MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Still broken and can't be fixed. . .it's just an absolute tragedy.
Comments
And so far the U.S. has apparently rebuffed requests by the Iraqi government for air support -- so far. From this evening's Times:
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/11/2014 - 8:42pm
Freedom is on the march!
by jollyroger on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 10:17am
The rise of ISL is a big development.
Has anyone been reporting on this?
These guys seem to be a genuine insurgent army inside Iraq.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 10:43am
It certainly is a major development. I wish I could show this map from the Washington Post, which shows the continuing advancement of ISIS, beginning with a takeover heading east from Syria of major cities along the Euphrates River and into the "Sunni Triangle" and beyond in Iraq. You can see the eastward movement in a sort of pincer like form where they've seized major cities north and south more and more to the west of Baghdad. In short, Baghdad looks surrounded. The Kurds, in response, or seeking to consolidate their control over territory at the same time (more to the north and east (so far) from where ISIS has been. But the Iraqi Army has thus far appeared to be powerless in the face of this offensive.
So consider what's happening here in another sense. Iran is closely alligned with with the Shiite-led government in Iraq, which is now under assault by the same ISIS that is at war with the Alawite-led government in Syria, which is also allied with Iran and Iranian client Hezbollah in Lebanon. Interestingly, Turkey, which has its own problems currently with the Syrian government, is also at odds with ISIS, as reflected in yesterday's brazen raid by ISIS on the Turkish consulate in Mosul, combined with the detention of forty-nine members of the Turkish diplomatic corps and their family. This could explain why Iranian president Rouhani met with Erdogan in Istanbul a few days ago, and which was the first such visit since 1994.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 11:51am
I should add that the ISIS offensive has left the group in control of most of the country's oil-producing region.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 11:55am
Yes, that's the problem that makes it impossible to peacefully split the country into three autonomous regions. The minority Kurds in the north control a big chunk of Iraq's oil. The minority Sunni's in the south control the an even bigger chunk. The majority Shiite's in the center control the largest chunk of land but there's very little oil on it.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 2:27pm
Yes, but the cheerful news for the fossil free Shia Iraqis--just across the border live fossil rich Shia Saudis...,hi-jinks ensue...not to mention fossil rich Shia Bahrainis, already a source of hilarity (some with longterm employment contracts in the hilarity production industry in return for their prior service in the medical industry...)
by jollyroger on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 8:42pm
Saudi Arabia is Sunni and Wahhabi.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 9:22pm
Saudi Arabia's monarchs are Sunni and Wahabbi (there, fixed it for you)....the 15% of the population that is Shia happen, by fortuitous chance, to be concentrated in much the same territory as the oil, (just over the Saudi-Iraqi border) and not entirely reconciled to the writ of the monarchy. Wherein lieth the motivation that drives Saudi government geopolitical hostility to Shia aspirations wherever they arise (as in the Saudi military units who put down the Shia (majority) Bahraini insurrection.
But, thank you for your helpful participation. When come back, bring research, (and a name would be nice...)
by jollyroger on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 12:52am
Oh hijinks, so much hilarity. That's why I support boots on the ground in both Iraq and Syria. Americans can fight shoulder to shoulder with the Iranians against ISIS in Iraq and fight shoulder to shoulder with ISIS against the Iranians to force out Assad in Syria. Fun times.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 1:33am
The enemy of my friend is my friend...the friend of my enemy is my friend.
Huh?
Bud Abbott, Sec. of Defense, Lou Costello, Sec. of State
by jollyroger on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 2:00am
"But the Iraqi Army has thus far appeared to be powerless in the face of this offensive."
Actually, the Iraqi Army isn't fighting. They are running away, those, that is, who haven't gone over to the side of ISIS. ISIS is meeting almost no resistance. Meanwhile, civilians who would not prosper under the Caliphate (ie, Christians) are fleeing for their lives.
It's going to get more interesting when ISIS bumps into Shiite Iran on one side, and Sunni-but-not-fundamentalist Turkey on the other.
The Sunni-but-not-fundamentalist Jordanians are getting even more frightened. And, of course, Israel is watching very closely.
by Lurker on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 5:23pm
I remember during the war, Sean Hannity flummoxed an antiwar Democrat by asking "would you rather Saddam was still in power"? I think we can say that yes, leaving Saddam in power would have been better than what has happened since 2003.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 11:45am
The frustrating thing is that, the Syrian angle aside, we all knew back in 2003 that the Sunni minority were not going to ride off into the sunset once Sadaam Hussein's statues were knocked down for television.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 11:53am
To underline this point, one of the (deck'o card) old fugitives that scattered when the statue fell, V.P. Izzat al-Douri, lives to fight on in the ISIS coalition (a bit of irony, given Saddam's implacable hostility to fundamentalism, but, wtf...)
by jollyroger on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 1:22am
Hold everything, turn the ships around. The pivot to Asia will have to wait. Besides, even if we got there today we would just bump into Putin's backside. He is already on his way there and he is taking his oil with him. He got turned that way when we started spinning Ukraine and now, of all times, OUR oil in Iraq is coming under the control of people who hate us. Why? Could it be for things we have done, ... and can we honestly say that that what we do is actually different than who we are? Worth reading is this piece by Helen Benedict from Guernica which asks this question.
http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/helen-benedict-the-moral-confusion-of-p...
By the way, I have commented a couple times as funonymous and will likely do so again when on a different computer.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 2:35pm
I think Iraqis, particularly those among the Sunni minority, have every reason to resent what we did in Iraq over the last decade, and what we have done over the last century -- along with other western powers -- in exploiting Iraq's natural resouces. I have no doubt about that, and clearly as Ms. Benedict suggests, it's a mess, morally and otherwise. On that you and I are in agreement.
I'm not sure if ISIS, which seeks a united Sunni entity that rejects the post-WWI western-made division between Iraq and Syria (Sykes-Picot Agreement), is principally motivated by oil. I brought up their takeover of oil-rich regions in Iraq solely to point out another indicia of how powerful they have become. On the other hand, the American-trained, largely Shiite government forces appear powerless to prevent ISIS from moving right into Baghdad.
Finally, Iraq circa 2003 is not you, it's not me, and it's not most Americans. But what was done was done in the name of our country, and that is something that we have never come to terms with.
Good luck with the new name. Peace.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 3:25pm
The president now says that he is prepared to help the Iraqi government, but offers no specifics:
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 3:39pm
Although I'd like the United States to disarm, I'll admit that air strikes in Iraq would be more defensible than most military interventions. The Sunnis are a minority trying to subjugate the other eighty percent of Iraqis. But I have no enthusiasm for getting mixed up over there again.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 5:58pm
It's hard to point fingers, which means it's even harder to justify American boys and girls having to face life and death over there again. The Sunnis, led by Hussein, were indeed a privileged minority, but now al-Maliki appears to have done nothing to try to ease tensions and instead has been as sectarian on behalf the Shia majority as Sadaam and the Bathists were on behalf of the Sunni minority. We just had no business being there, never did, and I am baffled by the situation.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 6:54pm
Michael Knights is a military affairs specialist with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a DC think thank which MJ used to say was an arm of AIPAC). Anyway, Knights is supposedly particularly expert on military matters in Iraq. This account of the success of ISIS is really incredible. According to Dr Knights, ISIS took Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, with less than a thousand fighters, and with perhaps as few as 400 of them. That just seems so bizarre but here is what Knights writes today:
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 7:15pm
Michael Knight was Tad the Cad on All My Children!
I had no idea he was some sort of Near East Policy Expert...
I joke I joke.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 7:31pm
:) Good to see you Tmac.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 7:46pm
You too Bruce.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 06/12/2014 - 7:55pm
One outcome of this will probably to formalize the complete independence and autonomy of Kurdistan from the state of Iraq.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 11:14pm
Over Erdogan's dead body...
by jollyroger on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 2:38am
And now, the Great MrSmithini will make a bold and startling prediction:
This week's guest on Meet The Press will be Sen. John McCain and he will rant and rave and nearly foam at the mouth in his eagerness to support an American invasion of Iraq and host David Gregory will smile stupidly and let everything the Senator says go completely unchallenged....
The Great MrSmithini knows all. ;-)
by MrSmith1 on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 3:24am
He does indeed! I ain't taking that bet Mr. Smith. :)
by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 11:12am
Another prediction: Mr. Cain's ranting and Gregory's (non)response will have about a .001 impact on the psyche Richter Scale of Americans.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 11:21am
I am reminded that this is the kind of "war of civilizations" chaos that some of the more serious neo-cons wished to see happen, only they were hoping that it would happen earlier. (Not including, of course, the more naive "democracy will be welcomed with flowers and sweets" types like Wolfowitz )That they didn't see an end to jihadi terrorism without this kind of upheaval in the region, that having strong men dictators keeping a lid on things wasn't a good fix, that that alone wouldn't work or wouldn't last and wouldn't help stop attacks on the west, that things had to be let to boil and come to a head and resolve, including civil wars. Of course they had faith that the majority of the people of the region would eventually reject a Taliban kinda life. One complication I don't recall most of them envisioning is the depth and breadth of the Sunni vs. Shia hatred.
One thing I think those of us who never agreed with Bush pre-emptive doctrine tend to fail to think about in this context is our own history in the U.S., of a democratic experiment brought to civil war, with both some very bad lasting consequences but also lasting union and strength and freedom for minorities. A lot of the Neo-cons were after all very interested in history. It's a cruel view of what lessons one should take from history, but thought-provoking nonetheless.
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 4:10am
P.S. I do think that Bush bought the general concept I described above. hook, line and sinker. That his father played footsie with strong men in the region in order to keep a lid on things and then ended up fighting a war that didn't resolve anything just made it easier for him to believe it was the right way to go after 9/11. Hence the "Axis of Evil" speech. The whole "mission accomplished" thing, that was just bullshit political p.r., including for a global audience. Go back to old pre-Iraq invasion descriptions of Bush's "pre-emptive" doctrine and it all becomes clear, at least for me it does.
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 4:19am
If it took a fundamentalist incursion allied with a Baathist revanchism to bring DoubleA back to the blog, I, for one, say "bravo, my nutso Sunni brothers!" (there are, of course, no sisters in the ISIS ranks...)
by jollyroger on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 5:11am
I have vivid memories of the introduction of that concept by Bush after 9/11. I have similarly vivid memories of a national media that largely brought into it hook, line and sinker.
by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 11:28am
Hey AA, and without beating a dead horse, I just hope that the reason that you've not posted much recently has nothing to do with the health of you or a loved one. Nuf said.
It is surreal to read the same stuff from the same folks, i.e. those who opposed the war in 2003 and oppose intervention now are once again yearning for the days when Sadaam kept everything together with a sledge hammer. Talk about deflection.
On the other hand, there is a serious question about what, if anything, we should be doing now. And while the president correctly IMO keeps all options on the table, etc., carping about al Maliki's failure to do more to bring Sunnis into the fold at this point seems to be addressing toothpaste that came out of the tube a long time ago. What was it that caused the president and his advisers to expect otherwise? I do think that's a fair question, and not immaterial as events are now unfolding.
by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 11:03am
Meanwhile, back on the ranch.
From the article you link to by Tom Wilson:
When the invasion of Iraq took place, many left-liberal commentators—particularly those in Britain and Europe—had a curious response. Of course they detested Saddam, they assured us, but might it not be the case that Saddam—a strong man—was the only person who could govern “a place like that”?
This article is very poorly constructed. I do not know if it is even true that many left-liberal commentators, especially in Britain and Europe, did in fact suggest that only a 'strong man' could govern a 'place like Iraq'. I am quite certain that that was not the only reason given by those objecting to the invasion. And, does the author intend to imply that when they said they detested Saddam that they were being less than honest?
This stunning suggestion that human rights and basic freedom might not be for everyone, that some human beings are just better off under despotism, was shocking then and its shocking to consider now.
There is a lie embedded in the way that sentence is constructed. Who are suggesting that human rights and basic freedoms are not a good thing for everybody? Sure, basic freedoms are part of the ideal situation for everybody and nobody, except for the despots and their chosen few, are better off under despotism than under a system that allows basic freedoms and human rights but it is surely stunning if the author is suggesting that as a result of our invasion that the citizens of Iraq gained so much in basic freedoms that the hundreds of thousands that died and the millions that were displaced from their homes and the conditions that prevail for the survivors now are better than they were before. Some Iraqis, actually a hell of a lot of them, were better off living under Saddam's despotism than they were dying or watching their families suffer and die as they were freed from his tyranny. That is not an apology for Saddam, it is an indictment of the mendacious argument made by Wilson.
Besides, one got the impression that most of these voices weren’t actually that favorable toward the Baathist regime, they just hated the thought of the use of Western power far more.
How about this: None, zero, zilch, were "that favorable towards the Bathist regime", most just hated to see a war started by lies, a war that could not be won and would likely leave everyone actually involved worse off than before.
Now, however, with Iraq descending into chaos once again—
More evidence that the 'left-liberal comentators' saw reality better than Tom Wilson of Commentary did then or does now.
—these “liberals” are dusting off those old arguments and wheeling them back out in another attempt to bamboozle a public they’ve already spent over a decade misleading.
Wilson doesn't seem to have much respect for liberals, does he? That seems to be the real point he is trying to make but his arguments are based on distortions and outright bs. Apparently he was all for the invasion and thinks that a facade of democracy smeared over Iraq makes any other degradation of life worthwhile. And, in what way have the 'liberals' been misleading everyone else for the last decade? Who is breaking out old arguments which all the evidence goes against? Citing one commentator, Chris Maume, who may well be an idiot I don't know, is hardly justification for the broad-brush criticisms of liberals in general made by Wilson.
Those who point to the violence and anarchy that succeeded Saddam all too easily forget the wars and turmoil that Iraq suffered during Saddam’s rule. In addition to the terrible losses suffered in the course of the lengthy Iran-Iraq war, there was also the blood-letting and mayhem of the Shia part of the 1991 uprising. Indeed, sectarianism in Iraq was not some invention of post-Saddam era.
Has Wilson forgot who was Saddam's friend and supporter during much of his reign? Has he forgotten the devastating affects of the sanctions applied later and considered how a despot could be expected to react when the affects came down most heavily on the despot's outer circle causing civil unrest? Is he 'dusting off those old arguments' that 50,000 dead children "were worth it" even when that was just an early part of the Iraqi's suffering at our hand?
It is surreal to read the same stuff from the same folks, i.e. those who opposed the war in 2003 and oppose intervention now are once again yearning for the days when Sadaam kept everything together with a sledge hammer. Talk about deflection. bslev
That paragraph seems much more applicable to the Commentary piece than to the objects of Wilson's scorn. I opposed our intervention in Iraq and I am quite sure you have said that you did also, but that was then. I am not yearning for a return to the days of Saddam . Are you? Are you for intervention now?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 3:36pm
I suggest this article from today's Counterpunch. It is in two parts and it is the second part that I most recommend. Scroll down and where it appears to end with a series of links keep going until you reach the part written by Polk.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/16/how-to-evolve-an-exit-strategy-fr...
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 1:59pm
Dear Bruce,
On your first graph, I have had major real life tragedies lately, radically altering life as I knew it, and there is no way I can spend as much time doing this kind of thing as I used to. Sweet of you to care, I mean that sincerely (this caring thing you have is part of the reason we all like your internet persona.) But as I hope everyone here will understand if I explain that I've always used this hobby as escapism from real life and for that reason I'd rather not talk about my own current real life problems, it just would ruin the whole reason for stopping by: to take my mind away to another kind of thought for a little while.
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 9:30am
Oh, shit. You had obliquely so indicated, and I was apprehensive. Really sorry to hear.
by jollyroger on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:19pm
Here's hoping that whatever turned bad turns better soon.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 6:36pm
What JR, Emma and lulu said, AA. I think quite a few folks care very much about you here. You're my teacher. Strength to you and yours.
Bruce
by Bruce Levine on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 7:20pm
Today's NY Times dead tree edition headline--ISIS definitely thinking along the lines of "alternative civilization," reviving Osama Bin Laden's caliphate dreams:
Meanwhile Pakistan's military is all of a sudden taking this kind of thing seriously again. I note they are blaming it all on those damn Uzbek (aided by some Chinese!) furriners, though....with nary an Allah-fearing Pakistani citizen involved...there's the out for them to continue to deal should they so wish....
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:41am
.................................................................................................................
Sincerest sympathy.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:44am
Thank you, Emma.
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:49am
Juan Cole: Ayatollah Sistani is basically encouraging holy war, but with instructions to do it through the state.
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 11:51am
And the NYTimes also reports today on the attempt to inspire more Americans to Join the Caravan of Jihad and Martyrdom
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 12:08pm
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus provides this report on the collapse of the Iraqi military and why it has at least so far been unable to respond to a much smaller ISIS force.
by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/14/2014 - 11:35am
This is the best I got.
I watched the ole USSR attack Afghanistan for ten years.
And they were idiots and their idiocy led to their demise, in my humble opinion.
And of course, (we) US armed the Iraquis. hahahahahah
Then, we decided that we would get into Afghanistan. hahahahaha
WHY THE HELL NOT?
US are idiots.
Now McCain and the Senator from SC (where else?) wish us to go BACK AGAIN INTO IRAQ?
WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!
WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!
Oh no, let us send another half a million young men and women into OZ?
NOTHING IS REVEALED!
by Richard Day on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 5:05pm