Losing in Iraq by Christopher Hitchens

Quote:

The New York Times ran a fascinating report (subscription only), under the byline of James Glanz, on July 8. It was a profile of Dr. Alaa Tamimi, the mayor of Baghdad, whose position it would be a gross understatement to describe as "embattled." Dr. Tamimi is a civil engineer and convinced secularist who gave up a prosperous exile in Canada to come home and help rebuild his country. He is one among millions who could emerge if it were not for the endless, pitiless torture to which the city is subjected by violent religious fascists. He is quoted as being full of ideas, of a somewhat Giuliani-like character, about zoning enforcement, garbage recycling, and zero tolerance for broken windows. If this doesn't seem quixotic enough in today's gruesome circumstances, he also has to confront religious parties on the city council and an inept central government that won't give him a serious budget.

Just a informational ponit: This guy has been fired, and noone can seem to figure out why.

Cycloptichorn

on edit: I figured out why! Tell me if this situation sounds stable to you:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9404

Quote:

Gunmen oust Baghdad mayor
8/9/2005 3:00:00 PM GMT

Baghdad's mayor said on Tuesday that he was ousted yesterday after 120 gunmen stormed his office and installed the provincial governor in his place.

Mayor Alaa Al Tamimi said he wasn't at his office at the time but that unknown gunmen installed Baghdad Governor Hussein Al Tahhan in his place.

Tamimi said tensions had broken out between him and Shiite members of the provincial council in recent weeks.

"I am appointed by the state. I handed in my resignation three times because I knew there would be trouble. Acts like these set a very dangerous precedent for a country that wants to be free and democratic," he said.

However, a government spokesman claimed that Tamimi was sacked on Monday, without providing further details.

Spokesman Laith Kubba said the governor of Baghdad province, which also includes a number of towns outside the capital, would be responsible for the city for the time being.

Kubba also said that the provincial council had nominated a new mayor, but noted that the central government didn't take any decision.

In another development, an Interior Ministry official said that gunmen killed at least eleven Iraqi policemen in five separate attacks in Baghdad on Tuesday.

All the attacks occurred between 7:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. (0330-0500 GMT).

In eastern Baghdad, four officers on patrol were killed in a drive-by shooting.

Gunmen also killed a police captain and his driver in the southern Doura district, and in the nearby Zafaraniya, an officer in the Interior Ministry's Major Crimes Unit was killed in his car.

Two more police officers were shot dead in Baghdad's eastern district of Zayouna, and in the northern suburb of al-Shu'ula, rebels gunned down one policeman and injured three others.

In Baquba, a police lieutenant said one policeman was killed and another was injured in a nearly simultaneous attack.

Meanwhile, police said a car bomb explosion in the Tayaran Square in central Baghdad killed more than three Iraqi civilians and wounded 50 others.

"A suicide car bomber blew himself up right next to one of our convoy," killing one U.S. soldier and injuring two others, U.S. military spokesman Sergeant David Abrams said.

In other violence, unknown gunmen opened fire on a minibus carrying Shiite pilgrims to Iran, killing three people and wounding eight others, police said.

The shooting took place some 80 kilometers east of Baquba on a road often used by pilgrims visiting holy sites in neighboring Iran.

Police also said that four Iraqi troops were killed in a bomb blast in Samarra, 120 kilometers north of the capital. Also rebels shot dead a businessman and his wife near Al-Dur, some 150 kilometers north of Baghdad.

Whew, doesn't sound good

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Rayban, I just found this thread and am wondering about your comment re the Kurds. You say that they will not allow an Iranicized Iraq? The Kurds want a federalized Iraq, giving them autonomy. That is all they want, to go their way, rule themselves, and control Kirkuk. If those demands are met, I think they care not whether the rest of Iraq is run by secular or sharia law.

I am checking in here in the hopes that this thread will not become Ican-icized. I would like to hear reasoned discussions about the situation in Iraq. I was against this war but I feel strongly that we must stay in Iraq until order and security are in place for the citizens, most of whom are innocent victims of the conflict. I have wondered often if we should not have occupied with massively greater troop strength, (and even if we should not do that now,) secured the country, restored utilities, police, schools and jobs before we tried to educate the Iraqis about the democracy that we hope to impose. (Er, have the Iraqis create, that is.)

My cynicism is tinged with probably unrealistic hope that this experiment in imperial democracy will end well. I cling on to any good news from Iraq and wish there were more.

0 Replies

Here's the game.

The Shiites are going to offer the Kurds autonomy in their own region in the North and expect to have control of the rest of the country.

The Shiite government that was put into power by the elections we staged wants the US out soon. They are already mentioning the summer of 2006 as their time table.

The new Iraqi government, with the concessions to the Kurds I mention above, plans institute the relgiously based type of government they want, supported by a constitution that they like, through democratic means. The question is whether the US will allow this.

The Shiite government can manage itself with help from its friendly neighbor Iran. They know that with the US out of the way and Irans help, they can deal with the insurgency the way most governments deal with insurgencies. They need the US only to keep Syria (the Sunni neighbor) out of play.

Here is the dilemma for the US.

The natural state of things is another Shiite controlled, Islamic government complete with some amount of repression of the minority Sunni population and with strong ties to Iran. This is what will happen if the any democratic process takes place (meaning the will of the people through a fair electoral process).

If the US wants any other result, it will need to continue an active military occupation for a long, long time. Neither the Shiite government, nor the Sunni insurgents want this (although it suits the radical terrorists just fine).

This "bringing democracy to the people of Iraq" is a farce.

There is only one way to avoid a long military occupation.

We must plan a withdrawral now according to the terms of the elected sovereign government. This means accepting the fact that the government the majority in Iraq choose is close to Iran and not particularly "democratic" according to any Western standards.

I fear the US will insist on asserting its will for Iraq, over the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government.

The US rational for staying in Iraq is a lie. The Iraqi government knows it. The Sunni resistance knows it. I hope the American people realize this before too many more people die in a meaningless conflict.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Curiously unmoving. Is Hitchens losing his touch?

GF

If the excerpt below doesn't move you.........you could be brain dead or so isolated in your eucalyptus padded cocoon that a few well chosen words will never hold any meaning for you. He perhaps has stopped his intellectual ranting and is now concentrating on an even more cerebral approach, which will, of course, severely limit his audience.

It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.

Nup did nothing. I must get my brain checked.

0 Replies

Gorilla warfare is no less evil then any kind of warfare.All is fair in War.

0 Replies

I f**ked

0 Replies

up

0 Replies

opps......Hey, who are you? And how do I fix it?

0 Replies

I'm sure we all heard you the first time. This war in Iraq is not a war, it's a flaunting of the laws of attrition. All Americans should now be suffering from a terminal case of buyer's remorse.

0 Replies

EBrown,

I pretty much agree with your assessment. The coziness of Iraq and Iran will become a large issue for the US if Iran continues on its ambitious nuclear course. It is difficult to know the motives and long-term strategy of the new Iranian prez as he stonewalls the European initiatives. He may be holding out for richer incentives, or he may just want to have nukes as a deterrent. (And why wouldn't he? How else to defend yourself against the US?)

I think we will have many and well soldiered bases in Iraq for decades to come. The US cannot allow Iraq to become a state that might become anti-US, nor can the US let its newly established foothold in the ME, and thus its iron grip on Iraq's oil sources, slip out of its control. "Establishing democracy" was never the honest goal of the war, and the people are slowly -- too slowly -- coming to realize the truth.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

I think we will have many and well soldiered bases in Iraq for decades to come. The US cannot allow Iraq to become a state that might become anti-US, nor can the US let its newly established foothold in the ME, and thus its iron grip on Iraq's oil sources, slip out of its control. "Establishing democracy" was never the honest goal of the war, and the people are slowly -- too slowly -- coming to realize the truth.

Miss Kara, have you ever read the PNAC agenda? Having bases in southwest Asia has been a goal of that organization since the late 1990s. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz are all founding members. You can be sure that if they get their way, there will be American bases in Iraq.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
Curiously unmoving. Is Hitchens losing his touch?

GF

If the excerpt below doesn't move you.........you could be brain dead or so isolated in your eucalyptus padded cocoon that a few well chosen words will never hold any meaning for you. He perhaps has stopped his intellectual ranting and is now concentrating on an even more cerebral approach, which will, of course, severely limit his audience.

It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.

Nup did nothing. I must get my brain checked.

Kara

I repost the excerpt again (the part in red) from Hitchens in hope that you and others can comprehend these few words as the defining moment in Iraq.

Hitchens is making an intellectual plea, devoid of any rant, that should smack any thinking person right in the face, about the consequences of not winning is Iraq. It is so perfectly clear to me that he is correct in his assessment and I am extremely frustrated, as he obviously is, that everyone cannot see it.

0 Replies

Hitchens does not convince me rayban.

It's not because I'm too dense to get the message, it's not that I'm ignoring what he has written, it's not that I don't understand it.

It's because he doesn't convince me.

In fact I'm more inclined to see this as a desperate effort from a cheerleader for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to keep everyone on track.

0 Replies

I think charitable acts from the west will abound in Iraq, once the bombing and shooting stops.
Of course, the country is itself incredibly rich from its oil resources, (unlike comparable humanitarian targets in Africa, for example) and so there is no direct comparison to be made there.
Hitchens misses that point.
From the peace, if it ever comes, should flow prosperity, without the need for much if any charitable giving.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

opps......Hey, who are you? And how do I fix it?

You click on edit on the last post and click on delete which will take care of that post. Then you can click edit on the other duplicate(s) that are not you last post and just type in," duplicate deleted by author."

0 Replies

Ebrown's assessment is very good. I think it would help anyone to go back into the history of Southeast Asia and how we became involved in the debacle of Vietnam. Too many parables to ignore and only the stubborn Mr. Bush, Cheney, Rove and company are too stupid to admit it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hitchens' piece in today's Slate is one of his silliest in recent memory. It speaks for itself, but I'll provide some highlights:

How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

...

Question: Why have several large American cities not already announced that they are going to become sister cities with Baghdad and help raise money and awareness to aid [Baghdad Mayor] Dr. Tamimi?

Right back at you, Hitch!

Does any city anywhere want to become the sister city of an actively war ravaged hell-hole? During the Blitz, was your Mum involved with a programme to pair London off against Stalingrad or Tunis? "Welcome to London - Sister City to Stalingrad!"

We Americans are dedicating significant tax revenue resources to what many (most) of us perceive as being a wrong war, an unjust war and a "mishandled" war, at great cost in opportunities lost elsewhere. (One year of Iraq war spending would pay the salaries and benefits of 1000 teachers in all 50 states plus DC for 25 years, for example).

You're incredulously asking us why we're not reaching deeper into our post-tax pockets at this stage of the war to shovel more of our own post-tax income into the black hole of Baghdad when billions have been lost already and continue to be lost on unrealized reconstruction goals managed by a coalition of US government and corporate interests that combined results in one of the biggest organizations in history? You want us to dig deeper, now when "the mission" remains ill-defined (in the eyes of most of us... I realize that the vision of Pax Americana spreading across the Middle East is clear in your eyes...)

I know that you proudly wear your lapel pin each depicting a free Iraqi-Kurdistan... It's nice to have dreams and aspirations. Christopher... What if the task at hand really is unachievable? Should we keep after it with patriotic ferver and tenacity regardless of of its success or failure? At what point during the Vietnam War might we have stopped killing Vietnamese civilians and went home early? 250,000 dead? 500,000? One million?

Those of you who have gleefully cheered on the war need to prepare for the possibility of failure. Those of us in opposition to the war have always hoped for the best but expected the worst. Our fears are being realized. Why can't you see that?

Source

0 Replies

Quote:

I know that you proudly wear your lapel pin each depicting a free Iraqi-Kurdistan... It's nice to have dreams and aspirations. Christopher... What if the task at hand really is unachievable? Should we keep after it with patriotic ferver and tenacity regardless of of its success or failure? At what point during the Vietnam War might we have stopped killing Vietnamese civilians and went home early? 250,000 dead? 500,000? One million?

Hitchens is getting the same ole, blah, blah, blah, that I get here from the same type of distorted, irrelevant argument:

Quote:

At what point during the Vietnam War might we have stopped killing Vietnamese civilians and went home early? 250,000 dead? 500,000? One million?

This guy completely, insanely, ignores the millions of South Vietnamese killed by the commies after we left Vietnam. After we abandoned our commitment there, he wants us to abandon our commitment to the Iraqis.

Rolling Eyes

And, if it's possible, Hitchens has even more enemies than I do, who will say anything, tell any lie, in an attempt to discredit him. Remember that Hitchens was once one of you guys........until he got mugged by reality.
I would think that would give him more credibility in your camp, but of course when minds are closed, he appears only as a traitor and causes anger instead of understanding.

0 Replies

Rayban,

You keep talking about "the Enemy" who I assume you are afraid will take over if the US withdraws. I don't think your fears are reasonable.

Who do you mean by "the enemy"? I can think of three possibilities of what you mean by this.

1) Insurgents who are Sunnis and using violence for a political end against their rivals, the Shia.

2) Insurgents who are using violence to attack the United States.

3) The Shia majority who want to have a Shia dominated government based on Islamic law.

The insurgents, whether politically (#1) or religiously (#2) motivated don't have a chance to take over Iraq after a quick US withdrawral next summer. First of all, when the US goes, much of the motivation for radical fighters dries up.

Secondly the Shia dominated Iraqi government (with Irans help) is perfectly capable of dealing with the insurgency the way that other governments in the region deal with insurgency. This is why the Iraqi elected government is already making noises that the US should leave. They don't have much fear that they can't rule just fine.

So if by "enemy" you mean the insurgents and terrorists who are currently planting bombs, murdering hostages and killing children, your fears are unjustified. These insurgents with all their barbaric crimes can be dealt with by the Iraqis and their firiends. The US is just making things worse.

The other alternative "enemy" is the elected Iraqi government. If this is who you say should not control Iraq, than tough. Iraq is not the United States, Iraqis are not Americans. They are supposed to chose the government and the path for their own country.

The US must withdraw as soon as possible-- next summer at the latest. In doing this, the Shia government will, without question, take over-- as it should.

This is the only sane alternative. Staying in Iraq indefinitately is simply inconcievable.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.

RayBan, you red-line the above quote of Hitchin's and ask us to think about it. My problem is that, if I understand what he is saying (and I'm not convinced that I do,) I simply do not agree with him. Who and what is the enemy and where did he/she/they come from? If the enemy was Saddam Hussein, he is outa there. If the enemy is al-qaeda -- the loose knit terror group that rushed into the vacuum we created in Iraq -- we will be fighting them all over the world forever.

If the insurgency or the disaffected or the anti-US Iraqis are the enemy, we created them by trashing the country, its security and infrastructure. If the country slips into civil war, which is not entirely unlikely, we may have to do what we should have done right after "shock and awe," which is to put an additional 250,000 troops on the ground to maintain security and protect our little investment in the ME.

The insurgency and the disaffected exist because they don't want to see their country occupied by a foreign power. I don't think that makes them evil. It makes them ordinary, even if enraged and violent. Also, many of them are unemployed and at a loose end, creating a group of inflammables.

This is not to say we aren't trying or that there aren't some good things being done and happening. Whether we are doing enough, or doing it in time, or doing the right things at this moment: those are the questions to deal with now. It is useless to look back and say that the attack on Iraq -- its execution and follow-up -- was the worst foreign policy mistake in recent history.

0 Replies

Losing in Iraq by Christopher Hitchens

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know