moron99

as always, I very much appreciate your updates and information. The stuff you say holds more meaning than anything in american newspapers. all they ever print in US papers how many carbombs today. They seem to have no interest in anything else. as odd as it may seem I think the american democrats two greatest enemies are Maliki and Allawi. I get the feeling that Iraqi people have had enough sectarian violence and are ready to get involved with ending it ... even if that means standing against someone from their own sect. and that is the key. it does no good for each to stand against the other. The violence will never end until people are willing to clean their own houses. I get the feeling that Maliki and Allawi may soon compete against each other to prove which of them can make the most difference. This would be outstanding for Iraq. If you have two powerful politicians competing against each other to look the most competent then strong and positive steps might be taken quickly. which is bad for american democrats. They have bet everything on failure. If Iraq starts making big steps then they will have tough time in next american election.

Thank you for the updates and information.

you make it sound so complex. It is not. You make it sound like something that happenned only in the past. It is not. It is simple and it is happenning right now. When the power of politics combines with the power of religion then it is more than one institution can bear. The institution becomes intoxicated with power and begins to wield religion as a weapon. It happenned to Christianity before and it is happening to Islam now. It is not some distant memory of 800 years ago. It is here. It is today. It is now. It is not the outcome of some Imams long since dead. It is the power and the product of the people who lead you today. They did not inherit this power from ancestors that are now dust. They take this power from you. They do not have an iron grip upon this power. It is held only through your silence and cooperation on Friday. It is you who give them power. It is your choice to challenge them in the name of Islam or remain silent as they use it to achieve political goals. The failing is not of Islam or of your leaders. The failing is of common Moslems who do not defend Islam from its greatest enemy .... other Moslems who covet power.

Iraq needs international friends who are strong enough to oppose to the radicals, dictators, and mullahs in the region. They are like hyena who will attack whenever the lion is not near. Until Iraq becomes a grown lion then it needs international (western) friends. As such the Iraqi government has no choice other than to publicly say "killers of MNF will not be forgiven". To say otherwise will be interpreted by western citizens as "we still want to kill all infidels". It is something that must be said in order to keep the powerful friends who can stand against the hyena. It is not something that actually needs to be done. IMO, the Iraqi government and western politicians only say this in order to appease americans who do not understand the difference between what must be said and what must be done.

there is only one poll that counts. it is the election day poll. in the last american election the newspaper polls showed us how deeply the american people disapproved of bush and the republicans. but the election polls told different results. another american election draws near and I see no reason to believe that newspaper polls will accurately predict election polls. voting for political leaders is a complex decision that invlolves every issue of governance. even the simplistic iraqi war polls do not bridge the gap between projected bias and true beliefs. When it is time to pull the lever americans are like any people in any mature democracy. They do not vote for those who are perfect and they do not vote on those who are most like themselves. They vote for those who will guide them towards a better future. And that's the poll that counts. I wish the democrats would see this. They have a chance to regain power. But they must first demonstrate their problem solving ability by putting together a solid and well reasoned alternative strategy. After the fanfare, emotional speeches, mud-slinging, thinly vieled media bias, parties, and conventions ... that's what wins November polls. Don't expect the republicans to change, regardless of straw polls, until there is a significant risk of the democrats fielding a better plan. It may well suck but it has already sucked for over 200 years. The result of all that sucking is one of the greatest nations ever created and a people who have never known anything except freedom and prosperity. So ... all things considered, I'm cool with a political system that sucks.

good stuff. the sunni and kurd have proven to themselves that democracy does not allow shia to step on them. shia have shown respect for their brothers by finding a compromise. Iraq has safely negotiated past another minefield on their way to democracy (and the eventual peace and prosperity that comes with it). One step closer. only a thousand more to go. your grand-children will thank you

This morning I had a thought about how different it must be to live in west versus gulf. We take the political competition and posturing for granted. It is not as messy here and the power struggles are rarely so blatant. The stumbling blocks have already been stumbled over and the solutions found so that our delays rarely come at critical times. We take so much of what our ancestors built for granted that we hardly even notice that it took them a lot of work to build it. It is easy for us to realize that democracy works best when the elected government separates the politics of election campaigning from the politics of governing. We not only accept this but we take it for granted and make jokes about it. ... "how can you tell when a politician is lying?" his lips are moving. or Ronald Reagans quip about prostitiution being worlds oldest profession and politics being second. We take for granted that once in office our politicians will assume a "one for all and all for one" mentalilty. But what if our ancestors had not spilled their blood building this for us? What then would we think? and so it occurred to me. How many other nations are there in the gulf where the top leader must compete for power in front of media and people? How many other gulf nations are there where the politicians accept that their power will only last for four years? If this type of political process were new to us would we be overwhelmed by frustration? Or would we accept the frustration because the prize is freedom from tyranny. Would we be more sad, more glad, or more mad? How would we feel. More to the point, how do Iraqi's feel? What do Iraqi's want? I sure would be appreciative if someone in Iraq would expound upon this.

Salim, I respect your opinion enormously. You have shown great insight and understanding for as long as I have been reading your comments. But I have expressed myself poorly. Alawi is gone. He is not the right man for the job because he would alienate too many shia. The Shia are also equal as individuals and most important as a group. Alawi is not the right man for the job. But neither is Jafari. What I am meaning to say is that the UIA is not being responsive to the needs of all Iraqis and therefore not living up to their duty to the nation. Once the election is finished their loyalty is to Iraq first and those who voted for them second. Democracy does not work if leaders are more loyal to their party than to their nation. If I were to be specific then I would say that most Sunni arab do not have adequate representation in government. The sunni political parties are too closely tied to the old money and the old power brokers. That leaves 75% of the sunni arab having no one to speak on their behalf. It is the government's responsibility to protect them irregardless of voting numbers. UIA won the election and so it is now their job. If they truly want a democratic nation then they need to find a way to bring in that 75% ... even if it means sleeping with the devil. There will be no peace until that 75% trusts the government and wants it to succeed and prosper. When they feel that way, then they will start to report anyone who helps the terrorists. I believe it is the shortest road to peace and I believe that it means forgiving those who supported the baathi. The other road is to beat them into submission and then after they are peaceful reward them with representation. That will be a long and violent road. As I said earlier, if Iraqi choose that road then I'm not so sure that I support America spending more of her blood and money.

The problem as I see it ... all those baathi and saddamme who used to live in control of money, politics, and power are being locked outside. There are many. In order to terrorize an entire country and operate a secret police with so many eyes you will need one in one hundred who are willing to be part of the oppression. In Iraq that is 250,000 people. Then for a government to survive it must have the tacit cooperation of at least 5%. That's another 1,250,000 million people. By locking them out the government is turning 1.5million against it. The queda could never have operated in Iraq if there were not Iraqis helping them. Those Iraqi who helped them did not (do not) see a future in democracy. There will be no peace until the cost of waging war is less attractive than the rewards of participation. Peace will be found more quickly by increasing the reward as well as the cost. Specifically, peace requires finding a way to bring the 1.5million baathi/saddamee back into your family.

IMO - It sounds like IA and Americans believed false information and thought that the building was full of terrorists. (IA has armor now and is regularly conducting ground operation while american helicopters stay above). Then when they show up with armored vehicles and helicopters. The people inside see all the soldiers and think they are sure to be killed and/or tortured. So they defend themselves and security forces think that the shooting means terrorists. Next thing you know security people are in attack mode. I haven't heard of any killed or wounded IA/MNF so I think that the people inside were not very well armed. Now everyone is trying to avoid saying that they made mistakes and that the situation spun out of control. There are probably hundreds of times when someone tells security that their enemy is a terrorist when he is not. IA and Americans need to find out why this spun out of control and make sure that it does not happen again.

Guest, The founding principle of modern democracy is that all people are created equal and that the purpose of government is to serve and protect all citizens equally. The elected government does not have the right to treat those who voted against it with any less respect than those who voted for it. The process of voting selects leaders but it does not usurp constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom. The elected government bears equal responsibility to protect baathists as badrists as kurds as sunni as shia as christian as jew. For democracy to work the government must seek to serve all citizens. If it seeks to serve the interests of only those who voted in its favor then civil war becomes unavoidable. Specifically, the responsibility of UIA is to all of Iraq. Once they take the oath of office they are no longer servants of those who voted for them. When they take their chairs they must become bigger people and serve the nation as a whole. UIA has not done this. They do not see themselves as servants to all of Iraq. As such, I think that they will perpetuate war with ex-baathi and sunni. If they embraced democracy as a way of governance rather than a way to power then they would reach out to their enemies and seek compromises that value all citizens equally. I have not seen this in the past and I do not see it now.

I believe that the people of Iraq want security. I believe that security is their top concern whatever color their finger. I further believe that the Iraqi politicians are talking with a forked tongue when it comes to the security file. The people of Iraq are more willing to accept peace than thier leaders. But each of these leaders has a group of loyal followers who will breach the security interests of all in order to increase the power of their group. 90% of the Iraqi people are caught in the middle and sufferring poor security because of the leaders (both within and oppossed to government) and their 10% following. Iraq needs a leader who is for the interests of all iraqis regardless of sect. You will probably arrive at your destination either way, but a leader who is for the people and of the people will leave far fewer dead bodies in his wake.

I have been watching the Iraqi government since almost two years ago and have seen two administrations. I am unsure if Alawi gave power to people he knew were thieves or if he just inherited a legacy of corruption. Having witnessed the looting, I tend to think that Iraqi people needed to go through a phase where they took back some of what Saddam stole and this extended into the realm of politics where there was/is a period of "grab it while you can". Nonetheless, Alawi as a leader was strong but fair. He was Iraqi first and sectarian second. When forced to choose he would chosse Iraq the nation over his tribe or sect. Then the UIA came into power and the desire seemed to move away from looting and towards revenge. As Jafari's government was called upon to make choices they consistently refused to share power with Sunni or make any effort to reintegrate the baathi. I still believe that this path will lead to many more years of sufferring. The government of Saddam was not one man. In a nation of 25 million he would need at least 250,000 loyal followers, another 250,000 complicit agents, and another 1 million who found his regime favorable to their interests. A government who seeks vengence and distributes distrust with a broad brush will find no peace simply because it has 1.5 million enemies. The best they can hope for is to brutally supress the 1.5million until their house is complete. I think "revenge" is another phase that Iraq must pass through in order to purge themselves of Saddam's stain. However, I think the most of the Iraqi people have passed through this phase and are ready to move on. The actions of UIA however, indicate that they are not. If they are to be true leaders then they must put more value upon being Iraqi than they place upon being Shia. They must go to the table and ask the Sunni - "what would it take for you to join us in peace?". It is a simple question that I have never once seen them express an interest in asking. Instead, they embrace the idea that since they won the most votes then everyone must bend to their will. It is a formula for four more years of car bombs, assasinations, and death squads. My conclusion is simple. The people of Iraq may not want war but they are unwilling to make the compromises required for peace. If you choose to reject peace, then war is the natural outcome (whether you want it or not). It does not matter to me whether or not Iraqi people or leaders accept the responsibility of their choices. If they choose to reject the conditions for peace then I do not see why America should keep spending her blood and money.

"the long war" might not be so long after all. Self-serving, uncompromising, greedy, stubborn, sectarian, nepotistic, and corrupt Iraqi politicians are quickly turning the stomach of american voters. These are the people that Iraqis chose to lead them. Americans don't neccessarily have to follow. If Iraqi choose to have a pile of shit for government then I don't particularly see why that has to be America's problem. Four more years. If they elect another batch of suck-ass leaders in four years, then I say frig-it. We gave them shovels and they decided to build barricades instead of irrigation canals.

Live by the sword. Die by the sword. The UIA has conducted itself in accordance with the policy that whomever has the largest slate gets to have nearly complete control. They have used this control to the detrement of others. Now the "others" want to form an even larger slate. It would seem hypocritcal for UIA to reject the wishes of a slate even larger than themselves. But realistically, they will not be faced with this problem. The "other" slate is an inclusive coalition by its very creation. It will also have the US ambassador working hard to promote unity. So it will seek to include UIA instead of bully them around. You may object at first because of the fear of letting sunni back into government. However, you will be better off with an inclusive coalition running your government than the UIA bully. UIA has done a very bad job in their first year. Four more years with them at the helm and your country will be ruined.

Texas gentleman, language is dynamic. each new genration thinks slightly different meaning of a word. With the passage of time the words will have an entirely different meaning. "Democracy" is such a word. To a westerner "democracy" means a complex system of power sharing that protects each minority while choosing leaders from open ballots. To others "democracy" is still taken literally. What we need to determine is what the people of Iraq want. Do they want the stability, security, and prosperity of modern democracy? Or do they want the power of majority? Perhaps what they want is something in the midlle? Perhaps what they want is "majority rules" for a short duration (in order to perform a social purging) followed by a transition to stability? This is a subject that has never been explored or explained to us westerners. It is also a source of much disagreement that leaves our leaders without clear direction.

bahirj, the document aims to create a successful modern democracy. There is a difference between theorectical demcracy and functional democracy. Theorectical democracy has not proven itself stable wheras modern democracy has. Theorectical democracy becomes a winner takes all government. A government where 51% of the population can excercise saddamee oppression against the other 49%. Modern democracy is a hybrid between representative republic and democratic state. It yields power shares in accordance with population and intentionally exagerates the power of small minorities in order to avoid resentment and sedition. Since there are democratic underpinnings, the minority can never impose itself upon the majority and the net result is avoiding the oppression of minorities. I read the document you referenced as a list of suggestions to guide Iraq towards a functional modern democracy and away from the traps of theorectical democracy. There is a phrase "tyranny of the majority". I think what the paper is saying is that Iraq is heading into such a condidtion. That if steps are not taken to push Iraq away from theorectical democracy and towards modern democracy then a revolt of the minorities with ensuing civil war might be inevitable. I agree. If Iraq's government continues to embrace the "winner takes all" mentality of politics then the violence will increase rather than decrease.

As for the reference to the Reichstag comparison, blowing up the Reichstag was an attempt to gain the nazi's more credibility,more legitimacy, was it not ? Of course this is debatable since there is no proof. And I am no history professor so some of the details may be incorrect. but my understanding is .... Reichstag is one of the most historic and revered buildings in Germany. It is the house of parliment. The Nazis set it on fire and blamed the communists. In response Hitler arrested all communists, declared an emergency, suspended constitutional rights, and deployed his stormtroopers to seize control of key buildings and areas. The german people thought the nazis were protecting them from outsiders and hitler bacame dictator. In short, the nazis staged the fire in order to declare an emergency, attack their enemies, and seize power. shame of it is ... the germans were fooled and hitler became dictator.

What I believe the average american thinks: The shia and sunni are two sides of same coin. Each of them spits at the other but neither one is willing to accept what the other wants. There will be no peace until each is willing to accept the other for what they are, as they are. Each of them thinks that they can force the other into submission. But you can not force another to become what you wish. Nor can you force another to trust you with their future. Trying to force the other will only result in another saddam and another inevitable spiral towards war. It is not justice for Iraqis. Whether the new saddam is shia or sunni or kurd or any other sect ... it is still not justice. You can keep fighting or you can lay down your weapons work towards a shared future. In time you will again embrace the differences as a source of strength. The healing can not start until the shia and sunni stop spitting upon each other. The shia must forgive sunni and baathi of their past sins. The condition for forgiveness is to accept a shared government and to bear no arms against it or anyone who supports it. Upon this condition the shia must stop seeking the death of people for past crimes and they must purge themselves of sectarian death squads. The sunni must be willing to forgoe their belief in entitlement and they must be willing to pursue their goals within the framework of shared governance. Upon this acceptance they must purge themselves of terrorists and insurgents. Then there will be peace.

I keep wondering - "who would do such a thing?" Who would destroy a thousand year old piece of history in order to influence a two year old politic???? I would like to blame Queda but it's not like them. Only a building was hurt. Queda likes to kill people. I would like to blame insurgents but it's not like them either. They blow stuff up close to where they live. But they don't blow up their own tourist attraction. I'm tempted to blame Iranian agents but this seems to risky for them. They are in a position of relative strength and it would be dumb to risk that strength. Same with Badr. It's tempting to blame the americans just because they are so easy to blame. But their ambassador has been working hard for two months to close sectarian divides and this really hurts him. The american soldiers wouldn't be allowed to do something that hurts the ambassador efforts. So it's down to three suspects. Sadrists who want to make power grab, baathists who want to keep sunni from joining government, or rogue operators acting without higher approval. What do the people in Iraq think? Who do they think would commit this act? Why would anyone do this???

I am hearing a lot of people say "This all smells of burning down the Reichstag to blame someone else." As more events unfold, I become less inclined to disagree.

I think you are talking about the motives behind greedy power. Frankly, that is moot. It is a theorectical argument that is between the man and allah upon the time of his death. Here on earth it does not change a thing. Before your grandchildren grow old there will be an evil man who sits upon your throne. It can not be stopped. If you are not prepared in advance then it will take a war to remove him. The only wise course of action is to be prepared in advance. Specifically to build a system that self-regulates, allows evil men to be removed without war, and balances power so that no single man can control more than 30%. If you allow the rule of law to be independant of money and religion then you have the ability to build such a system. If not, then not. What good is theory if it does not deliver any working solutions? Nonetheless, if you wish to discuss motives ... As an example about other motives I would give you the founding fathers of America. During the war of revolution they became convinced that one day they would be famous. They thought that they would plant a seed that would grow into a mighty tree and topple the kings of Europe. They competed with each other for a place in history. It is in their letters and transcripts where each of them wanted to be more famous than the next. They clamoured for debate so that they could come up with (and get credit for) being the great thinker who changed the world. Each of them wanted to go down in history as one of the greatest men to ever live.

"All the world is build like that - few people are govern the countries and all the rest live in it. The biggest problem is that people who are govern the countries are not enought clever and ''clean'' inside to govern it.They are just wrong people." To use your words ... Men who are clean inside do not like having power. Men who are not clean inside can never get enough. The idea of ever having a government that can find enough clean men and keep out the bad is an impossible dream. To make up another quip: Looking for good men that are willing to lead a country is like searching for oranges from a cart full of lemons. It is wiser to find a recipe for lemonade.

The M/B is a parasite upon Islam. They pick and choose with parts of Islam they will follow and which parts they will ignore. It is sad. There are too many people in this world who use god only as a step-ladder so that they may more easily reach power. as per my "quip du-jour" from last week's blog. religion is like a flashlight. It is meant to help us find our way through the darkness but many prefer to use it as a club. I do not think there there are two groups more befitting this description that either the M/B or the Taleban. IMO, the entire cartoon jihad tragedy is the work of the M/B and their disciples.

It is important that you allow the source of law (politics) and media to be independant from faith and money. Each of them will be led by men who want their pole to dominate. The three of them pushing against each other is what creates the stability. If they are not in competition and conflict then the structure is less stable. What people need protection from is men like Saddam. There is no sacred ground for them. They will don the robes of a priest and retend to be pious when it suits them. They will build business, gather money and make charitable donations when it suits them. They will hold office and become a champion of the people if that suits them. You will never know where they are coming from because they are willing to use any vehicle to achieve power (including faith). You can never see what is in their hearts because they are skilled at hiding it. By having three poles you limit the amount of power that any one of them can ever achieve. As these types of men rise to the top of their pole they will push against the other two. Which is good. To think that there is only one saddam is to ignore human nature. To think that there are no others amoung you is a fatal mistake.