Month: January 2007

Is the new atheism really very old? Pete Rollins has some thoughts.

"I’m not going to be a part of the [Congressional Hispanic Caucus] as long as Mr. Baca illegally holds the chair … I told them no. There’s a big rift here. You treat the women like shit. I have no use for him," – congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez claims Baca called her a "whore."

One way of deciphering the opinions of Glenn Reynolds – it’s hard work, but someone’s got to do it – is to examine his links. He is non-committal on "Plus Up": he says he’s for it, but only if it’s conducted the right way (quite what the right way would be is left vague). But he gleefully links to anyone who argues that criticism of the surge is a function solely of a) siding with al Qaeda; b) partisan advantage; c) political cowardice; or d) media bias. Here’s his latest link: "JULES CRITTENDEN: SURGE!" Is he for it? Is he against it? Does he agree? Does he disagree? No idea. Then you read the link, and find this:

The signs of success [for the surge] are showing up fast. The mere suggestion of a serious crackdown has prompted its targets to run for cover. Moqtada al-Sadr is angling to get back into the political process. His Shiite militias men have hidden their weapons and are trying to act normal. Sunni insurgents are reportedly hightailing it to Diyala. Iran has signalled it wants positive engagement and negotiations, and is trying to look like a friendly neighbor to Iraq.

Those are only preliminary and temporary developments. But they represent a vote of confidence in the Bush plan from its target. The enemy has shown fear. The enemy does not want us to attack.

Er, there is another, obvious explanation for these developments, as a cursory read of the newspapers (liberal media bias!!) will reveal. The "surge" is so anemic it is only designed to calm sections of Baghdad outside the power-base of the Shiite militias (Sadr City). Since these militias control the Maliki government, their current quietness is explicable primarily in terms of simply waiting until the Americans have gone. We know this surge won’t last more than a few months. Why fight when you can wait? Why fight when the bulk of the surge will be dealing with Sunni extremists in Anbar and Sunni districts in Baghdad? Why wouldn’t the Shiite militias be quite pleased by the U.S. doing their work for them? Does he think they’re actually scared?

Crittenden also argues that because 63 percent of Americans want the surge to succeed, it will. Heck, I’m amazed that anyone would not want the surge to succeed. Of course, we’d all love it to succeed. I sure would. I’d also like al Qaeda to surrender, Ahmadinejad to be deposed, and al-Sadr to order his militias to disarm. But I’m not delusional. And I see little reason to encourage others to be so.

A television classic. Wouldn’t you have wanted to hang in that green room afterwards?

Jason Zengerle uncovers a 1995 piece on Obama that reveals his long-term consistency. Mark Steyn finds in Romney’s flip-flops on social issues a reason to like him more: "If he’s just being opportunist, then even that is modestly encouraging." I look forward to Steyn finding others’ changes of mind "modestly encouraging." Funny but I don’t recall him being so charitable toward Kerry.

A reader writes:

Wow, I remember the Liberace of Baghdad — from the Hamra Hotel in the winter/spring of 2004.

You’re right about watching society crumble before your eyes. It’s very difficult for people to understand but, between orgies of mass slaughter, you kind of knew where you stood in Saddam’s Iraq. This isn’t my speculation; this is what Iraqis have told me. That order was imposed by terror. But all the invasion did was destroy the order — it didn’t eliminate the terror. The insurgency, the militias and the criminal gangs terrify Iraqis more than Saddam did.

One of the drivers I work with has moved his family out of Baghdad because his old neighborhood is no longer safe. But they’re Shiites, and they must travel between Baghdad and their new home on a road where they risk being stopped and murdered by Sunni insurgents. I know a translator, a Christian, who was terrified his neighbors would find out he was working for western reporters. He had lied about what kind of work he was doing, and to avoid being caught out he slowly withdrew until he wasn’t talking to his neighbors at all.

I didn’t have a single moment of clarity about Iraq. The most horrible thing I’ve seen here was the charred bodies of those Blackwater contractors strung up at the bridge. I was at the scene by happenstance. But terrible things happen in war, and the barbarism of the enemy is no reason to stop fighting. I was reacting more to the realization that we’d never be able to understand what motivates Iraqis, and they’d never be able to understand what motivates us.  That Christian translator and I were talking politics in the winter of 2004 and he asked, "How can we be asked to fight for democracy when we don’t know what that is?"

The gulf is just too wide. We tried to bridge it with recklessness instead of respect, and with arrogance instead of courage.

I’m busy preparing for the move to the Atlantic, which will happen over the weekend. Many of you have written to ask how you can find me in the future. There’s one easy way. If you go into your bookmark preferences, just type in http://www.andrewsullivan.com as a new bookmark, and when you click on it, it will always redirect you to wherever this blog finds itself. Many of you already have it bookmarked from the early days. (I realized the other day that I was blogging daily during the Clinton presidency. Oy.) The same URL applies. Alternatively, you can just bookmark this current page – and Time.com will automatically redirect all traffic to the new site for the next twelve months (I put that in the contract over a year ago). Or you can go to www.theatlantic.com, and find me there. But bookmarking is best. And if you do it now, you won’t miss a beat.

A reader had another concern:

So, Andrew, are you going to be able to use the cool Time illustration of you when you move the blog? My wife & I love the illustration because of the beagles (I have a home office myself, with three dogs plopped around. We’re thinking of getting a "dog couch" in here).

Alas, we’re not bringing the cartoon with us – it’s Time’s. But we have asked the cartoonist, Terry Colon, to come up with a new one, debuting later this week. I’ve looked at the sketches, and it has the beagles. Eddy appears to be yawning rather loudly and scratching her back. Dusty is, of course, asleep. By Monday, the new site should be fully operational. For a few days over the weekend, the site will slowly "propagate." My mother always hoped I’d do that one day.

In German: