Congeries of cross connected concepts
GONNA FIGHT THE ENEMY OR THE ALLY?:
Hasty truce with Moqtada al-Sadr tests his sway in Baghdad stronghold: A cease-fire deal between Mr. Sadr’s representatives in the Iraqi government and members of the leading Shiite bloc aims to end weeks of fierce battles in Sadr City (Howard Lafranchi, 5/12/08, The Christian Science Monitor)
The truce was hastily reached as Mr. Maliki’s government announced a new offensive in Mosul against forces affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq. Maliki has said since January that he would take the fight against Al Qaeda to the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, believed to be the group’s last urban stronghold in Iraq. Some Iraqi government officials have suggested that Maliki wanted the battle with Shiite militias quieted before the Mosul offensive.The Sadr City agreement does not call for the disarming or disbanding of the Mahdi Army, which was Maliki’s demand that touched off fighting between his forces and the militia in late March.
That’s some heavy duty spin. Here’s my comment, before it gets disappeared.
Let’s dig in for some more juicy quotes from this article —
The agreement allows government security forces to enter any part of Sadr City to arrest anyone with heavy weapons such as mortars and rocket launchers. […] All explosives planted in the streets of Sadr City are to be removed and the launching of rockets and mortars from the area […] is to stop.
Doesn’t this make the more appropriate headline “Gonna fight the defeated or the still resisting?”
On top of that, I am still trying to figure out what Sadr won. Maliki got de facto and de jure control of the Mehdi Army’s territory, confiscation of all of their heavy weapons, and public acknowledgment of the superiority of his government. Sadr got … a few more months of being alive? If this is a victory for Sadr, why didn’t he “win” this way by surrendering a year ago instead of fighting all this time?
P.S. I think the real bottom line here is that any setbacks for Maliki (and there will be setbacks) will be attributed to Sadr’s clever planning and victory, regardless of the overall direction of the tides of power. It’s a nice non-falsifiable set up.
| Robert Duquette Monday, 12 May 2008 at 21:37 |  |
On top of that, I am still trying to figure out what Sadr won. Face. And time.
| Hey Skipper Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 18:21 | |
According to OJ’s reasoning, Saddam won.
| Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 19:28 | |
Yeah. OJ commonly has a very different take on things, but I can generally understand (for instance, his views on our intervention in WWII) but he does seem to be denying facts on the ground now, such as claiming that the Iraqi government withdrew from Basra, when they’re still patrolling the streets and operating checkpoints. I wonder what he’ll do when Hizb’allah takes over all of Lebanon with a theocratic oppressive regime that’s a puppet state of Iran/Syria and then attacks Israel, instead of forming a Shiite democracy in the southern half of the country as his narrative requires.
I do finally get his fondness for McCain — they’re two of a kind. Both seem to make off hand comments on various issues which then become fundamental points of principle. It’s not the odd things, it’s the unalterable rightness of any pronouncement. But, this is a man who believes that the speed of light is socially determined, so why not any of these other things? In which case an unwavering belief is effectual, rather than eccentric.
| Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 21:46 | |
And, since I’ve decided this isn’t worth a post, here’s Judd comparing the American occupation of Iraq to the presence of British forces in the American colonies.
If the mission turns against Shi’ites why should they be grateful? The Colonists liked having the Redcoats save them from the French and Indians, but then gave them the unceremonious heave-ho.
Of course, the colonists gave the Brits the heave ho because
In Iraq, Americans are taxed to pay for goods for Iraqis, and enormous efforts are made to provide voting rights for Iraqis. What’s funny is that at other times Judd has castigated the colonists for revolting, saying they would have been better off to stay in the UK. Why doesn’t that apply to Iraqis? I suspect it’s because they couldn’t be subjected to the sort of oppressive theocratic regime Sadr wants.
P.S. It’s also interesting that trying to stop the violence against Shia in Basra and Baghdad is “turning against the Shia”. Or maybe that’s letting a Shia dominated government which is insufficiently theocratic come to power.
| Peter Burnet Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 05:15 | |
I think OJ’s point, which he has made several times before, is that except for small, powerless, threatened states like Kuwait and the Emirates, there is a visceral aversion to foreign troops that transcends the rationalities of the situation and that grows as time passes. He’s right. Because of it, opponents speak out loudly and inspire the dissidents while supporters mutter quietly with resignation and wonder when it will all end. Think Vietnam. Think France under deGaulle. Even Canada was touchy about U.S. bases after the war. Come to think of it, think of ambiguous American reactions to foreign offers of assistance after Katrina. The Muslim world is a rather extreme case of this, but the impulse is universal. Nothing particlarly anti-American about it, as the Brits knew well in Imperial times. But the image in the article OJ linked to of the American soldier feeling so apologetic for his presence and being hyper-sensitive to the facial reactions of the drivers he stops bespeaks volumes of the combination of American glory and the American Achilles Heel that makes this kind of thing so intractable and divisive.
| erp Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 07:16 | |
Moral equivalancy is difficult to control.
| Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 08:53 | |
I have to dispute all of your evidence, Mr. Burnet. I have read extensively on Vietnam and while there was some resentment of American troops, it was never a serious issue and was less of an issue nearer the end of the war, when the NVA had to send in its own troops, being no longer able to raise local forces. That makes it a counter-example.
France under DeGaulle: That was DeGaulle, operating on delusions of France’s grandeur. It certainly was not about American troops, but the inability of France to act like a world power.
Canada: You’ll never convince me that wasn’t far more anti-American than troop related.
So, no, I don’t see that reaction as universal. In fact, I see it as rather unusual and generally based on the actions of the troops.
Beyond that, I read it as Judd having a man-crush on Sadr and from that deducing the horror of the occupation. Certainly the followers of Maliki, who are Shia and more numerous, don’t have the problem, but they’re inauthentic because they don’t fit in to this narrative.
| Hey Skipper Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 10:09 | |
Peter:
I think OJ’s point, which he has made several times before, is that except for small, powerless, threatened states like Kuwait and the Emirates, there is a visceral aversion to foreign troops that transcends the rationalities of the situation and that grows as time passes.
Japan. South Korea. Germany. Britain.
| Peter Burnet Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 10:34 | |
aog:
You are overstating what I said. I’m just saying that as time goes on in a foreign occupation, the antis speak louder than the supporters because nobody thinks its a desirable, permanent state of affairs or ipso facto a good thing in itself. At some level it’s a confession of weakness by a supplicant, and supplicants often become hostile to their benefactors. Skipper’s list of countries backs that up as much as mine. Maybe Britain is a bit of an exception but American facilities in Britain have been very self-contained and they sure have been magnets for the left. Pluralities in lots of countries have supported American (or other) troops for varying lenths of times in response to varying threats with varying degrees of quiet whining, but the other side tends to have more exciting marches in the streets and often gets the sexier girls. Just ask the MSN.
The other question is how much it should matter what they think. The fact that it does matter so much to Americans and American troops more than to any other occupiers in history puts you on the side of the angels, but it makes things umm… “multi-dimensional” at the same time.
| Annoying Old Guy Friday, 16 May 2008 at 09:57 | |
Mr. Burnet;
OK, I see what you’re saying, but what does it matter? Of course whiners speak louder, but whether that makes a difference on the ground is highly contingent.
I still disagree strongly that any of that is Judd’s point, as evidenced by his claim of “the mission has turned against the Shi’a”, or that our occupation of Iraq is morally equivalent to the pre-Revolution British occupation of the American colonies? How do you reconcile Judd’s belief that we would have been better off to stay in the Dominion (as Canada did) vs. his belief that the Shi’a should throw off the yoke of American occupation?
P.S. I got another comment sequence disappeared. In this one, first Judd mocked “neocons” (interesting use of a slur) were spinning the recent events in Lebanon as a defeat for Hizb’allah, just like they’re spinning the events in Iraq as a defeat for Al Sadr. Then when I noted that by his logic, since Hizb’allah retreated, they lost, he agreed. I pointed out that made him a neocon, and poof! no more comments. Heh.Sigh, looks like just an update error.
| Peter Burnet Friday, 16 May 2008 at 11:06 | |
How do you reconcile Judd’s belief that we would have been better off to stay in the Dominion (as Canada did) vs. his belief that the Shi’a should throw off the yoke of American occupation?
AOG, it’s the Friday before a long weekend up here and I’m tired. Can’t you lob me an easier one of OJ’s to defend, like Ptolemy over Copernicus or something? Hey, how about cars? Man all our problems stem from those cars, right? :-)
But back to my point, I have no doubt most Iraqis and Afghans are still supportive and don’t want anyone leaving anytime soon. But you have to be really paying attention and widely read to know that. They are quiet about it for the most part and moderate in tone, which I understand and expect But, dammit, the ones that do want us out sure cause us trouble on the domestic front.
| Hey Skipper Friday, 16 May 2008 at 12:21 | |
Mr. Judd’s “analysis” — everything he says deserves scare quotes, including the punctuation — can be boiled down to:
While Sadr is holding a gun to his head: “One false move, and Sadr gets it.”
The huge difference between the countries I listed, and both Afghanistan and Iraq, is that in the latter two, the major focus of violence is not the Americans, but compatriots.
To the extent that Shia and Sunni can be compatriots.
| Annoying Old Guy Friday, 16 May 2008 at 12:55 | |
Heh. I certainly agree that the noise makers will be the complainers. What I disagree with, and I read Judd as advocating, is that such whining of itself justifies violent resistance. I find that particularly unsupportable in a place where there is a reasonably democratic government which generally reflects the Will of the Masses. I simply do not understand where Judd thinks Al Sadr gets his validation from, other than being anti-American and theocratic. I doubt that you would support him on that basis.
| Peter Burnet Friday, 16 May 2008 at 18:44 | |
You would doubt accurately. But then, OJ always was four wars ahead of the rest of us.
| Hey Skipper Saturday, 17 May 2008 at 01:13 | |
OJ always was four wars ahead of the rest of us.
Except where he isn’t.
OJ has slanged the A380 since time immemorial. A couple years ago he averred that only fascist states would allow the airplane to land.
I bet him otherwise. Whereupon my comment was disappeared, and that was the last time I wasted any time there.
On Oct 1 of this year, the A380 will start regular service between LAX and Singapore.
Now, either that is the day the US becomes officially fascist, or OJ was mixing hubris and ignorance to firmly arrive at an indefensible conclusion.
I predict that, as a consequence of Maliki’s offensive against Sadr, that the Sadrites will choose to participate in politics. I predict that this will go a long way towards making Iraq a civil society, rather than a theological thuggery.
I also predict that OJ will do both of two things: insist that this is what he predicted all along, and consign pesky referrals otherwise to the memory hole.
Profiles in intellectual courage, he is not.
| Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 09:48 | |
Iraqi Army moves in to Sadr City
I want to see the Judd spin on how that’s a retreat by the Iraqi government.
| Hey Skipper Thursday, 22 May 2008 at 13:45 | |
I’m guessing he won’t acknowledge it has happened.
Checking …
Checking …
Guessed right.
Representatives of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and lawmakers from Iraq's main Shiite political
