A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sure many of them do. If only that were enough.

Depending on how many zeros are in the many (10,000,000?) compared to 10,000 people who don't want a government established, it might be enough.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apologize if someone else made that point, but it took you very few posts indeed to move from a discussion of whether we're likely to see the birth of a functional democracy in Iraq to a discussion of our (lack of) sympathy for the Sunnis who are about to be on the outside of the "democracy" looking in. I agree -- screw the Sunnis -- but once we're having that conversation the important game is already over.

Disagree completely. As I said, if the Sunnis, or anyone, voluntarily withholds their votes, well, life goes on. Bad choice. If the Sunnis, or anyone else, don't vote out of fear, different story - then there's no true election. No, I hold no sympathy for them - but you make it sound like that lack of love should warrant extra consideration for them. I'm simply holding them equally accountable, no more, no less. So, yeah, fuck em, but they get to vote, too.

If the Sunnis were guaranteed representation in proportion to their share of the population, they could boycott the election and still be represented.

It amazes me that anyone could see this statement as a desireable thing. You don't want a democracy in Iraq, do you? While your "fairness" has a certain surface-level attraction, I can see no more sure way to guarantee that Iraq remains a hodgepodge of tribal areas and not a state.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think our difference lies in our view of the popularity of the anti-democratic forces native to Iraq.

I see an overwhelming Iraqi support for democracy. Because the tools of modern war are so powerful, I see a very small contingent wielding great disruptive power right now, but I think they start to wander away in the face of the failure to them that is expressed by a succesful election, and in the face of popular Iraqi support for a new government. Iraq is always going to be problematic, for the same reasons Israel is problematic - they're surrounded by hostile groups to whom democratic rule is anathema - and they are going to have to keep a powerful army, but it will be (if this works) an outward-looking one, not one (like the rest of the entire region) that guards against its own.

In the absence of SH's threats, and in the absence of his mass murdering, and in the presence of an Iraqi citizenry that seems to want this, I'm willing to call the glass half full.

I don't think the difference between us lies in our views of the popularity of the anti-democracy forces. Perhaps the glass is half-full, whatever that means. When the Titanic was half-full, it sank. Somehow, the Kurds and Sunnis are going to have to be persuaded to submit themselves to a government dominated by Shi'ites. Somehow, the Shi'ites are going to have be persuaded not to exercise control over the Kurds and Sunnis commensurate with the Shi'ite share of the population. If you want to figure out how likely this is, you have to do more than poll Iraqis about their support for the ideal of democracy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sure many of them do. If only that were enough.

Are you saying that, even if the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, we should back down if a small minority is well-armed?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree with you to a certain extent - the projections that allowed for the skipping of the occupancy phase were way too rosy, and represented a huge mistake of prediction (in that no one seemed to think that the SH Iraqi army might just take a powder and then pop up as guerillas) but I don't remember any war that ever stuck to plan, evenin the broad strokes. I wish they had gotten that part right. So, obviously, do the generals who are now quite eager to say "I told him to listen to MEEEE".

And, I think you willingly mischaracterize his armor answer.

It's fairly clear to me that people -- i.e., Republicans, since what Democrats think about Rumsfeld doesn't make headlines since early November -- are concerned about the ongoing morass that is Iraq, and that this concern finds its outlet in criticisms of Rumsfeld's "tin ear." Most Republicans are not yet willing to criticize the President's Iraq policy, but they know they score points in a way that will not be perceived as disloyal to the President if they criticize Rumsfeld for gaffes which putatively undermine that policy. Democratic officials were almost universally in favor of retiring Rumsfeld in early November, so the news more recently is that Republicans like Trent Lott were calling for Rumsfeld to step down. Far easier for the Ann Coulters of the world, however, to pretend that "liberals" were behind the stories -- "liberals" like Trent Lott, I guess.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree with you to a certain extent - the projections that allowed for the skipping of the occupancy phase were way too rosy, and represented a huge mistake of prediction (in that no one seemed to think that the SH Iraqi army might just take a powder and then pop up as guerillas) but I don't remember any war that ever stuck to plan, evenin the broad strokes.

Nor do I. Fortunately, we're not discussing that point, but instead that the official historian of the campaign concluded that the Administration was so convinced that the barrels would contain only flowers that no one sat down and put pen to paper to cover the possibility that they did not.

I wish they had gotten that part right.

As do we all.

So, obviously, do the generals who are now quite eager to say "I told him to listen to MEEEE".

Yes. The tough part, of course, is to read carefully the content of such criticisms and determine whether they arise merely from the same temptation that draws a moth to the light, or perhaps they possess the minimum credibility to conclude that something was profoundly wrong in the Administration's war planning.

And, I think you willingly mischaracterize his armor answer.

Well, let's go to the tape. (emphasis added)

• SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.*
  
  As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.
  
  I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

I'll grant you, he did not say "back to the landfill, sonny!" That part was indeed an embellishment. The rest, the man actually said. Even if literally true, were such words to be said in a Kerry or Clinton or any other Democratic Administration, the howls from the right would be such that the SecDef would not have lasted the evening, and that's my point.

Gattigap



* You've also seen, I am sure, the subsequent stories about the vendors being able to increase production, and having offered to. To be clear, I do not accuse DoD of malfeasance here, but for heaven's sake, if it is so readily possible to increase production, don't say in front of your troops, God and everyone that doing so is an impossibility.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Are you saying that, even if the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, we should back down if a small minority is well-armed?

What did I say about "backing down"? If only this all were a question of our resolve.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think the difference between us lies in our views of the popularity of the anti-democracy forces. Perhaps the glass is half-full, whatever that means. When the Titanic was half-full, it sank. Somehow, the Kurds and Sunnis are going to have to be persuaded to submit themselves to a government dominated by Shi'ites. Somehow, the Shi'ites are going to have be persuaded not to exercise control over the Kurds and Sunnis commensurate with the Shi'ite share of the population. If you want to figure out how likely this is, you have to do more than poll Iraqis about their support for the ideal of democracy.

Bush won by about - what? - three percent? And yet, he controls what we're doing fairly completely. Is this different than what you warn against? Or are you simply of the mind that Iraqis are too primitive or misguided or religious to put aside those lines of religious demarcation and make one unified country?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Disagree completely. As I said, if the Sunnis, or anyone, voluntarily withholds their votes, well, life goes on. Bad choice. If the Sunnis, or anyone else, don't vote out of fear, different story - then there's no true election. No, I hold no sympathy for them - but you make it sound like that lack of love should warrant extra consideration for them. I'm simply holding them equally accountable, no more, no less. So, yeah, fuck em, but they get to vote, too.

I don't understand what question you think you're answering here. If the question, how do we get to a functioning democracy in Iraq, then I submit that no part of the answer involves saying "fuck 'em" to the Sunnis, as much fun as that may be. If we want to make Iraq work, the question is, what works?

I submit that devising an electoral regime that excludes Sunnis who don't vote -- for whatever reason -- is unlikely to work well. Instead, I submit that it's likely to lead to a civil war between a Shi'ite government and the Sunni minority. The Bushies evidently share this concern, since they're now looking at ways to guarantee some level of Sunni representation even if there's a boycott.

It amazes me that anyone could see this statement as a desireable thing. You don't want a democracy in Iraq, do you? While your "fairness" has a certain surface-level attraction, I can see no more sure way to guarantee that Iraq remains a hodgepodge of tribal areas and not a state.

I don't know why you think I'm talking about fairness. I -- and the Bush Administration -- am looking at ways to make sure that Sunnis find the government legitimate, even if a boycott and/or violence (etc.) leads to few Sunnis voting. All I'm suggesting is that Iraq's government could be structured like ours, in that California (e.g.) wouldn't have lost relative power in Congress in the last election if Californians had voted in few numbers than the residents of other states.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush won by about - what? - three percent? And yet, he controls what we're doing fairly completely. Is this different than what you warn against? Or are you simply of the mind that Iraqis are too primitive or misguided or religious to put aside those lines of religious demarcation and make one unified country?

I know this idea will seem foreign to you, but we have checks and balances, and different branches of the federal government constrain each other. Bush only "controls what we're doing" to the extent that he and Congress march in step, and there are already signs that the unanimity of purpose that we've seen since 9/11 on that score will be a thing of the past. Be that as it may, my understanding is that the government we've given Iraq is more of a parliamentary model than our own, and that the better analogue for my point is not our presidential election, but how power in Congress is divided between the States. If, for whatever reasons -- violence or a boycott, say -- New Englanders declined to vote in the next election, New England would still have its same number of seats in the Senate and House thereafter, because we allocate seats in proportion to population. In Iraq, someone made the decision that seats should be allocated in proportion to share of the vote. The difference is pretty important now.

eta: You used the word primitive, not me. Whatever the reason, it appears that Iraq does not cohere as a nation in the way that many other nations do. It appears that many (most?) Iraqis tend to identify themselves more as Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites than as Iraqis, which -- at the very least -- tends to complicate the process of building a political community.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I -- and the Bush Administration -- am looking at ways to make sure that Sunnis find the government legitimate ...

Strange bedfellows indeed. Next thing you know, we'll have Ty agreeing with Trent Lott.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand what question you think you're answering here. If the question, how do we get to a functioning democracy in Iraq, then I submit that no part of the answer involves saying "fuck 'em" to the Sunnis, as much fun as that may be. If we want to make Iraq work, the question is, what works?

The "fuck em" comment was put in to show how uncentral and meaningless that feeling is is if we allow for everyone to get to the polls and participate without getting blown up. I don't like them - but that shouldn't matter, and, if they get to vote, it doesn't matter.

I submit that devising an electoral regime that excludes Sunnis who don't vote -- for whatever reason -- is unlikely to work well.

I submit that a philosophy that holds that we have to count votes that intentionally are not cast, just so we don't offend those who already see that they are a minority in a new democracy, is the first huge step away from a democratic Iraq. You talk about us guiding results that we want - this is the worst sort of such guiding. If this is to succeed, it won;t be as some bastardized affirmative action plan for minority voters. This is an attempt to make Iraq into one country - not three or four always-diverging interest groups who will "balance each other out".

I don't know why you think I'm talking about fairness. I -- and the Bush Administration -- am looking at ways to make sure that Sunnis find the government legitimate . . .

First, I'm tired of you always siding with Bush. Second, the Sunnis don't find a democratic government to be illegitimate - they find a government that they don't control to be undesirable. Big difference. If you want to build democracy by imposing anti-democratic principles, you're taking the kind of short-sided stance that seemed to have characterized so much of our history in South America. I think we either need to work towards democracy, or get out, and not try to fashion some Rube Goldberg let's-make-everyone-happy kludge.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4127063.stm

[Ukraine elections]

This, seems to me, is one of the biggest stories of the year. Why no interest? Hundreds of thousands of people bravely took to the streets to protest a crooked election and, in the end, democracy prevailed. What a story! It also has profound implications for the way in which the world will organize itself in the next few years, as Russia seeks to allign itself with China (and possibly France?) to challenge the true democracies of the west.

Any Americans?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think the difference between us lies in our views of the popularity of the anti-democracy forces. Perhaps the glass is half-full, whatever that means. When the Titanic was half-full, it sank. Somehow, the Kurds and Sunnis are going to have to be persuaded to submit themselves to a government dominated by Shi'ites. Somehow, the Shi'ites are going to have be persuaded not to exercise control over the Kurds and Sunnis commensurate with the Shi'ite share of the population. If you want to figure out how likely this is, you have to do more than poll Iraqis about their support for the ideal of democracy.

I know. Let's give them our Constitution and legal system. That'll work.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Are you saying that, even if the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, we should back down if a small minority is well-armed?

Don't drag Charlton Heston into this. He's feeling poorly.