Maybe he means at the height of Taliban power?
Thats how I took it…i.e. that Iraq will have an autocratic theocracy a la Iran/Taliban within 5 years. Obviously, unless oil becomes worthless, they won’t be JUST like Afghanistan reguardless. Perhaps he meant there would be a multi-sided civil full scale civil war like happened in Afghanistan post-Soviet occupation. Could be that too.
-XT
I think we’ve reached the point where we have to let the people of Iraq decide for themselves. You can lead the horses to western style democracy, but you can’t make them drink.
I have been advocating giving the government of Iraq private warnings that the status quo would not continue forever. The fact that this discussion is taking place in the public arena indicates to me that they are not getting it as yet.
The Kurds seem to be doing fine. The Shittes and the Sunnis seem to want to kill each other, despite millions of American dollars spent on education, training and infrastructure.
I think it’s time to see what sort of destiny they plan for themselves.
It’s great how we’ve empowered them to strike out on their own.
Sectarianism is more the result of disorder than its cause. When order breaks down, people start to affiliate out of necessity, the blue eyed people start to distrust the brown eyed people, brown eyed people form militias to protect them from people that, a year ago, were their friends and neighbors. A classic example is Yugoslavia: it a state of anarchy, Croat groups formed to protect Croats, and then Serb groups formed in response to threats that were largely imaginary until the protective associations formed, then the threats became tragicly real. Crips and Bloods.
I suspect the current “leaders” of Iraq fall into two basic categories: those that presume that, after the coming conflict, they will be in an indisputable leadership position without need for compromise and those who have an eye for the last helicopter out of Greenzonia.
When I was in Basic Training one of my drill sergeants told me “We don’t start wars, we finish them!”. (I’m not sure if thats entirely true, but at the time it sounded good) I took pride in that. Nowadays I feel crappy because we started this one. GWB and his cronies have done the military, the people and the America’s reputation a great deal of damage. I’ll miss the army when I retire in a few years, but I’ll be kind of glad to get out. I don’t have any faith left for the government. They’ve gotten us into a big mess and the troops and their families are paying the biggest cost of it.
We forced them at gunpoint; we didn’t “lead” them anywhere. As is natural in such situations, they do not wish to do what we want.
:rolleyes: We spent billions to enrich groups like Haliburton, and gave the Iraqis garbage.
If Iraq is collapsing into an even greater disaster than it already is, it’s in no small part because we poisoned the well. We wrecked the country, created what amounts to a giant “Democracy = bloody chaos” propaganda campaign, created massive unemployment, made Iraq into such a disaster that no sane third party would want to get involved, made the Iraqis hate us so much that they will never cooperate with us, and did any number of stupid and/or evil things, which guaranteed a disaster.
I wish the more Repubs would come out and demand that Rumsfeld be fired. I understand that there has beeb internal gripings, especially after the 04 election that he needed to go. But the fact that Rumsfeld is till SoD is almost beyond comprehension. While the decsion to go to war was a travesty, I think it pales in comparison to the undermining or the military done by Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz and the like that is the even bigger crime that has cost untold American and Iraqi lives and just an incomprehensible amount of money.
No, the Iraqis are, by far.
Not to worry-- U.S. says Iraq agrees timeline to peace. Yeah, right. If it were that easy, why didn’t get them to agree to this 2 years ago. :rolleyes:
I’m gonna WAG that Bush is more politically desperate now, and as a result, he’s finally willing to agree to options that might’ve had a chance if he’d done it 2-3 years ago.
I think Bush is still hoping to palm this one off on his successor in the White House. I think the Green Zone evacuation happens well before January 20, 2009.
Tru dat, but I think that’s a big argument for a draft in the case of a war of anywhere near this size and duration. If we’re going to get into a biggish war, with its potential consequences in the lives of the citizens of some other country, it ought to involve a fairly wide spreading of the risk domestically, rather than the all-volunteer army being available as the sacrificial lamb, without any costs to the rest of us.
No, he’s right! I don’t know who would describe our adventure in Iraq as “nation building.” We’re more like a nation wrecking ball, in that respect.
So, how long do you think before a major terrorist attack on American soil can be traced back to Iraq which will cause us to have to go back in there? 15 years maybe? I mean, we’ll probably still be in Iraq, but you know, we’ll have to increase the numbers a lot and everything and vow “never again!” (for what, the third time? Fourth time maybe?)…
Talking head on Lehrer says we have told Maliki to set up a timetable for them to take over the control. We would be wrong to do timetables. If we tell them to it is ok.
I don’t even want to think about it.
It is. During the 2000 campaign, one of the tenets of Bush’s campaign was that the American military was overinvolved abroad. Clinton was engaging in “Nation Building,” via force in Kosovo, etc. and this was something that Bush would avoid.
Well, I suppose we all can see how that worked out.
Well, politically we’re hardly in uncharted territory. The Dems had McCarthy in '68 telling 'em how wrong LBJ was. The Reps have, so far, produced precisely no one with the courage to actually vote against this president when it counts: the roll-call on the military commissions vote showed that emphatically. It’s still a party of cowards (Olympia Snowe) and collaborators (McCain, Graham, Warner, and the rest).
Cut.
& Run.
Syria might be Ok in the Sunni areas, being Ba’athist might go down quite well.
Iran is not Arab, they speak Farsi, and apart from a small minority they only have religion in common with Southern Iraq.
They would not be welcome as occupiers, and I rather suspect that they would not like to take on that role.
However, in general I agree, partitioning the place is probably the only viable solution.
I also reckon that the US and UK presence is more of the problem than part of the solution. Put crudely the best bet is to arm one faction then cut and run.
There will be a bloodbath, but there already is in the near-North.
In the South it sounds like intra-Shi’ite scrapping.