Happy Groundhog Day
[Phillip Carter,
Friday February 2, 2007 at 1:05pm ]
For military personnel, the term "Groundhog Day" has nothing to do with whether Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow or not. Instead, the phrase is an allegory to the movie "Groundhog Day", a brilliantly funny film where Bill Murray plays a weatherman stuck reporting on Groundhog Day over and over again, until he finally gets it right. Such is the feeling in Iraq, where days of the week or month mean nothing, because each day is like the last and next. Here's how I put it in an email home to friends and family last year from Baqubah:
In Iraq, every day is Tuesday. You worked yesterday, you’re working today, and you’re working tomorrow – and it'll be a long time before you see the weekend. The Bill Murray movie "Groundhog Day" gets cited so much here that it’s become code for everything we don't like about life in Iraq. When you’re sick of the food (roast chicken again!), you say it's "Groundhog Day". After the umpteenth staff meeting where you discuss the same issues, someone will invariably call out "Groundhog Day". We’ve all become so routinized that even our term for the routine has become a cliche.Groundhog Day is now an important part of the soldiers' lexicon — use it in a sentence in Iraq, and everyone will instantly know what you mean. I would even say that it ranks up there with "FUBAR" or "BOHICA" as immortal parts of the American soldier's vernacular. I've heard soldiers from the rank of private through colonel use the term. (For more on the modern soldier's patois, see this LA Times listing of soldier slang by Austin Bay, which includes Groundhog Day as an entry.) That's because "Groundhog Day" does more than describe the situation — it also comments on it. When a soldier gripes that today is another "Groundhog Day," he's also making a statement about his perception of events. It may be that he perceives a kind of stasis in the mission, or the lack of change/progress. This soldier may also be making a statement about futility — that we're going through the same motions, day after day, only to make no difference. Or the soldier may just be griping, a time-honored tradition in the American military. I've even heard it used positively, i.e. "We're going to slog through each day, just like in Groundhog Day, and eventually we're going to make a difference." It's just a great all-purpose military term, one of many to emerge from this war.
0 Trackbacks /
This always struck me as odd because I sincerely doubt Anaconda or Balad get more incoming than the small FOBs in Anbar. Sometimes the Motor-T sergeant coming home with you on leave has "stories" about "Bombaconda" that someone at OP Hurricane, et al, would laugh at.
But everyone has their war stories, and they probably approach the realms of Audie Murphy the older you get and the more beer you drink.
You're also not supposed to have dogs. But you tell the fire team leader who kicked in the door and found one live puppy amongst four dead ones that he can't take the pooch home.
Of course, boring is...well...boring, so you don't see the boring if your experience of war and/or military life in "Top Gun" or "Saving Private Ryan". So the endless hours playing spades or just standing around bullshitting are the sort of "things that we know that you don't" stuff that G.I.s since the Xth Legio Fretensis have used to set ourselves apart from the militarily impaired...
Which, I would add, is what I used to find enjoyable about some of the truly whack individuals the Army throws out once in a while. They may even be terrible soldiers (I had a troop named Black in Panama that was a leadership academy's nightmare) but they sure liven up the day. There was this guy named Mogart who used to do these things with...
Never mind.
Although, I didn't see any Office Space references (Yah, um...). But I am glad the author got Mookie right, that is an important one. We even got our Iraqi barber referring to Sadr as Mookie. I can't even begin talk about all the fun we had with Mookie and PowerPoint. For those who haven't been to a stressful environment such as a combat zone, it is always amazing to see the power and effect of humor and watch how people assimilate daily, terrible events through simple things such as creating new slang, practical jokes and camaraderie.
And of course, the quote "What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and every day was exactly the same, and nothing you did mattered"
A lot of us took that to heart in the months before Duelfer gave his report.
Btw, as an aside, it would appear that Fatah and Hamas are at it again. There is a report that Fatah captured 8 Iranians in Gaza, one of which was fanatical enough to commit suicide:
February 1, 2007: The three day old ceasefire between Fatah and Hamas appears to be over. Fatah security forces raided the Islamic University in Gaza, and arrested eight Iranians. One of the Iranians committed suicide. The others were accused to providing technical assistance to Hamas terrorist groups. Meanwhile, Hamas gunmen ambushed a Fatah convoy, and seized a weapons and ammo shipment. Nearly a hundred were killed or wounded as Fatah and Hamas resumed fighting for control of Gaza.
Fatah capture of Iranians
NOW.. my goodness!! Why would Shi'ite Iranians be giving support to Salafist/Takfirist Sunni terrorists like Hamas??
Hmmm..
Diogenes
Death by Power Point (morning briefing),
Somewhere around here I think I still have my PowerPoint "Ranger Tab"..
Yep.. actual Tab that states "PowerPoint".. Was quite the gag gift in Iraq.
Btw, MSR.. having been both in the BIAP and Balad, I can tell you that Balad does get hit quite a bit (or did in the days I was located there). They have a siren that goes off everytime they identify incoming.
But the advantage of Balad is that it is a VERY LARGE base, so you could hear the siren, but never hear the actual impact.
But I do recall one day when a 57mm Air to Ground rocket landed next to our Mess hall.. Fortunately the warhead either fell off, or was never included on the round.
There was no siren for that one..
Diogenes
Our term of derision for idiots was "salmon". It started one day with my team's XO making a speech to an NCO who was swimming upstream, instead of going with the current like the rest of us. This particular NCO, in his opinion, was being a salmon. And the term stuck. Every time we dealt with an idiot at division, MNC-I, MNF-I, CPATT, MNSTCI, or elsewhere, we would frequently refer to them as salmon. Or sometimes, when things were absolutely FUBAR, we'd just exclaim "Salmon!!!" to express our frustration. It was a great inside joke.
Your fake astonishment can cease at any time. It's a tad stupid.
1. Kick start my Jihad!
2. Goats, Goats, Goats.
3. Shout at the American
4. Kufa sweet Kufa
5. Smokin bubbly in the boys room
And so on...On PowerPoint, anytime we had a picture of Mookie or anyone else in our Graphic Intel summaries, if you moved the picture, you would always find a little bit of text saying what we felt that person was really thinking. A few running jokes that only a select few on the distro was on.
A "salafist" is always an "Islamist," but an "Islamist" isn't always a "salafist."
Part of the confusion comes in how "salafist" is used theologically, politically and in the popular culture.
For the military professional, probably the easiest and most practical understanding is that an "Islamist" who takes Saudi money or identifies himself with the Wahabbi strain of Islam is most probably a salafist.
In fact, in Anbar "Wahabbi" is often a derisive term for a foreign fighter or a nutty convert to their Wahabbist brand of Sunni Islam, this time with a Qtub twist.
This is something that kind of bothers me, especially when many seek to explain to me (when they have no real understanding of the subject) that the real "prize" in the war on terror is Osama bin Laden.
I'd like to think that the one person most influential on an entire generation of armed Islamists is Sayyid Qutb. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to hear some of my fellow members on the left blurt out, "Yeah! Get that Sayyid AND bin Laden!"
The problem is that Qutb has been dead for quite awhile, but his ideas still have currency, and this currency is spent every day in Iraq or Egypt or Indonesia or London. It is a currency that's difficult to withdraw from circulation because it's minted in the mind, often banked in books, and referenced constantly to buttress violent acts those who peacefully follow islah would never approve.
If I wanted to understand how jihadists of a Sunni bent think, I probably would read up on how their interpreting Qutb, not necessarily what they think of bin Laden. Bin Laden, you see, is "New Coke." But Qutb, that's the brand that never dies, that's Coca-Cola.
For those of you who don't know about Qutb, read about him. He's a fascinating subject, one with interesting views formed during his days in Jim Crow America. I often believe many so-called progressives should bone up on their Qutb before they lecture anyone else about the longterm threat of Islamist ideology.
Some in here might think that insane, but the loathsome "Counterpunch" magazine has printed stories that describe Hezbollah as a "salafist" organization, which would be quite a suprise to Hezbollah and not a few genuine salafists.
For those who wish to further understand Salifistic thought along theological lines, not political, you should know that it can be as richly complex as Shiism, with all sorts of schools, jurisprundence and ideas percolating at any given time.
Hamas as a political movement is not part and parcel the stuff of Saudi ideology. This is NOT to say that there aren't genuine salafist adherents within Hamas, because there are, and they have close ties to prominent Saudi schools.
It's also not to suggest that a prominent salafist such as Qutb hasn't influenced Hamas, because he clearly has. So did Azzam, who found sanctuary in Saudi Arabia before being kicked out and sent to Afghanistan.
Sometimes I wonder if people under that Hamas has existed for quite a long time. Its first incarnaction was as the armed wing of the Moslem Brotherhood in Gaza. It has received heavy funding from Saudi sources, but one would not say that it is Wahabbicized.
Fatah, at one time, also had salafist supporters within its ranks, but it was far more nationalistic in nature than Hamas. It also included many Christian supporters, perhaps the most prominent known to Americans being Edward Said.
In recent years, Hamas has been heavily criticized by many prominent salafists, including those in terrorist organization such as al Qaeda.
The reason? Questions about when a movement should seek parliamentary accomodation, as Gaza did in winning seats in the PA assembly, or stridently affecting change through military might. Moslem Brotherhood splinter groups contesting for seats in the semi-elections in Egypt also faced similar censure.
Let's just say that when Hamed al-Ali doesn't like your election, you probably have displeased some real salafists.
It's called "Islamic Jihad." It operates clandestinely in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and, yes, even Iran.
Islamic Jihad has sparred, at times, with Hamas, and most certainly with Fatah. For now, however, PIJ is quite happy executing terror operations along with Hezbollah and Hamas, three organizations not all that much alike theologically, but politically sharing a common goal -- the military eradication of the state of Israel.
Now if that doesn't confuse anyone, try deciphering this from a translator during an interrogation or tactical questioning.
you: "What did the Iraqi look like?"
Iraqi: "He was Al Qaeda"
your ears perk up: "Al Qaeda?"
Iraqi: "Yes, like a Saudi, short beard, think mustache."
you: "How do you know he is Al Qaeda"
Iraqi: "because of his dishdasha."
It is no wonder so many are confused about Islam, it seems like those who are Islamic can't get their story straight either. It hurts the brain sometimes.
What hurts my brain is that anyone familiar with the United States could think there anything significantly "Islamic" about such problems.
On the larger question of how much political -- IF ANY! -- power a salafist wants, there are a great many divisions, from those who favor strong, dynastic rules, to those who believe in a more anarchistic umma served only by consensus and sharia.
It's the same with the Shi'i, as I have sought to explain in other fora. They're not as uniform as people believe.
My first exposure to Islam happened many years ago when I was assigned to a West African gig. I took off some time and followed a Moslem chum through much of West and North Africa, learning as I went from all sorts of believers: The Tuareg, the Sufi, the Nigerian salafists, the nearly animistic Moslems of Guinea.
I already had fought in Desert Storm/Shield and Somalia, two profoundly different, yet Moslem, parts of the world. I learned more in Africa during a time of peace (at least for my country) than I ever would have in combat.
I always get a little concerned when I see broad brush approaches to "jihad" or "Islam" or "terrorism" because the world is more complex than that.
That said, one should call "terrorism" what it is when it shows up. Hamas is a highly violent jihadist terrorist operation. Ismalic Jihad is a highly violent, salafistic terrorist operation. Hezbollah is a highly violent, jihadist (albeit Shi'i) terrorist operation.
That sometimes these forces do other things, including providing social services, administering public offices transparently, and fighting corruption, at heart they remain to the professional military man lethal challenges to his existence.
I've never spoken to Osama bin Laden, and Sayyid Qutb died shortly before I was born (killed by Nasser, you see). But if both were alive and sitting in Ft You Know Where today, I would imagine they might strongly point out that every problem inherent to America stems from a lack of Islamic faith, that our debauchery, our militancy, our radical foreign policy, our support for corrupt satraps, flows solely from the fact that we are a nation devoid of the truths of Islam.
And, indeed, we are the satan that must be challenged, indeed conquered eventually, if the umma shall be united in the orthodoxy of global Islam.
This they would say, and believe wholely in their hearts, as Moslems, just as they condemn (and often kill) Moslems who don't believe this.
They have taken theological boxcutters and they're attempting to hijack the plane of Air Islam. I say we don't let them do that -- 1) because Islam is a beautiful religion, universal and self-contained in its rigors and charms; and 2) because this theological/political far-war jihad is aimed precisely at the United States.
While good friends might dicker about the role policing shall play in this matter -- and international detective work certainly is important -- it's important to remember that there is a large, armed component to this brand of transnational terrorism, and that these arms can sometimes only be fought with American military power.
It's former controller was a man some in here might know.
Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Just because PIJ receives money and materiel from Iran doesn't mean that they're not Sunni, organized on a strong Salafistic foundation that's helped by Saudis.
Like Hamas, it's a Sunni organization that's borrowed heavily from Iranian revolutionary methods. Unlike Hamas, its ties to Iran are, arguably, closer. Exiled to Lebanon in the late-1980s, PIJ leaders were embraced by Iranian agents and military trainers, alongside more natural allies such as Hezbollah.
Throughout the 1990s, PIJ was mostly known as an adjunct to Hezbollah on operations against IDF in south Lebanon and across the border. PIJ headquarters? Syria.
Don't look at the underlying religion when it comes to PIJ. The reason why they're so strongly allied to Iran/Syria has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with luck (exile in Lebanon) and methodology. PIJ is not a parliamentarian, social organization. It seeks no compromise with Israel. It's sole role is to carry out lethal attacks against Israel and her allies.
It's not as cohesive as many believe, but very dangerous.
Diogenes: You are aware that Hamas is not Salafist, nor do they fit under the "takfiri" label?
Salafism is a widely based Islamist "purist", if not Luddite, belief.
Salafi
Saudis who derive from the Wahhab Clan practice Salaf, or Islamic purity, but those Saudis (and non-Saudis) who hold to the same belief do not like to be called Wahhabis, since they do not derive from that clan.
Thus, most fundamentalist Muslims fall under its umbrella, as do most militant Jihadists. The latter happen to believe that violence is justified against infidels, especially other moslems who they see as collaborators and secularists (Fatah in the eyes of Hamas Takfirists), or infidels (non-muslims) who can be better defined as Qutbists, or followers of Egyptian militant, Sayyid Qutb.
Takfirism
Qutbism
In terms of lives lost and property destroyed, Qutb's greatest impact has been through Islamic insurgent/terror groups in Egypt [12] and elsewhere. His influence on Al Qaeda was felt through his brother, Muhammad Qutb, who moved to Saudi Arabia following his release from prison in Egypt and became a professor of Islamic Studies and edited, published and promoted his brother Sayyid's work. [27] One of Muhammad Qutb's students and later an ardent followers was Ayman Zawahiri, who went on to become a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad terror group [28] and later a mentor of Osama bin Laden and a leading member of al-Qaeda. [13] Zawahiri paid homage to Qutb in his work Knights under the Prophet's Banner. [29]
Now.. Muhammad Qubt, Sayyid's brother, was a practicing member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as the mentor of Ayman Zawahiri, now Al Qai'da's #2 (if not #1) leader.
Muslim Brotherhood
Now.. specifically concerning Hamas, it is an outgrowth of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, a definitive branch of Salafist theology, holding many of the same religious beliefs.
Hamas
All you have to do is look at Hamas' charter to discern the tone of its theological beliefs (as well as its vow to destroy Israel)
Hamas Charter
As for my "fake astonishment", I think it's a VERY FAIR question to ask WHY a Sunni/Salafist/Qubtist faction would willingly accept direct support from the Shi'a, who they consider to be heretics?
But don't try and convince us that Hamas is not a Salafist group. It's simply not true. And don't try and convince us that the goals of Hamas will end with the destruction of Israel, because that's not true. Hamas altered it's strategy as it came into competition with Islamic Jihad, and not see the destruction of Israel as the first step towards re-establishing the Caliphate:
From this perspective, the Islamic Jihad sees itself as fighting a worldwide war against the West, following in the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad. The IJMP regards itself as one part of the larger Iran-sponsored Islamic Jihad movement, which is most well known for its abduction of American and other Western hostages in Lebanon.
To compete with what was perceived as the more activist approach of the Islamic Jihad, Sheik Ahmad Yasin, then a Muslim Brotherhood leader, adjusted his own doctrine, leading to the formation of HAMAS. In 1987 he nationalized the war of the IJMP, and spoke of an Islamic Palestinian state as a stage towards his movement's final goal.
Rather than insisting on the establishment of a pan-Islamic state as the prerequisite for waging holy war on Israel, Yasin changed the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza to that of "partial" holy war.' In this manner, Muslim Brotherhood and HAMAS activists could participate in the Palestinian uprising while at the same time remaining faithful to their notion of a cataclysmic holy war that would eventually be waged by their Caliphate. HAMAS joined Islamic Jihad in deciding that the time for its jihad is now.
Hamas and the Caliphate
But it is true that Hamas focuses upon the struggle with Israel as its primary goal and there can NEVER be a peace with Israel (and any truce will exist only as a temporary measure until they are strong enough to destroy Israel and then play a major role in the re-establishment of the Caliphate).
Diogenes
WOW.. I gave my response to Tequila without having read your response.
But man o' man.. talk about being on the same wavelength.. It's refreshing!!
So I apologize if my response was redundant.
Diogenes
As MSR noted, Islamism != Salafism. the IRGC and Hizbullah are Islamist, but definitely NOT Salafist. Same with Hamas, but from a more orthodox Sunni Hanafi perspective. Is that so difficult to grasp? Also, Hamas has certainly not categorized Fatah as non-Muslims, as takfiris do. Their justifications for attacking Fatah are couched entirely in political terms (corruption, self-defense, protection of elected government, etc), not religious ones. I know this kind of thing is not viewed as important by Michelle Malkin and her ilk, but it actually is.
We don't disagree that Hamas is a political organization focused upon a "local" Jihad against Israel. And I don't disagree that that Hamas has been wary of casting its lot in with the global Jihadists because they understand they would lose both worldwide support, as well the support of the predominantly secular Palestinian population.
But article 11 clearly states they will establish Shari'a law in Palestine, and Articles 15 and 16 clearly states they will purge Palestine of all foreign based ideological influence.
As for the status of Palestinian women, review Articles 17 and 18 and I don't see much difference between their beliefs and those of your average Salafist. The only difference is that Hamas has refrained from specifying that women wear Abayas or the Niqāb, probably due to the fact that the PLO's secular influence has not required women to dress thus.
And no.. they don't refer to Fatah members as Kaffir openly, but they clearly have the perception that Fatah is conspiring with Israel to oppose the Hamas government and this certainly justifies any violence against Fatah factions.
You assert that Hamas is a political movement, but anyone who understands Islam recognizes that, for them, there is no separation between politics and religion. Hamas is the means for the religious clerics, holding fundamentalist Salafist beliefs, to assert power within Palestine. The imposition of Shari'a will be soon followed up by traditional Salafist views towards women, and non-muslims in their society (dhimmis).
Hamas is DESIGNED to present the face of political moderation between secularists and fundamentalists. But once fully in control, the political power of the Hamas government will clearly be based upon the Salafist inspired religious clerics. Thus, any "for public consumption" proclamations about incuding women as co-equals in their movement will be immediately undermined and rescinded once the batte against Israel has been won.
There simply is no place in fundamentalist Islam for women's rights, IMO. They will always be considered second-class citizens who's primary role and responsibility is the "making of men".
Making women the equal of men is a "foreign ideology" that clearly must be purged, when the time is right.
As for why they cooperate with Hizbullah and Iran? Because clearly they know they require this support to carry on their battle against Israel. Both Hizbullah and Iran gain tremendous political credibility in the muslim world by supporting Hamas. And right now, Hamas is on the political ropes and is looking for any support they can get, from whomever they can obtain it.
Diogenes