Talk Back Iraq

Iraq has had talk radio for a couple of months, which may be an even better harbinger than the country's new interim government. Yesterday, the Iraqi airwaves were reportedly filled with callers to Radio Dijla who were celebrating their new government, and threatening the thugs who have been menacing it.

The AP reported the texts of several calls. Here's one: "'I send my congratulations to all Iraqis and every Iraqi home,' a woman who identified herself as Um Yassin gushed, her voice choked with emotion. 'I want to tell Dr. Allawi to be bold, to be strong. We need him to build up the army because we need them at a time like this.'"

Is that kind of reaction typical? We obviously don't know, though it is matched by a number of Iraqi-in-the-street TV interviews shown in the U.S. If such acceptance does turn out to be widespread, then it would indicate that the new government could enjoy an early honeymoon of popular legitimacy on which it could build. It would also mean we'd have to rename that so-called "resistance."

Thanks to: Captain's Quarters (via Instapundit)

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

"I wish that were true, but I don't think so. Also, the problem with having US troops stay in Iraq, long term, is that the neocons who lied us into this war in the first place will try to agitate for the troops to attack yet another country if, in their opinion, that's what's best for the Israeli government."

Oh, for Chrissake ...

[rst]

is that the neocons who lied us into this war in the first place

This is the crux of it, Rick. You base your questions of what kind of a tragic fool's errand is our government perusing by continuing the occupation? on the notions you espouse about U.S. intentions, not on the act of occupation. Occupation is a reasonable expectation at the conclusion of a war. Perhaps you were under the impression they'd all meet by the pitcher's mound, high-five each other, and say, "good game"?

for how long must this result endure to justify the further expected loss of American life? And, what are the realistic prospects of said result actually enduring that long?

There are no answers to these questions, on any subject, at any time. One of the trappings of global leadership is that when the international "community" hems, haws, and rakes in oil voucher cash hand-over-fist at the expense of a country they've successfully marginalized into a political token, the onus is upon you to take actual action (=risk) instead issuing one meaningless resolution after another. The prevailing and erroneous assumption is that a consensus, real or perceived, of this international "community" represents the objective or correct approach to a conflict. It was chiefly our (admittedly few) American soldiers who died in Gulf War I for nothing: executing a U.N. mandate best translated as, "protect the oil." The proper course of action was not taken in 1991. For the lefties, it's easy to seize upon neocon rhetoric and propaganda as having convinced those who supported the resumption of hostilities. We were actually clamoring for this while you were busy bitching about Ken Starr.

[Rick Barton]

rst,

Despite the fact that we were neoconned into the war, the continued occupation has to stand on its own merits, including questions of principle, and be weighed against risks. The following question is vital:

What reasonably expected result in Iraq could possibly justify any further expected loss of American life?

"For the lefties, it's easy to seize upon neocon rhetoric and propaganda as having convinced those who supported the resumption of hostilities."

Oh right, "lefties" like Paul Craig Roberts, Ivan Eland, Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Rep. Ron Paul, The Conservative Union, Cato, and now Bill Buckley.

"We were actually clamoring for this while you were busy bitching about Ken Starr."

What?? I'm not a lefty! Not only was I not "busy bitching about Ken Starr"; I was grateful for the GOP majorities in congress which put the clamps on Clinton's big government agenda. I did my part to help this majority for more limited government come to fruition.

[Rick Barton]

Let us suppose that this reaction is indeed typical or, at least, that it represents a majority point of view. It may well. Let us also assume that the polls showing overwhelming Iraqi support for the departure of US government and other foreign troops is accurate. (The polls indicate that even among the Kurdish population there exists majority, "troops go home" sentiment)

Surely it argues for our government to pull out, if given that the Iraqis want stability and independence to such an extent that even this largely symbolic power transfer is inspiring the celebration and animosity against the "thugs" that is featured on talk radio. And that; the presence of the power of US troops is the magnet for generating the violence, and strengthening the numbers of those who choose this violence, as it must, given the mass desire of the Iraqi people to see our troops split.

If there really exists so much desire for civil governance, then they don't actually "need" foreign troops any more then they want them. And, if this desire is not really there, then what kind of a tragic fool's errand is our government perusing by continuing the occupation?

Also, wait till it fully dawns on the Iraqi people, en masse, that this new "sovereignty" doesn't include the power to order foreign troops out of their country, or even the power to rescind laws passed by the occupation government!

What reasonably expected result in Iraq could possibly justify any further expected (even greater in light of the torture scandal) loss of American life and tax dollars?

For any who have an answer to that question, here are two follow ups: Even if this result is realized; for how long must this result endure to justify the further expected loss of American life? And, what are the realistic prospects of said result actually enduring that long?

Discuss 😉

But seriously; if you don't have any good answers to those three questions, then please join me in asking congress to bring our troops home from this elective war:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Also; how may we use capitalism and the creativity of free markets to help Iraq be free? They are reputed to be a very entrepreneurial people, and I've even heard (from a war supporter from the AEI) btw, that the drain on the Iraqi power grid has been caused by rampant consumerism on the part of the Iraqi people. Regardless of the veracity of this report, there have got to be some good possibilities here for people of good will.

[So Original]

"neoconned into the war"

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Did you write that one?

That is a NEW one!

[kevrob]

You've got to be careful when you call in on Iraqi talk radio. When they cut off a caller, they really cut off a caller. 🙂

Kevin

[Jon H]

It's not clear to me that callers with more negative (or even violent) opinions would get on.

From what I've heard of the show, the ground rules for callers exclude calls for violence, etc, trying to keep things civil and positive.

So I'm not sure how representative the sample is.

[John]

Rick,

The Iraqis want the US occupation to end, but they also understand that they need help fighting the forgien Islamofacists and Baathists in their midsts. Right now there is no effect Iraqi Army or security force. Without that, how do the Iraqis deal with the violence without US help? Further, you are very nieve to think that a withdrawl of US forces would cause the insurgents to leave Iraq. A democratic Iraq is a threat to both the Islamofacisists and the despotic governments around Iraq. All of them have an interest in seeing Iraq fail and degenerate into chaos. There is no way to prevent this without US military support. I will say however, that Iraqi support of the interim government argues for a US withdrawl sooner rather than later and may mean that the US will not have to spend years in Iraq. I don't see how pulling out the troops now does anything but snatch defeat from what appears to be the jaws of victory.

[Jon H]

RC Dean: "Sure, but "permanent" in the sense of "not tents", not "permanent" in the sense of "not leaving if asked.""

Yeah, I'm sure that if Iraq asked us to leave, we'd just go meekly and not mention some very unfavorable adjustments in US policies.

We might well leave if they ask, but we'll give them lots of incentive not to ask.

[Mark Bahner]

"It would also mean we'd have to rename that so-called 'resistance.'"

I don't call them the "resistance," because almost all of the Iraqi weblogs I visit don't them that. They call them terrorists.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/

http://www.roadofanation.com/

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

...and others.

[crimethink]

Rick,

My understanding was that if the interim govt asks the US to pull out, we will. Of course, they know that at this point that would be suicide, so it's not going to happen, but technically we are there with their consent.

[Jim Walsh]

The thing you gotta remember about talk radio is that the people who actually call are not representative of the public at large

[Gary Gunnels]

Rick, John, etc.,

I think its fairly arrogant presume that any of us know what the Iraqis want.

[Ironchef]

But we can speculate?

It's also fairly arrogant that my government presumes to know what I want as well.

[c]

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable for our government to presume to know what we want, since our government is made up of people we elected.

[Fred Gillette]

Aren't we building military bases there? You know, the permanent kind?

[Rick Barton]

R C Dean:

"It is the possibility of capturing the Iraqi nation, or at least preventing it from becoming an anti-Islamist outpost, that draws and inspires the "opposition"."

Under Saddam's regime, Iraq was a viciously anti-Islamist outpost for the resident Islamists.

"If there were no Americans, do you really think AQ, Hezbollah, the Syrians and the Iranians would go home? Of course not.

It wouldn't matter since there is a huge homegrown opposition. Why don't you think that American government involvement alone would motivate some foreign opposition? American government intervention motivated 9/11.

It's my understanding that the total foreign opposition is pretty small. The Syrians are nearly absent. What fraction of the opposition do you believe is foreign? I've heard it's less than 5%. Why do you put quote signs around the word: opposition? Surely, they are that.

[Stephen Macklin]

Fred,

I think it is a fairly safe bet that even when direct U.S. military involvement ends there will be troops based there. I also don't think this is a bad thing.

[anon]

Stephen:

"I also don't think this is a bad thing."

With all due respect, it does not matter what you (or the US government) think, if in fact the US government is going to listen to what the Iraqis want.

[Patriot]

anon:

With all due respect, it apparently DOES matter what the US goverment thinks about Iraq. Just ask the Iraqis.

[R C Dean]

Aren't we building military bases there? You know, the permanent kind?

Sure, but "permanent" in the sense of "not tents", not "permanent" in the sense of "not leaving if asked."

And that; the presence of the power of US troops is the magnet for generating the violence, and strengthening the numbers of those who choose this violence, as it must

Well, no. It is the possibility of capturing the Iraqi nation, or at least preventing it from becoming an anti-Islamist outpost, that draws and inspires the "opposition". If there were no Americans, do you really think AQ, Hezbollah, the Syrians and the Iranians would go home? Of course not.

[brooklyn dave]

Things are in such a state of flux in Iraq and none of us has a crystal ball to forsee the the outcome of this war, I think the most honest thing we can expres here is our hopes that the US will not get itself totally bogged down in a situation that it can't extricate itself from or refuses to give up the role as a future puppeteer
by controlling whatever Iraqi government is in place from behind the scenes. First of all, the acting pre-emptively is rather novel for American foreign policy (please correct me if I am wrong).
I don't advocate this doctrine or whatever you want to call it as standard policy for American military actions, and neither do I advocate being the world's policeman in getting involved in every conflagration around the globe. But now that we're involved In Iraq, we have to act responsibly. It's fairly obvious that the pro-Baathist faction and the Islamicist groups are working hand in hand. American forces have to stay there because the Iraqi government doesn't has the means to fight them alone. As I said, there's is too much on the horizon that hasn't materialized yet, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of agendas out there.

[Rick Barton]

John,

You may call it "naive", but since the main focus of the anger is the US government, the practical case for its leaving seems obvious.

Demonizing the opposition to the US occupation by calling them "Islamofacisists" and "Baathists" is not very helpful since; 1) Our government has recruited some Baathist biggies for the interim government. And, 2) Fundamentalist Islamists were among those who were most brutally persecuted by Saddam. This US appointed interim government is going to have ready and willing opposition because of this background.

Also; amazingly, the US government presence has served to unite other former Baathists and their Islamist victims in common cause against this presence.

You're for keeping our troops in Iraq but you didn't answer my three questions! ??? Not that I want to be pushy in any manner. 😉

[Rick Barton]

Gary,

My reason for saying that the Iraqis want the US troops to leave is opinion poll results. Although; if the results showed just the opposite, I would still be in favor of them exiting.

crimethink:

"My understanding was that if the interim govt asks the US to pull out, we will."

I wish that were true, but I don't think so. Also, the problem with having US troops stay in Iraq, long term, is that the neocons who lied us into this war in the first place will try to agitate for the troops to attack yet another country if, in their opinion, that's what's best for the Israeli government.

[rickfan]

it is clear that the very existance of the United States (because of trade, goodwill, etc) is benificial to the zionists.

therefor anyone who defends the US for any policy is a neocon jew-patsy.

[Gene]

Rick,
Your thought is quite wrong and hateful.

[Ricky]

Maybe all the polls show a large majority in favor of something because many Iraq people still feel it necessary to go along with everyone else and to keep their opinions to themselves.

[Rick Barton]

Gene,

If you think my thought is wrong, you need to explain why. I assure you that it is not hateful.

[Rick Barton]

"Speak for yourself. Some of us were rooting for a regime change back when the U.N."...Were there even neo-cons back then?

There are a lot of thug regimes whose demise I would like to see. Some of them, sadly, are supported by our tax dollars. This doesn't, however, mean that I'm willing to spend American lives and dollars in pursuit of my desire, nor force others to do so via politics. These regimes are not a threat to US security.

Iraq was never a threat to our security but still, rst you got your way. Do you really think that it was worth the 800+ American lives and the billions?

Yes; back then the neocons were advocating that the US undertake to overthrow Saddam and they were quite open about their conviction that this would be a good thing for thr Israeli government.

"*merit* has nothing to do with... the occupation."

What?? When there is a cost in American lives and dollars, the occupation has to be justified!

"How long it lasts depends on how long it takes for the occupied come to terms with it."

Even if the war wasn't based on lies, and Iraq was a security threat, how could further loss of American life be justified now that the threat is gone?

In the case of this war, the occupation should end by the US government admitting that they were wrong and going home.

"How myopic."

But, it reflects the fact that the overwhelming evidence indicates that American government intervention motivated 9/11.

"They want them, and we Americans who supported/created the Jewish state, dead."

Oh sure, just attribute muderous intent to all of the opposition and there is no reason to come to terms with the injustice of the brutal and thieving Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

Also, there is plenty ill will on the part of some
Isrealis and they have the ear of Sharon.

To understand the back ground of the racist, fundamentalist Jewish religious extremism that Israeli polity is currently gripped by, see the fascinating: Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak and also Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

[rst]

Despite the fact that we were neoconned into the war

Speak for yourself. Some of us were rooting for a regime change back when the U.N. tucked tail between its legs in '91 and started its oil-for-votes program. Shit I'm sorry, oil-for-food. Were there even neo-cons back then?

the continued occupation has to stand on its own merits

Says who? What are the merits of our presence in S.A.? They ask us to stay. Or perhaps it's just that they haven't asked us to leave. Either way, *merit* has nothing to do with it. At the end of the war is an occupation. How long it lasts depends on how long it takes for the occupied come to terms with it.

What?? I'm not a lefty!

What?? You mean not everyone who opposes the war is a lefty? Then maybe not everyone who supported it is a neo-con, or was "neo-conned".

American government intervention motivated 9/11.

How myopic. a.Q., Hamas, I.J., etc. don't want the Jews out of Jerusalem, Barton. They want them, and we Americans who supported/created the Jewish state, dead. It is not about politics, it is about genocide.