<p>O’Reilly has been hammering Bush about the WMD intelligence FUBAR for more than a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah. Here, InterestedDad, is where I think your optimism is unfounded. Already among the Shiites there’s a sentiment of something along the lines of “We have sovereignty as long as we do what the Americans want and stay within their bright lines.” </p>
<p>At some point, the nascent government is going to tell the Americans to do/not do something that is not in accord with American desires. Satraps they will not stay forever. And that moment is when the rubber meets the road and not happily for the U.S. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Shiite-dominated government invite the U.S. to leave…and leave in a condition not to the U.S. liking. </p>
<p>And then there’s always the “Chance” cards in the deck. My favorite gloomy one is that the Israelis overfly Iraq to take care of the Iranian nuclear facilities. Any bets on how compliant the Shiites will be at the time? (Note: think about the bunker-busting bombs the U.S. sold the Israelis just a couple of months ago.) </p>
<p>Meanwhile, things are unraveling enough in Afghanistan that the Bush administration is about to ask the Brits to transfer 10,000 troops from Southern Iraq to Afghanistan. Wonderful.</p>
<p>So we go in, raise a ruckas, allow all kinds of people into the country, don’t protect the borders, can’t get the Iraqs army together to defend themselves, we have what 3 battillions of the 107 needed, don’t get them basic utilities, oh yeah, after bombing them for almost a year. Yeah, and the major combat was over last year…</p>
<p>People that never hurt us, over 25000 so far. But those are just the result of war. Gee its almost 10 times the 9-11 attack. And that doesn’t include the injured and maimed.</p>
<p>So your stability is on the backs of innocent lives. Now I can really sleep at night.</p>
<p>I’m with the camp that believes Bush lied and is still lying about the reasons for and the progress of this war. I believe that, ignoring all credible evidence that WMD did not exist – and much advice that an invasion would engender chaos – he went ahead and seized an opportunity he’d been planning for. So here we are. How many people have to die so that we will feel safe? This isn’t a war that can be won. It certainly isn’t a war that can be resolved solely by an undersized US military presence shoring up a continually undermined government in a country without a working infrastructure. </p>
<p>So, what’s to be done? Look, we’re all parents here. We know that brute force doesn’t solve much for long, especially when determined opposition exists. It’s only a matter of time before the force is subverted and challenged again and again and again. And the big guy doesn’t always triumph. As parents – as well as managers, employees, citizens, etc. – we rely on constant diplomacy in our lives. This is what is missing in the current Iraqui situation. We have an administration that is non-plused by the idea of diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn’t mean “Do it our way or else.” Diplomacy doesn’t mean being a wussy either. One can be strong without being a bully. In fact, bullies are usually pretty damn ineffectual in the long run. I’m not suggesting we need to hold talks with insurgents (there’s so many anyway – where would we start?) But it’s time we realized that, in addition to physically protecting the rebuilding of Iraq, we need to create an international framework, one that doesn’t just ask other countries to send troops, weapons, and cash, but asks them to share ideas and build communication where we can’t. We need to be building <em>real</em> dialogue with other countries about our shared concerns – about terrorism, real weapons of mass destruction, human rights, energy needs…all those things that supposedly brought us to Iraq. We don’t need to constantly rehash the same unproven fear-provoking rhetoric (on all sides) – blaming, evading, threatening. This isn’t making anyone safer. Just fires up our enemies and sets us all into a close-minded frenzy that limits ideas that could help. We need a whole new paradigm. I have no faith that this administration can do this. Even if Bush wanted to end his isolationist stance, a good deal of the world’s trust in the US has been irrevocably shattered (I’m not just talking about France here, by the way.) As hard as it is, even in this forum, to hear people say things that drive each of us over the edge, this is important. Keep talking and listening, and encourage your elected representatives to do the same. Our world needs better answers and maybe the only way we’ll get there is by asking more and better questions.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>I’m not sure that you give the Iraqis enough credit for being intelligent, educated, savvy politicians. This is not a case in which we have been propping up a brutal dictator. We did what the Iraqi people, especially the Shiias, couldn’t do themselves: get rid of thug dictator who had been raping the country for decades.</p>
<p>Given that we are spending billions and billions of dollars in their country, they would have to be nuts to ask us to leave. Sure, there will be political posturing, just as there is in our country. But, follow the money. Where is Sistani going to replace the US investment? </p>
<p>Iran? Iran doesn’t even have an economy.</p>
<p>Sunni-dominated Syria?</p>
<p>Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia?</p>
<p>France? The country that was in bed with Saddam?</p>
<p>The UN? Mr. Oil-for-Food Scandal himself, Kofi Anon?</p>
<p>I’m just not seeing the groundswell of anti-American sentiment, from anywhere in Iraq or the middle-east as a whole. Nobody of any consequence is even posturing with anti-American rhetoric and, lord knows, there’s typically no shortage of such rhetoric.</p>
<p>I think that the pressure is really in the opposite direction. If Sistani doesn’t behave, and that includes forming a coalition government that provides some measure of protection for the Sunnis and the Kurds, we threaten to just pick up and go home, leaving Sistani with a big smoldering pile of rubble. I don’t see that as being in the Iraqi’s interest and I don’t think they are stupid or unsophisticated. It seems to me that Sistani has done the math on the situation. Given that he is in the driver’s seat under the American reconstruction, I don’t think he would see much benefit in taking his chances with a huge power vacuum and total civil war.</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>You still don’t quite seem to get what I am saying to you. I don’t mind your social/political views. Like many people here, I enjoy intelligent and informed discussions. It is your harshly worded criticism of others that don’t agree with you that I don’t get. Don’t confuse the two. Repeating for clarity: It is not a question of substance, it is a question of character and writing style.</p>
<p>Even in your last post to me you revert to your offensive
and rude writing style. i don’t see the necessity in dealing with people that way, so you can be sure that I will choose not to pound sand will use the other option instead. </p>
<p>By the way, I strongly suspect there is much more behind your hostility to your other family members than just their political views.</p>
<p>If one adds together all the 9/11 deaths, and all the U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, it doesn’t equal the number of “extra” U.S. deaths caused by the reburgeoning of the Afghan opium export crop. U.S. officials understand full well that it is these exports that make the survival of the “Afghan” government even remotely possible - it’s the only thing that keeps the warlords on-board. And before you use the canard that the drug addicts - including children - had it coming, remember that if there was no market for the stuff, the export of the crop would fail, and with it the “Afghan” gov’t. </p>
<p>Note that “Afghan” is in quotes. I have a good friend who is over there right now training midwives in Kabul. The gov’t controls an area about 1 1/2 miles square - a little bit larger than Monaco, but smaller than San Marino.</p>
<p>Gnu, being “nice” is overrated. And in fact often being “nice” is an accommodation to hypocrisy that allows everything and anything to be swept under the rug. </p>
<p>Reminds me of the bumpersticker that says something along the lines of “Progress isn’t made by well-behaved women.”</p>
<p>No, it’s mainly about the politics. Get togethers in person because I spend most of it frantically trying to avoid lines of conversation that will lead to somewhere Not Good and otherwise biting my tongue over some of the clueless and thoughtless things they manage to say anyway. As Higgins said to Liza, “You can talk about the weather and everybody’s health.”</p>
<p>And I think you’d have to look pretty far before you’d find me attempting to psychoanalyze someone over the Internet.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>InterestedDad, there is plenty of anti-American sentiment festering in Iraq. The gratitude account for having overthrown Saddam is heavily overdrawn with just about everyone except the Kurds, who are just happy not to have been diddled by us again as they were during the Iran/Iraq war. </p>
<p>Many of the Shiites unhappily accept that they need the U.S. for the moment. That will not last forever. Any any policy rooted in the attitude of one man–Sistani–is of necessity extremely fragile.</p>
<p>"People that never hurt us, over 25000 so far. But those are just the result of war. Gee its almost 10 times the 9-11 attack. And that doesn’t include the injured and maimed. So your stability is on the backs of innocent lives. Now I can really sleep at night.</p>
<p>In your case, hypocrisy must help sleeping better at night!</p>
<p>Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?</p>
<p>Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.</p>
<p>–60 Minutes (5/12/96)</p>
<p>Yup. Now that’s who is a REAL war criminal. Compared with her, Bush is like Gandhi. (Frankly, I’ve always half-thought that had Gore been President after 9/11, he’d likely have nuked 'em.)</p>
<p>So we are talking about two bad things, war and sanctions. That’s the two choices?
Where did Hussein get the weapons in the first place? Why does the world keep selling these dictators the weapons they eventually use on their own people, and their neighbors?</p>
<p>Xiggi, have you ever seen the documentaries “The Control Room” and “The Coorporation”. You watch the Control Room and then tell me with a straight face that Iraq was a threat to the US. </p>
<p>The Corporation has many interesting features. I think it is in the “Corporation” where the top guy from Haliburton talks (Not Cheney). The guy is pratically salivating like a hungry wolf at the thought of war. He can’t wait as he thinks about the all the ways war helps him make money. People’s lives? What’s that?</p>
<p>I hope you are taking many world culture, and anthropoly courses at Claremont. </p>
<p>I hear that Faggin is a great professor. Do not miss an opportunity to take a class by him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Afghan” has always been in quotes. It’s not a piece of turf that lends itself to the concept of a nation-state.</p>
<p>Our only real national interest in Afghanistan is preventing Al Quaeda from using it as a base of operations and training and, perhaps, as a means to keep Bin Laden and Zawahiri hunkered down in their caves. I believe that we are accomplishing those objectives.</p>
<p>Anything beyond that is just window-dressing, IMO.</p>
<p>Do you people really believe that without a high level security clearance you have any real information on this topic. The news media is in the entertainment business, not national security.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why I think it is important that we not “diddle” the people of Iraq again with another convenient cut 'n run move.</p>
<p>Whether the Shiias are grousing is a non-issue. It’s a part of the game. Look at the grousing and partisan posturing that is a daily staple of Washington politics. Pilosi indignantly grousing about the Republicans. Rove indignantly grousing about the “liberals”. That’s all just a side-show. Doesn’t mean much. The Shiites are not doing the car bombing in Iraq.</p>
<p>International affairs is fundamentally a “you scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours” game. At the end of the day, I think it’s important that the United States be viewed as having made every effort to establish a modicum of stabilty in Iraq. That how we changing the perception of the United States in the Middle East, which, in turn, is an important part of any long-term strategy to combate radical Islamic terrorism. The longer a “you scratch my back; we’ll scratch your back” relationship with the Shiia leaders in Iraq continues, the longer we have a win-win situation: Sadaam gone AND a government in Iraq that is not violently anti-American. The opportunity to work with a Shiite government in a signficant Islamic country is a plus for the United States.</p>
<p>The cost is heavy, but what is the alternative? If we cut and run, hanging the Shiias and Kurds out to dry yet again, Iraq will all but certainly become a militant Islamic theocracy and yet another enabler/safe haven for terrorists. The goal here is to keep relentlessly depriving the rats of safe havens.</p>
<p>InterestedDad, I think you’re being <em>far</em> too optimistic about the results of mutual backscratching and where that will lead. But this falls into the area where we’ll just have to let the movie play 3-5 years. Person closest to the correct observation gets one free “I told you so.” May not be sold or transferred. Void where prohibited.</p>
<p>Iraq is going to be far more of an Islamic theocracy than you imagine even if we do stay. And if the US objects, they will tell us to stick it.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>No bet, because I agree with you. I think it is inevitable that Iraq will become a fundamentalist Islamic theocracry.</p>
<p>What is more intriguing is the potential for it becoming a fundamentalist regime that we can actually work with. That has been a key missing ingredient in our array of Middle East relations. We do fine with with the Shahs and the Saudi and the Jordanian royal families, but the failure to establish a working, business-like relationship with a Shiia regime has really hurt us, IMO.</p>
<p>The jury is still out on whether or not we can pull that off. But, to date, we have basicially “done right” by Sistani’s crowd and I think that they appreciate that. So far, our interests and their interests happen to coincide, which is the basis for all international relations. We will just have to see how the future unfolds from here. The thing that gives me some optimism is Sistani’s apparent political moderation. He could have been a firebrand and, instead, he’s really been quite measured in his rhetoric, even dating back to the early days of the invasion. That suggests a certain degree of sophistication.</p>
<p>Unlike his neighbor to the east, Sistani has an opportunity to not only lead a Shiite government, but to lead a country with a stable, even prosperous, economy. That all hinges on his ability to work with the United States. Can he be pragmatic? We don’t know the answer to that yet, but I think we want to give him every reason to be.</p>
<p>All I know is that a cut 'n run maneuver would not win us many friends.</p>
<p>InterestedDad, again, I think you’re being far too optimistic about creating an Islamic regime that we can live with. The current arrangement with some Shiites is both temporary and tactical and not even all Shiites support it…somewhere between a third and a half don’t, depending on how you count and who’s doing the counting.</p>
<p>We botched a royal opportunity, imnsvho, when we failed to move quickly enough into support of the Bosnians, which would have broken the seige of Sarajevo and made the massacre at Srebenica a never-was. It was a golden opportunity, a situation where the Muslims were the Good Guys…and we sat on our hands.</p>
<p>I think you also overstate Sistani, to the extent that unlike in Iran, he rejects the active participation of the imams in politics. Per se, his influence is necessarily limited…and he is not a “sole” Shiite figure of influence.</p>
<p>While I agree that “cutting and running” is not what’s needed at the moment, neither do I see how our current mode can be sustained for 5, 10, 15 years. I also don’t think either the Kurds or the Shiites would be “hung out to dry.” The Kurds are in the best position they’ve ever been in and well-positioned to keep what they’ve got. The Shiites, who were very quiescent up through the establishiment of the interim government, now have what they wanted…controls of the government and the institutions of the state. Yes, they’d have to deal with the defacto civil war with the Baathist elements but the essential fact is that it’s the US presence itself that is responsible for fueling a lot of the insurgency. A lot of the air would go out of the balloon if the US left.</p>
<p>Finally–and there is a danger regarding forests/trees–the actual picture in Iraq is not even as rosy as most American think and far far far from the picture painted by the administration. </p>
<p>Some tidbits just from today’s news, courtesy of <a href=“http://www.juancole.com:%5B/url%5D”>www.juancole.com:</a></p>
<p>
</p>