Iraq

James Dunnigan goes over the situation in Iraq, and asks “Who is winning?” Pretty good stuff.

Free Iraqi’s report from Radio Sawa:

Citizens of Al Mudiryiah were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.

The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.

3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as “Salafis”. [via Instapundit via Gay Patriot.]

This was a heartening juxtaposition with the news tonight, which showed Teddy Kennedy berating defense officials, raving that no Iraqis were fighting and only Americans were shedding blood. And this story is also more heartening than other current stories that make him look foolish, such as this one, which describes the twelve police recruits killed as a “lesson” to any Iraqis who might want to taint their country with the rule of law & democracy.

Both the soldiers represented by those men defending their policies in that committee room and those Iraqis who braved threats to vote are examples of courage we don’t expect to see in a Senate hearing room, a courage I doubt I could command. But I do understand what that courage serves: the vote, the open mike in that committee room where our representatives–people owing their place to our vote–can grill representatives of the army, big business, the administration. That courage serves the causes those partisan hacks abuse. But the expression of that tired and absurd anger (if not the anger itself) represents much that is bigger than Teddy. I’m just surprised that someone whose family has gained its fame and power from the votes others cast for them would not see the importance of those purple fingers and the reason those recruits were willing to take on that challenge and risk that death.

I feel sorry for those poor, deluded people of Iraq.

Yesterday, in my ignorance, I thought their election represented another step forward for their country, and perhaps the entire region. I admired the people’s bravery in going to the polls under a threat of death.

That was before I learned THE REAL TRUTH!

Surfing around the web today I learned that (1) the election was all sham, (2) even if it wasn’t a sham it meant absolutely nothing, (3) even if it does mean something, it just means the absolute best that the Iraqi people can hope for is an awful state of tyranny and oppression like suburban America. (Apparently, having the option of shopping at Walmart is a horrible fate beyond all telling. I never imagined!)

Yes, according to everyone from the kid behind the counter at Starbucks to the political-science professor who has never had a real job, the elections in Iraq are a complete waste of time, a non-event. But what about all those Iraqis who were thrilled and ecstatic to be voting for the first time?

Idiots and dupes, the lot of them.

I mean, they’re actually right there in Iraq! Can’t they see how awful everything is? If even the kid at Starbucks understands THE REAL TRUTH about the election, why can’t the great mass of Iraqis? Are they like brain damaged or something?

You know, we should take up a collection and arrange to fly all these earnest lefties who understand THE REAL TRUTH over to Iraq so that they can explain to randomly selected Iraqis just how awful their lives are, how stupid they are for hoping for a better and more democratic future, that the price they paid to get to this point was too high and, oh yeah, how they were really soooooo much better off under Saddam.

One can just images the faces of the Iraqis lighting up when THE REAL TRUTH strikes them. Even though they have personally lived through all of the events of the last 15 years, the striking intellect of the kid from Starbucks — who watches a lot of CNN — will overawe them and convince them that any hope they have for the future is just illusionary.

I really want to see that.
I want to film it and sell tickets.
From a safe distance.

Iraq the Model begins with a joyous “The People have won” and continues in celebration. In the midst is an anecdote that shows the value of disinterestedness – a portent of what’s to come (and must come in a democracry):

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted “vote for Allawi” less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:

“You’re a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people’s choice. This is Iraq’s army, not Allawi’s”.

This was a good sign indeed and the young officer’s statement was met by applause from the people on the street.

We don’t always remember how in modern times, the importance of the wall between the military and the political is as important in many countries as the wall between church and state. The Iraqis have learned – what they don’t want has taught them what they do.

Terrorists kill to spread terror, hence the name. A terrorist attack is, by definition, an attack against random civilians for the pure purpose of intimidating a population. Basically, everybody in the terrorist targeted population is a target.

This is a real problem from the security perspective. Even a small country or ethnic group has millions of members. If a terrorist just needs to kill a handful of them out of millions to have a successful attack, he can attack anywhere and at anytime. This makes terrorists nearly impossible to stop if they have the least foothold within a society. They get to pick the time and place of the attack.

It is easy to be a big shot terrorist who can pick from thousands of miles of street, tens of thousands of buildings and any time over a period of months. You can strike without warning and easily escape before any authority can catch you. However, what happens to if you are forced to attack a few heavily guarded sites on a particular day?

You die.

I think the elections today in Iraq will serve as a lethal honey-pot for the terrorists. All the polling sites will be heavily guarded. They will have to fight prepared forces in order to strike them. No more skulking about, choosing the time and place to strike. They will have the time and place imposed on them. If they don’t fight, they will be further exposed as paper tigers.

I predict that (1) election violence will be far less severe than most fear, because the terrorists will not like the odds, and that (2) attacks which do take place will largely fail with heavy casualties.

(Update: Well the polls have closed, violence was low. The terrorists barely made an appearance. They suffered a huge defeat here. Perhaps we need to come up with a strategy wherein we create situations that require the terrorists to strike at specific times and places or risk losing face.)