I Want This Explained to Me.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in War — Comments (43) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So I'm reading now that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been officially invited to the bargaining table by the Iraqis, and I'm wondering to myself, "How is this not the utter and total defeat of the democratization project?" I mean, the way I understood the theory, Iran was going to be sandwiched inbetween a democratic Iraq and a democratic Afghanistan, which would in turn lead inevitably to the democratization of Iran. Instead, we see today the Iranization (I'll make up words if I please, thank you) of Iraq, and I am left only to say that anything that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is interested in protecting is something the United States should probably be interested in breaking. Thankfully, the United States has not officially signed on to this lunacy yet, but since the democratically elected President of Iraq says this is the way to go, we are left with precious little space to actually oppose it, either.
If we cannot somehow override the dangerous course of action that the Iraqis are presently pursuing (while Ahmadinejad says, at the press conference itself, that "America is the enemy of all Muslims,") then one wonders whether we can be said to have any control in this region whatsoever, and what the efforts of a well-fought military campaign have ultimately come to. What is even more depressing is that this turn of events signals that even the hope of a government which is stable and friendly may have passed by the wayside, at least for the nonce. Even the very baseline objective which should remain - the protection of the Kurds who have admirably acquitted themselves during this project - does not come except at the cost of the permanent alienation (and possible military involvement with) Turkey.
I'd like an explanation of how I'm wrong.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | An Uplifting Message from Michael Moore — Comments (17) »
I Want This Explained to Me. 43 Comments (0 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I wouldn't give up on democratization just yet. I think there are really two separate questions here, namely:
1. Is there still hope for a democracy in Iraq, even if it takes an imperfect and sometimes brutal form and
and
2. Can Iraq be prevented from becoming an Iranian ally?
The US might still be able to achieve the goal of implanting that imperfect democracy, even if it can't prevent the formation of an Iraqi-Iranian alliance. The question is, is there still enoggh political support in Iraq for a non-sectarian state that acts as a neutral arbiter between the different ethnic factions. After all the killing and the resulting hardening of positions, there might not be, but then again, there might. People can surprise you.
Also, I'm pretty sure that this summit would have happened even if the Republicans *had* held onto congress. Maliki has to think long-term. He must know that the war is increasingly unpopular in the US (for whatever reasons, good or bad) and that it's not just unpopular with Democrats. In that position, it makes sense for him to seek Iranian backing, if not now, then at least sometime in the near future. It's a way of hedging his bets. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment: US troops have not been able to calm the civil strife raging through his capital city, even after the increase in troop levels of the late summer. Under these conditions, it makes sense for him to seek other forms of assistance, even if that assistance comes from an unsavory source like Iran.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
The problem here is that Iran and Syria have been fostering insurgency in Iraq precisely to thwart US intentions in the region. This is playing directly into Iranian hands.
Iran has been, at very little cost, poisoning the process in order to get themselves some bargaining chips. This is a racket- essentially, they're trying to convince everybody in the region that their partnership is necessary- by being the problem until their demands are met. I think it's nigh time to drastically increase the price the Iranians are paying for their adventurism into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and points beyond.
How can you possibly clamp down on Iran nukes while kissing their butt for Iraq? This will end in disaster.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10135]
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
With the American people voting to throw them overboard by electing Democrats, I think that the Iraqi leadership has correctly assessed the situation and decided that idealism must give way to stability. And, like it or not, Iran and Syria could make life a lot easier for Iraq if they went along instead of tried to be a bulkhead of democracy and capitalism in the Middle East.
That is why, now more than ever, it is important that the United States show committment and resolve to stand Iraq up on its own as a democratic-capitalist society. If we do not, we will end up with Iraq in the same state that Iran is currently in.
Partitioning off a democratic-capitalist Kurdistan, a democratic-secular Suni state called Iraq that can be nudged towards capitalism by Kurdistan and the U.S. in the future, and then a Shiite state called Arabistan that would basically be Iran's sidekick in the region might be our best option currently.
Now...I think that it would be an act of extreme arrogance for the U.S. to partition the country just as England arbitrarily united them, but...it may take that act of extreme arrogance to maximize our scenario in the nation. At least then, we'd have a democratic-capitalist ally in Kurdistan in the region. That may end up being our bulkhead of democracy in the region.
Of course, then we're going to have to protect Kurdistan from Turkey.
Of course, then we're going to have to protect Kurdistan from Turkey.
And that'd be NATO member Turkey, an attack on whose soil is considered by treaty to be an attack on our own.
Awkward!
We went in, got Hussein, held elections, saw the democratically elected leaders installed. Objectives met.
I am also at a loss to see how refereeing a civil war was part of the bargain.
Or are we going to wait until Sunnis and Shi'ites stop hating each other?
Got a millennium, anyone?
You don't explain the inexplicable.
I'm with Moe here - the US electorate threw the Iraqis under the bus, I cannot really blame them for trying to crawl out before it runs them over.
But I cannot for the life of me see any way this ends well for them. Or us.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I don't know that you're wrong, Leon, and this wasn't a pleasant sight, but I must say I think what we're seeing today is more akin to Alviro Uribe standing next to Hugo Chavez at some press conference announcing a joint Colombia-Venezuela pipe deal while Chavez rants against the US. It has happened. Do I like it? No. But I can look at a map and see why Uribe does it. Do I then throw him under the bus and declare everything that has happened in Colombia a failure? No, again.
The situations are not exactly equivalent, but my impression is that if you think of Colombia 15-20 years ago and compare it to today, that's not a bad model for Iraq. The country is going to have to live with its neighbors, and until we decide we want to oust the Ahmadinejads and Chavez-es of the world by force, it seems to me we're going to have to cope with the Malikis (not even, the Talabanis) and Uribes dealing with them.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Is that Uribe did not come to power at the expense of a three-year American military campaign.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
There are many differences--but we've certainly put a great deal of time and effort--not to mention money, which continues to be a huge issue--into Latin America, and the road has not always been straight or smooth.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
If the Iraq goverment wants to put itself under the sway of Iran, if it wants to definitively side with a country that is so obviously at war with the USA and Israel---then, the Iraqis should be ready for most Americans to react as Leon has.
BUT, we Americans haven't thrown the Iraqis under the bus, yet. Bush hasn't adopted the Baker/Hamilton plan(whatever that comes out to be, and Abizaid clearly doesn't want his CINC to quit. AE is right that the Iraqis have to have dialogue with their neighbors. (It's that pesky "shared borders" dilemma). And, there's nothing wrong with exchanging initial, public, diplomatic niceties.
This is NOT the time to go wobbly on Iraq. We are in the midst of making sausage, and we knew this was going to be ugly.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
of us. We are going to kill 10s of millions of them. It's what they want and it's what we can't avoid because we can't stomach killing 10s of 1000s of them now.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
will exact a very high toll in human life, indeed.
The path to success in Iraq lies in the total destruction of Iran's nuclear program.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
And I have no idea how to answer it, how to say it's not so, now that the Democrats won this last election.
Our best hope is that when the time comes for war appropriations, the Pelosi leadership will be so weakened that a coalition of Republicans and fringe Democrats can join together to stay the course.
If I were Iraqi I wouldn't want to count on that though.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Do what's necessary to achieve the victory.
Stop with smart bombs and load the B52's with loads of Dumb Iron Bombs. Yes yes smart bombs are wonderful but they are based on the idea you want to surgically eliminate a target with a single strike. We will not lose a B52 to the insurgents but the Iraqis anywhere near a potential target will wind up eliminating it for us.
I will say this the left is completely wrong and we were worse for caring what they had to say. They are wrong in saying that the Iraqis want us out, We were wrong in not making certain they weren't desperate for us to get out.
Stay the course means 'Keep on doing the things that have gotten us to this point, with a functioning, free Iraqi government that controls an Army that we're building up to be able to defend the country from threats, both internal and external.'
THAT is what is needed for a true victory, not just bombing the daylights out of people.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I don't see an Iraq that will have one third under the permanent sway of Iran. Another third will have a functioning democracy but it could have had it 14 years ago at considerably less cost. And, another third that will wind up being a rabid wasteland.
What we have been doing has been insufficient. Its been good, moral but it will only be successful if we win. We need to bring the pain to those that are in the background aiding and abetting the enemy. We no longer have the time we had before the election.
If Iraq falls under the sway of Iran, it'll only be because we cut and run before they had an army capable of beating back the Iranians.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
...the job of creating a functioning democratic state in Iraq would have required perhaps a twenty-year commitment from us. One assumes President Bush knows this, so he can be faulted for not making clear (and building support for) the long-term nature of the mission. It would have been a terrific investment, paying dividends for decades to come. But the American voters sold it short.
So that's where things stand. The situation will find its own level and someone will pacify Iraq after we leave (whether that happens in two months or two years). It's bad on many levels that we chose not to control the outcome, but it is what it is.
The result of the election is irrelevant to what 'stay the course' would mean if we were to carry it out.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Your words upthread: Stay the course means 'Keep on doing the things that have gotten us to this point, with a functioning, free Iraqi government that controls an Army that we're building up to be able to defend the country from threats, both internal and external.'
In the current political environment, your version of "stay the course" is only possible if it takes a short amount of time (less than two years) and a lot of cover from our political enemies (who have now been greatly empowered by the voters).
It's certainly possible for an iron-willed leader to do the right thing in the face of implacable opposition (and a possible impeachment). I don't rate President Bush as that kind of man, nor does have the right kind of support from his people. Perhaps you disagree.
My point is that I'm not hopeful that we WILL be able to stay the course, but if somehow it happens I'll be happy.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Is that the story I referenced in the OP has happened despite the fact that all our troops are still there.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
They get CNN International in Baghdad, don't they? Surely CNN covered the US Congressional elections, along with months and months of cut and run talk from the Democrats?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
...Is was happened.
Our electorate finally gave in to the ongoing relentless appeals from the liberals that nothing ever would have or ever will work in Iraq/Middle East. No matter whether they make sense or not, our dear liberals know how to needle under a person's skin.
with Bush this week in Jordan should be interesting. I think I'd start with "Malikis, you ungrateful son-of-b*itch, 3000 American soliders have died to give you people a chance at freedom and now you want to let Iran run your country --- go to H*ll."
At the same time, I can't say that I blame them for trying to cut a deal now that the once proud people of my once great country have given them more than ample reason to distrust us.
I had composed a lengthy epistle venting my anger at the feckless anti-American press, the weasel Democrats, the Republican weasels, the cowards of the left, the ACLU, and the rest of the enemies of this country who live among us. And for good measure I had included George Bush for whispering at us that we are at war. But I deleted it in an effort to keep from having a stroke.
Elections have consequences.
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I wrote that blog, too!
Well, I thought about writing it.
Well, actually, it sounded good when you talked about it.
All but the stroke part, that is.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I'd heard it somewhere before :-)
It is still true, great minds do think alike.
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Giving someone "freedom," means they get to choose. Only the naive would expect Iraqis (rightly or wrongly) to choose what we (or some of us) want them to choose.
"...now that the once proud people of my once great country have given them more than ample reason to distrust us."
I'm not sure when you think your country stopped being great. Are you referring to the November 7 election? And what is the reason you think the Iraqis shouldn't trust us? I doubt if the Shia majority thought the United States government was great or trustworthy when it was arming and supporting Saddam. Nor do I imagine they were impressed when GHW Bush encouraged them to rise up against Hussein and then failed utterly to support their efforts.
A few years ago I interviewed a former Iraqi soldier who had tried to fight against Hussein. After watching American fighters allow Saddam's helicopters to operate in "no-fly zones," which then routed the Shia rebels, he escaped to Saudi Arabia. After a couple of years in a Saudi camp ("hell"), he managed, through persistence and luck, to get to the US (he was also trying to get admitted into other countries). He appreciates a lot about this country, but I doubt if he'll ever trust the American government again.
The Iraqi people have had ample reason to distrust the US for decades.
The election is merely the embodiment if the problem: a press that lies, inveigles and obfuscates (X-Files was on a little while ago) to undermine the very system that makes them possible; politicians, mostly Democrat but no small number of our own party, who are more interested in themselves than the good of the people and the nation, politicians who despite knowing the facts choose instead to demagogue (Rangel for example); a coterie of know-nothing celebrities, academics, dilettantes and other "prominent people" who believe their own press releases; and it goes on and on.
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
in that yahoo article.
"Iran had been trying to organize a summit joining Ahmadinejad, Talabani and Syrian President Bashar Assad, but Damascus has not responded to Tehran's invitation."
That makes me suspect that the rumors of backchannel talks with Syria may be more than vapor.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
~Sir Walter Scott~
We just had an election which disempowered Republicans, but empowered liberal Democratic leaders AND freshman Blue Dog Democrats. (GOP Congressmen + Blue Dogs = antidote to Team Pelosi, perhaps).
We have a CENTCOM CINC who, based on his testimony to the SASC, CLEARLY does not yet want to quit. And, he leads a military that is tiring but certainly NOT broken, with many members that flinch at (a) the thought of another Vietnam Rooftop Helicopter Redux and (b) leaving a job undone.
We have a GOP President who still holds the bully pulput, if he chooses to use it. For example, he could ask the American people if they want Vietnam Rooftop Helicopter Redux? Or, he and Rice could ask our allies--the ones sniggering at our current travails--if they'd like instead to live in a world policed by an America with a new motto: No More Mr. Nice Guy. More Rubble, Less Trouble.
Things aren't looking good, but IMO it's not time to throw in the towel. It's not time for us, and CERTAINLY not time for the President. Now, IF he gets strong evidence that (a) the Iraqis simply show no signs of pulling themselves together, EVER or (b) our military really can't take the stess of counterinsurgency any more, then the President needs to start educating the American people and planning for our withdrawal. BUT, if there's a chance that Iraq can work out in our favor, AND if our military can go a few more innings (I feel it can), then the President needs to start using that bully pulpit.
He needs to explain to the American people that we're in the midst of the hard slog that he told everyone who was listening lay ahead of us. Then, he needs to explain HOW this can work, given American resources and Iraqi capabilities and will. And he needs to do it, again and again and again. He needs to tell us the things we NEED to hear, not what we WANT to hear.
And he needs to start soon. For, the perception of looming defeat, of the inevitability of failure, is starting to take hold. The President needs to use that pulpit to start combatting it. I feel the American people will rally, IF properly and forcefully led.
We shall see.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
at least in the House. I don't understand people always talking about these "conservative" Democrats getting elected. The House leadership are hard left liberals and they have huge power over bills. If some conservative bill is offered that the GOP minority + the blue dogs could pass, you can bet your butt it doesn't ever get a vote.
The bottom line is that Pelosi being Speaker effectively negates any voting power the so-called conservative Democrats might have. If they don't like how it turns out and there are enough of them, they can try to elect a different leader in 2008. Until then, they have as little power as the GOP House members do.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
...and I'm thinking there is a good chance that the US or Israel or the Iranian people will effect some serious changes in Iran, I wait them out. If I think the current Iranian regime and their policies are going to be there for some time to come, I call Ahmadinejad and say: "My brother, let's set our differences aside and work together."
... the embryo Iraqi government sees a US government going wobbly, and a neighboring traditional enemy, one that is powerful and likely soon to go nuclear, and which will be next door long after the Americans are gone. It's called realpoltik.
We might be able to salvage the Kurds from the upcoming wreck, presuming that enough of the neocons' replacements have vestigal senses of shame. No, I wouldn't bet a dead rat on that, either*.
That being said, Iraq's Presidency is largely a ceremonial position; Talibani is the head of state, not the head of government.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Go ahead and gloat, lurkers. That'll make you men before your mothers.