Hearts and minds

Open any paper or read any internet site and you'll get varied opinions of how things are going on the Baghdad street. Most of the stories in both the American and international press seem to accentuate the negative, like this one.

What's actually happening? It's hard to tell, but I present to you two views-- one from a Tennessee politician, and one from a well-known Iraqi version.

First the Vol perspective. Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen joined the list of those who've made a trip to Iraq. Accompanied by several other governors, Bredesen was able to examine the situation up close and personal, and was somewhat impressed:

"I have to say it really does appear to be working," Bredesen said of a potential handover of security efforts. "In each of the places I was, there was active involvement from Iraqi police forces, Iraqi troops and security. ..

Keep in mind this wasn't last year or last month, it was this past week. Of troop morale, he said:

"I think troop morale is terrific. It's better than I expected, to be honest with you. These are difficult posts to be placed in," Bredesen said of his talks with Tennessee troops. Bredesen said he didn't feel that troops are feeling the effects of negative press coverage and public opinion about the situation in Iraq.

That's because the troops are actually there. Anyone who's been the object of a news story understands the reporter almost never gets it entirely correct. Why should Iraq be any different? Actually, it should be worse since most reporters are stuck in the green zone.

But is Bredesen just posturing for politics? He's up for reelection soon, and some say he might even be a dark-horse presidential candidate. It's possible his positive comments were designed to curry favor from the largely conservative Tennessee voter, but I suspect they were more born out of reality. Smart Democrats like Bredesen, Harold Ford, Jr., and New Mexico Governor Richardson seem to understand reality.

Now to the Iraqi version. Today marked the resumption of Saddam's trial. It was 'Butcher on the stand' day, and he certainly 'took it':

Saddam Hussein testified Wednesday for the first time at his trial, calling on Iraqis to stop a bloody wave of sectarian violence and instead fight American troops, prompting the chief judge to close the courtroom after declaring Saddam was making political speeches.

Somebody is briefing him well. His strategy is always well thought out and up to the minute. Ramsey Clark?

"Let the (Iraqi) people unite and resist the invaders and their backers. Don't fight among yourselves," he said, praising the insurgency. "In my eyes, you are the resistance to the American invasion."

Classic Saddam--help ignite the sectarian violence then blame it on America and call for unity. The shameless tyrant rambled on:

"What pains me most is what I heard recently about something that aims to harm our people," Saddam said. "My conscience tells me that the great people of Iraq have nothing to do with these acts."

How touching.

Abdel-Rahman handled it better than the previous judge would have, shutting down cameras as soon as he realized it was devolving into a propaganda fest. It was still a victory for Saddam, since his political message was delivered far and wide, effectively muting any evidence or testimony presented in the actual trial.

Saddam knows people are craving normalcy and tend to live in the moment. We'll soon see if his unity gambit resonates on the Baghdad street. His next court appearance was pushed ahead to April 5, providing plenty of time for events to play out.

MORE 3/16/06

Pondering Saddam's 'testimony' Wednesday, the part that stands out most was the reference mentioning his conscience telling him "the great people of Iraq have nothing to do with these acts", meaning the Golden Shrine and attacks Sunday on Sadr City. Why did he say this? In the past he's settled for bashing the Shia for joining the Coalition-backed government.

The comment suggests, 1) Saddam's henchmen weren't responsible and he's genuinely reacting to the situation by trying to play the sympathetic uniter, or 2) His minions were responsible, but he was trying to deflect attention off himself and onto the Coalition, perhaps because the plan backfired (no civil war).

With someone as cunning and devoid of heart and soul as this man, it's really hard to say.

A DOWN-UNDER VIEW 3/19/06

Here's a perspective from an Aussie writing on behalf of his friend stationed in the green zone of Baghdad. He thinks the western media has 'lost the plot' of the Iraq story. Rather surprisingly, Iyad Allawi does not.

More perspective...

Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.

From Donald Rumsfeld.

STICKS AND STONES 3/19/06

Well, CNN wasn't gonna just sit there and let Rumsfeld get away with his Nazi comparison without retort. So they went out and asked Kissinger and Brezienski for comments, and both proceeded to trash the SoD.

To be fair, the situations aren't parallel. The Nazis were utterly defeated and likely couldn't have mustered enough support to return to power even if we let them. But that's not the way I took Rummy's statement. I saw it this way--if we leave Iraq now it would be like defeating Hitler then skeedattling home and leaving the Nazi party in charge of the country. That's still a viable analogy, because if we leave Iraq now the Saddamists/Ba'athists are the most likely group to retake power, despite what the media might tell you. After all, they know where Saddam hid all the guns and ammo.

But ya gotta laugh at this quote from Biden:

"Imagine what would happen if it were announced tomorrow in the headlines of the papers of America and throughout the world that Rumsfeld was fired," the Delaware senator told CNN.

"It would energize, energize the rest of the world, to be willing to help us. It would energize American forces, it would energize the political environment. Yes, he should step down."

No sir, it wouldn't. It would be plastered in every newspaper, TV station and website/blog as proof the Iraq war was a failure.