Morally Depraved or Just Idiotic?
In a brief post over at The Corner today, resident nutjob Mark Levin has this to say:
This is such a vague statement that I'm not even sure what Levin is talking about. When I first read it, I assumed that he was calling for the aerial bombardment of Sunni areas in Iraq, which is where most of the insurgents and al Qaeda types reside. If so, he's basically calling for the indiscriminate bombing of the Iraqi civilian population, something that would be both morally reprehensible and strategically idiotic.
But upon further reflection, and in light of Levin's recent crazy-talk about Iran, Levin may actually be referring to Iran here. Many have alleged that Iran is providing Iraqis with weapons to use against U.S. troops. If this is what Levin means, though, his statement is more than a little inaccurate. Iran may well be supplying some Iraqis with weapons, but if so, these supplies are almost surely going to Shia groups such as Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi militia. But Sadr and his followers are not really "insurgents"; indeed, Sadr controls one of the most influential blocs in the Iraqi parliament. The insurgency, at least last time I checked, consisted of an ad hoc coalition of Sunni baathists and foreign terrorist types (also Sunni). To suggest that Iran is somehow the "source" of the insurgency is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to suggest that bombing Iran will make the situation in Iraq better (for reasons that are too numerous to mention here and too obvious to need elaboration).
So under meaning #1, Levin is idiotic and morally-depraved and under meaning #2, he is idiotic and hopelessly ill-formed. I'm not sure which is better.
We may need more troops in Iraq, but we definitely need more bombers dropping heavy loads on the source of terrorist insurgents and IEDs, and I don't mean Baghdad. Defending Iraq and our armed forces there means more than sending more ground troops. It means attacking the source of the problem.
This is such a vague statement that I'm not even sure what Levin is talking about. When I first read it, I assumed that he was calling for the aerial bombardment of Sunni areas in Iraq, which is where most of the insurgents and al Qaeda types reside. If so, he's basically calling for the indiscriminate bombing of the Iraqi civilian population, something that would be both morally reprehensible and strategically idiotic.
But upon further reflection, and in light of Levin's recent crazy-talk about Iran, Levin may actually be referring to Iran here. Many have alleged that Iran is providing Iraqis with weapons to use against U.S. troops. If this is what Levin means, though, his statement is more than a little inaccurate. Iran may well be supplying some Iraqis with weapons, but if so, these supplies are almost surely going to Shia groups such as Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi militia. But Sadr and his followers are not really "insurgents"; indeed, Sadr controls one of the most influential blocs in the Iraqi parliament. The insurgency, at least last time I checked, consisted of an ad hoc coalition of Sunni baathists and foreign terrorist types (also Sunni). To suggest that Iran is somehow the "source" of the insurgency is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to suggest that bombing Iran will make the situation in Iraq better (for reasons that are too numerous to mention here and too obvious to need elaboration).
So under meaning #1, Levin is idiotic and morally-depraved and under meaning #2, he is idiotic and hopelessly ill-formed. I'm not sure which is better.
posted by A.L. at 1:29 PM
3 Comments:
Could he be referring to Democrats and bleeding-heart civil rights lawyers?
Plus the ACLU, John Murtha, Max Cleland, Jimmy Carter, Jill Carroll, Steve Centanni, and Olaf Wiig, not to mention homosexuals, New Yorkers, "Hollywood Types," the Main Stream Media and the French. At least that's what I read over at Little Green Footballs.
- JLB
Don't forget that (some of) these knuckleheads want a war with Iran. What better way to get one than by provoking it? This tactic has been S.O.P. for the U.S. as far back as the Mexican war, and as recent as Gulf of Tonkin. I would expect no less from doctrine of first strikers.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home