I disagree with Rosen’s statement that Americans don’t care about this war—though I think we could care a great deal more.

My response to Orwell’s chilling question of ‘Why should hate be less vital than love,’ brings me to the underlying point I was driving at. Those who practice ruthlessness and violence in Iraq today and throughout much of history do and did so with absolute belief, blind faith, if you will, that allows them to also believe that the means justify the ends. One has only to think of the absolutist belief systems of the communists and the fascists in the last century, the bloodiest known to man. Wasn’t it Mao who said that history is made at the end of a gun? He was only paraphrasing Hitler and Stalin.

But yet… the democracies with their tenets of compromise and balance of power eventually stood up to the fascists and the communists and prevailed. Strangely Geroge W. has this kind of blind faith mixed with a belief not in the military but in militarism and so we blundered blindly into Iraq with tragic consequences. Didn’t the neo-con ideologues believe that we could remake the Middle East with our armed forces, at the end of a gun?

I think hate and war is extremely vital but they burn themselves out. The steady state of humanity, I believe, is more in tune with the decency we heard in Faiza’s anguished words. What keeps milliions like her to go out onto the streets and sweeping these thugs and militias away? Fear for one. Fear that the armed militias will gun them down. But from what I am hearing, the militias are coming into the neighborhoods and murdering the people anyway while destroying any vestige of normal life. So why not go out in masse and tell Al Sadr to find another slum?

What is missing is the power of belief in those like Faiza in the basic rightness of who they are and what they stand for. Ghandi was able to muster that belief in the Indian population and non-violently overthrow the greatest power on earth at the time, the British empire. One might counter that Ghandi used the power of Hinduism and thousands of years of tradition to lead this non-violent revolution. But where is that in Iraqi society, one might ask. My answer is that it would be presumptuous of me, at the very least,to say that there is no hope of a Ghandi arising in Iraq or the Middle East. Or something entirely different to counter the violence and fanaticism. I know that the Sunni-Shiite fratercide goes against basic Koranic law and morality whre it is a great sin, perhaps the greatest, for Muslims to murder Muslims.

I think the only answer for Iraq is for people like Faiza to find a belief in the rightness and righteousness of who they are that is as strong as the fanaticism of the militias and terrorists and to act from tht strength and their numbers. One can be drakly fatalistic about more probable outcomes to the violent anarchy we stirred up in Iraq. But this lesson of quiet but resolute faith in the face of fanaticism is one we need to learn again in the west and in America in more subtle but perhaps more consequential ways for the fate of the planet.

“…Maybe people will stare into the abyss and all get democratic. Maybe a new strongman will emerge and uniofy the place. We cannot predict it; let’s not pretend we can.”

Exactly right, plnelson.

You got that right!

When you claim that there is power in basic common decency and humanity and the human spirit, you are right.

But when you claim that it will always, in the long run, trump guns, bombs and fanaticism, well….

I wish I could agree with you. But I find the negative answer to this proposition already buried in an earlier sentence of your posting. You cite the arms AND RUTHLESSNESS of all the violent parties.

Ruthlessness. There’s the rub.

Ruthlessness is what divides “us” and “them”, human decency and fanaticism. “They” will do anything and everything to accomplish their goals. “We” will not, despite our numbers or our weapons.

I remember the deep horror I felt when I read Orwell’s 1984, and his plain assertion, “Why should hate be less vital than love?”

That’s it. There is no reason why it should be. We may wish it so, but…

As I said, I want what you hope for to come true. I really do.

But.

One would hope that this majority would rise up, claim their power, despite the arms and ruthlessness of all the violent parties and push them out of the country. How can a people do this when the others have all the guns and bombs one might ask, when these others use fear and death as their chief tactic of control? There is also power in numbers. There is also power in basic common decency and humanity and the human spirit that will always, in the long run, trump guns, bombs and fanaticism.

The reason to look carefully at the Iraqi state and the nature of it’s civil war before acting, and the reason that recognizing that the conflict in Iraq is a civil war is critical, is that it puts our choices in sharp relief. In a traditional civil war we could intervene by choosing sides based on our agreement with the principals of one side or the other. This is not such a circumstance… The basis of the civil war in Iraq is that the nation state no longer exists to fight over. The fighting is about delineating new borders and selecting populations for at least 3 new emerging states. We can not pick a side but we can speed up the process of partition. We can provide a modicum of security for the displaced. We can maintain a robust military presence in the region to make the neighboring powers think twice about over playing the strong hand we have witlessly dealt them.

There are two reasons that a proactive policy of partition is not on the table. One is the fear of broader regional conflict involving Iran, Syria, and possibly Turkey the second is oil. In any sensible partition of Iraq the Shiite south receives a huge portion of the Iraqi national wealth, as do the Kurds. The Sunni are all but cut out, and Iran is handed substantial leverage over the world oil supply. This is the reason that the US must negotiate a circumstance where it is possible to maintain a significant military threat over the entire area at the end of hostilities. A cold peace in the region is good for most parties which is why I have some hope it might hold. It enhances Iranian prestige and influence, it awards the Kurds a secure state, and it places an American umbrella of power over the gulf oil producing states. The fly in the ointment is the Sunni State and their inevitable resentment over losing their share of the oil resources of Iraq. This might be a problem that could be solved with money. Might a program of aid form the Sunni gulf sates combined with War reparations from the US be sufficient to prevent the exhausted Iraqi Sunni from taking up arms against their new neighbors?

>Am I the only person besides Chris to have remarked Nir Rosen’s statement about

Israel?

I did a double-take when I heard that remark as well. Not sure what to make of it. Is Nir in favor of a future Jordanian regime breaking the peace treaty with Israel and going to war?

I’d love to hear some followup questions and clarification on this topic!

Thanks for the show.