Comments on: Overhyping Al Zaqawi?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:35:49 +0000

And I think I should add: There's a major difference between the Military thinking something is worth fighting for, and the PEOPLE thinking soemthing is worth frighting for. And the perception of what the 'something' under discussion, is usually different, between the two, in the case of less than free nations... such as Cuba, for example... or, China... or.... Yes, Saddam's Iraq.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:27:17 +0000

The Iraqi Army sure fought like there was something worth fighting for during that bloodbath against the Iranians from 80-88. The entire country was mobilized for that war.

Well, yes and no.

When you have a proverbial gun to your head, you'll fight, but not as well as when your heart is in it.

By: Leo

Leo — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:21:36 +0000

The jihidi's are a bit like the mafia in one way: their management training program sucks rocks.

Speaking generally, they get less competent the more and older ones you kill.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:30:06 +0000

DCL: And then Saddam promply gave back the minimal gains from that war in a futile effort to get Iranian backing during the 1991 Gulf War.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:18:06 +0000

Under Saddam, there wasnâ??t really much of a nation to be loyal to.

The Iraqi Army sure fought like there was something worth fighting for during that bloodbath against the Iranians from 80-88. The entire country was mobilized for that war.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:42:37 +0000

â��The latest crackdown.â�� Enough said.

Because of course if you do it right the first time you'll never have to do it again. So enlighten us, Anderson: how do you do a crackdown so right the first time that there never has to be another? And how would you really feel about it if it happened?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:27:27 +0000

The [central premise of the U.S. intervention in Iraq] was that Iraqis are primarily nationalists and only secondarily sectarians

One can certainly understand the confusion. Under Saddam, there wasn't really much of a nation to be loyal to. This is a point that eludes the leftist press... they still can't get their arms around the concept that anything was wrong with Saddam's rule of Iraq. Remember, too that to the 'one world' left, nationalism is incomprehensable on it's face. With all this, and since the Iraqis now actually have a nation to 'up'... something they lacked previously... the resulting nationalism is beyond the left's wildest nightmares, let alone their predictions.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:15:43 +0000

Early indications are that the latest crackdown by security forces are having significant success:

"The latest crackdown." Enough said.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:58:20 +0000

There are quite a few people who believe that in Iraq and, presumably, the War on Terror more generally, every time you kill or apprehend a terrorist you create one or more new terrorists to replace him. Maybe that's Chris's position. I don't agree completely with that calculus and, in particular, I think that every foreign jihadi apprehended or killed is a victory for us and, more importantly, for the Iraqis who bear the brunt of the punishment the foreign jihadis have dealt out. I continue to believe, however, that there needs to be a change in incentives in Iraq and where, when, and how that will happen isn't clear to me.