I don’t for one moment enjoy being a Cassandra-like bearer of bad news when it comes to the democratization project in Iraq. I would love to have had my earlier forebodings about the project proved wrong. (Indeed, throughout 2004 I wrote a lot about how credible progress in just such a project could help to de-escalate tensions in Iraq while also disentangling the occupying army from its continued presence there…)
But no. There they were again today, the 275 elected members of the National Assembly– meeting, but once again quite unable to reach agreement on forming a government.
AP’s Mariam Fam was writing there, at 1 p.m. EST, about,
- the interim prime minister and president storming out of the chaotic session that exposed deep divides among the National Assembly’s Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members.
The short session
The biggest enemies of possible success in this affair has been the American right. From the beginning they have tried to define reality and lost themselves in illusion.
Death in such affairs is by hundreds of cuts. Many could have been prevented. Attempts could have been made to guard ammo dumps, experts and resources for rebuilding could have been spread among the troops (aka guerilla style) instead of centralized, many, many mistakes and problems were reported and could have been partially met.
One of the most patriotic things that could be done is to find a problem and analyze it. On the right this is regarded as treason. If you don’t mention bad things they aren’t happening.
Error is not admitted, yet just think how much “traction” we could gain with the Iraqi people by admiting and apologizing for mistakes such as allowing the looting. Our present approavh encourages conspiracy theories, it discourages reform, it is an hallucination.
Watch it in awe.
You can lead a horse to water…
This is death by a thousand blogs.
So now it is the US fault that they did not agree on a speaker? Now we panic over the cacophony and chaos of middle east politics? Let them be.
E. Bilpe
E. Bilpe’s post here is beyond the tolerable limit of racism.
it is high time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own affairs…whatever mistakes were made by the Coalition in post-Saddam Iraq, they offer little solace in facing the future…the idea that damage to infrastructure or beheadings/car bombings/kidnappings by foreign Jihadists and common criminals or sectarian intercine violence or assasinations of the professional class and public officials SERVES THE AMERICANS RIGHT is beyond ludicrous.
yes, it is encouraging that even France and Germany are (outside Iraq) helping to train Iraqi security forces, but as those forces grow in size and capability, the Coalition presence inside Iraq should draw down and be reduced to a support role…rather than serve as enablers to help some Iraqis avoid responsibility for cobbling their own future.
Same thing from Hammurabi.
Iraqis are not feckless inadequate incompetents. It was presisely their competence that got the yanks scared in the first place.
Nor can the yanks be allowed to say “we messed up”. They knew what they were doing, and they are still doing it, and they are criminally culpable.
In Africa we have become familiar with these special pleadings, especially the racist ones, for generations. To hell with them!
Dominic, the majority of Bilpe’s posts are beyond the tolerable limit of racism and bigotry, and the one on this page is extremely mild by comparison to most.
I have to add that most of the US press coverage of the Assembly “collapsing” (WaPo language) is also “beyond the tolerable limit of racism.” The elected Iraqis are portrayed as quaint in their robes, and immature, unruly and chaotic in their behavior.
More and more, I think the powers that be in Washington have no intention of ever leaving Iraq, though I continue to believe that Iraqis are quite sophisticated enough to take back their country in time.
I’ve come to the same realization, janinsafran: the U.S. government has no intention of leaving Iraq. A mammoth new embassy (read political command and control center for the Middle East) and military bases will ensure that Iraq remains a vassal state. The adroit maneuvering of the administration and the military, the neocons and all the others involved, can only win my admiration — if it weren’t that their goals are so questionable.
“Iraqis are portrayed as quaint in their robes, and immature, unruly and chaotic in their behavior” Exactly, Janinsanfran. This is tedious and childish colonial stereotyping.
It needs to be nipped in the bud. I don’t completely agree with Shirin about Bilpe. He has always been obnoxious, to be sure, but this Tarzan/Indiana Jones tone of voice is new and extra-sickening.
New in the Iraq case, that is. It’s only a short time ago that the Iraqis were supposed to be about to deliver WMD on New York from fiendishly clever pilotless drones.
Colonial stereotyping rots the mind. It is as much of a danger to the metropolis as to the colonised. You have been warned!
Of course the stalemate doesn’t harm US oil interests :
Allawi’s government is going ahead, planning to build a big refinery. The oil minister was recently in Amman, negotiating contracts with big US/UK companies. The conditions of these contracts are all but clear, they seem even contradictory (see below). Why these companies and not others ? Why just before the nomination of a new government ? What will they offer in exchange of production shares ? Iraqis beware, don’t let your hands be tied by longterm contracts, let competition define the shares/prices between all companies in the world, not just among a few ones, or you’ll be ripped.
Extract : “Such a refinery is expected to cost at least $2 billion and take up to six years to build. Work could start in early 2006, al-Shamma said. Companies such as Chevron Texaco and Royal Dutch/Shell are competing for the right to build such a refinery in return for production-sharing arrangements once it’s finished.”
….
“He [the Iraqi oil minister Ahmed al-Shamma] declined to say how much it might cost to build the refinery, although crude oil pipeline and distribution infrastructure and storage tanks already exist at the site. The ministry expects to pay cash for the refinery and run it with Iraq workers.”
Why doesn’t anyone mention the fact that these newly elected officials are attempting to follow an impossible guideline created by the United States?
Why the 2/3 majority requirement? If the USA had that ratio requirement our government would also collapse! Can you imagine the Republicans attempting to cobble together a coalition of Democrats to support them?? Ha!
Anyone???
Ted, you are right, and it was not a mistake, it was deliberate. As I already wrote above, the yanks are criminally culpable.
Now that you have grasped that much, can you perhaps also now see the function of the new colonial-style racism in your own society? It is to add insult to injury. It is to mock the victims in their difficulties after you have destroyed their lives and their institutions. It is a horrible cruelty. If you don’t stamp it out, it makes you complicit.
In my view – and I’m only an outside observer who follows the news sporadically – the two-thirds majority rule was a structural trick on the part of the U.S. to maintain control over the formation of the Iraq government, giving the Kurds, with whom the U.S., you might say, has the closest affinites of any people in Iraq and who are its staunchest and most cohesive supporters, a key position. The fears and aspirations of the Kurds, which are more than understandable, have supplied the U.S. with a lever, which it happily uses. Even Cheney’s recent criticism of Turkey for not letting the U.S. military cross through it into Iraq can be seen in this light: the Turks better keep out (that is, not bother the Kurds) because they failed to cooperate and now have no say in what happens further. What other reason would this arch-calculator have for suddenly making such a controversial statement out of the blue? No, it was not impulse or caprice.
The two-thirds provision is the pendent of the U.S. imposed rule that three provinces together have the power to veto a motion to the constitution (or a referendum, I’m not entirely sure which). And it seems the Kurds can count on a majority of votes in exactly three provinces. Please correct me if I am wrong. The machinations of the U.S. are endlessly wondrous, are they not?
But don’t forget Mr. A. Chalabi, who keeps popping up out of the woodwork.
I would like to see more information about the various politicians in Iraq to give a sense whether they seek personal gain, where their loyalties lie, how interested they are in promoting Iraq, and their positions on the occupation. I am concerned, for example, with the Kurdish leadership because in the 1990’s Barzani and Talibani engaged in a war over who would profit from the black market trade over the border. If these two Kurdish leaders can’t compromise between themselves I wonder how flexible they can be with other parties; I am surprised no one ever brings up this history.
Quentin,
The Kurds are not merely the Bush administration’s staunchest and most cohesive supporters among Iraqis, they are their ONLY supporters.
edq,
Barzani and Talibani are little more than glorified warlords. They and are brutal, corrupt dictators who care nothing about Iraq or the Kurdish people. Both have an abundance of Kurdish blood on their hands
Shirin– that is my fear that they and others are clones of the same warlords that have created disasters in Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere. At the same time I have read them described in some articles as savy politicians.
E. Bilpe’s comment was simple minded. If supporters of this invasion really want to help the people of Iraq they would then be betraying that goal by just letting the Assembly squabblers mess up. You can’t invade a nation and then say, “We don’t want to interfere in internal affairs” later on.
But I don’t see anything “racist” about those comments. I don’t see any “Tarzan/Indiana Jones” tone in them, whatever the heck that may be. And Dominic sound strange when he brands the comments as “beyond the tolerable limit of racism” and then goes on to use “yank” as a slur.
Is “yank” a slur? I refuse to write “American” to mean US people. I consider the implied claim that the US is bigger than two continents to be arrogant and insulting. If you have an alternative noun, I’m interested.
Concerning Bilpe, do you understand what “condescension” is? Do you recognise a “patronising” tone when you hear it? I do, I’ve been hearing that tone all my life.
You say: ‘You can’t invade a nation and then say, “We don’t want to interfere in internal affairs” later on.’ Of course from the point of view of pure reason you are correct. But Bilpe’s insult lies precisely in his ignoring of reason. Bilpe isn’t stupid, he’s arrogant, and racist.
I’m telling you you’ve got to start noticing these things and check them. Don’t let them pass.
I get a dehumanizing tone from the way “yank” is used in “Yankee go home” type rhetoric. ( It’s peculiar to use yank in that context. US southern right-wingers use “yankee” as a pejorative against Northerners and liberals. So “yankee go home” protesters are ironically using the same language that people in the US who have rightwing or even racist leans use. )
Well, I’ve been using “US” as an adjective in place of American, and I guess “US people” or “US residents” works as best as anything. All countries from Angola, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique on south compose the region of south Africa. So I guess then you never call yourself “South African” in reference to just the Republic of South Africa?
A patronizing tone? Not really. An irresponsible tone instead? “It’s not my job anymore and so I don’t want to do any more work.”
edq, yes, Barzani and Talibani are, in addition to being brutal, corrupt dictator/warlords, pretty smart politicians. They have been smart enough and even disciplined enough to do a fairly decent job of putting on a facade of unity and brotherly love for the benefit of the Bush administration’s agenda.
That is, of course, all on the surface. Back home in Kurdistan they are still very much at war with each other. In Kurdistan, if you are not alligned with one party or the other you can survive, but not well, and probably not for long. The last I heard, which was a few weeks ago, if you are from Barzani’s territory you need a special permit to enter and travel in Talibani’s territory and vice versa. Talibani has control over the electricity supply to Barzani’s territory, and has made a practice of periodically cutting the electricity to Erbil and other cities.
I could go on, but I am a bit busy today.
The posts here defending US policy are irrational. The primary point being addressed is the actual situation. The right has consistently aegued that al l is going well, that the affair is a success. Any critiques of methods and choices even coming from suporters have been ignored and Republican Senators McCain, Hagel and even Hagel have been pilloried as quasi democrats (read traitors) from the pulpit. Because ALL WAS GOING WELL and criticism was disloyal to our troops.
Now the rightists here are saying, “well perhaps things are not going so well and it’s the Iraqis fault!” This is one of the anti war positions, the one which stated that no matter how good our intentions we could not control the situation, that we could unleash a new hell.
It is *not* a proof that all is going quite well thankyou, which has been the dominant and remains the dominant rightwing position. It does further continue the rightist ideology of victimology, “we were helpless before the flaws of *those* people,” it shuns responsibility.
But the simple fact of the matter is that there were alternative approaches to invasion and occupation. Plans devised by the military advised more troops, warned of looting. General Garner was fired for among other things proposing rapid elections. Choices were made.
My belief is that better choices could have improved the odds and that confronting reality gives us some chance of salvaging the situation. The osition of the rightists here is that nothing we can do makes a difference, but if were so helpless why did we engage in this thing? Why do we make those promises?
South Africa is the country. The term used for the region is “Southern Africa”.
A noun is what I’m after. US is fine as an adjective but “US people” is clumsy. I’ve tried using it. I go back to “yank” or “Yank” with a capital Y if I’m feeling polite.
“Yankee, Go Home!” is a venerable and well-loved slogan. In itself it is a plain request for US troops to go home from the 138 countries where they now sit. That’s two out of every three countries, roughly. Perhaps you are a supporter of US bases in other countries, Inkan? In that case I have no sympathy for you.
“Yankee, Go Home!” is not the same as “Death to the Great Satan!” or anything of that kind. All the yankee has to do is go home. What’s wrong with that?
You’re willing to use a slur because a more proper term is “clumsy”?
Also, you’re willing to draw a distinction between “Southern African” and “South African” but the use of “American” is offensive?
If you prefer you’re welcome to refer to me as a “New Yorker” but I can’t think of a noun to describe the rest of my countryman off the top of my head.
(Please don’t use “yank”, it’s not polite at all)
Ed, I don’t admit that “yank” is a slur. See above. You may be shaken, but you are not slurred. You are simply addressed, and asked to go home. I repeat my question: What’s wrong with that?
Your sense of politeness is your own, and an imperialist one. This is evident because you ignore the concrete situation: yankee troops in 138 countries, not to mention the yankee torture gulag.
South Africa is a descriptive name. Our country is the one at the extreme South of Africa. There has been quite a lot of discussion about this name, but no need to go into it, because South Africans now agree. “Southern Africa” is more problematic. What binds this region into a concrete entity? African Unity as a whole is more viable and has a history as an anti-imperialist idea, especailly associated with the late Dr Kwame Nkrumah.
reply will be in the new thread
Domininc,
All I said was that if the matter of jump starting their democracy was so urgent, they should have found a way to rise above their parroquial short term interests. Their failure to do so speaks to their democratic abilities and values.
Whatever condescending you suffered in your life, Dominic, it is neither my fault nor my problem. Please refrain from insulting me. I never said I was a male, so please stop extrapolating gender in addition to character flaws.
E. Bilpe
Shirin says” “Dominic, the majority of Bilpe’s posts are beyond the tolerable limit of racism and bigotry, and the one on this page is extremely mild by comparison to most.”
Thanks Shirin for coming in my defense. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship…
E. Bilpe
Bilpe, it’s a problem for feminists to solve, that in the late phase of imperialism when crude, brainles and supercilious snobbery must increasingly be relied upon to back up the increasing military violence, it is as often the women who take up this snobbery with manifest glee.
Other women, like our hostess Helena Cobban, clearly do not share this propensity.
I don’t particularly want you to feel insulted, Bilpe. I do want you to know that on the Internet you are not just a protagonist, you are a specimen. You are direct evidence of the pathology which is afflicting your country. I have seen it before and I am going to continue to bear witness as to what it is that I am seeing.
There you have it Dominic, a three paragraph lecture on the pathology of imperial feminism when I never said I was a female either. My friends call this speech diarrea. Extrapolate away my friend, why bother to read and comprehend others when you already have all the freaking answers.
E. Bilpe
Bilpe, same to you with knobs on, or not.
Relax everybody, they have elected a speaker with no outside help, and the sky has not fallen.
E. Bilpe
Note to the reader – running statistic – in my 11 posts here, twice my IP address has been blacklisted without due explanation, 7 posts have been censored becahse Helena disagreed with the contents, and 4 posts have been allowed. This post is a repeat of some deleted material.
Tony – This has got to be the funniest, most eager nonsense I’ve read since Juan Cole’s famous “transcendent nationalism” in reference to Muqtada’s ill-fated and ill-conceived campaign back in 2003 (see his remarkably silly Le Monde Diplomatique piece at the time). You’ve just repeated that laughable line. Please get over yourself and your ideological premises (and all the [arab] nationalist mixed with Third Worldist undertones). It’s quite the silly spectacle.
Beautifully said Tony.
The problem that the nihilists and leftist-fascists have in their analysis of Iraq is that they deny that Iraqis (and by extension human beings) have aspirations besides power grabbing, ideological and opportunistic ruling on others, and cheap false nationalism (nationalism is better described as social egotism).
For Helena, Iraqis or the socially conscious layers of their society have no desire to bring about civil society and inter-sectarian justice. History is simplisticially reduced down to grab for oil, cheap nationalism, anti-Americanism, and 3rd worldism.
The progress the Iraqis are making in bringing about civil society must be condemened by the Cole-Cobban axis, as it eats away right at their ideological upbringing and biases, and also livelihoods and Entitle VIs. If there are no blood conflicts in Iraq, then who needs these “scholars”?
For them, a thug carrying an AK-47 is a far more romantic and vivid expression of social justice, than all the liberties, elections, parliaments, constitutions, laws and institutions that an Iraqi civil society may ever achieve or require.
Unlike what the piece implies, inter-sectarian political rivalries, in a civil setting, is the only way for Iraqis to reckon with their identity. This sad piece reflects – as us middle easterners like to say – “the camel who dreams of cotton seeds”. A lot of wishful thinking about religious, fascist, and opportunistic thugs to come together and rule over the civil and conscious segments of Iraqi society.
Iraqis have made a conscious choice through their participation in the election that they prefer construction of a civil society over cheap cries of “gut independence”.
Posted by Razavipour3 at 10. apr
Discount Contact Lenses Directory – Contact Lenses Directory
Contact Lenses Information. Contact Lenses Resources. Comprehensive Discount Contact Lenses Directory – Search Our Directory For Your Discount Contact Lenses.
http://www.quality-discount-contact-lenses.com/