Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The US must not leave. It is their responsibility to see that Iraq becomes a democracy regardless of the price. Just remember that this is a Republican War and 60% of the Military supported Bush. We must support our Troops!!! Buy a sticker for your SUV!!!

Bush’s flip flop on social engineering and nation building (which he vehemently criticized the Clinton administration over) and now has tried to exercise in Iraq, has come up as short as Bush’s intellect.

Bush is a simple minded man, one who has accepted a set core of beliefs as his guide and substitute for sophisticated thought and education. His attempts in Iraq would have had only a small chance of success if orchestrated by an immensely bright and sophisticated person of learning in the areas of history, philosophy, religion and warfare. But under Bush’s direction, the outcome has always been predictable for me - a severe destablilization of the entire Middle East and a host of unintended consequences and alliances posing as large or larger threat that Saddam Hussein’s regime ever could have dreamed of under the UN sanctions and restrictions.

Bush’s intentions might have been good. But, the Peter Principle was inevitable in his case. And now he uses foreign affairs as cover for his failing domestic agenda and policies. Thank GOD for term limits on the presidency.

Pessimists about Iraq have been consistently wrong. They predicted that sovereignty would not be transferred on time. It was. They predicted elections would not be held. They were. They predicted widespread bloodshed on Election Day. There wasn’t. They predicted low voter turnout. No. They predicted Sunnis would start a civil war. Not yet. They predicted increasing attacks. The attacks are decreasing. They predicted … too much to write.

I don’t expect Iraq to be perfect. No country in the world is perfect. Given the many years of Saddam Hussein and the general condition of the region, what has been accomplished so far is miraculous. I can think of better scenarios, but I can think of many worse. I don’t have to think very hard, because Bush opponents have predicted them at one time or another.

I keep on asking everyone to look at the long term. So far several milestones in my “long term” has come to pass – successfully. There is cause to be optimistic. Despite the mistakes, we did good and we are doing well.

Sharia law is not something I support. But Muslims try to enforce it in many countries from Nigeria to Malaysia. It shouldn’t be surprising if we have some experience with it in Iraq. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Things happen in all societies and they happen more radically in societies recently coming out of tyranny. I would hate to be judged on the behavior of fans after a winning basketball game, and we don’t even have an excuse.

Let’s not look for trouble before we have it. You quote Our Sadr buddy bragging that he has 12000 men trained and ready. Have we heard such boasts before?

Overall, the Iraq cup is more than half full. I expect some spills from time to time.

And Aldous, I would be satisfied to take credit for Iraq, but that honor goes to the Iraqi people and our troops there. I ride my bike to work and don’t own an SUV, so I have to pass on the bumper sticker. Thanks anyway.

Depressing article, AP. Spot-on comments, David.

AP -

I have American friends who live in Basra. They emailed the other day to say how good things have been and that they feel more secure than anytime in over a year. In fact, they evacuated for most of the past year, and only moved back a month ago or so. There’s certainly still some danger, and they move around with extreme caution, but I’m surprised to hear allegations that the Basra situation is worsening.

Also, there’s a big difference between Sharia enforced by the government and Sharia enforced by violent gangs. The former is like Iran: repressive, but peaceful. The latter is like Taliban Afghanistan. If the Iraqi government makes laws that require public hair-covering, etc, it may be a step backwards in women’s and religious rights, but it doesn’t preclude change and, more importantly, it’s the business of the Iraqi people. If, however, Sadrite militias are actually carving out fiefdoms, then we have something to worry about.

I have to agree with Jack here on this one. The constant predictions of this being ‘another vietnam’ were based on wishful thinking, not facts. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, except maybe to those that didn’t see Vietnam and know what it was really about. It’s just a tag that people want to stick on something. I’m adding it as a codicil to Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s Law - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

“There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.”

Rhinehold’s Codicil #1 - Comparing any military action with Vietnam immediately invlidates any arguement made by the invoker unless hard facts detailing the comparison can be produced at the time of invocation.

Rhinehold’s Codicil #2 - Ending any scandal with the word -gate automatically makes any reference to the scandal for political gain only and can effectively be ignored.

HTH.

Jack,
Sovereignty? Iraq is occupied by over 135,000 troops. It would be a stretch to say Iraqis are ruling Iraq at this point, certainly not in central Iraq.

How many dozens of Iraqis died during the election? We won’t hear their opinion on whether the bloodshed was widespread, will we?

You cannot be serious about the voter turnout. Sunnis stayed away in droves. If you really truly believed the Sunnis turned out, let me know & I’ll provide you the stats.

You’re right about the attacks decreasing- against Americans, that is. (Btw, did you know mortar & rocket attacks against Americans are not included in the ‘attacks per day’ calculation?). Reporters won’t even venture outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, so it’s tough to know how much attacks of Iraqis against Iraqis have increased. But no one even bothers to count dead Iraqis, do they? A dozen here, a dozen there, a few tens of thousands of civilians, another few tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers… what the hey. It’s not even news.

There’s pessimism. There’s optimism. There’s also realism.

As for civil war-

Chops,
The US is in a desparate effort to replace our troops with Iraqi troops. It’s not happening though, is it? The Iraqis won’t join an Iraqi Army.

Al-Sadr claims 12,000 troops in his militia. There are other Shia militias as well. Please note these militias are NOT part of the Army of Iraq.

Talibani claims 80,000 Kurdish Pesh Merga. After reading a few articles I’d guess 50,000 is a more realistic number. Please note the Pesh Merga is NOT part of the Army of Iraq.

The best guess is those 50,000 Kurdish troops could roll the Sunnis & the Shias put together.

There is no civil war- yet.

Hey, I got through the entire post without comparing the Iraqization of the troops fighting this war to Vietnamization!

D’Oh! Please feel free to continue the thread.

One wonders by what category the Conservatives will ever consider the Iraq War a failure. Perhaps the Moral Majority would care to enlighten us?

This whole posting is dejavu all over again.

I looked back at my posting from November of last year. I wrote:

“I will give my short answer, so all may check on me later on. I expect to be wrong in details, but right on direction. You can hold me to it.

Iraq will hold the elections on schedule. Most of the country will vote, although there will be sections where voting is impossible. There will be violence, but less than anticipated. A coalition of Shiites and Kurds will win and set up an unstable coalition. They have effective control over more than 80% of the country, including almost all the oil wealth. Terrorists continue sporadic attacks. The Iraqi authorities will occasionally respond with excessive force, which will upset the chattering classes, but gradually reduce violence. Everybody claims that they predicted this relatively good outcome and liberals attack the Iraqi government for not being democratic enough or inclusive of all points of view. Pundits point to potential problems and complain that the economy and organization are not up to Swiss standards. But it actually works well. Media attention drains away from Iraq. Academics will begin to develop complicated theories proving that this outcome was inevitable and that George Bush somehow actually slowed the wonderful process.”

I see no reason to alter the prediction. Few of the Bush critics could do the same.

We are on track to a decent outcome, certainly better than we had under Saddam and much better than most pundits predicted last year or even six months ago.

Nothing I have seen has changed my assessment from six months ago, except I am now more optimistic.

So you nattering nabobs of negativity can keep it up until it is clear that the situation is good. At that time you can work on figuring out why Bush was wrong.

Chops wrote:

Also, there’s a big difference between Sharia enforced by the government and Sharia enforced by violent gangs. The former is like Iran: repressive, but peaceful….

So THAT’s the good news!? That they’ll end up like IRAN!!??

That’s a very comforting thought, Chops. I feel better already.

Jack,

“So you nattering nabobs of negativity…”

Ah yes. Quoting Spiro Agnew, as he criticized the press for their attitude towards American foreign policy. Tsk, tsk, a Vietnam era reference now applied towards the topic of Iraq. The comparisons just won’t go away.

Phx8

I like the alliteration. It was a good turn of phase, no matter who said it.

Anyway, I’m right about Iraq.

Hehe. Phx8, so you also noticed that the only people bringing up Vietnam are Bush-fans who are trying to kill the thread. :)

Gotta go. More later.

AP,
Btw, very good article you’ve written here, nice work.

I didn’t think so a few months ago, but I’m beginning to suspect you’re right; Iraq is heading towards a fundamentalist Shia Republic, which is a worse outcome than I thought.

I also suspect the US will leave sooner rather than later. Both the Shias & Sunnis want us out. It may be a decision choreographed between the Shia controlled Iraqi government & the US, or it may be an unconditional Shia demand which occurs unexpectedly, but the result will be the same.

When the US leaves, the Shias & Sunnis will settle scores. It is the ultimate reason why the US should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, why Bush #41 left Saddam in place after the First Gulf War.

One huge caveat: if the US bombs Iran, all bets are off. That nightmare scenario is at least two months out.

why Bush #41 left Saddam in place after the First Gulf War.

*sigh* Another attempt at rewriting history to make a political point…

Bush Sr left him in power for 1 reason. He knew that if he did take him out it would have crumbled the coalition that he had created specifically for that task. He made very stern promises that he would not take over Iraq in order to get the other middle eastern countries to join, making it clear that he was giving Saddam a chance to change. Saddam squandered that chance which is where we are now, had Saddam just done everything he had agreed to then we wouldn’t be here now and he might even be in power.

But that wouldn’t have stopped the clashes between the religious fundamentalists. His power would have been weakened and he would not have been able to hold it at bay. This was why he did not fully conform as he agreed to, in order to appear strong and as a ‘winner’ of the first war.

No where, at no time, did anyone express the view that I quoted above, you’ve made it out of whole cloth.

Rh,
Is that the official history? How noble. And when the US left a substantial part of the Iraqi Republican Guard intact, and encouraged the Shias that, if they revolted, the US would support them; and when the Shias rose, and the US turned its back, and let Saddam’s Guard slaughter the Shias by the tens of thousands, how does that fit into the official history?

You’re right, promises to the coalition played a role. But more importantly, the calculation was made that a dictatorial, secular Saddam in power was better than fundamentalist Shias in power. A Shia fundamentalist government allied with Iran would have been a disaster. Kuwait would also have been threatened by the surrounding governments of Shia fundamentalists, and possibly Saudi Arabia.

Bush #41 was right. Leaving Saddam in power, with sufficient firepower, was preferable to Shia fundamentalists controlling a substantial portion of the Middle East’s oil… and an independent Kurdistan would have been anathema to the Turks.

Jack, Rhinehold, Chops - keep up the good work. Nice comments.

Mr. Remer - thanks for being willing to admit Bush might have had good intentions. It’s more than most on your side will.

And so, up to 300,000 Shias died at the hands of Saddam’s Republican Guard during that uprising. The mass graves are being exhumed even as we speak.

But there are other mass graves that we won’t be excavating.

During the First Gulf War, the Iraqi regular army made a terrible mistake in the western desert. Lacking natural cover, they housed troops in underground bunkers. Those bunkers gave off infrared emissions visible from the air.
B-52’s bombed these bunkers, burying hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops under the desert sands.

No one knows how many died in the US bombings. During the Bush #41 administration, the estimate was one million Iraqi soldiers dead. To this day, for whatever it’s worth, Saddam insists one million Iraqis died. During the Clinton administration, that number was downgraded to 250,000. The current Bush administration lowered it further before the invasion, down to 100,000. But like I said, we won’t be excavating those mass graves.

During the invasion of 2003, somewhere between 25,000 & 50,000 Iraqi soldiers died.

Those soldiers had relatives. Anyone who thought the Iraqis would welcome US troops with open arms was smoking crack. In the US, we may forget or ignore dead Iraqi soldiers. Hey, soldiers die. But I guarantee you the mothers & fathers & brothers & sisters & cousins of those dead Iraqis didn’t forget, and they’re not about to be good sports about it.

They’re enemy soldiers. I’m not going to waste sympathy on them. In war, you kill the enemy. As fearlessly and ruthlessly as you may. Spare the innocent, spare the civilians … but kill the enemy.

They predicted…

The mythical “they”. I love those guys. When I’m losing an argument I find “them” pretty useful for undermining the opposition. It’s surprising how often no one asks me to name names. ;)

I made a prediction too,

I predict that when the dust settles, and despite the actual election results, all the major players in the interim government will still be there and the security situation will be about what it is now. This will be a replay of last summer when the Iraqi Governing Council renamed itself “the interim government”.

Long-term, I predict a Shiite dominated theocracy based on Sharia law.

What do you know. I’m right too. Though I’m not so high on being right about the situation that I start to believe it’s a good one.

I can think of better scenarios, but I can think of many worse.

Ahh, now we get down to where the rubber meets the road. And here’s where you’ll never get the Bush fans to admit the Iraq gambit failed: As long as the situation in Iraq doesn’t result in the annihilation of every living thing on the planet, they’re always going to say, “It could have been worse.”

Jack, at least, is honest enough to admit he “can think of better scenarios”. I’ll bet. In 2002, if Bush had told us he was going to spend over $200 billion and 12,000+ US casualties to replace Saddam with an Iran-style Islamist gvernment controlled by a Grand Ayatollah and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, we’d have tossed him out on his sorry ass.

While I’m sure he had good intentions, the fact is President Bush made one mistake and miscalculation after another. He was wrong about WMD. He was wrong about terrorist connections. He was wrong to believe the rest of the world would follow if he was resolved to attack. He was wrong to believe the operation wouldn’t need international support and legitimacy. He was wrong to believe the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers. He was wrong about the importance of securing Iraq. He was wrong about the strength and tenacity of the insurgency. He was wrong about the cost. He was wrong about the length of time US troops would be needed. He was wrong about how long it would take to rebuild infrastructure. He was outmaneuvered by Sistani because the occupation lacked international legitimacy. He was wrong about the type of government Iraqis would choose. He was wrong about the amount of support his pet exiles would have. He was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. At every juncture Bush displayed a complete lack of understanding of the domestic, international, and Iraqi political situations. He displayed a complete lack of understanding of the measures necessary to bring about those “better scenarios” Jack mentioned.

To quote John Kerry, “Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”

There is no way you can argue that another Iran-like Islamist country in the Middle East is better than a liberal democracy. It’s not even better than an “enlightened” authoritarian regime like China or Russia.

Is it the end of the world? No (with the caveat that Iraq is now a recruiting ground AND a live fire training ground for the next generation of anti-US terrorists who may acquire one of the loose nukes Bush is so casual about securing and slip it into New York Harbor on one of the 95% of containers that arrive uninspected). But based on any criteria put forth before this junket, the outcome can only be described as a failure.

Hey Chops. Email your American friends in Basra and ask them whether Sharia law is being enforced by the militias.

According to the article in my paper, female Muslim university students are being intimidated into covering their hair - one was even murdered for refusing. And Sadr’s militiamen recently raided a large university picnic where men and women were mingling. When some of the men later organized and protested to the local authorities, they were hunted down, arrested and beaten by Sadr’s militia.

Local officials downplayed the incidents. “What happened was insignificant compared to the other cases of disorder and violence in Basra,” says Mr. Al-Ebaadi [chief of the provincial council].

Here’s another article that mentions the incident,

Within half an hour, the fracas had ended. University officials said 15 students were seriously injured. The militiamen detained about 10 students, who were taken to the local office of the Sadr movement before being released that evening. By all accounts, police were present in force but did not intervene.

…In the Sadr movement’s office, Heidar Jabari acknowledged excesses but defended the action. “There was a mistake in our execution, but we had the right to intervene,” he said.

Jabari conceded that students were hurt and the beatings “went beyond what was legitimate.” But, he added, “They say freedom means they can do what they want. This is not freedom. Freedom does not mean you can transgress traditions.” He spoke calmly but with clerical sternness. “There are traditions and rules in an Eastern society that are different from a Western society. Every Iraqi has a right to act against these transgressions.”

Apparently the local government made conciliatory statements, but took no other action. Chops, I’d be curious to know what your American friends in Basra think about it.

Day for day I surf around in net to meet interesting people and international places. It’s great to see that it really works.

And when the US left a substantial part of the Iraqi Republican Guard intact, and encouraged the Shias that, if they revolted, the US would support them; and when the Shias rose, and the US turned its back, and let Saddam’s Guard slaughter the Shias by the tens of thousands, how does that fit into the official history?

It was a disgusting and cowardly thing to do, one of the saddest displays of US policy failures I’ve seen since leaving the Cuban revolutionaries out to die under the Kennedy administration. It’s also the reason I never thought that the Iraqis would ‘welcome us with open arms’ because I know I wouldn’t trust us until we proved that we were worthy. I’m not even sure we are yet after all of this either. But at least we are attempting to make things right even though I think some really stupid mistakes have been made.

But it doesn’t change history like you are suggesting. Since you are the one asserting this ‘alternate reason’ for not going into Baghdad in Gulf War I, could you at least show me one quote from one administration official or document that backs this up?

Jack
I have to agree with you here.
When the war started, the left was hoping for another Nam. Didn’t happen, no political gain to be had. On to the next step.
Post-war and the left only speaks of the negatives and never any positives. Its not as dire as they were hoping, no political gain yet. On to the next step.
Iraqi elections were supposed to be nothing but bloodshed and death. Didn’t happen, no political gain to be had. On to the next step.
Now its all about how it was all a big waste of time because “fundamentalist” now rule the country and Iraqi’s are worse off than before.

If this one isn’t “the one” that puts them back in power, they will just continue on with the next step.
Everything, especially war, takes time and in many cases you learn as you go. Highlighting everything negative while totally ignoring any good is nothing but politics as usual.

kctim, you’re just wrong. Nobody was “hoping for another Nam,” and if we ever meet, don’t say that to my face. Same for the rest of that crap.

You can argue that an Islamist government in Iraq is better than Saddam Hussein, but don’t try to tell me either one of those choices is a good one.

Nobody was “hoping for another Nam,”

Nobody? That’s a pretty far reaching statement…

I daresay that some people were hoping for just such a result, especially before the election, in order to gain political power.

I’m not nieve enough to think that everyone was, or all that oppose the war were. That would be just plain partisan. But I’m also not nieve enough to think that ‘nobody’ was either.

I’m not arguing that an islamist govt is better or not or whether Bush was right or wrong. I am saying its better for US to see what happens than it is to sit here and keep saying how terrible and wrong everything is while ignoring any and all success.

So your saying you never thought or heard a quote like this:
“You know, if Iraq turns into another Vietnam, we will definetly beat Bush in Nov.”
I heard something like that at every rally I attended.

All that “crap” I wrote is a fact. Using the word “hoping” may have been wrong, but that does not change what the left was saying and they were only saying it for political gain.
You can take every event and the left was “predicting” doom. When it turned out not to be as bad as they thought, they went onto the next event and started it all again, over and over.

You know very well that the events that occurred and the lefts predictions, not hopes for most, of doom for each one happened like I outlined aboved. It was and is on every channel and on here.
Its like the left feels if they keep on being negative all the time, it will pay off for them in the next elections.

Also, I would love to meet with others on here for a few beers and have a good time. But I would still stand behind what I said.

Much better said Rhinehold, thanks.

Using the word “hoping” may have been wrong

Bingo! Thanks for the apology kctim. Buy the first round, and I accept it. :)

Just out of curiosity, you guys seem unable to name names when you make unthinking, irresponsible accusations like that. Were you thinking of the leader of the mythical fantasy world of “the left”, Barbara Streisand? Perhaps you were thinking of it’s intellectual elite: Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman. C’mon, name some names. Otherwise you’re just making an annoying noise.

BTW, I notice none of you are disputing the fact that the United States replaced Saddam Hussein with an Islamist government based on repressive Sharia law. It looks like you’re just lashing out because you know it’s true, but haven’t dealt with the reality yet.

I’d love to have someone convince me I’m wrong. I really don’t want to be right about this. Chops, what do you’re buddies in Basra have to say about it?

kctim wrote:

All that “crap” I wrote is a fact. Using the word “hoping” may have been wrong, but that does not change what the left was saying and they were only saying it for political gain.

Seeing that you’ve obvious established a precedent here kctim, can I now offer up as a ‘fact’, a vile, hateful quote from Ann Coulter (with a source link!), and indict the Right as a whole for believing and saying the exact same thing?

What is obviously clear about the future of Iraq’s new government, the Bush administration will accept any reasonably, stable version (restrictive elements included) - and those from the Right here will still call it a triumph of ‘democracy’. And, like Bush’s Social Security Reform Plan, it looks nothing like the real thing.

AP
“you guys seem unable to name names”

I do not really watch TV AP and am not really current on celebrity news.
What I wrote was based on personal experience, and not from just one person or group.
As I said, I was not being pro or con about what is happening over in Iraq, I am in agreement with Jack in that I believe these things take time.

Bert
You can offer (and you have many times) that the right is just as bad in the things that are done and said. I totally agree with you. I am not a lefty or righty. Hell, I even visit your site and AP’s site every now and again so I can’t be that bad :)

I love information. I just choose to see the pro’s and cons of BOTH sides.

kctim:

I am sure when the attack on Iran starts, you can see the pros and cons for THAT.

[crickets]

I don’t know, Aldous. After losing all his credibility on Iraq, Iran would have to do something pretty obviously a threat before anyone would let Bush invade. Though recruiting another 440 suicide bombers is a good step in that direction.

Yes I will, but I won’t base my position on who is in charge.