Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: So how likely is Iraq to descend into civil war after the Americans leave?
...

That's a damn good question. Every time somebody pipes up about how we've achieved "victory" there, they should be asked to quantify that.

Eli is one gutsy guy---hanging out in Bagdhad and all that---but maybe a bit starry-eyed about the future of Iraq. I am not sure how he arrived at the view that a peaceful, democratic Iraq might influence the evolution of Iran. Iran is the dominant power in the region (pop. 90 million vs. 30 million in Iraq, of which only 60% are Shiite). but I suppose in the eyes of a starry-eyed neocon sympathizer all things are possible. I read the article about the persecution of gays in Iraq, which, after speculating that hundreds may have been killed by Shiite militias, concludes thus: "....The Baghdad press has kept up a drumbeat of articles warning about the "feminisation" of Iraqi men under the strains of a demoralising and emasculating occupation. A panic over endangered manhood and the spread of the "third sex" has infected parts of Iraqi society. Most Iraqis, however, know better. They know that when one group is singled out and demonised, the hatred will spread. Iraqis rightly look with tense apprehension on the evidence of the reviving sectarian and ethnic violence that followed the US invasion. The killings of gay people serve as a bellwether and barometer, the sign

Quoting Francoamerican: The killings of gay people serve as a bellwether and barometer, the sign of darkness to come."

That's a weird barometer, to look at the mistreatment of gays in any non-western country and conclude anything at all.

Quoting Simon Willard: That's a weird barometer, to look at the mistreatment of gays in any non-western country and conclude anything at all.

And it is a weird commenter who equates murder with mistreatment. As far as I know, it isn't the custom in Muslim countries for gangs to go around murdering gays.

Quoting Francoamerican: As far as I know, it isn't the custom in Muslim countries for gangs to go around murdering gays.

It might not be the custom for Muslims to go around killing gays, but it does happen and not just in Islamic countries either. It happens in Europe too. A worrying fact.

Quoting Simon Willard: That's a weird barometer, to look at the mistreatment of gays in any non-western country and conclude anything at all.

I liken it to the scape-goating of Jews in 1930s Germany. Manliness is a big, big deal in the Arab world, and the threat of 'feminisation,' is enough to raise paranoia to the level needed to bring down the house, post-American withdrawal, so I guess we'll leave significant troops behind to support Maliki. What's al-Sadr been up to, I wonder?

Quoting look: I liken it to the scape-goating of Jews in 1930s Germany. Manliness is a big, big deal in the Arab world, and the threat of 'feminisation,' is enough to raise paranoia to the level needed to bring down the house, post-American withdrawal, so I guess we'll leave significant troops behind to support Maliki. What's al-Sadr been up to, I wonder?

Oops, forget that last part, I just listened to the vlog. It was nice to hear that the terrorists are a minority. Wouldn't it be something if this really ends up working?

Quoting look: I liken it to the scape-goating of Jews in 1930s Germany. Manliness is a big, big deal in the Arab world, and the threat of 'feminisation,' is enough to raise paranoia to the level needed to bring down the house, post-American withdrawal, so I guess we'll leave significant troops behind to support Maliki. What's al-Sadr been up to, I wonder?

Apt analogy. And you are spot on about the obsession with manliness and honor in the Arab world---the shadow of their misogyny (or is misogyny the shadow of their obsession with manliness?). In any case, the American presence in Iraq can only aggravate the problem, so your remedy is worse than the disease. Military occupation by a foreign power and state-building are mutually exclusive. Either the Iraqis will create a viable state on their own, or they won't.

Quoting Francoamerican: Apt analogy. And you are spot on about the obsession with manliness and honor in the Arab world---the shadow of their misogyny (or is misogyny the shadow of their obsession with manliness?).

In any case, the American presence in Iraq can only aggravate the problem, so your remedy is worse than the disease. Military occupation by a foreign power and state-building are mutually exclusive. Either the Iraqis will create a viable state on their own, or they won't.

I tend to agree with the above. My point was, you can't talk about violence against gays as if gays represent a normal component of Arab society. They don't. Violence against gays is the norm throughout most of the world. When it happens, it doesn't tell you much.

I find Eli very puzzling. What is the point of telling us how smart Chalabi is, or how charming he can be, or what a canny operator he is behind the scenes in Iraqi politics? I knew all this. "I've known Chalabi for ten years." So what, Eli? I don't know him at all, I haven't even read that much about him, but I've read enough that you're not telling me anything new. Then Eli says at one point, "Maybe he was manipulating me." Yeah, well, duh, maybe, just maybe he was. His entire existence consists of manipulating people, and journalists in particular. I mean, maybe he likes to dilate about naval history because he can't help himself, and maybe he does so in order to impress you, and, most probably, it's some combination of these two things with other motives that have not occurred to me. Point number two. Eli relates that Petraeus failed to bribe Shia groups into cooperating with him and avoiding violence in the way that he had succeeded with Sunni groups. But the Sunnis were losing, big time, or had already essentially lost. So what would one expect? But Eli relates this as though there is something surprising here. Yet, before the Iraq war, William

By the way, is it a common trope to point out that video of Chalabi leading troops into Iraq only served to reveal that Chalabi is Michael Dukakis cubed, in terms of Chalabi's credibility as a military man? So, no, I don't think Chalabi is going to have a lot of street cred in Iraq. He's just the Iraqi equivalent of Ivan Boesky or Wilbur Mills or someone like that. I did a google search on "Chalabi Dukakis," and my preliminary conclusion is that Chalabi has, in fact, not been compared terribly often to Dukakis along the relevant metric, which is that of how ridiculous one looks in a military helmet.

Quoting Francoamerican: Apt analogy. And you are spot on about the obsession with manliness and honor in the Arab world---the shadow of their misogyny (or is misogyny the shadow of their obsession with manliness?).

In any case, the American presence in Iraq can only aggravate the problem, so your remedy is worse than the disease. Military occupation by a foreign power and state-building are mutually exclusive. Either the Iraqis will create a viable state on their own, or they won't.

It wasn't my remedy, I was being cynical, thinking that if things started to heat up we'd have to slow withdrawal in order to support Maliki and co. But Eli reports that the terrorists are in the minority and most people are eager to move forward. I wonder if we're still delivering bricks of hundred-dollar bills to Anbar leaders. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB14Ak02.html

Quoting ledocs: [...]

Good points, especially the last one, about utilities.

Quoting ledocs: ...I've always thought that reporting from Iraq can be judged by whether it reports on delivery of basic services to Iraqis. Eli failed to address this at all. If delivery of electricity in Baghdad is not up significantly since the surge was supposed to have succeeded, then the surge did not really succeed.

The situation with deliver of basic services is much more complex, especially with electricity. It is not a question of is there more power being delivered, that is a given. The problem is is there enough electricity, produced locally or imported, to supply the demands of the citizenry. With the GDP-real growth rate averaging around 6% since 2003 Iraqi's have greater disposable income and like most humans, with more disposable income, are using it to buy things that consume power and demand is out pacing supply still. The question then becomes is the shortfall so sever that it is causing enough individuals to take up means other than through the political process to try and fix it. Except for some large spectacular terrorist bombings violence there is down by just about any measure you

Quoting piscivorous: The situation with deliver of basic services is much more complex, especially with electricity. It is not a question of is there more power being delivered, that is a given. The problem is is there enough electricity, produced locally or imported, to supply the demands of the citizenry. With the GDP-real growth rate averaging around 6% since 2003 Iraqi's have ..l.

You just linked to a page about Iran's GDP growth rate -- not Iraq's.

Sorry my bad I'll fix it. P.S. thanks.

Piscivorous said, in reply to my complaint about Eli Lake's failure to address the question of electricity supply in Baghdad, pre- and post-surge:

The situation with deliver of basic services is much more complex, especially with electricity. It is not a question of is there more power being delivered, that is a given. The problem is is there enough electricity, produced locally or imported, to supply the demands of the citizenry. With the GDP-real growth rate averaging around 6% since 2003 Iraqi's have greater disposable income and like most humans, with more disposable income, are using it to buy things that consume power and demand is out pacing supply still. The question then becomes is the shortfall so sever that it is causing enough individuals to take up means other than through the political process to try and fix it. Except for some large spectacular terrorist bombings violence there is down by just about any measure you would care to choose. I would also point out that much of the damage from the bombings would not be nearly effective if the Iraqi's didn't fell secure enough to have dismantled

There are many different metrics one can use to try and determine where the attitude of a countries population is at any given point in time. I looked, and apparently you did as well, for some current information on the subject and could find just about nothing, as was the result of your searching. Perhaps the sparsity of information on the short fall in electricity, or not, is an indication in and of itself that this is not a the grave problem that it was in prior years. In fact the short fall in electrical supply is apparently a non story, at this point in time, which should tell you something as well.

Apparently Iraq imports a significant amount of energy from Iran, that should pique Eli's attention.

Piscivorous:

Perhaps the sparsity of information on the short fall in electricity, or not, is an indication in and of itself that this is not a the grave problem that it was in prior years.

Perhaps, but I would not draw this conclusion, especially not as my first gambit. More likely, the statistics for 2009 are not available yet and, as you say, this information is not a big priority for Lake or the rest of the media. Which does not mean jack shit to me. But we've heard what your standards for excellence in nation-building are. If a policy is not producing terrorists, it's a good policy.

You must have taken the same course in leaping to false conclusions as some others that comment here. There is no shortage of people, organizations and opinionators that would be making hay of the issue if it were one as it was so prevalent a talking point not too long ago. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence available that electrical supply is still patchy, lost business opportunities from foreign investors are numerous if one looks, but it does not seem to be causing the consternation, in the general populace, that it once did. The Iraqi Parliament itself doesn't seem to consider it an overly critical issue or they would have approved the funds necessary to import the generation equipment, previously ordered, built, sitting in warehouses, waiting to be delivered, and installed before taking their summer break. But they did not. They have now returned from their hiatus and have appropriated the funds to pay the suppliers so home grown electrical supply will again be increasing in the not to distant future. But all this is no better than reading the tea leaves, and I'm not one to stress the results from such an exercise as being definitive.

I really think that this invocation of argumentum ex silentio (see, I know as much Latin as Christopher Hitchens, even more, I'll wager), "if it were important, we'd be hearing about it," is not very helpful. Do we hear a lot about security at US chemical plants, nuclear facilities, and ports? I don't think so. Does that mean that these things are not important? I don't think so. My interpretation of this silence is that journalistic resources are greatly depleted in Iraq and that there was never that much interest in the development of Iraqi infrastructure in the English-speaking press to begin with. Your contention that there was a lot of interest in this at some point strikes me as just wrong. I was never, ever bombarded with reports about the status of Iraq's electricity supply, which is precisely why I decided to make this a benchmark for distinguishing good from not-so-good journalism. I guess for some months after the invasion there was some reporting to the effect that electricity in Baghdad was at pre-Saddam levels. Anyway, I think Eli Lake's time would be better spent taking a survey of Iraqis to see how basic services are than talking

Quoting ledocs: I really think that this invocation of argumentum ex silentio (see, I know as much Latin as Christopher Hitchens, even more, I'll wager), "if it were important, we'd be hearing about it," is not very helpful. Do we hear a lot about security at US chemical plants, nuclear facilities, and ports? I don't think so. Does that mean that these things are not important? I don't think so. My interpretation of this silence is that journalistic resources are greatly depleted in Iraq and that there was never that much interest in the development of Iraqi infrastructure in the English-speaking press to begin with. Your contention that there was a lot of interest in this at some point strikes me as just wrong. I was never, ever bombarded with reports about the status of Iraq's electricity supply, which is precisely why I decided to make this a benchmark for distinguishing good from not-so-good journalism. I guess for some months after the invasion there was some reporting to the effect that electricity in Baghdad was at pre-Saddam levels.

Anyway, I think Eli Lake's time would be better spent taking a survey of Iraqis to see how basic services are than talking

There are a number of organizations that do surveying in Iraq. do you think that Mr Lake could do a better job at discerning the public perceptions of the Iraqi populace than these surveys, given that one individual can only talk to a very limited number of Iraqis.

Let's take first things first. What I said was that his time would have been better spent talking to normal people than talking to Chalabi about naval history, especially since he did not report a single thing Chalabi said to him that was relevant to the party politics on which he purports to be reporting. He could conduct his own unscientific survey and compare the results to the more broadly based "scientific" surveys. I keep hearing that there are any number of problems with the surveys conducted in Iraq, so it is quite possible that Lake's survey might be better than these in certain respects, or even generally. However, that wasn't the point.

I think Mr. Lake should pursue his explorations in what ever manner that makes him most comfortable and that he feels will reveal the most insight

[quote=ledocs;143476]Let's take first things first. What I said was that his time would have been better spent talking to normal people than talking to Chalabi about naval history, especially since he did not report a single thing Chalabi said to him that was relevant to the party politics on which he purports to be reporting. He could conduct his own unscientific survey and compare the results to the more broadly based "scientific" surveys. I keep hearing that there are any number of problems with the surveys conducted in Iraq, so it is quite possible that Lake's survey might be better than these in certain respects, or even generally. However, that wasn't the point. [/quote} Define normal! He did talk to different you just seem to have a fixation on his talking to Mr. Chalabi whom you seem to dislike; not his nor my problem.
[quote=ledocs;143476]
"Lake should do what makes him feel comfortable." What makes him feel comfortable could be completely worthless, qua reporting. For example, there was a "Time" reporter called Hugh Sidey who liked to represent himself as the confidant of presidents. His reporting was execrably bad, but he was very comfortable with it. But I agree that Lake should not do what I want him to do, simply because I want it. On the other hand, if I can make a good argument that he should

Rational to you but rational is again just a judgmental perspective based on your perceptions.

Are you addressing me personally here, or is this your general take on things, that there are no professional standards in journalism, or objective criteria for what is relevant to a story, and people should just do what makes them feel comfortable, and there is no such thing as rationality, "just a judgmental perspective based on your perceptions?" Because my prior impression of you was that you were just the usual right-leaning provocateur, but now you seem to be something else. Maybe you're a "libertarian" nihilist.

Again you read more into the argument than was there. Yes it was used as a talking point to try and accomplish the goals of those using it. Not all talking points are void of reality or a "red-herring" that is agin your perspective not mine.

Look, dude, you don't say enough for anyone to know what your meaning is, and you probably don't know yourself. I just asked you in my prior post to explain what the goals of the talking points about electricity supplies were, but you simply repeat

Quoting ledocs: Are you addressing me personally here, or is this your general take on things...

Both.

Quoting ledocs: ... , that there are no professional standards in journalism, or objective criteria for what is relevant to a story, and people should just do what makes them feel comfortable, and there is no such thing as rationality, "just a judgmental perspective based on your perceptions?"

while I would not carry the argument to the extremes you present here there is a measure of truth to what you say.

Quoting ledocs: Because my prior impression of you was that you were just the usual right-leaning provocateur, but now you seem to be something else. Maybe you're a "libertarian" nihilist.

Your intuition is either week or missing or blinded by preconception.

Quoting ledocs: Look, dude, you don't say enough for anyone to know what your meaning is, and you probably don't know yourself. I just asked you in my prior post to explain what the goals of the talking points about electricity supplies were, but you simply repeat that there were talking points which had goals. But since you're presumably just giving your own limited perspective on things, there is no reason to get too

OK, fisheater, here is something to which I really object, the kind of thing that makes me resort to insult. I complained that you said this to me:

So you have surveyed the Iraqis and determined that they oppose our being there.

I never said anything remotely like that. But then, after I complain about this gross misrepresentation (“I don’t know what I might have said to elicit this paraphrase…”), you reply with more incoherent nonsense, which I will cite in its entirety.

Perhaps you should have included the whole quote which contained "I'm quite sure that a percentage of Iraqis are of this opinion just as I am sure there is a percentage that wish us to stay, above and beyond the Kurds, and a proportion that are mostly indifferent." which pretty much states that yes a proportion to the Iraqis want us to leave. There a numerous reasons that some want us gone some want us to stay and some are in the middle. Perhaps it all just a fairy tale about a golden haired lass.

I tried to make myself as clear as I could. Your paragraph above that begins “Perhaps you should have” is responding