Another Down Payment on Our Future Deficit Reduction

Another suicide bombing:

A female suicide bomber has killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on an Iraqi market, police said.

The attack took place in the al-Mafraq area west of Baquba in Diyala province, about 50 km (30 miles) north-east of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

The use of women to carry out suicide bombings has become a regular tactic of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The US military says there have been more than 20 suicide bombings by women this year in Iraq.

A BBC reporter in Baquba says women and children were among the casualties in Monday’s attack.

While it is true that violence rates are down in Iraq, it is worth remembering that on an almost daily basis, shitty, awful, terrible, horrible things are still happening in Iraq, years after we invaded, years after we pronounced mission accomplished, and almost a year and a half after the surge. Keep that in mind during the next round of blogger triumphalism about our impending victory in Iraq and how Obama wants to squander it.

Second, inevitably, it will be proclaimed somewhere that the fact the bomber is a woman is a sure sign that we are winning, as it points to the desperation of the opposition. Is it possible that sometimes when the enemy does something different, it isn’t a sign of desperation, but rather is merely a sign they have adopted new tactics? Not to mention, I think the very act of blowing oneself up for any reason falls under the broad category of desperation.

Finally, given that a balanced budget here in the US during a McCain administration hinges almost completely on victory in Iraq, does McCain view this suicide bombing as an assault on American taxpayers? And if we have an uptick in violence in Iraq, does that mean the budget will take longer to balance?






41 replies
  1. 1
    Dreggas says:

    No, no John, the use of a woman merely points out that we have delivered equality to the Iraqi’s. Equality is a pillar of democracy and now women have the freedom to choose to blow themselves up.

  2. 2
    TenguPhule says:

    And if we have an uptick in violence in Iraq, does that mean the budget will take longer to balance?

    Our liberal media reports that violence is down in Iraq, troops are coming home and McSame shits flowers and candy.

    Remember, Big Daddy is your friend.

  3. 3
    The Other Andrew says:

    What consists of the Iraqi government is starting to make more noises about a timetable. Let’s not forget that they have elections coming up, as well…

  4. 4
    Big E says:

    John, we all ‘know’ that since ‘those people’ aren’t Americans, they don’t really count, who cares how many die…

    Violence is meaningless in IRAQ, as long as it doesn’t interfere with oil contract and future production facilities……

    Americans want to feel good about their country…so… the only real way to insure that is to have a perpetual war, kill lots of ‘brown people’.. and have cheap gas….

    Obama will continue to get roasted in the media and internets because he seems to have a brain and can speak and articulate his view without resorting to ‘patriotism’ or other ‘isms’….

    We’re at another ‘Dixie Chicks’ point with McCain….. anything said about him that puts him in a negative light draws furious condemnation and ‘how dare you question his service’ comments..

    Just another day in the good ol’ US of A

  5. 5
    El Cid says:

    Because John Cole failed to use the term “homicide bomber”, this means he’s on the side of the terrorist coddlers and this is a direct insult to John McCain’s service record.

    (Hey, the Schieffer blubbering has gotten Wes Clark to voluntarily shut up and get out of the public eye, so, watch it!)

  6. 6
    Wilfred says:

    Weapons determine tactics, not the other way around. It was 41c today in Baghdad; a woman wearing a burqa can carry explosives while a man would arouse suspicion.

    Some Arab women blow themselves up because they hate us and the people that support us. perhaps their fathers or husbands or brothers or sons have been on the receiving end of American ‘precision’ air strikes. Many of American women push buttons that send bombs dropping on civilians. Angst ridden self-examination on our part?

    Not to mention, I think the very act of blowing oneself up for any reason falls under the broad category of desperation

    Maybe. But all we are ever told is that they are al-Queda. We never hear their story.

  7. 7
    4tehlulz says:

    ARE YOU QUESTIONING JOHN MCCAIN’S INTEGRITY?

  8. 8
    numbskull says:

    John,

    Define “winning” in Iraq.

    Has anyone noticed that McCain said he’ll balance the budget in his first term partially by saving money after we “win” in Iraq? B-b-but didn’t he say that the earliest “win” in Iraq would be in 2013? The next presidential term ends in 2012, so how does this work?

  9. 9
    jibeaux says:

    McCain’s plan is to balance the budget in his first term, i.e. by 2013.

    The Victory!!!! Vision, released and mocked some months ago, is set in the year 2013, if I remember correctly.

    In other words, in a sentence chockablock with logical inconsistencies, the plan to bring about a balanced budget within his first time through victory in Iraq fails on its face. It’s not even a “scratch the surface” type failure. It’s a surface failure, like “Balls of Fury”. (Sorry, but I’ve laughed at Rob Schneider, I think.)

  10. 10
    nightjar says:

    There are several reasons why violence is down in Iraq, and the surge is near the bottom of the list. The number one reason is because of internal shifts of strategy within the complexities of Iraqi politics. In other words, the Iraqi’s players themselves wanted a time out of sorts. And at any time, they can call game on again. And I bet if it looked like “100 years” McCain was going to be the next US president, it would be game on again.

  11. 11
    SpotWeld says:

    Okay.. paranoia time.
    What’s stopping Bush from making a big announcement in Sept. that “We’ve won!” and that he’s looking forward to handing McCain the reins so he can “properly” oversee the new Iraq. (It’d be total political theater, or course, but isn’t that all that lame duck Bush has left at this point?)

    It’d totally undercut Obama’s ability to use Iraq as a campaign issue, and underscore McCain as the post-war President.

  12. 12

    Barack is, as we speak, making an impromptu appearance in St. Louis (unscheduled airplane landing there) and ripping McCain a new one on the economy.

    A new one, and then an even newer one.

    CNN, web video, live.

  13. 13
    BombIranForChrist says:

    They have been using this line since the beginning of the war: “They are using womens now! We have them beat!” How long do we need to hear this before we remember a key component of American propaganda: EVERYTHING that happens is good. EVERYTHING means we are winning.

  14. 14
    Martin says:

    The ‘economic improvement depends on winning in Iraq’ frame is a massive win for Obama. Just keep pushing the meme that Americans will get economic relief after the Iraqis do and I don’t see how he can fail.

  15. 15
    CapMidnight says:

    Senator John Sidney McCain III will soon announce a $300 million “technology prize,” to be awarded to the first person or group inventing solutions to win Iraq, balance the budget, and keep Michelle Malkin from spraying spittle.

  16. 16
    jibeaux says:

    We never hear their story.

    Also, they are dead.

  17. 17
    Wilfred says:

    Anyone interested in what’s going on should take a look at Zoriah Miller’s blog . He’s a combat photographer embedded with MArines in Anbar Province, or was:

    This is Laurel Havir Porter, writing for Zoriah who has no internet access. I received word from Zoriah that the U.S. Marines Public Affairs spoke with him early this morning, and demanded that he take down the post he made yesterday about the suicide attack. When he refused, they canceled his embed with them in Iraq.

    When Zoriah wrote me, he stated that the Marines were arranging a special convoy and flight out of the area immediately. A sandstorm delayed the flight. He expects to arrive in the green zone soon. We will give you an update as the situation unfolds.

    Don’t believe any of the crap that comes out of the Pentagon.

  18. 18
    mark says:

    Attacks are down … we’re winning!
    Attacks are up … they’re desperate!

  19. 19
    Wilfred says:

    Also, they are dead

    They always leave taped messages, sometimes video or letters. In the beginning of the war, the more radical of the Iraqi press would publish these, or at least describe their contents. Pressure by the Occupation shut them up, just like they got rid of Miller.

    A video taped message of a young woman saying she will become a martyr because the Occupation and its supporters killed her family would make Homelanders feel uncomfortable.

  20. 20
    jibeaux says:

    A video taped message of a young woman saying she will become a martyr because the Occupation and its supporters killed her family would make Homelanders feel uncomfortable.

    I dunno, wouldn’t make me uncomfortable, as I tend to focus on the 20 innocent people she killed. I assume she had her motivations, I assume they have something to do with us, but there is no justifications for something so heinous. Knowing what her motivations were doesn’t change the immorality of terrorism, and I expect that is the reason it isn’t reported on — it doesn’t change how we feel about people blowing themselves up. We don’t even report particularly well on the victims of terrorism, and if we’re going to do human interest stories on anyone it should be them.

  21. 21
    Dreggas says:

    O/T but if this happens, I agree with the diarist and will never fly again.

  22. 22
    Mongo says:

    So we’re already accepting the Pentagon’s blanket categorization of all Sunni insurgents in Iraq as AQI? What a bunch of bullshit! In 05-06 it was still AIF (anti Iraqi forces). While a little bit Orwellian, you could at least defend it.

    Can somebody explain how Army and DoD PAO’s can continually report that Sunni insurgents in Iraq are AQI, and that they’re led and supported by foreign terrorists operating in Iraq, while every suicide bomber that they claim is AQI is actually a home grown Iraqi? Two years ago (and yes, there were plenty of female suicide bombers then) these ladies were classified as AIF. Now they’re AQI.

    People need to call bullshit on the employment of AQI as a catchall term for Sunni insurgents in Iraq – whether it’s the media or DoD. Even in cases where a homegrown cell might claim affiliation with al-Qaeda for the sake of greater notoriety, there’s no connection. We are not fighting international terrorists in Iraq. Using terms like “AQI” when discussing female suicide bombers in Diyala that are seeking retribution for dissed family members creates the impression that we are.

  23. 23
    Wilfred says:

    I don’t see a difference between a person who straps explosives to her body and kills 20 innocent people and a B-2 pilot who flies halfway around the world to bomb Saddam Hussein’s headquarters in a residential neighborhood and ends up leveling the adjacent building and killing an extended family of 12 people.

    Most Americans see a huge difference between the two. That’s why I choose not to live there anymore.

    but there is no justifications for something so heinous.

    Understanding is not justification, or defense. But to condemn and shrug off one while condemning the other is a bit schizophrenic. We’ve killed lots of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we did in Vietnam. Is it so hard to believe that some Iraqis can rationalize as well as we do?

  24. 24
    Wilfred says:

    BTW, It’s taken almost 60 years to learn about this:

    SEOUL, South Korea – The American colonel, troubled by what he was hearing, tried to stall at first. But the declassified record shows he finally told his South Korean counterpart it “would be permitted” to machine-gun 3,500 political prisoners, to keep them from joining approaching enemy forces.

    In the early days of the Korean War, other American officers observed, photographed and confidentially reported on such wholesale executions by their South Korean ally, a secretive slaughter believed to have killed 100,000 or more leftists and supposed sympathizers, usually without charge or trial, in a few weeks in mid-1950.

    Extensive archival research by The Associated Press has found no indication Far East commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur took action to stem the summary mass killing, knowledge of which reached top levels of the Pentagon and State Department in Washington, where it was classified “secret” and filed away.

    Now, a half-century later, the South Korean government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is investigating what happened in that summer of terror, a political bloodbath largely hidden from history, unlike the communist invaders’ executions of southern rightists, which were widely publicized and denounced at the time.

    Maybe in 60 years time we’ll know a little more about what compelled people to become suicide bombers.

  25. 25
    jibeaux says:

    Most Americans see a huge difference between the two.

    Well, I would say most people would. To start with, a difference of 8 people, followed by the obvious differences between soldiers and civilians, and intentional and unintentional acts. It doesn’t change the tragedy of the deaths to say that not all killing is the same.

  26. 26
    nightjar says:

    Most Americans see a huge difference between the two. That’s why I choose not to live there anymore

    This, unfortunately is true. But there are also many of us who, while seeing a difference, would say it’s not a huge one.

  27. 27
    HyperIon says:

    jibeaux Says:

    Most Americans see a huge difference between the two.

    Well, I would say most people would.

    Well, I would say that most people who are NOT on the receiving or giving end of either event would. But when you’re getting bombed or doing the bombing, it tends to affect one’s POV.

  28. 28
    Wilfred says:

    Strictly speaking, intention does not matter in Islamic law which, at tribal levels, is essentially lex talionis. What matters is the crime. Certainly the victim or his relatives are encouraged to consider the intention of the criminal and to act accordingly, but they are under no obligation to do so. After all, a person’s intentions are known only to himself and to God, so say the Muslims.

    To start with, a difference of 8 people, followed by the obvious differences between soldiers and civilians, and intentional and unintentional acts.

    How about Dresden, or Cologne, or Tokyo? Was there no intention to kill civilians? How about Fallujah, or the murder of South Korean leftists, in the article I linked to above? How about the bombing of North Vietnam? The Israelis littered South Lebanon with cluster bombs we gave them – what is their intention vis-a-vis civilians?

    Arguments about intention are specious. Are we now to assume tqht after a long, long history of the willful and deliberate murder of civilians in previous wars we have suddenly become holier than thou and above reproach?

  29. 29
    nightjar says:

    How about Dresden, or Cologne, or Tokyo? Was there no intention to kill civilians?

    Those that study warfare would maybe argue that WW2 was an example of Total War whereby the rules of engagement were set early on by the Axis countries of not distinguishing civilians from combatants.

    Germany mainly for its blitz of England and Japan in China and elsewhere. When the US entered the war after Pearl Harbor where many civilians were killed they adopted the ROE already set by the Axis. So I think these are bad examples for the situation in Iraq, which I would say is a unique military action in US history. We’ve never invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us or having been invited in by a sovereign Government (Vietnam, Korea) to participate in their internal wars. And since Bush didn’t get the second UN vote to invade Iraq, after agreeing to follow UN mandates it is a good argument that the invasion is a warcrime by International law, although likely not AMerican law. Even though at some point afterwards the UN gave sanction to the occupation.

    The Israelis littered South Lebanon with cluster bombs we gave them – what is their intention vis-a-vis civilians?

    Although I believe Israel had a Casus Beli to invade South Lebanon after it’s soldiers were abducted, the issue of CLuster Bombs is a different issue. They should be banned in any civilian inhabited area, if not altogether.

    However, the actions of Israel when hunting and assassinating Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip is more to your point. Is it justifiable for the Israeli’s to send a missile into an apartment to kill a militant knowing there will be innocents killed also? I don’t think so and that also goes to US actions as well. So on that I agree.

  30. 30
    blogReeder says:

    Not anywhere near Halloween and you ghouls are feasting. What is different about this suicide bombing than the other zillions before it?

    It’s bad, I agree with that but what is it about this that make it feast worthy? I’m trying to understand.

    You think the Iraq war was a BAD IDEA. I get it.

    I also know you don’t care anything about these people.
    They’re only important to you when you can use their grisly deaths as fodder to your anti-Bush demagoguery. I guess you can hope they’ll be a bigger one tomorrow.

  31. 31
    blogReeder says:

    Wilfred, where did you get that excerpt? Who uses Rightists?

  32. 32
    TenguPhule says:

    You think the Iraq war was a BAD IDEA. I get it.

    Wrong, you Bush-sucking Dick.

    We know the Iraq War was a fucking retarded idea dreamed up by people who need to be executed in front of all of Iraq.

  33. 33
    liberal says:

    nightjar wrote,

    We’ve never invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us or having been invited in by a sovereign Government (Vietnam, Korea) to participate in their internal wars.

    LOL!

    South Vietnam was created by the US, out of whole cloth, in violation of the accords ending the French-Indochinese war.

  34. 34
    liberal says:

    nightjar wrote,

    Although I believe Israel had a Casus Beli to invade South Lebanon after it’s soldiers were abducted…

    Which was after Israeli attacks in the previous decades which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese and the occupation of Lebanese territory.

  35. 35
    liberal says:

    nightjar wrote,

    And since Bush didn’t get the second UN vote to invade Iraq, after agreeing to follow UN mandates it is a good argument that the invasion is a warcrime by International law, although likely not AMerican law.

    If any international law codifying wars of aggression as war crimes follows from treaties signed and ratified by the US, then following the Constitution it’s the law of the land here in the US.

  36. 36
    liberal says:

    nightjar wrote,

    We’ve never invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us or having been invited in by a sovereign Government (Vietnam, Korea) to participate in their internal wars.

    The US didn’t invade Grenada?

  37. 37
    liberal says:

    nightjar wrote,

    We’ve never invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us or having been invited in by a sovereign Government (Vietnam, Korea) to participate in their internal wars.

    We invaded Haiti in 1915. From my brief perusal of the Web, I don’t think we were invited there by any sovereign government.

    Most of the time, we’ve attempted to overthrow governments using third parties (e.g. Iran in 1954). Though AFAICT the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 was accompanied by an exile invasion sponsored by the US, accompanied by US naval action and hostile psywar actions.

    The invasion itself didn’t kill all that many people, but tens of thousands of Guatemalans died in the ensuing decades under brutal dictatorships.

  38. 38
    liberal says:

    jibeaux wrote,

    To start with, a difference of 8 people, followed by the obvious differences between soldiers and civilians, and intentional and unintentional acts. It doesn’t change the tragedy of the deaths to say that not all killing is the same.

    I’m sure the murdered victims of “collateral damage” around the world feel comforted by your ludicrous distinction as to what is “intentional” and “unintentional,” as opposed to a better one like “reflecting the likely consequences of one’s actions.”

  39. 39
    nightjar says:

    liberal been busy this morning.

    LOL!

    South Vietnam was created by the US, out of whole cloth, in violation of the accords ending the French-Indochinese war.

    not quite accurate.

    from wiki

    In 1954, France and the Vietminh agreed at the Geneva Conference that the State of Vietnam would rule the territory south of the 17th parallel, pending unification on the basis of supervised elections in 1956. At the time of the conference, it was expected that South would continue to be a French dependency. However, Premier Ngô Ðình Diệm, who preferred American sponsorship to French, rejected the agreement and refused to hold supervised elections

    If any international law codifying wars of aggression as war crimes follows from treaties signed and ratified by the US, then following the Constitution it’s the law of the land here in the US.

    While this is true, I was referring to AUMF granting Bush war powers for Iraq. And if push came to shove, which law do you think the current Supreme Court would favor, International or domestic?

    The US didn’t invade Grenada?

    If your going to count tiny Caribbean nations for rescues and humanitarian crises, then go ahead. I don’t count them.

    The 1915 Haiti invasion was initially done to protect American interest in an unstable country. It was by 330 Marines and the US stayed way too long and wreaked havoc. It was wrong but hardly compares to what we’ve done in Iraq.

    And if your going to count American proxy wars in South America and elsewhere during the cold war, have at it, but is not comparable to Iraq.

    Which was after Israeli attacks in the previous decades which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese and the occupation of Lebanese territory.

    If your going to count old conflicts, why not go back a thousand, or two-thousand years as there are many acts of aggression to consider from both sides.

  40. 40
    blogReeder says:

    Wrong, you Bush-sucking Dick.

    TenguPhule, you’re like 12 years old, right? You just learned what dick means, didn’t you?

    Jeesh. Great come back.

  41. 41
    liberal says:

    nightjar wrote, not quite accurate.

    You don’t know the history of South Vietnam, do you.

    The US conspired to divide the country; the accords at the end of the French-Indochinese war didn’t make a political division.

    Nothing in the Wikipedia section you quoted contradicted that. Ngo was premier after the US created South Vietnam out of whole cloth.

    Pathetic.

    And if push came to shove, which law do you think the current Supreme Court would favor, International or domestic?

    I assume we’re at least partly discussing “ought” here, not “is, according to the current lawless gang of thugs running the USSC.”

    If your going to count tiny Caribbean nations for rescues and humanitarian crises, then go ahead. I don’t count them.

    Glad to see that you admit being wrong. And in what sense was Grenada a rescue? Also, funny that you think Grenada was in part a humanitarian effort, given the current state of Bush apologia for the invasion of Iraq.

    If your going to count old conflicts, why not go back a thousand, or two-thousand years as there are many acts of aggression to consider from both sides.

    The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, plus the following long Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, plus current Lebanese claims that Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory, is “old”?

    LOL!

Comments are closed.