Thursday, October 27, 2005


UPDATE: added new paragraphs at 9 and 11:30 am.

I'm enraged by the anti-war leftist lobbyists and their "little Toto" lap-dog media. Useful idiots is nowhere near nasty enough for anyone exploiting the sacrifice of those who protect Americans--even pie-eyed pacifists. I drafted a response, but tossed it when the ratio of four letter to all words neared 1:2.

Fortunately, a few papers, and other bloggers were better:
  • NIF: "2000 brave Americans have now been murdered in Iraq ... radical left rejoices."

  • Michelle Malkin:
    For the "peace activists" who hate the president with far more energy than they could ever muster in genuine support of our troops, this simple request to appreciate the fruits of hard-fought freedom is too much to ask. And too much for them to bear.
  • GM Roper:
    More anger at the news anchors and their oh-so-perfect teeth and hair, more anger at Cindy Sheehan and all the others who with smug condescension will decry the death of two thousand Americans, and not mean a damn word of it except to the extent that it can bash Bush or any of us that support the war of liberation.
  • Investor's Business Daily:
    We see nothing to celebrate. Still, Cindy Sheehan says she'll mark the occasion by tying herself to the fence outside the White House and refusing to leave "until they agree to bring the troops home."

    It will be a sad spectacle — Sheehan and the rest of the war protesters on their macabre death watch, waiting for American heroes to die. In Sheehan's defense — which leaves us feeling a bit odd — we agree that every U.S. military death in Iraq has been tragic. But we don't agree with her that it's been needless.

    Do Sheehan and her friends think Islamic terrorism against the West was just going to go away without military intervention?

    The fact is, the anti-war movement can be described more accurately in this case as an anti-Bush movement. Given that many of its members openly root for the terrorists to win, "anti-American" would be a better description than "anti-war."
Of course, the press never fact checks: About 30 percent of the deaths were non-combat and though any military death is regrettable, war's less fatal since WWII.

The puppet and protest set compound their error by comparing Coalition military fatalities with the running tally of supposed "civilian" deaths calculated by the far-left extremists at Iraq Body Count--the latest estimate is between 26 and 30k civilian deaths. IBC and other groups claim the difference in death counts confirms Coalition war crimes and dis-proportionality (in the second and third planks of the Just War doctrine).

Don't believe them, for four reasons:
  1. Many of the dead were not protected civilians: IBC cites only the Fourth Geneva Convention, protecting those in occupied territory that are "taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat." (Art 3(1)). But armed and hostile terrorists need not apply (Art. 5):
    Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

    Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
    As terrorists, Geneva IV obliges only that "such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention." (Id.) Note that unlawful combatants have no right to a hearing.

  2. Almost none of the dead were protected POWs: The Third Geneva Convention covers prisoners of war. A POW includes the military of the toppled state, plus some armed combatants such as "militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements," but only if they "fulfill the following conditions (Art. 4):
    (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) that of carrying arms openly;
    (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    Our enemy flunks two or three conditions:
    It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden.
    Even the liberal Society of Professional Journalists agrees:
    In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them. . .

    Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
    There's a word for shadowy gunmen who kill unarmed innocents: war criminals. By targeting unarmed civilians outside an army and out of uniform, the rights of captured terrorists in Iraq may devolve to one: a hearing before an Iraqi or US tribunal to tie the terrorist to the atrocity.

  3. The death count's inflated: The Coalition didn't target civilians, and killed far fewer than the left claims. How so? Simple--biased counting: Decrying the Coalition's attempt "to divert the blame for continued and rising civilian deaths on "Saddam loyalists", "foreign infiltrators" and "Al Qaeda," the IBC (Section 5B) cheats: "Those numbers include Iraqis killed by either coalition forces or insurgent attacks, and include insurgents themselves." Another trick, says Times Watch, is pinning civilian deaths "outside military/strategic or occupation-related areas" on the Coalition if the murderer either vaporizes (think homicide bomb; some car bombs) or vanishes (think hit-and-run; roadside bombs). But radical Islamics re-targeted toward unarmed (or more lightly armed) Iraqis. As a result, the tin-foil hat brigade convicts the Coalition for the terrorists' Jihad.

  4. No reality check: War is a last resort--and a sacrifice. But most skip the part about dramatically reduced fatalities compared with Saddam's thugocracy. Or car accidents in America.
During the death watch, real news got pushed inside and below the fold. No big deal, just evidence implicating anti-war MPs, tying the UN to Al Qaeda, and -- this just in! -- the spreading success of the Bush Doctrine: "78 percent of 9.8 million voters in the October 15 referendum approved the document, officials said. Turnout was 63 percent of eligible voters."

So what's in the papers?:
The results underlined Iraq's growing sectarian and ethnic polarisation, with huge yes votes recorded from Shiites and Kurds and massive no votes from Sunni Arabs. In what analysts saw as a sign of anger at the Kurdish role in promoting a constitution that hands power from Baghdad to the provinces, a car bomb killed nine people yesterday in Sulaimaniya, one of the main Kurdish cities. The city has been a haven of peace for the last two years as tension has mounted elsewhere, and many Iraqis from Baghdad and the south have been going there for holidays to escape the violence.
Ignoring "who, what, where, when and why, the media mixed their priorities and missed the main event:
The Iraqis have become the first Arab nation to formally adopt a constitution which invokes the fundamental ideals of democracy. All in all, what has come about through this process is remarkable when one considers what is in store for this re-birthed nation. This nation endured the reign of terror under one of the most heinous despots this planet has ever known, but through the aid of the United States, Iraq has not lost focus on its goals of becoming a shining example in a region known for its turmoil and strife.
A few got it right, such as Rosemary Righter in the Times (London):
Since the euphoria of their first chance at the vote last January, thousands of Iraqis have lost limbs and lives at the hands of terrorists and insurgents bent on inciting civil war. They have chafed under a weak, bickering Government that most Iraqis would say has done precious little to improve their lives. Yet even more people voted this time than in January.

The robustness of the Iraqi commitment to the political process is beyond remarkable. So listen, you defeatists and cynics who said that this couldn’t be done, shouldn’t even be attempted: however confused the outcome may be, the democracy that you patronisingly declared that Iraqis could never handle is taking shape. By all means sneer when Bush and Blair talk about progress, but lay off the Iraqi people. They are not the benighted fools you took them for; and their courage puts us all to shame.
Hammorabi knows: "This is a real democracy by which the constitution passed." And RightPundit agrees: "The adoption of the constitution is a major victory for the Iraqi people and the American-led coalition. It is a major defeat for the militant terrorists who oppose democracy."

Which explains why anti-war anti-democracy Moonbats just party on.

(via NIF, Harry's Place, TMH's Bacon Bits, Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin and LGF)

1 comment:

Stan said...

I sometimes think these "anti-war" folks should be evaluated for admission into mental institutions.

I know the result would be cause for legislation on more hospitals.