I'm at a loss as to why Democrats are even debating pull out now or pull out later. It's just not their call in the current political environment, and I happen to agree that the ensuing bloodbath would bring back all the old criticisms that Democrats can't be trusted in wartime.

Instead, they should be hammering home what a mess Bush has made over there, and that this doesn't leave anyone with GOOD options; however, there is no question that new leadership, without all the baggage Bush and Rumsfeld bring to the situation, and a fresh look at the problem are required.

Look, Kevin, even if its true that the plural of anecdote is data, you don't even have a plural. You've got one story. And it's not so important, probably, since no real Democratic voter is staying home because other Democrats say we should be in Iraq a shorter or longer time. Everybody knows that electing Democrats means shorter, to a considerable degree, and that's what they'll be voting for.

What do you think a Democratic Congress can do about Iraq in January anyway? That's the really interesting question.

Another issue that divides Democrats somewhat is support for Israel. Obviously, it is political suicide to say that we should stop supporting Israel. However, on the substance of it, I just don't see how supporting Israel helps us strategically.

In terms of the politics of it currently, I think a lot of Democrats think we should at least lessen our support for Israel quite a bit, and I've seen that this issue produces a lot of friction, at least in the blogosphere.

Well, for what it's worth, "practically at war with each other over the questions of whether we should withdraw from Iraq immediately or merely as soon as we can" pretty much exactly describes my own internal process.

Wow. That's pretty silly.

I'm a county Democratic committee member and precinct walker in Northern Virginia and I haven't seen a single argument like that among Democrats out here. Everyone agrees that Bush is a disaster and getting some parental controls on the White House is what matters.

Hell, I don't really have a position on when exactly the troops should come -- how about when smart and competent military people decide it's a good idea? I'll let Jack Murtha (and hopefully Jim Webb) tell me when the timer pops.

Thanks for the reality injection, Sean. I think rarely but occasionally Kevin stretches too hard to fill up his posting quota for the day. This is one of those rare times.

I think Kevin and Sean's experience could be reconciled if the question were rephrased as "should the neoliberal so-called 'hawks' be at helm of the Democratic Party in the future?"

For me, actually a fairly conservative Democrat, and many I know this is the real issue within the party. These neolibs bought the Cheney line lock, stock, and barrel and were very anxious to go to war (not anxious enough to join up, but otherwise very anxious indeed). Now that the results of their collaboration are clear, they want to label themselves "serious" and seize control of the Democratic helm after the hard groundwork is done by people mostly more liberal than they are.

Will these neolibs be put back in power? If they are, I personally will start looking for another party. Problem is, there may be some war-Dems who think the opposite (in northern Virginia perhaps?).

Cranky

I don't get the ensuing bloodbath... what the hell is going on right now then?

We need to distance ourselves from Isreal also. It would help in our fight against terror.

Just to clarify -- I didn't think Kevin's post was silly, I thought that the bickering among some California Democrats was silly.

Kevin,

You should tell the people who were arguing (in your polite and reasonable way) that they're a bunch of dee-dee-dees.

I guess this is why I am not a political party type person. Policy is never about what is the best thing to do for the people involved, policy decisions are all about how will it play to the money giving constituents and sometimes about how will it play to the voters.

All those heads the neo-conned think the Islamic insurgents are cutting off should wind up under the sheets of party officials and disturb their corrupt slumber.

Here's another anecdote.

I'm a registered Green Party voter. I think the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is an ongoing crime against humanity, and the troops should be withdrawn immediately. I think the Democratic Party leadership is fatally compromised by corporatism, and has on the whole been pathetic in their acquiescence to Bush's crimes and their (at best) feeble efforts at any sort of opposition.

In November's elections, I expect to vote the straight Democratic ticket. The only ghost of a hope for this country is to remove the Republicans from majority control of one or both houses of Congress.

I think Kevin is worrying too much about this.

Cranky,

I was just thinking today that if things go well, this will be an election like '58 or '74 where a whole different bunch of Democrats gets elected, the kind who will feel they shouldn't be buying into the same old stuff. The new guys are apt to think that the others really made a mistake in climbing on the Iraq bandwagon, for reasons both of good policy and good politics. And some of the remaining old guys are apt to agree. It can make a big change in an institution to have an influx of new views (although by chance not as many this year as in earlier times).

"If we really do have a rough consensus on what our foreign policy should look like, it's nuts to tear ourselves apart over an issue that we have no control over in any case."

Glad to see Kevin you finally agreeing with me since I've been writing for awhile now in this comment section of how foolish and strategically inept it is to be arguing over withdrawl and thus giving republicans a means to cast democrats as surrender monkeys etc etc.

Did I see today a new poll showing Bush's approval ratings up? Jeez, I wonder why that is. Could it be that all that high minded rhetoric that sounds so good flying with such earnest enthusiasm back and forth across a table at Starbucks just doesn't cut it with the red meat crowd? When are you idiot liberals gonna figure it out? I really don't have the stomach to endure the Bill Frist administration.

And by the way, there is no 'rough concensus' on foreign policy on the left, that's just an illusion based on the flimsy what ifs of the future: Iraq is real and that's why there's such division over: Iraq is the true litmus test re liberal FP.

Just for the record, "This is only one data point, and it's from a single state. I don't know how widely true it is" means exactly what it sounds like.

Ignoring feedback from people on the ground is dangerous. If no one else is seeing this, that's great, but I think it's worthwhile to get stuff like this out in the open to see if anyone else is seeing the same thing.

Um, there is a rough consensus on foreign policy on the left. No more idiotic wars of choice. Out of Iraq sooner than later. That's pretty clearly both the "left" (I laugh when trolls use this term to describe mainstream thought) and "center" position now.

Who said Iraq was a mirage?

I thought the map was lying.

Who said it was fake?

Donkey

In terms of the politics of it currently, I think a lot of Democrats think we should at least lessen our support for Israel quite a bit, and I've seen that this issue produces a lot of friction, at least in the blogosphere.

This is one reason why it's so hard for Democrats to announce any policy. They would clearly create more distance from Israel and that would just as clearly cost them some of the jewish vote permanently. While it might not matter in NYS you could cross off Florida permanently and it could prove important in other states as well.

It would not just cost them jewish votes. Moving away from Israel in order to appease terrorists would be recognized as moral and intellectual cowardice. Democrats cannot afford to lose jewish votes nor continue to be seen as weak on security. There's a reason the only time a Democratic candidate was above to get above 50% was due to Watergate and Carter was just above 50%.

I suspect that the activist Democrats (southern Californian, most likely?) you met with are considerably to the left of the average California Democrat. That was my experience working with them. They also think that they have to take a position on most any question that gets raised, and so their responses end up statistically distributed over the whole left-spectrum. Once anybody raises the more extreme position, others feel that they have to take it up (the "leftier than thou" response), and so you experience the result of that process. My guess is that the broader public of Democratic voters goes with "shorter" rather than "immediately," and if put to the test, would go with trusting the Murtha wing. The group demanding an immediate pullout may or may not be correct, but they are in the distinct minority.

I agree, I think, with the sentiments of brewmn, the first commenter.

A lot of what fuels the desire to leave Iraq "immediately" is the outrage and frustration that we were put there in the first place --not because people are sure it's the best choice. One way to introduce more consensus among Democrats about Iraq, then, would be to insist, as a first step, that there be a measure of public accountability for the mistakes of the Administration; for example, a congressional censure. In any case, if there were some public recognition that mistakes were made, more people could get on board with the effort to rectify them --i.e, not wish to leave "immediately".

I want to hear that the Dems have an articulated policy on IRAN.

Bush is boxing us into a corner on Iran, where war will be the only option. Will Dems formulate a policy on this NOW, and stand up for it?

Or are we just going to wait until Bush makes a move? By then it will, I think, be too late.

Don't "Immediately" and "As soon as we can" boil down to the same time?

Kevin,
If you would read your own blog, and look at the wide array of opinion among the non-trolls, you would have caught on a long time ago.

There are three camps of (real) Democrats (as opposed to fake ones like ex-liberal and Thomas1):
1. Read My Lips. Troops Home Now.
2. Troops in Iraq are recruiting more terrorists, redeploy to Kuwait or Kurdistan to be able to stop an all-out military civil war, or invasion from Iran.
3. We need more troops to effectively secure Iraq so we can succeed with the Democracy Promotion.

I don't think you're going to get these three camps to see eye to eye.

All three of these camps agree on one thing: Bush lied us into war, and should be brought to account on this via impeachment and/or turning over to the hague.

Very few Dems I know of think Bush should be allowed to serve out his term unimpeached.

There is no way to get 140,000 troops out immediately. As soon as possible and immediately are essentially the same position.

The difference between these two groups is whether they are actually honest enough to say 'let start the process of withdrawal' and those who are essentially moral cowards who want Bush to get blamed for the war without actually proposing any positive steps to get out.

Imagine if a Democratic politician had said in 1968, "We cannot win the war. We are going to pull out sooner or later, and when we do, the bad guys are going to take over. It was a big mistake to get us into this position. But whether we pull out now or later, the result is going to be the same. In order to save thousands of lives, we should therefore pull out now."

He probably wouldn't have won any elections. But he would have been right.

The Democrats have precisely the same dilemma today.

This current democrat trusts dems with national security. Anyone who lies to go to war should not be trusted in security. Just saying you did something is no good. Jimmy- blow me with your moral cowards comment. I don't want your morals nor should repubs. speak of morals after what they have done.

mhr wrote: "This ex-Democrat does not trust Democrats with the national security of the United States."

You are not an "ex-Democrat." You are a liar.

You are also a Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt mental slave who is incapable of doing anything but mechanically regurgitating scripted Republican Fascist Party propaganda.

In simpler terms, you are an asshole.

Hey Cranky,

Interesting angle about liberal hawks. There is a lot of animosity in the party towards them.

Personally, I opposed the Iraq War and I have no issue with the Democrats who got steamrolled by the BushCo war machine. (Colin Powell's speech at the UN had me wavering for a bit.) I do have an issue with Democrats who can't admit that they got steamrolled and were wrong about the war (like Joe Lieberman).

Note that, with the exception of people over 60 or so, Northern Virginia is not the South. It's an area in flux with lots of displaced Midwesterners or Yankees like me (I moved here from New England about ten years ago) and substantial Asian and Latino populations.

The Democratic Party's line on Iraq should be to withdraw troops to Kurdistan and Kuwait. That way they are getting the troops out of harms way, but not "cutting and running". It can be portrayed as a responsible strategic move that would be a much better alternative than keeping troops in Iraq proper where they are unable to do anything constructive.

I'm a Republican, and don't trust the GOP with the security of the United States. 9/11, and George W. Bush's complete inattention to the threat of terrorism before 9/11 was all the proof I needed that he doesn't really care about national security--except as a campaign tool to win elections and scare people into accepting un-American policies.

Real Republican

We should withdraw now and apoligize to Iraq for invading and for the deaths of so many of their citizens due to our incompetent king.

...since I've been writing for awhile now in this comment section of how foolish and strategically inept it is to be arguing over withdrawl and thus giving republicans a means to cast democrats as surrender monkeys etc etc.
Posted by: saintsimon on September 19, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Oh - like that's YOUR original thought. Hah.

This is Karl Rove's idea, and it has served the Republicans well.

Democratic VOTERS need to know that Democratic politicians are going to fight for them. If Democratic politicians don't show any spine on Iraq WRT standing up to Republicans, then why should a Democratic voter vote at all?

It's nothing more than a lame vote-suppression technique. Unfortunately, it worked. But politicians in the Democratic party, and the party leadership, are starting to get the clue that they're not going to win jack shit until they grow a spine on Iraq.

I don't think it matters if the policy is cohesive. I think it matters that they're willing to stand up to Bush. That's about all that matters for this upcoming election cycle. This is a referendum on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

re: Moral cowards.

its going to be a difficult process to get out of Iraq. Someone should have a plan. We dont have a plan do we? i think we have a plan to have a plan. And that is bs and cowardice.

Its not enought to say we should get out of Iraq, someone needs to say how.

I think the reason that Democratic party professionals have a difficult time in rallying around a single position on Iraq is that there isn't (to them anyway)a clear alternative to Bush's approach (stay until "the job is done"). There is an alternative (pull out soon) but that path seems fraught with peril to the party professionals. If a pull-out means that Iraq descends into the chaotic nightmare portrayed by the Bushites, the Democratic professionals feel as though they will have stepped into the GOP's biggest trap ever.

So, it seems to me that the reason the professional Democrats are afraid to stake out a clear position on reducing our troop levels is that they are afraid of the consequences of the worst possible scenario playing out. They would be, for several generations, be tarred as the "cut-n-run" party by the GOP. That's a prospect worse than having been right on Iraq but lacking the nerve to correct the problem.

I think the Democrats are far too nervous to pull off an audacious alternative which would play very well among voters right now. They'll practically have to be begged by the electorate to offer a draw-down of troop levels before they'll bite. They want a guarantee of no blow-back on them but there are no such guarantees in politics.

To me, this thing is simple: the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the higher the costs go of staying and the more brutal the consequences are TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE are of eventually drawing down U.S. forces. It's the ultimate "you can pay me now or you can pay me later" scenario - with the price going up dramatically the longer we wait.

No pol is exactly eaten up with courage; so you're not going to find any willing to bite the bullet and pay the current price of a draw-down. I suspect the American people are going to have to draft someone and put them into office to carry out the approach THEY want to see.

So, from my perspective, a pox on both Republican and Democratic houses!

Word games. "Immediately" doesn't mean that, it means as soon as we can logistically get out. The military decides. "As soon as we can" is just b.s. unless you define what the prequiquisites are. If the prequisite is a free and stable Iraq, it means never. But if it means "without unnecessary losses to our forces," then it is precisely the same as "immediately."

I think the main difference is between Democrats who believe that democracy can be promoted by dropping bombs and/or invasion and Democrats who believe this kind of policy is extremely dangerous/hopelessely naive.

>if for no other reason than that it's so pointless.

I dunno. The Rethugs are tearing themselves apart over "snowflake babies", as much as that argument disgusts me I'm heartend to see some passion over REAL babies (and toddlers, and kids, and teenagers, and adults, and old people) dying in Iraq.

I mean, the amazing thing about this is how antiseptic the entire discussion is. Nobody in this entire country should give a fuck about anything else until we have stopped the bloodbath. The right wing should shut up about "the death tax" the left wing "fair trade", even my beloved environmental causes should tread water for awhile..

Everything should just fucking stop until this mess is cleaned up. It's like a goddam Richie Rich dinner party where one of the kitchen help has a seizure and everybody from the dining party clucks sadly and dispassionately discusses what the best hospital in the area is and which doctor they'd recommend.

And not a fucking one raises their fat ass from their seat to go and help.

rdw said that reducing our support for Israel amounts to appeasing terrorists. This doesn't make any sense. We give Israel $3 billion per year. Many other countries, such as India, also suffer from terrorist attacks. Does this mean that unless we start giving all those countries $3 billion dollars every year that we are appeasing terrorists?

Our policies should be aimed foremost at increasing OUR security. In my opinion, stopping our support of Israel would, in the long run, also be in their best interest too, because it would force them to adopt a more realistic strategy to accomodate their neighbors.

As I said earlier though, this is not a policy that would sell politically right now.

Here in Kentucky, we've got progressives and conservatives fighting to the death for control of the Democratic Party, but since the primary ended in May, we're on all the same page on the goal of turning Congress back over to the dems. "Democrats good, Bush bad, republicans very very bad" is our mantra, and otherwise we keep our mouths shut until after the November election. Then we get to start fighting over the gubernatorial primary in May 2007.

"at war with each other over the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq "immediately" or merely "as soon as we can."" [...] "it's discouraging anyway, if for no other reason than that it's so pointless."

I agree it is mostly a pointless argument, and politically unwise as it relates to crafting and selling a message. But Cranky got in above with a similar interpretation to mine:

could be reconciled if the question were rephrased as "should the neoliberal 'hawks' be at helm of the Democratic Party in the future?"

And that the argument Kevin refers to is kind of a a proxy argument between "liberal" hawks (i.e., ALL of the media, most of the liberal blogs, all of the Democratic politicians) and those who believe that "NO WAR" should be the default position, and only violated under imminent threat. This is the only moral position, and, helpfully, a usually correct, pragmatic, utilitarian position too.

All the schmucks who fell for the last war's sales pitch should step aside. And volunteer to help clean up the carnage you facillitated.

Seems like the comments posted here support your general argument...Democrats are at a complete loss because the options are all bleak. Fundamentally, the issue revolves around the so called Pottery-Barn rule. Do Americans have a moral responsibility to prevent _armed_ religious factions from slaughtering one another? I for one would love to see a Democrat frame it this way and conclude that no, we do not. If we are not providing the weapons, not involved in the religous dispute, and not encouraging the killing, then it's beyond me why we are morally responsible for it. Intervening on behalf of a civilian population during genocide and wedging oneself in between factions in a religous war are two different beasties. One entails a moral obligation and perhaps military intervention from a "super power", the other, at best, rates diplomatic intervention.

I don't get the ensuing bloodbath... what the hell is going on right now then?

Think Rwanda with better weapons.

IMHO, We must stay until either Iraq becomes stable(global cooling is more likely) or until the majority of Americans scream for us to get out. A competent, non-corrupt, legitimate attempt at reconstruction(something the Thugs are systemically incapable of) is something the Democrats could offer. A three part confederacy, sharing oil revenues, may be the only positive solution. The groups should be given incentives to move to their respective homelands, with borders between the respective states being secured first by the US, then maybe the UN and in a decade, after the people have come too see the advantages of the arrangement, the Iraqis.

This doesn't make any sense. We give Israel $3 billion per year. Many other countries, such as India, also suffer from terrorist attacks. Does this mean that unless we start giving all those countries $3 billion dollars every year that we are appeasing terrorists?

India has 1B people, can take care of itself, and hasn't asked for help. Israel is a nation of less than 5M jews sitting among 1B hostile muslims. Cutting aid by itsef doesn't prove appeasement. Cutting aid for a long time ally for the sole purpose of currying the favor of their sworn enemies is pure cowardice and appeasement. It's treachery.

The democratic party leaders are well aware they cannot afford to lose jewish votes. They are equally well aware they would lose votes among other religious people as well. For a party that's only received over 50% of the vote once in over 40 years they can hardly piss off part of their base.

This is an even more unusual period because the Jews within Israel as well as American Jews are in rare agreement for a very tough line against Isamic terrorists. They felt the deep pain of the disaster of the Clinton's failed peace negotiations.

The Democrats will not even hint at a pullback of support from Israel. They would never recover.

Jim W wrote: "rdw said that reducing our support for Israel amounts to appeasing terrorists. This doesn't make any sense. "

Nothing rdw says makes any sense. He's a delusional, raving nutcase who suffers from irreversible brain damage as a result of constant exposure to Fox News.

In my opinion, stopping our support of Israel would, in the long run, also be in their best interest too, because it would force them to adopt a more realistic strategy to accomodate their neighbors.

This is exhibit A for why liberals canot be taken seriously. Since Israel's neighbors have repeatedly stated they want the jews dead accomodation means the jews must commit suicide. Don't think that's going to happen.

I am for pulling out right now or yesterday. However, I think if the Dems are smart, they should run on the idea that if they win, they will put a cadre of leaders in place who have military experience, foreign policy experience, and any other experience to make the best decision of the country. Then, they will meet immediately and discuss the situation and come up with a the best action to save as many lives of the troops and the Iraqi people as possible and do that. If they decide staying for a while or whatever, I will accept it. I do believe the people who want to get out immediately, as I am, are that intractable.

Jim W, Sa,

Read and weep!

Pals No More?--II

"Israel's public standing in both the US and Europe has improved following the war in Lebanon," the Jerusalem Post reports, citing a study by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg:

Israel's support in the US is near its highest level since Greenberg began systematically charting the numbers in April 2003, while in Europe more and more people see Israel as a moderate force in what is increasingly being perceived as a battle between moderates and extremists in the Middle East.

Amir Gissin, director of public affairs (hasbara) at the Foreign Ministry, said the numbers reflected a general trend in the West, where people were beginning to widen the lens they used to interpret information about the Middle East. A positive side effect of the war, Gissin said, was that people in the West had stopped seeing the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the root of all Middle East instability.

Among the findings:

53% of Americans call themselves strong supporters of Israel; only 5% strong supporters of the Palestinians.

74% of Americans said Israel acted in self-defense against Hezbollah; only 16% thought the Jewish state had an "expansionist" policy. On the other hand, 42% thought Israel "went too far," against 45% who thought it acted properly.

"60% of the French public, and 64% of its 'elites,' now believe the heart of the problem in the Middle East is the conflict between moderates and extremists, with Israel on the side of the moderates, along with [Mahmoud] Abbas, Egypt and Jordan."

rdw wrote: "This is exhibit A for why liberals canot be taken seriously."

You are exhibit A for why Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt mental slaves who think what Rush Limbaugh tells them to think and say what Fox News tells them to say and mechanically regurgitate scripted Republican Fascist Party propaganda when they are not simply raving incoherently cannot be taken seriously.

When I read each day's newspaper, and learn the latest revelations about our preposterous Commander in Chief and his pals, and about the continuing slaughter in Iraq, the idea of pulling out tomorrow looks pretty damn good. In the full light of noon, however, what I really think needs to happen is for a group of knowledgable people to sit down together and seriously examine the full range of options; not just, "Should we stay for five years, or ten, or forever?" We've got to get out, but we need to THINK (a concept foreign to recent US policy) about how to do that as gracefully as possible, and with as little consequent damage as possible. Once we decide, then we need to DO it.
. . . jim strain in san diego.

Why the hell do the Dems bother getting worked up over this?

We don't control the Executive Branch, and don't have a chance of doing so until 2009. As such, our views of what *should* happen if a competent administration were in charge are completely moot. Its like having a civil war over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The best we can hope for is control of Congress, where we can force some accountability to screw-ups currently in charge. As such, I think we can safely punt on what to actually do in Iraq until the 2008 primary season rolls around, where this debate will be hashed out by the candidates.

The dems have no plan. Our leaders look like idiots to me. Why they cannot agree on a strategy and direciton is beyond me. What will happen when we take over?
I read a great article at http://www.constitutionalmatters.com that illustrates this very point.

"This is exhibit A for why liberals canot be taken seriously. Since Israel's neighbors have repeatedly stated they want the jews dead accomodation means the jews must commit suicide."

And that comment is Exhibit A as to why you are a delusional drama queen.

Neocons refer to Israel as a vital "strategic ally". Its like saying that you have strategically attached a a ball and chain to your ankle to help you swim to shore.

We have supported them long enough. The same goes for Egypt. I have nothing against these two countries, but all the money we're throwing at them is just subsidizing bad policies on their part.

In 1968 there was consensus that a pullout from Viet Nam would be a disaster leading to the Communist takeover in that part of the world (domino theory). It didn't quite happen that way. Now we have American tourists increasingly visiting a friendly Viet Nam and nobody considers them a threat. In the late 1950's the French were convinced a pullout from Algeria would be a disaster with an unstoppable blood bath. That didn't quite happen either. Within a year of French withdrawal that country stabilized. Now Algeria is counted among our western "allies" and there are now plenty of French tourists there. France and Algeria are on friendly terms.

"This is exhibit A for why liberals canot be taken seriously. Since Israel's neighbors have repeatedly stated they want the jews dead accomodation means the jews must commit suicide."

This is exhibit A for why conservatives cannot be taken seriously, because this is the voice of a very few, very loud extremists.

Bomb the extremists, and you validate them and make their voices louder.

Marginalize the extremists, and support the moderates, and the moderate voices will be louder.

Right now, the Bush/Likud approach is what is giving voice to the extremists who are saying "kill them all" - because the Bush/Likud approach is "kill them all".

Time for a new approach.

brewmn,

Did you read the poll?

Support for Israel is at highs. Quess what that means? It means every politician will be sucking up to Israel. There is no chance we pull away from Israel.

The bigger problem isn't American Jews but American conservatives. Conservatives are the largest voting bloc and we strongly support the only mature democracy in the middle east. Liberals are on this question a very small minority. You get no say in the matter.

because this is the voice of a very few, very loud extremists.

No it isn't. This is very common in the muslim world. The entire leadrship in Iran has made it clear they are devoted to the destruction of Israel and we know from the well stocked missle supplies of Hezbollah they mean what they say.

If you read the above poll you'll see Lebanon was a PR disaster for the far left. We know what Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are about. They could not have been clearer. There is absolutely no doubt they wish to erase Israel from the face of the earth.

The poll also shows aside from liberals Americans are not cowards. We don't desert friends. Your cut and run credentials are well established but they will not be flashed for this election. ROVE and GWB would make mincemeat of your party, again.

Israel will continue to enjoy the complete support of the USA.

A new USATODAY/Gallup Poll was released today and I would suggest that this recent polling data tells us that voters have a clear perspective on the war in Iraq...perhaps more cogent than either Party. They feel it is being handled poorly, they know what a civil war looks like, they believe Congress has failed to do its part in guiding and overseeing the executive branch, and they realize that the notion of exporting democracy to the Middle East is a Bush Doctrine that fails to recognize the realities in the region. Finally, they believe that Middle East stability is important and that a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos may well be detrimental to the United States.

That, my friends, is one spot on analysis and suggests that voters have discerned fact from fiction with an impressive demonstration of acuity. Perhaps both parties will someday learn that the truth is, in the final analysis, the most powerful campaign strategy available. Don't hold your breath.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

brewmn, jim w, sa

Did you see the news today Chirac is hinting as a separate deal with Iran outside the EU? The split between Germany and France under Merkel could not be more dramatic. Chirac is a back-stabbing coward. Merkel has a strong spine. You will recall a few weeks back as Israel was still under attack Merkel pointedly agreed to sell Israel two dolphin class subs designed to provide 2nd strike capability in the event of nuclear attack.

Angela was flipping the Iranians and the rest the finger.

You are seeing the re-emergence of Germany as a world power much as we have seen with Japan. Japan will soon remove article 9 of their constitution and begin the process of building their military into the worlds 2nd strongest. Merkel has effectly moved Germany to the right such that the rift with France is very wide. There's not a history of German appeasement. The consensus is still forming but theres little doubt the German people will not allow themselves to be held hostage by Iran or depend on the French for security.

It's only a matter of time before they begin a more aggressive re-armament. It would seem very odd that Germany would become such a strong supporter of Israel but they both have a comon enemy.

In 1968 there was consensus that a pullout from Viet Nam would be a disaster leading to the Communist takeover in that part of the world

That's total crap. JFK got us in on that basis and LBJ kept us in. The consensus on getting out was it would be a disaster for the South Vietnamese and that's exactly what it was. Many were killed, many died trying to escape the tyranny, many risked their lives in getting out and all who remained behinded were punished by the repressive lives only socialism can deliver.

We abandoned those people much to our disgrace. South Vietnam would otherwise be a flourishing mature democracy much like South Korea. Liberal attempts to rewrite history will not wash. We know all about the boat people, the re-education camps, the murders, and today we have a nation with a per capita income about 1/20 that of South Korea.

We were wrong to leave and those people have suffered greatly.

SA,

Crude was down another $2.10. Unleaded down $.08. I paid $2.17 in NJ for gas last week and saw it as low as $2.13. Looks as though $2.05 is baked in the cake now.

It's also interesting natural gas held onto the 10% drop of last friday and remains near 3-yr lows. Heating bills will be dramatically lower this year.

Allow me to predict futher weakness prior to the November elections as the hurricane season remains a dud and supplies plentiful.

If you needed an electorate angry about energy costs heading into the voting booth you won't be getting it.

rdw is so wrong and such a dreamer. You can't force democracy at the point of a gun when it's not what those on the ground most want. The thing I remember is that the repercussions in Vietnam when we left were much less bad than what the conservatives had been predicting all along. There was supposed to be this terrible "bloodbath," hundreds of thousands would die; never happened. What did happen was certainly not so bad as to justify the 50,000 soldiers who died there. Anyway, as I remember, it was a Republican administration that handled our departure from there. Blame it on Nixon, if you want.

You will recall a few weeks back as Israel was still under attack Merkel pointedly agreed to sell Israel two dolphin class subs designed to provide 2nd strike capability in the event of nuclear attack.

Germany has been selling Israel subs for nuke strikes since after the first Gulf War. It was revealed that some German company had provided the some of the chems for the Iraqi Scuds that hit Israel, and Israel used that info into blackmailing Germany into selling the subs.

This isn't a relationship based on mutual interest.

Oh, forget it; I forgot that I'm talking to a neonazi. Nevermind.

What did happen was certainly not so bad as to justify the 50,000 soldiers who died there.

Not to mention the 2-3 million VN that we killed, which neonazi rdw careful elides mentioning. If the US would have stayed, the carnage would have continued. But when the US kills someone, that person goes to heaven; when commies kill someone, that person is condemned to hell....

Thank you Disputo. I did not mean to leave out the Vietnamese killed in the war, estimated at over 2 million as you say, but I didn't have the number handy for their deaths.

I think that the general understanding is that when a foreign invader leaves, the bloodbath diminishes, not increases. That is true in the cases I can think of.

I want to hear that the Dems have an articulated policy on IRAN.

Bush is boxing us into a corner on Iran, where war will be the only option. Will Dems formulate a policy on this NOW, and stand up for it?

Or are we just going to wait until Bush makes a move? By then it will, I think, be too late.

This is the only comment I saw in this entire thread that touches on the most vital issue facing the republic. Yes, Iraq is a disaster. Yes, our relationship with Israel deserves some serious scrutiny. Yes, Bush deserves impeachment -- hell, a firing squad. But none of these are even gonna be on the table if the Cheney administration launches an even bigger catastrophe in Iran. The Dems need to get ahead of this, and damn fast. Hint: Even if Tehran acquires nuclear weapons -- and they're surely working on it -- I've yet to hear a non-deranged explanation of why that would be worse than the Pakistani bomb. Dems need to work that angle, or they're just gonna get rolled -- again.

You are seeing the re-emergence of Germany as a world power .... rdw rdw

God ... and this is supposed to be Good?! Have you no memory at all, man?

Sean's and Secular Animist's comments together say what needs to be said: Only in a state so solidly Democratic do election activists have the luxury to tear each other apart on the finer points of Iraq policy (if that is what is happening). Here in red and reddish states where we're up against incumbents as corrupt and stupid as Bush but just a little taller, the urgency of removing them calms the internal party waters quite a bit.

The thing I remember is that the repercussions in Vietnam when we left were much less bad than what the conservatives had been predicting all along

Obviously you don't remember the desperation of the boat people. What was it like for parents putting their kids in those things not knowing if they would survive? Many did not? What happened was a massive humanitarian disaster that can never be erased. It's also clear the butchery in Cambodia was a direct result. It's been estimated that over 2M were killed.

The obvious comparison today is between South Korea and South Vietnam. Our actions were reprehensible and the people of South Vietnam paid a serve price they continue to pay today.

The exception would of course be the over 3M than emigrated to the USA.

Nell;
Extremely insightful post.

I still say Dem politicians need some spine.
Eliminating Lieberman was an excellent first step.

I've yet to hear a non-deranged explanation of why that would be worse than the Pakistani bomb.

Compare and contrast: Mushtarraf's rhetoric and Ahmadinijad's rhetoric. (Ahmadinijad may be painting himself into an inescapable corner with extremists in his own government - even if this IS all just bluster to fire up his base).

The other thing that makes an Iranian bomb much worse than a Pakistani bomb;
Israel will tolerate a Pakistani bomb.
Israel will not tolerate an Iranian bomb. Israel will either act directly, or through the pants of American congressmen (via AIPAC - hell, I'm pretty sure AIPAC knows our "launch codes" better than Bush does).

This isn't a relationship based on mutual interest.

It most certainly is based on mutual self-interest. Merkel's announcement was dramatically timed for maximum effect and the message was directly aimed at the Mad Mullahs.

Germany under Merkel is far different than Germany under Schroeder. Angela is an East German. She did not grow up in a PC world. She knows appeasemnt is not only the worst form of cowardice but also can only result in failure.

The interesting question now is how she guides the German people from West German pacificism to East German realism. She's done great with a minority govt but it's still a minority govt. The model here is Japan. GWB and Kouzimi have been brilliant in moving the Japanese people to assuming total responsibility for their defense. Kouzimi's hand picked successor kicked off him campaign prmising to remove article 9 of the constitution. This election is going to be a referendum.

All of the polling data suggests it will pass easily. In 2007 Japan begins the process of becoming the worlds 2nd greatest military power.

If merkel is successful she will put Germany on the path to become the 3rd most powerful military.

because this is the voice of a very few, very loud extremists.

No it isn't.Posted by: rdw on September 19, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Um - yes it is.

This is very common in the muslim world.

And becomes more common, the more we give their voices credibility by bombing them.

The entire leadrship in Iran...

in other words, a small, and very vocal minority in Iran - who happen to hold all the power, and all the cards.

... has made it clear they are devoted to the destruction of Israel...

They made it clear that they are devoted to the destruction of the state of Israel. Why can't YOU be clear? This is some very serious shit we're talking about, and your willful conflation of terms only serves to muddy the waters.

... and we know from the well stocked missle supplies of Hezbollah...

You been listening to that liar Ghorbonifar again? Didn't you learn from Iran-Contra?

God ... and this is supposed to be Good?! Have you no memory at all, man?

It's very good. The emergence of Japan and Germany would be fantastic for the US. This is not 1940. These are mature democracies with well educated peace loving people. GWBs plan has been to free up and motivate the worlds democracies to assist in the GWOT.

It was absurd to keep US troops in Germany and Japan when they are wealthy enough and strong enough to defend themselves.

This is especially true now when the rest of Europe has allowed itself to become so weak and now so susceptible toward becoming Islamic states. We never could trust the French and the Brits seemed committed toward cultural suicide. Spain and the Northern European countries are probably already lost.

It is the proud military history, which when separated from the political history, that makes Germany and Japan so promising as allies. We know Japan can be a dominating force in Asia holding both China and North Korea in check. We also know the Germans, with Italy, Poland and the Czech repulic, can hold Eastern Europe together.

If Western Europe is lost, as appears likely, we need to distance ourselves. Nations have permanent interests not permanent friends.

If merkel is successful she will put Germany on the path to become the 3rd most powerful military.
Posted by: rdw on September 19, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Geogre better start cranking up those backrubs then.

You are seeing the re-emergence of Germany as a world power much as we have seen with Japan.

Speaking as a half-German...wow, that's some crazy. Sheer babbling lunacy.

They made it clear that they are devoted to the destruction of the state of Israel. Why can't YOU be clear? This is some very serious shit we're talking about, and your willful conflation of terms only serves to muddy the waters.

What are you babbling about? They've been very clear. They wish to push ALL of the jews into the sea. They want the jews DEAD.

And it's not limited to the lunatics in control in Iran. It's the common sentiment in the entire muslim world and there are more than a few Europeans in total agreement.

It's also very clear both Hamas and hezbollah are the well supplied proxy armies of Iran. They are well supplied, well funded and well trained. Iran has the perfect model and the EU and UN are defenseless. Western Europe is terrified of terrorism and many have already surrendered.

I continue to get solicitations from various Democratic affiliated groups all of which talk about GWB's "mishandling" of the war, but seem to be terminally allergic to calling it even a mistake, let alone what it was--a mistake of epic proportions. IMO any Democrat who refuses at this point to at LEAST call it a mistake is grossly, er, "mishandling" the issue.

And it's not limited to the lunatics in control in Iran. It's the common sentiment in the entire muslim world and there are more than a few Europeans in total agreement.

sheer hyperbole.

It's also very clear both Hamas and hezbollah are the well supplied proxy armies of Iran.

Yeah, and Al Qaeda was a proxy army of Iraq. Right?

Wow !!

Good post Kevin, it sure got the juices flowing in a good direction

Then there`s rdw who, apparently, got a big bonus in his last check from Rover; working for a bigger one next pay cycle eah ?

"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

Doesn't matter what the Dems think. Bush is commander in chief and he calls the shot. All the Congressional Dems can do is provide better OVERSIGHT. However, this is very very important. Bush will be forced to justify his decisions. Questions can be asked. Answers must be given. Believe me, oversight is necessary given all the corruption. Eliminating the corruption (or 90%) of it would go a long way to curing problems.

"the rest of Europe has allowed itself to become so weak and now so susceptible toward becoming Islamic states. We never could trust the French and the Brits seemed committed toward cultural suicide. Spain and the Northern European countries are probably already lost.

"It is the proud military history, which when separated from the political history, that makes Germany and Japan so promising as allies. We know Japan can be a dominating force in Asia holding both China and North Korea in check. We also know the Germans, with Italy, Poland and the Czech repulic, can hold Eastern Europe together."

THAT's your great hope for the future? A Germano-Nippono-American alliance enforces order in Asia and stops the mongrelization of Europe by evil Semites?

So, we were on the wrong side in WWII, huh?

Speaking as a half-German...wow, that's some crazy. Sheer babbling lunacy.

Not at all. Germany lost it's defense shield. GWB withdrew ALL combat troops leaving only a few doctors. They now have sole responsibility for their defense. This changes EVERYTHING! It's fun to pretend you've perfected 'soft power' when you've got 100,000 US combat troops on your border. But pacifism is no longer an academic exercise.

The Germans have a choice for the 1st time since 1945. Either they will defend themselves or not. Iran issued a direct threat. They know trouble is brewing with Islam. If soft power works they're in great shape. If not they'll be praying 5x's a day.

Liberals look at Germany and they see Hitler. That's wrong. This is a mature democracy. Germans are well educated and peace loving. But they are not saps. They supported Reagan when he upgraded the missle defenses in Germany.

There's no question this is hard to see now. That's why Japan is so instructive. GWB forced the Japanese have to assume control of their own destiny by removing US diplomatic and defense shields. He's done the same with Germany. The post-WWII era is over.

It will take the Germans some time to decide to re-arm more aggressively. The Japanese face two direct threats in NK and China thus a clearer decision. Germans will not be pushed around. If they decide Iran is a credible threat they will prepare to destroy Iran and all of their allies. Iran is definitely going to become a nuclear power and will be soon followed by Turkey and Egypt. It seems unlikely Germany will rely on diplomacy. They will have a very robust military and the attitude to use it if necessary.

Speaking as a half-German

Which half? ;)

sglover nails it. Seriously.

"---California are practically at war with each other over the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq "immediately" or merely "as soon as we can." It blots out nearly everything else.

Is it Nam yet?

Well if not, its getting there, are pretty darn close to it.

THAT's your great hope for the future? A Germano-Nippono-American alliance enforces order in Asia and stops the mongrelization of Europe by evil Semites?

So, we were on the wrong side in WWII, huh?

Liberals just can't get over WWII. This is 2006 not 1936. I am hoping for an alliance of the worlds great democracies. Does that not make perfect sense?

I have no idea what your comment means. Japan does not have territorial ambitions. They face real threats from China and North Korea and even Russia. They need to pre-emt any ambitions these historic enemies face to continue their current very prosperous and peaceful existance.

Germany lives in a somewhat safer neighborhood but terrorism has it's own dangers and it's likely at least 3 more Muslim nations will join the nuclear club within 5 to 7 years. This region will become dramatically more dangerous and there's no question radical Islam aims to re-take Europe. They also have a very workable plan. Germany will be confronted.

BTW: This alliance of democracies will also eventually include India as well as most of Eastern Europe and Italy.

Is it Nam yet?

Well if not, its getting there, are pretty darn close to it.

This isn't anything like 1968. This has become a religious war within Islam with the USA well outside the major killing fields. We are training their military and making visible progress. We will be getting out sooner rather than later.

BTW: This alliance of democracies will also eventually include India as well as most of Eastern Europe and Italy.
Posted by: rdw on September 19, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Will that also include Pakistan? Because it seems to include Pakistan now.

Or, in your master grand plan, do we eventually "turn on them"?

Well, rdw, basically the main people the "post WWII period" worked out for was defense contractors.

Its especially ironic to bring up Germany, considering East Germany had such a large hand in ending the Cold War.

Now, it would be a nice break for the U.S. to give up fighting the damn cold war as well.

What is needed is essentially a form of the Star Trek "prime directive" which prohibited interferance with primative cultures.

Sure, democracy works great once the population a certain minimum GDP, but guess what, much of the world is not there yet, and when people are so struggling with living vs. starving to death, totalitarian political control, or totalitarian religious control, is going to arise.

A colonial power with any balls would have annexed both Vietnam and Iraq. There wouldnt' be any question of "democratization of Iraq" Iraq would be a United States territory.

This bizzarre foreign policy where we assume all of the costs and none of the benefits of foreign adventurism must have "old Europe" laughing their asses off.

The biggest joke is worrying about Iran. Rdw, do you live in Southern California? I know more than a few Iranian ex-pats. A more primed bunch of shallow consumers-in-training you could hardley create if you started from scratch. You should see what they do to the places they buy in Beverly Hills.

The entire rest of the world is not our problem as a country. Its beyond clear that stepping up to be "the world's policeman" is an expensive and thankless job, and you end up creating more problems than you solve.

The entire rest of the world is not our problem as a country. Its beyond clear that stepping up to be "the world's policeman" is an expensive and thankless job, and you end up creating more problems than you solve.

The rest of the world visited us on 9/11. I agree the worlds policeman thing is expensive and 'often' thankless but timing is everything. There's no question Stalin would have rolled all the way to Greenland given the chance and stopping him at the Iron Curtain was and remains hugely beneficial for the world.

The problem as I see it is in knowing when to leave. Why on earth did GWB come into office with over 100K troops in Germany and so many in Japan and South Korea? We should have dramatically downsized those bases. We should have been out of Germany and Japan and out of South Korea. They are wealthy mature democracies capable of defending themselves.

Already GWBs actions in these 3 states is paying off. They are assuming control of their own destinies and starting to bitch a low less about the USA.

Regarding Iran I am aware the general poplation is vastly different than the leadership however they support the urge of the leadership to become a nuclear power and they know they will be a menace. Until there's real hope the nuts will be tossed out Iran will remain the worlds most dangerous menace.

This bizzarre foreign policy where we assume all of the costs and none of the benefits of foreign adventurism must have "old Europe" laughing their asses off.

Old Europe is and has been in a sour mood for quite some time. The polls have been consistent on this. They should be miserable. Their cultures are disappearing and they know it. Their economies have been under-performing the anglo world for 2 decades and will continue to do so.

US per capita income is 40% higher than in France, Germany and the UK and we're growing much faster. That 40% is headed toward 100%.
They have welfare state demands every European understands the state cannot possibly meet.

They have their own demographic disaster combined with a rapidly growing problem with Islamic minorities creating severe cultural dislocations. There might be more radical muslims in London than in Cairo and we're familiar with the car-b-ques throughout France.

If one is French or a Brit or a Swede one has to wonder if their grandchildren will be praying 5x's a day. There will be cities and counties in Europe with very large Islamic minorites or even majorities such that they are able to use the ballot box to exert their influence. These regions will not be European. They will be Islamic. At a minimum it will be dramatically more dangerous to be gay in Europe.

> The Germans have a choice for the 1st
> time since 1945. Either they will defend
> themselves or not. Iran issued a direct
> threat. They know trouble is brewing
> with Islam. If soft power works they're
> in great shape. If not they'll be
> praying 5x's a day.

Even considering your usual line of argument that is bizarre, rdw. Germany's armed forces are sufficient to repel any remotely possible invader except Russia (and maybe even them). The invasion route from Iran to Germany passes through Turkey and Switzerland among others - these peoples are just going to wave the invaders on? The liklihood of Iran actually using any (currently non-existent) nuclear weapon is below zero, but if they did threaten Germany with such the NATO treaty would immediatly come into play (as it did when Luftwaffe AWACS were called to the US to patrol in the weeks after 9/11) and the US would come to its ally's assistance (one hopes, anyway).

So just what the HECK are you talking about?

Cranky

Will that also include Pakistan? Because it seems to include Pakistan now.

Or, in your master grand plan, do we eventually "turn on them"?

GWB has dramatically improved relations with Pakistan however they are not a democracy and certainly not mature. Large parts of Pakistan are not governed but remain under tribal rule. This is why Osama remains there. I think it's probably necessary for Pakistan to mature as a democracy and for India and Pakistan to settle their differences.

The USA-Japan-Germany alignment I predict isn't necessarily a global alliance. Thre are times the USA and Japan on an issue Germany has little interest. I think formal alliances are effectively over. We'll have coalitions of the willing.

I expect Japan and Germany to be #2 and #3 not because they becoe belligerent but because they have western capitalist societies. The Russians and Chinese still have to steal technology and are grotesquely inefficient. Japan and Germany will pass them on their technological expertise and facilitated by a partnership with the USA.
Japan has committed over $1B and talent to star wars. There will be more joint efforts.

Consider how a strong Japan ensures peace in Asia. China would not dare bully a strong Japan. Even the moron in NK would get his act together. Russia fired on some Japanese ships in a contested area a month ago. In a few years Russia won't consider it.

Regardless of what THE PARTY comes up with THE PARTY has lost The Trust and Confidence of the general population.Trust has been gone since Clinton arrived on the scene. Confidence shortly there after. You cannot be taken serious if everything, everything you do is Political.You just stated that everyone is in a divide over Policy. What Policy? You dont have one.Say this and that. Pull out no no put it in? Kerry said this Hillary said that.Slobber and moonbat druel is not policy. Instead of looking forward to find ways to DEFEND THE NATION you all have been running against a man who WILL NEVER BE ON A BALLOT EVER AGAIN. What the hell kind of policy is that?Look at the only Senator who made his stand on IRAQ twenty years of faithful service to THE PARTY. SO sorry JOE your out of hear OH but wait He'll be back only now he has no allegance to anyone but JOE. Good policy. Great move by an I NET lynch mob. I am convinced THE PARTY is going to lose another Election and another and another. Howard Dean should be the Reoublicans MVP in 06.Good job HOWIE!!!!!!!!! I'm glad I am a Republican you guys are NUTS really F*@kin NUTS!!!

So just what the HECK are you talking about?

Did you read the above? I clearly spelled out the Islamic threat. Iran has been toying with the EU for two years while almost all of it's member nations are spending fortunes investigating their islamic minorities for terror threats. They're also finding them.

Iran is Europes worst nightmare. They'll never confront Europe directly until they join the nuclear club and even then it'll never be army to army. Iran creates terror armies Europe cannot defend. Iran can easily train, supply and fund European citizens.

As of right now Europe has no deterrent capability. While they have modern technology they are uber-PC. They are soft powers only. Every day Iran grows stronger while Europe grows weaker. Spain and Italy are just two states now seeing shrinking populations. The rest soon will. Irans nuclear and missle programs will soon be sucessful.

The only way Europe can deter Islamic fascism is to make it clear there will be a severe price to be paid by doing so. That's why no state is helping to paln any attacks on America. The whack jobs in Iran know we'll come after them 1st. They can toy with Europe.

My prediction for Germany is not limited to defense spending. They will not be the 3rd ranked military power due to their pretty toys. The German War machine was feared because of it's cold efficiency. They were ready, willing and very capable fighters.

Iran will toy with France endlessly. They will toy with the EU. But the Germans won't like it and eventually will put an end to it. They will get to a place where if Iran threatens them the Germans will make Iran back down and Iran will know they better do it. Deterrance is as much about attitude as weaponry. Historically the Germans have had attitude.

The liklihood of Iran actually using any (currently non-existent) nuclear weapon is below zero, but if they did threaten Germany with such the NATO treaty would immediatly come into play (as it did when Luftwaffe AWACS were called to the US to patrol in the weeks after 9/11) and the US would come to its ally's assistance (one hopes, anyway).

I don't expect Iran to use the weapons. That's why they use hezbollah and other proxies and that's why Europe is so defenseless. They could never attack Iran unless they had proof Iran attacked them. What is extremely unlikely is for Iran to use the bomb. The terror threat will be sufficient for Iran to meet it's goals which will be autonomy for muslims in Europe including the application of Islamic law.

I've predicted Iran will not attack Israel, the USA or Russia or China because they would immediately attacked back. Europe would go to the UN and ask for a resolution.

The NATO treaty is useless to the USA and it's effectively defunct. The so called mmilitary aid provided by NATO after 9/11 was pure political show. Most of NATO is so poorly trained and equipped the USA is much better off operating independently. Aside from the Brits and Danes they have almost no battle experience. Some are in Afghanistan but that's mostly Canada and Germany in forward positions and the rest in support.

We saw in Kosovo what Europe was capable of. Almost nothing.

BTW: It's not impossible Iran would attack israel. While 20% of Israel is Palestinian and any fallout would poison the region the religious nuts are quite capable of deciding mass martyrdom is worth it. The deterrant is in the fact Israel would deliver massive retaliation toward iran and possibly the entire midle east. It's hard to know what the nuts really think and how many of their own they'd sacrifice.

In my opinion, stopping our support of Israel would, in the long run, also be in their best interest too, because it would force them to adopt a more realistic strategy to accomodate their neighbors.

I have to agree here. The Jewish Israelis have gone totally overboard in their treatment of Palestinians and even Arab Israelis. They have to face a bit of reality for their own good, as well as the general good.

Exactly.