5 thoughts on “Global Blogrillas Discover Victory in Iraq”

  1. Minorripper,

    Thanks for the link to your story [1]. Without criticizing those bravery I it, I think this video is a tame example of what you can get when you attempt to use a six-sigma solution (the US military) to achieve a two-sigma result (liberating the peoples of Iraq so that history & globalization can do the rest). Tom Barnett & co have talked about this dynamic before [2, 3].

    The occupation work in Iraq is best done by the Iraqis themselves, and their local allies.

    [1] http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
    [2] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003753.html
    [3] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003925.html
    [4] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/13/bush-s-korean-war.html

  2. Dan, thanks for the honorable mention.

    The idea that backing a sectarian base (especially given Iraq's history) is somehow worse than allowing complete chaos (a situation in which I'd say many more would perish on both sides of the Islamic coin) seems a bit foreign to me.

    The assumed scenario of “genocide” (an especially powerful term in light of the late Rwanda and on going Darfur) seems a bit off as well. The shia could easily assert political control of Iraq without commiting a sectarion “genocide.” Their sheer numbers, political popularity and dominant martial prowess nearly promise a quick end to any civil war.
    I see no basis for the idea that, for example, the Mahdi army's mission is the eradication of the sunni populace. However horrific their means the sectarion struggle in Iraq is politically motivated as two ideologies (who maintain a more tribal difference than religious) vie for control of Iraq not the erasure of each other.

    By either backing the Shia or simply stepping aside and allowing the obvious to mature we accomplish at least two things. One: Iraq stabilizes. It may not be the “democracy” we'd hoped for but the sectarion divide comes to an end and the US can effectively redeploy and deal with other on going elements…Like Afghanistan.
    Two: This one's a bit dodgy, but: We effectively leave al qaeda in it's own quagmire. Having extended mass resources to ensure sectarion violence and subsequent US involvement in Iraq, al qaeda finds itself embroiled as the shia take control.

    My short take anyway.

  3. Subadei,

    I agree that a sectarian base is better than complete chaos.

    I also agree that genocide is an improper term. Milosevic was right to call what he did ethnic cleansing — it's a qualitatively different activity. For that matter, the Soviets ethnically cleansed the Germans of Eastern Europe — I knew a girl whose grandparents were in a concentration camp there — but there was no genocide of them.

    The continued existence of the Sunnis to the Shia militia is largely irrelevant, I think. So long as they are crippled beyond an ability to regain power it's hard to see them having any designs for the Sunni populace.

    The obvious solution for us now, as it has been since the day we won major combat operations, is to give people who support us materiel, money, and air-cover. Sometimes a “three-sigma” local solution is better than a “six-sigma” imposed solution. Especially considering that West-generated “six-sigma” solutions tend to end in collapse and failure.

    Iran's system of government, the Islamic Republic, is roughly equivalent to Britain's a bit more than a century ago. A seeding of Iraq with that system woudl be as valuable to that country as the seeding of the British model was to the anglosphere.

    Thank you for your take. It's brilliant.

  4. This is your official invitation to visit my blog and take a stand with other anti-war progressives to unite the country.

    Victory or Defeat?
    you decide, but a tie is not an option.

    -red stater

  5. “Iran's system of government, the Islamic Republic, is roughly equivalent to Britain's a bit more than a century ago.”

    If you have time and are so inclined, please elaborate on this. The statement seem 180 degrees wrong to me (but we have been on this fault line before).

  6. Purpleslog,

    What follows is a descriptoin of the British government, a bit more than a century ago:

    a significant fraction of the male populat was allowed to vote for one house of the government (the House of Commons) and, indirectly, the leader of that house (the Prime Minister)
    a higher house, composed of a combination of theocratic rulers (the Lords Spiritual) and privileged families (the Lords Temproal) had veto power over the acts of the elected government.
    A completely unelected supreme leader, who had to pass a religious test to assume or keep the office, was able to influence policy outcomes and cultural mores

    That the British “democracy” a century ago is shoddy by our modern standards really isn't important. What was amazingly important is that peaceful processes were used to set government policy and they reflected the changing preferences of a disprused, marketized power elite (which incidentally was secular, too).

    The above description also closely matches the Islamic Republic, with its Supreme Leader, its Guardian Council, its democratic institutions, its dismal mosque attendence, etc.

    Red Stater,

    Thank you for the invitation, but as I don't consider myself dovish or progressive, perhaps you misconstrued my blog. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *