I get the impression it’s mostly just bureaucracy, turf wars and general government lethargy/incompetence.

Ask yourself this: if the U.S. government wanted to vet and hire 12,000 police, how long would it take? And our government has been around 200 years; theirs formed 2 years ago.

I’m sure Bill’s piece will be enlightening, though, as he’s actually been there (btw Bill, might want to check out Totten’s kerfuffle with Glenn Ellers Wilson Greenwald).

Yes. Certainly much more likely with Iraq for a model than they would have been without it.

Flanders: “I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

Homer: “I don’t agree to that.”

MB4: ‘“Free” and “democratic” to do what?’

Whatever they want. That’s what being free means.

Entelechy: “I’ve given up on them”

You gave up too soon.

aengus: “Is this a model likely to be followed by other Muslim-majority states without direct US military intervention?”

Yes. Certainly much more likely with Iraq for a model than they would have been without it.

If they are secular [or “moderate”], then they be apostates and are in defiance of Allah himself.

No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did.People whom we call moderates [or secular] are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”

I’ve been in these arguments a million times, and yes, we all know how you feel. But it’s an analytical flaw to apply strict theological analysis to every situation involving the Muslim world, something which you do to every situation. Islam may prove more or critically problematic to establishing relatively liberal Democracy, but relative to what? What they had before? Or what we have? As it is, I’m optimistic for something reasonable coming out of Iraq. Look at the Kurds, who are Muslim and flourishing politically and economically.

I’m not going to get into this specific argument with you for more comments, because you’ve got your gameplan and you’re sticking to it. And it’s largely subjective anyway.

Where I do feel then need to argue with you is here:

Did you miss the recent reports of the Iraqi Government disarming Iraqi police women trained with a lot of American time and American $$$? They seem to be going in the wrong direction again.

You see any step backwards, pounce and extrapolate, much like the mainstream media. I’m not going to argue that the US is going to leave Iraq a Western utopia, but incremental change is possible and happening. Right now there is a senior cabinet member in Maliki’s government who is a woman, equivalent to Dr. Rice. So it’s not all backwards misogyny, the society is a little more complicated.

No one has said “all Muslims” are “immutable adherents to a death cult”.

In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.

Except your analogy falls apart in two areas:

1. Not all Germans self-identified as Nazis, so they didn’t flip out when Naziism was eradicated.

2. There are over 1 billion Muslims spread across many societies, hence the concept of eradicating the ideology like Naziism, versus it adapting, is as pie-in-the-sky unrealistic as Hillarycare.

So while American soldiers on the ground put there nose to the grindstone and try to influence a lot of the negativity in that part of the world and construct something better, you throw your hands up and what, want to build a moat around the United States?

It’s not an unreasonable position for you to be skeptical, but I think you take it to the nth degree.

Iraq will be a model to both the West and the Middle East that a free, democratic, Muslim-majority state is possible.

Supposing for a moment this is true and a ramshackle Iraqi democracy takes hold. Is this a model likely to be followed by other Muslim-majority states without direct US military intervention?

The majority of Iraqis, and most Muslims as well, are moderate and have rejected the indiscriminate violence of the Takfiris. They’ve been a major component of our success in beating Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

That same majority voted in political representatives who enshrined a special place for Sharia law in the Iraqi Constitution. In what theological sense is the violence in Iraq takfir? (i.e. forbidden)

I was totally for the removal of Saddam, and especially for the demise of the monsters of his sons.

Yeah, me too.

“Free” and “democratic” to do what?

And when, the day after I fly like Superman?

MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 1:13 AM

It’s hard to be optimistic for the region, with one step forward, and 2-10 backwards. I was totally for the removal of Saddam, and especially for the demise of the monsters of his sons. What followed is so disheartening and, much as I wish for them to be free and whatever ‘democratic’ means for them, I’ve given up on them. Some just can’t be helped. However, I believe that we’ll be there for longer than in Germany/Japan/Korea, for reasons other than their well-being.

Iraq will be a model to both the West and the Middle East that a free, democratic, Muslim-majority state is possible.

Jason on December 19, 2007 at 12:43 AM

“Free” and “democratic” to do what?

And when, the day after I fly like Superman?

Iraq will be a model to both the West and the Middle East that a free, democratic, Muslim-majority state is possible.

It comes down to how much you think America can influence their society and culture with improved administration, rule of law, etc. I think the US can influence Iraq quite a bit.

BillINDC on December 18, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Did you miss the recent reports of the Iraqi Government disarming Iraqi police women trained with a lot of American time and American $$$? They seem to be going in the wrong direction again.

lots of Iraqis are basically secular, so your broad characterizations about Islam don’t apply across Iraqi society even if they were correct.

If they are secular [or "moderate"], then they be apostates and are in defiance of Allah himself.

No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did.People whom we call moderates [or secular] are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”

I agree with your observation that folks who agree with you about all Muslims being immutable adherents to a death cult show inconsistency when they support nation-building in Iraq. MB4 and Spencer himself have shown intellectual consistency in this regard.

No one has said “all Muslims” are “immutable adherents to a death cult”.

In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
- Daniel Pipes

But fortunately for me, I support nation-building in Iraq and reject Spencer’s overall thesis about the immutability of the Muslim world, if not rejecting all the particulars of his theological analysis.

BillINDC on December 18, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
- George W. Bush

I doubt you can sort of convince a majority of Iraqis that your idea (liberalism) is really their great idea (Islam).

That doesn’t make any sense in the context I provided it. And on another level, lots of Iraqis are basically secular, so your broad characterizations about Islam don’t apply across Iraqi society even if they were correct.

I agree with your observation that folks who agree with you about all Muslims being immutable adherents to a death cult show inconsistency when they support nation-building in Iraq. MB4 and Spencer himself have shown intellectual consistency in this regard.

But fortunately for me, I support nation-building in Iraq and reject Spencer’s overall thesis about the immutability of the Muslim world, if not rejecting all the particulars of his theological analysis.

If the Sunnis “brought in” are kept in separate Sunni units it is not integration.

They are not kept in separate Sunni units in he CLCs, nor will they be in the IP, except in traditionally segregated areas (like all Sunni Anbar). In Diyala specifically there are mixed rosters.

Plus you have to sort of convince many of the Iraqis that your idea is really their great idea.

I doubt you can sort of convince a majority of Iraqis that your idea (liberalism) is really their great idea (Islam).

1. Do you support the nation-building exercise in Iraq?

No.

2. Do you believe in the existence of a moderate Islam?

Not really.

3. If you answered yes and no respectively to the two previous questions how do you reconcile these two mutually repulsive avenues of thought?

aengus on December 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM

I didn’t answer yes and no, but will answer anyway, as long as it doesn’t cost me anything. Cognitive dissonance.

If the Sunnis “brought in” are kept in separate Sunni units it is not integration.

Three questions here for HotAir readers: 1. Do you support the nation-building exercise in Iraq? 2. Do you believe in the existence of a moderate Islam? 3. If you answered yes and no respectively to the two previous questions how do you reconcile these two mutually repulsive avenues of thought?

Only 12,000 of them out of 50,000, but, as Allah notes, it’s a start. Isn’t this one of those there benchmarks I’ve heard so much about?……

This is the best bet, but it sure seems to be taking a long time.

Yes and no. I’m not so sure it is, or depends, is how I’d answer that. The Surge and reduction in violence has been going on for 6 months and about 9 months in Anbar specifically. The CLC program is younger than that. And you have to remember that none of the steps we are clamoring for were possible before all that.

The Iraqi Government is very inefficient, has sectarian impulses (some of them rational) and is building administrative capacity from scratch. To some extent a lot of the delay is incompetence rather than malice, and when you look at the unskilled administrators US advisors are working with, a little patience and US brokerage may be the prescription. As you can see with getting the government to pick up the CLC program, this can eventually pay dividends in the new era of better security.

Plus you have to sort of convince many of the Iraqis that your idea is really their great idea.

Painful, frustrating, hair-pulling baby steps.

We are now, essentially, back to the level of violence we saw in 2004 and 2005. And, if you remember, at the time that was considered pretty bad.

Yes, but the trend was worsening, whereas now things are trending better… even if it’s not fast enough for the Washington Post.

Should we ever get an uptick in violence, I’m sure the MSM will use the large percentage increase from a small base number to claim that things are back to Hell-in-a-handbasket, too.