< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: The Real Enemy


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

The Real Enemy

It is clear that the Republicans, when talking about Iraq, often put their foot firmly in their mouth. I am of the opinion they feel it necessary to steer a moderate path in their discourse to calm those opposing the war. Unfortunately, they are bad at thinking lefty and peacenik, so they generally stuff up. It doesn't help that many of the detractors have a bigger agenda than just opposing the war.

But who is the real enemy here? The US has stepped in and removed Saddam Hussein, who remains miles ahead in the body count stakes. They have handed Iraq a golden opportunity. They were expecting the Iraqi to take this opportunity and run with it.

Iraq, rather than being a single nation, united in their new-found freedom, has instead acted like a factionalised bunch of violent, ignorant and ungrateful maniacs intent on getting their own way by killing as many Americans and innocent Iraqi as possible.

Somehow, the US is being blamed for this. They should not be.

Semantics seem more important than analysis here. Is the war over or isn't it? It is fair to say the war is over. Saddam is out of power, his army surrendered. Elections were held and there was a way forward.

I think the violent opposition from the insurgents is a different phase - and one that obviously caught the US Administration off guard. They were counting on gratitude from the people, and have instead received insanity.

In rescuing Iraq, a small percentage of Iraqi have failed to appreciate it. The debatable bit seems to be defining the percentage of maniacs - 1% or 20%? It seems a lot, but then again, many of the insurgents are foreigners. What does that tell you?

Eventually, Iraqi of all types may be longing for the day they live in the peaceful land that was Saddam, content to sacrifice a few percent of the population a year to the altar of Saddam's ambitions.

Of course, by then he may have decided to take on more than just Kuwait. Any one that doesn't believe Saddam aspired to nuclear capability is naive. Ask the French.

So what's the deal? Rather than criticising America for doing its best in difficult circumstances, it would be nice to keep the focus on the insane, zealous maniacs that demonstrate unfailing ingratitude.

Otherwise, we are all saying words are more important than actions.

This situation doesn't prove American imperialism. It proves the insurgents irrational, depraved and violent radicalism. Whose side are you on?

Posted by ZenTiger | 6/30/2005 10:08:00 am


Blogger francis said...

Actually, the Americans were counting on killing a lot more Iraqi soldiers on the battlefield, destroying a lot more ordnance in the traditional way. Had that happened, the insurgent infrastructure wouldn't have been there for the "foreign fighters" to align themselves with, either. The 'insurgency' is in many ways a product of battlefield 'success'.

6/30/2005 12:39:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

So your theory is that American firepower was inadequate, and the insurgents are all ex-Iraqi army?

That's good enough for a stand-up routine.

6/30/2005 01:35:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

BTW, I removed the last line ("if you don't have anything nice to say, then shut the hell up.").

I realised that would probably be taken the wrong way by those that dont have anything nice to say...

...the point was really meant along the lines that many (not all) of those sorts of contributions typically do not help improve the situation or advance any sensible ideas. I'll just shut the hell up now.

6/30/2005 01:39:00 pm  
Blogger Brian S said...

A good way to keep things in perspective is to look at the google map of Baghdad:


Mostly looks pretty normal to me.

6/30/2005 04:27:00 pm  
Blogger reid said...

Francis, I've read that there were weapons caches all over the place even before the first US soldier entered Iraq. My understanding is that the Republican Army is what most of the insurgency is made up of and they deliberately melted away to begin the campaign that the US and allies now finds itself in.

6/30/2005 08:09:00 pm  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Why is it good enough for a stand up routine ZenTiger?

The theory that American firepower was inadequate or the suggestion that the insurgency consists of many members of the ex-Iraqi army?

I would have thought the 2nd conclusion was not only obvious but an accepted fact and the 1st when applied to the post invasion scenario was pretty much an accepted fact to all but this current clueless administration which is still propogating the lie that this war is winnable.....or is it it merely in its last throes (how do you define that word again) or maybe we could be there for another 12 years but hey let's just hide (somewhat pathetically) behind a bunch of troops when we have a major policy announcement to make ( or rather some concern about our falling poll numbers) and not add a single thought to what we already know.

At some stage cognative dissonance sets in.

Why is it that prior to Sadaam there was no terrorism problem in Iraq and yet now it seems to be the centre of international terrorism?

What is it about cause and effect that you lot are too proud to acknowledge.

Or do you really believe the obscene suggestion that the reason we are here is because our agenda from the beginning was to smoke them into a central spot outside of US soil so we could confront and destroy them?

6/30/2005 08:33:00 pm  
Blogger francis said...

After Gulf War I, I'm sure they didn't plan on really trying to hold the line -- and the insurgency was the fallback option. I'm certain the American generals thought they could box and incapacitate the Iraqi army to a greater extent than proved possible, largely because a smaller number of Iraqi forces than anticipated actually exposed themselve to the battlefield environment. The air war against C&C structures was also a device designed to restrain retreat and force the Iraqi army into impromptu enclaves that could be destroyed or captured. There just weren't enough of them on the battlefield for that tactic to work on a large scale. The forces that did go forward were largely ones (like armor) that are of very limited utility in urban resistance. It was a clever plan. As for the presence of foreign fighters, hey, Ireland not-so-covertly flew the swaztika during WW2. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

7/01/2005 12:38:00 am  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Ackkers1, If you don't see how that concept could be spun into a comedy routine, maybe you are too close to your "anlaysis".

I could have people rolling on the floor with a description of the "shock and awe" tactics the leftys highlighted during the campaign as now being described as insufficient fire power.

"What is it about cause and effect that you lot are too proud to acknowledge".

I am not denying cause and effect. I am suggesting that the effects of many actions cannot be fully understood, and can catch people by surprise.

Look at what you are saying - you are not surprised that the Iraqi people supposedly prefer Saddam over the US removing him, fixing things up and moving out. That explains the statues dedicated to him in the square. They loved him all along.

That explains why there were no terrorists. Your idea is brilliant. There were none, because he was one. He was the kingpin. All the US have to do is act with the same ruthlessness and kill the same many people and then the Iraqi will love the US as much as they love Saddam. Bush should put the statue up in the square of himself now. That will turn the tide.

My post suggests a small number of insurgents do not represent the majority view and the appreciation towards America. You seem to think it represents mainstream view, and this reaction should have been known all along.

I don't accept cause and effect the same way as you Ackkers1, because I also acknowledge the cost of NOT doing something. Leave Saddam alone. Leave Mugabe alone. Leave all the others alone. It's a recurring theme where cause and effect is also created from inaction.

It is not a question of being proud, its a question of not letting fear prevent the right action.

Although, in this particular case, I was against the war at the outset. My mindset changed, once the war started, to "how can this be a positive thing for the Iraqi people", and what has to happen to improve the world rather than make it worse.

The nit picking the Bush Administration receive, which is part of a bigger theme to remove Western power and Capitalist ideology (which needs fixing, not removing) will only leave a vacuum that the Communist factions of the socialists will exploit. They already have been, and you are helping them.

7/01/2005 09:24:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home