Michael Kramer lays out the possible reasons that we haven’t been attacked with chemical or bioweapons. My vote is that Saddam can’t give the order, due to lack of consciousness, or acquisition of ambient temperature, and that no one else is willing to.
The least likely explanation, of course, is that they don’t have them.
Michael Kramer lays out the possible reasons that we haven’t been attacked with chemical or bioweapons. My vote is that Saddam can’t give the order, due to lack of consciousness, or acquisition of ambient temperature, and that no one else is willing to.
The least likely explanation, of course, is that they don’t have them.
The Arab world is viewing our presence in Iraq as an invasion, which I suppose that, technically, it is. But if that’s so, we’re not the only ones. If this article is correct, there is another set of foreign invaders–thousands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists–from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, perhaps the West Bank and Gaza, similar to the ones who colonized Afghanistan with the help of the home-grown Taliban.
Of course, there’s a distinction. Our invasion is to throw off a tyranny, after which we’ll leave, at least if we’re not asked to stay (as we were in Germany and Japan, and Korea). Theirs is to preserve one, or install another, and they have no intention of ever relinquishing power.
If it does come down to urban warfare in Baghdad, I suspect that these foreign invaders will hold out to the end, an end that may be brutally bitter. And the biggest fear that I have is not major US casualties (though there will be some), but massive Iraqi civilian casualties perpetrated by the kind of people who are not just indifferent to the loss of human life but, as we saw a year and a half ago, revel in it.
I hereby take the pledge to never again (not that I’ve been in the habit of it) modify the phrase “Republican Guard” with the adjective “elite.” I wish that the rest of the media would stop doing so. It’s either redundant, or pointless, because the only sense in which they are “elite” is in relation to half-starving conscripts with guns in their back. Our non-coms are more elite than their officers, in terms of weaponry, motivation and fighting ability.
I hereby take the pledge to never again (not that I’ve been in the habit of it) modify the phrase “Republican Guard” with the adjective “elite.” I wish that the rest of the media would stop doing so. It’s either redundant, or pointless, because the only sense in which they are “elite” is in relation to half-starving conscripts with guns in their back. Our non-coms are more elite than their officers, in terms of weaponry, motivation and fighting ability.
I hereby take the pledge to never again (not that I’ve been in the habit of it) modify the phrase “Republican Guard” with the adjective “elite.” I wish that the rest of the media would stop doing so. It’s either redundant, or pointless, because the only sense in which they are “elite” is in relation to half-starving conscripts with guns in their back. Our non-coms are more elite than their officers, in terms of weaponry, motivation and fighting ability.
Bad news–some are speculating that the lights went out to provide cover for atrocities against the Shias, which will then be blamed on the coalition.
Some of the surrendering Iraqis are expecting (and hoping) to be taken to America.
Apparently, some Iraqi civilians are rushing to surrender to American troops under the false impression that they will be taken to the United States.
“We had a group like that a few days ago,” says Medley. “One guy wanted to go to America, bad. He wasn’t a soldier. He wanted a baseball cap. When we put him on a helicopter, he thought he was going to America ? he was smiling the whole time.”
The whole piece is worth a read.
[via The Corner]
Kathy Kinsley reports over at the Command Post, per Fox News, that the Fedayeen are starting to take hostages in Baghdad, taking over civilians’ homes.
Stephen Rittenberg deconstructs Professor De Genova, and shows him to be not just an odious hater of America, but a poseur, intellectually unworthy to be in the same academic department that was once the realm of Franz Boaz and Ruth Benedict.
Note once again the cant, ideological, ungrammatical and meaningless phrases: “racialized and spatialized”, “reconceptualization” and my personal favorite “transnational urban conjunctural spaces”. Can anyone reading De Genova’s statements and letters seriously argue that his is a scholarly mind at work, striving for knowledge? Can anyone seriously argue that his is a mind striving towards coherence and clarity of expression? So my question for Columbia is this: do you, out of a sense of responsibility for your students, maintain a minimal standard for intelligence in your faculty? How widespread is such mindlessness among your faculty? And what happened to the moral obligation to be intelligent?