You keep thinking even he’s got to stop believing it’s not bad news some time. But apparently, Andrew Sullivan’s not quite there yet.
To some, I suppose, the hideous slaughter of so many innocents in suicide bombings in southern Iraq is another reason to worry that the occupation is doomed. I have a different response. It reminds me why we are in this war in the first place. It reminds me of the nihilist, fascist forces that killed thousands in New York and Bali and Madrid.
And, of course, each new atrocity is an opportunity to drudge up his flypaper strategy:
That isn’t easy anywhere – but better to have drawn these elements out and to fight them in a struggle for Arab and Muslim democracy than to play constant, fitful defense at home.
Like most repetitive, monotonous things, it becomes just so much white noise after a while. This kind of misplaced lecturing, however, reveals a callous lack of understanding:
If the Iraqi middle does not and cannot see that these elements have no future in mind for Iraq but theocratic state-terror, then we truly are in trouble.
I suspect that right about now, the Iraqi middle is simply worried about staying the f@*k out of harm’s way. Really, what the hell can Sullivan mean by that? The Iraqi middle has no military or real police control, no meaningful vote, no options at all but to wait for the US to do something…and yet he’s challenging them to stick it out through the bombings, to not be frightened, to be defiant without security or any clear indication of what kind of government they actually will have in a month and a half…”Don’t you waver or cave in…don’t you let us down.”
Does he just spew this rubbish on autopilot or what?
Yes. He suffers from diarrhea of the blog.
Meanwhile, this is hilarious.
Does he just spew this rubbish on autopilot or what?
Is that some sort of trick question?
Asdf, I thought the Jones article was pretty unfunny. De gustibus.
de gustibus non est disputandum
“and yet he’s challenging them to stick it out through the bombings, to not be frightened, to be defiant without security or any clear indication of what kind of government they actually will have in a month and a half…”Don’t you waver or cave in…don’t you let us down.”
Hmm, what precisely are you saying here. Less than a month ago you were telling us that we had to trust the Iraqis to their own government. Now they can do nothing for their own security? Do you suppose that Iraq will ever be a successful non-authoritarian country if actual Iraqis refuse to help face down their thugs?
Perhaps you think Iraqis deserve to be ruled by radical Muslim autocrats the way Oliver Stone thinks that Cubans need a ‘paternalistic’ dictator?
No?
Then perhaps Iraqis will have to help do something about helping the US provide for their own security.
Taken any way I read it, I find the Jones piece sad, not funny.
Read at its best, it refers to tragic and terrible events.
Strangely, that doesn’t make me laugh. Iraqis are dying; I fail to slap my knee at the hilarity.
“Then perhaps Iraqis will have to help do something about helping the US provide for their own security.”
That’s true, Sebastian, but is it for us to instruct them about this? Can we succeed in that way?
I’m not saying we can’t; I’m asking a real question that I don’t have an answer to.
To put it another way, it might be right, just, and our place, to urge Iraqis to fight with us, but will it work, and, if not, why not?
No, this stuff does not keep me up at night.
;-(
Less than a month ago you were telling us that we had to trust the Iraqis to their own government. Now they can do nothing for their own security? Do you suppose that Iraq will ever be a successful non-authoritarian country if actual Iraqis refuse to help face down their thugs?
The chronology is the issue Sebastian.
Put yourself in their shoes. Flash way forward…China (or anyone, it’s hypothetical) invades and occupies a much weaker United States because our leaders have become totally corrupt and are destabalizing world trade. The Chinese are going to restructure the government and then hand it back over. No one knows who they’re going to hand it back over to, but the name floated in most quarters is an expatriot sucmbag returned home and who has been given the files of the CIA in exachange for information useful to China for the invasion. Forces loyal to the corrupt US government and possibly foreginers who hate China and want to see it fail in its attempts to continue to control world events join in an extremely violent insurgency. Remeber, the US had a corrupt government, but at least buildings were not being blown up.
The Chinese, who have still not told us who they’re installing as the new government (might be an ultra liberal isolationist, a Dennis Kucinish type…they’d like that, the Chinese…it would certainly make life easier for them) then ask us to help put down the insurgency. They train us, poorly, give us some weapons and say “Go kill those Americans stirring things up.”
We know the Chinese want to leave the mess they’ve created for us to clean up. We know that if the relatives of an insurgent come back to kill our family because we arrested him, the Chinese will do nothing to protect us….how could they, they don’t even speak English.
Yes, we want a new noncorrupt government, but are we willing to let China tell us which of our fellow Americans we have to kill to get it? My neighbor Joe hates the Chinese…always has…I’m sure he might be involved in the insurgency…do I turn him into them? What if I’m wrong…and besides, what kind of American am I if I turn in my neighbor to the Chinese? What kind of neighbor am I? Do you think Joe’s 22 year old son is going to forgive me if I do?
The violence is raging all around us, yes, but it’s those damn Chinese’s fault…they’re the ones who were supposed to secure the cities and highways…they’re supposedly the best military in the world…if they can’t stop the violence, do I want to put my neck on the line to try and do so? I’m just trying to make a living and feed my family. I only signed up to be a policeman because there were no other jobs. I was a security guard before…I had never shot anyone, especially not one of my neighbors.
Yes, I’m glad the corrupt government is gone, yes I’d rather our own police were in charge, but we’re gonna need a lot more training before we’re up to the task. And knowing who the next government was going to be would go a long way toward encouraging me to invest in this whole thing. What if I help calm things down, that expat scumbag gets in (or worse, the ultra liberal/conservative), and he uses those CIA files to make hurt my party, my neighborhood, my city? He’s not one of us…
Then some fool Chinese writer chastizes us for not supporting the whole thing blindly…essentially telling us, “We’re worrying about the government, us and some hand picked Americans we trust, you just buy in…and, by the way, kill those insurgents for us, we’re busy with the big picture stuff…don’t worry, the expat scumbag won’t hurt you…just clean up your cities and all will be well.”
I’d like to think some Chinese blogger reads that and thinks “That writer’s an ass.”
And, of course, each new atrocity is an opportunity to drudge up his flypaper strategy:
Was than an intentional pun, or accidental?
Last night I heard an article on NPR about widespread corruption in the CAP (the Iraqis, not the Americans). Oddly, I can’t find any evidence of that report on NPR’s website, but if it’s factual we need to do some housecleaning. Followed by recovery of all monies, and demotion of those responsible to street patrol.
that, was indeed the sound of one boot licking.
That’d be an excellent example, Edward, if our government were a dictatorship, propped up by a loyal military, that had contributed monetarily (if not in other ways) in supporting terrorism abroad.
And that’s precisely where it falls apart. Decent points made on putting down insurrection, but you assume that the insurrectionists have anything resembling good intentions for their neighbors.
Was than an intentional pun, or accidental?
I always hesitate to use “drudge” these days…what one psycho wingnut can do to the language, I tell ya…
Edward, I like your story about China and the US, you forgot the part where Mexico and Canada are working feverishly in combination with some international French terrorist group to undermine the situation.
You have to start focusing on the whole situation. So please understand that a free Iraq is the greatest threat to a host of Arab nations as well as Persia. I believe the Iraqis are aware of this situation.
Help me out then Timmy…in the context of the China invasion (just so the occupiers aren’t us and it might be ok to criticize them), how are Mexico and Canada involved here?
Exactly the same way Syria and Iran are involved in Iraq.
Slarti,
It’s an exercise in putting ourselves in the shoes of the Iraqis Sullivan is taking to task. The parallels to focus on are that the occupying force isn’t necessarily trustworthy to you, you’re being asked to buy into a nebulous future, and there’s currently no reason to believe that come July 1, someone who hates you won’t be in a position to make your life hell.
The government must come first, not the “buy in”.
“Then perhaps Iraqis will have to help do something about helping the US provide for their own security.”
Or they don’t, in which case we stay until they do. We can’t leave Iraq to the Iraqis, until we have a fair certainty of their stability and good favor.
“and there’s currently no reason to believe that come July 1, someone who hates you won’t be in a position to make your life hell.”
And if decent Iraqis who want a good government refuse to fight these terrorist (they are bombing civilians) thugs, they only ensure that someone who hates them will be in a position to make their life hell.
I think you folks are talking at cross-purposes. Obviously it’s important for the success of Iraqi democracy for ordinary decent Iraqis to play an active role in bringing it about. What Edward and Bob are objecting to (I think) is the idea that it’s their problem and not ours. We didn’t invade Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts, we invaded in order to enhance America’s security and advance America’s interests; if a stable democratic Iraq doesn’t arise, America suffers.
So, if ordinary decent Iraqis aren’t doing their part, it’s up to us to find ways to encourage them to do so. Just pointing fingers at them and saying they’re not doing their part isn’t helpful.
fight them how exactly Sebastian…they’re stuck between two adversaries here…one much more well-intentioned (and I’m not sure they see it that way at all, given that CPA memo that got leaked), but still not one they totally trust.
So, if ordinary decent Iraqis aren’t doing their part, it’s up to us to find ways to encourage them to do so. Just pointing fingers at them and saying they’re not doing their part isn’t helpful.
hear! hear!
well summarized KenB
Having just hopped over to Fafblog, I think Giblets said it better. Of course he did — he’s Giblets, after all.
Oh my God…Giblets is simply awesome
Damn. Guess we’re going to have to hunt around for some other innocent-bystander country whose economy we can crush with sanctions. I’m thinking Switzerland, but they’re far too heavily armed to invade. And it’d be no fun at all to crush Lichtenstein or Barbados. Plus, they have no oil.
If we later get to invade Barbados, or St. Bart’s even, I’d consider getting on board…
Retracted. They have coconut oil, although I’m not sure it’s a natural resource.
We could do Kuwait; they’re small and relatively defenseless and sitting on positively oceans of oil.
But that’s been done.
“What Edward and Bob are objecting to (I think) is the idea that it’s their problem and not ours.”
Sure, and I think this statement is great for either definition of ‘their’ and ‘ours’. Basically it is quite clear that a good Iraqi government won’t come about without serious US help and that it won’t come about without serious Iraqi dedication. So it isn’t ‘our’ (the US) problem or ‘their’ (the Iraqi) problem it is ‘our’ (US and non-terrorist Iraqi) problem.
But that seems rather obvious to me. I think that quite a few Iraqis are willing to try to make a good government. But Sullivan is certainly right that if they become cowed by terrorists, they won’t succeed. So once again I don’t see the complaint.
Slarti wrote: if our government were a dictatorship, propped up by a loyal military, that had contributed monetarily (if not in other ways) in supporting terrorism abroad.
Let’s see: the US government has definitely contributed both monetarily and in other ways to supporting terrorism abroad.
Dictatorship? Well, Bush did get himself installed as President despite losing the 2000 election, and keeps saying he can’t imagine losing the 2004 election.
Loyal military? Ah. That would be where this breaks down…
/sarcasm
Edward’s analogy is a good one, as far as it goes. Foreign army of occupation versus your neighbours: you may disagree with your neighbours politically, but are you going to turn them over to the foreigners?
Don’t leap up and claim I’m comparing the US to the Nazis: I’m not. I’m here using an interesting historical point to show that loyalty to your fellow countryman frequently overrides political disagreements. The Nazis in Holland during the early occupation wished to present themselves as “friendly occupiers”. Many Dutchmen agreed with the Nazis politically, and saw no reason to resist and no objection to the Nazis making use of their country to make war on France. cite Nevertheless, there are stories – a good many stories, for which I have no online cite, because I read them in books about the Nazi occupation of Holland – of NSB members who saw themselves first and foremost as Dutchmen, who did not turn in Dutch neighbours even when they suspected them of being involved with the Resistance. Even Nazi party members could find themselves with feelings of loyalty towards their countrymen, rather than towards their party. It’s a natural feeling: and while the US occupation is not to be compared with the Nazi occupation, American soldiers are far more foreign in Iraq than German soldiers were in Holland. The evils of the US occupation of Iraq do not arise from deliberate malice, but they are evils, just the same, and caused by the foreign military occupation.
The US invaded Iraq and overthrew the Iraqi government. The US, not the Iraqi people, is legally and morally responsible for maintaining order in Iraq. That Bush & Co failed to think and plan for their legal responsibilities once they were occupation is not a defense.
Ah, Jesurgislac: hooked like a trout. Yes, I’m now absolutely convinced that we were engaged in something equally as noxious as paying off the families of suicide bombers, and the like. Why didn’t I see the light before? Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for showing me the error of my ways.
it is ‘our’ (US and non-terrorist Iraqi) problem.
Even there though…what have we offered as a sign of having their best interests at heart? Look at our record and tell me how this is “our” best effort (either definition):
And the granddaddy of all mistakes
Asking the Iraqis to step up and own the country when this is what we’ve done with it is going to require more than wagging fingers in their faces and telling them they’re bad nationalists. It’s going to require good faith efforts to work hard at this. The CPA, holed up in the Green Zone with their gas-guzzling imported sport utility vehicles, expect what of the people who are struggling to make ends meet and avoid being caught in the violence?
Real, practical examples would be good here…
Yes, I’m now absolutely convinced that we were engaged in something equally as noxious as paying off the families of suicide bombers, and the like.
No indeed, Slarti: the US was engaged in something much more noxious than financially supporting the families of dead terrorists – which Saddam Hussein was certainly doing in the Occupied Territories.
The US has been financially supporting terrorists in actions against civilians: that’s one step more noxious than merely financially supporting the families of dead terrorists. I didn’t bother to specify, because with all the recent discussion about Negroponte, I assumed that anyone still awake would have had the Iran-contra affair brought to mind.
Jes, a treat, go to google put in waffles and see what comes up.
miserable failure was my favorite googlebomb, Timmy – then the failure got too miserable to amuse me, and the reverse googlebomb for Jew is more cheering (it was winning, a few days ago, but the people supporting the anti-Semitic website have been pushing back).
Still, it must be nice for you to know that even if rightists couldn’t invent googlebombs, at least you could use them once you were shown how.
Seldom do I find condescension and inaccuracy joined in so compact a fashion. My hat’s off to you.
Slarti, condescension I’ll admit to: Timmy inspires condescension in me. But all statements I made at 06:50 PM were completely accurate.
But Sullivan is certainly right that if they become cowed by terrorists, they won’t succeed. So once again I don’t see the complaint.
Sebastian, in case you’re still following this thread, my complaint (which may not be the same as Edward’s or Jesurgislac’s) is with the “blame the Iraqis” attitude that seems to be getting more play nowadays from certain quarters. It’s true that Edward’s quote from Sullivan in the main post doesn’t obviously share that attitude, so I can understand your reaction; probably Edward read more into that quote because of his prior encounters with said attitude (at AndrewSullivan.com and elsewhere).
Jesurgislac; There were unfortunately not a fat lot of NSB-members who had problems with turning in their neighbours and non-NSB people hated being occupied. The Germans thought they could win the hearts and minds after their “shock and awe” bombings of Rotterdam which caused the capitulation. Which is why a lot of people decided to just sit out the occupation, assuming that it would be short, since the Germans weren’t as awfull as anticipated. When they did get started, the resistance did too. In seperate groups, formed by people of the same specific religious designation of ideology, all labelled “terrorists” by the occupier and killed when caught.
Contact with NSB (familymembers, brief membership before they turned anti-semitic) is still a disadvantage.
dutchmarbel – correction accepted.
Jesurgislac; it was not intended as a slap on the fingers (adding the right tone of voice is hard in another language). I just find that the simularities are found in another area…
In general Dutch people have no great love for Germans (WW2, they “stole” the worldcup soccer from us in 1974 ;-), they talk in a loud and rather agressive tone and are perceived as arrogant). But Dutch speaking Belgians think that *we* are loud and rather agressive and arrogant – quit a lot has to do with how speech sounds I guess.
Dutch, I wasn’t offended (tone of voice *is* hard to convey online): I appreciated getting additional information from someone with local knowledge.