Two Short Posts Today

Finally Questioning Pentagon Reports on Iraqi Insurgents?

From an Aug. 8, 2005 article from UPI:
“If the U.S. Army and its Iraqi allies are killing [and detaining] as many insurgents as reports indicate they are per month, why is the insurgency intensifying instead of collapsing? ”

For God’s sake, didn’t the MSM realize the Pentagon was spewing pure crap for the last two years? I’ve never believed goverment statistics on the number of so-called Iraqi insurgents killed or captured. Finally, someone took the trouble to write about it.

The reporter, Martin Sieff, takes care not to baldly accuse the U.S. of killing and detaining innocent civilians but I think that’s exactly what is occurring. There’s been more than a few accusations of unwarranted and/or illegal detentions. If the U.S. is torturing and murdering innocent civilians in Iraqi and Afghani prisons, how can you trust them to tell the truth about civilian casualties on the battlefield?

Commemorations of Rascism on the Anniversary of the Nagasaki Bombing

I hate Dec. 7th, Aug. 6th and Aug. 9th.

I’m Japanese-American and I’ve had to put up a lot of rascist bullshit, particularly on those days.

Guess what. I’m not responsible for what Japan did during World War II. I’m not responsible for the trade deficit or the fact that Japanese cars are better than American cars. Yet, somehow, people feel compelled to argue with me over those issues. Even some relatively intelligent people have done it, which points out that prejudice can infect nearly anyone.

On a few occasions, people have spontaneously decided to tell me about Japanese atrocities during WWII; excuse me, but I’m fairly well educated and I already know about it.

Those war crimes are often used to rationalize the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ‘Japan deserved it because of the Rape of Nanking and Pearl Harbor’. Too bad those Japanese civilians bore little responsibility for those actions. The media always presents documentaries and news reports on the Aug. 6th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing but,to avoid accusations of sympathizing with the enemy, they always feel compelled to trot out the usual stories of Japanese war crimes. Exactly how does one atrocity excuse another?

P.S. Please support Cindy Sheehan and her protest against Bush and the Iraq War.

Baghdad Rambo

Frequently, human males overdose on testosterone, especially the now ubiquitous Hollywood variety. That makes them susceptible to stupid, macho fantasies. They don’t even have the intelligence of male tarantulas who know they should run away from the large, toothy shadow that DOESN’T have good (or amorous) intentions.

The machismo stereotype has probably existed since time immemorial with groups of neolithic hunters bragging about their hunting prowess and the mastodon that got away, continuing through Greek warlords claiming to be the sons of Zeus, and finally arriving in blockbuster films with muscle-bound, steroid-swigging, action stars whose “stunts” are the product of CGI effects. These manly men conquer armies single-handed.

The hero needs a suitable villain, one with equal proficiency. And if he doesn’t exist, you gotta make him up.

Have you heard about Juba, the Baghdad Sniper? He’s killed or injured dozens of U.S. soldiers over the past year or so, becoming something of a legend for his skill.

So, who is this highly trained expert marksman? A former Republican Guard soldier from Saddam’s elite forces?

Apparently, he’s a former calligrapher and shepherd who deserted from the Iraqi Army several years ago. He picked up his expertise from web searches, playing video games and watching ‘Enemy at the Gates’, ‘The Deer Hunter’, and ‘JFK’.

This is hardly the first time the enemy has been romanticized. For example, the Viet Cong were acclaimed for their hit and run tactics, and the vast tunnel systems they built which enabled them to plan their operations. This elusive and deadly enemy was scared to death of the U.S. Marines who were viewed as gigantic, powerful and deadly fighters.

Obviously, it is easy to inflate the abilities of your enemy; your allies are a different matter.

During the siege of Tora Bora, the U.S. decided to pay Afghani warlords to capture al Qaeda fighters rather than risk U.S. troops. Afghan mercenaries were less than impressed by U.S. Special Forces who they considered to be cowardly for showing fear.

I don’t believe that U.S. Special Forces are inordinately fearful; the accusation of cowardice may be more a question of a cultural misunderstanding rather than courage. However, the Afghani people do have a 2300-year history of bravery in battle going back to Alexander the Great’s invasion in 328 BC.

So, to steal from Sun Tzu, understand your enemy, understand yourself and understand your allies. Since we did’t understand the Iraqis or the Afghani people, we were at least half-way screwed from the moment we invaded their countries. Bush has completed the process by continuing our ignorance so now we’re totally screwed.

Dubya Plays Limbo

How low can he go? The Ap/Ipsos poll, undertaken Aug. 1-3 , showed support for the Iraq War at 38%; previous polling this summer showed support in the low 40s.

Newsweek’s poll, Aug. 2-4, had a whopping 61% of the public disapproving of his handling of the war. 34% approved, down from 41% a month ago.

18 U.S. soldiers died on Aug. 3rd which is likely to have affected the Newsweek poll to some extent. The Iraqi insurgent groups have access to media reports; undoubtedly, they know how the U.S. public is reacting. I’m wondering if they’re planning another big attack.

Weapons of Mass Delusion

Where did the phrase ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction‘ originate? During the Cold War no one ever used that histrionic phrase in television or newspapers to describe nuclear weapons. It only came into common usage during Bush’s public relations campaign to drum up support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I started my research with Wikipedia and discovered it was first used to describe the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. The weapons used were conventional aerial bombs; the amount of damage was massive, not the type of weapon.

After World War II, the United Nations categorized nuclear weapons as a type of WMD and the phrase then became common in arms control discussions as a general term encompassing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. However, there is no consensus on a precise definition in the diplomatic community which renders the word useless for any type of international agreement. For example, a good arms control treaty must contain very exact language describing all details. A vague term like WMD cannot be used in such a document or, for that matter, any other type of detailed and substantive discussion.

Overly dramatic terms are often used in politics and the media by demagogues who wish to curtail rational discussion. There’s even a contest to judge such phrases. In 2003, “Lake Superior State University issued its 28th annual ‘extreme’ List of Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-Use, Over-Use and General Uselessness”, which included WMD.

When I first heard the phrase from an ex-alcoholic and cocaine addict, I thought, “Doesn’t this sound like an hysterical rant that’s designed to frighten and coerce? Why is anyone taking this seriously? Show me some evidence and a detailed analysis, and then explain why no other nation except the U.K. is backing up these statements.”

Unfortunately, WMD seems to have permanently entered common everyday usage. I briefly watched part of a documentary that ridiculously described a WWII Japanese submarine as a weapon of mass destruction. This versatile phrase seems perfectly designed to demonize an enemy and his weapons. How rovewellian.

P.S. Happy Hiroshima Day.