Iraq and Roll, pt. 2
Link to AP article
Pat: Well, that's very nice, Mr. Lynch, but 85 soldiers--almost 3 a day--died in November, which is the second-highest total since January. Plus, sectarian strife grows more and more deadly, and bombs grow more audacious--one car bomb is more deadly than five vest bombers. Meanwhile, insurgents Have taken control of parts of Ramadi. Oh, and hostage-taking has returned. But because the number of suicide bombers--the least common type of foreign insurgent (and foreign insurgents are no more than 3-7% of the resistance)--is dropping, we're winning? Well. Another victory for stay the course. Mission accomplished. Bring 'em on. Now watch this drive.
And Bush's bold new strategy released yesterday? His grand plan for winning the war? You guessed it, "stay the course." Because that's been working so fucking well. Why, we're positively spiraling out of control...towards freedom! And we have three groups of people we're fighting. Good he acknowledges that it ain't just al-Qaida. But he thinks they're "rejectionists," "Saddamists," and AQ. I'm wondering what the vast majority of the insurgents--the nationalists who just want us out--are to him?
"The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein. And they reject an Iraq in which they’re no longer the dominant group."
Whoops. Wrong already. Most insurgents don't so much reject an equal Iraq, they reject the twin spectre of American presence and Shi'a dictatorship. Seeing as the Iraqi government is more or less propped up on Shi'a militia, and given the recent allegations by Allawi--a Shi'a, no less--that the current government is worse than Saddam, their fears aren't unjustified.
Then we have the Saddamists. But they'll lose because "They lack popular support." Okay. Good to know that they lack popular support. But you know what the funny thing about Iraq is? If they have support among just 10% of the nation--that would be half the population of the four Sunni-majority provinces--they have more than enough support to last as long as they want to. Ain't that a kick in the head, George? I know that in the US if you don't have popular support you lose (yourself excepted, of course) but Iraq is a different place.
Then we have "The third group...the smallest but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al-Qaida."
You mean the smallest but most flashy, George. We're the most lethal group in Iraq; the insurgency--that is, all groups combined--has caused only 8% of Iraqi civilian deaths. Interesting, though: They're the group least likely to cause a civil war, and yet he talks more about them than about the other two combined.
Hey, George? You know, you've talked a lot about Iraq. Why don't you talk about something utterly unrelated?
The terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on September the 11th. Those terrorists share the same ideology with those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, murdered tourists in Bali, workers in Riyadh and guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan
Sweet! Sept. 11th! Way to link Iraqi nationalists to international terrorists! Now can we claim that Baghdadis would be shootin' up Disneyland if we hadn't invaded them?
This is an enemy without conscience, and they cannot be appeased. If we’re not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders.
Awesome! George, you did it again. Now let's imply we can never leave Iraq by setting impossible-to-achieve victory tactics!
We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.
That's our president folks! Give him a hand!