John Kerry's actually pretty sensible plan for Iraq

[Wesley Dodds]

It's behind the Times editorial wall, so no link unfortunately.

We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war...

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines — a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

For this transition to work, we must finally begin to engage in genuine diplomacy. We must immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit meeting. In a neutral setting, Iraqis, working with our allies, the Arab League and the United Nations, would be compelled to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and shared goals for reconstruction.

To increase the pressure on Iraq's leaders, we must redeploy American forces to garrisoned status. Troops should be used for security backup, training and emergency response; we should leave routine patrols to Iraqi forces. Special operations against Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists in Iraq should be initiated only on hard intelligence leads.

We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitment tool.

Personally, I don't think the US has much choice with regard to Iraq -- withdrawal is not an option. But there's another school of thought that the US is overextended and can't afford a war that's almost certain to end in failure anyway.

[Magneto_X]

I agree with the latter theory, Wes.

[nubly]

he'll change his mind tomorrow

[RickThunderclees]

he'll change his mind tomorrow
Or Bush will

[Noah Johnson]

he'll change his mind tomorrow
Jesus, even the really stupid talking points have a long half-life, don't they?

[Wesley Dodds]

he'll change his mind tomorrow

Yeah! And the Democrats don't have any ide--

Oh, wait, sorry, John Kerry just announced a plan -- OK, Iraq, sink or swim. Your choice, this is costing us money, get with the program.

Bush's plan is "as they stand up, we will stand down". Which at this point seems to mean the US is never standing down and will be in Iraq forever.

But perhaps Bush will yet produce some bold plan to save Iraq. He'll hire a new speechwriter, or he'll have the government publish a glossy magazine about how good things are going in Iraq, or he'll go on television and pretend his critics are saying that he should kill babies.

What's good about Kerry's plan is that it's realistic about US capabilities. Also, it promises withdrawal no matter what, it's just when that's up to Iraqis. And it focuses a specific things the Iraqis can do rather than ajduring them to be free.

Another good thing about Kerry's plan is that it doesn't sound like something you'd say to placate a small and stupid child, like everything Bush says. "As they stand up, we will stand down." OK, what if they don't stand up? "We wait for them to stand up." No, seriously, what if they don't stand up, what do we do then? "We wait for them to stand up." Mr. President, are you on quaaludes?

[Drew Van T.]

Withdrawal is the only sensible option, as it was three years ago as much as it is now, as it will still be in another year's time if they haven't withdrawn by that time...

Any American-run transition (even one run by proxy through the current Iraqi regime) will fail, whether they follow Kerry's script or Bush's.

What they still don't understand is that the prisoner needs to be released from jail before he can even make a start at building a new life...and anyway, this is a prisoner who was wrongly and unjustly jailed. If he decides to become something the jailer abhors, that is his prerogative.

[Hoss]

he'll change his mind tomorrow

Yes, because Kerry has changed his mind about setting a timeline for withdrawal so many times before.

You know, elections are hard fought beasts and any blow above the waist is a good one. Though I resented it because it was unfair, I never saw anything morally wrong with the whole flip-flop attack on Kerry's record. The Swiftboat thing is another matter.

But I fear that Americans are losing the ability to form opinions about issues and are seeing all governance through the lense of campaign politics. You know, there was a time in this country when the threat to a sitting President was just as great in the primaries over issues than in the general election over politics.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But I fear that Americans are losing the ability to form opinions about issues and are seeing all governance through the lense of campaign politics. You know, there was a time in this country when the threat to a sitting President was just as great in the primaries over issues than in the general election over politics.


I don't have a lot of faith in the average voter myself, but please, let's not try to generalize from nubly's posts to the ability of Americans to form opinions. That would be like trying to generalize the average American male's opinions about sex from reading iwarrior's posts.

[Hoss]

I don't have a lot of faith in the average voter myself, but please, let's not try to generalize from nubly's posts to the ability of Americans to form opinions. That would be like trying to generalize the average American male's opinions about sex from reading iwarrior's posts.


Well, I see your point. But I do believe that we've turned a corner. There are regions of this country that have become almost as blindly party loyal as the south was to Democrats after the Civil War. And it swings both ways to both parties.

This is thread drift, but I do think that we've come to concentrate too much on the general election as a way of shaping our parties. That's lazy and ends up working against your own interest. If you are a Democrat or Republican and you don't like the incumbent of your party representing you, hold them accountable and try to get them replaced in the primaries. Because in a system that is governed by two parties it is all about numbers and sending a guy from the other team to DC counterproductive.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, I see your point. But I do believe that we've turned a corner. There are regions of this country that have become almost as blindly party loyal as the south was to Democrats after the Civil War. And it swings both ways to both parties.

This is thread drift, but I do think that we've come to concentrate too much on the general election as a way of shaping our parties. That's lazy and ends up working against your own interest. If you are a Democrat or Republican and you don't like the incumbent of your party representing you, hold them accountable and try to get them replaced in the primaries. Because in a system that is governed by two parties it is all about numbers and sending a guy from the other team to DC counterproductive.

Hey, I've said many times before, and I'll say again - I think anyone who votes along party lines is either uninformed or an imbicile. Political parties themselves are a crutch which appeal to - and are used to take advantage of - the mentally lazy. Unfortunately, many people are uninformed, mentally lazy and/or imbiciles, so you do have grounds for concern.

My main objection was you using a post from nubly, of all people, to make a more general argument.

[Mike Smith]

Since we are verbally jousting with Iran, it would make sense to go ahead and get out of Iraq.

[BlairH]

EDIT: I deleted my post because opinions backed up by fact aren't worthy of consideration if somebody expressed a similar (but not the same) opinion and provided no fact earlier on. It seems that sharing an opinion with Nubly is a bloody cardinal sin around here. :mad:

Continue the Kerry worship, lads. Carry on.

[gary bolt]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1745727,00.html

I think the timing of this statement by John Kerry isn't coincidental. It comes as Condi Rice and Jack Straw are increasing pressure on the Iraqi power-brokers to form an effective Government...or else. He's trying to say "er! Yes, that's what I wanted to do all along...honest."

John Kerry, as usual, is just going which ever way the wind blows.

Well, you used more words but nubly already made that post.

[BlairH]

Well, you used more words but nubly already made that post.
Yes Sir. Perhaps I best edit my post.

[Justin Davis]

EDIT: I deleted my post because opinions backed up by fact aren't worthy of consideration if somebody expressed a similar (but not the same) opinion and provided no fact earlier on. It seems that sharing an opinion with Nubly is a bloody cardinal sin around here. :mad:

Continue the Kerry worship, lads. Carry on.

Last thing first, it's not Kerry worship as much as it's people saying, "Hey, Kerry might actually have a decent plan here. We should look at this some more."

Second, sharing an opinion with Nubly isn't a bloody cardinal sin around here. Repeating it is. You may have skirted around the same area, but you actually posted something that involved you with the conversation. That's different. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Hell, it makes your comments look better because at least you're not giving out the empty, cliched, thoughtless remarks him, and others like him, have in these threads.

I just heard Kerry on the Al Franken show on Air America. He went through his plan somewhat (I actually had to work some so I couldn't listen to the whole thing since my boss walked up), and I noticed he was actually energetic. Full of piss and vinegar if you will. First time I've heard Kerry say the words "screwing around" too.

[Calybos]

Hey, now! That's about enough of this.

The voters made it QUITE clear last November that we sure don't want some smart guy making important policy decisions. Just sit down and be quiet, Mr. Kerry. You're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists.

[BlairH]

Hey, now! That's about enough of this.

The voters made it QUITE clear last November that we sure don't want some smart guy making important policy decisions. Just sit down and be quiet, Mr. Kerry. You're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists.

He's actually with Bush on this one. In fact -as I stated before I was chastised for not drinking the kool aid- he is following trends set by the administration almost to the letter.

CONDI RICE: We should pressure the Iraqis to set up shop faster, because our patience is wearing thin...

JOHN KERRY: Yeah! Now hear my awesome and absolutely unique (honest) idea. We should put pressure on the Iraqis to set up shop...or else! What d'yall think?

KERRY SUPPORTERS: Awesome! Man you are so much smarter than that idiot administration. You actually have good ideas...even if they are exactly the same as that of the administrations and even if they emerge almost at the same time as Condi's ideas. Hmmm...


As for the idea itself, I actually think it's a reasonably sound idea (if somewhat pinched from the currenbt thinking of the Executive), but the results of pulling out would be catastrophic for the Iraqi people, so we stay.

[Justin Davis]

as I stated before I was chastised for not drinking the kool aid

Holy shit, that's a phrase that needs to go out of style and quick!

How about this then? Bush's administration, not necessarily Bush himself, and John Kerry have similar thoughts about the current war in Iraq. However, while Bush's administration speaks in generalities like, "We'll step down when they stand up," Kerry is more specific with an actual date of May 15 for a deadline. Kerry drove me nuts before because he would ramble on and on trying to cover every single inch of an issue. His droning tone could simply tire people out. It seems as if he's recognized that now because he's getting to the point a lot faster now.

Also, since when is it wrong for people to agree on the same basic idea? Sometimes, unification is a good thing. Sure, Kerry may mention some of the same ideas the administration has, but he also mentions how incompetently the administration handled the issues. Hard to argue with that.

[BlairH]

May 15.
I think that's a bad idea. If a deadline is set, but mitigating circumstances prevent the Iraqis from holding up their end, do we pull out? If we do, we look like unsympathetic crusaders, if we don't we look spineless for not making good on our threats.

[Wesley Dodds]

He's actually with Bush on this one. In fact -as I stated before I was chastised for not drinking the kool aid- he is following trends set by the administration almost to the letter.

No, Bush's plan is "when they stand up, we'll stand down". I know this because he keeps telling us in speeches. He also recently said that the US would still be in Iraq after his term. And he's having permanent bases built in Iraq.

Kerry's plan is "if they don't stand up, we're out of there, and if they do stand up we're still going to get out of there." And he's set a date. Unlike Bush, who refuses to set a date because he never plans to leave.

[Noah Johnson]

No, Bush's plan is "when they stand up, we'll stand down". I know this because he keeps telling us in speeches. He also recently said that the US would still be in Iraq after his term. And he's having permanent bases built in Iraq.

Kerry's plan is "if they don't stand up, we're out of there, and if they do stand up we're still going to get out of there." And he's set a date. Unlike Bush, who refuses to set a date because he never plans to leave.
Well, Kerry thinks of war as something other than a good revenue stream, having not deserted and all, so maybe he actually wants an end to it. But apart from that they're exactly the same.

[spazzy mcghee]

A major reason for the whole terrorist ideal in these countries is America's "which way is the sand blowing today" attitude toward dictators and regimes. I'm not on the ground, so I can't say whether or not the Iraqi people want US control. I would venture to say they don't because that is how I would feel given the same circumstances. But WE started this mess. WE bucked their government. So if we pull out, we send the message that we come in, screw up your house, and then leave before things are cleaned up. That one single idea, more than anything else, will fuel a fire for terrorist recruiting.

Haven't we done the same with Iran / Iraq in the past? I was never much for the war in the first place. But we shold clean up our mess. I agree deadlines should be set, everyone and their mother responds to deadlines. But a hard and fast "May 15th or else" just isn't feasible. You give the rebel factions something like that, they blow up a motorcade, and the US pulls out for lack of politicians to make decisions.

Slow and steady SHOULD be our approach. Not, half-ass and wavering, but not right now or else.

[Thanos_6383]

Or Bush will


I can agree on that 100%

[Brad Curran]

Isn't May 15th an insane deadline for Iraq to get its shit together, though? That's my one problem with what Kerry said. Although I am really quite tired.

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, it's just a deadline to form a government -- it's been months since the election and they still haven't been able to reach a compromise.

External precipitents are pretty effective in this kind of negotiation.

[Charles RB]

he'll change his mind tomorrow

Oh no! We can't have our politicians ever changing their minds!

As for Kerry's plan, I'd say it sounds like a good way to cause Iraq to collapse into more chaos, but at this point I think that'll happen whether troops withdraw or not.

[Noah Johnson]

As for Kerry's plan, I'd say it sounds like a good way to cause Iraq to collapse into more chaos, but at this point I think that'll happen whether troops withdraw or not.
As usual, Tim Kreider said it best:
http://thepaincomics.com/Withdrawal%20From%20Iraq.jpg

[Samurai]

I really liked the part of the article where Kerry showed historical and scientific analysis and evidence concluding that 40 days is generously sufficient for 3 groups who have hated and killed each other for decades to form a single, unified government. And then he went on at length showing how exactly the state of Iraq would be ready to "swim" on its own by Dec 31, 2006 and how the US and the coalition partners would make that happen in that time frame while simultaneously withdrawing our forces until only a few training personel are left. And then, in a truly brilliant part of the blog entry full of historical, sociological and cultural evidence, Kerry carefully laid out how simply moving the discussions to a neutral country would "compel" (his words) the feuding sides "to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and shared goals for reconstruction." It was especially masterful to show how such a plan finally solved the Israeli/Palestinian conflict once and for all. Yes, it was an insiteful article from Kerry... why, it was so brilliant, it's hard to believe he actually has a lower IQ than Chimpy McHalliburton!

[Wesley Dodds]

40 days is generously sufficient for 3 groups who have hated and killed each other for decades to form a single, unified government.

If it's as bad as you suggest, they're never going to produce a government.

As for "historical and scientific analysis and evidence", how's this: antagonistic negotiations (Strauss 1978) are resistent to procedural and substantive precipitents. They do respond, however, to external precipitents (Druckman 2001).

So, Kerry is doing exactly what is scientifically required to break the deadlock over the Iraqi government.

simply moving the discussions to a neutral country would "compel" (his words) the feuding sides "to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and shared goals for reconstruction."

Actually, this kind of procedural change has the capacity to bring about turning points in negotiations, for example in the Spanish-US base rights negotiation (Druckman 1986). Procedural innovations also had a role in driving the process forward in the negotiations over NAFTA.

What Kerry's saying is that there are these issues on the table and without the US involved they're going to have to come to some kind of accomodation. Shared goals for reconstruction is a good point because it provides a cooperative context that can help both sides overcome their antagonism.

[Wesley Dodds]

40 days is generously sufficient for 3 groups who have hated and killed each other for decades to form a single, unified government.

Come to think of it, you're reasoning from a false assumption right here.

They haven't hated each other for decades -- this is a recently new development. Sunnis and Shiites got along, and not because Saddam threatened them into it.

It's analogous to the balkans. People sometimes say Tito "froze" the ethnic enmities, but I think it's more likely that ethnic enmities arose fresh out of the collapse of the communist government. People's lives became chaotic and they vented their frustrations as ethnic conflict

The same thing is happening here: sect has become significant because the country has splintered. That chaos has activated the people of Iraq's collective lizard brain, so it's not surprising that people turned to their tribal loyalities. Think of how after 9/11 Americans didn't care about the details, they just wanted to get back at some Muslim country.

[spazzy mcghee]

Think of how after 9/11 Americans didn't care about the details, they just wanted to get back at some Muslim country.[/QUOTE]


I seem to remember American's setting their sights on Bin Laden and his compatriots in Afganistan.

It's going to take a strong leader to break through what started out as religious differences, and unite the nation under a single ideal. But they need to be given the time to develop this person / persons. If not, it becomes another breeding ground for terrorism.

[Samurai]

Come to think of it, you're reasoning from a false assumption right here.

They haven't hated each other for decades -- this is a recently new development. Sunnis and Shiites got along, and not because Saddam threatened them into it.

It's analogous to the balkans. People sometimes say Tito "froze" the ethnic enmities, but I think it's more likely that ethnic enmities arose fresh out of the collapse of the communist government. People's lives became chaotic and they vented their frustrations as ethnic conflict

The same thing is happening here: sect has become significant because the country has splintered. That chaos has activated the people of Iraq's collective lizard brain, so it's not surprising that people turned to their tribal loyalities. Think of how after 9/11 Americans didn't care about the details, they just wanted to get back at some Muslim country.
I disagree completely. Saddam and his ruling Ba'ath party were not a national party in the sense of including people from all sects. There may possibly have been the occassional Kurd or Shiite who joined because membership was the only way to get preferencial treatment in Iraq, but it was primaririly a Sunni organization. They murdered and terrorized the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq by the hundreds of thousands... heck, they even slaughtered the "marsh Arabs". Read up on the wholesale slaughter different sects in Iraq under Saddam's hand and you'll see that the old animosities were never ended, it's just that the Kurds and Shiites were too weak and frightened by Saddam's sadism to really do much about it. Saddam didn't cure the old hatreds... if anything, he assured that they'd be far stronger once those he'd terrorized were in a position to do something back. That's why things are worse than ever now...

[Wesley Dodds]

That's just not true. Here's one Iraqi blogger's (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) take on it:

I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude.

I remember as a child, during a visit, I was playing outside with one of the neighbors children. Amal was exactly my age- we were even born in the same month, only three days apart. We were laughing at a silly joke and suddenly she turned and asked coyly, “Are you Sanafir or Shanakil?” I stood there, puzzled. ‘Sanafir’ is the Arabic word for “Smurfs” and ‘Shanakil” is the Arabic word for “Snorks”. I didn’t understand why she was asking me if I was a Smurf or a Snork. Apparently, it was an indirect way to ask whether I was Sunni (Sanafir) or Shia (Shanakil).

“What???” I asked, half smiling. She laughed and asked me whether I prayed with my hands to my sides or folded against my stomach. I shrugged, not very interested and a little bit ashamed to admit that I still didn’t really know how to pray properly, at the tender age of 10.

Later that evening, I sat at my aunt’s house and remember to ask my mother whether we were Smurfs or Snorks. She gave me the same blank look I had given Amal. “Mama- do we pray like THIS or like THIS?!” I got up and did both prayer positions. My mother’s eyes cleared and she shook her head and rolled her eyes at my aunt, “Why are you asking? Who wants to know?” I explained how Amal, our Shanakil neighbor, had asked me earlier that day. “Well tell Amal we’re not Shanakil and we’re not Sanafir- we’re Muslims- there’s no difference.”

[Iangould]

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all.

This confuses willingness with ability.

[Wesley Dodds]

I seem to remember American's setting their sights on Bin Laden and his compatriots in Afganistan.

Fun fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was all set to go before 9/11. 9/11 just meant that they didn't exactly have to sell it to the public. Besides, invading Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9/11 because of the Taliban's role in harbouring Al Qaeda.

[Iangould]

If he decides to become something the jailer abhors, that is his prerogative.

I'm sure you'll be happy to explain that to the hundreds of thousands who will die in Iraq and across the broader Middle East if the US withdraws.

[Iangould]

Since we are verbally jousting with Iran, it would make sense to go ahead and get out of Iraq.

Except that you need Iraq as a base for any attack on Iran.

Which is one of several reasons why an attack on Iran would be even dumber than the original decision to invade Iraq.

With the current administration that means its probably a dead-cert to happen. Although whether it happens before the mid-terms will depend largely on how the current "The Mexicans will eat your babies" strategy plays out.

[Iangould]

Continue the Kerry worship, lads. Carry on.

Read my previous posts. I think Kerry is wrong on this specific issue - dangerously wrong.

I also think the "flip-flop" claims were sleazy, intellectually vapid and unsupported by the facts, does that make me a "Kerry Worshipper"?

[Wesley Dodds]

Except that you need Iraq as a base for any attack on Iran.

No, I think the Iraqis would go Mogadishu on the US if they tried that.

[Iangould]

A major reason for the whole terrorist ideal in these countries is America's "which way is the sand blowing today" attitude toward dictators and regimes. I'm not on the ground, so I can't say whether or not the Iraqi people want US control. I would venture to say they don't because that is how I would feel given the same circumstances. But WE started this mess. WE bucked their government. So if we pull out, we send the message that we come in, screw up your house, and then leave before things are cleaned up. That one single idea, more than anything else, will fuel a fire for terrorist recruiting.

Haven't we done the same with Iran / Iraq in the past? I was never much for the war in the first place. But we shold clean up our mess. I agree deadlines should be set, everyone and their mother responds to deadlines. But a hard and fast "May 15th or else" just isn't feasible. You give the rebel factions something like that, they blow up a motorcade, and the US pulls out for lack of politicians to make decisions.

Slow and steady SHOULD be our approach. Not, half-ass and wavering, but not right now or else.

You know I generally try to avoid generic "I agree/right on" posts but in this case:

I agree.

Right on.

[Iangould]

Oh no! We can't have our politicians ever changing their minds!



Yeah just think, If Ronald Reagan hadn't changed his mind he would have remained a Democrat.

[Iangould]

As usual, Tim Kreider said it best:
http://thepaincomics.com/Withdrawal%20From%20Iraq.jpg

You know if I were an Iraqi I'd find the prospect of a civl war in 2027 infininitely preferable to the prospect of one in 2007.

As to the increase in US (and allied casualties): having fucked the country in the first place, we (and I include Australia and the other Coalition countries) have a responsibility to minimise the suffering that results from our actions.

Anyone want to argue that an Iraqi life intrinsically less valuable than an American one?

[Iangould]

I really liked the part of the article where Kerry showed historical and scientific analysis and evidence concluding that 40 days is generously sufficient for 3 groups who have hated and killed each other for decades to form a single, unified government.

1. They did it last time.

2. The real conflict isn't between the three ethnic groups it's between Jaafari's Party (Dawa?) which want him to stay on as Prime Minister and all the other major parties, including the other Shia parties, which want him out.

Unfortunately Jaafari's is the largest single party and it would be extremely difficult to form a government without them.

[Iangould]

It's analogous to the balkans. People sometimes say Tito "froze" the ethnic enmities, but I think it's more likely that ethnic enmities arose fresh out of the collapse of the communist government. People's lives became chaotic and they vented their frustrations as ethnic conflict


It takes very little to get people to see themselves as part of a group and people outside the group as the enemy.

I give you the Stanford Prison Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

But, of course, the Iraqis and the various ex-yugoslav people were just innately savage and barbarous unlike, for example, the participants in the Yankel Rosenbaum murder or any of the numerous lynchings in the southern US.

[Iangould]

Fun fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was all set to go before 9/11. .

I guarantee you that right this second in a desk somewhere in Washington there is a detailed plan, which is regularly updated, for the invasion of Australia.

There's probably a similar plan for every other country in the world from Andorra and Vatican City all the way up to Russia and China and including such US allies as Canada, Great Britain and Israel.

Contingency planning is something all major militaries do.

[Iangould]

I disagree completely. Saddam and his ruling Ba'ath party were not a national party in the sense of including people from all sects. There may possibly have been the occassional Kurd or Shiite who joined because membership was the only way to get preferencial treatment in Iraq, but it was primaririly a Sunni organization. They murdered and terrorized the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq by the hundreds of thousands... heck, they even slaughtered the "marsh Arabs". Read up on the wholesale slaughter different sects in Iraq under Saddam's hand and you'll see that the old animosities were never ended, it's just that the Kurds and Shiites were too weak and frightened by Saddam's sadism to really do much about it. Saddam didn't cure the old hatreds... if anything, he assured that they'd be far stronger once those he'd terrorized were in a position to do something back. That's why things are worse than ever now...

I've just spent about 30 minutes looking for estimates of what proportion of the Ba'ath Party were non-sunnis. I didn't find anything definitive.

However the Wikipedia article notes that the Baathist Party membership made up around 8% of the total population of Iraq.

Considering that the Sunnis made up only around 20-25% of the population, virtually the entire adult Sunni population (in a cvountry where over 50% of the population is under 21) would have had to be members of the Ba'ath Party if it were overwhelmingly Sunni.

Also the so-called "dirty dozen" Ba'athist leaders designated by the US as the key leadership included a Kurd, a Christian and a shia.

The Ba'ath were a so-called "vanguard party" modelled on Stalinist lines.

If you wanted a University education; if you wanted to advance in the military beyond the NCO level; if you wanted to succeed in business or the professions then you joined the Ba'ath Party.

Then once you joined you were forced to implicate yourself in the crimes of the regime - for example by denouncing neighbours in cell meetings.

The Ba'ath were similar in many ways to the Fascists - one of the key Ba'ath ideas was that the arabs should set aside regional and religious differences and unite. That being the case, they WANTED shia and Kurds (sorry "Mountain arabs") to take part in the regime.

You also need to take a closer look at the Anfal campaign. It suits the Kurds to remember it as an anti-Kurd pogrom perpetrated by arabs. In reality, it was a campaign of revenge on those Kurdish factions who'd sided with the Iranians during the Iran-iraq War carried out in large part by pro-Saddam kurdish factions.

[gary bolt]

Anyone want to argue that an Iraqi life intrinsically less valuable than an American one?

I doubt that few people would proudly argue that but I think many Americans believe it. Not only Iraqis, just non-Americans.

[Calybos]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to leave Iraq prematurely.

Because then Iraq might get, y'know, messy and bad or something. Can't have that. No sir, we need to stay there and preserve the paradise it's become. Otherwise they might have a civil war or something.

[macul]

Fun fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was all set to go before 9/11. 9/11 just meant that they didn't exactly have to sell it to the public. Besides, invading Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9/11 because of the Taliban's role in harbouring Al Qaeda.

Every nation on this earth with a military has plans to invade every other nation. They have pinpointed key military targets, production centers, and so on. That's what the military does. They don't plan picnics. They plan warfare and it would be completely irresponsible for them to not have contingency plans in place.

A couple of years back news was "leaked" that the U.S. had plans on how to use nukes in the middle east. Everyone was up in arms. "How dare they have these plans!" Of course the news was leaked to make it sound as if Bush himself drew them up one night while cackling like a third rate comic book villain, when in reality those plans have always existed.

edit: woops. I owe iangould a Coke or something if I understand the process correctly.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yes, I know. I'm talking about the 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Not only had they finalised their war plans, they had boots on the ground.

[macul]

Yes, I know. I'm talking about the 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Not only had they finalised their war plans, they had boots on the ground.

Can you elaborate on the context of this post?

[Iangould]

edit: woops. I owe iangould a Coke or something if I understand the process correctly.

When we agree it's a sign of the coming apocalypse.

[Iangould]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to leave Iraq prematurely.

Because then Iraq might get, y'know, messy and bad or something. Can't have that. No sir, we need to stay there and preserve the paradise it's become. Otherwise they might have a civil war or something.

Yeah because there's no possibility that removing the one factor restraining the Kurds and shia from out-and-out genocide of the Sunnis might make things worse.

A full-scale civil war in Iraq (as opposed to the current low-level one) would probably cost millions of lives.

A continuing allied military presence MIGHT just keep the final death-toll in the hundreds of thousands.

[macul]

When we agree it's a sign of the coming apocalypse.

True, but if I disagree with you then I'm agreeing with wesley. I'm in a no-win situation. :(

[Drew Van T.]

The Ba'ath were similar in many ways to the Fascists - one of the key Ba'ath ideas was that the arabs should set aside regional and religious differences and unite. That being the case, they WANTED shia and Kurds (sorry "Mountain arabs") to take part in the regime.

I dunno, an essential part of fascism (or fascism as it was developed in Europe, at any rate) is that they make deals and form coalitions with the country's biggest corporations. "Corporatism". In this respect as well as others I'm thinking Ba'athists were much closer to traditional stalinists than to fascists.

It's certainly true of course that the Ba'athists strove for unity past religious and ethnic divisions.

[Iangould]

True, but if I disagree with you then I'm agreeing with wesley. I'm in a no-win situation. :(

Hmmm, you know Wes this presents us with some interesting possibilities.

[Wesley Dodds]

I'm against withdrawal too, so if you come out for withdrawal you'll be OK.

[Iangould]

I dunno, an essential part of fascism (or fascism as it was developed in Europe, at any rate) is that they make deals and form coalitions with the country's biggest corporations. "Corporatism". In this respect as well as others I'm thinking Ba'athists were much closer to traditional stalinists than to fascists.

Well Fascists and Stalinists had a lot of similarities.

But one of the defining characteristics of Fascism was the idea that class rivalries should be subsumed into a common nationalism. (This was a key point of difference with the Nazis early on. There were a significant number of Jews amongst the early leaders of the Fascist Party in Italy and Mussolini was initially reluctant to abandon them.)

Compare Franco's suppression of Catalan and Basque language and culture with the tolerance and even promotion of minority cultures in the Soviet Union and then with Saddam's treatment of the kurds.

As for their attitude towards big business despite the "Socialist" in the English form of the name (Ba'ath translated as "Arab Socialist Renewal Party") the Ba'athists generally tolerated private ownership of most parts of the economy and suppressed independent trade unions.

[Hoss]

"The Mexicans will eat your babies" strategy plays out.

Another fun fact for the anti-immigration, pro war bunch. Poor folks and immigrants have always been very useful as foot soldiers in our wars.

[cactusmaac]

That would be anti-illegal immigration.

[Iangould]

Another fun fact for the anti-immigration, pro war bunch. Poor folks and immigrants have always been very useful as foot soldiers in our wars.

Was it Oregon where the state Republican Party split over whether would-be army recruits should be allowed to fill out their paperwork in Spanish?

[cactusmaac]

Compare Franco's suppression of Catalan and Basque language and culture with the tolerance and even promotion of minority cultures in the Soviet Union and then with Saddam's treatment of the kurds.

Like the Chechens and Ukranians?

[Hoss]

I'm against withdrawal too, so if you come out for withdrawal you'll be OK.


Help me on this, do moderate folks like you who are against withdrawal actually believe that the US continued pressence will prevent civil war or is it a "taking responsibility for your actions come heck and high water" deal?

Also, does anyone here think that there is any way that Iraq could become anymore of a terrorist training ground than it is today?

From what I've seen, Afghanistan was a fairly underfunded, small junior college for terrorism. Iraq has become an Ivy legue graduate school that is leading the way in research and application of advanced terrorism studies. The centers for the study of kidnapping westerners, fighting conventional military forces, disrupting billion dollar rebuilding effort and death squad management are exceptionally strong. I believe they are also up for a few prizes for their innovative research into how to bomb civilians and buildings with out the need of suicide bombers.


Plus, the development office says booster donations and student recruitment have been through the roof since 2003.

[Hoss]

That would be anti-illegal immigration.

Don't be silly. If there were no illegals but a million extra poor but legal Mexicans coming into this country every year their would still be an uproar from the same people. Again, I have yet to hear any arguments about illegal Mexicans that weren't made against every other legal immigrant group into this country.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think when troops leave it will mark the start of a "hot" civil war. Suppose 50,000 US troops die before it's all done. I think more Iraqis would die in a civil war.

Also with the coming oil crunch getting out isn't relaistic. The US needs Iraq as foothold in one of those geopolitical levers of power that we keep hearing about. Americans won't change the way they live; it would be suicidal to abandon Iraq to civil war. The oil would shut off.

And then there's the risk of the conflict spreading. Suppose the US pulls out. The first thing the Kurds do is declare their state. Now the Turks are involved. And what if it helps bring down the House of Saud? The populist alternative to the Saudis is basically the Taliban.

We already have to deal with Iraq blowback; if Iraq collapsed into total anarchy, the blowback for the future would be much worse.

[Hoss]

I think when troops leave it will mark the start of a "hot" civil war. Suppose 50,000 US troops die before it's all done. I think more Iraqis would die in a civil war.

Also with the coming oil crunch getting out isn't relaistic. The US needs Iraq as foothold in one of those geopolitical levers of power that we keep hearing about. Americans won't change the way they live; it would be suicidal to abandon Iraq to civil war. The oil would shut off.

And then there's the risk of the conflict spreading. Suppose the US pulls out. The first thing the Kurds do is declare their state. Now the Turks are involved. And what if it helps bring down the House of Saud? The populist alternative to the Saudis is basically the Taliban.

We already have to deal with Iraq blowback; if Iraq collapsed into total anarchy, the blowback for the future would be much worse.


Do you truly believe that everything you describe isn't already in play and going to happen whether the US has 150,000 troops in country or not? The size force that the US has in country right now is only good enough to make everyone mad.

[Iangould]

Like the Chechens and Ukranians?

You mean Ukrainians like Kruschev and Brezhnev?

If you crossed the Party you, your family and your friends were likely to be killed.

But show me the Fascist- or Ba'athist era equivalents of Stalin's "Palace of the Nationalities" and plethora of quasi-autonomous ethnic republics and oblasts.

In Franco's Spain if you wrote anything in Basque or Catalan you were headed for prison, in Stalin's Russia you could toady to Stalin in whatever language you wished.

[Iangould]

From what I've seen, Afghanistan was a fairly underfunded, small junior college for terrorism. Iraq has become an Ivy legue graduate school that is leading the way in research and application of advanced terrorism studies. The centers for the study of kidnapping westerners, fighting conventional military forces, disrupting billion dollar rebuilding effort and death squad management are exceptionally strong. I believe they are also up for a few prizes for their innovative research into how to bomb civilians and buildings with out the need of suicide bombers.

That may be your perception but the terrorist training camps in Iraq, so far, are on nothing like the scale of what was going on in Afghanistan. Nor do the Iraqis have millions of dollars to dish out to their foreign proteges.

[Wesley Dodds]

Do you truly believe that everything you describe isn't already in play and going to happen whether the US has 150,000 troops in country or not? The size force that the US has in country right now is only good enough to make everyone mad.

Yep. I'm not saying it won't be costly because it will. But the stakes are high enough to justify it.

[cactusmaac]

Don't be silly. If there were no illegals but a million extra poor but legal Mexicans coming into this country every year their would still be an uproar from the same people. Again, I have yet to hear any arguments about illegal Mexicans that weren't made against every other legal immigrant group into this country.

You need to broaden your reading then.

[macul]

wesley, can you clarify that 44,000 troops statement?

[cactusmaac]

You mean Ukrainians like Kruschev and Brezhnev?

If you crossed the Party you, your family and your friends were likely to be killed.

But show me the Fascist- or Ba'athist era equivalents of Stalin's "Palace of the Nationalities" and plethora of quasi-autonomous ethnic republics and oblasts.

In Franco's Spain if you wrote anything in Basque or Catalan you were headed for prison, in Stalin's Russia you could toady to Stalin in whatever language you wished.

http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-30084

[Wesley Dodds]

wesley, can you clarify that 44,000 troops statement?

The US had moved troops into countries on Afghanistan's border months prior to the invasion, just as the US started moving troops in for the Iraqi invasion in 2002. War with Afghanistan was some time coming -- the Clinton administration believed in the final days that war was necessary but didn't want to hand the incoming administration a war. The Bush administration tried diplomacy (negotiations with the Taliban) but as diplomacy failed they began to prepare for war (Richard Clarke pushed for it). Then 9/11 happened.

[Nick Soapdish]

Help me on this, do moderate folks like you who are against withdrawal actually believe that the US continued pressence will prevent civil war or is it a "taking responsibility for your actions come heck and high water" deal?

Also, does anyone here think that there is any way that Iraq could become anymore of a terrorist training ground than it is today?

From what I've seen, Afghanistan was a fairly underfunded, small junior college for terrorism. Iraq has become an Ivy legue graduate school that is leading the way in research and application of advanced terrorism studies. The centers for the study of kidnapping westerners, fighting conventional military forces, disrupting billion dollar rebuilding effort and death squad management are exceptionally strong. I believe they are also up for a few prizes for their innovative research into how to bomb civilians and buildings with out the need of suicide bombers.


Plus, the development office says booster donations and student recruitment have been through the roof since 2003.

Yeah, but their intermural athletics programs are terrible and I shouldn't even mention the cheerleading squads.

[Hoss]

You need to broaden your reading then.

Yes, if only I knew what you know, I'd see that my entire belief system is wrong and yours is right. :D


This is one of those situations when it is imperative that I point out I am smiling as I write and that the voice in my head is very playful and irreverent.

[Hoss]

Yep. I'm not saying it won't be costly because it will. But the stakes are high enough to justify it.

That might be true, but no one is being honest with the American people about this. Which means that they will increasingly turn against the war. Because they were never asked to buy-in in any meaningful manner and were never respected enough to be told the truth, I don't think it will be possible for the government to sustain or escalate things. Americans aren't all of the sudden going to start sacrificing 3 years laters in order to support a badly botched war that they feel was launched under false pretenses.

By 2008, any candidate that offers to pull us out is going to be loved. Any candidate associated with support for the war is going to have lots of trouble. Which is why I don't think that conventional wisdom about McCain and H. Clinton will hold.

[cactusmaac]

Yes, if only I knew what you know, I'd see that my entire belief system is wrong and yours is right. :D


This is one of those situations when it is imperative that I point out I am smiling as I write and that the voice in my head is very playful and irreverent.

Believe it or not, plenty of people have a problem with the law-breaking that illegal immigration entails.

[Hoss]

Believe it or not, plenty of people have a problem with the law-breaking that illegal immigration entails.

I believe it. But if you think that is what truly drives the movement against Mexican immigrants into this country, legal or not, I have a bridge to sell...

[Drew Van T.]

From what I've seen, Afghanistan was a fairly underfunded, small junior college for terrorism. Iraq has become an Ivy legue graduate school that is leading the way in research and application of advanced terrorism studies. The centers for the study of kidnapping westerners, fighting conventional military forces, disrupting billion dollar rebuilding effort and death squad management are exceptionally strong. I believe they are also up for a few prizes for their innovative research into how to bomb civilians and buildings with out the need of suicide bombers.

That's pretty good. Commentary such as this merits being placed on the official website for the Tourism and Development department of the Iraqi government.

Unless it's already on there. :D

[Iangould]

Never mind.

[Evan Waters]

Believe it or not, plenty of people have a problem with the law-breaking that illegal immigration entails.

And a lot of people have a problem with the law-breaking that white-collar tax evasion entails.

Guess which group gets on CNN more often.

[Greg Blackman]

No, Bush's plan is "when they stand up, we'll stand down".

Which isn't a plan, it's a slogan with no specifics, so shy of any meaning that it doesn't even belong on a t shirt.

[Wesley Dodds]

Which isn't a plan, it's a slogan with no specifics, so shy of any meaning that it doesn't even belong on a t shirt.

Well, it is kind of plannish -- like, "we're not leaving Iraq until it becomes a functioning democracy, no matter what."

[Greg Blackman]

Well, it is kind of plannish -- like, "we're not leaving Iraq until it becomes a functioning democracy, no matter what."



no, what YOU just wrote is a plan (well it would be if you added acouple of quantifiable points by which the plan could be judged to have succeeded or failed). "We'll stand up when they stand down" is a pat soundbite designed to sum up an extremely complicated situation for a mentally lazy public.

[FBHthelizardmage]

That may be your perception but the terrorist training camps in Iraq, so far, are on nothing like the scale of what was going on in Afghanistan. Nor do the Iraqis have millions of dollars to dish out to their foreign proteges.

IIRC, the one major Al-Quida strong hold was on the Kurdish/Iranian boarder and fighting Sadam.

[FBHthelizardmage]

As for whether we should pull out or not, that's a hard question. And it's one the governments of Britain and America need to find an answer for, it should be an answer based not on faith or party politics but fact:

Basically, by staying, are we likely to be able to stabilize the situation? Assuming the situation is stablizable, what needs to happen in order for it to do so.

The problem is that I don't think the current administration has the ability to mount this kind of an assessment and react accordingly. All the way through this cluster fuck they've had a serious of inaccurate strategic assessments, bad decisions and general disorganization.

Unless the bush administration can act competently, we should just pull out, because its not going to work this way. On the other hand, we did break it, and therefore we did buy it, simply leaving Iraqi to collapse and become the very terrorist cesspool we were trying to prevent isn't a great option either.

[Iangould]

IIRC, the one major Al-Quida strong hold was on the Kurdish/Iranian boarder and fighting Sadam.

I don't think there were major terrorist bases in Iraq under Saddam and I don't dispute that terrorist training activities have increased since the invasion.

I'm simply saying that they still aren't at the scale they were on in Taliban-era Afghanistan and that a US withdrawal would probably see a further increase.

[FBHthelizardmage]

I don't think there were major terrorist bases in Iraq under Saddam and I don't dispute that terrorist training activities have increased since the invasion.

I'm simply saying that they still aren't at the scale they were on in Taliban-era Afghanistan and that a US withdrawal would probably see a further increase.

*nods* It seems more like trained fighters are coming in to take pot shots at US troops.

[Drew Van T.]

I'm simply saying that they still aren't at the scale they were on in Taliban-era Afghanistan and that a US withdrawal would probably see a further increase.

But only if you also have a real civil war following a withdrawal.

I maintain that it's a matter of terrorists operatives needing the right context to "breed" into. At the moment there certainly is terrorism, but alongside them exists a perfectly legitimate resistance movement against the American presence: Iraqi nationalists (Baathists, but also Baathists who've pretty much abandoned Baathism) who took up arms only in response to what they see as the singular cause of all their troubles and of all the mayhem currently experienced by their country: the American invasion. Take away the presence of the US military, and these very rebels will instantly turn on the foreigners - as well as anyone else - who is placing bombs in Shi'a mosques to hurt Iraqi civilians.

Besides, the US military is not having any success combatting these terrorists anyway. So let the Iraqis try themselves - and by that I don't mean simply letting the troops trained by a pro-American regime deal with them, because that's not going to be enough.

[MatthewC]

Anyone want to argue that an Iraqi life intrinsically less valuable than an American one?

"Value" is a relative property. The question is always, "valuable to who"?

To the United States government, an American life is more valuable than an Iraqi life.

To the Iraqi government, an Iraqi life is and should be more valuable than an American life.

Anything else would be to abrogate responsibility to their respective peoples.