Again
At least 175 people were killed when three suicide bombers driving fuel tankers attacked residential compounds home to the ancient minority Yazidi sect in northern Iraq on Tuesday, an Iraqi army captain said.Captain Mohammad al-Jaad said at least another 200 people were wounded in the bombings in the Kahtaniya, al-Jazeera and Tal Uzair areas near the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar, close to the Syrian border.
The mayor of Sinjar, Dakheel Qassim Hasoun, gave the same casualty figures and said U.S. aircraft were helping to ferry the wounded to hospitals.
Yazidis are members of a pre-Islamic Kurdish sect and live in northern Iraq and Syria.
Yazidis in Iraq say they have often faced discrimination. In April gunmen shot dead 23 factory workers from the sect in the northern city of Mosul.
Tell me again how well the surge has reduced violence. Sectarian violence in particular. Tell me again and again and again and again. Show me evidence that what Michael Ware said about the reduction in violence being the result of exodus and segregation is untrue. Show me evidence that we aren’t just spending time and money training fighters in a civil war who may or may not turn against us. And tell me how every single dead Iraqi is not on the shoulders of our country, and more specifically, our administration. To quote Bunny Colvin, “When do this s*** change?”
Tell me again how well the surge has reduced violence.
Well, that’s at least another 175 potential terrorists that will never bother the US again. All we need to do is arrange for another 27 and a half million other potential terrorists to meet justice, and we can call the result “peace”.
Phlebas
August 14, 2007 at 3:27 pm
In a pattern that is becoming all too common, Wes contradicts himself in the same paragraph…
Is violence going down or isn’t it? Make up your mind.
Help me here Wes, your point is what, that there is no improvement because people are still dying?
Can you lay out your criteria for improvement? Is it zero deaths? Do US casualties count more, as you conceded that Iraqi casualties will go up if we leave?
So help me do the calculus on this, okay? Give me Wes’ graph showing the death curve this war should follow, okay?
pgwarner
August 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The Associated Press reported…
Your point was about “Sectarian violence in particular” I believe? Sounds like the early take is this was done by al-Qaida elements that are being driven out by the surge. al-Qaida fosters sectarian violence this way if you did not know. Jeeez.
pgwarner
August 14, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I spoke too soon. The report I read was early and from Reuters and did not mention al-Qaeda as the perpetrators. If they are driven further north into Iran or Syria, then I am clearly mistaken. Otherwise, what does it matter whether they remain in one particular region? We’ve pushed violence out of many areas before only to see it reemerge elsewhere.
But what Michael Ware actually said (IIRC) was that although violence was down in particular regions that the US has focused on, it is NOT down in other areas. And that the reduction in violence in regions that we focus on has a lot to do with the factors I mentioned. Essentially, that violence is down in areas where we’ve been focused on reducing violence, but the areas where we haven’t still aren’t safe. And that statement is in no way contradicted by this report.
And my criteria for improvement are quite simple. A consistent reduction in Iraqi deaths, a consistent reduction in attacks and a government supported by the people that is consistently making moves towards forming a stable government.
Wes
August 14, 2007 at 5:51 pm
And my criteria for improvement are quite simple. A consistent reduction in Iraqi deaths, a consistent reduction in attacks and a government supported by the people that is consistently making moves towards forming a stable government.
You’ll be happy to know that the Petraeus report will be optimistic on all of these matters. So there, hippy!
Phlebas
August 14, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Oh, thank you for reminding me! My criteria also would have be met by hard data, not just what is presented to Congress and the public. As we all know, the Bush administration isn’t the best at presentations.
Wes
August 14, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Wes, take up dodge ball, you are good at it. The song remains the same; “Well I may be wrong about that, but what about this…Oh yeah, you guys are liars too!”.
You keep pulling for Edwards. By some miracle he just might win. If he does its cool, we will just steal the election again, cause we are cheaters too.
I am not trying to be harsh here, but what can I do? Your argument in #4 & #6 is two pronged. First you change your direction from sectarian violence to making the accusation that all the military is doing is moving the pieces around the board. Then you say it doesn’t matter, you guys lie anyway.
So again I ask you, what can I do?
Finally you give a reasonable statement of progress…
You could have started there. It will not get us anywhere though if you throw down “you guys will just lie anyway card”. That is insecure and intellectually lazy; and it will only get an amen from your congregation.
pgwarner
August 14, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Well, the shift in focus from sectarian violence to al-Qaeda violence was because the article I read didn’t mention that it was believed to be Al Qaeda, only that the primary target was that particular sect of Islam. When I learned (from you) that it was al-Qaeda, that changed my perception and therefore, my argument. Though in either situation, it is apparent that the surge failed in this case.
They wouldn’t lie, they’ll report progress in ways that support their argument to buy some more time. I’ll bet anything that this particular incident will be diminished in the report, even though I’m sure it will be included if they’re still reporting on this time period.
But this does not leave you without room to discuss. Why do you consider it wrong to assume that the Petraeus report will be positive? And honestly, why would any sane person present a negative report in this situation? A negative report would mean that all of Congress would put an enormous amount of pressure back on the President to get out. It would erode public confidence even further. A positive report, on the other hand, would bring some hope to the situation. Encourage Congress to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Which part of that paragraph do you disagree with?
Wes
August 14, 2007 at 7:24 pm
And to draw that last part to a conclusion, I’ll say that if we ARE in agreement that the report was almost certainly going to be positive, the way to actually measure progress would be to look at the actual data presented. Once we see that, I’m sure we’ll have a lot of meat on the bone to fight over.
Wes
August 14, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Few places but on ConClub (except maybe The Daily Show) will you find the kind of intelligent back and forth that PGWarner and Wes have. Warner asks great questions and Wes endeavors to answer them. Just a bit that I would add to PG’s points –
Wes asks, “And tell me how every single dead Iraqi is not on the shoulders of our country, and more specifically, our administration.”
How is it Bush’s fault that al Qaeda continues to murder innocent women and children, and surely will continue if we leave? This is moral relativism of the worst sort. It is akin to the argument that leftists have used for decades, whereby they claim that not only are atrocities by pro-US forces our fault (the Contras in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Israel anywhere and always, the Ministry of the Interior in Iraq, the US Marines, and many others), but that even the atrocities of our enemies are our fault!
The Palestinians under Arafat, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, Iran, North Korea, Robert Mugabe, Mohammed Aideed, and now al Qaeda. The argument is that in the face of US imperialism, what else would these groups have done? Any act of wanton murder anywhere, by any side, seems to be the fault of the US.
Lost in all of the fog of the Iraq War and the politics surrounding it, is the fundamental fact that the US is sacrificing enormously to give peace, freedom, and stability to Iraqis, while al Qaeda is desperate to present slaughter, misery, and horror to a wide swath of completely innocent human beings. Never forget that fundamental fact.
DFV the Scribe
August 14, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Wes also said:
This is all true. IMO, it argues loudly and persuasively for the surge. Where we have been “focused,” i.e. present in large numbers, we have succeeded. Where we don’t have the manpower to dominate, we have failed.
DFV the Scribe
August 14, 2007 at 10:54 pm
[...] Foreign policy, Iraq, Islam, Religion — Dave the Infidel Sage @ 11:19 pm Wes was kind enough to point out the latest outrage perpetrated by our enemy in battlefield [...]
Re: Again « Constitution Club
August 14, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I don’t think anyone here thinks we’re worse or as bad as Al Qaeda. At least if we kill innocents, it’s due to a serious mistake. And if anyone who isn’t an terrorist thinks we’re worse than or the same as Al Qaeda, that’s just really unfortunate and demonstrates the serious problem we face around the world right now. As for Iraqi violence, that answer is clear. It is our fault because none of that particular violence would likely be there without us upsetting the balance. We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. How do you think the people of Iraq appreciate that statement?
But we don’t have enough manpower for the surge to work in all areas, do we? The reports state that we could win there in 10 years. If we surged all through the country, that might shorten the time by half or more, right? Do you also think that there won’t be any other need for those soldiers and national guardsmen here or abroad in that time? If the surge is not working to reduce total violence any more than they were already doing it, it’s just not working. Hell, we could bring those soldiers home and use the money to upgrade the equipment! That’d probably help quite a bit in and of itself.
We have people already talking about combat in Iran. These are the same people in favor of the surge. It seems like a conflict of interest to me. If we attack Iran, we will be fighting three countries all at once. Unless there is some secret master plan in place, that seems like a terrible idea. Unfortunately, it might also be necessary at some point in the near future.
One idea I do like from that RAND report is trying to lure the Iranian government into trying to make a name for themselves by taking over where we failed. While they may or may not be able to stop the violence, it might still work to keep the violence down and would keep Iran distracted while we have a chance to rebuild and regroup for a bigger fight.
Wes
August 15, 2007 at 8:29 am
And despite the crocodile tears of the Left being shed for the poor Iraqi’s let us not forget that this is the most humane, politically correct, restrained war that has ever been fought in history. We have killed far fewer non-combatants in five years fighting the War on Terror throughout the globe than we did in one good night of bombing in WWII. The various factions on the Left make poor historians.
Wes at least honestly trying to discover the truth, Andre’s perpetual pacifism in the face of Islamic terror is troubling, and Phlebas bemoaning the death of terrorist thugs and how unfair it is that Iran might not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons is downright disturbing and bizarre. The Left falls into all these catagories but the closer they get to the position of Andre and Phlebas the more dangerous they become.
Dave the Infidel Sage
August 15, 2007 at 2:04 pm
But the question is whether the killing was necessary. Considering the dangers of radical Islam, did the war in Iraq help to eliminate those dangers? In Afghanistan, I would respond with an unqualified yes. In Iraq, I am inclined to say no.
Wes
August 15, 2007 at 5:32 pm
[...] the other day, chuckled, and really gave it no more thought. But after reading the comments in “Again” and “Re: Again”, I have to ask, do my conservative friends here really fall into [...]
A Stupid Question « Constitution Club
August 15, 2007 at 11:32 pm
[...] — Dave the Infidel Sage @ 11:06 pm Some interesting info on the Yezidi who so recently suffered a horrendous attack and massacre at the hands of al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists near Mosul in [...]
The Devil worshippers of Iraq « Constitution Club
August 19, 2007 at 11:24 pm
[...] September 4th, 2007 at 08:19pm My fellow structure Club blogger Wes was kind decent to point out the latest outrage perpetrated by our enemy in Iraq. Sadly, final months slaughter was the largest massacre (over five [...]
Understanding the Atrocities of the Enemy | Washington DC,Politics,Events,Attractions,News
September 4, 2007 at 10:19 pm
[...] fellow Constitution Club blogger Wes was kind enough to point out the latest outrage perpetrated by our enemy in Iraq. Sadly, last months slaughter was the largest massacre (over five [...]
Understanding the Atrocities of the Enemy | Political Debate Zone
September 20, 2007 at 1:27 pm