Shiite hegemony and the dirty victory
Lance on May 13 2007 at 9:04 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Lance's Page, Notes on the war
I would like to give some props to Mort Kondracke. Many pundits, bloggers and other opiners on our possible withdrawal
from Iraq conjure happy scenarios about the end result, could care less about what would happen for a variety of reasons or hide behind euphemistic phrases such as “let the Iraqis work it out themselves.”
Many of these same people didn’t feel it was the right thing to do to let the Rwandans work it out themselves, though that is what we did. Many didn’t feel it was right to let the people of the Balkans work it out for themselves, though we did that for a long time as well. They would have noted then that fleeing a burning village while being pursued by machete wielding mass murderers is not what we usually mean by “working it out.”
Of course, we cannot end every barbarity on earth, nor would it be desirable if we could.
Did I just say that? Let me strike that, because while I have heard that said too many times to count, as some kind of humble badge of honor, it is morally repugnant. Of course we should want to, and if we could easily do so, we should do it.
Quoting from Stephen Cox:
Piling up statistics about wars is useful in showing the scale of choice and preference, and in that sense it can be very persuasive. Few people would object on practical grounds to any military adventure if they could be assured that only ten lives would be lost in it, and none of those lives would be their own. Few people would fail to object if they were assured that the cost would be hundreds of millions of lives.
The fact is the victims of our withdrawal, much as the victims if we stay will have little say, and will not be working anything out. They will be victims.
Mort Kondracke however deserves credit for avoiding such pleasing rhetoric:
The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.
No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it – and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it’s the best alternative available if Bush’s surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.
On the other hand, as Bush’s critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.
Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war – backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who’s now Iran’s candidate to rule Iraq.
Kudos for honesty. As Rick Moran says:
What’s a little ethnic cleansing among friends, eh Mort?
Now Mort may have the best solution we can hope for, and while he says nobody has come out in support of it (Uh, what about Hillary?) whether they admit it to themselves or not, most on favor of some kind of withdrawal plan are in fact endorsing just that. That is exactly how the Iraqi’s will end up “working it out.”
Of course he ignores a pretty big issue, and I’ll let Rick give us a clue:
Standing by while Sunnis are slaughtered is going to sit quite well with our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the majority Sunni Gulf States.
The possibility of the Mort solution coming down the pike is part of what motivates these remarks from the man most behind the turnaround in Anbar:
Sheikh Majid Abdul Razzaq Al-Ali Suleiman, head chief of the Sunni tribal confederation of Dulaim in western Iraq, regarded the political process in Iraq as a “failure,†because it is based on sectarian quotas, instead of the intricate social Iraqi fabric, he told the pan-Arab Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper Thursday in an interview at Amman. Sheikh Suleiman stressed the role of Iraqi tribal leaders to put an end to the sectarian bloodshed in the country, especially since major Iraqi tribes often transcend the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide, but he also said he would not participate in the political process without an end to sectarianism. “Sectarianism is a huge blunder, but the major disaster is the blatant Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs and to destroy all that is Iraqi,†he said.
Of course most of the Democrats in Congress want to avoid questions about what will happen when we leave. The Bush administration has been rightly criticized for inadequate planning, but exactly what are their plans? Andrew Olmstead asked that question a year and a half ago:
It is not sufficient to demonstrate that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place. While I am of that belief myself, the fact remains that we are there now, and we have to move forward based on where we are, not where we wish we were. (ed. “sunk costs are sunk”) We therefore need to ask the right questions about what will happen if we stay or leave Iraq, and make our decision based on that.
I’m not interested in asking those questions right now. I’m more interested in seeing some evidence from the Democrats that they’ve asked those questions. Whether we stay the course, change course, or simply evacuate Iraq, we will incur certain gains and losses. An honest discussion of Iraq needs to address those issues openly and clearly. A Democratic Congress needs to hold hearings that delve into those questions thoroughly and honestly and lay out all of the effects, both positive and negative, that can reasonably be expected to result from each policy. Once Congress is armed with that information, they can make a determination on which direction they want to go in with the facts solidly in hand, and with plans for how to take advantage of the gains and mitigate the costs of their preferred policy.
I would love to hear from somebody where in all this nonsense we have been treated to by the Democrats where they have done any of that?
Tom Elliot had some questions he thought the media should ask of the Democrats and other fans of withdrawal, and I think they might help clarify matters. The three most important in my mind are in bold:
» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or defeat?
» If victory, how will withdrawal help?
» If defeat, how will that help national interests?
» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s reputation in the region?
» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?
» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?
» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency plans?
» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave by September 2008. What’s significant about this date other than being two months prior to the next presidential election?
[...]
» Does it make sense to threaten American allies?
» How can Congress be sure “benchmarks†won’t increase short-term violence, whereby insurgents could ensure discontinued U.S. support?
» Who creates the benchmarks? How will they be verified? How will it be determine they’ve been met to satisfaction?
The last item in bold I have an oft repeated opinion about. It comes down to something often only hinted at, but explicitly stated over at Obsidian Wings:
The goal of Democrats — and their allies — over the next two years should not and cannot be to stop the war cold turkey. The goal should be to politicize the issue in preparation for 2008.
Exactly, because if they were to begin withdrawal any earlier than that they would be faced with this before the election:
I can’t imagine the US standing by watching as Shias herd Sunnis like cattle, whipping them toward the Saudi, Syrian, or Jordanian border. It would be the largest forced migration of people since the India-Pakistan partition in 1947.
Throw in the murders, possibly in the millions and even the possibility of other powers intervening. They don’t want that on the plate with the Republicans muddying the crystal clear waters (in the Democrats minds) of who is to blame. So politicization is the goal, and that means playing games with the effort, making it less likely to succeed. More cost for naught suits many just fine. Energetically supporting it risks it being successful, energetically ending it means potential (political) disaster. Undermining it is just the ticket to electoral success, or so they believe.
As for Mort’s plan, kudos for more honesty, and maybe it is in fact the best we can do, but for now I think Rick says it well enough for me, though AllahPundit is worth a read as well. I should warn Rick though, rhetoric like this is bound to get him in trouble with the eliminationist rhetoric police from the Greenwald corner of the blogosphere:
And if he’s seriously considering what he wrote as an actual course of action for the United States, he should, as I suggest above, be sentenced to be dressed in Sunni garb and dropped smack in the middle of Sadr city.
Methinks his perspective on Shia ethnic cleansing would benefit by a little first hand experience with the process.
Sometime or another some kind of partitioning may be inevitable. Unleashing the Shiites upon the Sunni is not only immoral, it is unlikely to work out in our favor.
Of course, some on the left and other critics are all excited about this, but not many have written about that I can find. Is that because they pretty much see Kondracke as not that far from their own position in the outcome?
Over at Moon of Alabama Kondracke is actually expressing the hopes of the “right-zionists,” starring? Michael Ledeen! The goal is to create an Israel, US, Iran/Shia alliance against the Sunni. Go and read the eminently reasonable sounding, though completely bizarre, analysis of the various foreign policy factions yourself. Let me just say, Ledeen seems to be a rorschach figure on the left. Whatever villainy is needed, he can have it attributed to him (as if he has much sway over the administration) even when it flies in the face of other villainous charges. Kondracke, Cheney and Ledeen are in cahoots! War and Piece thinks Kondracke might be fronting for Cheney as well.
Libertarian Jim Henley has this to say:
The smug idiocy of Morton Kondracke makes me ashamed for my race and gender.
Of course, given his preferred policy, isn’t that pretty much what he (and seemingly permanent guest blogger Mona) is accepting anyway? Kudo’s again to Kondracke for clarity. His first commenter seemed to get that:
He may be a smug idiot, but I don’t know that this current column is anything but an acknowledgment of reality. That reality, of course, confirms why we never should have invaded Iraq (a fact that Kondracke will never admit), but I’m just not seeing the idiocy in this column.
Jim, responds:
Fair enough!
[...]
The real problem with fostering Shiite hegemony in Iraq is further radicalizing the globe’s much larger Sunni community against us. Working hard to break the back of the Iraqi Sunni community on behalf of Iraq’s Shiite elites would have worse consequences around the region than merely leaving the Sunnis to make the best of it.
So, while I think he may be right about the consequences of aiding the Shiites in the slaughter and cleansing of the Sunni’s, he feels there is some large moral distinction between that and leaving them to “make the best of it?” He really sees the two as morally distinct in some important way?
The rest of his commenters (including Mona) seem clueless as to both the initial objection and Jim’s concession until we get to Alex (commenting as Thoreau) who admits there is not a huge difference. I like Alex and often enjoy reading Jim, but I just can’t go there yet.
Once again, what is it that those who wish to withdraw are going to do if any of the various outcomes we can all imagine occur?
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Mort Kondracke, withdrawal, Sunni, Shiite, ethnic cleansing
Sphere: Related Content
Well, first of all, it would’ve been nice had some of you war supporters asked similar questions to yourselves before we got into this mess.
» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of invading Iraq?
» Should such a scenario manifest, what are the Republicans contingency plans?
» How will bungling Iraq’s occupation affect America’s reputation in the region?
» Does it make sense to open up a second front in the region before the first front is secured?
Of course, some on the Right and other war supporters were all excited about invading Iraq, but not many have written about those scenario questions that I can find. Is that because they pretty much see Bush as not that far from their own position in the outcome?
As you did, I found the comments over at Unqualified Offerings interesting. Especially this one that was omitted by your ellipses.
And you shouldn’t find it too surprising that I don’t put any faith in the soothsaying of those who supported the war.
I can’t speak for Jim, obviously. But I can answer you with my own beliefs as to the “moral distinction†in the slaughter and cleansing of the Sunni’s.
The difference is of course that leaving it to them to “make the best of it†vs. Kondrake’s “winning dirty†Shiite hegemony, is that in the former, it belongs to them, in the latter, it is supported with hundreds of billions of American tax payer money and thousands of American lives.
You, as a self described libertarian, should be able to see the moral distinction in that. But maybe not. You seem to laugh at the prospect of the government, no wait… this government, doing anything domestically beneficial with regard to health care or the economy etc…, but you seem to put great faith in the government, no wait… this government, to pull a rabbit out of a hat in Iraq.
If they want to kill each other, then by all means… I just don’t wish to pay for it.
After all,
Four years (and counting),
Half a trillion dollars (and counting),
Over 25,000 American soldiers dead, wounded, or maimed (and counting)…
Result in an Iraqi civil bloodbath.
What a bargain, huh?
Check, please…
Now Pogue, I address that in the post, and I have addressed the fact that many war supporters didn’t do so many times as well. However, that isn’t the issue now, is it?
Then you haven’t looked. Besides, I was writing about this particular article, which endorses ideas that normally would have progressives up in arms. I think it is because it isn’t far from their own position. In fact, the only difference is they would have no role in the outcome as opposed to Kondracke who hopes to ride the tiger and hopefully keep it from getting too rabid.
Maybe it is interesting, but what does it have to do with what I was commenting on, which is the price to Iraqi’s? You know, the admitted ethnic cleansing and democide? That little matter. Exactly where does Jim see a large moral difference?
That is your difference, but reading Jim’s post, is that what he is talking about? No it isn’t. Assuming that the outcome is the same either way as you do here, then I guess that might make sense, but let us not pretend that you have some good case for coming on here and getting all snippy when you agree with me, because in fact, you are saying my analysis is correct. You just don’t like that I disapprove.
â€Well, first of all, it would’ve been nice had some of you war supporters asked similar questions to yourselves before we got into this mess.â€
Now Pogue, I address that in the post, and I have addressed the fact that many war supporters didn’t do so many times as well. However, that isn’t the issue now, is it?
Dude,… help a poor boy out. I’ve spent all day in the field dealing with disgruntled employees. I’ve read the post twice now, I can’t read it again.
Please highlight where you address that in your post.
And don’t highlight this,
Because that’s just lame.
What do you mean, I haven’t looked!?
I’ve been reading Q&O and other blogs for years. Yeesh, man. I can’t spend all day on the internet.
And this, “Besides, I was writing about this particular article, which endorses ideas that normally would have progressives up in arms.â€
That’s not exactly what you wrote,
If you meant to narrow your questions to progressives, you should’ve stated such. Sorry if I’m being a little too picky, it’s just that – as you must know by now – there are many in the “fans of withdrawal†camp that could not be classified as “progressivesâ€.
Heh. Since when have I limited my comments and opinions to whatever narrow reference and topic you choose to write about?
And why would you want me, and others, to?
I mean, how boring.
I see a line of discussion, and I grab the wheel and drive.
Yeah, right back atcha’ chief. You just don’t like to admit it.
I suppose maybe I should have some kind of line of symbols to signify a detour of discussion. I can make my half ass attempt at that punctuation rabbit,
(\ /)
* *
‘
====
Now that’s one ugly ass rabbit.
You don’t wanna’ look at that every time, do you?
Looks like my comment got caught in your filters.
Sorry Pogue, It must have been the rabbit.
Now I have pointed out the over optimistic beliefs of many war supporters over and over again (especially, it seems, those who now are the most angry and in favor of withdrawal) as well as the lack of preparation by the administration for less optimistic outcomes or paths. Every post I make doesn’t need to repeat those criticisms. I gave you your shot, and the post isn’t about that. It is about not doing the exact same thing again. This isn’t a game to see who gets to say “I told you so.” You get to. Now lets discuss the post.
I didn’t say it was. It was part of what I am writing about. Which you don’t deny, but seem to want to avoid and steer to a discussion of the failings of war supporters. If it was a debate won on style points that might wash, but lives are in the balance and I am asking exactly what needs to be asked.
I am not, but in a response to your irrelevant jab, it was quite germane to me to point out that the posting on the article was surprisingly light in the progressive sphere. I speculated as to the reason.
Which is why most discussion gets no where. I am discussing a particular issue and you drive off to discuss things which have nothing to little to do with the post. That is boring (and repetitive as we go over the same ground even when it isn’t what we are discussing at the moment. Kind of one note charlie like) and you don’t always do that, and it is far more interesting when you don’t. Instead we are back to repeating your jabs, which to some extent are deserved, but mean nothing about the future. They just satisfy your desire to be right about things which don’t give any guidance moving forward.
And McQ and Dale haven’t raked the administration over the coals on just those grounds? Don’t bother to answer, it doesn’t really matter.
Wrong Pogue, and for two reasons. First, I take great pleasure in agreeing with you. Second, acknowledging areas of agreement, and then concentrating on the areas of disagreement, or areas of weakness in both arguments is a great way to learn. Maybe then we won’t be as stupid in how we leave Iraq as how we went in.
You are right though, we agree. We just disagree about how important it is to try and head off the outcome.
I should also point out that this is wrong in how you assess my beliefs:
That isn’t true. I believe government isn’t the best way to do those things as a rule. On those occasions where they might (since results may vary) improve on the market (avoiding the epistemological issues of that determination) I doubt our ability to determine which areas those will be, or our ability to even assess if it is true. Finally, they are generally damaging to liberty. I don’t believe that government would be worse than no health care for example. If that were the option then I would endorse government provided health care.
So the issue that you bring up would be better stated as is the government the best vehicle for this job, or should we contract it out? That would be a fascinating discussion, and interestingly Rumsfeld had elements of that in how he viewed fighting future conflicts. However, if a private military is the best way to go in the future (and for a number of reasons I doubt that) it isn’t an option now. So the next question is, is the US military and our various government arms up to the task? I have significant worries about State, and some about the military, and even more about our politicians. I am no Pollyanna, I do believe it is still within our reach to leave a better situation if we stay for a while longer, and I do not know how long that will be. It depends on many factors.
Over and over again have you??? Well, I guess it’s all a matter of opinion.
Of course every post shouldn’t come with caveats and disclaimers and such. Otherwise, it would take you all day to write anything. But you shouldn’t be surprised when after you point fingers and demand answers from those you disagree with – progressives or no, that fingers will be pointed right back at you.
And maybe discussion then moves at a snail’s pace, but that is just the nature of debate. Sorry. Maybe you would be wise to add a little humility to sweeten up your sh*tcakes when you serve them to your opponents.
Answer your questions need I? Pfft… you should’ve answered my questions!! Then maybe your questions wouldn’t be necessary.
And if you then might think that carrying on a discussion with me is pointless, then so be it. Although I gave you my answer,
With my answers bringing in tow, the constant criticisms. Sorry. But you’ll have to forgive me if I summon a little attitude replying to yours and others’ demands for answers.
It’s a fine mess I’ve gotten us into… Great!! Just, great. How are you going to get us out of it? Where are your bright ideas?
My bright ideas were swept off the table on 3/17/2003. But now? Sorry. This is all I got.
Yeah… and I’m bitter about it. I don’t like others reaching into my wallet for their mistakes.
Hmmm.
You find it boring when the discussion steers away from what you want to discuss, and I find it boring to not steer the discussion the way I want to discuss.
I wonder why?
Anyway, like I said, I gave you my answer. It is you that has yet to discuss it.
I don’t want any part of that genocide any more than I, we, already have in it. What say you? Do you want to pay for genocide?
Yes it would be.
But that is not exactly what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.
It seems that you, others here at ASHC and throughout the Neolibertarian world, give a lot of faith towards a government with regard to foreign policy, that you supposedly have little faith in any other area. That isn’t very consistent, and maybe it need not be.
But more over, you, others here at ASHC and throughout the Neolibertarian world, seem to enthusiastically defend the government with regard to foreign policy from its critics.
But there I go again, steering the discussion elsewhere. One thousand pardons.
Back to the matter at hand…
And by all means, let the discussion continue down whatever appropriate path you deem fit. I would love to read the opinions of others that frequent here. What is MichaelW’s opinion on Kondracke’s “dirty victory� What is the depth of Keith_Indy’s desire to pay for genocide? And where’s Omar, anyway?
Forgive me if I led this thread astray.
Cheers.
Again, my reply was ensnared in your spam traps. They must not like me for this is the third time.
And no rabbit this time, I swear.
Yes, and I said fine. I gave you your shot. It doesn’t apply to me in my opinion, but who cares, if it does unless your goal is to stick your tongue out? The situation has proven to be far more difficult than many people allowed for, and a bunch of them want to blame someone else rather than their own selves. Others want to deny it, or pretend and still support the war. Okay. But who cares about that in the context of what to do going forward?
Wasn’t one of the ways we first began our relationship based on me taking Mona to task for having gone into this war filled with fire and brimstone with a bunch of overoptimistic, flowers and ponies ideas that didn’t turn out? Now she wants to blame everybody else, but not herself for being wrong. Why? because she was “sold” some happy field of flowers. As if that excuses it? So I know you have read my opinion at minimum on that.
Such as? Or are you aggregating others with what I write. I have never claimed (and I defy you to find one instance) that I have claimed any kind of certainty about what I feel we should do working out. At times I have been downright pessimistic. I still get to point out that other people are not adequately asking what the implications of withdrawal are.
No, but I have answered yours. You can iobsess over five years ago if you wish, I am worried about now.
I didn’t know you then. I would have told you all kinds of worries and bad outcomes were possible. I actually felt it highly likely that in many ways worse things were well within the realm of possibility than we have seen so far. That includes Haditha and Abu Ghraib.
Not so much from me my friend. I don’t find it morally more appealing to say I am no longer paying for it, you do. I gave props to Kondracke, he isn’t avoiding what his proposal means. You seem to not be either, so where is the criticism accept to say I disagree about the difference. My scorn is not for those who honestly say and acknowledge what they are saying they are willing to do, I understand that, but I do disapprove (or is that by definition scurrilous?). My scorn is for the moral preeners who want to make it about how deluded and barbarous their opponents are, people who want war and death, while refusing to acknowledge the war and death their actions will lead to. It may be realistic, it may be less expensive on you, but it isn’t any moral badge of honor.
Admittedly I have a high tolerance for hypocrisy, so that isn’t what bothers me about it. What bothers me is their decision, and the decision they are advocating isn’t based on reality, or their professed beliefs, thus it is likely to be a decision poorly made, just as it turned out many war supporters decision was made based on beliefs which were untenable.
So, if you are aware of those consequences, if you forthrightly face them, we just disagree, and maybe we should discuss those aspects, but that isn’t what we are doing. Instead you just resent me criticizing people who are guilty of that because, well, I guess they are “on your side” no matter how blind their reasons may be.
I’ll tell you why, because it is far more interesting to discuss 2007 and what will happen next than discuss something that we have beaten to death for five years, where I have conceded your major arguments. Fun discussion:
P: You guys were idiots.
L: A lot of us were.
P: Yeah, but you still don’t get what huge idiots many of you were.
L: True, a lot of people don’t.
Ad nauseum, for four more years. It could get a little interesting as I pointed out all the stupid, dumb things anti-war supporters believed as well, just like we have for five years. You are bitter, well fine. Go find the people who were slagging you five years ago.
I doubt it will be genocide, democide more likely, but no. I want to pay to try and stop it, even though we might fail. You don’t. That is our area of disagreement. Getting pissed at me for pointing out what you yourself admit is the likely outcome is a bit rich. How about sticking to explaining why, or, how about understanding, even while disagreeing, why others might feel differently? I understand the, “its not my business,” attitude. I don’t see the world that way. That discussion however is very 2007, you still want to bitch about all the people who called you names in 2003 and attach their sins to me.
I won’t speak for the rest of the neo-libertarian world, how about you not let them speak for me? I have very little faith about our government in foreign policy, which is part fo why I figured this would quite possibly be a hard slog from the beginning. I think I have over and over argued how what we see is so very like, if not better, than history. Once again, you confuse me with others it seems. In fact, if I can get some clearance from our government I am working on a pretty big post about the issues between the military and the state department and other issues in Iraq. My blogmates have seen some of the raw stuff. Check out this link which will be integrated within it.
In fact, one of the reason I invited Joshua is that it talks often of just those things. My only issue if you have read my little discussions with Josh on that is, What does he expect? I forgive him though because he is young, he hasn’t had time to be as cynical about such stuff as I. That complaint is just BS. I think I even had a post way back discussing Alex Taborrak’s point about the inefficiency of the military. He asked why we expect any more from the military than the post office or the DMV. I didn’t disagree with him.
Actually you don’t need to. That complaint doesn’t apply to me, but it is a good point, it isn’t the same argument had a million times over, and it is very germane to a discussion of what to do going forward. It is a key part. See the difference?
In fact, the overconfidence in the ability of our government to do things as well as we should like (or really, any large scale bureaucratic endeavor) is a key factor in both understanding why it has been difficult, and why public opinion has so soured. Actually both sides of this debate have not acknowledged that fact to the detriment of us all. It is a big reason why evil motives and incompetence are overused as explanations rather than systemic difficulties for example.
I don’t mind you getting your shot in, but once it is acknowledged, especially agreeably, can you get your teeth off my leg?
I think they have all quit.
LOL… Okay, okay.
Some of what I wrote wasn’t fair and you are correct in that I do sometimes transfer. And I retract some of what I wrote. But not all.
But Lance,… If you won’t fight me, then who will?
(off topic again… Any news regarding our little wager about Gateway and Ace? I’ve got the hive picked out and the bees making your honey as I write this. It’s the hive
I placed right next to my septic systembeing tended to by sultry Vestil Virgins on the ides of May.)You know what. I went home, then went to some community meetings, and forgot. I’ll try and do it tonight.
First of all, I agree to a large extent (though the implications of that agreement we obviously disagree about.)
Second, I am just tired of the battle over 2003. It drains the fun out of posting on anything else about the war of it all just devolves into that battle again. Maybe it is just me, but it isn’t fun. Now there are plenty of people at QandO who still want to fight that battle. I promise you, Shark and Bithead will tussle with you for hours and seem to never tire of it.
As for myself, and maybe it is hard for people to believe it, but I hurt every day thinking about people in Iraq. I care what happens to them. Maybe I shouldn’t, maybe it is pointless, but I really want to do what is best for most of them. Maybe I am a character in a picaresque novel, but I think the windmill is worth taking on a bit longer, even if the odds aren’t great. So even if I am wrong about the best way to do that, and I acknowledge that possibility freely, I want to focus on that. Frankly, I don’t see many in our leadership on either side who really care about what is the best way to accomplish anything for either Iraqi’s or us. I do see a few exceptions, and many in the military, including Petraeus, I put in that camp. For all the stupid things they have done and advocated, I see it in some of the real (as opposed to those like Rumsfeld or Cheney who are just lumped in with them) neo-cons, and even Bush.
Scowcroft always had the best interests of the US in mind, and there are others (including liberals Pogue, O’ Hanlon and Holbrooke come to mind.) For almost everybody else it is just about the elections. That doesn’t bode well for us or the Iraqi’s. For if I am wrong, the way most opponents want to handle it is just as wrong, but they don’t even care to think about that. It isn’t even on the radar. If things work out, it will be blind luck.