Interesting read by a LTC in Iraq...

[Durandal]

Holy CRAP did you miss what I was saying. Let me remind you of something you said:

Red herring. The instrument of that stability is irrelevant to my argument

My WHOLE point here was that your position (about Coyote's assertion about means of control) was inherently contradictroy and I'd like to thank you for fully justifying me. In one post you state that means of stability is irrelevant to your argument and just now you state that your argument relies on a comparison between Saddam's regime and our governance. THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Here's my argument, since you obviously missed it the first time.

Iraq is less stable now than it was under Saddam's regime, so we have lost ground. Period. My argument has to do with exactly TWO conditions: the stability of Iraq before we invaded and the stability of Iraq after we invaded. It has to do with the END RESULT.

Am I getting through to you at all? How about this?

Stability of Iraq Before Invasion > Stability of Iraq After Invasion

Why do I argue that the instrument of stability is not relevant? Because it's hard to enjoy your new freedoms when people are running wild with car bombs and RPGs all over the fucking country.

Now to the tertiary parts of you latest post I'd add that I've spoken to frakin Iraqi christians and things for them are no worse now than they were under Saddam so you're dead wrong there (unless you've met some I haven't). For the average Joe muslim the fact that terrorists are killing him as oppossed to the state probably doesn't mean much but I'm guessing we'll have to deal with that in the rest of this post.

What you didn't watch the History channel's "Sons of Saddam" documentary like everyone else?

No.

So being picked off the street and knowing that it meant you would die (and the function of the Iraqi secret police and military police is hardly unique in this regards) makes it less unpredictable than being killed in a car bomb? The only difference is that with a car bomb you die right away wheras with eecutions you get to live in terror for a bit while waiting for them to get around to you. That's the difference and explain to me how it is ina any way significant?

Because the secret police at least had reasons for picking people up. Whereas now, it's simply random destruction. I can't believe you're too stupid to comprehend the difference between a motivated killing and simple, random killing.

Do you really not comprehend the difference between secret police saying, "Okay we're going to get this guy" and insurgents saying, "Okay we're going to set a bomb off here"? The former is a specific selection by someone; the other is not.

RED FUCKING HERRING. I'm talking about US attitudes towards the middle east and how they are presented in American media. I'm not talking about who is or isn't "radical" or "popular" I'm talking about the fact that the American media and social perception has been geared towards only presenting a negative image of the middle east as a place where the people are more barbaic and less cultured than Americans.

What the fuck does this have to do with what I said? I was responding to Coyote's assertion that saying insurgents acting like barbarians and animals is not surprising is quasi-racist, when it clearly isn't racist at all. This has to do with a specific set of beliefs embraced by people like the insurgents, not with what all Muslims believe. Or are you seriously going to argue that not all insurgents are jihadists?

I could give a shit how the American media presents the Middle East as a whole. Try to stay the fuck on-topic instead of posting rants like this. They make you look bad.

That is the point I'm making. Please stop going off on these tangent which have nothing to do with the points I'm actually trying to argue. That is the point Coyote was making, that is the point you were suppossedly trying to refute but which you sidestepped then as you did here again.

And how the Middle East as a whole is represented by the American media is irrelevant. Coyote was posting within the context of the question "Well why doesn't the media ever report on how barbaric the insurgents are?"

[tharkûn]

Stability is in the eye of the beholder. Would you say the city of Gary, Indiana is unstable? How about New Orleans or Detroit?

The truth of the matter is that entire burned out husks of cities in the US have idiots running wild with weaponry and they have higher murder rates than Bagdad. One could make a decent case that more violence occurs in US urban wastelands than in most of Iraq.

So this brings us to the crux of the matter: how unstable is too unstable? Is it stable enough to have elections even if you just had massive riots, lootings, and dozens killed? Is it stable enough if you wholly exclude a tenth of the population? Is it stable enough if major political figures and candidates are assassinated?

I tend to think the answer is yes seeing as the US managed to endure all of those. Let's be honest here is Iraq going to be any more unstable than the US was when the riots were burning down Detroit? If the US could survive sixty years of systematic black disenfranchisement why can't Iraq handle Sunni Arabs being scared to vote?

Might the wholething go tits up? Of course, that is always a possibility. But much of Iraq is stable and the last survey I saw showed 2/3rds of the population was planning to vote (higher than most US elections).

The media has this nasty habit of gauging everything against perfection. "Two children were shot to death today" - well is that more or less than normal; were they shot by accident, serial killer, or an insane sibling? What is normal for the first democratic elections in a country? Unfortunately killing, violence, boycotts, and ethnic strife have been the norm since the French Revolution.


On the larger topic I do think the Media is running wild with if it bleeds it leads. How many here know that the Iraqi Islamic Party threw in the towel and is now participating in the parliamentry election? How many news stories have you heard about ANYTHING north of Mosul? I don't know if it is institutional bias, rampant nielson competition, or whathave you, but the sheer lack of coverage on numerous positive stories out there does say something is skewing the picture.

[BoredShirtless]

One could make a decent case that more violence occurs in US urban wastelands than in most of Iraq.

Go ahead and make it then!

[Coyote]

IIRC, there was evidence found in the palaces of Uday and Qusay Hussein (some of the stuff talked about in the "Sons of Saddam" Documentary I believe) that implicated the sons as basically having their secret police detail grab any random hot chick they saw and dragging her back to the Palace for a night of fun-- photos and videos were allegedly found.

That would be random violence, I believe...


So it comes down to whether or not the violence now is being seen as violence done in progress towards a worthy goal. The media's coverage, if it is overly-negative, will influence the perception of that goal's 'worthiness'.

So let's suppose that in a given week, there are 100 newsworthy events-- 50 that are 'good news' and 50 that are 'bad news'. But there's only enough time to publicize 50 events total. They can publicize 25 good and 25 bad, or 50 all one way or the other.

If the media focuses only on the 'bad news' events because they are more lurid and bloody, and sell more newspapers or commercial spots, then it will give an impression that the war is ultimitely futile.

Of course if there is nothing but 'good news' pouring out then all but the most far-right wanksters would be suspicious and demand the truth...

So LTC Tim Ryan feels that the media basically does the equivilant of, say, 45 'bad' pieces and a token handful of 5 'good' stories that are mostly seen as fluff at best. This makes the war seem futile and pointless, and steers everyone towards a misguided and very cynical view of the goals, efforts, and events here.

Unfortunately his way to "correct" this is to talk more about dead insurgents, which I think is a mistake, and takes us back to the Vietnam 'body count progress' morality.

So-- do the Iraqis feel differently? Do the people here feel that the violence being done now is worth enduring so long as progress is made towards a better goal? My personal experience is a tentative 'yes' but progress has to be more visible-- in that the press isn't helping. A daily dose of despair hurts everyone's morale.

But since the pieces about rebuilt schools and rebuilt infrastructure and humanitarian aid efforts are dismissed as 'fluff' then that leave successful ops, which frequently can't be publicized much due to security needs, or because informers or translators here may be endangered.

As much as Iraqi police and military recruits are targeted by bombs, there is a constant surge of people trying to join. They want security-- there are far safer ways to make a living, although admittedly not as well-paying. What I see is they want to work for their country and rebuild it, and they seem to realize that there is no future with the militants, that is obvious...

Are media reports only believable so long as they are negative? Bad news is 'realistic' but good news is not? If good news is brushed aside as bullshit and only bad news is reported, then "what are we fighting for" is not what we should be asking, but just "what's the point?" It makes one wonder why we shouldn't just give up and let the militants do as they please.

I think a lot of the media negativity is reflected negativity off of George Bush-- destroy him by turning the war (or the perception of it) into another Vietnam, regardless of who dies in the process. In fact, the more death, the better, since it just leads to more despair...

[tharkûn]

Go ahead and make it then!

Why? Do you doubt that worst burned out shells of cities have more violence than say Umm Qasr?

[Plekhanov]

Go ahead and make it then!

Why? Do you doubt that worst burned out shells of cities have more violence than say Umm Qasr?

I was under the impression that if you make an assertion and are called on its up to you to back it up.

If it's as easy a case to make as you say, it shouldn't take much effort so why don't you go ahead and do so?

[tharkûn]

I was under the impression that if you make an assertion and are called on its up to you to back it up.

If it's as easy a case to make as you say, it shouldn't take much effort so why don't you go ahead and do so?

I was unsure if he was challenging me to do so or was just being sarcastic. Under Saddam the murder rate in Iraq was 12 per 100,000. Current reports say that on average Iraq has 15 murders per 100,000 due to terrorism and 5 murders per 100,000 due to "regular" murder. The worst city in the US, Gary, has multiplicatively more murders. Excluding places like Fallajuh, Tikrit, etc. and the Iraqi death toll drops significantly.

Again elections in the US happened in the face of mass violence, in the face of terrorism, in the face of political assassination. It isn't an ideal situation by a long shot, but it does not fordoom the elections to failure.

[Axis Kast]

Shep’s point is that the news media here is barely interested in any of the successes we make in Iraq. Instead, their constant over-emphasis on individual car bombings and ambushes gives the impression that virtually zero progress is being made on any level – strategic, political, and otherwise.

The soldier in the article points to a success in Fallujah; American forces eliminated much of their opposition. The media is giving the impression that it was nothing but gear-spinning; American troops were fighting a combat action, but the ostensible goal was never reached – or so the media implies.

I think this soldier is frustrated by the “body-bag syndrome” that media is often billed as responsible for having created and for having perpetuated since Vietnam.

[Beowulf]

I was under the impression that if you make an assertion and are called on its up to you to back it up.

If it's as easy a case to make as you say, it shouldn't take much effort so why don't you go ahead and do so?

I was unsure if he was challenging me to do so or was just being sarcastic. Under Saddam the murder rate in Iraq was 12 per 100,000. Current reports say that on average Iraq has 15 murders per 100,000 due to terrorism and 5 murders per 100,000 due to "regular" murder. The worst city in the US, Gary, has multiplicatively more murders. Excluding places like Fallajuh, Tikrit, etc. and the Iraqi death toll drops significantly.

Again elections in the US happened in the face of mass violence, in the face of terrorism, in the face of political assassination. It isn't an ideal situation by a long shot, but it does not fordoom the elections to failure.

IIRC, the murder rate in DC was about 45 per 100k in 2003. In Gary,IN, it's a bit less than 68 per 100k.

[The Kernel]

I was under the impression that if you make an assertion and are called on its up to you to back it up.

If it's as easy a case to make as you say, it shouldn't take much effort so why don't you go ahead and do so?

I was unsure if he was challenging me to do so or was just being sarcastic. Under Saddam the murder rate in Iraq was 12 per 100,000. Current reports say that on average Iraq has 15 murders per 100,000 due to terrorism and 5 murders per 100,000 due to "regular" murder. The worst city in the US, Gary, has multiplicatively more murders. Excluding places like Fallajuh, Tikrit, etc. and the Iraqi death toll drops significantly.

Again elections in the US happened in the face of mass violence, in the face of terrorism, in the face of political assassination. It isn't an ideal situation by a long shot, but it does not fordoom the elections to failure.

Those numbers for the Iraqi murder rate are completely contradicted by other studies and there is virtually no way to tell which is accurate. Major news outlets have come across a 28-fold difference in murder rates per 100k based purely on different studies using the same methodology, but the high numbers have shown ~140 per 100k in Baghdad in late 2003, before the insurgency even picked up.

Part of the problem here is that a lot of these studies don't take into account civilian casualties from US military operations (like in Fallujah, where we have yet to get an accurate accounting of the civilian dead). So don't hold that number of 20 per 100k to be a high end estimate, it's on the lower end of the studies done.

[Chmee]

Shep’s point is that the news media here is barely interested in any of the successes we make in Iraq. Instead, their constant over-emphasis on individual car bombings and ambushes gives the impression that virtually zero progress is being made on any level – strategic, political, and otherwise.

The soldier in the article points to a success in Fallujah; American forces eliminated much of their opposition. The media is giving the impression that it was nothing but gear-spinning; American troops were fighting a combat action, but the ostensible goal was never reached – or so the media implies.

I think this soldier is frustrated by the “body-bag syndrome” that media is often billed as responsible for having created and for having perpetuated since Vietnam.

I can only say that this 'perspective' on whether the war is going well or not is hardly a matter of reporters vs. soldiers.

On a flight to NY last month I sat next to a guy who was flying to South Carolina on leave after a long deployment near Mosul. When the guy on the other side of him asked whether things were generally getting better or worse, he didn't miss a beat before immediately answering "Oh, worse." He was strongly hoping to be assigned to Afghanistan after his leave, which to him seemed comparatively safe. (Mostly because of the daily mortar & IED attacks he was seeing in Mosul.)

It's not the media's job to stir up optimism about the war. Especially when the government is doing its damndest to spin the facts and paint the most optimistic picture possible about the war (EXACTLY as it did during Nam), it is the media's job to ignore the spin and report what they SEE.

[Axis Kast]

It's not the media's job to stir up optimism about the war.

Red herring. I did not accuse the media of being insufficiently jingoistic.

Especially when the government is doing its damndest to spin the facts and paint the most optimistic picture possible about the war (EXACTLY as it did during Nam)

I won't argue about what role the media should play in responding to government policy.

I will say that the government is right in trying to save face, however.

it is the media's job to ignore the spin and report what they SEE.

And this soldier is arguing that the media has been too myopic in Iraq - just like Rather, they spring for the most sensational, hard-hitting stories, and ultimately do a disservice to somebody seeking a comprehensive picture.

The soldier is upset at the choice of stories.

[jegs2]

Perspective is an interesting thing. The terrorists and insurgents have a clear objective: Manipulate US public opinion to a degree sufficient to force a withdrawl of US forces from Iraq (and indeed the entire Middle East). They learned that lesson loud and clear from Somalia years ago -- kill enough Americans and they will leave, for they have no stomach for a real fight. As the election draws closer, the attacks are mounting, which is a common tactic by terrorists in order to attempt to influence potential voters. The ultimate target of terrorists in Iraq is both the American people (public opinion), with which they appear to be meeting with mission success, and the Iraqi public (by preventing them from going to the polls), which remains to be seen. Another interesting thing to watch is the attitude of Americans (and indeed most Westerners) in regards to the conduct of war. We are indoctrinated to see stories cleanly wrapped up and a conclusion met on television and in movie theaters anywhere from a half hour to perhaps three at the most. When we get service, we expect to get it promptly and the way in which we want it, and those who fail to please us quickly enough meet with ire and discontent. In much the same way, we expect "cut-and-dried" wars in which victory is clearly established and an exit or "game over" date clearly set for all to see. Contrast that with how those in the Middle East see the word. They are extraordinarily patient and longsuffering. They view history from a very ancient and patient perspective. The will of Allah will be done, regardless of how long it takes or how many have to suffer and die. To those who fight against the US and its allies in Iraq, there is no exit strategy, and there is no "game over" piece. Their vision of an ultimate victory sees no place for anything other than their version of Islamic theocracy in charge of all of the Middle East (and eventually the entire world). Death for them is victory, for it ushers in the beginning of eternity in Paradise, earned righteously through a martyr's death while waging holy jihad on the infidel. Such an enemy is extrodinarily difficult to defeat, for they cannot be barganed with or reasoned with. Their way is the only acceptable way, and all others are to be ruthlessly eliminated. I saw part of this mindset in the nine months I spent in the Middle East. Such an enemy will not be quickly defeated, and unfortunately I firmly believe most Westerners simply don't possess the understanding of the enemy's mindset, and we may not possess the patience to wage this kind of war. All that being said, there is good news that is easily overlooked. Which parts of Iraq are currently considered unstable and under constant threat from insurgents and terrorists, compared to areas that are relatively calm? An election appears all but imminent, despite the best efforts by the enemy to thwart it.

Perspective is an interesting thing.

[Chmee]

Perspective is an interesting thing. The terrorists and insurgents have a clear objective: Manipulate US public opinion to a degree sufficient to force a withdrawl of US forces from Iraq (and indeed the entire Middle East). They learned that lesson loud and clear from Somalia years ago -- kill enough Americans and they will leave, for they have no stomach for a real fight. As the election draws closer, the attacks are mounting, which is a common tactic by terrorists in order to attempt to influence potential voters. The ultimate target of terrorists in Iraq is both the American people (public opinion), with which they appear to be meeting with mission success, and the Iraqi public (by preventing them from going to the polls), which remains to be seen. Another interesting thing to watch is the attitude of Americans (and indeed most Westerners) in regards to the conduct of war. We are indoctrinated to see stories cleanly wrapped up and a conclusion met on television and in movie theaters anywhere from a half hour to perhaps three at the most. When we get service, we expect to get it promptly and the way in which we want it, and those who fail to please us quickly enough meet with ire and discontent. In much the same way, we expect "cut-and-dried" wars in which victory is clearly established and an exit or "game over" date clearly set for all to see. Contrast that with how those in the Middle East see the word. They are extraordinarily patient and longsuffering. They view history from a very ancient and patient perspective. The will of Allah will be done, regardless of how long it takes or how many have to suffer and die. To those who fight against the US and its allies in Iraq, there is no exit strategy, and there is no "game over" piece. Their vision of an ultimate victory sees no place for anything other than their version of Islamic theocracy in charge of all of the Middle East (and eventually the entire world). Death for them is victory, for it ushers in the beginning of eternity in Paradise, earned righteously through a martyr's death while waging holy jihad on the infidel. Such an enemy is extrodinarily difficult to defeat, for they cannot be barganed with or reasoned with. Their way is the only acceptable way, and all others are to be ruthlessly eliminated. I saw part of this mindset in the nine months I spent in the Middle East. Such an enemy will not be quickly defeated, and unfortunately I firmly believe most Westerners simply don't possess the understanding of the enemy's mindset, and we may not possess the patience to wage this kind of war. All that being said, there is good news that is easily overlooked. Which parts of Iraq are currently considered unstable and under constant threat from insurgents and terrorists, compared to areas that are relatively calm? An election appears all but imminent, despite the best efforts by the enemy to thwart it.

Perspective is an interesting thing.

I'd counter that this perspective has very little to do with East v. West, it has to do with people fighting for their personal and national survival on their home turf, vs. people fighting for rather abstract geopolitical goals far, far from home. Of course they're in it for the long haul, it's their freakin' HOME. When somebody comes and bombs the crap out of Seattle and rolls tanks up I-5, I can guarantee you we'll be as long-haul as anybody on this planet.

They're in a war for their survival ... we're not, no matter how the Executive tries to sell it as that ... and it does make ALL the difference.

[Coyote]

...whereas I and numerous others are seeing things here as far better than the press has been representing them.

I mean, we convoyed probably 100 tons of ammo every day on flatbed trucks for two months. We drove from Taji to Tikrit, Saddam's home town, through towns and villages that were packed with people and could easily figure out our schedule.

We were lightly armored and our heaviest weapons were a pair of .50-cal machineguns. One of the towns we drove through was an al-Sadr stronghold and at the termninus of our voyage we were almost a stone's throw from the tombs of Uday and Qusay.

This should be a magnet for attacks. One route, predictable schedule, and on the flatbed trucks we were openly carrying rockets, bombs, missiles, etc...

We got cold stares and rude gestures, and the occasional rock thrown. We got shot at less than a half-dozen times, and the worst result of that was a driver that got his foot shot. There were, about once a week, a new burnt truck hulk from some roadside bomb or RPG victim along our route but we never saw any attack occur, just the results.

Our worst attacks were qhwn a car bomb rushed the gate of Taji, which may or may not have had anything to do with our convoys, and a mortar attack that impacted after we'd already traveled 100 meters out of the intended kill zone.

But that's it. Sounds like a lot, sounds dramatic, but considering the way things could have gone south under those conditions, it was a cakewalk. It was a lot less dangerous than we expected.

[Coyote]

I'd counter that this perspective has very little to do with East v. West, it has to do with people fighting for their personal and national survival on their home turf, vs. people fighting for rather abstract geopolitical goals far, far from home. Of course they're in it for the long haul, it's their freakin' HOME. ...They're in a war for their survival ... we're not, no matter how the Executive tries to sell it as that ... and it does make ALL the difference.

\


Perspective has a lot to do with this. Their perspective of the world is based on "who is a Muslim" and "who is not". We are "Western Christendom" whether we like it or not.

The Jihad routinely refers to fighting against "the Crusaders" because they do indeed see this as one more of an ongoing attempt by Western Christendom to annex sections of the Middle East for imperialistic purposes.

The culture here is very firmly rooted in the past and traditions. They've been taught that they were once part of a vast and powerful empire that spread enlightenment through much of the known world and the earth once trampled beneath the hooves of their warhorses.

...And that it all came crashing to an end when they began to be tempted by Western ways and turned from Allah. The sneaky Westerners have tried again and again to conquer the Muslims but, Ins'allah, the Faith kept them strong. Now the West tries to make the Muslims abandon the Faith and turn to Western ways of money and whoring, and make it easier to invade again.

That's what we're up against, at least as far as the Jihadist movement goes.

[Chmee]

I'd counter that this perspective has very little to do with East v. West, it has to do with people fighting for their personal and national survival on their home turf, vs. people fighting for rather abstract geopolitical goals far, far from home. Of course they're in it for the long haul, it's their freakin' HOME. ...They're in a war for their survival ... we're not, no matter how the Executive tries to sell it as that ... and it does make ALL the difference.

\


Perspective has a lot to do with this. Their perspective of the world is based on "who is a Muslim" and "who is not". We are "Western Christendom" whether we like it or not.

The Jihad routinely refers to fighting against "the Crusaders" because they do indeed see this as one more of an ongoing attempt by Western Christendom to annex sections of the Middle East for imperialistic purposes.

<snip>

Gee, where would they ever get that idea? Maybe if armies of English-speaking white guys from the other side of the planet didn't come rolling through the 'hood every few decades it would be easier to disabuse them of this silly, propagandistic view.

Anyway, I wasn't really referring to the Jihadist mentality, but the idea that somehow we, as Americans, are by nature somehow less able to commit to wars for the long haul than other cultures. In a war for our survival on our home turf, we're just mean .... to borrow a line from Josey Wales, I mean plumb mad-dog mean. But far from home, against people who never attacked us, fighting to choose the form of government of people whose culture we understand poorly ..... well I don't think any nation or army fights as well under those circumstances as they do when defending their home.

[Coyote]

Gee, where would they ever get that idea? Maybe if armies of English-speaking white guys from the other side of the planet didn't come rolling through the 'hood every few decades it would be easier to disabuse them of this silly, propagandistic view.

But it is part of the overall perception. You and I and probably most 'normal' Westerners realize that this has nothing to do with the Crusades of 1099 and onward. The goals and objectives behind those wars were not the reasons this war is being fought.

But they don't see it that way-- they just figure, "Here we go again" and they are fighting against something that is not there. Many, not all, don't believe the idea of 'spreadign democracy' because they think it is a trick.

Part of that reason is because the West hasn't dealt fairly with the region for a long time, but that does not invalidate the pont that what they think this war is about (a continuation of the Christian Crusades) is wrong.

Anyway, I wasn't really referring to the Jihadist mentality, but the idea that somehow we, as Americans, are by nature somehow less able to commit to wars for the long haul than other cultures.

Oh, on that, we're in agreement. We're trained as a people to be risk-averse and casualty-averse and accomodating to other points of view no matter how dark or corrupt they may be that we don't have the stomach for a long war that (IMO) needs to be fought.

In a war for our survival on our home turf, we're just mean .... to borrow a line from Josey Wales, I mean plumb mad-dog mean.

I'd actually disagree. I think, to be honest, a lot of Americans have become so insulated from our values and perceptions of 'freedom' that many would be willing to accept a foreign occupying power so long as their standard of living did not go down too much.

Many Americans would advocate not fighting because so many have taken to heart the thought that "fighting is wrong" under any circumstances.

... I don't think any nation or army fights as well under those circumstances as they do when defending their home.

It depends. Most 'typical Iraqis' I'd wager realize that we're not trying to take their homes from them, nor are we trying to unfurl a giant American flag over their country and make it the 51st state as soon as it quiets down. Joe Iraqi wants all the people with guns to go away-- all of them, even the Arab ones.

It's not a matter of being sympathetic to the Americans or sympathetic to the Jihad movement, the Ba'ath Party, or the Shia'a... it's just about having a peaceful place to live, work, and sleep.

The media leaves people with the impression that there is a wholesale rejection of US values or intents or what have you-- it's not. Two forces are battling over ideology but the people that will be ultimately claimed as the prize just want to be left alone, not be turned into "anti-US" types specifically.

[Chmee]

In a war for our survival on our home turf, we're just mean .... to borrow a line from Josey Wales, I mean plumb mad-dog mean.

I'd actually disagree. I think, to be honest, a lot of Americans have become so insulated from our values and perceptions of 'freedom' that many would be willing to accept a foreign occupying power so long as their standard of living did not go down too much.

Many Americans would advocate not fighting because so many have taken to heart the thought that "fighting is wrong" under any circumstances.

Wow, I find that a very interesting perspective. Even living in one of the most liberal cities in the country, I know very few true pacifists. The most hardcore pagan/Wiccan I know still carries a Glock! We might have sent two liberal women to the U.S. Senate, but we're still a home for Trident missile subs and nuclear carrier battle groups. We're a little schizo that way. I think it's a common foreign misconception that Americans are not true fighters, but it's surprising to me to hear that from someone who's lived here.

I tend to agree more with Neal Stephenson's analysis of our national character in Cryptonomicon .... people simply fail to appreciate that we are world-class GRUDGE holders ... once we believe you have done us wrong, we tend to go to ridiculous lengths for payback. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this has changed.

[Imperial Overlord]

Americans, to massively over generalize, don't pay a whole lot of attention to foreign affairs. Living in the most powerful country in the world, they can get away with it. Stuff that happens in other countries doesn't really register with a lot of them.

Come to their country and mess with them, regardless of the reason, and they're pissed. You can still hear Americans pissed about Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is a political bludgeon for that reason.

[Coyote]

...I think it's a common foreign misconception that Americans are not true fighters, but it's surprising to me to hear that from someone who's lived here.

I see a nation of draft dodgers and folks that wanted to be left alone; that were willing to tolerate British overlordship so long as they at least were treated decently, and more recently a nation of people who have been conditioned to accept and tolerate any point of view, no matter how unseemly.

I tend to agree more with Neal Stephenson's analysis of our national character in Cryptonomicon .... people simply fail to appreciate that we are world-class GRUDGE holders ... once we believe you have done us wrong, we tend to go to ridiculous lengths for payback. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this has changed.

Americans as grudge holders?? I can't subscribe to that. America is the nation that practically refuses to study history or recognize it as relevant; that anything that happened more than 20 years ago is "ancient history-- no longer relevant".

The military would fight like dogs but if the US military was defeated it depends on what the enemy does: harsh subjugation would, indeed, bring the vicious guerrilla war you envision.

But a victorious enemy that moves in and essentially leaves things as they are-- Friends reruns; pizza delivery under 30 minutes; all the beer they can drink; nighclubs left open... I see a lot of people just acquiescing.

For Americans to fight it takes an atrocity, a big, ongoing one that hurts all the time. Remember, even after 9-11, the hue and cry from other Americans about how evil it would be to "bomb the poorest country in the world".

Lets face it, given a choice we'd make the world safe not for freedom and democracy-- those words ring hollow to a lot of Americnas these days and are code words for consumerism-- but safe for plasma TVs and La-Z-Boy lounge chairs.

[Petrosjko]

Gotta agree with Coyote. If anything, we're massively forgiving. The public face of American wars tend to revolve around a demonized figure, whenever possible. Bin Laden is the latest example.

Imperial Overlord is right about our insulation, but there's also the factor of the fact that the average American firmly believes that we're the good guys, and therefore to attack us, either metaphorically or physically, is an act of evil.

Hence why 'France' is now a cussword in the states.

[tharkûn]

Those numbers for the Iraqi murder rate are completely contradicted by other studies and there is virtually no way to tell which is accurate. Major news outlets have come across a 28-fold difference in murder rates per 100k based purely on different studies using the same methodology, but the high numbers have shown ~140 per 100k in Baghdad in late 2003, before the insurgency even picked up.

Yes I know of those ones. The ones which use the morgue counts. The problem with that drivel is that they (mostly the NYTimes) cite another article which states point blank that they are including auto accidents, suicides, accidental deaths, and insurgents gunned down in firefights. The source documents were quite clear that 140 was including all forms of untimely death. But what the hell let's quote the NYTimes's fraudulent rehacking another peice and dropping the point that the numbers include auto fatalities.

Part of the problem here is that a lot of these studies don't take into account civilian casualties from US military operations (like in Fallujah, where we have yet to get an accurate accounting of the civilian dead). So don't hold that number of 20 per 100k to be a high end estimate, it's on the lower end of the studies done.

No it isn't I've seen studies that go down to 5 per 100k, but those are obvious BS, just like the NYTimes "study" you are quoting.

I'd counter that this perspective has very little to do with East v. West, it has to do with people fighting for their personal and national survival on their home turf, vs. people fighting for rather abstract geopolitical goals far, far from home

Oh cut the revisionist BS. They are not fighting for "survival" the only reason there is any fighting whatsoever at all is because they pick up a gun and start shooting. What is their goal? To free their people, to restore local control? No to suppress free and fair elections. Several militant groups have point blank stated that they beleive democracy is unislamic and hence will fight. They are fighting because they are religious imperialist bastards or are useful fools for religious imperialist bastards.

The people who do want a free Iraq, and even want to boot the US out 30 days after the election are CAMPAIGNING with that election platform, not trying to squelch free elections.

Gee, where would they ever get that idea? Maybe if armies of English-speaking white guys from the other side of the planet didn't come rolling through the 'hood every few decades it would be easier to disabuse them of this silly, propagandistic view.

From 1600 to say 1700 they didn't see white guys doing squat, the crusaders were still evil. The roots of fundementalist Islamic violence predate the foundation of the United States.

people simply fail to appreciate that we are world-class GRUDGE holders

Learn your history. Immediately after the revolutionary war the fledgling US developed massive trade relations with Great Britain and tried valient to remain neutral in the British-French struggles. Not all that long after 1812 the British and the Americans declare the western hemisphere to be off limits to European powers working amicably togethor. By the mexican war there is no grudge against the British. Then there are the Mexicans, and despite seizing massive territory the US pressures Maximillian out of Mexico on behalf of the Mexicans. Or take the confederates, in a matter of a decade the south is reintegrated into the body politic and the whole country is off to fight the Spaniards togethor. WWI sees the US get pissed at most of the allied powers at Versaille, yet in WWII American lives liberate western Europe without asking for more than ground to bury their dead. The Japanese and Germans, the arch nemesis of WWII, end up as enduring US allies through the cold war. The North Koreans frankly are completely off the American radar and only their instance on developing nuclear weapons (and their habit of eating treebark) keep them in the frame of consciousness. The Chinese were valued allies as counterweights to the USSR and a massive trade partners today. Hell the heart of the USSR today is a "valued partner in the war on terrorism" or some such soundbyte.

Please tell me who did the US go out of their way to payback once they were no longer a threat?

More often than not America allies with its previous enemies. Once the enemy is no longer viewed as a threat the US no longer gives a damn. Americans fight like the devil when somebody looks threatening, but otherwise care far more about selling Big Macs.

[Chmee]

...I think it's a common foreign misconception that Americans are not true fighters, but it's surprising to me to hear that from someone who's lived here.

I see a nation of draft dodgers and folks that wanted to be left alone; that were willing to tolerate British overlordship so long as they at least were treated decently, and more recently a nation of people who have been conditioned to accept and tolerate any point of view, no matter how unseemly.

I tend to agree more with Neal Stephenson's analysis of our national character in Cryptonomicon .... people simply fail to appreciate that we are world-class GRUDGE holders ... once we believe you have done us wrong, we tend to go to ridiculous lengths for payback. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this has changed.

Americans as grudge holders?? I can't subscribe to that. America is the nation that practically refuses to study history or recognize it as relevant; that anything that happened more than 20 years ago is "ancient history-- no longer relevant".

The military would fight like dogs but if the US military was defeated it depends on what the enemy does: harsh subjugation would, indeed, bring the vicious guerrilla war you envision.

But a victorious enemy that moves in and essentially leaves things as they are-- Friends reruns; pizza delivery under 30 minutes; all the beer they can drink; nighclubs left open... I see a lot of people just acquiescing.

For Americans to fight it takes an atrocity, a big, ongoing one that hurts all the time. Remember, even after 9-11, the hue and cry from other Americans about how evil it would be to "bomb the poorest country in the world".

Lets face it, given a choice we'd make the world safe not for freedom and democracy-- those words ring hollow to a lot of Americnas these days and are code words for consumerism-- but safe for plasma TVs and La-Z-Boy lounge chairs.

Well, you just must have grown up with different people than I did ... I simply don't know the Americans you're referring to, not as a majority of the population. Not even as a significant percentage. Question the need to make war far from our shores? Always, that's a citizen's duty in anything that calls itself a democracy. Fail to fight when friends and loved ones are being killed by an enemy on our shores? Let me know when it happens.

If you'd read Cryptonomicon you'd remember clearly the context that our grudge-holding was being put in ... it was part of a fictional inner dialogue Admiral Yamamoto was having with himself on the way to his fateful meeting with American P-38's, thinking about the 'Imperial Army boneheads' who had completely failed to appreciate American national character when making their war plans. If you don't call vaporizing cities full of civilians with nuclear weapons in retaliation for an attack on a naval base, and the relative balance of casualties, to be a fairly clear indication of our vengefulness when wronged, I don't know what will do it.

[The Kernel]

Yes I know of those ones. The ones which use the morgue counts. The problem with that drivel is that they (mostly the NYTimes) cite another article which states point blank that they are including auto accidents, suicides, accidental deaths, and insurgents gunned down in firefights. The source documents were quite clear that 140 was including all forms of untimely death. But what the hell let's quote the NYTimes's fraudulent rehacking another peice and dropping the point that the numbers include auto fatalities.

And your numbers fail to take into account civilian casualties of US military actions. You think that when you fire artillery into a metropolitan area there is no civilian death? But what the hell, they are all terrorists anyways right?

No it isn't I've seen studies that go down to 5 per 100k, but those are obvious BS, just like the NYTimes "study" you are quoting.

Even the NY Times study didn't have a handle on civilian casualities in areas like Fallujah, a rather gross oversight wouldn't you say? You know why? Because they US military isn't interested in releasing such information. We also don't have shit for accurate casualty information on non-US soldiers being treated or declared dead by US military medical teams.