Blue Crab Boulevard

Here There Be Monsters

The old phrase that titles this post was sometimes used on maps in the Middle Ages (either in words or in pictures of fanciful sea monsters) to describe the unknown - that which lay outside the bounds of the known world. It was a warning to mariners that many ships that went beyond the boundaries did not return. (Never mind that many ships that sailed well within the bounds also never returned.) But, "Here there be monsters," was the warning. Don't go there; there are unknown horrors and terrible death waiting beyond the known bounds of the world. Often, that was exactly the case, of course.

We know the bounds of the world these days and have mapped it completely. There are no more unknown territories, no more areas where there be monsters, right? Except, there are monsters. They are quite real and they are really killing innocents using horrific methods. It is called chlorine gas and the terrorists are using it to kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents exploded a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters Wednesday — the second such "dirty" chemical attack in two days — while a U.S. official said ground fire apparently forced the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter. All nine aboard the aircraft were rescued.

The attacks offer a sweeping narrative on evolving tactics by Sunni insurgents who have proved remarkably adaptable.

Military officials worry extremists may have recently gained more access to firepower such as shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets and heavy machine guns — and more expertise to use them. The Black Hawk would be at least the eighth U.S. helicopter to crash or be taken down by hostile fire in the past month.

The gas cloud in Baghdad, meanwhile, suggests possible new and coordinated strategies by bombers trying to unleash toxic — and potentially deadly — materials. "Terrorists are using dirty means," said Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, an Iraqi military spokesman.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, said initial reports indicated the chopper was brought down by "small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades" north of Baghdad, but gave no further details. All nine aboard were taken away on a rescue helicopter, he said.

In Baghdad, a pickup truck carrying chlorine gas cylinders was blown apart, killing at least five people and sending more than 55 to hospitals gasping for breath and rubbing stinging eyes, police said.

On Tuesday, a bomb planted on a chlorine tanker left more than 150 villagers stricken north of the capital. More than 60 were still under medical care on Wednesday. Chlorine causes respiratory trouble and skin irritation in low levels and possible death with heavy exposure.

In Washington, two Pentagon officials said the tactic has been used at least three times since Jan. 28, when a truck carrying explosives and a chlorine tank blew up in Anbar province. More than a dozen people were reported killed.

The AP report is very pointedly pointing out that Sunni Muslims did this. How they know that exactly, they do not explain. But it does not matter who is doing it. They are killing innocent civilians with the most awful weapons they can get their hands on. Is there any doubt that they WILL use worse weapons if they can get them?

Is there any doubt they will use those weapons on Americans with as much - or considerably more - gusto if they can? In America? The left denies that "some guy in a cave" is anything to worry about. What if the cave has a supply of chlorine gas? What if it has biological weapons? What if it has a few nukes? The argument today is pull out of Iraq, turn a blind eye to the genocide that ensues, just ignore the damage to the United States that such a withdrawal will entail and go home. But this time, they will follow us. And they have already shown what they are capable and willing to do. What will the left do then? What happens when the phrase "Here there be monsters" describes the city they are living in?

Are you willing to bet your life? How about your children's lives? Your entire family? Will your statistical arguments mean a thing when it is someone you love at ground zero? Really? Are you really sure?

Here there be monsters.

War | Gaius Wednesday, 21 February , 2007

By jpe, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 7:58 am

But this time, they will follow us.

I don’t see any reason to believe this; nor do I see any reason to assume a worst case scenario upon redeploying most soldiers.
By cfaller96, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 11:16 am

Couldn’t the same “they will follow us” argument have been used in Somalia, to argue against withdrawal there? I agree with JPE- there’s no evidence to suggest this will happen, and saying it (over and over and over again) doesn’t make it so.

Also, speaking of guys in caves, where’s that Osama guy?
By BubbaB, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 11:31 am

Just had to comment, Gaius. That was an excellent post. You definitely have a way with metaphors.

Sorry I haven’t added any comments lately. Been busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.

And to the other commenters: Wow. How quickly we forget. The bad guys in Somalia (including a guy named “Osama”) DID follow us here. And they struck us on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 commission made it very clear that there was a direct path (using quotes from Bin Laden, himself) between how we “tucked our tails and ran” in Somalia, and how they were emboldened to attack us on 9/11.

In Vietnam, when we ran, 100’s of thousands who had supported democracy and who were “on our side” in Vietnam were jailed, tortured, and/or killed. We are stabilizing Iraq. Do you think Saudi Arabia and some of the other gulf states would sit back and let Iran take over Iraq? Do you think they have a “civil war” over there, right now? If we leave, we will truly see a civil war.
By Former Republican, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 11:52 am

So if our troops stay in Iraq they can prevent terrorists from attacking the US? If terrorists decide to attack the US why would having US troops in Iraq stop them? The record shows that American leadership has been utterly incompetent in Iraq at just about everything it has tried to do since the end of “major combat operations.” Why do you expect them to be competent to stop terrorists from attacking the US?

Anyway, the military is nearly useless IMHO for stopping terrorist attacks on the US. For that you need competent police, security and intelligence work. And willing and enthusiastic cooperation from other countries. For example, the plot to blow up a dozen or so American transatlantic jets was foiled by British intelligence and police work, with an assist from Pakistan.
By cfaller96, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 3:14 pm

BubbaB, by your logic then, were Republicans wrong for calling for a withdrawal from Somalia?

They did do that. A lot of them. John McCain was one of them. Must I go get the links to show you the floor speeches they made, calling for withdrawal, while at the same time asserting Congress’ Constitutional right to put limits on our troops involvement overseas? If it was wrong to withdraw from Somalia, then all those Republicans (including McCain who now opposes withdrawal) were wrong then, right?

And quite honestly, I really, really, really don’t like having our military strategy and foreign policy dictated by what our enemies say and think- it means we continuously give them the initiative and let them dictate our responses. That’s the equivalent of letting them lead us around by our noses, and it’s strategically foolish.

We make decisions based on what’s good for us, and we will fight our enemies regardless of whether they think we’re “weak” or “strong” or “resilient” or whatever. We should rationally decide, not emotionally “show.” There’s a difference, obviously.
By BubbaB, Wednesday, 28 February , 2007 @ 1:13 pm

CFALLER96, I agree 100%. We should make the decisions rationally. Which means that Clinton made the wrong decision going into Somalia, and the Republicans made the wrong decision by calling for us to tuck our tails and run.

Clinton’s decision to invade Somalia was to prove that he was a capable Commander-in-Chief. He made the decision emotionally, not based on the facts, or he would have done one of two things:
1. Not invade.
2. Invade with a force sizable enough to destroy any resistance.

We either have to decide to crush the enemy, or not bother. Clinton (and liberals, in general) seem to think we can throw a few stones, and the enemy will run away, and we can all sing “Kumbaya”. That is wrong-headed. The Republicans who led the charge to get us out of Somalia were using it as a political weapon. That is also wrong-headed.

You assume I am a Republican. You also assume I stand by the “party line.” I am a Republican, but by no means do I stand by the party line. Remember what happens when you assume?

What our enemies say and think should not drive our policies, but we should take them into account. If a country declares war on us, should we ignore them? Because, after all, we are letting what they say and think “drive our policies” if we declare war on them, right?

John McCain is a putz. I would refuse to vote rather than vote for him.

Oh, and for the “logic” - your first argument is a combination of logical fallacies, known as “Fallacy of Accident” and “Irrelevant Conclusion”. Whether Republicans voted to leave Somalia is irrelevant to the discussion - this is almost an ad hominem attack - and you can’t draw conclusions on my stance on any particular issue just because I stand with the Republicans on the War On Terror.

Your second argument, that we would be “letting them lead us around by the noses”, is the logical fallacy of “Begging the Question.” You assert premises about our policy and the enemy’s thoughts and words that try to presuppose your “conclusion.” Basically, your argument has no weight.