Today on Blogcritics
Home » More Troops Killed- Who’s Responsible?

More Troops Killed- Who’s Responsible?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — A suicide bomber in a vehicle killed two U.S. Marines and left four troops unaccounted for when it exploded near their convoy in Falluja, the volatile city west of Baghdad, a U.S. military official said Friday.

Why does the insurgency in Iraq seem to be gaining in determination, instead of fading away? The majority of Iraqi’s expressed a clear desire for democracy in their historic election.

There are at least two reasons that come to mind. One is instigation by Syria and Iran. American success is not in their interest so they will do what they can to hinder our progress.

The second reason lies at home. There is a rift between supporters of the war and those against it. Republicans largely back the President and support the war. Democrats largely oppose the the war and do so persistently and vocally. Democratic opposition ranges from calling for withdrawal from Iraq to comparing American troop behavior to Nazis and Stalinists.

When Al Jazeera reports the dissent by some American political leaders the insurgents gain hope that they can drive us out. Coming to a conclusion that increased attacks on American troops will further weaken the US’s determination to win is reasonable to assume.

One might wonder why the Democrats would engage active and vocal opposition to the war when it would be over more quickly and fewer lives would be lost if we showed the world a unified front. It appears they have put their political aspirations ahead of the country’s interests.

By giving hope to the insurgents, Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi for example appear to be unwitting assistants to the insurgency. Though they claim to be patriotic Americans, and in their minds they no doubt are, the net effect of their opposition is more dead American soldiers.

Powered by

About SactoDan

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Dean

    First, given the US history for the last 40 years with Vietnam, Beirut, Somolia et al, the lack of stomach within the US public for mass casualties is pretty apparent to anyone with an ounce of sense, you don’t need TV to explain it to you. Al quaida is SMART. They don’t need Al Jazzera to explain Terrorism 101 to them.

    The continued carping on the subject of having a unified front by the Republicans is more political theater then anything else, as is much of the sounding off of the Democrats who have yet to frame a viable alternative now that Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall….

    In asking the question the way you do, I think you are framing the insurgency and the situation in a very narrow and monolithic way. The insurgency in Iraq is not just one “thing” – you have hard-core Sunni Baathists who are seeing the work and influence of decades being swept away from them by Shiites and the US, you have religious fanatics on both sides who see the US intervention as an opportunity to leverage power (i.e Sadr), you have repressed tribes within Iraq tasting power and opportunity for the first time in more than a generation, you have foreign fighters such as Al Quaida and others using Iraq as an arena, fortune-hunters who kidnap for profit, intelligence and influence peddlers from Syria, Iran, Kurdistan, and, yes, Saudi Arabia – with agendas that may vary enormously.

    Your comments: “One might wonder why the Democrats would engage active and vocal opposition to the war when it would be over more quickly and fewer lives would be lost if we showed the world a unified front. It appears they have put their political aspirations ahead of the country’s interests.

    By giving hope to the insurgents, Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi for example appear to be unwitting assistants to the insurgency. Though they claim to be patriotic Americans, and in their minds they no doubt are, the net effect of their opposition is more dead American Soldiers.”

    are disingeneous at best, malicious and deliberately provacative at worst. You don’t know that the war would over quicker or that fewer lives would be lost, just as you don’t know that they’ve put political aspirations ahead of their country. One could equally argue the war didn’t need to happen, that the lives wouldn’t have been lost in the first place etc. etc. etc. You could claim that lives are being lost because Bush, Cheney and the government put their political aspirations ahead of their service to their country…

    I think any discourse on why the insurgency is not fading would be better directed at looking at the tactics, strategies being used and the political/economic landscape of Iraq and region, rather then using the insensate political expediency of slamming the opposition as the reasoning behind it.

  • Nancy

    Thank you, Dean; couldn’t have said it as well myself. Republicans need to remove the beam in their own eye before they start in on whatever is in the eye of the Dems.

  • JR

    Reason Three: when Al Jazeera reports constant stream of spin and misinformation spewing out of the Administration and its supporters, the insurgents realize that our leadership is too far removed from reality to put up a competent fight.

  • SFC SKI

    I don’t what al-Jazeera broadcast you listn to JR, but the ones I watch could not be characterized as VNR’s for the Bush administraton.

    When members of Congress exprees doubts about success or failure in Iraq, or about wanting to leave Iraq soon, they are as representatives giving the impression that the amricans they represent do not have the will or the balls to see this through to fruition: they cut the legs out from under the efforts we make there.

    They do it to gain political capitoal using the “I told you so ” appoach. I am thnakful that none of them are over in Iraq actually in charge of the campaign. They’d probably surrender at the sound of a fire cracker.

    It’s OK folks, go back to watching TV, we’ll handle Iraq and you’ ll hear about it during the commercial break.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year.

    Dan, who is responsible for that?

  • Bennett

    “it would be over more quickly and fewer lives would be lost if we showed the world a unified front.”

    What ARE you smoking?

  • SFC SKI

    Bennett, do you think the terrorists are encouraged by American politicians talking about cutting and running, or do ytou think it has no effect on their plans?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    People in the middle east may not understand how utterly trivial and pointless politicians like Durbin and Conyers are. While no one in America takes their grandstanding seriously, those with less experience of the kind of loonies who get elected here may see them in an entirely different light.

    IMO the solution is to send Conyers, Durbin, Pelosi and a few others right to Iraq to meet with insurgent leaders and extend the hand of friendship. Once the terrorists see what they are like first hand they’ll understand how little relevance they have to our policies.

    Dave

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    you raise a serious dilemma Ski…

    so one is not supposed to criticize or offer alternatives when it comes to our Nation being involved in an armed conflict?

    the First Amendment goes out the window once shots are fired?

    as i have said repeatedly, i am for finishing the Task with the least amount fo American Blood and Treasure lost…

    but, speaking as an ex-military person, i would have rather taken my chances against a Foe than been Responsible for one iota of curtailing ANY American’s Rights…

    tough Question raised…but i don’t think we shoudl only take on the easy stuff, as Individuals or as a Society

    to much self Respect for the low expectations game i guess…

    Excelsior!

  • SFC SKI

    Gonzo, are they really offering alternatives, or just trying to distance themselves from a difficult and controversial undertaking?

    I hear a lot of criticisms, “told you so’s” and such, but very little constructive analysis, and no alternatives being offered.

    What purpose do their comments really serve, other than to detract from any positve gains that have been made, and to further reinforce the idea in the minds of terrorists: Kill a few more Americans, hold out a bit longer, and the will lose the heart, the will, the patience and they will leave.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    so instead you are trying to narrow the definition of Free peech and full political discourse within our Governmental system?

    i totally understand and comprehend what you are trying to say Ski..and i don’t want to see this be any more difficult than it has to be

    but i, personally, absolutely REFUSE to deny, or surrender, ANY Rights as established buy the Constitution and Bill of Rights under ANY circumstances..no matter how trying or dangerous

    it falls under the old, those who give up Liberty for Security deserve neither, bit…and i think that’s Important

    Excelsior!

  • SFC SKI

    Free speech all they want, Gonzo, but consider the impact of the words that are spoken, and whose purpose they ultimately serve. I am not saying they are speaking treason, but what purpose does it serve to tear ourselves down when so many outside the US are willing to do it for us?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    i understand, but i remain firm in my Thinking that it is ethically imperative to stand up and speak out when you decide something is Wrong

    and i Require nothing less from ANY elected Representative

    that being said, i do think that one shoudl be thoughtful and careful in what you say on the floor of the House or Senate..and even more so from the White House

    too bad there are simpletons on both sides fo the aisle that can’t seem to understand that

    Excelsior!

  • SFC SKI

    I’ll agree that there are a lot more loudmouths than thinking brains in Congress, no argument at all.

    There is a time and place to speak, and a right way and wrong way to get the point across. Circumspection and tact are two qualities sorely lacking in American political speech and debate these days.

    The terrorists are happy to see us tear at each other and ignore them.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Ski sez..
    *There is a time and place to speak, and a right way and wrong way to get the point across. Circumspection and tact are two qualities sorely lacking in American political speech and debate these days.*

    and i completely agree…on some of the comments made by the dems, as well as going back to the whole “axis of evil” speech and the stirring up of the shitstorm then…both sides in between

    but due to the speech from some of the extremes, i don’t know of any clear answer in between, i just know that curtailing the Right to say stupid shit in the course of figuring it all out is crucial…

    thanks for the civil discourse, seriously..

    ..:::bows, hand over fist:::..

    Excelsior!

  • SFC SKI

    Likewise.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Only the killers are responsible for killing our troops. Pulling the triggers on the sniper rifles makes them responsible. Setting the detonators on the improvised explosive devices makes them responsible. Walking into crowds with plastique strapped to their chests makes them responsible.

    There is very little difference between the right wing extremists who blame the insurgent terrorist attacks on America’s internal dissenters, and the left wing extremists who blame the insurgent terrorist attacks on America’s shortcomings in foreign policy.

    Suppressing dissent will never win any conflict whose overarching goal is to spread the blessings of liberty throughout the world.

  • Bennett

    SFC SKI – I think that the insurgents in Iraq will fight until they are all dead, or they run out of bullets and bombs. Period.

    No matter what we do here, they will spin it to their “advantage”.

    We put up a united front and they say “See, the entire USA is corrupt, and they all back Bush’s invasion to steal our oil.”

    We maintain our policy of free speech and diversity of opinions on the war and they say “See, even a few Americans know how much of an asshole Bush is”

    What we do or say does not matter in the slightest. Curtailing free speech in some kind of Orwellian effort to put up a “united front” hurts only one group of people, Americans.

    BTW Great comments on this post!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    No one wants to take away the free speech rights of anyone. They’re welcome to squander the glorious freedoms we have in this country saying any stupid thing they want.

    But if you speek freely you have to expect to be held accountable for what you say or for the lack of anything useful in what you say. That’s the position people like Durbin and Conyers are in – they say an awful lot, but it’s not helpful and people are aware of it and will ultimately hold them accountable. But they’re welcome to dig their graves with their long and wagging tongues all they want.

    dave

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    It was foolish to take a divided country to war in an attempt to unite it.

    re: “It’s OK folks, go back to watching TV, we’ll handle Iraq and you’ ll hear about it during the commercial break.”

    Thanks, but no thanks, SFC Ski. (A valid response to snide is ‘bite me’ – but civil discourse and all…)

    Hey Dave Nalle – Now that we have Iran surrounded, what’s next?

    We do need to present a united front to win.

    We need to present a united front as a nation demanding an end to economic exploitation at gun-point.

    We need to present a united front as a nation promoting non-military conflict resolution.

    Who disagrees? Presenting our military front supports the terrorists.

    Meanwhile, Haliburton shares have gone up 5 times since the beginning of the Iraq debacle.

    Mark

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Hey Dave Nalle – Now that we have Iran surrounded, what’s next?< <

    Hopefully a bit of Teddy Roosevelt style diplomacy.

    >>We do need to present a united front to win.

    We need to present a united front as a nation demanding an end to economic exploitation at gun-point.

    We need to present a united front as a nation promoting non-military conflict resolution.< <

    So as you demonstrated if we present the wrong united front we can lose too. Good plan.

    >>Who disagrees? Presenting our military front supports the terrorists.< <

    No, as Arab culture experts tell us again and again what encourages the terrorists is backing down or showing weakness.

    >>Meanwhile, Haliburton shares have gone up 5 times since the beginning of the Iraq debacle.<<

    They’ve actually only tripled.

    Dave

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    We seem to have radically different points of view. Who is being seditious?

    Give the terrorists a military target that they understand, and they will multiply. We are losing.

    (I think Haliburton shares went from $8 to $46. Not so?)

    Mark

  • Shark

    “MORE TROOPS KILLED: WHO’S RESPONSIBLE?”

    uh, lemmee take a wild guess:

    “liberals” and Democrats?

    =============

    Oh goody! Yet another right winger accusing “liberals” and Democrats of treason. Lord knows we’ve NEVER HEARD THAT around here before!

    NOTE: Please add Republicans John McCain and Rep. *Walter Jones to the list of Unpatriotic Wimpy Traitors.

    *he of the “freedom fries” — who, btw, faces a tough reelection based on current polls re. American’s doubt about the sanity of the “war” in Iraq.

    ahahahahahahaha.

    ==============

    RhetoricalDan: “…Why does the insurgency in Iraq seem to be gaining in determination, instead of fading away? […]

    “…The second reason lies at home… Democrats largely oppose the the war and do so persistently and vocally. Democratic opposition…”
    […]
    When Al Jazeera reports the dissent by some American Political leaders the insurgents gain hope that they can drive us out.”

    “~YOU EEDIOT!~”

    (Where’s Ren when ya need him?)

    SactoDan, I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on, but WAY BEFORE Bush’s Blunder in Iraq, many experts were warning it would:

    * increase chances for an Iraqi civil war: which it has

    * turn Iraq into a Petri Dish for producing Islamic terrorists: which it has

    * confirm Islamic radicals (worldwide) marketing efforts to show that Uncle Sam has empire building motives in oily sand: which it has

    * leave US GIs in a ‘police action’ wearing bulls eye targets on their backs in an urban guerrilla war: which it has

    * become an unwinnable “war” ala VIETNAM: which it has

    * can you say “quagmire”? (see above)

    PS: Pottery Barn Rule – ahahahahaha

    =========

    Check this out, doodles:

    “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” — Santayana

  • Shark

    Oh, and SactoDan, if you wanna write “essays” on how wimpy liberals are traitors aiding and abetting the Islamic terrorists, you’ll have to take a number and go to the back of the line. There are many more hyperbolic right wign goober typists with much more seniority than you.

    Thanks
    The Management

  • JR

    No, as Arab culture experts tell us again and again what encourages the terrorists is backing down or showing weakness.

    Stupidity shows weakness too. And when our leaders talk about how the occupation will pay for itself, how the Iraqis will greet our troops with flowers, how major combat has ended, how the insurgency is on its last legs, etc., we look pretty stupid.

    As far as saying something constructive, I’d say we should get the drunk driver out from behind the wheel before we try to get the car back on the road.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Give the terrorists a military target that they understand, and they will multiply. We are losing.< <

    Actually, military targets are not what terrorists are good at, though they are learning. Terrorists are best at killing unarmed civilians, which are still their primary targets in Iraq.

    >>(I think Haliburton shares went from $8 to $46. Not so?)<<

    Mine didn’t, but maybe I bought them too late. I waited until the invasion itself was over. They may have gone up the extra increment in that first month or so.

    Dave

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    re: “Actually, military targets are not what terrorists are good at, though they are learning. Terrorists are best at killing unarmed civilians, which are still their primary targets in Iraq.”

    They beat the Ruskies.

    Mark

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    aren’t you thinking of the Afghans?

    they beat the russians, with US helps and training..

    you know, CIA training, what helped give the mujahadeen an edge

    mujahadeen like bin Laden

    gotta love that we make our own worst enemies…in the 80s we give Saddam WMD for his war against Iran and we pay and teach bin Laden to help the mujahadeen against the russians

    it just bloggles my mind sometimes..

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “But if you speek freely you have to expect to be held accountable for what you say or for the lack of anything useful in what you say.”

    Unless you say that Iraq has WMDs, that the Iraqi insurgency is in its “Last Throes”, unless you say “the mission is accomplished”, unless you say “the war will pay for itself”, unless you say “the Iraqi’s will welcome us with open arms”, unless you say “this won’t last more than 6 months”.

    If you say things like THAT, you aren’t accountable at all according to George Bush, in fact you are likely to be PROMOTED. It’s amazing how responsiblity for the Iraq war just never quite leads conservatives to the people responsible for the war.

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    re: “aren’t you thinking of the Afghans?”

    I thought bin Laden was like the main terrorista.

    The war in Afghanistan (vrs the Russians) drew many of the fighters we now call terrorists where they organized as Al Quaeda.

    So I repeat, our terrorists beat the Russians. Military targets are nothing new to them.

    Seems to me that the terrorists operating in Iraq are targeting soldiers, police and politicians rather than random civilians. (I have no source on the spot – I get this idea by reading headline stories, and it might not be true.)

    Mark

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Seems to me that every time casualties get listed they’re mostly civilians with a fair number of Iraqi police and relatively few US Soldiers. The point of terrorism is to terrorize the population. It’s a lot easier to terrorize civilians than soldiers who expect to be attacked.

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    The terrorsist do not limit themselves to hitting military or security forces, they also have succeeded or attempted to blow up bombs in market areas, mosques after prayer time when the streets are packed, and other highly trafficked areas.

    On a related note, there is a group in Europe that openly solicits donations for these same terrorsists. Interesting.

  • Nancy

    You’d think that since the insurgents – apparently comprised mostly of foreigners coming into Iraq from elsewhere – are increasingly targeting Iraqi citizens and cherished institutions such as mosques, etc. that the people themselves would get going and start turning in these terrorist instead of shielding them, and yet according to the latest reports I’ve gotten from radio & papers (that comes from independent, non-BushCo sources, that is) the opposite is true, and the Iraqis are … not exactly supporting them, but not turning against them or trying to wipe them out themselves, either, which is hard to understand. Non-Iraqis/arabic speakers would understandably have a hard time differentiating an Iraqi Sunni from a Kurd from a Syrian from an Afghan, but presumably the Iraqis themselves can tell, just like I can tell a Texan from a Bostonian. So targeting terrorists wouldn’t be that much of a problem, for them, but they don’t. Why would this be?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Where are you getting your reports from, Nancy? One of the various international socialist front sights or maybe Al Jazeera? Everything I’ve seen has normal Iraqis falling over themselves to turn in terrorists if they think they can do it without risk of reprisals.

    dave

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    See this morning’s story on Iraq.

    These attacks are not random act of terror like the bombings in Israel. They are specifically targeted to discourage cooperation with US supported organizations. Do they indicate that Iraqis generally have little to fear from the terrorists day to day at this point?

    Maybe the constant check points, military law and the memories of ‘shock and awe’ and the leveling of Fallujah are just more terrifying than the terrorists.

    Mark

    ps Preemptive strike: To hell with all of you who think such comments support the enemy and are seditious.

    I am commenting on what I see as an ill conceived and failing policy of military intervention perpetrated in my name and with my money.

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    since that link doesn’t work, here’s the headline:

    “Suicide Bombers Kill at Least 31 in Iraq
    By FRANK GRIFFITHS

    MOSUL, Iraq (AP) – Two suicide bombers killed at least 31 people in two separate attacks on a police station and outside an Iraqi military base in northern Iraq on Sunday, the U.S. military said.

    The first attack happened at a police headquarters in Mosul, killing 13 policemen and two civilians and wounding six more, said U.S. Army Capt. Mark Walter, a spokesman in Mosul. Earlier reports put the death toll at six.

    Less than two hours later, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a parking lot outside an Iraqi army base, killing 16 and wounding seven more, Walter said. Almost all the victims were civilian workers arriving at the site, he said. “

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Once you’ve made your personal objections clear I’m not sure that you need to complain that the policy is being carried out in your name. Everyone understands that there are people in America who are opposed to the War in Iraq.

    >>These attacks are not random act of terror like the bombings in Israel. They are specifically targeted to discourage cooperation with US supported organizations. Do they indicate that Iraqis generally have little to fear from the terrorists day to day at this point?<<

    No they certainly don’t. Of course the attacks are targeted. That doesn’t make them any better. If trying to cooperate with the people who are rebuilding your country gets you kidnapped and your head cut off, then who should the blame apply to? Is it the people who are just trying to help you or the guys in masks who cut your head off?

    Dave

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    Better? Blaim?

    Interesting response.

    Good morning, Dave Nalle.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, and there’s your news article, demonstrating that it’s not even Americans who are being targeted, but continues to be Iraqi government forces and Iraqi civilians. Again, terrorists trying to intimidate the population for political objectives. In other words they want to be in control, not the representatives the people elected. This is not a good thing. Do the Iraqis deserve a government they voted for made up of relatively reasonable politicians, or the kind of government they’d end up with after a civil war, made up of people whose former career was convincing illiterates from poor fringe countries to commit suicide for Allah, or kidnapping businessmen for ransom and cutting off their heads? Those aren’t the qualifications most people look for in their leaders.

    Dave

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    Why do I get the impression that we are talking past one another?

    Yes Dave Nalle, the terrorists are bad, bad guys. Too bad that our military policy is generating so many of them.

    Mark

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    re: “there’s your news article, demonstrating that it’s not even Americans who are being targeted, but continues to be Iraqi government forces and Iraqi civilians.”

    from the same article:

    “The U.S. military also confirmed the deaths of two more Marines in Thursday’s ambush in Fallujah. That brought the death toll from the suicide car bomb and ensuing small-arms fire to at least four Marines, with a Marine and a sailor still missing and presumed dead, the military said.”

    There’s more, like:

    “The attacks in Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, and Saturday’s suicide bombing in Samarra, 60 miles northwest of the capital, were startling indications that two major American military campaigns last year to eradicate insurgents in those cities may have failed. Both attacks signaled the reappearance of militants capable of carrying out sophisticated attacks. ”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The point is that we’re not ‘generating’ the terrorists, we’re attracting them. Those Iraqis who are out for themselves or out to try to cause a civil war and take over the country – the true ‘insurgents’ – are already in place and active. They may move around to hit different targets, but they are a finite and identifiable group.

    The real terrorists, the jihadists and Al Qaeda types, are drawn to Iraq by the situation there – the opportunities for terror which it creates. They are becoming more active, but their role is problematic because even the insurgents don’t want them there.

    As for actual death counts, the numbers are enormously weighted away from US soldiers and towards civilians and Iraqi forces. Many of the US soldiers who are killed are killed because they were working with Iraqis or trying to defend Iraqis.

    Now I’m sure that the terrorists do target Americans when they can, but they seem to predominantly go for the softer targets that cause more terror, and that’s civilians.

    Dave

  • gracefulboomer

    Interesting discussion-
    Although Dave Nalle may have intended a slam against Conyers, Durbin, and Pelosi by suggesting they go ‘to Iraq to meet with insurgent leaders and extend the hand of friendship’, the meetings are indeed occurring with insurgent leaders.
    Perhaps Dave did not mean to equate the linkage of meeting with ‘terrorists’ to the Democrats.
    Do you consider this a bad idea? Presuppose this gives comfort or that a ‘meeting’ would show weakness?
    The Bush administration has been holding multiple ‘meetings’ with the ‘insurgent leaders’ ‘terrorists’ in Iraq.
    As reported in the TimesOnLine-
    June 26, 2005
    US ‘In talks With Iraq With Iraq rebels’
    Hala Jaber
    Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings
    ttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1669601,00.html

    Victor Plenty’s comment #17 was so spot on, it bears repeating-
    ‘Only the killers are responsible for killing our troops.’

    Actually, your last post may have real merit, Dave.
    There is a quite valid theory that the purpose of the U.S. War on Iraq is to ‘wick away’ the battled hardened Islamic terrorists from the failed or endangered Islamic states where the Islamic terrorists could pose a threat to the stability or even overthrow the central government (i.e. Saudi Arabia) while allowing the failed or endangered Islamic governments the breathing room, the time, to get their collective acts together ..
    Just throwing it out .. intriguing thought, that.

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    And I heard a reporter in Afghanistan on c-span this morning talk of ‘taliban’ moving around the countryside in platoon size units.

    Does anyone maintain that the ranks of the terrorists/insurgents/Islamic radicals (choose your enemy) are not growing?

    Mark

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Although Dave Nalle may have intended a slam against Conyers, Durbin, and Pelosi by suggesting they go ‘to Iraq to meet with insurgent leaders and extend the hand of friendship’, < <

    Actually, I was suggesting that they go and get taken hostage - or at least see how barbaric the 'insurgents' are first hand. They're living in wilful denial of the reality of how violent, self-serving and vicious these terrorists are. They think of them as some sort of oppressed patriots, and the fact is that their goal is not to free Iraq, but to oppress it under their own rule.

    >>the meetings are indeed occurring with insurgent leaders.
    Perhaps Dave did not mean to equate the linkage of meeting with ‘terrorists’ to the Democrats.
    Do you consider this a bad idea? Presuppose this gives comfort or that a ‘meeting’ would show weakness?<<

    I’m all for meetings with the insurgents, but they ought to involve the Iraqi government and US Diplomats. Those among the insurgents who are willing to put down their arms and enter the governing process ought to be accomodated as much as is reasonable. It’s a key step towards isolating and eliminating the most fanatical ones.

    Dave

%d bloggers like this: