| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The Iraq government strikes back at Sunnis who are killing Arabs. The result: an almost immediate move towards cessation of hostilities:
The American occupation of Iraq was condemned loudly by many Sunni Arabs as the worst of all possibilities. However, two months into Iraq’s first fairly elected government, the Sunni Arabs have found someone they dread more than Uncle Sam: their fellow Iraqis. The Shiite dominated government is becoming increasingly aggressive in its efforts to end the insurgency, and unlike the American forces, they aren’t worried about the op-ed page of the New York Times as they go about the ugly business of War. In a remarkable piece from the AP, many Sunni leaders practically pined for the good old days when they were just fighting Americans.
The new Iraqi Government forces are not clamping down on the whole populace or conducting random searches at roadblocks, either. They are singling out the Sunni Arabs for extra attention as if they had never heard of the horrors of “ethnic profiling.” Apparently, you can only massacre people in the streets for a year or two before they start taking it personally.
And this is how you put an end to terrorist actions. You realize that if people are killing your civilians it’s a war, and you have to declare war back.
I’m beginning to think that this whole approach of, the terrorists kill our civilians, but we don’t kill their civilians, is just a mistake. It sounds good, but it doesn’t work, and in the short run as well as the long run, leads to more deaths on your side.
The whole notion of, “but then you’re no better than the terrorists” sounds good, but again, it doesn’t work, and it gets your people killed. If people are killing your civilians, you have the right and duty to fight back.
The notion that “we’re not at war because no nation declared war on us” is also a mistake. If your civilians are getting killed, you’re at war.
The notion that “we’re not at war with the other side’s civilians, only with their terrorists, so we are wrong to kill their civilians” is a noble attempt, but it gets your own civilians killed. It’s also false. As in Iraq, where the Sunni population is supporting those who are killing Iraqis, it is evident that only with the support of the surrounding civilians can terrorists persist.
The U.N. approach that “it doesn’t matter who started it, if both sides are at war then both sides are equally to blame,” doesn’t work because the terrorists keep killing your civilians regardless of anything the U.N. says.
It’s not pretty. It’s part of a world we’d like to leave far behind, as we move to a world governed planet-wide by law rather than war. But we’re not there yet. And when one side unilaterally rejects war, their civilians get killed by people that do not do so.
Conversely, terrorists fold quickly when they are responded to as nations have historically responded to those who declare war on them.
All this trouble we’re in due to terrorists could be over far more quickly if they are responded to in this manner. They would quickly be forced to sue for peace.
#2Because the media doesn't care about anything except mechanically attacking the U.S. government, as they've been taught to do. They do this in a robotic way, without regard to the safety of the American people.
Yes, this just might work, after all. I just hope the defeatists here in the US ease up on the call for withdrawing US troops. The Iraqi administration, while starting to flex some muscle and show results, is still a fledgling entity and will need more time and additional US military backing to put halt to the terrorism.
You understand that. I understand that. Why can't the media understand that?