Skip to comments.Op-Ed: Know Thy Enemy (pimping for America's defeat)
Posted on 10/17/2007 10:11:58 PM PDT by dervish
(Excerpt) Read more at video.on.nytimes.com ...
amazing how each contention made in the video is false.
Their 'documentary' was riddled with inaccuracies (and the video kept on freezing. NBC video can have larger screens and higher resolution without catching so much). It was more of an apologetic for the 'insurgents' rather than a documentary. And it is practically useless in giving insight into the motivations of this enemy. It gives more insight into the views of the makers of the film than American opponents in Iraq. The one major valid piece they gave, that there is a secular opposition to the United States and coalition forces in Iraq alongside the religious opposition, is not new information.
They give too much credit to the 'insurgents' and not enough credit to the ineptitude of how Iraq was run after taking Baghdad and defeating the Iraqi military. The mislead with their polls. Iraqi opinions about American forces have plummeted. Contrary to what can be inferred from the film, Iraqi opinions toward the American forces were high when Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein, and in the last year or two has dropped precipitously due to Iraqis not seeing their country developing the way it could.
They also do not take into account that Arab culture has a tendency toward hyperbole and bluster. The secular enemies' actual fervor to oppose the United States is probably not quite as strong as their words might suggest. On an off note, many African and Latino descended communities have this same tendency....
Returning to topic, it is interesting that they filled their video with seemingly levelheaded Iraqis. They probably tried for that; they could have easily found more apparent raving lunatics (which could be an appropriate word).
The 'warrior' in particular has a demeanor and act rational. However, for some of his statements, such as some translators have the intent to attack Iraqis and to a lesser extent some policemen collaborate with the Americans, they are unsubstantiated. Why would Iraqi translators try to attack Iraqis in general (as opposed to individual people with whom they may have a family feud or something)? Almost all Iraqi translators would hope for a successful, peaceful, thriving Iraq. For the policemen, they should collaborate with the American forces, as the American forces are one of the groups (along with the Iraqi government) running (or trying to) Iraq. A duty of the police is to uphold the law, including helping the higher authorities (something of which so-called 'sanctuary city police' should take note).
And for the pro-vigilantes out there, you do realize that these enemies in Iraq are either posing as--or actually are--your vigilante 'heroes?' They are trying to fill a power vacuum in the wake of the Iraqi government and the American and coalition forces' inability to exert control over all of Iraq. (And not that have complete opposition to your views that sometimes vigilantism can be the proper thing to do, but as this case shows, many times it isn't).
Posted on 10/18/2007 1:00:10 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail? )