Unqualified Offerings

Where Are the Great White Leaders?

26 Responses to “Where Are the Great White Leaders?”

1. Comment by Tillman Fan —
   May 12, 2007 @ 11:24 am

   He may be a smug idiot, but I don’t know that this current column is anything but an acknowledgment of reality. That reality, of course, confirms why we never should have invaded Iraq (a fact that Kondracke will never admit), but I’m just not seeing the idiocy in this column.

2. Comment by Nell —
   May 12, 2007 @ 11:30 am

   TF, does it work any better if you substitute ‘depravity’ for ‘idiocy’?

3. Comment by Jim Henley —
   May 12, 2007 @ 11:32 am

   Fair enough! Very briefly, he imagines that there are “pro-American Shiites” led by Maliki, and he never troubles to wonder what percentage of those 60% of Shiites would be inflamed by our trying to do in the Sadr movement once and for all. He gets extra bonus idiot points for the crack that Sadr is Iran’s pick to lead Iraq, ignoring the as deep or deeper connections with any number of SCIRI politicos.

   Also, and this is something that bears thinking about, he never pauses to wonder how bad it would really be to have an “anti-American” Shiite government in Baghdad, if that’s the default destiny. What are they going to do, invade us? No, they’re going to try to sell us oil, all the while making frowny faces.

   The real problem with fostering Shiite hegemony in Iraq is further radicalizing the globe’s much larger Sunni community against us. Working hard to break the back of the Iraqi Sunni community on behalf of Iraq’s Shiite elites would have worse consequences around the region than merely leaving the Sunnis to make the best of it.

4. Comment by Mona —
   May 12, 2007 @ 11:43 am

   That reality, of course, confirms why we never should have invaded Iraq (a fact that Kondracke will never admit),

   Bingo. But as to Nell’s comment, yeah, there is depravity in casual discussions of ethnic cleansing and how, well, yanno those civil wars they do always end. And the notion that what he proposes constitutes “winning,” dirty or otherwise, makes me barf.

5. Comment by radish —
   May 12, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

   Looks plenty damn idiotic to me.

   making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

   And a pony! With a bow tie!

   Folks, seriously… Which Shiites is he talking about exactly? Maliki doesn’t have a constituency, let alone control of the military or the police (such as they are). Hell, Maliki is so dependent on the US that he doesn’t even have his own domestic intelligence organization.

   Mort’s plan is for the US to manipulate SCIRI and the Badr brigades into taking up arms against Sadr in order to install Maliki as a new Saddam? And against Iran’s wishes no less? Brilliant! Easy as falling off a log! What could possibly go wrong?

   Depraved certainly, but also mind-numbingly stoopid.

6. Comment by Tim —
   May 12, 2007 @ 2:27 pm

   He could care less if it works or not. A three way all-out civil war in Iraq would suit him fine. He just wants the Iraqis dead, Sunni and Shia. He’s just too finicky to do his own dirty work.

7. Comment by ofom —
   May 12, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

   so he’s an unconscionable moron, and you happen to share the same race and gender.

   Why focus on those two things?

   You both have the letter “e” in your name–why not “he makes me ashamed to have the letter ‘e’ in my name”?

   I mean, it’s not as though smug idiocy is the *exclusive* purview of white men.

8. Comment by Thoreau —
   May 12, 2007 @ 2:53 pm

   Jim, your lament about being ashamed as a white male reminds me of all the people who lament “Where are the moderate Muslims?” When presented with an example they say “Yeah, but why don’t they say something?…Oh, well why didn’t they say more?…Well, I certainly didn’t hear them!”

   Is there any sort of penance that we white guys should do when Mort Kondracke basically calls for ethnic cleansing? What is the “white man’s burden” in this case?

9. Comment by Mona —
   May 12, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

   Well, I took Jim’s white man’s guilt as a rhetorical device; I could be wrong, but I didn’t think he was serious.

10. Comment by lemuel pitkin —
    May 12, 2007 @ 3:14 pm

    Kondracke:

    “Winning dirty isn’t attractive, but it sure beats losing.”

    Is there any atrocity in history that has not been justified in those terms?

11. Comment by Donald Johnson —
    May 12, 2007 @ 3:20 pm

    I thought the white guy thing was obviously satirical. Some folks hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of Islamic terrorists and so in the spirit of fair play Jim is taking responsibility for the near-genocidal fantasies of Morton Kondracke.

12. Comment by Thoreau —
    May 12, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

    Yeah, I got the satire. I thought it was very effective in pointing out the absurdity of collective guilt. If we wouldn’t hold Jim responsible for Kondracke, why hold some random Muslim responsible for whatever a radical Muslim says?

13. Comment by Nell —
    May 12, 2007 @ 4:23 pm

    Jim: Iran’s pick to lead Iraq, ignoring the as deep or deeper connections with any number of SCIRI politicos

    Oh, I’m so glad someone gave me an opening to bring up my news find:

    Everybody’s favorite sectarian-party-cum-catspaw-of-Iran is re-branding. Today they’e SICI, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq.

    Party leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, a top Shi’ite cleric, announcing the name change at a news conference today, said the word “revolution” has become “unnecessary.”

    So many questions come to mind.: Why now? Did I miss the revolution? Are they abandoning their quest for English-speaking mindshare by moving from ’skeery’ to ’sickie’? (This last reminded me of a wonderful passage in Kingsley Amis’ Lucky Jim in which a Russian lecturer mystifies his audience with references to “sickies of sickingdom”, which turns out to be The Keys of the Kingdom.)

14. Comment by Nell —
    May 12, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

    My links weren’t posting successfully earlier, but in an effort to prove this is not an Onion story, it’s here.

15. Comment by Nell —
    May 12, 2007 @ 4:34 pm

    And while I’m at it: the mindset’s not restricted to your gender, Jim. Margaret Thatcher was a classic spokesperson for the Kondracke p.o.v.

    I still crack up remembering a bit by a Brit comic (Simon somebody, his signature line was “who’s that fat bastard?”) in which Thatcher speaks up for “the Darleks, who are doing a difficult job under trying circumstances, for which they receive very little thanks…”

16. Comment by sglover —
    May 12, 2007 @ 4:54 pm

    Jim, your lament about being ashamed as a white male reminds me of all the people who lament “Where are the moderate Muslims?” When presented with an example they say “Yeah, but why don’t they say something?…Oh, well why didn’t they say more?…Well, I certainly didn’t hear them!”

    Well, speaking as a white male who lives in the same general neighborhood as JH and Kondracke, what riles me no end is that fuckwit Mort, and a big chunk of his useless cohort of “serious” gasbags, lives just a few Metro stops away from me. I read these blithe calls for ethnic cleansing, and I think, maybe somebody ought to introduce Mortie to a little “shock and awe” directly. The most prosperous districts within the Beltway are stuffed with know-nothing courtiers like Kondracke.

17. Comment by Happy Jack —
    May 12, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

    Did I miss the revolution?

    I’m guessing that those American tanks must have distracted you. They were just the Fife and Drum Corps leading the way to Baghdad.

18. Comment by William Burns —
    May 12, 2007 @ 5:55 pm

    Nell,

    I think the guy you’re thinking of is Alexei Sayle.

19. Comment by ofom —
    May 12, 2007 @ 5:56 pm

    yeah, yeah–I got the satire in the white male thing.

    Didn’t you get the satire in my “letter e” thing?

    (though I’d like to point out that my own name is free from that accursed letter!)

20. Comment by Thoreau —
    May 12, 2007 @ 9:17 pm

    Regarding the “80% solution” that Kondracke talks about:

    As a fan of US withdrawal, I will admit that if I got my wish we’d probably see the Kurds and Shia Arabs take control against the wishes of the Sunni Arabs, and the result would probably be domination of Iraq by the Kurds and Shias. This would be in many ways similar to what Kondracke talks about. One big difference is that the Shias and Kurds would do it without a global superpower backing them in the bloodshed. Hopefully this would mean that the Shias and Kurds would be unable to completely annihilate the Sunnis, and instead accept some sort of truce. Of course, it could also mean that they’d be unable to win decisively, and the civil war would continue anyway.

    The one thing I know for sure is that if we leave it will no longer be our problem, our troops will no longer get killed, we would not have our signature on whatever deal is finally reached (and hence have our signature on whatever deal serves as the basis for the next generation’s grudges) and the fighting would probably shift outside Baghdad and into less populated areas, meaning that more people could get on with their lives.

21. Comment by Belle —
    May 13, 2007 @ 2:39 am

    white guys: come for the power, stay for the evil disregard for human life! brought to you by the white guy council of america.

22. Comment by Jim Henley —
    May 13, 2007 @ 2:43 am

    There’s gonna be some changes when my rotating term starts, Belle, let me tell you!

23. Comment by abb1 —
    May 13, 2007 @ 9:34 am

    Kondracke is a bleeding heart liberal and his feel-good plan won’t work because there are no pro-American Arabs.

    Here’s what we should do: kill all the Arabs. And Kurds. Give 50% of the Iraqi oil revenues to American citizens of reputable ethnicities who are willing to relocate there. Problem solved.

    Yeah, I know, it’s a shame to waste 50% of oil, but it’s sure beats losing all 100%.

24. Comment by Jim Henley —
    May 13, 2007 @ 9:43 am

    Wait. Who gets the other 50%? I hope you don’t think YOU can have all that.

25. Comment by Nell —
    May 13, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

    Alexei Sayle! Exactly. Thanks, William.

26. Comment by Bill Woolsey —
    May 13, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

    I have generally have been of the opinion that the U.S. should set a timeline for withdrawal and aid the elected Iraqi government during that period–with the expectation that they will be fully responsible for their security when the time is up.

    This would be exactly what Kondracke has proposed, except I don’t see any notion that we would be leaving at the end.

    And, of course, there is the fantasy that SICI or Dawa are going to be pro-american (or anti-iranian.) I must admit that I don’t understand the politics of the Shia relgious parties, but I think it is at least possible that Malaki’s key job is telling the American government what it wants to hear.

    It has always been the case that defeating Saddam meant turning Iraq over to pro-Iranian Shia.

(Comments automatically closed after 21 days.)