Yeah, I just now read those stories too.
Positive: Facts and Events, Negative: Threats and Bluster.
I'd sure like to know how you claim to know so much about Iraq, Harlan. Aside from just what I read over the internet, etc., I have almost daily contact with troops who have been there very recently. That's where my news over and above mere media articles comes from. How about you?
The best sources for info are Iraqslogger.com (altho they became a pay site recently for some content), juancole.com provides analysis and translations from Arabic press, NPR has good discussions on the ON Point radio show streamed online, I read Jeruselum Post and Daily Star (english language Lebanese paper) online, CSPAN interviews many people about Iraq - a real treasure trove, Charlie Rose periodically has good interviews available online, And the main reporting comes from BBC News, NY Times, and Washington post.Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
You make comments, and with great beligerency, indicating you have superficial and confused knowledge. For instance, you didn't know anything about Sadr's history and politics the last 5 years. And you don't know about the diversion of oil and refined oil to militias. The reality of what happened in Basra 2 weeks ago completely escaped you, it seems you either don't read any reports or analysis, or you simply believe what suits you.
Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force
Very encouraging news. Of course piece was written by same reporters who wrote extensively of the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi Army two weeks ago, maybe they got smarter and more honest since then.
I'm glad Sadr is being fought, it had to be done. Could mean more fighting in coming months, hard to know. It doesn't prove a whole lot that Iraqi Army can kick tail with backing of U.S., but at least it's a good start.
I'm BELLIGERENT, Harlan?
I'm merely expressing NORMALCY and rational belief in the positive reporting of our own military--the leadership--as well as the rank and file troops who have no ax to grind. How do you perceive that as belligerent?
You, admittedly, are quoting media sources with notorious left wing/anti-American agendas--the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR, Arabic language newspapers. The first thing you cited is a blog. You really don't realize that the great majority of contributors in ANY of these blogs and forums are leftist types who really ARE belligerent? Normal people with a simple normal positive outlook--like myself--usually don't get involved in that sort of thing. But make no mistake about it, we NORMAL types are the huge majority. Somebody, I think it was you, Harlan, even described the situation in this forum that way.
YOUR article and your comments about the writers illustrate exactly the screwedupedness of those with your perspective. You have difficulty comprehending how these guys would write a run-of-the-mill leftist piece of subjective crap about the Iraqi Army, then when an actual event happens, they at least have the journalistic integrity to report the facts on the ground--which you yourself characterize as "very encouraging".
You don't want to believe the American military; You don't want to believe Fox News; Then when even some of your own come through with a simple factual report that is positive, you are completely flummuxed.
Why is good news so are for you to believe and be happy about? Maybe YOU are belligerent.
By eliminating these sources, you are pretty much in the dark. Your first-hand accounts aren't going to educate you about the history & politics.
I agree that some of these sources can be biased at times. If we eliminate news sources that have bias we disagree with, we become dumber and dumber.
All the interview programs I mentioned - CSPAN, Rose, NPR are fantastic and essential. There is ZERO bias there, they bring in a broad range of opinions. You can't ignore all the experts and actors in a situation and think you know what is going on.
IraqSlogger.com is a website run by the former news director of CNN, they are well-financed. They have a large staff of Iraqi reporters on the ground. And they have links and summaries to ALL Iraq-related content on the internet. Some of their stuff is free, but to access all their info costs something like $100 per month! That's right. Very specialized people - congressman, journalists, business contractors - will pay that kind of money to access the expensive and dangerous reporting they do.
JuanCole.com is CERTAINLY a blog written from a left perspective. So what? Be a big boy and apply your own filter. His analysis and information is unique and essential.
Not only do I watch Fox, I read opinions of the right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, etc. on internet. These right wing perspectives get plenty of play on CSPAN.
Look Tex, I am largely on your side on Iraq issues. The difference between us is I make choices after looking at all the information. You block-out the bad news. And it also explains why I can sound ambiguous and uncertain. I'm not ashamed to be a flip-flopper. I thought in 2006-2007 that the U.S. could not play positive role in Iraq. The Iraqis themselves showed no interest in compromise. I'm back to conditional support.
I know you have written a lot of decent and intelligent things about the war--and a few not so much. I've never had anything against flip-flopping either. I always said, the reasons to detest John Kerry were not the things he flip-flopped on, but the things he stayed consistently BAD on.
You said what sources other than ....... ? Oh not much, only CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, and a ton of others. Obviously, I listen to a lot of those, too. I would especially single out MSNBC, which does a better job of keeping its news separate from its editorializing than anybody other than Fox. Many years ago, I even used to read Arabic language papers in Arabic, but my command of that language has slipped a bit.
Again here, all of this stuff, of course, is beside the point--that point being the POSITIVE truth about Iraq, and most of the media's failure to give equal coverage to the great deal of boring good news as they do to spectacular but much rarer bad news.
This comment from www.JuanCole.com summarizes what's going on in Basra:
Kudos to James Glanz and Alissa Rubin of the NYT for getting the story! They point out that the US and Iran are on the same side in southern Iraq, both fearful of the nativist Sadr movement. This correct narrative is completely the opposite of what Americans have been spoon fed on television and by Bush / Pentagon spokesmen. I had pointed out this Bush- Iran convergence last week and also pointed out that US intelligence analysis admits it. The article is the first one I have seen to say that Iran supports al-Hakim's ISCI in its bid to create a Shiite superprovince in Iraq's south. I've never been able to discover what the Iranians feel about this and had wondered if they weren't at least a little bit worried about a soft partition of Iraq because of its implications for Iranian Kurdistan, which might become restive and seek to join Iraqi Kurdistan. But it is plausible that Tehran might risk this scenario in order to gain a permanent regional ally in the form of the Shiite Regional Government in southern Iraq.
So you're telling me that Iran OPPOSES al Sadr--who they routinely supply weapons to, and who has worn a trail to and from Iran? And you're saying Iran DOESN'T lust for control of Iraq's southern oil fields which they fought a ten year war in the 80s over? And Iran DOESN'T want to get America out too soon so they can dominate the whole area? Ahmedinijad and company are just good hearted types who only want to see a nice positive conclusion for Iraqis?
A big YEAH RIGHT! to all of that.
If anybody has a goal of Shi'ite separatism, it seems like it would be al Sadr.
Does it not occur to you at all, Harlan, that this blog and the NY Times writers have an anti-Bush, if not completely anti-American agenda saturating their writing?
Tex,
It is worth the time to read that article, I'm pretty sure they nailed the situation.
You are correct about Juan Cole being anti-Bush. And he is against big powers meddling in the Middle East. I don't always agree with him philisophically, I have been for the war in Iraq, he is obviously against it. For 6 years I have occasionally sent him emails arguing with his blog, and he often takes time to write me back.
Juan Cole knows more about Shitte world and history than anybody, he is the foremost scholar & author in this area. From reading his blog over the years, I learned that I didn't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the details on the ground over there, but I've learned along the way.
You have not yet reached that critical phase of understanding, you don't get how ignorant you are of the situation. I am not insulting you, just trying to open your eyes.
Sadr's whole game has been anti-Iran from day one. That's why I've been so confused and surprised the past year that he seemed to be moving under Iran's influence. (It is not surprising or contradictory that Iran might have provided him with weapons in past, in that they have a tactical mutual interest in harassing U.S. troops.)
Sadr's base of support is in north, in Bhagdad. He is an Iraqi Nationalist who wants a strong central government. He has built his reputation upon being anti-Iran and anti-U.S. Sadr & his father spent the Hussein years in Iraq, which he is proud of. The other main Shia group (they used to be called SCRI but changed named to some other acronymn) are closely allied with Iran. Their militia, the Badir Brigade, actually fought with Iran against Iraq during the Hussien years. This Iranian-friendly group is allied with al-Maliki, and also is tactically allied with the U.S.
So the main dymanic going on now are the elections next fall, which will likely lead to the soft partition of Iraq by creating an autonomous region in Southern Iraq. Sadr has been fiercely opposed to this, this is the main point of contention with the other Shitte group. Think of it: Sadr's people are centered in Bhagdad, they are fearful of being cut-off from the southern goodies.
Sadr's political influence has spread across the south. Since he has been in Iran lately, I theorized that he had become Iran's new agent in Iraq, wanted to be king of Southern Iraq. Looks like that theory is wrong.
Of course Iran wants the U.S. out, and it wants great influence in Iraq. Read the article. It appears we have little choice but to allow the Iranians to have great influence in the coming South Iraq autonomous region. The writing is on the wall, most of the Shitte want close relations with Iran. Paradoxically, Sadr is the only Shitte on the scene that ever pushed against Iran.
Harlan, your reply was thoughtful and civil, and I will try to do the same.
Don't you think calling this blogger one of the "foremost authorities" in Iraqi Shi'ites is a little bit of hyperbole? I think I would take whoever the State Department or the military or the CIA has over some guy who may be highly intelligent, but basically has an ax to grind. I did read his article, BTW.
It still seems that what you say about al Sadr contradicts pretty much everything he has done and said.
This Cole guy is basically falling into the same trap Obama falls into--over-estimating the power and importance of Iran, and undervaluing the evil intentions of Iran. No way we can trust them or expect them to negotiate in good faith. Robert Gates, who has been the most dovish person in the Administration, said yesterday, that eventual war with Iran is a strong possibility.
The BIGGEST QUARREL I have with what you wrote is your quoting of--and apparently agreeing with--the article saying we "have little choice but to allow the Iranians to have great influence in the coming South Iraq autonomous region". The United States of America has "little choice" but to yield to allowing Iranian influence? And worse yet, to agreeing to this off-the-wall idea of a separate "autonomous region" or whatever in the south? I don't think so.
That is tantamount to Jimmy Carter saying America had to be resigned to becoming a second-rate power. It's as if somebody said the Packers can't hope to compete in their division. They will be lucky to end up second or third.
America bringing regime change in Iran seems a lot more likely than that.
He is my favorite expert on the Mideast. Altho he is very politically biased, he presents the facts very completely. He's a history professor, and president of the Association of Mideast Scholars. Discussions of Shittes often refer to his books. He's Mr. Big. Yet he takes time to write a blog and appear on tv interviews all the time.
Everything I said is factually correct. It is very hard to understand Sadr, he is a ball of contradictions.
What is "Iran"? The people? The regime? They seem to be very diverse and divided. There is a very nasty faction in Iran that is causing us all manner of trouble.
We made a terrible mistake by explicitly and implicitly threatening them when we went into Iraq. How can we expect them to help us when our policy is, "once we succeed here, you're next."
The Iraqi Constitution has the mechanism for provinces to form autonimous regions written right in. This is how Kurdistan will formalize their status as an autominious region. And the Shitte wish to do the same thing in the 9 Southern provinces. This is not theoretical, this is underway, the elections next October kick-off the process. Sadr is against this partition, the more mainstream Shitte Party, SCRI, is all for it.
I think it is an arrangement that we can easily live with. And the Shitte of southern Iraq WANT to have close relations with Iran. We established Democracy, this is their choice. And the Sunni are not powerful enough to stop them.
I think Iraq can serve a role in reconciling Iran with the U.S. and the rest of the Arab world. This is not a bad outcome.
Harlan, that "very nasty faction" in Iran controls virtually ALL the power and decision-making. And police states being what they are, that isn't likely to change--unless maybe America makes it change.
As for the autonomous Shi'ite region idea in the south, first of all, you have the oil revenue problem--the majority of the population in the middle of the country is NOT just going to sit back and let themselves get cut out of the money by both the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. That could probably be overcome if there was some compromise in people's hearts--remember, we're talking about Muslims/Arabs here--the people several of the forum lefties deemed unsuitable for democracy a couple of days ago.
Secondly, if you subtract the southern Shi'ites from the ruling Shi'ite majority, there is no more ruling Shi-ite majority. Does that not seem like the kind of thing the Maliki government, and probably the U.S. government is NOT gonna allow to happen? I wonder what Professor Cole would have to say about that.
Iran is not a police state. And Iran is not autocratic, in the sense that there is no single leader or party with absolute control. Power is shared across many people, and there is a lot of political disagreement and tension.
You know that Iran was an important ally of ours in war against Taliban in Afghanistan? They are a mixed bag. They have a secret service that seems to be kind of a wild card, as is the case in Pakistan.
The plan is to share the oil money. But there is the large issue of corruption. Plus the center would be cut out if the country did completely break apart in future. Certainly the Iraqis in the Bhagdad area (such as Sadr) must have some concerns.
They aren't leaving Iraq. Kurdistan & Shiastan (as some have taken to calling it) will still be part of the country. Its federalism.
The danger is they might decide to cut and run some day, have their own oil-rich little state. That sounds appealling, but Iraqis claim that is not something they want, evidently there is still national identity there. There are Shiite shrines north of Bhagdad, for instance, and many Shiite still live in the center and north. Something like 26% of the Iraqi population lives in Baghdad area, and that will not be part of any region.
Iran is NOT a police state? Come on! Technically, it's a theocracy, not an autocracy. But the result is the same. No rights, no freedoms, a lot of people disappearing and never heard from again. Sure it LOOKS democratic on paper. The Soviet Union was very democratic on paper too. But in FACT, nobody gets power that the ayatollahs don't want to get power.
And Iran was an ALLY of ours in defeating the Taliban? That's just laughable. What do you claim as a source for such a thing?
Federalism and autonomous regions simply do NOT go together. Federalism is what we have in America. The states are clearly subordinate to the Federal government. That would not be the case in Iraq. It would basically be a confederation of three fairly equal units. And I really doubt whether the "Shi'istan" voters would have representation in the Iraq national parliament.
If you want a comparison, think Puerto Rico--autonomous, but ruled by the U.S.--and NOT represented in Congress.
Actually there is a fair amount of political freedom in Iran. More than in, say, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Syria. And the clerics are not of one mind.
I'm not painting Iran as a democracy or friend of the U.S. But don't be too shocked if our relations improve as Iraq stabilizes. I'm not sure we have that many points of contention. Iraqi Shiite seem adverse to a theocracy. Iranian shipment of missles to Hezzbollah in Lebanon is their most offensive behavior. But their support of Hezzbollah, a grassroots, minority Shiite group, is not so surprising.
Tex, my source is the fact that I read a range of media and know what is going on. I don't doubt that you have knowlege of the region, but the holes in your knowlege are gaping.
The Taliban are cut from the same ideological cloth as al Qaida - fundamentalist Sunnis. The #1 apostates in their view are the Shiite. So Iran is the kingdom of evil to them.
I just did a google search on "Iran Taliban", and this was the first article that popped up:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...-taliban_x.htm
You can do your own searches and research, and do stop laughing.
Federalism can mean a range of arangements.
Iraq is headed towards a weak central government, unless you or Sadr or the Sunni insurgents have their way.
The central government will still handle currency, national defense (altho even that will be shared), electrical grid.
If you look at the current relationship between Iraq & Kurdistan, that is where Shiistan is headed.
The plan is to keep a unified country with autonomous regions. Of course the parliment would continue to include all, just like there are Kurds in the current parliament. Sorry to shock you, but you are not well informed.
No No No, Harlan. If your sources tell you Iran is somehow freer than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, then it is a product of horrible anti-American bias, and by proxy, bias against countries allied with us. I know people from Egypt. The great majority of people there live normal pleasant lives. Ditto that, I'm fairly sure, for Saudi Arabia. BOTH those countries are PRIME TARGETS for the evil forces within Islam to try and tear down the regimes in place--and thus, those regimes take a harsh no nonsense approach toward keeping those enemies at bay. But the good normal people who make up the bulk of the population are NOT the targets--as they most certainly are in the all out TYRANNY which is Iran.
A unified country with autonomous regions is oxymoronic.
Harlan, you are to be applauded for reading a lot. You are to be booed for not taking bias sources with a huge grain of salt. You seem especially prone to taking at face value propaganda of anti-American people and groups.
I have neighbors that left Iran shortly after the Shaw's departure and Khomeini took over. These folks insist there is very little freedom in Iran today, or they'd be back there. Unlike Iraq, its supposed to be a beautiful country.
I think a lot of people in that region have decent lives - as long as they keep their political views to themselves.
My view of Iran really has nothing to do with anti-American bias, just accounts from visitors. Iran has a much larger middle class than in the Arab countries.
I agree it is a little hard to picture. Did you know that the autonomous region of Kurdistan currently forbids the flying of the Iraqi flag on their territory, and forbids the introduction of federal troops on their territory without permission? Yet Kurds also participate in the national army.
It's a dicey situation. But remember how our country started as a loose confederation of states under the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps the new Iraq will start that way, and will voluntarily form tighter integration as trust builds.
And remember, the Articles of Confederation didn't work.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as I said, are targeted by evil outside forces aiming for regime change to something much more tyrannical and much more belligerent toward civilized neighboring states--yes including, but not limited to Israel.
Iran ALREADY IS that belligerent tyranny radical Muslims would like to turn Egypt and Saudi Arabia into.
The only people in Egypt and Saudi Arabia endangered by the degree of police state are legitimate anti-government terrorists. Conversely, in Iran, the terrorists have the power of government already, and the normal citizens are the ones endangered to the point of disappearing and dying without a trace.
The only possible motive for falsely equating Egypt and Saudi Arabia with Iran is hating Egypt and Saudi Arabia for being allies of America. And no, Harlan, I'm not talking about you. I am talking about your sources, though.
No. They were the best arrangement that could be achieved politically at the time. They served as a reasonable transitional bandaid until a tighter integration was acceptable to all parties. Iraq is in much the same position.
We were discussing what it is like to live in these countries. Freedom House does an annual study of political and civil rights in every country. Their scoring is 2 for most free, 14 for most oppressive. Rather than argue blindly, lets see what they say about some representative countries:
Belgium 2
United States 2
France 2
Austrailia 2
Czech Republic 2
Costa Rica 2
Finland 2
Germany 2
Estonia 2
Poland 2
Japan 3
Greece 3
South Korea 3
Belize 3
Israel 3
Mongolia 4
Brazil 4
Croatia 4
Mexico 5
India 5
Albania 6
Turkey 6
Bolivia 6
Guatemala 7
Liberia 7
Georgia 8
Kuwait 8
Nepal 9
Morocco 9
Lebanon 9
Singapore 9
Afghanistan 10
Ethiopia 10
Thailand 10
Bahrain 10
Algeria 11
Belarus 11
Russia 11
Syria 11
Egypt 11
Pakistan 11
China 11
Vietnam 12
Cameroon 12
Iraq 12
Iran 12
Saudi Arabia 13
Syria 13
Cuba 14
Burma 14
North Korea 14
Lybia 14
Turkmenistan 14
Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia are grouped near the bottom in that order. So not much separates them. I was wrong too, I would have expected Iran to score a little better.
We could find other independent evaluations, but Freedom House is well respected. As is so often the case, your views are based mostly on ideology.
www.freedomhouse.org
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote