In my humble opinion, these people do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting what they want, Michael. The Kurds have a phrase "No Friends But The Mountains" which, if you look at their sad and long suffering history, is pretty much true...

And if these Iranian leftist Kurds are ever foolish enough to accept the curse of "American backing" their odds are even worse.

Believe me, whatever nonsense Neo-con think tanks and bizarre opposition groups come out with, the government and system in Iran is NOT in danger of imminent collapse.

And let me be very clear about one thing: if the US administration was ever foolish enough to launch military action on Iran, the vast majority of the Iranian population would rally round the flag.

That's something that Americans don't seem to understand... when 9/11 happened everyone in the US - whether they liked or loathed G W Bush - became more patriotic and stood together. Well, other nationalities are no different to you guys.

The same thing will happen in Iran, whatever people here think of the powers that be in charge at this time, Iranian people will not tolerate an attack on their country. They, too, will rally round the flag... and any chance of improved relations between our two peoples will be set back 50 years or more.

Microraptor: Let me be very clear about one thing: if the US administration was ever foolish enough to launch military action on Iran, the vast majority of the Iranian population would rally round the flag.

Sounds like these rebels have worried the right people.

The Microraptors of Iran are the ones who will lose power, whatever the consequences of a U.S. attack.

Edgar, you have got me all wrong.

I am not some sort of Iranian regime stooge or Ahmedinejad supporter. I have simply been talking to any number of ordinary people in Tehran on a daily basis, and regardless of their political persuasions - whatever they think of the current set up here - they have all told me the same thin: That were the US to attack Iran, they would rally to the cause -- even though many of them have absolutely no time for this government or the system, and would in most cases be natural freinds of the USA.

This is an extremely patriotic and proud nation and they will not take kindly to being assaulted, even if it is supposedly being done "for their own good."

Many of the people I have spoken to who would love to see the back of this system believe that the worst thing that could happen in terms of their long term aspirations would be an external attack on the country.

I am terribly sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it's simply me telling you guys what people here are telling me.

"This is an extremely patriotic and proud nation and they will not take kindly to being assaulted"

That has been the conventional wisdom for some time now. It's just one of many reasons it will fail to assuage, those with the capacity to act, to further their agenda. We must agitate that hornets
nest in order for democracy to have a chance.

We must agitate that hornets
nest in order for democracy to have a chance.

Is poking at a hornet's nest ever a good idea?

As always, the best way of getting rid of a hornets nest is to wait until the bugs are dormant (ie. relatively powerless), then remove the whole thing at once. The best way to destroy the Iranian regime is to weaken its sources of power, the economy and their internal and external intelligence agencies.

Even if the Iranian Mullahs were overthrown, the surrounding regimes would send in the insurgents, as they always do. Weakening Iran and those other enemy regimes to the point of powerlessness could be an effective idea if we chose to use it.

We must agitate that hornets nest in order for democracy to have a chance.

We must smack the hornet's nest with freedom! With the stick of righteous armed democracy! Only when the furious buzzing of democracy emitting from the tattered remnants of the hive of tyranny reaches a crescendo will liberty be on the march in the form of a big nest-smacking stick!

Stirring. And agitating.

Microraptor,

A nation's leadership cannot openly threaten the destruction of other nations without their being a war. Duh! If the mad mullahs wanted peace, they would have acted accordingly. Soon their bluff will be called. Tell your friends their real enemies are Khameini-Imadinnerjacket and Company. It's only the truth.

"Stirring. And agitating"

Part of the solution is to install legions of cell towers, emitting the screech of microwave Babel, in order to disorient the critters lest they return and commiserate with their nestfellows.

Micro, what you say about Iran is probably true. What you say about what "Americans don't seem to understand" is bullshit. Don't act like you're the only person who ever realized any of those things.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/04/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Ok, let's all sign an accord.

Nobody is allowed to cite "personal experience" to trump the other person's argument anymore.

(Otherwise I'm the official expert on Palestinian,
Russian and Canadian politics).

Thin line there, Edgar. I always welcome and appreciate the words of someone who is there, has been there, or even has people there. I can see your point should the experiences be sewn into part of an ideological rant. But here with Micro's observations, all I hear is his passing on of personal experience. Followed by his opinion.

I tend to ignore, if I can recognize it, any spin put on such comments. Much like I prefer getting raw data first, and then reviewing the experts' explanations. Maybe that's why MJT's writing is liked. You get the raw first to peruse. Then his opinion spelled out next to it.

Microraptor: In my humble opinion, these people do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting what they want, Michael.

What would you have thought were the odds of Syria being pushed out of Lebanon on March 13, 2005? That seemed even less likely. But it happened, and it happened very suddenly.

I'm tired of the Iranian dissidents and revolutionaries saying the regime is on its last legs. It's like the boy who cried wolf in reverse. But one of these days they will be right. I have no idea when, and neiher does anyone else. It will just suddenly happen, as these things tend to do.

The regime of Shah also looked invulnerable until it very suddenly wasn't.

Related: Victor Davis Hanson says don't bomb Iran.

Also, a very good book on the last revolution is Shah of Shahs by Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski. Perhaps no on in the history of the world witnessed more revolutions than he did. If anyone gets to cite personal experience in an argument about revolution, he can. (Too bad he died recently. His work is really amazing.)

MJT: I have no idea when, and neither does anyone else.

I hope somebody has at least somewhat of an idea. What the hell is the CIA doing all day?

allan,

Microraptor said things like "I am terribly sorry if that's not what you want to hear..." before saying he was only reporting what he had heard.

The implication is clear: we're in denial and he's the messenger of truth. It's an obnoxious way to make a point and it's getting extremely fucking irritating that several people are constantly doing the same thing.

I can go to Iran and find many pro-US people that would support an invasion. I guarantee it. And I can find people that will say that everyone who doesn't is just afraid to say it. Then I can "report" back what the Iranian street thinks.

As for Iran, well, nobody wants to get bombed, unless they've reached the point of absolute despair (e.g. inmates of a concentration camp). If Iranians did want the U.S. to invade/bomb them it would be positively astounding.

That said, many Iranians would be quite happy if 90% of the conservative establishment disappeared suddenly.

Daisy-cutters won't do it. We need more finesse; i.e. supporting these revolutionary types. At least they're ideology-driven instead of money-driven like the Chalabis of this world. I wouldn't trust fully, but they're probably slightly more honest than the Iraqi exiles we dealt with.

There was a large international reaction (802 comments) to the Times OnLine article "3 Day Blitz". In the article the following was stated:

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”

The following are some of the Iranian comments:

I'm so sorry that some people like Alireza from Tehran can't make a distinction between the regime in Iran and their country! If you hate the regime you should not extend this hatred to your country. Many Iranians hate the regime in Tehran but they love their country. The obliteration of the regime should not end in the obliteration of my contry and my future!
Majid, Tabriz, Iran

Another round of the war on terror, huh? "Action is needed now", "we need to do this", "why cant other ppl see sometimes war is needed so we can live in peace?", "Just do it"... So much for the "civilized and developed" east and west! Attack and kill a few thousand more. That'll do it...satisfy your blood lust for now. This place is actually home to millions of human beings. It's not the Mullah's you'll kill, it's the people. War is not the answer. never.
Dany, Mashad, Iran

Ha ha ha realy funny and the Iranians will sit down and view the demolishment of their installation
COME ON YOUR DOOMED IF YOU DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SAD, TEHRAN, IRAN

Alireza: if you are serious you must be sound crazy! US would love to have you as spy
toutoune, Iran

dont let this disaster happen.because if u do ull be in a big danger ure self. idont support iranian government but i dont support war niether.
pouya, iran, iran

I am a woman of Persian ancestry. My family came to the U.S.A. from Iran in 1980, when I was 11. We are United States citizens. We all fully support President Bush. We all voted for him in 2000 and in 2004. We still support him now.
Members of my extended family in Iran have expressed to me that they welcome any help -- including military intervention -- to help overthrow the Mullahs. The Iranian people, for the most part, love the West and Western culture. They don't like Ahmadinejad or any of the hardline Islamists (i.e. the Mullahs and Ayatollahs) any more than any in the West do.
My family and I are so very grateful to have had the opportunity to come to the U.S.A. when we did and to become citizens and to prosper in the businesses that we have opened here. We find that some people who were born in this country do not appreciate its greatness to the degree that they should, as they have never known anything else. This is a shame.
Nargress Bandari, Lafayette, California

Alireza from Tehran wants this. Does anyone remember a few years ago when an Israeli radio talk show host took calls from people in Iran? Many of them wanted their country to be invaded like Iraq was so they could be free from their government...
Michelle, Seattle,

The implication is clear: we're in denial and he's the messenger of truth. It's an obnoxious way to make a point and it's getting extremely fucking irritating that several people are constantly doing the same thing.

Where is Patrick anyway?

Look, if people have talked to people and want to share what they said, that's fine, and I can even deal with some of the pomposity that goes along with that from some commenters. The more information, the better, right?

Having said that, has anyone ever talked to a revolutionary that didn't think that they could overthrow their society of choice?

To follow up my last comment, recently the IAEA
stated that Iran has 2000 centrifuges, and their activities have slowed. The following day, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran has 3000 centrifuges. A 50% increase in centrifuges hardly indicates a slowing. And where are those extra 1000 that the IAEA didn't see, or didn't report?

Microraptor, you have nothing to worry about. America is different from other nations. What you don't understand is that the rally round the flag on 9/11 was a distant memory by 9/12. Tell all the 'natural friends of the USA' to keep on paying taxes to the Iranian regime and giving their sons to its armed forces so Iran can kidnap the British and murder the Americans. We won't do a damn thing about it.

DPU: Has anyone ever talked to a revolutionary that didn't think that they could overthrow their society of choice?

Yes, DPU, I have. Now spare us the armchair analysis and leave the real thinking to pros like me who have been in the field.

You seem to think you can read the minds of these revolutionaries. Stop it. Go ask them in person, then report back to us.

Don't make assumptions from your comfortable Vancouver condo with the ocean view that these people "think" they can "overthrow" their "society of choice."

Now spare us the armchair analysis and leave the real thinking to pros like me who have been in the field.

And there's the pomposity that I referred to earlier. Thanks you for the extremely powerful example of it, your exaltedness. We are truly not worthy.

Bow bow scrape kneel.

Oh, sorry, forgot the :-)

DPU,

Try playing one hour of twister with a group of bloodthirsty Iraqi insurgents in a Fallujah safe house.

Then try breakdancing at a Taliban wedding while people fire automatic weapons wildly into the air.

Do one of those two things and maybe I'll begin to take you seriously.

I've done both.

Hey, DPU - smack him with your big hornet stick.

Komala's website is being run from Vancouver:

http://www.komala.org/english/eindex.htm

++ungood could give 'em a call?

Do one of those two things and maybe I'll begin to take you seriously.

Wait, that above comment was serious?

Good lord.

DPU,

First, I don't take comments on my pomposity by people from BC very seriously. People from a one-party system usually don't have much worth listening to.

Most of the commentary on this thread misses the point, and I hope that Michael mentioned it in his article. Both Komala organizations are interested in help, but they are more interested in help organizing than they are in help demolishing. Eventually they are going to need some "demolition aid" from the Navy and Air Force, but first and foremost they want help in networking the resistance in Iran.

I stand by my comments in earlier threads about people not comprehending the reality of military force. Once upon a time, my profession was to use unguided nuclear devices in defense of the United States. I made it a point to learn exactly what I was doing, although many did not. It bothers me when people are unclear on such important matters and go on to speak about them at length.

..but my break dancing skills suck. And I hate twister.

Do I have to play party games with Islamists to be taken seriously? Couldn't I just hang around them for a while?

Charades and Trivial Pursuit, maybe?

DPU,

When I play Twister, it's not for fun.

And believe me, it isn't fun for members of any of the Iraqi insurgent groups, either, when I demolish whole squads of them.

Humiliation is a big thing in their culture.

People from a one-party system usually don't have much worth listening to.

We have a one-party system now? Which party are imagining that we have?

TEHRAN, Iran - Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and longtime Machiavellian figure in Iranian politics, was picked Tuesday to head a powerful clerical body — another defeat for the current president's hard-line faction.

Analysts said the election showed that more moderate conservatives like Rafsanjani were gaining ground in Iran, where there is increasing discontent with the ruling hard-liners over rising tensions with the West, a worsening economy and price hikes in basic commodities and housing. Ahmadinejad's allies were humiliated in December local elections, in which moderate conservatives won a big victory.

The rest of the AP story is here

And believe me, it isn't fun for members of any of the Iraqi insurgent groups, either, when I demolish whole squads of them.

Then I suggest airdropping crack Twister teams over Tehran.

First, I don't take comments on my pomposity by people from BC very seriously.

Let's see if we can keep the national/regional insults to a minimum.

Lots of smart people are from BC. (Lisa Goldman for instance.)

Let's see if we can keep the national/regional insults to a minimum.

I can take it. Plus, I'm dying to find out how Patrick's crackerjack analysis skills have determined that we have a one-party system of government.

MJT,

He snarked at me, I snarked back. Yes I know what the immortal Ghandi said, "A snark for a snark and pretty soon the world is snarked..."

Nevertheless, I feel less constrained in this case since it was a swipe at his region's lack of political diversity, which is fair game since his commentary duplicates the political line of the region he represents.

Besides, I try to be vague when talking about people whose parents were only distantly acquainted through "fleet week" associations.

Nevertheless, I feel less constrained in this case since it was a swipe at his region's lack of political diversity...</i.

Once again, I am dumbfounded by this assertion. What the hell are you talking about?

I hope your skills at reading the political situation on the other side of the globe are better than your understanding of our political system, because you seem to be seriously missing the boat on this one.

Which party do you imagine is dominating our politics?

Maybe you're confusing Alberta with BC?

Easy enough to do. They're both huge provinces with distinct characters and politics, but they are right beside each other. An easy mistake to make for someone who lives in the country right next door...

DPU,

Once again, I am dumbfounded by this assertion. What the hell are you talking about?

When was the last time the Liberals were out of power in BC? http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-5.htm Because right now they have a pretty commanding majority, even if it isn't the 90+% they used to have.

Furthermore: http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-2.htm Don't you have people of color there?

Maybe you think that socialists and conservatives are the same thing? Or maybe you think that the BC Liberal Party are actual liberals instead of conservatives that adopted the liberal party for political reasons, and that those are the same thing as socialists?

Help me out here, Patrick.

Patrick Lasswell: I try to be vague when talking about people whose parents were only distantly acquainted through "fleet week" associations

First homophobic and misogynist comments, and threatening to beat people up, and then insulting people's mothers.

Your "extreme cubicle aversion" was a very bad thing, in retrospect. It went hand-in-hand with an extreme aversion to growing up, apparently.

Edgar,

You can't take a joke.

When was the last time the Liberals were out of power in BC?

2001. When was the last time that the Republicans didn't hold the presidency?

And the Liberals (actually conservatives, surprise) hold 56% of the seats in the Leg, with social demiocrats holding the rest.

This is a one-party system of government?

Bwaa ha haa ha.

Well, that explains the analysis of Iran.

I can only imagine from Patrick's remarks that he has imagined that BC has been ruled under the iron fist of the BC liberals for some time.

While I know the issue must be as dull as dishwater to most, they were elected six years ago. Before that, they last held power in, well, not in my lifetime. Sometime in the thirties, I think.

Stellar, Patrick. please tell me it was more of your version of humor.

DPU: I know the issue must be as dull as dishwater to most

Yeah. Sorry DPU, but it's boring as hell compared to the issue of cool-looking Iranian revolutionaries living in hilltop compounds planning to topple the Iranian regime.

I'd definitely support them if they planned to topple the Liberals, by the way. They have some sort of Vancouver office, so maybe there's a chance...

Yeah. Sorry DPU, but it's boring as hell compared to the issue of cool-looking Iranian revolutionaries living in hilltop compounds planning to topple the Iranian regime.

Dude, you gotta start putting smilies on stuff.

And it is dull as dishwater. I live here, am active in politics, and I can barely stand it. Much more fun looking over the fence at what you guys are up to.

I'd definitely support them if they planned to topple the Liberals, by the way.

If they overthrow the BC Liberals, who are really conservatives, then we live under the iron fist of the socialists (I'm a party member, so I get to say that).

So are you saying the vast majority of civilians in Vancouver would actually be opposed to any Iranian offers to topple the current regime in BC with military force?

Of course they would be, Microraptor. There is no comparing the elected government in British Columbia with the Islamic Republic, the Revolutionary Guards, and the Guardian Council. BC's elections are a wee bit fairer than the one that "elected" Ahmadinejad.

We are truly not worthy.
Bow, bow, scrape, kneel.---dpu

Well finally, dpu, finally. I had about given up all hope.

Might I say sir that it's about time. Natural order and all that rot. Now if you can just practise that servile 'forelock-tugging' a bit more, everything will truly be unfolding as it should. ----- :-)

For what it's worth, if I lived under a fascist regime I would support a military invasion of my country by a democratic country. Heck I'd even support an invasion by another dictatorship if it was bad enough, such as the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam. "Anyone but Bush" is silly, but "Anyone but Pol Pot" makes a bit of sense. "Anyone but Hitler" makes sense, as well. East Germany was better off under the Stasi than under the Nazis, though it sucked in both cases.

I have no idea how many Iranians would like to see an invasion, but whatever the number I don't think they're crazy. It makes no sense to compare their situation to that of free Westerners.

I also don't think the ones who don't want an invasion are crazy, whatever their number. Both positions are completely understandable to me, and I have met many reaonable Iranians of both persuasions.

If you were an Iranian, and you'd watched the botched US occupation of Iraq, I think you actually would be pretty crazy to want the US to invade.

Gus, I wouldn't want an occupation if I lived in Iran. I don't want an occupation of Iran as an American, either.

Nor am I saying I want an American invasion of Iran as an American. (I don't.) I'm just saying I understand the desire for outside intervention in extreme circumstances. It is a common desire for oppressed people the world over even if it is not universal.

Lots of Iraqis are grateful for both the invasion and occupation despite the current horrorshow in that country. Westerners who ask themselvs if they would want the same thing in their country are not going to be able to understand it.

"Lots of Iraqis are grateful"

You don't specify an estimate in numbers or percentages, and I guess it follows you would anticipate the same response in Iran
the same response in Iran to outside intervention.

Is there a significant difference in the two cultures in that regard?

Regarding BC, I am going to have to start using the smiley :) symbols too....

I think you should make every effort to try and visit Iran, MJT... you will be very suprised: most people here live remarkably ordinary day to day lives and their main gripe is the economy. Outside of the political elite, hardly anyone I've spoken to really gives a fig about what's happening in Israel, Lebanon or whether or not Shia militias triumph in Iraq. They just don't want to get caught up in another war. They had eight years of carnage back in the 1980s... and looking at the situation in Iraq, being invaded by a democratic country like the US has somewhat limited appeal these days.

And do you really still believe that the Iraq adventure was/is about spreading democracy in the Middle East, rather than securing cheap energy supplies? I mean, if you want to go and whack/reform an unpleasant, undemocratic and oppressive regime, why not start with Saudi Arabia?

That is a country so bloody backwards it is actually illegal for women to drive cars... meanwhile I am in Iran to research a project about a certain Laleh Seddigh, who presents a very different picture of Iranian non-political life to some of the nonsense peddled in the US media.

;) mmmmmm.

But no, far from exercising influence over its "forward looking ally" (I put that in Sarc Marks because many observers agree that most of the funding for psycho Al Qaeda types comes from within Saudi) the current US govt. has chosen to recycle petrodollars and offset it's own next generation weapons procurement by equipping these characters with some $20 billion of state-of-the-art weapons. Brilliant.

There's a big difference between an invasion and an airstrike.

Is there any doubt that an airstrike against Iran would target quite a few economic targets along with military ones?

There is no such thing as a non-military target in the Middle East these days...so no sane person would desire a Western airstrike being launched against their country.

Semanticleo: You don't specify an estimate in numbers or percentages

I don't know what the numbers in Iraq really are. Polls don't work because so many Iraqis contradict their own selves on these kinds of questions. I could guess, but I don't know.

I can't even guess that numbers are in Iran.

I guess it follows you would anticipate the same response in Iran

Why?

Microraptor: And do you really still believe that the Iraq adventure was/is about spreading democracy in the Middle East, rather than securing cheap energy supplies?

Yes, although "spreading democracy" is a means to an end, not a purely altruistic point in and of itself. A free and democratic Middle East won't threaten the United States.

As Paul Berman put it, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others."

The worst attack on American soil in the entire history of our country was launched by Arabs. Those in charge of national security are required by duty to address this problem. If you really believe it's all about oil you are very seriously uninformed about how these people think and what their job requirement is.

If I believed this war was about securing cheap oil I would demand that its architects go to prison immediately.

You're a journalist. Why don't you embed in Iraq? I think you'll see that a war for oil would look very different from the war that is actually being fought there. American soldiers die protecting playgrounds from Al Qaeda, for God's sake.

Michael;
"I guess it follows you would anticipate the same response in Iran"

Why?

"I'm just saying I understand the desire for outside intervention in extreme circumstances. It is a common desire for oppressed people the world over even if it is not universal."

Is there a significant difference in the two cultures in that regard?

Microraptor: ...the current US govt. has chosen to...offset it's own next generation weapons procurement by equipping these characters with some $20 billion of state-of-the-art weapons.

:-O

I'll certainly acknowledge that greed is the main factor in the international arms trade. :-(

But other things are taken into account. :-)

Giving Saudi Arabia $20 billion in weapons isn't going to help al-Qaeda. :-)

Quite the contrary, actually. Saudi Arabia has a tiny army suitable only for defense. :-)

They're not a threat to anyone. :-D

There is no comparing the elected government in British Columbia with the Islamic Republic, the Revolutionary Guards, and the Guardian Council. BC's elections are a wee bit fairer than the one that "elected" Ahmadinejad.

Just give us a chance to get the socialist jackboot on the throat of BC business again, though.

Free dope in the rain forest re-education camps and rampant wealth redistribution, that's the ticket. We'll have our credit rating destroyed in quick order, and then business owners will be praying for Iranian intervention.

Please note-> :)

A significant difference between Iraqis and Iranians in that regard? I don't know. All I'm saying is that I have met many reasonable Iranians who want an invasion, many reasonable Iranians who do not, and that I understand both points of view.

My point was that comparing Iranians to Canadians on this question doesn't make any sense. Comparing Iraqis and Iranians make sense, but I'm not an expert on public opinion in either country so I'm not going to pretend to read the minds of all those millions of people.

Microraptor:

An international racing license is pretty impresive, but if 1600GT means 1600cc's, that's a pretty mild machine she races.

The worst attack on American soil in the entire history of our country was launched by Arabs.

Then the best method of security, if oil is not an issue, would be to withdraw from the region, would it not?

Then we can concentrate on central Africa and Myanmar, both in need of democratic reform.

Michael,

Are you really saying Bush's oil industry cronies are upset that the value of their product has more than tripled since we invaded Iraq?

Are you really saying Bush's oil industry cronies are upset that the value of their product has more than tripled since we invaded Iraq?

Cost, not value.

++ungood,

The oil reserves owned by Exxon, Chevron, & Co. are "valued" every finacial reporting period.

e: Are you really saying Bush's oil industry cronies are upset that the value of their product has more than tripled since we invaded Iraq?

You are so not worth arguing with if you believe that's what I said.

Did you get an F in English class, or did you eke out a D?

DPU: Then the best method of security, if oil is not an issue, would be to withdraw from the region, would it not?

No.

I also didn't say oil "is not an issue." I said the U.S. didn't invade Iraq to get the oil, which is true.

There is a difference, and it's a huge one.

DPU,

I live in Portland, Oregon...a one party town if ever there was one. I guess you can't take a joke, either. My point is that one-party areas erode to the lowest bureaucratic denominator, eventually. Without change, there is no progress, especially amongst the progressives.

Now you are being more than a bit disingenuous when you say on this forum that the Liberals are conservative when you place them to the left of the US Democratic party on your own blog. But maybe you think Hugo Chavez is comfortably middle-of-the-road.

There is a difference, and it's a huge one.

Indeed there is. So are you saying that continued access by the US to Middle Eastern oil was, or was not, a large consideration in the invasion of Iraq?

Now you are being more than a bit disingenuous when you say on this forum that the Liberals are conservative when you place them to the left of the US Democratic party on your own blog.

But Patrick, they are conservatives. And so is your Democratic party.

And the Liberals on my graph are Federal Liberals, not the provincial ones. The BC Liberals cut all ties with the federal party some time ago.

DPU: So are you saying that continued access by the US to Middle Eastern oil was, or was not, a large consideration in the invasion of Iraq?

It wasn't. But it is a major reason why total withdrawal from the region is a bad idea.

Oil played a bigger role in Gulf War I than in this one. That wasn't a war to steal oil either from the U.S. side, but it was intended to prevent a totalitarian dictator from acquiring too much oil that he stole from Kuwait and might have stolen from others if he got away with it the first time.

If Dick Cheney and his buddies just wanted cheap oil they would have been better off cutting a deal with Saddam. It would have been a lot easier, and it's what the oil companies themselves wanted to do. Anyway, "Dick Cheney" didn't invade Iraq. The United States military did with an authorization from Congress.

Those who believe the U.S. invaded Iraq to get cheap oil don't understand the duties of those in charge of national security. Feel free to think a democratization process in the Middle East isn't the best way to counter violent global Islamism, but seriously...try to understand that a response of some kind to the Arab jihadi strike on 9/11, which was the worst attack on this country ever, is the job requirement of those in charge of national security. And the Arab world, not Afghanistan, must be the focus because that's where most of this crap comes from. I'm not going out on a limb here. It's not a stretch, you know, to suggest that those in charge of national security are in charge of national security. Looking for hidden plots there is just silly.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia? Imagine American soldiers in Mecca, where non-Muslims are banned.

No thanks.

If oil did play some role it was, most likely, to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil on the world market so the bogus "alliance" with Saudi Arabia could be allowed to die on the vine. It didn't work out. Sorry! Making it work isn't my job. Anyway, I'm just speculating on that point. I don't really know.

What I do know is that "blood for oil" is a juvenile way of looking at this. That's how I saw it when I was 20 years old, but I was a kid who didn't know anything and I lived in a city (Eugene, Oregon) that was, and still is, stuck in 1968.

Michael;

In the previous thread I asked 'how long should we stay in Iraq, 2 years more?'

I don't see a response, but would be interested in the time frame beyond which you see counter-productivity.

Michael,

I'm not sure why you are so touchy on this subject.

But can we clear up one point?

Dick Cheney and his cronies don't want "cheap" oil...they want expensive oil.

The more expensive, the better.

Why?

Because they own billions of barrels of it.

As long as we pretend there aren't people(mainly Texans) geting filthy rich off of our occupation of Iraq, we can never have a reasned debate about it.

Semanticleo: In the previous thread I asked 'how long should we stay in Iraq, 2 years more?'

I don't know. It depends. If there is slow incremental progress in the surge I'll be more patient than if we end up stuck in stalemate. And if things deteriorate over the next six months I might not have any patience at all.

But, then again, that would also depend on what kind of deterioration we're talking about.

I do not support withdrawal from Iraq as long as we're still fighting Al Qaeda there, nor will I support at any time a withdrawal that throws the Kurds to the wolves.

If the Mahdi Army turns out not to be beatable over time, and if the Iraqi government continues to suck as badly as it sucks right now, and there are no further problems with Al Qaeda, then we should probably strike a deal and get out.

I don't know how to answer your question in one sentence because I don't know what is going to happen. There are several wars going on there at once, some of which are more worth fighting than others.

e: As long as we pretend there aren't people(mainly Texans) geting filthy rich off of our occupation of Iraq, we can never have a reasned debate about it.

I'm not pretending that isn't happening. I just don't think that's the reason the U.S. went in there. They would be just as rich if they cut exclusive deals with Saddam in return for the dropping of sanctions. That would have been a lot easier. Those companies were bound to get filthy rich in Iraq no matter what happened as long as the sanctions were dropped. That's all they cared about.

Those in charge of national security have bigger things to concern themselves with. You don't have to agree with their planned course of action to understand that much.

I knew on 9/11 that we would go back into Iraq. It was obvious to me right then and there that a military response somewhere inside the Arab world was inevitable, not because of oil but because Al Qaeda emerged from that world, not from Afghanistan.

It wasn't. But it is a major reason why total withdrawal from the region is a bad idea.

I would argue that any US government that isn't working toward both long-term continued access to oil and preventing potential competitors from access would be completely incompetent.

Fortunately for this administration, members like Cheney as aware of this as long ago as 1992 when he said that the first objective of a US administration after the end of the cold war would be to prevent the emergence of a new rival, and that the foremost task toward that end would be to deny potential superpowers (China, Russia, Europe, maybe India) resources by dominating influence within resource-rich regions. That means a long-term military presence in the Gulf.

That view has been reiterated several times over by prominent members of the Bush administration over the last decade.

Part of that dominance needs to be a secure military base. Israel is out, for a variety of reasons, and Saudi Arabia became undesirable and certainly less secure.

A regime-changed Iraq would be a much better location within the Gulf, assuming that everything went well. Everything hasn't gone well.

So while I can certainly empathize with the annoyance caused by simplistic "no blood for oil" slogan, it is all very much about oil.

I think the motivations of the people in charge of our "national security" have a slightly more nuanced thought process:

Win, lose or draw in Iraq, we are gonna get rich off it, so what the hell...let's see how long we can keep it going.

Same thing goes for Iran.

There is no way folks from the oil, defense and news industries can credibly advocate war, they have to much to gain from it.

Unless, of course, they are willing to put all the money they make from it into a trust that they would only get if the war they advocated were a success.

Not all Texans are getting filthy rich off our occupation of Iraq. I pay the same at the pump as you do. Or is that yall do?

Michael: interesting to hear your response to the "war because of oil" believers. I have been engaged in the same discussion in the comments section of the Halifax News. It's a discussion that started from a news report that our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a Christian that attends RockPointe Church. If you care to take a peek at the discussion here in Canada, the URL is:
http://hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=59167&sc=89&comments=submit&#thankyou

Aside from that, I look forward to your full article in Reason. You're the best!

Oil played a bigger role in Gulf War I than in this one. That wasn't a war to steal oil either from the U.S. side, but it was intended to prevent a totalitarian dictator from acquiring too much oil that he stole from Kuwait and might have stolen from others if he got away with it the first time.

Well, from all accounts he was more after water access than oil. Iraq has lots of its own oil, but restricted access to a means of shipping it.

And the response wasn't because he was "stealing oil", it was because his move was looked on as a potentially aggressive move toward US ally Saudi Arabia.

DPU,

If all they needed in Iraq were bases, bases would be built in Kurdistan. I think bases should be built in Kurdistan, but it's telling that that isn't happening.

Also, Kurdistan has ~50 percent of Iraq's oil if Kirkuk is counted as Kurdistan. That city would be much more important for the Americans than places like Fallujah and Ramadi that don't have any oil at all if this were primarily about the oil.

I'm not saying oil is a total non-factor, it just wasn't the reason the U.S. went in.

E,

The oil industry doesn't run our foreign policy, national security, or any other part of the government for that matter. They have influence because they have money, but they used that influence to lobby for an erosion of sanctions and a "deal" with Saddam. Their influence was insufficient and they did not get what they wanted. They could not get that after 9/11.

Hardly anyone involved in the planning and execution of this war has any connection to the oil industry. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards didn't authorize it so they could "get rich."

Dick Cheney and his cronies don't want "cheap" oil...they want expensive oil.

Your conspiracy theory is identical to conspiracy theories about Jews from Nazis. The only difference is you replaced with the Jews with oil industry Texans.

I'm not sure why you are so touchy on this subject.

I'm not touchy about it, I just happen to think your money-grubbing warmonger theory is idiotic. It isn't racist or evil or anti-Semitic, but it's no smarter than the original version of this old and discredited "theory."

DPU can talk about this like a grown-up, but you are wasting my time. People who actually work in national security -- in government and in think tanks, liberals as well as conservatives -- do not take people like you seriously. Nor can I.

DPU,

Tariq Aziz said Saddam invaded Iraq because he wanted more coastline. That may be partly true (also), but the actual theft of resources and goods from Kuwait is very well documented. The U.S. has done nothing of the kind in Iraq. (I realize you aren't one of the people who believe that's what's happening.)

And the response wasn't because he was "stealing oil", it was because his move was looked on as a potentially aggressive move toward US ally Saudi Arabia.

Sure, but Saddam didn't need to invade Saudi Arabia for more coastline.

If all they needed in Iraq were bases, bases would be built in Kurdistan.

That is likely, I think.

Tariq Aziz said Saddam invaded Iraq because he wanted more coastline.

The US ambassador's reports also indicate that Hussein himself said this was the rationale, and was the primary reason for the war with Iran.

That may be partly true (also), but the actual theft of resources and goods from Kuwait is very well documented.

Looting by soldiers rarely is an indication of a nation's foreign policy goals.

If oil did play some role it was, most likely, to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil on the world market so the bogus "alliance" with Saudi Arabia could be allowed to die on the vine. It didn't work out.

So while I can certainly empathize with the annoyance caused by simplistic "no blood for oil" slogan, it is all very much about oil.

It wasn't 'blood for oil' or access to cheap oil that inspired the wars in Iraq. It was the Carter doctrine:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

In 2002, Dick Cheney said:

“Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”

Mistaken reports about WMDs were one reason why we went into Iraq (reports that both Democrats and Republicans believed) We also went into Iraq to protect the people our government (again, Democrats and Republicans) call America's 'friends', the Saudi sponsors of 9/11. According to this report, (linked from Richard Landes' Augean Stables):

Bob Woodward of the Washington Post has written one of the most thorough journalistic accounts of the Iraq War. He describes a "top secret" Bush administration memo entitled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy," which specifically states that one "key goal" was "to minimize disruption in international oil markets." Woodward details a conversation between Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, and President Bush in which Bandar seeks to get Bush to finish off the historic step begun by his father in 1991, by getting rid of Saddam. A letter from Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was delivered at the same meeting with the same request.

Moreover, Richard A. Clarke, a subsequent Bush administration critic who was exposed to internal White House thinking about the Iraq War until March 2003, has concluded that most of the rationales for the decision to go to war reflected "a concern with the long-term stability of the House of Saud." This Saudi angle has not been probed at all in public discourse....

Every statement and action that is generated by the majority of our elected members of the House, the Senate, the Exectutive Branch and the State Department suggests that they would all be happy to chew off their right arms if it would guarantee the continuation of the US/Saudi friendship. It's more than just money or oil. They (Democrats and Republicans) get a lot of money, legitimacy, the ability to keep playing 'great' and cold-war games and misguided peace of mind from our alliance with the Sauds. Every government around the world wants to be buddies with the sauds, including Britain and Canada.

Since most of our information about the Sauds is generated by our government, other governments (who share the same attitude), and by Saudi-sponsored academics, the idea that our 'alliance' with the Sauds is essential is repeated over and over like a yogi's ommm. It's equally meaningless.

Every poll of the American people indicates that we don't believe that the Saudis are our allies, and we are tired of our government's tolerance of Saudi-sponsored terrorism. Our own oil companies are subtly warning us that the Sauds are running low on oil, and they're making much more of an effort to encourage us to develop alternative technologies.

It would have been a great idea to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil, but that idea would never occur to the majority of our or the world's leaders. They can't quit the Sauds.

e:
Vancouver? Really? My trace gets this:
Server: www.komala.org
IP Address: 66.218.79.149
Organization: Yahoo!
Country: United States

Iran is eating its seed grain; its oil and all other infrastructure is suffering from 20 years+ of little or no maintenance or upgrade. Including its intellectual and technical infrastructure. The play on A.'s name, "Ah, man, I need a jihad!" has more than a little bite to it.

It sounds like, technically, Rafsanjani could pull down Khomeni.
That might do it!

I mean, if you want to go and whack/reform an unpleasant, undemocratic and oppressive regime, why not start with Saudi Arabia?
That is a country so bloody backwards it is actually illegal for women to drive cars...

Microraptor - When I was in Britain I saw lots of those bloody backwards folks, spending their ample cash at Harrod's. I saw more full-cover black hijabs in Harrods than i did in Muslim Malaysia. Or Jordan. Apparently they're not allowed to drive in England either, since their chauffers endlessly circle the place. Young Sauds love to spend their cash and party in London.

So, I guess I don't have to ask why Britain loves the Wahhabi hillbillies. But I still don't understand why Britain gave control of Mecca and Medina to the Wahabis of whom Winston Churchill said:

The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practise themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.

The Muslim world feared and hated these genocidal loons, yet Britain has been embracing and empowering them for decades - even before oil was an issue. Why?

Michael,

Self-interest is not some "conspiracy theory," it's what's supposed to make America great.

It's under Communism that people are supposed to sacrifice their self-interest for the greater good.

If you don't think anyone involved in the boneheaded decision to invade Iraq didn't weigh how it would effect their income...I think you'd be happier with the other band of Komalas

e:
What would have happened to the price/cost/value of oil if SH et al had taken control of Kuwait and the Straits? News flash: oil is fungible. (Look it up in your Funk & Wagnall's). The US gets its oil from the wide-open world market, mostly from Canada and Mexico. ~1/6 from the whole ME put together. And at present prices, the US shales and Canadian oil sands can be mined and the oil cleared of sulfur profitably. Those reserves are humunguous.

Anent nothing in particular, it turns out SH was suppressing seismic data which shows Anbar has ~100 bn bbl of untouched reserves. Which puts Iraq right up there with KSA and Canada.

If oil did play some role it was, most likely, to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil on the world market so the bogus "alliance" with Saudi Arabia could be allowed to die on the vine. It didn't work out.

I missed this. What does it mean? That the US would not be importing Saudi oil for PR reasons? It's fungible, who cares which country is supplying it?

Sure, but Saddam didn't need to invade Saudi Arabia for more coastline.

Sure, but Saudi Arabia's substantial Shiite population lives right around Kuwait, and that's where the bulk of their oil is. They're a touch sensitive about that area.

If you don't think anyone involved in the boneheaded decision to invade Iraq didn't weigh how it would effect their income..

There are lots of places to invade that have less long-term negative effects. If profit is the motive, that is.

++ungood,

I not saying greed (or military career, judgement of history, etc.) is the primary motivation behind national security decisons, just that its a rather large thumb on the scale.

I disagree that there were other countries we could have invaded, though.

America is down to maybe 5 countries around the world that it can plausibly invade now, and none of the others are run by cartoon figures.

It would have been a great idea to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil, but that idea would never occur to the majority of our or the world's leaders.

No it wouldn't, it would have made no difference. The world's oil market doesn't work that way. Yet.

Mary: It would have been a great idea to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil, but that idea would never occur to the majority of our or the world's leaders.

Yes, you are probably right. Like I said, I was just thinking out loud there.

e: It's under Communism that people are supposed to sacrifice their self-interest for the greater good.

Nice try, but you should take a civics class sometime.

Also study up on what "national interest" actually means and what the military is for. Soldiers aren't mercs hired by oil barons, k?

I don't think our troops get much say in where they're sent to, Michael.

And I don't think there's such a thing as "national interest" any more.

The best we can muster these days is a pluralty of "special" interests.

If you seriously believe Big Oil controls the Army and Marines we can't have a conversation.

That's a bit of a stretch, Michael.

Suppose you were president, and the army was going to sign a contract with an athletic footwear company for $1 billion worth of milspec running shoes, and Nike and Reebok both submitted similar bids.

Would you go with your hometown company?

MJT: "The worst attack on American soil in the entire history of our country was launched by Arabs."

Indeed. But 19 of those murderous bastards were Saudis, as was/is bin Laden himself.

As for Mary's question about why the British historically empowered certain tribal families in the Gulf and in places like Jordan, I'm not too sure (and I'm sure any history student might be able to explain it better) but I think that these groupings were seen as useful allies against the Ottoman empire during WW1 (TE Lawrence and all that), and then were thought by London to be easy to control... and - once the energy resources in the region became apparent - would grant the UK all the oil concessions it needed in exchange for political and military support against their own (ie. the Saudis'/Hashemites' own) local rivals. Plus ca change...?

As for the 1600 GT cars Ms. Seddigh races in Iran, they are basically very fast, very noisy versions of hatchback street car models. But I beleive that in the Gulf States - like Dubai - where there are more advanced race track circuits, Laleh races Formula BMW, which look much more like conventional Formula 1 type vehicles.

Microraptor,

You can embed with the US military without difficulty. Also, you don't have to go to Baghdad. Go to Fallujah or something. Fallujah isn't "Fallujah" anymore, if you know what I mean. It's not very dangerous these days, but is very interesting. That's where I'm going next.

Indeed. But 19 of those murderous bastards were Saudis, as was/is bin Laden himself.

Yes, I know. The U.S. Saudi policy is atrociously bad. But I don't want to invade Saudi Arabia. I don't think anyone wants to invade Saudi Arabia.

Middle East politics desperately needs to be opened up, modernized, and liberalized. Invading Iraq might not have been the best way to go about it, but that was its main purpose. WMD was the stated narrow purpose so the UN might go along.

The push for democracy in the Middle East is not at all altruistic from the point of view of the United States government. A democratic Middle East is non-threatening for the same reason a democratic Europe is non-threatening. (We often forget how much of a menace European dictatorships were, and how recently that was the case. My mother, who only just now retired from her job in real estate, lived in Germany during de-Nazification. Her father fought the Nazis with the 82nd Airborne and stuck around for the aftermath, so she was there for that.)

My personal view on the need for democracy in the Middle East is more altruistic and idealistic than the government's, but that's because I am a more or less liberally-minded cosmopolitan person, not an institution charged with national defense.

I remember talking to a March 14 Lebanese two years ago who was suspicious about why the U.S. government took his side in his country's politics. He figured there had to be some "motive" that he couldn't quite figure out, and he didn't like it whatever it was. I tried and tried to explain it, to no avail, until I said this: "Because they know people like you will never fly airplanes into our buildings." Then it clicked for him. States have interests, which he knew very well, and preventing more 9/11 style attacks is an obvious American interest.

It really is that simple.

Since when did the US ever want democracy in the Middle East? They've spent the last 60 years opposing it. The same people are crying out for 'democracy' and 'freedom' in Iraq, were the same ones who supported Saddam back in the day and stood idly by while he hammered the Kurds and Shi'ites when they rose up against him after Gulf War one.

Democracy basically means giving Middle Eastern nations a licence to tell the US (and anyone else for that matter) to go shove it. Democracy in Palestine means terrorists like Hamas get elected. Democracy in Egypt means the Muslim brotherhood get elected. Democracy in Iraq resulted in a sectarian Shi'ite dominated government. Democracy in Lebanon means Hezbollah get their share of power. I'm not saying democracy is a bad thing in the long run, provided you ignore the short term blowback effects. But it seems odd given the track record of US foreign policy.

It would have been a great idea to swap Iraqi oil with Saudi oil, but that idea would never occur to the majority of our or the world's leaders.
No it wouldn't, it would have made no difference. The world's oil market doesn't work that way. Yet.

Well, 'swapping Iraqi oil' is just another way of saying that some Americans (myself included) thought that the idea behind the Iraqi invasion would be to swap our alliance with the theocratic terror-supporting Saudis in favor of an alliance with a democratic Iraq. The alliance involves more than oil - the state department has always relied on the Saudis to be a moderating force in the area. An alliance with a democratic Iraq would allow us to loosen our ties to the KSA, and it would give us a chance to diminish Saudi influence in the Middle East.

The KSA has weak defenses, a vulnerable water supply and they produce nothing but oil (and terrorism). The majority of the Muslim world hates them, and they'd welcome the end of Saudi control of Mecca and Medina. (Mecca and Medina should have gone to Jordan, anyway) Without the influence we all give them, they're nothing.

An alliance with a democratic Iraq would allow us to loosen our ties to the KSA, and it would give us a chance to diminish Saudi influence in the Middle East.

I understand the theory, and always have. But it was a flawed theory. And I think that the idea wasn't to lessen dependence on Saudi Arabia, to but to protect the Saudi royals from internal dissent.

At any rate, the whole plan is pretty much a flaming dunghill now. It's just a matter of seeing what can be salvaged.

To get back to the posted topic, Michael, is the photo accompanying your article taken by you? It's a great shot.

Since when did the US ever want democracy in the Middle East?

Since September 12, 2001.

DPU: Michael, is the photo accompanying your article taken by you?

All the photos are mine except that one. I wish that one was mine because it is a great shot.

Damn!

Is it one of the group that you were talking to?

It's a picture of an Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighter. The flower in the gun barrel is a nice touch, isn't it? None of the other armed groups in Iraq are at that point yet, unfortunately.

MJT, regarding spreading democracy:

Invading Iraq might not have been the best way to go about it, but that was its main purpose. WMD was the stated narrow purpose so the UN might go along.

Would you have supported invading Iraq without WMD?

Not me, and I daresay the same holds for many others who supported the invasion.

If proof of your assertion ever emerges, somebody's getting impeached. With my full support.

Would you have supported invading Iraq without WMD?

A while back, the wonks at Crooked Timber assembled all of the public dialog from the administration that detailed conditions that Iraq would have to meet in order to avoid invasion. Not a single one had anything to do with democracy.

As a matter of fact, every single one was WMD-related, save for a last minute one that required Hussein to step down and leave the country with his two sons (presumably, power would have been handed over to the next Baathist in the line of succession).

I'm not sure why so many have assumed that deemocratization was high on the list of priorities, especially as little forethought seems to be have been given to the effort.

The flower in the gun barrel is a nice touch, isn't it?</i.

Completely missed that. Now I like it even more, although I seem to remember that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, not flowers.

Michael Totten said:

A democratic Middle East is non-threatening for the same reason a democratic Europe is non-threatening.

I think your statement needs refinement. A free society is non-threatening because it is based on the notion that government's legitimate function is the protection of the individual rights of its citizens, including everything such protection implies and requires. A government dedicated to protecting individual rights is not a threat to other free societies.

In a democracy, on the other hand, the function of government is whatever the majority wants it to be. And if enough people want it, an Adolph Hitler can be elected and granted total power. (Or Hamas, al-Qaeda, etc.)

Thus, what we need in the middle east (and everywhere else) is not democracy but political freedom. We need free societies based on universal individual rights that government is charged with protecting -- and everything that such protection requires: due process, equality before the law, equal rights for everyone, separation of church and state, etc.

Achieving this in Iraq -- or anywhere else in the Muslim middle east -- is a hell of a challenge. Separation of church and state? Islam won’t suffer that notion easily. But here modern liberalism imposes an obstacle that makes the task all but impossible. Multiculturalism tells us that we have no right to promote such things in the first place. We have no right to “impose our way of life“. Instead, we must grant the Iraqis “the right of self-determination” to “choose their own form of government”.

Bush, unwilling to challenge this dogma, accepted it as a constraint on our actions in Iraq. The result is what you see now in Iraq: the US military acting as a domestic police force while we wait -- fingers crossed -- for the Iraqis to “self-determine”. The only saving grace is that while we are waiting we are killing large numbers of terrorists.

Gosh I get tired of the same old crap over and over.

MJT is absolutely right. Building the institutions of freedom and democracy in the ME have to do with what he told his Leb. friend.

Let's all think back to 9/12...

Virtually EVERYONE thought that Saddam had CBW and was looking to get nukes. AND HE DID/WAS. Read the Duelfer report. Did he have ready to go bombs? Not so much cause they don't have a great shelf life. BUT, as soon as the sanctions were lifted as the incredibly crooked French et al were pushing. He could have started pumping them out almost over night. (Remember the military bases filled with "dual use" chemicals?)

Additionally, there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam (a Sunni, remember?) had contacts with Al-Q (also Sunni). Was Saddam involved in 9/11? Probably not.

After that success, though, if Al-Q had come around to buy some CBW for a follow up would he have sold them? Wouldn't take much to hide his involvement and you can bet your bippy that he would have gone along.

After 9/11 could we take that chance?????

Do a thought experiment....

1) 9/11 happens
2) We do another Clinton on Afghanistan
3) France, Russia etc. break the sanctions on Iraq
4) It's 2005 and Al-Q is alive and well and free as is Saddam.

5) What happens now?

I don't think anyone thinks democracy in Iraq wouldn't be a good idea, Alan.

The doubt comes from the methods we are using to achieve it.

No government will be seen as legitimate while our troops are occupying Iraq (see:Vichy France).

Since when did the US ever want democracy in the Middle East? They've spent the last 60 years opposing it. The same people are crying out for 'democracy' and 'freedom' in Iraq, were the same ones who supported Saddam back in the day and stood idly by while he hammered the Kurds and Shi'ites when they rose up against him after Gulf War one.
Posted by EmbersFire at September 5, 2007 02:50 AM

What events occurred in 1989 and 1992? How do those events bear relevance on a change in strategic thinking in the United States away from ‘Stability, no matter what’?

What event occurred in 2001 that added momentum in the shift in the strategic thinking of the Unites States away from ‘passive encouragement’?

Come on. Put 2+2 together. The answers to your above questions really are very simple if you would only look for them.

Creamy Goodness: Would you have supported invading Iraq without WMD?

Yes. WMD was never part of my reason.

Not me, and I daresay the same holds for many others who supported the invasion.

Fine.

If proof of your assertion ever emerges, somebody's getting impeached.

This was all out in the open before the invasion. It's not something I'm just asserting years later. I don't know where the idea came from that freedom for Iraqis was only a stated purpose after no WMD were found. The war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from Day 1, and it is still called that today.

No government will be seen as legitimate while our troops are occupying Iraq (see:Vichy France)

Yes, see the illegitimate governments of South Korea and Germany too.

DPU: A while back, the wonks at Crooked Timber assembled all of the public dialog from the administration that detailed conditions that Iraq would have to meet in order to avoid invasion.

"Democratize now" is not something that could possibly have made a list of that sort. It would not have been possible for Saddam Hussein to transform his fascist state into a democracy by a short deadline (or a distant deadline for that matter, in the real world).

Democracy didn't make an appearance in that dialogue, but it made plenty of appearances elsewhere. I followed it all very closely at the time.

Here is a good place to start.

e,

Look at all the "war for oil" crap. Look at all the "we shouldn't have invaded Iraq" crap and then get back to me.

20/20 hindsight isn't. Another thing about this that ticks me off are those people that think because A wasn't perfect, not doing B was a mistake. How do you know B wouldn't have been worse???

People make up "facts" in their arguments (like why didn't we keep the army intact? um, it disappeared when we got there) and then proceed to argue from false premises.

When you're a decision maker you have to make decisions based on the best available information AT THAT TIME. AND the information changes over time! You can't even begin to guess what another set of actions would have led to because each action generates unexpected reactions.

The other side gets a say in how things progress.

We do A they do B we do C they do D....now you have a resulting set of facts on the ground X, BUT, if you change the start of the sequence.....

We do M they do N (not B) we do Q they do B.....Now the set of facts on the ground are Y. You cannot predict the future by looking at changing the past.

Our troops in Germany and Korea were stationed there to "hold back the Communist hordes," Mary...not to suppress political opponents of an unpopular regime.

When we leave, there will be those Iraqis who cooperated with our occupation and those who opposed it.

We're just ensuring al Sadr and friends takes over once we're gone.

You could also read Natan Sharansky's book The Case for Democracy which George W. Bush has repeatedly cited. It was published after the war started, but this has always been what this is about.

I think it's bizarre how so many lefties say the neoconservatives aren't serious about democracy promotion, but aside from the "liberal hawks," who are also hated by most lefties, no one talks spends any time on the subject. It's their hobbyhorse, and they've been going on and on about it for years. It is the reason many liberal hawks feel an affinity for them, and vice versa.

At some point the critics of neoconservatives are going to have to acknowledge that the one thing they've been obsessing about for years is something they really do care about. At this point, saying otherwise is like saying the Sierra Club only pretends to care about trees.

A reform attempt on the Middle East isn't the only reason Iraq was invaded. Like most big decisions, there were many reasons. (Thomas Friedman once wrote that there was the right reason, the moral reason, the real reason, and the stated reason.) Trying to argue that democracy promotion wasn't one of those is kind of ridiculous at this point.

Here is a good place to start.

I made it to page three...

"I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Iraq, properly managed -- and it's going to take a lot of attention, and the stakes are enormous, much higher than Afghanistan -- that it really could turn out to be, I hesitate to say it, the first Arab democracy, or at least the first one except for Lebanon's brief history," he says. "And even if it makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."

This is a notion regarded with deep skepticism at the State Department, where Powell and others tend to see the aftermath of an invasion as a long, world-class headache administered by an American general. Not only within the State Department but elsewhere where foreign policy is discussed and formulated -- including the Capitol Hill offices of leading senators of both parties -- there reigns the view that Iraqi democracy is a utopian fantasy, that the country will fragment like a grenade into ethnic enclaves, that American garrisons will be targets for an eruption of Arab fury, that oil supplies will be endangered, that Americans lack the patience and generosity to midwife a free and pro-Western Iraq.

"Democratize now" is not something that could possibly have made a list of that sort.

Are you saying that if Hussein had met all the conditions that had been set out for him that the invasion would still have taken place?

Maybe it was a utopian fantasy. Iraq is a lot more messed up than I realized years ago.

I expected the Arabs to be more like the Kurds. I'm sorry they aren't, especially for their sake. They have to live with themselves and their society for the rest of their lives, not us.

Anbar really is better now, though. I'll have my first report from there published shortly.

I think it's bizarre how so many lefties say the neoconservatives aren't serious about democracy promotion, but aside from the "liberal hawks," who are also hated by most lefties, no one talks spends any time on the subject.

Sigh.

The neo-conservatives were talking about the need for Gulf dominance and Iraq regime change for about a decade before the talk about democracy started. Wolfowitz was on the team that drafted the 1992 policy document that laid out the need to dominate the Gulf. The tinkering with freedom came later.

And we are concerned with democracy promotion. We just think it's somewhat more complicated than invading and then watching a grateful US-friendly sectarian parliament open in a shower of rose petals.

If you look back over your comment archives, you'll see that was precisely what a lot of us were saying three years ago. I'm not sure how that translates to no interest in democracy promotion.

How about, for example, starting with Jordan and Egypt? They are far more likely nations to host democracies than Iraq. You wouldn't even have to invade.

How about, for example, starting with Jordan and Egypt? They are far more likely nations to host democracies than Iraq. You wouldn't even have to invade.

As far as I know, Jordan and Egypt are allied with Canada too. If you're serious about democracy promotion, that sounds like a job you can handle.

If you want something done right...

DPU: Are you saying that if Hussein had met all the conditions that had been set out for him that the invasion would still have taken place?

I'm certain they didn't expect him to meet all the conditions so I think you're question is moot.

If he had met all the conditions by some miracle, I suppose the invasion would have been called off because their stated reason would have been voided, even if the others were not.

They really didn't go about this the right way at all.

As far as I know, Jordan and Egypt are allied with Canada too. If you're serious about democracy promotion, that sounds like a job you can handle.

As far as I know, the United States has a vested interest in democracy promotion in the region (the topic of discussion, Mary, see above), and considerably more influence on Jordan and Egypt than Canada does.

Sheesh.

DPU: How about, for example, starting with Jordan and Egypt? They are far more likely nations to host democracies than Iraq.

Actually, I have my doubts about that, but it will take me too long to get into it here and I need to be writing about Ramadi.

Both Jordan and Egypt (especially Egypt) are creepy countries that I don't like being in at all. Dark days ahead in both, I think. Egypt is a known basket case, but Jordan is quietly seething under its surface. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it spontaneously combusts in a bad way. I'm not saying it will, but it really won't surprise me if it does.

Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and the UAE are the most likely Arab candidates for democracy, I think. Probably Algeria, too, now that the salafist insurgency there is effectively over.

As far as I know, Jordan and Egypt are allied with Canada too. If you're serious about democracy promotion, that sounds like a job you can handle.</i.

And we do have a government department for that, BTW. Not surprising, I suspect we have a government department that monitors toilet paper quality.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that if you are going to do regime change, then the most logical place to start is with those countries that are openly hostile to your country.

Last time I checked, neither Egypt nor Jordan are openly hostile to the U.S. If we can use their existing regimes to help us change those of our enemies, great. Once we've eliminated the enemies, then we can turn to our friends in the region and say "your turn."

But first, let's deal with our enemies.

++ungood: And we are concerned with democracy promotion.

Yes. There is broad consensus as to the goal — particularly in the wake of 9-11 — and severe disagreement on strategy.

Imposing freedom at gunpoint is really hard. It was hard in Germany and Japan, but we succeeded. It was hard in Viet Nam, and we failed. It's hard in Iraq.

People like myself made the best decision we could back in 2003. Had it been possible to know that Hussein was bluffing, I would have made a different decision, and that's where MJT and I part ways.

Have we learned nothing from our success in the Cold War?

Dogwood:

But first, let's deal with our enemies.

I think this is the wrong criteria. The priority should be to consolidate gains in those countries which are in transition but still shaky.

The priority should be to consolidate gains in those countries which are in transition but still shaky.

Well, that would include Iraq, would it not?

I can't remember where I saw it, maybe here, but someone asked the other day if the US were not in Iraq, but they were in the current state that they are in now, would the US public support a 160,000 troop and bajillion dollar aid mission there?

Good question.

Whether a country is "friendly" or "hostile" towards the United States is a decision only we can make.

No doubt Saddam would have moved back into the "friendly" column had we'd invited him to.

Same with Iran (and Hamas).

Both Jordan and Egypt (especially Egypt) are creepy countries that I don't like being in at all. Dark days ahead in both, I think. Egypt is a known basket case, but Jordan is quietly seething under its surface. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it spontaneously combusts in a bad way.

I only spent a few days there, but I didn't think Jordan was that bad. It was kind of creepy at times, but the people seemed to genuinely like their King. Like the Thais, they had his picture up everywhere and when they talked about him, it was with genuine admiration. As long as he was on our side, I got the impression that the Jordanians would follow.

Well, that would include Iraq, would it not?

2003: No.

2007: Yes.

Kurdistan looks like a winner and we must do everything we can to support it. I'm not sure that Arab Iraq can pull things off, though. The help that we are able to provide may not be sufficient.

DPU,

the problem with your question is that it is a static analysis of a dynamic process based on an hypothetical premise.

First, " if the US were not in Iraq, but they were in the current state "...If we aren't there they never would have BEEN in this state. And as far as that goes this current state is only a point in a long term process, we won't be here again. The best we can do is try and guess what the outcome of decisions will be.

Try out your thought experiment predicated on our not have invading in the first place. What would the state of Iraq and their relations with Al-Q be? How about their WMD development?

Or, if you prefer, construct a scenario where we overthrew Sadam Hussein and then immediately left... (is he in his spider hole or did we stick around long enough to catch him?)

AlanC, yes, I know, but I still found it an interesting question.

Creamy Goodness: Imposing freedom at gunpoint is really hard.

Yes, it is, if the unfree don't want to be free or don't know how to operate in a free environment.

It's easy if the oppressed want to be freed. Just kill or remove the jailer.

It worked fine in Kurdistan. No one needed to point any guns at the Kurds of Iraq and force them to be nice to themselves and others. I expected the Arabs of Iraq to be similar, but it turns out they aren't. That was my biggest error.

The Arabs of Iraq could have gone the way of the Kurds, and if they had we would be having a very different conversation about liberating people from tyrants.

As it turned out the "neocons" and fellow travelers were right about one ethnic group in Iraq, and the skeptics were right about the other. It's too bad for all of us that the skeptics were right about the larger group.

Everyone should learn from their mistake here and realize those on the other side of the argument were right about one part of Iraq and wrong about the other.

Some people really can be freed at gunpoint, even in Iraq. The idea isn't crazy or always wrong. But some people can't be freed at gunpoint, at least not quickly or easily and without massive convulsions.

This is the main reason I don't favor an American invasion of Iran at this time. If all of Iraq were like Kurdistan, I would support the same in Iran, and so would lots of other people. Chaos in Iraq is the best life insurance policy that regime could have bought. It makes skeptics of all of us, and it keeps the United States military busy putting out fires somewhere else.

I'm sorry that it works, but it does.

Mary: I only spent a few days there, but I didn't think Jordan was that bad.

It doesn't look that bad from a tourist point of view, but I've talked to people (Americans, Lebanese, and Iraqi) who have spent lots of time there and say the society is completely rotten and downright terrifying under the surface. It doesn't surprise me. I'm sorry to be this way about it, but something like 80 percent of Amman is Palestinian. They aren't exactly the most politically mature Arabs around.

It doesn't look that bad from a tourist point of view, but I've talked to people (Americans, Lebanese, and Iraqi) who have spent lots of time there and say the society is completely rotten and downright terrifying under the surface.

There was sort of an undercurrent of that even in Aqaba, and that's Jordan's version of a beach town. And there were the copies of Mein Kampf in the Queen Alia Airport bookstore that Lisa noted.

MJT: [Jordan] doesn't look that bad from a tourist point of view but I've talked to people who...say the society is completely rotten and downright terrifying

It seemed pretty rotten from a tourist point of view, too. I thought Ramallah was a much friendlier place than Amman.

I wonder why that is...?

I also prefer Ramallah to Amman. It's more dangerous and the craziness is out in the open, but it's also more fun and less backwards. Amman is like a bloated village, and Ramallah is more of a proper city even though it's a lot smaller.

I expected to like Amman better than Ramallah, but I didn't.

Everyone should learn from their mistake here and realize those on the other side of the argument were right about one part of Iraq and wrong about the other.

I'm uncomfortable with the way that this keeps being put in overly simplistic terms.

Those (like me) who said that democracy would likely not work in the short term were not simply saying it because they thought it impossible to ever free a people and they would embrace democracy. We said it was unlikely in Iraq's case because there were specific issues that would likely prevent it.

Among those issues were the ethnic divisions within Iraq, the presence of a fair number of political forces that would likely want the process disrupted, the likelihood that this administration was incompetent (some of us were paying attention), and the lack of a broad-based international commitment that would share the burden.

Those were obviously not issues at the time with Kurdistan (although there is some similar pressures on the horizon for that region too, let's keep our fingers crossed for them). I never thought that Kurdistan would not be able to implement some form of democracy, so I'm not sure what mistake I need to recognize.

DPU: I'm uncomfortable with the way that this keeps being put in overly simplistic terms.

I was generalizing, obviously. If you brilliantly predicted everything correctly, you can exempt yourself. :)

Did you predict the Anbar Awakening, though? Not even the Marines saw that one coming, and they were there when it happened. Most Westerners still have not even heard of it.

Did you predict the Anbar Awakening, though?

Sorry, my 6th sense only works on the macro level. Here's a question about the Anbar Awakening, though - what happens when US troops are pulled out, and the former Sunni insurgency is working with (presumably) the Badr Brigade, I mean Ministry of Interior forces?

While I'm glad to see an improvement in relations and a possible political route forward in this area, I don't count it as a success until the US can withdraw from the area.

That, of course, may be in the works, as I'm ignorant of the specifics. I await your article with interest.

It seemed pretty rotten from a tourist point of view, too.

I only spent one day in Aqaba, and two days in Petra and Wadi Rum. Petra was amazing, and the Bedouin are cool, so I got a different impression.

A serious problem when speaking about Muslim areas is that they have not really progressed beyond a tribal society. It's very hard to think about any kind of pluralistic modern democracy in a multi-tribal area.

Our whole understanding or political organization in the modern western world (despite minor variations) is predicated on individual liberty.

Tribal societies don't act that way so it is hard to imagine a path to modern democracy starting there.

The last time America armed and trained tribes was the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan, which produced the Taliban.

While it was hard to guess the U.S. would be dumb enough to try it again in al Anbar, it's pretty easy to predict that a similar group to the Taliban will rise up in al Anbar because of us.

Prediction: the Iraqi government will be engaged in combat with Anbar "Awakening" within two years...

e: it's pretty easy to predict that a similar group to the Taliban will rise up in al Anbar because of us.

The situation isn't at all comparable. Afghanistan has always been a very lawless place. That's why law-and-order types like the Taliban appeal to people who want some sort of stablity.

Iraq was always more secular and modern. They won't tolerate anything like the Taliban for long.

Haha edgar,

Law & order, religious purity and a hatred of "others" has universal appeal.

Let's wait and see what happens when the Shiite government of Iraq asks the tribes of al Anbar to turn in all the guns we gave them, okay?

What the hell is the CIA doing all day?

Having tea with Nigerian officials.....
Actually, undermining the Bush presidency with much more determination than they are doing anything else.

About Egypt - there is a wonderful interview with Hitchens (which I urge everyone to watch) where he points out that Egypt is the only real Arab country - the rest are all created by Europeans.

The same people are crying out for 'democracy' and 'freedom' in Iraq, were the same ones who supported Saddam back in the day and stood idly by while he hammered the Kurds and Shi'ites when they rose up against him after Gulf War one.

1) the only reason the Kurds have a society today is our flyovers.

2) Another thing Hitch said in the interview was that the biggest mistake of all was the Bush Sr didn't finish the job when he had a chance. Which would have saved the Shia and the marsh arabs. But part of the reason we stopped and left Saddam in power was that the UN told us to.

And if we had gone on to depose Saddam then, we would still have had to occupy Iraq for awhile and if you think we had no plan for that in 2003, we really didn't have a plan in 1991, because we weren't even thinking about it.

Once again, the US did not create the Taliban.
When will this leftist nonsense "fact" finally get buried.

Also, any new Iraq material left Mr. Totten?

If so great, if not I've no right to complain as I've been unable to contribute like I would like to. Thanks for the great stuff

But part of the reason we stopped and left Saddam in power was that the UN told us to.

No, I'm afraid that while the UN is the ever-convenient whipping boy, the reason was that a successful Shia revolt in the south would have provided a powerful oil-rich and Iran-friendly Shia state in the south, and that upset the balance of power in that region.

Translation - it wasn't the UN that told him to stop, it was the Saudis.

Then it was both. But I know Saddam made the Sauds uneasy also. Either way, if we had taken out Saddam then, all the current complaints and conspiracy theories would have been applied to that situation.

Also, any new Iraq material left Mr. Totten?

Yes, imminently. I've been slow because I took time off with my wife who will be leaving town for a few weeks shortly.

It's good to know nothing is ever America's fault, Rommel.

I think that attitude is gonna come in real handy over the next couple of years.

"It's good to know nothing is ever America's fault, Rommel.

I think that attitude is gonna come in real handy over the next couple of years."

It'll work a hell of a lot better than the
"everything is America's fault including
9-11" attitude, that's for sure.

MJT: "Some people can't be freed at gunpoint, at least not quickly or easily and without massive convulsions. This is the main reason I don't favor an American invasion of Iran at this time..."

Hey Mike (and a lot of you guys), what about a US invasion of Iran NEVER... Why the bleeeepity bleep don't all you helpful American liberal interventionists and hard headed neo con realists please mind your own business for a change and let Iran work itself out in its own time?

This country has been through and is going through quite enough, thank you, and it really doesn't need more violence. Change may come but - God willing - not through the barrel of