RSS« Business report, my venting as it were | Reflections on corporate governance and culture »
September 29, 2003
Iraq: series of articles of interest, personal reflections on things learned
I'm moved to do another one of my round ups by a series of interesting articles that appeared today.
First, following on the article yesterday on the clannish structure of Iraqi society - once again I do advise reading it, in conveys quite vividly the challenge of Iraqi (and much of Arab society) in modernization - is an article in The Washington Post on the divides in Iraqi society. In this case, try reading it in conjuction with The New York Times article mentioned (and my dear BFF, I hope you begin to see why your focus on education fails in this social situation, for you presume fluidity that is absent. Education is not the answer.).
Ethnic and Religious Fissures Deepen in Iraqi Society
Tensions Escalating Over Land, Power and Loyalties
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14841-2003Sep28.html
The article covers each of the three regions, North, Middle, South and I find adequately conveys the tensions that I long warned could lead to civil war.
On this matter, let me convey a conversation I had with my maid. As many may recall, she is Iraqi and Shi'ite. Now, as it turns out when I previously reported she was from the South I was wrong - her husband and his family are Shi'ites from Basra but she turns out to be a turcoman. I was quite surprised to learn this, although it makes the political differences between her husband and herself rather more clear and explainable. He always rather more ambivalent about the invasion and occupation, anti-Sadaam but not pro-American. They are a typical picture, in my opinion of your average Iraqi, although M. is a more subtle thinker than his wife, less emotive, more calculating. (Let me interject I do not see this as a gender issue, it is personality and perhaps background) She, however, swung from anti-Sadaam to pro-Sadaam over reasons I took to be nationalistic. Now learning she is turcoman, I think I see another angle. Indeed this conversation brought it out.
In discussing Iraq in the morning a few days ago, which I must add consisted largely of me listening to her going ballastic over the suffering of her family (blood and marriage), how the Americans are doing nothing right, etc., I ventured the opinion that I am worried about civil war. Her first reaction was denial, affirmation that the Iraqis are one, etc.
Never believe a first reaction in this part of the world, always probe, underneath the theoretical unity, family, clan, tribe, ethnic group, nation, there are fissures. So, on a hunch I noted, well, the Kurds do not seem to be of the same mind in terms of national unity.
Aha, well then we got to the truth. A long tirade ensued about how (i) the Kurds are interlopers and do not belong in Iraq, they're really from the Caucasus [odd that is more true of the Turcomans, objetively speaking]; (ii) they seek war, they terrorize Arabs and Turcomans, and Shi'ites, they are both apostates and false claimers of being Sunna, they're really devil worshipers (refering to a minor Kurdish sect I believe connected w/ Zoroastarian beliefs) (iii) if there are problems its because the Kurds are being backed by the Americans who want to use to the Kurds to help steal the oil.
These are not pretty things, nor do I think these are rare feelings. Iraq is a pot on the verge of boiling and I do not believe the American administration knows how to turn down the heat. I hope they do, but I don't believe so.
Now, on the matter of understanding Iraq, I found this article engaging, for it raises some hopes that the morons in the Defence Department are slowly realizing Chalabi is a bad actor who sold them a lemon.
Agency Belittles Information Given by Iraq Defectors
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: September 29, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/international/middleeast/29DEFE.html?hp
I note the following quote:
" After internal State Department reviews in 2001 and 2002 concluded that much of the $4 million allocated for the program had not been properly accounted for and that the intelligence-gathering program was not part of the department's mission, oversight was transferred to the Defense Department in 2002."
Suckers. Defence is full of naive suckers.
Well, in part. My defence attache contacts here leave me with the impression that at that level, say mid level officers, there is a better understanding.
At the same time, these guys do not know how to 'price risk' - that is properly plan for a full range of events. Well, that is not fair, however I am thinking of a conversation I had with the new man in the Embassy. I got a bit heated on his assertion that sure, there were problems, but that we "could not fail." (I interject to note that none of these fellows thought the reporting on Iraq was in fact inaccurate per se, although they did try to go for that old saw about X% of Iraq is peaceful, although shut up when I noted the demographics.) As I noted, if you're planning on a basis where you have not 'priced in' a catostrophic failure, then you're not giving yourself an accurate picture in the cost-benefit analysis of your actions. Well, this becomes a bit convoluted and it will distract from this little note, the essence of the conversation arose from my assigning a probability to complete failure (I believe 30 percent it was, 10 percent to magnificent success, the rest to some middle scenarios).
Now, this article on the recent polling data from Iraq is of interest and should not be overlooked. It gets to the spin. I believe those of you arguing with the "pre-fooled" will find no small utility in this:
Data Reveal Inaccuracies in Portrayal of Iraqis
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14545-2003Sep28.html
I suppose pedestrian spin and mendacity should be expected, but expect to rebut.
I note the following quote:
"That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, only 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss.
The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France."
I found this particularly useful as I immediately recalled tangling on the SDMB with my little friend Sam Stone over his khayali assertions that Iraqis like Americans better than the French - a whole logic chain that somehow had it that France supported Sadaam so Iraqis who hated Sadaam must hate the French. Essentially an issue of projection of his own thinking onto Iraqis, pedestrian failing but one all-too-common in the thinking of the Neo Con Clique.
I remain, by the way, highly wary of the polling results - this goes for the negative as well as the positive. I am very, very sceptical that we can get a very good fix on real opinion in a situation where unregulated violence and politically inspired killings are a fact of daily life and where there is no effective punishment for that. This point differs rather significantly from the East Europe situation that the pollsters indicate they have used to address bias. The polls, as I have said, probably are a decent rough estimate, but I would assert that the bias involved makes the error estimates put forward by the pollers nonesense.
Finally, connected with the idea of public opinion, we have this sad article on Cheney continuing to pimp the discredited idea of Iraq being connected with the events of 11 September.
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14901-2003Sep28.html
What I find disturbing here is that this appears to be a deliberate attempt to on one hand have the idea officially kept in the public mind, yet officially denied. It is, in short, a mangificent play of spin, the pre-fooled, the gullible and the inattentive will continue to believe while the Administration through its other mouthpieces can say "Well we never said that."
This Administration is magnificent in its brazen mendacity - I almost admire that.
By the way, I note that the drooling moron cunt Amity Shlaes has a perfectly benighted moronic column on privatizing the Iraqi oil sector. Read it to see how to comment on a country, region and situation you know litterally nothing about, in pious ignorance. People like her should be ... I don't know, can't think of a reasonable suggestion although she makes my blood boil. She should be on The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, she'd be perfect there.
Posted by The Lounsbury at September 29, 2003 12:55 AM
Filed Under:
Jan-Dec 2003
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1890
