This gets the award for the most bizarre twist of logic I’ve seen. Let’s see, we cause pain and suffering to our military people and to innocents in Iraq because we don’t want enemies to claim victory (even though they will no matter what we do), and the reason that’s bad is because an Egyptian blogger claims that the Democrats winning Congress reduced pressure on Egypt, and the reason that claim is made is because of some things Democrats have said...
Yikes! When you have to twist turn flip and wiggle that much to try to defend your point that’s a sign that perhaps you’re on the wrong track and need to rethink your position!
Nothing in the post supports any claim that what "enemies" use as propaganda will have a concrete impact on reforms in Mideast countries or on our national security. Nothing. You are left with a non-reason for supporting a policy that has been failing for four years, defended by such bizarre patched together assertions that you destroy the credibility of your own argument.
Now there is a reason to take Iraq seriously: stability in Iraq is important for both the people of the region, and for regional stability. That is important for the world economy due to oil. Those are real, and far more important than whatever silly propaganda Bin Laden toots from his village in remote Pakistan. And my argument remains: this policy cannnot achieve those ends, and thus we need a change in policy. Iraq has to become a regional/international project or else things will get worse. Propaganda is mostly irrelevant; regional stability is not. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Those are real, and far more important than whatever silly propaganda Bin Laden toots from his village in remote Pakistan. People are murdered every time Bin Laden or whoever issues those "silly propaganda toots"Iraq has to become a regional/international project or else things will get worse. It already IS an international project. You just get rankled because Iran and Syria aren’t involved (and justly so).Propaganda is mostly irrelevant; Hogwash. Remember the "weak horse" stuff? That was "propaganda" also. Irrelevant I suppose. This isn’t a matter of being jaded and seeing through some slick PR campaign cooked up by an expensive firm.regional stability is not Ah, back to the same old sh*t that got us in trouble in the first place I see. And would we to "stabalize" it, I’m sure in 5-10-15 years when the cancer we placed there begins to fester, you’d be among the chorus busting out "but we helped him, it’s our fault blah blah blah" much like the left kept touting how we did this to help Saddam in the 80s blah blah blah.
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Iraq has to become a regional/international project or else things will get worse. Speaking of bizarre logic. |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
It already IS an international project. You just get rankled because Iran and Syria aren’t involved (and justly so). Don’t worry, ultimately Iran and Syria will be involved — the writing is on the wall. Also, by international project, I mean (I’ve gone into this with more detail in my blog during the last week) that the international community has to come together and make Iraq a priority, and that will require the US recognizing that we cannot ’fix’ Iraq.
The fact is that supporters of the Iraq war have been wrong for the last four years. They were right that defeating Saddam would be easy, but almost every claim and policy since then has been proven wrong. How long does one have to continue failing before one decides that it’s time for a complete change in approach? I know it’s not easy to admit that given the intense emotion and partisanship around this debate.
For my part, I’ll admit that I’ve shifted my views in response to arguments made by those on the pro-war side. Before I essentially argued that if the US left the various sides in Iraq would no longer have the US to blame and try to use, and they would be forced to deal with each other. I’ve become convinced that while this may happen, the chance it will not is great enough that we can’t just let Iraq fester. I consider this too important an issue to get caught up in the partisan rhetoric and politicization of debate — differences of opinion are good if the various sides listen to each other and are willing to adjust their perspectives as evidence warrants.
|
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
differences of opinion are good if the various sides listen to each other and are willing to adjust their perspectives as evidence warrants. True, indeed. It’s the perspective adjustment tools I have a problem with. KaBoom! |
| |
Written By:
Arcs
URL:
http://
|
Also, by international project, I mean (I’ve gone into this with more detail in my blog during the last week) that the international community has to come together and make Iraq a priority, and that will require the US recognizing that we cannot ’fix’ Iraq. And what will the international community do to convince those clots to stop killing each other? What will the international community do to convince the various groups in Iraq to start trusting the political process? |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
And what will the international community do to convince those clots to stop killing each other? What will the international community do to convince the various groups in Iraq to start trusting the political process? I’ve gone over this in the past — essentially they can provide the legitimacy and the amount of resources that the US can’t. Iran and Saudi Arabia (as well as other actors in the region) can work to avoid a regional civil war and work to end the ethnci violence. They also can aid a real crack down on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is hated by Iraqi Shi’ites, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most Iraqi Sunnis. They won’t have a chance. The UN can also sponsor a multinational security force that has the legitimacy that the American force lacks (almost 2/3 of Iraqis think that it’s OK to attack Americans — legitimacy is defined as being accepted by the public).
Now, one reason American policy can’t succeed on its current path is that corruption undercuts all efforts (I describe that in my blog today — failure to stop corruption was a fatal flaw in the post-war efforts to provide stability, and in fact it was corruption which caused me to realize by late 2003 that the effort to achieve the Administration’s goals for Iraq was doomed). I don’t think internationalization can fix the problem of corruption at this point, but neither can our presence. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
I hate the Mubarak regime and want the US to cut funding to it. Yesterday. I’m a liberal. I feel bad for the Sandmonkey. But he’s painting a simplistic picture of the U.S. political system that rather completely, and unrealistically, pretends that Bush’s own choices are related to Congressional Democratic actions.
The truth is that Bush admin dropped pressure on Mubarak long before the elections of november 2006. The reasons have nothing to do with Democrats, and they have everything to do with sucking up to Sunni dictatorships to build regional pressure against Iran. When you want more than one objective - such as controlling W.M.D’s and democratization - at the same time from different groups of people, some of whom you need to use against others of them, you either pick one objective and stay with it, or you get nothing. Bush chose Iran’s nuke program over pushing for democracy in the Sunni world.
Meanwhile, to have a prayer of ending the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, we need Assad’s cooperation in Syria. We cannot live without it. End. The Iraq Study Group knew it. Democrats and liberals would love to pressure Syria to change. But we can’t do it while we simultaneously fight in Iraq, because Syria has the potential to scr*w us in our overexposed and vulnerable a** in Iraq. Which is basically what they’re been doing. Are doing.
Pelosi’s trip to Syria was about salvaging Iraq. Democratizing Syria has to wait, because as bad as Syria is, it’s not on the level of disaster and emergency as Iraq.
|
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
And what will the international community do to convince those clots to stop killing each other? What will the international community do to convince the various groups in Iraq to start trusting the political process?
Mark, here’s an example of a coalition that cannot happen because the U.S. Administration hates it and would rather fight with Iran over control of Maliki:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/04/zen-and-art-of-iraqi-reconcilliation.html
I don’t know it this would work, but it’s the best scenario I’ve ever heard for a functional post-Iraq government.
It’s won’t work because
a) we hate Sadr
b) we like Maliki
c) we haven’t made nice with Iran, who will spoil it
d) our assets in Iraq don’t want to be sidelined by a Sadr-Baathist-Alawi coalition
Synova, if you’re out there, this is what I’m talking about. Every day. Every year. All the time. We warp the dynamics. |
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
I don’t expect those who like to pretend that Pelosi’s visit had no effect to acknowledge this at all.
I acknowledge that it’s at least plausible, although I have no confirmation that it occured. But see above comment: Syria’s cooperation in stemming the bloodshed in Iraq simply has higher priority than revolutionizing the domestic scene in Syria. We don’t have enough leverage over Syria to make that happen, and they have too many ways to hurt us in response. |
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
Yeah, because working WITH the ciminally insane is such a great idea...
Moron. |
| |
Written By:
Scott
URL:
http://
|
I think the belief that somehow we can pressure or ignore Syria and Iran will be the next neo-conservative assumption to implode. The longer this goes on it becomes more clear that there can be no solution without the support and involvement of the neighbors. The Saudis need to play a role too.
Ahmadinejad has been weakened because of his unnecessarily provocative statements. Israel and Syria have hinted that dialogue is possible. Iran and Syria have their own vulnerabilities and interests. At the very least, you don’t know what’s possible until you try — talking is not the same as reaching an agreement after all. The strategic position of the US in not strong enough to push them aside or ignore them. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Sandmonkey is not painting a simplistic picture of how US government works because he’s not describing how it *works* he’s describing how it’s *viewed*.
|
| |
Written By:
Synova
URL:
http://synova.blogspot.com
|
In what way and in who’s estimation has Ahmadinejad been weakened?
Unnecessarily provocative is a middle eastern virtue. It shows you’re strong and fierce and someone other people ought to be careful of. So what did he say that didn’t actually play to his strengths? |
| |
Written By:
Synova
URL:
http://synova.blogspot.com
|
|
(Ahmadinejad’s biggest *real* political problem is making the mistake of telling young Iranian men they could no longer get their monobrows waxed.) |
| |
Written By:
Synova
URL:
http://synova.blogspot.com
|
I’ve gone over this in the past — essentially they can provide the legitimacy and the amount of resources that the US can’t. Iran and Saudi Arabia (as well as other actors in the region) can work to avoid a regional civil war and work to end the ethnci violence. They also can aid a real crack down on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is hated by Iraqi Shi’ites, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most Iraqi Sunnis. They won’t have a chance. The UN can also sponsor a multinational security force that has the legitimacy that the American force lacks (almost 2/3 of Iraqis think that it’s OK to attack Americans — legitimacy is defined as being accepted by the public). What color is the sky in your fantasy world?
I guess Iran and others can "prevent a civil war" by gobbling up large chunks of Iraq. If you think they’ll actually crackdown on Al Qaeda, you’re insne. The extent of the "crackdown" will be to make it clear to not operate in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Woopee. And the fact that you use "UN" and "legitimacy" in the same sentence without irony is funny. Don’t ever mistake legitimacy for effectiveness again.
Oh, and legitimacy is defined as being accepted by the public? A far cry when you were arguing the legitimacy required being in compliance with "international law". Oh well, whatever is handy for your argument I suppose.
Criminey, written from the viewpoint of a fat, comfortable academic. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
What a surprise -
We have a guy, born in Egypt, living in Egypt and blogging, personally living and traveling in the Middle East telling us about how he perceives the changes to his own environment and why he thinks those changes occurred. He’s probably a little better educated than the average man on the street, he considers his government, and is interested in current national and international events and news.
One might think he might actually know what he’s talking about.
But of course...some of us are in a better position to know, pretty much for sure, he’s wrong.
One can but wonder what sort of expert one would have to be to be right, and what one’s credentials would have to be.
Such a person would probably have to have a name like....
Nancy Pelosi or... Jimmy Carter,
two probable examples of experts in Middle Eastern life and government who would be acceptable to some of us.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
The UN really doesn’t have any force that isn’t US anyhow. We end up paying the bill, both money and blood, far more than anyone else even with that little UN fig leaf of "multi-national" participation.
Recall the turf fighting in Indonesia over who was in charge. The US wasn’t trying to take over decisions about anyone elses aid resources but without the UN taking charge of *ours* they simply didn’t have any.
Better yet, how about the UN multi-national peace keeping force that was going to go to enforce a cease fire between the Palestinians and Israel. A bunch of countries said they’d send soldiers but specified that their soldiers were absolutely not allowed to fight anyone.
Which is typical.
It’s almost like that tree falling in a forest thing... if a country generously sends forces to help out but they aren’t allowed to actually *do* anything, were the forces ever actually sent?
|
| |
Written By:
Synova
URL:
http://synova.blogspot.com
|
Well, Nancy is pretty picky who she meets with
She wouldn’t meet with Gen Petraeus on Iraq, but she will with Assad who uses it as a propaganda piece to beat up local activists. assnost seems ok with that however.
She won’t meet with the US’s strongest ally in South America but she goes out of her way to meet with Chavez.
Obama and Kerry are getting talking points from the truthers.
So who is running things for the democrats? Rosie? |
| |
Written By:
cap joe
URL:
http://
|
Chavez, Assad, hmmmm, who’s next? Castro? Kim Jong Il? Ahmadenijhad?
It’s a shame Stalin, Tito, Mao and Pol Pot are dead ain’t it? |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
I guess Iran and others can "prevent a civil war" by gobbling up large chunks of Iraq. If you think they’ll actually crackdown on Al Qaeda, you’re insne. You don’t really understand the situation. The Iranians hate Al Qaeda, and they almost went to war against the Taliban a few years back. They do not want an al qaeda pesence in Iraq. Also, your argument is off base. Talking to Iran and working with other regional powers to get an agreement is not the same as simply letting Iran do whatever it wants.
And yes, in political science terminology legitimacy is defined by public acceptance. It is usually used to talk about governments (a government is legitimate if most of the populus accepts it), but can also be used to talk about occupation forces and the like.
Finally, just as the US has to change, so does the international community. They have to take collective responsibility if this is to work. So I’m not guaranteeing that we can internationalize this. I’m noting that it’s the best option to try because what we’re doing now only weakens us, does no real damage to terrorists, has led to a collapse of Iraqi society, drains our budget, overstretches our military, weakens us immensely, and shows no sign of success — even "success" defined all the way down to just leaving Iraq relatively stable. I seriously implore those who have been supporting this policy to ask yourselves some hard questions and think about whether or not your support at this point is more emotional, driven by a desire not to be wrong or not to have to admit the US can’t achieve this, or if it is really based on evidence. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Amen looker. It’s really limiting the number of people the Dems can go talk to...
Poor guys...
And Scott, you flaming moron, have you intentionally been ignoring every scrap of good news that comes out of Iraq?
Go look at Badger 6’s latest post.
I dare you.
But best lay down a tarp or something. I fear your head might go kaboom...
His fact and your anti-fact might cause one heck of an explosion... |
| |
Written By:
Scott
URL:
http://
|
In what way and in who’s estimation has Ahmadinejad been weakened?
For a course I teach I’ve been following closely Iranian politics (we did a full unit on Iran), and the news in recent months, even in the popular American press, show that Ahmadinejad is unpopular at home, and even conservatives in government think he is hurting Iran’s credibility with outlandish statements. His right wing allies did very poorly in local elections, and worse than expected in the important elections to the Council of Experts. In the recent showdown with Great Britain, the pragmatists essentially pressured him to give in — Iran dropped all demands and Britain had to neither apologize or change their actions. Before he announced the cave in to Britain, the lead negotiator, who is seen as a pragmatist, hinted that the episode would be over soon. It’s unlikely Ahmadinejad can win re-election in 2009, and he isn’t where power lies in Iran anyway.
Unnecessarily provocative is a middle eastern virtue. It shows you’re strong and fierce and someone other people ought to be careful of. So what did he say that didn’t actually play to his strengths?
As for another poster’s claims about "good news" from Iraq. Been there, done that. These stories of "good news" have been hyped for four years as some kind of proof of some major change. Yet it never happens. The credibility of those claiming "good news" has been shot.
You have a stereotyped view of the Middle East. Iranians especially have been very patient and conservative in their foreign policy. They know not to go too far, and have put themselves in a position (thanks in large part to our bungling in Iraq) to be a regional power. The Guardian Council and elites don’t want Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric to endanger that. Also, remember that Persian culture is very different than Arab culture. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
|
The dots that everyone here fails to connect, address, or argue with, is that in the absence of needing all these dictatorships to help us with The War, we could more easily take steps to pressure them to change their systems. |
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
I think the belief that somehow we can pressure or ignore Syria and Iran will be the next neo-conservative assumption to implode. Which is it? Neo-conservatism must assume one or the other, cannot be both. Or perhaps will be calling any failure with Iran and Syria as a failure of neo-conservatism, no matter of how it comes about - this would be more likely if Scott Erb was a biased commentator willing to apply a label of failure to a group of people, rather than an academic able to judge the merits or otherwise of a set theory (I am sure it is just a mistake in defining neo-conservatism so very poorly). The dots that everyone here fails to connect, address, or argue with, is that in the absence of needing all these dictatorships to help us with The War, we could more easily take steps to pressure them to change their systems. Sort of, but without The War any pressure you placed on a Saddam like dictator would be theoretical only. They would not believe you capable of taking concrete steps against them, because you would have not ever done so.
Of course this does not apply to Mubarak or Musharraf or the Sauds, because they are allies, but rather to Assad, Gaddafi & Almadeenajad. In the case of allies glasnost is correct, without The War it would be easier to pressure these regimes to reform. (As an aside this puts continuation of The War as being in Egypts, Pakistans & Saudis self-interest.) |
| |
Written By:
unaha-closp
URL:
http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
|
Yeah... The officers and soldiers actually IN Iraq have no idea what they are talking about...
I’d like a list of your students please, so I never make the mistake of hiring anyone who’s thought process have been in any way tained by your drooling idiocy... |
| |
Written By:
Scott
URL:
http://
|
we could more easily take steps to pressure them to change their systems. Could we use the Milosivic/Hussein pressure, or would we stick with the currently effective Iran/Syria style pressure?
This whole pressuring them to change their systems thing - you know, you guys seem to be against us trying to establish a certain type of governement in Middle Eastern countries, and yet here you are suggesting we should pressure Middle Eastern countries into having certain types of government.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
You don’t really understand the situation. The Iranians hate Al Qaeda, and they almost went to war against the Taliban a few years back. They do not want an al qaeda pesence in Iraq. And why the hell do you think that Iran wants a strong Iraq? If it was in Iran’s interests to have a stable Iraq, they would be working to make it so. They aren’t, so they don’t.
I don’t think that you understand anything. |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
They have to take collective responsibility Oooh, your favorite word |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
They have to take collective responsibility Oooh, your favorite word
But only if that collective doesn’t actually include them... |
| |
Written By:
Scott
URL:
http://
|
And why the hell do you think that Iran wants a strong Iraq? If it was in Iran’s interests to have a stable Iraq, they would be working to make it so. They aren’t, so they don’t.
I don’t think that you understand anything. You are simply wrong. Iran doesn’t want a pro-American Iraq, or an Iraq that aids US policy. Thus they have rather effectively thwarted our effort to create that kind of Iraq, and with the rise of Shi’ite dominance they have an Iraq that is potentially a future ally (most of the governing parties have leaders who were in exile in Iran). But they do not want al qaeda in Iraq, they do not want a Sunni insurgency to threaten Iraqi stability or regional stability. Iran was invited to the Arab League, had good talks with the Saudis (who uncharacteristically took the occasion to slam US policy) and appear very interested in avoiding things getting out of control. Ultimately they can do what we can’t.
As for your last comment — methinks thou doth protest too much. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
I think the belief that somehow we can pressure or ignore Syria and Iran will be the next neo-conservative assumption to implode.
Which is it? Neo-conservatism must assume one or the other, cannot be both. Or perhaps will be calling any failure with Iran and Syria as a failure of neo-conservatism, no matter of how it comes about - this would be more likely if Scott Erb was a biased commentator willing to apply a label of failure to a group of people, rather than an academic able to judge the merits or otherwise of a set theory (I am sure it is just a mistake in defining neo-conservatism so very poorly). Early on neo-conservatives thought we would have bases in Iraq and a very US-friendly government that would allow us to pressure Iran to change. Well, obviously that’s not happening! Lately they have been saying we could just ignore Iran in our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. That’s wrong too, and I think the Bush Administration is finally coming to realize the Iraq study group was right on this one.
As for the rest of what you write, you seem to want to craft an insult, but you weren’t quite able to pull it off. Try again. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
The fact is that outside the United States, opinion about the USA is not monolithic, though the Left wants you to think it is.
There is one usual strain of foreign thinking, though: the US should be doing "more" for their pet causes. |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
And now the Army has made in-theater blogging or even e-mailing without approval against the rules.
Funny thing, that, seeing as how military bloggers are controlled propaganda by the Army, censored and all that.
All problems of finding excuses not to read them are now solved. Yay! |
| |
Written By:
Synova
URL:
http://synova.blogspot.com
|
