Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Eid ul-Fitr, and Death in Khan Bani Saad

A fifth victim died in raising recent Chattanooga, Tennessee, attack's death toll to six. (BBC News)

As I said Thursday, that's a tragedy. (July 16, 2015)

However, I think it's prudent to remember that Americans aren't the only ones terrorists kill.


(From AP, via The Australian, used w/o permission.)
(" A woman grieves at the site of the bombing in Khan Beni Saad, about 30km northeast of Baghdad."
The Australian (July 20, 2015))
"Islamic State Eid attack in Iraq kills 90 as Saudis arrest 400 "
AFP, AP; via The Australian (July 20, 2015 12:00 a.m.)
"Iraq mourned its dead yesterday as the death toll from one of its deadliest car bombs rose to at least 90.

"The suicide attack by Islamic State, which ripped through a busy market north of Baghdad, came as the country marked Eid ul-Fitr, the feast that ends the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan....

"...Muthanna Saadoun, 25, a ­municipal employee who drives a street sweeper, used his truck to help put out the fires that the blast caused in the market area.

" 'People were burning in their cars because no ambulances or fire engines were able to reach them,' he said yesterday....

"...'What we witnessed yesterday cannot be described. Fire, bodies, wounded, women and children screaming ... Khan is now a disaster zone,' said Salem Abu Moqtada, 34, who sells vegetables in the market....

"...'Every year (during Ramadan) there’s a bombing. We are guilty of being Shia,' Mr Saleh said. 'This is the biggest in Diyala since 2003.'

"Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi condemned the attack as 'a despicable crime by the Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist gangs'..."
Another spelling of Khan Beni Saad in my language is Khan Bani Saad.

Either way, the known death toll is about 130 now: 15 of them children. Apparently the attacker drove an ice truck to the market, announced that he was selling ice at a discount because of the Eid al-Fitr holiday, waited for a crowd to gather, and set off the explosion. I suppose the attack was justified — sort of — since there's a claim that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) was getting even for the killing of Sunni Muslims in Hawija. (Wikipedia)

I don't see it that way, but I come from a different culture: and have very different beliefs.

Don't expect a rant about 'those Muslims.' If all followers of Islam were this enthusiastic about killing folks who disagreed with them, or had killed someone who shared their particular flavor of Islam — the self-extermination would have been over centuries ago.

There is, I think, hope that folks in the Middle East will learn to restrain their less-reasonable citizens.

Saudi Arabia's government, for example, apparently has decided that arresting folks who plan to kill Saudis is a good idea. That's a start.

In the long run, I think changing the status quo will take a very serious review of what they believe: and hard decisions about what's necessary, and what's causing the bloodshed. Change won't be easy — as my native culture has learned on many occasions. But change happens, and change can be good.

I've said this before:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, September 26, 2014

The Islamic State: Air Strikes, Diplomacy, and Remembering Sargon of Akkad

I've said it before: war is not nice. Things get broken. People die.

But sometimes it's better than the alternative.


(From U.S. Central Command / Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("A still image taken from video provided by the U.S. Central Command shows a damaged building at an Islamic State compound near the northern Syrian town of Ar Raqqah, following an air strike. "
(Reuters))
"French, U.S. planes strike Islamic State, Britain to join coalition"
Arshad Mohammed, Tom Perry; Reuters (September 25, 2014)

"French fighter jets struck Islamic State targets in Iraq on Thursday, and the United States hit them in Syria, as a U.S.-led coalition to fight the militants gained momentum with an announcement that Britain would join.

"The French strikes were a prompt answer to the beheading of a French tourist in Algeria by militants, who said the killing was punishment for Paris' decision last week to become the first European country to join the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

"In the United States, FBI Director James Comey said Washington had identified the masked Islamic State militant in videos with a knife at the beheading of two American hostages in recent weeks. Those acts helped galvanize Washington's bombing campaign.

" 'I'm not going to tell you who I believe it is,' Comey told reporters. He said he knew the person's nationality, but declined to give further details...."
The Reuters article goes on to say that "a European government source familiar with the investigation said the accent indicated the man was from London and likely from a community of immigrants."

There's more, about "credible intelligence that Islamic State networks in Iraq were plotting to attack U.S. and French subway trains" and a growing coalition of nations. Apparently quite a number of Arab nations have already joined, with European leaders a bit slow to get with the program.

I don't know whether the Europeans are following the 'my end of the boat isn't sinking' philosophy, aren't sure how their constituency will react, or haven't sobered up yet.

Either way, my guess is that quite a few European governments will decide that, on the whole, getting their butts saved by a U.S.-led coalition is better than losing their heads under an Islamic State in their home territory.

I'd like to believe that there's a chance for a peaceful resolution to the current mess. The folks running The "Islamic State" are human, and in principle could decide that their best course of action is negotiating: followed by pursuing their goals in a less violent way.

Given humanity's record, that outcome does not seem likely.

Making Mistakes, Making Sense


I run into folks who feel that the world's problems are cause by Islam; others who feel the same way about Christianity, and some who say that all religion causes trouble.

Considering how the first two lots act, I have some sympathy for the latter. But I think 'all of the above' make the mistake of overgeneralization.

Some Christians behave badly. So do some Muslims. But some of us have our heads screwed on straight, and understand our faith. A case in point, from the Reuters article:
"...More than 120 Islamic scholars from around the world, including many of the most senior figures in Sunni Islam, issued an open letter denouncing Islamic State. Challenging the group with theological arguments, they described its interpretation of the faith as 'a great wrong and an offense to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world.'

"'You have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder,' said the letter, signed by figures from across the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco. "
(Arshad Mohammed, Tom Perry; Reuters)
I'm not a Muslim, by the way. I'm a Catholic: which in some American circles is just as bad.

I'm assuming that the "Islamic State" mentioned in the Reuters article is another name for ISIS, (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). I've discussed that lot in another blog:

Unhappy About Change


Apparently ISIS, the folks who killed James Foley, aren't happy with today's world. They seem to yearn for the 'good old days,' when they believe Islam measured up to their standards and preferences. They're probably quite sincere: and certainly willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Victims of their zeal include  Shia Muslims, Druze, Mandeans, Shabaks, Yazidis, and Christians. You'll find more about ISIS at "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." (Wikipedia)

Folks being unhappy about change isn't a uniquely Muslim experience.

I run into Catholics who seem convinced that we should return to the 'good old days' — as they remember them. Catholics who yearn for yesteryear occasionally get together and form their own little micro-church, but don't seem inclined to kill outsiders.

I'd say 'Christians are better than that:' but realize that now and then some of us go rogue.

The nearest thing America has had to ISIS are groups like the Ku Klux Klan: folks who seem convinced that they're 'protecting' America from 'foreigners' and our 'evil' ways.
(A Catholic Citizen in America (August 24, 2014))

Taking the Long View: and Hope


I think today's conflict between the Islamic State/ISIS and everyone who like living in the 21st century will most likely end violently. I am also quite certain that it will end.

Even if the Islamic State endures the end of this conflict, and stays in control of Subartu, they won't stay in control. Sargon of Akkad conquered Subartu about 43 centuries back. Then he died, his empire fell, and the territory has changed hands quite a few times since.

Change happens. How change happens depends on what we do.

I hope that humanity will eventually cobble together an international authority "with the necessary competence and power" to end war and settle disputes with justice and mercy.1
"...Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

"There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law...."
("Locksley Hall," Alfred, Lord Tennyson)
Those were among my favorite lines of poetry in my youth. A half-century later, they still are; although I've learned to temper my hope with patience.

Cobbling together a globe-spanning 'Council of Humanity' will, I think, take generations. Centuries. But I think it will be worth the effort. And that's another topic.

Related posts:
1 ("Gaudium et Spes," 79; Pope Paul VI (December 7, 1965)

I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, and the 'good old days' when America's establishment was run by WASPs: so I understand why some folks fear a "world government" almost as much as they fear commies, Republicans, foreigners, or right-wing extremists.

But I also think that government of some sort is necessary, and that humanity may eventually find a way to settle disputes without mass homicide. As for fears that 'the government' will take away freedom: that is a reasonable concern. How some folks react to that concern is — another matter.

I am a Catholic, so my faith requires that I respect and defend the freedom of everyone.

More of my take on government and freedom:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, December 19, 2011

Not-So-Good News from Iraq: Arrest Warrant; Debatable Confessions, and Politics

American troops are moving out of Iraq. Which may or may not be something that the current administration will want folks to remember next November.

I'd be a whole lot more happy to see Iraq's new lot of leaders pass another milestone, if it weren't for something I read in today's news.

By the way, I've noticed a change in news coverage over the last several years. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but reporters and editors seem to have finally realized that The Masses aren't quite the gullible ignoramuses - - - and I'll get back to that.

On a more immediate and serious note, Iraq's politics are in the news again:
"Arrest warrant issued for Iraqi vice president"
Joamana Karadsheh, CNN (December 19, 2011)

"An Iraqi investigative committee issued an arrest warrant Monday for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who is accused of orchestrating bombing attacks.

"The committee of five judges issued the warrant under Article 4 of the country's anti-terrorism law.

"The Interior Ministry, at a news conference, showed what it called confession videos from people identified as security guards for al-Hashimi, the country's Sunni vice president. In the videos, the men described various occasions in which they purportedly carried out attacks under direct orders from al-Hashimi...."

Bombs, Videos, and News

Iraq's Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi may be guilty of ordering terrorist attacks on people in his own country. Or not.

I really don't know.

What I'm fairly certain about is:
  • Bombs went off in Iraq
    • And people died
  • Someone made videos, purportedly
    • Featuring men who
      • Worked for the Vice President
      • Confessed to serious crimes
      • Said the Vice President was the mastermind
The videos are real enough. CNN says they've been shown at a news conference, and I'm inclined to believe that assertion.

Bombings in Iraq have been in the news. People have reportedly died. Again, I'm inclined to believe the assertions.

Confessions, Coercion, and Removing the Opposition

As for whether the new videos are an example of convincing acting, coerced confessions, or something else? Back to that CNN article:
"...One man said he carried out assassination attempts using roadside bombs and guns with silencers. He said some orders came from the vice president and some came through the director of his office. The man also alleged that he and others were told that if they didn't carry out the attacks, their families would be killed.

"CNN could not immediately confirm that the men in the videos were bodyguards for al-Hashimi...."
(CNN)
Hats off to CNN: like quite a few other mainstream news outlets, they're apparently learning that
  • Being told something is true doesn't mean that it really happened
  • It's a good idea to let readers know what is
    • An unsubstantiated claim
    • An assertion that someone verified
Like I said before, I don't know whether the Iraqi Vice President is guilty or not. I do think these confessions popped up at a very convenient time for folks who plausibly might want Tariq al-Hashimi out of the way. If al-Hashimi is captured by his political enemies, I hope that he doesn't 'commit suicide.' Or simply disappear.

Iraq, Politics, and All That

I'll say this for the last few American elections: nobody's tried to finger a major candidate for personally ordering a hit. In a way, that's a tribute to the moral fiber of America's political community.

There's another election coming up, and I hope that American politicos continue to limit themselves to weirdly emotional appeals; mudslinging, ballot box stuffing, and crackpot legal shenanigans when they lose, anyway.

On the whole, I'd rather live in America than anywhere else in the world: but perfect this country isn't.

Getting back to Iraq, CNN, and what could be a really messy situation:
"...Three of the vice president's security guards were detained earlier this month.

"Over the past few days, [Iraqi Vice President] al-Hashimi's office told CNN it feared that his three guards would be forced to make false confessions.

"Confession videos in Iraq have been controversial. Human rights groups have reported previously on allegedly forced confessions...."
(CNN)
If al-Hashimi has been arranging premature deaths for personal gain, what his office said might be an effort to reduce damage from anticipated confessions.

Or, al-Hashimi's staff may have been genuinely - and legitimately - concerned for the welfare of the guards.

Confession? Yeah: Me an' the Boys'll Get a Confession For Ya

"...Ali al-Mussawi, media adviser to Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said over the weekend that confessions would link the Sunni vice president to bombings...."
(CNN)
Maybe the Iraqi Prime Minister's media chap simply had confidence that Iraq's judicial officials would guide those guards down the path of wisdom. And that, filled with enlightenment, they would willingly acknowledge their past deeds.

Or maybe the Prime Minister's media office figured that, one way or another, there would be video of a confession to show at the news conference.

Again: I really don't know what's behind that arrest warrant. But I think it's a too convenient for his political enemies than I find comfortable. Back to CNN:
"...The arrest warrant Monday came amid a political crisis and growing sectarian tensions in Baghdad that erupted just as the last U.S. soldiers exited Iraq over the weekend.

"Iraqiya, a powerful political bloc that draws support largely from Sunni and more secular Iraqis, said it was boycotting Parliament, a move that threatens to shatter Iraq's fragile power-sharing government.

"The move pits the largely Sunni and secular coalition against the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"Iraqiya contends al-Maliki is trying to amass dictatorial power, and many believe al-Maliki was simply waiting for the Americans to leave before making his move...."
(CNN)
I don't envy folks who are honestly working to sort out the mess left by Saddam Hussein's decades in power. They've got hotheads to deal with coming in from several directions: Sunnis, Shiites. And, up north, Kurds:
"...Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said Monday, 'I hope there wasn't a political influence in this arrest warrant, but in Iraq there has been always a political influence.'

" 'This is very upsetting and confusing,' Othman said, adding that if the accusations are true, then al-Hashimi 'should be brought to justice.'..."
(CNN)
I've been over this sort of thing before:

'The Masses,' Assumptions, and Getting a Grip

Here's where I get back to reporters, editors, and assumptions about 'gullible ignoramuses.' Briefly, I think that North America's coastal cultures have cherished beliefs that just aren't true:
"Six Ignorant Stereotypes About Middle America"
Paul Jankowski, Entrepreneurs, Forbes (October 5, 2011)

"What do you think of when you hear 'Heartland', 'the South' or 'Middle America'? If you're like a lot of people I know on the coasts, the first things that come to mind are usually not positive.

"This is a real quote from a marketing exec in New York City: 'I think the Heartland is a nice place to raise children. People are nice, but they're dumb, overweight, and gullible. They wear tacky clothing and jewelry. They're racist, unworldly, and dumb.'

"If you agree with the quote above, you need to get out a little more. Stereotypes exist for a reason, but if you’re trying to build a brand and engage consumers at a deep level, oversimplifications will hurt your cause. Stereotypes, taken to cynical extremes, are big-time brand killers...."
(Originally quoted in footnote 1, "My Take on the News: Jingle Bells, Jangled Nerves, and Good Advice," A Catholic Citizen in America (December 16, 2011))
I live in a state that's north of the 'flyover states,' have a counter-cultural view of folks living outside major metropolitan areas, and I've been over that before, too:
Other related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, March 18, 2011

Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings

I'm getting to Libya in the next post.

The powers that be in Yemen and Bahrain are having a shot - literally - at trying the Libyan colonel's approach to leadership. They're having their enforcers kill people who say they don't like the way things are run.

Historically, America's leadership hasn't been quite that rough on folks who aren't on the same page whoever is running things in Washington. Even here, though, it seems hard to understand that "disagreement" isn't "treason;" and that someone can have a different opinion without being 'the enemy." I've posted about that before:
Still, I'd rather live in America:

Shia, Sunni, and Shooting the Opposition

Excerpts from today's news:
"Security forces and government supporters opened fire on demonstrators in the capital on Friday, killing at least 30 people. But the crackdown failed to disperse the protest, the largest seen so far in the center of the city, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh declared a state of emergency...."
(The New York Times)
"Hundreds of angry Iraqis demonstrated in the holy Shiite city of Karbala on Thursday, protesting the use of foreign troops in the crackdown against anti-government protests in Bahrain...."
(CNN)
"A senior Iranian cleric on Friday urged Bahrain's majority Shiites to keep up their protests—until death or victory—against the Sunni monarchy in the tiny island kingdom...."
(MercuryNews.com)
"Bahrain's Shiites are burying their dead amid a continued government crackdown in this Sunni-ruled island nation in the Persian Gulf...."
(ajc.com)
Some folks in televised news's op-ed segments have been saying that what's happening in Bahrain is a sort of proxy war between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. I think they've got a point. Sunni and Shia, two flavors of Islam, aren't equally represented in Saudi Arabia, and Iran, or even in Bahrain, Iraq, and Yemen:

CountryShiaSunni
Bahrain170%30%
Iran289%9%
Iraq260%-65%32%-37%
Saudi Arabia15%95%
Yemen136%63%
1 PBS (see Background)
2 CIA (see Background)

Religion: Important, Yes; Everything, No

I think that religion is an often-misunderstood factor in society. I think that the politically correct notion that religion kills people is silly: but acknowledge that some have done bad things for what we call "religious" reasons. (October 31, 2007)(and A Catholic Citizen in America (April 12, 2010, July 24, 2009))

I am also fairly certain that the folks in Bahrain, at least, have fairly solid economic reasons for wanting change. Again, without accepting the notion that economics and class struggle, along with psychology and/or instinct, explains everything.

For all I know, the way the Persian and Arabic languages handle verb declensions may be a factor in today's conflicts. I think philology may prove to connect with neurology, psychology, and maybe genetics - and that's several other topics, as well as speculative.

Saudi Troops Killing Shia Civilians in Bahrain: So What?

Another excerpt from today's news:
"...This week, military forces from the Gulf Cooperation Council -- including Saudi Arabia -- arrived in Bahrain to help the kingdom control a wave of anti-government protests, prompting the Obama administration and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to urge council members to act with restraint and to allow the citizens of Bahrain to demonstrate peacefully.

"Although Bahrain's protesters are making primarily economic and political demands, there is a sectarian dimension: Bahrain's population is 70% Shiite; the royal family is Sunni, as is the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recently has seen small demonstrations among its minority Shiites...."
(CNN)
I think that the Saudi royal family, and other traditionalists in the Arab world, are in an unenviable position. They seem to be dedicated to a way of life that's threatened. In a way, their troubles started in Europe and North America during the 18th century.

The 'good old days' of aristocratic privilege are gone. These days, even beating your wife, or your wife beating servants, is frowned upon in quite a few countries. (January 12, 2011, November 2, 2007) That, along with beer commercials and individual rights, must be hard to accept. For folks who grew up enjoying privileges, at least.

In the short run, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and like-minded folks may succeed in holding on to their old ways.

I think it depends in part on whether or not their enforcers run out of bullets, so to speak, before folks who want change run out of bodies and determination.

In the long run, I think their way of life is over. Monarchies may continue, along the lines of British royalty - and I'm not going to get started on the shenanigans there. I've written about the cultural angle of the war on terror before. (April 5, 2010, March 19, 2010, October 14, 2008, and elsewhere)

I also think that killing your subjects is a miserably ineffective way of instilling loyalty: whether practiced by an old-world monarch, or a self-styled revolutionary.

Which brings me to Libya: and that's another topic.

Related posts:
News and views:
Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Iraq, Elections, the Usual News, and Kids With Inky Fingers

An election happened in Iraq, in early 2009. You've read about the violence: traditional news services have seen to that with their usual efficiency.

This, you may not have read about:
"Defying instructions by the Baghdad Operations Command (BOC) not to take children to the voting centers, some of the young ones went, but only to color their fingers with the indelible voting ink in imitation of their elders.

" 'My five-year-old protested staying at home and insisted on coming with us to the ballot centers, not giving much interest to other kids’ plans to play football in the streets that were empty of cars due to the traffic ban,' Umm Ahmed, a local resident of the New Baghdad area, told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.

"Voting centers in Baghdad and other 13 provinces started at 07:00 a.m. Baghdad local time to receive eligible voters who are electing their candidates to occupy all 440 seats in local councils amidst blanket security measures.

"Umm Ahmed pointed out that her son colored his fingers with the voting ink to pompously boast among his peers that he was the only kid in the family who was allowed to cast his vote...."
(Aswat al Iraq, English language edition)
Offhand, I'd say we won: particularly if the leaders that Iraqis vote in tell American/coalition forces to leave their country.

My guess is that they're no more foolish than another selection of humanity - and whatever they say, they won't do anything unless they're sure they can hold their country together without outside help. If Iraq's new leaders tell the foreigners to go home, I figure that means they've got situations well in hand.

And if it turns out they're wrong, we'll still be here.

Related posts:In the news:
A tip of the hat to mstoneman, on Twitter, for the heads-up on Iraqi kids with inky fingers.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, February 12, 2010

Afghanistan: Diplomacy, Dialog, Cultural Sensitivity, and 4,000 Marines

BBC reports have been stressing the NATO aspects of an offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Understandably, since it's a British institution, and much closer geographically to Europe's NATO than to the country that grew out of those 13 colonies.

Nato, Diplomacy: and Marines

One of today's BBC articles on the developing situation in Afghanistan makes the military operation sound - well, military.
"Nato begins major Afghanistan offensive"
BBC (February 13, 2010)

"Thousands of US, British and Afghan troops have launched the biggest offensive in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

"Helicopter-borne forces are attacking the Taliban-held districts of Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand province in a bid to re-establish government control.

"Nato says Marjah is home to the biggest community under insurgent control in the south and 400 to 1,000 militants.

"Many residents fled ahead of Operation Moshtarak - meaning 'together' in Dari.

"Nato had distributed leaflets in the Marjah area warning of the planned offensive in a bid to limit civilian casualties. Villagers said they warned Taliban fighters to leave the area or be killed...."

"...Operation Moshtarak is being led by the US Marine Corps, but a total of 4,000 British troops are involved on the ground and in support, supported by Danes and Estonians.

"The initial offensive in Marjah, in Nad Ali district, began early on Saturday.

"More than 4,000 US marines, 1,500 Afghan soldiers and 300 US soldiers moved in by helicopter under cover of night...."
What's a bit less obvious in leading news from Afghanistan is the sort of diplomacy that's going on before - and, quite possibly, during - the strictly military aspects of the operation.

I'd like to live in a world where outfits like the Taliban - particularly their leaders - would have a change of heart, decide that it's okay for women to drive cars, apologize for killing people they didn't approve of, and start being nice.

I think it's likely enough that some people who supported the Taliban out of fear or inadequate knowledge will be willing to abandon terrorism. But dedicated islamic terrorists? No, I think the odds are strongly against their deciding to be nice.
"Nato forces in Afghanistan to launch Helmand operation"
BBC (January 25, 2010)

"...But if there was a conversation before the operation between the Afghans and village leaders, he said, 'we often find the Afghans don't fight - but they will welcome you'.

"He pointed to an operation run in a similar way by Canadian forces to the west of Kandahar 'where not a shot was fired'.

"And in an operation by the Grenadier Guards in central Helmand province 'the same effect was created', he said....'
I'm reminded strongly of what the American-led coalition did in Iraq. (And, no, Bush wasn't "going it alone" - although admittedly a little under one in eight of Earth's 265 nations and other administrative units were in the coalition. (August 9, 2007))

Many Iraqis simply didn't know about foreigners, western or otherwise. As they discovered that these foreigners, when they weren't fighting Al Qaeda or Hussein holdouts, repaired and restocked hospitals, fixed sewer systems, and made themselves helpful in other ways - Al Qaeda propaganda started to be questioned.

Al Qaeda's efforts to win support by cutting off people's heads probably didn't help their popularity, either.

I doubt we'll hear much about the Anbar Awakening and related grass-roots movements in Iraq: That was, after all, Al Qaeda in Iraq, not the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Besides, America has a new administration now - but perhaps I'm being unfair.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 26, 2009

Another Big Bomb in Baghdad

It's old news, in a way:

"Death toll rises to 160 in Baghdad bombings"
CNN (October 26, 2009)

"The death toll from twin car bombings in Baghdad climbed to 160, with hundreds more wounded in the deadliest attack in the capital in more than two years, the Interior Ministry said Monday.

"At least 540 people were wounded in Sunday's attacks.

"One of the bombs exploded outside Baghdad's governorate [sic] building, the other outside the justice ministry. The bombs detonated in quick succession about 10:30 a.m., officials said...."

I haven't posted on this before, for several reasons:
  • It's been a busy year for my family
    • A daughter married
    • My father died
  • This latest bombing in Baghdad is
    • A personal tragedy for hundreds - possibly thousands - of people
    • Nothing new
This may sound cold or harsh, but Iraq was under the control of a selfish tyrant for about three decades. Putting together a functional government, getting the sewer systems and power grid working right, and sorting another Versailles-related mess.1

And, getting all that rebuilding and diplomacy done while religious crazies and (probably) Iranian agents are doing their level best to foul up the process? Under the circumstances, I think it's mildly surprising that blasts like Sunday's don't happen more often.

It's not that I don't care: but I've seen nothing to show that this attack represents any sort of change.

It's greatest significance seems to be that the Iraqi government is reacting in what I see as an admirably defiant way. If some bunch had blown up buildings and killed people in Minnesota's capital, I'd much rather have representatives of the governor say that there's no way the terrorists will win, than hear nice gestures of reconciliation.

But, I'll admit that I'm biased. I don't approve of terrorism, and don't want the likes of Al Qaeda to win.
1 I know: a lot has happened since 1919. But I don't think today's situation was helped by telling Kurds, for example, that they had to put up with boundaries drawn by foreigners, based in part on what luminaries like President Wilson thought, and administrative divisions set up by the Ottoman Empire.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Truck Bombing in Iraq: Lions of Islam Hit Another Mosque

I see in the headlines that yesterday's truck bombing near a mosque near Kirkuk, Iraq, is more than the familiar news.

It was in Taza, a town roughly 10 miles southwest of the Iraqi city.

The body count from yesterday's bombing in Kirkuk, Iraq, is now 80. The number of wounded is 211, and 50 or more buildings were destroyed. Apparently it was the most destructive bombing in Iraq so far this year. (CNN)
"...Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called the attack a 'heinous terrorist crime.'..." (CNN)
I think the Iraqi Prime Minister is spot-on with his description of the bombing.

What is it With the Lions of Islam and Mosques?

I've been impressed with the way that people who claim to be defending Islam so often send a personal representative to make sure that a mosque gets damaged or destroyed in one of their attacks.

I suspect that this preference hasn't escaped the notice of Muslims, either.

If this keeps up, more may follow the example of Mohammed Shaikh and his mosque in Toronto.

More-or-less related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Truck Bomb Kills Five! (oh, and Iraqi Prime Minister Pledges No Retreat)

The headline is familiar enough: "Truck bomb kills at least 5 in northern Iraq." The attack was near a Shiite mosque, after noon prayers, south of Kirkuk.

Five paragraphs of that standard-issue bit of news pushed something else down the page:
"...THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's prime minister says the withdrawal of U.S. troops from urban areas by the end of this month will be a 'big victory' for the nation...." (AP)
Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, acknowledged that terrorists ("millitants," in AP-speak) will stage more attacks. My guess is that he didn't realize how little time that would take. But never mind.

Al-Maliki also said that Iraq wouldn't let the attacks turn back the clock on Iraq's security. says militants will try to stage more attacks but Iraqi security forces won't let them reverse security gains.

I see his "...'we will not retreat no matter what happens.'..." (AP) as more of a statement of intent than certain knowledge: but I also think it is a good sign.

As I wrote earlier this year (February 15, 2009), Iraq is acting like an independent country. I think it's very near time to say, "mission accomplished."

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, June 12, 2009

Using a Kid to Bomb a Mosque: Non-Western Cultural Values, Just Plain Evil, or Something Else?

If I read the score right, three people in al-Shawaf Mosque in Baghdad were killed, and a dozen injured, when a 15-year-old kid threw a grenade. The kid also killed others, including an Iraqi parliament member.

The kid exchanged fire with guards at the mosque, and was killed.

Using Kids as cast Cat's-Paws: Evil, or a Non-Western Value System?

One thing I learned in college was that to fit into the more 'sophisticated' circles, it was necessary to recognize all cultures as being of equal value, with non-western cultures being more equal. Criticism of non-western cultures, unless it was on the basis of environmental impact, saving the whales, or some other worthy topic, marked one as a pariah. Not everybody on all campuses had quite that 'enlightened' a view of reality, but it was not at all uncommon, either.

People steeped in the Eurocentric, male-dominated, traditional American culture might regard using a fifteen-year-old boy as a disposable cat's-paw as "bad."

Letting my college training kick in, I could explain how, in the cultural context, it's perfectly okay to use kids this way: it's even a commendable act. But, I did that last weekend. (June 7, 2009)

Iraq's government doesn't seem to be quite that 'enlightened.' Iraq's Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, ordered an investigation after the American military released the report that inspired last weekend's post.

And, seriously, I'm one of those people who think that, although the old-fashioned, jingoistic notion that the world is divided into "people" and "foreigners" is at best silly, there are some things that are, simply, wrong. Looks like I'm not the only one to have such a 'narrow' view of things:
"...'To endanger children with acts of terrorism is despicable,' said Lt. Col. Hugh McNeely, the deputy commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry. 'But when terrorists actively recruit them to risk their lives for goals that the child probably doesn't even understand is evil. There's just no other way to say it.'..." (CNN)
An important point, before moving on: I think that using an unwitting stooge - of any age - in a lethal attack is wrong. I do not know enough about what the dead teenager knew, and what he believed was happening, to pass any sort of judgment on him or the people who sent him.

And, finally, no: I don't think that whoever wound that kid up and pointed him toward al-Shawaf Mosque and the member of parliament was your "typical" Muslim. From what I've read, and Muslims I've corresponded with, I think there may not be a "typical" Muslim, or "typical" form of Islam.

Islam seems, in many cases at least, to be a veneer set over a region's existing cultural values and practices. That's very 'democratic,' in a way: but also help explain why Muslims bomb mosques now and again.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Young Iraqi Teens as Suicide Bombers: Getting More Bang for the Buck

If you're in agreement with the woman who crashed a vigil for Private Long, the soldier killed at an Arkansas recruiting center, you can ignore this post.

She's the one who said, "If you do research, about The New York Times and the Fox News they're owned by who? Jews! They're liars! They're liars!..."

Iraqi Insurgents Getting More Bang for the Buck

Suicide vests cost money. And, even if they're donated by the daftly devout, an insurgent group will have a limited supply of the things.

So, it makes economic sense to get the most value possible out of them.

Insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing that.

On the other hand, The New York Times carefully points out that, although the American and Iraqi military have reported instances where they were attacked by someone in their early teens:
"...In many attacks, it remains unclear exactly what took place, with residents giving accounts that diverge from official American or Iraqi explanations...." (NYT)
The New York Times also reported:
"...In Hilla, south of Baghdad, residents said American forces shot and seriously wounded a 6-year-old girl on Saturday after a bomb went off near their patrol.

"American military officials denied the report...." (NYT)
I'm assuming, for the moment, that "residents" in Iraq, who may have been the ones who wound the kid up and pointed him or her toward the soldiers, may not be the most reliable sources of information. I'm also assuming that officers of the American armed forces give accurate information more often than not. Abu Ghraib and Professor Churchill notwithstanding.

Looking at the situation in Iraq with a biased, Eurocentric value system, it might seem that using kids around the age of 14 - or 6 - to attack soldiers isn't very nice. One of the things I learned in college is that Americans shouldn't apply their values to people in other cultures.

So, looking at what the insurgents seem to be doing objectively, I can see that having someone who may have been 14 be the star in a suicide car bombing (AP), and having kids lob grenades in the general direction of American or Iraqi troops makes perfect sense.

There's a chance that soldiers may be hurt or killed. If the attack is carried out at a time and place where (real) residents of the area are going about their business, there's a better chance that some of them will be hurt or killed.

And, if the affair is a suicide attack, there's a near-certainty of at least one fatality.

Never Underestimate the Propaganda Value of a Tragically Dead Teen

Even if no American soldiers are killed, the people who used young Ali or Fatima as a cat's-paw get top-notch material for propaganda. Something along the lines of "American soldiers gun down innocent Iraqi teen." The rest of the story practically writes itself.

If people living in the area are hurt or killed, that's even better. They can become victims of America's war of aggression, too.

Am I being too cynical about the motives and methods of the Iraqi insurgents? Perhaps. Or, maybe I'm an unwitting dupe of the Jews and/or those shape-shifting space alien lizard people.1 I don't think so, though.

More-or-less-related posts: For yet more somewhat-related posts, key the word 'propaganda' (no quotes) in the search box near the top left corner of this blog's page.

In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
1 Interestingly, I've yet to hear or read the assertion that the Jews are David Icke's shape-shifting space alien lizard people. I suppose that's a bit much for even the most avid conspiracy theorist to swallow.

On an unrelated note: "Swallow" reminded me of The Visitors' eating habits, in the 1983 V miniseries. Perhaps some people will swallow anything.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Iraq's Soft Surge; Pakistan and the Taliban: Weekend News and History

Just a quick post, about Pakistan's success in swapping the Swat Valley for peace; and Iraq's success in slowing down the surge.

I think it would be nice if disputes could be settled with a cordial chat over a pot of tea. When one group's philosophy is 'death to people we don't approve of,' being nice doesn't always work.

The Pakistani government apparently tried being nice to the Taliban, giving them the Swat Valley to rule. That, judging from what's going on this weekend, worked about as well as handing the Sudetenland over to Germany did, back in 1938.

Don't get me wrong: I love negotiation. I think it was a good idea to reach out to Afghans who may have supported the Taliban more out of ignorance and (quite possibly) fear, more than out of wholehearted solidarity with the Taliban's peculiar version of Islam.

The previous administration tried something like that in Iraq: and it worked then. Something like it could work in Pakistan.

However, there has to be more than "nice" involved. In addition to reaching out to people who aren't all that enthusiastic about Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other set of beheading enthusiasts, it looks like armed force has to be used against people who are sincerely, wholeheartedly, devoted to killing people who don't measure up to their standards.

It looks like Iraq is finding that out, now that the new Iraqi government is running things without foreign 'interference.'

'If it Worked Once' - Common Sense and Diplomacy

I think it's reasonable to think that, if something worked once, it might work again. That's why I think that the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Afghans who might not be strongly tied to the Taliban made sense.

On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to think that, if something (spectacularly) failed to work before, it might not work again. Which is why I'm not at all surprised that the Taliban in Pakistan doesn't seem satisfied with the Swat Valley.

Learning from the Past: Hopeless Only for Those Who Won't

Hopelessness has been fashionable for most of my life, so I could 'be sophisticated' and quote:
"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history."
(George Bernard Shaw)
Looking at this weekend's news shows that "man can never learn anything from history" is true - for some of us.

I'm inclined to see things differently:
"History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Or:
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience."
(George Santayana)
I'm not completely on the same page with either Cicero or Santayana: but they do seem to understand a bit about how the world works.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Sloppy Contractors, or: GEORGE BUSH STILL KILLING U.S. SOLDIERS!!!!!!

Sounds like about 16 American soldiers were electrocuted in Iraq. That's 16 too many. Three were killed while showering. One was killed by a swimming pool.

Another soldier, Ron Vance, was so traumatized by an electrified shower, he says, that now he can't take a shower without his wife being around. Vance also says the military didn't take his (psychological?) injuries seriously. With respect, I can see why.

The problem is very real: 16 bodies worth.

The news told about two victims:
  • Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth
    • Showering: pump malfunctioned
  • Staff Sergeant Christopher Lee Everett, Texas Army National Guard
    • Cleaning a vehicle: power washer short-circuited
Maseth's family has sued KBR, the contractor that's overseeing maintenance at most American facilities in Iraq. (AP) For now. KBR says it's not their fault. That case may run until the Maseth's family runs out of money.

Looks Like a Monumental SNAFU

As far as the 16 dead soldiers are concerned, it doesn't matter what combination of sloppy work and inadequate equipment inspections killed them. They're dead.

For everybody who's still breathing, something's gotta be done!

And, is being done. Task force SAFE (Safety Action for Fire and Electricity) is working its way through U.S. Army facilities, looking for bad equipment.

It's a big problem. Roughly a third of inspections have, apparently, uncovered "potential electrical hazards at 15,000 of the 41,000 facilities visited since the task force's inception in August, a US military spokesman said." (guardian.co.uk)

The AP tells the same story - in more detail. There are 65,000 facilities to go in the inspection - and, since the American military deals with the real world - where things take time - inspections could take the rest of this year. (AP)

Task Force SAFE - Cue Sarcastic Comments

I didn't run into any searing criticisms on the inhuman, incompetent, and generally yukky American military: but it's early days. Army news ran an article last month, and the shocking case of the deadly showers hit national news today.

With an acronym like SAFE, there will probably be some very witty writing done on the subject.
Better Surge Protectors: Good Idea!
Besides repairing defective equipment, the Army's getting better surge protectors. The ones they were using in Iraq were purchased in Iraq. (AP) Nuf said.

This is Bigger Than Shocking Showers: Sloppy Work is Unacceptable

A (very former) co-worker, in meetings, often asked "is it important?" I finally lost it and said something like this - "Important? If you mean, a hundred thousand years from now, will anybody know or care what color paper goes in this mailing: No, it's not important. If you mean, a month from now, how many orders will we be getting: Yes, it's important."

My co-worker wasn't, I think, either stupid or sloppy. I found out later that she and her husband were having their first baby: I think she was trying to get fired, so she could stay home, without having to say that she quit.
Electrical Equipment: No Room for Sloppy Work
Sloppy security, sloppy news reporting, sloppy inventory control - with nuclear weapons no less, and now sloppy quality control. I've harangued about sloppiness before. I'm no fan of 'the good old days.' I was born in the waning years of the Truman administration, and remember the sixties and seventies pretty well, and a little of the fifties: They were no Golden Age.

Today, our technology should encourage a zero-tolerance approach to quality control.

Technology has always been hazardous. Even when the club was the latest in cutting-edge military technology, people had to be careful. Letting the thing fall could mean an injured foot. Or, if you'd incautiously leaned it against a overhead branch, it might hit your head: possibly killing you.

We've come a long way. A worst-case scenario - - - Anybody watched "Dr. Strangelove?" lately? Or "Fail-Safe?" Or "The Swarm?"

Okay: That's Hollywood, where killer bees can make a nuclear power plant go pfft in seconds - without killing the bees - and military installations seem peculiarly prone to equipment malfunctions.

Out here in the real world, nuclear weapons can get misplaced (and, once, did). Conceivably, one of them could go off at a very embarrassing time and place. And, at this moment, there's enough power coursing through that light switch over there to kill you, several times over.

What's going on in Iraq is the more every-day sort of problem: no crazy general, no killer bees, no incredible exploding reactor, just bodies piling up because of shoddy equipment and lax quality control.

I've said this before: "there's a war on."

This is not the time to turn on, tune in, drop out: even if a college professor said to. People's lives are at stake here: and not just the soldiers who use this junk. Everybody who is counting on those soldiers to preserve their freedom to wear trousers, worship God, Allah, Elvis, or nothing at all, and stage anti-military protests, has something to lose here.

I Remember the Communist Threat (real), and Commie Plots (not so real)

And, proving that there's no tragedy or SNAFU that can't be put to work for politics: This SNAFU is George W. Bush's fault. So say some.

Of course. Everybody knows that.

" 'The process of finding and fixing this problem has gone far too slow,' said Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org, a veterans group. 'We've known about this problem for years, and it's inexcusable that our troops continue to face the threat of severe injury or death not only in the battlefield, but when taking a shower back where it's supposed to be relatively safe.

" 'The previous administration wanted to farm out way too many things to contractors, without any real accountability, and this is one of the legacies of that terrible decision.' "

SNAFU? Yes. Being Fixed? Yes. Hate Bush? Always

The problem is real. It's a bit hard, given what's in the news, to figure out what's taking so long to fix it. But, looking closely, it's pretty clear that there's an effort under way to make showering safe.

A real effort, not the tired old 'blame the guy I hate' routine.

This reminds me of the 'good old days,' when there was no problem, big or small, that wasn't the fault of the commies. According to 'right-thinking' people.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work

I felt 'lively apprehension' after reading that President Barack Obama wanted "to reach out to Taliban" in Afghanistan. (AP) President Obama's background and style during the election reminded me of the 'good old days' of my youth, with its values of peace, love, and spitting on soldiers.

This isn't the sixties, and (so far) President Obama hasn't fulfilled my worst-case scenarios. And I'm not at all disappointed.

Reaching Out: to the Taliban?!

Reading past the headlines, always a good idea, I discovered that Barack Obama seems to have the idea of opening doors for Afghans who support the Taliban, but aren't utterly committed to the Taliban's no-trouser ideology.

That actually makes sense. Parts of Afghanistan aren't all that cosmopolitan, and quite a few 'pro-Taliban' Afghans may have heard about Western civilization mostly through the Taliban and people like professor Ward Churchill.

Once they find out that westerners can be reasonable people, and aren't as touchy about dress codes as the death-to-men-wearing-pants outfits, quite a few Taliban supporters might change their minds.

Reaching Out to the Enemy: Sound Familiar? It Should

President Obama isn't the first western leader to try dealing with non-fanatic supporters of terrorists. The "diabolical" George W. Bush's administration did the same thing, around 2006, in Iraq. That time it was Al Qaeda, not the Taliban: but the principal was the same.

Between turn-arounds like the Anbar Awakening and the Surge, Iraq is now relatively terrorist-free, and following the American Way of squabbling over election results.

Reaching out worked in Iraq, it might work in Afghanistan.

Reaching out, Yes: Giving In, No

One reason that I think President Obama's gambit in Afghanistan may work is that Afghanistan is not Pakistan.

Afghanistan's national leader doesn't have military leaders under him who gave orders to shoot American and Coalition soldiers if they chased terrorists in his country. In fact, the Afghan government seems quite willing to let western forces help them get control of their country.

Pakistan, on the other hand, recently handed the Swat Valley over to the Taliban. That's not quite how the deal was spun, but that's the gist of it.

There are No Rice Paddies in Afghanistan

Finally, "quagmire" is back. An op-ed in the Boston Globe sports this in the second paragraph: "However, the 17,000 new troops may actually help avoid a quagmire. The long-term challenge Obama faces in Afghanistan...."

"Quagmire" was a very effective metaphor for the Vietman War mess. Between rice paddies and natural landforms, Vietnam has quite a lot of sincerely soggy ground. For Americans who had been fed a steady stream of images from Vietnam, "quagmire" resonated.

Afghanistan, like Iraq and Pakistan, isn't a very damp country. At least one alert writer called America's 'failure' in the Middle East "quicksand."

I like to think that, as years go by and the more adventurous writers and thinkers in America become familiar with realities in the Middle East, terms like "quicksand" will replace "quagmire" as a metaphor for America's 'racist oppression' of indigenous people and 'popular uprisings.'

It would be nice, if more of America's 'better sort' found out what a sweet deal they've got: but I'm not holding my breath. One of the drawbacks of having freedom is that, after a while, it's easy to forget about the alternatives.

More-or-less related posts: News and views: Background:
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.