Iraq eases restrictions on Baath party members.
Iraq eases restrictions on Baath party members.
Iraq’s parliament met “one of the main political benchmarks set by the United States” today, passing a law “to ease restrictions on mostly Sunni Arab members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party returning to public life.” Reuters reports:
“The law has been passed. We see it as a very good sign of progress and it will greatly benefit Baathists. It was passed smoothly and opposition was small,” said Rasheed al-Azzawi, a Sunni member of the committee which helped modify some of the language of the law.
The Accountability and Justice bill replaces the De-Baathification law, which Sunnis have long complained amounted to collective punishment against their sect.
The new law will allow thousands of former party members to apply for reinstatement in the civil service and military, while pensions will be given to a smaller group of more senior members still banned from public life.
As recently as last month, when the bill came up for discussion, it “was met with angry protests from Shiite lawmakers.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Brace yourselves for a continuance of the blood bath….
January 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pmMISSION ACOMPLISHED TAKE 4879…
January 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pmThis is political progress that would not have been possible without the success of the Bush-Petraeus surge. The Iraqis need to do more on the political front to cement the military success of the surge, but this is a very good sign.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmThis whole Sunni-Shiite dispute makes absolutely no sense. I know that the basic disagreement is over control of the religion. But so what? There’s are lots of different versions of Christianity, and they aren’t going around trying to kill each other. Why can’t Muslims just accept that there are two paths one can follow? Would Mohammed have wanted his followers to break into 1300-year bloody conflict just to see who can claim the right to head the “religion of peace” that he started? Why don’t they just do what Christians (and othe religions) do and agree to disagree? So many people have died for such a stupid reason.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pmA few years late
January 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pmComment by Exley — January 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
ex-lax, seven years later, a trillion dollars and over 3,000 dead troops for “a very good sign”…?
you are a neo-conservative.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pmThis is political progress that would not have been possible without the success of the Bush-Petraeus surge.
Comment by Exley — January 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Interesting point Exley, but exactly WHY could this not have happened without the surge?
What was stopping Iraqi lawmakers from passing this law that the surge eliminated?
January 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pmIraq eases restrictions on Baath party members.
Oh good. They must have finally got the plumbing fixed.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pmWhy don’t they just do what Christians (and othe religions) do and agree to disagree? So many people have died for such a stupid reason.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 12, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Couldn’t agree more. However, if you look at where Christianity was 1400 years after its inception, sectarian blood letting was the rule of the day, and it would get much worse in the 3 centuries to follow in religious wars fought between Catholic and Protestant. The Enlightenment seperated Church from State, and it took another 200 years before inter-Christian sectarian bigotry signifigantly faded. The Muslim world needs its own Enlightenment, but historic forces like that are beyond the ability of individuals to truly control.
When Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi and banned Baathists from government, he also alienated tribal sheiks, saying tribes were anti-democratic. The damage that man’s policies have done is incalculable.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pmWhat was stopping Iraqi lawmakers from passing this law that the surge eliminated?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 12, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Only guessing, but the surge was a sign to the Iraqis that we weren’t leaving. The domestic US politics of 05-06 led the armed militias of the political parties to believe they could drive us out; AQI kept up the steady drumbeat of daily bloodbaths, as did Sadrs Mahdi Army. When it looked like we were going to stay and stay big, the military arms of the political parties decided to cut a deal with us; part of it was knocking off their own insurgent activities, and part of it was joining us against AQI.
That is a guess, mind you, but I think it holds water.
What the future holds no one can say, but if this new political situation is able to sustain itself, Iraq has a shot at becoming a functioning state. Not only is that good for us and the Iraqis, it averts the nightmare scenario of Iraq becoming like Afghanistan in the 90’s.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pmThis whole Sunni-Shiite dispute makes absolutely no sense. I know that the basic disagreement is over control of the religion. But so what? There’s are lots of different versions of Christianity, and they aren’t going around trying to kill each other. Why can’t Muslims just accept that there are two paths one can follow? Would Mohammed have wanted his followers to break into 1300-year bloody conflict just to see who can claim the right to head the “religion of peace†that he started? Why don’t they just do what Christians (and othe religions) do and agree to disagree? So many people have died for such a stupid reason.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 12, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I think the answer to that question, Wayne, is that the same divisions were settled by Christians in a very definite fashion: they killed the heretics early on. What we see as divisions in Christianity now are almost entirely branches of one Church; even the clear distinction between Rome and the Orthodox churches happened fairly late. The real parallels to the Sunni/Shi’ite separation were Christians who, for instance, believed that Jesus was mortal. Those heretics and the churches they would have founded were simply snuffed out.
In Iraq the division has been reinforced by other cultural elements. Under the Ottomans, for instance, the bureaucracy was filled with urban (or urbanish) Sunnis, who subsequently served the same function for the British and were thus in a natural position to take control of the government after the British were gone. The Shi’ites were largely tribal and nomadic and would have nothing to do with the Ottomans or the British and therefore at a huge disadvantage after independence. The division has thus been reinforced by economics and simple issues of power.
And, hell, humans are completely irrational on matters of religion. The obvious counter to your comment is Ireland.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm#4 Wayne,
Well-said…Couldn’t agree with you more…..But (and I hate to tell you this, Wayne), you DO sould a lot like somebody else who expressed a similar sentiment:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/09/oreilly-iraq-crazy/
:)
Five weeks until pitchers and catchers report to Port St. Lucie, Wayne!
January 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pmBaseball! My only real regret for 2008 is that I’m not going to be able to make a hoped-for trip to NYC in my last chance to visit Shea and Yankee Stadium. Unless Exley wants to take up a collection . . .
January 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pmGummitch,
I have long proposed a ThinkProgress-Goes-To-Shea-and-Yankee-Stadium gathering led by the Schneiders. I was actually hoping TP would organize something!
You really should try to see that crappy but loveable dump Shea and the (I must grudgingly admit) legendary Yankee Stadium.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm#7 Ralph,
I think Keltoi hit on the basic points. It would have been very difficult for Sunni and Shiite lawmakers to compromise on this type of legislation while Al Qaeda and other Sunni militants were setting off car bombs in Shiite neighborhoods and Shiite “militias” were kidnapping and murdering people in Sunni neighborhoods. The tensions and anger between the two sects did not lend itself to political compromise. The surge, with its concomitant dramatic reduction in violence in Iraq, has provided “breathing room,” allowing Iraqi lawmakers to take a step back and start working together on political issues that were helping drive the violence.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmI have to make a trip to SoCal this year and I fear that will exhaust the travel budget (last April’s trip to the UK drained it). I will be getting to games in two ballparks, though, just not legendary parks.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pmToo bad, Gummitch….But I am sure games at (I assume) Dodger Stadium and Angels Stadium are pretty nice too.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pmPetco and Angel. Dodgers, unfortunately, on the road . . . in San Diego, at Petco. And it’s the Braves v Angels (June).
January 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pmOh, thank GOODNESS! This couldn’t have come at a BETTER TIME!
Like every one of Bush’s decisions (and no one can tell me that this decision wasn’t made with the tacit albeit disgruntled approval of George W.), it has come at PRECISELY THE PERFECT TIME to insure peace and the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East!
What–you’re saying that making this decision FIVE YEARS TOO LATE is bad timing? Why do you hate America?
January 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pmStill sounds good, Gummitch.
The new Yankee Stadium is right next to the current stadium and it won’t look much different, so if you ever get to it, you’ll still get the same feeling.
The new Mets Stadium (to be called “Citi Field,” much to Wayne’s consternation) will also be in the same location as Shea, but the stadium will be VASTLY different (which is not a bad thing).
January 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pmThis is political progress that would not have been possible without the success of the Bush-Petraeus surge. The Iraqis need to do more on the political front to cement the military success of the surge, but this is a very good sign.
Comment by Exley — January 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
This is political gameplaying that would not have been necessary but for the murderous, thoughtless, incompetent dick-waving of the worst American presiedent in history. Your whitewash attempts are but weak jokes, at the expense of the troops and taxpayers.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pmSo they take out Saddam and his bloodthirsty party…then some years later, US supports them? Huh?
January 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pmJuan,
From the Associated Press:
“The draft law approved Saturday is not a blanket approval for all former Baathists to take government jobs.
The law will allow low-ranking Baathists not involved in past crimes against Iraqis to go back to their jobs. High-ranking Baathists will be sent to compulsory retirement and those involved in crimes will stand trial, though their families will still have the right to pension.
The Baathists who were members in Saddam’s security agencies must retire — except for members of Fidayeen Saddam, a feared militia formed by Saddam’s eldest son, Oday. They will be entitled to nothing.”
January 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pmWhat a joke.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:51 pmSo we went from “never negotiating with terrorists” to paying them a $300.00 a month stipend to not shoot at US troops.
Blowback strategy courtesy of George W. Bush.
-GSD
January 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pmMcLean’s magazine, from Canada, says the US has become Saddam.
Allying with the Sunnis against the Shiites…..
Notice Bush’s tour of dictatorships and potentates this week.
-GSD
January 12th, 2008 at 1:55 pm“The more things change the more they stay the same”.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pmGrownups and non-Republicans know what that means.
Five weeks until pitchers and catchers report to Port St. Lucie, Wayne!
Comment by Exley — January 12, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Let me guess — you’re catching.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pmZooey, you made practically the same joke with Wayne last week….You need new material!!
January 12th, 2008 at 2:02 pmSo they take out Saddam and his bloodthirsty party…then some years later, US supports them? Huh?
Comment by Juan C. — January 12, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Low level members of the Nazi party were allowed back into German government after WW II, and that seemed to work out.
Blanket de-Baathification was stupid, just like disbanding the army and trying to replace their national flag with something that resembled Israel’s and declaring Tribes no longer existed when that was the basis of society.
Many, many idiotic mistakes were made by the Bush Admin that resulted in unnecessary death and suffering. I have never said otherwise. But we are where we are in Iraq – immediate withdrawal would not make things better for us or them.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pmWhy do Exley and Keltoi support negotiating with terrrristss?
-GSD
January 12th, 2008 at 2:18 pmBut we are where we are in Iraq – immediate withdrawal would not make things better for us or them.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
What I’m pointing out is the hypocrisy of the US.
First, Saddam’s regime was a threat to the world (sic), just like Iran’s is now. Of course, any pre-hominid knows that was bull.
Members of the Baath party were relentless killers and blah, blah, blah. Right? According to that description, the US invades Iraq violating the Charter of the UN and any international law by launching Shock and Awe regardless of civilian lives.
So, Iraqis were so frightened and opressed by Saddam that they couldn’t do something then, but they can blow up things now, right?
Now, after 4 years of a catastrophic invasion that has left millions of people out of their homes and killed thousands and thousands, they are “easing restrictions” for members of a party that according to the US back then, they were a threat to the world? What for? This is beyond stupid, and it shows that there was not a clear plan after the invasion.
Now, immediate withdrawal? Do you happen to see the size of the US embassy in Baghdad? Or the 14 permanent bases? Yeah, immediate withdrawal…whatever.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pmWhy do Exley and Keltoi support negotiating with terrrristss?
-GSD
Comment by GSD
I remember Exley telling me something about the lesser of two evils. Talks volumes about the moral convictions of persons who think that way.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pmimmediate withdrawal would not make things better for us or them.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
of course it would. What an idiotic thing to say. How many dead Aemricans is enough for your psychos?
January 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pmAn Immediate withdrawal is IMPOSSIBLE. What progressive anti-war Americans want is a DATE CERTAIN TIMETABLE for TOTAL WITHDRAWAL, and a well thought out, orderly, and safe plan to accomplish it.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pmYou pack your things, gather some survival tools, food and leave all the equipment, vehicles and weapons in order to pay in some minimum way the Iraqis.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pmFrom Lawrence Korb on last night’s NewsHour:
“These Sunni tribes, we could have had this arrangement with them two years ago. We turned it down because they wouldn’t pledge loyalty to the central government. We took it this time, even though they didn’t pledge loyalty. We’re creating a long-term problem for that government, and possibly ourselves.”
This Arrangement is what has exposed Al Qaeda to American Firepower and brought down the violence in Iraq.
How many car bomb and IED attacks could have been avoided in those TWO YEARS.??? Bush’s on the job training is costing America dearly!
January 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pmWell, Exley, the drop in violence was not due to a troop surge. What happened was Sadr, voluntarily, made a ceasefire to remove infiltrators. The US began paying both sides to fight al Qaeda and trhe number of airstrikes increased seven fold.
The troop increase was basically a troop rotation. Even though this legislation is good, realistically Baghdad controls little of the country.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pmLet’s keep Baptists and Catholics out of government.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pmThis is beyond stupid, and it shows that there was not a clear plan after the invasion.
Now, immediate withdrawal? Do you happen to see the size of the US embassy in Baghdad? Or the 14 permanent bases? Yeah, immediate withdrawal…whatever.
Comment by Juan C. — January 12, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
No argument with anything you said. It is hypocritical. The intial mistake was focussing so much – in public – on the WMDs and not on the wider geopolitical issue of Saddam and Sons ruling Iraq for the rest of forever.
We are not leaving anytime soon. This is bad because things will remain tough there for years to come. It is good because it means things won’t get infinitely worse and force us to go back under even worse conditions.
I hope Obama wins in 08. He is the only person who would emerge with a mandate to do some crazy diplomatic thing like fly to Iran in person and re-open our embassy there. Chris Hitchens wrote an article about that a year ago, but it was Bush he saw doing it – fat chance.
Sometimes I manage to summon a glimmer of hope for Iraq. The story this thread inspired is a good thing. Step by step walk the thousand mile road.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pmI think Keltoi hit on the basic points. It would have been very difficult for Sunni and Shiite lawmakers to compromise on this type of legislation while Al Qaeda and other Sunni militants were setting off car bombs in Shiite neighborhoods and Shiite “militias†were kidnapping and murdering people in Sunni neighborhoods.
Comment by Exley
What?!?! Set down the glass of Kool-Aid and back away. Now, turn off Fox News, with it’s latest report on the Spears sisters and read this report from the BBC.
Iraq bombs hit Sunni stronghold
A double bombing in Baghdad has killed at least 14 people, including the head of a US-backed armed group which fights al-Qaeda in Sunni Muslim areas.
Police say a suicide bomber struck at the entrance of the Sunni Endowment, or Waqf, office in Adhamiya district.
A second suicide attacker set off a car bomb a few metres away as people fled from the scene of the first explosion.
Riyadh Samarrai, leader of the Adhamiya Awakening group, also a Waqf employee, was killed along with his son.
The attacker is believed to be from among the more hardline Sunni insurgents who do not want reconciliation in Iraq, the BBC’s Humphrey Hawksley reports.
Other bombs killed at least five people in Baghdad on Monday.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pmYou pack your things, gather some survival tools, food and leave all the equipment, vehicles and weapons in order to pay in some minimum way the Iraqis.
Comment by Juan C. — January 12, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
You describe a rout by a defeated force, Juan. Not only will it not happen, it shouldn’t happen and would be a disaster if it did.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pmComment by shoeless — January 12, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Defeating a force who is sucidal and willing to deliberately target innocent civillians as their primary mission is very difficult. Not only are they willing to die, they WANT to die. No one said it is over, not even close.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pmKeltoi this is about freeing the Iraqi people not defeating them.
Sure there are some AL Qaeda folks that must be dealt with but by and large the p[roblem is low level civil/religious war between the shia and the sunni with us as referees.
We should stop this talk of winning what is not really a war with Iraqs people.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pmThe insurgents, as I have posted before, come mainly from countries that are allied with the US, we must pressure those countries to stop allowing insurgents to cross into Iraq.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm” The surge, with its concomitant dramatic reduction in violence in Iraq, has provided “breathing room,†allowing Iraqi lawmakers to take a step back and start working together on political issues that were helping drive the violence.”
Comment by Exley —
And the tribal emnities – and vendettas – continue unabated.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pmYou describe a rout by a defeated force, Juan. Not only will it not happen, it shouldn’t happen and would be a disaster if it did.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Exactly, the US invaded a country that never attacked the US. US broke the law. You ALREADY lost in the eyes of the world. And you have problems controlling the area around the Green Zone. There are bombings almost every day, Turkey’s forces are invading Iraq every now and then… you could not win a war unless you have a strong support from the people INSIDE, but as we have seen, people don’t like military foreign forces walking their neighborhoods.
So it is important to quit the debate about senseless terms like victory and focus on how you repair the damage in a broken country.
Now, I ask you, what disaster are you talking about? The already thousands of civilians killed or millions displaced?
January 12th, 2008 at 3:15 pmComment by Exley — January 12, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
No, Exley. I do not sound at all like that. How very inaccurate of you. I have to go now. Do enjoy the playoffs. The NY Giants will defeat the Dallas Cowboys.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pmConyers does NOT care about Wexler’s Petition to start Cheney impeachment hearings!
Read the transcript from Democracy Now.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/from-democracy-now-interview-with-conyers-he-doesnt-care-about-wexlers-petition/
View the video of his speech from September.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/john-conyers-on-the-topic-of-impeachment/
He will NOT allow impeachment hearings to take place.
Conyers knows that Pelosi will undercut the efforts of impeachment rather than helping to build a bi-partisan coalition to impeach.
Conyers knows that Pelosi will again be Speaker of the House next year and she will take him off the Judiciary Committee if he goes against her wishes. It’s a “lose-lose†for him and impeachment.
Let’s help him and the rest of the members of the House of Representatives by removing an obstructionist Speaker. It can be done and must be done to start the impeachment process.
http://www.petitiononline.com/everyman/petition.html
January 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pmA Fahat in the Baath party would only produce a few bubbles.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:23 pmA Shiite in the Baath party would be a real mess.
Now, I ask you, what disaster are you talking about? The already thousands of civilians killed or millions displaced?
Comment by Juan C. — January 12, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
It would be worse if we left. Then you would have full fledged civil war as in Antietam style pitched battles in the streets – think Lebanon in the 70’s, or SE Asia after the US pulled out.
We DO need to leave, but not entirely and certainly not with only our “survival tools” in hand. Honestly, think what would come next.
As far as winning or losing, it is a semantic battle with no point. Are we “winning” in Kosovo? Violence is at a minimum, so I guess so. I don’t think anyone realistically thought the surge would quell violence and there would be immediate kum-bay-yaaing between Shiite and Sunni. Again, today’s news is a baby step toward recouncilliation, that is good.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pmA Fahat in the Baath party would only produce a few bubbles.
A Shiite in the Baath party would be a real mess.
Comment by Clumberfeet — January 12, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
You didn’t….
January 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pmIt would be worse if we left. Then you would have full fledged civil war as in Antietam style pitched battles in the streets – think Lebanon in the 70’s, or SE Asia after the US pulled out.
Who knows what would happen if we leave but if Anbar and Basra are any indication, leaving would be a good thing.
We DO need to leave, but not entirely and certainly not with only our “survival tools†in hand. Honestly, think what would come next.
It’s up to the Iraqis to decide what comes next.
As far as winning or losing, it is a semantic battle with no point. Are we “winning†in Kosovo? Violence is at a minimum, so I guess so. I don’t think anyone realistically thought the surge would quell violence and there would be immediate kum-bay-yaaing between Shiite and Sunni. Again, today’s news is a baby step toward recouncilliation, that is good.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
What’s left to do in Iraq has nothing to do with us whatsoever. Either the Iraqis form some sort of union or continue warring. It’s up to them, not us. We have no business being in their country.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pmWhat’s left to do in Iraq has nothing to do with us whatsoever. Either the Iraqis form some sort of union or continue warring. It’s up to them, not us. We have no business being in their country.
Comment by Nat — January 12, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
I guess we disagree, then. I respect anyone who says we should have never gone there in the first place, and your statement above is a natural outgrowth of that position. But we are there. To use Powells phrase, “we broke it, we bought it.”
Staying is hard, leaving would be harder, and letting things go to complete hell and just watching it happen would be hardest of all.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pmI guess we disagree, then. I respect anyone who says we should have never gone there in the first place, and your statement above is a natural outgrowth of that position. But we are there. To use Powells phrase, “we broke it, we bought it.â€
The only way we can fix it is if we try Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest as war criminals and hand over their fortunes to the Iraqis.
Staying is hard, leaving would be harder, and letting things go to complete hell and just watching it happen would be hardest of all.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Most of the Iraqis resent our presence there so leaving would be easy.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pmand letting things go to complete hell and just watching it happen would be hardest of all.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
That’s a stupid, vile, racist assumption. Your typical American exceptionalistic viewpoint has made you stupid and blind.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pmAgain, today’s news is a baby step toward recouncilliation, that is good. Comment by Keltoi at Night
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#Monarchy_and_republic
Mayhaps you forget the history of Iraq?
January 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pmStaying is hard, leaving would be harder, and letting things go to complete hell and just watching it happen would be hardest of all.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Bush Sr did just that. I say we need to redeploy to the borders to stop insurgents and let the Iraqi people, who want us to leave, hash it out. We would still be in the area to help when needed.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pmBush Sr did just that. I say we need to redeploy to the borders to stop insurgents and let the Iraqi people, who want us to leave, hash it out. We would still be in the area to help when needed.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 12, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
I think something like that will happen eventually.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pmI think something like that will happen eventually.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
I concur.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pmMayhaps you forget the history of Iraq?
Comment by Xisithrus — January 12, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
No….I looked at the rather large site, but I am pretty up on my history. What is your point? There has never been peace there and therefore there never can be unless enforced with an iron fist? I refer you to LP’s screed at #56.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:53 pmThere has never been peace there and therefore there never can be unless enforced with an iron fist?
Actually just the opposite, an iron fist has not worked there.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pmActually just the opposite, an iron fist has not worked there.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 12, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Well, it was “peaceful” under Saddam, unless he was invading a neighbor. There is often a lot of nostalgia on the Left for the days of Saddam.
There was a brief period of peace under the Republic which fell victim to the hard ball politics of the Cold War….perhaps, years from now – and hopefully less than a million years! – we can look at a restored democracy in Iraq and feel like we’ve paid that debt.
I think we basically agree, X.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pmI think we basically agree, X.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
We do, semantics aside.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:08 pmThere is often a lot of nostalgia on the Left for the days of Saddam.
This is one of the semantics.
There is not any nostalgia for Saddam that I know of. Saddam was a problem, but not a problem of terrorism. IE the freedom operation in Iraq undermines the war on terror. Saddam was going nowhere and could have waited to be dealt with.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pmYou pack your things, gather some survival tools, food and leave all the equipment, vehicles and weapons in order to pay in some minimum way the Iraqis.
Comment by Juan C. @ 2:51 pm
this is as far as i’ve read, so far…
probably some responses to juans’ comment, but here is mine…
you forgot one very important thing, juan – apologize… … profusely…
January 12th, 2008 at 5:34 pmThere is a lot of nostalgia for the days before the Bush-led USA became the world’s #1 terrorist nation, invaded an innocent country, adopted torture as policy, threw out the Constitution and Geneva Accords, and crowned an idiot as king. The fact that some of those days were when Saddam was leading Iraq is a bullshit rightard canard. Wingnuts are good at avoiding the solution, and at framing the problem so that it takes the focus and attention off the massive failures of their leaders, but I’m not falling for it. Keltoi is a terrorist supporter and an enabler of encroaching fascism. And staying in the area to “help” is ridiculous on its face. Help what, a more complete genocide?
January 12th, 2008 at 5:42 pmNeo-Conservatives and other 28%ers should enlist to help in this cause they think is so worthy of our national treasure. They are not good for anything else and they have been wrong for so long and about everything.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm“It would be worse if we left. Then you would have full fledged civil war as in Antietam style pitched battles in the streets – think Lebanon in the 70’s, or SE Asia after the US pulled out.”
Comment by Keltoi at Night
More bullshit. The cities have become a patchwork of tribal/ethnic/religious enclaves. If we withdrew, there wouldn’t be anything like an Antietam occuring. More likely, they would further reinforce their communities, and seek to make deals with other enclaves to procure the stuff they need for survival. Our being there is preventing a hard-fought, rough-scrabble diplomacy (and true democracy) from evolving – that is the best hope for the country, as it will be a democracy the people work out for themselves, without the influence of an foreign occupier.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:40 pmyou all really must read this article i found in Smithonian magazine -
Special issue: 37 UNDER 36, America’s Young Innovators in the Arts and Sciences…
it brings together many of your good ideas here…
i’ve seen REZA ASLAN on the DAILY SHOW and he was great…
but this part of the smithsonian interview stood out for me:
S – You have a new book coming out in 2008, How to Win a Cosmic War. What is a cosmic war?
Well, the term “cosmic war” is something that was created by my mentor, [University of California at Santa Barbara sociologist] Mark Juergensmeyer. Many religiously inspired terrorists, confronted with a conflict that cannot be won in any real or measurable terms, recast the conflict into cosmic terms, so that they’re not fighting a real war; they’re fighting an imaginary war that’s actually taking place in heaven, not between nations or armies, but between angels of good and demons of evil. That’s the kind of conflict that the jihadists are fighting. And the reason that we are doing such a poor job of counteracting the jihadists’ mentality is that we’re fighting the exact same unwinnable conflict. The way you win a cosmic war is by refusing to fight in one.
S – This conflict exists in the real world too. How should we define it?
We define it as a criminal investigation of people that need to be brought to justice. You can’t win a battle against an idea with guns and bombs, you have to win it with words. Words become the greatest tools. The rhetoric that we have been using to define this conflict, this religiously charged, us versus them rhetoric, has made victory a more distant prospect. The way that we are talking about this conflict, as though the jihadists have it in their power to bring down human civilization as we know it, does nothing more than validate the jihadists’ cause and provide them with the illusion of power.
… amazing…
January 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pm>the success of the Bush-Petraeus surge.
the “surge” is and was all about bribing al queda in iraq , and those who gave them material support, with between, what would be, in american buying power between 30,000 and 3 billion dollars EACH. im pretty convinced that if every petty thug in america were offered 30,000 $ to be part of a “neighborhood watch” and gang leaders were made into millionaires, with our tax money, we’d have alot less crime. what happens when the money runs out?
January 12th, 2008 at 6:46 pmi only have to wonder how much money the shiia lawmakers were offered to give the ok to this benchmark. lets face it Exley, you’re never going to put a timeline or a maximum dollar amount on how long our patience should be in iraq. you’ll keep using petty pieces of legislaton like this to justify us staying and bribing al queda and thier allies not to attack us, no matter how long goes by or how many of our tax dollars go to peope with american blood on their hands. if there are truly time or dollar limits to your patience in iraq, then please describe them. thanks
and letting things go to complete hell and just watching it happen would be hardest of all.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
… racist assumption … typical American exceptionalistic viewpoint …
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 12, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
it’s so true… i’ve realized that the righties must have seen only the pictures of desert and caves, never the cities and neighborhoods…
the bombs from USA have made the country a wasteland…
it’s too bad the beauty of the country wasn’t documented widely before all the destruction… surely it was, somewhere…
i found this photo compilation on the youtube… Beautiful Iran…
January 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pmcheck it out, before it is gone also:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y9oIZpFFyIY
the bombs from USA have made the country a wasteland…
it’s too bad the beauty of the country wasn’t documented widely before all the destruction… surely it was, somewhere…
i found this photo compilation on the youtube… Beautiful Iran…
check it out, before it is gone also:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y9oIZpFFyIY
Comment by katy — January 12, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Ah, katy. Have you ever heard of the Marsh Arabs? One of the most ancient cultures on Earth – before Saddam set out to destroy them by damning the Tigris-Euprhates confluence as it flows to the Persian gulf in an act of environmental genocide. Their plight was widely documented – as has the resurgence of their wetlands since Saddam was toppled courtesy of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Nothing in Mesopotamia is simple or easy – the bombs of the USA did not make the place a wasteland.
If you think I am a “rightie” who doesn’t know the difference between downtown Bagdhad and Tora Bora, you are wrong. Before the Mongols sacked the city c. 1256 AD Bagdhad was a jewel of architecture and learning; the city had few rivals during its time in all the world. Washington DC was a swamp at the time and London a miserable berg of mud streets and open sewers.
Under Saddam, Iraq was a police state, a terror state, a tribute to the steaming evil of Stalinism with an Arab flavor. Today, it teeters on the brink of becoming Beirut of the 70’s. What it will be in the decade to come is yet to be seen. If you care about the people of Iraq, think twice about leaving too soon.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:25 pmNothing in Mesopotamia is simple or easy – the bombs of the USA did not make the place a wasteland.
Under Saddam, Iraq was a police state, a terror state, a tribute to the steaming evil of Stalinism with an Arab flavor.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Wow, you really are deluded. Your blinding patriotism makes you defend whatever your government has done around the world.
Your government supported Saddam Hussein, US sold him bombs and chemical weaponry. Then US sold weapons to Iran. Big business. What about Shock and Awe? Did you know how many civilian casualties were after that operation? Did you know how many Iraqi civilian casualties were after the 1991 non-invasion? That DU was used by US troops and some of them were posioned with your own weapons? What about Mossadegh? What about Lebanon? Why every freaking armed conflict since WWII, the US is there arming some side?
I’m not saying you have to hate your country. THat’s nonesense, but in order to make a better world, if you want that, you have to be critical about your govt’s doings. Criticism makes a far better and stronger society, not blind compliance.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pmgood for you, keltoi… i can tell you are not a complete idjit…
yes, i have heard of the recent attempt to save the marches…
and the situation that brought it on…
you say: “Under Saddam, Iraq was a police state, a terror state, a tribute to the steaming evil of Stalinism with an Arab flavor.” – pretty stupid that we put him in that position, huh… and screwed up his “removal” to boot…
but, what do you think about the REZA ALSAN piece?
January 12th, 2008 at 9:12 pmi’d think that you would be especially interested in his work…
I’m not saying you have to hate your country. THat’s nonesense, but in order to make a better world, if you want that, you have to be critical about your govt’s doings. Criticism makes a far better and stronger society, not blind compliance.
Comment by Juan C. — January 12, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
I leave hating my country to Lefty “Patriot”.
I am very critical of my governments doings – I think the body of my postings demonstrate that, as does my willingness to come here and discuss the shortfalls of that government with folks who are inclined to emphasize those shortfalls.
Katy, if the Reza Aslan piece is in reference to the youtube link you posted, my Keltoi at Night dial up connection is slower than slow so I can’t see it.
But – I get it. The people of Iran are not our foes. I am a history major – I know their culture and their history. I read voraciously on the history of the ME; it is most often not possible or germane to get into the historical weeds on TP.
And yes – what a checkered past we have pursued throughout the world since the close of WW II. Much of what we did was based on the ends justifying the means – what hurt the Soviets was good, morality be damned.
But then – we fire bombed Dresden to defeat Hitler.
Hiroshima.
Life is a veil of tears, and War is indeed Hell.
But you can’t end a war by saying it is over when the other side does not agree. If you do, that is called losing. Even if there is no winning, there is at least not losing. I think that sentiment is something AQI would understand well. And they are very patient.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:31 pmkeltoi – no, not the youtube
the smithsonian article, @ 6:44 pm
January 12th, 2008 at 9:39 pmthere is no “AQI”, kelsoi… c’mon…
January 12th, 2008 at 9:40 pmjuan, your comment was not there when i responded to keltoi,
now just behind yours, @ 9:12… (odd that) …
it’s a good one…
i have an idea that you will appreciate that REZA ASLAN piece also…
check out his interview on the daily show too…
…
i’m off to walk the pooch and unfold after that…
January 12th, 2008 at 9:47 pmg’nite…
there is no “AQIâ€, kelsoi… c’mon…
Comment by katy — January 12, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Who was Zarqawi, katy?
They exist. They are a tiny percentage of the fighters, but they are the most fanatical. Every time you hear sucide bombing? That isn’t the Nationalists, that isn’t Al-Sadr – that is Al Qaeda. Most of them aren’t Iraqis.
I look forward to the day I can agree with your post at 78. That day may be coming – but again, not if we leave too soon.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:50 pmNite katy
January 12th, 2008 at 9:51 pmIf you care about the people of Iraq, think twice about leaving too soon.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
katy, if you care about the people of Iraq, you will back leaving immediately. Keltoi thinks the USA exists to enslave and re-educate the brown peoples of the world. keltoi is a racist fanatic without any common sense or decency, and his disease of American exceptionalism gives him fever dreams of Al Qaeda and other fairies. We are not at war, we are undertaking state terrorism. That is a fact. A war requires a declaration of war, not some trumped-up-with-lies AUMF crapola. A war requires following the laws of war, not evading them to commit torture and firebombing wedding parties. the idea that there was any enemy in Iraq in the first place is nothing but an excuse by a sociopath to humiliate his father, as well as his country. keltoi is Straw Man central.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pmI look forward to the day I can agree with your post at 78. That day may be coming – but again, not if we leave too soon.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 12, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
All three of the Al Qaeda members in iraq will leave the same day we do. You’re a great propagandist, but a transparent liar.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:29 pmFrom Andrew Tilghman’s piece in the Washington Monthly:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
“while some analysts believe that AQI drafts Baathist insurgents to carry out its attacks, other intelligence experts think it is the other way around. In other words, they see evidence of native insurgent forces coopting the steady stream of delusional extremists seeking martyrdom that AQI brings into Iraq. “Al-Qaeda can’t operate anywhere in Iraq without kissing the ring of the former regime,” says Nance. “They can’t move car bombs full of explosives and foreign suicide bombers through a city without everyone knowing who they are. They need to be facilitated.” ‘” AQI recruits often find themselves taking orders from a network of former regime insurgents, who assemble their car bombs and tell them what to blow up. They become, as Nance says, “puppets for the other insurgent groups.”
The fact that suicide bombings are down AFTER American troops made a deal with Sunni insurgents makes a strong case that Mr. Tilghman is correct. And we could have had this Exact SAME DEAL Two Years Ago!
January 13th, 2008 at 6:31 amand letting things go to complete hell and just watching it happen would be hardest of all.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Astounding arrogance by the right wing….still trying to tell everyone that they know what will happen before it does….when have they been right about anything yet? Please.
Don’t worry trolls, the adults will be in power soon and you won’t have to worry about covering for your blunders any more….at least for a long time.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:12 am“Under Saddam, Iraq was a police state, a terror state, a tribute to the steaming evil of Stalinism with an Arab flavor. Today, it teeters on the brink of becoming Beirut of the 70’s. What it will be in the decade to come is yet to be seen. If you care about the people of Iraq, think twice about leaving too soon.
Comment by Keltoi at Night —
More baloney – you must have a real taste for the stuff. I find it hilarious (and a little sad) that you keep trotting out doomsday scenarios – yet dismiss the carnage now occurring as a reasonable cost, since it would be so much worse if we left. You guys have been saying that for at least two years, as things have stayed essentially the same, or gotten worse. That you ducked my answer to your post demonstrates the weakness of your assertion.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am“as things have stayed essentially the same, or gotten worse.”
Completely and blatantly false. As we all know, since the completion of the surge earlier this year, the levels of violence in Iraq have seen a dramatic drop. This is an unassailable fact and has been widely reported. For example:
Is Iraq getting better?
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad
“Is Iraq getting better? The statistics say so, across the board.
Over the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in all forms of violence. The figures for dead and wounded, military and civilian, have also greatly improved. All across Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence, streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business. People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes.
Everybody agrees that things are much better. “
January 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pmCompletely and blatantly false. As we all know, since the completion of the surge earlier this year, the levels of violence in Iraq have seen a dramatic drop. This is an unassailable fact and has been widely reported.
Lets look at Exley’s latest proof (from his article):
“Over the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in all forms of violence.”
Attributable to factors other than the surge.
The figures for dead and wounded, military and civilian, have also greatly improved.
There is evidence that many units have opted out of the war, by going on bogus missions – and then spending the time goldbricking in some safe locale. This would naturally reduce the dead and wounded. Another factor is the – shall we say – less than accurate pronouncements from pentagon personnel about casualties, and other occurrances during the war – making any current claims immediately suspect.
All across Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence, streets are springing back to life.
Baghdad has been reduced to a bunch of religious/political/tribal enclaves, each protecting it’s own turf. Can Sunnis safely shop in Shia markets, or vice versa? Convieniently, the article doesn’t say.
By any real measure, Baghdad and its environs hasn’t appreciably improved.
Is this the best you can offer Exley?
You’re spreading that stuff exceedingly thin, given your past over-the-top pronouncements about Iraq.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pmAnd Exley. that purple dye wore off long ago – about the same time the Itaqis figured out that their great savior was using them as political pawns in a global struggle (well, it’s a global struggle in his mind, anyway.)
January 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pmEven the U.N. acknowledges the success of surge:
From the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN)
Date: 21 Oct 2007
Iraq: Violence-related deaths drop ‘remarkably’, say authorities and UN
BAGHDAD, 21 October 2007 (IRIN) – Iraqis are breathing a sigh of relief as violence in their war-torn country is ebbing and the number of violence-related victims has dropped sharply since the beginning of this year, according to statistics compiled by the country’s interior, defence and health ministries.
“Violence-related deaths in September dropped remarkably to levels not seen in more than a year as the number [of violence-related deaths] stood at 290 while in September 2006 the number was about 1,400,†Adel Muhsin, the health ministry’s inspector-general, told IRIN in a phone interview.
According to the ministry’s statistics, between January and the end of September 2007, the number of violent deaths involving civilian, police and military in all of Iraq was about 7,100, against 27,000 in the same period of 2006.
According to Muhsin, the average number of dead bodies sent to Baghdad’s main morgue just over a year ago was between 100 and 150 a day. Now, it is no more than 10 bodies a day, and about 50 percent of them are dying in normal circumstances.
There have been days this year when no dead bodies were sent to the morgue and this gave the morgue employees a chance to refurbish it, something they couldn’t do in the past.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon recently said that September witnessed the lowest number of Iraqi casualties in any month this year.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:01 am