Re: Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet

El Castor wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:45:46 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

noname wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:04:37 GMT, Justine
<wherethereistruth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:32:57 -0700, noname <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:48:07 -0700, El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:32:02 -0700, noname <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:15:47 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

noname wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:35:12 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

noname wrote:
Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet

By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 4:40 PM

BAGHDAD, Aug. 1 -- Iraq's largest Sunni political group formally
withdrew from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government Wednesday,
dealing a major blow to Maliki's efforts to build a cohesive
government.

The Accordance Front announced that it will vacate its six seats in
Maliki's cabinet after the prime minister and other leading government
officials did not make progress on a list of demands the group issued
last week. Accordance Front members said their decision came after
Maliki failed to show a commitment to solving the problems of ordinary
Iraqi people.

"The government is continuing with its arrogance, refusing to change
its stand and slamming shut the door to any meaningful reforms
necessary to save Iraq," said senior Accordance Front member Rafaa
al-Issawi.

The announcement represents a setback not just for Maliki, but for
President Bush, who is expecting a progress report from the top U.S.
military commander in Iraq on Sept. 15. The discord within the Maliki
government and the lack of legislative progress in parliament could
undermine his assessment of conditions in Iraq and further decrease
congressional support for the war.

Bush pressed Maliki Wednesday to move forward on the political issues,
White House spokesman Tony Snow said. During a 45-minute video
conference, Snow said, "The president emphasized that the Iraqi people
and the American people need to see action -- not just words -- but
need to see action on the political front."
So now, not only the parliament, but also the cabinet is not going to accomplish anything before September.

I've seen this happen in organizations before. When they lose confidence in the leadership, they start drifting, putting out the minimum effort and hoping that something will change. You cannot whip them into action and an attempt to do so is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Either the leadership has to change or the situation has to change in some substantial way. Preferably both.
Seems obvious the U.S. has no influence with Maliki. Maliki has
to cater to Shiites and has always done so. There never has been
anything approaching a unity government in Iraq. Let's see how
marib, Jose, Joe Avelon and the other true believers spin this one.
Even Tony Snow was unable to do so.

It is all very badly broken at this point. There will be more Republican defections in September. I don't see how they can continue to support the Bush administration without committing political suicide. The most that we can hope for at this point is an orderly withdrawal. I sincerely hope that the Pentagon is working on that contingency. If they only give it lip service, we will see the same result as for the poorly planned and mostly neglected plans for the occupation.

On a related note, I'm beginning to hear references to criminal acts rather than "War on Terror." Wouldn't it be interesting if the Republicans came around to the point of view that terrorism is really a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem? Too much to hope for?
I don't know about that -- but in Iraq there are outside terrorists
and Iraqi terrorists, if by terrorists one means those who commit
violent acts against the population.

But I also think the term "war on terror" is never really defined
and thus is a meaningless phrase. It is a phrase I don't think the
Republcans will let go of, however.
Would you settle for "War on militant Islam"?
Would you define "war". War means to me military action against
a specific nation or, as in World War II, more than one specific
nations.
Let's see -- we've had war on poverty, war on drugs, war on want. And
now you're getting picky about war on terror or war on militant Islam?
Justine
I think a question on exactly what is meant by any of the above is
germane. The phrase has been used as you say in so many contexts
and I never have been sure what action or actions that translates
into.

To me, the word "war" should only be used to describe armed conflict between nations. A "war on terror" raises the status of the terrorists to that of freedom fighters or other such image which appears to justify what they are doing in their eyes and in the eyes of those who support them. IMV, they are criminals. Whatever cause they support, they operate outside the law. We would have been much better off to join with the rest of the world in improving our collective ability to investigate, arrest, prosecute and punish people who resort to terrorism. Let the world see them as the criminals that they are.

You may consider them to be criminals, but they would not agree. In
their minds they are fighting on behalf of God. For a Muslim, to die
while engaged in Jihad against the Infidels is the only guaranteed
ticket to Paradise. Their goal, which is commanded by Allah, is to
spread Islam to every corner of the earth, and they have been doing a
very good job of it. From a few converts in the city of Medina, there
are now 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide -- and growing. Muslims make up
the second largest religion in the United States, after Christianity
-- only, of course, Islam isn't just a religion, it's a social, legal,
and political system as well.

If you look at the core of the "modern" Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam), there is a common belief in paradise and a goal of winning converts to their specific faith. Given the right circumstances, either of these faiths will justify almost any action while proclaiming "God mit uns" or the equivalent in your choice of language.

Fortunately, in the west, the abuses of Christianity in the middle ages brought about a strong effort, not just in the US, but throughout the western nations to separate church and state, most notably in the development of law. This, coupled with secularism, tempered the Christian belief and isolated the extremists as criminals.

The expansion of colonialism, on the other hand, oppressed many parts of the world including the Middle East. Islam grew in strength in opposition to the abuses of colonialism and efforts to introduce Christianity which became associated with the colonial powers. This continued after colonialism collapsed and these countries often reverted to rule by whoever was strong enough to hold power.

The simmering anger against the west continued through most of the last century, frequently brought to the boiling point by a whole sequence of acts including controversial support of some pretty ugly leaders, competition with the Soviets, exploitation of their oil, the imposition of Israel, and highly questionable arms sales which helped to inflame the region.

When the armies of the Arab countries were demonstrated to be incapable of defeating the armies of Israel and later the US, the use of terrorism grew in popularity as the only weapon which seemed to work for them. Islam provided a convenient way to justify whatever action, no matter how horrible, and we are seeing the results of that today.

Given only a slightly different world, the exact same thing could have happened with Christianity.

The point of all this is to advocate the creation of the same climate which moderated Christianity, namely secularism and rule of law. The Bush administration has done exactly the opposite of that, most notably in the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was one of the more secular states in the Middle East. We would have been far better off to have utilized the support of the world following 9/11 to marginalize terrorism by focusing on rule of law, identifying terrorists as criminals and separating them morally from the majority of the Islam faithful.

Instead, we elevated the terrorists to warrior status by not only declaring war, but by screwing it up so badly. They are now supported by a large portion of the population and are called Freedom Fighters!

It is going to take us a very long time to dig our way out of the mess that the Bush administration has put us in.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We could lose everything
    ... >We cannot win the battle of ideas with Islam until we have won the ... >militant Islam, unsated by the titbits we keep throwing it, gets ever ... >We must, it is said, "win the battle of ideas" with the terrorists. ... >The "war on terrorism" is thus a shooting war with Islamofascist ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: We could lose everything
    ... >>We cannot win the battle of ideas with Islam until we have won the ... >>militant Islam, unsated by the titbits we keep throwing it, gets ever ... >>terrorists is respectable society; ... The war on terrorism is not the war in Iraq. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo
    ... The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo ... Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to ... distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: We could lose everything
    ... >We cannot win the battle of ideas with Islam until we have won the ... >militant Islam, unsated by the titbits we keep throwing it, gets ever ... >We must, it is said, "win the battle of ideas" with the terrorists. ... >The "war on terrorism" is thus a shooting war with Islamofascist ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: OT: A Debate that is Overdue
    ... within Islam which is far greater in numbers and support. ... pass compared to your views of Islam and Islamic extremists. ... claim for Islamic terrorists. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)