« Despite Dire Warnings, Civilization Seems Stable | Main | NK Solution: Bilateral or Team Effort? »

October 01, 2004

Comments

Careful, Edward. Watching the little dog sniff around the curtain helps undermine the Great and Powerful Oz.

Let's get the talking points straight. Is Allawi a "puppet" or a marionette?

And a question for Sebastian: Which is worse for Allawi in Iraq? The fact that his speech was written by the committee to re-elect the president of the United States or the fact that one of Kerry's campaign people expressed his opinion on the nature of the Allawi/Bush relationship?

$119 billion spent so far, and they only have dial up? someone get these folks net zero! ;-)

If true, this belies the Republican Party's devotion to the sovereignty of the election in which I'm about to vote. Further, no longer will I attach a shred of credibility to Bush's claim that he will never let those foreigners influence the decisions of the U.S. Government.

I spin, of course. I haven't detected a shred of credibility in approximately 4 years.

Is Allawi a "puppet" or a marionette?

how about : puppet in the shape of a parrot .

I really don't think there's any good way to spin this other than to claim it's just not true (and good luck with that), but I look forward to seeing people try -- it amuses me. Explicit collaboration with the campaign is a different, and worse, beast than even being a puppet of the United States policy as a whole. This is incredibly disgusting.

Outrageous! Imagine being so undiplomatic as to call Allawi a puppet just because he is.

If true, this belies the Republican Party's devotion to the sovereignty of the election in which I'm about to vote.

Hmmm...if Kerry borrows one of Clinton's speechwriters, is Clinton violating Kerry's sovereignty? If Allawi had asked Kerry to help him cobble together his speech, would we be seeing any outrage at all, here? Is it really a point of outrage, here, who Allawi got help from in writing his speech?

Now, if we'd written a speech and told Allawi to read it as written (or else), I'd be thinking there's a point to be found in here somewhere.

Now, if we'd written a speech and told Allawi to read it as written (or else), I'd be thinking there's a point to be found in here somewhere.

Do you really think that Allawi independently decided to ask Dan Senor for help?

How much independence would you estimate that Allawi had in making the speech that (we now know) was largely written for him and appears to echo Bush's election campaign claims for Iraq, not the reality of the situation in Iraq?

Slarti,

Offered simply as a public service message in the interest of full disclosure. Although it does make the charge that Allawi's a "puppet" a bit more defendable, no?

Funny that the same people who advocate diplomatic harmonization get angry when Bush actually works with a foreign leader. Reccommended phrases? Helped with practicing? Please point out the problem.

Why's Allawi a puppet? Because we say so!

Why do we say so? Because he's a puppet!

Funny that the same people who advocate diplomatic harmonization get angry when Bush actually works with a foreign leader.

I wonder how much of Tony Blair's speech before Congress the Bush campaign helped with....

I wonder how many skilled speechwriters Allawi's got to fall back on, as compared with Tony Blair, or George Bush.

Wow. Never consider an innocuous explanation, where a thoroughly evil (but no more justifiable) one can be used instead. I'll have to remember this rule in the event that we wind up with a President Kerry.

Remember, though Slarti...it wasn't the US government...it was the Bush Campaign helping Allawi.

There's a significant difference here.

"Remember, though Slarti...it wasn't the US government...it was the Bush Campaign helping Allawi.

There's a significant difference here."

That isn't what your report says:

"But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration."

Geez, let's pity the poor wogs who can't cobble two words together.

Please.

I'd ask folks to do a bit of research into Allawi's background before buying into the line that Allawi just wandered in from tending sheep in the hinterlands to become Iraq's PM. He's been a politician and political activist (when, of course, he wasn't killing people)for over 40 years. He's lived in the UK (still holds British citizenship)for more than 30 years.

Further, to suggest there aren't Iraqis--or Iraqi organizations-- capable of putting together a speech is rather foolish.

Also, Dan Senor is not a US Govt. official. He used to be--when he was with the CPA. But, now, he spends most of his time working for the BC04 campaign.

Slarti...you missed that part that reads "a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign"

This continues to be the no evidence, all insinuation channel.

I don't care who helped Allawi with his speech. Why do you? Have you got evidence of some sort of impropriety? Or are we still at the all-conjecture stage?

This continues to be the no evidence, all insinuation channel.

No, the Washington Post is reporting it. That's more than insinuation on my part. If you can disprove their story or point to one that contradicts it, that's one thing. However, you can't call pointing to a story in one of the nation's leading newspapers all insinuation.

You know, I searched all of the text you excerpted, and I can't find the word "puppet" in there anywhere. Then I went to WaPo, and no luck there, either.

"No, the Washington Post is reporting it. That's more than insinuation on my part."

They are reporting help with a speech. You are insinuating 'puppet'. I believe those count as two different things.

Have you got evidence of some sort of impropriety?

I dunno; having US servicemen die and get wounded in support of a political campaign seems a tad unseemly.

As Kevin Drum observes about the claim the Iraqi embassy only has dial-up: This has got to be lamest excuse I've ever heard. It's like they're not even trying anymore.

BTW, anybody have any info on the Iraqi ambassador to the US? It's very interesting.

Slarti
The US chose Allawi. His power in Iraq is an extension of our power there. And now it's turning out the president's campaign helped right his speech.
Do you really think that Iraqi's didn't have a clue about where Allawi got his power until someone in the Kerry campaign used the word Puppet?

Is Allawi a "puppet" or a marionette?

He's both - a muppet! In fact I remember him in the heist sequence in "The Great Muppet Caper." Fozzi throws the diamond to Kermit, Kermit hands it off to Lou Zealand, Iyad Allawi has Rizzo summarily executed! It was a blast!

Why can't they make movies like that anymore.

Right? typo "write".

ahh...I see what you're saying now...

if the Bush Campaign is writing Allawi's speeches for him, there's only insinuation to base one's assertion that he's a puppet on...rather than the centuries-old defintion of actually putting words in one's mouth to base that assertion on.

Slarti: I don't care who helped Allawi with his speech.

Okay.

Why do you?

Because when the Bush/Cheney campaign are putting words in Allawi's mouth as part of their campaign, they can hardly insist that the Kerry/Edwards campaign refrain from criticizing what their campaign muppet says.

Is Allawi a puppet?

Let's cut his strings (i.e., all US backing and support) and see if he collapses. Any bets?

I have yet to see Sebastian explain why he is not a puppet, as opposed to fussing about calling him such a bad thing.

"I dunno; having US servicemen die and get wounded in support of a political campaign seems a tad unseemly."

What? Oh, I see. The Iraq invasion was part of a clever plan to get Bush reelected. Right-o.

Oh, I see. The Iraq invasion was part of a clever plan to get Bush reelected.

By George, I think he's got it!

Sebastian connects the dots!

As Andy Card famously observed: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

War as a product to be marketed.

dmbeaster: I have yet to see Sebastian explain why he is not a puppet

And I don't suppose we ever will.

Great, I have J and J admitting they believe in cutesy conspiracy theories.

if the Bush Campaign is writing Allawi's speeches for him

If. Helped != Wrote the whole thing

Also, this tidbit:

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and British Foreign Service officials also helped Allawi with the text and delivery of his remarks, said administration officials who were involved.

Allawi is a puppet of the Tony Blair!

Slart, If you don't think that there would be a s***storm if the Kerry campaign helped Allawi write a speech that was essentially a clone of Kerry's stump speech (or try to picture a leader in an alternate universe where such a scenario even made sense), then you are all sorts of things that cannot be said under the posting rules. However, you are most certainly not those things, so I can only conclude that you are being disingenuous.

Well, let's compare and contrast, shall we?

Allawi's speech to Congress, vs....what? What is it you're saying Allawi's address is identical to?

Come on. If you're going to make some accusations, at least make them well. Why do we have to go round and round on this?

Great, I have J and J admitting they believe in cutesy conspiracy theories.

Mindreading, are we?

It's not "cutesy" when over a thousand of our troops die, Sebastian. The fact is your President's rationale for this war has changed and you've happily signed up for the excuse du jour isn't "cutesy," either.

I have a well documented, written trail you can follow on what I think and have thought about the war. I'm not buying an excuse de jour. And if you believe that Bush went to war in Iraq as an election stunt, I have to just note that and move on.

Slarti
How often do you use the term so and so's "better off with"...
Allawi is an Iraqi who lived for a long time in England yet he sounds a lot like that 'plain spoken' man in the White House.

I'm certain there are any number of ways to say, "Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do."

He says, "My friends, today we are better off, you are better off and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein."

George Bush says, "... the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power."

If you are looking for a smoking gun like Allawi reading word for word a Bush speech then I think you've raised the bar a little high.

Great, I have J and J admitting they believe in cutesy conspiracy theories.

Sebastian, I think you need food.

If you are looking for a smoking gun like Allawi reading word for word a Bush speech then I think you've raised the bar a little high.

Well, to be fair, it was carpeicthus who used the word clone. If you've got strong correlation in both content and phrasing between an Allawi speech and a Bush speech, let's see it. I'm not saying it's not there, just that it's your point to make.

Slarti
It's not that big of an issue with me to prove some point by point comparison of writing patterns.

We already know where Allawi gets his "authority" and people from the campaign and/or the administration have said he was "helped" with his speech. That's enough for me.

The root of his authority is the thing that the Iraqis understood well before any Kerry surrogate expressed an opinion on the subject. I doubt they really care who wrote the speech.

It's not that big of an issue with me to prove some point by point comparison of writing patterns.

Great! So, can we expect to see something in the near future on that?

We already know where Allawi gets his "authority" and people from the campaign and/or the administration have said he was "helped" with his speech. That's enough for me.

Yes, I get it. He's a puppet. Because you say so. You say so because he just is, damnit.

The root of his authority is the thing that the Iraqis understood well before any Kerry surrogate expressed an opinion on the subject. I doubt they really care who wrote the speech.

Good grief. Do you really believe that no one's aware that Allawi has been empowered to govern Iraq by those who deposed Hussein? Yes, we put him there. Does it mean he does our bidding? That's yours to show, or not. I'm thinking not, given the history here.

And of course he's going to remain in power, somehow, at our behest despite those pesky elections. Just as surely as Bush was going to cut and run out of Iraq last April, as our friend JadeGold predicted earlier. Waiting and seeing is just not catching on these days.

In what way does a Bush campaign representative giving Allawi "recommended phrases" (a euphemism if I've ever heard one) not constitute substantive supporting evidence towards the proposition that Allawi is a puppet? More pointedly, do you think Allawi could have, in any meaningful capacity, refused these "recommendations"?

Come now, Anarch, the standard of proof is much higher for accusations against Dear Leader. It just is.

Really, Allawi and his cronies couldn't possibly be expected to find a decent speechwriter in Iraq, you know.

Slarti: o you really believe that no one's aware that Allawi has been empowered to govern Iraq by those who deposed Hussein? Yes, we put him there. Does it mean he does our bidding? That's yours to show, or not. I'm thinking not, given the history here.

Well, so far, we see Allawi coming to the US and making a speech to Congress which turns out to have been written for him by one of the Bush/Cheney campaign workers, a speech that sounds astonishingly out of touch with the reality of the situation in Iraq (as Edward pointed out over a week ago), and which echoes substantively the Bush/Cheney spin on the situation in Iraq.

In what way do you feel that this proves that Allawi is not a Bush puppet, Slarti?

Of course Allawi was put into power by the US military, and is maintained in power by the US military. That's the reality of the situation on the ground: the puppet government was put in merely to give some semblance of legality to Bush & Co's plans to sell off Iraqi assets to the highest bidder. Chalabi's gone, Allawi's in: Allawi has no more real power than Chalabi had.

The issue of the speech, however, indicates that Bush & Co are not even interested in giving Allawi the semblance of independence. He is their man: they see no reason why he should not be used to campaign for Bush/Cheney under the guise of being an independent ruler. It's a similar attitude to their feeling that while the US military occupy Iraq, Bush & Co's crony capitalists should be allowed to make all the hay they can.

And that's what sums it up. If Bush & Co are not willing to give Allawi even the small independence of making his own speeches, letting him decide what to say about Iraq to Congress, then why should Kerry respect Allawi as an independent national leader - when, too patently, Bush & Co see Allawi merely as a campaigning tool?

There appears to be a bit of a impasse here. Maybe we should apply a bit of that old-fashioned "forensics" stuff...

Sebastian, Slarti, you seem to be arguing that the evidence is insufficient rather than trying to refute any of the evidence presented. Fine. In order to help us not bang our heads against a brick wall, please tell us what would be sufficient.

How exactly do you decide whether a given leader is a "puppet?" You clearly consider the evidence offered thus far to be insufficient, and your response to every single empirical observation has been to narrow the semantics of puppet-ness so as to exclude the evidence in question. But we still have no idea how narrow you want them to be. The polite (and productive) thing to do in situations like that is to explain exactly what semantics you're arguing for instead of leaving them totally undefined.

Is it even possible for a foreign leader to be a puppet at all? Can you name any examples from history which qualify? What is it that gives those examples the quality of "puppet-ness?" Or do you consider "puppet-ness" something that can only be disproved? (in which case anyone trying to prove it is wasting their time)

Go radish! Go radish! It's your birthday. Go radish!

your response to every single empirical observation has been to narrow the semantics of puppet-ness so as to exclude the evidence in question.

Yep, this is Sebastian's standard MO.

rather than trying to refute any of the evidence presented

I'd happily consider any evidence, just as soon as some appears. So far, all that's been offered is the word of some anonymous bloke to the effect that Allawi had help writing his speech. Jesurgislac and others would have that mean that his speech was written for him.

As for what it means to be a puppet, I'd think those making the claim ought to define it. It's their claim; I'm certainly not on the hook to help them with it.

I'd happily consider any evidence, just as soon as some appears.

Okay. Consider this: Allawi made a speech to Congress that looked (as Edward pointed out, before this story broke) to be astonishingly out of touch with the realities of the situation in Iraq. But the claims he made were remarkably similar to the claims Bush / Cheney make about Iraq.

Consider also this: Why would an experienced politician like Allawi need "help" from foreigners to write his speech? Do you think Tony Blair got "help" from the White House to write his speech to Congress?

You can dismiss everything else, Slarti, but if you want to consider evidence, that's it.

(There's also the simple fact that Allawi's power in Iraq is founded on the US military occupation of Iraq, but since you must be aware of that, I assume you simply don't want to think about it.)

Unanswered questions don't equal evidence, Jesurgislac. Ignorance does not equal a story.

There's also the simple fact that Allawi's power in Iraq is founded on the US military occupation of Iraq, but since you must be aware of that, I assume you simply don't want to think about it.

Well, since I expressly noted as much above...could be a reading comprehension issue, I guess. Look, if you're attempting to make a story out of something that practically everyone in the world already knows, i.e. Allawi was selected by us to be interim head of government in Iraq, I'm now going to bow out of this conversation, because it's of exactly zero consequence. If you've got some point outside of that context, please make it. To me, puppet means that Allawi does the bidding of the American government, which hasn't been shown by any standard of evidence.

Slart asked for a definition.

Puppet - a person or object controlled by a "master" in such a way as to present an illusion of being independent, but which on closer inspection has its movements and speech controlled by or supplied by the "master."

My dictionary has the appropriate definition:

puppet: n 3) One whose behavior is determined by the will of others.

Merriam Webster online has this:

3 : one whose acts are controlled by an outside force or influence

Well, if you had a dictionary...why did you ask for our definition???

Of course, Allawi is a puppet. This isn't really in dispute. Certainly, Iraqis perceive Allawi as a puppet. And Edward, Jesurgislac, and others have furnished ample evidence of Allawi being a puppet.

To be fair, Allawi has been put on a pretty short leash by this appointed administration. Despite the "turnover" several months ago, the US still maintains direct control over Iraq's key institutions including finances, the armed services, and the media. The US controls the legislative process in Iraq and has had oversight of all legislation including the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution. The US has tossed out hundreds of Iraqi laws and has exempted US personnel from Iraqi laws.

Just over a week ago, there was a dustup involving the release of some Iraqi prisoners. The Iraqi Justice Ministry announced they had decided to release some prisoners and the US dissented. Allawi quickly sided with his masters.

One whose behavior is determined by the will of others. .... one whose acts are controlled by an outside force or influence

Allawi came to the US to make a speech before Congress which echoed Bush/Cheney campaign talking points on Iraq rather than describing the reality of the situation on the ground.

Exactly how, do you feel, is this not evidence that Allawi is, by the definition you yourself have cited, a puppet?

Well, if you had a dictionary...why did you ask for our definition???

I didn't. See radish's post. You know, the one you cheered for.

Slarti,

you wrote:

As for what it means to be a puppet, I'd think those making the claim ought to define it. It's their claim; I'm certainly not on the hook to help them with it.

Sorry if I misinterpreted that as a call for those who think Allawi is a puppet to supply a definition, but it certainly seems to call for that.


Again, Edward, it was in response to this, written by radish:

The polite (and productive) thing to do in situations like that is to explain exactly what semantics you're arguing for instead of leaving them totally undefined.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Of course, Allawi is a puppet. . . . Allawi has been put on a pretty short leash

Aha! If the Bush administration has him on a leash, then obviously he's not their puppet -- he's their lap dog. He has a certain amount of freedom, but he's also eager to please the people holding the leash.

Of course, one should acknowledge the possibility that Allawi genuinely sees things the same way as the Bush administration and he was just asking for help in order to express himself as well as possible. Or that he decided that it was in his own (and/or Iraq's) best interests to convince people here that things are going well.

Shhhhhhhh, KenB.

We don't want folks in the ME to think Allawi's a lap dog, either. There's a war on, you know.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere... sort of.

Slarti, if I had wanted a dictionary definition I would have asked for one. I didn't do that. If you re-read my comment a little more carefully you will see that what I asked for was a method, algorithm, formula or recipe. The semantics of puppet rather than its syntax. Specifically I asked how you decide whether a given leader is a "puppet."

Saying that someone is a puppet "if their behavior is determined by the will of others" just substitites eight words for one and leaves us back where we started -- trying to figure out "whose behavior is determined by the will of others?" rather than "who is a puppet?" Since the core of my complaint was basically that you guys were engaging in a lot of back-where-we-started-ness and couldn't we please just cut to the chase and find out what would make you happy, a dictionary definition is exactly the kind of definition that's least helpful because it adds verbiage.

And please let the record show that by putting the question in boldface, I was trying to make it clear exactly which critical piece of information I thought was missing from your side of the conversation.

Let's get back to the so-called evidence. Evidence of Allawi's puppet-ness in the syntactic sense is never going to be more than circumstantial because we don't have direct access to Allawi's mental state. It's not useful to try and prove that Allawi's independent behavior would be different from his (hypothetically) coerced behavior or vice versa. That's not an interesting question except for obsessed academics.

And yet, either there is some agnostic logic that you (Slartibartfast) apply to decide whether someone is (at least tentatively) a puppet, or you are denying the possibility of ever determining (even tentatively), whether a particular person or administration is a puppet. And this logic, if it exists, has to exist independently of access to the proposed puppet's mental state. Allawi's defenders keep saying that what his detractors consider evidence isn't enough or isn't germane. Fine. We just want to know what would be enough.

By my logic (very briefly: no statutory monopoly on use of force, implementation of policy, or distribution of funds; presence of foreign troops overwhelmingly of one nationality or geopolitical bloc; reasonable expectation of being deposed absent continued approval of said nation; having been chosen by representatives of said nation rather than by other means; engaged in at least some activities tangential to domestic governance or foreign policy but helpful to said nation's leaders) Allawi is clearly a puppet. The only mitigating circumstance is that he's expressly temporary, and that rests on the increasingly far-fetched assumption that there will be orderly elections in January.

In a nutshell, Allawi fits through all my "puppet" filters. What are your filters, why doesn't he fit through them, and who does fit through them?

Specifically I asked how you decide whether a given leader is a "puppet."

Irrelevant. What's relevant is how the people who are claiming Allawi is a puppet decided he's a puppet. This is not exactly new territory on this thread.

Evidence of Allawi's puppet-ness in the syntactic sense is never going to be more than circumstantial because we don't have direct access to Allawi's mental state.

Which neatly renders "puppet" as a distinction nearly useless, if true. But I'm thinking it's not. What Allawi thinks in this respect is irrelevant.

Allawi's defenders keep saying that what his detractors consider evidence isn't enough or isn't germane.

Who are his defenders, and where are they saying this?

We just want to know what would be enough.

Hmmm. Well, that's a decent question. I'd say anything that rises well above conspiracy theory a la Foucault's Pendulum is worthy of consideration.

By my logic (very briefly: no statutory monopoly on use of force, implementation of policy, or distribution of funds; presence of foreign troops overwhelmingly of one nationality or geopolitical bloc; reasonable expectation of being deposed absent continued approval of said nation; having been chosen by representatives of said nation rather than by other means; engaged in at least some activities tangential to domestic governance or foreign policy but helpful to said nation's leaders) Allawi is clearly a puppet. The only mitigating circumstance is that he's expressly temporary, and that rests on the increasingly far-fetched assumption that there will be orderly elections in January.

Ah. At last we get to the nut. Allawi is a puppet because we're supporting him through force of troops. Allawi is a puppet because we put him in power. Like that. Well. Allawi is simply a milestone on the road to Iraqi self-rule. If Allawi had been installed by us and no such self-rule had been planned, perhaps the puppethood meme would have some validity.

As for the scheduled elections, let's wait and see how that goes before declaring defeat.

Irrelevant. What's relevant is how the people who are claiming Allawi is a puppet decided he's a puppet.

How is it irrelevant?

What's relevant is how the people who are claiming Allawi is a puppet decided he's a puppet.

As you say, that's been pretty well covered. My complaint is that you (well, it was originally mostly Sebastian but he seems to have bailed) are rejecting the conclusion that Allawi is a puppet without providing any leverage whatsoever for counterarguments. It's not evil or anything, it's just boring and unproductive. That's why your logic is relevant.

Suppose I come up to you and say "See that light over there, that's Alpha Centauri." and you reply "No it's not." "Oh. Well maybe it's Betelgeuse." "Nope." "Ophiuchi?" "Nuh-uh." I have no way of knowing whether you're a knowledgable astronomer, or blind, or a person who believes that the lights in the sky are angels. Heck, maybe you just don't want to talk.

If Allawi had been installed by us and no such self-rule had been planned, perhaps the puppethood meme would have some validity.

So regimes which are labeled temporary are disqualified pending some date, but can be considered puppets if they become permanent? Seems to me you're the one borrowing a necessary premise from a future outcome here... Why do we have to "wait and see" whether he's a puppet instead of "waiting to see" whether he's not a puppet?

it's just boring

Forgive me if the feeling is reciprocated.

Suppose I come up to you and say "See that light over there, that's Alpha Centauri." and you reply "No it's not." "Oh. Well maybe it's Betelgeuse." "Nope." "Ophiuchi?" "Nuh-uh." I have no way of knowing whether you're a knowledgable astronomer, or blind, or a person who believes that the lights in the sky are angels. Heck, maybe you just don't want to talk.

Same goes the other way. If you claimed something was Betelgeuse, and we happened to be looking at the night sky in summer, I'd be skeptical.

So regimes which are labeled temporary are disqualified pending some date, but can be considered puppets if they become permanent?

Calling a regime a "puppet" has a negative connotation. Given that this was the plan all along, and everyone knew it was the plan, and there's a definite endpoint to Allawi's being the prime minister, such negative connotation is undeserved and inappropriate.

We could then all agree that Allawi's a puppet, but then we'd all have to agree that there was nothing wrong with that, and quit calling him that in a negative way. Hence the distinction.

Seems to me you're the one borrowing a necessary premise from a future outcome here

And it seems to me equally that you're just borrowing the future outcome. Indeed, nearly relying on it.

And now I've got to go bathe the kids. I'll be back in a bit.

Oy.

If I may, it seems to have been forgotten that the original charge was not whether or not Allawi is a puppet, but whether there is a danger that he will be percieved as such by the Iraqi people.

The speechwriting is a problem - it lends support to the perception that he is a puppet. Proud people and all that.

Let's cut his strings (i.e., all US backing and support) and see if he collapses. Any bets?

Bingo. If this perception takes root further in Iraq, this spells further trouble. And that is the point.

Given that this was the plan all along, and everyone knew it was the plan, and there's a definite endpoint to Allawi's being the prime minister, such negative connotation is undeserved and inappropriate.

So - if I am understanding you correctly - the problem is not that Allawi is or is not a puppet, the problem is that Allawi should not be perceived as a puppet by - I presume - the Iraqi people?

If Bush/Cheney did not wish Allawi to be perceived as a puppet, surely they should have refrained from offering "help" with speechwriting? And if they didn't care enough about allowing Allawi the appearance of independent action, why should a Kerry/Edwards aide have refrained from commenting on Bush/Cheney's actions?

Forgive me if the feeling is reciprocated.

and yet, somehow, the sum of human knowledge accumulates...

If you claimed something was Betelgeuse, and we happened to be looking at the night sky in summer, I'd be skeptical.

Hm. That was my original point. That there's a difference between "Betelgeuse isn't visible now because we are looking at the night sky in summer" and "that isn't Betelgeuse." nuff sed I guess...

Given that this was the plan all along, and everyone knew it was the plan...

Um. No. Sorry. See here, here, and here for cites that didn't even require serious research.

re whether the danger is that the Iraqi people will perceive him as such, I was under the impression that that was pretty much a done deal, but no, I imagine the speechwriting doesn't help.

Oh and by the way Edward, that's perhaps my favourite post title of all time. Well done.

:-)

The China Daily article says pretty much that the Allawi interim government was implemented because the Iraqis wanted more self-government, sooner than was scheduled. I guess you could call that a flip-flop, but it's hardly an arbitrary move on Bush's part. I don't see how that's bolstering your point there, radish.

I have to say that's one of the first articles from China Daily that didn't have a great deal of editorializing.

I don't see how that's bolstering your point there, radish.

Huh? You said everyone knew the plan all along. So you knew when the big statue photo-ops were taking place that the plan was to put a Baathist exile in power? I didn't. Heck I thought the plan was to put an exiled embezzler in power. And that the plan would be scrapped in favor of putting a mullah in power. And that plan was not the same as the party line, which was elections as soon as possible. I guess you were a lot better informed.

The fact that you were better informed than the Iraqis is what bolsters my point. I mean why do you think that at the end of 2003 Iraqis were so cheesed about self-determination such that the US decided it needed to act quickly? Surely not because Iraqis had known from the get-go that elections would be held in <strike>late 2006</strike> early 2005 <strike>after</strike> before a new constitution was written by <strike>Iraqis picked by the US</strike> certain somebodies to be announced at a later date. Things were a lot more leisurely (I mean in real life, not in WH rhetoric or neocon wet dreams) before major combat operations ended weren't they?

To my mind all that suggests that no, in fact, an Allawi (which is to say post-Saddam Baathist-led coalition) regime was not the original plan. Cast your mind back to when Allawi was appointed. I don't recall reading a lot of experts saying "oh yeah, Allawi, we figured it'd be him." Do you?

BTW I don't think I've ever even read China Daily before -- it just came up in google...

Obviously, radish, no one knew the plan before the plan existed. But, you got me: I fully admit that between about four billion years ago and November of 2003 no one knew what the plan would be.

Jay Garner and Tom Warrick wanted elections ASAP, even if imperfect, to show the Iraqi's we were sincere in our goals of a democratic Iraq and to move the process of Iraqi's taking responsability for their own communities and institutions.
Remember them?
Rumsfeld fired them.

After Rumsfeld fired them Bremer took control and at the behest of Rumsfeld, fired the Iraqi police. Oops.

Just a bit about The Future of Iraq Project's recommendations:
The group studying defense policy and institutions expected problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly — a step L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took. The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some are believed to have done.

After special security organizations that ensured Mr. Hussein's grip on power were abolished, the working group recommended halving the 400,000-member military over time and reorganizing Iraqi special forces to become peacekeeping troops, as well as counterdrug and counterterrorism forces. Under the plan, military intelligence units would help American troops root out terrorists infiltrating postwar Iraq.

"The Iraqi armed forces and the army should be rebuilt according to the tenets and programs of democratic life," one working group member recommended.


But, you got me...

The expression "ash in my mouth" leaps to mind. I think pretty soon now folks like us will have to settle our differences and focus on keeping liberty alive...

I agree with the sentiment, radish, but I think what we're going to have to do is live with our differences rather than settle them. Having differences of opinion is a time-honored tradition.

The comments to this entry are closed.