Time to Get Mad

Eric Martin reviews the latest out of Sadr City and waxes indignant:

So let's recap the scene: the US military and its Iraqi "allies" are laying siege to a sprawling neighborhood in Baghdad housing roughly 2.5 million Iraqis, launching air strikes, artillery attacks, tank shells and other assorted ordnance, shutting down hospitals and bombing others, cutting off the supply of food and walling off entire sectors of the embattled region, causing a refugee crisis by their actions - and now actually pursuing a policy with the intent of creating a larger refugee crisis!

For what reason: because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence. Can't have that. Because we have to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to safeguard the Iraqi people. After all, whose gonna set up the tents in the refugee catch basins we so magnanimously helped set up to receive the overflow from our relentless assault on political movements that would make it harder for us to stay in Iraq. To safeguard the Iraqi people.

Indeed. One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq. The big achievement of the past 18 months, after all, has been to convince many Sunni insurgents to stop allying with Al-Qaeda in Iraq. But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause. Now our guns are aimed at the Sadrists because they want us to leave. And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved "victory" defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave.

Comments

"But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause."

I think we may be overlooking the seeking-to-regain-minority-power-over-the-Shi'ites motivation for Sunni violence. They have been dislodged from the top of the heap after decades and were unlikely to accept it with a smile. It is coincidence that America is allied with their new Shi'ite overlords.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | May 9, 2008 6:16 PM

"But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause."

I think we may be overlooking the seeking-to-regain-minority-power-over-the-Shi'ites motivation for Sunni violence. They have been dislodged from the top of the heap after decades and were unlikely to accept it with a smile. It is coincidence that America is allied with their new Shi'ite overlords.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | May 9, 2008 6:19 PM

Yes. And THAT'S why it'll take a hundred years to harass, bomb, shoot, impose nutball neo-con economic policies on, and lecture the Iraqis into liking us. We wont leave until John Bolton's on the Iraqi One.

Posted by RoboticGhost | May 9, 2008 6:19 PM

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | May 9, 2008 6:26 PM

because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia

If Eric Martin can't understand that there is a gigantic qualitative difference between "political movement" and "militia", then he's not as smart as I thought.

If all the people there are doing is support a political movement, then we wouldn't care at all. The people in Sad City could vote for whoever they want in the next elections, and we'd support their right to do so, even if the party they voted for wants us to leave. But Eric Martin doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept that a militia is fundamentally different. And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia. I would think that would be an easy thing for most people to grasp, but apparantly for those on the left-wing, it is too complex.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 6:32 PM

But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause.

Uh, no. The primary driver of Sunni Arab violence wasn't opposition to the US presence, it was opposition to the rise to power of the Shiite and Kurds.

I would have thought this to be completely obvious to anyone who is even casually observing the situation in Iraq, but I guess when you've got anti-war blinders on (like Matthew does) you think our military is the cause of every single problem that exists.

Posted by Al; | May 9, 2008 6:40 PM

I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

That is, of course, equally stupid. It has the benefit of appearing less bloodthirsty on the surface, but in practice, anyone who knows a damn thing about counter-insurgency knows that occupied countries "get tired" of fighting for their country extremely rarely. And thus it just becomes a new version of kill everyone who opposes our presence.

Posted by DivGuy | May 9, 2008 6:42 PM

And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia.

So much for the American Revolution. Apre toi...

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 6:55 PM

I suppose Matt would have had kind words for southern irredentists circa 1877 as well. In his view, it would have been just swell to watch the occupation end, because it worked out so well for the people the US army was defending.

The eras change, but the wrong-sidedness of Democrats remains the same

Posted by James Robertson | May 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Why are we there again? Seems to me that our continued presence there is the main objective of the continuation of our presence there. Heller and Kafka and The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson must be rolling in their graves.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 6:58 PM

But what if the militia is well-regulated?

Posted by Steve V | May 9, 2008 6:58 PM

It worked really well for George III 230 years ago, didn't it?

Posted by Bill Ridge | May 9, 2008 7:01 PM

What Eric Martin describes is called "war".

Iraq will never get up and running with armed militias under the command of malcontents. See Lebanon. We have practiced a policy of divide and conquer. First Al Quada and now Sadr. We should have killed him four years ago in Najaf.

Sadr is the cause of the fighting, not us. The Iraqi government is elected and wants us in the country. The vast majority of the Iraqis want us there; regardless of what the MSM would have you believe.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2008 7:05 PM

And don't forget, Obama wants to stay in too. All that 16 months withdrawal stuff is just feed for the rubes, according to her advisor, Samantha "Monster" Power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__STTpG-qFw

Well, I guess that's what he means by audacity.

Posted by Potato Head | May 9, 2008 7:11 PM

I suppose Matt would have had kind words for southern irredentists circa 1877 as well.

Apparently, Jim-Bob's history books describe a US Civil War that began with a foreign invasion. Perhaps all the crayon annotations made him misread.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 7:12 PM

This sort of policy is precisely why the initial attacks on Fallujah - which caused a massive refugee problem - were contributory to the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.

Asia Times had an analysis of this issue, showing clearly that Sunni refugees from Fallujah ended up in Baghdad, causing friction with the Shia in Baghdad - which is mostly Shia due to Sadr City. Then when the US troops attempted to clean the Fallujah insurgents out of Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad, they removed the only protection the Sunni neighborhoods had from the Shia death squads of ISCI, Dawa, and the Mahdi Army. This allowed the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, which aggravated the refugee crisis of the entire country.

Nothing the US has done in Iraq has achieved anything but aggravating the situation.

"Danceswithgoats" is a moron. The vast majority of Iraqis in the country want the US out. Every Iraqi poll has said so.

Al is another moron. He claims the primary motivation for the Sunni insurgency was the rise of the Kurds and Shia, not the US presence. This nitwit forgets that it was the US who overthrew the Sunnis from the dominant position.

What part of Al's puny brain can't grasp this self-evident fact? What part of Al's puny brain can't grasp the fact that the insurgency - the Sunni insurgency, not Sadr's - started long before the Kurds and Shia put together the present government?

Can you say "Al is an ignorant moron"? I knew you could.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 9, 2008 7:14 PM

Al and Danceswithgoats,

One big thing - the US is an occupier. As such, we aren't legitimate. "malcontents" especially, could have come from some British Raj, or some Roman proconsul, regarding their imperialism.

Recognize it as such.

Posted by JC | May 9, 2008 7:17 PM

The U.S. military will be killing people somewhere, all the time. Better I guess killing Iraqis over there. After all, they could be over here killing Americans pushing back against their bankrupting of this nation. Not that they won't get around to that sooner or later.

Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2008 7:19 PM

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

Hey, it worked in Vietna...uh, um, never mind.

If that's the "plan," it's insane. Just when do we expect the Iraqis to get tired of fighting for their families and faith? After all, they're the home team.

Posted by Stefan | May 9, 2008 7:20 PM

The U.S. cleared out all the women and children from Fallujah (forcing men of fighting age to stay and be slaughtered) and then bombed the city into the Stone Age (twice). One wonders if commenter "danceswithgoats" is being facetious, but I think it's likely he is another one who keeps drinking the Kool-Aid. The U.S. is acting in a savage manner and has been from the beginning of this misguided invasion. Iraqis absolutely do not want us there. Americans, by and large, do not want us there. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell should be tried for war crimes.

Posted by steve evfuture | May 9, 2008 7:23 PM

And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia.

United States Constitution, 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by Stefan | May 9, 2008 7:23 PM

Al sez: The people in Sad City could vote for whoever they want in the next elections, and we'd support their right to do so, even if the party they voted for wants us to leave.

Oh really! Tell that to Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

In the real world, meanwhile: we supported and encouraged Israel into refusing even to talk with the popularly elected (Hamas) party - and still call them terrorists that have to be eliminated.

Al and his tribe are for democracy until democracy is anti-US, and then they are for Warsaw Ghetto solutions to wiping out those who won't kiss the US ass.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 9, 2008 7:29 PM

In the real world, meanwhile: we supported and encouraged Israel into refusing even to talk with the popularly elected (Hamas) party - and still call them terrorists that have to be eliminated.

Not only that, we armed and funded the terrorist PLO in a violent coup in an attempt to overthrow the legitimately-elected Hamas government.

Posted by Stefan | May 9, 2008 7:33 PM

And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia.

So much for the American Revolution. Apre toi...

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 6:55 PM

"A well-regulated militia being essential to...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."

And no, well-regulated doesn't mean what it says, it means anyone can have a gun, according to SCOTUS.

Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 9, 2008 7:35 PM

to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia. I would think that would be an easy thing for most people to grasp, but apparantly for those on the left-wing, it is too complex

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Wouldn't want these people to have the same kind of freedom we have, do we? Including the Second Amendment?

There goes any argment that we want to export "democracy." We want these people to be unarmed and to obey our orders.

Posted by Repack Rider | May 9, 2008 7:40 PM

"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence."

Why do I get the feeling that was a popular opinion at the Kremlin when the Soviets were in Afghanistan?

Posted by GaryML | May 9, 2008 7:40 PM

Al: a militia is fundamentally different. And, no, to have a sense of representative democracy, we can't have a militia. I would think that would be an easy thing for most people to grasp, but apparantly for those on the left-wing, it is too complex.

Every political party of any significance in Iraq has a militia. The US isn't choosing its targets because they have a militia, it's choosing its targets because they oppose permanent US bases & US control over the oil spigot. (c.f.) What's more, your argument is patently circular - if an occupation provokes armed resistance then it must continue, because after all a stable democracy wouldn't have any armed parties.

Al: The primary driver of Sunni Arab violence wasn't opposition to the US presence, it was opposition to the rise to power of the Shiite and Kurds. I would have thought this to be completely obvious...

It's completely obvious only to people whose nationalist blinders prevent them from seeing that Iraqis might get just as upset at a US occupation as we would at an Iraqi occupation.

Nir Rosen, one of the very few reporters in Iraq to speak Arabic and actually talk to resistance fighters about their motivations, writes:

[US] tactics of handing out candy to children during the day and arresting their fathers at night were not winning hearts and minds. It was hard to be patient when mosques were raided, protesters shot, innocent families gunned down at checkpoints or by frightened soldiers in vehicles... By the fall of 2003 up to ten thousand Iraqis were detained by American forces and thousands more had gone through the system. Many languished in prisons indefinitely, lost in a system that imposes English-language procedures on Arabic speakers with Arabic names not easily translated... Most were innocent. Many were arrested simply because a neighbor did not like them. There was no judicial process for them... Most of the men arrested were not on any target list, and the lists themselves were suspect.

... from In the Belly of the Green Bird, pp. 92-93, and 99. Would this kind of treatment not piss you off? See also the Winter Soldier testimony.

danceswithgoats: The vast majority of the Iraqis want us there; regardless of what the MSM would have you believe.

Ah, the ever-so-convincing bare assertion. From the BBC's last comprehensive Iraq poll: 70% of Iraqis believe the surge has made things worse, while 11% believe it has had no effect. 57% of Iraqis support attacks on Coalition soldiers, 79% oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition troops in Iraq, and 85% have little or no confidence in Coalition occupation forces.

But I suppose the BBC is lying because it hates America. Let's go check what Michael Yon's translator told him!

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 7:42 PM

As a few others have alluded to there's a difference between "wanting us to leave" and killing people and blowing things/people up (not only, or even primarily, our troops) with the (supposed/stated) intent of getting us to leave. Just like there's a difference between a 'political movement' and an extralegal, semi-terrorist militia.

That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 7:47 PM

Geez, if you can't understand the difference between a militia in the Revolutionary War (and Second Amendment) sense and the Sadrite sectarian militia, I'm not sure that to tell you.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 7:49 PM

And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved "victory" defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave.

And this would be in line with what our great-grandfathers, and other great-greats did in/with the Philippines. At least then, our great-grandmothers weren't leaving their children at home to go join in the fight. The more things change, the more they change! Oh, and it has been 100 years, John.

Posted by John | May 9, 2008 7:50 PM

I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

How did that work our for ancient Rome? Greece? England in the 20th Century? The French in Mexico? The French in Indochina? Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Us in Vietnam?

Are you sensing a pattern?

Posted by Repack Rider | May 9, 2008 7:51 PM

yeah sonic charmer, never in the history of the humankind have the people of an occupied land used violence to declare their intents and tried to achieve their ends. all freedom movements have been peaceful and respectful of the occupiers.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 7:52 PM

C'mon, Al: edjumacate us. Tip-off's not for another hour and a bit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 7:52 PM

I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence.

I believe the Iraqis might have the same idea, especially since it is their homeland.

Toughness should not be confused with immorality and abject bad judgment. What, weather it takes five years or a hundred years? Whether it turns our country into a third-world, despotic nation?

Posted by rollotomasi | May 9, 2008 7:52 PM

Maliki beats Sadr again:

In big concession, militia agrees to let Iraqi troops into Sadr City
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, May 9, 2008
BAGHDAD — Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

So again, Matthew proves, when he writes "And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved 'victory' defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave", that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Iraq.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 7:55 PM

Geez, if you can't understand the difference between a militia in the Revolutionary War (and Second Amendment) sense and the Sadrite sectarian militia, I'm not sure that to tell you.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 7:49 PM

Go ahead and tell us.

Does it have something to do with being pro as opposed to anti-American?

Or are you one of those tards who believes that the Second Amendment is a sportsman's rights clause?

Posted by Charlie H. | May 9, 2008 7:58 PM

Here we go again,

Matt writing about the disaster that he cheerleaded at the onset.

FAO MATT: You have ZERO credibility when writing about this. To be so insanely wrong about something so obvious, should have disqualified you from ever pontificating on any IR topics forever.

If I were you I'd stick to sports.

Posted by volum | May 9, 2008 8:03 PM

Few can imagine the mountains of bodies that are going to pile up from Gaza to Lebanon to Syria to Iran. A bloodbath of historic proportion which only just began with the Iraq invasion is going to gather a lot of steam now.

Peak oils brother is peak protein.

Posted by rapier | May 9, 2008 8:03 PM

Al, assuming the parties in Sadr City make a deal to end the horrible slaughter and displacement of people, how does that make said slaughter/displacement OK in the first place?

The point is, that you actively approve of the decision of the Iraqi "government" (no, it's not a real government if it's controlled by a foreign occupation force) to slaughter and displace its own people in an attempt to crush its political rivals. (And you've fallen in love with Iranian sock puppet Maliki.)

The fact that the slaughter may (hopefully) come to an end hardly changes the fundamental difference here: you approve of the killing and displacement of Iraqis, and you oppose the only thing that could create a real government in Iraq, an American withdrawal, because you are committed to American defeat.

Posted by T.B. | May 9, 2008 8:07 PM

gregor: what, are you trying to generalize from history? Don't you know the US is special and magical and unlike any past empire and only ever interested in helping the people it occupies if they would just stop being so ungrateful?

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 8:12 PM

Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

Let's see how many heavy weapons they actually find, and how many people they arrest. Then we'll see what's what and what just seems to be. I mean, it seems as if you haven't paid attention at all.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 8:12 PM

So, Sadr's cut a deal again. That in itself is hardly surprising - it's not exactly the first time. At this point he's conclusively demonstrated his unwillingness to wage a prolonged guerrilla war against the US.

I will admit surprise if this really amounts to a defeat for Sadr, and immense surprise if it means the end of him as a political force. But we've heard that predicted weekly by Al & his friends - a prediction that alternates with steadily increasing levels of fearmongering about the Sadrist menace.

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 8:19 PM

There are somewhere between four and a half and five million refugees from Iraq already, including large parts of the professional and functional class.

I think we can, with a little effort, push that up to six, seven, maybe eight million people.

Gentlemen, we are in the midst of a great social experiment! To see how much damage we can inflict upon a country before it collapses utterly.

Ah the consequence, mass starvation, chaos, epidemic violence, a living hell on earth. Doctor Mengele could only have wished to be an American.

We will win. We will rule the earth for the next century. We will build a tyranny for a thousand years in the name of freedom and democracy. We are America, and because we are America, whatever we do, no matter what, is right.

Posted by Skeptic | May 9, 2008 8:20 PM

Following up on JimPortlandOR's reference to the Palestinian elections fiasco that brought Hamas to power, the U.S. should humbly (and quickly!) retreat from Bush's doctrine of spreading U.S.-style democracy around the world.

The fact that a switch to Western democracy worked in some parts of the world such as in Eastern Europe is no guarantee that it's suitable elsewhere. Indeed, the former Soviet republics -- Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc. -- are de-facto dictatorships. Russia, fairly democratic under Yeltzin, has retreated into an authoritarian, near-single-party rule state with a capitalist economy, a model more resembling mainland China, Malaysia or Singapore than anything we are familiar with in the West.

Let's face it: despite AI's illusions Iraq is not a democracy now, nor will it be after the next elections. Clearly, in many parts of the world the U.S. model of government and civil society hasn't taken root and is being rejected. Who knows, maybe Islam and Western-style democracy don't mix...

So, JimPortlandOR's right: the U.S. is not too crazy about democracies that refuse to kiss our ass, e.g. Chile in 1973 or Venezuela now.

However, he's completely wrong about Hamas.

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah. Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip. Also, Hamas openly advocates the establishment of an Islamic republic in Palestine, i.e. its participation in the democratic process is merely a means to achieving absolute power. In this, they are more like the 1933 Germany's Nazi party.

Posted by Gary S. | May 9, 2008 8:22 PM

gregor,

yeah sonic charmer, never in the history of the humankind have the people of an occupied land used violence to declare their intents and tried to achieve their ends.

When did I say it's never happened? What I said was that this sort of violence, when it is used (and you are right that it is used), is different from merely "wanting" something, i.e. is not the equivalent of mere political opinion. And I do not have to pretend that they are the same thing.

Again: why can you not see that distinction?

all freedom movements have been peaceful and respectful of the occupiers.

What "freedom movement" are you talking about exactly? Yet another bizarre conflation. Apparently, killing people and blowing stuff up (while saying 'Americans get out') automatically makes any group a "freedom movement" in your eyes.

Fascinating!

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 8:23 PM

JimPortlandOR asks:

Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?

The answer is 'yes', but only when Israel does it, especially if the Palestinians are involved. If more than one Palestinian gets hurt in the process, it becomes a Holocaust.

When the U.S. does it, there is a suitably poll-tested, Pentagon-approved euphemism which makes it look less like a war crime and more like an exercise in 'crowd control', 'civilian population management', etc.

This was another edition of 'simple answers to simple questions'.

Posted by Gary S. | May 9, 2008 8:36 PM

That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.

This is a false dichotomy because the people of an occupied land do not, by the very nature of their circumstance, have the resources to organize non-randomly directed violence. Which is not to condone such violence, or to classify all violence in an occupied land as a freedom movement.

In your zeal to support the unsupportable, you are making statements that appear to be intentionally and remarkably uninformed of historical precedence.

It would be nice if a Mahatma Gandhi sprung up in Iraq out of nothing. Even in that case, we all know what the neocon hero Churchill thought of a guy like Gandhi.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 8:43 PM

Must go - so if Al ever replies, I won't be able to rebut. It is after all a Friday night. But, last post:

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah.

Hamas won the parliamentary election quite clearly. The only reason it had to share power was that Abbas' presidency wasn't up for election.

Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip.

As a recent Vanity Fair article made quite clear, this was a deliberately-provoked reaction to a US-inspired plan to consolidate Fatah power by force.

Also, Hamas openly advocates the establishment of an Islamic republic in Palestine, i.e. its participation in the democratic process is merely a means to achieving absolute power. In this, they are more like the 1933 Germany's Nazi party.

An Islamic republic is no more necessarily anti-democratic than the Christian one advocated by the Christian right or the Jewish one advocated by... pretty much all Zionists. Any such religious republic is certainly imperfect in its democracy, and something I am opposed to, but that hardly justifies the Nazi comparison. Your better case for a Nazi analogy rests on Hamas' anti-semitism, though even there the power differential and the fact that Palestinians really are oppressed by a state claiming to act in the name of all Jews makes the parallel not so apropos.

The answer is 'yes', but only when Israel does it, especially if the Palestinians are involved.

I wonder who you're referring to here. I really can't think of any harsh critic of Israel who isn't also a critic of the US. I'm sure such people exist, but are there any of them on this blog? Do they include anyone well known or respected by US progressives? Neither the left Chomsky types nor the liberal Yglesias types would fit the bill...

Posted by Kalkin | May 9, 2008 8:57 PM

gregor,

This is a false dichotomy because the people of an occupied land do not, by the very nature of their circumstance, have the resources to organize non-randomly directed violence.

First, I don't know how it can be a "false dichotomy" when I state what are, on the face of it, two extremes of behavior that have no overlap: (a) holding an opinion without using violence and (b) using violence, and observe that Matthew (and you) make no distinction between them. It's like me saying "you can't tell 3 from 7" and you saying "that's a false dichotomy!" No, 3 is different from 7. Not using violence is different from using violence. By definition. Please let me know if you need me to explain further.

Anyway, you might be right that the people of an occupied land do not "have the resources to engage in non-randomly directed violence". Well: you're NOT right, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. (You're not right because it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence: just don't attack indiscriminately, pick your targets carefully. duh.)

So anyway, what you're trying to say is something like, 'this sort of violence is their only option'. And that's true - if they must engage in violence. But why must they engage in violence? Why is that a given? To you, the fact that they 'want' U.S. troops to exit Iraq means they MUST engage in violence (oddly, mostly against other Iraqis, but let's leave that aside for now). You can't tell the difference between 'wanting' U.S. troops out and violent action with that intent. To you, the one necessitates the other. This is what I find fascinating.

Here's an idea: Why don't they express this opinion of theirs at the ballot box? You know, like we do? You're all broken up that they don't have the "resources" to engage in non-random violence, but they certainly do have the resources to....engage in a peaceable political movement.

But that's all water under the bridge. Folks in Iraq who 'want' the U.S. occupation ceased will either choose peaceful means or they will not. My only point is that there is a difference between the two which you guys (for some reason) do not apprehend, and I am not required to treat people who choose the latter as if they are equivalent to those who choose the former.

Which is not to condone such violence, or to classify all violence in an occupied land as a freedom movement.

You're right, you haven't condoned all such violence. As for classifying all violence in an occupied land as a freedom movement, well, if that's not what you're doing then you certainly haven't explained why the violent people we're talking about qualify as a freedom movement in your eyes.

It would be nice if a Mahatma Gandhi sprung up in Iraq out of nothing.

This isn't about whether there's a Gandhi in Iraq. Maybe there is maybe there isn't. This is about whether one is required to treat everyone who says 'Americans out' while engaging in barbaric acts as if there is no meaningful difference between him and Gandhi.

One is not.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 8:57 PM

Gary S.,
Your grasp on reality is really slim isn't it? Hamas won the election by a friggin land slide, it was in all the papers. Is was Fatah, the US, and Israel that started screwing with them that caused things to go down hill. As for, Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?
The answer is 'yes', but only when Israel does it

Really? The US and Israel are both guilty of Collective Punishment. How's that! Do you suffer from some sort of Israel attachment syndrome? I see a pattern, that pattern, in your posts. You should get over that, 'cause Israel will be the victim of demographic forces, eventually.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 9:01 PM

I see Kalkin beat me to the punch. Nice job.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 9:03 PM

"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence."

So when people are no longer opposed to our presence, THEN we can leave?

Posted by DoktorN | May 9, 2008 9:03 PM

I see Kalkin beat me to the punch. Nice job.

Posted by bliekker | May 9, 2008 9:03 PM

"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we can actually kill off every Iraqi that wants us to leave. I think the plan literally is to be tough and stubborn enough to just wear them out until they're tired enough to stop opposing our presence."

So when people are no longer opposed to our presence, THEN we can leave?

Posted by DoktorN | May 9, 2008 9:05 PM

You're not right because it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence: just don't attack indiscriminately, pick your targets carefully. duh.)

Not to engage in moral equivalence and all, this statement once again betrays profound ignorance of even the recent history.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 9:17 PM

The unspoken premise of Al et al is that America has a right to empire and those who oppose it must be killed. No less an imperialist than Niall Ferguson laughed over American imperialists' aversion to the word "empire". They (American imperialists) are like whores who dress up in school girl plaids and knee sox. Calling things by their right names makes them antsy. Civil War can't be "civil war" because once one has the habit of plain speaking there's no telling where it'll go.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 9, 2008 9:26 PM

gregor

[You're not right because it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence: just don't attack indiscriminately, pick your targets carefully. duh.)]

Not to engage in moral equivalence and all, this statement once again betrays profound ignorance of even the recent history.

Educate me then: what exactly in recent (or non-recent) history disproves the statement 'it doesn't take a whole lot in the way of "resources" to engage in non-random violence'?

Just for the record though, this is all beside the point anyway. Whether or not you're right that people in Iraq somehow 'can't' engage in non-random violence, the fact remains, when they choose to do so they are doing something over and above merely expressing an opinion, engaging in politics, or 'wanting' something.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 9:34 PM

bliekker writes:

Hamas won the election by a friggin land slide, it was in all the papers.

Well, not really a landslide: Hamas got 44 percent of the popular vote, Fatah got 42 percent. You shouldn't believe everything that's written in the newspapers.

bliekker continues:

Do you suffer from some sort of Israel attachment syndrome? ... You should get over that, 'cause Israel will be the victim of demographic forces, eventually.

The answer to your question is 'yes, I do, and am very proud of it'. As to your prediction re: Israel's grim future -- whether due to demographics or something else, I've been hearing this for the last 35 years, virtually my entire adult life.

Well, guess what: it hasn't happened yet -- the nay-sayers were wrong. But then 2000 years ago, who would have bet that the Jews would survive this long -- in Diaspora, without their own country?

There must be truth in the saying that after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem the power of prophecy was bestowed on fools.

Posted by Gary S. | May 9, 2008 9:35 PM

If Eric Martin can't understand that there is a gigantic qualitative difference between "political movement" and "militia", then he's not as smart as I thought.

Since when are politics and violence mutually exclusive?

Posted by jack fate | May 9, 2008 9:52 PM

jack fate,

Since when are politics and violence mutually exclusive?

They're not mutually exclusive but neither are they synonymous.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 9:59 PM

"because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia

If Eric Martin can't understand that there is a gigantic qualitative difference between "political movement" and "militia", then he's not as smart as I thought." says Al, who is obviously poorly informed.

Actually, our governmental allies core power is built around the BADR militia, which is actually closer to Iran than Sadr.

So, basically, we are supporting Maliki-Badr for the purpose of "real politik". The fact that the largest plurality, if not majority, of Iraqis support Sadr is of no interest to either fools like Al, or the depraved power mavens running our government.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 9, 2008 10:01 PM

Yeah, by the way, that was due to a flawed parliamentary structure that gave Hamas a
larger than warranted majority. I try to figure out Matthew, "the Ostrichist" what you consider a legitimate regime. Hamas, is a theocratic paramilitary organization, premised on the destruction of Israel. It's based on the Moslem
brotherhood variant of Salafi Egyptian Islamists nurtured by Al Azhar University graduates like
the late Sheikh Yassin. It has no real program for sanitation, education (besides madrassas)
or anything else that does involve killing Jews.
Mind you, Fatah, typified by former Black September Munich massacre logistics man, Abu Mazen, doesn't have much to recommend it; in addition to the corruption, earned over nearly
a decade of P.A rule, Your preferrred rulers in Somalia, the Islamic Courts movement follow the same principles. As would the Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines. Hezbollah in Lebanon operates under similar principles for the Shia as do the
Sadrists. That's why Basra was liberalized by the incursion of Iraqi soldiers, which filled the vaccuum of the vacilating Brits.

Posted by narciso | May 9, 2008 10:03 PM

"Apparently, Jim-Bob's history books describe a US Civil War that began with a foreign invasion. Perhaps all the crayon annotations made him misread."

Read the history, and you'll learn that southerners of the era considered northern troops to be foreign invaders.

I think the one using crayons might be you.

Posted by James Robertson | May 9, 2008 10:07 PM

Tim Connor writes,

Actually, our governmental allies core power is built around the BADR militia, which is actually closer to Iran than Sadr.

I can only assume he has a magical "Closeness-to-Iran-of-a-Militia Measuring Stick". How else could he know how "close" this or that faraway militia is "to Iran" (whatever that means, or however it is defined exactly), without just making it up of course?

Anyway, sounds neat. Can I borrow it, Tim?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 10:10 PM

Does anyone recall that 'collective punishment' is a war crime?

Anti-semite!

Posted by justinb | May 9, 2008 10:31 PM

That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.

You mean like "wanting" a pro-American government in Iraq? "Wanting" a permanent presence there? Seems like a distinction lost on much of the right wing...

Posted by Snidely Whiplash | May 9, 2008 10:35 PM

[That Matthew like so many others on the left can apparently see no meaningful distinction between the two extremes of (a) politically "wanting" something and (b) using violence, often randomly-directed (while saying "I want" the thing), is....interesting.] You mean like "wanting" a pro-American government in Iraq? "Wanting" a permanent presence there?

Sure - another fine example where there is a clear distinction between merely 'wanting' and using violence. What's your point?

Seems like a distinction lost on much of the right wing...

Obviously I can't speak for "the right wing" but the distinction is certainly not lost on me. Were you trying to suggest/imply that it was, or something?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 10:55 PM

Sonic, I know at least on the surface you seem to be engaged in defending the fact that there is a difference between "wanting something" and using violence to achieve it. Fair enough. I grant you this point. I'm pretty sure everybody else would, too, IF ONLY...

...they could ignore the fact that what you're really getting at, is that the various Iraqi factions don't have any right to use violence to get what THEY want, but the Americans do in fact have that right. I mean, you remember all that shock'n'awe stuff, yes? Was that not violence taken to an extreme? So, how can you say (imply, rather) that the Iraqis (if I may use such a term, really what I mean is, all the various factions taken individually) don't have a right to use violence to regain their independence, but we do have a right to use violence to, uhm, what is it we were doing? Imposing democracy or something?

Posted by SJohn | May 9, 2008 11:02 PM

Holy shit, one of you "expert" motherfuckers noticed!
It's been going on for a while now.

Posted by seth edenbaum | May 9, 2008 11:03 PM

But hey, the US is going to build an amusement park in Iraq. Why, because killing Iraqis, taking their oil, while delivering NO electricity to them, whereby none of their children can attend school because it's too dangerous just isn't enough punishment for these people.

US millionaire plans Disneyland-style park in war-torn Iraq
RIA Novosti, Russia - May 5, 2008
DAMASCUS, May 5 (RIA Novosti) - A US millionaire plans to revive a zoo and build an amusement park similar to Disneyland in the capital of war-torn Iraq, ...

I think maybe that I'm the ONLY American that is truly appalled by this current announcement as NOBODY else seems to want to mention it all.

I wonder, is this another one fo those unbid contracts? Does anyone care? Hello!

Posted by me-again | May 9, 2008 11:42 PM

Sayeth Matthew:

One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq.

Wonderful. They hate us because we're there. They want us out so much they kill their fellow citizens or coreligionists or fellow supreme Arabs. And this killing we should always correctly interpret as a message that we must leave. Which will presumably result in them loving us.

Right. Just like they loved us after leaving Beirut or Somalia. They'd practically declared peace on us until someone served the wrong drink in first class and they had to run four airliners packed with American passengers into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, or Pennsylvania dirt. This, of course, was a subtle message that only the American and international political left was smart enough to comprehend: We still needed to leave a few more places in the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa, the Americas, the Galaxy, the Universe, and then all would be well.

My, my. If we'd only possessed the interpretive capacity of our fellows. We'd have already obligingly committed suicide for fear of impending death.

Posted by MarkG | May 9, 2008 11:45 PM

EXFUCKINGSCUSE ME but

it's their country

we are ILLEGAL occupiers

they have every right under ALL RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL LAW to oppose us, even violently.

Posted by sheeshyoupeoplearestupid | May 9, 2008 11:53 PM

EXFUCKINGSCUSE ME but

it's their country

we are ILLEGAL occupiers

they have every right under ALL RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL LAW to oppose us, even violently.

Posted by sheeshyoupeoplearestupid | May 9, 2008 11:53 PM

I grant you this point. I'm pretty sure everybody else would, too, IF ONLY..[..] they could ignore the fact that what you're really getting at, is that the various Iraqi factions don't have any right to use violence to get what THEY want, but the Americans do in fact have that right.

Thanks for reading my mind re: what I'm 'really getting at', but FYI even I don't know whether I believe either of us 'have the right' to engage in the behaviors you refer to. Well, I know I don't believe that terrorist militias in Iraq (or anyone anywhere else) 'have the right to' kidnap and behead people or to bomb marketplaces with the intent of killing civilians; but nor am I even sure I believe that the U.S. 'had the right' to invade Iraq, etc. 'Rights', as such, simply don't much enter the issue for me either way.

But that wasn't my point in this thread, which (again) is simply that people who use violence (especially the sort of indiscriminate violence we're really talking about) are not merely people who 'want' something, as Matthew denoted them. There is a distinction there, and it's an important one, and the fact that Matthew (and others) either can't or won't acknowledge it, strikes me as significant. Really: that's my point here. We don't oppose these groups because of what they 'want', we oppose them because of what they do in the service of (or supposedly in the service of) that 'want'. If they merely 'wanted us out of there', but DIDN'T FRICKING KILL PEOPLE AND BLOW THINGS UP, would there really be a problem here?

Really. Claiming that the campaign against the Sadr militia means we oppose "everyone who wants us to leave" is like claiming that the government's arrest of Charles Manson proves that the government wants to arrest "everyone who is a songwriter". In both cases the two sets may overlap but that doesn't mean they are identical. Perhaps it would help if I draw y'all a Venn diagram?

So, how can you say (imply, rather) that the Iraqis...don't have a right to use violence to regain their independence,

Well I'm not sure I did. But since you brought it up, what makes you convinced that (most? all?) the people engaging in violence in Iraq are doing so "to regain their independence" (rather than, say, to seize oil wealth)? Why does every single person who kills someone in Iraq get a "he's doing it to regain his independence" stamp of good-motive from you? This gets back to gregor's earlier attitude that anyone who blows something up while saying 'Americans out' must be a freedom fighter. Iraq has an elected government at whose request the U.S. maintains a military presence. I'm not sure what more 'independence' is required, but if some Iraqi really believes that it requires there being no U.S. military bases there (is Germany not 'independent'?) then I invite and encourage them to work through persuasion and the political process to bring that about. I know they have the right to do that.

Why exactly is that ruled out as a valid option on their part, especially by (supposedly) peace-loving lefties?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 12:20 AM

s.y.p.a.s.,

Putting words in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't make them true. If we are ILLEGAL occupiers someone should inform the UN under whose mandate we maintain a military presence; meanwhile, you should be easily able to post a link to the LAW that we're VIOLATING by doing so.

I don't know whether Iraqis have the right to "oppose us..violently" but what bothers me is why does every single act of violence in Iraq get lumped into that category?

A bomb is detonated in a market, or gunfire sweeps a funeral, or whatever, in any case, dozens of Iraqi civilians are the intended and actual victims. I point out that such people are not well-described by the words 'they want us to leave'. And then you come along: "They have the right to oppose us, even violently". Somehow there seems to be a crossed wire here; at best you are committing a mega non sequitur.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 12:26 AM

I don't know whether Iraqis have the right to "oppose us..violently" but what bothers me is why does every single act of violence in Iraq get lumped into that category?

Too easy. Anything violent or off schedule is a protest statement, political protest, or other similar critique of what the global Western left thinks America should refrain from. This applies not only to international terrorist and domestic murderers but also to weather events that result in death anywhere in the world.

It pure sophistry that the left offers to replace the Enlightenment, democracy, and modernism.

Posted by MarkG | May 10, 2008 12:33 AM

This is the whole point I made in response to Rick Santorum's piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/67286
No, the struggle between the US and Iraqi insurgents is NOT an ideological struggle. It's a war with very ancient roots. It's a war for economic advantage, otherwise known as oil. Ain't nuthin' ideological about it.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 12:33 AM

This is the whole point I made in response to Rick Santorum's piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/67286
No, the struggle between the US and Iraqi insurgents is NOT an ideological struggle. It's a war with very ancient roots. It's a war for economic advantage, otherwise known as oil. Ain't nuthin' ideological about it.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 12:36 AM

Hey Sonic Charmer, your claim that I claimed that anyone who blows things up is a freedom fighter is blatantly false. Just one in a long list of nonsensical claims that you have made here. No wonder you believe that we are there at the 'invitation' of the local government. Given the idiocy of your basic premise (I heard one of the Kagans claim that too some time ago)no wonder the conclusions that you derive are all along the lines of lefties want Iraqis to blow us up. Unblemished popycock. Typical libelous nonsense.

Posted by gregor | May 10, 2008 12:47 AM

Sorry for the duplicate. It didn't appear to go through the first time. In response to Sonic Charmer's

Iraq has an elected government at whose request the U.S. maintains a military presence.

I seem to remember that Eastern Europe also had elected governments (They appeared to have won 100% of the vote) that also asked Soviet troops to stay in their countries. For some strange reason, right-wingers didn't regard these requests as really representing the will of the people.
I agree that insurgents may just want to get their hands on some of that oil wealth, but remember, it's their country.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 12:49 AM

someone should inform the UN under whose mandate we maintain a military presence;

Perhaps you forgot that George was going to call for that vote until he found out that he would lose it. The UN never voted to invade Iraq. Bush decided to "enforce" UN resolutions without a resolution for him to do so.

This history is only five years old. No wonder you never heard of Vietnam.

Posted by Repack Rider | May 10, 2008 12:56 AM

I don't believe that terrorist militias in Iraq (or anyone anywhere else) 'have the right to' kidnap and behead people or to bomb marketplaces with the intent of killing civilians

Also, you don't believe that zombie militias in Syracuse 'have the right to' eat the brains of random passers-by. Well done you.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 10, 2008 1:01 AM

@ Gary S

Thank you for your excellent demonstration of Godwins's law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The law also states that you have lost the argument. Your lack of knowledge would have brought you there anyways,so dont feel too bad about it.

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah. Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip.

This is pure bs. The election was the best monitored ever, and Hamas won the majority of seats.Hamas invited Fatah to form a coalition ,the same way Winston Churchill did during WWll. The very opposite of Israel' and the roman's ancient strategy.Divide et impera—divide and conquer.

Your next assertion is party correct. The following violence in Gaza can be described as a "mini civil war" But how can an elected government instigate civil war ?
Try Elliot Abrams and see if the shoe fits.

The former Preventative Security Chief for the Gaza Strip is one of the youngest Palestinian leaders and has the confidence of the United States and, to some extent, Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2068270.stm

In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank.
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/elliot-abrams-uncivil-war/

Posted by Daga | May 10, 2008 2:20 AM

@ Gary S

Thank you for your excellent demonstration of Godwins's law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The law also states that you have lost the argument. Your lack of knowledge would have brought you there anyways,so dont feel too bad about it.

Hamas won the election, but inconclusively and had to share power with Fatah. Hamas then used violence (a mini civil war!) to take full control of the Gaza Strip.

This is pure bs. The election was the best monitored ever, and Hamas won the majority of seats.Hamas invited Fatah to form a coalition ,the same way Winston Churchill did during WWll. The very opposite of Israel' and the roman's ancient strategy.Divide et impera—divide and conquer.

Your next assertion is party correct. The following violence in Gaza can be described as a "mini civil war" But how can an elected government instigate civil war ?
Try Elliot Abrams and see if the shoe fits.

The former Preventative Security Chief for the Gaza Strip is one of the youngest Palestinian leaders and has the confidence of the United States and, to some extent, Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2068270.stm

In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank.
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/elliot-abrams-uncivil-war/

Posted by Daga | May 10, 2008 2:23 AM

"Sadr is the cause of the fighting, not us."
So, we kill Sadr, and... peace!
Right?

Posted by Janus Daniels | May 10, 2008 2:29 AM

It pure sophistry that the left offers to replace the Enlightenment, democracy, and modernism.

Posted by MarkG | May 10, 2008 12:33 AM

It is pure sophistry that purports that a war of aggression represents anything remotely related to the Enlightenment, democracy, or "modernism".

I take comfort that the dopey pro-war caucus has been continually decreasing in number as the absurdity of this war, the lies spread to justify it, and the fake "victory" many years back have become inevitably revealed to be nothing more than propaganda.

Well, to most people at least.

Posted by Whispers | May 10, 2008 2:36 AM

You should really pay attention to this more closely. Sadr City is really just getting the "Fallujah treatment" that so many other Iraqi cities have similarly received. Nothing terribly new going on here.

One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq.

"At least in part"? C'mon. It's the primary cause. Easily.

Posted by Bill | May 10, 2008 2:42 AM

You should really pay attention to this more closely. Sadr City is really just getting the "Fallujah treatment" that so many other Iraqi cities have similarly received. Nothing terribly new going on here.

One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq.

"At least in part"? C'mon. It's the primary cause. Easily.

Posted by Bill | May 10, 2008 2:44 AM

Wow. Plenty of wingnuts here still spouting the "achievements" of Bush's Glorious War. You guys must be the 26 per centers. You probably think we found the WMD, too. Guess what morons, the bullshit in Iraq will continue for years. 50 American soldiers and Marines died last month and over a 1,000 Iraqis, but the "surge" is such a fucking success. You fucktards hate paying taxes, but who cares if we blow half a trillion dollars on a pointless war, right?!

Guess how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq? The answer is STILL ZERO, assholes!

Posted by estes | May 10, 2008 3:05 AM

Wow. Plenty of wingnuts here still spouting the "achievements" of Bush's Glorious War. You guys must be the 26 per centers. You probably think we found the WMD, too. Guess what morons, the bullshit in Iraq will continue for years. 50 American soldiers and Marines died last month and over a 1,000 Iraqis, but the "surge" is such a fucking success. You fucktards hate paying taxes, but who cares if we blow half a trillion dollars on a pointless war, right?!

Guess how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq? The answer is STILL ZERO, assholes!

Posted by estes | May 10, 2008 3:06 AM

So one Iran-backed faction won out in an armed argument against another Iran-backed faction? Big whoop. Iran is playing chess in Iraq while we're somehow playing a trillion-dollar version of checkers when we don't even have to be playing checkers in the first place.

The right-wingers frames are all static. Say that we do end up via the occupation killing off every follower of Sadr and every bad mean person who kills innocent people there as part of an insurgency against our presence. New groups are going to pop up. Similarly, Black September may have died out among the Palestinians, but the rump of Black September joined the likes of the PLO while the Israeli occupation led to the backlash behind Hamas's rise. The reason the government doesn't ask us to leave, despite the will of the Iraqi people, is 1) members of Parliament depend on US protection if they live in Iraq or 2) many members of Parliament don't even live in Iraq anymore and can rely on their party's militia to enforce the vote in their favor among their constituency. Also remember that Iraqis didn't elect al-Maliki, they elected Jafaari, whom we pressured to have replaced because we didn't like him.

Posted by Reality Man | May 10, 2008 3:07 AM

Bill Roggio's article on the ongoing operation in Sadr City and related events in Iraq at The Long War Journal, "US Special Forces fighting inside Sadr City":

The battle for Sadr City continues as US and Iraqi forces continue to erect the concrete security barrier on Qods Street, the main thoroughfare that divides the southern third of Sadr City from the northern portion. US Special Operations Forces teams have entered the fray, and the specialized teams are fighting inside the Mahdi Army bastion for the second day in a row.

Twenty-three Mahdi Army fighters have been killed by US and Iraqi troops since the afternoon of May 8. US Special Operations teams operating inside Sadr City killed nine Mahdi Army fighters as they attacked Iraqi and US forces building the concrete barrier on Qods Street. The team also directed an airstrike that killed two more Mahdi Army fighters. Yesterday, US Special Forces killed two Mahdi Army fighters inside Sadr City.

US soldiers killed 12 more Mahdi Army fighters inside Sadr City from May 8-9. US troops used unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters, Abrams tanks, and small-arms fire in response to Mahdi Army attacks inside Sadr City. Mahdi Army fighters continue attempt to disrupt the building of the barrier. The US military said the construction should be completed in two weeks. Inside the secured area in southern Sadr City, the Iraqi Army is providing medical, humanitarian, and construction aid to civilians.

The US military has described the barrier as a "magnet" for Mahdi Army attacks as they seek to stop the construction effort. A total of 562 Mahdi Army fighters have been confirmed killed in and around Sadr City since March 25, according to numbers compiled by The Long War Journal.

Operations continue in the South

The Iraqi military continues to apply pressure on the Mahdi Army and the Sadrist movement in Basrah and the South.

More than 70 percent of Basrah has been cleared, Multinational Forces Iraq reported. Iraqi police arrested 45 "wanted persons" and three "suspects" in Basrah on May 8. A Mahdi Army rocket attack killed two civilian contractors and wounded four civilians and four Coalition soldiers at a forward operating base outside the city the same day.

In Karbala, police arrested the leader of a Mahdi Army "special brigades" and two of his lieutenants. In Amara, police captured two Mahdi Army fighters as they were transporting 25 "anti-tank landmines". In Diwaniyah, police captured two men behind the assassination of the provincial governor.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 5:00 AM

Its very difficult to explain to my 7 year old son that the Iraqis are our friends and not our enemies, even though we are at war with them

Posted by Frank | May 10, 2008 6:57 AM

Its very difficult to explain to my 7 year old son that the Iraqis are our friends and not our enemies, even though we are at war with them

Posted by Frank | May 10, 2008 6:57 AM

Its very difficult to explain to my 7 year old son that the Iraqis are our friends and not our enemies, even though we are at war with them

Posted by Frank | May 10, 2008 6:57 AM

gregor,

Hey Sonic Charmer, your claim that I claimed that anyone who blows things up is a freedom fighter is blatantly false.

What you did was implicitly call them a "freedom movement". As I said before, if you have some reason for thinking this particular group merits the category "freedom movement" besides the fact that they're blowing stuff up supposedly to 'get Americans out', you haven't explained what it is. Alternatively, you could just set me straight by clarifying that you misspoke and you concede that the Sadrists and their ilk are not a "freedom movement". Let me know,

No wonder you believe that we are there at the 'invitation' of the local government.

Iraq Asks US to stay one more year

UN resolution renewal: "Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Security Council today extended the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year, deciding that it should be reviewed at the request of that country’s Government or no later than 15 June 2007. The Council also declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq."

I think the real question here is why do you not want to believe we are there at the request of the Iraqi government?

no wonder the conclusions that you derive are all along the lines of lefties want Iraqis to blow us up.

I never said (nor do I believe) that lefties "want Iraqis to blow us up". What I will observe is that when they do (or for that matter, when anyone else does), lefties seem awfully quick to romanticize their motives.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:31 AM

Rich2506,

I seem to remember that Eastern Europe also had elected governments (They appeared to have won 100% of the vote) that also asked Soviet troops to stay in their countries. For some strange reason, right-wingers didn't regard these requests as really representing the will of the people.

If you have some tangible reason for believing that the Iraqi election was as flawed as a Soviet-era election in which the winner receives near 100%, kindly put it forth. Otherwise I don't know what you can be saying, if anything, besides 'Rich2506 doesn't approve of the elected Iraqi government, and its decisions should be ignored and replaced by Rich 2506's personal preferences'.

I agree that insurgents may just want to get their hands on some of that oil wealth, but remember, it's their country.

What do you mean it's "their" country? Whose, people who are "insurgents"? Does that mean I can go blow up Fort Knox and take the gold because after all it's "my" country? Wouldn't that also follow from your logic? Or are you leaving something out in this wonderfully deep "it's their country" analysis? (Like, for example, Iraqis who aren't "insurgents"?)

Fascinating. Anyone who wants oil wealth in Iraq can kill whoever they want in a struggle to seize it and you'll just blithely say 'well after all, it's their country'. Actually, it's the Iraqi peoples' country, and the Iraqi people already elected a government. Why you equate violent insurgents with the entirety of the Iraqi people, or assume that they instead of the actual government represent them, is beyond me. And rather disturbing in its ramifications, actually.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:40 AM

Repack Rider re: UN mandate:

Perhaps you forgot that George was going to call for that vote until he found out that he would lose it. The UN never voted to invade Iraq. ... This history is only five years old.

Um, I was not referring to that (non-) resolution, I was referring to this one. Perhaps you should be paying attention to some history more recent than from five+ years ago.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:47 AM

Frank,

Its very difficult to explain to my 7 year old son that the Iraqis are our friends and not our enemies, even though we are at war with them

That could be because we are not at war with "the Iraqis" in the first place.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:50 AM

That could be because we are not at war with "the Iraqis" in the first place.

1) Can we go home now?
2) The Right Wing's penchant for euphemism grows and grows.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 10, 2008 8:27 AM

Every significant political party in Iraq has an associated militia.

Are the militias associated with the ruling coalition being attacked? No.

What is going on is quite simply the use of the Iraqi security forces by one Iraqi faction to crush the supporters of another faction. It has nothing to do with eliminating militias qua militias and has nothing to do with the rule of law.

The Iraqis have to hold new elections eventually and we are terrified that the majority Shia will elect Sadrists. So we are more than happy to exterminate the Sadrists using the excuse of the militia "problem".

Why else would the campaign have started in Basra, where there WAS NO SECURITY PROBLEM? Basra was so secure the British were able to withdraw. There was no security issue that justified the Basra campaign; Maliki had the political goal of killing fellow Shia that supported other political parties. Period.

Posted by Brian | May 10, 2008 8:42 AM

So, Mr. Martin and Mr. Yglesias see a right for religious leaders to maintain a heavily armed militia with orders to keep police and other government officials and forces out of their city neighborhoods. Does Mayor Daly of Chicago agree with this position?

A question, why does the word allies have quotation marks around it?

Posted by Fred Beloit | May 10, 2008 8:49 AM

Jeffrey Davis,

1) Can we go home now?

"We"? Are you in Iraq at present? We 'can' withdraw our military presence anytime we choose; it's not a question of 'can'. We 'can' also withdraw our military presence from Germany and South Korea if we want to. Happy?

2) The Right Wing's penchant for euphemism grows and grows.

Pointing out that we are not at war with "the Iraqis" is a "euphemism"? Seems practically the opposite to me.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 8:50 AM

Fred,

A question, why does the word allies have quotation marks around it?

Good question, I found that odd too. For some people, as with the word 'terrorists', putting quotes around the word 'allies' seems to just be a reflex at this point, regardless of context or appropriateness.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 8:54 AM

Iraq does not necessarily need to be free of foreign troops before it can be considered independent, but I think a couple of requirements that are not present would have to be:

1. Those foreign troops would not have to be free by law to conduct military operations wherever they want in the country while not subject to local law or chain of command.

2. Foreign contractors would not have to be exempt from local law.

3. The notional government would have to be able to stand on its own without the support of those foreign troops. Foreign troops to help protect against invasion from a third country would be fine. But if foreign troops are necessary to protect the government from its own population, that government is a puppet pure and simple, regardless of its nominal sovereignty.

If you are "host" to a large foreign army and foreign mercenary force that can kill anyone it wants without being subject to your laws and even without needing to tell you about it, you are not independent. Sorry. If you would be dead within days if foreign troops stopped defending you in your fortified urban enclave, you are not independent. Sorry.

Oh, and with regard to the question, "Why is every act of violence in Iraq the act of a 'freedom fighter'?" the answer is, "Any ambiguity here is the result of our invasion." See how easy that is? If you don't like the fact that thugs can dress up their acts of violence in the finery of liberation, one simple thing you can do is refrain from conquering countries and holding them in thrall.

Posted by Brian | May 10, 2008 8:57 AM

One reason that the term "allies" might have quotations around it might be the fact that the same people who occasionally fight alongside the U.S. forces often wander off to fight with various insurgent factions, provide them intelligence, or even openly veer in and out of the U.S. domain of influence.

But I'm sure that if you suggest it over and over and over, everyone will finally agree to call anyone you designate as Allies and we will all be WWII heroes once again and anyone who dissents will be a cowardly Quisling troop hater.

Posted by El Cid | May 10, 2008 8:59 AM

Sonic Charmer, old boy, the way I find these things out is that I READ as well as write. In particular, I read the blogs of those who spend time in Iraqw, and read the Arabic press in Arabic. If you are interested in an education, "Informed Comment" by Juan Cole might be a first place to start. Try this:

"Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran. Fiderer points out that the ISG report had already diagnosed this syndrome. The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence. In fact, the violence came as a response to violations of the cease fire by the US and the Iraqi government, which took advantage of it to arrest Mahdi Army commanders (that's a ceasefire?)"

http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/iran-supported-al-maliki-against.html

Posted by tim connor | May 10, 2008 9:02 AM

Sonic Charmer, old boy, the way I find these things out is that I READ as well as write. In particular, I read the blogs of those who spend time in Iraq, and read the Arabic press in Arabic. If you are interested in an education, "Informed Comment" by Juan Cole might be a first place to start. Try this:

"Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran. Fiderer points out that the ISG report had already diagnosed this syndrome. The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence. In fact, the violence came as a response to violations of the cease fire by the US and the Iraqi government, which took advantage of it to arrest Mahdi Army commanders (that's a ceasefire?)"

http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/iran-supported-al-maliki-against.html

Posted by tim connor | May 10, 2008 9:02 AM

So, Mr. Martin and Mr. Yglesias see a right for religious leaders to maintain a heavily armed militia with orders to keep police and other government officials and forces out of their city neighborhoods. Does Mayor Daly of Chicago agree with this position?

Is the Badr organization, the militia associated with Maliki's Dawa party, being attacked?

No.

Come on, this is really, really simple and basic.

If the Mahdi army is attacked and the Badr organization is not, it is a damnable lie to describe the operation as "anti-militia".

Posted by Brian | May 10, 2008 9:03 AM

Sonic Charmer, old boy, the way I find these things out is that I READ as well as write. In particular, I read the blogs of those who spend time in Iraq, and read the Arabic press in Arabic. If you are interested in an education, "Informed Comment" by Juan Cole might be a first place to start. Try this:

"Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran. Fiderer points out that the ISG report had already diagnosed this syndrome. The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence. In fact, the violence came as a response to violations of the cease fire by the US and the Iraqi government, which took advantage of it to arrest Mahdi Army commanders (that's a ceasefire?)"

http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/iran-supported-al-maliki-against.html

Posted by tim connor | May 10, 2008 9:05 AM

Brian

If you are "host" to a large foreign army and foreign mercenary force that can kill anyone it wants without being subject to your laws and even without needing to tell you about it, you are not independent.

Okay, so they are not independent. What to do about it then?

Obviously, the only solution is to kidnap people, strafe funerals, and detonate bombs in marketplaces. There is no other approach possible. Furthermore, anyone who does any of those things is automatically doing it "to regain their independence". So if I point out that such people are not merely people who "want independence", I am denying their right to strive for independence, because after all, wanting independence and blowing up random civilians while saying 'I want independence' are one and the same. There's no such thing as 'wanting' independence while not killing random people; there's no excluded middle here.

That seems to summarize this post and thread fairly well.

Oh, and with regard to the question, "Why is every act of violence in Iraq the act of a 'freedom fighter'?" the answer is, "Any ambiguity here is the result of our invasion."

But, what ambiguity? I don't think there's much ambiguity at all. Why do you think there is?, is my question then.

See how easy that is?

Indeed I do. Extremely easy. Facile, even.

If you don't like the fact that thugs can dress up their acts of violence in the finery of liberation, one simple thing you can do is refrain from conquering countries and holding them in thrall.

I suppose. But, another thing I can do is call lefties on such simplistic projection and romanticization, and refuse to go along with it.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 9:10 AM

Sonic Charmer--

Some advice. Learn something. Quit calling people names and casting aspersions on their characters.

Try to focus your discussions on matters of substance.

Right now --your comments constitute the perfect caricature of an extremely poorly informed Bush supporter.

There must be some rational reasons for such support.

Find them, or be quiet.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 10, 2008 9:14 AM

El Cid,

One reason that the term "allies" might have quotations around it might be the fact that the same people who occasionally fight alongside the U.S. forces often wander off to fight with various insurgent factions, provide them intelligence, or even openly veer in and out of the U.S. domain of influence.

Which the same people? I'm glad to learn you have such a detailed, thorough understanding of the makeup of the various factions/forces in Iraq and what all of them occasionally do. To the point where you can comfortably declare that we have no non-scarequoteworthy allies in Iraq. It must be nice to know such things.

But I'm sure that if you suggest it over and over and over, everyone will finally agree to call anyone you designate as Allies and we will all be WWII heroes once again


Huh!? What does whether we have allies in Iraq have to do with us being (or not being) "WWII heroes"? Having allies (or not) is a neutral, factual state of affairs; one can have allies and be a hero or a devil. For crying out loud, Nazi Germany had allies. Are you somehow under the impression that if you admit we have allies, that will automatically make us "WWII heroes"? Is that what's going on, is that what motivates the desire to badmouth and scare-quote any allies we may have? How strange.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 9:20 AM

Tim Connor,

Some advice. Learn something. Quit calling people names and casting aspersions on their characters.

Thanks for the brilliant advice. Also thanks for telling me I shouldn't call people names and simultaneously calling me ignorant and a caricature of a poorly-informed Bush supporter. That was precious. (Have I stated anywhere here that I support Bush? I don't think Bush has even been brought up here; what does he have to do with anything?)

Anyway, I will strive to cease calling people all the vicious names I have called them in this thread, just as soon as you supply some examples, which obviously must be legion. So you should have little trouble doing so. Till then,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 9:26 AM

Sonic Charmer: feel free to call me any names you want. I don't care in the slightest, and I do not give the tiniest bit of weight to suggestions by such type as you that I am less "patriotic" or whatever.

I don't think a false civility in blog comments in any way contributes to an intellectually honest discussion. The nonsense arguments offered by the Iraq occupation forever crowd is neither strengthened nor weakened by insults or politeness.

Posted by El Cid | May 10, 2008 9:35 AM

But, what ambiguity? I don't think there's much ambiguity at all. Why do you think there is?, is my question then.

Well, if your point is that there are some people who are blowing things up because they want the US out, and some people who are blowing things up because they want to seize the country's oil wealth or re-assert Sunni dominance or hand the country over to Iran, and it's hard to tell which is which - that ambiguity is the result of the invasion, which has created a confused and anarchic situation, where men with ulterior motives can conceal those motives with the rhetoric of national liberation.

But you also seem to be arguing that even Iraqis who legitimately want national liberation should not blow things up, because they should presumably conduct themselves in a more gentlemanly way and attain their independence in a civilized fashion. And that's all well and good, but the issue would not exist if Iraq was not occupied. And it's very easy to tut-tut at the methods of asymmetric warfare when you're the power with stealth bombers and armored divisions and would pretty much automatically win any non-asymmetric conflict. "Why won't those horribly immoral men fight us in the way that guarantees that we will win and they will lose?" is not that mysterious a question to me, whatever I think of the moral propriety of blowing up marketplaces.

Posted by Brian | May 10, 2008 10:12 AM

Well, Sonic Charmer, you can start by not calling people lefties and simil;ar appelations simply because they disagree with you.

Then you can quit accusing people of making things up, simple because they appear to know things you don't. For example, you might have asked me why I believed the BADR militia was closer to Iran (try the fact that they were trained by the Revolutionary Guard) than Sadr's supporters, rather than essentially accusing me of making it up.

Want other examples? Sorry, I am not your nanny and I will not clean up puling messes.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 10, 2008 10:19 AM

"Well, I know I don't believe that terrorist militias in Iraq (or anyone anywhere else) 'have the right to' kidnap and behead people or to bomb marketplaces with the intent of killing civilians."

Obviously you have not been following the resistance very closely. It's fragmented along many lines, religious (and secular) and political. The most extreme are not very popular.
The US meanwhile has been bombing a civilian population and has bombed and tried to shut down hospitals.

Maliki with US support went militarily after a powerful political rival, also Shia, whose party was set to win big in upcoming elections. That's what many people would see as one faction moving against another not as a "government" moving against lawbreakers. Maliki did not go after other heavily armed militias he went after Sadr. Is this the rule of law? Sadr's party has been trying recently to forge alliances, not only with other Shia but Sunni. Sadr's rhetoric has become more and more nationalist, what Cole strangely calls "nativist." in opposition to both American and Iranian involvement in the the country. Maliki is closer to Iran and the US, both of which want to gain and hold influence.
Charmer, you lecture on morality on the basis of a rule of Law that does not exist. You simplify to make yourself feel better ignoring what you choose to. Why not ask why we are in Iraq? What is the point of the expanding bases and the huge embassy complex? Have you followed the debate over the oil law the US has been trying to shove down the throats of the Iraqi electorate?

The US has chosen to back one side in a war, just as it did in Lebanon, just as it has in Gaza. In the Palestinian territories the US refused to accept the fairly elected government. Does the US have "a right" to deny the Palestinians their elected leadership? Actually I assume you do think the US has that right, and that logic extends to your logic here and the justification for our actions in Iraq. "We are the law." That's the opposite of the rule of law kiddo.
We're not leaving Iraq any time soon. The Iraqi people are less important to us than their geography. That is our "strategic interest, and you share it, though you make dim-witted attempts to pretend otherwise.

And as I said earlier, people have been covering US airstrikes since the beginning of April. And now Jr. Yglesias and the rest of the American "reality based" community notices? It's really pretty pathetic.

Gaza=Sadr City=Beirut. If you'd been following all of them you'd see a pattern. It's been commented on enough, but not in this country.

Posted by seth edenbaum | May 10, 2008 10:23 AM

"Well, I know I don't believe that terrorist militias in Iraq (or anyone anywhere else) 'have the right to' kidnap and behead people or to bomb marketplaces with the intent of killing civilians."

Obviously you have not been following the resistance very closely. It's fragmented along many lines, religious (and secular) and political. The most extreme are not very popular.
The US meanwhile has been bombing a civilian population and has bombed and tried to shut down hospitals.

Maliki with US support went militarily after a powerful political rival, also Shia, whose party was set to win big in upcoming elections. That's what many people would see as one faction moving against another not as a "government" moving against lawbreakers. Maliki did not go after other heavily armed militias he went after Sadr. Is this the rule of law? Sadr's party has been trying recently to forge alliances, not only with other Shia but Sunni. Sadr's rhetoric has become more and more nationalist, what Cole strangely calls "nativist." in opposition to both American and Iranian involvement in the the country. Maliki is closer to Iran and the US, both of which want to gain and hold influence.
Charmer, you lecture on morality on the basis of a rule of Law that does not exist. You simplify to make yourself feel better ignoring what you choose to. Why not ask why we are in Iraq? What is the point of the expanding bases and the huge embassy complex? Have you followed the debate over the oil law the US has been trying to shove down the throats of the Iraqi electorate?

The US has chosen to back one side in a war, just as it did in Lebanon, just as it has in Gaza. In the Palestinian territories the US refused to accept the fairly elected government. Does the US have "a right" to deny the Palestinians their elected leadership? Actually I assume you do think the US has that right, and that logic extends to your logic here and the justification for our actions in Iraq. "We are the law." That's the opposite of the rule of law kiddo.
We're not leaving Iraq any time soon. The Iraqi people are less important to us than their geography. That is our "strategic interest, and you share it, though you make dim-witted attempts to pretend otherwise.

And as I said earlier, people have been covering US airstrikes since the beginning of April. And now Jr. Yglesias and the rest of the American "reality based" community notices? It's really pretty pathetic.

Gaza=Sadr City=Beirut. If you'd been following all of them you'd see a pattern. It's been commented on enough, but not in this country.

Posted by seth edenbaum | May 10, 2008 10:26 AM

To answer Sonic Charmer at 7:40am:

We in the West didn't have much in the way of evidence that the Soviet Union was manipulating elections in Eastern European countries in the late 1940s, but the fact that those countries were under military occupation was considered pretty conclusive. Iraq is under military occupation and the surveys that have been done show that Iraqis want all Americans out of their country yesterday.

Does that mean I can go blow up Fort Knox and take the gold because after all it's "my" country?

What it means is that if you decide to do that, it's up to your fellow Americans to stop you. The Chinese have no business coming over here and occupying Fort Knox in order to "protect" it from saboteurs like you. If the Chinese decide they "have" to clear out Fort Know and to take all the gold back to their country for "safekeeping," Americans will, quite rightly, take violent exception to that.

Do insurgents = the Iraqi people? It was clear from the very beginning of the occupation of Iraq that the insurgents (I'm calling them that because that seems to be a consensus term) had extensive popular support. Even as early as July 2003, insurgents were popping out of crowds, shooting American soldiers and slipping back into the crowds without difficulty, indicating that Iraqis didn't object to seeing American soldiers killed in front of them.

Major problem is that distinguishing insurgents from the Iraqis who support the occupation is a majorly difficult problem. In that part of the world, the people have many centuries of experience in dealing with foreign occupiers.

Posted by Rich2506 | May 10, 2008 10:31 AM

"So Maliki and the US have taken on and beaten the Mahdi Army which now agrees to disarm as Maliki directed. Will there be cheering in the streets of Sadr City on this finale? You bet there will be, along with a new sense of pride in the Iraqi government. The second biggest losers in all this were the doom & gloom liberal SurrenderMedia and Surrendercrats. The world just won’t produce another Vietnam for them. Their predictions were wrong - again. And their hopes of a US failure in Iraq were wrong - as they have always been. Wrong in a smelly, sick kind of way."

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5405#comments

Posted by Mr. Forward | May 10, 2008 11:12 AM

From our point of view, we would of course like any opponents of our presence there to make a Monday morning appointment with our representatives in Baghdad and give them a power point presentation to plead their case so we can use our awesome powers of logical and moral reasoning to decide as to whether or not the request should be accepted or even considered. But it takes a somewhat deranged mind to conclude that historically this is the only form of protest that has been used. Whether he accepts it or not, Sonic Charmer's beautiful mind cannot see that this is what his basic claim is. There is no rational argument possible with such claims.

Posted by gregor | May 10, 2008 11:16 AM

Um, I was not referring to that (non-) resolution, I was referring to this one. Perhaps you should be paying attention to some history more recent than from five+ years ago.

Shorter version. Yes, the invasion was conducted without any UN sanction, and once we had installed a puppet government that would not live ten seconds if we left, they voted to keep their bodyguards in place while they looted the country.

Posted by Repack Rider | May 10, 2008 11:18 AM

"Indeed. One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq. The big achievement of the past 18 months, after all, has been to convince many Sunni insurgents to stop allying with Al-Qaeda in Iraq. But the alliance with AQI only commenced in the first place because Sunni Arab groups wanted to take up arms against the American occupation and were seeking allies in that cause. Now our guns are aimed at the Sadrists because they want us to leave. And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved "victory" defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave."

Liberals, do any of you have any idea how ridiculous the above paragraph is? No? Maybe then one day the "reality-based community" will actually understand the reality of what is really going on in Iraq. And it isn't anything being said here in the post or by the link to Eric Martin.

Posted by SteveIL | May 10, 2008 11:36 AM

Forget your stupid f*cking religions, and put down your stupid f*cking guns. Violence only causes more violence. What's better? Us bombing with our fancy planes to take out specific targets and killing innocent Iraqis in the process? Or suicide bombers with the same intention killing innocent Iraqis in the process? Do any of you warmongers see the f*cking point yet?

War solves nothing. Does our ignorance and greed doom us to repeat history? What a stupid f*cking species. There's the creators, and there's the takers, and the takers always want to take everything, and the creators just want to create something that means something to themselves and others. Stop the bickering and the taking, and the wanting of what you think is yours, what you think your entitled to, and instead create something that gives to people. Get real people.

Posted by Jake S. | May 10, 2008 12:24 PM

Obviously I can't speak for "the right wing" but the distinction is certainly not lost on me. Were you trying to suggest/imply that it was, or something?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 10:55 PM
----------------------------

Okay, let me see if I can get it through your head.

American neo-cons WANTED regime change in Iraq. They could have gone about it the way you approve of, or they could have gone about it with a massive bombing campaign and invasion and occupation killing hundreds of thousands.

And now you want to point out that Sadr's group could just quietly go to the ballot box, because GOSH, there's NO NEED TO GET VIOLENT.

I'm so tired of these war crimes committed by the US, but any violent response to it is magically beyond-discussion terrorism to the same ones who advocated US-sponsored violence in the first place.

Posted by tubino | May 10, 2008 12:57 PM

I've been opposed to this war before it started. However, I would be willing to support a continued war effort if our leaders defined victory and created a plan to achieve it. They're either unable or unwilling to do so; they're either incompenent or corrupt.

Posted by Charles | May 10, 2008 12:58 PM

There is a pattern to the polls taken of Iraqis that is treated as a quaint incongruity, or, more normally, ignored: Iraqis always say that the Americans cause violence. They said it in Anbar province during the "surge". They said it consistently from 2004 to 2007. And they are right. Pull out the American troops and violence will trend downward. The Americans are the worst thing that has ever happened to Iraq - certainly worse than Saddam Hussein, America's old ally. The inhuman slaughter by the Americans in Sadr city, and the recent rehiring of Blackwater, are two signs that the war has reached a certain purely racist level - which happened in Vietnam, too.

We will get out of Iraq due to the expense of it. I have no doubt. We should have gotten out long ago, through intense moral shame. Unfortunately, America is a very shameless predatory power.

Posted by roger | May 10, 2008 1:21 PM

Uh, Mr. Forward. Best evidence is that Sadr continues to have a plurality of Shi'a support.

Where are you getting your information. Your clip was polemical, rather than based in verifiable reality references.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 10, 2008 1:21 PM

I'm coming to this way late. boy, people sure are testy around here today.

just repeating the obvious, the maliki government set off this current round of violence, not sadr.

the americans have chosen to support one political faction with a militia against another political faction with a militia. i'm not convinced this will actually end shia on shia violence which is too bad.

mr. forward makes a prediction: "Will there be cheering in the streets of Sadr City on this finale? You bet there will be, along with a new sense of pride in the Iraqi government."

i'm not one to make predictions about what iraq will look like tomorrow, so i'll just say that
it's equally possible that the residents of sadr city will not be cheering nor will they feel any empathy with a government who attacked their fellow sadrists, displaced and killed a bunch of innocent civilians in the process. we'll just have to wait and see.

destroying the village in order to save it doesn't strike me a particularly good way to win hearts and minds.

but that's just me.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 10, 2008 2:11 PM

Sonic Charmer:

I think the real question here is why do you not want to believe we are there at the request of the Iraqi government

The answer here would be "reality." People think it for the same reason they think grass is green.

The Iraqi parliament passed a law in summer 2007 requiring that they approve any extension of the UN mandate (although this really wasn't necessary, since the Iraqi constitution requires it anyway). This was in response to Maliki breaking his pledge to parliament that they would have to approve the extension at the end of 2006.

After the 2007 law was passed, Maliki's foreign minister told parliament that Maliki would follow it. Then, under enormous pressure from the US, Maliki broke his pledge for the second year running and again violated the Iraqi constitution and also violated the summer 2007 law.

So the elected Iraqi government has very clearly said that the US can't stay. In other words, they have tried to use the tools of non-violence and democracy to get us to leave. And the Bush administration has responded: fuck you.

I realize Sonic Charmer has no interest in what's actually happening, but I thought other people might want to know the details.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 2:17 PM

Sonic Charmer: Although your little hissy fit was amusing about how dare I make myself a living god to declare what each individual Iraqi does or does not do, (a) It's not *me* alleging such things -- it's in every report by the U.S. military on progress with Iraqi forces; and (b) I would wager rather heavily that if, say, French or Russian troops were serving beside U.S. troops yet were regularly found to have significant numbers cooperating with Iraqi insurgents, you and all your cheerleader buddies wouldn't hesitate to use the dreaded quote marks with regard to our French or Russian allies.

Posted by El_Cid | May 10, 2008 2:17 PM

Re: I'm not sure what more 'independence' is required, but if some Iraqi really believes that it requires there being no U.S. military bases there (is Germany not 'independent'?) then I invite and encourage them to work through persuasion and the political process to bring that about.

Sonic Charmer,

Gee, do you think it's possible that the Sadrists are ideologically opposed to Western liberal 'democracy', and don't want to legitimize the political process by participating in it?

I'm not a supporter of Sadr's movement, but _given their premises_ it's perfectly logical that they would resort to armed struggle. If I lived in, say, Cuba or Venezuela and the United States invaded it to bring 'freedom' I'm sure I would take up arms as well.

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 2:42 PM

Re: I'm not sure what more 'independence' is required, but if some Iraqi really believes that it requires there being no U.S. military bases there (is Germany not 'independent'?) then I invite and encourage them to work through persuasion and the political process to bring that about.

Sonic Charmer,

Gee, do you think it's possible that the Sadrists are ideologically opposed to Western liberal 'democracy', and don't want to legitimize the political process by participating in it?

I'm not a supporter of Sadr's movement, but _given their premises_ it's perfectly logical that they would resort to armed struggle. If I lived in, say, Cuba or Venezuela and the United States invaded it to bring 'freedom' I'm sure I would take up arms as well.

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 2:43 PM

Every time I come here, I see the same group trying to explain why our War in Iraq is necessary and why we are really winning a glorious victory there.

I don't understand what incentive there is for these few, these proud, these completely delusional to continue to support the unsupportable except the fact that they can't accept the fact that they were either wrong and lying or were totally fooled by the Bush Administration.

At some point, you'd think it would be easier on their psyches to just let a light shine in and accept reality, but for some reason there is something here they just can't release.

These are the 25 percenters. The hard core. The dead-enders. It's hard to even argue with them any more. That's how pitiful they have become. If it wasn't for the fact that we are still engaged in a horrible, costly continuation of this failed policy, I'd say it was best just to leave them alone with their sad fantasy.

Posted by PopeRatzo | May 10, 2008 2:51 PM

This is the Iraqi idea of a "well regulated militia" ..

Every Iraqi male is allow to have an AK-47 or similar weapon .. notice the agreement of capitulation allows only the unwarranted arrest of anyone in possession of “medium and heavy weaponry.” The AK-47 is considered "small arms."

Posted by Neo | May 10, 2008 2:53 PM

2) The Right Wing's penchant for euphemism grows and grows.

Pointing out that we are not at war with "the Iraqis" is a "euphemism"? Seems practically the opposite to me.

We're there killing people to get oil to market and to help the Israelis. The people we're killing are Iraqis.

If you think your hyperbole has a smidgen of truth, look up what "euphemism" means because its opposite isn't what you seem to think it means. All in all, I'm fairly comfortable calling the words the right wing uses as "euphemisms".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 10, 2008 2:58 PM

Wow, I'd missed this:

I'm not sure what more 'independence' is required, but if some Iraqi really believes that it requires there being no U.S. military bases there (is Germany not 'independent'?) then I invite and encourage them to work through persuasion and the political process to bring that about. I know they have the right to do that.

I wonder if Sonic Charmer has any idea what color the sky is.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 3:06 PM

Who would be stupid enough to think .. Is It Time to Invade Burma?

Posted by Neo | May 10, 2008 3:12 PM

Shorter Sonic Charmer: Why don't you want to believe the neocon propaganda?

Posted by gregor | May 10, 2008 3:41 PM

"al-Sadr's String of Triumphs Continues: Sadrists Agree to Permit IA in Sadr City to Seize Weapons and Arrest Those Carrying Them
—Ace
The Black Knight always triumphs!"

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/262107.php

Posted by Mr. Forward | May 10, 2008 3:44 PM

El Cid

Sonic Charmer: feel free to call me any names you want. I don't care in the slightest, and I do not give the tiniest bit of weight to suggestions by such type as you that I am less "patriotic" or whatever.

I didn't and don't want to call you or anyone else in this thread names, nor have I nor will I suggest that you or anyone else are "less patriotic" (than what?). Where are you people getting this? Just making up stuff and pretending I said it?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 3:55 PM

Brian

Well, if your point is that there are some people who are blowing things up because they want the US out, and some people who are blowing things up because they want to seize the country's oil wealth or re-assert Sunni dominance or hand the country over to Iran, and it's hard to tell which is which - that ambiguity is the result of the invasion,

But it's not all that hard to tell which is which. Why do you think it is? The bombing of a marketplace or a funeral, or in general the civilian-directed violence we are talking about, serves no tactical purpose w/r to "getting the US out" so why would someone insist on interpreting it as such?

But you also seem to be arguing that even Iraqis who legitimately want national liberation should not blow things up,

Yes! I am! Imagine that, I am arguing that people should not blow things up. What a fascist I am!

And that's all well and good, but the issue would not exist if Iraq was not occupied. And it's very easy to tut-tut at the methods of asymmetric warfare when you're the power with stealth bombers and armored divisions and would pretty much automatically win any non-asymmetric conflict.

What "fighting"? You're assuming there needs to be "fighting" to accomplish this desired-for end; to you (like Matthew), there's no functional difference between "wanting" the thing and "fighting" for it. (Which is what I find...interesting.) In this case for some reason you've ruled out the following: Vote and persuade (you know - with words, arguments) their fellow citizens to vote enough people into office so that the Iraqi government asks the U.S. to leave. The end.

Anyway, the point is not even really that I think this is what Iraqis who want the occupation to end "should" do. (Although, I do.) The point is that if they don't use such peaceful/civilized methods, there's no reason to pretend that they are.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:09 PM

Sonic Charmer: I did not allege that you called me or anyone else names. I was clearly stating that it did not matter to me one way or the other.

Your civility does not in any way lend itself to the credibility of your weak arguments, nor would a hypothetical smarminess detract from strong ones.

Some of the other comments have to do with general comment patterns here, not you; stop insisting that all of us pay particular attention to your comments and arguments, because very few of us find you that important or worth spending more time on than entertains us.

Hence the WWII reference, because the Glorious Iraq Occupation Forever caucus rather regularly wraps themselves in the moral injunction of those who fought the Nazis. Thus the sarcastic point made not directly quoting your statements. Get over yourself.

Posted by El Cid | May 10, 2008 4:19 PM

Tim Connor

Well, Sonic Charmer, you can start by not calling people lefties and simil;ar appelations simply because they disagree with you.

I didn't realize anyone would consider "leftie" a slight. (!) What's wrong with leftie? It's merely short for left-winger, i.e., someone on the "left" half of the spectrum. This is pretty standard, uncontroversial political jargon in widespread use. And yes, people who disagree with me about polarized issues do tend to be lefties (not on everything, and not always, but on average), because after all, I lean rightie on most things and could be fairly called a rightie! (Go ahead :) But hey if you really do think leftie's an insult or something, go ahead and say so, and then I'll refrain and apologize for calling you such a horrible thing as a leftie. :-)

For example, you might have asked me why I believed the BADR militia was closer to Iran (try the fact that they were trained by the Revolutionary Guard) than Sadr's supporters, rather than essentially accusing me of making it up.

The issue there is slightly different because the point I was trying to get across was simply that a statement like "BADR is closer to Iran" isn't something you could possibly 'know' - it is unquantifiable and unknowable, and thus you (or whoever you 'learned' it from - Juan Cole, evidently) were making it up almost by definition. That remains my view so I don't know why I wouldn't say it. If you think otherwise please tell us how you or "Juan" went about measuring the "Closeness To Iran" of these various militias. What are the units? etc. best,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:20 PM

seth edenbaum

Charmer, you lecture on morality on the basis of a rule of Law that does not exist.

If rule of law does not exist, morality goes out the window? Anyway, my only point here is not to label this or that group in Iraq immoral (though some clearly are), my point was that when groups resort to violence I don't have to pretend they are merely folks with a political view ("want" something). Nothing you've said refutes that point.

Why not ask why we are in Iraq?

Because that was not the actual topic of this thread? There are many things I did not ask here.

Does the US have "a right" to deny the Palestinians their elected leadership? Actually I assume you do think the US has that right,

Then you are wrong, I don't think the US has "a right" to deny the Palestinians their elected leadership. But why do you keep changing the subject?

and that logic extends to your logic here and the justification for our actions in Iraq. "We are the law." That's the opposite of the rule of law kiddo.

Whom are you quoting? When did I say "We are the law"? More making stuff up.

We're not leaving Iraq any time soon. The Iraqi people are less important to us than their geography. That is our "strategic interest, and you share it, though you make dim-witted attempts to pretend otherwise.

Actually, I don't believe I have done anything of the sort. Iraq's geography does indeed make it strategically valuable, you are correct, and I never said or pretended otherwise.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:27 PM

Sonic Charmer:

Vote and persuade (you know - with words, arguments) their fellow citizens to vote enough people into office so that the Iraqi government asks the U.S. to leave. The end.

Anyway, the point is not even really that I think this is what Iraqis who want the occupation to end "should" do. (Although, I do.) The point is that if they don't use such peaceful/civilized methods, there's no reason to pretend that they are.

As I pointed out mere inches above this, they've already elected people who said the mandate couldn't be extended. This peaceful/civilized voting and persuasion was completely ignored by the United States. Indeed, many Iraqi have pointed out that one reason for the continued violence is that the US has demonstrated that they will ignore non-violent, democratic attempts to get us to leave.

So I'd suggest that -- since you don't the most basic facts about Iraq -- you might want to stop bloviating about it. It's really embarrassing to witness.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 4:28 PM

Rich2506

We in the West didn't have much in the way of evidence that the Soviet Union was manipulating elections in Eastern European countries in the late 1940s, but the fact that those countries were under military occupation was considered pretty conclusive.

Are you genuinely suggesting that the Iraq election was manipulated? How, in what way, and what is your specific evidence?

Or is the Soviet example designed to build a case that going forward we should all treat any elections as "manipulated" anytime they occur in the presence of foreign troops? If so, I can't quite go along with that.

Iraq is under military occupation and the surveys that have been done show that Iraqis want all Americans out of their country yesterday.

Even if you're right this is a completely different issue from whether the election was valid. Now all you're saying is that one of Iraq's current government's policies is opposed by a majority of its citizens. Um....and? I don't know what to take away from that. This state of affairs occurs all the time even in countries we consider the most democratic on earth, including the U.S. It changes neither the validity of the Iraqi elections nor the fact that Iraq's elected government requested the American troop presence (which is what we were talking about as I recall). If it did, then Britain's government would have become illegitimate the moment it joined the Iraq invasion (or, indeed, the European Union) against the wishes of a majority of its citizens. Here in the U.S. you can get a majority of citizens in polls who, say, oppose affirmative action and want it banned - yet the government does not. Once again: illegitimate I say!

This point really doesn't go nearly as far as you seem to think.

What it means is that if you decide to do that, it's up to your fellow Americans to stop you. The Chinese have no business coming over here and occupying Fort Knox in order to "protect" it from saboteurs like you.

Why not? Suppose the U.S. government asks for assistance because they feel like they're not up to the task of stopping me alone? And the Chinese say "ok, we'll help"? Which part of that is bad/wrong/evil? What - because they'd be CHINESE and this is AMURICAN LAND and we can't have CHINAMEN stepping on it...is that it? Are you that xenophobic? (You do realize it's a purely xenophobic and nativist far-right-wing POV you're defending, right?)

If the Chinese decide they "have" to clear out Fort Know and to take all the gold back to their country for "safekeeping," Americans will, quite rightly, take violent exception to that.

Let me know when this analogy becomes relevant to anything.

It was clear from the very beginning of the occupation of Iraq that the insurgents (I'm calling them that because that seems to be a consensus term) had extensive popular support.

Clear to whom? Not to me. Many of the people you call "insurgents" are doing practically nothing besides murdering Iraqis. Yet it's "clear" to you that they have extensive popular support. On what basis?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:41 PM

gregor

But it takes a somewhat deranged mind to conclude that historically this is the only form of protest that has been used.

Yes it does and for the Nth time I never said anything like this. I have already restated my actual point (which is not, by any means, that peaceful methods are "the only form of protest that has been sued") to you several times now. If you won't or can't make the effort to try to understand what I'm actually saying, further correspondence is probably not a good idea.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:45 PM

the fact that Iraq's elected government requested the American troop presence (which is what we were talking about as I recall).

Jesus Christ. STOP TALKING.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 4:47 PM

Yet it's "clear" to you that they have extensive popular support. On what basis?

Last polls I saw had support for attacking U.S. troops at 60% in Iraq. It breaks down as 93% of Sunni, 50% of Shia, and basically none among Kurds who for all intents and purposes don't even live in Iraq.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 10, 2008 4:50 PM

tubino

American neo-cons WANTED regime change in Iraq. They could have gone about it the way you approve of, or they could have gone about it with a massive bombing campaign and invasion and occupation killing hundreds of thousands.

Perfectly good comparison. So, ok, you've raised the example of "neo-cons": a group of people who wanted something (regime change in Iraq). And, they chose violent methods to get it. Thus, "neo-cons" (in the popular understanding of the term, which is silly, but let's go with it) share responsibility for the violence that occurred re: the Iraq invasion.

I totally, and completely, agree! Which means that if someone came along and said "neo-cons just wanted Saddam out of power" - dismissing/ignoring the violent methods espoused and used to get this done - they would sound just as silly as Matthew does.

See the difference? You are saying that "neo-cons" used violence to get what they "want". That is true, but the difference is that I do not try to pretend otherwise or ignore/wipe away their use of violence. Make sense?

And now you want to point out that Sadr's group could just quietly go to the ballot box, because GOSH, there's NO NEED TO GET VIOLENT.

Well, of course there's no "need" to get violent - and it's equally true that there was no "need" to invade Iraq. When did I say otherwise? This contradiction you think you've found in my statements simply isn't there. And I'm not even trying to say that Sadr's group "could" use the ballot box/peaceful means (though they could, couldn't they? are you saying they couldn't possibly?)

For the Nth time: All I'm really saying is that IF THEY DON'T, then I don't have to pretend they AREN'T. That there is a difference between using peaceful means and not using them. A difference between (mere) "wanting" something and killing people to get it. There is a difference!! This is true of Sadrists and (you are right) it is also true of "neo-cons". Ok?

but any violent response to it is magically beyond-discussion terrorism to the same ones who advocated US-sponsored violence in the first place.

I'm not saying it's "magically beyond-discussion", just that I don't have to pretend it's not terrorism and is no different than mere political dissent. Get it now?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:54 PM

23456

So the elected Iraqi government has very clearly said that the US can't stay.

Again, I gave a link above to the UN document in question, it begins "Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister...". The mandate is a fact of reality. Now, I am of course aware of the controversy you bring up, although if the Prime Minister lacked authority to make that request one wonders why the UN honored it, or won't rescind it. And if this internal Iraqi government dispute negates the request as you suggest, then there is a case to be made for invalidating the UN mandate. Perhaps it shall be at some point. But, as things stand now, the mandate is in place, at the request of the Iraqi government, just like I said.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 4:58 PM

And I'm not even trying to say that Sadr's group "could" use the ballot box/peaceful means (though they could, couldn't they? are you saying they couldn't possibly?)

For the love of God, please stop talking.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 4:59 PM

Hector

Gee, do you think it's possible that the Sadrists are ideologically opposed to Western liberal 'democracy', and don't want to legitimize the political process by participating in it?

Reflex-scare-quotes again! This time around the word 'democracy' (?!?) Fascinating.

Anyway, of course it's possible that the Sadrists are opposed to democracy. Indeed, you are right, I believe. I'm anxious to learn what you think that proves...

I'm not a supporter of Sadr's movement, but _given their premises_ it's perfectly logical that they would resort to armed struggle.

Perhaps it is. And so they have. So, to summarize, this is a group of people that (a) is opposed to democratic governance (i.e. governance with the consent of the governed) and (b) according to whose philosophy, armed struggle to seize power follows logically.

This all makes them much, much different than merely some sort of political faction which "wants" something. And that was precisely my point! Thanks for helping me illustrate it so successfully,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 5:03 PM

Sonic Charmer, have you ever seen this?

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 5:08 PM

Jeffrey Davis

[on whether we're at war with "the Iraqis"] The people we're killing are Iraqis.

Not all of them. Anyway, this makes about as much sense as saying that if we kill some Saudi Al Qaedans, that means we're at war with "the Saudis". You really can't distinguish between a violent subset of a nationality and the nationality as a whole? (Or is it that you're claiming all Iraqis are violent?) Seriously, I guess I really need to draw some Venn diagrams for certain people here.

Also it occurs to me, the people you call "the Iraqis" (i.e. certain violent terrorist militias) have certainly killed a lot of, well, Iraqis in the past few years. I suppose it equally follows via your logic that "the Iraqis" are at war with the Iraqis. You can insist on using words this way if you like but at some point meaning is lost and usefulness eludes us. That is the problem with euphemisms such as saying "we're at war with the Iraqis".

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 5:11 PM

23456

As I pointed out mere inches above this, they've already elected people who said the mandate couldn't be extended.

They don't exist in large enough numbers to have actually affected Iraq's government's official stance, evidently. Similarly, there are elected people in the U.S. government who say that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN, or switch to a flat tax, or whatever. The U.S. government hasn't done these things (yet) and Iraq's government hasn't withdrawn its request for US troop presence (yet). In both cases, the peaceful answer for folks who want policy to be changed to their liking is persuasion and civilized politics. In both cases, people who did not get their way might not choose to use peaceful means. In both cases, if they don't it is wrong and unwarranted to pretend that they have. Period.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 5:20 PM

Ed Marshall

Last polls I saw had support for attacking U.S. troops at 60% in Iraq. ....

Good point. I'll concede that there is much support for attacking US troops in particular. As for whether there is extensive popular support for the "insurgents" in general (from whom many, if not in some cases a majority, of their violent actions are directed at civilians and not US troops), I still await evidence. best,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 5:26 PM

No, the vast majority of attacks are against U.S. troops, I'm looking for newer data but this is an old bunch of bullcrap that I've heard for years and it's never been true

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 10, 2008 5:57 PM

It's a slog but if you want to see the full report it's here

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 10, 2008 6:01 PM

Ed Marshall,

I stand corrected. Measured by # of attacks, US troops are more often the target.

Measured by # of deaths/casualties, I believe a similar chart would show the opposite breakdown.

Thanks,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 6:02 PM

They don't exist in large enough numbers to have actually affected Iraq's government's official stance, evidently. Similarly, there are elected people in the U.S. government who say that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN, or switch to a flat tax, or whatever. The U.S. government hasn't done these things (yet) and Iraq's government hasn't withdrawn its request for US troop presence (yet).

The MPs who said the mandate couldn't be extended won the vote in Parliament, you fucking moron. That didn't affect the "official stance" because there is no rule of law in Iraq.

Please, please, please shut up.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 6:38 PM

Sonic Charmer,

Kudos to you for continuing to argue rationally here, in spite of the insults, snark, etc.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM

Sonic Charmer,

It's a quite common tactic, historically, for people who are opposed to the political process to not take part in elections that would legitimize that process. The syndicalists in Europe and South America traditionally did not take part in elections, for example, nor did many of the revolutionary Left movements in South America, because they viewed as a bourgeois farce that they didn't want to legitimize. That doesn't mean that they didn't have substantial popular support, nor does it mean that they weren't better and more deserving of power than their rivals. Sadr and his men appear to believe in government by religious authority or perhaps by charismatic authority, so it makes perfect sense that they would choose not to participate in eletions.

I suppose my point is, exactly why _should_ Sadr and his men cease the armed struggle and participate in the electoral process, if they view that process as immoral in the first place? If your country was invaded by some other country under the name of 'freedom' would you collaborate with the occupiers?

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 6:46 PM

If Sonic Charmer is an example of what passes for rationality in the neocon quarters, no wonder our country is so fucked.

Posted by gregor | May 10, 2008 7:01 PM

I suppose my point is, exactly why _should_ Sadr and his men cease the armed struggle and participate in the electoral process, if they view that process as immoral in the first place?

Whatever the merits of this view, the fact is the Sadrists DID participate in the political process. They then used the peaceful/civilized methods of voting and persuasion to get a majority in parliament to approve a law saying that the mandate couldn't be extended without Parliament's approval (even though the Iraqi constitution already grants Parliament that right anyway).

And then Sonic Charmer yammered on like a retarded chimpanzee for 75 years about how awful it is to see violence, when of course the US would leave if only Iraqis would simply be peaceful and civilized and vote for the mandate to end.

By the way, Maliki himself recently said the troops from the "surge" should be withdrawn. The US of course also ignored this.

So, brace for 100 more years of Sonic Charmer wondering why Iraqis are using violence against the surge, when all Maliki has to do to get the troops withdrawn is just say so.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 7:02 PM

It's a quite common tactic, historically, for people who are opposed to the political process to not take part in elections that would legitimize that process.

Ok. It's a common tactic. (and??)

Why is it that every time I make a point of the form "people who do X are not Y", someone pops up to say that "doing X is common" or "are you saying no one has ever done X?" No, all I'm saying is that people who do X are not Y!

To be pedantic: The set [people who use violence because they want the US military presence ended] is not the same as the set [people who want the US military presence ended]. The latter includes the former of course, but not vice versa. So telling me that "using violence is common historically", or understandable, or whatever else, is totally irrelevant to my actual point.

Sadr and his men appear to believe in government by religious authority or perhaps by charismatic authority, so it makes perfect sense that they would choose not to participate in eletions.

Ok. So it makes perfect sense according to their philosophy. "It makes sense that they'd do X." This is still irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that doing X means they are not Y.

I suppose my point is, exactly why _should_ Sadr and his men cease the armed struggle and participate in the electoral process, if they view that process as immoral in the first place?

Maybe they "should", maybe they "shouldn't". My main point is that if they don't, then it is fallacious to treat them as just another democratic faction holding a political opinion (a group that merely and inoffensively "wants" something). Everything you've just said actually buttresses my point rather than refutes it: you've described the Sadrists as an intrinsically antidemocratic movement that almost necessarily resorts to violence and cannot participate in democracy. That. is. my. point.

p.s. FYI I happen to think that they should participate in the democratic process, because I that people should not attempt to take power over their countrymen by force, and because I generally frown upon their methods (murder/mayhem). You're telling me "but their philosophy tells them that charisma/religion/(whatever) entitles them to lead". Well goody for them but that doesn't mean I'm required to bow down to that philosophy. For crying out loud I can't believe that I have to explain that "but he has a philosophy according to which it's logical" is not sufficient justification for any autocrat who comes along and wants to rule. What budding autocrat doesn't have a philosophy according to which he should lead?

If your country was invaded by some other country under the name of 'freedom' would you collaborate with the occupiers?

If my country had been led by a dictatorial, genocidal tyrant, and then some other country invaded to dethrone him, and subsequently set up a democratic process to select new governance, then yes I can very well imagine myself participating in that process. Why not? "Because they're FOREIGNERS"?

I don't subscribe to a "better a murderous local madman than FOREIGNERS sullying my pure soil" philosophy, but your mileage may vary, perhaps.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:07 PM

PopeRatzo has it right. Arguing with these right wing morons is a waste of time.

Unfortunately, if one doesn't comment, then only the right wing morons will comment in response to Matt's and other bloggers posts on these points.

Therefore it is necessary to refute their bullshit.

Just don't expect to change their minds - because they don't have minds, only emotions.

That's also the case for those, like Robert Powell, who are apparently paid propagandist "astro-turfers" who babble the same scripted crap every day here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 10, 2008 7:07 PM

23456,

Your comment makes a strange point that ultimately hinges on a (silly IMHO) distinction between the occupation and "the surge" which I don't subscribe. I have this image in my head that some subset of troops have a "Surge" patch on their shoulder and it's only those troops which Maliki "said should be withdrawn", while he wants the other, "non-Surge" troops to stay, but the image breaks down under its own absurdity.

Did or did not the Iraqi government formally request the US presence to withdraw? I stand by my statement that if the Iraqi government withdrew its request for a US military presence, it would end. Internal parliamentary/prime minister power struggles aside, they have not, and you know it.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:14 PM

Sonic Charmer,

You are free to indulge in your idolatry of 'freedom', 'democracy', and I don't know what else as much as you want. I am not required to join you, and I think I will decline. Neither, for that matter, are the Iraqis.

I don't like the Islamist ideology of Sadr and his men, but they are perfectly correct in saying that the right to rule should be conferred by political virtue and not by elections whether 'democractic' or not. Society ought to be ruled by good men, not popular ones. These are seldom the same thing. I believe that the logical case against liberal democracy is, to me, irrefutable. Liberal democracy is little more than a way of ratifying the desires of the ruling oligarchy with a veneer of spurious popular support.

Since you appear to have no conception of the power of nationalism, it's not surprising that your side usually tends to find itself in alliances with the Miami Cuban mafia, the South Vietnamese oligarchy, the Venezuelan opposition, and other bunches of collaborationist traitors. Unfortunately, you seem not to have realized that cynical collaborationists are probably not the most reliable allies to have watching your back.

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 7:32 PM

Hector,

"It's a quite common tactic, historically, for people who are opposed to the political process to not take part in elections that would legitimize that process."

It could be, but the Sadrists did participate in the elections and hold about 28 seats in the 275-seat Iraqi legislature.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 7:44 PM

Hector

You are free to indulge in your idolatry of 'freedom', 'democracy', and I don't know what else as much as you want. I am not required to join you, and I think I will decline.

Ok. You're right, you're not required to be in favor of liberal democracy. (Hey, I remember you now!)

I don't like the Islamist ideology of Sadr and his men, but they are perfectly correct in saying that the right to rule should be conferred by political virtue and not by elections whether 'democractic' or not.

You think the Sadrists are correct in some statement about 'political virtue' that you've imagined to be their guiding philosophy. Got it.

Since you appear to have no conception of the power of nationalism,

On the contrary, I see its power everywhere, even here among the supposedly 'liberal'/internationalist commenters on a supposedly 'liberal'/internationalist blogger's website.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 7:59 PM

Did or did not the Iraqi government formally request the US presence to withdraw? I stand by my statement that if the Iraqi government withdrew its request for a US military presence, it would end. Internal parliamentary/prime minister power struggles aside, they have not, and you know it.

Let me try to explain this to you slowly, you fucking moron.

Iraq has a constitution. Like our own, it divides the government into branches, and gives certain powers to each branch.

The power to approve international treaties and agreements is given to the parliament, just as our constitution gives that power to our congress. Moreover, a majority of the parliament passed a law requiring that the mandate not be extended without their approval.

Now, if there were rule of law in Iraq, in which people use peaceful/civilized methods of voting and persuasion, the prime minister of Iraq could no more make the decision than George Bush could decide by himself that Iraqi troops and private contractors were legally allowed to occupy the US and kill Americans.

So: if you approve of what's happening in Iraq, then you would also approve if tomorrow George Bush gave Iraqis the go ahead to come to your house and kill your family.

It's not a complex issue, unless of course you have a brain the size of an almond.

Your comment makes a strange point that ultimately hinges on a (silly IMHO) distinction between the occupation and "the surge" which I don't subscribe. I have this image in my head that some subset of troops have a "Surge" patch on their shoulder and it's only those troops which Maliki "said should be withdrawn", while he wants the other, "non-Surge" troops to stay, but the image breaks down under its own absurdity.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, you fucking idiot, but there are more troops in Iraq now than there were several years ago. The addition of more troops was referred to as a "surge." Maliki recently said he thought the surge should be ended and the level of troops drawn down to what it was before. George Bush told him: "fuck you, the troop level is going to stay as is."

I hate to spell out the unbelievably obvious, but I know that complex concepts like numbers tend to cause your teeny-tiny brain to overheat.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 8:34 PM

I think we would all greatly benefit if Hector & Sonic Charmer would closely examine the reasons for and justifications of the Crusades.

Posted by El Cid | May 10, 2008 8:47 PM

"Let me try to explain this to you slowly, you fucking moron."

That's just another way of admitting you're losing the argument. Time to give it up, 23456.

Posted by Harry | May 10, 2008 8:53 PM

Iraq has a constitution. Like our own, it divides the government into branches, and gives certain powers to each branch.

The power to approve international treaties...

If it's all as clear-cut as you say, why did the UN approve the mandate and why don't they rescind it? Are they that gullible and malleable? Anyhow, all I originally said to prompt this particular subthread was that we are there under a UN mandate that came at the request of the Iraqi government. The fact remains that we are and it did. Maybe that ought to change but it has not. There's not much else to say here.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, you fucking idiot, but there are more troops in Iraq now than there were several years ago.

I am aware of it, but that still doesn't mean that some troops have "surge" written on them and some don't. The Number Of Troops Stationed In Iraq was not some sort of constant, set-in-stone, prescribed-by-law special number prior to the "surge". As far as I know it used to hover around 120k and now it hovers around 150k. And so the idea that Maliki said "remove the surge troops" and that this is supposed to be dispositive, and instruct us to somehow remove the 30k troops who are somehow labeled "surge", is still ridiculous. Which troops are the "surge troops" exactly?

The addition of more troops was referred to as a "surge."

I know. This was idiotic IMHO. We have a military garrison in Iraq and we increased its size slightly. What was the big deal? Why was this called "the surge" and debated as if it were a whole new war? Didn't understand it then and still don't. Since when do we re-debate every numerical adjustment in the size of our military garrisons?

Maliki recently said he thought the surge should be ended and the level of troops drawn down to what it was before.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying your earlier inaccurate retelling of what he had said. That makes more sense.

George Bush told him: "fuck you, the troop level is going to stay as is."

If so, good for him. On what basis exactly would Maliki have objectively figured out that ~120k troops is an ok number for the US to have stationed in Iraq but ~150k is somehow too many? He either wants our military presence or he does not; I don't like the idea of him twiddling at the margins with the exact number just to blow with the political winds. I would rather he just withdraw the formal request at the UN and tell us to leave.

I hate to spell out the unbelievably obvious, but I know that complex concepts like numbers tend to cause your teeny-tiny brain to overheat.

You know that, do you? Good for you,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 8:54 PM

Harry:

"Let me try to explain this to you slowly, you fucking moron."

That's just another way of admitting you're losing the argument. Time to give it up, 23456.

Thanks, Harry, for playing your role in the structure of Standard Debate With Wingnut.

Wingnut #1: 2+2=5!

Normal Person: Actually, 2+2=4.

Wingnut #1: 2+2=5!

Normal Person: No, it's 4. Here's a gigantic pile of evidence demonstrating that 2+2=4.

Wingnut #1: 2+2=5!

Normal Person: Seriously, it's 4.

Wingnut #1: 2+2=5!

Normal Person: Holy crap, you're a fucking idiot.

Wingnut #2: Ha ha ha! This PROVES that Wingnuts have won the debate, and 2+2=5!!!!

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 9:33 PM

Hahaha. The Sonic Charmer gives the game away. First it was the Iraqi government invitation that justified our presence there. When it is pointed out that hmmmm, actually Maliki did not approve the surge, of course Maliki does not have the power to make that decision.

Mr. Charmer fails to see that this claim clearly undermines his original emphasis on the 'invitation' of the Iraqi government, for if the government is not free to decide what it wants, clearly it is not really an independent entity, and it's request for us to stay there is just as bogus a justification for the occupation.

I am sure his powers of sophistry will find some further loophole in this, but clearly his argument has completely fallen apart. Hoisted by his own petard and all that.

Posted by gregor | May 10, 2008 9:46 PM

If it's all as clear-cut as you say, why did the UN approve the mandate and why don't they rescind it? Are they that gullible and malleable?

But -- but -- if it's all as clear-cut as you say and Iraqis want British troops to leave, why did the League of Nations approve the mandate and let England control Iraq?!? I mean, that makes it seem like the League of Nations almost always does exactly what the British Empire tells it to do!!!

Well, I know that just CAN'T be true! And nice old King Faisal says he just loves having the RAF there gassing other Iraqis, and that's good enough for me!

George Bush told him: "fuck you, the troop level is going to stay as is."

If so, good for him.

I'm with you. Once we put King Faisal on the throne and he overruled all the other Iraqis and said it was okay for one British soldier to stay in Iraq, that meant we could station a million troops there and bomb the fuck out of whoever we wanted.

But the amazing thing is that the dirty wogs aren't even grateful! I guess they just don't understand FREEDOM.

Posted by 23456 | May 10, 2008 10:01 PM

Rudeness or foul language neither strengthen nor weaken an argument. They are irrelevant, of course, since 2+2=4 whether or not one follows it with "fuck you".

Maybe in the high school debate club or TV's IQ bowl such rules are paramount, but this is a blog, and the ones who need to grow up are those who think someone else's curse words just proved them right.

Posted by El Cid | May 10, 2008 10:10 PM

First it was the Iraqi government invitation that justified our presence there.

I never said it "justified" our presence there. I mentioned it only in the context of the relative "independence" of Iraq.

for if the government is not free to decide what it wants, clearly it is not really an independent entity

You have a point. Indeed, when this 'independence' issue came up earlier in this thread, others (i.e. Brian) pointed out some perfectly valid reasons - which you are now repeating - to not consider Iraq fully independent, and conditions it would have to meet before they would consider it so. I said "ok", stipulated to the point, and then continued on with the actual topic of this thread. Which - again - is the fact that there's a distinction between "wanting" something and using violence to get it, or supposedly to get it; and that Matthew elides this distinction. Iraq being or not being independent is a side issue to that point.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 10, 2008 10:15 PM

Sonic Charmer, in addition to your other rhetorical sins, you weasel a lot. You refuse to take responsibility for your remarks when called on them.

For what it's worth, you don't see why a senior manager in global business with 30 years experience who voted for both Reagan and Dole would resent being called a leftie? Do tell. Isn't THAT special?

You don't even know who Juan Cole is, but you are able to assure me --you say now --that nobody knows whether Badr or Sadr is closer to Iran? Do tell.

Primo, that was clearly not the thrust of your remarks to me, or the many aspersions cast on other people who disagreed with you. (You are nothing if not verbose).

Secondus, the thrust most of your remarks is to discredit people who disagree with you without having to deal with their points.

Thus, you seem to represent what Daniel Patrick Moynihan viewed as the greatest enemy of democracy. --Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. They are NOT entitled to their own facts.

That's enough. I have wasted more time than I care to.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 10, 2008 11:10 PM

I do notice that those of the liberal persuasion are much more potty mouth. Could it be an inability to reason?

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 11, 2008 12:42 AM

Gosh, goatboy, that's one we haven't heard before. Oh, we have, a few comments up the fucking thread, you stupid fucker.

Let's step back, though.

What would the response have been in April 2003, had it been suggested that five years later, the US would be launching air strikes on a group of people particularly associated with internal opposition to Saddam Hussein? (As opposed to the opposition that took place in more comfortable surroundings in places like DC.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 11, 2008 3:39 AM

Tim Connor

For what it's worth, you don't see why a senior manager in global business with 30 years experience who voted for both Reagan and Dole would resent being called a leftie?

Well, my point was that I don't really see why actual lefties would resent being called lefties.

If you're not a leftie you're not a leftie. There are obviously exceptions to every broad generality; I don't accept that this should prevent us from communicating. (Also, I don't believe I actually called you a lefty in the first place.) And I don't know what your means of employment has to do with anything, but thanks for sharing.

You don't even know who Juan Cole is, but you are able to assure me --you say now --that nobody knows whether Badr or Sadr is closer to Iran? Do tell.

I do know who Juan Cole is and yes I still claim that the relative "closeness to Iran" of these two militias is an unknowable, ill-defined piece of fluff that the speaker is, almost by definition, either just making up or parroting from someone who made it up. Again, if you disagree all you have to do is tell me how this "closeness" was quantified so that it becomes clear and indisputable why (under that metric) the one can objectively be said to be "closer to Iran" than the other.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 11, 2008 8:17 AM

But it's not all that hard to tell which is which. Why do you think it is? The bombing of a marketplace or a funeral, or in general the civilian-directed violence we are talking about, serves no tactical purpose w/r to "getting the US out" so why would someone insist on interpreting it as such?

Charmer, this is just crazy. No one - NO ONE - who knows anything about the history of insurgencies would agree with this statement.

It is in the interest of insurgent groups to destroy the sense of normalcy desired by the occupying power. Bombs in marketplaces accomplish many things:

1. They make it apparent to the population that the occupier is not in complete control.

2. They provoke the occupier into crackdowns that alienate the population [Abu Ghraib anyone?].

3. They create a climate of fear which makes less-than-perfectly-committed "collaborators" of the occupier [police forces, government workers, etc.] afraid that they will be blown up next.

4. The violence helps to drive out neutral parties whose participation in the occupation helps to legitimize it. [A good example of this would be the attack on the UN facilities that occurred very early in the Iraqi insurgency. When the UN fled, it made the US appear more isolated in its occupation.]

The Iraqi conflict has proceeded on lines very similar to what the French experienced in Algeria. The random acts of terror practiced by the insurgents have been extremely successful in attaining the ends described above, and they're all straight out of the Algerian playbook. And in Algeria, it's necessary to point out, the terrorist methods succeeded and the terrorists won in the end. Again, these means may be highly immoral, but if you say that they have no possible relationship to getting the US out, it's because you don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by Brian | May 11, 2008 9:32 AM

Sonic Charmer: Albert Einsten once said that no one could "prove" the sun would come up in the morning, but that no one who had seriously looked into it had much doubt.

Since you fall, clearly, into the crowd not looking seriously, this discussion is a waste of time. However, I post the following references for readers who have acquired the discipline of using information as part the decision making process. There are many,many more --they are not hard to find.

"In a November 2007 report, the International Crisis Group assessed the rivalry as a class struggle between “the Shiite urban underclass,” represented by Sadr, and wealthier Shiites in Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI. Washington has thrown its weight behind Hakim, who has close historic ties to Iran (including siding with Iran’s mullahs during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War)."

"Badr vs. Sadr in Iraq", Greg Bruno, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15839/badr_vs_sadr_in_iraq.html

"Originally the Badr Brigade, it grew to a division and then a corps. The Badr Brigade was formed by the Iranian government to fight Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq. Its members were drawn from pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia political and religious dissidents. The Badr forces fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Before 2003, it was based in Iran for two decades during the rule of Saddam Hussein."

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Organization

"The 9th Badr Corps was formed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps during the
Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Its forces primarily consisted of repatriated Iraqi's and POWs
who were either coerced or enticed into collaborating with the Iranian regime. The first
commander of the Badr Corps was a Revolutionary Guards officer by the name of Daghayeghi, from the Iranian city of Behbahan. He took over the forces of the Iraqi Supreme Council of Iraq's Islamic Revolution in 1984 and combined them with the Badr Corps. The mullahs and Revolutionary Guards continue to control and direct this entity. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has even appointed his own man, a cleric by the name of Salak, a former commander of Komiteh (urban security bases) in Tehran, to oversee the
publication of the group's weekly, Badr.

Members of the 9th Badr Corps are on the Revolutionary Guards payroll and are covered
by the same administrative and employment regulations as the Guards Corps. These
forces were first organized in the form of brigades and took part in the Iranian regime's
offensives against Iraqi during the war. In 1987, the Badr Brigade became the Ninth Badr
Division. During National Liberation Army's1 Operation Eternal Light2 in July 1988, the
Badr forces were deployed by the Revolutionary Guards in Kermanshah Province to
repulse the NLA offensive. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, the Iranian regime
sought to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Iraq and dispatched the Badr Corps
into Iraq to wreak havoc in the county and establish “The Islamic Republic of Iraq.”"

Near East Policy Research. 2004, http://www.nepr.us/BRIEF-BADR.pdf

Posted by Tim Connor | May 11, 2008 9:47 AM

Sonic Charmer: Albert Einsten once said that no one could "prove" the sun would come up in the morning, but that no one who had seriously looked into it had much doubt.

Since you fall, clearly, into the crowd not looking seriously, this discussion is a waste of time. However, I post the following references for readers who have acquired the discipline of using information as part the decision making process. There are many, many more --they are not hard to find.

"In a November 2007 report, the International Crisis Group assessed the rivalry as a class struggle between “the Shiite urban underclass,” represented by Sadr, and wealthier Shiites in Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI. Washington has thrown its weight behind Hakim, who has close historic ties to Iran (including siding with Iran’s mullahs during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War)."

"Badr vs. Sadr in Iraq", Greg Bruno, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15839/badr_vs_sadr_in_iraq.html

"Originally the Badr Brigade, it grew to a division and then a corps. The Badr Brigade was formed by the Iranian government to fight Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq. Its members were drawn from pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia political and religious dissidents. The Badr forces fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Before 2003, it was based in Iran for two decades during the rule of Saddam Hussein."

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Organization

"The 9th Badr Corps was formed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps during the
Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Its forces primarily consisted of repatriated Iraqi's and POWs
who were either coerced or enticed into collaborating with the Iranian regime. The first
commander of the Badr Corps was a Revolutionary Guards officer by the name of Daghayeghi, from the Iranian city of Behbahan. He took over the forces of the Iraqi Supreme Council of Iraq's Islamic Revolution in 1984 and combined them with the Badr Corps. The mullahs and Revolutionary Guards continue to control and direct this entity. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has even appointed his own man, a cleric by the name of Salak, a former commander of Komiteh (urban security bases) in Tehran, to oversee the
publication of the group's weekly, Badr.

Members of the 9th Badr Corps are on the Revolutionary Guards payroll and are covered
by the same administrative and employment regulations as the Guards Corps. These
forces were first organized in the form of brigades and took part in the Iranian regime's
offensives against Iraqi during the war. In 1987, the Badr Brigade became the Ninth Badr
Division. During National Liberation Army's1 Operation Eternal Light2 in July 1988, the
Badr forces were deployed by the Revolutionary Guards in Kermanshah Province to
repulse the NLA offensive. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, the Iranian regime
sought to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Iraq and dispatched the Badr Corps
into Iraq to wreak havoc in the county and establish “The Islamic Republic of Iraq.”"

Near East Policy Research. 2004, http://www.nepr.us/BRIEF-BADR.pdf

Posted by Tim Connor | May 11, 2008 9:51 AM

Brian

[I said bombing a marketplace is not violence 'to get the US out'] It is in the interest of insurgent groups to destroy the sense of normalcy desired by the occupying power. [...]

Okay so what you are saying is that you agree with logic of terrorism. ALL FORMS of disruption, murder, mayhem, barbarism are logically interpretable - and, apparently, should be interpreted as - "trying to get us out of there".

What can I say. I disagree. I believe that your attitude is wrong, and that if/when that this sort of barbarism pays off at all, it is only to the extent that people share your attitude about it. This sort of barbarism works if we behave as enablers, in other words, but I am suggesting that we don't have to do that.

And in Algeria, it's necessary to point out, the terrorist methods succeeded and the terrorists won in the end.

So, you liken the Iraq situation to one in which terrorists won. Key word being terrorists. Not merely 'people who want the US out' - terrorists. People who win or try to win by methods that you yourself describe as creating a climate of fear, and perhaps are immoral.

Yet Matthew describes them merely as 'people who want the US out', as if this is merely some political opinion they hold. My point was that this description is overly simplistic, and you have helped illustrate it. Thanks,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 11, 2008 9:51 AM

P.S. Another point Brian. In your Algeria comparison, and your defense of the internal logic of random terrorism, you're still tacitly assuming that all such acts of violence in Iraq are perpretrated with that intent and according to that logic.

I disagree. I really do think a lot of what we see is tribal violence, retributions, and power-struggles for oil control. Indeed, haven't I been told by the left approximately a metric-zillion times that what is occurring in Iraq is an intractable civil war? If so, then not all such violence is 'terrorism along the Algerian model', in fact much of it is not. In such cases then a continued Western insistence on interpreting all violence in Iraq as being based solely and primarily on 'they want us out' is simply wrong.

And even if/when 'they want us out' is the motive, the reliance on violence makes them substantively different than a mere political faction of people who 'want' some specific end. Again: the sets [people who use violence because they want us out] and [people who want us out] are not identical and should not be treated as such.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 11, 2008 10:09 AM

You may not be surprised to learn that every person who ever sat next to Sonic Charmer on an airplane or bus committed suicide during the journey.

Posted by 23456 | May 11, 2008 10:27 AM

Sonic writes: " I really do think a lot of what we see is tribal violence, retributions, and power-struggles for oil control. Indeed, haven't I been told by the left approximately a metric-zillion times that what is occurring in Iraq is an intractable civil war? ...then a continued Western insistence on interpreting all violence in Iraq as being based solely and primarily on 'they want us out' is simply wrong."

this reminded me that the bush administration and now john mccain have never described iraq violence as "tribal violence, retributions, and power-struggles for oil control or civil war."
for a while it was al-qaeda or al-qaeda in iraq's doing, now it's all because iran is encouraging it.

it's pretty obvious how transparent their bullshit continues to be.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 11, 2008 2:03 PM

As I've pointed out earlier, Sonic Charmer is allied with such mealy-mouthed word parsers as Mixner. Their game plan is to argue until Doomsday (which would be in 2099 according to the Marvel comic series) while changing their words, deliberately misinterpreting everyone else's words, mixing up and shifting their lines of argument whenever they face facts with destroy one line of argument, etc., etc.

Bottom line: scum not worth arguing with. Trolls.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 11, 2008 5:39 PM

Richard Steven Hack speaks wisdom.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 11, 2008 8:41 PM

I suppose it equally follows via your logic that "the Iraqis" are at war with the Iraqis

Well, yes. It's called "Civil War". The aversion of that term is one of the characteristic euphemisms of the right wing.

As for our war on "the Iraqis", our indiscriminate killing makes the niceties you want to imagine a euphemism. Yunnerstan?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 11, 2008 9:39 PM

Indeed. One of several perverse elements of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the presence itself is, at least in part, a cause of violent conflict in Iraq.

...which is a bit like saying the police are a source of violent conflict with criminals, or Israel's existence is a cause of violent conflict in the Mideast.

And naturally, we can't leave until we've achieved "victory" defined as killing everyone who wants us to leave.

Just the ones who indiscriminately slaughter civilians and take up arms against the democratically elected government of Iraq.

Posted by TallDave | May 12, 2008 3:15 AM

our indiscriminate killing

Ah, yes, it always comes down to bashing the troops in the end.

Hey, don't stop at calling them indiscriminate killers. If you hurry down to the airport maybe you can spit on a few too.

Posted by TallDave | May 12, 2008 3:17 AM

Again, if you disagree all you have to do is tell me how this "closeness" was quantified so that it becomes clear and indisputable why (under that metric) the one can objectively be said to be "closer to Iran" than the other

Badr was based in and funded by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Sadr was always in (of course) Sadr City.

In the 1980s there's no question the Badr people were closer to Iran, and probably in the 1990s as well.

However, when the Badrists won elective office, they no longer needed Iran. They have everything they ever wanted, and sit on a gusher of money from $125/bbl oil. SCIRI, their political front, changed their name to remove "revolution" and more significantly changed their religious allegiance from the scholars in Qom (in Iran) to those in Najaf (in Iraq). The Badr Brigades, a semiprofessional army, all got jobs in the Army and National Police.

Sadr, meanwhile, is actually residing in Qom, and has ever since Iraq got too hot for him. See, Sadr has a problem: he doesn't really run much. He got the smallest share of Shia votes, and his militias didn't get government jobs. Instead, they started setting up their own little thugocracies, with nasty religious "courts," beatings for unveiled women, extortion, murder, kidnapping, etc. Meanwhile, rogue midlevel Sadrists are cutting their own deals with Iran's Qods forces, spraying rockets all over Baghdad, some even taking potshots at Sadr's offices (hence the trip to Qom) -- and most relevantly to us, being supplied by Iran with the EFP bombs that are the #1 killer of American soldiers.

Maliki kicked the Sadrists out of Basra and all the other little cities in the south, to much local applause, and now they're getting to work on Sadr City itself. Maliki keeps complaining to Tehran that they're finding iranian weapons when they clean out a nest of Sadrists.

So Cole is a decade or two behind the times. While the Badrists once cleaved to Iran's bosom, it is now indisputably the Sadrists who have the most relevant relationship with Tehran.

Posted by TallDave | May 12, 2008 3:34 AM

You know...even when you're frothing at the mouth, Tall Dave, there's such a thing as too much froth.

Posted by 23456 | May 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Wise counsel that you should consider yourself in your virtually content-free barrage of insults.

Now, I consign you back to being beneath my notice.

Posted by TallDave | May 12, 2008 1:56 PM

Thank for applying, TallDave, but Harry has already filled the role of Wingnut #2 in the never-ending drama of wingnut idiocy. However, we'll certainly let you know if there are any openings.

Posted by 23456 | May 12, 2008 4:49 PM