� Day One | Main | Osama's Motivation, America's Capability �

April 02, 2004

Why Not Bomb Fallujah?

Air America did two things yesterday. It cranked up the juice on its transmitters and it cranked up the juice in its commentators. Whichever woman I heard yesterday evening talking about the stocks of American and United Airlines proves that this new radio station can be as crackpot as Pacifica. Certainly as Pacifica goes broke, they'll all bleed over. Al Franken is good, period. These other loonies are voices from the insane asylum.

While I'm not likely to subject myself to any such bleating in the near future, I have already heard enough of their theories (preheat oven to 200 degrees and warm for 3 minutes) to know that they are the sort who are full of Itoldyaso over the recent incident at Fallujah in which several Americans were literally roasted and then hung from a bridge. To these wild and wooly lefties, GWBush is the bloodthirsty tyrant who is looking at every opportunity to expand his thoughtless reign of unilateral militaristic domination of innocent brown countries. The mob at Fallujah represents to them nothing more than the justified reaction of cornered pawns in a geopolitical chess game in which America is a rogue red queen. This Air American airhead literally said that our purpose was to bomb Iraqi villages in order to save them.

But what does it take to bomb Fallujah and why are we not doing so? Can anyone honestly say that it is beyond our capability? We could carpet bomb the entire place with a day's notice. But we don't. It's not because we can't; it's because we don't want to. It is inconsistent with America's purpose in Iraq, which is not to bully people around or teach them a lesson in anything other than post-tyrannical life. Self-governance is the lesson, and we can only hope that the new government of Iraq has learned something from our forebearance. Clearly other people in Fallujah make it plain that they do not wish to learn any such lessons, but since we have such hardheaded fools domestically, such stubborness comes as no surprise. We can be thankful that Airhead Americans have as their only weapons of miniscule destruction, the power of AM radio. Not that they could shoot straight.

Posted by mbowen at April 2, 2004 09:48 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1724

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Not Bomb Fallujah?:

Where Are We Now? from Right on the Left Beach
The Fallujahites have committed an atrocity that is truly over the top. Let's see if "the world" condemns the atrocity or, as I suspect, reacts with a - you got what you Americans deserve - shrug. Kevin Drum has a [Read More]

Tracked on April 2, 2004 11:40 AM

Why Not Bomb Fallujah? from Infinite Monkeys
Cobb makes a point that I would have made, if I had been on top of things. A certain portion of Americans reacted to the Fallujah massacre, understandably, by calling for the city's annihilation. Cobb observes: We could carpet bomb... [Read More]

Tracked on April 2, 2004 06:01 PM

GEORGE BUSH: THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST from The Galvin Opinion
George Bush's human rights triumph is why some liberals like Markos Zuniga (Kos) feel they must resort to shameful rhetoric - concerning the young men who were burned alive, mutilated and left to hang from a bridge - by saying the murdered Americans ... [Read More]

Tracked on April 2, 2004 09:50 PM

Comments

Whether it's a highly-paid Mercenary or a uniformed grunt getting his hazard pay cut, the death of any American citizen in a foreign conflict touches us all. We should agree on this.

And we should remember the fallen - all of the fallen, be they Soldier or Soldier of Fortune.

But I ask only this:

Please remember that some of the fallen first took a solemn vow to defend our Constitution and our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They sacrificed their lives and their sacred honor for us. Think of that when you're tying a yellow ribbon around the tree.

For all the rest, use a green ribbon.

Posted by: sun zoo at April 2, 2004 11:11 PM

It is inconsistent with America's purpose in Iraq, which is not to bully people around or teach them a lesson in anything other than post-tyrannical life. Self-governance is the lesson, and we can only hope that the new government of Iraq has learned something from our forebearance.

The question is, are the people or Iraq ready for such a lesson? There seemed to be no significant proactive opposition or resistance to Saddam. While the people may have been interested in the idea of self-determination, there seems to have been no synchronized, popular uprising in the wings. I suspect that as a result of trying to rush this (and doing so under false pretences at that), things are going to get worse before they get better. In a country where people are not ready to stand up for themselves, power will be seized by an unrepresentative minority, or terrorists will make use of the power vacuum.

Posted by: Steve D at April 3, 2004 01:34 PM

Ah, but that is where we have been missing, in our media lessons, a bit of true history. That bit is that the Kurds, among others, rebelled against Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. Saddam gassed them precisely because they were in open rebellion. The same bit applies, so I am told, to the Shia who in a choice between conscription into Saddam's secular army to fight against the Ayatollahs of Iran, chose the spirit of Iranian side.

This is part of the lesson I learn in suggesting that Hussein was purely genocidal against 'his own people'. The fact was that he didn't own them.

So we might go back to Bush 40 and lay some blame at his doorstep in that the reason he did not aid the Kurds and Shia was that they were in spiritual cahoots with Iranian clerics. File that under 'internal matters'? Probably not.

Posted by: Cobb at April 3, 2004 04:47 PM

Interesting, thanks for the info.

I don't know much about the beliefs that dominate either the Kurdish or Shia groups. Are they interested in freedom, or just in forcing their own sectarian / tribal agendas on the rest of the population?

By the way, I came across the snippet on the psychohistory list. Haven't verified it.

"...the civil war in Iraq will commence. Now that the junta has appointed a "civil" minister of defense who is (a) Kurdish and (b) whose father was Saddam's top henchman in curbing Kurdish rebellion, the US forces have made yet another fatal mistake."

One of our European colleagues offered the [preceeding] prediction of events allowing there to be a major conflagration in Iraq shortly. This prediction is based on the appointment of a Saddam loyalist as defense minister -- someone who had been largely responsible for the violence done to the Kurds in the past.

If we take this mistake by Bremer alongside the Defense/CIA mistake in adopting Chalabi as their favorite for Iraq leadership, we have grounds for distress. Chalabi, a convicted embezzler in Jordan, has admitted to feeding false information to the Bushites about Saddam and about what actions to take after the military campaign ended, has embraced Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's Shiite demands for popular voting (which would lead to an Iranian-style theocracy), has his own US-paid militia and seems to have been spreading huge sums of money around to bribe many into forming alliances with him. Indeed, there have also been several references to how the future will be under "President Chalabi".

Posted by: Steve D at April 4, 2004 11:42 AM