Al-Sistani Fails Iraq

One has to wonder if any government that looks for its ultimate guidance from someone with ayatollah before his name has any chance at all of coming together in the face of sectarian conflict.

BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 23, 2006 (AP)— Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric withheld support Saturday for a U.S.-backed plan to build a coalition across sectarian lines, Shiite lawmakers said, jeopardizing hopes that such a show of political unity could help stem the country's deadly violence.

Once again a small-minded cleric has put power and religious affiliation before the greater hopes of an Iraqi people who seek to live in a free and peaceful state, one not controlled by religious bias. On the streets many Sunni and Shia inter-marry and live out their lives without conflict. But time and time, again, the religious leadership of the various sects steps up and insists on viewing everything from a fundamentally religious perspective.

This is a significant glitch in any plans for going forward in Iraq. Perhaps Al-Sadr has made promises to al-Sistani. But if recent history is any judge, his promises are as empty as is his particular vision for Iraq.

No doubt this will alienate and possibly inflame Kurdish and Sunni factions and Iraq could be one step closer to all out civil war.

The ballsy play would be to take out al-Sistani and al-Sadr, but it's hard to imagine that happening. The reclusive religious zealot with a turban and a beard lacks the vision of a great leader of people beyond his own particular sect.

Religion will prove to be the downfall of the Middle-East if strong secular leadership doesn't emerge.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

Take out Sistani and make it look like mookie did it. Then you have a twofer, with the 2nd half being done for free.

[Charles Warren]

"Once again a small-minded cleric has put power and religious affiliation before the greater hopes of an Iraqi people who seek to live in a free and peaceful state, one not controlled by religious bias."

Says who ? Where do you get this image of Iraqis as secular libertarians ? Who says Sistani and Sadr don't speak for most Shiites ? Who says the Sunni insurgents aren't a representative cross section of Sunnis ? Obviously they have deep popular roots. Obviously they have no problems finding recruits.

[Derek]

Hmm... The catholic pope´s point of view is granted great significance in certain very lange circles just because the person in question was very good at what would be called office politics if he was working for a fortune 100. So why not Ayatollah?

Don´t get me wrong, I see all humans who threaten other humans with suffering in the afterlife if they are not allowed to control the thoughts of the masses in this life as pathetic.

These are just the rules of the game, the person who has sway over the most other minds wins, not the person who is smartest, those people tend to seek out a quiet and isolated location to take up a life of meditation or something.

This may be harsh but believe me, all nations beside from USA and Iraq (even Canada) are very happy for how poorly it goes for the US armed forces there, they wish they will be bogged down for as long as possible and suffer as much as possible, as long as it keeps the US foreign embassy from stronghanding themselves.

And when shameless oil grabbing disguised as the spreading of democracy fails as miserably as it has it ads a certain kind of glee. You only have to look to Venezuela 2004 to see how much the USA really loves democracy. They love it as long as they approve of the ones who are elected. If not they bring in the CIA to attemt a coup.

[Doc]

Hard to say what we should do with all this politicking in Iraq. Personally I think we should only have gone into Iraq to quickly conquer it and establish heavily armed bases from which to strike into Iran and Syria, as well as threaten Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia if they did not successfully keep their citizens from aiding, either materially or morally, those who take the Koran seriously enough to kill infidels. Given the political realities in this country, I'm afraid that we will only successfully win this war against Islam after we are attacked again big time (nuclear, etc). Then (hopefully!) we will muster the political will necessary to demand at nukepoint the surrender of every nation in which a substantial number of people dance in the streets when we're attacked. Then and only then will we do for them what MacArthur did for Japan.

Muslims (and others) around the world should work diligently to make sure we are not attacked again. If we are attacked again on a large scale, then millions will die in the Middle East. We have the right and duty to defend ourselves. If Islamic leaders can't or won't keep Muslims from attacking us, then we will keep it from happening ourselves. If that takes large-scale killing in the ME, so be it. So far we've worn the kid gloves. Don't make us take them off.

[Phoenix]

>Personally I think we should only have gone into Iraq to quickly conquer it and establish heavily armed bases from which to strike into Iran and Syria, as well as threaten Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia if they did not successfully keep their citizens from aiding, either materially or morally, those who take the Koran seriously enough to kill infidels.<

Doc,

I've always maintained this was the original intent. I still do. The stakes are too high for us to give up what the neo-cons saw so clearly as necessary for our future.

[Purple Avenger]

"Who says Sistani and Sadr don't speak for most Shiites?"

Does Bush speak for you just because he's the nominal "leader" of this country?

[Derek]

I must ad that it is really incredible how the invasion of Iraq went about. The decision makers knew Iraq had nothing to do with Al Q (they are inter-linked now but that is because of the US armed precence) and that Saddam had only the weapons of mass destuction mr. Rumsfeld signed approval for.
The conspiracy theories are not as crazy as they seem, it would not be the first time in US history that "Bay of Tonga" tactics are used nor would it be the first time shareholders in weapon factories profit from the blood of US servicemen.
I think history professors in 100 years will point towards Bush-Gore-Rumsfeld and not Hitler as chief fearmongers of the 20th century.

And when is anyone ever gong to be charged or held for questioning, for the Antrax scare that happened just before allegations of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction became enough for the senate allowing invasion?

It all stinks to high heaven, it stinks of powerlust!

[Kathy]

Then again, Iraq is not your country. So you really don't know and are not in a position to say what leaders and what policies might be best for the Iraqi people.

Right?

[Purple Avenger]

"The decision makers knew Iraq had nothing to do with Al Q"

The Iraqi intel archives suggest otherwise...as did Zarq's presence for years prior to the invasion.

[tommy]

"And when shameless oil grabbing disguised as the spreading of democracy fails as miserably as it has it ads a certain kind of glee. You only have to look to Venezuela 2004 to see how much the USA really loves democracy. They love it as long as they approve of the ones who are elected. If not they bring in the CIA to attemt a coup."

If it were about oil dumb ass, we would have taken Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Saudi produced most of the 9/11 hijackers, has a far better infrastructure, and is far less of a basket case than Iraq is.

Also, the US embassy in Venezuela has alerted Hugo Chavez to several coup attempts against him previously. Hardly the act of a country just craving to see him eliminated. Not that I would much care if the Huey P. Long of Venezuela met his demise one way or another.

These constant assertions that the invasion of Iraq was all about the oil are never backed up by anything more firm than a Chomskyite adherence to the idea that America will always do what is most evil no matter how irrational.

"And when is anyone ever gong to be charged or held for questioning, for the Antrax scare that happened just before allegations of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction became enough for the senate allowing invasion?"

Truther and truther...

[Doc]

Oh, Derek, dream on; if we had responded to 9/11 like we responded to Pearl Harbor, Iraq would have been just one on a long list of places we would have bombed to rubble before we moved in to conquer and remove the threat. Every nation in which large numbers rejoiced after 9/11 would have been on the list. Iraq might have been first anyway, for strategic reasons (central location, hardly anyone would miss Saddam, easily beaten armed forces, etc).

Will we finally respond when one of our cities is a glowing cinder? Not if the Defeatocrats have their way, I'm afraid.

[Purple Avenger]

"Then again, Iraq is not your country. So you really don't know and are not in a position to say what leaders and what policies might be best for the Iraqi people. Right?"

Replace Iraq with Germany (circa 1930's) then reread your statement.

[Kathy]

"Replace Iraq with Germany (circa 1930's) then reread your statement."

Why would I replace Iraq with 1930's Germany?

[Phoenix]

"Why would I replace Iraq with 1930's Germany?"

Try replacing any oppressed group under any leader for starters. Think Holocaust. Think genocide in Africa. Think Pol Pot. Think Stalin. Think religion.

Think.

[Kathy]

"Try replacing any oppressed group under any leader for starters. Think Holocaust. Think genocide in Africa. Think Pol Pot. Think Stalin. Think religion."

What do the Holocaust, genocide in Africa, Pol Pot, or Stalin have to do with Iraq?

And how does religion have to do with Dan Riehl knowing what leaders and policies are best for Iraq, given that Iraq is not Dan Riehl's country? Dan Riehl knows better than Iraqis about who the leaders should be and what the policies should be?

[Phoenix]

So, Kathy,

Nevermind about the 'thinking'. You have yourself a great Christmas!

[Yoda]

Anyone who thinks Sistani is a "good guy" is sadly mistaken. This weasle is a half step above OBL and is in league with Iran in causing the violence in Iraq.

[Kathy]

"So, Kathy,

Nevermind about the 'thinking'. You have yourself a great Christmas!"

LOL, you too, Phoenix.

[Darth Malice]

Sistani and the Shiites need to understand if they do not help us they will lose to the Sunni fighters who are way better.I really don't think Sistani will lose any sleep if Al-Sadr is crushed by coalition forces.Al-Sadr cannot help the Shiites win.

[Kathy]

And what are the consequences if Al-Sadr is killed by U.S. troops? Have you thought that far ahead?

[Darth Malice]

Kathy taking him out will make these fence sitters over there think that crossing us is futile.The folks over there go with the strongest and most ruthless.This PC stuff is not working......By the way Merry Christmas.

[Kathy]

"Kathy taking him out will make these fence sitters over there think that crossing us is futile.The folks over there go with the strongest and most ruthless.This PC stuff is not working......By the way Merry Christmas."

Oh my god, D.M., you have GOT to be kidding. We've been "taking [fill in the blank] out for the past three years under exactly that theory. Has it made anyone "over there" think that crossing us is futile?

The whole thought (speaking very loosely) behind the Iraq invasion was that it would show countries like Iran and Syria that "crossing us" was futile. Instead of being suitably intimidated, Iran was empowered beyond its wildest dreams. What the hell do you think the insurgency is all about? It's been going on for three years now. Where are the people who are scared to cross us?

What PC stuff are you talking about? Do you know what is going on in Iraq? There's a civil war going on there, man! There are death squads and sectarian murder and horrific torture. Almost a million Iraqis have fled the country, man! At least 700,000 have flooded into Syria alone! The people who are doing the killing are NOT worried about crossing the United States.

Really, I can't believe my eyes when I read this stuff.

[Kathy]

I forgot to say, Merry Christmas to you, too. My holiday is Hanukkah, but Christmas is nice, too. :)

[Darth Malice]

Happy Hanukkah Kathy.........Christians and Jews face a mortal threat in the form of Islamic Terror.In these past years we should not have been rebuilding anybody,but focused on crushing our enemy.We have become too soft as a people.

[Kathy]

"Christians and Jews face a mortal threat in the form of Islamic Terror.In these past years we should not have been rebuilding anybody,but focused on crushing our enemy.We have become too soft as a people."

Wow. Charming. Merry Christmas, Darth Malice.

[Darth Malice]

Kathy I don't want you to think I am warmonger.I believe in peace and freedom.What the United States,Israel,and the West faces is no less than extiction.How do you think that this situation should be handled...........I will try to be more charming :)

[Colin]

It's silly that so many warbloggers stake their hopes in apparent political solutions typically based on 1) bloodthirsty impatience to see figures like Sadr and now Sistani removed from the scene, and 2) little to zero intimacy with the situation. Even before the latest news, very well-informed, unimpeachably pro-American observers like Reuel Marc Gerecht were highly skeptical of the popular front strategy at this point in Iraq's political development, and in effect agree with Sistani that at this point Shia unity is one of the few significant forces holding the country together and providing hope for stability and eventual political evolution. Apparently, the non-ethnic, non-sectarian forces simply aren't powerful or influential enough at present to hold the country together, and may not be for years if ever. Shia unity, Kurdish cooperation, Sunni pacification, American security assistance and targeted anti-insurgent/anti-terrorist operations, economic development, and equitable division of resource wealth may have a much better chance of working over the near- and mid-term than a cobbled-together coalition government representing everyone and no one, supported only by a wavering American military commitment, and forced to put an Iraqi face on an American-sponsored and -executed bloodbath against the militias and militia constituencies.

I personally claim no expert knowledge, but it's one of the better arguments I've heard, and at least it seems to be based on something other than impatience and desperation.

[Kathy]

"What the United States,Israel,and the West faces is no less than extiction.How do you think that this situation should be handled..."

Well, first thing, I don't agree with your assumption. The United States, Israel, and the West are not facing extinction. I'm not sure that we (meaning you and I, in this discussion) can get beyond that basic disagreement to even discuss possible solutions.

However, I will repeat what I said before: Your idea of "crushing the enemy" is exactly the military policy the U.S. has been following since the insurgency began. It hasn't worked -- and furthermore, it can't work. It's not going to work, and it won't work. Rather than go into a lengthy treatise here, I suggest you read the article that Kenneth Pollack has up right now at the Brookings Institution website. I just finished reading it and blogging about it. Pay special attention to what Pollack says (toward the end of the article, under the heading "Denial") about counterinsurgency warfare. What he says makes sense.

The article is VERY long -- it took me a good 20 min. to half an hour to read it. But it's worth it. Here is the url: http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20061214.htm.

Let me know what you think after you've read it.

[Phoenix]

Kathy,

My eyes are too tired to read it. (Been reading non-stop for three hours.) How about a precis of the article and what YOU think about it followed up with how you would handle the situation in Iraq.

Thanks!

[Darth Malice]

Kathy I did read the article and I disagree with it on many levels.Keep in mind the Brookings folks are very far to the left and they have an interest in our defeat.The sad thing is our military cannot do what must be done to ensure victory.What is truely crippling us is the Rules of Engagement.I am in the Army Guard and many soldiers would rather not fire back because they don't want to go to leavenworth.Anytime a round comes out of the chamber it has to be justified and forms filled out.The enemy always gets first shot and sometimes last with these idiotic rules of engagement.Kathy we have not TRIED to crush the enemy.Ethiopia on the other hand is dealing with these same rascals like it should be handled. Both the US and Israel could learn from them.

[Kathy]

"I did read the article and I disagree with it on many levels. Keep in mind the Brookings folks are very far to the left and they have an interest in our defeat."

Your first sentence is quite fair and reasonable, although you need to go on and explain why you disagree, what specifically you disagree with, and support your argument -- which you do not do. But as far as you go in that sentence, I have no problem with disagreement.

Your second sentence is garbage, pure and simple. I don't even know where to begin. I don't know whether it's even worth it to try.

First, the Brookings Institution is no farther to the left than the American Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute -- among many others -- are to the right. And of course Brookings is not far left at all. It's an eminently mainstream, establishment think tank with a liberal political perspective.

Second, the Brookings Institution does not have a natural interest in U.S. defeat that derives from its being liberal. When you say that the left has an interest in the U.S. being defeated in Iraq, and that's why the left opposes the war, you are speaking garbage. Absolute, unadulterated garbage. What you are doing is nothing more or less than being mentally lazy. You are substituting ad hominem attacks for intellectual rigor. If you cannot evaluate an argument on its merits, without assigning base motivations to those making an argument with which you disagree, then I'm not interested. That's all I can say to you. If you can't do better than this, I'm through.

[Darth Malice]

Easy Kathy,I was trying to explain brute force has not been tried yet to if it has failed.I would look at a different way if that fails.Kathy our troops do face these horrible rules of engagement and that is harming us.I do not subscribe to the notion that all liberals oppose our efforts,but many do.... but perhaps my shot at the Brookings folks was unfounded.

[Kathy]

"I was trying to explain brute force has not been tried yet..."

I don't know how to respond to this, except to express my understanding that you believe that Fallujah one, Fallujah two, Ramadi, and all the other cities in the Sunni triangle in which U.S. troops launched offensives were not brute force. It certainly would be an interesting case to try to make to the tens of thousands who were killed in those offensives, or the hundreds of thousands of Fallujans who tried to return to their homes only to find that everything they had was gone and the city was completely destroyed.

So let me ask you, when you say that brute force has not been tried yet: What is your definition of brute force? What would brute force look like if U.S. troops were using it in Iraq? I would like it if you could be very specific. What acts do you think our military should carry out in Iraq that would qualify as brute force?

"our troops do face these horrible rules of engagement..."

Please tell me exactly what the rules of engagement are, and what makes them horrible. Do you feel the rules of engagement (after you tell me what they are) should be scrapped?

"I do not subscribe to the notion that all liberals oppose our efforts,but many do"

Opposing your efforts is not the same as wanting the U.S. to fail. What makes you conclude that support for the Iraq war and the way Bush has been conducting it is synonymous with patriotism, or love of country? You have to define your terms. What is failure? What is success? If success is defined as making Americans safer from terrorist attacks, then we have failed. If success is defined as having created democracy in Iraq, as having reduced tensions in the Middle East, as having made Iraq a better place, a safer place, than it was under Saddam Hussein, then we have failed. And any policy that serves to keep us on that same road is a policy for failure.

It's true that liberals oppose Bush's efforts in Iraq, but it's not true that liberals oppose democracy in Iraq, the safety and security of Iraqis, the safety and security of Americans, or the best interests of the United States. It's simply that we don't see those ends being achieved in Iraq, and in fact we see the Bush administration's Iraq policy as making it far less likely that those ends *will* be achieved.

It's arrogant of you to take it as a given that "your efforts," as you put it, are equivalent to what is best for the U.S., and that liberals' ideas on U.S. foreign policy are equivalent to hoping and working for America to fail. You are not the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. Neither am I, for that matter.

[Darth Malice]

Kathy it is hard to know where to start.I will start with the rules of engagement.If we are attacked we have to ID the target.If it comes from a Mosque permission has to be sought.If you fire reports have to be filled out and reviewed by command.We have more lawyers in Iraq and Afganistan dedicated to look at our "wrong doing" than special forces in country.That is only a few of the "rules".Now the first battle of Falluja was a disaster because we did not go all in when thousands of the enemy were there.By the time Falluja was taken in the second most of the already pulled out.The good news was 2000 of them were killed,but it is not enough.The people living there now are much better off.As for Ramadi it's time to use reinforcements to take these guys out. The problem with liberals is they tend to blame America first and they consider us "Right-wingers" the enemy.My problem with liberals Kathy is not beliefs,but unwillingness to take on our enemies.Look at Isreal and that fool Olmert.The more Isreal capitulates,the more its enemies attack.Liberlism is fine as long as there is no enemies trying to wipe it out.Kathy this my and many others perspective.You may think its foolish,but give it some thought.I want our way of life to survive.I like the fact woman are not second class citizens.I like being free to worship God or not.I spent 3 months stationed in Saudi Arabia and believe me Kathy as a woman you would not like it.I also hated how anti-semetic they were.I don't want it to spread.Well Kathy I hope you understand a little where I am coming from.

[Phoenix]

Kathy,

There are ROE in polite debate, as well. Call them the rules of engaging in verbal war.

Your words: “If you cannot evaluate an argument on its merits, without assigning base motivations to those making an argument with which you disagree, then I'm not interested. That's all I can say to you. If you can't do better than this, I'm through.”

You have been asked on this blog to do just what you have demanded of Darth Malice, and you have ignored those requests. Asking questions is not debate. Neither is the rude verbal display above.

Your words: “It certainly would be an interesting case to try to make to the tens of thousands who were killed in those offensives, or the hundreds of thousands of Fallujans who tried to return to their homes only to find that everything they had was gone and the city was completely destroyed.”

Do you have a source for these numbers? Do you have several sources for accuracy? I would like for you to be very specific.

Darth’s words: “"I do not subscribe to the notion that all liberals oppose our efforts,but many do"

Note he does not generalize, and yet, you take him on with rather vague generalizations.

Your words: “If success is defined as making Americans safer from terrorist attacks, then we have failed.”

We have failed? You have to define your terms here. Otherwise, your use of the broad brush stroke makes you lose this verbal joust.

Your words: “It's simply that we don't see those ends being achieved in Iraq,...”

How do you account for your use of the imperial ‘we’? Do you speak for every liberal? Is this not ‘arrogant’ of you?

Your words: “we see the Bush administration's Iraq policy as making it far less likely that those ends *will* be achieved.”

How would *you*, not *we*, fix the Iraq policy? Please include in your first-person, source-cited exegesis of how to fix Iraq, an explanation of how life without Saddam is not a ‘better place’ for the Iraqis. You already state it is not safer, but you add it is not ‘better’. Consider all aspects of that statement, please, and include the entire country's state of being without Saddam.

Darth is very nice. I will eat your lunch.

[Kathy]

I am going to paraphrase what I think you are saying here. You tell me if I'm right. If I'm not right, you can clarify.

"If we are attacked we have to ID the target.If it comes from a Mosque permission has to be sought.If you fire reports have to be filled out and reviewed by command."

U.S. troops should not have to identify targets before attacking them, and should be able to fire into mosques or bomb them at will, without being authorized.

"The people living there now are much better off."

And you know that -- how? Did they tell you?

"My problem with liberals Kathy is not beliefs,but unwillingness to take on our enemies."

That statement makes no sense. If my beliefs do not allow me to define an entire category of people as "the enemy" because my government tells me they are the enemy, then why would I be expected to agree with your definition of what "taking on our enemies" means?

"The more Isreal capitulates,the more its enemies attack."

Israel has never capitulated. Israel has been carrying on a brutal, violent military occupation for 40 years, and 40 years of violence and persecution has only made Israel less secure, not more. No doubt Israel will continue to do this for another 40 years, and things will be the same then as they are now, only worse.

"I want our way of life to survive."

Nobody is trying to take my way of life away from me except my own government. There are no Arab armies launching offensives against American cities. We are the ones who are disrupting Middle Easterners' way of life. We are there, attacking their cities and occupying their countries, not the other way around. I don't understand how you manage to convince yourself that Americans are the victims when it's Iraqis who have to deal with Americans occupying their country and telling them what to do.

"I like the fact woman are not second class citizens.I like being free to worship God or not.I spent 3 months stationed in Saudi Arabia and believe me Kathy as a woman you would not like it"

No, I'm sure I would not like it, but I don't live in Saudi Arabia. I can disagree with you and even dislike you (I don't dislike you; I'm speaking in general terms) and still not kill you, Darth. I can be repelled by another country's way of life and not start a war against them. I don't see any connection between not wanting to live in Saudi Arabia and invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Syria. And btw, as you know, Saudi Arabia is America's biggest, most important ally in the Middle East, so your argument makes no sense on that level, either. If S.A. treats its women so badly, why do we do so much business with them?

To Phoenix, only this: The primary ROE in any discussion should be that you don't ascribe base motivations to political opponents with no evidence other than the disagreement itself. To the best of my knowledge, I have complied with that ROE.

[Darth Malice]

Kathy allow me to start with Isreal,When I was in Saudi I talked to some of the Saudis about peace with Isreal.They all said not possible.I talked to one man on my base and asked him about it and he said "no the Jews are liars" I asked if he met any and he said "no,but we know them.We then talked about World War 2 and I asked his opinion about Hitler.He said "A great man,but he did not finish" I asked did not finish what? He said"Wiping out the Jews".Kathy this is what Israel is up against!They are circled by enemies no less deadly than the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.Kathy I am not Jewish,but I believe that America must help protect Isreal like a cub.I think that is one of the reasons America is blessed. I think that taking out Iraq and Afganistan was a good thing in safe guarding Israel.We have to do more ,but Kathy I cannot understand your hostility about Isreal.It is the only Jewish state in the world fighting to survive!

[Phoenix]

oooh. Nice. Kathy skates by again and refuses to answer any questions. Are you addled? You come skulking over here and ask a few insipid questions like some four-year-old and then throw out a line to test the waters to see if you can catch a nice fish. You caught Darth because everyone else ignored you. You are glad of that, no doubt. Darth, unwittingly, in his kind desire to respond to you, gives you a platform. On your platform, you make many statements. I challenge you to support those statements. You ignore me. This is about the second or third time you have ignored direct questions from me. That you have the nerve to try to bust someone who does know what he's talking and who is extremely nice is astonishing. But you caught the only fish you can handle.

Now, you have several questions to answer for me. I await your response. Don't let me down. I really, sincerely want to know how you would 'fix' things, and I'll try to be a good little fish. Maybe. It's a bitch having this long snout filled with sharp teeth. I'll keep the ROE of debate in mind and will keep my yawping snout closed as long as you address those questions I asked. If you don't, I might have to eat Darth.

[Darth Malice]

Hey.....nobody eats Darth:)

[seekeronos]

God, speaking of people and nations that help Israel:

"Blessed are they who bless you, and cursed are they who curse you" Genesis 27:29

It is God's will for Israel to have dominion in the "Palestinian Levant". And besides all that, Israel makes for a rather convenient ally in the region.

Darth is 100% correct about the troops being restrained by burdensome ROE that are in some ways worse than the ones our fathers endured in Vietnam.

What is really needed is an order to go "weapons free" (i.e., shoot to kill when challenged by a hostile or other mortal threat) - and had we went in with a mind to *conquer* and subjujugate Iraq as a colonial possession, exterminating any and all resistance with extreme prejudice... we would have a remarkably different and probably much more well-ordered result by now.

And that 300m instant death kill zone around American-controlled pipelines and oil infrastructure isn't a bad idea at all.

[Kathy]

Phoenix:

Ohmygosh. You really told me off good. I am feeling very chastened and chagrined.

I will just have to summon up every ounce of courage I have, and remind you that I suggested you read the Brookings piece as a starting point for a discusson of a more productive Iraq policy. You said you were too tired to read the whole thing and wanted me to summarize it. Tough nuggies, honey. I was tired too when I read the article. Read the article yourself, or don't, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

Darth: My hostility is not toward Israel as a country; it's toward the Israeli government's military policies in the Occupied Territories. I know the horrors of the Holocaust (both my parents escaped the Holocaust, and most of my father's family was murdered by the Nazis), but the Palestinian people are not responsible for the Holocaust. Israel has a right to exist, absolutely and unequivocally, but so do the Palestinian people. There are two peoples living on one piece of real estate. Both are human; both have suffered terribly; both have rights. The rights of one do not trump the rights of the other. Israel will NEVER be secure as a state as long as there are several million Palestinian refugees living under military occupation. It's because I *want* Israel to survive and be secure and safe as a state that I support Palestinian as well as Israeli rights. It's called enlightened self-interest.

Seekeronos:

I could not disagree more -- with everything you have to say -- but AT LEAST you are honest. It's refreshing to read a war supporter who tells the truth -- that the Bush administration's purpose in Iraq is subjugation and conquest, not liberation and democracy.

Of course, one has to overlook thousands of years of human history to believe that subjugation and colonialism ever succeed in the long run -- but I'm less angered by short-sightedness than I am by hypocrisy.

[Darth Malice]

Kathy,I see no problem with a Palestinian state,but they hate Jews.The only difference between the Arabs of today and the Nazies is firepower.Now the present government of Isreal is quite weak and are allowing rocketfire without any retalation.They give concessions and they get hit harder.What are the supposed to do.Kathy Isreal is not the problem.Anti-Semitism is.

[Kathy]

Wouldn't you hate people who used their military to brutalize you, built houses and settlements and whole neighborhoods on your land, bombed civilians from helicopter gunships, razed your houses, killed your children, kept pregnant women and wounded family members from getting to the hospital? Palestinians have had 40 long years to build up their hatred, and it's only going to get worse the longer the occupation continues.

It's outrageous to compare Palestinians to Nazis. When a woman is in labor and being rushed to the hospital, and Israeli soldiers will not let her through the checkpoint, and instead just laugh at her, who is behaving like Nazis? When Israel's top leaders refer to Palestinians as cockroaches, locusts, and vermin, who is using the language of Nazis? The Nazis were the brutal government of a powerful nation -- Germany. They ran the country, made the laws, killed anyone who opposed them, murdered six million Jews and millions of non-Jews. Palestinians are utterly destitute refugees living in hovels in filthy refugee camps in the desert. How can you even use the word "Nazis" in the same sentence? It's beyond outrageous.

What about anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred among Israelis and Americans? I see it and hear it all the time. It's just as vile as anti-Semitism.

The problem is the Israeli military occupation, the Israeli government's refusal to obey international law, and the United States government's refusal to require Israel to obey international law. The Arab world sees two standards: one for Israel and one for everyone else in the Middle East. That's the problem.

The above having been said, I *do* agree that suicide bombings and other acts of violence among Palestinians is unproductive and wrong, and not the way to go about getting what they want. Palestinians would be much better served by adopting a strategy of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, similar to the civil rights movement here in the States.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel really holds most of the cards. Israel is the world power. When Israel stops building settlements on Arab land and ends the military occupation, that will do more to change Palestinian hearts and minds than all your cries of anti-Semitism.

[Darth Malice]

Kathy do you not remember the PLO killing the athletes at Munich.Do you not remember Leon Klinhoffer thrown overboard on the Achli Laurel.Kathy the Palestinians could have had a nation a long time ago,but they have made it clear only Isreals destruction will do.As far as checkpoints go it is the fault of the Palestinians because of sucide bombers.On top of all this they have Iran threatning destruction of Isreal.Hey they even invited David Duke! That must of been fun.My Question to you Kathy if I made you PM of Isreal how would you deal with these threats???

[Kathy]

"Question to you Kathy if I made you PM of Isreal how would you deal with these threats???"

I would stop allowing Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank. I would shut down the settlements that were there or make it clear to the settlers that they were on their own; no more support from the IDF. I would withdraw the Israeli army from Gaza and the West Bank, and I would work with Arab leaders and the United States to create a Palestinian state.

One more thing I would do: I would issue a formal statement of profound regret for the suffering Palestinians went through in 1948 when they were dispossessed from their homes and land. We can't go back now to change that. Israel is a fact and it's going to stay that way. But Israel CAN acknowledge the pain and torment of having been dispossessed and turned into refugees with no home, no land, of their own. I can't even imagine what kind of pain that is.

As a Jew, I support justice for all people, because that is the only way to get justice for my people.

[Darth Malice]

Kathy in 1948 the Jews were attacked right of the bat.Do you really believe in your heart that Iran not going to send a nuke right into Isreal.By the way Isreal withdrew from Gaza and rockets fly right into Isreal.Every concession Isreal makes is laughed at and taken as weakness.Kathy with all do respect to you Isreal would completely destroyed if your mentality completly carries the day.Olmert has been going down your path and it is not going well.Only strength counts in that part of the world.

[Phoenix]

Kathy,

Nope. I want you to answer the questions I asked. Those are the ROE of debate. I'll scroll back and repeat them for you. You don't get to say, "Go read the Brookings article." That is a serious cop-out. It is you I want to hear from. By the way - you told Darth to go read the Brookings piece. Not me.

>How would *you*, not *we*, fix the Iraq policy? Please include in your first-person, source-cited exegesis of how to fix Iraq, an explanation of how life without Saddam is not a ‘better place’ for the Iraqis. You already state it is not safer, but you add it is not ‘better’. Consider all aspects of that statement, please, and include the entire country's state of being without Saddam.Do you have a source for these numbers? Do you have several sources for accuracy? I would like for you to be very specific.We have failed? You have to define your terms here. Otherwise, your use of the broad brush stroke makes you lose this verbal joust.How do you account for your use of the imperial ‘we’? Do you speak for every liberal? Is this not ‘arrogant’ of you?<

You will note, no doubt, that I used your own words in my questions. That should help ground you in your salient replies.

It is nice to see you've stopped screaming. Darth is afraid I'm going to eat him, so it helps when you're at least a little more polite. :)

[Phoenix]

Oh look! Some old stuff from another thread, Kathy. It's dead in the water as you didn't respond. Maybe you just didn't see it. I'll cut 'n paste it here for ya.

~~~~~

Dan, Pres. Bush is not "placing prime importance on their opinion." Bush doesn't care about the commanders' opinion. Obviously, he wants their public statements of agreement on sending more troops to Iraq, but he doesn't care what they think. Obviously, the commanders have gotten the message.

Posted by: Kathy | Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 05:39 PM

Kathy,

What's your source for those statements you made?

Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 10:01 PM

[Kathy]

"Nope. I want you to answer the questions I asked. Those are the ROE of debate. I'll scroll back and repeat them for you. You don't get to say, "Go read the Brookings article." That is a serious cop-out. It is you I want to hear from. By the way - you told Darth to go read the Brookings piece. Not me. "

Well, now I'm telling you. Read it, or not. Your choice. I don't care.

[Phoenix]

Clap, clap, clap. Well done, Kathy, but it doesn't work. I will be glad to read the article, but it doesn't erase that set of questions that have been waiting for you for two days now.

How come you only give me little tiny short succinct brittle responses and give Darth big long gooey ones?

That's not fair. I am mad.

Where's Darth? :}