Comments on: Terrorists Tie Bomb Belt to Dog in Iraq

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 27 May 2005 22:35:17 +0000

Lurk: Not necessarily. I think a combination of military and political moves may well have "beaten" Sadrism, in the sense that we (and Sistani et al) may have convinced Muqtada more or less permanently to pursue politics rather than war. On the question of the lack of an al Qaeda attack within the territorial US in the last four years I'm agnostic: the general pattern has always been that it takes many years for AQ to pull off a US operation. I've come around to Gene Healy's theory that AQ got lucky in 2001 and was never that formidable an organization to begin with, AND they've been hammered pretty well in Afghanistan and Pakistan to boot. With the Sunni-inflected Iraqi insurgency, however, the record seems to show that, indeed, quiet periods represent mere rest and tuning up, while active periods are each more sophisticated and wider-scaled than in the past. Given that an irregular war force wins by not losing, my conclusion is indeed as you say. I believe I come in at 1.5 out of 3 test cases on your accusation, then.

By: Lurking Observer

Lurking Observer — Fri, 27 May 2005 17:28:14 +0000

Jim Henley: I take it you subscribe to the opposite view: If the attacks go up, they're winning. If they're going down, they're conserving their forces. If attacks stay the same, we're stagnating. If attacks flutter randomly up and down, then Rummy has no idea what to do? DC Loser: Yes, that's why I suggested that there are several possible reasons for this (and notice they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Both sides are adapting and evolving. Nor did I mean to suggest that it necessarily is desperation, just that if the reasons for the change (as opposed to the change itself) are due to certain factors, then it is desperation. So far, though, no one has seen fit to inform me, at least, as to why they might be changing tactics, hence the menu of possible rationales.

By: Hyscience

Hyscience — Fri, 27 May 2005 16:01:52 +0000

Perspective And Proportionality: On Explosive Dogs, Koran In A Toilet Is Abuse, But The Burning Of A Christian Cross By Muslims Gets A Pass

IRAQ insurgents attached explosives to a dog today in a bid to bomb a military convoy near the northern oil centre of Kirkuk but the animal was the only casualty

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 27 May 2005 15:45:07 +0000

this type of âinnovationâ shouldnât be read as pure desperation. Wrong! If attacks go up, they're desperate. If attacks go down, they're beaten. It attacks stay the same, they're stagnating. If attacks flutter randomly up and down, they've lost direction.

By: Mark in Mexico

Mark in Mexico — Fri, 27 May 2005 15:39:02 +0000

Dog Bomb

Dog Bomb
Would you strap an explosive device on ol' Buford and send him out to the road, then trigger the device and blow ol' Buford to smithereens? Well, they would.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 27 May 2005 15:38:03 +0000

Don't try to read too much into this. I see this as part of the constant cat and mouse adjustment of tactics, techniques, and procedures to adapt to changing circumstances. Notice the higher U.S. casualty rates these past few weeks, and they're still not running out of people willing to set off suicide car bombs. We already know the insurgents are quite adapt at adjusting their tactics and weaponry to adjust to our forces, so this type of "innovation" shouldn't be read as pure desperation.

By: T. Longren

T. Longren — Fri, 27 May 2005 15:32:30 +0000

Dog Bombing

Be warned, I drop the f-bomb very readily and multiple times in this post. Don’t read if you’re easily offended.
God, this is asenine. Seems the bad guys in Iraq have pretty much run out of suicide bombing volunteers. What the hell are...

By: The Jawa Report

The Jawa Report — Fri, 27 May 2005 14:56:53 +0000

All Dogs Get 72 Bitches in Paradise You know the bad guys are in bad shape when the run out of 'volunteers' for suicide bombing missions. Where is PETA when they're really needed? Terrorists tie bomb belt to dog in Iraq:Insurgents in Iraq attached explosives to a...

By: Lurking Observer

Lurking Observer — Fri, 27 May 2005 14:39:28 +0000

DC Loser: The Soviets used "mine dogs" against German tanks in several documented instances. They were marginal successes, but were primarily desperation weapons. Which suggests that the terrorists/insurgents may well be having problems of their own in Iraq. The decision to use such weapons (little emotional impact, since dogs are viewed as unclean) is driven by one of several possible factors: 1. Our forces have become very good at detecting suicide bombers, marginalizing their effectiveness. 2. The jihadis are running out of people to volunteer. 3. The jihadis have concluded that use of alternative delivery methods is good for reasons apart from "2" and "3" (frex, inspires outrage by American viewers, complicates US targeting). If either "1" or "2" are primary considerations, then this provides additional evidence that the war is being won in Iraq, and is being won by our side.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:47:02 +0000

What abot when American intelligence agencies tried to use dolphins to blow up the President, huh? Huh??

LOL!

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:45:10 +0000

I think dogs carrying explosives have been used since WWI.

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:32:43 +0000

At least he will get his 69 bitches....

By: ICallMasICM

ICallMasICM — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:06:51 +0000

What a thing for a man to do to man's best friend.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Fri, 27 May 2005 11:50:57 +0000

Naw, PETA et al might be outraged, but they will say it was actually Rove's idea.

Although, seems to me making suicide dogs speaks to how poorly the insurgent/terrorist movement is doing on recruitment in Iraq.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 27 May 2005 11:32:55 +0000

What abot when American intelligence agencies tried to use dolphins to blow up the President, huh? Huh??