Hijexx wrote:
] I don't like to do the inverse, to jump on every report of a
] fatality as proof that I am right and all who oppose me are
] wrong. But given that the mutilated bodies of
] Americans--either contractors or CIA guys, depending on who
] you believe--are now being dragged triumphantly through the
] streets by cheering throngs...well, I think I speak for a lot
] of people when I respectfully ask the next right winger who
] might be tempted...

This seems a poor place to put one's foot in the sand concerning success or failure in Iraq. Iraq is not homogeneous. I admit to not knowing much about it. However:

1. Falluja has a history of this kind of mob violence.
2. Falluja is a region that benefited directly from the baathist government.
3. There are problems in Falluja, as well as Tikrit, and there will be for some time. You can't abstract life in south central LA and say "thats how things are in America."
3. The "contractors" worked for an American security company. They were basically highly experienced body guards. That pretty much makes them a valid target if you're a baathist group. We would consider them "combatants" if they were working for the other side.
4. Even the groups opposed to US occupation of Iraq have denounced the mutilation of the bodies.
5. This particular event is emotionally charged because you saw it on TV. Any number of things that have occured and continue to occur in the middle east might rile up American emotions if they are presented with the graphic details of them on television. I don't see this event as being truly distinct from others in most meaningful respects. Killing people is killing people, and its ugly. The difference is that the event made it to television, and that the event is similar to Somalia.
6. Its worth asking why we saw this footage when there is so much we don't see.

Decius wrote:

] This seems a poor place to put one's foot in the sand
] concerning success or failure in Iraq. Iraq is not
] homogeneous. I admit to not knowing much about it. However:

Tom T's primary crux is that the invasion of Iraq is George W Bush's personal war of choice. I think he's just addressing the incessant Bush lap dogs that always tout how we are winning the battle, when we are clearly not.

] 1. Falluja has a history of this kind of mob violence.
] 2. Falluja is a region that benefited directly from the
] baathist government.
] 3. There are problems in Falluja, as well as Tikrit, and there
] will be for some time. You can't abstract life in south
] central LA and say "thats how things are in America."

It sounds like Fallujah is a place where popular resistance has a strong foothold. This is what the whole country will be like over time. There are supporters of the invasion living in Baghdad that consider joing the resistance. What the Americans have done after invading has not pleased the citizenry in general. We are not greeted as liberators.

] 5. This particular event is emotionally charged because you
] saw it on TV. Any number of things that have occured and
] continue to occur in the middle east might rile up American
] emotions if they are presented with the graphic details of
] them on television. I don't see this event as being truly
] distinct from others in most meaningful respects. Killing
] people is killing people, and its ugly. The difference is that
] the event made it to television, and that the event is similar
] to Somalia.

I didn't see it on TV personally (stopped watching TV broadcasts.) I heard about it though, I think I saw a still of it on a website. I don't know how played out this was in the media.

I agree that it was militarily insignificant. These weren't US soldiers, they were the hired help.

] 6. Its worth asking why we saw this footage when there is so
] much we don't see.

It would keep events too fresh, too vivid in people's minds.