# Out with the devil you know and in with.-Iraqi Shite Power- Article



## SpinDoc (23 Apr 2003)

Wouldn't it be ironic (or funny even if you're so inclined) if Iraq became just like Iran?   

U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites

As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq's future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites' organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country. 

The burst of Shiite power -- as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands who made a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of Karbala yesterday -- has U.S. officials looking for allies in the struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the downfall of Saddam Hussein. 

As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government. Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region. 

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." 

Complicating matters is that the United States has virtually no diplomatic relationship with Iran, leaving U.S. officials in the dark about the goals and intentions of the government in Tehran. The Iranian government is the patron of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Iraqi Shiite group. 

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, a major strategic goal of the United States has been to contain radical Shiite fundamentalism. In the 1980s, the United States backed Hussein as a bulwark against Iran. But by this year, the drive to topple Hussein -- who had suppressed Iraq's Shiite majority for decades -- loomed as a much more important objective for the administration. 

U.S. intelligence reports reaching top officials throughout the government this week said the Shiites appear to be much more organized than was thought. On Monday, one meeting of generals and admirals at the Pentagon evolved into a spontaneous teach-in on Iraq's Shiites and the U.S. strategy for containing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq. 

The administration hopes the U.S.-led war in Iraq will lead to a crescent of democracies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Israeli-occupied territories and Saudi Arabia. But it could just as easily spark a renewed fervor for Islamic rule in the crescent, officials said. 

"This is a 25-year project," one three-star general officer said. "Everyone agreed it was a huge risk, and the outcome was not at all clear." 

The CIA has cultivated some Shiite clerics, but not many, and not for very long. The CIA is helping to move clerics safely into towns where they can build a political base. In Najaf, for instance, agency case officers worked with a couple of clerics. 

"We don't want to allow Persian fundamentalism to gain any foothold," a senior administration official said. "We want to find more moderate clerics and move them into positions of influence." 

One major problem is that Hussein executed hundreds of Shiite clerics and exiled thousands more, leaving behind few Shiite civic or religious leaders of national standing. 

Shortly after Baghdad fell, Abdul Majid Khoei, a London-based Shiite cleric who was working with U.S. Special Forces, was stabbed to death at a shrine in Najaf, apparently by followers of a young anti-American Shiite leader. They also surrounded the Najaf home of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the nation's top Shiite cleric, and ordered him to leave the city before tribal elders persuaded them to disperse. 

U.S. officials are hoping to combat fundamentalism by helping the Iraqis build a secular education system. Before 1991, Iraq had what was regarded as one of the finest education systems in the region, but years of economic sanctions have devastated it. 

"The most radical aspects of Islam are in places with no education at all but the Koran," an official said. "There is no math, no culture. You counter that [fundamentalism] by doing something with the education system." 

The Shiites of Iraq make up about 60 percent of the population, compared with less than 20 percent for the Sunnis that have long dominated Iraqi political life. Shiite Muslims, who make up less than 15 percent of the world's 1 billion Muslims, formed their own sect shortly after the death of Muhammad, founder of Islam, in 632. 

While Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, the Shiites in Iraq are Arab, not Persian, giving U.S. officials hope that a strong sense of Iraqi nationalism and a tradition of resisting the concept of a single supreme Shiite ruler will keep Persian fundamentalism in check. "There is a big difference, a tremendous difference, between Persian and Arab Shiites," a U.S. official said. 

Indeed, some experts believe ending the suppression of Iraqi Shiites will begin to turn the center of the religion away from Iran. The shrines of two of its most revered imams -- the Shiite successors to Mohammed -- are in Najaf and Karbala. 

Some U.S. intelligence analysts and Iraq experts said they warned the Bush administration before the war about vanquishing Hussein's government without having anything to replace it. But officials said the concerns were either not heard or fell too low on the priority list of postwar planning. 

Chalabi's influence, particularly with senior policymakers at the Pentagon, helped play down the prospects for trouble, some officials said. "They really did believe he is a Shiite leader," although he had been out of the country for 45 years, a U.S. official said. "They thought, 'We're set, we've got a Shiite -- check the box here.' " 

"We're flying blind on this. It's a classic case of politics and intelligence," said Walter P. "Pat" Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. "In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much." 

U.S. officials have tried to make inroads with Iraq's most important Shiite group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), starting with contacts in Kuwait about five years ago. A senior representative of SCIRI met with Vice President Cheney in August when U.S. officials gathered leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups in Washington. 

But SCIRI, which is based in Tehran and is closely linked with the Iranian government, boycotted the first U.S.-sponsored meeting of Iraqi political and religious leaders in the town of Ur to discuss the country's political future. Over the years, "there was not as much contact as there should have been," the State Department official said. 

"They expected a much warmer reception, and as a result it would be unnecessary for them to deal with some of these issues," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a Brookings Institution scholar, who was one of President Bill Clinton's top Iraq specialists. "That flawed assumption is at the heart of some of the reasons


----------



## Spr.Earl (23 Apr 2003)

Well they are declaring that they want a Islamic State.DOH!
 So I guess Dubya has opened a whole new can of worm‘s or Pandora‘a Box,take your pick,and this is only the begining.


----------



## Marauder (23 Apr 2003)

Yeah, woulda been much better if Canada had taken an active role in having kept Saddam in power and then installed Qusay or Uday after dear old Dad went to the big torture chamber in the sky. Then those pesky citizens would have been kept under the heel of a brutal oppressive dictator, right where we want ‘em.

Give you head a fu@king shake, sir. 
Maybe they‘ll migrate towards an Islamic state, maybe not. Hopefully they‘ll remember who helped to free them from underneath the boot that was at their jugular for so long. Or in the case of Canada, France, and Germany, hopefully they WON‘T remember who tried to KEEP them there.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Apr 2003)

For some people, the world‘s only superpower can‘t get anything right.

They go through the UN with sanctions and are accused of murdering innocent Iraqis

so....

They go around the UN and a military campaign to oust the regime and are accused of murdering innocent Iraqis

Alot of criticism and no solutions are fired around this board.
Give something a little more if you want to offer an effective foreign policy critique....


----------



## SpinDoc (23 Apr 2003)

Although rare, I think there actually *are* worse things than brutal military dictators...brutal _______ dictators on a mission from Gosh! I think it really depends on whether or not one is on the $hitlist of the regime (fundamentalist or secular)...

I think it‘s a toss-up on whether or not Iraqis will be thankful to the Americans and Brits and choose a government that is pro-American...  World would be a dangerous place if Iraq turns into an Iran... At least with Saddam he was more or less a local nuisance who is "only" power-hungry, not zealous.

Devils to the left, devils to the right... *shakes head*


----------



## SpinDoc (23 Apr 2003)

Okay, here‘s a "solution" from the "Hearts and Minds" camp.

Firstly, have to resolve the Palestinian issue once and for all -- more than likely to create a homeland for them and IMPOSE it on both sides.  It won‘t make anyone happy but it would take the wind out of the sails a bit, and create a more positive image of the U.S. in the area.

Secondly, encourage a secular education system in the various countries -- via attaching a lot of strings to the massive foreign aid all those Middle Eastern countries get.  That will offset the effects and/or deprive a population base for religious fundamentalism.

Thirdly, ensure that a basic standard of living is maintained in Iraq, Palestine, etc. -- medicines, clean water, food.  By fulfilling basic fundamental needs, it deprives malcontents the obvious reasons to bellyache about something.

Plan to have to deal with it in the long term -- i.e. 10 years+.  Don‘t assume that democracy and freedom is more important to those people than security and national pride.

The problem is applying band-aid solutions instead of treating the fundamental problems (which Saddam may or may not be -- but more so the fact that most Arabs do not like the prolonged/continuing American influence in their region)


----------



## humint (23 Apr 2003)

What the heck is wrong with it being an Islamic state? 

Just because it is Islamic doesn‘t mean that it is militant or extremist. For example, Egypt and Qatar are Muslim states -- and is there anything we should fear from them? Or, did you forget that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are basically the same faiths? 

The US, Canada, and the UK are Christian states (our laws are based in Christian morality, although we support pluralism) and are we branded Christian militants? I don‘t think so.

I dare you to find a competely secular state out there other than communist countries -- most of which have faded away into the dacadence of post-modernism! 

An Islamic state does not = extremism!


----------



## onecat (23 Apr 2003)

Humint, your right we should welcome a muslin state but we have to be careful.  Eqypt, is at the edge of slipping into an Islamic state which is much different.  Islamic States removes many freedoms and laws that were under an Muslin states, i.e. no for women rights, the Islamic law codes, it gives too power to the religous leader and generally take the country away from any secular path.  An Islamic state makes the faith the only way to live and their only one way that faith can ve lived.  I take an Islamic state to be like Iran.  Qutar, Kuwait and Suadia Arbia are monarchies and so are not Islamic states in my mind, but could very well go to that route after the Kings fall from power.  I do believe that an Islamic state is an extremist state, but a Muslin state is more open and allows free choice, and is what the US should aim for.

The US, can do a lot of good in Iraq if they actaully take the time and do it right.  They have to set Iraq, with schools and jobs and make sure that laws for women stay the same.  They have to divide the new gov‘t into three, for the Kurds and two main muslin groups.  Allowing one to get the upper hand would be a bad thing.  The Kurds will not allow themselves to be same position again.  They have to stay for at least 2 years and make sure they re-build the economy.  Its not easy and I don‘t trust US to stay til the end, but they could surprise me.  Take Egypt, it does hold elections but they are not free elections, and so does Turkey; because if they allowed free elections there would be a good change each nation would fall to the fundamentalist parties.  Who don‘t want elections and would right the country. Or look at Israel, a Jewish state that is secular but moving in more fundamentalist path.  In some areas of Isrsal now women can‘t ride teh bus with men, and they want all shops to be closed on saturdays even the streets.... because they believe their View is only right view.  As long as Iraq is streered away from fundamentalist it will be a job well done.


----------



## SpinDoc (23 Apr 2003)

Well, *YOU* know and *I* know that the three religions all have the same roots... but I get looked at as if I‘m the devil‘s incarnate whenever I mention this little tidbit...

Why on earth do you think they‘re at each other throats?

I refer again to  Tom the Dancing Bug‘s God-Man  comic strip... I think it‘s a good way of looking at it (abeit a bit simplistic)


----------



## Infanteer (23 Apr 2003)

Alright, lets straighten out our lingo.  There is nothing wrong with an Islamic state, however we wish to avoid a theocracy as it usually takes the form of a rabid fundamentalist state (Iran) that paints us (the West) as the bad guy.

Spindoc, I like that solution.  It is what I was hoping would come of this too.  I can‘t see the Americans pulling out of this one too quick.  Maintaining a strategic presence in the area is a good way to keep all of the nasty neighbours in line, and creating a flourishing democracy in Iraq will allow change to occur in other states of this region.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Apr 2003)

By the way, your right.  If Iraq and Iran were to be two of the same, I think we would be in some deep caca.  But don‘t you think SOMEONE within the US government has also figured this out?

Reminds me of this Tom Clancy book I read one time....


----------



## SpinDoc (23 Apr 2003)

Ah yes, I was going to mention Tom Clancy in my initial post...   

I think we are specifically against an Islamic theocracy which would be anti-American (and wouldn‘t care less if the US loved or hated Canada for whatever reason of the day)...

As for someone in the US administration *figuring* it out, OF COURSE!     That almost goes without saying, since they probably have a crapload of scenarios up to and including the Easter bunny taking over... I think the point is the senior admin *cough Rumsfeld cough* decided somewhere along the line to not put emphasis on dealing/PREVENTING with that scenario.  Let‘s admit, Saddam was good at suppressing the same fundamentalist that would‘ve been a threat to his power and to the West, and now with the "lid" gone... I don‘t think these fundamentalists use the thinking that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which perhaps the U.S. was hoping for.

What do you guys think: is there a goodly number of Iraqis that hate the US more because it defeated Iraq twice than loving the US because it freed them from Saddam?


----------



## RoyalHighlander (23 Apr 2003)

> Hopefully they‘ll remember who helped to free them from underneath the boot that was at their jugular for so long. Or in the case of Canada, France, and Germany, hopefully they WON‘T remember who tried to KEEP them there.


we didnt try tp keep them there. We decided that we needed the U.N.‘s approval before we went charging blindly into the breech. Get you stuuf right..


----------



## humint (24 Apr 2003)

I think we are all on the same page, it was a problem of semantics -- that‘s all. 

Keep an eye on Iran over the next few years. As much as it is fundamentalist and a theocracy, I think you will see a more moderate movement develop and a shift of power (especially cultural power) away from the Ayatollahs. This shift has its base in the younger, university educated crowd.

Personally, I really don‘t think the Middle East is on the brink of becoming a series of fundamentalist Islamic states. 

However, this will depend on how the US plays their part in rebuilding Iraq, their position on Syria, the overall economic well-being of the area, and the development of peace in Israel and the creation of an independent Palestinian state. 

Man, so many ifs it‘s crazy! But, there is more involved in the creation of a theocracy than the simple pursuit of religious identity.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2003)

> we didnt try to keep them there. We decided that we needed the U.N.‘s approval before we went charging blindly into the breech


Those two statements are the exact same.
Do you think going through the UN would have eventually removed Saddam?
Look at the politics surrounding the issue.


----------



## Marauder (25 Apr 2003)

As my bro Infanteer pointed out, doggedly clinging to inaction as a course of policy is not noticeably different from aiding and abetting Saddam. Think of it as the cops standing by and allowing a gang of thugs to beat up a little old lady right in front of them. Would it be any different for the cops to stand there and do nothing as opposed to just walking over and putting in a few stomps of their own for good measure?

All that evil requires to thrive is for good men to do nothing. Not that I consider our current Fearless Leader as being particularly "good", or even a real "man" for that matter.

All you Saddam lovers out there can stand by and wring your hands over WMDs, oil wells, and geopolitical instability, but in the end, I see what our American, Brit, and Aussie ***brothers*** did as noble and worthy. Say what you will, but a sizable portion of the Iraqi populace doesn‘t have to go to sleep every night wondering anymore if Hussein‘s thugs are going to bust in the door and take the men of the house to be beaten, tortured, and executed for speaking out against the son of a bitch. But maybe I‘m one of those old fashioned types who can‘t think in abstract shades of bull**** grey.


----------



## SpinDoc (25 Apr 2003)

So by your reckoning, since grey is "bull", the US and the West should‘ve stomped out the Soviets‘ guts way back when... and since people can‘t sleep at night worrying about a knock on the door, the US and whoever its buddies of the hour are should go rumbling to the People‘s Republic of China and topple the Chinese Communist Party.  Gee, we might as well unite the world into one big happy democratic entity and celebrate the joys of freedom, hold hands and skip, since US democracy is "okay", but they see fit to punish French and German democracy.  Just different brands of idealism.

There is military pragmatism and then there‘s diplomatic pragmatism.  THAT‘s where "we" bleeding hearts get our shades of grey.  It‘s all great and good when you are on one side‘s "right" and against the other side‘s version of "right" and call it "wrong" because you have a bigger stick for now... The French and Germans can suck eggs for all I care since I didn‘t care much for their proposal, but there were other proposals that could have improved upon the US‘ course of action -- and calling those other proposals outright wrong is just pig-headedness.  It‘s like a NCO/officer not willing to accept advice/suggestion and lashing out because he outranks the advice giver.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Apr 2003)

"All that evil requires to thrive is for good men to do nothing."

I‘ve also heard ‘The greatest evil is the corrupt man whom hides behind the shield of rightiousness‘


----------



## Pikache (25 Apr 2003)

"The Road to ****  is Paved with Good Intentions"


----------



## SpinDoc (25 Apr 2003)

Hate to be nitpicky, but "old fashioned black and white" is just one form of fundamentalism.  I hate to accuse anyone of being a fundamentalist, but let‘s do a compare and contrast here:

You are with us or against us
vs.
Submit to Allah, the infidels (mostly aimed at Christians and Jews... but Buddhist, Hindu, etc. too I would imagine) are wrong and must be dealt with.

I‘m willing to bet that Islamic fundamentalists (or any other type of fundamentalist for that matter) feel as strongly about their being "right" as Marauder does.  Can the same be applied to "my" grey worldview?  I have black and white in my spectrum too... but I could be swayed to shift the shade of grey, so I would *like* to think I‘m not a fundamentalist, but I‘m sure someone could make an argument that I‘m a "grey fundamentalist".


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Apr 2003)

You are with us or against us
vs.
Submit to Allah, the infidels (mostly aimed at Christians and Jews... but Buddhist, Hindu, etc. too I would imagine) are wrong and must be dealt with.

Wow thats a great point. People will argue that theres differences here and there but at a basic level i think it‘s the exact same rant.


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Apr 2003)

Most of the buddies I‘ve had in the Military were not perfect. Well, buddies anywhere, for that matter. At some point, you and your chums form a bond, and there‘s an unspoken rule that you‘ll watch each others‘ back, and help each other out. Some of my buddies drank too much. Some were uncouth. Some were loud; some were arrogant. If it was too much, we didn‘t become buddies. I aligned myself with people who were similar-thinking and acting. Other people, I chose not to be friends with, and that‘s fine too. I didn‘t pretend to be someone‘s friend because they were popular, or strong, or had money. Now you and some of your buddies are in a bar. One of your pals gets attacked, and he squares off. By now there‘s a crowd gathering. The other guys‘ cronies, your bunch, and the onlookers. I never saw anyone debate much, whether the friends defense was excessive, whether he deserved it, whether he was justified. You stood side by side, if the guy was a jacka55, you told him after. Lets put all the political ins and outs, and strategic ramblings aside for a minute, and think about it on that level. If your friend didn‘t come to your aid, because he didn‘t think you were right, how would you feel? We‘re all armchair quarterbacks here; all experts. But consider it again, on it‘s most basic level. I‘m not saying the analogy is accurate, I‘m saying many Americans just see it as us not standing by them. Plain and simple. If the US is indeed an empire-building bully, then we shouldn‘t try to pass ourselves off as their friend. What if someone threatened Canada, and the US balked, for whatever reason? I think subconsciously, we expect them to look after us - well at least the average person. "We‘re safe, with the Yanks next door". Don‘t agree? Why don‘t we have a military big enough to defend ourselves against any threat, including the US? I can tell you something else - I am positive that many attitudes would be different, if Canada had been attacked. Watch the CN tower collapse on TV, and see what it does to your psyche. Regardless of whether the "US deserved it" like many seem to think - the politicians weren‘t attacked - innocent people were. People are scared, maybe paranoid, and rightfully so. Canada has had some misguided internal and foreign policies - do its citizens deserve to die, or live in fear? On the other hand, the avg American does forget how much Canada has done for them, and that we have helped, without blinking, on most occasions. There are indeed 2 sides to every story, with the truth usually somewhere in between. These are not necessarily my personal opinions - more of my observations. Interpretations on why people may feel the way they do. I saw F-16s flying CAPs over Phoenix, after 9-11. I lived 9-11, in the US. I have to believe it‘s different, when it is someone elses country.  Seriously - imagine some Japanese  radicals killing 3000 or so Canadian citizens, in a day, as payback for the internments. 

My opinion? The US is far from perfect. Pick your friends, and stick with them. If they are not nice people, don‘t be their friends. Sorry for rambling, but I believe I have a unique perspective. Being a proud Canadian, living in the US, I have a good idea how the rest of the world views the US. I had stereotypes that ended up not being true. I also get to see Canada, how the US sees her. I get to hear people talk, on a daily basis. I‘m not reciting cliches, quotes, or soundbites from network news. What irritates me sometimes is recited opinions, or learned responses - not (my perception) original thought.

The kicker for me was Britain‘s commitment to this war. I doubt you could find 2 more politically opposite leaders than Bush or Blair. Blair faced a tremendous amount of opposition to his decision. Could he have had access to info that some of us on this board weren‘t privy to? The Govt was chastised for not doing more, pre 911. Now they‘re doing too much. What if a jar of whatever HAD gotten into the hands of a terrorist, and ultimately, New York, or some other city. Impossible? Unlikely? Who‘s willing to make that bet? Then what? Ooops, I guess we were wrong? No, we haven‘t eliminated the possibility - I believe we have reduced it. To this day, I am not positive that the US did the right thing. I think they did. My instincts say they did, but I‘m not positive. If I had a choice of mistakenly liberating an oppressed country, while limiting their involvement in terrorism OR "waiting to see" or "waiting for more info" I guess I‘d take the former. "RUSH" to war? Hussein had 12 years to comply. If the UNs demands were not reasonable, we should have debated it, 11 years ago.

Fire away, my learned friends...


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Apr 2003)

Let‘s start back to 91.
Why was Saddam left in power?

 Even though we in the West knew he was a evil b@!#$d,he was left in place to counter act Islamic ruled Iran.

 What was not wanted back in 91 is happening now i.e.Islamic Cleric‘s gaining control.Also intel has it that Iranian Operitive‘s have infiltrated the country and are stirring the pot.
The below link is from the BBC via Jihadunspun. 

 http://www.jihadunspun.net/index-side_external.php?article=52933&list=/home.p 


 So much for Liberation and freedom!!!
So were do we draw the Line?
Another War?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2003)

Sapper Earl, I believe the issue of why Saddam was left in power was addressed on a previous thread.

Muskrat, great post.  You expressed what I have been trying to say for a long time.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Apr 2003)

Thanks Infanteer - I‘m glad  _someone_  agrees with me!


----------



## Jungle (26 Apr 2003)

> Let‘s start back to 91.
> Why was Saddam left in power?


Don‘t want to beat a dead cat, but one thing comes to mind: "UN mandate"
In ‘91, the (UN) mandate was to liberate Kuwait. Period.


----------



## RCA (27 Apr 2003)

Carrying on with muskrat89 analogy, suppose you know your so called buddy is going into a bar to start a fight becuase he‘s a big mean fellow and likes to fight. Do you still follow just beacuase or do you tell him, hey hold on a sec.

I‘m just throwing this out. I totaly agree if your in the bar, and the fight starts, you back your buddies up.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Apr 2003)

RCA - That‘s my point, I guess. If he‘s a big mean guy that starts fights for no reason, I probably wouldn‘t be his friend in the first place. Or, maybe more accurate, I shouldn‘t be friends with him because its convenient, or he protects me, then get a change of heart when he goes after someone else. If the friend is the bully that some of us seem to think he his, then we should be standing up to him more.


----------



## SpinDoc (28 Apr 2003)

I think the problem with the bar buddy analogy is that every 4 years our buddy may or may not experience a personality change... or lobotomy... or brain transplant... or infusion of super-brain power...

I mean, for the past decade or so, the buddy is pretty stable and we hang out and stuff... and the decade before that he would get into a couple of fights (Panama, Grenada) on his own and wouldn‘t think twice whether or not we helped him... now after this in this new 4 yr cycle he gives us ultimatums "help me pulp this guy (which I could do on my own) or we won‘t be friends any more -- and not just that, I‘ll hold a grudge".  Okay, yes, someone torched his car on 9-11... and we helped him tear up the guy who did it‘s hangout no questions asked because Osama decided to install a big neon sign on his lawn that says "I did it"...


----------



## Anderson56 (29 Apr 2003)

Muskrat, in the final analysis has it exactly right.  You pick your friends over time, well in advance of the time your friendship is tested.  Based on a long history of being together, you know whether your friend is reliable and good.  And when he finds himself in trouble, you don‘t stand around and debate the niceties of whether he is right or wrong.  He‘s your friend, and he deserves your support.

The recent happenings betwen us, our American friends, and the French remind me of something that happened years ago.

A number of years ago, a friend of mine had two customers, once company headed by a Frenchman and the other by an American.  The Frenchman gave very specific directions about what was to be done, notwithstanding advice that perhaps it wouldn‘t work out the way it was intended.  It didn‘t and as the difficulty became public, the Frenchman publicly blamed my friend and pulled his business, saying that he needed more comptency than my friend could offer (even though all my friend had only done what he was directed to do).  The company headed by the American, who had every reason to bolt did not.  The American called my friend and told him that where he came from, friends deserved loyalty, and asked what he could do to help.  The next day, he placed a huge piece of business with my friend.

You stick with your friends.  You are there for them.  Doesn‘t mean you don‘t try to move them or change their mind.  But when they need you, you are there for them.  And if you aren‘t, then don‘t even think of calling yourself a friend.


----------

