The Iraqi Parliament has passed some new and potentially significant laws.
This particular event should have been the lead article on the front page of every newspaper. It should have been the big subject of all the talk shows. It ought to have been acknowledged by every critic of the surge—you know, the ones who initially said the surge wouldn’t work before it even began. The ones who then said Petraeus was lying about the drop in casualties. The ones who then said that it didn’t mean anything anyway because after all, the Iraqi legislature hadn’t met the proper benchmarks that would indicate political progress and reconciliation.
However, here’s how it played on the network news programs. Only ABC’s Charles Gibson saw fit to cover it, repeating an ABC pattern of being more favorable to favorable news from Iraq. And even Gibson alloted it only twenty seconds (although they were positive seconds), the sort of skim-the-surface coverage for which network TV news is notorious:
Overseas, in Iraq, a breakthrough for the country’s government that has been so often criticized. Iraq’s parliament approved three contentious, but crucial, new laws long sought by Washington. The laws set a budget for 2008, grant amnesty to thousands of detainees and define the relationship between the central government and the provinces.
Much better, though, than rivals NBC and CBS. For them, no mention of the Iraqi developments, but:
The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News on Wednesday night both found time to report on how Secretary of Defense Robert Gates broke his arm in a fall on ice and how, for the first time, a Beagle (named “Uno”) won “Best in Show” at the Westminster Dog Show.
I’m full of compassion for Gates, and I’m fond enough of beagles, but really.
Print journalists did better. Even the AP said this represents one of those much-ballyhooed benchmarks:
The new law…is one of the most sweeping reforms pushed by the Bush administration and signals that Iraq’s politicians finally, if grudgingly, may be ready for small steps toward reconciliation.
Passage of benchmark reforms on healing the country’s sectarian and ethnic rifts — along with a reduction in violence — were the primary goals of the 30,000-strong U.S. troop increase that President Bush ordered early last year.
Violence has dropped significantly, but political progress languished until the logjam broke Wednesday by the narrowest of margins. Before the vote, the only significant measure to emerge from parliament had been a law that allows reinstatement to government jobs of some low-level members of Saddam Hussein’s former Baath party.
The outcome of the October elections is likely to reshape Iraq’s political map.
No, of course it doesn’t mean we’re home free in that country. That would be an absurd assertion to make. But it does mean events are continuing in a very positive direction there. As Richard Fernandez points out:
The more reason to inform the American public of the logic behind electoral reform and why it is so vital. Iraqi and American lives have taken the country back from the brink of civil war and on the approaches to normalcy. But the last steps are the most important. This is where it all pays off.
But all the more reason to be coy or underwhelmed about what’s happening there, because it presents such an embarrassing dilemma to those who said it couldn’t be done. And those are legion, including the vast majority of Democrats, most of our MSM, and certainly the present Democratic candidates.
To its credit, the New York Times covered the story. But how it did so is also very instructive (I don’t know what the story’s placement was, since I’m only reading online and don’t have a hard copy of the paper).
First we have a headline unlikely to garner interest in reading further. Vague and generalized, it fails to describe what’s happening or why it might be important or how it ties into the surge and the benchmarks: “Ending impasse, Iraqi Parliament passes measures.”
Yawn. Still with us? Thought not.
And note the leading phrase of the headline, focusing not on the positive but on the negative, the previous stalling. The article continues in that vein:
Iraq’s parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through three far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter political maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers threatened to try to dissolve the legislative body.
The next paragraph is indeed positive. It mentions that the legislation has the potential to spur reconciliation and lead to representative government. But it fails to tie this into the surge and those all-important benchmarks that we’ve heard so much about—when they were unmet, that is.
The article continues to emphasize the contention around passage of the bills, and emphasizes the fairly obvious fact that Iraq is not out of the woods and that these laws may not accomplish their goals. And it’s only in the seventh paragraph that there’s any tie-in to benchmarks—and even then, for some reason, they are referred to as “so-called” benchmarks.
What about Hillary and Obama? Have they chimed in on any of this? I’ve searched and searched and found nothing.
To be fair, I haven’t found anything from McCain, either, so perhaps it’s Google (or my search techniques) that’s at fault. If any of you can find their pronouncements (or those of Reid or Pelosi, for that matter) on the subject, I’d be most interested in reading them.
But I won’t sit on a hot stove till I do.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Nice post…
Good news is no news, at least with the media these days.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“The Iraqi Parliament’s passage of the budget, amnesty, and provincial laws after much political theater is potentially a rare bit of good news. But as with the deBaathification reform (which looked so promising on first blush and then not so much when the details emerged), it all depends on the details of the laws, the implementation, and the reception. Thus far, the reporting in the Western, Arab and Iraqi press has been very light on the details, mostly repeating what Parliament spokesman Khaled al-Attiya said in his press conference. Given the centrality of the details, it isn’t encouraging to hear that “the parliamentary success was clouded because many of the most contentious details were simply postponed, raising the possibility that the accord could again break into rancorous factional disputes in future debates on the same issues.” [quote fixed - thanks, Eric] I’m relieved that the speaker didn’t have to exercise his threatened nuclear option - dissolving the Parliament - and that these three crucial laws have finally been passed after so many months of wrangling. That’s good news on its merits. But I’m also reserving judgement on the implications of the laws until we see the details and the fallout.
I’ve only been able to get hold of the text of one of the laws so far - the amnesty law. As with the deBaathification reform, it’s hard to tell how extensive the amnesty will turn out to be from the text of the law. Gven the long list of exceptions detailed in article 2, it all comes down to interpretation and implementation. If applied generously and in a spirit of reconciliation, it could be quite extensive and build considerable goodwill (even if it also puts a sizable number of insurgency-age young men, fresh from prison, back onto the streets). If applied rigorously and in a sectarian spirit, a lot of the prisoners who the Sunnis hope to see released might not get out and backlash would set in very quickly. So as with all these laws, wait and see.
The most interesting part of the amnesty law is actually Article 6: “The Iraqi Government shall undertake the necessary measures to transfer those detained in the MNF-I jails to the Iraqi jails in order to implement the provisions of this Law on them.” What this means in practice will be worth following. Last week I noted that the potential complications posed by this provision: will the US honor an Iraqi request for prisoners held in US facilities to be transferred and amnestied, given its own military interests, and if not how would the Iraqi government respond?”
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/02/cause-without-l.html
February 16th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Saw McCain commenting on this item the day it was news, and referring to it since, and in the way you would expect - as further confirmation that the surge is working, my friends.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“Al-Hayat reports in Arabic on the passage by the Iraqi parliament of three important laws. These included the annual budget, a general amnesty that will free thousands of mostly Sunni Arab prisoners in the teeming Iraqi security prisons, and finally a “law on the provinces.” The action came in the wake of threats by powerful politicians to dissolve parliament if it could not do a simple thing like pass a budget.
Al-Zaman (The Times of Baghdad) reports in Arabic that there was not actually a vote, but rather the laws were passed as a package by consensus. The consensus reflected a political deal among the major parties rather than a recorded vote of a majority of the MPs. Al-Zaman calls the method of the vote “unconstitutional.” (They are protesting the lack of a recorded individual voice vote; it may be they also object to the bundling of the three separate laws together, which made MPs vote up and down, yes or no). Many MPs had interests in some of the laws but opposed a third, and therefore had to choose between betraying their interests or accepting legislation they really opposed. Al-Zaman quotes MP Salih Mutlak (a secular, ex-Baathist Sunni who is in the opposition) and MPs of the Sadr Movement as expressing fierce opposition to the law regarding amnesty for prisoners because it allowed for a delay in their release of six months.
This undemocratic and unconstitutional way of passing through legislation that the Americans insist be approved, in the teeth of opposition from a majority of MPs, was ironically employed in passing the constitution itself. Some version of it was passed without an individual voice vote in late August of 2005 (after the deadline set by the Transitional Administrative Law) and then the US embassy went on tinkering with the text right up until the October 15 referendum! It is ironic that when the Americans make their influence felt most strongly in the Iraqi government, that government acts least democratically.”
http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/provincial-elections-set-amnesty.html
February 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
New and potentially significant laws?!!?
Wow.
Dear Leader Bush is once again shown to be wise and benevolent! Rehang the mission accomplished banner! Star up the parades and get the flower tossers!
And you know what? I bet next year you’ll be saying the exact same things about Iraq and how it’s oh so darn good progress but the Bush hating MSM won’t tell anyone because they hate freedom and love terrorists.
Stupid reporters, thinking that people places and things being blown up in Iraq everyday is bad. Everyone knows that if the reporters stopped reporting on the attacks the terrorists would stop.
It’s a miserable failure Sparky but it’s cool that you don’t let that get in the way of your delusions or your endless vendetta against the messengers of that fact.
[note from neo-neocon: Why, “salvage”—welcome back, old troll “stevie” (along with all your other alter-egos/sockpuppets that begin with the letter “s”). You reveal your identity in so many ways, including your inimitable style. Hope it’s not too cold this winter up in Toronto.]
February 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Keep your fingers crossed.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
salvage, I once dated someone with your same penchant for focusing on past misery, sarcasm, and inability to call something that’s good, good. That lasted one week.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Following through with our promise of regime change is a point of pride, should have been done sooner, it is also encouraging to see that we are making progress to restore and heal Iraq, imagine what would have happened if we had stood by as Iraq imploded, the atomization and bloodbath of local sectarianism — and the onslaught of her neighbors and their proxies, a catastrophe averted, but who would have been criticized for letting it happen, who would have, at such an unimaginably late hour, been given the mandate to send in humanitarian relief and security? Unlike some of our resent history where we helped dictators overthrow popularly elected governments it is alleviating that we have seized the critical moment for Mesopotamia and for ourselves. Is there a word for such a hyper chaos of sectarian gangsterism that would have ensued – my guess is that it would have been something equal to or more horrific than a holocaust? In this late scenario would a mandate have gone to France, Germany, Russia or China? Hillary and Obama can appeal to the anti-war wing of their party because they are immune to critical thinking and suffer from selective thinking – as long as there’s cable TV who gives a shit? If either Hillary or Obama get into office they will have to face the reality of turning the level one way or the other, as in making hard decisions … it may be interesting to see how the adoring followers turn on the great new leader, will there be acknowledgement of the wisdom of seizing the moment to take out despots, or the will there be heresy hunts and campaigns to punish the impostors and non-believers; there is a religious Left in this county who seek to fulfill this role; be warned. I’m still holding out for McCain. The benchmark I’m looking for is the one where the Iraqi people are profiting from their oil resources and thus breaking that long held Saudi monopoly.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
So we should stay in Iraq because people who don’t want to are not likely to be able to sustain a relationship with Steven M.
This is why blogs are so significant, important.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Nicely put together blogpost.
Do independent voters care about Dem bad judgment and Dem cravenness regarding Iraq? Sometimes it’s easier to get away with the big lie, and the big mistake in judgment, as opposed to the moderated lie or the moderated mistake in judgment.
If McCain is to make Hillary and Barack pay, then McCain must continue to explain and explicate why a successful Iraq democracy is important to America, and why a failed Iraq is a disaster for our children. With Barack and Hillary trying to hang “stay 100 years” around McCain’s neck, McCain’s hopes may pivot on his ability to make the case for the Iraq far better than Pres. Bush ever made the case for Iraq. Or, rather, better than Pres. Bush ever progressed the case for Iraq past the media filter, and to the people.
I don’t think McCain can successfully attack Hillary or Barack for their vote. They will successfully parry due to citizen confusion over the importance of Iraq. McCain must make the case for Iraq more effectively thaqn it has ever been made.
Maybe an extremely effective case could not have been made earlier. Maybe America, the West, and the Middle East had to progress our thinking to a place where we could hear the truth about why Iraq is important. Maybe McCain has an opportunity Pres. Bush never had: to make the case, now, to evolved listening, via the perfect, over-the-heads-of-the-media device of a Presidential campaign.
Certainly Pres. Bush could have made the case much better than he did. However, I do think McCain has an opportunity to speak to evolved listening, and a campaign opportunity to bypass the media. Probably McCain must succeed in making the case, if he is to be elected. I think he can do it. It will be interesting to see what happens.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Steven: salvage, I once dated someone with your same penchant for focusing on past misery, sarcasm, and inability to call something that’s good, good. That lasted one week. Wow, I must have dated the same one, lasted about a week and then it was over, but not before fucking *** straight up the ass extra fucking hard. *** adores me for it to this day, despite my repeated cease and desist, it’s annoying but strangely …I dunno, satisfying.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Glenn:
Was that an argument on why we should stay? Or was that an assessment salvage’s attitude?
You guys continue to misunderstand issues and arguments. I guess that why they call you people “progressive”.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
In case you didn’t see my note on “salvage’s” comment, he’s our old troll friend “stevie” paying another visit.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Honestly, how is that different from how things work in any parliament in the world? Congressmen routinely vote ‘Yes’ on laws that contain some provision they are strongly in favor of, even though the same bill contains elements they oppose. They have to decide whether the pluses outweigh the minuses. Getting everything they want and nothing they don’t want is not generally an option. That’s what democratic compromise is. Your example purports to illustrate antidemocratic principles in action when in reality it does just the opposite.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Wait and see the news if the Dems win the Whitehouse, they will be falling over themselves reporting all the good news from Iraq.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The press has two tools to control a news cycle. What they choose to put on the front page and what they choose to bury. This is another prime example.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Thank you for blogging on this, Neo-Neocon. It’s important to get the word out.
I saw an interview of Gen Odierno the other week on The PentagonChannel, and he spoke of the great progress the surge had made, but that it was fragile. If we don’t keep up the pressure, or if the Iraqis fall short of their own commitment, all could be lost. He made the point that progress has to be made from the bottom up and the top down “and they’ll kind of meet in the middle”. Given that he’s the guy who implemented Petraeus’ plan, I’d say he knows what he’s talking about.
So were the political benchmarks important? The answer is that they’re important but only if we defeat AQI and provide security for the population as well. Everything has to work together.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Nyomythus wrote, among other things: “Wow, I must have dated the same one, lasted about a week and then it was over . . . .” Merciful Georgia! Do you do that often? Is it a sort of seizure, a gratuitous, random ejaculation of porno, or does it have a rational antecedents–such as being confronted by nit-wittery? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big boy and an ex-sailor and a long way from offended. It’s just that in one instant I’m tracking you through a quite cogent argument and in the next through anal sex and trying to figure out why. I mean, I’m happy for you . . . but . . . why . . . how . . . oh, never mind.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Or, for a more measured response, Marc Lynch:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/02/cause-without-l.html
Which granted, is a little harder to package on ABC, CNN, etc., etc.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
nyomythus Says: blah, blah
nyo…. did you forget to take your lithium?
February 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Whether something is perceived as positive or negative depends on whether they want to go.
To a man that knows not his ultimate destination, no wind is favorable. In this case, people see the war as being a Bush manufactured product in order to acquire power, wealth, and to silence his opposition through hurting foreigners in Iraq.
Thus what you see as positive progress towards human liberty in Iraq, is seen by many Americans as negative progress towards human rights because it is only positive for Bush.
The only reason why the United States hasn’t broken out in Civil War is due to the American institutions in place to handle strife, conflict, and disagreement. Those institutions were built upon blood and guts, by Lincoln and others. They are solid as a result. Compare that to the rather finicky and weak foundation of Iraq in 2003. They indulged in violence against each other because nobody said no, nobody offered an alternative, and they didn’t trust that alternative to work even if it was offered.
In America, we still have the means to resolve things peacefully. But just as we see in Iraq, social conditions do break down with an extremist group stoking up rage and conducting attacks.
We shall see whether the Democrat party can truly succede in overthrowing the US Constitution in the end.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Stan Says: “Wait and see the news if the Dems win the Whitehouse, they will be falling over themselves reporting all the good news from Iraq.”
I would take that proposition, gladly. In real-life, most world affairs do not begin and end within 4 election cycles. After all, Bush went to war in Iraq based on what he inherited from the Clinton admin. In other words, Bush took ownership of President Clinton’s Iraq dilemma despite that Bush was elected as the anti-Clinton. If Obama or Clinton becomes President, it will be as an anti-Bush. By the same token as Bush in 2001, we want him or her to claim ownership of OIF. If the Dems are claiming good news out of Iraq over the next 4-8 years, that means Obama or Clinton took the baton from Bush and didn’t drop it. If that also means President Bush took the hardest steps just so a Democrat President could take credit for historic success in Iraq, so be it.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
^ I meant 4-year election cycles.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
You have to wonder what motivates Xan to cheerlead the defeat of a fledgling democracy in the middle of radical Islam, in a country that in generations has not known anything other than despotic rule.
Just whose throat are we shoving democracy down here?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Now if the Iraqi parliment would pass an Oil Wealth Sharing law, we’d be all set.
When you hear people are threatening to dissolve the parliment or walk out on a negotiation, then you know the real bargaining is finally under way. All the rest is just posturing.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
If that also means President Bush took the hardest steps just so a Democrat President could take credit for historic success in Iraq, so be it.
Iraq’s a mess largely precisely because the Democrats took a historic win from Vietnam, which totally degraded the US military’s ability to learn from such a shameful loss.
I don’t think trying to repeat the issue is going to do Americans any favors in the next century.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:34 am
The 2005 Iraq narrative must not be changed, whatever the facts on the ground. The Democrats and their cooperative media will maintain this until November along with convincing people there is a recession whether there is one of not and that everything is falling to pieces.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:22 am
When we see the Democrat Party a priori disenfranchising whole States along with the spectre of possibly managing to disenfranchise their own total Party electorate by means of their Super Delegate mechanism, perhaps the critics amongst them should worry a lot less about the Iraqi political process.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:45 am
I guess it comes back to an issue of sustainability.
Now there’s a liberal buzzword;
sustainability.
Can you toss the right balance of human beings under the bus in the correct and well timed order to fool the people left riding that they wont be next?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
When we see the Democrat Party a priori disenfranchising whole States along with the spectre of possibly managing to disenfranchise their own total Party electorate by means of their Super Delegate mechanism, perhaps the critics amongst them should worry a lot less about the Iraqi political process.
Good observation!!
February 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“The dramatic decline in bloodshed in Iraq – at least until last week’s terrible market bombings in Baghdad – is largely due to Muqtada al-Sadr’s August 2007 unilateral ceasefire. Made under heavy U.S. and Iraqi pressure and as a result of growing discontent from his own Shiite base, Muqtada’s decision to curb his unruly movement was a positive step. But the situation remains highly fragile and potentially reversible. If the U.S. and others seek to press their advantage and deal the Sadrists a mortal blow, these gains are likely to be squandered, with Iraq experiencing yet another explosion of violence. The need is instead to work at converting Muqtada’s unilateral measure into a more comprehensive multilateral ceasefire that can create conditions for the movement to evolve into a fully legitimate political actor.
…The Sadrists were victims of their own success. Their movement’s vastly increased wealth, membership and range of action led to greater corruption, weaker internal cohesion and a popular backlash. Divisions within the movement deepened; splinter groups – often little more than criminal offshoots – proliferated. As a result, anti-Sadrist sentiment grew, including among Muqtada’s Shiite constituency. The U.S. surge, which saw the injection of thousands of additional troops, particularly in Baghdad, worsened the Sadrists’ situation, checking and, in some instances, reversing the Mahdi Army’s territorial expansion. Finally, in August 2007, major clashes erupted in the holy city of Karbala between members of Muqtada’s movement and the rival Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which further eroded the Sadrists’ standing.
In reaction, Muqtada announced a six-month freeze on all Mahdi Army activities. It applies to all groups affiliated (loosely or otherwise) with the Mahdi Army, and Muqtada reportedly dispatched his most loyal fighters to tame holdouts. Most importantly, his order removed the veil of legitimacy and lifted the impunity that many groups – criminal gangs operating in the Mahdi Army’s name and Sadrist units gone astray – had enjoyed.
The ceasefire largely has held and, together with bolstered U.S. and Iraqi military presence in Baghdad, helps account for a dramatic drop in violence. But the respite, although welcome, is both slightly misleading and exceedingly frail. Muqtada’s decision likely reflected a pragmatic calculation: that a halt in hostilities would help restore his credibility and allow him to reorganise his forces and wait out the U.S. presence. Their retreat notwithstanding, the Sadrists remain deeply entrenched and extremely powerful in a number of regions. Fleeing military pressure in Baghdad, Mahdi Army fighters redeployed to the south, thereby setting up the potential for an escalation of the class-based confrontation with the U.S.-backed ISCI.”
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5286&l=1
February 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“Often misidentified in Western media as “the largest Shiite party” in Iraq, SCIRI – the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Al-Majlis al-‘Aala li al-Thawra al-Islamiya fi-l-Iraq) – is certainly one of the most powerful. Its defining characteristics are a strong organisation, whose leadership hails from one of Najaf’s leading families, the Hakims; a surprising political pragmatism in light of profound sectarian inclinations; and a somewhat incongruous dual alliance with the U.S. and Iran. Since its founding a quarter century ago, it has followed a trajectory from Iranian proxy militia to Iraqi governing party, whose leader, Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim, has been courted and feted by the Bush White House. Today, it is engaged in a fierce competition with its main Shiite rival, the movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr, which may well determine Iraq’s future. To help shape the party into a more responsible actor, the U.S. should stop using it as a privileged instrument in its fight against the Sadrists but press it to cut ties with its more sectarian elements and practices.
As a result of the pervasive distrust, if not open hostility, SCIRI encountered upon its return from Iranian exile in April 2003, its quest for power (political in Baghdad, religious in Najaf) has first and foremost taken the form of a quest for respectability. It has made strenuous efforts to distance itself from its Iranian patron, whitewash its embarrassing past, build political coalitions, profess the importance of Iraq’s unity, maintain the semblance of government and, as conditions deteriorated, use the state’s security apparatus to protect the Shiite community from insurgent attacks. Although it continues to receive Iranian funds, it is in this not all that different from other parties, many of which became beneficiaries of Tehran’s strategy of diversifying support.
…If SCIRI/ISCI has so far failed in achieving respectability, it is because it has never quite managed to shake off its past as an Iran-bred group of exiles with a narrow sectarian agenda enforced by a potent militia. SCIRI claims with justification that it was established and inspired in response to the Iraqi regime’s tyranny and crimes but perceptions forged during the hard years of the Iran-Iraq war, in which the party and its Badr militia fought alongside Iranian forces, have been slow to change; suspicion that SCIRI remains guided by a foreign hand even as it plants its roots in Iraqi soil has hobbled its ambition.
Hakim’s calls for the establishment of a Shiite super region in the nine southern governorates have provoked widespread opposition, including among fellow Shiites. Equally suspect to many Iraqis has been the party’s more recent cosy relationship with the U.S. As a result, SCIRI/ISCI enjoys little popularity.
Still, the party is a formidable force. As a result of the U.S. surge, it is benefiting from coalition efforts to suppress not only al-Qaeda in Iraq but also ISCI’s principal rival, the Sadrists’ Mahdi army (Jaysh al-Mahdi). As long as the U.S. remains in Iraq, its alliance with ISCI will help entrench the party in the country’s governing, security and intelligence institutions, in Baghdad as well as most southern governorates. Its only true challenger remains the Mahdi army, which despite its ruffian credentials and bloody role in sectarian reprisals enjoys broad support among Shiite masses. Their rivalry now takes the form of a class struggle between the Shiite merchant elite of Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI (as well, religiously, by Sistani), and the Shiite urban underclass.
…The U.S. has fully backed ISCI in this rivalry. This is a risky gambit. Unleashing ISCI/Badr against the Sadrists is a dangerous policy that will further deepen intra-Shiite divisions; it also is a short-sighted one, given the Sadrists’ stronger mass base. Instead, the U.S. should adopt a more even-handed approach between the movements, while pressuring ISCI to reform its behaviour. The U.S. can help ISCI move away from its controversial past, and it has an interest in further anchoring the party within the current set-up. An ISCI fully transformed into a responsible, non-sectarian political party could make a significant contribution to the country’s rebuilding.”
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5158&l=1
February 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
How about linking those long “takes” rather than hogging bandwidth with them?
Nothing I hate more than having to scroll through a miles-long post just to get to the next one.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Ymarsakar Says: Iraq’s a mess largely precisely because the Democrats took a historic win from Vietnam, which totally degraded the US military’s ability to learn from such a shameful loss.
You know, I wrote a column about that in college for my school newspaper, “When Anti-war is Anti-peace”: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/23957
That’s not how I meant my comment, though. I’m hoping for the optimistic view that if the Democrats win the White House they will take the Presidency seriously rather than as only a hoard of parochial political spoils. Bush largely ran in 2000 as a right-wing (foreign policy) realist opposing Clintonian interventionism, not as a liberal. But as a serious leader, Bush rose to his job after 9/11, and changed course to champion the liberal world order. In other words, Bush took the baton from Clinton and didn’t drop it, despite what Bush said during his first election campaign. I’m hoping the next President - Democrat or Republican - proves to be a good war-time President, notwithstanding what he or she says during the popular election campaign.
Then again, leadership often is not so smoothly transferred. There is relatively recent precedent for your pessimism: a Democrat President could very well opt for an Eisenhower in Korea or a Nixon in Vietnam change of course. Both Republican Presidents fulfilled their campaign promises and did exactly what they’d said they’d do: extract American troops from combat in wars begun under Democrat Presidents, despite the long-term consequences of those withdrawals. (I’m a believer that our flawed decision-making in Vietnam stemmed from the Korean War.)
February 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Sam Says: “The 2005 Iraq narrative must not be changed, whatever the facts on the ground. The Democrats and their cooperative media will maintain this until November . . . “
If that’s as far as the Dems and their media allies will go in order to wrest the White House from the GOP, I can accept that. Bending the national interest for parochial gain is one thing, but actually breaking it is something else. What you say implies that the Dems aren’t really sincere about their current frightening mob-mentality election-driven agenda and actually have a serious plan for leadership. (Eg, given that the 2006 Dems-elected Congress has not taken substantive steps toward “ending the war” implies they secretly understand the stakes in Iraq.) It’s a scary gamble, but I hope that’s the case if the next President is Obama or Clinton.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
(I’m a believer that our flawed decision-making in Vietnam stemmed from the Korean War.)
I tend to think a lot of wars come about because of previous wars. True for the World War series as well as other conflicts that weren’t decided decisively for all factions. And in war, there will often be factions that ally together to defeat one foe, only to fall out and start fighting each other over the spoils.
Generals fight the last war, never the current one, probably because the last war was always inconclusive one way or another. Rarely does one get a WWII, and even in WWII, Communism was left alive for some day latter in the future when the earth might be immolated in nuclear fire.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hey, some guy, “How about linking those long ‘takes’ rather than hogging bandwidth with them?”
Plus, some guy, I could get less vapid direction from a friggin’ Fortune Teller. Competing with the nonsensical, “You should always do what turns out to be the right thing before it turns out to be the right thing,” is simply not that difficult.
Moreover, given some facts and outcomes, I’d trust even an average Fortune Teller to not be so sub-rational as to judge the success of a strategy and the thought process of those designing the strategy to be mere happenstance/just-getting-lucky-in-spite-of-themselves to the point of then advocating instead a change to the Obama unknown, or else to only have recourse to essentially making vague and meaningless pronouncements such as contained in the above blatantly post modern mantra.
some guy, you and your informants are simply repeating the same narcissistic, sub-rational mistake all over again, and again, and again. But since you are all “human”, your inveterate echoings must be “rational”, eh what?
February 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Reading Eric Chen reminds of what I saw as the one redeeming thing about the Dem Congressional takeover in 2006: “Well,” I thought, “at least the Dems will have to take Iraq seriously, now that they are in power. They will not demand American defeat. That would ruin the Democratic Party.”
Hoo boy. I was so wrong. I still hope American voters will punish the Dems, yet I am not holding my breath. Demanding American defeat doesn’t look to have ruined the Democratic Party.
American voters simply do not perceive the strategic importance of successful Iraqi democracy. The relationship of a successful Iraq to American security does not compute. The case remains to be made. John McCain is maybe the only person positioned to bypass the media filter, and to successfully make the case to the American public.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Warning to “possible take” and “background information:”
I’d prefer that people provide links and short excerpts from those links in the comments section. Also, (except briefly, for humor’s sake), to keep to one name and one identity. No sock puppets.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Just trying to be helpful. I get the impression that people here don’t really know that much about Iraq (not just limited to here, but pretty much all Americans). Just wanted to provide some useful information from people who read Arabic press in Arabic (Lynch, Cole) or have people reporting on the ground in Iraq (ICG).
Without looking it up on wikipedia - how much do you know about Iraqi politics? It’s one thing to talk in vague, general terms - if the issue is so incredibly important, take the time to learn about it? Not PajamasMedia reporting, but actual scholarly work on the topic?
February 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
By “PajamasMedia reporting” I mean: people who have never been to Iraq or the region, don’t speak Arabic (of any variety), don’t read Iraqi or Arabic press, have never met an Iraqi, couldn’t name the PM’s party, etc, but feel like they can talk about Iraq in a very general, vague manner informed not really by facts, but more by ideology, arm chair philosophy, etc.
Again: I’m not making a case for or against anything that was said here. Just recommending some reading.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
gcotharn Says: “Reading Eric Chen reminds of what I saw as the one redeeming thing about the Dem Congressional takeover in 2006: “Well,” I thought, “at least the Dems will have to take Iraq seriously, now that they are in power. They will not demand American defeat. That would ruin the Democratic Party.””
Well, the Dems don’t have the Presidency yet, and that’s the power they want.
“American voters simply do not perceive the strategic importance of successful Iraqi democracy.”
The hope is that the Dems in the White House would be able to reverse that trend, which does seem to be a quixotic hope, given that the Dems’ anti-war politics are the main reason that many Americans don’t understand the importance of the mission. The optimistic view is that progressive liberals, which the Democrats ostensibly are, ought to be the best champions of a definitively liberal mission. I mean, Obama is supposed to be the 21st century JFK, right? It was JFK who predicted and attempted to institutionalize our ability to fight this kind of war in defense of a liberal world order - Bush is in line with that tradition.
On the pessimistic side, I did also bring up the Eisenhower and Nixon precedents for relatively recent anti-war Presidential candidates who did exactly what they said they’d do as Presidents. Certainly, Obama or Clinton can go the way of Ike and Nixon, too, as overtly anti-war candidates.
For the Long War, McCain is the safest choice. Clinton’s track record, as well as her husband’s, says she should be the most familiar with our history and the stakes in Iraq, but she’s also resorted to the anti-war mantra. Obama is the high-risk/high-reward gamble because of his great potential to galvanize support for the liberal mission while also neutralizing the anti-war factions in a way Clinton couldn’t. However, beyond Obama’s aggressive Wilsonian principles, the only evidence of what he’ll do is the anti-war mantra sans a Clintonian track record to hint that he might champion the mission.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Suggested sites for Some Background Info and Another Take to visit, peruse and perhaps bookmark for their future edification: Hoover Institution, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Center for Policy Security, Brookings Institute and my personal favorites: Council on Foreign Relations and Center for Strategic and International Studies.
I won’t clutter the comments with embedded links(they are all easily Google-able) or long excerpts from these think tanks.
If urged I might also recommend some books for them on the Middle East but think it best for now to offer easily accessible and free fare - except to suggest that one can’t go wrong with reading anything on the subject by Daniel Pipes or Bernard Lewis – both recognized, respected experts(unless one is of a Left-wing or Jihadist apologizer persuasion - then they are anathema).
… just trying to be helpful …
February 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
another take:
“I’m not making a case for or against anything that was said here. Just recommending some reading.”
Much appreciated. I myself, cannot claim to be familiar with all the current players and nuances on what motivates who. All of that input is welcome. Im quite sure the political situation in Iraq is much more complex and in flux, and this is certainly one holy mess we’re involved in; however, I dont see what you’ve relayed changes anyones mind. For those who advocate withdrawal, any reason, any cause would suffice. I doubt, say, Code Pink studies the ins and outs of Iraqi real politick, nor would need to. If things were better and there were more real cooperation among factions in Iraq, Code Pink would still be clamoring for withdrawal. For me, I dont see how the US leaving helps either the US or Iraq. What Iraq becomes after we abandon it, would be worse than our prolonged presence in the region.
If you have an opposing viewpoint, Id be happy to hear it.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Anthony Cordesman at CSIS is one of the most prolific writers on Iraq, but never gets mentioned.
Brookings is especially great for their Iraq Index.
Pipes was certainly an accomplished historian once, but has basically gone insane.
Bernard Lewis’ histories are excellent - though rarely do they get into specifics and rarely do they deal with contemporary politics.
Two more suggestions: Mark Tessler, Middle East Review of International Affairs. Just think an informed debate is always better than an uninformed debate. Even if you don’t change your mind, at least you know what you’re talking about.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
another take,
Everyone knows a different set of facts based on what their world-view and interests are. You read one set of sources, I read another, someone else reads a third set. So we have different sets of facts, but it doesn’t mean any of us is ignorant on the topic. Maybe you need to get out a little more, maybe read a more diverse set of sources, like:
http://www.memri.org/ (articles, etc., translated from ME media)
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/ (Middle East Strategy at Harvard)
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ (Michael Yon, who’s been reporting from Iraq or Afghanistan nearly continuously for the last several years)
February 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Sorry, I was posting at the same time as your last post. What do you mean exactly that Pipes has gone insane?
February 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
To lumpenscholar:
What do you mean exactly that Pipes has gone insane?
I think he means that Pipes is anathema to him.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Bernard Lewis’ histories are excellent - though rarely do they get into specifics and rarely do they deal with contemporary politics.
On Bernard Lewis: It would seem to be wise to ground oneself on the history of a region before pontificating on its current affairs. Myself, I find that Bernard Lewis deals frequently in specifics. Of course, I perhaps have the advantage on that, since I’ve actually read a couple of his books.
His latest volume, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East,(which I have not read) judging from the Table Of Contents, seems to be chock full of contemporary subjects. I suppose he has changed his approach since the above writer last read him.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Well, the Dems don’t have the Presidency yet, and that’s the power they want.
That shows an obsession with power that is only fueled by getting power in the Legislature. Such tendencies usually only lead to self-destruction when such folks are given military powers.
The hope is that the Dems in the White House would be able to reverse that trend
That hope panned out for Hollywood in WWII because Hitler attacked Stalin and the Communists. Until Al Qaeda blows up something the Democrats actually care about in this country, that bet won’t have very good odds. And even then, they will only go after Osama or the single group that made the attack. Then it will be an endless pursuit of Osama or some other terrorist leader, given fecklessness and concern over Lawfare in assassination policies, which will provide an endless justification for more and more power given to the Presidency and more civil rights restrictions created in the name of national security and expedience.
Such things become even more likely precisely because that is what the Democrats believe Bush has been doing for the last 6-7 years.
The optimistic view is that progressive liberals, which the Democrats ostensibly are
Real classical liberals like Neo Neocon, Bookworm, Lieberman, etc either got shoved out of the Democrat party or moved over closer to the Republicans by choice.
There are no more progressive liberals of worth in the fake liberal party calling themselves Democrats, unless those fake liberals are progressing towards maximum entropy.
I mean, Obama is supposed to be the 21st century JFK, right?
And my peers are convinced that the Republicans will assassinate Obama like they assassinated JFK. Cause those two were real Presidents. Bush stole the election, you see.
All of this is an ingredient for factionalism and the downfall of a civilization. Two or more hostile camps inevitably devolves into barbarianism and then the whole cycle of civilization starts all over again.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
The relationship of a successful Iraq to American security does not compute.
It is more like “American security” is meaningless and is only used to enrich rich white people in the eyes of most Americans.
Add in most of the Democrat party and the cynics that don’t like either party, and you get “most Americans”.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
The development in political side important but for the last five years Iraqi have struggling with their lives which made them prisoners in their own homes waiting for unexpected terrorist who will dash in their homes, busses or school or ministry building to kidnap them or killing them.
So any issue of passing laws and bills should first taken in account the security matter very well before pushing to gain some bench mark here to tell us , um things in right track.
Is it really things in the right direction?
This question hard to answer from our comfort offices and homes the real answers are from the streets of Baghdad and from the mouth of Iraqis who will tell the reality.
But if we looking for gains let presume there is some light coming, yes there is but its long way to go and to say we win.
Just last thing here some reports that fall in the number of Iraqi dead bodies around the streets and towns is some how due to a new tactic now. These poor Iraqis who kidnapped or detained are taken to a neighbouring country (Guess which) where they striping some body parts from their bodies to be on sale in some Gulf countries.
How much truth in this story you need to guess and search, but every thing possible as we can see for the last five years.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I’m starting to realize what the problem is - the lack of a good grounding in basic information. Imagine trying to have a conversation with a foreigner about America - a foreigner who has trouble naming George Bush as president, doesn’t know who the vice president or Speaker of the House are, doesn’t know the names of or differences between the two parties, doesn’t know the issues that divide the parties, doesn’t know who the candidates for election are, doesn’t know where each party gets its support from or stands for, and so forth. Imagine trying to explain, say, the primaries or US policy making on Iraq to a foreigner who doesn’t know anything about the US except what he or she insists can be divined through airy theoretical principles.
Now, take that difficulty and multiply it by a thousand. Who are Iraq’s leaders? Prime Minister, president, cabinet, parliamentary leaders? What parties do they belong to? Who are those parties’ constituents and what do they stand for? Who makes up the opposition? What do they stand for? What are the ideological and pragmatic alliances and conflicts that exist between and among parties? Who are the armed groups, who are their constituents and what are their political platforms and objectives?
For example: lots of talk of American defeat. But who exactly would be defeating America? AQI - a handful of foreign fighters with no base of domestic support, a group that even Bush said was on the outs? The Mahdi Army, the militia of a major parliamentary party? The Badr Brigade, the militia of the parliament’s largest party? One of the dozens of Sunni groups, many of which are now on the US payroll? Right now, those Sunni militias are frequently fighting Shi’a militias for control of Iraq, though both have and will fight the US. If we leave, what does it matter for US policy if Badr or ICI wins?
Go back to the basics. Who would take your opinion on the US seriously if you didn’t know what party the president belonged to? Who should take your opinion of Iraq seriously if you don’t have a basic grasp of Iraqi politics?
The Iraqi political scene is way too complicated to make simplistic arguments from general theory about “good guys” and “bad guys.” Very, very few in Iraq fall into categories as simple as “good” or “bad.”
FYI: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki belongs to al-Da’wa, a political party that used to be a terrorist group that attacked the US and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983 in retaliation for strikes against Hezbollah. If the US withdraws while he’s still securely in office, does that mean the US has been defeated?
February 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
There is article recently by Reuel Marc Gerecht who is Reuel Marc Gerecht is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former case officer for the CIA titled “Iraq’s Jihad Myths” will tell what’s those insurgency or resister fighter are. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503098_pf.html
I like that argument made about Jihadists in Afghanistan when US support them and those” insurgency” now in Iraq.
But let clear things out, Iranians and Iranian proxy with Al-Quads forces are their and playing well in Iraq which made Iraqi so disappointed with what US did and doing and are very suspicions about US gaols in Iraq.
There is no question that Da’awa Party (Iranian midwife party and backed 20 years ago) has bloody records inside Iraq and outside Iraq but what the doing now it’s very bloody and a polling behaviours to Iraqi citizens with all Sec’s of Iraqi society.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I’m beginning to see what the problem is here. Imagine trying to have a conversation about America with someone who has read about only a single aspect of America and yet thinks she or she knows everything there is to know about the country.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I don’t think I understand the connection between the surge and the passage of these laws. Why were 30,000 more American soldiers required to be present before the parliament of the sovereign nation of Iraq could vote to undo the appallingly bad decisions of Jerry Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, decisions which did so much to help create the Insurgency as we know it today?
February 18th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Certainly justifies all the bloodshed, displacement, mutilation and murder. Now I can rest easy at night. Oh wait… I was already resting easy! By the way, the NYT also won’t report that they found the WMD’s in Des Moine, the liberal swine.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:46 am
another take:
“The Iraqi political scene is way too complicated to make simplistic arguments from general theory about “good guys” and “bad guys.” Very, very few in Iraq fall into categories as simple as “good” or “bad.”
I dont know that anyone here has offered an argument based upon such simplicity, nor have you made one as to whether or not we stay. Give me the benefit of all that you have read, if you will, and give in your words what you think the US should do at this point. Id appreciate your opinion on that.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:37 am
The Long War Journal is pretty good too. Bill Roggio has spent a great deal of time on the ground, and they are currently at part three of a four part series- a primer on Iraqi politics:
“Inside Iraqi Politics”
Let me also say that I think one can have a limited knowledge of the specifics and still have a good comprehensive idea about the state of things. Likewise, one can have a genius level familiarity with the minutiae and have zero grasp of the bigger picture.
One needs to constantly measure the details against the strategic level plan, and vice versa.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Jerry Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, decisions which did so much to help create the Insurgency as we know it today?
I come to believe that president GWB mislead by all those worked in Iraq.
While the mission changing from regime change to democratic and free Iraq, Sheikh Paul Bremer III he ruled Iraq as self-asset imposing Sce. formula.
creating top Iraqi ruling council “CPA” followed by self-importance attitude issuing orders that most Iraqi folks even those Sheikh Bremer handpicked opposing them but his “Swan Butterfly” new Khaton of Baghdad “Meghan L. O’Sullivan” she played very important roll in obtaining the approval and assurances from those Iraq Sec. folks.
Instead of using Iraqi military and police forces to secure the country, he dismantled 500,000 Iraqi from their jobs in one signature who left without any payment or money which Sheikh Bremer’s plan of privatizations of Iraqi assets without setting any social structure that can help jobless Iraqis. Instead “My Year in Iraq” $8.8bn vanished without trace, wonder if Sheikh Paul Bremer III stayed 35 years like old regime how much money will be vanished?
So back the tope point GWB mislead by his folks in Iraq , in addition to 23 foreign intelligence agency working inside Iraq as the head of Iraqi intelligence stated in an interview with Al-Sharaq Alawsat newspaper they working for their self importance regardless of US attentions in Iraq.
finally these remarkable benchmark with its importance it’s the set point for the most important bill which Iraq oil sharing law, which is very important to those who stand behind the curtness waiting to gain Iraqi virgin oil fields.
Last week there is a bit of news start rolling that Iran have pushed Iraqi oil engineers from very rich Iraqi oil filed east Iraq (MAJNON Oil Filed, that old regime was signed deal with Japan but was hold because of sanction on Iraq) now Iranian have got them and fired Iraqi stuff who working there as reported in many Iraqi news outlets.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
“‘Tis a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own.”
Benjamin Franklin
February 18th, 2008 at 8:17 am
“There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult - to begin a war and to end it.” -
— Alexis de Tocqueville
February 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am
harry, don’t get your hopes up. I’m still waiting for an explanation of why he thinks Pipes is insane.
troutsy, you have no idea how relieved I am to know you are sleeping well these days. I was so, SO concerned about that. Of course, there was more bloodshed, displacement, mutilation and murder under Saddam, but you certainly didn’t care about that. Nah, you don’t give a rat’s nether regions for the Iraqi people, nor about the bloodshed and pain. You care about your own soul and the moral stain that comes from being part of an evil culture, and the only way to atone is biting sarcasm aimed at whatever the emblematic action du jour is. Sleep well, sweet prince. Enjoy your dreamworld.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
FYI: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki belongs to al-Da’wa, a political party that used to be a terrorist group that attacked the US and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983 in retaliation for strikes against Hezbollah. If the US withdraws while he’s still securely in office, does that mean the US has been defeated?
To answer the question: No, it doesn’t – but if future governments pull the same shenanigans as did Saddam’s then I expect my government to go back into Iraq and find new leaders to run Iraq.
Another Take decries simplicity yet takes a simplistic view of the Islamic Dawa Party and, I suspect, other factors having to do with the Middle East. The simple fact is that most groups with any following in the Middle East have practiced some form of terrorism at some time in their history.
It would be impossible to put together a governing coalition in Iraq(or most other Islamic states) that is pristine in this respect – witness the reconciliation with former Baathist Party members now taking place in Iraq – one of the benchmarks insisted upon by opponents of the war in Congress and elsewhere.
Indeed many critics describe the breakup and outlawing of former Baathists in Iraqi governmental affairs immediately following this latest subduing of Iraq as one of Bush’s worst ‘blunders.’ One of the hallmarks of opponents of the war seems to be a certain inconsistency on these issues.
One receives the impression that folks like Another Take will be unhappy no matter what happens or who might be in charge – the sole object seeming to be to cast aspersions upon US motives and methods.
Certainly Bush has not been perfect in his conduct of the war but one is reminded that it took Lincoln 3 long years to find his Grant, the same amount of time it took Bush to locate Petraeus. With the benefit of many years of hindsight it seems there were also glaring mistakes in the first years of US participation in WW2. The only thing certain in war is that there will be blunders.
I don’t think I understand the connection between the surge and the passage of these laws. Why were 30,000 more American soldiers required to be present before the parliament of the sovereign nation of Iraq could vote to undo the appallingly bad decisions of Jerry Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, decisions which did so much to help create the Insurgency as we know it today?
I don’t believe there is any direct connection between the surge and progress on the ‘Benchmarks.’ The governing factor in an effective post-war Iraqi government seems to be time, time to put together a government from scratch.
That said, it would seem to be sensible to expect it to be an easier task if violence is brought down. I would further argue that it is impossible to discern the real effects of early decisions in Iraq by Bremer and others in the Bush administration. Such criticisms are only biased assumptions on the part of the writer.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
My .02 is that in order to understand what we’re doing in Iraq you need to read US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24 (also available on The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual”>Amazon). FM-3-24, edited by Gen Petraeus and released in December of 2006, is the basis for our 2007 strategy in Iraq.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
oops, sorry I got the html code a bit wrong, but the links still work.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-armyofdude_22int.ART.State.Edition2.41f5031.html
February 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
it is impossible to discern the real effects of early decisions in Iraq by Bremer
What Bremer Got Wrong in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501322_pf.html
February 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Another Take decries simplicity yet takes a simplistic view of the Islamic Dawa Party.”
No. As I said, just wanted to raise the questions themselves.
al-Da’wa didn’t just commit terrorism, it committed terrorism against the United States in partnership with Hezbollah. I thought that the US didn’t negotiate terrorists. Are we abandoning principle for expediency?
Does this mean there are other former terrorists with whom the US can negotiate/deal with/promote into power?
What makes al-Da’wa worth defending when other groups, nearly identical to al-Da’wa in terms of goals and methods, are considered our enemies?
If withdrawal means “America gets defeated,” it’s worth asking: what, exactly, does defeat entail?
What would victory entail if, as the US is trying, the political power of groups like al-Da’wa and SIIR becomes entrenched?
Does it further US interests to ensure the political/military victory of parties with close ties to Iran and Hezbollah, Islamist goals, and party militias engaged in terrorist-like violence against Sunni militias allied with the US?
Has the US sacrificed long-term stability and democratic prospects for short-term expediency and results it can show off at home?
If not al-Da’wa and SIIR, then who? Who are the alternatives, what are their constituencies and their goals, and how are they better or worse than the status quo?
Are the current gains in security - thanks in part to the Awakening movement - sustainable when US allies like SIIR maintain their own militias engaged in ongoing violence against Awakening/CIC/SOI members?
Is the SIIR/al-Da’wa position tenable in the long run when most Iraqis consider them “Persians” for their long exile in Iran? When most Sunnis believe Badr and Mahdi Army are their biggest foes, not the US or al Qaeda?
Even if the Sunni insurgency is defeated and al Qaeda in Iraq destroyed, Badr and Mahdi have a strong chance of fighting a really bloody intra-Shi’a civil war. Does the US stay so long as there is the potential for civil conflict?
Like I said: not offering answers. These are tough questions, most without very good answers. But it’s worth raising them - it pays to know something about a country rather than just trying to argue from general principles.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I recall early in the surge, its opponents were discounting the demonstrable successes in the streets because, at the time “none of the eighteen benchmarks for political reconciliation have been met” by the nascent Iraqi government. (I believe there were 18 originally)
Several weeks later, the complaint morphed into “the surge is a failure because only three of the 18 benchmarks for political reconciliation have been achieved”. Later still, it was ‘….failure, because only seven of the 18 benchmarks….”
Some enterprising blogger with more diligence than I, and access to Lexis-Nexis, will put together an illustration of how this whine has evolved over the course of the last year or so, eventually to the point of its own incoherence.
Going only by what I see, we’re not hearing much about those original 18 benchmarks anymore. Why is that, I wonder?
February 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
al-Da’wa didn’t just commit terrorism, it committed terrorism against the United States in partnership with Hezbollah. I thought that the US didn’t negotiate terrorists. Are we abandoning principle for expediency?
I think it’s a matter of degree of expediency, isn’t it? The terrorism referred to by the writer was committed by some of the group’s more militant members and occurred over 20 years ago. Since then the group has split into independent factions, parts of which have evolved into legitimate political entities pursuing legitimate political aims using nonviolent methods. The writer is perhaps overlooking the elections that have taken place in Iraq.
All along members of Congress and other war critics have been moaning about the lack of reconciliation in Iraq – when it comes they simply switch their critique to one of too much “expediency.”
Is it too expedient not to hold present day Islamic Dawa Party members accountable for behavior of others over 20 years ago? I think not. Is the writer claiming that the Islamic Dawa Party is at this time committing terrorism? I’m afraid the writer will find pristine associations hard to come by in the Middle East – the pursuance of which seems to be a common error of the ill-informed.
The many other questions raised by the writer are somewhat similar to the above, a veritable morass of hyperbole, false assumptions, false dichotomies, nit-picking and unrealistic expectations. It would take a book to thoroughly refute them – I will leave them for the readers to decide for themselves.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
another take:
“Even if the Sunni insurgency is defeated and al Qaeda in Iraq destroyed, Badr and Mahdi have a strong chance of fighting a really bloody intra-Shi’a civil war. Does the US stay so long as there is the potential for civil conflict?”
I’d say yes. We’ve been in Kosovo 8 years longer than we were told we would be there. (One year). If Kosovo was considered worthwhile, Iraq must be more so. Or do we abandon Iraq because it is harder, more complex? Would not abandonment be more the expedient answer? Wouldnt the abandonment of principal (”non-”extremist” RINO’s take note), be the expediency you write about?
I say the longer we stay, the more the average Iraqi, no matter which faction, is exposed to egalitarian principals. It certainly less likely to take hold if they see that we dont have the conviction to see it through. So which is the expediency here?
Unless you feel that the “brown people” are somehow fundamentally unable to adopt democracy, we need to make all the effort we can if for no other reason than the sake of the effort.
If this isnt about principal what should it be about?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“Unless you feel that the “brown people” are somehow fundamentally unable to adopt democracy, we need to make all the effort we can if for no other reason than the sake of the effort.”
Actually, no one (that I know of) believes this, except perhaps for unreconstructed racists of the Stormfront variety.
In fact, Arab/Muslim support for democracy is incredibly high. World Values Survey found, for example, that 89% of Algerians and 96% of Egyptians believed that democracy, despite its problems, is the best form of government. Similar numbers pop up all over. Two (Bangladesh and Turkey) have higher rates of popular support for democracy than do the US, Canada, and UK (al-Braizat, 2002).
This is one of the reasons why the “reverse domino theory” that constituted a major part of the justification for the Iraq War was so asinine - it was based on the premise that the peoples of the Middle East really didn’t know what democracy was and, given a demonstration by the democratization of Iraq, would suddenly realize how awesome democracy is and overthrow their own tyrants.
Arabs/Muslims already know how awesome democracy is, want it badly, don’t have it, and believe that the US - close allies with their oppressors even to this day (see: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, etc), despite official US rhetoric about democracy promotion and rejecting the failed policies of the last four decades - doesn’t really plan on bringing democracy to the Muslim world. Instead, they think the plan is to weaken and divide the Muslim world, exploit its resources, and so on (see Kull, et al, 2007, “Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda”).
I want to see democracy in Iraq. Iraqis want to see democracy in Iraq. Pretty much everyone does except, maybe, for the handful of people in Iraq with the guns and the political power - on either side, in the government and fighting against the government. I don’t know if US forces in Iraq will help that happen - if the choice is between ICI, SIIR/al-Da’wa, and Mahdi, then the Iraqis don’t really have much of a choice at all. Defeat one and help the others stay in power, still not much democracy in Iraq. But, maybe it’ll work - like ICG said, if the US can pressure SIIR to reform a bit, then there’s a little more hope. Just saying “stick it out” isn’t much of a prescription as a platitude.
Again: how many of you know, without looking it up, who the major leaders, parties, factions, etc, in Iraq are? Would you take seriously the arguments of someone who didn’t know who George Bush was, what party he belonged to, what that party stood for, who supported that party, and all the same for the opposition party? I wouldn’t. So how can you make any kind of informed decision about US policy in Iraq if you have no idea what’s going on there?
February 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I’ve never heard stormfront make the assertion that the “brown peoples” are incapable of democracy. In fact, the only people I have heard this from are the so-called “progressives” who say we are ramming democracy down people’s throats. I heard pretty often from that quarter of the ethnic and cultural incompatibility. I’m very glad you do not think democracy is incompatible, just not so easily accomplishable. This I also agree with.
I know you really wish some of us were more aware of the nuances of fractional alliances in Iraq, and Im sure your right. For my part, I’d really wish you’d come out and be clear and open about where you stand on the issue of US commitment. Should we stay or should we go?
(If we stay, would there be trouble?)
(If we leave, would there be double?)
(So c’mon and let me know……)
February 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“I’ve never heard stormfront make the assertion that the “brown peoples” are incapable of democracy.”
Really? Reading a lot of Stormfront lately? I haven’t been, but I assume that unreconstructed Nazis probably don’t have kind words to say about Arabs and Muslims.
“In fact, the only people I have heard this from are the so-called “progressives” who say we are ramming democracy down people’s throats. I heard pretty often from that quarter of the ethnic and cultural incompatibility.”
Well, I haven’t run across anyone saying that Arab culture or ethnicity are incompatible with democracy (except maybe from Andrew Sullivan, but should I expect any better from a fan of The Bell Curve?). I tend to think the bigots are the people who thought that Iraqis and other Arabs didn’t know what democracy was and needed to be shown the way by America. Cough cough Neocons cough cough reverse domino theory cough cough.
“For my part, I’d really wish you’d come out and be clear and open about where you stand on the issue of US commitment.”
Does it really matter whether I say? Will I change any minds? Influence any voters? Affect any policy? I’m done trying to argue for positions in a forum like this. There are two Iraqs: real Iraq, filled with real, complex human beings, and imaginary Iraq. Imaginary Iraq is like imaginary USA in which Bush is president and the rest is all details, not important enough to know. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone to argue about real Iraq? I’d rather ask questions, offer sources you probably don’t read often (ie, people in Iraq or who read Iraqi press), that sort of thing. No positions! Just questions! Very Zen. Om.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Does it really matter whether I say?
Not much, especially when the writer condescendingly berates the readers for not reading the writer’s favorite authors and arrogantly assumes the readers don’t know the answers to the writer’s infantile ‘pop quizzes’ on Iraq.
Will I change any minds? Influence any voters?
Again, not likely – especially since the writer sees no need to advance any arguments or delineate any coherent positions. I guess we can assume the writer doesn’t like neoconservatives and disapproves of the war. One couldn’t venture much further than that based on the writer’s offerings so far. His reasons for these opinions remain vague and incoherent. A model of persuasion he is not.
I’m done trying to argue for positions in a forum like this.
The problem with this statement(if only it were true!) is that the writer never argued any positions in the first place.
No positions! Just questions! Very Zen.
This is the type of disrespectful flippancy that must set a real Buddhist’s teeth on edge.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
another take:
“I tend to think the bigots are the people who thought that Iraqis and other Arabs didn’t know what democracy was and needed to be shown the way by America. Cough cough Neocons cough cough reverse domino theory cough cough.”
I dont know that there were very many people opposed to our invasion of Iraq who claimed democracy was our chief reason for invading Iraq. In fact we were being told it was all about the oil and democracy was merely an invention neocons came up with the the WMD thing failed to pan out. I dint think you can attribute that one to stormfront, I think that sentiment is the sole propriety of the left.
Now that we’ve effectively decapitated the government, we’re pretty short on what to find as a suitable replacement. We neocons propose democracy. So far, you have no objections as to whether or not it would be comparable. In fact you have said many in the region would prefer it. Your only contention so far is that you believe we neocons fully understand that it may be lengthy, difficult and may not end up with a democracy that we like. Fine Im sure you right…
But unless your willing to present an opinion as to what you think we should be doing, Im not sure anything you’ve mentioned here is of any real value. Do you see what Im saying? Will what you say change minds? I dont know, give it a try. You say that you are tired of trying to argue your position, yet you havent actually argued one, you’ve studiously avoided it!!
Im willing to accept a well thought out reason no matter what. Im not guaranteed to agree with you but at least we have a dialogue, and I thought dialogue was important for those on the left.
You see, Im afraid Zen wont do. Neither will “Free Tibet” bumperstickers. Time to come down one way or the other.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
“…arrogantly assumes the readers don’t know the answers to the writer’s infantile ‘pop quizzes’ on Iraq.”
Well, do you? You don’t actually have to answer them - I’d have no way of telling apart an authentic answer from one looked up moments ago on wikipedia. Just wondering - and you’ll know for sure - if you know any of that.
If the answer is “no,” then don’t get mad at me and complain about me and criticize me. I don’t care! Go learn the answers! I recommend, for those interested, that they start with a few that are very informative (for example, if you read ICG, you’ll find that they explain, in careful detail, just what SIIR/SCIRI is). Very useful!
“The problem with this statement(if only it were true!) is that the writer never argued any positions in the first place.”
Right. So, what part of my statement is untrue? I said: I’m done trying to advance arguments on forums like this. As in, once I did and now I’m not (hence, “done”). I haven’t! (Mostly.) What did I say that was untrue?
February 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Ok, I suppose Im going to have to guess what your opinion on the occupation is.
You would be for helping the fledgling democracy, if only the current US administration was in charge and may be credited with a successful outcome.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Im sorry, Im awful with previewing my stuff.
You would be for helping the fledgling democracy, excuept that the current US administration is in charge and may be credited with a successful outcome.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
except!
February 18th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“I dont know that there were very many people opposed to our invasion of Iraq who claimed democracy was our chief reason for invading Iraq. In fact we were being told it was all about the oil and democracy was merely an invention neocons came up with the the WMD thing failed to pan out. I dint think you can attribute that one to stormfront, I think that sentiment is the sole propriety of the left.”
Um? This is something of a non sequitur. I certainly think that one of the (numerous) reasons behind the Iraq War was the reverse domino theory, which is at its core based on a fantasy. But, I think the ideas behind this reason were screwy. Only in a fantasy could neocons have believed that Arabs were so primitive that they needed to be shown the wonders of democracy by a foreign power.
That’s part of the problem - treating foreigners as a fantasy, as objects that will do this or that, and you know this for sure without actually knowing anything about them. Read Arab media? Read public opinion polls from the Muslim world? You should!
“Now that we’ve effectively decapitated the government, we’re pretty short on what to find as a suitable replacement.”
Actually, no. For years now the US has had and has defended an alternative - a quasi-democracy dominated by sectarian parties/militias/former terrorists/Islamist parties without widespread support. SIIR/al-Da’wa run the show. I’d like democracy, you’d like democracy, most important the Iraqis want democracy. So how exactly does promoting and defending SIIR/al-Da’wa in power produce democracy?
“In fact you have said many in the region would prefer it.”
No. Not many. Overwhelming majorities. Very important! How seriously do you think those people take statements by the US government when a) they really want democracy and b) the US supports lots of dictators in the Muslim world? They don’t! We say: we’re in Iraq to bring democracy! They hear: lies! All lies! And then we go and back what most Iraqis think of as “the Persians” and they conclude: yep, not in Iraq to bring democracy, here to steal our oil, etc.
What do the Iraqis want? I mean, isn’t that the most important thing?
February 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
AT or is it UB, I’ve read up on the political spectrum in Iraq. It is indeed complex, but there are generalities that can be extracted, and whether or not my memory is sharp enough to answer your ‘pop quiz’ on the fly is irrelevant. You think that you can claim some kind of superiority by raising questions about the detail knowledge of others? I work with building code every day. I look stuff up in the code every day. Why? Because memorizing it is an unnecessary drain on my memory. I know where to look things up, I memorize a set of important markers, and the details are to be found in a book.
Intimate knowledge of the details is sometimes indicative of a myopic view.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
another take:
“No. Not many. Overwhelming majorities. Very important! How seriously do you think those people take statements by the US government when a) they really want democracy and b) the US supports lots of dictators in the Muslim world? They don’t! We say: we’re in Iraq to bring democracy! They hear: lies! All lies! And then we go and back what most Iraqis think of as “the Persians” and they conclude: yep, not in Iraq to bring democracy, here to steal our oil, etc. “
Thats very valid We may not like Arab perception, but it is what it is. The problem I see is that we cant let what goes around on the “Arab street” influence what we’re trying to do in Iraq. Unless you think the only reason we’re there is to steal their oil more than we are there to shove democracy down their throats.
I think you are attempting to throw purposeful misconceptions about neoconservative motives behind yourself in order to throw me off the chase Im having with you. You say you will not commit to an answer about whether or not we should continue our efforts there. Believe me you are doing a great job avoiding stating a position. But if we somehow actually felt we needed to invade Iraq partly to impose the white man’s version of enlightened democracy upon the savages, I suggest it would still be preferable to what would arise should we depart in haste. How would that effect perception in the Arab world? Probably more negatively that if we valued our commitments I would say.
Im interested in hearing what you think on the matter.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“I’d like democracy, you’d like democracy, most important the Iraqis want democracy.”
Speak for yourself. I want democracy where it will cultivate societies that are willing to join the world of ‘western’ civilization. Gaza strip democracy I’m not interested in. Democracy is a tool, not an end. Ultimately, the desired end is gaining neighbors we can live with. We tried islationism, that didn’t work; we tried working with dictators so long as they were friendly, that worked, but is outdated with the end of the cold war. Now we must promote democracy in the interest of promoting the growth of pro-western, stable governments, unless you’ve got a better idea.
“How seriously do you think those people take statements by the US government when a) they really want democracy and b) the US supports lots of dictators in the Muslim world? They don’t! We say: we’re in Iraq to bring democracy! They hear: lies! All lies! And then we go and back what most Iraqis think of as “the Persians” and they conclude: yep, not in Iraq to bring democracy, here to steal our oil, etc.”
Perhaps that has more to do with Arab media than our actions? You should know that, what with your knowledge base and all.
We support dictators like the Saudi Royal Family, and Mubarak because right now, the alternative (democratically or not) is Muslim extremists. WHat do you want? Consistency or stability? I opt for stability. If we can get Iraq to be a relatively stable democracy, perhaps we can put more pressure on Egypt or SA to move towards democracy. Perhaps.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
How seriously do you think those people take statements by the US government when a) they really want democracy and b) the US supports lots of dictators in the Muslim world?
It helps to read history, it really does. A common theme running through the arguments of war opponents is that the US supports and has supported “dictators in the Muslim world.”
The problem with this meme is that the proponents of this view fail to realize that until the Afghan and Iraq wars there were nothing but dictators in the Middle East to deal with – unless you count Turkey and Israel.
Before Bush junior if you had ANY relations with Middle Eastern nations, diplomatic, trade-wise or otherwise you were dealing with groups that had come to power by force of arms. Yet the writer expects the reader to acknowledge his superiority of knowledge about the Middle East! What effrontery! What arrogance!
February 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Ok, I think I’m getting the pattern here. Convictions of fairness, justice and democracy in regions that are oppressed are more aptly demonstrated with sloganeering bumper stickers, while actually defending these principals with force of arms is sort-sighted and lacks nuance.
Is that what Im supposed to take away from this?
No, Im afraid its not convincing.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Speak for yourself. I want democracy where it will cultivate societies that are willing to join the world of ‘western’ civilization. Gaza strip democracy I’m not interested in. Democracy is a tool, not an end. Ultimately, the desired end is gaining neighbors we can live with.”
Well, that’s fairly telling. What you’re doing here is treating people as means rather than as an end - props to achieve your goals rather than as people with goals of their own. Fortunately, you don’t get to decide whether the people of Gaza or anywhere else get democracy.
“Now we must promote democracy in the interest of promoting the growth of pro-western, stable governments, unless you’ve got a better idea.”
No. False! For two reasons. First, very simply, respect for human dignity. Second, a little more elaborately: Arabs and Muslims will never, ever trust anything the US says or does if, on the one hand, it says it wants to spread democracy and, on the other, rejects the outcome of free elections if the results aren’t to our liking. Want to improve America’s image abroad? Then: support elections, even if you don’t like the outcome, and be consistent.
“But if we somehow actually felt we needed to invade Iraq partly to impose the white man’s version of enlightened democracy upon the savages, I suggest it would still be preferable to what would arise should we depart in haste. How would that effect perception in the Arab world? Probably more negatively that if we valued our commitments I would say.”
True! Arab public opinion polls have indicated that clear majorities want the US out of Iraq, though not a precipitous withdrawal. Pulling out immediate, all 100% by tomorrow, would not be perceived very well. Fortunately, no one of import suggests this. Obama, the only candidate calling for any meaningful withdrawal, would keep troops there for another 16 months after entering office and would keep a residual force there or in the region to prevent al Qaeda from forming any kind of base
“We support dictators like the Saudi Royal Family, and Mubarak because right now, the alternative (democratically or not) is Muslim extremists.”
Hm. Maybe in Saudi Arabia - there’s been very little in the way of civil society development, so it’s very likely that the people best organized would be fairly extreme. But Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood? The guys who have eschewed violence for patient work for political reform despite decades of extreme repression, with little hope of actually benefiting from those reforms? There’s a serious debate going on right now in the MB - and continuing to back Mubarak’s repression out of fear of what democracy would produce helps ensure that hardliners, not reformers, will win that internal debate. Democracy! Will solve all problems.
But, it’s also worth asking: would Egyptians, etc, really hate the US so much that some are willing to support anti-US terrorist groups if the US weren’t seen as a key reason for the continued rule of the Mubarak regime?
“Convictions of fairness, justice and democracy in regions that are oppressed are more aptly demonstrated with sloganeering bumper stickers, while actually defending these principals with force of arms is sort-sighted and lacks nuance.”
Hm. The hippies have “Free Tibet” stickers, you have your yellow stickers, and no one ever lifts a finger to fix anything. Tie?
“The problem with this meme is that the proponents of this view fail to realize that until the Afghan and Iraq wars there were nothing but dictators in the Middle East to deal with – unless you count Turkey and Israel.”
There’s a difference between dealing with a country - normal relations - and billions of dollars in aid a year, huge military sales and cooperation, etc. The citizens of those countries know the difference.
“Perhaps that has more to do with Arab media than our actions? You should know that, what with your knowledge base and all.”
I forgot, all journalists everywhere ever hate America and lie lie lie. How could anyone who disagreed with you ever be anything but lied to?! But, again: if the pattern of US behavior was say: yay democracy! but to do: here’s a billion dollars in weapons and aid, Mubarak, then shouldn’t an Arab be suspicious of US actions in Iraq? Especially if our biggest partners in Iraq are the not-very-nice or popular SIIR/al-Da’wa?
“What effrontery! What arrogance!”
I’ll fetch the smelling salts, didn’t realize I was dealing with a wilting violet.
“Is that what Im supposed to take away from this?”
Hm, no. Remember: Om.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
My previous statement:
The problem with this meme[that the US has supported or supports dictators in the Middle East] is that the proponents of this view fail to realize that until the Afghan and Iraq wars there were nothing but dictators in the Middle East to deal with – unless you count Turkey and Israel.
There’s a difference between dealing with a country - normal relations - and billions of dollars in aid a year, huge military sales and cooperation, etc. The citizens of those countries know the difference.
Judging from the above exchange this writer is so ignorant that he apparently doesn’t realize that he has revealed an abysmal lack of knowledge about Middle Eastern history. And WE are supposed to subscribe to HIS reading lists – answer his feeble quizzes! But HE KNOWS, KNOWS I TELL YOU what the “citizens of those(conveniently unnamed) countries” think and feel. What rich(albeit unintended) irony.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Judging from the above exchange this writer is so ignorant that he apparently doesn’t realize that he has revealed an abysmal lack of knowledge about Middle Eastern history. And WE are supposed to subscribe to HIS reading lists – answer his feeble quizzes! But HE KNOWS, KNOWS I TELL YOU what the “citizens of those(conveniently unnamed) countries” think and feel. What rich(albeit unintended) irony.”
Perhaps I’m confused? We have normal relations with, say, China. We do not hand billions of dollars a year in aid and military financing to the Chinese government. We could also have normal relations with, say, Pakistan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia without supporting those governments. If we decide that strategic support for these governments outweighs the hatred of the US this generates in the publics of these countries, that’s one thing - but you’re not really bothering to ask the question!
If you’re interested, here are some links to work on Arab and Muslim public opinion:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
http://pewglobal.org/
Shibley Telhami, et al., A Six Country Study: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia (KSA) and UAE. University of Maryland/Zogby International 2006 Annual Arab Public Opinion Survey, .
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/
Mark Tessler and Michael D.H. Robbins, “What Leads Some Ordinary Arab Men and Women to Approve of Terrorist Acts Against the United States?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 51, No. 2, April 2007.
Dalia Mogahed, “Framing the War on Terror.” Gallup News Service, September 11, 2007
.
That’s not an exhaustive list by any means, but it’s a pretty good start. I’m just drawing on info from these sources; if you disagree, please have a look.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Few more:
Mark Tessler and Eleanor Gao, “Gauging Arab Support for Democracy.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 16, No. 3 (July 2005).
Fares al-Braizat, “Muslims and Democracy: An Empirical Critique of Fukuyama’s Culturalist Approach.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 3-5 (October 2002).
James J. Zogby, Arab Opinion on American Policies, Values and People. Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, and Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, 3 May 2007 .
Steven Kull, et al., Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda. Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, 24 April 2007 .
February 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Sorry! This format didn’t like my links. Most of them should be google-able.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“…answer his feeble quizzes!”
Well, if they’re so feeble, they should be easy to answer, no? I’m not an expert - far from it! My secret is: what little I do know has been gleaned by reading stuff written by people who know what they