Why James Lileks is flat-out wrong

Sounds like you want to visit the sins of the father on the son. W is not responsible for the 12 years. He doesn't deserve the crap from Salam. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

W is the greatest friend Salam and the Iraqis have in the world. If it were up to the Bush-haters in the world (including the Democrats), Salam would really be up the creek without a paddle.

Amen

(to Dan)

Don't forget that although we may not be the only ones who "owe a debt", we seem to be the only ones to repay them; even if it takes 10 years and a man's son to reverse the bad advice given to the father; bad advice STILL given to this day to that son.

Both of you and Salam should get off your high horses. We have a hard fight and a victory to win.

mCrane

Uh, no, he's explaining why the average Iraqi has been a bit reluctant to pick up a rifle again after they DID do it, at the urging of the US, and were then slaughtered as we looked the other way. That IS the US's fault and responsibility - the current president doesn't get a free ride for past US decisions. He represents the country and its past actions.

And Salam didn't say screw you, go away W - he's asking for an honest appraisal of the situation and a more coordinated effort. The whole campaign has not gone as certain people in charge of it publicly boasted it would. Mistakes are fine, everyone makes them. But not ever admitting them leads to a problem in credibility, which then extends to weakening support.

So it's a "thank you, now come take a look, admit it's not all going to plan, and show us you're really doing all possible to improve it - including acknowledging what's not working and taking steps to change and improve the approach". Lileks is clearly a pissed-off bitter person about this. He sounds like a "how dare you question my decisions" type of person. At least from this little screed.

Everyone knows this whole thing is a bitch to deal with - not accepting or acknowledging any criticism doesn't make it any easier.

Stones

Dan Drezner, spot on and far more restrained than I could have been....

Let me ask this: why does our encouraging the revolt impose on us a moral duty to provide active (rather than merely rhetorical) support?

Fuckin' A, Dan.

Stan

Sounds like you didn't actually read Dan's post. The point is that Lileks has no right to sit in his frickin' rumpus room telling Salam Pax that he's "got no stones" 'cause he didn't single-handedly overthrow Hussein.

As for "sins of the father", GW may not be culpable for what his daddy did, but this is about the US government, not individuals within it. The US government hung the Iraqis out to dry not very long ago. It's fair for Iraqis to remember that.

Hey Daniel? Fuck you. (Sorry to do this on your own blog but its the format apparently). I know you're a thoughtful guy but automatically springing to the defense of the eminantly snarky Salam Pax is a little too much. Sure, none of us have lived in Iraq under Saddam or after, but does that mean we have nothing to say about the matter? And, truth in advertising here, is the best spokesman on the world stage for the Iraqi people an upper class son of a tribal chief who benefitted considerably more from Saddams rule than 99% of Iraqis? Besides that, I'm not sure a guy who has spent more time in London than Chalabi since the liberation is quite an accurate source for first hand reconstruction accounts.
Let me be clear, habibi, America has bled for Iraq. We can deal with disagreement and contraversy. In fact we welcome it. But what many of us wont shut up for is ingratitude and condescension. Especially from some know-it-all smart-assed kid off selling books whos only ideals were that Saddam is bad and America is bad. Not much to work with I'm afraid. But he does fit in nicely with his new transnationional European friends.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I normally really enjoy Lileks and can even understand his reaction - however, he admits he would not have the guts to use a gun if he was in Salam's shoes too, so that weakens a bunch of his rant.

James is enjoying the good life here in the US - if he was writing this from Bagdad after having been thru alot of what Salam is experiencing, I might appreciate it more.

Salam did not deserve the torrent of disdain he got out of Lileks. Writing snarkily and insigthfully of life in Baghadad during the days of Saddam took far more courage than getting shot to pieces while charging the barricades. And it had far more impact.

I love Lileks' writing. But charming depictions of his daughter and well-written right-wing punditry doesn't hold a candle to what Salam accomplished. And heck -- though the tone may have been sarcastic -- I don't think Salam's letter said anything much different than what warmonger Andrew Sullivan has said. Thanks for dumping the dictator, but you still have a job to finish.

TG -

And Salam didn't say screw you, go away W - he's asking for an honest appraisal of the situation and a more coordinated effort.

Bullshit. Salam calls Bush "Georgie" in his letter. Salam's not a friend asking for some self-appraisal and introspection. He's openly mocking the president.

Lileks is right.

Bush 41's failure to help out the rebels in 1991 (which, had he done so would have infuriated the international community and the fickle 1991 coalition) is no excuse for Pax to get all snarky about the fact that the only country willing to get rid of Saddam hasn't made everything perfect in a few months.

If he keeps this up, he will HASTEN the erosion of America's resolve. Then he can put his lot in with those who would end up in control of Iraq, who he would be "bravely" complaining about only from a position of jealously guarded secrecy.

This combination of impotence (we wanted him gone, but couldn't mobilize the resources or the cooperation to do it, even though we had 30 years), shame (we're emberrassed that the Americans did what we couldn't), and unrealistic expectations about how quickly a 30 year mess in an Al-Qaida infested part of the world, which has never known democracy (save Israel) will prove to be an exremely difficult problem.

Randy M.

"doesn't hold a candle to what Salam accomplished"

What, exactly, has Salam "accomplished"? Not being killed or tortured by Saddam? Perhaps there's a reason for that...

..however, he admits he would not have the guts to use a gun if he was in Salam's shoes too, so that weakens a bunch of his rant.

I don't think so at all. He wasn't writing about the revolution, he was writing about the reconstruction, and Salam's apparent displeasure with its pace and progress. He was also pointing out that that reconstruction was taking place at the cost (in part) of someone else's blood, and that a certain level of gratitude for that sacrifice is in order. Instead of snarkiness over soup-stained carpet. Salam was way off target here, considering the forum of the message.

Let's see if I've got this straight: the reason Lileks is wrong to chide Salam, according to Dan Drezner, is because the U.S. still owes the Iraqi people for abandoning them after the U.S. urged them to revolt in 1991? Then what explains the failure to revolt before 1991? It's not like Hussein was a good boy before 1991 and it was the U.S. who made a monster of him and betrayed the Iraqi people by its actions in the first Gulf War. Sounds like Mr. Drezner has a stereotypical case of "Blame America First" disease.

The U.S. is doing something about Hussein and terrorism now, for the second time in under 15 years, and Mr. Drezner has the nerve to blame us for being willing, even conceding that we've made mistakes in our dealings with Iraq, to take on a tyrant when his own people have NEVER had the nerve to do so? I guess this policy amounts to this: the U.S. should never do anything about tyrants but if it sends U.S. men and women to fight on behalf of a repressed populace, it better get things right the first time.

I'm with Lileks. People sitting on the sidelines of a mess of their own making have very little right to complain when the U.S. steps in to do what they should have a long time ago. The mistakes of the first Gulf War fail to explain the Iraqi people's long acceptance of their tyrant. Now that Hussein's gone, to their clear benefit, they want to carp about cleaning up the mess? Hey Salam, I don't care how dangerous it is: it's your country, why don't YOU go back there and do something about it instead of sitting around bitching about the way we're handling it? It's easy to blog, Salam, but we've got people dying over there on your behalf. Show some respect.

"It's a tragedy. I'm betting, however, that to the ordinary Iraqi, the death of three Americans doesn't even compare to the loss of life that's taken place over the past twelve years in Iraq, be it through war, repression, or sanctions. So get a grip, suck it up, and allow an eloquent Iraqi the opportunity to vent some snark from time to time. He's earned it."

Earned what? What has Salam Pax earned? The fact of the matter is he was saved. Lileks is right. And you Dan are blowing farts out of your mouth.

You speak about Bush the first allowing Saddam to go on his rampage. Fair enough. But what about the ten years before when Saddam sent over 1 million Iraqis to their death over war with Iran? What about the ten years after 1991?

Well, someone finally stepped in and removed the curse. Not only that, 20 billion dollars are coming in from the United States alone. So much for leaving a job undone. It has been only 7 effing months for crying out loud.

Lileks has Pax pegged.

I don't see how anyone can read Salam's use of the word "service" and not have their teeth set on edge. The US military is not your servant, Iraq. We overthrew your scumbag because your whole sick part of the world is a threat to our way of life, and as your people overwhelmingly demonstrate when they move here, if we get a few things off your backs you're capable of becoming just as free and productive as we are. But unfortunately, all you're demonstrating is that you can become a whiny entitlement baby as fast as spoiled young Americans can, too. Lileks is right: any Iraqi who is hanging out being the toast of the London literary world, and shaping his opinions to suit that court, is an Iraqi who is betraying this chance to make something of his country at long last.

I totally agree that Lileks was way out of line, and this morning told him so. It's not only how unfair Lileks is, it's his contemptuous dismissal of Pax's words, like the coloniser to the native.
I would also like to agree with the poster who said that Lileks shouldn't be talkiing about stones to a guy who lived and blogged under Saddam. There's a whole world of difference between talking in macho-talk about taking governments out from a desk in Minnesota and living under Saddam.

Salam never discussed why "the average Iraqi has been a bit reluctant to pick up a rifle again after they DID do it, at the urging of the US, and were then slaughtered as we looked the other way."

He was complaining. Outright complaining.
"I am kind of worried that things are going a bit bad in Iraq and you don't seem to care that much."
"You have spilled a glass full of tomato juice on an already dirty carpet and now you have to clean up the whole room. Not all of the mess is your fault but you volunteered to clean it up."
"But I have to say that the advertisements you were dropping from your B52s before the bombs fell promised a much more efficient and speedy service. We are a bit disappointed."

Disappointed - really? Let's see, the last time the United States cleaned up a despotic society we had to fight four plus years, fire bomb tokyo and drop two nukes to get the despots out. This time it took us, what, a few weeks, almost zero civilian casualties and almost zero infrastructure damage? Things aren't speedy enough for you? We're spending almost a hundred billion dollars and hundreds of American lives, and we're not moving fast enough? We have to clean up the entire carpet - while you kick back in your La-Z-Boy and lift your feet off the carpet while we're on our hands and knees?

Lileks was right. Fuck you, Salam. Fuck you.

Salam Pax is a spoiled child. Lileks gives him the treatment he richly deserves. The US owes Iraq NOTHING. The fact that, in its own interest, the US decided to risk American lives and overthrow a despot. But for Salam, the fact that as a result of this Iraqis are now able to live in freedom only dreamed of under Saddam is not enough. Well, though.

And to blame the US for leaving the 1st time is to make the same error Salam does: assuming a moral duty where there is none. If there's a moral duty involved, it's that of the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own country and stop blaming the only people that ever helped them.

Yes, we've toppled Saddam, which is absolutely brilliant. But I would imagine that many Iraqis don't see this act in isolation. They probably also see the US's years-long support of the man who was gassing, torturing and killing them. They see how we encouraged them to revolt 12 years ago and then hung them out to dry for internal political reasons. They probably see how we overthrew the Iranian government in the 1950s and inserted a tyrranical, US-friendly dictator. In short, they see the cumulative effect the US has had on Iraq and the Middle East over the years. And that cumulative effect ain't exactly fabulous or benevolent. So even though it's wondeful that Saddam has been tossed out on his big fat mustache, can't you see how Iraqis reserve the right to feel slightly pessimistic and unsure about just how wonderful all this is going to turn out? Wouldn't you?

Mr. Lilieks seems to expect an unequivocal gratitude from Salam Pax. Salam Pax wrote a long time ago, and at length, why his feelings would never be better than mixed.

The tide turns

What to say: James Lileks and the Law Prof are having a fit that the Iraqi blogger Salam Pax isn't towing the Bush party line on Iraq. Pax had the nerve to suggest that job of liberating Iraq isn't quite...

When soldiers from another country are being killed and maimed to get rid of your tyrant and help establish democracy and human rights, a dose of oh so clever snarkiness and condescension leaves a bad taste. Contrast the attitude of Zeyad of healingiraq.blogspot.com and Alaa of messopotamian.blogspot.com who, while having significant criticms of some reconstruction policies, are still able to articulate a clear sense of gratitude for the sacrifices that have given Iraq a chance to experience freedom.

I'm afraid I have to agree with James. "Salam" is tittering around London Town with the sneermeisters from the Guardian, probably eating hors d'oeuvres at cocktail parties, gyrating his butt at gay clubs after hours. Meanwhile his own countrymen and women and a hell of a lot of young Americans of both the military and civilian stripe are over in his country trying to clean those "stains" out of the carpet.

I'm sure the skills of an architect are needed in Iraq to aid rebuilding things. Maybe it is time for "Salam" to stop playing "Queer Eye for the Iraqi Guy" from the sidelines and go and try to help this country he purports to love.

Writing snarkily and insigthfully of life in Baghadad during the days of Saddam took far more courage than getting shot to pieces while charging the barricades. And it had far more impact.

Like hell.

Let's see. . . .

Guys killed writing snarkily: 0.

Guys killed liberating Iraq: 400-plus and counting.

Results from snarkiness: None.

Results from storming barricades: Toppled dictator, life getting better.

Dan, you blew it on this one. Lileks is right. Pax has been coopted by the right-wing (and I use that trem deliberately) crowd at the Guardian for whom fascism can be excused in the greater cause of anti-Americanism. Pax writes like a snarky staulking horse for this new know-nothingism, which has far less to do with anybody's understanding of Iraq that it does with brute envy and schadenfreude at their lowest levels.

[Oops. Here's a corrected version of my comment.]

Salam Pax is a spoiled child. Lileks gives him the treatment he richly deserves. The US owes Iraq NOTHING. In its own interest, the US decided to risk American lives and overthrow a despot. But for Salam, the fact that as a result of this Iraqis are now able to live in freedom only dreamed of under Saddam is not enough. Well, though.

And to blame the US for leaving the 1st time is to make the same error Salam does: assuming a moral duty where there is none. If there's a moral duty involved, it's that of the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own country and stop blaming the only people that ever helped them.

It occurs to me that it's remarkable how patronizing this 'they owe us' attitude actually is. Fact is, all this punditry seems quite like Monday-morning quarterbacking. It's very easy to indulge in, but when it boils down to it, none of these people have a dog in this fight EXCEPT for Salam. It's not OUR country which could either descend into anarchy or develop into a stable, free state. He has every right to be worried, and it's an implicit responsibility on our part as citizens of the country which is now in charge to take that seriously.

Regarding Brain's post on the ten years before the Gulf War, when Iraq fought Iran. Who do you think was one of Saddam's supporters against Iran? It was US support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war that convinced Saddam he had enough goodwill with the U.S. that they wouldn't mind if he snuck in to Kuwait.
The U.S. did not invade Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The word was always "wmds", and the end of the Iraqi people's suffering was but a mere byproduct. Now they haven't found any WMDs and suddenly the welfare of the Iraqi people was always the top priority.
When the U.S. got rid of Saddam it was simply correcting a past wrong when it kept him in power. No more, no less.

Good post, Dan.

Question to the dissenters: at what point do Iraqis such as Salam Pax get to criticize the United States? Should they be grateful forever? If they see problems with the CPA, should they keep quiet? Where does this line of logic lead?

Lileks is partly right. It's more like this.

Salam, fuck you. If you don't like how the clean up is going in your homeland? Pick up a broom. Pick up a shovel. A paintbrush. Anything. Quit hob nobbing around with your new found dick smoking friends in Soho. Roll up your sleaves and get to work.

It's not the content of the criticism that L.
is dissing, it's the form of the criticism: the
petulant snark.

“Bullshit. Salam calls Bush "Georgie" in his letter. Salam's not a friend asking for some self-appraisal and introspection. He's openly mocking the president.”

“I don't think Salam's letter said anything much different than what warmonger Andrew Sullivan has said.”

Yup, and that’s why James Lileks is right and Dan Drezner is wrong. We should encourage brutally honest criticism of our efforts in Iraq. Still, Salam is acting like like a jerk. The President of the United States does not deserve to be called “Georgie.” This is especially true considering the grief he is enduring for freeing the Iraqis. Andrew Sullivan has never engaged in immature insults.

Mark: "The US owes Iraq NOTHING. The fact that, in its own interest, the US decided to risk American lives and overthrow a despot"

How was this in the US interest? I thought that the reason we invaded Iraq was for humanitarian reasons. Please, explain to me how Saddam's crimes of 10 and 15 years ago presented an imminent threat to us today.

Wait, what was that? Iraq was NOT an imminent threat? GWB never said the words "imminent threat"?

Weapons of mass des--? Oh right, forgot--that's yesterday's news. Mass Graves! Mass Graves!

What page are you on again? Clearly, you are a slow reader.

Better.

I like THE FAT GUY'S reaction to Salam Pax much better than I like DREZNER'S. Hit the links and judge for yourself. I maintain my earlier position that Salam is a puling, whining brat... and I have some thinking to...

Nobody has pointed out that the rebellions after the 1991 war were mostly in the South, among the Shiite Muslimes, who were in fact wiped out in great numbers, with a failure of will on Bush I's part admittedly contributing to the crime. However, I believe it's generally believed that Salam Pax is a member of the Sunni class with ties of some sort to the Baathist regime, and many commentators have tended to discount the tone of many of his complaints as a result.

Salam has pretty much worked both sides of the street throughout this affair, and I would say that Lileks's comments about stones are appropriate. This is not a guy who would commit fully to anything, I feel pretty certain (and as such, he belongs, I suspect, in the moral category of the numerous folks in Europe who collaborated with either the Nazis or the Stalinists and came out smelling at least not totally stinky).

The question I have, reading Dan's blog on and off, is which sides of the street Dan plays -- a "Republican" who seems to give currency to some of the more hysterical positions of the angry left (cf. the Valerie Plame serial nonsense) -- well, gee, I want to be a Republlican, I'd like to be a Republican, but after all Bush lied about WMDs, the Iraq occupation isn't perfect, and those evil Bushies are willing to out our covert agents. . . . I sense a similar game here, to tell the truth. No wonder Dan sympathizes with someone piliable like Salam!

Wow some people here need to go buy some laxatives.

Yeah he's just some guy complaining, a rich kid, whatever. But he's basically said what many others have said, very much including supporters of the war from many countries, the US included.

The main reason it's perceived as "not going fast enough" (by many, including much of the US public) is because it was sold as a "cakewalk". That to me seems to be a big screw-up and misjudgment. They gave this forecast against the warnings of many smart people, and many military veterans.

I don't think anyone is completely ungrateful for the removal of SH. It's just hard for people to be smiley and appreciative when their family members are often being killed, things are still blowing up all the time, and just the mess involved in war. Heck, even our soldiers are bitching here and there. It's what people do under hardship. Mr Lileks out in MN should chill the fuck out, to use his vernacular.

Americans have bled for Iraq. In the 90's they did try to free themselves, at our encouragement, and too many died. They failed. Perhaps Bush the elder did promise that if they did rise up the US would come storming in to help, but I don't remember ANY such promise being made. What I do recall was that US actions were "multilateral" and that it was the will of the UN and ALL arab countries that we not go in.

Sure Salam has the right (thanks again to AMERICAN Blood) to be a whiny ingrate, but he's still being a whiny ingrate.

Fuck him. On a silver platter, with no sacrifice of his own, he has been given one of the most precious gifts anyone could get and he's bitching because it's not as shiny as the one others earned for themselves.

Kal

PS Yes, he didn't sacrifice anything. He suffered through privations due to the war, but not of his own choosing (though I recall him bitching about it then) and he didn't do it to support the US; so nothing he suffered was him sacrificing anything in the cause of freedom.

So... Lileks thinks he has stones because 3 Minnesotans died in Bush's war? 8000 Iraqis have died. And Pax was a hell of a lot closer to the front lines than Lileks was.

I would go further than Dan. Salam has has exactly the same right as everyone else to be insulting to Georgie. Salam is just echoing Thomas Freidman, "you break it, you buy it".

If the fact that Iraqis are normal people, not grateful and subservient peons, does not align with the warmongers earlier delusions, too bad. Lileks, Richard Perle, Instapundit and Georgie will have to learn to deal with reality without getting huffy.

But I doubt he, or those who agree with him, are going to learn.

"The question I have, reading Dan's blog on and off, is which sides of the street Dan plays -- a "Republican" who seems to give currency to some of the more hysterical positions of the angry left (cf. the Valerie Plame serial nonsense) -- well, gee, I want to be a Republlican, I'd like to be a Republican, but after all Bush lied about WMDs, the Iraq occupation isn't perfect, and those evil Bushies are willing to out our covert agents. . . "

Yes, Dan is committing ThoughtCrime.

He clearly must be LIQUIDATED from the GRAND REPUBLICAN PARTY for questioning GREAT LEADER HIS EXCELLENCY GEORGE W. BUSH.

You people are ridiculous, you're worse than the Soviet appratchiks.

Even W admits the mistakes of the past:

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold."

However, look at what has been accomplished. The removal of the Taliban and Al Queda from Afghanistan. The removal of Saddam from Iraq. The planting of the seed of freedom in the Middle East.

And where does W want to go, what chart does he put forth?

"As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."

Hundreds of American lives, hundreds of billions in US dollars, and a sea change in official US government policy.

And Salam has the nerve to state, and I quote, "We are a bit disappointed."

Haven't done enough for you, Salam old boy? Not fast enough? Are you sure you don't have a little French in you?

Ikram, Salam is ingrateful little pasha. He needs to get out there and paint a school or something.

As for Iraqis not rebuilding their own countries, there are numerous reports of ineptitude by the CPA and overspending, and not giving the jobs to Iraqi companies. There are tons of engineers in that country, and since they *speak the language* (which it doesn't appear we have many people capable of doing), things can move quicker and faster. In the few cases where they managed to go ahead and rebuild things themselves, or perform estimates, they've been vastly faster and efficient (cheaper too).

Of course I'm sure someone will dredge up something claiming that's all wrong, but there are enough contractors in Iraq who'd love to be building things and making cash, and who'd do it faster, better and cheaper than people unfamiliar with the country. In many cases, we're not letting them rebuild their country. Well OK, you go sweep over there, you clean those few unbroken windows.

The reason Lileks is wrong is that it's premature to expect gratitude.

Why? Because the situation in Iraq is not settled. A new system is not established. It's not secure. There's still the possibility of another tyrant being installed. Or a Shiite theocracy. Or maybe a Chalabi kleptocracy.

Basically, Iraq's in an interregnum, and it remains to be seen what the next government will look like. What the next government is depends in large part on how Bush handles things.

If Bush pulls out early, for political advantage at home, and Iraq dissolves into chaos and violence, then one could hardly expect gratitude from an Iraqi.

Iraq is like a patient getting a heart/lung transplant. Right now, the diseased organs have been removed and the patient is hooked up to a heart/lung machine. The new organs are yet to be installed, and even then they might be rejected. And, god forbid, there's always the possibility that the new organs will be the wrong blood type and cause massive system failure.

It's a little early to expect much gratitude when so much can yet go wrong, and so much is still under the control of Bush.

David,

It's somewhat irrelevant to the subject at hand, but I had to respond. Here's a small sample of Andrew Sullivan not engaging in childish insults.

(Scroll down a little bit to "Howell and MoDo are in the jacuzzi at 43d Street. The two masters of the Sulzberger universe have had a great week. And now with wrinkles almost prune-like on MoDo's cellulite, they just had to swig back the Jack Daniels and the Cipro-laced bonbons MoDo loves so much, and review the high-points.")

Wow. You folks are truly deranged.

Lileks (and a whole bunch of people in this thread) basically conflate George W. Bush and his Administration with the United States of America. A rather common error among Internet rightwingers, but incorrect nonetheless.

"Bullshit. Salam calls Bush "Georgie" in his letter. Salam's not a friend asking for some self-appraisal and introspection. He's openly mocking the president."

It is possible to mock a public figure while asking that public figure to please get on the ball. That's exactly what Salam is doing.

"Bush 41's failure to help out the rebels in 1991 (which, had he done so would have infuriated the international community and the fickle 1991 coalition) is no excuse for Pax to get all snarky about the fact that the only country willing to get rid of Saddam hasn't made everything perfect in a few months."

Bush 41's failure is a very good reason why Lileks & Co. so eager to proclaim Iraqis as eager Saddamite slaves should STFU. They already proved their willingness to die in the hundreds of thousands to overthrow Saddam in several revolts before '91 (see Kurds) and after (see Marsh Arabs). Calling Iraqis cowards is historically inaccurate, not to mention dumb.

"If he keeps this up, he will HASTEN the erosion of America's resolve. Then he can put his lot in with those who would end up in control of Iraq, who he would be "bravely" complaining about only from a position of jealously guarded secrecy."

Yes, because we all know that remaining silent is the best way to solve problems.

To those who believe that the United States owes the Iraqi people nothing and who call those Iraqis ungrateful:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/