This man is not even trying to win the election.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Then in April, April was a very interesting year (sic) in 2007. That’s when Harry Reid said the war is lost and we got to get out. And the buzzword was “timetables.”

“Timetables.” say to you again, the debate after the election of 2006 was whether we were going to have timetables for withdrawal or not. Timetables were the buzz word. That was the Iraq study group. That was what the Democrats said we wanted to do. Your answer should have been no.

Governor, the right answer to that question was “no,” not what you said, and that was, we don’t want to have to lay — have them lay in the weeds until we leave, and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, “timetables.”

Timetables was the buzzword for withdrawal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

McCain talking to Blitzer a couple hours ago: [Maliki said] “it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.”

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_16_mos_i.html

After spending the whole week criticizing Obama’s 16 month timetable, McCain now appears to be embracing it, albeit, with ‘condition-based’ designations.

In less than a week,

[i]n a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama’s 16-month proposal, he not only legitimized the plan. …

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/maliki_casts_his_vote.html
–Krauthammer

I can see it now, at the R. convention we’ll hear McCain say something like:

“I’ve been saying 16 months was a good idea a long time. My 16 month timetable is conditions based; Obama’s is not, it’s ‘artificial,’ ‘fixed’, embedded in steel, unalterable, a divine command never to be broken; hence, it ‘would lead to disaster’.”

The reality is, if McCain moves any more closer, he might as well just endorse Obama’s withdrawal plan.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

… whereas Mr. Obama was thinking in terms of retreat, Mr. Maliki on the other hand was suggesting the natural outcome of victory: that America’s soldiers, who had fought a hard won yet incidental battle against the ultimate jihadist aim of resurrecting an Islamic Empire, could go home with laurels and to acclaim.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You spoke earlier of American interests trumping Iraqi interest and now you’re implying it’s not up to us to say whether we are satisfied with the results in Iraq.

Now what did I say to give you that impression, Dave? What I said was that it was in both the Iraqi and US interests to depose the Saddam regime. I did not say one trumped the other. Is there somewhere I did not convey my opinion with clarity? Do show me.

Mata:Muslim leaders that are aiding the US in the GWOT are always at odds with their population, who hold unpleasant views of the US.

Dave: Please give me an example of a country that fits into your category. In Iran it’s basically the opposite of what you say. Ahmedinejad rails against the United States, but the people of Iran have much more positive views of the United States.

Please re read my sentence. I said “leaders that are *aiding* the US in the GWOT…”. Iran and Ahmadinejad do not fall into that category. Pakistan does. To an extent, so does the UAE/Dubai etal. However their population is more western tolerant and capitalist, so those that dissent are fewer in number than in Pakistan. But you can count on one hand the number of Muslim states that *aid* the US. With Iraq, we will add one more, after adding Afghanistan previously. Libya is not aiding the US, but did voluntarily yield their nuke problem *program* (second time I’ve made that freudian slip… ) after we toppled Saddam’s regime.

INRE the democratic v misleading bit…. What is construed as “misleading” is not always as it seems. For example, you felt misled on Iraq. I do not. The Harmony/IIS documents confirmed what the intel was saying… that Saddam was actively engaging in relationship with militant groups as an unofficial state weapon.

Fact is, the populus is not in possession of all the facts. They are, however, in possession of their emotions. For example, Oregon passed a feel good measure about land zoning and development here called Measure 37. What a nightmare, and what an anti-Constitutional resolution that was. It enabled a long term Oregon resident more authority to ignore comprehensive land planning, and a newer resident did not enjoy that authority. Not to mention, the impact on development affected the surrounding farms, water and water table quality. The people wanted it because it sounded good… ala “I should be able to do whatever I want with my land”.

However it was what they didn’t know about comprehensive plans and it’s effect that was it’s downfall, leading to a revote restricting it by a Measure 49. So if you ask me, do I trust the population, or those in possession of the most information, to make a decision… I’ll take the later.

I will remind you, we live in a republic, not a democracy. The “majority” do not have absolute rule of law – thank heavens. Nor do I trust putting our national security and foreign policy decisions in the hands of the population… or even Congress.

Iran is an interesting story to me, and because their population is rebellious in nature against the ruling govt, and more western friendly in culture. I tend to think that nation will end up falling by their population’s hand. At least, that is my hope.

Mata:Expecting gratitude, love and or adoration? *That’s* elitist.

Dave: Did I ever say I wanted the love or adoration of the Iraqis? But gratitude is quite another thing.

Again re read my sentence. Gratitude, love and or adoration…. meaning any one, or any combination of the three. And in all your recap of history, not one had cultural differences as wide as Islam v west. Frankly, I’m actually pleased Kuwait is as grateful and embracing western tolerance as much as they do. But I don’t consider them the norm.

The final word from me is this… I don’t need, nor demand gratitude. What I do demand is cooperation in intel and holding jihad in check. Period. Anything else is just feel good emotions.

But my point was not to disparage the Iraqis, but rather to point out as I did that it is naturally humiliating to have a foreign army liberate you and then occupy your country for five years, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, frightening your women and children, and stopping you at checkpoints (and that’s not our troops fault, it’s what they have to do).

How John Kerry of you…. And how kind of you to try and give the troops a pass by saying it’s not their fault. pshaw… I’m going to ignore that BS, Dave.

No one likes being occupied. However two facts are ever present. From day one, Bush has always said if the Iraq govt asks us to leave, we leave. They did not ask us to leave, and only as of a couple weeks ago are entertaining a formal plan for cautious, condition based withdrawal. They may have pride, but they also recognized to achieve what they wanted, they needed help.

You insinuate a psychological damage in pride by our aid to the Iraqis. I have to wonder if you extend that same analogy to the welfare programs of the US? Or is your “tough love” version only for foreign nations?

It is one of the many reasons that Iraq was such a poor choice for an experiment in democracy.

Well now, get a good recipe for crow when the Iraqis prove you wrong. You are quite incorrect. Pakistanis vote down Islamic law by majority. Palestine did not vote Hamas in for violence and jihad, they voted them in for their welfare programs. If you notice, genuine free elections in Muslim countries tend to vote for a balance between Islam and freedom, without subjecting them to rigid Islamic law as State rule.

You must recognize that an Arab democracy will not, and never will, look like the US. But then, by definition, that is democracy… they may choose to structure their rule as best suits their populus. However you are wrong that they choose to be under militant Islamic rule and vote for the 3rd world conditions that it brings.

Contrary… Iraq is the perfect place for that experiment. It has been done in other smaller Muslim countries to some extent over time. But if such a radical nation, with people who have never experienced this in their lifetime, can achieve it, so can others.

And again, you must correct your language. *We* did not try to create a democracy. The Iraqis did. Their Constitution, their structure, their elections choices (and living with their bad choices, just as we do…) their approval of it all. What we merely did was enable them the environment to do so, and gave them guidance when requested.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

I didn’t mean happy as in “whoppee.” I meant satisfied. I am not satisfied. You spoke earlier of American interests trumping Iraqi interest and now you’re implying it’s not up to us to say whether we are satisfied with the results in Iraq. It most certainly is. It is our blood and treasure that was expended.

“Implausible? Disbelieve all you like, but it happens before your nose daily. Muslim leaders that are aiding the US in the GWOT are always at odds with their population, who hold unpleasant views of the US. Our cultural differences will always keep that chasm wide. However the elected leaders – not the population – have the power to tacitly aid the US. They do so, then must deal with the backlash of the population. Generally the outrage dies down.”

Please give me an example of a country that fits into your category. In Iran it’s basically the opposite of what you say. Ahmedinejad rails against the United States, but the people of Iran have much more positive views of the United States.

“I don’t know what to say to you. What you are basically saying is that if the leaders are misleading the population and they are not catching on, it’s anti-democratic. I suggest to you that goes on daily here in the good ol’ USA by our Congress, and aided by their media.”
And I don’t know what to say to you. Because it goes on in the USA, does not mean it isn’t anti-democratic. If you’re fine with the government misleading the people, so be it. I am not. I don’t want to be misled. We can handle the truth. We don’t need to be brainwashed, managed, pandered to, or manipulated.

You can tell someone is straining in an argument when they create straw men. There are enough straw men on this blog to populate every cornfield in Iowa, but I expect more from you. Did I ever say I wanted the love or adoration of the Iraqis? But gratitude is quite another thing. Why do you think General Pershing when he landed on the French coast during the First World War said “Lafayette. we are here.” Because the general was a weak-kneed sycophant kissing up to the French? No, as many have forgotten in the era of “freedom fries,” the French were instrumental in our victory against the British. First, they bankrolled the Revolution. Then Lafayette and others fought beside us. And at the decisive Battle of Yorktown, when the British fleet out of New York came down the coast to relieve our siege of Yorktown, the French ships sailed out of the James River to intercept the British fleet, maintaining the siege and enabling us to win the War. General Pershing spoke words of gratitude to the French, not love or adoration.

Yes, our situation prior to the Revolution was different logistically than the plight of the Iraqis. But my point was not to disparage the Iraqis, but rather to point out as I did that it is naturally humiliating to have a foreign army liberate you and then occupy your country for five years, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, frightening your women and children, and stopping you at checkpoints (and that’s not our troops fault, it’s what they have to do). Foreign boots on your soil evoke anger and resentment at a visceral level, whether they come as liberators or not.

“Whether the Germans and Japanese hate or love us isn’t the issue. Their cultures are not as diametrically opposed as is Islam and western culture. We had more in common to begin with.”
Germany was a Christian country, but it had effectively been a military dictatorship for many decades. Even before Hitler. And the Japanese were led by militarists who wanted to restore a feudal society. In addition, religiously the Japanese largely were Buddhist and Shintoists, both are very different from Christianity.

However, I agree with you that a Muslim culture has elements that are diametricallhy opposed to our culture. Specifically, Muslim culture is intrinsically inhospitable to democratic principles, because Islam in its fundamentalist form dictates a theocratic society. That is inherently antithetical to democracy. It involves the imposition of standards and law from above, from the clerics. It is one of the many reasons that Iraq was such a poor choice for an experiment in democracy.

Add to that two ethnicities (Arab and Kurd) interwoven with two antagonistic sects of Islam, a long history of dictatorship and no meaningful history of successful democracy and you start of with your foot very deep in a hole when you try to create a democracy in Iraq.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mr. Dave: I’m going to bounce out of order here on your points.

Precisely. I never said we picked their leader. The simple fact is that our blood and treasure were expended to bring democracy to the Iraqis. If we are unhappy with the end result, then our precious resources were not well spent.

I’m not unhappy with the results. Nor is it the goal to liberate so we can be “happy” with the results. A democracy is for the populus to be able to choose and form their own government, and choose their leaders. This they have done.

This is contradictory, the statement you quote says a government can’t support the WOT without the support of the people. And then you turn around and say, well actually they can if they make believe they hate the US. Then the people won’t catch on that they are really helping us.

First off, that’s anti-democratic on their. Secondly, it’s paternalistic on your part. And thirdly, it’s implausible; it won’t work. snip

I don’t know what to say to you. What you are basically saying is that if the leaders are misleading the population and they are not catching on, it’s anti-democratic. I suggest to you that goes on daily here in the good ol’ USA by our Congress, and aided by their media.

Implausible? Disbelieve all you like, but it happens before your nose daily. Muslim leaders that are aiding the US in the GWOT are always at odds with their population, who hold unpleasant views of the US. Our cultural differences will always keep that chasm wide. However the elected leaders – not the population – have the power to tacitly aid the US. They do so, then must deal with the backlash of the population. Generally the outrage dies down.

Iraq, once completely on their own, will do the same as Pakistan. They will rail about any US incursions via air (and most certainly boots on ground) into their terroritory. The leaders will, most likely, allow all they can. But they will always put on a public face of disapproval to their population. Muslims place a great deal of import on face and pride. Even the enemy finds negotiations distasteful and a sign of weakness. When they have engaged in such in the past (ala pre Tora Bora), it has been for strategic purposes to regroup and rearm.

Until you learn to see things not only thru western eyes, such a duality will always remain implausible to you. That, however, does not mean it is not a reality in practice.

It was you who spoke of Muslim leaders taking our money and then expressing hatred for us. Now, you say you’re OK with that. Are you really? It’s OK for someone we liberated to express hatred for us? The Germans and Japanese don’t express hatred for us. If we liberated the Iraqis, don’t you think they should be grateful?

In a word… no. As I said, the liberation was not only for them, but for us. Whether the Germans and Japanese hate or love us isn’t the issue. Their cultures are not as diametrically opposed as is Islam and western culture. We had more in common to begin with.

But love and gratitude isn’t the quest. Cooperation in stemming the jihad tide is.

Again, please look at your own words. They are blatantly paternalistic,while at the same time you disavow elitism. You depict the Iraqi people as our children that we raise and when they are grown into young adults, we send them out on their own. We liberated ourselves in the 18th century. That is one of the reasons for the success of our democracy. When someone else liberates you, it is inherently demeaning.

Let me address our own American Revolution first, as it applies then to the first part of your comment.

Our oppressor was an ocean away. We had all the home field advantages of lay of the land, armed citizens with resources and equipment at our disposal available from Mother Nature and man’s ingenuity. Our enemy had to ship armies and work with whatever they could bring. They had no intel on the locals and their loyalities.

By contrast, Saddam and his Ba’athists/IIS and army held all the cards, equipment and advantages. Any rebel insurrection could be easily dealt with by massacre, and future insurrections deterred by more midnight raids, imprisonment, torture and mass graves. The Iraqis as a people didn’t have a chance to go up against Saddam’s regime. In that way, they were unprotected children.

What you call elitist and paternalistic, I call common sense. When you help those not equipped be liberated, you then provide them with the knowledge and tools to maintain that liberation before walking away. Rather like dressing a wound, then following up to insure it doesn’t get infected or gangrened.

To abandon the Iraqis… who’ve never known anything but dictatorship for at least three decades… after removing Saddam would be to doom the liberation. They needed guidance to form a government structure which was totally alien to them. They did so, and made it their own. Once they get their bureauracy running… i.e. functional and supplied police, military, their budget and expenditures running thru legislation, and all red tape aspects of a central government, they are ready to fly solo.

This is not elitist. This is making sure that the lives lost in the liberation of all countries – civilian and warrior – were not in vain. Expecting gratitude, love and or adoration? *That’s* elitist.

So I wave to you, in your glass house, from my own US timber log home.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

“How absurd, Dave… the entire damn government wouldn’t be there if the US hadn’t removed Saddam.”

Precisely. I never said we picked their leader. The simple fact is that our blood and treasure were expended to bring democracy to the Iraqis. If we are unhappy with the end result, then our precious resources were not well spent.

It was you who spoke of Muslim leaders taking our money and then expressing hatred for us. Now, you say you’re OK with that. Are you really? It’s OK for someone we liberated to express hatred for us? The Germans and Japanese don’t express hatred for us. If we liberated the Iraqis, don’t you think they should be grateful?

“We liberate them from their oppression, help stand ‘em up on their feet, and shove ‘em out the door, like young adults, when ready. We do so not just for them, but for our own benefit and self defense as well. There is no room for elitist attitudes here.”
Again, please look at your own words. They are blatantly paternalistic,while at the same time you disavow elitism. You depict the Iraqi people as our children that we raise and when they are grown into young adults, we send them out on their own. We liberated ourselves in the 18th century. That is one of the reasons for the success of our democracy. When someone else liberates you, it is inherently demeaning.

“What the allies and the world must understand is that no government, whether political or military, can remain involved in this global war on terrorism unless the majority of public sentiment backs it,”….You quote and then add: “Thus their public duality.”

This is contradictory, the statement you quote says a government can’t support the WOT without the support of the people. And then you turn around and say, well actually they can if they make believe they hate the US. Then the people won’t catch on that they are really helping us.

First off, that’s anti-democratic on their. Secondly, it’s paternalistic on your part. And thirdly, it’s implausible; it won’t work. Look at PK under Musharaf. BTW, we didn’t give Bhutto $10B. and call her our ally in the WOT.

If I were you, I would be more careful throwing the elitist label at other people. You know, glass houses and all.

But I am enjoying this conversation. Despite my argumentative tone, I think you are really wrestling with these issues, as am I.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And no, I do not think Maliki loves the US. And your correction is hypertechnical. Yes, he was elected by the Iraqi people, but he wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for us.

How absurd, Dave… the entire damn government wouldn’t be there if the US hadn’t removed Saddam. That doesn’t mean we created their government structure and picked their leaders, for cripes sake!

Now, I’m the Musharaf-basher?

It was you who disparagingly referred to Maliki as a “Musharaf-in the-making”, who would turn around like every other Muslim leader and say how much he hated America.

~~~

Sounds to me like you are there putting Maliki and Musharaf in the same category of ungrateful Muslim leaders who bite the hand that feeds them.

I want to get this out of the way… you apparently want some sort of gratitude or thanks, and consider the US the “hand that feeds them”. It is this notion that the US may perceive itself as a kindly, benevolent dictator with the power to give and take away that riles the Muslim countries.

The US forces and support groups that are there do not feel, nor conduct themselves in such a condescending way. However citizens here (obviously you…) and our press give that illusion. It’s truly a snobbish attitude to take. We liberate them from their oppression, help stand ‘em up on their feet, and shove ‘em out the door, like young adults, when ready. We do so not just for them, but for our own benefit and self defense as well. There is no room for elitist attitudes here.

Now, INRE Musharraf and your “ungrateful” dictators. Shall we revisit my statement first from #9 in it’s *entirety* and with some emphasis to make my point? You left out the first two sentences… the “subject” of the paragraph, guy.

And of course I recognize Maliki’s “pressure to retake the state”. Did I not say it’s pre election posturing? Maliki is another Musharraf story in the making… and not the last one for any leader in a Muslim nation. They will always not to want to be seen as an American puppet. But they will also be just as quick to call on the US when they need help, and take our American dollar for intel and WOT aid.. all while still proclaiming their hatred for the US.

Please note, the entire paragraph is about the pressure on Maliki during campaign season. Altho they walk that careful line even during tenure.

If you’ll note, I did not say they hated the US. I said they’d be “proclaiming” their hatred… something they need to do to retain public support or – like Obama – telling them what they want to hear. Probably because of that elistist American attitude that you demonstrated so well.

You’ll see my same “puppet theory” rephrased in #17, where I referred to you as a Musharraf basher

Sorry to hear you’re one of those Musharraf bashers. No doubt you thought Benazir was an improvement? Then you are a victim of media indoctrination and a revisionist history campaign. Musharraf may not “love” us, but he also doesn’t “hate” us.

And if you think Maliki “loves” the US, you are really in for a surprise. He is, like any other Muslim leader, mindful that his country needs something from us, but will never have any great love or respect for America. Our cultures are worlds apart. The best we will ever hope for is a leader who will do what’s right on intel and aid in holding the jihad forces back.

Again, I do not refer to either Musharraf, nor Maliki in any disparaging way. I just recognize that Muslims and their culture differ so much from our western culture that we will not necessarily be adored and held up as a role model. So I expect very little in the way of adoration from a Muslim nation or their leaders. That doesn’t bother me, and we don’t need it.

What I do expect is cooperation against jihad. And I don’t care if they have to say – in the news daily – how much they despise America (true or not) in order to keep public support for aid in the war against the spread of the global Islamic jihad movement.

But just so you know, personally I have a great deal of respect for the Musharraf’s and Maliki’s of the world. There are many that wish them dead because they deal with the US and the western world. But they choose to walk that fine line because they know it’s in the best interests for their country. Takes a lot of balls. And I have to give it to ‘em for that.

So you see, your word, disparaging was not in my context, but did land in yours. And yes, Musharraf was a dictator. Then again, despite Pakistan’s structure, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir were also. The PPP and PML-N coalition parties remain today closely aligned with many that desire Islamic law as State rule. Benazir being even more heinous, adding as one of her many corrupt accomplishments creation and nurturing of Mulla Omar’s Taliban – the old version that harbored AQ.

So I can honestly say, Musharraf has more to his credit for his tenures in power than Benazir has for hers and her tenure of corruption. At least, post 911, Pakistan did turn into a Muslim ally… or as I like to call them, a hostile or quasi ally.

Back to puppets…To give you an example of this dance of helping the US, and dealing with the “puppet” image, one need only look at Ghani’s (NWTA Gov) quote INRE the Cowboy, Obama.

“What the allies and the world must understand is that no government, whether political or military, can remain involved in this global war on terrorism unless the majority of public sentiment backs it,”….

Thus their public duality… We can expect no more – most assuredly not gratitude, love and adoration for “the hand that feeds them” – and it is rightly so. They should be for Iraq first. We should be for America first. And we should cooperate in matters of int’l safety against jihad movements.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

” flip-flopping. I personally would like to eliminate that term from our political discourse.
“–Dave Hussein Noble

I’ll bet you would.

Like or Dislike: 0  0