Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 22, 2007
The Surge’s Success

The "surge" was about pacifying Baghdad and giving space and time for political reconciliation. The first part didn’t work, but the second did – kind of.

Political reconciliation has taken place in Washington DC. While the Democrats were slightly against feeding more troops into the Iraq quagmire before the Congress summer recess, they have now turned around and will support Bush’s politics.

Quoting Clinton and Obama, WaPo reports:

The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.

To support the Democrat’s brave stand, the White House now adds to the
propaganda surge in form of a $15 million domestic TV and Radio campaign
run by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

In a race to the bottom the leading Democrats and other Bush dogs try to get Congress’ approval number below those of Bush. Not only by following Bush on Iraq, but also with toothless investigations. Senator Leahy is now even threatening Cheney by offering him further negotiations. What a courageous man. Glenn Greenwald remarks:

Congress is so deeply unpopular not because they are investigating or obstructing too much, but because they are investigating and obstructing far too little.

Yes Glenn, right. But that’s not a bug, but an inherent Democratic feature. Just ask Bush how he sees it.

In light of this, it will not be suprizing to see how the Democrats will lose the 2008 elections: Presidency, House and Senate.

But back to Iraq: The story of military progress in Iraq is of course utter bullshit. The only marginal progress the U.S. has achieved is by arming the Sunni tribes against some more radical elements (Someone in the Pentagon finally read Pat Lang’s book about the Anbar tribes.)

These tribes, now paid by the U.S. military, will of course not stop there. If the U.S. continues to pay them, they will attack the Shia, if the money flow stops, they will attack the Shia and the U.S. troops.

But this dubious temporary success was never part of the "surge" plan. It doesn’t count. The "surge" was about Baghdad’s security and time for a political process. Contrary to the claims of military success, both aims have been missed. 

A few days ago McClatchy’s Leila Fadel noted:

U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don’t support the claim.

The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.

That was written even before the biggest bombing since the U.S. invasion slaughtered over 500 Yazidis in Tal al Azizziyah. Today 14 U.S. soldiers died in a helicopter crash and more Iraqi policemen got killed too:

In Baiji, a fuel tanker rammed into a newly opened police station, killing at least 20 police officers and civilians, police said. The police department had recently moved into the new office after a truck bombing at their previous headquarters killed 27 people in June.

We can imagine how the military spokesperson will spin this one: "But can’t you see, casualties are down. This time only 20 got killed. That is thanks to the very real military success of the surge. And, by the way, we are pretty much sure that Iran was behind this anyway." Predictably, the Democrats will run with it.

As for the second part of the "surge", Maliki lost the majority in parliament, is politically isolated and now even Bush starts to criticize him. It’s about time for CIA asset Allawi to again take the lead role in the Green Zone puppet theater.

Not that it matters much. Iraq is broken and nobody can fix it. That is at least Nir Rosen’s devastating diagnosis:

Iraq doesn’t exist anymore. Baghdad will never be in the hands of Sunnis again. Baghdad will be controlled by Shia militias. They’ve been cleansing all the Sunnis from Baghdad. So Sunnis are basically being pushed out of Iraq, period. They can go to the Anbar Province, which isn’t a very friendly place.

I think you’ll see that there won’t be any more elections in Iraq. Maliki is the last prime minister Iraq will have for a long time. There is neither the infrastructure for elections anymore, nor the desire to have them, nor the ability of Iraqi groups to cooperate anymore.

So what you’ll see is basically Mogadishu in Iraq: various warlords controlling small neighborhoods. And those who are by major resources, such as oil installations, obviously will be foreign-sponsored warlords who will be able to cut deals with us, the Chinese. But Iraq is destroyed, and I think we’ll see that this will spread throughout the region, and this will destabilize Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, as well.

As Rosen intimately knows the situation on the ground, has been mostly right with his predictions so far and is not paid by the government, this should be considered the best available analysis.

But don’t expect Democrats in Congress to read or act on it.

(Btw: Take the time to read the whole Amy Goodman interview with Rosen. It also covers the refugees situation, Lebanon and Palestine.)

Comments

Homework assignment:
Both of these headlines appeared today:
1. Bush to cite Vietnam in defense of Iraq
2. Bush: History Will Prove Iraq War Worthwhile
Reconcile them (max: 1000 words)

Posted by: b | Aug 22 2007 13:54 utc | 1

“But Iraq is destroyed, and I think we’ll see that this will spread throughout the region, and this will destabilize Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, as well.”
Funny, I remember seeing this as quite the desired and expected outcome of some nation’s foreign policy…

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 22 2007 14:18 utc | 2

since only the second part worked, maybe we can now rename “the surge” to the more accurate “the slurp”.

Posted by: b real | Aug 22 2007 14:19 utc | 3

rosen could never be accused on mincing words in this interview. devastating analysis.

Posted by: annie | Aug 22 2007 14:56 utc | 4

The US will be in Iraq for at least 3 to 4 more years, at least.

Posted by: Mark G | Aug 22 2007 15:53 utc | 5

Yeah, because when we left Vietnam, everybody knows that the Viet Cong followed our soldiers home and started wrecking carnage on the streets of Houston…
Err, or maybe not. They were too busy re-building their nearly-totally-destroyed nation to worry about the United States. Just as the Iraqis will be if we leave there.
Can we put the idiotic “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” meme to death yet?

Posted by: Badtux | Aug 22 2007 16:08 utc | 6

Can we put the idiotic “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” meme to death yet?
if we forget it somebody might manufacture another 9/11 so we will take them seriously.

Posted by: annie | Aug 22 2007 17:08 utc | 7

mustn’t dissappoint the gut feeling crowd

Posted by: annie | Aug 22 2007 17:10 utc | 8

each sentence that is stuttered from the malevolant mouth of the buffoon bush stretches the sinister satire that constitutes the cheney bush junta
the comparisons today to vietnam(in which his only participation was being defferred) are the work of a speechwriter who has taken amphetamines up the ass
the only thing they have in common is the slaughter of innocents by u s forces
their defeat in iraq will be even more ingnominious than that of vietnam & every facet of that defeat will be well deserved

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 22 2007 18:46 utc | 9

ventiloquism, somnambulism & the same old shit

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 22 2007 18:52 utc | 10

the surge =Mahmoudiya & Mahmoudiya & Mahmoudiya & Mahmoudiya & Mahmoudiya & Mahmoudiya & Mahmoudiya

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 22 2007 21:40 utc | 11

the ground truth

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 22 2007 23:30 utc | 12

It’s not surprising that Bush created this disaster by pandering to Iraq’s religous right. For bin Laden determined to attack in America, Bush stayed on vacation. For the religous right that thought they could talk to a Vegtable, Bush promptly left his vacation. Of course to a party that gets elected by pandering to the religious right it is no surprise that Bush stuffed the Iraqi government with Iraq’s religous right. The separation of Church and State was thrown out the window to get Iraqi support for the invasion. SCRI and Dawa came under US protection and Hakim was given the red carpet treatment by Bush in Washington. The fire breathing cleric with speeches of Baathists, Saddamites and terrorists seemed the perfect fit with the US hunting Saddam and company.
This historic blood feud between the religious right,(horrified by Iraqi women shortening their skirts and wearing make up), and the Pan Arab nationalists is now front and centre in Iraq feeding the sectarian meme. This is the proof that Bush never intended to install a democracy in Iraq. Democracies beleive in the separation of Church and State. US Grunts are sacrificing thier lives protecting clerics in the Iraqi government modelled after Iran’s.
If you don’t have the Pan Arab nationalists you don’t have Iraq. Even Saddam knew that and that is why he pandered to their beleifs building shools and hospitals, allowing more freedoms for women, and the fire breathing clerics were banished from Iraq. On top of this Sistani made it clear that Iraq’s highest religous authority had no place in the government. Hakim ignored this example but Sadr did not. It is no wonder that Sadr is more popular.
If the US turns against the merger of Moque and State it created in Iraq it will be a stab in the back to those that supported the US invasion. What to do? Drive over IEDs for another 6 months I guess.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 22 2007 23:48 utc | 13

It’s about time for CIA asset Allawi to again take the lead role in the Green Zone puppet theater.
I don’t know why Allawi’s name keeps being brought up. Do you think maybe Iraqis miss the good old days when Fallujah and Najaf were burning?

Posted by: Sam | Aug 22 2007 23:51 utc | 14

No, this stage is about ethnic cleansing, setting the stage for partition. Cleanse first then Partition
Also, listen to Raed Jarrar tonight on flashpoints.net. He discusses the political stalemate ‘cuz xUS will Only support separatists, like Maliki, but Parliament is dominated by Shia & Sunni Nationalists.

Posted by: jj | Aug 23 2007 2:40 utc | 15

No, this stage is about ethnic cleansing, setting the stage for partition.
Ethnic? How when both sides are Arab.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 23 2007 4:29 utc | 16

Separating into 3 states – Sunni, Shia & Kurd.

Posted by: jj | Aug 23 2007 5:20 utc | 17

jj:
Separating into 3 states – Sunni, Shia & Kurd.
Just a minor point jj but ethnically there is no difference between an Arab Sunni and an Arab Shia. The only difference is they go to a different Mosque. How do you get ethnic out of that?

Posted by: Sam | Aug 23 2007 6:04 utc | 18

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry[1], or recognition by others as a distinct group[2], or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.[1] Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis. Members of an ethnic group, on the whole, claim cultural continuities over time, although historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which various ethnic groups are based are of relatively recent invention.
The term is used in contrast to race, which refers to a classification of physical and genetic traits perceived as common to certain groups.

that was wiki.
some new news guys.
The leader of Iraq’s banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party’s former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.
“AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces,” al-Jashaami said.

did you get that? the leader of the baathist (national)resistance has decided to join the resistance. how’s that for framing. plus, we have the rightwing websites floating this story first. what does that tell me? rightocheerio.
next uo Iraq leader seeks help in Saddam’s home
check out the framing in this piece. has this got “bush is shocked” written all over it. beware, this piece is reeking of propaganda.
here’s what i think. the resistance tried many times to negotiate w/the US. what was their bottom line? timetable. what would persuade the US/al douri alliance?… the enemy of my enemy is….
say it isn’t true. i think we are attacking iran.

Posted by: annie | Aug 23 2007 6:27 utc | 19

Juan Cole
Perhaps Juan Cole has a clue to what is planned, a military coup? Sounds plausible as an extension of the surge continues.

Posted by: ww | Aug 23 2007 6:42 utc | 20

So what is that ethnic definition supposed to mean Annie? Does that mean if my sister went to a differnet Christian church than I, she would change ethnicity? Even the media use “sectarian” not ethnic to describe the divisions in Iraq. These people have been living together for thousands of years and intermarried enmasse. They both follow Islam, they argue over who follows the Prophet, not who Allah is.
On another note:
Republican lobbyists with close ties to the Bush administration are aiding and supporting the efforts of an Iraqi opposition leader who is calling for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The anti-Maliki crusader is former Iraqi interim prime minister Ayad Allawi, and the Washington firm retained to spearhead U.S.-focused efforts on his behalf is the Republican powerhouse group of Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers (BGR).

Iraq Slogger

Posted by: Sam | Aug 23 2007 7:20 utc | 21

badtux,
because when we left Vietnam, everybody knows that the Viet Cong followed our soldiers home and started wrecking carnage on the streets of Houston…
More like the Boat People followed us home and started running restaurants and sending their children to our top universities. If Iraqis do the same, it will be a net gain for America over the long run.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 23 2007 7:25 utc | 22

@Sam @ 14 I don’t know why Allawi’s name keeps being brought up. Do you think maybe Iraqis miss the good old days when Fallujah and Najaf were burning?
1. Now all of Iraq is burning.
2. Allwai wants the job – he had an OpEd in WaPo to says “me, me”
3. Cheney likes the guy

Posted by: b | Aug 23 2007 7:27 utc | 23

Pat Lang has a remarkable piece in Foreign Policy: What Iraq Tells Us About Ourselves
The Bush administration, the Iraqi people, and Iranian meddling have all been blamed for the mess in Mesopotamia. But the American people themselves are the true root of the problem.

But how did the highly educated, wealthy, and powerful American people make such a horrendous, catastrophic series of blunders? As Pogo, the cartoon opossum, once famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Yes, that’s right: We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat)—are the root of the problem.

To be blunt, our foreign policy tends to be predicated on the notion that everyone wants to be an American.

Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out. In our dream version of Iraq, we would be greeted as not only liberators from the tyrant, but more importantly, from the old ways. Having inhabited the same state for 80 years, the Iraqi people would naturally see themselves as a unified Iraqi nation, moving forward into eventual total assimilation in that unified human nation.
Unfortunately for us and for them, that was not the real Iraq. In the real Iraq, cultural distinction from the West is still treasured, a manifestation of participation in the Islamic cultural “continent.” Tribe, sect, and community remain far more important than individual rights. One does not vote for candidates outside one’s community unless one is a Baathist, Nasserist, or Communist (or, perhaps, a believer in world “flatness” like Tom Friedman and the neocons). But Iraqis know what Americans want to hear about “identity,” and be they Shiite, Kurd, or Sunni Arab, they tell us that they are all Iraqis.

We are still acting out our dream, insisting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite sectarian government “unify” the state, imagining that Maliki is a sort of Iraqi George Washington seeking the greater good for all. He is not that. His chief task is to consolidate Shiite Arab power while using the United States to accomplish the deed. To that end, he will tell us whatever we want to be told. He will sacrifice however many of his brethren are necessary to maintain the illusion, so long as the loss is not crippling to his effort. He will treat us as the naifs that we are.
Through our refusal to deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions, we have killed any real hope of a positive outcome in Iraq. Our mission there will be over some day, but there will be other fields for our missionary work, other dreams to dream about: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran … Let us seek within ourselves the wisdom to avoid another such catastrophe.

Posted by: b | Aug 23 2007 7:36 utc | 24

Lang fails to separate Elite Decision Making from how they manipulate the masses into supporting it.
Further, Maliki’s job Most Certainly is NOT to unify Iraq. He was chosen Precisely Because he is a separatist. xUS elites insist upon a breakup. See my references above for starters. Or read Zbig’s Grand Chessboard, or look to Yugoslavia. All the battles over Iraq have been to keep it from becoming a powerful player in the region, as the only ME nation w/both plenty of water & oil. If you read Zbig, he’ll tell you that the Empire will not allow any powerful regional states. If they can get the breakup accomplished now they won’t have to worry about it any more. They set off the Iran-Iraq war, aiding both sides precisely to keep either from becoming powerful.

Posted by: jj | Aug 23 2007 8:11 utc | 25

jj:
They set off the Iran-Iraq war, aiding both sides precisely to keep either from becoming powerful.
Hey that sounds just like Iraq today.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 23 2007 9:36 utc | 26

Criticized by U.S., Maliki says Iraq can find other friends

Firing back in an escalating war of words, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki on Wednesday chided U.S. officials for expressing impatience with the Iraqi government’s failure to unite divided political factions and said Iraq would find other friends if the United States was disenchanted.
“These statements do not concern us a lot,” Maliki said to reporters while he was visiting Syria. “We will find many around the world who will support us in our endeavor.”

Translation: “We can sell our oil elsewhere.” China might be interested …

Posted by: b | Aug 23 2007 9:52 utc | 27

Fisk: Robert Fisk: The Iraqis don’t deserve us. So we betray them…

Always, we have betrayed them. We backed “Flossy” in Yemen. The French backed their local “harkis” in Algeria; then the FLN victory forced them to swallow their own French military medals before dispatching them into mass graves. In Vietnam, the Americans demanded democracy and, one by one – after praising the Vietnamese for voting under fire in so many cities, towns and villages – they destroyed the elected prime ministers because they were not abiding by American orders.
Now we are at work in Iraq. Those pesky Iraqis don’t deserve our sacrifice, it seems, because their elected leaders are not doing what we want them to do.

Posted by: b | Aug 23 2007 10:08 utc | 28

From b’s Robert Fisk link:
The majority of their leaders, including the “fiery” Muqtada al-Sadr were trained, nurtured, weaned, loved, taught in Iran.
I’m afraid that’s not true as Moqtada stayed in Iraq as he inherited the existings Sadr network. In fact his forces confront Hakim’s on a regular basis. That doesn’t mean he does not recieve Iranian support.
100% Iraqi

Posted by: Sam | Aug 23 2007 11:39 utc | 29

@Sam – right – I stumbled about the same issue. I don’t trust Fisk on Lebanon anymore, maybe I should stop to trust him at all.

Posted by: b | Aug 23 2007 13:27 utc | 30

So what is that ethnic definition supposed to mean Annie? Does that mean if my sister went to a differnet Christian church than I, she would change ethnicity? Even the media use “sectarian” not ethnic to describe the divisions in Iraq. These people have been living together for thousands of years and intermarried enmasse. They both follow Islam, they argue over who follows the Prophet, not who Allah is.

It means that ethnic diversions are just in peoples heads. Therefore the lines are where ever people think they are. If you and your sister and your society consider her going to a different church a change of ethnicity then it is. If not, then it isn’t. That on the definiton.
If iraqi arab shia and iraqi arab sunni in general consider themselves to be different groups is a good question. What is going on in Baghdad seems to indicate a society ripped up at this seam. If what they use in arabic to describe this division is better translated by ethnic or sectarian cleansing, genocide or just plain mass-murder I do not know. And I do not think it matters that much.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Aug 23 2007 14:03 utc | 31

b
yr correct on fisk & so is sam
fisk is an exceptionally competent writer but he is not without ‘interests’ – & these are expressed most clearly on lebanon where he has lived for a long time
frankly i don’t trust whitey – even whities on the left – on iraq – & there is the fact that the most intelligent reporting, the reporting that is closer to the facts & inside of the events are arab writers – who are also not without ‘interests’ but at least they do not force on us the bullshit bourgeois ‘objectivity’ – whitey claims only he possesses

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 23 2007 16:52 utc | 32

Annie @19, re al-Douri’s alleged dialog with the occupation, good call! Here is what the Baath Party has to say about it, via Uruknet:

In a statement posted on Albasrah.net, the Baath party strongly denies the content of the report published by Al-Hayat .
The Baath party says that “Al-Hayat’s article ” contains blatant lies” and reaffirms that rejects again any negotiation with the US unless based on its announced condition. The Baath party’s statement adds that al-Hayat article is part of a campaing to split the resistance and to confuse people.

Posted by: Alamet | Aug 23 2007 22:23 utc | 33

a swedish kind of death:
If iraqi arab shia and iraqi arab sunni in general consider themselves to be different groups is a good question. What is going on in Baghdad seems to indicate a society ripped up at this seam. If what they use in arabic to describe this division is better translated by ethnic or sectarian cleansing, genocide or just plain mass-murder I do not know. And I do not think it matters that much.
I think it does matter because it misleads the actual reason for the killing. The US made a deal with exiled Iranian backed religous right parties, (which were labelled as terrorist organizations before the invasion), to rule over Iraq. How can you call this ethnic when the majority of the Baath Party were Shia and were targetted just the same as the Sunni? Every soldier, teacher, government official, etc. was fired regardless of sect. This “de-Baathification” started the mass displacement we see today.
Bush installed this religous right govenment, wrote thier propoganda in the press, financed thier death squads, built their torture prisons and watched as they forced women to wear burkas. Why is the US supporting a government that wants to impose an Islamic State on the Iranian model? Sadr is Shia but his supporters get shot and arrestted just the same as the Sunni resistance. Where is the ethnic in that? The only reason the government is not going after Sadr more forcefully is they will lose more supporters.
This “ethnic” meme is explainded to us in the press as stoked by Al Queda attacking the Mosque in Samarra. Nobody bothers to explain why Al Queda would tie up the Interior Ministry guards safely away from the blast. At the time Al Queda was running around cutting off heads and we are supposed to believe that they would suddenly find love and compassion and protect death squad members that were killing and torturing thier brothers?
This blood feud between the religous right and the pan Arab view was around long before Saddam came onto the scene. The first Baath President was Shia. You can rightfully label Hakim as sectarian but his forces kill Shia too and Sadr is the proof.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 24 2007 1:06 utc | 34

thanks alamet #33
So what is that ethnic definition supposed to mean Annie? Does that mean if my sister went to a differnet Christian church than I, she would change ethnicity? Even the media use “sectarian” not ethnic to describe the divisions in Iraq. These people have been living together for thousands of years and intermarried enmasse. They both follow Islam, they argue over who follows the Prophet, not who Allah is.
sorry for not making it clearer. i thought the bold would suffice.
or recognition by others as a distinct group[2], or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.[1]
as i am sure you know iraq was the most secular country in the middle east. therefore, any many respects, most actually, they share ethnic background. but as i am sure you are aware because ethnicity covers many many areas, it can also be said that there are different more distinct ethnicities within a group.
if ones sister was raised in a muslim family, ate differently food, prayed differently and raised her children as such, she would still share many ethnic traits as you, especially if you lived next door to eachother and shared all the cultural national aspects of your culture, but yes, she would be be ethnically separated from you in some ways. we we entered iraq, we established groups differently based on their separate ethnic traits, because religion , and religious customs are ethnic traits.
anyway, here is what jj said No, this stage is about ethnic cleansing, setting the stage for partitio
first we cleanse, then we separate. we (the invader) are a different ethnic background. the invasion is causing genocide. the stage is set to separate them based on their sec, or their ethnic distinction between them. and yes, religion is considered an ethnic cultural distinction.
so even tho iraqis share ethnic traits , within their county, they have different ones. many in fact. not just 3. for example, the 400 that just got massacred, they have distinct ethnic traits others don’t share. why don’t you read the wiki link.
anyway, the cleansing is ethnic. the invader is causing an ethnic cleaning (between us and them) thru setting the various factions against eachother (them and them).

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 1:46 utc | 35

annie:
and yes, religion is considered an ethnic cultural distinction.
Well perhaps so but in my over half a century of experience I never heard anybody refer to Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics as diferent ethnic cultures.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 24 2007 5:04 utc | 36

in my over half a century of experience I never heard anybody refer to Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics as diferent ethnic cultures.
sorry, i wish i were better versed in these things. imagine a pow wow w/representatives of many tribes of native americans. they all share certain things in common yet they all have distinct qualities and customs that distinguish them from the other. when they get together they celebrate and represent there cultural attributes represented by things like dance, storytelling etc these are a reflection of their distinction of ethnicity. their myths are distinct and different, just as the myths of Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics are distinct and different although they share the belief jesus is their savior. the customs represent their distinct ethnicities. those differences were likely caused(but not necessarily) by their genealogy because people who share genealogy generally/ususally/commonly stick together. race is much more broad. within one race are thousands of ethnicities. askod is partly correct. It means that ethnic diversions are just in peoples heads. Therefore the lines are where ever people think they are.
for example if you and your brother move to entirely different part of the planet and raise 2 separate families w/different dress, language, food, myth, etc, you will share ethnic background, and you will also create anew. for example. lets view the jews of palestine. their dna matches quite closely w/the muslims from the region. are they ethnically the same?
our ethnicity is partly defined by how we identify ourselves.

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 6:17 utc | 37

not to get to far out there. i heard about researchers buying the rights to study and collect the dna of iceland. this is because of the remoteness and distinction of the people. likely if you studied Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics of one region you could find genetic distincitions of the majority of those groups.
now, imagine a madman who sought to find a virus that only effected one isolated gene carried by one original family of the 3 groups. what are the chances is that virus was unleashed you might then notice the distinction?

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 6:35 utc | 38

annie:
now, imagine a madman who sought to find a virus that only effected one isolated gene carried by one original family of the 3 groups. what are the chances is that virus was unleashed you might then notice the distinction?
I don’t you why you are going off an all these long posts amd explanations when this started over Iraq. Arabs lived in what we call Iraq today for thousands and thousands of years. The Sunni Shia split was relatively recent in their history and was based on whom should follow the Prophet. They still lived together, married each other and did business together. There is no such thing as a madman that could find a virus that could distinguish between one Arab and another from the same region based on what Mosque they attend.
One of the characteristics in Iraq professed by countless Iraqis in blogs and the news is nobody asked whether a person was Sunni or Shia before the invasion. I can understand this as nobody in my country gave a crap whether you were Anglican, Baptist or Catholic and I have lived all my life with them and never heard one of them distinguish this ethnically. Does it really matter that you can come up with some technical jargon that does see ths distinction? Even the media reports this as sectarian.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 24 2007 7:44 utc | 39

lol, sam, just believe whatever you want to believe, if it makes you comfortable to think they are sects (exclusively)because that is what the msm tells you, go for it. i have no investment in you understanding the significance of what ethnicity is or means.

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 8:43 utc | 40

My 2c to the “ethnicy” debate.
In my view there are simply various groups in Iraq, each defined through its leader (religious or tribal) and they fight about the big bootie. That what is left of Iraq when the fight is over. They mostly care about religion as a method to bind the people to the leaders. (A while ago anna_missed linked to very good analysis about the economic background of this fighting – sorry lost the link)
The U.S. started some of this and uses it in the classic colonial divide and conquer way to keep the decisive upper hand. If that hand becomes to weak, as it will, the real big fight starts until everybody is sick of it and a new general sharing agreement is reached. That may take a decade or two and a strongman to rise, i.e. Saddam II or Khomeni II.
I don’t think the “ethnicy” makes much sense in describing this fight. It never made much sense in Germany when the 30-year was fought. The situation is quite comparable. One people ripped apart by outer powers, feuding warlords and all under “ethnic” and religious disguise.

Posted by: b | Aug 24 2007 9:08 utc | 41

Pseudo boarders:
Divide et Impera

The strategy is simple. The last thing an occupying power wants is for the people it’s dominating to recognize their common situation and interests. Were they to do that, they might mobilize their energies to fight their common enemy. So occupied countries are organized by their occupiers along color, religious and ethnic fault-lines. Iraqis mustn’t think of themselves as Iraqis, but as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, locked in a struggle with each other for access to resources.
The same is true within imperialist countries. People who work for a living mustn’t identify with their class, but with their ethnic, religious or racial cohorts, or must be imbued with patriotism, so that they equate their personal interests with those of their ruling class. In this way, Americans and Britons who have nothing to gain personally from their country’s occupation of Iraq, and much to lose, are bamboozled into supporting the war. Likewise, employees who have much to gain from coming together as a class are diverted by racism, religion and patriotism.
Another thing the US divide et impera tactic provides is an excuse to maintain a military presence in Iraq, and therefore, the continued domination of Iraq by Washington.

Posted by: b | Aug 24 2007 9:35 utc | 42

Behold the wisdom of annie.
Way back I posted and emailed Billmon about an article I read in the local left-wing tabloid newspaper, the good kind, where a Canadian Iraqi explained that for urban people Sunni/Shia distinctions did not matter; his sister-in-law was Sunni, he was Shi’ite, their entire family was made up of these two Muslim faiths.
He didn’t say what distinguished them from other Iraqis, perhaps economic class, education, where they lived.
But it is clear that there is a lot more going on than just two versions of the same religion.
At the least, recruiting of soldiers traditionally happens in the country where maybe they are told “sign up with us and we can get some of those other guys” where the other guys are some group that the junior has been taught are responsible for the family’s poverty, lack of social status and so on. In social science terms, he is recruited to kill The Other.
Obviously our necessary obsession with the politics of the people of Iraq is uninformed, misadvised and downright lied to. But certain things are obvious, as pointed out above.
(The obsession is necessary because much of the global economy is funding this “experiment” in terraforming. And we are all concerned about our fellow people’s acting out on their violent nature.)

Posted by: jonku | Aug 24 2007 9:35 utc | 43

annie@38
you aren’t comparing apples with apples.
being born in Iceland isn’t a choice, being Baptist is.
Iceland is a fairly isolated genetic pool regardless of faith.
Your group would have to be similarly isolated for proper comparison and you are assuming no cross-pollination and or changes of faith within the group – unlikely
while someone might be able to target a specific genetic marker unique to to only one of your three families it would off them even if they had chosen to be Spaghettarians
if ethnicity can be defined along religious lines and a sect is a religious group, then this is a mighty fine hair being split

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 24 2007 13:13 utc | 44

What is a Jew?

Posted by: ethnic Presbyterian | Aug 24 2007 13:58 utc | 45

b @ 42 –
Brilliant link, but still an old story, easily ignored.
How to inject the ideas of Divide et Impera into a wider forum?

Posted by: Hamburger | Aug 24 2007 14:09 utc | 46

Very interesting discussion about the creation of differences in Iraq. Perhaps it has been noted before on this site, but it seems to me that the natural conclusion of such a concept would be that Sunni Al-Qua’ida in Iraq is a US manufactured entity as they are the ones that were continually given credit for bombing the Shi’a communities.

Posted by: Bugout | Aug 24 2007 16:20 utc | 47

“credit” in an ironic sense or…?

Posted by: Hamburger | Aug 24 2007 16:22 utc | 48

@Bugout – of course it is:
“AlQaeda in Iraq” and its counterpart, the “Shia” death squads, started in late 2004 after Negroponte as ambassador in Iraq introduced the “Salvador option”. Newsweek reported on that on Jan 8, 2005. Max Fuller collected some supporting evidence for the “Shia” death squad part. For AQI on can simply check the dates here. They had their first big thing in December 2004.
1+1=?

Posted by: b | Aug 24 2007 16:43 utc | 49

The U.S. started some of this and uses it in the classic colonial divide and conquer way to keep the decisive upper hand.
i completely agree.
jcairo , if ethnicity can be defined along religious lines and a sect is a religious group, then this is a mighty fine hair being split
you will find that hair can be split indefinitely. here is a wiki link on Ethnogenesis
it reinforces what askod defines in 31.
It means that ethnic diversions are just in peoples heads. Therefore the lines are where ever people think they are. If you and your sister and your society consider her going to a different church a change of ethnicity then it is. If not, then it isn’t. That on the definiton.
i would amend that to say “can be just in peoples heads”. from the link.
By self-reinvention ethnic groups are “present at their own creation”, in the phrase of E. P. Thompson, setting traditional teleological nation-building narratives, that were once uncritically accepted as history, into the framework of legend……Ethnogenesis can occur passively, in the accumulation of markers of group identity forged through interaction with the physical environment, cultural and religious divisions between sections of a society, migrations and other processes, for which ethnic subdivision is an unintended outcome. It can occur actively, as persons deliberately and directly ‘engineer’ separate identities in order to attempt to solve a political problem – the preservation or imposition of certain cultural values, power relations, etc.
The set of cultural markers that accompanies each of the major religions may become a component of distinct ethnic identities, although one does not necessarily recovers the others. Furthermore, the definition may be subject to change over time (for example, in 19th Century Europe it would be commonplace to conceive of Jews and Arabs as one ‘ethnic’ bloc, the Semites …
Furthermore, the line between a well-defined religious sect and a discrete ethnicity cannot be sharply defined. Sects which most observers would accept as constituting a separate ethnicity usually have, as a minimum, a firm set of rules censuring those who ‘marry-out’ or who fail to raise their children in the proper faith. Examples might include:
* Amish, or more controversially Mennonite Christians

about those Spaghettarians in iceland. after a few centuries of intermarriage, it would probably show up in the gene pool. or something. i think that is why scientists are studying them.

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 16:44 utc | 50

Re #43 jonku
Behold the wisdom of annie.
Please don’t mock annie. I think she has a first-rate mind, and besides, she is HOT!

Posted by: jake | Aug 24 2007 17:04 utc | 51

Thanks for the link. As I have only recently started visiting this site, please forgive my stating the obvious on the assumption that what has not been stated explicitly is not acknowleded implicitly.

Posted by: Bugout | Aug 24 2007 17:26 utc | 52

a Canadian Iraqi explained that for urban people Sunni/Shia distinctions did not matter
yeah, all the iraqi bloggers i read say this and i totally believe it. it doesn’t mean the US can’t use distinctions to try to separate them. it also doesn’t mean distinctions don’t exist no matter how subtle they are. never mind, i should never have gotten into a discussion on what ethnicity is if you are going make ungrounded assumptions about how i think it implies politically.

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 17:47 utc | 53

@Bugout – sorry, my mistake – I should have explained.
To say it explicitely – I think the U.S. started the civil war in Iraq intentionaly. There is a lot of evidence for this if one puts the pieces together.
The means were undercover operation run by the CIA and the Pentagon. The “Shia death squads” and the “AQ in Mesopotamia” are direct intended results of these operations.
The idea of cause: divide and rule.
There are folks in Iraq that have not fallen for this. The Baath/expat supported resistance (usually under the name “1920 Revolution Brigades”) and maybe parts of al-Sadr troops. They grow and will have their time again. Its their country, they can sustaine this, the U.S. can not.
If one reads about the 1920 revolution against the brits, one finds a very national, anti-ethnicy divide, symbolic of the resistance’s name.

The Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq’s conflict-ridden social structure.

Posted by: b | Aug 24 2007 17:49 utc | 54

No need for an apology, I simply have not been around your discussions long enough to know if that conclusion had been reached. I agree with your assessment because of my own experiences with Iraqis and seeing other pieces of the “puzzle”, though I have not been to the country. I have been quite impressed with the analysis of many commentators on the site.

Posted by: Bugout | Aug 24 2007 18:12 utc | 55

Posted by: Tantalus | Aug 24 2007 18:15 utc | 56

being born in Iceland is reflected genetically, being a Baptist – even a fifth generation thumper – is not. Ever.
A genetic reason behind religiosity? Perhaps, but which flavour would be entirely up to the individual and driven by external stimuli. There is no gene for Spaghettarianism, nor has my recent conversion altered my DNA. Nor will it…
Whatever the madman @38 is doing, it isn’t going to happen the way annie thinks he thinks it is
Split the hair all you want, but it seems pointless
May His Noodley Appendage caress your soul

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 24 2007 19:10 utc | 57

A genetic reason behind religiosity?
i think we are on totally different wavelengths. obviously i have not been communicating clearly if this is the impression you have of what i am saying. more explanation seems futile.

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 19:42 utc | 58

from @32
there is the fact that the most intelligent reporting, the reporting that is closer to the facts & inside of the events are arab writers – who are also not without ‘interests’ but at least they do not force on us the bullshit bourgeois ‘objectivity’ – whitey claims only he possesses
this is a BIG BIG problem, not just in reporting but across the board. We really need to let go & relax. It won’t be the end of the world
it also seems that the system looks for individuals who are either pre-disposed towards such thinking or who can be more easily steered or the type thats willing to do most whatever it takes for advancement.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 24 2007 19:44 utc | 59

annie, I think I see what you’re saying now – not a Baptist gene, but a likelihood of a group of Baptists being genetically unique enough for a madman to nefariously exploit
Perhaps if isolated as Icelanders…

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 24 2007 20:07 utc | 60

but a likelihood of a group of Baptists being genetically unique enough for a madman to nefariously exploit
exactly, this is my fear about what the wrong person could do w/ specially designed viruses.
It is not the individual, but the population that changes over time. That is a key principle in the field of study called population genetics. Populations are not defined exclusively by geographical isolation but also by such factors as cultural heritage and family lineage.
Unique genetic mutations may become fixed in a population. In the case of Iceland….. some of the population may have a genetic predisposition for one particular variant of a disease.

Posted by: annie | Aug 24 2007 20:51 utc | 61

Very interesting discussion here.
Not to change the subject, but for the record here are some additional accomplishments to chalk up to “the surge”:
Resistance Moves From Baghdad Northward

US and Iraqi forces are engaged in a massive security operation in a belt of towns around Baghdad, rooting out Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen, but extremist bombers appear to have shifted their focus northwards.
A similar bomb killed 140 in the village of Emerli, near Baiji, in July and last week four more suicide attacks in northern villages killed 400 civilians in the world’s most deadly militant attack since September 11, 2001.
This new violence has cast a pall over the US military’s “surge” strategy of sending reinforcements to the Baghdad region to quell sectarian fighting and allow Maliki’s government space to reconcile rival factions.

Number of Iraqi Refugees has more than Doubled

The scale of the human disaster in the Iraq war has become clearer from statistics collected by two humanitarian groups that reveal the number of Iraqis who have fled the fighting has more than doubled since the US military build-up began in February.
The Iraqi Red Crescent Organisation said the total number of internally displaced has jumped from 499,000 to 1.1 million since extra US forces arrived with the aim of making the country more secure. The UN-run International Organisation for Migration says the numbers fleeing fighting in Baghdad grew by a factor of 20 in the same period.
These damning statistics reveal that despite much- trumpeted security improvements in certain areas, the level of murderous violence has not declined. The studies reveal that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes ­ not intending to return ­ is far higher than before the US surge.
The flight is especially marked in religiously mixed areas of central Iraq, with Shia refugees heading south and Sunnis towards the west and north of the country.
Calling it the worst human displacement in Iraq’s modern history, a report by the UN migration office suggests that the fierce fighting that has followed the arrival of new US troops is partly responsible.
The spectre of ethnic cleansing now hovers over the once relatively harmonious country. The UN found that 63 per cent of the Iraqis fled their neighbourhoods because of threats to their lives. More than 25 per cent said they fled after being thrown out of their homes at gunpoint.

Number of Iraq Detainees Has Risen by 50%
I guess the more “boots on the ground,” the more “arresting officers” are available, and ergo the more prisoners you haul in…

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The number of detainees held by the American-led military forces in Iraq has swelled by 50 percent under the troop increase ordered by President Bush, with the inmate population growing to 24,500 today from 16,000 in February, according to American military officers in Iraq.
The detainee increase comes, they said, because American forces are operating in areas where they had not been present for some time, and because more units are able to maintain a round-the-clock presence in some areas. They also said more Iraqis were cooperating with military forces.

The US Military is at Odds with Itself

A dangerous rift has also emerged inside the US military between the high command, which says the strain the war is putting on the military endangers American security, and commanders on the ground who still say it is a winnable war.

No. of Slain US Soldiers is up to 3,720
Morale Among Soldiers in Iraq is Plunging

“I don’t see any progress. Just us getting killed,” said Spc. Yvenson Tertulien, one of those in the dining hall in Yousifiya, 10 miles south of Baghdad, as Bush’s speech aired last month. “I don’t want to be here anymore.”
Morale problems come as the Bush administration faces increasing pressure to begin a drawdown of troops.

None of the “Benchmarks” have been Met

“Unfortunately, political progress at the national level has not matched the pace of progress at the local level,” Bush said.
“The Iraqi government in Baghdad has many important measures left to address, such as reforming the de-Baathification laws, organizing provincial elections, and passing a law to formalize the sharing of oil revenues,” he said.
But political progress at the local level should have a positive impact at the national level, Bush said.
“In a democracy, over time national politics reflects local realities,” he said. “And as reconciliation occurs in local communities across Iraq, it will help create the conditions for reconciliation in Baghdad as well.”

That last statement is so removed from reality that it is scary.

Posted by: Bea | Aug 26 2007 13:33 utc | 62

Xalatan.

Thimerosol-free xalatan. Xalatan.

Posted by: Xalatan alternatives. | Jan 20 2010 11:52 utc | 63

Does topamax cause depression.

Topamax vivid dreams. Topamax. Topamax appetite suppresant. Pregnancy and topamax. Interactions between topamax and elavil. Topamax weight loss.

Posted by: Topamax. | Jan 28 2010 14:32 utc | 64

Topamax what dose to lose weight.

Binge eating topamax. Topamax. Interactions between topamax and elavil. Topamax weight loss.

Posted by: Topamax bulimia. | Jan 29 2010 12:59 utc | 65