| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Flypaper revisited |
| 2004-08-19 |
| It must be rather galling to the U.S. Marines, to be sent into the winding streets of Najaf, Iraq, at the risk of their lives, among bystanders of strange language and unknown sentiments, against the lethally-armed streetfighters of Moqtada al-Sadr's "Imam Mahdi Army", to do the Iraqi government's own dirty work. And then the same government sends a delegation to the al-Sadrites -- to the people you are trying to kill, and avoid being killed by -- to negotiate an end of the fighting, and their retreat to safety, as if the Iraqi government were a neutral party. Such missions are very hard to sell, politically, back home in the United States; and it is a grace that the Western media are not following the plot, or the unhappiness Stateside would be greater. They couldn't follow it if they tried, for they are locked in their own cultural prison, unable to imagine the complexity of the situation on the ground in Iraq. It was the same when members of the U.S. Senate expressed outrage on learning that Ahmad Chalabi, the erstwhile American ally, now abandoned to his fate, had had dealings with the ayatollahs in Tehran. So does everyone have; just as everyone except Mr. Chalabi had dealings with Saddam Hussein. Mr. Chalabi had an office in Tehran long before the Iraqi invasion. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #25 We appreciate his service very much, rex! He's not only helping to bring democracy to the Iraqis but he's taking on the terrorists there so that they don't come here. That is why Warren calls it the "flypaper" theory; Iraq is the flypaper for the jihadis. And I think you're being very pessimistic and cynical about the whole thing, which is neither logical nor reasonable, but then you're worried about your son, I guess. Because you refuse to believe that democracy will work, we're supposed to believe you? I heartily suggest you read the Iraqi blogs like Iraq the model and Hammorabi and see what they are saying--and it's not at all like what you're saying--they're hungry for freedom, secularism and capitalistic progress and prosperity. We may have to have troops in the region for decades, as we did in Japan and Germany. So what?! It's a volunteer military and no-one made your son volunteer, did they? |
| Posted by: GreatestJeneration 2004-08-19 10:24:28 PM |
| #24 "As for trying this great experiment instead of installing a benign strongman dictator in Iraq, do your "tinkering" with your kid's life, not mine or my neighbor's kid's life." Take your lecture and shove it, rex: my kid IS over there. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-08-19 10:16:20 PM |
| #23 Because if we can't detoxify it, we're probably going to have to destroy it Read the PM of Malaysia's speech. Muslims do not want to have their religion de-toxified. Muslims do not see a problem with their religion. It's us Westerners who see a problem. Muslims want to conquer and rule the world. And they will pretend to retreat. They will pretend to relent. Because Allah counsels patience. Consider that these sentiments are from a so-called "progressive" world leader. Holding elections in Afghanistan-whoopdeedo! And women need an armed guard to vote-no worries-at least it's an election. Iraq will hold elections-and that's news? Saddam Hussein held elections and he claimed a 100% voter turnout. Big deal. Elections are all pomp and ceremony. It means nothing. Jews and Christians will never be able to walk freely on the streets of Baghdad, never. Wake up and smell the coffee. Arab nations have been hellholes for hundreds of years and GWB will not change what is unchangeable. As for trying this great experiment instead of installing a benign strongman dictator in Iraq, do your "tinkering" with your kid's life, not mine or my neighbor's kid's life. I know the end result no matter how many bridges and mosques GIs build for Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, they will still despiese and loathe the "infidel." At least my idea may buy some time for the West to change its reliance on fossil fuels. We should use our money and ingenuity for invention instead of nation building. Innovation will save our butts not foolish and doomed attempts at democracicizing the ME. I don't understand how bringing the troops home from the Middleast will provide us with a victory in the WOT Well, duh, how long do you think we should keep troops in Iraq? They have to come home some day, don't you think? How does keeping GI's in Iraq have anything to do with whether or not we win the WOT? You actually believe that democracy in Iraq, if it ever happens [dream along with me], will miraculously cause terrorism to die on the vine? Get a grip, SH. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 9:55:59 PM |
| #22 "The Bush Doctrine is working. And even if it doesn't, America will have done the right thing which is to try and bring the blessings of Democracy to our fellow human beings who are suffering under oppression." To me, the important thing is not whether democracy can be made to take hold in Arab/Muslim society and thus render it non-toxic, or whether it cannot; the important thing is that we urgently need to TRY to detoxify it, and really put our backs into the effort. Because if we can't detoxify it, we're probably going to have to destroy it. I can imagine two possible challenges from my future grandchildren. The first goes something like this: "Grandpa, why in the world didn't you just kill all the bloody bastards back in 2005, instead of waiting til 2017? What was all this 'democracy' bullshit about, anyway? Anyone with a brain could have known that the Islamic world was incapable of reform! Why didn't you just kill them all in the beginning and get it the fuck over with????" And the second is: "Grandpa, did you really have to go and kill half a billion people back in 2005? I mean, couldn't you have at least TRIED something less drastic???? That was GENOCIDE, and you did it for no reason at all!!!" Given a choice, I'd rather have to answer to the first charge. Hence the importance of seeing the present task through. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-08-19 9:32:59 PM |
| #21 I think that Warren has less knowledge of the war than most 13 year-olds who have played more than one game of Risk. Campaigns are fluid by nature. Because humans beings are very creative and intelligent, laying out the progress of a campaign is an inexact science. Next time maybe we can arrange a few scrimmages with the OPFOR so that we can do a better job of predicting what our enemies will do. For an historical parallel, Grant never intended to lay seige to Lee in Petersburg, but he seized the opportunity. Although second-guessers in Washington thought that Grant's seige was a quagmire, Grant's actions were highly effective and eventually resulted in check-mate. I don't understand how bringing the troops home from the Middleast will provide us with a victory in the WOT. How do we expect the battle to progress while we have retreated to home? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-08-19 9:21:10 PM |
| #20 Oh, and I think David Warren mis-underestimates President Bush on his strategery. Warren is the gloomiest Gus, sitting up there as a Conservative in Liberal Canada. We don't know how much of the Bush Doctrine is purposeful, but I'll bet a lot of it is. Team Bush doesn't "announce" it to our enemies--both the terrorists and the Leftist media-because WE ARE AT WAR, remember? |
| Posted by: GreatestJeneration 2004-08-19 9:18:46 PM |
| #19 rex, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not one I share and it's not President Bush's vision for the Middle East who argued against the Middle East "not deserving democracy." Because democracy is so antithetical to shari'a, a democratic government will help break the stranglehold the clerics, mullahs and princes have on Muslim peoples because Islam is a political system as well as a religion. One of the problems with Islam is the Sunni vs. Shia war, too and most of the Islamic countries have one or the other in the minority who are oppressed. Surely even Muslims must embrace the idea that Allan created them all equally. What you propose is the same old-same old policy of accomadation that we've had for decades towards the Arab world and look how that turned out... The Soddy Royals, who are the Waahabs and who control the government by oligarchy, are determined to spread radical Waahab Islam no matter what we do. To just give up on Arabs and decide that they can't "do" democracy, is defeatist, wrong and doesn't work for us in the long run and it's not working for these Arab countries. As Liberalhawk correctly points out, we've regime changed 2 countries--both of which are going to have elections for the first time in their histories EVER. A third Islamic country has disarmed and there are varying degrees of reform moving apace in the other Arab countries. The Bush Doctrine is working. And even if it doesn't, America will have done the right thing which is to try and bring the blessings of Democracy to our fellow human beings who are suffering under oppression. |
| Posted by: GreatestJeneration 2004-08-19 9:12:30 PM |
| #18 if its the religion how do you explain the imperfect but occasional democracy in Pakistan, Malysia, and Turkey. Of course it's about religion being the main obstacle to democracy in Muslim dominated countries. I'm not sure what you mean when you claim Pakistan, Malaysia, and Turkey are imperfect but occasional democracies. A country is or it isn't. Pakistan is ruled by a military strong man. It's not a democracy. In Turkey Kurds are routinely suppressed. Women are treated like chattel-does honor killings ring any bells for you? Malayasia is an anti-semetic pot boiler. Not too long ago the esteemed Malaysian PM spoke about Jews using the US military to fight its proxy war in Iraq. Read the PM's speech and get back to me if you see any hope for cdemocracy to flourish in Muslim countries: http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/malaysian.asp Speech by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad October 23, 2003 ...We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them...They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power...Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think...But to do so we must get our acts right. Rhetoric is good. It helps us to expose the wrongs perpetrated against us, perhaps win us some sympathy and support. It may strengthen our spirit, our will and resolve, to face the enemy...There are many things that we can do. There are many resources that we have at our disposal. What is needed is merely-the will to do it, As Muslims, we must be grateful for the guidance of our religion, we must do what needs to be done, willingly and with determination. Allah has not raised us, the leaders, above the others so we may enjoy power for ourselves only. The power we wield is for our people, for the ummah, for Islam. We must have the will to make use of this power judiciously, prudently, concertedly. Insyaallah we will triumph in the end... As for your comments, LH, read PM Mahathir Mohamad's whole speech and then consider whether Iraq or any Muslim country will ever allow democrcay where all men and women regardless of faith are considered free and equal. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 8:57:24 PM |
| #17 B; have a look at a few of Warren's other essays before you assume he's all wet. He's a friendly sort. Check Boston or Girlie men or The 9/11 report. |
| Posted by: James 2004-08-19 7:09:00 PM |
| #16 I think you are as naive as GWB, #9. Democracy will not "propogate" in the ME as a result of US military action in Iraq. The ME has lived next door to democracies in Europe and Israel for hundreds of years and then some. The ME has successfully avoided succumbing to the democracy "virus" inspite of this proximity because Arabs have been innoculated against the "virus." Their inflexible religion protects them from democracy. If you dont understand the cultural barriers between Israel and the arab world, or the physical barriers imposed by the arab siege of Israel, and how this differs from the position of Iraq, youre truely a moron. If you think that Saddam Hussein was the only obstacle to Shiite and Sunni Iraqis embracing democracy, you are nuts. We may yet need to install another less nutty Saddam type dictator in Iraq to keep Iraqis under control when all is said and done there. Maybe not the only obstacle, but it hardly follows that we need a Saddam type dictator. Furthermore, citing Algeria, Egypt, and Uzbekistan as stellar examples of "progress" in Muslim lands is pathetically optimistic. I never said "stellar". They are examples of progress thats all. And even before democracy is established in Iraq - the real propagation effect is supposed to happen AFTER Iraq succeeds. Re: Kurds in Syria-I don't understand what your point is there. Kurds are being tortured and killed by Syrians and that's hopeful from your POV? No, that Kurds rebelled in Syria. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-19 6:01:40 PM |
| #15 Rex, if its the religion how do you explain the imperfect but occasional democracy in Pakistan, Malysia, and Turkey. To say its all Islam is missing something. |
| Posted by: yank 2004-08-19 5:50:57 PM |
| #14 You're just mean and stupid B and your ideas won't work anywhere because they're hard to do and we shouldn't try. The money would better be spent buying new extra strong mobile homes for Lee County's elder population. We could use big! Big stainless steel tie downs and a new aerodynamic shape which would rotate into the wind and maybe buy auto-gyros with the leftover cash. |
| Posted by: Another Whiner 2004-08-19 4:34:53 PM |
| #13 The little brown people are incapable of democracy and thus the best we can do is pity. The failure of democracy to take hold in the ME has nothing to do with color. It has to do with religion. Maybe you judge people and behavior in terms of color but don't try to transpose your racist approach to interpreting history on me. You qualify as a whiner And you qualify as a moron, since you cannot even understand the content of a simple opinion piece. Instead you sulk, race bait, and name call when you have things explained to you. Constantly preening yourself Say what? Get a grip and quit being so hormonal. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 4:30:52 PM |
| #12 In other words, Warren is telling GWB to pursue US "quagmire/occupation" in other ME countries and to forget about democracizing them, because Arabs don't care about democracy, Their inflexible religion protects them from democracy. Oh, I see. The little brown people are incapable of democracy and thus the best we can do is pity. I was recently reading the book, How to Deal with Difficult People. You qualify as a whiner: Constantly preening yourself by highlighting why the ideas of others wonât work, Every one in charge is stupid. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-19 4:17:24 PM |
| #11 I think you are as naive as GWB, #9. Democracy will not "propogate" in the ME as a result of US military action in Iraq. The ME has lived next door to democracies in Europe and Israel for hundreds of years and then some. The ME has successfully avoided succumbing to the democracy "virus" inspite of this proximity because Arabs have been innoculated against the "virus." Their inflexible religion protects them from democracy. If you think that Saddam Hussein was the only obstacle to Shiite and Sunni Iraqis embracing democracy, you are nuts. We may yet need to install another less nutty Saddam type dictator in Iraq to keep Iraqis under control when all is said and done there. Furthermore, citing Algeria, Egypt, and Uzbekistan as stellar examples of "progress" in Muslim lands is pathetically optimistic. Re: Kurds in Syria-I don't understand what your point is there. Kurds are being tortured and killed by Syrians and that's hopeful from your POV? |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 3:55:52 PM |
| #10 If you read Zeyad today, he noted this about the National Conference: ...Another interesting incident was the objection of several fundamental delegates to one of the posters in the hall. It had half the face of a pretty (unveiled) Iraqi women on it representing the role of Iraqi women. They demanded the poster to be removed because 'it was improper'. Some commotion followed and one woman stood up and harshly addressed the objectors, she said that if they removed the poster now they might as well remove the women from the conference. She was met with a standing ovation from the audience and the poster remained.... --- I read a long time ago that we're going to have to accept that the rest of the world doesn't want our version of democracy. Europe certainly doesn't, and I have had numerous conversations w/Europeans why I don't think their version/vision works.--They would have to occupy the entire region the way Germany and Japan were once occupied, and dictate norms and forms.-- Of course, maybe we didn't dictate enough. They'll break new ground interpreting their own definition of democracy. If it gets them to move forward and all they do is turn into the Europeans, I can handle it. After all, we're still working on it. But the young can smell it, and while it might take another 50 years, there will be a tipping point. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2u 2004-08-19 3:47:40 PM |
| #9 It must be rather galling to the U.S. Marines, to be sent into the winding streets of Najaf, Iraq, at the risk of their lives, among bystanders of strange language and unknown sentiments, against the lethally-armed streetfighters of Moqtada al-Sadrâs "Imam Mahdi Army", to do the Iraqi governmentâs own dirty work. There are plenty of Iraqi forces fighting as well, and steadily improving. AS for the fighting qualitis of the Sadrites, I leave that to others here to comment on. And then the same government sends a delegation to the al-Sadrites -- to the people you are trying to kill, and avoid being killed by -- to negotiate an end of the fighting, and their retreat to safety, as if the Iraqi government were a neutral party. No, not as a neutral party, but as an adversary in a complex game. Such missions are very hard to sell, politically, back home in the United States; and it is a grace that the Western media are not following the plot, or the unhappiness Stateside would be greater. I have more faith in the nuance of the American people than that. You can merely get used to ideas of loyalty and moral consistency, that are truly non-Western, yet which pertain in Iraq and among its neighbours. Ideas have consequences, and the animating ideas of Islamdom and Christendom began moving apart 14 centuries ago. evidently someone who doesnt know much about the European political life in the middle ages, the Italian renaissance, and the 18th century era of balance of power politics and alliance flipping. The notions of political loyalty he refers to are products of the age of nationalism, and dont predate the French and American revolutions. President Bushâs stated resolution is to alter conditions throughout the Middle East, to herald constitutional democracy. With the passage of months and years, this ambition becomes ever more ludicrous, not because the mission is absolutely impossible, but because the cost of achieving it would be vastly greater than the U.S. and allies could be willing to pay. They would have to occupy the entire region the way Germany and Japan were once occupied, and dictate norms and forms. While Warren may not agree, the neocon strategy (or one version of it) is to occupy and dictate in Iraq alone, and then let the virus of democracy propogate on its own. Iran looks particularly vulnerable, and even if thats ALL we get, the strat will be a success. Meanwhile we see more or less free national elections in Algeria, a plan for municipal elections in KSA, liberalization in Bahrain, the releasing of a few political prisoners in Egypt and Uzbekistan, and ferment among Kurds in Syria. All that before things have settled down in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-19 3:35:05 PM |
| #8 Iâm not really sure why you are taking issue with it Maybe you and I have a different understanding of the phrase "interesting admission." If Warren makes any "admission" it's that his orginal fly paper theory was more flattering to the WH than it is now. What he thought was done consciously, he now views as being a result of happenstance. Here's the link to Warren's original fly paper article that he wrote in 2003: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Jul03/index150.shtml Raphael is a Canadian poster and he'd know more about Warren's writing than I do, but what little I have read of Warren on other conservative and /or libertarian blogs leads me to view him as a GWB/pre-emptive action advocate, by and large. So, in other words, Warren is showing that he is somewhat dis-illusioned with what he sees as a lurching back and forth of policy in Iraq and the naive "vision" of a democratic ME that is a limiting force in GWB's foreign policy in the ME. In other words, Warren is telling GWB to pursue US "quagmire/occupation" in other ME countries and to forget about democracizing them, because Arabs don't care about democracy, but they will be attracted to/will fight US military presence in their region, and as long as they are doing that, they will have less interest or energy to attack the US mainland or Israel. Warren knows the difference between pre-emptive action versus fly paper occupation. He's saying that maybe quagmire is not so bad if it acts as a fly paper for terrorists, but he says the US needs to move on to other countries because the US military has reached the end of the line for what the stateside politicians will allow it to do in Iraq. The fly paper theory may work in the short term to deflect AQ attention from attacks on the US mainland, but there are embedded cells here so I don't think long term having our military fight battles far afield will have much protective effect for our country. I've read that terrorist cells take about 5 years of planning to strike a target, so the 3 years attack-free existence we have enjoyed here is just about timed out. Also, the terrorist combatants[to steal a label from the NYT] fighting our GI's in Afghanistan and in Iraq are different from the terrorist cells who aim to cause financial/political havoc by hitting domestic civilian soft targets in the West. I might be wrong but I don't think Warren thinks GWB is stupid or dumb. I think Warren views GWB as being naive about the ME culture and the religion of Islam. I think Warren fears that this naivity will cause GWB to make the wrong choices in Iraq. In fact Warren says he thinks it's the democracy vision that limits [imprisons] GWB and prevents him from seeing the situation realistically in Iraq and in the ME. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 3:19:16 PM |
| #7 I donât disagree with much of what you say, but I think my original point stands, and Iâm not really sure why you are taking issue with it. Then he says that one good thing that's come out of the Iraq War is that the US military is deflecting terrorist attacks from the US mainland and that this "fly paper" effect was not a pre-planned goal The goal was to make America safer by fighting the war in a pre-emptive (maybe you missed the shrill screeches from the left how this was only going to inflame and embolden the terrorists). The stated goal was to fight the battle overseas and to de-throne terrorist supporters in order to make us safer here at home. Author canât bare to praise Bush for this, so heâs reduced to saying that it was all just dumb luck. As if the current results we all just an accident. As if any war goes exactly as planned. The bottom line is that heâs admitting that the overall idea of taking them on over there, in a pre-emptive fashion has had positive results. We avoided terror attacks for the last 2 years here at home and the left seems to just be hoping weâll have another attack before the election, so that they can say, âseeâ¦we told you so..itâs all Bushâs fault we were attackedâ. Bush Admin has been successful with the overall war aims they started with. No war goes exactly as planned. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved their primary goals of defeating the terroristsâ havens abroad. The author is admitting this but is unable to give Bush any credit for it, applying the tired Bush is stupid meme. Iâm not sure what it is you disagree with. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-19 2:19:25 PM |
| #6 Sorry, #5, but I still don't see how Warren's observations about the unintended consequences about the Iraq War represent an "interesting admission" on Warren's part. If you mean to say that Warren is giving the WH a "back-handed compliment," I'd say you are right. He says on the one hand that a democratic government in Iraq is unlikely because of the complexity of politics, culture, religion in the ME, and that the WH was naive to think otherwise. I'd agree with Warren on that count. Then he says that one good thing that's come out of the Iraq War is that the US military is deflecting terrorist attacks from the US mainland and that this "fly paper" effect was not a pre-planned goal. I'd say he might be right. I think the WH thought that the Iraqis would embrace the military as liberators from the cruel Saddam Hussein and that Iraqis would pull together to get the country up and running even faster than what happened in Germany and Japan, because Germans and Japanese were not "liberated" per se, but rather were conquered. As for the US military applying this unintended "fly paper" consequence in Iraq to other ME countries, I think Warren is talking like a wishful thinking journalist rather than a down to earth boots on the ground military strategists. The US does not have the military manpower to take on other ME countries, especially when culturally "sensitive" wars are the order of the day. As for quagmire...who cares what word is used to describe the current unstable situation in Iraq? Whatever the word is, what's happening in Iraq now is not going to plan. Tommy Franks said we should not stay in Iraq longer than 5 years. I agree with him. And I don't think at the end of 5 years Iraq will look like what the neo-cons envisioned. I don't think it's our responsibility to make Iraq "perfect." I think we need to set our sights on some realistic goals and leave it at that. To have this airy fairy exit plan of leaving our GI's in Iraq "for as long as it takes" just to avoid the "Vietnam quagmire" label is being rather selfish to our brave GI's. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 1:49:33 PM |
| #5 It's working, after a fashion. Iraq continues to soak the enemy up. But whereas I formerly thought the Bush administration had adopted this policy consciously, I now realize it was a happy accident. They have consciously "taken the battle to the enemy", but the quagmire -- the "flypaper" -- was hung by mistake.â âPresident Bush's stated resolution is to alter conditions throughout the Middle East, to herald constitutional democracy. With the passage of months and years, this ambition becomes ever more ludicrous, not because the mission is absolutely impossible, but because the cost of achieving it would be vastly greater than the U.S. and allies could be willing to pay.â âMr. Bush is rhetorically trapped in his "vision", and yet it often happens that the right thing is done for the wrong reasons. â Laura Bush, looks beautiful. She usually looks dumpy. Isnât it lucky she stumbled upon a dress that makes her look prettier than she really is. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-19 11:35:37 AM |
| #4 And what's with the "quagmire"??? |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-08-19 11:35:04 AM |
| #3 It must be rather galling to the U.S. Marines, to be sent into the winding streets of Najaf, Iraq, at the risk of their lives, among bystanders of strange language and unknown sentiments, against the lethally-armed streetfighters of Moqtada al-Sadrâs "Imam Mahdi Army", to do the Iraqi governmentâs own dirty work I dunno... why don't you ask a Marine? |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-08-19 11:32:13 AM |
| #2 Interesting admission a) Call me clueless, but what was Warren's "admission?" b) Btw, I think Warren, inspite of beng a Canadian journalist, has generally been supportive of GWB since 9/11. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-19 11:17:44 AM |
| #1 Interesting admission, even if he added the usual, âBut I still think Bush is stupid, therefore I am smartâ disclaimer. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-19 10:29:28 AM |