The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror

masadi # 37

you might not like the US war in Iraq. Do you really think Iraq under Saddam was going anywhere ?

#32 urstruly: another one pulled from the internet for your viewing pleasure

#32 urstruly: You write: ``One group clearly conquers other.``

hmmmmm......lets see which group wins - the group that uses ballots or the group that uses bullets.

#32 by Urstruly on June 15, 2006 2:09pm PT


The dilemma is, what would be the world like if Americans come out to be the victors.


Yeah..America might force the conquered muslims to pay a tax to support it`s war machine..that would make allah really really made..muslims paying taxes to build the American war machine!!

IRAQ:
`U.S. Military Hides Many More Hadithas`
Aaron Glantz and Alaa Hassan

BAGHDAD, Jun 6 (IPS) - An Iraqi doctor who was in Haditha during a deadly U.S. raid last year says there are many more stories like that in Haditha that are yet untold.

The Pentagon admitted last week that U.S. Marines killed 24 civilians -- including a 66-year-old woman and a four-year-old boy -- in the Western Iraqi town last November. Before that, the military had maintained the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb.

``There are many, many, many cases like Haditha that are still undercover and need to be highlighted in Iraq,`` Dr. Salam Ishmael, projects manager with the organisation Doctors for Iraq, and former chief of the junior doctors in Baghdad`s Medical City Hospital told IPS.

In Haditha itself, he said, the U.S. military cut electricity and water to the entire city, attacked the hospital and burned the pharmacy.

``The hospital has been attacked three times. In November 2005 the hospital was occupied by the American and Iraqi Army for seven days, which is a severe breach of the Geneva Conventions,`` he said.

``In one of these attacks, the U.S. soldiers used live ammunition inside the hospital. They handcuffed all the doctors and destroyed the entire contents of the medical storage. It ended with the killing of one of the patients in his bed.``

The Iraqi Red Crescent reported at the time that nearly 1,000 families had been forced to flee their homes in Haditha following the launch of the U.S.-led military operation.

The Pentagon has responded to allegations of a massacre at Haditha by withdrawing the concerned soldiers from Iraq and investigating them for criminal misconduct. Authorities also say they will launch a new round of ``ethical training`` for American troops before they are sent overseas.

Joseph Hatcher served in the western Iraqi town of Dawr from February 2004 until March last year. He said his cultural training before deployment consisted of a three-hour class and a pamphlet he was given.

``It`s just here`s where you are on a map, because you`d be surprised how many people don`t know that,`` Hatcher told IPS. ``The only language training we received was a hand-out flip book type flyer which was how to say things like `go down on your hands and knees` and `don`t resist`. We didn`t learn how to make any kind of conversation.``

During his time in Iraq, Hatcher took part in many house-to-house raids similar to the one in Haditha. He said none of the members of his unit spoke Arabic, and usually they went in without a translator.

``We would use very little language at all in house raids,`` he said.. ``You point a barrel of a gun at somebody and pull them to the ground. It`s fairly standard. There`s no way to know if you`re getting anyone of value.. You just arbitrarily raid an entire block.``

Salam al-Amidi worked as translator for the U.S. military in the northern city of Mosul, which has been controlled by insurgents for over a year. He said he was the only translator for more than 5,000 U.S. troops.

He said the U.S. military relies mostly on paid informants in deciding which houses to raid.

``Maybe that person wanted revenge on that family and came and told us that he saw someone selling weapons. We would just go to that house at three in the morning, we`d break the door, and break everything in the house.``

The Washington Post reported Monday that Marines went to the home of a 52-year-old disabled Iraqi, took him outside and shot him four times in the face. Like the killings in Haditha, the involved Marines are being investigated. All eight have been removed from Iraq and are being held at Camp Pendleton in California.

Increasingly, though, politicians are arguing that military justice is not enough.

``The test will be whether the leadership in the Department of Defence and the Administration does not try to confine these incidents in small compartments but looks to see if this is part of a large systemic problem,`` Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said on Fox News Sunday. (END/2006)

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33506

Urstruly #32

`` Logically, there can be only two outcomes of a war:

1. Nobody wins a clear victory. Its a sort of draw. Both combatant nations win some and lose some and then there exists an un-easy truce.

2. One group clearly conquers other. In other words, in this case the conquered people have to take the absolute dication from the victor.

In the current war, I think the opportunity for the #1 has been lost for good. With the genocide of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and occupation of almost the whole middle east it is the lost opportunity. There will not be a truce ever. Because both parties will have to relent some and there isn`t anything left to relent anymore on either side. ``

You really think the Taliban rule was a bed of roses in Afghanistan.

Salim_Chauhan #31

`` Babu Sahib,
Never bet against the Persians. With minor exceptions such as Alexander, Arabs, Genghis, they have generally done quite well in prevailing. Even when they lost to invaders, they succeeded in ``Persianing`` the victor. I think that Sunnis of Iraq are doomed to a minor role as either wards of the Saudis, the Turks, or has beens who squandered a wonderful opportunity to lead an advanced, rich, modern secular nation. Too bad. ``

I like Iranians I have met in person. The long term territorrial integrity of Iran is doubtful given the overlap of Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmens with her neighbors.

Never bet against the Americans

in addition to #33, your assumption that the US war in Afghanistan was against the ``preps of 9/11`` is equally unfounded and at the time of the war was even more so.

#23, I am not your comrade and why are you so interested in my view on the issue, none of my other views seem to affect you very much. The answer is NO.

Logically, there can be only two outcomes of a war:

1. Nobody wins a clear victory. Its a sort of draw. Both combatant nations win some and lose some and then there exists an un-easy truce.

2. One group clearly conquers other. In other words, in this case the conquered people have to take the absolute dication from the victor.

In the current war, I think the opportunity for the #1 has been lost for good. With the genocide of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and occupation of almost the whole middle east it is the lost opportunity. There will not be a truce ever. Because both parties will have to relent some and there isn`t anything left to relent anymore on either side.

The only option that remains is the option#2. In this case, not only Americans and Muslims but the whole world has to face a dilemma. The dilemma is, what would be the world like if Americans come out to be the victors. The question is what would they dictate to Muslims after victory. Would they tell Muslims to quite their system of values and their faith since there is so much hatered at ideological level for Islam. Is this akin to forced conversion of Muslims. The flip side of this argument is what would happen if Mulsims come out to be victorious. In that case what would they dictate to Americans or West. Would they force them to quit their value system and their faith of unfaith? Would that be akin to forced conversion of Americans and West?

#30, bbabu {``USA might trash the Shites if they get too close to Iran. That might create a chance for the Bagdad regime to take over the South.``}


Babu Sahib,
Never bet against the Persians. With minor exceptions such as Alexander, Arabs, Genghis, they have generally done quite well in prevailing. Even when they lost to invaders, they succeeded in ``Persianing`` the victor. I think that Sunnis of Iraq are doomed to a minor role as either wards of the Saudis, the Turks, or has beens who squandered a wonderful opportunity to lead an advanced, rich, modern secular nation. Too bad.

HP #7
nasah # 6

````Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam was overthrown``

This is not my line. babu wrote that. I hope you are not attributing this to me. But I sure believe that most of the resistance in Iraq is from the Baathist. Though I am not sure they will take control of Iraq after the US leaves.

It will take time and some political/diplomatic efforts for the US to leave. No one should expect a unilateral decision. Lets be realistic. The US would not give up just because its hopes in Iraq are dashed. ``

There is little chance Sunni insurgents will ever regain control over Southern Iraq or Kurdish north. The Kurdish peshmarga with US air power could beat the Sunni insurgents like a drum for 100 years. Southern Iraq is a little complex. USA might trash the Shites if they get too close to Iran. That might create a chance for the Bagdad regime to take over the South.

Re: # 28

zeemax,

.... what is wrong with being a utilitarian ?...... to me being anything else is sheer stupidity and a total waste of time, no ?

utilitarinaism : a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

here are examples of things and actions that are contrary to this common sense approach :

1. tits on a bull
2. the concept of a vengeful and hateful god
3. pearls before swine
4. islam (or any other religion)
5. playing the flute to entertain a buffalo
6. trying to interpret or reinterpret (ijtihad) an utterly useless book
7. putting lipstick on a pig (the philosophy behind 6)
8. trying to argue with masadi (same as 3 and 5)
9. eating bufallo wings with a fork and knife
10. trying to disprove that 9/11 never happened (as you sometimes seem to suggest)
11. proving the earth is flat (the principle behind 10)
12. a code coolie expecting to get lucky because he knows j2ee
13. flying pigs ( alittle bit more likely than a flying horse named buraq)
14. an indian from kerala using tibet snow (or emex) so that he can pass himself off as a paki
15. a hijaban justifying her headjob as a personal fashion statement
16. a nazi justifying his armbands and jackboots as a fashion statement (more plausible than 15)
17. trying to `understand` a suicidal jihadi
18. trying to understand a homicidal jihadi (as feroz is trying to do)


.................. and #19 : watching the grass grow - which is a lot more entertaining and useful exercise than any of the above .........

#26 by tahmed32

Sir, you I guess are as much of a utilitarian as Hamidm2, if not more ... :) You don`t find profundity unless you look for it.

F. R. Khan {``The political purpose of the September 11, 2001 attacks was .... Hence, the nature of the attacks was to vent a sense of frustration by the attackers on the inability of the United States to offer them justice, because the salient point to this logic was to hold the United States accountable for its lack of political and economic justice in its policies towards the Muslims and Muslim nations. The nature of the attack was also to blame the political and economically westernized elites in the Arab and Muslim world for their failure to effectively present the case of the Muslim plight in the court of world opinion. The westernized Muslim elites were blamed for not advocating the cause of Muslim injustices in the world and their failure to do so, suggested they were more interested in preserving their own political and economic privileges than they were in standing up for the rights of the down trodden in Muslim countries. The United States’ mea culpa in ...supported the infrastructures of despotism in Arab and Muslim nations, but it was not directly held responsible for the misery of the Muslims in the world. ``}

Feroz,
You neglected to list some of the other reasons for the 9/11 attacks on WTC and the Pentagon:

1. To demonstrate the rational and logical thinking by Islamic militants
2. To demonstrate the inherently peaceful and compassionate nature of Islam.
3. To further the cause and interests of Muslims residing in the West, especially in the US.
4. To force Muslim organizations in the US, such as ISNA, ICNA, CAIR to a more moderate viewpoint.
5. To enhance positive feelings about Muslims in general and Arabs in particular among Americans and westerners.
6. To weaken Israel militarily, politically, economically, and to suppress support for Israel in the West, especially in the US.
7. To forever silence the bigotry, xenophobia, and prejudice of Jews, neo-cons, religious right, and others in their hatred of Islam, Muslims, and Ayerabs.
8. To promote acceptance, harmony, and general good feeling about Muslims among Sikhs, Hindus, Venezuelans, and illegal Hispanic immigrants.
9. To promote the causes and interests of Pakistan over those of India and to damage India`s reputation in the West, especially the US.
10. To allow Americans and other non-Muslims to research, understand, and accept the finer details about Islam - jihad, 72 virgins, beards, hijab, burkah, suicide bombing, revenge, ratting out one`s own, amputation of hands, talaaq talaaq talaaq, Koran verses about killing, treating women, and kaffirs, and learning to pilot a plane for Allah.

Thank you for sharing your important viewpoint.

#25 zeemax: I think you will agree that ``to make `some` sort of a difference`` isnt exactly a straight or meaningful answer. Like I said, for most women (particularly Pakistani women) the hijaab is a fashion-cum-political statement that is as much bs as michael jackson and his ``black power`` glove (which he has now discarded in favor of the burqa!!).