I don’t have any personal animus against Mr. Fisk. It’s just that we have diametrically opposed views on Islamic fundamentalism. Here’s a typical Fisk column for folks who are still unacquainted with his work. Enjoy.

The invasion of Iraq was a good thing done badly, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons and was not part of the War on Terror…

..that tax cuts and tax avoidance, even if legal, are inherently unpatriotic while we are at war. They certainly do not generate wealth or industry which could aid in the war…

…For instance, a vast amount could be done to reduce militant Islamic terrorism by simply getting closet rogue-stater Musharaff of Pakistan to actually carry out what he has said he will do. A private ultimatum that he either truly gets with the democracy program or all support is transferred to rival India would be sufficient to force him to do so or lose power when the matter became public…

…Any reader of technothrillers could come up with a scenario involving an LPG carrier, some shaped charges and a moajor port city which would make far more sense to any terrorist doing a cost – benefit analysis yet these risks are mostly ignored…

Indeed, when Osama bin Laden was trapped with so many of his cohorts in the mountain wilderness, I would have cleared out the civilians and nuked Tora-Bora and it’s environs…

…Yes there has been good work done but no-one in their right mind would claim it couldn’t have been done better and faster. Iraqis are incensed by the lack of basic amenities such as power, gasoline and water two years after the invasion…

…There should be bi-partisan agreement that Supplementary Bills providing money for Iraq or the War on Terror will not be packed with side issues and pork-barrel fillers that, because they become part of a Bill to “support our troops” cannot be realistically voted down…

…The US and the Coalition, where they had a plan at all, adopted a heavy-handed Israeli model for counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and time has told the story – it has been less successful than it could have been. I have argued elsewhere that a model more akin to the British counter-terrorism operations in Northern Ireland would be better…

I’d recommend that conservatives read Cernig‘s articles for a preview of the Progressives’ influence on a Democratic president’s prosecution of the War on Terror.

> Or it could be because the Bush
> administration’s civilians are
> meddling, pressing Petraeus
> for an excuse to declare victory
> and exit PDQ.

Declare victory, then flee? Could be.

I don’t claim there’s any deeper meaning behind the wall, by the Bush people, but I think of the wall and I also think about the segregation and related to that, partition of Iraq and possible (additional) population exchanges or transfers.

> By this logic, the American campus
> may soon have 12 ft high walls…with
> security guards checking each and
> every student who enters the campus.

You obviously haven’t visited the USC campus and its surrounding territory in the LA metro area at any time since the late 1980s.

As for the Mexican wall, I’m all for it. I don’t want anybody destroying my shining city on the hill. Of course, that’s easy for me to say, I did grow up in a walled community.

Forts, in days gone by, had moats…Cities are not extended forts.

By this logic, the American campus may soon have 12 ft high walls…with security guards checking each and every student who enters the campus.

Walls are no cure for a deeper malaise…but an illusion that a place/city is being secured.

Let’s see how long this illusion lasts…

You believe that General Petraeus is being pressured into doing something rather than doing the right thing. Might it be the case that desperate circumstances demand desperate measures, and that Petraeus is not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good?

If I remember Maslow, the need for physical security should trump the commercial interests of the neighborhood merchants. Or is the situation not as desperate as the media portray it? If there’s a better solution to stemming the violence, I’m all ears.

Or it could be because the Bush administration’s civilians are meddling, pressing Petraeus for an excuse to declare victory and exit PDQ.

Or didn’t you read the bit where I wrote about what McMaster did in Tal Afar, where the locals were likewise trying to kill each other?

Regards, C

That could be because the locals desire to kill each other and wouldn’t accept a wall interfering with their fun and games.

The wall makes sense. If you are being attacked, a defense is to put a wall between you and your attackers. It certainly worked in the Middle Ages, and it works today in the form of gated communities in the USA. (I bet Chris just loves those!)

In fact, some would advocate building a good, stout wall along the US border with Mexico.

The moat, the drawbridges and gates and portcullises guarding the portals in the wall .. .even a radiation barrier, cross at your own choice and risk … these are optional.

If two groups hate each other, separate them by a wall.

Not only that, but partitioning Iraq and even forced population exchanges and transfers, which would horrify the Left, may be necessary in the future.

This time, the US didn’t ask. That will both fuel the feelings of seperateness which have been created by the sectarian violence and fuel resentment against US forces. McMasters own theories, as explained by him during the Tal Afar operation and subsequently while back in the US, say so.

So the obvious conclusion is that Petraeus, who is advised by McMaster, is under political pressure to do stuff faster even if it conflicts with their own doctrine. Most would see that civilian interference in military operations as counterproductive even if they think the surge is workable.

Regards, C

So far, the Baghdad campaign has involved only the creation of a few US positions within several civilian areas of the city but the new project will involve joint American and Iraqi “support bases” in nine of the 30 districts to be “gated” off. From these bases — in fortified buildings — US-Iraqi forces will supposedly clear militias from civilian streets which will then be walled off and the occupants issued with ID cards. Only the occupants will be allowed into these “gated communities” and there will be continuous patrolling by US-Iraqi forces. There are likely to be pass systems, “visitor” registration and restrictions on movement outside the “gated communities.” Civilians may find themselves inside a “controlled population” prison.

In theory, US forces can then concentrate on providing physical reconstruction in what the military like to call a “secure environment”. But insurgents are not foreigners, despite the presence of al-Qa’ida in Iraq. They come from the same population centres that will be “gated” and will, if undiscovered, hold ID cards themselves; they will be “enclosed” with everyone else.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/50439/?page=1