Wednesday, January 10, 2007
THERE'S MORE SURGING IN DC THAN BAGHDAD
The President outlined his plan tonight, along the lines of the much discussed "surge" option. The comments required here on this plan can be brief and on the response by the Democratic Majority, I will get by with even less.
The President's intention to clear and secure Baghdad is a long overdue tactical move to address a problem that never should have occurred in the first place. In itself, this is appropriate and I have no doubt that, if it is planned and executed by the military without being required to cut operational corners to appease idiotic political concerns in Congress, they will succeed in doing so. Albeit with pockets of very bloody fighting with stay-behind suicide-terrorists (the al Qaida in Iraq leadership having long since decamped, no doubt). This will get the government of Iraq at least to the level of controlling its own capital city, most of the time.
The real question is more strategic: what do we have ready to implement as the next three steps after we " clear and hold"? This is the point of concern that will determine what progress, if any, becomes permanent. Simply buying time is not an appropriate answer. Changing the situation requires making very hard political choices in reference to Iraq's sectarian communities and regional diplomacy that "surging" will not allow the administration to ultimately escape. My vote is to throw in with the Kurds and cut a deal with the Shiites that creates a viable medium term, containment plan for an Anbar " Sunnistan" until the U.S. -backed tribals can chew up the nuttier elements. We don't need a city on the hill right now, just manageable levels of violence.
The Democrats have no ideas for what to do with Iraq and scant interest in dividing their party in an effort to find any, so they are limiting their blind opposition to empty gestures. If the Democrats really wanted to bug out of Iraq they'd be all for the surge in order to secure the capital so we could leave without the risk of the city imploding on our exiting soldiery like Blackhawk Down on the Euphrates.
Pelosi and company should be rooting for the Bush administration to get Iraq down to a low roar by 2008 or a possible Democratic president may find themselves in the same position as Nixon taking office after Tet.
SURGE LINKS -UPDATED AGAIN !!:
American Footprints -New!
Rightwing Nut House -New!
Middle East Perspectives -New!
Whirledview (PLS) -New!
Glittering Eye
Argghhh!
Armchair Generalist
Thomas P.M. Barnett
Global Guerillas
Counterterrorism Blog
The President outlined his plan tonight, along the lines of the much discussed "surge" option. The comments required here on this plan can be brief and on the response by the Democratic Majority, I will get by with even less.
The President's intention to clear and secure Baghdad is a long overdue tactical move to address a problem that never should have occurred in the first place. In itself, this is appropriate and I have no doubt that, if it is planned and executed by the military without being required to cut operational corners to appease idiotic political concerns in Congress, they will succeed in doing so. Albeit with pockets of very bloody fighting with stay-behind suicide-terrorists (the al Qaida in Iraq leadership having long since decamped, no doubt). This will get the government of Iraq at least to the level of controlling its own capital city, most of the time.
The real question is more strategic: what do we have ready to implement as the next three steps after we " clear and hold"? This is the point of concern that will determine what progress, if any, becomes permanent. Simply buying time is not an appropriate answer. Changing the situation requires making very hard political choices in reference to Iraq's sectarian communities and regional diplomacy that "surging" will not allow the administration to ultimately escape. My vote is to throw in with the Kurds and cut a deal with the Shiites that creates a viable medium term, containment plan for an Anbar " Sunnistan" until the U.S. -backed tribals can chew up the nuttier elements. We don't need a city on the hill right now, just manageable levels of violence.
The Democrats have no ideas for what to do with Iraq and scant interest in dividing their party in an effort to find any, so they are limiting their blind opposition to empty gestures. If the Democrats really wanted to bug out of Iraq they'd be all for the surge in order to secure the capital so we could leave without the risk of the city imploding on our exiting soldiery like Blackhawk Down on the Euphrates.
Pelosi and company should be rooting for the Bush administration to get Iraq down to a low roar by 2008 or a possible Democratic president may find themselves in the same position as Nixon taking office after Tet.
SURGE LINKS -UPDATED AGAIN !!:
American Footprints -New!
Rightwing Nut House -New!
Middle East Perspectives -New!
Whirledview (PLS) -New!
Glittering Eye
Argghhh!
Armchair Generalist
Thomas P.M. Barnett
Global Guerillas
Counterterrorism Blog
Small Wars Council
Bruce Kesler
American Future
MountainRunner & MountainRunner's "11 Steps"
Defense Tech
Don Surber
Dean Barnett
Kevin Drum
Comments:
<< Home
"The Democrats have no ideas for what to do with Iraq ..."
"... a possible Democratic president may find themselves in the same position as Nixon taking office after Tet."
The intellectual vacuum on all issues related to defense and security on the Donk side is pretty distressing.
Bush is basically doubling-up for one last roll of the dice. Either we get to something stable, pretty soon, like by November, the date he mentioned, or we lose the war, and we carry on having lost the war. One way or the other, it is over on his watch.
"... a possible Democratic president may find themselves in the same position as Nixon taking office after Tet."
The intellectual vacuum on all issues related to defense and security on the Donk side is pretty distressing.
Bush is basically doubling-up for one last roll of the dice. Either we get to something stable, pretty soon, like by November, the date he mentioned, or we lose the war, and we carry on having lost the war. One way or the other, it is over on his watch.
# posted by 
: Wednesday, 10 January, 2007
: Wednesday, 10 January, 2007
Rather silly criticism really. The opposition party by definition at this stage should be doing more or less what they are doing. Cheering the cretinous incompetence of the present American administration would be sheer idiocy. Should have done more earlier, perhaps the dim-witted fools in the American administration might have grasped something. Not bloody likely, but more useful than cheering - enabling incompetence rather.
As for losing the war, it is already lost, the Americans lost this war at least a year ago. You're rather in the Soviet position in Afghanistan c. 78-79; dim wittedly stumbling forward with more bombs on a pointless exercise in trying to avoid what is already true.
Pitiful, really. Rather like this idiotic suggestion of US backed "tribals" but I suppose grasping at imaginary straws is the only thing left, eh?
As for losing the war, it is already lost, the Americans lost this war at least a year ago. You're rather in the Soviet position in Afghanistan c. 78-79; dim wittedly stumbling forward with more bombs on a pointless exercise in trying to avoid what is already true.
Pitiful, really. Rather like this idiotic suggestion of US backed "tribals" but I suppose grasping at imaginary straws is the only thing left, eh?
# posted by : Thursday, 11 January, 2007
: Thursday, 11 January, 2007
The numbers of troops are too small to make any substantial difference in Iraq. This is esp. obvious considering the scale and results from our ops over the past 3 years. The military significance is not worth considering.
But the surge and the domestic debate that preceded it still deserve close study, as indicator of political life in late-Republic America.
As a tentative conclusion, the President can propose anything, no matter how absurd and it will not only be taken seriously -- but be applauded by otherwise intelligent folks.
It's another example of that timeless crowd dynamic, The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Yes, it’s the late-republic era in America.
But the surge and the domestic debate that preceded it still deserve close study, as indicator of political life in late-Republic America.
As a tentative conclusion, the President can propose anything, no matter how absurd and it will not only be taken seriously -- but be applauded by otherwise intelligent folks.
It's another example of that timeless crowd dynamic, The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Yes, it’s the late-republic era in America.
# posted by : Thursday, 11 January, 2007
: Thursday, 11 January, 2007
"Pelosi and company should be rooting for the Bush administration to get Iraq down to a low roar by 2008 or a possible Democratic president may find themselves in the same position as Nixon taking office after Tet."
I am also puzzled by your statements about the Dems. There are MORE than enough Dems with more or less the same views on Iraq, similar to Murtha - start the pull-out NOW, do it over a six-month (or more) period, retain a regional response force in Kuwait (or nearby) to keep Iran and Syria honest. What's so hard to understand?
I do think that the Dem's attempt to block a troop increase is not a good idea, but I understand the rationale. As for your Tet comment, here's the interesting thing. If you look at Nixon's polls in 1968-1969, he was consistently scoring in the high 60s-70 percent approval rating. The public was still largely behind the President and the war's execution at the end of 1969. Tet was only seen as a tipping point later in 1970-1971. Bush could only dream about being in Nixon's position after Tet.
I am also puzzled by your statements about the Dems. There are MORE than enough Dems with more or less the same views on Iraq, similar to Murtha - start the pull-out NOW, do it over a six-month (or more) period, retain a regional response force in Kuwait (or nearby) to keep Iran and Syria honest. What's so hard to understand?
I do think that the Dem's attempt to block a troop increase is not a good idea, but I understand the rationale. As for your Tet comment, here's the interesting thing. If you look at Nixon's polls in 1968-1969, he was consistently scoring in the high 60s-70 percent approval rating. The public was still largely behind the President and the war's execution at the end of 1969. Tet was only seen as a tipping point later in 1970-1971. Bush could only dream about being in Nixon's position after Tet.
Ok, first a few pragmatic questions and then some clarifications:
Who here is in favor of continuing doing "sweep" patrols of neighborhoods in Baghdad ?
Who here wants to have the U.S. military execute a fighting withdrawal from a never secured Baghdad as thousands of insurgents from all over Iraq stream into the city to take pot shots with RPG's at the " tail" of our Army ?
Anyone ?
To withdraw in good order requires leaving the city, it's main arteries and airport in secure hands, if only temporarily, unless you wish to shoot your way out of a major urban center. Abruptly bugging out and just leaving radically alters the political dynamic as fence-sitters rush to throw in with the local group with guns. Not smart to do that unless you are without any other choice.
In other words, this task has to be done regardless and if Bush was obstinately refusing to adopt a "surge" policy last night, Democrats would be demanding one today. They know it has to be done which is why the Dem
leadership doesn't want to really block that kind of move
Do I think " the surge" will turn Iraq around ? No - this is about stabilizing and slowing a descent unless the Iraqi government can enlist reliable forces to hold indefinitely what we take for them. I doubt that will happen.
I realize this should have been done quite some time ago -like 2004- to be useful; in fact I suggested as much on at least one occasion here.
The Tet Analogy has to do with Nixon inheriting LBJ's war, which very swiftly became "Nixon's war". A Democrat who inherits Iraq inherits the problems involved. Actually getting out is harder than it looks.
I'm not cheering the president.
The tribal thing is not my suggestion, it is an active policy in areas where tribal fighters have clashed with al Qaida fighters.
Who here is in favor of continuing doing "sweep" patrols of neighborhoods in Baghdad ?
Who here wants to have the U.S. military execute a fighting withdrawal from a never secured Baghdad as thousands of insurgents from all over Iraq stream into the city to take pot shots with RPG's at the " tail" of our Army ?
Anyone ?
To withdraw in good order requires leaving the city, it's main arteries and airport in secure hands, if only temporarily, unless you wish to shoot your way out of a major urban center. Abruptly bugging out and just leaving radically alters the political dynamic as fence-sitters rush to throw in with the local group with guns. Not smart to do that unless you are without any other choice.
In other words, this task has to be done regardless and if Bush was obstinately refusing to adopt a "surge" policy last night, Democrats would be demanding one today. They know it has to be done which is why the Dem
leadership doesn't want to really block that kind of move
Do I think " the surge" will turn Iraq around ? No - this is about stabilizing and slowing a descent unless the Iraqi government can enlist reliable forces to hold indefinitely what we take for them. I doubt that will happen.
I realize this should have been done quite some time ago -like 2004- to be useful; in fact I suggested as much on at least one occasion here.
The Tet Analogy has to do with Nixon inheriting LBJ's war, which very swiftly became "Nixon's war". A Democrat who inherits Iraq inherits the problems involved. Actually getting out is harder than it looks.
I'm not cheering the president.
The tribal thing is not my suggestion, it is an active policy in areas where tribal fighters have clashed with al Qaida fighters.
"The Tet Analogy has to do with Nixon inheriting LBJ's war, which very swiftly became "Nixon's war". A Democrat who inherits Iraq inherits the problems involved. Actually getting out is harder than it looks."
Well you're absolutely right there. I've heard some say that Bush is now deliberately foot-dragging to ensure that he doesn't get caught with the end of the war consequences. Not saying I agree with it, but that may be the results. Yes it would be in the Dems favor to finish this by 2008 - I think they still do have a viable strategy but they aren't going to be allowed to implement it prior to 2008 in any case.
Still question Vietnam as "Nixon's War." I always thought of it as LBJ's War (and therefore this will always be "Bush's War"). We need a "peace with dignity" candidate...
Well you're absolutely right there. I've heard some say that Bush is now deliberately foot-dragging to ensure that he doesn't get caught with the end of the war consequences. Not saying I agree with it, but that may be the results. Yes it would be in the Dems favor to finish this by 2008 - I think they still do have a viable strategy but they aren't going to be allowed to implement it prior to 2008 in any case.
Still question Vietnam as "Nixon's War." I always thought of it as LBJ's War (and therefore this will always be "Bush's War"). We need a "peace with dignity" candidate...
I was banned from american future so I don't go there anymore but they must be ecstatic. every day americans and arabs are being killed. this is the only known thing that brings them to "war" gasm and allows them to reproduce.
the speech was disgusting. 12-18 MORE months on top of the 4 YEARS of FAILURE? that IS an open ended commitment. "I'm not stealing this car i'm just borrowing it for 5 and a half years."
is there no accountability for the office of the president? Why wasn't he fired on 9/12? or katrina or any day in the last 4 years of this war that we were lied into.
Congress needs to cut the funding and we need to bring the troops home immediately.
the speech was disgusting. 12-18 MORE months on top of the 4 YEARS of FAILURE? that IS an open ended commitment. "I'm not stealing this car i'm just borrowing it for 5 and a half years."
is there no accountability for the office of the president? Why wasn't he fired on 9/12? or katrina or any day in the last 4 years of this war that we were lied into.
Congress needs to cut the funding and we need to bring the troops home immediately.
# posted by : Thursday, 11 January, 2007
: Thursday, 11 January, 2007
The tribal thing is not my suggestion, it is an active policy in areas where tribal fighters have clashed with al Qaida fighters.
Well, that is at once trivial and not what you wrote:
My vote is to throw in with the Kurds and cut a deal with the Shiites that creates a viable medium term, containment plan for an Anbar " Sunnistan" until the U.S. -backed tribals can chew up the nuttier elements. We don't need a city on the hill right now, just manageable levels of violence
You may have through some flight of idiocy managed to dupe yourself into thinking that the Sunni insurgency is primarily al Qaeda or that foreigners are actually an important component, however as this is not the case, you've zero chance in the context of a Shia-Suni Arab civil war, with likely a Kurd side engagement as Kurd versus Arab and Turkmens, that you will be able to hire tribal fighters to fight your war for you.
This statement underlines the idiocy behind your conception:
This will get the government of Iraq at least to the level of controlling its own capital city, most of the time.:
The government is the Shia militias. It is not a government in a national sense.
Well, that is at once trivial and not what you wrote:
My vote is to throw in with the Kurds and cut a deal with the Shiites that creates a viable medium term, containment plan for an Anbar " Sunnistan" until the U.S. -backed tribals can chew up the nuttier elements. We don't need a city on the hill right now, just manageable levels of violence
You may have through some flight of idiocy managed to dupe yourself into thinking that the Sunni insurgency is primarily al Qaeda or that foreigners are actually an important component, however as this is not the case, you've zero chance in the context of a Shia-Suni Arab civil war, with likely a Kurd side engagement as Kurd versus Arab and Turkmens, that you will be able to hire tribal fighters to fight your war for you.
This statement underlines the idiocy behind your conception:
This will get the government of Iraq at least to the level of controlling its own capital city, most of the time.:
The government is the Shia militias. It is not a government in a national sense.
# posted by : Thursday, 11 January, 2007
: Thursday, 11 January, 2007
Speeches by Bush tend to make Col de la Aqoul feisty:
"You may have through some flight of idiocy managed to dupe yourself into thinking that the Sunni insurgency is primarily al Qaeda or that foreigners are actually an important component"
No. If I'd had, I would have written something along the lines of " the insurgency is primarily al Qaida". Some elements of the insurgency are tractable. Some aren't. Perhaps the value of the tribals is nothing more than buying them off from making excess mayhem. I'm fine with that too.
"The government is the Shia militias. It is not a government in a national sense."
Except in that the Shia constitute a majority of the population and Iraq cannot be governed without at least their passive acceptance. As I said, cut a deal with their powerbrokers.
"You may have through some flight of idiocy managed to dupe yourself into thinking that the Sunni insurgency is primarily al Qaeda or that foreigners are actually an important component"
No. If I'd had, I would have written something along the lines of " the insurgency is primarily al Qaida". Some elements of the insurgency are tractable. Some aren't. Perhaps the value of the tribals is nothing more than buying them off from making excess mayhem. I'm fine with that too.
"The government is the Shia militias. It is not a government in a national sense."
Except in that the Shia constitute a majority of the population and Iraq cannot be governed without at least their passive acceptance. As I said, cut a deal with their powerbrokers.
1. "In other words, this task has to be done regardless and if Bush was obstinately refusing to adopt a "surge" policy last night, Democrats would be demanding one today."
2. "They know it has to be done which is why the Dem leadership doesn't want to really block that kind of move"
The first one of these seems to be a bit more knee-jerk partisanship than analysis. Well, I guess we can't analyze what has not happened! But there is a very big difference between a) surge leading to possible success or victory and b) surge in preparation for leaving as quickly as possible. I don't think we should equate these. Dems may be all for a surge, but a surge is not a surge is not a surge.
On the second point: No, I think the Dems are terrified that Bush will do what he damn well pleases anyway and any sort of effort to block it by blocking financing would look like they just don't care much about those soldiers Bush is using for his surge. Bush knows this.
-------
And on another point made: I do not believe this will be anything other than "Bush's war", unless his successor continues in his footsteps. If the successor is a Dem who has absolutely no idea or only fantasy ideas about what to do, that would be following in his footsteps. But a Republican who holds Bush's fantasy would be the same sort of successor.
2. "They know it has to be done which is why the Dem leadership doesn't want to really block that kind of move"
The first one of these seems to be a bit more knee-jerk partisanship than analysis. Well, I guess we can't analyze what has not happened! But there is a very big difference between a) surge leading to possible success or victory and b) surge in preparation for leaving as quickly as possible. I don't think we should equate these. Dems may be all for a surge, but a surge is not a surge is not a surge.
On the second point: No, I think the Dems are terrified that Bush will do what he damn well pleases anyway and any sort of effort to block it by blocking financing would look like they just don't care much about those soldiers Bush is using for his surge. Bush knows this.
-------
And on another point made: I do not believe this will be anything other than "Bush's war", unless his successor continues in his footsteps. If the successor is a Dem who has absolutely no idea or only fantasy ideas about what to do, that would be following in his footsteps. But a Republican who holds Bush's fantasy would be the same sort of successor.
# posted by : Friday, 12 January, 2007
: Friday, 12 January, 2007
Hi curtis,
"The first one of these seems to be a bit more knee-jerk partisanship than analysis. Well, I guess we can't analyze what has not happened! But there is a very big difference between a) surge leading to possible success or victory and b) surge in preparation for leaving as quickly as possible. I don't think we should equate these"
Well, I think that's incorrect. I cannot guarantee that a surge campaign would allow the U.S to either but I'm fairly certain that without a surge, it can do neither.
("victory" at this point means some arrangement stable enough to limp allong without full blown sectarian democide)
"The first one of these seems to be a bit more knee-jerk partisanship than analysis. Well, I guess we can't analyze what has not happened! But there is a very big difference between a) surge leading to possible success or victory and b) surge in preparation for leaving as quickly as possible. I don't think we should equate these"
Well, I think that's incorrect. I cannot guarantee that a surge campaign would allow the U.S to either but I'm fairly certain that without a surge, it can do neither.
("victory" at this point means some arrangement stable enough to limp allong without full blown sectarian democide)
I'm glad The Lounsbury said it. Let's also note that the Democratic majority has been in office less than two weeks. The author of the parent post is trying a rather amusing straddle, bashing them while still giving the forlorn, years-long Iraq adventure the benefit of the doubt.
Welp, that's enough for me. I came to this site because I'd seen it linked at other foreign policy sites that I frequent, but -- no more. But at least now I understand why this blog seems to have the Barnett fetish -- he specializes in the same kind of jargonized magical thinking.
Welp, that's enough for me. I came to this site because I'd seen it linked at other foreign policy sites that I frequent, but -- no more. But at least now I understand why this blog seems to have the Barnett fetish -- he specializes in the same kind of jargonized magical thinking.
# posted by : Friday, 12 January, 2007
: Friday, 12 January, 2007
Anon,
Stay or go as you please. However, before you do, I'd like to address this point of yours:
"I'm glad The Lounsbury said it. Let's also note that the Democratic majority has been in office less than two weeks"
A lack of ideas has little to do. with majority or minority status. Presumably, watching the president screw up a "forlorn, years-long Iraq adventure" gave them time to contemplate a better approach.
Democratic engagement on foreign policy/national security questions are without the intensity and clarity Democrats give to domestic policy; this is a phenomena that goes beyond the issue of Iraq.
Oh, and unlike myself, Barnett is a registered Democrat who briefed the Kerry campaign on foreign and defense policy in 2004. Evidently, somebody over there liked the jargon.
Stay or go as you please. However, before you do, I'd like to address this point of yours:
"I'm glad The Lounsbury said it. Let's also note that the Democratic majority has been in office less than two weeks"
A lack of ideas has little to do. with majority or minority status. Presumably, watching the president screw up a "forlorn, years-long Iraq adventure" gave them time to contemplate a better approach.
Democratic engagement on foreign policy/national security questions are without the intensity and clarity Democrats give to domestic policy; this is a phenomena that goes beyond the issue of Iraq.
Oh, and unlike myself, Barnett is a registered Democrat who briefed the Kerry campaign on foreign and defense policy in 2004. Evidently, somebody over there liked the jargon.
My dear Zenpundit.
I have to say I can't disagree with the Anon comment.
Your attack on the opposition party is just plain hypocrisy and party political partisanship on your part (although you are partisanly blind to your own partisanship in this case).
Rather evidently there is no political upside to a party just returning to power to stick out its neck when a fairly rational "wise men's" report on the issue was just summarilily jettisoned by the blundering fools in the current American administration.
This is not to say that the opposition party may have any ideas - although to be frank there's really nothing to propose except accepting you've fucked yourself into a cocked hat and there is no way to "victory" - not even stability - any more.
Iraq will go through a nasty civil war rather like Lebanon. That's all there is to it, since the US lacks the diplomatic and in-country savoir-faire or connexions and understanding to rescue anything.
Everything else is indeed, as the Anon put it, jargonised magical thinking dressing up irrationality in complicated systems language - rather similar it would seem to me to the bizarre Left deconstructionist blather, only in business systems dress.
I have to say I can't disagree with the Anon comment.
Your attack on the opposition party is just plain hypocrisy and party political partisanship on your part (although you are partisanly blind to your own partisanship in this case).
Rather evidently there is no political upside to a party just returning to power to stick out its neck when a fairly rational "wise men's" report on the issue was just summarilily jettisoned by the blundering fools in the current American administration.
This is not to say that the opposition party may have any ideas - although to be frank there's really nothing to propose except accepting you've fucked yourself into a cocked hat and there is no way to "victory" - not even stability - any more.
Iraq will go through a nasty civil war rather like Lebanon. That's all there is to it, since the US lacks the diplomatic and in-country savoir-faire or connexions and understanding to rescue anything.
Everything else is indeed, as the Anon put it, jargonised magical thinking dressing up irrationality in complicated systems language - rather similar it would seem to me to the bizarre Left deconstructionist blather, only in business systems dress.
# posted by : Friday, 12 January, 2007
: Friday, 12 January, 2007
Oh, I should note that supra in my first comment I stupidly wrote 78-79 when it should be 88-89 re Soviets and Afghanistan.
# posted by : Friday, 12 January, 2007
: Friday, 12 January, 2007
Hi Col,
Don't worry on the 79/89 thing. A mere typo.
Hmmm..self-referential partisanship...hmmm. Well, I'll let others be the final judge of me on that score but a few words in my defense:
My criticism of the Democrats here was pretty mild. Far more mild than you are likely to see on true-believing sites on either end of the spectrum. They are not bystanders here - Iraq stretches back as an issue through three administrations.
The Bush administration has been incompetent in Iraq but Bush's failures and corporate cronyism are wholly unrelated to the intellectual bankruptcy on the other side of the aisle. Am I exaggerating ? Here's a test: Name three new ideas in foreign policy that the Democratic Party has put forth in the last 25 years. Or even one new idea.
I will reiterate one final time: You can't get out of Iraq just by deciding to walk away. That is the real " magical thinking" going on in this comment thread. Thousands of American civilians ( albeit some heavily armed PMC types) must be moved first. That means either establishing some secure routes or being prepared to blast away with a very destructive level of firepower in a large Arab city.
Or am I wrong ?
Don't worry on the 79/89 thing. A mere typo.
Hmmm..self-referential partisanship...hmmm. Well, I'll let others be the final judge of me on that score but a few words in my defense:
My criticism of the Democrats here was pretty mild. Far more mild than you are likely to see on true-believing sites on either end of the spectrum. They are not bystanders here - Iraq stretches back as an issue through three administrations.
The Bush administration has been incompetent in Iraq but Bush's failures and corporate cronyism are wholly unrelated to the intellectual bankruptcy on the other side of the aisle. Am I exaggerating ? Here's a test: Name three new ideas in foreign policy that the Democratic Party has put forth in the last 25 years. Or even one new idea.
I will reiterate one final time: You can't get out of Iraq just by deciding to walk away. That is the real " magical thinking" going on in this comment thread. Thousands of American civilians ( albeit some heavily armed PMC types) must be moved first. That means either establishing some secure routes or being prepared to blast away with a very destructive level of firepower in a large Arab city.
Or am I wrong ?
Your criticism of the Democrats was indeed mild, hardly worth remarking on at some level, but it was indeed silly.
Making silly criticisms is silly.
I am sure that if you give them some months, then there will be no end of substance given they seem to be indolent incompetents, but what is it, a week into this situation, the critique was silly partisanship. (and I can't take the test as I haven't the knowledge to differentiate between the two parties in FP)
Let them prove it, rather than writing in ancitipation as if already proved.
As to the leaving, well, realism says of course it takes time; however there is no sign that the current government is afflicted by the remotest grasp of the disaster they have and are concocting. No, I read today that they authorised, via Bush himself, going after Iranian interests in Iraq. You may have noted the quasi consular fiasco provoked, it appears, armed confrontation with the Kurds.
One can only imagine how much more governable Iraq will be if the US starts going after the Shia's Iranian allies.
Making silly criticisms is silly.
I am sure that if you give them some months, then there will be no end of substance given they seem to be indolent incompetents, but what is it, a week into this situation, the critique was silly partisanship. (and I can't take the test as I haven't the knowledge to differentiate between the two parties in FP)
Let them prove it, rather than writing in ancitipation as if already proved.
As to the leaving, well, realism says of course it takes time; however there is no sign that the current government is afflicted by the remotest grasp of the disaster they have and are concocting. No, I read today that they authorised, via Bush himself, going after Iranian interests in Iraq. You may have noted the quasi consular fiasco provoked, it appears, armed confrontation with the Kurds.
One can only imagine how much more governable Iraq will be if the US starts going after the Shia's Iranian allies.
# posted by : Saturday, 13 January, 2007
: Saturday, 13 January, 2007
What Col and J. said, plus (remember?) the Iraq Study Group report.
I recognize that Bush dissed the report within days of its publication in his press conference with Tony Blair, but that doesn't remove the fact that it is a detailed plan and has the support of some people who've actually thought about these things.
(Yeah, that was a cheap shot. Mark has thought about these things.)
One of the factors that seems to be missing from Bush's plan, and always has been, is the recognition that Iraq and the United States are embedded in a world that we may or may not agree with, but they're not going away. I keep being struck by the laser-like concentration on one or two factors (currently the security situation in Baghdad) to the exclusion of everything else.
The ISG report attempts to address the multiplicity of factors that, in fact, are there. No wonder Bush didn't like it.
CKR
Post a Comment
I recognize that Bush dissed the report within days of its publication in his press conference with Tony Blair, but that doesn't remove the fact that it is a detailed plan and has the support of some people who've actually thought about these things.
(Yeah, that was a cheap shot. Mark has thought about these things.)
One of the factors that seems to be missing from Bush's plan, and always has been, is the recognition that Iraq and the United States are embedded in a world that we may or may not agree with, but they're not going away. I keep being struck by the laser-like concentration on one or two factors (currently the security situation in Baghdad) to the exclusion of everything else.
The ISG report attempts to address the multiplicity of factors that, in fact, are there. No wonder Bush didn't like it.
CKR
# posted by : Saturday, 13 January, 2007
: Saturday, 13 January, 2007<< Home
