Readers’ Responses to Our Question (80)

Judy exotic masculinely icings brainwashed nostril Gregorian cashing

6g5IQo U cool ))

6g5IQo U cool ))

sale@mp3.com

sale@mp3.com

Daniel, Mohammad Allam,

We cannot force people to change their way of living.

"We are what we are. Western civilization is not going to become more like Islamic civilization. Islamic civilization must become more like Western civilization."

We are what we are, and they are what they are. We don't have to become like them, and they don't have to become like us. All we need, is to live freely our lives like we want to.
We should exchange goods, make money, and don't intervein in their own affairs and leave in peace. And of course fight terrorism, because we have to defend ourself.

And if some day, people in one islamic country want to leave in democracy, we will see that. At this moment we should help them to achieve this evolution if they need and ask for our help.
But we can not force anyone to change.

People have to follow their path freely. That's the iraqi's lesson.

All that we can say today, is that exchange growth will make people closer and closer in the whole world. But no one (even you Mohammad Allam) can expect what people of those countries will want in the next century, as we don't know what will happend in ours.

In USA for instance, "separation of church and state" isn't so obvious... as a french i'm often very shocked by all references to God used by american politicians to achive their goals.

Daniel, Mohammad Allam,

We cannot force people to change their way of living.

"We are what we are. Western civilization is not going to become more like Islamic civilization. Islamic civilization must become more like Western civilization."

We are what we are, and they are what they are. We don't have to become like them, and they don't have to become like us. All we need, is to live freely our lives like we want to.
We should exchange goods, make money, and don't intervein in their own affairs and leave in peace. And of course fight terrorism, because we have to defend ourself.

And if some day, people in one islamic country want to live in a democracy, we will see that. At this moment we should help them to achieve this evolution if they need and ask for our help.
But we can not force anyone to change.

People have to follow their path freely. That's the iraqi's lesson.

All that we can say today, is that exchange growth will make people closer and closer in the whole world. That's a good news, because we will understand more and more each other.
But no one (even you Mohammad Allam) can expect what people of those countries will want in the next century, as we don't know what will happend in ours.

In USA for instance, "separation of church and state" isn't so obvious... as a french i'm often very shocked by all references to God used by american politicians to achive their goals.

Daniel, Mohammad Allam,

We cannot force people to change their way of living.

"We are what we are. Western civilization is not going to become more like Islamic civilization. Islamic civilization must become more like Western civilization."

We are what we are, and they are what they are. We don't have to become like them, and they don't have to become like us. All we need, is to live freely our lives like we want to.
We should exchange goods, make money, and don't intervein in their own affairs and leave in peace. And of course fight terrorism, because we have to defend ourself.

And if some day, people in one islamic country want to live in a democracy, we will see that. At this moment we should help them to achieve this evolution if they need and ask for our help.
But we can not force anyone to change.

People have to follow their path freely. That's the iraqi's lesson.

All that we can say today, is that exchange growth will make people closer and closer in the whole world. That's a good news, because we will understand more and more each other.
But no one (even you Mohammad Allam) can expect what people of those countries will want in the next century, as we don't know what will happend in ours.

In USA for instance, "separation of church and state" isn't so obvious... as a french i'm often very shocked by all references to God used by american politicians to achive their goals.

"First of all, if the White House says it, one should start from a point of complete disbelief. If you take a White House statement and immediately consider it false or misleading, you will be correct much, much more than you will be wrong."

I agree SO MUCH with this sentence !

That's what we feel in France : during 3 years, Mr Bush and his administration have told us lies (about the terrorism in Iraq or any link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, about his mass destruction weapons...), to force us to participate to a stupid, silly war. So of course we refused.

And since then, we had to bear insults, suddenly we became "cowards", just because we followed the path of truth and refused to follow liers !

Now you understand what we knew : in some countries, democraty is not the best adequate organization.

In some countries, if you kill their dictator, you will obtain nothing but a long civil war, a war between ethnic or religious groups that will kill much more innocents than the dictator would have done himself.
And in a country where islam is the first religion, there's a high rick that a new country of islamic fundamentalism emerge, a new ennemy for western countries (like Afganistan).

Irak will perhaps become a type of democraty (surely different from ours), i hope that you will finally succeed. But no one knows how much innocents already died (under thousands of US bombs fallen on towns, and now during this civil war, the real number is hidden it's surely frightening), and how much will die yet.

That's what we KNEW, what we TOLD to your administration and what is happening.

I'm so sorry for your soldiers lost in this whim, they aren't worthy of that situation. Your administration is fully responsible for all.
The american people believed in them (that's what they had to do, we cannot blame you for that) but they betrayed you all.

"First of all, if the White House says it, one should start from a point of complete disbelief. If you take a White House statement and immediately consider it false or misleading, you will be correct much, much more than you will be wrong."

I agree SO MUCH with this sentence !

That's what we feel in France : during 3 years, Mr Bush and his administration have told us lies (about the terrorism in Iraq or any link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, about his mass destruction weapons...), to force us to participate to a stupid, silly war. So of course we refused.

And since then, we had to bear insults, suddenly we became "cowards", just because we followed the path of truth and refused to follow liers !

Now you understand what we knew : in some countries, democraty is not the best adequate organization.

In some countries, if you kill their dictator, you will obtain nothing but a long civil war, a war between ethnic or religious groups which will kill much more innocents than the dictator would have done himself.
And in a country where islam is the first religion, there's a high rick that a new country of islamic fundamentalism emerge, a new ennemy for western countries (like Afganistan).

This country will perhaps become a type of democraty (surely different from ours), i hope that you will finally succeed. But in Irak no one knows how much innocents already died (under thousand of US bombs fallen on towns, now during this civil war), and how much will die yet.

That's what we KNEW, what we TOLD YOU and what is going on.
I'm so sorry for your soldiers lost in this whim, they aren't worthy of that situation.

"First of all, if the White House says it, one should start from a point of complete disbelief. If you take a White House statement and immediately consider it false or misleading, you will be correct much, much more than you will be wrong."

I agree SO MUCH with this sentence !

That's what we feel in France : during 3 years, Mr Bush and his administration have told us lies (about the terrorism in Iraq or any link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, about his mass destruction weapons...), to force us to participate to a stupid, silly war. So of course we refused.

And since then, we had to bear insults, suddenly we became "cowards", just because we followed the path of truth and refused to follow liers !

Now you understand what we knew : in some countries, democraty is not the best adequate organization.

In some countries, if you kill their dictator, you will obtain nothing but a long civil war, a war between ethnic or religious groups which will kill much more innocents than the dictator would have done himself.
And in a country where islam is the first religion, there's a high rick that a new country of islamic fundamentalism emerge, a new ennemy for western countries (like Afganistan).

This country will perhaps become a type of democraty (surely different from ours), but in Irak no one knows how much innocent already died (under thousand of US bombs fallen on towns, now during this civil war), and how much will die yet.

That's what we KNEW, what we TOLD YOU and what is going on.
I'm so sorry for your soldiers lost in these whim, they aren't worthy of that situation.

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies, campaign advertisement and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see our current “president” and political parties in general, support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

"Rothbardian, perhaps you can explain the world to me. You find nothing good about democracy. Now please explain the politics that would have been better since 1900--and the alternative you have to democracy from now on. I see no reason to explain democracy to you. You yourself have made observations on it--and it would bore everyone to state the pros and cons of it. The question is what you have to offer. You made your critical comments and now what? What is your politics, your economy, etc.? I feel like a fool for even asking. Postglobal has bored me over the past couple weeks. I have more interesting things to think about."

I would, of course, be happy to give you my alternative to democracy. It's called liberty. The fact is, democracy is incompatible with individual liberty. All democracy is is rule by the majority (usually well connected rich people).There is no room in democracy for respecting individual liberty. What we had in America before the 1900s was preferable to now. The government was binded by the constitution. It played a limited role. I tend to agree with the anti-federalists, though, and I would say the constitution gave too much power to the government.
In my mind, a government need only exist to protect property rights, and perhaps offer a court system. I honestly don't like the idea of a few members of society telling me how I can live my life, simply by signing a new law into effect. Property rights are the bases and foundation of society, as is the free market economy. The government should never meddle in the economy (especially with the monetary system). Only the voluntarism of the market economy can bring liberty and peace. The government destroys that. The government should have such strict rules that the question of who gets into office shouldn't even matter, because they are absolutely tied to a few specific duties. Voting should be a non-issue.
An in all reality, even monarchy is better then democracy, theoretically, and historically. It all comes down to economics. In a monarchy, one person essentially owns the land. That means, he has a vested interest in preserving it. In democracy, the "rulers" have a vested interest in nothing more then themselves. If the country goes to hell, what do they care? They are rich and well connected. That is why, historically, wars fought by monarchies have tended to be conservative, towards conserving their kingdom. They fought wars over concrete objects, like land. Nowadays, democracies fight wars based on abstract concepts, like "human rights", "democracy", "freedom".

So, to conclude, democracy=bad for individual liberty.

BobL

I suspect if General Patraeus is convinces us that the surge is working (even though, he has stated that it requires a significant amount of time to realize tangible results), then the polling numbers will tend to move up. Americans supported the war until it became obvious that the way forward had ground to a halt.

I have no idea where the traitor comment came from, but you can bet the enemy (terrorist) will be emboldened. Not only that, but what a tool for recruitment for more terrorist. Notice that al Qaeda has practically no presence in Afghanistan, so for these folks, Iraq is the Battle of Midway.

I don't mind being in the minority on this issue, Bob. My analysis of the "surge" is not original, but is based on what many people believe may happen with a rapid pullout from Iraq.

1. An increase in the violence in Iraq leading to the genocide of Iraqi civilians, i.e. full blown civil war.

2. a possible regional conflict as Sunni and Shia interest collide.

The US obligation is at least, in part, humanitarian. Read Daniel Barnett's post. He is as anti Bush as you are, but shows some reason when defending why we should leave the troops in Iraq.

I know, you have stated in the past that the civil war is unavoidable, no matter what we do, but it's also clear that the left wants to punish Bush and this policy. If, in fact, thats how you feel then that's a poor reason to bring on a wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians (but, as you have stated, how else can terrorist win?).

The following quote comes from the New York Times which I basically consider a wing of the Democratic Party (May 27, 2007):

".....Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?.....

.....To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40 Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and independent analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully engineered....."

While Iraqis want us to leave, they are clearly fearful of a pullout by the US Military leaving them at the mercy of a horrendous civil war. The US presence definitely provides a buffer between the factions.

Tom,

Your analysis on the "Surge" has been rejected by 70% of the American people and the number is growing daily. You are hard pressed to find a democrat or an independent who agrees with this administration over Iraq. Also, you are seeing some serious republican defections as well.

That being said one of the cornerstones of America is the right to political dissent. I know Bush/Cheney think anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view on Iraq is a traitor and emboldening the enemy, but outside of that position being stupid and un-American there is nothing wrong with their point of view. Democracies are supposed to build consensus's on issues. The end result of not being able to build a consensus or going against the people's wishes (the majority) usually leads to being voted out of office. In this case GW can't run again, but I'll put myself out on a limb and say whoever the dems run for president will win and both the house and senate will be heavily democratic as well. That's the price the republicans will pay for this war since it is against the majorities wishes. The Bush/Cheney doctrine of inflexibility will cost the republicans dearly and that bothers me a considerable amount. I like the checks and balances and I think our system works better when one party doesn't control everything.

to Daniel
your arguement sounds like a child speaking to an elderly man that you accept my demand i am not going to accept your suggestion.here question of not changing of islamic civilization and western civilization but question is recocialation of two civilization.west cannot change islamic spirit in total but can modify a little .the present western civilization is completely pole apart of islamic principle of religion.open sex,interest,alcohalic,brothel culture and casino culture cannot be acceptable to a true muslim.so the question of must is above discussion.about the question of impossibility of defeat of west then also read history of early islam.could any one dream that arab could defeat the mighty roman and iranian?in present time the might of western civilization is not the power of arm of west but the poltical establishment of west in from of united nation and monetary organisations.once the unity of islamic world start and the shadow of uno will end the power of west will collapse like the palace of sand.

I really have no idea what to say anymore. We can pretty much see it for what it is: Islam is Islam and a relationship with Western civilization depends on Muslim radicals being a distinct minority. But the more Islamic civilization is in opposition to the West the more the violence will escalate and the West will retaliate full force. Do Islamic people expect the West not to be the West, not to continue toward democracy, freedom of press, separation of church and state, etc. etc.? We are what we are. Western civilization is not going to become more like Islamic civilization. Islamic civilization must become more like Western civilization. If Islamic civilization does not grasp this there will be increasing violence and eventually it will be one world or the other. It is just that simple. I have nothing else to say. Islamic civilization cannot defeat the West. The best that can be achieved is smuggling in a nuclear device or something and detonating it. Enjoy it. The more the violence escalates the more the West will retaliate. The question is whether there are people in power in the Middle East who grasp this and can control the radical elements. If the radical elements cannot be controlled then it matters little whether a majority or minority of Islamic people are pro-Western for the minority will ruin everything for all. I really have nothing else to say. It seems fairly simple to me now. Is there going to be war or not? It is just that simple. We all can see where the West stands. The West believes it is on the right side of history. Does the Islamic world have an alternative it will strenuously defend? If so there will be war. What else do you want to talk about? End of conversation as far as I am concerned.

Rothbardian, perhaps you can explain the world to me. You find nothing good about democracy. Now please explain the politics that would have been better since 1900--and the alternative you have to democracy from now on. I see no reason to explain democracy to you. You yourself have made observations on it--and it would bore everyone to state the pros and cons of it. The question is what you have to offer. You made your critical comments and now what? What is your politics, your economy, etc.? I feel like a fool for even asking. Postglobal has bored me over the past couple weeks. I have more interesting things to think about.

The Idea of the Surge

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator responsible, either directly of indirectly, for the deaths of about 3,000,000-3,500,000 people. His methods of rule included torture (and I don’t mean being forced to listen to Black Sabath for 36 hours), genocide, and the invasion of two countries. Saddam refused to cooperate with the weapons inspectors which cost the lives of 1,500,000 people (including 500,000 children) from sanctions imposed by the UN. This, ultimately, led to his downfall. Shia Muslims and Kurds were treated as second class citizens and bore the brunt of the torture and genocide (and probably the sanctions as well). The Shia Muslims represent the majority of the population and are, rightfully, ruling the country now.

The invasion by the US (and others) removed Saddam from power, but unleashed a devastating civil war. Now barbaric Sunni insurgents and Shia death squads are fighting for power. Al Qaeda foreign fighters are targeting and killing Shia Muslims and bombing Shia Mosque to destabilize the new government and inflame a civil war (successfully). Sunni insurgents are composed, in part, of former Bathist Party members well experienced in the art of indiscriminate killing and torture. Caught in the middle of this are the Iraqi civilians (comprising all religious and minority groups) which are the primary targets of the three main insurgent (terrorist) groups listed above.

The US has an obligation to protect, if possible, the Iraqi people. Most everyone agrees that a rapid withdrawal will probably lead to increased civil violence that could spread into a regional conflict. When a government cannot provide security for it’s people, then the people seek alternative protection, or just flee the country, and in the case of Iraq, this has put a heavy burden on Iraq‘s neighbors. Many Iraqis seek the protection of Sadr’s Mahdi Army, or other militias, both Sunni and Shia.

The primary function of the “surge” is to provide security for the Iraqi people and root out insurgents (including Al Qaeda) responsible for the targeting and killing of Iraqi civilians. The benchmarks are important indicators of government progress, but without security, many of the benchmarks are meaningless or, at the least, move very slowly forward. The surge also increases the risk to American soldiers.

It’s too early to project the results of the surge as it has been fully in place only one month, but early indications are positive. For example, violence is down in the Anbar Province as the locals turned against al Qaeda, and Baghdad has seen its lowest level of violence in a year (Patraeus in an interview with Ralph Peters, New York Post, 7/10/07).

If the surge is not working, then the US should begin a measured drawdown of soldiers in Iraq. If, in fact, the surge is working then undermining this strategy is the same as removing the security from average Iraqi citizens and leaving them exposed to more brutal attacks. The US has many obligations, but protecting Iraqis that are living in Iraq and providing security so others can return are the most important. This will also allow the government to move forward as well.

Doug Wilson wrote : "So the question isn't really important. It's not even a serious question. If I told you that I wanted some stuff and a lot of others didn't want me to have it and my solution was to kill all that disagreed with me, what would you think of my mental state? Wouldn't you think I was insane? Why would you care what I thought? Would you ask how much more killing I deemed necessary or would you call the authorities?"

Doug, THE INSANE ARE the authorities!

You further ask: "Don't, by definition, people in democracies control their governments?"

The obvious answer is: "NO, they don't!"

The U.S. hasn't been in a war since world war two. There has been a lot of fighting, suffering and dying since, but it's not war. The truth is that those who have the authority to send the U.S. armed forces or clandestine forces into a conflict, now, or for about the last 30 years, are and have been, for the most part, insane. It is only this: (1)they want things (2) they don't want somebody else to get something (3) they want some one in power that will help them get things. To this end, you and I, everyone who gets in the way is expendable.
So the question isn't really important. It's not even a serious question. If I told you that I wanted some stuff and a lot of others didn't want me to have it and my solution was to kill all that disagreed with me, what would you think of my mental state? Wouldn't you think I was insane? Why would you care what I thought? Would you ask how much more killing I deemed necessary or would you call the authorities?
The reason nobody is serious and asks serious questions or takes serious steps to disarming the insane few who start these insane atrocities is that they are scared they will lose 'their' things. How many 'democracies' live in fear of their government? Don't, by definition, people in democracies control their governments?

Maybe if the complete picture was peace on earth and an end to war I would say half-way is a good step in the right direction. As things stand, though, the complete goal is a secure highway to the airport. Having the road only secured halfway means nothing has been accomplished.

http://www.peopleinthesun.com

Daniel:

You seem to a pretty big fan of "democracy", and you frame the cultural conflict as between "democracy", and "Islam". However, I'm curious as to why you think democracy is such a good thing? I'm finding it hard to comprehend. The way I see it, the "era of democracy" (1900s-present) has led to more wars, more death, more government power then practically any era before. It has led to the era of "total war", mass bombings of civilians, government propaganda, loss of liberty, fiat money, the business cycle (due to government fiat money), etc, etc.

I see nothing good about democracy. Please enlighten me.

1/2 plus 1/2 = mess!! there is no way out of the miasma that is the iraq conundrum. withdraw we must but bush is sure to forget to tidy up the foreign policy nightmare he has created so that as soon he leaves the white house he and evil dick can run directly to iraq to make certain that their oil claims were properly filed. bush has no intention of doing anything other than continuing to create a foreign policy disaster of fantastic proportions before he is run out of office by the american people. his approach to iraq is a megamaniacal obsession that he has mutually shared with cheney and his neo-fascist warmongers since he was governor of texas(or was he the sherrif) well, anyway i never thought that my president would preside over an act of genocide such as bush has. tribal and religious differences in the middle east aside bush no more innocent than any terrorist exploding suicide bombs in downtown baghdad or kabul. the only difference is, is that bushes bombs fall from the skies like rain. especially when dropped in such a humane manner as those dropped by such nice toys of war like "reaper drones". am i watching a schwarzenneger movie or just what is going on here? and how could anyone with a middleastern heritage pragmaticaly support the deaths of so many of his own kind? the enemies that we are now creating will haunt us for a century if not longer. i, for one, am at a loss to provide an answer to the bumper sticker question; dude, where is my country? why not keep it simple and stupid, like our president?

1/2 plus 1/2 = mess!! there is no way out of the miasma that is the iraq conundrum. withdraw we must but bush is sure to forget to tidy up the foreign policy nightmare he has created so that as soon he leaves the white house he and evil dick can run directly to iraq to make certain that their oil claims were properly filed. bush has no intention of doing anything other than continuing to create a foreign policy disaster of fantastic proportions before he is run out of office by the american people. his approach to iraq is a megamaniacal obsession that he has mutually shared with cheney and his neo-fascist warmongers since he was governor of texas(or was he the sherrif) well, anyway i never thought that my president would preside over an act of genocide such as bush has. tribal and religious differences in the middle east aside bush no more innocent than any terrorist exploding suicide bombs in downtown baghdad or kabul. the only difference is, is that bushes bombs fall from the skies like rain. especially when dropped in such a humane manner as those dropped by such nice toys of war like "reaper drones". am i watching a schwarzenneger movie or just what is going on here? and how could anyone with a middleastern heritage pragmaticaly support the deaths of so many of his own kind? the enemies that we are now creating will haunt us for a century if not longer. i, for one, am at a loss to provide an answer to the bumper sticker question; dude, where is my country? why not keep it simple and stupid, like our president?

It just burns my ass that the Maliki government is going to take a month's vacation while American soldiers are fighting and dieing to help them work out their issues to settle the civil war. President Bush has to tell them either stay in session or we begin to pull out. President Bush was very good at getting America to attach Iraq unnecessarily. Now he should put on his very best poker face and convince those bunch of yo yo's to stay in session. This should be very easy for him to do. He has had alot of practice over the years.

let first decide the parameters to judge the progress.if parameters are destruction of root of islamic civilization,penerating in the heart of islamic world,dividing islamic world into sect,humialating the arab leaders,destroying iraq and people,providing safety to israel ,having bases in middle east and large investment opportunity in the iraq, and capture of oil then certainly the west progress on this front.
but if parameter is implanting democarcy,establishing civil secular society,building iraq,bringing a new pro west people in the middle and making ally to middle leaders then the west certainly failed miserably.on the front of terrorism elimination they failed so miserably that the entire middle east is given to alqaeda in gift to start a new planning for international jihad against west.the cause of terrorism fro which west trying to fight lost in the oil of iraq and from there will come the flame which will challenege the western interest in the middle east.

This half-half discussion is not just with respect to Iraq. This discussion is with respect to the entire relationship between the West and Islamic civilization. The question the West has to ask itself is whether essentially Western life is to take all around the world. It would seem Western life is taking everywhere, although democracy is lagging. Another question the West should ask is if Islamic civilization will continue to think that its way of life will continue essentially unchanged, which is to say modified only by incorporating certain essentials of Western technology. Essentially it comes down to how the West and Islamic civilization perceive themselves and each other. The West obviously thinks it is on the right side of history--that we move toward freedom of press, separation of church and state, democracy, scientific and technological advance. But it would seem Islamic civilization has a different idea in mind...Now is the West going to encourage fantasies of the triumph of Islam--that Islam will continue to dominate society in not only Islamic civilization but eventually everywhere--or is the West going to make the transition to modernity in the Islamic world as painless as possible? It seems so far everyone is avoiding the issue, just allowing things to move at a glacial pace to where Muslims get their hopes high and then a truly terrifying battle will play out...The lines must clearly be drawn and reality must reign. The West is not going to convert to Islam. Nor is Russia. Nor is China. Nor is India. Islam must subside. The question is whether the problem will be approached as painlessly but as firmly as possible, or if it will be allowed to get drawn out to where a truly cruel and disproportionate response to Islam is meted out. I think the great powers need to get together with the United Nations, etc. and truly be honest about the dilemma. It is not just Iraq we are talking about. We are talking about a relationship between civilizational methods and the course of history.

Natalie Ahn, PostGlobal, thank you for the link to that Benchmark Assessment Report (BAR).

I would encourage all posters who have time to spare to look it up. One can understand why the media have preferred, in general, not to delve into those 18 benchmarks… but rather limit their “analysis” to simply pointing out that on 9 of the 18 benchmarks, the progress was considered satisfactory. Neat! That implies there is “progress”, that the measure of progress is “satisfactory”, so that we are necessarily heading “in the right direction”. That is called “a verbal given”…. So let’s talk about something else…

“You get the picture”, as Natalie Ahn says. -- Well, as a matter of fact, we DO NOT get the picture! And to be precise, being asked to pass judgment without being given the full picture is unmitigated futility. We then only get, again and again, the same expression of each poster’s preferences, ad nauseam, and to no avail.

So, based on that BAR, are things moving in the right direction? You be the judge.

On what benchmarks, precisely, is it said there is “satisfactory progress”?

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee towards completing the Constitutional review.

2. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

3. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the BAGHDAD Security Plan.

4. Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support BAGHDAD operations.

5. Ensuring that the BAGHDAD Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of (their) sectarian or political affiliation.

6. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security. (WITH SUBSTANTIAL COALITION ASSISTANCE!)

7. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighbourhoods across BAGHDAD. (WITH SUBSTANTIAL COALITION ASSISTANCE!)

8. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

9. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis. (ALL THE FUNDS WILL NOT HAVE BEEN SPENT BY END OF 2007)

In view of all the disclaimers to be found in BAR, it seems fair to conclude that military “progress” in Iraq, if any, has so far been limited to the Baghdad security plan and operations, while economic “progress” as planned, in 2007, is still very much in doubt.

That said, considering that (as per BAR) most Iraqi security forces are still not able to operate independently, that Iraqi commanders can still not be provided for them, that even “the prerequisites for a successful militia disarmament program are not present”, and that it is arguable whether the level of sectarian violence has been reduced at all (as per claim in 6 above), “progress” appears to be so insignificant, that it is impossible to conclude that we are really moving significantly, if at all, in the right direction. From past experience, the fact that it be “the President…(who declares) in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved”, is no cause for comfort.

To conclude on BAR: it makes quite clear that the whole Benchmark approach, part of the so-called “New Way Forward” (the current “U.S. strategy in Iraq”) is nothing but an attempt by the U.S. Administration to coerce the Iraqi government into doing what it wants, despite all the talk about “collaborative actions” between those two governments. In business, that is known as “putting someone one a Performance Improvement Program”. I do not believe in such a dictatorial approach, in politics. It only leads, as it evidently does in this case, to both violent and passive resistance. Overall, in the “democratic” process, I believe that to dictate to the Iraqi government what it ought to do, precludes us from moving in the right direction.

No wonder “Ambassador Crocker cautioned the lawmakers that the series of 18 benchmarks set by Congress to define his assessment due Sept. 15 might not be the best measures of success in Iraq. And he strongly hinted that those specific goals may not be reached by the September deadline, anyway.

“The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discreet, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation,” Mr. Crocker said.“

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20policy.html?hp

That may be a case of an Ambassador opening a door through which the incoming hurricane will only better blow the whole building to pieces.

As Timothy Garton Ash writes, today: « IRAQ IS OVER. Iraq has not yet begun…Iraq is over insofar as the American public has decided that most U.S. troops should leave…So Iraq is over. But Iraq has not yet begun. Not yet begun in terms of the consequences for Iraq itself, the Middle East, the United States' own foreign policy and its reputation in the world…

The U.S. has probably not yet fully woken up to the appalling fact that, after a long period in which the first motto of its military was "no more Vietnams," it faces another Vietnam. There are many important differences, but the basic result is similar: The mightiest military in the world fails to achieve its strategic goals and is, in the end, politically defeated by an economically and technologically inferior adversary.

Even if there are no scenes of helicopters evacuating Americans from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, there will surely be some totemic photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done terrible damage to the U.S. reputation for being humane; this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful. And Bin Laden, still alive, will claim another victory over the death-fearing weaklings of the West.

In history, the most important consequences are often the unintended ones. We do not yet know the longer-term unintended consequences of Iraq. Maybe there is a silver lining hidden somewhere in this cloud. But as far as the human eye can see, the likely consequences of Iraq range from the bad to the catastrophic.

Looking back over a quarter of a century of chronicling current affairs, I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-garton19jul19,0,4190936.story?coll=la-home-commentary

TIMOTHY GARTON ASH, a contributing editor to Opinion, is professor of European studies at Oxford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Tamp, Tamp, Tamp it down!

When Gen. David Petraeus first used the expression “tamping down” to describe combat actions against the militants, the word spread through the media like wildfire. The President was tamping down the democrats, The Attorney General was tamping down rumors, wildfires were being tamped down after they were gotten under control and before they were extinguished. It’s a good image for the times. You press on a conflagration, smothering it from above, acknowledging that there are embers below that await the breathe of life.

David is our tamper. He took the job and he’s working at it. Should we cut the legs out from under him, just because he knows that tamping is the best he can do? This is the crux of the debate.

Most of the world now seems to agree that that we are fighting in Iraq as the result of a monumental blunder, the proportions of which have never before been seen in U.S. history. But rather than dwell on the arrogance and the ignorance in paragraph 3, I’ll put it down below, and in the spirit of tamping my own rhetoric, instead I’ll emphasize here some of the ways that George Bush has got it right in this debate.

If we leave Iraq prematurely chaos and bloodshed will almost certainly increase by a significant amount. This is the projection that defines the term “premature”. I believe that he is absolutely correct here.

My argument is that this projection is the sole rationale for our troops to remain. The other and really specious, ugly and cowardly argument the President makes, that if we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here, reeks not only of fear mongering, but his fundamental irresponsibility as a person.

He was the one who said, “Bring ‘em on!” after all.

Well, he’s our president, and now we as a people are honor bound to fight them on our home turf and not in someone else’s backyard. What’s curious is that the argument from cowardice rather than the argument from morality trumps among the “moral majority”.

When I was a kid, I was taught that accepting responsibility for one’s actions was a hallmark of adulthood. If you’re wrong admit it, apologize appropriately if you’ve caused harm, and move on carrying the lessons from one’s folly as armor.
We seem to have totally forgotten that, along with the idea that Christ was a pacifist. I will argue that we will never get ourselves out of this mess until we as a people grow up. When we have shown the world that we have, we will at last be able to address the underlying conflagration. And it will only be a beginning at that. The depth to which reckless abuse of power has brought us will be measured by how long it takes to regain stability.

In order to begin this process, we have to suffer in proportion to the suffering we’ve caused. Let’s hope it’s only in proportion and not flat out as much.

The first step is to admit we were wrong – that we made grievous mistakes. Next we must feel shame. Some of us need feel more shame than others. Some only that we’ve been ineffective in our protests, some that we’ve been duped, some because we’ve been arrogant and chauvinistic. Some of us Americans have been reckless as well. And some, I would allege have been duplicitous. Next we must, as a people take appropriate action.

A public apology – perhaps clothed in some sheepish defensive language would help our image. And perception, in terms of the ultimate goal is of supreme importance in this particular struggle. But really we need to acknowledge the source of the folly. We will not regain the respect of the world, and especially the Muslim world unless we impeach Cheney and Bush, indict them and punish them publicly. My personal sense of justice would be served by having all responsible parties stripped naked and publicly hounded by attack dogs, but I would back off that barbarity in exchange for some other punishment suggested by a jury of their peers.

We might also learn from our ‘enemies’ Hamas and the Mahdi Army, and turn our efforts to a local focus on the well-being of the people – finding them meaningful employment instead of kicking down their doors before dawn.

Never thought to quote Bill Clinton...
but he's right on. Couple of battles, a town taken (again) is worthless. Political progress is nill. Just death and death and death.

The worst thing is the zionists/neocons
see themselves losing...desprate to keep the war going and
expanding. What will they do? How start an Iran excursion?

Look around. And start talking about it.

Never thought to quote Bill Clinton...
but he's right on. Couple of battles, a town taken (again) is worthless. Political progress is nill. Just death and death and death.

The worst thing is the zionists/neocons
see themselves losing...desprate to keep the war going and
expanding. What will they do? How start an Iran excursion?

Look around. And start talking about it.

Never thought to quote Bill Clinton...
but he's right on. Couple of battles, a town taken (again) is worthless. Political progress is nill. Just death and death and death.

The worst thing is the zionists/neocons
see themselves losing...desprate to keep the war going and
expanding. What will they do? How start an Iran excursion?

Look around. And start talking about it.

Why does everyone keep saying that we need to stay in Iraq and fix what we broke? It is NOT Pottery Barn. And we are not BUYING Iraq. There is no benefit to the US at this point in staying. The Iraqis can fix their country better than the U.S. can. Its kind of like trying to clean up a bar while the brawl is still going on. If one person in the fight leaves, there is no one left for the other to fight. And they can either clean up the place, or leave. Either way, us staying there is ridiculous and I am tired of bankrupting our country to pay for it.

Why does everyone keep saying that we need to stay in Iraq and fix what we broke? It is NOT Pottery Barn. And we are not BUYING Iraq. There is no benefit to the US at this point in staying. The Iraqis can fix their country better than the U.S. can. Its kind of like trying to clean up a bar while the brawl is still going on. If one person in the fight leaves, there is no one left for the other to fight. And they can either clean up the place, or leave. Either way, us staying there is ridiculous and I am tired of bankrupting our country to pay for it.

Why does everyone keep saying that we need to stay in Iraq and fix what we broke? It is NOT Pottery Barn. And we are not BUYING Iraq. There is no benefit to the US at this point in staying. The Iraqis can fix their country better than the U.S. can. Its kind of like trying to clean up a bar while the brawl is still going on. If one person in the fight leaves, there is no one left for the other to fight. And they can either clean up the place, or leave. Either way, us staying there is ridiculous and I am tired of bankrupting our country to pay for it.

Good golly! The White House has told us things are starting to move in the right direction. I ask you, who is so gullible as to buy that piece of swampland? It is an unmitigated disaster, and the American people don't want to play this anymore. It is time to come home no matter what happens over there.

This delusion built on an insanity must come to an end.

Good question from JRLR asking what the specific "benchmarks" were and what "satisfactory" progress means. Let me throw some thoughts out to the thread about this; the full report is accessible at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/FinalBenchmarkReport.pdf

The report addresses 18 benchmarks that Congress set out earlier this year. Those include:

- a constitutional review process (WH says satisfactory progress so far),
- de-Ba'athification reform (unsatisfactory)
- oil distribution law (unsatisfactory, but too early to tell)
- laws and dates for provincial elections (unsatisfactory)
- a militia disarmament program (conditions aren't ready for this)
- establishing support from political, media, economic and services committees for Baghdad Security Plan (satisfactory)
- providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations (satisfactory)
- ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces provide even-handed enforcement of the law (you guessed it, not satisfactory)
- reducing sectarian violence (satisfactory -- with substantial Coalition assistance)

Etc. You get the picture. Some violence goes up and down, some political groups enter and leave the central government, some laws get rejected and others passed -- and then heavily protested. Meanwhile, no one denies that many people are dying, and no one claims that there is an easy way to make that stop. One benchmark is passing a law on Iraqi amnesty; the report says conditions in Iraq are not ready for this. One need only glance at headlines to know that Iraqis are leaving the country in large waves of refugees, there don't seem to be many trying to get back in.

So for readers: How can the U.S., Iraqis, the international community tell in what direction Iraq is headed? What is most important out of these benchmarks -- levels of violence, jobs and economic development, effective provincial/local governing councils, national legislation setting out the rules of the game for Iraq's future? Or are these specific measurements the wrong way of looking at the conflict all together? If you have lived through civil war, share with us what it really feels like, what people are really fighting for, and how long such a war must run its course before we find out what the end result will be.

As a part of their ongoing coverup, a Bush appointed Judge, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, today dismissed the lawsuit of Valerie Pflame aga8inst Cheney, Bush, and the WHitehouse staff. This was the same judge, mind you, that dismissed Congresses suit against Dick Cheney when they attempted to at least find out who was on Cheney's secretive energy task force, the same judge that sits on Bush's FISA Court (and *never* once has voted against a gvernment wipetap, medical-banking or other record raid, the same judge that ruled that ISP providers must turn over the personal information of downloaders and poster (to forums just like this one!) at government request, the same ultra right wing fanatic that dismissed a lawsuit over coalmine safety in the aftermath of the West Virginia's Sago mine disaster where 12 miners died. This judge covers up for the Bush Whitehouse and for corporate wrong doing. So much for justice.

Help!

Knowing what a benchmark normally is, in the context of the largest multinationals, I am just wondering what those goals were.

I spent some time looking for them on the Web but have not found them spelled out anywhere. Is it me, or is it that they had not yet been made public as of yesterday?

I understand some were "political", others "military, and that those that were met were military, rather than political. But what were they all?

Can any of the posters (past and future):

1. list all those goals in operational terms?

2. point out which were met and which were not?

3. indicate what should make us conclude those that were met were indeed truly met?

4. conclude on that "satisfactory" is supposed to mean, here.

I am surprised that amongst those who seem to take all this so seriously, there be little discussion on the specific indices of "progress" in terms of that impressive "benchmark".

Thank you.

We peuvons statement that the government apreparer the ground, néttoyer between them the obstacles and put between the hands of the government dishes in ore for qui' they can of the other coast help demandeures of the sécuirite and of the tranquilite has to live one vié... comme the autres.si my opinion.merci my to see much expressing.and thank you with the government for their immence and good courage this mission has published rather heavy.

More than 50 percent of Congress voted to bring our troops home - the only thing that was "accomplished" was the deadender 26 percent of Americans in denial managed to hold off the vote by the MAJORITY of American citizens who regard this failure of a war as a massive waste of our taxpayer dollars and our soldier's lives.

Personally, as ex-Army, I'm sick of going to so many military funerals for a failed country that has never been stable and had ZILCH to do with 9/11.

More than 50 percent of Congress voted to bring our troops home - the only thing that was "accomplished" was the deadender 26 percent of Americans in denial managed to hold off the vote by the MAJORITY of American citizens who regard this failure of a war as a massive waste of our taxpayer dollars and our soldier's lives.

Personally, as ex-Army, I'm sick of going to so many military funerals for a failed country that has never been stable and had ZILCH to do with 9/11.

I asked a state department official in 2005 whether he would be willing to invest 1 million dollars out of a (hypothetical) 50 million dollars he won in the Lotto and he told me he would not invest one penny in Iraq. The question to Mr. Zakaria is how much money are you willing to invest in Iraq ( in Iraqi run enterprise not in contractor companies )today for a return not in one year but in 10 years. Your answer and that of others on this post to this simple question should give you an idea of whether the situation is half full or half empty.
On a different note, there are at present no Iraqi political groups, there are sectarian parties each vying for maximalist gain and as long as the idea of an Iraqi nation has not taken precedence in the minds of the people this project is doomed

We all owe this administration a debt of gratitude. Who else could have been so right about Iraq then George and Dick? Aren't we still destroying the stockpiles of WMD's we found in Iraq? Aren't we just tickled pink the Iraqis are cooperating so well? We should be proud we've brought peace and harmony to an unstable part of this world. Thank you George. Thank you Dick. Ah, and a special thank you to Don. I know he's not in the administration any more, but without his leadership in defense we'd have a real problem with AlQaeda today.

Of course 50% of the goals being met are sufficient to continue believing, supporting and idolizing George and Dick. After all, have they ever let us down? Excuse me now, but I'm going to run right out to an Army recruiter and see if they'll take a 56 year old. I want so much to be part of this noble and historical event. Maybe they can let me torture some innocent people. That would really make proud to be an American.

dems are using the iraq war as a political toy. islamics are using it as part of their korans demand to hare and murder. but despite that things are going well.
america has a hundred years of self rule - of sorts - before 1776 and even then we did not have a real democracy until 1789, 13 years later. in that interveining time we had 1/3 not care if the british stayed, 1/3 wanted them out and 1/3 wanted them to stay. we killed as many of our own as we did british - americans killing americans, burning down their homes and hanging others in their own front yards in front of their family. when the british were gone we had the articles of confederation - which had one state against the other. the economic equivanent of war. it was not until we got the constitution and washington was sworn did we become a nation, and even then we had a horrible civil war that killed 420,000 americans 80 years later.
iraq, they are ahead of schedule.

The irony is that the ordinary people's outrage is be labeled as "anti-semetic" while ranting and ravings of a racist warmonger like Saul Singer is looked upon as wisdom. No matter where you look, all views, all people are suppressed and disparaged while those willing to give a free pass to Israel's evil atrocity are encouraged. The media is stacked with "analyst" willing to praise Israel and ridicule Islam or any Islamic issue.

Hence you wonder how we will ever see justice and peace ? If US on behalf of Israel is going to define progress in Iraq and not Iraqi people then how will there be any progress ? Remember the same people who are now providing us with progress reports are the people who told us about WMD and that we will be greeted as heroes in the Iraqi streets.

It is a pity that we (US) blew away our budget surplus and the value of our dollar for Israel. We have sacrificed out country and our national interest to a point that today we are just an occupied colony of Israel. I say let us bring democracy back to US, let us topple AIPAC. We need some progress report on that. How long are we willing to sacrifice US for the sake of Israel ?

The irony is that the ordinary people's outrage is be labeled as "anti-semetic" while ranting and ravings of a racist warmonger like Saul Singer is looked upon as wisdom. No matter where you look, all views, all people are suppressed and disparaged while those willing to give a free pass to Israel's evil atrocity are encouraged. The media is stacked with "analyst" willing to praise Israel and ridicule Islam or any Islamic issue.

Hence you wonder how we will ever see justice and peace ? If US on behalf of Israel is going to define progress in Iraq and not Iraqi people then how will there be any progress ? Remember the same people who are now providing us with progress reports are the people who told us about WMD and that we will be greeted as heroes in the Iraqi streets.

It is a pity that we (US) blew away our budget surplus and the value of our dollar for Israel. We have sacrificed out country and our national interest to a point that today we are just an occupied colony of Israel. I say let us bring democracy back to US, let us topple Neocons and AIPAC. We need some progress report on that. How long are we willing to sacrifice US for the sake of Israel ?

Raise taxes , start drafting the highest qualified men and woman into the armed forces , and get serious about holding together Iraq , but , if the American public won't support the war that 70% of said they wanted , get out now!!!

www.longlosthome.com exposing Bush with song

Who Knows better the art of making the reports than media itself. This question therefore when orignated from the editors of most powerful media resource is somewhat unexpected.

Every body knows that untill a report is orignated from an independent source who is not a party of conflict and the key parameters are well defined and the reserch is well documented with source of information clearly revealed then only it demands recognition.

I am not denying the report. but I can not endorse it if it is coming from a party who is major share holder of the conflict.

Humans have a basic instinct of survival. so even in extreme lawlessness they develop some means of survival. violence never in human history last for ever. It has a dynamics that it die down itself.

So I strongly believe that Iraq sooner or later will become peaceful and prosperous. And all sections of Iraq will learn to live together.

The violence can ignite more due to foreign troops presence. But it will only be a transient phase which will pass out any way either with good or bad memories.

This is going to happen irrespective of US and allied forces stays in Iraq or leave it

Now the basic question that what will be the parameters on the basis we can decide or predict that the things are moving in right direction.

for this question again we have to be impartial. we must know the objectives defined for this war. What were the promises made for the peoples of both partners engaging for the conflict, namely US, UK and Iraq.

Have they achieved 100%, 75% 10% or indicators moving negative.

MikeB

Great post (July 18, 2007 2:32 PM). You belong on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

PG

Full implementation of the surge occurred on June 15, 2007, thus the full surge has only been active one month. There are indications that the surge is working, but it is still too early to give a full assessment. September is the month that General General Petraeus will give his report to Congress on the effectiveness of the surge. Controlling the insurgency is extremely important to Iraq moving forward and has a large affect on other benchmarks.

There is nothing that the Dumocrats fear more than a positive report from general General Petraeus in September, thus while approving the General unanimously to assume leadership in Iraq, they continue to undermine him at home. General General Petraeus has been forthcoming in the requirement of time for the surge to begin working. Pelosi and Reed (ummm...how does tweedle dee and tweedle dumb sound?) pushed by the far left wing of the Democratic party continue to seek to withdraw from Iraq...kind of. Playing politics with Iraq and doing little else has cost them at the poles with their ratings at about 16% (half of Bushes)

United Nation Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned yesterday of the US withdrawing to quickly from Iraq:

"But I'd like to tell you that a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people," he said at a U.N. press conference. "Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration."

The same assessment has been given by countless others.

The next two months could determine if the surge is continued or we begin withdrawing, so expect General Petraeus to face his biggest test in Iraq over the next two months...and that is just from the Democrats.

Satisfactory progress...without real key performance indicators or milestones. Bah!

Think about another logical construction of the administration-- recently just before the release of the new intelligence estimate which clearly contradicted the administration's facts-- about the hypothetical strength of Al-Qaida if it weren't for the "fight against terrorism". I have not the exact quote for the pearl of wisdom which was predicated on some would have/could have sort of rationale.

But consider this quote from the National Security Adviser, Steven Hadley --source MSNBC/Countdown--
"Still, Hadley said al-Qaida is "not the organization it was before 9/11," citing the Bush administration's efforts in the fight against terrorism.

( I say: Right on the money! The administration's efforts in the fight against terrorism made al-Qaida post 9/11 into what it is today.)

Mr. Hadley went on to say: "At this point, the operational activity we are seeing and the planning is in areas — we have taken the fight effectively to where al-Qaida is, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and northwest Pakistan," Hadley said. "In the short run, we need to disrupt their operations, take the fight to them, where they live, so that we don't have to defend here at home."

( In the short run? So that we don't have to defend here at home? And right again: No defense at home, only incompetence and waste of money, in the short and long run.)

Hadley spoke on ABC's "This Week" and "Late Edition" on CNN, July 14 or 15(to explain the subtle gut feelings of Mr. Chertoff?) as well as the failure to prevent al-Qaida and Taliban resurgence. Where? Right where they are , of course: "We have seen in the northwest territories in Pakistan, Taliban pooling, planning and training," Hadley said. "It has not wor