Captain's Quarters -

Maybe George Bush and the Republicans can take a page from Maliki's book on how to answer your critics!

I heard Charles Krauthammer say the same thing on Special Report roundtable the other night. And Fred Barnes's response was much the same as the Captain's is here.

Considering the fact that our own Senate can not get it together to compromise on important domestic issues like immigration, or come to a a bipartisan understanding as to how best to deal with foreign threats maybe there is a little of the pot calling the kettle black here. And at least the Iraqis have some excuses for their problems.

The last time the Iraqis formed a government, it took five months. Is that what Iraq needs now -- another half a year of political chaos and no chance at all for progress?

No this is not what the Iraqis need. This is what the Democrats need. The needs of the iraqis do not figure into their political calculation. And the calculus of gaining power is the only arithmetic they are capable of.

I should have made it plain in my comment that Charles was supporting the Levin/Clinton view that Maliki needs to be forced out.

The Cap'n is right on ... Maliki is taking all kinds of incoming fire from arrogant US politicos, but all who are calling for his ouster on both left and right (read, Charles Krauthammer) aren't saying who should replace Maliki, and how that would happen, and what the costs would be.

In fact, Maliki IS making some progress politically, as reported from time to time here on captainsquartersblog.com .. turning the focus in Iraq from political progress to political assassination would eliminate any possibility of the former. And this is at the same time that the critics of Maliki say that said lack of political progress is the reason America now must cut and run. Thus the Dems promote a self-fulfilling wish:

"Let's ensure that no political progress can take place, and then we'll use that as the excuse to surrender."

Besides, it really doesn't matter to America how much reconciliation and political progress takes place in Iraq anyway. The only thing that matters now, as far as actual American "realpolitik" interests go, is to impose a humiliating defeat on Al Qaeda, and then do the same to Iran. Such an outcome would thus prevent the Middle East from becoming a gigantic Iran/AQ hegemon capable of imposing horrendous future economic blackmail on the west. Getting and keeping Iran and AQ on the run also will - as we have already seen since 9/11 - greatly reduce the prospects of further murderous terror attacks on US soil.

I mean really, how many Americans really give a g-damn about the status of political disourse in any other country in the world? It's hard enough getting Americans to pay attention long enough to learn the name of their own Congressman. All of this whining and moaning about "lack of political reconciliation" in Iraq is just a smokescreen to attack our involvement there in any form whatsoever, so that the Dems and the Libs can impose their own version of humiliating defeat on GWB and the Republicans ... even if by doing so they impose the same humiliating defeat on the entire nation and its economic and security interests for the next generation or more.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/26/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.

Yes, let's cheer Maliki on when he's doing everything possible to undermine the President and the military behind the scenes. Yes, let's cheer Maliki on for telling Hillary to buzz off, maybe later we can cheer him on for being the main obstacle to truly ending sectarian terrorism. Maybe we can invite the JAM and the Badr Brigade since he's such good pals with them and their death squads, so much so to the point that he actually tried to demand that President Bush remove General Petraeus and bring back someone like the great 'death squads? What death squads? We're sitting in our huge bases outside the cities building democracy!' Peter Pace. It's not like many of the JAM or Badrs would have to travel far to get to the party since they've infiltrated the government with his tacit approval up the wazoo.

I used to really like this blog, but posts like this are why I visit very infrequently now. All Captain Ed posts anymore are fantasies more befitting some 16 year old who really thinks that George Bush will ever be popular again or that Iraq will be seen as a great war and great victory or any of this other nonsense. The United States is in a slog, dammit, a slugging match with al-Qaeda and Iran and Syria, and China and Russia are bent over double with glee at it. The sooner we - and Captain Ed - realize that the better off we will be. We have to recognize the fight we're in and fight accordingly. This isn't two thousand and fucking three, Ed. We aren't shocking and aweing our way up to Baghdad on a thunder run with JDAMs popping off everywhere and the Republican Guard annihilated from the skies before they even see an American tank.

At least people like Roggio and Yon and Totten get it.

John Warner was on Meet The Press this morning saying that the Maliki government is a "complete failure." Ryan Crocker, our ambassador in Iraq, has said the Maliki govt is a failure, etc... As long as our troops are out there dying for their freedoms, I think we have every right to demand some tangible signs of political progress from the Maliki government. The NIE says they do not see any prospect for political progress in the next six months. It does not seem wrong to me to hope that a new government is formed in Iraq. And, I find it offensive on Maliki's part to insinuate -- as he has done this week -- that he will ally with Syria if the the US withdraws support for his government.

The only thing the Democrats are ineterested in is a failure in Iraq to the end of hurting the Republicans in general, and President Bush specifically. They don't care about Iraqis at all.

Jim C

Oh yes he will ally with Syria, the grand Syrian Army will march down the Tigris and Euphrates and save him from al-Qaida and the JAM both.

Maliki knows he's screwed but can't do anything about it. If he goes fully over to the Americans he will lose the parliamentary support his government needs to remain in power. If he abandons the Americans we will leave and he will either have to flee the country or be killed at the hands of the JAM or al-Qaida.

So we get the middle road where on one hand Maliki supports us and on the other gives cover to JAM and other Shiite terrorists. It's a delicate balancing act and the time for him to pick a side has long since past. If he isn't going to fully throw in his lot with the Americans then he should be removed and Ayad Allawi installed. It is clear now that there should have been no elections in 2005, with the incompetent Jafaari and the two-faced Maliki the results. Allawi should have remained Prime Minister until the insurgency was broken. To hell with anyone who would bitch about it being betraying democracy. If we continue on the current course with Maliki's vacillations they aren't going to have a democracy period. They're going to have a Somalia.

And the Captain's advice is to cheer him on. I don't like cheering on people who are trying to drive the country my country has attached itself to off a damn cliff.

Teresa,

It amazes me that Americans would think that political process has to happen in Iraq on our timetable. A timetable that is based more on the next election cycle than any concern about the Iraqi people.

It took years for our country to establish a stable government after the Declaration of Independence. Even then, a few short years later, we went through a civil war of our own. Why on earth should we expect a country that has lived under the boot of tyranny for decades to get it together in less time than we did?

Jim C

Cap'n Ed: Those comments understandably infuriated Maliki. In a way, they came across as the worst kind of colonialist claptrap. Maliki serves as the head of a popularly elected government, and the National Assembly can recall it at any time. If the Iraqis have tired of Maliki's leadership, they have the mechanisms to remove him when they want, just as Parliaments do in Canada and the UK. Maliki does not serve at the pleasure of the US Senate, and demands for his removal are inappropriate and insulting to the elected National Assembly that the US helped form as a sovereign representative government.

Very well said. It does nobody, including us, for the Iraqi PM to be "our man in Baghdad". As libs never tire of telling us, there are many Iraqis who rather resent the presence of so many US troops on their soil even if they grudgingly accept that we're there to help. Making their PM look like nothing but our lackey plays right into the hands of those who try to present our presence as an "occupation" or "colonialism".

Teresa, how exactly should Maliki react to calls in the US for his ouster? Come crawling to his critics to lick their boots and beg for patience? As I wrote on this topic a few days ago, Levin and Maliki's other critics come across as the worst sort of "ugly Americans":

"Listen up, boy, and get this good! You're gonna do what we tell you to do, when we tell you to do it! Get me? When we say jump, you're gonna ask 'How high?' Because if you don't, well... We might just have to find us somebody who will. Got it, boy?"

"It amazes me that Americans would think that political process has to happen in Iraq on our timetable. A timetable that is based more on the next election cycle than any concern about the Iraqi people."

Why not? That's been the standard operating procedure for military alliances since the beginning of time. When the cost of the alliance becomes greater than the benefits, no more alliance.

It amazes me that some Americans would think that the political process has to happen in Iraq on any time table but ours. We're the only thing keeping that country from turning the Tigris and Euphrates red, and you're telling us that they should just be allowed to take one and a half steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, three steps back, two steps forward, half a step back, indefinitely?

"It took years for our country to establish a stable government after the Declaration of Independence. Even then, a few short years later, we went through a civil war of our own. Why on earth should we expect a country that has lived under the boot of tyranny for decades to get it together in less time than we did?"

Japan did. West Germany did. (Most of) Eastern Europe did. The Constitution was ratified in 1787, the civil war started in 1861. That's not a few short years later. The situation in America from 1770 - 1865 and Iraq from 2003 to today is not comparable, period.

We need to start making our judgments in Iraq based on military realities, and not high-minded moralistic ideal bullshit about democracy and liberty. As long as Petraeus says we're taking names and kicking ass then go for it. Otherwise either install a government that will do what we say to the letter, or pound the country into a coma as much as possible and leave the Iraqis what they deserve: a desert called peace.

I'm not "cheering" Maliki in anything but his response to Hillary and Carl. He's been disappointing, although he at least took the right step ten days ago and met with the Sunnis in Tikrit, which takes a little courage for a Shi'ite leader. The point is that the Iraqis elected him as PM, in a process that we helped build. Calling for more progress is fine, but demanding his resignation crosses a line.

How would you feel if Angela Merkel demanded George Bush's resignation? Or Gordon Brown? Or if either demanded that Hillary Clinton get elected as our next President? Would you think that they were meddling in our electoral politics? I'd certainly hope so.

And as I wrote, neither Hillary nor Carl came up with any alternatives, or explained how months of chaos in the Iraqi government would get us any closer to Congress' benchmarks. It was irresponsible, and Maliki called them on it.

I'd prefer Hillary address the whereabouts of those Asian campaign donors who fled the US under suspicion during her last tenure in the White House.

"I'm not "cheering" Maliki in anything but his response to Hillary and Carl."

"Those comments understandably infuriated Maliki. In a way, they came across as the worst kind of colonialist claptrap. Maliki serves as the head of a popularly elected government, and the National Assembly can recall it at any time. If the Iraqis have tired of Maliki's leadership, they have the mechanisms to remove him when they want, just as Parliaments do in Canada and the UK. Maliki does not serve at the pleasure of the US Senate, and demands for his removal are inappropriate and insulting to the elected National Assembly that the US helped form as a sovereign representative government."

Gee that certainly sounds supportive. Hillary and Carl can go pound sand 99% of the time for me, but what Carl said at least wasn't colonialist claptrap. Maliki has had how many years to achieve some kind of political unity? You can't even try to deny that he has done little more than attempt to cover his own ass and keep the Americans from dismantling the Shiite power structure.

Also hilarious was your trashing of Allawi, the only effective leader they had. I don't know what reality you're living in to call him ineffective and a campaigner on the pages of the Washington Post. That strategy sounds pretty damn smart to me now, what with the war in Washington being more important to the outcome of the war in Iraq than the, you know, the actual war in Iraq right now.

"He's been disappointing, although he at least took the right step ten days ago and met with the Sunnis in Tikrit, which takes a little courage for a Shi'ite leader. The point is that the Iraqis elected him as PM, in a process that we helped build. Calling for more progress is fine, but demanding his resignation crosses a line."

No, it doesn't. His government exists only because of our military. If his government is undermining our mission, which it undeniably is, and he won't make real steps to end it, then his government has to go.

Yay, he went to a reconciliation meeting! Did he reconcile anything? What a brave man, going to Tikrit surrounded by Shiite commandos and American troops! For a nice sitdown with some fine Sunnis and Kurds where nothing was accomplished the same way nothing has been accomplished since his government came into power, because he and his Shiite backers think they can play both ends against the middle and emerge with an intact, strong Shiite government, with the Sunnis' physical ability to resist broken by American arms. He's using us as his hammer against the Sunnis. What other explanation for his flipping shit every time Petraeus orders a raid into Sadr City? I'm getting sick of it. Maybe you aren't.

You want to pontificate about the national security implications and how we have to remain in Iraq, what about the national security implications of an allied government that is fractured with, it seems, at least half of it actively undermining us?

"How would you feel if Angela Merkel demanded George Bush's resignation? Or Gordon Brown? Or if either demanded that Hillary Clinton get elected as our next President? Would you think that they were meddling in our electoral politics? I'd certainly hope so."

Why the hell shouldn't they meddle in our politics? Our politics affects them. And your analogy is startlingly bad. If Angela Merkel's or Gordon Brown's military was the only thing keeping George Bush's government in power, then yeah, if he was behind the scenes trying to undermine them, I'd feel fine about their telling George Bush to gtfo.

"And as I wrote, neither Hillary nor Carl came up with any alternatives, or explained how months of chaos in the Iraqi government would get us any closer to Congress' benchmarks. It was irresponsible, and Maliki called them on it."

Months of chaos. According to whom? Undoubtedly if we let them handle it themselves, but if we took charge and had the Iraqi Army behind us, with the local security alliances, any part of Maliki's government that would oppose our move would be between the devil and the deep blue sea. Especially if we spread the money around right - which of course probably wouldn't happen.

I don't want Maliki to be ousted by us. I want him to clean up his act. If he doesn't, then what choice do we have?

And I love how you say Hillary and Carl are irresponsible for not offering suggestions on how to meet American-imposed benchmarks - meddling in Iraqi politics, anyone? - while also criticizing them for saying Maliki isn't cutting it.

Which is it? One way or the other. You can't have both ends of the argument. Just because the benchmarks would be great if achieved doesn't mean it was right for us to impose them on the government through an act of our own Congress, which is what happened. Right? Since, you know, it isn't right for Hillary and Carl to say Maliki should go if he can't meet those benchmarks.

You want Maliki to meet American-imposed benchmarks but criticize Americans who say he should go because he hasn't met them. Hillary and Carl are trying to hoist us on our own petards and they're doing a decent job of it no matter how many bad arguments you trot out, Captain.

I'm just tired of seeing Americans die for a government that is indifferent to their mission. AT BEST. And seeing people continuing to make excuse after excuse for it.

I think the issue is that Maliki is also teling Bush and Petreaus to pound sand. You gets what you pays for, and as long as we're paying for Iraq, we *should* have a say on what's going on there. Especially when Maliki is hip-hopping around the region drumming up support (and under-the-table bribes?) from the Mad Mullahs and Baby Assad. Since Mookie is still alive, I have to believe he has Maliki's support.

I also really really really resent the fact that Maliki has allowed, and most likely is still allowing, his appointed ministers to run death squads out of his government, which must translate upon occasion is supporting and protecting the home-grown idiots who are shooting at American soldiers.

If Maliki wants to run his own government on his own terms, he's absolutely free to do so. All he has to do is to ask us to leave. Since he has NOT asked us to leave, then America (including clueless Senators from the Democratic Party) has purchased the right in both blood and treasure (not to mention patience) to feed him a little bit of heart-felt criticism.

In the civilized world that's called "freedom of speech". And both Maliki and Iraq need to grow up and get used to it.

(For some reason, Maliki always reminds me of an even more disheveled and sweaty Kruschev - with the same threats and loud barking sounds. At least Kruschev had nukes to back up his shoe-pounding.)

Criticism of Maliki is being done on a bi-partisan basis (see John Warner * Ryan Crocker's remarks -- and for that matter Steven Hadley's assessment last summer.)

It is ridiculous to compare the formation of our government after the Declaration of Independence to the situation in Iraq. It wasn't as if the French -- having helped us defeat the Brits -- were having to patrol our streets and die while we dithered around on a constitution.

As Josh Bolton of all people said in an interview our biggest mistake in Iraq was not just tossing them a copy of the articles of federation after we toppled Saddam and getting the hell out.
I wouldn't go as far as that, but any one who thinks the Iraqi government is functioning -- or even attempting to function -- is fooling themselves.

Maliki's only concern seems to be his own survival. (Not just political survival, either.) I guess that's a natural human impulse, but it doesn't make him much of an ally in such a vital and costly enterprise.

The very first question I ever posed at this site.. (and nobody answered, by the way) **If the US does go to war with Iran, whose side will Maliki be on in that war?**

Oh, and another utterly trivial question for all you men out there ... it fascinates me that Maliki always seems to sport the same three-day's-growth. How does he do that? Is there some kind of special razor that you can set like a lawnmower to shave to a certain length of stubble?

Thanks in advance for any helpful insights.

He's a big Don Johnson fan. You should see his teal blazers.

Thanks a lot, Ed.

Another nightmare image to haunt me in the wee hours.

One can hardly blame Maliki for expressing irritation that his "betters" in Washington are calling for his removal. I remember being quite annoyed at the world's reaction when President Bush was reelected. One British headline in particular: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"

Ok, clearly not quite the same thing. Our sovereignty can't be challenged by anyone anywhere in the world. It doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks about which person we choose to elect. This is all they can do, publish insulting headlines.

The same cannot be said for Iraq. We declared war on Iraq, invaded, destroyed its military in record time and threw out its government. We then stood back and let the capital be sacked by the residents themselves (probably the first instance in the history of the world where a conquering army didn't do the pillaging itself).

After establishing ourselves as occupiers, we appointed a satrap and set about developing the mechanisms to return sovereignty to the people of Iraq. And at every step, they've done as we told them to do. They've held elections, wrote a constitution and installed a government of their own choosing.

And now we tell them, things haven't gone especially well and we don't think you've really got this self-governance thing down but these are your problems now. You have to figure out what to do about suicide bombers and roving militias and getting blown up and killed every day. You have to figure out what to do about gas shortages and government corruption and the lack of food supplies or electricity or basic sanitation.

It's your country Iraq. Yes, we took it from you but we gave it back (whether you were ready for us to do so or not) and now it's yours again. And yes, we're still here and we're the only thing standing between you and genocide but we aren't going to stay forever. Because it's your country and we've decided that these are your problems. You fix it. And if we don't like the way you're trying to fix it, we're going to criticize you publicly and undermine your government and threaten to leave even faster.

So yeah, if I was Maliki I'd be p*ssed too.

(sorry for the long post)

I completely disagree. I think Clinton and Levin were right to call for al-Maliki to be ousted. "Ground-up unity" is never going to work if the man at the top is in bed with Shi'ite militias committing atrocities against Sunnis and with the radical Iranian government.

I'd also point out that al-Maliki is playing a dangerous diplomatic game by insulting a man who can currently effect a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (Carl Levin) and a woman who will likely be the next President of the United States (Hillary Clinton). Will he regret those words on his first visit to Washington to meet with President Clinton?

Nate... it can be fairly argued in this case that Ms. Clinton started the exchange, not al-Maliki.

Which convinces me (considering how notoriously cautious she is) that she does not expect him to survive. She would never have said such insulting things about a leader with whom she will need to work closely if she wins the presidency.

Ergo: I suspect she knows something we don't about Nouri al-Maliki's future prospects.

I think we are forgetting that we can leave Iraq, but the Iraqis can not just walk away. They live there. Syria and Iran are their neighbors whether anyone likes it or not. They are going to have to deal with them whether we like it or not.

Our soldiers are not fighting for Maliki, they are trying to oust AlQaida and deal with other security issues so that we are not faced with chaos and terroism in a country that is as strategically important as Iraq.

I would like to see someone like George Washington rise up and take control of that government. I would like to see the improvements we have seen in various provinces be echoed in the central government. But the US and the Iraqis both decided to limit the power of the central government and the position of the Prime Minister in that country in order to avoid having another Saddam in charge and now we are blaming Maliki for not doing what it might well not have been within his power to do.

Besides if these people are successful in pulling out the troops that government will probably collapse if they do not make alliances with Syria and Iran, in fact they might well collapse anyway.

I would rather not see that government brought down, especially now, I would prefer that it hang in there until the security situation improves and then if the Iraqis want to have a new round of elections or whatever, fine, but until and unless we know the next guy will be an improvement we might should ease up on going after Maliki.

Remember Diem.

Omar and Mohammad at Iraq the Model are leaning towards new elections. I'm with them. I think it's ridiculous to stick with a proven inept crook for the sake of stability (see the House of Saud, for another example) when the Iraqi's have a model in place to provide for a change in leadership. Isn't that what democracy is all about? If the current leaders aren't cutting it, then change them.

When the nation Maliki aspires to lead has taken responsibility for providing for its own security, he will have every right to ask Americans to mind their own business. Until then -- unfortunately for him -- he is the legitimate subject of American criticism. Attempts to invoke the sovereignty of Iraq while it's under U.S. occupation in order to shield it from any and all foreign scrutiny are a bit of a stretch.

"Attempts to invoke the sovereignty of Iraq while it's under U.S. occupation in order to shield it from any and all foreign scrutiny are a bit of a stretch."

It is not under American occupation and hasn't been for some time now. It was a sovereign nation when we invaded and it's a sovereign nation once again. Our troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government and pursuant to UN mandate.

"Attempts to invoke the sovereignty of Iraq while it's under U.S. occupation in order to shield it from any and all foreign scrutiny are a bit of a stretch."

Iraq is not under U.S. occupation and hasn't been for some time. It was a sovereign nation when we invaded and it's a sovereign nation once again. US troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government and pursuant to UN mandate (passed after the invasion).

I agree that this is a problem for the Iraqi's to solve. Who are Cllinton and Levin to dictate who is to run the government? They're not doing a sparkling job of running ours. They should butt out instead of trying to make political points.

I agree that this is a problem for the Iraqi's to solve. Who are Cllinton and Levin to dictate who is to run the government? They're not doing a sparkling job of running ours. They should butt out instead of trying to make political points.

Dan,

Are you implying that the Western Europeans should behave as proper clients? Wow. Interesting thought... Let's just jerk their leash a little, eh?

Malaki went to Tikrit to face his oposition and ask for cooperation, did the same with Iran, and Syria and two senators who are afraid to go on Fox news because it is not a Dem mouth-piece where they will get nothing but softball questions dare call for his replacement. These imbiciles need to take care of their own house first. I doubt that their approval numbers are much higher than Malikis in his country. These socialists are just trying to reframe the debate to "no political progress" now that it is obvious the Petraeus surge is working. They have done nothing for years but criticize this president with 20/20 hindsight. Rather than try to frame the argument to support their "surrender now". position they should uphold their oath of office to protect and defend. Too much to ask from most of these clowns. Should Hitlery ever become President, which I seriously doubt , we will face real problems as she and her draft dodging husband loath the military and have done everything they could to tear it down. A shameful bunch indeed. Maliki was right they should shut the hell up.

And exactly what has the gentlelady from New York accomplished to reconcile and cause support for our government during this time of war. Oh, that’s right; she and most of the Democrats are acting like the Sunnis in Iraq. And do they stay in Washington to pass the appreciation bills that need to be completed. Nope, they took off the month of August as usual, just as the Iraqi legislature has this year. The political types complain, but refuse to go on record as to what they would specifically do. Maybe they are not willing to expose their own future tactics, which would be appropriate, but are quite willing to put forth publicly tactics they want the President to follow. Anytime I hear someone in the Senate or House offer up publicly a desired policy, think Senator Warner this week, I discount it. If it was really a good idea, that is something that would be discussed quietly. So, I appreciate Mr. Miliki putting Senator Clinton and Levin in their place.

A lot of people think that the Iraq government should abide by the political dictates of the American government, wouldn't that make Iraq a de facto colony of the US? Doesn't that make those who wist to impose their political will upon the Iraqi government de facto imperialists? Isn't Clinton and the rest trying to institute the rule of an American empire on other countries? I thought that's what the Democrats hated the most? Are you telling us now that empires are actually a good idea and that allied governments should be subservient to America?

It is reasonable to request the Iraqi government follow our advice as to how that government should be run and what policies should be implemented and enforced, but we are not an empire so we should not demand another government follow our political dictates or face severe recriminations like the complete suspension of military and/or monetary support.

History has taught us that this is a very bad idea and it will eventually harm any country we try to impose our will upon in this manner. The last time America demanded an allied government to follow our dictates as to how that government should be run, that government failed to meet our political deadlines and we withdrew all support. That country was South Vietnam and look how that turned out.

What amazes me is that how anyone can really expect political stability in Iraq, when for the last 30 years any possible political leadership was systematically snuffed out. To expect that this situation would turn around in a mere 4 years of strife and warfare is really quite a stretch. Maliki took the right approach here and I think we need to see the partisan sniping from Shrillary and Levin for what it really is: partisan sniping, Washington-drive-by-style.

Back in 1998, the leftists insisted we change the regime in Iraq....and Bush did it....

Then the leftists insisted there could be no stable Iraqi govt unless they had an election....and they did it....

Then the leftists insisted that one election wasn't proof of a democratic society....so they had 3....

Then the leftists insisted that the whole affair was a failure unless we got saddam....so we did....

Then the leftists insisted that the whole affair was a failure unless we got zarqawi....so we did....

Then the leftists insisted that there was too much violence and therefore the whole affair was a failure unless we fixed it....so we did....

and now, those very same leftists are demanding....you guessed it....REGIME CHANGE....

Is anyone else enjoying the irony of the supposed idiot Bush causing leftists to chase their tails? I sure am....

Define courage for me....

Iraqi PM Maliki travels to Tikrit (Saddam's hometown) at great risk to his life to talk with Sunni leaders.

Define cowardice for me...

Democrat candidates for President of the USA and Commander in Chief (and leader of the free world) refuse to appear on a debate sponsored by FOX News.

"It took years for our country to establish a stable government after the Declaration of Independence. Even then, a few short years later, we went through a civil war of our own. Why on earth should we expect a country that has lived under the boot of tyranny for decades to get it together in less time than we did?"

Japan did. West Germany did. (Most of) Eastern Europe did.

Sigh. Yes, after those countries/regions were completely devastated by war, leaving (nearly) totally subdued populaces. After the official end of the hostilities, those countries (Japan and Germany) were also "officially" occupied for years.
Also, the populations of Japan and Germany were not infested with groups who (in their own words) "love death more than [Westerners] love life."

Which is an ideological position that is as alien to the Western tradition as if it were from Mars.

I always find these discussions about how long it should take for Iraq to become a stable, functioning democracy to be kind of interesting. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can really fix on a calendar, that it should take this or that many years, although I know that's what we're trying to do in Iraq with benchmarks, etc.

Anyway, I don't think the US after the Revolution is the best comparison nor do I think looking at what happened in Japan and Germany after WW II is all that helpful (and would launch into all the reasons why I think that is but it would take too long).

I think what is happening in Iraq is more comparable to the rise of democracy and self-rule in what was once known as British India. After 1947 (when Britian ceded control), India went through several years of turmoil and one could certainly argue that Pakistan and Bangladesh (although it came into being later) still haven't gotten it right.

Let's hope it doesn't take Iraq 50 years.