Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yes, as I've said right here in a discussion with Mac (where the heck is he anyway?), this is to be expected. Reid is a dementor. He's sucking the soul right out of the Senate.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 18, 2007 06:35 PM

You must have flunked postmodern deconstruction, because it's obvious that Harry Reid is outside the world of truth and accountability. He is a moral actor, speaking truth to power. You cannot hold him to the same level of rational discourse that you would hold a republican. That is your mistake about a lot of things. The double standard not only exists, it is necessary. We cannot allow you right wings to take over everything.

Posted by Mal at December 18, 2007 07:32 PM

Maybe it is just absence making the heart grow fonder, but I don't think that Daschle would have gone completely off the cliff like Reid has. He should be strait-jacketed and taken to quiet happy place. Either that or executed for treason.

Posted by SteveW at December 18, 2007 07:40 PM

It is absolutely true that the American people are losing the war in Iraq. Maybe Al Qaeda in Iraq is losing too, at least in the short term, but that doesn't mean that America is winning. Al Qaeda in Pakistan is certainly a big victor: the Iraq war is a millstone on our efforts in Afghanistan and a boulder in the way of even starting much in Pakistan. Iran is a big victor: if they could dictate our Iraq policy directly, it would hardly be different from what we have actually done. Iraqi Shiite Islamists are another big victor. In fact our strategic goals have been so debased that call a lot of terrorist and Islamist enemies "allies" instead --- including in particular Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Now Petraeus is a good man, but since the entire war was ill-conceived, the best he can do is hold defeat back to a standstill. He is clever enough to bribe Sunni insurgents so that they stop shooting at us. Great. But he is buying time for a reconciliation with the Shiites that can't happen. It truly is a war to nowhere. One that will only cost a trillion dollars.

It's true that Harry Reid is an uninspired Senate Majority Leader. Reid vs Mitch McConnell is like George McClellan vs Robert E. Lee. But let's not confuse tactics with truth. The most important question is whether the American people are winning the Iraq war; Reid is absolutely right that they aren't.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 18, 2007 09:32 PM

Jim, I hear a lot of criticism from you, but I have to ask: do you have a suggestion for what American policy in Iraq should be now?

Posted by Abominable at December 18, 2007 10:49 PM

Do you have a suggestion for what American policy in Iraq should be now?

Yeah. Get out and fight the war on terrorism somewhere where there is a victory to be had.
In Afghanistan, for instance. Or Pakistan. Or even in the US, they have gone cheap on infrastructure security.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 18, 2007 11:00 PM

You knew I was going to say this, but I'll say it: Jim, what do you think will happen in Iraq if we leave. Specifically: do we have humanitarian obligations (I think we should accept our moral duties, and I think you'll agree). Also, and this is of great importance too: will the USA and its democratic allies have a greater security problem from Iraq if we leave than if we stay. As you know, many suspect that if we leave, Iraq will become the kind of humanitarian and security nightmare that Afganistan was in early 2001. And yes, I think that's even worse than the current situation. I don't want to hijack Rand's blog, but I thought I would ask you about your thoughts on this just once. These kind of concerns seem central, and it feels to me like you snipe at Rand and Republicans without seriously considering an alternative for the Democrats. Alternatives are worth thinking about!

Posted by Abominable at December 18, 2007 11:17 PM

Just to be clear: I might agree with you about Afganistan, Pakistan, and our crumbling infrastructure, but after we pulled out of Iraq, we would still need an Iraq policy. What do you expect to happen in Iraq after a pull out, and what would be a good policy for dealing with it? I would be really interested in your thoughts.

(Me, I think we should stay and make things better. Sucks to be us, but that's the current reality. And I'm definitely a Democrat!)

Posted by Abominable at December 18, 2007 11:20 PM

Yeah... given that Osama repeatedly referenced our "defeats" in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia as reasons why he thought he could attack us on our own soil and win, there's absolutely no downside to cutting and running from Iraq.

And hey, after doing that, let's invade Pakistan! Absolutely no downside there!

Posted by Big D at December 18, 2007 11:26 PM

I may be missing some context (work internet blocks the link), but how did "Big Tobacco" fit into a diatribe about Al Qaeda and Iraq? Regardless, I agree with Rand's comments about Harry Reid. Regardless of one's position on Iraq, it's hard to imagine anything impressive about Reid's job performance.

Posted by Ryan E at December 19, 2007 05:17 AM

Reid is that kind of scary delusional person who most people would consider a boob if they found him mumbling in a dark booth in a bar. Unfortunately, we've found him in the Senate.

Posted by Steve at December 19, 2007 06:17 AM

As contemptible as Daschle and Reid are, no one has ever worked harder than Trent Lott to be the minority leader while serving as the majority leader.

Posted by Rich at December 19, 2007 06:35 AM

After we pulled out of Iraq, we would still need an Iraq policy.

The essential point, which is easy to miss if you don't emphasize the numbers, is that Iraq is more than our half of our entire foreign policy. Iraq has only 1/200 of the world's population, and only 1/40 of the world's Islamic population, but we are treating it as more important than Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Europe, India, and China put together. Why? Because Bush's and Cheney's reputations ride on it. At the level of rational goals, our policy is completely out of balance. It's also unsustainable.

It's certainly true that Iraq is the same kind of humanitarian nightmare and security threat that Afghanistan was in 2001. It's already every bit as bad. And of course, you can always pretend that the truth today is a warning about what could happen tomorrow. But since we can't keep treating Iraq as if it's more than half of the world, we will have to do something else. After reducing the number of troops in Iraq to what we have in Afghanistan (which would be a 4/5 withdrawal), we will have to accept that Iraq is a shotgun marriage between the US and Iran. We will have to make a deal with Iran to help stabilize Iraq. There will never be another way out.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 08:16 AM

Jim, one of the few reasons that few here take you seriously is your propensity to spout off your personal (and often nonsensical) opinions as though they were undisputed and indisputable facts. A little humility might make you a little more credible. If that's your goal, that is, as opposed to simply tagging my web site with your keyboard diarrhea.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2007 08:23 AM

I may be missing some context (work internet blocks the link), but how did "Big Tobacco" fit into a diatribe about Al Qaeda and Iraq?

If you click on the link, the context is there. The Reid's "who is winning" phrase actually referred to the victors of White House and Senate minority policy in general, not just the war in Iraq. The complaint is that the Republicans are using a combination of vetoes and filibusters to keep control of legislation.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 08:26 AM

opinions as though they were undisputed and indisputable facts.

It is an objective fact that Iraq has less than 1/200 of the world's population and only 1/40 of the Islamic population. It is an objective fact that we are spending more than $100 billion per year on Iraq, which is well over half of all government foreign policy of the United States. It is an objective fact that there have been more Islamic suicide bombings in Iraq than in all of world history. It is an objective fact that half of Iraq's Christians have fled the country. It is an objective fact that the men who run the current Iraqi government are and have always been openly pro-Iranian. It is an objective fact that Iran is making large cooperative investments in Iraq, including but not limited to banks and power stations.

None of these things are opinions. The question of opinion is how to interpret these facts.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 08:41 AM

In other words, Harris believes that the US should withdraw whenever and whereever the enemy uses suicide bombings.

Does that rule apply to Japanese folks committing suicide in airplanes or just Islamic folks using belly bombs and car bombs?

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 19, 2007 09:55 AM

Big D:

No, let's not invade Pakistan. Let's instead sit on our hands and wait - unless and until Talibanesque nutcases gain power there. Then, within a few days of that event, blast them back into the Stone Age.

There are certain things the world can't afford. Violent fundamentalists with nuclear weapons are one of them.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 19, 2007 09:59 AM

In other words, Harris believes that the US should withdraw whenever and wherever the enemy uses suicide bombings.

No, those are your words, not mine. The point is that this record number of suicide bombings is one indication that the US did not win the Iraq war. Even though Bush said back in 2003 that the we had won in Iraq, or in his words, "prevailed". On the contrary, the war caused what it was supposed to prevent.

But it's also true that this is not the main sign of self-defeat in Iraq. If it were just the suicide bombings, then sure, we could steamroll them. No, the real problem is much deeper, and of many indicators of it is Maliki's declaration that Iran and Iraq are "two brotherly neighbors". Of all of the setbacks in World War II, Churchill never warmly embraced Hitler and declared that Germany and Britain were brotherly neighbors. The deeper problem is that the whole portrayal of who is on which side in Iraq, and around Iraq, is laced with fraud and distortion. We can crush suicide bombers, no problem. But not if we call their enablers our friends.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 10:11 AM

Sorry, misquote. When Maliki and Ahmadinejad met, it was Ahmadinejad who called their two countries brotherly neighbors. Maliki described Iran as "a very important country, a good friend and brother." It amounts to the same thing.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 10:16 AM

Jim, I thought your first answer (about negotiating with Iran to address problems in a post-pull-out Iraq) made a lot of sense actually, even if thought I don't agree with it. I

There is a lot to think about regarding Iran's relationship to Iraq, so thank you for making that point. I don't have much time at all today, but quick comment for you:

Peace in Iraq (and security for us) requires the Sunnis in Iraq to choose to be peaceful with their neighbors and to choose to be against terrorism. Current thinking is that this can be acheived if you can get the different factions in Iraq to agree on a deal. I don't see how a deal with Iran will address the concerns of the Sunnis or the Kurds.

Also: Iran might be run by rational actors (I'm really not sure), but they definitely don't trust us enough to make a deal; they definitely export terrorism; they might not be stable; and they don't seem to wan the best for any of the Iraqis, even their fellow Shiites, but of course, particularly the Sunnis and the Kurds.

Finally, there is the moral issue -- we owe the Iraqis independence, not subserviance to us or Iran. Just something for you to chew on today. Thanks again

Posted by Abominable at December 19, 2007 10:29 AM

I don't see how a deal with Iran will address the concerns of the Sunnis or the Kurds.

The overriding objective of the Kurds is to secede from Iraq and make an independent country. It could be a diplomatic ulcer for decades vis-a-vis Kurdistan's neighbors, but it's the best we can do. And not very different from current policy.

Most of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq have been stranded in the desert with nothing. I do not speak in favor of a forced resettlement of these people or an orchestrated partition of Iraq. But the fact is that the Shiites are going to keep the oil money away from them. A lot of Sunni Arabs will ask to resettle in other countries and we should help them. Same goes for Iraqi Christians. The refugees will be another ulcer of international relations, but again, the best we can do. And much better than we are doing now.

Finally, there is the moral issue -- we owe the Iraqis independence, not subserviance to us or Iran.

Iraqi Shiites want close relations with Iran just like Canada wants close relations with the United States. It is their independent choice. The alternative that we are pursuing is to rewrite their opinions for them, to cajole them to contradict their real preferences when they kiss up to us in English. This is colonialism by ventriloquy, and as a moral issue, we should stop doing it.

Iran might be run by rational actors (I'm really not sure), but they definitely don't trust us enough to make a deal

Iran certainly is run by rational actors. It has 65 million people and 18 million Internet users according to the CIA factbook. It's true that it's not a well-run country, and that it's not particularly trusting or trustworthy in its Western relations. But if we throw up our hands and say that it's impossible to deal with them, that is a big mistake and an excuse. Also describing them as crazies ready to end the world is itself a crazy misrepresentation. If anything, there are more end-times Shiites in Iraq than in Iran right now. We have to negotiate with Iran, unpleasant though it may be. If we wanted to take a hard stand against Iran, then we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. That is the lesson of this serving of castor oil.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 10:57 AM

Iraqi Shiites want close relations with Iran just like Canada wants close relations with the United States.

Yes, because we all know that there is such great love, historically, between Persians and Arabs...

[rolling eyes]

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2007 11:06 AM

Yes, because we all know that there is such great love, historically, between Persians and Arabs

Between Persians and Shiite Arabs, indeed, there is a long history of cooperation. The one guy who drove a terrible wedge between them was Saddam Hussein. That's why the Shiites on both sides wanted to kill him --- and we obliged.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 11:18 AM

They're Arabs and Persians before they're Shiites, and (at least in Iraq) they're members of a tribe before they're Arabs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2007 11:20 AM

They're Arabs and Persians before they're Shiites, and (at least in Iraq) they're members of a tribe before they're Arabs.

Regardless of what they are "before", the fact is that most Arab Shiites, and most Iraqi Shiites in particular, see Iran as a friend and a mentor. That is what they say, especially in Arabic but also at times in English. That is what they have said ever since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Even Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says so. He has always said so.

So why can't you just take them at their word? You saddle their clear preference with strawmen and distortions in order to ignore it --- given that it is also White House policy, it is colonialism by ventriloquy. Arab Shiites want to be allied with Iran; that is not the same as wanting to be Persian or not caring about their own sovereignty. In particular, they sure as hell see in more in common with Iran than with the United States.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 11:45 AM

Jim, leaving aside the proclivities of the Iraqi shiites, what would be the nature of the deal you are proposing between the USA and Iran?

Posted by Abominable at December 19, 2007 12:04 PM

Jim, leaving aside the proclivities of the Iraqi shiites, what would be the nature of the deal you are proposing between the USA and Iran?

It wouldn't be one grand bargain. We would want to broker Iranian help for Iraq in economic and security matters. We have already shaken hands many times with Iran's favorite sons in Iraq: Hakim, Maliki, Sistani, etc. But we have done it in a self-defeating and propagandistic way, in pretending that these figures don't like Iran and that Iran doesn't like them. We have played up Iran's lesser connections with more radical figures such as Sadr, instead of admitting that they are mostly hedging their bets with Sadr.

So we would do a lot better for own interests, and for Iraq's future, if we endorsed what Iraqi Shiites and Iranians are already trying to do without us. Our influence in Iraq would shift to soft power. The big mistake of this White House is that they think of soft power as wimpy and corrupt. (Their execution of it is indeed wimpy and corrupt.) They think of military power as noble and effective. However, in this decade, soft power is far more important than military power. Military power does still have its uses when applied carefully, but when used recklessly it is even more corrupt and ineffective than soft power.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 12:29 PM

I have to admit that I don't understand what you are saying here. What would the Iranians would be doing? What they be agreeing to? What would we be agreeing to, and what would we get? Presumably, we would get peace, but I don't know how the Iranians could deliver. I'm genuinely confused. Seems like the civil war and Al Queda are the primary security concerns, and I'm not sure how the Iranians can help. The only think I can think of is that Iranians might be enticed to pay for more reconstruction efforts, while stopping the flow of arms into Iraq. Ah gun control. It always comes down to gun control! Just kidding.

Posted by Abominable at December 19, 2007 12:41 PM

What would the Iranians would be doing?

They would do more of what they have already made plans to do. They have provided money for economic projects across Shiite Iraq, as I said including banks and electricity stations. And if we and they endorsed the same armed factions among the Shiites, instead of playing musical chairs, it would stabilize at least the Shiite side of the anarchic civil war in Iraq. It could help a lot, because with agreements they wouldn't back any militias who want to attack the US.

It would philosophically be a lot like the Anbar "awakening", which mostly consists of bribing former Sunni insurgents so that they flip on Al Qaeda. (Petraeus has a much better grasp of soft power than his boss does.) With the Shiites, we could exploit Iranian influence instead of a priori setting ourselves as targets of that influence. We wouldn't even be bribing Iraqi Shiites with our money.

Iranians might be enticed to pay for more reconstruction efforts, while stopping the flow of arms into Iraq.

They could be enticed to flow the arms to the Iraqi government, and not also to a popular anti-American Shiite resistance. This is not about begging them to be peaceful, it's about admitting that we have placed ourselves on their side.

As for reconstruction efforts, the Iranians are already paying for a number of them. If we cooperated with the Iranians, we could take partial credit for these facts on the ground.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 12:56 PM

If you can explain to me where the Sunnis fit in, and by extension, Al Queda, by golly, you may have me convinced.

Posted by Abominable at December 19, 2007 01:02 PM

I'm sorry - I lost track - you wanted to relocate them, or help them relocate themselves. I'd do a check on the numbers first, and then get back to Arab proclivities. I'm going to stop posting comments for today - not enough attention.

Posted by Abominable at December 19, 2007 01:04 PM

> In other words, Harris believes that the US should withdraw whenever and wherever the enemy uses suicide bombings.

No, those are your words, not mine.

Try again. Harris said that the US should withdraw because some folks are using suicide bombings. He now claims that such a record implies that the US has lost.

I note that the Japanese sunk a record number of ships at Pearl Harbor. Should the US have surrendered then?

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 21, 2007 11:39 AM

Post a comment