The question is not whether we are screwed, but how long will we be screwed for. There is not gonna be a happy, or even half-sad ending to this. Given that, I say get out of there now, take a PR hit. It is better than spending another $200 billion, then getting out of there and taking a PR hit. There is NO course, thus no sense of keep going.
NBC, CNN now calling it a Civil War. Washington Post reports a Marine analysis that says the US military cannot win in Al-Anbar. NYTimes reports the insurgency is self-financing. This is the week of the tipping point. You can feel it among people who are paying attention and you can see it on TV, and God, is it depressingly clear. In case you didn't know it, Iraq is lost. Do what we can for those that helped us, but get out of there as soon as logistically possible. Shift resources to Afghanistan... if we lose there, we will eventually be fighting there again. Of course, anything we do is subject to the whimsy of our President, who regrettably has more will then sense.
It isn't the same at all. Look at a map. The only "friendly" part of Iraq, the Kurdish area, or "Kurdistan," is surrounded by an ally of ours who will not stand for a real Kurdistan, regardless of how we feel about it, and the rest of the country is bordered by Syria, an enemy, Iran, an enemy (and both countries are enemies of the Kurds, as well), Jordan, which is powerless, and can do little, Kuwait, which is a tiny state that already has US bases, and Saudi Arabia... a strong supporter of the most fanatical brand of Islam, and a country we have essentially pulled out of. How would we fly into bases in Kurdistan? Through Turkey? Remember, they don't want Kurdistan to exist, and neither do the Shia and the Sunnis of Iraq. Over the rest of Iraq, which is very likely to be our enemy, in whatever form it becomes? Syria? Iran? With all due respect, those who believe we'll be in Iraq for decades, with major bases, need to take off the shades. Hey, considering all the blood and treasure Bush and company dumped into the place, I would like for the United States to come out of this with something to show for it, besides utter failure. In my opinion, it ain't happening. D&D. In Technicolor.
I think it turned out better of Vietnam on the whole that America lost there. Certainly a country under Nguyen Van Thieu or anyone associated with Diem would have been worse than what has happened to Vietnam. So if we had run and propped up that brutal dictatorship Vietnam would have suffered more than it did. Obviously for those who fought against the communists things were worse, but the nation as a whole ended up better because of America losing. Iraq is different. We took out the dictator, and aren't trying to support one, though certainly the govt. isn't and ideal of enlightment able to transform Iraq's people. It will be a real shame to lose this one, but if it is truly over, then why are we still there. We need to get out. We aren't really serving a purpose now. The bloodbath may get worse if we leave now. But I have seen no evidence to show that if we stay 5 years and leave then, that the result won't be the same. If that is going to be the result, then we need to get our troops out of the way sooner rather than later.
FB, I feel a bit conflicted. Yes, if we've "lost," we should get our people out, and I think we have. As I posted above, the fantasy of decades of major bases there is just that, a fantasy. My conflict is that the fool in the White House created this mess, tens of thousands of Iraqis are dying because of it, and a bunch of chumps (with all due respect to them), well-meaning, I'm sure, elected said fool to be President in '04. Now, I don't think Bush really won in 2000, but he did win in 2004. That means the United States reelected the reason this madness is happening. That puts the onus on "us" for the consequences. And just what do we do about that? At the very least, I can see a scenario where collective national guilt, ala Vietnam, leads to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis coming to the United States for political asylum. And I can see a protracted Dien Bien Phu at a handful of major bases, until we figure out that they are unsustainable. I can see immense suffering for the Iraqi people as the factions fight it out, and genocide that makes the Balkans look like a picnic. I can see most of the region hating us for what Bush, and by association, the American people did, and a resulting diminishment of US influence in the world's most strategic nexus. It really, truly sucks. Bush should be impeached for creating this. He won't be, and it is probably better for my political party if it doesn't happen, but he certainly deserves it. That, and to appear in front of something he took every opportunity to belittle, the World Court, for crimes against humanity, and that's pretty damned ironic. D&D. Sometimes, it's Depressing.
Tell them we are totally leaving in 18 months, and that they have until then to get their security forces in order. That would give them plenty of time to get a good goverment and security force in place. And it should ease tensions knowing we are leaving. Also, if we have to stay, build our base with the Kurds in the north...they don't have the same hatred of Americans that the middle and Southern portions of Iraq have. DD PS. I know Fatty was being funny, but I believe the point he was trying to make is that you can not win a war by being squeemish, or by half measures. The only way to truly win a war is to take the enemies will to fight away...ala Hiroshima, and Dresden....if we aren't willing to do that (and we shouldn't in the case of Iraq) then diplomacy is the only option.
I am all for making things better for the Iraqis. That is why I pointed out that this is different than Vietnam, in that if we lose it may not really be better for the nation as a whole. But it doesn't look like it is possible to make it better for them. And if it is going to get worse for them when we leave, no matter when that is, why wait and let more American troops die the interim all serving no purpose? The training of Iraqi security forces isn't going well, we aren't winning there. We will be resented for creating that mess, and we deserve it. Because we did create it. If leaving in five years would change the mess that we leave behind into something better then we owe it to the Iraqis to stay. I haven't seen any indication that will be the case. I think it is better to accept respsonsibility, and start to work on getting Afghanistan set up, secure, and aiding Iraq with as much humanitarian help as we can give. Publicize it, admite the faults we made with Iraq, and offer to work with others in any humanitarian way we can to help improve the mess. Start rehabbing our credibility now, and not wait around there for years more while nothing improves, and we have no plan for improvement.
Please! It's more important to build a $500 million presidential library! Not build a country. What's he going to put in it? 100,000 copies of My Pet Goat?
It seems to me that if we want the help and support that we once scoffed at, then we'll have to beg and conceed to several positions. And this is for the parties who don't actively wish us to fail. I don't see that give and take relationship coming out of Bush, nor do I think his supporters (the Chumps...) would ever go along with it because they still think its winnable. In fact, the reality is so depressing that I'm willing to bet the hawks will supress and replace it with some pipe dream that we should've went in badder and harder....the Vietnam could've been won argument. It's idiocy like this that makes me believe that the chances of landing a bad president is nothing more than a coin flip.
Oh it's better than that! Anybody want to go for double or nothing? ------------------------- The Cheney-ites play their card. From the NYT ... Is it true? Is Hezbollah training the Mahdi Army? I have no idea. And regrettably, under current management, the fact that senior intelligence officials or senior administration officials say it, really doesn't mean much one way or another. It certainly wouldn't be particularly shocking if one radical Shia para-military (actually not that 'para') backed by Iran had ties to Iraqi Shia in the south who also have close ties to Iran. Everybody's enemy's enemy is a friend. We do know the Israelis are knee-deep in Iraqi Kurdistan, right? The truth or falsity of this new intel from the same sources of the reliably bogus intel of recent years, though, seems of secondary interest to the debate that's getting set up. It's a recipe and the argument for staying in Iraq permanently. We can't get out because getting out means coming to an accomodation with Iran and Syria who've already been meddling in Iraq. If we're trying to overthrow the Iranian government -- which we've said we are -- is it greatly surprising that they're either having or allowing their proxies to help train the Iraqi militia which is helping pin us down in Iraq? That doesn't mean it's good or bad, only that it's hardly unexpected. And it brings us back to the key question: what's our goal in Iraq. Not what it may or may not have been three years ago. But what is it right now? Is being in Iraq making us more or less secure? Do we want to stay there indefinitely or do we want to began the process of leaving in such a way as to leave as stable and safe a situation as possible? Those are the key questions. Letting a purported connection between Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army drive our thinking is just another way of saying we want to stay forever because if we don't Iran will have won. The Times quotes former NSC official Flynt Leverett saying: “That sound to me a little bit strained. I have a hard time thinking it is a really significant piece of what we are seeing play out on the ground with the various Shiite militia forces.” I think he has it just right. -- Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ The full NYTs article... Hezbollah Said to Help Shiite Army in Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/w...ccc5f9cab&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Things must not be going too well. Seems Maliki didn't take too kindly to the Times' article this morning... The White House says that President Bush's talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have been put off until tomorrow, wires services report. http://www.cnn.com/
US to send 3500 more troops to the meat grinder early next year. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
Or, as more likely seems... Stay the Course... _______________ The President Takes Charge on Iraq On Scene: As Bush prepares for a much-anticipated meeting with his counterpart in Baghdad, the White House wants to make clear that James Baker is not calling the shots By MIKE ALLEN/TALLINN, ESTONIA http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,1563581,00.html Get used to seeing the Four Seasons Amman. That's the site of Thursday's breakfast and news conference for President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the U.S. networks are sending their news anchors there, ensuring massive coverage of an event that the White House has said is unlikely to produce any major announcement or development. But the White House, which is eager to show that the President is focused intently on Iraq, is welcoming the coverage. On the second day of a four-day trip abroad, Bush said in Estonia on Tuesday morning that he plans to bring up the current spate of violence, which is so fierce that NBC News this week began using the term "civil war" when reporting on the conflict. "My question to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed?" Bush said at a news conference at the ornate Bank of Estonia, this Baltic nation's central bank. "What is the strategy for dealing with the sectarian violence? I will assure him that we will do everything in our power to make sure that they are able to establish a safe haven in Iraq. I will ask him what is required and what is your strategy to be a country which can govern itself and sustain itself." Perhaps wisely, Bush is not offering himself as the Answer Man. Instead, his aim is to remind Iraqis that he wants to support them in solving their problems, not taking ownership of them. National Security Adviser Steve Hadley told reporters on Air Force One on the way to Estonia that Bush will be a good listener at the meeting. "We're not at the point where the President is going to be in a position to lay out a comprehensive plan at this point," Hadley said. Instead, Republican officials have said, the President plans to announce "a way forward" for Iraq in coming weeks based on input from Congress, an administration-wide review and the Baker commission. Bush's aides have begun to chafe at the ideas that Baker is needed as some sort of savior for Iraq. Hadley made it clear that the President hopes his Jordan foray will erase any such notion. "It's important, I think," Hadley said, "for the President to send the message to Prime Minister Maliki that while he is listening to all of these voices for ideas, is open to ideas, that in the end of the day to reassure Prime Minister Maliki that it is the President who will be crafting the way forward on Iraq and to reassure Prime Minister Maliki it will be done in a way that is cooperative with Iraq, rather than imposed on Iraq." In other words: Baker is a consultant, not calling the shots. Asked about all the diplomatic and military crises facing the administration after the drubbing Republicans took in the midterm congressional elections, Hadley said the President is "a very resilient guy" who has taken to heart his own message that the struggle against terrorism will be long. "Look," Hadley said, "it's a new Middle East that is emerging. And I think he sees it as a real opportunity, but also [its] challenges." The first question at the news conference was about the term "civil war," which Bush continues to reject, saying there is a lot of "speculation" at a time when terrorists had vowed to foment sectarian violence. Hadley, while also refusing to accept the term "civil war," finally said: "It is what it is." It was a step toward bluntness at a time when good news for the President is in short supply. In Jordan, his team hopes, he'll once again show himself to be in command.
