Good point. The peace is always messy. But Libs today want easy answers and quick solutions, something they used to blame conservatives of.

Posted by: David at August 12, 2004 10:28 AM

America, 1942: We Can Do It

America, 2004: We Can Do It

I like that attitude. It sure beats the defeatist attitudes of most Democrats.

Posted by: Court at August 12, 2004 11:39 AM

Hmm. Well, from Slate today:

As I write, the Allawi government in Baghdad is trying, with American support, a version of an "iron fist" policy in the Shiite cities of the south. ("Like all weak governments," as Disraeli once said in another connection, "it resorts to strong measures.") Chalabi, who has spent much of this year in Najaf, thinks that this is extremely unwise. We shall be testing all these propositions, and more, as the months go by.

As the TCS article you link to pretty much says that there's absolutely no sense whatsoever in attempting to predict the political outcome of military action, then, as Hitch says, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Seems like a strange assertion, though.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 12:40 PM

DPU,

Hitch is the probably the last person in the world who backs Chalabi and listens to what he says. I'm pretty skeptical at this point. I love Hitch, but he's not quite convincing me here. Chalabi has every reason to be knee-jerk anti-Allawi at this point even if he does happen to be right.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 12, 2004 02:00 PM

Jim Hoagland's column in the WaPo today has a different spin on the al-Sadr takedown and the attacks on Chalabi. He thinks it signals that Allawi, working with the CIA and its Sunni Arab favorites (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia), are trying to prevent Shiite dominance. And that's why they're not going after Baathists and Fallujah. There might be something to that, but you could also make the case that Allawi is leveraging Iraqi nationalism to prevent Iranian, rather than just Shiite dominance (and that he can't solve all problems at once). Note also the Al-Jazeera reports (true or false, who knows?) about southern Iraq separatism. Perhaps Iran wants its own client state controlling the Shatt al-Arab. Hard to tell what's happening or where it's going.

Posted by: Joel at August 12, 2004 02:17 PM

Here's an interesting article on the al-Sadr takedown with a focus on Allawi setting things up for the elections.

The Americans have played along, or have been drawn into Allawi's plan. The most recent fighting, particularly in Najaf, between Iraqi government forces and American soldiers on the one hand and followers of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on the other appears to have not been started by the Sadrists, or at least by Sadr himself. Rather, from the available information, it seems it was the Iraqi government that saw an opportunity to finish with the odious Sadr once and for all.

Observers remarked, for example, that several senior Shiite clerics in Najaf, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, left the city before the fighting began. Sistani traveled to London, reportedly for health reasons, as the guest of the Khoei Foundation, which was headed by Abdel Majid al-Khoei, who last year was murdered very likely by Sadr's followers. The implication was that the clerics were warned to get out of town so the Sadrists could be pounded.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 02:37 PM

>>>"The implication was that the clerics were warned to get out of town so the Sadrists could be pounded."

I'm glad to hear that. It probably confirms that Sadr is a thorn in everybody's side, not just Allawi's.

Posted by: David at August 12, 2004 02:50 PM

It probably confirms that Sadr is a thorn in everybody's side, not just Allawi's.

And not too many people have said much different. Just a thorn that's difficult to pull without doing more damage than the thorn is doing.

I suspect that what will play out is Allawi will remove or neutralize potential opponents before the elections, and if elected and not blown up, institute a form of Ba'ath-lite as a way of running the country. Not quite the liberal western-style democracy that we're all hoping for, but possibly the best that can be done under difficult circumstances.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 02:58 PM

Regardless of the fact that we can't predict the outcome, Sadr has to go. If the principle is established that any minority with a grievance can take up arms and force the government to back down, the government has no control over its own nation. For the same reasons that it is wrong to pay off hostage takers, it is wrong to appease Sadr.

Posted by: Ben at August 12, 2004 03:01 PM

>>>"And not too many people have said much different."

double,

except for Michael Moore and his groupies. If you ask them, Al-Sadr is "the revolution" and some kind of minuteman. Sadr is a warlord, no more no less. Crush him.

What do you mean by "Baath-lite"? Are you referring to a one party system? Many countries have them, like Kenya for instance. They just voted in a new President.

Posted by: David at August 12, 2004 03:12 PM

What do you mean by "Baath-lite"?

A dictator with the trappings of democracy.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 03:22 PM

>>>"I suspect that what will play out is Allawi will remove or neutralize potential opponents before the elections, and if elected and not blown up, institute a form of Ba'ath-lite as a way of running the country."

double,

As long as we're speculating, Iraq could turn out to be a bastion of freedom in an ocean of fascism.

That was easy.

Posted by: David at August 12, 2004 03:32 PM

As long as we're speculating, Iraq could turn out to be a bastion of freedom in an ocean of fascism.

Predicting, not speculating. If I were speculating, I'd also make the "ocean of fascism" go away too.

Predictions are more entertaining, because you can make fun of me in a year's time if I'm wrong.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 03:47 PM

double,

just curious. Is your pessimism for Iraq born of some flaw you see in Arabs? a cultural inability to understand democracy perhaps?

Before Bush, if a conservative had said something like that he'd instantly be branded a racist by, well, you probably.

Posted by: David at August 12, 2004 04:19 PM

just curious. Is your pessimism for Iraq born of some flaw you see in Arabs?

When you see someone driving dangerously, are you pessimistic if you think that it may end in an accident?

a cultural inability to understand democracy perhaps?

I'm more concerned with the inability of some on this comment section to understand democracy. Liberal democracies require more than just giving people the right to vote. You need a general concensus among the population that this is a good thing, you need a level of stability, and you require leadership committed to it. In Iraq, you have a significan minority who are opposed to elections, whether because they support the previous government, or because that they will be politically marginalize, or because they're stupid, or because they believe in other forms of government. If the level of violence currenlty seen in Iraq were occurring in the US right now, do you think that elections would be possible? I don't.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 04:57 PM

DPU,

It is going to take time for Iraqis to figure out how this democracy thing works. It could not be any other way. It also takes a while for people to learn how to drive properly. I used to be a horrible driver when I was a kid, but I figured it out with help and practice.

We are in Iraq to help, and hopefully we can help long enough to give them a little practice, too.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 12, 2004 05:01 PM

Peace plans usually need some revision to fit reality. It would have been nice if this time we'd started with a plan we could modify.

If you're looking for peace with a sovereign nation as opposed to dominating a defeated enemy, the other guy gets a vote. You can't tell what plan will work until you find out what plan the other guy finds acceptable.

One problem for iraq is that they have a pyramidal income structure. Half the male population is illiterate and the average income is on the order of $500 a year. Lots of poor people, a smaller middle class, a much smaller group of rich people.

We collect a whole lot of our taxes from the middle class; our middle class is big enough for that to work. Iraq will have to tax their rich, which is a problem. They can get maybe $20 billion a year in oil revenues and they need at least another $10 billion.

Iraq needs a whole lot of jobs for illiterates, or else a mass literacy program. Those people have to be good for something besides militias.

Because we aren't allowed to let the country split up, their ethnic groups have to get along. Hard to say how much Saddam kept them mad at each other so he could stay on top, and how much he put a lid on it.

We have the problem of convincing them we aren't setting up a puppet government. That task would be easier if we weren't....

Posted by: J Thomas at August 12, 2004 05:35 PM

Regardless of the fact that we can't predict the outcome, Sadr has to go. If the principle is established that any minority with a grievance can take up arms and force the government to back down, the government has no control over its own nation.

But the Allawi regime doesn't have any control over its own nation. Its budget is pre-spent, its army and police are under american command, and (unless things go horribly wrong) in six months it will be replaced by an elected government.

Allawi has to scramble to maintain an illusion of sovereignty. Now he has a big problem. A solid 60% of the country disapproves of american tanks and airstrikes attacking their shrines. They disapprove of Sadr being there to be targeted, but they disapprove more of Allawi giving his OK for the attacks.

The various governors etc were chosen by the americans, and some of them have resigned over Najaf. The sunni Board of Muslim Clergy, has issued a fatwa that no iraqi muslim may help attack other iraqi muslims while supporting the occupying power. If the sunni police and army follow this, it will make them useless under american command.

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13&st=60
Unconfirmed reports in arabic with short english summary -- Allawi freezes Bremer's court warrants against Chalabi and "other shia figures". (Does that include Sadr?)

Allawi appointed Chalabi to deal with Najaf situation, Chalabi asked to dismiss the governor and police chief of Najaf.

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=204&st=30
Allawi denies that he agreed to Najaf attack.

Vice president Jaafari on Tuesday called for american withdrawal from Najaf. He's high in the al-Da'wa party, a large shi'ite group that's the oldest surviving party while the Ba'ath are disbanded.

This is like Fallujah. We get ready to kill a whole lot of people and blow things up and the iraqis don't want us to. Maybe we need to stop catering to the iraqis and just show them who's boss. After all this talk about sovereignty they're starting to get uppity. If we just kill enough of them they'll get the message that they'd better shut up and start being democratic, or else.

Posted by: J Thomas at August 12, 2004 06:23 PM

Steve's essay is excellent and I agree with him wholeheartedly on the substance. His history, however, is a little shaky. We surrendered quite a few freedoms to win World War II. Ever hear of rationing? Travel limitations? Internment of Japanese-Americans? There was censorship in the press, too.

Some but not all of the surrendered rights returned after the crisis was over. Automatic deduction of income tax and payroll tax from paychecks was originally a wartime measure. Previously the idea of the federal government knowing your salary was pretty much unthinkable (and I know about the Constitutional amendment—pre-war compliance was minimal).

So we did surrender some of what we are to win World War II and we will surrender some of what we are to win this war. My concern is that the longer it goes on the more we'll surrender.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at August 12, 2004 06:59 PM

'If we just kill enough of them they'll get the message that they'd better shut up and start being democratic, or else.'-- J Thomas

I must say that this seems rather crude and bloodthirsty to me, but since you seem to be a remarkably informed person,I will have to give this serious consideration. I don't know how this would work exactly but perhaps the Germans and the Japanese might be able to offer some useful insights.
Intersting citations offered in your post by the way.I had no idea that all those reliable anaylsts could be found exclusively on an Arabic chat site. Just shows that you learn something new every day.

Posted by: dougf at August 12, 2004 07:02 PM

MJT -

I'll just point out that the 'three points' mentioned in the TCS article represent the position I articulated on the previous thread.

Looks like the Najaf cemetery is in our hands, and the ING have about wrapped up the civic buildings formerly occupied by all those DEAD Sadr guys. The Ali mosque has been cordoned - and possibly taken - by ING guys.

Is the job done? Who knows? We can be back at it on a moment's notice with everything from riflemen to spookies, and we will if the need arises. As long as it takes.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 12, 2004 07:26 PM

Dougf, I marked the ones from the arabic blog as unconfirmed, didn't I? They tend to give a report in arabic with a short english summary, and the linked news report is also in arabic. I can't tell how reputable the source is or even what it's really saying. The other reports are pretty solid.

If you can read arabic you might check whether the reports say what they're claimed to say. You'd have to be familiar with the sources to guess how reliable they are.

I have to admit I was being a little bit sarcastic about killing them into democracy. Some other approach is likely to work better.

Posted by: J Thomas at August 12, 2004 07:44 PM

All I can say is that this better not turn out to be the Crushing of Al-Sadr(part 2).I am not at all encouraged by the story as described in the link below.
I will save the ranting until later when everything is clearer but -----

http://tinyurl.com/5czfm

Posted by: dougf at August 12, 2004 07:50 PM

"I have to admit I was being a little bit sarcastic about killing them into democracy. Some other approach is likely to work better" -JT

Uh,uh, give me a moment,I'm thinking.I know you were being sarcastic and I'm sure( in a PC kind of way)that you are right but events keep dragging me back to the sad and growing suspicion that just maybe plan B will begin to look very attractive at some point in the future especially if a BIG attack takes place in the US.

Posted by: dougf at August 12, 2004 08:01 PM

We are in Iraq to help, and hopefully we can help long enough to give them a little practice, too.

Well, good. I think fixing unemployment, the economy, providing education, and hopefully recreating Iraq's middle class will do the most toward reducing the number of violent insurgents, and creating fertile ground for the kind of democracy that we all hope will flourish there. But, as you say, it's going to take a long time. I hope the US taxpayer can continue to afford it.

Allawi is a scary dude to be running things, though. I think that democracy is lower in the list of goals for this administration than it used to be. I think they want another thug in power right now for the same reason that Hussein was previously tolerated. It's much simpler and cheaper.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 12, 2004 08:58 PM

Great article. Green describes exactly what has to be done to win this war. Too bad most of the Democrat Party, probably Kerry included, does not understand it. This of course is because the Dems abandoned American Exceptionalism in the 60s and never came back. We are going to have to wait for the Vietnam generation and the tenured America-haters in the universities to die off before the Democrats have ANY chance of regaining their sanity on foreign policy and defense. And with the enemy we are now facing, we simply cannot afford to flirt with their worldview. It could be fatal.

Just to add another plug if you don't mind, Victor Davis Hanson's latest piece also hits the nail on the head. A very worthy read, as usual.

Posted by: freeguy at August 12, 2004 11:43 PM

Nobody ever knows what the peace will look like. At Fort Sumter, who could have predicted the KKK, Jim Crow, or Radical Reconstruction? Who knew in August, 1914 that the European War would result in 20 million deaths, Russian Communism, or Nazi Germany?

If that's his excuse for being 100% wrong about Iraq, it's a piss-poor one, because what is happening now was exactly predicted, in advance, by the people best qualified to know.

And they were ignored.

Posted by: Mork at August 12, 2004 11:48 PM

Fine article, but I know what victory will "finally" look like. A World Without Dictators.
A goal the USA has been fighting for, or not, since WW I. And using the World Bank or IMF to support dictators/ kleptocrats is a BAD way to fight it.

Supporting construction of roads, and especially privately owned houses, is far better -- and less likely to have so much corruption. Private property, rule of law, enforcement of honest contracts; low taxes.

I don't believe so much the lack of an Iraqi middle class, but it could well be mostly Ba'athist, which might be even worse then missing. It's important, not well publicised info (I'm not looking for it, though).

More important is the form of democracy -- national party slates, or local constituencies. If it remains national party slates, Iraq is headed for a big 3-way split or forced, Tito like union.

In Western Civ, there is the fact that reality is never as nice as Unreal Perfection -- like what Mork seems to want without being honest about, for instance, those people "best qualified to know", who mostly insisted that Iraq should not undergo forced regime change.

Posted by: Tom Grey at August 13, 2004 03:11 AM

Dork: What was predicted before the war has no resembalence to what is going on right now.

Not that it will stop you from asserting such.

Posted by: Eric Blair at August 13, 2004 05:38 AM

"All I can say is that this better not turn out to be the Crushing of Al-Sadr(part 2).I am not at all encouraged by the story as described in the link below.
I will save the ranting until later when everything is clearer but -----"--dougf

Ok,that's it for me.The ranting need got the better of me. The news out of Iraq today is abysmal.Fanatics on one side and weaklings on ours.Like Popeye,I have had all I can stand and can stand no more.
My prediction is that Al-Sadr will waltz out of Najaf a 'hero of the people'and that more US troops will have died for NOTHING. AGAIN. Who cares what he agrees to in order to vamoose.He won't do it anyway and the next time will be the same old same old until he wears his opponents down.I do not easily panic,but there comes a time when you really have to tell it as it is.
This is becoming exactly like Vietnam whether we want to accept that fact or not.No overall game plan.Tactical indecision.Off limit targets.Over-riding political interference.No reliable and effective local allies.When the British took Iraq in the 1920's it was not by the softly ,softly route and Iraq is exactly what it was then.Nasty, brutish,insular,and largely illiterate.
If we were unwilling to finish off that revolting little would be tyrant,why oh why did we send troops into Najaf in the first place? I mean this is short term pain for nothing but long term pain. If the Iraqi government does not know its ass from a hole in the ground and can never summon up the fortitude or more importantly the resources to walk the talk,why are American marines paying the price all the time?
I usually prefer to be correct in hindsight but I predict this is a unqualified disaster and that we have just witnessed the effective end of the Iraq campaign.If it is not Al-Sadr it will be someone else next time and the time after that.Because we don't want to 'kill the enemy'(killing BAD),we are going to lose in Iraq.
Period.End of story.Now maybe losing in Iraq is no biggie,but if it is some serious questions about out leadership need to be answered SOON.Until then,we should withdraw the troops into secure bases and let the Iraqis sort things out in the manner they seem to prefer.Plan 'B' is looking better and better all the time.

Posted by: dougf at August 13, 2004 07:08 AM

Dougf,

I agree with you. when I read about Sadr's demands today and our "scaling back" I wanted to throw a chair.

Bush has managed to wrest defeat from victory and has waltzed into his critics' trap to create a Vietnam that was never there to begin with. A complete WASTE of our best and brightest.
I'm disgusted by this!
Michael, if you want to take out an ad in the WaPo that says "fight back or leave" I'll contribute, and many more will, too.

Posted by: Pj at August 13, 2004 08:04 AM

EB - What was predicted before the war has no resembalence to what is going on right now.

Really? How about this one:

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Seems kind of on-the-money to me. Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 13, 2004 08:15 AM

While "no plan survives" may be mostly true, it still helps to have a plan against which to employ alternatives as the situation progresses. It is clear,however, that there was no plan for the post war situation and realistic estimates on the number of troops necessary were there from the start of debate on going to war.

Posted by: alan aronson at August 13, 2004 08:34 AM

Dougf, don't be too discouraged. We're digging ourselves deeper into a hole and our iraqi supporters are trying to get us out. If we'd just listened to them earlier it wouldn't have started.

Posted by: J Thomas at August 13, 2004 09:06 AM

"We're digging ourselves deeper into a hole and our iraqi supporters are trying to get us out. If we'd just listened to them earlier it wouldn't have started"-- JT
With respect,this is meaningless.It answers none of my concerns and appears to represent the triumph of wishes over reality.To be more precise;how exactly are our Iraqi allies trying to get us out? Please advise in as much detail as you feel would clarify this contentious point.
If Al-Sadr does not end up DEAD along with his hoard of low class thugs,we have failed.How are our allies helping here?

Posted by: dougf at August 13, 2004 09:18 AM

If Al-Sadr does not end up DEAD along with his hoard of low class thugs,we have failed.How are our allies helping here?

Good post on Crooked Timber today about this:

According to this AP report in the NY Times, Moqtada al-Sadr has been wounded by US shelling in Najaf. Sadr is an irresponsible demagogue, his political agenda is reactionary and authoritarian and his militia has been guilty of many acts of thuggery and violence. And we should all wish for his complete and speedy recovery from his wounds.

Sadr would be far more dangerous dead than alive. As the grandson of an Iraqi prime minister and the son of a social activist, both of whom were murdered by Saddam Hussein, he would make the perfect martyr for a Shi’ite equivalent of Al Qaeda. If you wanted to supply the basis for a claim that Bush=Saddam, you could scarcely do better than martyring Sadr.

In the short term, his death would make it just about impossible for any Shi’ite leader to give support to the Allawi government1. Already, Ayatollah Sistani who has no love for Sadr, and would have been happy to see him pushed out of Najaf2, has called for a ceasefire. The attack was already criticised by Iraqi vice-president Jafari of the Dawa party, also a rival of Sadr, and there have been a number of resignations from less senior officials, not to mention widespread demonstrations.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 13, 2004 09:33 AM

Dougf, doubleplusungood laid some of it out.

Sadr is a direct descendent of Mohammed, he is not a good person to kill if we want not to be despised in iraq. Attacking him in public (as opposed to trying to assassinate him with nobody finding out who did it) is a bad idea. It's the triumph of wishes over reality.

Sadr is like the skunk at the picnic. Not a lot of fun to live with but not good to kill either.

Allawi realises this, Sistani realises it, jaafari does, we didn't listen.

At this point it would be hard for somebody who likes the USA to get elected dogcatcher in southern iraq. Maybe our friends can help dig us out. Allawi has put aside the bogus arrest warrants, and he can promise to truly let Sadr's party run in the elections. It doesn't have to matter how bad the US military looks since we'll be out of there pretty quick.

We can get out of this hole with a little help from our friends.

Posted by: J Thomas at August 13, 2004 09:46 AM

"Sadr would be far more dangerous dead than alive"--DPU
Is that why Saddam killed off all the other members of the family?He clearly thought otherwise and it is only because of us that he is not killing off the last and the least of the Sadrs as we speak.This martyr bit is way overdone.It is precisely this line of thought that is going to lead to absolute defeat.Way, way, way, too nuanced.
As another poster said on another site--- keep killing them off until they stop coming out.
Do you see Israel suffering after blowing away Hamas's leadership? I thought their deaths were going to unleash hell?I will take a dead martyr( or example depending on your point of view)to a man given more credibility by another of our PC failures.
In the ME, WEAKNESS always loses and nice guys always finish last( and usually below ground).

Posted by: dougf at August 13, 2004 09:48 AM

>>>"I know what victory will "finally" look like. A World Without Dictators."

Tom Grey,

I agree, which is why I support Bush's Iraq policy. But Mork (and other naysayers) seems to disagree with us.

Apparently, according to Mork, a "significant minority" of Iraqis don't want democracy; presumably they'd prefer another strongman, preferably of the theocratic variety, and according to Mork we should humour them. Do you agree with him?

Posted by: David at August 13, 2004 09:50 AM

correction: according to double plus good

Posted by: David at August 13, 2004 09:52 AM

"We can get out of this hole with a little help from our friends."-- JT
Since you say that we will out of Iraq soon anyway(It doesn't have to matter how bad the US military looks since we'll be out of there pretty quick),maybe we should just tell our 'friends'in Baghdad that when we leave there will be no room on the planes for them.I have a feeling that their attitudes might be somewhat different should it become clear that US troops are not going to be dying on their behalf any longer and that they must rely on the kindnesses of Al-Sadr and like minded fellow Iraqis.
They might be willing to 'crack a few more eggs' to make that omelette .

Posted by: dougf at August 13, 2004 10:01 AM

All good news is an excuse for triumphalism. All bad news is an excuse for defeatism. And with lots of news, both sets of armchair quarterbacks have a lot to argue about.

I suppose it's a good thing none of us commenters have any real responsibility.

Posted by: Jeff Licquia at August 13, 2004 10:03 AM

David, while I identified that a significant minority or Iraqis seem to be opposed to elections based on the media reports, I didn't say they should be humoured. I just said that it makes elections difficult or impossible. You made up the "humour" part. Perhaps the dialog here in the comments section is being shouted down by some inner dialog you're having?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 13, 2004 10:08 AM

>>>"I just said that it makes elections difficult or impossible."

double,

If this is all you meant, then it's you who's having a conversation with yourself. Nobody would, has or ever will deny elections/democracy is difficult.

So, if that was your point, my response is: and?

But I suspect you weren't merely making a "factual observation"; I suspect, rather, based on your track record (and also because you're Canadian) that you were impugning Bush's attempts to set up a workable democracy in Iraq as foolish.

Posted by: David at August 13, 2004 10:26 AM

But I suspect you weren't merely making a "factual observation"; I suspect, rather, based on your track record (and also because you're Canadian) that you were impugning Bush's attempts to set up a workable democracy in Iraq as foolish.

Huh? Because I'm Canadian? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

And yes, I think Bush's attempts to set up a working democracy in Iraq are pretty dumb. Especially because, in my opinion, your nation is at serious risk from attack by some brutally evil people, and instead of dealing with the greatest threat (nuclear proliferation among criminal states), Bush has you guys involved in a particularily sticky game of Calvinball in Iraq.

After the initial surprise over no WMD, the focus abruptly changed to the politically expedient "democratic lynchpin in the Middle East" as a rationale. A fine and noble sentiment, but that's gonna take years and years of military involvment, and there are other more pressing problems that are being ignored, like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

So yeah, I'm "impugning Bush's attempts to set up a workable democracy in Iraq". It's political showmanship at the cost of security, and I'm astonished that he still has as many supporters as he does.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 13, 2004 10:51 AM

double,

Agree to disagree then, but the free peoples of the world can thank their Creator that their fate was not in the hands of such as yourself.

Posted by: David at August 13, 2004 12:09 PM

David, I had no idea you were such a proponent of freedom for the peoples of the world. What a pleasant surprise. Have you worked out a plan for the Palestinians in this regard? Israeli citizenship? Palestinian statehood?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 13, 2004 02:33 PM

>>>"David, I had no idea you were such a proponent of freedom for the peoples of the world."

Double,

of course you didn't. You had me mistaken for one of those eeeeevil conserrrrrrvative rightwing fascists/racist Republicans that you so oppose. Oh, not to mention "nazi".

Re the Palestininans, yes. It was Oslo. But they pissed it away. You can thank your "fredom" fighter Arafat for that (he was another Saddam fan).

Posted by: David at August 14, 2004 12:49 PM

ince you say that we will out of Iraq soon anyway ... ,maybe we should just tell our 'friends'in Baghdad that when we leave there will be no room on the planes for them.I have a feeling that their attitudes might be somewhat different should it become clear that US troops are not going to be dying on their behalf any longer and that they must rely on the kindnesses of Al-Sadr and like minded fellow Iraqis.
They might be willing to 'crack a few more eggs' to make that omelette .

Dougf, I'm sure they would, unless they got disorganised.

Allawi has his ex-Ba'ath secret police, and he's bringing in the Ba'ath secret police guys he was with, and against, and now he expects those guys to be with him. Back in the old days, Saddam kept uncovering coup attempts and killing the perps, but he was very well established. Could Allawi find all the attempts and purge his own people while he's putting down shi'ite and kurdish revolts? Maybe, but it would be harder for him than for Saddam. And note that Allawi can get on a plane and run with the money, he doesn't depend entirely on the USA for that. He has no support but the exiles he brought in with him and Saddam's ex-goons. Would he try to parlay that into control of iraq, or would he punt?

Posted by: J Thomas at August 16, 2004 08:54 AM