The Ambassador believes that we don’t dare leave until somehow bridges in communication and outlook are established among the factions in Iraq.
What are our chances of doing that?
At the end of the fight
Lies a tombstone white
With the name of the last deceased.
And the epitaph drear
"A fool lies here
Who tried to hustle The East."
- Rudyard Kipling.
How big of a bribe will the US be willing to shovel out to all the factions currently shoopting each other?
-Joe
From the OP link:
:eek:
See what you done stirred up, George?!
I am reminded of the safety poster by Johnny Hart.
A caveman comes to a big tree limb with a single leaf hanging from its bottom. He picks the leaf and the tree limb jumps up and smacks him under the chin stretching his neck about 6 inches.
The caption is IF YOU DON’T KNOW HOW IT WORKS - LEAVE IT ALONE.
Shoopt, there it is.
It’s always seemed to me that the biggest safety hazards are people who *do * think they “know how it works”. This is another example.
When do we start hearing about “Peace with honor”?
I don’t know. How much can we take out of Medicare?
Everything, of course!
We just need to call it the “Medicare Enhancement Act of 2006” and people will line up to support it.
-Joe
They can just call it “Tax Refund Adjustments”. [/Simpsons reference]
While Bush is in office? Never. He’ll send in more troops rather than admit defeat. If you think otherwise, you grossly misunderstand him.
I’ll give a shot at the OP (assuming he was looking for more than just the circle jerk replies given so far). I think it’s an even shot-- 50/50. If you look at the various factions, civil war isn’t as inevitbale as some would make you believe. The Shiites don’t need a civil war to run the country-- they’ll do that as it is. The Sunnis won’t want a civil war if they’re smart. They will almost certainly lose, and even if they “win”, their little section if Iraq will be an economic basket case. Most of the oil is in the Shiite south or the Kurdish north. The Kurds are the ones that have the most to gain from a civil war, but they’ve been the most peaceful so far. I think their strategy is to go with the flow. They make out pretty good either way, so why risk a civil war that will bring in the Turks?
The one faction that really does want civil war are the jihadists. They want the whole M.E. to errupt, not just Iraq. But Iraq is as good a place as any to start things from their persepective, and that’s where the action is right now. They’ve been concentrating less on attacking US targets and more on attacking soft targets like the Golden Dome Mosque. That was a brilliant move (assuming it was them) on their part because it inflames the Sunni/Shiite fued which was actually starting to cool off. We really need to concentrate on isolating the jihadists while the ISF are built up.
So far, we’ve been very lucky that Sistani has been the voice of reason that he has been. One word from him, and the whole country could explode. I hope he’s grooming his replacement and that we’re guarding his living quarters well…
The ambassador seems to think that we are likely to be stuck there until we can somehow convince all factions to come to some accomodation. I think 2½ years is too short a time for that to take place and that is what GW has left.
And it isn’t only up to GW. At least it isn’t yet. In another year or so if things are still in a sort of turmoil the patience of the public and therefore that of Congress might begin to wear thin. I’m not sure what Congress can do in practical terms but in point of fact the members do have the power to enforce their decisions if they choose to use it.
The Sunni’s are admittedly not in a strong bargaining position. However with the US as an occupying army and unable to maintain order the insurgents merely need to keep blowing up a mosque of either persuasion now and then to keep things boiling.
Can you elaborate on this? He seems quite willing to cave and change positions when it becomes clear that he’s doing serious damage to the GOP (see the recent Dubai Ports issue).
Sure he’ll change approaches, but not while admitting defeat. He doesn’t actually say anything when he gives up, his efforts just sort of trail off. Remember the Social Security privatization drive, for instance?
Where is he going to get the troops from? If he ever fires Rumsfeld, I’ll believe it, but Rummy is even less willing than Bush to admit he was wrong.
I read somewhere that the Sunni population is convinced they are the majority, which is why they were so upset by the election results. Remember, they controlled the country for a long time, why do you think they won’t think they can do it again? (If they’re right or not is a different story.)
But I kind of agree with your 50/50 assessment. 50% civil war, 50% Shia controlled Iranian puppet state.
They’ve been outmaneuvering us since the insurgency began. Look at the uprising after the bombing. If US troops tried to stop it, we’d become the bad guy for all. If we didn’t, it became a powerful argument for both sides that the only way they would have security is through their private militias. The government was useless, neither protecting the mosque nor protecting the Sunnis from reprisals.
He may eventurally relent on the DPW deal, but he hasn’t given any indication yet that he will. Besides, this is an overwhlemingly unpopluar decision with very little downside-- what’s the worst that happens if DPW doesn’t get it’s deal done? Pulling out of Iraq has some serious consequences for the whole M.E.
Bush thinks he initiated an historic process in the Middle East, and he’s looking out 10, 20, 50 years in the future. He will literally drag the GOP down with him rather than give up on Iraq. Interestingly enough, the most likely successor of Bush in the GOP, and someone who is widely popular, is even more hawkish on Iraq than Bush is. I’m talking about McCain. He never misses a chance to say how he’d like to add more troops. But McCain can pull that off because people trust him, unlike Bush. As unpopular as the Iraq war is, I think Americans would be willing to give another president (either Dem or Pub) more lattitude than they give Bush.
Well, I meant that he first refused to review the deal and then he changed his mind about that. But your point about the relative consequences is taken.
Are you sure he first refused to do the 45-day review? I don’t remember that. But he really didn’t have any choice. Congress would’ve forced it, and they’re still trying to kill the deal before the review is over. Politically, the Republican Congressmen are more eager to make this go away than the Dems. The Dems can make all kinds of political hay while this deal is still alive.
I think you are crediting him with entirely too much imagination.
I guess I’m not making myself clear. He threatened a veto of any attempt to kill the deal and then backed away from his veto threat to allow a further review of the deal. That’s the change in position I’m referring to. But other than that, yes, I agree that the consequences are more damaging for an Iraqi pull out.
Wrong.
I’m not going to bother digging out cites because, I assume, they’ll turn out to “not be what you meant”. However, Schumer has written for a 45-day review and a report to Congress. That would be the D-NY guy.
Meanwhile, one GOP Congressman has written a bill requiring all vital infrastructure to be owned by USers.
Doesn’t sound like wanting it “to go away” to me.
-Joe