Did I say you said anything about Michael Moore? Nope. I merely suggested that you and “your ilk” tend to equate everyone who disagrees with you with Moore.

As for engaging in a substantive discussion, I have repeatedly tried to get pro-war folks on this board to ponder what will happen if Iraq fails to flourish into a Jeffersonian democracy. Some, like Terrye, have made an attempt (if somewhat half-assed) to address the arguments. Others, like you, resort to sneering and insults from the outset, presumably because your vision of the world as a giant game of Risk cannot be defended on the merits.

To be blunt – you’re an arrested adolescent and a mindless repeater of cant.

illison,

You are now being completely dishonest in your argument. You protest over straw men and then chastise me for mentioning Michael Moore. Perhaps you could point out where I mentioned Michael Moore?

For all your protestations you have not even bothered to try to engage in a discussion. All you have done, from one post to another, is inform us what you imagine we believe and then belittle us for opinions we don’t actually hold.

To be blunt — you’re a lightweight and a joke.

Thibaud – Your question doesn’t seem very relevant, since my position on the war in the Balkans vis a vis it’s opposition seems to have little to do with the current situation. Suffice to say I don’t remember a rah-rah chorus of near the smugness or volume we’re currently seeing, so I probably didn’t have occasion to comment on it. But yes, I think I would have questioned whether people who chatter in an echo chamber of mutual agreement were really doing something positive. And I continue to be mystified by your repeated references to Bill Clinton, whom nobody else has even mentioned. Note that Bush, prior to the invasion, had a bit more relevant information than Clinton had at the time the ILA was passed – namely the inspectors were starting to doubt the existence of WMD in Iraq leading up to the invasion, but Bush didn’t want to hear that so he demanded their withdrawal. Remember that the WMD, not a grand plan to export democract, was presented as the main (though not the only) reason to invade.

PW – name-calling and triumphalism about the November elections are not worth responding to.

Wow, one really needs to be a reactionary miscreant to seriously attempt to make a case of equivalence between communism and democracy, despite the former’s near-universal failing, and the latter’s respectable and centuries-spanning track record. Do you honestly believe that nonsense you wrote there or are you just trolling for attention by being as outrageous and over-the-top as possible? I’m wondering, seriously.

Trust me, I haven’t forgotten about communism. I happened to get to experience it first-hand, and I’ll take democracy over it and any other totalitarian system any day, no matter the imperfections that any democratic system will obviously have. Apparently, you’re more into the notion of “stability” that already worked so well for Kerry and the Democrats two months ago.

You completely ignore the idea that we all might be better served if people outlined what “democracy” in Iraq might look like so that we can avoid misunderstanding one another.

You’re blissfully ignorant of the existing Iraqi democracy that has already been functioning, and functioning superbly, for over a decade, in Kurdish Iraq. Under the protection of US and UK warplanes– not ground troops– the Kurds created a succesful parliament (including female representatives), competing political parties, a free newsmedia, independent courts, and a reasonably thriving economy. The latter was based mainly on smuggling, but Iraq’s democratic regime will of course have the great stimulus of oil wealth for its burgeoning consumer economy.

Also, perhaps you’ve never been to the United Kingdom or Canada but if you ever do set foot outside the good ol’ US of A, the good folks in those parts will teach you about the notion of federalism. Are you aware that the Scots have their own parliament, with if I’m not mistaken their own taxing authority? Why can’t the Kurds’ existing, well-functioning democratic institutions be granted a similar degree of autonomy within the greater Iraqi democratic union? The Kurds are cooperating completely with Sistani and the shi’a and are participating in the democratic elections as normal and responsible competitors in the political marketplace of the new Iraq. This isn’t “optimism,” this is fact.

Is it a democracy if parts of Iraq can’t vote in the elections?

So El Salvador’s turn to democracy over a decade ago was not valid, eh? What level of turnout triggers your approval– 70%? 60%? Again, the fact remains that Iraq’s turnout will exceed by a comfortable margin the turnout achieved in the Palestinian elections. Why in your universe are the latter valid and the former not?

Are you talking about having proportional representation, with the leader of Iraq then chosen by a parliament in which parties build coalitions?

Why are you badgering people here with factual queries that you can easily resolve with a little googling? The elections will return party lists to a constituent assembly and interim government. THe more votes for each list, the more of that list’s members gain seats. This is consistent with European proportional democratic systems.

In your Iraqi “democracy”, whatever form that takes,…

Your cute attempt at irony embarrasses only yourself. The Iraqi Kurds have a functioning democracy, remember? This is fact.

… it seems pretty clear that each party/ethnic/religious group is going to seek to have protections for their interests built into the government, most likely in the form of guaranteed representation. Is that a democracy?

There’s a nice heads-I-win pseudo argument.

No guaranteed representation for the sunni? The sunnis are disenfranchised!!

Guaranteed representation? It’s not democratic!!

Yes, Virginia, democratics in complex polities often have a mix of democratic and proportional and republican elements. Perhaps you’ve heard of that non-democratic apportionment of power enshrined in the senate of the United States? Yes? That’s better, now you’re learning.

illison,

I’m still awaiting an answer to my question,

Did you find it “sickening” when liberal western citizens considered themselves to have “done something” positive when they sat down to their keyboards and attacked western isolationists who opposed our unilateral intervention in the balkan wars? If not, then why the switcheroo?

To your other points, I too am disgusted by the dismissal by the president’s men of the planning work done by State. I don’t think it’s unfair to accuse the administration of failing to anticipate the ba’athists’ adoption of the tried and true arab strategy of Lebanese-style terror-cum-guerrilla war with Syrian support. This was a serious mistake, and I agree that the optimism of Wolfowitz et al. was seriously misplaced.

You could argue that Wolfowitz should have known better– he did a brilliant job of pushing the Reagan admin to drop Marcos in the Philippines in 1985 in the right way and with excellent timing, neither too fast nor too slow. Same for urging the US to push the Soviets toward collapse and unilateral surrender of their empire– against the wishes of the Kissingerians. Perhaps his earlier successes blinded Wolfowitz to the difficulties of defeating a fascist dictatorship that had destroyed much of the non-Kurdish Iraqis’ ability and willingness to suppress the fascists militarily.

But it does not follow that defeating fascism in Iraq is or was the wrong strategy. You may recall that it was Clinton, for whom I voted twice, who orginated this policy. Clinton urged the nation not to permit Saddam to rebuild his “devastating arsenal” and therefore made war against Saddam in 1998, simultaneously pushing Congress to legislate that “regime change in Iraq is the official policy of the United States.” Clinton said then and has never retreated from his assertion that our best intelligence estimates indicated Saddam would get WMD and that, as Clinton put it to the nation in 1998, “if he gets [WMD] I guarantee you he will use them.”

So in fact the only daylight between the Clinton and Bush administrations here is that Bush actually made good on Clinton’s pledge– signed into law– to overthrow Saddam. One can disagree with the planning for the postwar, but the notion that defeating fascism was a purely neocon fantasy is bogus. It was and is not fantasy, and this sensible goal was Clinton’s goal as well. To argue otherwise is to join the isolationists and bogus “realpolitikers” such as the Saudis’ favorite DC pitchmen/lobbyists, Scowcroft and Baker.

Perfectly respectable company on K Street, mind you, but they represent a failed mideast policy that does not address the realities of the region in this century.

regards,

thibaud

“The irksome thing is that Roger and you and Terrye don’t seem to even consider the possiblity that YOU could be wrong.”

Roger wrote in this very post:

“I readily acknowledge I am deeply uncertain and worried about the results of this enterprise.”

Oh, well… We’re not all high on reading comprehension.

Mcenroe – your comment is adolescent taunting and no substance. I don’t care if you marched in the 60’s. It’s completely irrelevant to whether cheerleading for Bush counts as “walking the walk,” and it doesn’t get you a free pass. And since you seem to think you have won the election, can you give us a preview of your inaugural speech? The team-sport mentality your comments repeatedly display is precisely the problem. All this crowing about Afghanistan seems bit premature – “who cares if it’s a lawless backwater, as long as they held one election!”

Charles and PW – the most amusing irony is that the folks around here who cling to “optimism” in the face of reality seem to already have forgotten about another ideological program that was sweetness and light in theory but came up awfully short in practice, with disastrous consequences for the people whose lives were supposed to be made better.

You completely ignore the idea that we all might be better served if people outlined what “democracy” in Iraq might look like so that we can avoid misunderstanding one another. Simply holding elections makes a democracy? Is that what your argument is? Is it a democracy if parts of Iraq can’t vote in the elections? If you mean democracy in the sense that whoever receives the most votes wins, no, it probably won’t work in Iraq because of the unequal numbers of Kurds, Sunnis, Shi’ites, etc.

Are you talking about having proportional representation, with the leader of Iraq then chosen by a parliament in which parties build coalitions? Or something more like here in the United States? In your Iraqi “democracy”, whatever form that takes, it seems pretty clear that each party/ethnic/religious group is going to seek to have protections for their interests built into the government, most likely in the form of guaranteed representation. Is that a democracy?

So before you start asking for alternatives, why don’t you start by stopping your simplistic chant of “Democracy! Democracy!” as if saying it often enough will make it so and explain what your vision of “democracy” entails. Then we can have a serious discussion of Iraq’s future.

As for now, I will continue to be pessimistic about our work in Iraq but will be very very pleased if Iraq has a functioning political system that can hold together a diverse population united in rebuilding Iraq. Those two views are not mutually exclusive.

If only the Pericles role could instead be filled by Saddam and the Taliban or some other well-meaning dictators who are more of an “appropriate fit”, Iraq and Afghanistan would be so much better off, right? Your long-winded protestations notwithstanding, Richard managed to cut straight to the heart of your argument, even if you yourself don’t quite seem aware (or perhaps in denial) of what you were advocating.

If that’s not what you had in mind, perhaps you could offer your alternative vision for what constitutes an “appropriate fit”. Merely carping “Democracy? That’ll never work!” from the sidelines won’t get you taken too seriously around here, because that particular empty argument has been made by unserious people six ways from Sunday already. If you’d like to tell us something new, go ahead; otherwise, perhaps you’ll want to think through your position some more.

If you are accusing me of “thinly veiled racism” I suggest you look elsewhere. Democracy being an “appropriate fit” has nothing to do with race or haplessness. Given that Iraq is fractured along religious and ethnic lines, each with a long history (and memory), expecting Iraqis to put aside those differences to participate in a democracy where one of those groups can so easily dominate the others seems like misguided optimism.

At some point it might be useful to actually define what people are talking about when they use the word “democracy”–are we really talking about a constitutional republic like the United States?

No country has ever been liberated, whether from an “unholdable empire” or from under the yoke of a brutal dictator and become a functioning democracy? India immediately comes to mind.

Your assertion that “if they elect to follow policies and course of which we do not approve, or that place us at odds, then we will deal with, as one sovereign and free people dealing with another” is laughable. Perhaps we should break out “Regime Change for Dummies” and turn to the Chile 1973 chapter or the Iran 1953 chapter.

I’m reminded of Will Cuppy’s essay on Pericles in The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, in which he wrote: ìPericles was the greatest statesman of ancient Greece. He ruled Athens for more than 30 years in its most glorious period, 461-429 B.C. Or rather history says the people ruled it, for Athens was a democracy. At least thatís what Pericles said it was. Only he told everybody what to do.î

America will be playing Pericles to Iraq and Afghanistan for many many years.