And then they’d attack some other country and start it all over again; Iran or Syria most likely. Frankly, peace in Iraq might very well increase the total death toll enormously. Unless Congress acquires some guts and shuts his war machine down.
I don’t think the situation has changed much yet (other than in the headlines), various groups have run their own militias since right after the invasion, and the militias have been quite active. The turning point will be the day ordinary people starts rallying in the street in greater numbers.
The big unknown is what will other Arab nations do if US forces pull back (which I don’t think they’ll do), or simply lose control over some of the smaller, less patroled areas/cities. Will they supply different sides with arms? Will they move in to grab strategic areas?
I think it’s time to throw in the towel. Even William F. Buckley sees it now.
The US troops will be the target in the middle. There is no end. You’ve got three groups that hate each other and each of them is going to blame the US either for taking the wrong stand or taking no stand. It is simply unwinnable. Time to admit that and get out. If we cannot stop the bloodshed, let us simply refuse to add to it.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I think it’s time to throw in the towel. Even William F. Buckley sees it now.
Let me be fair to Buckley. He does NOT say get out, he merely says we have failed. I quoted him merely to prove the failure of policy, not to imply incorrectly that he shared my views.
I’m wondering why it matters whether it’s elucidator or you who gets to be the one who can chortle at the end of all this.
This really bothers me. Essentially, blame it on the Iraqis. No, that’s not really why “our mission” has failed, you scape-goating, apologist ass. “Our mission” has failed because it was ideological (i.e., faith-based) rather than grounded in actual pragmatics (i.e., reality-based). As put in another thread:
I recall being enamoured myself with the idea of democracy and peace sweeping through the Middle East in the run-up to the war, a pie-in-the-sky vision borne of ignorance. A shameful memory for me because of the actual events; I only wish the architects and supporters of this fiasco felt the same. At least my sense of shame is alleviated by my (then) unfamiliarity with the situation; how can those with a hand in it still justify (much less excuse) it with a straight face?
And he continues:
But the first did, just as expected? And as to the second, it seems to me that “the invading American army” can’t/couldn’t itself “cope with insurgents bent on violence”; given the error of the first postulate, is the second really even under consideration?
It matters to me: I’m keeping score, and it’s elucidator ahead 237 chortles to 56. elucidator was a 175 chortle favorite, and I took him and gave the chortles.
Really I just wanted to know everyone’s opinion on what will happen to the US troops if civil war does break out. Is the general consensus our troops will be the man in the middle? Or will the cut and run? Retreat to bases? Just curious what the options are.
My money’s on “man in the middle.”
Frankly I’m at a loss as to why I’d be chortling here. Lets see. If it all blows apart, well my son is there atm…so I’m not going to be laughing with glee. If it calms down, well, my son is there and contrary to what you may believe I have no political stake in this working out for Bush (I assume you believe I do somehow). The only way I’ll be chortling with glee is when my son gets the fuck out of there and comes home in one piece.
I’d say, realistically, I’m FAR ahead of 'luci on chortles…its the benifit of being able to laugh at both sides you know…
-XT
We, the U.S., destabilized the country, so we are bound to see it through. If we had no hand in toppling the government, we would probably walk away from it all, at least initially, as we’ve done before in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa.
In this case, however, we’d be forced to institute a provisional military government and basically, put the entire population under lockdown. That will cost a hell of a lot more troops.
Although I never agreed with our current invasion of Iraq - it should have been done at the time of the Kuwait crisis - it would be absolutely deplorable if we were to abandon Iraq now. There is no reason why we should not have known, without a doubt, that this type of ethnic/tribal/theologic strife would occur. It has occurred all too often elsewhere.
Ah yes, for some reason I keep forgetting that you are non-partisan.
If a full-blown civil war breaks out --with set pieces and battlelines-- that would provide the perfect pretext for the US to cut and run.
Here’s the scenario. The US makes it “clear” that it will only support a coalition government with all three sides involved. Once the shiites (or Sunnis) take Bagdhad, the US will activate its exit strategy.
I’m not a military strategist, nor do I know what I’m talking about. I suppose a pullback to defendable positions Kuwait, Dubai or even the Iraqi desert might be in the cards. But the fundamentals are clear: the admin is looking for a way out. It certainly does not want the disgrace of a civil war (spin expertise notwithstanding), but that won’t stop it from taking advantage of situations as they arise.
If only…
You speak like you are a rational person. I think I would do just what you say,and I’m a rational person (more or less–at least I’m not wondering whether to enter the end of the world in my ten year calendar…). And the generals running this nightmare are rational, etc.
But none of that means shit. Because the guy who has to cut and run is not rational.
I seriously wonder, from time to time, just how nuts is Bush? When I think about it for more than 45 seconds, I start to have a panic attack–and I am not subject to panic attacks…
Before the 2000 election, we were told that though W had precious little experience or interest in foreign affairs, he would hire all sorts of smart advisors.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wondered what he would do if his helpers disagreed with each other. It’s been known to happen from time to time.
After a couple of years, the answer became clear. When faced with a range of opinions, George Bush settled upon the experts whose arguments were easiest to understand. That is, he listened to his political advisor, Karl Rove.
So no, I don’t think Bush is crazy. And I don’t think Rove is crazy. Actually Rove is quite smart: he realized the advantages of running a base-only political strategy.
And W’s base isn’t crazy either. They’re just emotional sentimentalists who melt when they hear congradulatory phrases like “Tax cuts” and “Freedom on the March” and shy away from complications like “budget deficits” and “alienated allies”. They’re not evil and they’re not stupid. They just lack character.
This appears to be a generous interpretation of the evidence. Would you care to elaborate?
they sound all warm and fuzzy, just misunderstood.
Look I lack character, hence my ability to be a four man law firm in one:
Lazy, Shifty, Horny & High.
I think what afflicts w’s base is a little more on the scale towards existential evil…
Its probably your highly skewed perspective, your over the top partisanship and the way your knee jerks. 
-XT
Sure. Modern conservatism is made up of two prongs: they are religious and economic fundamentalists. Neither is especially empirical, alas, and neither are particularly concerned with foreign policy. [1]
A smaller streak might be termed bar-room conservatism: they have a touching faith in their own intuition about the world, and don’t really see the need for tough-minded analysis. These are the types that like to glom onto enemies: if the enemies aren’t the Soviets, they become the Chinese. Interestingly, you don’t hear much right wing vilification of Red China anymore, which demonstrates that the bar-room set is easily distracted. When the country is focused on domestic affairs, they whine about Libruls, though they don’t spend too much time advocating a rollback of the New Deal.
Then there are the numerically tiny but highly influential neo-conservatives. But reality tends to bite back in 2nd terms of presidencies, so it’s not surprising that blinkered idealists like Wolfowitz and Feith have been put out to pasture.
So I’ve delimited 4 groups. Only the last openly advocated the Iraqi invasion. But since the first 3 sets are uninterested in fact-based analysis, they are easily (and self-indulgently) swayed by trumped-up passions. And when the going gets tough, they will continue to approve of the job W does, regardless of whether he “stays the course” or “cuts and runs”.
[1] A subset of the fundamentalist set takes an interest in Israel insofar as its related to Armageddon. I don’t think this affects my argument substantially though.
Hey, that’s totally uncalled for. My partisanship is hardly over-the-top.