Say Anything Blog

I know that several Sunni groups have turned on Al Qaeda but have they really joined the US-led fight against the jihadists? Somebody here told me recently that I shouldn’t consider the enemy of my enemy to be my friend and I hope that this isn’t the case in Anbar.

The President shouldn’t get any credit for this either...why should he?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

So what do we do when the Iraqi government goes on a two month hiatus? How seriously is this government anyway that they would even consider a two month vacation while a civil war is going on in their country. Well I suppose as long as we are there they can take all the vacations they want.  We’re not leaving as long as Bush is president.  So I guess that is good news for Iraq.  A vacation for the government and protection from the US while they are on vacation.

2for1: Nice off-topic leftie talking points.  Non-responsive to this article.

MikeA: He gets the credit for removing a murdering dictator and enabling formerly oppressed Iraqis to fight their real enemies, for one.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...I’ll credit him one point for removing Saddam but he gets zero points for your second claim because it doesn’t make any sense.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: Do you really think any of these Sunnis would have had this sort of autonomy under Saddam?  You probably deny all Saddam-AQ connections, even though they are a matter of record.  Oh, well.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...do you think many of those Sunnis were particularly oppressed by Saddam? I’ll admit that the various combinations and permutations of the players in Iraq requires one to consult one’s program often but I think your enthusiasm is carrying you away.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson said, r108...I’ll credit him one point for removing Saddam but he gets zero points for your second claim because it doesn’t make any sense.

How does it not make any sense?

MikeA: Does anyone living under an absolute dictator enjoy any freedom at all, even the favored minority?  The Sunni, under Saddam, were relatively less oppressed than either the Shia or the Kurds, but when you are living under the thumb of a dictator who rules by terror, and who diverts the resources of his country to build multiple palaces for himself and his inner circle, you are oppressed.  That’s my calculation, at any rate.  Besides everything else our President has done for Iraq, the single act of deposing Saddam has accomplished incalculable good for all Iraqis.  All of them are free from Saddam’s oppression, no matter what the degree.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Besides everything else our President has done for Iraq, the single act of deposing Saddam has accomplished incalculable good for all Iraqis.  All of them are free from Saddam’s oppression, no matter what the degree.

I’m sorry r108 but from the perspective of the average Iraqi I don’t think it really matters whether the fear is due to Saddam and his henchmen or to Sunni/Shia death squads. That would be my calculation from a humanitarian point of view.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: I’m curious; first you write:

...from the perspective of the average Iraqi…

then you write: 

That would be my calculation from a humanitarian point of view.

Which is it?  Are you claiming to be in tune with “the average Iraqi”, or are you rightfully expressing your own “humanitarian” point of view?  Which one of those statements is accurate, and which one is a self-serving partisan opinion?

I don’t think it’s good form to use your own partisan opinion as “proof” of your proposition that President Bush hasn’t accomplished good for all Iraqis by freeing them from the grip of Saddam’s oppression?
IMO, your attempted equivalence is ridiculous on its face, and only serves the agenda of denying any credit to the President for his many accomplishments in the war on terrorism.  So sad.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I know that several Sunni groups have turned on Al Qaeda but have they really joined the US-led fight against the jihadists? That is exactly what is stated in the article, I believe. Somebody here told me recently that I shouldn’t consider the enemy of my enemy to be my friend Any reason for that opinion, except for partisan dislike of President Bush? That saying is an old and proven one; why is it suddenly not true? and I hope that this isn’t the case in Anbar. Once again, I refer you to the text of the article.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...both actually. First I am offering my opinion on whether the average Iraqi views the threat of sectarian violence as better or worse than the threat of Saddam’s violence and I conclude that it probably doesn’t matter. Second I finish by differentiating my calculation based on humanitarianism from a calculation based on cold strategic analysis...so they aren’t contradictory at all.

I recognise that any opinions are coloured by one’s perception of reality and political beliefs but I think it is possible to hold opinions that are not self-serving and partisan...I suppose that is another difference between us. Both comments that you cite are opinions and not statements of indisputable fact so I wouldn’t consider either as proof of anything.I have already awarded Bush a point for removing Saddam because he was a ruthless tyrant who abused his people. I probably should deduct the point for botching the maintenance of security after Saddam was removed but I won’t because it’s wrong to kick a man when he’s down.

The fact that you find the comparison of life under Saddam and life post-Saddam as ridiculous on its face says to me that your calculations are less humanitarian based and more strategically based. Either you have an interest in the lives of average Iraqis as ends in themselves or you have an interest in the lives of average Iraqis as they impact the security of the world, of America and of yourself. The former implies humanitarian concern while the latter implies strategic concern...not to say that both won’t be present but one usually dominates. Long response short, such a comparison is certainly not ridiculous nor is it an attempt at equivalence but quite simply a process of making sense of the situation.

As for the article, I am questioning to what extent the intra Sunni conflict should be regarded as evidence that the Sunnis in Anbar are joining the American side or, if in fact they are, whether it is evidence of a long term proposition or of short term convenience...thus my question about the enemy of my enemy.

Good questions and comments from you on all of this...thanks!

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

The fact that you find the comparison of life under Saddam and life post-Saddam as ridiculous on its face says to me that your calculations are less humanitarian based and more strategically based. Neither one.  It’s a fairly simple calculation involving living under a murdering dictator, versus not living under one.  Thought I made that clear before. Either you have an interest in the lives of average Iraqis as ends in themselves or you have an interest in the lives of average Iraqis as they impact the security of the world, of America and of yourself. My comments are strictly from the point of view of the Iraqi population.  Under Saddam, approx. 80% of the population(Shia and Kurds) were subject to unthinkable oppression, while the remaining 20%(the ordinary Sunni) were only oppressed to the level of having no personal choice.  Despite your negative appraisal(partisan, IMO), things are better now for all Iraqis than they were before the President took out Saddam.  Once again, I repeat myself.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

MikeA: One more thing: I assume that the Sunni in the article are acting in what they perceive to be their self-interest, which is with us, against the terrorists.  Nothing more complex or sinister than that.  It seems obvious to me.  Their actions would only be confusing to someone infected with leftie propaganda about Iraqis hating the US, etc.  In the light of reason, what they are doing makes perfect sense on its face.  It’s exactly what I expected to happen, once the Iraqis realize that we aren’t going to run away and leave them to the tender mercies of the terrorists.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

It’s a fairly simple calculation involving living under a murdering dictator, versus not living under one.  Thought I made that clear before.

You’ve made it very clear...anything is better than living under a murdering dictator. My opinion differs from your opinion in that I can visualise situations that are as bad as living under a murdering dictator which means that I can contemplate the difference between living under Saddam and living after Saddam.  Not only that but my contemplation need not and is not fueled by any partisan viewpoint but simply an examination of history and my capability to extrapolate from history and into plausible contemporary situations.

I assume that the Sunni in the article are acting in what they perceive to be their self-interest, which is with us, against the terrorists.

Fair enough.

It seems obvious to me.

I sense that but, while recognising the possibility that the Sunnis in question are operating in concert with the American forces, it is not obvious to me.

Their actions would only be confusing to someone infected with leftie propaganda about Iraqis hating the US, etc.

That ‘someone’ would certainly doubt that such cooperation exists but I think anyone who recognises the suspicion if not down right hostility felt by most Iraqi Sunnis towards Al Qaeda would not automatically accept your conclusion that the Sunnis in Anbar have been won over to the American side. I understand that this clashes with your “two sides” framework but I believe that the situation in Iraq is more complicated than that and that to assume what you do would be a mistake...not necessarily wrong but don’t assume it’s right. Okay?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: The part about being “won over” is your own creation; I merely said they are acting in their own interest by joining us in the fight against the terrorists.  Nothing complex, IMO.  To me, the “obvious” part is that they are fighting the same enemy we are, and are therefore on the same side as the US, in this endeavor.  I made no sweeping generalizations about anything else, simply, and I repeat, acting in common interest with us to oppose the terrorists.

My opinion differs from your opinion in that I can visualise situations that are as bad as living under a murdering dictator which means that I can contemplate the difference between living under Saddam and living after Saddam. One can certainly visualize anything, depending on one’s core beliefs, but are those visualizations based on facts, or just beliefs about the way things should be? Not only that but my contemplation need not and is not fueled by any partisan viewpoint but simply an examination of history and my capability to extrapolate from history and into plausible contemporary situations. Any concrete examples from contemporary Iraq?

Save America; boycott the MSM.