Building a nation-state -- the bloody way

One of the things that distinguishes nations from states, and both from nation-states, is the assimilation and shared identification among ethnic and/or religious factions. Nations typically transcend state borders (e.g., the Kurds), and almost every state is nationally pluralistic (e.g., The United States). Only in the rarest of cases (e.g., Iceland) are the Ven Diagram circles of nation and state virtually identical and overlapping. Hence the inevitable bloodshed in Africa, or the Balkans, where colonialists imposed often-arbitrary state borders on disparate, even rival nations.

Iraq's colonial path to its modern history is, of course, no different. The formerly ruling, Hussein-led Sunnis dominated the majority Shiites mostly south of their central "triangle," while oppressing with more ruthless methods the Kurdish minority to their north.

And thus it is simply stunning to read this piece, entitled Shiites Rally to Sunni 'Brothers', by Karl Vick in Friday's Washington Post. Vick reports the details of Shiites donating supplies and even blood to support insurgent elements of the once-ruling Sunni class now fighting in Fallujah:

The [Shiite] cleric, Hassan Toaima, surveyed the scene with satisfaction as people filled a tent erected beside the shrine, flexing and unflexing their fists to push blood from their veins into plastic sacks that would be carried to war wounded in Fallujah.

"Look!" said Toaima, his eyes dancing below a tightly wrapped white turban. "This is strong proof that the people of Iraq will end wars between Sunni and Shiite before they begin.

"And we welcome Iraqis of all religions -- Jews, Christians, everyone -- to come and help the people of Fallujah and Karbala and Mosul and Nasiriyah and Basra."

The enthusiasm was shared at the sprawling complex that was known as the Mother of All Battles Mosque under President Saddam Hussein. Now it is home to the Association of Muslim Scholars, which controls 70 Sunni mosques in Baghdad and organized this week's drive for blood, cash, food and medical supplies.

"Sunni and Shiites together," said Ziyad Hamid, a council employee. "Unity existed before, but now it's becoming stronger still."

Note the cities quoted include both Sunni and Shiite areas of the country. Note, too, that coalition forces have now lost control not only of Sunni-dominated Fallujah, but also two Shiite cities (Najaf and Kut) to the South. It is not merely a deposed Sunni ruling class revolting from having their power taken away; the Shiites are revolting, and even supporting Sunni revolts, literally, with their blood. Of such things nation-states are made.

Yet somehow, I don't remember the president or any of the other neocons who argued for invasion as a way to create a self-determined, free Iraq predicting that the transformation of a nation-less state waging blood feuds into a nation-state organizing blood drives would proceed thusly.

•  good stuff

  good stuff but I can't imagine the harmony
  lasting were they to kick the CPA & US troops
  out.  

  from my very distant vantage-point it seems
  that if we don't get a multi-national & arab
  face on the CPA then it's headed to civil war.
  

  by JoelK in AZ on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:38:28 PM PDT

  •  and worse case ...

    and the worst case would be that Iran and
    Syria and Turkey would all get actively involved
    in the chaos.
    

    by JoelK in AZ on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:40:05 PM PDT

    •  if we wash our hands

      of an unstable country that cannot defend itself (and that sits on gargantuan oil reserves) there will be regional chaos including but not confined to the countries you mention. that is the greatest argument for our continued presence in Iraq.

      by mannyramirez on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:02:24 PM PDT

      •  Go to the borders, then

        Defend Iraq, then. Go to the borders. Don't occupy the cities. Let the Iraqis do what they like, while keeping out the Iranians and Syrians and Kuwaitis and anybody else who would take advantage of the Iraqis. Let the Iraqis figure out how they want to government themselves, give them a few spare billions that we aren't giving Halliburton so that they can rebuild themselves without our "help" (read: Halliburton contracts), step in only when absolutely necessary, and otherwise have a light hand about things.

        This bullshit about closing down newspapers, shooting protesters, and destroying part of a city the size of Pittsburge in retaliation for the killing of some mercenaries is ridiculous. We're using Saddam's tactics now. How does that make us better than Saddam?

        - Badtux the "Where's that moral compass gone, now?" Penguin

        by badtux on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:11:26 AM PDT

        •  This is brilliant.

          This is the kind of thing we'd do if we were truly interested in their well-being, and in being friends with the eventual government.  

          But we're not, so we won't.  We want it all for our greedy little selves, so we can support Israel from our bases in Iraq, and fill our cars with the nice oil Hallburton brings us.  

          Bastards.

          by Katydid on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:42:19 AM PDT

          •  Apres US, le deluge

            But who would lead an Iraqi-crafted state?  It would probably be al-Sistani, with al-Sadr as muscle (actually, al-Sadr has already put this scenario to al-Sistani).  A fundamentalist theocracy supported by hassassin-- deja vu?

            Come to think of it, who's going to lead, even if we hand over "sovreignty?"  

            by For Dean in Dixie on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:37:38 AM PDT

            •  Yeah

              But it's too late to alter that.  That was the obvious outcome of any "regime change" that we offered, because the vacuum under Saddam was clerics.  Thinking people knew that going in.

              What are we going to do, impose a secular strongman of our choosing?  Keep the army there to enforce his regime?  We're going to have to eventually let that dream go, we'll end up with Sistani or whoever.  Much better that we let them choose their way, in their own way, and make friends with whoever the leader is.

              We can change the radical fundamentalism in the Middle East by being friends, not by cracking down.  We have further radicalized the Middle East by our support of Israel and bombing of Iraq.  We are getting more of what we don't want, not less.

              by Katydid on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 09:51:33 AM PDT

        •  Heh

          Seems alot like the pre-war containment footing we were on, except instead of keeping Iraq in we would be keeping everyone else out.  Strange world.

          I agree this might be the best and only strategy.

          by furiousxgeorge on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 01:53:46 AM PDT

  •  yes, that may very well be the case

    As someone remarked on Hesiod (I think it was Hesiod) earlier today, the Sunnis and Shiites were also able to put aside their centuries of animosity in 1920 to kick out the British.

    Ah, found the link, which also notes that loudspeakers are reminding Iraqis of this historic (if quite temporary) unity eighty odd years ago.

    by sdf on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:39:17 PM PDT

  •  Radical elements

    are already coming together, and moderate elements are accepting their having a place at the table.

    by Stirling Newberry on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:52:12 AM PDT

•  This is best

  This will teach Iraqi's the value of independance just as the US war for independance instilled those values in americans. Though it costs lives if the Iraqi's win their freedom they will value it more. Just as the Americans value their heritage from overthrowing their coloninal occupiers.

  by morph on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:39:35 PM PDT

•  I disagree

  with Tom, but for the moment, those of us without jobs are still waiting for the warrior model to apply.

  by Melanie on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:51:55 PM PDT

•  agreed,

  this is certainly a remarkable development. But I'd wait a bit before reading grand things into it in. The sunni-shia and kurd-arab divides are pretty serious.

  I'd suppose this is more of an enemy of my enemy is my friend type thing. Still, it is remarkable.

  by mannyramirez on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:57:10 PM PDT

  •  sorry

    by mannyramirez on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:58:21 PM PDT

  •  Not according to the Iraqi bloggers

    They maintain that the Sunni-Shiite divide is nowhere near as dire as what the nay-sayers whine about, and point out that Fallujah wasn't even a Saddamite town -- it was a rival to Tikrit (Saddam's home town) and Saddam occasionally had to run his Republican Guard through there to hang folks from the nearest lamp posts when they got too rambunctious.

    The folks in Fallujah apparently just don't like heavy-handed military government, whether it was Saddam's, or ours.

    Of course, who am I supposed to believe, mere Iraqis, or the self-appointed experts in WarBlogistan? After all, Raed and Salaam don't have Halliburton contracts, and didn't donate anything to our Dear Leader's campaign, so how could anything they say be worthwhile?! Why listen to them just because they live in Iraq?!

    - Badtux the "If they didn't donate to our Dear Leader's campaign, they're not credible!" Penguin

    by badtux on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:16:09 AM PDT

•  agreed,

  this is certainly a remarkable development. But I'd wait a bit before reading grand things into it. The sunni-shia and kurd-arab divides are pretty serious.

  I'd suppose this is more of an enemy of my enemy is my friend type thing. Still, it is remarkable.

  by mannyramirez on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:57:24 PM PDT

  •  So we've united Iraq...

    Reminded of that old saying: Be careful what you wish for....

    by doug r on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:38:05 AM PDT

    •  We're probably

      going to unite the whole Middle East in hatred of us?  How are we going to get our precious, precious oil?

      by Unstable Isotope on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:12:27 AM PDT

•  How come nobody seems to be keying in

  on the fact that Sadr's Mahdi Army has cut our supply lines? They occupy Najaf and Kut and, last I heard, the bridges of Nassiriya. This is way bad for the CPA because it means the supply convoys from Kuwait cannot get through to Baghdad and points north.

  Sanchez is between a rock and a hard place. Najaf is filling up with religious pilgrims. If he attacks now to retake the supply line he runs the risk of having all out rebellion break out. If he waits, the grunts and jarheads in Faluja run out of bullets and MRE's.

  by jakethomson on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:33:17 PM PDT

  •  Ukrainians retreated because of this

    According to sources in Iraq, the Ukrainians had to retreat because they ran out of bullets and couldn't get any resupply, not having their own air drop capability or any other supply chain. The U.S. is of course only airlifting bullets to their own soldiers.

    We have large airfields out in the desert, easily defensible, so we can airlift bullets and MRE's by the ton with no problem. But the supply chain, chaotic enough for the mishmash of American equipment in Iraq (a combination of Vietnam-era National Guard equipment, stockpiled stuff left in Kuwait after Gulf War I ended in 1991, and the latest greatest stuff right off the boat from Europe) has totally broke down when it comes to our allies, who have been left to dangle in the breeze. Our allies had bypassed this failing by trucking in goods from Kuwait. That option is obviously out of the question right now. I wouldn't be surprised if within 48 hours every non-US contingent in Iraq (other than the British, who have their own in-theater logistics capabilities) sign a truce with Sadr's forces and march right out of the picture to Kuwait.

    = Badtux the Logistical Penguin

    by badtux on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:24:06 AM PDT

•  Sunni - Shiite unity overstated?

  I think despite isolated stories of unity this has more the flavor of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

  Juan Cole wrote recently :"Although Iraqi nationalism is strong enough to explain the appearance of pro-Muqtada posters in Anbar province on Tuesday, there is zero probability that Shiite militias are operating freely there or that the ragtag Army of the Mahdi could take out 12 seasoned Marines! This was the work of Sunni ex-Baath army units."

  by joejoejoe on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:47:08 PM PDT

  •  If Juan Cole really thinks..

    that US Marines are somehow invincible supersoldiers he needs to quit smoking whatever he is smoking and come back to reality. Its just as easy to take out a marine as "street rabble". It takes one bullet. We've been fed this "invincible US troops" bull for so long now its starting to ingrain itself.

    Lets pray to god we get people in office (and in the pundit/blog world) who realise that soldiers are just men and women. And that combat costs are paid in blood, not gold. We've had effete intellectuals on the left and right, who would scream in terror at the thought of fighting themselves, sending men and women to kill and die for far too long now.

    by cdreid on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:36:02 AM PDT

    •  Seasoned Marines

      ...somehow equal "invincible supersoldiers" in your mind? And US soldiers equipped with body armor, extensive training, modern communications and air support are as easy to kill as "street rabble"? Who's spreading the bull here?

      Juan Cole's post refers to the loss of 12 Marines in Sunni Fallujah last weekend. Nowhere in that post or my reference does it suggest the invincibility of American troops or minimize the loss of life. If you read the post, it's a simple observation of who is fighting and where.

      by joejoejoe on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 05:02:12 AM PDT

      •  Those 'seasoned Marines'

        Just showed up in country a couple of weeks ago, they are part of the new rotation. These are kids who have had the best training money can buy - in Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton and for a few weeks behind the lines in Kuwait.  

        By definition the survivors will be seasoned.  But we are feeding mostly newbies into the meatgrinder of urban warfare.  And their first introduction to the Iraqi people was twelve dead comrades.  I don't think we will be reading many letters home about giving candy to the kids and all the schools they are building.

        You can't spell aWagmire without dubya.

        by Bruce Webb on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 07:15:30 AM PDT

      •  His post

        very intentionally implied the mythology of "the american supersoldier". The germans fed that same myth to their population. With equal justification. They had the best soldiers in the world at the time, as we do now.

        But so you know we dont have any "seasoned combat veterans" humping backpacks. The american military uses its "careerists" to train, equip and command the guard and reservists. The guys carrying m16's through the streets of Iraq are your neighbor the mechanic, your neighbor who flips burgers at mcdonalds etc. They arent "combat hardened nam vets". They're 18-20ish kids who signed up for a few extra bucks each month, for training, for tuition.

        by cdreid on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:30:59 PM PDT

  •  ex-Army no better trained than Mahdi

    Look, Saddam's Army was a shambles. Most of it was totally untrained draftees. The Republican Guard wasn't much better. Without close air support they couldn't even take out the Kurdish militias, despite outnumbering them 10:1 and having tank and artillery support. Anybody who knew anything about running an Army got killed either in the Iran war bloodbath, or in the Gulf War I bloodbath, or when Saddam hanged the losers in those bloodbaths. For the past ten years about all Saddam's army was good for was going after poorly-armed Shiites inside cities, and even there they needed a lot of Mukharabat (secret policemen) to keep the lid on.

    Marines are not supermen, and all it takes is one lucky mortar shell at an unexpected time (such as when they're eating lunch in the mess hall at a fortified camp that's never been attacked) to create 12 dead Marines. It has nothing to do with the religion of the attackers, or their Army training (or lack thereof). From what I can tell of the "spray'n'pray" tactics that the Iraqi insurgents are using, this is the proverbial gang that can't shoot straight, and any of our soldiers killed are literally by bad luck (fill the air with enough bullets, and eventually someone will have the bad luck to be where a bullet happens to be).

    And in the end it doesn't matter. We don't have enough Marines going into Fallujah (only 1500) to hold the place. All we can do is run sweeps. The bad guys can just move out of our way, melt back into the population, and wait if things get too hot. They don't need to defeat our soldiers on the battlefield. All they need to do to win is make it clear that we control no ground other than what two American boots happen to be standing upon at any given moment. The only way to win a guerilla war is politically, via secret policemen and removing their support amongst the populance. Military force can only suppress guerillas, not defeat them. Even Stalin found that out, when suppressing the post-WWII Ukrainian rebellion, and Stalin was a helluva lot more ruthless than the American public will (hopefully) allow Dubya to be.

    - Badtux the Strategic Penguin

    by badtux on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 08:46:35 AM PDT

    •  War on Iraq

      Sweeping Fallujah or Najaf, no matter how many troops we have in country, is not an act of liberation. It's war fighting. "Spreading Democracy" has always been an excuse after the WMD argument turned to dust.

      All other things being equal we have the best prepared and equipped troops. What we don't have is a clear mission in Iraq for those troops and that is showing in the increasing losses.

      by joejoejoe on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 03:33:30 PM PDT

•  Molly Ivins once said

    Couldn't we just say we got Saddam, "declare victory and go home?"  Perhaps the Iraqis would figure out how to have whatever sort of country they are going to have.  It seems they want a theocracy.  Wish we could drive Chalabi to the border of Jordan, wave good bye and just get out of the way.  I'm all for helping them when they ask for help and tell us what they need.  Being the occupiers is the pits.

  by ljm on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:57:36 PM PDT

  •  Bailing on Iraq

    Couldn't we just say we got Saddam, "declare victory and go home?"

    Maybe we could have, last May.  But remember, the rationalization du moment at the time was the massive stockpiles of NBC weapons and the evils of the Ba'ath regime, not just a capture of Saddam.

    The Iraq of last May was able, maybe, to withstand a US pullout.  Since then we have dismembered the military and most of the civil service.  We've allowed the public institutions to be looted and in some cases occupied by squatters.  Professors and scientists are literally being gunned down in the street if they try to collaborate with us (for that matter, so are any other workers).

    The decapitation strategy might have worked if we tried it at the beginning.  But now we've allowed the rest of the body to be ripped apart too.  What's scary to me right now is that we don't seem to have a plan to fix it.

    Bush can talk about our 'resolve' all he wants.  Our military can, and will, put down isolated rebellions.  The problem is stopping the rebellion before it starts.  The only way to do this is make the American version of Iraq better than that offered by the guerillas.  (Formerly known as winnning the hearts and minds.)  Right now, the American Iraq looks like an unfocused occupation and a breathtakingly corrupt 'reconstruction'.  You can't blame the Iraqis for not being on board with that, no matter what our intention is.

    But we can't get out.  So the only way to win is fixing the reconstruction.  I just don't think Bush can do that.

    by JimMA on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 07:08:41 AM PDT

    •  But the US will leave

      either now or later. Wouldn't now be better than making it worse?

      by janinsanfran on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:20:09 AM PDT

    •  Clueless

      Some clown on Faux asked "who is arming al-Sadr?  Are weapons coming in from Syria?"

      Has everybody already forgotten our failure to secure the arms and ammo dumps at the same time we turned the Iraqi army out on the streets last year?  There are far more guns than people in the country now.

      by For Dean in Dixie on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

•  I don't know that much

  about clashes in Africa; However, in the Balkans a great deal if not all of the violence was caused by US and NATO policy in the region both pre and post cold war. The situation continues today. The cat is out of the bag on Bosnia and Kosovo. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were once again our ally. NATO troops stand by as KLA burn Serbs, Jews and Romony out of their homes. The policy has been seamless. The Balkans were first. Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, second. Now the Iraqi fields, next? Certainly, Africa, as we run out of Natural Gas. Saudi Arabia? Why do I think that eventually the "truth" about 9-11 will lead to Saudi Arabia in some capacity. The smarter war on terror will ensure the Saudi Fields are firmly in hand. This whole phase of the Iraq war I believe is a deliberate attempt to unite these forces and as these clowns have oft repeated, "bring it on." It is to our distinct advantage to be able to lump them all together and let God sort them out. This is seen as a "winnable" situation. Very few US casualties if we rain death from the sky. Iraq is history. With Iran and Pakistan as our allies we will have the necessary tools to stir up enough trouble to justify exterminating whole towns.  

  by WaysAndMeans on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:02:54 AM PDT

  •  It is going to come as a shock to americans

    But it takes infantry to win wars.

    We just fought a 'war' against a country where several of the generals were literally bribed not to fight. Where we had crippled the economy with a decade plus long embargo.

    Now fight that war against a group of nations with sophisticated weapons systems, strong air defense and motivated military forces. Throw in an oil embargo that cripples a US economy already on life support.

    The neocon "new world order" scheme is a foolish fantasy, just as the hitlers version for europe was a fools fantasy. Imagine reports of hundreds of casualties every day rather than one or  two or ten. Of US aircraft carriers sunk by low level guided missile attacks. of widespread resistance to a US Draft. Of nations like North Korea and China offering to allow US troops to withdraw before they engulf S Korea and Taiwan.

    This whole idiotic holy war fantasy of the far right is a foolish wet dream thought up by men who have never fought, who's class has never fought, and who would shriek in terror at the thought that THEY would ever be forced to sacrifice, or , god forbid, serve.

    by cdreid on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:29:38 AM PDT

•  Civil War is the only way to create a nation state

  Then the obvious question becomes, what happens when the US leaves and takes the motivating factors behind this Sunni-Shiite co-operation with it?  The Sunnis and the Shiites go back to fighting with each other.  And that's what nation-states are made of, revolutionary and civil wars.  Either each group will become its own, independent country, or they will learn to live together.  But it won't happen until they fight one another.  

  The current situation is no indication of what the future will bring.  We shouldn't try to extrapolate the occurrences of the last few weeks to the future.  It is doubtful they will hold true.

  by Grant on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:03:11 AM PDT

  •  don't forget, however...

    that we could be handing territory grab opportunities to Syria, Iran, and Turkey. Syria and Iran are likely to be content with surrogates, i would bet, but turkey has no surrogate except for a military that has the constitutional right to overthrow the government...

    i can't believe bush washing his hands of this on june 30th. sounds like the way that his favorite philosopher's fate was sealed...

    by jkennerl on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:15:20 AM PDT

    •  Afghan solution in 1880's

      After the Afghans threw out the British (again) in the 1800's, they then signed a treaty with the Britains to defend them against the Russians (who then, as in the future, were threatening to invade). In exchange, they allowed the Britains to have control over their foreign affairs, which they didn't much care about anyhow. So the British defended Afghanistan against outside invaders, the Afghans did whatever Afghans do internally, and all were happy until the 1970's, after close to a century of peace (if not progress).

      Now, Afghanistan is a far more turbulent place than Iraq. But such a limited withdrawal worked fine for the Brits and Afghans, and it certainly would be worth a try in Iraq given the alternative that we're seeing now -- massive bloodshed.

      by badtux on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:36:10 AM PDT

  •  American lives in the long run

    Excellent observation!  Right on!! I believe you have to add two more points. First, if what you said is true, then all the American lives being lost now are for no good reason in the long run, and we must stop that hemorrhaging NOW.  Learn from the past (VIETNAM) for God sake!

    Second, in response to the idea that the US should stay at the borders but let the Iraqis ? fight it out, that is unreal and will taint the final outcome in a negative manner so that it is not a final outcome in truth!  Can you imagine how the US would have evolved if all our communications with the outside world were censored and controlled by other countries with other vested interests.  

    Let's temorarily install a puppet and get the hell out before we sacrifice, YES SACRIFICE, needlessly more American lives in the longer run.

    by truthbetold on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 06:33:49 AM PDT

    •  The Vietnam references

      keep reminding me of an Aldous Huxley quote:
      

      That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
        --  Aldous Huxley
      

      by echo on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 09:42:46 AM PDT

  •  Dear Grant (o/t) - Multi-choiced polls

    Are you someone who could get multi-choiced polls implemented?  Rusty suggested that it was going to happen, but maybe he's too busy.

    For a political site the quality of poll making is important. Having polls where one can pick more than one option would enhance the quality of polling around here.

    Rusty pointed me to Hulver as a site that had implemented it. gazbo is the person there who actually did the work.

    Thanks

    by wegerje on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 01:31:06 PM PDT

•  Term Paper on How to Succeed at Nation Building

  A new approach to nation building says 'back off', then provide limited help, instead of promising the world overnight, and underdelivering again.
  

  by shmooth on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:03:30 AM PDT

•  BBC says

  iraqi insurgents are holding two palestinians hostage. That seems odd. Anybody have any idea why they would be doing that.

  by mannyramirez on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:35:32 AM PDT

  •  Two words

    possible spies.

    I'll leave it to you to determine which country they could have been spying for.

    by Troy on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 01:30:34 AM PDT

  •  I think

    they are Israeli Arabs.

    by Unstable Isotope on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:15:26 AM PDT

  •  I heard they were

    "Israeli Arabs"-- same two guys?  Maybe they thought they were Jews?

    by For Dean in Dixie on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:42:28 AM PDT

    •  Nope

      Just in...they are West Bank Palestinians...Arafat negotiating for their release.

      by paper tigress on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 07:35:08 AM PDT

•  nuts...

  let's hope the boys crush the uprising quickly with few losses

  • even those of us who don't agree with this idiot war want to see some kind of workable democracy for Iraq asap (why not hold out hope?), so American kids can get the hell out of harms way
  • the three major factions are going to have to work things out eventually if they're going to have a future, June 30 sounds damn good to me -they want a future don't they?
  • I'm guessing we'll hold back enough troops to step in and mediate in the case of civil war (won't that be fun? nation-building at it's most fruity ass)
  • the Big news is that the beginning of this uprising coincided with some slow to come but good progress begun on the infrastructure (undone now I suspect), and an industrial fair which was the leading edge of helping Iraq to change - yeah, I know, divying up the spoils no doubt, but there were going to be jobs for the locals and that's what really changes the dynamic in out favour
  • anyway war sucks - exporting democracy at the point of a big f***ing gun is oxymoronic - pray for the troops - go team, kick their sneaky asses! (sigh) - vote for Kerry in 2004 for the sake of sanity and progress and tolerance and seperation of church and state and be nice out there in the blogosphere as the bush thing goes down in flames here -

  condi said there 4 very's in one of the threats but they were vague? they were expecting maybe a map to make it all easier? these guys are TERRORISTS - surprise is a key component to their whole schtic - it was a puzzle they didn't try that hard to solve it's seems clear now that Clarke's characterization of what was known prior to 9/11 was correct - enough pieces of the puzzle were lying around and no one led them to put them all together

  • they had other fish to fry, plans to make while on vacation, missile defense and Clinton screwed up and lah-de-dah - you get 4 years - they were all ready to go sept. 4 - unfortunately no one was sitting around waiting to see what the plan would be before they took action - the pda was called,"ahem, I believe it was called.. Bin Laden wants to strike targets inside the US." that's sureal - no one with a fair mind will want to put up with this anymore come november
  • hubris and Iraq come before a fall apparently

  by karlpk on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:39:58 AM PDT

•  Wow!

  All I can say is that when Bush ran as a uniter not a divider, he wasn't kidding.

  by walter mitty on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 03:14:14 AM PDT

  •  LOL

    The world is united in opposition to Bush!

    by Unstable Isotope on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:17:43 AM PDT

•  Retaking Baghdad?

  "...coalition forces have now lost control not only of Sunni-dominated Fallujah, but also two Shiite cities (Najaf and Kut) to the South."

  This may be a bit offtopic, but Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) this morning references an interview with Gen. Barry MacCaffrey to suggest that we've lost control of Baghdad and that communications lines have been cut. Haven't seen this elsewhere in the news, but it would be sad irony if we faced retaking the city on the anniversary of its fall.
  

  by drgardner on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:17:56 AM PDT

•  Kurds inhabit Iraq too

  Tom's point is overstated. Kurds represent 1/5 of the Iraqi population and this uprising is driving them more firmly onto the American side. The key national division has been and remains Arab and Kurd, and the current uprising is highly likely to set off vicious inter-ethnic conflict in Kirkuk. Khomeini too thought he could split the Iraqi Shiites from Sunnis, but from everything I've read, the Arab-Persian split was more decisive than the ArabSunni-Arab Shiite split.

  On another matter, if we really want to build a new democracy in the Middle East, why not build it in Kurdistan. They at least seem to want an American-backed democratic state.

  by angry moderate on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:27:00 AM PDT

•  Beyond the West

  This situation is too far gone for any Western-dominated coalition--UN, NATO, willing, unwilling, billing, weasels-- to fix.  Somebody is going to have to step up and get the Arab Nations involved.  I know, good luck-- but the Arab states are all sitting back and watching and laughing at our debacle, ignoring the fact that if we go down in Iraq, Iran and Syria will come in, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be the next to go down in flames.  And where are the Kuwaitis-- still at the disco?

  by For Dean in Dixie on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:51:23 AM PDT

•  "The Nation"...

  "One of the things that distinguishes nations from states, and both from nation-states, is the assimilation and shared identification among ethnic and/or religious factions. Nations typically transcend state borders (e.g., the Kurds), and almost every state is nationally pluralistic (e.g., The United States)." writes Tom Schaller.

  An excellent article, Tom Schaller. As those of you who "may" follow my posts here will be aware, I have been advancing the "essential" same position here for a considerable time now, but this develops it a little more broadly and deeply. It is important that U.S. American's get this one, or not only will they not understand the Iraqis, but also themselves. And in this time, it is important we all begin to get it.

  What is occurring in, at least, non-Kurd Iraq, possibly even one of the dramatic side-outcomes of the U.S. invasion, is that the evidence is gathering, that there is a merger of the Sunni and Shia into one nation/nation state underway. Now, the question is, as this rolls out and U.S. defeat becomes ever more certain, and the threats from Iran and Turkey more pressing, will this process also draw in the Kurds, back to the Iraqi fold. My own "sence" is, that it is more likely than not. Why? For the reasons above: the Kurds will not be able to stand alone against three fronts; the Iranians, the Turks, AND the rest of Iraq, who will not easily abandon the "northern territory" and especially its oil fields.

  I enjoyed and "essentially" agreed with all your major points.

  by Canuck Coot on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

  •  More On The Nation...

    Additionally, what makes me feel "positive" about the Kurds and the rest of Iraq is, what a number of others here have also pointed out: there has been much mixing or the Kurds with all the other elements of Iraq, along lines of blood, economics and no less important, shared history-, even if much of it a shared repression.

    All these elements together are a powerful impetus for the Kurds as well, to work out a deal and overcome their differences with the rest of Iraq.

    It is also my "hope" that this will occur as well, which I hope I have not allowed to colour my thinking here.

    by Canuck Coot on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 08:33:09 AM PDT

•  tighten up

  Nations typically transcend state borders

  often is the correct modifier.

  by GFW on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

  •  Tightening up....

    "...often is the correct modifier." writes GFW.

    Indeed. And as we all get more clarity on this issue of the differences, and the ways in which tribes, nations and states come together and integrate, there will doubtless be much need for "tightening up" and "making corrections" in our understanding, as we go along.

    There is much to be learned by us, the west generally, from Iraq-, and on more levels than the current conflict.

    by Canuck Coot on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 09:45:21 AM PDT

•  There is no flag...

  ...large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent civilians.

  by claude on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 09:36:45 AM PDT