I have no doubt that this documentary has been on this board before and if that is the case i apologise for covering old ground.
Anyway after watching it last night on Ch4 for the 1st time, i was wondering if everything that Michael Moore included about bush was accurate and if so, i can't believe that he got in for a second term.
Have to say, personally i don't like the chap, a bit of a wild west thing about him, he would not look out of place at the oil baron's ball.
Michael Moore has a habit of doing selective editing though, wouldnat have any time for Bush or Moore.
Would have a good bit of time for Michael Moore. Its not the easiest thing to do to point out that the emporer is wearing no clothes especially in post 9/11 America. If people want to focus on things like the selective editing etc and miss the glaring truths that are highlighted then go for it.
With all due respect, Moore is one of the biggest manipulators out there. "Selective editing" is a nice way of putting it! It's a pity, because the topics he works on are genuine issues and need to be raised and highlighted - particularly to the American public. Unfortunately, though, most intelligent people switch off because he invariably tries to hammer square pegs into round holes to suit his agenda. In his Columbine documentary he virtually abused some of the survivors by making them argue his points for him. He's a tool.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2007, 09:46:45 AM
Would have a good bit of time for Michael Moore. Its not the easiest thing to do to point out that the emporer is wearing no clothes especially in post 9/11 America. If people want to focus on things like the selective editing etc and miss the glaring truths that are highlighted then go for it.
says the ff man.
Was aware of the 'selective editing' but are the points he raised about the whole bin laden and bush connections correct
Quote from: Fr Ted on September 11, 2007, 10:17:24 AM
Was aware of the 'selective editing' but are the points he raised about the whole bin laden and bush connections correct
what the man does is he takes the readings of Chomsky and Vidal skews it, addds the odd lie and presents it as his own.
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
AFAIK his facts are pretty much correct. I just don't like the way he goes about his arguments. Getting that kid in COlumbine to go to K Mart with him was trash journalism. I know he was trying to highlight a point but he didn't need to exploit one of the victims to do it.
As for 'how did Bush get in'. If you take a look at the interviews in Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 you will see the mentality of middle America. Bible bashing gun slinging dumbasses whose heads are up their holes!
I have to say that having watched Bowling for Columbine CHarlton Heston has become one of the people I hate the most in the world... would never have believed someone who seems so polished and articulate usually could be such a stupid arrogant bastard!
Quotewhat the man does is he takes the readings of Chomsky and Vidal skews it, addds the odd lie and presents it as his own.
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
so not a fan then Mr White? ;)
i hated it personally, and I'm normally a leftie, pinko, liberal. I found it just a wee bit unbalanced.
Quote from: screenexile on September 11, 2007, 10:45:55 AM
AFAIK his facts are pretty much correct. I just don't like the way he goes about his arguments. Getting that kid in COlumbine to go to K Mart with him was trash journalism. I know he was trying to highlight a point but he didn't need to exploit one of the victims to do it.
As for 'how did Bush get in'. If you take a look at the interviews in Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 you will see the mentality of middle America. Bible bashing gun slinging dumbasses whose heads are up their holes!
I have to say that having watched Bowling for Columbine CHarlton Heston has become one of the people I hate the most in the world... would never have believed someone who seems so polished and articulate usually could be such a stupid arrogant bastard!
My personal opinion on Moore is that he is at worst a necessary evil. I mean yeah, the K Mart stunt was cringe worthy BUT the gun lobby etc. is so powerful in America I feel he has to use stunts to sensationalise and get attention. I mean how much good did being a good citizen do that dad whose son was shot by Harris and Klebold? The NRA just wheeled out Heston and steam rollered over those people and their town hall steps rally. Also he does deflate a lot of ballons, both of the republicans and democrats. Showing the feared Michigan Militia to be little more than a bunch of dorks playing with their dangerous toys. Challenging the stereotype that large racial minorities are the reason for gun crime. There are so many. His purpose is to provoke debate and thought, rather than just regurgitating what you're fed. In effect he's challenging a whole culture to live up to it's ideals.
Quotesays the ff man.
What are you on about? ???
You have to remember the climate this is launched into , Fox News and others would rip it to shreds if he tried to be balanced .The only thing that annoys me is that doesnt come right out and say its not balanced
Quotei hated it personally, and I'm normally a leftie, pinko, liberal. I found it just a wee bit unbalanced.
Have you seen Pilger's latest one - War on Democracy?
Powerful stuff
Quote from: resdubwhite on September 11, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: Fr Ted on September 11, 2007, 10:17:24 AM
Was aware of the 'selective editing' but are the points he raised about the whole bin laden and bush connections correct
what the man does is he takes the readings of Chomsky and Vidal skews it, addds the odd lie and presents it as his own.
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
What "odd lies" ?
I only ask because I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Moore? I've no doubt there would have been if there were any.
I just find the whole thing amazing. I know Moore would have edited the programme to suit his own agenda, but i mean if what he says are facts ie. bin ladens family on planes immediately after 9/11, the connections with Bush snr, baker & rumsfiled, the amount of money the saudi's have invested in America, Bush jnr's puppets that he then put in postions of power, the WMD question (which were never found) it's almost laughable but yet bush jnr is still commander and chief of the worlds most powerfull army
Quote from: 5iveTimes on September 11, 2007, 12:00:49 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2007, 11:16:55 AM
You have to remember the climate this is launched into , Fox News and others would rip it to shreds if he tried to be balanced .The only thing that annoys me is that doesnt come right out and say its not balanced
Of course its not balanced, but then again neither is the other side of the argument.
Isn't that that i just said?
Quote from: Fr Ted on September 11, 2007, 11:58:03 AM
I just find the whole thing amazing. I know Moore would have edited the programme to suit his own agenda, but i mean if what he says are facts ie. bin ladens family on planes immediately after 9/11, the connections with Bush snr, baker & rumsfiled, the amount of money the saudi's have invested in America, Bush jnr's puppets that he then put in postions of power, the WMD question (which were never found) it's almost laughable but yet bush jnr is still commander and chief of the worlds most powerfull army
Apparently that's all true, and not sourced from Moore, but most authoritively from a book called "House of Bush House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" by Craig Unger
Quote from: resdubwhite on September 11, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
:o
A quite unbelievable statement about what moore is doing when you consider what Cheney, Bush & Rumpsfield and the lobbyists in the background have been gaining in all of this. Take the blinkers off ffs.
Quote from: Fr Ted on September 11, 2007, 11:58:03 AM
I just find the whole thing amazing. I know Moore would have edited the programme to suit his own agenda, but i mean if what he says are facts ie. bin ladens family on planes immediately after 9/11, the connections with Bush snr, baker & rumsfiled, the amount of money the saudi's have invested in America, Bush jnr's puppets that he then put in postions of power, the WMD question (which were never found) it's almost laughable but yet bush jnr is still commander and chief of the worlds most powerfull army
here here
Quote from: 5iveTimes on September 11, 2007, 12:44:49 PM
Acclaimed documentary-maker Michael Moore has claimed he is more successful in Canada than the US because Americans don't get his humour.
Moore praised Canada's collective sense of humour during an appearance at the Toronto International Film Festival, where he was promoting his latest project Captain Mike Across America.
He said: "Canadians, you're wired in a different way than we are humour-wise. You understand and appreciate irony and satire... Americans, we take things maybe a little bit too literally and don't always get it."
They are a bit funny up here alright - must be all that weed floating around
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2007, 09:46:45 AM
Would have a good bit of time for Michael Moore. Its not the easiest thing to do to point out that the emporer is wearing no clothes especially in post 9/11 America. If people want to focus on things like the selective editing etc and miss the glaring truths that are highlighted then go for it.
Moore is a sc**bag and Bush is a disaster. Moore is a liar who regularly distorts the truth to make his points and his ability to lie is legendry at this stage. he is a publicity hound and I detest the sight of him!
Bush will be gone soon thank God. The world needs a change in the white house, somebody like John McCain will do me. ;)
Quote from: theskull1 on September 11, 2007, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: resdubwhite on September 11, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
:o
A quite unbelievable statement about what moore is doing when you consider what Cheney, Bush & Rumpsfield and the lobbyists in the background have been gaining in all of this. Take the blinkers off ffs.
Add Diane Feinstein to that when you're at it but first remove the blinkers ::)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on September 11, 2007, 12:44:49 PM
Acclaimed documentary-maker Michael Moore has claimed he is more successful in Canada than the US because Americans don't get his humour.
Moore praised Canada's collective sense of humour during an appearance at the Toronto International Film Festival, where he was promoting his latest project Captain Mike Across America.
He said: "Canadians, you're wired in a different way than we are humour-wise. You understand and appreciate irony and satire... Americans, we take things maybe a little bit too literally and don't always get it."
Reminds me of the joke we had on here a while back
Quote
First American to grasp concept of irony
Jay Fullmer, 38, yesterday became the first American to get to grips with the concept of irony.
"It was weird" Fullmer said. "I was in London and like, talking to this guy and it was raining and he pulled a face and said, "Great weather eh?" and I thought - "Wait a minute, no way is it great weather".
Fullmer then realised that the other man's 'mistake' was in fact deliberate.
Fullmer, who is 39 next month and married with two children, aged 8 and 3, plans to use irony himself in future.
"I'm, like, using it all the time" he said. "Last weekend I was grilling steaks, and I burned them, and I said "Hey, great weather."
It amazes me how folk can be so vitriolic about a film maker yet accepting of a corrupt man leading a corrupt regime who go round the world killing people needlessly.
Moore entertains and raises a few uncomfortable questions along the way. The fact that he generates such hysteria is a lesson in itself.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2007, 11:14:44 AM
Quotesays the ff man.
What are you on about? ???
it was meant to be a joke.
Heres a smiley. ;D
Quote from: theskull1 on September 11, 2007, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: resdubwhite on September 11, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
:o
A quite unbelievable statement about what moore is doing when you consider what Cheney, Bush & Rumpsfield and the lobbyists in the background have been gaining in all of this. Take the blinkers off ffs.
My problem isn't with the message. iits the messenger. Read what i said or in your own words "Take the blinkers off ffs.
"
Moore has to sensational his documentaries. For instance, the world sat up and took notice of his 9/11 documentary. How many were many can say the same? How many have been forgotten about? How man were even heard of?
As for the young people he took to Wal-Mart. He got what he set out to do. No more bullets being supplied in the stores across America as a direct result of his and the teenagers' actions.
Sure he can be over the top a lot of times, but unfortunately that is what it takes to drive the message home to a lot of people and to get change.
Quote from: resdubwhite on September 11, 2007, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on September 11, 2007, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: resdubwhite on September 11, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
a nasty little parasitic bollocks, using the pain of others to inflate his own bank balance.
:o
A quite unbelievable statement about what moore is doing when you consider what Cheney, Bush & Rumpsfield and the lobbyists in the background have been gaining in all of this. Take the blinkers off ffs.
My problem isn't with the message. iits the messenger. Read what i said or in your own words "Take the blinkers off ffs.
"
Here we have a film maker making money yes, blowing the whistle on the American administration (in his own quirky sometimes annoying way I'll admit) whilst on the other we have the powers that be in the American political system making millions/billions from sending troops to war in iraq, causing countless suffering to hundreds of thousands of people. With this in mind should you not be more concerned about other peoples bank balances before you give Michael Moore a touch.
Surely the people who have brought about the suffering so that they can inflate their own bank balances are the real bad guy's here?
Declan, stick up a link for the Pilger piece, read some of his stuff, "Clash of Civilisations" was a great read.
I went to hear Michael moore speak at the university here over a year ago - he delivers a very clear message. I think his invesitgative journalism is tailored to grab the attention of a lot of people over here and world wide who otherwise wouldnt really grasp the concepts - or at least remember them. It has taken movies like bowling for columbine, borat and his new movie -sicko - to really open the eyes of my american friends over here to how corrupt and fucked up their culture actually is at times. Piror to Michael moore - there was no-one telling americans to wake up and smell the shit in a manner that they could actually grasp and understand.
His success says more about us than it says about him
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2007, 03:57:54 PM
It amazes me how folk can be so vitriolic about a film maker yet accepting of a corrupt man leading a corrupt regime who go round the world killing people needlessly.
Moore entertains and raises a few uncomfortable questions along the way. The fact that he generates such hysteria is a lesson in itself.
Bertie?
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2007, 03:57:54 PM
It amazes me how folk can be so vitriolic about a film maker yet accepting of a corrupt man leading a corrupt regime who go round the world killing people needlessly.
Moore entertains and raises a few uncomfortable questions along the way. The fact that he generates such hysteria is a lesson in itself.
What amazes me is the fact that some people continue to ignore comments certain people make about certain leaders who kill people needlessly.
Moore lies for profit and has made a fortune off the backs of people who suffered greatly. That to me is sick, sad and wrong. I could stomach him if he worked with accurate information, he doesnt do that and instead chooses to use false data to corroborate his version of the facts.
Bush will go down as the biggest nightmare that ever was a president of the USA. His regime is corrupt and scary. There seanie, is that clear enough for ye?
Quote from: stew on September 11, 2007, 09:40:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2007, 03:57:54 PM
It amazes me how folk can be so vitriolic about a film maker yet accepting of a corrupt man leading a corrupt regime who go round the world killing people needlessly.
Moore entertains and raises a few uncomfortable questions along the way. The fact that he generates such hysteria is a lesson in itself.
What amazes me is the fact that some people continue to ignore comments certain people make about certain leaders who kill people needlessly.
Moore lies for profit and has made a fortune off the backs of people who suffered greatly. That to me is sick, sad and wrong. I could stomach him if he worked with accurate information, he doesnt do that and instead chooses to use false data to corroborate his version of the facts.
Bush will go down as the biggest nightmare that ever was a president of the USA. His regime is corrupt and scary. There seanie, is that clear enough for ye?
Right, both you and Resdub have called Moore a liar. Whilst I'm not sure if he is a liar or not I am pretty certain that any untruths that were contained in any of his movies would have been pursued through the courts by those who were the subject of these lies.
Stew, point out exactly where he has lied?
I've no real opinion one way or the other but it gets on my tits when people accuse someone of lying but fail to provide examples. If you can provide the example than great, but if not than you're as bad as Moore when it comes to talking to shite and using public mediums to distort opinion in order to suit your own argument, albeit on a smaller stage.
QuoteDeclan, stick up a link for the Pilger piece, read some of his stuff, "Clash of Civilisations" was a great read.
Here you go southdown - http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=441 (http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=441)
I've read all of Moores books and watched all of his movies and yes I find him annoying and yes I find him to be sensationalist and yes he spins stories to suit his agenda but like Stephenite I don't recall him ever being found out with actual lies or factual inaccuracies in what he says. Saw him on a one man show in London a few years ago and it was a very enjoyable evening - Some of the stuff he said I just plain disagreed with but it was hard to get my point across when the right on, angst ridden recently politically aware uni types where hogging the microphone duringthe Q & A session. However on balance he hasn't been responsible for the death of anyone or the destruction of large cities or the robbing of an election so I'll forgive his idiosyncracies and hope he continues his work.
While on the political angle - Naomi Kleins latest book is due out this month - should be worth a read anyway -
http://www.naomiklein.org/main (http://www.naomiklein.org/main)
Quote from: Declan on September 12, 2007, 07:24:56 AM
QuoteDeclan, stick up a link for the Pilger piece, read some of his stuff, "Clash of Civilisations" was a great read.
Here you go southdown - http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=441 (http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=441)
I've read all of Moores books and watched all of his movies and yes I find him annoying and yes I find him to be sensationalist and yes he spins stories to suit his agenda but like Stephenite I don't recall him ever being found out with actual lies or factual inaccuracies in what he says. Saw him on a one man show in London a few years ago and it was a very enjoyable evening - Some of the stuff he said I just plain disagreed with but it was hard to get my point across when the right on, angst ridden recently politically aware uni types where hogging the microphone duringthe Q & A session. However on balance he hasn't been responsible for the death of anyone or the destruction of large cities or the robbing of an election so I'll forgive his idiosyncracies and hope he continues his work.
While on the political angle - Naomi Kleins latest book is due out this month - should be worth a read anyway -
http://www.naomiklein.org/main (http://www.naomiklein.org/main)
Would agree with practically all of that. Like I said previously as far as I am concerned people like Moore, while I find them slightly annoying, and won't always agree with them, are necessary to make people examine what they have taken for granted, or what they were blissfully unaware of. Having read his books I would say he is more suited to the film medium, but he gets to cover more ground in print. I mean honestly who could support the prosecution of the guy for showing that 911 rescue workers would get better health care Cuba, the last bastion of communism and one of the poorest countries in the world, rather than in their home land, the sole super power, who have wasted billions on a war, supposedly, in the name of those who died that day?
On Naomi Klein, while No Logo was undoubtedly a very worthy book, I found it a little bit dry in some ways? Will probably purchase the new one though. Currently reading "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill. Interesting so far, but I've only scraped the surface.
The silence is deafening. Are the moore haters going to defend the points they have made or what. Have "we" made you reflect? ;)
Quote from: theskull1 on September 13, 2007, 12:12:28 AM
The silence is deafening. Are the moore haters going to defend the points they have made or what. Have "we" made you reflect? ;)
:D
I've posted this before but i think ths is an apt thread for a reminder. Download the video obviously...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html)
One of the finest orations i've ever heard.
While i frequently don't like his methods, Moore's message is the same in many ways.
Pinter is just a little more eloquent
the link has stopped working so here it is in full:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html)
Thanks for that Uladh -
anyone seen his newest film? "Sicko" about the american health care system. its brilliant. and i must say i found his other 2 vry interesting as well and altho they may have been "selectively edited" i thought they all made for fantastic viewing.
I enjoy the Moore documentaries, doesn't mean I have to believe them.
Any fool could see that they are propoganda, simple and effective.
How to make a political point in the simplest manner that the image remains with the viewer.
Personally, I thought that Docu made at the time of the attempted coup on Chavez was superb.
Quote from: Take Your Points on September 11, 2007, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: stew on September 11, 2007, 09:40:54 PM
Moore lies for profit and has made a fortune off the backs of people who suffered greatly.
And what about GW Bush and his regime.
BTW read the books by Bob Woodward about Bush and his regime.
What about bush and his regime?
some of you people see what you want to see and ignore what does not suit your point.
Quote from: stew on September 14, 2007, 03:26:55 AM
Quote from: Take Your Points on September 11, 2007, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: stew on September 11, 2007, 09:40:54 PM
Moore lies for profit and has made a fortune off the backs of people who suffered greatly.
And what about GW Bush and his regime.
BTW read the books by Bob Woodward about Bush and his regime.
What about bush and his regime?
some of you people see what you want to see and ignore what does not suit your point.
Talk about hypocritical Stew - I'll ask again, point out where Moore has lied? If you missed my previous posts, I'm not a fan of Moore per se, but considering the lack of lawsuits taken against him and the information he has divulged it is ridiculous and pathetic that you can come on here and call him a liar without backing it up.
This was published in August - unfortunatley two of them were subsequently killed but interesting reading compared to the nonsense spewed out by Bush and his cronies
Titled "The War as We Saw It," the letter reads:
Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.