Monday, November 08, 2004
Fallujah: A Single Moment Sums Up Everything That's Wrong About Bush's Policy In Iraq
This from Saturday's Washington Post:
Can anyone who isn't a completely crazed neocon not understand that the offer described above has the makings of a major breakthrough, one that Bush & Co could even take credit for, deserved or not, one they could even use to justify their bloody air attacks on Fallujah as a "get tough" policy that is working. Thus, I read those first quoted paragraphs with increasing excitement. Nothing is more important than that the Sunni Iraqis participate in the January election, absolutely nothing. Without their participation, the election will be seen as an American/Shia election, not an Iraqi one.
Do I have to even tell you what the response of the Bush-league administration is thus far? Zero. Zed. Zilch. Nothin.
Fuck'em for the heartless, brainless savages they are.
More disturbing, however, is the response of Iraqi officials, i.e., members of our own hand-selected soverign Iraqi government.
And someone please explain to me how a representative group of Sunni scholars and clerics who are willing to withdraw their support from the insurgency and to urge fellow Sunnis to as well, in exchange for American controlled troops agreeing to not mount a lethal attack on cities like Fallujah, where all kinds of different people live, most of them not terrorists, and a guarantee of genuine participation in the coming January elections, somehow equals insisting on a monopoly of power.
Way back in the summer and fall of 2003, Democrats who visited Iraq came back to explain to Americans, and the Bush administration that in addition to restoring civil order, the most important order of business for the occupation was to convince Sunni Iraq that it has a real stake and a real role in the new Iraq, a task made all the more difficult by the half-assed moves by Bremer to de-Baathify Iraq. Like almost every other aspect of the entire Bush administration's occupation of Iraq, neither objective was achieved. Not only were Sunni Baathists who had committed human rights depredations against fellow Iraqis not identified, nor preperations made to bring them to some kind of accounting for their actions, Sunnis who hated Saddam as much as any Iraqi, even though they were part of the civil apparatus that helped make Iraq a working society, were treated as if they were as guilty as Saddam himself, and all Sunnis were given every indication that they had no future in the new Iraq, no stake at all in supporting the occupation as an avenue to a democratic Iraq in which their rights as a minority would be protected.
I know, I know, the red Americans who voted moral values over all else don't care about any of that. Even though the administration they so admire as being "moral" above all else has made, as its final argument in support of their invasion of Iraq, that we deposed a terrible despot, and we are now proving that Arab Muslims are capable of democratic governance.
Well, they ought to care. They ought to be aware that every major move this administration has taken from the day they invaded Iraq has been the precise, wrong move to achieve their own stated goals. Nor, as in all previous instances, are there any lack of responsible, knowledgeable voices issuing warnings to this President and his matchless matched set of advisers.
Iraqis who didn't need to will die because this President can't bear to be criticized.
In fact, it's already started. Sorry, I can't bear to think about Iraq another second. I'm sure I can sleep that feeling away, and then I'll be back on the case. Here's the link to the original Wa Po piece.
BAGHDAD, Nov. 5 -- As Marines step up preparations for military offensives on two major Iraqi cities, a number of Sunni Muslim leaders are forwarding a plan to establish the rule of law in those areas through peaceful means, with the promise of reducing the insurgency across a large swath of the country.And once you change to participation, you are no longer part of the insurgency.
Some of the groups leading the bid have encouraged violent resistance in central, western and northern Iraq. The groups say they will withdraw their support for violence if Iraq's interim government can reassure Sunni leaders wary of national elections, which are scheduled for the end of January.
The Sunnis have proposed six measures, including a demand that U.S. forces remain confined to bases in the month before balloting. Such an ambitious demand, which some advocates acknowledge is not likely to be met and may be open to negotiation, represents a dramatic shift by Sunni groups opposed to the U.S. operation in Iraq.
Until now, groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars, which supports the new proposal, had insisted that no election could be considered legitimate until Western troops left Iraq. The association has repeatedly threatened to call for an election boycott through the loudspeakers of Iraq's Sunni mosques, which the association represents.
"We took an initiative regarding the elections. It is being welcomed by the people on the boycott side," said Wamidh Nadhmi, a Baghdad University political science professor who is spokesman for the initiative. "They said that if such agreements could be met by the Americans, they could change to participation."
Can anyone who isn't a completely crazed neocon not understand that the offer described above has the makings of a major breakthrough, one that Bush & Co could even take credit for, deserved or not, one they could even use to justify their bloody air attacks on Fallujah as a "get tough" policy that is working. Thus, I read those first quoted paragraphs with increasing excitement. Nothing is more important than that the Sunni Iraqis participate in the January election, absolutely nothing. Without their participation, the election will be seen as an American/Shia election, not an Iraqi one.
Do I have to even tell you what the response of the Bush-league administration is thus far? Zero. Zed. Zilch. Nothin.
The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad offered no reaction to the proposal, which it received this week. A Western diplomat emphasized that any decision lay with Iraq's interim government.
Fuck'em for the heartless, brainless savages they are.
More disturbing, however, is the response of Iraqi officials, i.e., members of our own hand-selected soverign Iraqi government.
"They don't seem to get it. The monopoly of power is over," said a senior Iraqi government official, referring to former President Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government. "One wonders how representative these elements are of the mainstream Sunni population. They may represent nostalgia for the past, but for sure no realistic vision for the future."No one who isn't under lock and key is nostalgic for Saddam. Many Iraqis may well feel nostalgia for a time when they lived in a country with a civil society that worked, even if its political life was often debauched by Saddam. I don't discount the new freedom of expression that is now possible there, but without civil order, there can be no civilized order, let alone a just, democratic society.
And someone please explain to me how a representative group of Sunni scholars and clerics who are willing to withdraw their support from the insurgency and to urge fellow Sunnis to as well, in exchange for American controlled troops agreeing to not mount a lethal attack on cities like Fallujah, where all kinds of different people live, most of them not terrorists, and a guarantee of genuine participation in the coming January elections, somehow equals insisting on a monopoly of power.
Way back in the summer and fall of 2003, Democrats who visited Iraq came back to explain to Americans, and the Bush administration that in addition to restoring civil order, the most important order of business for the occupation was to convince Sunni Iraq that it has a real stake and a real role in the new Iraq, a task made all the more difficult by the half-assed moves by Bremer to de-Baathify Iraq. Like almost every other aspect of the entire Bush administration's occupation of Iraq, neither objective was achieved. Not only were Sunni Baathists who had committed human rights depredations against fellow Iraqis not identified, nor preperations made to bring them to some kind of accounting for their actions, Sunnis who hated Saddam as much as any Iraqi, even though they were part of the civil apparatus that helped make Iraq a working society, were treated as if they were as guilty as Saddam himself, and all Sunnis were given every indication that they had no future in the new Iraq, no stake at all in supporting the occupation as an avenue to a democratic Iraq in which their rights as a minority would be protected.
I know, I know, the red Americans who voted moral values over all else don't care about any of that. Even though the administration they so admire as being "moral" above all else has made, as its final argument in support of their invasion of Iraq, that we deposed a terrible despot, and we are now proving that Arab Muslims are capable of democratic governance.
Well, they ought to care. They ought to be aware that every major move this administration has taken from the day they invaded Iraq has been the precise, wrong move to achieve their own stated goals. Nor, as in all previous instances, are there any lack of responsible, knowledgeable voices issuing warnings to this President and his matchless matched set of advisers.
Some former officials with experience in Iraq called the Sunni proposal a potential breakthrough that could avert not only an assault on Fallujah but also a violent aftermath, when insurgents might take the fight elsewhere.Okay, Annan is an object of contempt in the Bush White House. Larry Diamond was not only part of the occupation, his home is the Hoover Institute, hardly a hotbed of leftist defeatism. On the other hand, Diamond, a genuine expert on how to help failed nations transition to democratic goverenance, has testified to various Congressional committees on the startling failures of Bush policy in Iraq, and has written the best, single article I've read on the subject of "What Went Wrong?" in Iraq. Do read it if you haven't. In fact, even if you have, read it again, and then weep again. Weep because, as we all know, there is no better way to become irrelevant to any policy debate than to make even the slightest criticism, any at all, of the President, or any member of his administration.
"Most of what we've learned about insurgencies is that you don't defeat one through purely military means," said Larry Diamond, who served in the U.S.-led occupation authority. "When you try to do that, you may win the battle but lose the war. The insurgency in the Sunni heartland is now quite broad-based, and I don't think we're going to defeat the insurgency in this part of the country through purely military means. I think we're looking at a protracted insurgency which will get worse if we go through with elections" that many Sunnis boycott.
"These groups," Diamond said, "have to be given evidence that it's in their interests to participate in the electoral process."
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a letter to President Bush disclosed Friday, warned that an assault on Fallujah "would be very disruptive of Iraq's political transition."
"Persuading elements who are currently alienated from, or skeptical about, the transition process to compete politically is key to creating a political and security context that will inspire confidence among all Iraqis," Annan wrote.
Iraqis who didn't need to will die because this President can't bear to be criticized.
In fact, it's already started. Sorry, I can't bear to think about Iraq another second. I'm sure I can sleep that feeling away, and then I'll be back on the case. Here's the link to the original Wa Po piece.
