TheAgitator.com
Dead Bodies Don’t Attract Flies, They Breed Them, Ct’d…
Friday, August 20th, 2004Well, ya’ gotta give Chris Roach points for honesty:
We thus return to the “flypaper hypothesis” I first expounded a couple of years ago, in which the U.S. hangs out its flypaper far away from home, and also as far from Israel as possible, to collect as many as possible of the world’s moveable Jihadis in a place where the U.S. has installed the equipment to kill them.It’s working, after a fashion. Iraq continues to soak the enemy up. But whereas I formerly thought the Bush administration had adopted this policy consciously, I now realize it was a happy accident. They have consciously “taken the battle to the enemy”, but the quagmire — the “flypaper” — was hung by mistake.
Which makes the U.S. hesitate to do what needs to be done next, given the existence of fly-hatcheries all over the region. And that is to put out more flypaper, by moving U.S. troops on, over Iraq’s frontiers. Or to put it another way, it is time to create a few more quagmires.
First, of course, it’ll never happen. The American people aren’t ready for protracted “quagmires” across the Middle East. And they’re certainly not ready for the financial, emotional, and military commitment it would require. It couldn’t happen without conscription.
But even assuming a strategy spilling American, Arab and Persian blood all over Asia and Africa were politically feasible, there’s the little problem that it simply isn’t working. The continuing violence in Iraq isn’t coming from al-Qaeda operatives picking up shop from other parts of the world. It’s coming from Iraqis themselves. In other words, we aren’t attracting terrorists to regions far from western society, where we can then kill them. We’re creating terrorists. Bombs still blow U.S. soliders apart, yes. But they aren’t coming from al-Qaeda operatives migrating from other areas of the world. As the Brookings Institution shows in its “State of Iraq” index, the number of anti-American insurgents has quadrupled since April, to an estimated 20,000. Of those, only about 500 are believed to be jihadists or foreign nationals. So in Iraq alone, we now have 15,500 more freed America-hating terrorists than we had before the war. That number has jumped in multiples every month we’re over there.
This of course doesn’t include the number of Arab or Muslim men around the world angered into terrorism because of our actions and presence in Iraq.
I’d say you can make a pretty strong case that we’re actually less safe now than we were before April 2003.
Presumably, this doesn’t bother Roach. From his writing, I’m guessing he’s fine with creating new terrorists — we’ll just kill them, too. And if killing them begets more America-hating terrorists, well, we’ll kill them, too. Until, I guess, all young Muslim men are either dead or wearing American flag pins on their lapels. Which of course translates into an all-out war between the West and Islam.
So, Roach, why not save time, treasure, and U.S. blood — why not just nuke the whole region, now? Mecca, Tehran, Riyadh — wipe ‘em all out overnight? Beats taking 25 years to kill them one at a time.
If the arabs would stop thinking that their shit is holier than everyone else’s then maybe they would stop freaking out about America in Iraq. Who they hell are they anyway? I’m sick of this “gotta coddle the arabs, oh no, let’s not anger them” attitude. Suck it up world! Coddling doesn’t get you anywhere but screwed.
It’s a thought Radley. I basically do by the clash of civilizations thesis. I think we need to drive a wedge between the modern and peaceful variants of Islam and the more violent strains. That’s part of the plan in Iraq.
I have the impression that nationalist Iraqis resistance is more related to particular circumstances, like the Fallujah operation. I believe some of these groups have or will meld into the woodwork as the Iraqi government picks up steam. I could be wrong on this.
I think one of the challenges of this war is the perception that US can’t or won’t fight protracted counterinsurgencies and that fighting this type of war gives such combatants a type of immunity from attack. Disabusing the whole world of this notion is worth quite a bit of blood and treasure.
As for the breeding terrorists argument, I think we should fight a two front war, i.e., a physical war and a war of ideas. But just plain killing people that are willing to kill us always seemed like a good idea to me. At the 100:1 kill ratios we’re getting when these dummies come into the streets, we can do this shit all day long.
Also, in the interest of attribution, that quote above was something I quoted originally written by David Warren.
“The continuing violence in Iraq isn’t coming from al-Qaeda operatives picking up shop from other parts of the world. It’s coming from Iraqis themselves.”
I think it is too early to make this statement Radley. You most certainly may be right, but I haven’t seen factual data that I trust either way on this.
“…have you got the GPS coordinates?” he said, brightly.
Conservatives often speak of the “lump of labor fallacy”. Well, the flypaper theory amounts to a “lump of terrorism fallacy”, whereby every terrorist in Iraq is necessarily one less terrorist in the US.
“If the arabs would stop thinking that their shit is holier than everyone else’s then maybe they would stop freaking out about America in Iraq.”
As opposed to the fundementalist Christians in this country who also think their shit is holier than . . . ?
As to why we coddle the Arabs . . . oil for less than $100/barrel. That is the main (virtually sole) reason we care about anything that happens there. There are a substantial number of folks who still remember what happened when OPEC flexed their muscles in the 70′s, and they don’t want a repeat with an actively hostile set of government(s) controlling most of the easily available oil.
So we will continue to “coddle” (use diplomacy, not just exterminate) the Arabs until that far off day when the oil + coddling is more expensive than oil from elsewhere. (Note to the proponents of “alternate fuels”, those won’t reach viability until we are virtually out of oil in the world, and that is likely to still take a while).
Frankly, I don’t think it’s possible for Brookings to know the percentage of Iraqs v. foreign Jihadis in Iraq. To state that it is a mere 2.5% (or 500 out of 20K) smells rediculous on its face and the true number is certainly a lot higher. In fact I’d bet Radley a nice refreshing Bells Oberon that it’s a lot higher. Radley- I’ve got the beer and cooler if you have the tickets….let’s do a head count!
MOLLY 2004
i am just curious scooty b, who is molly’s running mate.
Michael,
Good question! I might need to find a cat to run with her for a diverse ticket…
MOLLY 2004
To everyone who thinks that oil is the sole motivation for interest in the Middle East:
STOP DRIVING.
“why not just nuke the whole region, now”
Hadn’t really thought of that option. Hmmmm…
Peter – Don’t start the “Islam vs. Christianity” thing, at least not until the average Christian fails to denounce terrorism done in their name. Until then, the comparison is completely ridiculous.
Scotty – I have a 5-year-old, swaggering badass cat named Riggs at home who would love a chance at the VP spot. He’s freaky-smart, takes no shit, and he’s got really great hair.
Avis, the kids are being killed by and the homes are being destroyed by…. I’ll give you one guess and it’s not us.
And when was the last time you heard anything from the KKK? Not that they dont exist anymore, but they’re nearly laughable. Please use a different more relevant example.
Christians aren’t threatening to kill anyone who’s not a christian, especially non-christians who are trying to help them. No comparison.
But Christians did exactly that.
To Doug, they DID, not do.
Also someone fighting our military isn’t a terrorist, they are the enemy. Attacking civilians could be considered terrorism
Ms. Dani – I used the KKK as a negative sterotype of what all Americans could be construed as.
The Iraqi people have been told that we are the enemy, that we want to take away their way of life, that we are Satan, etc. That is what we, as Americans, ALL are (that means you, me, Radley, Scotty, jason, Doug, everyone). We prove this by dropping missiles and driving tanks through their cities. We’re not going to make friends, “liberate” them, or break down the enemy threat. By definition, you cannot force democracy or peace.
We are making enemies, we’re reinforcing our negative stereotype, and by default, at least in the short run, we’re increasing the threat of terrorism.
Radley says,
“So, Roach, why not save time, treasure, and U.S. blood — why not just nuke the whole region, now? Mecca, Tehran, Riyadh — wipe ‘em all out overnight”?
I suppose that policy would have more credibility than THREATENING to do so as was suggested on this blog some time ago.
I don’t bring this up anymore until you do but this would be an excellent time for you to share YOUR plan with us.
I don’t know which I find to be the most troubling, the fact that you 1)criticize current policy with only the vaguest idea of any alternatives or 2)APPEAR TO BE COMPLETELY UNCONCERNED WITH THIS FACT!!(well, maybe I DO know which one bothers me the most.
I might be more inclined to look critically at what we are currently doing if someone were willing to sketch out some alternative action.
Hopefully soon, you will propose something a little more resourceful than backing toward the terrorists in the bent over position while extending a gar of vasoline.
If it will make it any easier for you, you needn’t concern yourself with any policy designed to make them love us.
Till then, it can also be argued that vigorous law enforcement makes criminals angry. I’m not so sure THAT, is a persuasive argument against vigorous law enforcement.
Frankly I WANT the kind of people that attack unarmed innocent civilians to hate us…and I want them to have good reason.
Bush/Cheney 04
There’s still only one country that’s used nuclear weapons on civilians, and it’s not in the MidEast.
TJ, we’re so evil, look at us.
There’s still only one nation that’s exterminated 6 million jews, and it’s not in the MidEast.
There’s still only one nation that’s exterminated 20 million farmers in famines and murder, and it’s not in the MidEast.
There’s still only one nation that has used chemical weapons to quell an insurgency, and it’s–oh wait.
What is your point again?
By definition, you cannot force democracy or peace.
Avis, go and ask Germany and Japan about that (you can ask Iraq later, too).
Admittedly, we have chosen a harder, but more noble road in Iraq … the transformation of dictatorship to rights-respecting democracy, without first grinding its people to the powder of unconditional surrender.
We are making enemies, we’re reinforcing our negative stereotype, and by default, at least in the short run, we’re increasing the threat of terrorism.
I submit that the vast majority of those we are supposedly “breeding” already hated us before the first American boot hit Iraqi sand in 2003. They were “bred” a long time ago … not only by a simplistic view of the violent actions we have taken in the region, but by our failures in Vietnam and Somalia.
Nothing sells like success — when we let fanatics like OBL and thugs like Saddam go unchallenged, they also rally others to their side, because they are perceived as standing up to the “weak and decadent” Great Satan.
The difference is, by taking the fight to their land, at the time of our choosing, their ability to plan our demise is disrupted … both by the need to keep up the appearance of strength over there, and by their need (thanks to GWB) to look over their shoulders on a regular basis, lest we execute their demise.
I also submit that those relative few who did not hate us until after OP Iraqi Freedom, are doing so in large part out of inflated expectations about American abilities — just as many immigrants thought American streets were paved with gold, prior to their arrival here, I think that many Iraqis believe that America can turn Iraq into Utopia overnight … and since that is not being done, it is seen as “evidence” of an evil intent to occupy and subjgate Iraq in perpetuity.
“I also submit that those relative few who did not hate us until after OP Iraqi Freedom, are doing so in large part out of inflated expectations about American abilities — just as many immigrants thought American streets were paved with gold, prior to their arrival here, I think that many Iraqis believe that America can turn Iraq into Utopia overnight … and since that is not being done, it is seen as “evidence” of an evil intent to occupy and subjgate Iraq in perpetuity.”
I think you nailed it Rich. I’ve seen many interviews with ‘Iraqis on the street’ that suggests they thought we were going to show up and shower them with money and jobs. I have no idea where they got that perception …..
James, Rich, good points.
I have a guess as to why that is. Well, for one, the whole thing is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Iraqi Free Lunch, but having been under Saddam for 35 years–an entire generation–they are used to submission, unfamiliar with autonomy and the responsibility that that brings. The great miscalculation was that Arab values are like our own–hard work, dedication, responsibility, independence. But their religion is one of subjugation, suppression, and exploitation.
Iraq represents a great opportunity as a turning point for democracy in the Middle East, and under Islam. It will take hard work, dedication, and determination to counter the mindset. Radley and co’s “cut and run” strategy is the worst of all possible courses of action.
Radly,
You’re probably right. Nevertheless, it should happen. A war can only be lost by taking the path we,re now on. I see no one there who has any real commitment to self government.
Too bad! But luckily I’ll probably not be around to see the worst of it. I do worry for the sake of my son and his family though.
Roy
…just an observation and not a position on my part: I was stationed in Oman for a while and I met some Omanis who told me that a great fear of theirs is that the lure of western culture (i.e. Madonna, Sex in the City,video games, distaff sexual freedom, public dissent, etc) was so great that they feared that their children would turn(and are turning) away from traditional islam. Because of this they had a slogan there that translated, loosely, into “Modernize; don’t westernize”.
My feeling is that maybe the desperation that Al Queda has to start a conflagration with the west hinges on this feeling that I got from the Omanis: that their culture is inch by inch being ‘corrupted’ by the west and that the only solution is to start a ‘war of cultures’ between the west and islam (before islam gets ‘seduced’ by the ‘whore of the west’)
you have to see how much people want what the west has to offer in these dusty provincial outposts to understand the instinctual alarm that the traditionalists in these countries have towards the west. When they talk about America as ‘the great satan’ they seem to be talking more about what they see as their own peoples seduction by what the west has to offer them.
There is probably no greater defeat in the Muslim world than to watch your culture turn away from the old ways and embrace that which you consider ‘sordid’ ‘squalid’ and ‘vile’.
Give them ten years of internet access and credit cards and we’ll beat them without firing a shot.
mosesmalone,
What status level would you say the Omanis you mention were at?
I’ve always wondered if a lot of “this love of Islam” stuff is really more like “love of the status quo”. There’s always a lot to be said for the “old ways” when they put you at the top of the heap.
By the way I think your last sentence is absolutely right. China too for that matter.
I think nearly all of us can agree that Democracy and Capitalism works on it’s own to prevent wars. “No two countries with a McDonalds have ever been at war …. ” or something to that eefect. We just don’t always agree on the way to ‘bring’ the democracy and capitalism to people.
Wow, the last three posts make perfect sense to me and I agree with them.
Who would have thought?
;-)
jonny