12-13-2003, 12:24 AM
Some of this stuff I covered in the PM, some not. Please PM me if you desire a better explanation for why I chose to do it this way. :) I'm good for it.
For public consumption . . .
What the listing amounts to is a compilation of stuff from the source to his folks.
As to the "wrong question," you have a good point, since that is one of my favorite lines, and as I see it, most of the questions asked by pundits are the "wrong question."
Going into Iraq was a calculated risk, in two ways. One was risking that it would make the situation in the Middle East worse. Regardless of what was publicly spoken, that risk analysis was done. Politics is an exercise in risk management, at best.
The other calculation was, as I analyze the political thought process involved, that either "success" of the wrong sort, or out and out failure would scotch the chances for re-election of the incumbent. Given our system, that would mean that, by default, an opposition leader takes the helm and pursues unproductive policies -- as seen by those who counselled for the course of actions taken -- of neo-appeasement and "trusting" the international community, of which we are a part, to solve a problem. I think I addressed the timing issue in another thread, either here or at RB.
As to questions, no one has yet answered my original pre conflict question, now cynically modified:
Can you spread Democracy the way they initially spread Islam, at the point of a sword? (Make the question contextual to the region, eh? )
I don't know, but the historical record is that some of the attempts have been pretty dismal failures: Viet Nam, Dominican Republic, to name a couple. Haiti . . . the jury is still out, and if one uses a basket case nation as a showpiece, is it really success?? (Well, if you go back to Haiti of 1919, when FDR kindly wrote for them their new Constitution . . . 'tis a failure.) I personally don't think so. What is happening in Mozambique, lately, anyway? What is really happening in Iran, for that matter, and is the Information Age really enabling folks to find their voices? Depending on who you ask, Tianemen Square trumps dictators, and that model will work anywhere. Others of us a less trusting in the cookie cutter approach.
So, to my original question, and the now cynical rewording, the answer won't be on the street for about 10 years. I still stick with my original premise, from a conversation with Jester and some others, that the most likely form of government in Iraq five years hence will be: an Islamic Republic. Not a carbon Copy of the Iranian version, but one the folks living in Iraq invent with much skullduggery and bruhaha in the process. Just as we did, in forming our own version of a Parliamentary form of government over here a few hundred y ears ago. They just won't have the luxury of being sorta left alone to shape their own destiny to the extent that we were . . . sucks to be them, on at least one score.
Justification for the war?
The prospect and assessment, Big PIcture wise, that things would get worse, not better, without action. That to me is a rational approach for justification: long term, big picture view, and one not well ascribed to or understood by a great deal of the public, although there are loads of smart folks who do look through that lens, and of course they all tend to disagree. Just like the smart folks here disagree on that and other topics. :) More than one way to peel an onion, what is the "best" way?
As to "who else should we de-SOB- ify?" I have to say, that question must be considered on a case by case basis, not on a "one size fits all cookie cutter" basis. One size fits all caught us during the Cold War far too often, along the lines of tarring too many places, one way or the other, with a brush of a too general policy. Pinochet seems to be the poster child for that, or even Castro and Tito.
I am guessing that one assumption for the course of action being utile was that, since it is oil rich, Iraq has the material wherewithal, long term, to pay for its own downstream needs, both rebuilding, building, and sustaining a viable nationstate and economy.
It's the short term costs, the big ones like 80+ billion (and the impact that has on medium and long term debt service) that get headlines, and well they should. But just like the Blowinski Caper, some of the sound and fury act as a smokescreen for substantive issues, or detail of interest.
Given the kleptocracy that is most government on the planet earth, the assumption that Iraq will 'pay its own rebuilding bill' in the long haul is . . . optimistic, at best. I am guessing that there are pirhanas aplenty who are drooling,scheming at how to siphon off bits and pieces of the material wealth of Iraq, even as we "speak" here on the forum: the pirhana's speak all of the languages of the globe.
And I think I know why Koffi pulled out. The UN's 2% override on Iraqi "oil for food" will end soon, to Koffi's intense fiscal dismay. :blink:
Enough meandering musing here.
I am waiting for the spring, when the "you lied to us" card will resurface, and I am sure that between now and then some more digging will be done by the folks who will use that card to their benefit. I'd be shocked if more detail were not unearthed between now and then. When it surfaces, that ever elusive and pointless "approval rating" metric will doubtless plummet. And then:
Like father, like son? We shall see.
For public consumption . . .
What the listing amounts to is a compilation of stuff from the source to his folks.
As to the "wrong question," you have a good point, since that is one of my favorite lines, and as I see it, most of the questions asked by pundits are the "wrong question."
Going into Iraq was a calculated risk, in two ways. One was risking that it would make the situation in the Middle East worse. Regardless of what was publicly spoken, that risk analysis was done. Politics is an exercise in risk management, at best.
The other calculation was, as I analyze the political thought process involved, that either "success" of the wrong sort, or out and out failure would scotch the chances for re-election of the incumbent. Given our system, that would mean that, by default, an opposition leader takes the helm and pursues unproductive policies -- as seen by those who counselled for the course of actions taken -- of neo-appeasement and "trusting" the international community, of which we are a part, to solve a problem. I think I addressed the timing issue in another thread, either here or at RB.
As to questions, no one has yet answered my original pre conflict question, now cynically modified:
Can you spread Democracy the way they initially spread Islam, at the point of a sword? (Make the question contextual to the region, eh? )
I don't know, but the historical record is that some of the attempts have been pretty dismal failures: Viet Nam, Dominican Republic, to name a couple. Haiti . . . the jury is still out, and if one uses a basket case nation as a showpiece, is it really success?? (Well, if you go back to Haiti of 1919, when FDR kindly wrote for them their new Constitution . . . 'tis a failure.) I personally don't think so. What is happening in Mozambique, lately, anyway? What is really happening in Iran, for that matter, and is the Information Age really enabling folks to find their voices? Depending on who you ask, Tianemen Square trumps dictators, and that model will work anywhere. Others of us a less trusting in the cookie cutter approach.
So, to my original question, and the now cynical rewording, the answer won't be on the street for about 10 years. I still stick with my original premise, from a conversation with Jester and some others, that the most likely form of government in Iraq five years hence will be: an Islamic Republic. Not a carbon Copy of the Iranian version, but one the folks living in Iraq invent with much skullduggery and bruhaha in the process. Just as we did, in forming our own version of a Parliamentary form of government over here a few hundred y ears ago. They just won't have the luxury of being sorta left alone to shape their own destiny to the extent that we were . . . sucks to be them, on at least one score.
Justification for the war?
The prospect and assessment, Big PIcture wise, that things would get worse, not better, without action. That to me is a rational approach for justification: long term, big picture view, and one not well ascribed to or understood by a great deal of the public, although there are loads of smart folks who do look through that lens, and of course they all tend to disagree. Just like the smart folks here disagree on that and other topics. :) More than one way to peel an onion, what is the "best" way?
As to "who else should we de-SOB- ify?" I have to say, that question must be considered on a case by case basis, not on a "one size fits all cookie cutter" basis. One size fits all caught us during the Cold War far too often, along the lines of tarring too many places, one way or the other, with a brush of a too general policy. Pinochet seems to be the poster child for that, or even Castro and Tito.
I am guessing that one assumption for the course of action being utile was that, since it is oil rich, Iraq has the material wherewithal, long term, to pay for its own downstream needs, both rebuilding, building, and sustaining a viable nationstate and economy.
It's the short term costs, the big ones like 80+ billion (and the impact that has on medium and long term debt service) that get headlines, and well they should. But just like the Blowinski Caper, some of the sound and fury act as a smokescreen for substantive issues, or detail of interest.
Given the kleptocracy that is most government on the planet earth, the assumption that Iraq will 'pay its own rebuilding bill' in the long haul is . . . optimistic, at best. I am guessing that there are pirhanas aplenty who are drooling,scheming at how to siphon off bits and pieces of the material wealth of Iraq, even as we "speak" here on the forum: the pirhana's speak all of the languages of the globe.
And I think I know why Koffi pulled out. The UN's 2% override on Iraqi "oil for food" will end soon, to Koffi's intense fiscal dismay. :blink:
Enough meandering musing here.
I am waiting for the spring, when the "you lied to us" card will resurface, and I am sure that between now and then some more digging will be done by the folks who will use that card to their benefit. I'd be shocked if more detail were not unearthed between now and then. When it surfaces, that ever elusive and pointless "approval rating" metric will doubtless plummet. And then:
Like father, like son? We shall see.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete