I recently incorrectly referenced the last foreign invader of Baghdad as Ghengis Khan, when in fact it was his grandson Hulagu. I was trying to make the point that as a result of the overwhelming negativity of the liberal media, the harmful rhetoric of the democrats, the recent addition of the seussical nonsensical Iraq Study Group, and the pusillanimousity of Bush and the Republican party, perhaps it would be in everyones best interest to take a more Mongolian approach to this war, and start kicking some ass.
I hope we all can agree on that. We can kick some serious ass when we want to. We cant lose. Unless we want to. Its that simple. They dont understand the thunder in the rifleman's arm, do they Kurowski? No sir they dont!
But it got me thinking about Hulagu and some of his other battles along the march to take the caliphate of Baghdad, and some of the enemies he encountered along the way.
The Hashshashin (also Hashishin), or Assassins were a religious group (some would say a cult) of Ismaili Muslims from the Nizari sub-sect with a militant basis, thought to be active in the 8th to 14th centuries as a mystic secret society specializing in terrorizing the Abbasid elite with fearlessly executed, politically motivated assassinations. Their own name for the sect was al-da'wa al-jadīda (الدعوة الجديدة) which means the new doctrine and they called themselves fedayeen from the Arabic fidā'ī which means one who is ready to sacrifice their life for a cause — that term has the modern connotation of "freedom fighter". The name Hashshashin was given to them by their Muslim enemies.Their Muslim contemporaries were extremely suspicious of them; in fact they were described in terms (Batini) which suggested they were only nominally Islamic. This constant religious estrangement would eventually see them go so far as allying with the Occidental Christians against Muslims on a number of occasions. It is even suggested that they attempted to negotiate their own conversion to Christianity with Amalric I of Jerusalem, but were foiled by Templar machinations, perhaps on the basis that this would exempt them from onerous taxes on non-Christians in the Holy Lands, which were profitable for the knightly orders. Plainly, their connection to mainstream Islam was tangential at best. The group transformed the act of murder into a system directed largely against Seljuk Muslim rulers that had been persecuting their sect. They were meticulous in killing the targeted individual, seeking to do so without any additional casualties and innocent loss of life, although they were careful to cultivate their terrifying reputation by slaying their victims in public, often in mosques. Typically they approached using a disguise; their weapon of choice a dagger, rejecting poison, bows and other weapons that allowed the attacker to escape.
Sound familiar??? Religion of peace my hashshashin!
There are differing accounts of how Hulagu crushed the Hashshashin, as the Mongols, to be expected of nomadic people were notoriously atrocious record keepers. So I will relay it as I know it. The assassins holed themselves up in caves as was their cowardly nature, and were difficult to defeat. So Hulagu walled them in and hunted down and captured their spiritual leader, and paraded him around from stronghold to cave infuriating and drawing out his followers. They were then crushed unmercilessly by the Mongolian Horde, as was their leader when his usefulnesss ceased to exist.
The road to Baghdad was then clear.
He walled them in flooded them set them ablaze and repeated the process over and over.
It wasnt pretty and it took time and patience, but eventually Hulagu and the Mongolians captured Baghdad.
We all want to win this war right? However we got to this point, agree or not, whatever side of the political fence you may sit on. I hope thats something we can all agree on. We want to win. We need to win. Were gonna, were gonna win. Disagreeing with this war...should not equate with rooting for defeat.
Just as an observation....We can win and be out of Iraq yesterday if we wanted to. If we wanted to win, we could.
EE-Aw!!!
19 comments:
You can't even define "victory" in Iraq, must less suggest how to obtain it. Except for Al Qaeda, which I agree is our enemy in Iraq and everywhere, do we even know who the enemy is? Do not be surprised if we abandon the Maliki government. Do not be surprised if we eventually switch sides, for that matter. American leaders think geo-politically. The Sunni insurgents are anti-Iranian. So is al Sadre, who is more popular, or at least less-hated by the Sunnis than the other Shiites.
Cheerleading is not the answer.
Actually Zontar, victory is the easiest thing in this conflict to define. How many times do we have to go over this with you?
Until you define it. And if the answer is "kill all the enemy" please who that is.
actually, killing all of the enemy was never the answer. Killing a whole lot of the enemy is the answer.
Kill them physically, AND take away their will to fight. Plus we need to continue to support the democratically elected government.
However, i would not be surprised if we abandon the maliki government because pussies like you who want to surrender are now a majority in congress.
So, "victory" = killing "a whole lot of the enemy." Fair enough. Who is the enemy? And how do we kill them, given that we don't have enough troops in Iraq to do so, nor the capacity to send more?
Dont be a smartass. Is the brilliant point that you are trying to trap us into saying is that that enemy in this war is not easily definable? Ok youre a smart guy. The enemy is not easily definable.
We have never fought a war like this before and unfortunately we have to learn alot on the fly. In your world we should just give up because it isnt going well and its a difficult task that we face. Thats a pussy defeatist negative fuck mentality.
Not all sunnis are our enemies, just as are not all shias, but we can rule out the Kurds. We are fighting against fanatics whichever sect they may be or whatever political motive they may have. In other words, the people that want to kill us are the ones we need to kill first and in greater numbers. We need a military victory before we can have a political solution and that is what the ISG as well as others have all wrong.
You admit that the enemy is not easily definable. We do not have the forces in Iraq to defeat the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias. This rules out a military solution. The American military has admitted there is no military solution. We need to find a political solution, which must involve our forces leaving. After which you can blame the "liberal" while we blame Bush.
The American military have done no such thing. For every example of someone saying we cant win, Ill find you ten saying we can.
Maybe you should start reading my posts before you jump in with your bullshit. Im blaming everybody BUT the military. However there is no question that the dems and liberal media in particular with their negative reporting have swayed public sentiment against this war, which makes it difficult.
Strategic errors can be overcome. We make them in every war weve fought, why do you expect this one to be different. Thats why its called war. If we just let the Armed Forces do their jobs we can win this thing.
If we leave Iraq tommorow, we are still at war, its too bad you dont understand that...but it will be on the enemy's terms. Is that what you want?
Oh wait, what am I asking...of course it is.
It has been widely reported that the top military people have said there is no military solution in Iraq.
I do not blame our military but their polical leadership.
If anything the actual situation in Iraq is worse than anything reported in the media. Enough has been reported that the American people have figured out what an ungodly mess it is.
You cannot define victory in either Iraq or the War on Terror (TM), nor can you define who the enemy is in either.
Now if we had moved decisively against Al Qaeda after 911, and stayed focused on them like a laser beam, then I doubt that you and I would even be arguing.
It is really not a liberal vs. conservative thing. Some liberals supported the war in Iraq. Some conservatives opposed it.
Are you retarded? Not only have I defined our enemy I have defined victory. Its really not that difficult. Do the words and labels mean that much to you. Its pretty fuckin easy to see who the bad guys are in this War. No matter what wordage you want to use to descibe them or it, there is no room for interpretation.
I never said it was strictly a lib vs conservative thing, but there is no doubt that the liberals that oppose it are defeatist pussies. Buchanan has been against this war perhaps more vehemently and certainly made a more intelligent argument against it than the left and even he sees the need for victory.
Donkey you have not defined victory or who the enemy is. You hide behind slogans. Kill the Enemy. Victory.
Zontar i think you're an idiot, but since many people think that i am too, i'll engage one more time.
1. there is a military solution, and in my opinion that includes Iran and Syria.
2. we DO have enough troops but i wouldn't be upset if we added more. Overwhelming force is never a bad thing.
3. The U.S. military never said there was no military solution.
4. The might not be easy to define because they don't "play fair" but if the ny slimes and co. would stop telling them that we're tapping their phones, and if the aclu would stop providing them with lawyers at gitmo maybe we would have an easier time figuring everything out.
5. To sum it up, i say we take the gloves off and put everyone on notice, which means....
a) Tell the world that if Iran doesn't stop helping them we're going to fuck them up (and then do it)
b) Take the leash off of Israel and let them start kicking the crap out of whomever they want
c) Let the U.N. know that they can kiss our ass if they start their crying.
Not only are we right, but we're also the biggest and strongest players in the arena.
There's an old saying in my business that i used to use with my clients when i wanted them to do big things and it goes like this:
(client) you're in the game, you're at the park, i brought the bats, you need to bring the BALLS.
enough said!
Where to begin? Iran is supporting the Shiite government in Iraq. The Saudis are supporting the Sunni insurgents. Perhaps we should attack Saudi Arabia.
We are nowhere near overwhelming force. The military has said that we could temporarily add maybe 23-30,000 troops but even that would not be enough to pacify Iraq. If the current troop level was sufficient our fine military would have won already. Instead they are playing whack-a-mole.
Attacking Iran and Syria will make the situation much much worse.
By the way, here's just one news story on the military situation:
"Knight-Ridder reports that senior US military officers in Iraq now say there is "no long-term military solution" to the insurgency there. Excerpt:
A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than [1700] U.S. troops...
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics — an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.
"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that...this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."
Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" — pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere. [...]"
This story was dated June 14, 2005. Obviously the situation is much worse now.
I really dont know what youre getting at Zontar. First of all both the Rhino and I have defined the enemy on numerous occasians, which to be is honest is rather silly that we had to. Ditto for victory. Are you really not this smart? Are you trying to tell us that there are no enemies, that they are just figments of Bush's imagination.
So youre saying because in the magical world of Zontar, since we cant define our enemy (which we can)or the definition of "victory" (which we have) that we should no longer fight a war that was waged upon us?
Thats what youre getting at right? Any excuse you can find to surrender huh?
Maybe I am stupid. Let me see if I've got it. The enemy is Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents, the Shiite militieas, Iran and Syria. Have I missed anyone? And we should kill them. Have I got it now?
Are you possibly that stupid?
"Maybe I am stupid"
Maybe you are
"Let me see if I've got it.The enemy is Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents, the Shiite militieas, Iran and Syria."
Yeah thats about right
"Have I missed anyone?"
Well by proxy Hamas and Hezbollah, but yeah thats about right
"And we should kill them?"
Yes
"Have I got it now?"
Not really
"Are you possibly that stupid?"
Maybe I am
You know, Donkey, I feel that we have come to some sort of understanding.
Post a Comment