O Talisman! My Talisman!
Writing by treason on Tuesday, 28 of November , 2006 at 6:19 am
“…Iraq is succeeding because the Iraqi state has weathered the worst of the insurgent storm and survived, and because the Sunni insurgency is fatigued. ‘What about all the bodies? What about all the bombings?’ Indeed, it’s the worst it has been, but not the worst it can be. I see many hopeful signs that cannot be dismissed. To me, the numbers of the dead — painful as they are — are not as critically dangerous as a much talked about shift in American strategy away from the goal of securing a democratic Iraq.
Insurgencies are about perceptions, not about hard facts on the ground…
…There is plenty of heartache coming from Iraq. But there is also plenty to be proud of. It is a very simple choice: Do the bad guys — the Baathists, Al Qaeda, and the tyrants — win this round of the long war ahead, or will the regular Iraqis who are just trying to live a decent life emerge victorious. And you can bet your life that the outcome matters to those seeking to live similarly decent and terror-free lives in Manhattan, St. Louis, or anywhere else in America.”
– Nibras Kazimi, “Iraq Is Succeeding”
I spent a part of yesterday going back and forth over the war in Iraq on a blog I’ve mentioned here several times before. It’s interesting that a group of people - Liberals, to be exact - are quick to extol the virtues of dialogue but find it so difficult to engage in the practice themselves. I said I was up for solutions and I threw out some questions, hoping that I might at least get some thoughtful responses. Even a “that’s a stupid idea and here’s why” would have been welcome.
Part of what I said:
“…It doesn’t matter if it’s their intention or not to influence elections because, like it or not, the influence is felt. It’s not accidental. The violence in Iraq and the anti-American/Israeli/Pontiff protests are effective. If the problem, as you say, is a power vacuum and a civil war, then what’s the solution?
Another Saddam? Separating the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites? Impossible…
…Should we have taken out Muqtada al-Sadr instead of allowing him to become even more powerful? Do we pack up and go home and turn the place over to the radicals? Do we ask for help and continue to look weaker, act weaker? Do we go in, guns blazing, and kill more insurgents? Do we kick the current ‘democratically elected’ government out and put one we like better in its place? (Uh, I think we’ve done that before…)
At any rate, what’s the answer?”
I’m not sure I got any. So I brewed some Earl Grey and switched on C-SPAN to watch a repeat of the morning call-in program. I’ll give their callers that - they’re not shy about offering up their ideas.
The Usual Suspect: “The issue here is that Bush needs to go on trial for war crimes. Simple as that.”
New To The Debate: “Yeah, we should be talkin’ to Iran and Syria - why not? They’re gonna want us to do somethin’ about the whole Israel thing, though. You know, the way we back them and everything. That’ll need to change.”
The Little Old Southern Lady: “Nawlins is still so empty. I was just thinkin’ — wouldn’t it be nice if those Israeli people could move here to be safe? We have hospitals and shoppin’ malls and houses standin’ empty, an’ I sure would love to see ‘em come on over. We’re invitin’ ya, ya hear?”
The niceties were dripping like honey, the Southern hospitality was palpable. Was she sincere or was she being sarcastic? It’s so easy these days to throw something out there then say you were just being sarcastic.
If someone thought she was serious they would have thought she was a simpleton. But there’s something to admire about her solution: “We’ll move those people out of harm’s way and we’ll protect them on our soil. It will be mutually beneficial.”
But simple solutions aren’t simple when problems are so complex. We could go on for days. Israelis surrender their home for Nawlins? And is Nawlins really safer than Israel? Sure would be crowded with seven million new residents - twenty percent of which would be Arabs (mostly Muslims). Couldn’t we give them New Mexico instead? Doesn’t that mean we drop to 49 states and have to redo the flags? Again, we want to shift the problem, not solve it, thereby creating even more problems.
Like in Iraq, we want things to be simple: “If the people there just can’t seem to get along, why don’t we just keep them separated? We’ll make three countries instead of one big one and the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will each get their own country and everything will be fine.”
The idea that we can draw new borders and move people around like chess pieces is an interesting concept. I recall when certain groups in America weren’t getting along we stopped trying to keep them separated and forced them to mingle. Now we’re so intermingled that dividing us back into neat little groups would be impossible.
“Blacks here. Gays there. Jews over there.”
“Uh, what if you’re black, Jewish, and gay?”
Nibras Kazimi, Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Abdel-Aziz al Wandawi, Director General of Information of the Higher National Commission for De-Ba’athification, were part of a forum on sectarian violence in Iraq - it was on C-SPAN last week - and both agree that there are too many subgroups and too many mixtures in Iraq for any type of geographical separation to work.
“I’m a Sunni married to a Shiite - what do I do?”
Next idea, please?
Well, we can talk to Iran and Syria! About what? Our problem was talking to them in the first place and believing what they told us: “You want to establish a democracy in Iraq? Go for it! We won’t get in your way.”
How nice of us to remove Saddam and train an army for our “friends” in Iran and Syria. Every country should have such helpful occupiers.
So now what? I refer to my previous questions. The only one that seems to be considered is the “easy” out. The “peace with honor” plan. To that I say: “Piss on your peace.” Abandoning the Iraqis again will not create peace. Peace through strength is a better option, but it’s clear too many Americans are getting wobbly. If we leave, we’re damned forever.
Kazimi, who writes a column for The New York Sun and maintains a blog - Talisman Gate - warns:
“…This evasion of reality has resulted in the bizarre situation, where describing the enemy as evil is somehow not politically correct, even after September 11, the graphic beheadings, and al-Muhajir’s words, while tagging the neoconservatives as nefarious is a journalistic standard.
But the enemy is evil nonetheless. There will not be a let-up if you meet the terrorists’ demands. Al-Muhajir flaunts his evil for all to hear when he says that “we have not yet quenched our thirst” for American blood. Whether the American public, or the Democrats, choose to hear him or not at this stage is beyond the point: Al-Muhajir plans to make his evil presence felt and soon. And it will be painful — if Al Qaeda’s declaration of victory in Iraq is left unchallenged.”
– Nibras Kazimi, “Al-Muhajir’s Evil Presence”
Category: Uncategorized
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Digg -
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
