Interesting News From Iraq

Rich Lowry points us to this AP story from Iraq:

March 5, 2005 -- BAGHDAD — As more people lose loved ones to the relentless terrorism, Iraqis are becoming increasingly angry at the rebels, even staging public demonstrations condemning them.

... Yesterday, hostility to the insurgency boiled over into bloodshed in Wihda, 25 miles south of Baghdad. Townsmen attacked militants thought to be planning a raid on the town and killed seven of them, police Capt. Hamadi al-Zubeidy reported.

Per Google News, this story got reasonable play nationally in the local press.  We note the Chicago Tribune and the Houston Chronicle, but we are not holding our breath waiting for the fresh perspective offered by the Times, the WaPO, or the LA Times - they are no doubt devoting their resources to the Robert Byrd story.

As to what the incident means?  It is one more encouraging straw in the wind (IIRC, a similar incident occurred a few weeks back) - the US cannot outlast the insurgents, but the good people of Iraq can.

Comments

[creepy dude]

Encouraging? Yes if Iraqis killing Iraqis is encouraging. And 4 marines killed yesterday too. Yep. A great day all around.

Vigilante justice is better than no justice at all, but it is not the hallmark of a civil society.

The failure to form the new government by now is increasingly problematic.

And that Iraqis are now killing terrorists on their own initiative because so many Iraqis have lost loved ones to terrorist attacks is hardly cause for U.S. pride.

Iraq is on the cusp of falling back into chaos-(if indeed it ever left it). I believe something worthwhile can still emerge-but it won't happen without strong U.S. intervention.

I think our president should spend the next 60 days doing something other than seeing how many U.S. cities he can visit just to lie about Social Security in.

Like finish the goddamn job.

[Tim]

Actually, the U.S. can outlast the insurgents, depending upon political will. What creepy dude doesn't understand is there no political accomodation for the insurgents, as they are either B'aathist remnants or foreign jihadis, so really, killing them all is the only solution. Which is why, of course, Iraqis taking matters into their own hands is a good thing. As for the bedwetting whine that it's not the hallmark of a civil society, well, yeah, but one cannot expect a civil society in the midst of war, now can one(unless your some blinker lib thinking Iraq is a profound failure until its just exactly like the leafy suburbs of Connecticut).

[creepy dude]

There is no political accomodation for the insurgents? Tell it to Bush. Perhaps you missed that we are presently negotiating with them? TM even did a fpp on it a few days ago. Not that I expect any good to come from that,but there it is.

As for civil society-well, it is what you would expect after wildly successful and peaceful elections whose turnout far exceeded all the pessimist MSM expectations.
But you are right Tim-that was just more propaganda/bullshit. There's still a war on. And
I don't know why anyone expects Shiites to win?

And for the "what's your plan genius" crowd: recognize that the election accomplished nothing; drop the liberty-democracy-happy talk crap, and partition the country already. Even if Iraqis are ready for self-rule, Iraq isn't.

[TM]

Vigilante justice is better than no justice at all, but it is not the hallmark of a civil society.

Four brothers lying dead in Coffeeville...

There is no political accomodation for the insurgents?

I don't think they are monolithic either - some factions may want a deal; the Zarqawi crowd really will either fight, die, or flee.

[richard mcenroe]

creepy dude is getting better. Used to be his individual sentences contradicted one another. Now the the sentences rebut themselves: "Even if Iraqis are ready for self-rule, Iraq isn't."

Then exactly who in Iraq would have to be ready?

[Harry Arthur]

Speaking of civil society, Creepy Dude, are you able to make a cogent argument without foul language? Just wondering, because it's been my experience that one who resorts to four letter words and ad hominem attacks generally suffers in the vocabulary and logic departments.

[RedDan]

I'd be interested to see the "estimates" of the size of the insurgency.

Remember that about one month prior to the elections, the Iraqi Defense(?I think?) Minister was saying that the insurgency was 200,000 strong, later amended to 40,000 hard core fighters and 160,000 supporters.

Clearly one or two incidents such as you point out do not magically make the above-noted numbers disappear.

Just as clearly, reportage on these kinds of events is just as jumbled as any other reportage from the frontlines on ANY subject ("War Crimes", Journalist Killed, Targetting, WMD found, and so on down the line)...

It is equally likely (in a hypothetical, let's play with the available data kinda way) that, for example, rival insurgent groups that are loosely clan or tribe based are taking out vengeance for previous wrongs, that there are turf wars going on, that one group of insurgents committed a crime against a local tribal group or power, or whatever.

Just an admonition to wait for more than single reports, or even TWO reports!!! to make a sweeping prediction.

[creepy irish dude]

McEnroe-well if you comprehended my point that the country needs to be partitioned, you might infer I don't believe in the viability of "Iraq" as a nation-it's an artificial collection of Kurds and Arabs, themselves divided into two major factions, living within political lines devised by the British.

Thus I believe the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are indeed ready for democracy, but only in their own partitioned sectors. Iraq the confederacy is not ready for prime time.

Harry-it's my experience that people who complain about foul language rather than respond to the argument generally have no response. Take the pill marked chill.

OTOH since Cheney's remark to Leahy was "fuck you" you might well be right about the foul mouthed being brainless.

[Harry Arthur]

CD, my point was just that - try making an argument instead of your normal rant consisting of ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated allegations. Cheney was just as uncivil and I'll make no apologies for him, but does that imply you should join him, or do you place yourself in the "brainless" category with him? I'll look closely next time for a thoughtful argument that merits a thoughtful response and respond accordingly otherwise my observation remains appropriate.

As for what we believe about the Iraquis and how they should construct and govern their country - I think they might just be able to figure that one out themselves. I doubt we're that much smarter or aware of what they want and need than are they. As a career soldier myself, I'll give you the point that killing is seldom cause for celebration but it is sometimes necessary to accomplish a greater good in the long run and I would rather that Iraqis take responsibility for securing their own future at as fast a pace as they are able. Unfortunately that will mean that Iraqis will need to kill other Iraqis.

What is encouraging about this incident is not that vigilanteism is good but that it is at least one anecdotal example of at least some local portion of the population rejecting the insurgency. I don't believe any other general conclusions can be drawn at this point, but if the Iraqi people as a whole are as tired of the insurgency as apparently is this local group, then the insurgency cannot long survive. The insurgents simply have to have the support of the local population, active or passive, or they die of neglect - no place to hide, no place to eat, no place to sleep, no secure weapons caches, etc.

I'm wondering where you think the Iraqis should be at this point and how you would chose to "finish the ... job"? We're now, what, about 25 months into this war and we've eliminated the preponderance of the prior regime and conducted at least one democratic vote - that many "experts" in and out of the UN opined was impossible - with more to come later this year. We're making progress rebuilding the infrastructure, some of which we destroyed, but much of which was allowed to deteriorate through neglect for the last few decades.

Have we made mistakes? Plenty. Is this going to be successful? Who knows? I do know that at this point even after WWII we were little better off in Germany or Japan. I also know that it took many years after our own revolution to get to the point of a Jeffersonian representative constitutional government.

Occasionally it is just possible that the glass is half full rather than half empty.

[creepy irish dude]

"I think they might just be able to figure that one out themselves."

Considering they were nowhere close to overthrowing Saddam, I doubt this.

"I doubt we're that much smarter or aware of what they want and need than are they."

Than why did we intervene and overthrow Saddam allegedly on their behalf?

Yes- Shiites are rejecting a Sunni insurgency that targets Shiites. Not surprising. A.K.A. Civil War.
As for Mistakes. Yes. Lots.But I'll just look ahead.

One of the biggest and bloodiest mistakes of the 20th century was the communist conviction that political superstructure was imposed from above, could be changed at will, and that man's nature was essentially good, and once the repressive regimes were overthrown, paradise on earth would flourish.

Amazingly enough, this now seems to be the operative conservative paradigm for Iraq. It won't work. Iraq is not prepared to coalesce as a civil polity. It is far too divided by tribalism and factions.

We need to first partition the country into three federations. We can even dust off our old "Articles of Conferation" and use those. That was a crucial stage in the development of the U.S., after all. Later replaced by the Constitution as the societal need for it evolved.

That's what Iraq needs right now. Time to evolve.
To think you can just impose some shiny 21st century three- branched democracy on these people is a Marxist misconception of the worst kind.

[Harry Arthur]

CD, On some points we'll just have to agree to disagree, however, I think your take on some of what we're doing, or trying to do is mistaken.

For example, I do not believe we are trying to "impose some shiny 21st century three-branched democracy" on Iraq. If anything, the opposite is true - we are insisting only that they create a participatory government, the shape of which is really yet to be determined. The purpose of the first vote to select representatives was so that they can make these decisions themselves, not just simply for us to impose a solution on them. I am convinced that no one in our government at any level of leadership believes that democracy can be imposed at the barrel of a gun.

I'll try to find the link again but I recently read that Al Sistani was originally opposed to the requirement for a super-majority to determine their constitutional provisions until he educated himself on US history and our own constitutional convention which convinced him it was the best way to proceed. I'd say that was pretty politically sophisticated of him given that the majority Shiites were oppressed by the minority Sunnis for decades, literally at the tip of a sword.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the Shiites haven't risen up as a group and just gone out and killed every Sunni they could find, given their experience under Saddam, largely at the hands of the Sunnis. We have most definitely not seen a civil war to date and in my estimation that bodes well for future success in building a country.

You suggest that: "We need to first partition the country into three federations. We can even dust off our old "Articles of Conferation" and use those. That was a crucial stage in the development of the U.S., after all. Later replaced by the Constitution as the societal need for it evolved.

That's what Iraq needs right now. Time to evolve.
To think you can just impose some shiny 21st century three- branched democracy on these people is a Marxist misconception of the worst kind."

But your argument suggests we do that very thing - impose a form of government on Iraq of your chosing, not theirs. My problem with your suggestion is that you seem to think that it is preferable we impose a form of government on Iraq rather than let them hash out the details themselves. I just can't go there. These are intelligent people. It might be a bit messy for a while but I think you'll be surprised at how well they do working out their own solutions to their problems and at how elegant are those solutions. I don't mind us making suggestions if they ask, but unless they own the solutions to their problems they will be no solutions at all. Our job will be to support them militarily, to help rebuild their country, to train policemen, soldiers, judges, etc so we can leave as soon as they are able to get by on their own.

I believe you're probably correct in your assertion that "they were nowhere close" to overthrowing Saddam but I've got to disagree with your assessment of "why". I'd suggest that it wasn't a lack of political sophistication, intelligence, or any other attribute necessary to create a functional government but a lack of military power. I'm sure you recall that this family operation was a total dictatorship that ruthlessly suppressed any and all forms of dissent, actual or perceived.

Just look at what happened to the Marsh Arabs, the Shiites and the Kurds who were ruthlessly killed when they attempted to rise up after the first Iraq war based on our encouragement. Unfortunately the fact that we failed to help as promised (or at least perceived) was a mistake on our part of monumental proportions that even now resonates with many Iraqis. In short, I believe even now they're working out in their minds whether we're trustworthy or just a paper tiger that will cut and run as soon as the going gets a bit tough for us. In short, it's up to us to continue to earn their trust and respect. That's one of the reasons we go out of our way to avoid civilian casulties, even at the risk of our own troops' safety.

Additionally, even though one of the reasons we overthrew Saddam was to allow the Iraqi people self-determination - which Bush believes will have an impact on the rest of the ME (and in fact may be already having an impact) - there were other pressing reasons such as our belief that he possessed large stocks of WMDs and was at least a state supporter of terrorism though not a primary participant in 9-11. Not to mention the dozen or so UN resolutions that everyone agrees he blatantly ignored, including the cease-fire agreement from the end of the first Gulf war.

I've probably used enough space here and then some but in the final analysis, history will determine whether either of our perceptions of how Iraq is progressing or ought to progress are accurate.

[creepy irish dude]

Certainly Harry-but please don't forget that my vision is actually closer to the Bush administration's than yours.

To quote my man Eric Martin and save me the typing:

"Remember, for better or for worse, the Bush team wanted to postpone elections for many months, if not years, beyond January 2005. Sistani resisted this postponement, and so January was agreed upon as a concession (although Sistani wanted a date even earlier than January, and he had to compromise as well). Then, the plan was to first hold elections through regional caucuses, but Sistani objected and Sistani imposed his will again. Sistani also prevailed on his opposition to the Bush team's plan to use of the interim constitution as the permanent one. "

I humbly submit that the regional caucuses were the preliminary step in a partition plan now buried in the bowels of the Pentagon.

On that Bush was right.

[Cecil Turner]

"Remember, for better or for worse, the Bush team wanted to postpone elections for many months, if not years, beyond January 2005. Sistani resisted this postponement, and so January was agreed upon as a concession . . ."

I'd like to see some evidence for that assertion. The initial driver behind the election timetable was as a prerequisite for the post-invasion UN security council resolution (1551), and was incorporated into its text:

Invites the Governing Council to provide to the Security Council, for its review, no later than 15 December 2003, in cooperation with the Authority and, as circumstances permit, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, a timetable and a program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections under that constitution;

The timetable was presented and adopted, proposing a Sovereignty transfer in June, '04, and elections to follow as soon as practicable. Prior to sovereignty transfer, the interim governing council had to agree on the Transitional Administrative Law

The TAL provides for equal rights for all Iraqis, without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion or origin. It confirms Iraq as a single state with federal structures, affirms civilian control of the Iraqi security services and the independence of the judiciary. Finally, the TAL establishes the general framework for national elections no later than January 31, 2005, the drafting of a permanent constitution by August 15, 2005 and the transition to a constitutionally-based post-transition Iraqi government by December 31, 2005.

Which set the schedule we're still essentially on. And Bush was hardly vacillating on the issue. This headline is typical: "Bush adamant on Iraq election timetable."

AFAICT, Sistani made two demands: first elections prior to sovereignty transfer; and then to have elections in 2004. He was forced to accept kind words and rejection on both issues.

[creepy dude]

CT you can't be serious. I know instant revisionism is the order of the day; but here's the facts from my man swopa-(go here for this quote with links for every fact http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043):

"June 2003: The original U.S. plan following the invasion was to ensure that we got the Iraq we wanted, and so elections would be held only after a new national constitution had been written by a handpicked, exile-led group. Indeed, our colonial provisional administration was so afraid of the people's will that we cancelled ad-hoc local elections all across Iraq in June of 2003. (Subsequent protests in Najaf, the home city of the Shiite religious establishment led by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, included banners that read, "Canceled elections are evidence of bad intentions.")

Perhaps not coincidentally, within days Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling for national elections as the only acceptable way to choose the assembly that would draft a constitution, specifically rejecting the U.S. plans to appoint a committee.

Fall 2003: As richly documented in this space, the American administration tried in vain to ignore or sidestep Sistani's decree for several months, until it became clear that the Iraqi would-be puppets on the so-called Governing Council were refusing to go along with the scam.

The U.S. solution, of course, was to come up with a new scam -- a complicated series of steps with "caucuses" (indirect elections, with participants vetted by the Americans) to choose an interim governmen that would be given nominal sovereignty, with Iraqis not allowed to vote directly for their own leaders until the end of 2005. Sistani's response was to say, in essence, "What part of 'elections' don't you understand?", demanding full national elections by June 2004.

January 2004: As the Bushites continued to dither and balk (including quashing a census plan that would have enabled faster elections), Sistani was forced to organize massive demonstrations in Basra and Baghdad (shown in the picture above) to make his growing impatience clear.

Seeing hundreds of thousands of Shiites in the streets of Baghdad, the denizens of Dubyaville promptly crapped their pants. Although still whining about infeasibility of elections, Bush and his appointed colonial ruler Jerry Bremer invited the UN to design a new transition, just as Sistani had demanded.

February-May 2004: The Bushites then did their best work behind the scenes, pressuring Kofi Annan to yield to an election date after the U.S. voting in November, pushing through a "transitional administrative law" intended to influence the eventual constitution, and promoting Iyad Allawi as temp prime minister over the UN's choice, Hussein Shahristani (an adviser to Sistani).

Nevertheless, Sistani came away with the bulk of the winnings -- not just direct elections for a government that would write the constitution, occurring at least a year earlier than the Americans originally envisioned, but UN involvement to at least partially minimize the threat of fraud by the interim regime. For good measure, he successfully lobbied the UN to ignore the transitional law written by the Americans, giving his allies the option to declare it a dead letter if they wish.

Pleased with his handiwork, Sistani issued a new fatwa, declaring voting in today's election to be a religious duty for his millions of Shiite followers. Not only that, he orchestrated the creation of a Shiite slate, and his picture has been the primary image on the campaign literature plastered nationwide by his network of loyalists. This unprecedented political involvement has been the driving factor behind the large Shiite turnout reported today.

So, whatever his ultimate intentions for Iraq are, you can thank Grand Ayatollah Sistani for these elections -- his determination made them happen, and his fervent endorsement of voting gave them whatever level of success they achieve. George Bush? He's claiming credit on the surface, but away from the cameras he's grimacing and scheming to keep Sistani from forcing any more unwanted democracy down his throat."

[Cecil Turner]

Swopa, eh? There's a shocker.

"June 2003: The original U.S. plan following the invasion was to ensure that we got the Iraq we wanted,"

There is not enough tinfoil in the world to cover the requirement.

"Fall 2003: As richly documented in this space, the American administration tried in vain to ignore or sidestep Sistani's decree for several months, until it became clear that the Iraqi would-be puppets on the so-called Governing Council were refusing to go along with the scam."

Ah, Sistani's fatwas and the omnipotent Governing Council, eh? I'm sure it had nothing to do with France, Russia and Germnay, who were demanding a timetable before agreeing to a new UN Resolution (which made a donors conference possible):

France, Germany and Russia - three leading critics of the US-led war on Iraq - have agreed to back an amended UN resolution on Iraq . . . . The three countries had demanded a timetable for elections for an Iraqi government.

Who you gonna believe, Swopa or those right-wing ideologues at the BBC? I admit to losing interest about there. You want to believe this stuff, go ahead. It does, however, impact on the weight sensible people will give your opinion on other matters. Like partitioning (or whatever your latest proposal is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). Cheers.

[creepy dude]

Apparently you lost interest right about where you couldn't address the simple facts.

Do you deny we canceled spontaneous elections in June 2003?

Do you deny Sistani immediately had protesters in the street? and etc.

CT-don't forget I'm actually with Bush on this one. These nationalized elections were premature as far as maximal long term stability imho. But to think Sistani was not the one who made them happen is just crazy. I mean who won the election?

Sistani's man is going to be prime minister; Bush's man got 14% of the vote. I think I know who's in control. You think that's the outcome the white House wanted? Hell, people say Kerry was crushed and he got 49%.

Anyway here's an experiment for you.

Bush had the appointed Allawi address a joint session of Congress. So when is the actually elected leader of Iraq going to be invited?

[Cecil Turner]

"Apparently you lost interest right about where you couldn't address the simple facts."

Simple facts like Sistani's fatwas are the reason for Iraqi elections? Gowan, pull the other one.

"Do you deny we canceled spontaneous elections in June 2003?"

Yes, we didn't allow elections in June 2003 (nor June 2004, for that matter, as Sistani demanded).

"But to think Sistani was not the one who made them happen is just crazy. I mean who won the election?"

The elections were the plan all along, as part of the broader war on terror, not because of Sistani's fatwas:

"Fourth and finally, we are denying the terrorists the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East. . . "

"Sistani's man is going to be prime minister; Bush's man got 14% of the vote."

"Bush's man"? That appellation would ensure he couldn't win in Iraq, which makes the argument a bit silly on its face. And Sistani, representing the largest (by far) demographic was on the winning side? Again, a shocker.

"Bush had the appointed Allawi address a joint session of Congress. So when is the actually elected leader of Iraq going to be invited?"

After he gets elected?

[TM]

What I find interesting is that CID is presenting history as done by a lawyer trying to make a case (Bush is a liying anti-democrat, I guess), rather than as an historian trying to figure out what happened.

I am sure this is all very post-modern, but it leads to the troubling question of just how often this actually goes on among supposedly serious researchers.

I am thinking of the "Bankruptcies are caused by medical problems" study debunked here. Let's put it this way - if Bush put out a study this weak, lefties would call for his impeachment. One might even infer that the entire point of the study was to (a) oppose the bankruptcy reform, and (b) advocate for national health insurance.

Yet it is marketed as serious social science by members of the Alternative Reality based Community.

[creepy irish dude]

Ok let's take it one step one step at a time. I certainly don't pretend to know everything.

Why did we originally the vote to be regional caucuses?

Why did we scrap this plan?

[creepy irish dude]

make that first question-

1.Why did we originally want the vote to be regional caucuses and not a nationalized election?

2.when and why did we abandon this plan?

And CT-if the your premise that the "appellation (Bush's man) would ensure he couldn't win in Iraq" is correct, please do tell:

What effect did bringing Allawi to D.C., having him address a joint section of Congress, and appear in a joint press conference have on Allawi's electoral result?

Second, are you now saying that the person (i.e. apparently jaafari) who becomes the Prime Minister wasn't elected?

TM-I'm quite sure I don't know what you're talking about. If it helps, I'm all for Bush's impeachment anyway.

If it's studies you want-how about this one:

A report by the U.S. Army official historian (major Isaiah Wilson) said the military was hampered by the failure to occupy and stabilize Iraq in 2003. As a result, the military lost its dominance by July 2003 and has yet to regain that position.

"In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative gained over an off-balanced enemy," the report said. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."

...

In November 2003, the military drafted a formal plan for stability and post-combat operations, Wilson said. Termed Phase-4, the plan was meant to follow such stages as preparation for combat, initial operations and combat. "There was no Phase IV plan," the report said. "While there may have been plans at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these plans operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse. There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."

[creepy irish dude]

Please note I don't blame our military for this-the military effort was obviously superb-I blame Bush for not having adequate post war planning in place.

So your notion that everything is going according to plan is a little strained, unless the plan was "let's just see what happens"

[Cecil Turner]

"Why did we originally the vote to be regional caucuses?"

Two likely reasons are because it's easier to set up, less prone to disruption, and increases representation among minorities. (Sistani, leader of the majority, would prefer direct elections.)

But it should be obvious that we could have simply held elections as we wished, instead of implementing an Interim Governing Council, who adopted election laws and an interim constitution, to develop procedures to elect the transitional government, and write the final constitution. The whole point of that tortuous process is to be democratic, and run by Iraqis--not some US master plan. Sistani certainly had some input into the result . . . as he should have. The contention that it somehow represents a defeat, or that democracy wasn't really the goal, requires an interpretation bordering on baroque.

"Why did we scrap this plan?"

I'm not sure "scrap" is entirely valid. Like most politics, it's a compromise. The current system (a "closed list, single district, proportional-representation system") was proposed by the UN EAD director. One interpretation:

U.N. electoral assistance director Perelli suggested the system because it may give an advantage to smaller parties, and thus may be more inclusive than other forms of voting.

[Cecil Turner]

"What effect did bringing Allawi to D.C., having him address a joint section of Congress, and appear in a joint press conference have on Allawi's electoral result?"

What, did he win? Musta missed that one.

"Second, are you now saying that the person (i.e. apparently jaafari) who becomes the Prime Minister wasn't elected?"

Hey, I thought Allawi won?! No, I'm saying it's a little early to be complaining about him not being asked as a guest to a SOTU speech.

"If it's studies you want-how about this one:"

Please provide links to source documents, not cherry-picked quotes. (Not that there aren't plenty of studies showing we already lost the war on terror, Jeffrey Record's perhaps most famous.)

"Please note I don't blame our military for this-the military effort was obviously superb-I blame Bush for not having adequate post war planning in place."

"I don't blame the military for not having a military plan"? If it were true, it'd be entirely blameworthy. I suspect it's not, and your surrender premature.

[creepy irish dude]

CT-I think you're missing my point.

Let's just cut to the chase. Who do you think the White House wanted to win the election? (If your answer is no favorite-then tell me who actually appointed Allawi temporary PM and why?)

Anyway- I thought Major Wilson's study was better known, but, unsurprisingly, the rigt blogosphere hasn't discussed it much.

The paper is here:

http://portal.is.cornell.edu/files/archives/calendar_files/3989/BEYOND_WAR.wilson_(PSP_10.14.04).pdf

Please note it is the Major's personal opinion. But the man is no DailyKos diarist: "The report was authored by Maj. Isaiah Wilson, the official historian of the U.S. Army for the Iraq war. Wilson also served as a war planner for the army's 101st Airborne Division until March 2004, Middle East Newsline reported. His report, not yet endorsed as official army history, has been presented to several academic conferences."

Now tell me why I should believe you over him?

[creepy irish dude]

woops: bad link

I have to cut it-let's face it-apparently I'm too dumb to make html work in here:

http://portal.is.cornell.edu/files/archives/calendar_files
/3989/BEYOND_WAR.wilson_(PSP_10.14.04).pdf

It looks good in preview-sorry if it don't work.

[creepy irish dude]

Hey CT I'm just getting around to reading the CFR link you just posted:

Here's what they say (under What are the arguments against proportional representation?):

"Sistani has consistently spoken in favor of elections, and his influence pushed the U.S. occupation authority to move up the original schedule for elections by a year."

Assuming that's true-as I must since I know you wouldn't link to false information-how did Sistani exercise this "influence" and why did we want to wait another year absent his "influence"?

[Cecil Turner]

"CT-I think you're missing my point."

It's part of my strategy to try and get you to state it clearly, rather than subjecting me to an endless series of rhetorical questions.

"Let's just cut to the chase. Who do you think the White House wanted to win the election? (If your answer is no favorite-then tell me who actually appointed Allawi temporary PM and why?)"

The death of a thousand questions continues. But, okay, UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi was charged with appointing the Iraqi Interim Government. Again from CFR:

The members of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) were appointed June 1 by U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. They were selected after a long consultative process by Brahimi, who met with hundreds of Iraqis from around the country before making his choices. [it goes on to say the IGC and US officials had significant input

"Now tell me why I should believe you over him?"

Believe what? Did he say we're losing? Or that we should partition Iraq? I don't think so. That the Army sucks at peacekeeping? Yeah, no s*** . . . welcome to the world.

If you want a quick critique, operational planning generally takes place at the JFC (Joint Force Command) level, rather than the LFCC (Land Force Component Command) level, which the Major seemed to concentrate on. (Strategic planning normally takes place at the unified command, in this case CentCom, and sometimes there is no junior JFC.) He complains about the timeline (which he should, militarily it's always a mistake to give the opponent one)--but neglects to mention it was foisted on us by political necessity (discussed above). And his final bit about higher education in the senior officer ranks is likely endemic among young officers with PhDs (and perhaps rates a grain of salt).

"Assuming that's true-as I must since I know you wouldn't link to false information-how did Sistani exercise this "influence" and why did we want to wait another year absent his "influence"?"

Good question. But since I'm not sure if they mean "election" as opposed to "caucus" in the recent election (in which case it's a question of quality, not timetable), or if they're talking about Sistani's early demands in 2003 (which seemed more focused on the interim government), I can't say. The timetable has not shifted significantly since the TAL, nor does that seem a major shift from the original timetable given to the UN--I can't speak to the detailed negotiations. I'm also not endorsing every statement at CFR (e.g., in one spot they say Sistani got everything he asked for--in another he agreed to sign the interim constitution only with the understanding that they'd renegotiate some aspects he found objectionable--can't both be right), but overall they seem pretty fair).

[creepy irish dude]

Ok: well let's quickly recap the basics:

I quoted this statement:

"Remember, for better or for worse, the Bush team wanted to postpone elections for many months, if not years, beyond January 2005. Sistani resisted this postponement, and so January was agreed upon as a concession . . ."

You said "I'd like to see some evidence for that assertion."

I then quoted from a link you provided (CFR) that: "Sistani has consistently spoken in favor of elections, and his influence pushed the U.S. occupation authority to move up the original schedule for elections by a year."

It seems to me the second quote is very similar to the first-and, forget the quote game, both are fairly benign summations of reality.

But you're a pretty plugged in a guy. So here's another question for you:

What was the original role envisioned for Chalabi to play in post-war Iraq?

[creepy irish dude]

P.S. That's not a rhetorical question. Just an honest inquiry into your obviously knowledgable database.

I have no idea myself. Yes I know the cranky leftish theories, and I've read (at NRO) some equally weird idol worship stuff-but who knows?

It seems we thought the guy was good for something, since otherwise how did he get to be such a famous name and sit next to Mrs. Bush at the SOTU? Based on his performance he should be pretty obscure.

So what's your take?

[Cecil Turner]

"It seems to me the second quote is very similar to the first-and, forget the quote game, both are fairly benign summations of reality."

And again, both ignore the timeline (in both the UNSC and TAL) which calls for: "national elections no later than January 31, 2005, the drafting of a permanent constitution by August 15, 2005 and the transition to a constitutionally-based post-transition Iraqi government by December 31, 2005."

Was the original timetable for 2006? I don't know--haven't seen much on the early negotiations. But if so, they were awfully preliminary, it hasn't been for quite some time, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

"What was the original role envisioned for Chalabi to play in post-war Iraq?"

Best guess (let me tune the rabbit ears, here): I suspect the initial intention was to use him to convince as many Iraqis as possible to join the new government building process (as opposed to the insurgency). His limited usefulness was apparent early on, and interest waned rapidly.

"P.S. That's not a rhetorical question. Just an honest inquiry into your obviously knowledgable database."

You'll forgive my skepticism, but it sounds like another rhetorical question designed to reinforce the "we really wanted to set up a puppet government" meme. (Which of course doesn't lend itself to being directly stated, since setting up a puppet government would be far easier--and much less inclusive of actual Iraqis--than the actual ongoing process.)

"It seems we thought the guy was good for something, since otherwise how did he get to be such a famous name and sit next to Mrs. Bush at the SOTU? "

At the time he was the leader of the largest Iraqi opposition group (INC) which we'd been supporting (since the 1998 ILA, if I recall correctly), and we were getting ready to invade Iraq.

[Evil Bob]

I'm still trying to get my mind around this "three federation" partition plan. While I don't agree that we ought to partition Iraq, I can see an argument for two. At least, if we ignore the political nightmare of trying to draw boundaries, then having to deal with the Kurds and the Arabs that happen to live on the wrong side of the line.

But, three? What, you're going to draw up boundaries based on a particular religious persuasion? What about the Iraqis that don't fit into neat little boxes?

[creepy dude]

EvilBob-the problem is they're already putting a lot of Iraqis into boxes-wooden ones. Something's got to give.
Kurdistan is already separate-so we're really talking about splitting Sunnis and Shiites.

CT-if you're telling to me ignore information you linked too as inaccurate, I will, but that's a little weird.

[Cecil Turner]

"CT-if you're telling to me ignore information you linked too as inaccurate, I will, but that's a little weird."

I link to the Times often . . . doesn't mean I expect you to take Dowd's quotes as Gospel. CFR's a big site, lots of good stuff, generally fair. (And in fact, when making a conservative point, I generally try to quote from liberal sources, and vice-versa--for obvious credibility reasons. If you're looking for argument consistency across sources, that's likely to strike you as "weird.")

Nowhere in there did I find anything about election timetables shifting recently (in the last year or so). Seems to me if you want to prove your thesis, that'd be the ticket. As to partitioning, you'd think the historical success (or lack thereof) of such plans would give the staunchest proponent qualms (e.g., Yugoslavia, Palestine--oh yeah, that was a good idea).

[creepy irish dude]

Ok-well then here's Reuel Gerecht, a conservative favorite, in an AEI article dated today:

"Take the fatwa of Ayatollah Sistani that pushed the Bush administration to accept a speedy transition to democracy. Arguing against an extended interim government, Sistani wrote:

'Popular elections are necessary so that each Iraqi who is of voting age can choose his representative for a constituent assembly. And then any Basic Law written by this assembly must be approved by a national referendum. It is incumbent upon all believers with their utmost commitment to demand this, and asserting the truth of this path is the best way that they can participate in this process.'

That opinion, issued on June 28, 2003, is revolutionary in the history of Islam. Note that there is little reference to Islam. There is no allusion to the duties man owes to God. In its essentials--one man, one vote, and the moral obligation to have a constitution written by elected representatives and approved by popular referendum--this fatwa is flawlessly secular. It simply makes the people the final arbiter of politics."

This is one of the fatwas you snarked about earlier (sample quote from you: "Simple facts like Sistani's fatwas are the reason for Iraqi elections? Gowan, pull the other one.")

But here's a conservative boy not only crediting the fatwa for speeding up elections, but praising it. Of course, since Sistani is now the only game in town, the conservatives are repositioning to show how great Sistani has always been, but that's a different subject.

Source: http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18469/
article_detail.asp