Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

"for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them" Mr. Martin van Creveld in the Forward Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by Brian Whitacker

...there is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalised and consolidated the country's ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions - exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratise.

It could take a generation before Iraq and the region as a whole settles into a new, more stable disorder, something like the Ottoman Empire without the Turks. Local governance and open borders are the Arab world's more natural state. It would be a lot less messy without all that oil. And to the extent that western values and ideals sweep through town I think they will be less political, and more economic and cultural, less Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine, and more Gates, Eisner, and Hefner.

Originally Posted by The Dude

It could take a generation before Iraq and the region as a whole settles into a new, more stable disorder, something like the Ottoman Empire without the Turks. Local governance and open borders are the Arab world's more natural state. It would be a lot less messy without all that oil. And to the extent that western values and ideals sweep through town I think they will be less political, and more economic and cultural, less Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine, and more Gates, Eisner, and Hefner.

I dunno. "Local governance and open borders" is pretty Jefferson and Paine...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by The Dude

It could take a generation before Iraq and the region as a whole settles into a new, more stable disorder, something like the Ottoman Empire without the Turks. Local governance and open borders are the Arab world's more natural state. It would be a lot less messy without all that oil. And to the extent that western values and ideals sweep through town I think they will be less political, and more economic and cultural, less Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine, and more Gates, Eisner, and Hefner.

I dunno. "Local governance and open borders" is pretty Jefferson and Paine...

Jefferson was a republican who aggressively consolidated power in Washington and worked to build national institutions (as did Madison). They both wanted to bring an end to the kind of sectionalism that existed under the federalists Washington and Adams. Paine is a more complicated case, with conflicting ideals, suspicious of government period, while also endorsing many ideas (like state pensions) that would seem to call for an activist central government. I doubt Paine would be altogether too enamored though of the conservative tendencies of some local and tribal elements in the new Arab world, or the trans-national corporatism that will likely play a dominant role in the new Arab world. My point in bringing up Paine though had more to do with him as simply a man of the Enlightenment (albeit an unusually radical one). There are probably better and certainly more archetypal examples, but in any event the Arab world may be going straight from premodern to postmodern without all those apparently extraneous intermediary stages like creating countries that are actually countries, and the Enlightenment.

For the record I'm not saying that democracy in Iraq will necessarily "fail" and a new totalitarianism will take its place, but rather that a) there isn't a chance in hell Iraq will become Germany or Japan after the second world war (both were successful and cohesive nation-states before they became democracies) b) democracy will bring all manner of new social problems to the country, notably exploding crime and economic inequality, without a strong central government or national culture to mitigate these things c) Iraq has no reason to exist beyond the division of oil revenues and may dissolve as the oil runs dry and d) there may be ethnic cleansing and sectarian bloodletting for years before the Sunnis finally accept their new and diminished lot, and more ethnic cleansing and bloodletting when it finally comes time to break up the country. I sure the hell wouldn't want to die for that outcome, and I'm none too pleased about having to pay for it in new taxes (I'm hoping antiwar.com will take me up on my idea of putting an Iraq war debt clock on their homepage; maybe Soros will fund one for downtown Washington DC like the one in Times Square for the national debt).

Didn't quite know where to stick this.

Originally Posted by John Fletcher

"The Athenians had their very own Iraq War -- The Sicilian Expedition.

My play is an examination of how a nation can suddenly, bizarrely, and with great dramatic effect, auto-destruct.

Sixty years before the Sicilian Expedition the Athenians too had their "heroic" generation. Who, against overwelming odds, using only the democratic tools of free speech and self-organization, managed to rouse the rest of Greece against a massive Persian invasion, and, at Thermopolyae and Salamis, drive it back. Who, altruistic and self-sacrificing themselves, decided their children should have all the things they had been denied themselves * a superb education, wonderful public buildings, the freedom to question all things, and * wealth.

Their children, Athens very own "baby boomer" generation, experimented wildly in everything --* sex, extreme booze, the arts, atheism, sophistry. No taboo was too taboo. It was a golden age of creativity and hangovers. But as wild-eyed youth slid into portly middle-age, lust for the material started to replace a lust for the unknown. The Athenian baby boomers became the greatest consumers in history * pillaging the world for art, clothing, consumer durables, and those really rather exquisite little hams wines and cheeses which just seem to drop off the trees in Italy.

But they were still denied that one consumer trophy every totally cool society cannot be without -- their own "heroic" war. Their parents had had one -- why couldn¹t they?

There was a "Neo-con" faction who argued that, having the finest military in the world, the world being the way it is, its better to hit the world before the world hits us. Behind them lurked various shady businessmen and corporatists, keen for trade monopolies and new markets. But it was the ideologues and demagogues who really shone, eager to prove their excellence in sophistry and spin and uber-patriotism.

An obscure place was chosen. Nobody was really sure where it was. Far off, across the seas. Sicily, that¹s its name. (Rather handy for controlling the booming trade with Italy, but nobody mentioned that). Anyhow, these backward Sicilians peasants had, apparently, dared denounce Imperial Athens for arrogance and aggressiveness. The orators in the Athenian Assembly went code purple. A frenzy was constructed. In vain did the remnants of the real "heroic" generation plead that this insanity was irrational, unpragmatic, god-darnit, un-Athenian. They were contemptuously dismissed as cowards and curs.

The greatest, most technologically-advanced military expedition the world had ever seen assembled off Piraeus. Amid unparalleled pomp sailed off into oblivion. The seas were rough and treacherous. When they eventually arrived in this far off and little known region, after an initial invasion they were surrounded by ferocious and implacable insurgents, who drove them back into desperate encampments where they were overwelmed and slaughtered to the last man.

Until now the rest of the world (or Greece) had supinely sat back and watched this curious Athenian act of auto-da-fe. The Athenians were always so good at putting on plays. But then someone in Sparta * Athens¹ ancient and implacable foe * realized Athens was defenceless * and invaded her * and sold many of her citizens into slavery * and put her to the torch."

It just gets worse.

Apparently driving electric drills into the heads of young men and boys is becoming a preferred method of execution among Shiite death squads (who in some cases also happen to be the police and special commandos to whom we've been handing over security) in Iraq.

WARNING: The following pictures are not for the squeamish, but if you care to look they are here.

sent a MISSIVE to his General Varus in Germania.

Originally Posted by The divine Augustus

* Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: for each and every Imperial "progress" therein. HTH

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

sent a MISSIVE to his General Varus in Germania.

Originally Posted by The divine Augustus

* Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: for each and every Imperial "progress" therein. HTH

Funny no mention of electric drills.

Originally Posted by The Dude

Funny no mention of electric drills.

The Romans used nails.

Originally Posted by The Dude

Jefferson was a republican who aggressively consolidated power in Washington and worked to build national institutions (as did Madison). They both wanted to bring an end to the kind of sectionalism that existed under the federalists Washington and Adams.

Dude,

Do you have any idea what 'Anti-Federalist' means?

Only a small exerpt:

"The Federalist movement gradually showed broad-construction, nationalistic tendencies; the Anti-Federalist movement favored strict-constructionism and advocated popular rights against the asserted aristocratic, centralizing tendencies of its opponent, and gradually was transformed into the Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson."

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by The Dude

Jefferson was a republican who aggressively consolidated power in Washington and worked to build national institutions (as did Madison). They both wanted to bring an end to the kind of sectionalism that existed under the federalists Washington and Adams.

Dude,

Do you have any idea what 'Anti-Federalist' means?

Only a small exerpt:

"The Federalist movement gradually showed broad-construction, nationalistic tendencies; the Anti-Federalist movement favored strict-constructionism and advocated popular rights against the asserted aristocratic, centralizing tendencies of its opponent, and gradually was transformed into the Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson."

As a general rule, it is important I think to distinguish between a president's philosophy, and the philosophy of his party or sect, and his actual policies in office. The conventional wisdom today among historians is that there is more continuity than discontinuity of policy between the presidencies of the Federalists - Washington and Adams - on the one hand and the presidency of Jefferson (and we might add Madison as well) on the other, but I think there is a case to be made that where there is discontinuity between the Federalists and Jefferson the ways in which Jefferson expanded the scope of federal government power (and created or expanded national institutions) are more important and lasting than the ways he cut the size of the federal government. The ways he betrayed his own republican principles were more important and enduring than the ways he adhered to them. I was alluding to this fact, that Jefferson was a better Federalist in key respects than the Federalists.

The sectionalism of the colonial era persisted into the 1790s, and although both Washington and Adams were given to denouncing it rhetorically as good Federalists, they did little to actually subdue it (in fact Adams had a nasty habit of making it worse by unleashing militias loyal to him to intimidate his political opponents). Adams, as you'll recall, was sabotaged by his own party in 1800 for not sufficiently adhering to Federalist Party principles of strong central governance, and both Jefferson and Madison betrayed their own republican principles in office. Power changes everything.

The Tertium Quids and other opponents of Jefferson's policies within his own party were never an altogether too powerful force in Washington but their grievances against Jefferson were real and well founded. His territorial expansions of the country, institution building efforts (including the creation of West Point, which Washington and Adams had failed to accomplish), and adherence to spirit and often letter of Federalist policies (including much of Hamilton's economic program) far outweigh the transitory importance of his republicanish tax cuts (which Adams or some other Federalist would likely have enacted if they'd been elected in 1800) and curbs in military spending (both of which were undone by Madison, who [betraying his own republican principles] expanded the military [although if you want to get really technical it was Jefferson in his last year of office that began the buildup again and increasing fortification of the coasts], rechartered the national bank, introduced an import tariff, and proposed all sorts of infrastructure spending).

With the Louisiana Purchase in particular Jefferson's Republican Party adopted the de facto philosophy of privileging central government authority over state's rights; the implied power of the federal government grew by leaps and bounds because of this decision. Jefferson was in a sense the first great triangulator, wrapping Federalist policies in the banner of republicanism, and in the process diminishing the sectionalism that had characterized the politics of the previous decade; he really was a uniter and not a divider, as he promised to be in his first inaugural address. He inveighed against the dangers of a federal judiciary unchecked by the states expanding federal government power, then promptly nominated judges and justices in the mold of Washington and Adams's Federalist appointees, inveighed against anything beyond a strict interpretation of the constitution, then used the powers and purse of the federal government to more than double the land holdings of the country (nothing in the constitution about that), inveighed against any restrictions in trade, then imposed them with Britain as president, praised the notion of militias providing the nation's primary security, then created a national military college and ultimately expanded the military and its fortifications by the end of his second term. As a result, the Federalist Party died from its own successes. The Louisana Purchase alone had wide reaching implications and reverberations for everything from the creation of the two party system to the creation and expansion of federal bureaucracies and the federal police and security state.

Those who wish to lionize Jefferson as some kind of agrarian libertarian populist (or villify him as a "racist, agrarian mystic" in the words of Michael Lind) should scrutinize his record as president more closely. He was (like every successful president) a creature of realpolitik during a period of in many ways expanding central government authority (although clearly its a safe bet that some aspect of central government authority is expanding at any given time) and arguably (with Madison) America's first true nation builder, a man of elegant, idealistic hoo doo in rhetoric, who turned a near-blind eye to the French terror, betrayed his republican values as president, and kept slaves as a private citizen. There is a word for this: politician. There are other words for this, like hypocrite and liar.

Originally Posted by The Dude

Those who wish to lionize Jefferson as some kind of agrarian libertarian populist (or villify him as "racist, agrarian mystic" in the words of Michael Lind) should scrutinize his record as president more closely. He was (like every successful president) a creature of realpolitik during a particular period, and arguably America's first true nation builder.

Jefefrson seems a little too hocus pocus for me. Hamilton (whom I consider the father of Federalism) seems a little too much a Goldwater snob. I wish there was a founding father for me!

"US Ambassador to Iraq Admits We've Opened Up a Pandora's Box"

"WHY BUSH'S NEW DOCUMENT ON IRAQ SOUNDS FAMILIAR."

Originally Posted by Lawrence Kaplan

"It is not true, as Democrats were quick to claim, that President Bush's speech on Iraq yesterday offered nothing in the way of new ideas. The document that accompanied the president's speech, grandiosely titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," describes a new military strategy to "clear, hold, and build." Rather than sweep through towns and villages only to move on the next day, thereby allowing insurgents to flood back in, U.S. forces will now sweep through and leave Iraqi units behind to "hold" the towns. In his speech, Bush held up the recent offensive in Tal Afar as a model. "Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it," the president said. "And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of Tal Afar were able to vote in October's constitutional referendum."

If the clear-and-hold strategy rings familiar, that's because it is. The concept was a signature of the Vietnam War, when it was employed to mixed effect during the latter years of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Hence, the good news: U.S. forces will no longer be fighting World War II all over again in Iraq, employing conventional tactics and operations against an unconventional foe. In its decision to revive tactical and operational concepts that were tested and found wanting in Vietnam, however, the administration seems to have missed a few things. First, it's not so clear that what worked in Vietnam will work again in Iraq. Second, we lost the war in Vietnam...

Iraq is populated by Iraqis, not Vietnamese. Unlike, say, in Western Iraq, the population of South Vietnam wasn't uniformly hostile to the U.S. presence. "The peasant in Vietnam cares as little about the ideology of the [Viet Cong] as it does about the ideology of the [South Vietnamese government] counterinsurgency," expert William Corson wrote in 1968. What this meant was that, in theory at least, it was possible to secure the population from the insurgency. In the Sunni areas of Iraq, by contrast, the insurgency amounts partly to an authentic expression of popular will. In Tal Afar, for instance, which the president held up as an example of the new strategy, the mostly Shia units that moved in to "hold" the town had to be pulled out in the face of overwhelming Sunni hostility. How, then, can U.S. forces or their allies hold a place that has no desire to be held in the first place?

Then, too, if already overstretched U.S. and Iraqi forces remain in place to hold one area, what happens to the areas they're not holding? In fact, Westmoreland's Vietnam-era complaint about clear-and-hold remains just as valid today: "[T]he practice left the enemy free to come and go as he pleased throughout the bulk of the region." He also pointed out that, in Vietnam, there were "simply not enough numbers to put a squad of Americans in every village and hamlet." The same holds true in Iraq, which hosts a fraction of the U.S. forces that operated in Vietnam and an even smaller number of indigenous troops, spread out over a much bigger country.

Finally, it's a bit late in the day to rediscover tactics that the administration and the Army should have been experimenting with from the outset. If it was true that, by 1972, America was winning the war in Vietnam, it was also true that America had already lost the war here at home. Just as it did in Vietnam, an effective counterinsurgency strategy requires time and patience. And just as they did in Vietnam, Americans have run out of both. Rather than devise a strategy that tackles this problem head on, Bush's speech today finds its answer in the assumption that what worked, or ought to have worked, in the past will work again. Senior military officers, too, have fallen into the same trap--having ignored the topic for 30 years, they all are busy reading standard texts on counterinsurgency in Vietnam like Lewis Sorley's A Better War and Andrew Krepinevich's The Army and Vietnam. Yesterday, we had people like Maxwell Taylor and Henry Kissinger thinking about these things. They got nowhere. Today, we have leaders that get surprised by problems and then go read a book or two to resurrect some dubious answer from the past. Does anyone honestly think they'll get any further?"

The Kurds are now signing their own oil contracts with foreign companies.

Originally Posted by Borzou Daragahi

A controversial oil exploration deal between Iraq's autonomy-minded Kurds and a Norwegian company got underway this week without the approval of the central government here, raising a potentially explosive issue at a time of heightened ethnic and sectarian tensions.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party, which controls a portion of the autonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, last year quietly signed a deal with Norway's DNO to drill for oil near the border city of Zakho. Iraqi and company officials describe the agreement as the first involving new exploration in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Drilling began after a ceremony Tuesday, during which Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdish northern region, vowed "there is no way Kurdistan would accept that the central government will control our resources," according to news agency reports.

Al Qaeda takes Ramadi.

Originally Posted by Mr. Matthew Parris in the [i

Times[/i] (UK)]But people have unconscious minds and a nation has a collective unconscious. It is possible to consult an unconscious mind but you must be armed not with a questionnaire and a pencil, but a tape recorder and stop-watch. Don’t ask “Are we right: yes or no?” or the conscious man will at once tick the “yes” box. Ask instead: “Imagine you were to wake up tomorrow and realise all this invasion of Iraq stuff had just been a dream. Would your waking thought be ‘Aargh! Bad news. We aren’t in Iraq after all. We must occupy that country at once — no time to lose!’ Is that what you’d think?”


Even to that question, expect the conscious man, if he’s on record as supporting the war, to work out that logic requires a “yes”. Ignore his answer. Instead, time the delay before he gives it, and listen for the hesitation in his voice. Here is the unconscious mind speaking. All the rest is a mix of pride, loyalty, self-justification and the urge to sound consistent.

Our unconscious minds know the truth: the war is lost. We must get out

The romance is gone even for the romantic idealist. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Mr. Lawrence Auster

Also, Bush gave the speech, as he seems to have given all of his speeches on Iraq, to a military audience, clearly conveying the message that he doesn’t feel confident to address an audience of civilians on this urgent national issue, but must have an audience of ready-made, 22-year-old yes-men, thrilled to be in the presence of their commander in chief. It is as though Bush sees America as a banana republic, or as a country like Pakistan, in which the only reliable national institution is the military.

The return of George W. Boilerplate and his amen corner

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Lawrence Auster

Also, Bush gave the speech, as he seems to have given all of his speeches on Iraq, to a military audience, clearly conveying the message that he doesn’t feel confident to address an audience of civilians on this urgent national issue, but must have an audience of ready-made, 22-year-old yes-men, thrilled to be in the presence of their commander in chief. It is as though Bush sees America as a banana republic, or as a country like Pakistan, in which the only reliable national institution is the military.

The return of George W. Boilerplate and his amen corner

This Auster guy is interesting. Thanks.

I do not think there has been a time in recent American history--certainly not in my lifetime--when a President has seemed so utterly out of touch with reality. I recently reread a Nixon speech on Vietnam in 1971. While some of it echoed Bush ("the South Vietnamese can now do the job," etc.), it had a completely different tone--essentially saying that we still had to do our best, and make a respectable effort. There is no getting around it, partly because some high White House person (Karl Rove, probably) has frequently admitted it--these guys have no idea of objective truth. It is terrifying.

David K '47

White, Belgian women are blowing themselves up in Iraq.

Juan Cole has this to say about the Kurdish/Norwegian oil deal:

"Next the Shiites in the South will do the same thing. Baghdad will be starved of these new revenue streams, and the provinces will have their own source of income. I don't see how the country stays together this way, or how the central goverment ever amounts to anything."

Iraqoslavia:

Originally Posted by Mike Boettcher

While most Iraqi's don't yet call it civil war, it is, at its worst, a form of ethnic cleansing.

"Real Iraqis don't kill each other," says one man, reflecting the general sentiment on the street.

Adding to the polarization is a quiet migration. The violence is causing Shiites and Sunnis to move, turning once mixed areas into purely Sunni or Shiite enclaves.

Meanwhile, I don't think the administration believes anything they read in the papers unless they paid to have it put there in the first place...

Military Admits Planting News in Iraq

With intent to provoke discussion only. The administration did not pay me to provide this link.

Originally Posted by Eric Schmitt of the NYT

WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 - The military acknowledged Friday in a briefing for a ranking Senate Republican that news articles written by American troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media and not always properly identified.

Rice to Go on Offense Over Secret Prisons

To provoke discussion...

Originally Posted by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

Administration officials previously have said the United States has abided by U.S. laws and complied with "international obligations." The problem for the administration has been that many European officials have suggested the secret prisons violated European laws -- and intelligence officials agree with that, saying that is one reason the operations have been kept secret.

To rebut that concern, Rice will introduce a new concept, also suggested by McCormack, that the United States "respects the sovereignty" of its allies. Administration officials said this language is code for saying that these intelligence operations took place with the full knowledge of relevant European government or intelligence officials -- without actually confirming specific intelligence programs.

Trust your government. We are creating this gulag system for your own good. International law isn't that important, anyway...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Rice to Go on Offense Over Secret Prisons

To provoke discussion...

Originally Posted by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

Administration officials previously have said the United States has abided by U.S. laws and complied with "international obligations." The problem for the administration has been that many European officials have suggested the secret prisons violated European laws -- and intelligence officials agree with that, saying that is one reason the operations have been kept secret.

To rebut that concern, Rice will introduce a new concept, also suggested by McCormack, that the United States "respects the sovereignty" of its allies. Administration officials said this language is code for saying that these intelligence operations took place with the full knowledge of relevant European government or intelligence officials -- without actually confirming specific intelligence programs.

Trust your government. We are creating this gulag system for your own good. International law isn't that important, anyway...

I wonder how long we'll have to wait before American citizens, being questioned for events completely unrelated to terrorism or war, will be spirited away from the country and tortured overseas? :shock: If we can relocate our very ability to manufacture hardware because it's "cheaper" to do so in China, why not police interrogation, too? And we're not necessarily talking about suspected criminals, here. Indeed perhaps this, the ultimate in "outsourcing", would be even more effective in persuading frightened, reluctant witnesses to... cooperate.

Damn you, George W. Bush. :evil: