"Victory"? The word is meaningful only when combined with a verb used in the past tense. VE Day and VJ Day were victories; November 11, 1918 wasn't.

No one can know what "victory" in Iraq will be until history tells us, and as GWB says, "By then, we'll all be dead."

The question is what are our short to medium term goals -- denying Salafi-jihadists a safe haven in Mesopotamia? limiting Persian influence in the Gulf? maintaining the Saudi royals? influencing the price of oil? making America appear to be the world's savior? -- and what actions should we take to maximize our likelihood of achieving these somewhat contradictory goals.

Before we choose a strategy we need to know our goals and their order of priority.

The choice of Amara is not insignificant. It was the site of the successful seige of British forces in 1917 that forced Britain out of Iraq in the first World War.

I’m not a military wonk, but it seems like arming a Suni militia to oppose the Mahdi brigades will only fuel an even bloodier civil war. I could not understand the reason (and still can’t) that the U.S. flip-flopped and backed off of al Sadr, letting him expand and consolidate political power. I know Sistani has held back from criticizing him, probably for Shia unity reasons.

But much of the outright slaughter is carried out by the Mahdi army and they are as responsible as the Baathist insurgents for the continuing civil war (revenge killings begetting revenge killings and on and on). The U.S. did not oppose al Sadr’s move into government and allowed them some legitimacy, but there seems to me to be little difference between them, the “insurgents” or the “jihadis” (or Sadam’s Baathists as far as that goes).

Ponies, Larry. You left out a pony for every Iraqi... 

(Sorry, I don't mean to mock. You ideas are good. A lot of ideas about Iraq are good. None of them will ever be implemented while Bush is in office. Maybe a Democratic Congress can work some magic?) 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

As you point out, tactics serves strategy, which serves the objective. It's the objective which is hopeless, since it was internal US politics that was the object of invasion.

Any action by US forces makes enemies at this point. One tactic that would reduce tension is costly, though. It would be to step into fights as peacemakers, not soldiers. This means even more US deaths, at first, from taking fire without force protection. It might mean fewer IED attacks after a while, if we become viewed as honest brokers instead of enforcers for the corrupt insiders.

Re: It's the objective which is hopeless, since it was internal US politics that was the object of invasion.

Granted BushCo is none too (collectively and individually) bright, but there's very few examples of even a successful war rendering the war-mongers popular in US history. Maybe FDR. Maybe Polk. Definitely not Madison after War of 1812. Even Lincoln owes his deification more to emancipation and his murder than to the Civil War itself (which was deeply hated by many at the time). Wilson could not get the League of Nations through Congress after WWI, Truman left office much reviled because of Korea, Johnson is forever stained by Vietnam, and even Bush's own father was repudiated by the voters despite a very short and quite successful war. If Bush anmd his folks thought they could ride Iraq to a permmanent GOP majority then they really are stupid.

 "Our" objectives in Iraq are not the publicly stated ones, or we would be rapidly withdrawing from there.  Building up an effective Sunni militia would be an obvious correct move, and should have been done some time ago.  Then, we could withdraw knowing that each major sect in Iraq would have a fighting chance to defend themselves from each other.  They would have a "democratically elected" government and a Constitution.  Saddam would not be in a position of power.  And, of course, no wmd industry.

The objectives of the administration have never been stated, so one has to assume that those stated above are not them.  Perhaps the first step now should be for Bush to tell us honestly (try to say that without giggling) what the objectives are. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I dunno Hoppy, it strikes me that the last thing that country needs is more outsiders building up local militias.

You're going for some sort of balance of terror shtick.

Didn't work in Lebanon or Afghanistan. All it got was bigger, better and nastier bloodbaths.

Rush begs to differ!! He is EXCELLENT, EIB, Excellence in Broadcasting folks. Put your thinking caps on to digest this whopper, if your twisted liberal minds can handle it!

Rush is no conspiracy theorist but...- he says the terrorists are killing the troops SOLELY because George W. Bush is kickin' their butts bigtime and the terrorists can't take much more of it, ...terrorists plan to: link

(1) kill lots of US troops.

(2) American voters will go soft.

(3) Non-dittohead Americans will blame Bush.

(4) they will vote for Democrats.

(5) Democrats will get elected.

(6) Bush will be forced by Democrats to cut and run.

(7) The imminent strategic victory so carefully orchestrated by Bush and Co. is thwarted and bin Laden wins!

Therefore, if the terrorists were winning in Iraq why would they want you to vote for the Democrats?? They are scared shitless of George W. In fact, this may make a case for canceling all elections and making Dubya Supreme Leader until the GWOT is over. The terrorists would lay down their arms and surrender!

Exactly. The trouble is that America has lost any ability it might have had to have any sort of positive effect.

Any pro-active American move will only add to the bloodbath. Everything you do will only make it worse.

It's time to leave. Stop meddling with militias, stop trying to trade on credibility that no longer exists, stop with the dreams of empire.

You want to help? Put sixty billion dollars in a reconstruction trust fund administered by the United Nations and go home.

Tony Snow is learning the difference between being a Press Secretary having to answer inconvenient questions and sitting in a FOX studio pontificating on the benefits of right wing capitalism as others on the right nod their heads in approval.

I should have mentioned this somewhere, but I guess I was too astonished by Larry's 'genocide on a dime' prescription for peace, but the Iraqi situation is slightly more complicated than he describes.

First, the Mahdi Army has not gone up against US forces once, but twice. The first time was in the generalized series of outbreaks that began with the mob killing of mercenaries in Fallujah. Not only did Bush seek revenge on Fallujah, but Bremer decided to remove this awkward cleric. Sadr defended himself, the plight of Fallujah became a cause, and the Mahdi army rose up, taking the holy towns of Najaf and Karbala, and having uprisings in Bagdad. This was eventually resolved inconconcusively. The United States inflicted massive casualties on the Mahdi army and destroyed large parts of towns and cities. But it proved unable to capture Sadr or decisively shut down the Mahdi.

A year later, several months before the Presidential election, the United States military, still holding a grudge went after Sadr again. Again the battles were fought in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, much to the horror of the residents. Mahdi casualties were appalling, Sadr was untouched and popular Shiite support was lining up against the Americans and for Sadr.

That time, Fallujah was not in open revolt, but was a Sunni Micro-Theocracy. This meant that the uprising did not extend to Sunni's and unlike the first uprising, did not bond the two religious groups. The favour was returned when the Shiites stood by quietly as America destroyed Fallujah after the Presidential election.

The second campaign ended with the Americans retreating and the Mahdi army ceasing to fight.

The Mahdi casualties were appalling, but it had also shown an appalling ability to regenerate. Worse, the indications were that the longer the Mahdi army fought, the more likely it was that they were going to learn to fight, or that they'd obtain people who knew how to fight, at which point it might be America that suffered appalling casualties.

Sadr came out of the second campaign with a mixed bag. His standing and credibility among the poor shiites was never higher, and he even had some credibility among the Sunnis. He was now officially a national figure. On the other hand, his support among key social classes and in the towns of Najaf and Karbala was nonexistent.

At this point, it became in everyone's best interests to try and start engaging Sadr in the political process, where he was brought into unwieldy coalition with his rivals.

One result of this is that it appears that Sadr is losing control of the more militant parts of the Mahdi army. This raises the possibility of a major split within the Mahdi army, and potentially, a Mahdi army civil war. At the very least, there's a strong possibility of a major disconnect between Sadr's political authority and the willingness of his military arm or parts of his military arm to do his wishes or abide by his agreements.

Or maybe not. This may simply be a ploy on Sadr's part, for plausible deniability.

Since then, the biggest political development is the withdrawal of Sistani from the political arena. Why is this significant? Because Sistani was the only religious Shiite figure who overshadowed Sadr. He was also the figure who unified the Shiites.

The result was not quite Sadr's elevation to Shiite religious leader, but rather, the removal of potential constraints upon him.

In addition, a major guiding figure driving consensus among the Shiite groups was gone, leaving Sadr and his rivals more free to act.

And Sadr does have rivals. Particularly SCIRI and the Dawa party, who have been the traditional Shiite religious opposition to Saddam. SCIRI and Dawa, I believe are rival Iranian backed parties who have patched up their differences.

SCIRI and Dawa have taken control of the military and security forces. All those police death squads, the torture going on now.. that's them. They also maintain an Iranian trained paramilitary militia called the Badr Brigades.

Badr? Sadr? No wonder people get confused.

But the Badr Brigades are not Sadr's men, and they're separate from the Mahdi army.

How tough are they? Well, look at it this way. The Badr Brigades have been an overt militia in Iraq since the fall of Saddam. And never ever, not once, has the United States Army ever dared to tangle with them.

That's right. Uncle Sam went after the Mahdi Army twice and got bloodied. But the stars and stripes never said 'boo' around the Badr Brigades.

It may well be that the Badr Brigades are genuinely tough. Tough enough to dissuade the US from picking a fight. They're Iranian trained, well armed, a lot better funded, and have a longer organizational history. They're also fairly numerous, and they've infiltrated the police and security forces quite effectively.

According to Juan Cole, the recent unpleasantness in Amara, where the Mahdi Army took over, was actually an attack on the Badr Brigades.

The two militia have stated their dislike for each other in Bagdad, Basra and other cities.

So we may well be seeing a civil war breaking out among the Shiites, if the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades decide to throw down. Both of these are serious, serious military groups, with the numbers, weapons and gumption to take and hold entire cities and fight pitched battles against overwhelmingly superior opponents.

The wild card in the Mahdi/Badr conflict may be the Allawites. Allawi is the Secular Shiite leader, America's former puppet, and a nasty piece of work. He was one of Saddam's overseas assassins, went renegade and worked for just about every intelligence agency going, he supported terrorism in Iraq and tried to organize a coup, he supplied misleading information in order to support the invasion, and was eventually rewarded with leadership. He was Chalabi's main rival.

Allawai has minimal support, as seen with his drubbings in actual elections. But so far, he seems to have found some residue of support. He represents the secular and professional Shia, is trying to find his ground in the middle class, and has a lot of American backing. Allawi probably has his own militia, partly his own device and partly an American creation. At this point, he's no longer a major contender, but he might qualify as a spoiler under some circumstances.

There's a bunch of other smaller militias, including some groups that might only amount to private bodyguards for guys like Chalabi. But they seem to be either melting away, or staying intensely regional. Things seem to be sorting out as the big two, or perhaps big two and a half.

There are several wild cards in the mix. There's the Shiite tribes, rural based, strongly aligned on lines of clan and family, which form a power alternative to the Religious organization of the Mahdi army and the political establishment of the Badr. A revolt by them could throw things one way or the other, or they could emerge as a third force. No way of telling.

There's also Iran, which supports SCIRI and Dawa and the Badr Brigades. Right now, they're keeping it low. Sadr's criticism of the Badr folk is partially nationalist... he keeps pointing to Iranian connections, and he's anti-Persian. So the question is, will the Iranians intervene to support their boys? Not likely right now... Or at least, they won't intervene overtly. If the Americans are out, the odds increase. Most likely, they'll be meddlers.

Another wild card is Saudi Arabia, with its own oppressed Shiite minority just across the border. And you were wondering why they were building a wall? Sadr is becoming the leader of the Shiite Arabs... of which there are a majority in the oil producing areas of Saudi Arabia. If the Mahdi and Sadr get much bigger, it may spill over into unrest and insurrection in Saudi territory. What do the Saudi's do? Sadr is bad news for them. Badr, with its Iranian influence may be worse news. Allawi?

Yep. Shialand is a pressure cooker just waiting to blow. And the wrong move can make it explode.

Suppose that the USA decisively gets behind the Mahdi Army? Result. The Badr Brigades and Allawites go for the gusto and civil war breaks out.

Suppose the USA decisively gets behind Badr? Result, Badr goes for the Mahdi army, and the Allawites sell to the highest bidder. Civil war breaks out.

Suppose the USA picks one or the other, and the tribes rise up in revolt.

Suppose that the USA and the Saudi's line up behind Allawi. Does Allawi overcome his weakness by striking first and striking hard? Do Sadr or Badr, or both, go after him?

It seems a little odd to me that we can identify strategic defeat in Iraq, but cannot identify criteria for victory.

If "X" constitutes strategic defeat (e.g., X could be "Iranian dominated government in Iraq"), then presumably some version of "not X" will constitute a criterion for victory. Agreed the "not-Iranian dominated government in Iraq" encompasses too many possibilities. But we can go on winnowing the possibilities - and assuming we can evaluate US national interest - we can come up with the answer. E.g., among the possibilities are "3 independent states emerge out of old Iraq" - is this in the national interest?

Finally, we don't have to ask the Bush admin. to define this, we can't rely on them anyway. What is our vision?

The objectives have been stated:

1 - Turn Iraq into an ally against terror

2 - Prevent the US' worst enemies in the war against terror from gaining control of Iraq's resources.  These resources include not only oil, but transit lanes from Iran or Turkey to Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, regional influence and a position on the Persian gulf containing oil installations and close to other countries' oil installations.

Objective 1 failed when the US couldn't buy Allawi or Chalabi a seat in government.  And the US tried very hard to do that.

Objective 2 succeeds if, like now, Iraq is too embroiled in civil war for any of the US' worst enemies to consolidate control over Iraq's resources and the US maintains its military presence.

Some people, especially in the US have such a rose-colored view of US motivations that they think the US is trying to prevent civil war and failing.  That is just not the case.

Larry

I am stunned that after a reasoned start here about strategy, tactics and objectives you dive into suggestions that will take the US into places we should not go on principle. If principle does not get your attention drop back to pragmatism.

The US can advocate processes (e.g., writing a constitution, helding a elections); can suggest policies and even encourage and lean on people to get to a viable results.

The US should absolutely not identfiy countervailing militias; and establish which militias are the official ones to oversee security in US defined regions.

The US cannot possibly advocate that the UN patrol and keep the peace when our military cannot do the same.

The US is not smart enough (pragmatism) nor should we play God (principle).

If the Iraqis are not motivated enough and tough enough to build a nation that controls their tribal society then we are even less able to do either. We cannot wish it so. They have to do the work we are sideline players advocating political process, policy and particpation. Our military can protect our political role but our military should not be asked to force a military solution. They will die to be ultimately unsucessful. I cannot support that waste of our resources. 

There shouldn't be, at this point, any question that our country blundered badlly when we invaded Iraq.  We have caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die.  We have destroyed most of the infrastructure of that country.  We have unleashed civil warfare there.  We may have ended forever the modern civilization in Iraq, leaving it with a brutally repressive sharia based government and citizens with few rights.

Perhaps the best analogy to all of this is the fairy tale about humpty dumpty sitting on a wall?  In any case, the ending of that little rhyme is apt.

Speaking of children's literature:  normally in that literature a horribly bad decision such as we made in invading Iraq is followed by appropriate punishment.  That hasn't yet occurred, but we are not out of the woods on that.  I'm guessing that we face a period of rampant inflation, a drop in our standard of living, and a possible depression.  Those would be appropriate. 

Of course we should fund an Iraq reconstrution fund and $60 billion sounds like a good start on that. Unfortunately, it isn't just our country that screws up for the sake of making a lot of money - other countries do the same, and would do so if they see a pot of gold, like $60 billion, sitting there just waiting for the most venal taker.  I doubt that such a fund would do much for any but the insiders in Iraq.

Hoppy in Sacramento

One of the odder features of the war in Iraq is that it is totally unclear what George Bush thinks the goal is. There seems to be many groups or advisors or Cheney and Rumsfeld all of whom have a goal but what is Bush's goal or what was it?

One of the main points of Supreme Command by Eliot Cohen is that only the elected leader of a nation can really have the final say about the goal of war. War is ultimately about achieving some defined political goal. Military commanders can provide strategic and tactical means but not the political goal. Bush has been so vague and so out of command it is no doubt that the war in Iraq has been such a disaster.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

So why are we surprised Iraq turned out as it did?

Who is surprised, except the brave "yellow-ribbon-on-the-car crowd" After all, they'e done THEIR duty, haven't they? They've gone shopping...and to DisneyLand.

Jan Knaus

Well, speaking as an average citizen who is compelled to "stand and wait" and living my life of habits of the heart and master myths... Let me just say how impressed I am with the diligence, the insight, the perspicacity, breadth of vision and wisdom of the nation's elite.

What's next? Walking and chewing gum at the same time? Hey, let's not get ahead of yourselves. It's crawl, then walk, then on to other stuff. It's not crawl then pilot fighter jets.

I seem to recall that the great plebian unwashed saw no constructive purpose to war upon Iraq and were not in favour of it at the outset. They were only swayed by the hysterical confabulations of that elite, combined with media frenzy and abdication of dissenting voices.

If we'd left it up to the common muck, we wouldn't be in it at all.

I guess that's what comes from living an unreflective life.

Good luck with that walking and chewing gum thing. And remember, tomorrow the world, America Uber Alles, thousand year rule, new American century, strategic domination into the future!!!

I dunno about that. I was born in a rural district, in a small town to working class parents. My dad ran a neighborhood garage. I was changing tires when I was eight years old, and pretty much expected to be a mechanic or carpenter when I grew up. I've held a great many jobs involving menial labour, hand skills or factory work. I was lucky enough to get to University. But that doesn't change my roots, my home, my relatives, my friends and family. My brother is a monster truck afficionado and I've gone through a mud bog competition or two with him. I have no idea which is the salad fork or which is the fish fork and I've never been skiing. I watch TV, work on cars and can walk into any redneck bar and feel at home.

Now, I'll cotton that I'm a bit smarter than the average bear. And I got a touch of a mean streak, but the moral upbringing to keep it in check. But you know what? I feel that I'm pretty much an average citizen.

Perhaps that suggests that average people are not the unreflective ineducable shlubs, shambling through life with no more complexity than 'Donuts ...mmmmm.'

Who knows. It's a complicated world, and people are complicated critters.

But I do know that I'm certainly not a member of your social elite.

I suspect that what with my penchant for pointing out their foibles and all, that I would not be welcome.

So I guess I'm an average citizen by default. How's that?

Ellen, I suggest you describe two boxes at the extremes of "informed and reasonably sophisticated discourse" and not the range inbetween. One does not have to be an elite to become reasonably well read on some complex part of the world -- one needs either a decent library or an Amazon account and a little money to buy a few books. One can watch C-Span panels as a means of identifying potentially recommended authors -- or follow up on book reviews. One can hope Moyers or perhaps Frontline will produce something worth following up. Perhaps NPR will interview an author who seems to have something interesting to say. Doing these things does not make one an expert -- or an elite, but it makes one partially capable of laying a critique of policy.

My argument is that many Americans are capable of it, and actually interested in doing such "inform thyself" stuff, but there is little encouragement to do it. I also make the point that we censor or self-censor, by putting certain questions automatically off the table.

Valdron,

You're remarkably stupid, especially if you were addressing that rant to me. Just for the record, I've always thought invading Iraq is wrong - on many levels. None of this is my name. Having lived a substantial portion of my life elsewhere, I've seen the world from the other point of view, and know very well why the world loves to hate Americans. If I look in the mirror, I don't see someone from the American mainstream, I'm part of the American diversity, probably one of those the right-wing would rather not have in the country and so on.

It will not be worthwhile to continue here while you hang around.

Sadly, the world does not see American diversity. Instead, the world sees lockstep exceptionalism. The differences that seem so important to Americans seem like a united front to non-Americans. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to give the President powers to make war that everyone knew he'd abuse. John Kerry while running for President reiterated that he would have voted for the war resolution, even knowing that there were no wmds. Hillary Clinton shows her liberalism by touting a flag burning amendment. John Murtha's radical plan is a staged withdrawal to safer bases from whence they can strike at will.

And you? Your big idea is that failure is not an option, America uber alles, onwards and upwards to victory? Shoot laddy, you're not making a real contribution to the discussion. You're no different. You're just part of the same old same old.

Worse than pathetic since he didn't read any books on leadership or he would not have missed what they all emphasize: get rid of losers. It is his pathology that admitting that any appointees are not working out threatens his brittle control of himself.

Bush never had a goal beyond invading and knocking over Saddam, or at least that is what he told the family biographer in 1999, that if he got the chance to invade he wouldn't "waste it". He did not specify either why he would invade or what he would do afterward.

His vagueness is effectively a power vacuum filled by other agendas, such as that of PNAC guys, Cheney and his executive power dreams, Rumsfeld and his "Army of One" (himself), and, of course, the industries that earn their money in conflict zones.

All Presidents are whipsawed by competing agendas; most notice it happening and try to steer it. Not this former and probably recidivist drunk. (A plausible explanation for the decline in verbal skill since Texas. I would have started drinking if 9/11 happened on my watch.)

Foreign policy is always the affair of the nation's elite.

whose children won't be drafted and don't need "universal service" to pay for a college degree.

"He desparately, *desparately* wants this to come out at least not terrible so he can prove to his father that he isn't a total fuck-up."
This IS the only other motivation I can see. But,,,,,if we see that his father and uncle and grandfather's goals were to take financial advantage of conflicts, then he will try to continue this war so he can show his dad that he can divert more "war money" to his family and friends than anyone else in his family was ever able to do.
If we do not realize that this financial diversion is the guiding principle of the Walker, Bush, etc family, then we can never understand the overall picture of this Bush's presidency.

Ah, go tell it to the Iraqi's. Any Iraqi's.

Bush could care less whether the Sunnis or the Shia "win" in Iraq. He wants a regime that can be controlled by the US, a puppet, who will assure easy access to Iraqi oil and allow US bases to remain in place on Iraqi soil. From these bases the US can launch further efforts at gaining control of mid-east oil in the guise of "fighting terrorism" or bringing them "freedom and democracy". In the end it's all about the PNAC dream of world domination.

My theory is Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a low tax capitalist owned Texas on the Euphrates. That is why the CPA was filled only with loyal, usually incompetent, Republicans. link  Clearly, if Bush's goal was a 'stable Iraq' competence and experience in this foreign land would be far more important than cronyism. Iraq isn't Iowa.

Sell off the assets cheap to the Republican connected groups or corporations, write fat contracts to Republican owned security firms. The RNC would then skim off huge political donations, on and off the books, to bury the Democratic Party for good. End result-one party rule by Republicans.

Oh lets get serious here. The Iraqi war was the idea, invention and production of a self annointed foreign policy elite. Their elite status is not open to question, not with their revolving door relationships with think tanks, diplomacy, the defense industry and international intrigue.

And what have they produced? A half baked holocaust.

Which, as it turns out, is pretty typical of elites, going by the historical record.

The elites that you refer to all too often can't be bothered to invest the time or energy into the study or understanding of foreign cultures.

Instead, their focus is invariably themselves and each other.

As was said of Paul Bremer 'What he knew about Washington would fill a barrel, what he knew about Iraq wouldn't fill a thimble.'

The trouble with being an elite, of course, is that you know you're an elite, and you know that you and your other elite matter. Masters of the Universe and all that.

Secondary things, like the realities of life or politics overseas are irrelevant. Masters of the Universe rule, they 'make' reality, they don't study it.

Another charming feature of elites is that the consequences of their actions are often unreal and irrelevant to them. They're insulated from adverse consequences. Thus, world domination becomes a game to them, a sort of version of 'risk' with real lives. It becomes parlour table gamesmanship, in which ideology and politics often trumps real results.

The result is all too often rule by fashion, rule by emotionalism, rule detached from the consequences of its actions, it is rule by people who know nothing but the natures of themselves and their friends and understand that only imperfectly, it is rule without criticism (because who are the plebs and the underlings to challenge the wisdom of Richard Perle & co.).

I'm sorry, but I've had the fortune or misfortune of examining the historical record, watching the doings of the current bunch, and even meeting members of the elite.

I'm unbelievably unimpressed.

Let me explain something to you, Ellen: The World's Tallest Basketball Player is *not* Fifty Six feet tall.

A trite observation perhaps, but it tails into your conception of elites.

Human beings exist in a series of relatively narrow ranges. Height, Weight, Intelligence, Ability.

Once in a while you get a freak who pushes the limits a little bit. So you might get a seven or eight footer playing basketball. Or you may get a thousand pound pathologically obese tub or lard. Or you may get an Einstein.

On the other hand, you don't get fifty footers, or twenty tonners, or IQ 5000. The outliers are simply not that far out, and they tail off rapidly, even as you get further out.

So, the hypothetical intellectual gap between elites and the common muck ain't that great.

As it turns out, population studies have shown that the hypothetical intellectual gap, in many senses, does not exist at all.

Measurable Intelligence is not particularly well connected to heredity, and is not at all confined to social classes. I knew a guy once with a Masters Degree in Mathematics, he was on welfare. There are garbagemen and truck drivers with measured IQ's of 150 or better.

Conversely, I've known some ripe idiots practicing in the field of law, and some pretty inept doctors. Professions will tend to select and reward the smarter eggs, but pretty much everything is designed to allow the median intelligence through, and often success depends on a lot more than measurable intelligence.

Frankly, the evidence for the ingrained superiority of any elite is pretty suspect. Indeed, when you examine the record closely, what we see over and over again is that elites maintain their status by closing off outsiders and promoting and preferring their own, no matter how mediocre in talent or ability. Indeed, the historical record tends to show that talent and ability eventually become wholly irrelevant and in mature elites, all that matters is each other.

My point is that this natural inherent superiority of the elite over the common muck simply does not exist.

They're just shmucks like the rest of us, of variable intelligence, subject to emotionalism, inclined to rest on unexamined mythis.

Where they differ from the rest of us is in a series of inherent psychological dysfunctions. The elites, by nature, are an isolated self absorbed community. By nature they produce and cultivate flaws which lead to bad decision making.

Up to me, I'd put some trust in the common muck. Your elites never had to worry about fighting in a war. They never had to worry about a son going off to war and not coming back. They didn't have to worry about the realities of paying a mortgage, of going to the doctor, they're well aware that actions have consequences and those consequences are not optional or controllable.

I'd say an argument in a redneck bar is about equal, or perhaps a bit better than, a discussion in Richar Perle's drawing room.

So, for what its worth, a little less Lippman, I think, and a little more reality.

the model selected for george walker bush was lyndon johnson. that was the reason for the ranchette. that was the reason for the fake accent.

and that was the reason for the invasion of iraq. a war president is virtually invincible. and, the conduct of a war allows for considerable looting of the treasury. and it allows for dictatorial powers.

it's my appraisal that had lyndon decided not to withdraw from the 1968 race, he would have been re-elected.

that is the rovian interpretation. that is why lbj was selected as the paradigm for the bushit theater.

but why the invasion of iraq? it was a business matter. as paul o'neill revealed, the objective of invading iraq and removing saddam went to the planning stage within hours of the 2001 bushit inaugural.

bush, baker, saddam were business partners. the kuwait invasion was part of a shake-down of the al-sabah family. just as ghwbush had to invade panama to extricate the family money laudering records, gwbush had to invade iraq so as to remove financial records.

that was the objective. having accomplished that, no one really cares what happens to iraq. if the country descends into total extermination of all its denizens, no one in this bushit regime will be troubled.

there is an individual who knows all about this. that is oscar wyatt. anyone know what is happening with his indictment by the doj? he should be quaking in his boots, because under the new laws, he is a prime candidate for a disappearance.

under the microscope, it is a gangster's war camouflaged. as were most of the amerikan wars of the twentieth century.

the more things appear to change, the more they are still the same.

There are degrees also in Hell.

The bloodbath (that has already begun) can get worse or it can get much worse. And it can remain localized or it can spread - for instance to Israel.

In the eyes of the victims, and of the world America aspires to lead, the blood will be as much on the hands of America as on the actual killers'.

Therefore it is not unimportant if a Democrat opposition can argue that they, from 2007 and on, have done what they could to avoid the worst. And it will reflect on America's standing for decades to come if they fail to do so.

An interesting point and worth discussing. What was the relation of the Badr Brigades to Sistani?

That's somewhat unclear to me. Certainly the American invasion and subsequent breakdown of social order elevated Sistani as the highest ranking Shiite cleric. However, Sistani's view seems to have been distinct from Khomeini-ism. Sistani seemed to see the secular and religious spheres as distinct and separate, but with the religious sphere guiding and directing the inferior secular sphere. Thus Sistani would not get his hands dirty in politics, but he would simply pronounce from on high with this or that ruling and this would be the basis of government policies and actions.

Imagine if you will, instead of being a 'President' like Khomeini, Sistani viewed his role as being more of a 'Free Range Supreme Court.'

Sistani's presence and popularity was such that the American occupation had to tread lightly around him. So they were forced to tolerate his relative neutrality.

Indeed, in some ways they thought it worked to their advantage. As long as Sistani occupied the top spot and counseled neutrality, this left them free to go after rabble rousers, like Sadr.

But Sistani actually extending his protection to the Badr Brigades? Hmm. Feel free to say more on the subject. It implies Sistani was assuming far more nuanced anti-american postures.

Interesting.

Small Iowa farmers were far ahead of the "elites" in understanding the importance of China as a trading partner and I was recently given simple insight from another farmer who explained his inability to compete with Brazil.

While elites like the neo-cons obsess about Iraq quite a few of the "common muck" can identify our future competition. Unfortunately, we have a closed system of elites who refuse to listen to anyone.

This is one of the most challenging posts I've ever wanted to rate, and I think it's food for thought about the system. The first four paragraphs, if I'm not compulsive about capitalization, struck me as a new way of comparing political models and presentation. I rate those paragraphs a 4.

When I kept reading, however, I began thinking of the rules for rating based on presentation. There are no personal attacks here. IIRC, Josh did indicate that part of presentation could be the temperance of the language, and "bushit" and "amerika" do not strike me as temperate. The post increasingly goes into unsourced conspiracy theories -- they might be correct, but presenting them as pure opinion, coupled with the rhetoric and general Men-in-black flavor, kept downgrading my opinion.

This is one of those times I wish we had the old 5-point-plus-troll scale, as the old 3 would have been a fair rating. As I say, the beginning struck me as a current 4. The style following, however, kept bringing down my opinion, and the plausibility of the presentation. After a certain amount of reflection, I decided that a post that goes into unsourced tangential conspiracies just doesn't qualify as "good".

I hope this is useful feedback.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Believe me Larry, people like us will be gnashing our teeth for a generation that people like you were shut out of the planning and prosecution of this war. As much as I despised this war from the very beginning, I felt that I could at least trust the Republican Party to do the one thing that they seem to be good at; to prosecute this war as quickly and ruthlessly as possible.

I remember reading with such surprise a few years back about the Nazi regime under Hitler. We all thought, for all these years, that they were this efficient and marvelously well oiled machine. Turns out that they were incredibly incompetent at Administration. In that respect, they parallel this administration remarkably.

I'm a forgiving man but one thing I will never forgive them for is how imcompetent and criminally negligent they were in prosecuting this war.

Apparently, Donald Rumsfeld is still holding out hope that history will prove him right and posterity will be kind to him. I'm sure Hermann Goerring still has a small coterie of fans lurking around somewhere too.

Republicans in Congress-bending over for the Bush Administration since 2001

'food for thought' indeed hc

Republicans in Congress - Bending over for the Bush Administration since 2001

BradtheDad:

My theory is that Bush's goal was and is to turn Iraq into a stable country, period. Democracy would be nice, but not necessary. I'm willing to believe that Bush is sincere when he says he wants this.

Heavens to Mergatron! God knows it might take about a couple of billion 'Freedom of Information' requests (or we entrust our great-grand children to rummage through the declassified documents for us) before we learn our President's true intent, but I don't think that 'turning Iraq into a stable country' was one of them.

I would really strongly suggest that you watch the latest PBS/Frontline installment entitled, The Lost Year in Iraq. After watching it dumfounded, it seems to me that the 'stabilization' of Iraq seemed to be the furthest thing from his mind.

Republicans in Congress - Bending over for the Bush Administration since 2001

Valdron,

As I am a proudly professed 'Valdron' acolyte and I defer to you in all matters such as these, I wouldn't presume to add anything to your profoundly astute analysis of the situation in 'Shialand'.

All I can say is, I had hoped beyond hope that we would be able to salvage something from this bubbling cauldron of incomptence and missed opportunities, anything that would dissuade these forsaken people that we are truly not the 'Great Satan'.

When that great chess piece that is Sistani decided to withdraw from the board in dissillusionment, my heart sank like a stone.

I knew then that we were fucked.

The words "trust" and the "Republican party" do not belong in the same senetence.

Tom

Yeah, that's pretty much what it says in the Project for a New American Century paper regarding Iraq. It was signed by Dick Cheney. Everyone knows Iraq was Cheney's idea, not Bush's.

PNAC's position on Iraq was pretty clear. Overthrow Saddam. Build bases in Iraq. The bases would make it easier for the US to protect its interests in the region, also known as oil.

I've come to the conclusion Iraq is lost because of one simple fact.

Who will be the first to disarm themselves in Iraq?

Prime Minister al-Maliki could be remembered in Iraqi history as a true leader and a patriot if he would ask his militia to disarm and lead the way for the others. Instead he talks a good game and declares the militias must disarm. He's probably even given Bush a dreaded timetable for doing so. But instead of words all he really needs is action. But there has been none and there won't be. Because no one wants to be the first.

Yeah but I think that's more about Bush rationalizing his "decision" than anything. The Decider must rationalize.

I don't think Bush really cared that much about the first gulf war, Cheney did.

The assisination attempt may have bugged him. And his statements about Saddam trying to kill his father were directed toward people who think, "I would be pissed too if he tried to kill my daddy."

Whether "people" can sort out their situations themselves or not depends very much on the situations.

Iraq, given only its recent history, doesn't really be a place where this can be expected. I.e. the history of Sunni de facto oppression of Kurds and Shiites, the history of the war with Iran, the history of the bloody aftermath of the U.S. stimulated Shiite uprising [writing stimulated since I don't dare to write instigated, although that's what I believe to be true]. On top of this come the fragile and now disappeared sense of common nationality and the economic realities of where in the country oil can be drilled, piped, refined, and shipped.

What will happen if the U.S. forces just retreat? Well, no-one can know for sure, but the risk that the situation for the civilians only get even worse, and the risk that the neighboring countries try to expand their territory, are worth to take quite seriously.

I've hoped for an American re-deployment to Kurdistan, for instance to Kirkuk, where the Turkmen minority may be considered important to protect from oppression under the Kurds. In my view that would give both the U.S. the most value for its money, and be an alternative that would serve other interests by disencouraging powers considering invasions.

From oppression and genocide - why not?

The Turks (as in the government in Ankara) are also important allies in the region, and the Kurds know that too.

It's true that the U.S. Human Rights record was somewhat better before the Iraq adventure, ...but it can still get worse.

Springtime for Hitler, and Germany...



If we had only understood GWB was a nightmare of Mel Brooks...
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Also if the Kurds really would feel like making Ankara pissing mad, which I honestly doubt, their American friends ought to protect them from such a misstep.

Of course I can be wrong, but I can't see the genocide (or even the scaring away) of the Turkmens to be a vital national interest of the Kurds, but I can see its hinderance being an interest for the Coalition of the Willing with great impact on our standing in the world and on the legacy of our heads of governments. As you correctly point out, the Turkmens have nowhere in Iraq to be dislocated to, and since they as a rule do not speak Turkish, in case they manage to escape, they are at least as likely to ask for asylum in Western Europe.

One million new asylym seekers, if they survive.

Guess if the receiving populations would wish them welcome!

Also if the Kurds really would feel like making Ankara pissing mad, which I honestly doubt,

You have to realize that approximately 1/4 of the population of Turkey is Kurdish. There's also a major population of Kurds in Iran. Both of these populations occupy contiguous territory bordering on each other and bordering on Iraq's Kurdistan. There is also a minor population of Kurds in Syria which borders upon Turkey but not Iraq.

The thing with the various Kurdish populations is that historically they have been fluid across national borders. Thus tribes, clans and families have members on both sides of borders and move back and forth freely.

Indeed, populations of kurds have moved across borders to escape pogroms or incite or participate in uprisings against one or another nation.

For instance, in the 1970's, Iranian Kurds were active in fighting in Iraq and shipping arms and money to Iraqi Kurds. Then in the early eighties, Iraqi Kurds found themselves fleeing across the border to Turkey to escape Saddam Hussein's wrath. Then in the 90's, during the period of Turkish Kurdish insurgency, many Turkish Kurds fled to Iraq.

Turkey is highly sensitive to Kurdish insurgencies and agitation, it has only recently fought a several year insurgency which left at a minimum, over 40,000 dead. For Turks to acknowledge or grant concessions to Kurds would, in their view, invite ultimate civil war and the potential partition of their country.

In this respect, the goings ons in Iraq give them no comfort at all. Instead of a model where a Kurdish minority finds a balanced existence in a federal structure, the perception of the Turks is that the Iraqi Kurds are literally dismantling and purging the Iraqi state, cleansing their borderlands. Instead of balance, the Kurds perception is that they drive towards independence and the dissolution of Iraq.

In a backhanded way, this is bad for Turkish Kurds because it confirms the Turkish hard liners perspective that you cannot give the Kurds an inch. Any compromise or concession simply opens the door to the next, a road that leads towards a renewed insurgency, outright civil war, or partition.

All of this is disturbing enough for the Turks. But this is accompanied by a renewal of the insurgency, and the basing of that insurgency out of Iraq.

From the Kurds point of view, they have little or no incentive to stop. Their brother, their cousins lay just across the border on land identical to their own, and but for an arbitrary line, they are oppressed.

For many Kurds it is all but unfathomable that an Independent Kurdistan would not seek the liberation of Kurdish areas of Iran, Syria and Turkey. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. Any suggestion that they shouldn't is faint bleatings from far away.

The result is that the Iraqi Kurds, overtly or passively are supporting the renewal of the insurgency in Turkey, and by and large the population supports it. No Kurdish politician will survive a week saying that Turkish Kurds should be cut loose and left on their own.

The result has been a series of raids into Turkey from Iraq.

And the result has been a series of Turkish reprisals, including shelling or bombing into Iraq and at least some ground raids. It is a bad situation.

It is noteable that the situation has reached a point where Iran has granted Turkey the right to conduct anti-terrorist operations on Iranian soil.

Considering the relations between the two countries the last four centuries, this is astonishing.

It is also a sign of how perilous the situation is, and how dangerous it is for the US to be involved up there.

The United States cannot control the Iraqi Kurds, which means that the Kurds may well draw them into a direct confrontation or conflict with Turkey.

If the United States acts to restrain the Kurds, the Kurds will turn on them. If the US supports the Kurds, then the US is committed to supporting at least a low level and potentially intense and problematic conflict with Turkey.

Worse, American support of Kurds in a conflict with Turkey could result in a Turko-Iranian entente or alliance which could have appalling consequences. Among other features, this alliance would consolidate with Syria and Lebanon. Iran has no border with Syria, but Turkey has a common border with both. This immensely improves the Iranian and Turkish strategic positions and immeasurably weakens America.

And of course, on the southern side, there's a whole different set of Shiite problems. But we're not talking about that.

their American friends ought to protect them from such a misstep.

Potentially, this is one of those occasions where the tail winds up wagging the dog, where the agitation or action of a small power, like Serbia, winds up dragging its patron Russia, into a broader conflict it had no interest in.

These things do happen. The results are never good.

Of course I can be wrong, but I can't see the genocide (or even the scaring away) of the Turkmens to be a vital national interest of the Kurds,

Even if genocide or cleansing is the key to gaining control of oil rich areas?

but I can see its hinderance being an interest for the Coalition of the Willing with great impact on our standing in the world and on the legacy of our heads of governments.

One problem or risk, admittedly, among many.

As you correctly point out, the Turkmens have nowhere in Iraq to be dislocated to, and since they as a rule do not speak Turkish, in case they manage to escape, they are at least as likely to ask for asylum in Western Europe.

One million new asylym seekers, if they survive.

Guess if the receiving populations would wish them welcome!

There are already a million and a half refugees displaced in Iraq. Approximately 700,000 of them have displaced to Syria and Jordan. Iraq refugees now constitute 10% of the population of Jordan, and a large population in Syria. Neither country has the resources nor the economic wherewithal to support or absorb this refugee population. This may be a serious destabilizer for these two countries.

A refugee wave of Turkmen or Assyrians probably is not a good thing.