Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
I know I shouldn't. But David Brooks' head appears to be lost up his...
... Pundits and sages were spinning a whole series of mutually exclusive disaster scenarios: Civil war! A nationwide rebellion!
Leaving aside the "mutually exclusive" inanity, both? Maybe the latter foreshadowing the former?
It's a battle against people who vehemently oppose a democratic Iraq
Or possibly that democracy birthed by force out of Iraq 2003 (with few civil institutions within which to manifest itself, for starters) looks rather like a blend of anarchy and theocracy.
(Sadr) and his band have taken this opportunity to make a desperate bid for power
Again with the "desperate" enemy shtick. Keep pretending.
(Iraqis) continually overestimate our competence, then invent conspiracy theories to explain why we haven't transformed Iraq
You don't have to shoot too high to "overestimate the competence" residing in our war planners' minds these days, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt to this analysis. So what qualifies as "transformation" with which they might not be happy?
Now for the only thing he says that comes close to accuracy:
Sadr's domestic opponents are ill-equipped to deal with him. The police have revealed their weakness. Normal Iraqis are doing what they learned to do under Saddam; they are keeping their heads down. Clerics like Sistani, who operate by consensus, do not want to be seen siding with outsiders against a fellow Muslim.
Except that quite a few (define normal for me) Iraqis aren't just keeping their heads down any more.
In a February poll, only 10 percent of Iraqis said it was acceptable to attack Americans.
Read the third sentence of the paragraph quoted previously.
...yesterday's defections from the Iraqi Governing Council show that populist pressure on the good guys is getting intense
This is not a John Wayne movie; there's not a hat in Mesopotamia either white or black right now. The only generalization you can make is that the current situation makes all manner of people do things they wouldn't otherwise do; all the hats are turning darker shades of grey.
I'll correct myself. Mr. Brooks does catch a second accurate glimpse outside his blinders: "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up."
TrackBackSadr was a minor league punk who should have been ignored. His standing was based solely on his father and brothers, who were executed by Saddam for their opposition.
The CPA made him a major leaguer by closing his newspaper and issuing secret warrants. The other groups see Bremer "going after" this nothing and they begin to worry. They aren't backing Sadr, they are opposing the occupation.
Sadr was an obnoxious extremist, exactly what was needed to prove the worth of democracy. By ignoring him, it could have been shown that free speech was acceptable. Instead, a crack-down, just like Saddam. Oppose the CPA and you get attacked. That is exactly what it looks like to the Iraqi in the street.
Posted by: Bryan at April 10, 2004 11:30 PMVery insightful, but I think Sadr was a bit more than a minor league punk who should've been ignored. His thugs have been intimidating sections of Baghdad for months. That, however, doesn't mean the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dynamic is any less intractable. It just started earlier than most CW is ready to admit.
Posted by: froz gobo at April 11, 2004 09:31 AM