Because I am that kind of person
I tracked down a reference for the comments made by Egyptian Prime Minister Nabil Fahmy (Kuhl called him “Nicky Fatma”, which is pretty close) that Kuhl refered to in his town hall meeting earlier today. Here it is:
Arab allies have quietly put serious pressure on President Bush to remain in Iraq, fearing premature evacuation will turn the country over to Iranian-backed militia, sources said Wednesday.
“What concerns us is the instability and uncertainty in the area,” Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmy told the New York Daily News. “We need to stabilize the situation before the next step, otherwise it will become complete chaos.”
Note that it’s all about the Sunni-Shiite conflict (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan are all largely Sunni):
As Iran secretly backs Shiite groups in Iraq, wealthy Saudis already have begun to finance Sunni militias in Iraq, a source privy to Israeli intelligence said.
If the U.S. were to leave, the Saudi government would likely openly finance Sunni fighters, the source said. A senior U.S. official confirmed the mostly unseen Arab pressure on Bush to stay the course in Iraq.
“There are worries about Iranian influence in Iraq and in the region. . . . The sectarian violence has deepened the division between the Shiites and the Sunnis,” said Jordanian Embassy spokesman Merissa Khurma.
Just to be clear: I think that Kuhl is, as one Congressional staffer I spoke to put it, simply “adding nuance to his Middle East dummery” here. On the other hand, I’m glad that he is at least looking at it from a regional perspective. Of course, no one who looked at the problem seriously from that perspective would have supported the “surge”…
Look, Of course the Sunni neighbors Iraq are worried. The Sunnis in Iraq were a minority ruling class. Who better to protect the minority than a proxy US Military.
So Saudi Arabia is funding or appears to be funding Sunni Insurgents. I’m sure it is for self-defense. The type of funding that allows Sunnis to kill only Shia. Oh, wait, where are the majority of US causalities? In Sunni areas.
Next thing you know we will be saying Iran is responsible. Oops.
We invaded Iraq to stop Saddam from nuking us. If it was about liberating Shiites them we would have backed them in 1991 and not allowed Saddam to crush their uprising.
We made a huge mess in Iraq and frankly our presence everyday is making it worse. We are adding additional troops, speaking with neighbors and all that but we are the problem. America troop presence is the issue. Time to go.
Read Juan Cole’s blog for the ins and outs of inside Iraqi Politics. The situation isn’t pretty but he knows what he is talking about.
The article I link to also quotes Paul Pillar as saying that Iran has benefited the most from the invasion.
What’s tricky here is that Kuhl can always say he didn’t vote for the war. And he can pretend to be a sane multilateralist.
What’s screwed up is that he supported escalation…
“What’s tricky here is that Kuhl can always say he didn’t vote for the war.”
Why is this tricky. He didn’t vote to Oh I don’t know, deny, then give women the right to vote, for deny then grant civil rights for all Americans or for that matter or more to the point the Gulf of Tonkin resolution yet he is part of an institution that did so. He is also part of an institution that has corrected course over time
What matters is correcting the course we are on now. As constituents we expect him to do the wishes of the 29th. 60% of the American population want the war to end. I’m assuming that this trend is roughly right in the 29th. I’m under the impression that that a very large chuck of voters (I have to look it up but close to 50% I think) live in MC.
So no sense in prolonging the war.
I’m pretty passionate here. Why? Reasonable discussion is a good thing but buying into anything that prolongs the inevitable is frankly a waste.
Reasonable discussion does not mean benefit of the doubt. We’ve done the benefit of the doubt thing. And how has that worked out for us anyway?
Yes, but I think in this case, we should think about changing Kuhl’s mind more than anything else. And I think that treating his claims — which I think are bogus — with a certain amount of respect is the best way to do this.
In other words, I think we’ve moved passed the throwing the dynamite into the war to stir up the fish phase and into the reeling in the fish phase of this operation.
So let me get this straight. Treat bogus claims with respect?
I agree with treating a person or individual with respect. I try to and expect the same from others. I agree with that but letting claims as you describe as bogus go without a challenge is not the way to go.
It insults the audience.
Re changing Randy Kuhl’s mind. He is the deputy whip of the House. He is in charge (well as in charge as a Deputy Whip can be) of securing votes for his party. Sort of hard to be independent of the party when you are gathering votes for the party.
The Republican rationale for the war is bogus so everything from those claims is like the fruit from the poisoned tree. It is poison.
Respect the Person, Challenge the claims.
I think it’s bogus but it’s inbumbent on us to track it down and explain why we disagree. Framing is not enough when it comes to Iraq. The public is already on our side anyway.
I don’t think the Deputy Whip stuff means anything — he’s voted with the Democrats more than 75% of Republicans so far this term.
I agree with you about the poison tree.
I have to agree with Exile that there’s a hint of progress here. Last Fall, Kuhl was using anecdotes to support the notion that the war is going better than the media was reporting. The “lobster” remark, and more importantly, the General Casey remark, both supported that position. Now, Kuhl is using anecdotes to support a position that I think most people agree with: Iraq will be a mess if we pull out. So I think Kuhl’s assessment of Iraq is at least current with reality, which is a change from 6 months ago. His conclusion that we need to stay to fix things is what’s still out-of-touch. He’s not ready to acknowledge that Iraq is a mess whether we stay or go, and probably a bigger mess if we stay.
The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. So at least we are in the right direction. So each step is progress. Still a long ways to go.
I guess we will wait and see when he challenges the administration. That is when the Deputy whip thing comes into play. Voting for something that will likely fail in the Senate and thus doesn’t put GWB the head of the Party is a position they don’t want to be in does not constitute risk.
I’ll be off line for a while. I’ll drop both of you a line when I resurface. So let’s pause the conversation for a while
I think the progress is due to Democratic control of the House and Senate. I also believe he needs to be convinced that Iraq is a bigger mess the longer we stay - that is the true reality. Everything else is pretense to an exit.
It took the deaths of 634 troops to move him from the lobster comment to what you guys have deemed progress. How many more until we have real progress?
This reminds me of Algiers - the French come in, brutally crush insurgents and actually make some success in killing the insurgent leadership. A few years later they are unceremoniously booted out of the country. Why? Because they really alienated the population.
In Iraq, we are buring villages to save them. We need to stop lighting fires.
OK, Randy’s being a typical cowardly politician and moving in the direction of sanity and popular opinion when the heat on. Still, it would be better if he were intransigent and out of touch (or at least appears that way) so that Massa can squash him in 2008.
[...] debates were Randy Kuhl (D-NY29) said he was listening to the region’s ambassadors. There was debate and more discussion on [...]
[...] He quotes Ghandi-nice touch! We learn that Randy is listening to the Ambassadors and then we learn, on closer inspection, that he’s a little confused (but he does get some of the vowels right). Maybe he should have [...]