nimh, terrorist training camps have been confirmed at Salman Pak and elsewhere, along with documentation of international alumni lists.
And frolic, you hit on something re religious tensions. Najaf is the birthplace of Shia, and is its holiest city, with Karbala not far behind in significance. With the ascent of the Ba'athists into power in Iraq, persecutions and inihibitions followed, and Qom, Iran became more or less the Exile Seat of the sect. There it grew in influence, eventually giving rise to the toppling of the Shah. With Najaf and Karbala now free, there are sure to be developments, complicating relations with Iran as well as stimulating Iraqi civil unrest. There is troubling potential for related or consequent upheaval in both nations.
nimh wrote:Unsettled
Victory in the war is not victory in the argument about the war.
By Michael Kinsley
Honesty requires me to add also where I found the link to this article. It was in TNR, where the &c column critically notes the following:
TNR wrote:WHITHER THE WAR CRITICS?:
Michael Kinsley makes the completely valid point that the relatively quick and painless victory in Iraq doesn't in itself discredit or disprove opponents of the war (at least not the serious opponents of the war; the unserious opponents had by definition discredited themselves beforehand), since most of their opposition had nothing to do with whether or not the United States would win, at least not in the narrow military sense. Still, one can't help but feel as though the war's opponent's helped create the impression that they could be discredited by a military victory, since many of these critics suddenly dropped their non-military-related opposition and began touting our early military setbacks as evidence that the war was, in fact, a bad idea. Had opponents of the war not tried to claim some measure of vindication when the military effort appeared to be faltering, they'd probably have a much easier time claiming that their opposition was never about our battlefield prospects (which, by and large, it wasn't) now that the war is over.
Yes, the destruction of antiquities and ancient environments certainly fueled my anger at an administration which went in there (they say) to back people off and restore their effing freedom and didn't give a damn about respecting their values. Hey! Values! What are values compared to American preeminence. Timber -- you are like a blind man looking for the WMD's. WE ARE THE WMD's.
Update: The recovered prisoners walked from the helicopters to ambulances, though some needed a bit of support. That is very good news.
Marines now actually in city of Tikrit, scattered, ineffective resistance, "a couple" of intense, but brief firefights, no US casualties reported so far.
codeborg
This loss at the National Museum (and there are others as well) will sadden and anger me for the rest of my life. It is unspeakable.
nimh
I'd read the Observer piece this morning as well, and the Baathist link lept out at me as it had for you. But it wasn't the only bit that did. The same 'supporters of terrorism' argument appears, and there is the lovely little kill-two-birds notion in the missing WOMD - "They're probably being protected by the evil Syrians".
nimh
I'd also read Kinsley's column (from Slate). I decided not to post it as Timber was having too much fun with the victory celebration and I'm trying desperately to not yell at my old friend right now.
But Kinsley's point is the one folks ought to keep in mind. Military victory tells us only what we already knew, that there was no comparison in military strength. The adrenaline/testosterone giddiness attending any bar-room brawl deludes, "I can WHUP any man in this place, therefore, I'm better"
Also in TNR, Lawrence F. Kaplan argues that Syria is far from being the 'next on the hit list'.
He argues this by illustrating at length the unexpected co-operation between the US and Syria since September 11, and emphasises how the State Dept seems to have practically sold its soul to the Syrian link.
Neither of these arguments are very convincing though. First off, he already himself also details how Syria has since earned the immediate American wrath with its in turn unexpectedly bold support for Saddam, even while the war was already going on; that in itself should be enough to override post-9/11 co-operation. Secondly, the State Dept has lost the battle with the Pentagon at every step along the way in the run-up to the war and the war itself in Iraq, so why should it now suddenly be able to brake the train?
I find this whole State Dept/Pentagon opposition fascinating.
The Pentagon seems to espouse some messianistic change-this-world attitude. It smacks of arrogance, for sure, and makes one fear about which crusades it will still lead Bush Jr into. But it also represents some changes in foreign policy that the left, ironically, has long asked for.
For compare the Pentagon line with the State Dept position on who to co-operate with and how. Its the State Dept that gambled on getting high Baathist officers/officials to effect regime change from inside - which would have gotten Saddam out but otherwise simply replaced one dictatorship with another. Its the State Dept that aimed at keeping the basic Baathist structures intact and limit any "revolution" to their decapitation, so that order could be quickly reestablished after the war. Its the State Dept that wants to keep the Iraqi exiles out of the post-war power for now, distrusting their internal divisions and "unreliabilities". It is the State Dept that prefers to keep Assad in as long as he can be 'worked with'. In short, the State Dept hasnt got much up with the whole 'establishing democracy' thing, which it probably considers a dangerously naive endeavour that could threaten stability. In fact, it seems to espouse the all-out version of classic realpolitik, the kind that props up dictatorships as long as they are the lesser evil, or "our" dictatorships; that distrusts dissidents and democratic opositions for the risk they could bring to "stability"; that sees "stability" as the holy grail, in fact, and repression and human rights as luxury interests. That lives in a world made up of only governments, while the Pentagon, in all its militant fervour, has no fear staking its plans on native or exile oppositions, on the alternatives to a regime within (civil) society.
I hate to set the cat among the pigeons, but one could well argue that the Pentagon line is actually, in comparison, highly idealistic, contrasted with the old cynical realpolitik of the State Dept. And we know that its the cynical realpolitik of arming "lesser evil" dictators and guerrillas only to a decade later find them our latest enemy, whom we then have to wage war against again - etc - that got us into all this trouble. Question now is what other kind of trouble the idealist messianism of America-the-Liberator, that the Pentagon now seems to put forward, will put us in, and how in the long run they compare.
Oh, Kaplans article on Syria is at
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=kaplan042103 - can you let me know if that works for you? I registered for a try-out sub to TNRD myself so I dont know whether, if you arent registered, you can get to see the article or not.
"...Pentagon line is actually, in comparison, highly idealistic, contrasted with the old cynical realpolitik of the State Dept..."
Blatham --Lapham, in his latest, makes note of that "idealism" or fervor... or religiosity... or messianism... or tom-toms and shrieks. If only the whole world weren't at the mercy of these crazy idjits, one would enjoy watching the face off.
Gelisgesti wrote:Think we will ever know?
I didnt like that article much overall, but this excerpt below struck me. It's true: the most glaring lack throughout this whole process is the baffling lack of explanations, visions, global analyses that seemed to make any definite sense - on both sides.
Those pro war at no point in time seemed able to make a coherent case for why it was necessary and what it would yield afterwards. For those against, that inability provided enough fodder for protest, but on the other hand they never did seem able to sketch a convincing counter-vision on establishing freedom, peace and tolerance in the Middle East.
I demonstrated because the US plans seemed more threatening than the status quo ever would be - because I believe in working for the long-term goal of UN-administered international justice with whatever small baby steps are possible at the moment - but yes, the resulting "containment" policy on Saddam was of course never better than a rather sad lesser evil itself.
Quote:Why Iraq? Why now? "It's a response to September 11." Oh yes? And is that why you staged your response in a country which had no connection to September 11? "It's about nuclear weapons." Oh yes? "Well, maybe not actual nuclear weapons. It's about weapons of mass destruction." Oh yes? And how many weapons of mass destruction have you found?
What is this war then, which politicians like, which politicians in so many countries favour, and which only the poor bloody people in nearly every country in the world dislike and distrust? Who knows? Who truly can tell? Somebody explain to me: not just the feebleness of the rationale, the evident lies needed to be told by the Americans in order to try - and fail - to persuade international opinion that they had a right to invade. But on the other side, also, explain to me: perhaps 2 million people in Hyde Park, the march inspiring, the solidarity inspiring. And the only disappointment? The speeches. One speaker after another offering feeble jokes about regime change in the White House and Downing Street. Not one single speaker with an analysis that struck to the heart, that made any sense.
And note - no leader. A popular movement of visceral dissent - and no leader. Usually great movements throw up great speakers, people like EP Thompson or Emily Pankhurst whose identity crystallises the common outrage. This time - who? Michael Moore, yes. On the battleground, Robert Fisk, yes. In the columns, Paul Krugman and Julian Barnes, yes. But the great voice, the voice that will tell us "This is what's happening. And this is why." For the first time in my lifetime, a movement with mass, but no tongue. Jacques Chirac? Please.
Those of us who, from the start, opposed this venture on the grounds that it was unnecessary and illegal may now have to face the possibility that it will improve the lives of large numbers of people in large parts of Iraq. We have to face the charge that we are spoilt, that we who already have freedoms have no right to deny even a colonial freedom - if there can be such a thing - to those who have known only brutality and suffering. We are, we are told, callous not to allow that it is a significant advance, at least to those who have known no advance at all, to move a country from dictatorship to anarchy and foreign occupation. But we, in return, have to insist that this release from pain has been bought in the wrong way and at what is already, and at what will only become more clearly, too high a price.
Tartarin
Lapham's view is, as usual, deeply revelatory. When the self-certainty of our leaders is held to be a grand thing, we can all get to experience the thrill of tandem cliff-leaping.
If Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld could lust in their hearts for some galvanizing modern Pearl Harbor tragedy, perhaps it is then ok for us to wish a Theban curse upon the state.
Nimh -- In response to "who" and "no leader," I think the core of the problem is a curious ethos which has puzzled me since I returned to the US: a kind of politesse combined with laziness combined with willful ignorance which prevents Americans (particularly liberal Americans) from serious mano-a-mano fighting with (ouch, I hate this word) "evil." We are badly spoiled, unable to imagine sacrificing ourselves. The right is the real evil: brutal and corrupt and vocal and organized and has a take-no-prisoners attitude. In the face of it, we melt, we self-justify, we hide behind our "decency." The left has a lot to answer for; the old right has even more responsibility in what has happened: genuine conservatives are scarcely audible.
Our first task has been to challenge the media, the voice of the bullies. And what have we done? Very little. In (Friday's?) Krugman column, he intimated that the NYTimes is at fault. I think Frank Rich (who once in an emailed response to a song of praise admitted he might have gone too far for the comfort of the NYTimes editors) was reassigned with cause.
We talk about what needs to be done but we don't do it. Talkers aren't doers. Doers are, after all, "extremists." See the comments on protesters and civil disobeyers.
Does everyone except me have a cinerama monitor? Or has A2K widened and flattened inconveniently?
Tartarin wrote:Does everyone except me have a cinerama monitor? Or has A2K widened and flattened inconveniently?
The page-widening is caused by the length of a previously posted link. The remedy would be for the author of the post in question to use the "URL" function in the reply box, creating a hyperlink. Check the FAQ for details, or PM me for more info. The problem will go away as ongoing subsequent posts push that post into the pages of the past. How long that will take depends on how many posts you load per page (also covered in the FAQ). The FAQ can be reached through the appropriate link color-formatted at the bottom of all my posts.
Hello ... made the Pentagon vs State Dept post into a (rather sloppy) thread of its own.
See
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6453
Oops, mea culpa for the screwed up screen .... I plead ignorance and throw myself upon the mercy of the forum ...
