The al-Ameriki Tribe

So I'm reading the comments at Gateway Pundit and I come across a commenter who says I should do a bit of research on the al-Ameriki tribe. Interesting. So I did a search. And what did I come up with? A wiky entry to start. It is short. So here it is:

The Al-Ameriki tribe is a name (properly, a nickname) given by native Iraqis to United States soldiers and other American personnel occupying Iraq.

That is a start. Perhaps we can find out more.

The wiki suggests this Phil Carter article in Slate. It was written in Nov. of 2007 when things were still looking grim in Iraq. The situation was improving but there was no certainty that a corner had been turned. So lets have a look.

Political reconciliation efforts have produced qualified successes in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala. Our security work complemented these political deals by rewarding the sheiks who worked with us, inducing many to stop actively or passively supporting the insurgency. These deals represent the increasing pragmatism of Sunni leaders who realize that the Shiite state is a fait accompli, and they must therefore do what they can to reconcile with each other and with the Americans (who they call the "al-Ameriki tribe") in order to survive.

We have tribal status in Iraq. Interesting.

Michael Yon has more from July of 2007.

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.

There is more in his report about how the "insurgency" essentially defeated itself. Insurgencies typically spout high ideals while recruiting criminals. They have to. Criminals are used to evading the government. The question always is: can the criminals be disciplined? Will they follow orders? Will the criminals who have advanced in the organization give good orders? Will they follow the plan? Or will they revert to criminal depredations with the increased power that being part of a shadow government gives them?

In the Iraq insurgency the criminals got the upper hand. It has been their downfall.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I Link

I haven't linked to Andew Sullivan in ages. Since after he lost his cahones about the War in Iraq. Well I'm linking today. And to what? This article on the changed situation in Iraq, suggested by Jennifer Rubin of Commentary. Via Instapundit. I'm sure this is white hot because in some respects it represents Andrew's return to sanity. We will see if I can shed some light on it from a different angle. Or from the same angle. Depending.

Here is what Andrew Said that got him a link:

Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped. But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them.

Props where they are due. That is an astounding turn around for Andrew. He finally gets it. Even if the War was a mistake a self governing, independent, prosperous Iraq is a good thing.

Now what about Obama? Boy, is the Good Judgement Man™ ever in trouble. He has been talking defeat in Iraq since forever. Whoops. McCain on the other hand has the distinction that, despite the unpopularity of his position, he was right. I predict a pivot - "I never knew how really vile those jihadis were. And I repudiate them for their obvious misjudgment. I have always been in favor of good relations with the Government of Iraq and no Republican is going to stand in the way of my achieving that goal. There are a number of companies in Chicago that would be excellent help in the effort to rebuild Iraq and they will have all my support." Aside to staff: " &#(*^@!~& Axelrod, where are my G-d Damn Tickets to Iraq? "

You know, I don't think Barry is going to have a cake walk.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

We Owe It To Our Military

McCain made a great point at the NRA convention and he changed my mind about my on again off again support for him. We owe it to those who have fought and died in Iraq.

Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal because I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you.

I think in these dangerous times McCain is the only competent war leader on the ballot. Thank you for reminding me John.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing

I liked it better in the original German. Which you can actually find on YouTube. An amazing bit of work.

This was prompted by one of the most recently honest Democrats in America. As long as we have Democrats like him there will be no orphan victories in America. No surprise there. Well what is my little agitated brain coming up with these days? Gateway Pundit, that's what. Who says:

Senator Joe Lieberman blasted Democrats today for placing politics before protecting America:

Sen. Joe Lieberman on Thursday painted a dim picture of his party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing what is right.

And, Senator Joe Biden said in an interview that Democrats have lost faith in the American people.

Don Surber thinks Biden is on to something.

So lets track the linkage back. First Senator Joe who is in the know. According to Fox. You know them guys. The people who are always Foxing with the liberals. Heh.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Joe Lieberman on Thursday painted a dim picture of his party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing what is right.

The former presidential candidate and hawkish senator from Connecticut also came down hard on critics of a resolution he and Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., co-sponsored calling on the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

"For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular," Lieberman said at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s — even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest," Lieberman continued.

But why get your news second hand? Here is Smokin Joe in his own words:

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”

OK. So Joe notices things. The big fish who were once swimming with the tide are now bucking it. The tide has changed. What is so amazing here is that even dead fish are smart enough to go with the tide.

Now here is another Joe who gets it. Democrat Joe Biden. Joe is from Delaware, not too far from Connecticut Joe. Both are reliably liberal states. Total Blue blood. Here is what Joe from Delaware thinks:

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Biden was generally critical of the far left wing of his party and of the strategies the frontrunners are using to win the nomination.

Connecticut Joe always understood the importance of victory in Iraq. His defeat of Ned Lamont in a left leaning state shows that victory was tested in the last election among the left and found to be a winner. Not just on the right, but on the left too.

I remember Vietnam when so many politicos came out and said that the President fooled them about the prospects of that war. I look forward to Hillary saying that the President fooled her. "The war looked so totally unwinable, I was fooled by Bush's incompetence." Or something. It must have been Bush's stupid evil genius. Or something.

Now we get to Don Surber who disects Biden. In a nice way that really slices and dices the Democrats. Or as I prefer Defeatocrats.

Biden said: “We’ve got to trust the American people more. I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them.”

That pretty much nails the problem. Dems don’t trust the people and so the people don’t trust them.

Democrats keep blaming their presidential losses on the stupidity of the American people. They’ve made “swift-boating” a verb, as if John O’Neill somehow ambushed John Kerry in 2004. The 2 first debated Kerry’s accusations of war crimes by all Vietnam vets in 1971. Helen Keller could have seen O’Neill coming.

But nope, dumb voters were duped. Again.

The Democratic Party line since at least 1968 is that the voters are duped by Republicans every 4 years.

Them Republicans have some of the biggest dupers you can find anywhere.

Thanks to Wake Up Americans we find another Democrat who also wants to be the father of an Iraqi victory.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.

"Stability and a decrease in violence, they've done that - God bless them. I'm not surprised that they did," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.

Yep. The baby is being born not just from the surge but also a change in tactics made possible by the re-building of the Iraqi army over the last 4 years and Steny was there all the way. Way to go Daddy-O.

The Weekly Standard has gotten Steny to look at where the Democrats need to go now that losing the war does not appear to be a viable option:

Steny Hoyer is one of the sharper members of the Democratic leadership. He's hated by many in the Netroots because he believes that Democrats need to tread a centrist path to keep the backing of a majority of the American people. He understands that the hard-line against the Iraq war favored by the Democratic base is not a winning message while the troops on the ground are winning the war.

This tone of Hoyer's -- recognizing success and arguing that the president made a fundamental mistake in not listening to Democratic calls for more troops -- might be a trial balloon of the next Democratic argument on Iraq.

It looks like the Democrats have given up on the Agony of Victory and the Sweet Smell of Defeat and are edging towards a position more in line with the American people. Who as our morale expert Patton once said "love a winner and will not tolerate a loser". The Chicago Cubs notwithstanding.

Now how about passing the Veterans Bill?

Cross Posted at Classical Values with the nice video of Vader yuckking it up with the troops.

The Big Disconnect

Pundit Nation is going on about how House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI), is going to shut down the war by attaching shut down clauses to every appropriations bill. Bush has already vetoed one of these bills. Here is what our Pundit fails to see:

There is a big disconnect here.

If the war is so unpopular why doesn't Congress shut it down?

Could it be that the majority of those unhappy with the war are unhappy with losing?

Southerners just hate losing wars. They just hate it. Three times in 300 years is just too much to bear (1861-65, 'Nam, with Iraq potential for #3).

So who put the Democrats over the top in '06? Southerners. Southerners contribute disproportionately to the military. Whose sons and daughters are in the field in Iraq? Southerners. If the Democrats get too obstructionist about the war they will lose the South.

Do you understand? The Republicans have a majority in the House. Let me repeat: The Republicans have a majority in the House. The war will be a victory for Americans or a defeat for Democrats.

All that Obey stuff is just theater for those who can't count.

Rolling Congress

The other wise extremely intelligent Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left can't figure out why a Democrat Controlled Congress keeps getting rolled by Bush. I think I can help her out:

Democrats got control of Congress by electing a bunch of Republicans (on the war at least) from the South.

Dean's Southern Strategy. Hailed as a genius move. At the time.

Memories are long in the South and they hate losing wars. They just hate it.

The Democrat Party was never unified on the war issue and the Republicans remain solid that the only way out is victory followed by an Iraqi Army capable of holding Iraq for the elected government.

Why do you think Bush is rolling Congress? The option for the Democrats is a Republican controlled Congress. At least then they can blame it on the Republicans.

Progress Is Our Most Important Product

A while back I did a post called Electricity where I discussed a number of things that would need to be done to stabilize Iraq and advance the welfare of its people.

I pointed out that security was the first order of business. That seems to be coming along nicely.

What is not coming along so well is improvements in basic modern services. Electricity, sanitation (clean water supplies, water borne and solid waste), natural gas heating and cooking.

A government that can't improve the lot of its citizens (at least bringing a country up to second world standards) is not going to last. With the high price of oil to finance such improvements, rolling out such efforts in an improved security situation should get priority.

Worth Defending?

Well another guy at the Netscape blog says we cant't force democracy on the Iraqis.

So I ask him:

Did you notice 11 million purple fingers? Or did I miss the meaning of that?

I Support Democracy In Iraq - The Animation

How many of them do you suppose support democracy in Iraq? Enough to be worth defending?

Me?

I Support Democracy In Iraq

Wanting Peace Bad Enough

So I'm visiting Netscape blog and the question of Iraq comes up. And a liberal mockingly implies that the surge is not working.

You tell me the surge is not working.

I believe you.

I'm glad you want to hand over Iraqi Democrats to the death squads. The beauty of your position is inescapable. The morality beyond reproach.

We CAN have peace in Iraq by handing over Iraqi democrats to the death squads. It is just that some people do not want peace bad enough.

===========

Me?

I Support Democracy In Iraq

Bush Is So Evil...#1

This is going to be a series of posts.

===

So I'm discussing the war with a guy. We are exchanging e-mails. And he is whipping me hard with the "Mission Accomplished" sign. To which I reply.

The ship accomplished its mission.

Bush accomplished his. Making American Democrats want to give up Iraqi democrats to the death squads.

Bush is so evil he has made American Democrats abandon the Iraqi democrats. It doesn't get much more evil than that.

Wait until I explain to people Bush's latest evil, they won't believe it.

Me? I'm too smart to join in that evil. I Support Democracy In Iraq.

Cross Posted at The Astute Bloggers

Why Don't The Democrats Support The democrats?

I keep wondering why the Democrat Party in America doesn't support the democrats in Iraq? Perhaps they have something against democracy.

Me?

I' an Animated Supporter of Democracy In Iraq.

The Balance Sheet

Clauzwitz says that the moral factor in war is the predominate factor. Fighting and sustaining the fighting has a moral calculus. The answer an individual gets will depend on the weight given to each component in the analysis. The weights are moral weights.

Eric was taking a look at this and my relentless pursuit of democracy in Iraq. As Eric has pointed out: I'm kind of obsessed. Well he is right. So is this some kind of free floating obsession or does it have an origin? It has its origin for me in the Vietnam War. In my estimation of the worth of a Vietnamese vs the worth of an American. Raw racism in other words. In 1975 after having participated in the war (very lightly in '66 - my unit never fired a shot in anger, although we supported shooting units), I decided after relentless propaganda efforts and the testimony of John Kerry before Congress in '71 that Vietnam was a lost cause. That it wasn't worth one more American life or dollar. It was a pretty popular sentiment at the time.

Then, despite our leaving history continued to happen in South East Asia. First off were the re-education camps which the Communists had said were not going to be a feature of their victory, unlike every otther communist victory. They lied. 100,000 dead. However, that was only the start. Next was the fear that drove 500,000 out to sea. The boat people. Except for most of them they weren't boats. They were rafts, badly provisioned, open to the weather. Out at sea in the hopes that some one would pick them up before they died from exposure, starvation, or drowning. About half of the boat people died.

Well history still wasn't over. The dominoes were falling. Cambodia fell not just to Communists but insane Communists. They were going to make a perfectly functioning agrarian society. Rousseau's noble savage raised on Communist shoulders. All they managed to raise was a pile of skulls. Something like 2 or 3 million. Just swell. Well it wasn't our fault was it? We weren't there. Some one else did the dirty work.

Which reminds me of an ongoing incident in WW2. By 1944 the fact of the death camps was well known. It was also well known that the Jews of Europe represented about 1/2 those in the camps. Jewish emissaries like Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who asked that the camps and the rail lines leading to them be bombed, were denied. The Jews and the other people in the camps were not worth one bomb. Not unlike the stance we took in 1975 when the South Vietnamese asked for air support to defend against an attack by the Communists. Our Democrat Congress declared that the South Vietnamese were not worth one bomb. So let us do the moral calculus. Three hundred and fifty thousand dead South Vietnamese were not worth one bomb in support. The millions who would live under a totolitarian government were not worth one bomb in support.

So where do I come in to all this? I was with the "not one bomb" crowd. Big time. The in crowd. The "Morally Correct" crowd. So sure of our calculus. So sure that ending the fighting would lead to a good outcome. After all war is bad. Peace is better than war. "What if they gave a war and nobody came." Which leaves out "What if they gave a death march and you have no choice?" A bit too dark a thought for most people. Better to think of peace, and birds, and kite flying.

So in response to Eric's look at some of the issues I have mentioned here commenter The Mechanical Eye says:

"Maybe, just maybe, "victory," at least in the vague, amorphous way you define it, is no longer possible. We don't have the will, the the manpower, the machinery, the morale, the leadership, and dare I say it, the brainpower, to win this."

I understand your point.

The Iraqis are not worth even one American death. When we do the balance sheet on this war we must count Iraqi lives as worth zero.

Then once the Iraqis count for nothing it is impossible to justify any American effort.

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine

So yeah, my fair weather friends. Give in to tyranny and despots.

Salve your conscience with "its only Iraqis". What are they worth to us?

Make yourself feel better by saying that once we are out the head choppers will not follow us home. After all we are strong and they are weak. Haven't we proved our strength by surrendering Iraq to them? Why would they ever think of following us home after we have given them what they want? And you know maybe they won't follow us home. Maybe they will just do death marches, and religious re-ed camps, and totolitarian governments. None of our buisness really. What should it mean to us? They are not our kind.

We have the example of the Austrian Corporal. Wasn't he satisfied with Czechoslovakia? Didn't the abandonment of Czechoslovakia bring Peace For Our Time?

Abandoning Iraq will bring us peace. This time giving in to brigands will get us what we desire. The fighting will stop. The killing will stop. For sure. At the very least from the time we leave our hands will be clean.

Well let me tell you that if any bit of your conscience lives after abandoning the Iraqi people your hands will drip with blood for the rest of your life. And like Macbeth nothing will out the spot.

Which is why I Support Democracy In Iraq.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Moran On Iraq

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change is all hot and bothered about Rick Moran's (they spelled his name wrong) suggestion that it was time to surrender to the Democrats and pull out of Iraq on the Democrat's time table.

The Answer Man has an answer for Armed Liberal:

Might I suggest joining:

I Support Democracy In Iraq

or if you are interested in a more animated version:

I Support Democracy In Iraq - The Animation

I'd love to see the Democrats argue against democracy. If nothing else just for the entertainment value.

Then in comment #4 Glenn Wishard says that despite all Bush's deficiencies including the House of Saud, he is holding firm.

My reply:

Totally with you on this one.

True, but the one thing Bush has not done is cave in to the defeatists like a rotten pumpkin, the very thing which Moran now advises him to find the "courage" to do..

As long as he doesn't cave we have time to change the terms of the debate.

It is the old "maybe pigs will fly" strategem. If we help maybe pigs can fly.

==

It is time to stop focusing on the doctors and the hospital and take a look at the real patient. Iraqi Democracy.

This is not about the "Iraqi people" such as they are. It is about the Iraqi democrats. Who may even be a minority. Doesn't matter.

It will be impossible for real Americans, even of the leftist variety, to repudiate democracy with any degree of conviction.

What will they say: Iraq is not ready? So what do we do, wait until they are ready and invade again?

Arabs can't do democracy? That is racism.

Then hit them with a good old JFK right between the eyes:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy

I'd love to hear the Democrats argue against Saint John.

Never Again

My mother is Jewish. As I am.

She grew up in the 20s and 30s. She knew about Roosevelt's abandoning the Jews. She is a staunch believer in "never again".

And yet when I say that we can't abandon the Iraqi people to the head choppers all I get back is "I hate George Bush" and "America has no interest in Iraq".

Prompted by FlickMaven's discussion of Nazi evil.

While I don't quibble with the term, I think that many people miss the point when trying to apply the historical significance of the German "Final Solution" to our contemporary lives.

The point here is not that "monsters" perpetrated these acts. The point is that regular, everyday Germans did so, while going about their regular everyday business.

And so it is with the fate of the Iraqi democrats. The people who would abandon them are just ordinary. It is not like they want to see Iraqi democrats dead. It is more like indifference. Which is almost always the face of evil.

Me? I Support Democracy In Iraq.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

I Support Democracy In Iraq - Graphic 2

Karl Egenberger has our second graphic submission. Which means the contest is on. Deadline for judging will be 28 May 2007 23:59z which is just a bit more than 30 days.

Since this is a low bandwidth blog you will have to go here to see this submission.

It is a nice graphic. About 24K.

Thanks to Karl Egenberger of Envision Design/ Plum Creative Associates, Towson, Md 21286.

I Support Democracy In Iraq - Graphic 1

Since this is a low bandwidth blog you will have to go here to see our very first submission.

It is a nice animated graphic. About 270K.

Thanks to bo ure.

A Political Deadline For Defeat.

Joe Lieberman has given an outstanding speech on the Iraq War funding bills now passing through the Senate. The video is about 3 3/4 minutes long and you can view it at Classical Values or at The Astute Bloggers. I highly reccommend it if you can spare the bandwidth. Joe asks why Oct. 1, 2007 was picked as the cut off date.

Well, naturally I have a few ideas about that. I'm sure Joe knows the significance of that date. It is a little more than a month from our 2008 election. The Democrats want badly to get elected and they think that what with their rabid anti-war base and a general population that gets the war on Islamic Fascism and the importance of Iraq as a theater of that war, they have to get the war off people's minds before the election. So they have to calculate how late they can force the withdrawal and yet not have a full scale civil war in Iraq on election day.

Now we know that the Islamics really like the Democrats. They say so. The withdrawal gets a lot of praise. So I would expect as a quid pro quo from the Islamics that they will hold off on attacks for the most part especially from the withdrawal date until after the election once a date certain for withdrawal has been set.

In other words I think the Democrats with all their recent toing and frowing in the Middle East have brokered a sell out of America and Iraq. They went direct to upper management. No fooling around with intermediaries or cut outs who might screw the deal or want too big a cut. Nope. Right to the top. When it comes to the Culture of Corruption I think the Republicans with their Jack Abramoff type scandals were pikers. They were only selling out one segment of the American people to another. These folks are selling out America to foreign powers. And not retail like Dubai Ports or similar examples. These folks are offering a package deal at wholesale rates. The scope is breathtaking. The chutzpah stupendous.

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

I Support Democracy In Iraq - Contest

Coyote Organics is offering a prize for the design of the logo for the I Support Democracy In Iraq campaign.

A. Jacksonian of Dumb Looks Still Free thinks it should include a purple finger.

So far the owner of Coyote Organics and I will judge the contest (I may add one or two other judges as I corral them). The decision of the judges is final. If the judges can't come to a decision, my decision is final.

The contest will extend for thirty days from the first submission. I may extend that deadline (it will be announced at Power and Control) if there are no suitable submissions.

I will post the submissions as they come in.

Update: I have added some Submission Guidelines.

Update: 04 July 007 2139z

We have a winner.

I Support Democracy In Iraq

Update: Our final logo is at the bottom. You can find instructions on how to put it up by clicking on the logo.



If any artist can turn this into a better graphic, I would be very grateful. As would the Iraqi democrats. Contact me at Power and Control, my e-mail is on the sidebar.

For those who wish to join the campaign leave me a comment here. I'll add you to my blog roll and put your url up on the front of this page.

We are having a contest for a better logo: I Support Democracy In Iraq - Contest. First prize by Coyote Organics.

Supporters:

the vail spot
Dumb Looks Still Free
Coyote Organics
DCS Security
Socrates' Academy
Little Miss Chatterbox

We now have a better logo:

Click on the logo to find out how to join the campaign.

Middle East Politics

You can't play Middle East Politics unless you know the rules. Thomas Friedman lays them down for reporters and other interested parties.

Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn’t count. In Washington, officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Middle East, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.

Rule 2: Any reporter or U.S. Army officer wanting to serve in Iraq should have to take a test, consisting of one question: “Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?” If you answer yes, you can’t go to Iraq. You can serve in Japan, South Korea or Germany ­ not Iraq.

Rule 3: If you can’t explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don’t try to explain it at all,­ they won’t believe it.

Rule 4: In the Middle East, never take a concession, except out of the mouth of the person doing the conceding. If I had a dollar for every time someone agreed to recognize Israel on behalf of Yasser Arafat, I could paper my walls.

Rule 5: Never lead your story out of Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq with a cease-fire; it will always be over before the next morning’s paper.

Rule 6: In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates tend to just go away.

Rule 7: The most oft-used expression by moderate Arab politicians is: “We were just about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have stood up, but now it’s too late. It’s all your fault for being so stupid.”

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas ­ like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 9: In Middle East tribal politics there is rarely a happy medium. When one side is weak, it will tell you, “I’m weak, how can I compromise?” And when it’s strong, it will tell you, “I’m strong, why should I compromise?”

Rule 10: Middle East civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam Hussein used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is America. If America doesn’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Rule 11: The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation. The Israeli-Arab conflict, for instance, is not just about borders. Israel’s mere existence is a daily humiliation to Muslims, who can’t understand how, if they have the superior religion, Israel can be so powerful. Al Jazeera’s editor, Ahmed Sheikh, said it best when he recently told the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche: “It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about seven million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West’s problem is that it does not understand this.”

Rule 12: The Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary.

Rule 13: America’s first priority is democracy, but the Arabs’ first priority is “justice.” The warring Arab tribes are all wounded souls, who really have been hurt by colonial powers, by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, by Arab kings and dictators, and, most of all, by each other. For Iraq’s long-abused Shiite majority, democracy is first and foremost a vehicle to get justice. Ditto the Kurds. For the minority Sunnis, democracy in Iraq is a vehicle of injustice. For Americans, democracy is about protecting minority rights. For Arabs, democracy is about consolidating majority rights and getting justice.

Rule 14: The Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi had it right: “Great powers should never get involved in the politics of small tribes.”

Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can’t want it more than they do.

Which pretty much covers it.