There's very little written about the war these days that I might label as important, but this Jim Henley post might be one.
Not that I agree with all of it, but it is thought-provoking.
Update: Protein Wisdom has very important things today, too. [Scroll up from link]
More: If Henley's prank got you'll feel better if you read the comments to this Atrios post. Hook+line+sinker.
Posted by Walter at April 1, 2004 09:00 AMI disagreed with Jim for the main reason that I don't think the Madrid bombings signified what he felt they did.
Suicide bombings occur in Israel and all the other places he mentioned because logistically it is a lot easier to kill people in an 'enemy area' when you DON'T have to worry about leaving the bomb for later detonation, being caught/killed, etc..
Israel has a strong military and intelligence presence as well as an aware civilian population. The only way you could ever inflict significant casualties in a place like that would be by neglecting your own life in order to get as close to your target as possible.
The Madrid station was as low-security a target a bomber could ask for. Implementing "The Culture of Death" M.O. made no sense here. The bombers see themselves at war, and in this case they felt it made sense to live again to bomb another day to continue to inflict casualities on their enemies. If the suicide bombers in Israel had a chance of getting away with their crimes without killing themselves, I expect they would. It's because Israel's security is what it is that they have to view ANY bombing mission as something they might not come back from. And if that were the case would you like to be unarmed (i.e., NOT wearing a bomb that could take out a couple soldiers) or armed once you set out?
I want Iraq to become a stable region like anyone else, but I just don't see it happening. And Jim's post doesn't change my opinion on this (don't forget WTC #1 was not a suicide bomb).
This was really hard to read...you know, a lot of dissonance between what we might expect Jim to write and what Jim says in this post.
It is April 1. Surely Jim would not choose this day to state such a dramatic change in positions would he?
Paul analyzes the suicide issue well. In addition, sometimes generals send out their troops and the troops die; other times they come back. No special significance one way or another.
Certainly it is not compelling in this case and that is what makes me think there is more to this then meets the eye.
Plus Jim's arguments do not usually read like a rehash of PNAC propoganda.
I guess we will find out in the days ahead.
Posted by: Steve at April 1, 2004 06:10 PMIt is April 1. Surely Jim would not choose this day to state such a dramatic change in positions would he?
I probably should've paid more attention to that, as he e-mailed me in response.
Boy, is my face red. He got me good. :)
Posted by: Paul at April 2, 2004 07:08 AMI feel reassured now . . . thought for a minute that you, Walter, had fallen for the joke!
Posted by: Luis at April 2, 2004 08:59 AMOh, I did fall for it. I reread it a couple of times before I caught on. I read Henley's site frequently, but someone who doesn't read it a lot can't be faulted for being fooled.
Posted by: Walter at April 2, 2004 09:30 AM