Anti War Movement

Well, Tantor, you've just given me a very accurate view of how well-informed you are on topics such as this. Mohammed Said Barre was run out of power by the most powerful clan leader in Somalia, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, BEFORE the US arrived. There was no president of Somalia when we started taking casualties there.



Although the initial statement about "a President" here is a non-sequitur for the reasons i've given above, this paragraph tends to underline exactly what i'm suggesting. And that is that this whole atmosphere of "they'll be pushovers" which administration cheerleaders have been promoting could prove to be horribly wrong. Every statment of this type which i have seen on-line or in media are predicated upon the assumption that the Iraqi military will roll-over and play dead. If they do roll over, our casualties might be light--but you're making a very bad mistake in your analysis.



This, from your previous post, shows that you lack an understanding of how regimes are constituted in most of the middle east. Saddam is the head of a clan which represents a minority, even if only viewed in the context of the Sunni muslims of central Iraq. Leaving aside the Shiites of the south, and the Kurds of the north, Saddam and his regime have been keeping a lid on a potential powder keg since he came to power. Like Assad of Syria, like the Ibn Saud clan of Arabia, like the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan, and the Hashemite monarchy which once ruled Iraq--Saddam represents the most common pattern of ruling powers in the middle east--a minority clan running the government because they are larger than any other single clan, and the other clans cannot unite. This is why i mentioned Somalia in the first place. When Said Barre was run out of office, this left Farrah Aidid's clan as the most powerful, and they expected that it was now their turn to rule. Although there was not initially any animus toward the US and GI's when 10th Division and 75th Infantry arrived, it eventually became clear to Aidid and the other leaders of his clan that their hegemony would not be recognized. The other clan leaders of Somolia stepped aside, willing to let GI's do the fighting and dying, and lent tentative support to the US/UN, knowing that they would get nothing with Farrah Aidid in power, but might get some small slice of the pie if he were overthrown. In all such analyses, it is crucial to remember that most people in muslim countries are very poor, and have little to lose. When members of the Aidid's clan saw the US launching helicopter assualts against their clan leadership, and US/UN troops making raids to capture Aidid's top lieutenants, they had no compunction about charging into massive automatic weapons fire on the off chance of killing even a single American. Religion made no difference to them, either, they slaughtered two dozen Pakistanis without a second thought. The clan is supreme in such cultures.

Which brings us back to Saddam and company. Saddam's survival and that of the clan are one in the same. Were it possible to dash in and take Saddam out very quickly (not too bloody likely), the clan would fight on--they're dead meat if they lose power, because they now have almost 25 years of grudges stored up against them among the other clans--an American invasion is a no-win scenario for Saddam's clan, and a nothing to lose scenario for any of them willing to fight. Don't kid yourself, in those circumstances, the clan members may turn out to be very willing to fight and die on their feet rather than on their knees in a prison at the hands of their traditional clan enemies. If we go in, and fight a more or less conventional ground war, the Iraqi army could well go belly up quickly, and we'd still have a high probability of being obliged to dig Saddam's clan members out of the rubble of Baghdad. For an idea of what that could be like, i refer you once again to Somolia--GI's reported various incidents which made their fight nightmarish: a woman with an infant in her arms dashes across the street, stops, turns, and raises a pistol at the GI's; a child of about 4 or 5 years comes out of a doorway with an AK47, and begins spraying the street with bullets on full-automatic; a shooter lying in the street, firing through the legs of a woman, with about a half-dozen children sitting on his back and legs to protect him from grenades--the list of horrors goes on and on. It would be nice to think that this would all be easy--but underestimating your opponent is the greatest of military sins, and i'm only slightly reassured by Rumsfeld's recent statements which suggest that his crew at the Pentagon may begin to make realistic assessments. If the Shrub and his crackpot crew do go in, despite a host of very good reasons not to do so, i would certainly hope that it will be as easy as they are trying to cozen us into believing, but everything i know about the middle east and their societies cries out against that likelihood. Screams out, in fact--most Americans just don't get it yet, don't understand that these people believe they will be at the side of the Prophet in paradise today if they fall in holy war, and have precious little to live for in material terms as it is. Ever tried to kill a rat without a fire arm? I have--you can chase 'em all over hell's half acre, and they'll run, squeeze through every little crack they can find. Once you corner 'em, they'll come straight at you, determined to do the most damage they can. When you think about street warfare in the middle east, keep that picture in mind, and raise the ante by about 10,000,000 to 1.



This comes from so deep in cloud-cuckoo-land, that i'm totally at a loss for a means of explaining to you just how wrong this is. Take down the ruling clan in any one of these nations, and you have signalled the other clans that it's time to rush out on the field and start bashing each other to get a shot at power. This is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, and we've put ethnic Uzbeks, Azeris, Persians and many other minorities despised by most ethnic Afghan tribes into power. Make no mistake, when the military forces of the west pull out of Afghanistan, the war starts up the day the last plane takes off. The peoples of the middle east who lack a western-oriented education--i.e., the majority of them--have no desire for democracy, they want their own clan to reign supreme, and will stop at nothing to reach that goal, as long as they believe there is a shot at the goal. If convinced they have no shot, they'll endure decades, even centuries of Hitler-wannabes like Saddam, patiently awaiting the main chance.

As a final note, the population of Iraq contains very few people of direct, unbroken ethnic Arab descent. As was the case in most of the middle east in the 7th century when Islam swept over the region, the Arabs were an overlay of a power structure on the existing society. The most significant population infusion into the region was the invasion of the Seljuk Turks two centuries later. It is a great mistake to see the "Arab" world as a monolithic structure about which sweeping generalizations can be made. The world of Islam uses the Arabic language just as the west once used Latin; Islam is the common religion, just as "The Church" once was in Europe, before the Reformation--but the muslim world is just as fragmented into petty clans and tribal groups as Europe was 1000 years ago--probably, in fact, to a greater extent. What the muslim world has most in common is tribal- and clan-based societies which see everyone outside the clan or tribe as a foreigner. Islam and Arabic have given them a common culture, to the same extent that westerners have common literary and artistic antecedants--but there has never been anything even remotely resembling nationalist unification in the middle east. The west created the nations of the middle east, not the people of the middle east. They are stuck with the borders they have, like it or not, but they see the world only in terms of the clan--"us"--and everybody else--"them." And the Arabs have a very old saying for that, known throughout the muslim world, and very likely older than Islam: "My brother and I against each other; we two against our cousin; and all of us against you."

This is nothing personal against you, Boss, you just are not sufficiently well-informed on the issues to make statements of that character with any assurance, although you may feel that you are.

Craven, yer such a bad man . . .

We forced Germany and Japan to be liberal democracies at the end of WWII. They seemed to like it. I have seen no attempt by them to return to racist tyrannies, as they both were. Although we killed many Germans and Japanese, they both seem to be convinced that they are better off.

However, I am curious as to why you would think that Germany and Japan, who both had democracy forced upon them by the US, are neither free today nor democracies. Please explain yourself. And let us all know how Japan and Germany, which both became economic superpowers under American occupation, are not better off.

Tantor

Tantor I love your avatar.

Sorry my writing was imprecise. When I said Somalia was run by a president who loathed the military, I meant the Somalian operation was run by an American president, Clinton, who loathed the military. I was not refering to Somalian presidents. There is no government in Somalia that I know of, which is an anarchy.



It could be horribly wrong but I doubt it. I believe most of the Iraqi military will roll over and surrender as fast as they can. Very few of them will want to die to defend Saddam. Very many of them will see an American occupation as an improvement.

However, if I'm wrong you can throw it back in my face in February. We'll see.





My position stands. Saddam has not been especially gentle on his own clan or even his extended family. He's killed quite a few of them. He likes to throw his close associates and their relatives in prison at random intervals just to show whose boss. Tariq Azziz, whom we see so much on TV defending Iraq and Saddam so stridently, has had his son thrown in prison two or three times for nothing over the last couple years. I don't think any of them will be sad to see Saddam go. In the end, they only respect force.



I am indeed very well informed, having studied Arab history in college, taken Arabic language courses, dealt with Arabs in the Air Force and elsewhere, and years of independent reading on Middle Eastern history. We have different interpretations of the same facts. Your mistake is to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be less educated, a common mistake for liberals who tend to be dogmatic. Evidently, you are not sophisticated enough to realize that intelligent people can see things differently because of their different perspectives and come to radically different conclusions for equally sound reasons.

We are lucky in that we can test our conclusions against reality in 2003.

Tantor

Thank you, Joanne. I had a wonderful photo of an elephant that I intended to use but Able2Know is cramping my self expression by disallowing outside images. I'm being censored!

Tantor

Tantor,




Ok, let's play along with probably being the operative word (though I'd have used possibly and not by the most ridiculous strech "probably").



Now it's already a fact? The progression from "probably" eluded all logical mechanisms I am aware of (generally a shred of factual basis is employed to declare a fact). But that's irrelevant, what makes you think it would be a "coincidence"? Targets and multiple targeters are not impossible or unlikely in the cases we are talking about.



This suggests to me that it was exactly that, a "head game" or simply rhetoric. I don't see how his words translate into him having his hand in the dough. My call is that he was just thumbing his nose since that's all he can do. The dubious and often contradictory reports of Atta's contacts were not enough to indict Iraq in the minds of the administration so what do you know that they don't that leads you to your conclusions?



Those attacks were atypical for the world, substitute Al Qaeda in that phrase for ANY entity in the history of mankind and the phrase would still be true.



Besides an active imagination what on earth is the source for this claim?



Aha. Very few indeed. Had I read this before I started responding I'd not have bothered. I'm glad that there are no heads of state who act on such flimsy logic.

Emphasis on "a few." You've said the Palestinians were trained in Syria, then you state later that the only facility for training the hijackers is in Iraq. What, the Syrians suddenly decided to make nice, and along the way forgot everything they once knew on the subject? So, at the same time, the Iraqis, never known to have carried out, and never proven to have sponsored such hijackings, just suddenly set up "The only known professional skyjacking school today . . . "? You have also alluded in earlier posts to the incompetence of the Iraqis as fighters, and yet you want us to believe that they are superslueths in matters of intelligence and planning terrorist attacks. You can't have it both ways, you know, either they are incompetent bumblers, or they are the deadly professional intelligence and sabotage experts you claim here. We are to believe they can't fight their way out of a paper bag on the one hand, but that they are deadly expert terrorists on the other. You need to make up your mind about the Iraqis.

By the way, what are the career prospects for a "professional skyjacker" upon graduation--$50K a year, $60K a year--would you recommend the professional for a poor muslim on the lookout for a fast ride to the top?

Please stop with silly rants such as this. It's human nature to think that one's position is correct (after all, who would hold an opinion they thought to be incorrect) and the notion that opposing viewpoints are held by lesser minds is not exclusive to any political affiliation. In the segment I made bold above you employ the same tactic.

Let's debate issues? Please do not campaign for political affiliation.

Attack ideas, not people, parties or affiliations.

while the analogy of Germany and Japan adapting to democracy/capitalism seems a common one, there are some major problems with a comparison to the middle east. The most noteble being that Germany and Japan were industrialized and educated societies prior to the war whereas there is virtually no education or indusrtry in the middle east. in addition both Germany and Japan had strong and effective national governments with the attendant infrastructures of nations compared to all of the middle east which as already been pointed out is still a tribal based society, my final point being that Islam is the uniting factor in only a crudely fashioned manner along with a somewhat common language but it does offer some degree of "commonality" against what would be considered a common foe "infidels". Iraq does have a most westernized society due to Sadam leaning more to a secular state than a Islam state, which would be in its favor in its ability to adapt to western capitalism but the strong influence of tribalism and Islam would negate most of that advantage without considerable "occupation" by western armed forces due to obvious disparity between Islam cultures and western cultures. Mao attempted to industrialize China by force and failed and i believe we would find the same to be true in Iraq. On the other hand western nations could have a significant role in society change in the middle east by establishing a cordial and reciprocal exchange via education-medical assistance and small business/industrial assistance. my assumptions are based personal observations having lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years. thats just my opinion, i may be wrong.

If you are as well informed as you say, then you know that what Saddam has done to members of his clan is nothing compared to what other Iraqis will do to them if they can get their hands on them, which is the point i was making about his clan surviving or falling with him. I hope i am wrong about the likely scenario--but the history of the middle east for more than 1000 years suggests that bloody reprisal will be the lot of any of Saddam's followers if he is driven from power--and they will stand by him for no other reason than that from their perspective he is the lesser evil. However they may despise and fear him, they'll get no mercy from their opponents and they know it. You state that you have studied Arab history in college--in that case, perhaps you'll remember just how difficult it was for Lawrence to form the tribal coalition he wanted to drive the Turks back into Anatolia, and how fast it all fell apart after the Arabs took Damascus. You must certainly have learned that in the power vacuum which arose from a complete lack of unity and constant tribal and clan warfare after the end of that war, the English and French stepped in and carved up the middle east to their own liking--specifically, that Winston Churchill and Arthur Balfour drew the new map of the middle east in 1921-22. You'll know, in that case, that the Hashemite monarchies of Jordan and Iraq were created at that time, and that the people of Mesopotamia, now the "nation" of Iraq, never accepted that monarchy as the final word on power in their region. You'll know that Iraq is an artificial construct which seeks to unite the "un-unitable"--Shiite muslims of slightly Arabic and mostly Farsi (Persian) descent in the south; Sunni muslims with a tinge of Arabic blood, but mostly descended from Turkic speakers in the central part of the country; and Kurds in the north who have fought all comers for more than 1000 years to preserve their ethnic identity. You'll know that the tribes of the central region only unite in so far as they see their neighbors to the north and south as enemies--Sunni muslims who kill their southern neighbors because they're Shiites, and quasi-Arabs who kill their northern neighbors, even though the Kurds are Sunni muslims, precisely because they are Kurds.

You can keep your petty personal remarks to yourself--i didn't sneer at you, and don't care to be sneered at by you. I made no statement about your level of education, nor any lack thereof. I made the statement about you being poorly informed because of that flight of pure fancy you indulged in about setting up a democracy amid the ashes of Iraq which would lead all the other "Arabs" into the sunny uplands of freedom and democracy. That is such a completely unrealistic view of how muslims in Arabic-speaking countries see their world that the only conclusion which made any sense to me was that you hadn't carefully studied the muslim world. I'm amazed to see you write that you have done so, and reflect that you were still willing to make a remark such as that which so totally ignores the realpolitik of the Arab world.

Finally, you can keep your sneers about liberal dogma to yourself. You don't know what my politics are, and everything i've written is a distillation of what i've read and learned about the history of the region in my lifetime--none of this comes from anyone else's "revealed truth," none of it comes from politically-motivated sources of either the right or left.

Keep it civil, Tantor, you need to read your own post: "Evidently, you are not sophisticated enough to realize that intelligent people can see things differently because of their different perspectives and come to radically different conclusions for equally sound reasons." I simply see no "sound reasons" to conclude that western-style democracy can be imposed in the region, nor accept the laughably absurd proposition of other muslim populations looking upon a conquered Iraq with an envious desire to emulate their new found democratic society (in a pig's eye); it is unrealistic to expect the "average muslim in the street" to see such a situation from any other perspective than hatred for the infidel who has slaughtered other muslims.

[quote="Craven de Kere]Attack ideas, not people, parties or affiliations.[/quote]

It is a fine sentiment, Craven, but if I am personally attacked, I will reply in kind. If such attacks are not dealt a negative stroke, they are encouraged. I seek to discourage them.

You will note that though we disagree, we are civil. Perhaps the unwashed posters will take note and seek to emulate such dialogue.

Tantor

Can we extend that to the attempt to avoid disparaging affiliations or political bent? I know there is a lot of it going on but it's trite. Nobody is going to change entrenched leanings here so we might as well focus on the issues and not the parties/people behind the issues.

Of course that is not something you are doing exclusively. I wish everyone would forget partisan politics and focus on issues.

I'd like to see a government (it wouldn't be practical) where issues and not people are voted on. Partisan animosity is a tremendous waste of time.

Yes, that's correct. Palestinian hijackers in the 1960s were trained in skyjacking school in Syria. The only current skyjacking school today in 2002 is in Iraq.



Once you disband the only school on a subject, you lose your corporate knowledge of the topic it taught. It's just like disbanding a company that makes a specialized product. It becomes very difficult to produce that product once you have disbanded the expertise which created it. However, the Iraqis have made an effort to collect, test, rehearse, and train skyjackers. That gives them real expertise.




The problem is that you are confusing two separate things. Yes, the cohort of spies, informers, torturers, toadies that form the security apparatus which keeps Saddam in power are poor fighters when compared to a professional army. It's basically a fight between police with pistols and an army with tanks, artillery, and air support. There is no contest.

At the same time, that same security apparatus can be very effective at terrorist acts including skyjacking which requires different qualities than combat soldiers.

So, in fact, yes, you can have it both ways. The Iraqi security apparatus can be ineffective soldiers and effective terrorists.



From the anecdotes I have read, they work for a lot less. As a benchmark, an airline pilot in Egypt may only make $25,000 per year and find that a fortune, compared to $100,00 to $200,000 in the US. $25K would be a lot of money in the Middle East. Some terrorists seem to barely scratch out a living after they leave their terrorist organizations, from what I read.

Tantor

Tantor

I suspect that Lawrence overstated his importance in "Seven Pillars Of Wisdom" and his significance was overblown by his media friends who wer too taken by his story.

However, we can agree that an important cultural difference between the West and the Middle East is that we think nationally and they think tribally. As I understand the occupation plans, one of the first concerns is to control the retribution. They want to try and fry a slew of the bigwig bad guys from Tikrit and then let the small fry go. They are studying the detailed plans for the denazification of Germany for inspiration for the desaddamization and dabaathization of Iraq.




Pure nonsense. You did indeed insult me. Your lack of recognition of that demonstrates either your dishonesty or ignorance.

Kid, if you want me to show you respect, show me respect. That's how the Respect thing works. If you take a personal swipe at me, I will take a swipe back at you. If you show me contempt, you will receive contempt from me. It is pretty foolish for you to deal out insults then complain that insults are dealt to you.

Grow up.

Tantor

I will not start it but I will return it.

Tantor

Just a little aside here from a mouse hiding in the corner: "The dead and the stupid never change their minds."

It somehow seemed relavant, but I am really not intending this to be a slam on any of the posters, ok? To me, just the ability to question with respectful affect, and to bear questioning is a great mark of an intelligent convervationalist.

Hey BJ good to see you posting again how goes it? Will you be able to come to the Cyber Art Chat this Sunday? But I digress, hehe.

I think you statement is appropriate.

JD

Tantor, you did indeed start remarks about political affiliation when you made a nasty comment about "dogmatic liberals." And i did not sneer at you--saying, as i will continue to do, that your remarks about bringing democratic institutions to Iraq, and the envy and desire for such institutions in other muslim states in unrealistic does not constitute a sneer. Commenting that you must not be very well informed, although you may believe that you are, is based upon this fairy tale assessment of the likely outcome of imposing our will on Iraq is simply assigning a value to your comments. Since your comments did not partake of any politically real description of the muslim world, i assumed that you were not very well informed. I continue to assume so. That is not a sneer, rather it is a statement based on what you've written. You make remarks about "unwashed posters"--as i bathe regularly, i know this does not apply to me, however, it is evident that you wish to deal in invective rather than debate. "Pure nonsense. You did indeed insult me. Your lack of recognition of that demonstrates either your dishonesty or ignorance." -- The insult, i take it, was in saying that you were not well-informed--i've explained, more than once now, that i arrived at that conclusion based on your unrealistic statements about how western institutions would be received in the muslim world--a topic, by the way, which you have since avoided, very likely because it is an indefensible position. I recognize that you may have felt insulted, although it was more likely because your pronouncements on the situation were contradicted--this is a far cry from proving any intent on my part to insult you. I don't know you from Adam, and frankly don't care what your opinion of me is--i have no motive to insult you, it isn't a forensic technique of any value, and i don't use it. You needn't accuse me of dishonesty or ignorance (i'm given a choice of insults here, how charming), i've discussed both the topic, and the manner in which i've addressed the topic, and the manner in which i've responded to what you've written. I took no personal swipe at you--i did not comment on your intelligence, i made no reference to your integrity, i made no reference to your likely political affiliations--and yet you have chosen to describe me as either dishonest or ignorant, and you made that childish remark about dogmatic liberals, absent any knowledge of my political beliefs. "Kid, if you want me to show you respect, show me respect. That's how the Respect thing works." -- that's how you work "the Respect thing," huh? You don't know how old i am, and likely have no such knowledge about anyone else here. It is an old and hoary tactic to sneer at those who disagree with you on the basis of your greater age and wisdom, and a tactic, in fact that was the subject of much good humor here quite recently. I'm no kid, and i've got less and less respect for you as you continue to argue more by ad hominem methods, and less by reference to the issue at hand and what's been written here--that's how the respect thing works.

As a final note, the comment i made about "professional skyjackers" was humor--you can probably ask some of your friends how this works, if it is not known to you. What follows is humor, as well, but as it is visual, you might not need to have it explained to you:

while i realize i am not all that smart or educated i hope that dosen't automatically dismiss my meager opinions. even us ordinary people have opinions and like to engage with others (maybe we can learn) i am hoping this forum ddoesn't require Mensa credentials cause there's lots of us that dont qualify.

dyslexia- Where did you get the idea that you had to be a cockeyed genius to belong here? What is required is that you have access to the internet, are a human being, and are willing to share with others.

I believe that I can learn something from EVERYONE I meet!