Imperialism is bad
Queen Hillary surveys our little desert colony’s political leadership and declares, “We are not amused”:
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the Iraqi Parliament should replace embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with a “less divisive and more unifying figure” to reconcile political and religious factions.
And who, exactly, is that gonna be, Hill? We’ve gone through Allawi, Jaafari and Maliki. None of them have worked. None of them have any legitimacy, mostly because they’re seen as our puppets. And I got news for ya: urging the ouster of Maliki in favor of someone that we prefer won’t help the situation.
I know I’ve said this before, but imperialism is really, really bad. The best thing we can do for the people in Iraq is to just leave them alone and stop treating them as our colonial pets. That’s not to say things will magically get better when we leave- indeed, there’s a good possibility that things will get a whole lot worse. But our ability to have a positive influence on Iraq’s politics is precisely zilch. We have no credibility with the people of Iraq. They do not trust us. Hell, I don’t trust us. So let’s just leave them alone. It’s their country, not ours.
UPDATE: Excellent essay by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek:
We need to face facts. The problem of Iraq has very little to do with “the terrorists” whom Bush vaguely refers to in speech after speech. The problem of Iraq is that four years of a botched bloody occupation have created a failed state defined by fear, sectarian slaughter and the flight of Iraq’s educated class. Iraq is being held together by just one thing now: American glue, the glue of U.S. troops on the ground. The noises you hear now about the ineffectiveness of the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki are merely the sound of an approaching collapse long in the making. The only really appropriate analogy to Vietnam is that Bush’s policy of Iraqification—handing over things to the Iraqis—is far too similar to Vietnamization. Like the South Vietnamese government, the Iraqi politicians hunkered down in the Green Zone have little legitimacy any longer. Whatever authority they gained in the January 2005 elections has long since been frittered away and overtaken by the sectarian power struggle that is the governing reality on the ground. This power struggle is the reason why the Parliament is hopelessly paralyzed and why Maliki has almost no freedom of action. As a loyal Shiite of the Dawa Party, he is and will remain incapable of defying the new consensus among his sect for Shiite dominance. So powerful are these centrifugal forces pulling Iraq apart that the Iraqi Army seems to be disintegrating faster than it can be trained up.
It’s amazing to read someone in a major news magazine write about real history and not simply quote neocon revisionism about how we so so so so SO woulda won in Vietnam if only we’d stayed another 20 years.
Mmmmmkaayy?
Also, what Bradrocket said.
Fixing the Internets:
“An Iraqi Parliamentary member said today that the US Senate and House should replace embattled (and despised) President George W. Bush with a “less divisive and more unifying figure” to reconcile political and religious factions. David Broder is considered by many in Iraq to be the most likely candidate.”
Ooh, ooh, Mister Bradrocket!
Let’s have Allawi again! Or Jaafari. That’s what all the Very Serious People have said on my teevee. And because they said it, I’m sure it will work.
What’s that, Bullwinkle? Watch you pull a rabbit out of your hat? Oh, Bullwinkle….
I am for General Zod.
She supported the invasion (when she knew better but was too gutless to take a stand), criticised it when it was safe, and now she’s wagging her finger at, as you well put it, US colonial pets. Hillary’s a dud.
They need someone with fortitude, like this Russian woman. She could get the job done.
Idiots. Maliki has exactly zero power to affect political change. You could put Solomon in his seat and nothing would change.
Want “change”? Fine. You need to change the government. Top down. Everybody. Because the ministers are corrupt and building their power bases at the expense of the Iraqi people. The legislators are foaming dogs, snarling, snapping and fighting for the scraps. And the American military is their militia, their “armed faction”, being sent hither and yon to kill and imprison anybody who opposes these thugs in suits.
Of course, while you are guaranteed to get change, there’s no telling what kind of change you’re going to get. You might end up with a nation at peace. You might end up with a nation in flames. You pays your money, and you takes your chances.
Check out Juan today. The buzz is a military coup, installing military leadership and technocrats in the ministries. Great, huh? Who’s the “former military leadership” they can draw on to fill out this new government? Oh yeah, Saddam’s former Baath generals and colonels. That’s gonna go over great with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Badr brigades. I’m certain that’s a solution that will not only lead to peace and prosperity, but won’t we be proud of this new democracy…
mikey
Yeah, this is so not like Vietnam. Nope, not one bit.
Gus- but teh preznit thinks it IS like Vietnam, in the sense that we’ll win as long as we don’t lose our Will!!!
Sad times we live in, homeyz.
“Let’s have Allawi again! Or Jaafari. That’s what all the Very Serious People have said on my teevee. And because they said it, I’m sure it will work.
What’s that, Bullwinkle? Watch you pull a rabbit out of your hat? Oh, Bullwinkle….”
As a Great Thinker once said – “That trick NEVER Works!”
That’s right, I forgot that the Vietnam analogy is now wingnut approved. It’s so hard keeping up.
Correction: Hillary Reagan Clinton.
Oooh! The only one who can save Iraq is Ahmed Chalabi!
Or Brian Boitano!
You know, I think we could go one step further:
The appearance of imperialism is probably just as bad as actual imperialism. You can argue that we’re there for the Iraqi’s own good all you want to, but if they don’t see it that way, does our “sincerity” really matter?
Bradrocket and mikey nail it: no matter who the PM is, they will have no legitimacy so long as US forces are needed to back their play.
Legitimacy– the ability to make what you say stick– is the basic currency of governance, and no government that has to use foreign troops to keep order will ever be seen as legit. That’s why Teh Surge™ isn’t working and could never work.
Bush’s comparison of Iraq to Vietnam was in preparation for a dramatic change in US policy. The administration is about to reanimate Nguyen Van Thieu and proclaim him President of Iraq.
Next week they’ll be unveiling the zombified General Westmoreland, who will be taking command of the Surge. Or of Surge II. Or the Unsurge. Or something.
I’m so disgusted with the Democrats that I don’t consider myself to be one anymore, but …
Why does Hillary, or anyone else, need to have an opinion here? It’s not like Bush and Cheney will pay any attention to anything a Democrat says … unless they need political cover for fostering a coup in Iraq, as a preface to attacking Iran.
After all, the surge has been advertised as a “great success”, and Iraq is still a massive clusterfuck. How can that be? By definition, that can’t be Bush’s fault, so it pretty much has to be Maliki’s. So they need to dump Maliki … he’s the fall guy for the failure of the glorious surge … and the new government will be promised a nice juicy chuck of Iran (Shatt-al-Arab, anyone??) in order to play along.
But all the Dems should do is stand back. They can’t control events. All their oh-so-reasonable statements do is provide a fig-leaf of bi-partisanship for whatever Bush’s next horrible fuckup is going to be. It’s pretty clear that’s going to be the installation of an anti-Iranian government in Baghdad (which means Baathists and Sunni insurgents). Because then they can attack Iran and not worry as much about totally losing control of the ground situation in Iraq.
All any Dem should say is “This is George Bush and the Republican’s war. It’s a utter disaster for our nation and it will continue to be an utter disaster until the people vote in different leadership”.
This is Bush’s war, and Bush is the Republican’s guy. This is their noose. Let it hang them.
However, if we HAD stayed in Vietnam, it would have junked our armed forces so totally that this little Middle Eastern Escapade would have been unthinkable.
Who’s the “former military leadership” they can draw on to fill out this new government? Oh yeah, Saddam’s former Baath generals and colonels. That’s gonna go over great with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Badr brigades. I’m certain that’s a solution that will not only lead to peace and prosperity, but won’t we be proud of this new democracy…
How about a shah? I’m pretty sure they’d like to try one of those.
Any body see the Carpetbagger?
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12631.html
Mark Noonan is clearly on a roll, like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
The problem of Iraq is that four years of a botched bloody occupation have created a failed state…
I’ve been waiting for this. We had months of people getting used to the “civil war” idea, and I figured it would be only a matter of time before someone dropped the FS-bomb to refer to the current situation in Iraq, rather than about some horrible future scenario should the US pull out.
I’m no expert, but it’s looked like a failed state to me for a long time. What we call the Iraqi government simply doesn’t control vast portions of the country. What else do you call that?
“What else do you call that?”
Grover Norquist’s dream for America?
Maybe she’s looking for a job for Bill…..
Grover Norquist’s dream for America?
Tee! Zzzinga!!!
I forgot that the Vietnam analogy is now wingnut approved. It’s so hard keeping up.
First Iraq was so emphatically nothing like Vietnam. Now Iraq is indeed a second Vietnam — and the US would have won the first one, if it weren’t for all those
draft-dodging rich kids who are now the governmentmeddling kids in the media.All this flip-flopping is very confusing.
“And who, exactly, is that gonna be, Hill?”
Mickey Mouse, of course. Hamas loves him. Americo-philes love him. It’s a win-win situation.
I forgot that the Vietnam analogy is now wingnut approved. It’s so hard keeping up.
Hey! Just because we lost doesn’t mean we didn’t win!
mikey
My my, at waterloo napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself
Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo – promise to fight you for ever more
Waterloo – couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Waterloo – knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo – finally facing my waterloo
My my, I tried to hold you back but you were stronger
Oh yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight
And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose
Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo – promise to fight you for ever more
Waterloo – couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Waterloo – knowing my fate is to be with you
And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose
Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo – promise to fight you for ever more
Waterloo – couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Waterloo – knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo – finally facing my waterloo
Umm,…Centripetal force
What about Jhinga Karahi, or Mughlai Biryani, or Paneer Makhani?
I was always under the impression that we won when we left Viet Name. “We” being us anti-war types. The pro-war types lost, at least until Ronnie Raygun assumed power. It’s been all pro-war all the time since then. Maybe this clusterfuck in Iraq will shift that back again.
Start holding breath…..now!
I think Hildog would approve of,oh I don’t know,maybe Benjamin Netanyahu,yes,yes,Benjamin Netanyahu sounds about right.Right after partitioning goes ahead as planned.My head hurts….
So let’s see if I have got this straight. You have this politician, whom for convenience I shall label as GWB, who had the opportunity a few decades ago to risk his life in the Great Patriotic War against Vietnam, but with the help of his family he preferred to go AWOL for the duration. And now he is explaining that the Great Patriotic War could have been won, if only a few more American lives had been risked. The fault for the loss of the war therefore rests in the laps of, umm, everyone except him.
Why is he not being pelted with rotten fruit? Do you not have a source of sufficiently rotten fruit in the US? Can’t you import them from China or something?
[…] by the ACLU on civil liberties matters than the Bushies are. But her instincts on executive power and an imperial foreign policy seem completely wrong to me. Here’s hoping Obama (or someone not named Biden) can rally an […]