Well, that was quick...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

In the tradition of end-of-year awards, I offer the first nominee in the "Shortest Geopolitical Honeymoon" category (with my highlighting for those who prefer skimming):

Saddam Arrest Cheer Fades Into Iraqi Ire at U.S.
2 hours, 31 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Joseph Logan

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Joy at the capture of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) gave way to resentment toward Washington Monday as Iraqis confronted afresh the bloodshed, shortages and soaring prices of life under U.S. occupation.

The morning after Iraq (news - web sites)'s U.S. governor revealed the ousted strongman was a disheveled prisoner, Iraqis flooded the streets to snatch up newspapers emblazoned with photos of the man who ruled them by fear, now humbled and captive.

Many were ecstatic to see Saddam captured and hoped he would answer for his deeds but said they would not rush to thank America -- in their eyes the source of their problems since a U.S.-led coalition toppled Saddam in April.

"I hope that we get the chance to try him our way, to let everyone who suffered make him taste what he had made us taste," said Ali Hussein, 29, a stationery shop owner who said he was still dizzy with joy.

"But whether he's in a hole or in jail, it does nothing for me today, it won't feed me or protect me or send my children to school," he said.

Even as news of Saddam's capture sank in, car bombs ripped through two police stations in the capital, the latest in a series of attacks U.S. forces blame on loyalists of Saddam and on foreign "terrorists" infiltrating Iraq.

President Bush (news - web sites) warned that catching Saddam would not end attacks by people who do not "accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East," implying a pledge of a better life many Iraqis said Bush was failing to keep.

"AFGHANISTAN (news - web sites)"

"It's great that he's caught, but it wasn't him who screwed up the petrol and the electricity and everything else so badly, so now a canister of gas that was 250 dinars costs 4,000, if you can get one," said Ghazi, a 52-year-old dentist, from his car as he queued with hundreds of other drivers waiting for petrol.

"This is an oil country and it should be rich. It should not be Afghanistan."

Other drivers echoed the complaints of chronic fuel shortages in a country with the world's second-largest oil reserves, as well as of their treatment at the hands of troops who have killed civilians while hunting suspected Saddam partisans or pursuing criminals with Iraqi police.


"The Americans promised freedom and prosperity; what's this? Go up to their headquarters, at one of those checkpoints where they point their guns at you, and tell them that you hate them as much as Saddam, and see what they do to you," said Mohammad Saleh, 39, a building contractor.

"The only difference is that Saddam would kill you in private, where the Americans will kill you in public," he said.

"A lot of things -- safety, freedom, prosperity -- that we were supposed to have are gone. They promised many things, and now that they have caught Saddam maybe they kept one."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/iraq_mood_dc

I'm sure some of us saw this coming, but this quickly? I'm about as cynical as they come, and even I'm shocked. Iraq certainly isn't Vietnam, but it still seems to have "Quagmire" written all over it.

[East Street Trader]

Hi, Rufus T.

I am glad Saddam Hussein has been found. I hope that some way emerges to avoid a show trial. Although early signs on that are not great.

But the situation in Iraq seems to me to be exactly what it was always bound to have been.

Following all sucessful invasions the removal of the political leadership sparks off disruption for a while. The arrival of the Normans in England is an example, the arrival of the Romans all over the place another, and the departure of the Romans with the arrival of various invading tribes some more.

How extensive and how long the disruption is seem to me partly to be determined by how developed the political institutions in the invaded country are and how developed the political consciousness of the people there is.

In a sophisticated nation with well developed political institutions - Greek city states, say, when the Turks arrived - the period of disruption will be shorter. Whatever new institutions develop, or are imposed, will take root fairly quickly. But in a country where political institutions and consciousness are under-developed the period of disruption will be much longer.

Now the very fact that Iraq was in the long term hands of a tribal leader who ruled through his family - as all such leaders do - demonstrates which category Iraq falls into.

The notion that someone can come along and just graft on stability from the outside is silly. It takes a long time to develop political institutions which are stable, and longer still to develop the sort of political consciousness in people which allows them to understand why there is a benefit in trading off some freedoms (the freedom to benefit your family for example) in favour of a society which is more stable.

The most recent British empire rather went in for trying to graft on all sorts of complex constitutional ideas to the various countries it conquered. Some few bits and pieces survive here and there. Mostly, though, that just added to the overall disruption.

So the thing to expect in Iraq is more of what there has been there for the last four or five thousand years.

As for the US, UK and the Bush/Blair administrations the situation seems novel. Lacking the traditional motivation for invasion they are travelling a novel road.

It is clear that neither leader has the faintest idea what to do next.

I guess we must hope they find something to do which does not make them feel too silly - or cost them too much electoral face. Because their motivation seems to have been self gratification. Allied, in Bush's case, with a desire to re-focus political attention. Such folk, disatified with the outcome, typically double the bet. Hoping to recover their loss and to win the profit first sought.

How many lives the next invasion will cost God only knows.

[SlowwHand]

Bullshit, Trader.
Even the ****ing democratic candidates are changing their tune.

[alva]

Well, that was quick...

Dang, and here I was willing to bet a lot of money, this thread was going to be about your last-night sex-experience.

[Alex]

why would anyone think that the iraqis would be happy for long? i mean, saddam was captured, they were happy for it (at least those who were not loyal to him), but life goes on, and life in iraq is very very bad nowadays.

[Spiffor]

I still gave it a few more days. I'm amazed by how fast it went too.

[Q Classic]

i like the announcement they had to make about the 'bombing' during a celebration.

apparently, a stray bullet hit a gas tank.

stupid people, stupid stupid people. why the **** shoot guns into the air when celebrating? it gets your wedding party bombed.

[East Street Trader]

Hi, Slowwhand.

US democrats speak for themselves, not for me.

The UK electorate (including me) is, by and large, bemused by our involvement. It was explained to us that Iraq posed an immediate and urgent threat because, like the UK and the US, it possessed very powerful weapons.

Having succesfully invaded, that threat seems to have been dealt with. But instead of the invasion force coming home they are still in Iraq and all sorts of things are being said about what is to be done next.

Understandably enough the people in Iraq want some recompense for what has happened to them and by the look of it Bush and Blair think some such recompense is due.

Well, the news that I am now to contribute a chunk of tax money for that purpose on top of the hefty chunk I have already paid to become satisfied about an empty threat is no great thrill.

I doubt it will go down too well in the US either.

Over here Blair has a couple of advantages. He faces a wholly ineffective political opposition and the UK is well used to its forces fulfilling strange roles following foreign adventures. I particularly remember being in Cyprus as a boy when the Greeks and Turks used to take pot shots at British troops (in a rather gentle sort of way, at that) instead of knocking seven bells out of each other. And there have been lots of other similar cases not too long ago.

So maybe the political fall-out for Blair will be manageable.

The US is different. Bush won his last election after endless recounts and the US has no recent history of empire. As the costs in money and men mount I suspect that the most vociferous political reaction will come from the right of his own party, not from the left.

If that still looks like bullshit to you in six months you can remind me I have some words to eat.

[Urban Ranger]

Handing out contracts to Halliburton etc. definitely won't help.

[Q Classic]

i still don't understand why yesterday was, to some, the greatest day in history, or a reason to be america's proudest moment.

sure, it was good, but surely we've done better things?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I'm about as cynical as they come, and even I'm shocked.

I must be more cynical than you, Rufus.

Just today a coworker and I was talking about the capture of Saddam. We were like, "Okay, so?" Assuming the person caught is really Saddam, it's like catching a bum off the street. He was in a hole in the ground, not plotting some nefarious plan. He was protected by two bodyguards, not in a fortress armed to the teeth with hundreds of those ferocious black-clad nasty people.

The significance is merely symbolic.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Hey, EST! Long time, no see.

I think your analysis is spot on. And the sad fact is that most Americans have (1) no sense of history, (2) no patience for long-term planning, and (3) no understanding of the rest of the world -- which means, regardless of their ideological bent, they're likely to be perplexed, then angry, about the protracted nature of the liberation/conquest. The fact that our leaders keep presenting complex problems as easy and painless("Mission Accomplished!") certainly doen't help matters any. All of that will contribute to political fallout one way or anther.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Hey, EST! Long time, no see.

I think your analysis is spot on. And the sad fact is that most Americans have (1) no sense of history, (2) no patience for long-term planning, and (3) no understanding of the rest of the world -- which means, regardless of their ideological bent, they're likely to be perplexed, then angry, about the protracted nature of the liberation/conquest. The fact that our leaders keep presenting complex problems as easy and painless("Mission Accomplished!") certainly doen't help matters any. All of that will contribute to political fallout one way or anther.

On the contrary - I think my fellow Americans have shown remarkable patience in the long hard slog, both in Iraq and the larger WOT. They DO want to see tangible results - they either dont follow or dont trust govt briefings on infrastructure improvements, capture of insrugents, etc. They wanted a tangible victory, as does the citizenry of any nation at war, I think.

[:) Smiley]

We should of picked an Oedo year to do this.

[Japher]

Americans have (1) no sense of history, (2) no patience for long-term planning, and (3) no understanding of the rest of the world

That is both an ignorant and very arrogant thing to say Rufus. Understandibly it is just regurgitated anti-American BS, but is something I can't just let hang in the air like yesterday's farts without at least disagreeing.

LotM

-- which means, regardless of their ideological bent, they're likely to be perplexed, then angry, about the protracted nature of the liberation/conquest.

As is the case with everyone of the world, not just Americans, when one is kept ignorant of the facts, and only sees empty bickering from those who actually know and understand those facts...

The fact that our leaders keep presenting complex problems as easy and painless("Mission Accomplished!") certainly doen't help matters any. All of that will contribute to political fallout one way or anther.

I do agree with this. Leaders should not present complex problems as easy ones, but I know that wasn't the case here. Was that the case there?

[Shi Huangdi]

It's a hardly a collapse of the goodwill generated from getting Saddam. Yes, there is some lingering resentment, but it would also be a mistake to assume that capturing Saddam is irrelevant either.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Japher


That is both an ignorant and very arrogant thing to say Rufus. Understandibly it is just regurgitated anti-American BS, but is something I can't just let hang in the air like yesterday's farts without at least disagreeing.

LotM

In support of my comments, I would cite the the reams of standarized test data that show that Americans know very little about their own history or anyone else's, and the equally voluminous reams of polling data that show that Americans have very little understanding of what's going on in teh world beyond their borders. (My favorites include, of course, the over 50% who seem still to believe that we went into Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11; the over 50% who, after our military adveture in Afghanistan -- the lead story on the nightly news for weeks -- couldn't find Afghanistan on a map; and, of course, those 5-10% who cant find the USA on a map of the world).

No patience for long-term planning is harder to document, but I would suggest that the current state of Social Security, coupled with the country's negative savings rate, certainly implies that we aren't all that great at thinking past our next Big Mac Attack.

That's what I've got. You've got...what? An American flag on your SUV?

I do agree with this. Leaders should not present complex problems as easy ones, but I know that wasn't the case here. Was that the case there?

Are you wilfully ignoring Rumsfeld's pre-war comments that it would be a "cakewalk"? Are you conveniently forgetting all administration officials' descriptions of how the euphoria in Baghdad would look like Paris in the summer of '44? Have you willfully repressed the "Mission Accomplished" photo op?

Or are you just another American with no sense of history?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


In support of my comments, I would cite the the reams of standarized test data that show that Americans know very little about their own history or anyone else's, and the equally voluminous reams of polling data that show that Americans have very little understanding of what's going on in teh world beyond their borders. (My favorites include, of course, the over 50% who seem still to believe that we went into Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11; the over 50% who, after our military adveture in Afghanistan -- the lead story on the nightly news for weeks -- couldn't find Afghanistan on a map; and, of course, those 5-10% who cant find the USA on a map of the world).

No patience for long-term planning is harder to document, but I would suggest that the current state of Social Security, coupled with the country's negative savings rate, certainly implies that we aren't all that great at thinking past our next Big Mac Attack.

That's what I've got. You've got...what? An American flag on your SUV?



Are you wilfully ignoring Rumsfeld's pre-war comments that it would be a "cakewalk"? Are you conveniently forgetting all administration officials' descriptions of how the euphoria in Baghdad would look like Paris in the summer of '44? Have you willfully repressed the "Mission Accomplished" photo op?

Or are you just another American with no sense of history?

1. Stats on geography ignorance - only really relevant compared to some other country. Certainly here on 'poly (not a valid sample, to be sure) i see just as many europeans ignorant of history as Americans.

2. Iraq and 9/11. Lets try to avoid a threadjacking, but the linkage is far from absurd.

3. Social Security, etc - again, compared to say Europeans? Not to start a thread jack, but maybe theyre unconcerned cause theyre looking at the rate of growth of the US economy, etc. This is one where the experts disagree.

4. Cakewalk - citation please. You will find none - an arguable one from Cheney - none from Rumsfeld.


5. Paris 1944 - It WAS disappointing in April - we didnt realize how terrorized these people were - but since we have seen celebrations not only in April, but on many occasions since, notably yesterday. And US troops have reported widespread friendliness from Iraqis. Is there still political struggle, resentment, etc? Like you think there wasnt in France in 1944-45? Whos historically ignorant.

SUV - dont own one. I have a US flag on my energy efficient Honda.

Historical ignorance - I suggest you follow what I have to say on historically oriented threads - i would like to see a history forum here.

Mission accomplished - er wasnt that on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER? Wasnt the Carriers mission accomplished? Not much for Carriers to do in IRaq now, is there? Was Bushes flying out stupid - maybe, thats Karl Rove, not evidence against the American people. There arent other international leaders who done stupid symbolic things?

[Japher]

I thought someone would come to my rescue with a well worded rebuttal

Still, after reading the entire thread instead of just flaming a troll, I find myself in agreement with Rufus in that many Americans (maybe most) respond to world events out of ignorance and emotion, yet these things are fueled by a liberal media and uncompromising and idiotic claims by public officials... However, I see no difference in the general reactions among other countries, to such a point, to single out Americans as being the epitamy of such blatant stupidity. We are just louder than the rests, as we have a right to use our voices.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

LoM,

Not accusing you or anyone in this thread of historical ignorance -- except myself, for forgetting that the cakewalk comment came from Cheney, not Rumsfeld.

But it seems to me a willfully deceptive rewriting of recent events to suggest that the Bush administration presented Iraq as a difficult, complex proposition from the outset. Quite, quite the opposite -- which is why they had to backpedal so furiously when the invasion bogged down a bit in its initial days. Everything coming out of the Bush team's mouth before our troops landed presented Iraq 2 as simplicity itself. They were either consumed by arrogance, flat-out lying, or being incredibly stupid; I can believe all of the above, and see no reason to forgive any.

As for comparison's to Europe, I'll let the Europeans defend themselves if they like; I wasn't comparing Americans to anyone else, just saying that in general our sense of history and world events is very, very shabby. Whether other countries are just as shabby is irrelevant.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Japher,

I'm only singling out Americans because (1) Iraq's our show, and (2) I feel it's legit to take my own countrymen (meaning the ignoramuses, not you or LotM) to task for their failings as citizens.

[Sprayber]

Why were you shocked Rufas???? These people were only pleased that Saddam was caught not that America caught him. There is absoulutly nothing in that article that shocks me. It has been this way from since the beginning. They like the results of what happened but they curse of for being there. Do you think for a second that they will not blame American for the Civil War that would accompany an American withdraw at this stage? They curse us saying we should go and would curse us for allowing the Civil War that would surely follow. So why you think this is shocking is a little strange to me. It's standard operating procedure.

[Japher]

From Bush's speech after 9/11

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

I know it's not specificly about Iraq 2, but it I think it represents not only the Bush regime's outlook on the war, and mine as well. No one said it would be easy, except when some idiot (Rummy and Chenney) spoke without thinking. We had 'em out manned and out gunned, they just forgot about who the war is actually being waged against.

I'm only singling out Americans because (1) Iraq's our show, and (2) I feel it's legit to take my own countrymen (meaning the ignoramuses, not you or LotM) to task for their failings as citizens.

Fair enough.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
From Bush's speech after 9/11

I know it's not specificly about Iraq 2, but it I think it represents not only the Bush regime's outlook on the war, and mine as well.

As I recall, Iraq did not enter the equation until he pulled the "Axis of Evil" thang out from his rectum. As a matter of fact, there still is no evidence linking Saddam/Iraq with al-Qaeda.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, EST, I think you to be completely wrong. I'm sure the administration hoped for a quick turnaround, but they knew they'd be there for a while. There were plenty of speeches by Bush saying we need to be patient and be there for the long haul. Remember Bush was advised by neoconservatives, who wish to transform the MidEast, and Iraq in particular to a democratic area. The whole goal was to build institutions in order to foster democracy and the US will be there for a while.

The problem is trying to convince Americans to stay for the long term good of Iraq. It may be 'empire', but that doesn't always have to be a dirty word.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

How many lives the next invasion will cost God only knows.

As many lives as it takes to get more oil!

Er, I mean, as many lives as it takes to find WMDs -- no wait, screw that one, too.

As many lives as it takes to win the next election -- nah, that doesn't sound good enough.




As many lives as it takes, to accomplish whatever.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To accomplish a regime change for democratization . I realize it is impossible at the moment, but I'd love to see an invasion of Burma to remove the *******s there. Then again, I'm sure it'll never happen now.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To accomplish a regime change for democratization . I realize it is impossible at the moment, but I'd love to see an invasion of Burma to remove the *******s there. Then again, I'm sure it'll never happen now.

Imran -- Bush does not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, in spite of his beautiful speeches. Has has other reasons for having invaded Iraq.


To believe that American political leaders of either party having the best interest at heart for common, low-class, suppressed peoples in poorer countries . . . . . that's just seems to me, being naive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush does not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, in spite of his beautiful speeches. Has has other reasons for having invaded Iraq.

When did I say he did. What, you think democratization is simply for the best interests of the common Iraqi? I'm sure that is part of it. Bush genually does seem to want people to vote for their leaders (the only reason people in Pakistan can vote is because of Bush's pressure on Musharraf). However, democratization of the ME is in the US'S BEST INTEREST. Taking power away from dictators may lead to more friendly and more peaceful regimes, especially with respect to other democracies.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by MrFun
... Bush does not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, in spite of his beautiful speeches. Has has other reasons for having invaded Iraq.

True. With Babylon now under U.S. control, there's no way in hell it can become the capital of the Anti-Christ for the impending showdown between the armies of God and Satan.

Guess good old AC will have to just set up shop in Las Vegas.

Gatekeeper