The situation in Iraq melts down [Archive]

Brian Rucker

04-09-2004, 05:17 PM

I don't think anyone would confuse me with a supporter of the misbegotten adventure but I'm not convinced we've completely lost yet. I'll say it again: Sistani is the man. He matters more than Sadr, Bremmer and Bush combined. We don't know what he's thinking or what his situation even is. Sadr's forces are all around him at the moment. But so are his own.

Politics in this region are stormy at the best of times. That's simply how folks are socialized. I have to wonder whether machismo is an innate Spanish trait or if it's something they picked up from the Muslims during The Reconquista. As fast as this brushfire might spread today it could be snuffed out tomorrow if native Iraqi leaders organize to shut it down. That means primarily Sistani and the moderate/secular Shiia as well as moderates of other factions. If they aren't it's because they see the people are generally unhappy with and mistrustful of the U.S. occupation. At the same time I can't imagine they believe a civil war or any kind of major guerilla operation is in their own best interests. The only possible outcome is balkanization of the country with outside regional powers backing different factions and turning the whole country into a giant Beruit. Or a new Afghanistan and not the imaginary one with the imaginary happy ending of the neocons and Bush backers.

The only answer to ending this, unless there's something we're missing - which is as likely as not at this point, is giving the UN real power in Iraq. Sistani's made it clear he may not particularly trust it but he seems more willing to deal with its representatives than those of the US occupation. And where goes Sistani goes the majority of Iraq's majority group.

At least I hope so. The balance of power may be shifting towards Sadr. That would be the end if it became the new situation on the ground.

Brian Rubin

04-09-2004, 05:39 PM

On a related note, check out this blog from Iraq.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/

Amazing stuff. Read the Alamo post.

Geezus christ. How can those folks over there take it?

chet

04-09-2004, 07:13 PM

Come on guys, this is only a small region. As bush has pointed out again and again, the unpopulated desert region has yet to rise up against us. With the desert sand on our side, we can overcome.

Chet

triggercut

04-09-2004, 07:57 PM

I saw the Novak column on Friday and all I could think was "they're losing Novak, it must be bad".

Seriously, this is a tremendous impersonation of Emperor Nero--whom a previous version of Dennis Miller once compared Bush Sr to. Hope the fishin' in Texas is that good right now!

Jason McCullough

04-09-2004, 09:54 PM

I agree we'd have some hope if Sistani comes in on our side. It doesn't look likely, though; he's been unwilling to risk political capital so far.

Midnight Son

04-10-2004, 05:16 AM

We do not belong there. The Middle East is nothing but a cesspool that we are trying to clean up with a pitchfork. Most of the shit goes right between the tines.....

mtkafka

04-10-2004, 05:37 AM

Before you know it, it'll be like Dawn of the Iraqi's and the US Forces will be holed up in a mall listening to Jonny Cash music about the armageddon! What a fine mess....

etc

Lizard_King

04-10-2004, 06:47 AM

I agree we'd have some hope if Sistani comes in on our side. It doesn't look likely, though; he's been unwilling to risk political capital so far.

Great Casey will not save Mudville. Sistani understands quite clearly that 9/10 of his power is reliant on inaction and ambivalence. I really don't think he would be all that effective in putting a damper on those funloving jihadists in their midst. I suspect our only option is to kill as many of the enemy as soon as possible. If we continue the gradual escalation of force, the political costs will be too great.

Brian Rucker

04-10-2004, 07:12 AM

Do that and you depopulate Iraq. We're talking about networks of human beings bound by tribal, religious and nationalistic identities. That crazy cousin of yours who runs with that nutcase Sadr is an embarrasement until he becomes a casualty. Now it's his killers who become a threat. And when you and yours die trying to avenge him all your friends and relatives jump in after along with those of anyone else who was killed. Meanwhile all over the region the 'nutcases' become brave martyrs taking on the Crusaders and capitalists on TV. More aid flows in, more militants flow in, and Iraqis who may have been hostile to Saddam and only ambivalent about the U.S. now come to see themselves as oppressed victims or potential vigilantes and heroes.

We walked our sorry asses into a region where we don't have natural support from anybody - much less any of the factions involved in Iraq. We let the Kurds go to hell several times. We goaded the Shiites into an uprising after the Gulf War only to sit back while Saddam massacred them. And, of course, the Sunni's supported Saddam by and large but even those who didn't fear Shiite domination and revenge. Nobody in Iraq is ignorant of the historical U.S. role in the region which could be the one thing the normally hostile groups have in common. We support Israel, we're largely Christian (just like the Crusaders some would point out), we've a history of supporting tyrants including Saddam and overthrowing regimes we don't like - the Shah did live just next door after we kicked out a democratically elected leader in Iran, and we enforced the sanctions which caused, according to all accounts, far more suffering for the Iraqi people than the leadership (and the details about whether Saddam was more responsible than us for this are likely lost on those who lost family to disease or starvation).

What the fuck were we thinking going in all but alone here?

So whatever gratitude is genuinely felt by Iraqis towards us for disposing of Saddam is offset by our history in the region. And since the occupation has been so badly managed, bungled in fact, the 'window of forebearance' as it's been called seems to be rapidly closing. In sheer human biomass and in terms of logisitics we'd simply be swamped if the Iraqis decided they finally had enough and either backed Sadr or the Sunni insurgents or rebel on their own in vague solidarity.

We're not there yet but we start going on a testosterone fuelled killing spree and those family and regional connections between factions will start playing a much more important role than anything else. Fringe figures will be made into icons and martyrs. It's like this: "I can beat my brother up but I'll kick anyone else's ass who tries."

Qenan

04-10-2004, 08:30 AM

John Reynolds

04-10-2004, 08:45 AM

Starting to look like there is no way to control the situation short of overwhelming force... and if we kill a ton of people, we won't look very good. :-(

Bush did not understand what he was getting us into. I hope he will pay the appropriate political price -- not that it can ever make up for the soldiers he's gotten killed.

Of course he didn't. He had to be brief prior to the invasion on the tripartite ethnicity of the country. He probably still mispeaks on who supported Saddam (Shiites instead of Sunnis) in small meetings.

triggercut

04-10-2004, 09:32 AM

[quote=Jason McCullough] I suspect our only option is to kill as many of the enemy as soon as possible. If we continue the gradual escalation of force, the political costs will be too great.

Yeah, I don't see any political cost in killin' 'em all and lettin' god sort 'em out. Good call. Are you trying out for a position on the DoD?

Blowing up mosques and firing on civilians trying to bury their dead doesn't play well on TV throughout the region. We're now in a much worse situation vis a vis the Middle East than we were a year ago.

At least our Commander in Chief is on the case, watching vigilantly the events playing out over there and brainstorming possible solutions with his advisors. Oh wait, no he isn't. He's filming a fishing show on his ranch with ESPN.

Lizard_King

04-10-2004, 10:48 AM

Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed ought drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.
It was true then and it's true now. We've been trying to do it backwards, and it's killing us.
As always, I am open to realistic alternatives on how to deal with Iraq. Less interesting are the continuing tangents bemoaning being there at all, our ever-amusing commander in chief, etc, but I suppose that's all you've got. We're there, now.

Rollory

04-10-2004, 11:09 AM

The amazing thing about this thread is that nobody here really knows what's really going on. Sure, there are media reports - which IS always after The Story, in this case Vietnam - some accounts from the troops on the ground - which of course are going to be all about bloody combat, that's what they DO. Has anybody asked CENTCOM what they honestly think of the situation, or know what CENTCOM is doing about it?

It reminds me of ... of a year ago, actually. There was this sandstorm, and a bunch of stalled US vehicles, and an ambush in Nassariyah, and everyone was proclaiming the new quagmire.

Wait a couple weeks. Expect to see Fallujah back under US control by then, all the cities we've "lost" repacified, and most of this "rebellion" burnt out. If this really was a general uprising, trust me, you'd know it. Instead it's about ten thousand hotheads making noise while the general population keeps its head down.

It's Iraq, for crying out loud. They've been dealing with oligarchies and dictators and occupation and state brutality and corruption since the Mongols. What else do you expect but a little barbarism seeping out from time to time?

The only unusual thing about the current revolt is the degree to which media attention has magnified its apparent importance. We've become unaccustomed to violence on a large scale in the West, and are overly sensitive to it.

Jason McCullough

04-10-2004, 11:25 AM

"Violence on a large scale?" We've lost control of a bunch of cities!

Rollory

04-10-2004, 12:18 PM

So? We lost control of central LA during the Rodney King riots, and nobody suggested pulling out.

So we've lost control of some cities. What are they going to do with them? The local population wants to know if we have the guts to stick around and deal with crap like this before they stick their own necks out - remember, anybody with initiative has been getting shot out of hand for as long as anybody there has been alive. But they're certainly not giong to join up in an American-killing army, otherwise they'd have done so by now. The rebels don't have that much in the way of ammo or weaponry or organization (except for the Syrian/Iranian agents, but they're a distinct minority). No immediate brutal US response means no massive upswelling of popular opinion; instead, the measured block-by-block counteroffensive such as what is going on in Fallujah right now is enough to get the job done and convince the silent majority that, yes, just sit tight and this will be over soon enough.

And once those cities are taken back - they can't be held, the rebels don't have the manpower or organization or firepower to do it - then what? They've suffered a propaganda and morale defeat, because the US didn't respond brutally, and didn't respond by pulling out. They've suffered a military defeat; they made their move, and the US troops weren't swamped by angry young Arabs. They've suffered a political defeat, because al-Sadr has played his hand and has nothing left - either he goes underground like Osama, in which case he's out of the picture, or he gets nabbed and sent to Guantanamo.

Regardless, CENTCOM is doing exactly the right thing here. They're being patient, and measured, and ignoring media hyperbole. US casualty figures are not actually that high for the scale of the operations going on. The bad guys have moved out from behind the shield of free speech and demonstrations and made themselves legitimate targets, and the US military is being careful to take out those targets and only those targets.

Steady pressure is exactly what is needed here. This thing must grow, and rapidly, or die back to the previous banditry and roadside bombs, equally rapidly. It has been stopped from growing. Everything else is just a matter of logistics and political will.

Jason McCullough

04-10-2004, 12:22 PM

I'm thinking of this in political terms, not military ones. Even if we manage to get everything back under control, it's been demonstrated that Iraq isn't going to be able to handle security following the handover; the post-handover government isn't going to be seen to have any legitimacy; and the Iraqis want us the hell out.

I don't see we can meet any of our goals there.

Rollory

04-10-2004, 12:29 PM

That is a problem, and probably was one of the goals of the revolt in the first place - to get the handover delayed and make the US look bad in the process. For that reason I expect the handover will take place on time, simply for appearances' sake, even if it means Iraqi sovereignty is largely faked for a while. But I think that, once this is over, we're far less likely to see more such events, simply because many of the people likely to participate are involved in this one, and also because even without this, US troops weren't going to be fully leaving Iraq anytime soon, and their continued presence - even if just restricted to bases - will be viewed as a mark of the US's willingness to repeat the current operations if necessary.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" and all that kind of thing. Proving you're willing to fight a war does tend to make actually having to fight one less likely.

The Iraqi police forces definitely need a shakedown though, this wouldn't have happend without complicity from some of them.

chet

04-10-2004, 01:01 PM

So? We lost control of central LA during the Rodney King riots, and nobody suggested pulling out.

I strained my neck even trying to comprehend your stretch here.

As for the rest, you are making these statements of fact, even while your first post says it is unclear what is going on. So I guess sometimes that works for you, and sometimes you ignore your own point.

While I respect your position and I am sure as you type on your keyboard, you have a much clearer view of how this is playing out than anyone else, here is something for you to chew on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/international/middleeast/11RESI.html?ex=1082260800&en=d40accd6907f055c&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE

But of course it is wrong, and I am sure your fact finding mission to the fridge will clear this up.

Chet

Linoleum

04-10-2004, 01:10 PM

In every crisis and confrontation there is opportunity.

My personal opinion at this point is that Sadr shot his wad several months too soon. He is not that well liked (http://windsofchange.net/archives/004834.php) and there is still a large US force structure in place.

The current situation has the potential to impair transition and stability, but it is not a given, or the only possible outcome.

Rollory

04-10-2004, 01:34 PM

So? We lost control of central LA during the Rodney King riots, and nobody suggested pulling out.

I strained my neck even trying to comprehend your stretch here.

Loss of order in a city and lots of hotheads running around yelling about how they're being oppressed doesn't necessarily mean anything in the long run. Does that make more sense?

As for the rest, you are making these statements of fact, even while your first post says it is unclear what is going on.

Ok, so I should've been a bit less certain in my wording. Feel free to view those comments as just my opinions (which I'm sure you'll do anyway), based on the information available.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/international/middleeast/11RESI.html?ex=1082260800&en=d40accd6907f055c&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE

1. This is the New York Times.
2. This is the NEW YORK TIMES.

What they have to say about Iraq cannot be trusted. (First person reports are what I look for, preferably by people other than professional journalists - journalists today, of any stripe, give the most biased reports of all) The NYT, as much as anyone, is looking for The Story, and doesn't let facts get in its way. I could give you equally comprehensive and convincing links to stories about how Iraqis are disgusted with this revolt and aren't sure what to do but hopes the US comes out on top; that wouldn't mean any more than this. We can selectively quote all day long, and the NYT does, but that won't affect the reality of things on the ground; the only way to see that is to wait a week or two.

If the NYT is right, then the counteroffensive will stall and things will get visibly worse - on the military front, not just the propaganda one - quickly enough. As it stands there's no sign of that happening yet.

Jason McCullough

04-10-2004, 01:58 PM

I think "the NYT has an institutional interest in making Iraq look bad" is a bit much to hang an argument on.

chet

04-10-2004, 02:01 PM

Yeah, LA was previously held by rival militias and was a foreign city we occupied. Tom Chick only lives there now because the occupational forced have remained after the riots. Dead on comparison.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4710176/
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/101/world/Militant_cleric_s_movement_gai:.shtml
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9241734%255E1702,00.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/41179
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=22955027

Should I keep linking until my arm falls off?

Chet

Rollory

04-10-2004, 02:10 PM

Please do.

triggercut

04-10-2004, 04:00 PM

Hmm. The front page story in today's Washington Post is pretty clear, too, Rollo.

You can take your pick though. There's the story on the bleak overall picture, there's the story with the civil affairs patrol in Fallujah under sniper fire, or there's the editorial analysis of President Nero being on vacation and silent while all this takes place.

Oh, and when the frontpage story runs out, there's another story on the collapsing of support even among our mid-east allies for our occupation in Iraq. It's costing us not only there, but throughout the region, and we lack the troops to bring everyone into line with our unilateral agenda.

Solution? Here's one: boot George Bush and his cabinet of buffoons out of office. Have the next president go to the UN with hat in hand and offer them control, responsibility, and the chance to bid on reconstruction contracts. Repudiate utterly the havoc Rummy and Wolfie have wrought on 75 years of geopolitical goodwill the US used to enjoy throughout the world. Might not solve all the problems, but it'd be a helluva start.

Lizard_King

04-10-2004, 04:12 PM

Toddy

04-10-2004, 04:25 PM

And I think the situation is actually a LOT worse than any American news source is reporting. What I'm seeing on the CBC and BBC is completely different than what I'm seeing on CNN and the US networks. Right after I watched a CNN report earlier this week about how things were calming down, that the US military was taking control of the situation and there were just a few radicals causing problems for everyone, I flipped on CBC and watched a reporter's first-person account of the craziness in Ramadi. His biggest point? The "few radicals" were winning and all of the American soldiers he spoke to were shocked over what they were facing and thought the entire situation was quickly becoming untenable. Maybe the guy was biased, but I've heard so many reports now on non-American news channels confirming accounts like this that I give them more credence than the spin being repeated by the US networks.

I've gotta say, I'm really disappointed in US news. I mean, it's never been fantastic or anything, but now it seems to be an extension of the federal government. The absense of in-depth, critical reporting on Iraq is sickening. It reminds me of Vietnam (ha-ha, I said the V-word!), in that the US media was pretty solidly behind the war until Tet. That changed everything. Maybe the US needs someone to play Walter Cronkite and get the word out to the masses that this idiotic war is unwinnable.

Hell, you could even use the same phrase, as Cronkite's urging that the US get out "not as victors but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could," line from Feb. 1968 perfectly applies to the current situation. There is absolutely no way that Bush can realize his political goals in Iraq now. No matter what happens militarily, no matter how hard the Americans put down the current rebellion. The objectives cannot be met because Bush doesn't have a partner in Iraq. There isn't enough popular support.

What an awful, ridiculous mess Bush blundered into. The craziest part of it all? It was so easily avoidable. If just a couple of people in the administration had listened to people with real knowledge about the region, this whole thing could have been skipped and we'd be a lot further along in the campaign against the real enemy--the Islamists working under the al Qaeda umbrella. At the very least, the situation in Afghanistan would be a hell of a lot more stable.

Toddy

04-10-2004, 04:37 PM

Oh, and the best part of it all? Saddam's being proven right. He always said that a firm hand was needed to keep Iraq from imploding. And now the Americans are learning that, as they're being forced to kill all sorts of people to keep the general populace in line. Also, the US is even running some of Saddam's old prisons now, and keeping hundreds-thousands of Iraqis "dissidents" locked up without trial and in complete isolation. There was a documentary report on CBC about this just this past week. Ah, let freedom ring!

They should get Saddam a nice hot shower and shave, apologize for that nasty business with Uday and Qusay, and set him back up in one of his presidential palaces. Yeah, I'm joking. But only partly. As I said from the very beginning, any alternative to Saddam will be a lot worse. Look at Sadr. He's a fucking complete lunatic, a more radical and younger version of Ayatollah Khomeini. You can't even kill him, because the replacement would be even more crazy, and he's got so many supporters now that any military effort would be futile unless you're willing to slaughter thousands of people. Like I said in the last post, Bush's objectives--which were ridiculous from the very beginning--have finally been totally exposed as absurd. How anyone can defend the war with a straight face now is beyond me.

Woolen Horde

04-10-2004, 04:51 PM

Isn't it obvious at this point that the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after World War I was a complete and total clusterfuck by the European powers involved? After the Cold War, we let the former Communist break up rather successfully. (Yugoslavia and Chechnya notwithstanding.) Why can't we do that for Iraq?

If the Kurds want to have their own fucking country, I say give it to them and fuck what Turkey and Iran think. And let the Shiites and the Sunni go their seperate ways in the south. But why are we so intent on keeping Iraq in one piece, when everything in its history shows that's damn near impossible without a tyrant keeping it together.

chet

04-10-2004, 04:58 PM

Brett, Brett, Brett, my sad misininformed Canadian. Maybe it is being covered up there, but don't you see the domino effect happening? Other countries are seeing how great Democracy is under Bush, so Syria, Iran and others are now turning to democracy as we speak!

And where in the world would these guys come up with this idea of the Domino Effect? It is almost like another administration thought the same thing would happen in reverse unless we went to a place like South East Asia and stopped... oh hey wait, my bad, faulty comparison...

Chet
ps. I have even bought the domain WelcometoDemocracy.com (http://www.welcometodemocracy.com) where I one day hope to put tips for our new democratic friends, the only tip i can offer now is - "DUCK!".

mdowdle

04-10-2004, 05:23 PM

Chet,

Re: www.WelcometoDemocracy.com -- you might think about editing your post so you don't give away the punchline.

Jason McCullough

04-10-2004, 06:04 PM

Giving the Kurds their own country and using them as our client state - replacing Isreal - is an option I hadn't thought of. Hmm!

Brian Rucker

04-10-2004, 07:25 PM

Linoleum

04-10-2004, 07:51 PM

Linoleum

04-10-2004, 08:02 PM

Giving the Kurds their own country and using them as our client state - replacing Isreal - is an option I hadn't thought of. Hmm!

Given how quickly you usually dish out scathing remarks and stupid concepts the lack of such in your comment scares me rather a lot.

Screwing Turkey and Israel. Hmm!

Woolen Horde

04-10-2004, 08:13 PM

Actually, it's the least we could do. Goes back to Kissenger in the 70's our history of courting and betraying the Kurds. I think his quote was something like, "Covert operations isn't missionary work" when we hung them out to dry, be massacred, the first time.

However, I just don't see how we pull that off without pissing off Turkey completely. Maybe we can buy them off somehow? I'm certainly in the 'screw Iran' camp on this one. It's really not their business. Frankly, it's not Turkey's business either but they'll make it just that and with a vengence and we do kinda need them. They're a secular Muslim state and a NATO member. That makes them a very rare bird we need to keep from alienating.

I've talked to folks about this angle before but it just seems diplomatically impossible. At least from what little I know about the situation.

Turkey and Israel have actually a solid relationship. In fact, they've been cooperating militarily for some time (Israel is doing some work upgrading Turkey's military, and they engage in joint excercises). And they're both friends of ours. I'm sure there's some kind of deal that could be worked out, and a strong Israel, Turkey, and Kurdistan would be a huge strategic asset to the US. (And make Syria feel very, very, very afraid.)

I'm sure there's a way we keep the Turk's happy. Like we ensure that a Kurdish nation would only take up Northern Iraq. Turkey's fear is that their own Kurds in the eastern part of the country will want to join Kurdistan, taking a big chunk of Turkey with them. And we could also throw in a huge aid program, which should buy off the rest of their fears.

And we keep the Turkish Kurds happy by helping them move to Kurdistan if they want. Kind of like how Jews worldwide immigrated to Israel after it was founded. But we make it clear that we won't tolerate any kind of rebel movement to split Turkey apart. Now, would the Kurds get the nothern oil fields? That's the dicey prospect, because *everyone* is going to want those, and they're far enough south that both sides could make claims.

But the Kurds actually like the US, in contrast to the rest of the country. And they've been semi-autonomous for over a decade, thanks to the no-fly zone protecting them. They've got good institutions in place already, including the closest thing to a free press in the muslim world. We guarantee their security and their borders, and that should also alleviate the Turks. We also give them economic aid so they can build a prosperous society.

triggercut

04-10-2004, 09:14 PM

Solution? Here's one: boot George Bush and his cabinet of buffoons out of office. Have the next president go to the UN with hat in hand and offer them control, responsibility, and the chance to bid on reconstruction contracts. Repudiate utterly the havoc Rummy and Wolfie have wrought on 75 years of geopolitical goodwill the US used to enjoy throughout the world. Might not solve all the problems, but it'd be a helluva start.

The same UN that oversaw Oil for Food?

The same UN that did nothing before during or after the premediated slaughter of almost a million people in Somalia a mere decade ago?

The same UN participated in by Western democracies that couldn't stop ethnic cleansing in their own backyard without the aid of the US?

What can you point to that says 'oh, the UN can fix things' or 'the UN can do this better' with Iraq? Which countries have the capacity to make a bit of difference that aren't already involved?

Criticism of US blunderings and mistakes I can completely understand. Believing in the delusion that the UN is something it is not would be laughable if not for the fact that it could result in death and misery that make the worst of the current situation seem like a spring day.

While I know seeing the words "UN" in a discussion prompt a certain BF Skinner-like response in you poor deluded neo-cons (probably because it's the only thing y'all have said that hasn't been categorically shown to be utter bullshit), you've completely missed the forest for trees.

Rather than the usual, predictable laundry list trotted out here, please tell me what fundamental problems you've observed with the UN troops occupying the DMZ in South Korea or the UN troops in the Balkans keeping the peace there. Be specific please.

See, the idea isn't to get any grand UN initiative. Rather we just need help with the occupation force, and this seems like the best way to extricate ourselves from one of the biggest foreign-policy boondoggles in US history.

chet

04-10-2004, 09:45 PM

Now we have them just where we want them.
Iraqi Battalion Refuses to 'Fight Iraqis' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2680-2004Apr10.html)

I of course know, the story means nothing because it is not from a proper source. A proper source is one that agrees with Bush.

Chet

Woolen Horde

04-10-2004, 10:40 PM

Nothing good is going to come out of this uprising, even once it's surpressed. Too many innocents are getting killed, and the US is getting blamed for it. Saddam supressed uprisings too, and they never forgave nor forgot. We just turned into the new Saddam in their eyes.

I don't think we should hand this over to the UN, that's a disaster waiting to happen. But we definately need other nations in there to get the American face off of the occupation. And by that, I don't mean more El Salvodorans. NATO isn't going to lift a finger to help; they're already busy in Afghanistan, and the major European powers have no love for W. or the rest of the administration.

Tony Blair is incredibly unpopular in Britain, and has been since the war. The only reason he's still around is the sorry collapse of the conservative party (not to mention, most of them supported the war.) But huge liberal segments of Blair's own party are a bad-incident-or-two-in-Iraq away from open revolt, and Blair has to schedule an election sometime this year. Between Iraq and the incredibly unpopular university fees, I'm going to say it'll take a Clintonian miracle if Tony is still PM by 2005. Spain's PM supported the war, and we just saw what happened to him. Germany and France aren't going to send any troops; there would be rioting in the streets if German or French soldiers died for W.

Seriously, the only way to appease Europe is to start fessing up. We need to:

1. Admit we were wrong about WMD. Seriously. Because even if we did find manage to find *anything* in the coming months, the sheer fact that it took more than a fucking year to find it highlights how little a threat it was to the US in the first place. Especially when compared to the klaxons-wailing imminent WMD threat from North Korea and Iran that we *definately* know about.

2. Make clear that we are reforming our intelligence system (because until we do, no one will believe anything we have to say about future threats.) This needs to be done anyway, because if we were that far off about WMD, something is seriously wrong with the system that's supposed to determine whether we go to war or not to preempt threats.

3. Fire (or force out) the people responsible for the post-war debacle. (And we all know who we're talking about here.) W. said he'd run his administration like a CEO. We'll, we're down 600+ American lives, more than 3/4 of whom were killed after "major combat operations," thousands more wounded and crippled, and have spent close to $200 billion, and things are getting worse over there. This adminsitration has frittered away american fortune, american prestige, and american lives. Time for some fucking accountability. Remember that word? That was what they promised they'd restore after Clinton's years in office.

4. Come up with an new plan that gets other countries in Iraq to help us out. Both militarily and financially. Because, last time I checked, the American taxpayer is still footing more than 90-percent of the bill. (And there's talk of the adminsitration needing another $50 billion next year for Iraq. And that was *before* the Army started talking about how they may need a third heavy division in country and the combat flared up again.)

There's such a disconnect between what the administration said would happen and what has happened that it's mind boggling. But if we show we're serious about fixing what went wrong, and that we're serious about reforming our ways, and if we serve up a few sacrificial lambs, that just *might* get the other countries to start contributing. But there's no way we're getting NATO help, not while Rummy and Wolfowitz are still around. Those two burned so many bridges it's beyond personal.

Like someone else said earlier, things are bad when Bob "the lapdog the administration let loose on Joe Wilson and Valerie Palme" Novak writes a critical article saying that the generals in the Pentagon are furious, and that none of them are going to vote for Bush. They aren't voting for Kerry, either, but considering the ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the officer corps is thought to be 9-1, that tells you how much faith the generals have in the civilian leadership. None of them will say it out loud, because of the importance of civilian control over the military, but they are *pissed.*

Brad Grenz

04-10-2004, 11:15 PM

If the Kurds want to have their own fucking country, I say give it to them and fuck what Turkey and Iran think. And let the Shiites and the Sunni go their seperate ways in the south. But why are we so intent on keeping Iraq in one piece, when everything in its history shows that's damn near impossible without a tyrant keeping it together.

Oh, yeah. I'm sure the Sunnis will love that. "Uh, did anyone else notice that we didn't get an oil field?"

Woolen Horde

04-10-2004, 11:28 PM

Ben

04-10-2004, 11:42 PM

And you mention that Syria would be very, very afraid. Well, gosh, what do you think Syria+fear equals?

And I really don't think there's a Kurdish state proposal that would be acceptable to Turkey, unless that Kurdish state was Montana. Kurdistan:Turkey::Lebanon:Israel, but with more dislike.

Brian Rucker

04-11-2004, 06:43 AM

I like your point of view in general Woolen Horde but I think I differ in some respects.

1) The Kurds don't particularly like the United States. However they hate alot of folks and the top of that particular pyramid was Saddam. They'd take whatever we'd give them to throw at him. When we finally got around to protecting them via the "no fly" zones and covertly helped them establish a rather strong government as an example of arab democracy some of the bad feelings of our past betrayals (and they are numerous) may have ebbed. Hope's hope and it's powerful when the alternatives are bleak. However, Kurds have a pretty long hate list because alot of people have screwed them over. That particular pencil doesn't seem to have an eraser. If we try to screw them over again we can probably expect surprised commentary from hither to yon when their militias start moving out, "But the Kurds like us?" No. The Kurds need us. And we needed them. The math is changing now. We need the Shiia more and the Turks. Don't think the Kurds aren't watching developments very, very, closely.

2) There's no special love between the Turks and the Israelis. They just happen to have some enemies and allies in common. Israel has worked with many regimes that would really surprise you. I was doing some reading on the Iran-Iraq war a while back. It was amazing the dynamic back then. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were backing Saddam, not to mention the U.S., because of fear of Shiia radicalism spreading from Iran. Israel was backing Iran! There is a large, ancient, and more-or-less tolerated Jewish population in some of Iran's major cities. A combination of concern for the security of Iranian Jews (from both warring parties) and a desire to humble Saddam who was seen as a more direct threat to Israel had Mossad training Iranian special forces inside Iran. They also moved arms there. Those connections are the route the arms for hostages deal travelled during Reagan's Iran-Contra days. The were also the main route for discussions between the U.S. and Iranian 'moderates'.

It's a convoluted situation over there. No easy answers and none that last inside the petrie dish for very long before something new mutates up and consumes the old situation.

3) The UN is only as good a beaurocratic institution as any will be. Expect corruption and mismanagement, then you can take steps to avoid it. Daylight and oversight are the usual solutions. I'd say there's just as much sign of corruption in our dealings in the region as that institution. Be happy to detail them for you but it would veer me seriously off topic. The benefit in having the UN there is not only to share the burden but the blame. We're controversial in Iraq and the Middle East. The UN is not only less controversial but made up of a vast number of bodies. When something goes wrong under the UN it's not the logical assumption that the US screwed it up or the US is after the oil or trying to mortgage the country to US contractors. And in a high profile case, with major consequences, like Iraq odds are the UN will take things very seriously and do the best job they've done to date. Perfect? Probably not. But I don't see how we have room to brag ourselves right now.

Lizard_King

04-11-2004, 06:57 AM

Oh, and the best part of it all? Saddam's being proven right. He always said that a firm hand was needed to keep Iraq from imploding. And now the Americans are learning that, as they're being forced to kill all sorts of people to keep the general populace in line. Also, the US is even running some of Saddam's old prisons now, and keeping hundreds-thousands of Iraqis "dissidents" locked up without trial and in complete isolation. There was a documentary report on CBC about this just this past week. Ah, let freedom ring!

What were we thinking? Only white people can hope to run ethnically diverse countries for any space of time. Everybody else deserves, nay, craves a despotic lunatic.

Or...maybe it is the last few decades under Saddam that make the current situation so difficult. Maybe all it requires is patience and a realistic commitment (ie people on all sides will get hurt) before you can turn a culture perverted into one of totalitarian oppression into something much more palatable for all involved.

By the way, comparing ex-Baathists and local and imported Jihadists to the sorts of dissidents Saddam imprisoned (nevermind the relative numbers) is a really nice touch. I'd say you encapsulate perfectly the sort of sneering, cynical overintellectualization we're going to need a lot more of before we can get some quality Hanoi Jane caliber moments around here. Keep up the good work.

Jason McCullough

04-11-2004, 11:45 AM

LK, it's not very helpful to call everyone who slightly disagrees with your assessment a traitor.

Lizard_King

04-11-2004, 12:10 PM

LK, it's not very helpful to call everyone who slightly disagrees with your assessment a traitor.

It's called "hyperbole". And that is no slight disagreement.

Also, I am well aware that it is stupidity and ignorance, not a desire to betray, that drives most of those that disagree with me.

Midnight Son

04-11-2004, 12:36 PM

Also, I am well aware that it is stupidity and ignorance, not a desire to betray, that drives most of those that disagree with me.

Thank you for the insight, Ms. Coulter.

Linoleum

04-11-2004, 03:02 PM

While I know seeing the words "UN" in a discussion prompt a certain BF Skinner-like response in you poor deluded neo-cons (probably because it's the only thing y'all have said that hasn't been categorically shown to be utter bullshit), you've completely missed the forest for trees.

I'm amused that you take me for a neo-con. A lot of my thoughts on the subject of Iraq match up rather well with opinions like this (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view304.html#Saturday). That said, the US is there now and I believe there are worse alternatives than what is currently going down, and if I think something is idiotic I shall point it out.

Rather than the usual, predictable laundry list trotted out here, please tell me what fundamental problems you've observed with the UN troops occupying the DMZ in South Korea or the UN troops in the Balkans keeping the peace there. Be specific please.

In specific? They are utterly irrelevant. Is North Korea in dialogue with the IETA or the Security Council? No. Has it taken an immense amount of work to drag them into multiparty talks with surrounding nations? Yes. Would troops in the DMZ cause one iota of hesitation if the shit were to hit the fan? I sincerely think not.

As for Bosnia, when things flare up, any UN forces are powerless to prevent a thing. It's an illusion. It took the weight of NATO to have any meaningful effect.

See, the idea isn't to get any grand UN initiative. Rather we just need help with the occupation force, and this seems like the best way to extricate ourselves from one of the biggest foreign-policy boondoggles in US history.

Fine. Which countries would you like to see in Iraq that don't already have troops there? Furthermore, which countries have the capacity of contributing a significant foreign deployment that are not already participating?

I will make no apology for my opinions of the UN in the realm of peacekeeping or promoting freedom, democracy or rule of law. But then the leaders of a large percentage of the countries making up the UN are men I could put a bullet in their head and still sleep soundly at night, so I might not be "reasonable" on that score.

Jason McCullough

04-11-2004, 04:54 PM

So we'll suck up to human rights abusing dictatorships in central asia for military bases and kill half the population of Fallujah to pacify it, but allying with less than creepy UN bureaucrats is too much for your delicate consitutition?

Lizard_King

04-11-2004, 05:00 PM

Also, I am well aware that it is stupidity and ignorance, not a desire to betray, that drives most of those that disagree with me.

Thank you for the insight, Ms. Coulter.
Thanks for proving my point. Back to you, stupidity and ignorance personified.
So we'll suck up to human rights abusing dictatorships in central asia for military bases and kill half the population of Fallujah to pacify it, but allying with less than perfect UN bureaucrats is too much for your delicate consitutition?
Less than perfect? They're the same assholes you cry about Bush "sucking up" to...the difference is that Bush, neocons, and most political realists prefer to make friends with bad guys on a case-by-case basis, as to what our needs require (Pakistan is a fine example of the lesser of many evils). UN worshippers such as you prefer that we embrace them all at once and unilaterally, and take seriously an organization that is so clearly an example of when poorly thought out ideals come to life.

Jason McCullough

04-11-2004, 05:02 PM

Do I get to invent political positions for you to adopt?

Midnight Son

04-11-2004, 05:42 PM

Thank you for the insight, Ms. Coulter.
Thanks for proving my point. Back to you, stupidity and ignorance personified.

Have you not glanced at the mirror lately, my dignified pompous friend?

Brian Rucker

04-12-2004, 11:11 AM

Okay, not a good sign. We're losing support among the tribal leaders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4142-2004Apr11_3.html

BAGHDAD, April 11 -- Every week for nearly a year, Col. Peter Mansoor has gathered with proud men who move down the sidewalks of downtown Baghdad in flowing robes, tribal leaders in a crippled capital that occupier and occupied were trying to rebuild together.

On Sunday morning, they met for the last time. "I take my leave of you," Mansoor said. "I was hoping it would be in happier times."

After eleven months in the city, Mansoor's 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division was about to redeploy. The commander said he did not yet know where. But substantial U.S. forces were heading south from Baghdad to retake cities shaken by a new wave of violent rebellion.

The meeting began cordially enough in the tattered ballroom of the Ishtar Sheraton Hotel. Greetings of "Peace be upon you" and "May God bless your footsteps" were exchanged. But polite discussion descended rapidly into complaints, then accusations, and finally threats. Both sides were talking -- mostly past one another.

In the end a dozen men in checkered headdresses milled excitedly in front of a podium, thrusting their fists in the air and shouting, "Yes! Yes! Moqtada!" and "Yes! Yes! Iraq!" The Americans hurried into armored vests and made for the door.

"Let's get out of here," Mansoor said.

It was a rare and revealing encounter in a city where ordinary Iraqis and U.S-led forces had routine, often friendly contact a week ago. But fighting with militias loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr and intense fighting in Fallujah have changed things in many neighborhoods.

Brian Rucker

04-12-2004, 04:48 PM

And meanwhile, in always contradictory Iraq, there's a new development. John Burns of the New York Times reported on News Hour tonight that a council of moderate and secular Shiite leaders are meeting with Sadr to figure out a peaceful solution to the situation. His militia, meanwhile, has reportedly turned over some installations voluntarily to Iraqi police forces. No link but I'm sure a story is, or will be, up soon at the Times site.

Al Sistani's son is a lead member of this group. Sistani to the rescue. Hope this works.

Brad Grenz

04-12-2004, 06:51 PM

Do I get to invent political positions for you to adopt?

When did you start asking permission?

bago

04-12-2004, 11:09 PM

Some updates you might not be aware of...

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040408-122356-2977r.htm

Sistani calls for peace.

and...

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD69204

Iran paid for and trained the troops behind this uprising.

I think it's waaaaay too early for the level of doom and gloom Jason speaks of. I think it also shows the perils of low level incompetence by the CPA.

chet

04-12-2004, 11:35 PM

Give me a break.

Egyptian Professor at American University of Cairo Reacts to U.S. Reform Initiative & Claims there is 'No Conclusive Proof'' Arabs & Muslims were behind 9/11 - U.S. May be Responsible
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD69304

Why did you stop there? Why not link to how the jews did it and they all left the buildings before the planes hit. Nice source.

Chet

Anaxagoras

04-13-2004, 07:54 AM

Chet: What does that last post have to do with the current discussion? Or with the thread topic in general?

Edit- Nevermind. I see that it was related to Bago's post.

Linoleum

04-13-2004, 09:54 AM

Chet also didn't bother spending 10 seconds to look at what memri is and what it does.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

Their analysis is going to trend pro-Israel, but they do accurate translations of...interesting stuff (or just plain scary when you consider it comes from state-run media sources).

chet

04-13-2004, 10:24 AM

Huh?

So translating something makes it true?

Brian Rucker

04-13-2004, 11:03 AM

Tend to run pro-Israel? Look at the endorsements on the "About Us" page. You'll see all the usual rightwinger suspects and then some - I've linked to it before with a few choice quotes.

Anyhow, in the world of real news here's Anthony Shadid, who just won a Pulitzer, on the situation in Iraq from a live Q&A online at The Post.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/sp_iraq_shadid041304.htm

Philadelphia, Pa.: How worried should we be? The impression I get is that conditions, while not good, are not terrible for the U.S. right now, but could rapidly spiral out of control at any moment. Is that an accurate assessment?

Anthony Shadid: This is my own opinion, but I think it's pretty bad here. From my own experience, we're dealing with the greatest insecurity since the fall of Saddam. Is it a crisis? It feels that way. Can the U.S. administration recover? Probably. But you definitely hear Iraqis calling for a decisive change in the approach -- perhaps less of a military response, more of a political one, and a greater reliance on Iraqi voices than those embodied by the Governing Council.

Much more good stuff and he was still there answering questions last I checked.

Daniel Morris

04-13-2004, 06:14 PM

Hitchens on the Sadr uprising and the Vietnam comparison:

I could give a list of mistakes that I think the Bremer administration has made, but none that would have justified theocratic barbarism. I don't feel I should give free advice to officers in the field, but if the locations seized by Sadr or his Sunni counterparts had been left to their own devices for a few days, there is some reason to think that the local population would have gotten a glimpse of that future and rejected it. A few days rule by the inflamed Party of God. … Or what about a quarter-century of it, as the Iranian people have just had to endure?

Here is the reason that it is idle to make half-baked comparisons to Vietnam. The Vietnamese were not our enemy, let alone the enemy of the whole civilized world, whereas the forces of jihad are our enemy and the enemy of civilization. There were some Vietnamese, even after the whole ghastly business, who were sorry to see the Americans leave. There were no Lebanese who were sad to see the Israelis leave. There would be many, many Iraqis who would be devastated in more than one way if there was another Somalian scuttle in their country. In any case, there never was any question of allowing a nation of this importance to become the property of Clockwork Orange holy warriors.

http://www.slate.com/id/2098642/

The essay also makes the very salient point that by very definition, the moderate-to-progressive majority in Iraq has no militia to deploy "with ready-made slogans of religion and nationalism and martyrdom and Kalashnikovs to spare. And facing that fact means asking whether we will abandon the nascent Iraqi civil society to those who do have those things."

Cue McCullough's "Hitchens is insane" bit.

Jason McCullough

04-13-2004, 06:47 PM

Thanks for saving me the trouble!

Brian Rucker

04-14-2004, 07:52 AM

The Vietnamese people weren't our enemy. Communism was. The Iraqi people aren't our enemy. Terrorism is.

Isms are what get us into tricky situations like these. They lead to overblown and faulty analysis based on broad assumptions. It's fair to say most Iraqis don't like Sadr or the Baathist remnants. It's also fair to say most Iraqis don't like the United States much. If we keep applying military solutions they will feel compelled to choose up sides - and most reporting indicates that will not play into our hands. We'll end up with nothing but yesmen puppets on our side and that's not who the Iraqis, or I, want building up a new Iraq.

What's happening right now is the best, if not a great, route for us. Taking a break and trying to negotiate, or let the independant Iraqi leaders themselves negotiate, peaceful outcomes. If that fails we may well have to use force to keep the situation from disintigrating further - and that in and of itself can cause the same thing to happen. We're not in a scenario where there's a right answer and a wrong one. The neocons have planted us in a situation where every American answer is bad and it's a matter of navigating delicately between force and diplomacy not merely to prevail but even to survive. I may not be particularly fond of the idea of installing an Islamic government in Iraq but that may well be the only way to solve this without Iraq very much becoming another Vietnam. Corrupt local allies, broken hearts and minds, hostile neighbors, no broad international support.

It's not Vietnam yet but I don't think we can say it won't become that or possibly worse if a civil war or Jihadist uprising inflames the region as a consequence of our actions.

antlers

04-14-2004, 05:00 PM

One analogy with Vietnam:

In both situations we think we're up against the wrong -ism: in Vietnam, communism; in Iraq, Baathism and Jihadism. In both cases we've underestimated the extent to which we were up against good old-fashioned nationalism. It basically means that in the eyes of the people there, we really can't do anything right, just because we're foreigners. It almost doesn't matter what we do: it will be perceived as wrong because we have a bunch of troops there shooting at their countrymen.

Toddy

04-14-2004, 11:03 PM

Probably because there isn't really a sense of nationalism in the Arab world, at least not in regard to individual modern states. But you're right about the attitude that non-Arabs shouldn't be there. The Arab world is extremely insular. The US could give millions to every Iraqi and pave the streets with gold and there would still be people lining up to desecrate American corpses.

People like Sadr don't fight for Iraq, they fight for Islam, for the Arab nation as a whole. The biggest thing to realize about these organizations is that they don't recognize contemporary borders, nearly all of which were drawn up by Western leaders post-WWI. Hell, even average Arabs don't recognize borders in the Arab world. Workers travel all over the place, without permits, etc., for jobs. When I was in Aqaba, Egyptians used to show up on the ferry every day to work there. Almost every person I met in Jordan had spent time living and working in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. The only distinctions I ever heard made about one Arab country over another involved the, um, "quality" of the local women.

bago

04-15-2004, 12:36 AM

Sadr got 80 million dollars from Iran for an army to try and destabilize Iraq. Now he is suing for peace, because he's cornered and only had days to live.

What's the closest analogy?

bago

04-15-2004, 12:42 AM

Why did you stop there? Why not link to how the jews did it and they all left the buildings before the planes hit. Nice source.

I hear that book is a top seller in France....

chet

04-15-2004, 12:52 AM

Sadr got 80 million dollars from Iran for an army to try and destabilize Iraq. Now he is suing for peace, because he's cornered and only had days to live.

What's the closest analogy?

You = Corky ?

Do I win for closest analogy?

Chet

bago

04-16-2004, 03:21 AM

Who the fuck is corky?

chet

04-16-2004, 05:58 AM

http://vergant.com/cd-mom/images/chriscb.jpeg

Jason McCullough

04-18-2004, 12:15 AM

Attempting to drag this back on topic, Rich's NYT column this week is good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?pagewanted=1

Arabs believe in persons, not institutions," T. E. Lawrence wrote in the early 1920's. His observations don't always hold up, but this one is echoed by many as we watch the implosion of the neoconservative experiment in shepherding Iraq to a representative government built around the unpopular likes of a Chalabi. "The structure of a federal liberal democracy is simply not an inspiring prospect for Iraqis," the reporter Charles Crain, a keen Baghdad observer, wrote in The Washington Post last weekend. As for those people Iraqis respect more than vague governmental schemes, we were too enthralled by American pets like Mr. Chalabi to recognize the importance (and political usefulness) of the most respected Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. For all our sensitivity to religion, we appointed a (corrupt) Sunni as mayor of Najaf, the Shiite center lately occupied by Mr. al-Sadr, and promoted photos of the corpses of Uday and Qusay in defiance of Islamic dictates.

Yet much as we misread Iraqi culture, we also misrepresent our own to the Iraqis. It's Ayatollah al-Sistani, not the Americans, who champions direct elections.

This reminds me of another fuckup, that I've only seen mentioned once place: the administration spent the last year trying to cut Sistani out of the loop, thinking they could get it all going without him. Now he's distrustful of us, to put it mildly.

Philomath

04-19-2004, 07:01 PM

We've lost control of a half-dozen cities.
The shiites and sunnies are uniting against us.

This interpretation is so crazy it's surreal.

Bullhajj

04-19-2004, 07:03 PM

We've lost control of a half-dozen cities.
The shiites and sunnies are uniting against us.

This interpretation is so crazy it's surreal.

Ok, what's the sane interpretation?

Duality

04-19-2004, 08:00 PM

Ok, what's the sane interpretation?
"The infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad... Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected. [Americans] are heroes."

Philomath

04-19-2004, 09:54 PM

We've lost control of a half-dozen cities.
The shiites and sunnies are uniting against us.

This interpretation is so crazy it's surreal.

Ok, what's the sane interpretation?

That al'Sadr made a power play and that most Shiites don't support him since, well, they say they don't? That he's sponsored by Hezbollah ("where have I seen kidnapping before?"), Hamas and other groups (if not Iran and Syria directly) that have a damn significant interest in ensuring that Iraq isn't a free, democratic, pro-American regime. That trying to sway American public opinion, and making the American war in Iraq as messy as possible, is the best way for Iran to avoid being the next stop in the campaign against Bush's Axis of Evil?
That the Sunni forces and regime loyalists in the 'triangle' have nothing to gain and everything to lose in a democratic Iraq?
That concentrating their forces to attack coalition forces openly was a foolish mistake for the insurgents, since we happen to be very good at fighting that sort of engagement, as opposed to firing grenades at convoys.
That even some of the insurgents aren't entirely in favor of the Lebanon-style kidnappings and murders, since a lot of the kidnapped people have been let go.
That the support in Iraq for removing Saddam is incredibly strong, since most Iraqi's still feel their lives will be much better now and in the future despite having parts of their country subject to regular bombings and criminal activity. Amazing how bad things must have been since they STILL are happy Saddam's gone, when we live in societies like Spain where even a single bombing causes us to immediately reconsider whether it was "just" to give freedom, democracy and individual rights to tens of millions.