Rick's Cafe Americain

1.  Let’s say that there are free and open elections in Iraq in January. 

2.  And let’s say they elect an Islamist leader not beholden to the U.S. (which seems likely if the elections actually are OPEN and FREE).

3.  Said leader then asks us to leave.

What happens next?

1)It will be impossible to have free and open elections in Iraq in January.

2) I agree that, if and when free and open elections are held, this is a likely outcome.

3) We [should] leave.  But I doubt that will happen, unless the oil wells are back up and running.

I tend to agree with 1, but also thing that President pig-headed will advocate gay marriage before he’d change his time table.

My worry is that it will be kind of a “sham” election.  Which might actually be an ok thing for Iraq (or not), but will be awful for America’s credibility.  I shudder at the thought of the land of the free and the home of the brave setting up a banana republic and calling it a freely elected democratic government. 

But I guess I’m probably also a naive idealist.

1. I tend to agree.  If there ARE elections in January, all candidates will likely be puppets and/or Ralph Nader
2. If they have truly free and fair elections, the first candidate who says “I will be nice to the people of Iraq, I won’t kill random large groups of people, and I’ll kick the US out” will win in a landslide.
3. We should leave closing ALL doors behind us and leave these people to their own devices, even if there are massive human rights violations.  OUR way of government and freedom isn’t everyone’s way.  For some reason, NONE of our presidents (since James Monroe?) seem to get that.

OK, Todd, now I’m confused. You supported the war and the President even though there was no connection to Al-Qaeda and no WMDs. Presumably because we got rid of a dictator that gassed his own people, had rape rooms, tortured athletes, etc. But you are prepared to walk away and leave the people of Iraq with a government that will engage in “massive human rights violations”?

Thanks for nothing, U.S.A.!

Ferrari, I think you’re exactly right.  Except for the last sentence in your second paragraph, which is not only hopelessly naive but geographically ignorant.

Unfortunately, the interests of Iraqi sovereignty and American security are likely to be directly at odds with one another.  We have thrust ourselves into a paradox partly of our own making: If we leave the Iraqis alone to self-govern, we likely will see the growth of yet another Islamist, anti-American state.  If we keep our finger on the scale to ensure that the government that is formed is (at least nominally) pro-US, we increase the ire of many Iraqis and of the Arab world in general.

Moreover, it will be years before the Iraqis are able to rebuild their cities and reestablish the infrastructure.  It will be many years more before a democratic process becomes entrenched, if it ever does.  Neither of these things will happen without significant U.S. (or international) involvement and help.  I’m afraid we’re in for the long haul whether we like it or not, and the best case scenario is likely to be better for Iraq than for America.

Ugarte,

Actually, my position has more internal consistency than the administration OR its critics.  The grounds for invasion WERE adequate, assuming the intelligence was correct.  Once that intelligence proved faulty, we needed to re-evaluate our direction in the country rather than blindly digging into an intractable position.

So while I supported the invasion based upon the (since proven faulty) intel, our continued military presence has actually diminished the likelihood of a pro-US democracy.  I would’ve favored the immediate pullout of “offensive forces” and the insertion of spineless UN monitors and peacekeepers (after all, isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?) to begin the rebuilding of the infrastructure.  Let the UN worry about human rights violations.

A reasoned position, TC. I like it. Seriously. (When you snark as much as I do, sometimes it becomes necessary to point out actual sincerity.)

But given your position, was it a lack of trust in Kerry that led you to support Bush after he dug his heels in deep?

And Rick, take it easy on Ferrari. He meant to say “date republic”.

Hey! Stop asking so many questions. Bush has the will of the people and they will shut you up.

Huh?  Rick, I assumed you were making a subtle joke related to the U.S. elections; Ugarte seems to be taking the comment seriously, and perhaps he is right (though who knew Iraq was the land of dates?).  Feel free to clarify.

Ugarte (and perhaps Rick), “banana republic” is acceptable to describe any puppet state these days.  The phrase has grown beyond its origin.

Todd, I have to disagree.  I certainly don’t advocate us getting out of Iraq, even though I was against the war before and after the intelligence disasters.  We created the mess and it would be completely irresponsible to abandon it.  That being said though, I am not sure we can really say “no” if a legitimate Iraqi government tells(asks) us to leave.

I can see the conversation now.

Freely elected Iraqi leader with the will and mandate of the people and deeply Islamist viewpoints ("FEIL"):  Mr. President, we have had our elections.  Thank you for that.  Now please remove your troops, we can take it from here.

Bush:  No.

FEIL:  Ummm...I’m serious.  I am the sovereign leader, freely elected, and we don’t want you in our country anymore.

Bush:  You are violating the one question rule.

FEIL:  By the will of Allah, I command that you remove your troops from our nation.

Bush:  What part of “spending capital” do you not understand?

Ooooh, a compliment from a liberal!?!?!  What will my friends say?

If either candidate had said, “I’m pulling troops out and calling for the UN (especially France and Germany) to get off their collective asses to establish a peacekeeping force”, they would’ve had my support. 

Then I would’ve gone out and voted for Bush anyway.  I’m a fiscal Republican, tax and spend liberals make my skin crawl, as do indecisive leaders who think decisions against known aggressors should be made by diplomats… As Scotty once said, “The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.”

Ferrari,

Granted, we took out the Iraqi’s only authority figure (and his sons), a brutal genocidal authority figure, but their only one nonetheless.  But, why is it OUR responsibility to replace the infrastructure?  Isn’t this the precise time the candy-asses in the UN should be stepping up to help? 

Think about it this way, if your house is burning down and firemen come to put it out, saving your family and many of their possessions, do you expect them to rebuild the house too?  This is a time for the UN to prove their value, and put an international coalition (a real one, US and Britain alone don’t count) to oversee the rebuild attempt.  Or else they prove that they’re a group of empty suits and talking heads that don’t really contribute to world harmony.

Ferrari, not an election joke, just a jab at how often we set up “banana[/date] republics”, and how often the results are . . . er . . . catastrophic.

As for Todd, I’m with Ferrari on this one.  Iraq as it existed pre-invasion did not warrant an invasion (and lets not pretend that this is a conclusion that could only have been drawn in hindsight).  Now that we’ve invaded, however, we have created a HUGE threat to American lives, and added to the chaos and animosity on which the terrorists thrive.  Iraq should not have been, but now must be, a primary National Security concern.  Pulling out now would be a HUGE mistake for the U.S.

That having been said, and before you let Ugarte’s compliment go to your head, at least your position seemed consistent (if flawed).  but your last paragraph sends you back into the galley as far as I’m concerned.

except bush is not a fiscal conservative.

on the spend side:  the government has grown dramatically on his watch.

on the taxing side: bush cut federal taxes, but his policies have actually resulted in a tax increase on most people.  bush cut a lot of the federal dollars that used to flow to state and local governments and imposed huge unfunded or underfunded mandates on them at the same time (relating to homeland security and the no child left behind act).  most states have balanced budget amendments so, unlike the fed, they can’t go into a long-term deficit and are required to raise taxes when there is a shortfall.  the result is that local taxes have risen at a greater pace than they were cut for everyone but the richest americans.

so, like it or not, bush is a tax and spend conservative.  that’s how he lost my father’s vote (a lifelong republican tax attorney)

Whoa, for a second cobloggers. I don’t think TC is advocating pulling out NOW (you aren’t, are you, Todd?). I think he is saying we should have ceded control to the U.N. as soon as we toppled Saddam’s government.

Hey Ferrari, guess which one of us understood what Rick was saying!

Looks like neither.

Deconstructing Rick:

hopelessly naive = “fails to account for the U.S. history of supporting puppet governments”

geographically ignorant = “ain’t no bananas in Iraq”

I didn’t think the first one was a subtle point, nor do I have much installing-a-puppet-government material, so I didn’t comment further. The date reference was just one of the many warm-weather-fruit jokes that make up the bulk of my act, so I thought this would be a good time for it.

Because I understand Rick and all.

The date reference was just one of the many warm-weather-fruit jokes that make up the bulk of my act, so I thought this would be a good time for it.

?????

Ugarte,

Absolutely correct.  We shouldn’t just pull up stakes and bolt, but wait until the UN can do something useful and step in to rebuild the infrastructure.

We basically served our (assumed, certainly not requested) role as the Dictator-Busters of the world, so bring in the supposed keepers of order to organize the post-op mess.

Todd, your position implicitly assumes “Mission Accomplished”.  The invasion is not over, and it is not a success.  We have to bring some level of order and security to Iraq before anyone can come in and rebuild the infrastructure.  Hard to build infrastructure while Marines, insurgents and international terrorists all are hard at work blowing it up.

“Implicitly”?!  No, if you read carefully, you’ll see the word “wait”, as in wait until the UN can muster up enough resources (probably on our dime anyway, but with more international cachet) to insert a nominal garrison of peacekeepers.  Even terrorists and insurgents will see the futility of blowing up UN-sponsored troops, and allow the UN “consultants” enough time to establish some form of temporary government/infrastructure.

In response to number 20, last sentence.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Todd, I was writing my comment while you were posting #18, so I hadn’t seen the “wait”, and was instead responding to words like “immediate” (as in “I would’ve favored the immediate pullout of “offensive forces” and the insertion of spineless UN monitors and peacekeepers . . . to begin the rebuilding of the infrastructure."), as well as “Isn’t this the precise time the candy-asses in the UN should be stepping up to help,” etc.

But, if you’ve flip-flopped—er, refined your position—more power to you.  However, I disagree that “even terrorists and insurgents will see the futility of blowing up UN-sponsored troops, and allow the UN “consultants” enough time to establish some form of temporary government/infrastructure.” If they’re kidnapping Allawi’s family members, what makes you think they will blink at blowing up international “peacekeepers”?

Also, responding to your fireman analogy in #11, if the firemen started the fire, even after everyone else in the neighborhood told them they shouldn’t, hell yes I would expect them to rebuild my house.  And I’d want to kick their asses, too.

Well, if I was unclear, I apologize.  Until the UN assumes an active role, we can’t pull out our troops.  (I thought by making it a clause within the same sentence, I was being clear, but I digress). 

And the firemen were responding to smoke (granted, the smoke was reported by some nosy neighbors that were wrong), and removed the pyro who was known to play with matches.  Hey, they flooded the building, arrested the pyro, and are trying to stamp out the hot spots now.

Regardless, I appreciate the dialogue, if only to satisfy my own desire to project my perspective on a group that thinks of the Republicans as nothing more than god-fearing yahoos.

I also appreciate the dialogue—that’s why we’re here.  Few people who visit comment, and those who do tend to either agree with us or be lunatics.

Oh, and we don’t think all Republicans are “god-fearing yahoos”.  Many of them are hypocritical sinners who only use God as a weapon.

I still think you read ol’ Todd wrong, Rick. Immediately referred to “immediately after the initial storming of Baghdad,” not “right fookin’ now.” What is it with me and my crazy ‘understanding people’?

The 2d best poker player in bloggerdom (until the next tourney, anyway) neither flip-flopped nor refined his position. Now apologize to our guest. Even if he is a Republican. (I think Rick slipped in a comment while you were writing your own comment. -ed. So he did.)

Immediately referred to “immediately after the initial storming of Baghdad,” not “right fookin’ now.”

That is exactly how I understood it.  Hence my comment at #19: that position either assumes that the initial storming was a success, or suggests that we should have left before we were finished.

Am I missing something?

“a group that thinks of the Republicans as nothing more than god-fearing yahoos.”

Nah, I’m married to one of y’all Republicans.  He doesn’t even believe in god.  Evil, maybe.  yahoo, no.

Comment 28, wherein Ugarte attempts to speak for ToddCommish because he is bored and impatient.

I don’t think he assumes Mission Accomplished, only “Mission Almost Accomplished.” If, in the immediate aftermath of removing Hussein from power (even, possibly, before his capture in the spider hole), the U.S. had said to the U.N. “We’ve done the tricky removing-the-dictator part. We need you to handle the also tricky preventing-a-civil-war-and-insurgency part. Can you take over?” We would be doing better than we are now on account of the prolonged occupation and torture.

“. . . bored and impatient.” Yeah, or has a life.

We should probably stop now, since a conversation between Ferrari and ToddCommish has turned into a conversation between me and you and your other voices.

What you say makes sense, ToddCommish/Ugarte, so I apologize for saying otherwise.

For the record, I was bored and impatient, so I responded for TC before he responded himself. I make no claims as to TC’s state of mind.