Grand Guignol, Islamism-Style
Adaptation is a profound process.
Means you figure out how to thrive in the world.
--Adaptation (2002)
___________
Means you figure out how to thrive in the world.
--Adaptation (2002)
___________
Sticky Bombs? What are these?
First they are trying to sell me terrorism as a New World Paradigm Shift, now the old Soap Dish becomes a Sticky Bomb? Ranger first heard the term in the film, Saving Ryan's Privates. But anyone knows that one-pound blocks of C-4 feature one side with a removable strip covering a sticky surface. Isn't this a "sticky bomb"?
The point is not nomenclature when talking about the employment of explosives. What is significant is the nature of the target and the nature of the bomber. The NYT coverage says "militants" use the sticky bombs, but the article itself uses the terms "militant," "insurgent," and "terrorist" interchangeably (Militants Turn to Small Bombs in Iraq Attacks.)
Ranger understands the writer's casting a large net in the hopes of encompassing all the bases. The U.S. military and government fail the rhetorical precision test, so they report on what they are provided. The military should know better.
Militants, terrorists and insurgents in all probability use different targeting objectives. All will attack soft targets as a matter of choice, but insurgents and militants will be more discriminate in target selection. These groups hope to gain support and increased membership as a result of their activities.
In contrast, terrorists are less likely to discriminate. The more grotesque the attack, the better for the terrorist. Terrorists aim for a government overreaction, as their goal reaches beyond the target.
Back to soap dishes, those wonderful little tools for spreading death, destruction and mayhem. Ranger is encouraged by their use as this is an indicator that the groups are degraded into smaller mini-attacks which are more irritant than militant. This indicates a breakdown in the groups' internal structure.
Bombers and bomb makers are the stars of any given group, so when everyone becomes "bomb capable," this is a good thing for the authorities. It is much better than 2,000 pounds being detonated in a marketplace.
This also indicates that surveillance and intel capabilities of the groups are shrinking. In effect, everything becomes a target of opportunity. At this point, the actions have degraded into "street theatre," incapable of significant direction or results.
“Iraqi and United States officials acknowledge that 'sticky bombs' have been an effective means of spreading terror among Iraqi urban populations but note that, paradoxically, the bombs are also a sign that terrorists are finding it harder to move freely.”
Adaptation is occurring. After years of war, this is an embarrassing yet unavoidable fact.
Labels: criminal culpability in pwot, degrading of terrorist capabilities, phony war on terror, sticky bombs
6 Comments:
One of the most despicable things about this PWOT is the frantic attempt this administration has made to conflate the terms "insurgent", "militiamen", "resistance" and "terrorist", to the point where the public and, I suspect, many of the Joes, have no idea there even IS a distinction. ISTM that it ties in with all the talk of "counterinsurgency" glossing over the nonsensical premise for the thing, which is sending Americans to fight in foreign civil wars or foreign domestic repressions.
I've said it before, but here goes--I remember studying an insurgency in July of 1776. I was recently driving thru Lexington, Ma. and saw the Minuteman statue. No uniform, armed with the best rifle of his day, able to blend in with his contemporary population.... hmmm............
FDChief,
What really twists my mind is that everything i say and write on RAW is what used to be official gov't policy to include DOD.
If one really thinks about the topic then it is clear that the brainless meanderings of Bush brain is far out in la la land.
As i always say -nothing changed on 911 except national psychosis has repaced rationality.Other than that it's business as usual. jim
Anon/dec9
Sorry for the late cmt....The original colonies such as Maine have some pretty restrictive gun laws. The militiamen would be arrested today if they hung their musket on the wall.Vermont is one of the exceptions.
Here I go being picky.Is an insurgency a rebellion? Are the two one in the same?I believe both the War for Independance and the CW were both rebellions.But at the bridge it was still a insurgent movement that hadn't yet grown into a full fledged rebellion-but the groundwork was firmly prepared.The Brits were in fact the legitimate government and the independence movement was trying to overthrow this system.This is what we discuss when talking spectrum of war.
It's hard to compare this with IRQ and AFGH and RVN but it can be done- if one is willing to devote a life to writing the analysis.
Thanks for your cmts. It's always nice hearing from readers.It's a isolated feeling and position writing as RAW does-we only know what the Scouts tell us. jim
Anon, I failed to mention-KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY AND YOUR HATCHET SHARP AND CLEAN. jim
I just ran across your site tonight and have read some but not all of your comments. I served with the 1st Cav in An Khe during '66/67 and have agreed with you on your various positions. It is late and I need sleep but will return tomorrow to finish reading.
I grieve daily for our men who have been caused to suffer by this President.
Iam delighted to have found your site.
Carl Cowart-Decatur, AL
Post a Comment
<< Home