. Normally, offensive operations produce increased levels of violence until the other side is killed.

Once an area is cleared, then the troops implement the hold and rebuild part of the plan to keep the peace.

At least that's how counterinsurgency is supposed to work, and how it appears to be working in many areas of Iraq.

Of course our actions in Cambodia had nothing to do with the fact that North Viet Nam was using the country as a staging area for attacks. Nope, all our fault.

Where did I say that it was solely the fault of the US? I said it was the war combined with US actions (EG - US carpet carpet bombing of Cambodian villages drove thousands of Cambodians to support the Khmer Rouge and oppose the more moderate Sihanouk government that seemed powerless to prevent the attacks).

And your comment doesn't exactly support the position that the Vietnam War would have prevented bloodshed. US public opinion had no effect on either the decision of the Viet Cong to set up shop in Cambodia, or the US decision to secretly bomb them there. It's also unlikely that the US would have spread the war to a second nation in Indochina to prevent the Khmer Rouge takeover. The Vietnam conflict already had much of the military tied up in that region.

That's fine, they're getting their asses kicked by American and Iraqi troops and police, while their barbaric attacks are costing them support among Iraqis and other Arab Muslims. Iraq appears to be going quite badly for Al Qaeda right now.

Yet they are able to slaughter civilians at will. On the ropes, or deadly threat? Your position seems to vary.

Their plan to start a civil war looked good on paper, but it doesn't appear to be playing out quite like they intended.

Wasn't your point that things are so bad in that regard that a US pullout would cause genocide? And yet you say that al Qaeda has been ineffective at provoking sectarian violence. Again, your position seems to vary depending on the point your are arguing.

Dogwood,

Democracy is the last thing we wanted to implement in Vietnam.

We blocked elections there in 1955 and we blocked them after we left in 1973.

Why?

Because the Viet Minh would have won them in a landslide.

The only reason we stay in Iraq is because we don't want the Shiites to take over completely.

I don't think Petraeus and Bush have any idea how to stop them.

They're just playing for time at a cost of $10 billion and thousands of lives a month.

Shame on them.

Sure, that's fine, no argument. I only brought up the Christians for context. The entire region suffers from this savagery. It is older than the religions and has nothing to do with the religions.

Jews don't do it, as far as I know. I'm not saying that in a chauvanistic way - I pay close attention to news in the Jewish community, left as well as right, we are very self-critical, liberal Jews are always looking for a stick to beat the ultra-Orthodox with - if there had been any honor killings by Jews I would know about it.

PS There was an incident a few years ago where an "unsuitable" boy (from a different sect) was secretly courting the eligible daughter of the leader of a particular ultra-Orthodox sect, and the father sent some guys to beat up the suitor. That was a great scandal in Israel. AFAIR no one was murdered. If anyone would be killed it would be the boy, not the girl.

Yet they are able to slaughter civilians at will. On the ropes, or deadly threat? Your position seems to vary.

Do not confuse the ability to build and use car bombs with strength. Yes, AQI is still able to strike with deadly car bombs, but that is because car bombs are easy to make and the ingredients are readily available.

Car bombs are not rocket science. In fact, anyone can build an effective car bomb in the U.S or Canada with readily available materials. Your ability to do so does not translate into strength, its just terrorism, and AQI is very good at it.

How can we assess AQI's strength in Iraq? By asking some questions, such as:

Does AQI control more or less territory today than it did three months ago?

Are more Iraqis sharing intel regarding the location of AQI cells, or are more Iraqis helping to hide AQI cells?

Are Iraqi insurgent groups aligning themselves with AQI in greater numbers, or are they abandoning AQI in larger numbers?

Are more tribes joining AQI or fighting AQI?

In each of the above, the momentum appears to be against AQI, at least for now.

Wasn't your point that things are so bad in that regard that a US pullout would cause genocide? And yet you say that al Qaeda has been ineffective at provoking sectarian violence. Again, your position seems to vary depending on the point your are arguing.

AQI wanted a civil war in Iraq. So, they started car bombing people and mosques to ignite the civil war. Unfortunately for AQI, they went too far in their barbarity and their continued attacks on civilians has resulted in those civilians turning against AQI.

Insurgents and tribes that first allied with AQI are now turning against AQI due in large part to the organization's barbarity.

Hence, things in Iraq are not going too well for AQI right now. They had a good start, but they appear to have overplayed their hand by killing too many innocent civilians.

And yes, withdrawing American troops would result in genocide between Shias and Sunnis, while also taking the pressure off AQI.

By staying in country, our presence holds down the sectarian violence and provides us an opportunity to hunt down and destroy AQI cells.

Democracy is the last thing we wanted to implement in Vietnam.

And democracy was the last thing on our minds in South Korea, too, but look at it today.

Yeah, Dogwood,

Look at South Korea.

Sixty years of civilian dictators, corruption, military rule, assassinations, violent repression of political opponents, etc.

And a huge bill for American taxpayers.

I think the Iraqis would manage to do better than South Korea even if we pull all our troops out tomorrow.

Dogwood is correct about Al Qaeda in Iraq. Ask pretty much anyone in the Army or Marines who is in Iraq today and they'll tell you the same thing.

Democracy is the last thing we wanted to implement in Vietnam.

We made a lot of really bad strategic decisions in Vietnam, not building a democracy was one of them. Vietnam was a proxy war that we screwed around with large numbers of conscripted troops and fundamentally flawed ideas. Some good things came out of it: Special Forces, precision guided munitions, night vision goggles, and jet dogfighting. Many bad things also came out of that war: every movie except "We Were Soldiers...", developmentally disabled recruits who became homeless veterans, drug use in the military, ticket-punching as a military career path, an insanely arrogant anti-war movement, an insanely over-funded anti-war movement, an insanely under-fact checked anti-war movement, an insane anti-war movement, and lest we forget, millions of tortured, brutalized, and abandoned Vietnamese people.

I very much doubt that a conscripted military has the capacity to successfully engage an entrenched insurgency. I am very thankful that we are not currently fighting anyone as well-organized, disciplined, supported, or flexible as the Vietnamese. I am unsure that we could have fostered a democracy in Vietnam in 1962-1973. I am more confident in the capacity of our troops to meet the challenge of building a democracy in Iraq. It also helps that fascism has been shown to be such a losing method in the last forty years.

E has obviously never been to South Korea, at least not any time recently. My father was there when I was born, at the DMZ, and my grandfather got a Purple Heart there. He was major in the 82nd Airborne, so it was nice to embed with "his" guys in Iraq.

South Korea isn't a country to E. It's a talking point.

No, Michael,

South Korea is a data point, at least in terms of what we should do about Iraq now.

So is Vietnam.

We pulled our troops out of Vietnam 34 years ago, and it's doing fairly well today without any help from us.

34 years into our occupation of South Korea, it was run by a brutal military dictatorship that came to power by assassinating a civilan dictator.

The idea that Iraq would be worse off without our troops being there isn't backed up by any facts, just partisan political beliefs or wishful thinking.

I understand the point being brought up with the honor killings, but Mike, if you think people missed the 'point' of your article - if it was that the Yezidi's didn't deserve to have their village razed to the ground by car bombers, I certainly agree.
If the point was that Al-Quieda goes after the least militant groups in the society first, I agree.

Commentary, huh? I guess there's no financial future in individual blogging. Sorry to hear it. It's a systemic problem.

Michael, let's be honest here: the main selling point of this blog, since you've at last made it to Iraq, is the claim that the media, deliberately or not, isn't doing a good job in covering Iraq, is a "big distortion machine" and that you (and people like Yon, Roggio etc) are providing your audience with the authentic, unfiltered, unedited truth about what's really going on there. I am not interested in reading your mind at all, and I don't need to, since this is obviously the view promoted here and the view that a majority of the readers espouse. Maybe you have altered your view since meeting people like Michael Howard who is doing a great job writing for the dreaded left- wing MSM, I don't know and I don't really care. The fact remains that indiscriminate media bashing is a largely undisputed part of the conversation here and that you're playing that angle in the piece in question by disingenuously contrasting the alleged indifference of the media with your own views of the matter. This generated predictable responses ("I wonder if the journalists moved on because the site of the atrocity was inconveniently distant from the hotel bars where much of their work is done."/"Given the media's drive-by evaluation of the attack, I doubt that many of them ever visited their camp."/"the media have ignored this incident is because it runs contrary to the popular narrative..." etc.) from your readers. Now if this all a big misunderstanding and you didn't mean to evoke such reactions at all then maybe you should issue a clarifying update and be more clear in the future.

Hard to say how much longer the fighting would have gone on, but the Viet Cong were destroyed during Tet, and conventional battles versus North Viet Nam regulars were more accomodating to American tactics and air power.

I regard this rosy assessment with the hardened skepticism that builds up layer by layer over years of perpetual corner-turning.

Patrick,

We made a lot of really bad strategic decisions in Vietnam, not building a democracy was one of them

We actually attempted it, but much like Iraq, the South Vietnamese government was just too inept to actually do anything. Our actions in Saigon only made matters worse, much like our actions in Baghdad have made matters worse these past four years.

I really don't think the military has realized that in an occupation and counterinsurgency, the more civilians you kill, whether intentional or not, the more fatally you undermine your very purpose and mission.

It's funny -- but predictable -- that when the subject of Vietnam comes up, no one ever refers to anything actually written by someone Vietnamese. Bui Diem began as a student of Giap in Hanoi. His "In the Jaws of History" covers events well into the 1970s. But what he has to say might not serve any American political agenda. Even so, he was actually there, and knew almost all the major figures (in Vietnam) of those times.

Still, it would be a pity to disturb one's talking points, or think, or consult a source.

>>"We actually attempted it, but much like Iraq, the South Vietnamese government was just too inept to actually do anything. Our actions in Saigon only made matters worse, much like our actions in Baghdad have made matters worse these past four years. "<<-Dan

While on the subject of corollaries, is it coincidence that in those countries that have fared much better (due to our 'actions'), are precisely the ones that we garrison in?

>>"I really don't think the military has realized that in an occupation and counterinsurgency, the more civilians you kill, whether intentional or not, the more fatally you undermine your very purpose and mission."<<-Dan

The above seems to be more of a problem for AQI.

novakant - I clicked on your id to see if you were a blogger or a newsman, and was surprised to see an anonymous email. Unless et (at) al is a real email address..?

It's odd that someone who is so concerned with truth, honesty and the media would be commenting sort-of anonymously.

In any case, when I scan the news, I usually read favorite blogs and high circulation news outlets like CNN and the New York Times. I missed some of the low-circulation coverage in outlets like the Guardian, the Sacramento Bee or the Truckee Pickayune. Sorry, but there's only so much time in the day.

WASPs are often as hospitable as the Yazidis but they don't get together and stone women to death.

I guess you never read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

Oh sure, "it's just fiction" some will argue. Spend more time in Maine and you might be surprised.

It's odd that someone who is so concerned with truth, honesty and the media would be commenting sort-of anonymously.

I think many of us prefer anonymity for a variety of reasons, Mary, and that does not reflect on the accuracy or quality of what we say (I'm only semi-anonymous as both you and Michael know my real name and real email address, but still).

Maybe you should focus on what novakant says rather than on contact information. It's surely more relevant to the topic.

Maybe you should focus on what novakant says rather than on contact information.

I did focus on what he said and I read Michael Howard's articles. If the Guardian can keep writers like Andrew Anthony and Michael Howard, and if they can dump the Islamists and the Stalinists like Seumus Milne, they might bring up their circulation.

vanya: I guess you never read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

You're right. But it was read to me when I was a kid. Didn't really understand it, but it scared me.

MJT: My point was totally missed by, apparently, everybody

I don't think there was a clear point. You wrote that al-Qaeda probably wants publicity with these spectacular attacks but the media isn't paying attention.

I wasn't sure if you thought this was a good thing or not. On the one hand, the more coverage attacks get the more publicity al-Qaeda gets. But then you seemed to be saying how sad it was that nobody cares about the Yazidis.

Do you think there should be more media coverage? Or do you think that would help the terrorists?

Glasnost: Commentary, huh? I guess there's no financial future in individual blogging.

They're paying me, but it's a side gig. Most of my material will still appear here. I'm not publishing any dispatches over there.

Novakant: The fact remains that indiscriminate media bashing is a largely undisputed part of the conversation here

My readers criticize the media much more than I do.

I simply offered an observation about the media coverage of a mega terror attack. It should be obvious that it wasn't a criticism -- I pointed out that Al Qaeda may have wanted to use the media as a weapon and that it didn't work. How could you possibly interpret that as criticism?

Edgar: Do you think there should be more media coverage?

I don't know. Do I have to have an opinion about everything?

One thing I like about reporting is that it relieves me of the burden of having to have an opinion all the time. I wrote opinioned crap for years and it gets exhausting after a while.

Re-reading your post, Mike, it scratches at the door of an analytical question -

why does a terrorist attack in Bali that kills less people provoke greater awareness than this terrorist attack in Kurdistan?

My guess is that the answer does relate to both the numbing effect of repetition and the crowding-out effect of "other Iraq news".

The other question is: what correlation, if any, is there to a specific level of media coverage vs. perceptions that "the media didn't cover this - or covered it too extensively? Or is it all instrumental criticism - no matter how much/little, there should have been more/less?

These are questions you don't have to have an opinion on.

e,

We pulled our troops out of Vietnam 34 years ago, and it's doing fairly well today without any help from us.

Vietnam:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html
GDP per capita: $3,100 (2006 est.)

Iraq:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html
GDP per capita: $2,900 (2006 est.)

After decades of brutal Ba'athist oppression, Iraq's economy is slightly lower than Vietnam's after enlightened Communist rule for the same period. This is not what any rational observer can call "doing fairly well" with the departure of US troops. Both countries have tremendous natural resources, although oil is recently of higher value, rice probably provided better returns over the described period.

Either you can't do math or you won't do history.

glasnost,

why does a terrorist attack in Bali that kills less people provoke greater awareness than this terrorist attack in Kurdistan?

Australians died in Bali. Australians are a coherent and understood part of the anglosphere. Yezidi Kurds died in Iraq. Yezidi Kurds are an unknown entity to people who report in languages other than Kurdish. It is not just because Yezidi are strictly endogamous that people in the outside world fail to say: "That could have been me."

Most people in the world have a greater awareness of Paris Hilton's dog than they do Yezidi Kurds. This is yet another argument in support of the "media makes people idiots" theory.

Patrick,

After decades of brutal Ba'athist oppression, Iraq's economy is slightly lower than Vietnam's after enlightened Communist rule for the same period.

Um, that's because Saddam was a secularist who allowed his country to flourish. Plus sitting on a whole bunch of high-in-demand oil doesn't hurt either. Poor Vietnam. What do they have to offer the world? Rice? When was Vietnam ever on the same playing field with Iraq? Economically they are in vastly different fields. e's point is a good one about Vietnam. They have been relatively stable since we left and are doing pretty well these days.

As far as Cambodia goes, well, that was a self-inflicting wound on our part. What were we doing bombing Cambodia and weakening that country to a point where thugs like Pol Pot could gain power and legitimacy? If we had never bombed Cambodia, Pol Pot would never have gotten into power. Millions of Cambodians would not have died. Yes, I'm blaming America. Just like Bush was blaming America on Wednesday for leaving Vietnam.

For the forseeable future, there is no peace for the poor Iraqis. And it is all on our heads. They had relative stability and peace under Saddam. Under our inept rule they have nothing but violence, death, and poor economic and health situations. The educated middle class has fled the country. Why should they hang around? What is in it for them? Shi'ites and Sunnis have absolutely no trust one for another and for the forseeable future will not properly conduct any powersharing government. Bush and Washington pundits now blame Maliki. But the real problem has always been and always will be us, the Americans. We're the cause of the failure in Iraq. For the very simple reason that we should never have gone in the first place. Why? Because we didn't have the guts, the motivation, and the skill to see it through as it needed to be done. If you are going to execute a plan, you better damn well be sure your plan is near perfect. But see, in Iraq, we've been so confused about what the real plan is and was. Was it to remove WMDs from Iraq? What happens when we don't find WMDs? Was it to remove a nasty dictator? Well, fine, but as Dick Cheney said in 1994, just what are you going to replace that nasty dictator with? He knew damn well that going into Iraq would cause a quagmire, but he sold it to Americans as a cakewalk. Was it to reshape the Middle East? Into what exactly? How does invading a country with a small contingent of troops (based on what you actually need) achieve that goal?

Or was Thomas Friedman right when he said in an interview in May 2003 that we went into Iraq because we could, because we needed to go and "burst that bubble" and say to Middle Easterners suck on this!

If that's the case, well, what has that actually achieved? Furthermore, what did we actually think something that childish and immature would achieve?

The sad part is that so many Americans have not learned their lesson yet and are really looking forward to expanding the fight to Iran. As if the debacle of Cambodia was not a lesson learned.

Dan,

And it is all on our heads.

For you, at what point do Iraqis become independent, deserving credit and blame for their actions? Is all Iraqi history from this point on a direct consequence of the American invasion? Is America the only country that matters?

Creamy,

at what point do Iraqis become independent, deserving credit and blame for their actions?

At the point when we leave.

...and the Stalinists...

If you had actually met and known some Stalinists, you wouldn't be so quick to use it as a bad name for people you don't agree with. The guy you're refering to is a liberal, not a Stalinist. Misusing the term is detrimental because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and it pollutes the term by diluting its meaning.

That was a virtuoso display of paternalist condescension, Dan. Impressive.

The guy you're refering to is a liberal, not a Stalinist.

I was referring to Seaumus Milne, not Andrew Anthony. Yes, Anthony is a liberal.

According to the British liberals at Harry's Place (who presumably know what they're talking about) Milne isn't just a Stalinist, he's a "Silver Spoon Stalinist".

If you read his writing, you'll see that there's nothing liberal about him

Dan,

If it's our fault that Arab Iraq is violent and dysfunctional, do we get credit for the fact that Kurdish Iraq is peaceful and has its act together?

How does this work, exactly?

Dan,

Um, that's because Saddam was a secularist who allowed his country to flourish. Plus sitting on a whole bunch of high-in-demand oil doesn't hurt either. Poor Vietnam. What do they have to offer the world? Rice? When was Vietnam ever on the same playing field with Iraq?

When Saddam took power, Iraq had almost the same GDP as South Korea. Now South Korea has almost the same GDP as Russia with a much smaller population.

As for "high-in-demand" oil, in the 1980s and the 1990s oil was at rock bottom prices for a variety of reasons. I'm sorry that your memory doesn't extend as far back as 10 years when we had cheap gas, but petroleum was a variable, not premium, commodity during the Saddam era.

Rice on the other hand was and is a fairly premium commodity during the last three decades because of the increasing economic strength of China. Vietnam has been exporting rice to China since forever.

Iraq and Vietnam are both Asian commodity based natural resource producers whose economy is not derived from free people. In the same timeframe, Asian countries that increased in liberty and independent innovation prospered wildly. South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan have done very much better than Vietnam and Iraq during this period. The wealth of these "little dragons" increased due to innovation while commodity economies tanked.

According to the British liberals at Harry's Place (who presumably know what they're talking about)...

That is a great assumption. Harry's place isn't liberal, it's left-wing. The reputation that the left has of being more vicious toward those displaying undogmatic thought patterns than toward their enemies on the right are especially true of certain political groupings in the UK.

Monty Python's Life of Brian is a particularly accurate depiction of that phenomenon.

Patrick,

Your views on economics seem to have frozen sometime during the Reagan administration.

The undisputed economic world champion for the past 20 years has been China, a place where political dissent will earn you a quick trip to prison or the afterlife.

We fought two wars in Southeast Asia in the middle of the last Century. The results are as close to a scientifially controlled experiment as you can get in the real, political world.

The first, Korea, was a military stalemate and a political victory. The contrast between the relatively free and prosperous South Koreans and the starving captive North Koreans could not be a stronger proof that the cost of the Korean War was justified.

The second, Vietnam, was a military and a political defeat for us, and a tragedy for Vietnam and the surrounding countries. Vietnam is still an economic basking case, coming in 97th out of 111 countries in per capita GDP in the 2005 Economist Quality of Life Rankings. South Korea, on the other hand, comes in 26th in GDP.

I'd rather see Iraq turn out like South Korea than Vietnam.

e: The undisputed economic world champion for the past 20 years has been China

I thought at first that you choose `e' as a handle just out of laziness. But now I understand why you did.

The stuff you're getting must be adulterated with something, though. Usually the effects of MDMA are not that strong when it's taken alone.

"Turn out," Marty?

Funny how people freeze things in time when it suits them.

Shall we judge the surge by how things are in Iraq today, instead of the rosy predictions of peace sometime in the vague future?

South Korea has had 20 more years than Vietnam to recover from war. South Korea has also gotten billions of dollars in American economic aid and was allowed to take some of our key industries, while Vietnam has gotten no help at all.

Yet Vietnam's economy is growing faster than America's or Korea's these days.

There is no such thing as "turn out" in economics, it is an ongoing, dynamic process.

E-

Yeah, I "froze things in time"-at today. I compared Korea today to Vietnam today because I don't have your crystal ball to predict the future.

What I do have is an understanding of math, and I can calculate that at today's growth rate of 8.5% for twenty years, Vietnam's per capita GDP will still be just over half the size of South Korea's is today. Vietnam's lack of wealth compared to Korea is not because Korea had a twenty year head start; it's because Vietnam had a bankrupt economic and political philosophy until recently. The only reason Vietnam is beginning to do well now is because they are looking less to Ho Chi Minh and more to Adam Smith.

And yeah, I'll judge the surge by how things are going in Iraq today compared to how they were over the last year. Fewer Iraqi civilans are being killed than most months in the past year, despite the massive bombing that this the subject of Michael's post. Fewer ISF are dying than most months in the past year. Fewer Americans are dying from hostile fire than most months than in the past year. Reporters on the ground-like Michael-tell of positive shifts in the attitude of the Iraqi population. Anti war politicians like Brian Baird say, "Our troops have earned more time."

So yes, I will judge the surge by how things are better today than they have been for a year, and that they are better than the genocide that most experts agree would occur if we withdrew.

To know how many Iraqi civilians died in a given month and what their attitudes towards our occupation is really does require a crystal ball, marty.

So the trends in Iraq can be whatever your politcal beliefs need them to be.

Michael, nobody expects you to have an opinion on everything, but a certain amount of coherence is necessary, if one wants to be taken seriously.

Calling the media a "total distortion machine" for reporting the daily carnage in Iraq and then a few weeks later lamenting that the Yezidi massacre supposedly didn't get enough play in the media is not very coherent.

Painting a picture of Iraq as a generally safe place, except for a few restricted areas of extreme violence, is not very convincing, when even a group of peaceful outsiders like the Yezidis have to fear for their lives.

Edgar,

I disagree with you on most things, but your assessment of "e" is exactly online with mine. The economic vision of "e" is looking at derivatives of derivatives. I suspect this vision is brought on by the derivatives of psychoactive alkaloids.

I didn't paint a picture of Iraq as a safe place. I have never used the word safe. You really must stop rewriting my work and begin arguing with what I have actually written.

Anyone who describes Baghdad as "safe" is an idiot.

What I've said is that Baghdad is quiet and that I haven't personally seen any violence there, which is true. War, as I have experienced it in the past (elsewhere), is loud. Extraordinarily and terrifyingly loud. Baghdad isn't. I did hear one car bomb from three miles away, but that was it.

Most people who know me personally are shocked that I didn't see any violence and figure out on their own, from that one detail alone, that Iraq isn't as violent as it looks on TV.

Bartcop emailed me and said he thought there are 1000 car bombs a day in Baghdad. His view of Baghdad is absurdly distorted. I would not dare go to a place that suffered 1000 car bombs a day.

I would not go to Baghdad today and rent a house. I know some reporters who work there unembedded and I think they're nuts. I embedded with the Army because I need protection. I risk getting hit with an IED but am protected from being kidnapped.

I am far more worried about being kidnapped in Baghdad than being car bombed.

Honestly, Novakant, I don't understand why are you insist on arguing with me so much. But I insist you start quoting me before doing so. Stop rewriting my work and arguing with your edited version. Do me the courtesy of objecting to what I have actually written.

Novakant:lamenting that the Yezidi massacre supposedly didn't get enough play in the media is not very coherent.

I'll repeat myself. I never lamented anything of the sort. Nor did I say the attack did not get enough coverage.

You said that. I didn't.

I simply noted that the Yezidi attack got less media attention than London and Bali, which is true. It was an observation, and it was a correct observation.

I insist that you argue with what I actually say and stop wasting my time. I can't quite decide if you've been acting trollish or not, but I will label you a troll and treat you accordingly if you don't stop it.

Michael,

When a reader looks at what you wrote carefully, it's clear that you didn't specifically state that you're upset that the media aren't paying enough attention to the terror attack.

But it might appear that way at first glance. You make three statements: a) the bombings verged on genocide b) the bombings didn't get very much media attention and c) the Yazidis are kind, peaceful people

It sounded like (at least to me at first) you were outraged by that lack of attention and that was the point of your post.

Obviously, you've clarified by now what you meant. But I don't think anyone was pretending to misunderstand you. At least I wasn't.

Anyway, for what it's worth, your real point was well taken. Admittedly, I was more appalled by seeing the Yazidi stoning than I was about the massive bombing. Media coverage was obviously the key factor in my revulsion.

Edgar,

Fair enough. But I really thought my point was clear that when I pointed out that journalists aren't giving Al Qaeda what they probably wanted.

Anyway, it's clear that you don't have a chip on your shoulder about me. Novakant does and has for a long time. Your misunderstanding was honest. His might have been also, except that he still insists on distorting what I wrote even after I explained it and pointed out that he's doing that.

So I will expel him if he doesn't stop it. I've clearly been wasting my time with him so far.

Michael,

You actually wrote: "Yet the terrorist attack that killed far fewer people at a tourist resort in Bali dominated headlines all over the world for weeks in October 2002."

Here's the New York Times fron page from 4 days after the Bali bombing:

http://tinyurl.com/2kov9x

The North Korean nuclear waepons program and the D.C. sniper "dominated" the headlines.

The Bali bombing warranted only one small link under internatioal news....about where the Iraq bombing coverage is now.

I think you exaggerated a bit.

Patrick,

On the first day of my first Econ class many decades ago, the professor told the class:

Better a bad economic system than an uncertain one.

Until we leave Iraq, it will certainly have an uncertain economic system.

And yeah, I'll judge the surge by how things are going in Iraq today compared to how they were over the last year. Fewer Iraqi civilans are being killed than most months in the past year, despite the massive bombing that this the subject of Michael's post. Fewer ISF are dying than most months in the past year. Fewer Americans are dying from hostile fire than most months than in the past year.

All of the public information I have read has indicated that all of these statements are factually incorrect.

This doesn't have to be about beliefs, theories, or who loves America more. Even if we're all reasonable people, it's very hard to agree if we don't all have the same facts. So do me a favor. Why don't you link to some statistics that demonstrate that any of these things are true? Not links of talking heads throwing out figures from nowhere, please.

Here are the statistics I'm working with .

They describe a factual reality very different than your statements.

Make your case. I assume you have actual data?

The undisputed economic world champion for the past 20 years has been China

The stuff you're getting must be adulterated with something, though.

That was a pretty insulting statement, Edgar. I've taken a lot of economics courses. Are you prepared to make a logical or factual argument that this is incorrect?

Before you do, you should examine national GDP growth statistics over the past 20 years. Sure, it depends on what metrics you pick, but a lot of economists would find e's statement, if not very specific, rather mainstream and reasonable. So where, exactly, do you get off?

The first, Korea, was a military stalemate and a political victory. The contrast between the relatively free and prosperous South Koreans and the starving captive North Koreans could not be a stronger proof that the cost of the Korean War was justified.

The second, Vietnam, was a military and a political defeat for us, and a tragedy for Vietnam and the surrounding countries. Vietnam is still an economic basking case, coming in 97th out of 111 countries in per capita GDP in the 2005 Economist Quality of Life Rankings. South Korea, on the other hand, comes in 26th in GDP.

I'd rather see Iraq turn out like South Korea than Vietnam.

I, too, would rather see Iraq turn out like South Korea than Vietnam.

However, these two cases aren't remotely comparable. The Korean war was a conventional war where the South Korean population wanted us around. Those are good kinds of wars to fight, in terms of the benefits that accumulate to the population being protected.

Vietnam was a counterinsurgency where the people mostly wanted the 'bad guys' to invade. Which is why we had to wreck it so much more severely and kill so many more South Vietnamese than we had to wreck South Korea or kill South Koreans. And yes, South Korea's twenty-year head start makes a vastly significant different.

Sure, Vietnam's communist government didn't produce much GDP growth. They had to figure that out in their own time. We weren't able to impress than upon them over the barrel of a gun. Nor should we have tried.

Meanwhile, the "south korean economic miracle" occured over three decades of capitalist military dictatorship.

Markets are nice. Democracy is nice. Not having the US military fight a war against your civilian population for ideological control of its people is also nice. That point would be a lot clearer in Iraq if the indigenous power structure wasn't so depraved, but if you claim the post invasion-era has been economic good times for Iraq, you must be a fabulist.

Is it our fault? That's not a useful question. People who say it's the Iraqis fault certainly have a good case. But did our actions help create the situation? Of course. You can't ignore the relevance of our actions in changing the system. Supposedly for the better, but not actually for the better in the physical world.

That's why making violent and drastic changes to complex human systems for the benefit of the people there - even if the original system is bad - isn't always wise.

glasnost,

I've taken a lot of economics courses. Are you prepared to make a logical or factual argument that this is incorrect?

Communists and other idiots are among those who teach economics. That is a very frail assertion.

As for China, Hawaii is the tallest mountain in the world, measured from the bottom of the ocean around it. The starting point of post-cultural revolution poverty is an awfully low bar. In the last 20 years my nephew has grown over five feet more than I have, but because he is twelve, I am still taller than he is. What remains to be seen is if China's system can endure this level of prosperity without catastrophic failure. Poverty and misery are the sustainable baseline of Chinese history.

By way of contrast, the United States has been an economic powerhouse since before the Civil War. That indicates a structural strength far beyond what China has shown to date.

Novakant: NYC "is generally safe, except for a few restricted areas of extreme violence" - like downdown Manhatten about 6 years ago. And your point is?

Michael: I'm surprised the MSM downplayed the attack. I would have expected to hear IT'S TET..
OMG IT'S the beginning of TET!!!!

Tom in South Texas

Australians died in Bali. Australians are a coherent and understood part of the anglosphere. Yezidi Kurds died in Iraq. Yezidi Kurds are an unknown entity to people who report in languages other than Kurdish. It is not just because Yezidi are strictly endogamous that people in the outside world fail to say: "That could have been me."

This sounds reasonable to me.

It's one reason why the things Mike does is interesting to read.

Although individual segments of the MSM also do such things, just not collectively, thus the impact on the population isn't significant.

Just thought I'd note something I agree with.

The starting point of post-cultural revolution poverty is an awfully low bar. In the last 20 years my nephew has grown over five feet more than I have, but because he is twelve, I am still taller than he is. What remains to be seen is if China's system can endure this level of prosperity without catastrophic failure.

Sure, it's an open question. And sure, poor countries have an easier time getting high growth rates than rich ones.

However, China's GDP growth over the past two decades has been among the best in the world. It may not be fair because they started out real poor, but we nevertheless compare apples to apples, just like we would if the growth was occurring under a democracy.

While communism doesn't produce much economic growth, the question about fascism's relationship to economic growth is not a resolved one. I don't like fascism. I like democracy. I'm not giggling with delight at the thought that the Chinese tyranny may be able to outperform democratic regimes under certain conditions. But I try to deal with the facts as I see them, anything else is suicide.

It doesn't even have to be theorized that fascism is a net economic benefit. It can just be enough that its net drag on economic growth is small enough to be weighed under by other conditions.

E's statement of China as an economic tiger over the past 20 years is not incorrect, and it's certainly a very poor case for labeling him a drug addict.

glasnost:

That's why making violent and drastic changes to complex human systems for the benefit of the people there - even if the original system is bad - isn't always wise.

I'd go a lot farther than that. It's a patently dreadful idea.

Capitalist democracy wins on its own — without any subsidy of blood and treasure — because it is a better, stronger, more humane political system and people eventually get around to choosing it rationally. It doesn't need our "help".

Glasnost-

Every fact I asserted is true. I use www.icasualty.org for statistics.

Iraq civilian casualities August to date: 1295; by end of month will be around 1600. That is less than 8 of the twelve preceding months (Aug, Sep, Nov, Dec 2006; Jan, Feb, Mar, May 2007)

ISF casualties August to date: 58; by end of month will be around 80, which is lower than any month going back to Jan 2005.

US casualties August to date: 67, of which 19 were killed in two non-hostile helicopter crashes, so August probably be around 80, which will be the second lowest total since August 2006.

August is a key month; US casualties have been down for the last three Julys but have spiked in the two previous Augusts.

If and when we "surge" into Sadr City will ultimately determine the surge's success. Casualtis will go up again, and we will answer the questions raised in Michael's earlier post about the loyalty of the Iraqi units-whether they will ally with the Iraqi government or the JAM. That's the toughest to crack, and probably why it was saved for last.

I realize that it's macabre to treat these real humans as statistics, even to the point of projecting deaths. But I really do not think the political benchmarks matter. If US soldiers are not being killed in hostile incidents, there is no reason to bring them home. We haven't in Kosovo, a place with as much ethnic tension as Iraq.

e wrote:

The undisputed economic world champion for the past 20 years has been China,

... and glasnost referred to e's statement like so:

E's statement of China as an economic tiger over the past 20 years is not incorrect,

Not only did you mischaracterize e's grotesque overstatement, glasnost, you miscapitalized his/her name!

marty,

Muqtada al Sadr is "the Iraqi government."

Al Sadr controls 10% of the seats in the Iraqi Parliament and Maliki serves a political party founded by al Sadr's relatives.

And after al Sistani dies (he's 78 now), al Sadr will probably become the Iraqi Shias' religious leader, too.

Nothing wrong with the U.S. military taking out "rogue" elements of JAM, but moving on al Sadr himself would be a dumber move (if that's possible) than invading Iraq in the first place.

Creamy Goodness,

Capitalist democracy wins on its own — without any subsidy of blood and treasure — because it is a better, stronger, more humane political system and people eventually get around to choosing it rationally. It doesn't need our "help".

I would believe that if there weren't so many stupid and evil people perfectly willing to do everything in their power to damage and destroy Capitalist Democracy and so many people willing to follow them.

Classic example is the Aztlan supporters who think that we should go back to sacrificing enemies of the brown people to the Sun God...or maybe some other kind of failed idiocy. While I'm relatively certain that they don't actually intend to rip the beating heart out of their opponents, a lot of their supporters are so willing to support the appearance of a righteous cause that they would probably sign off on this practice as respecting an indigenous cultural practice.

If you doubt this, review the number of people perfectly willing to sign petitions calling for a ban of di-hydrogen oxide.

Capitalist democracy needs all the help it can get from the ravages of idiots, crooks, and brutally evil bastards of every stripe. At least, that's why I joined the military...

Come on, Pat, Aztlan supporters have to be the least threatening of all threatening groups around. There's really no point spending even five seconds worry about such a marginal fringe group that almost no one has even heard of.

Let me know, though, if they rip anyone's heart out at the mall and the hippies sign on.

I can think of plenty of bigger threats to democracy than that crowd.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001496.html

After having spent several days Baghdad’s Green Zone and Red Zone, I still haven’t heard or seen any explosions. It’s a peculiar war. It is almost a not-war. Last July’s war in Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon was hundreds of times more violent and terrifying than this one. Explosions on both sides of the Lebanese-Israeli border were constant when I was there.

You’d think explosions and gunfire define Iraq if you look at this country from far away on the news. They do not. The media is a total distortion machine. Certain areas are still extremely violent, but the country as a whole is defined by heat, not war, at least in the summer. It is Iraq’s most singular characteristic. I dread going outside because it’s hot, not because I’m afraid I will get hurt.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/totten/825

The world, it seems, is all but immune to al Qaeda’s shock and awe in Iraq. It has been a long time since mass murder in Mesopotamia has been news.Few still cry for Iraq. Hardly anyone has heard of Yezidis, the victims.

I know the Yezidis, however, and I can’t say I’m immune.

glasnost: E's statement of China as an economic tiger over the past 20 years is not incorrect, and it's certainly a very poor case for labeling him a drug addict.

Glasnost, I didn't deny that China has been an economic tiger (hyena?) during the past two decades.

I just felt that if someone characterized the Chinese as the "undisputed champions of the world" they probably were on some sort of stimulant drug.

What's your beef, Novakant? Spell it out.

Michael,

My point is not that the Aztlan supporters are cutting out hearts. My point is that the people who show up on May Day to march with them do not know or care what they do or plan. When you show up at the rally knowing that there will be Truthers, Hamas backers, Che endorsers, and Aztlan racists, you give tacit support to those groups. When you make your protest bigger by accepting all comers, you abandon moral responsibility.

Last year they did something smart by telling all the immigration reform activists to show up in white shirts to differentiate their message. It sure made the Black Block idiots stand out.

By abandoning all control of the message, they end up endorsing all the disparate idiots.

What's your beef, Novakant?

you wanted quotes, I provided the relevant quotes; there is no need to spell it out again since I've already done that; it seems to be a futile exercise anyway, since, unless I repeat your words verbatim, you will accuse me of mind-reading, putting words in your mouth, distorting what you have said or whatever; I haven't done that and think most disinterested readers would come to conclusions similar to mine

Patrick,

Though I believe that democracy in the world at large enjoys an insurmountable advantage over its competitors, I value your military service for this particular democracy.

Well, I'll give you this, Marty, August seems from available data to date to be a good month.

June and July were worse than a year ago by most metrics.

If you think you know what this means strategically, congradulations, but forgive me if I don't particularly trust this as a trend.

Furthermore, if the potential of the surge maxes out at tamping down thirty percent of a slow-motion disaster, it's not really going to change anyone's mind, or their fate.

Really, Novakant, you're just flailing around. I have no idea what your problem is.

Quit wasting my time.

Glasnost, by contrast, knows how to argue intelligently. Take notes.

Quit wasting my time.

no worries in that regard, the feeling is quite mutual; arguing against the "opinioned crap" you've been floating on this blog has indeed proven to be a waste of time; and while people like glasnost or dpu are spending a considerable amount of energy trying to talk some sense here, I fear their admirable efforts will ultimately turn out to be futile as well

Novakant,

There is nothing remotely futile about DPU and Glasnost. I love a good argument. Everyone who knows me in person will tell you that. My friend Sean LaFreniere, who posts here sometimes, argues with me for hours over beer. We love it. It makes us smarter.

I'll be happy to buy DPU or Glasnost a beer if they visit my city.

Don't think that just because you're flattering me, I'll go easy on you... for more than a month or two.

:-D

I'm already going easy on you, I didn't even color my Congrats on Commentary with a margin note to the effect of "how can you share a magazine with those wack jobs?"

"how can you share a magazine with those wack jobs?"

You mean the Jooos, er rather, hook-nosed cosmopolitan Trotskyist neocon zionist wire-pullers?

G. Rosen: You mean the Jooos, er rather, hook-nosed cosmopolitan Trotskyist neocon zionist wire-pullers?

Wire-pullers?

wire-pullers?

Puppet-masters. As opposed to electricians.

Gary Rosen, maybe I've got this wrong because it just seems so weird and out of the blue, but did you just accuse glasnost of anti-semitism?