The above video was shot (by Eric) at the Fairfax City Hall 11th CD debate this past Thursday. What it demonstrates is a candidate who professes to be an expert on foreign policy -- "25 years of foreign policy and international affairs experience...10 years working in the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee" -- who doesn't know what he's talking about on the single most important foreign policy issue of our day.
That's right, Gerry doesn't know Jack about Iraq.
Let me explain.
First, Gerry has this to say:
I spent a fair amount of time in this region of the world. And anybody who knew anything about the history of the Persian Gulf and Iraq in particular knew that before you decided to take out a bad guy, Saddam Hussein, you'd better have a plan for what takes his place. Because if you don't, two things are likely. They're gonna be at each others' throats, civil war. And the likely successor is another theocratic Shi'a regime...[and that's what we've produced].
OK, well...just a few problems.
Major Screwup #1
Connolly's comment that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was likely to produce "another theocratic Shi'a regime" in Iraq demonstrates a stunning ignorance of Iraqi history and politics, on par with John McCain's colossal Shi'a-Sunni mixup a few weeks ago. The fact is, Saddam Hussein wasn't a Shi'a, he was a Sunni. His regime was not "theocratic" OR Shi'a; in fact, it was a secular, Ba'athist regime dominated by Sunnis from places like Tikrit, Saddam's hometown. As most of us -- Gerry Connolly excepted -- are aware, Saddam's secular Sunni Ba'athist regime viciously suppressed the Shi'ites during its reign of terror. It also fought a brutal, 8-year war(from 1980 to 1988) with a REAL "theocratic Shi'a regime" - that would be IRAN, Gerry, not IRAQ!
Major Screwup #2
On this same quote, Eric accidentally cut off the next phrase, where Gerry says "and that's what we've produced" (I've got the full video). Hmmmm...well...no. That's NOT what we've produced, at least not yet. In fact, and this IS a fact, the current Iraqi president is a Sunni Kurd named Jalal Talabani, "an advocate for Kurdish rights and democracy in Iraq for more than fifty years." Note: Talabani is NOT A Shi'a and NOT a theocrat. In fact, he's not even an Arab; he's a Kurd. Ah, details, details...not something you'd know if you had 25 years of foreign policy experience, including 10 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ***snark***
But wait, you say! What about the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, isn't he a Shi'a? Well, yes, that's true, he IS a Shi'a. And he IS a religious Muslim. But he's not a theocrat; in fact, Maliki's Dawa Party believes that power rests with the people, not with the clerics. This position actually helped lead to the development of a splinter movement, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SCIRI). It also has contributed to violent clashes between Maliki's government and the forces of Muqtada al Sadr, who apparently really DOES want to "create an Islamic theocracy in Iraq," modeled on Iran. Whatever, you say, it's so complicated, who cares? Well, maybe, except that if you claim to be an expert on this stuff, you should know what you're talking about.
Major Screwup #3
Connolly says:
There's a reason why the United States has been protecting the Kurdish north since the first Iraq war, since 17 years ago, because otherwise the Sunnis and the Shi'as would have been at each others' throats and at the Kurds' throats.
My god, where do we even start here? How about with a few FACTS:
*The northern Iraqi "no-fly zone" extended from the 36th parallel northwards in the Kurdish part of the country. It was "initially part of Operation Provide Comfort relief operations to a persecuted Kurdish minority in Iraq, and was followed on by Operation Northern Watch."
*Why was the northern no-fly zone set up? Here's the history:
When Operation Desert Storm ended in 1991, the safety of Kurds who were fleeing from Iraqi persecution from the south became an issue, and Operation Provide Comfort began. This operation essentially created a Northern NFZ to Iraqi military aircraft. The operation provided the Kurdish population with humanitarian aid and reassurance of safe skies.
Note: the formation of the Kurdish no fly zone had essentially NOTHING to do with what Gerry Connolly's talking about. Connolly says, "otherwise the Sunnis and the Shi'as would have been at each others' throats." Uh, uh, uh...Gerry? What does that have to do with the NORTHERN no fly zone to protect the KURDS?!? Right, nothing. As to the "Sunnis and Shi'as" being "at the Kurds' throats," Connolly IS correct about the Sunnis. But the Shi'as (should be "Shi'ites," by the way)? If I recall correctly, they were a bit...er, preoccupied with fighting -- and sometimes getting massacred -- by Saddam's Sunni Ba'athist goons. It's not like they were exactly in a position to move northward and attack the Kurds, even if they had wanted to do so (which they didn't). So what is Gerry Connolly talking about? Who knows, but he's certainly not demonstrating any expertise on an area he claims as a core competency -- foreign policy.
Why is any of this important? Am I just nitpicking? Well, look, here's the thing: if Gerry Connolly didn't go around making such grandiose claims for his foreign policy expertise, I'd probably just give him a pass. But he DOES go around constantly making grandiose claims for his foreign policy knowledge, strongly implying that nobody else running for the 11th CD Democratic nomination has that knowledge.
Uh, Gerry? What about Doug Denneny, who frankly has more knowledge about Iraq in his pinky (he served there and has studied the region) than you do in your entire body? What about Leslie Byrne, who despite not having "10 years on the Foreign Relations Committee," somehow manages to understand the Iraq situation better than you appear to (no wonder why Jim Webb endorsed her, not you)?
More broadly, this cuts to Gerry Connolly's character, qualifications and accomplishments in a number of areas. There's still no proof, for instance, of his claims that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. There's also absolutely no evidence to support Gerry Connolly's claim that he is the only candidate running this year who can hold the seat for the Democrats. To the contrary, Leslie Byrne won the 11th CD in 2005. Also, most national political analysts believe that the 11th CD is almost certain to go Democratic this year, following the retirement of Tom Davis. That analysis doesn't change whether Gerry Conolly's the nominee, Leslie Byrne's the nominee, or Doug Denneny's the nominee for that matter.
Speaking of Doug Denneny, here's a thought for people who may not be willing to vote for Leslie Byrne for whatever reason but don't want to vote for Gerry Connolly either: vote for Denneny, he's an impressive guy who will make a fine Congressman some day. Even better, reconsider and vote for Leslie Byrne! Whatever you do, though, I urge you not to vote for someone who claims to be a foreign policy expert but doesn't know what he's talking about on the #1 foreign policy issue of our day - Iraq.
Example: 1936 - "we must stop Franco in Spain to prevent another Fascist regime" - obviously not saying Spain already had a Fascist regime before the war, just saying that there already were several in the region.
If you look at that first statement, he just says "another," not "a successive" or anything to say he was specifically referring to Saddam.
Terrible candidate? yes. Clueless? yep. Major screwup? I've seen worse.
Then again, George Allen might have just been referring to S.R. Sidarth's "mohawk."
Just trying to give him credit where due.
Also, in fairness to him on point #2, Basra and southern Iraq have been, until recently, almost entirely their own Shi'a theocracy, isolated from the government.
I'm a Leslie supporter, but I think this is kind of unfairly nitpicking Gerry a little bit.
The idea that toppling Hussein would lead to a second Iran runs so old and so deep that Tom Clancy even wrote a book about it (back when he was writing his own books).
Gerry's not the most articulate guy in the world, but he's not saying anything particularly controversial or new with this particular line.
I mean, come on, my friend. If Legacy of Marshall immediately realized he meant Iran, and code immediately realized he meant Iran, and I immediately realized he meant Iran, couldn't we acknowledge that maybe the problem isn't specifically what Gerry said, but how you misinterpretted it? Stick with the argument that works, rather than defending the one that doesn't.