CJ,

I hope you are wrong. Moroever, I think it is too soon to be so pessimistic. I am the first one to admit that back in 2002-early 2003, I was wrong in thinking that democritization of Iraq would be a relatively straight-forward transition. I was undoubtedly lulled into this thought by the relative ease of our military and political success in Afghanistan in late 2001. So, yes, things have been far more difficult and bloody than I had expected and hoped. But even with all that, I am still somewhat hopeful that we can do better than merely having Iraq as a stable US ally (which is not a bad thing, of course). I am still hopeul that we can have a functioning quasi-secular democracy in Iraq — something along the lines of Turkey.

But that goal is unquestionably a ways off. My immediate concern about Iraq is keeping it from becoming a sanctuary for Al Qaeda in the post-Saddam era. Fortunately, we see that the Bush/Petraeus surge is (so far) succeeding in defeating AQI and that the Iraqi people (including Sunnis) are now rejecting and turning against Al Qaeda in Iraq. That is a great success. We should not abandon that strategy now thta it is finally paying remarkable dividends and AQI is on the run.

I hope I get to see it.
And if so, the celebration will be unending.

Comment by Exley — November 25, 2007 @ 1:05 am

Superb projection from a deluded, ignorant fool. Best one yet, Exlax, fact-free as usual.

nIGHTY NIGHT! I enjoy our little chats also, although I think you’re concerns are a bit misguided at times, you at least thinking about things, although perphaps a bit more myopically than one would hope.

my theory about iraq is this… its going to end up ugly and bad for us, eventually, one way or another, no matter what we do..just as trying to bring democracy to ANY country with a strong fundamentalist undercurrent would have a similarly bad outcome… best case scenario for us is that Iran has a stable ally. thats the BEST possible outcome, in my opinion. I think we should at some point just acknowledge there will be no happy outcome for this and not wasting our blood and treasure doing so.

“no law shall contradict islam”…. yes, a document that contains this as one of the first lines is certainly keeping us away from fundamentalism!

>I would believe that Iraq’s is the most tolerant and protective of religious >diversity and

would it surprise you to know that there are more jews is Iran than in any other country in the middle east other than Turkey (and obviouslY, Isreal)

Every time you decide what I’m thinking or saying, I’m flagging you as abusive. Maybe others are as well. Keep it up, you’ll disappear from here.

It’s late and it’s time for me to hit the hay. I enjoyed the discussion. I will check in tomorrow to read your response. You raise very good points. The danger of Iraq becoming a radical Islamic regime is a real one. If that were to happen, it would be a disaster. The question now is what is the best way to prevent that from happening. One thing I am pretty certain about — Withdrawing U.S. troops now just as the country is seemingly beginning to stabilize is not the best way to do it.

Until tomorrow. Good night.

and that, my dear sir, is exactly why reagan sold hussian gas and weapons.
if you allow majority to rule, and there is a strong undercurrent of fundamentalism in the society, there is no way an occupying army can to “keep it to a minimum”…I daresay it must come from within

Stop putting words in my mouth, you idiot.

its not a large leap at all. if you look at how other middle eastern governments keep a tight lid on the political power of religious groups, you
will see a deep and pervasive concern at very high levels of government that fundamentalism poses a great political danger to them. why do you think saddam was so brutal toward them? just so he could be mean?

> (election, which by the way,
> never would havetaken place unless Saddam had
> been deposed),

why do you assume elections are always whats best? were the elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine a good thing? I beleive that democracy is NOT a good thing in cultures where fundamentalist religions

However, it is a large leap to say that because religious parties did well in Iraqi elections (election, which by the way, never would havetaken place unless Saddam had been deposed), Iraq is on its way to becoming a theocracy.

what “the majority” wants is irrevant. im sure the majority of iraqis no more advocate mass killing than the majority of germans did. all that matters is who the majority elects and what those people do with thier power. also, religious parties often have more power than thier numbers would indicate, because they are a vocal minority who often uses violence to silence thier dissent.

1. I am glad we agree that Zooey’s claim that leaving Iraq in the hands of a Taliban-like theocracy would help women’s rights was ill-conceived. On that, we agree,

2. I never said American soldiers can stop fundamentalism from taking over at the ballot box. As I said, Islam permeates the culture and politics of the Middle East. Thus, it is unlikely that there would be no Islamic influence in even a democratic Iraq. The key is to keep that influence to a minimum and to such a degree that it does not manifest itself in anti-Americanism that threatens U.S. security in the long-run. That is not a military objective or function. That is a diplomatic, legal function (which needs to be supported by militarily-maintained security). The new Iraqi constitution is a step in that direction. It protects religious freedom and diversity. While I am hardly an expert on constitutions in Islamic nations, I would believe that Iraq’s is the most tolerant and protective of religious diversity and seeks to check and prevent the establishment of a radical Islamic theocracy in Iraq

i never said they havnt. i just said that they wont try to use force against the militias in basra, because the militias in basra are essentially a wing of the government..

Are you actually claiming that the vast majority of Iraqi cviliains are really violent radical Islamic fundamentalists at heart? That is too broad a statement. Clearly Islam permeates the culture in Iraq, including politics, as it does throughout the Arab world (and that is, I agree, a problem). However, it is a large leap to say that because religious parties did well in Iraqi elections (election, which by the way, never would havetaken place unless Saddam had been deposed), Iraq is on its way to becoming a theocracy.

or that they’d get along just because they were “all muslims”! hahahaha

Iran’s leader claims gays don’t exist. The most powerful political figure in Iraq advocates killing gays. Yeah it doesnt logically follow at all..

and you havent even tried to defend your equally ill conceived claim that american soldiers can do anything to stop fundamentalism from taking over via the ballot box…. Sistani is the Shia pope..Sistani is the guy we tiptoe around and try to avoid pissing off.. Sistani is a kingmaker in iraq.. and he advocates killing gays…

you DO know why Reagan and Rummy were once so fond of saddam, right?
they wernt a fan of democracy in iraq back then, is why..

Dismissed.

Sadr called a truce because of some very public violence his followers were blamed for, where some 50 people got killed, had nothing to do with any miltary action being taken against him. Also, I’m sure he got an “aide package” much like the sunni chieftans did. His militia was faught to a standstill by the american government several years ago, that didnt start him from formenting trouble later again, did it?

>The vas t majority of Iraq is Shiite, but only a small minority of those are >radical fundamentalists like Sadr.

wrong. cite something that backs up that assertion. can you remind us how well any secular parties like Allawis have done in elections. like I said, Sistani is much more politically powerful than Sadr, and he openly advocates killing homosexuals. are these the kinds of beliefs you dont consider to be “fundamentalists”