I’ll believe thsi when I see the U.S. support an actual democracy in Iraq, by which I mean one that is not run by U.S.-appointed puppets, kept in power by U.S. soldiers. I’m not holding my breath.
If you seriously think Bush isn’t almost desperate for help – big help – from Europe and the UN, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Here’s a thought though; re-election becomes much harder if things stay as they are, and he can’t withdrawal US troops and leave an unstable vacuum - that would be seen as genuine defeat. But he can spin a partial handover to the UN and an ‘Authority’ as a job well done, at least to his existing constituency.
Right now, he needs to persuade Europe and the UN it’s better *for them *to act rather than watch him continue to slide into the Iraqi abyss (and they want Bush gone so very much). Hence this brand new Plan B which is entirely designed to bring him negotiating leverage for a partial handover.
Well played, Squink. On first blush this gambit (that you link to) is another half step along the road Bush must travel. This one takes us from the US/Bush “sharing the burden” position (never a winner but worth a giggle) to actually beginning to address the primary European position which could be summarised as ‘Iraqi Sovereignty on the table first, then help’.
Still needs to suppress the ‘insurgents’ as well, though. Mutli-pronged approach, and all that . . . ‘Shock and Awe II’ must continue for some time yet.
He’s desperate for help, but he doesn’t know it yet, or perhaps he can’t make himself face what has to be done to get it. We don’t disagree.