Embarrassing Drop by Left Fielder

I realize that I spend too much time harping on them, but the Fielders have constructed a rhetorical argument against... Well, nobody knows really, that apparently denies the existence of time itself. Then it gets interesting.

Kyle Moore suggests that the surge is simply an empty slogan and isn't actually working (more accurately, that it has failed even if it's only been a year). Moore makes this assertion despite statistical evidence that says he's wrong.

Of course the common-sense line that you will hear about that data is that it is attributable to Iraqis taking initiative. That line is used as a matter of politics; the users don't want any credit going to anyone outside their party. Let those people politicize. They can win the argument so long as we win the war. I'm happy as long as the reduction isn't because we're running out of people to kill.

He goes on to explain that while perhaps the US is interested in reconciliation (of course), that Iraqi politicians don't see it the same way. And its here that Moore drops the ball, because the quote he offers does so much more than weakly support his point:

Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.

“Reconciliation should be a result and not a goal by itself,” he said. “You should create the atmosphere for correct relationships, and not wave slogans that ‘I want to reconcile with you.’ “

While Moore draws a very basic conclusion from this quote - and one that supports his own politics - he misses the larger point of what it really sounds like Hamoudi is saying. Sure, he's saying that its more than a slogan. But I'd expect a 5th-grader to pick up on that.

Hamoudi is that the focus should be on cleaning up the Iraqi government so it can build legitimacy; a long term goal for everyone and a recognized problem across the board, current administration and military leadership included. If you want proof of that, I'll point you to FM 3-24 and the Independent Commission on Iraq report. Both are in the Required Reading list.

What's even more interesting is how Hamoudi says what he did. In a nutshell, he's clearly trying to say that if you want to win, in this case you have to keep your eyes off the prize, stop trying to force it, and focus on getting the underlying problems taken care of. When you can do that, reconciliation will occur naturally. And that's going to take time. Civil rights in the US weren't won in four years, we'd be stupid to expect it to happen in Iraq today - where Baghdad is under Shiite control for the first time since 1534. Still think Johnny Reb holds a wicked grudge for what Sherman did to Georgia?

At any rate, I'm actually encouraged by Hamoudi's statement, because it lets me know that someone there in a position of power has their head screwed on straight and knows what the problem is and is willing to work at it, in the knowledge that it won't happen overnight but that it still needs to happen. That's a position that I simply don't see in the political wings of America, right (pushing for partition) or left (pushing for withdrawal).