Thursday, January 27, 2005
Iraqi Resistance Group Says Not to Target Elections
An important distinction must be made here, and I wish the American media would make it. There are the people like Al-Zarqawi--who, as far as I'm concerned, should have his head chopped off. And then there are the rest of the Iraqi people who have chosen (or been driven) to join the resistance, for a variety of reasons (though most of them should be obvious).
I don't see a way out of this sinkhole, personally. I think it's quite analogous to Israel's occupation of Palestine: the logic is, we'll leave, once you stop resisting; while the Palestinians' position is: we'll stop resisting once you leave. It's a vicious circle that cannot end.
Now in Iraq, clearly the insurgency will not end until we pull out. But this administration has vowed not to pull out until there is complete security--that is, no more insurgency.
What is to be done?
Side note (conspiratorial, I admit): is it possible that the U.S. government does not want to capture Al-Zarqawi, because it is useful for them to cast the entire insurgency in his fascistic image?
(I'm not pulling this out of my arse, incidentally. The "Wall Street Journal" [not exactly a leftist publication] reported that, prior to the invasion, the U.S. military had several opportunities to capture Zarqawi, but were ordered not to because they needed to use him as a "link" between Iraq and terrorism.)
. . . . .
Monday, January 17, 2005
CNN.com - Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran - Jan 17, 2005
Well, who is really surprised? Anyone who has been paying any attention at all has noticed how the media has begun the unquestioning reports about Iran being belligerent, refusing to comply, harboring terrorists, etc. etc. etc.
The build up to war will be slow, just like last time, so that by the time we attack it will seem inevitable.