Posted under Iraq
In his latest article, Freedomland, William Lind defines victory in Iraq and maps out how such can be achieved.
Reality of present-day Iraq:
The defining reality in Iraq is that there is no state. Because there is no state in Iraq, there is also no government. Orders issued in Baghdad have no impact because there are no state institutions to carry them out. Government institutions such as parliament and positions such as cabinet minister have no substance. Power comes from having a relationship with a militia, not a government office. The “Iraqi Security Forces†are groups of Shi’ite militias, which exist to fight other militias. They take orders from militia leaders, not the government. Government revenues are slush funds for militia leaders to pay their militiamen.
Definition of victory:
Winning in Iraq simply means that a state re-emerges there. The rise of a new state in Iraq means defeat for al-Qaeda and other non-state entities, who are our real enemies. States don’t like competition, and real states do not permit non-state entities to exist on their territory (unless they are actually proxies the state plans to use against other states).
Not the definition of victory:
[Victory] does not mean that Iraq becomes an American satellite. That remains the goal of the Bush administration and the neocons, but it is not and never was attainable.
Map to victory:
[W]e should stay out of the way of anyone with the potential to re-create a state. Muqtada al-Sadr is at or near the head of that list. The al-Maliki “government†isn’t even on it.
[W]e must accept the now well-proven fact that we cannot re-create a state in Iraq. We have tried for five years and we have nothing to show for it beyond 4,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, and an empty treasury. The problem is legitimacy. Any state institutions we create or overtly support will not be accepted by the Iraqi people as legitimate. That is generally true of governments created and installed by foreign occupiers. The local response is, “Vichy ptui.â€
[W]e must face the fact that a real Iraqi state is likely to be close to Iran. The solution is not to bomb Iran but to settle our differences—what diplomats call a rapprochement. Tehran has offered us a general settlement on quite generous terms. We should take them up on it. If the U.S. and Iran are no longer enemies, the fact that a new Iraqi state is allied with Iran is not a problem.
America’s current strategy:
We went to war against al-Sadr on behalf of al-Maliki, of course. Our military leadership cannot grasp one of the most basic facts about Fourth Generation war, namely that the splintering of factions makes it more difficult to generate a state. Should we have the bad luck to destroy the Madhi Army and thereby “win†this fight—which continues with the usual mindless and counterproductive airstrikes on Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad—we will move not toward but farther away from seeing a state re-emerge in Iraq.
Those who have ears, let them hear. If [America falsely believes] the main reason for the problems in Iraq is Iran, what does the United States need to do?
Foolishly attack Iran.
Weaver on 27 May 2008 at 10:46 am #
Does this make Americaneocon an ally of al-Qaeda and other non-state entities?
roho on 27 May 2008 at 12:58 pm #
Did we learn nothing from the “Shaw Of Irans” deposition?
To attempt to return to something that failed over 40 years ago is nuts.
It would require “conscription” as the warrior generation is also the internet generation.
“Out of chaos comes power, and out of unlimited chaos comes unlimited power.”……………Pray for November.
RonL on 27 May 2008 at 9:49 pm #
If Iran stops its WMD program, stops supporting Hizbullah actions in Lebanon, the Gulf, and even South America, they can have peace.
On the other hand, if they kill American solders, call for America’s destruction,a nd are building the wepons to do it, shouldn’t we respond?
Weaver on 27 May 2008 at 10:32 pm #
Which came first? The chickenhawk or the angry Iran? Iran hates us for our foreign policy.
“shouldn’t we respond?”
Seeking to accomplish what?
“stops supporting Hizbullah actions in Lebanon, the Gulf, and even South America, they can have peace.”
Is America the only power with the mandate to meddle?
“building the weapons to do it”
Proof? And so what if it is? Can it be prevented, and is it worth the cost? There are already other nuclear armed states. What’s one more state?
Weaver on 27 May 2008 at 10:39 pm #
Iran doesn’t want to be obliterated. Why would it attack America except out of fear?
There’s always the possibility a crazy person will come to power of any nuclear arsenal. The correct response then is to build up defenses.
And again, Russia and Iran would only be working on Iranian nukes, if indeed they are, out of self defense and in response to US aggression.
—
Put another way: why did Israel develop nuclear weapons? Carter estimates Israel has 150 nuclear weapons.
For self defense.
How is Iran any different?
Weaver on 27 May 2008 at 10:50 pm #
Are Muslims any more dangerous than Jews? Both worship false religions, imo, with the former springing from the latter.
I’d love for an Israeli ethnic state and a Persian ethnic state to arise and become semi-autarkic: minding their own business.
I doubt such will happen, but if you want my ideals: I’d like to see both Persia and Israel develop, with both converting to Christianity.
Persia is one of the great empires of history, and the site of some of the earliest known civilisations. Bomb Persia out of paranoia? What a loss. They might never survive and might lose ties to their past which might help ground a successful future state.
Weaver on 27 May 2008 at 11:18 pm #
Rather than wasting all this money on futile bombing (and let’s face it: Lind is right that it’s futile and even counter productive) just bribe the Iranians into deconstructing their nuclear projects.
How do you know something worse won’t spring from this immoral experiment in creative destruction?
Andrew T. on 28 May 2008 at 3:04 am #
Weaver, this time I think I’ll break form by not reacting to your grossly opportunistic and almost intentionally anti-individualist political commentary, and instead critiquing one of your comments about religion.
I don’t think it’s ever a good idea to singularly declare that an entire religion is a falsehood, without offering a rigorous way to demonstrate it. It tends to dissolve any of the established lines of inter-senine dialog, and that’s hardly ever something that our civilization can afford. Also, you must assume the responsibility of corroborating your own statements. For if Islam is a doctrinal displacement-corruption from Judaism, as you asserted, the same is as least as true of Christianity. And your sloppiest comment of all might be “are Muslims any more dangerous than Jews?”. I’m not sure if it’s gotten through to you which group of people are strapping themselves with suicide bombs, burning U.S. flags, have atrociously illiberal laws, and despise everything about the West, but I guarantee you they are not lighting any menorahs.
Weaver on 28 May 2008 at 4:22 am #
Andrew,
I meant to ask: is Israel any more dangerous than Iran?
“Jews and Muslims” was a mistake in that I didn’t mean domestically – I was thinking of Jews and Muslims in the Middle East.
Israel has a history of aggression, even against the US. I don’t trust Israel anymore than I trust Iran.
And yes all false religions are false… That is what any true believer believes.
My point is that: I don’t value Judaism in itself as do so many “Christians”. It’s a false religion along with Islam. A Christian Hebrew nation ought to arise, albeit while preserving the traditions of old.
Weaver on 28 May 2008 at 4:24 am #
I’m not looking to force conversions – simply pointing out that I don’t value Israel as being special. In America, isn’t it unusual not to value Israel highly? I don’t see the value other than it being a potentially stable and enduring nation-state. They identify as Middle Eastern, and so I reckon they are. Why should they be different from other Middle Easterners?
Andrew T. on 28 May 2008 at 3:45 pm #
Indeed, a belief that your own religion is true implies that the others are false, or at least incrementally more distant from the truth. But if you would bear with me, Christianity must, at minimum, account fully for its historical break from Judaism and the developments over those next several centuries that made it a completely distinct religion.
If you don’t recognize the ways in which Israel is different from other Middle Eastern nations, you are truly naive. And just what is this history of aggression toward the U.S. you identified?
Weaver on 28 May 2008 at 6:03 pm #
USS Liberty for one.
Judaism reveres the Talmud. It is not merely oriented around the Old Testament.
Weaver on 28 May 2008 at 6:14 pm #
It employs the dirtiest tactics and then seeks to cover them up. As if everyone else is stupid and won’t figure it out. The recent Lebanon conflict is only the latest example. Only a complete moron would fall for the propaganda.
If it weren’t for the fact that Political Correctness is so tight around Israel, Americans would long ago widely know about its immoral little actions.
Now, I admit the state probably needs to expand, and I don’t condemn it for its actions.
But I’m not some fool who believes Israel is this good, innocent state just trying to survive. It’s not. It’s just as dirty and dangerous as the Muslim states. I don’t mind if Israel expands and conquers a large section of the Middle East, but I also don’t want the US involved.
While America is over there wiping out Israel’s chief state enemies, America is building up domestic problems which will eventually (within this decade I’d say) rip this state apart.
‘The USS Liberty’: America’s Most Shameful Secret
—
I wish for orderly states to arise – I’m not defending the Palestinians whom I believe are simply in the wrong place and wrong time. There’s no solution for them except deportation. They’re in the wake of a rising state, and they’d best move out of the way.
But that conflict is entirely between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
It has zero to do with me.
Weaver on 28 May 2008 at 6:19 pm #
I often here within the web, “oh that’s an extreme view”…
Actually, no it isn’t.
It’s a brave, honest view.
Most people work and don’t wish to stir up trouble. They’ll admit quietly how they feel while publicly not saying anything or going along with what they’re supposed to say.
Political correctness is powerful, and I’ve spoken with enough people to know how they think.
To not support Israel is to bring on a storm. To not say anything on the matter is to remain in business and at peace.
However, if the war is to end over there, America’s relationship with Israel needs to change. Israel needs to be free to expand, and America needs to be free to not aid it.
Bush is not world emperor. Israel is not of his domain. And this “special relationship” with Israel is just that: America being pulling into an area of the world in which it has no vital interests.
Andrew T. on 28 May 2008 at 9:12 pm #
It is inaccurate to say that Judaism upholds the Talmud as scripture. The Talmud is important in Judaism in a way comparable to how Catholics honor the Papal encyclicals and writings of early Church fathers; those are inseparable from Catholicism and its doctrine, but they are not scripture.
You can say all you want that Israel is not actually different or less dangerous than the Islamic states, but I’m not seeing it. What might frighten you about me is that I have politics you would agree with, even though I can’t agree with the awful things you say abut who the Israelis are. You are talking out of your behind on this one.
roho on 28 May 2008 at 9:18 pm #
For such a young nation, Israel has been drenched in corruption, with another being asked to step down from political leadership now!
They fall short as this grand model of “Democratic Moral High Ground”.
Instead of their #1 export being weapons, they might want to start growing tomatos, because like much of the U.S. middleclass, I’m tired of toting their economy with my tax dollars!
Weaver on 28 May 2008 at 10:59 pm #
Andrew,
I haven’t said aweful things about Israel, nor do I have gas.
I don’t care about Israel. I don’t think it is this wonderful chosen state as do so many “Christians” and I don’t see anything to be gained from it.
It’s just… Israel, another state in the world.
It has acted no better than other states. It starts wars, it is aggressive, and it expands – just like a state does.
I am very annoyed by its attempts at propaganda, and even more by how well they work on Americans, but so what? A good state uses propaganda.
RonL on 29 May 2008 at 12:51 am #
Weaver,
“Which came first? The chickenhawk or the angry Iran? Iran hates us for our foreign policy.”
Carter is a chickenhawk?
“Proof? And so what if it is? Can it be prevented, and is it worth the cost? There are already other nuclear armed states. What’s one more state?”
Other than the comments of Iran’s leadership, which you always ignore, and the current stonewalling of the IAEA, I have no proof. I suppose you wont be happy unless NYC goes up in nuclear fire.
“Iran doesn’t want to be obliterated. Why would it attack America except out of fear?”
The issue is not the Iranian people but the radical Twelver Shi’a Fundamentalists runing it. The people who believe that the Mahdi will come only after the true believers are purified by fire.
They want to be nuked!
“There’s always the possibility a crazy person will come to power of any nuclear arsenal. The correct response then is to build up defenses.”
Missile defense is fine, but we both know that the Islamists are really good at unconventional warfare. Loading planes or ships with nuclear devices through third party terrorists is the obvious choice.
“And again, Russia and Iran would only be working on Iranian nukes, if indeed they are, out of self defense and in response to US aggression.”
Our enemies are always the victim, aren’t they. Has it occured to you that Putin wants oil to be expensive and is divying up Caspian energy supplies with Iran and China?
Putin assumes that he can control Iran. As his gambit with the Chechens shows, he gets this wrong.
“Put another way: why did Israel develop nuclear weapons? Carter estimates Israel has 150 nuclear weapons. For self defense.
How is Iran any different?”
Aside from religion, no Israeli president would say, as the “moderate” Rafsanjani did, that his country could survive a few nuclear hits, but his enemy could only survive 1.
RonL on 29 May 2008 at 1:21 am #
Weaver,
“Are Muslims any more dangerous than Jews? Both worship false religions, imo, with the former springing from the latter.”
Islam is a syncretic religion. If you read the Koran, much of it is Gnostic Christian stories. Some have suggested that based on syntax, it was written in Syriac, which is the language of Near Eastern Christians.
However, much of Islam comes indirectly from a bastardized view of Judaism.
In tems of threat, Jews want Israel, which at maximum is composed of Modern Israel, the disputed territories, 1/3 of Jordan, and Lebanon south of the Litani river. That is a maximalist position, which no Israeli political figure would support. (I think David Aziel of the Irgun was the last one in 1940.)
On the other hand, Orthodox Islam demands world-wide Caliphate.
You do the math.
“I’d love for an Israeli ethnic state and a Persian ethnic state to arise and become semi-autarkic: minding their own business.”
A Persian ethnic state would be much smaller than Iran. Iran is only 50% Persian.
“I doubt such will happen, but if you want my ideals: I’d like to see both Persia and Israel develop, with both converting to Christianity.”
Fortunately, you don’t believe in demanding this by the sword. Muslims do.
“Persia is one of the great empires of history, and the site of some of the earliest known civilisations. Bomb Persia out of paranoia? What a loss. They might never survive and might lose ties to their past which might help ground a successful future state.”
I am not suggesting that we bomb them, much less nuke them, out of hand. It should be a threat with some form of concessions if they choose a non-militant path. Take away the stick, and we undermine the Iranian Parliament members currently trying to get Ahmadinejad to negotiate.
“USS Liberty for one.”
And we were agressive against he Canukistanis when an F-16 bombed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
“Judaism reveres the Talmud. It is not merely oriented around the Old Testament.”
Orthodox Rabbinate Judaism reveres the “Oral Torah”, which is about 1/4 of the Talmud. The rest are Rabbinic rulings and discussion.
Other Jews such as Karaites and Ethiopian Jews do not see the Talmud as authoritative. (Neither do Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, but they don’t see the Bible as authoritative.)
“It employs the dirtiest tactics and then seeks to cover them up. As if everyone else is stupid and won’t figure it out. The recent Lebanon conflict is only the latest example. Only a complete moron would fall for the propaganda.”
You mean like the photoshoped images run by “mainstreme news” which was designed to show all of Beiruit ablaze?
“But I’m not some fool who believes Israel is this good, innocent state just trying to survive. It’s not. It’s just as dirty and dangerous as the Muslim states. I don’t mind if Israel expands and conquers a large section of the Middle East, but I also don’t want the US involved.”
That is very nice. But the debate today is how much Israel should contract and how much should America force Israel to concede.
“While America is over there wiping out Israel’s chief state enemies, America is building up domestic problems which will eventually (within this decade I’d say) rip this state apart.”
Umm, the US arms Israel’s former and current enemies. We armed and trained the PLO/Palestinian Authority army, which turned on Israel in 2000.
We aren’t wiping out Israel’s enemies, we are aiding them.
The Margolis hit piece is a joke. Look up the British attack on the HMS Sheffield during the hunt of the Bismark.
Morover, Eric the pink never answers a fundamental question: Why would Israel feal it necessary to attack an American ship, if it could control the response? And if Israel had such power, why did the LBJ administration refuse to give Israel the Naval liaison it asked for and then lie to Israel about the location of American ships?
“But that conflict is entirely between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
It has zero to do with me.”
That one may not. But the greater Jihad targets you. Will you wake up only when Muslims dominate the UK is 30 years? http://www.churchnewspaper.com/Editorial.aspx
“Bush is not world emperor. Israel is not of his domain. And this “special relationship†with Israel is just that: America being pulling into an area of the world in which it has no vital interests.”
I forgot, Oil and attacks on American soil are not our concern.
Roho
“For such a young nation, Israel has been drenched in corruption, with another being asked to step down from political leadership now!
They fall short as this grand model of “Democratic Moral High Groundâ€.”
Take a good look at your municipal government or DC.
Corruption is a problem in Israel largely due to the size of its government.
“Instead of their #1 export being weapons, they might want to start growing tomatos, because like much of the U.S. middleclass, I’m tired of toting their economy with my tax dollars!”
Actually, Israel has a very productive business in agriculture. but this is limited due to land and water constraints. However, Israel has developed considerable expertise in agriscience, which it regularly exports to surrounding Arab states. Currently there is a large project in India.
As for US aid to Israel it is not significant and should be stopped.
ERIC on 29 May 2008 at 3:45 am #
Weaver is right, Israel is just as much a threat as any Arab country.
And on top of that, Israel the country is not Israel of the bible. Israel of the bible is a people, specifically the white Anglo Saxons of the world.
The Jews control our media and government among other things.
Therefore when it comes to middle east policy, we the united states should butt out and let the Jews and Arabs destroy each other if they insist on doing so.
This country will never be right until it turns white.
Andrew T. on 29 May 2008 at 6:12 am #
ERIC,
I thought I told your punk ass not to spew garbage around here about things you’re not the least bit familiar with.
“Weaver is right, Israel is just as much a threat as any Arab country.”
Only a psychopath would think this way. Israel is inarguably a nation of the West and in many ways like the U.S., and Arab countries tend to despise the U.S. and want it to diminish.
“And on top of that, Israel the country is not Israel of the bible. Israel of the bible is a people, specifically the white Anglo Saxons of the world.”
Where the hell do you get this retarded, stupid, and completely idiotic religious fairy tale that the Israelites were/are Anglo-Saxons. They were Levantine Semites and the genetic ancestors of modern Jews, you childish moron. It’s almost unbelievable that people exist who can believe in such insidious fairy tales, such baseless absurdity hoisted upon stilts.
“The Jews control our media and government among other things.”
Of course! Just think of all the Jewish presidents we must have had by now!!! Oh, wait…there actually haven’t been any whatsoever.
“This country will never be right until it turns white.”
So you think that it is only possible for people of a certain skin tone to be good and moral. Essentially, it’s classic racism. Pathetic, and it’s morally indefensible. You are a shameless racist, and if I were a business or property owner, I would discriminate against the likes of you to the fullest extent of my ability.
RonL on 29 May 2008 at 9:20 pm #
Eric,
I pity you. To have such disdain for your authentic roots that you must cling to the belief that you are something else, despite all historical and genetic evidence, reveals a pathological issue.