Al-Sadr Must Be Removed
By Repair Man Jack Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (98) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Today began inauspiciously for new Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. A memo released by President Bush's adminsitration questions his understanding of the situation in Iraq and his willingness to solve the problems currently extant throughout the nation. Many observers here believe al-Maliki governs to close to Muqtada al-Sadr's intrests to suit ours. Today, al-Sadr may have given al-Maliki the opportunity to disown his nefarious influence. Al-Sadr ordered his allies in the current government to resign.
Al-Sadr's intrests primarily seem to feature his efforts to seize power in Southern Iraq and run it as his own personal theocracy. He is backed in this efforts by the Mahdi Army , which backs Al-Sadr's intrests regardless of whether these aims coincide with those of the common good in Iraq. This became even more apparant when reports surfaced that Hezbollah was training the Mahdi Army. This may just be my paranoia, but I doubt Iran would provide al-Sadr this service free of charge.
If Nuri al-Maliki wants to govern Iraq himself, and doesn't want to ultimately die at al-Sadr's hands, he should strike now and level Muqtada al-Sadr.
I'm still new and adjusting here, but I'm pretty sure you get a 5 on that one.
By resigning, he did for Maliki what the CCCP did for the UN on Korea. He gave up his stake and his control over how the aparatus gets used. They can turn on him now.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Amen. al-Sadr needs to take a permanent dirt nap (or would it be a sand nap in Iraq?). The sooner the better.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Some argue that doing away with Al Sadr would eliminate his militia, and violence would decrease.
But I tell those people that Zarqawi was killed yet violence has not abated. On the contrary, it has gone under control, and his organization, Al Qaeda in Iraq, has recently been blamed by the president as the culprit of the violence present in Iraq.
So as you can see, Killing their leaders is not necessarily a successful strategy.
we should kill al Sadr AND as many of his followers as we can find. If he's got 20,000 people in his "army" we should kill all 20,000 of them.
I am not in favor of precision munitions.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
And there's no better time than the present.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
It's scarier. Kills more people for less money...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
But I do grin broadly at the prospect of our dropping a weapon known as the "Mother Of All Bombs" on Saddamites and Jihadists. Irony, and all that.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
it's too late to take him out. we'd make him a martyr. our best strategy now would be to shave his face, put him in a pink jumpsuit (behind bars), and take a lot of pictures.
Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.
Martyrs are a dime a dozen out there, now that Saddam Hussein isn't paying thousands of dollars each for them.
Martyrs can't lead.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
though i think his martyrdom (at least compared to his well-advertised humiliation) would be particularly inspiring over there.
Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.
Our side would make a big fuss about humiliating him. It's "torture" remember?
Just kill him and have done with it...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
and his faction might fall apart if he dies.
in a wife-beater t-shirt! Naw, just shoot the loser.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
The Islamofascists need to learn that the way to win is to make the other guy die for his cause.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Put him behind bars and you make him a real martyr but one with a voice heard 'round the world. His sycophants in Iraq, Iran and the NYT will beat the drum endlessly.
Kill the bas***d. Kill as many of his followers as we can find and do it indiscriminately. If some "innocents" get killed in the process, that's just too bad. And just so I'm not misunderstood, if we kill 100,000 people in Sadr City that's just a good start.
Dead men draw flys not crowds. We need to make the price of terrorism overwhelming and this guy is a good place to start.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
he hires into the Mahdi army, maybe. If Sadr City wasn't a ghetto, Mookie would be nobody. It may be time to teach the Iraqis our concept of "urban renewal."
Besides, after he's gone, the Israelis can put out doctored videos of him in compromising positions. Our side can play the Photoshop game, too!
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
so what? We should be worried because the Shia will be upset at us? It is long past time that the Iraqis, and the rest of the bozos in the region clearly understand just who the H*ll they are messing with.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I think they know EXACTLY who they are messing with.
The NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the Democratic Party, the US State Department and a segment of the US judiciary.
Now I'm depressed.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Unfortunately you are right. But you have to admit it's a tempting image, an America that once again calls it's enemies enemies and does what needs to be done. I'm just a dinosaur, stuck in Teddy Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan mode.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
A great part of Sadr's power comes from just being able to survive so long. His followers know full well that the American military wants Muqtada al-Sadr reduced to a pile of smoldering ash. But everyday we don't accomplish that, looks to the Shia like Allah is protecting Sadr, and him escaping that just increases his power. Sadr's followers will be much more offended by infidels continuing to live, than by Sadr dying. What are we waiting for? Till he gets even stronger, and becomes a bigger martyr upon his death?
Al-Sadr should never have left Fallujah a free man. I'm still smacking my forehead over al-Sistani bailing him out. Even after al-Sadr attempted to steal al-Sistani's shrines and put a hit out against him.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
al-Sadr is hoping to pull off what Nasrallah is angling for in Lebanon, the failure of the elected government creating a power vacuum that he can step into and run the country. The president should make it clear to al-Maliki in their meeting today that Iraq is not big enough for him and Sadr. Maliki has been playing both ends (US and Sadr) against the middle for a year now. It's time for him to make his choice.
If Maliki chooses wisely, he will open the door for Sadr and his 30 parlimentarians to walk through. In doing so, al-Sadr will declare himself an enemy of the Iraqi government and draw the target on his own face. Maliki may also be able to curry favor with more moderate Sunnis in the gov't by being seen to publicly declare his independance from the radical Sadr.
Note the color of al-Sadr's turbin. It's black. He may be a Shi'a cleric, but he is not a very well respected or high ranking one, else he would wear white. My go to guy on Islam tells me that many higher ranking clerics see al-Sadr as an upstart and a radical, unwilling to wait his turn for power and influence. If Maliki rebukes him, its a better than even bet that the real shiite power broker, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani will pile on and lend Maliki his legitimacy.
If Maliki doesn't choose wisely, then Iraq is further gone than I thought. I don't have any easy policy perscriptions for that eventuality, but this may be a start.
American forces now stationed in relatively peaceful areas of the country should be drawn in to bases around Baghdad. These units should operate in conjunction with, but not under the control of, the Iraqi government forces in the city in a major push to secure the capital. I am not a tactician, but this effort should include: security cordons; visibility patrols, both joint and separate; and targeted raids on known insurgent hideouts. The raids can be, but by no means should they only be, undertaken as a result of intelligence sharing with the Iraqis. The troop presence in Baghdad, both American and Iraqi, must be dramatically increased. As long as the capital is not secured, the perception will be that the entire country is in a state of chaos. Once Baghdad is pacified, resistance in the remainder of the country will dramatically decrease as the inevitability of the Iraqi government’s survival becomes clear.
The political situation in the country should be a concern as well. America should do everything in her power to ensure that Iraq is left with a functioning democratic government of some form. This does not mean that we should make important decisions about the future of the country for the Iraqis. Quite the opposite, we should make clear that the consequences of the decisions Iraq’s leaders make for the future of their country will be theirs to bear. America, in the end, can only point the way toward democracy and perhaps gently push in that direction. If the Iraqis choose to double back and take a different route, so be it, as long as the result is no threat to us or our friends in the region. I suspect, however, that as the level of violence in the country comes down and as the capital is pacified, a single unified democracy, as opposed to a partitioning along sectarian lines, will look to Iraq’s leaders like a more and more appealing end.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
>>>>If Maliki rebukes him, its a better than even bet that the real shiite power broker, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani will pile on and lend Maliki his legitimacy.
I can't figure out why Sistani prevent al-Sadr's capture or death in Fallujah.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
because he bends over backward to please the guy.
Shouldn't al-Sadr's withdrawal from Maliki's government cancel that debt?
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
But you never know. Maliki could wake up next to an IED
You have a sharp and biting critique of my ideas here and I respect a good debate. I'd love it if you enlightened me on what you thought we should do with al-Sadr instead.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Maliki could make certain that Sadr does not wake up at all...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
for any more progress to be made. But he's got a lot of people around him trying to prevent that.
it needs to be crystal clear that we went after him and took him out. Half of the lesson is knowing who did it and why --- and that we can do it again any time we want.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
neck, "No better friend, no worse enemy!" with a US flag attached to it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Agreed. I was calling for him to be taken out back in late 2003 during the battles of Nasariyah. He is nothing more than a stupider Hassan Nasrallah. We need to start taking out our enemies- but unfortunately we have no stomach anymore to win a war.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Islamofascism puts them through the meat grinder, then searches for more.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
numbers until there are either no more Muslims who want to be martyrs or no more Muslims. Either solution is fine with me.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Primarily because of the last bit. I don't mind at all the idea of killing murderous fanatics until they're tired of being murderous fanatics, myself - but the fewer deaths before victory, obviously the better.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
To kill fewer than neccessary is to lose.
Just thought I should throw that in there. It is terribly clear that we have not made war, heh, Terrible enough for our foes...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Maybe the guy was joking. But advocating genocide should be out of bounds if using a curse word is.
I think he was incredibly callous, and arguably far too cavalier about the concept of total war, but his comment is only a call for genocide if you claim that every Arab Muslim on earth supports the terrorists.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
As to my callousness or cavalier nature, I simply believe in a war plan that would likely be approved by Patton, Sherman, Grant and any other General who actually won a war.
Callous? Probably. Cavalier? I don't think so, but that's must my opinion. As it sits now, this war looks like it will go on for a couple generations unless we take drastic action. I'm just on the drastic action side, I think it will be cheaper in the long run if we kill 250,000 people today rather than millions over the next decades. (numbers are for illustration only). Had the French and Brits stood up to Hitler a year or so earlier, maybe 100,000 soldiers would have died. Instead, 50 million people died. I don't want to see that happen now.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
My point is this. Those who claim Islam have declared war on us. Supposedly, those who have done so do not represent
ALL Muslims. However, as I look around the world and especially here in the US, I don't see a lot of Muslim outrage over the folks who are fomenting terror attacks and murder all over the world. It's really difficult to tell just exactly who the bad guys are. It's a real service to humanity when an Islamofacist decides to become a martyr, it makes it easy to figure out that he's a bad guy and then we kill him.
The point of the upthread comment that I responded to was that by killing Islamic martyrs we just make more. Since the pool of folks who seem to seek martyrdom come from the wider pool of Muslims, I generated my comment.
As long as Islam puts up martyrs we need to kill them. When they get tired of becoming martyrs, we stop killing them. If they're willing to fight to the last person, OK.
We should fight in Iraq, and Islamofacists, exactly like we fought in Tarawa,Guadalcanal, Okinawa, and the island chains on the way to Japan. Since the Islamists appear to want to fight to the last man (not necessarily including all Muslims), we should accommodate them. The world will be a better place.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Can you back up that assertion with some evidence?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
It is my opinion. They use the idea of martyrdom and the deeds of past martyrs to recruit more suicide bombers, etc. My opinion only.
Thank you for being candid on that.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Our cause is just. Theirs is not. They want to kill us because we do not share their cause. Like any other people, though, they can be broken. If we want to prevail we will eventually have to break them, like we did Germany and Japan. It will probably be a Democrat president that does it after we lose a lot more of our lives due to Democrat appeasement.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
That the military is usually better treated (pay raises, benefits increases, fewer casualties, etc) during Democratic control of the government.
With the next breath, this wise man said that it is Because of the Democrats that we have most of the wars we have.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
>>>>That the military is usually better treated (pay raises, benefits increases, fewer casualties, etc) during Democratic control of the government.
Or, they factor in the 1920's as equal in weight to modern GOP Presidencies. I'd say since Jimmy Peanut had the average Army EM living in a trailer park, all four of our successive Presidents have improved the material lot of soldiers. This person is off base making that a partisan talking point.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
One Liberal way of thinking I absolutely cannot stand is "we don't want to make them mad" when dealing with our enemies.
That is why we haven't killed Al-Sadr is , "We don't want to make the Shiite terrorists mad".
This is absolutely ridiculous. I want evil people "mad" at the United States. I certainly don't want evil people "happy" with the United States.
We always hear everytime the U.S. takes some sort of military action that the "Arab Street is going to rise up". Let them, bring it on. This is war, and we intend to win.
We will not win the war on terrorism by having Islamic fascists loving us.
We will the war on terror by having terrorist scared sh#tless of us.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
he'd no longer object to our activities in the Middle East. I couldn't agree more. People who take the field against the US should get to pass "Go" and collect their 72 virgins on the other side.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Islamofascist-Opoly...
Go to Hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 72 virgins...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
if it means they fear us much more.
for their lives.
Daisy cutters, anyone?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
We haven't killed him because the government of Iraq would fall apart if we did, and all out war between Sunnis and Shiites would begin. I'm not sure we can avoid this anyway.
does al-Sadr's attempt to scuttle the government do? It weakens and destabilizes the edifice. If he is unwilling to work with Maliki, and he still fields a personal militia, taking him out won't destabalize things anymore than arresting Hitler's Brownshirts would have destabalized the Wiemar Republic.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Well, really, Sadr's head should've been on a platter in April 2003 when his goons were instrumental in killing the Ayatollah al-Khoei, whose lose we're still feeling to this day. He should've been dead in April 2004 when his abortive revolts got the Mahdi Army routed in Nasiriyah, Karbala, and Najaf, when we quite literally had him dangling by his own balls. As has been mentioned, that we acceded to Sistani there is the second biggest unforced error we've made in Iraq(reducing Fallujah to ash after the Mahdi Army was crushed in the same month being the biggest). While killing Sadr now wouldn't accomplish as much as it could've had he been killed years ago, better late than neer, I suppose.
Also, if the Democratic Congress was to hold hearings on the conduct of the American enterprise in Iraq, how 'bout hauling the old Bremer crew before it and asking why they muzzled the military when dealing with Sadr in 4/04.
could actually do our nation and his party a service if he held Paul Bremer to a blow torch for shackling our military in a manner similar to the way Jim Webb was shackled as a Marine in Vietnam.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
To me, al-Sadr's supporters walking out of the government means the government now has a green light to pull out the a**-kicking boots and wipe out these pigfsckers.
I seriously doubt they will, but if Maliki grows a pair and does this, I'll bet this will be the last time a group threatens to pull out of the government.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I seriously doubt they will, but if Maliki grows a pair and does this, I'll bet this will be the last time a group threatens to pull out of the government.
You seriously mean this?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You've got just over a month before making sure this sort of thing happens becomes your side's responsibility.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I won't ever condone killing someone because they choose to leave the political process or implying to others that this fate can happen to them if they leave the political process.
You want to say that we need to take him out because he is a violent killer. Ok. Personally I think it would be much harder for us to do unless we went with a straight up assassination but , ok.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
drive me nuts.
I believe it was reasonably clear to any adult (of which I know you are one) that the commenter was not proposing killing everyone, or even anyone, who only wanted to end their participation in the Iraqi Congress. If Sadr was calling on his henchmen to quit and start building schools, or guarding supply trains, or any other of a myriad of good uses, no one would be upset with them at all.
Rather, it appears that he intends his henchmen to join his personal militia and war against the elected gov't of Iraq. For that, many argue that he should be executed, and rightly so IMHO.
You are deliberately argumentative and trying to make yourself sound Oh So Superior, but you did not accomplish anything of the sort.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I asked him if he really meant WHAT HE SAID. Is it really such an affront to ask for clarity?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...is in your continual assumption that we're stupid enough to buy that your convenient misunderstanding of other people's commentary always just happens to be in the most unflattering light possible. After a certain point it becomes fairly clear that it's the receiver having the problem, not the transmitter.
Also... again, flyerhawk: man up. Your side isn't in the back seat shooting spitballs anymore, and it's long past time that you dealt with the world as it is, rather than as you'd like it to be portrayed.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
that I generally disagree with most of the posters here on issues such as a Iraq it shouldn't be terribly surprising that what you imply and what I may infer may not always be the same thing. I am not trying to twist people's words. At all. There were numerous posts in this thread that I found troubling but I realize the point they were making.
In this ONE INSTANCE I felt that his comment needed to be clarified.
As for what happens after January, I suspect that things won't be a whole lot different but I hope that they will. There was a speech given by Barack Obama last week that I thought did a pretty good job of outlining what we should be doing going forward. I asked Erick if it would be ok to post a diary about it. He didn't respond so I inferred that it would not be. But I do think that it covers where I think we should be going.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I don't think that any of the regular posters here are stupid. Quite the contrary. If I thought you were stupid I wouldn't waste my time posting on this site. This is the most intelligent site on the Internet to discuss issues with Conservatives.
But that doesn't mean that people can say thing that they either don't mean or they didn't think through.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
that should read....
"that doesn't mean that people can't say things"
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Best idea I've heard in a while.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I have a question for the folks in this thread who are calling for mass killing...
...how many of you have personally taken a human life?
is a variation on the Chickenhawk meme.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
What does that have to do with anything? (Holding up hand) Oh, and for the record, if you're one of those moral degenerates who think that messenger invariably trumps message, do yourself a favor and just say so now. I looove showing people with no trust in their own moral discernment the door.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Total war has two possible goals: destroy production capability and/or destroy the morale of the populace.
Considering that the production capability (such as it is) of the Iraqi insurgents is totally distributed, I can't see mass destruction having much effect there.
Neither can I see how mass destruction would have much impact on morale. It might make the average Iraqi miserable, but that will, at best, not have any impact on the insurgency and will probably turn the populace even more against us. It will have no effect whatsoever on the insurgents themselves. They are eager to martyr themselves for the cause and have no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. And there doesn't appear to be any shortage of them; indiscrimately killing civilians will only swell their numbers.
Japan and Germany are not good comparisons. Total war a valid strategy because a) they were largely conventional conflicts and b) the populace of the two nations recognized that they were aggressors and that their military had been defeated. The Iraqis/terrorists/insurgents simply don't think of the Iraqi war in this way.
If some country invaded the US and (somehow) won, do you think that everyone would just give in, even if the military surrendered? I seriously doubt it, especially if the invaders were a group that the average citizen considered to be evil or terrible. (I'm not trying to say that we are "invaders" in Iraq, but that is certainly how many people in the Middle East see it.)
So what you are left with is a strategy of killing so many people that the entire populace essentially loses all hope and just gives in. What percentage of the population do you think you would need to kill in order to cow the rest? 5%? 10%? Keep in mind that Iraq has a population of 26 million, so you are talking about killing 1-2 million people.
At some point, we would be killing people that would not have had any interest in attacking the US but were fighting us simply because we had previously killed someone they cared about. Is that moral?
Your comparisons are simply addle headed. The insurgency is workable ONLY if the general populace supports it or tolerates it. Their supply is a minor part of the equation and needs to be dealt with separately.
You have to first understand that most of Iraq is pretty safe. The northern section, Kurdistan, is safer than most US cities - certainly Philly & Detroit. The south hasn't seen any terrorist action to speak of for years. What we are talking about is the area in the Sunni Triangle, al Anbar and Baghdad.
We unfortunately passed on the option taking out al Sadr in 2003/4 when he was holed up in a Mosque and surrounded by his "army". Had we made Sadr City look like Dresden then, we wouldn't have many of the problems we've got now. The second opportunity we blew was the city of Fallujah. We had it sealed off, it was the headquarters and main support for the insurgency and we didn't move the first time because we were afraid of what the NYT would do with civilian casualties. The second time, the only bad guys left in the city were the equivalent of PFC & LCpls. I think we should have flattened the city the first time.
We beat the insurgency when the people who support it are absolutely convinced that if terrorists are found in their town we will flatten it. With them in it. At the same time we need to do all we can to restore public services to the parts of Iraq that support us. Carrot and stick. Support us, you get electricity and running water and schools. Don't support us, you get dead.
I really don't give a rats a** about your perceived morality of killing people who are fighting us. Kill enough of them and they will stop fighting, see Germany and Japan. Virtually every family lost someone in that war and they stopped fighting.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
undoubtedly the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen posted on Redstate by anyone, ever. What about "mass" and "destruction" do you not understand? Of course it would have a most massive destructive effect on the masses destroyed. The reason we don't do it is the effect it would have on us if it is not necessary and on other masses not destroyed around the world.
But the insurgency in Iraq? It would end it.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
(I'm not trying to say that we are "invaders" in Iraq, but that is certainly how many people in the Middle East see it.)
If you believe something, have the guts to say it.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Hey, nice personal attack. Because I'm able to differentiate between my opinion and the opinion of the people in the Middle East, that makes me a coward? This might come as a shock, but not everyone who is unwilling to advocate killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians is a peacenik hippie.
For the record, I don't consider us "invaders" and I never did. I originally thought that the Iraq War was a great idea. Spreading democracy and all that. The past several years have shown, however, that it probably was not such a great idea.
terrorists are not "innocent civilians".
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Well, that is partially true.
I would agree that people that actively support the insurgents are fair game.
But I think it is absurd to say that people who don't turn in insurgents are just as guilty (and, thus, deserving of death) as the insurgents themselves. Unless you can guarantee the safety of people (and their families) who turn in insurgents, I think it is perfectly rational for neutral bystanders to weigh the chances of helping us vs. getting ganked by the insurgents.
Now, I think that the argument you are trying to make in through this thread is that, if we kill enough neutral bystanders, they will start to weigh the chances of getting ganked by insurgents vs. getting ganked by us. With, of course, the chances of getting ganked by us being much higher. I suppose that is one way to approach the situation, but I don't think it is particularly logical or moral.
Apologies if that wasn't really what your argument was, but that was the impression I got. I'm sure you will feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :-)
Unless you've subscribed to Lancet since their standards have substantially declined, you are totally out of the ballpark with those numbers. Muqtada al-Sadr currently fields approximately 20,000 troops.
I'm glad you enjoyed the personal attack and enjoy the rest of your day.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Please don't use the word "troops" in connection with this band of thugs. At least to me troops implies an organized disciplined force or soldiers, soldiers who obey rules of conduct. And using that term puts Al Sadr's 20,000 or so thugs on a par with our troops.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I was objecting to the blantantly intentional hyperbole that we would have to kill millions of people to pacify Iraq. The 20,000 number was merely intended to tell this individual that he was off by 2 orders of magnitude and was throwing around numbers as if they could be plucked out of nowhere and have valid meaning.
As for al-Sadr's bunch, they certainly didn't remind anyone of the 82nd Airborne when he was penned up at Najf and could have been issued his Darwin Award.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
My comment was in response to what mbecker was saying, like this...
We beat the insurgency when the people who support it are absolutely convinced that if terrorists are found in their town we will flatten it. With them in it.
I'm not sure how many people you would need to kill in this fashion before everyone else feared you enough to start turning in insurgents. But I think it would be an awful lot.
Sorry, I think that I might have misunderstood your line of thinking. What you seem to be advocating is different from what mbecker seems to be advocating.
If you are talking about a concerted effort to kill off groups of insurgents, I think that it is a totally reasonable and rational response.
My concern was about the idea (and, again, my apologies if I'm not understanding what people here are advocating) of killing off insurgents and killing off civilians around the insurgents for the "crime" of not turning the insurgents in, with the goal of cowing civilians so thoroughly that they will start to work with us to actively root out insurgents.
My point with the "10%" was that I thought that was a reasonable percentage of the population that you would need to kill before the rest of the population feared you so greatly that they would do anything (which, in this case, would be going against the insurgents) to avoid making you angrier. If you are advocating precision strikes against insurgents, and not general strikes against insurgents and civilians, i agree that this number would be meaningless.
and I would further cede that you are reasonable in your assesment that we can't just shoot people who don't like us. Otherwise, we'd depopulate France! (j/k) Violence has to be managed and only used when it's target is a condign recipient.
Muqtada al-Sadr, in my humble opinion, has earned more bad karma than a ticked-off division of Marines could possible deal to him. He has probably killed at least as many Iraqis in the Sunni Triangle as the Coalition and has done so purely so that he could take control of several wealthy shrines and exact taxation from them.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
We are looking at least two options in Iraq. The first, probably favored by flyerhawk and the Dems, is to hide behind the Baker report, talk to Iran and Syria about the Iraqi situation (wonder what they want in return), and draw down troops. Great way to lose the war, but if you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
The other way is to face facts, get over our past mistakes in not killing Sadr, and get it done now. Wipe out his militia, show the world that both Maliki and Bush still have some rocks, and make clear to our enemies that we are still the strong horse. I think mbecker has it exactly right - this is an all out war, fight it like Grant did when he drove Lee into the ground. The alternative to victory here is too horrible to imagine.
Flyerhawk, what do you think about that? Got the stomach to take on Sadr, or do we just write this off as a lost cause? Time to show a little leadership, the time for whining about Bush has passed.
""the time for whining about Bush has passed.""
Wrong, wrong, wrong, like Jello there's always time for whining about Bush
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
where Sadr and his cohorts were shooting at us in 2003. It's still not too late to make this right. Sadr and his Mahadi Army should be used for a demonstration, and none of them should survive it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?