News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

[Tiassa]

Army Iraq plans run into 2006

Crystal balls: Iraqi colonial future takes the spotlight

Only recently did the major news networks and pundits trump the story that the US would "end" its occupation of Iraq in June, 2004, when the provisional Iraqi government comes to power. Certainly many of us recognized that the "end of the occupation" meant only the end of the legal status of an occupying force. Some, however, did not.

But even Al-Jazeerah recognizes this end of the occupation, so there's obviously no qualm with the term. It was openly acknowledged that, as Jalal Talibani expressed, "The new government will be in charge of negotiating with the occupying forces over how to regulate their presence in the country."

The New York Times website reports on November 22, 2003, that the U.S. Army is currently planning for the presence of at least 100,000 G.I.'s in Iraq until at least early 2006. While the article spoke nothing of a draft, an unnamed "senior Army officer" noted that maintaining such a force would cause the Army to "really start to feel the pain" of its overstressed roster.

The analysis is a senior-level Army perspective; any decisions about the actual size and duration of the American mission remain with the President. The Pentagon has marked the reductions to 105,000 troops, although there is confusion among the anonymous sources about whether that number would come down further. DoD sees the possibility, the Army is not accounting for that circumstance, as it is beyond the scope of the analysis. "What we're looking at doing is making some assumptions with the Marines about sustaining the type of force we're going to need," said a second unnamed officer. "As you look at this, it wouldn't seem prudent right now to plan on using a force of less than what is there now, for March '05." And, as always, ground conditions will be a primary factor.

Part of the Times article seems to be a curious discussion of which branch of what service speculates better. White House and Defense, USSC, the Joint Staff, and ultimately General Abizaid.

Sing it with me!

"I'll be home for Christmas.
But I don't know which one ...."

A long, hard slog, indeed.

And there's some discussion of the division of labor. Stephen A. Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, admitted, "We're a little short on the human side, there's no denying that, so we're in the process of adding to the number of people who may be involved."

Dr. Cambone also pointed indirectly toward the Clinton administration in admitting the lack of sufficient human intelligence capabilities in the military services.

And, to cap off what seems like an odd Times article, author Schmitt notes,

One official involved that said that the internal discussions were at a preliminary stage, and that General Abizaid would make recommendations in coming weeks. "We're looking at lots of different possible arrangements," the official said.

So in other words, we're all wasting column space?

Notes:

• Schmitt, Eric. "Army Is Planning for 100,000 GI's in Iraq Till 2006." New York Times, November 22, 2003. see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/politics/22MILI.html?hp (Note: NY Times links disappear after a couple of weeks.)
• Al-Nahr, Naseer and Asharq Al-Awsat. "US to End Ira Occupation by June 2004." Al-Jazeerah, November 16, 2003. see http://aljazeerah.info/News archive...n/ US to End Iraq Occupation by June 2004.htm (Note: I cannot make this URL launch properly. For some reason my browser is reading--inserting?--a line break where there is none.)

See Also:

• Head, Buffalo. "We're Out Of Iraq By June, 2004." Sons of Sam Horn, November 15, 2003. see http://pub208.ezboard.com/fsonsofsamhornfrm12.showMessage?topicID=705.topic

 

[spookz]

rove rants

"We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!"

 

[15ofthe19]

Spookz

What is the context of that quote?

 

[spookz]

an associate displeased him

 

[spookz]

the conquering hero visits a free iraq

Air Force One flew into Baghdad under the cover of night with its lights darkened and windows closed.

Secrecy Made Bush Surprise Visit to Iraq Successful, Analyst Says


bring em on!
what mr president?
bring em on?

bush with troops in iraq

 

[Tiassa]

I'll raise a glass

Not bad. It's something I would do if I was president. So I have to give Dubya a point for that one.

 

[spookz]

you assume the motivations (yours and his) to be similar? my cynicism prevents me from ascribing any altruistic reasons for the trip.

With tears clearly visible in his eyes, he said, "I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. Thanks for inviting me to dinner."(we will win)

*pukes

 

[Tiassa]

Well ....

I'm not sure his motivations matter much to the troops. It seems a good thing to get out and see the boys and girls who are doing all the hard work for you.

I had, of course, been refraining from raising two points, generally on dignity:

• Were I president and at war, conditions would be much different. Were I president, I wouldn't have to go to Iraq to have dinner with that many of my troops. So if I found myself entangled in a legitimate war, I'm not sure the battlefield would look the same way. To that end, I admit that I would be seeking any way to be able to make it a propaganda op aimed at showing my enemy that I can walk in and stand with my troops any time I want.

• Also, the first thing that struck me, and something I've not bothered to follow up on, but wouldn't it be just classic according to our expectations of this administration if he never really went, and it was just all wagging for hometown points?

Besides, me giving Bush a point is about as significant to the overall scheme as me taking a piss in a desert: it ain't changin' nothin'.

 

[spookz]

I'm not sure his motivations matter much to the troops. It seems a good thing to get out and see the boys and girls who are doing all the hard work for you.

could "hard work" translate to.... "slaughter of innocents"?

*just playing fella

hey mr president!
what about the liberated iraqis swimming in freedom? do they not deserve an audience with their new leader? perhaps an explanation of sorts? (by gad! i sense a rant developing!)

 

[Canute]

Go for it.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm unsure what to make of this

Female Stryker brigade soldier alleges rape (Seattle P-I)

What? So it happens. That's not what this is about. But there's this sound bite:

"It's sad," said Staff Sgt. Theresa Spicer, a supply sergeant with the brigade headquarters. "You can't trust your own people."

Now that just ain't good for morale.

I'm gonna nose around, see if anything unusually stinky turns up.°

° unusually stinky - After all the stuff we fed my daughter over Thanksgiving, expect a high standard for "unusually" stinky. Oh, hey--she's a year old today, speaking of the little stinker ... er ...

 

[Tiassa]

Nor this

So two-hundred Iraqis protested a Coalition-run Iraqi television network.

What was their complaint?

Unfair coverage? Too much propaganda?

Oh, no. No, no, no-no-no-no-no ....

From BBC Monitoring:

The protesters - from the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala - congregated outside coalition headquarters in Baghdad, accusing the Al-Iraqiyah network of offending local religious sensitivities.

They said some of the programming on Iraq's only national TV channel had "failed to take into account the sanctity of the holy month of Ramadan and was incompatible with Iraqi culture", Iranian news agency Irna said.

Apart from news and lengthy appearances by coalition officials, Al-Iraqiyah TV carries Egyptian soap operas, Arabic music videos, football matches and late night films, topped up with old programming from the pan-Arab TV channel MBC.

Apparently there's a ratings war going on there. Garnering 59% of the terrestrial television market, the network places third overall with a 12% share when satellite viewership is accounted for.

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it here and now:

• It isn't "liberty" that they don't want. It isn't lifesaving technology or life-assisting innovation. It isn't our magnificent capacity for teaching and learning that Muslims don't want from the Western world. It is the crass, shallow commercialism and the reduction of human value that comes with Western society that seems to upset and alarm people of many cultures around the world when they deal with Americans.

Now, I'm not going to say that any society doesn't need a good shaking up from time to time, but this is Iraq we're discussing here.

And that reminds me: frequently I make the point that the level of debates about right and wrong taking place in America and throughout the industrialized first world, arguments typically reserved for "enlightened" societies, is actually a luxury of our social accomplishment.

So we might point to two pieces of bright news for Iraqis:

• Apparently, you can protest the authority-run television network and not get shot.
• If you've got time to worry about what your kids are seeing on television, things are doing alright.

 

[hypewaders]

That's the first time Tiassa ever pissed me right off. I do not dispute that coalition TV is insulting people. I disagree strongly with the apparent assertion that this insult is representative or central to the real problem that is smoldering with a potential to explode, between "the Coalition" and the various interests opposing it in so many various ways.

"It is the crass, shallow commercialism and the reduction of human value that comes with Western society that seems to upset and alarm people of many cultures around the world when they deal with Americans."

...If you've got time to worry about what your kids are seeing on television, things are doing alright.

It's not about a culture clash, and it's not alright.

If what is being done to Iraqis were done to secular Americans, the result would be the same. Although it is continually portrayed as such by ideologues, this is not a clash of religions, cultures, or societies. There is a very grave danger to us all when, during times of political stress we begin to divide ourselves ethnicly, muddy the water, and lose track of the answers.

Muslims are commonly, easily as "commercial" as are we in the US- or capitalistic, or capable of discounting human value, whatever you care to compare, as are we in Western society. The overwhelming majority of practicing Muslims are rarely offended by Western lifestyle or media. In perhaps a similar proportion as in America you find devout ______s (fill in the blank), there are those who are aghast and offended by the actions of people of other creeds, but this is a minority. The Mideast has been functionally multiethnic much much longer than Europe and the "New" World.

It is not "Western materialism" that is inflaming the Mideast. The Mideast is quite similarly materialistic. This is not struggle between socialism and capitalism. It is far more simple, and often far more deliberately obscured than that.

It's oppression, exploitation, injustice; a reimplementation of colonialism that is angering people, and specifically not Western culture: Let's not be confused. I'm not trying to defend Western culture, but rather find a little more clarity. Perhaps I've only taken the above post wrongly- Regardless, it is a very common and dangerous misconception that people are increasingly protesting, killing, suffering, murdering, disrupting, dying because their religious or cultural differences.

Greed and hubris are the real fire starters in the growing crises we are all being pulled into. Religiousity and ideologies explosively fuel the fire, but they are not the source.

I can't just take what isn't mine with impunity. Nor can the US, the Coalition, Israel, or Little Green Men. All this turmoil is not about what's on TV, not about culture, nor ethnicity, nor any other human attribute more superficial than the most basic and universal sense of justice, respect, and reciprocity. Forgetting this, or confusing our conflicts with our superficial differences, is perilous to say the least. [/rant]

 

[nico]

a reimplementation of colonialism

Which along with it brings western culture, I agree that Arab ppl's in the ME are super-capitalistic, look at Dubai for Christ's sake! But Hype the implementation of US will on the Iraqi ppl is representative of the west. The Western culture we like, are imposed on these ppl. Things like imposed democracy, free market economics, and arrogant American soldiers are a result of our western culture. Western culture goes FAR beyond the TV, or even what is superficial. Rather it's a frame of mind, yes Iraq was secular, yes the Arabs are consumers, yes they are capitalist's as well but they aren't us. They are a different form of those things. We are imposing our form of those things on them. Yes we are both alike, but categorically different.

 

[hypewaders]

It's the imposition, and not the culture that is the problem.

 

[Canute]

I can't just take what isn't mine with impunity. Nor can the US, the Coalition, Israel, or Little Green Men. All this turmoil is not about what's on TV, not about culture, nor ethnicity, nor any other human attribute more superficial than the most basic and universal sense of justice, respect, and reciprocity. Forgetting this, or confusing our conflicts with our superficial differences, is perilous to say the least. [/rant]

It's not all about culture, but a lot of it is. Can you imagine what Iraqi's think of Americans when they watch US TV programmes? I'm surprised it's allowed out of the country, given what it shows us of the American way of life. I wonder if ordinary Americans realise just what a profoundly dreadful picture of their country their films and TV give to the rest of the world.

 

[Tiassa]

I hadn't expected that

"It is the crass, shallow commercialism and the reduction of human value that comes with Western society that seems to upset and alarm people of many cultures around the world when they deal with Americans."

It was a risky thing for me to include the above in my post, but I never imagined the risk coming from that direction.

We might turn the clock back to September, 2001:

Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. (President George W. Bush)

I always felt that speech relied too heavily on generalizations. It is not the idea of freedom that "they" hate. That we are Americans makes us the target of lethal hatred is not a natural condition; while most of the discussions around Sciforums have moved past this phase, my belief that international "fear" or "hatred" of America comes in part from our behavior and comes in part from the prices we are willing to pay in terms of our vaunted principles that makes people shudder.

And think about it: For how much of American business would crass disregard for your target market be a successful business strategy? And yet it is pretty much the rule of thumb in American television.

In February, 2002, for instance, I wrote the following response to a point about the cultural aspect:

• So take it all away and let them do as they will, maybe return to their old ways, or push ahead and speed up the dollar-driven society they are heading toward?

My question to you, sir: Is there any way to modernize without becoming dollar-driven and, as we see in the US, psychotic? People who think of Islam as being anti-technological, for instance, are wrong. Muslims have, in better days, been pioneers in science and philosophy. When they look at the US and see our technological glory, they also see the highest unwed teen birth rate in the first world; an abortion rate that tops any nation's infant-mortality rate; a belligerent culture that sends troops at the drop of a dime; a nation whose people choose liars and thieves as leaders ... there are certain things about our culture Muslims don't want. (click here for the long form)

So what I see here, and perhaps you really do find it irritating, Hype, or perhaps I just fired on the wrong rhythm for you tonight, but ...:

(1) I find it generally insensitive to the market to be broadcasting such material at such a time.
(2) I recognize that television broadcast is one place in which American businesses do not serve their most apparent customers, e.g. the viewers. This comes from a devotion to the advertisers, who simply want ratings.
(2a) This does not mean to accuse that broadcasters have specifically chosen to broadcast materials which might irritate the audience during Ramadan specifically to accommodate advertisers, but--
(2b) --it is not out of character for American-associated broadcasting to be completely out of touch with its market when developing its agenda.
(3) Given that the United States has just staged an invasion and the people seem to be rather quite edgy, I do not perceive this basic insensitivity to the market as merely bad business or a run of the mill annoyance, but rather a serious and unnecessary aggravation of Iraqis. Considering what's at stake and what's going on, perhaps the MTV "Revolution Baghdad" can wait just a little while?

Now, as to things doing alright, that's actually a multifaceted issue. On the one hand, I defer to my sense of humor: Were either of those two pieces of bright news all that bright or happy?

Now you can be upset at my flippancy, if you like. I don't pretend it's not an insensitive way of summarizing the situation, but I was shooting for a degree of cheap sarcasm.

To give consideration to the larger issues:

• At heart, I agree it's not a culture clash. However, I do not deny that there is an underlying xenophobia that exists between American western post-Christianity and Middle-Eastern Islam and post-Islamic extremism. Just as every father wishes to provide for his daughter certain virtuous luxuries, so does every father fear certain vicious excesses. The overt cruelties of the third world are easy enough to rebuke, but what of the subtle poisons whence Americans find themselves increasingly in the care of psychologists, psychiatrists, and cartoonish adverts for mindbending drugs to cure that nagging feeling that you're not in Hollywood, which condition is also known in certain forms as "Nausea" and "The Absurd," and is often referred to by the embittered as "reality?"

Although it is continually portrayed as such by ideologues, this is not a clash of religions, cultures, or societies. There is a very grave danger to us all when, during times of political stress we begin to divide ourselves ethnicly, muddy the water, and lose track of the answers.

I suppose the question, then, is whether or not you rule those factors out completely?

While you'll find no direct disagreement from me, I cannot set aside religious, cultural, ideological ... I cannot set aside the identity politic, for it is so instrumental in fueling the fires. It may not be the explosive device, so to speak, but it needs to be accounted for in disarming the device.

• Certainly, Muslims are easily commercialized. However, I'm not quite sure how well the Muslim world is going to react to the "Whore Wars." I'm just not sure what the Muslim-world equivalent is. Liberating women's sexuality and self-governance for reasons of decency and humanity is one thing, but marketing to prepubescent girls clothing intended to make them look more sexually attractive to sexually virile males in order to support "the economy" is just a little perverse in and of itself. Now, here we look back to the idea of cultural friction. Muslims tend to embrace the benefits of the modern world--network communications, medical advances and so forth, but who can blame them for not looking forward to a more Westernized version of social decay?

And in that context, it's scarier if it's a kind of decay that you don't understand. At least with classic Islamic-world social decay, there's a working knowledge of how to cope with it. So, looking back to the television station, it seems rather quite silly, and in light of the ratings, I think crass, to disregard the attitudes of the market, no matter how odd it might seem to its Coalition administrators.

• Yes, greed and hubris seem to be the real issues. But the identity politic is a reality that bears certain functional influence. In the case of the television station, that influence is an obvious suggestion: Don't agitate the identity politic.

In terms of protesting the television station, let me simply say that "doing alright" can be read as meaning, Hey, it wasn't a food riot! I mean, yes, I understand that television stations are a concern to some degree, but I defer to the derision with which religious groups in the United States are subject whenever they get high and mighty about somebody's television show or movie.

Picture in your mind ... or maybe not. Okay, let me seek a less nauseating example. Okay, I'll leave it. But ... in the end I've stated myself poorly. Because I don't disagree with a thing you've said. I just don't think agitating that nerve in people is a good idea right now in Iraq.

(How's this, for instance? I can't get you the transcript yet, because the current show isn't posted, but I caught some of "The Chris Matthews Show" on CNBC--I didn't even know it was on CNBC, as I generally ignore it on our local NBC affiliate's second-tier affiliate. I should watch it if I'm going to bother with Hardball at all, but that's another story. Anyway, at the end of the show, two things came up, one of which I raise here. He said, casually, "Tell me something I don't know." And the panel chimed in with hot leads they were following that may or may not become major stories. One of them said there is "talk" around the Pentagon of allowing ... now, are you ready for this? There is talk around the Pentagon of allowing the various tribes and sects to sponsor their own militias in order to fill more quickly the rosters of the Iraqi army. Now, I ... I can't imagine they're going to do that. There's just ... no dignified way. But let's pretend for a moment that they do. Now folks with tribal and sectarian identity politics are "officially" armed. Suddenly it becomes a little more important, for instance, to accommodate the needs of the market. Regardless of how we fill the Iraqi military rosters, I think it a very bad idea to agitate the sensitivities that activate identity politics.)

It's a hard split: on the one hand, it's just another example of how cultural insensitivity can increase the burdens of being human. To the other, at the end of the day, there comes a point when I put my foot down and say we can only be so sensitive to monotheism. So to me, when amid food and labor and human rights issues, if 200 Iraqis have the time and priority allowance to undertake a protest that I would call silly in the United States ... perhaps I'm just missing it in the other direction, but it seems to me that all things considered, I would be more worried about the control of war information than the morality of images shown during the holiday season.

No, it's not a sign that the occupation is going well by any means, although we can mostly agree that it could be going worse. But these protesters--this is their issue for the day? Well, at least their children are fed; and as I could be wrong in that conclusion, I admit that it is rooted in a certain human faith. However--if their children are starving and they're protesting this issue, I might be just a bit frightened of their priority scheme. Such a measure of the hole Americans have dug for themselves, Iraqis, and the rest of the world is ... chilling in its implications.

Notes:

• Bush, George W. "Address to Congress, September 20, 2001." see http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
• Tiassa. "It's a sticky situation." Sciforums: John Walker, what do you think? February 13, 2002. see http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=5665&perpage=20&pagenumber=2
• Trebay, Guy. "Girls, Parents Fight Clothing 'Whore Wars'." New York Times, September 6, 2003. see http://www.fradical.com/Parents_fight_clothing_whore_wars.htm

 

[hypewaders]

I understand a little better now, but still cling to the position that we are witnessing not an incompatibility of cultures, but a struggle that began and will end irrespective of the cultural attributes of the participants and victims.

Living in Lebanon, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, I never experienced an authentic culture war, even in wartime. It's always along lines of ethnicity and culture that things get shredded in conflict, which compounds the disaster because it is cultural variations that give the tapestry value and function. I have mourned along with Muslims, Christians, and others not only needless loss of life, of home, of beauty, of familiarity, but also and somtimes with great pain, the loss of diversity.

I know that Iraqis are far more familiar with Western culture than the converse, and that there is more affinity than revulsion in what they know about the West. I agree that it is crass and unwise to offend the modesty of people who live by a particular code, and that this is counterproductive even to the Neocons' present "cultural exchange program".

I have witnessed in everyday Mideastern life a tremendous, even unusual tolerance, and appreciation, for cultural differences, where most cultural faux-pas are reacted to like immature behaviour among reasonable adults. There is a natural inquisitiveness and wonder between people of contrasting culture in everyday peaceful encounters, where even an unexpected or even offensive aspect increases the fascination.

I have also seen people killed on sight because of their cultural appearance, and I've had moments when my appearance alone nearly got me killed. But this occurs when a non-cultural conflict erupts out of political aggression and injustice: It's the insane exception to the norm.

We don't kill each other because we're different. We kill to steal or defend. Manipulators continually reinvent ways to drag us down into race and culture war, and we keep getting fooled.

Imposers demanding without right or mandate are the dangerous offense bringing conflict. What we Westerners wear, eat, say, or put on the airwaves or internet is already so familiar, and so less relevant than what we do politically and militarily.

Cowboys can dress in big hats and high heels, and squeeze their women into corsets: That's strange, curious, funny, but not sufficiently offensive to bring conflict and devastation. The trouble is when cowboys take what isn't theirs.

 

[Tiassa]

Update: Militia

How's this, for instance? I can't get you the transcript yet, because the current show isn't posted, but I caught some of "The Chris Matthews Show" on CNBC--I didn't even know it was on CNBC, as I generally ignore it on our local NBC affiliate's second-tier affiliate. I should watch it if I'm going to bother with Hardball at all, but that's another story. Anyway, at the end of the show, two things came up, one of which I raise here. He said, casually, "Tell me something I don't know." And the panel chimed in with hot leads they were following that may or may not become major stories . . . . There is talk around the Pentagon of allowing the various tribes and sects to sponsor their own militias in order to fill more quickly the rosters of the Iraqi army . . . . (Tiassa)

At any rate, I wanted to update this point with the comment that this, it would appear, is what that tip has become:

The U.S. civilian and military leadership in Iraq has decided to form a paramilitary unit composed of militiamen from the country's five largest political parties to identify and pursue insurgents who have eluded American troops and Iraqi police officers, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Tuesday.

The five parties will contribute a total of 750 to 850 militiamen to create a new counterterrorism battalion within the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps that would initially operate in and around Baghdad, the officials said. They said U.S. Special Forces soldiers would work with the battalion, whose operations would be overseen by the American-led military command here. (Washington Post)

So this is what the tip has become, and, incidentally, that transcript has been posted:

MATTHEWS: Maybe we'll have a dismissal here.

Anyway, tell me something I don't know, Campbell.

Ms. BROWN: There is a--a dangerous situation going on Iraq where Bremer is talking about allowing tribal groups, different religious factions to start their own militias as a way to get the military out faster, which many people internally believe is going to be civil war the moment we leave.

MATTHEWS: Wow. (MSNBC)

Campbell Brown, of NBC News, isn't the only person who finds the situation potentially dangerous. Even in the form of the current news story, which is of a smaller scale than Ms. Brown's description suggested, not everybody thinks this a good idea:

"This is a very big blunder," said Ghazi Yawar, an independent council member. "We should be dissolving militias, not finding ways to legitimize them. This sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

U.S. officials said the battalion would be subject to rigorous conditions aimed at ensuring that the new unit does not become a collection of autonomous militias loyal to their party leaders instead of a unified commander.

"They will have to leave their political identity at the door," a senior U.S. military official said. (Washington Post)

That senior official's point was reinforced by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. USA Today reports:

"We are willing to take people into these forces as long as when they come in they are not operating as members of these other (militia) forces," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith said in Washington.

The militia members would be recruited as individuals, not as intact units, Feith said.

"We are not looking to preserve militias as such," Feith said.

Current IGC President Abdel-Aziz al Hakim raised a point that bears consideration:

The current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite Muslim, said the idea of a joint militia was a good one. He said the country's five or so individual militias have won credibility for fighting Saddam's regime for more than 20 years, and could root out that regime's remnants now.

"At this stage, we should try to make use of any force, any tribal clan and any individual that can help," he said, adding that the militias should be centrally controlled, as the Americans have stipulated. "They will have a role to play in the fight against terrorism." (USA Today)

At this stage?

The words strike a note in my mind. These militias, with twenty years' credibility, could not be trusted with the $97,000,000 set aside in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, could not be called upon to directly assist the Coalition invasion, or perhaps even help circumvent the war entirely by staging an immediate coup are now, suddenly, at this stage a good idea?

That's fine. I understand. There are ... worse ideas in the world, although I do have some reservations.

But I'm curious: At this stage? What is this stage, and what about this militia is any better an idea than entrusting any of these five or a combination thereof to liberate Iraq without a foreign invasion? On the one hand, it seems a change of direction. To the other, I'm prepared to accept any sensible demonstration that then and now are so irrelevant as to render the question dysfunctional. But I figure there's something I'm not seeing.

Nonetheless, this could turn out to be a spectacularly interesting story, for good or bad. We'll see how it develops.

Notes:

• Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. "U.S. to Form Iraqi Paramilitary Force." Washington Post, December 3, 2003; page A01. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29753-2003Dec2.html
• Transcript. The Chris Matthews Show, MSNBC, November 29, 2003. see http://www.msnbc.com/modules/chrismatthews/113003.asp?0cb=-11W109515
• Report, Wire. "U.S., Iraq consider new militia." USA Today, December 3, 2003. see http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-03-iraq-council_x.htm

 

[hypewaders]

Everything the Bush Administration has done regarding Iraq is setting the country up for civil war. A devastating Iraqi civil war is becoming inevitable, unless internationally mandated peacekeepers are introduced very soon, and in larger numbers than the present "Coalition".