It does look like my kneejerk reaction – that Maliki got the upper hand – may be a matter of insufficient data. Or at least the consensus across the moderate blogs seems to support that.
And there are more than a few reports that Maliki’s side opened the negotiations – which might support my contention in principle, but switches the outcome in reality.
Let’s hope we don’t have to wait for historians to sort this one out…
For goodness sake get a grip out there.
Sadr has danced around the issue. Is forces were being killed at a an alarming rate, which is always the case when this band of criminals and thugs ever attempt to fight those with guns to fight back with. Sadr knew that he had to call off his men before he was seen to suffer a great defeat, which would loose him considerable ‘face’ in Iraq. There have been countless Pro Government rallies across Iraq during the past few days and many tribes in all the provinces have assisted the local security forces in securing areas. Maliki gave the JAM the option of handing in their weapons, which is a good and civilised course of action to take, when you consider the alternative was killing large numbers of Iraqi militia, who are still Iraqi citizens when all is said and done, no matter how miss guided they are right now. This country, and yes I am talking from the perspective of someone who has lived here for about 3 years now, is gaining in strength and stability all the time and its about time the west got behind the positive aspects of the country and stopped screaming civil uprising every time there are clashes on the streets. This is a large country, and every one has access to a gun, so of course when people get upset they reach for the gun, not unlike events occurring in the US all the time.
The main opposition to peace in Iraq is the presence of Sadr and his killers. No one wants them, but many are intimidated by them.
I was reading with great interest the opinions of someone on the spot, but this is nonsense:
#1 from Stefan:
Events like the fighting in Basra do not automatically occur as a result of widespread firearm ownership. There is also the issue of culture.
Events like the fighting in Basra are not occurring all the time in America.
I maintain that this is navel gazing, made even more pointless by not knowing the facts (which it is impossible for us to know). Nobody believes what anyone involved says (unless it supports your argument, in which case its tepid or should be).
Who reached out to who and why and what that means etc is pointless. Lincoln reached out to the Confederates any number of times, right up through the siege of Petersburg. It has far more to do with the politics and personality than the actual state of affairs on the ground.
What matters is the reality on the ground. There are government troops in Basra today that werent there a week ago. They are still raiding and arresting the ‘rogue’ elements they came looking for. Facts weigh a lot heavier than speculation.
The other reality is that it would have been impossible for the Iraqi army to subdue Basra in the time that passed (whatever Maliki said or thought). Think of Fallujah.
The final reality is that Sadr accepted a deal with nothing in hand. None of his objectives have been realized materially. No prisoners have been released, no raids have stopped, and certainly there are government forces where he forbade them to go. Even if he has negotiated a deal for some of these things, it is not a position of strength to stand down before your demands are met in fact, not just in rhetoric.
Stefan,
I’d like to believe you but I have become wary of overly optimistic reports. For 2 reasons. 1) they continue to be contradicted over time by the basic facts (how accurate can optimist reports have been 2 or 3 years ago given that the US still feels it necessary to keep 150,000 troops there with no prospect of “standing down” any time soon; 2) the increasing belief on my part that such optimism is considered to be a crucial component of the overall strategy (i.e., we must be optimistic in order to shore up morale and support) and therefor should be received with an appropriate-sized grain of salt.
In your comment above, I wonder how you would square what I see to be a contradiction (based on false optimism, to my mind, aka propaganda) between your characterization that “no one” wants JAM around and your statement that getting rid of JAM would require killing “large numbers.” This is reminiscent of Rumsfeld denying the existence of an insurgency and claiming all the violence was the responsibility of a handful of thugs. Clearly, there is substantial support for the bad guys here or else we wouldn’t be in such a situation, a situation, that is, in which the fate of the western world hangs in the balance, if you believe the rhetoric so often employed to convince us of the necessity of staying in Iraq.
Mark B.
“it is not a position of strength to stand down before your demands are met in fact, not just in rhetoric.”
Is this a reference to the govt’s demand that militias disarm within 72 hours and their subsequent negotiations with Sadr in Iran?
I don’t think there is a clear-cut victor in this mess and that makes the gov’t look weak in the face of an insurgency.
As you noted in other comments, there’s not a lot of detailed reports coming out of Basra right now, so it seems a little premature to claim that the gov’t troops “are still raiding and arresting the ‘rogue’ elements they came looking for.” Do we know this to be true?
_”Is this a reference to the govt’s demand that militias disarm within 72 hours and their subsequent negotiations with Sadr in Iran?”_
No. That was never a realistic demand, nor was it the original demand. It appears to be ill advised freelancing by Maliki and it was a mistake. The original goal was to reestablish law and order in Basra which means a government presense. That seems to be in the offing. If this was a defeat for Maliki there would be no army in Basra, and that would be a disaster.
And Sadr started this uprising, what has he materially gained?
_”As you noted in other comments, there’s not a lot of detailed reports coming out of Basra right now, so it seems a little premature to claim that the gov’t troops “are still raiding and arresting the ‘rogue’ elements they came looking for.” Do we know this to be true?”_
I dont know anything to be true. All I know is the Iraqi government says they are, and the Sadr spokespeople say they are. I don’t think there is much prospect for more direct information any time soon.
_”Underscoring the fragility of the peace agreement, Harith al-Edhari, the director of al-Sadr’s office in Basra, demanded the government stop continuing random raids and detentions against the cleric’s Mahdi Army militia._
_Al-Edhari’s complaint followed a raid by Iraqi commandos on the house of a wanted Mahdi Army battalion leader that prompted clashes in a northern section of the city, although the suspect was not home at the time._”
“link”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=Av7PkvmtXAA0z_u7HIJZrk1X6GMA
Mark B.
“If this was a defeat for Maliki there would be no army in Basra…”
This is the heart of our disagreement, I think. Iraq is “governed” by a fragile coalition of Shia parties. Sadr’s prominence in that coalition has increased at the direct expense of Maliki’s. While this may have been a gain for a the “government” (though not for Maliki), it was made by accommodation with extremists. Maliki set out to crush a rival. In the end, he negotiated with the rival. This elevates Sadr.
This at least seems to be the consensus. You seem to look at this as a direct military confrontation between gov’t troops and sadrist militias. I think most others are looking at this as political power confrontation, and by all accounts, Maliki came off badly. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that I feared a take over by Sadr outside the gov’t. I fear his increased political influence within the gov’t in the future. I think that when the US leaves, he will be able to use his force and influence to push the gov’t in what to me is an objectionable direction.
I’m not saying that I think Maliki should have gone all out and attempted to completely crush the militants. Like you, I believe that to be an impossible task, which is the central lesson to be learned here, if you ask me. I just don’t see any point in celebrating this as anything other than another bucket of cold water thrown on our inevitably thwarted desires. There’s no good way out of this. There’s no realistic good outcome.
_”This at least seems to be the consensus. You seem to look at this as a direct military confrontation between gov’t troops and sadrist militias. I think most others are looking at this as political power confrontation, and by all accounts, Maliki came off badly.”_
What consensus? By Western journalists? The AP? Al-Reuters? I see a lot of opinion coming from those sources, but precious little fact. The Iraqi government claims they are pleased with the outcome, but they are never considered.
I can give you links to jouranlists like Bill Rogio with analysis similar to mind- and he’s in Iraq. But you take the pool reporters (the same people that brought you any number of stringer scandals) as the authorities. These guys are always negative and hostile. You’ll excuse me but I’d like to see their credentials to indicate why I should believe their interpretation. I dont see them polling the Iraq people certainly.
There’s an interesting roundup and analysis at Wretchard’s that to me gains credibility simply by its ambiguity (as well as its reliance on non-MSM sources). Why should we expect the schisms and power relationships among the Iraqi Shi’a to be resolved in one passage of arms over a few days?
For that matter, there’s no reason to believe that the current Shi’a factions and alliances are stable. The nominal Shi’a governing coalition didn’t take long to turn to in-fighting, and Iraqi blogs I’ve read suggest that the citizens weren’t all that impressed by religious bloc parties anyway. Reshuffling and attendant conflict before the upcoming provincial elections, and even more before the 2009 national elections seem quite likely.
Some number of those who want to settle those conflicts with weapons are going to need to die, to convince those remaining that politicking is a better way. Main question is how many, how soon, and who does the deed.
Mark B.,
“What consensus? By Western journalists? The AP? Al-Reuters?”
Yes, among others, who are there and reporting on the situation.
” I see a lot of opinion coming from those sources, but precious little fact.”
It is opinions that we are discussing.
“The Iraqi government claims they are pleased with the outcome, but they are never considered.”
Iraqi government claims are now “fact?” Seriously?
“I can give you links to jouranlists like Bill Rogio with analysis similar to mind- and he’s in Iraq. ”
And Roggio certainly has no preconceptions about this war….a perfectly neutral reporter, right? You’ll note I said “most,” not “all,” btw. Consensus doesn’t mean unanimity.
“But you take the pool reporters (the same people that brought you any number of stringer scandals) as the authorities.”
Who, like your man Rogio, are in Iraq.
“These guys are always negative and hostile.”
Blaming the messenger again. Yes, Mark, the news out of Iraq for the last 5 years has been somewhat negative. You’ll notice that we need 150,000 troops there to keep a relative peace.
“You’ll excuse me but I’d like to see their credentials to indicate why I should believe their interpretation. I dont see them polling the Iraq people certainly.”
What credentials would you like to have them display? What interpretations of the situation in Iraq have been close to accurate these past 5 years? The authorities who said there was no insurgency? that we were turning a corner? that major combat was over? that this wouldn’t cost more than $50 billion? That this wouldn’t last more than 6 months? You’ll excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical about the interpretations of events by “our” side. I know how little you care for the paper, but on the whole I would say that the reporters for the NYT over the past 5 years have given a far more accurate description of what is going on in Iraq than the authorities. At least their interpretations have been subsequently borne out by events. I’m going to rely on their interpretation (after all they are there) of events a little more heavily than on yours. Their analysis suggests that, on the whole, this has been damaging to Maliki and helpful to Sadr.
On the one hand, you want to dismiss interpretation and analysis as speculation without sufficient facts. On the other hand, you are eager to offer an interpretation and analysis — contrary to what most people are saying — that this is a victory of Maliki. I’m happy to recognize that any interpretation has yet to be borne out by subsequent events. But let’s not try to have it both ways.
Here is the problem- all of your ‘most people’ are a handful of AP reporters (who may or may not in fact be in Iraq) relying on information from stringers and posting pure conjecture as though it is the pulse of Iraq.
Meanwhile you dismiss out of hand government reports (no, its not fact its opinion we’re talking about, remember?).
Oh, and Bill Roggio is biased but Rueters and the AP arent? Sure. I have neither the time nor the inclination to list chapter and verse of how biased the pool reporters are. You have a lot of nerve attacking Roggio and other independent reports and treating the handful of pool reporters as ‘everybody’. These guys have been consistantly negative and hostile and have readily employed stringers cozy with insurgents and passing on their information with little to no review. I listen to the facts they report. Their analysis from their hotels in the Green Zone (or Jordan) I don’t equate with the pulse of Iraq. They are an echo chamber.
All I can point to is the facts on the ground. You can interprate them as negatively as you want, using whatever contrived spin you like, thats your right. I feel Occam’s Razor supports my view, and no amount of AP reporters convincing each other is going to change my mind. Lets see an upheaval in parliment or mass protests or SOME evidence that your interpretation is correct. All i see now is the Iraqi government continuing on as it was before the fighting, only with a presense in Basra this time. Spin that into a defeat all you like.
I’ll note a couple of things.
When Ahmadinejad comes into the country, there is official notice weeks before, he is met by Iraqi officials, given the whole wreath ceremony, given a procession along the way to the government buildings.
When Bush/Cheney go to Iraq, done under the cover of night, no warning, HUGE security, they are whisked away to the Green Zone.
When Maliki and Sadr wish to negotiate, who do they turn to?
Iran, of course. Iran facilitates, communicates, and blesses the negotiations between these two parties.
Heck, actually, Iran seems to be fairly responsible here, as a statesman-like neighbor.
It’s apparent that Iran is acting as a type of “Big Brother” for the nascent government in Iraq – or at least, the south. Certainly more welcome than U.S. troops.
I’m surprised this isn’t more commented on here.
Also, it seems pretty clear that ONE of the issues – though probably not the only one – is an intra-Shiite struggle. There are elections soon, and Sadrist forces are looking to do much better in the elections than Maliki’s group.
Mark B.,
I generally don’t read AP or Reuters reports…not because I don’t trust them but because my local newspaper doesn’t rely on them much. So I don’t know why you are going on about pool reporters and stringers. As I have said before, I am mostly getting my news from NYT, BBC and PBS — two of which rely on their own reporters and one of which relies on ITN for first-hand accounts. NYT has a fairly large — as these things go — bureau of reporters, translators, photographers and staff. Again, over the last 5 years, their analysis has been as good as anyone’s. Maybe AP and Reuters and Time are all taking their cues from the NYT and the notion of a consensus is illusory. I don’t really have a way of knowing that. However, your complaints about their use of stringers and green zone hotels sounds like a lot of speculation on your part. What a NTY reporter has that a so-called independent doesn’t is access to behind-the-scenes players like legislators, diplomats, generals and so forth and this gives them a greater ability to peek behind official rhetoric. So if they sense that people in the governing coalition are saying Maliki is damaged by this behind his back, I’m going to listen. If they say their were secret negotiations in Iran with Sadr, I’m going to believe it more than I am denials by the gov’t. If they say the generals refused to go forward with this operation unless Maliki didn’t put his name behind it and go himself to Basra, I’m going to believe it. If the NYT prints a paragraph like “Mr. Maliki had vowed that he would see the Basra campaign through to a military victory, and the negotiated outcome was seen as a serious blow to his leadership,” I am going to believe they have good reason to feel this is an accurate description, not that they are anti-american, anti-war and want to see the US defeated and are therefore willing to make things up out of thin air to advance their ideological beliefs.
“Meanwhile you dismiss out of hand government reports…” You’re exaggerating. I said I take them with the grain of salt I think is appropriate based on a track record. I am skeptical of them. I think such skepticism is more than justified. I think the authorities, whether US or Iraqi, have a terrible record of making pronouncements about events that turn out to have been deliberately over-optimistic in order to mask failures and setbacks. It would be foolish to simply take them at their word.
I’m also going to be somewhat skeptical of the neutrality of a reporter who calls his site “the Long War,” since this is a phrase used without irony only by people with a particular ideological belief. How trustworthy would you consider a reporter who titled his site “The US Occupation of Iraq?”
hypo – that’s because they don’t have to worry about being bombed by someone with an Iranian-made IED.
I always thought that was an absurd comparison. The government and US forces don’t target foreign diplomats. The other side does.
It doesn’t mean one side is better liked or more powerful, it’s because one side plays by one set of rules, and the other side doesn’t.
A.L.
AL,
Don’t forget that one side has 150,000 armed foreign forces in the country and the other doesn’t. It would be kind of silly for an invading force to expect the other side to play by the set of rules laid down by the invading force, wouldn’t it? “Okay, gentlemen, now that we have invaded your country, please read these documents and memorize the rules by which we will allow you to oppose our presence here. Violations of these rules will be dealt with harshly. Rule number one: please do not attack the people who authorized the invasion when they visit their troops. Doing so will make you a barbarian and a terrorist and allow us to feel better about ourselves in comparison to you. Rule #2: The USA is this conflict’s official bomb manufacturing nation. Use of Iranian-made bombs is strictly prohibited.”
In Iraq, we are Gringos. That means we have money and power and we are not to be drawn into a confrontation, but we are gullible and can be easily mislead. Mark B. paints an Iraqi mental, emotional and cultural landscape that looks more like Boise than Baghdad. Good Guys vs. Bad Guys. Government vs. Thugs. Legitimate vs. Illegitimate. When actually, we have faction vs. faction. At this point the Maliki faction against the Sadr faction. Their confrontation will weaken both and embolden other factions. We have seen it in Gaza and and in Lebanon.
We have no power base among the Iraqis. Sure, there will be anecdotal accounts about how the people None of the factions are on our side nor will they ever be. It is not the way to survive in that part of the world. No amount of prosteletizing about the wonders of democracy are going to un roil the cauldron that is the middle- East, not in Palestine-Israel, nor in Lebanon, nor in Iraq.
The Neo-Con neo-colonialism is a disaster. Why do you think Bush 1 left. Did not occupy, they saw all of this and it was painfully obvious.
I am a life long conservative republican. This administration has morphed the party into a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. A very effective hard nosed Realpolitick developed by the Republican Party since the end of WWII has wound up becoming a softheaded children´s crusade. I just can´t believe that the Party has fell for this nonsense.
This thing has no military solution. It has to be political. All politics are local. Our nation building, which was an anathema to republicans before this administration has failed as any Republican would have told you before the Neo-Cons hijacked our Foreign policy.
This war will cost us all three branches of government and a good piece of our prosperity. Could you tell me again what we consider victory over there?
AL,
The issue is of course, that those insurgents – or even the ones that may be left in the Sunni areas – didn’t use rifle fire, IED’s, etc, insurgents or groups of any type in Iraq – to even attempt to attack Ahmadinejad.
You are right – Ahmadinejad DIDN’T have to worry.
Now what does that say about the makeup of Iraq, that an american leader has to worry, and an Iranian leader doesn’t?
TOC,
Clearly you and I disagree on a lot of things, but a lot of your post I agree with – it’s simple common sense.
Sounds like you have been reading “The American Conservative”:http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html.
_So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival._
Now, clearly, that conservative views Obama more as the lesser choice of evil between two evils – the addiction to imperialistic hawkery, faux Big Business conservatism. Which operates in a world without any common sense, or sense of limits.
A form of “the enemy of my enemy is my ally of the moment”.
…that the Iranians control the insurgency?
A.L.
It seems to me that this administration is forcing anyone in their right mind into Obama´s arms.
I havent been reading the AC. It is just common sense and basic Geopolitical Strategy. do not create a power vacuum that you cannot fill, either directly or by the use of a client or puppet government.
Use the British Policy of indirecct rule and not the French model of bringing civilization. Our adventure in Iraq has been a text book example of the naive arrogance of power.
Neo Cons are not conservatives. Neo Cons are NinCompoops.
It seems to me that this administration is forcing anyone in their right mind into Obama´s arms.
I havent been reading the AC. It is just common sense and basic Geopolitical Strategy. do not create a power vacuum that you cannot fill, either directly or by the use of a client or puppet government.
Use the British Policy of indirecct rule and not the French model of bringing civilization. Our adventure in Iraq has been a text book example of the naive arrogance of power.
Neo Cons are not conservatives. Neo Cons are NinCompoops.
#20 from Armed Liberal at 8:23 pm on Apr 01, 2008
Now what does that say about the makeup of Iraq, that an american leader has to worry, and an Iranian leader doesn’t?
…that the Iranians control the insurgency?
A.L.
_Unfortunately they also control the governing faction, as well._
*Mark Buehner at 11*
_Oh, and Bill Roggio is biased but Rueters and the AP arent? Sure. I have neither the time nor the inclination to list chapter and verse of how biased the pool reporters are. You have a lot of nerve attacking Roggio and other independent reports and treating the handful of pool reporters as ‘everybody’._
I enjoy Bill Roggio’s writing, but in no way would I consider him independent. There’s a reason, “he is a fellow with FDD”:http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm . If Michael Totten got a job with a comparable think tank, I’d treat it similarly. And for me, that’s not too hard – how far can you stray from the party line when you’re working at a think tank?
I’ve heard a couple of good things about “True Enough”:http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101 , and if nothing else this reminded me to take a look at it.
*A.L at 20*
_…that the Iranians control the insurgency?_
That some of the insurgency has as-formally-as-they-could declared war on us as occupiers, and neither we nor our sympathetic and (hopefully more than) temporary allies in Iraq have not done the same to Iran?
For the record, Roggio just got a really nice review from the Columbia Journalism Review
_”Having read The Long War Journal for several years, I can comfortably say that while Roggio is pro-soldier—he wants the U.S. military to succeed at its job in Iraq and Afghanistan—he does, in fact, work hard at playing it straight politically; he tries to describe and explain the tactics of the mission, whether they are working or not.”_
…
_”Such low-level political maneuvering is not the stuff of a splashy, front-page feature, but it is the nature of the war America is now fighting, and it is going almost completely uncovered by the mainstream media. This is Roggio’s beat.”_
Here’s the “link”:
http://www.cjr.org/profile/blogging_the_long_war_1.php
Sound like somebody you might want to listen to on inside baseball in Iraq? Maybe a little more than an AP reporter typing up his stringer reports in the Green Zone?
_”What a NTY reporter has that a so-called independent doesn’t is access to behind-the-scenes players like legislators, diplomats, generals and so forth and this gives them a greater ability to peek behind official rhetoric. “_
Strangely they dont, you know, QUOTE any of these people. Or provide any actual actual reporting. They provide analysis we are supposed to assume they have some rational for beyond their own thoughts on the matter.
And I have no way of knowing if NYT et al reporters actually bother to get chummy with legislators, diplomats, etc. If they do they really ought to quote them more. One gets the feeling they show up for press conferences and type up their stringer reports. If its more than that i’d like to see the evidence.
Guys like Roggio and Totten quote their sources, talk about the places they go and people they talk to. That gives them credibility. You are asking for an argument by authority.
And my final thought on the matter (and i’ll let reality be the arbiter here as time goes by):
You guys jumped on this storyline of a Maliki defeat before any of the results came in. I get the sense it was fait accompli that this was going to be a bad thing for Iraq from the first shot being fired.
Why should I think the pool reporters believe any different? I expect you guys have a lot in common politically, and if their work to date ignoring and despairing anything positive in Iraq is any indication they are no fans of this war.
In my opinion, these guys believed this was a defeat for Maliki from go and they will continue to report that until reality beats them with a club. If it does. There are plenty of other voices saying different things, and it is wrong to consider a handful of reporters the conventional wisdom.
It does look like my kneejerk reaction – that Maliki got the upper hand – may be a matter of insufficient data.
That’s Nouri May I have my cars back please Maliki to you.
Mark B.
“You guys jumped on this storyline of a Maliki defeat before any of the results came in.”
This isn’t exactly true, Mark. I just responded to a post by AL suggesting that the media had it assbackward. He’s since reconsidering that line of thought. In any event, I didn’t bring it up.
As I’ve said, given the NYT’s track record on interpretation of events in Iraq, I see no reason to doubt them in this instance.
“If its more than that i’d like to see the evidence.” Well, take a look at the website. They offer pretty extensive coverage and have since the beginning of the war. Try looking at the Baghdadbureau blogs before you start claiming that these guys have spent the last 5 years sitting on their butts, attending press conferences and typing up stringer reports. No matter your views on the war or politics, you got to have respect for John Burns. You wrote earlier about a nice review Roggio received from the Columbia Journalism Review. That same group gave Burns 2 pulitzers. But you think he’s just a shill for left, making sh$t up in Baghdad so America will lose and his interpretations of events are worth considering, no matter how prescient he’s been in the past.
And Al Qaida too! And I have a sneaking suspicion that they control Comcast as well.
I respect John Burns but I don’t believe he has weighed in on this, nor has the Baghdad-bureau blog. Arent you setting up a bit of a straw man? I think the NYT can do good stuff, but to think they are non-biased is just ludicrious (biased doesnt equal wrong).
I just dont get how good solid journalists like Roggio get knee-jerk rejected while the NYT is held up as a standard of nonbiased reporting. That just doesnt jive with what most people think of the MSM if you look at any poll.
Mark B., I’m not interested in what most people think about the MSM. I’m merely defending my reliance on the NYT analysis in this particular instance based upon their track record. I’m not knee-jerking Roggio. I’ve never read him. I’m just saying that based upon his choice for a name for his site, I am skeptical of his neutrality, and therefore of his analysis.
We are not talking about reporting here, biased or un-biased. We are talking about reliability and credibility of news analysis, specifically about how to interpret the recent events in Basra. You seem to think my impression is absurd. I’m defending it as not absurd by quoting similar interpretations by NYT reporters, and stating my belief that they have a track record of insightful & accurate analysis on events in Iraq over the last 5 years. Sure, maybe this is a case in which they are far off base. But I’ll continue to trust their analysis (& reporting) until there’s good evidence not to.
This view –which you think is absurd — is also supported by the London Times (see the link in #29 provided by rmd.).
Mark. Roggio doesn’t rely on ex Iraq Army Baathist mouthpiece like Quiz Mizer, or
Deobandist Army officers in Pakistan; as is the habit. He doesn’t have embeds in the Sadrist army, taking pictures as the 50calibers blow away Coalition forces. As
for the A.C,; I don’t take my guidance from
people who think fighting against the Nazis
was wrong; or former mouthpieces for the Greek colonels. You do, which shows the circular logic of the extreme right and left
_You guys jumped on this storyline of a Maliki defeat before any of the results came in._
Uhhh, not so much. On this site, we went from the Mahdi Army fighting for it’s life, then to if winning sides made peace offers, then on to more, much of which won’t be known at all until their elections come, if at all. Check out instapundit for some links, or any other Right leaning site. There was much more ‘yay for Maliki, this is an obvious win’ than ‘hmmm, let’s think about this and find out what’s happening’.
This was reflected with what you said as well, “comments on this”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/i_dont_think_winning_sides_in_battle_make_many_offers.php#comments
_That is absurd. The Sadrists took up arms against the lawful government and they have been challenged and forced to surrender. That is the story here._
Though Tim Oren’s ‘You might want to hold off 48 hours’ is very interesting.
What I jumped on personally, was the twin views of this being a win for Maliki, and there was an overwhelming view of al-Sadr being the clear winner.
_I just dont get how good solid journalists like Roggio get knee-jerk rejected while the NYT is held up as a standard of nonbiased reporting. That just doesnt jive with what most people think of the MSM if you look at any poll._
Again, I read his writing and take it in regards to where he is coming from, his fellowship, and the (now new info for me) CJR’s mentioning the website from a few years ago.
In no way should he be knee jerk rejected – but neither should it be taken as gospel because it’s more agreeable.
_”In no way should he be knee jerk rejected – but neither should it be taken as gospel because it’s more agreeable. “_
Thats entirely reasonable. Doesnt the same standard apply to the AP, the NYT, anyone else? Why is the biography and outside political affiliations of ‘professional’ journalists never to be taken into account?
I assume everyone is biased, because everyone is. That doesnt mean you are wrong. My point was that these analysis of the political ramifications were coming out even before the fighting stopped. I mean, how is that even possible if you claim to be taking the political pulse of Iraq as opposed to speculating based on your own intuition and knowledge?
I grant you it happens here all the time- a political scandal breaks out and before the ink is dry the ‘this will certainly affect X’s legislative initiative’. But in this case it is more serious because its basically nothing like this has ever happened before with a democratic leader in Iraq, and the politics of the Iraqi government are at best obscure. There is just no way (in my opinion) that within hours these journalists could have gathered enough insight, talked to enough polticians, polled enough Iraqis, to be able to read the political currents. Its just not physically possible.
And i agree that goes for both sides. My argument is to look at the situation on the ground today as opposed to last week. Trying to figure out inside Iraqi baseball from here in this timeframe is so rife with uncertainty i dont think its useful. I point to Roggio because he is counting the bodies and looking at military positions (along with his own connections and political insights).
And by that I mean- how many MSM stories have tried to account for how many casualties the Mahdi Army has taken vs their total strength? All i see is ‘200 Iraqis killed in fighting today’.
Obviously this isnt somethng easy to determine given the fog of war and propaganda, but isnt it such an important part of this story that they might at least make a mention? I mean if 5% of Sadr total strength was rendered hors de combat in a weekend, that HAS to affect how and why he made his decisions, no?
And how many mention that there are IA soldiers patrolling the streets of Basra today for the first time? Isnt that a rather important peice of this puzzle, even if you don’t think its decisive or that its illusory? Why arent we seeing THAT kind of analysis?
Just to update my somewhat snarky reply to AL from yesterday.
To claim that the Iranians control the insurgency? is akin to claiming White people think that… whatever.
It’s an incredibly lazy intepretation of events more fit for John McCain than someone claiming to be an objective observer.
And it’s an attempt to coddle together an argument based entirely on straw.
The insurgency is not monolithic. And it’s not any one group of players all bound together by a single cause.
The claim is handy way of trying to make a particular point, but in the end it just makes the person attempting to make the point seem as ignorant of the situation as, well, John McCain.
He has an excuse, he campaigning and thus allowed to toss out such tripe. AL on the other hand has no such excuse.
TAC is a Pat Buchanon, isolationist, anti-Israel (in the least, many are openly anti-Semitic), and anti-American defeatist fringers. Many are also “Truthers.”
No wonder Buchanon and Obama are on the same page. They both hate Israel, America, and root for the defeat of both as a good dose of “morally good for the world.”
That being said, we have real interests in the ME and Iraq specifically. It’s a useful base to pressure and induce Iranian behavior on issues we care about, short of all-out War with Iran. [Buchanon and Obama both promise to surrender to Iran and make America isolationist and appeasement driven. Buchanon thought fighting Japan and Germany wrong in WWII, and Obama is allied with all sorts of unsavory anti-American regimes: Iran, Chavez, Castro, FARC, etc.]
Maliki has hurt Sadr, but the struggle is ongoing. What most missed is that the “Pentagon Model” of building up dependent indigenous military forces (which need US help in training, logistics, air support, and keeping an effective fighting force from engaging in coups) is about as revolutionary as AQ’s distributed, networked terrorism.
Maliki has forces from all over the country, sharing in the wealth/spoils, and contributing men in an integrated, effective, and institutional fighting force (the IA). He gets men from Kurdistan, the Sunnis, as well as his Shia backers. He can afford an attrition style warfare and is conducting the same. Maliki’s men are still killing Sadr’s. Just on a lower-scale and away from cameras. Sadr by contrast faces an “Anaconda strategy” similar to that of Grant and Sherman — slowly constricted by superior forces with superior logistics.
Like Lee, his only play is political, with the aim of engaging a patron force of his own (Iran) to save him. Like Britain and France, Iran seems to have taken a pass on Sadr to the point of committing lots of forces to fight the Iraqi government. AKA the group of thieves and con men dependent on us rather than the Iranians.
I urge everyone to check out this round-up from Bill Roggio at Longwar Journal with its links to other media sources. Quick recap:
– Iraqi Army forces marched through the Mahdi stronghold Hayaniyah District. They are continuing to arrest wanted criminals and smugglers. (AP report)
– Over 1000 Iraqis in Basra flocked to sign up for the IA yesterday alone. (Reuters)
– The Iraqi Army has occupied and now controls the ports of Khour al Zubair and Umm Qasr- the most important ports in Iraq (formerly held by militias). (Voices of Iraq)
– _”Hillah, Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Amarah, and Al Kut are secured, Aziz said. The Iraqi Army moved additional forces into Al Kut and Amarah and conducted clearing operations in these cities”_ (Major General Abdul Aziz)
“round-up”:http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/iraqi_military_conti.php
Its important to remember the Iraqi Government had virtually no presense in Basra until last week. That sound you hear is the goal posts moving, I think.
The problem isn’t who is reporting what, nor is it anyone’s particular bias. The problem is that Iraq is opaque to us gringos. For Iraqis, since the time of the Sumerians, Iraq is, and always has been a dangerous place and has seen dozens upon dozens of great powers come and go. To ally oneself with the Americans, in the end, is suicidal. We will be gone in an what will be an instant in their terms, even if we stay 110 years and trust me, every Iraqi knows that in their very marrow.
Overlaying this basic fact with talk of liberal democracy, western style freedoms, political equality puts us in the same position Nately found himself in arguing with the old man in the whorehouse in Catch 22, only worse.
We have gotten ourselves into the role of Sisyphus pushing a stone up a hill only to lose grip of it just before we reach the top. We will find ourselves in the same position in 5 or 10 years. This is not a game of basketball. It is not about scoring points.
We have sent our armed forces into a battle they cannot possible win because a military victory is not attainable. I do not want to occupy Iraq for another moment and that is what we are doing, Occupying Iraq. We are not building anything
It is not our problem. We are not the international midwife to freedom and democracy and if we continue to entertain these notions we will suffer terribly for it, as we already have, in terms of our standing in the world, the strengthening of our enemies and the weakening of our economy, to name a few..
This is not right versus left, liberal vs. conservative; this is madness vs. sanity, stupidity versus discernment. What the freaking hell are we supposed to be getting out of this never ending occupation? What is the God damn exit strategy or are we committing to a deal we cannot walk away from. Which, by the way, is the absolute worse thing that you can do in business.
How long does it take to realize that this administration has not the slightest idea as to what they are doing. They have no plan. They have no compelling secret which we are not privy to which explains why they have acted the way they have, nor have they given any coherent explanation as to why they have acted in direct the suggestions of those wise men in their own party who have advised and even pleaded with them, first not to get involved in an occupation and, when they did, to negotiate their way our of it.
Maliki, Sadr, Sistani, in the end, they see us the same. We are the Gringos, nothing more, nothing less. We are to be manipulated, nothing more, nothing less. They will fight one another, make deals with one another, kill one another, support one another, changing their tack one day to the next and we will never really have any idea why. Suffice to say it is their country and that is the way they do things there. It is their prerogative.
Pick a winner and support them. If they don’t win, support whoever does. We are not going to change the rules, even a little, no matter what. And, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that they will play by our rules, which makes Mark Buehner’s comments so unrealistic to me
Mark B, most of your round-up link eventually resolves to (unconfirmed) claims of the Maliki government through its authorized spokesmen. Perhaps that’s why the MSM hasn’t covered it yet. An exception is the enrollment of more men in the Iraqi Army. Juan Cole says that this is simply an absorption of the Badr Organization militia by the official Army. Not a great sign, I would think.
The Pentagon also seems to have missed Mr Roggio’s Good News. McClatchy News reports:
_”Mark B, most of your round-up link eventually resolves to (unconfirmed) claims of the Maliki government through its authorized spokesmen. Perhaps that’s why the MSM hasn’t covered it yet.”_
AP, Reuters… yeah, real pro-Maliki propaganda. I wonder who doctored up that picture of Iraqi troops directing traffic in Hayaniyah?
_”Juan Cole says that this is simply an absorption of the Badr Organization militia by the official Army.”_
Amazing how he divines that from his cozy office at Michigan. Almost like he’s making an assumption.
_The Pentagon also seems to have missed Mr Roggio’s Good News_”
Fortunately General Petreaus is running this war now, and not the careerists at the Pentagon. The soldiers on the ground have a different picture of things:
_”The effect was that Moqtada al Sadr got to make a point, Maliki demonstrated his resolve, the Iraqi Army and Police showed themselves to be capable and professional, and there’s a sense of a better day coming in Basrah. Without the strong response of the central Government, the militia-led uprising could have very easily led to further lawlessness, mayhem, and devastation.”_
via “Instapundit”:http://instapundit.com/archives2/017288.php#017288
_””Overall the majority of the Iraqi security forces performed their mission though some were not up to the task,” Bergner said at a news conference. “_
“AP”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=AhlrNiYVQnC6D_jcDntLyy5X6GMA – this one has some more of the unrealiable propoganda of Iraqi forces clearing insurgent heavy neighborhoods in Basra.
So next week, we will be able to evaluate the operation by how many gunment have surrendered their weapons, right? Any bets? We all know it isn’t going to happen, and the demonstration will have been for naught.
_”We all know it isn’t going to happen, and the demonstration will have been for naught. “_
Only in your mind Andrew. Government forces in Basra when they didnt exist there a week ago mean something important. I guess that needs to keep being repeated. This idea that somehow in 1 week the Iraqi Army was supposed to completely disarm the most powerful militia in Iraq is a fantasy.
Well, disarming the militia in one week (actually, that’s already an extension) is just exactly the announced demand of the Iraq/Maliki government. One that they reiterated in the very article you yourself rely upon. No, it won’t happen, nor anything close to it. So even in advance of the deadline you knock down the goalpost.
Sharpening up a couple of observations made already but apparently missed
1. For a long while this site published or linked to “Good News from Iraq”. Would someone who relied on the info presented there have predicted that, five years after the invasion, there would still be 150 000 US troops in Iraq, and the situation would be too dangerous to allow any substantial reduction. The unwillingness of people here to believe bad news is truly stunning.
2. “Shifting factions”. Defeats for Sadr are presented here as unequivocally good, but for all any of us know, he may emerge from the next policy repositioning as the heroic representative of Iraqi democracy, fighting the renegade Maliki (compare Chalabi, Sistani, SCIRI/ISCI, the “Sunni Awakening” aka Baathist insurgents etc etc).
bq. The unwillingness of people here to believe bad news is truly stunning.
Objection — “facts not in evidence”. Your claim of knowledge of state of mind of others is questionable, though polemically consistent.
Let me see if I understand where you are coming from. This is me attempting to deep-read your position, without having read any of your work outside this thread. I intend no offense; I’m not trolling: if I get this wrong please correct me.
bq. [NM thinks: What you seem to want is for everyone to agree that your view is unquestionably correct. I would guess (not meaning to mind-read) you’re tired of people not just all agreeing with you.]
bq. [NM thinks: “Believing bad news”, here, is just about the same as acknowledging things that you think are beyond doubt, no? The Iraq effort is inappropriate and/or doomed, and the consequences of saying so — picking up our marbles and going home — are easily calculated as guaranteed less bad than any other alternative.]
Have I got that about right?
There is principled ground other than that which you are standing on. Even if the suboptimality of the current state of things is evident there, too.
Carry on. 🙂
_Pick a winner and support them. If they don’t win, support whoever does. We are not going to change the rules, even a little, no matter what. And, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that they will play by our rules_
Those first two sentences look like a very good definition of victory to me. I never bought into the insane notion that the Iraqis (or anyone else in the ME) are capable of democracy. They simply don’t have the cultural or historical wherewithal for it. Where I disagree with TOC is that that doesn’t mean the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, just that it was conducted badly because of a mistaken view of the universality of civilized values. The invasion of Iraq was punitive (see Tom Friedman’s “Because we Could”). It would have been over by now had we simply set up a Saddam lite and gotten the hell out. We could still do that by following TOC’s advice above. If we leave behind an Iraq that is relatively stable (and in the ME that means under the control of a strongman brutal enough to keep order) and that is if not our ally, at least not our enemy, that’s victory. For me, that’s _always_ been victory. Not some pie-in-the-sky notion of Middle Eastern democracy, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
The unwillingness of people here to believe bad news is truly stunning.
Hmmm. Maybe that ought to be:
The willingness of people here to believe bad news is truly stunning.
And regarding that latter statement, you can add, “invent bad news,” “create bad news,” “embellish and make up bad news.” As well as the real kicker: “ignore the news entirely when it isn’t bad enough.”
That is, when it’s too good.
Yes, all this has become a moral perogative. The moral imperative.
Not to worry, though. We’re used to it. We expect it. Some of us even look forward to it for our daily laughs, shake our heads and say (occasionally with admiration), “There they go, they’ve done it again!”
In fact, I’ll wager you that the one and only reason there’s been so much media coverage of the latest fighting in Basra is because the media believes, wants to believe, sorely wants to believe, that it’s a victory for al-Sadr and his Iranian buddies, and a defeat for Maliki, for the US, for Bush, for the neocons. Etc.
Tell you what. Here’s some really bad news.
You willing to believe it?…..
_”Well, disarming the militia in one week (actually, that’s already an extension) is just exactly the announced demand of the Iraq/Maliki government. “_
I agree, and that hurt Maliki’s personal credibility. But Maliki does not equal the sovereign state of Iraq, and as I keep saying, the situation on the ground is measurably more favorable today for Iraq as a viable entity than it was a week ago. And i havent even seen an _argument_ extended to rebut that, aside from vague assurances that Sadr is now somehow more powerful than he was.
_”Shifting factions”. Defeats for Sadr are presented here as unequivocally good, but for all any of us know, he may emerge from the next policy repositioning as the heroic representative of Iraqi democracy, fighting the renegade Maliki”_
Equating the soveriegn, democratically elected state of Iraq with a ‘faction’ is the problem here. A viable state can’t have its major cities and ports run by armed militias. Thats the entire point here. Personality politics in Iraq are A.Impossible for us to read from here and B.immaterial. The reality on the ground is what we CAN read. The rest is illusory, or at best speculative.
Not really. Browsing the source blog, the author worked, pro bono, with the de-Baathification commission, which was a Chalabi maneuver to eliminate rivals and now seen as a mistake. Elsewhere he writes
and he’s at the Hudson Institute, a neocn affiliate. That’s not an isolated quote, either.
You’ll have to excuse me, but whatever sort of agent this man is, I don’t trust his analysis one bit.
The Iraq blunder is, sadly, not much more than a case of Innocents Abroad. We lack good intelligence, have no discernible strategy, will not deploy the force necessary to execute the tactics that would be necessary if we did have a strategy. The logistics seem to be up to snuff, but I don’t think a .250 batting average is enough to get the job done. As far as the political leadership is concerned, I doubt that nay of these guys would land a spot on a rookie league squad.
Squabbling over who said what today and whether this guy is just a shill for this or that group, etc., in the case of Iraq is like trying to determine what year it is by looking at the second hand on a clock.
The release of the Cheney Memo yesterday only adds a more sordid aspect to this administration’s utter ineptitude.
#52 from Mark Buehner at 2:12 pm on Apr 03, 2008
*Equating the soveriegn, democratically elected state of Iraq with a ‘faction’ is the problem here.*
This statement is absolutely ridiculous and it underscores the weakness in everything you have been saying. You talk about Iraq like it was Switzerland. It is not and it won’t be no matter how many times you say it is. Maliki heads a faction, his faction survives with being able to shift with the wind, which is fine, gussying it up with high faluting terms is not going to change that
Mark, it is an occupied country. The government is no more sovereign than the deals that it can make with anybody who is trying to stir up trouble. Sadr, Iran, the U.S., you name it.
*A viable state can’t have its major cities and ports run by armed militias.*
Agreed. Iraq hasn’t been a viable state since the fall of Saddam. I do not like that but it is true.
*Thats the entire point here. Personality politics in Iraq are A.Impossible for us to read*
True
*and B.immaterial.*
Could not be more false
*The reality on the ground is what we CAN read. The rest is illusory, or at best speculative.*
Have you ever gone snipe hunting?
TOC, lets just take it as a given that you believe Arabs metaphysically incapable of establishing a democracy. It will save us from having to talk to each other.
“You willing to believe it?…..”
I always trust blogs where I see a lot of bold in semi random places.
I see your Talisman Gate and raise you a “Max Boot”:http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Maliki-s-Missteps-11289 and an “American Enterprise Institute”:http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27741,filter.all/pub_detail.asp .
Who wants next in the “I can find anything to support my viewpoint, or point to yours as colored by background?”
_Not to worry, though. We’re used to it. We expect it. Some of us even look forward to it for our daily laughs, shake our heads and say (occasionally with admiration), There they go, they’ve done it again!_
Yeah, it goes hand in hand with “why are they talking about rebuilding a well again when 29 people just died in an explosion, and 13 bodies were discovered executed in a field?”.
And we didn’t look to it for our daily laughs, as so many people were living in chaos and dying, only to be confronted with the latest school rebuild. But with sadness, at people who were so determined to see the good they skipped right on past the bad, ignoring completely what would happen long term. Perhaps 2006 wouldn’t have been so bad if a change in focus happened earlier – but no, that would have required recognizing something was wrong.
Thankfully, life gas gotten better in the last year or so, and we’ve started to focus on real good news.
My best 3 points of good news in the last year and a half? Rumsfeld leaving, Ramadi joining us, and less death overall(even though 2007 was our deadliest year, I believe). Hopefully a good election, and continued trending as we withdraw some troops will join it this year.
“‘Equating the soveriegn, democratically elected state of Iraq with a ‘faction’ is the problem here.”
Sigh. If you’d followed the history you’d know that Maliki was imposed by the US Administration and the Sadrists, because Jaafari, the PM who emerged from the election, was unacceptable to the US, and Maliki was the only alternative the Sadrists would accept. If the US and Sadr had lined up together at that time, he could have put one of his own team in as PM. They didn’t then, but they might do so tomorrow.
It’s unsurprising that the war goes so badly when war supporters don’t have a clue what is going on (and this site is among the best on the prowar side – the average pro-war type, like McCain, thinks Iran is Sunni).
Not I hasten to add, that less extreme ignorance on the pro-war side from the outset would have produced a good outcome from the invasion. Less extreme ignorance would have produced the conclusion that going to war was a bad idea, a conclusion demonstrated in the five bloody years we’ve been through and the many more that lie ahead.
This is a mere derivative of a deeper belief: Dictatorship (so long as it is anti-American and therefore “authentic”) is morally superior to democracy. The authoritarian regimes aligned against the US and Israel are equated with peace and stability; democracy is equated with war. Dictatorship is the natural expression of genuine humanity; democracy is ignorance and delusion, because it does not understand – as the leftists and “true conservatives” do – that humanity hates everything associated with America worse than it loves life itself.
They take it for granted that everything we do is calculated to imperialize the rest of the world, and they disingenuously give us advice on how to do it better.
_”Sigh. If you’d followed the history you’d know that Maliki was imposed by the US Administration and the Sadrists, because Jaafari, the PM who emerged from the election, was unacceptable to the US, and Maliki was the only alternative the Sadrists would accept.”_
John, let us know if your tinfoil supply runs low.
Here is a pretty well sourced wiki “primer”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Iraq_from_2006Government_of_Iraq_from_2006 if you ever want to start living in the real world. Notice the dearth of ‘USA’ splattered all over it.
Jaafari was unnacceptable to the Kurds and Sunni and had been elected by a single vote by the UIA. Sistani himself stepped in to call for a negotiated settlement, which ended in Maliki. The US had nothing to do with it.
_”HOPES that a government of national unity could quickly defuse conflict between Iraq’s ethnic groups and prepare the way for the early withdrawal of US troops were shaken yesterday after Kurdish and Sunni politicians rejected the majority Shia bloc’s choice of prime minister.”_ “link”:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18341313-601,00.html
On the other hand:
_”The Iraqi newspaper, Al-Sharq al-Awsat, claimed that Iran had exerted pressure on the Alliance to choose Jafaari, and the Sadr Movement threatened violence if Abdul Mahdi was chosen.”_ “wiki”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Iraq_from_2006
“The US had nothing to do with it.”
Not according to “the BBC”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4868052.stm or “NYT”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4868052.stm and many others you could easily have found, and probably did.
Obviously, there is no value in further engagement here.
[URL formatting altered to more closely conform to WoC guidelines. –NM]
1.Learn to use the HTML tags
2.You’ve proved the US supported Jaafari stepping down… _after_ his selection led to a complete stalemate of the Iraqi government and nearly dissolved parliment. Just as any number of Sunni, Kurds, and Shiia supported Jaafari stepping down.
Via your own link:
_”Other sources within the alliance said as many four of the blocs within the grouping wanted Mr Jaafari to stand down if he could not gain Sunni and Kurdish support._
_”Daoud’s call is supported by at least 60% of alliance members of parliament,” a senior alliance official told Reuters._
3.Bye.
#56 from Mark Buehner at 8:59 pm on Apr 03, 2008
TOC, lets just take it as a given that you believe Arabs metaphysically incapable of establishing a democracy. It will save us from having to talk to each other.
Mark, this is you usual response. It does not work with me. It has nothing to do with arabs. It has to do with a deep seeded culture and way of dealing with things that has grown up over centuries.
Our system has grown up over 800 years since the magna carta, it comes through roman and engliah common law, a war of independence a civil war,trade guilds and other semi democratic institutions.
You make up some uninformed cock and bull story and try to pass it off as some understanding of the situation in Iraq. Then accuse me of racism.
Give it up. It only makes you look foolish
#59 from Glen Wishard at 12:24 am on Apr 04, 2008
_TOC, lets just take it as a given that you believe Arabs metaphysically incapable of establishing a democracy.
This is a mere derivative of a deeper belief: Dictatorship (so long as it is anti-American and therefore “authentic”) is morally superior to democracy._
I would be insulted by this statement Glenn, if it weren’t so pathetic. Not only that it is based on a claim that I believe something I do not. If this is the best you can do in defending your position, you should save your breath.
_The authoritarian regimes aligned against the US and Israel are equated with peace and stability; democracy is equated with war._
What the hell does this have to do with anything I have said. Are you talking to yourself or to somebody else.
_Dictatorship is the natural expression of genuine humanity; democracy is ignorance and delusion, because it does not understand – as the leftists and “true conservatives” do – that humanity hates everything associated with America worse than it loves life itself._
What are you talking about?
_They take it for granted that everything we do is calculated to imperialize the rest of the world, and they disingenuously give us advice on how to do it better._
Jeez, Glenn, if you keep this up you can run for office.
Get a grip.
[Duplicate post. Removed. –NM]
_”Mark, this is you usual response. It does not work with me. It has nothing to do with arabs. It has to do with a deep seeded culture and way of dealing with things that has grown up over centuries.”_
Err.. arent deep seated culture and ways of dealing with things that has grown up over centuries WHAT MAKES THEM ARABS?
Btw, do you support these ludicrious attempts at democracy in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, India? The Ukraine? Mongolia!?
You tell me where these 800+ years of blah blah blah come in.
I dont know if you’re a racist and i dont care. Your words tell me enough about your ideas- that cultures are doomed to their pasts. Needless to say it flies in the face of a dozen examples completely to the contrary of peoples with thousands of years of horrifying tyranny behind them coming to democracy in a generation.
And all that is fine- why i find your beliefs _despicable_ is that you propose we treat these people in this abominable way and self-fufill you prophesy (as granted we have done plenty in the past). So yes, every fibre of what i believe in rebels against your thoughts on the matter.. from my beliefs as a Christian to my beleifs as an American and a traditional liberal. I won’t bore the audience with the myriad other dispicable movements that have embraced your worldview- but the one that pops to mind instantly is how African Americans were judged to be unready for freedom, much less democracy of education. I abhor everything you are saying.
#66 from Mark Buehner at 2:15 am on Apr 04, 2008
“Mark, this is you usual response. It does not work with me. It has nothing to do with arabs. It has to do with a deep seeded culture and way of dealing with things that has grown up over centuries.”
Err.. arent deep seated culture and ways of dealing with things that has grown up over centuries WHAT MAKES THEM ARABS?
Btw, do you support these ludicrious attempts at democracy in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, India? The Ukraine? Mongolia!?
*Mark we are talking about Iraq. Every place is not the same if you haven’t noticed. Try to stay more on topic and less on the soapbox*
You tell me where these 800+ years of blah blah blah come in.
*You have at least heard of the Magna Carta, no? The establishment of the British parliment the Glorious revolution, the Charter Oak, John Peter Zenger, the Declaration of Independence, The constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th and 14th Amendments. I could co on, but even you might see that our present Freedoms were not built up over night and they were not imposed on us by a bunch of well meaning Iraqis. I have always taken this stuff as bleeding heart liberalism, but I guess times have changed and people who call themselves conservatives are emoting as well. I don’t mind that in private but when it is damaging my country, I cannot help but take offense.*
I dont know if you’re a racist and i dont care. Your words tell me enough about your ideas- that cultures are doomed to their pasts. Needless to say it flies in the face of a dozen examples completely to the contrary of peoples with thousands of years of horrifying tyranny behind them coming to democracy in a generation.
We are talking about Geostrategic Policy, this sort of mawkish, saccharine speechifying is best left to bridge clubs.
And all that is fine- why i find your beliefs despicable is that you propose we treat these people in this abominable way and self-fufill you prophesy (as granted we have done plenty in the past).
_I am willing to help anyone that we can. I am not willing to tilt at windmills at the expense of position in the world or waste our energies. There is no democracy in Somalis, should we go back, how about north Korea?_
So yes, every fibre of what i believe in rebels against your thoughts on the matter.
_fiber of your being? why not come up with an argument rather than a slogan_
from my beliefs as a Christian to my beleifs as an American and a traditional liberal.
_Throw the Christian sink at me. You are really getting desperate. Stop hiding behind you faith. As a Christian and an American I really resent this sort of stuff being thrown into a political debate. It won’t work with me.
I won’t bore the audience
_That is just it Mark, you are playing to an audience, not debating._
with the myriad other dispicable movements that have embraced your worldview-
_but the one that pops to mind instantly is how African Americans were judged to be unready for freedom, much less democracy of education. I abhor everything you are saying._
We won the Civil War Mark. We decided that we would solve our own problems. That does not mean we have to solve everyone else’s
I don’t like how this thread is going, because there are too many insults and ad hominems combined with implications or assertions that other people are speaking in bad faith. Plain, literal, un-sarcastic statements of what people think and why are better.
#41 from TOC – everything you say about us being “gringos” might be true, and it still might also be true that Moqtada Al-Sadr made a mess of this clash of arms.
You are just insulting people with no basis. It’s boring and unimpressive.
#47 from John Quiggin:
“Good News from Iraq” was legitimate information. It was possible to take account of that news then, and independently of that think that the prospects for the war were bad or good.
It is equally possible now to think that the value of the war effort in Iraq is great or small, and independently of that think that Moqtada Al-Sadr had a good or bad week at the office.
To frame the habit of looking at each piece of alleged good or bad news that comes in independently and in a detached way as denial, as bad faith, is unreasonable and an ad hominem.
#49 from Fred:
Wouldn’t “mistaken” be better than “insane” here? I think Bernard Lewis has proven badly wrong about what he thought was possible, but he’s not my idea of a lunatic.
(Also, nit-pick: Israel is in the Middle East. I think the main problem is Islam, and Arab culture is also a serious negative. It’s not the physical geography of the Middle East that causes the folks there to thirst for the blood of Jews and sundry kuffers.)
#54 from TOC:
More of spleen and distraction.
#55 from TOC:
… and my eyes glaze over.
No. And I don’t think anyone needs to, to discuss Basra.
#56 from Mark Buehner:
He didn’t say that. (Ralph Peters is the one who thinks that.)
And it wouldn’t matter if he did. The problem isn’t that we have different views. The thing that’s tainted the quality of this and other threads is bad manners: insults and ad hominems, splenetic, vacuous emphasis, and tearing down others while misstating their views, and worse of all habitual side-shots and implied slurs that would take far more time to sort out than they are worth.
#58 from John Quiggin:
Yeah, sigh. The patronizing snark gets boring fast – and stays that way, and stays that way, and stays that way…
#59 from Glen Wishard:
Glen, in this case you are loading up TOC with a hostile expression of a view he didn’t express, built on top of another view foisted on TOC without his ever having clearly expressed it, because TOC never took enough time off his snark to commit to and clearly defend in neutral language any opinion.
If anything, I’m the one here that will say plainly that I doubt the value of Muslim democracy and the worth of our mission to support it. That means that on content, I’m probably nearer to TOC than to people who still firmly believe in the cause for which America is fighting in Iraq.
I’m sure my own view doesn’t derive from the assumptions you are offering TOC.
This thread has become stupid. And it’s become stupid because are responding with deep or lofty or silly speculations about ideas to sheer bad manners.
At some point persistent windy incivility has the bad effect on the conversation of outright trolling, and even if the ranters aren’t actually trolls, the old guideline applies anyway: Don’t feed the troll!
Thanks David. I apologize for my part, although i stand by everything i said. TOC and i have fundamental disagreements that make rational discussions difficult if not impossible, i see no reason to engage him further on concepts that are built upon those fundamentals. It only serves to add noise.
David:
I was imputing a viewpoint not to TOC personally, but to a culture of “empire” shriekers in general. If the ugly shoe fits one may wear it – or rather, indignantly deny that one is wearing it.
As for expression, I expressed it far more tactfully than the honest ones among them would express it themselves.
That said, the imputation stands. If ever a thread goes by without hearing the praises of the beatified Saddam, I might almost be tempted to reconsider it.
Mark Buehner, fair enough.
And no apology to me was needed. I’ve always found you more than gracious. Plus which, I appreciate your habit of advancing substantial arguments.
Glen, Not metaphysically incapable, culturally incapable. As for the examples of non-western democracies: Yes Japan became a democracy. After it was crushed beyond recognition and had a democratic constitution forced on it. Is that what you have in mind for Iraq? Yes South Korea became a democracy, but was a dictatorship for decades after the Korean war. Only under our protection did it develop into a democracy and it took more than thirty years. That might happen in Iraq, but the cultures in Iraq and South Korea (as well as Japan) are radically different. Most of the so-called “democracies” in Central and South America that sprung up in the 1980s and 90s are really semi-authoritarian regimes that used the forms of democracy as a fig leaf for rather traditional authoritarianism. And that region is backsliding even from the degree to which it did democratize (does the name Hugo Chavez mean anything to you?) In Africa “democracy” was a way of legitimating the (usually brutal) rule of whatever tribe happened to be most numerous in a particular country (see Kenya). And the Middle East (except for Israel, thanks for pointing out that oversight DB. Although it supports my point. Israel has a pretty much Western culture) never even democratized to the degree that South America and Africa did. So you can point your finger and yell, RACIST! if you want to. That doesn’t change the fact that Iraqis and other Arabs, Persians, and “Stanis”
are extremely bad candidates for democracy. They may become better candidates someday, but I doubt that will be in the lifetime of anyone living now.
_”After it was crushed beyond recognition and had a democratic constitution forced on it. Is that what you have in mind for Iraq?”_
Sounds remarkably similar to what has happened to Iraq already. You can’t very well argue that every nation is different in the ways they came to democracy… but also argue that Iraq will certainly fail because its not identical to Japan or Korea. Hell, you just proved SK cant be a democracy because it evolved radically differently than Japan.
The point is that subscribing to your mindset we _never would have allowed or encouraged democracy in those places in the first place._ There was no template for democracy vis-a-vis Japan. I’m sure there were people making the same argument about Japans culture and history in 1947, and had they won it would be a very different Asia today. And Japan was worse- they didnt have a Japan to point to as a success story.
There is no obvious thread that links all the nations that democracy has taken root in (certainly not 800 years of English Common Law, I doubt Chilians or Romanians subscribe much to it). It is far more complicated than that.
#73 from Mark Buehner at 3:00 pm on Apr 04, 2008
“After it was crushed beyond recognition and had a democratic constitution forced on it. Is that what you have in mind for Iraq?”
*Sounds remarkably similar to what has happened to Iraq already.*
Iraqi cities did not experience years of conventional carpet bombing, including massive incendiary attacks. Nor did they lose two entire cities to nuclear bombs. What happened to Iraq is not similar to what happened to Japan, unless one considers a flesh wound caused by a .22 and a direct hist by a 500 lb. JDAM remarkable similar.
*You can’t very well argue that every nation is different in the ways they came to democracy… but also argue that Iraq will certainly fail because its not identical to Japan or Korea.*
No one is arguing that. So, the following does not speak to the point that is being made, nor are you pointing out any inconsistency in Fred’s argument
*Hell, you just proved SK cant be a democracy because it evolved radically differently than Japan.*
*The point is that subscribing to your mindset we never would have allowed or encouraged democracy in those places in the first place.*
What mindset do you mean? You have misconstrued Fred’s statements, so if it is the mindset demonstrated in those statements, it follows that you do not understand his mindset. I also think extrapolating “mindsets” from brief statements is a stretch at best and baiting at worst.
*There was no template for democracy vis-a-vis Japan. I’m sure there were people making the same argument about Japans culture and history in 1947, and had they won it would be a very different Asia today. And Japan was worse- they didnt have a Japan to point to as a success story.*
We shoved our political mindsets down the Japanese throats. we had their emporer renounce his godhood. We occupied the country for decades after so utterly vanquishing them there was barely any resistance. Are you suggesting we do the same in Iraq?
*There is no obvious thread that links all the nations that democracy has taken root in (certainly not 800 years of English Common Law.)*
You would doing yourself a service by researching this a bit further. The events I spoke about are the foundation for modern democracy, parliamentary systems, constitutional monarchies, etc.,throughout the world, including Japan, Korea, Chile and anywhere else you might name
An interesting factoid for those still flogging the “Sadr is just a tool of the Iranians” line: via “Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal”:http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/04/round-and-round.html?cid=109405498
Money graf:
bq The Badr Organization is the military arm of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI previously known as SCIRI). Now ISCI is closely aligned with Maliki government and is arguably the most significant player in the current central government. In fact significant elements of the Badr Organization have been incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces.
Now, here is where things start to break down. The Badr Organization (Originally called the Badr Brigades) was originally formed by Iran. But according to Ware many of its members were considered to be part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. And many of them are now considered to be retirees of the IRGC. Which means…wait for it… wait for it…
They still get pensions from the IRGC!! But it gets better. The Bush Administration has classified the IRGC as a terrorist organization!!
So, just so that we’re clear on this. We are building an army full of people who are still getting pension payments from an organization that the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization. And we are basing our entire future in Iraq on that army.
(h/t “American Footprints”:http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/3977#comment-18279 )
[Corrected formatting of link to suit Movable Type’s limitations. –NM]
#75 from Jay C at 11:26 pm on Apr 04, 2008
Excellent post. Yet we are told
*”Equating the soveriegn, democratically elected state of Iraq with a ‘faction’ is the problem here.”*
Jay C. –
Interesting factoid indeed, but pretty weak soup. And the conclusion “We are building an army full of people who are still getting pension payments from an organization that the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization” is a sure indication that somebody needs to check their logic for fecal contamination.
There are former Baathists all over the government and the army, too, that doesn’t mean we’re building a new Baathist regime.
@ # 77:
So Glen, does your comment mean that you _don’t_ believe (counter to virtually everything I have been reading about Iraq for about four or five years now) that the Maliki Government/ISCI/Badr Corps have any Iranian connections? Or that said connections aren’t, somehow relevant?
@ # 75: Thanks, NM, for format help.
Jay C. –
I’m sure there are a lot of people in the Iraqi government and security forces who have some ties to Iran, some even more impressive than the one being claimed here. And some with connections to Hamas and Hisb’allah, too.
The idea that this makes the government of Iraq no different from Sadr is ridiculous, as I said. Not “somehow not relevant” but bloody silly.
Democratic power-sharing and compromise, and the need to make tactical alliances in a nation in conflict, prevent Iraq from being governed entirely by persons of undisputed character and background. I suppose our own political parties must be allowed similar excuses. And the United Nations is of course above criticism.
Once again I note that Iraq, the only nascent democracy in the Arab world, is the only one that has to pass such credential tests. The fascists and ayatollahs get Valentine cards.
The Iranian ayatollahs aren’t Arabs.
On what metric is Iraqi democracy outperforming Lebanese?
Yes, Andrew, the metaphor is imperfect.
*prevent Iraq from being governed entirely by persons of undisputed character and background.*
Why do we need people of undisputed character and background? why do we need to impose democracy on Iraq? Again, are we bleeding hearts. Back a faction, whether Maliki or anyone else. It is not our job to sort out other people’s problems.
We live 8,000 miles away and everyone in Iraq knows that. We will be gone and they will settle things among themselves. Find a winner and back that faction. this is geopolitical strategy 101. Stop worrying about being the good guys.
Hmm. Actual reports on the reaction of the Iraqi parliment are starting to come in. As opposed to the idle speculation fed to us by the media to date:
_”Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s faltering crackdown on Shiite militants has won the backing of Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that fear both the powerful sectarian militias and the effects of failure on Iraq’s fragile government.”_
“_The emergence of a common cause could help bridge Iraq’s political rifts.”_
…
_”More significantly, Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi signed off on a statement by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and the Shiite vice president, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, expressing support for the crackdown in the oil-rich southern city of Basra.”_
…
“_The council also affirmed its support for al-Maliki’s campaign against militias and “outlaws.”_
_”I think the government is now enjoying the support of most political groups because it has adopted a correct approach to the militia problem,” said Hussein al-Falluji, a lawmaker from parliament’s largest Sunni Arab bloc, the three-party Iraqi Accordance Front. Al-Hashemi heads one of the three, the Iraqi Islamic Party.”_
…
_”I think the events in Basra will help bridge the gap between the central government and Kurdistan authorities,” said Fouad Massoum, a senior Kurdish lawmaker.”_
…
_”Key council figures also want the crackdown to continue — even at the risk of a new round of fighting. “_
Via the “AP”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_boosting_al_maliki
PS- for anyone wondering the difference between a government and a faction, the above is it.
Mark B
GEt a grip. Your point about a soverign government controllong the application of violence is a valid point. The idea Maliki won is simply not plauisble. Try the Counterterrorism Blog articles dated April 2nd.
Maliki’s moves continues to raise the issue of what is the nation state of Iraq. I contend it is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East sans any recognizition of the religious/ethnic facts on the ground. The country has been a phony since the Turks left in 1919. A recognizition of this means we either have to come in(w/ a few serious fully equiped infantry/ armor divisions) to impose a Swiss confederation type nation state or a partition ala India in 1948 and us out. Both are messy. Both will leave Iran as the biggest kid on the block.
_”GEt a grip. Your point about a soverign government controllong the application of violence is a valid point. The idea Maliki won is simply not plauisble.”_
Arent these two ideas a bit of a paradox? Regardless, i’m less interested in Maliki’s victories than Iraq’s victories.
#85 from Robert M at 7:07 pm on Apr 06, 2008
Good analysis. The Neo-Con pipe dream vis-a-vis Iraq and the Middle East refuses to die. Nor does the very bizzare missionary fervor it appears to arouse in certain groups in the States.
This zombie lives on the powers that be ignoring history and selling the populace a Lone Ranger fantasy. Go it alone adverturism has not been a Republican trait since Teddy Roosevelt, nor have foreign crusades. Reagan left Lebanon on a moment’s notice and not a moment too soon. Lebanon then is comparable to Iraq in that a power vacuum came into existence and a factional free for all broke out, which by the way, lasted for 13 years, if one doesn´t count the Syrian occupation and the Hezbullah situation now.
Nevertheless, his administration still gets away with selling some people the delusion that just around the corner the lion will lie down with the lamb and people who have been at each others throats for 1400 years, as is the case with the Sunni and Shia, or double that plus, as is the case with the Kurds and the inhabitants of the Tigris-Euphrates valley, will any day now put aside their differences and embrace democracy, under American occupation.
What is the latest to back this up? A story about factions jockeying for position as the ruling faction has just suffered a humiliation. I would expect Maliki to be gone pretty soon. I also would not expect the Kurds to have much to do with the Sunni for a couple of generations.
At this point, I think our best course now would be to back the Sunni in the debacle to come and keep the Kurds happy. Let the Shia fracture and thereby weaken Iran in the process. Take off the velvet glove and support any Shia faction that will rule indirectly for us in the south and only if they can keep the oil flowing. I actually think we could get support for this in the region and from the major users of Gulf Oil, India, Japan, China and Europe.
Mark B
I do not see they evidence for Iraq’s victory. I see a return to “stability” behind a autocratic strong man ala Marcos, Noriega and others named Maliki. Even Petreaus and Crocker recognize that the government of Iraq is in name only not because of a sense legitimacy.
_”I do not see they evidence for Iraq’s victory. I see a return to “stability” behind a autocratic strong man ala Marcos, Noriega and others named Maliki.”_
Lets see if your opinion changes in November when the provincial elections take place. And next year when the national elections take place. How often are autocrats backed by democratic legislatures in a constitutional system?
You could ultimately be right, of course. But the idea that the Iraqi government _currently_ is a fascist state is a stretch. It would be far more efficient were that the case. The knock on this government is that it is too divided and fractuous to accomplish anything.
The old chestnut is that its the second election that counts. I suspect that will prove very true, especially as the Sunni fully participate next time. Democracy is a process, not an event.