Centerfield

A great commentary. I just wish she would can the phrase

Like liberals - and thinking conservatives, and sentient beings

It sounds like she's giving liberals a pass on the "thinking" part.

On the whole, after reading this peice the images that keep coming back to me are the later scenes from the movie The Man who Would be King. The Iraqi's have realized we're not God and we can't perform miracles and so we must be eliminated. Was our fault in believing in their "beliefs"?

Posted by: c3 at April 9, 2007 02:42 PM

Excellent article. I particularly agreed with this:

"We won't have to think about what, if anything, a dictator can do to compromise his sovereignty in the eyes of the world. We won't have to think about what, if anything, should be done to enforce peace agreements that have been shredded, or international sanctions that have been ignored. We don't have to worry about where, if anywhere, we draw the line between allowing international bodies, such as the U.N., to prevent war, and allowing them to perpetuate, if only indirectly, very serious violence of other kinds."

I remember many of my friends (liberals) reasoning that sanctions could still work on Saddam in 2003, Then they argued that the UN must lead action and that Iran was a greater menace than Saddam. I read military experts in the NYT editorial page point out that Iran had dropped the gas on the Kurds that Bush was claiming Saddam had done.. In keeping with a more socialist view, many liberals (joined by their new friends further to the Left) explained that human rights, proliferation and genocide could only be countered by international law and a universal criteria of action. Terrorism can only be defeated by an international effort. Many said that the UN sanctions had worked to keep Saddam from rebuilding wmd, though in the same breath they ranted that "our" sanctions were killing Iraqi children. Ideological schizophrenia came to mind. Against this new tide, Clinton weighed in and said that he would have waited longer before taking action in March 2003 in an effort to build a consensus. He qualified his comment by adding in nationally televised news interviews that at some point, he would have acted unilaterally if Saddam refused the will of the international community, despite the UN being unwilling to act. .

One must weigh a person's declared principles by the consistency of their words over time. It is now years after the world discovered Iran's secret nuclear program. Years have passed since Iranian operatives in Argentina blew up Jews worshipping in a temple The UN demands for how many years that Sudan stop it's genocide? The UN demands Iran stop its enrichment program and allow inspectors to search for any more secret facilities. The UN passes sanctions against Iran, but the world community has not the backbone to uphold the law. This is what Russia thinks of the UN's will. China today buys up 2/3 of Sudan's oil and signs contracts to sell military aircraft to Sudan. The Taliban kills nine NATO troops in Afghanistan while AQ kills Algerian troops and Iranian-based Sadr calls for Iraqis to kill the "occupiers".

There is a huge contradiction in this. One Liberal professor told me years ago that increased international cooperation so vital to our future prosperity and liberty requires enforcement. He explained that this is a basic paradigm of human behavior borne out by many studies since. Cooperation on such a global scale that is needed to contain the threats humanity creates requires something else that is also very unique to humanity: altruistic punishment. This underlies much of the Liberal Secular Philosophy. How can the Left ignore this? It was of course, the basis of the liberal argument against unilateral action in Iraq. It is the basis of placing faith in the UN. As extremism grows, many liberals and Leftists (they used to be different species) declare the world must impose sanctions on those countries that will not lower their CO2 emissions. They declare a consensus about the scientific basis of impending doom. .

Meanwhile, Iran declares its 3000 centrifuges are spinning away and that nothing, not even international consensus can stop the Mullah’s right to make nuclear fuel while sponsoring international terror, threatening other nations with destruction and eventually defeating Western Law with their own Islamic fundamentalism. Iraqis are not the only ones living in a contradiction.

There might come a time when, I too, might rather become a liberal Republican, than support a perversion of liberal principles as espoused by the present Democrats. They regard failing in Iraq as proof of their conflicted stance. I have seen the glee sometimes in the faces of liberal pundits as they report bad news. Every day they take to the airways. I am finding it harder to believe in the means the neoliberals think a better world can be fashioned. Thanks for the post. It does express much that I have been thinking about Iraq and the depressing liberal mutation in both America and Europe.

Posted by: Maxtrue at April 9, 2007 08:16 PM

consequences of what politics has wrought

I thought this might be appropiate given Raf's powerful posting.

Posted by: Maxtrue at April 9, 2007 09:13 PM

Great post. Glad to see you back in action!

Yeah, I think the same way. It tears me up to hear my fellow lefties rooting for, in effect, horrible things to happen to Iraqis.

What annoys me most was that, when things DID go badly wrong, and we failed to keep order there, you really couldn't tell what was happening from the media coverage. Rightie media saw no wrong, leftie media saw vindication of their predecided narratives - either that Iraqis wanted Saddam back, theocracy, or civil war. Never mind that a few interviews and looks at polls SHOULD have made it clear that none was actually true.

Much of the media failed here as thoroughly as Rumsfeld. Even today, few Americans understand what went wrong. Maybe most of the readers of "Fiasco" and Iraqi on-the-ground blogs.

Posted by: Jon Kay at April 10, 2007 03:47 PM

As someone who went to business school, Bush should know that in any endeavor, one's midcourse evaluations should be done so as to replicate success and deprecate failure. Instead, during the Iraq War, Bush has replicated failure and deprecated success.

Through most of the war, the different areas of operations were operated fairly autonomously by the local division or brigade/regiment commander. These commanders were free to apply whatever philosophy they felt best, whether it was respect the people, address their legitimate grievances and forcefully repress illegimate actions or if it was simply show them who's boss. No matter how many times respecting the people produced desirable results (Petraeus in Mosul, Mattis in Tikrit) and showing them who's boss sparked mayhem (Odierno in Tikrit, Swannack in eastern Anbar), Rumsfeld said show them who's boss, Cheney said show them who's boss and Bush said listen to Rumsfeld and Cheney. That is why Iraq is such a mess today, and were it not for that, it is very likely that Iraq would be at least as well today as Mosul was during Petraeus' tenure there.

Posted by: Scott Smith at April 11, 2007 01:23 PM

Scott,
While I agree with what you said, the conclusion you draw does not follow. Its like the global warming debate. It may be true that human forced CO2 has raised the temperature a bit, certainly there are other GHGs involved and that the warming trigger 5000 years ago was naturally caused with CO2 subsequently rosing 800 years later. Sorry for the anaology (I've been reading up lately).

So, yes, we made many mistakes and some were more avoidable and in our control than others. Its arm chairing at this point, unless your theories now suggest different tactics we can debate. Retreat doesn't sound like a viable option in terms of our long and short term interests beyond politics. We are hardly responsible for why Iraqis are killing Iraqis with their neighbor's help. Iran has trained more than 4000 insurgents in how to kill Americans with IEDs (see today's news). The international community has done little for Iraq while the many thousands Saddam empowered to criminally administer his "justice" have taken a new mission and new crimes. You simply cannot abrogate Iraqi responsibility or the role outsiders plays besides the US. FIASCOs last chapter discusses the options and two are quite bad for us and the Iraqis.

Also, Iraq is now part of a larger equation involving the region as a whole. It always was, but it is becoming more obvious now.

Just a thought....

Posted by: Maxtrue at April 11, 2007 04:58 PM

just a follow up Scott on the Iran issue

and another

Don't forget Syria either with more gifts for American troops following Pelosi's good will trip.

Posted by: Maxtrue at April 11, 2007 06:12 PM

Maxtrue:

If you're familiar with my past postings on the subject, you would know that I am an ardent advocate of doing whatever we can to produce as decent as possible an outcome in Iraq. And yes, my arguments are meant to suggest tactics. We should have been using the tactics Gen. Petraeus is attempting to deploy now much sooner, but late is better than never. Also, saying what worked and did not work in 2003 should have influenced what we did in 2004-2006 is not second-guessing our leadership, it is simple common sense.

As for culpability in the current sectarian violence, true we did not encourage the sides to take up arms against each other, but your position is like absolving the local police force for a crime situation getting out of hand. The problem stemmed from an attitude at the top that the precursors were not our problem--remember the statement "Freedom is an untidy thing"--preventing action that could have cooled things down before passions became as enflamed as they are now.

Posted by: Scott Smith at April 12, 2007 04:20 PM