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.

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.

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.

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/

"then hung them out to dry for internal political reasons." Internal? Are you kidding? We held back because, so soon after the end of hostilities in the Cold War ("Mission Accomplished!!") there was no international sentiment for us to be bustin' up the map (without a plan, as they say in Oh-Three) and acting like modern day colonialists.

"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."

Mishu--why don't you quit your snarking and go LIVE in Iraq for a month? Join the Red Cross or Peace Corps.

Explain what you do that gives you the right to criticize ANYBODY.

Good for you Dan. I don't think Salam is any more a fighter than Lileks is.
If I understand the Lileks/Reynolds axis, if a country is under a brutal regime and they don't "have the stones" to rise up then they don't deserve to be liberated. Someone from the same state as Lileks got killed. Wonder how many people Salam actually knew have died this year?

What makes me laugh about Pax and agree with Lileks is also an important question that hasn't been asked outright. Why the hell is Pax not working to help straighten out his own country? Does he have a job helping coalition forces hunt down Ba'athists? No, but he probably isn't too qualified to do that. Does he work for a construction company building new schools and hospitals to benefit his countrymen? No. Has he made an effort to join the new Iraqi police forces to help bring law and order to the streets? Not that I have seen. Is he working to help stabalize the economy, start new business ventures, or provide a good industrial base for the future of Iraq? Probably not. If Iraq is going to move forward and become a full part of the world economy there are things that Iraqis are going to have to do for themselves. America and her allies can help rebuild the infrastructure, but we can't be responisble for every single aspect of their society. Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that there are many many Iraqis doing exactly that. They are helping build a future for Iraq. They are the giving their all (and some their lives) to make Iraq a country that they can call their own again. They give their blood, sweat, and tears for a brighter future. And in the end I think Pax is disrespecting their efforts by whining about how America and Bush isn't doing enough.

Hey Pax!! Use your pen to write about the future you want for Iraq instead of complaining about the present you are doing nothing to fix.

Salam says we spilled tomato juice on Iraq's dirty rug. Now we gotta clean it all up. Salam, I got news for you, we built you a whole new house--an $18 B. mcmansion! All we ask is that you stop the neighbors from shooting us while we build it. Then we'd love it if you would move your stuff in and make yourselves comfy. What's not to be thankful for?

I don't see the point in arguing over whether Salam and his buddies could or should have picked up guns themselves. That was then, this is now. Now is the time to make himself/themselves useful. Apparently it's still too much to ask. That's why Lileks is more right than Salam and Dan. And please, boys, no more f words. We're supposed to be models of civil discourse, aren't we?

And the sentence before:

"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."

We created unrealistic expectations in the US and Iraq about the speed and ease of the task. Granted, in Iraq it was probably a necessary psy-op to encourage support. This is what people bitch about, the messy interim. Not the overall goal. Most Iraqis think the future will be better. That is gratitude. You're all giving way to much credence to this one person, who seems pretty clearly not the average Iraqi citizen.

Wow, Dan really hit a nerve here.

Anyway, I liked these questions: "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?"

Let me try to answer the first one, at least: when they repay their debt to us. I would analogize the situation to France: Our debt to France for France's help in the American Revolution was repaid in WWI ("Lafayette: we are here."). The reason we are so pissed off at France (more so than at, say, Russia) is that we still think they owe us for WWII. And you know what, THEY DO. Until that debt is repaid, we will look at France's dissent as ungrateful. Russia, of course, was not liberated by the US, and owes us no debt.

Similarly with Iraq, those (like Salam) who look at the situation and see us owing the Iraqis have it backwards. The Iraqis owe US for their liberation.

See, thumper. Fred's got it right. It's Salam's country. If my country was in the same state, that's what I'd be doing. That's what my parents did in the depression and WWII. Salam does not deserve to have US troops holding his sofa while he says, "No, a little more to the left."

Wasn't planning to comment, but I wanted to make clear that "spoon" above, isn't me.

For the record, I mostly agree with Lileks -- although Dan's exactly right about Bush I, which is why I refused to vote for him in '92.

Hey, Russians bled like crazy to liberate Poland. That hardly justifies their postwar behavior. The entire line of reasoning based on expected gratitude is simply a category mistake: the thanks the Iraqis owe us for toppling Saddam (after not doing so in 1991 and actively supporting his brutal regime before that) can't be used to cancel out incompetence in the conduct of the occupation, and more than the heroism of the Red Army cancels out the sufferings visited on Eastern Europe afterwards. As Jon H states above, there's no guarantee yet that the future of Iraq won't be almost as bad as Saddam: theocracy, kleptocracy, and the worst, which he omitted, a civil war.

As far as the three dead Minnesotan soldiers, who are the primary victims of the car bombs? A great many of Salam Pax's Iraqi neighbors, including children, are dying in the crossfire. You can hardly claim their sacrifice is less, and that their surviving kin must be silent.

Mishu,

I enjoyed reading Salam's blog for some time now, but you won't find him out there getting his hands dirty helping his country. He's in England now too busy looking out for number one to sacrifice a manicure for his country.

Kal

With all respect to Dan's outrage over the first Bush administration's conduct in 1991 -- and I agree with him on this -- Salam Pax was not making this argument. He may not even be thinking about this argument. His was the different, and much weaker though still true point that the current Bush administration's rhetoric about Iraqi reconstruction has been pretty heavy on unqualified optimism from the word go.

Now optimism is fine, and probably necessary in this case, but the administration did underestimate the obstacles, especially though not exclusively in the security area, to making Iraq a normal country, and its public statements reflected that. That having been said, though, even if the American army were able to wipe out all resistance elements it would have to leave Iraq sometime, and then it would be up to Iraqis like Salam to keep the republic we have given them.

Can they do it? I have my doubts about this, and one reason for them is reflected in what Salam Pax wrote. The tradition of modern Arab politics involves blaming all problems and difficulties on someone else -- the Israelis, governments Arabs have no say in, the Americans. None of the miserable conditions in the Arab world are the fault of Arabs or Arabs responsibility to fix. Now many Arabs are getting pretty fed up with this attitude. But not enough, judging from Salam Pax and much else. He takes the traditional Arab attitude that the whole situation is George Bush's to fix. Well, it isn't; it wouldn't be even if Bush thought it was. Iraqis can only make theirs a civilized country themselves, and Salam Pax at least doesn't seem to think it is his problem. If he speaks for many of his countrymen the coalition forces could do everything right for the next year and still see Iraq fall apart within the next five.

"Hey, Russians bled like crazy to liberate Poland."

Yeah. Poland was real "liberated" after the Russian chased out the Germans. Duh.

Nope, Dan, Lileks still has the best part of the argument. In fact, you really aren't taking on what he is refering to, instead building a strawman out of what happened in '91.

Lileks is right, Pax needs to grow up.

“But he's basically said what many others have said, very much including supporters of the war from many countries, the US included.”

That’s not the point. You fail to distinguish between just and rational complaints---and rudeness. Salam is acting like a petulant child. It’s the tone of his criticism which deserves to be rebuked.

To sum up, then. What's the problem Lileks and commentors have with SP? The fact he calls Bush "Georgie"? The fact he uses some indymedia speak about W's Rambo and superhero dreams?
The fact he might be ...um... "giggly". the fact that SP is performing the rhetorical trick of making his actually somewhat moderate message sound fashionably lefty?

Well, phooey (to coin a euphanism) everybody. Pax had the stones to write honestly about Iraq from Iraq, even though being caught would have meant death, and probably torture. I'm sure the tortures for a "giggly" person would have been worse. That's better than CNN or the BBC dared do. Lileks questioning his "stones" is absolutely beyond the pale, and Lileks getting in a lather about snark is an absurd position for someone who laces his writing with a ton of it.

Very nicely put Dan.

I want to add that there might be a prettty legitimate reason Pax is snarking: Deposing Saddam Hussein did not liberate the Iraqi people.

I know that might come as a shocker, but take a look, folks: Iraqis currently live under the control of an occupying foreign force with a predominately military face. They have no constitution, no electoral process, no independent self-rule, and none of the basic rights guaranteed under our Bill of Rights.

Now, this is an entirely understandable situation, especially given that loyalists and terrorists are still blowing things up on a regular basis. The point is, the U.S. showed up dropping bombs and is now running the country with 130,000 troops. I have a feeling that waking up to explosions and negotiating with heavily armed foreigners doesn't exactly feel like the liberty we know in America.

Iraq will be free if we follow through. But it is not until a basic level of security has been established and the Iraqi people take control of their country under a governmental structure capable of guaranteeing basic human rights that they will be liberated.

Until then, I can understand Pax saying "it is not over yet." Of course it's not. There's a lot of work to do. If I were an Iraqi, I'd take more than a little offense at the U.S. administration jetting around the world declaring a victory for human rights while I was still hoping the eleticity would come on.

the tone of the salam pax note fairly dripped with contempt. it was hugely lame. thus the animus of a lileks. he might have been a bit too feisty in his f$%K yous and such, but pax's smarmy (you know, effusively unctuous)little note pretty much merited it, me thinks.

maybe dan is jet lagged and cranky??? i've got more on the guardian letters at my blog including a brief message of salam pax lame note.

Well, almost everything's been said - especially after the initial shock of Prof Drezner's response. That said, two things stand out here.

1) Mr. Rastajenk above is dead on. That's exactly what would have been thrown in our face, Prof. Drezner. But you know that, right? As you're a college professor.

2) And as for appalled moderate's:

" 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. "

Mr. Joyner has you exactly right. Said Mr. White " You don't have any idea what you're talking about...".

I look forward to hanging that quote around your neck until you retract it, imbecile.

Salam is no different than any other Iraqi or American who is not currently in Iraq, fighting for American and Iraqi security and the universal right to bitch (let him also enjoy this non-constructive American tradition). God bless our troops, the Iraqi Police and Iraqi goverment personnel who are risking their lives every day.

Kelso's Right, Dan. What's your problem? You can't handle a couple of blueish Welsch quips and delete the posts, then you go all F-Bomb two days later?

You're Lame - and I can't think of anything worse to say about a person.

Oh wait - yes I can...hypocrite. But hey, it's your world, you don't owe us anything. Afterall, it's only a stinking blog.

Drezner is flat-out wrong. Lileks is flat out right. And "Salam Pax" is flat out snide, superior, callow, supercillious, and a moral weakling.

Since you decided to go into a puerile ad hominem attack in your post Mr. Drezner I'll return the favor. I wonder if you relate to "Pax" because he'll genuflect before whomever his benefactors happen to be (Ba'athists before, the European left now) just as you, who claim to be a relatively "conservative academic" of some sort kowtow to every liberal you can find, possibly to suck-up to your left-wing patrons in academia.

PS. You might want to check out what his buddy "G" has to say about these matters.

Hey, Dan. Fuck you.

Get your facts straight. Bush abandoned Iraq to it's fate in 1991 at the insistence of all our 'friends' and 'allies' amongst the European and Arab nations that comprised that coalition. Remember? They stated publicly that they would not support or participate in any action to remove Saddam. Bush's mistake was not telling our moral superiors to fuck off and doing the job anyway. Even with that, the Americans and the Kuwaitis were the only people on the planet who thought a status quo of Saddam gassing Kurds was a bad idea.

And while you're getting fucked, Salam can get fucked too. He's sitting on his ass in London, nose buried in Harold Pinter's ass, trying to grovel an invitation into the circle of London's intelligensia. So much for caring for his wounded Iraqi homeland. Do you really think he'd lower himself to doing the hard work of reconstruction when playing ungrateful smartass is rewarded so handsomely (and defended so brilliantly).

I know that blame America and blame a Bush is all you can muster, but I'm not inclined to be sympathic to that level of intellectual helplessness. Fuck you both.

I have lost all my hair, pulling it out after someone states that the U.S. supported Saddam in the 1980's.

It seems to me that REAL support who have meant that the U.S. military would be facing American hardware in the battlefield. Not Russian, or French arms. This supposed support was half-@ssed for sure and probably did not go further than a few intelligence hints about Iranian troop movements.

Someone please tell me how much money the U.S. supported Saddam with in the 1980's. I'm sure it was very little.

I also agree with Lileks. My problem with Pax isn't that he isn't grateful enought, it's that he is doing the same thing the Left in the U.S. does: Offer critism without offering any better solutions. Perhaps things would go faster if such people made suggestions coupled with their critisms. At the very least it would make them more helpful.

Whoops - I apologize, I see above that Iraq has fallen into despotism after having fallen into the hands of a dictator and "currently live under the control of an occupying foreign force with a predominately military face".

Ohhhhh I see, you mean us, Harry. You have got to be kidding me?

Remember that Salam gets his paycheck from The Guardian and his attitudes are likely to come from there, also. As Mark Twain quoted a childhood friend "Tell me where a man gets his corn pone and I'll tell you where he gets his 'pinions".

Generosity that demands gratitude is not generosity. . . is is an amoral system of barter.

And in this case especially, when there was no clear request for said "generosity," on what grounds does Lileks demand gratitude? No matter how many soldiers are sacrificed and no matter how brutal Saddam is/was, the US chose this war, not the Iraqis. Thus, the US is in absolutely no position to demand gratitude. Therein lies the colonial conundrum - the colonists, no matter how benign or noble their intentions, will never be fully welcomed or thanked. NEVER. To expect otherwise is folly, no matter how many Minnesotans are killed.
Indeed, Lileks is the petulant one in need of growing up.

Brian:

Those Chemical Weapons Saddam used to gas the Kurds? Courtesy of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld.

Dan:

You have embarassed yourself. Pax was very wrong. Lileks called him on it. You should not be stepping in trying to re-write the Pax letter and incidentally, history. You are VERY wrong.

Pax and Iraqis may get what they don't want if they can't find the honesty to recognize what Bush did for them. Does Pax want a Kucinich approach to the reconstruction? The UN would be delighted to create a post war version of the Oil for Palaces program with a brand new Baathist regime to prop it up.

Lileks is seeing what apparently you can't Dan, gratuitous sniping from Europe, on behalf of fascists, communists and Saddam apologists is outrageous. I think your comments section now reflects the error of your opinion.

Hey Thumper...that may be what your radical liberal wiggies told you but it isn't true. The Chemical PRECURSORS were from private businesses, not from a US Senator. Ass Dart.

"Salam"'s and Lilek's tones are way off.

Salam's MoDo style snarkiness is way off. Salam is "a bit worried" about Iraq, so he feels the need to lecture Bush, but at least the man "with the hideous mustache" is gone. Lileks is right - Bush and Blair have gambled their political futures, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and coalition soldiers are dying to help Iraq, and Salam is complaining about the "service."

I'm not impressed. If he has a point to make about what Bush should do, he should just make it. If he is honestly concerned about whether Iraq is going to be worse off than if Bush hadn't acted, he's certainly entitled to say that too.

Still, the tone of Lilek's piece isn't any better. A pox on both their houses.

no innocent death is celebrated ut Dan you couldn't have missed the mark more if you sympathized with anti-US whiners.

Surprising to me is you insistence on the "America started in" meme as if that excuses the rest of your rant. Sorry, can't believe that the strawman argument is how you truly feel...and if it is then so long.

Pax may have just had a bad day but the tone and snarky response is so very 'french' of him....hope he gets over it

Tammy: No, of course I'm not kidding. What exactly do you take issue with?

I think we're doing the right thing in Iraq...as long as we don't start pulling out prematurely. But call a spade a spade.

J Mann writes: "Salam is complaining about the "service." "

It's not just the 'service', it's the future of his country. If Bush screws it up, it has dire consequences for Salam's countrymen.

It's much higher stakes for Iraq than for George. George Bush has a comfy, wealthy life ahead of him, regardless of how Iraq turns out. I'm sure Blair will be okay too. But Iraqis face the possibility of things becoming very bad indeed, and possibly even worse than when Saddam was in power.

"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?"

A huge portion of the commenters, and Dan himself, misunderstand Lileks' point. It has nothing to do with who betrtayed whom in 1991. It has nothing to do with a non-existent requirement of eternal gratitude. If Salam had offered sensible, carefully reasoned, constructive criticism, Lileks would have welcomed him. Instead Salam offers up high-schoolish contempt. He's getting FU'd for his attitude, not his facts. And he deserves it. 100%.

Re: supporting Saddam in the '80s... our policy was to keep Iran and Iraq fighting each other. We didn't want either side to win; we wanted both sides to lose.

Dan,

Nice response to an irresponsible rant. It would have been nice to have Lileks link to the article about the dead soldiers, but, like Reynolds, they'd rather we didn't see them or their injured comrades. They're only convenient as fodder for counter-attacks, nothing more. Can anyone remember the last time Reynolds has linked to an article about an injured soldier triumphantly struggling through rehabilitation? There have been plenty of them out there and you'd link someone who is such a strong supporter of our troops would honor their bravery with an acknowledgement rather than ignoring them because of fear that they'll discredit his pro-war stance. Look away, folks. Look away.

Dan,
Neo-Orientalism at its finest - the family of Ed Said may want to go read your post over his grave in the hopes of reanimating his rotting corpse.

Holding Bush 41 responsible for failing to do something that would have required fighting through the same gauntlet of international outrage Bush 43 has endured, but without the backdrop of 9/11, is absurd. Have you forgotten the 'highway of death'? Nobody loved Saddam more than his buddies in Europe, up to and including today - why aren't they providing any 'service' for Salam?

Salam is an enemy of a free Iraq. Why? If his attitude prevails in Iraq, WE WILL ALL FAIL. His 'service' meme is cancerous and deserves to be called out as Lileks did in exactly the language that he expressed it. If I thought Salam's attitude remotely echoed the attitude of true Iraqis, I would be extremely depressed because the results would make '91 look like a fender bender. No doubt US soldiers will continue to die for oppressed people who at least care enough to make the effort to lift themselves out of the pit. Salam hasn't even managed to wean himself from the smooth feeling of Real Corinthian Leather. I would no sooner have a single drop of American blood shed to provide Salam 'service' than I would any other Ba'athist-ocrat scum.

Your willingness to shift responsibility to the only single country that has ever done anything to remove Saddam from power and limit his dominance of the ME is mind boggling.

Lileks is correct. Dan is full of poo-poo and DennisThePheasant's earlier post explains exactly why...just think of the squealing if GHWB had tried to go to Baghdad, only to have our European allies cut and run and our Arab allies turn on us...
Time for Salam to grow up if he doesn't want to turn into a snark-bitch like MoDo...

Where have all the Americans gone?

Not you Dan - you get it. You understood the unsaid (and said) promises we made to the country we liberated. And you understand that as we get deeper into the conflict and start doing seriously questionable things and continue to screw over the people who supported us in Iraq, that back home, the urge to pull out will grow greater. You see what's happened to Afghanistan. You understand why people like Salam don't want that happening to Iraq.

But the rest of you... Did y'all leave your copies of the Bill of Rights at home? Or forget that whole Declaration of Independence? or do you just think that Americans ('cause our forefathers earned it) are the only folks on the planet who can complain about how they're governed?

You forget that democracy (and republicanism) means that any person has the right to speak. Salam's worried. He's a writer - not a solider, not an activity, he's a very good writer and semi-historian. He's using his medium to fight for Iraq and I think he's doing a good job of it. Just because he's Iraqi doesn't mean he can't criticize the government that rules Iraq - the United States.

He can't vote for a better government, he's not a member of the INC, if he took up arms now, we'd shoot him - so how else will the US gov pay attention to him?

He's worried (and I admit I'm worried) that the administration will do a force reduction in Iraq and leave it in the less than capable hands of Chalabi. The war isn't over. The peace hasn't begun.

We need to nation build in Iraq -- and that's a commitment the president hasn't made publically. Salam, like many secular, pro-western Iraqis, knows that Iraq's best hope for modernity lies in hands of the US. He's just afraid we'll blow it.

You should be encouraging this - a conquered, sorry LIBERATED, people seeking self-expression and wanting to work towards a better future. Instead you guys trash him for not being grateful. Y'know I don't remember the Japanese and the Germans being grateful until a generation or two later. You guys are criticizing the best type of ally we can have in Iraq - one who gives a damn about his country. If you want syphocants, go look at the governing committee full of people who'd rather loot the build their country.

Dan has it right and the rest of you just had knee jerk reactions to Bush administration criticism. It's constructive criticism. It's coming from someone who wants a democratic Iraq. So he's not fawning over us and offering to name his first born George. So what - we would respect him if he did?

disgusted,
t.

"Those Chemical Weapons Saddam used to gas the Kurds? Courtesy of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. "

Yes, this is what is known as "making stuff up". Extensive documentation was provided on the sources for Saddam's weapons programs after the first war. Russian, German, and French sources figured prominantly. I don't remember seeing any mention of US sources in the breakdown. Do you have anything to back up your claims? (Note: Anything Noam Choamsky says doesn't count)

Look folks, if you want to go around claming credit for giving the Iraqis freedom, don’t turn around and criticize them when they actually start to use it. It comes across as pretty arrogant.

Besides (and I say this as someone who supported the war), Salam’s mixed judgment of Bush is entirely appropriate. Bush made it entirely clear that the primary reason for this war was not to liberate Iraq. It was to stop terrorists from getting WMDs. His administration’s planning for postwar Iraq was both dishonest and incompetent. He ignored the advice from his uniformed military, his State department, and his allies, and instead left all the planning to small gang of civilian ideologues who had no experience in nation building, and no actual knowledge of the region. In the immediate aftermath of the war, we did nothing to try to establish law and order (except of course for protecting the Oil Ministry). We made the disastrous decision to fire the entire Iraqi Army. And now the administration has come out with a new schedule for transition to Iraqi rule that seems to be dictated by next year’s elections.

The fact is that right now life is worse than it was before the war for many Iraqis. Unemployment, crime and violence are all much higher. I hope that the country will stay together, that conditions will get better and democracy will take hold, and that the Iraqis will be much better off in the long run. But it hasn’t happened yet. We shouldn’t be taking credit for anything until the job is finished.

Yes, Salam is irreverent and snarky. But I admire him for it. He was willing to direct his snark at Saddam, even when he was risking torture and death to do it. That’s pretty damn brave, and unless any of the critics have exhibited similar bravery, they really ought to be quiet.

I seem to have missed that speech by George H. W. Bush (the president's father) where he encouraged the Iraqis to revolt and promised them whatever military help from the US to make sure it didn't fail and none of them would get hurt. If I generally encourage people to fight back against muggers, does that mean that owe them all assistance?

I would understand more clearly if Pax would come out and say that he wish the invasion never took place. I would think he is wrong and nuts but heck that view is not different from the average European elite.

But no, he supported the invasion and removal and now he wants Iraq to be fixed. NOW! He insinuates that George Bush has turned his back on Iraq. How so? Over two thousand American casualties and they continue daily. 20 Billion dollars in the reconstruction effort for this year alone! A diminished standing in world opinion (I know, what is new).

Criticism is fine. In fact it is needed as mistakes have been made. But Pax went beyond that. He was snide and derisive. It is his right, thanks to George Bush, and the U.S. military but we have a right to be derisive back to him.

"Contrast the attitude of Zeyad of healingiraq.blogspot.com"

"Rape his women. Yeah" - Zeyad.

Ikram - You sign on to Freidman's vapidity? "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"."

Well, if it's broken and you insist I buy it then, having bought it, I own it. Are you and Freidman actually in a position to grant title? Shall we start sewing the 51st star on our flags? Of course Tommy and Salie have the right to be insulting. And you and Tommy have the right to stupidity. And I have the right to laugh at the three of you.

"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."

Last time I checked, the Taliban are still busy wreaking havoc in Afganistan and Pakistan, Al Queda has moved its operations to Turkey, and Saddam hasn't been found. Oh, neither has Osama bin Laden, the guy who's really responsible for attacking our country. And, boy, what a seed of democracy we've planted there, what with Republican talk at the Restoration conference about installing a strongman in Iraq. Everything that we could have done right over there, we didn't. We've been sold a bill of goods over this war, and Lileks can't bring himself to admit that he's been had.

The State Department had plans to rebuild Iraq that were ignored by Defense and then by the CPA. We tried to put in an Iraqi government run by a bunch of exiles who were dubious at best and outright thieves at worst. We're destroying people's homes while an insurgent army runs around and picks off American kids WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. To paraphrase the Great Prophet Homer, we're doing a half-assed job over there when we should be using our whole ass.

Welcome to the sound of democracy, as Salaam stands up and says what he thinks. Last time I checked, that inalienable right to free speech meant people could say unpopular things, too. Deal with it.

Salam needs simply to get up from his keyboard, roll up his sleevies, walk out the door, and help our armies clean up, be it wit broom, information, or a gun.

Cut the blogging to fifteen minutes per day, boy, there's work to be done.

Y'all petty.

"Generosity that demands gratitude is not generosity. . . is is an amoral system of barter."

Who ever said anything about generosity? No one has denied that, whatever humanitarian concerns we might have, that the Iraq war isn't in the best interests of the United States, too. It may not be worth all the $$ without the humanitarian concerns, but that's arguable. In that case anyway, it's less generosity and more a moral compulsion. I don't think it hurts to expect gratitude -- who doesn't expect a "thank you" when they give a friend a birthday present? Tell me you wouldn't be irritated, at least a little, if you were never thanked for your acts of kindness.

Sheesh, people. Lileks is right, Pax is a whiny little do-nothing complainer with no constructive suggestions. No one is suggesting, either, that Iraqis being grateful means never criticizing. It just means we expect constructive criticism, not rude, heel-drumming, nose-in-the-air bullshit whines.

Oh great, T. says I'm un-American because I object to Salam's tone. Others ask when Salam lost his right to dissent. And so on. I love how the Left immediately construes every response as an attempt to silence.

Salam NOW has the right to dissent. And if in doing so he mainly sucks up to the new power that can help him enjoy a comfy life, namely the chattering classes of London, then I have the right to think he's an obnoxious little brown-noser whose opinion on the country he came from grows less interesting with every day he's away from it at its moment of greatest promise.

That's my right as an American and you can have it when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.

And p.s., Adam, "free speech" means no one can stop you from saying it, NOT that we can't make fun of you for showing the world what a jerk you are.

Get with it, boy.

Dan has it exactly right. Lileks can't stand it that some Iraqi has the NERVE not to suck America's dick in gratitude. Colonial powers since Rome have never figured out why they aren't loved by the countries they destroy in saving them. The facts are that life in Iraq right now is shitty, its going to get better slowly, and whether Iraqis are grateful or not, America is doing this in its own self-interest, and if it isn't in its interest than George Bush should be impeached.

The world was a different place in 1991, so don't judge what happened then by today's standards. Let's support the president and our soldiers, so we can do it right this time.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda's are a stupid waste of time.

Dan is exactly right. Lileks criticizes Salam Pax for not having the "rocks to face up to Saddam", but what Salam was doing was extremely dangerous. He could have been arrested, tortured and killed. It took as much courage to post from Baghdad as it did to publish resistance leaflets in occupied Europe in WW-II.

As for those who think that Salam owes the US immensely -- I don't think so yet. Saddam's greatest brutalities came 20 (chemical weapons against Iranians), 16 (chemical weapons at Halabja), 12 (Shia uprising) back. To suddenly wax eloquent over human rights abuses 12 years back is unconvincing. Key US personnel, including Paul Wolfowitz (probably the only man in the administration that would have gone to war purely on human rights grounds) admit that they could never have sold this war on those grounds.

TG says, "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."

Actually, the President predicted that the struggle for Iraq, and the rebuilding and democratization of Iraq, would be long and hard. If you want to infer that by "long and hard," the President meant "cakewalk," I can't do much but roll my eyes and hope someone gives you a nice dictionary for Christmas.

With respect to your post, Dan, since this is your forum and I really want to fit in and follow your lead, "Fuck you."

Let me also add, I'd like to see your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

Someone asked "at what point do Iraqis such as Salam Pax get to criticize the United States? Should they be grateful forever?"

No, but would it be too much to ask for at least a couple of years (or until the US pulls out of Iraq)? When Rumsfeld announced that the US was rethinking US force levels in Korea, the younger generation of Koreans was very excited. However, the older generations, the ones that had been spared the fate of those in the communist North, were quite upset and demonstrated in favor of a continued US presence.

A few other points that some may have missed:

Lileks warned us on Thursday that he had written a nasty screed, including some harsh words for SP, while he was feeling lousy. That may explain some of his vitriol (not that there is anything wrong with it).

And as for SP, he is nothing but a catty bitch. Now I enjoyed reading his blog, but it was obvious to me from the start that he enjoyed at least some level of privilege under Saddam and was not really looking forward to life after Saddam (despite his weak protestations to the contrary). A country in need of rebuilding could really use an English- and Arabic-speaking architect about now, but instead, SP is in London having his knob gobbled by the elite left (not that there's anything wrong with it). If he was blogging from Iraq and trying to help the reconstruction of his country and wanted to criticize the efficacy of the CPA, then fine. But having escaped to the perfumed salons of London's cultural elites, he should keep his mouth shut.

Right, Jennifer. You mind telling me just what the "it" is that I should get with?

No half-assed attacks, please. Use your whole ass.

Of course, everyone's right: Salam Pax, Lileks, and Dan. That's because they're talking past each other:

- Pax is sounding like a petulent brat who nonetheless is making a decent point.
- Lileks is pointing out that Pax sounds like a petulent brat (which he does).
- Dan is pointing out that Lileks didn't need to use the word "fuck" to point out that Pax sounds like a petulent brat, and that Pax may actually have a good reason to be acting like a petulent brat.

Oh, one other thing: the "chickenhawk" rule applies equally to both sides. If you haven't done shit for the people of Iraq, criticizing the administration is exactly as illegitimate as supporting it. Which is to say, not illegitimate at all, since the United States is a democracy, in which people should fully debate the issues, whether or not they've earned the Silver Star.

Well, aside from the debate at hand on who is the