Your suggestion that modernization is a key element for Iraq’s future is, on the face it, sound. Just like democracy, though, the concept of modernization is also controversial in the ME. For those Muslims who see the current situation as a clash of civilizations, modernity is in direct oppostion to the traditionalism they espouse.

In all our searches on how to deal with the ME, it’s been a basic belief that we should make them more like us. While that would work out well for world stability, it’s not what they want. We always return, and should return, to the basic question: if we are to convert them, how do you convert unwilling subjects?

When you say “some” consider al-Sadr to be the lesser of two evils, are you referring to Iraqis? Some Iraqis consider him to be the lesser of two evils?

You say you want Iraq to have a strong leader who in the long run will be dedicated to democracy, equality, and laicism (which I am not sure what that is). So which people will be the ones to make certain that Iraq has a strong leader who will be dedicated to democracy in the long run? I mean, I assume that if it’s a democratic Iraq you want to see, then it has to be the Iraqi people who decide who will run Iraq. I don’t know enough about al-Sadr to state categorically that he is “evil” — at least, no more evil than Dick Cheney — but when you say that “letting” al-Sadr run Iraq will result in a Shiite Iraq, one of the questions I would have is, Are you suggesting that the “letting” or “not letting” should come from the U.S. government? I’m truly puzzled at how that approach is going to be compatible with democracy. How can Iraq become a democracy if the U.S. decides which leaders they will “allow” as leaders? How can Iraq become a democracy if ANYone but the Iraq people themselves decide who will lead them, and what kind of government they will have?

That is the inherent contradiction, isn’t it?

I watch the MSM headlines to see if we are ‘rehabing’ him. So far the word ‘radical’ has almost disappeared recently. Notable, since he may as well have changed his name to include this word given its near 100% use previously. Lets see if extreme, or anti-american goes next…

That would be nice. But the problem is there isn’t one single person who fits that description whose in any position to take over. Everyone there with political and military clout is an out and out fundamentalist bastard that will end up with ties either to Iran, or al-queda.

“Al-Sadr’s resurfacing could only have been made possible by a deal worked out between the United States and Iran in which Washington assured Tehran that al-Sadr would be on the U.S. military’s ‘no touch’ list.”

“Just after Friday prayers on May 25, Iraqi special forces backed up by British troops killed Mehdi Army militia commander Abu Qader, also known as Wissam al-Waili, and at least one of his aides after they resisted arrest in the oil-rich southern Iraqi city of Basra. … It could very well be that Abu Qader had become a Mehdi Army renegade and that his elimination was a quiet show of good faith by al-Sadr.”

“As al-Sadr proceeds in efforts to purge his militia and political bloc of dissidents, he will be counting on the assurances he has received from Tehran that a U.S.-Iranian negotiated blueprint for Iraq will involve implementing a new political order in Baghdad that will safeguard the interests of the al-Sadrite movement.”

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=289258

Friedman Unit

Yes that’s the point I was trying to make on the Rosie thread. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. The difference is that we have the ability to obliterate him and his followers from the face of the earth- while he just has a large group of followers and some help from the Iranians. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he patterned his speech on the “Axis of Evil” phraseology. I guess no one would want to go to war otherwise.

What the H is a friedman unit?

> I thought the Iraqis
> themselves don’t want
> a partition, because the
> oil revenues wouldn’t be
> divided fairly. .

Some do, some don’t. Those who believe they’d get the oil, or want partition for other reasons, do. (The Kurds are a distinct group and many of them would welcome partition and even independence.) Those who fear losing the oil, don’t.

You have three groups and two oil field areas. Oops.

The Sunnis fear losing the oil.

There is more to it than the internal situation. If Iran can’t expect to control all of Iraq, Iran could easily enjoy controlling just the south, and then look toward Kuwait [smack, smack]. Turkey would likely oppose partition; they are on record as disfavoring Kurdish independence. Saudi Arabia would assist the Sunnis.

> Maybe we should pull back
> into Kurdestan, and protect
> their people, that way we
> could move back in if all He**
> breaks loose.

That’s where we should have US military bases.

Simply fleeing from Iraq is not going to solve everything. And those who already have long wanted us out of Iraq, totally, immediately, will the first and loudest to complain, naturally, if things get worse (as they well) after we leave.

The surge is working fine. It’s just that you are confused as to the goals of the surge.

It provides an excuse to give the occupation just a few more Friedman units.

And no folks, we aren’t about to arrest him. We are apparantly counting on him.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the military hopes al-Sadr’s “return will contribute to the ongoing dialogue we’ve already established and had going on now for several months with Shia groups here in Iraq.”

Caldwell said he hopes that al-Sadr “will use his influence to try to stop those rogue elements that are associated with his organization from conducting” insurgent activities.

And MVG, Muqtada al-Sadr is hardly “Iraq’s number one terrorist”.

I thought the Iraqis themselves don’t want a partition, because the oil revenues wouldn’t be divided fairly.

I’ve seen little evidence that those in power in Washington care what Iraqis want.

Reality is that we are well into the end-game of our military involvement in Iraq. Rather than talk about victory or defeat, I find it more useful to think in terms of End State.

My best guess is the end state is a Moqtada al-Sadr led Iraq supported by the US militarily. I hate the idea, but he is wildly popular with the majority Shia, he has an army, and like any good politician will promise whatever the Iraqi people want to hear. In this case – a semblance of security in an Iraq free of American occupiers. Make no mistake – that is exactly what a majority of Iraqi’s want, and that is what al-Sadr is offering. I don’t know if he can deliver. You don’t know if he can deliver. The Iraqi’s don’t know that he can deliver or how much blood will be shed in getting there from here. But they do know now, that the US cannot deliver a peaceful safe Baghdad for them.

If al-Sadr is the end state, the only question is how and when we get there. At some point we will have to take the risk that things will not get appreciably worse when we leave. We could be wrong, but we will have to take that risk eventually, it is only a question of when. If we had other leadership here, we might be able manage a transition to an al-Sadr government with at least a facade of democracy in place and a minimum of bloodshed. With this administration, we are likely to see nothing but pushing this problem over the horizon to the next administration, at enormous additional cost to our treasury, our military, our standing in the world, and an even greater cost to the Iraqi people.

(and also subject to interference by its neighbors)

> Or it would be one in
> name only- like Egypt’s.

Why “an” Iraq? Many of us see partition as likely.