COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Here's Juan Cole, on the latest airstrike against a suspected Zarqawi safehouse in Fallujah:

Some reports, apparently based on aerial surveillance, suggested that they just missed Zarqawi. I'm not sure, though, how you tell that from the top of someone's head, and remain skeptical about these kinds of claims.

Well, no, Juan. We don't normally track these people by taking aerial photographs of the top of someone's head. There are other means.

The US resort to bombing suggests how weak it is in Fallujah, since it means it could not commit troops to an attack on the safehouse.

Well, Gee, Juan. You think maybe--just maybe--Zarqawi would be posting some lookouts? And how do you conceal your raiding party (we're talking a company +) from them on the way in?

And how long do you want to hover a blackhawk at 40 feet--long enough to fastrope a squad down on the roof--in a neighborhood where every 10 year old and his sister got an RPG for Eid?

There is now a plan to set up a security perimeter around Fallujah to curb the activities of the jihadis based there.

A great idea. Actually, I wouldn't let a living soul leave Fallujah until after the handover. Remember how car bombings in Baghdad slowed down when we had a ring around Fallujah? Same deal. I think we should lock the place down.

But I had read several weeks ago that such a security perimeter had already been implemented

It was, for tactical reasons, when the uprising in Fallujah was in full swing. It was not politically sustainable.

Has it lapsed?

Yes. That's why we're seeing more car bombings, now. The factory is likely in or near Fallujah.

The American news media often phrased this bombing as an attack on "al-Qaeda." But these al-Tawhid fighters never pledged loyalty to Bin Laden, and most probably never fought in Afghanistan.

Given their connections and activities, it's close enough for government work. And this is government work.

Zarqawi, who did, was never part of al-Qaeda

Man, you gotta be pretty obtuse to buy into that line of reasoning. Especially given the next argument:

Al-Qaeda anyway is not a top-down organization with a flow chart and a CEO.

Well, no shit, Juan! That's why we're considering Zarqawi to be al Qaeda, as far as we're concerned.

Juan Cole's been in academia too long. Never seen a 1099 form?

I mean, Cole's carping is like driving past a McDonald's restaurant and arguing that because it's a franchise, and not a corporate-owned store, it's not Al Qaeda.

The Bush administration no doubt likes this shorthand because it reinforces the dubious point that the war in Iraq has something to do with the war on terror.

Cheap shot. And not even a good one, because the implicit argument, of course, is that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

Which, in the light of Hussein's succor to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, support to Hezbollah, and to Zarqawi himself, in light of his well known posession of weapons of mass destruction technologies, the attempt on Bush 41's life, and the presence on Iraqi soil of thousands of Ansar al Islam fighters, is an absolutely untenable position.

You can argue whether Iraq was a distraction from what should have been a stronger effort in Afghanistan. And you can argue whether Iraq actually had stockpiles of WMDs recently. And you can certainly argue whether the US had the force structure to handle a long occupation in Iraq, and you can certainly carp on some of the rosier assumptions regarding security in the occupation phase.

But the idea that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror is without basis in fact.

More: (You gotta scroll way down for this)

I don't mean to be a killjoy, but for an Occupying Power to drop bombs on residential neighborhoods is a war crime.

No it isn't. Zarqawi's a legitimate military target. We get to target him whereever he is. He can sit in a class full of kindergartners and we can still target him. It doesn't matter. The Law of Land Warfare does not prohibit us from attacking him anywhere in the world. It prevents us from targeting the civilian population, but it does not prevent us from targeting Zarqawi, even when he has taken shelter among the civilian population.

But, the force used to go after him must be proportional, and should not exceed the minimum force necessary to accomplish our aims.

The principal of proportionality is written into the Law of Land Warfare, but it predates it by centuries, back to the concept of jus in bellum.

You know, since Article 51 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva conventions makes a crime of conducting terror attacks, gee, it sure would be refreshing if Cole and others on the left would level their criticisms at the actual enemy, for a change.

The three women and five children killed are not "collateral damage."

Well, although I do object to using that term to describe people, rather than materiel, yes they are. By definition.

They are human beings.

They are that, too. It is fully possible to be a human being and collateral damage. It isn't that big a stretch.

There are no such things as "precision strikes" in residential neighborhoods

As opposed to precision car bombings?

How 'precise' is NOT going after him? How many innocent people could lose their lives if we let him continue unmolested?

Juan Cole might have no trouble finding a gig writing slogans for bumper stickers. But commanders have no such luxury. Every action has an opportunity cost, and even a decision not to act can cost more lives than a decision to act.

Bombs not only throw off shrapnel themselves, they create lots of deadly flying debris, including flying glass from broken windows, that can kill and maim.

Well, yeah. That would be the general idea, wouldn't it?

We on the outside have no way of judging the various claims made in these sorts of situations. For all I know the Hamadi clan has a lot of blood on its hands and has been blowing up people. But if so, they should have been arrested by a special ops team cooperating with the Fallujah Brigade.

1. As I mentioned before, don't you think Zarqawi's got OPs of his own out to warn him of any troop movement large enough to take him down?

2. Don't you think Zarqawi might have some of his own people in the Fallujah Brigade? Just how tight-lipped do you think they are?

The rule of thumb in Iraq is this: anytime more than a few extremely well-known police officers, ICDC, or other Iraqi officials are involved in ANYTHING, you must immediately assume that the basics of the operation are quickly made known to the other side.

3. Just how long do you think it takes to safely plan and execute a raid? Especially a joint raid between Americans and the Fallujah Brigade? How long did you think Zarqawi stays in one place?

4. Raids are extremely complex small-unit operations. What makes you think the Fallujah
Brigade is capable of executing one with any degree of proficiency?

There were manifestations of public anger over all this in Fallujah

Oh, like we give a shit about manifestations of public anger in Fallujah. They're angry about everything in Fallujah. But when the community supports an insurgency, they just can't expect to get their way all the time.

Sorry, Charlie.

It doesn't do any good to kill 15 guerrillas and their wives and children (if they were in fact guerrillas) if in so doing you create 30 more.

There are two pretty big "ifs" in there. But at least we have SOME intelligence to support the contention that some of those killed were guerrillas. (If they were, then their wives may well have been co-conspirators).

The second big "if," refers to the creation of 30 more guerrillas.

I see no reason to believe that this bombing will create 30 more guerrillas, over and above those who would already become guerrillas, anyway. Where's the evidence?

Further, if one of those killed had been Zarqawi, then it would have been worth creating 30 guerrillas, easily.