David Brooks: "take a deep breath"

[Cocoa]

Brooks thinks Sadr isn't a good guy, and he thinks the Iraqis feel the same way. How does he know? He talked to some unnamed experts, and refers to those absurd polls. Who's going to be convinced by this? You tell me. :shrug:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/opinion/10BROO.html


Come on people, let's get a grip.

This week, Chicken Littles like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were ranting that Iraq is another Vietnam. Pundits and sages were spinning a whole series of mutually exclusive disaster scenarios: Civil war! A nationwide rebellion!

Maybe we should calm down a bit. I've spent the last few days talking with people who've spent much of their careers studying and working in this region. We're at a perilous moment in Iraqi history, but the situation is not collapsing. We're in the middle of a battle. It's a battle against people who vehemently oppose a democratic Iraq. The task is to crush those enemies without making life impossible for those who fundamentally want what we want.

The Shiite violence is being fomented by Moktada al-Sadr, a lowlife hoodlum from an august family. The ruthless and hyperpoliticized Sadr has spent the past year trying to marginalize established religious figures, like Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who come from a more quietist tradition and who believe in the separation of government and clergy. Sadr and his fellow putschists have been spectacularly unsuccessful in winning popular support. The vast majority of Iraqis do not want an Iranian-style dictatorship. Most see Sadr as a young, hotheaded murderer who terrorizes people wherever he goes.

more...

[kalian]

1. The land of 5 second soundbites....

and they call it "information"... :eyes:
Its amazing how many "nameless experts" there are in this world. And
its oh so easy for them to speculate on what's going on over there,
especially when they're not the ones that are getting killed and
maimed.

[Atman]

2. It must be a tough task

The task is to crush those enemies without making life impossible for those who fundamentally want what we want.


Yes, how to you commit genocide and take over a sovereign nation without making life difficult for Cheney and Rummy and Wolfie? Who the hell else fundamentally wants anything we're doing there?

[bemildred]

3. This is nothing but propaganda. nt

[Veggie Meathead]

4. Notice how Brooks throws phrases like "terrorists",

"murderers" and "thugs" in reference to alSadr who led the insurrection after Bremer summarily stopped the publication of his popular newspaper.He is now laying the groundwork for a massive military assault on Fallujah and other cities by U.S.forces and call it an operation to rescue Iraqi Democracy.I am sure the core constituency of Bush is going to love this bloodbath and all the
testimony implicating Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld in 9/11 will be forgotten.

Our democracy has not merely been hijacked its survival appears to be in doubt if the events unfold the way I portray them to be.

Pray for our country and the people of Iraq.

[paulk]

5. While Mr. Brooks engages in some unfortunate hyperbole

He's fundamentally correct.

Moqtada Al Sadr is not a good guy. Sadr doesn't have a lot of popular support. He does have quite a few armed followers, however. He has tried to marginalize more established religious figures. The vast majority of Iraqi's do not want what Sadr will bring - an Iranian style theocracy. He may or may not be a murderer - although he certainly has called for violence against the coalition.

Mr. Brook's editorial did not convince me of these things, however. There is a lot of information available on Moqtada Al-Sadr and the developing situation for those willing to search for it. Keeping an open mind rather than the kind of knee jerk response prevalent on DU lately is also valuable.

[teryang]

6. What is happening is much bigger than this

The American neo-cons and their bought and paid for media supporters show so little insight into what is happening in Iraq. We are now totally isolated.

Al Sadr is the tip of the iceberg. Because the operating style of Sistani and other Shia leadership is different hardly substantiates his boneheaded analysis. Sistani has been supportive of Al Sadr and to his interpret his recent public statements as otherwise means that the anonymous "experts" Brooks talked to haven't read them and ignored the political context which led up to Sistani's statements. Either that or they are dumb as a box of rocks. The CPA and the IGC basically told Sistani to piss off with his demands for elections ASAP and Constitutional changes. Wrong move. Sistani says he's through talking to Americans. Just how does Brooks interpret this as support for Americans? How does Sistani demonstrate his power when he is through talking?

This is journalism? Some friends told me...blah, blah, blah. The Times publishes any old sort of garbage. Thomas Friedman is a case in point.

[Miss Authoritiva]

7. Gee, first Brooks tells me to take a deep breath and calm down, and

then he blasts me with: "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up."

Now, in the run-up to the Iraq war, I don't remember anybody ever discussing the possibility that the gates of hell might swing open. A good many people might have reconsidered their support for the war, you know. What's one evil, madman, Grecian-formula-ed dictator afflicted with a gimpy leg and back problems compared with the emptying out of the entire contents of hell.