Bunch of good news from Iraq

[Cyrus]

Ex-U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and a political activist, is being considered as a candidate for the Saddam Hussein legal defense team. A U.S. official close to the Iraqi High Tribunal said that if the proper motion for this was filed it would probably be accepted. link

Think about it.

Ramsey Clark has been a thorn at the sides of American foreign policy for decades, usually taking up unpopupal, radical positions. On the other hand, up to now, two lawyers from Saddam's legal defense team have already been assassinated.

I mean, have those Americans in charge of Iraq started doing the math or what ?

...Meantime, in a bit of unrelated news, ex-Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who had been appointed there by the U.S., declared yesterday that the abuse and torture situation in Iraq is as bad or worse than under Saddam Hussein. link

Incidentally, Mr Allawi is running for office in the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 15.

So, yes, Iraq could be well on its way towards genuine, western-style democracy :

Here we have an Iraqi statesman saying one thing while in power and then its complete opposite when running for office from the opposition -- even it that means running against himself!
(Kinda like "running against Washington", innit?)

And, finally, Iraqi troops continue to train heavily, getting ready to take over the whole security situation thingy :


Iraqi soldiers are holding aloft targets for
their colleagues to practice at.

[Cyrus]

A big slab was chipped off Authority in the Supreme Court yesterday, but libertarians present were not pleased

This just in...

Leading Democrat speaks encouraging words...

<ul type="square"> Interesting or just a new spin?[/list]

Pigs reported flying in DC area. Film at eleven.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Pigs reported flying in DC area. Film at eleven.

[/ QUOTE ]

[4 High]

[ QUOTE ]
This just in...

Leading Democrat speaks encouraging words...

<ul type="square"> Interesting or just a new spin?[/list]

Pigs reported flying in DC area. Film at eleven.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @Joe Liberman being a Democrat.

[Cyrus]

Lieberman is one of the staunchest supporters of Israel in American politics. He was a natural supporter of the war in Iraq -- for all the wrong reasons. He continues to support the war effort, with every wrong reasoning there is.

If I knew that this was about Lieberman supporting the war, I would not have even checked out yer link. Might as well have a link about Michael Moore opposing the war. There is nothing new there.

[Cyrus]

Some analysts are aguing that newly evolving and semi-stable democracies can actually be a lot more bellicose or even belligerent than pure dictatorships or old, historical democracies. (There's a book that's recently out on this theme.)

The reason is that leaders in such "democracies" cannot rely on pure force to retain power, e.g. explicit domestic repression, so they resort to the lowest common denominator of human passions -- usually extreme nationalism -- to "get the votes". The case made by the emergent republics in former USSR is devastating in this context, as is also the case made by former Soviet bloc countries in the Balkans.

So the United States might end up in Iraq with a regime that's stable enough to allow a dignified exit of those damn U.S. troops (who continue to get annoyingly killed every day) yet unstable enough to affect the whole region's peace once again. Shiites against Sunni Jordan? Sunnis against Shiite Iran? Kurds against Turks? Combinations thereof? Pick yer poison, those analysts say.

In restrospect, those (otherwise hawkish) analysts conclude that a Saddam Hussein who would have been tamed enough and brought to his senses enough and made pliable enough (through the methods that now seem, again in restrospect, to have been succeeding towards such an objective), would have been the West's best option to keep the lid on and hold together what is called Iraq.

...By the way, the same analysts have studied the history (last 30 years more or less) of belligerent, extreme Islam and the pattern shows that the foreigners now fighting against the American troops in Iraq will go on to become (and I quote) "the shock troops of worldwide muslim terror".

Nice.

[MMMMMM]

Hello Good Cyrus,

In light of your failure to grasp the meaning of Natedogg's use of the abstruse terms, "usually" and "most" (found here), I suspect you will have some fun with this (I know I did).

(excerpt)"My friend writes of one critic's "tendentious assertions, typically offered in the protasis of his sentences in order to enhance the aura of casual but apodictic assurance."(end excerpt)

How's that grab ya, Cyrus? Care to proffer some trenchant commentary on that? Or maybe you and I had better stick to the easy stuff, like "usually" and "most"...don't you think?

Here's the article, with overall some fair points made about progress in Iraq, both seen and unseen; and regarding the slightly-longer-term perspective. Besides, Cyrus, even if you have reason to complain about the writing skill of natedogg (which I doubt), you really can't very well complain about the writing skill of Bill Buckley.

I have a fine confidence that you will comprehend "most" of this article, dear Cyrus...as is "usually" the case...and I await your incisive analysis, as always...


"November 22, 2005, 1:18 p.m.
On the Other Hand ...

The headlines today — "Iraqi Factions/Seek Timetable/For U.S. Pullout" — encourage another look at the Iraq situation, focused not on the desolation of the enterprise, but on the planks of despair. Is it really true that the Sunni and the Shiites are making common cause? Indeed, the report in the New York Times tells of 100 Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders who have signed a statement in which "a withdrawal of foreign troops" is demanded "on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces."

A learned observer writes about that which he classifies as "increasingly surreal." "I find, about discussions of Iraq, two universes of discourse, parallel but not contiguous. When I talk to one set of friends and acquaintances or read what they write, I get one version of what is going on. When I talk with another set, or read what they write, I get an entirely different and incompatible assessment. If you talk to military affairs specialists like Victor Davis Hanson, or political analysts like David Pryce-Jones, you get the sense that immense progress has been and is being made both in getting rid of the terrorists and in establishing a workable society in Iraq."

It is certainly true that we do not read much about, or ponder at all, the importance of terrorist plots discovered and disrupted. We are not told how many senior al-Qaeda agents are in custody.

We are reminded of the Iraq constitution and know, of course, of the great election only a few weeks away, on December 15. Is there a corresponding explosion of municipal and business infrastructure? Water and sanitation and communications systems, schools, oil pipelines, local and national business initiatives? Does the eye of reason see in the frenzies of the terrorists desperation of the kind insurgents feel who see defeat ahead, not victory? The kind of people who are prepared to bomb children to express their desperation?

Critics talk of "racing for the exits" in Iraq. But — most emphatically, by a vote of 403–3 — Congress recently rejected with fervor exits of the type associated with despair. The terrorists are acting like the beleaguered Japanese in Okinawa when they saw themselves destined to defeat, alienation, and even deracination. My friend writes of one critic's "tendentious assertions, typically offered in the protasis of his sentences in order to enhance the aura of casual but apodictic assurance. 'But while the war is lost both as a political matter at home and a practical matter in Iraq . . . ' Hello? What confirmation do we have of exit strategies going on by the president or his Secretary of State or his Secretary of Defense?"

The New York Post on Sunday assembled a comparison of what Messrs. Reid, Clinton, Dean, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, and Byrd had to say about going into Iraq, the threat of Iraq, the dangers in ignoring the threat of Iraq, the advantages, strategic and moral in asserting ourselves there, the need to enforce the resolutions of the U.N. being ignored by Saddam Hussein. . . The Post set these comments over against the language being used today by the summer soldiers. It is illuminating and casts a long shadow over the future of the United States, the security of the commander in chief, and the longevity of the national will.

My correspondent concludes, "You told me that your friend predicted that within six months of the election, it would be clear to all that the country was on its feet. Is he correct? I do not know. I note that many people assured me that a constitution would never be ratified in Iraq. They were, by and large, the same people who assured me that were the U.S. to invade Iraq, the Arab street would erupt in a world jihad.

"The supposedly impossible thing in fact happened, and the dead certainty failed to take place. Even more curious is how little difference that has made in the — is the word appropriate? — debate. Reality — what actually happened or seemed to happen — somehow hasn't counted for much when it comes to informing opinion on Iraq. Six months from the election takes us to 15 June. It would be interesting to step back and specify some milestones by which we could judge the campaign: what developments, were they accomplished, would lead us to judge the venture a success? What are some alternative eventualities that would compel us to acknowledge failure?

"We could scribble a few such criteria on a sheet of paper now and seal it in an envelope marked, 'Do not open until June 15, 2006.' Then, on a balmy summer eve, we could have an envelope-opening ceremony and see where things stood. I suspect the backers of Mr. Bush would have something to celebrate."

Open to all for comments and discussion, as always...

http://nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200511221318.asp

[andyfox]

I've always loved listening to Buckley, despite my disdain for his 13th century political viewpoints. He's extraordinarily well-spoken and superbly entertaining.

But I've always found his political writing virtually unreadable and indecipherable. The present citation is no exception.

So I guess I fail the reading comprehension test. What, exactly, do you think Buckley is saying here?

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]

So the United States might end up in Iraq with a regime that's stable enough to allow a dignified exit of those damn U.S. troops (who continue to get annoyingly killed every day) yet unstable enough to affect the whole region's peace once again. Shiites against Sunni Jordan? Sunnis against Shiite Iran? Kurds against Turks? Combinations thereof? Pick yer poison, those analysts say.


[/ QUOTE ]

"damn" US troops ??

[ QUOTE ]

In restrospect, those (otherwise hawkish) analysts conclude that a Saddam Hussein who would have been tamed enough and brought to his senses enough and made pliable enough (through the methods that now seem, again in restrospect, to have been succeeding towards such an objective), would have been the West's best option to keep the lid on and hold together what is called Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam Hussein as the "best option" to hold the region together? In "retrospect", with these "analysts" un-biased opinions and understandings of the region this is difficult to buy. Relying on ones safety with an insane dictator is usually not the best option.