Well, obviously if your religion was founded by a child molester, you’re going to be prone to failure.

JamesVersusEveryone on September 3, 2006 at 5:44 PM

What kind of idiocy is this? Yes Mohammed married a young girl–her age is in dispute but he followed the tradition of marrying a girl after her first menses.

Mary, as you recall, was twelve when she married Joseph, who was in his thirties. The practice of older men marrying and conceiving children with much younger women was commonplace in ancient times. And not because these people were perverse or immoral, it was a survival of the species strategy.

I get very irritated with assertive ignorance.

NPP: great analysis. What do you think of the notion that the eventual endgame here will be 3 separate states? If so, what can/should the US do to husband that process?

I don’t think there is evidence that people universally want freedom and democracy–think people want security and normalcy above all else, and that people generally want a measure of personal liberty. Democracy? Not so much.

Read over the weekend that there is a rapidly growing cottage industry in Iraq–fake passports. The middle class/professionals are bailing. Reminds me of Cuba as Castro was making his way to power.

It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback our decision not to kill Sadr and his top cronies two years ago, but remember at the time we were trying to get the Shiites on board in forming a government. We bet that Sistani would be able to either moderate Sadr, or diminish his influence enough that he wouldn’t be a major player. That was obviously a losing bet. We did try to kill him several times, but when he agreed to play ball we couldn’t just grease him after that – the penalty, we feared, would be too high.
Killing him then might have torpedoed the entire constitution and formation of the Iraqi government.

This has never been a war that the US power can win or lose. The Iraqi’s must ultimately decide where their loyalty lay. We, as foreign troops who don’t understand the language or culture, can only try to keep the lid on the boiling pot while doing what little we can to help the Iraqi’s figure things out somewhat peacefully. If the Iraqi’s decide to finally support the central government and reject militias, then we win. If not, then we lose, it’s almost as simple as that. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines can do less than you’d expect to influence this battle for Iraqi loyalty. That has always been the great danger of this campaign – President Bush believes that people universally want freedom and democracy. So far, the Iraqi’s are proving him wrong.

By closing down the newspaper the Americans are supporting these fears. and continuing to squander the goodwill they might have received from Shi’ites in the beginning of the occupation, when they had disposed of Saddam.

Honestly, I don’t know enough about the situation to dispute this. I do wonder at the downplaying of the impact the paper had, though. From the same article, I found this interesting:

Another article warns that “America is untrustworthy and this is why [Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini called it the big devil because it came specifically to destroy Islam and to halt the export of the Islamic Revolution from Iran”.

Hmmmm.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:31 PM

80, and 88, during the elections as well as when they took office. Time for bed. Night night!

I don’t know how reliable the source is though.

DannoJyd on September 3, 2006 at 9:32 PM

I can’t comment on the reliability of the information from that site, but if I were you, I’d think twice about buying Iraqi Dinars. Thanks for the link.

“Power is more equitably distributed today, and on average Iraqis outside of Baghdad receive more hours of power than before the war,” Crum said.

I don’t know how reliable the source is though.

…but that doesn’t mean we just abandon these people now. Is that what you are suggesting?? Please clarify…

Abandon these people? Looks and sounds to me like they want us out, but we have no intention of actually leaving. Never did. We’re building a permanent military presence in Irak, let no one tell you otherwise. I just didn’t think we belonged there in the first place.

BTW, I supported Reagan in 81, Bush Sr. in 89 (but not in 93, I was a Perot man that year). I’ve been away since 95.

You think taking away a huge propoganda tool helped him gain popularity?

I would love to hear more detail on this conclusion.

B Moe on September 3, 2006 at 9:00 PM

The punishment of yet another media outlet can only confirm the worst views Iraqis have of Americans and draw parallels with the censorship imposed by the previous government. Shi’ites view themselves as an oppressed and persecuted sect. Muqtada Sadr himself often warns of his impending martyrdom. By closing down the newspaper the Americans are supporting these fears. and continuing to squander the goodwill they might have received from Shi’ites in the beginning of the occupation, when they had disposed of Saddam. Al-Hawza only had a circulation of a few tens of thousands. Muqtada reached his supporters through his sermons, CDs of which were then sold throughout the country, through statements posted on the walls of his local offices, and through the sermons of his local representatives. Closing al-Hawza will not prevent him from reaching his audience, it will only increase his supporters.

(all emphasis mine) I should point out that I don’t subscribe to the all the opinions expressed in the article, but only where I’ve added emphasis.

Notwithstanding, had we left his paper alone, lying rag that it may have been, (I’ve never read it, so I’ll reserve judgement), I don’t think he’d have reached the heights he has now.

You think taking away a huge propoganda tool helped him gain popularity?

I would love to hear more detail on this conclusion.

Once again, nobody ever said this was going to be easy or a cakewalk.

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 8:30 PM

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: “The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator.”

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: “What you’d like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the ’90s,” when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

Rick: I don’t see the word easy or cakewalk!

I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.

Ken Adelman
Washington Post
Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27

Also, from one who loves this blog very much, I would never suggest that you quit. In addition, I find you to be intelligent and interesting, two characteristics I adore in anyone.

It’s just befuddling to me how the elites of the world find fault with the U.S., no matter what, so long as it comes from a conservative administration. With the liberal administrations they are in love with, even if they make huge mistakes (i.e. the start of the Vietnam war by Pres. Kennedy). No need to argue back too much as I have heard or read this a million times from there, from here and from all over.

Consider this, sincerely – Mr. Clinton was my President and I don’t fault him on everything, absolutely everything.

Bonne nuit and please keep sharing.

Once again, nobody ever said this was going to be easy or a cakewalk. My guess is that the Iraqi interviewed for that article was probably one of the fortunate ones under Saddam’s regime. Then again, I haven’t seen any good detailed articles (not even from the old Iraq Daily) that discussed the electricity levels during that time.

It’s so easy for people like you to sit around and criticize the big, bad Americans (under “W” – cause Bubba did everything the right way – when he used the military, it was for good).

- TD jumps in and leaves the impression that it’s the fault of the Americans, whatever the subject…

Entelechy on September 3, 2006 at 8:06 PM

Love the blog, what can I say. And I do have an opinion on some things. Are you suggesting that perhaps I should keep them to myself?

- AP posts something
- some commenter or other jumps in (or perhaps, if the hours are odd for the U.S. gives TD a chance to go first, as France is 6 hours ahead of Eastern time)
- TD jumps in and leaves the impression that it’s the fault of the Americans, whatever the subject…
- AP or some commenter reasons back, with examples, usually reminding TD of his harsh views
- TD softens the blow by explaining same or other facts/beliefs away, usually with links to prove it
- TD also claims to have been wrongly accused of pro-Muslumism, anti-Americanism, EU-ism, leftism or other -isms
- AP or commenter is tired of ‘dancing’…and moves on

Another time, another post, another pas de deux, or three, or four…

Oh really – and what would lead you to have that “humble opinion”?

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Well, this:

Thanks largely to deteriorating security, electricity – along with water, sewage, and oil production – has dropped below prewar levels. Before the invasion, for example, Baghdad was receiving an average of at least 16 hours of power a day. Today, with insurgents targeting power plants and electrical lines on an almost daily basis, the city gets power just four hours each day on average.

Also, I personally believe 99% of the media in Iraq today is not “available to Iraqis”. Certainly not electronic media, and the vast majority of the print media there is aimed at foreign consumers. My humble opinion, but I haven’t been there since Hussein was run out.

Oh really – and what would lead you to have that “humble opinion”?

How many media options are available to Iraqis now compared to during the Saddam era? I think it appropriate to remember that.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 7:23 PM

That is, in fact, an excellent question, though I suspect it would be very difficult to quantify under current conditions. From your link:

I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader

Also, I personally believe 99% of the media in Iraq today is not “available to Iraqis”. Certainly not electronic media, and the vast majority of the print media there is aimed at foreign consumers. My humble opinion, but I haven’t been there since Hussein was run out.