New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 29, 2005

Michael Young talks with former ambassador Peter Galbraith about Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds—oh my!

Comments

|11.29.05 @ 5:44PM|#

I think the constitution can help avoid a Bosnia-type war because it resolves many of the issues -control of oil, the future of Kirkuk, power at the center- that could trigger a civil war.

Mkay

We also need to step up our diplomacy in working to resolve issues -like Kirkuk- that could intensify Iraq's civil war.

Wait a minute. Have the "issues" been "resolved" or not? Has a civil war begun, just not "intensified", or are we waiting for it to be "triggered"?

I think a definition of resolve is in order.

TallDave|11.29.05 @ 8:57PM|#

Oh please, Galbraith barely pretends to be objective in his opinions. He's half advocating for a Kurdish state, half reciting Dem Bush-bashing talking points.

He was fairly accurate in factual terms, though. But I think he's a bit behind on Irai politics. Iraqi bloggers are reporting the religious parties like SCIRIR are not polling well, and have resigned themselves to, at best, one-third of parliament. So there, again, he belies his Kurdish advocacy by claiming Iraq is already irrevocably partitioned politically.

Not that there's anything wrong with advocating for them. I would guess he's probably getting paid pretty well for it. But if you want an honest opinion, you don't ask OJ Simpson's lawyers whether they think he did it.

|11.29.05 @ 9:20PM|#

Ooh, please, TallDave, update us on What's Really Going On In Iraq, that the former ambassador doesn't know about.

Let us know what you've read on the Internets.

|11.29.05 @ 10:49PM|#

Oh, I dunno, joe. If you lived in France or Germany and wanted to know what Americans on the street really thought about the current activities of their government, would you rather rely on:

1) Browsing through the writings of some American bloggers?

or

2) Reading a magazine interview with a former French/German ambassador to the U.S. with a possible axe to grind?

|11.30.05 @ 12:37AM|#

well that was refreshing...instead of countless lists of errors of bush and only general allusions to what should be done he gave only general critisisms and a list of what needs to be done.

and joe,

what stevo said...

BURRRNNN!!!

|11.30.05 @ 3:45AM|#

Good article. At least somebody is talking about putting a constructive plan of action together. We can doubt Galbraith's motives, but his assessement of the "insurgents"-who-are-terrorist monsters rings true. I doubt the hard core Sunnis are ever going to accept a Shiite-Kurd led government.

It's better to see some people debating a rational path forward, than listen to people who can't get their heads far enough out of their asses to stop Bush bashing and start thinking.

I have long argued that THE strategic security issue for the US is to prevent Iraqi oil from falling into the hands of a terrorism sponsoring government. I at least heard inklings of this in Galbraith's interview. Kudos for that. It's key to giving definition to the whole Iraq venture.

I too would put more stock in Iraqi blogs than anything else, to find out what's really the score in Iraq.


OTOH, the Kurds historically have banded together only long enough to throw off their oppressors. Once they've got that out of the way, they go back to shooting each other. They got split up among several different countries after WWI largely because they couldn't pull together politically and form their own state. The Kurds were way too busy fighting each other to fight for Kurdistan.

But that isn't our problem. If what Kurds want is freedom to shoot at each other, I shan't stand in the way.

|11.30.05 @ 3:54AM|#

(Because it is traditional...)

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNN!!!!

|11.30.05 @ 4:30AM|#

joe: PWN3D

|11.30.05 @ 9:17AM|#

Oooooh, too bad about the new thread, above.

You're going to have to cancel that pwned, fellas. How does "Armstrong Williams" translate into Arabic?

gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 1:38PM|#

mr darkly, i agree that galbraith may not be objective -- but you already know that the trolls of h&r aren't in the slightest. :)

i think galbraith hits a lot of right notes -- bush's policy was always detached from reality and is a complete political failure as a result, one of the most horrific american foreign policy episodes in the national history -- the country is in fact non-existent and has broken up -- the real winner is iran -- whether or not these rump states seek leverage over and/or persecute one another will determine whether or not civil war ensues -- and that america can do virtually nothing about any of it, just as it is powerless to defeat the insurgency. we pulled out the cork, and now cannot control the flow.

some will try to spin that into "success" because saddam is gone, i'm sure. those people should ask themselves what their presumed patriotism really means for the future of the united states, imo.

|11.30.05 @ 1:45PM|#

By the way, I wasn't intending to "pwn" anybody, but I just read the Armstrong Williams post. Seems to me it's just more evidence that you can't trust the traditional press, which is biased and unreliable. Smart people :) get their news from nontraditional Internet sources, which is usually biased but also more transparent, fact-checkable and dispersed (hence harder to control).

|12.1.05 @ 12:34AM|#

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNN!!!!

With my last breath I grasp at thee!


bush's policy was always detached from reality

gauis, you're so generous. I didn't know Bush ever had an actual policy. "Policy" implies "plan", and it is clear that nobody on the Bush team did any of that. Beyond saying "hmm, hey, we take Saddam out now" [shake spear in air, pull bear skin up before you a** shows].