Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Post/Counter-Post
I have a post up at Liberals Against Terrorism that discusses some elements of post-election Iraq, and one controversial article from Asia Times. The Asia Times article contains some disturbing allegations about an attempt by the Bush administration to counterbalance certain Shiite religious movements in the south of Iraq through the use of ex-Baathist elements. As Praktike pointed out, the Asia Times article should be taken with appropriate caveats and a big grain of salt, and I don't mean to endorse it as accurate. I'm not in a position to say, and there are good reasons to challenge the veracity. But the underlying subject matter is indeed troubling, and is worthy of a second look. If true, this is a decision that could have serious repercussions.
Elsewhere, Tim from Why Are All The Good Names Gone...? provides a detailed and well-argued rebuttal "of sorts" to my post on the power of idealism and the players guiding the election process in Iraq. He might be right that Tim Dunlop and I were a bit heavy-handed in some regards (ie too negative about the US authored constitution, caucus system, imposition of a "strong man," issues of solidarity with Iraqis, etc.). I think he is a bit too dismissive of the planned role for Chalabi, at least early on in the process, and I think he mis-read my take on Sistani's ties to Iran (which he acknowledged was possible). I'm not as familiar with the planned caucus structure to say that it's purpose was, but Sistani certainly had issues with it. Still, his arguments are worth considering for balance sake (but he should really address the font size on his block quotes - or I'm going to need glasses soon).
Elsewhere, Tim from Why Are All The Good Names Gone...? provides a detailed and well-argued rebuttal "of sorts" to my post on the power of idealism and the players guiding the election process in Iraq. He might be right that Tim Dunlop and I were a bit heavy-handed in some regards (ie too negative about the US authored constitution, caucus system, imposition of a "strong man," issues of solidarity with Iraqis, etc.). I think he is a bit too dismissive of the planned role for Chalabi, at least early on in the process, and I think he mis-read my take on Sistani's ties to Iran (which he acknowledged was possible). I'm not as familiar with the planned caucus structure to say that it's purpose was, but Sistani certainly had issues with it. Still, his arguments are worth considering for balance sake (but he should really address the font size on his block quotes - or I'm going to need glasses soon).
