Forget the surge. Forget the Democrats and their idiotic timetables and benchmarks. Forget that the President is once again mishandling the delicate political situation in Iraq. This news from the Iraqi Vice President about the Sunnis simply up and leaving the government is the crisis of the war:
Iraq’s top Sunni official has set a deadline of next week for pulling his entire bloc out of the government—a potentially devastating blow to reconciliation efforts within Iraq. He also said he turned down an offer by President Bush to visit Washington until he can count more fully on U.S. help.Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi made his comments in an interview with CNN. He said if key amendments to the Iraq Constitution are not made by May 15, he will step down and pull his 44 Sunni politicians out of the 275-member Iraqi parliament.
“If the constitution is not subject to major changes, definitely, I will tell my constituency frankly that I have made the mistake of my life when I put my endorsement to that national accord,” he said. (Watch al-Hashimi express anger over lack of power-sharing )
Specifically, he wants guarantees in the constitution that the country won’t be split into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish federal states that he says will disadvantage Sunnis.
Al-Hashimi’s cooperation with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government is widely seen as essential if there is to be a realistic chance of bridging the Shiite-Sunni divide in Iraq—one of the key goals of the Bush administration.
Al-Hashimi is no fool. He can see as well as I or anyone else who has bothered to pay attention that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not making a sincere effort to address the issues that would facilitate reconciliation between Sunni and Shia and start the process of making Iraq a whole country again. The oil revenue sharing bill has been languishing for months in the Iraqi Parliament with no sign that the objections of the Kurds or Sunnis are being addressed much less that the Shias are anxious for the bill to become law in the first place.
Some of the other vital issues that Maliki is either avoiding or approaching in a half hearted manner guaranteeing failure include the proposed de-Baathification board that would allow those Sunnis who worked for Saddam but did not participate in the atrocities to work for the government – an important economic measure for the Sunni community where unemployment is rampant and where many thousands are prevented from police and army duty by their past affiliation with the regime. And Maliki’s reconciliation plan – submitted to Parliament with great fanfare last June – seems to have slipped through the cracks with nary a word heard about it in months. A Reconciliation Conference held last spring was a spectacular failure as most of the Sunni invitees refused to attend. And why should they? Until amnesty for insurgents is put on the table, what’s the point?
There are other issues that al-Hashimi and the Sunnis are concerned about including the above mentioned changes in the constitution. Outnumbered, outgunned, and nearly out of time, the Sunnis need those constitutional changes to salvage what’s left of their community. With nearly 2.5 million refugees outside the country and 750,000 internally displaced citizens (the vast majority of them Sunnis) the Sunni population has declined by an estimated 15% and is only getting smaller. They must have hope that there is a place for them in the new Iraq. And Maliki and the Shias are spitting in their face by not addressing any of their concerns.
To be sure Maliki finds opposition to these plans at every turn. Some of it almost certainly inspired by an irrational desire on the part of some Shias and Kurds for revenge. That, after all, is why Iraq is in a civil war. But there also appears to be some calculation involved on the part of both Maliki’s Dawa party and the largest political party in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Dragging their feet in Parliament and in the Cabinet council can be seen as a deliberate attempt to effect exactly the outcome al-Hashimi is threatening; a Sunni withdrawal from government which would give these Shia elements the excuse to either “ghettoize” the Sunnis by confining them to central and western Iraq or worse, it would give some of their more radical members a pretext to begin slaughtering the Sunnis wholesale in order to bring about a “Sunni-free” Iraq.
But if al-Hashimi and the Sunnis leave the government, it begs the question: Just who or what is Maliki in charge of in Iraq? The answer is not too damn much. Hence, a Sunni withdrawal would make the Maliki government nothing more than an empty shell, not even in charge of many Shias especially in the south where rival militias are already clashing in earnest in an attempt to gain control of towns and villages.
Maliki seems paralyzed, unable to face the facts regarding what must be done to save his country. Here’s al-Hashimi on the consequences of a Sunni withdrawal from government:
The withdrawal of the Sunni bloc would unravel months of efforts to foster political participation by Sunnis in Iraq’s government. It also would further weaken al-Maliki just weeks after Shiite Cabinet ministers allied with Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr bolted from the government.Al-Hashimi’s Iraqi Islamic Party was key in getting Sunnis out to vote in the December 2005 election. Sunnis had been reluctant to take part in the political process, and many were only convinced to do so with the promise of changes to the Iraqi Constitution. Al-Hashimi said the United States co-signed those changes, and now a year and a half later nothing has been done.
Without a change to the constitution, he said, “The situation would be a disaster for Iraq.”
He added, “I would like to see the identity of my country, in fact, restored back.”
Meanwhile, the President has been ineffective in his jawboning the Iraqi Prime Minister, failing to get Maliki to face up to his responsibilities:
On Monday, the president held a 25-minute videoconference with al-Maliki, the White House and the prime minister’s office announced. In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said political reconciliation efforts were “the focal point of those conversations.”Al-Maliki talked about getting leaders of Iraq’s major factions together “to sit down in a very practical way and say, ‘Let’s get this stuff fixed,’ ” Snow said.
“What you got was a very clear sense from the prime minister that it was important to be making progress,” he said.
It may be “important to be making progress” but one wonders to who; Bush or Maliki?
Al-Maliki’s office said Bush will dispatch a senior administration official to Iraq to rally support for the government, while the prime minister “reaffirmed the importance of continuing cooperation and coordination” between U.S. and Iraqi troops now trying to pacify the capital.
The importance to Maliki that the Capitol be pacified is that if the Americans leave, he’s very like to find himself on the short end of a very long rope. So he will try to keep the Americans pacified by saying all the right words about reconciliation and power sharing while doing nothing to affect the former and actually try and sabotage the latter.
What to do? The Administration efforts in the political sphere have failed miserably to this point. Might it be time for Bush to bite the bullet and give Maliki the heave-ho, replacing him with some kind of government that would do what everyone agrees is necessary but that no one seems willing to work for?
It would be like taking all of those purple fingers raised in triumph following the election and cutting them off at the knuckle. But it may be the only way to save the country. This would be a last resort, the last arrow in Bush’s quiver and he may not use it anyway. Perhaps he’d rather see Iraq disintegrate than give up on his personal dream of promoting democracy in the Middle East.
There will be efforts to entice the Sunnis back into government if they leave. But I am absolutely convinced that Maliki, as with every other promise he has made to us, will do only the minimum necessary to bring that about. Al-Hashimi probably senses the same thing which is why he is willing to walk out in the first place.
This is without a doubt the crisis of the war. How the Administration handles the delicate matter of trying to keep the Sunnis in the government while putting pressure on Maliki to get busy with reforms will tell the tale of whether or not Iraq can be put back together again or whether it will fly apart at the seams.
UPDATE
Allah is back at Hot Air blogging about Iraq. He has the story of Sadrists guarding a Shia shrine – at our request. Trenchantly, he fleshes out the pros and cons.
He also comments briefly on al-Hashimi’s threat:
I’ll leave you with a report from CNN about Iraq’s Sunni Vice President, Tariq al-Hashimi, threatening to pull his MPs out of the government unless the constitution is amended to prohibit partition. He’s worried about Anbar being shunted off into its own country where it won’t get any of the oil revenue from the Shiite areas, but a report from Iraqslogger last month says he might have something even bolder in mind:What is more interesting in Az-Zaman’s lead story is the fact that the Iraqi Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashimi, is attempting to construct a new coalition, similar to [Iyad] ‘Allawi’s in several ways and carrying a comparable “anti-sectarian†agenda. Az-Zaman said that al-Hashimi has also entered talks with the Fadhila party and that he is engaged in a race with ‘Allawi to gather allies for a bid for the Prime Ministership.
A Sunni prime minister? When the current president and speaker of parliament are also Sunnis? Not anytime soon, pal.
With both Allawi and al-Hashimi waiting in the wings for a call from the Americans, one would think that Maliki would get the message and get moving on reform. But Maliki has his own card to play; a Shia uprising if we toss Maliki and his Shia brethren.
And that, my friends, would be game, set, match.
UPDATE II
It doesn’t necessarily worry me when lefties agree with me. But re-reading my post, I was a little uneasy that I had perhaps taken too dark a view of Hashimi’s threat.
Kevin Drum, a reasonable liberal, echoes my sentiments:
The October 2005 deal has served its purpose admirably: it got the constitution passed and it gave everyone some breathing room. But eventually the Shiites and Kurds were going to have to come through with some changes, and no real progress has ever been made on that. Just stalling.
So what happens next? Prime Minister Maliki might be able to buy himself some more time, but probably not much. Eventually it’s going to become clear that the Sunni amendments aren’t going to be proposed, or if they are proposed, that they aren’t going to pass. That day is looking ever closer, and all the battalions in the world aren’t going to help Iraq if the Sunnis irrevocably pull out of the government. Stay tuned.
Reasonable people can disagree about the extent of this crisis. But I have to make an effort to come up with something worse.
7:41 am
Nicely put. The thing is, this political crisis may be coming to a head, but it has been the primary reason why the whole war failed in the first place. Very few people seemed to wonder about different groups would be motivated in a democratic society in Iraq until it had already happened.
As for what the US administration will do about it? Well, nothing except say how well things are going, how slow progress is continuing, how things will get better, all the usual bromides. They simply have no choice. There is nothing short of withdrawl that the Bush Admin can threaten the Shiites with (and remember that removing Malaki’s administration is not really an option. The numbers are the same in parliament as they were 6 months ago so the leader will come from SCIRI or Dawa again, and exactly the same game will start up again.
As for ripping up the government and starting again with a US appointed Sunni coalition, well, there would go whatever remaining tatters of legitimacy still hanging onto the Iraqi state. The police and army would immediately revert to their open sectarian affiliations, and whether they obeyed any orders at all would be purely down to whether their sectarian leaders agreed. The big problem here is that the powers of the state have changed since Saddam’s time. In Saddam’s time the police and army would be loyal because (1) They got the perks, (2) They would get the pain if they weren’t. There was some favouring of Sunnis over Shiites, particularly in the officer corp, but nowhere near as much as people think. It was more a case of people from the favoured tribes being Sunnis rather than the Sunnis being favoured.
Now, of course, thanks to De-Baathification, Shiite militas signing up, the intra-unit enforcement of sectarian division (you get Shiites brigades, Kurdish brigades, etc) that loyalty to the state is gone. They Police in particular are only as loyal as they are to the central government (and that isn’t very much) is because their sectarian leaders are the ones giving the orders, and because they like those orders (run lucrative checkpoints, kill Sunnis, run extortion rackets, etc).
You replace these sectarian leaders with a bunch of Sunni secularists (and, as far as the average Iraqi seems to think, ‘CIA tools’ in the case of Allawi) and you will see how far that loyalty lies. The police and army could well rise up in response to any such coup seeing yet another betrayal of the Shiites in favour of the Sunnis by the US. And you’ve been training and equipping them (fortunately not very well by accounts). At least you haven’t given them any serious airpower.
And as for the politics of it all, what is poor Malaki supposed to do? His religious leaders are telling him not to let any Baathists back in. He now knows (as a result of the security wall) that he has no actual political power and the only people left protecting him are his hardcore Shiite bretheren and the Kurds. The Kurds will abandon him at the first sign of actually giving the Sunnis what they want (and frankly the Kurds want the weakest of weak central government in order to suppress Kirkuk and annex it in the next year or so) and then he and his party will be toast.
We said, when the constitution was passed (if we could get a word in edgewise beyond the whooping and hollering) that the sight of massive rejection from the Sunni community, and promises of reforms and new referenda in the next few years was going to lead to a point where the whole political mess was going to fall apart. And here we are. No serious attempt was made to reform the constitution and the Sunnis have finally recognised that they were lied to, as they suspected.
What would have been a good idea would have been to construct the constitution at a leisurely pace, not shoehorning in long term disasters for the benefit of a set political timeline. The US electoral timeline and desire to see “turning points” was one factor that led us here, make no mistake.
The problem is the same as it always was. The three communities want opposing things, the Shiites want to be in charge and punish the Sunnis, the Sunnis want to be in charge and to not be oppressed by the Shiites, the Kurds want to leave all these people in their dust, put up some big fencing and have a state.
Of course the big gag is in imagining that the Green Zone government has any real power in Iraq anyway. You could replace Al-Malaki with my cat and the country probably wouldn’t notice in any meaningful way. Well, that’s not quite true. Re-election posters would be cuter.
8:40 am
So at no time can you allow that perhaps the Democarts’ fight to end this war has anything to do with recognizing the utter failure of the Maliki government to… govern?
We are proping up a group of tribal factions, not a government. One that doesn’t have much to say about 17 year olds being stoned to death by the way.
Your tax dollars at work.
10:16 am
Web Reconnaissance for 05/08/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….
10:25 am
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 05/08/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
1:39 pm
So much for taking the low road.
Drongo Said: “What would have been a good idea would have been to construct the constitution at a leisurely pace, not shoehorning in long term disasters for the benefit of a set political timeline. The US electoral timeline and desire to see “turning points†was one factor that led us here, make no mistake.”
Exactly. By taking the low road, we allowed a power shift before all of the terms and conditions were spelled out clearly for the three main parties. With fewer troops in place, it was easier to start and maintain an insurrection. With little control over Baghdad and the Borders, we could not keep the peace, always fighting the lack of real troop power to shut things down tightly. Security was secondary to the attempt to create a government that had a real chance of making an equitable deal for the three parties. Seems that we stepped back just at the time when we could have brought the parties together more fully.
I wonder whether our military men see the need for massive surges now, or to cut and run? We may have little choice.
6:41 pm
Yes, this is a serious development but some may be taking a darker view as Rick suggests. Hopefully the various Iraqi factions will discover the principle of mutual self-interest instead of slaughtering each other in the name of Allah, the Koran and Mohammed.
As some have suggested, the war in Iraq was spectacular won, now its a matter of winning the peace in a land steeped in an ideology which claims to be a “religion of peace” but has proven to be anything but that … the six Muslims plotting to attack Fort Dix is just another piece of that jigsaw puzzle.
Sure there have been missteps by this administration, just as there were missteps by FDR and his generals during World War II that cost tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of American soldiers their lives. But I believe its also true that many Americans refuse to see the elephant in the room, that is unless Muslim moderates begin to “take back their religion” as they promised they would do, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to flourish and continuing defining greater Islam in more fascist terms.
I’m sure we all have heard these words spoken by Teddy Roosevelt at one time or another in our lives, but I think it bears repeating today. I believe those Bush-bashers on the other more radical side of the aisle (not speaking of those here) need to reflect a little more about the truths contained therewithin and practice some respectful civility that can be exercised toward those who have the very difficult task of actually doing something that could lead to some kind of substantive achievement in the Middle East as opposed to anonymous hacks adopting high-minded contrarian views to justify their often quite useless Monday morning quarterbacking:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
8:15 pm
Go large or go home, those were the choices.
Two years ago.
At this point 6,000 troops, or 36,000 troops are not enough.
The idea that if we tell the Iraqi’s a date we’re leaving the insurgents will just wait us out assumes the people we are fighting aren’t already prepared to wait years.
And what they are waiting for isn’t our departure, it’s the collapse of the useless regime we are propping up. It is that collapse that will force our departure.
Trent Lott and others see the handwriting on the wall. Come September it’s over.
As the National Review has said, ‘just enough to lose’ has been this administrations approach.
12:43 am
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
That’s just an argument for action rather than inaction. By this argument, the 9/11 hijackers are more worthy than the crowds chanting “Death to America” because they got off their backsides and did something brave about their beliefs. That’s a rather Viking morality I’d say.
The switch point in the quote is here “who spends himself in a worthy cause”. It begs the question “What is a worthy cause?” The only way to work out what is a worthy cause is by thinking, not acting and the only way to produce clear thinking is to embrace criticism.
Another flaw in this rousing call to arms is that, by the reasoning presented, if someone puts you all in when you have nothing but a small pair, you should call without hesitation everytime, and ignore the poker books because the day belongs to those who act. That’s a good way to lose.
“But I believe its also true that many Americans refuse to see the elephant in the room, that is unless Muslim moderates begin to “take back their religion†as they promised they would do, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to flourish and continuing defining greater Islam in more fascist terms.”
I’m only a lowly critic, but I think I would question whether the best way to ensure the victory of the moderates is to blow up large numbers of largely moderate Muslims, run an occupation that, even if not an accurate impression, leaves millions of Muslims convinced that the Christans are killing them to steal their oil.
That would tend to radicalise people I would imagine.
8:42 am
Drongo, your mired in false moral equivalences. Of course it’s a call to action. From a moral standpoint, if you want to falsely equate taking out a despotic regime with terrorist attacks on a civilian target, then go ahead and live in that world of twisted nuance.
As to your inability to blame the real perps who are blowing up moderate Muslims, then you’re the perfect apologist for jihadists. As you well know, close to 98% of all moderate Muslims taken out since 9/11 has been the result of Muslim jihadists and that point should be made over and over to the “moderate” Muslim world. Your kneejerk reaction in wanting to blame-Bush/blame-America/blame-the-troops by claiming we’re inciting jihadists to commit such heinous crimes against their own brethren is precisely the kind of attitude jihadists want to instill in their useful idiots in the free world. That’s like claiming the reason for gang violence and murder in America is because the existence of law enforcement incites them to do such things as blowback. Not a perfect analogy but a good one nonetheless.
8:56 am
Muslims convinced that the Christans are killing them to steal their oil.
Buwahahahaha. How can “moderate” Muslims not help but think that when people on your side of the aisle have been ranting “No War For Oil”! People like that have to at least accept responsibility for confirming in the Muslim mind this utter falsehood. Now I’m not saying that concerns for the oil markets don’t come into play at some level, but c’mon NO WAR FOR OIL? Of course Muslims are going to be even more convinced of this simplistic “truthiness” when the radical left continues playing into the hands of sophisticated jihadists who now realize they have strange bedfellows (the left) who can help them defeat Bush and conservative America before making mincemeat of their good buddy lefties. Isn’t this always what leftist regimes and Muslim thugocracies do once the main enemy is defeated, you get rid of the useful idiots. And don’t forget, what the Muslim fundamentalist despises the most is the social and moral debauchery of modern liberalism. Where’s the outrage from leftist feminists and militant homosexuals toward the Muslim predation which increasingly targets people like them when they would be the first targets under an Islamic global caliphate? Instead these liberals consider President Bush and American conservatives their first and foremost enemies – an “enemy” that has exercised EXTREME tolerance toward those who have coarsened the public debates with half-truths and failed social prescriptions, and degraded American traditions and the social structure of this country with their destructive attempts at social engineering for the last fifty years. It’s true and you know it.
9:44 am
The Anbar Salvation Council has done outstanding work against AQ elements, and the group is getting larger with the new addition of the 1920s Revolution Brigades. The trouble is that once AQ is taken care of will they peacefully disband? I don’t think so, in order to solve one problem we might have created another. If AQ is routed and the nation stays together will Maliki call for the dissolution of ASC, sure. Will they do it , yeah right, they will disband along with the Mahdi Army and the other paramilitary group. My basic premise still remains, why are we even trying to keep this nation together? A Federation of mostly autonomous sates is not a perfect solution by any means but our choices now are the lesser of many evils. If we do it now there is at least a chance for some stability, otherwise they will “figure†things out on their own once we leave and it won’t be pretty.
10:18 am
“Perhaps he’d rather see Iraq disintegrate than give up on his personal dream of promoting democracy in the Middle East.”
Mr. Moran,
Up to know I’ve been a frequent reader, but now I am afraid you have fallen for the classic leftist/movon/democratic line that somehow this is all Bush’s fault.
Promoting democracy anywhere, anytime is nothing to be ashamed of. Personal dream? My God, if that’s the “failure” that Bush gets the noose for, then that is all the proof that I need that he will certainly be remembered, albiet in the distance future, as one of the most admirable presidents in history.
4:42 pm
“Drongo, your mired in false moral equivalences. ”
No, the quote is. The reasoning in the call to arms simply places those who act above those who criticise those who act. It presumes “Worthy action” without making any attempt to tell you how to tell apart worth action from unworthy action. I would suggest that attempting something that has massive potential negative consequences and dubious returns is the definition of unworthy action, for all the claimed heroism of the actor.
” if you want to falsely equate taking out a despotic regime with terrorist attacks on a civilian target, then go ahead and live in that world of twisted nuance.”
Of course I don’t. The quote does though.
“As to your inability to blame the real perps who are blowing up moderate Muslims, then you’re the perfect apologist for jihadists.”
People who blow up moderate Muslims are to blame for blowing up moderate Muslims. Happy? I haven’t said it because it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. I presumed it didn’t need saying. If it’ll make you happy;
“People are responsible for their own actions”
OK?
“As you well know, close to 98% of all moderate Muslims taken out since 9/11 has been the result of Muslim jihadists and that point should be made over and over to the “moderate†Muslim world. ”
As you well know, that number is plucked out of the air. Nobody over there is reliably keeping track of who is killing who.
“Your kneejerk reaction in wanting to blame-Bush/blame-America/blame-the-troops by claiming we’re inciting jihadists to commit such heinous crimes against their own brethren is precisely the kind of attitude jihadists want to instill in their useful idiots in the free world.”
I don’t blame Bush for car bombers. I blame the car bombers for being ar bombers. I blame Bush for his part in making being a car bomber both more attractive and easier. I don’t really blame the troops for shooting up cars because they thought that they might be suicide bombers, though recntly revealed attitudes amongst them casts some doubt on that position. I blame politicians for putting soldiers in a position where they will inevitably shoot innocent civilians.
Most of all I blame Bush for being as strategically deaf as a post, incompetent and just generally incapable of learning from experience. I mean honestly, this war has been and will continue to be for a long time, a strategic disaster. Surely this is indisputable by now?
“That’s like claiming the reason for gang violence and murder in America is because the existence of law enforcement incites them to do such things as blowback. Not a perfect analogy but a good one nonetheless.”
Expand the analogy and you might end up with something. If the police and the state create a situation where you cannot trust the police, cannot protect your own property, see kidnap as a routine part of life, and have no way of making any money to feed your family, then you would have a state effectively manufacturing criminals from non-criminals.
People are responsible for their actions, that’s sure enough, but when your options are limited to poverty, instability and terror or joining the gang and being somebody it is hardly surprising that some people choose the latter.
5:00 pm
“People like that have to at least accept responsibility for confirming in the Muslim mind this utter falsehood.”
I don’t think that it is a falsehood. I think that you are being about as rational as a 9/11 truther here. I think that the desire to control access to the oil reserves of Iraq and indeed any aspect of our interest in the Middle East is driven exclusively by oil these days. If it weren’t for the oil the whole place would be a meaningless desert full of wandering tribesmen.
“And don’t forget, what the Muslim fundamentalist despises the most is the social and moral debauchery of modern liberalism. ”
Who cares? I’m in about as much danger from Muslim fundamentalists taking over my country as you are. Ie none whatsoever. Get a sense of proportion, please…
I mean, honestly, how do you see the invasion and conversion of the country going? At what point does the police force enforce Islamic morality? Where does the army of Islamic warriors come from?
“Where’s the outrage from leftist feminists and militant homosexuals toward the Muslim predation which increasingly targets people like them when they would be the first targets under an Islamic global caliphate?”
There’s never going to be a global caliphate. I deplore their hatred of homosexuals and women. Again, I presume that this goes without saying. Maybe we all need to preface our posts with disclaimers. “People are responsible for their own actions” “I desipe people who hate other for their race, gender, religion or sexuality” “I want everyone to be at peace but failing that I am willing to defend myself”. Do I need to carry on or can we assume that I am not lusting for the glory of Bin Laden?
“Instead these liberals consider President Bush and American conservatives their first and foremost enemies – an “enemy†that has exercised EXTREME tolerance toward those who have coarsened the public debates with half-truths and failed social prescriptions, and degraded American traditions and the social structure of this country with their destructive attempts at social engineering for the last fifty years. It’s true and you know it.”
If you don’t regard the government with extreme scepticism then I don’t think you quite caught the whole idea behind your own country. Ditching Habeas Corpus, expanding detention without trial, increased surveillance, torture. These things are not the signs of an Executive that is headed in the right direction. How will you feel when these powers are wielded by Democrats? Or by anyone else who runs the country in the future. Freedoms are easily given up and hard won.
I don’t get how people can’t see this stuff. “EXTREME tolerance” eh? As opposed to what?
5:28 pm
“But if al-Hashimi and the Sunnis leave the government, it begs the question: Just who or what is Maliki in charge of in Iraq? The answer is not too damn much. ”
Beg to differ. Dawa is not nuts. They’re winning on every front. About two thirds of the population was Shi’a before all this nonsense started. As you point out, the Sunni power base is seriously diminished since then – a lot of their best people have left the country. The only thing Maliki needs to do is find a reasonable way to split the country between Shiites and Kurds, and he can rule indefinitely with a super-majority. He can scare the living daylights out of foreign powers by threatening to offer the Kurds independence – better than any nuclear bomb as a threat. And he will be able to count on strong support from Iran. In the end, the commitment of the West to democracy means that the Shiites just can’t lose. Certainly not now, after they’ve been succesful in reducing the Sunni population further.
This was all rather obvious from the start. Democracy in Iraq means creating another Shiite-run, oil-rich state.