Photography and medical issues have my attention today, but posting this latest from Reuters seems unavoidable.
A conventional analysis might say of the uptick in attacks against the Green Zone in Baghdad and so many random act of senseless violence against Muslims (by Muslims) that U.S. battle fatigue in Iraq plus improvements in the Democratic profile for upcoming U.S. elections have invited renewed mortar, rocket, and drive-by "Jihad".
In some corners of the history of warfare, more lives have been lost in retreat than in battle.
However, rather than take that view, I would want to learn about oscillation in violence and quality of tactics over time.
Have insurgents, whatever their identity or cause given the fragmented nature of the effort, been able to launch and sustain a conventional scenario?
Has the violence forced or otherwise produced a predicted political response? Has that response held?
Over time, has the violence projected gathered momentum (ferocity x frequency) or has it merely promoted and sustained a certain agony for the innocent, unsuspecting, and pious?
One gentleman asks how many weapons could get through so many checkpoints: off-hand, with modern weapons, disassembly, smuggling in vehicle interiors or framework, and such will do it (time to revisit The French Connection for the popular origin of that idea).
Better asked: who among Muslims wants to work so hard at killing those who best represent Islam?
Whether for practical or symbolic purposes, lobbing rockets into the Green Zone has a conventional sensibility to it; butchering civilians who live in small houses with children and doubtless know their Koran--that's going to be a mystery for a while.
1. Tewari, Suranjana. "Violence escalates in Baghdad." Video. Reuters, March 23, 2008.
Correspondence: James S. Oppenheim
Comments