This is something that’s been floating around in my head for the past few days… I’ll express it in SAT-style analogy form…
John Kerry’s recent conversion to one of the most extreme anti-war politicians in mainstream Democratic politics : offensively blatant pandering to the Antiwar Left ::
George W. Bush’s biennial pre-election promotion of an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment : offensively blatant pandering to the Religious Right
Seriously, as much as I disagree with both positions — Kerry’s anti-war position and Bush’s anti-gay-marriage position — I’m pretty sure I would be even more offended by these guys’ transparent political posturing if I agreed with them. Both of them clearly must believe that their own base is incredibly stupid, if they think anyone will take this crap seriously. (And, alas, they’re probably both right to a large extent.)
At least when Al Gore goes on his unhinged anti-war, anti-Bush tirades, I can sort of halfway moderately almost kinda sorta respect what he’s saying, because it seems like he genuinely believes it. I may not agree with a single word that’s coming out of his mouth, indeed I may think it’s entirely foolish, but at least he’s an honest, consistent fool. He was giving unhinged speeches about Iraq back in 2002 and 2003, long before it was the hip thing to do. That gives him some street cred, if nothing else.
Kerry, on the other hand, is just a deceitful, dreadful dumbass — he “voted for it before he voted against it,” and now he’s gone from moderately anti-war to radically so, just because he thinks that’s what he needs to do to win the nomination in 2008. (Don’t even get me started on how absurd and pathetic it is that he thinks he should be nominee again in 2008, given what a miserable failure he was in 2004, losing to an unpopular incumbent who any competent candidate would have wiped the floor with.)
Bill Clinton did the same thing, I suppose — going wherever the political winds blew — but at least he was good at it: he was such a great speaker and politician, he made you believe (or almost believe) that his lies were true, his panders were positions and his flip-flops were genuine changes of heart. Kerry has no such political skill, and thus he comes across like an unprincipled hypocrite… which is precisely what he is.
I’ve honestly gotten to the point where I’m ashamed that I voted for Kerry in 2004. I wish I had voted for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, or perhaps cast a write-in vote for Joe Lieberman. Given that I lived in a noncompetitive red state (Indiana), I could have cast such a “protest vote” without any worries about “throwing the election to Bush.” Instead, I held my nose and gave a meaningless vote to a worthless candidate who was and is totally unworthy of my support, and it burns me now to have that blot on my voting record. (Not that it’s actually recorded anywhere, except on this blog, but… you know what I mean.) I don’t feel the same way about supporting Gore in 2000; I wouldn’t vote for him again today, but back then, I think he was a decent choice. But Kerry? Kerry hasn’t changed. He was like this all along, and now it’s just becoming even more painfully obvious. What a freakin’ tool he is. Seriously.
|
Categories: Election 2008, Election 2004
|
July 8th, 2006 at 7:30:09 am
Politicians pandering, eh?
You know, Lincoln used to crack jokes about “negroes” and would have avoided the Civil War at all costs, even if it meant allowing slavery to exist in some form in the South. It was the South’s decision to secede that forced his hand.
Woodrow Wilson ran as a Peace Candidate, even though he knew the U.S. would have to enter the war in Europe. FDR knew Nazis were exterminating Jews, but he never used that as a moral justification for the war nor did he even attempt to stop the killing prior to the liberation of camps. And the relocation of Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Funny how you didn’t see similar activities with German Americans on the East Coast.
Pandering is part of politics. Even the great ones have done it when they need to.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:15:12 am
How does one draw the conclusion that “going from ‘for the war’ to ‘against it’” is the poster display of pandering?
Many otherwise intelligent, non-politicans fall into that category, including this guy right here.
A lot of us believe it was absolutely essential to remove Saddam from power, but also believe that the continued fighting and dying of American soldiers on the long, painful road to Shiite domination in Iraq is utterly without justification.
So when you call Kerry (or anyone) a hypocrite on Iraq you assume that the “job” is yet to be finished there, when there is a very reasonable argument that the job in fact was finished in the Spring of 2003, and the activity to follow has been brutal, unnecessary and foolish.
Indeed, the position outlined above appears to be more or less the majority American view.
Before I finish venting, Brendan has defined the “job” in Iraq going forward as essentially “making the streets safe for foreign visitors”, a definition that qualifies as a laughable Churchill parody until one imagines describing such a mission to the relatives of a soldier dead or seriously injured for the sake of making Baghdad safe after dark.
While we’re at it, let’s invade Detroit with our fine military, because if you’ve ever walked the streets around Greektown after dark, you know that can be a terribly dicey proposition.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:38:24 am
“[Y]ou assume that the ‘job’ is yet to be finished [in Iraq], when there is a very reasonable argument that the job in fact was finished in the Spring of 2003, and the activity to follow has been brutal, unnecessary and foolish.”
I would like to hear that argument . . . why NOT pulling out of Iraq immediately after Saddam was ousted and thus leaving a power vacuum in a state poisoned by over three decades of brutal tyranny “has been brutal, unnecessary and foolish.”
July 8th, 2006 at 8:49:56 am
Joe Mama,
Who said anything about leaving a power vacuum?
If one accepts the premise that the Shiites will dominate Iraqi political/cultural life for the near future -
- meaning of course that our good friends the Iranians will likely have a wider sphere of influence in the region -
what sense does it make to leave the Iraqi future to their own self-determination?
Post Saddam’s deposing, there was no reason the US could not prop up a replacement Sunni leader, Monroe-doctrine style, to continue to rule the country in a Sunni-friendly (and US-friendly) manner.
As we did in Germany/S. Korea, the Americans could have left 30,000 to 40,000 troops on the ground to support our new best friend, Mr. Sunni benevolent dictator person.
It is a disappointing, but oft-heard, Bush apologist meme, that there were only two possibilities for the period after the elimination of Saddam:
1) The status quo, which appears to be facilitating Shiite Iraqi domination, or
2) total power vacuum.
What’s disappointing about that meme is NOT political, mind you.
It makes it seem like the US is just a hopelessly passive, weak-ass country.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:20:30 am
Well, I agree with the general idea that Kerry was and would be a crappy candidate, but this post is pretty much downhill from there. I think your analogy is weak, but Jazz has sort of covered that, so I’ll leave it there, and go on to:
I’m pretty sure I would be even more offended by these guys’ transparent political posturing if I agreed with them.
I could be wrong, and I expect you’ll tell me if I am, but I gotta call bullshit on the this one. The biggest portion of your annoyance with these two guys is your disagreement with their positions. You are strongly opposed to “cut-and-run” (to use the currently in vogue GOP talking point), and you are strongly opposed to an anti-gay marriage amendment. That Bush and Kerry are behaving (in your view) hypocritically is just bitter sauce for your angry goose. And, by the way, that’s the way it should be. As they say “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” (I also kind of like a formulation that Jonah Goldberg came up with on NRO. [can’t believe I just said that] He wrote an article titled “Hypocriphobia - The crippling fear of being taken seriously.”)
he “voted for it before he voted against it,�
This has always been one of the lamest critisisms of Kerry. The phrase, while poorly chosen for an irony-impaired audience, expressed a perfectly defensible position. Kerry voted for an appropriations bill that he supported, one that included partial elimination of the Bush tax-cuts to help finance the war. That bill failed, and he later voted against a substantially diffferent bill, one that relied more on debt-spending. Somehow this got spun into some ridiculously absurd thing for Kerry to have said, when it was nothing of the sort.
I don’t quite understand your comparison to Clinton either. You seem to be saying that Clinton’s skill at fooling people was a virtue compared to Kerry’s lack of skill. From this, I infer that your major beef with Kerry is that he was such a horrible polititian that he failed to get rid of Bush. This is a sentiment I whole heartedly support. But then in your next sentence you say that you’re ashamed of your vote for Kerry… so now I’m confused again.
Look, I’m obviously no Kerry fan. (The thing I hated most about his campaign was his decision to place so much emphasis on his military experience, as if it should matter.) I think both parties should be ashamed that their most recent string of nominees was the best they could come up with. I wouldn’t be happy with a Kerry presidency, but I’d take it over Bush Round 2 in a heartbeat.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:23:09 am
Brendan–good post. I agree whole-heartedly.
Jazz,
Ummm—you’re suggesting that we should have deposed Saddam and replaced him with our own dictator? Brilliant, Jazz, just brilliant. Might you recall any other example in the region where we propped up a western-style regime that was considered by the masses to be dictatorial and oppressive? I don’t know….like in say….IRAN?
July 8th, 2006 at 10:32:58 am
thebeef -
- so what you’re saying, if I understand your argument correctly, is:
We should not install a (benevolent?) dictator in a country, at the risk that it might be toppled by a theocratic, anti-American government, rather -
- we should ask our troops to fight and die for the creation of a government that will almost certainly be theocratic and anti-American?
Beef, I gotta tell ya, buddy, sometimes when people say “Brilliant” in a sarcastic manner to me, I get all nervous, because I worry that I might have said something dumb.
However, that only occurs when the “brilliant” sarcasm is in a post that doesn’t betray extraordinary ignorance.
So, please, “brilliant” away. While you make some smart comments on other topics, you are a clueless Kool-Aid drinker on this one.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:50:05 am
okay, beef, I am sorry, the tone of that last one was more ad hominem and nasty than I intended.
Still, if your view of (and support of) the Bush doctrine in the Middle East is
“Its universally bad to prop up Arab dictators” -
- then what say you to this photo?
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,463749,00.jpg
Its hard to tell if President George is actually “propping up” Crown Prince Abdullah al-Repressiv Diktator, but it looks like the poor Arab man could fall at any second…
July 8th, 2006 at 11:20:02 am
Jazz,
As I was reading through your comments, I at first thought you were suggesting that the U.S. could have gone in, removed the regime by killing or capturing its members and the armed forces that supported it, and then leave. This idea actually has some merit, as I think it gets us to the point we are now (civil war, nominal shiite dominance, and de facto kurdish independence), while avoiding most of our casualties.
Then I read this: could have left 30,000 to 40,000 troops on the ground to support our new best friend, Mr. Sunni benevolent dictator person and realized you were talking about something else entirely. So I have a question (many actually, but I’ll stick to one for now.) Under your scenario, what would your proposed solution be if the Shiite min/majority population decided that a “benevolent” Sunni dictator wasn’t good enough. After all, the shiites under Saddam were kept in check largely due to the fear of (and often reality of) ugly, horrible death. Surely you wouldn’t want those 30,000 to 40,000 American troops to take the place of the Fedayeen-Saddam in ensuring the stability of the government. Yet a shiite uprising seems like a fairly likely result of your scenario, so how would you go about preventing it?
July 8th, 2006 at 11:36:55 am
“Who said anything about leaving a power vacuum? If one accepts the premise that the Shiites will dominate Iraqi political/cultural life for the near future . . . .”
But I don’t accept that premise, Jazz. The status quo ante in Iraq was a Shiite majority brutally dominated by a Sunni minority. Absent a continued U.S. presence after Saddam’s ouster, what was to prevent further domination of the Shiites by a Sunni minority under new management? It’s not like the Sunnis weren’t good at it after a few decades of practice. And if the Sunni insurgency during the last three years is any indication, they had the means and desire to do just that.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:03:54 pm
Jazz, if the Cold War taught us anything, it is that decisions to install “benevolent” dictators come back to bite us in the ass when we least expect it. Besides, you could argue Bremer was a “benevolent” dictator, and look how that turned out.
If anything, we should have turned over the government of Iraq to Iraqis sooner. The year-plus transition period only allowed the security situation to deteriorate terribly and allow insurgents and terrorists to gain momentum against the American “occupiers”.
There seems to be an undercurrent, expressed here by Jazz and elsewhere by people like Mad Max and A&A, that Shiite control of Iraq is bad. The logic seems to go something like this: Iran is bad, Iran is Shiite, therefore if Iraq is Shiite, Iraq will be bad too. There are a lot of faults in that train there, however. The majority of the Iranian Shiites hate their government and yearn for better relations with America. The problem with Iran is not that it is Shiite, it is that it is not democratic. In Iraq, that same problem doesn’t exist, and the political strength of the Kurds in Iraq also acts as a strong check against Shiite sectarian excesses.
The other disturbing thing about your discomfort with Shiite rule is that there doesn’t seem to be any real, valid reason on the ground to give you that discomfort. The reason people are dying in Iraq right now (American and Iraqi, government and civilian) is because of the Sunni terrorism fueled to some degree by the remnants of Saddam’s regime but mostly by foreign terrorist influence (i.e, al-Qaeda). And yet you want the Sunnis to be able to have back their illegitimate and undemocratic domination of the Shiites? So the terrorists are only pissed off and killing people because the government is strongly influenced by Shiites? It sounds to me like you’re blaming the victim here: “He wouldn’t have raped if she didn’t dress so slutty”; “The Palestinians wouldn’t be so radical and devoted to terrorism if Israel wasn’t illegally dominating and occupying their land”; etc. It simply appalls me that you are taking the side of the terrorists here and not the democratic majority of Iraq.
Joe, would you have ever expected to see the day when your son was regretting that he didn’t vote libertarian?
July 8th, 2006 at 3:07:09 pm
First, Aaron: to the 30,000-40,000 force. Of course those soldiers would not act as the Saddam Fedayeen. That would be unacceptable all the way around, especially to those soldiers.
Before you fire back, realize that its about the worst kept secret in Washington that those 30,000 troops will be there permanently, irrespective of the outcome. One could even argue that they are currently shooting at Sunnis in a similar manner (and for similar reasons) as the Fedayeen shot at Shiites. I won’t argue THAT point, because as you will see in a minute I don’t care.
However, given that we know 30,000 troops are going to be sticking around, why on earth should we be happy about them hanging out to ’support’ a Shiite Persian Islam Theocratic Despotic Regime, especially when their Brothers in Arms may well be fighting a Shiite Persian Islam Theocratic Despotic regime next door?
I wish to make one other point clear, in response to Joe Mama’s last comment and less so to Aaron’s - I (obviously) care far less what happens to Iraqis than Americans.
Joe Mama - are you seriously arguing that the continued presence of American soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq is justified because mean things happened to Iraqis? Seriously man, is your real name Howard Dean? Isn’t that precisely the kind of internationalism that good conservatives decry?
In conclusion, both Aaron and Joe Mama have pointed out unpleasant aspects of the “plan” or strategy that I advocated. However, both expositions did not address the main intent of my comment, which I thought after all these months I no longer had to make clear, but maybe I need to include it as a disclaimer in everything I post:
*WHAT IS BEST FOR THE US AND ITS TROOPS?*
July 8th, 2006 at 3:42:51 pm
Andrew said,
The majority of the Iranian Shiites hate their government and yearn for better relations with America
and later mentioned that he was “appalled” that I didn’t support the Shiites MORE.
An interesting quote, particularly when you consider that Andrew has come out forcefully, on several occasions, for the nuclear option against the Iranian government (who most Iranians, he apparently argues, hate), even though such an option would surely kill many many thousands of such nice Iranian people.
When I read your post Andrew I recalled the fact that the Marquis de Sade was apparently deeply offended by cruelty to animals.
Creepy.
Further you labelled the problem in Iraq as due to Sunni “terrorism”, calling to mind the dead-enders of Cheney vintage, as if the problem was a few anti-moderns in the Sunni triangle.
Funny: what is almost never discussed in conversation about the future of Iraq is the little problem of resource distribution, which goes something like this:
Kurds = north = lots of oil
Shiites = south = lots of oil
Sunnis = central = desert.
So now, not only have the Sunnis gone from political enfranchisement to none, but they have nothing to “fall back on”, in other words they are entirely at the goodwill of the Shiite government in terms of access to wealth in their country.
As Joe Mama eloquently pointed out earlier, there’s not likely to be a lot of goodwill coming from the Shiites to the Sunnis in the wake of Saddam.
In conclusion, actually, Andrew, I agree with you that most Shiites or Iranian or Iraqi vintage are nice people. So convinced am I of this fact, that, unlike you, I hesitate to nuke them!
But further, I think that probably most Sunnis are nice people too. And North Koreans, mostly nice, if perhaps a bit hungry. (Not sure about the Chinese).
So when you say that the problem in Iraq is “Sunni Terrorism”, that seems to suggest that you think the Sunnis are bad dudes, while the Shiites are nice, though in reality probably both are more or less nice, and the situation, which is unsustainable, is driving the scenarios we witness.
The unsustainable situation?
That would be the status quo.
July 8th, 2006 at 4:19:11 pm
Jazz, your nom de blog surely is apropos, as your arguments apply logic and reason about as eclectically as Jazz applies rhythm and melody.
When I have supported the nuclear option, it has been primarily on Iran’s nuclear sites and processing facilities, which are hardened and probably unassailable by conventional weapons. As these facilities are not located in downtown Tehran, the likely civilian collateral damage is probably minimal. In the event that we did have full-scale war, I am confident we would quickly crush the Iranian government with air and naval power, with few ground forces necessary except to seize and protect oil fields. What any of this has to do with the fact that Iran is Shiite I do not know, but I felt I should debunk your pathetic retort nonetheless. I mean, Marquis de Sade? Could you pick a more erroneous, foolish, lame comparison? You could not have picked a historical figure further from my tastes and weltanschuung, especially when a much simpler, more obvious, accurate parallel could easily be drawn with Machiavelli. Who was next on your list, Nietzsche? Lenin? Moron.
Further you labelled the problem in Iraq as due to Sunni “terrorism�, calling to mind the dead-enders of Cheney vintage, as if the problem was a few anti-moderns in the Sunni triangle.
Is not most of the terrorism in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle? Are not most of the terrorists anti-modern? What are you trying to say except that you hate our prescription even though we’ve correctly diagnosed the problem?
Funny: what is almost never discussed in conversation about the future of Iraq is the little problem of resource distribution, which goes something like this:
Kurds = north = lots of oil
Shiites = south = lots of oil
Sunnis = central = desert.
So now, not only have the Sunnis gone from political enfranchisement to none, but they have nothing to “fall back on�, in other words they are entirely at the goodwill of the Shiite government in terms of access to wealth in their country.
This is a tempting but ultimately baseless argument for you to make because the vast majority of Iraqis get little benefit from their country’s oil production. Do you think Mexicans from Veracruz are resented by Mexicans from Acapulco because oil is produced on Mexico’s East Coast and not its West Coast? The fact is, the government in Iraq gets the majority of the oil income, which in turn is by and large reinvested in security and oil infrastructure. The Shiites and Kurds haven’t gotten a dime out of Iraq’s oil in the past three years, so a lot of good all that oil is doing for them!
I also find your economic nihilism sad, as if Iraqi Arabs have no hope of prosperity and economic advancement unless the spigots are gushing black gold in their backyards. I wonder how much the Yemenis blame the poor state of their economy on the Qataris, or how deeply the Jordanians attribute their poverty to the Egyptians for having oil fields in Sinai. It’s like dysfunctional, anti-democratic government has nothing to do with it! One wonders how Japan ever got to be so successful; do they run their cars on sushi?
In the end, all that is left for us to do is continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq. Despite your myopia, we’re making good progress over there, despite our early missteps. But you’re right, maybe we should withdraw from Iraq and let the center of the Middle East descend into anarchy, setting back the cause of Arab democracy another hundred years so we can save a few more of our boys’ lives.
July 8th, 2006 at 5:33:45 pm
Andrew-
If you have been following the situation in Iran at all, you are aware that 1) no intelligence agency, including Mossad, can verify - much less identify for targeting - the infrastructure that makes up Iran’s so-called WMD program. Tactical nukes are useless if you don’t know what you are shooting at. 2) Iran has a simple means of retaliating against the U.S. if we do strike - turn off their oil. $200-a-barrel oil will do more harm to the Bush Administration and the country than any suicide bomber crossing the Iranian border into Iraq.
As for your analysis of Iraq I think it is flawed for a very simple reason: you don’t live there. Your blog-informed Think-Tankery is indicative of the same detached, backroom war-gaming by inexperienced technocrats like Wolfie, Libby and Rummy that led to this mess in the first place.
July 8th, 2006 at 7:24:29 pm
Mad Max:
1) I would hazard to guess I have better access to resources than you do to confirm just how much we know about Iran’s WMD infrastructure. Be that as it may, of course my support for using tactical nukes rests on the presupposition that we know where to bomb, and equally, of course tactical nukes are useless if we don’t know where to bomb. Obviously I only support using nukes if they actually can accomplish something.
2) Turning off the oil spigots will indeed crimp the Western economy, but it will absolutely kill Iran economically. The oil thing is a game of chicken, and while we’re the Mack truck, Iran is a Geo Metro. They can stand up to us for a while, but when worlds collide either because of an oil embargo or because Iran shuts down their oil fields, Iran will be the hardest hit and will be forced to give up. Turning off the oil spigots will cost the West billions, but it will also cost the Iranian regime their very means to retain power.
As for your analysis of Iraq (and Jazz’s), I think it is flawed for the very same reason: You don’t live there and therefore you don’t really know what’s going on except for what is skewedly reported in the anti-Iraq press.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:06:40 pm
Andrew,
Though the Marquis de Sade was famous for extraordinary cruelty to humans, he also paradoxically expressed tender concern to animals.
I’ll have to remind myself to be clearer with my comparisons on these threads, so for the sake of overkill -
the comparison is:
your willingness to nuke Iran, thereby opening the door to enormous suffering for the Shiites, is offset by an apparent nostalgic respect for the Shiites (when you’re not nuking them).
And to be fair, you explained in your post that you wouldn’t really nuke the Shiites, just the places where the bombs were, and if Ahmadinejad puts the bombs under a busy mall in downtown Tehran, perhaps Shiite people will be understanding that it is not the USA nuking the crap out of Tehran, but mean old Ahmadinejad for putting his WMD there.
And further, you’re also right that my comparison isn’t THAT good, since it would require the Marquis de Sade to have nostalgia for the same creatures he was torturing, rather than different creatures as was the case in history.
But you can really only be so clever when writing extemporaneously.
There is no point in us debating this further, I trust that the readers would be smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
One other thing I wish to make clear: you are also correct in saying that I don’t know a damn thing about life in Iraq. As I have said elsewhere, I don’t know how things will turn out.
As an aside - my intention on this thread was never to argue that my position was necessarily right or the best, but rather that it was reasonable.
To the extent that it represented a change of perspective on our military obligation (i.e. “for” the deposing of Saddam, “against” the extended occupation after the fact), if it is reasonable than it is not inconsistent, which had been the accusation levelled against Kerry in the initial post. I may well be wrong here. Kinda hope so.
However, with the enormous caveat that I don’t know about life in Iraq, it strikes me that you are too cavalier in your assessment of what will drive Iraq’s return to prominence.
In the aftermath of war Iraq will need major investment in infrastructure. They need roads. Reliable electricity. Functioning hospitals. Many other things that will require significant capital infusion.
Who provides these things? Well, shared services often come from the government, which is going to be Shiite-dominated, and as Joe Mama rightly pointed out a while back, probably with a grudge toward the years of severe Baathist Sunni repression.
Will the Shiite government be as willing to invest in infrastructure in Sunni Anbar province as in, say, the port in Shiite Basra?
I have no specific reason for saying no, but do you really have to have lived in Iraq to be suspicious of Shiite willingness to invest in Sunni regions?
Isn’t such doubt kind of obvious?
Furthermore, when there are no natural resources that the Sunnis possess, when there is essentially nothing in the Sunni regions that can be taxed by a government (the threat of lost taxation being one reason for a national government to play along with a region), why on earth would the Shiites give the Sunnis a fair shake in the new Iraq?
Maybe they will. Maybe chickens will land in every pot in Iraq. Maybe the rose petals which were waiting for the US troops will come out now at any minute.
Sarcasm aside - I really don’t know.
Sarcasm aside part II - I don’t believe you do either.
Which means we are left with our hunches, and mine says:
After years of torture and repression at the hands of the Sunnis, now that the Shiites are in power, they will not be motivated to make the proper investments in Sunni regions of the country, particularly since the Sunnis have nothing (natural resource-wise) that is a bargaining chip for he Shiites.
And who knows? Maybe some Japanese-style high tech revolution will arise in Baghdad, an intellectual explosion in that area that will bring in capital and balance the power in the country.
That’s not where my money is.
If I had to guess, I’d estimate that the restive Sunni element in Iraq isn’t betting on that either.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:27:19 pm
Who provides these things? Well, shared services often come from the government, which is going to be Shiite-dominated, and as Joe Mama rightly pointed out a while back, probably with a grudge toward the years of severe Baathist Sunni repression.
Will the Shiite government be as willing to invest in infrastructure in Sunni Anbar province as in, say, the port in Shiite Basra?
I have no specific reason for saying no, but do you really have to have lived in Iraq to be suspicious of Shiite willingness to invest in Sunni regions?
Isn’t such doubt kind of obvious?
Furthermore, when there are no natural resources that the Sunnis possess, when there is essentially nothing in the Sunni regions that can be taxed by a government (the threat of lost taxation being one reason for a national government to play along with a region), why on earth would the Shiites give the Sunnis a fair shake in the new Iraq?
Maybe if you bothered to read the Constitution of Iraq, perhaps you might find that the Iraqi government set-up shares many of our Madisonian principles, including federalism and the separation of powers. If the U.S. Constitution has done a decent job making sure Nebraskans and Alaskans have gotten theirs alongside Californians and New Yorkers, perhaps you shouldn’t be so pessimistic that the same principles ought to work for Iraq as well. IOW, the majority in Iraq will naturally tend to steer government spending towards their pork rather than their opponents’ pork, but the separation of powers and federalism will prevent them from doing so in such a drastic fashion so as to cause irreparable harm to, say, the Sunnis.
For instance, oil revenue goes to the federal government, but “Regions and provinces shall be allocated an equitable share of the national revenues sufficient to discharge their responsibilities and duties, but having regard to their resources, needs and the percentage of their population.” Wikipedia also notes that “Powers are shared with regional authorities: regional customs, electrical power, environmental policy, public planning, health, and education. Article 111 defines the breakdown of authority between the regions and the federal government: anything not written in the exclusive powers of the federal authorities is in the authority of the regions and, in the event of a dispute, priority will be given to the region’s law.” And when the Shiites try to screw them still, perhaps the Sunnis will apply for the help of the Iraqi Civil Liberties Union to fight on their behalf in the Iraqi courts [tongue planted firmly in cheek].
In any case, your sarcasm and your bets are sorely misplaced precisely because you don’t know what you’re talking about beyond what the NY Times hands you in its editorials. Beyond that, I find it incredibly ironic that you at once so strongly doubt that Shiites will give Sunnis a fair shake, and yet simultaneously propose that Sunnis instead be given “benevolent” dictatorial power–as if that is somehow more likely to be equitable or just. If you wish to be taken seriously, aside from making a better effort to actually understand what is going on in Iraq, perhaps you also might consider a community college course in fundamental logic. Your claims are simply so astounding, I expect to be turned into a newt any minute now.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:36:16 pm
One other thing: The pro-status quo camp wants to “get the job done”, which must feel pretty good, since who would ever want to be on the side that wants to “NOT get the job done?”
You may recall that six months ago the job we were trying to get done was “to provide Iraq with an army”. Remember that? “When they stand up, we’ll stand down”. I don’t know if that is still the “job” now, though as I have made clear I am not sure anyone knows exactly what the job is, but the pro-status quo camp is pretty sure they want it done.
Interestingly, the Atlantic Monthly had a cover article in December titled “Why Iraq has no army” with the explanation being “because we are ambivalent about the size or strength of any Iraqi force”.
As Joe Mama and Aaron rightly point out, when the Sunnis were in control, Iraq had a huge standing army, with some conscripted Shiites but few Shiites in positions of authority, and then elite leadership positions, exclusively Sunni, double hatted to protect the country and torment the Shiites.
So when the Shiites are in control, will the army, the existence of which meant it was time for the US to leave (though maybe not anymore - who knows these days):
1) have any Sunni generals?
2) have a parallel Saddam Fedayeen organization, only this time it will be Shiites torturing Sunnis?
3) generally act as an agent of repression and abuse against Sunnis?
As I said above, I don’t know because I know very little about Iraq.
But if I had to guess….
July 8th, 2006 at 8:43:52 pm
Jazz,
You need to drink a beer and chill out man. These crazy hazy days are getting to you.
July 8th, 2006 at 9:18:07 pm
Hey Andrew, of course I hadn’t read your latest post when I wrote a minute ago -
Now - I hate venturing into discussions of things like constitutions and constitutional law, since I may open myself up back here.
I do appreciate your bringing the Iraqi constitution into this - not that you brought the actual document up, rather the Wikipedia summary, but whatever -
for even though you framed it in the form of ad hominems and Monty Python references, I believe our discerning readers will see that the actual constitution proves my point.
I have argued extensively that the Sunnis are afraid they will get a raw deal in their desert territories while the oil-rich Kurds and Shiites leave them in the dust (literally).
Here’s the actual constitution, Andrew:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html
Scroll down to article 117. Article 117 virtually invites the country to split off into three (semi) autonomous countries, which will
“exercise executive, legislative, and judicial authority in accordance with this constitution, except for those powers stipulated in the exclusive powers of the federal government.”
Article 117 essentially opens the door for any region to basically tell the rest of the country to screw off with the exception of those few areas that are under the auspices of the federal government.
And what of the natural resources issue? Will they be shared?
Article 109 comes right out and ACKNOWLEDGES make-up money for the Shiites. It starts thusly:
First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime
But it gets better:
Second: The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people
Ah yes, your reverie for Madison is well-placed.
Using Joe Mama’s observation of the long history of Baathist abuse, leading to a desire for retribution on the part of the Shiites, in fact it looks to this non-lawyer that the actual Constitution is built to be abused by the soon-to-be sovereign Kurds and Shiites.
Protections, Andrew? You should look past the Wikipedia summary to the document itself.
BTW - the Monty Python reference was funny. You’re a hoot.
July 9th, 2006 at 5:57:25 am
Jazz,
You were on this blog all day… starting at 8am and running to 9pm. You really need to log off and get outside. There’s a big world out there
July 9th, 2006 at 6:19:27 am
PP - not that you would care, but none of those posts took more than 5 minutes to write.
I have never posted here in anything other than a stream of consciousness manner, mainly because my name’s not Jazz, and I don’t much care if some random dude named Andrew is unimpressed with what flies out.
But you’re probably right, even those five minute bursts are wasted on the audience.
For all the talk of being about the truth, the blogosphere is more about being truthy, that is, driven toward what might feel good if it were true rather than what is true.
So when you remind such a crowd that the hallowed Iraqi Constitution
CODIFIES REPARATIONS
(WTF???????)
the audience will undoubtedly blip over that troubling fact back to the happy happy place where everything will be fine and bright in that country’s wonderful future.
So you are correct that the 20-30 minutes I ranted back here yesterday were in fact screaming down a dry black well, its true….
July 9th, 2006 at 6:42:22 am
I’m confused by this post.
Assuming there were actually a chance your vote could have made a difference between Bush and Kerry, would you still vote for Kerry? Or Badnarik? Or write in Liberman? You don’t think Kerry would have been at least better than Bush on some major, important issues, like the enviroment, global warming, Supreme Court picks, etc.? Is it because Kerry acts much like 90% of politicians he’s somehow MORE morally reprehensible than the rest because he’s just not as good at covering up his obvious politicing? If he were MORE deceptive, then he would be a better candidate?
July 9th, 2006 at 7:23:47 am
According to Time Magazine, the Bush Doctrine is officially a failure…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
…Of course, anyone who had ever read about Napoleon had this figured out a long time ago.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
George Santayana
Truer words were never spoken.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:32:17 am
Andrew-
Regarding your knowledge of WMD in Iran compared to mine, I would venture to guess I know just as much as you do. You have no idea where I work or what I do for a living, but I can assure you that my knowledge on this subject is not drawn only from the “anti-Iraq” press that you reference (please note it was the pro-Iraq press up to the point it was confirmed there were no WMD in Iraq).
July 9th, 2006 at 7:39:43 am
Andrew-
Regarding the Iraqi Constitution, the French came up with some pretty good pieces of paper, too, during the French Revolution. Look where that got them.
The only examples I can think of where countries have succeeded in implementing democracies while under U.S. military occupation are Japan and Germany. In neither of those cases did you have sectarian violence happening. Also, U.S. occupation forces were in the millions.
Iraq is a cluster-fuck, plain and simple.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:59:16 am
Oh Max, please astonish us with your sure-to-be-brilliant analysis of how the Bush Doctrine is a repeat of Napolean’s conquests in Europe. Just making such a blasé comparison shows you probably haven’t read more than a picture book on Napolean.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:28:03 am
Joe Mama-
Napoleon - Commanded the greatest Army in the world. Invades Russia, easily defeats what Russian forces he actually faces and captures Moscow, which had been burned to the ground by the fleeing Moscovites. With his army over-extended and unable to secure the land he has captured, Napoleon’s army is picked apart by lowly cossacks.
Need I say more?
It is unfair, however, to compare Bush to Napoleon. Until his ego got the better of him, Napoleon was a brilliant commander. Bush is just an idiot with a Napoleonic complex.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:00:22 am
Once again, Jazzie and Aaron have distinguished themselves, while the Unambiguously Gay Duo have covered themselves in shame scented man juice.
Congrats, gents.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:22:36 am
LOL!
No Max, you need say nothing more. Thanks so much!
July 9th, 2006 at 10:23:06 am
Mr BS - you exceed even your own most BS typings ! I am SO impressed !
“Napoleon - Commanded the greatest Army in the world. Invades Russia, easily defeats what Russian forces he actually faces and captures Moscow, which had been burned to the ground by the fleeing Moscovites.”
I hadn’t realised that the NYTimes did a report on Napoleon recently … in whose eyes (apart from his own) was it the “greatest Army” ? By your cogent (cough: BS!) analysis, the Brits were the Greatest army in the world when they burned the White House …
“Until his ego got the better of him, Napoleon was a brilliant commander.” - with the weasel-escape-phrase that starts your sentence, you make it NYTimes-plausible, and hard to challenge - except with reality … cuz a “brilliant commander” doesn’t let “his ego get the better of him” …
You can Blame President Bush for many things, some of ‘em with reason, but he’s not going to be effectively single-handedly responsible for making US Men demonstrably shorter than Canadiands and Mexicans for the next centruy or two … Napoleon caused the deaths of so many of the fit and strong French men that the French are demonstrably shorter, on average, than most of the other surrounding countries …
And, yes, before the chorus from the D-list of - “But I’ve met a tall Frenchman, so you’re wrong!” - go compare average height numbers for Brits, Germans, Italians, etc - and the French … compared to the others, the French lost height following Napoleon, and are starting to catch back up again …
And now, back to our scheduled topic …
Aaron @ 10:20 - *you* may well find Senator Kerry’s positions defensible … apparently *he* doesn’t, cuz he keeps abandoning ‘em, one after another … ummmm - can you name even one Kerry position that he has stuck to, thus demonstrating that he can have principles ? (And, no, marrying very rich women doesn’t count …) …
Brendan - an experiment for you, if you would like to try it …
With a little soul-searching, how much of your feelings of dislike for President Bush are based on emotion (”My feelings for Bush are of dislike … or … I just don’t *like* Bush … or … I just don’t like what he might do …”) and how much are based on specific fact-based analysis (”His policies have brought in more tax revenue than ever before - and the Government shouldn’t get that much revenue … or … he took the troops into Afghanistan …”) ? Notice that the latter are not quotes from things he may or may not have said, whether in context or out of context - they are based in observable objective reality and may include why one doesn’t like the specific fact(s) …
I’d address the same question/experiment to the Elder Loy, but he’d enjoy the exercise WAYYYYY too much ! (grin)
July 9th, 2006 at 11:18:21 am
Got nothin’ again, eh Joe Mama? This has become quite a habit with you. If you were the first Frenchman, the word touché would never have been invented.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:20:56 am
Alasdair -
Considering your station in life (as I gather from your writings) my firm stool would impress you. Not that I would or should care.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:55:05 pm
Jazz…so young… so angry.
July 9th, 2006 at 5:43:19 pm
PP Long - should we gather from your last name that Andrew is your brother/nephew/cousin/grandson?
Or is the name a nom de guerre for Andrew himself, “PP” being short for “peepee” as Andrew would be speaking through his thingy when resorting to cheap shots that are even more lacking in substance than his usual pretentious, content-free posting?
If Andrew in fact is your son/brother/uncle/nephew/whatever - rising to his defense by channeling Nelson from the Simpsons (let me be clear - without anything of substance to say) - is just sad.
But about what I expected.
If he is your relative, then even though Andy has this nuts (forgive the pun) idea of himself as a bright guy on this blog, he relies on family members to drop by and take dumbass cheap shots?
That would pretty much cement Andrew’s status as the biggest blowhard on this blog.
(And one further thing - if “PP” is really just a fabrication of Andrew’s, he may wish to check tonight that its alter ego is still there, because resorting to such lame-ass cheap shots can be a sure sign that you lack the real thing, if you know what I mean).
July 9th, 2006 at 9:29:14 pm
Mr BS - if you can manage a firm anything, I’ll be impressed !
July 9th, 2006 at 10:32:15 pm
Sorry Jazz, I don’t know who this PP Long guy is… definitely not related.
Alasair, it’s a good thing (I suppose) that I was raised in America, else I might be dragging down that average height comparison thingy for the Brits vs. the French.
(Then again, my mom’s family is half French-Canadian (Norman French at their roots), so maybe I can blame them….)
Jazz, I agree with you the Iraqi constitution is by many means a far less perfect document than is our U.S. Constitution, three-fifths warts and all. However, methinks you are purposely reading into the Iraqi constitution the most pessimistic possible interpretations as can be had. Aside from the fact that I’m not sure what constitution outside of America isn’t built to be abused, the present state of affairs in Iraq simply does not lend itself to Shiite abuse of power. The Kurds have simply far too much power, and the elected have an expressed, vested interest in relative harmony between the various factions; should Iraq descend into a civil war, Itaq’s current Shiite leaders have the most to lose. The Sunnis will get theirs under this structure for the same reasons the Alaskans get theirs under our structure (although it appears that damned Bridge to Nowhere has finally been killed for good).
According to Time Magazine, the Bush Doctrine is officially a failure…
Oh please. Bush’s approach to the North Koreans has been the same since 2002, when they first announced they abrogated their previous agreements to not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea may have been the founding elements of Bush’s Axis of Evil, but he has approached each case differently from that speech forward. The current multilateral diplomacy attempts in the situation with North Korea points not to a failure of the Bush Doctrine, but rather it points to a failure of the media’s comically simplistic portrayal of the Bush Doctrine to actually explain live events.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:46:11 am
Andrew,
You’re right that no constitution is perfect, but the language of the Iraqi document strikes me as particularly lacking in protecting rights.
Just as one example, the section on oil revenues not only enshrines disproportionate money to go to the Shiites, but also says that such payments will continue as long as the government (run by the Shiites) says so. Further, the size and frequency of disproportionate payments to the Shiites will be determined by the Shiites.
That’s an internal controls fiasco.
Per your Alaska example, I see two important differences between the countries making it less likely that the Sunnis will have the voice in Iraq that the Alaskans have in the US.
First, the US benefits from having 50 states that are roughly equal in rights and opportunities. Every state is about equally able to finagle a bridge to nowhere from the Federal Government.
If a particular state does get too many benefits, too many bridges to nowhere, they will often get overwhelmed and reversed by an alliance of the others. So even though California and New York may not have much in common, they might stand together against Alaska, for example.
Not sure that happens in Iraq, where the population seems to be splitting into a mere three autonomous regions. With only three entities making their voices heard, it is much harder to check any one, particularly the biggest one, in the case of the Shiites.
A second and more important difference is the mobility of the population. Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand probably works fairly well in the US, such that if Alaska reaps too many benefits from the federal government, people will tend to migrate to Alaska until those benefits are no longer disproportionate. That process is not perfect, but it is reasonably effective.
Not sure you will have the same dynamic in Iraq going forward. When we hear reports, such as yesterday morning, that roving Shiite gunmen wandered a Baghdad Sunni neighborhood, randomly executing several dozen innocent Sunnis, including many women and children, its easy to doubt whether the ethnic populations intermingle any time soon.
Said differently, unlike the US, if too many benefits accrue to Shiite regions in Iraq in the next couple decades, the Sunnis may nevertheless not flock to those regions, in light of the ethnic violence that seems to be destroying any remaining mixed ethnic neighborhoods in that country.
If the population doesn’t flow to where prosperity is, then those that are left behind (where the benefits are) will reap the rewards for a very long time.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:03:31 am
Jazz,
I don’t know if you really sent that at 5:46am, but if thats true, you need to quit this sick addiction. Take up crack smoking or something…
July 10th, 2006 at 6:45:34 am
“internal controls”
“adam smith”
Jazz must be a finance guy…
July 10th, 2006 at 6:50:52 am
Jazzman,
The oil revenue is to be split equally amongst all parts of Iraq with the ability for poorer regions to receive more payment. The Shites and Kurdish regions (who you failed to mention) are particularly downtrodden after the Sunni’s rule for the last 20 odd years, thus they at least initially get a broader share of the revenue. Seems to make sense to me.
Oil Revenues
These articles reflect a careful balance between the federal government and the provinces and also among the provinces.
Art. 110 contains an important provision that most likely benefits the Kurdish and Shiite areas, which contain most of the oil and gas yet arguably were the most economically disadvantaged in the Saddam Hussein era. After recognizing the general principle of proportional distribution of revenues, Art. 110 states that an additional allotment of the revenues will be given to regions that were damaged or unjustly deprived under the former regime. Subsequently, additional allotments may be given to areas in order to ensure equal development throughout the country.
The constitution does not specify how to make these determinations, but leaves the details to the Council of Representatives to legislate.
This possibility of additional allotments is best understood as an effort by the Kurdish and Shiite drafters to establish that they will receive an increased share of the revenues for some time, while still appeasing the Sunni drafters by recognizing the general principle of national revenue distribution on the basis of population. The Kurds and Shia will claim that they were the most disadvantaged by the previous regime and thus entitled to extra revenue now.
The Council of Representatives and the Supreme Federal Court will play a significant role in determining how this system will work and interpreting the terse language of these provisions.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:16:58 am
PP -
An argument can be made (indeed, you just did) that disproportionate revenues for the Shiites is “fair” based on their hard lot over the last 20 years. I personally see reparations as a Pandora’s Box, especially in a case like this, where the aggrieved party suddenly finds itself in the driver’s seat.
To the matter at hand: the very language that you quote in your post is reason for doubt.
Throwing out the important caveat - there are lots of documents you could dig up to prove what follows wrong. Actually, I hope you do. Awaiting that possibility -
where in the quoted text is there protection for Sunnis?
The Council of Representatives and the Supreme Federal Court will play a significant role in … interpreting the terse language of these provisions
When 80% of the population (Kurd+Shiite) are beneficiaries of “these provisions”, why would you have confidence that the vague language will provide the Sunnis a fair shake?
I reiterate - there may be something elsewhere that gives the Sunnis a better shot. The text you quote is still fairly unsettling.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:21:32 pm
Jazz - now that you have expressed your concerns, can we approach this with some reality in mind ?
How does the potential lot of of the average Ahmed in the Souk seem to be, for each of the three major groups, under the new Iraqi Constitution as compared to prior to it (during Saddam Hussein) ? Important question to ask is - are they each better off or worse off ?
Note - I didn’t ask about the Baathist apparatchniks …
By all means, consider constructive criticism of the new Constitution, but please try to keep it in context of what the alternative is/was …
Remember, there is a reason for the saying “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” …
July 10th, 2006 at 7:00:26 pm
Good point Alasdair, you’ve more or less summed up what has been frustrating me with Jazz’s train of logic: Things aren’t perfect, the Shiites might abuse their power, therefore let’s just give the Sunnis a dictatorship! I find it absurd any American could think that way.
While you rightly note the teenage gunmen’s massacre of some 40+ Sunnis yesterday, also on the same day dozens of Shiites were killed nearby Shiite holy sites. Neither side has their hands clean, and it will continue to be a struggle to maintain sufficient coexistence to prevent a full-on civil war (or is that another twisted result you are rooting for so you can feel better that you were right about Bush’s incompetence?).
Finally, who is to say that, with sufficient calm and prosperity, Iraqis don’t begin to move around their country akin your example of Americans flooding Alaska to take advantage of disproportionate benefits? My guess is, when the ethnic and religious tensions subside a bit, moving from Ramadi to Basra or Rutbah to Mosul will be less culturally and climatically arduous on the average Iraqi than would a move to Alaska for an Arizonan.
Finally, it’s quite a leap to assume the Kurds and Shiites will always be on the same side politically, leaving mere crumbs for Sunnis. Quite probably the Kurds and Sunnis will someday align their interests, or perhaps the Shiites and Sunnis will decide to gang up on those bastard Kurds. Who knows, but political alliances do shift easily–especially in countries as fractured politically as Iraq.
I’ll end by saying that, if you’re simply being a devil’s advocate, then you’ve done a fine enough job of showing that the road to prosperity and harmony for Iraq is far from secure so long as the Shiites are under control. Yet if you really do believe even half of what you’re saying, I have to seriously call into question the rationality of your political judgment on just about any issue.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:03:34 pm
Where to begin.
First: I find it curious Alasdair that, as a native of the British Isles, you seem content with the (widely-held) view that the Iraqi Constitution, while not perfect, is good enough, and we would be silly to expect perfect.
One can imagine having a beer with one of your relatives, in the Fall of 1939, saying that there will be peace in our time because PM Chamberlain has the document to prove it.
Perhaps I might have been the skeptic, asking why Hitler didn’t make more military concessions, why should we take a man at his word who just invaded a neighbor…
…and your relative might say “The perfect is the enemy of the good”.
I bring this up because the specific language around power sharing in the Iraqi Constitution is in fact not at all good.
A few posts ago I brought up the deeply disturbing text in the Iraqi Constitution that codifies an indeterminate period of Shiite/Kurd resource grab in the new Iraq. I suppose from your replies that you say “Eh, stop being so pessimistic Jazz nothing’s perfect, I am sure it will be fine”
(a sentiment that I am sure was popular on the streets of London to support Chamberlain. But I digress).
Of course, I don’t have proof that things won’t be fine, any more than you have proof that things will. However, if you would persist in the belief that Shiites “mean well” in the new Constitution, you have to settle in your mind one critical question:
Why doesn’t the Constitution make explicitly clear how long the Shiites and Kurds get disproportionate wealth?
You may argue “well, they just forgot”. Really? How hard would it have been to have said “For a period not to exceed two years…” or “Until the aggrieved majority has been repaid X dollars…”?
As I understand it (I can’t find the cite), the Shiite framers weren’t even going to include the vague language that the period of disportionate distributions would end at all! They only included the vague language that has been included to bring even a portion of the Sunnis into the process.
So - if the Shiites mean well, if they believe (as Andrew has suggested) in Madisonian principles, then why leave open such an obvious, and easily remedied avenue of abuse?
I ask the question not to be malicious or take shots or even be a Devil’s Advocate -
- in fact it is a very serious, very disturbing question.
At this point, assuming anyone was still reading, you might say well Jazz is just super negative, and maybe we can hope it all works out, and if it doesn’t well try again next time.
Two comments.
First - if it doesn’t work out. Surely everyone agrees that’s bad. In that case, the US has been had, and at least 90% of our casualties in this war are for naught.
In the “doesn’t work out” case, the Shiites are like Hitler to Neville Chamberlain, throwing together a Constitution to appease the American military, all the while intending to open a can of whoopass on the Sunnis when the US finally leaves.
Time will tell. I certainly don’t hope that is the case, but I will be honest, it is hard to reconcile the flaws in the Constitution with a vision of Iraqi Shiite goodwill.
Second. What if it does work out? What if things go fine in Iraq?
In dismissing Mad Max’ point a while ago, Andrew said about the Iraqi Constitution “Well, nothing is perfect”, perhaps implicitly recognizing that maybe the guarantee of rights he had hoped for just isn’t enshrined in that document as we might have wished.
I find something quite curious about Andrew’s optimism as expressed in the post just above. Reread it, if you’re still reading this.
Note that in the second paragraph he acknowledges that ethnic cleansing killing sprees are a problem, but in case I hadn’t noticed those ethnic cleansing killing sprees are going in all directions, not just one.
I had noticed, Andrew, and in fact, the multidimensionality of the ethnic killing makes co-existence even more difficult than a unilateral eradication, thereby buttressing my point, which I would have expected you were loth to do?
Indeed Andrew goes on in that very same paragraph to say that the multilateral killings will make it hard for the sides to live together, and then goes off on the odd tangent of accusing me of rooting for that, as if I would rather be right than for good outcomes to occur for my beloved country. I would say I was insulted but surely Andrew and I have passed that point.
However, I draw your attention to what happens next in his post, because it is central to the thrust of my concern.
Andrew ends the second paragraph thusly:
“Okay, multiethnic killings make it hard for the ethnic groups to live together, so maybe you will be right Jazz (and then obligatory Andrew ad-hominem)”
Then his third paragraph begins
“But maybe the people all will live together”
which if you have been reading carefully, begs the question
“Why?”
I am not saying they won’t. Please understand, I am absolutely not saying they won’t.
Rather I am asking, “How will the co-existence come about”?
In other words, Andrew left us at the end of paragraph two with a dismal view of the possibility of the ethnic groups living together, which probably matches our instincts, right?
Then paragraph 3 starts with “Maybe they will” which matches our hopes.
What’s between the lines?
We know by now that the protections don’t come about from the Constitution; it is by Andrew’s own admission a flawed document.
So how will it work? How do these situations work out when there isn’t law to support them?
My hypothesis is: when the Constitution/law cannot supercede the human inclination to destroy each other, then the people must rely on a charismatic leader to do so.
Any other suggestions? Random chance? Shit luck? How else would it happen?
So you say, okay, Jazz, I’ll take my chances with a charismatic leader.
But let’s be clear, that’s a man, likely of Shiite vintage, who would be able to bring the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds together into one unified, mutually reinforcing country. A Jeffersonian to the core.
Great, eh?
What are the odds that our imaginary Shiite leader has a bit of the Manifest Destiny? Sees the corrupt and two-bit regimes around him, and buoyed by his vision of having unified the ethnic groups in Iraq, he starts looking to his neighbors…
…just like Saddam did, starting this whole shitstorm in the first place?
In summary, for Alasdair, Andrew, and everyone else, I definitely want the best outcome in Iraq for the US and its troops.
But you should realize that there is a big difference between wanting the best outcome for your nation and wanting to feel good. Wanting to feel good is a fool’s salve; it is a road to disaster.
There were surely many who wanted to feel good in Britain in 1939 on the heels of Chamberlain’s promise that everything would be fine. Feeling good is highly overrated. Making smart decisions is the only thing that matters.
One final aside to Andrew: it would be most helpful if you concentrated on avoiding the ad hominems back here. Obviously the relative difference in anonymity makes the stakes so different for the participants back here.
That said, it strikes me that this place is most effective when people are going to toe to toe with ideas, arguing back and forth with substance and content. Such crucibles help solidify our own political views.
However, when (as in your post above), you concede that I might be right and follow it up with “Jazz would probably like that because he’s some sort of asshole”, that’s most unhelpful in the exchange of ideas.
I am an asshole, which is probably obvious to everyone.
But such comments are completely beside the point and extremely unproductive.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:12:17 am
Jazz - those must be powerful meds … insomnia and ’stream of counsciousness’ ?
My relatives, upon hearing of the invasions per Hitler, are much more likely to have said “He thinks he’s a Prefect - and he’s the enemy of the good” … because of cultural misunderstandings, I can see how you would get confused … apparently, you don’t realise that the UK had its Moseleyites - and most folk found ‘em funny in a pathetic way - cuz they advocated things that just aren’t British …
What you seem to be managing to ignore is that the Iraqis aren’t Western, never mind ‘Murricans … They are likely to look through their new Constitution and go either a) Coulda been a lot worse, given what Saddam did or b) Shoulda been more, but we’ll make do with this … accompanied by the obligatory inshallah …
It’s *because* I’m a Brit, because I learn from history, that I see good things happening because this country was lucky enough that the very best candidate that the Dems could agree upon was Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 …(just where was Karl Rove during those two Conventions, then ? (grin)) … I see a leader who is less-than-charismatic, who makes decisions even though the manipulated polls would suggest otherwise … I see a leader whose hand I would willingly shake, without feeling an immediate need to either count my remaining fingers nor to pull the Lady MacBeth hand-washing routine …
Could this country have a better President than Dubya - most likely, yes … Condi has potential, we’ll see in the next couple of years … Guiliani is a possibility … (grin) … hey, how about the Presidentator ? (or would that be the Two-Term-inator?)(tho that would take a Constitutional Amendment) … I can see it now - the cigar-smokers’ tent on the South Lawn of the White House … given your fascination with charismatic Austrians, Jazz, isn’t Ahnuld a perfect President for you ?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:56:30 am
My goodness Alasdair, Hitler wasn’t charismatic! Shrimpy little guy with cheesy mustache and pasted-on hair?
There was always something ironic about his zeal for the Aryan ideal. Can you imagine if such policies had been implemented permanently in Germany, supposing he had won the war?
Hitler himself would have been the first to go. But I digress.
One quick thought regarding “better than nothing” with respect to the Constitution - that’s one where it would be helpful to have an Iraqi Sunni jump into this conversation.
Because it appears, given the limited information we get on this side of the world, that the Iraqi Sunnis in fact largely don’t support the new government.
Which raises a disturbing question, one not often raised in this country:
Is Sunni unrest a function of dead-enders manipulating the US?
Or is it a function of widespread resistance to a new government that they fear will sabotage their interests?
Entirely empirical question. One we should be discussing and debating over here vigorously, as it is so important.
But so is Brangelina’s baby.
Oh by the way, President Terminator? Kind of best of both worlds. You get the swagger of Bush, and the feeling of Big Gun confidence that $450 billion in military expenditures should buy you.
And you also get the sexy sexy naughtiness of Clinton, meaning there’s a good likelihood for CNN.com to get a hold of a Starr report and double as a blue website.
I’m all for it! :)
July 11th, 2006 at 5:41:50 am
Jazz. put down the keyboard, and step away from the computer. What does your wife do when you blog incessentaly? Stand behind you and cheer you on, or bury her head in a book and wait patiently?
July 11th, 2006 at 5:51:18 am
PP Long -
If you continue this “pp”ing through my window, I’m going to have to call the authorities.
Your friend,
July 11th, 2006 at 6:52:35 am
PP,
I thought the oil revenue was to pay for the war?
July 11th, 2006 at 7:23:37 am
Ha! Another one of Bush’s LIES!!!! WHAT A MADMAN!!!! ITS ALL HIS FAULT!!
whoa, sorry man. don’t know what came over me.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:52:01 pm
Jazz - just because you and I would not respond well to the charisma of Hitler doesn’t mean he didn’t have any …way too many German were truly fanatical believers in Hitler and what he propounded …
July 11th, 2006 at 2:14:26 pm
Jazz, I got halfway through your long comment that came immediately after my last comment (at 7/10 @ 7pm), and I was thoroughly confused. Many of the things you attribute to me writing, I frankly did not see in my comment whatsoever. I specifically am referring to the following:
I don’t recall writing those words, and indeed the diction does not appear to be my style. I didn’t see any ad hominems either (which I gladly own up to using when appropriate). In fact, the only ad hominem I can recall in this thread is when I referred to you as a “moron”, in response to your ridiculous comparison of me to Marquise de Sade.
I won’t even bother to pick apart your last few comments that have come since my previous comment from late Sunday night. Indeed, you are becoming so incoherent and confusing in your prose, I suggest you follow PP Long’s advice and step away from the keyboard for a while and reestablish your bearings on planet Earth. That, or wait to hit the bong until after you’re done typing.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:19:45 pm
Andrew,
You will have to forgive me, I clearly used quotations where I meant to paraphrase. My bad. Glad you were able to call me out on my failure in proper punctuating.
There are bound to be a few of those in a 1,000 word post, nice that you were able to safeguard the Queen’s proper punctuation!
However, let’s make an agreement between ourselves shall we? Given that I finished my long post by asking you to focus on the topic, as opposed to personal attacks -
- and you immediately replied with a bong hit ad hominem -
- even though you oddly claimed not to use them, or something -
- let’s agree not to interact any further, shall we?
I find your content-free postings irritating. I am quite confident that there is some answer to why the Shiites are folks of goodwill in spite of the open-ended granting to themselves of reparations.
I am equally sure by your constant resorting to personal attacks that you haven’t the faintest idea what that answer is.
I wonder Andrew:
Are you unable to see the patent ridiculousness of regularly resorting to ad hominems against a person posting under the pseudonym Jazz?
I won’t close with one of those empty threats about “never again!” cause we all know how that goes.
Against my better judgment, I will probably throw out something provocative back here, in the fruitless hope of generating debate, and you will probably fire back with some asinine, content-lite statement about my manhood, and nod to your friends about how smart you are.
Maybe I will get lucky. But probably not.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:28:54 pm
Andrew - “in response to your ridiculous comparison of me to Marquise de Sade.
“ - Jazz has done a number of things, but, as yet, I have not seen him compare you to a non-existant person, nor to imply that your masculinity is in doubt …
It was the “Marquis de Sade”, you *twit* !
Jazz - Andrew can be accused of many things, but “content-free” doesn’t tend to be one of ‘em … give Bea credit for WAY better taste than that ! He also managed to focus on the topic at least as well as *you* have in your comments on *this* post … you are usually a lot more coherent … your comments on this post come across much more as projecting than relevant commenting …
July 11th, 2006 at 6:05:44 pm
Alasdair,
Based on the frequency of ad hominems back here, your last post is probably right in insinuating that the blog is mainly a beauty contest or an art competition, moreso than a quest for truth or understanding.
I wish I knew that a long time ago, because I probably would have entered under my real name.
I am sorry that the style of my arguments did not appeal to judges like Simon, Paula, Randy…
Here’s candor: in my overlong post, I threw out (set off in bold no less), a question that is as important as any other re: the near future of our country.
The silence in response to that question, particularly given the number of lawyers in this place, is deafening.
We can talk all we want about this, that, and the other, and perhaps you will be distracted by those things.
I’m not.