January 17, 2006
THE CONG DIDN'T FARE MUCH BETTER:
It's Curtains for al-Qaida: What happens when Iraqi "insurgents" take on Zarqawi's thugs? (Christopher Hitchens, Jan. 16, 2006, Slate)
In Washington, in public, but unquoted, Ahmad Chalabi said last fall that it would be the Sunnis who would get rid of Zarqawi. Now we read (in the Jan. 12 New York Times) of members of the Sunni "Islamic Army" directly confronting al-Qaida's gangsters on the streets of Taji, a town to the north of Baghdad, with appreciable casualties on both sides. And within a few weeks, when the Dec. 15 elections occurred, armed supporters of the local insurgent militias were guarding polling places (in Ramadi, among other previously hot locations) and warning al-Qaida to stay away. Interviewed for the Times piece was Abu Marwa, a militia activist from a town farther south, who described setting a trap for two Syrian al-Qaida members—and killing both of them—after their group had tortured and killed one of his Shiite relatives. ("His legs bore drill holes revealing bone. His jaw had slid off to one side of his head, and his nose was broken. Burns marked his body.")Posted by Orrin Judd at January 17, 2006 8:21 AMThe significance of this, and of numerous other similar accounts, is three-fold. First, it means that the regular media caricature of Iraqi society is not even a parody. It is very common indeed to find mixed and intermarried families, and these loyalties and allegiances outweigh anything that can be mustered by a Jordanian jailbird who has bet everything on trying to ignite a sectarian war. Second, it means in the not very long run that the so-called insurgency can be politically isolated and militarily defeated. It already operates within a minority of a minority and is largely directed by unpopular outsiders. Politically, it is the Khmer Rouge plus the Mafia—not the Viet Cong. And unlike the Khmer Rouge, it has no chance at all of taking the major cities. Nor, apart from the relatively weak Syrian regime, does it have a hinterland or a friendly neutral territory to use for resupply. And its zealots are now being killed by nationalist and secular, as well as clerical, guerrillas. (In Kurdistan, the Zarqawi riffraff don't even try; there is a real people's army there, and it has a short way with fascists. It also fights on the coalition side.) In counterinsurgency terms, this is curtains for al-Qaida.
Which is my third point. If all goes even reasonably well, and if a combination of elections and prosperity is enough to draw more mainstream Sunnis into politics and away from Baathist nostalgia, it will have been proved that Bin-Ladenism can be taken on—and openly defeated—in a major Middle Eastern country. And not just defeated but discredited. Humiliated. Is there anyone who does not think that this is a historic prize worth having? Worth fighting for, in fact?
"Is there anyone who does not think that this is a historic prize worth having? Worth fighting for, in fact?"
Why yes, there is. They inhabit the halls of Congress (on the Democratic side), academia and major media
And the world's population of leftists, antiAmericans, Totalitarians and Caliphascists.
Posted by: Genecis at January 17, 2006 11:45 AMIn answer to Mr. Hirtchens' question -
Chomsky
Moore
Sheehan
Galloway
and the list of infamy stretches down into the abyss.
Posted by: Mikey at January 17, 2006 11:53 AMWe can name them all - Kerry, Clinton (him), Carter, Howard Dean, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Edwards, Murtha, Durbin, Pelosi, and Paul Hackett, all the way down to Revs. Al and Jesse. And don't forget snobs like Scowcroft and (perhaps) Lawrence Korb.
Thinking about Harry Belafonte and Chavez last night made me realize - if the US takes out just one more 'bad' state, whether Syria, Zimbabwe, NK, or Iran - the rest will probably wither. We have already seen how Iran views the implosion of Syria. Of course, the remaining evils could just band together and try to fight.
Let's hope they do - for the sake of their children.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 17, 2006 1:24 PM