Now that the inevitable peace deal between the American forces and Sadr’s Mahdi army appears to have been reached, amounting to restoration of the status quo ante , can anybody provide a coherent rationale for Bremer’s decision to drive Sadr into revolt in the first place, by closing his newspaper and arresting his supporters? The assault on Fallujah was bound to be a disaster, but it’s not surprising that the Americans felt impelled to take some drastic action in response to the killing and mutilation of US contractors there. But the attack on Sadr seemed gratuitiously stupid, even more so than the disbanding of the army and the banning of the Baath party.
Tacitus, still taking the view that “failure is not an option in Iraq”, is naturally furious about the deal . But any realistic analysis of the planned election must recognise that Sadr has enough support to make him a powerful force. He may not be a particularly attractive character, but he’s no worse than dozens of other world leaders with whom we deal for want of any better alternative. The notion that a military option with a June 30 deadline could take him and his movement out of the picture was never more than a delusion.
Whether you think, like Tacitus, that the attack on Sadr should been pushed through to its bloody conclusion, or like me that it should never have started, this is another appalling stuffup on Bremer’s part. Even at this late stage he ought to take responsibility and resign or, failing that, be sacked.
{ 40 comments }
Anthony 05.28.04 at 10:18 am
1. It is not a return to status quo.
2. Sadr drove himself into revolt, he was attempting a play for power.
3. How on earth do you think you know enough about what is on the ground to second the guess the people there?
You can’t lose since:
If Sadr had been allowed to revolt unopposed: Bremner’s fault.
If Sadr had been totally crushed and destroyed: Bremner’s fault.
If Sadr is fought until he capitulats and withdrawns his forces: Bremner’s at fault.
Any of the above and your concluding words “this is another appalling stuffup on Bremer’s part. Even at this late stage he ought to take responsibility and resign or, failing that, be sacked.” could have been inserted.
dsquared 05.28.04 at 10:19 am
I’d also add that the focus on Sadr as a personality is pretty weird. Saddam tried to get rid of the Al-Mahdi Army by killing Sadr senior, who was a much stronger and more popular character, and it didn’t work.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 11:34 am
Wow. Lots wrong here, but the starting error is your premise that Bremer drove Sadr to violence. (As an aside, it betrays a rather interesting mindset here, wherein the nonwestern actors are purely reactive objects….but I digress.) The truth is that Sadr was, as we know, killing off his rivals starting early summer ’03; and he had begun staging deadly ambushes of American forces in fall ’03. We actually waited a good six months — all the while with Sadr’s men killing, or trying to kill, ours — before taking action.
There was nothing “gratuitiously stupid” about taking on Sadr, unless you don’t mind leaving in-place the most egregious anti-democratic forces in the Shi’a south (say what you like about Dawa and SCIRI; they don’t, to my knowledge, habitually sponsor assassinations these days), and unless you think there’s nothing particularly wrong with the imposition of Iranian-style Shi’ism and all the slaughter and tyranny that implies. (See, for example, the flight of Christians from Sadrist areas; see the Sadrist razing and massacre of a gypsy — sorry, don’t know what they’re called in Arabic — township a few months back.)
So, the “coherent rationale” for taking Sadr down is actually fairly simple and fairly obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention: it’s a precondition to a halfway decent sovereign Iraq. Bremer shouldn’t be sacked for trying to do the right thing. He should be sacked for abandoning the effort.
liberal japonicus 05.28.04 at 11:55 am
I think, in light of the reports of the Spanish being pushed to take out Sadr ‘dead or alive’, putting this dead rat on Paul B’s doorstep is a bit unfair, unless he is giving commands to the military concerning this. It is possible that he is (which explains the slow drip of torture revelations) but he can’t be able to do that without it being specifically sanctioned by higher ups, right?
And given the ability for Sadr to hunker down among the holiest mosques in shia-dom, wasn’t it stupid to go after him, regardless of his ‘reactivity’, especially in light of, as John points out, the 30 June deadline? Gratuitously seems an understatement.
I dunno. Maybe this was thought up by those 20 somethings who posted their resumes to the Heritage foundation. I wouldn’t be surprised.
dsquared 05.28.04 at 12:02 pm
As an aside, it betrays a rather interesting mindset here, wherein the nonwestern actors are purely reactive objects
Are you making an accusation of racism (or at the very least, Edward Said-style Orientalism) here? If so, please have the guts to do so openly.
John Quiggin 05.28.04 at 12:04 pm
tacitus, as your own comment implies, the time to go after Sadr (if at all) was six months ago when the arrest warrant was issued.
But I must say that the whole idea that the occupying forces should be in the business of picking and choosing which Iraqi militias to finance, which to tolerate, and which to crush seems thoroughly misguided. Chalabi, for example, was a hero in January and is now an enemy of the state.
Bob 05.28.04 at 12:16 pm
The whole thing is starting to look seriously like a sequel to Heller’s Catch-22: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1226638,00.html
If it were not all so tragic because of the lives lost, it would be hillarious. As it is, the Chalabi affair has made Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz the laughing stock of the world.
rea 05.28.04 at 12:22 pm
Sadr has been essentially daring the CPA to re-enact one of the foundation stories of Shia Islam–the slaughter of Hussein, grandson of Muhammed, at Karbala by the forces of the evil Caliph Yazid. Note that Sadr is the grandson of a noteworthy Shia leader, and that his father (like Hussein’s father Ali) was also martyed.
We raised Sadr up to prominence by attacking him. We would have been smarter to let him be Sistani’s problem . . .
Don Quijote 05.28.04 at 12:52 pm
(As an aside, it betrays a rather interesting mindset here, wherein the nonwestern actors are purely reactive objects….but I digress.)
The non-western actors in this case are in their country, while the western actors are occupying said country which is at least a couple thousand miles from their borders. So yes, all the non-western actors are reacting to our occupation.
At would at the very least like to believe that if some foreign power invaded the US to overthrow a Democratic President, you would not roll over and welcome the occupier the way you want the Iraqis to welcome us.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 1:26 pm
Are you making an accusation of racism….here?
No. Thanks for playing. As for “Orientalism,” I don’t know how Said defines it, so I leave it to you to decide.
tacitus, as your own comment implies, the time to go after Sadr (if at all) was six months ago when the arrest warrant was issued.
As far as I know, the exact date of the issuance of the arrest warrant is still unclear. It was only made public at the beginning of April. In any case, while I agree that we should have gone after Sadr long ago (specifically, when he began killing his rivals, and especially when he began killing Americans), it does not follow that, having not done so, we could not do so later.
But I must say that the whole idea that the occupying forces should be in the business of picking and choosing which Iraqi militias to finance, which to tolerate, and which to crush seems thoroughly misguided.
It’s not misguided in the slightest, unless you adhere to the falsehood that all factions are created equal. They’re not: the Dawa, for example, are not guilty of outright ethnic cleansing; the Sadrists are. The Kurds are not guilty of imposing Wahabbist-style Islamist law; the Sunni Islamists are. I find it incredible that one could not find meaningful differences between these groups, and that one could not furthermore discern that perhaps a successful occupation depends upon promoting some over others.
I think your real problem may lie in which groups are promoted: you bring up Chalabi and the INC as an example. Fair enough; but this does not negate the point that we must find some allies, or at the least partners, in Iraqi politics and society. And that we must crush others.
q 05.28.04 at 1:43 pm
This discussion reminds me of a Hollywood film where a group of bank robbers gets into an argument over who deserves the loot. Then someone pulls out a gun and everyone starts accusing everyone else.
You think, “How do you choose who DESERVES the money? They chose to rob the bank in the first place. You get what is coming to you”.
February 2003: I thought if the war is starting that must be because they have some really good evidence which they can’t show us because it would endanger their sources. What a fool I was.
q 05.28.04 at 2:03 pm
…and as a consequence of events over the last 18 months, when the White House makes announcements about anything I am extra sceptical, and I know I am one of hundreds of millions of people around the globe who feel this way.
So maybe one day they will say “The Sadr Mahdi army eats babies for lunch”.
I will say, I want to see evidence, don’t just tell me because I tried that before and was made to feel a fool, and look an idiot to a concerned friend of mine who I assured that a war would not be launched without any real evidence. At least I am not in Colin Powell’s shoes! (Sorry Colin).
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 2:19 pm
Eats babies? Not quite, but….
q 05.28.04 at 2:27 pm
It is best summed up by what Steve Casteel, (Coalition Provisional Authority official overseeing Iraq’s Interior Ministry), said:
_”But he added that he was reluctant to say more until he received the report of an investigation into the incident.”_
Who knows what to believe!
liberal japonicus 05.28.04 at 2:34 pm
Fair enough; but this does not negate the point that we must find some allies, or at the least partners, in Iraqi politics and society. And that we must crush others.
Given that we’ve now cast our lot with the former Baathists, (we certainly didn’t fall over ourselves helping out Sistani now, did we?) why do I think this is a ‘gee, it’s not as bad as it was under Saddam’ meme?
At any rate, the timing of the arrest warrant is not simply unclear, it is clear that no one really wants anyone to know exactly what went on in deciding it (unless you really believe that the Iraqi police decided to do it all by their lonesomes)
And I still think it is a strong possibility that the mutilation of the contractors (done by a separate group from those who killed them, the grammar in John’s post leaves the mis-impression it was done by the same subject) was done in response to the rumours of prison abuse, which have turned out to be sadly true. (Just to double check, is this reference the same as Tacitus’ “especially when he began killing Americans”)
I think Juan Cole’s a href=”http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108424628165637976″>point bears repeating
The revelations also cast the Americans in an even poorer light as ignorant and arrogant incompetents. They were clearly completely unprepared for the insurgency throughout the South mounted by Muqtada’s followers beginning April 4, the day after they came after his aides. It is one thing to be unprepared for a major military confrontation. It is another to be unprepared for it after you were warned about it by your close ally who was in charge of the affected area!
q 05.28.04 at 2:43 pm
JQ-
Your very first sentence uses the word “coherent rationale”. Don’t you think we are now beyond the stage of coherent rationales? Comedy is word that springs to mind.
Yours very seriously,
Q.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 2:48 pm
Cole: A font of factual information, badly unhinged by plain hate for his political opposites. The Wolfowitz=Saddam line was detestable.
Given that we’ve now cast our lot with the former Baathists, (we certainly didn’t fall over ourselves helping out Sistani now, did we?)….
First of all: huh? Where’s the evidence that we’re wholesale supporting ex-Ba’athists? Yeah, we empowered them — and their Islamist allies — in Fallujah, to our shame, but that’s not the same thing as endorsing their program nationwide. As for “helping Sistani,” I guess waging war on his bitter rival might not count in your eyes. In any case, you may have noticed that Sistani doesn’t publicly indicate that he needs our help.
….why do I think this is a ‘gee, it’s not as bad as it was under Saddam’ meme?
Probably because you’re badly misunderstanding things.
And I still think it is a strong possibility that the mutilation of the contractors….was done in response to the rumours of prison abuse….
Of course, you have no evidence whatsoever for this.
(Just to double check, is this reference the same as Tacitus’ “especially when he began killing Americansâ€)
Pretty clearly not.
roger 05.28.04 at 2:52 pm
Tacitus,
Your comment about favoring one militia group over another does, I think, reflect U.S. policy in Iraq. It is just for that reason that the U.S., far from preventing civil war in Iraq, is actually generating the conditions that will activate it. Because the occupiers didn’t have the troops, they couldn’t properly demobilize and reconstruct the army back in May, 2003. Hence, Bremer’s incredibly bad decision to demobilize an armed force the U.S. army couldn’t see, or control. In a way, you can’t blame Bremer — blame there goes squarely to Rumsfeld.
But the bad consequences of bad policies continue to ramify. It is not true that occupiers should look the other way for good militia and crush bad militia — this is the way in which the occupying force becomes a faction in a civil war. Because the U.S. can’t control what the Dawa militia are doing, or Sciri, it cannot guarantee the encounters these groups have with Iraqis will be lawful. But by “picking them”, while at the same time using the legal system to go after a militia group they don’t like, they are de-legitimating the justice system in Iraqi eyes — here a murder is a murder, there a murder is, well, an action committed by one of the “partners” we’ve picked.
This is a structural vice that vitiates any attempt to make Iraq democratic. It makes constitutional guarantees into jokes — if the institutions to enforce those guarantees are simply tools of occupational strategy. There is a good reason that Sadr’s popularity shot up after the attempt to arrest him — the attempt was essentially corrupt and unfair. If you think sanctioning the extra-legal existence of militias we like helps the U.S. project, well, I strongly disagree.
liberal japonicus 05.28.04 at 3:01 pm
Well, I think that Juan Cole’s observations stand on their own, and the tactic of taking one point to try and undercut another, unrelated point, is sad, but not unexpected.
I note that you also acknowledge that getting former Baathists to police is asking for trouble. I wasn’t very clear when I said ‘the former Baathists’, but given the fact that Saddam is still in custody, I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not suggesting that we are ‘endorsing their program nationwide’, so that stands as a parse to gain rhetorical advantage. Thank _you_ for playing.
As for Sistani, I remember when we were worried that he was a mere Iranian mouthpiece, my how things change. If you could, just for a moment, put yourself in Sistani’s shoes, why would he think that the US was in any way his friend?
I also asked
(Just to double check, is this reference the same as Tacitus’ “especially when he began killing Americansâ€)
To which Tacitus replied
Pretty clearly not.
Well, I was asking John, not you, so your Karnak prize awaits, but could you be clear about which Americans Sadr killed so as to invite the wrath of the US military? Perhaps it might clear up the question of the unclear arrest warrant.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 3:41 pm
Roger, you make fair points, until you describe the arrest warrant against Sadr as “corrupt and unfair.” It was neither. Your complaint is one of process, which I agree with: we should ensure, as much as we can, that all factions operate within certain constraints. I do not agree, though, with the implicit characterization of all factions as essentially equal (or equally bad). I’ve given explicit reasons why the Sadrists stand out as malign players in Iraq, unmatched by any within the Shi’a world.
As for japonicus….
….the tactic of taking one point to try and undercut another, unrelated point, is sad, but not unexpected.
Lordy. You cite Cole — specifically, a ridiculously bad post by Cole — in lieu of making your own argument. Because you can’t? Because you’re not inclined to? Who knows? I give sound reasons to not cite Cole — eg, his value judgments are increasingly unsound and unhinged — and you sniff that it’s “not unexpected.” Well. Here’s the long version:
That Cole post is a pretty good example of the unhinged rhetoric and reasoning he’s come to increasingly display as the war goes on. Contrary to fact — supposedly his strong point — he describes the attack on Sadr as “largely unprovoked,” when it was anything but. He ascribes an utterly unfounded leftist mindset to the (“post-Franco, post-fascist”) Spanish military, when we know that the troops involved were, in fact, more or less ashamed of their leaders’ inaction and withdrawal. He hypothesizes, completely without evidence, that the Bush Administration sought to set up the Spanish as “fall guys” in Sadrist eyes, when the simple dictates of military areas of responsibility meant that the proposed action had to go through the Spanish command. Finally, he ignores the probability that the Spanish command, with new instructions in place following the March elections, would have every reason to skew its response to the CPA the way it did.
A castle of falsehoods and unchecked assumptions, all for the purpose of spewing bile at his hate-object, the Bush Administration. Credible? No.
….I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not suggesting that we are ‘endorsing their program nationwide’….
What was it you said? Ah, yes: [W]e’ve now cast our lot with the former Baathists. Write clearly, or don’t whine when you get (consistently!) misunderstood.
As for Sistani, I remember when we were worried that he was a mere Iranian mouthpiece, my how things change.
Mouse in your pocket? Who’s “we”? Cites, please.
If you could, just for a moment, put yourself in Sistani’s shoes, why would he think that the US was in any way his friend?
Constant deference to his wishes? Constant consultation? War against his sectarian foes? Elimination of the Ba’athist regime? He has plenty of reasons; whether he does is purely a function of his own Islamist mindset. He may not, but there may not be much we can do about it.
….could you be clear about which Americans Sadr killed so as to invite the wrath of the US military?
Guess you and Juan Cole are in the same boat, eh? Look up the October ’03 ambush in Sadr City.
paperwight 05.28.04 at 4:18 pm
…we know that the troops involved were, in fact, more or less ashamed of their leaders’ inaction and withdrawal.
The source quoted doesn’t even come close to supporting that assertion. It cites three noncoms and one enlisted man, and at least one of the noncoms sounds pissed at both governments — the one that put him there and the one that pulled him out. One of the other noncoms just sounds sad, and the third seems pissed that it’s a political call, and he wanted to finish the job he started. I don’t see the word “ashamed” anywhere in there, and I don’t really see it implied.
But, let’s assume that all of these guys had said “we’re ashamed of our government”. Would they then represent all of the Spanish military? Then do Jimmy Massey and Camilo Mejia represent all of the US soldiers on the ground?
The answer would have to be no, even for me, and I’m hard over against the war.
bob mcmanus 05.28.04 at 4:22 pm
“whether he [Sistani} does is purely a function of his own Islamist mindset” Tacitus
After the Tacitus cheering section does a wave he asks if it might be useful to consider degrees of Islamism. Sistani certainly at least says he will accept a moderate Sharia.
“[Demobilization]In a way, you can’t blame Bremer — blame there goes squarely to Rumsfeld”
In this secretive WH, you never can really know. So by default blame goes to the top, Bush. However, info says Chalabi had a hand in this.
dsquared 05.28.04 at 4:31 pm
Then perhaps you’d care to explain what you mean by “interesting mindset here”. I think that you are trying to make a rather cheap accusation of racism.
q 05.28.04 at 4:34 pm
tacitus-
I am pleased to see your great enthusiasm exists for solving the problems in Iraq and I hope it continues.
If some more good thinking westerners and charity workers were on the ground, it might just be possible to get religiously strict Muslims to agree to the proposition that
“even if the people in the brothel next door kidnap your daughter, driving them out of their homes is not reasonable”.
You might have a job though, because religiously strict Muslims tend to be pretty judgemental about people who run brothels, and kidnappers. To be honest, some non-religious people might take a bit of persuading too. Look at the trouble of lynching generally in many countries.
If we manage to get enough support on the ground for a state that legalises brothels, bans kidnapping and bans harrassment, you would find that a certain percentage of the locals would be very upset because they wouldn’t like it. I suppose it comes with the territory of being a religiously strict Muslim.
But we have a problem here because there are quite a few religious people in Iraq. Maybe the Iraqis ought to consider a constitution like the US one, with the incorporation of the amendments, and rulings like Roe vs Wade. Then the religious people would have to accept abortion as well, which would be most amusing if the USA ever started banning it.
Now we come to the area of punishment. The Old Testament says an eye for an eye. The New Testament says turn the other cheek, the Koran includes stoning to death, the USA has the death penalty and Amnesty International says ban the death penalty. I am not sure what Saddams official policy was, but I think it was pretty “random”.
How will we decide what to do? We could choose any one of a committee of Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, British, American, Asutralian, or we could have a parliamentary democracy.
All of which rests on the single question of what are we trying to do in Iraq. As I really have not got a clue then I can’t answer the question. However given your comments in the thread so far I get the idea that you know what we are doing. So if you could EXPLAIN what we are DOING in some detail, then it would be possible for me to UNDERSTAND where we are GOING. Thanks in advance.
liberal japonicus 05.28.04 at 4:56 pm
Wow, I’m honored to get the full Tac treatment. So, if the Spanish military was so gosh darned ready for action, why did they pass on getting a chance to go after Sadr? Or was Bono simply making all this up?
What was it you said? Ah, yes: [W]e’ve now cast our lot with the former Baathists. Write clearly, or don’t whine when you get (consistently!) misunderstood.
Score another rhetorical one for Tacitus! Rather than address the substance of the point (which is, in brief summary, that we went in thinking that the Shia would be throwing roses in front of us, found that they didn’t, turned to some of the same people who made a point of making Shia life miserable, thereby making sure that no one trusted us) you decide to claim that I’m whining. I merely pointed out that there were alternate ways to take my statements and you took it the way you could take the most rhetorical advantage. Of course, here is what you said about this
As you read this, a Ba’athist general in a Ba’athist uniform reigns over a city rife with Ba’athist killers in the Sunni heartland. As you read this, rebellious Fallujah is “policed” by men from rebellious Fallujah. As you read this, the murderers and mutilators of Fallujah go definitively unfound and unpunished. As you read this, General Abizaid sheepishly acknowledges that yes, they’ll still find all the jihadis in Fallujah — they just might not find them in Fallujah.
Hey, but that’s not the same thing as endorsing their program nationwide, is it?
As for Sistani, I remember when we were worried that he was a mere Iranian mouthpiece, my how things change.
Mouse in your pocket? Who’s “we� Cites, please.
Since the full archive at your place remains aborning (funny, that) I’ll have to leave you with this
All three leading Iraqi Shiite clerics–Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr–are beholden to Iran. Sistani was born and brought up in the Iranian city of Mashhad, and despite his fifty-three years in Iraq, speaks Arabic with a Persian accent. Most of the nine charitable ventures listed on his website, which primarily provide housing for pilgrims and theology students, are in Iran. So too are the four religious foundations he sponsors.
I hasten to add that my point is not whether or not Sistani is beholden to Iran, though before Sadr’s name even surfaced, I seem to recall a number of people claiming that Sistani was the person we had to prevent from getting power. Now, it turns out that he may the only thing that is standing between us and utter chaos. This plugs back into Robert’s point, which is now that we are stuck picking and choosing which militia to back, we have given up on creating any sort of quasi-democracy in Iraq, which was the reason we went it, right?
-snip Sistani and his reasons-
Guess you and Juan Cole are in the same boat, eh? Look up the October ‘03 ambush in Sadr City.
You like to assume a lot, don’t you? I was just asking to make clear. Given that there have been almost 600 combat casualties since the war began, I just wanted to make sure which ones you were talking about. So your argument is that in October, we should have come down on Sadr. Just wanted to get a date out of you. Yet you also wrote complaining about Sadr’s move from Kufa to Najaf at the beginning of April. Well, he walked back to Kufa at the beginning of May, even though we promised to ‘hunt him down’. But I guess it is easier to attack those who think that letting Sadr become the Shia Man of Steel was a stupid idea. Whatever.
a different chris 05.28.04 at 5:02 pm
this does not negate the point that we must find some allies, or at the least partners, in Iraqi politics and society. And that we must crush others.
Saddam couldn’t have explained his theory of government any better.
Tacitus’ first post is thought-out OK except for his usual weird need to accuse us all of low morals, which dsquared has called him on already.
The problem for the warfloggers is that without even given the name of a Middle Eastern country anybody with half a brain would postulate the existence of a Sadr-type figure and the incredible trickyness of dealing with such a person and his followers. Killing him would have helped? Wish for a pony whilst you’re at it. Killing his father didn’t help Saddam much. The thing about martyrs is that they can never be successfully exposed as frauds. Leaving him alone? He is no friend of democracy, in fact a very effective enemy of such, I’ll grant Tacitus that.
So you don’t start the war in the first place unless you know how to deal with Sadr. We clearly didn’t, and please point to me a pre-war Tacitus post that shows that any thought was even given to this.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 5:26 pm
I think that you are trying to make a rather cheap accusation of racism.
That’s cool. I think you’re a tedious loon. Hey, this is easy.
I don’t see the word “ashamed†anywhere in there, and I don’t really see it implied.
Well, you wouldn’t, would you? I do. Preemptive hedging on the subject noted.
Sistani certainly at least says he will accept a moderate Sharia.
Sort of like accepting moderate miscegenation laws, isn’t it?
Gotta be honest, q — I have no idea where your quote’s from, and hence the rest of your comment recedes into something close to incomprehensibility. As for what we’re doing in Iraq, there’s what we should be doing, and what we are, and various perceptions thereof. I could tell you what I think, but no guarantees it will correspond with CPA or the White House.
So, if the Spanish military was so gosh darned ready for action, why did they pass on getting a chance to go after Sadr?
Change of leadership, of course. The Socialists were never going to authorize any action once the decision had been made to cut and run. And they didn’t. Note that the legalistic explanations made by Bono (and swallowed whole by Cole) were almost certainly fig leaves designed to justify total Spanish inaction: even when Central American units under Spanish command were under direct assault from Sadrist fighters and in danger of being overrun, the Spanish refused to fight in their aid, and only reluctantly helped evacuate the dead and wounded. Shameful indeed.
Rather than address the substance of the point (which is, in brief summary, that we went in thinking that the Shia would be throwing roses in front of us, found that they didn’t, turned to some of the same people who made a point of making Shia life miserable, thereby making sure that no one trusted us)
That’s what “we’ve now cast our lot with the former Baathists” means, eh? Pointing out one doesn’t equate to the other isn’t rhetorical points-scoring, chief, much as you’d like to think so: it’s just highlighting a sloppy argument. In any case, even your restatement is dead wrong: CPA turned to ex-Ba’athists in places like Anbar province, where there are no Shi’a. It emphatically did not do so in the Shi’a regions. The contention that our problems with the Shi’a drove us to resort to the Ba’athists is outright false.
Since the full archive at your place remains aborning (funny, that)….
I’m sure archive.org is up. Check it out. Anyway, yes, I’m keeping the archives down merely to spite, well, you. You’re very important.
….I seem to recall a number of people claiming that Sistani was the person we had to prevent from getting power.
Hey, I’m still against him getting power. Seems like your Iran thing (come now, a Nation cite?) is a bit off-topic, but whatever.
….we are stuck picking and choosing which militia to back, we have given up on creating any sort of quasi-democracy in Iraq….
One does not inherently contradict the other.
Given that there have been almost 600 combat casualties since the war began, I just wanted to make sure which ones you were talking about.
Eh. You didn’t know. That’s fine.
Well, he walked back to Kufa at the beginning of May, even though we promised to ‘hunt him down’.
Yeah, I know. His whereabouts are generally no secret: there was a political decision made not to kill him. Still trying to figure that one out.
But I guess it is easier to attack those who think that letting Sadr become the Shia Man of Steel was a stupid idea.
You don’t quite get it. I’m one of those people. A crux of my complaint with the policy here is that it directly feeds, if not outright creates, this mythos. Our forbearance here has consistently achieved that end.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 5:36 pm
Saddam couldn’t have explained his theory of government any better.
Do you need me to point out the ways in which this is a dumb statement? It’s on par with “both you and Hitler love dogs” as a condemnation. My statement could easily have been a description of the Congressional legislative process with a few nouns switched out. Think, Chris.
….his usual weird need to accuse us all of low morals, which dsquared has called him on already.
Well, no. Nothing of the sort happened. As for dsquared (of whom, appropriately idiot citation here), he’s just trying to find a way to relate to a rightist in a manner that doesn’t challenge his narrow prejudices. In this case, conservatives are racist, ergo, Tacitus is making a racist statement! Hey, Billmon does it too. Good company. Sometimes you gotta make the world fit.
The problem for the warfloggers is that without even given the name of a Middle Eastern country anybody with half a brain would postulate the existence of a Sadr-type figure and the incredible trickyness of dealing with such a person and his followers.
Many of us are, uh, “warfloggers” because of the existence of Sadr-types, Chris. As for predicting their existence, for my part, I take it as a given. And as for the “incredible trickyness” of dealing with them, it’s not all that tricky: you simply have to have the stomach — and wherewithal — to fight and win. Wherewithal, we’ve got. Stomach, on the other hand….
Killing his father didn’t help Saddam much.
On the contrary: it accomplished precisely what Saddam intended — decapitated the movement and ensured Shi’a quiescence for the next few years.
We clearly didn’t, and please point to me a pre-war Tacitus post that shows that any thought was even given to this.
Sorry, I took the archives down so japonicus couldn’t beat me.
q 05.28.04 at 5:41 pm
_Gotta be honest, q — I have no idea where your quote’s from, and hence the rest of your comment recedes into something close to incomprehensibility._
tacitus-
There is no quote. The issue over the brothel, kidnapping and the retaliation relates to an incident which you introduced (twice) into this debate further up. I am just taking you up on the solutions to the problem. I understand that you are unhappy that gypsy’s were driven from their village/homes by Sadr’s folks.
_As for what we’re doing in Iraq, there’s what we should be doing, and what we are, and various perceptions thereof. I could tell you what I think, but no guarantees it will correspond with CPA or the White House._
tacitus-
Exactly what YOU think. You don’t have to speak for anyone else.
a different chris 05.28.04 at 5:48 pm
> Think, Chris.
No, you fucking think. You’ve advocated murder for political ends, you’ve advocated a strong hand of control (“our forebearance” is bad), you’ve advocated a system of changing Iraq that William the Conqueror would recognize….just because you have freaking names, places and details doesn’t make your philosophy somehow more modern and enlightened.
If somebody other than Sadr pops up and becomes a problem you’ll just change your list and regroup your “evidence”, but never your way of thinking. You keep planting trees but you don’t see your own forest.
The problem with the Middle East is that they are about 4 centuries behind the West. Do you agree or not?
If you agree, then understand that I don’t see Saddam as much different than a Dark Ages warlord- or maybe a bloodier Peter the Great, trying to force Western values on a very confused population.
And I don’t see your way of thinking as any more enlightened than his– ok, so unlike Saddam you won’t reap palaces and riches if your “solutions” are adopted so I guess that makes you morally superior.
But Iraqis just see the business end of a gun and don’t much care at this point how the decisions of where to point it are being made.
PS: I understood “q” post perfectly, I suggest you read it again.
dsquared 05.28.04 at 6:10 pm
That’s cool. I think you’re a tedious loon
Perhaps so, but your original comment was aimed at Prof. Quiggin, not me, and he’s neither tedious nor a loon. In case you’ve forgotten, the comment was:
(As an aside, it betrays a rather interesting mindset here, wherein the nonwestern actors are purely reactive objects….but I digress.)
So I’d like you to explain what you meant by this, given that you’re apparently claiming that the most obvious assumption – that it was a cheaply insinuated accusation of racism which you knew you couldn’t support and are now not prepared to stand behind. Sorry to harp on about this, but this sort of behaviour cannot be allowed to pass.
liberal japonicus 05.28.04 at 6:44 pm
My, my, a little testy aren’t we? (a different chris is testy too, but you did start it down the slippery slope, Tac) For someone who prides himself on manners, you certainly have few compunctions about going in someone else’s home and casting words around like ‘idiot’.
I am baffled at how “we know that the [Spanish] troops involved were, in fact, more or less ashamed of their leaders’ inaction and withdrawal”, yet “even when Central American units under Spanish command were under direct assault from Sadrist fighters and in danger of being overrun, the Spanish refused to fight in their aid, and only reluctantly helped evacuate the dead and wounded.” You cherry pick, we decide.
I also like the ‘Hey I don’t like Sistani too’ shuffle. If you are so confident of your position back then, put it up on your site instead of pointing someone to the wayback machine.
There is a ray of hope, however, when you say:
Yeah, I know. His whereabouts are generally no secret: there was a political decision made not to kill him. Still trying to figure that one out.
Given that he was escorted by 600 militia men and walked to Kufa, yeah, I thought there might be a wee little bit of political decision-ing there, so thanks for confirming that.
At any rate, I’m trying to establish a timeline. The first attack under the auspices of Sadr was October, yet it isn’t until April that Bono claims the “dead or alive” request was made. You seem to take issue with the idea that going after Sadr was a stupid move, yet for half a year, it never appeared like something that was on the to-do list and then 3 months before the handover, it zooms to the top. If you want to take issue with my lack of knowledge, fine, I bow to your encyclopedic knowledge, you win this round and Don Pardon will tell you about your toaster oven. But when you do figure this out, I’m sure all of us no-nothings will be awed by your brilliance. So until then, please spare us the bleating about how it’s wrong to hold an opinion other than yours, even though you haven’t quite figured it out yet.
Sorry, it’s late here, so I won’t be able to play anymore, but I would suggest that you work on that temper when you move out of your own sandbox.
bob mcmanus 05.28.04 at 6:47 pm
“(As an aside, it betrays a rather interesting mindset here, wherein the nonwestern actors are purely reactive objects….but I digress.)”
I see no racism in that so perhaps dsquared needs to explain his perception better.
I interpret to mean that we obviously have an interest in what political form the new Iraq takes, and so should not be embarrassed in openly trying to direct it.
Many here seem to think we went to war only to liberate Iraqis, ot believe “liberation” would include the case where a majority or active minority of Iraqis could choose a society that would not be free for all Iraqis.
Jeremy Osner 05.28.04 at 7:48 pm
Tacitus and Bob both seem to think that Dsquared accused Tacitus of racism or of making a racist statement; he clearly did not. What he did was to point out (accurately) that Tacitus’ comment sounds a lot like an attribution of racist thinking to Professor Quiggin.
bob mcmanus 05.28.04 at 8:02 pm
“(As an aside, it betrays a rather interesting mindset here, wherein the nonwestern actors are purely reactive objects….but I digress.)â€
On reading the statement the third or 4th or whatever time, I suddenly realized I had somehow read “nonwestern” as “western”. If my misreading has led to any offensive statements, I apologize.
I don’t think it has.
Tacitus is capable of speaking for himself.
Tacitus 05.28.04 at 8:17 pm
Exactly what YOU think. You don’t have to speak for anyone else.
Well, okay. In that case, I think we ought to be there to make it into something approaching a liberal democracy. For as long as it takes.
No, you fucking think. You’ve advocated murder for political ends….
Huh. Okay. That’s interesting. And the reason I should engage with you at this point is….what? None? Well, then.
As for dsquared proclaiming which behavior can and can’t be allowed to pass — well, that’s pretty rich. Guess what, D? It passes. I’m emphatically not accusing anyone of racism (when, exactly, have I failed to say exactly what I meant?), and the statement itself doesn’t plausibly read as containing a racial reference. Unless you think “non-Western” — or “Western,” for that matter — is a race. And you might, but that would be, well, moronic.
You’re flogging this because you have nothing else. Have at it, I say. Doesn’t make it serious or real.
And now for japonicus….
You cherry pick [re: the Spanish], we decide.
Does this even make any sense? You don’t appear to have understood the context of the latter reference at the very least.
If you are so confident of your position back then, put it up on your site instead of pointing someone to the wayback machine.
Not just obtuse, but lazy too. Good Lord, man. Hey, you don’t have to believe that I was always against Sistani wielding the power he does; implying that I don’t have the documentary evidence because I’m hiding something, though, is just dumb. Here, I’ll cut a deal with you: you figure out how to post MT archives into Scoop, and they’ll be up for the world to see. Come now.
You seem to take issue with the idea that going after Sadr was a stupid move, yet for half a year, it never appeared like something that was on the to-do list and then 3 months before the handover, it zooms to the top.
And your point is….what? None of this is in dispute. You’re apparently attempting to find something that contradicts my view in the interregnum between October and April. But what? It’s completely unclear.
bob mcmanus 05.28.04 at 8:22 pm
And for the record, I believe an attempt to turn Iraq into a wholly secular democracy like Turkey was:
A) Too difficult and costly in the short term
B) Not the tactically smartest move; that Sistani and the Iraqi Ulemma can with some support and nurture can be an extremely useful ally (like Stalin or Pahlavi) in the campaign to liberalize the remaining Arab League states. They can reach and talk to people a wholly secular outreach could not. I am willing to accept some guilt at the Iraqi religious oppression this may temporarily entail.
C) For those who say it is none of our business to mold Iraq to our liking or transform the Middle East, even excluding the War on Terror, the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia and the honor killings in Jordan and the West Bank are not things I can turn a blind eye to. Telling AI they are good folk is no longer adequate.
andrea 05.28.04 at 8:38 pm
I’ll say this for the 7th time, the first over a year ago: why, oh why, do lefties read this pompous preening fool?
It’s not unique to find a tough-boy military-fetishizer that is faulting Bush for not being “hard” enough. It doesn’t add anything. It doesn’t help make the case that Bush and the war prosecutors are incompetant.
I see what JQ was saying – that doves and hawks alike might agree that the Sadr episode was misplayed (personally, I haven’t a clue). So, yeah, these steely-eyed tough-guys who want to lay the smack down on Fallujah or Najaf, teach these arabs (who only understand force) a lesson, or turn the middle east to glass, even they think we erred in this Sadr episode.
So what? I could grab the mentally-ill schizophrenic guy on the corner, and even he might agree that Bush et all is prosecuting the war incorrectly. I don’t care what the guy has to say, much less would I invite him into my apartment, as he’s likely to pee all over it.
In sum: please ignore the writings of rude, thinly disguised belligerants. Do your part to marginalize the martial masturbators. Please.
q 05.28.04 at 8:51 pm
_Well, okay. In that case, I think we ought to be there to make it into something approaching a liberal democracy. For as long as it takes._
tacitus-
…5 clarifications/questions:
Can you clarify what you mean by liberal?
Would that liberal state be “allowed” to have the death penalty?
If yes, could it have death through stoning?
Would Islamic parties be allowed?
If yes, if a majority of the people voted for an Islamic party would they be allowed to implement Sharia law.
John Quiggin 05.28.04 at 9:32 pm
I’ll merely observe that, if I characterize people as reacting to events, I’m even-handed about it.
The sentence immediately following the observation that Sadr was driven into revolt included the observation that “the Americans felt impelled to take some drastic action” – make what you will of it.
Comments on this entry are closed.