« An Inconvenient NuisanceRoad to Nowhere »

Gated Communities

(UPDATE: Strangely, AP buries the news that Iraqi authorities want barriers, have built them elsewhere in Baghdad, were OK with this one, but after local pressure, will go with less concrete and more concertina wire. But still with a barrier. AP prefers to create the impression its all about US fault and failure.  Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.)

In the United States, a sign of success, where even the middle class wants in on the exclusionary action previously the domain of the rich and famous to shut out the riffraff and the imagined horrors of … whatever.

In Baghdad, where they actually do have horrors of … whatever … a sign of failure.* Because any damned fool can see security fences to keep out evil are exactly like the Berlin Wall.  

*Important and only fair to put Jeffrey Feldman’s remarks in some context. See, there are people who do not want the killing to stop in Baghdad.  In two months, it could be worse.  And that’s a good thing.

Great Frost poem, by the way.  Suggests there are actually good uses for walls, places where they are needed, and places where they are not.  Interesting bit about hunters tearing them down in order to let their dogs at the rabbits.  Frost, being a whiny poet, can’t help but go off on some whiny irrelevant poetic tangents, though. The stone walls of New England that are in fact lovely things, and not built simply to keep anyone in or out, but because you have no choice but to build them.  I’ve built a couple, in places where there is something about the ground that doesn’t love a rock, and spits them out. You have to do something with the damned stones, so you cart them to the edge of the field. 

You find old stone walls out in the woods around here, marking the boundaries of farms now long overgrown, along with stone-lined cellar holes where the farmers once lived. But all that’s a little bit different than a manned concrete barrier designed to keep people from murdering your children. 

Topics: Iraq

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:17 am on Monday, April 23, 2007

20 Responses to “Gated Communities”

1. RebeccaH Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 pm

   Ever been to Las Vegas. All the neighborhoods are walled in, every single one of them, although they don’t all have gates or guards. It’s a Latin American custom that’s moved north. I’m not sure how much security it provides. All I could think when I saw them was, “There’s only one way in or out of that neighborhood.” It’s a little creepy.

2. alphie Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm

   Hehe

   “Gated Communities”

   Outstanding spin, sir.

   I suppose every bomb crater is a swimming pool?

   Or maybe a hole in the Baghdad Golf Course?

3. corndog Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm

   Sounds like thousands of irate Iraqis are out protesting their homes being walled off, and Maliki is against it.

   Hey! Don’t they know they’re not supposed to second-guess the troops in the field?

4. Robert Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm

   And every post by alphie is a cesspit.

5. Terrye Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm

   Millions of Iraqis want Americans to stay and elp with security but alpie and corn hole don’t care about that. No sir, they only care about Iraqis want when they think they can use to help their terrorist friends. And make no mistake corn hole and aphie want the terrorists to win. They love it when people die. It makes them feel all warm and gooey.

   Ick.

   Last week a bomb went off in Sadr City and more than 120 people were killed. Two days earlier the local merchants had insisted that the barriers be removed to the market because they were slowing down business. I wonder what a suicide truck bomb does for business? No one likes these kinds of measures. But westerners have put up with all sorts of security for years, the Iraqis will have to do the same.

6. corndog Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm

   You know what’s warm and gooey, Terrye? People dying. There was not a single suicide bombing in Iraq before the invasion. I was against the war. Thought it was stupid and unnecessary and would lead to nothing but bad. Thought it was illegal. Thought we shouldn’t do it unless the United Nations voted for it. You and Osama both thought a U.S. invasion of Iraq was a great idea.

   I’m too busy to come back here for a reply, so have at it.

7. corndog Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm

   Oh, and Terrye?

   “Obviously we will respect the wishes of the government and the prime minister,” the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said in a news conference today.

   The whole USA must be objectively pro-terrorist now, huh, Terrye?

8. alphie Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm

   Terrye,

   If millions of Iraqis want our troops to stay in their country, how about letting them vote on it instead of hiding behind puppets and anecdotes?

   It’s like Bush saying all our troops in Iraq want to be there, but not making serving in Iraq voluntary.

   B.S. straight outta the old Soviet Union.

9. Terrye Says:
   April 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm

   cornhole:

   That last comment made no sense whatsoever. None. It was gibberish. I don’t know what you are yammering about.

   If you have your way a lot more people will die. That is the simple truth of it. I am sure you were against the war. After all the Butcher of Baghdad was a pacifist wasn’t he? He never hurt a fly. Poor Saint Saddam.

   I was one of those silly little anti war demonstrators back in the days of Viet Nam. I remember a very young John Kerry trashing the troops and swearing to his fan club that when America left the war would end. The killing would end. After all, we were the problem, once we were gone, like magic all would be well. There is not a problem in the world that can not be solved by smacking down America.

   He was wrong and millions died and he could have cared less. I remember those days and once the people of southeast Asia were of no use to the left politically they ceased to exist. They could have cared less what the Khmer Rouge did. No second thoughts, no remorse, no fact checking….Killing Fields? ho hum too bad.

   Saddam was an evil man and for years the Left bitched and moaned about him. The European left did plays about how evil he was and bemoaned the fact that the west did nothing about him. That was right up until the west did do something about him and then ofcourse he became a cult hero.

   We heard that the sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, right up until the time of the invasion when we heard that Saddam’s Iraq was a kite flying paradise of happy go lucky people. Whatever works. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

   In one grave they found the bodies of 13,000 children. Just one grave. Hundreds of thousands more were found in mass graves. Childrens prisons. Rape rooms. Hundreds of thousands more just gone.Saddam is on tape discussing the genocide of the Kurds he planned to carry out as soon as the oppurtunity presents itself. When asked about the response of the international community he said “eff the international community”

   . He destroyed the ecosystem of the Marsh Arabs and drove them into the slums of Baghdad. 5,000 years the Marsh Arabs had lived in those reeds, and Saddam destroyed their entire lifestyle in a generation.

   Back in the 90’s he tried to kill a president, he lied to the UN, he refused to do what he needed to do if he was to have peace. The UN said in 99 that he had weapons, Clinton said in 98 that he should be removed from power. The Democratic Senate said in 2002 that Bush should have the authority to go into Iraq.

   But now Saddam is the victim and the terrorists are the victims and the Iraqi government does not count and the US is to blame for what AlQaida does. After all if not for us they would all be pursuing peaceful endeavors. Just like that child molestor would not be a child molestor if that 6 year old was not such a hussy. Blame the victim. Time and again,same old thing.

   And yet, you are demanding that we abandon these people, that we abandon democracy, that we pander to bloodthirsty terrorists and that most of all when confronted with a man like Saddam we kiss his ass, ignore his crimes and allow him to do what he wants to whoever he wants to do it too.

   Yes, I am sure you were against the war. You did not want the Iraqis to vote. You just wanted to let the Butcher of Baghdad live up to his name. What do you think life in Iraq would be like? If past behavior is really the best indicator of future behavior then once Saddam and his sons were set loose upon the Iraqi people they would have killed hundreds of thousands of them again. Why not? Who would have stopped them? Not you.

   Spare me the lectures in morality. The truth is you do not give a damn about the Iraqi people. If you had to choose between the Iraqi government succeeding and bringing a certain degree of peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people and Bush getting a little credit for it…and Iraq collapsing into chaos and bloodshed that threatened the entire Middle East and Bush got blamed. You would pick the second choice. Because hating Bush is all people like you care about, screw everything else.

   One thing I have noticed about the left, when they say every vote counts, they are only talking about votes for their side, for their guy…if the voters are millions of people with purple fingers making history…screw them too.

10. Terrye Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    alphie:

    Voluntary? Look at the reenlistment levels for Chrisake. The whole military is voluntary today. And I hate to break it to you but back in WW2 when my Dad and his brothers all served in the military there was nothing voluntary about any of it. Not when they went in or where they served or when they came home. None of it. Soldiers were rioting in Europe after the war.

    There are 26 million Iraqis. In the last 4 years we have seen about 3300 casualties. About 800 of those died in non combat related circumstances. I think that if 26 million Iraqis really wanted those soldiers out of there we would be seeing more soldiers killed than women and children. But it is not our soldiers who are the primary targets.

    Besides, time and again the Iraqi people have said in polls and from their government that they want us there until they can stand without us. That does not mean they like being occupied or that they want the troops there forever, but if we can keep 37,000 troops in South Korea for more than half a century I find this eagerness to abandon these people to slaughter to be unseemly.

11. corndog Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    Terrye,

    Pol Pot’s rise had nothing to do with our leaving Vietnam. Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia to chase after the Vietcong, the king protested against it, Nixon engineered a right-wing coup to overthrow the king and allow his secret invasion. The only faction left to fight the right-wing dictatorship was Pol Pot, so he won popular support, backed by Mao, who wanted an ally to balance against Vietnam. Pol Pot came in and began the Killing Fields. The Killing Fields were eventually stopped by… Vietnam.

    If I had to choose in Iraq, I’d go with a sharply-policed Saddam who was incapable of the kind of brutalities you describe. One where the air is controlled by the U.S., free to spy or bomb when a threat is perceived. That is exactly what we had before the invasion, but that’s gone now.

    The chocie we have now is between violence and violence. The question is whether the U.S. troops can do anything to make it better. You and a very, very small minority think that Bush can provide the leadership to bring prosperity.. The majority of the U.S. and the majority of Iraqis believe they cannot. You call all of these people objectively pro-terrorist because they judge that less violence will result from the U.S. leaving than if the U.S. stays.

12. SoldiersDad Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    corndog,

    “There was not a single suicide bombing in Iraq before the invasion.”

    Riiiiight…..try looking up the history of Ansar Al Sunna…..

13. alphie Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    It’s not that we would be “abandoning” the Iraqis, Terrye, it’s that the U.S. military is destabilizing Iraq.

    Subtle difference.

    Again, with one stroke of his pen, Bush could let the iraqis vote on whether our troops stay in their country or not.

    Considering that a yes vote would strengthen our efforts there considerably, it’s safe to assume that , given the chance, a majority f Iraqis would vote for us to cut and run.

14. OldManTyme Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    alphie - none of that even makes sense. It shows an incredible ignorance of what has been happening in Iraq the last 4 years. The last paragraph pretty much proves that english is not your first language.

15. Terrye Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    cornhole:

    The Cambodian government fell because when the United States government pulled support out from under the South Viet Namese government, they also pulled support out from under the government of Cambodia which fell to the communist Khmer Rouge. The president of that country was offered sanctuary but he said he would stay in Cambodia and that he was sorry the United States saw fit to abandon its friends. He was murdered shortly after that by the Khmer Rouge.

    Incapable of that kind of violence? Are you really that ignorant of what and who Saddam was?

    The Saudis wanted our base out of their country, we were not going to be continuing with the no fly zones forever. That is the whole point that people like you always ignore, Saddam was not going to be in a cage forever. The sanctions were going to end and he had already ignored the rules of the cease fire with impunity and fired on our planes. Sooner or later we were going to have to take him out or turn him loose. That is the whole damn point.

    And Saddam did a pretty good job of terrorizing and killing people with all the restraints anyway. After all in the years leading up to the war tens of thousands died or disappeared every year. Yasin the one terrorist who escaped after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 went to Iraq. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal and Zarqawi all found their way to Baghdad. Saddam was still training his fedayeen to kill and terrorize the people. His spies were everywhere. The Shia in Basrah did not have clean water or a working sewer because he shut off the utlities. He controlled the country far more than you realize. The Kurds were armed for a reason.

    That is what I don’t understand from the anti war movement. On one hand they say we had no right to go into Iraq etc, and yet they seem to think that we could keep that regime caged forever. We could not. The international community wanted to get to business as usual.

16. Terrye Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    alphie:

    That is ridiculous. With one stroke of his pen? If Maliki wanted to do that, he could do that now. It is the UN that controls the elections there. There is a UN mandate in Iraq and not long ago Maliki went to the security council and ask that the UN extend that mandate.

    BTW, if the United States was actually destabilizing Iraq and if the terrorists would all turn into law abiding people the minute we left, why wouldn’t we? It could only help Bush to leave a stable Iraq behind.

    The US soldiers are not AlQaida. They are not the ones blowing people up all day. They are the ones who will win if we run away.

17. Terrye Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    By they I mean AlQaida, our enemy.

18. alphie Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm

    Maliki does whatever Bush tells him to, Terrye.

    And al Qaeda ain’t gonna take over Iraq when we leave.

    Any more red herrings?

19. bdfaith Says:
    April 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    I can’t let any discussion of security walls go by without making sure you
    saw Dafydd’s post here. In a nutshell, 140+ people died in the Sadriya market bombing last week because the locals insisted on having a wall removed that the hated occupiers had put in place to prevent just exactly the sort of thing that happened.

20. The_Real_JeffS Says:
    April 25th, 2007 at 12:24 am

    There was not a single suicide bombing in Iraq before the invasion.

    Sure, corndog. Sure. And the Iraqis flew kites every day, danced in the streets, had plenty of water and electricity, and never had to worry about being tortured by the Ba’athist party. Never.

    Now, run along, and be sure to brush your teeth every day, that’s a good child!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.