Maybe, but an alternative that is even more likely is that Iraq turns into an authoritarian state, headed by a Shiite government (possibly in collaboration with the Kurds) and al Qaeda is driven out by force. Although the Sunnis might continue to fight on, they might very well face genocide (if that’s the right term) in the face of a Shiite/Kurd alliance-- that would be about 80% of the population.
What war would that be? I thought Al Qaeda existed in order to attack Westeners in revenge for Western intervention in the Islamic world.
And although I haven’t been keeping up lately, aren’t most attacks on Americans done by Iraqis who don’t like us occupying their country?
And my take on you and your crowd is that it’s more important to find fault with what the Democrats supposedly think than to hold Bush & co. accountable for what they actually did.
Look, Maliki’s “gang” is so infiltrated by insurgents that the chance of keeping this a secret is about that of us finding WMDs next week. Plus, knowledge of a timetable is only useful if it could be used for leverage for a political settlement. Keeping it secret is like keeping the Doomsday Machine secret.
As for al-Qaeda, a survey published in the Times this weekend shows that no one in Anbar province likes them. They hate us also, but not as intensely. aQ can evade us (though the rapid capture of the assassin of the anti-aQ leader seems to show we’ve got better intelligence than we used to) but not the people who live locally. A timetable will be notice for them to pack their bags for Pakistan.
The fear is that the Sunnis might, out of desperation in fighting against a large Shia/Kurd majority look for any help they could find. If AQ is going to help them in their battle for power/survival, do you not think they would welcome that assistance and form an alliance of sorts?
Reread. Slowly. I never said they were one and the same. And for you to question that the fear is completely without expert authority shows that you are just going to sing the company song and not look at this critically. Feel free to move on if that is the case.
Okay. That morale would be a positive. But it doesn’t go to the heart of the matter.
I think that Kerry’s reasoning for a timetable has a lot of merit. I think it would definitly help. Now given that the timetable will NOT be given—and it won’t for the reason mentioned—publicly, why not try Plan B? Plan B being the issuance of a timetable in private while allowing the official public position of the US to be “we’re in it as long as it takes”? It seems that would allow Kerry’s idea to work it’s magic, possibly even more effectively. But, at least a timetabel would be issued and maybe lead to Maliki getting his shit together. If not, it’ll be the road we’re on. Should I put you down for this verison of “staying the course”?
Almost. This would require for Kerry & Co. to publicly avow the policy that we’re in it for as long as it takes. They would have to give up this mantra by which they seek to separate themselves from Bush. The U.S. would have to appear pretty unified in this regard. The public officials with serious national security clout—Kerry, Clinton (both), Biden, etc.—would have to operate in the interest of the country for a change. :D*
*Yes, a joke. I couldn’t resist.
Exactly, but on the way to that authoritarian state, isn’t it possible/likely that the Sunnis will say “Uh-oh, there’s going to be a genocide, and we’re the target” and resist. If they feel they are fighting for their survival, and are in the minority, won’t they accept any help that is given them, specifically that from fellows Sunnis who call themselves Al Qaeda?
I think you’ve answered your own question. A public timetable is an easily-identifiable platform stance that differentiates Kerry & Co. from Bush’s stance on the withdrawal subject. Moreover, I believe some of the underlying purpose in pushing for a public timetable has little to do with Iraq, and a whole lot to do with public perception of how these candidates’ administrations will differ from the Bush administration. The Bush admin. has been shrouded in secrecy from the get-go, with as little as possible given over to public scrutiny. By touting a public withdrawal schedule, these candidates are illustrating that their admins would be more transparent and open about their dealings (truthfully or not).
And heck, it could very well be that the Bush admin has given a private deadline to Maliki and is merely telling the public that we’ll be there as long as it takes. Seems like a pretty standard way of doing things for this administration.
Or, in Bush-speak, we have to leave Iraq so they will all fight each other over there so they won’t come over here.
As for the timetable stuff, I remember a very similar argument back in I think 2004, when things weren’t quite so bad on the ground. Many wanted timetables, and Bush and his supporters basically said well, if we did that the enemy would just mark his calendar, wait us out, and then unleash chaos after we leave. I always thought that was kinda weird – isn’t that exactly what we want? If they hid until we left, isn’t that a good thing? That means we can train the police and military in peace. That would mean people aren’t dying all over and we can stabilize the situation and then the police and military will be prepared when we leave. The Iraq government would have the strategic initiative, since we could choose the end date and be prepared. No?
I think you make a valid point, but if I remember correctly, there was no reason to believe that such a timetable would stop the attacks on the trainees. There was a push, again IIRC, by the opposition to prevent both the trainees from being trained and, or maybe this was the point, to scare Iraqis from becoming trainees.
But even if such a statement would cause AQ to just sit back and wait, is that really in the best interest of Iraq? I think it safe to say that Iraq would just turn into mayhem—who knows, maybe that’s inevitable no matter what.
But when it comes to conducting a war is there any evidence to suggest that more open = more effective? I think each type of information has to be weighed on its own. Siome info is better made public, while other info is best kept secret.
Maybe they could replace Gen. Petraeus with Robert Irsay…
ETA:
Why are we assuming that position 2 has great merit, again?
On the upside, it feels refreshing that I’m finally able to correctly use the term “begging the question.”
Speaking of begging the question, if the raison d’etre of AQ-I is to expel Westerners from Iraq, why would they have any motivation to stay in Iraq to slow down a genocide once that objective is accomplished?
Let me know when it actually happens. I’m posing a hypothetical, treating the merit of Kerry’s reasoning as a given. You are aware that a hypothetical will assume certain things as true, no?
Because they might want to protect their fellow-Sunnis. Hopefully, my previous post to you will save you from this “begging the question” confusion that you seem infatuated with.
Coulda been more clear that you intended the assumption as a hypothetical, but whatever floats your boat.
Seriously, why make the assumption that position B has “great” merit? If it’s just to have a debate, knock yourself out. Otherwise, please support the proposition.
I guess we need to establish whether their mission statement really is (essentially) “to scour all traces of Western Crusaderdom from the Caliphate”, and if it’s likely that protecting their fellow Sunnis will be a worthy reason to shift focus…
Seemed to be clear enough for everyone else and they were able to float to the challenge. Maybe you have a leaky boat.
Because it is not what I was interested in debating. That should be clear from the OP and subsequent posts prior to yours. I assumed the merit of Kerry’s position for two reasons. One, it makes some sense to me. Two, and more important, it raises what I thought an interesting question, which is the reason for the OP.
Oh. Okay.
Carry on.
So, why is it you think being Sunni is going to be a good enough reason for AQ to hang around once they’ve managed to purge the infidels from Iraq? They strike me as men on a mission, and that mission isn’t the protection of Sunnis from Shiites. If it were, I might have expected them to be a bit more active next door in Iran, no?