noteworthy wrote:
With every passing day, Johnathan Rapley's conception of the New Middle Ages seems increasingly likely.

I don't follow how this comment relates to the context. Most of the news out of Iraq seems positive. Of course its complicated and fragile, but clearly this is progress. Worrying that too many refugees might return is a good problem to have.

I also don't understand George Packer's comment that these developments were "unanticipated by almost everyone on the American side of the looking glass." These are precisely the kinds of changes that were hoped for as a result of the surge.

I further don't understand why the Democrats are still calling for immediate withdrawl. Putting more troops in (in a calculated way) reduced the violence. As I've said before I think this is exactly what Kerry planned to do. The tactics change was clearly a product of the Democrat's electoral victory in 2006. The fact that there is a chance for peace should not vindicate the decision to launch this extremely bloody conflict in any way. All in all, this should be seen as a political ad tactical victory for the center left. Unfortunately, the left seems to have married itself too closely to over simplified prowar vs. antiwar rhetoric. The fact is that the situation is fragile and calls for immediate withdrawl are not rooted in a careful assessment of the situation.

There is a big problem though. Kucinich has been raising some interesting questions about the privatization of Iraq's oil. I don't have a good linkable reference, but I'll post one when I find it. He might actually have a point, but no one is listening, and unfortunately a discussion of what people are doing with oil also fits too easily into over simplified rhetoric and so the issue has a good chance of staying ignored.

noteworthy wrote:

With every passing day, Johnathan Rapley's conception of the New Middle Ages seems increasingly likely.

Decius wrote:

I don't follow how this comment relates to the context. Most of the news out of Iraq seems positive. Of course its complicated and fragile, but clearly this is progress. Worrying that too many refugees might return is a good problem to have.

I am somewhat at a loss to understand you, but I will attempt to highlight a few things that are not quite so positive. (As Packer noted, the war is Kaleidoscopic, and the lag is really bad. It's like we are watching a war in a galaxy half a light year away.)

1. Amar has taken justice into his own hands, vowing to avenge Jafaar's death 100 times over. Amar 'works for' (gets paid by) the Americans, who have no idea he is a massive serial killer on the side. Deception abounds. No one trusts anyone.

2. The people in charge are warlords, not police. Presently, the violence is suppressed, but the underlying forces are unresolved. With an eye on the clock, the Americans have resigned themselves to arming and training their former enemies, so that at least someone is in charge, knowing all the while that no one can be trusted. Increasingly, America's only leverage is its impending departure. In the vacuum that follows, power will accrue to the two-gun-toting maniacal warlords, not to the technocrats, whose most notable recent accomplishment is a restaurant opening, apparently. (Never mind that people are generally unwilling to travel or be outside after dark.)

3. Most displaced Iraqis do not want to go back to their homes. They have given up on Iraq. Still, the returnees are not "a good problem to have", because many of their homes are now occupied (illegally) by people from opposing sects. Mrs. Aasan's family fully expected to get attacked when traveling after dark. She was "thrilled and relieved" that they managed to cheat death that night.

In regard to the Rapley reference, I was pointing in particular to these:

The country is drifting "towards a warlord state, along a Basra model, with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state."

Ameriya is a closed zone, surrounded by high concrete walls. Only pedestrians are allowed through the two Iraqi army checkpoints out of the suburb. The "knights" are the only authority inside.

"This is Ameriya, not Iraq!"

Biden ... who has been praised by his rivals as a thoughtful voice on Iraq, ... frames discussions ... around his plan to create strong regional governments in Iraq ...

So here you have a collection of autonomous city states, strongly opposed and intermittently warring with each other. Although the central state nominally controls the countryside, in practice it is a no-man's land, with no expectation of safe, free movement from city to city. Inside, the cities are ruled by authoritarian gangs, and corruption is rampant. There is no law -- only the whims of the men with guns.

Decius wrote:

I also don't understand George Packer's comment that these developments were "unanticipated by almost everyone on the American side of the looking glass."

He should have addressed that in his next post. Read it and see what you think.

I agree that calls for immediate withdrawal are unhelpful at best, and quite possibly much worse.

I think you are focused on the wrong stuff.

noteworthy wrote:
Amar has taken justice into his own hands, vowing to avenge Jafaar's death 100 times over....

Its a war. This is going to happen. If this sort of story were an impediment to peace no war would ever have ended.

Still, the returnees are not "a good problem to have", because many of their homes are now occupied (illegally) by people from opposing sects.

Yes it is, because previously no one wanted to return because it was too dangerous. When you're in hell, a day when only your feet get burned is a blessing. The fact that you'd prefer to spend the day in Iowa is beside the point.

Mrs. Aasan's family fully expected to get attacked when traveling after dark. She was "thrilled and relieved" that they managed to cheat death that night.

This is meant as an example of progress. Previously this would have simply been impossible.

The people in charge are warlords, not police. Presently, the violence is suppressed, but the underlying forces are unresolved. With an eye on the clock, the Americans have resigned themselves to arming and training their former enemies, so that at least someone is in charge, knowing all the while that no one can be trusted. Increasingly, America's only leverage is its impending departure. In the vacuum that follows, power will accrue to the two-gun-toting maniacal warlords, not to the technocrats, whose most notable recent accomplishment is a restaurant opening, apparently.

The restaurant is the point, which is why it is ridiculous to pin an assessment of the success of this stategy on phoney political benchmarks, many of which will never be reached precisely because the people of Iraq do not want to reach them, and why there is absolutely no way that this situation will be resolved in the few months the Democrats wish to give it.

It doesn't matter what these technocrats agree to on paper because fuel is the only thing paper is good for in hell. They have some security. The thing they need to do with it is build an economy. Restaurants. Retail stores. Industry. Start employing people.

When its easier to put food on ones table by serving sandwiches than by rolling around with the local thugs, people will serve sandwiches instead. It isn't going to be pretty and it isn't going to be quick, but eventually people will have better things to do than shoot eachother.

Decius wrote:

I think you are focused on the wrong stuff.

I hope you're right, but I don't think so.

Decius wrote:
I think you are focused on the wrong stuff.

noteworthy wrote:
Amar has taken justice into his own hands, vowing to avenge Jafaar's death 100 times over....

Decius wrote:
Its a war. This is going to happen. If this sort of story were an impediment to peace no war would ever have ended.

noteworthy wrote:
Still, the returnees are not "a good problem to have", because many of their homes are now occupied (illegally) by people from opposing sects.

Decius wrote:
Yes it is, because previously no one wanted to return because it was too dangerous. When you're in hell, a day when only your feet get burned is a blessing. The fact that you'd prefer to spend the day in Iowa is beside the point.

noteworthy wrote:
Mrs. Aasan's family fully expected to get attacked when traveling after dark. She was "thrilled and relieved" that they managed to cheat death that night.

Decius wrote:
This is meant as an example of progress. Previously this would have simply been impossible.

noteworthy wrote:
The people in charge are warlords, not police. Presently, the violence is suppressed, but the underlying forces are unresolved. With an eye on the clock, the Americans have resigned themselves to arming and training their former enemies, so that at least someone is in charge, knowing all the while that no one can be trusted. Increasingly, America's only leverage is its impending departure. In the vacuum that follows, power will accrue to the two-gun-toting maniacal warlords, not to the technocrats, whose most notable recent accomplishment is a restaurant opening, apparently.

Decius wrote:
The restaurant is the point, which is why it is ridiculous to pin an assessment of the success of this stategy on phoney political benchmarks, many of which will never be reached precisely because the people of Iraq do not want to reach them, and why there is absolutely no way that this situation will be resolved in the few months the Democrats wish to give it.

It doesn't matter what these technocrats agree to on paper because fuel is the only thing paper is good for in hell. They have some security. The thing they need to do with it is build an economy. Restaurants. Retail stores. Industry. Start employing people.

When its easier to put food on ones table by serving sandwiches than by rolling around with the local thugs, people will serve sandwiches instead. It isn't going to be pretty and it isn't going to be quick, but eventually people will have better things to do than shoot eachother.

I vote with Decius on this one