Beware The Experts

Be wary of any "expert" who says they know what's going on everywhere in Iraq.

This is certainly a good reason not to listen to Michael Totten. He is obsessed with missing the forest for the trees, although it's a hard task at times since he's not stupid. While Iraqi leaders go buddy-buddy with Ahmadinejad, Totten examines street kids who smile for American troops.

It doesn't take an expert to see that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is and always has been pro-Iranian. It's quite obviously true of him and many other Iraqi leaders. It's not "what's going on everywhere in Iraq", but it doesn't have to be. It still shows that the Iraq war is a crock. It's not like World War II, because Churchill wasn't a Nazi.

Jim, I'm a bit puzzled. How many Iraqi prime ministers are you expecting Totten to find in the boondocks? My guess would be zero. Hence, no real reason for him to report on Iraqi prime ministers.

Karl, the point is that Totten is wrong on principle, but right about himself. There are ways to gauge the total progress of wars, they aren't too complicated to comprehend. Just not the way that Totten chooses to do it. He's exactly the sort of fake expert that he warns against. He's also capable enough and could do better with this than he has chosen to. He has chosen to steer clear of the real story, the Shiite revolution in Iraq.

In fact everyone is steering clear of the Shiite revolution in Iraq. To the extent that the US can steer clear of it and protect the Sunnis from it, they can then make it look like the surge is "working".

In other words, if a reporter doesn't reflect your biases and support your pet theory of the day, then he's "wrong on principle". Totten is not an unbiased source, but he covers an aspect that most media miss.

All I can say, is that there's not much of a revolution. All I see are people and groups flexing their muscles. Sure some are getting weapons and assistance from Iran or Syria and causing some trouble such as contributing to the bloodshe, but that's to be expected. Your verbal puffery and semantics games wear thin after a while.

Jim,

I have never seen someone with such a passion for blindly digging themselves into rhetorical holes as you seem to possess.

In other words, if a reporter doesn't reflect your biases and support your pet theory of the day, then he's "wrong on principle".

No, Totten is wrong on the principle that wars are unknowable until they are over. It's not as if he himself really thinks so. Despite declaring the Iraq war to be more complicated than The Borg in this passage, he felt expert enough to declare the surge a success.

Besides, the Shiite revolution in Iraq is not "my pet theory of the day". It's established fact. It has been recognized in every serious description of Iraq. Even Totten devoted a report to it. But only one report, because he didn't want to stay "pessimistic".

All I see are people and groups flexing their muscles.

How can that be all that you see? Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, is a Shiite theocracy. Sadr controls the health ministry. In order to keep the surge "working", proxies of the occupation pleaded with Sadr to continue his cease-fire; the US isn't fighting him. This goes way, way beyond some groups flexing their muscles.

No, Totten is wrong on the principle that wars are unknowable until they are over. It's not as if he himself really thinks so. Despite declaring the Iraq war to be more complicated than The Borg in this passage, he felt expert enough to declare the surge a success.

I guess that depends on what you think the surge was supposed to accomplish. Overall death rates are down considerably from last year and the Al Qaeda groups no longer have the power they had then. That is pretty much what the Surge was intended to do. It wasn't intended to transform the Middle East or some other huge goal. I consider it a success.

How can that be all that you see? Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, is a Shiite theocracy. Sadr controls the health ministry. In order to keep the surge "working", proxies of the occupation pleaded with Sadr to continue his cease-fire; the US isn't fighting him. This goes way, way beyond some groups flexing their muscles.

Hmmm? You just indicated it is some groups flexing political muscle. Sadr has real power in Iraq so, of course, he'll control something. The point as I see it, is that he's chosing to do so through mostly peaceful methods. That's a good sign and certainly not worth the hysteria you seem intent on investing.

"It doesn't take an expert to see that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is and always has been pro-Iranian. It's quite obviously true of him and many other Iraqi leaders. It's not "what's going on everywhere in Iraq", but it doesn't have to be. It still shows that the Iraq war is a crock. It's not like World War II, because Churchill wasn't a Nazi."

Typical liberal attitude. Because the wrong guy is in government, the entire war is a crock. And I don't see how Churchill could be compared to Maliki even if he were a Nazi, but whatever floats your boat.

Your attitude seems to be that because Totten isn't reporting on what you think he should be reporting on, what he's reporting on is necessarily worthless. Why should Totten care that you think he should be covering the Shi'ite revolution?

Because the wrong guy is in government, the entire war is a crock.

No, it's not just that the wrong guy is in government. It's the wrong government. More than half of the entire US foreign policy is devoted, in one small country, to establishing a government that isn't on our side. It's shadow boxing.

Your attitude seems to be that because Totten isn't reporting on what you think he should be reporting on, what he's reporting on is necessarily worthless.

He can report on whatever he wants to report on, that's fine. He writes well, takes good photos. He's almost a good journalist.

If he then claims first-hand wisdom to say that the war is working, well, he doesn't have that wisdom. He chose not to listen to other first-hand experts and he made the wrong call. If on top that he claims that the war is unknowable and you shouldn't listen to first-hand experts --- which is what Rand thought was worth quoting --- then he's wrong on principle but right about himself.

He chose not to listen to other first-hand experts

There are "first-hand" experts predicting the "Shiite revolution"? Who are they?

There are "first-hand" experts predicting the "Shiite revolution"?

Describe, not predict. Yes, there certainly are. For instance, there is the book "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future," by Vali Nasr. Okay, Nasr is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and may not be first-hand. But this account is first-hand, and so are tons of others that you can find in Google News. Far away from Michael Totten and any American troops, "two dozen Shiite political parties and their respective militias compete, often violently, over control..." That shows you the reality of government in Basra. The political parties are Shiite, they are connected with militias, and they are fighting for control --- not with any entity that looks secular or pro-Western, but with each other. It is a Shiite revolution, not merely a prediction of one.

Frankly, it doesn't even take fresh journalism to see what would happen and did. Even before the US invaded Iraq, the Pentagon and the White House knew that one of the main anti-Saddam organizations was called "The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq". They knew that SCIRI would march in from Iran. It has been led by a Shiite cleric named Abdul Aziz al-Hakim ever since his brother was assassinated. Hakim and his group want a Shiite revolution; just look at the name. Okay, they changed their name recently because it was too obvious, but a leopard doesn't change its spots --- they have always been backed by Iran. The fact that these Iranian-backed Shiite theocrats have gained power is no secret to Bush either, nor to anyone else involved with the Iraq war.

Since none of this is a secret, the White House's approach is to alternately pretend that it isn't happening and pretend that it's normal. Look at the way that photo of Bush and Hakim. Bush didn't vilify Hakim as he vilified Hugo Chavez, even though Hakim is no better than Chavez. He pretended that Hakim is one of the good guys, just as he pretends that Putin is an honest friend.

There are "first-hand" experts predicting the "Shiite revolution"?

Not predicting, describing. Read this, for instance.

I see Iraqi groups abusing their power, I don't see a Shiite "revolution".

I see Iraqi groups abusing their power, I don't see a Shiite "revolution".

You're trying to split a hair that won't divide. You might as well say that Robespierre abused his power, but he wasn't part of the French revolution.

Revolution, dictionary definition: The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another. The Bush Administration did everything that it could to make the invasion of Iraq look like and be a revolution. The leader was toppled, the army was dissolved, the ministries were burned and looted. The entire Iraqi government was upended. It's beyond dispute that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a revolution. The only question is what kind. If groups such as "the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq" rolled in from Iran and took power in the Shiite regions, which they did, then it was a Shiite revolution.

If you think that it's not true, then you should find a Shiite government leader in Iraq who isn't a Shiite revolutionary.

Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister of Iraq and not a Shiite revolutionary. I wouldn't consider any of the other Shiites in government to be revolutionaries either because a revolution hasn't happened or is about to happen.

Second, there's something wrong with that definition. I've alwats seen the label applied to overthrows of governments by internal forces, not direct conquest by some outside power. Some revolutions weren't complete overthrow of power too. For example, the American Revolution (the one that resulted eventually in the creation of the US) preserved the governments of the states. What changed was that these governments were no longer beholden to the UK. I think that falls well short of the overthrow and replacement of a government.

Further, I find your semantic contortions to be uninteresting. In your latest argument, you are claiming that if we consider the Iraq invasion to be a revolution, then any Shiite politician becomes a Shiite revolutionary. That may be so, but what makes this anything more than a trivial and worthless observation? After all, we now have Kurdish and Sunni "revolutionaries" as well. Let's not forget the republican "revolutionaries" in Washington. It's not a useful observation since being a "revolutionary" just means you were around for the last overthrow.

I don't see the point to claiming as you do that the "Shiite revolution" is a "real story", then resort to cheap rhetorical games to defend yourself. As I've mentioned before, I don't consider the powerful exercising power to be a "revolution". It's not hair splitting. There's just no indication that a government is going to be overthrown.

I don't see the purpose of journalism to focus on the fad issue of the month to the exclusion of all else. Going back to Totten. He has unusual access to US troops in Iraq (I strongly suspect because his stories are generally favorable), he reports on what he sees (which includes smiling kids dancing in streets). That is journalism. I don't see the point to him writing an opinion on the "Shiite revolution" because he doesn't see that. He is not an expert, he is reporting what he sees.

Your complaint, that Totten is missing the forest for the trees, may be correct. But you haven't shown convincing evidence for what you think is a more important story.

Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister of Iraq and not a Shiite revolutionary.

He certainly is a Shiite revolutionary judging by his entire political career. He joined an Iraqi political organization called "the Islamic Call" (Dawa) which called for a Shiite revolution in Iraq. Along with the rest of this group, he admired the Iranian revolution. When the Iran-Iraq war started, Dawa wanted Iran to win and Saddam Hussein to be deposed, so that the Shiite revolution in Iran would spread to Iraq. He was sentenced to death, then exiled to Iran and Damascus, where he became the eventually became the leader of the Damascus branch of Dawa. This same Dawa bombed the French and American embassies in Kuwait. Moreover, Maliki was selected as prime minister as a compromise choice between the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Moktada al-Sadr, both of which are Shiite revolutionary groups.

I've always seen the label applied to overthrows of governments by internal forces, not direct conquest by some outside power.

Going by the list of revolutions in Wikipedia, "usually" could be defended, but "always" is an overstatement. Several of the revolutions listed there were induced by foreign liberation, for example, the Communist revolution in North Korea that followed the Allied liberation from Japan. Or the Communist revolution in Albania. Of course, foreign invaders usually install their own government, but when they don't want to or they fail, the resolution of the resulting power vacuum can fairly be called a revolution.

In your latest argument, you are claiming that if we consider the Iraq invasion to be a revolution, then any Shiite politician becomes a Shiite revolutionary.

No, I'm claiming that if Shiite leaders think of themselves as revolutionaries, if they plan a revolutionary reorganization of society, if that reorganization is backed by force, and if they are enabled by prior government overthrow, then their self-description is highly credible. The argument is not, we overthrew Saddam Hussein, therefore every Shiite baby-kisser is a revolutionary. The argument is that Maliki's backers think that they are implementing a Shiite revolution, and they are right. They absolutely do see themselves as emulating the Iranian revolution, and you can see how it has turned out in Basra.

Jim, I do not find your argument convincing. Instead it is infected with the same exaggeration and hysteria as a considerable portion of the other stuff that you post on this site. But even if it were true, I see no reason that Totten has to report on it constantly even when he's in situations where he'd have no information to provide.

Jim, I do not find your argument convincing.

Well, okay, it takes work to change one's mind. But you'll see.

But even if it were true, I see no reason that Totten has to report on it constantly

I never said that he did. He can report on whatever he wants to report on. What I have been saying is that his statement that the war is unknowable until it ends is disingenuous. He doesn't believe it himself, because he said recently that the surge is working.

And our host Rand took things one step further. He declared in November that we won the war in Iraq. Now, in March, we're back from victory to the fog of war. This cycle will surely repeat until either a Democrat is elected president or the troops are pulled out. Then the sentiment will be that defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory.

What I have been saying is that his statement that the war is unknowable until it ends is disingenuous. He doesn't believe it himself, because he said recently that the surge is working.

You are comparing disimilar things. Saying that the surge is working, based on what is seen (as Totten has done), is different from saying that the surge is working unconditionally or going much further and declaring that Iraq has been won. Totten is consistent here, you're just misreading him.

A similar thing goes on with your quote from Rand. He doesn't actually say that we won the war in Iraq. That apparently was part of a claim by another blogger. He did say that he found the argument had a "lot of links to support his thesis. Rand also claims that a major battle was recently "won" and that Iraq's problems were more external. Now maybe Rand did go further elsewhere, he did after all go through a bout of optimism back then. But I see a pattern on your part of misinterpreting what people say.

The post describes Al Qaeda in Iraq as "completely routed" and compares the status quo in Iraq to the 1945 surrender of Japan and Germany. In context, the "major battle" clearly refers to the Iraq war itself, and not to some set battle in the war.

But you're right about this much, that even though Rand chose to talk as if the US won the Iraq war in that post, he still found one or two small ways to hedge. If you think that this quibbling is important, he still did make the unqualified, first-person statement that AQI is "completely routed". But that, as I'm saying, is blowing hot and cold. AQI isn't "completely routed". There are still dozens of insurgent factions in Iraq that will at times be called "Al Qaeda" according to their own whim or ours.

As for Totten, I'm going to juxtapose these two direct opening quotes:

1) In August, I wrote in these pages that it was too soon to judge Gen. David Petraeus' surge of troops in Iraq a success or a failure. It's not too soon anymore.

2) Be wary of any "expert" who says they know what's going on everywhere in Iraq.

So it's clear what he means. He means, be wary of any other expert who claims to know what is going on everywhere in Iraq. He doesn't mind sweeping extrapolations from local experience, if they're his extrapolations.

Actually, even in his own beat, Totten has ignored the fact that all of the Iraqi smiles that he sees are more due to a surge in patronage than to a surge in troops. The extra troops, after all, didn't go to Anbar. Anbar doesn't have an independent economy and the Shiite provinces don't care to send them a dime. If Petraeus offers to stop shooting at these Sunnis and instead pay them, they have no choice but to take the cash. And I don't think that Totten is a dolt who has just missed all of this. Rather, he isn't enthusiastic to discuss it because of his loyalties. The Iraqis aren't stupid either and they can figure out how to cater to Totten in about a second --- they see him with soldiers. There are journalists in Iraq who do not travel with soldiers, and they see Iraq differently.

There are journalists in Iraq who do not travel with soldiers, and they see Iraq differently.

I suspect that you are confusing cause and effect.

I've got an idea. Instead of wasting my bandwidth and disk space whining about Michael at my site, why don't you go over to his. He's got a comments section, too.