Democracy Innaction
(With all due apologies to John Stewart and the Daily Show for swiping the title.)
This one goes out to those ones I love. Ryan, who insists that the Iraqis have a Democracy that needs a little help to get on its feet. The Big Swede, who thinks it's all Iran's fault. And Andy Hammond, who just doesn't get the little picture, much less the big one. Just keep telling yourself it's all about al Qeada, kids.
The Iraqi Parliament has taken a well needed rest from doing ... not very much. Bully for them. Meanwhile, Peance and Freance are spreading like the wildfires from truck bombs all over Iraq. IN the wake of this hard news, the Iraqi's acted quickly to support Democracy.
The Iraqi Accordance Front's withdrawal from the Cabinet leaves only two Sunnis in the 40-member body, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to pull together rival factions and pass reconciliation laws the U.S. considers benchmarks that could lead to sectarian reconciliation.
But I'm certain that "the Surge" (TMBushco) is working. That there al Keedia is definitely on the run. We'll "win" in no time, if only we can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis who only want FREEDOM!
Despite President Bush's recent insistence that al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence, senior American military officers here say Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist even if al Qaida is defeated.
I could quote much more, but you probably ought to read the whole thing. The upshot is clear. We need to stay in Iraq, and kill the Iraqis so that we can save them ... and make them free.
UPDATE: Whoops. I missed a shout-out to Montana's overlooked ridiculous Freance maker, Steve, who thinks current affairs in Iraq are just peachy. Neglect the dead, they prolly deserved it anyway. Moral is high, and we're going to win any day now! ... against who Steve hasn't the first fricking idea.
Even with the big hit in the ranks the Iraqi congress passed 53 bills compared to our 48.
I'm still waiting for the Sept. report, I think your going to still owe me big.
your "a simple plot to occupy my time"
Posted by: Big Swede | August 01, 2007 at 10:45 PM
A couple of your buddies over at the Brookings Inst. have a different take on our success.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Posted by: Big Swede | August 01, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Swede, those buddies have been hacks for the administration since the war started. Don't believe everything you hear.
Posted by: Steve T. | August 02, 2007 at 03:44 PM
What's a Freance Maker?
Posted by: carol | August 02, 2007 at 07:10 PM
You don't listen to your Commander in Chief? Ask George. He's your President, and unfortunately mine. Maybe he can tell you what Freance is.
Posted by: Wulfgar | August 02, 2007 at 08:48 PM
Okay, I still don't know what a "Freance" is. You're just making this up right? Like most of your thoughts. The problem for the Democrats on Iraq is not that we will lose, but that we might win.
Like Rep. Clyburn of S.C. said, that would be a bad thing for the Democrats. Hmm, bad for the Democrats might be good for the country?
What kind of a comment is that? (Maybe an honest one)
Posted by: Steve | August 03, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Too lazy to follow a link, Steve?
And boy howdy, you sure are right. If we win in Iraq it would be bad for Democrats. Of course, causing this train wreck in Iraq was (quite obviously) good for Republicans and most definitely bad for the country. Hmm, good for Republicans has been bad for the country?
Sorry, Steve, my history trumps your maybes. Keep wishing that we "win" in Iraq, so that it's good for Republicans and bad for Democrats. And while your at it, wish in one hand and shit in the other. Let's see which gets full faster.
This is the part that you remain too narrow to get, and why I wrote this post. You can define winning only in the most clueless respect possible. To you, it's a game, a wager. The Iraqis aren't any closer to democracy than they were 2 years ago, and all that's left for us is to kill them in order to save them from themselves. You're betting that we can kill enough of them that your side wins. Bully for you. I'm not gonna bet my country or the future of Iraq and it's peoples on the fortunes of a party.
Which brings me back to the central point. You have no idea who we're fighting over there. To you, it's obviously Democrats.
Posted by: Wulfgar | August 03, 2007 at 01:55 PM
Wulfgar, take a deep breath and ask yourself what else could it be? Okay, not in any particular order, we are contending with Islamo-fascism, a subset of which is Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has nothing to do with Iraq. But Al-Quaeda is just an umbrella name, in that right now anyone can claim affiliation for the purposes of frightening Americans into leaving before the terrorists are destroyed. As to the Shiite militias, yes, some are definitely a problem.
That problem became apparent when Al-Zaqawri blew up the Golden Domes to foment the civil war that wasn't taking place like he wanted it to. Oh yeah, the same guy that bin Laden called the emir of Iraq.
Not to mention that Al-Qaeda itself has declared Iraq the central front in this war. But hey, we wouldn't want to believe them, because all they do is lie right?
And no, I do not care if the Republicans win or the Democrats lose, except in the general destruction it does to our public institutions. Right now, we all agree that we can't trust the Republicans because they made a mess of the war. What if Gen. Petraes' report comes back showing significant progress, and the Democrats accomplish their immediate retreat?
What happens then? Oh, that's right, it's all Bush's fault. The poor Democrats were duped again.
This whole conflict since 2006 is being played as a partisan game, without any attention being paid to the consequences for the country. What happens when we run out of there? Do we validate Beiruit, Mogadishu, the Stark? You bet! We lack the will to see it through.
Right now, militarily, we are winning. I know that Sen. Reid, that paragon of military understanding, says that we have lost, but hey, it's hard to believe anything he says. Remember, he was for the surge until Bush was, then in a remarkable display of political calculation decided that if Bush is fer it, I'm agin.
This should not be a political calculation in order to win seats. It should be a realization that the Middle East was fucked up long before we got there. That we have invested an awful lot in trying to change some of the more destructive patterns, and have had at best mixed success. But we have not lost!!
How many of our divisions have been destroyed? Brigades or battalions obliterated? What key terrain does the enemy hold that prevents us from going where we want?
No, the only thing that we lost is our will. It was sapped by the terrorists who targeted our public media in order to scare us, or the politicians, who having voted for the war, now sense political advantage by running away.
Wulfgar, go ahead and shit in one hand. At the end of the day, you still only have a handful of shit.
Posted by: Steve | August 03, 2007 at 04:13 PM
Wulfgar, take a deep breath and ask yourself what else could it be? Okay, not in any particular order, we are contending with Islamo-fascism, a subset of which is Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has nothing to do with Iraq. But Al-Quaeda is just an umbrella name, in that right now anyone can claim affiliation for the purposes of frightening Americans into leaving before the terrorists are destroyed. As to the Shiite militias, yes, some are definitely a problem.
That problem became apparent when Al-Zaqawri blew up the Golden Domes to foment the civil war that wasn't taking place like he wanted it to. Oh yeah, the same guy that bin Laden called the emir of Iraq.
Not to mention that Al-Qaeda itself has declared Iraq the central front in this war. But hey, we wouldn't want to believe them, because all they do is lie right?
And no, I do not care if the Republicans win or the Democrats lose, except in the general destruction it does to our public institutions. Right now, we all agree that we can't trust the Republicans because they made a mess of the war. What if Gen. Petraes' report comes back showing significant progress, and the Democrats accomplish their immediate retreat?
What happens then? Oh, that's right, it's all Bush's fault. The poor Democrats were duped again.
This whole conflict since 2006 is being played as a partisan game, without any attention being paid to the consequences for the country. What happens when we run out of there? Do we validate Beiruit, Mogadishu, the Stark? You bet! We lack the will to see it through.
Right now, militarily, we are winning. I know that Sen. Reid, that paragon of military understanding, says that we have lost, but hey, it's hard to believe anything he says. Remember, he was for the surge until Bush was, then in a remarkable display of political calculation decided that if Bush is fer it, I'm agin.
This should not be a political calculation in order to win seats. It should be a realization that the Middle East was fucked up long before we got there. That we have invested an awful lot in trying to change some of the more destructive patterns, and have had at best mixed success. But we have not lost!!
How many of our divisions have been destroyed? Brigades or battalions obliterated? What key terrain does the enemy hold that prevents us from going where we want?
No, the only thing that we lost is our will. It was sapped by the terrorists who targeted our public media in order to scare us, or the politicians, who having voted for the war, now sense political advantage by running away.
Wulfgar, go ahead and shit in one hand. At the end of the day, you still only have a handful of shit.
Posted by: Steve | August 03, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Holy shit! Gibberish much? Uhmm, Al Zaqawri took credit for the bombing of the Al-Askiriya mosque, but 3 other groups did as well. And, I've posted a chart, which you are obviously too slow to understand, that shows quite clearly that al Qaeda isn't the enemy that we face in Iraq. Again, you are clueless about who that enemy is.
Excuse me, asshole, but you just contradicted yourself. Supposedly, in your expansive view, it isn't about partisan politics ... and then you go into a childish and stupid rant about partisan politics. The September report will indeed show "progress", I guarantee it. The progress it will show is that we need more time to show progress. You're welcome to call me out if democracy has flowered between now and then. I'm going to laugh at you when it so obviously hasn't. And seriously, earnestly and with all true understanding of your idiocy: What the fuck does our involvement in Iraq have to do with the "destruction of our public institutions"?!?! This is the part I get and you don't. We're not leaving Iraq until Bush leaves the White House. Period. The Democrats in Congress don't have the strength or will to really oppose him, and idiots like you flood the Republicant side of things. It wouldn't matter if 90% of the people want to leave that hell-hole to it's own devices. Bush won't leave, Cheney is making money, and we're paying for a crap-fest. YOU can feel free to blame the Democrats if it gives you your 2" chubby. I don't care. Iraqis die, Americans die, and very few of you asshats actually care beyond making the dirty hippies look wrong.
Gosh, I'm really sorry about what happened to your testicles because the people you voted for have a piss-poor foreign policy. An adult, having done something wrong, corrects the mistake. A child whines about completely unrelated things as if it gives him weight of virtue. Grow up, Steve.
You're rewriting history, and that proves your desperation to lie in order to prove that your testicles haven't shrunk. Reid was in favor of the surge only if there was a timeline for progress. You assholes keep moving the goalposts. It's no wonder that he is now your boogey man. He had a good idea, and you're scared of the fact that you can't accomplish anything of the sort. Your surge isn't working, save to kill more Iraqis in the hope that they will do what we want them to do. Freedom, baby.
Then why the fuck did we stupidly and arrogantly go in? Got an answer? Could it have been ... political calculation?
That is hilarious! British General Howe wrote the same thing to his advisors in England ...from the American colonies ... in 1778. Do you care to wager on how that conflict came out? I didn't think so.
That's pretty pathetic, kitten. I'm not the one wishing. How does that hand full of shit feel, and please don't tell me that you find it erotic ... ick.
The "striving for peace" in Iraq will go down in history as the most monumental clusterfuck in the annals of American foreign policy. Mark my words on this, 'cause it will come to pass. We haven't lost our will. Only the stupid would think so. We've lost our reason to understand what is possible and what is not. The best evidence of that, from you, is that you still can't answer the obvious question with any reason whatsoever. Who is the "enemy" that we're fighting in Iraq? It's a simple question, cupcake. Answer it if you can.
Posted by: Wulfgar | August 03, 2007 at 05:22 PM
It would be tempting to respond in an Environmental Ranger manner to the supposed scatological humor far more appropriate to a middle school playground, but why bother. (By the way, whoever's window you are peeping into to watch for your masturbatory fantasies, it ain't mine)
The basic answer, which is so obvious, that I am amazed you with your quick wit failed to pay attention to (deliberate maybe?) is that it is a complex assortment with changing faces.
Originally, it was the hard core Baathists who were deprived of their rightful (at least in their mind, were they communicating with you for validation) rule over the less than human Shiites and Kurds. They were augmented by the Islamofascists primarily from Saudi Arabia, who were themselves augmented by Al-Qaeda in Iraq. These were easily discernible, in that there are no recorded Shiite suicide attacks. They belong almost exclusively to the Sunnis.
After the destruction of the Golden Dome Mosques, Shiite militias took off. They would tend to target us when we got in the way of their destruction of all things Sunni.
We did assist in this violence primarily due to the poor tactics of the previous generals. We emphasized force protection over dealing a death blow to those who would blow up car bombs in market places.
Since the surge has begun, there has been some remarkable progress. From the Anbar Awakening, (read Michael Yon's reports on these) to the association with the 1920s brigades who used to be allied with Al-Qaeda and now have turned on them for their brutality. (See recent reports of Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Baquoba)
In addition, we have had to deal with the Iranians who are looking for a free hand, although I think that they misunderstand the distrust that Arabs have for "Persians."
In the middle, the innocents who just want to be left alone. Not shot at, nor forced to exist under Sharia as interpreted by Al-Qaeda.
One telling example of the problems in Iraq was in a soldier's blog, where an Iraqi asked the soldier "Why is it that four years after you invaded Kuwait, they were successful, and we are not?"
The soldier took the high hanging softball and pointed out, that the Kuwaitis were not shooting at us.
In the end, we all want some of the same things. Especially the removal of American troops, and leave the Iraqis in a stable Iraq, maybe not with Jeffersonian democracy, but maybe closer to something like Jordan. Secure, prosperous, and not harboring terrorists who would attack other countries.
You fail to articulate what will happen with a premature withdrawl. Are you in agreement with Obama who thinks that a little genocide is fine?
So, there is my answer. I await your brilliant well thought out ad hominen attacks, since they are usually the primary tool of someone losing the argument. I find it rather pleasing.
Posted by: Steve | August 03, 2007 at 07:26 PM
That's what I've been saying for years now, Steve, and you're actually ignorant enough to tell me that *I* missed it? Now, let's take a look at what you keep missing:
Changing "faces" means changing goals as 'the enemy' changes. Somehow, someway in a manner you can't express, we're supposed to reach an ultimate goal, by defeating an ever changing enemy. But the magic of the SURGE is working, and we're taking out al Qaeda, who is only part of this complex mix. Hmmm:
1) Kill the group that everybody wants dead, with the help of a group that used to be the enemy and presumably will be again.
2) ?
3) Freedom
4) Profit!
See, your a little light on that step 2 there Steve. Please describe to me how, if the SURGE is working so well, it will prevent a Sunni - Shi'ite war? You freely admit that our mere presence can't do it, but somehow, were gonna defeat (kill) all those who would kill others. That's a recipe for genocide right there, and one that we're gonna pay for. No wonder I think you're an idiot.
Touching story about the soldier, but shouldn't his honest response have been: "Well, kid, it's kinda complex. You see there's Baathists, and then the Sunni ..." I think a more appropriate response would have been, "because the Kuwaitis weren't shooting at each other." But that's okay. I understand your need to prop up the myth that American bullets can solve any problem. But just once, I wish one of you buttheads could explain how their gonna solve this one without years of more killing.
Kinda like it was before we broke it. And in your complex explanation of why everybody in Iraq is our enemy (except for those charming cherubs who aren't) I don't seem to remember you ever pointing out that Iraqi's "terrorosts" aren't (were never) attacking people in other countries.
Steve, in the self-serving inherently contradictory fantasy you just painted *any* withdrawal would be premature. There is no arguing with that kind of lunacy. It's circular reasoning of the finest sort. We must kill them that they can be free, or else they will kill each other that they can be free. Seriously, all that's left is to point at you and laugh.
Posted by: Wulfgar | August 04, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Wulfgar, it is obvious that you are one of the true believers. Anyone who disagrees with you is a heretic and either stupid or a criminal.
Since you aren't interested in exploring options beyond what you have been told to believe, I won't bother anymore.
However, because I know that you have moments of lucidity, check out Micael Yon at http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/05/2007-08-05_i_have_seen_the_horror-2.html
Maybe someone on the ground, who is not rah rah might help open your mind.
But then again, probably not.
Posted by: Steve | August 05, 2007 at 10:15 AM