U.S. Forces Kill 20 Insurgents in Iraq

[ckramer]

U.S. troops and warplanes killed 20 insurgents Saturday while destroying safehouses for foreign militants near the Syrian border, and four more American military deaths edged the war's U.S. death toll closer to 2,000.

link

[tabasco]

1. We know they were terrorists because they were dead.

How many innocent people were murdered today??

How many real terrorists did we create with our brutality?

[slay]

2. US forces kill 20 PEOPLE in Iraq

Is what the headline should read. "Insurgents" is one of those words Republicans use to de-humanize Iraqis. We called them "insurgents" so it was OK to kill them. :(

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Just like in Vietnam...all dead Vietnamese were Viet Cong...

...and each body part represented a full human being.

[Psephos]

3. How many blood-crazed American soldiers did the terrorists create?

It does go both ways....

Peace.

[tabasco]

4. I am an American soldier.

Been in combat twice. Looks like it's going to be three times.

Still not a blood-crazed killer.

However, if an army came to my country and blew up an innocent member of my family, my life purpose would be to extract revenge, through whtever means.

See the difference??

[Bigmack]

8. I've seen several pieces on TV..

... about US soldiers/Marines from the Vietnam war returning to that country in recent years and meeting the men they fought against. (Khantum Diary is one.) Seems that the Viets especially have just let it go... they don't hate the Americans any more.

I don't think the situation will be the same in Iraq. The culture is different... the religion is different. Revenge is built in.

I think we'll be fighting this thing forever.

If you go back... keep your fucking head down, Tabasco!

[tabasco]

11. I am amazed at the Vietnamese capacity for forgiveness.

It is happy to see reconciliation but disheartening that we are in another unnecessary war.

I hope that the Iraqis and our (former) allies will forgive us. They may forgive us but they will not trust us again for a long time - thanks to the gangster Bush regime.

[Psephos]

13. I do see the difference

And I appreciate your point of view, as well as your service.

I meant the "blood-crazed" phrase ironically. I come from a military family myself.

I worked hard to see we steered clear of war, but it was not to be. Now we must deal with things as they are, not as they should be.

This war will now be decided by images and perceptions, more than bullets. My view is that the current situation in Iraq is more complex than politicos of either the right or the left portray, and that the most strident voices on both sides are driven less by actual concern for Iraqis or American soldiers than for scoring points against political opponents. The strength of political hatred in this country is creating entire cadres of feuding Hatfields and McCoys. Just as vicious, just as futile.

In this case, I would point out that many of the people shooting at American soldiers right now are not Iraqis, but young idealists from other countries who feel it is their religious or political duty to take up arms and repel the (for lack of a handier phrase) infidels. More importantly, whoever these insurgents are, they do not all have the interests of Iraqi people at heart. We know this because they have killed an awful lot of Iraqi civilians without batting an eye.

My back-of-the-envelope analysis is that the most militant of the insurgents are driven far less by nationalistic outrage than by fundamentalist Islam visions of a theocracy, or at minimum, a sense of brotherhood within Islam and a shared hatred of Westerners. Xenophobia is deeply ingrained in human DNA, and religious fervor seems especially potent in unleashing it. In contrast, I believe these young men's native leaders are driven by a realization that it is now or never for Baathists and their allies. These realists have made common cause with the "imported" leaders such as al-Zarqawi, for whom Iraq is clearly a must-hold. It was bin Laden himself who observed that the people prefer a strong horse over a weak horse. Millions in the Muslim world now look at this conflict as a test for Al Qaeda and similar organizations, to see whether they merit further support.

Power lust is at the heart of nearly all wars. There's more than enough on both sides here to ensure much more bloodshed. A sad mess, and one that could have been prevented.

Peace.

[IChing]

14. "people shooting at American soldiers right now are not Iraqis,"

Totally delusional wishful thinking, How dare you?

Do you want links?
I will give you links but you first

SUPPORT THAT ASININE STATEMENT FIRST.

[Psephos]

16. Please treat me with the same respect you feel you deserve

We are fellow DUers here and you are out of line. I offered my opinion; you have a different one. If you wish to discuss this, you must learn to not punch me in the face first.

Peace.


On edit: I noticed that your quotation from my post left out part of the sentence, and thereby changed its meaning. That is distinctly uncool. What I wrote was "I would point out that many of the people shooting at American soldiers right now are not Iraqis."

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
- William Blake

[IChing]

17. Prove your point with links that they are not Iraqis

give me links, back it up with facts not Your opinions

"I would point out that many of the people shooting at American soldiers right now are not Iraqis." YOUR WORDS, POINTING THAT IT IS FACT NOT STATING IT WAS AN OPINION.

It did not say "in my opinion" it said "I would point out"

I will not listen to a Faux news opinion on foreign insurgents doing the fighting in Iraq
so you deserve the respect I gave your "opinion" on fact. You insulted DU and its readers

with that Tripe that you want me to swallow,

I didn't punch you, but I gave your "truth" a slap.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. IMHO, that stuff is not going to fly on this board....

...IMHO, you are TOTALLY out of touch with reality as it currently exists in Iraq. Until you can prove otherwise, the vast majority of people fighting for the Iraqi insurgency are Iraqi nationals.

Additionally, Herr Busch ILLEGALLY ordered U. S. troops into Iraq, another sovereign nation, purely for the sake of STEALING Iraqi oil. Continuing to occupy Iraq is not going to make the insurgency go away...on the contrary, it will only make it stronger. The U. S. found that out the hard way in Vietnam, as did the old Soviet Union during the Soviet-Afghan War

[wtmusic]

24. You will earn respect when you validate your opinions with facts

and not regurgitate administration propaganda, which pretty much sums up the bulk of your post:

"Many of the people shooting at American soldiers right now are not Iraqis, but young idealists from other countries who feel it is their religious or political duty to take up arms and repel the (for lack of a handier phrase) infidels."

(More crazy religious maniacs--the convenient bunch to which any morals may be ascribed)

"More importantly, whoever these insurgents are, they do not all have the interests of Iraqi people at heart. We know this because they have killed an awful lot of Iraqi civilians without batting an eye."

(You lump Iraqi civilians who support the puppet government with the general population...why?)

"The most militant of the insurgents are driven far less by nationalistic outrage than by fundamentalist Islam visions of a theocracy, or at minimum, a sense of brotherhood within Islam and a shared hatred of Westerners...these young men's native leaders are driven by a realization that it is now or never for Baathists and their allies."

(Compare to: If North Korea invaded the US and you chose to resist, it would only be because of your hatred of Asians. And it's now or never for Baathists...those like Muqtada al-Sadr?)

None of this is supportable by anything outside Pentagon press releases.

[Psephos]

30. I don't "earn" the right to be treated civilly, I have it by default

I forfeit it not when I think different thoughts from what you would prefer, but only when I turn into an asshole. That's true in the rest of life and especially true here on DU.

I'm fine with you and others not respecting my opinions, but I am not my opinions. After all, the whole point of having a discussion is that we have different ways of seeing things; otherwise, why bother. But I am not fine with being called names, having my motivations slandered, and being treated rudely because I happen to have a different point of view. There is an old Chinese proverb: one can identify the weaker argument by listening to whether it has been shouted.

I offered my opinions civilly and expect the same in return.

Peace.

[wtmusic]

35. Wonderful -- now that we've got that out of the way

can you back up any of your opinions with facts, or just hearsay from your "drinking buddy"?

[tabasco]

18. I know what you mean.

I wonder if mankind will survive long enough to evolve to become truly human. :shrug:

To clarify my post - I was only pointing out that the Iraqis have a lot more to be angry about than our soldiers. A soldier will be angry if a buddy in his squad is killed, but he should direct the anger to the people who sent him to war - unnecessarily.

[Psephos]

23. I agree with you completely, tabasco

Now keep yourself out of harm's way, ok?

Peace.

[Voltaire99]

20. Colonial history...

teaches quite a simple lesson: the invaded despise the invaders.

Even that obviousness hasn't been understood in America. Until it is, there's little to be gained from concocting Orientalist fantasies, cobbled together from establishment US news sources, of what drives the Iraqi resistance and these fabled "young idealists from other countries." Such narratives are right at the heart of this failed war.

First, inquire: what do you really know about Iraq, and who has taught you it?

Secondly, ask: how well have they steered you thus far?

[Psephos]

22. You also are applying a theory, Voltaire

Which is cool, because that's what we all do, more or less.

Well, I still have some caffeine in my bloodstream, so I'll have a shot at your questions.

"First, inquire: what do you really know about Iraq, and who has taught you it?"

Some of the best first-hand information I've gotten recently has been from the commanding general of the Michigan National Guard. He's also an old drinking buddy. I trust boots-on-the-ground sources first (he has Iraqi mud on his). Through him, I discovered other sources I felt I could trust. My contacts include a military professor of urban warfare strategy at the Army War College, two former spies for the CIA (husband and wife), and the director of the Watson Institute's Global Security Program, to name a few from a list of dozens.

My background as a writer of documentaries for national television has given me long practice in vetting sources. Many of my military contacts came from a film I wrote and produced in 1997 called FutureWar. I am happy to say that events of recent years confirmed almost all the projections I made in that film. Principal among those was that war of the future would increasingly be fought between rogue organizations and hidebound national militaries. These wars would begin conventionally on the ground, but after a period of asymmetrical frustration, be won in the media, the battlespace of the future. I called it SoftWar. (I think most of my fellow DUers would be very comfortable politically with my views on war.)

I also, like many others, read widely. I prefer apolitical analysis from professionals who have devoted years or decades to their work, and I avoid websites and other news sources with a political point of view when gathering facts. Experience has shown that those who already have a point of view cannot avoid selecting and shading the facts to suit their politics. Naturally, I have my own biases, but that's the point: I prefer to roll my own biases, rather than smoke someone else's.

It requires an elastic mind and a set of critical judgment skills to sort the factual wheat from the subjective chaff, especially when dealing with second- and third-tier sources. Generally, on this board, I've been praised effusively for my critical thinking when I agree with someone else, and chastised (sometimes viciously) for lacking critical thinking skills when I disagree with someone else. That kind of says it all, I think. :-)

"Secondly, ask: how well have they steered you thus far?"

That's easy. They haven't steered me. I've steered me, as much as anyone is able to do that in this world. If I reach different conclusions from someone else, that isn't ipso facto evidence that I've been led down the bridle path. Reasonable people can and do reach different conclusions. One thing I've observed is that there are voices from all sides warning me against listening to false sources (where false is defined as any viewpoint that doesn't agree with that of the warner). Naturally, whoever warns me also has a direct line on the truth, and expects me to plug right into it.

Regardless of what conclusions I've reached, I can assure you with all seriousness that I have not dabbled in Orientalist fantasies, and have not cobbled together a pastiche from establishment US news sources. I have likewise resisted the equally dangerous urge to dabble in Occidentalist fantasies, and have not cobbled together a narrative from anti-establishment foreign news sources. No dabbling and no cobbling for this kid. :-)

As for the numbers behind my original post, the most credible information I have is that approximately 3,000 of the 30,000-strong insurgency are foreign born. The leadership of the insurgency is disproportionately foreign, although still distinctly minority. A lot of foreign money keeps the insurgents in bullets and butter. Iraq is increasingly being used as a training ground for Islamic radicals who rotate through Iraq, then take their newly-learned skills back home to be applied locally. Meanwhile, the majority of the front-line fighters are Iraqi Sunnis from conservative families from with the Triangle. They fight not so much from a sense of national unity against occupiers, as much as from a sense of Sunni unity. Many of them have proven susceptible to the religious exhortations of their leaders, as well. They bitterly resent the power lost in the overthrow of Saddam and feel that the only chance of its restoration is to defeat the US occupation through asymmetrical warfare, adroit control of world opinion, and in particular, weakening of US political will. Time will tell. My own view, previously stated, is that this whole mess was both foreseeable and preventable, a catastrophic mistake on the part of the White House and its civilian political advisors. I think the US public is trending inexorably toward this view, and that will bring a pleasant surprise for Dems on election day next year.

These are my opinions, nothing more, nothing less, nothing personal.

Peace.


"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
Bertrand Russell

[wtmusic]

25. So 10% of the insurgents constitutes "many"?

Assuming your figures are accurate, 3,000 of the 30,000-strong insurgency are foreign born. :shrug:

[Psephos]

27. Yes - why are you so concerned about splitting semantic fine hairs?

It smells of other motivations to me.

See if you have a similar reaction to this statement: "Many US citizens have African-American ancestry."

The proportions are similar - the US populace is about 11% African-American.

Peace.

[Zhade]

29. Semantics? You're back-pedaling.

You said "most" are not Iraqi, now you're saying 10% (which ISN'T the definition of 'most' by a long shot) is splitting hairs?

Face it, you were wrong. Admit it and move on, but don't even try to suggest it's a mere semantical difference. That's intellectually dishonest.

[Psephos]

31. And you're making things up and ascribing them to me

Hmmm.

I didn't say "most" aren't Iraqi, I said many aren't. And you want to preach to me about intellectual honesty.

My later post is more specific, but you ignored that. We can differ about the meaning of an imprecise word like "many" but frankly, don't you have better things to do? What's next, an argument about how many "several" is?

Whatever. I hate this kind of pretend argument. Reminds me of an old married couple fighting. (shakes head)

[IChing]

32. No, you wrote this

I didn't say "most" aren't Iraqi, I said many aren't. ___in this post


"I would point out that many of the people shooting at American soldiers right now are not Iraqis"----in your other post

Please quote yourself correctly next time.

By the way I check out your Movie you wrote and produced

"Future Wars" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113135/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0400177/

http://www.jabootu.com/futurewar.htm

I loved the card board box bit

[Psephos]

41. Nice try, wrong movie

It's a documentary called FutureWar, not a feature called Future Wars.

If you feel the urge to lecture others about quotation mistakes, perhaphs you should avoid them yourself. Just a thought. LOL

[Zhade]

33. My mistake, you said many, which is ALSO incorrect.

10% isn't 'many', but whatever. Believe what you wish, even when it's wrong.

[Zhade]

28. Uh, you're completely wrong - the US military admits it's mostly Iraqis.

You're way off on the facts, friend.

[Vickers]

26. Well put.

:thumbsup:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Another wedding party?

[WhiteTara]

6. I wonder how many "insurgents" were under the

age of 10 years old. I can understand why our soldiers are coming home and killing themselves. No human can just kill and kill for no real reason and not go insane.

[buddysmellgood]

12. I had the same thought. How many of the "insurgents" were children?

[bahrbearian]

9. Soooo ,, we are doing body counts ? I thought we didn't.

[Aimah]

15. Propaganda

The body counts are to point out to the American public that more Iraqis are dying than American soldiers. In their thinking this will cause Americans to believe that we are winning the war and overpowering the Iraqis. In sales they say "Don't win the battle but lose the war". Meaning don't argue and fight with a customer on small issues, they can easily chose another place to do business which causes you to lose money.

We might be winning the battle but we aren't winning the respect of the Iraqis.

[Voltaire99]

19. Very good point

Body counts are indeed fictions. No one can take them seriously.

There's something especially pathetic about these propaganda counts in a lost war, where their futility magnifies the depth of the failure--turns the merely tragic into bloody farce.

[Darranar]

40. We are not "winning the battle."

The war began in March 2003, it's now October 2005. That's over two and a half years of constant warfare, and the resistance is no less effective now then it was then, in fact it seems more so.

We are losing the battle, all we're doing is killing tens of thousands of people.

[Darranar]

39. No, we just make stuff up. n/t

[Rex]

10. I wish they would make up their mind on who we invade next.

Syria, Iran, Syria, Iran, Syria...oh boy here comes an investigation...gotta pick one quick!

[confludemocrat]

42. Yeah, killing Iraqis is so "2004"! n/t

[catmandu57]

34. Where's the headline about 42 American soldiers dying this week?

Even with my dysfunctional math I can see that the difference between 1954 and 1996 is 42. While that may be the answer to life, the universe, and everything, it tells me that the number of casulities is rising very sharply.
That's not counting the wounded or lost equipment either.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Translation: We flattened a village and killed women and children

I think I finally got the hang of understanding the Orwellian language the US military uses.

"Four more American military deaths" makes me think of how many more were horribly wounded that the Pentagon does not want us to think about.

[electron_blue]

37. Is "insurgent" now used in place of "civilians"?

[Darranar]

38. "safehouses for foreign militants"

Like the "al-Zarqawi safehouses" we bombed in "precision strikes" in the months that the invaders were bombing Falluja before their razing of the city and butchery of its inhabitants?

I seem to recall that those were inhabited by innocent families, with children.

But the servile media calmly reports what the military propagandists tell them to.

And the "Iraqi officials" of the same Iraqi government that faked the election report that "no significant fraud" was found in it? Wow, what a surprise! Truly shocking.