Unqualified Offerings

Looking Sideways at Your World Since October 2001
« « Cradle of Civilization | Main | Defeatocrat Appeasers Abound Because of…Faggots! » »

May 20, 2007

The knowledge problem, Sadr edition

By Thoreau

This morning’s Washington Post has a fascinating article on Moqtada al-Sadr (a name so nice it never gets spelled the same way twice) and his movement.  Is he a theocrat?  A sectarian warlord?  A nationalist?  A reconciliation figure?  A wolf in sheep’s clothing?  The bottom line is that nobody knows.  He leads a movement with a lot of followers in a country that’s in a civil war, he’s engaged in a lot of violence (as is usually the case in a civil war), and he may actually be better than some of the figures in the Iraqi government (which is not saying much), or he may not be.  Nobody really knows.

Two interesting quotes from the article, which may or may not be indicative of reality:

First:  (by a member of Sadr’s movement)

“We are not anti-American. We think the Americans have an important role in rebuilding Iraq, but as companies, not as an army,” Obaidi said. “We can open a new channel with the Democrats, even some of the Republicans.”

Second:  (by somebody not in Sadr’s movement)

“Moqtada is saying something, but on the ground they are doing something else,” Habib said, tossing a glance at Ibrahim, 6, his left leg in a cast. Sadr’s call to reconcile with Sunnis is “all nonsense,” she continued. “They want to know who the Sunnis are, so they can start butchering people at their own pace.”

The bottom line, however, is that nobody can really gauge the full extent or nature of his support and intentions.  Indeed, it may be that as the leader of a large movement his own intentions are less important than the set of goals that his followers are willing ot act on.

Or maybe he and his followers really just a bunch of thugs.  Entirely possible.  The bottom line is that we don’t know, and we lack the perspective or information to sort out who is interested in what.  Nor do we know, or have the ability to discern, which elements of Iraqi society are necessary for and interested in the formation of a liberal state.  So it’s the height of arrogance to think that we can build some sort of stable country in Iraq.  We can’t.  We can only muck around and sow chaos until we get tired of it, and then leave.  And then hope that at some point the Iraqis find a way to end the bloodshed.

Bring.  The Troops.  Home.  Now.

Posted by Thoreau @ 1:34 pm, Filed under: Main

« « Cradle of Civilization | Main | Defeatocrat Appeasers Abound Because of…Faggots! » »

6 Responses to “The knowledge problem, Sadr edition”

  1. Comment by Dave W.
    May 20, 2007 @ 2:20 pm

    We stay to the oil is gone and that is all there is to it.

    The best we can hope for is a pullout of areas not necessary to getting the oil out safely. I think this is something most Democrats and Republicans agree upon.

  2. Comment by weldon berger
    May 20, 2007 @ 3:21 pm

    Nor do we know, or have the ability to discern, which elements of Iraqi society are necessary for and interested in the formation of a liberal state.

    I think it’s safe to say that we know that the two groups, interested and necessary, are if not mutually exclusive at least not entirely congruent. Besides, a liberal state is no longer the goal; it’s now a state with an acceptable number of suicide bombers.To quote our Commander in Chief, “If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, we’ll never be successful.” So what we need to identify are the groups necessary to reduce the number of suicide bombers down to somewhere between none and too many.

  3. Comment by weldon berger
    May 20, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

    Oh, and p.s., entirely off topic — a week or two ago in a post about libertarianism, you said something to the effect that universal health care coverage would motivate people to exercise less and eat more poorly, presumably because easy access to health care would induce sloth. You don’t really think that, do you?

  4. Comment by weldon berger
    May 20, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

    Oh, wait , never mind, it was Jim, not you.

  5. Comment by Dave W.
    May 20, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

    Oh, yeah: howcum no link on the Paul is a Truther stuf? D00d is so honest and pure. Of course he knows flt 93 was shot down and WTC7 (at least) exploded. It is a blogworthy topic and Dr. Paul’s coded appeals are xcellent!

  6. Comment by Dave W.
    May 21, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

    testing. worried that I am caught in the spam filter again for some reason.

  7. (Comments automatically closed after 21 days.)