Like I said...
The always perspicacious Diana West writes in the Washington Times:
When asked to verify a British account of meetings at a summer villa north of Baghdad between American officials and "some members of the insurgency," as NBC's Tim Russert fashionably put it, Donald Rumsfeld disputed only one assertion: the number of meetings said to have taken place. The Times of London counted two, but "there have probably been many more than that," Mr. Rumsfeld replied, launching into a secretarial defense of "reaching out to the people who are not supporting the [Iraqi] government."...
There are two absolutely mind-boggling aspects to this story. The first is that such meetings even took place. Aren't we the people who don't negotiate with terrorists? The ones who voted GeorgeW."You're-With-Us-Or-Against-Us" Bush back into office? Apparently not. Or, if we are, something has changed to the point where such lines in the sand don't matter anymore. Additionally mind-boggling is the fact that practically no one in the world has noticed the change, or considered its disastrous ramifications....
In other words, that was some tea party the United States of America threw. If this guest list is legit, it represents a ghastly capitulation to terrorists and a strategic victory for terrorism, living proof that it's possible to kill and behead and hack and dismember and terrify your way to a peace parlay with the U.S.A. This suggests we may now be seeking an accommodation with Islamic terror networks, rather than their obliteration or even containment. And that suggests a sea change in strategy, vision, and soul...
What did ever happen to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?
Read it all.
I think this needs to be seen in juxtaposition ot recent reports of internecine fighting between Iraqi sunnis and foreign jihadis of the al-qaeda breed.
Recenmt reports suggested that both near the syrian border and northwards near mosul, some local Iraqi tribal chiefs have taken to shelling zarqawi loyalists because the latter'd ordered the killing of chiefs who met with govt officials.
I think its a sensible strategy, at least in the tactical sense. The Brits didn't rule an empire spanning half the world with a quarter million army without using tactics such as these.
Voletti:
My enemy's enemy is my friend is usually a risky strategy, but you may have a point in this case. I believe that the reason the tribal chiefs were talking with the government is that while they are proud Sunnis and against the occupation, they don't necessarily approve of the wholesale slaughter Zarqawi and Co are perpetrating against Iraqi citizens.
I supect most of the Iraqi people don't like the occupation much, but like the jihaddists even less.
No surpises. Bush, Rice and State have been forcing us in Israel to do exactly the same thing - and it shows.
What we have here is a failure to figure things out. They've only been at this, more or less, for four years. Now not all learning curves are steep. But some learning curves should rise to the occasion.
There is a high probability that this may be a case of Roman "diplomacy". The Romans did not exchange ambassadors like the Greeks had done before them, nor did they entertain foreign envoys except in two circumstances: foreign representatives were granted a hearing if they came to announce their surrender to the Romans or to convey their tribute. The Romans didn't see the need for any other type of interaction with foreign powers that did not involve sharp Roman metal implements.
American generals always have an open door for the enemy to approach in order to detail the protocols that will be used to effect their unconditional surrender.
Helegu Khan posted:The Romans didn't see the need for any other type of interaction with foreign powers that did not involve sharp Roman metal implements.
The Romans had pro-active foreign policy initiatives. As you point out, they were quite cynical in the use of power.
I hope though that you are right, that American generals are in the same mould as the Romans. There is some doubt in my mind, what with all the sensitivity training and all that - something that Roman generals were never taught in their Staff colleges.
If we were sitting down the 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' for tea, there would be more to Ms. West's worries, but, in this tribal society, talking makes sense. Each village elder is a law separate from the government in Baghdad, and from the Zarqawi types, and each needs to be given 'emoluments' and schmoozed to prevent them from helping the foreign jihadists and lurking Baathists.
Divide and conquer works.
Hulequ Khan & DP111-
I think the last 'Roman' in the U.S. military was Patton.
(Since then, the generals have been more in the mold of ineffectual Curtis LeMays, who are kept from over-reacting ("Bomb them back to the Stone Age!") or good p.r. spokeman Colin Powells ("You break it you own it.") who are freed to under-achieve -e.g.- allowing Saddam to retain and fly helicopter gunships after the 1991 Gulf War, with which he suppressed the original Iraqi popular revolt against his tyranny that might have toppled him in 1992 if the U.S. surrender accords had prevented Hussein's military from having the machinery to outgun and slaugher the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds.)
If they are trying to "make friends" with these homicidal animals it will be the begining of the end for us.
We cant back down from this strong policy we have..and it sickens me when the US tells Israel to do just that.
We say , dont worry Israel they just murdered thousands of civilians and desecrate all of your holy sites...just give them some more land and they will make nice.
When will we learn..Israel has restrained herself for far too long..its time to put these animals in their cages or just put them down.
God must be fuming at this point
The most important purpose of government is to protect citizens from the enemy. Can the American people depend on the government to defend them? If Patton was the last "Roman" general, we, the people, are in trouble. The unfortunate truth is that with porous borders and a government fighting a war "over there," no one is watching out for us "over here." It appears that the American people must prepare to defend themselves...
More mach posturing. Voletti and Waterdrgon were the only ones who talked sense (and Hulegu Khan disappoints me with his unusually ignorant commentary on Roman government). The glorification of Patton is plain silly: Patton was near-mad and, while valuable on the attack, would have been a catastrophe in any other condition - he was the same kind of general as the ones who shed rivers of blood in World War One for yards of land. America and the Allies owe their victory to Marshall and Eisenhower, men who did not indulge in machismo for its own sake. The fact that on the internet anyone can give vent to whatever wind sprouts from his or her mouth, irresponsibly and without any attempt to understand anything except their own need to posture, does not exempt us from trying to speak like responsible people. To do otherwise means to be generous with the blood of others; to yap about going out and killing Muslims means telling the soldiers in the American and allied armies, and any Iraqi who cares to come along, "Whopee! Here, you go and get shot at, and we will celebrate our machismo in your name." Any soldier in active service is entitled to speak that way; anyone else is just a posturing windbag. As for talks with the enemy, the first duty of any commander is to probe enemy attitudes. And never forget the old military proverb: "if an enemy wants to come over, build bridges of gold for him".
"if an enemy wants to come over, build bridges of gold for him".
That is one of the most honorable statements I have ever heard, but it was probably written when honor still enveloped the battlefield.
Words dont work on these animals...they hear bullets and bombs pretty well though
Paolo:
Thanks for the endorsement. It will be many years down the road before we will know for sure if invading Iraq was a watershed in the advancement of the human condition in the Middle East, but I believe that many Sunnis despised Saddam and his sons for their utter barbarity and corruption.
I expect the broader population recognizes that Iraq remains a hellhole, not immediately because of the presence of US and coalition troops, but because of the jihaddists, and the remnants of the Ba'ath's coalition of convenience, who seek only to brutalize the population as surely as the old regime did. But when you are in the middle of such chaos and misery, it's not easy to be grateful.
I continue to endure the results of purchasing and renovating an old house and can't tell you how PO'd I am at my friend who talked me into doing this and some of the trades who did sloppy work, so in a very, very small way, I can understand the frustration and apparent lack of gratitude on the part of Iraqis.