Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ironclad
Published Letters: 68 Editor's Choice: 19
Joe Conason makes the fundamental assumption that the insurgency is a monolithic bloc that can be negotiated with. Other than the remnants of the Sadammist wing of the Baathist Party and the Jihadist group , that goes down as a new "lie" for the Iraq situation. Since we can eliminate dealing with the Jihadists by definition, since their aims are unacceptable for all parties, that leaves what I assume Mr Conason calls the "Sunnis" as the part to deal with.
Excuse me, what are the political aims of this group, that by last count represent 20% of the population of Iraq? To get the power back they lost when the previous regime collapses? To regain all of their power over the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq? More oil money from the areas they do not control? I seemed to have missed all of their political aims on the news, other than "reject". Or perhaps if someone lays this down in black and white, the whole "noble resistance" suddenly would appear as a power hungry bunch of thugs who will kill and stop at nothing to get back on top of the heap.
The thing that bothers me the most from all of this - and a pox on both houses , Democrat or Republican too - is that the aim of the Iraq invasion was to change the political strucure of the middle east by starting an irreversable slide away from dictatoral regimes by empowering the locals. No one can say this out loud of course, because it would "offend" our ostensible friends in the surounding countries who seriously need to have their butts shown to the door.
Iraq is a mess because the tribal and clan structures that make up the social structure have not been allowed to reach an equilibrium after they were shuffled by the war. If the training program continues and the Kurds and Shia army reaches any form of semi-independence, then maybe the Sunnis will deal - since it is well know that a hanging concentrates the mind. But keep the eye on the larger goal too - the obvious one of changing the political structure of the whole middle east - into something resembling a representative democracy - or the local equivalent thereof.
Robert Fisk is entitled to write a book of his opinions on the Middle East. But anyone who believes they are reading little more than that - a collection of his jeremiads fuming over his two favorite devils - Israel and the US - should really find better reading material. For good reason has “to fisk” indeed has become a verb, but hardly with the idea of tearing apart, more with the idea of bending the facts to trash a straw man.
There is no doubt that Mr. Fisk has been a witness to the terrible events in the Middle East for the last 30 years – and no one should question his courage or his commitment to his ideals. But in an area as complex as the Middle east – where culture, religion, and history color and dictate loyalties stronger than any logic, pretending that everyone dances to the strings of the West, the US, Israel or “fill in your favorite demon” gives a rather narrow view of that region. Worse, the idea that if these “agents” were magically removed from the area that everything would be fine, is equally blind sided.
Have the great powers behaved badly toward the region? Has the US practiced favoritism toward Israel, turned a blind eye toward the worst excesses of other regimes, and then played “let’s you and him fight” between Iran and Iraq? Sure – all true. But has oil corrupted the area? Has there been no shortage of brutal dictators more than willing to bend the area to their whims? And has religion been used to radicalize and control as much as to react to perceived “insults”? All true too. But for Mr. Fisk – this side bad – that side good is about as nuanced as it gets.
Sorry – the region may be a mess, but there are many more villains than Mr. Fisk wants to point out. The last straw for me was his opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan to throw out the Taliban. I remember the piece on his near stoning near the border – and though how ironic that he found himself in that situation. I am certain Mr. Fisk is wearing a black arm band today as Iraq votes – the idea that something good there could happen no doubt blackens his soul. But for his master tome – I hope it is filed on the shelf near the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in the fabrication and invective section of the library
Such wit, such nuance. So I guess we should sit in the dark (to stop global warming), keep the Chinese poor (so we can stop shopping at Wal-Mart) and of course sit around a campfire and sing Kum-ba-yah since we all know that if we are just nice enough to everyone, we can all be brothers. Yeah - we all can be in the moment too. Works both ways you know.
How about another fantasy - like constructive suggestions instead of sophomore Prairie humor?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
