According to Barack Obama, when people lose faith in Washington they find refuge in god, guns, and xenophobia. Michael Young wonders why, when questioning General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Obama took a minimalist view of what America could do to help Iraqi citizens regain faith in their government.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Why is this a question? Has Michael Young ever lived in the USA? Most Americans care about what Washington can do for them, Most Americans don't give a shit about what Washington can do for Iraqis. It's not hard to understand. Sorry if that sounds cynical, that's the way it is.
Paul | April 17, 2008, 3:28pm | #
when people lose faith in Washington they find refuge in god, guns, and xenophobia.Ok, except for the god and xenophobia, I'd have to agree. I've never had much faith in government, and I exercise my 2nd amendment rights. Coincidence? I think not.
I give in! I'll vote for whoever you tell me to! Make it stop! Make it stop!
Shannon Love | April 17, 2008, 3:31pm | #
the real difficulty with Obama's case was that it revived an American reading of Iraq that treats Iraqis as secondary characters in their own drama.Unfortunately, this idea is very endemic on the left. For most leftist, people in other countries are just stage props in the West's ongoing internal psychodrama.
Other peoples don't have independent histories, cultures, ideologies, politics etc that impel them to take action. Instead, they only react to the actions of the West. Leftist therefore come to argue that we control the actions of everyone in the world by fine tuning our own actions. It's a staggering act of egocentricism.
Obama comes from a mid-set that looks back on actions like the abandonment of the people of Cambodia to the tender mercies of Mao and Pol Pot with a feeling of pride and accomplishment. The left views the abandonment as a good thing because it cemented their internal power in America. The fact that 1 in 5 Cambodians died for that power never even enters their minds.
The same social and political factors are still in play. Given the chance, Obama will seek to repeat that tragedy in Iraq.
Tbone | April 17, 2008, 3:32pm | #
But this would show that Obama, who has sold himself as a man of vision at home, is selfishly unimaginative abroad. Worse, because it is unlikely he will be able to much alter U.S. policy in Iraq, since Iran will not cede much more to the next administration than it did to this one, Obama's promises are potentially deceitful.As opposed to what? Young appears to be shilling for stay the course. PACIFYING the country for a decade or more MIGHT have allowed democracy to take hold with minimal bloodshed. BushCo wouldn't pony up the cost when it mattered and it's now too damn late.
joe | April 17, 2008, 3:37pm | #
The projection on display from the right is astounding. Three years ago, Michael Young was assuring us that Arab Spring was right around the corner, and now he's accusing someone else of moving the goalposts to redefine failure as success?Just two years ago, the pressure we could put on Iran was going to allow us to sharply reduce their influence throughout the region, and now he's talking about the "right kind" of expanded Iranian influence in Iraq.
And then Shannon up there, after all the years of Lord of the Rings comparisons, Muchich comparisons, "moral clarity vs. moral relativism" arguments, and cheering as Republicans dyed their fingers purple, declares that it's the anti-war majority who views Iraqis as pawns in an American psychodrama.
This is what a crack-up looks like.
some fed | April 17, 2008, 3:37pm | #
List of other countries for which we are morally responsible by this logic: Mexico (invaded, generally meddled), Liberia (created and settled it), the Phillipines (annexed, invented government), Japan (invaded, invented government), North Korea (invaded, liberated from Japan), South Korea (ditto), Canada (invaded), Germany (invaded, partioned, invented government), Afghanistan (invaded, invented government), Vietnam (invaded), Panama (assisted independence), Cuba (invaded, invented government)...Some curmudgeons would have the audacity to call this sense of responsibility "Neocolonialism". I'll just content myself to say that it is difficult enough for a government to treat its own people in a just manner, to obey customs and laws, and to be accountable to its citizens. Does a government acting in a foreign country, whose citizens have fewer means of redress, gain some edge in this regard?
Mo | April 17, 2008, 3:39pm | #
For most leftist, people in other countries are just stage props in the West's ongoing internal psychodrama.Shannon,
Didn't the idea that "we're not the world's policeman" used to be very popular amongst the right? The right doesn't give a shit about Sudan and didn't give a shit about Rwanda. They have no problem propping up oppressive, illiberal governments in Saudi Arabia. Why do you think the case being pushed was primarily of the threat that Saddam posed to us?
Face it, if Gore launched the war against Iraq, the Republicans would be playing the same parts the Democrats are playing today and acting more like the late 90s Republicans. This has nothing to do with principle or nobility of spirit, it has everything to do with politics.
When exactly was the United States defending Cambodians again? I must have forgotten that part. I remember when the bombed the shit out of them, killing maybe 500,000. And I remember when we were undermining their government and setting the stage for a revolution. I remember when we were strugging to keep the army that eventually overthrew the Khmer Rouge from being able to project influcence beyond the Vietnamese border. But I don't seem to recall there ever being a period when we were in a position to defend the Cambodians.
henry | April 17, 2008, 3:41pm | #
Michael Young--what a fucking joke. Why does Reason persist in trying to foist this clown on us? Do you even give a shit what your readers (and, yes, I am a subscriber) think about such lame authors? When is the last time any of his posted articles ever generated substantial positive feedback?God Almighty, move from the dork already.
Alan Vanneman | April 17, 2008, 3:43pm | #
"That's why Obama's comments were so off-putting."No, what's offputting is Big Mike's phony articles on, I don't know, JUST ABOUT ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN, all of which seem somehow to come around to the idea that the U.S. OUGHT TO SEND LOTS AND LOTS OF TROOPS TO THE MIDDLE EAST FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME, OR AT LEAST UNTIL MICHAEL YOUNG THINKS THEY CAN GO HOME. Yeah, that's what's offputting.
joe | April 17, 2008, 3:44pm | #
People who support the war are to be judged on what they hope will happen in Iraq in their fondest dreams.People who oppose the war are to be judged on the worst-case scenario that their critics can dream up.
Of course.
PC | April 17, 2008, 3:45pm | #
"According to Barack Obama, when people lose faith in Washington they find refuge in god, guns, and xenophobia."Not directed at Michael Young, but it seems when Neocons lose faith in their ability to sell their wars, they find refuge in hiding behind Petraeus.
Others seem to want to hide behind humanitarian BS. Nationbuilding is where the majority of PTSD and combat deaths are coming from, not so much the invasion. Our troops are not policemen, even though Obama, who is an unacceptable candidate, would probably do that in Darfur and few other places. I personally have a hard time believing that the Saddam era Sunnis who still remember the taste of power and the Shiites who still remember the taste of oppression will ever let Al Qaeda run them. If the Iraqis are as Nationalist as the Neocons say and that factoid was shoved down our throat repeatedly, Al Qaeda doesn't stand a chance. Getting troops out, eliminates the scapegoat, the unifying target for many of these insurgent forces. Our troops are warfighters, not nation builders or democracy teachers.
As for Democracy in Iraq, that is not important to me. These are people who were never really taught democracy growing up. They weren't taught about Washington and Jefferson. We have and look how our Republic turned into a Federal Democracy and look at how bad of a job we do and maintaining our rights and freedoms. Why should we first care about or have faith in the potential for lasting democracy in Iraq?
The biggest problem with the Middle East is that governments and borders have been decided from without, not within. Regions need natural evolution in order to evolve period. This micromanaging of the Middle East througout contemporary history by the west is the biggest reason we have this problem. We can't micromanage the world.
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 3:48pm | #
Young, this is idiotic nonsense.I have no faith in the US government, and you know what? If some coalition of the willing comes here to shoot up the place and set up a new government, it won't improve my faith in the government one iota.
joe | April 17, 2008, 3:50pm | #
Our troops are not policemen, even though Obama, who is an unacceptable candidate, would probably do that in Darfur and few other places.No, they'd be sentries.
Providing security among a friendly population to protect them from outside attack is quite a different mission that suppressing an insurgency among a hostile population. More like the DMZ, less like Iraq.
There are still arguments against it, certainly, but they are different arguments.
BakedPenguin | April 17, 2008, 3:51pm | #
ed, if you imagine that you're a character in an Ionescu play called "The Campaign", it becomes somewhat easier to take.Unless, of course, you hate Ionescu.
Cosmotarian Overlord | April 17, 2008, 3:55pm | #
The Iraqi people are very important, that is why Petraeus, Kissinger and I are very proud of our high kill rate in Iraq. We are seeing approximately 15 dead Iraqis for every dead US soldier. Since a large percentage of our soldiers are actually mexicans and blacks we are actually up to about 30 dead Iraqi's fro every dead white American soldier. These are great numbers! We are really taking it to those importantly bad Iraqis. Once we kill a few more million people there then I am confident the remaining orphans and widows will have unlimited freedom to pay interest on the loans we will force the Iraqi government to take out from IMF, World Bank, JP Morgan to "invest" in projects that great companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, GE, KBR have undertaken on behalf of the Iraqi peasants. The survivors will be so grateful for their newfound freedom that they will have no hard feelings about their close relatives being tortured and or shot. It will be a crime if Petraus and Rumsfeld don't win the Nobel Peace prize in 2010.PC | April 17, 2008, 4:00pm | #
"Providing security among a friendly population to protect them from outside attack is quite a different mission that suppressing an insurgency among a hostile population. More like the DMZ, less like Iraq."You can't say that for sure. When has the government ever been good at deciphering "good" and "evil" with regards to foreign policy? When have they ever shot straight on the consequences of occupation? Besides I thought in Iraq we would be greeted with flowers and candy from a friendly population and live happily ever after. The same thing you are describing was the same scenario they described. Too much faith in your liberal friends, you have.
But more importantly Darfur is not an imminent threat to the United States.
Cosmotarian Overlord | April 17, 2008, 4:00pm | #
Joe, Regarding Cambodia....Kissinger was trying to protect the Cambodians from over populating the world. Sure a few got hit by bombs and executed by Pol Pot, but it was for the good of the collective...the herd was thinned.TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:01pm | #
Obama took a minimalist view of what America could do to help Iraqi citizens regain faith in their government.The whole "what's good for Iraqis" question is very awkward for a politician whose base is advocating the course of action most likely to lead to very bad things for them.
This isn't 1971. No young John Kerry is going to convince anyone that U.S. troops are behaving like Ghenghis Khan and Iraqis are better off without them.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:05pm | #
For the first two years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration was guilty of the same behavior. Iraq was about America and American power. Iraq's 2005 elections were the first real sign that Washington understood why the Iraqis mattered. Yet it was the 2007 surge that took this realization to new heights. U.S. commanders grasped that the security of Iraqi cities and civilians had to be the centerpiece of a new counter-insurgency strategy requiring U.S. soldiers to insert themselves more than ever into Iraqi society. Iraq's complex social dynamics were studied and, as effectively as possible depending on location, acted upon. For the first time the discussion in the U.S. seriously addressed what a pullout might mean in terms of Iraqi suffering.Wow, great essay, I never thought I would see this here.
I have new faith in Reason. I'm renewing my subscription!
DGB | April 17, 2008, 4:09pm | #
I deeply, deeply resent the idea that Iraqis or anyone else has a claim on the lives of those in the US military.True, military personel are volunteers, but that does not relieve the US civilian leadership of their responsibility to only send them into harms way in the event of a genuine security threat to the US
TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 4:10pm | #
""Didn't the idea that "we're not the world's policeman" used to be very popular amongst the right? """Wasn't that one of Bush's points when running for the election in 2000?
Jake Boone | April 17, 2008, 4:12pm | #
I have new faith in Reason. I'm renewing my subscription!KNIRD!
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:12pm | #
Providing security among a friendly population to protect them from outside attackWhat makes you think people in Darfur are friendlier than people in Iraq? And where did you get the idea they're being attacked from the outside?
NeonCat | April 17, 2008, 4:15pm | #
The US Govt has spent/borrowed trillions of dollars to make weapons and war across the globe. Now, we're hated all over, our currency is worth crap and we're stuck with this broken tar-baby of a nation. What exactly are we getting out of all this?I think we should bring our troops home. All of them, all over the world, and not send them out unless it is absolutely the only way to protect American interests. No nation-building, no peace keeping, none of that nonsense. America should be a shining beacon of what peace and freedom give you: prosperity, justice and opportunity.
Put down the "white-man's burden" and walk quickly away.
PC | April 17, 2008, 4:16pm | #
"Didn't the idea that "we're not the world's policeman" used to be very popular amongst the right?"Yup in the 90s I distinctly remember, they also were against loosening wiretapping regulations after OKC, now warrants are passe. There are many other things but it just goes to show how the MSM and Talk Radio are some of most effective propaganda forces in the whole godless world.
edna | April 17, 2008, 4:18pm | #
Indeed, but Obama was surely right in assuming that many Americans, perhaps a majority, have no problem with this.and i would be one of them. we knocked over saddam. at most we were responsible to get them to an election. which we did. at that point, if they fuck it up, that's their issue, not ours. i have no idea why we're still there; "nice election, folks, good luck to ya. and hey, if your government ever pulls that shit again, expect it to be flattened, too."
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:19pm | #
PC,I didn't use "good" and "evil," but "friendly" and "hostile." You brought up Darfur: the Darfuris would, indeed, be a friendly population to the force that stopped the janjaweed from committing genocide against them.
When have they ever shot straight on the consequences of occupation? A Darfur mission wouldn't be an occupation. We we not be providing civil security, nor policing Darfuris, nor even trying to fight an enemy that is in and among the Darfuris. It would be a straight up military mission - there are militias over there, don't let them get their hands on the civilians over here.
Besides I thought in Iraq we would be greeted with flowers and candy from a friendly population and live happily ever after. The naivete here was in simply taking those making the assertion at their word, and assuming that any military action would be just like some others (in this case, France 1944) rather than actually looking at the specific situation, and what the Americans would be doing there. In this case, it is you, and not I, who is making these errors.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:20pm | #
"Didn't the idea that "we're not the world's policeman" used to be very popular amongst the right?"Yes, the party out of power tends to be unserious about foreign policy. It's always easier to criticize than to act.
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:21pm | #
PC,When have they ever shot straight on the consequences of occupation?...But more importantly Darfur is not an imminent threat to the United States. These are the good arguments against a Darfur mission.
Happy Jack | April 17, 2008, 4:22pm | #
Iraq's 2005 elections were the first real sign that Washington understood why the Iraqis mattered.That's only because some guy named Sistani told us to shove that puppet government we formed.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:22pm | #
the Darfuris would, indeed, be a friendly population to the force that stopped the janjaweed from committing genocide against them.We'll be welcomed as liberators! They will throw flowers!
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:23pm | #
Here, let me fix this for you:the Iraqis would, indeed, be a friendly population to the force that stopped Saddam's forces from committing genocide against them.
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:24pm | #
CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 28-April 2, 2008."Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
Right Thing Stayed Out
34 62
No young John Kerry is going to convince anyone that U.S. troops are behaving like Ghenghis Khan and Iraqis are better off without them.
You sure do have your finger on the pulse of America, TallDave. But we already knew that.
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:25pm | #
What makes you think people in Darfur are friendlier than people in Iraq? Because the Iraqis keep bombing us.And where did you get the idea they're being attacked from the outside? Because the Janjaweed are from Arab populations that live separately from the Darfuris.
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
Elemenope | April 17, 2008, 4:29pm | #
The whole "what's good for Iraqis" question is very awkward for a politician whose base is advocating the course of action most likely to lead to very bad things for them....
Yes, the party out of power tends to be unserious about foreign policy. It's always easier to criticize than to act.
Are you for serious? Really? Being tentative about foreign military adventures is "being unserious"? Being bombed and invaded and plunged into sectarian conflict wasn't the bad news for Iraqis? WTF are you smoking?
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:30pm | #
We'll be welcomed as liberators! They will throw flowers...the Iraqis would, indeed, be a friendly population to the force that stopped Saddam's forces from committing genocide against them.This is precisely the type of shallow thinking that comes from the right's habit of viewing the world as an undifferentiated mass, and any fight we get into is just a battle in the eternal struggle between good and evil.
They don't need to understand how Darfur is different from Iraq. They don't need to understand how the missions are different, in either purpose or execution.
The glib verbal trick TallDave just pulled isn't just linguistic; it's reflective of the problem with this thinking. He thinks you really can just switch out "Iraqis" for "Darfuris" for "French" in a sentence like that.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:30pm | #
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"Oddly enough, most Iraqis think it was the right decision. But what do they know? And who cares what happens to them when we leave?
You sure do have your finger on the pulse of America, TallDave
Our military is rated as the most trusted institution in America. Sorry, you're not going to smear them into a withdrawal this time around -- and you're WAY out of touch if you think you can.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:30pm | #
Because the Janjaweed are from Arab populations that live separately from the Darfuris.You may be shocked to learn most Sunnis live separately from Shia and Kurds.
TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 4:32pm | #
"""the Iraqis would, indeed, be a friendly population to the force that stopped Saddam's forces from committing genocide against them.""Damn, that's already proven wrong.
Remember the Shias in the south that got pounded when we left in 1991? They are shooting at us now. Maybe they are still pissed off.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:33pm | #
This is precisely the type of shallow thinking that comes from the left's habit of never putting the least bit of thjought into anything, and any fight we get into is just good if Dems are for it and bad if Repubs are.The glib verbal trick joe just pulled isn't just linguistic; it's reflective of the problem with this thinking. He thinks Iraq is really totally different from Darfur. He can't imagine the two might be very similar.
PC | April 17, 2008, 4:34pm | #
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:19pm | #I know you didn't use those words but I did to make a future point. The mujahadeen were at one time "good" in the eyes of the US. Starting in the Carter Administration and Zbigniew Brzezinski was very involved in it, we starting funding them, and part of them would eventually go on to become Al Qaeda.
Obama doesn't have a foreign policy, he has experts and advisers who tell him what to do and Zbig is a big part of Obama's foreign policy if not sole owner. Last night Obama praised HW Bush's foreign policy when asked about ex Presidents. That praise was almost a direct paraphrase of HW's chapter in Zbig's new book, "Second Chance". What the Neocons are to Bush, Zbig is to Obama.
The error that many fall to though is when they look at Carter Administration alone and neglect Zbig's paper trail ever since.
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 4:35pm | #
Maybe we'll contrive a way to make Iran invade Iraq, thus justifying the anti-Iran hysteria.We could do what the Brits did at sea, and just move Iran's border on the map to the east, and just not tell them about it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece
Voila! Then we can say the Iranians invaded Iraq!
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:37pm | #
Oddly enough, most Iraqis think it was the right decision.You keep asserting this. You don't ever manage to show any evidence for it.
Sorry, you're not going to smear them into a withdrawal this time around -- and you're WAY out of touch if you think you can. Nope, the case for withdrawal, which has 2:1 support from the American people - has nothing to do with smearing the military. That's probably why Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the largest recipients of donations from military personnel.
You may be shocked to learn most Sunnis live separately from Shia and Kurds. You might be shocked to know that we didn't "liberate" the Sunnis from the Shia, the Shia from the Sunnis, the Kurds from the Shia, or any other combination. As opposed to Darfur, where the conflict actually is between distinct and geographically separate groups.
But you didn't know that. You don't think you need to know that. Actual understanding of what's going on in a country just isn't something you think you need in order to justify military action there. You have this nice little story about heroic America killing nasty, dark-skinned people, and that's all you think you need to know.
Well, you might not be bright enough to figure out the problem with that, but a very large majority of your neighbors figured it out two years ago.
TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 4:37pm | #
"""Oddly enough, most Iraqis think it was the right decision. But what do they know?"""Cite your proof, we've been over this on a different thread and it wasn't as you claimed.
But then again you're the same guy that said the Iraqis stood their ground in Basra. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
PC | April 17, 2008, 4:38pm | #
"When have they ever shot straight on the consequences of occupation? A Darfur mission wouldn't be an occupation. We we not be providing civil security, nor policing Darfuris, nor even trying to fight an enemy that is in and among the Darfuris. It would be a straight up military mission - there are militias over there, don't let them get their hands on the civilians over here."What happens when those militias scatter like every armed force in the Middle East has and instead live among the people and start a guerilla insurgency?
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:39pm | #
Wow, there was absolutely no content, no intellectual ballast, whatsoever in TallDave's 4:33 post. Seriously, look at that, and try to come up with any idea at all beyond "I'm pissed off at joe because he's got my number."There's none. It's a wonder of the internet age.
jtuf | April 17, 2008, 4:39pm | #
National sovereignty is a very good reason to not enter a country in the first place. Once we are there, maintaining our commitments is important. Obama's suggestion for a unilateral withdrawl would make other nations reluctant to cooperate with America in the future. That would make solving future disagreements with negotiations difficult.edna | April 17, 2008, 4:40pm | #
The mujahadeen were at one time "good" in the eyes of the US.no, they weren't. they were just thought better than the soviets.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:41pm | #
You keep asserting this. You don't ever manage to show any evidence for it.Well, I've already linked the poll at least a dozen times, but I'd be happy to link it again. Of course, you'll just claim it isn't true again. You're immune to facts.
Nope, the case for withdrawal has nothing to do with smearing the military
Really? It sure didn't sound that way a minute ago.
No young John Kerry is going to convince anyone that U.S. troops are behaving like Ghenghis Khan and Iraqis are better off without them....You sure do have your finger on the pulse of America, TallDave. But we already knew that.
You might be shocked to know that we didn't "liberate" the Sunnis from the Shia, the Shia from the Sunnis, the Kurds from the Shia, or any other combination
LOL The Kurds and Shia feel very differently. That's why they say the invasion was the correct decision, and Sunnis say the opposite.
Once again, you prove your total ignorance.
PC | April 17, 2008, 4:42pm | #
edna | April 17, 2008, 4:40pm | #You're right, Rambo was just a bad judge of character.
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 4:42pm | #
Oddly enough, most Iraqis think it was the right decision. But what do they know?I bet they would also have liked it if we had just dropped our trillion dollars on their heads in the form of airborne drops of bags of $100 bills.
That wouldn't make it a good policy, or a policy that supports the interests of the US.
It's also a bit hard to poll the dead, or even just those Iraqis who have left the country. That tends to skew the poll sample a bit, since the sample is both self-selected [it consists of people who haven't gotten the hell out of Dodge] and events-selected [in the sense that the folks who are dead don't have land lines to call].
And who cares what happens to them when we leave?
They're then in the same position as the inhabitants of every other country the US doesn't occupy.
I don't want to occupy Darfur or Haiti either, Dave, BTW.
Sorry, you're not going to smear them into a withdrawal this time around -- and you're WAY out of touch if you think you can.
It was not necessary to smear the armed forces to argue for a US withdrawal from Viet Nam. The characteristics of the South Vietnamese Republic did that all by their lonesome. My Lai was not necessary.
I think Abu Ghraib increases the damage done to the interests of the US by the Iraq debacle, but even if every action taken by the US military in Iraq was 100% by the book and pure, it wouldn't make any difference to the question of whether or not the war was "worth it".
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:44pm | #
e your proof, we've been over this on a different thread and it wasn't as you claimed.Yes it is.
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/03/17/that-d3-systems-poll/
Vast majorities of Shia and Kurds say the invasion was correct, and I defy anyone to say Sunni Arabs are 30% of Iraq's population.
LOL Of course, you and joe are too busy jerking each other off to consider actual facts.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Dr. Freud | April 17, 2008, 4:46pm | #
For as long as American leaders don't treat Iraqis as important in their own right, the Iraqis will have no incentive to tie their long-term interests to America's wagon.Ha ha ha ha ha !
Earth to Michael Young ! Earth to Michael Young !
This has been a colonial war from day one. We didn't invade to bring democracy to the Arabs or to "help" the Iraqis. We invaded in order to set up a virtual colony -- a puppet state that would toe the line on foreign and energy policy and let us establish permanent bases. The funny thing is that the Iraqis don't want to be our colonial subjects. How very odd... Oh yeah, it isn't the 19th century anymore...
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 4:48pm | #
Obama's suggestion for a unilateral withdrawl would make other nations reluctant to cooperate with America in the future. That would make solving future disagreements with negotiations difficult.Right, because the conduct of the Bush administration during the WoT has so greatly enhanced our diplomatic position in the world.
Are you on crack?
If we want to improve our diplomatic position in the world, the most direct way we could do so would be to immediately withdraw from Iraq, and then turn to Britain and say, "Sorry for getting you into that shit," and turn to France and say, "Sorry about all that 'freedom fries' fucking nonsense," and then turn to everyone we either lied to or arm-twisted in turn and say, "It was really all that Bush guy's fault."
Kolohe | April 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #
The difficulty with Obama's appraisal was not just that it was based on a selective reading of the situation in Iraq, so that his assertion of how the U.S. had to realistically accept continued Iranian influence in the country somehow morphed into tolerance for Iran's systematic undermining of American interests there.I accept the premise that "iran is undermining american interests." It makes perfect sense for Iran to want an unstable Iraq that America is trying to mangage.
However, once you take the americans out of the equation, you probably will reverse the polarity on what the iranians want. There is no way in hell that Iran desires an unstable, unpredictable neighbor absent any bennefit of making america look bad.
and I am amused by this juxatposition:
, Obama took a minimalist view of what America could do to help Iraqi citizens regain faith in their government.vs
the real difficulty with Obama's case was that it revived an American reading of Iraq that treats Iraqis as secondary characters in their own drama.So which is it? Are americans being too overbearing or not overbearing enough?
classwarrior | April 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #
Michael, do actually believe for one minute that the US actually gives a shit about the Iraquis or the Iranians or anyone else who gets in the way of its imperialist ambitions? The war on Iraq was strictly about oil and intimidating the rest of the neighbourhood. To pretend otherwise is just more neocon crap.TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #
Fluffy,France and Germany have since elected pro-Bush governments.
Meanwhile, Obama/Clinton are openly promising to piss off the world with a trade war.
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #
PC,You raise a fair point - there are plenty of cases of us helping to empower "good guys," and advance their military objectives, only to have them turn out not to be so very good at all.
But I'm not talking about propping up the Darfuris so they become a significant military power, and hope they don't just choose to turn the tables on the Arabs. I'm talking about a NATO defensive perimeter, a deterrence force, and that's it.
I am both aware and respectful of the concerns you raise. Anyone who would take action without considering them is a fool. It is exactly because of those concerns that I would only support such a limited mission. As it is, I certainly can't fault anyone for coming down on the other side from me because of them.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:53pm | #
Wow, there was absolutely no content, no intellectual ballast, whatsoever in joe's 4:39 post. Seriously, look at that, and try to come up with any idea at all beyond "I'm pissed off at Talldave because he's got my number."There's none. It's a wonder of the internet age.
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:54pm | #
PC,What happens when those militias scatter like every armed force in the Middle East has and instead live among the people and start a guerilla insurgency?
The Darfuris and the Arab populations from which the Janjaweed come from don't live together. They are both culturally and, more importantly, geographically distinct. This is a civil war within a community, but a case of one community waging war on another to take its land.
If this was a case of the former, I wouldn't even be contemplating something like this.
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 4:55pm | #
The trade war thing is a definite negative. Got to go along with you there.joe | April 17, 2008, 4:57pm | #
TallDave likes to write LOL a lot when he's getting pwned.History suggests that that is the best time to start ignoring him.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:58pm | #
I'm talking about a NATO defensive perimeter, a deterrence force, and that's it.LOL OK General Joe.
Are you going to build a wall? How many billions a year are you going to spend manning this wall? What are you going to do when they keep mortaring your positions?
joe | April 17, 2008, 4:58pm | #
See? Nothing. Just bile at me. His screen must be a mess.Dude, type Lol a few times! It will totally change the way people reading the thread think you're doing!
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:59pm | #
joe likes to complain I write LOL a lot when he's getting pwned.History suggests that that is the best time to do a victory dance.
some fed | April 17, 2008, 4:59pm | #
If anyone wants to fix the world's problems, be it Darfur or Iraq, go invest money in a mercenary company! I'm sure Executive Outcomes has a successor company if you ask around. They generally have more specific training for the work you're seeking, and you can condition your money on transparency and results.Better yet, I don't have to worry about paying or getting drafted for it.
Otherwise, you interventionists are just armchair generals and coffee-shop humanitarians happy to solve the problems you perceive with others' lives and money.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 4:59pm | #
See? Nothing. Just bile at me. His screen must be a mess.Dude, complain I wrote Lol a few times! It will totally change the way people reading the thread think you're doing!
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 5:00pm | #
Actually, the worst part of having Young's article in Reason is that it's even more unlibertarian than usual.Leave aside for a moment the whole paleo/cosmo question of whether US military power can be consistently projected in the service of liberty.
Young is arguing that because the actions of our government have placed the Iraqis in a state of dependence, we now have to stay in Iraq and coddle that dependence.
That argument basically rewards the pro-war forces for making the Iraqis dependent, because it allows them to use that dependence as an argument in favor of their policy.
If someone did this for a domestic pro-poverty program, Reason would not publish it. If someone wrote an article saying, "The War on Poverty has made people dependent, so now we are morally bound to keep supporting people forever, because we created that dependence," Reason would not publish it. To the contrary, it would publish pieces eviscerating it.
joe | April 17, 2008, 5:00pm | #
Are you going to build a wall? How many billions a year are you going to spend manning this wall? What are you going to do when they keep mortaring your positions?Not being a Keyboard Kommado like youself, I don't pretend to formulate tactics like that. I trust that the military can figure out how to keep a gang with trucks and machine guns from raiding villages all by themselves.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:01pm | #
If anyone wants to fix the world's problems, be it Darfur or Iraq, go invest money in a mercenary company!Great idea, but sadly it is currently very illegal.
Nate Jessup | April 17, 2008, 5:01pm | #
How many billions a year are you going to spend manning this wall?You WANT me on that wall! You NEED me on that wall!
You can't handle the truth!
joe | April 17, 2008, 5:02pm | #
Wow, it's just as funny the fifth time as the first!Clearly, the work of someone confident that he's held up his end in an argument.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:02pm | #
Not being a Keyboard Kommado like youself, I don't pretend to formulate tactics like that. I trust that the military can figure outSo in other words you're going to invade without a plan or an exit strategy, and then blame the military if things don't go well.
Yep, sounds about right.
joe | April 17, 2008, 5:03pm | #
No, I'm just not going to formulate them myself, on an internet comment thread.Keep going, d00d! You're really acquitting yourself admirably.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:05pm | #
No, I'm just not going to formulate them myself, on an internet comment thread.So, again: no plan. You're just determined to invade.
Why does this all sound so familiar?
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 5:05pm | #
So in other words you're going to invade without a plan or an exit strategy, and then blame the military if things don't go well.Maybe what we could do is invade without a plan or exit strategy, and then when it turns out that it's all a big ambush, we could dither for years and just leave the troops there, while we refuse to withdraw them because admitting failure would damage us in domestic politics. And if anyone complained, we could hide behind the very blood of the troops that we have squandered, or perhaps play very tiny violins about what will happen to the poor Darfuris if we leave.
Yep, sounds about right.
I think you're losing badly enough to bust out the M-463G "ROTFLMAO."
Fluffy | April 17, 2008, 5:06pm | #
I want to see Joe vs. Dave in the Octagon.And then I want a piece of that bitch Dondero.
joe | April 17, 2008, 5:08pm | #
So, again: no plan.Is this the part where I explain the difference between tactics and strategy?
I've explained the strategy. It's so simple even an Iraq hawk can understand it. You asked me about tactics, and that's something best left to the professionals.
I love the way you keep throwing out things you think have no answer, and I keep answering them.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:08pm | #
Ah joe and his rich fantasy life. LOL!I see you're not even bothering to dispute the major points. This must like how Sadr "won" in Basra.
Tbone | April 17, 2008, 5:09pm | #
I defy anyone to say Sunni Arabs are 30% of Iraq's population.You mean other than the CIA Jackass?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html#People
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:10pm | #
As best I can tell, your "strategy" is: send in some troops, let them figure it out.Allow me to summarize:
1. Send in troops
2. ???
3. Peace, love and happiness.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:12pm | #
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html#PeopleAh yes, I was hoping someone would bring that up.
I will give you three guesses as to why that entry proves me right.
(Hint: it involves the Kurds' religion)
joe | April 17, 2008, 5:13pm | #
You haven't raise a "major point" in a hour.You abandoned your position like an Iraqi Army company.
You've basically said nothing but LOL yoor crazy for an hour now.
Dave, you've lost the argument, you've thrown out assertions with no evidence, you're abandoned any pretense of trying to defend an articulable position beyond "God, I hope people don't think I'm losing." You're lousay are argumentation, you have an indefensible position, and you let your pride dictate what you believe.
You're fired.
Episiarch | April 17, 2008, 5:13pm | #
I want to see Joe vs. Dave in the Octagon.I would pay to see that. Quite a bit, actually.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:15pm | #
You haven't raise a "major point" in a hour.Sigh. Let me summarize, again.
1) A majority of Iraqis believe the invasion was correct.
2) You will not be able to smear the military into a withdrawal.
3) You want to invade Darfur, but you have no plan and no exit strategy, the exact criticisms made of our effort in Iraq.
some fed | April 17, 2008, 5:16pm | #
If anyone wants to fix the world's problems, be it Darfur or Iraq, go invest money in a mercenary company!--TallDave
Great idea, but sadly it is currently very illegal.
There are respected schools of thought holding that legality in international affairs tends to be decided by those having the better mercenaries.
Having been through this thread already, why in God's name would I possibly go back and re-refute those points?
Invisible Finger | April 17, 2008, 5:17pm | #
According to Barack Obama, when people lose faith in Washington they find refuge in god, guns, and xenophobia.I realize I'm in the minority, but only morons would ever place "faith" in government in the first place. Government is an organization (or set of organizations) created to perform tasks. Like McDonald's. Or Wal-Mart. Sounds stupid to just put "Faith" that McDonald's won't poison me, their actions should prove it. Likewise, I would judge a government based on its actions, not on some belief that it'll work.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:17pm | #
Oh and4) The 2003 invasion of Iraq liberated Shia and Kurds from an oppressive Sunni-dominated regime, which is why they overwhelmingly say the invasion was correct and Sunnis overwhelmingly say the opposite.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:18pm | #
I realize I'm in the minority, but only morons would ever place "faith" in government in the first place.Nah, you're just not a socialist.
Or "moron," as you put it.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:19pm | #
Having been through this thread already, why in God's name would I possibly go back and re-refute those points?Because you can't. Hence, your focus on my LOLs.
LOL!
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:20pm | #
There are respected schools of thought holding that legality in international affairs tends to be decided by those having the better mercenaries.That is very true, and probably explains their dislike of competition.
Dr. Freud | April 17, 2008, 5:21pm | #
NATO ??? Talk about a "solution" looking for a problem !Pig Mannix | April 17, 2008, 5:24pm | #
@TallDaveYou've got to be kidding:
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/03/17/that-d3-systems-poll/
First, you take a poll which you claim to be based on a flawed methodology in the first place, then you claim the assumptions extrapolated from this flawed data by this blogger somehow produce a valid representation of Iraqi opinion?
How do you say "Yanked out of his ass" in Arabic?
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 5:30pm | #
Pig,I did not say the entire poll was flawed, just that the assumption that 30% of the population is Sunni Arab is very unlikely to be accurate.
As far as I know, there's no reason to think the sect-specific response ratios are incorrect.
Russ 2000 | April 17, 2008, 5:33pm | #
According to Barack Obama, when people lose faith in Washington they find refuge in god, guns, and xenophobia.Of course, 99% of politicians, including Obama define themselves on terms of god, guns, and xenophobia.
I really don't give a fuck if Obama is a man of faith in god or not. I really don't give a fuck what Obama thinks of guns since he won;t be shrinking the military or police departments any time soon - if anything they'll only be more heavily armed. I really don't give a fuck about Obama's xenophobia or lack thereof regarding other nations because he displays his own xenophobia regarding drugs, education, corporate taxation, etc. every single day.
The best you can say about Obama is that he encourages people to be scared of different things. Yawn.
joe | April 17, 2008, 5:33pm | #
TallDave is obviously in perfectly capable hands, and I've washed mine of that debate, but there's a meta point I wanted to make:Compare the exchange I had with PC about Darfur, with that I had with the Tool. The former was meaningful, substantive, and thoughtful. The latter...well...you know.
The difference is, PC actually addressed the issue on its own terms, in the service of a principled position about the subject at hand.
While TallDave attempted to seize on it, like everything else he writes, purely in the service of arguing that he was SO not wrong about Iraq.
It's pretty dramatic how much worse the intellectual quality of the latter's thought is. This, write large, is where our foreign policy is right now.
Calidore | April 17, 2008, 5:34pm | #
TallDave,If the current French or German governments are so pro-Bush why haven't France or Germany sent troops to Iraq? Indeed, have you studied either nation's "complex social dynamics?"
Tbone | April 17, 2008, 5:34pm | #
OK, fine, so the CIA number would leave it no lower than 24% and as much as 29.6% Sunni Arabs.This continues to show the severe bias in the 15% Sunni Arab population "credited" since by the article's own admission it discounts the bulk of the 2 million who fled the country - nearly all Sunni.
And for the record again, the $200M/day occupation of Iraq is doing what precisely to enhance US National Security?
Invisible Finger | April 17, 2008, 5:35pm | #
Nah, you're just not a socialist.I'll let time decide whether I'm a moron or not. But what in my post made me sound socialist?
NP | April 17, 2008, 5:43pm | #
Shannon Love,I normally avoid commenting on a Michael Young article 'cause I've yet to see a single poster on this or other MY threads who understands Middle Eastern politics half as much as their apparently least favorite Reason staffer--assuming that he/she's bothered to offer any substantive criticisms at all--and any "debate" in such an irrational atmosphere is useless. That said, I don't think your own criticisms of the left are fair. Contrary to what you assert, many lefties in fact don't have a fundamental problem with American intervention--military or not--in other nations, as was the case with the first Gulf War, Bosnia, or even the ongoing Iraq War. It's only the antiwar radical crowd that's guilty of your blame-the-West psychology, and even they have condemned China for her persecution of Tibetians, though you'd certainly be right to criticize them for their monomania on the Israeli/Palestinian question and their relative lack of focus on its Chinese/Tibetian counterpart.
So what's my point? That associating Obama with the antiwar radicals is just as lazy and dishonest as labeling all supporters of the Iraq War as warmongering neocons who don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis, when it's mostly the paleos that deserve the accusation. Hope you'll agree with my point--and hopefully you'll heed this distinction in your future discussions.
Calidore | April 17, 2008, 5:45pm | #
Michael Young,Saddam's brutality was never something they worried about.
Well, to be even more blunt, Americans haven't really cared about the most significant human rights crisis on the planet today over the past decade and a half: the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The various wars there far outstripped anything happening anywhere else on the planet, with over 6 million dead. Happily things have gotten a little better there over the past few years.
Now, I am not suggesting that people shouldn't care, however, I am suggesting that if we actually approached these issues from the standpoint of "caring" via some utilitarian lens we would be far more concerned with other places in the world than we are with Iraq.
economist | April 17, 2008, 6:21pm | #
Here's how I see it: Presently we have poured billions into rebuilding Iraq, and have probably paid the cost of actual damage inflicted in the invasion several times over. We have spent billions more trying to fight off the assholes who try to blow something up whenever we rebuild it. Ultimately, it is up to the people there to fight against people who are willing to blow up 15 of them to kill one US soldier. But I'll be charitable and say instead that we should, before leaving, install a friendly and relatively benevolent dictator to keep order, and then get the hell out. And to be fair, we should offer sanctuary to people who collaborated with us during the invasion and are going to be attacked when we leave.TallDave | April 17, 2008, 6:27pm | #
econ,A friendly benevolent dictator is generally only possible under peaceful circumstances. Otherwise, he needs to be unfriendly and malevolent enough to stay in power.
We badly mismanaged the war the first few years, sidelining the tribal sheiks and thinking we could just hand things over to elected Iraqis while our troops sat in huge bases. Instead, power coalesced around those Iraqis best able to violently enforce their will.
Petraeus has the right idea: protect the population and help them rebuild, and they will embrace you. That's why we've now gone months with few or no attacks in places like Fallujah that used to be extremely hostile: the civilians get on their cell phones whenever they see Al Qaeda.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 6:32pm | #
I'll let time decide whether I'm a moron or not. But what in my post made me sound socialist?Nothing, quite the opposite.
But you said you weren't in the majority, so I thought I'd point out you're not necessarily in the minority, but rather just not a socialist.
I think time has already proved you right, though.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 6:36pm | #
And another post from joe attacking me and my woefully inadequate intellect and substance, but in which he himself somehow ignores all four points I made in preference to ad hominems.I'm sure the irony is lost on him.
LOL!
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 6:38pm | #
If the current French or German governments are so pro-Bush why haven't France or Germany sent troops to Iraq?Pro-Bush is not pro-Iraq.
But we are closer to them now than in 2003, so all this talk of "broken alliances" talk from Dems is both hyperbolic and pretty asinine considering they are talking about starting a trade war.
TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 6:41pm | #
TallDave can you post a link that actually supports your claim?If you go to the link for the data in the link you posted, it states 50% says the invasion was NOT worth it with 49% saying it was.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 6:43pm | #
And for the record again, the $200M/day occupation of Iraq is doing what precisely to enhance US National SecurityPreventing Al Qaeda from establishing a secure base in Sunni Arab Iraq.
Even Obama recognizes this is necessary, which is why he may still get my vote if he moderates after the primary. I was very impressed with pledge not raise taxes on anyone under $200,000, but of course that will make it impossible to fulfill the spending pledges he's made.
As with all politicians, it's a question of which promises he's lying about.
TallDave | April 17, 2008, 6:46pm | #
If you go to the link for the data in the link you posted, it states 50% says the invasion was NOT worth it with 49% saying it was.Right, but look at the population percentages. No one believes there are 30% Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Re-weighting for this obvious error, you get 62% of Iraqis overall.
65% of Shia and 87% of Kurds say invading was correct. The Sunnis are, not surprisingly, unhappy to see the Sunni-dominated Hussein regime out of power, so 95% of them say it was wrong.
LOL | April 17, 2008, 6:48pm | #
4000 dead, 3/4 trillion spent, no endgame in sight.Why in the world would one assume that Americans and Iraqis would react the same way to losing faith in their government?
ROFL | April 17, 2008, 6:55pm | #
Saddam Hussein on the gallows, 3 free and fair elections, a Constitution ratifed, hundreds of independent newspapers, TV stations, sanctions lifted, GDP doubled, the Saddam era death rate drastically reduced, electricity/water/sewer access way up, economic freedom, provincial elections scheduled for the fall, no end to improvement in sight.TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 7:01pm | #
Here's some poll dataFrom 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
From 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
But there is something interesting in the ABC poll that claims
U.S.-led invasion: All Arabs Kurds
Was right 48% 40% 87%
Was wrong 39 46 9
Liberated Iraq 42% 33% 82%
Humiliated Iraq 41 48 11
Presence of coalition forces:
Support 39% 30% 82%
Oppose 51 60 12
Attacks on coalition forces:
Acceptable 17% 21% 2%
Unacceptable 7 8 74 96
Of the Arabs in Iraq 60% oppose our presences. 48% say we humiliated instead of liberated the country. If it was right or wrong is closer, but more said it was wrong than right.
TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 7:04pm | #
"""Right, but look at the population percentages. No one believes there are 30% Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Re-weighting for this obvious error, you get 62% of Iraqis overall.65% of Shia and 87% of Kurds say invading was correct. The Sunnis are, not surprisingly, unhappy to see the Sunni-dominated Hussein regime out of power, so 95% of them say it was wrong."""
Are you offering bad data as your proof since this is the poll you stated supports your claim? I like the way you cherry pick the data to exclude the part that makes you wrong.
Tbone | April 17, 2008, 7:31pm | #
Preventing Al Qaeda from establishing a secure base in Sunni Arab Iraq.Thank you for admitting that Iraq is not a current national security risk to the US.
Presuming your improbable would even occur (Like Maliki, Mahdi, and Shia Iraq/Iran would let it happen), what's wrong with offseting the 75-100 trillion/yr current cost and betting on a future air campaign that would cost probably a 20th of that? The collateral damage could hardly be worse. More to the point, why don't we get back to Afghanistan and root out the sons-a-bitches now? Before they and the Taliban reestablish? What say you?
Calidore | April 17, 2008, 7:32pm | #
TallDave,Pro-Bush is not pro-Iraq.
Since the Bush administration has made the invasion of Iraq the center of much of its administration I'm not quite sure how one can be against the war but also "pro-Bush" in any totalistic sense. I'll be blunt; Sarkozy is pro-France first and foremost.
But we are closer to them now than in 2003...
This is in large part because the current American administration has done a lot of walking back re: Germany and France and has been doing so since sometime in 2004-2005.
JB Stoner | April 17, 2008, 8:20pm | #
Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about Iraqis because they are white.Hating Whitey is a constant theme of his political career.Why does Obama hate White people?
zoltan | April 17, 2008, 8:38pm | #
Iraqis are white?TrickyVic | April 17, 2008, 9:10pm | #
"""Right, but look at the population percentages. No one believes there are 30% Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Re-weighting for this obvious error, you get 62% of Iraqis overall."""Where are the population percentages in the data? The poll just says "consists of face-to-face interviews with a random national sample of more than 2,200 Iraqi adults."
ROFL | April 17, 2008, 9:26pm | #
Thank you for admitting that Iraq is not a current national security risk to the US.I don't think anyone has ever argued Iraq was about to invade us.
Are you offering bad data as your proof since this is the poll you stated supports your claim? I like the way you cherry pick the data to exclude the part that makes you wrong.
There is no part that makes me wrong.
Presuming your improbable would even occur (Like Maliki, Mahdi, and Shia Iraq/Iran would let it happen),
It's what did happen in 2003-2007. Iran is despised in Sunni Iraq and Maliki is not yet strong enough to hold the area.
what's wrong with offseting the 75-100 trillion/yr current cost and betting on a future air campaign that would cost probably a 20th of that?
LOL That's a bit higher than most estimates. I assume you meant billion.
It's a fair question though: why not just continue the 1991-2003 policy of sanctions and bombing and troops in Saudi Arabia to deter him? There are several reasons. One, support for sanctions was crumbling as Saddam engaged in a massive bribery campaign. Two, it does nothing for the Iraqis suffering under Hussein. Three, bombing Iraqis from 50,000 feet is a policy that REALLY has no exit strategy, ever. Were we going to bomb them another 12, 20, 50, 100, 1000 years? At least under the current strategy there is a plan to transition to democratically-controlled Iraqi security forces.
Where are the population percentages in the data?
At the end (p44).
gmatts | April 17, 2008, 9:51pm | #
"For as long as American leaders don't treat Iraqis as important in their own right, the Iraqis will have no incentive to tie their long-term interests to America's wagon."Wrong. For as long as Iran and Iraq share a border, and as long as a majority of Muslims in Iraq are of the same sect as those Muslims in Iran, the Iraqis will have every incentive to tie their long-term interests to Iran's, and not the U.S.'s, wagon. Why do we always have to be the most popular kid in school? Why can't it be that American leaders do treat Iraqi's as important, but not important enough to sacrifice thousands of American lives for?
"Should that matter? Both realists and idealists would probably answer in the affirmative. But where does Barack Obama stand? It's hard to imagine that Iraqis see in him change they can believe in."
So long as the Iraqis aren't granted the right to vote in the upcoming U.S. election, who cares if they believe in Obama? At what point does it come to be that the U.S. has repaid the Iraqi's whatever debt it is that we may owe them?
"But this would show that Obama, who has sold himself as a man of vision at home, is selfishly unimaginative abroad."
That should be a good thing! Recent history should indicate that when U.S. leaders begin to imaginative in their designs for the world,
the original idea bears little resemblence to the imaginative template cooked up in think tanks and on thesis papers.
"if Washington could stomach the Iranian manipulation of Iraqis, then it made little difference what the deeper aspirations of Iraqis in general were"
And what if it's not just a "manipulation" on the part of Iran, but a genuine desire by a majority of Iraqis to align themselves with Iran? After all, the current leadership in both countries, when finding themselves out of favor with their own respective regimes, sought refuge in each others countries. During the reign of the Shah, many of those that would lead the Islamic Revolution of '79 found shelter in the areas of Iraq that are now the most politically powerful. And, often times during the Hussein regime, the Iraqi Shiite party now in power - al Dawa - when they weren't plotting to blow up our embassy in Kuwait, were commiserating with their Shi'ite breathern in Tehran.
Oh, the joys of being imaginative abroad!!!!
Daniel Reeves | April 17, 2008, 10:07pm | #
Didn't the idea that "we're not the world's policeman" used to be very popular amongst the right?Acknowledging that other people exist and have problems also means getting rid of American subsidizations and preferring free trade. Obama would rather have an American poor person working than an even poorer person overseas working and only because of his American bias. And that's assuming that the employment market is a zero-sum game (hint: it is not).
TallDave | April 18, 2008, 12:15am | #
Wrong. For as long as Iran and Iraq share a border, and as long as a majority of Muslims in Iraq are of the same sect as those Muslims in Iran, the Iraqis will have every incentive to tie their long-term interests to Iran's, and not the U.S.'s, wagonNah, ideology will trump that. N Korea and S Korea aren't allied, despite sharing a border and pretty much everything cultural and racial. S Koreans tied themselves to us. Anyways, Shia Iraqis are Arab.
a genuine desire by a majority of Iraqis to align themselves with Iran
Not likely. Iran's gov't isn't even that popular with Iranians, and Iran is making itself ever more unpopular in Iraq by arming the militias that are blamed for the violence.
gmatts | April 18, 2008, 12:49am | #
"Not likely. Iran's gov't isn't even that popular with Iranians, and Iran is making itself ever more unpopular in Iraq by arming the militias that are blamed for the violence."They may be making themselves unpopular with the Sunnis that the militias are killing, but among the Shia that they are arming and protecting, I'd imagine that they are quite popular. Al-Sadr didn't flee to Iran for the weather.
"Nah, ideology will trump that."
Like religious ideology?
"N Korea and S Korea aren't allied, despite sharing a border and pretty much everything cultural and racial. S Koreans tied themselves to us."
So is Korea now a model for Iraq? A country that is partitioned and defended by thousands of land mines is hardly the model that was presented to us by this Administration. Do you really believe that a majority of Iraqis feel a closer kinship with the US as opposed to Iran?
"Anyways, Shia Iraqis are Arab."
So was it just a coincidence that under the B'aath party the Shias were completely shunned from having type of power? Is it also merely by chance that the "insurgency" was led by people that happened to be Sunnis?
Shiites are a minority in the Muslim world. Arab or non-Arab they are going to stick together - it's in their best interest.
Tim | April 18, 2008, 1:37am | #
I think the Iraqis need to solve their own problems.FMY | April 18, 2008, 2:15am | #
Won't someone PLEASE think of the Uzbeks?Oh right, their dictator is our ally, so it's cool.
Bob Roddis | April 18, 2008, 2:26am | #
Can we all agree that in addition to his many other grievous flaws, Obama is one heartless, arrogant SOB?