Ilan Goldenberg notes that while the US elections may get a bit nasty, provincial elections in Iraq could actually touch off a new round of bloodshed. His analysis seems smart, but I also agree with Eric Martin that it seems that not holding the elections could also touch of a new round of bloodshed -- long story short, it's just the case that the underlying tensions in Iraq continue to make it the case that we need to be looking for the exits, not devising new rationales for an indefinite presence.
« Venn Diagram of the Day | Main | Clinton Self-Financing »
A Different Kind of Election Analysis
06 Feb 2008 04:22 pm
Comments (10)
Is Yglesias saying that heading for the exits won't touch off a new round of bloodshed?
I think what he's saying is that stay or go, the outcome will be remarkably similar - if tragic. We just don't have a magic bullet or pony producer in our holster.
The difference is, by staying we continue to bleed precious and limited resources as we squander other opportunities and recklessly neglect other responsibilities.
Such as, say, Afghanistan. You know, Osama, al-Qaeda, all that stuff.
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but a question for Matt:
When can we expect more of that wonderful Table?
Diplomatic relations between chipmunks and octopi have never been worse than they are right now.
One thing or another has been touching off another round of bloodshed in Iraq for about six thousand years. Ditto for Afghanistan. The difference is that until about fifty years ago no one much gave a damn but now we do, and for a variety of reasons. It will take at least another fifty years to variously address the several issues in these places that have become critical for us, and I for one hope we don't try to do that by remote control.
The reason we have armed forces is to fight our enemies and safeguard our vital interests. If we don't have enough, we need to get more. No matter how much everyone would prefer it, this is not going to be done with satellites and cruise missiles. We know, because that's what we tried for twelve years before 2003, and no one was pleased with the results but the Oil for Fraud principals.
We know, because that's what we tried for twelve years before 2003, and no one was pleased with the results but the Oil for Fraud principals.
Speak for yourself, Robert. Despite the insane propaganda, the Oil-for-Food program was, while not entirely effective, reasonably effective, and the waste and fraud involved was less than the massive waste and fraud involved in any aspect of the Iraq invasion.
From 1991-2003, Iraq was better off than it is now (not well off, but better than the current hellish 2005-level conditions produced by the failed surge), America was better off and the world was better off. The invasion of Iraq was contrary to America's interests in the world, and today, only America-haters want America to stay in Iraq and fight Iraqis, instead of going somewhere else to fight America's enemies.
According to the latest and best numbers, somewhere between 150,000 and 210,000 Iraqis have been killed in the violence since 2003, most of them by our enemies. There is a government there that's more legitimate than any in the region besides Israel and Turkey, moreover one that's reasonably pro-Western, not working on wmd's, and not trying to dominate its neighbors (and the regions oil reserves).
According to UNICEF, the sanctions regime enforced as an act of war to the tune of tens of thousands of deployed troops and tens of billions of dollars per year, killed perhaps a million of the most vulnerable Iraqis, about half of them children. The regime that had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and perhaps a million Iranians and Kuwaitis, was fully capable of carrying on in the same vein as the sanctions collapsed, a process that would have accelerated if we had surrendered to Saddam in 2003.
Americans who don't know the history, and/or who are unconcerned about vital US interests in the region, the suffering of the Iraqis, or the sacrifice of our military during the '91-'03 period, may continue to be pleased with the results of our Iraq policy during that period. Count me, and millions of other voters, out.
According to the latest and best numbers, somewhere between 150,000 and 210,000 Iraqis have been killed in the violence since 2003, most of them by our enemies.
Nearly all the violence in Iraq has been carried out by Iraqis. It's interesting and enlightening that you think the Iraqis are "our enemies."
There is a government there that's more legitimate than any in the region besides Israel and Turkey,
Iraq has no functioning government - that's why the surge failed, because it made the government less, not more, functional - so you must have a weird definition of "legitimacy."
So you admit that the purpose of our being in Iraq is to kill Iraqis (since they are "our enemies") and you're unaware that Iraq has no government. No wonder you don't realize that Iraq is currently worse off than under Saddam (who, of course, had not been developing WMDs for years when we invaded, and posed no threat whatsoever to America's interests post-1991); your idea of the current Iraq is a happy fun ponyland that bears no resemblance to the reality of the failed surge, nor to the selling-out of America's vital interests that the invasion represented.
MA:
--People who set off car bombs in crowded marketplaces are our enemies. They are also the enemies of Iraqis, and civilized people everywhere no matter where they come from. Seems pretty obvious to me. I not only don't think all Iraqis are our enemies, I think a lot of them are our allies, and deserve to be treated as such.
--Iraq's government functions better than plenty of current General Assembly members, if not in terms of jumping through hoops for Americans with little knowledge of or empathy for the difficulty of their tasks. I read posts here from Democrats who can't even "reconcile" with members of their own party on Iraq policy, yet demand it immediately from Iraqis who lived through the systematic destruction of their society, and in some areas genocide, at the hands of the despotism we overthrew. Let 'em eat sand, right?
--you don't have your facts straight on Iraq's circumstances now relative to what they were under Saddam, its wmd policy and status, or the various other kinds of threats that regime posed. I'd recommend the Duelfer Report, for starters. Your idea that Ba'athist Iraq was some kind of non-threatening happy fun ponyland bears no resemblance to reality of any kind.
Comments closed February 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
while the US elections may get a bit nasty, provincial elections in Iraq could actually touch off a new round of bloodshed.
Between Ron Paul supporters and Mike "the second amendment is as important as the first amendment is to preserving our freedom" Huckabee supporters, we may not be far behind.
Posted by SoCalJustice | February 6, 2008 4:41 PM