Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, perhaps you will feel even better knowing that US forces have raided an Iranian consulate within Iraq and arrested members of the staff.

I guess genuine war with Iran is now imminent.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 08:15 AM

If we indeed now confront Iran within Iraq, I predict our success will hinge upon whether al-Maliki considers himself be be:

(a) an Iraqi leader; or

(b) a Shia sectarian leader.

If (a) then there is real hope.

If (b) and we escalate against Iran we will be in trouble with our forces deep in foriegn territory with exposed supply lines and surrounded by the enemy: the Iraqi Shia militias a/k/a al-Maliki's Iraqi army.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 08:32 AM

"I'm feeling a little better about Bush's plan now. Syria and Iran have denounced it A lot of these statements sound like the current Democrat talking points, in fact."

I've noticed that about a lot of your positions--you don't decide really what you _like_, but see what position that somebody you dislike (Democrats, Iran, Syria) takes, and then decide the other way. So while you claim that you're not a conservative or a Republican, your dislike of the other side essentially puts you in the Republican and conservative camp.

Posted by Ron Keferer at January 11, 2007 08:35 AM

Gilliard's take:

1) While the Iraqis made a lot of promises and big talk, remember ONE thing. Moqtada Sadr hung Saddam Hussein. Not the government, and they had to go along. So any threat from Maliki should be taken as a threat from Kerensky to tell Lenin that Trotsky needs to control the Bolsheviks

That gives us option (c) -- the US will raid some consulates, talk trash against the Iranians, and surge against the Sunni insurgents which will extend and deepen Iran's hold on Baghdad.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 08:44 AM

The logic is, if our enemies don't like it, there must be something good in it. Liberals do the same thing. I know a lot of liberals and libertarians who REALLY don't like the fact that Bush is in favor of open immigration, and in fact some have started to examine immigration controls in a new light because of it.

Posted by tschafer at January 11, 2007 08:47 AM

Bill, there is absolutely no question that Maliki is in category (b). Consider his background.

I doubt there are any Shia leaders in the Iraqi parliament who view themselves as Iraqi first. There has never been a primary Iraqi identification..as they say you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. In that vein, it seems like we are on the verge of waterboarding Maliki ! Can't see it working.

Also regarding Iran, Iraq and previous posts here..if what impresses the Iranians are actions reather than words, we've shown utter flailing incompetence in understanding the dynamics of Iraq over the last 3+ years. That's the action that has emboldened these guys. We could start a war against Iran, but we'd still be stuck in Iraq, and short of mind altering drugs or brain surgery the Shia will be Shia and the Sunni will be Sunni and we will be stuck in the middle.

I retract anything I may have said about supporting the so-called surge previously. It's too small, too late and attempts to solve a problem that in their minds (the sectarian Iraqis) does not exist.

We want them to be one country with equal rights for all. They want as big a country a possible with their sect in power. How can we WIN? Damn depressing.

Posted by Offside at January 11, 2007 08:53 AM

I've noticed that about a lot of your positions--you don't decide really what you _like_, but see what position that somebody you dislike (Democrats, Iran, Syria) takes, and then decide the other way.

Apparently irony is lost on you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 08:54 AM

You ignore the Arab/Persian divide. I don't know whether they consider themselves Iraqis, but they certainly consider themselves Arabs, and have no interest in being lackeys in a Persian empire. Mookie is happy to take Iranian money and arms, but he wants to run his own show.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 09:01 AM

Mookie is happy to take Iranian money and arms, but he wants to run his own show.

It may well be that Maliki wants to "run his own show". But it isn't just that the Iranians are bribing him with money and weapons. Maliki just plain agrees with Iran on many basic issues, a lot more than he agrees with the United States. And the vast majority of Iraqi Shiites agree with Maliki.

So if Maliki wouldn't want Iran to run his show for him, he sure as hell doesn't want the US to do so. He could not have been happy when Washington and American TV shows openly debated the "option" of removing him with a coup. He could not have been happy when Bush told Congress, "I said to Maliki this has to work or you’re out." Not only would Maliki hate it, just about any Iraqi would hate it, because that kind of talk sounds like colonialism in the guise of democracy. So do patronizing nicknames like "Mookie".

Posted by at January 11, 2007 09:21 AM

True.

So why should we surge against al-Sadr? To promote the interests of al-Hakim, who has better ties to Tehran?

Again -- Whither the heart of al-Maliki and the Shia militias that appear to wear the uniform of Iraq the nation? THAT question must be answered before we analyze strategy.

And if we are to allow this Arab-Persian divide to emerge we must remove all appearances that the Iraqi Arabs are American lackeys. I agree Sadr has no desire to be a Persian lackey but he has less desire to be an American lackey.

If we are to undermine Iran, perhaps we allow partition and let al-Sadr run a new state Juan Cole has identified as "Sumer" and get out of town. Thereafter, once the Great Satan has left, Kurds in Iran will long to join Kurdistan and Arabs in Iran's oil regions will long to join Sumer.

A risky strategy to be sure.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 09:22 AM

Mookie = Moqtada al-Sadr now rumored to have been one of the masked figures who saw (in person) Saddam get hanged. Most likely a false rumor but one which will be popular in the streets of Sadr City, since Saddam was the executioner of Sadr's father.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 09:24 AM

Not only would Maliki hate it, just about any Iraqi would hate it, because that kind of talk sounds like colonialism in the guise of democracy. So do patronizing nicknames like "Mookie".

Pardon me if I'm less than concerned about what thugs like Mookie think about my "patronizing nickname," or what he hates or not. He is our enemy, and he should have been killed two years ago. It's not colonialism--it's war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 09:26 AM

So why should we surge against al-Sadr? To promote the interests of al-Hakim, who has better ties to Tehran?

You are onto something there, Bill. We should promote the interests of al-Hakim --- as we already have in fact --- because he is not as bad as Moqtada al-Sadr. It is also true that the Iranians like Hakim better than they like Sadr. The Iranians may be belligerent, but they are also modern in some key respects. Sadr is medieval, genocidal, and just plain childish; he is too much for the Iranians. They support him mainly to hedge their bets in case he prevails over Hakim.

The bottom line is that the war in Iraq is going so badly that it has blown well past Iran's radicalism. So Iran and the US now have parallel interests in Iraq, and the US would profit from negotiations. It isn't that the Iranians are good guys, because they aren't; it's that they are not the worst of the worst.

Posted by at January 11, 2007 09:35 AM

Rand, Mookie has been our enemy and probably should have been killed or arrested in Najaf but second chances are rare and often do not work out to our advantage.

al-Sadr has been passing out grenades all across Sadr City and I remain deeply concerned that if we surge against Sadr today, we will find that large chunks of the "Iraqi" army has more loyalty to Mookie that to the Ameriki.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 09:37 AM

It's not colonialism--it's war.

It's both of course. The US has been reduced to waging war against Iraq's democratic choices. Maliki is a resentful puppet yanking on his own strings. If it had to be that way, the US should not have marched in under the banner of democracy. The invasion of Iraq was borne of a nonsensical liberation theology, which is now coming crashing down.

It's not that I think that Maliki and Sadr are good people, mind you. They are terrible. The point is that the US is no longer fighting for anything in Iraq, it's only fighting "against". That's why it's time to leave.

Posted by at January 11, 2007 09:45 AM

New reports of explosions in Khuzestan, Iran.

Maybe its on. Or maybe not. I guess this is the definition of "interesting times"

Thank God for the internet. I suppose we can all agree on that!

Cheers! :-)

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 09:50 AM

The point is that the US is no longer fighting for anything in Iraq, it's only fighting "against". That's why it's time to leave.

Huh? How does that make any sense? Even if true, the fact remains that there are things we must fight "against," and they are in Iraq. So how is that a reason to leave?

This is emotion, not thought. And coming from an Anonymous. What a surprise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 10:04 AM

Huh? How does that make any sense?

How does make any sense that the US might not be fighting for anything in Iraq? Well, it certainly does make sense as a description. Nor is it the first time in history that a military power has continued to fight for no reason. Of course it doesn't make any sense as a policy.

Even if true, the fact remains that there are things we must fight "against," and they are in Iraq.

It makes no sense to fight an enemy for the sake of no objective gains at all. To be sure, Bush or whoever can still recite objective gains, they just aren't actually fighting for them. It certainly is a reason to leave, because war is always expensive in many ways. If you no longer fight for a purpose --- no matter what purpose you imagine that you fight for --- you would do better to quit.

Posted by at January 11, 2007 10:20 AM

There are worthwhile things to fight "against" in Iraq. I agree.

But if there are no factions within Iraq for us to fight "for" perhaps there are better places for us to focus our limited energy and resources in the fight "against" radical Islam.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 10:22 AM

How does make any sense that the US might not be fighting for anything in Iraq?

No. How does it makes sense that because we are fighting against something, we should leave?

It makes no sense to fight an enemy for the sake of no objective gains at all.

We are fighting an enemy for objective gains. Saddam remains dead, he is not building WMD, or funding terrorism. The Kurds remain free. We are killing people who want to kill us, including many Shahidis that have been brought in from other countries. We are continuing to fight the enemy there.

But if there are no factions within Iraq for us to fight "for" perhaps there are better places for us to focus our limited energy and resources in the fight "against" radical Islam.

There are factions within Iraq for us to fight "for." The Kurds, for one. But also the many Iraqi people who simply want to live their lives in peace. If you think that "radical Islam" isn't alive and well in Iraq, you're delusional.

Sometimes, Bill, you should think before typing. Or at least before hitting the "POST" button.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 10:34 AM

Rand, a de facto Kurdistan already exists. And that is one unmitigated GOOD result from our 2003 invasion.

Within the rest of Iraq (excepting Kurdistan) the people we need to fight for are those who do not have militias or AK-47s or RPGs. People we should support in an ideal world but who are not part of any organized faction.

I would like to help those people but 20,000 troop surge is very, very much too small to do any good.

And I believe there is no faction with guns or militias that is on "our side" within Iraq. Including al-Maliki and the so-called Iraqi army.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2007 10:39 AM

Saddam remains dead, he is not building WMD, or funding terrorism.

Okay, but Saddam's usurpers favor terrorism a lot more than he ever did. It should have given you pause that Maliki, who signed Hussein's death warrant, headed the Jihad office of a party called the Islamic Call while in exile in Damascus. The man has Islamic terrorism written all over him, and he is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am not sure if Iraq's new leaders will be more tyrannical than Saddam Hussein --- maybe not, since some of them can win elections --- but they are certainly more Islamist and more terrorist. Since they support Iran, they are also indirectly more pro-WMD.

That's the problem with going out to kill people without considering who will replace them. That is, the new crew could be worse. It exactly fits the description of fighting against enemies, but not for a rational purpose.

Posted by at January 11, 2007 10:50 AM

But also the many Iraqi people who simply want to live their lives in peace.

This is a lingering part of the liberation theology of 2003, still active in certain right-wing circles in America. Of course most Iraqis simply wish to live in peace; most people everywhere do. But there is no such thing as fighting for abstract wishes, only for tangible plans. The US is certainly not fighting for Iraqi votes at the level of rational conception, because the Iraqis voted for Islamists.

Kurdistan is a tangent to the discussion, because it is peaceful and pro-American only to the extent that it is a separate country. None of the proposed troop surge is intended for Kurdistan.

Posted by at January 11, 2007 10:57 AM

The Iranians sure don't want Bush to drag America into a quagmire. Nope.

No brer Rabbit, don't do that

Posted by anonymous at January 11, 2007 03:02 PM

But there is no such thing as fighting for abstract wishes
What the bleep do you think our forefathers fought the British for?

Posted by Bill Maron at January 11, 2007 04:22 PM

I guess they don't teach the Declaration of Independence anymore. "Give me liberty or give me death" is neoconic philosophy.

Posted by Leland at January 11, 2007 05:18 PM

I guess they don't teach the Declaration of Independence anymore. "Give me liberty or give me death" is neoconic philosophy.

The Declaration of Independence is a fine document, but if it were all that the colonists had fought for, they would have been sunk. The French revolution shows as much. The colonists also fought to strengthen colonial governments that they already had. To the extent that the colonists had not fleshed out their postwar plans, they were just plain lucky that they had competent, benevolent leaders. Again, the many unhappy imitations of the American Revolution, such as the French Revolution, attest to that.

(Besides, "Give me liberty or give me death", which is an exciting but not very useful slogan, is not in the Declaration of Independence.)

As it stands, Iraq does not have competent, benevolent leaders or liberators, either in Baghdad or in Washington. This is not to say that there are no good leaders in either city, only that the situation has been out of their hands for a long time.

Posted by at January 11, 2007 05:39 PM

Simberg says :

"We are fighting an enemy for objective gains. Saddam remains dead, he is not building WMD, or funding terrorism"

Newsflash Simberg, in 2003, Saddam wasn't building WMD.
Newsflash Simberg, in 2003, Saddam wasn't funding terrorism in
america.
The same applies in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999.

It's the lies like this, that show you are a neocon.

Posted by anonymous at January 11, 2007 07:29 PM

A war against Iran and a simultaneous withdrawal from Iraq sounds like an appetizing option, instead of leaving on the last helicopter off the embassy, we leave with a mushroom cloud over Natanz with Mr. Bush doing A final Righteous strut. Just a thought to keep the spirits up, though who knows how this Iranian consulate thing is going to wind up, maybe we will see some action.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 11, 2007 07:49 PM

Well Simberg will polish Bush's codpiece no matter.

Posted by anonymous at January 12, 2007 07:21 AM

The colonists also fought to strengthen colonial governments that they already had. To the extent that the colonists had not fleshed out their postwar plans, they were just plain lucky that they had competent, benevolent leaders. Again, the many unhappy imitations of the American Revolution, such as the French Revolution, attest to that.

The logic in your statement is self-refutting. First, the Declaration of Independence was not a document that was written overnight and signed the next day. It was actually signed almost a month after being written, which was enough time for the colonial representatives to make sure it was acceptable. Thus it was very well planned, and laid out exactly why the colonies seeked Independence and by that virtue, expressed what they considered to be a better plan.

It is this that you note as "The colonists also fought to strengthen colonial governments". Right they did, and they should, since once they declared Independence, the colonies would have to be strong enough to self-govern. Thus, it doesn't make sense for you then to say: "To the extent that the colonists had not fleshed out their postwar plans, they were just plain lucky that they had competent, benevolent leaders." Their was no luck, but rather the product of a lengthy process.

I will give you credit in the argument that the Declaration of Independence was more than just abstract wishes, but well defined grievances. It did contain rhetoric in the preamble that was parroted by its signers to drum up support, but the rational for independence and ideas of governing afterwards were clearly understood and followed through.

Posted by Leland at January 12, 2007 11:20 AM

It was actually signed almost a month after being written, which was enough time for the colonial representatives to make sure it was acceptable.

I'm not saying that there was anything wrong the Declaration of Independence, only that it was grossly incomplete as an assurance that the American Revolution was a good idea. Really it had more to do with the men who signed it and later ran the country, than with the specific words on paper.

Whether you view that as good luck or destiny is beside the point. The germane point that postwar Iraq was no more than a ramshackle imitation of this fortuitous period of American history. Now this ramshackle fake is falling apart.

Posted by at January 12, 2007 11:43 AM

Actually the Declaration of Independence was not a
governing document in any way shape or form, it was
merely a list of grievances large and small and a
formal agreement amongst the colonies to sever affiliation
and stop paying taxes to the crown.

The colonial forces operated a continental congress which
served as a debating society, not a government,
for 5 years, then the "Articles of confederation"
were tied up which lasted for 6 years before
the Constitution was signed.

It was only Simberg and the neo-cons who
thought a consitutional government could be
jammed down on Iraq with a bayonet.

Posted by anonymous at January 12, 2007 03:13 PM

Actually the Declaration of Independence was not a governing document in any way shape or form, it was merely a list of grievances

Really? You mean the previous two commenters pointed this out, yet you thought should say the same thing starting with "Actually"?

Posted by Leland at January 13, 2007 05:16 AM

Leland,

The e-tard has demonstratedd he is incapible of comprehending what 'Freedom of Speech' does and does not entail a few threads up. No need to give him the time of day on the DoI. If he can't get addition right, he won't get algebra either.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 13, 2007 01:51 PM

Post a comment