A cursory inspection of the intertubes today suggests that the right-wing press across the “Anglosphere” is trumpeting the provincial election results in Iraq as variously “the end of the war”, “a model for the Middle East”, “a defeat for Shi’ite Islamism”, “a victory for secularism” and/or “a loss for Iran”. At Obsidian Wings, Eric Martin begs to differ.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Sectarian or secular?
Good grief!!!
How about we look behind the political posturing and sloganeering once in a while?
Seriously!
Why don’t we give the Iraqi PEOPLE some credit and leave off treating them as some sort of primitive caricature???
It SHITS ME TO TEARS. It really, really does!
Consider that the people of Iraq are “clever” enough to want independence, security and prosperity. Perhaps they don’t like living in a chaotic dump? Perhaps (like us wise white-folks) they don’t give much of a toss about the ideology of the parties? Maybe, just maybe, they just want to be left alone and live a decent lives???? Could it be that they voted for a centrist government this time for EXACTLY the same reasons as they voted for the strong fundamentalist way back when? Could it be that it’s not simply about the parties, but what they can offer?
Iraq had a strong, secular government and functioning before we screwed it up. The various groups lived in the same neighbourhoods, inter-married, and traded with each other. They shared the same mosques. Iraq had open synagogues. Yes, they bloody well did.
Before our self-serving politicians took us into a fabricated war, Iraq had a functioning society. And that was despite YEARS of cruel, inhumane sanctions designed to make it collapse.
Even during the war with Iran, the Shia in the south of the country didn’t defect to the Iranians. Maybe it’s because they were afraid of Saddam’s wrath, or maybe it’s because the Iraqi people were among the most educated and enlightened in the Middle East! The Shia of Iraq thought of themselves first of all as Iraqi, and didn’t much like what Khomeini’s mob were selling.
FFS. Let’s not fall into the same trap as the twits in the MSM. Let’s look at the Iraqi people as something more than bewildered pawns.
Of course, I expect any rebuttal of the above comment to include reference to a dead tyrant.
mars08, apparently by referencing anything prior to the
invasionliberation of Irag, you are a supporter of Saddam Hussein. I thought I’d save our usualtrollsRWDBs the effort.Where are all the RWDBs? Have they given up the keyboard battle for FREEDOM? Back in the day, a post on Iraq suggesting the right wing spin was inaccurate would have got 100+ comments in a few hours? What can this mean?
It means the post is too ridiculous to argue with.
I suspect the Where are all the RWDBs are out inspecting Iraq for those elusive tons of WMD. Or maybe diligently sniping at Obamas policies from their spider-holes.
It really depend on who the “villain du jour” is at the moment. It must be so tiring.
Come on mars08, just admit that we won the war and transformed Iraq into a model democracy. That’s why the Middle East is now a veritable Garden of Eden again with nary a caliphate in sight and George W Bush was the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln, who also knew what to do with civil liberties when there was a war on.
Unfortunately this new Obamassiah will undo all the good work by (1) sucking up to Tehran instead of nuking the bastards and (2) losing the war in Afghanistan.
Anyway it’s all ancient history now. We’re too busy stopping the return of Whitlamite socialism to keep celebrating old victories. The price of liberty is eternal anti-leftism.
al-Maliki is a tough and sophisticated political operator who did much more than Sadr or Sunni jihadists to corral and to stymie Bush. When he came to power he looked like a puppet, but in reality he was anything but a puppet.
Moreover, for the benefit of Shiism in Iraq he ethnically cleansed large parts of Iraq of Sunni, with the help of the Bush administration!
Now to confound RWDBs who continue to be afflicted with Bushite wishful thinking, this:
Al-Maliki to form a governing alliance with Sadr!
The cited article explains why this “strange alliance” makes sense.
I’d like to add that al-Maliki and Sadr were simply taking different routes to the same nationalist destination — the eviction of the US and an Iraqi Shiite Islamism independent of Iranian Islamism. (Although that is an oversimplification because Iran isn’t monolithic: different Iranian factions and tendencies support different groups in Iraq).
it is important to remember that Maliki’s Dawa party is itself a religious Shiite party!
.
Whoops!
.
Well not whoops more like very sneaky. Iraq isn’t a country it’s one of Winston Churchill’s dumb ideas. And I have a feeling there’s lot of itchy triggers waiting for the Coalition of the Killing to split so they can show us all how it’s done. Or maybe not. According to Martin’s post this lot wanna play nice federally.
.
What is the beef with ‘Anglosphere’? It functions. In this time-poor world we can’t be saying English-speaking world all the time. There’s more risk we’ll show everyone how badly we spell.
Mars 08 – Before our self-serving politicians took us into a fabricated war, Iraq had a functioning society.
.
Rubbish!!
Of course you’re right… again.
They didn’t have MySpace and their broadband prices were shocking.
I’ve had this “discussion” dozens of times, so I’ll just leave it at that.
I’ve had this “discussion” dozens of times, so I’ll just leave it at that.
.
Well alrighty then, I’ll try and substantiate my less than respectful response to what seem to me an outlandish statement. I am after all curious.
.
How can you say Iraq was a functioning society? Leaving aside the fact that it was a’ pyramid balancing on its apex’, was based on the routine repression of 2 out of 3 sections of its population, was organized as a kleptocracy of one clan, was starved of income by a concerted policy of the US from the end of the Gulf War, had a virtually seperatist entity to its north, had a population that secretly wanted to kill its government and thus a government that frequently pre-emptively killed the population to prevent this…
.
Don’t get me wrong I’m against the war. But unlike 99% of the peace movement I gave the matter some serious consideration beforehand. It seems to me that Iraq wasn’t a society functional or otherwise. More a large prison awaiting a riot.
KL said:
Yeah, despite your best efforts.
Peter I’ve seen the light. I think Howard Bush and Blair should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Guess they showed that Saddam prick, PLUS they also achieved the following positive goals:
…
Pretty cheap for $1 trillion, a few hundred thousand corpses, a few million people whose lives are comprehensively screwed and a ‘nation’ with no functioning infrastructure. No wonder wingnuts can’t shut up about their triumph.
It’s a links post, dude. It reports what the right wing meejah were saying, and then links to something written by someone who has actually been following the realities of Iraqi politics.
Remember…?
Remember that the war WAS NOT sold to us as a way of improving the lives of the Iraqi people. Remember that that the grubby politicians in the anglosphere told us that “liberation” was not a sufficient motive to put our soldier’s lives at risk. Remember that the breathless MSM barrage of duct-tape and ricin fantasies. Remember Saddams bio-warfare drones. Remember the Islamic terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. Remember the fleet of mobile WMD labs. Remember that Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda. Remember that the masses were stampeded into a needless, unprovoked war.
“His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.”
THAT’S why we had to attack Iraq.
Despite the best efforts of the coalition, the Iraqi people are trying to rebuild their lives.
What I love about most Western Iraq commentary is the extent to which it avoids Iraq altogether to better attack/defend ones partisan opponents. It’s hard to find someone who actually seeks to work out what events mean for Iraqis.
Here is one, Mark, although my support for the invasion of Iraq was always out of respect for demoratic principles and not out of any support of fascism, which those who opposed the invasion were tacitly supporting.
They have just held a democratic election, which they could never have done under Saddam.
You don’t think, though, that that is is positive goal. It shows, doesn’t it, the contempt you hold for democracy.
Indeed, Leinad. That’s why all the guff can be written spinning almost any currently politically convenient narrative and why stuff like Martin’s post is quite invaluable.
Have a read of a few Middle Eastern blogs sometime…
I agree with GregM.
al Maliki has demonstrated brutal finesse. He was a persecuted refugee of Saddam’s regime. He was confronted with the consequences of an appallingly botched COW occupation and has steered Iraq towards a settlement based on genocidal policies that the Bush regime has no other choice but to accept as the least of many evils.
Bush gave al Maliki these opportunities. al Maliki has used them brilliantly.
My only caveat is that in Iraq’s version of democracy, the dead and the refugees don’t vote.
mars08 said….”But unlike 99% of the peace movement I gave the matter some serious consideration beforehand.”
Is this true? I think many people agonised over this decision at the time. At the time, I decided against it because I didn’t trust the Americans in power at the time to get the job done. Plus, the rhetoric they used at the time was at times quite arrogant towards the non-western world.
I agree ST.
This belief in reflexive left-wing anti-Americanism is a bit of a furphy. No doubt some lefties are, like the small number who may have once spat upon Vietnam vets, but most aren’t.
For example, I supported GW1 as a just war and I was disappointed when Bush Senior refused to roll all the way to Baghdad. (Perhaps Bush Senior knew more about the perils entailed at that time than I did.)
Like you, I had severe doubts about the competence of the Bush regime. And those doubts proved to be quite accurate.
Additionally, Bush told blatant lies about WMDs. Policies based on lies are usually ruinous.
And finally, Bush and the COW performed a dishonest end-run around the UN. This manoeuvre was so clumsy, it starkly highlighted the poor quality of Bush’s decision making.
‘They have just held a democratic election, which they could never have done under Saddam.’
You mean the elections postponed for months while al Maliki with the help of the occupying power sorted out opposition parties like the Sadrists? The ones where only 51% of voters bothered to turn out because they knew the result was a foregone conclusion? Very democratic, I’m sure.
MArs08 – no attempt to sell the human rights virtues of the invasion were made because clearly it would have been scuttled by China and Russia. It had to be publicly sold on WMD . It is hoped that the human rights virtues of overthrowing Saddam were so self evident they did not need to be overtly mentioned.
On the overall coverage of the elections I think it can indeed be chalked up as serious progress but we should not overstate it. I note much is made of the Da’wa party being religious as it indeed is but in every heinous right wing account i have read of the election they made a statement to the effect of Da’wa is religious but shunned it’s religious background for a more nationalist one. Maybe some here have read accounts that didn’t do that? I think the reporting was pretty balanced. The boldest claims were all hedged that this “could” be the beginnings of a true Arabic democracy none that I read said this was absolute conclusive proof Iraq had completely arrived at that destination.
You are allowed once in a awhile people to let down your guard and acknowledge some good news out of Iraq.
In relation to Al Maliki I think it is right that he has handled things fairly well bar his ealier dalliances with Al Sadr although that was more likely out of perceived necessity. I am overall supporter of the invasion but I think the Bush Admin should have been smarter in recognising Al Maliki’s independent streak represents a win not a lost and should not be immediately opposed. There should have been a better focus on both sides want the same thing just differ on timetables and mechanics. McCain fell in to this trap a bit also.
MArk as to why so little activity from RWDB’s I think maybe we have all recognised no one is going to switch sides on this issue. Both sides are yelling at brick walls. Possibly more so I think it is because it isn’t THE msm issue of the day. I think the real flashpoint has now moved to what is the correct stimulus package and climate change.
The thing I find so sad about Iraq is there must now be thousands of Iraqis wondering why on earth they engaged in and supported an insurgency.
America must find a way to destroy this “they are here only to steal our oil nonsense, meddle in our affairs and never leave.” Why did the Kuwaitis respond completely differently?
No one reason fits all, but many had good reason:
1. Sistani had to threaten the COW with a Shiite uprising to get elections in the first place. Mainstream Shiites had every reason to believe that the US was attempting to impose a protectorate. At the time Bushite figures in America were openly talking about the US as an “empire”. And then the US started building huge “enduring bases”.
2. Even low-ranked Ba’athists, the folks with experience in administration, were banned from public life. What other outlet did they have for their aspirations besides insurgency?
3. Shiites correctly perceived that the old ruling classes hankered to return to power. Ethnic cleansing of Sunni by Shiite militia, including the US funded Iraqi security forces, seemed to prudent policy.
4. Saddam’s use of oil money was organised along well understood lines of clan patronage. Clans were paid rent for oil pipes and other infrastructure that operated on clan territory. This money filtered down to the Iraqi street. The US occupiers tore up these agreements at a moment of maximum need and maximum insecurity. What should the beneficiaries of these deals have made of US confiscation?
5. The Bush regime overestimated to a gross degree the popularity of their favoured puppets in Iraq. Remember Chalabi? Not many do.
Why should most Arab Iraqis have any confidence at all in the competence/good faith of the Bush regime in the light of the above?
Kingsley said:
A meme constantly circulated and emphasized by our own fifth columnists, here and at surfdumb. Aided by bu***it coming from once respected organizations such as AP and The Lancet.
Again, entirely egged on by the left.
Per Daniel Larison about Teh Surge:
‘I have also never understood why war opponents are supposed to feel chastened for refusing to support the prolonging and escalation of an unnecessary war.’
Larison also does a good summary here of the problems with claiming that Iraq has become some sort of model democracy, or is likely to become so any time soon. Needless to say all this will simply be ignored by the wingnuts cos THERE WAS AN ELECTION!!!! WE WON!!!!!!!!
Katz – I agree to varying degrees with post 25 but ultimately to resort to insurgency before these issues fully played out was unfortunate to say the least and I guess what needs to be added is a lot of people for various self serving reasons were merrily reinforcing these views and giving them legitimacy. For instance it would be bizarre to give those talking about US empire precedence over those that weren’t and the US’s overall track record.
People can point to some CIA meddling here or there but which nation is a true puppet of the USA? Yet you’d think this was the norm. If the USA does have a reputational problem as the Left claims it is this.
One thing I do wonder might have been worth a try is to take a version of “inkspot” and to have greatly accelerated Iraqi control in the better provinces so not just focus on protection but truly get COTW forces out to demonstrate we do really want to leave and as soon as practical and the fastest way for that to happen is for the violence to drop. That was the sad irony of the insurgency, it was supposedly about kicking the yanks out but the more it raged the stronger the argument to stay became. That would have suited some players aims but the average nationalist Abdul in the insurgency was hoodwinked. Sadly most Iraqis believed Ba’athists and AQI over the COTW. We need to learn how to combat that in the future. It is interesting to see how strong that belief was given how autonomous the Kurds are right on their doorstep.
Ken – claiming these elections alone make Iraq an institutionalised democracy is silly but having elections that aren’t marred by violence is obviously a very serious hallmark of a democracy. We “rightwing nuts” need to not overclaim here and you guys could do worse than to acknowledge some seriuous progress has been made here even if it is plausible it could be reversed later.
Kingsley, what does the term “enduring bases” mean to you? This was the official term used by the Bush regime. I doubt that it sounds any less imperialistic when it is translated into Arabic. If the Bush regime didn’t actually mean “enduring bases” then perhaps they should have thought for a nanosecond or so before adopting this term.
Don’t hold your breath until “the next time”.
My guess is that sooner rather than later (i.e., within four years) the Kurds will suffer more or less the same fate as the Hmong.
Moral for ethnic minorities: don’t rely on a superpower that sees your cause as much less important than its own domestic culture wars.
‘… acknowledge some seriuous progress has been made here even if it is plausible it could be reversed later.’
I’d prefer to use the active voice and say ‘the al Maliki Government, in conjunction with the occupying forces, has made significant progress in pacifying the areas under its control.’
This of course could represent a small step towards a more democratic Iraq. It could equally represent a step towards a new authoritarian government; or a step to nowhere that is merely the prelude to an unexpected new chapter in the history of the region. For anybody to claim the credit for successfully implementing a grand democracy-building project is frankly laughable at this late stage of proceedings (I’m not implying Kingsley that you are doing so). Events have pretty much been controlling people in Iraq since 2003, not the other way around.
Katz said:
It only sounds imperialistic to the left who go out of their way to make this the dominant meme. The similarity between left talking points and the Islamists in this regard, is striking. Most sensible people would look around and see ‘enduring’ bases in Australia, Japan, Germany, Korea etc. and conclude that they were on the whole pretty benign and in fact have helped keep the peace.
I, for one hope that the US stays in Iraq for a long time ( with the locals agreement of course ) – and I suspect that will be the case.
Katz – agreed on the “enduring bases” at the miniumum it should have been prefaced by “with the Iraqi people’s permission” but that said when you look where else the US has had “enduring bases” has the soveriegnty of that nation really been that badly compromised? In some instances I’d say it was strengthened. So all in all I agree very poor language choices and in some cases policy choices but I just don’t think an insurgency was justified on the real facts. Unfortunately the facts didn’t get a fair hearing both for the reasons you outline and others off on conspiracy theory fantasies or used as a means to try and regain power. A critic could argue the US should have seen that coming and a fair amount of truth to that but just a shame it is even required to mount a charm offensive to overcome this perception.
I agree with you Kingsley that the US has for the most part not be imperialistic in a formal sense. But I don’t think that only bad faith can explain the reasons why Iraqis might doubt this.
In addition to the enduring bases and initial refusal by Americans to countenance genuine democratic elections, mentioned above, the US-drafted constitution demonstrated that the US was enormously fixated on Iraq’s oil wealth. No other economic activity and not even Iraqi property arrangements were mentioned in this constitution. Yet oil and its disposition were.
This set alarm bells ringing in the ears of many patriotic Iraqis. Date palms, for example, are widely cultivated in Iraq. Yet there is no mention in the US-drafted constitution of date cultivation.
It didn’t take much to convince Iraqis that the Bush regime lusted after Iraqi oil. They found convincing evidence in the US-drafted constitution.
Ironically, Bush has been hustled out of Iraq without having achieved a satisfactory oil law. And this is more evidence of the clumsiness of the Bush regime.
Thus Iraqis could in good faith believe that even though the Bush regime may have disavowed formal imperialism, nevertheless that they were pursuing the more characteristic form of economic imperialism, and pursuing it clumsily to boot.
Kingsley – ….no attempt to sell the human rights virtues of the invasion were made because clearly it would have been scuttled by China and Russia. It had to be publicly sold on WMD . It is hoped that the human rights virtues of overthrowing Saddam were so self evident they did not need to be overtly mentioned.
.
Given the fact that the US/UK and us basically gave lip service to the UN and went in and did it anyway that argument doesn’t really stand up. China and Russia were in no position to scuttle anything as their UNSC powers of veto don’t apply to decisions of the aforementioned govt.
.
The reason that human rights weren’t introduced is because it’s quite difficult to sell the idea that we need to go to war to secure the rights of persons in far-off nations. The real reasons for the war were US hegemony and the security of a vital resource. Human rights came a distant third but would be more accurately designated as the desire amongst some to reshape the Middle-East. It’s unfortunate but war is almost always the only way of altering states. WWI was started for silly reasons but it did bring two empires crashing down.
_
Mars08 – Remember that the war WAS NOT sold to us as a way of improving the lives of the Iraqi people. Remember that that the grubby politicians in the anglosphere told us that “liberation” was not a sufficient motive to put our soldier’s lives at risk.
.
Yes first it was 9/11 discredited then it was WMDs and then afterward opponents were made to look like apologists for Hussein’s regime. very skillful. Hardly surprising tho’. The Crimean War was fought to keep Russia from gaining access to the Mediterranean trade routes but it was sold as a vital fight for the principles of liberty and all the rest.
.
All wars are about resources fundamentally.
Kingsley – America must find a way to destroy this “they are here only to steal our oil nonsense, meddle in our affairs and never leave.” Why did the Kuwaitis respond completely differently?
.
Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and the UN drove them out. Iraq was invaded by the US. Hello?
.
Understanding Iraq is easy. First I’d suggest you read this. It contains a detailed description of the disgusting misuse of US funds for rebuilding Iraq. The enthusiasm that Rumsfeld et al had have for ‘market-orientated’ measures in rebuilding the country were nothing of the kind. There were no tenders, the contracts were given to businesses on the basis of political alliance and there was no requirement to accomplish their tasks in order to receive payment. Add to this the understandable mistrust that Shi-ites and Kurds might have for US govt policy considering Bush I’s call for them to overthrow Saddam followed by his complete abandonment and the total lack of preparation for a post-war stratgy or indeed anything that can be called a strategy at all and you begin to understand.
.
It’s also important to realize that, early on, when the Iraqis were not exactly negotiating from a position of strength contracts were signed off granting various oil companies explorations dibs for fifty years. And very cheap.
_
People can point to some CIA meddling here or there but which nation is a true puppet of the USA? Yet you’d think this was the norm. If the USA does have a reputational problem as the Left claims it is this.
.
The idea that the US is an imperial power is not exclusive to the Left. Sorry. But serious scholars, conservative Catholic West Point grad veterans like Andrew Bacevich will bear out the long-standing foreign policy theme of a non-colonial imperium on the part of the US. And it should be remembered that this CIA meddling of which you speak oft includes the removal and/or assassination of democratically elected leaders. Iran for example was a democracy in 1952. In 1953 it was at began a long process of (pro-Western) tyranny. Thanks to the CIA. The reason: oil.
.
Now if the US (and the UK) had done the right thing there Iran might today be a functioning democracy and perhaps the cynicism about democracy that now pervades the Middle-East might conversely be a wide-ranging enthusiasm. Fact: the US has traditionally supported autocratic regimes that oppress their own people. Why? It’s in the interests of US commerce to do so. That’s why we had 9/11. The Islamist political movement is bent on removing various regimes in the region. These regimes are US clients.
“One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today…”
~Michael Ledeen {August 6, 2002}
“While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
~From the PNAC paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses -published, September 2000. Cheney and Rumsfeld’s pals.
Here’s what the ex-prime miniature, John Howard, had to say on March 14, 2003:
“I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn’t justify on it’s own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I’ve never advocated that”
This ex post facto concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people is plain hypocrisy. It’s a transparent attempt to defend a reckless, costly and unnecessary war. The fate of the long-suffering Iraqis was not a primary concern for those who fabricated this war. Just as it wasn’t after Halabja, and it wasn’t during the years of cruel sanctions.
Spare me.
Or maybe those simple, bewildered Iraqis just misunderstood.
Kingsley – Viz American imperialism.
James Burnham (founder of Neoconservatism)
the Struggle for the World
1947