Without even asking which glimmers this refers to, we should be asking how long we can go on depending on one glimmer and then another and then another.

It’s way past time for a real beacon of urgency and will power to shine from the Iraqi governemment, but instead of that, we see vacation time.

There is a flip side to every action or non-action.
If the surge was to provide a window of opportunity, nothing hppens, and we just go on and on and on, we are sending a message that there will cover provided for the Iraqi governemtn no matter what it does or fails to do.
If we provide support with no consequences for failure, we are co-responsible for that failure.

Let’s at least face up to that and add it into the mix of arguements.

But I digress, the system is not the real problem here (even though I think a more federal system would be more fitting). The problem is that the US strongarmed the Iraqis into forming a united government, which, of course, they wouldn’t have done without pressure. The Shiite block would have had enough votes to rule alone, but they may have allowed some Kurds in for a better picture to the outside. Those groups seem to get along reasonable well. The Sunnis, who largely boycotted the election, only came in after lasting US insistence. And now we have a case where there’s serious infighting in the government. How the US still expects this kabuki theatre of an executive to get anything done, or the representatives of this coalition from hell to find common ground for national bills has never really been explained.

As for your Lebanon example: This country has much more of a democratic tradition, and I think the civil war there has killed a higher percentage of the population, leaving the survivors too exhausted to go on. Iraq simply isn’t at this point yet.

I’m unclear about your argument about Iraq’s government. On the one hand, you keep challenging us to consider the political disunity in the current US climate, but the US system is a winner take all system. It seems to me that we tried to avoid that in Iraq and instead gave the nod to a proportional representation system. So which is it- were we wrong to not push for (or allow) winner take all, or are we wrong to think that they could handle winner take all any better than we can?

And on your question of where a governement which uses proportional representation to ensure minority representation: Lebanon. Admittedly there is still instability there, but it’s held for a while now and it’s an improvement over the prior bloodshed there.

Wow! Most of us have no idea what veterinerians have to endure on the job…

The US is indeed asking for a Kumbayah situation by strongarming all major parties into the government, leaving almost no opposition left. This isn’t what most would call democracy, and a government composed of such divided interests will never be able to work efficiently. Who ever said you have to have minorities in the government to protect them? Tell me a land where this is the case. It’s not the US (where are the injuns???) and not in Europe, that’s for sure. Instead, most civilized nations have laws that help the minorities preserving their cultural identity and support their political participation on local levels. Really, pls show me that what’s expected of the Iraqis DID work anywhere else in the world.

As for the blodbath- how do you call the present situation? And on which facts do you base your assumption it would get much worse without Sunni officials in the governement? Imho this is just a wild guess.

And on an ethical level, why shouldn’t Sunnis finally face some hardship, after decades of being favored over Shiites and Kurds and after being part at murdering thousands of them? By having been part of Saddams regime, Sunnis have already shown they are not too good in governing. Now it’s time for them to sit back and let the others have their way.

Good point, Jim. But imho it’s more the US that is standing in the way of developing a real democracy in Iraq by insisting on ‘national reconcilation’, than the Iraqis themselves. Sry, but there’s no national reconcilation in the US right now, so why should it be possible in that war-stricken country abroad? If a nation with more than 200 years of experience with democracy can’t bring their sole two parties to work together in a critical situation, how on earth is this supposed to work in Iraq with its numerous small fractions? Lunacy.

The inconvenient truth is, if Iraq is a democracy, than it should be expected that its majority of shiites sets the course in politics. But because of the closeness of Shia to Iran, that’s not a reality the US likes. So the Bushies insist on a government concisting of representatives of all major parties. That’s not exactly democratic, since the dissenting opinions among the officials naturally prevent them from getting any meaningful initiative done. Not surprisingly, sharing governmental responsibility doesn’t have any meaningful tradition in the US, too.

No, this false demand is one point that is really crippling any progress on Iraq’s democratisation. Iraqis already have become weary of their useless government and soon will start looking for the next strongman. Not a nice outlook, but one that’s becoming more and more probable if the US don’t stop preventing the majority of Iraq voters from executing their democratic rights and electing the government they want.

There is corruption and the failure of most reconstruction for just two problems. And do I really need to bother linking to the many articles concerning the failures of the Iraqi government to pass any meaningful legislation to help move forward with national reconciliation?

This seems to indicate to me that even with some forward movement on security the other barriers to the really essential progress that is needed to allow Iraq to heal remain as intractable as ever.

My biggest crtiticism of the administration has been that it never levels with the public. It deals in propoganda. Your arguement seems to justify this approach, as long as it’s for the ‘right’ cause.

That’s not for me. I don’t want to choose between two charlatans.
I’d like to hear the truth.

Hear, hear, Doma!

Good question. Play squeamishly and lose, or hard and unfair and win? Well, I’m for hard but fair.

Just remember Kerry’s gentlemanlike approach on the SWIFT attacks. Even though his campaign tried hard to correct the falsifications in a rational manner, the compelling facts to dismiss the accusations simply weren’t there anymore more than 30 years after Vietnam. But there were lots of earlier testimonies which showed that the critics had miraculously changed their minds over the years. Kerry decided not to use these in an all out attack on the smearsters. Well, that was the rational way. Did you like the result?

Shoold this be a matter of convincing the public with reason or duping them into agreeing with a certain conclusion?

My biggest crtiticism of the administration has been that it never levels with the public. It deals in propoganda. Your arguement seems to justify this approach, as long as it’s for the ‘right’ cause.

That’s not for me. I don’t want to choose between two charlatans.
I’d like to hear the truth.

.

Currently, neither O’Hanlon nor Pollack are apologists for this conflict, just the opposite in fact:

I’ve seen plenty of evidence that these two authors have been cheerleaders for the Iraq war since the beginning. Is there any evidence for the opposite, other than their own self description?

I would prefer the merits of their article to be assessed rather than the merits of the men over a five year time frame.

Fair point. But the complaint is that the media constantly go to the same pundits, regardless of how wrong they’ve been in the past. Credibility matters. War supporters never want us to look “backwards” because they know how poorly they appear from that perspective.

As for a specific complaint, lets start with their second paragraph:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

The only terms that matter for success in Iraq are political. Failure in the political realm means failure overall. O’Hanlon and Pollack spend little time on it, but admit the political side is failing. And we have the evidence of our own eyes to confirm it.

Today, morale is high.

This is contrary to recent polls of the troops and reports from the field. But it is something you’d expect to hear on a Dog and Pony show conducted by the Pentagon.

As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began

Again, this is simply contrary to the statistics we see out of Iraq, attacks are increasing and Iraqi deaths remain high. They don’t cite their source, but it’s likely the Iraqi government – which has been castigated by the U.N. for gaming the numbers in the past and refusing to report them at all in recent months:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government no longer reports civilian mortality statistics, and has refused to provide figures to the United Nations Human Rights office.