Dis-Strib-Ute

Perhaps realizing that the future of news does not necessarily lie with unshaven readers trudging out to the mailbox in their bunny slippers to retrieve the news on pressed rolls of ink-sodden dead trees, the Star Tribune has been making some efforts lately to engage the blogosphere.

The Saturday paper carries The Blog House, a column by Tim O'Brien with a round-up of various blogs from week to week.

Another brand new effort is The Big Question, a blog by Eric Black. According to the Strib's blurb:

Whatever the question, our hope is that this blog can serve as a forum for finding and testing facts, with a minimum of rancor or partisanship, in the pursuit of answers, big and small. Despite evidence and commentary to the contrary, it's our hope that most people in this state and this country remain open-minded and hungry for those answers. And, despite the often-overheated rhetoric about the mainstream media, it's our belief that those answers will be more convincing and more complete if they are drawn from the insight, expertise and critical assessment of everyone. And that means you.

The first post was about this week's elections in Iraq, and the current state of things in Iraq.

There are interviews with seven "experts". This being the Strib, the fair and balanced lineup include Juan Cole. (Ben comments on the "experts" here.)

I wanted to just highlight some of the comments in this first posting, from some of the various "You's" the Strib wanted to hear from, the citizen-poets so full of "insight, expertise and critical assessment". Their opinions are representative of the critical thinking that characterizes some of the anti-war positions in the Left. I don't often resort to fisking here, but I might indulge myself here.

K.Briggs says:

Here’s my $.02. I will argue differently from the first commenter. Where Iraq is concerned, there is NO path that can take us from where we are today to an outcome that will make the whole thing worth it to the US.

Iraq is a dismal failure, possibly the worst foreign policy disaster in US history. Our "leadership" have squandered the lives of our chidren, our military, our reputation and our resources on an unnessary war that has accomplished what?–a world that has contempt for the US, a turbulent Iraq (with close ties to Iran), and an increase in terrorism.

Me: Iraq is turbulent now? Yes, it was positively Edenic under Saddam Hussein. The argument seems to be, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, the world would love us, Iraq would still be tranquil, and terrorism would be at barely noticeable levels. Would Zarqawi be an insurance salesman now if the US hadn't gone into Iraq? Perhaps bin Laden would be doing political shtick on the Jimmy Kimmel show in an effort to attract some of the audience from The Daily Show?

Rob LaFleur says:

It is unreasonable to think we can dominate the world militarily. Look at the billions we have spent in Iraq without getting to a successful conclusion. If we multiply that by all the other Islamic states, our economy would implode under the burden of that level of military activity. Crushing everyone who is different from us is impossible.

Me: Yes, jackbooted US Marines and soldiers are on the march worldwide. Getting bogged down in Iraq is sure going to put a crimp in our plans to invade Norway. (Or was Belize supposed to be next?) And apparently we happened to notice one day, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda, that those brown people in Iraq were different than us, so we just up and decided to invade. I hope the US military doesn't realize those engineers down the hall from me are a little bit different too, or my cubicle might become a free-fire zone.

K.Briggs says (again):

All of the people interviewed by Eric Black were quite pessimistic about the future of Iraq.

Me: Perhaps this says something about the sample selected by Eric Black.

Kerry Olson says:

I am puzzled. Did not the American government know that the removal of Saddam would result in the destablization that has occurred? The experts seem to be surprised that we did not know this.

Me: I will agree that the Bush Administration did not adequately plan for the insurgency that followed. But again, there seems to be this belief that under Saddam Hussein Iraq was a model state. I guess it was "stable" in that the rate of people being gassed, raped, fed into woodchippers or otherwise buried in mass graves was fairly steady. No possibility that removing Hussein may be a good thing? Anyone?