A Wise Viewpoint Found In The New York Times (Really!)

[MichaelC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/opinion/24FRIE.html

August 24, 2003
Fighting 'The Big One'
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

In the wake of the bombing of the U.N. office in Baghdad, some "terrorism experts" (By the way, how do you get to be a terrorism expert? Can you get a B.A. in terrorism or do you just have to appear on Fox News?) have argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a failure because all it's doing is attracting terrorists to Iraq and generating more hatred toward America.

I have no doubt that the U.S. presence in Iraq is attracting all sorts of terrorists and Islamists to oppose the U.S. I also have no doubt that politicians and intellectuals in the nearby Arab states are rooting against America in Iraq because they want Arabs and the world to believe that the corrupt autocracies that have so long dominated Arab life, and failed to deliver for their people, are the best anyone can hope for.

But I totally disagree that this is a sign that everything is going wrong in Iraq. The truth is exactly the opposite.

We are attracting all these opponents to Iraq because they understand this war is The Big One. They don't believe their own propaganda. They know this is not a war for oil. They know this is a war over ideas and values and governance. They know this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

You'd think from listening to America's European and Arab critics that we'd upset some bucolic native culture and natural harmony in Iraq, as if the Baath Party were some colorful local tribe out of National Geographic. Alas, our opponents in Iraq, and their fellow travelers, know otherwise. They know they represent various forms of clan and gang rule, and various forms of religious and secular totalitarianism — from Talibanism to Baathism. And they know that they need external enemies to thrive and justify imposing their demented visions.

In short, America's opponents know just what's at stake in the postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat America's ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose to America there, lose everywhere.

One of the most interesting conversations I had in Baghdad was with Muhammed A. al-Da'mi, a literature professor at Baghdad University and author of "Arabian Mirrors and Western Soothsayers." He has spent a lifetime studying the interactions between East and West. "Cultures can't be closed on themselves for long without paying a price," he explained. "But ours has been a vestigial and closed culture for many years now. The West needed us in the past and now we need it. This is the circle of history. Essentially [what you are seeing here] is a cultural collision. . . . I am optimistic insofar as I believe that my country — and I am a pan-Arab nationalist — is going to benefit from this encounter with the more advanced society, and we are going pay at the same time. . . . Your experience in Iraq is going to create two reactions: one is hypersensitivity, led by the Islamists, and the other is welcoming, led by the secularists. [But you have to understand] that what you are doing is a penetration of one culture into another. If you succeed here, Iraq could change the habits and customs of the people in the whole area."

So, the terrorists get it. Iraqi liberals get it. The Bush team talks as if it gets it, but it doesn't act like it. The Bush team tells us, rightly, that this nation-building project is the equivalent of Germany in 1945, and yet, so far, it has approached the postwar in Iraq as if it's Grenada in 1982.

We may fail, but not because we have attracted terrorists who understand what's at stake in Iraq. We may fail because of the utter incompetence with which the Pentagon leadership has handled the postwar. (We don't even have enough translators there, let alone M.P.'s, and the media network we've set up there to talk to Iraqis is so bad we'd be better off buying ads on Al Jazeera.) We may fail because the Bush team thinks it can fight The Big One in the Middle East — while cutting taxes at home, shrinking the U.S. Army, changing the tax code to encourage Americans to buy gas-guzzling cars that make us more dependent on Mideast oil and by gratuitously alienating allies.
We may fail because to win The Big One, we need an American public, and allies, ready to pay any price and bear any burden, but we have a president unable or unwilling to summon either.

[takeo]

They know this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

hahaha!
Listen, Iraqi are intelligent people, they know what the West is about, it's not their first encounter with the western world ( remember brittish colonisation). And they know as well that democracy and democratic values can never be imposed on them by a foreign power, certainly not by a power that is handing out its oil-industry to American and Brittish companies, as in the good old times of brittish colonialism and western puppets. most iraqi know what's the real reason behind the us-invasion, certainly not only supporters of Saddam.

So far the us only succeeded in making the various fundamentalists (= opponents of the secular ba'athist regime) very strong and turning the iraqi society in a hostile one. my iraqi friends told me that nowadays women don't dare to go on the street without a headcover, whereas in times of Saddam many women didn't care. retributions against the christian minority (priviliged under Saddam) are rive and the tentions between Kurds, turkmens and Arabs have never been higher. Americans are naive if they believe that kurds will ever again accept to be part of a united Iraq and if they believe that Iran-supported fundamentalists will ever accept a laic democracy (not that this is the goal of the bush-administration, they prefere a puppet-administration guided trough washington)

[danholo]

tak,

So like Tom Friedman you have visited Iraq during the occupation several times and actually had contact with the people living there.

Friedman, as far as I know, is one of the foremost people advocating peace and democracy for Arab states and a fair solution to the Israeli-Arab problem. But of course you must know more then him!

[takeo]

I visited Iraq some years ago and have iraqi friends living in Iraq who did sent a few mails during the last months.
Yes, Friedman visited Iraq for a few days, most likely accompanied by some American soldiers and not speaking a word of Arab, so what?

Friedman, as far as I know, is one of the foremost people advocating peace and democracy for Arab states and a fair solution to the Israeli-Arab problem. But of course you must know more then him!

friedman indeed isn't a real hawk but that doesn't mean that he fully understands the situation in Iraq, his opinion is far too optimistic and ignores some hard realities in the area as well as the real goals of the bush-administration. He conveniently "forgets" the history of the US and GB in this area. By the way didn't Friedman support the embargo against Iraq for many years?

[danholo]

Starting From Scratch
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


s I was riding back from the U.N. office in Baghdad a few days ago, I came to an intersection where an Iraqi civilian in a brown robe was directing traffic. I don't know whether he was a good samaritan or simply out of his mind, but he had a big smile on his face and was waving cars here and there with the flourish of a symphony conductor. Some cars obeyed his directives, and others didn't (there are still virtually no working stoplights in Baghdad), but he was definitely better than nothing — and he was definitely having a good time.

This man came to mind as I thought about the debate over whether we have enough troops in Iraq. The truth is, we don't even have enough people to direct traffic. This troops issue, though, is more complicated than it seems — because it's not just about numbers. No, what we need in Iraq today is something more complex: we need the right mentality, the right Iraqi government and the right troops. Let me explain.

Let's start with mentality. We are not "rebuilding" Iraq. We are "building" a new Iraq — from scratch. Not only has Saddam Hussein's army, party and bureaucracy collapsed, but so, too, has the internal balance between Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, which was held together by Saddam's iron fist. Also, the reporting on Iraq under Saddam rarely conveyed how poor and rundown Saddam had made it. Iraq today is the Arab Liberia. In short, Iraq is not a vase that we broke to remove the rancid water inside, and now we just need to glue it back together. We have to build a whole new vase. We have to dig the clay, mix it, shape it, harden it and paint it. (This is going to cost so much more than President Bush has told us.)

Which leads to the second point. Yes, we need more boots on the ground, but we also need the right mix: military police, experts in civilian affairs and officers who know how to innovate. Sure, there is still a guerrilla war to be won, but the main task today for U.S. soldiers in Iraq is political: helping towns get organized, opening schools and managing the simmering tensions between, and within, different ethnic groups. If Bulgarian or Polish troops can help do that, bring 'em on. If not, stay home.

Just ask Col. Ralph Baker, commander of the Second Brigade, who oversees two Baghdad districts. He and his officers have been conducting informal elections for local councils and getting neighborhoods to nominate their own trusted police.

"First we taught them how to run a meeting," he told me in his Baghdad office. "We had to teach them how to have an agenda. So instead of having this sort of group dialogue with no form, which they were used to, you now see them in council meetings raising their hands to speak. They get five minutes per member. It's basic P.T.A. stuff. We've taught them how to motion ideas and vote on them. . . . I have them prioritizing every school in their districts — which they want fixed first. I have to build credibility by making sure that every time they establish a priority, it gets done. That helps them establish credibility with their constituents. . . . There is a big education process going on here that is democratically founded. The faster we get Iraqis taking responsibility, the faster we get out of here."

And that leads to the third point: we need to get the 25-person Iraqi Governing Council to do three things — now. It must name a cabinet, so Iraqis are running every ministry; announce a 300,000-person jobs program, so people see some tangible benefits delivered by their own government; and offer to immediately rehire any Iraqi Army soldier who wants to serve in the new army, as long as he was not involved in Saddam's crimes. It was a huge — huge — mistake to disband the Iraqi Army and put all those unemployed soldiers on the streets, without enough U.S. troops to take their place.

Together, all of this would put much more of an Iraqi face on the government and security apparatus, and begin to reclaim the mantle of Iraqi nationalism for the new government, taking it away from Saddam loyalists — who are trying to make a comeback under the phony banner of liberating Iraq from foreign occupation.

Again, I have to repeat the dictum of Harvard's president, Larry Summers: "In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car." Most Iraqis still feel they are renting their own country — first from Saddam and now from us. They have to be given ownership. If the Bush team is ready to put in the time, energy and money to make that happen — great. But if not, it's going to have to make the necessary compromises to bring in the U.N. and the international community to help.

New York Times

[danholo]

Originally posted by takeo
I visited Iraq some years ago and have iraqi friends living in Iraq who did sent a few mails during the last months.
Yes, Friedman visited Iraq for a few days, most likely accompanied by some American soldiers and not speaking a word of Arab, so what?

Wrong. Friedman visits the Middle East often and is there right now - it is his livelihood. He is in Iraq as we speak writing columns about his experiences.

friedman indeed isn't a real hawk but that doesn't mean that he fully understands the situation in Iraq,

Friedman isn't a hawk at all. If you wouldn't be such an leftists extremist you would notice that.

As far as I know you have no idea what the situation in Iraq is at all.

his opinion is far too optimistic

Well at least he has dreams for a better future for the Middle East unlike you, who wastes all his energy just to rant on how evil the US is but not trying to improve the situation one bit.

Actually I'm pretty sure you want the US to fail in its mission.

and ignores some hard realities in the area as well as the real goals of the bush-administration.

Well since you seem to know everything about the Bush-administration and its "real goals" why do you even bother coming here?

He conveniently "forgets" the history of the US and GB in this area.

And conveniently you don't. You should look towards the future instead of being stuck in the past.

By the way didn't Friedman support the embargo against Iraq for many years?

I have no idea. I pretty sure he wanted Saddam and every other dictator ousted instead. Unlike you, he actually cares what happens in the Middle East.

So you didn't support the embargo? You would've rather had Saddam do whatever he pleased? If there wasn't any embargo that would've been the alternative. I see you would've been completely content on wether Saddam terrorized his people or not.

[Mediocrates]

Ok that's laudable but let's get practical. What is built or rebuilt, what is success, what does it look like? What are the criteria and how do we when it's done or done enough. What's not important to do and what is not? And who should do it even if they do a really bad job. Who owns this problem?

Did it suprise anyone yesterday that the published root causes of the Columbia wreck had nothing to do with widgets or torque or wiring or who checked what and when and what got signed off? No they had to do with organization, goals, structure, command hierarchy, 'atmosphere', timelines, accountability. Those are the kinds of brutally hard questions you have to ask if you want to do thing one about Iraq. And they're hard because they challenge you to give up most of your closely held sacred beliefs and trusts. They are hard because they make people admit out loud that they are incompetant or vain or petty. And wost of all, they rarely work.

In a recent paper I think in Foreign Affairs, the chronology of State Building was laid out. It's not pretty. It works maybe 1 out of 4 attempts. So clearly the problem, if this were a B School case study is such that no one is asking the really hard questions. No one is going back and with utter indifference to hurt feelings, turf and unquestioned truths, knocking over everything and starting from the beginning. And that is the only way this will work.

[danholo]

What were the success criteria of Germany and Japan, if there were any?

[Mediocrates]

Well pretty early on the Germans knew that they would have to hold elections around 1949 but not much earlier. They knew that there would no Versailles war debt impositions and that the debt slate for the most part would be wiped clean. They knew that War Crimes trials would be held by "X" date and who was charged.

They knew that the country would be partitioned and that refugee issues were moot. They knew which factories had to be brought on line first and which did not. They knew that their day to day political destiny would be out of their hands for years.

The Japanese knew all of this plus they knew that the Emperor was a man and not a god. They knew they really didn't have a voice immediately in their own governance and that the ultimate form of government would be something they hadn't seen and were going to live with whether the old guard cared to or not.

They all knew that 'denazification' was real and that the consequences were death or long prison terms and there was no appeal. They knew that life would suck for years and the alternative was worse. They were beaten and broken and they knew it and they understood that uprisings would be dealt with in the most heavy handed and perfunctory way possible. They knew they had a boot in their neck grinding their mugs in the dirt for as long as it took for them to stop struggling.

Then when they stopped and looked around they saw it to their own advantage to cooperate in rebuilding. It's like dealing with drug addicts. If they never tell you 'I'm sorry' and mean it, you're wasting your time. So perhaps the Iraqi people have to just get over themselves admit they screwed up, they went along with Saddam, they lost, got their teeth smashed in and move on. None of this shaking their impotent fists at the sky nonsense.

And Honestly? We're too passive with all of these terrorist attacks. Find the people who did it. Shoot them in public. Imprison everyone who helped them for at least a year. Put up a great big ass sign that says clearly in Arabic:

"We will turn the lights and water on when you stop trying to kill us and each other. - Paul Bremer"

[takeo]

Wrong. Friedman visits the Middle East often and is there right now - it is his livelihood. He is in Iraq as we speak writing columns about his experiences.

I doubt he is as experienced in the middle east as is Robert Fisk... who comes to completely different conclusions...

Friedman isn't a hawk at all. If you wouldn't be such an leftists extremist you would notice that.

well, it depends, perhaps he isn't a hawk on all issues, but he certainly was among the defenders of this invasion of Iraq.

As far as I know you have no idea what the situation in Iraq is at all.

more than you i think, for the current devellopment i can only rely on the media, from all kinds of political tendencies, and an occasional message from iraqi friends. But that's still more than you can rely on, right?

Well at least he has dreams for a better future for the Middle East unlike you, who wastes all his energy just to rant on how evil the US is but not trying to improve the situation one bit.

I was always advocating an end to the embargo for years and an improvement of the diplomatic relations, while you, for years, prefered far more destructive masures like embargo and war. Nowadays after the us-occupation, the only improvement we can hope for is if the us-troops leave or transfer autority to the un, unless this happens there is no perspective ofr Iraq, and the war will go on.

Actually I'm pretty sure you want the US to fail in its mission.

of course, so want the overwhelming majority of the Europe, the world and especially the Arab world. The US invaded Iraq with a false excuse and without international legitimation and now they're punished for this crime. it's fair and the war will go on.

Well since you seem to know everything about the Bush-administration and its "real goals" why do you even bother coming here?

I don't know everything about it, and this forum is very interesting to gather information on "the other side". Sometimes also I have changed and questioned my own position, something which is unusual for most of you. For example concerning the israeli-palestinian conflict, but not concerning the Iraq-issue, which is all too obvious. amasing that you still believe your own propaganda even when it has been prooved Bush and blair were liers.

And conveniently you don't. You should look towards the future instead of being stuck in the past.

funny that you say so. Who legitimised the assault on iraq by referring to the invasion of kouweit more than a decade ago? Who is constantly referring to Israel's undeniable right to the Westbank since Jews used to live there some 2000 years ago?

I have no idea. I pretty sure he wanted Saddam and every other dictator ousted instead. Unlike you, he actually cares what happens in the Middle East.

of course he cares, he wants to bring the entire strategic region under us geo-political controll. But i very much doubt if he cares for the faith of the iraqi people. If not he wouldn't have supported an embargo for over a decade and wouldn't have invaded and occupied Iraq.
The US doesn't care at to oust every dictator, on the contrary i can give you a list of over a dozen dictators supported or even installed by the us............

So you didn't support the embargo? You would've rather had Saddam do whatever he pleased? If there wasn't any embargo that would've been the alternative. I see you would've been completely content on wether Saddam terrorized his people or not.

BS, the embargo didn't hurt Saddam personally, it made his friends rich and provided him with a good excuse to explain everything going wrong in iraq, it hurt the iraqi people. The embargo made Saddam more popular and the us less popular than ever in the Arab world, and it may also explain the latest explosion at the un-headquarters (as officially it was a un-embargo, altough only the us and GB wanted to continue it)
two directors of food-for-oil resigned because they couldn't live with the murderous embargo, and especifically blamed the us and GB for maintaining this embargo.

[takeo]

Iraq and Germany or japan are two totally unrelated situations. Japan and Germany declared war against the entire world and were worldpowers, while the us declared war against a small thirth-world country. so of course the situation is much more similar to the freedomstruggle the colonised world conducted against the European nations, for example Vietnam resisting French recolonisation after WWII. Iraqi, like the vietnamese and unlike the japanese and germans, have nothing to loose.

Then when they stopped and looked around they saw it to their own advantage to cooperate in rebuilding. It's like dealing with drug addicts. If they never tell you 'I'm sorry' and mean it, you're wasting your time. So perhaps the Iraqi people have to just get over themselves admit they screwed up, they went along with Saddam, they lost, got their teeth smashed in and move on. None of this shaking their impotent fists at the sky nonsense.

as I said the iraqi people won't just accept a us-foreign domination. They have no reason to do so either, and if they continue the resistance and many more Americans die, sooner or later the us will pull back its troops.

And Honestly? We're too passive with all of these terrorist attacks. Find the people who did it. Shoot them in public. Imprison everyone who helped them for at least a year. Put up a great big ass sign that says clearly in Arabic:"We will turn the lights and water on when you stop trying to kill us and each other. - Paul Bremer"

this will only contribute to the general anti-American feeling, which will led the entire country to join the resistance, the shiites as well, and when this happens the us is lost. it's the israeli approach, which clearly does only generate the inverse result.

[danholo]

Originally posted by takeo
I doubt he is as experienced in the middle east as is Robert Fisk... who comes to completely different conclusions...

You're right. Tom Friedman doesn't hate anyone except Arab dictators unlike Fisk who absolutely loathes Israel and everything it stands for.

well, it depends, perhaps he isn't a hawk on all issues, but he certainly was among the defenders of this invasion of Iraq.

So was I. I wanted to see Saddam out of there as more as he did.

more than you i think, for the current devellopment i can only rely on the media, from all kinds of political tendencies, and an occasional message from iraqi friends. But that's still more than you can rely on, right?

I bet you and I watch the same media.

I was always advocating an end to the embargo for years and an improvement of the diplomatic relations, while you, for years, prefered far more destructive masures like embargo and war.

If you didn't know, I'm young. So I haven't preferred anything for years. But I don't support diplomacy with self-centered murderous lunatics. You seem to think that a pacifist approach works any time - it doesn't.

Nowadays after the us-occupation, the only improvement we can hope for is if the us-troops leave or transfer autority to the un, unless this happens there is no perspective ofr Iraq, and the war will go on.

Well since you think that the US stands for everything that's evil in your eyes no wonder you think that way.

of course, so want the overwhelming majority of the Europe, the world and especially the Arab world. The US invaded Iraq with a false excuse and without international legitimation and now they're punished for this crime. it's fair and the war will go on.

So you want Iraqis to suffer even more. That will be the result when the US leaves. How nice and compassionate of you.




I don't know everything about it, and this forum is very interesting to gather information on "the other side".

Well then. I suggest you refrain from posting your conspiracy theories on this board. It sure shows us the "other side".

Sometimes also I have changed and questioned my own position, something which is unusual for most of you.

Interesting. Like what? I haven't noticed even one thing. However you have changed some viewpoints of mine, I must admit.

amasing that you still believe your own propaganda even when it has been prooved Bush and blair were liers.

Of course I believe my own propaganda. I'm the one that comes up with it. However I do staunchly support everyone in the news who criticizes Bush and his policies. I never liked him, never will. But I did agree with the ousting of Saddam, and the possible rebuilding of that country.
I believe Bush will do that because he has to. There is no other alternative, Bush must know this, no matter how much a liar he might be.

funny that you say so. Who legitimised the assault on iraq by referring to the invasion of kouweit more than a decade ago?

My legitimation for invading Iraq was removing a brutal regime. I never cared about the WMD factor although that was a good reason to go in.

Who is constantly referring to Israel's undeniable right to the Westbank since Jews used to live there some 2000 years ago?

I actually do accept the undeniable right for Jews to the Westbank. Me and you included. However I don't constantly refer to it. I don't even remember when I did that las.

But I'm willing to see Israel make painful concessions for peace - since that's my main goal here. History is important but when it comes to issues where the perpetrator, in the past, tries to correct his mistakes, history has no weight over that process except to know what to fix.




of course he cares, he wants to bring the entire strategic region under us geo-political controll. But i very much doubt if he cares for the faith of the iraqi people. If not he wouldn't have supported an embargo for over a decade and wouldn't have invaded and occupied Iraq.

We are talking about Tom Friedman here, aren't we? I don't know where the hell you get all this bullcrap from but his words are exactly on the contrary.
If you'd read what he writes like his books. Or see the recent program he made for the Discovery channel you would think of him very differently. He advocates democracy and freedom in the Middle East because that's what most of the population over there desire.

The US doesn't care at to oust every dictator, on the contrary i can give you a list of over a dozen dictators supported or even installed by the us............

I belive Mugabe has no place or political power in the Middle East, does he? In the long run ousting Saddam and bringing Iraq into the light might initate a chain reaction within the Arab world for revolution. This is what Friedman wants to see - or at least that's what he says. If you've read some kind of propaganda conspiracy theory text about him, lets say, by the hater Robert Fisk for example, I don't wonder...



BS, the embargo didn't hurt Saddam personally, it made his friends rich and provided him with a good excuse to explain everything going wrong in iraq, it hurt the iraqi people.

Exactly. The world should've killed this guy when they had the chance in 1991.

The embargo made Saddam more popular and the us less popular than ever in the Arab world,

Twisted. Isn't it?

and it may also explain the latest explosion at the un-headquarters (as officially it was a un-embargo, altough only the us and GB wanted to continue it)

And you wanted total freedoms for Saddam. How nice of you.

two directors of food-for-oil resigned because they couldn't live with the murderous embargo, and especifically blamed the us and GB for maintaining this embargo.

I see they wanted Saddam in full power as well.

It's odd but it's a double-edged sword. They should've kicked Saddam's butt in 1991 if you ask me. Now it's done and people seem to just whine about it. I guess the Iraqis - and the world - really like tyranny. At least when they're not affected.

[michael]

Originally posted by danholo
[Friedman isn't a hawk at all. If you wouldn't be such an leftists extremist you would notice that.

I think it was Freidman at his most eloquent when he described his recipe for peace in Israel/Palestine. All that had to be done was to give "Ahmed a seat on the bus... and then he will limit his demands".

So danholo is right that Freidman is a dove in the conventional sense - he advocates views in line with US Government policy. Wether or not this is a position that is likely to lead to peace or succesful nation building is another matter.

[michael]

Originally posted by danholo


two directors of food-for-oil resigned because they couldn't live with the murderous embargo, and especifically blamed the us and GB for maintaining this embargo.

I see they wanted Saddam in full power as well.

It's odd but it's a double-edged sword. They should've kicked Saddam's butt in 1991 if you ask me. Now it's done and people seem to just whine about it. I guess the Iraqis - and the world - really like tyranny. At least when they're not affected.

That brings it back quite nicely to the non-hawk Freidman. He helpfully explained in the NYT in 1991 that;
"the best of all possible worlds is an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein",
but given that this wasn't possible he'd just have to do.

So the US "wanted Saddam in full power as well"?
He wasn't so bad after all it seems. Better Saddam than another Shia revolution. But of course thats the crucial difference - a Shia uprising would have left the US out of the loop and hence Freidman the doves' acceptance of "iron fisted" Saddam.

Yes it is such a shame that some accept "tyranny...when they're not affected", though it seems in 1991 it wasn't the Iraqis who liked it that way.

[danholo]

I'm talking about those who were against invading Iraq - they probably accepted Saddam's tyrannical government as long as they were left alone. Sure seems that way since all of their solutions would have resulted in just that.

I'm not that familiar of the history of Iraq's relations with other countries and why they supported Saddam - however I do know that all will be better with Saddam gone.