Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
soldiernolongeriniraq
Is this you? Claim Profile »
11 months ago
in A Counterinsurgency Guide for Politicos on The Washington Independent
Fair enough, Spencer. The obvious rejoinder would be that K's use of profanity might have been tacitly assumed to be off the record because no mass market media outlet would've printed it.
He's not press stupid, perhaps just unaware about the more tolerant language diktat of the Washington Independent.
Recently, a picture of the poor man getting smooched by two women (one of whom I recognized) appeared on a blog using, uhhhh, curiously Tiger Beat language. While I'm not sure if anyone asked him, he probably wished that had never surfaced, too.
As a public figure, he certainly loses some expectation of privacy. But as a journalist, don't you have an obligation to protect your sources from ridicule, too?
He's not press stupid, perhaps just unaware about the more tolerant language diktat of the Washington Independent.
Recently, a picture of the poor man getting smooched by two women (one of whom I recognized) appeared on a blog using, uhhhh, curiously Tiger Beat language. While I'm not sure if anyone asked him, he probably wished that had never surfaced, too.
As a public figure, he certainly loses some expectation of privacy. But as a journalist, don't you have an obligation to protect your sources from ridicule, too?
11 months ago
in A Counterinsurgency Guide for Politicos on The Washington Independent
Two points:
"Unlike the 2006 Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency field manual. written principally by Petraeus and Marine Gen. James Mattis, this new handbook is not intended to be a guide for counterinsurgency practitioners"
Conrad Crane, LTC Nagl, et al, might have something to add to this. While it's quite true that the FM carries the imprint of Petraeus and Mattis, the scut work was done by others in much lower grades, just like in most other FMs. It wasn't "written principally" by either the generals, and they would be the first to tell you that.
Second, in light of Kilcullen's pointed response to your interview with him on SWJ, as a journalist in training you might need to learn the art of "off the record." It appears as if Kilcullen believed his remark to you was off the record, and you've likely burned him as a future source.
While truth is always more important than access, readers aren't served by you losing access, are they?
"Unlike the 2006 Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency field manual. written principally by Petraeus and Marine Gen. James Mattis, this new handbook is not intended to be a guide for counterinsurgency practitioners"
Conrad Crane, LTC Nagl, et al, might have something to add to this. While it's quite true that the FM carries the imprint of Petraeus and Mattis, the scut work was done by others in much lower grades, just like in most other FMs. It wasn't "written principally" by either the generals, and they would be the first to tell you that.
Second, in light of Kilcullen's pointed response to your interview with him on SWJ, as a journalist in training you might need to learn the art of "off the record." It appears as if Kilcullen believed his remark to you was off the record, and you've likely burned him as a future source.
While truth is always more important than access, readers aren't served by you losing access, are they?
1 year ago
in ‘Like A Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone’ on The Washington Independent
Actually, much of the seed corn that planted AQIZ in Iraq came from Ansar al-Islam, a mix of salafi Kurds and foreign fighters arriving in the no-man's land between Kurdistan and Baathist Iraq in 2001-02, after the fall of Talibi Afghanistan.
It's always bothered me when I hear that "al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we got there," because confederates of far-enemy al Qaeda sure were, and they were reconstituted as AQIZ under the leadership of Jordan's al-Zarqawi in a rebranding experiment sponsored by formal, hierarchical, bin Laden al Qaeda.
Also, don't put too much into "HAMAS" as if it is solely a reference to the HAMAS in Gaza. It's an acronym (loosely, it means Islamic Resistance Movement) and it's been used throughout the ME for 20 years by many groups, following its adoption during the first Intifadah to reflect the movement's divergence from the Gazan wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
It's use as a nickname for an insurgent group in Iraq played on the notion that it was adopting violence to evict an occupier (hey, that's us!) and that it was willing to eventually become a political party.
Well, events change, right? It's now both a militia temporarily allied to the US in a common fight against its real and perceived enemies (AQIZ and Iran) and a political party following in the "Awakening" mold.
The hard reality is that today Hamas of Iraq has quite different policy goals from Hamas in Gaza (including the receiving of funds and armaments from Iran), whereas AQIZ continues in its near enemy capacity to travel ideologically alongside the formal al Qaeda current in NW Pakistan.
At best, you're left with an irony (Hamas in Iraq is allied to the US, but Hamas in Gaza is not).
I can live with irony, so long as the ironic don't mind killing AQIZ.
It's always bothered me when I hear that "al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we got there," because confederates of far-enemy al Qaeda sure were, and they were reconstituted as AQIZ under the leadership of Jordan's al-Zarqawi in a rebranding experiment sponsored by formal, hierarchical, bin Laden al Qaeda.
Also, don't put too much into "HAMAS" as if it is solely a reference to the HAMAS in Gaza. It's an acronym (loosely, it means Islamic Resistance Movement) and it's been used throughout the ME for 20 years by many groups, following its adoption during the first Intifadah to reflect the movement's divergence from the Gazan wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
It's use as a nickname for an insurgent group in Iraq played on the notion that it was adopting violence to evict an occupier (hey, that's us!) and that it was willing to eventually become a political party.
Well, events change, right? It's now both a militia temporarily allied to the US in a common fight against its real and perceived enemies (AQIZ and Iran) and a political party following in the "Awakening" mold.
The hard reality is that today Hamas of Iraq has quite different policy goals from Hamas in Gaza (including the receiving of funds and armaments from Iran), whereas AQIZ continues in its near enemy capacity to travel ideologically alongside the formal al Qaeda current in NW Pakistan.
At best, you're left with an irony (Hamas in Iraq is allied to the US, but Hamas in Gaza is not).
I can live with irony, so long as the ironic don't mind killing AQIZ.
1 year ago
in ‘Like A Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone’ on The Washington Independent
I'm sure he meant the Sunni Arab group "Hamas in Iraq" (sometimes translated as "Hamas of Iraq"), which fractured from the 1920s in 2007. They already had broken with AQI following a former working relationship in Ramadi.
Eventually, it gained enough 1920s refugees that it pretty much took over a large part of the franchise. Last month, leaders of Hamas in Iraq made headlines when they accused Iran of funding AQIZ, not various Sunni Arab rackets.
Their ultimate loyalty to the US is very much in doubt, but for the moment they are enamored with fighting AQIZ and Iran, parties which Hamas in Iraq leaders believe are one and the same.
Eventually, it gained enough 1920s refugees that it pretty much took over a large part of the franchise. Last month, leaders of Hamas in Iraq made headlines when they accused Iran of funding AQIZ, not various Sunni Arab rackets.
Their ultimate loyalty to the US is very much in doubt, but for the moment they are enamored with fighting AQIZ and Iran, parties which Hamas in Iraq leaders believe are one and the same.
