The current offensive against the Iraqi insurgency consists of both military and political components. Both are crucial to Iraq’s fledgling democracy, and achievement in one area spills over to the other. Military successes in securing Najaf, Fallujah and other sections of Iraq led to the successful execution of the January election. The election has led to the fitful yet democratically negotiated creation of a legitimate Iraqi government with the mandate to establish security and defeat the insurgency. Operations in Western Iraq, the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad have the consent of the Iraqi people through their elected government. These operations are showing the insurgency the futility of fighting, and are forcing some insurgents to question the logic in continuing.
Some of the holdouts are getting the message. The Los Angles Times and the Washington Times both report high level negotiations are occurring between the domestic elements of the insurgency and the US military. Assistance in negotiations is coming from Sunnis in the Iraqi government and members of the Muslim Scholars Association. Certain groups now wish to enter the political process they unwisely thought they could derail via boycotts, subversion and insurrection.
Former Electricity Minister Ayham Sameraei, a Sunni Arab, told Associated Press this week that the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Mujahedin Army, two militant groups that have claimed responsibility for attacks on Americans and kidnappings of foreigners, have approached him about the prospect of making peace with the new Iraqi government.
The Islamic Army in Iraq (al-Jaish al-Islami fi al-Iraq) is not a minor insurgency organization. It is believed to have thousands of Iraqis fighting in its ranks, and has cooperated with al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunnah. Getting them to put down their arms would be a feat in itself, and the potential for access to intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunnah may be a precondition to an agreement.
Perhaps more important than the high level negotiations are the lower level negotiations occurring between the Coalition and tribal chiefs and local town leaders. Strategy Page (June 9 entry) reports that a political foray is being made in the Anbar province. The message being communicated is: clean up the insurgency in your own towns, or we will do it for you, with both American and Iraqi troops.
More towns in Iraqi's "wild west" are being pacified. The usual drill is not another Fallujah, but a government official meeting with local tribal and religious leaders, where an offer is made. Iraqi and American troops are coming. Neighborhoods that support the government will see little or no fighting as a search is made for weapons, bombs and the like. Neighborhoods that wish to resist will be hit hard. By now, everyone knows how smart bombs work. Increasingly, Sunni Arab leaders are being told, by their followers, that all this violence is not worth it… For Sunni Arabs to support the government, it often means fighting with the terrorist groups, and sometimes the criminal gangs they are allied with. The government offer includes help in building up local security. It has not gone unnoticed that Iraqi police are a lot more effective than they were a year ago. The government also has police commandoes who can go into any area, no matter how well defended, and take out terrorists or other heavily armed enemies. No longer does the government have to depend on the Americans for this sort of thing.
The military and political advances since the January election cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be viewed as part of the overall plan to push through the Sunni Triangle and the restive Anbar province and pacify it, either through negotiation or military action. Military operations in Qaim, Haditha, Mosul, Tal Afar and various other towns and cities in the untamed areas of Western Iraq have demonstrated the capacity of Coalition forces to execute large scale missions in areas thought to be untouchable. The insurgency has experienced the unpleasantness of direct military confrontation with US forces, and knows the closest they can come to success is IED or hit-and-run attacks that will not alter the situation on the ground.
Getting the local tribal leaders to split with the insurgency as well as splintering off the domestic elements from the radical elements of the insurgency (al Qaeda and the more intractable Baathists holdouts) will have a noticeable impact on the political and security situation in Iraq. The importance of these efforts cannot be underestimated.
The drive westward is occurring, both militarily and politically, and the Syrians are no doubt taking notice of this. Bashir Assad must soon calculate if it is beneficial to continue supporting an insurgency which is being squeezed both politically and militarily and risk direct US military intervention, or if it is time to cut his losses and pull the plug on the Syrian Ratline.
this is very interesting and something few bloggers are picking up, I think. The left cause they wont admit success in Iraq, and the right cause they wont admit the possibility of moderation from the Sunni Arabs, and of the war ending via a deal, rather than by killing the SOBs.
Thanks for putting together the tribal negotiations with the national constitutional talks. I agree those are related phenomena.
liberalhawk,
I certainly view the majority of Sunnis to be a group that can be worked with, given the right incentives. I am all for a political end to the insurgency as this is the only way to true victory. But it must be remembered the jihadi elements (al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sunnah) will not negotiate to end this. They will need to be fought to the end. But the process of splitting them from the domestic insurgency will help the cause of peace greatly. Once this happens the jihadis will be marginalized.
I do try to look at the political aspects as much as possible, but admit I am partial to covering the military events because a) it is easy for me b) there is much more news out there c) I enjoy it. Today's news provided a perfect little storm of information that made covering the politics of Iraq much more easier and enjoyable than usual.
Counterinsurgency (COIN) has always been as much political as military in its nature.
The Brits in Malaya succeeded b/c they could show the populace that cooperation had political and financial benefits (e.g., stable lives, better schooling) as well as by killing the opposing bastiches.
Similarly, the suppression of the Filipino Insurgency depended as much on the efforts of American schoolteachers, road-builders, and civil administrators as it did on the military.
Both are essential---something that I think the Right is more prepared to accept, liberalhawk, than the Left (which I think believes that force even in COIN is a last resort).
The question, Bill, is whether we've figured out what the Sunni insurgents want as a political end?
Imagine the Sunnis were to win---how, exactly, would they know?
Are they seeking to reinstall Saddam Hussein? Lord over the Kurds and Shias? Secede and create a rump state (in which case, where are the oil fields and how would they seize them)?
I don't recall seeing any articles, in the blogosphere or elsewhere, describing what the desired end-state of the Sunni insurgents is---and therefore how to defeat their political as well as military efforts?
Do you really think the election was a farce? And likewise the subsequent good faith efforts to engage Sunnis in the new governement?
Jeeze Louise. Republicans (I'm not one) aren't all blood thristy baby eaters ya know.
From my blog:
- What does the U.S. do next in Iraq?
With the formation of a new and democratic Iraqi government, it is important to "wrap up" the guerilla quickly, so the new government gains legitimacy. That is the purpose of our recent ferocious offensives near Al-Qaim, around Baghdad, and elsewhere: combined coalition and Iraqi forces are destroying the organized "insurgency". Doubtless, there will still be individual terrorist acts, but we will deny them even a clan-level base of population support anywhere in Iraq to pursue their murderous ends.
- Clan level?
Many Iraqis give their loyalty to their family first, then the clan, the tribe, their religious affiliation, and finally the nation...
Lurking Observer,
The insurgency is divided and there is no coherent political platform they are pushing, which works to our advantage. al Qaeda is fighting to destroy the state and kill Americans, Baathists want a return to power, some Sunnis just are fighting the foreigners, some fear the power of the Shiites and Kurds, etc. With no coherent platform, it is difficult for them to gain popular support, which means it would be difficult to win. Some of these groups appear to recognize this and are coming to the table. There is no political solution with al Qaeda and their allies, but I think if the majority of the Sunnis can be assured they will not have their rights trampled on (just be left alone), a reduction of the presence of US forces and can have a voice in the government, they might be content with laying down their arms. The jihadi faction will continue to fight long after any agreement is reached with the domestic Sunni inurgency. Granted I am oversimplifying here for the sake of brevity....
But all of these developments, which are positive if they bear fruit, have to struggle against what can only appear to be a growing tide of sectarianism. What good can come from the government's on the record support of Shia, Iranian, Sadrist milita forces for the first time? Is that going to induce the Sunnis to negotiate, or is going to scare the wits out of them and further revanchist sentiment? I think the latter is much more likely. It removes the new government's credibility and will make the Sunnis even more distrustful of their motives. And, like so many issues in Iraq, it can be directly traced back to not sending enough troops to win the peace. We simply didn't bring the numbers to isloate and disarm the militias, and the price for it is now being paid. And the British shifting forces from Basra to Afganistan won't help.
Who are the Iraq the model Brothers, chopped liver ?
No I dont mean they are the example, but the Sunni community is the most secular and westernized. (Yes the Kurds, I know, but) Perversly, this is probably due to the very privleged position they once had,, but never the less true.
Find that odd ? I dont, why didnt you see it ? (well you probably did, but) .. Sure, the radicals are there too,... So ?
Lurker ..
My reaction too, didnt know how to express it, still feeling the flames ...
Dont actions count for anything ?
And this isnt an example, but a reminder of something close,,,,Why do I always feel the target of projection?
Quality write up Mr. Roggio, alot of good thoughts and things to digest and contemplate in that piece. I think the insurgency is living on borrowed time and some in the Sunni community appear to be reconciling with that reality. The first step is crushing the hope and will that the insurgency can prevail in driving out U.S. forces and derail the new government. Over two years later some are beginning to get the picture and that will help. Fanatic or not, nobody is going to willfully give their life for a cause they know is destined to fail. Ensuring that perception is proliferated is important.
SamAm,
Mohammed at ItM is identifying press reports that show a majority of the government in favor of dismantling militias.
My feeling is that the Saudi lease a sheik program has been suspended and that the Sunni sheiks are now cutting the best deal they can with the government. It will also be a rental agreement with the government - just as it was under Saddam. The al-Anbar sheiks probably don't care who is running the government - as long as their protection money arrives.
"Who is it on the right that you think is against accepting a political solution in Iraq with the Sunnis? "
A whole buncha people who post on Rantburg. Whenever someone posts about negotiations with Sunnis, you get folks who say sarcasticallt "oh yeah, like thats gonna work" Or worse. You get quite a lot of "the only way to win is by force"
I dont know what you get on LGF, since i dont go there anymore.
"Do you really think the election was a farce? And likewise the subsequent good faith efforts to engage Sunnis in the new governement?"
No, when did I say that?
"Jeeze Louise. Republicans (I'm not one) aren't all blood thristy baby eaters ya know."
No, and Democrats (I am one) arent all lefties counting on a quagmire. We're talking extremists in each case.
But I will say that elements of the right blogosphere, including the ones that most closely follow the war, like rantburg, wretchard, etc do NOT tend to closely follow or be very enthusiastic about the political initiatives that Bill has covered here. To the point where the MSM is almost as good a source. Think about that.
"There is no political solution with al Qaeda and their allies, "
well i think here we are getting into the meat of the discomfort some folks have. Of course any sane person (IE excluding the chomsky/surrender crowd) agrees there is no political solution with Al qaeeda or with foreign jihadis.
And ditto, no sane person (excluding the baby eaters) would refuse negotiations, with, say, Sunni tribal sheiks.
But what about organized insurgents who have in the past coordinated with Zarqawi? What about former regime elements? What about the Assoc of Muslim scholars, who apparently are to the insurgency, including the Former regime elements, what Sinn Fein is to the IRA? What about native Iraqi Wahabis? If we exclude ALL the above (which I DONT think the Jaafari govt is doing) we would make a political solution very difficult, and lean more towards "kill em all" if we didnt say so.
Let me say that there is merit to both sides of the argument. liberalhawk may have been better served by identifying who on the right does not believe in a political solution, or saying "elements of the right blogosphere" as he did in his follow up post. Fair or not the overgeneralization was bound to get this reaction. However there is some truth in liberalhawk's comments. Some cannot distinguish between the jihadis, the Baathists and the various local Sunni groups that make up the insurgency, and advocate for the "kill them all" approach. This is a big mistake as it leads to a failure to understand the tools available to defeat the insurgency.
Those attacking liberalhawk are doing so unfairly, at least I think so based on my interactions with him. I do not get the impression he desires a loss, and his comments demonstrate he is indeed interested in victory.
Those on the right blasting liberalhawk for comments he did not make would do well to reach out to him instead, as we need all of the allies we can get to win this war. I am of the firm belief that there are many Democrats who do want to win and understand the importance of Iraq. Making support for the war a democrat vs Republican issue does a great injustice to our efforts. Unfortunately the leadership of the Democratic Party does not reflect the views of those like liberalhawk, but I have no doubts there are Democrats who desire victory. I know some myself.
liberalhawk,
Again, I overgeneralized by saying "al Qaeda and their allies." It would have been better to have said "al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Sunnah, Tahwid, etc." These are the hard core jihadis that cannot and will not negotiate.
"Native Iraqi Wahabis" is a tough call, and the Islamic Army in Iraq appears to be one of these. These groups need to be analyzed carefully and it must be clear that all bets are off if thet continue to cooperate with the al Qaeda elements.
FREs, those who have worked with al Qaeda under the guise of opportunity, the MSA, etc are all fair game for negotiations (with some exeptions of course depending on how dirty they are). As much as it disgusts me that they have cooperated with al Qaeda, we need to keep in mind the "enemy of my enemy" concept and give a little room for wiggling. If they can be coaxed to lay down their arms and disavow the insurgency I am all for it. I also think we should (under the table) extract concessions of intelligence on those jihadis they have worked with as a precondition to peace. No better way for them to show they are committed by having them finger a few al Qaeda members.
Now you know where I stand on this. I happen to think this is pretty realistic and fair.
"Unfortunately the leadership of the Democratic Party does not reflect the views of those like liberalhawk, but I have no doubts there are Democrats who desire victory. I know some myself."
If you mean the current chair of the DLC, i agree. If you mean the individual who polls show to the front runner for the 2008 Dem presidential nomination, I heartily disagree. She very definitely desires victory. The congressional leadership is somewhere in between.
"Unfortunately the leadership of the Democratic Party does not reflect the views of those like liberalhawk, but I have no doubts there are Democrats who desire victory. I know some myself."
If you mean the current chair of the DNC, i agree. If you mean the individual who polls show to the front runner for the 2008 Dem presidential nomination, I heartily disagree. She very definitely desires victory. The congressional leadership is somewhere in between.
"I am of the firm belief that there are many Democrats who do want to win and understand the importance of Iraq. "
The majority, or close to it, of House and Senate Dems voted to support the war. Of course that was based on WMD claims, and many of those DID NOT really get the grand strategic issues. But then I think plenty of Republicans didnt and dont get it either. And plenty go along just to support Bush.
Probably the majority of Dems would now say we shouldnt have gone in, knowing what they now know. I will remind everyone that Hilary, however, has NOT said that. And I would also say that plenty who do say that, understand that now that we are there a defeat (which would empower al qaeeda) is unacceptable. Those calling for a withdrawl whatever the results, like Byrd and Kennedy, are a distinct minority of Dem congressmen and other leaders.
That does not mean that Dems arent goint to nitpick the admin for anything they think they can make the case it did wrong. As GOP did to Clinton wrt Somalia, Kosovo, etc - and to Johnson, and to Truman, and to FDR ..... Its the American Way.
liberalhawk,
I loath to get into the domestic political fight, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are leaders of the Democratic party and were voted into their positions of power by a majority of the democractic congressmen/senators. Perhaps you should review their words on Iraq. It would be nice to see your party leaders speak out against Kennedy and Byrd, who despite your characterization as being a distinct minority are viewed as senior party leaders by many, and are treated as such by the press. I long to hear Hillary Clinton or any other leader slap them down for their irresponsible comments.
"It would be nice to see your party leaders speak out against Kennedy and Byrd, who despite your characterization as being a distinct minority are viewed as senior party leaders by many, and are treated as such by the press. I long to hear Hillary Clinton or any other leader slap them down for their irresponsible comments."
X doesnt slap down Y for saying Z, and X is in the same party as Y, ergo X is somehow implicated in Z. I dont buy that logic. We could go from here to eternity talking about things some extremist on each party said, and why the moderates in the party didnt "slap them down" Thats a game moderates of each party CANNOT win. There are sound political reasons for not fighting your base, especially its most popular figures. Hilary will have enough work to do dealing with the doves, just based on her own policy position, votes, statements, etc. Why alienate them FURTHER by "slapping" anyone down. Its not her job to slap down every Dem who enunciates a policy with which she disagees.
BTW, House and Senate leaders are selected more for their skills in legislative maneuvering, not ideology. Thats why lots of Repubs supported Delay, cause of his considerable skills, who arent with him on ideology. Ditto for Pelosi, who has been seen (righly or wrongly) as a skilled operative. As for Reid, ive never seen any statements by him calling for withdrawl from Iraq.
"senior party leaders by many"
when you, an old, drunken guy worn out by affairs, are, you will not this good look.
Senior sure. Influential, not beyond a few domestic issues.
liberalhawk,
I'll disagree with you about Kennedy and Byrd not being part of the leadership of the party. We're not talking about healthcare of social security, talking about an important issue of national security and our image. If Hillary or others cannot come to defend the Iraq policy which she claims to support, how can we trust her to execute it? Some times you need to look beyond politics. And if the Democratic party is really moderate on teh issue of the Iraq war, and it really is just a small minority of extremists that call for withdrawal, she has nothing to fear, right?
"I'll disagree with you about Kennedy and Byrd not being part of the leadership of the party. We're not talking about healthcare of social security, talking about an important issue of national security and our image. If Hillary or others cannot come to defend the Iraq policy which she claims to support, how can we trust her to execute it? Some times you need to look beyond politics. And if the Democratic party is really moderate on teh issue of the Iraq war, and it really is just a small minority of extremists that call for withdrawal, she has nothing to fear, right?"
Kennedy is influential on several domestic issues. He is not generally a spokesman on national security. Nor is Byrd. Clearly a large segment of the party looks to Byrd and Kennedy. However IIUC neither holds any official leadership position, nor has either ever been nominated for Prez or VEEP, unlike, say, Joe Leiberman.
Hilary certain defends her policy beliefs - slapping down Democratic Senators by name is NOT required to do that. Just as I dont expect, say, John Warner, to slap down GOP extremists by name. And I fail to see how Hilary doing so would help US security one iota.
And I did not say the Democratic party is all moderate on Iraq. I referred specifically to the leadership, following your first mention of it. Clearly there is a large portion of the Democratic electorate that does take what I would consider an irresponsible position (the numbers vary with the headlines from Iraq). And so Hilary DOES have things to fear.
BTW, you may not have noticed, but Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and several other folks HAVE been slapping down Howard Dean these last few days. He is of course more important than Kennedy or Byrd, as he IS in a position of leadership.
Well, if you don't think Kennedy or Byrd's words do not have an impact on the rank and file, then we'll have to disagree. Their words lead the headlines, and al Qaeda has mirrored their rhetoric. I'd say that is more than enough reason to take a stand against them. You obviously disagree.
Remember when Republicans threw Trent Lott to the wolves? Great, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harold Ford (heard him on Imus) and others are slapping down Dean for stupid Republican remarks. That takes real courage, right? Perhaps they should demonstrate courage on issues that really matter. When no one in your party corrects the Byrds and Kennedys, your party looks terribly weak on national security.
And again, I'll disagree with you on the Democratic Party leadership's moderate position on Iraq or the War on Terror. You do not consider Pelosi and Reid as party leaders, but they are, no matter how you try and spin it. Through in your former presidential candidate and I'd say its pretty clear what the party's position is on the war.
Im sorry, Bill, but im going to have to fisk this.
"Well, if you don't think Kennedy or Byrd's words do not have an impact on the rank and file, then we'll have to disagree."
Lots of folks have an impact on one part of the rank and file or another.
" Their words lead the headlines"
Precisely because they were out of the mainstream. If that had been the standard Dem stance it would not have been news when Ted came out for it.
"and al Qaeda has mirrored their rhetoric."
So? How has that effected the course of the war?
"I'd say that is more than enough reason to take a stand against them. You obviously disagree. "
Its more than enough to take a stand for the right policies. I see no reason to single them out by name. ESPECIALLY if that makes it less likely that a candidate who advocates the right policy, like Hilary will get nominated. Pardon, but in all due respect I do not see why you are so concerned except your desire for an internal Dem spat, and to see Hilary lose. Kinda like the Dems who want Repubs to denounce Gary Bauer, et al.
"Remember when Republicans threw Trent Lott to the wolves? Great, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harold Ford (heard him on Imus) and others are slapping down Dean for stupid Republican remarks. That takes real courage, right?" About as much as the Repubs had wrt Lott.
" Perhaps they should demonstrate courage on issues that really matter. When no one in your party corrects the Byrds and Kennedys, your party looks terribly weak on national security. "
I doubt that no one in the party has. Lieberman, I think did, and Biden specifically and explicitly said they were wrong on one of the interview shows, IIRC. We were speaking specifically of Hilary. I dont think its her job to correct Dems for every position they hold she disagrees with.
"And again, I'll disagree with you on the Democratic Party leadership's moderate position on Iraq or the War on Terror. You do not consider Pelosi and Reid as party leaders, but they are, no matter how you try and spin it. "
I dont deny they are leaders. When did either call for immediate withdrawl from Iraq?
"Through in your former presidential candidate and I'd say its pretty clear what the party's position is on the war."
I did not vote for Kerry, because he would not come out and advocate democracy for Iraq. But he never, AFAIK, advocated an immediate withdrawl from Iraq.
Look, I dont agree with immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Its bad policy, and irresponsible. But those who DO advocate it are not thereyby traitors. They BELIEVE it is in the best interest of the United States. It is not beyond the pale of public discussion as say advocacy of segregation effectively is.
Look. The democratic party is intrinsically divided on foreign policy. When foreign policy becomes a more serious issue, that makes it hard for the democrats. Now you can wallow in that, and hope it continues, and take joy in the discomfort that means for hawkish democrats. Or you can really hope that a hawkish democrat can be nominated, and even win the Presidency, so that this long war on terrorism can be a truely bipartisan one, so that Dems will have to take responsibility for it (just as 1952 forced Republicans to take responsibility). But no hawkish Dem is going to ever be nominated to national office by declaring open war on the dovish wing of the party. Just as no libertarian Repub will be nominated by declaring war on the fundamentalist wing of the party. Its time we all grew up and stopped playing these games.
liberalhawk,
Just as those who accuse you of being a holocaust denier and such have obviously judged you wrong, so it appears you have judged me wrong.
Your fisking wasn't needed, because you are operating on the assumption I desire to see the downfall of the Democratic Party. What I desire is to see them act in a responsible manner towards foreign policy. I desire to see two parties with strong and competent visons on how to fight the war. I want them to battle it out in the marketplace of ideas and act as if they really care about winning the war more then they care about getting elected.
I'm not talking about just calls for withdrawal from Iraq. I am talking about comparisons to Vietnam, equating Abu Ghraib to Nazi extermination camps, Gitmo to Gulags, etc. These are things the leaders of the Democratic Party are doing, and if you think it helps the war effort, then I'd love to here how. And no, this doesn't make them traitors, it makes them opportunistic, stupid, and irresponsible. And it makes them unqualified to lead. Criticize what you think went wrong, there is much room for that (troop strengths, chosing Iraq over Iran, increasing the size of the armed forces, etc.) But embracing Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Howard Dean, Nancy Peloci, Al Gore, Moveon.org, etc does the party no good. Your attempts to dissociate the leadership of the party and disown your own leaders is, frankly, pathetic. Joe Lieberman, a man I respect and would consider voting for based on his foreign policy views, couldn't garner 6th place in the primaries. Thsi stells you a lot about his position as a leader int eh party and what Democrats think of his views. I happen to agree that Hillary has been responsible in her conduct in general. But if she truly is a leader of the party, she needs to stand up to this irresponsible behavior. Sometimes it is NOT enough to just take a stand for your position, sometimes you need to counter the idiocy that is out there. Perhaps you disagree, but do not suppose to know my motivations why I think she needs to stand up to this garbage. In the end, leaders lead, and this is an issue the party needs to be set straight on.
Now, if the party cannot nominate someone that can stand up to this stupidity on a matter much more serious than whatever stupidity Gary Bauer may utter, then the party has real problems. The mainstream of the Democrat Party Nominated John Kerry and his vision of fighting the war on terror was seriously lacking and very unserious. And I do not gloat over this, it saddens me.
Maybe Joe Lieberman came in 5th place because he had loyalty to the party that makes only Zell Miller look good, a grating, droning voice, droopy basset hound looks, no appeal at all to the grassroots, and atrocious political instincts.
Liberalhawk, there's very little point in arguing with people like Roggio. They don't want anything but a Democratic Party afraid to offer any criticism on the war, period. I've seen these arguments 1000 times on the blogs in the past 4 years, they're all the same. When anyone on the right says "jump" to any Democrat, anywhere, the Democrat can scream "yes sir" and touch the ionisphere and it will never be enough. I support, and almost every Democrat supports making the party the strongest, sanest American voice on foreign and military affairs. But we'll never get there by conducting debates on terms that are fundamentally disingenuous, and we'll never get there by trying to appeal to those who are by definition opposed to that goal.
Lieberman didn't just finish 5th, he was mocked for his views. Tae that for what its worth.
There's nothing disengenuous about what I am saying, SamAn. Nice of you to dismiss it based on your internet experience. I'll give your posts the respect they deserve - none.
Anyone like Lieberman who takes such such a fawning, uncritical, credulous view of his supposed political opponent's position on the biggest issue of the day is undeserving of his party's nomination. This is a guy, after all who was post-election under the impression he might replace Rumsfeld as SecDef. I don't dislike Lieberman as much as many on the left do, but he doesn't understand the partisan nature of Washington, and that makes him undeserving of leading his party.
As for "Gary Bauer," the idea that the GOP isn't in hoc to its own brand of extremists is just baloney. Justice Sunday, anyone? Judicial freedom? Schaivo? Stem cells? Brownback blocking Bush's nominee to OSCE? Duncan Hunter trying to restrict women in combat? Re-writing global warming reports by oil industry lawyers?
This is the way the right works. Every statement ever made they don't like by anyone is a crime the Democrats must be punished for regardless of the Democrats culpability. That is a ridiculous state of affairs, and it's only furthered by demands individual Democrats "stand up" and take responsibility for people they have little or nothing to do with. When Democrats and liberals, when we do so, on terms set by by others, it makes us self-neutering, afraid, and constantly on the defensive. It doesn't lead to a fair contest of ideas, whether in policy and opinion forums in Washington or in electoral contests, especially because Republicans almost never act with similar compunction. That the debate they envision is not one of equals is not itself disasterous; but when we act like we are not equal the results are very bad indeed.
Returning for a moment to #3 lurking observer:
S/he defined "counterinsurgency" as it relates to Bill Roggio's post on the Sunnis. In today's local paper (Baltimore Sun), I see slants to the editorials, op-eds, letters, and even the news that could be called part of a home-front counter-counterinsurgency campaign. More soldiers maimed and dead from bombs. Iraqis are being killed. Explosions are everywhere, Americans are hated, the Bush war has been, again, exposed as a WMD-based Lie.
Readers who get most of their news from papers like the Baltimore Sun will have no idea that informed Americans (Westerners) could be having debates like the one in this thread. They are almost completely uninformed on anything beyond the Occupation/Resistance box score.
This news-source divide is significant, and seems to be widening.
SamAm, liberalhawk, and Bill:
Interested to follow the exchanges on the tone and content of Democratic leaders. I tend towards Bill's take, more so because as a lifetime (former), contributing Democrat, I get a lot of mailings. The most recent 'gimme' letter was from Edward Kennedy; here's a sense of its tone:
And so on.
Whatever the eevil genius of Karl Rove (the few fund-raisers I get from the elephants are comparative snoozers), Ted isn't talking the talk of bipartisanship to the hard core.
Interestingly, when I re-read his letter to quote the juicy parts about Iraq--there aren't any. So, happily, perhaps the party has concluded that the counter-counterinsugency is a losing proposition. At least the money-raising part.
liberalhawk -
I think that when you're accusing Bill or others of trying to create a party "afraid to offer any criticism on the war, period." you're wrong.
The Democratic Party is - according to many, including folks like praktike who disagree with me about the war - flailing on the core issues of national defense and an appropriate and coherent response (which might or might not be war) to the events culminating in 9/11.
It's also flailing in regards to other polciies, as it jettisons it's working-class constituents for BoBos and other public-sector dependent interest groups, like media companies.
I've said all along that I don't want a competitive Democratic Party, I want a dominant one.
I want it because the GOP is, like it or not, the party of capital and business and it's power needs to be balanced by a party that's about the people who do the work.
And as long as the foreign policy keys to the party are held by "Bush Lied, People Died!" folks, that's not going to happen.
A.L.
Bagdad McDermot can fly to iraq, stand on a mass grave of kids in support of a regime guilty of crimes against humanity, and they say nothing .. democrat congress and senate leftist can go to Cuba and black their lips with Castros boot polish, a land with REAL gulags ... real ones ... and turn around and accuse the USA if having a gulag.
And were is a single democrat outide of Zell Miller who has said a thing about this proof that democrats support crimes agaist humanity,, by smooching the boots of those that are guilty of crimes against humanity.
On the scale of morally offensive, that rates near the top.
Let it be noted that I made the comment "afraid to offer", not liberalhawk. Furthermore, I actually agree more than not with what AL says about the direction of the party (though I do think 1) it's better now than 30 years ago and 2) that it's improved even since November). The problem we have is that our activist base has not ever been that interested in defining a Democratic vision of a responsible and assertive American foreign and security policy. What good ideas are there get stepped on by more jeuvenile, politically uncomplicated ones. This state of affiars will only be fundamentally altered when 1) we decide not to cede the issue to the GOP, when we acknowledge that concerns about US security are rightfully paramount and take responsibilty to offer responses more serious than those of the Republicans. Kerry tried to do this but undoubtedly failed.
My problem with comments that implore Democrats to "take responsibilty" for actions or words they had nothing to do with is that desire fundamentally removes the idea of individual responsibilty from politicans. Hillary's done great work on defense, but it "doesn't matter" because of Ward Churchill or Amnesty International or Ted Kennedy. So why, if Republicans are simply going to attack and demonize and be just as wrong in their rhetoric as those three no matter what we do, should we even listen? The Democrats in neglecting security policy have internalized GOP sterotypes whose bases in facts are incomplete and whose propigation are politically motivated. The bottom line is that Democrats need to be strong enough to ignore the details of attacks and "suggestions" from people who are "objectivly pro-Republican" (like Mr. Roggio) but also strong enough to confront the reasons why those attacks are being made. It's important not to conflate the two, and I want the difference between them to by crystal clear.
So Raymond, what is the difference why Cuban gulags are gulags and the US gulags are not gulags?
Because there are no US "gulags" at all.
But you claim that there are Cuban gulags. I'm not argueing that the Cubans have no political prisoners (which they obvious do) but what makes them worse than the American not-gulags?
a., why don't you just put up a big neon sign that says "I have no clue."
Try doing a bit of, you know, research before you say stupid things like this. About 20 minutes with Google might be nice. Or, you could read Armando Valladares' excellent book Against All Hope: A Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulag
a (#37):
I can't come up with a persuasive link proving that Cuba has gulags. But then it depends on the definition of gulag. As well as on how much credit one wants to give to a totalitarian regime for successfully stifling foreigners' understanding of what their prisons are really like.
See if you think the description written by Babalu Blog rings true. It does for me, but there are no links; YMMV.
A magical-realist essay on Art and Repression at The Tears of Things has stuck in my head since I first encountered it. But are these descriptions exaggerated? Did these prisoners deserve what they got? Is breaking a few eggs the necessary price for the socialist omelet of a brighter future? Again, YMMV.