The shift in power
There's an interesting article in the Strategy Page about the shift in power in Iraq from Sunni to Shi'a and its consequences.
It's now the Sunni Arabs who are calling for American troops to remain, for the Shia Arab dominated police and army are strong enough to defeat any Sunni Arab militia. Only the Americans are able to protect Sunni Arabs from attacks by vengeful Kurds and Shia Arabs. Such is the disdain for Sunni Arab military force, that much of the current violence is between Shia Arab factions. The Badr and Sadr militias, in particular, are often battling each other for control of territory. The fighting is rarely in the open. The more traditional methods involve intimidation. This takes the form of verbal or written threats, followed up by kidnapping, arson, drive-by shootings or murder. Criminal gangs use the same tactics for their extortion or turf protection operations.
That shift in power was occasioned by two developments: the US defeat of the Sunni insurgency and the buildup of the Iraqi Army. After nearly two years of combat the once formidable Ba'athist apparatus has been worn down, despite any assistance they may have received from sympathizers across the borders. But their place has not yet been filled by a democratic successor government. Instead, it is outfits like the Badr and Sadr militias who want to replace old criminal empires with their own and substitute one domination with another.
Michael Yon, in a much misquoted article entitled "Of Words" tells us when he first noticed the contest for power: "More than a year ago, I wrote from the 'Sunni Triangle' that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war, words that received little attention then." About a dozen paragraphs later he explains that the Iraqi civil war was already under way before OIF.
The Civil War did not start subsequent the invasion; it was already underway. The former Iraqi regime had slaughtered unknown thousands of civilians and buried many of them in mass graves that are still today being discovered and catalogued. If anything, the previous Civil War has merely changed shape, the advantage has clearly shifted, and now that Americans and Europeans are in the combat zone, the war gets more complicated.
The gassing of the Kurds. The destruction of the southern marshes and their inhabitants. Saddam's persecution of the Shi'a. Even the Iraq-Iran war. All the atrocities the George Galloway's buddy is being tried for were to anyone with the wit to see it part of the civil war that Michael Yon found underway. But with the arrival of the US Saddam and his successors finally found an enemy they could not defeat. And their arrival tipped the scales of war to produce this shift in advantage -- the decline of Sunni power and the ascendancy of Shi'ite factions -- many of more or less equal criminality, that is the underlying reason for the fear now gripping Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad. It was probably why soon-to-be ex-Prime Minister Jaafari's clung so grimly to power. Never had his faction been so close to standing over their foes. The Strategy Page describes the resentment among Shi'ite factions over Jaafari's forced departure.
Yaqubi, Jafari, and others, are increasingly open in their opposition to Coalition efforts to "reach out" to Sunni leadership, and some are openly suggesting it's time American forces leave, a call which radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has been making openly for some time.
But as Michael Yon says, America is in Iraq for its own reasons. Saddam was a threat, though we have forgotten that now. To listen to some in the press, everything was better under Saddam. Still, Jafari's interests are not American interests. And since it was American power, not Sadr's pathetic militia that ground down the Sunni forces the way forward must be on American terms, not Jafari's.
When it came to invading Iraq, as persuasive as I found those official statements about WMD, I also knew some things that the average American would not be in a position to know. Every Iraq-experienced Special Forces veteran that I spoke with before the latest invasion of Iraq—every one of those veterans—opined that Iraq would devolve into chaos and civil war. But when I asked those same veterans if they thought the former regime was a threat to world security, they all agreed that it was, for they knew well the evil of the former Iraqi regime. Tough choices.
But what America will do next with that power depends on whether it can count it successes and remaining challenges accurately. And accounting correctly is dependent on seeing things clearly through the spin, which is hurled more or less continuously in the viewers face, where even overoptimism is peddled as an antidote to chronic defeatism.
When people were told a year ago that the insurgency was in its dying embers, or when they were told that the same people who failed to show up for the rose petal parade our troops were expected to receive, would now show up and build a democracy overnight, those statements were retorts to the growing reports of Iraqi on Iraqi violence. The gloss over’s were meant to assure us that what was being reported as a growing threat to the stability of the region was actually a miss-read of the facts.
Our top civilian leaders, the ones with their hands on the cockpit controls, predicted swift and easy victory. The failure of that promise, coupled with the bargain basement reporting that substituted nightly body counts and recycled car bomb footage for insightful coverage, is what has made the statements I made a year ago suddenly reach so many ears with so much controversy. ...
We are not getting the truth through our media, or our civilian leadership. Yes, Iraq is in civil war, but there is no doubt in my mind, not the slightest doubt, that the new Iraqi security forces are becoming stronger all the time. It’s not certain if they are strong enough to hold back the enemy on their own or if we need to increase the efforts of our military in a coordinated measure. But the fact that an American general recently invited me to see that progress is an indicator that our top military leaders are confident. An Army general would not have invited me back to Iraq to see a fiasco, and the mere fact of his invitation is a ray of hope.
Commentary
On the last day of March I wrote a paragraph in Pretty Pictures which I can't better. And I repeat it here. It expresses in my own klunky way some of the ideas which I think Michael Yon was getting at. Important victories have been won, but there is a long way yet to go. Yet the worst of it is that we've been consciously blinded by the very institutions whose job it is to help us see.
A realistic assessment should include what has already been gained and what is left to gain. Some people think the Belmont Club is guilty of unwonted optimism simply because it is willing to accept what Zarqawi has practically admitted: that the Sunni insurgency is militarily beaten -- and that the struggle for the political outcome is now underway. And some readers may believe that I've gone all "gloomy" because I think the political outcome still hangs in the balance. But that is nothing more than stating a fact. Yet the essential difference is this: it's in context. Those who have done some rock climbing know that while it is important to grope for the next handhold along the line of climb it is equally important to remember the footholds you have already won. Forget where you are standing and you are lost. Unfortunately, much of the regular media coverage is almost designed to conceal where where we are standing and where we have to go. There is no context, as Bill Roggio once put it on a television interview. For most casual listeners of the news the US is trapped in a featureless and starchy soup, with no beginning or end. The War on Terror becomes portrayed as a shapeless shroud from which it is imperative to escape at all costs.
And that's sad because as Baron von Richthofen said, "Those who are afraid to take the next step will have wasted their entire previous journey."
But we will see all the same.
70 Comments:
But we will see all the same?
I must disagree.
It will be there to be seen, but perspective will make for each witness a different event.
As it is now.
The sweetness of Victory, is also the bitterness of Defeat.
'cause the Goals are ambiguous.
Victory, in Iraq, if attained under present Policies will not be complete nor acknowledged by US.
How could it be, when we concratulate ourselves on hidden tactics that promote combat in city streets.
When the Enemies are only allies we have not vought off yet. When our Allies are really Enemies.
Iraq is no longer a threat to US, if it ever was. I believe it was, many do not, but that debate is over.
Iraq's Army can secure Iraq, or it cannot be secured to our Standard, ever.
As to needing US until they are "viable" and tales of how long US toook to Unify, I say this:
The French did not Garrison Philidelphia until the US Constitution was Ratified.
As to the "Civil War", Mr Talabani said the US intervened in Iraq's Civil War, he thanked US for it.
To not accept his thanks is rude, to say he was lying, worse.
Russia underlines opposition to UN Iran sanctions
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran
Published: April 21 2006 12:54 | Last updated: April 21 2006 12:54
Russia on Friday maintained its opposition to United Nations sanctions against Iran over the country’s nuclear programme unless proof emerged of a diversion into weapons.
“One can speak of sanctions only after the appearance of concrete facts proving Iran is not engaged exclusively in peaceful nuclear activities,” Mikhail Kamynin, the foreign ministry spokesman, said.
The RIA-Novosti news agency quoted Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of the Kremlin Security Council, saying: “There is no such issue (of sanctions) for us - we are not discussing it.” ..."
From the Finacial Times
Without Sanctions, first, there will be no UN Authorization to use force against Iran. Guarenteed.
"... At Friday prayers in Tehran, Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani stressed Iran had no intention of backing down.
“For [the sake of our] independence, economy, dignity and credibility, the Iranian nation will in no way retreat, not even one step,” he told worshippers. ..."
From Time, which many dislike, but has Tony Karon on the ground, in the Zone.
"... ...Former U.S.-appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi suggested on Iraqi TV last weekend that Iraqi political leaders, despite being marginalized by the Iraqi electorate, might have to create an extra-constitutional “emergency government.” One of his key allies, acting speaker of parliament Adnan Pachachi, told reporters that such a government would not be based either on the constitution or on the election results — results, he claimed, which didn't necessarily reflect the true will of the Iraqi people . Such a move would likely provoke a violent Shi'ite reaction, if not full-scale civil war, which the moderate Sistani would be anxious to avoid. ..."
Speaking of Mr al0Jaafari replacement
" ... ...If the Shi'ite bloc drops him, it's unlikely to choose the U.S.-favored Abdul Adel Mahdi as his replacement. Not only is there resentment created by U.S. intervention in the political process, but Adel-Mahdi is the candidate of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the arch-rival of Jaafari's major backer, the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr. More likely is the emergence of a weak compromise candidate to preside over a fractious government facing divisive issues ranging from revising the constitution and oil revenues to dealing with the militias responsible for growing sectarian strife. ... "
wretchard,
I don't think the Sunni are asking our help because they have been defeated. I believe that any group in Iraq will accept US fighting for them as long as we are advancing their interest. As soon as we oppose their interest they will oppose US. The US is being played by every side at every opportunity.
jeez, art, you're mad as a hatr.
well when the NY Times thinks it's a "good thing", then lists the requirements for the new "far from ideal" nominees to fulfill.
It is a set up for failure.
" ... The most likely replacement nominees now being talked about are far from ideal. But the only conceivable path to a better future than civil war and chaos in Iraq is lined with distasteful compromise and leaps of faith. No one believes that success is certain.
A new prime minister will at least have a chance to make a fresh start and begin undoing some of the costly mistakes Mr. Jaafari has made since taking office last April. These include, most prominently, his willingness to allow sectarian militias, death squads and torturers to infiltrate the security services and his failure to insist on professional management of the oil industry and other essential economic sectors. ... "
The NY Times is callig for a Dictator, not a PM of of a weak central Iraqi Federal Government.
The NY Times see's "A Glimmer of Hope"
We know they will see the outcome of these coming events quite differently than many here will.
...the same people who failed to show up for the rose petal parade our troops were expected to receive, would now show up and build a democracy overnight ...
It boggles my mind that a significant percentage of Americans believe this same group of fairy-tale people will rise up in Iran and over-throw the Mad Mullah's and their madder (madr?) President. WHY is "working for internal change through diplomacy" ever considered as an option?
(Or that Mexicans who inhabit the same diplomatic fairy-tale will quit swarming over our borders merely because we ask them to, as one civilized nation to another ...)
doug's favorite, WSJ has some advise for Mr Bush concerning Iran.
" ... The task now for the President is to begin speaking publicly about why a nuclear Iran is, as he calls it, "unacceptable." Far from preparing for war with Iran, the Administration has barely begun to confront the tough choices at hand. The reasons for this reluctance are easy to appreciate: The future of democratic Iraq is far from assured; Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in the tank and his political capital is depleted; and the military options against Iran have their own limitations and risks. But Mr. Bush remains President for 33 more months, with a Constitutional responsibility to ensure our safety. And there is no more clear and present danger than Iran's nuclear programs.
Our point today is not to advocate any specific course of action. But the Administration can't postpone any longer a candid discussion about the nature and urgency of the Iranian threat. That discussion must include the Congress; ... "
"... Above all, the President must begin to educate the American public about what is at stake in Iran and what the U.S. might be prepared to do about it. Until he does so, he will be hostage to a series of increasingly distressing Tehran "announcements," the pace and timing of which will be dictated by the clerics and zealots who wish us ill. ..."
WSJ from the RCP site.
No, nahncee, not spontaneously raise up, though a nice fantasy, that.
But paid for Mercenaries, of Kurdish or other Iranian subject peoples, could easily be disrupting Iran, today.
Just as there is disruption in Iraq.
As shown in Afghanistan, tupperware boxes full of money can buy US some "friends" and the Mohammedans some Enemies.
There is a Way, just no Will.
Personally, I'd rather nuke 'em -- Iran, that is. They've still got some pay-back coming from the embassy take-over.
Doug Santo: You are half right.
What "top civilian leader" said just before the start of OIF:
"This thing is going to be over in a flash."
Answer: BILL CLINTON
As I have said before, people react to general "feellliiinngggs"
rather than hard facts - in the same way they drive depending on how it feels as part of the traffic flow rather than the actual speed limits, capabilities of their automobile, or the road conditions.
They "know" in the back of their heads that a "top leader" said it was going to be quick and easy, and they assume it much have been Pres Bush or the SECDEF or someone - not the former president, who you would tend not believe if he said "Good morning."
I am convinced that perhaps our most pressing problem is that so many people know things they have not learned.
Also, I am surprised to hear that Bill Roggoio said some time back that the Iraqi Civil War started well before OIF and consisted of Saddam's thugs making war on everyone else. I said that, in a Belmont post, a few months back.
the odds of that, nahncee , are less than hiring an Insurection, much much less.
No matter what Mr Hersh reports, on either subject.
That was what Mr Talabani said, well over a year ago, rwe, that the Civil War was ongoing, prior to the Invasion.
No WMD, No Saddam, No United Democratic Iraq. We did what we came for, were unsuccessful for what we hoped for. Mission accomplished. Bye
C-4 is correct if memory serves me well. The entire action was to be paid for with the revenue from Iraqi oil.
I thought I saw Hotspur land on a carrier. I must have missed the banner that said The Mission Has Just Begun.
Doug, we're confusing victory with success. To paraphrase, 'We've got a long way to go, baby' till success.
Bin Laden says "given the choice between a strong horse and a weak horse...". It would appear that the Sunni's picked the weak horse.
If nothing else, this would be a very big loss of face for the Sunni Arabs. Perhaps this is related to why the Arab Sunni's have take a back seat (in the MSM at least) to Iran's and Badr's Shia in the last couple of month
putnam, what would lead you to believe the Sunni bet on the wrong horse?
They have established their Militia as one that could fight the US to a standoff, across entire Regions of central Iraq. Bet that town with the sand berm is still isolated and unsecure. Ramadai is not a hotbed of Federalist fervor.
The Sunni have stood their Militia down, beat on perhaps, defeated, doubtful.
They have been listening to US, accepting the bribes and are now waiting.
Federal Iraq will be Politcally impotent, regardless of the PM's name.
The only force of consequence that could be reliable is the ISF, if the Iraqi Generals see the wisdom of the Turkish Model.
Mr Allawi's threat of some type of coup would be a disaster for US, politcally, in the Region, unlessed backed by the Army. A Coup before the purple election ink was barely dried.
No, the Sunni have bet on themselves, the only horse they can trust.
Wretchard hit a very big nail squarely on the head in his original comment on this. I too would not change a bloody word.
Many -- too many -- people who responded to this post and respond to Belmont Club posts generally seem unable to see with their own eyes and think with their own brains and instead view everything through what some muttonhead writes at the N.Y. Times.
I cannot think of a better way or stiffling thought. Knock it off!
Jawad al-Maliki, deputy leader of a Shiite Muslim religious party, was confirmed as the sole nominee to become prime minister in Iraq's first permanent government since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
Bloomberg
This is a short bio, from an unverified source
"...Jawad Al-Maliki: A prominent Shiite legislator and a leading member of al-Jaafari's Dawa party. He left Iraq in the 1980s and settled in Syria. His real name is Nouri Kamel, according to Dawa members, but he goes by the name Jawad al-Maliki. He is seen as Dawa's favoured choice for the position if al-Jaafari steps down. However, some critics consider him too sectarian, according to alliance members. ...
QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA is the name of the author.
-
" ... ...Jawad al-Maliki, a deputy to Prime Minister Jaafari's Dawa Party, accused the American command of committing "an ugly crime" that "has dangerous political and security dimensions intended to ignite the fire of civil war." ... "
Reporting for this article was contributed by Khalid al-Ansary, Hosham Hussein, Qais Mizher, Abdul Omar al-Neami and Razzaq al-Saiedi from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Mosul.
printed in the www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/news/iraq.php>International Herald Tribue 28 March 06
Seems with Mr Jawad al-Maliki we've come up with a real winner!
The NY Times will all be a flutter with this "Moral Compromise".
This fellow who thinks that a US & Iraqi raid on al-Sadr's Mahdi militiamen was an attempt to "ignite the fires of Civil War", there in Iraq.
He'll fulfill that NY Times list of objectives, just wait and see.
Yes indeed, a WINNER!
Vita Brevis, Ars Longa. History is even longer. If we are to succeed in Iraq we will need another 20 years. Think about how much time it took to turn South Korea into a functioning, prosperous, democracy.
There is no reason to think we will be able to succeed in Iraq any faster.
The Sunni and Shia have been living together as Sunni and Shia for about 1,500 years. The Kurds, Arabs and Persians for a few thousand years more.
Sometimes they fight among each other. Most times they don't. This too shall pass.
So it looks like, instead of a Iranian returnee PM or an US returnee PM, we will get a returnee from Syria to be Iraq PM.
So now Iraq will have a PM with deep Syrian loyalties, that's choice.
first question:
how come all these guys get to make up new names for themselves? What's that all about? if they don't like being youseff hadad they can simply decide one day that they are now Abu somebody or other? What do they do make an announcement in the souk?
next question: DR, is there anybody that you'd actually LIKE to see as PM of Iraq for this go round?
Increasingly, it seems to me that in reading posts by Iraqi bloggers who are actually there, the tone is one of embarrassment. There's frustration, of course, and anger over the on-going bloodshed, but there's a realization that as a country they have been handed civilization on a silver platter, gratis, and are unable to get their act together enough to accept it.
I think the Iraqi's REALLY wanted to show the rest of the Middle East that Arabs, too, could enter the 21st Century and pull their own weight along with countries of a similar weight such as Canada or Holland or Germany. And so far all they've been able to do, as a group of Iraqi citizens, is allow themselves to be massacred on a daily basis, and NOT put together a functioning government.
I'd be embarrassed, too.
skipsailing, not really, the entire escapade is worse than a joke.
Installing a Sadrist as PM, whether his name is al-Jaafari or al Maliki is a disaster. The Sunni call 'em all Iranians, there is sometimes reason for prejudice.
As Mr Rumsfeld said not long ago, it'd be the same as Saddam, if we left. These guys are why.
Same as Saddam.
Should have install Mr Allawi, Mr Talibani and Mr Chilabi as a Triumvirate.
With power vested in the ISF.
The entire Democracy Project has been tried to soon. It is a Project for post War, not a strategy to "win" the War.
As in the great Democracy Projects, post WWII.
But we still cannot decide who our "Enemy" is.
We are giving Iraq to one of them.
Karzai was, then, an anomally? The taliban liked him enough to offer him a gummint job (according to Robert Kaplan)now he's a prominent guy in the post taliban era.
Perhaps there are no really strong leaders available to the Iraqis. Nahncee may be on to something here. What if the capacity to lead is not something this culture can actually produce?
It's too depressing to think about on a warm spring friday. The huge maple outside my office is turned green over night.
the Iraqis, it seems, have a lot to learn.
I would think so, of Mr Karzai.
The Taliban had not the purges that Saddam wrought.
In the Minority communities, to be a leader was a death sentence, eventually.
35 years is a long time to cower.
The in '91 we supported an uprising that purged an entire generation of anti Saddam leaders.
All of today's talent pool left Iraq to live in exile. We should have stuck with exiles that chose the US model to live in, themselves.
To have done otherwise was a grave error.
OK I think I understand your point. Let me restate, for clarity:
those exiles who holed up in countries that are our enemies (or at best not our allies) are not to be trusted. someone who lived in syria, say instead of NYC might be less acceptable to us.
but who's acceptable to the Iraqis? Would they accept someone who had fled iraq to live in Miami and only returned now?
What you are saying, I believe, is that anybody with any leadership aptitude didn't last long under Saddam. So a tribal sheik had to learn the limits of his power or get killed by the security apparatus. As a consequence there is virtually no "untainted" candidate.
did I get that right?
Yeah,
the three that we placed in charge, in the Provessional Government:
Mr Alawai, Mr Talibani & Mr Chilabi had all migrated through the US. They were/ are familar with the US System and each had their US champions, Mr Chilabi had many detractors, as well.
The Government functioned well under their diverse leadership.
The Electoral System that was devised could well have been different. Their Constitutional proccess did not have to unfold the way it did.
With a reasonable ruling Triumvirate and a secular ISF in the Turkish model, Iraq could have made the transition to a Federal Republic that we'd be happy with.
It took the ISF to gain parity with the Sunni Militia and break up the aQI cells, not US force.
The trio could have ruled until the US's War was over.
we tend to forget how appallingly terrible saddam's regime was. I can see where everything surrounding it is tainted, including those who brought him down.
I'm listening to Bing West's book again and I'm struck by the contrast between Bremmer and Allawi.
Bremmer, it seems to me, lost his nerve when the council he appointed threatened to resign.
Allawi simply shined them on. His attitude seemed to be: You wanna resign, hey go ahead I got a hundred guys who would take your place.
I also think that Iraq needs a truly courageous person and there doesn't seem to be such a man. This first PM will have a huge target on his back, and his chest and his forehead.
Like Moses and MLK, he might not live to see the promised land. But for the interim between the chaos of today and some more stable state it's gonna take a truly brave man to lead.
The problem I have with the triumverate (or troika) is the Arab propensity to squabble rather than act. Given the need for some sort of compromise and the inability of the Iraqis to achieve this on virtually anything, wouldn't a troika be paralyzed from the get go?
Every time I drift too close to a cockeyed optimism, Rat, G_d bless him, brings me back to earth.
But I still feel, against all the evidence of my senses and of the newspapers, and that of the more sober commentary here at Belmont Club and elsewhere, that this Iraq project is going to stumble, in the end, toward a more or less satisfactory conclusion, both for the Iraqis and for us.
There is only so much stupidity available to go around, even in the Arab world.
Jamie Irons
Possibily, but with Mr Allawi as titular head, Mr Chilabi with a viable Portforlio and Mr Talbani as President and International Spokesman, they were doing okay.
Could the wheels have fallen off that wagon, also, sure could have.
C4,
That's easy (but very long windedly) for you to say.
For all your 20-20 hindsight, I never see you issue one constructive sentence; just hperbole and anti-semitism.
Instead of constantly ranting about the neocons, what would you do about Iran? You do seem to think it's an important issue.
2164,
I can't find one instance where anyone in the adminstration publicly stated that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Some of the Sunday morning pundits said it would be a good idea.
You must have picked-up that rumor there.
OK clearly defined portfolios. That makes sense, for a while.
I just think as Mr Irons does that we'll get there. The Iraqis have just sooooo much to learn and so little time to learn it.
We wouldn't be having this conversation had the newly minted iraqi politicians gotten their priorities right.
I supported the Democracy Project, in theory. In practice as well.
It just seems that we put the cart before the horse.
The horse we've obtained does not hitch or drive. The cart could have waited, 'til the horse was broke & trained.
That should be
" gelded, broke & trained"
Sorry.
Ahhhh, great post, Wretchard. While the great forecasts from the Administration have not come to pass (yet), the great disasters of the next Vietnam have not (never). So, while it's admirable to take the even-handed view, many of still resent more the defeatist, purposeful ignorance displayed in the media and the opposing party.
The predeluvian view of the Iraq of Michael Moore, where happy people flew kites, with women's rights is countered by my favorite nuggest in this whole great post: Every Iraq-experienced Special Forces veteran that I spoke with before the latest invasion of Iraq—every one of those veterans—opined that Iraq would devolve into chaos and civil war. But when I asked those same veterans if they thought the former regime was a threat to world security, they all agreed that it was, for they knew well the evil of the former Iraqi regime. Tough choices.
As imperfect as the situation is now, we are at least attempting to change the world, to do the right thing, which we didn't do in decades previous. It has to be done.
Skipsailing,
(And I really like that appellation!)
I just think as Mr Irons does that we'll get there...
That's Dr. Mr. Irons...
;-)
Jamie Irons
"...Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, was even more upbeat before a hearing of the House of Representatives appropriations committee on March 27. "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people," he said. "On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50bn and $100bn over the course of the next two or three years."
The same day, Mr Rumsfeld told a Senate hearing: "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
This story was published in the Finacial Times on January 16, 2004.
Perhaps they have misquoted all those folk, but an industrious fact checker could read the transcripts, so I doubt the quotes are wrong.
asymetric 101 and yet a shot to be fired, bob.
That fat's not even NEAR the fire
It has yet to hit the pan.
Imagine the Gulf Coast refineries cut off from Alaska oil for up to a month.
Can do, easy.
I asked almost two years Will Iraq become a bloodbath -- about Proportional Representation. Voting according to party lists, like Europe, rather than by geographic area, like America (including disgraceful gerrymandering).
Prop. Rep. supports radicalism and separatism; winner takes all supports more compromise. The mixed Palistinian votes failed because, without free speech, there were NOT many different factions.
I've also, thanks to Michael Yon, changed my mind and now agree that Iraq is in a civil war.
One of the main missing issues -- what is "justice" for the many officers, mostly Sunni, who committed horrendous crimes under Saddam. Why aren't more folks talking about the justice issue?
Shia death squads don't seem much less just than unspoken, unagreed, total amnesty, even if the Sunni killers keep killing out of uniform.
Finally, the over-optimistic "things are getting MUCH better" was terrible. Iraq has made huge progress, including this 4 month "true democracy" coalition negotiations, but has far to go.
Iraq democracy can ONLY be created by Iraqis -- it's NOT something the US can "win" for Iraq. What we can win, and did win, was freedom from state murderers; and even this was not complete.
right, dan, with the expectation, on the part of US Public, that with the "Government" comes stability. It's all part of democracy, you know?
But when, as you say, "the hardballl starts" our folk won't be prepared. 'Cause they believe it's almost over, now that Politics rule the roost.
That hardball, it'll hit the Public like Tet, watch and see.
Even of 10,000 or more Mohammedans died, the Battle itself will signify defeat.
It is interesting, but I saw a female talking head babble about Mr Chavez shipping oil to China.
Said it could not happen, 'cause the pipe was full, 24/7 flowin' the other way.
No capacity for Mr Chavez to ship oil west.
Now I'd bet cash money, that a Canal capable tanker fleet was being put together, almost as we speak.
That in the event of a pipeline breakdown, that Fleet would turn a tidy profit, full both ways.
See, in the old days, 'fore the pipelie, all the oil transited the Canal in tankers.
Jumbos from Alaska to the Canal, minis that make the transit, jumbos up to the refineries.
As to China being unable to process Mr Chavez's nasty crude, the Chinese will just build a capable refinery, storing the oil 'til they can refine it.
They are industrious, those Chinese. They also control management of the Canal, now.
Hell, the Chicoms could be building those tankers, today, if the old ones were already scrapped out.
My bad.
Apparantly the adminstration/ Congress didn't follow through on those suggestions. Too compassionate, I guess.
OTOH, if we were taking the oil money, we'd have both Sunni and Shia against us, fighting together.
Perhaps that's the way to get them united?
Need a chuckle? Read about Greg Mitchell's industrial difficulties.
dan
no doubt about it,
we stay the course,
all for one - one for all.
Again C4,
You rant; but no constructive offers. Do you really think a Dem admin will be a better choice given all the dangerous situations you name?
...because you don't want to continue your evening with horseshit all over you?
trabang68,
the reason you want to take a shower after Cedarford post is because most of the shit he spews is true and it sticks to US. In the grand sweep of history what coulda/shoulda been matters squat... what is, is. It does not matter one little iota what Bush hoped for, what Bush intended, what we all wanted, what counts is what happened...and what happened is shit, and it sticks to US. If only a shower were all that were needed to make all well agin'.
Ah, Merle...you said it.
dunno if this will open (it's from a subscript site), but it's excellent re backgrounding the PRC mil threat. link
But if you listen to his duet with Gretchen Wilson, not the Viacom videp but the her new CD, you'll find even the "Hag" thinks it's time to leave Iraq.
As goes Haggard, so goes the Heartland?
Yup, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is precisely what we need to do, in order to get the ball rolling on banning these Pubs from public office in the future.
Bring on Hil and Al and JFK2. No more Rummy, let's have Wesley Scott. Lets get rid of Bolton, too, and get somebody with good manners (Bill?) back in the UN!
\:-D
...after the Impeachment, a New Honcho at the Dep't of Interior:
President Cheney would appoint him?
You jest.
That was when I KNEW Mr Nixon was toast, when Mr Agnew was taken down.
If Mr Agnew had been "clean" Mr Nixon could have rode out the storm.
Imagine, President Agnew, 'stead of Ford, can't hardly do it.
Neither could the folk at the WaPo.
trangbang68 wrote:
"at least he made a freakin' decision."
Is that it in your books??? He made a decision, he is the "decider" and that is all that counts. It doesn't matter if the decision made led to utter shit and many deaths at least he made a decision??? Tell me, in your books, is it better to have gone to war and lost then never to have gone to war at all?
I was hoping the Decider in Chief reference would slide on by,
but Ash nailed the slow pitch.
trangbang for head writer when the history is writ.
dan, yep.
Interesting that ash finds a natural affinity with C4.
When the one blows, the other remains...
Jamie Irons
(And, hey, no ad hominem intended, really. I'm just kidding both of them. I'm sure they're both decent sorts in the final analysis.)
Jamie Irons
that's my attitude, too, jamie, since they're too far away for me to sic the dogs on 'em.
\;-D
So, you're not gonna vote for Bush anymore, then, C4?
Say it's 9-12-01, C4, and you're buried down in the War Room like Dr. Strangelove, planning the response. What do you DO? What do YOU do?
That's all true, as far as the natural alliance (the David Duke/Cindy Sheehan alliance is analogous), as well as the near-hate speech--but after all that's the purpose of a 'comments' section--to see the thinking of the spectrum of those motivated to write.
The main lesson as far as I'm concerned is that both ends of the political spectrum, call 'em the Duke/Sheehan "terminals", are stuck, and can't hear the counter-argument, are apparently congenitally deaf to argument.
I guess I (or anyone) could arrange that argument in blocks, and just paste in some number of applicable blocks (ala C4) every time I happen to pass this way and catch an angle. Not a very persuasive method as the rant becomes so familiar after awhile, but if my purpose were just to exhibit the tactics of my brand of politics, that'd do it nicely.
Post a Comment
<< Home