Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn
I just don't see how you can form a belief about what someone meant in a speech that you haven't listened to. I did listen to it. The whole point was that the Iraqi population is tired of fighting. They won't fight any more. The only real problem that we face there is Al Qaeda. Iraqis want a civil, peaceful society and ever since the Surge happened, they aren't fighting any more.
Ironically, I dismissed a friend's beliefs about Obama's race speech because he hadn't listened to it...and, again, I'm not defending Kagan at all.
My only point is that the only civil war discussed in the media before the fighting in Basra erupted was primarily Shia/Sunni conflict; it therefore makes sense that it was the civil war Kagan was referencing, especially since Basra had not happened yet.
I'm not saying Kagan's right. I'm not saying he's an expert on Iraq, and your responses insinuate (falsely) that I am. All I'm saying is that Kagan was probably not talking about the civil war you use to "prove him wrong" (and if you look at all my text, you'll see qualifiers like think, if, believe, probably, etc).
don't you think it's still worth pointing out that 3 supposed Iraq experts all got together to proclaim how great things there were and less than 24 hours later, substantial instability and violence broke out?
Yes, it is worth pointing out. I'm glad you did. But your own quote of Kagan from Charlie Rose's show is enlightening in this regard.
The Iraqi people do not want to fight a civil war between sects.
This new fighting is not between sects. That is the only weakness I see in your argument. In every other regard, you are correct.