Shiites March In Baghdad for pro-Hezbollah rally

The International Herald Tribune ^ | 8/4/06 | The Associate Press

[RasterMaster]

Target rich environment.

[MikeA]

So with the democracy we brought to Iraq did not also come the ability for people to demonstrate freely even for really eggregiously bad ideas??? And self-determination for Iraq didn't come with the idea the Iraqi government can't sanction a demonstration that despite being participated in by loathsome people nonetheless was peaceful??? Do you REALLY think the Iraqi government can hope to survive keeping Shiites from demonstrating and seeming to be indifferent to what Israel is doing in Lebanon?? I mean, political reality dictates things in Iraq just as much as they do here. I may not like it, but we did say we're setting up a sovereign government. I see nothing threatening in their allowing demonstrators to protest.

And by the way, how much worse would Israel's position be if they were forced to deal with this Hezbollah situation with Saddam still in power? He'd be helping along with Iran and Syria to sustain Hezbollah which makes the current Iraqi government allowing a demonstration seem pretty harmless by comparison.

[samiam230]

"Death to America" Sounds like a declaration of war to me. The United States is already at war in Iraq. The thing to remember about Iraq is that many, if not most, of the Shi'ites currently in power were in exile in IRAN, LEBANON, and SYRIA during Saddam Hussein's reign. Many, including al-Maliki and his Dawa Party, have historical ties to these countries, as well as to Hezbollah and other radical jihadists. Why do you think al-Maliki refused to condemn the actions of Hezbollah? In fact, the founder of the Dawa party was Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, the uncle of Muqtada al-Sadr. In 1983 or 1984, the Dawa party in Lebanon merged with Hezbollah. What else happened in Lebanon in 1983?! hmmm... Don't believe for a second that Dawa is not still tied to Hezbollah and that this sentiment is a minority view in Iraq. The current leadership of Iraq has many more historic ties to Hezbollah than to the U.S.--and remember, these are supposedly our allies.

[Gone GF]

We're really winning these people over.

[MikeA]

And self-determination for Iraq didn't come with the idea the Iraqi government can't sanction a demonstration

CAN sanction I meant. Can't type today.

[BJungNan]

Iraq is likely lost now.

[brownsfan]

"That's not the point. The point is this isn't reflective of some general sentiment sweeping Iraq. "

Neither of us are in Iraq. Therefore, this comes down to speculation. It's my feeling that 2% of the population shows a significant trend.

I compare it to letter writing to a company. They speculate for every letter they get, 10 people feel the same way, but didn't bother to write.
For every protester... how many feel the same way but couldn't/wouldn't protest? 5? 6? 10?

[MikeA]

While there may be a hundred or perhaps even a thousand marching in Baghdad chanting "Death to America" I seriously doubt that there were Hundreds of thousands of people chanting "Death to America."

Good point. With demonstrations there are always factions and groups within it more radical than others in the crowd. The people in the crowd may well have had differing agendas.

[MikeA]

5% of Shiites and 2% of the Iraqi population participated. We have more anti-Americans than that in the US population. Keep some perspective.

[Tokra]

Hell, here in the US if the left could only get fewer than 500,000 people out to a nationwide call for demonstrators to come shout "death to America, death to Bush" and to trample the American flag, they'd pack up shop and call it quits!

BINGO!!!

[sanjacjake]

I keep hearing our power?? Then I keep hearing of
our own military having to explain every time a
bullet is shot....I say.. SHOW THE POWER..INCLUDE THE NUKE.
WHAT PART OF THAT DO WE NOT UNDERSTAND?? Jake

[bordergal]

Do you really think this will stop with just speech?
Dems don't usually bomb kid's soccer games, much as I might disagree with their policy choices.

I'd say the situation in Iraq proves otherwise, since violence is a common form of political discourse.

The demonstrators aren't talking about lodging a protest with the UN, btw.

[trumandogz]

From what I have been told the vast majority of Iraqis love the Americans and only 1% are opposed to the American presence.

[MikeA]

Well, if nothing else we have polls as flawed as they may be that show Iraqis generally are favorable to the US presence, though they want it to end sometime soon. And again if this were a general sentiment, then US casualties would be more than 40 a month. We'd be talking about 100s of American dead per month. I think both these things indicate Iraq isn't as seething with anti-Americanism as you want to believe.

[webheart]

Hundreds of thousands marching sounds like more than a few to me.

I wouldn't get all worked up over the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were marching. Of course, I wasn't there to count them, and the people who are reporting the numbers don't have the greatest amount of credibility in my opinion. I am doubtful about the accuracy of the estimates, which are nothing more than estimates, probably exaggerated by media bias.

Having said that, I would have to add that there is more to our presence in Iraq than giving the Iraqis a chance at democratic self-government. Iraq under Saddam was a threat to us, and if we hadn't turned him out of power, he very likely would have demonstrated how dangerous he was. We had no choice post-9/11 than to deal with him, and in spite of the loss of American lives, I don't know how we could have done it much better.

Now, we have the country of Iraq to deal with, and I am fairly certain that Iraq is not going to sponsor any huge terrorist attacks on the United States of America. Also, we get the strategic advantage of having bases in a country that is somewhat friendly to us, and probably the first time we have supported a friendly fledgling democracy over a totalitarian regime. Historically, we have always supported the despots and tyrants like Allende, Marcos, the Shah, the Saudi Royals, even Saddam, because they kept stability for our oil companies to operate under. I think this is a new approach in foreign affairs, and I like it.

[CitizenUSA]

samiam230 wrote: "The thing to remember about Iraq is that many, if not most, of the Shi'ites currently in power were in exile in IRAN, LEBANON, and SYRIA during Saddam Hussein's reign."

I can believe that. Unfortunately, we are in Iraq now, and we have no choice but to deal with it as best we can.

[MikeA]

By the way, even if you want to use your formulation for out of every 1 letter 10 didn't write, and I have no reason to believe that can reasonably be extrapolated to the Iraqi population and this issue, then we're talking 5 million Iraqis who feel the same way out of 25 million. That's 20% of the population. Significant? I guess. But not a majority sentiment.

[Blowtorch]

How many hundred thousands more chanting "Death to America" would it take before you would fall into the so-called "cut and run" camp? Also, your numbers don't include how many more would have come and joined the chanting were it not for the heat. Throw an unarmed Israeli or American citizen into that crowd and see what happens to him.

[TheDon]

Do you really think this will stop with just speech?

I'll take that as acceptance of my point, but reserving the right to revise and extend your remarks at a later date. :^)

[MikeA]

I will never be with the cut and run crowd, certainly not over 2% of people demonstrating, because the cost to US credibility among the worlds terrorists and rogue regimes would be unbelievably high, and would likely result in a total collapse in the War on Terror generally. Want to claim 10 more would have demonstrated for every one that did? That's 5 million people out of 25 million. I'm not about to see those other 20 million people abandoned to barbarism just because we got our feelings hurt.

Look to Israel's experience in 2000 with cutting and running from Lebanon to see what happens when you let emotion dictate policy. When Israel last occupied Southern Lebanon to provide a buffer against terrorism across their northern border, a deadly Hezbollah insurgency against Israeli troops ensued like that in Iraq. Israel's leaders were brow beaten by short-sighted Israeli public opinion, and the Clinton administration, into suddenly withdrawing from Southern Lebanon in 2000 without any guarantees by Hezbollah that attacks would stop.

The result was an emboldened Hamas and Hezbollah, with the latter having a vastly inflated reputation in Lebanon from being able to claim they defeated Israel. This greatly enhanced Hezbollah’s military capacity as recruits and weaponry flowed in.

Israel now forced to return to unfinished business in Lebanon demonstrates a premature withdrawl from Iraq will put us back fighting a far deadlier war against the same enemy in the same place in a few years--only next time they'll be better armed, more entrenched, more emboldened and have deeper ties to Tehran and Damascus as Israeli forces are discovering about Hezbollah.

America retreating from Iraq will not produce peace and pacify Al Qaeda, Iran nor Syria any more than Israel's retreat from Lebanon in 2000 mollified Hezbollah and its rogue sponsors. And as with Israel again taking on Hezbollah, should the US need one day to re-engage terror in Iraq because we left too soon the risks for a wider regional conflict will be greatly enhanced.

Considering all this, the cost in blood and treasure required to remain committed to Iraq for a few more years allowing Iraqi security forces breathing space to become more capable of defeating terrorists will seem a bargain compared to the price we'd pay later.

Before the US and Israel succumb to cut and run in Iraq and Lebanon respectively, we need to stop and think. And then consider the havoc that will ensue when Iran and Syria conclude there is no one left to stop them from riding roughshod over the region.