Isolated Pockets of Resistance

This map courtesy of Today in Iraq.

Sorry for slow posting today. Last night I was out enjoying The Chris Leblanc Band at Swampmama's, emphasis on enjoying.

I have been looking over stuff at Whiskey Bar, Needlenose TalkingPointsMemo, Pandagon, Counterpunch--along with Timshel's Saturday post and I quickly glanced at Mary's site which I'll look at more closely once I'm fully alert. And, just to let the anger flow a bit, I linked over to an Instapundit screed regarding casualities and David Brook's weird op-ed in the New York Times.

Regarding Reynolds and the other rightwards gross comparison of body counts: I find this sort of death-by-numbers to be more than a little disgusting. To callously suggest that the numbers "aren't nearly as bad as...[name the war]" is cynical and shows a profound degree of contempt for those who wear the uniform. Much in the same manner as "they knew what they were getting into when they signed up," which I've written about before.

Yes, combat is a bloody business. Nobody thinks otherwise. That's why the country should be very careful about where and when our forces are deployed. Also, it is totally disengenous to compare combat deaths from different eras: wounds that killed in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II are thankfully not always lethal these days. That said, they aren't mere scratches either.

The right-leaners also seem not to realize the level of carnage being inflicted upon the Iraqi people. The number of dead and wounded Iraqis in Fallujah speak to an indiscriminate use of firepower. In the extreme short run, this might keep a lid on the uprising, but the long term implications are about as negative as one can consider. There is now NO WAY that the so-called "Sunni Triangle" will ever accept our presence, which means that, until we withdraw, the situation will fluctuate between low-level hostility and outright rebellion.

Meanwhile, as the map linked to above indicates, resistance is by no means isolated--as this map demonstrates, opposition to the occupation is evident almost everywhere there is a significant number of people.

Regardless of how many times Rumsfeld might lie about contingency plans for Iraq, the fact is that NO ONE thought that, one year in, we'd be facing this kind of opposition. This alone should be enough to make any sane individual realize that the war is lost. David Brooks simply is trying his best to spin, as are the other warmongers. "Staying the course" at this point will do about as much good as it did for the French in Indochina or Algeria.

The war in Iraq is a complete fuck-up. We've lost hundreds of lives, spent huge amounts of money, and what we've gotten out of it is a Pandora's Box in the Middle East. I seriously doubt ANY war strategy would have worked in Iraq, but the one pursued by the Bush administration is particularly inept. Which shouldn't be all that surprising: Bush is about as lightweight as it comes when you talk about political figures. His "vision" for the world is about as complicated as that of an average high schooler. This country needs a leader who truly understands what's happening in the world, and has a detailed plan for dealing with world events. I don't know if Kerry has that kind of vision--yet--but I guarantee that Bush is simply out of his league.

As I've seen it written on other websites: 86-43-04. Indeed.