In reaction to this attack in Iraq, which killed more than 60 and wounded more than 100 while they were standing at a bus stop, Omar in Iraq:

65 families or maybe more mourn their sons and daughters today and I know their feeling very well…I’ve…..

Not a military task? Then fighting jihadis oughta be done by …?

Cheerleaders? Rah rah shish boom bah! Plug your ears and LA LA LA!

Peaceniks? We saw what happened the last time THAT was tried. Sliiiiiiiice *thud*

Cops? You have right to remain silent. You have … an RPG! … (Monty Python) RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

The U.N.? They got hit ONCE and punked out the next day.

Condi? Should we have our Sec. of State meet their S.o.S.? They don’t HAVE one! They’re terrorists! They’re “stateless”!

Jimmy Carter? No, let’s keep our former presidents alive, shall we?

So what’s the answer? If this is not a military task, then what is it?

And if you don’t think our Troops can do it, who can?

Tony737 on January 17, 2007 at 10:02 AM

I made this statement:

The job in Iraq is to convince people that they need to adopt a Western form, or at least Western friendly, cohesive society and government.

honora on January 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Ever served in the military? Enlighten me as to when you were trained to convince people to adopt a new form of government and culture.

Cheerleaders? Rah rah shish boom bah! Plug your ears and LA LA LA!

Peaceniks? We saw what happened the last time THAT was tried. Sliiiiiiiice *thud*

Cops? You have right to remain silent. You have … an RPG! … (Monty Python) RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

The U.N.? They got hit ONCE and punked out the next day.

Condi? Should we have our Sec. of State meet their S.o.S.? They don’t HAVE one! They’re terrorists! They’re “stateless”!

Jimmy Carter? No, let’s keep our former presidents alive, shall we?

So what’s the answer? If this is not a military task, then what is it?

And if you don’t think our Troops can do it, who can?

I am surprised at you honora. This statement seems to subscribe to George W. Bush’s vein of thinking.

Not really, I am stating what the job is (frankly better than Bush does, but that another issue). The question is: is this a job that our military can accomplish? I don’t think so, as it is not a military task at its core.

We’ll see.

Absolutely. I wish I’d have said it that way but that’s why you’re there doing what you do and I’m here reading your product, wishing I’d have said it just that way.

Thank you.

hillbillyjim on January 16, 2007 at 5:20 PM

There is a new poll out from the State Dept, conducted by Gallup. Shows the same results as the two I posted–one of which was conducted by the British Defence Dept.

State of Denial–wonder what Woodward meant by that?

The outrage judgement squad has finally arrived! Now we don’t have to decide how we “feel” about this ungodly situation.

Thank God for Honora and her friends. Now we don’t have to think for ourselves, just go along with the program. Let them “judge” whether we have “crossed the bar.”

What outrages you, my dear Honora? Is it the unjust execution of these miscreants? Is it the treatment they were given on their Judgement Day?

Does the trial process bother you? (does me, BTW)? Do you think they are guilty of the crimes alleged?

Not being facecious. I have a sister who thinks along your lines and I’m just trying to get some insight.

My own personal outrage bar has been crossed a while ago…well we haven’t the space here for that.

hillbillyjim on January 16, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I don’t really understand what it is you are trying to say. My comments suggest that in Iraq today, people are easily outraged and act on that outrage: witness the car bomb incident that is the topic of this post and the link article wherein the premise is that this attack was the result of “outrage” on the part of Sunni insurgents over the Saddam hanging.

Hope this helps.

Just wanted to point out that they seemed to target more women:
University bombing kills 60
A CAR bomb and a suicide bomber killed 60 people and wounded 110 more, including many students blown up as they waited for cars to take them home at the entran…

But then again, why suppress that which is being ignored? I call SHAME!

Any 5 point scale that gets 82% on the top point is an extraordinarily strong indication

If it came from a reputable objective source. Brookings Instiute is hardly middle road, they call themselves to the left. That is like NYT calling themselves a little to the left, however the NYT say they are down the middle.

World Public Opinion, look who is on their board.

Then we’ll be in BIG trouble.

And of course you can always trust polls and never have to take into accout how the question was asked, who did the asking, and what the respondent might have seen or heard in the rumor mill that day that affected his answer. Nothing in Iraq is as simple as an answer to a poll question, or an interview on the street for that matter, like the ones I conducted. Nothing there is simple, straightforward or easy to distill into soundbites.

I agree, though, that we’re not at war with Iraq, just in Iraq, against various players with a wide variety of intentions and agendas.

Bryan on January 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Absolutely. I wish I’d have said it that way but that’s why you’re there doing what you do and I’m here reading your product, wishing I’d have said it just that way.

Thank you.

The outrage bar is pretty low in Iraq these days.

honora on January 16, 2007 at 12:46 PM

The outrage judgement squad has finally arrived! Now we don’t have to decide how we “feel” about this ungodly situation.

Thank God for Honora and her friends. Now we don’t have to think for ourselves, just go along with the program. Let them “judge” whether we have “crossed the bar.”

What outrages you, my dear Honora? Is it the unjust execution of these miscreants? Is it the treatment they were given on their Judgement Day?

Does the trial process bother you? (does me, BTW)? Do you think they are guilty of the crimes alleged?

Not being facecious. I have a sister who thinks along your lines and I’m just trying to get some insight.

My own personal outrage bar has been crossed a while ago…well we haven’t the space here for that.

Which would I chose ?

I see that you are an optimist. I was thinking that the peoples of western civilization will be at war with Islam and the Jihadists for something more like 10 generations, or perhaps until the end of the world itself.

Not if out Congress has its way. They will have rolled over long before then – possibly within the next two years.

I think it unreasonable to do so in less than 10 years.

jman on January 16, 2007 at 2:40 PM

I see that you are an optimist. I was thinking that the peoples of western civilization will be at war with Islam and the Jihadists for something more like 10 generations, or perhaps until the end of the world itself.

The job in Iraq is to convince people that they need to adopt a Western form, or at least Western friendly, cohesive society and government.

honora on January 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM

I am surprised at you honora. This statement seems to subscribe to George W. Bush’s vein of thinking. You SHOULD be more supportive of John Kerry’s position, which is to withdraw immediately, since the job clearly can not be accomplished by the likes of the lazy and uneducated individuals that comprise the forces of the U.S. military
(John Kerry’s vein of thinking — NOT mine).

The job in Iraq is to convince people that they need to adopt a Western form, or at least Western friendly, cohesive society and government.

How does withdrawing our troops and letting Iran instigate a civil war accomplish this?

Bryan on January 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Amen.

We have very few good options in this war and a whole list of bad options that might actually work given enough time and effort, but the most ridiculous option taken by the most number of Americans is the one that is the most likely to get a lot more Americans killed; to wit, pretending that the jihadis have a legitimate grievance (Sunni outrage, Palestinian plight, whatever) that we can wave away if we just elected the right people or adopted the right set of talking points.

You are making my point. If it took so long to transition these destroyed countries, who could no longer fight back, into democracies, wouldn’t it naturally take a longer time for Iraq, especially since our politicians and media tie the hands of our soldiers and wonder why we are not advancing as quickly as they would like? I think it unreasonable to do so in less than 10 years. But in our culture, that is about nine years too long.

jman on January 16, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Again, huge differences.

Are we destroying Iraq? Why? Are the Iraqis fighting back? Why?

The biggest job re-building Japan and Germany was to quite literally re-build. The job in Iraq is to convince people that they need to adopt a Western form, or at least Western friendly, cohesive society and government.

Which one of these jobs would you want to take on? Right.

Iran is making IEDs powerful enough to blow up an M1 Abrams and smuggling them into Iraq.

Iran was CAUGHT using a “diplomatic mission” to spread terrorism in the area where the Kurds are.

Iran is funneling arms to the Shiite militias.

Iran is planing to take over southern Iraq (where most of Iraq’s oil is and where their oil terminal is) once the Brits leave (so says the story).

And when the President says he intends to move against Iran (and Syria) for their activities THAT RESULT IN DEAD AMERICANS, the “honorable” Senator Joseph Biden (D), who fancies himself as President, gets all huffy on national TV and demands that the President not protect the troops by going after the source of the problem.

The Democratic Party is a party of fools and worse who are willing to risk the destruction of the country in order to regain power.

Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!

I agree, though, that we’re not at war with Iraq, just in Iraq, against various players with a wide variety of intentions and agendas.

Bryan on January 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM

I agree, and our refusal to go after them (Muqtada al-Sadr for example) is prolonging our conflict.

Well the comparison is off the mark, but once the war was over, neither the Germans nor the Japanese put up much resistance.

You are making my point. If it took so long to transition these destroyed countries, who could no longer fight back, into democracies, wouldn’t it naturally take a longer time for Iraq, especially since our politicians and media tie the hands of our soldiers and wonder why we are not advancing as quickly as they would like? I think it unreasonable to do so in less than 10 years. But in our culture, that is about nine years too long.