I think most level-headed people are critical of the U.S. position because we have placed ourselves in a box. I accept your premise that Al-Sadr is a menace to any concept of “democracy” in Iraq. His elimination would probably help to calm a chaotic situation.

The US can’t be seen as the one who goes in and removes al-Sadr if it means we run any risk of damagin the shrine. You say so yourself in your posting. So now we have to rely on Allawi’s forces to do the job…. and how much confidence do you have that they can and will do what it takes to remove al-Sadr? Will the poor in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world distinguish between Allawi and ourselves if the shrine is stormed and damaged to get rid of al-Sadr?

I’m not so sure.

Chris:

I sum up your post thus; we can’t leave because Iraq would become a poor, radical, Islamic state and thus the price of oil would rise uncontrolled.

I would argue that an uncontrolled price of oil is a good thing, it would force us into conservation and thus greenhouse emmisions reduction (and world climate changes are a FAR more importnat long term issue than is Terrorism); however lets not get into that discussion.

The legitimate question that arises from your post is; how does the US NOT leaving Iraq lead to something other than a poor, radical, Islamic state? Put another way, how are things different in an Iraq with the US presence than for an Iraq without one? The answer can, I believe, only lie in the uses and effects of US military force. I do NOT believe American citizens will ever tolerate a US military in Iraq that is fully subservient to non-US control. Thus the only alternative I can see to leaveing Iraq is colonizing it.

Iraq has essentially been colonized since the Ottoman Empire (I am half way through a new book by Tariq Ali called Bush In Babylon; a wonderful history lesson that I highly recommend to all) and that colonization has only succeeded as long as force was used. Iraq, as we recognize it, is an artifical creation of at least three major and quite distinct regions, each with a distinct culture. Our western democratic ideal would see those three regions functioning similar to our States and federated to a central democratic Iraq. Do you find such a result likely or even possible via the use of US force. The history suggests that these three groups will band together temporarily to fight invaders, however they have never been sucessful in that fight so that there is no historical answer as to what will become of Iraq were that resistance to become successful.

If the US wishes to remain forever a colonizer of Iraq then it is likely that oil will be somewhat stabilized and the Iraqi people will remain somewhat unified in there efforts to eject US forces. If we become heavy-handed in our military control, through the support of some puppet leader, that resistance will likely become more covert and will eventually result, through palace and local military intrigues, in various coups all in the hope for Arab nationalism. That is the history of 20th century Iraq.

Is there some reasonable middle course, a somewhat benign use of US military force to allow some reasonably democratic structure to be put in place which would truely allow Iraqi’s to vote their own destiny? That is the experiment that, at least alledgedly, we are currently undertaking.

Lets say it somewhat succeeds; one of the three groups will eventually be in control. That group will be percived, rightly or not, as a colonial puppet who’s purpose is the “globalization” of Iraqi assets, by the other two, less democratically fortunate, stakeholders. Stability, lacking the US use of force and its attendent non-democratic trappings (seen Al-Jezeera lately?), will not ensue.

So, Chris, I ask you what you see as a possible outcome from the US NOT leaving; you have outlined well the effects you see if the Us does leave. Do you think Balkanization is a viable possibility?

Those of us who argue that we should simply leave have been somewhat lacking in the ability to rationalize that position; can you rationalize the US NOT leaving?

Thanks as always for your insights,

Kim

Chris, I think you need to get a grip, a little. This anti-Moqtada diatribe—“someone needs to run him out of town on a rail”, etc—is not exactly the cool-headed journalism we need right now.

Maybe you should guard against getting “clientitis” by being graced by Allawi with an exclusive interview etc etc?

Thanks for sharing that opinion poll. I think it needs to be (1) authenticated a bit more, and (2) read more carefully. I’m assuming the 1.1% figure you cite for “support for Moqtada as Pres” is the answer to question 9i there. That’s a very specific kind of a question. Moqtada doesn’t necessarily seek to be “President”. But asking that question doesn’t gauge in any way the over-all support for his position. For example, Ayatollah Sistani only gets 0.4% support in answer to that question. But clearly, the old guy’s broad over-all support in the populat is considerably wider than that…

Let me just share with you the results of a slightly earlier poll from the same outfit, sourced to: Voice of America, 24 May 2004:

“(Baghdad) - An Iraqi public opinion poll to be released later this week indicates a growing number of people in the country say they support a radical Shiite Muslim cleric whose militia is fighting coalition forces.

“In the survey, conducted by the year-old Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, 32 percent of the respondents said they strongly support the fiercely anti-coalition Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. Another 36 percent said they somewhat support the cleric, even though he is being sought by the coalition for his alleged involvement in the murder of a Shiite rival, who was killed last year. [Total 68%—HC]

“The poll numbers place the radical cleric among the three most admired figures in the country, behind the top religious authority for the majority Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the political head of one of the largest Shiite parties, Ibrahim Al-Jaafari…”

However, even if he were only 1.1% popular, all that talk that he needs to be run out of town on a rail, or whatever, is crass, belligerent, inciteful, and not at all helpful at a time when the Iraqi National Conference itself is trying to negotiate a deal with the guy.

As I said, get a grip.

Most of your analysis is, in my view, correct. But we cannot forget that the American decision to invade Iraq is at the source of most of the problems identified by you. So, the US must get out. How? By declaring the intention to leave as soon as a UN backed force is in place. This should include military from moslem countries, such as Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, etc. Hopefully Iraqis would accept such a transitional peace-keeping force, and move towards a political solution to the present situation. As long as the US occupation forces are in Iraq there is absolutely no way a political solution can be found, and the killing will go on and on. With or without Al-Sadr’s contribution.

Other findings from that same end-of-June poll that Chris cited:

“Over 80% of Iraqis want US and other foreign forces to stop patrolling their cities and make their presence less visible by withdrawing to bases, according to the latest survey by Iraq’s best-known polling organisation.

Forty-one per cent would feel safer if the forces left Iraq altogether, and only 32% would feel less safe.”

That’s from the answers to Qu 3a, and another one…. (Digest above from the Guardian’s account.)

The whole problem with your analysis is what you deem a successful outcome seems not possible. In other words, Allawi can’t stay in power/defeat Sadr without the US army. His army is virtually useless, and seems mostly to be surrendering to Sadr’s group - at least I’ve seen a number of reports and pictures suggesting this is the case.

Allawi only exists because of the US force.

Ben P

In his recent Slate article on how we are headed for catastrophe, Fred Kaplan wrote:

“The undisputable fact is that no outsider will send troops to Iraq if the United States remains in charge there.”

I think this is the heart of the problem, not al-Sadr. (Who indicated that he would accept UN troops in Iraq.)

If the US abruptly withdraws, it will add to the chaos. But if the US continues its occupation by other means (Allawi, etc.), it will also add to the chaos. The UN is the only hope for a solution, and it is indeed a very slender one.

Who is feeding you this crap? Are you actually a journalist? You have lost all objectivity. It seems the more popular Al-Sadr becomes the harder you try to run him down. Is it because you are afraid to be proven wrong, ignorant, and no better informed in the safety of your Green zone than if you were blogging from New Jersey? You might as well be an imbed, because if you don’t have the guts to head over to Sadr city and talk to the Mehdi Army and get their point of view you are of no use to your readers whatsoever. I had respect for your independence in the past, but now you seem like a lazy tired hack. Maybe its time to head back to the states and cover the Scott Peterson trial like everyone else.

the only solution to any of this is genuine humilty from the mouthes of power. if it is not possible, and i don’t think it is, for an american president to have a frank discussion of the dangers of fundamentalism in our OWN country (christian fundamentalism, that is), how on earth can we, using force alone, “free” a country that is even more incapable than we are of having that robust discussion, and who need it even more because fundamentalism is actually THREATENING their nation’s destiny. and fundamentalism is more than al-sadr. we both know that. i fear we are putting so much on this one guy, to no avail ultimately, since he has followers, lots of them, and they won’t just melt away. anymore than ghetto streetgangs here in the u.s. will — without uncensored aid.

as for al-sadr, again, we just keep playing the same game. are you telling me, with all our resources, with all our powers of imagincation, with all our freedom, we cannot figure out how to defeat this guy at the game of OUR choosing. if we can’t evidence to them the kind of searing self-criticism we expect of them in this situation, how on earth, how in the universe, are we supposed to expect that of a people ensnared in either colonialism or dictatorship for almost a century!

we could win this if we had a leader who was really a leader. the kind of person who could say, every once in a while, “boy oh boy, listen to me, am i full of shit or what?” somebody with brass balls or brass tits. where is that person. if you’re unwilling to be unpopular, it is impossible to make a real difference in these demanding times.

i ramble. depressed. worried about my little bro over there. the kid’s ruined, i just know it.

peace.

All of the respondents who have been riled up with CA’s last two posts and are complaining about his coverage need to understand that he is just one journalist out of thousands; I for one don’t expect him to be everywhere all at once.

If you feel that CA’s got some gaps, go to antiwar.com to fill those in. Dahr Jamail of The New Standard has his own Baghdad reportage at http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/.

Given my low opinion of human nature in general, I’m not finding any angels in this war.

Chris:

Your analysis seems correct on all the major points. However, I suspect the Iraians would take advantage of the chaos and lack of an Iraqi army to move in troops to control the southern Iraqi oil fields. The result would be, even worse than you imagined, a rump Iraqi state with no oil resources combined with violent suppression of the Iraq Kurds within an expanded Turkey and Shia Arabs within an expanded Iran.

Also, the oil price shock you predict is likely to have far more dire effects on marginal third world economies than on first world economies. Thus, the “price shock would be good for us” argument of the “greens” fails to account for the risks of devasting famine in the third world. For these reasons, it is far better to wean the world off of oil slowly in the long term.

As much as I would like to bring U.S. troops home, I think we are stuck in Iraq until a stable government (hopefully, a liberla democracy) can be formed and the Iraqi army rebuilt. I see no other realistic options.

Your article suggests that there are only two forseeable outcomes for Iraq: Sadr or Allawi. That’s a very dubious analysis and, if true, enough to make one cry.

You quote Juan Cole correctly in his severe reservations about Sadr, but you don’t mention that he thinks the Sadr movement is a powerful force that is unlikely to go away anytime soon, with or without Sadr leading it.

Sadr has raised nine kinds of hell in Iraq. That counts for something. Mobilizing the disenfranchised, as Sadr has done, isn’t done with a snap of the fingers. He has serious, engaged support — people who will die for him. Name a US politician that has that kind of support.

That doesn’t mean he’s a hero, a good guy, or the answer for Iraq. But he and what he represents can’t be ignored or dismissed.

Allawi, from what I’ve read (and I should disclose that I have no independent knowledge of Iraq), has even less popular support than Sadr. Allawi’s authority comes from being tight with the CIA and the other people who created this mess in the first place. (I’d like to hear your views on the story that he personally executed a handful of prisoners shortly before becoming Prime Minister.) According to Seymour Hersh he has “blood on his hands” from the period, the long period, when when he worked for Sadaam.

Surely there must be some hope that others than Allawi and Sadr will emerge from the current chaos to create a somewhat democratic Iraq.

Saying all this does not question your integrity or suggest that I know something about Iraq that you don’t. I repeat, that the little I know of Iraq is of very recent vintage and comes from people like you, Juan Cole, Riverbend and the more scrupulous reporters in the mainstream media.

hobokenhenry

Chris -

Saw you interviewed by Aaron Brown (the ONLY anchor I’ll watch on CNN) last night (Aug 16, 10pm PDT). Thought you did a wonderful job. Some of your responses were rather measured but after reading what some people post in response to your blog articles I can hardly blame you.

I agree with your hypothetical…drawing a line from Moqtada through regional war all the way to $100-a-barrel petroleum. With peak-oil looming, I don’t believe that connecting (with respect to Jon Stewart) this Mess-O-Potamia to a thirsty China and the potential disaster for Western economies is really that fantastic. No less far-fetched than the Abiotic Petroleum theory.

The more I read of your stuff, the worse it gets. First, your tone of entitlement is like chalk on a blackboard for anyone not addicted to apple pie. Secondly; so the U.S has gotta stay now to secure it’s future access to cheap and stable energy resouces? NEWSFLASH: Why do you think the country was invaded and all those people killed in the first place? Nice to see you stumble into and selling the admin line through the same selfish persuasion, clouded in a preamble about parties and democracies and unruly vultures picking through the remains while you wave them off.

But you are absolutely right that the future of the U.S. depends on Iraq. If you had dug a little deeper than economics 101, you would have discovered terms like trade and budget deifcits, reserve currency, outsourcing, etc…and found that access to cheap energy has to a large extent kept the credit in check and the SUVs running. The U.S is like a drunken sailor with shopaholic habits when sober — about to go icecold turkey. That part looks inevitable already.

Armed robbery will fuel the spending habits for a few more years, possibly even decades, but that does not make it legal or right or desirable or justified or whatever, especially considering the cost to the victims. In fact, in the court of world opinion that you seem to invoke quite often (while not mentioning the ICJ), it would be deemed criminal.

Calling Sadr’s deranged crew thugs and criminals is like shouting wolf when you yourself are running with the pack. There are much bigger fish to fry here if policing is on the agenda, not petty thieves but large scale plunderers, the mob not pickpockets. Whatever scenarios you can jerk off to about evil Islamist states is just lubrication to get the oil flowing.

It may be harsh, but your ideas read a lot like the doodles of a brown shirt cub reporter.

I agree with you that if Sadr stays in place and US get kicked out we will all play a severe personal price. However, that is the consequence of Iraq being invaded in the first place. This outcome was one of the reasons I was so apposed to the invasion.

Ask yourself this though, if the oil was under our soil would it be ok for the major world powers to control the political processes here for thier advantage - and against our interests? That is what has been going on in the ME for years, and I for one think that the average poor Iraqi counts as much as I - an average poor American. And as pointed out up thread, anything that moves us away from a system that is killing the earth is a good thing.

While we will all die sooner or later, I would choose sooner for myself if that would allow life on the planet to continue. Let the chips fall where they may I say, even if that is on my head.

To borrow from Helena, maybe we should ALL get a grip and wake up to the fact that we ought to be able to express differing points of view with civility. In my opinion, referring to the reporter as a “lazy tired hack” or a “brown shirt cub reporter” provides zero value to those of us who read the blog and the comments for insight and information. That’s a level of puerility I think we all would do well to rise above.

Yes, that is all awful. But that is the game- to create problems that will bind a Democratic administration as firmly to militarism as a Republican one.

As a result, the Israelis are operating in Kurdish Iraq. Do you think this won’t result in problems for us?

The only way to really stabilize Iraq is for a U.N. peaceforce to support a secular government that distributes proceeds from Iraqi oil to the people in the form of education, healthcare, and public improvements.

Even if the U.S. wanted the region to be stable, there are about a half dozen points in the preceding paragraph that currently violate the ground-rules of the American oligarchy.

And frankly, we have every indication, from the neo-con pronouncements in Washington about destabilising the Saudis and Iranians, to the Negroponte shadow government composed largely of wreckers from previous subversion efforts, that the U.S. does not seek stability in Iraq.

Vietnam seemed just as important to journalists and policy-makers of the 60s as Iraq seems to them today. Our meddling in Iraq over the past twenty years has made a bad situation a disaster. It’s time to quit while we’re ‘ahead’.

As someone previously mentioned Vietnam…

I was watching the news last night about the insurgency in Iraq and the battle that the US is currently fighting among the tombs of Najaf. Then there was the talk of Bush’s politically motivated lie about reducing troop presence in Europe and South Korea starting in 2006 (but absolutely no mention of the 50k in Afghanistan and 120k in Iraq because most analysts expect an extended commitment ).

So that started me thinking about the casualty rates at the beginning of the Vietnam war. Nobody wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam but I believe in the old adage about those who ignore history. Found these two websites with the casualty numbers for each. I’m not drawing any conclusions but just wanted to look at the numbers for the two wars side by side. Overt commitment of troops to battle in Vietnam began in March of 1965. But of course, things really ratcheted up over the next four years with the ‘killing fields’ peaking in 1968 after the Tet. But remember when looking at Iraq vs. Vietnam, one has to consider the relative deployment…(in Vietnam there were 185k in 1965 which ballooned to more than half a million by 1968 http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm )…

Iraq casualties: http://icasualties.org/oif/

Vietnam casualties: http://thewall-usa.com/stats/#year

Should have done my homework before the last post. Current number of U.S troops in Afghanistan is closer to 18,000 (rather than 50k)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040709-afghan-presence.htm

and Iraq is at 140,000 (rather than 120k)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C595069060%2C00.html

Should have done my homework before the last post. Current number of U.S troops in Afghanistan is closer to 18,000 (rather than 50k)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040709-afghan-presence.htm

and Iraq is at 140,000 (rather than 120k)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C595069060%2C00.html

In a nut shell;

Al Sadr refuses to get with the program.

He wants the world and he wants it now!

His aides invite ( according to Al Jazeera ) the Vatican to help in restoring peace.

WHAT?

Inviting the mother of all “Infidel leaders” to rescue the nation of Islam at the bargaining table?

Meanwhile,

Al Sadr just now refused to meet with his own countrymen to solve the standoff in Najaf.

Al Sadr must go.

Sorry folks,

Al Sadr forces the US troop reduction timetable to look like US Imperilism is there to stay.

AL Sadr is the pimple on the ass of progress.

It is past the time when a military solution will work. Iraq needs a political solution and has needed one for over a year. Look, Iraq has a well established clan system. Maybe it is time to empower the clans and start rebuilding Iraq from the bottom up instead of trying to impose a top down solution.

The US model is perhaps inappropriate for Iraq. Perhaps the Chinese model would be more appropriate. China has a lot of experience with local committees that can be set up to provide services and security locally. A new approach that would empower the clans to organize local committees might work a lot better. A neighborhood by neighborhood strategy should be given a chance. Where it works is a big gain and allows concentration on the hot spots. Without security, nothing is possible.

At least getting American troops out of the way would send the message to Iraq that you are on your own and can no longer blame the Americans. Then the occupation is no longer the focus and the focus can shift to rebuilding the country and solving the problems. The occupation could pull out and then use threat of airstrikes or other military force to keep things from getting too off track. It would be better than the current lawlessness.

The key to Sadr support is his opposition to the occupation. The occupation is blamed for the problems so Sadr is seen as attacking the problem. This is positive feedback for Sadr. The trick is to break the cycle. This is done by getting the occupation out of the way and truly empowering the Iraqis to rebuild. This puts the responsibility off the occupation and back on to the Iraqis. The result will be more progress because the discussion will have to shift from blame to problem solving. This means getting the big American contractors out of Iraq and putting the locals in charge.

I’m going to take a little shift here. Anyone who has watched the news in the past couple of years has heard about the movement in todays military toward non-lethal weapons. In fact, Discovery, TLC, and the History Channel have all devoted programs to it. A check at Global Security:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/non-lethal.htm

brings up a list of technologies being studied.

Combine this with the first gulf war and our use of the conflict as a testbed for new technologies (most notable JSTARS) and I find it odd (well maybe not) that the mainstream media has seemed to drop this line on the story.

These technologies are not without risks, as seen in the hostage crisis in Moscow and its use of a gas that killed so many innocents. However, if what Chris says is right, and damaging the shrine could bring about an uprising the US and fledgling government could not contain, then the time is right to bring these new tools out of the lab.

I am afraid you have panicked and slipped way over the line, Mr. Allbritton. If it was wrong to go into Iraq, then attacking Muktada al Sadr and killing innocents to get him out of the shrine is even wronger. Even if al Sadr wins out in Najaf, the most he can impact is Iraq. On the other hand, if he and hundreds are martyred, and there is a scratch on the shrine, the fallout both within and beyond Iraq is inestimable. (In fact, we had better hope some antiAmerican crackpots or Iranian agents do not undertake this themselves in order to blame it on us, because that will throw all US hopes in Iraq overboard forever.) Besides, it’s probably unnecessary and just plain wrong and we have done more than enough wrong in Iraq already. Have we forgotten Abu Ghraib already.? The world hasn’t.

It is wrong to even speak of Iraq as you have, as if it were ours to make plans for, as if we are justified in doing anything because otherwise oil might be too expensive to drive our SUV’s to McDonald’s. It is time to get back on the right side of right, and it is time to defer more heavily to the UN, the Arab League, and any other association of states we can find with an ounce of perceived legitimacy, because thanks to the sorry bunch of Machiavelli wannabees in Washington and resigned fellow travelers like you, we have exactly none now. Carry your nonsense to its logical conclusion, and we will gladly pay $100 a barrel to leave the world we have created.

Thanks, Chris

Eventually the facts eventually get in the way of what people would ideally prefer to believe, and it looks to me that your close view of the facts don’t jibe too well with many of your reader’s idealisms. I’ll put my money on your perspective, seeing as how you are actually there 24/7 and we aren’t.

Keep up the great work, again, thanks.

What irks me about your post is not what you say about Sadr et al. - ie I think he probably would lead Iraq down a pretty bad road if he got to power, basically being a cross between a theocrat and a gangster.

No, what bothers me is your unquestioned assumption that somehow the US has the RIGHT to determine and interfere with Iraq’s political fate for our benefit. You’d enjoy the 19th century, because that’s where your ideas belong. You implicitly assume the white man’s burden, something we certainly don’t need to be doing in the 21st century. You know what? - we don’t. We have our hands on a tar baby and the more we struggle, the worst we’re going to get stuck. I was of the “we broke it, we fix it” school, but no longer. Things are beyond that.

Why the hell can’t the US simply steadily withdraw its troops? Not a sudden withdrawal, but a steady one? It seems we’re only making the situation worse the longer we stay. Oh, yeah, thats right - oh, that’s right - this mission wasn’t about altruistically “giving” them “brown people” democracy …

Ben P

good rant chris. thanks. a little perspective (chaos on top of the worlds second largest oil reserves) is helpful from time to time.

Joe

“Where is the outrage and the sympathy for Moqtada? … where are the crowds and the marches for U.S. out of Najaf or for Moqtadas brave resistance such as those that preceded the war in the West?”

Chris: Currently, they’re In NAJAF, as the following first-hand account clearly indicates. There are now THOUSANDS of Iraqis who’ve gone to Najaf with the intent of forming a human shield in defense of both Muqtada and the shrine! Many of them are also fully prepared to pick up weapons from the fallen and use them to continue that defense! That being the case, I can’t remotely fathom how you can suggest a lack of support. “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother” — and that’s exactly what those thousands of Iraqis are now potentially committed to. Forget plain old protests; they’re ready to die for this!

And it’s probably a VERY good thing for you that you’re not actually on location in Najaf. It seem that the police there, under direct orders from the Allawi government, actually threatened to EXECUTE those journalists who hadn’t left yet. They even fired a few rounds at the hotel for “effect”! So much for freedom in Iraq. See:

City of defiance

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=552289

By Donald Macintyre in Najaf, 17 August 2004

I also have to agree with the extremely relevant observation already made by others that a poll soliciting opinions of “presidential potential” is not in ANY way reflective of overall support! The CPA’s own results, which I relayed previously (from juancole.com), showed a 68% favorability rating for Muqtada, which Cole himself surmised could only be greater now. Those results you can take to the bank, whereas the survey you’ve cited means absolutely nothing in terms of Iraqi dedication to Muqtada. (And frankly, I’m a little surprised that you’ve obfuscated the issue by introducing such tenuous and irrelevant “documentation”. You should know better.)

Honestly, Chris, I think you’re a bit “fixated” in your opinions of Muqtada al-Sadr. Juan Cole’s various OTHER remarks about Muqtada are not nearly as villifying (nor as dismissive) as your own seem to be. And if the Mahdi Army is perceived to be aggressively “coercive”, what army isn’t?? (Are OUR troops supposedly politely asking permission before they bomb Iraqis?) Furthermore, that reference of Cole’s was, I believe, related primarily to resentments experienced in Najaf, where Muqtada is considered an “outsider”. They may not like him actually being there, but that doesn’t imply they dislike him! (Quite the contrary, it would seem.)

If I personally admire Muqtada — and I do! — it’s because he has the guts to not simply play along with this US-dominated CHARADE of democracy, nor sit idly by waiting for Puppet Minion Allawi to toss him a bone. The man is a revolutionary, where revolution is most assuredly warranted. And he and his followers are laying it totally on the line! Unlike this shameless, expatriate assassin Allawi, Muqtada has LIVED Iraq under both Saddam and this misguided occupation. He isn’t shielded by the US government or military from the consequences of HIS actions. And he certainly wouldn’t accept Bremer’s furtive edicts for the Big Iraq Giveaway. Allawi, on the other hand — with nothing to lose — will willingly sell “his” people into permanent US bondage!

Viva Muqtada!! To HELL with Allawi!

I think everyone is getting just a little bit upset here. Let’s all stop and calm ourselves.

When Chris uses language like “thugs” and “criminals” to describe people willing to commit violence in order to have their way, he is apt to upset EVERYBODY, for different reasons. And when he characterizes those who opposed the invasion of Iraq and who now believe we should get out (I mean those OUTSIDE of Iraq, not IN it) as “hard-core anti-imperialists”, and suggests that he knows that these people are partially blinded by a smug “feeling virtuous” because they were apparently correct in the first part, it is bound to affect the well-documented delicate sensiblilities of these types, who are offended by everything.

This can’t be helped and, as GAIL points out, this is no cause for name-calling.

I think, too, that if you analyze Chris’ essay right-mindedly, you will see that it crushes any whacky notions anyone may still harbor that THIS IS ABOUT THE OIL. Clearly OIL has nothing to do with it, and I hope those who suggested it DID, feel pretty darn stupid about now. Don’t you?

The neocons FORESAW exactly this situation - and sure enough, here it is: Islamic radicals taking over everything and running up the cost of the oil that runs OUR economy. And damn if it ain’t coming true! WE weren’t even THINKING about ourselves, though, except for that WMD thing. We just want everybody to be FREE - the way we know is BEST for them.

We are sure taking the wind out of Osama’s sails, and anybody else who thinks we want to dominate the Middle East and do away with their culture. I saw a uplifiting story on FOX tonight, in which a 14-year-old Iraqi boy has become a hero by turning his Dad in to us (his Dad was either a thuggish insurgent or a wild-eyed crazy terrorist - who cares which and who could tell, anyway?). His Dad’s pals found out about it, and killed the kid’s Mother. But the main thing is, this kid might get to come to America and start a new life! Is that a great story, or what!?

I would guess that Chris sees himself as “wisely ambivilant” on the matter of imperialism; sensitive to the incidental damage to its victims, yet realistic in acknowledging and accepting the many advantages that even its victims can enjoy, if they play their cards right. Dick Cheney, I’m thinking, must be “soft on imperialism” or, perhaps, “ultra-sensitive and highly-attuned to the virtuesand opportunities of imperialism”. Osama would be, like a “FLAMING anti-imperialist”.

I’m not sure where the 14-year-old Iraqi kid fits on this chart, but maybe Chris can help us with that. He’s OVER there, after all.

If we are going to win the war on terrorism, we have a lot more people to kill. It’s as simple as that.

It’s tragic, but as the Getto Boys so aptly put it:

     "When the s**t jumps up,

      What the f**k 'ya gonna do?

      Damn it's good to be a gangsta..."

Morning

Got your link through another site. Enjoy reading your posts

However, I have one question that has been annoying me for a while now and that is why isn’t there one journalist mentioning the crimes and terror sadr militia have been imposing on najaf.

Its been going on for a year and getting worse by the day. There are tons of journalists who pop up once he gets attacked but they all seem to dissapear when its not his side that dying

P.S. I think one possible answer to this situation was revealed quite clearly (if satirically) in the film, “The Mouse That Roared” — we could simply withdraw our forces, declare defeat, and then apply for financial aid from the “victors”. That way, we MIGHT even have a viable economy again some day. ;-)

But really, this is madness! The whole idea that we should dominate the affairs of other nations strictly because we have some economic interest there is what GOT us into this mess. It’s exactly the same type of brutal behavior that got the Empire of Japan into World War II! Why should we now supposedly embrace a mindest IDENTICAL to that of the fascists and imperialists our ancestors fought so vigorously against only 60 years ago?

The United States, it seems, has become an oil junkie! But rather than enter into any “replacement therapy” program, its leaders insist that the rest of the world must subsidize our “nasty habit”.

Sorry, but I really believe that basic morality should always supersede any mere sense of economic pragmatism. Buying into a notion that the stability of oil prices should actually dictate our conduct abroad is akin to saying that the Nazis were quite within their rights to belligerently pursue their own goal of “Lebensraum”. Any country can come up with an “excuse” for violently oppressing others; but that hardly justifies such a stance.

And Chris, has it occurred to you that our military is itself like one big mob with guns? (Of course, we have much better organization and some GREAT press.) ;-)

why isnt there one journalist mentioning the crimes and terror sadr militia have been imposing on najaf.

Dilnareen: If not one journalist has covered it, what makes you think such crimes and terror ARE being perpetrated by the Sadr militia? (Your assertions at least appear to be mutually exclusive.)

Chris,

You are doing a wonderful job. Please keep up the great work. The people here that were gushing about your writing when you expressed your anti-war perspective are quick to turn on you simply because they do not like the facts that you report. They are no more capable of rational thought than the Sadr supporters and militants that wish to wreck Iraq.

• Paulster

JMFeany,

Ask anyone from najaf and they’ll tell you its the mehdi army. Take the head of Najafs IP for example he spoke up against them last week and look what they did to his family and police force.

Or Faiq sheikh ali, an iraqi lawyer from najaf living in london, he’s been warning about Sadr’s militia since last year. Its just been ignored heavily by all news outlets

Paulster:

Why do you say stuff like that? “…turn on you because they do not like the facts you (CA) report.”?

What “facts” are those, exactly? And how do you know who gushed previously and now, “turns on” the blogmeister? Do you chart that?

“They are no more capable of rational thought than the Sadr supporters and militants who wish to wreck Iraq.”

What the heck is THAT? “Rational thought” has nothing to do with it, and it is wholly erroneous to suggest any association between people who object to the strategies and tactics of the U.S. government

and al-Sadr’s followers, beyond that general criticism. Americans who find fault, for example, may simply have an aversion to fumbling, bumbling failure at an enormous cost of life and resources, whereas critics like al-Sadr may see other, altogether different problems. It is inappropriate and provocative to link them, and it

suggests a lack of comprehension (and the lack of a dictionary) on your part to assert that either are not “rational”.

Your comments are not helpful, are they? Is this your purpose - to agitate and annoy and cause bad feelings? Aren’t you an optimist? A positive thinker?

How can such remarks help either Iraqis or Americans? Or the people where you’re from?

two thoughts, if you have time to respond it would be welcome.

1. were you aware of the threat made to journalists in Najaf that they can/would be arrested/killed if they stayed, when you interviewed Allawi? Can you comment on the effects of that policy?

2. personally in my view I think you should continue are concentrate on the man on the street interviews, that is something no one really does. we read short quips and quotes from people but get to the heart of the matter, flesh out these people for us, some people do have the attention span and compassion. In that note I am reminded of a story about a young Marlon Brando in Paris being interviewed at a cafe, he was asked by the reporter to comment on a race relations regarding the tensions and racism in the world, he scanned the crowd and calling out to a young black woman in French he asked her to answer the question. If you could bring ordinary Iraqi people with you during interview with Allawi to ask him the questions that need answers from Iraqis it would have been more relevent, important, unprecedented and meaningful, then maybe we could hear the important questions.

You’ve done somewhat better in your analysis this time around, but I must say that nothing you have said has convinced me that the US shouldn’t be seeking to leave as soon as possible. I personally don’t believe the jihadists will prevail in Iraq, but in fact see that we are rather digging ourselves a deeper hole by remaining.

If the people don’t support Al Sadr, then our leaving should allow the silent majority to truly express their opinion, and I hate to break the news to you Chris, but the middle class and Christians are already fleeing in droves.

I know that people were speaking of much the same threat the Vietnam would impose on Southeast Asia when the VC took over. Now we have normalized relations, their economy is growing, and while not a democracy, the lives of Vietnamese are getting better day by day.

Remaing offers no solution. How can anyone argue a controlled exit strategy at this point. How could anyone possibly formulate it? When will America be done? The US needs to devote its soucres to fighting terrorism, not nation building.

I see the watchers of “uplifting stories on Fox” have now come to your rescue. You must be doing something right; surely this is kudos of the highest order for a journo.

Personally, I think the most annoying thing about all the Iraq blogs run out of U.S. hands, including yours, is that they all treat Iraq like it is their pet project. A little hamster cage of inferior creatures rearranged according to the preferences of the master. The premise of this is never called into question because the idea is so domesticated in the U.S. that it is hard to grasp that other people not endowed with the right papers, preferably by birth, is worth anything at all. They don’t have freedom and democracy, as it is pointed out ad nauseum.

This is why the Iraq punditry generally sounds like a bunch of zoo keepers hotly debating the goings on in their respective cages. The crucial difference is that even a toddler who got his first management project from Pet Co at the mall will at some point of maturity look into this domain and ponder the fact that s/he has no idea what the captives are actually thinking…and start imagining. At this point, that ill-advised escape to freedom often takes place when mum and dad are not watching. Let us call this cage break the early recognition of a kinship that is later forgotten in the micromanagement of the multi-billion dollar playground of human husbandry. What you provide here are drafts for the manual.

Then there’s the pottery-barn school of U.S. political philosophy cum foreign policy; you break it, you buy/fix it. This is one of my favs. Let’s see: you walk into the barn, you smash most of the pots, kill the proprietor and burn the barn to the ground. This supposedly earns you an invite as the new shopkeeper. Really? How about someone calls the cops, haul you away in cuffs and later execute you by lethal injection instead? Nah, the shopkeeper one is far more realistic and fair.

Chris, your Chicken Little scenario is completely unrealistic. If Sadr is so unpopular and unbalanced - and he seems to be - there is no chance of his coming to power in Iraq. Particularly since the small movement he leads is drawn from the poorest, least sophisticated sector of society.

I was interested to see you write this:

Because, Iraq is the U.S.’s problem — and it’s a big one.

Has it ever occurred to you that the US is Iraq’s big problem? And could that problem possibly include you, who seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid and come to believe that Iraq and its oil resources exist for the convenience of the US?

The truth, as far as I can see from polls and what has happened since the invasion, is that most Iraqis don’t regard the US presence in their country as legitimate, and are not willing to have the US guide its future. Under those circumstances do we really have a decent role to play there? What good outcome of our attempt to mold Iraq by force is possible?

Some words of support here, Christopher.

The discussions seems revolve around these two sentences:

Chris: “Because, Iraq is the U.S.’s problem — and it’s a big one.”

Comments: “Has it ever occurred to you that the US is Iraq’s big problem?”

Both of the above statements are true, obviously. This is something both parties wil have to deal with.

From information gained from my family in Baghdad I can confirm that

1: Al-Sadr is a major pain in the ass, for both Iraqis and US army.

2: There’s a war going on in there. Don’t expect any ‘clean’ solutions while the war is still on.

3: If the US would leave now, all gates of hell are likely to open. You think this situation is bad? Read the history books and learn that things could even get far worse. So for the sake of the US and Iraq, the US army should stay for another while. Though the way the US army is deployed is surely open for debate and even a slight hint of wisdom by the US leadership would be appreciated.

The voices in the streets of Baghdad shouldn’t be taken for granted any more than the voices in the white house. The way the US army behaves isn’t likely to invoke much love or even respect. Only fear. So the voices in the streets of Baghdad are likely to be angry and irrational. It still doesn’t mean withdrawing the US army now is a good idea.

Keep up the good job, Christopher…

Hey Chris,

Looks like some of your long time readers and supporters have got up on their soap box and chimed in. They don’t accept your personal accounts as truth. Any ndws source of any slant is available on the net.

Seems they have sought other bloggers and sources of info for the “better fit” truth .

ANy way.

After the 1st Gulf war, the uprising in Najaf was crushed and the mosque was destroyed….

…. The “outrage” wasn’t heard in the west as the uprising faded

and

the mosque was rebuilt.

…

Will history be repeated by the masses ? I’ve read from other bloggers that mortars are set up and fired from inside the mosque.

—-> no outrage for this desicration ?

but when the incomming rounds are reported….

It’s holy war !!!!

Some bloggers reported that of the 1200 AL Sadr followers captured or given up, Many didn’t speak Arabic,many were , well, “Persian” in looks and lanquage sort of speak.

They brag have plenty of volunteers .

Now in come the “human shields” just in time for Friday prayers.

Shut off the electricity and water to them. Iraqi’s have to draw the line not the US.

Chris, people don’t like your truth.

Hell, six or nine months ago you would say ” These words of the Aug 17th blog could never be mine “

ahhhh,

So starts the conspirecy by your oldest loyal followers.

The saddest part of what you’ve outlined is that this scenario was one that was forecast by most people who were against this war from the outset. While the specific names of actors weren’t possible to know, the general clashes resulting from the diverse groups and history of Iraq, once Saddam was ousted, was a no brainer. These scenarios would have been available information if U.S. media had bothered to ask and “mediate” between those pushing for the war and those against going in. This is not an “I told you so” but points out that those in the U.S. administration have proven to be completely lacking in judgement or simply were hell bent on taking advantage of the chance to crush Iraq. Most likely, both. Now they choose to blame the “intelligence” community for providing wrong info (several factors to the contrary). Was it not their job to question thoroughly? Wouldn’t intelligent people see the gaping holes? Many of us “average joe” guys did, and obviously, we aren’t brilliant! Yes, we’re in it now and we have a responsibility. This also means we need to know what is really going on and we need to take a hard look at whether to allow the current crew, who made many disastrous decisions that resulted in much suffering, should continue to bluster their way, creating chaos in their wake. What of the lives of the families of dead Americans? What of the lives of severely wounded soldiers? How many Iraqis are dead? What of the lives of those who are mourning, are disabled? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars are being misplaced, misappropriated? What sectors of our economy are hurt by this war? What sectors of our economy benefit from this war? Little information is available. It’s labeled unpatriotic to even go there. Feedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Yes, I agree, we need oil. Our captains of industry have kept us steered in that direction for too many decades.

For a countering view, see the article at

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/14/MNG51886811.DTL

• that basically argues that al-Sadr can and should be negotiated with.

He is representative of a large segment of Iraqi society, one which needs to be incorporated into any political process. We may not like the idea of Islamist politicians wielding power, but if a large part of the population do think that way then they have to get their share of political power. (Personally I don’t think a democratic Iraq would look anything like Iran; it’s way more secular.)

Chris, you make it sound like Iranian control of oil is a disaster. But Iran is happy to trade oil. And I don’t see that an Iraqi state run by some combination of (say) SCIRI, Al-Dawa, and al-Sadr would be adverse to selling oil to the rest of the world.

Of course there might be some interruptions to the oil supply while a stable Iraqi state came together, but it’s not as if Iraqi oil is terribly reliable at the moment.

Paulster wrote: “…because they do not like the facts that you report”.

Yes, let’s talk about the facts.

Chris, a left leaning blogger and journalist, opposed the second Iraq war. He has been reporting from Iraq for long periods of time and he was very critical of the Bush administration. But now he thinks the sadrists must be exterminated, whatever the human and political costs.

These are the facts.

Why do you think Chris’ worldview changed so radically? Did he lie in the first place? Is he dishonest? Did he sell his soul to the corporate media? I don’t think so.

Chris is an honest american patriot who didn’t like the huge gamble that Bush took. But he has direct knowledge of what is going on in Iraq. He knows that the gamble is lost and that the US faces a geopolitical defeat of historical proportions. And he is terrified. This is the reason he uses the morally bankrupt argument that the sadrists must be slaughtered and order must be restored in order to have cheap oil. Even the Bushies tried hard not to use the words “oil” and “Iraq” in the same sentence!

The problem is that Chris, and the americans in general, give the impression that they can’t understand how the world works anymore. Killing Sadr will mean 100 dollars a barrel. Why do you think the sadrist gangs don’t destroy the oil wells? Because Sadr told them not to do it. No Sadr, no oil wells. Yesterday they destroyed one, just to send a message. I think the americans received it.

There is much to respond to in your piece. An aspect I find continually interesting, is the assumption, held by many and apparently by you, that all societies want and should, could live by democracy in some form, close to ours. If “self determination” is to be abided by, then, as we know, often societies vote for labor, socialistic and other modes of democratic leadership. Generally, the U.S. is not in favor of these types of leadership since their leaders my not work with us, as well. Obviously, the biggest fear at this time is that, left to their own devices, if we pull out, a true or fraudulent vote could result in a theocracy, the U.S.’s biggest nightmare. As we know, “non voted for”, tyrannical governments may or may not be acceptable to us, depending on whether we can work with them, or not. Soooo, we’ve hand picked the repesentatives to represent the people of Iraq, twice now. Perhaps the people there would be happy or satisfied with an authoritarian, theocratic gov’t. Perhaps they would vote as their religious leadership tells them, not unlike many Americans. Considering the divergent segments in Iraq, this should not have come as a surprise based on already known “intelligence”, history.

Let’s call it like it is :An armed robbery of Iraqi resources and leave democracy out of it. For now, might makes right because we need oil. Let’s not disgrace democracy any further.

Question: with all the attention going on down in Najaf, what is happening in the other parts of Iraq?

Ive heard that the Persh Merga in the Kurdish portion has the largest militia in iraq. Are they just consolidating power in their area, building up their forces so that they can seceed if the democratization doesnt go their way? What about the Sunni Triangle? Is all of our attention focused away right now, so that if/when the Al-Sadr issure is resolved, those 2 other areas will erupt in more violence?

What exactly is the problem with having a theocratic regime in Iraq? Sure, as you say, it will drive out the intellectuals and the middle class; but they’re not really necessary to pumping oil in an enviornment of social peace, right? If there’s one thing these radical clerics understand, it’s controlling the masses - and they seem to get along alright among themselves, too.

Bottom line? If the US hadn’t boxed itself into a corner with all this “bringing democracy to fruit” nonsense, you could find a dozen theocrats, nominate a strong Ayatollah, sign the oil contracts, buy off the Kurds, and Bob’s your uncle.

And is it just me, or is everyone as cynical as I am? The US propaganda machine can turn on a dime. Long live the theocracy and just say NO to Turkey vs. Iran and Israeli submarines in the Gulf (nighmare scenario etc.).

Jack: I agree with most of what you said. Here is an article about Arabs and Kerry but it also explains how Islam and Arabs view democracy and the concept of “political Party”.

Click here

Sorry Jack: Here it is:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27021.htm

Real majority and massive numbers of Iraqis do not like al-Sadr oppose his criminal gangs, and want him to leave the shrine he is defiling.

You can find their opinions here …

Liberating Iraq

al-sadr’s men are thugs and criminals because they operate outside the law and have killed innocents, kidnapped Iraqi policemen, assassinated political opponents … frankly, it is amazing to read the stupidity here - this guy could be Adolph Hitler himself and people would be supporting him just because he’s poking the eyes of the coalition in Iraq.

The real victims of al-Sadr are Iraqis …

“But Najaf’s police chief, Ghaleb al-Jazairi, was even more contemptuous of the peace efforts. He ordered the insurgents to surrender, disarm and leave Najaf.

“We’ll never stop fighting them, even if there are any negotiations, until they leave the city unarmed,” he said. “If they refuse to surrender their guns and leave, we will have to storm the place and kill them all. We want to win the battle and end the bloodshed as quickly as possible.” … This week, Shia militants in the southern city of Basra took his 80-year-old father, Hashim, hostage. The police chief says the captors want him to go to Basra and give himself up in exchange.

“I want to ask the Mahdi army: is it a good thing that they kidnapped a very old man, who is very sick, who cannot eat, who cannot walk and who needs medicine, just because he is my father and I am his son?

“Where is their humanity? How can they say that they are religious, that they are Muslim, when they do that?”

Another relative of Mr Jazairi, a young man recruited into the Najaf police, was abducted by militiamen. “They beheaded him and burnt his body,” he said, his voice quivering. “We had to bury him like that. We’re still searching for the head.” The police chief said 19 of his men had been beheaded by the Mahdi army since April. “

… this is from a UK telegraph article. there are dozens of accounts of al-Sadrs criminalities, murders, thuggishness and obstinacy.

See

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

Can anyone enlighten me on two points:

   (1) From where did the notion that "we have a responsibility in Iraq" spring? 

   (2) What does it MEAN - that is, can anyone define what that responsibility IS, in terms more edifying and finite than staying there "as long a necessary and not one day longer"? I'm not looking for a precise time period, or a set cost in dollar amount, lives or broken bodies and minds.

 Just a comprehensible SHAPE that can be recognized when it materializes - and an unambiguous expression of how our release from responsibility will be excercised.

For example:

   "Our responsibility will be fulfilled when general elections that are supervised in any manner by the U.N. are executed; when that elected body takes its offices; when the Iraqi

armed forces have achieved a level of 250,000; and

when the dollars thus far appropriated by the U.S. Congress for the reconstruction of Iraq have been

expended or transferred to the lawful government of the new Iraq.

  "With the fulfillment of these goals, U.S. military forces - other than those required to protect the U.S. Consulate and not to exceed 1,200 in number - shall be withdrawn and future committments of dollars and troops will require approval by Congress."

I’d appreciate hearing these answers, as we originally committed to the Iraq invasion on the basis of WMDs and terrorist connections (none found so far) and to protect ourselves and the region from the dangers represented by the Saddam Hussein regime (we have). The “liberation” of the Iraqi people and “democratization” of the Iraqi political process were lesser goals (no rational case can be made that the invasion may have had sufficient support on these bases) - and, while what “liberation” and

“democratization” meant were not clearly defined,

it seems to me that the one has been met through the demise of the old regime and the other will have been achieved by self-evidence with general elections.

Yet it is already clear that our heavy engagement will not end there. I am trying not to be cynical, but

what I keep hearing from all sides is a growing acceptance that we have no choice except to be yanked around by the various and many segments

of Iraqis and Iraqi expatriates, who all have apparently endless demands on us - now that we have gone and butted into their business.

Are we working for ALL Iraqis (every single one of them), or just the ones who want what we want (and how close must we and “they” be on what issues)? Are we working for “them”, until we get it like “they” want it? Or until the Bush administration is made to look like they have a clue (or gets re-elected)? Or until the story is no longer drawing sufficient ratings or producing “news” the media can exploit? Or what?

Thanks.

And Patrick:

Please don’t make the obvious error in judgement

that finding much fault with and being against the methods of the current leaders of the U.S. government, equates with supporting al-Sadr’s methods or ideas. Or that Iraqis approve of his methods or his violence against other Iraqis.

I myself have a deep mistrust of and growing animas for, the Bush administration. But if Arabs invaded America for the purpose of regime change, I’d have a problem with that. As unlikely as it seems to me at this point, I might even find new -if temproary - kinship with and “approval of, the Religious Right, Donald Rumsfeld or even Jerry Springer and the guy who started the WWF (any association with or support for Tom DeLay, under any circumstances, is out opf the question, however).

Privatizing Iraqi’s oil

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma27301.html

I agree that the ad hominem attacks are out of control, but then again, the tempers are flaring, and everybody seems to be in the right. I hope you continue posting your mind though. It can get hard to take when everybody just goes off on you though…

I just wanted to make that point about the thought experiment again. The home team is Al Sadr and the Shiite boys…I don’t know, think of your president the lonesome sheriff Bush… just about the most unpopular sheriff the “wild east” has ever known. There is not much you are going to be able to do to convince the fans that Sadr, even if he might not play fair, is not somehow on the home team. I know. This all sounds like fiction or something from the stands of the EM or the Olympics.. and not political discourse. But, honestly, isn’t that what moves people?

All of those polls are pretty stupid and useless until there is a real functioning political system (this might take a long, long time). 20 percent of the country likes Sadr and 5 percent wants to join the Mehdi army…or whatever…

You should think in numbers not percent until democracy is up and running. Get out your calculators and figure out what 5 percent, 10 percent of 23 million is…and then you’ll find a formidable army of people ready to risk their lives to kill Americans until they leave the place. (anyway with about 8,000 you can wreck a democratic country…imagine 8,000 people in America walking around kililng people, think of what those two snipers did!!!)

Americans went and occupied another country in the Middle East. Didn’t they learn anything from Saudi Arabia? (not technically occupied but you know what I mean…)

and of course from the continuing stupidities from Israel…

its as though they don’t really want to solve the problem isn’t it!!!!

BAD BOYS, BAD BOYS, WHATCHA GONNA DO? WHAT CHA GONNA DO?

Here’s my analogy of the Iraq War.

Saddams the wife beater, constantly beating his wife and family while the neighbors ignore it. The people of Iraq would be both the wife and children. Like many that suffer abuse, they tolerate it, hoping with time or some great action on their part or the oppressors something will change. Anyone that grows up with abuse sees it almost as a normal occurence. The abused also fail to run away, call the cops or any other matter that may stop the violence. For some it is economic, “I can’t afford to leave” or any number of reasons that women will stay and take the abuse.

So in the effort of being the “Noble Gentleman” America took it upon itself to come knocking on the door of the tyrant, issuing a decree that if Saddam came out of the house with his hands up, the police wouldn’t have to break down the door and possibly hurt any of the family. Of course it was expected that Saddam would not surrender, so what did America do?

In the effort of liberating Iraq something around 16-20,000 people were sacrificed for the greater good of the nation. That’s like busting through the door, machine guns blowing holes everywhere all in the best interest of the small family. Well some of the kids got dead, Saddam got captured and the wife you understand is very upset. See some of her children died.

So now the bad guy is captured, some of the kids are killed and the rest of the family is now more angry and upset at the police. They blame the police and in their grief are shouting and screaming at the police to leave, just get the hell out now won’t you! The police now have quite a situation on their hands, it would not be good enough to leave now, we must insure that peace and happiness is restored before they leave the premises. Meanwhile two officers are busy upstairs in the bedroom pocketing some of the nice twinkets and jewelry left around, just for safe keeping you understand. Another cop is in the fridge making a sandwich, all the while the mother and her sons feel humiliated. It’s not pure love for their tormentor that grieves them, it’s the fact that while they wanted to find an end to the violence in their own way, these police just destroyed much of their way of life. Now the police captain comes in and offers his best friend as the new husband. He’s a nice guy, the captain tells the wife, he’ll take care you, you are in no shape now to go looking for a suitor, so it’s best you take my friends hand in marriage.

Saddam was not a nice guy, we all know the brutality etc. etc. BUT the real reason I believe Iraq is not working out the way the Bloodlusters thought, was that the people of Iraq needed and deserved to come to terms with their oppressor in their own way. They needed their own liberating experience, They needed to rescue themselves, not suffer the indigity of having their culture swamped with 150,000 TV fed, pop culture kids on a mission of mercy from some policy wonks.

Anything earned is much more valuable than gifts given with a price.

This is what is driving the stupid fucking whitemen crazy, nobody appreciates having a “gift” tossed back them.

www.ctitizenofearth.blogspot.com

You’re getting a bloody good reaming here but it does show that really bright people read your page and that in itself is a huge compliment.

You’re getting a bloody good reaming here but it does show that really bright people read your page and that in itself is a huge compliment.

Ask anyone from najaf and theyll tell you its the mehdi army.

Dilareen: That might be just a little hard for me to do, since I’m nowhere near Najaf. Are you?

The question I asked, “How do you know …”, remains pretty much unanswered for all practical purposes. But in the interests of fairness, here’s a link I found myself to such claims from Najaf’s police chief. (Mind you, the article clearly notes that there’s no independent corroboration yet available for his account. So it rests totally on his say-so.)

Calling the shots in Najaf

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=552558

18 August 2004

Ghalab al-Jazaari is the Iraqi police chief masterminding the siege of Najaf. It is an unenviable job by any standards. But, he tells Donald Macintyre, for him it’s also very personal

Looks like some of your long time readers and supporters have got up on their soap box and chimed in. They dont accept your personal accounts as truth. Any ndws source of any slant is available on the net.

Airedale: How about actually specifying some of the counter-points you supposedly refute, rather than engaging in the merely self-glorifying tactic of building and knocking down imaginary straw men? As it is, the signal-to-noise ratio here has dropped off dramatically, and you’re only increasing the static with these preposterous pseudo-arguments.

After the 1st Gulf war, the uprising in Najaf was crushed and the mosque was destroyed …

OH, REALLY?? (Care to document that astounding factoid?? That’s certainly not to say that any of the rest of your fuzzy assertions are self-evident, of course.)

Until this set of posts, most rants I’d seen were from right wingers demanding to know why they weren’t seeing more heart warming stories about GIs restoring schools and giving candy to small children. Now I know there really are helpless left leaning kooks as well. Perhaps all of them (kooks of all sorts) should purchase one way tickets to Iraq and hang out in the streets trying not to get kidnapped while they find those “man in the street” truths they crave. Ha ha. Seriously, keep up the good work. And good luck.

What exactly is the problem with having a theocratic regime in Iraq? Sure, as you say, it will drive out the intellectuals and the middle class …

Did I miss something? Wasn’t the Nobel Peace Prize most recently won by an Iranian woman?? It’s not exactly typical for overtly lackluster thinkers to receive those. Surely there must still be a good many intellectuals in Iran, and that’s certainly a theocracy. (Those wily Persians!) ;-)

Conversely, how “welcome” was intellectual dissent under the US-supported Shah of Iran and his strictly secular regime? [How welcome is active dissent in Iraq now??] Come to think of it, wasn’t the Ayatollah Khomeini himself considered a worthy intellectual? He was forced to seek exile from the Shah’s secular government, wasn’t he?

It’s not the fundamental leanings of any government that results in mass exoduses. Its the excesses of the government in pursuing its goals, and whether the various citizens (including intellectuals) actually agree with, or at least tolerate, those leanings.

Let’s keep in mind that most of the original 13 colonies of the US began as sectarian religious communities! Separation of church and state as a guiding principle was largely unheard of! (Massachusetts even burned “witches”. Sounds pretty darned theocratic to me!)

Nevetheless, I generally agree with your premises, Patrick. Woodrow Wilson’s sound philosophy was self-determination of peoples, not US imposition of officially “preferred” forms of government on them. If the Iraqis are not free to choose their own form of government, then they’re not free! A secular “democracy” imposed at the point of a gun is no democracy at all!

Now I know there really are helpless left leaning kooks as well. …

Gentileschi: Perhaps you should identify them and the points you would contest, rather than merely indulging yourself in such self-aggrandizing generalizations and ad hominem innuendos.

Richard Wadsack: In complete concurrence with your own observations, I keep thinking to myself: When Chris’s former Trolls now pose as erstwhile supporters, can the “Second Coming” be far off?

The Second Coming by W. B. Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again; but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

.

Chris: When history repeats itself, do we recognize it?

A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/mesopo.html

[Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence,

The Sunday Times, 22 August 1920]

Of course, the British (or at least Colonel Lawrence) were actually fairly forthright about their imperial goals in Mesopotamia. Our government is not! Our “dear leader” spouts pious platitudes about bestowing “the blessings of freedom” — the ones his regime would DENY us — on that country, in order to conceal his true objective of maintaining absolute US dominance there indefinitely (or at least until the oil wells run dry).

To J.M.Feeney: Thanks for “The Second Coming” - couplets from it have been inserting themselves into my consciousness ever since we went into Iraq; it was therefore pretty stunning to see it just now in the Comments, and I can’t think of any poetry (with which I’m familiar) that is more relevant at this exact moment. I’m in the fifth decade of my life, and personally I’m scared in a way I don’t remember ever having experienced before. The Yeats poem precisely describes that feeling far better than I can ever hope to. Thanks again.

Dear Mr. JMFeeny,

I am under no obligation to provide you with debate points. It is not necessaray to endlessly quote the authors of one’s choice to bolster one’s own opinion of one’s cleverness. I would rather inject my own opinion — which I hold only to be my own opinion as I do not represent myself as belonging to any particular larger group. So here goes: It’s not possible to find two people who completely agree with each other on all topics. Just look at married couples (of any sex, I don’