I turned on CNN today and was greeted by footage of U.S. Marines raiding the home of Iraqi Shi'ite cleric and warlord Moqtada al-Sadr (either he wasn't home or he thought they were selling magazine subscriptions). Also, it seems that some of al-Sadr's men holed up in Shia's most holy mosque in Najaf, which has sustained damage from American artillery.
Here is a classic case of losing even if we win. Make al-Sadr a martyr and you could probably raise as many new recruits for the insurgency as you would damaging the shrine and graveyard he's holed up in. It's lose-lose for the U.S., which is exactly the point of al-Sadr's Waco-like stand. Quoth Reuters:
<br><blockquote><small>
But the [al-Sadr's] Mehdi Army raised the prospect of a bloody battle, vowing no surrender and saying Sadr was leading the defence at the shrine and vast cemetery, one of the Middle East's largest.
"The morale of the fighters is very high," said Ahmed al-Shibani, a senior Sadr spokesman in Najaf.
Despite threats from the militia, Iraq reopened its main southern oil export pipeline after a sabotage attack on Monday and expects full supplies by late Thursday, an official said.
Analysts warned of a backlash even if the Imam Ali Mosque were undamaged and the militia beaten in Najaf. They said resentment could pose long-term consequences for Allawi.
"This has the potential to be a highly destructive bout of fighting," said Gareth Stansfield, a Middle East expert at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs.
"It's not just the physical damage, it's the symbolism of the Americans being in Najaf as well that is damaging."
</small></blockquote>
And what choice do we have, really? We have to fight the insurgency, and we have to defend our puppet government. We have to protect the oil pipelines, we have to kill civilians, we have to detain suspected terrorists, we have to suppress religious movements. We've jimmied ourselves pretty tightly into a very bad position. But hey–at least we pulled the reins in on Saddam, right?
One of the problems we seem to have is fighting battles as though the hydra of international terrorism can be defeated by cutting off its heads. Not that this matters to the Manichaeans in the White House. I just saw some footage of Cheney attacking John Kerry in a speech in Dayton, Ohio:
<br><blockquote><small>
But a good defense is not enough, and so we have also gone on the offense in the war on terror — but the President's opponent, Senator Kerry, sometimes seems to object. He has even said that by using our strength, we are creating terrorists and placing ourselves in greater danger. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world we are living in works. Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. (Applause.)
</small></blockquote>
Our philosophical and strategical deficiencies laid bare. If terrorist attacks are invited by the perception of weakness, why are the terrorists focusing on a country as militarily powerful as the U.S.? Shouldn't they all be massing on the Japanese shore? Look, every country has perceived weaknesses. To pretend that focusing our armed forces on foreign wars instead of "homeland security" is somehow going to show the world how strong and unassailable we are isn't just stupid, it's dangerously stupid. Anyway,
<br><blockquote><small>
Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. (Laughter.) America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare — nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A "sensitive war" will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.
</small></blockquote>
I agree with Cheney 100%. Those evil men who killed 3,000 Americans are dead, incinerated just like their victims. Isn't that frustrating?
<br><blockquote><small>
The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity.
</small></blockquote>
They're certainly not impressed with our strength, either.
<br><blockquote><small>
As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. Well, the American people know better. They know that we are in a fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life, and that we are on the side of rights and justice in this battle. </small></blockquote>
Aha–now we get to the heart of the matter. We're on the side of right, Senator Kerry! Did you hear that? THE SIDE OF RIGHT. We don't even have to use the tactics of right, as long as we're on the side of right (probably something to do with Jesus). Notice the subtle transformation Cheney uses to frame Kerry's objections to the White House's tactics: he moves Kerry from a "more sensitive War on Terror" to demanding we become more sensitive towards terrorists.
A "more sensitive" War on Terror (boy, was that bad phrasing) doesn't mean being more sensitive to its targets, but more sensitive to non-combatants, to bystanders, to civilians–potential enemy recruits and/or supporters.
<br><blockquote><small>
Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. (Applause.)</small>
</blockquote>
Wait a minute–we threaten people and kill innocents around the world, too! Cheney sounds like a radical cleric himself here.
