Asymmetrical Information

Let's just hope that after al-sadr leaves Najaf that we occupy the Ali Shrine with Shiite troops that will keep it from being used as as sanctuary again.

Al-sadr is not significant, but the shrine is.

But I thought there was an arrest warrent out for al-Sadr? Isn't this sort of like letting Richard Steve Goldberg stand for election to New Jersey's Governor's office?

What did he agree to the last time?

I dunno Jane. I actually hope you're right. I'm inclined to bet the other way for various reasons. To wit:

1. I have to admit that I'm inclined to bet against you. You're weirdly loyal to Bush (though I can't imagine you believe in him), and betting against Bush on major policy matters has been about as close to a sure thing as I can imagine in politics. So by the transitive law, betting against you is probably a pretty good bet.

2. As you note, al-Sadr can say whatever he wants now, and then start fighting again later. That seems to be a pretty good description of guerilla warfare - f*ck with the powers that be until they turn their attention to you, and then get out of the engagement with them (b/c you were sure to lose). Hasn't he stopped fighting once before this?

3. Juan Cole suggests that while Sadr might not be popular in Najaf, he is increasingly popular everywhere else. I don't think that suggests that Sadr's power is decreasing relative to Alawi's. I think it suggests that Alawi is making the necessary concessions to keep Sadr in the tent.

4. Sadr's formation of a political party is a win for Sadr, isn't it? Didn't Bremer leave instructions that former illegal militia members were not welcome in the political process? And what ever happened with the arrest warrant for Sadr? So much for all that, I guess.

5. Didn't someone charge that Alawi had summarily executed six prisoners a month ago? I don't know how credible that charge is, but Alawi's bio makes clear that he isn't above a bit of thuggery. I think "rule of law" in Iraq is a long, long way off.

I guess I think it makes sense not to get your/our hopes up; this a PR victory for both sides, and little more.

So, a thug and scoundrel will improve his odds at aquiring power by leaving his home base and joining the political process. And to think some said Iraq couldn't sustain a western-style democracy.

I agree with Jane completely. This is a win for Alawi, a win for the U.S. and a win for democracy in Iraq.

I posted on my blog on this here, and when rumors were floating around that he was wounded and wanted a ceasefire I wrote this post about why it isn't necessarily bad to let walk even though he is a criminal. Call it a learning curve that the Iraqis need to understand there is a new method of resolving disputes and the old methods of violence won't work so well anymore.

I would also wonder, if anyone who thinks this is a bad development, isn't in truth just hoping that it is.

I think it is a bad development, and I'm very pro-Bush-in-Iraq. I think it is a bad development because it seems to give Sadr more political power than before, and it is just him making the same promises he made last time right before he tried to start civil war. He has shown a willingness to stir up bloody revolution when he doesn't get his way. He has done so twice in six months. He is being given a chance to do so again. But if you must give him another chance, be sure to shoot him between the eyes if he tries to start a revolution again.

"Tim",

"and betting against Bush on major policy matters has been about as close to a sure thing as I can imagine in politics."

Yep, you're right, he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted, didn't help his party take back the Senate in 2002, didn't get a declaration of war against Iraq from Congress when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, didn't invade and conquer Iraq in three weeks.

Oh, wait, he DID do all those things, didn't he?

So, what color is the sky where YOU live?

If allowing him to put down his weapons and join in the political process is a good idea now, would the same deal not have been a good offer when it was on the table a week ago?

As far as I can see, the sequence of events has been:

Sadr: I've made my point and I'm ready to come out.
Allawi: Like hell! I've got a point to prove and you're going down.
Sadr: Come in and get me
Allawi: I'll moider you!
Sadr: You and whose army?
Allawi: Me and the US Army!
US Army: The hell with that.
Allawi: OK, you've made your point, come out.

Bush has a good record on getting his policies enacted... His administration has a much poorer record on those policies delivering the results they describes when advocating them. Anyone remember the "4 dollar bill" demonstration from the 2000 campaign? Or "candy and flowers" from Iraq? Or the various "jobs and growth" packages?

If a member of the adminsitration comes out and proclaims this deal "a big step forward for the future of a democratic Iraq" I think it is a safe bet that will turn out not to be the case.

(Jane is) weirdly loyal to Bush

Can't have that, now can we? I mean, this war on terrorists is important and stuff, but not nearly as important as the War on Bush.

So, what color is the sky where (Tim) live(s)?

Black. And it's gonna stay that way for another four years...

The best part of this is that the US is not making the decision. This needs to be an "Iraqi" democracy not a "US" democracy.

Annonymous Coward,

Was social security designed to be a pyramid scheme?

Did Lyndon Johnson intend to create a permanent underclass when he championed the "War on Poverty"?

Did Bill Clinton intend for North Korea to accept all the aid and then build nuclear weapons anyway?

You make a rather sweeping conclusion regarding the success or failure of Bush's policies while providing little more than generalizations and absolutley no evidence to support that conclusion.

Jim English
Chicago

I think Juan Cole put is best when he said that this shows that Sadr has an army and Allawi doesn't (which is why he has to rely on the US).

This only bolsters Sadr's position and he has already in the past 'given up' so he can easily recall his army if needed.

GT: I beg to differ. Sadr has an armed mob, not an army. They appear to have no idea of what exactly a soldier does. Waving a rifle in the air while shouting isn't it. Neither is carrying a belt fed machine gun with the belt looped around your neck. Hit the trigger set up like that and the results should be...entertaining. Allawi will eventually have an army. Sadr will continue to have an armed mob.

Greg:

I'm constantly amazed by Republicans. I wasn't talking about Bush's ability to get his policies enacted; I was talking about his ability to choose and implement good policy. Who cares if he can get what he wants? This isn't high school; we aren't picking the coolest clique. The actual content of what Bush wants might be the least bit important.

I realize this point might not be entirely comprehensible to you, as Republicans seem to be evaluating things using the "Hulk Angry/Hulk Smash Policy Matrix." For you, if you thought of it, it must be a good idea. So getting your way makes it good policy. But that's not always true, despite what your mother must have told you. Bush got his way on tax cuts - it was still a badly structured stimulus package, and I don't think that there are a lot serious conservatives still defending it. Bush got his way on Iraq - are you arguing that was a good idea? Wait a year, and you won't see many conservatives defending that idea either (see, e.g., Doug Bereuter).

So my above point #1 reduces to this: because she tied herself so closely to Bush's policies, I doubt Jane's ability to identify good events. (To be more accurate, I think Jane's quite smart analysis is unintentionally contorted by her support for Bush). If she thinks al-Sadr joining the political landscape of Iraq is a HUGE win for Iraq or Alawi, I suspect that it's not.

"So, what color is the sky where YOU live?"

Kerry's up in most polls that I've seen referenced lately, so I guess it looks like the first light of dawn.

Jan Smuts started out as a guerilla and a fighter against the British Empire, once included in the policical process, he became a leading statesman.

Just sayin'

Tim -- who mentioned Bush? I'm interested in whether Iraq gets a democratic process, not whether the US gets a Democratic president.

Mikey,

That's irrelavnt in the context we are atlking about.

The bottom line is that Sadr has armed power and Allawi does not. If we left Allawi would last 10 seconds.

Right now Sadr has the winning hand. All he has to do is wait and every so often attack. People in Iraq may not like Sadr (although plenty do) but they dislike the US occupation even more.

Jane:

I was using your largely unswerving support for Bush as a predictor for your judgment on events in Iraq. If you've got a friend who always bets on the losing team, take any bets he offers, even absent any other information. You'll lose on some of them, but you ought to come out significantly ahead. That's all. (The later post was a response to Greg).

I was using your largely unswerving support for Bush as a predictor for your judgment on events in Iraq.

Ah, yes, "unswerving," one of those words that used to be positive but is now almost always used negatively: "Your unswerving support for this dope proves you are big poopy-head! And what about the f*cking yellowcake...?!"

If you've got a friend who always bets on the losing team, take any bets he offers, even absent any other information.

Losing team? Bush won in 2000. His party won big in 2002. Saddam was captured in 2003, his vile regime overthrown. And Bush is gonna win big this year -- the closer the election gets, and the more Kerry shoots himself in the foot, the more convinced I am of this. Bush isn't a great candidate, but Kerry is just awful, and most non-moonbats don't really want to change leaders in the middle of a war if they don't have to. Look for Bush to win by at least 4-6 points, with maybe a 30% chance of a landslide.

Honestly, I don't see how Kerry wins this thing. Another terrorist attack? That would probably favour Bush. People get to know Kerry "better"? The more people see of him, the less they like -- he'd be better off hiding out until November, which would make debates difficult. Bush caught in a major scandal and/or Iraq blows up in his face? Maybe. Wouldn't bet the house on that happening, though.

Kerry's not quite toast yet, but I'd keep the butter and jam handy just in case.

GT: Again, I disagree. An armed mob doesn't mean much in that country. There are plenty of armed mobs. It doesn't appear to me that Sadr really knows what he is doing, what he wants to do, or how actually to go about doing whatever it is that he is wanting to do whenever he discovers what that is. "Firm and steely-eyed in resolution" is not how I would describe him. Fickle overbearing loudmouth is more apt, I think.

His uprisings don't go anywhere. They just in one place and yell a lot. Time is not on his side, the Marines will be around until the Iraqi armed forces are available and then what? Call for the revolution again, squat in one spot, get more followers killed, shut down the revolt, and then start up again after having accomplished nothing? And yes, having guys who know how to aim, do ammo discipline, and know basic gun safety and small unit tactics is important. Otherwise all you have is a bunch of land-skeet.

Mikey,

You are quite the optimist.

Check Juan Cole's blog for what Sadr wants, which he has made very clear.

Yes, there are many armed groups in Iraq. Sadr's is one of the biggest and most loyal.

His uprisings have now transformed him into one of the most popular figiures in the country and a symbol of the anti occupation fight.

By the time Iraq has an army chances are he will be in a postion to command them one way or another.

GT: You are such the pessimist. ;)
All I know about Sadr's uprisings is that he has had them and called them off. Every time he has risen, his men die and no one else joins them. That doesn't bode well for popularity. The question, I think, is how deep does his popularity go? Deep enough to bring him and his guys to power? Truly don't know the answer to that one, but I suspect not.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Mikey, you said that no one else joins him. Sorry, but you're dead wrong on that. His followers across Iraq are more numerous this time than they were before and they are better armed. Besides, it doesn't take massive numbers to cause significant damage in a country as crippled as Iraq.

I don't think a lot of people "get" the dealings with Al Sadr. They are actually very subtle and likely to be tremendously effective. Sadr has a fair amount of popular support. Not much, and not deep, so far as I can tell, but it's there. It would be a mistake to simply crush him. But luckily our military and the Iraqi government are more clever than that. First, note the remarkable recent event where the Iraqi government told the coalition forces to withold attacking Sadrist forces except in immediate defense, and the coalition forces complied. Does anyone else recognize how significant that is in regards to the legitimacy and stature of the Iraqi government in the eyes of the Iraqis? It's huge. Just, huge. Second, we've turned the tables by being tremendously, EXCESSIVELY, reasonable. But not soft. When we respond we hit hard, but we're willing to stand down. We've transferred the blame for the fighting to Al Sadr. Don't think people haven't noticed that fighting starts when Sadr's forces start it. Don't think people haven't noticed too that Al Sadr has reneged on promises. Most especially and most recently a promise to leave the shrine of Imam Ali.

It's like an argument. On the one hand you can go off the handle and scream and yell and rant and rave. On the other hand you can very carefully and politely, yet persistently, systematically, and methodically, dissect the opposing argument and coldly annihilate each and every part with logic and well-grounded facts. The former is sometimes more fun but in my experience and observation the latter is ever so much more effective. The latter is what we are doing to Al Sadr right now. It's tedious work but it's the results that matter.

Is it verse or is it fiction? What green card a question. The most essential fact usa visa is that this is a story, a love story dv2006 told by poet and novelist Carson (Men dv2006

Comments are Closed.