The Open-Source War

By JOHN ROBB

Despite this set­back, the mil­i­tary and the Bush admin­is­tra­tion con­tinue to claim progress, though this progress appears to be mea­sured in the famil­iar met­ric of body counts. Accord­ing to the mil­i­tary, it kills or cap­tures 1,000 to 3,000 insur­gents a month. Its esti­mate of the insur­gency, how­ever, is a mere 12,000 to 20,000 fight­ers. Some­thing is clearly wrong. Sim­ple math indi­cates we have destroyed the insur­gency sev­eral times over since it started.

This entry was posted in POLITICS and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to The Open-Source War

  1. Keld Bach says:

    Funny, I’d just read the same arti­cle on John Robb’s weblog.

    There’s an inter­est­ing cri­tique of the arti­cle as well. And it’s more optimistic:

    We need to wage peace from the out­side in, spread­ing con­nec­tiv­ity, not wage war from the inside out, hop­ing for democ­racy. We will never win in Iraq. Glob­al­iza­tion will.

  2. Jeff says:

    U.S. nabs al-Qaida Web site pro­ducer
    Pro­pa­ganda site was unusu­ally quiet dur­ing week­end referendum

    Sev­eral other Web sites oper­ated by local Iraqi insur­gents are open to the pub­lic. They are pri­mar­ily pro­pa­ganda tools in the bat­tle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population.

    Unlike al-Qaida, which jus­ti­fies its war as a defense of the reli­gion of Islam against west­ern infi­dels, most local insur­gents use Web sites to appeal to polit­i­cal and nation­al­ist sen­ti­ments, argu­ing the new Iraqi gov­ern­ment is allow­ing out­siders to dic­tate the future of the nation.

    The “Albas­rah” Web site, for exam­ple, is sym­pa­thetic to insur­gents who are for­mer mem­bers of Sad­dam Hussein’s Baathist regime. They praised as “patri­otic” the March 2005 assas­si­na­tion of Azzad Ahmed, one of the judges on the tri­bunal that will try Sad­dam for war crimes, geno­cide and crimes against human­ity, begin­ning this week.



    All of which raises the inter­est­ing and secre­tive prospect that Amer­i­can secu­rity experts are mon­i­tor­ing and hack­ing these Web sites to gather up both infor­ma­tion and mem­bers of the insur­gency and their sup­port­ers
    .

    That might explain why one of the top pro­pa­ganda oper­a­tives of “al-Qaida in Iraq” was caught by the Amer­i­cans and why his Web site was so quiet dur­ing the referendum.

  3. Halliburton Oil says:

    Despite this set­back, the.…

    where is the linky?

  4. Jon says:

    Keld– “We need to wage peace from the out­side in, spread­ing con­nec­tiv­ity, not wage war from the inside out, hop­ing for democ­racy. We will never win in Iraq. Glob­al­iza­tion will.”

    Because there is no real change being made to Iraq, when the oil begins to wane, chaos will again reign.

    Jeff– “U.S. nabs al-Qaida Web site producer”

    You’re like a dog with a bone.

    Amer­i­can secu­rity experts are mon­i­tor­ing and hack­ing these Web sites”

    Is that why I couldn’t get on the site over the week­end? Damn spooks.

    HO– “where is the linky?”

    Right here.

  5. Jeff says:

    You’re like a dog with a bone.

    Is this one better…?

    Somali Islamic mili­tias raid movie studio

    MOGADISHU, Soma­lia (AP) — Dozens of gun­men loyal to Islamic courts stormed a video stu­dio in Somalia’s cap­i­tal on Mon­day, destroy­ing equip­ment and con­fis­cat­ing hun­dreds of tapes that were being trans­lated into the Somali language.

    The courts con­sider watch­ing movies, lis­ten­ing to music, danc­ing and many other forms of enter­tain­ment un-Islamic.

  6. Jeff says:

    Somali Islamic mili­tias raid movie studio

    MOGADISHU, Soma­lia (AP) — Dozens of gun­men loyal to Islamic courts stormed a video stu­dio in Somalia’s cap­i­tal on Mon­day, destroy­ing equip­ment and con­fis­cat­ing hun­dreds of tapes that were being trans­lated into the Somali language.

    The courts con­sider watch­ing movies, lis­ten­ing to music, danc­ing and many other forms of enter­tain­ment un-Islamic.

    We are very proud that we closed down the biggest movie trans­lat­ing firm,” said Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, chair­man of the Union of the Islamic Courts. “What’s con­sid­ered as harm­ful to the pub­lic will be destroyed.”

    The Islamic courts are increas­ingly pro­ject­ing them­selves as an alter­na­tive to the numer­ous war­lords run­ning a patch­work of clan-based fief­doms in Soma­lia. They call for a gov­ern­ment based on fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam.

    is that why I couldn’t get on the site over the week­end? Damn spooks.

    No, lady­bird has the worst host­ing plan/hosting com­pany on the planet…

  7. Jon says:

    Bush Pop­u­lar­ity Drops

    Pres­i­dent Bush’s job approval rat­ing con­tin­ues to plum­met, with 39 per­cent of Amer­i­cans sur­veyed in the lat­est CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll sup­port­ing his per­for­mance, com­pared to 58 per­cent express­ing disapproval.

    In the lat­est poll, Bush’s sup­port appeared to have eroded even among sub­ur­ban res­i­dents, who had been among his strongest back­ers, falling from 51 per­cent in last month’s poll to 41 per­cent in the lat­est survey.

    Among urban res­i­dents, his approval rat­ing did not budge from 34 per­cent, and among rural res­i­dents it was almost the same, 44 per­cent ver­sus 45 per­cent last month.

    Bush’s base appeared to remain largely sup­port­ive, with 62 per­cent of respon­dents who described them­selves as con­ser­v­a­tive approv­ing of his per­for­mance, down from 68 per­cent last month.

    Sup­port from mod­er­ates fell from 40 per­cent to 32 per­cent, and remained about the same for lib­er­als, ris­ing from 14 per­cent to 17 percent.

    And the GOP faith­ful remained over­whelm­ingly stead­fast in their sup­port, with 84 per­cent voic­ing approval, ver­sus 85 per­cent in last month’s poll.

    That was not the case among those who iden­ti­fied them­selves as Democ­rats, whose sup­port for Bush dropped from 15 per­cent to 8 percent.

    Asked their opin­ion (on) Rove, 22 per­cent of respon­dents said it was favor­able, down from 25 per­cent in July, and 39 per­cent said it was unfa­vor­able, up from 34 per­cent in July.

    But 39 per­cent said they were unsure, down from 41 per­cent in July’s poll. Both ques­tions had a sam­pling error of plus or minus 3 per­cent­age points.

  8. Jon says:

    Jeff– “Is this one better…?”

    Dog with a bone is a com­pli­ment brother. ;-)

  9. Jeff says:

    Bush Pop­u­lar­ity Drops

    Woohoo!! Impeach Bush!

    Cheney for Pres­i­dent 2006!!!

    LOL!!!

  10. Jon says:

    Jeff… you’re a goofus. ;-)

  11. Jeff says:

    Gangstas Clash with Nazis and Police

    I actu­ally thought that was pretty funny…

    Gang mem­bers throw rocks at police and burn down a busi­ness, etc. protest­ing the Nazis, who where going to protest the black gang mem­bers for vio­lence against whites and busi­ness own­ers in the area.

  12. Jon says:

    Israel Stonewalls Palestinians

    Israel sus­pended secu­rity coor­di­na­tion with the Pales­tini­ans on Mon­day, an Israeli offi­cial said, fol­low­ing the killings of three Israeli set­tlers by Pales­tini­ans Sunday.

    Chief Pales­tin­ian nego­tia­tor Saeb Erakat told CNN the sus­pen­sion of secu­rity con­tacts was the wrong deci­sion and called it “unfortunate.”

    Those who plan these attacks want to under­mine the con­tacts and [the] hope that has been devel­op­ing in the minds of Israelis and Pales­tini­ans,” he said in a tele­phone interview.

    I urge the Israelis to under­stand that we need to con­tinue talk­ing. I also urge the good office of Pres­i­dent Bush to exert every pos­si­ble effort to resume the con­tacts,” Erakat added.

  13. Jeff says:

    A melee broke out Sat­ur­day when pro­test­ers con­fronted mem­bers of the National Social­ist Move­ment who had gath­ered at a city park.

    They do have a right to walk on the Toledo side­walks,” Mayor Jack Ford said Sunday.

    An angry mob, some of them gang mem­bers, threw baseball-sized rocks at police, van­dal­ized vehi­cles and stores, and set fire to a bar. More than 100 peo­ple were arrested and one offi­cer was seri­ously injured.

    Does that any sense to you?

  14. Jon says:

    Jeff– “Gang mem­bers throw rocks at police and burn down a business”

    Yeah, I admired the gangstas for their restraint too. I prob­a­bly wouldn’t have been so magnanimous. ;-)

  15. Jeff says:

    Yeah, I admired the gangstas for their restraint too. I prob­a­bly wouldn’t have been so magnanimous

    Why didn’t they after the damn Nazis? I would have!

    Instead they(gang mem­bers) destroyed pri­vate prop­erty. That was the whole rea­son why the dip­shit Nazis where protest­ing any­way. All it did was to prove the Nazis point.

  16. Jeff says:

    Why didn’t they go after the damn Nazis? I would have!

    sorry.…typo!

  17. Jon says:

    All it did was to prove the Nazis point.”

    It doesn’t prove any­thing accept that white suprema­cists shouldn’t go down to the ghetto alone. Nazis march­ing in the ghetto is noth­ing but antag­o­nism and the Nazis got the rise the they were expecting.

  18. Jeff says:

    t doesn’t prove any­thing accept that white suprema­cists shouldn’t go down to the ghetto alone. Nazis march­ing in the ghetto is noth­ing but antag­o­nism and the Nazis got the rise the they were expecting.

    oh, I def­i­nitely agree with that.

  19. Jon says:

    Sad­dam Trial Starts Wednes­day — Dujail Mas­sacre to be Examined

    At the time, it went nearly unno­ticed. The 1982 mas­sacre in Dujail — the sub­ject of Sad­dam Hussein’s trial that begins Wednes­day — hap­pened when few for­eign jour­nal­ists were based in Iraq, and the world’s inter­est was focused more on the threat from Iran.

    Secret police later rounded up fam­i­lies, razed the town’s fruit groves, destroyed houses and exe­cuted nearly 150 peo­ple, some as young as 13, after a sum­mary trial, accord­ing to those who will testify.

    Some four months later, on Dec. 2, 1982, the mag­a­zine reported the town had been “erased from the map,” appar­ently in retal­i­a­tion by Saddam.

    At the time, the Arab world stood firmly behind Sad­dam in his strug­gle against Per­sian Iran. Egypt, for exam­ple, which had the most vibrant press, reported lit­tle or noth­ing about the massacre.

    The United States and the rest of the West­ern world also were focused on using Sad­dam as a bul­wark against Iran, after the 1979 rise to power of the Islamic regime led by Aya­tol­lah Ruhol­lah Khomeini.

    Sad­dam Trial: Few Knew About 1982 Massacre

    Tues­day Octo­ber 18, 2005 12:31 AM

    AP Photo BAG115

    By SALAH NASRAWI

    Asso­ci­ated Press Writer

    CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — At the time, it went nearly unno­ticed. The 1982 mas­sacre in Dujail — the sub­ject of Sad­dam Hussein’s trial that begins Wednes­day — hap­pened when few for­eign jour­nal­ists were based in Iraq, and the world’s inter­est was focused more on the threat from Iran.

    Even inside Iraq, lit­tle was known about the assas­si­na­tion attempt on Sad­dam that led to the exe­cu­tions of nearly 150 peo­ple from Dujail. Crit­ics have long con­tended more atten­tion should have been paid — to all of his atrocities.

    It was years before any real atten­tion was paid to the ret­ri­bu­tion inflicted on Dujail, a town 50 miles north of Bagh­dad that was a cen­ter of oppo­si­tion to Saddam.

    Inter­views with Dujail sur­vivors since Saddam’s fall in 2003, includ­ing an Asso­ci­ated Press story in May 2003, have made the events there clearer. The Iraqi court try­ing Sad­dam and seven oth­ers will decide who was to blame.

    At the time, the town was a strong­hold of the Dawa Party, a Shi­ite Mus­lim move­ment that was stag­ing attacks on Saddam’s sec­u­lar Sunni-dominated regime to protest his war with neigh­bor­ing Iran, a pre­dom­i­nantly Shi­ite country.

    As Saddam’s motor­cade entered Dujail for a meet­ing on July 8, 1982, Dawa gun­men opened fire from palm groves, trig­ger­ing a bat­tle that lasted for hours. Iraqi army heli­copter gun­ships and infantry finally res­cued Saddam.

    Secret police later rounded up fam­i­lies, razed the town’s fruit groves, destroyed houses and exe­cuted nearly 150 peo­ple, some as young as 13, after a sum­mary trial, accord­ing to those who will testify.

    One of the few con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous accounts came in the Econ­o­mist mag­a­zine, which on July 31, 1982, reported that Dujail had been the site of an “assas­si­na­tion attempt that looked more like a mil­i­tary engagement.”

    Some four months later, on Dec. 2, 1982, the mag­a­zine reported the town had been “erased from the map,” appar­ently in retal­i­a­tion by Saddam.

    The next month, the Econ­o­mist sent a reporter to Iraq — at the invi­ta­tion of Saddam’s gov­ern­ment, which had denied the Dec. 2 report.

    He found a large swath of the vil­lage seemed to have been razed. The Econ­o­mist noted, how­ever, that its reporter did not talk to any Dujail towns­peo­ple, because to ask them what had hap­pened could have meant their deaths at the hands of Saddam’s intel­li­gence forces.

    Saddam’s gov­ern­ment didn’t acknowl­edge any­thing about events in Dujail for two years, and then only to report the assas­si­na­tion attempt on Sad­dam. That came in a book by the dictator’s half brother and chief of intel­li­gence, Barzan Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, boast­ing of the noto­ri­ous service’s abil­ity to instill fear in the hearts of enemies.

    British Broad­cast­ing Corp. on Wednes­day posted on its Web site a gallery of what it said were newly dis­cov­ered images taken from a film shot by Saddam’s offi­cial cam­era­man on July 8, 1982, show­ing the dic­ta­tor being greeted by civil­ians in Dujail before address­ing a crowd.

    No images are shown of the assas­si­na­tion attempt. But Sad­dam, wear­ing army fatigues and a black beret, is later seen talk­ing to a man iden­ti­fied as one of the sur­viv­ing sus­pects after the oth­ers had been killed.

    Sad­dam then returns to the town and addresses another large group of peo­ple, blam­ing the assas­si­na­tion attempt on “agents of for­eign­ers” — an appar­ent ref­er­ence to Iran — and promis­ing to pur­sue the “small num­ber of trai­tors” in Dujail.

    Faisal Fikri, an Iraqi activist in the anti-Saddam dis­si­dent move­ment at the time, recalled recently that news about Saddam’s atroc­i­ties was cir­cu­lat­ing among Iraqi exiles. But Arab media, mostly government-controlled, were hes­i­tant to write anything.

    We were beg­ging them to tell the sto­ries of how Sad­dam was rul­ing by fear and ter­ror, and the answer was always shak­ing their shoul­ders,” Fikri said at his Cairo apart­ment while car­ry­ing a binder thick with papers and pho­tos doc­u­ment­ing Saddam’s crimes.

    It was a delib­er­ate total black­out,” he said.

    At the time, the Arab world stood firmly behind Sad­dam in his strug­gle against Per­sian Iran. Egypt, for exam­ple, which had the most vibrant press, reported lit­tle or noth­ing about the massacre.

    The United States and the rest of the West­ern world also were focused on using Sad­dam as a bul­wark against Iran, after the 1979 rise to power of the Islamic regime led by Aya­tol­lah Ruhol­lah Khomeini.

    Indeed, West­ern gov­ern­ments rarely spoke out against mea­sures taken by Arab lead­ers to crush Islamic extrem­ists. Five months before Dujail, for exam­ple, Syr­ian Pres­i­dent Hafez Assad killed an esti­mated 20,000 peo­ple in the extrem­ist hotbed of Hama with lit­tle protest internationally.

    Some Arab crit­ics say the lack of U.S. con­dem­na­tion cre­ated a cli­mate in which Sad­dam felt free to com­mit crimes.

    Mam­douh el-Sheik, an Egypt­ian writer who has researched Saddam’s cov­er­age by the world’s media, con­tends the Iraqi leader’s abuses occurred “not only with West­ern knowl­edge, but with West­ern con­sent and complicity.”

  20. Jon says:

    Screwed up that post. Sowwy.

  21. Jon says:

    Wis­tel­blower Demoted By Army

    For years, Green­house received stel­lar eval­u­a­tions from supe­ri­ors — until she raised objec­tions about secret, no-bid con­tracts awarded to Kel­logg, Brown & Root (KBR) — a sub­sidiary of Hal­libur­ton, the mega-corporation Vice Pres­i­dent Dick Cheney once presided over. After telling Con­gress that one Hal­libur­ton deal was “the most bla­tant and improper con­tract abuse I have wit­nessed dur­ing the course of my pro­fes­sional career”, she was reas­signed from “the elite senior exec­u­tive ser­vice … to a lesser job in the civil works divi­sion of the corps”.

  22. Jon says:

    Iraqi Voter Fraud to be Investigated

    Iraq’s elec­tion com­mis­sion announced Mon­day that offi­cials were inves­ti­gat­ing “unusu­ally high” num­bers of “yes” votes in about a dozen provinces dur­ing Iraq’s land­mark ref­er­en­dum on a new con­sti­tu­tion, rais­ing ques­tions about irreg­u­lar­i­ties in the balloting.

    Word of the review came as Sunni Arab lead­ers repeated accu­sa­tions of voter fraud after ini­tial reports from the provinces sug­gested the con­sti­tu­tion had passed. Among their alle­ga­tions were that police took bal­lot boxes from heav­ily “no” dis­tricts, that some “yes” areas had more votes than reg­is­tered vot­ers and that sup­port­ers of the char­ter were allowed to vote in cru­cial provinces where they do not live.

  23. Jon says:

    UK Troops Fal­ter Under Abuse Claims

    The death of a top British mil­i­tary police inves­ti­ga­tor in his Basra quar­ters at the week­end deals another heavy blow to the morale of a force of mil­i­tary inves­ti­ga­tors oper­at­ing under enor­mous strain in Iraq.

    The Min­istry of Defence has yet to con­firm how Cap­tain Ken Mas­ters became the 96th British ser­vice­man to die in Iraq since the start of hos­til­i­ties in March 2003. Last night the MoD declined to rule out sui­cide. What­ever the ver­dict, Cpt Mas­ters was a part of a unit in Iraq fac­ing for­mi­da­ble and con­flict­ing demands.

    Cpt Mas­ters is not the first mem­ber of the Royal Mil­i­tary Police’s spe­cial inves­ti­ga­tion branch to be found dead in their quar­ters. A year ago Staff Sergeant Denise Rose, who was also serv­ing with the SIB, was found dead from a gun­shot wound at a mil­i­tary camp in Basra.

  24. Jon says:

    US Death Toll in Iraq

    As of Sun­day, Oct. 16, 2005, at least 1,976 mem­bers of the U.S. mil­i­tary have died since the begin­ning of the Iraq war in March 2003, accord­ing to an Asso­ci­ated Press count. At least 1,531 died as a result of hos­tile action, accord­ing to the military’s num­bers. The fig­ures include five mil­i­tary civilians.

    The British mil­i­tary has reported 96 deaths; Italy, 26; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bul­garia, 13; Spain, 11; Slo­va­kia, three; Den­mark, El Sal­vador, Esto­nia, Thai­land and the Nether­lands, two each; and Hun­gary, Kaza­khstan and Latvia one death each.

    Since May 1, 2003, when Pres­i­dent Bush declared that major com­bat oper­a­tions in Iraq had ended, 1,837 U.S. mil­i­tary mem­bers have died, accord­ing to AP’s count. That includes at least 1,422 deaths result­ing from hos­tile action, accord­ing to the military’s numbers.

  25. Jon says:

    Rli­gious Agenda Pushed for Schools

    The school board is defend­ing its deci­sion a year ago to require stu­dents to hear a state­ment on intel­li­gent design before ninth-grade biol­ogy lessons on evolution.

  26. Jon says:

    Con­gress­man Roscoe Bartlett Addresses House on Peak Oil as a National Secu­rity Issue

    There is no link to an arti­cle on this because it was some­thing I watched on CSPAN today. Dr. Bartlett (R-MD) had charts and graphs depict­ing oil con­sump­tion over the past 100 years and pro­jected sup­ply and demand over the next quar­ter cen­tury or so. Con­gress­man Bartlett’s view of “peak oil” was star­tling to this viewer due to the fact that I had never seen a Repub­li­can admit oil was actu­ally going to run out.

    Kudos to Dr. Bartlett on try­ing to bring the Repub­li­cans up to speed on the state of world affairs.

  27. Jon says:

    US Drops JDAM on Toi­let Block

    Reports have come in that a US B-1 bomber has dropped four 2000 pound bombs on a uni­sex toi­let block in Bagh­dad a few hours ago. US offi­cials sug­gested that these uni­sex toi­let blocks prove just how back­ward, on a moral level, the Iraqi gov­ern­ment have been in run­ning the coun­try and have pledged to destroy every last one of them using what­ever force they feel necessary.

    Only in this way can we truly lib­er­ate the Iraqi peo­ple and fast track them into a moral struc­ture sim­i­lar to what we have in the West”

    Debate on this issue is esca­lat­ing with coun­tries like Japan and India lead­ing in the oppo­si­tion to this new tac­tic. “We like hav­ing wee wees and poos together and are not ashamed of our gen­i­talia.” Suki Oshik­ago said in Tokyo this evening.

    The JDAM bombs were released 15 miles from their tar­gets, and as they fell, the satel­lite sig­nals were cap­tured by a tiny radio receiver which in turn updated a small iner­tial nav­i­ga­tion system.

    An elec­tric motor then moves fins on the tail assem­bly so the JDAM bomb moves up or down, left or right until it hones in on the pre­cise pre-programed lon­gi­tude and lat­i­tude of these mixed dun­nies. US pilots refer to a suc­cess­ful hit on a toi­let block as a “love shack”.

    Mah­moud Al jaBah was talk­ing to his wife on his mobile phone sec­onds before the first ‘love shack’ attack. Hold­ing back tears talk­ing to Al Jazeera she said her hus­band had just said: “Honey, I think those Psyl­lium seed husks are work­ing” and then ‘Boom!’.

    The JDAM bombs are much cheaper to launch than cruise mis­siles. A $27 000 kit allows the US air­force to cre­ate 2 000 pound JDAM bombs using sur­plus bombs left over from the Viet­nam War and even WWII. A cruise mis­sile in com­par­i­son costs between $500,000 — $1 mil­lion US dol­lars. “Far too many bick­ies to be spent on knock­ing down dun­nie doors no mat­ter how cor­rupt they are! These toi­lets are more proof that the Iraqi regime is out of con­trol and a dan­ger to West­ern val­ues” a US sol­dier said.

    In response to the crit­i­cism sure to come from CMAR, Jon reponded, “Yes, I know this is a joke, but it’s funny”

  28. Jon says:

    Regard­ing the con­sti­tu­tional process…

    Indi­vid­ual rights are not sub­ject to a pub­lic vote; a major­ity has no right to vote away the rights of a minor­ity; the polit­i­cal func­tion of rights is pre­cisely to pro­tect minori­ties from oppres­sion by majori­ties.“
    –Ayn Rand

  29. Keld Bach says:

    Looks like Thomas Fried­man has found the Final Solu­tion in Iraq:

  30. LadyBird says:

    Most of Iraq’s neigh­bors from the west side (Jor­dan. Syria), south (Kuwait, Saudi Ara­bia), North (Turkey) are Sun­nis also

    Other words they will never allows this to happen.

  31. CMAR II says:

    Actu­ally, the Kurds are Sunni too. I think the adjoin­ing pow­ers are begin­ning to not care HOW Iraq shakes out as long as it doesn’t under­mine their own tyran­nies. For the Islamists to set up shop in Anbar would be very destabliz­ing. None of them said “boo” to Sad­dam killing Iraqis of all sects. I doubt they would have a prob­lem if the recal­ci­trant Sunni Arabs “disappeared”.

    If I were a Sunni Arab, I wouldn’t depend on the sur­round­ing pow­ers res­cu­ing me. Best to make an accom­mo­da­tion with the Shi’a Arabs and Kurds.

    But I don’t think that will hap­pen. The Sunni Arabs are rapidly being incor­po­rated into the polit­i­cal process, and they seem to be as sick of the ter­ror­ists as every­one else. Saddam’s Orphans and the Islamists are noisy, but they don’t rep­re­sent Iraq, which is made up of peo­ple who want to get on with liv­ing. Frei­d­man is a Chicken Little.

  32. Ken says:

    CMAR, they have never cared.

    BTW: There is truth to claim, sub­scribed to by Lad­bird and oth­ers, that the end should never jus­tify the means. (The more flip­pant pro­po­nents of this war would have done well to note that.)

    But, there is also truth to the claim that the end should never be ignored sim­ply because of the means.

    Also, Fareed Zacharia is cor­rect that nei­ther the ulti­mate suc­cess or fail­ure of this war is yet known. Any­one on either side who claims oth­er­wise is a pro­pa­gan­dist. I have seen a lot of pro­pa­ganda from the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, and I have seen a lot here.

    I agree with Lady­bird that this con­sti­tu­tion should be voted down. I think that will lead to the most peace­ful result. I agree with her for rea­sons other than hers of course: she wants to poke her fin­ger in America’s eye, whereas I think that the Sun­nis have real­ized their error in not vot­ing ear­lier this year (largely egged on by peo­ple like Lady­bird — for instance, I’m sure her sis­ter did not vote), and if the whole thing were redone the gov­ern­ment would be more rep­re­sen­ta­tive and secular.

    Far eas­ier to blame Amer­ica for the Islmaist, Shi­ite tint of the cur­rent Iraq admin­is­tra­tion than to blame the mil­lions of more sec­u­lar Sun­nis who ini­tially boy­cotted the process.

  33. CMAR II says:

    Ken,

    I lean toward vot­ing it down for the very rea­sons you give. But there are down­sides to vot­ing “No” that I think will cause fence-sitters who actu­ally live in Iraq to vote “Yes”:

    1) It is demor­al­iz­ing to start over if you were not one of those who passed on your chance to vote last time (and most peo­ple did not). That’s why many peo­ple who are ide­o­log­i­cally com­mit­ted to Iraq’s fail­ure are say­ing “vote No”. Of course, many are say­ing that just to stick their thumb in Duyba’s eye, as you said. But that comes to the same thing. For peo­ple who want to “get on with it”, it’s just very daunting.

    2) There is no guar­an­tee that restart­ing the con­sti­tu­tion process will lead to a bet­ter or even more sec­u­lar con­sti­tu­tion: it could lead to less, it could lead to a break up of the coun­try. This con­sti­tu­tion, for what­ever flaws it has, rep­re­sents a lot of accom­mo­da­tions that will have to be restarted if the con­sti­tu­tion does not pass this time.

    3) The con­stu­tion is already lit­tle more than a frame work that the new elected par­lia­ment is expected to hash out. So a rewrite is unnec­es­sary on the mer­its of the doc­u­ment itself.

    4) There is a very real risk that Amer­i­cans will lose patience with Iraqis before enough elec­tion cycles pass for the gov­ern­ment to gain legit­i­macy; that the (phony) peacenik wing of the US will gain the upper hand far too soon for Iraq’s good. “Mov­ing for­ward for mov­ing forward’s sake” has some logic to it.

  34. Ken says:

    CMARII, those are good points.

    I can’t argue against point 4.

    As for point 1, I think that the change they made in the final days to allow con­sti­tu­tion re-writes next year was cru­cial. Until then, I had very lit­tle hope that this con­sti­tu­tion would lead to any­thing but more vio­lence. While I worry about sup­port­ers get­ting demor­al­ized, I worry more about fence-sitting detrac­tors giv­ing their heart and soul to war on the government.

    On point 2, yes, but there are no guar­an­tees about any­thing. I think the last year of incom­pe­tent Iraqi gov­ern­ment largely influ­enced by Shi­ite Islamists would make peo­ple a lit­tle less gung-ho to vote for Sciri peo­ple, etc., and a bit more likely to go back to an Allawi. That com­bined with increased Sunni par­tic­i­pa­tion would lead to a far dif­fer­ent result in parliament.

    On point 3, agreed, the change made me feel a lot bet­ter. To some extent my neg­a­tiv­ity about the con­sti­tu­tion derives from lin­ger­ing feel­ings cre­ated before the change was made, I admit. The very fact that so many peo­ple voted, whether yes or no, made me happy.

    Now if only they can resolve these vot­ing irreg­u­lar­i­ties. Yet, even alle­ga­tions of vot­ing irreg­u­lar­i­ties are a far-cry from 100% assured results for the benev­o­lent leader. PS on vot­ing: It amazes me that SOME peo­ple see no con­tra­dic­tion between claim­ing that vot­ing makes no dif­fer­ence because Amer­ica con­trols all of the results…and on the other hand devot­ing much print to the claim that the war is over, and Amer­ica let its enemy Iran win. That these two claims can be rec­on­ciled, even in the most hate-addled brain, astounds me.

  35. Jon says:

    CMAR– “I think the adjoin­ing pow­ers are begin­ning to not care HOW Iraq shakes out as long as it doesn’t under­mine their own tyrannies.”

    Which quite reminds me of the Bush administration…

    There is a very real risk that Amer­i­cans will lose patience with Iraqis before enough elec­tion cycles pass for the gov­ern­ment to gain legitimacy”

    Too late. We lost patience as soon as we found out Bush was just in it for the oil.

    that the (phony) peacenik wing of the US will gain the upper hand far too soon for Iraq’s good.”

    Sup­port for the war has dropped below 40% and it’s a phony move­ment? Nope, I think peo­ple really are get­ting tired of this war.

    Is there another choice?

    Ken– “I think the last year of incom­pe­tent Iraqi government”

    Incom­pe­tent? Try inex­pe­ri­enced. It is the Bush admin­is­tra­tion that is incompetent.

    The very fact that so many peo­ple voted, whether yes or no, made me happy.”

    They are prob­a­bly hop­ing it’s the fastest way to get America’s fin­gers out of their oil business.

    SOME peo­ple see no con­tra­dic­tion between claim­ing that vot­ing makes no difference…and on the other hand devot­ing much print to the claim that the war is over”

    I usu­ally see those views being held by two dif­fer­ent types of peo­ple rather than both views by one per­son. The whole sit­u­a­tion is a crap shoot. It could work out for the bet­ter in the end or it could turn out to be our biggest Islamic night­mare. Only time will tell. Only some­one who is morally bank­rupt will believe the means don’t mat­ter. It’s the jour­ney and not the des­ti­na­tion that mat­ters. Evil means will bring evil results even if we can’t fore­see what those could be from our cur­rent van­tage point.

  36. ken says:

    Way to cru­cially edit the sen­tence, Jon. In fact, the owner of this blog as made both of those claims, or approv­ingly posted mate­r­ial to that effect.

    Also, if the US had really lost patience, we’d be gone. We’re close, but not there yet. I’ll freely admit that the Bush admin­is­tra­tion is incom­pe­tent; though I’d also bet money you you­self hold dia­met­ri­cally oppos­ing views by think­ing they are also evil. Where’s the logic? Just as, where’s the logic in simul­ta­ne­ously think­ing that (and here, I’ll spell it out for you): Amer­ica has handed Iraq to Iran, whom Amer­ica hates; and B) that every­thing in Iraq is sim­ply con­troled by Amer­ica so there is no point in voting?

  37. Jon says:

    Ken– “Way to cru­cially edit the sentence”

    When I quote some­thing, you might see me clip out parts of what some­one says. This is sim­ply to avoid post­ing the whole blog over again num­ber­ous times in full. It’s a space thing and the orig­i­nal quote is just a cou­ple scrolls up for you to read at your leisure. I put quotes in my notes so you can eas­ily see what I am com­ment­ing on because this thing moves pretty fast with all the right-wing dri­vel being spewed. In gen­eral, I don’t try to delib­er­ately alter a thought, even though, as I’ve tried to stress to peo­ple here before, con­tent can be changed by the edit­ing process no mat­ter where it occurs. Please feel free to use your lit­tle scrolly wheel on your mouse thingy if you need to read his whole thought over again.

    the owner of this blog as made both of those claims”

    I said usually.

    Also, if the US had really lost patience, we’d be gone.”

    We won’t leave until we get some kind of han­dle on the oil pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion process.

    I’ll freely admit that the Bush admin­is­tra­tion is incompetent”

    You think?

    dia­met­ri­cally oppos­ing views by think­ing they are also evil”

    Define evil. Is it impos­si­ble to be incom­pe­tent and evil at the same time?

    Amer­ica has handed Iraq to Iran”

    That’s one possibility.

    that every­thing in Iraq is sim­ply con­troled by Amer­ica so there is no point in voting?”

    Well, Iraq is def­i­nitely con­trolled by the peo­ple with all the tanks and planes and guns and bombs and shit so that part checks out. The point to vot­ing, as I would think most Iraqis see it, is that the more peo­ple that vote, the sooner the US agrees to leave. Hope­fully. So, what’s your point?

  38. Ken says:

    My point, to spell it out a third time, is that one can­not simul­ta­ne­ously believe that the US has handed Iraq to Iran (which it would never choose to do, and which has nev­er­the­less come close to hap­pen­ing), and also believe that the US con­trols every­thing in Iraq. It’s log­i­cally incon­sis­tent; it’s in fact moronic. Equally, it is incon­sis­tent to claim, as you do, that Iraq is “def­i­nitely con­trolled by the peo­ple with guns and planes,” etc., while also claim­ing that those peo­ple in con­trol are incom­pe­tent (which implies utter lack of intel­li­gent control).

    If you want me to write all of that out in crayon, and send it to you, send me your address.

    I agree with you that the more peo­ple that vote in Iraq, the sooner the US will leave, and I think that’s what the US, even the incom­pe­tent peo­ple in con­trol of this crazy oper­a­tion, would like to see hap­pen. Too bad it took the Sun­nis two years to real­ize that. Too bad the owner of this blog still does not real­ize it. If these peo­ple had half a brain, they would vote, do every­thing the US has said it wants, and then demand that the US leave as it has promised to do. And then if the US at that point doesn’t leave, they would have a very good, objec­tive case that it was all a sham. But to declare it all a sham before that oppor­tu­nity is even taken, and to declare it again and again and again, indi­cates a less ratio­nal, or pos­si­bly evil, prejudice.

    As to evil/incompetence. If one believes that cer­tain events are the result of incom­pe­tence, this implies that there was a lack of intent to pro­duce those unde­sired results (that’s the def­i­n­i­tion of incom­pe­tence — per­haps that’s the one you should focus on). Evil, on the other hand, requires intent. One can­not ret­ro­spec­tively say that any­thing you don’t like, or that turns out bad, was the result of evil. To do so destroys the def­i­n­i­tion of the word.

  39. Jon says:

    Inter­est­ing. But how do you sug­gest we get the US to stop steal­ing Iraqi oil and remove all our troops from Iraqi soil?

  40. Ken says:

    We’re only steal­ing Iraqi oil if you believe that let­ting pri­vate com­pa­nies con­trol oil, rather than giv­ing con­trol to the state, is inher­ently steal­ing. Because that’s what’s hap­pen­ing in Iraq; that’s what we’re encouraging.

    Of course, if you think that, you must also social­is­ti­cally think that the pri­vate com­pa­nies, and some­how also Amer­ica, are steal­ing Gulf Coast oil, and African oil, and Prud­hoe Bay oil, etc., etc.; because of course those things oper­ate on the same pri­vate model.

    Golly, Jon, you must also have been quite pleased when Putin nation­al­ized Yukos, and threw its owner in jail, because its owner (and the Amer­i­can com­pany that was going to pay bil­lions and bil­lions of dol­lars for a share in Yukos) were by def­i­n­i­tion steal­ing Russ­ian oil.

    I will admit that there can occa­sion­ally be a very good argu­ment for nation­ally owned nat­ural resouces com­pa­nies: Nor­way does it very well with their oil. But an unsta­ble, demo­c­ra­t­i­cally imma­ture coun­try is not the place for it. Pri­vate com­pa­nies, account­able to share­hold­ers accross the world, are much more likely to reduce cor­rup­tion than any gov­ern­ment the Iraqis are likely to elect in the next ten years.

    Or to take another exam­ple, I think we can safely say that the oil oper­a­tions pri­vately run in the Gulf by Amer­i­can com­pa­nies are both less cor­rupt, and more envi­ron­men­tally friendly than those run nation­ally by the Mex­i­can gov­ern­ment. Would you disagree?

    Do you think the strat­egy of con­cen­trat­ing money and power from oil pro­duc­tion in the hands of the state has proved good for Iran, Saudi Ara­bia, Mex­ico, Rus­sia, Argentina or Iraq (in the Sad­dam days)?

    Please, enlighten me.

  41. Jon says:

    I ulti­mately don’t care how Iraqi oil prof­its are dis­em­i­nated… as long as the Iraqis them­selves are the ones who cre­ate the plan they end up liv­ing with. It’s really nobody’s busi­ness but theirs.

    If they believe that prof­its will more fairly be shared through­out the pop­u­la­tion through com­mu­nal own­er­ship, then that is fine with me. If they think prof­its will best be shared with a select few reap­ing the bulk of the profit and the broad many receiv­ing a min­i­mum wage pay­check, that is fine with me too.