War Is Over?
Karl Zinsmeister, editor of American Enterprise, is one of the best reporters going when it comes to the Iraq war.
And, says Zinzmeister, the war is over.
"War", of course, is when the enemy still has a chance to accomplish his objective of defeating you, of taking your territory (or re-taking territory you've taken from him), from destroying your force. It's not the same as saying "There will be no more violence in Iraq", but it does mean the overall issue is no longer in doubt.
Read Zinsmeister's article and judge for yourself:
What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue—in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.
Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.
And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead.
Unrealistic?
Hardly:
The terrorist struggle has hardly ended. Even a very small number of vicious men operating in secret will find opportunities to blow up outdoor markets and public buildings, assassinate prominent political figures, and knock down office towers. But public opinion is not on the insurgents’ side, and the battle of Iraq is no longer one of war fighting—but of policing and politics.
Policing and political problem-solving are mostly tasks for Iraqis, not Americans. And the Iraqis are taking them up, often with gusto. I saw much evidence that responsible Iraqis are gradually isolating the small but dangerously nihilistic minority trying to strangle their new society...Increasingly, the Iraqi people are taking direction of their own lives. And like all other self-ruling populations, they are more interested in improving the quality of their lives than in mindless warring. It will take some time, but Iraq has begun the process of becoming a normal country.
There are examples - many of them - of terror in Iraq. Americans are still dying, and parts of Iraq are still dangerous.
But before you cite any of them as examples, ask yourself; is any of it going to affect the outcome of the war, any more than any IRA bombing carried out after about 1976 was going to affect the course of the war in Northern Ireland?
Of course not.
Posted by Mitch at
June 22, 2005 12:31 PM
| TrackBack
If I remember correctly, there are about 900 "workplace-related homicides" every year in America. That's workplace homicides, not workplace accidents. That would be about the same death rate as the US military in Iraq, and a high percentage of those (in Iraq) are from accidents rather than from enemy fire. That doesn't make military deaths any easier to take, just more perspective. Life is dangerous.
Posted by: RBMN at June 22, 2005 02:33 PMWorking population of USA: ~150 million
Work-related homicides: ~900 (as given above)
Work-related homicide rate: .000006
Cummulative number of soliders in Iraq: ~1 million
Work-related "homicides": ~1700 [1]
Work-related homicide rate: .0017
Conclusion: You're an idiot!
At least you're not alone. I heard that rebels blew up a convoy on the way to the Houston International Airport yesterday. After all, Tom Delay says it's just like Iraq there.
If Iraq is so great, why are so many people dying?
[1] For accuracy, this number should be annualized, but I think my point is proven. It is several orders of magnitude more dangerous in Iraq than the typical American workplace. Duh!
Posted by: Luke Francl at June 22, 2005 03:31 PMRe: Luke Francl at June 22, 2005 03:31 PM
"Rate" was the wrong word. "Total" was the word I should have used.
900 American lives taken are 900 American lives taken, military or not, in Iraq or not in Iraq.
Posted by: RBMN at June 22, 2005 05:49 PM"If Iraq is so great"
Manipulative strawman. Iraq isn't "so great", it's just improving.
Quick, Luke - go to Iraq and ask how many people want to go back.
" why are so many people dying?"
Because Islamofascist and Ba'ath revanchist terrorists are killing them. And then getting killed by coalition troops.
Or do you have a trick question in mind?
Posted by: mitch at June 22, 2005 06:07 PMTimber cutters have a fatality rate of 118 per 100000, or 0.12%. Fishermen 71 (.07%).
http://www.rasmusen.org/g406/workplace_accidents.html
Posted by: Gideon at June 22, 2005 10:50 PMGuys... Iraq is not about numbers.
Iraq is not even about Iraq. It's about a war that has been going on for decades, and will probably go on for decades longer.
The troops just can't stay in Iraq until the last shot. They just can't.
The only question is how, when and under what circumstances can they be pulled out the soonest?
Posted by: Lost Budgie at June 22, 2005 11:59 PMGuys... Iraq is not about numbers.
Iraq is not even about Iraq. It's about a war that has been going on for decades, and will probably go on for decades longer.
The troops just can't stay in Iraq until the last shot. They just can't.
The only question is how, when and under what circumstances can they be pulled out the soonest?
Posted by: Lost Budgie at June 23, 2005 12:00 AMGuys... Iraq is not about numbers.
Iraq is not even about Iraq. It's about a war that has been going on for decades, and will probably go on for decades longer.
The troops just can't stay in Iraq until the last shot. They just can't.
The only question is how, when and under what circumstances can they be pulled out the soonest?
Posted by: Lost Budgie at June 23, 2005 12:00 AMSorry about the triple post. Had no response so I hit it a couple of times.
I guess the computer was just misbehaving.
G'night all.
Posted by: Lost Budgie at June 23, 2005 12:03 AMBujj,
You make categorical statements without any support.
You say "how and when..." is the "only question" - but not why. Because there are MANY other, vastly more important questions.
Posted by: mitch at June 23, 2005 06:38 AM"Quick, Luke - go to Iraq and ask how many people want to go back."
Uh oh, Mitch. If you start letting the people of Iraq exercise self-determination, you'll quickly find that the majority of them want our troops to leave. If they don't hate us, the attitude is, "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam. Please leave."
Or are you talking about our troops? I believe most of them would like to come home, sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Luke Francl at June 23, 2005 10:44 AMIf "I" start letting people exercise self-determination? Well, there's the little matter of the election and the constitution...
Besides, I was referring to "going back" to life under Hussein. You know - the life that people on your side considered so idyllic. And where the people on your side still ignore the *real* torture that happened on an epic scale.
As to our troops - now you're making things up. Most troops want to come home - duh - but plenty 'o polls show they want to *get the job done*.
Which they're doing, despite the media's myopia over it...
Posted by: mitch at June 23, 2005 10:52 AM