Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraqi PM

Reuters ^

[Lunatic Fringe]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Angry fellow Shi'ites stoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's motorcade in a Shi'ite stronghold of Baghdad on Sunday in a display of fury over a devastating car bomb that tore through their area.

Maliki was visiting the Sadr City slum to pay respects to some of the 202 victims of last week's devastating bombing.

"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a hostile crowd began to surge around the premier and then jeered as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony.

The area is a base for the Mehdi Army militia led by Maliki's fellow Shi'ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Though the violence was limited, it was a dramatic demonstration of the popular passions Maliki and his national unity government are trying to calm following Thursday's multiple car bombs in Sadr City -- the worst since the U.S. invasion -- and later revenge attacks.

On Sunday, a car bomb killed at least 6 people and wounded more than 20 in a market just south of Baghdad, police said.

On the third full day of a curfew on the capital, mortar bombs crashed down in various parts of Baghdad and residents reported isolated and mostly unexplained clashes.

The government has said traffic can circulate again from Monday morning but, after a series of high-level meetings, it again appealed for calm.

[AmishDude]

There's another reason it's not Vietnam, we were very lucky that (Soviet) Communism managed to collapse on its own. We won't have any such luck with Islam.

[Terpfen]

I know it's possible that way, but I'd much prefer an official implementation. Easier to manage.

Thanks for the tip, though... if you finish it up, I might be interested in trying it.

[jwalsh07]

That's right, the demographics are a killer. This has to be addressed now, not 30 years from now.

[George W. Bush]

It would have been if Americans and their politicians hadn't grown soft and fat and spoiled and demanded a complete "pull-out". The sacrifices of our soldiers would have reaped mega benefits had they been encouraged, supported and permitted to finish the mission.

Alia, the real problem was that what we offered them was something they didn't want. Not everyone in the world wants a western democracy or human rights or a constitution or a judiciary. Quite often, they're more worried over tribal and national rivalries or ancient grudges or they see occupying Americans as a continuation of something they always hated. In Vietnam, we lacked fundamental political appeal. The same in Iraq but with a culture that loathes the West and a fanatic religion hostile to every tenet of western democracy and human rights.

We are rich and powerful on a scale unparalleled in history. But that really doesn't mean that everyone wants to be just like us. Human nature isn't like that, however good our intentions toward these countries. Vietnam demanded the freedom to decide for communism. Now, a generation later, they're retreating from it as fast as they can and Bush is treated like a rock star. Did we 'teach' them that? No. Nations have to learn some things for themselves. It's part of the meaning of being a nation.

[RobbyS]

A return of the draft? Unless you were trying to enlarge the Army by several divisions, what good would that have done? And how would you train and use that army? It would help in the rotation, but the general weakness it would add might offset any gains. A new division is like an expansion team in professional sports. But I take your point about the symbolic effect of such a move, It would demonstrate the seriousness of the war and, more important. give the Pentagon a lerger share of the budget. On the other hand, it would weaken the services by encouraging the profligacy of the services. Around 1998, DodD was reported as having lost track of $20 billion. God knows where the money went;the Pentagon certainly did not, and most certainly not the feckless SECDOD, who had relinquished civilian control of defence.

[woodbutcher]

Other than FR, I don't know people in real life that are actually passionate about Iraq. And I hardly know a Democrat. Maybe it's just my area but I don't think so, judging by the election returns.

---

And that is where Bush screwed up the whole Iraq thing.

The average man on the street does not care whether the Iraqis have a democracy.

Bush should have explained, not once in passing, but over and over day in and day out that Iraq must be kept out of the "axis of evil" because its oil money is sufficient to fund the purchase of any weapon. That the organization of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and others into one group would create so much cash to be used to purchase weapons and so many fanatics, that we would have real problems.

Look what the oil for food program did. It corrupted the UN, France, Germany and it is yet to be learned who else.

So enough money to corrupt all of Europe and purchase anything and everything from Russia and N. Korea makes it important that we break up any such unholy alliance.

That is where Bush missed it. Blurting out every so often that democracy is a wonderful thing and that it is hard work is hardly the way to explain that it is an issue of national security.

[George W. Bush]

I know it's possible that way, but I'd much prefer an official implementation. Easier to manage.

JohnRob started and made a good effort. You can see examples of it on a couple old threads and mirrored over at my website. But then he just dropped it back in 2001. After I looked at the HTML required, I finally understood why. FR would have to use 2-3 times as much bandwidth to do it right. If you script it on the client side (in the browser), no extra bandwidth at all.

I should do a public release. Sometimes I forget FR is still in plain text because mine shows, well, you probably saw it at my website. Thanks for the interest.

[RobbyS]

I think you forget that the problem is not what the people want but what their leaders want. None of the leadership has a large popular following. However, I think that one mistake the administration has made all along is to underestimate the number of those who were determined to resist a new order. If there is any solace, Lincoln made the mistake. Consistently in March and April, 1961 he overestimated Union feeling in the South. He even overestimated its extent in Kentucky, a state he knew fairly well. BTW, we might enlarge our views if we take a look again at Reconstruction in the South. We certainly didn't get that right.

[George W. Bush]

The point I am making is that we must not have unreasonable expectations. In promising democracy, the administration h helped raise those expectations much too high.

I think it's unreasonable to believe you can 'give' democracy to a backward and uneducated population with fundamental cultural and religious antipathy to human rights, democracy, liberty. After WW I when the Kaiser was forced out and a democracy created, Germany didn't learn enough to avoid the Nazi regime, just as an example.

The 'gift' of democracy is actually a rarity. Real democracies are born painfully, with pain and loss of blood. It's part of what makes them endure. Certainly, there are Iraqi patriots who have shed blood for the sake of a free Iraq. But they seem such a small group. Even if the majority of the population agrees with them (and I don't think we know), the average Iraqi is just scared of the insurgents, the police, the Americans and rival tribal/religious factions. It's hard to see in Iraq a creche for liberty and democracy. Too many strikes against them and an American public that doesn't want to make the sacrifices for such a dubious prospect.

The only example of Muslim democracy, Turkey, isn't exactly encouraging.

[Terpfen]

2-3 times the bandwidth for an ignore poster feature? That's some complicated code... maybe FR should migrate to CSS to make it a simple matter of auto-collapsing posts by a certain user. Of course, I'm no web design expert...

You're quite welcome for the interest. Looking forward to a release of that script.

[George W. Bush]

And that is where Bush screwed up the whole Iraq thing. The average man on the street does not care whether the Iraqis have a democracy.

It's a little less the first than the second. You have to admit, the American people gave Bush a fair amount of time. And he still hasn't suffered a crippling political defeat, the kind we've seen with other war presidents. Support for the president and his policy in Iraq is still remarkably strong.

I can heap plenty of criticism on our prez on various occasions (Katrina, Harriet). But probably his greatest fault over Iraq is a Wilsonian belief that we can 'give' democracy to Iraq. But I don't doubt his sincerity. I do think he might have done better, maybe even succeeded, with a broader circle of advisers and with reassessing progress and strategy a year or so back but that's just griping with the benefit of hindsight. As has often been written about past presidents, the longer a president is in office, the more isolated he becomes. And Bush was responding to the largest attack on American soil in history, something easy to forget when we start pointing fingers over why we haven't won the peace in Iraq.

[RobbyS]

They said that the same was true of Korea. In 1953 it was a basketcase that makes Iraq seem sturdy by comparison. Howeverm it --and Turkey--shows that an essential institution is the army. The lack of homogeneity in Iraq makes it much harder to establish an effective force. If, however, the government can muster enough loyal "divisions." then it can hold on.

[Elsie]

"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a hostile crowd began to surge around the premier and then jeered as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony.

Bush was in the motorcade??

[George W. Bush]

I think you forget that the problem is not what the people want but what their leaders want. None of the leadership has a large popular following. ...

A very insightful post, especially about Reconstruction. But there is a difference. Americans of that era expected and demanded their liberties, no matter who was in power. And our ruling classes have almost always given that to them. It's part of why America works. You simply don't have that social and political dynamic in Iraq. Again, we can't 'give' them the experiences that lead to that. And reading about it in books isn't the same thing.

[George W. Bush]

2-3 times the bandwidth for an ignore poster feature? That's some complicated code... maybe FR should migrate to CSS to make it a simple matter of auto-collapsing posts by a certain user. Of course, I'm no web design expert...

Not just for an Ignore feature. But if you're going to do full CSS, Ignore is a tiny addition. BTW, custom CSS sheets was what JohnRob was doing. You could upload your own sheet and FR would serve pages to you with that stylesheet. It was cool but too expensive in bandwidth, it seems.

[George W. Bush]

They said that the same was true of Korea.

I'll grant your points. But do you think America is ready to make that kind of commitment to Iraq?

Again, I think they just answered that question.

[pacpam]

You must be a cut and runner that Kristinn posted above this weekend. Perception is reality and no matter what your rationale, you fit the description.

[woodbutcher]

It's a little less the first than the second. You have to admit, the American people gave Bush a fair amount of time. And he still hasn't suffered a crippling political defeat, the kind we've seen with other war presidents. Support for the president and his policy in Iraq is still remarkably strong

---

But that was my point.

Had Bush talked totally about national security and not mentioned democracy, he would not have so much carping now.

Had the Iraqis ended up with a democracy, fine. If we had to put some really tough guy in power to keep control, fine. Bush would not have been int he corner he is in now.

He is in the corner because he has talked about democracy so much that he can not zap Maliki and stick someone hard nosed in his place. The uproar would be unmanageable after having made so many lofty promises not to butt in but to let democracy find its own level.

[RobbyS]

Of course you are right. The basic problem is that few if any of the delegates in parliament have a true constituency. There is a disconnect between the "people" --even local sheikhs, I think--and the pols in Baghdad.

[RobbyS]

Yes, it is a bit like 1918 when the people turned out the Democrats, even though the Allies had won the war.