I'd say "Iraq the Clusterf**k" should've been the name of Lounsbury's old blog c. 2003-2004.

No offense, but this is the kind of post that makes me want to grab the author by the collar and go "Okay wiseguy, so what've you got to offer then?" A horrible, deliberately provocative act has been committed which is having approximately its intended result, and your reaction is... what? "Ha-ha, look, isn't this ironic?" Do you want a gold star for pointing out the obvious and cracking wise about it? It's easy to snipe and be smug from the sidelines, but seriously, what is the culmination of this?

Sorry if this comes off as sanctimonious, but I'm as worried about the way things are going in Iraq as anybody and I don't think it's good form to make light of it, or to make fun of a guy who's actually there in the thick of it.

Matt McIntosh: The long and short of it is we're sick of writing about Iraq because various authors here, including myself, saw this coming months, even years ago. Nobody at 'Aqoul is bloody surprised that the low-grade civil war that's been brewing for months is escalating into something much worse. Nobody here is surprised that a "democratic" government drawn along ethnic and sectarian lines is resulting in a second Lebanon. Nobody here is surprised that militants have started going after mosques, after months and months of accusing Shias of apostasy, collaboration with the US, and fitna.

Our "humour" about Iraq is certainly of a morbid, disconsolate sort nowadays. Check the "Iraq War" section of 'Aqoul or visit Lounsbury for our past analyses of the situation.

What eerie said.

>>No offense, but this is the kind of post that makes me want to grab the author by the collar and go "Okay wiseguy, so what've you got to offer then?"

Alot better reasoning than what has been prevailing, including that of folks on the ground, like Iraq the Model, who have been offering only dangerous delusions that got us -- and Iraq -- here.

Eerie,

I understand well the natural tendency toward cynicism when the world at large refuses to heed your words of wisdom. But there's finding black humour in a bad situation, and there's pointing out that people ought to have listened to you, and then there's unseemly "I-told-you-so" gloating over the misfortunes of others. It just feels like piling on insult to injury, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hogan,

While I am immensely appreciative of the hardnosed, no-bullshit realism here at 'Aqoul, I don't see very much reasoning being applied in this case. Just unconstructive and somewhat cruel mockery. Like I said, what's the point in that?

what's the point in that?

I don't speak for Matthew, but one can always hope that people will learn from their mistakes.

Keep in mind that Matthew is annoyed by the blog's name, not the tragedy itself. Save for the lunatics who perpetrated this act, I don't expect anyone finds the destruction of a holy shrine particularly worthy of gloating.

As for our words of wisdom, they are largely common sense. For those who pointedly ignore reality (e.g. various ideologues on the Left and Right, including the Bush administration), these events are a bit of a rude awakening. For those who have been paying close attention, this confirms our worst-case scenarios and does not bode well for soldiers, Iraqi citizens or US politicians desperately trying to find a face-saving way to pull out.

The term "Model" certainly reminds me of the naive comparisons between Iraq and the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. Comparisons that have largely disappeared from political rhetoric, replaced by vague talk of "helping the Iraqis move along a path toward blah blah". That's why I found Matthew's entry morbidly amusing and depressign at the same time. YMMV.

I really really really hate to say this (OK, maybe only really really) but blowing the top off of that mosque (they didn't even wound anyone!) was an amazingly apt symbolic representation of what the act itself was meant to accomplish and apparently has in fact accomplished.
Diabolically clever, if it's what was intended. These guys do seem to know how to do propaganda.

" cruel mockery. Like I said, what's the point in that?"

Cruel mockery is its own sweet reward. But aside from catharsis, any little bit that discredits those useless shtiheads who are or have been Iraq the Model, any disdain in their direction, is that much of a step towards paradise and virtue. They/he deserve it. It's one thing for American hicks from West Virginia to misread Iraq, another for educated professionals from Iraq to do it.

And to apparently profit from it (over $17,000 -- alot of dinars) far more than the poor schmos getting blown up everyday, Iraqi and American. And to feed the idiot right-bolshevik war machine and mentality willingly.

Cruel mockery, they haven't gotten a tenth of what they deserve. The Iraqis caught up in the violence are getting the worst of it; there is no mockery there.

On a more educational level, irony is a good teacher and few things illustrate the foolishness of the theory represented by their own name, than its apparent falling apart, and its clear discrediting.

Further, the burden of contribution for the better is not on people like me who said DON'T GO IN, OK, WE're IN, now get out. I contributed.

The burden is on those who said go in, and/or said stay/and keep the course (like Iraq the Model) to explain the dismembered corpses and human relationships whose delusional course they cheered from the laptop.

I'll pose the question once again that I posed some time ago.

Who benefits?

In the event of a full-scale civil war, the Sunnis are total losers. Their best-case scenario is a landlocked oil-free rump state in central Iraq. Only complete idiots would provoke a civil war in the name of Sunni "nationalism."

It doesn't make much sense for old-line Bathist elements to do this either, and for much the same reasons.

Foreign Al Qaeda types might think a civil war is a good way to get rid of foreign troops. But, to the extent these groups are made up of neo-salafi/Wahabi elements, they are Sunni and think Shias are almost worse than infidels. Since any civil war is going to either reinforce Shia dominance over Iraq or result in the Sunni bantustan described above, it really doesn't make much sense for them, either.

The Kurds are getting what they want either way. The only player that really stands to be a big winner in a full-blown civil war is Iran. But, somehow, I can't really picture them doing this.

So who is the real winner here?

BTW, I find it extremely odd that the attackers made such an unusual effort to ensure that nobody got killed.

Christ on a cracker Hogan, did you get some spittle on your monitor there? Some takfiri shits are doing their damndest to stir up a civil war and somehow that's the fault of the ITM guys? I'm sorry, I can't quite make out the argument here for all the sound and fury. Misguided or foolish they may well be, but they are Iraqis caught up in the violence.

Also, do you seriously believe an immediate US pullout would improve the situation? Really?

"Also, do you seriously believe an immediate US pullout would improve the situation? Really?"

For the USA, most definitely, if followed up properly. For Iraq probably not. I didnt set up the situation, never called it a model or sold it as such, I am not Iraqi, I have no responsibility to second guess it.

ITM played their part -- foolishness deserves ridicule. They aided and abetted.

They are indeed Iraqis caught up in the violence. Maybe they should have thought twice about advocating incompetent governance and a dopey ideal. And profiting from it. No they were not a CIA front, and I think they were sincere (and have some core values I like) which is all the more reason to hold them accountable for not using their critical faculties and for getting caught up in the praise and sponsorship.

Civil war is the responsibility of all parties who partake, aid, and abet, including many Iraqis and foreigners, other than ITM who merely abetted the poor American vision. I reserve one type of special fury for those who dupe Americans (in addition to themselves) as that is my emotional loyalty focus. Zarqawi et al's evil is settled and beyond a moment's debate.

I did get some spittle on the monitor but not the puddles that Lounsbury usually gets.

PS- I was raised Catholic, Christ IS a cracker, at given moments.

"For the USA, most definitely, if followed up properly. For Iraq probably not."

Well at least you admit it: you want the US out, regardless of what it means for Iraqis. Or to be more charitable I guess you don't think it makes a difference either way if they leave or not. The Iraqi government, for instance, doesn't seem to think it would be a good idea for them to leave immediately. But that's another discussion.

I have to sympathize with Matt McIntosh's reaction though, even if I didn't feel so vehemently about it. I just found it an odd post. Are people who supported the invasion not allowed to discuss when shit happens? And does such an admission of shit happening completely invalidate their point of view?

(Note that I'm not passing any sort of judgement on ITM, good or bad.)

"For the USA, most definitely, if followed up properly. For Iraq probably not."

-- Well at least you admit it: you want the US out, regardless of what it means for Iraqis.--
___________

Actually I never said that, I merely answered his question of what would happen if there was an IMMEDIATE pullout. My honest answer is I dont know which is best, which speed and how, as I dont see it on the table/agenda in any clear way. I do think that having made the mess the USA should make an effort to see it doesnt get worse, but yes, I want us out as quickly as possible, maybe that is the way to do it. I didn't want us in, have no obligation to figure a way out, and yes, I suspect that we are not able to make much of a difference either way. I have no answer except head for the exits as reasonably as possible; try to leave some good behind, if we can.

"I just found it an odd post."

This is Aqoul, it has to be odd.

" Are people who supported the invasion not allowed to discuss when shit happens?"

Sure why not? I wish they woudl more.

"And does such an admission of shit happening completely invalidate their point of view?"

When your name is Iraq the Model, you spend months selling the idea that good news is not being reported enough, that Iraq is essentially a well-managed affair about to be a beacon, and then you are now practically shrieking that the place is on the edge of doomsday, yes, the admission that shit is happening invalidates the pretensions underlying their moniker.

100% absolument!

Who benefits?
In the event of a full-scale civil war, the Sunnis are total losers
It doesn't make much sense for old-line Bathist elements to do this either, and for much the same reasons
Foreign Al Qaeda types might think a civil war is a good way to get rid of foreign troops...it really doesn't make much sense for them, either.

Trying to analyze terrorist action on a cost/benefit model is not necessarily going to give you a logical answer.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Jihadists and the like are automatically irrational. Within the limits of their worldview, I'm sure many are quite practical and hardnosed. But it is a limited worldview and it tends to distort perceptions of reality.

A true hardcore fanatic may hope to actually inspire a real multi-country fitna and eventually win, using Iraq as the tinder. A more pragmatic leader may think that the martyrdom of a bunch of Sunni Iraqis is long-term more useful as a recruiting device worldwide than any sort of accomodation government might be ( and in this particular he might be right ) - lose the "battle" but edge closer to winning the "war." Some of the denser grunts ( and who knows if this attack was orchestrated by a cabal with sophisticated leadership or just some idiots with explosives expertise ) might buy into what is purportedly a common assumption among everyday Sunni Arabs in Iraq and believe that Sunni Arabs are actually in the demographic majority and hence can win even an internal struggle - especially against what they may didmissively perceive as a bunch of Shi'a peasants.

The Kurds are getting what they want either way.

Yeah, maybe. I have my own reservations on whether the Kurds can hold things together in the long run. I'm reading reports that indicate my old pessimism re:the unity of the big Kurdish parties may be starting to play out - in the old days the only things the Talabanis and Barzanis hated more than SH were each other ( and remember these were groups that for the most part drew their respective membership from populations speaking mutually unintelligible dialects ). Touching reconciliations aside, I wonder how much of that has actually changed.

The only player that really stands to be a big winner in a full-blown civil war is Iran. But, somehow, I can't really picture them doing this.

I'm not sure I agree with this either. I suspect Iran would benefit more from a compromise government where religious Shi'a parties hold the whiphand, as is ( loosely ) currently the case. A partitioned Iraq doesn't necessarily make for quiet borders or inhanced influence.

Off topic: I have trouble keeping track of our Anons. They all seem to be intelligent and reasonable, but tough to tell them apart (actually, it's possible via IPs and such, but I'm lazy).

If it's not too much trouble, could you make up some sort of variant name and use that?

Maybe one could be Anon the Model.

but tough to tell them apart (actually, it's possible via IPs and such, but I'm lazy).

Huh. I guess I'll have to start using Tor. ;)

Tamerlane, your point about cost-benefit analysis is a good one. I suppose there is no particular reason why the "logic" that drives suicide bombers couldn't be replicated on an organizational scale.

I'm not sure I agree with this either. I suspect Iran would benefit more from a compromise government where religious Shi'a parties hold the whiphand, as is ( loosely ) currently the case. A partitioned Iraq doesn't necessarily make for quiet borders or inhanced influence.

Sure it does. A civil war followed by a partioned Iraq is a big coup for Iran. First, it gets the Americans out of Iraq -- a very big plus all by itself for Iran. Second, it gives them huge influence over an oil-rich Shia state in southern Iraq. In a "unified" Iraq, Iran's influence has to compete both with Sunni and Kurdish interests and with America's presence, both physical and spiritual. Plus, an independent Shia southern Iraq will have, at best, prickly relations with all the Sunni states in the region. They'll almost have no choice but to depend heavily on Iran, not that they wouldn't be inclined to do so anyway.

If you'll recall, one of the key reason why the first Pres. Bush didn't push the first Gulf War all the way to Baghdad was that he did not want to create a power vacuum for Iran to step into. A civil war resulting in an American pull out and a partioned Iraq will create a power vacuum for Iran to step into.

Re: the Kurds. I really hope you're wrong. I've been extremely impressed with their political maturity over the last several years. Perhaps a Sunni-Shite civil war will encourage them to keep their old internal battles firmly behind them. Every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.

Huh. I guess I'll have to start using Tor. ;)

Oh please, I'm totally harmless...

> Oh please, I'm totally harmless...

I dunno. You seem rather dangerous to me. ;p

"Sure why not? I wish they [would] more."

Well, don't look now, but that's exactly what they were doing. And you held it against them.

Sure it does. A civil war followed by a partioned Iraq is a big coup for Iran. First, it gets the Americans out of Iraq -- a very big plus all by itself for Iran. Second, it gives them huge influence over an oil-rich Shia state in southern Iraq. In a "unified" Iraq, Iran's influence has to compete both with Sunni and Kurdish interests and with America's presence, both physical and spiritual. Plus, an independent Shia southern Iraq will have, at best, prickly relations with all the Sunni states in the region. They'll almost have no choice but to depend heavily on Iran, not that they wouldn't be inclined to do so anyway.

Perhaps - that's certainly a reasonable analysis.

But I'm not sure it will be that simple - the Shi'a and Sunni populations are so intertwined in Baghdad and the regions immediately south almost to Karbela, plus the wing of the Tigris extending north of Baghdad to Samarra and along the Euphrates to the vicinity of Ar Ramadi, that I can't see an easy disentanglement. It is likely to be ugly and prolonged, which could not only be potentially destabilizing for Iran itself ( possible refugee situations for instance ), but may be the most benefit to the most stridently militant faction in Iraq - the Sadrists. That's not a group Iran wants to encourage to grow in influence.

Also there is the small issue that Iran is not going to be all that much happier with an independent Kurdistan than Turkey. The issue is less pressing for Iran, but not nonexistant.

Meanwhile, a fragile but still unitary Iraq with a solid Shi'a majority offers greater economic opportunity and potentially more allied geopolitical clout. IMO Iran can afford to wait the Americans out.

Re: the Kurds. I really hope you're wrong.

Yep, me too.

Oh please, I'm totally harmless...

*snort* I suspect your djinn would beg to differ ;).

One might posit that a meaningful cost-benefit analysis is impossible because there is uncertainty. Of course, violence, mayhem, and civil war only adds to the chaos (and uncertainty.). I doubt that a civil war in and of itself aids anyone materially--war is, after all, destruction, injury, and death for all involved. It does, however, rearrange the chessmen in some random fashion by the time it's all over. If so, those who have the least today (i.e. the Sunnis) stand to gain the most by gambling on chaos.

(Note to eerie: I wonder if you ever finished reading Diplomacy and if you remember why I thought Kissinger was an idiot. The logic of chaos I laid above was precisely the strategy pursued by Napoleon III in 1850's-1860's, and given the goals he sought, it was a perfectly rational strategy, albeit overly bold and extremely risky, as it turned out: biographies of Louis Napoleon make it clear that he felt that France by mid-19th century was too weak to openly challenge for supremacy in Europe, but that spreading chaos might open up opportunities not seen at the present. Bismarck, for his part, sought stability, peace, and orderly diplomacy precisely the same reason. He wasn't the shortsighted "realist" that Kissinger makes him out to be.)

Just noticed this now from Clever Anon:

BTW, I find it extremely odd that the attackers made such an unusual effort to ensure that nobody got killed.

A couple of well-known scholars (incl. Salafis) have issued fatwas against killing believers and/or using the apostasy/fitna excuse to kill Shias ("Anyone who harms a believer has no jihad"). Also, a roundtable fatwa was issued in Jordan just one day before the London bombings that ruled against killing any believer belonging to the 8 schools of jurisprudence. Sistani was involved, so the edict included Shia Muslims.

It seems that the negative publicity of Zarqawi playing the apostate/collaborator card just before killing Muslims willy-nilly forced the less bloodthirsty fundies/conservatives into saying something lest they lose the 'pious middle'. Still, bombing a major (empty) shrine isn't exactly skirting that issue cleanly.

Related 'Aqoul links here and here.

PS kao - I do remember that discussion on Kissinger, yes :)

Definitely a non-expert here, but happy to have found this site recently.
Has anyone suggested that the US is to benefit if civil war breaks out in Iraq? Well, I mean that it would suit the priorities of the Bush administration. I don't have a clear cut argument for this, but it has seemed to me for quite a while that the administration can't possibly be unaware of the deteriorating situation in Iraq---even Bush must know. Still, at every public opportunity, Bush cites progress. Here are a couple of ideas; I'm not suggesting that the administration is connected with the bombings, btw, but I wonder if has been playing both sides in order to keep tension high. So, shoot down these ideas.

1) My main thought is that the administration still wants to "drain the swamp" in the Middle East by enlarging the conflict, specifically to include Iran and Syria. Is there a hope that the war spills over into Iran in order to create a pretext for military action against their nuclear program, for example?

2) The charitable version of this scenario was put forth by Tom Friedman some time ago. Essentially, he said that the forces behind Al Qaeda would not be defeated without a lengthy, probably violent internal struggle among the Arabs. (Don't hit me for specifying Arabs only---I believe that's how Friedman put it). The less charitable view is that the administration thinks its just great if Arabs are killing Arabs, because then they aren't killing us. This is a little bit of a reprise of 1980s Iraq-Iran, where we supported both sides to maintain a balance.

3) The administration will go to great lengths to prevent the Shia from assuming power in Iraq, including providing support to the Sunni insurgents, to some degree.

For McIntosh.

No offense, but this is the kind of post that makes me want to grab the author by the collar and go "Okay wiseguy, so what've you got to offer then?"

Civil war.

It's easy to snipe and be smug from the sidelines, but seriously, what is the culmination of this?

Civil war.

As I had been saying here since sometime in 2004.

As to this,
Has anyone suggested that the US is to benefit if civil war breaks out in Iraq?

No, becuase outright Civil War is a diaster, an uncontrolled crisis. Low grade civil war at least is controllable or manageable.

Well, I mean that it would suit the priorities
of the Bush administration.

Not particularly.

the administration can't possibly be unaware of the deteriorating situation in Iraq---even Bush must know. Still, at every public opportunity, Bush cites progress.

Retorical trap plus wishful thinking.

1) My main thought is that the administration still wants to "drain the swamp" in the Middle East by enlarging the conflict, specifically to include Iran and Syria. Is there a hope that the war spills over into Iran in order to create a pretext for military action against their nuclear program, for example?

One would home along among the lunatics.

2) The charitable version of this scenario was put forth by Tom Friedman some time ago. Essentially, he said that the forces behind Al Qaeda would not be defeated without a lengthy, probably violent internal struggle among the Arabs. (Don't hit me for specifying Arabs only---I believe that's how Friedman put it). The less charitable view is that the administration thinks its just great if Arabs are killing Arabs, because then they aren't killing us. This is a little bit of a reprise of 1980s Iraq-Iran, where we supported both sides to maintain a balance.

Except Afghanistan is already the negative model.

3) The administration will go to great lengths to prevent the Shia from assuming power in Iraq, including providing support to the Sunni insurgents, to some degree.

The religiuos Shia, not all. Bedazzled with the mythology of the secularity of Iraq.

And re Iraq the Model was a fool to have so named his blog that, was and always has been a fool. The author may be a fine fellow, but he represented and infiinetesmally tiny minority and was never clear thinking enough to realise his dreams were merely mirages.

""Sure why not? I wish they [would] more."

Well, don't look now, but that's exactly what they were doing. And you held it against them."
__________________________________--

I wasnt referring then to Iraq the Model but other pro-interventioners generally. In any event, I don't hold telling their telling the honest truth against them, I hold their IDIOTIC NAME against them.

There seems to be entirely too much solicitousness around here towards the far-too-frequently-on-the-same-blogrolls-as-Little-Green-Footballs "Iraq the Model". The blog deserves derision, not pity or compassion, though I sincerely wish them no physical harm in this ever deteriorating situation.

Still they have done a lot of harm. And even if they are facing and reporting reality more and more, their wilfully stupid name hasn't changed last I checked.

Louns,
Thanks for the answer. Your points are pretty much as I imagine, but I still see the possibility that some in the administration view civil war as an opportunity rather than a failure.

I wish I could find the article from a few months ago which reported that the US was aiding some Sunni insurgents---the obvious purpose being to keep the Shia from establishing control.
I don't think it's out of the question that the administration has been aiding the Sunnis, with this goal in mind, thinking that the conflict could be kept at an acceptable level. Obviously I don't have any evidence beyond that one article, but I in principle I have no problem believing that the administration would be demonizing the Sunnis in public while aiding them in private.