To experience, to be an expert is to become aware of contingencies, therefore nobody is an expert except all of us who have become very expert about Iraq, but that expertise will be on no use in the next conflict. It seems to me that force is used because reality is completely resistant to manipulation. It is funny now to see “experts” on finance that have relied on computer systems that they themselves created being astonished by the failure of their assumptions. The same goes for global warming “experts” that rely on computer programs. In all seriousness how can you be an expert on global warming if you are part of it? There is an entity called cancer but every cancer is a particular instance of the disease and we approach it with great caution fearing the unforeseen and knowing that the result of treatment is completely beyond our will. People need priests to assuage their mortality fears and need experts to assuage their contingency fears. We would like to be in control but we have to be thankful that control is impossible. If it were possible there would be no progress because our universal tendency is to be happy with our own situation, avoiding stirring hornet nests. Iraq has shown us that there are people that prefer death to servitude and we really did not expect that, because our way of thinking is that we prefer, at least I do, the safety of the golden cage to the purity of the open air.

Posted by: jlcg | Aug 20 2007 11:17 utc | 3

Scott Horton has some feelers out in DC: A Change in the Offing on Iraq?

Up until about a week ago the expectation was that Bush would stick stubbornly to a straight continuation of the “Surge.” There was even some speculation that there might be a further ramp-up of forces over the 200,000 threshold, particularly in order to take into account the accelerated draw-down that Gordon Brown is expected to begin in the south.
However, I’m hearing that for a number of reasons, Bush is ready to move off this position and instead to move to a draw-down strategy of his own. It will not be anything like the British draw-down, of course. The plan I expect to see emerge on September 15 will be a very slow approach, most likely something like the plan that Senators Warner and Lugar put forward.
What’s driving the shift? This is what I’m hearing: …

Sounds reasonable to me, but for Iran …

Posted by: b | Aug 20 2007 19:10 utc | 5

After a lot of carping the U.S. forces will come to the same conclusion.
Yes. Unfortunatly a lot of bombs will fall on people until, that has some effect.

Posted by: b | Aug 20 2007 19:59 utc | 7

Debs, my take is that the Brits are leaving a “gift”. They did it some many times b4.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Aug 20 2007 21:46 utc | 9

@Cloned Poster The Brits certainly wouldn’t be leaving if they saw anything salvageable for themselves in Basra so although their departure is a domestic political necessity, it will also be a result of a determination ‘there is nothing in it for them’. As to whether they have left some snares for the unwary behind, well that is as certain as that they will also be leaving ‘agents of influence’ within SCIRI, Badr and probably even Moqtada al-Sadr’s political wing.
Once the brits are out they may find it in their interest to sabotage any settlement, unless there is a benefit for them but my guess is they are flying by the seat of their pants as much as the amerikans are. Both are trying to move a situation where nothing can be gained into one where there is an ‘edge for a careful punter.’
The only edge that amerika or england have attempted up until now is a military one and it has been similarly unsuccessful for both.
If that seems stupidly short sighted it may be that we forget that both the UK and the US have never managed to get control of either Mesopotamia or Persia for any sustained period using their preferred technique of leveraging control of the political structure with spying, assassination and blackmail. I guess brute force seemed for an instant, a viable alternative.
I’m sure they thought that both Iran and Iraq’s success in resisting their blandishments was rooted in the strong leadership of those nations. That theory is supported by the apparent unwillingness to let al-Sadr get control then try to cut a deal with him.
The assumption was that with a bit of chaos the nationalism would disappear. But it didn’t, if anything Iraqi nationalism is more firmly entrenched now than it was in 2003.
The piece of paper of an oil deal, may be worthless but it would have been something the UN could have been made to enforce, or worst case, a 100,000 contractors paid to ‘protect’ it. Without that an amerikan withdrawal would have nothing to show for it. One could argue that the entire Iraqi invasion was an attempt to assert corporate sovereignty trumped national sovereignty every time.
Amerikan leaders will be getting told by their diplomatic technocrats that no piece of paper on oil means no position to negotiate the inevitable claims for reparations away from.
I’m sure that a US withdrawal if it ever occurred would include pages of ‘no fault no claims’ clauses but once any popular Iraqi leadership came to power those deals would be queried and contested.
al-Sadr may be a real nasty type – who knows? We aren’t going to find out what sort of human he really is from any media source. If he were killed the movement trying to develop common ground between Iraqi nationalist Shia and Sunni would continue and probably eventually succeed as it is the only workable solution to the living hell that Iraq has become, but his death would slow down that ‘getting together’ and the imperialists are desperate for time.
I mean that is what the surge was about wasn’t it? Stalling and delaying a withdrawal in the hope that an appealing alternative would present itself.
That hasn’t happened and as much as the amerikan media may like to ignore the wanton slaughter outside Baghdad I’m sure most amerikans sense deep down exactly what is happening. There aren’t enough Paris Hiltons to cover it up.
So some sort of a change in the strategy must be implemented. It doesn’t have to be a deal with Iran and there is little evidence really to suggest that such a deal is likely, but it does have to be something.
I find it difficult to conceive that neither an Iranian deal nor an ‘accomodation’ with al-Sadr are being considered.
There will be other options, ones that the policymakers would consider more palatable but I dunno if any of the others would be nearly as likely to be successful.
Before the invasion USuk had absolutely no connections into the Iraqi political structure, hence the reliance on the oleaginous Ahmed Chalabi. now if they depart they both will have sufficient well meaning ninnies and sociopathic main chancers to cause a great deal of trouble.
Maybe not enough to get a western sponsored administration in control, but probably enough to act as a ‘spoiler’ on regime that wasn’t ‘friendly’ enough.
It makes me want to spew. The knowledge that the injustices will continue no matter what happens next.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 21 2007 0:59 utc | 11

Slogger Link to above

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 21 2007 1:36 utc | 13

Todays interview with Muqtada al-Sadr in the Independent.

By Nizar Latif in Kufa, Iraq and Phil Sands in Damascus
Published: 20 August 2007
The British Army has been defeated in Iraq and left with no option but to retreat from the country, claims radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Violent resistance and a rising death toll among UK troops has forced a withdrawal, he said in an interview with The Independent.
“The British have given-up and they know they will be leaving Iraq soon,” Mr Sadr said. “They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that, they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt.”
[…]
Only two guards with AK-47 assault rifles appeared to be protecting Mr Sadr in his office, a clear sign that Kufa and the surrounding area is firmly under the control of Sadr loyalists. It is not patrolled by US troops and access is policed by Iraqi security at heavily armed roadblocks.
Mr Sadr’s remarks echo those of senior British military commanders who have come to view the mission of UK forces in Iraq as finished. They have reportedly told the Prime Minister Gordon Brown there is nothing more to be achieved in southern Iraq and that troops should be redeployed to Afghanistan.
[…]
But Basra would be a safer place once the British military presence had ended, Mr Sadr insisted. “There will still be some problems in southern Iraq, there will be violence because some countries are trying to influence the situation,” he said in apparent reference to Iran. “But with the occupation of southern Iraq finished we will be freer to live our lives as brothers.”
Throughout last week a series of influential Iraqi sheikhs, including at least one senior Sunni tribal leader, visited the Sadrist headquarters as part of an effort to heal the rift between Sunnis and Shias. Aides to Mr Sadr said it was a priority to form a united nationalist front against all “foreign elements” in Iraq, with the Americans and al-Qa’ida to be considered equally as enemies.
Mr Sadr praised Iraqi Sunnis who had begun to fight against al-Qa’ida and religious extremists guilty of targeting Shia civilians. “Proud Iraqis in Ramadi have stood against al-Qa’ida and against the Americans and they have written their names into our history books,” he said.
Shrugging off recent rumours that he had fled to Iran – he dismissed them as American propaganda designed to discredit him – Mr Sadr denied US claims his forces were armed by Iran.
“We are at war and America is our enemy so we are entitled to take help from anyone,” he said. “But we have not asked for Iran’s help.” The cleric also said he “welcomed” a recent decision by the UN to expand its role in Iraq. “I would support the UN here in Iraq if it comes and replaces the American and British occupiers,” he said.
“If the UN comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work. I would ask my followers to support the UN as long as it is here to help us rebuild our country. They must not just be another face of the American occupation.”
[…]
“Al-Maliki’s government will not survive because he has proven that he will not work with important elements of the Iraqi people,” the cleric said.
“The Prime Minister is a tool for the Americans and people see that clearly. It will probably be the Americans who decide to change him when they realise he has failed. We don’t have a democracy here, we have a foreign occupation.”

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 21 2007 2:16 utc | 15

Iraqi parliamentarians call for removal of GW Bush

“I’ve concluded that this is a government which cannot, is unable to, achieve a political settlement,” Mr. Levin said. “It is too bound to its own sectarian roots, and it is too tied to forces in Iraq which do not yield themselves to compromise.”
In a conference call with reporters from Tel Aviv, Mr. Levin called on the Iraqi Parliament to vote the Maliki government from power because it had “totally and utterly failed” to reach a political settlement, and to replace it with a team better able to forge national unity.

Posted by: b | Aug 21 2007 6:08 utc | 17

Maliki visits Syria – if only he would heed the content of this piece.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 21 2007 18:41 utc | 19

Very interesting, this!

(…)Sheikh Ahmed al-Shibani, the official spokesman for al-Sadr’s office in Najaf,denied that Sadr had given an interview to the British newspaper The Independent on Monday.
“The interview published by the paper was fabricated and groundless. His Eminence (Sadr) has never granted this paper any interviews,” Shibani told VOI by telephone.
“We will sue any newspaper, TV station or web site that publishes fabricated news about His Eminence Muqtada al-Sadr or his office,” affirmed Shibani.
The Independent published on Monday an interview claimed to have been with Muqtada al-Sadr, in which it attributed to him statements saying that “the Britons have surrendered and know that they will leave Iraq soon thanks to the resistance they face.”

Posted by: Alamet | Aug 21 2007 23:55 utc | 21

Yaz.

Yaz birth control weight lose. Yaz drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol. Yaz winter kills. Yaz birth control. Yaz perfumes. Soviet yaz class.

Posted by: Yaz. | Jan 26 2010 8:27 utc | 23

Topamax and anxiety.

Does topamax cause depression. Topamax how long to work eating disorder. Topamax.

Posted by: Topamax help you loss weight. | Jan 30 2010 19:14 utc | 25