What and abandon "stay the course"?  Your proposals make perfect sense.  But I don't know if they will fly with El Presidente and his second in command Dr. Evil...that would be admitting failure of their policies.

Do we really want to create the Islamic Republic of Basra sitting a hundred miles or so from the Ghawar Oil Field?

I don't think so. 

"...the imaginary nation of Iraq has dissolved"
It was not an imaginary nation, and it has not dissolved it was destroyed.

Where does Turkey fit in this conversation?

Let's hope we don't make a new mess for a valued ally fixing another mess.

Reed, this is really tough. While the example of the former Yugoslavia provides some hope, the situation here is much tougher. First, because of the extent and history of the hate among the parties and the fact that the civil war has already started. Second, because of the extent of the mingling among different parties (shiite, suni, kurd, etc). Third, because many external parties with influence in Iraq have competing interests that will make it difficult to find a consensual compromise(e.g., Iran, Turkey, Saudi). Fourth, because rationality and modernity are foreign to the Arab world (I would mention Baruch Spinoza as being foreign to the Arab world, but it would be a bad joke), and the emergence of any societal institutions or processes that go beyond the clan, the extended family, the tribe or the religious group is highly unlikely.

Bottom line: the Middle East, the Arabs, and Iran are fucked up beyond belief and any hope of fixing or materially improving the situation in the near term (e.g., 5-10 years) through a rational process - like you suggest - is a wet dream. Anyone who has first hand experience there knew that Chenney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were smoking something when they talked about creating a true democracy in Iraq, with elections, institutions, and rule of law. The idea of a Jeffersonian democracy emerging anytime soon in an Arab society or in Iran is - unfortunately - a bad joke.

Unfortunately, the same is true with the idea that they could get agreement on how to live together through reasoned negotiations. My guess is that the best your idea could achieve is some sort of lull in the fighting to allow US troops to bail with a save facing excuse. Not bad, and certainly much better than the current situation.

Me? I'd probably wave bye-bye to the Confederate South and ask my relatives in Texas to move.

Then you better send a white knight off to Crawford, the Emperor has gone to fiddle "Home, home on the range" while the Mideast burns.

I'd like to follow up on my earlier post, in which I humourously highlighted the inherent racism and arrogance of this topic, by drawing out my thoughts in a little more detail.

First, I think that it is important to note that discussion of the need for partition of Iraq substantially precedes the Iraq War itself. Indeed, proposals for partition of Iraq go all the way to the "Clean Break" paper authored by the Likudniks for Netanyu, and are perhaps implicit in the 'Project for a New American Century' or collary documents.

Suffice it to say, before the United States even invaded, pundits in America and Israel were pontificating about what a good idea it would be (for the benefit of the people of Iraq, of course) to break the country up into three smaller countries.

The clamour for partition began its clarion calls in earnest once the United States had occupied Iraq. There were various reasons cited, despite a period of perpetual existence longer than many modern states in Africa and Asia, despite a historical continuity within the region stretching back 6000 years, it was argued that the region was an artificial, awkward and ungainly mishmash that could not go on... after all, look how easily they fell to an invasion of overwhelming force by the world's sole hyperpower, after only twelve years of debilitating sanctions.

Partitioning Iraq, it was suggested, would be the best thing for all concerned. A viewpoint that was endorsed heartily by the Kurds, though neither the Shia nor Sunni seemed all that persuaded. Still, they were arabs and obviously didn't know what was best for them. America would redeem them by answering their silent and unvoiced national aspirations. They should get the gift notwithstanding that they had been too shy and demure to ask for it.

The waggish and cynical might note that a partitioned Iraq would result in three fragmentary states, two of which would have oil and be more easily manipulated, and which would create much less of a security threat to Israel. Indeed, Israel might even be able to transform the Kurds into a client state to advance its regional interests, secure its oil pipeline and bedevil Syria and Iran on its behalf.

But enough of that, far be it from me to suggest that there was any other motive for partition, apart from the very best interests of the people within.

Of course, such a partitioned state, with divided infrastructure, divided resources, reduced internal trade and opportunities, would probably be significantly more impoverished than Iraq as a unified state.
And of course, there was the awkward geographical issue of the Tigris and Eurephrates river which would transect each state, as well as the awkward problem posed by Bagdad.

And of course, partitioning would leave large ethnic minorities within each new state. These ethnic minorities, presumably, might demand their own states, or more likely be subject to various oppression up to and including expulsion and ethnic cleansing... particularly harsh on Turkmen, Assyrians, Yeziday, Coptics, etc., who didn't have any place to go... but what the heck, you can't make an omelet without cracking a few million eggs, can you?

But the suffering of a few million people who had the bad judgement of birth or circumstance to wind up on the wrong side of a line drawn in some lounge in New York, was a small price to be paid for rendering three wet new nations out of one polyglot state.

The point was that White Men with books and pens, following in the footsteps of legions of white men with guns and tanks, were going to step into the fertile crescent (metaphorically, they wouldn't be caught dead actually going there... it was dangerous) and they were going to solve things for those fractious arabs and kurds by imposing a solution obvious from the first.

To think that in some 88 years or so, the inhabitants hadn't thought of it themselves!!! Wonder of wonders. Or if they had thought of it, they had never seen fit to pursue it with acceptable vigour.

Even during the twelve year period of sanctions and no fly zones, where the United States effectively forced Iraq to be three separate countries, only one of which Saddam Hussein fully controlled, the foolish Iraqi's failed to 'get it.'

Well, no wonder they need the British Ambassador to Iraq, and Reed, and many other experts of that Ilk to get it on.

It seems clear, from Reed's thoughtful missive, that there is a very good chance that, left to themselves, the Iraqi's may not get around to it at all. Thus the duty falls to the Bush administration to do for Iraq's peoples, what they cannot and will not do for themselves: Partition.

Of course, there is a nasty civil war going on right now, that seems to make partition a reasonable solution.

But, mischievous old me, I'm just noting that partition talk precedes this civil war by a few years. It runs through the whole of the occupation, well before the civil war begins. And in fact, it runs well before the actual invasion and occupation.

So, it might be that partition, rather than being a real and thoughtful response to the civil war is.... dare I say it?

A solution in relentless search of a problem.

I think, by the way, that it is particularly amusing that Reed Hundt has so little faith in the appeal of this process to the Iraqi's that he feels it should be begun *outside* the country, in *Amman, Jordan.* And that the Bush administration should impose *firm end dates* because, in his words, the people involved "are tragically unable to place themselves comfortably and safely within boundaries."

I won't utter the 'R' word, but I'll let Reed's views speak for themselves.

Of course, while we are talking about the civil war, let me offer a few observations.

I think that there is a common assumption that the Iraqi Civil War was entirely inevitable. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and company said there would not be, but they've been wrong about everything else, so there is a certain logic to them being wrong about this.

However, I think what is missing from the discussion, is the possibility that the Iraqi Civil War was not in fact inevitable, but rather, the result or manufacture, deliberate or inadvertent of the American occupation itself.

Not simply the fact of the occupation, though that had its contribution. What I am arguing is that specific actions taken by the United States or its occupation have created the civil war or increased its likelihood. Had the United States not undertaken these steps, civil war might not have been an inevitable outcome.

Among the misteps are:

1) Failure to provide adequate security to ordinary citizens of Iraq - essentially, no policing. Ordinary Iraqi's were simply left on their own. Indeed, they were subject to lawlessness, including robbery, rape, murder and kidnapping of every sort. The American occupation did nothing for security, but rather, decreased security with midnight home invasions, random checkpoints, 'shoot-em-ups' and a variety of invasive and destabilizing tactics, including re-institutionalization of torture.

Faced with this lack of security and safety, many Iraqi's were forced to put their faith in regional and sectarian militias, such as the Peshmerga, Badr Brigades, Mahdi Army and Sunni fundamentalist and secular groups. They may not have been nice guys, but they were our guys, and they made the neighborhood safe to walk. Thus, the growth of highly factionalized, highly violent militias, came about largely as a response to a security vaccum created and maintained by the United States.

2) America, of course, for political and other reasons, chose to tolerate or even support some of these Militias, notably the Peshmerga and the Badr Brigades, as well as Chalabi's and Allawi's personal militias. To make matters worse, it embarrassed itself with inconclusive or failed campaigns against other militias, notably the first bungled siege of Fallujah and the two failed assaults on the Mahdi Army. This certainly had the effect of legitimizing militias.

3) At the same time, America deliberately emasculated Iraqi security and social structures. This happened in various ways. Bremer's dissolving of the Iraqi military and police. Chalabi's radical and extremist De-Baathification program. And of course the quest to rebuild the Iraqi army while leaving out a few components (no air force component, no artillery, no armour, no logistics, etc.). The intention of course was to maintain a weak and dependent Iraqi state that would be wholly reliant upon the United States.

4) However, since the United States was failing to provide for reconstruction, failing to administer the country, failing to provide security, and engaged in radical reformation fantasies, the result was a largely impotent and ineffectual central government, and the consequent social splintering towards groups and factions which would actually try to provide social services and security.

5) Special praise has to be reserved for American measures to divide and incite the Iraqi's, including encouraging and catering to Kurdish separatism, while at the same time, through Chalabi's De-Baathification and other measures, punishing and isolating the Sunni community. Meanwhile, in hope of perhaps making things worse, Ministry of Interior and police positions were handed to political shiites who promptly, under American eyes, began their own torture chambers and death squads.

Divide and rule is a long time colonial tactic. It's employment here is not a surprise, the lack of competence with which it was employed, the lack of understanding of consequence, with which it was employed, is remarkable.

6) Some consideration has to be reserved for the (at one time) much talked about El Salvador option, in which it was contemplated that the funding, training and encouragement of death squads to purge society by the tens or hundreds of thousands, as was done in El Salvador or Guatemala or Nicaragua, might be the only way to deal with the insurgency. Talk about the "El Salvador option" ceased, dramatically and uniformly across the board, just prior to the civil war starting up. Cynical persons (and I am not a cynical person) might observe a uniformity in the tactics of death squads and progress of this civil war, in terms of relationship to previous examples of American CIA meddling ... a la El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Vietnam... and might be persuaded that there was some sort of coherent thread of training and tactics passed along by some agency... like the CIA. However, I'll cast no aspersions and simply observe that I will be very interested in seeing the classified files on this period in Iraq, whenever they might become available, to see what really went on and who was really doing what to whom.

If we accept that something like the El Salvador Option was actually implemented, then the conclusion is inescapable that the United States is the author of Iraq's civil war, through and through. Guilty and damned.

Even without the El Salvador option, any objective survey will demonstrate conclusively that the civil war has come about as a direct result of a series of appalling, brutal or stupid decisions made by the United States. Again, guilty and damned.

It is interesting to note that the persistence of American troops and American administration, arguably, guarantees the continuation of the civil war. The problems created by America are maintained by America... including the absence of security for most people's day to day lives.

Now, let me be clear here. I am not condemning America or Americans for their actions and decisions (well, I guess I am, sort of, but that's not my point), nor am I holding them to account for it (well, again, I suppose I am, but again, that's not my point). The point is that if Americans persist in a state of delusion that events or certain events have no relationship to their actions (ie, the notion that the civil war 'just happened' or was 'inevitable') then you lose the ability to deal with these and other events effectively. Basically, if you create a situation, but do not connect the events which follow to the situation you created, your ability to understand the events and to respond effectively to them is handicapped. So my point is, with respect to the civil war, to wake up and smell the coffee. Events in Iraq are not pre-ordained nor are they randomly chaotic, but they arise from the misapplication or application of certain decisions. From there, it may follow that redressing some of these blunders, following alternative courses, may have some bearing on the outcomes.

So, facing all that, it seems ironic that an American would decide that the obvious solution to Iraq's problems would be to partition Iraqi's country, for their own good.

For my part, I don't know how much more American good will and benevolence the Iraqi's can stand.

Perhaps the better solution might be a different sort of partition: Partition the United States from Iraq, or perhaps even from the Persian Gulf and middle east.

Indeed, it seems that this is the sort of thing a great many Iraqi's are working on right now. Perhaps Reed Hundt could sit down with them in Amman. I'm sure some of them would be willing to make the trip.

One of your problems with this is that the Iraqi Shia are ethnic Arabs speaking Arabic, and are traditional and historical rivals to the ethnic Persian Shia speaking Farsi. So you've got an 'oil and water' thing going on there. They're not going to mix.

Also, it probably won't go over so well for the Shia of Iraq, who figured that they were going to get a whole country to rule over, to be reduced to a little rump state and ceded over as someone else's satellilte. I think the Shia are quite tired of being second class citizens in their own land.

Of course, the Sunni are shure to go for this deal. What do they get? Sand, and lots of it. Nothing, and in an abundance they've never dreamt of. No oil, no sea access, no resources, no economic base. Nothing but their grievances and their guns.

Meanwhile, the Kurds won't be thrilled by the fact that America's given them their country, but made the price the cutting of the throats of their families and relatives on the other side of the Turkish border. Once they feel a bit of security, I think that their next mission in life will be cutting American throats.

As for letting the Turkish Kurds emigrate, well... First, there's a lot more of them than you think. Kurds may form as much as 20 or 25% of the Turkish population, thats about 8 to 10 million people. Ouch! The other thing to think about is a lot of these people are tribesmen and farmers, they may move back and forth across the border, but they have definite ideas as to what 'their land' is.

And hell, it's not even touching on the problems you'll have with the Kurdish populations of Syria and Iran. Syria's Kurdish population is pretty small. But Iran's is on the scale of Iraq's and Turkey's.

But hey, it's a plan.

How 'bout we go and dig up Gertrude Bell.  I bet she'd love to have another go at it.

Are we forgetting that Iraq is now a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government, and a democratically approved Constitution?   Given that, what business of ours is it whether or not Iraq is divided up or continues as one nation?  If we are unhappy with the ways things are going, why don't we just leave?  I suppose to be polite, we should say farewell first, and give our hosts there the opportunity to plead with us to stay just one more night? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Can we put Bush's Iraq policy in her tomb after we dig her up?

Tom

It is all great, but the industrial-military complex will not let you have Israel pay full price. They need the subsidy. Eisenhower warned us, and we did not listen.

And the Iranian mullahs may actually believe what they are saying. Why do we insist that they cannot be so radical or so anti-semitic, or that they could not possibly mean what they say?

LOL...that is a good point and very well may be the case Tom. ;-)

Who do you advise listening to? What do they say?

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Your paean to diversity in the Middle East ignores the fact that there were plenty of tyrants in the area who conducted pogroms against Jews, Christians, Muslims of opposing sects and ethnic groups they didn't like.

If you use a mouse with a wheel on it and you don't click outside the ratings box first, turning the wheel changes the rating.  However, you should be able to revise your rating by going back to the box and changing the number.  (At least that works for me on my PC).   

aMike

Israelis and Palestinians are neighbors, destined to live side by side and share resources. So, yes, a negotiated withdrawal was the only way.

But now tell me what claim the US has over Iraq.
None. Zilch. The US invited itself into a country thousands of miles away with which it's had zero cultural and historical relations.

All the evidence of the past 3 years indicates that the US is the anti-Midas of the ME: everything it touches turns to shit.

If I saw the slightest indication that the US could do anything at this point to improve things besides getting out, I'd give it a chance.

But reading Reed reminded me of "The Remains of the Day."

Rank amateurism at work with the catastrophic consequences we know.

PS And now Friedman tells us in the NYT that he's run out of friedmans so we should bolt. But we tried, didn't we? It's just that the Iraqis didn't want to play. Oy...
Why do they hate us? Gee, I wonder.

Uh huh. I suppose this will all be discussed in Jordan.

airports; guaranteed cheap and safe access to the port facilities in the south; and river or canal access.

And how are you going to do that? Given that the United States can't even provide security or access now? But somehow, it will be feasible after violently dismembering the country into three units?

If Baghdad ends up divided, similar infrastructure buildout could be required, so that each section is a complete and functioning whole; and/or agreements written guaranteeing cheap and safe use of shared infrastructure located in another sector.

Correction. Violently dismembering the country into six units. So... the proposal is to make three self contained Bagdad's where one stood before? Physically possible? Or will we have to have yet more ethnic cleansing on a mini-state basis? And given the tripartite division of the city, how does one guarantee cheap and safe use of shared infrastructure?

The oil issue is also tricky. Really seems it would be better to split all oil revenues by population, going forward as well as for existing facilities, but as of now is not written that way in the constitution.

Perhaps the Iraqi's would not go for that? Go figure.

Although the US is not interested apparently in continuing to pay for reconstruction attempts, these types of infrastructural buildout will allow for peaceful coexistence among the sectors

Billions for dismemberment, but not another penny for reconstruction?

Letting Iraq down again by refusing to think through consequences here would potentially trap the US in yet another cycle of extended, messy military involvement.

I love this. It's all about the Iraqi's... and saving a few military bucks, and avoiding US entrapment...

Lord save us from the White Men come to help.

I think the meeting in Jordan must also define the pricing of UNEs and the regulatory framework for local access competition in the Iraqi telecom industry. Wow, maybe Reed should be invited and lead this session as well as the one on sharing the oil revenues!

Unicorns and other Nonrational Entities?

And leaves behind only its :-).

But it is difficult to ignore the fact that there are many Arab States in the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria to name a few) that have been "left alone" to a great degree to decide their future for several decades. And what have they achieved? Is there freedom there? Are human rights protected? Rule of law?

And yet, have these states been left free?

Syria was caught up in the power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Bloc, involved in protracted struggles with Israel, and finally, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, cut off and isolated, under sanctions and with diplomatic restrictions, surrounded by American allies and its own enemies.

Consider Egypt, a pawn in east west rivalry, whose nationalist and progressive aspirations were ferociously opposed. Remember Nasser being confronted with the Suez crisis? And who were later stymied by Israeli Wars, Soviet/US gamesmanship, and eventually submission to the United States?

Yemen was another victim of Soviet/US rivalry, fought a civil war between north and south and finally united. Beyond that, it was a pawn in the geopolitics of oil and the western quest for stability of oil supplies.

The same goes for Saudi Arabia, which had at least the benefit of nominal historical independence and cooperation.

Could these nations afford civil rights, free speech, democracy, the rule of law in their historical environment where they have been one of the oldest and most civilized cultures in the region, but always on the verge of being overrun or overruled by greater empires, the Ottoman Turks, Britain and finally the United States.

The historical pattern was that reformist states which overthrew traditional monarchies and attempted to modernize... Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya were viewed as affronts to the west and regional stability and opposed tooth and claw by the west, economically, diplomatically, occasionally militarily.

Meanwhile thoes states which were most tradition in terms of monarchies were encouraged to restrict their populations, moderate their demands and provide stability at all costs... don't rock the boat.

And in the transition between monarchies and the radical reformists states, is it any surprise that the only aspect of monarchies which was allowed to even contemplate modernization, for reasons of simple survival, were the militaries? So is it any surprise that progressive thought of any sort should emerge first and foremost in those militaries? Or that, having sprung from this well, that those modernizing reformers should seek to rebuild their cities along the military lines they themselves knew and understood?

The west might pay lip service to human rights, democracy, the rule of law, etc. etc. But at the bottom line, the west repeatedly showed itself willing to trade all that, and the potential instability and uncertainty it brought, for STABILITY in the form of local potentates with whom it could deal on a handshake basis and who would keep local aspirations and demands manageable. The wests overwhelming demand for cheap, stable and plentiful oil did much to shape this region.

I'm not blaming anyone, and its not a complete answer by any means. I'm just saying these were the cards that they got dealt.

As for why Israel is way ahead of its neighbors...

The answer to that is fairly simple. Wholesale redistribution of lands and water resources, massive capital investments and massive credit, a highly trained, highly educated technically proficient population, social networks that facilitated trade, communication and investment with outside societies.

I'm not arguing that they are not in part the authors of their own various misfortunes.

On the other hand, it strikes me that nobody starts from ground zero. You can't simply pick a point, say 40 years ago, and say "Look how much some countries have progressed since that time, and look how other countries have not."

The progress of the past forty years, all too often derives from the progress of the decades prior to that, to legacies of geography, culture and colonialism.

Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Turkey, and many others were also subject to East-West rivalry or cross civilization tension, but in 30 years have come a long way. Heck, Estonia gave us Skype!

Well come on now, that just proves my point.

Germany came a long way in the last 30 years? You mean, a long way from being the most prosperous, most populous and most economically dominant country in Western Europe? A position which it had arguably held since... 1870, with a few hiccups here and there? A position which arguably had been evolving since the mid-18th century? Oh yeah, they really pulled off a miracle in the last few years.

I suppose you're referring to East Germany, but surely you'll appreciate that was a relatively small rump population, absorbed by a much larger and wealthier West Germany. It had a sophisticated, educated population. And even then, West Germany had severe pains absorbing and upgrading it.

Poland? A western nation, modernized under the USSR? Educated and skilled workforce, industrialized, lots of capital, only barely behind the west in real terms? Same with Czechoslovakia, a centre of culture and learning and industry for Europe since the renaissance?

Turkey, it started off as an Empire that pounded at the gates of Vienna. Had centuries of decline, wherein it was still an Empire in nominal control of the near middle east and persian gulf as late as 1914. Narrowly avoided colonialism by breakneck modernization. Stagnated for decades. Military governments, brutal repressions and genocide, now angling its way into the EU who are faced with the prospect of physically raising that country up to European standards? Geez.

I believe it is wrong to take the perspective that the West is fundamentally evil

Never said the west was evil, at all or fundamentally. The west simply had its own priorities and pursued these priorities. It isn't irrational to expect parties to pursue their own self interest, even at the expense of other parties.

Ah, but they are victims of externalities, including history, geography, the impositions of the west, the nature of economics, their own mistakes etc. etc.

No one is born under a cabbage leaf. Everyone and everything is in whole or in part shaped by externalities of various sorts.

But frankly this discussion must happen at some level before the West (i.e., the US) does in the ME what it should do

There are whole academic fields devoted to why one country succeeds and another doesn't, why one child grows and another doesn't, why one village thrives and another doesn't.

massive capital investments and massive credit, a highly trained, highly educated technically proficient population, social networks that facilitated trade, communication and investment with outside societies."

Your first mistake, I think is to assume that the same formula or solution works for everyone, every time. Hell, it doesn't even necessarily work for the same bunch twice.

Iraq was, prior to sanctions, the Arabic nation closest in wealth and sophistication to Europe. That is, it had taken its oil wealth and put it into massive infrastructure upgrades, training and educating its population to create a sophisticated, technically proficient workforce. It's population had a tradition of entrepreneuralism, and its society under the Baathists had a strong history of importation and absorption of western technology and ideas. Oil wealth provided a pool of useable capital. Militarism provided a drive or focus towards industrialization and modernization.

Indeed, in some geo/economic proviles in the 70's and 80's, Iraq, along with countries like Argentina, Chile, South Africa, South Korea were considered borderline first world/third world countries. ie, they were regional anomalies that had made it into the first tier.

So what happened to derail Iraq's promising future? Well, the Iran/Iraq war certainly didn't help. The attendant regional politics behind that didn't help, particularly if we are to believe the Iraqi's claims with respect to promises made by other neighboring states. Kuwait cross drilling its oil reserves didn't help. The foolish invasion of Kuwait did not help, but the resulting Gulf War was disastrous.

Here's an interesting thing though, following the Gulf War, the Iraqi's were able to rebuild their infrastructure and repair the damage within months. That's a testament to the drive and determination of the nation, its wealth, its initiative and the ability and determination of its people.

So... why are they so fucked up now? Twelve years of punishing sanctions? Going on four years of spectacularly incompetent occupation?

You tell me.

Re: but they want to get there FOR FREE.

Maybe the Europeans, Russians, etc. want Iraqi stability for free, but last time I checked the US has spent obscene amounts of money, not to metnuion tens of thousands
of lives (ours and theirs, but mostly theirs) toward that elusive goal.

Well, I don't think that there's any question by now that four years under American occupation has done more damage to Iraqi society than twenty or thirty years under Saddam. Go figure...

Yep, Saddam was a blundering fool. Conceded, admitted, all those things. He did as much damage to his country as George W. Bush is doing to America.

He was one of those scummy little dictators like Pinochet in Chile, Galtieri in Argentina, Marcos in Phillipines, Mugabe in Zimbabwe who line their pockets, give their cronies free reign, and waste money on foolish projects. No question, no question at all on that front.

On the other hand, when talking about ruinous military buildups perhaps one should look to their own house? What country is now accounting for over 50% of all the military expenditures on the planet?

Saddam Hussein took his country into ruinous wars? Yep, definitely he did that. And arguably, he can claim that he thought he had America's green light for both of those wars. Certainly America supported and encouraged Iraq during its war with Iran, and certainly Iran was on America's crap list from the start. As for Kuwait, we've got April Glaispie's remarkable statement that the US would not concern itself with territorial disputes with Kuwait.

Regardless, although I would argue that it dragged the country down and hindered development, it seems neither war did the damage to Iraq that the sanctions did, go figure.

In terms of those tacky and opulent palaces, I don't care much at all. So the man was a tasteless nouveau riche hick? So what. And he dotted the front yards of his palaces with giant plastic pink flamingos? Watch how much less I could care.

How much of the GDP did those construction projects consume? I'm curious, was it significant? Possibly, possibly not. Could the money have been used better? Certainly. On the other hand, a nation that contemplates a massive tax cut for a porn star heiress while cutting minimum wages for truck stop waitresses, which flies gold plated bombers and cuts back school lunches, is not really in a position to make those criticisms.

To play the devil's advocate, I'd suggest that major construction efforts (he also built gigantic mosques) can be supported as infrastructure projects that kept the economy or sectors of the economy going. That's certainly the justification for endless military expenditures and worthless military systems in America.

As for sanctions and bombings, the interesting thing about the Iraqi sanctions was that they were 'forever.' All previous sanctions, Rhodesia, South Africa, China etc., had been designed and oriented towards trying to change a state's behaviour. It was 'play nice and we'll ease off.' The sanctions on Iraq weren't like that, there was nothing that Saddam Hussein could do to moderate sanctions, apart from having himself and his high command commit suicide.

Sanctions never affected Saddam and his cronies in terms of their lifestyle or their power over their country. Perhaps, if applied flexibly and judiciously, it could have been used to make him moderate his behaviour, we'll never know. Perhaps if it had been applied flexibly and creatively, we would not have scooped out the countries infrastructure and killed a quarter million Iraqi children, but again, we'll never know. The point is that sanctions in Iraq were not applied to change behaviour, it was simply a matter of putting the screws.

I'm not even going to get into South Africa at this point.

Now, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something. I'm sorry, that's not my problem.

Tyrants who live like God on a holiday, usually by fleecing the national treasury, do cause some economic damage to their nation don't you think?

Well, setting aside your moral outrage at ostentation and tackiness... How much did those palaces and ultramosque's cost? Is there a figure somewhere? Per palace and collectively? Over what span of time?

And in terms of the impacts on the Iraq economy and GDP... How much of the annual GDP what percentage did those gargantuan projects represent? What effect did they have on the Iraqi economy? Was the money spent in Iraq? Was it spent on wages? Were the goods and services local or imported, in what proportions? Were there spin offs, employment effects?

Now, no question, he could have used that money to build community swimming pools, libraries, universities, athletic centres, or hospitals, dams, electrification projects, etc. etc. So, there is that moral issue.

On the other hand, I can think of a country which prefers to invest in long range bombers and cuts back children's school lunches. So... there's priorities and there's priorities. Saddam could have done all sorts of things with his money, some better, some worse. Let's just examine the economic effects of what choices actually got made.

So let's hear it. Are we talking your visceral disgust at plastic pink flamingos and tacky palaces or do you actually have something substantive to say about the economic impact of Saddam's sanctions era construction projects.

And yes, Saddam could have retired. I'm sure all his generals and secret police and whatnot, his ministers and assistants would have all thrown him a retirement party, given him a big gold watch and said to each other, 'well, that was a nice job, but it's time to polish up the resume.'

Then they would have blown up his jet plane on the airport runway, and proceeded jockeying for power. Would you like to see the damage a full scale military level civil war between Saddam's generals would have caused?

Or perhaps you'd like to contemplate the sort of butcher who might have come to power in that sort of situation? What were the chances for an orderly succession? Or a transition to democracy?

Or simply that something much worse would come along... the way Khomeini succeeded the Shah? Idi Amin was pretty awful, but Milton Obote turned out to be worse. Sam Doe in Liberia was a butcher, but Charles Taylor was a genocide artist. Arafat's PLO was ugly, Hamas is downright mean.

Being a Dictator, as George W. Bush would tell you, is a pretty good job. It's got dancing girls, drugs, bright lights and adoring crowds... No wait, that's a rock star. But you get the point.

One of the downsides of dictatorships is that the way its set up, voluntary retirement isn't usually an option. Most of these guys go out feet first, usually in a bloody way. Sometimes they find a third country to set up shop in... But you know how it is, Pinochet got arrested and Trotsky got assassinated.

None of which is in the vein of apologizing for or justifying Saddam Hussein.

But hey, let's live in the real world shall we? Moral outrage and 'blame the other guy'itis is fine, but it gets tiresome after a while.

There are really interesting questions to be discussed here, but they need to be discussed dispassionately, with facts and figures where we can find them, and not behind a useless veneer of moral outrage and posturing.

Or, what the hell, we could just go back to the head of the discussion, and you can render your opinions on whether Iraq should be rendered.

Funny thing, Versailles. I bet the French today are quite happy to have it. Same thing with the pyramids in Gizeh or Stonehenge or zillion other construction projects that would have been rightly considered a complete waste of effort at the time they were built, yet are a source of wonder and pride (not to mention income from tourism industry) just a few centuries later.