Why We Fight

If you read this Washington Post account of fighting in southern Iraq a couple of things become clear. One is that the United States is deeply involved:

U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.

The other is that nobody in U.S. policymaking circles really thinks we have a dog in this fight:

The U.S. officials, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said that they believe Iran has provided assistance in the past to all three groups -- the Mahdi Army; the Badr Organization of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Iraq's largest Shiite party; and forces loyal to the Fadhila Party, which holds the Basra governor's seat. But the officials see the current conflict as a purely internal Iraqi dispute.

Some officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing "the first salvo in upcoming elections," the administration official said.

Basically, we have our troops, risking their lives and killing people and all for the sake of helping some Iranian-backed militia groups fight some other Iranian-backed militia groups and, yes, the groups we're supporting initiated this battle without clearing it with us. But we need to back them, because George W. Bush has staked his precious credibility on his alliance with Nouri al-Maliki, so if Maliki says American blood and treasure will be expended fighting the Mahdi Army, then so it shall be expended.

Alternatively we could just leave and let this people sort out their own problems.

Comments

"The other is that nobody in U.S. policymaking circles really thinks we have a dog in this fight"

The elected Iraqi government is our dog in this fight. We are backing them up in trying to establish control over areas contested by armed gangs. A government needs to have a monopoly on the use of force; it can't have armed gangs extorting from its citizens and stealing its property. The sooner the Iraqi government is capable of establishing control over its territory, the sooner most American troops can withdraw, without the country turning into a failed state. Why is this so hard for Matt to understand?

Posted by Juan | March 28, 2008 9:50 AM

Juan,

Maybe because your statement has no basis in reality, you baby killing monster.

Die painfully in a fire.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 9:56 AM

Seems to me like Basra has only become "contested" over the last few days - it was pretty well under Sadr's control.

Maliki seems to have his own militia, just like Sadr. The question is why we would prefer Maliki at all...

Posted by berger | March 28, 2008 9:58 AM

Juan,
What if the 'elected' government of Iraq is allied to America's strategic rival in the region - Iran.

I mean stability in the service of America's enemies? That's the policy?

Posted by Northern Observer | March 28, 2008 10:00 AM

Juan,

Did you not read Matt's post? We are essentially aiding Maliki to acheive through force what he and his party cannot acheive through political means because he does not have the popular support of the people. We are essentially backing a soon-to-be dictator under the guise of "protecting the Iraqi people" from a militia and political party that they support more than Maliki's "government." A bit more complicated than your "good guy/bad guy" scenerio. If we can't deal with the reality, how are we ever going to be able to extricate ourselves from this country?

Posted by Michael | March 28, 2008 10:06 AM

Actually, it was someone blowing up the oil pipeline at Basra that pissed Dick Cheney off.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:07 AM

Tet's a mean bitch and then you leave.

Posted by steve duncan | March 28, 2008 10:12 AM

At least now, we know the purpose of Dick Cheney's trip to Iraq.

"Spreading Democracy" is actually a very comical phrase, if you know what's going on. Although it makes battle-hardened military officers turn pale.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:18 AM

... and, yes, the groups we're supporting initiated this battle without clearing it with us.

Um... maybe. On the other hand, this is all occurring at a time when the Bush administration is negotiating the terms for an enduring US presence in the country. And US military leaders in Iraq have already used this crisis to argue that troop drawdowns are going to have to be deferred.

So maybe the administration concluded that the surge was working just a bit too well? With Sadr sticking to his truce and violence down, and the "Sons of Iraq" growing more and more accustomed to the US dole, the case for the US military staying in Iraq forever was starting to vanish. Perhaps someone decided it was time to provoke Sadr's people and draw him out? I also wonder whether the point here was never to defeat the Sadrists in battle, but simply to draw them into battle where they are fighting as an illegal, rogue militia. This might provide a legal pretext for disqualifying Sadrist parties or lists from the upcoming elections.

Meanwhile, I continue to be amused by the US propaganda use of the all-purpose Iranian bogeyman for every move that is made in Iraq. If the US announced a contract for ten more Burger Kings at US military bases in Iraq, I swear the announcement would be preceded by a day with a press release claiming the Quds force is stealing our cheeseburgers.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 28, 2008 10:19 AM

About six? months ago -- when we saw the Democratic Congress roll over on the matter of Bush's surge, I speculated that the Israel Lobby had cut a deal with Bush and Cheney.

That the Israel Lobby would let Bush and Cheney have the resources needed to set up Big Oil's puppet government in Iraq.

But , in exchange, the Israel Lobby wanted US interdiction of IRAN's nuclear program to be made a Fait Accompli. That, irregardless of the huge cost in American lives and treasure, the Lobby wanted Bush to attack IRAN before his Administration ends.

If, by some chance, Hillary becomes President then she's given enormous political cover to deal with the war Bush's handed her.

If Obama becomes President, then he's coerced into following the Lobby's agenda -- or else facing massive political attacks for being the incompetent who lost the war.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:29 AM

The elected Iraqi government is our dog in this fight. We are backing them up in trying to establish control over areas contested by armed gangs. A government needs to have a monopoly on the use of force;

Juan, you silly man, how is our doing their fighting for them supposed to give them a monopoly on the use of force? Or does your exit strategy involve signing over a couple of US infantry divisions lock, stock and barrel to the Iraqi government?

Posted by ajay | March 28, 2008 10:36 AM

"or else facing massive political attacks for being the incompetent who lost the war."
Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:29 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don, that script has been written, edited and polished for publication already. This monstrosity of a war and the ultimate failure to achieve the constantly changing stated goals will be pinned on the Democratic Party. Done deal. Republicans are licking their chops anticipating the 2010 midterms and the 2012 general. Norquist is currently picking out airports and bridges to put Bush's name on.

Posted by steve duncan | March 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Dan, you are right! I hadn't thought of it before, but Ahmenadejad is our McBurglar. Drat him - next he'll attempt to swipe our fries.

A particularly egregious McCainian stooge in this respect is Michael Ware at CNN. He's tying himself in knots to make the reality - that one of the most telling Sadrist political points against Maliki and SCIRI is that they are "Iranian" - conform to Bush country reality - that Sadr is Iranian backed. It is lying on an awesome scale. Although nothing, of course, compared to the idea that Iran is behind Al Qaeda.

Of course, when Bush pals around with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for supplying the manpower and arms that have killed the majority of the 4,000 American dead, it does leave a gaping propaganda hole that has to be filled somehow. Otherwise, it appears that our fearless Caesar is not only blind to American deaths, but revels in rubbing elbows with their killers.

Posted by roger | March 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Clarification:

"If, by some chance, Hillary becomes President" should read

"If, by some chance, the Israel Lobby's puppet Hillary becomes President"

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:40 AM

The elected Iraqi government is our dog in this fight. We are backing them up in trying to establish control over areas contested by armed gangs. A government needs to have a monopoly on the use of force; it can't have armed gangs extorting from its citizens and stealing its property. The sooner the Iraqi government is capable of establishing control over its territory, the sooner most American troops can withdraw, without the country turning into a failed state.

The problem with this argument is that the Iraqi government is ignoring the other armed militias that control Basra - ISCI, Fadhila, Dawa, etc.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 10:41 AM

Juan,
Maybe because your statement has no basis in reality, you baby killing monster.
Die painfully in a fire.
Posted by LarryM

Juan makes sense and submits a civil post. LarryM responds like the traitorous cunthead he is.

We help the Iraqi gov get control over armed gangs of thugs. That should allow final decision on oil revenue allocations and expand Iraqi gov't authority over most the country. THEN the Americans can mostly go to the bases, train up the Iraqi military to do the combat, naval, and air force jobs we now do. Then we will have very few casualties and perhaps a good hundred year relationship with Iraqis...

Posted by chris ford | March 28, 2008 10:43 AM

"....like the traitorous cunthead he is...."
Posted by chris ford | March 28, 2008 10:43 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris, have any non-misogynistic slam-adjectives in your quiver? You know, in the interest of civility.

Posted by steve duncan | March 28, 2008 10:53 AM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Then we will have very few casualties and perhaps a good hundred year relationship with Iraqis..."
-----------
600,000 Iraqi children died from the sanctions. Hundreds of thousands more civilians have died from violence and lawlessness spawned by the 2002 invasion.

But the Iraqi people will let all that roll over them like a cool summer breeze.

Yeah, right.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:55 AM

chris,

As usual, insults from you only make me believe more firmly in the justice of my cause, you insane warmonger. I pray to God every night for your painful death, followed by an eternity of suffering in the fires of hell.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 10:58 AM

I predict one of two things will happen:
a) Maliki will become just as brutal a dictator as Saddam Hussein or
b) Maliki will have his nuts cut off one month after the US military withdraws

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:59 AM

I predict one of two things will happen:
a) Maliki will become just as brutal a dictator as Saddam Hussein or
b) Maliki will have his nuts cut off one month after the US military withdraws

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 10:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or both, with your time frame slightly altered.

Posted by steve duncan | March 28, 2008 11:03 AM

I believe our soldiers are not getting paid enough to make democrats out of the Iraqis and Afghans. After a tour of duty, each soldier that has come under fire should be awarded 360 acres of sand in Iraq, with water and electricity piped in. Injured soldiers get twice that. McCain is right, if you give us a hundred years, we are bound to find some good democrats over there - or train them to be that. However, if the coming recession in the U.S. is too deep, the American people are liable to get greedy and want to keep their money. Then, no Nirvana for the Iraqis and Afghanis.

Posted by A. Halsey | March 28, 2008 11:09 AM

I may regret affording Juan the courtesy of good-faith argument, but so be it.

The elected Iraqi government is our dog in this fight. We are backing them up in trying to establish control over areas contested by armed gangs.

But the Iraqi government is itself composed of groups who, not very long ago, were themselves "armed gangs" -- armed and trained, moreover, by Iran, a foreign power hostile to ourselves. Just because one coalition of armed gangs managed to secure a parliamentary majority doesn't make them worth "backing up" with American lives, weapons, resources and diplomatic prestige.

A government needs to have a monopoly on the use of force; it can't have armed gangs extorting from its citizens and stealing its property.

But if a government can't secure that monopoly without the massive intervention of foreign armed forces, then what does that say about its legitimacy? I realize state-consolidation can be a messy, bloody business, and if it's going to happen in cases like this, one group has to conquer all the others, but again: Why must we go all out to ensure it's this particular group? Again, no matter how clean and good and fair were the elections (and that's a separate issue worth debating), it doesn't automatically make the winners good people worth shackling ourselves to. Bad people win elections all the time.

The sooner the Iraqi government is capable of establishing control over its territory, the sooner most American troops can withdraw, without the country turning into a failed state.

I realize you say "most", not "all", but you don't seem to appreciate the implications of that distinction. The current US administration wants permanent military bases in Iraq. Sadr (not alone among Iraqi notables) is likely to oppose this. So US backing for the current governing coalition appears to all the world as just what it is: an attempt to secure the victory of the group that will let the US have the bases it wants (as well as other favorable policy considerations which I won't go into here).

This is an illegitimate goal for the U.S. to be pursuing by such means. You want to negotiate with a duly elected, stable, fully sovereign government for basing rights and other considerations, that's one thing (though why the world's only superpower really needs yet more foreign bases is debatable). But to back up a particular faction in an undecided civil conflict *in order* to secure those rights and considerations? That's illegitimate.

This view of the US enterprise in Iraq as one of a noble fellow nation rescuing a plucky young democracy from bandits is unconvincing. Our guys are bandits, too. And it's not rescue -- it's extortion.

And not to mention, it's extortion which hurts us terribly -- in human and material losses and in loss of diplomatic and military prestige.

Those are the two reasons it needs to end -- it's an ignoble enterprise and it's hurting us.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 11:14 AM

Hey Don, why don't you go play for some other team? I'm sure there are plenty of places on the internet where people would love to hear your theories about the nefarious plans of the Jews-oh sorry, Israel Lobby-to take over the country. This kind of crap is just getting in the way of a sensible argument.

Posted by Gabe | March 28, 2008 11:16 AM

We are fighting in Baghdad not Basra.

The uprising in Basra occurred where the British retreated.

Stay the course.

Posted by brett | March 28, 2008 11:16 AM

I may regret affording Juan the courtesy of good-faith argument, but so be it.

The elected Iraqi government is our dog in this fight. We are backing them up in trying to establish control over areas contested by armed gangs.

But the Iraqi government is itself composed of groups who, not very long ago, were themselves "armed gangs" -- armed and trained, moreover, by Iran, a foreign power hostile to ourselves. Just because one coalition of armed gangs managed to secure a parliamentary majority doesn't make them worth "backing up" with American lives, weapons, resources and diplomatic prestige.

A government needs to have a monopoly on the use of force; it can't have armed gangs extorting from its citizens and stealing its property.

But if a government can't secure that monopoly without the massive intervention of foreign armed forces, then what does that say about its legitimacy? I realize state-consolidation can be a messy, bloody business, and if it's going to happen in cases like this, one group has to conquer all the others, but again: Why must we go all out to ensure it's this particular group? Again, no matter how clean and good and fair were the elections (and that's a separate issue worth debating), it doesn't automatically make the winners good people worth shackling ourselves to. Bad people win elections all the time.

The sooner the Iraqi government is capable of establishing control over its territory, the sooner most American troops can withdraw, without the country turning into a failed state.

I realize you say "most", not "all", but you don't seem to appreciate the implications of that distinction. The current US administration wants permanent military bases in Iraq. Sadr (not alone among Iraqi notables) is likely to oppose this. So US backing for the current governing coalition appears to all the world as just what it is: an attempt to secure the victory of the group that will let the US have the bases it wants (as well as other favorable policy considerations which I won't go into here).

This is an illegitimate goal for the U.S. to be pursuing by such means. You want to negotiate with a duly elected, stable, fully sovereign government for basing rights and other considerations, that's one thing (though why the world's only superpower really needs yet more foreign bases is debatable). But to back up a particular faction in an undecided civil conflict *in order* to secure those rights and considerations? That's illegitimate.

This view of the US enterprise in Iraq as one of a noble fellow nation rescuing a plucky young democracy from bandits is unconvincing. Our guys are bandits, too. And it's not rescue -- it's extortion.

And not to mention, it's extortion which hurts us terribly -- in human and material losses and in loss of diplomatic and military prestige.

Those are the two reasons it needs to end -- it's an ignoble enterprise and it's hurting us.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 11:17 AM

Sorry for the double-post.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM

Ryan,

"I may regret affording Juan the courtesy of good-faith argument, but so be it."

Do you really consider that statement of yours to be courteous?

"But the Iraqi government is itself composed of groups who, not very long ago, were themselves "armed gangs""

Regardless of whether some of its recruits may have been former militia members, the Iraqi Army is the legitimate arm of Iraq's elected government. The armed gangs aren't. Rule of law requires a government to have a monopoly on the use of force. If Sadrists don't like the policies of the government, they have the right to try to form a new coalition in the legislature to oppose it, or, failing that, to campaign against it in the next elections. They don't have the right to wander the streets with RPGs and rifles, stealing Iraqi oil and extorting from their fellow citizens.

"I realize you say "most", not "all", but you don't seem to appreciate the implications of that distinction."

I appreciate the implications just fine. The Iraqi government will most likely want a long-term American military presence as a security guarantee against neighboring states and to ensure stability -- just like Kuwait and Qatar are happy to host American bases.

"This view of the US enterprise in Iraq as one of a noble fellow nation rescuing a plucky young democracy from bandits is unconvincing. Our guys are bandits, too. And it's not rescue -- it's extortion."

"Our guys" is the Iraqi government. That government was formed from a legislature that was freely elected by Iraqis in UN-monitored elections. There's no equivalence between the army operating under the command of that elected government and armed street gangs acting under the command of an unelected rabble rouser. To suggest otherwise is... unconvincing.

Posted by Juan | March 28, 2008 11:42 AM

Re Gabe's comment "Hey Don, why don't you go play for some other team? I'm sure there are plenty of places on the internet where people would love to hear your theories about the nefarious plans of the Jews-oh sorry, Israel Lobby-to take over the country. This kind of crap is just getting in the way of a sensible argument. "
----------------
1) A FEW FACTS for Ignorant Gabe.

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said she thought the superdelegates should follow the expressed will of the Democratic grassroots --as shown in the primaries -- she was Slammed by a letter from 20 wealthy Hillary backers. Who argued that the Superdelegates had the RIGHT to set aside the Primaries and coronate their girl Hillary.

2) LOOK at the $23 Million plus dumped into US politics by those people since 1999:
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=341

Note that about HALF of that $23 Million has been kicked in by ONE guy alone --ISRAELI Billionaire Haim Saban.

3) So what does Saban want for his money? Well, in his own words: "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."
Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html?ei=5088&en=9eb8c2a72c2b5e7d&ex=1252123200&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position

4) You may recall that back in 2002, Haim Saban's little buttboy Kenneth Pollack was telling us that Saddam was trying to build nukes, was probably close to success, and that we needed to do something RIGHT NOW. Check out Pollack's bestselling book "The Threatening Storm". Pollack gets his paycheck from Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy.

In 2002, Ariel Sharon backstopped Pollack's message by sending Bibi Nathanyahu over to tell us the same.

Ariel Sharon also had his spokemans, Ra'anan Gissin, and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres pound home the same message. Strange kind of ally -- to lie us into a disasterous war. But maybe I'm wrong -- has Mossad found Saddam's nukes yet?

See http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_experience_to_pander.php#comment-1553783

5) About a year ago, in an interview with Israel's Haaretz, Saban laid out the next move in US foreign policy:
a) It is essential that Iran's nuclear program be destroyed
b) Adminenajab is "Hitler"
c) George Bush has been the best friend Israel has had but has no political capital left
d)Whereas Hillary will be "good for Israel" and will deal with Iran
e) President Bill Clinton used to fetch Haim soft drinks when Haim slept in the White House
See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

6) My son had to register for the draft a few months ago, Gabe. So why don't you go fuck yourself.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 11:55 AM

Well that was incoherent. I'm registered for the draft too. Don't see how that gives you some kind of moral authority.

I really have no idea what your point is though. People with interests does not a conspiracy make. Of course there are some people out there that have crazy views on Iran. I just don't think they are all part of some secret and powerful conspiracy to get Clinton elected. I'm an Obama supporter by the way. You'll have to excuse me for doubting your motives when you start telling me about conspiracies led by the "Zionist Lobby." I'm not even sure that qualifies as coded speak.

Posted by Gabe | March 28, 2008 12:16 PM

Do you really consider that statement of yours to be courteous?

No. That was informed, experienced realism. The rest of my post was perfectly courteous, though. Touchy, touchy!

I realize we're getting nowhere so I'll just conclude with a few brief points, that I'm sure will also fall on deaf ears.

First, repeating words like "legitimate" and "freely elected" in connection with the current Iraqi government doesn't make it so. How many Iraqis would agree, I wonder? And in any case it certainly doesn't make that government worthy of direct military support from us. Again, this was a case of bad people winning an election. Fine, recognize them if you must. It doesn't mean we should go to war to protect them.

And:

The Iraqi government will most likely want a long-term American military presence as a security guarantee against neighboring states and to ensure stability -- just like Kuwait and Qatar are happy to host American bases.

You mean the Kuwaiti government that we restored to its thrones? Why yes, it is indeed "happy" to host American bases. And yes, I'm sure the Iraqi government whose hold on power we guarantee and defend with our armed forces will "want" an American military presence.

Note: That was sarcasm. When you extort permanent military bases out of a weakened or fledgling government of questionable legitimacy, promising it a shot at legitimacy in return for surrendering sovereignty over patches of its territory, you're acting dishonorably as a nation. But you, Juan, won't even acknowledge that the U.S. wants those bases -- you frame it as a matter of Iraq wanting them.

As I feared, good-faith argument with you is evidently pointless.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 12:21 PM

Re Don Williams ...

Okay, first, I guess I shouldn't switch from rant mode to serious mode in the same thread, especially on such a contentious issue, but here goes.

(1) People like Mr. Williams who advance an essentially monocausal explanation for our support of Israel (and who extend that explanation more generally into an explanation of our middle eastern policy generally) oversimplify a complex reality. The hegemonic consensus in American politics has plenty of reasons to support Israel as part of our policy of controlling the Middle East and its oil. The American people in general sympathize with Israel for a number of reasons, including cultural affinity and the no longer accurate by historically understandable sense that Israel is an underdog.

(2) But the fact that some people like Mr. Williams take this explanation too far doesn't change the facts that there is a large pro Israel lobby in the United States, that said lobby does exert some degree of influence over our policy regarding Israel, and that said lobby is part of the reason why the bounds of mainstream debate regarding Israel is narrower in the United States than it is in Israel itself. It is stunning that these basic facts are in any measure at all controversial.

From a non-interventionist position this doesn't matter THAT much. Our Middle Eastern policy would most likely be just as hideously immoral even if our position vis a vis Israel was a bit more even handed; it would just take a somewhat different form.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 1:12 PM

From Time.com: "Maliki has also extended his deadline for Basra fighters to lay down their arms by ten days. Originally the deadline was set to expire today. But Iraqi media sources say Mahdi Army fighters are holding large swathes of the city and the battle appears far from over.

Coalition forces are currently providing air and logistical support to Iraqi forces in Basra, but whether or not Iraq would request more substantial ground support in the coming days "would depend on the situation," he confirmed. "

So, here we are. Our dog in the fight has only needed three days to realize that he can't finish the fight he started, so now the U.S. gets to be asked to provide more substantial ground support."

And this is supposed to be seen as good news?
We're being dragged into an intra-Shite dispute, a position our troops shouldn't be asked to die for.

Posted by dj spellchecka | March 28, 2008 1:21 PM

Re Gabe's comment "Well that was incoherent"
--------------
1) Only if you have a reading problem. I showed that the Democratic's Party largest donor --by FAR -- has only one goal: the safety of Israel.

2) Pace LarryM, I've never advanced a monocausal explanation for our support of Israel. I've noted that Big Oil was the major factor in our invasion of Iraq, but that Bush and Cheney saw that they could kneecap any Democratic criticism of that costly (blood and money) imperialism by casting it as defense of Israel.

3) With the added benefit that billionaire supporters of Israel might defect from traditional support of the Democrats to favoring the Republicans --with the resulting destruction of the Democrats and tax cuts for the rich until the cows come home.

4) The malign effect of people like Haim Saban is that they can achieve influence far beyond what they deserve by threating to cast the decisive blow in Republican-Democrat rivalry.

5) A dwarf normally can't command a huge Sumo wrestler. But if Sumo wrestler A is locked in a straining deathstruggle with Sumo wrestler B then Sumo A is more likely at that point to listen to the dwarf if the dwarf approach's A's kneecap casually waving a hammer.

6) Most other power factions in US politics are RESTRAINED by fear of retaliation --even Big Oil is vulnerable to regulations, laws,etc. But if you are a billionaire with money in the bank, you have an independence.

7) I suggest Gabe read the sources I cited. In the Haaratz interview, Haaratz asks an interesting question:

"[Haaretz] Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?

"[Saban] At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."

[Haaretz] Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?

"[Saban] You said it."

8) A few months ago, Haim Saban bought Univision -- the Spanish-speaking network that's the fifth largest US TV Network and which is watched by the Hispanic swing voters of California, Florida, and Texas. Why does Gabe think Saban bought Univision?

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 2:05 PM

spellchecka...yep...and yet another embarrassment for the Bush Admin. who touted just a few days ago that this as a positive sign that the Iraqi govt. forces are all grown-up and ready to stand on their own. Jeez...will they never even learn not to brag until it's in the bag?! Politically, they would've been better off acting like Maliki did this in spite of US warnings to not to do so(while winking at them all the while). Then when the shit hits the fan, the US can jump in and grab the oil under the guise of bringing 'calm and order'. It's not just that Bush and Cheney are criminals, it's that they're not even particularly smart criminals.

Posted by Kristi | March 28, 2008 2:35 PM

I'm impressed. I thought LarryM was just another boorish teenager confusing rudeness with deep moral righteousness, but his response to Don Williams' Jewish Conspiracy nonsense is actually quite good.

I'm a not-particularly-devout, garden-variety generic Protestant who doesn't get any money from Haim Saban or believe End Times fantasies, and I support the State of Israel enthusiastically.

I think for most Americans, the choice between a place where people share our values and democratic form of government, and it's enemies who also hate our guts, seem to prefer fascist police states, and live in near Africa-like squalor in spite of kazillions in oil resources, is a no-brainer.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 28, 2008 5:51 PM

Re Robert Powell's comment " Don Williams' Jewish Conspiracy nonsense is actually quite good."
--------------
And what "Jewish Conspiracy" is that?

If people look back through my posts they will see that when people speak of a "Jewish" conspiracy, I have pointed out that some Jews have been among the strongest critics of the Neocons. People like MJ Rosenberg. That George Soros , via his funding of Moveon , has done the most to fight the Neocons.

I've also noted that people who say Haim Saban's actions are supported by all American Jews are , in my opinion, guilty of a form of Anti-Semitism. Because, in my opinion, Haim Saban is disloyal to the USA. To suggest all American Jews support his acts is to suggest all American Jews are disloyal to the US.

I can see supporting Israel as an ally. But I think it is disloyal to the United States to any longer support the right wing Likud. Because , as I've noted above, that political party sent several emissaries to , in my opinion, lie us into a disasterous war under false assurances.

Likud's aggression --it's religious fanaticism and push for "Greater Israel" is contrary to American values and American interests. Sharon's bombing of Palestinians with US supplied F16s fighters was one of the three major motivations for the Sept 11 attack which killed 3000 of our citizens.

To lose citizens in a war which concerns us is one thing. To drag us into a bloody war in which we have no reason to become involved is, in my opinion, treason to this country.

For Powell to twist my words into a "Jewish Conspiracy " is , in my opinion, another example of sly dishonesty and deceit, concealed by a thin facade of "objectivity".

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 7:04 PM

Re Robert Powell's comment "I'm a not-particularly-devout, garden-variety generic Protestant who doesn't get any money from Haim Saban or believe End Times fantasies, and I support the State of Israel enthusiastically.

I think for most Americans, the choice between a place where people share our values and democratic form of government, "
--------------
A standard line of Bullshit from the Neocons. Israel is not like the USA.

The US Constitution specifically bans any religious test for political service.

In Israel, by contrast, Reform and Conservative Jews who have immigrated from America have trouble getting married because the Orthodox rabbis don't recognize them as "real Jews". Even those those Jews have served in the Israel Defense Forces and have protected the Orthodox rabbis who enjoy a religious exemption from military service.

We also don't have second class citizens in this country.

There is no reason why Israel should be like us. But there is also no reason why our sons should be sent to die to protect Israel. No matter how many $Millions Haim Saban gives our politicans.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 7:15 PM

Yeah, Powell, we can imagine where you get your money from to post your crap here.

Either that or you're even more of a serious hallucinogenic poster than we think.

Juan is just another character who doesn't follow the Iraqi politics, so he doesn't realize that whatever happened in the elections several years ago is old news now. Things have changed. Maliki is on his way out if he doesn't use Iraq's military force - or more precisely, US military force - to retain his hold on the government.

A few months ago, even the Kurds were ready to kick his ass out over his refusal to condemn Turkey's attacks on the PKK. Back then, it looked like there was going to be a nationalist coalition formed of some Sunni parties, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the Kurds to kick him out. He appears to have weathered that threat temporarily. But this assault on al-Sadr clearly is related to the upcoming elections.

Also, the notion that the US isn't trying to benefit from this situation by stalling the troop draw down and blaming Iran for everything is rich. Clearly, whether Maliki consulted the US first before starting this fight - and I believe he did, because there's no way he can move major Iraqi forces without notifying the US forces (although he could have lied to the US as well as al-Sadr when he initially promised just to target "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army - which al-Sadr allegedly actually agreed to) - the US is now behind it for its own reasons.

If the US thinks it can somehow defeat the Mahdi Army, it's as nuts as when it thought it could defeat the Sunni insurgency. The US can take Mahdi Army strongholds, offices, and the like, and arrest a bunch of them. But in the end, the Army isn't going away. It has WAY too much support in the poorer Shia community - and poor Shia are the majority of both the Shia and the general Iraqi population. Even though the Mahdi Army isn't universally liked by the Iraqi street, they aren't going to stand for the US or Maliki taking it down.

Even Sistani never wanted to see the Mahdi Army crushed back in 2004, because he knew it wasn't a feasible operation and would just increase the fracturing of Shia politics. And his goal was always to insure that the Shia would never again be oppressed by the Sunni, and fracturing Shia politics would give the Sunni a wedge to do that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 7:15 PM

Well Mr. Powell, thanks for the kind words, I guess, but I'm still in a very different place than you are.

As a non-interventionist, I would end all U.S. support for Israel regardless of the rights or wrongs of that conflict (of which there are plenty of each on both sides). I of course wouldn't support the Palestinian cause either.

However, in the context of our foreign policy as it is - and obviously you and I differ immensely as to our feelings about that policy - I do think that our current position vis a vis Israel, which can accurately be described as significantly to the right of the position of the median Israeli citizen, is against both our interests and Israel's. It also happens to be immoral, as we support some of the worst injustices against the Palestinian people (injustices which, in fairness, many Israeli citezens do not support). And a part (albeit a small part) of the reason why we are aligned with the most extreme elements of the Israeli populace is the pro Israel lobby.

Now all that said, I have much more sympathy for the average Israeli than I do for the average U.S. citizen. After all, Israel, whatever one thinks of the justice of the formation of the Israeli state in the first place, and whatever one thinks of other injustices committed since then, is facing a real existential threat. The United States, OTOH, has no excuse for its hideously bloody and immoral foreign policy. And we have killed far more innocents than Israel, probably by at least three orders on magnitude.

And you wonder why I go into rant mode so often? We are a nation of mass murderers and baby killers.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 7:42 PM

I might add that when I talk about "worst injustices," I'm talking primarily about the settlements, and the constellation of policies that are (arguably) made necessary by the settlements. (i.e., there are many policies which are arguably justifiable in one grants the legitimacy of the settlements in the first place (e.g., many of the roadblocks and travel restrictions in the west bank), but lose any justification once we recognize the fundamental injustice of the settlements themselves.)

On another subject, I don't happen to believe that, on balance, Israel was a significant driver of our policy vis a vis Iraq. Iran ... may end up being a different story, but certainly the logic of our insane determination to dominate the middle east is a much larger factor, entirely independent of Israel.

Where the pro Israel lobby enters into the picture is probably by making it tougher for Democratic politicians favoring a sane foreign policy to get elected. But goodness knows there are many, many other factors standing in the way of sanity in our foreign policy, and focusing upon the pro Israel lobby probably obscures more than it reveals.

And, while I may be damning with faint praise, it's clear that the United States, faced with the same threats facing Israel, would act with much less restraint.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 8:13 PM

What's happening in Basra should bring into focus the problem with Matt's thesis that the invasion was bound to fail. I've always thought that couldn't be right: what was bound to fail was the conjunction of the neo-con small wars policy and Bush's moronic invasion of Iraq.

The current violence is a good case in point. I imagine that the U.S., if it had 400,000 troops in Iraq, could pretty easily crush a relatively few thousand street militias in Basra.

But to have 400,000 troops in Iraq at this point, we would have had to have spent more than twice the amount we have spent in Iraq. This war would not drift in and out of the American attention span, but like Vietnam at its height, would be the cause for many a riot.

The flaw in the execution of the war was, of course, this adherence to a small war policy that was simply delusional. And fruits of that delusion is that the U.S. will never be in a position to exert crushing force, and never be in a position of total defeat. It will be in the suspension between the two.

I expect that our Schroedinger's cat policy will be generally perceived as much too expensive next year, when a much more democratic congress will have a chance to tell whoever is president to shove it if that president doesn't want to move out of Iraq. Still, I think Matt's theory, here, is being used to bludgeon the facts instead of analyze them with the distinctness he often brings to these matters. We obviously, on his own account, do have a dog in this fight - Maliki, who as he rightfully points out, owes his position to us. Crushing Maliki's opposition - or whoever we find to fill the Maliki spot - in the service of creating a semi-colonial American state on the model of the Shah's Iran is pretty much what the fight is about. It is the rationale, for what it is worth, of having pursued this vile foreign policy adventure. It will probably be bad if the American public is revulsed not by the aspect of moral failure - that is, our complicity in mass murder - but by the pragmatic failure, because the Dems really need to challenge the monopoly on foreign policy that they resigned to the Republicans after Gulf War I and never got back, and the only way to do that is to embrace other principles, as well as other practices.

Posted by roger | March 28, 2008 8:17 PM

ps - you know, the analogy that springs to mind for the warmonger logic of small wars in Iraq is a professional baseball team that can only field five men. They can't possibly win against another team in nine innings, but if they can persuade the refs to let the innings go on for an indeterminate amount of time, they can delude themselves into thinking that they will make up in time what they haven't got in numbers. This is why McCain's 100 year remark really got to the heart of the warmonger dream - eventually, we gotta win.

Of course, that isn't true. The five man team can have a few good innings, but they are bound to lose. They are bound to get tired first.

Suckers lose.

Posted by roger | March 28, 2008 8:57 PM

Don Williams--I didn't say, and don't think, that you're anti-Semitic. I do think you put way too much credit in the influence of Israel on US foreign policy. And it's just silly to assert that "reform and conservative Jews have trouble getting married" or are "second-class citizens" in Israel. Most Israelis are as secular as Americans, if not more so. If you aren't an Orthodox Jew, why should you give a damn about being married by an Orthodox rabbi?

roger--I think you make a good point here. If GHW Bush hadn't decided that it was too hard to win the war in 1991 when we had a half-million pairs of boots on the ground and the international wind at our back, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 29, 2008 7:00 AM

Re Robert Powell's comment "And it's just silly to assert that "reform and conservative Jews have trouble getting married" or are "second-class citizens" in Israel"
---------------------
1) Orthodox rabbis control a number of things, including marriage, in Israel, Robert. See
"How Do You Prove You're a Jew" at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Israel+Orthodox+marriage&st=nyt&oref=slogin

2) An excerpt:
"One day last fall, a young Israeli woman named Sharon went with her fiancé to the Tel Aviv Rabbinate to register to marry. They are not religious, but there is no civil marriage in Israel. The rabbinate, a government bureaucracy, has a monopoly on tying the knot between Jews. The last thing Sharon expected to be told that morning was that she would have to prove — before a rabbinic court, no less — that she was Jewish. It made as much sense as someone doubting she was Sharon, telling her that the name written in her blue government-issue ID card was irrelevant, asking her to prove that she was she.

Sharon is a small woman in her late 30s with shoulder-length brown hair. For privacy’s sake, she prefers to be identified by only her first name. She grew up on a kibbutz when kids were still raised in communal children’s houses. She has two brothers who served in Israeli combat units. She loved the green and quiet of the kibbutz but was bored, and after her own military service she moved to the big city, which is the standard kibbutz story. Now she is a Tel Aviv professional with a master’s degree, a job with a major H.M.O. and a partner — when this story starts, a fiancé — who is “in computers.”

This stereotypical biography did not help her any more at the rabbinate than the line on her birth certificate listing her nationality as Jewish. Proving you are Jewish to Israel’s state rabbinate can be difficult, it turns out, especially if you came to Israel from the United States — or, as in Sharon’s case, if your mother did.

In recent years, the state’s Chief Rabbinate and its branches in each Israeli city have adopted an institutional attitude of skepticism toward the Jewish identity of those who enter its doors. And the type of proof that the rabbinate prefers is peculiarly unsuited to Jewish life in the United States. The Israeli government seeks the political and financial support of American Jewry. It welcomes American Jewish immigrants. Yet the rabbinate, one arm of the state, increasingly treats American Jews as doubtful cases: not Jewish until proved so. ...

...He explained to me recently that the rabbinate’s standards of proof are now stricter than ever, and stricter than most American Jews realize. Referring to the Jewish federations, the central communal and philanthropic organizations of American Jewry, he said, “Eighty percent of federation leaders probably wouldn’t be able to reach the bar.” ...

...Strikingly, the rabbinate’s doubts extend even to Orthodox rabbis in America. “They’re not familiar with them,” Friedman told me. “They say: ‘The rabbis in the United States, in England, aren’t the kind we know. Someone can define himself as an Orthodox rabbi, but really he’s Reform.’ ” A marriage registrar given a letter from an Orthodox rabbi abroad certifying that a person is Jewish is now expected to check with the office of Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, which maintains a list of diaspora clergy whose letters are to be trusted. The list is not publicly available. If the rabbi who wrote the letter is not on the list, the applicant is asked for other proof or referred to the rabbinic courts. ...

...Not surprisingly, leaders of non-Orthodox denominations in the United States sound both pained and vindicated when discussing the rabbinate’s policies. “There is quite an irony in this,” Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, told me. In the past, “Orthodox authorities in America have basically defended the system, and they’ve embraced this religious monopoly as being important and necessary, thinking all the while that it was directed primarily against us, us meaning the non-Orthodox community.” Now their own bona fides are in doubt. "

3) Before making your claims, Powell, you might want to at least do some research.

Else you can end up sounding like those right wing bloggers who have never been out of their hick town but who presume to describe -- and micromanage -- people/societies on the far side of the world.

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2008 11:50 AM

Thanks, Don. I had the opportunity to live in Israel for a while. It was great. Good luck convincing people that anectdotal stories like "Sharon"'s are somehow descriptive of Israeli reality.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 29, 2008 1:57 PM

Re Powell's comment "Good luck convincing people that anectdotal stories like "Sharon"'s are somehow descriptive of Israeli reality."
------------
In the New York Times article, you have an Israeli Orthodox rabbi acknowledging that the problem of getting married is widespread --especially for American immigrants from Reform or Conservative communities. Yet you dismiss this as
an "anecdotal story"???

Tell me, Powell, what is the sum of 2 plus 2? Let's narrow it down and say the sum of 2 plus 2 when computed on Saturdays.

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2008 8:48 PM

Well, if it's in the New York Times it must not only be true, but it also couldn't possibly be an attempt to exaggerate or sensationalize an insignificant problem.

There is real tension between the ultra-Orthodox and "normal" Israelis, but in my experience it's mostly just an irritation--it seems from the story that "Sharon" did manage to get married, just like all the people I know there who wanted to. It's possible to get jeered at in some neighborhoods in Jerusalem if you're walking around dressed "immodestly"; in other neighborhoods the guys in the long black coats and fur hats get jeered as "ayatollahs".

It's impossible to make the case that most of Israel isn't entirely secular and Western.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 30, 2008 3:04 AM