I recall reading shortly after the conclusion of the seige of Najaf (Al-Sadr taking on the USA and the coalition) that the Spanish (whose troops were stationed near Najaf -- Najaf was their town, as Basra was/is British) were so appalled by our heavy handed tactics that they threatened to essentially mutiny -- walk off the job -- and I cannot find a cite now, damn it.

Robert Fisk's portait from 04/05/2004 of the Spanish's part in coalition is of interest -- http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk04052004.html) -- includes:

When bombs killed almost 200 people in Madrid last month, Shi'ite clerics visited the Spanish troops in Najaf to express their condolences. That is unlikely to happen again.

As I recall, the Madrid bombers (another frontline, irrc) were likely Spanish/Morrocan Al-Qaeda wannabes ... behaving stupidly... attacking a "coalition country" already on its way home, for effect, because they could...

Did you see last week's Frontline?

It was presented "authoritatively" that following Najaf, we "bought back" arms from Al Sadr amounting to a couple million dollars or more as part of the "peace settlement" brokered by Al-Sistani?

[T]he content of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.

I'm not sure what you mean specifically by that. I was talking about ideology not tactics. For sure, back in the day chasing SWAPO and MPLA through the brush we didn't blush from using those tactics either. Neither did they. And my Sayeret friends (look up the word) are pretty much as down as dirty as they get. But a job well done doesn't make the papers. But, if you're willing to blow up buses full of Hassids, which apparently you are, by your own words, there's not much of anything anyone can do against that proactively. That's why they call it terrorism. If you imagine that defines a political movement then so did Pablo Escobar and the Medelling drug cartel. You're in fine company, I guess as far as it goes. Do you guys have a newsletter and an annual get together?

BTW, if your 'freedom fighters' are so good at their job, why is it again they manage outkill other Arabs vs Infidel/Invader/Crusader/Jews about 100:1? You guys suck at this. Ululate that.

...chasing SWAPO and MPLA through the brush we didn't blush...

Guns at Batasi made flesh before our eyes. He even rhymes like Kipling, this platinum-plated asshole. You were born a century late, RealName, to meet the wily Pathan on equal terms. It's a genuine pity your bones weren't left to moulder in the wind-swept canyons of the Khyber Pass, or deposited in haste at Khartoum or Isandlwana.

Then, at least, we'd be spared having to wade through your bullshit on the way to adversaries worthy of our time and effort.

It is becoming ever clearer that today's so called NEWS organizations are little better than printing presses for establishment interests. So then, who has stepped into the void left by what used to be the press? Of course it is the blogosphere. So if what used to be "press" is now really spokesmen, and bloggers are now what we used to think of as press, then the bloggers should be routinely interviewing major press celebrities.

I know I would certainly like to hear Tim Russert explain himself, when he knowingly and habitually permits his guests to lie and distort beyond all recognition. And why he NEVER acknowledges to his audience that he himself was aware of those lies before, during and after they were uttered. Is there no such thing as a retraction in Meet The Press?

The way things go today, all of the major anchor people have plenty to answer for, but they are free to refuse to do interviews on the basis that they report the news, but do not partake in it. That pretense no longer holds, and collectively WE must find a way to begin to hold the press accountable.

RealName said:

BTW, if your 'freedom fighters' are so good at their job, why is it again they manage outkill other Arabs vs Infidel/Invader/Crusader/Jews about 100:1? You guys suck at this. Ululate that.

IIRC, when Tito made his stab for power in the days of Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia, his attacks were meant to not only provoke Nazi attacks against unrelated civilians (to increase the numbers of those willing to fight), but also to undermine the support structure of the guerilla forces loyal to the old regime. Desperate, displaced, and disgruntled people tend to be willing to support fairly extreme measures for revenge and restoration of order.

Also, I am rereading Tuchman's The March of Folly, and am almost finished with the section on Vietnam. Reading her analysis of how we consistently failed in that war is an almost spot on recreation of the maladministration playbook on conducting this war. We are fighting with the mistakes we know how to make, instead of the lessons we should have learned.

Golden Boy... For the record, the clearest definition of "terrorist" I've seen is one that refers to someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to affect political activity by that citizenry.

I'm sorry. By this definition. The United States is a terrorist nation and has been since fire bombing Dresden and other towns in Japan, not to mention the nuclear terrorism of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

RealName,

What an interesting life you have led. And here you are today wanting to bring hand grenades to your homeowners association meeting. Maybe it would be easier for you if you just moved to an all white neighborhood, say in Idaho - if you could find one where some "real white Americans" wouldn't bring hand grenades to the meeting because of you, of course.

sorry if this duplicates something earlier.

Note that the term "insurgent" was used loosely to mean someone killed or wounded by American fire. Thus, if 30 people were killed in a particular event, including babies and alzheimer's fogies, they were 30 "insurgents."

On the CENTCOM website, I've never seen a report of collateral damage. Every casualty an insurgent.