Ugh! What Are We Thinking?

[Praxus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3577348.stm

Iraq cleric 'to end Najaf revolt'

US sniper in Najaf

US-led troops have been fighting Sadr forces for nearly two weeks

Radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has reportedly agreed to Iraqi government demands to end an uprising in the holy city of Najaf.

Delegates at a conference to select an interim Iraqi council were told Mr Sadr had agreed to leave the Imam Ali shrine and disarm his Mehdi militia.

However, fighting continues in Najaf, where Mr Sadr's forces have battled US-led troops for nearly two weeks.

Delegates later chose the 81-member council without holding a planned vote.

The developments came as the conference met for an unscheduled fourth day on Wednesday in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

'Amnesty'

One of the organisers of the meeting read out a letter which she said she had received from Mr Sadr, in which he accepted the national conference's terms.

These also included joining the political process in exchange for an amnesty, she said.

The previous day, Mr Sadr had refused to see a peace delegation sent by the conference, citing concerns over security and the status of the delegates.

One of Mr Sadr's spokesmen, Ali al-Yassiri, told Reuters news agency that the cleric had agreed to the demands, but wanted a ceasefire before his forces would leave the Imam Ali shrine.

"Sayyed Moqtada and his fighters are ready to throw down their weapons and leave for the sake of Iraq," he told the agency.

"But they should stop attacking him first and pull away from the shrine."

Deadlock

The BBC's Kylie Morris in Najaf reported that sporadic fighting was continuing, with the sound of mortar fire echoing round the city.

She said that in the most recent incident, mortar rounds had been fired from Mehdi Army positions within the old city towards a police station and police had responded with gunfire.

Our correspondent in Najaf says there is a possibility that the cleric's apparent agreement to the demands of a national conference delegation has not reached all his men - or that, in fact, the deadlock around Shia Islam's holiest place remains.

The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Baghdad says it is difficult to confirm whether the letter carries the authority of Mr Sadr.

Our correspondent in Baghdad describes the latest development as another twist in the war of words in Najaf - and he adds that such promises have been broken before.

Earlier, Iraqi Defence Minister Hazim al-Shalaan had warned the militiamen to give up within hours or face a full-scale attack.

What is so hard about killing them all?

[BurgessLau]

"What are we thinking?"

Maybe some clarification is in order. Here are my preliminary questions for the sake of discussion:

1. What do you mean by "we"?

2. Thinking? Why do you suggest thinking might help?

The president of the U. S. has described himself as a "gut-level kind of guy," according to news reports I have seen over the last year or so. What does thinking have to do with that?

Likewise, if my memory serves me well, in the 2000 campaign, he responded to a reporter's question at a candidates forum -- "Who is your favorite philosopher?" -- by answering: Jesus Christ. (The only Republican candidate, I recall, who could even name a philosopher was Alan Keyes, who, to his credit, named John Locke.)

George Bush is also a pragmatist -- one whose philosophy (as applied to the realm of politics) tells him that absolutism doesn't work because that viewpoint is based on the belief that reality is fixed. If you don't like today's reality, pragmatists hold, just wait awhile. It will change. Why? In President Bush's case, because God makes reality and he can unmake it too.

3. Why kill "them" all?

President Bush is a compassionate conservative. Why would he want to do such a thing? Besides, he listens partly to another -- though lesser -- god, the god of World Opinion, a god that tells him that large-scale killing (by superior cultures) is always wrong.

That is my summary description of the man who was in charge of America's safety on the morning of September 11, 2001: part emotionalist, part nonintellectual, part pragmatist, part social-metaphysician, and fundamentally Christian.

Sadly, I must also say that, on the most personal level, he is a basically decent man -- largely a victim of horrible ideas.

My only surprise in watching the news from Najaf is that the U. S. hasn't yet surrendered as it did at Fallujah.

[coirecfox]

BurgessLau, Why, after all you have said condemning his value system, do you still say he is a decent man?

[BurgessLau]

BurgessLau, Why, after all you have said condemning his value system, do you still say he is a decent man?

First, I have seen, time and again -- among both some conservatives and some leftists I have met -- a distinction between rotten explicit philosophy applied to society in general and respectful, honest dealings with others interpersonally.

I have two tentative explanations of that phenomenon, whenever I have seen it up close (which I have not done with President Bush, of course):

(1) Compartmentalization of interpersonal values -- how we treat other individuals we talk to directly -- from general social and political applications. Especially among liberals, but also conservatives too, I have noticed a big split between advocating coercion on a mass level, but revulsion at using it directly on people standing in front of one.

(2) Objectivity for anything within arm's reach, so to speak, and abandonment of that objectivity once one reaches the level of abstraction of group rather than this individual whom I know personally.

Have you seen the same phenomenon? If so, how would you explain it?

[Yes]

What is so hard about killing them all?

Their unconditional surrender is an excellent alternative.