Baghdad Deputy Mayor Killed in Drive-By Shooting

Yahooooooo via Reuters ^ | 10/28/03

[areafiftyone]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The deputy mayor of Baghdad was killed in a drive-by shooting Sunday night, officials in the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq (news - web sites) said Tuesday.

They said Faris al-Assam was near his home in the capital when the killers struck.

His death was a further setback to the coalition, which saw a rocket attack on its main compound Sunday and four suicide bombings Monday which killed 35 people and wounded 230.

"Faris was absolutely committed to the welfare of the citizens of Baghdad and the future of the city," said Hank Bassford, the Baghdad region coordinator for the U.S.-led administration.

"While we mourn the loss of an Iraqi patriot, those who committed this cowardly act should know that we will not be deterred from completing our mission."

Guerrillas opposed to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraqi have frequently targeted Iraqis, such as politicians and police officers, cooperating with the occupying authorities.

[BayouCoyote]

Would you mind if I use that definition in the future?

[AmishDude]

It would be stupid to assume we are in a guerilla war. It is not. They are not trying to defeat an army in any traditional sense. A guerilla war is an attempt to do such damage to the military that it cannot win tactically. That is not the case here. They want the civilian leadership to cancel the mission because of perceived defeats. It's terrorism, plain and simple.

Unless, of course, all terrorism (particularly in Israel, for example) is guerilla warfare. In that case and only that case, you're right. But I'm not going to confuse the two.

[Gunslingr3]

It would be stupid to assume we are in a guerilla war. It is not. They are not trying to defeat an army in any traditional sense.

Guerilla warfare doesn't intend to defeat an army in any traditional sense. You have begun with a fallacy.

A guerilla war is an attempt to do such damage to the military that it cannot win tactically. That is not the case here. They want the civilian leadership to cancel the mission because of perceived defeats.

No, a regular war seeks to defeat an army. Guerilla warfare seeks more mental, than physical attrition. Of both the occupying force, and the will of those who have the occupying force in place.

I stated a long time ago that I foresaw Bin Laden's strategy as follows: The Americans have a large commitment in the region, and are influencing the leaders of the region. The American public has the power to remove this commitment, but not so long as they don't notice it. In a series of escalating attacks he has brought American involvement in the Middle East to the forefront. He might have viewed 9/11 as a singular victory, but not the culmination. I believe it got the intended response. GWB hit the tarbaby. Our enemy in this war looks back on centuries of conflict against the West. They don't expect to kick us out of Afghanistan tomorrow, or Iraq next week, but they do intend to keep grinding on us until we do leave. If 8 years from now guerillas, terrorists, bandits, whatever you want to call them, are killing our troops, do you think Americans in general will get tired of this war and look for leadership that promises to get us out? The enemy is counting on it. Remember, they don't have to beat us, just get us to quit.

[AmishDude]

Please delineate the difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare.

I foresaw Bin Laden's strategy

Oh, yeah, you're a freakin' oracle, you are.

Alright. Let's ignore the flypaper strategy, Bush fell into Osama's carefully laid trap. Let's ignore the fact that even a withdrawal will not leave the Islamic world in any better shape than it was in before. What should Bush have done?

[TheCrusader]

"Would you mind if I use that definition in the future?"

By all means, be my guest. :o)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

not really

LOL. That rebuttal sure puts me in my place.

You'll have to do better than that, Newby.

[jpl]

Who don't in fact know yet who in fact are the perp/perps of this act. If the perps were Baath party Saddam loyalists or even plain Iraqi citizens, then you can in fact make a good argument for them as true guerillas. If they're foreigners who came into the country from outside, then it's a real stretch to say that they're not terrorists, as we are not at war with all Muslims, and they're not defending their own territory or government.

[af_vet_rr]

"guerilla" almost always refers to attacks on decidedly military targets.

These attacks were against the infrastructure and leadership (both Iraqi and American) which are legit targets in a war (which we are still in - some can stick their heads in the stand and pretend these are just a bunch of terrorists running around and not an organized resistance in an ongoing war).

[Gunslingr3]

Please delineate the difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare.

Guerilla warfare is attacking military convoys, targeting leadership, and trying to remove an occupying military force. Terrorism is generally using violence to try and alter government policy. Targets are usually civilian in nature (bombing cafes, dance clubs, blowing up planes).

I foresaw Bin Laden's strategy

Oh, yeah, you're a freakin' oracle, you are.

Well, if you care to go back digging, that is what I said I saw as Bin Laden's strategy. And to be honest, he wasn't real quiet about it either.

Alright. Let's ignore the flypaper strategy, Bush fell into Osama's carefully laid trap. Let's ignore the fact that even a withdrawal will not leave the Islamic world in any better shape than it was in before. What should Bush have done?

I didn't vote for GWB to make 'the Islamic world in any better shape than it was in before.' I voted for him to reduce my taxes, and because he suggested a more humble foreign policy with no nation building. What I would have done in his stead, was to tell the American people that an unintended consequence of our decision to help restore a foreign King to his throne after being deposed by a tyrant from next door had led a collection of religious fanatics across the Islamic world to declare war on us and start attacking us. I would point out that the war had been going on at least since 1993. I would explain that our contribution of billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, had gained us nothing from the Middle East since Jimmy Carter threw us in the middle of their millenia old conflicts. I would pull our troops and money out of that cesspit. Empire isn't worth the cost.

[Gunslingr3]

Who don't in fact know yet who in fact are the perp/perps of this act. If the perps were Baath party Saddam loyalists or even plain Iraqi citizens, then you can in fact make a good argument for them as true guerillas. If they're foreigners who came into the country from outside, then it's a real stretch to say that they're not terrorists, as we are not at war with all Muslims, and they're not defending their own territory or government.

The islamic fighters that are going into Iraq from the surrounding lands aren't as interested in the Western drawn borders as you are. They see the Middle East as their homeland, and the Westerners as invaders. We can say we're not at war with all Muslims, but there are plenty of Muslims who see themselves at war with the U.S.

[jpl]

The islamic fighters that are going into Iraq from the surrounding lands aren't as interested in the Western drawn borders as you are. They see the Middle East as their homeland, and the Westerners as invaders. We can say we're not at war with all Muslims, but there are plenty of Muslims who see themselves at war with the U.S.

The only problem is that, contrary to what many people think, not every non-Westerner in the Middle East is a devout Muslim, or even a Muslim at all. I highly doubt most Iraqis want foreigners coming into the country killing their own citizens, regardless of how they might feel about us personally. Do you think the International Red Cross is also a legitimate military target?

[AmishDude]

What I would have done in his stead, was to tell the American people that an unintended consequence of our decision to help restore a foreign King to his throne after being deposed by a tyrant from next door had led a collection of religious fanatics across the Islamic world to declare war on us and start attacking us.

Gunslingr3, you ignorant slut. You just don't get it. You think if we cower in the corner, apologize for everything that preports to upset the Muslim world that they'll just focus their energy on Israel.

They're upset because they aren't kings of the mountain. Their civilization is in decline and has been for about 600 years. It's only in the last 100 that they've had to face it, due to the proliferation of worldwide media.

It doesn't matter what Jimmy Carter did. If we allow the tyrant to rule, we're blamed for that. If we impose the king, we're blamed for that. Hell, we're blamed for bombing our own World Trade Center -- although the Mossad theory is ascendant at the present time. We're blamed for everything because we are at the top of the hill.

Just look at Cuba. Castro is a Communist and communism would forbid trading with a capitalist society. The communists should be self-contained. And yet Castro blames the US embargo for his woes -- even in the face of the fact that the rest of the world trades with him.

The world blames the CIA for their own country's secret police. Their leaders blame the US for all their country's failures.

The Muslim world is frustrated. The Koran tells of an inevitable and consistant march to an Islamic world. This is not the way it's supposed to be. So some of them focus on small swaths of land they've "lost" -- Israel, Kashmir -- and others (Osama) throw rocks at the windows of Western civilization thinking that if they break one, the whole building will come crashing down.

I would point out that the war had been going on at least since 1993.

'91, just for this battle. Actually, it's about 1300 years old.

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1010274/posts

ANOTHER VIETNAM? NO
New York Post ^ | 10/29/03 | RALPH PETERS


Posted on 10/28/2003 11:57 PM PST by kattracks



October 29, 2003 -- LET'S leave the phony pieties and hand-wringing to the presidential aspirants and celebrity journalists. Here's the truth:
* Thirty-six dead in a series of suicide bombings in Baghdad? The chump change of strategy. Cold-blooded, but true.

* Another American soldier killed in a roadside bombing? Every lost service member matters, but at the present casualty rate it would take 15 years for our dead in Iraq to surpass the number of Americans butchered on 9/11. Better to fight like lions than to die like sheep.

* Iraq another Vietnam? Hell, even Vietnam wasn't the Vietnam of left-wing baby-talk politics and campus political astrology. Our Vietnamese enemies represented a mass movement. The Iraqi terrorists represent a small, bloodthirsty movement to oppress the masses.

* Did Operation Iraqi Freedom create terrorists? No. It terrorized the terrorists. Now it's flushing them out of their hiding places. We'll be killing and capturing them for years. But that's the only approach that works.

* Has the War on Terror made Americans less safe? Despite the dishonest claims of Democratic presidential hopefuls, the answer is an unequivocal "No!" Where is the evidence that we're in greater danger now? Where are the terrorist attacks on our cities?

In this war, the only measurement that matters is the absence of attacks. Since 9/11, our government has taken the war to the terrorists and kept us remarkably safe.



* They'll attack America again and prove the War on Terror was a failure. Bull. Oh, we'll eventually be hit again. No counter-terror effort will ever be 100 percent effective. But if Terrorist No. 500 gets through, it doesn't mean there was no value in stopping the first 499. The proof of our success in this war is the undisturbed routine of our daily lives.

* Isn't there some way to stop the attacks in Iraq? Not in the short term. We face those who wish to turn back the clock, in some cases to the days of Saddam's rule, in others to a primitive theocracy. Our enemies are fanatics in the truest sense of the word. Every one we kill is a service to humanity.

* Doesn't the continuation of the attacks mean our approach is flawed? No. There's no magic bullet. This isn't a movie. It's a deadly, long-term struggle for incalculably high stakes.

And there is no rational, responsible alternative to persevering. The only disastrous choice we could make would be to give up.

* How long can the Iraqi terrorists maintain this pace of attacks? We don't know. The Iraqi terrorists themselves don't know. But we should be encouraged, not discouraged, that the best they can do is to ram a few suicide wagons into public buildings. They're not overrunning our troops. They're desperately scraping up all the suicide drivers they can. It's only surprising that they've been able to find so few.

* Do the Iraqi people support the terrorists? No. The Iraqi people just want to live in peace - without Saddam. They don't want our troops to stay forever, but few want us to leave tomorrow. The terror attacks will keep reminding them why they don't want the old regime back. What should we expect in Iraq? Imperfect results. It's an imperfect world. But even a partial success in establishing basic human rights, the rule of law and some form of democracy would be an unprecedented triumph in the region.

* Why are so few nations willing to help us? Because many political leaders want us to fail. Because the United States has returned to its original ideals, supporting freedom, self-determination, the rights of the individual and simple human decency.

Our example terrifies every one of Iraq's neighboring governments and infuriates the Europeans - who long profited from their political love affairs with dictators, even as they damned America for similar behavior.

We have taken a stand for freedom. And freedom still has few friends in this world.

THERE is only one way in which the situation in Iraq resembles Vietnam: Our enemies realize that they can't win militarily. This is a contest of wills much more than a contest of weapons. The terrorists intend to wear us down.

Our enemies are employing media-genic bombings to leap over our soldiers and influence our political leaders and our elections - just as the Vietnamese did. The suicide bombers themselves are deluded madmen, but the men behind the terror campaign calculate that, if they can just maintain a sufficient level of camera-friendly attacks, our military successes and all the progress of our reconstruction efforts will be eclipsed by a mood of dejection in Washington.

If the terrorists turn out to be right, the butcher's bill in the coming years and decades will be vastly higher than the casualty count in Iraq.

Ralph Peters' new book is "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

[oceanview]

we need to start hitting back, in different ways. conduct operations to instill some fear in them, otherwise, I don't see how this will ever end.

[oceanview]

all good points, but it does not mean there isn't some change in strategy we could make to help kill more of these SOBs.

[Grampa Dave]

How do you know that we aren't killing more of them?

Have you had the opportunity to talk to specop guys back on leave from Afghanistan or Iraq or their parents?

If you get the opportunity, talk to them for a reality break instead of this Viet Nam era bs that is going on.

As Travis noted months ago, the Islamokazis from all over the middle east are rushing into Iraq. A few of them have some success, a lot are never getting there or they get snuffed shortly after they get into Iraq or Afghanistan.

[oceanview]

i don't know.

but we do know that these terror/opposition operations have become dramatically more organized over the last 30 days, no one can deny that. rumsfeld is asking the same questions.

[Grampa Dave]

Rummy is talking about his next war with the Army Generals who want 1,000s of tanks and long range artillery pieces instead of 1,000s of highly mobile and deadly spear points capable of destroying and killing terrorists all over the map. Then, the mobilization of military police, engineers, corpmen and others to rebuild and win over the natives who weren't terrorists after we kill most of the terrorists.

When he wins that victory, the followup in Iran and Syria will be easier than in Iraq.