US to Create a Secret Police in Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor



A normal person would understand that everything implemented by the US has only the interests of the US in mind. When it's good for the Iraqi people, more power to them. When it' bad for them, well, that's too bad.

The principle US interest in Iraq is building up a stable, democratic and prosperous state which by its very existence will serve to undermine certain political and cultural dynamics presents in the region which are inimical to US security. Spiffor is correct to state that the US motive is not altruism. He is incorrect to derive from that the US is not committed to a democratic Iraq. Should we retreat from that commitment, it will not be out of pursuit of our interest, but because we fail to have the will to stick to our interests.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You are, as usual, FoS. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most highly respected papers in the country. In the U.S., it is probably the least partisan paper. In fact, you are the only person I've ever heard denigrate the paper.

You must have a narrow circle of associates, CG. The CSM, though it pursues a moderate line on most US politics, pursues a generally pro-Saudi, anti-Israel line on the Mideast - this has been true for years, but has really stood out these last 2 years. They were more solidly against the Iraq war than even the NYTimes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The principle US interest in Iraq is building up a stable, democratic and prosperous state . . .

This is rather presumptive given the modus operandi of the current Administration in Washington. Everything they do is motivated either to enhance their poltiical power or to enrich their crony capitalist masters. If Powell had any say, then maybe I'd agree with you, but he seems to have been completely marginalized.

[Arrian]

I just wanted to chime in with some more support of the CSM. It's a fine paper. As I understand it, the paper has no real connection to the wacky CS church or whatever it's called.

Now, if Che (commie), Berserker (libertarian/anarchist?) and I (moderate USian capitalist pigdog) all agree it's a reliable news source, it's probably true.

As for the thread topic... well, an Iraqi FBI style agency is probably needed, but the use of militias does worry me.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Maybe, but other evidence doesn't point that way.

What makes the militias better for "counter-insurgency" than any other kind of soldier/policeman?

the fact that they arent infiltrated by old regime loyalists claiming to be "reformed" ex-Baathists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is rather presumptive given the modus operandi of the current Administration in Washington. Everything they do is motivated either to enhance their poltiical power or to enrich their crony capitalist masters. If Powell had any say, then maybe I'd agree with you, but he seems to have been completely marginalized.

Powell is as close to crony capitalists as anyone, and is particularly close to the Saudi lobby. The only idealist is Wolfie.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You must have a narrow circle of associates, CG. The CSM, . . . pursues a generally pro-Saudi, anti-Israel line on the Mideast - this has been true for years, but has really stood out these last 2 years.

Given the rather extreme pro-Israeli stance you take, as well as that of most of the U.S. media, you'll fogive me if I take that with a grain of salt. As for the paper being against the war, well, maybe so. I haven't been following it recently.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I just wanted to chime in with some more support of the CSM. It's a fine paper. As I understand it, the paper has no real connection to the wacky CS church or whatever it's called.

Now, if Che (commie), Berserker (libertarian/anarchist?) and I (moderate USian capitalist pigdog) all agree it's a reliable news source, it's probably true.


-Arrian

Unfortunately on this particular subject its not true.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Given the rather extreme pro-Israeli stance you take, as well as that of most of the U.S. media, you'll fogive me if I take that with a grain of salt. As for the paper being against the war, well, maybe so. I haven't been following it recently.

Im generally a Labor supporter, who thinks Israel must withdraw from most of the territories and establish a Pal state. I have been skeptical of Sharon, though I dont think hes a loony or a war criminal, and i think he does have a strong streak of pragmatism. But to the CSM, and to much of the Euro media, that means my stance is EXTREME. So you can take your salt and shove it.

[Arrian]

LotM,

Are we talking about perceived bias, or are we talking about it being a reliable news source? Those can be very different things.

And as Che points out, you have rather extreme pro-Israeli views, so while the CSM sounds neutral or slightly anti-Israel to me, it may sound like a bunch of neonazis to you.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,

Are we talking about perceived bias, or are we talking about it being a reliable news source? Those can be very different things.

And as Che points out, you have rather extreme pro-Israeli views, so while the CSM sounds neutral or slightly anti-Israel to me, it may sound like a bunch of neonazis to you.

-Arrian

I have bitterly debated with hawks on Soc.culture.Jewish, where i was considered a dove. Again, I have thought a territorial compromise was a necessity for as long as I can remember. With some trepidation i accepted Oslo, and agreed to the need for a Pal state, even with Arafat at the head of it - i was willing to give him a chance. I cried when Rabin was shot, and cheered when Barak beat Netanyahu. I take a skeptical, though not hostile, view of Sharon. I HAVE taken a more hostile viewpoint of Arafat SINCE he rejected Baraks offer, but only since then. I continue to hope that the Pal people will somehow shake off Arafat. I assure you that among American Jews my views are mainstream (if they are more salient to me than for most) and that in Israel I'd be considered a centrist, if not quite a dove. That I am here considered an
"extremist" is both unfair, and a sign of how biased against Israel the general discourse is.

And no I dont see the CSM as neo-Nazi. I do see them as STRONGLY biased on the middle east, enough so that I take anything in the CSM on that region with a grain of salt, as much so as for the Daily Telegraph. Especially where this plays so strongly on their prejudices, which in the case of Iraq leans towards sympathy with the ex-Baathists and skepticism towards the exiles, and general hostility to the neo-con project.

[lord of the mark]

BTW if I am a pro-Israel extremist than so is Bill Clinton.

[Arrian]

Ok, "extremist" was too much. At least from where I'm sitting. Your views are not really much different than mine, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian bloodbath.

What I really should have said was this: it's all relative. One man's moderate is another's extremist. My moderate views from the USA put me down as a centre-rightist in Europe or Canada. Che's a full blown wacko here, but not so across the pond. And so on and so forth.

I posted to defend the CSM not from you, actually (crosspost), but from Patroklos (sp?), who seems to see it at a conspiracy theory rag, which isn't at all fair.

[chequita guevara]

Extreme was meant in the sense of strong, not fanatical. I guess that wasn't clear in my post. Sorry.

[Patroklos]

Obviously the publications one deems reliable or unbiased depends on where you sit.

Once again, if we were forming a state law enforcment agency out of war torn New Zealand sheep country, perhaps we could find a few groups to include that don't have blood on their hands. However, we are not in New Zealond, we are in Iraq. In order to accomplish something you need to get your hands dirty, there are no sqeaky clean solutions.

But, as usually while poinit out problems the causists have yet to offer a viable alternative. Well, do nothing, but that is only viable to causists.