The Chalabi Lobby
Whom readers are backing in the Mosul primary.
Q & A: Michael Kinsley's Readme, which puts forward that a position against United States military intervention was never about "whether America would win a war against Iraq if we chose to start one," nevertheless takes a beating from some ardent war supporters. According to Kinsley, salient questions remain unanswered before outright victory can be declared: Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11? Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading? Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States? Predictive questions: What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)? Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive? How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it? For this, baltimore-aureole is bemused, "what a spin job by Kinsley today." Baltimore proceeds to answer Kinsley: 1 - yes, for many (but not all) this WAS a debate about who would win the war. a lot of people, including "the retired generals embedded in network studios", wanted to fight (and lose) the last war all over again. 2 - yes, there IS a connection between Iraq and al qaeda. coalition forces routed about 700 terrorists from a training camp in northern Iraq, who fled into Iran… 3- yes, Iraq DOES have WMD… the Iraqis have zillions of things they claimed not to . . . and we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg so far. 4 - toppling Saddam, whatever it costs, will be less expensive than having to clean up the next time he invades a neighboring country, or if he decides to share his chemical, biological, or nuclear technology with terrorists… 5 - how many Muslims will be turned against the united states? well, at least the ones who ran to join Saddam right away got their butts kicked (and maybe buried). you subscribe to the theory that a defeated enemy is more dangerous than one which strikes repeatedly without eliciting a defense. Much of the buzz in the Readme Fray centers not on the pop quiz submitted by Kinsley, but rather the perception that he won't fess up and eat his serving of humble pie. Zathras feels that a pertinent question was omitted: "But I can accept that a big piece of this puzzle, one that the mainstream media and even al Jazeera are ignoring, is whether Mike Kinsley should ever have to say he was wrong about any of the arguments he made against taking action against Saddam Hussein." Adam_Masin takes up for Kinsley and sees a certain tautology in the triumphalism: If all of the main purported reasons for going to war were false (WMD, active nuke program, imminent threat to the US, the Bin Laden link, inspections not enough), and they all remain unproven, then America just went to war merely because it could win. Voicing the "easy part" argument, Chafe agrees with Kinsley and writes, "I think the US was wrong to go to war when we did not because removing Saddam regime by force isn't justified and necessary nor because I feared defeat (or even much relative carnage) but rather because we don't seem to have a clear idea much less a comprehensive plan regarding how to handle post-war Iraq." Aid and Comfort: To war supporters who threw Orwell's "pacifists are objectively pro-Fascist" in the face of the anti-war crowd, Kinsley points out that Orwell ultimately recanted, a claim with which Ananda takes issue: Orwell was recanting the tactic of disregarding subjective feelings and considering only the specifics of the acts or beliefs in question. Note that Orwell is *not* saying, anywhere in his recantation that pacifists do not, by their actions, help the Germans. What he is saying is that it is dishonest (and impractical) to consider the pacifist who opposes war because he supports Hitler as equivalent to the pacifist who opposes war because he abjures all violence, *even though* both of them help the Germans… Nowhere, in any of his writings, does Orwell absolve pacifists of criticism for their views, and at the end of that same passage he writes: "In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi, and extremist left-wing parties will inevitably contain Fascist spies." The emotional conundrum of the anti-war, Pro-American position is perhaps best voiced by Geoff, in response to Hitchens, who writes, "I'll confess. I'm heartened, at the moment. Being against the war due to pessimism puts you in the position of rooting against yourself... 'I hope I'm wrong, and this war is right.' And some of my worst fears have not been borne out... and some of the best hopes have." Splitting the Ticket: Fraysters are split on whether an exile should lead Iraq in its incipient democracy, whether Ahmad Chalabi is that guy and to what extent, if any, he should be propped by the U.S. RandyMoran doesn't "see why, exactly, we should be supporting Chalabi (or anyone else), financially or other wise, in their pursuit of power in Iraq." Though he continues, instructing that he has no problem if the US "impose[s] (yes, IMPOSE) an infrastructure that allows some sort of fair and aboveboard election to take place, then aid[s] that elected government (whoever they may turn out to be) in establishing and legitimizing its services." Pulling an RFK: The_Bell figures that if the U.S. is instituting something that resembles a constitutional government, then shouldn't it hold new Iraqi officials to the requisite constitutional standards? Chalabi is really more than an Iraqi expatriate; he is virtually a foreigner in his own homeland. It is almost as though an eighteen-year-old U.S. citizen, disgusted over what he sees as corrupt American culture, flees to Europe only to return forty years later and announce he/she is running for President. Interestingly, they would be in violation of the fourteen year residency requirement prescribed by the Constitution and unable to do so. It almost seems like what is sauce for an American goose ought to be sauce for an Iraqi gander. Satish_desai is far more generous toward the prospect of a Chalabi administration: What is required is heavy-handed guidance from the U.S. in the process of democratization of Iraq. Chalabi, who is exposed to American-style democracy, could be an ideal agent just to do that, if softly backed by the U.S. He could serve as the head of the Iraqi provisional government, similar to the role being played by Karzai in Afghanistan. During the term of the provisional government, the real Iraqi leaders will emerge. Zathras insists that unless a forceful tack is taken in post-war Iraq, a creedal free-for-all could take hold of the country. Of the measures that must be taken: Iraqis can and should participate in all these, but it is unrealistic to think they can run any of them right now -- not when almost all of the Iraqis with governmental experience got it under the Baathists, and when the easiest route to a strong political position is for an Iraqi politician to campaign as the spokesman for his ethnic or religious faction in effective opposition to all the others. This is what Milosevic did in Serbia, and is precisely what we do not want no matter how democratic it is. It's for this reason that exiles are attractive to Oryx who, in the same thread, writes, "What the Iraqis really need are new fresh faces little smutted with the tainted politics of a now-by-gone era. These should be secular, Western educated, and with various ethnic and religious backgrounds." What's Doing in Kirkuk: Tim Noah continues to monitor the northern front, where the Kurds have seized the strategically vital and oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Noah suggests that there are essentially two choices for the United States: Let the Kurds stay or make them leave. Titling his post "I don't like either option, Chatterbox," mikkyld states: I most definitely do not want us screwing the Kurds yet again. But I don't think a country's democratic process working against us (Turkey's of course) should call for some childish display of petulant punishment… As long as the oil money is going to Iraq and not Kurdistan, and as long as no independent Kurdish state exists, the Turks should just deal with it. Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk worries Populuxe who ponders the global ramifications of this seemingly sub-conflict: If the US doesn't do something about the Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk, the Turks will have to, otherwise the world ends up with a situation that makes the Palestinian conflict look like a cakewalk. The Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk is the first step toward the creation of Kurdistan, which affects large chunks of territory in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. If Saddam had chemical weapons, you can be sure the Kurds will now. Turkey will be forced into military action to curb Kurdish nationalism. The US may be forced to act anyway, because Turkey is a NATO member. Turkey is also a second tier applicant to join the EU. Europe may become involved out of concern for its own security. This is what some of us were worried about and why we didn't want this war. The middle east is destabilising and will spill out into Europe and Asia. Chip pays this scenario no mind, "A juxtaposition of two dissimilar conditions has never been accomplished, in the history of mankind, than the one you have just made." On the other side, sjpitts believes that "the Kurds deserve to get their lands back." He continues, "The Turks wouldn't have anything to fear from an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq if they hadn't been systematically repressing their own Kurds for so long." In the spirit of political rectitude, sjpitts feel that "for once we should do the right thing if for no other reason then it is the right thing to do."…KFA8:40 a.m.
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003
Love to Say I Told You So: In Fighting Words, Christopher Hitchens wastes little time and pleasure, tongue firmly in cheek, "to extend the hand of friendship to my former antagonists and to begin the long healing process." Fraysters who oppose the U.S. action in Iraq are viscerally irate over Hitchens' schadenfreude and what they perceive to be his "smugness." Betty_The_Crow, on the author's attributes, comments, "Hitchens has always had two things going for him: attitude and elegance. In this piece he forgoes the latter and laves the former in such a volume of schoolgirlish venom that it's easy—bizarre, but easy—to imagine him with his fangs sunk to the roots in Cleopatra's breast." Betty continues, challenging Hitchens on his rhetorical circuitry:
Aside from the spite with which he declares victory—and that's a tad premature given the war isn't even over yet—the article is loaded with typically elastic Hitchens logic. "'No Blood for Oil,' they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled." A drop of what? Blood? Hardly, at least if the accounts of hospitals awash in it are accurate. Oil?
Arlington responds in tone, beginning with "Thank you, Mr. Hitchens," and later extends his "Many thanks … for disposing of the old morality." Of Hitchens' ebullience, mhogan feels that "it's sick to feel any emotion except revulsion. Perhaps it was justified, but it's still abhorent. If your dog becomes rabid, do you celebrate after killing him?"
Don't count your Hitchens … : Another popular squawk in the Fray is from those, such as TheQuietAmerican, who point out that "all of this—except for the statues—seems startlingly premature." TQA continues:
Perhaps it is a function of our generally compacted attention span, or the confusion about what this war was ultimately about, or the chestbeating, finger-jabbing "Super Bowl" atmosphere that characterized the war debate—but the fact is that the destruction of Hussein's regime is really the first page of what will be a long, long story. The war was, frankly, the easy part, and by far the most seductive.
Amen: Hitchens has plenty of backers in the Fray, including austindead, who posts: "We see the truth, now, in the streets of Baghdad, as we knew we would all along—the tyrant falls, and the people rejoice. The 'aggressor' coalition forces, I notice, managed to hold off the frenzied infidel haters long enough to help them pull down Saddam's statue and ride it through the street like a bull." Brian-1 sees no problem with Hitchens's tonal posture:
Hitchens has a right to gloat. He's been debating our intervention in Iraq against lesser sorts for some time now, sometimes having to stoop to pedagogy and slow enunciation of his sentences in order to make his points heard.
On the gloating question, captainsensible poses an interesting take:
