My take is that, Ali Husaini Sistani, is by far, the most powerful man in Iraq both from a religious/political/popular perspective. If that’s taken as a given — and I see little cause for refutation – given his background and reputation, what are the benefits for the US of backing his ultimate agenda. Which, BTW, is fodder for yet another thread.
IOW, Sistani’s idea of Western style “democracy” doesn’t even include the initial “D” in same.
So, other than some very one-sided and lucrative contracts from his side in exchange for protection while he works things out with Iran, what’s to be gained in any/all of the neocon agenda? Not like his pro-Iran, theocratic agenda is a well-kept secret. Or any kind of secret for that matter. Just read his speeches.
Not much. The Kurds’ll bolt, the Sunnis’ll continue their insurgency, full scale civil war will break out, and we’ll be screwed.
It’d be nice if the new constitution worked out, and all that could be avoided; not that I see much hope, but given a few hundred more dead americans, and a few months more time, it’s still possible.
Thanks, but I did remember. Not past the deadline yet and they haven’t given up all hope on the thing yet.
Yes, I’ve seen you mention this before Red…in fact, many times. The problem is I’m not completely convinced this is really true. Oh, I have no doubt that the majority of Iraqi’s resent our presence there…quite understandable really. But I seem to recall that though the polls seem to indicate that the majority don’t really want us there, a large percentage don’t really want us to leave before things are a bit more stable either. Perhaps these numbers are dropping…perhaps not. At a guess its pretty tough to get an accurate poll when you are constantly under threat that some asshole might park a car full of explosives in the market you are trying to buy food at. I’ve seen nothing official yet from the Iraqi interim government telling us to leave though…did I miss it?
I understand the sentiment even if the situation isn’t reversed. Being Spanish (IIRC) you are probably familiar with it from your own countries history as well. I know I’m pretty familiar with the Spanish…from my own mother countries history. Reguardless, even if the majority of Iraqi’s DO want us to leave I’m not sure that this should be the deciding factor for whether or not the US pulls out of Iraq at this time, because I’m not sure this would be in the peoples best interest. Once their constitution is ratified (if it happens as Squink pointed out), and once general elections are held (dependant on ratification of the constitution) THEN I think its time to start looking to pull out. The Iraqi’s will at least have a fighting chance to avoid a complete blood bath…it will be on them to sort it out. If things aren’t stable by this time next year they probably never will be and we will at least have tried to straighten out this clusterfuck as best we can. At that point I’ll join the chorus calling for our withdrawl…and weep for what I’m sure will come to the Iraqi people.
To be completely honest with you I agree…I don’t seem much hope either at this point. However, there is still SOME hope that it will work out and if there is even a glimmer of hope I say we stay to give the Iraqi’s every chance.
I’m puzzled by confident predictions of “full scale civil war”. Does it mean full scale military engagements between different parties or ethnic groups? Most likely there will remain a number of US military bases and US will be controlling the skies and waterways in Iraq for a long time; this set up is not conducive to “full scale civil war”.
Of course not, however main strength of “insurgency” is sneaking attacks, and they were perfecting their skills over time. How will they fare in the open warfare - if at all - especially under US controlled skies?
Well, it would seem that the majority opinion here is that we should stay there until some sort of Iraq government is in place. That seems a little open-ended to me but if that’s the way it is, OK.
The country is running large deficits partly as a result of Iraq. As the debt grows the interest cost that is being passed on to future taxpayers grows. How much more in taxes would those who think democracy in Iraq justifies this {assuming it approximates what you have in mind) in order to make the Iraq effort less onorous on future US taxpayers?
Random data. According to the magazine Free Inquiry the announced US death cound, around 1800 now, understates the actual total by quite a bit. Not counted in it are those who die of wounds enroute to hospitals in Germany or who subsequently die of wounds in the hospital. I’ve searched for any data on this and can’t find it. However, it does seem reasonable that some number of the seriously wounded who leave Iraq alive will subsequency die of wounds and really ought to be included in the total.
Thus the importance of thinking positive. If you believe, like I do, that the whole world at present and in future benefits enormously from Saddam removal, you would agree that future generations owe us something on credit basis.
Why would they change their tactics, ones that are working so well for them now? Is it your contention that a civil war must have two lines of infantry facing each other, or else it is not a "true " civil war? I expect urban warfare against the civilians of both sides; Sunni guerrillas targeting Shiite civilians, and vice versa, with occasional firefights between the factions, who melt back into the streets if American gunships show up. American forces, with all their air power, have barely got a hand on the fighting in central Iraq now. What do you think is going to happen when forces are reduced by half (conveniently timed for the 2006 midterm election)?
Iraq could turn into a battle field for various forces within the ME top duke it out.
As it stands now, Iran’s likely to benefit from a democratic Iraq. Any of the other nearby countries who take exception to this may decide to engage Iran’s proxies via proxies inside Iraq.
Basically, I was saying that while “fiscal responsibility” is certainly commendable, “fiscal responsibility uber alles” is clearly for losers. That’s why GOP was obsessed with it before they got Congress and discarded it afterwards.
If you are asking my prediction, I’m forecasting a vast increase in civilian deaths as a result of factional fighting between Shiites and Sunnis, and a total breakdown of the civil goverment when the Sunnis abandon any participation in favor of the politics of the car bomb. My point is that this flavor of civil war is inevitable, whether we leave now, or in a year, or five years from now. The only difference is how many Americans will be sacrificed upon your fervent wish that peace will break out all over if we can only make to the elections. And you call me deluded?
It seems to me that “spare no expense” is only applicable in cases of dire threats to national existence. If the nation disappears the lack of debt isn’t all that crucial.
However to go into debt an additional 150-200 billion a year to implement a plan to achieve a vague wish seems to me to be the height of folly.
But I guess as long as GW doesn’t raise our taxes it’s OK.
