Three Bits
My idea is that it would be stunningly wrong for the administration to mount a media offensive to explain the significance of Iraq and all matters related. I think those arguments have been made with clarity. The MSM and the Democrat leadership will not hear those arguments. "There's nothing new" is always the response, and that's perfectly true, there is utterly nothing new in their minds and there never will be. To talk, to argue, to communicate, it's a waste because an impossibility. The only way there can be something new is if there's something new on the ground; that they would at least have to explain away, and that gives an opportunity for discussion.
And something does have to happen. What I think has to happen is another war. What saved us from defeat in Afghanistan was Iraq. The MSM didn't have time to create a defeat. With the media focus on Iraq Afghanistan had four years to stabilize a government. Every leftist I know believes Afghanistan is a defeat, but the American public doesn't know that, so the Afghans don't know that, so in fact they putter along and are doing fairly well.
Iraq though, constantly, every night, is a "defeat". and so it may become a defeat in fact as Americans get tired of hearing the dismal drone every night and so just want to get out so it will stop. (We could fight a decent war if we could just get Americans to play bingo rather than watch CBS.) There is one way just as good as bingo and that's to attack Iran. An attack is always kind of fun, and it's different, it's a break from the drone. Initially at least Americans would support it, most Americans, and it certainly would lead to discussion. And initially it would be successful and possibly useful.
I do think we're moving that way. I would settle for a little bit of "hot pursuit".
And in Iraq we could use something akin to hot pursuit. Democracy comes through the barrel of a gun. All governments are formed with the gun, and I do hope the administration is getting tired of Maliki pussyfooting with al-Sadr. "This is democracy, we were elected. Sadr is my ally and I protect him." Sorry. An armed militia not controlled by a national government is not democracy. It's a dangerously disruptive faction and the antithesis of centralized democratic government and has got to go.
I hope this will be explained to Maliki through the barrel of a gun. It would improve his theoretical understanding of the democratic concept. I do think that is going to happen. I think also the concept that in a national democracy a faction can not militarily align with another nation will be explained as well. It's this that may lead to some exchange with Iran.
It is interesting that you can't allow a democracy to be formed democratically. Elections, absent constitutional protections, a judiciary, and tradition, merely become autocracy by the majority. It takes awhile to learn true democracy, and it takes a gun. It's interesting that Americans if things work out), will at the point of a gun express the democratic hope of the mass of Iraqi people while their elected leaders will not. It's useful to remember that Ataturk didn't create democratic Turkey through the ballot, he did it through the military. Petraeus as Ataturk, hopefully.
................
An interesting article by Edward N. Luttwak. He dismisses the possibility of establishing a democratic Iraq but says that in the now destabilized Middle East there's a great deal that's positive to American interests. The great positive is the now excited Sunni/Shiite divide, and the fortuitous fact that just now there is only one nation, the U.S., that has the power and wealth to effectively help either side.
In each nation there are differing interests, Sunni vrs Shiia, and one interest congruent with American interest, and it's sometimes Sunni, sometimes Shiia.
Lebanon, for example. The Siniora government, Sunni, is in opposition to Hezbollah, our and Israel's enemy, and resistant to Syria. They seek our help, and it's help we give. In Iraq it's the Abdul Aziz al-Hakim party, Sciri (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), Shiite/Arab, that seeks our help against both the Sunni insurgency and against the Iranian/Persian leaning Shiite/Arab Moqtada al-Sadr. And meanwhile Arab/Sunni Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, the whole bunch, seek U.S. help against the looming threat of an Iran possibly victorious through Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, and possibly with a nuke as well.
So sometimes the Sunnis seek our alliance, sometime the Shiia. It seems to be Luttwak's idea that with this active schism of interest the U.S. can play one faction against the other and keep things to a controlled boil. That's a little too much "real politic" for me but the analysis of the contending interests sure seems excellent. It could be used to stabilize Lebanon against Hezbollah; break Syria from Iran; it could enable an effective quashing of al-Sadr and give some backbone to Maliki; it could give some leverage over Arabia in general; it could isolate Iran.
The fly in the ointment is that it seems this will only work as long as Iran is an active threat, and that's a threat we would like to see pass... But no matter. At least in the short term this is an encouraging analysis because it argues that in every area in the Mid East where America has an interest they have a natural Arab ally.
...............
Wretchcard references this article though in a different context. His point (in commenting on another article) is that what holds the terrorist movement united against America is something termed "Narrative"; it's the single-minded focus on the story of the enemy, the crusader, the West, and on all the ills the West has brought to Muslim lands. There's agreement on that. Small cells, under no unified command, are united by that story, and so they plot against the United States and against the West. But in fact, that's all they have in common, their local politics are very different. The idea is that, if these cells can be forced to take a position on particular issues, having no unifying solidifying central command, they will then fracture one from the other on these subsidiary disputes and so in losing unity lose force.
Iraq is an example. The Jihad against Americans is actually not strong. They put far more effort into killing each other than into killing Americans, and they're far better at that than killing Americans. I'd always thought the reason we were so seldom attacked is because if we were they knew they'd get their butt's kicked. That's undoubtedly a factor, but by this analysis a large part of it is because they don't in fact hate Americans as much as they hate each other. And of course many prefer America. It's not because they love us as democrats, it's because we have guns and we keep them safe. We prevent civil war, and we may ally with a party actually inclined toward a recognizably western form of democratic government.
An interesting analysis.
I have to close with an interesting bit from Mark Steyn in The Corner. The comment was on Hillarie's "listening tour" but it's appropriate to serious conversation in general:
01/20 1:05PM
Barring another direct attack on the US mainland (ie, not Bali nightclubs, London Tubes or US targets overseas) I don’t think in 2008 the American people will be looking for someone who can “stare down jihadists.” If anything, it was already clear in ’06 that huge numbers of the American people have psychologically checked out of the war...
When everyone’s talking about “guaranteeing health care”, “leading the fight against global warming”, “strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty” ... when everyone’s cruising on autoplatitude, a guy who’s obsessed with “staring down jihadists” will sound as nutty as a fellow trying to win American Idol by doing the Mad Scene from Lucia di Lammermoor.
....................
(1/24/o7; 2:15 AM)
Westhawk has an excellent analysis of the internal divisions in Iraq and the general region, the divisions we have to play if we're to be successful. The general idea is that a unitary government of all Iraq is still possible because there are still factions that want it. I quote only one paragraph from a fairly long article. I especially like the last sentence (which I've placed in italics)
I would comment: the proper expression is not "ironic", better would be, "It's about time."
And something does have to happen. What I think has to happen is another war. What saved us from defeat in Afghanistan was Iraq. The MSM didn't have time to create a defeat. With the media focus on Iraq Afghanistan had four years to stabilize a government. Every leftist I know believes Afghanistan is a defeat, but the American public doesn't know that, so the Afghans don't know that, so in fact they putter along and are doing fairly well.
Iraq though, constantly, every night, is a "defeat". and so it may become a defeat in fact as Americans get tired of hearing the dismal drone every night and so just want to get out so it will stop. (We could fight a decent war if we could just get Americans to play bingo rather than watch CBS.) There is one way just as good as bingo and that's to attack Iran. An attack is always kind of fun, and it's different, it's a break from the drone. Initially at least Americans would support it, most Americans, and it certainly would lead to discussion. And initially it would be successful and possibly useful.
I do think we're moving that way. I would settle for a little bit of "hot pursuit".
And in Iraq we could use something akin to hot pursuit. Democracy comes through the barrel of a gun. All governments are formed with the gun, and I do hope the administration is getting tired of Maliki pussyfooting with al-Sadr. "This is democracy, we were elected. Sadr is my ally and I protect him." Sorry. An armed militia not controlled by a national government is not democracy. It's a dangerously disruptive faction and the antithesis of centralized democratic government and has got to go.
I hope this will be explained to Maliki through the barrel of a gun. It would improve his theoretical understanding of the democratic concept. I do think that is going to happen. I think also the concept that in a national democracy a faction can not militarily align with another nation will be explained as well. It's this that may lead to some exchange with Iran.
It is interesting that you can't allow a democracy to be formed democratically. Elections, absent constitutional protections, a judiciary, and tradition, merely become autocracy by the majority. It takes awhile to learn true democracy, and it takes a gun. It's interesting that Americans if things work out), will at the point of a gun express the democratic hope of the mass of Iraqi people while their elected leaders will not. It's useful to remember that Ataturk didn't create democratic Turkey through the ballot, he did it through the military. Petraeus as Ataturk, hopefully.
................
An interesting article by Edward N. Luttwak. He dismisses the possibility of establishing a democratic Iraq but says that in the now destabilized Middle East there's a great deal that's positive to American interests. The great positive is the now excited Sunni/Shiite divide, and the fortuitous fact that just now there is only one nation, the U.S., that has the power and wealth to effectively help either side.
In each nation there are differing interests, Sunni vrs Shiia, and one interest congruent with American interest, and it's sometimes Sunni, sometimes Shiia.
Lebanon, for example. The Siniora government, Sunni, is in opposition to Hezbollah, our and Israel's enemy, and resistant to Syria. They seek our help, and it's help we give. In Iraq it's the Abdul Aziz al-Hakim party, Sciri (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), Shiite/Arab, that seeks our help against both the Sunni insurgency and against the Iranian/Persian leaning Shiite/Arab Moqtada al-Sadr. And meanwhile Arab/Sunni Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, the whole bunch, seek U.S. help against the looming threat of an Iran possibly victorious through Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, and possibly with a nuke as well.
So sometimes the Sunnis seek our alliance, sometime the Shiia. It seems to be Luttwak's idea that with this active schism of interest the U.S. can play one faction against the other and keep things to a controlled boil. That's a little too much "real politic" for me but the analysis of the contending interests sure seems excellent. It could be used to stabilize Lebanon against Hezbollah; break Syria from Iran; it could enable an effective quashing of al-Sadr and give some backbone to Maliki; it could give some leverage over Arabia in general; it could isolate Iran.
The fly in the ointment is that it seems this will only work as long as Iran is an active threat, and that's a threat we would like to see pass... But no matter. At least in the short term this is an encouraging analysis because it argues that in every area in the Mid East where America has an interest they have a natural Arab ally.
...............
Wretchcard references this article though in a different context. His point (in commenting on another article) is that what holds the terrorist movement united against America is something termed "Narrative"; it's the single-minded focus on the story of the enemy, the crusader, the West, and on all the ills the West has brought to Muslim lands. There's agreement on that. Small cells, under no unified command, are united by that story, and so they plot against the United States and against the West. But in fact, that's all they have in common, their local politics are very different. The idea is that, if these cells can be forced to take a position on particular issues, having no unifying solidifying central command, they will then fracture one from the other on these subsidiary disputes and so in losing unity lose force.
Iraq is an example. The Jihad against Americans is actually not strong. They put far more effort into killing each other than into killing Americans, and they're far better at that than killing Americans. I'd always thought the reason we were so seldom attacked is because if we were they knew they'd get their butt's kicked. That's undoubtedly a factor, but by this analysis a large part of it is because they don't in fact hate Americans as much as they hate each other. And of course many prefer America. It's not because they love us as democrats, it's because we have guns and we keep them safe. We prevent civil war, and we may ally with a party actually inclined toward a recognizably western form of democratic government.
An interesting analysis.
I have to close with an interesting bit from Mark Steyn in The Corner. The comment was on Hillarie's "listening tour" but it's appropriate to serious conversation in general:
01/20 1:05PM
Barring another direct attack on the US mainland (ie, not Bali nightclubs, London Tubes or US targets overseas) I don’t think in 2008 the American people will be looking for someone who can “stare down jihadists.” If anything, it was already clear in ’06 that huge numbers of the American people have psychologically checked out of the war...
When everyone’s talking about “guaranteeing health care”, “leading the fight against global warming”, “strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty” ... when everyone’s cruising on autoplatitude, a guy who’s obsessed with “staring down jihadists” will sound as nutty as a fellow trying to win American Idol by doing the Mad Scene from Lucia di Lammermoor.
....................
(1/24/o7; 2:15 AM)
Westhawk has an excellent analysis of the internal divisions in Iraq and the general region, the divisions we have to play if we're to be successful. The general idea is that a unitary government of all Iraq is still possible because there are still factions that want it. I quote only one paragraph from a fairly long article. I especially like the last sentence (which I've placed in italics)
The American intention to simultaneously attack the Sunni extremists and al-Sadr's militia seems to favor Mr. al-Hakim. If the Americans (and Kurds) crush al-Sadr's organization, Prime Minister al-Maliki would seem to no longer have the support necessary to retain his office. The Americans have a replacement in mind: a moderate, cross-sectarian alliance of the Sunni Islamic Party, the Kurdish parties, and Mr. al-Hakim's SCIRI party. Mr. al-Maliki and al-Sadr have thus far convinced Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to refrain from blessing this arrangement on the principle that it would break up Shi'ite unity. It is ironic that the Americans may be determined to do with force what they cannot seem to accomplish through political negotiation and persuasion.
I would comment: the proper expression is not "ironic", better would be, "It's about time."
posted by mouse at 11:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home