Powered by TypePad

« CAFE, Fuel Economy, And Safety | Main | Titan Rain »

August 25, 2005

Comments

kim

Depend on ali-Sistani. He will see this thing through.

Etienne

So, why is a country that cannot exist as one nation wasting all this time writing a Constitution? Wouldn't it be more time efficient to just divvy the damn thing up right now?

Brooks fails to source the fact that Galbraith is an advisor on the Constitution to the Kurds, a little fact that might have been pertinent.

Brooks also quoted AEI's Gerecht in his article, without sourcing him to his infamous quote on MTP this weekend : Women's social rights are not crucial to the development of democracy. Aside from being completely untrue, this quote should come as a surprise to the hundreds of conservative bloggers I've met over the past few years, women in particular, who have upheld the freeing of Muslim women as one of our NOBLE goals in Iraq. Curiously they have been silent on this, dumbfounded (as I think a great many war supporters are these days) by the reality that is dawning on all Americans - that our youth have been sacrificed to create an Islamic state, with Civil War built into its bones, where women, if its even possible (and it is), are even worse off than they were under Saddam. No, they're not being raped in rape rooms, I suppose (though who really freaking knows), but the overall rate of rape and violence against women has risen dramatically in Iraq. Women live in fear, and soon they will have recourse - to Islamic courts. Happy day. I know if my daughter was one of the American women who died over there to help bring about this monstrosity, I'd be hard pressed to find her death noble.

kim

Let's see now, back when democracy was in it's cradle, ........well your right, Etienne, those dogs only spoke about the rights of men. Who'd a thunk it?
===============================================

Etienne

How cheaply you can be bought, kim. Doesn't take much, just an OK from an AEI shill and presto! Women's rights get tossed in the trash. Not that we ever had any say in the matter - which is why it was so profoundly dishonest to be selling this war as a great humanitarian campaign. Hey, 60% of Iraq is female, did you know that? But, screw them, it was never about them - or any of the Iraqi people - in the first place.

Right now it's about saving face for a DISASTROUS administration failure. And condemning Iraqi women to the same hell as their Saudi sisters is a small price to pay for that.

kim

I'm simply saying that women's social rights are most likely to be best recognized in a society which recognizes the rights of ALL. You needn't sell ME so cheaply.

And, if that is so, why do you keep finding yourself on the anti-democratic side in the Iraqi and greater Islamic conflict? Has your ideology allowed you to sell yourself thoughtlessly, if not also cheaply?
=============================================

Etienne

How am I on the anti-democracy side of anything? That's another slander conservatives keep trying to use to disguise the inherent failure of this foreign adventurism.

When a conservative comes out and says "Look, lets be pragmatic here. Iraqi society isn't ready to give women any more rights than we give to our housepets. That's just the way it is."...that's just considered the voice of reason. But when a progressive says "It was never possible to impose Western democracy at gunpoint on a feudal state with no national identity", that's being anti-democratic.

The only difference is that conservatives think it's a worthy cause for Americans to die to create an Islamic state doomed to civil war, and progressives don't. I think the reality of the situation is no longer debatable.

Cecil Turner

"Curiously they have been silent on this . . . to create an Islamic state . . . where women . . . are even worse off"

Saw an interview with the new Ambassador to Iraq, and he said the hype was overblown [paraphrased]: that the new constitution might use Sharia principles in some parts of its family law (including clerics on some courts) and that it was not allowed to violate Islamic principles; but that it also guaranteed freedom of religion for all Iraqis, adherence to UN human rights resolutions, and strict equality (specifically including equalily for women). I found him persuasive, and consistent with reading the draft constitution.

martin

This is part of the 'declare victory and leave' process. Except it's not the White House doing it!

"Maj Gen Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, yesterday said the reductions were part of a push by Gen John Abizaid, commander of all US troops in the region, to put the burden of defending Iraq on Iraqi forces.

He denied the withdrawal was motivated by political pressure from Washington."

Yeah-it definitely was not D.C. pressure: in fact nobody is even bothering to tell Bush at this point. From yesterday's AP wire:

President Bush, answering critics who want the United States to leave Iraq, pledged Wednesday that as long as he is president "we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism." .... . . "We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iraq," Bush said. "An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations."

This is either a military coup, complete psychotic delusion from the President, both, or either the General or Bush is lying.

So which is it?

kim

So Martin, is putting the burden on Iraqi troops not completing the Iraqi work? It sounds like an exit plan, but, nah, that couldn't be.

Etienne, you have been propagandized about Iraq. Read Iraqi blogs. See what the women there say. Many speak English well.
==============================================

martin

P.S. TM asks: "Well, what would constitute "victory" for the insurgents?"

It's a 3 step answer:

1. Define what would constitute "victory" for the United States.

2. Objectively assess the situation on the ground.

3. Total concordance between 1 and 2 means defeat for the insurgency. The greater the disconnect between 1 and 2, the greater the insurgent victory.

Of course, the first step is the hardest, i.e. defining our victory. Any takers?

martin

Kim -there are no "Iraqi" troops. At this point-there isn't even unity between the Shia.
And TM has the gall to dismiss the proposition of Iraqi unity as a strawman. Au contraire, it's still operative administartion policy.

Etienne

Cecil, I also saw an interview with that Ambassador, and he said, with no further ado, "Women's rights are completely protected", and the Fox News blonde replied, somewhat flummoxed, "Oh...oh, really, I didn't know that....Um, but that's good."

I think we all deserve a little better than that. Clearly, when you have AEI pitchmen out on MTP saying women's rights are silly little trivialities that shouldn't be allowed to draw attention from the incredible successes of the administration, the message is clear that 60% of Iraqis have been effectively shoved under the carpet...or the burkha, to be more precise.

I understand it. There was never any potential to "free" the really vulnerable, oppressed people in Iraq. I'm just fed up with the dishonesty of it all - and I'm not going to be "persuaded" by any platitudes spouted in interviews with Fox News bobbleheads.

The basis of law in this Constitution states that "no law can be made that contradicts"...a. Islam, b. democratic principles or c. civil rights. Is this a Constitution or a multiple choice test? How on earth can you resolve those contradictions, let alone define the parameters?

martin

Ok Kim-let's trade quotes from Iraqi women. I'll start:

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

Safia Taleb al-Souhail
Iraq's ambassador to Egypt
Reuters interview
August 24, 2005

This was the woman who was one-half of the hug at the State of the Union Address btw. Time to give her the Sheehan treatment I suppose.

kim

M, c'mon, there are lots of Iraqi troops and even more police and both forces are increasing.

I agree that the the former Iraq may eventually be 3 states. If it happens, I hope it will be amicably. There is less Kurd interminglingly, geographically, than Shia/Sunni mixing, but India was more intermingled and it could happen. Don't worry too much about the Shia factions or about Iranian influence while Sistani is alive and kicking. He is the one person who has made our intervention a success over there.

Well, he and Saddam.
==============================================

Etienne

I do read Iraqi blogs, kim. Riverbend is an especially eloquent woman blogging on the hell that Baghdad has become for educated, previously free women.

Propaganda requires a passive subject. If I was that, I wouldn't be here. Tell me, how often do you try and hone your arguments in reasonable debate with progressives? I'm guessing you'd rather just dismiss them with ridicule than acknowledge and consider the legitimate viewpoints of your fellow Americans.

kim

All three ethnic, cultural,religious and racial groups have large areas where they are the great majority: The Sunni in the West, the Kurds in the North, and the Shia in the South, and the East.
================================================

kim

Sorry, Gal, Riverbend is a hopeless Sunni Princess, and that's being kind.
===================================================

kim

I haven't the slightest interest in trading quotes with you, Martin. That way lies absurdity and irrelevance, if not madness. I am interested in how you think Iraqi and other Islamic women(oh, yes, men too) can secure and defend all these social rights(OK, gains) made in the last many years.
=============================================

Cecil Turner

"I think we all deserve a little better than that. Clearly, when you have AEI pitchmen out on MTP saying women's rights are silly little trivialities . . ."

I'm not sure what excitement the opinions of AEI pitchmen merit. And again, if the problem is the text of the constitution, this guarantee seems fairly comprehensive:

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status. [emphasis added]
(IIRC, a lot of folks thought something similar ought to be added to ours.) Obviously the application is critical, and the Devil is in the details, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of most of the criticism.

kim

Therein does lie a rub. I'n not much of a scholar of Islam, but doesn't it strongly discriminate between believers and unbelievers?

Here's another question I have for the scholars. I've read that Sistani didn't know much about democracy because it is not mentioned in the Koran. His knowledge has come from our sources also, Jefferson, Voltaire, and so many other Europeans.

Dead ones, by the way.
========================

Etienne

Cecil, how can that phrase possibly coexist with a system of law founded on Islamic principles, which the Constitution explicitly states? Islam doesn't just discriminate on the basis of sex, it regards women as shameful necessities of reproduction to be hidden from sight until their services are required. Islam provides women no property rights, no parental rights, no right to divorce, no right to education and no legal rights separate from their husbands. How can Islamic law EVER protect the rights of women?

AS I said, I realize the US doesn't have any say-so on this. But let's call a spade a spade. THIS is what our soldiers' deaths accomplished. We need to stop pretending otherwise.

Cecil Turner

"This is either a military coup, complete psychotic delusion from the President, both, or either the General or Bush is lying."

No. Reducing troop levels is not the same thing as "leaving" (and isn't the usual complaint that reductions were planned to leave too few troops there?). In the first place, we don't want to keep 10% of our armed forces tied up in Iraq in perpetuity. In the second, we've no long-term interest in acting as an Iraqi army, and certainly not as their police force--that's the Iraqis' job. (Contrary to some Administration statements, however, we do want to keep [at least access to] some bases, and the ability to reinforce rapidly.)

martin

Is "reducing" troops level the same thing as "withdrawing" them?

kim

Oh God, Etienne, let's get this straight: Are we trying to impose western values there by force or not?
==================================================

Cecil Turner

"Cecil, how can that phrase possibly coexist with a system of law founded on Islamic principles, which the Constitution explicitly states?"

Obviously they think it can. Perhaps there's a bit of difference of opinion in what "Islamic principles" entails.

"Islam doesn't just discriminate on the basis of sex, it regards women as shameful necessities of reproduction to be hidden from sight until their services are required."

Having been forced (by boredom and lack of other reading material) to read numerous articles on the application of Islam in daily life (over an extended period), I think you're totally wrong on this point. My sense is of an elaborate structure of reciprocal responsibilities (especially for heads of households), of which women are a cherished part. In general, I found it strict, but in many respects admirable. And many mistaken impressions of Islamic attitudes toward women appear based on dubious interpretations by minority sects.

martin

Look-Democratic principles are in and of themselves in violation of Islamic law.

This is the equivalent of letting the Nazis win an election in 1948 Germany.

Even if I was in favor of the war, I would be pissed at how its being run.

Why are wingnuts who will blithely dismiss Abu Ghraib blanching at shoving democracy down their throats?

Let's just assume the President is telling the truth, i.e. We are not leaving Iraq until the job is done. Then parliament should be dissolved, secularists appointed, and any "Iraqi" who objects gets shot.

If we're going to keep killing Iraqis, let's at least kill them for the right reasons.

martin

Cecil Turner-look upthread-I just quoted the exact woman who was at the State of the Union address! She says she got sold down th eriver.

Why should I believe you over her?

martin

Here: I'll quote it again:

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

Safia Taleb al-Souhail, Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, Reuters interview, August 24, 2005

This is what we're fighting for?

Etienne

Cecil, let's use our common sense. Take a look at any televised street scene in Iraq (or any other fundamentalist Islamic nation). Keeping in mind that 60% of the country is female, ask yourself: Where are they?

I understand we can't help them . We never could. That was all part of the delusion that kept the right wing cheering for this war once it became clear that the default excuse for it was going to be "freeing the Iraqi people". But it is disingenuous to keep pretending that was ever part of the "noble cause". There is no noble cause. There is a geopolitical crapshoot, where powerless people - like Iraqi women and American soldiers - are nothing but chips and markers.

There are other problems with the Constitution which are more important in the sense that they lay the groundwork for undermining itself. The Sunni insurgency gets a new lease on life out of it, to be countered by the Iraqi police/army that hasn't yet materialized, if it ever will. And it is against this background of almost inevitable carnage that the Kurds and Shiites plan to quietly separate themselves from the imaginary nation of Iraq. The Shiite portion is almost certain to align itself with Iran, with which it shares almost perfect cultural concurrency. There is no way on earth that serves US national security interests.

I'm just saying, it's easy to paper over anything. I know the Bushies want to get out in time for midterm elections while pretending they did a good thing here. But the question remains : Our sons and daughters died there, for this result. Who is accountable for this, here, in the US? That's what I care about - the security of my country, the accountability of my government.

kim

Oh God, Martin, let's get it straight. Are we imposing western values over there by force or not?
=============================================

kim

Shares almost perfect cultural concurrency? Arabs and Persians? Etienne, in a series of pronouncements of yours that clearly come, titanically and predictably, from the fevered swamps of leftist muck, this one takes the cake.
=============================================

martin

"Oh God, Martin, let's get it straight. Are we imposing western values over there by force or not?"

Kim-I have NO GODDAMN IDEA WHAT WE ARE DOING OVER THERE!!!

Please tell me.

And I am extremely pissed because there will now be no vote on the Constitution today either, and no new date was announced.

IOW the country has no government.

And by country I mean both Iraq and the U.S.

kim

Etenne, that 'shares almost perfect cultural concurrency' is an eloquent and slick lie, unless you don't know any better, in which case it is just glib bullshit, the sort of thing one spouts after hearing it from the propagandist.
==============================================

kim

Martin, if you have no idea what we are doing over there, why don't you get one?
================================================

Etienne

OK, I'll retract that phrase then,kim, deferring to your incredible (though entirely undocumented & unsubstantiated) understanding of the region.

Instead, I'll quote this Feb,2004 WaPo article:

"Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran.

And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline."

Please discuss.

Etienne

Pardon, Feb. 2005.

martin

So Kim-just like Bush-you can't articulate our mission either.

You and your president are just ghoulish cheerleaders of death without any thought in your vapid skulls or decency in your souls.

kim

Oh, Martin, you asked for a reason we are over there, and I was a little coy. Here's one for you to gnaw with your fruit from that garden, we're Mesatanaming it.
===========================================

kim

M, it was the right thing to do. Purple fingers prove it.
=============================================

kim

Etienne: Sistani is the spiritual and political leader of the Iraqi Arab Shia. As long as he is alive and well we need not fear Persian influence in Iraq.

The Kurds are interested in adding the Iranian portion to Greater Kurdistan. Otherwise, they despise Persians; also Kurds are Sunni.
=============================================

Cecil Turner

"Why should I believe you over her?"

Hey Martin, believe what you like. I'm not sure what she means about gains over the last 30 years, but a constitution with an ERA lookalike, and guaranteeing political participation and 25% legislative seats to women looks like a big improvement over a totalitarian dictatorship. And if you're complaining about verbiage in the constitution, personally I'd quote the constitution.

"But it is disingenuous to keep pretending that was ever part of the "noble cause". There is no noble cause."

Booting Saddam was certainly not "ignoble." And I'm not sure what you guys expected, but their constitution is theirs. Besides the obvious fact that imposing a US Constitution is unworkable, it'd also be immoral.

"The Shiite portion is almost certain to align itself with Iran, with which it shares almost perfect cultural concurrency."

This is really hard to take seriously. They have different ethnicity (Persian vs Semites), different language (Arabic vs Farsi), completely different historical perspective, and in living memory fought an absolutely vicious war. Acting as if they're natural allies separated by an artificial border is nonsense.

kim

Yeah, a war in which both sides gassed each other repeatedly, including, largely accidently, a certain Kurdish village.
==============================

martin

No offense then-but I think she has more credibility than you. She's focused on reality-not the piece of paper. Ever read the old Soviet Constitution? If you're willing to believe whatever gets printed-you must think it really was a worker's paradise.

Anyway it's all moot. Everything is apparently on hold while the Shiites work out a little power struggle.

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Etienne's point. e.g. Do you know where al-Sistani was born? Hint it starts with I but doesn't end in Q.

kim

Sistani lived in Iran for many years. That does not make him sympathetic to the ayatollahs.

Sistani believes in democracy. For him it is a non-religious issue because it is not mentioned in the Koran. His tradition separates spirituality from political process, and he prefers the process of democracy to Iranian style theocracy.
============================================

Etienne

Booting Saddam was certainly not "ignoble."
And it was certainly NOT the reason our representatives voted to send our troops.It is constantly repeated now because it stands out as the ONLY thing our 1870+ deaths, 25,000+ maimed, x-amount Iraqi civilian deaths can be considered as accomplishing.

It is brutally dishonest to not even ADMIT that all we accomplished was deposing an unarmed dicatator...and left all the rest of it up to the Chaos Theory of the Universe. If American troops can be committed so spuriously as this, and that commitment maintained on a mere froth of PR fabrications, then it really calls into question the usefulness of our OWN constitution.

As for my Iraq/Iran comment, I've done what the Bushies cannot - admitted error. The point stands that many experts in the field envision Iran/Iraq cooperation as the ultimate outcome of this fantabulous crapshoot.

kim

Etienne, how about the 7 reasons to invade voted on by a large majority of our representatives?

And would you prefer Saddam still be in power? He's alive, it could be done.
===============================================

Cecil Turner

"No offense then-but I think she has more credibility than you. She's focused on reality-not the piece of paper."

Again, most of the criticism appears to be based on the piece of paper.

"And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Etienne's point. e.g. Do you know where al-Sistani was born? Hint it starts with I but doesn't end in Q."

I think we all understand they're members of the same religious sect, it's the "cultural concurrency" bit that's hard to credit.

martin

Kim-why do see al-Sistani as the messiah?

The man is our enemy. Not sympathetic to ayatollahs? He is one.

There's reasons he has never met with A U.S. represenative, and snowballing fools like you is one of them.

Etienne

It does keep me sharp arguing with conservatives. All it takes is poor proofreading of one phrase, and your essential point will be ignored completely. Kind of how conservatives prefer to muddy the waters over this legitimate debate - one we as Americans have the right and responsibility to have - by accusing all legitimate criticism as anti-Americanism or appeasement. Anything to make sure the critical elements of the issue are never subjected to open analysis.

kim

I could be cynical and suggest that Sistani believes in democracy because his followers constitute an absolute majority in presently constituted Iraq. However, I won't, because I believe that he believes that people, properly led spiritually, will choose a democratic form of local and higher governance.

Speaking constitutionaly, of course.
===============================================

kim

Constistituently.
=========================

Cecil Turner

"And it was certainly NOT the reason our representatives voted to send our troops."

It's the long-term part of the strategy (not necessarily the most important), but it's also the only one that's pertinent in a conversation about the new Iraqi Constitution. If you're looking for an overall strategy, last year's strategy speech is probably the best one:

"We bring more than a vision to this conflict -- we bring a strategy that will lead to victory. And that strategy has four commitments:
"First, we are using every available tool to dismantle, disrupt and destroy terrorists and their organizations. . . "
"Secondly, we are denying terrorists places of sanctuary or support. . . "
"Third, we are using all elements of our national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek. . ."
"Fourth and finally, we are denying the terrorists the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East. . . "
The ones most applicable to Iraq are 2,3, and 4. (You could also argue the "flypaper" strategy under 1, but I don't think it's very persuasive.)

kim

It sort of blends the ideas of representation and form.
==========================================

martin

Yes-CT-there's a draft with many words in it. Some parts capture the actual goals of those who intend to rule and some parts are mere windowdressing to make it easier to sell.

Apparently, you and Ms. taleb are focusing on different parts.

kim

Martin, Sistani was able to forgive us our betrayal of his people after the first war. He quelled Sadr. He is the nearest thing to a messiah they've got over there and your piddling comments don't change that.
===============================================

martin

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

-George Bush

"...we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

-George Bush's invited Iraqi guest to last years SOTU.

martin

"He quelled Sadr."

Here's a great example of your inanity. "Quelled."

We had a warrant for Sadr's arrest and lost troops trying to capture him (among them Casey Sheehan).

Sadr is now conducting gunbattles in Bagdhad (yesterday) and firing rockets at SCIRI headquarters (today).

Sistani didn't "quell" Sadr-he protected him. From us.

kim

Here's one of your piddling comments about Sistani. You suggested that he was sympathetic to ayatollahs because he is one. The context of which you speak used 'ayatollahs' to refer plainly to the ones in Iran. So you piddled all over your argument instead of addressing mine, that he is not in agreement with Teheran's Tyrants as to how people should be governed.
=================================================

kim

So, Martin, do you think we should have gone ahead and captured Sadr back then?
==========================================

martin

You tell me Kim-we spilled both American and Iraqi blood trying.

Why did we pull off that mission anyway?

kim

I believe that we came to believe that Sistani could keep Sadr in a political rather than military solution.
================================================

Cecil Turner

"'working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East. . .''...we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years . . .' "

Again, I doubt you're suggesting the current Iraqi constitution represents less freedom than life under Saddam (even for women). If you are, we'll have to agree to disagree.

kim

Hee, hee, hee, the Macho Martin Man, we spilled blood, why did we back off that mission? Give that guy a medal.
=========================================

Etienne

Cecil, you can't be serious.

"First, we are using every available tool to dismantle, disrupt and destroy terrorists and their organizations. . . "
"Secondly, we are denying terrorists places of sanctuary or support. . . "
"Third, we are using all elements of our national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek. . ."
"Fourth and finally, we are denying the terrorists the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East. . . "

All we are doing in Iraq right now is trying to keep our soldiers from being slaughtered by unseen enemies while they wait for an Islamic republic to be installed that has no army, no police force, and an intractable insurgency.

In the meantime, anti Americanism is at all time high, former terrorist organizations are becoming legitimized in Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt, there are more worldwide terrorist incidents each year and...where is this progress of which Bush speaks?

The "solution" is to keep our troops fighting the infinite numbers of fundamentalists/maniacs/warlords/militias in endless roadside incidents and random bombings...for an indefinite number of years. The American people have had it, and not just the lefties. Not a single of the stated goals is one day closer to being accomplished. In fact, most are FURTHER from accomplishment. You may still be buying this claptrap but most of your countrymen are NOT. And since we don't have an autocratic government where elitist rightwing intellectuals dictate for our best interests, that is a significant factor you must consider.

The first step to solving a problem is recognizing that you have one. Neo con goals sound nice on paper (to neocons), but that doesn't make it any more possible to turn fantasies into reality.

martin

"On April 4th, 2004, al'Sadr's Mahdi forces blocked roadways and bridges with burning tires, vehicles and trash. Visibility was less than 300 meters anywhere in the city. They began to attack American vehicles on patrol throughout Sadr City - some were protecting Shia worshipers (Holy Arbayeen) while others were escorting city government vehicles. A battle raged across Sadr City. Insurgents assaulted American troops while looters and mobs formed and stormed through the streets. Word spread quickly across the American FOBs that there was trouble.

Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment were ambushed with RPGs and pinned down and dying. While fighting off an attack himself, the Commander of the 2/5th, LTC Volesky, called for help. A Quick Reaction Force (QRF) was formed of volunteers - their mission was to go out and rescue the American troops.

Casey Sheehan's Sergeant asked for volunteers. Sheehan had just returned from Mass. After Sheehan volunteered once, the Sergeant asked Sheehan again if he wanted to go on the mission. According to many reports (and according to his own mother), Casey responded, "Where my Chief goes, I go." The QRF was launched. Not long after entering the Mahdi area, the QRF was channeled onto a dead-end street where the roofs were lined with snipers, RPGs, and even some militia throwing burning tires onto the vehicles. The Mahdi blocked the exit and let loose with everything they had.

Sheehan's vehicle was hit with multiple RPGs and automatic-weapons fire. Specialist Casey Sheehan and Corporal Forest J. Jostes were killed."

kim

I think Casey Sheehan's heroism and sacrifice will someday inspire American and Iraqi youngsters. His mother should be proud of him.

Etienne, read a variety of Iraqi blogs, then sort out the fantasies from the realites. It's easy really, they are fluent in English.
======================================

martin

Did you know that Casey Sheehan was killed while battling Sadr's forces? Something tells me (i.e. your overwhelming ignorance) that you did not.

And after losing American lives for this mission, orders from the top come "Nevermind"

Now 16 months later Sadr is again battling in downtown Baghdad and a vote on the Constitition has been indefinitely postponed.

Are we now going to ask more troops to go die fighting Sadr-again? And then say "nevermind" again?

I used to wonder how Americans could stand for this idiocy, but then I realized there plenty of Americans like you, Kim.

Etienne

Casey Sheehan's heroism was a testiment to one thing and one thing only: Casey Sheehan's courage. Let's stop the bullshit that he died to make America free or to keep America free or to make Iraq free. That's the point. He sounds like a beautiful human being. When a president, especially a cowardly elitist like this one, decides that lives like Sheehans are expendable they had damn well have a reason. Not a Swedish buffet of disposable apologias to be substituted at will. And it should be rather easy, for a good Christian man like Bush pretends to be, to speak from his heart to the man's mother and explain what that reason was. Not his re-recycled stump speech, with ten hollow slogans and fifteen focus-group tested words. If this really all makes such clear sense, why can't this elitist speak from his heart to a woman that wasn't handpicked by his PR department. We've never had a president, I don't believe, not in my lifetime, who could not have mustered up that ounce of humanity. I know he's a big bad boy who has let his swiftboaters loose on this citizen, but the person whose character has been exposed here is Bush's.

There is a difference between dying like a hero and dying for a heroic cause. Although Bush would hardly be one to know about either.

kim

Yes, I did know that. I've even posted elsewhere that the thought I hold about Casey is that his sacrifice may have convinced some of Sadr's followers that Sistani's plan was preferable. It's a nice thought to hold about him, one his mother should have.

No doubt there is turmoil in Baghdad. There are big stakes. Sadr is a madman, unfit to follow in his father's shoes, but his followers haven't realized that yet.
=============================================

kim

Etenne, You pretend to know to what Casey's heroism was a testament? Have you any idea of his ideas on the subject? How more condescending of our soldiers can you get?
============================================

Cecil Turner

"All we are doing in Iraq right now is trying to keep our soldiers from being slaughtered by unseen enemies while they wait for an Islamic republic to be installed that has no army, no police force, and an intractable insurgency."

I think we're preparing to hand over the majority of police and military responsibilities to Iraqis as they install their own representative government. Time will tell.

"You may still be buying this claptrap but most of your countrymen are NOT. And since we don't have an autocratic government where elitist rightwing intellectuals dictate for our best interests, that is a significant factor you must consider."

Despite polls showing unpopularity, the electorate was disinclined to change course in their last opportunity. And since the situation is likely to be considerably changed before the next contest, I'd not put too much stock in the current polls (especially since I suspect the tone of news coverage is also likely to change significantly).

martin

"Sadr is a madman, unfit to follow in his father's shoes, but his followers haven't realized that yet."

You're right...except about the name...

kim

Condescending to. Why does the left persist in infantilizing the military? Do they do so for contractors?
=============================================

Etienne

kim, no one pretends to know what his ideas were. I understand that many parents who lose kids in Iraq need to believe their deaths were justified. That emotional wish does not translate into fact. Whatever Sheehan felt about his reasons for being there - and you don't know any better than any of the attack dogs that have been unleashed upon his mother - it doesn't change the fact that the American deaths over there have been in vain. Dying because people have already died makes about as much sense as digging a deeper hole just because you've already dug a big one. Any mother who wants to see more kids die just because hers is already dead isn't thinking straight.

Hell, if all we wanted to do - since it's all we have done - is get rid of Saddam, we could just have sent Pat Robertson over there with some piano wire.

martin

Cecil Turner-at what year in the Vietnam conflict was it first possible to predict the eventual endgame?

kim

I don't think the deaths are in vain, nor do the Iraqis. Read the blogs.
==========================================

martin

If that's too theoretical-try this one.

Of the two major Shiite factions battling in Iraq today-which one should we support?

Etienne

And since the situation is likely to be considerably changed before the next contest, I'd not put too much stock in the current polls (especially since I suspect the tone of news coverage is also likely to change significantly).

I'll give you one strong possibility. The Repubs start cranking up their media machine that the Dems are caving in to the anti-war "extremists" (58% of country at last count). This despite Dem powerlessness to change any aspect of the situation. Then the admin pulls out most troops in time for midterms, claiming victory, completely irrespective of the reality on the ground (think "purple fingers" and kim). Chaos follows, god knows what follows. Repubs blame Dems for caving in and forcing them to pull out the troops. Right wing media blares this night and day, being absolutely meticulous to conflate "extremist" "left wing" and "liberal Democrat", no matter the context. Repubs win elections and continue their stranglehold on all branches of government.

Not saying it'll go down exactly like that ( I insist on maintaining my belief in essential American common sense), though it's certainly plausible, given recent events. In your mind, would that constitute the American public making an informed elective decision?

kim

Nah, Martin, Dubya's a better man than his dad, who thank-you-noted his way to the White House. This strength of purpose, intelligence, and personal fortitude must have come from his mother's side.
=============================================

kim

Why either, Martin?
====================

kim

Etienne, if you read Iraqi blogs you'll get a better sense of the essential Iraqe common sense than you have now.
==============================

Etienne

This strength of purpose, intelligence, and personal fortitude must have come from his mother's side.

You've outdone yourself there, kimster, though I'm not sure even his mother would want to be considered the source of his "intelligence".

At least we know where he got his elitism and lack of basic human compassion from:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

kim

Aw, you just sound jealous, Etienne. Bush is a smart guy, a natural born leader.
=======================================

martin

"...a madman, unfit to follow in his father's shoes, but his followers haven't realized that yet"

Etienne

Please explain then why he is incapable of leading us anywhere, except into this despicable quagmire. He always reminds me of a little Lord Fauntleroy being led around by his bodyguards and nannies while he smirks at all the "real boys" who he knows want to kick his little powdered ass.

Cecil Turner

"Cecil Turner-at what year in the Vietnam conflict was it first possible to predict the eventual endgame?"

Dunno, Martin. What year did we take Hanoi? When was the new VN constitution drafted?

"In your mind, would that constitute the American public making an informed elective decision?"

Etienne, I'm not sure how you can simultaneously argue that the public is on your side, and yet they're more likely to vote Republican. And ISTM in this context "informed" is relative, subjective, and meaningless. The vote counts, opinion polls don't.

kim

Etienne and Martin: Bush is CEO of the world and adding stakeholder(that's all of us) value daily.
================================================

Etienne

ISTM?

I'm calling your attention, Cecil, to the Repub genius for exploiting American ignorance, that's all. They get people to vote against their own best interests in every election. As I've said here before, I know Fox News, and none of this stuff happens by accident.

kim

You're just recycling tired old 'What's the matter with Kansas' crap. Voters vote for other than economic criteria, and they do vote their best interests. Don't you believe in democracy?
==============================================

Cecil Turner

ISTM: it seems to me

"I'm calling your attention, Cecil, to the Repub genius for exploiting American ignorance, that's all."

That presumes your positions are correct. From my point of view, it's appealing to the public's highmindedness.

Syl

Shiites do not equal shiites

One cannot simply lump them all together as having the same political goals and affiliations. And having ties with Iran does not mean having ties to the Iranian government as it is now constituted. There are ties with the Iranian PEOPLE and ties due to a shared view of Islam. There are shia who do NOT want for Iraq what has happened in Iran no matter what ties they may have to some Iranians!

Hardline shia have taken over Basra and made it a miserable place for many people for a while now. The recent violence started when Sadr's people tried to move back into their former headquarters in Najaf. It was the people of Najaf, ordinary shia citizens who did NOT want them there.

All shia in Iraq do not have the same visions and goals. So stop lumping them all together!

And, my personal opinion is that Etienne is simply emotionally hysterical. Fancy words and well constructed sentences don't hide that. Afghanistan's consitution uses Islamic law as 'THE' basis for its laws not 'A' basis as Iraq does. And women are going to school and have more rights than they had under the Taliban!

"All we are doing in Iraq right now is trying to keep our soldiers from being slaughtered by unseen enemies while they wait for an Islamic republic to be installed that has no army, no police force, and an intractable insurgency. "

This is a LIE, Etienne. Our guys are not sitting around waiting to be blown up. Get yourself a damn clue and get off the passive children shtick.

"I understand that many parents who lose kids in Iraq need to believe their deaths were justified. That emotional wish does not translate into fact."

This is vile. Just because YOU have some emtional attachment to YOUR fact that this is all for nought does not translate that into a REAL fact.

Etienne

From my point of view, it's appealing to the public's highmindedness.

You would consider my prior example an appeal to highmindedness? Falsely blaming Repub failures on Dems, then slinking out of Iraq, and blaming the subsequent chaos on Dems? Highmindedness? Not in my universe.

Syl, I'm too tired for you, and frankly ever since you told me rightwing media propaganda amounted to absolute truth, I'm not sure we can communicate. Suffice to say, you haven't been following recent developments in Afghanistan if you think women there are enjoying some kind of newfound freedom. There is one city in Afghanistan surrounded by a wasteland of warlords and opium farms. Women there, as in all Islamic republics, live lin fear of rape, violence and poverty. Since you only get your news from "truthful" sources, i.e. RNC approved ones, you wouldn't be the one to judge their degree of delight with their new lives.

Cecil Turner

"You would consider my prior example an appeal to highmindedness? Falsely blaming Repub failures on Dems, then slinking out of Iraq, and blaming the subsequent chaos on Dems? Highmindedness? Not in my universe. "

No, your example was a fantasy. I was referring to "the Repub genius for exploiting American ignorance," by which I presume you mean the recent miserable political failures of the Dem party. And that, contrary to DNC spin, is predominantly a failure of message. It is not a result of nonexistent GOP control of the airwaves, nor of the electorate being too stupid to figure out where their best interests lie.

Syl

Etienne

Your mischaracterization of my remarks aside, your negative it's-not-perfect-so-it's-a-failure view of Iraq and Afghanistan causes you to totally miss the point.

We did not start this war, the Islamists declared war on us and acted on it. We'd better as hell know what the enemy believes and what it fights for and against.

One of al Qaeda's worst fears is democracy.

Some snips from an article by Taheri on a book published by al Qaeda in 2003:

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.

He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. "If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world," Al-Ayyeri writes.

and

Al-Ayyeri says Iraq would become the graveyard of secular democracy, just as Afghanistan became the graveyard of communism. The idea is that the Americans, faced with mounting casualties in Iraq, will "just run away," as did the Soviets in Afghanistan. This is because the Americans love this world and are concerned about nothing but their own comfort, while Muslims dream of the pleasures that martyrdom offers in paradise.

Iraq's constitution is the most liberal of any country in the M.E. And, note, that elections were held. Al Qaeda lost that battle because they couldn't stop it. We're still there to ensure that al Qaeda won't stop the constitution process nor the elections that follow that.

It's a process, not an event, Etienne, and we're STILL in the middle of the process!

We cannot and will NOT leave Iraq until the Iraqi's themselves can take over their own security. If you think Iraq is a recruiting tool now, just imagine the boost al Qaeda would get if we were to leave!


Seven Machos

Why does Edy think that everyone disagrees with Edy gets their news from some special right-wing news sources or follows special right-wing talking points?

Edy: I know you have a meager repertoire of useful and logical arguments to draw from. Such will always be your lament. However, I respectfully suggest that it is time to drop this trope. It was always dumb, and now you have overplayed it considerably.

kim

It is remarkable how ferociously she calls others the victims of propagandists while indignantly denying the role for herself.
=================================================

Martin

Our President reduced to a beggar:

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBWR8XEUCE.html

kim

Baksheesh, my good man. Strain not that quality. The supplicant earns merit by granting the supplier the opportunity to gain merit.
=================================================

martin

I'm begging you to shut up then.

kim

Gagged. Now am I an object of your pity?
=========================================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame