Paritition.

A children's crusade?

A free pony in exchange for firearms program.

Maybe if LL Cool J renamed all the major cities so they were easier to include in rhymes.

All these guys should be forced to shave their heads with a pony tail left on the back just like the real pundits do. We have to be able to identify the idiots among us.

Partition means Turkey goes to war with Kurdistan in order to prevent a civil war with its borders.
Just one of the numerous problems with the idea.

Since the king has finally been seen by many in the court to have no clothes, isn't that the problem.

The only way to "win" this is a level of force and effort that is not politically acceptable here. Even then there are no guarantees.

Unbeknownst to the idiot and despite his say so, there is such a thing as an unwinnable war.

It doesn't seem like he and the other repugnuts have quite grasped the damage they have done. They're still muttering how they will shown justified in the future.

Bit like Skilling really. You can play the game and steal the money, but Responsibility? Not They!

Partition? Convince us that the Iraqis would be willing to peacefully accept this.

Expecting partition to occur peacefully is imposing an impossible condition on this option but an unpeaceful partition may still, in the long run, be the least violent and most stable outcome. Speaking of the long run, even if there is a hiatus on violence that eye of the hurricane which allows up the opportunity to vamoose, the internal political fissures leading to partition will likely exacerbate in the coming years and lead to 3 mostly equal actors (Sh'ites, Sunnis, Kurds) and external state actors duking it out.

In terms of political triage, an ordered partition, even if it generates violence, may be preferrable in that we may be able to somewhat suppress the chaos, inhibit the outright involvement of external actors (not that they won't be involved tabula rosa, but without us there their involvement would be significantly increased.)

Step One in winning a war: Don't surrender.

Beyond that, you can work out the details. WWII wasn't fought according to a specific four-year plan either.

Partition will never work. It sounds all well and good to the western world, but it is not workable. Turkey is our NATO ally, and a key one at that. But if we put a de facto free Kurdistan on their border, there will be a Turkish invasion, and the Turkish military is nothing to sneer at.

Partition is out, unless we want to tell our most key ally in the region to go fuck themselves.

Tango: That's fine. Just convince us that partition would be even moderately peaceful and stable. That's enough for me.

ddbarnes --

Actually, WWII was!

As much as any huge-scale project can go to plan, WWII did. Theonly difference was that the development of nukes shortened and cheapened (for the US) the Pacific endgame.

Partition is something the Turks simply can not, will not, abide. It is a threat to their very sovereignty. They have been the recipients of seventy years of brutal terrorism at the hands of the PPK. The Turks feel about an independent Kurdistan on their border the same way the US would feel about a Republic of al Qae'da where South Carolina sits today.

For what it's worth, here's my view.

The US has bitten off more than it can chew. There is no forseeable "winning" solution for the US. The US needs to withdraw, there is fear of a civil war if they do, and the US will be perceived by the Arabs and Iran as losing.

Time to swallow some pride and sit down with delegations from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (all the neighboring countries) withthe US as chair but more as diplomat between the parties (hah! I knew there was a hitch) not as dictator, and hammer out the least bad endgame, with the least amount of violence possible.

Put the US Armed forces on a a fairly long time line (18-24 months) for complete withdrawal with agreed goals along that timeframe.

I don't think the US can avoid involving these nations before withdrawing, rather than waiting for it all to blow up after.

That may concentrate the Shia nad the Kurds on their own vulnerabilities, and have the Sunnis looking longer term for survival.

Shoot it down!

Missed Turkey only by lack of concentration!

A couple of comments -

The greatest President [the only great President] of our lifetimes once said the hardest maxim for an American to follow is "don't just do something, stand there." Staying the course is going to drive Bush's approval ratings down to Truman's levels at the end of his term; 21% when he left office. I believe Bush has the steel to accept that oppobrium and do what he considers the right thing.

As to your 'no troops available' argument, you have obviously never served in the military. Take it from someone who spent 2 years in the USAF, and finished his commitment with 2 years in the NYS Army National Guard; there are enough bowling alley operators, child care center directors, chow hall door guards, assistants to the Chaplin's assistant, etc., in the military today to provide another 200,000 troops if we were serious about needing them. This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands still sitting around Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Korea, that have not been inconvenienced by this war.

As far as the never-ending trope that Turkey will invade a US backed Kurdistan if they declare independence, I just don't see it. I've heard it for 15 years as a justification for our abandonment of the Kurd's aspirations - a people that deserve their own state 10,000 times more than the Palestinians - yet it sounds like something a few sorties of bombers should be able to nip in the bud pretty quickly should it occur.

well now, at least the late-night spam is coming in an interesting layout these days.

Not sure as to who was the greatest president of "our lifetimes" (sic. frankly, I believe I only have the one) might be. Might vary with how long you've lived?

Fine solution. Bomb your fellow NATO member for a problem we've caused.

You do know that both Iran and Turkey have already been shelling Kurd Iraq because of KKK incursions to their territory, no?

Just convince us that partition would be even moderately peaceful and stable. That's enough for me.

Would you settle for the "least worst option" for that, to my mind, is how I frame it. The pressures leading to partition will always be there. In the past they were suppressed by Saddam. I suppose that some may argue that another brutal strongman is preferrable to partition but all that does is cork up the pressure and delay setting the fuse to the period of the strongman regime.

What the Mayberry Machiavellis never understood is the incompatibliltiy of a clan-based society and a society based on national allegiance. Iraq is unlikely to ever become a unified whole.

The problem with Turkey is quite real. It's worth investing diplomatic & military effort in establishing a rapprochement between the Iraqi Kurds and the Turks with the US being the guarantor of secure borders. Perhaps a demilitarized zone on the Turkish border. We could give the Kurds carte blanche on their Iranian border thus causing the Iranians some grief, much as they're causing us grief with their proxy involvement in the South.

We're not going to eliminate the forces leading to partitition, and I don't see a less miserable option. Just hightailing it out of Iraq is going to create a free-fire zone for the regional actors.

I have no idea about what "losing in Iraq" means because nobody who has adovcated the Iraq occupation can come up with a consistant opionion on what "winning" means.

We are not going to bomb Turkey, we don't want to give up Incirlik. Turkey will not accept an independent Kurdistan. These are givens. Therefore partition is off the table.

Next notion?

Just hightailing it out of Iraq is going to create a free-fire zone for the regional actors.

Kind of like hightailing it in with no thought to consequences resulted in a power vacuum and a bloodbath.

Can we extend it to include demanding democrats "offer a serious foreign policy" to satisfy "hawks" without offering up an idea of what such a policy could be, and how it wouldn't easily be trumped by batshit crazy republican hawk policies?

WWII wasn't fought according to a specific four-year plan either.

Yeah, they just sat around randomly shooting at shit, and one day said, "d00d, let's invade Normandy." Great analogy. At least in WWII we had Generals who weren't sycophantic kiss-ass yes men, and a few leaders who were willing to fire incompetents.

What's so valuable about Incirlik these days? We could move to Bulgaria or Hungary and be treated well - this sounds like Kissinger's analysis, not someone reading a "pwogwessive" website. Thirty spanks from Chris Hitchens for you. As far as NATO membership (and prospective EU affiliation) the secular establishment that still runs Turkey would not risk it if the USA laid down the law with a defense committment to Kurdistan, and required them not to support terrorists as a precondition.

Kind of like hightailing it in with no thought to consequences resulted in a power vacuum and a bloodbath.

Yes, but far worse. Just hightailing it out of the country will likely create a nation wide level of Baghdad type violence. Is your preferred option one where we just pull out and let them fester in their own misery and violence?

My preference was ignored four years ago.

P.S. to last: by bombing, I meant troop movements through the mountain passes, not Turkish cities.

The US wants to have some megabases in the region. Put one in Kurdistand - they're not as anti-American as the rest of the region. Place one close to the Turkish border to help us in our task of guaranteeing the border.

My preference was ignored four years ago.

So was mine. The problem we face today is how to clam down a hornet's nest and eventually get out of the center of the swarm.

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品
避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法
身体各个部位的减肥
茶
减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品 避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法 身体各个部位的减肥 茶 减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品
避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法
身体各个部位的减肥
茶
减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品 避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法 身体各个部位的减肥 茶 减肥明星

Kevin,

What a straight-forward and brilliant observation.

Kudos!!

It took the Brits 40 years, thousands of lives (mostly of colonial soldiers) and bled the treasure practically dry. And they never got a firm grip on the situation.

网络维护
计算机维护
电脑知识

• 电脑维修


• 电脑故障


• 网络维护


• 电脑维护


• 病毒防治

网络维护, 计算机维护, 电脑知识, 电脑维修

电脑故障,网络维护,电脑维护,病毒防治

Just imagine if the collective brain power of punditry were writing about health care instead of Iraq.

Turkey an ally? Remember when they refused to let us use their territory to launch an invasion from the north but as soon as the Iraqi army was destroyed was going to send in their own troops to occupy
Kurdistan? Fuck Turkey.

A lot of pixels would light up on a lot of screens, and still the ship would drift sideways.

France wouldn't let us use their airspace a time or two as well. (Yeah, yeah, I know, fuck France.) The point is, there is a lot of nuance to these situations. History of the region predates the Olympic Village massacre in 1972.

And didn't someone say up-thread that the Kurds were more deserving of a homeland than the Palestinians? That beggars a backing up.

Tangoman --

Yeah, but do the inhabitant want a US megabase there? And if so, why?

Not exactly the territory you want to have a main base in. Lines of communication and all that. As to the border, there are plenty of Kurds who don't believe there is one. Their families live all over those mountains. Who you going to shoot up? The Kurds, the KKK, the Turkish army, the Iranians, or all and anybody who moves?

It's pointless to pin US forces, isolated on a mountain top, for an unenforceable goal.

I'm really torn on this question of partition. I think both Global and Tango are correct -- and Linus' earlier arguments in favor of a humanely-organized ethnic resettlement (ethnic cleansing under protection of arms) has its merits, if the alternative is the violent one already happening in so much of Iraq.

I see partition as the consequence of failure, though -- every bit as much as invading Iraq to begin with was the consequence of failure. It's not anybody's idea of an ideal solution -- and it will leave the most well-educated and least sectarian Iraqi cohort (the urban Sunnis) in the cold resource-wise, never trusting that either the Kurds or the Shia would bother to share their oil wealth fairly. And Turkey *will* have a problem with Kurdistan -- just as will Iran and Syria.

But as long as the Maliki government has no real legitimacy, as long as its politicans can't spend any time outside of the Green Zone to develop any legitimacy -- then in the vaccuum of a relevant central government (and the central government is getting less relevant with every new "security plan" than prangs) -- I also see no other alternative to it. Yugoslavia-level ethnic cleansing is already a fact of life in most areas of Iraq.

It may be that the only chance a central government of a unified Iraq could possibly arise is if we just decide to get outta Dodge so one can arise legitimately, without being propped up by our force of arms. Would that lead to a Saddamesque strongman? Perhaps likelier than not.

But the only other alternative seems to be ratifying and attempting to humanely and fairly direct a partitioning process that already seems to be taking place.

This is why I'm coming around to the view that a hard timetable for US troop withdrawal may well be the most viable option in a sea of atrocious ones.

Bob

minion of rove --

Good god, man. The Turks don't support any terrorism. They are no angels, but the terrorists, or, in their terms, the nationalists or liberationists, are coming from Kurdistan into Turkey and Iran.

Just one pedantic quibble -the Kurdish workers party is the PKK, or Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan.

"And didn't someone say up-thread that the Kurds were more deserving of a homeland than the Palestinians? That beggars a backing up."

The Kurds have never supported - I mean broad public support - murder, pillage and international terror as effective tactics to achieve their ends. That's why I feel they are more deserving than the Palestinians for their own homeland.

Global, did I miss your proposed plan?

Never mind that fact that the UN erased a whole fucking country and displaced an entire population so my relatives could relocate from Brighton Beach to a place they had never been before 1948, and call it home?

No, Tango, you didn't miss my proposed plan.

My proposed plan involves a Delorean, a flux capacitor and some uranium.

I will admit my knowledge of the Kurd/terrorism situation is limited and superficial. If someone would provide links I might be willing to change my opinion with new facts.

Minion: here is a good one to start with:

http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-2pdfs/new152RodopluTurkey.pdf#search='kurdish%20terrorism%2C%20turkey'

My preference was ignored four years ago.

That would have been the "leave Saddam in power until the shit hits the fan on someone else's watch" solution?

Global

Some of my distant relatives could claim the UN drove them out of Danzig and changed the name Gdansk. Should they go shooting up teens in pizza parlors? How about dancing in the streets when the WTC comes down? I think you might want to take a deep breath and rethink this one.

Here are a couple more. I hope they are the ones I think they are...

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369981

and

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kurds1.html

What the US needs to do is to create an environment where an independent Kurdistan and Turkey prefer peace over war, territorial integrity over territorial expansion. One way of doing that is to build a pipeline from Kurdish Kirkuk through Turkey and for the Kurds to grant the Turks favorable terms on oil. The Kurds need a way to get their oil to market. They can't really go south through the Sunni regions. A route through Iran is unlikely. That leaves two other options - one down through Jordon to a seaport in Israel and the other through Syria into Lebanon. The Israeli option isn't likely, and the Syrians are as much of a problem as the Turks. However, there is more to be gained from peaceful relations with Turkey than from Syria.

So, both Kurdistan and Turkey get to exercise some leverage over the other. The Turks can close the pipeline to hurt the Kurds, but only by harming themselves by cutting off their own access to Kurdish oil. The Kurds can stop pumping through the pipeline to hurt the Turks but then they have no way to get their oil to market.

Having both rely on each other's good graces benefits both nations.

Going to bed - good night to all the civil commentators on this thread.

I have thought this one through.

Again, back to that pesky "nuance" term.

I deplore the terrorism in Israel. Every time I get on a bus in Tel Aviv I am conscious every breath, and it could very well be my last. When I come home, I am jumpy for days, unable to just turn off the heightened awareness that i consciously cultivate when I am there.

Like I said, my grand plan involves a DeLorean traveling at exactly 88 miles per hour.

Global --

Return quibble, Koma Komelen Kurdistan, also known as the Kurdistan Workers' Party (!?). So there's some confusion there. But KKK is associated with cross-border insurgency in my readings.

Minion, it might be educational for you to find your own. If you don't know much about what is going on out there, or the geography, I guess it's kind of easy to order troops in to "solve" the problem.

Never mind that fact that the UN erased a whole fucking country and displaced an entire population so my relatives could relocate from Brighton Beach to a place they had never been before 1948, and call it home?

Go look at a map. The "country" of Palestine didn't even exist until after WWI and the British pasted the name onto the League of Nations mandate they were given.

That would have been the "leave Saddam in power until the shit hits the fan on someone else's watch" solution?

Oh please. That argument has been debunked repeatedly. Iraq was contained by no-fly zones, there were no WMD's and there was no attempt to obtain U-235.

minion:

Global's correct. The PKK is a terrorist organization recognized as such by the US. And since the vast majority of Kurds support an independent Kurdistan, it's quite likely that a solid majority have a soft spot for the PKK as their "freedom fighters," taking the fight to their historical oppressors in the north, and not getting all ethically sensitive about the tactics they use.

Much like the broad support across all sects in Lebanon for Hezbollah.

So no -- your comparison totally sucks. It's a more analogous situation than not -- even if the Kurds like to fancy themselves as "The Jews of Iraq."

Bob

Iraq didn't exist before WWI either.

The people we now call Palestinians had much deeper ties to that land than my Uncle Myron did.

Everybody keeps mentioning all the complications, and all the parties who have a finger in the pie. Nobody wants to get them involved. Of course, they might not want to be.

1:35 AM above I put out an idea for a regionally brokered solution. Having smashed Iraq, I think tht is worth a try.

No comments though.

I offer three more links beore I shuffle off to bed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-turkey.htm

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/pkk.cfm

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/pkk.htm

Oh please. That argument has been debunked repeatedly. Iraq was contained by no-fly zones, there were no WMD's and there was no attempt to obtain U-235.

Not really. Re-read the Duelfer report about how "contained" Iraq was, especially with everyone clamoring to remove sanctions before 9/11. Saddam had hundreds of weapons scientists on payroll that were interviewed after the war. One assumes they weren't around to make the rooms look smarter. Saddam already did have illegal missiles, something people often overlook.

What would Iran be doing for the next ten years? What would Saddam's response to them have been? Saddam's big mistake may have been not realizing that like Iran, he could just look the U.N. in the eye and tell them to screw off, and go ahead and build the bombs.

The idea that leaving Saddam in power in the Middle East would have been a peaceful and stable solution, especially with our own troops tied up in Afghanistan, is naive. Maybe taking his regime down is costly, but the alternative wasn't without its own eventual consequences.

I put out an idea for a regionally brokered solution. Having smashed Iraq, I think tht is worth a try.

You need to insure a mechanism for the regional players to all move towards the same goal. As we've repeatedly seen all it takes is one actor to believe that they benefit from chaos and violence and that scuttles the diplomacy option. If one actor feels that another actor is being advantaged at their expense, then maintaining the status quo of violence is preferable to permanently ceding influence to the other actor, especially when your state is not the one bearing the costs of the violence which falls solely on Iraqi citizens.

I said not one word about peaceful and stable. I said it wasn't as bad then as it is now. And while we are bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan (which I supported from the outset) is being lost.

With respect to the concern that the Iraqi Kurds will want to unite with their Turkish brethren at some point in the future all we need do is look to other divided peoples for a clue as to the outcome.

South Koreans are not very eager to unite with the North for the costs or reunification will dwarf the German reunification. The sunk costs and the future costs that face Germany due to reunification are not lost on the former West Germans.

Iraqi Kurds, with their oil wealth, will not likely be too eager to wage a war of reunification after they've experienced a sustained period of reaping the benefits of their oil wealth.

With apologies to previous commenters, I'd like to address what I think is the non sequitur in Kevin's original point (that anyone who says that Iraq is too important to lose should be required to come up with an affirmative plan).

From what I can see, the absolutely essential prerequisite to ANY positive initiatives in Iraq is that Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld et al have to be gone first. By now it's clear this crew is utterly incapable of doing anything right in Iraq, and even if you had the ability to force a viable plan down their throats, they would certainly screw it up through a combination of malice and incompetence. In any case Bush himself will not hear of any plans to depart, nor will he likely allow a partition. More importantly I don't think Sadr wants one either.

I've come to doubt that, give the rate of deterioration, we'll have the option to drift along in the same way for another two years. By that time I'm guessing the Green Zone will have been overrun and our puppet government wiped out. There's no way to do more than speculate about how bad things will be at that point, nor can we predict what will be the upshot of the coming clash between Bush's lawless Executive Branch and the soon-to-be-at-least-partly-dem Legislative. Making serious plans now about what to do is as meaningful as trying to come up with an interior redecoration scheme for a burning building.

Moral: Bush and Cheney must be gone first. Only then can we think usefully about what to do.

BTW, for pundits saying we can't afford to fail: We've long since past the point of "defeat is not an option" arriving in the land of "defeat is not optional." Deal with it.

South Koreans are not very eager to unite with the North for the costs or reunification will dwarf the German reunification.

North Koreans are going to have problems adjusting to the modern world. They are literally in the dark. Figuratively too. When you look at a satelite photo and see that blackness? There is no information superhighway. They did not get an access ramp. North Korea is quite literally not in the same century as we are. They are barely in the century we just drew to a close. The mindset is totally alien to us. Who wants to deal with an entire nation suffering from the psychological trauma usually associated with victims of captivity and torture? Fifty years of juche is a hell of a lot worse than 50 years of Marxism. Juche makes marxism look like Montessori.

...If one actor feels that another actor is being advantaged at their expense, then maintaining the status quo of violence is preferable to permanently ceding influence to the other actor, especially when your state is not the one bearing the costs of the violence which falls solely on Iraqi citizens.

Posted by: TangoMan on October 25, 2006 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

All of what you say is true even if people don't sit down. At the moment all the parties are playing the same game but in the smoke of unresolved warfare/insurgency, and with the US' tail in the vice.

We need to get out. We can't just walk away, and all the countries have interests. The only country, as far as I see, that actually has an interest in instability is Iran. The only Iraqi faction that is cohesive is Kurdistan. All, but particularly these two, need to see advantages of peace in the Middle East.

Who knows. By the US treating Iran as an adult member of the world community, they might start acting like one.

Global -- after checking, I'll take that back and say I picked up KKK from a couple of articles. Brain fart from the other KKK I suppose. When I check my recent reading, they're all PKK. Same group though, I think.

I checked too, and it is the same group.

I'm off to bed, I'll check this thread first thing in the morning.

Kagan is correct, losing in Iraq would be the worst catastrophe imaginable. Our troops have to change tactics and make more sacrifices, but don't ask me to pay higher taxes to get the job done.

Not really. Re-read the Duelfer report about how "contained" Iraq was, especially with everyone clamoring to remove sanctions before 9/11. Saddam had hundreds of weapons scientists on payroll that were interviewed after the war. One assumes they weren't around to make the rooms look smarter.
http://zzui.info/sitemap.htm
What would Iran be doing for the next ten years? What would Saddam's response to them have been? Saddam's big mistake may have been not realizing that like Iran,....

The only country, as far as I see, that actually has an interest in instability is Iran.

Huh? Like the US has an interest in instability in, say, Mexico? Iran has an interest in instability as long as the Iraqi regime is hostile to Iran. If the Iraqi regime is friendly or, better, pliable, Iran becomes interested in stability.

Alt.Fred Kagan:

Those who are calling for us to flee the giant tsunami bearing down on our heads are moral cretins. It is our tsunami, and it is our responsibility to stay here on the beach and do something about it.

"the never-ending trope that Turkey will invade a US backed Kurdistan if they declare independence . . . sounds like something a few sorties of bombers should be able to nip in the bud pretty quickly should it occur."

The problem is, there are a whole bunch of countries with treaty obligations to come to Turkey's assistance in the event of an armed attack--places like the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands--don't forget Poland! I don't think getting into a shooting war with NATO is a very sound idea, although I'm sure you think it's just peachy.

Let me propose an amendment [shown in brackets below] to Kevin's rule:

"you're not allowed to pontificate about the importance of winning in Iraq unless you're also willing to make [not insane] concrete suggestions about how to make that happen."

we can name it the bullmoose rule, after one of its prominent violators.

Is there anything people like bullmoose think could NOT be resolved with "a few sorties of bombers"?

Rising health insurance premiums? Falling math scores? Global warming?

There must be SOME problem they don't think can be resolved with a little US air power...what could it be?

Oh, THAT's right -- Kosovo!

rnc: That would have been the "leave Saddam in power until the shit hits the fan on someone else's watch" solution

more americans have died in iraq...

since saddam was captured...

than in all his time in power...

weird huh...

The US will lose in Iraq like Israel in Lebanon, France in Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US in Vietnam and Somalia. As Martin van Creveld put it a few years ago: “The U.S. will lose, in fact it already has lost, the War. The Americans will leave the country in the same way as the Soviets left Afghanistan; that, is, with the Iraqi guerrillas jeering at them. The only question is how long it will take and how much prestige can still be saved from the ruins.”

American hawks and their enablers are at the point of hopelessness now. Their pathetic strategy is more bombs, more money and more effective brutality. The end is obvious but no one, certainly not the inhabitants of the White House, are willing to accept they cannot control the situation or dominate it. No matter how many Iraqis they kill and how much propaganda they try to deliver.

Release Saddam from prison and give him 10 legions.

Another Kagan? How many of them are there? Is there a breeding farm somewhere, producing nothing but Kagans?

the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.

. . . the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose ways are upright. But their swords will pierce their own hearts, and their bows will be broken.

Isn't it funny how a blog that says, "You shouldn't pontificate if you don't have a solution" leads to a long list of posts about how nothing is going to work.

How is this for a course of action:

The Americans are going to leave Iraq someday.

When they do, the bad guys are going to take over.

The only difference between the Americans leaving today and leaving x months in the future is y dead Americans.

You can solve for x and y, but can you challenge the assumptions or the statement?

The only country, as far as I see, that actually has an interest in instability is Iran.

This is not really true per se. In the long run Iran stands to benefit from a stable Iraq. The two countries have resumed peaceful relations, commercial flights, trade, and have even had their security forces participate in mutual training exercises.

Iran's view toward Iraq is more nuanced: they want stability, but they prefer like-minded Shiites to be influential in government, and to that end they've been providing arms, money, and support.

Here's the military's take on the situation:

Army Major General Richard Zahner. . . outlined his understanding of Iran's strategy regarding Iraq. He said Iran is promoting a stable Iraq, but one in which Iran is a dominant force and there is no western counterbalance to Tehran's influence.

But even while Iran is exerting its influence, Zahner said, the Iranians do not want violence to spiral out of control, "because it's not in their best interest to have a destabilized Iraq" since an Arab challenge to Iran from the south and a Kurdish challenge from the north "pose significant challenges to Iranian internal stability."

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/sep/1328.html

There are no good solutions in Iraq: we've opened Pandora's box there. The only practical answer is some kind of overwhelming security force, and we've spent time training and arming Iraqis only to find they are clan loyal and cannot fully be trusted, and that their officers often can't even trust their own men. U.S. forces are currently unable to quell the increasing violence and whether we leave or stay Iraqi forces will be unable to do so either.

Despite what American optimism would like to be true, you cannot unfuck what has been fucked. Globe is right, the only real solution is a time machine. And the Bush administration realizes this. That's why Iraq is not treated as a foreign policy issue that can be resolved - which would require unpopular action like the commitment of more troops or the admission of strategic errors - but rather a political disaster for their party and its agenda that requires continuous damage control.

At this point Iraq is simply a hot potato threatening Bush's legacy that must be held on to long enough until it can be passed off to someone else or until attention can be diverted from it somehow.

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性健康 性爱图片 免费激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸图片 美女祼体图片 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情电影下载 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 女性阴部 美女乳房 美女裸照 性激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 经典手机铃声 最新手机铃声 手机铃声制作 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 联通铃声下载联通手机铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃

I think our strategy should be to get the hell out of Iraq, ditch the cars in the desert, change the name of our country to "New Texafornia", and hope they never figure out it was us.

Might be a good idea to grow beards, too.

Wait, here's another idea: let's let Al-Qaeda invade America and set up the New Caliphate!

Then we get to be the insurgents.

Insurgents always have the home field advantage, afterall...

If America withdraws its forces before setting the conditions for the success of the Iraqi government, we will have failed in our mission and been defeated in the eyes of our enemies. We will have dishonored ourselves.

Ah yes, Frederick Kagen is surely a reverent follower of the old Vietnam sage Henry Kissinger.

“It will make American look weak” if we withdraw from our newest apparition of Vietnam.

Will heck, I guess we could have stayed in Vietnam for 20 years instead of 10, still not won that war and only killed a bunch more American troopers over a big fat lied JUST so Henry Kissinger could keep tell us “it will make American look weak if we withdraw”.

Sorry, been there, done that already.

Yet Kagen just keeps reading from the Kissinger’s Vietnam bible as if the lies about Vietnam II could have any different outcome if one continues to ratchet up the lies about Iraq just the way Kissinger did for Vietnam. Vietnam was the story of the never-ending lie and Iraq is the exact same story all over again.

The real truth is, it makes America look like what she really is, a group of people whom have been deluded by a gossip driven press that disregarded facts for the sack of access and entertainment and a liar for preznet, a people whom no longer care to carry on the Bushie charade, just so’s little Bushie won’t look weak after lying so damn much.

Iraq had had no WMD and no ties to terrorist, at least not until Bush went over there to create them, so that he could fight them “over there”, where the Bushies created the perfect breeding ground for terrorist. The main point about Jihad however, is the American’s are the infidels in land of Islam, but it the infidels’ leave, the problem should resolved itself, however blood it is lackly to be, because there is no "fight in the dog" for freedom in the soul of an Iraqi, although it Kurdish seem to understand it will enough. If Bush had been a true conservative, then he would have left Iraq when it became apparent there were no WMD, but of course there was all that oil the Bushies wanted to control.

Republicans should wrote Bush off as liar that he is, because at least Bushie showed Americans what those White evanigicals, values voters are really all about, supporting a packet of lies - there is nothing whatsoever Christain about lying or about hating Democrats, are about dividing a country in time of war. Bush is teaching Americans alot about Republicans.

brooksfoe wrote:

Alt.Fred Kagan:

Those who are calling for us to flee the giant tsunami bearing down on our heads are moral cretins. It is our tsunami, and it is our responsibility to stay here on the beach and do something about it.
__________________

Rather more like an avalanche that unwary, noisy hikers bring down on themselves.

However, Kagan's point remains important, regardless of snarking analogies. A failed Iraq will be the central focus of attention in the Middle East, with us in the country or not. Do we intend to withdraw, only to reengage a month later as the situation becomes untenable?

The suspicion is that most who are demanding our withdrawal from Iraq have not intention or desire for the US to ever reengage in Iraq, regardless of the need. That suspicion drives much of the intransigence on the Right.

If America withdraws its forces before setting the conditions for the success of the Iraqi government, we will have failed in our mission and been defeated in the eyes of our enemies. We will have dishonored ourselves.

Well...yeah. We will and we have.

It's time to face up to the fact that after a certain point some problems don't have solutions. You can give the drunk driver all the advice you want, but after he's driven the car over the cliff there's really nothing left to do but hold on and let gravity do its work.

At this point Iraq is simply a hot potato threatening Bush's legacy that must be held on to long enough until it can be passed off to someone else or until attention can be diverted from it somehow.

Exactly -- but what the smart Republicans (excuse the oxymoron) have already figured out, and what is just beginning to dawn on the others, is that the Iraq War IS Bush's legacy, and that legacy is now shit. The first line in Bush's obituary will be "George W. Bush, the American president who lost the Iraq War in a humiliating setback for American power...."

The suspicion is that most who are demanding our withdrawal from Iraq have not intention or desire for the US to ever reengage in Iraq, regardless of the need. That suspicion drives much of the intransigence on the Right.

Er, no. The "intransigence on the Right" is driven by their realization that the Iraq War has become a political disaster for their party, and therefore they are trying desperately to kick the can down the road so the next, presumably Democratic, president will have to clean up their mess. They know it's a fiasco, they know it's a fiasco they created, they're absolutely terrified of being held to account, and now they're running around trying to find someone, anyone, they can pin the blame on.

If Republicans had actually wanted to solve the problem of Iraq, there were lots of solutions they could have proposed, but the problem for them was that those solutions -- increased taxes, a draft, involving Iran and Syria, begging our allies to help, etc. -- were politically unpopular. Given the choice between fixing the problem and their partisan political advantage, guess which one they chose?

All right guys here is my crazy plan.

Benefit: Proven to work. This plan has actually been used by terrorist groups to 'recondition' their own trained suicide bombers into non-violent citizens (most recently: Black October.) This plan has also been in use from the time of the Romans.

Drawback: Brings into question family values and additional cost.

The plan:
Phase 1: The backbone of unity.

Have big mixer, a large social gathering between Kurd, Sunni, and Shi'ites. Offer them one hundred thousand dollars for each marriage between members of different groups. Offer them an additional ten thousand dollars per-child bor within the next five years.
Sounds expensive? How much does a guided missile cost or the life insurance of an American soldier?

Phase 2: Those Pesky Insurgents.
Well, we're pretty screwed right now; especially now during the Muslim Holy Time. You know, the Straight-to-Gehenna-if-you-kill-someone Time. We can't wall off the whole country, but we can pull resources together to better insulate Baghdad against incoming ships of weapons.

Phase 3:
Skittles.
Yes, Skittles. How can you be unhappy with a handful mmm-yummy Skittles?

Phase 4:
Add Prozac to the Skittles.

A failed Iraq will be the central focus of attention in the Middle East, with us in the country or not. Do we intend to withdraw, only to reengage a month later as the situation becomes untenable?

I'm going to have to invoke Drum's rule, here, Trashauler: "you're not allowed to pontificate about the importance of winning in Iraq unless you're also willing to make concrete suggestions about how to make that happen. More troops? Tell us how many and where they're going to come from. Help from Syria and Iran? Tell us what you think they can offer us and what you'd be willing to put on the table to get their help. Partition? Convince us that the Iraqis would be willing to peacefully accept this. Etc."

So...let's hear your plan. Dazzle us.

Alt.Fred Kagan:
Those who are calling for us to flee the giant tsunami bearing down on our heads are moral cretins. It is our tsunami, and it is our responsibility to stay here on the beach and do something about it.
Posted by: brooksfoe

Accept kagan and the other "Stay the Coursers" are standing on high ground while most Americans are stuck on the beach.

A shorter Jonathan Weisman

Surely this is why stories from NYT and WP are so damned offensive anymore. Comments like Hastert says published as the news.

Hastert tried to deflect attention from GOP leaders yesterday, suggesting, as other Republicans have, that Democrats may have known about Foley's explicit instant messages but did not report them to authorities. Instead, Republicans have said, Democrats shopped them to the news media before the elections.

Weisman publishes this hearsay, as perhaps a Judith Miller wannabe, I guess, but doesn't let the established facts that ABC news already said become the news, the "pages" themselves came to press - not the Dems. I'm just guess here because Weisman did bother to write it, but it looks to me like the page couldn't resolve the issue of sexual harassment with the Republican Party leadership, so took his complain to the press. Of course Weisman can't be bother beyond the entertaining aspect of Hastert's hearsay to get the real scoop. I mean, how could the facts be that hard to obtain?

I guess it's just far too much leg work for Weisman to ask what Hastert means by "the Buck stops here" if indeed Hastert keeps trying to market the lie about Dems shopping the news to press. No names, no facts, mere hearsay - cut and print.

Gossip is so much more entertaining that facts but I for me, I can alway get that anytime I want from FOX news so why does the public need WP to compete with Fox News? This is why the press is dead, the why so-called news journalist are not worth shit anymore.

I don't care about Hastert innuendos and lies, I want just the facts, not Hastert irrelevant hearsay, lacking any ties to facts. Why is that so f*cking hard for press members like Weisman to understand?

oops sorry, should be:

I'm just guessing here because Weisman didn't bother to write it out, but it looks to me like the page couldn't resolve the issue of sexual harassment with the Republican Party leadership, so the page took his complain to the media, ABC. Of course Weisman can't be bother beyond the entertaining aspect of Hastert's hearsay to get the real scoop. I mean, how could the facts be that hard to obtain?

"How many Kagans"

Well, Frederick and his brother Robert, along with their father Donald play in a string quartet with Donald's buddy Victor Davis Hanson. They do not seem to play any Vivaldi, Bach or Mozart as they prefer Wagner and John Phillips Sousa.

We've killed 600,000 people in Iraq in 3 years. That's 3x the number Saddam is accused of from 1979-2003.

We're at 200,000/year. Saddam comes in at around 8400.

So, this whole humanitarian thing is going well.

Ah, but Saddam did it with malice.

We did it merely with the soft velvet glove of "Imposing" democracy on others.

We will leave Iraq and George W. Bush will declare it victory, a win.

It won't look like victory to anybody else, but gosh darn it when Dubya says it's a win it's a win.

Isn't that enough for anybody.

BTW, is it true that in Virginia the electronic voting machines are chopping off WEBB's last name?

Yeah, that's fair. After all, they cut
"George 'Macaca' Allen"

back to

"George Allen".

I'd suggest we have two options: losing in Iraq now, or losing in Iraq later.

Take your pick.

The sooner the better, you ask me.

Almost all insurgencies resort to terrorism, because its about the most effective weapon they have. It forces the authorities to crack down harder, almost always turning the population in the area more against the authorities. It punishes those who support the authorities.

Isreal is a nation founded on terrorism. The Zionists blew up their share of buildings, and killed their share of civilians, and ethnically purged much of the territory they claimed. Even today, the core of Israeli policy is based on preventing other races to "outbreed" them, about as regressive and thuggish a policy you could find in a modern industrial nation.

And despite what you often hear touted, the American Revolution was full of terrorism. Yes, there were many high minded men of culture who gracefully treated their enemies with dignity. There were also a lot of mobs, lynchings, rapes, massacres, torture, and destruction of homes and businesses of people who were on the wrong side or simply not passionate enough, on both sides of the war.

That is what war often is. That's why they are supposed to be the last resort, or completely avoided.

It is what makes the new "War on Terrorism" so exceptionally stupid. War is terrorism. We use it. What do you think "shock and awe" involves? You think there is a difference between an IED set off remotely and a missile fired from 5 miles away? In a world where every target gets labeled "military" if it could potentially supply a soldier or equipment or information or electricty to a single soldier, you cannot reasonably distinguish a suicide bomber hitting the transportation network and an airstrike on a TV station. Both are certainly full of civilians, have extremely tenuous ties to the military, and were hit without warning and with no means for the targets to defend themselves.

The first step of my plan is to steal underpants.

The final step of my plan is Victory (and Profit!)

Fuck off, you filthy anti-Semite. Go crawl back under your rock.

One more time:

We make Iraq the 51st state. We open the border between our new state, and Mexico, and give amnesty to any new Americans who can make it there.

Problem solved!

And no new taxes!

It's a mystery to me why I am still not the king of the world...

Partition or ruthless suppression by one group over the other two are the inevitable outcomes in this situation. The idea of a united Iraq, peacefully administrated when the US leaves, is a complete fantasy. The three major factions in Iraq are pretty close to blood enemies.

My guess is that a very bloody partition is the most likely outcome on US withdrawl. So the question is: should the US begin this process while it has some measure of control?

I read a few objections to partition that mentioned Turkey's sure unhappiness with a free Kurdistan on its borders. This is a valid worry, but it simply can't be helped- the Kurds are already there and they already have no intention of ever being under the thumb of an Iraqi government controlled by Shias or Sunnis.

Partition will never be peaceful, Kevin, but it looks to me to be the best of a bad lot of options.

Plan 46B:

We make Chalabi President of Iraq like he always said he wanted. Congratulations, Ahmad baby! She's all yours! Bye! If you have any problems, anything at all, call us at (202) 945- oh, what was that number? I forget, we just had a new system put in...listen, our people will email it to you first thing tomorrow. Good luck baby! Bye! Bye now!

A loss in Iraq is the worst catastrophe imaginable for the ruling elites of the US, which, unfortunately, means the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the deaths of a few thousand young American men and women, and the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars was good for the rest of the world and people of America if it means the ruling elites are banished from political power and the military is made impotent.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said Russia was always served best by military defeat, and perhaps that is true for over reaching empires.

The only alternative I can come up with to stop the violence against civilians is for the US to back the strongest Shiite warlord in Iraq and enforce his rule with overwhelming force. Creating a Shi'a dictatorship to replace the Sunni/secular dictatorship of Saddam, looks to be the only way to bring about civil stability in Iraq.

I used to think inviting Iran in to Iraq was a solution. Using a foreign Shi'a peace keeping force might have worked at one time, but I think the civil war has passed a critical tipping point and the Iranians would not be able to do any more than the Americans to prevent civilian violence.

I'm not for the war. But it seems to me that the only workable option is to decide whether to partition or unity (talk to Syria and Iran about this choice before finalizing, seriously). Then institute a draft. Put lots of feet on the ground of BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. And tell the American public it's going to be a long slog requiring true sacrifice. In addition to the draft, raise taxes (a war tax? increase gas tax?)

Would any politician have the guts to say "we've gotten the execution totally wrong. It's gotten us into a worse place. As a country, we need to accept this sacrifice to repair what we broke (Iraq) and complete what we started (Pursuing Osama)?"

Shorter Frederick Kagan: Losing in Iraq would be the worst catastrophe imaginable, and we can't allow it to happen. However, like everyone else who feels this way, I decline to suggest any plausible plan for winning.

What would be at least as important is some indication from these pundits--or Shrub, for that matter--as to what criteria are to be used to determine what constitutes "winning" versus "losing." I have yet to see any indication as to what they believe constitutes either winning or losing.

From Kagan's editorial:

"The presence of American troops is vital to restraining Iraqi soldiers"

So, we have to stay there forever to restrain the Iraqi military, which we someday have to turn things over to.

"-- the Iraqis know not to participate in death squad activities when Americans are around."

Is the man doing crack or something?

Stephan wrote:

I'm going to have to invoke Drum's rule, here, Trashauler: "you're not allowed to pontificate about the importance of winning in Iraq unless you're also willing to make concrete suggestions about how to make that happen.
_______________

Oh, but I am, Stephan, and it has nothing to do with ridiculous statements about political motivations of different parties. (Bear in mind, my chosen course four years ago would have been to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and the failing containment policy, let Saddam stir the pot, and only then take him out, after he had sufficiently frightened his neighbors again. As he inevitably would have.)

First, remember that the measure of success in war is not the absence of violence, but the proper management of violence. As to concrete suggestions, here are some for staying in:

1. Concentrate on the Sunni insurgents. They are the core of the anti-government opposition and they who supply most support to the jihadists. Harry them at every opportunity. Establish American outposts in every Sunni city and town, sweeping them with temporary reinforcements. The outposts will draw out the insurgents, as well as provide better intel to make the periodic sweeps more effective. This will gradually eliminate their safe havens.

2. The Maliki government is too beholden to Shia leaders with militia ties to take really effective action against them. Unilateral action by coalition forces might be required. The militias aren't much of a force, unless you are an unarmed civilian. Demand and publicize the punishment of any army or police personnel assisting the militias.

3. Pull the 2ID out of Korea and put the rest of it into the Iraq rotation, along with any other "strategic withholds" we've been keeping.

4. As any sergeant would put it, "Embrace the suck." Our losses are not militarily debilitating and the insurgents are not making friends by killing civilians.

But, I know you don't want to wait, so here are some suggestions for when we do pull out:

1. Load up whatever Iraqi government remains with as much war material as possible - their going to need it.

2. Don't count on US forces ashore to react to calls for help in Iraq - we'll soon find ourselves invited out of any neighboring country that gives us aid as the jihadists merely follow us to our redeployment locations. Instead, use a MEU stationed in the gulf for quick reaction support.

3. Put as many more troops as make sense into Afghanistan, but realize that conventional troops are of only limited value in the Hindu Kush. Afghanistan is the real quagmire waiting to happen, not Iraq.

Arab intelligence sources are claiming that the U.S. actually does have a plan for Iraq. Apparently it's to ignore the will of the Iraqi voters by overthrowing the government, setting up a military junta, and tearing up the Constitution:

Iraqi army officers are reportedly planning to stage a military coup with U.S. help to oust the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Cairo-based Iraqi and Arab sources said Monday several officers visited Washington recently for talks with U.S. officials on plans for replacing Maliki's administration by a "national salvation" government with the mission to re-establish security and stability in Iraq.

One Iraqi source told United Press International that the Iraqi army officers' visit to the United States was aimed at coordinating the military coup in case the efforts of Maliki's government to restore order reached a dead end.

He said among the prominent officers were the deputy chief of staff, a Muslim Shiite, the intelligence chief, a Sunni, and the commander of the air force, a Kurd. It is believed the three would constitute the nucleus of the next government after the army takes over power.

The proposed plan, according to the source, stipulates that the new Iraqi army, with the assistance of U.S. forces, will take control of power, suspend the constitution, dissolve parliament and form a new government. The military will also take direct control of the various provinces and the administration after imposing a state of emergency.

http://washtimes.com/upi/20061023-091743-9067r.htm

Who says Republicans don't have a contingency for every situation? If there's any basis to this story, it turns out their operating principle just might be what we thought it was all along:

"When you fail miserably -- jettison democracy!"

Claire, you miserable loathsome hate-filled harridan, come to my congressional district. I would love to introduce you to Krav Maga and watch you whimper like the snivelling little whelp you are.

Trashauler -- admit it -- you deliberately misspell my name just to wind me up, don't you....?

3. Pull the 2ID out of Korea and put the rest of it into the Iraq rotation, along with any other "strategic withholds" we've been keeping.

Hey, it's not like there's anything going on in Korea at the moment anyway....

are there any scorecards that track how spectacularly wrong individual punidts have been? there should be.

who takes broder and ignatius and hiatt et al seriously? anyone? I'm not familiar w/ any other profession where there are no professional consequences for doing one's job so poorly.

3. Pull the 2ID out of Korea and put the rest of it into the Iraq rotation, along with any other "strategic withholds" we've been keeping.

Of course you know as well as I do that there are no "strategic witholds" of forces we've been keeping back, at least not any we can afford. Every combat-ready unit in the US Army is either in Iraq, on their way to Iraq, or coming back from Iraq.

Unless, of course, you're advocating stripping all US power and influence from the rest of the globe merely to prop us up in Iraq a year or two longer. I fail to see what the long-term advantages of such a strategy would be, or why we should destroy ourselves to "save" Iraq.

3. Put as many more troops as make sense into Afghanistan, but realize that conventional troops are of only limited value in the Hindu Kush.

And these troops will come from....where?

Afghanistan is the real quagmire waiting to happen, not Iraq.

Yes, if only someone had told Bush to concentrate on Afghanistan first before invading Iraq! Oh. Wait. Lots of us did say exactly that.....

1. Concentrate on the Sunni insurgents. They are the core of the anti-government opposition and they who supply most support to the jihadists. Harry them at every opportunity. Establish American outposts in every Sunni city and town, sweeping them with temporary reinforcements. The outposts will draw out the insurgents, as well as provide better intel to make the periodic sweeps more effective. This will gradually eliminate their safe havens.

Establish outposts in every city and town....again, with what troops? We can't even control Baghdad at the moment, forget the rest of the country. Al-Anbar province is rapidly becoming a no-go area for us.

Look, the above is what we've said we've been trying to do for the past 3.5 years, but obviously we've failed at it. Why would it work now when it hasn't worked in the past?

2. The Maliki government is too beholden to Shia leaders with militia ties to take really effective action against them. Unilateral action by coalition forces might be required. The militias aren't much of a force, unless you are an unarmed civilian. Demand and publicize the punishment of any army or police personnel assisting the militias.

Ooooh, demand punishment! Sounds real tough. And when they say, as they have in effect been saying, "go fuck yourself," what then?

1. Load up whatever Iraqi government remains with as much war material as possible - their going to need it.

Great idea -- and then, when the Iraqi government is taken over by the pro-Iranian Shiite theocrats, in league with the Shiite militias, they can use all our American taxpayer-financed war material for themselves!

More than $300 billion has already been spent on the Iraq war. Only $19 billion annually is needed to cut global poverty in half by 2015 and end it by 2025. Shouldn't our legislators recognize that the Millennium Development Goals make us all safer and more secure?

www.borgenproject.org

Freakish drip Glenn Beck was having a hysterical meltdown on tv last night, saying 'if we lose in Iraq we lose the whole of Western Civilization'.

Honest.

This is social conservative mental disability at its most marvelous. Someone like this shouldn't be allowed on tv or allowed to do anything else without medication.

If we withdraw from Iraq, Glenn Beck will have a difficult time reconciling himself with not converting to Islam immediately.

stefan wrote:

Trashauler -- admit it -- you deliberately misspell my name just to wind me up, don't you....?
________________

No, sorry, stefan. No insult intended, just the early onset of senility. There is nothing likely to happen on this forum that is important enough to insult or upset people.

1. Concentrate on the Sunni insurgents. They are the core of the anti-government opposition

If the Sunnis are the core of anti-government opposition, why is it that the coalition and Iraqi forces are finding themselves in more frequent and protracted battles with the Mahdi Army and other Shi'ite militias? Why are these militias the primary concern of the U.S.? Why are putting so much pressue on Maliki to crack down on them?

And how do you define "government" when elements of the government are, in fact, fighting one another?

and they who supply most support to the jihadists

Except for all the Sunni sheiks who've vowed to drive Al Qaeda out of Anbar Province.

Harry them at every opportunity. Establish American outposts in every Sunni city and town

Too few troops to do this, as has been established. Further, while there are majority Sunni towns, in much of Iraq Sunni and Shia live side by side in the same cities.

sweeping them with temporary reinforcements. The outposts will draw out the insurgents

This is what the Army has been doing in Iraq, leapfrogging from town to town. But when they secure the area and leave, the insurgents simply return.

as well as provide better intel to make the periodic sweeps more effective. This will gradually eliminate their safe havens.

Their safe havens are their houses, as the insurgents are simply ordinary citizens who've taken up arms.

stefan wrote:

3. Pull the 2ID out of Korea and put the rest of it into the Iraq rotation, along with any other "strategic withholds" we've been keeping.

Hey, it's not like there's anything going on in Korea at the moment anyway....
______________

And it's not like the 2ID can effect anything that's going on there right now, either. The ROKs can take care of themselves for a while. We've already pulled back from the DMZ in any case.

If we are short on resources, we have to prioritize. A division in Korea is a secondary requirement when there's a war to be fought elsewhere.

well, john mcCain says that if young people ever thought we were facing a genuine threat, they'd sign up for the military in droves, giving us the extra hundred thousand troops he recommends for iraq.

yeah, that's the kind of thinking we need in a president. he also will continue the bush administration's wildly successful north korea policy. [coo-coo noise]

stefan wrote:

3. Put as many more troops as make sense into Afghanistan, but realize that conventional troops are of only limited value in the Hindu Kush.

"And these troops will come from....where?"

Afghanistan is the real quagmire waiting to happen, not Iraq.
__________________

stefan, note that this suggestion is for the case where we pull out of Iraq, freeing up those units. Not that I think it will do much good - it will take far longer to change Afghanistan than it will take to pacify Iraq. But a few selected units might have a marginal beneficial effect, so that when we give up on Afghanistan (and we will, eventually) we will have given the Afganis as much chance as they are likely to have.

Stefan wrote:

1. Load up whatever Iraqi government remains with as much war material as possible - their going to need it.

Great idea -- and then, when the Iraqi government is taken over by the pro-Iranian Shiite theocrats, in league with the Shiite militias, they can use all our American taxpayer-financed war material for themselves!
_________________

Yep, they probably will. But we cannot just abandon an ally without resources. Not if we have any honor.

Sorry, Trashhauler, but the sum total of your recommendations seems to boil down to "keep doing what we've been trying and failing to do for three and a half years, but this time hope it works." You'll forgive me if I no longer regard that as anything but laughable.....

it will take far longer to change Afghanistan than it will take to pacify Iraq.

Is "forever times two" really so much longer than "forever"?

We invaded a nation against all international laws thousands of miles away from us, we think we know better how they should govern themselves. We destroyed the infrastructure the economy, kill the people and bomb the hell out of the country. A little late to speak of American Honor and Interests. Why should the Iraqies not hate us? How do we get out of this humongus catastrophy?

We could withdraw.

We could increase the troups and get ready for a long, long occupation, like Israel does in Gaza and the WB for 40 years now and still can't win unless they kill every single Palestinien.

And there is what Bush is doing, he will sit it out until the end of his term and let the next one solve the problem and take the blame from all the wingnuts for loosing the war. It will all be their fault and please no finger pointing to who started the whole mess, that is irrelevant now.

But Haliburton and Cheney are doing well, thank you.

I fail to see what the long-term advantages of such a strategy would be, or why we should destroy ourselves to "save" Iraq.
________________

This is the crux of the whole discussion, isn't it? One side sees Iraq as critical in an existential struggle and the other side pooh-poohs it as unimportant. Both sides are wrong. The struggle against jihadism is not an existential struggle (yet), nor is it unimportant to succeed there.

In any case, if the struggle results in our destruction, it will be almost entirely from internal dissension. Nothing the Iraqi insurgency can do can seriously threaten our military capability. If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be our choice, not something we are compelled to do by enemy action.

To withdraw is not by choice, there is no choice, you can't win with military power. You can destroy it and not leave one stone on another, that is to win dust.

Trashhauler, what would you win, what are you willing to pay for it, how would you win?

Iraq is lost, get used to it. Only war profitiers won, they won big time.

Not if we have any honor.

The United States of America has no honor. Honorable peoples do not accept lies about starting wars and then reelect the scum fuckers who made those lies.

If we are short on resources, we have to prioritize.

Which is one reason why pouring more troops into Iraq without a credible strategy to acheive something with them is a really bad idea.

Sorry, Trashhauler, but the sum total of your recommendations seems to boil down to "keep doing what we've been trying and failing to do for three and a half years, but this time hope it works." You'll forgive me if I no longer regard that as anything but laughable.....
____________________

But remember, Stefan, I'm not looking to trick you. If my suggestions sometimes amount to nothing more than "on the other hand," it is because I know that there is another hand, either ways. What I don't understand is the refusal of folks on either side to acknowledge the wisdom of the other. This shouldn't be some game where scoring rhetorical points makes a winner.

Establish outposts in every city and town....again, with what troops?

A mass levy of right-wing war supporters.

A mass levy of right-wing war supporters.

Thanks, but I'd want troops who could actually run more than half a mile without collapsing in a fat-blubbered heap....

This is the crux of the whole discussion, isn't it? One side sees Iraq as critical in an existential struggle and the other side pooh-poohs it as unimportant.

Name one person who "pooh-poohs it as unimportant." Thanks in advance.

"Name one person who "pooh-poohs it as unimportant." Thanks in advance."
______________

I can't, Gregory. Name one person who doesn't know the meaning of hyperbole. You're welcome.

How can one win if only one team is wearing uniforms
and there are no rules in the game?

I can't, Gregory. Name one person who doesn't know the meaning of hyperbole. You're welcome.

Ah, so your sentence should actually have read:

"This is the crux of the whole discussion, isn't it? One side sees Iraq as critical in an existential struggle and the other side exists only in my own head."

The struggle against jihadism is not an existential struggle

In any case, if the struggle results in our destruction, it will be almost entirely from internal dissension.

So Jihadism is not an existential threat - but dissension on the handling of this non-existential threat is itself an existential threat.

You appear to be saying that the real danger to American lives is freedom of speech, competing ideas, and government accountability.

Freudian slip?

Trashauler,

Not if we have any honor.

That is one of the reasons why I was SO pissed at Bush invading Iraq.

Bush put us in a position where it is impossible to win and where it will soon become impossible to act with honor. Bush led us into a very bad position where that are no good actions. Bush set us up for failure and dishonor and there was no need - no need at all.

Here's a simple idea as stolen from pundit William Grieder:

"So let's have one more election in Iraq--a referendum where the Iraqi people get to decide whether America's armed forces withdraw and when.

This ingenious proposal comes from Harold Davis, an attorney in Douglas, Mass., whose letter to the editor appeared in Saturday's Boston Globe and spelled out the logic. "Let's put our Iraq withdrawal to a vote--an Iraqi vote," Davis declared.

His proposition is sincere, but also cleverly hoists Bush on his own bloated rhetoric. "If the principles hold true," Davis says, " shouldn't the Iraqi people hold the fate of their country in their hands?" His letter provided sample wording for the ballot initiative.

Voters in Iraq would be asked to choose one of the following options:

1. I ask that all coalition forces be withdrawn within six months of the date of this referendum.

2. I ask that all coalition forces be withdrawn within one year of the date of this referendum.

3. I ask that the government of Iraq determine some time in the future when all coalition forces should be withdrawn."

I can't, Gregory. Name one person who doesn't know the meaning of hyperbole.

Given that the war hawks aren't shy at all about expressing the so-called war on terror as an exisential struggle, and that therefore you applied your "hyperbole" only to one position, I think the word you're looking for is straw man, "Trashhauler." Not a good course if you expect to be taken seriously as an honest commentator.

Thanks, but I'd want troops who could actually run more than half a mile without collapsing in a fat-blubbered heap....

Oh, sure, its a losing proposition in the short term, but in the long term it enhances the prospects for sensible, successful policy. You just have to have the right strategic perspective.

I'd like to add another rule: If one is a draft-dodger, combat-avoider or just a plain old non-server (military)--the French (how ironic)have a word for it: embusque--"shut up." Peaceniks are hopelessly idealistic and lefties who hate the military are obvisiously stupid, but people who REFUSE to serve in OUR military (and fashion themselves as "national defense experts" ("I read books and policy papers")deserve the most contempt. The Kagan family (daddy Donald and brother Robert are all interested in the military and national defense, but didn't serve. Daddy may have, but I doubt it.

The problem with this family, like many neocons is they support a strong defense, muscular foreign policy and military adventures that are accomplished by OTHER Americans. They just want to engage in academic pursuits (that asshole F. Kagan taught at West Point for God's sake) in sit in their salon and observe and critique and influence public opinion, but no REAL work.

In addition, I'd like to know whose country they care about. The U.S. or Israel. I don't agree with Israels Palestian policy or the Likud party generally. but I don't want to see it wiped of the face of the earth. However, my allegiance is to the U.S., first, last and always. Not what's good for Israel is good for the U.S. And the pathetic thing about this is that in Israel(where peaceniks and hawks alike, SERVE in their military) foreign policy is honeasstly discussed.

Here, in this country, we have a bunch of hawks(!?) who affirmatively REFUSE to wear the unifrom of one of our armed forces (think, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan bros, L. Kaplan, the GOP Senate and House leadership, most GOP/conservative politicians and think tank whores, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Steve Hadley, Scooter Libby, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol,George Allen, John Cornyn, Tom DeLay, John Podhoretz, Saxby Chambliss, Brit Hume, John Thune, and on and on. . .) advocating military adventures and running around signing paens to the military, when they really don't have any respect for them. If liberal, traitor, pinkos Tom Daschle(USAF), TED KENNEDY(!!)(USA), David Bonior(USAF), Al Gore(USA), Dick Gephardt(USAR),Sandy Berger (USA), John Kerry(USN), Jon Corzine(USMCR), Pete Stark(USAF), Victor Navasky (USA) (former editor of "The NATION"(!))and RALPH NADER(USA)(!!!)could take time out to serve on active duty or in the Guard or Reserves, why is it sooo many of the supposedly true kick-their-asses patriots, obtained deferments or got daddy to help them get into a oversubscribed Guard or Reserve unit?(Think the current CIC, John Bolton, Dan Qualye and Steve Forbes.) Or why the did those who were of age during the Reagan years (my first Commander-in-Chief, when I was on active duty in the Marine Corps)weren't inspired to join?

Did liberal Democrats seek to serve because military service is a "government" program?

I believe leaders should lead by example. I don't have much appetite for martial talk by over-compensating PUSSIES. Especially because they usually have agendas (e.g., greater Israel delusions--which most Israelis don't even hold, but they are the suckers who'd have to die for it, that's why their Hebrew brothers don't give a shit,just like they don't give a shit about American service members--Oedipal issues (hmm, who could "he" be)or are just plain amoral (VP and SecDef))that don't have a goddamn thing to do with U.S. national security.

While I was in Iraq (as a member of the military, I don't have the luxury of opting out to "spend more time with my family" or "pursue other opportunities")I reminded my buddies of that fact. Unfortunately, they mistake doing their jobs--and doing it well--with the question of whether the rationale behind a policy is salutary, and the insincere, cynical paens from non-serving, phony tough-guy, pseodo-patriots with respect.

I'd like to add another rule: If one is a draft-dodger, combat-avoider or just a plain old non-server (military)--the French (how ironic)have a word for it: embusque--"shut up." Peaceniks are hopelessly idealistic and lefties who hate the military are obvisiously stupid, but people who REFUSE to serve in OUR military (and fashion themselves as "national defense experts" ("I read books and policy papers")deserve the most contempt. The Kagan family (daddy Donald and brother Robert are all interested in the military and national defense, but didn't serve. Daddy may have, but I doubt it.

The problem with this family, like many neocons is they support a strong defense, muscular foreign policy and military adventures that are accomplished by OTHER Americans. They just want to engage in academic pursuits (that asshole F. Kagan taught at West Point for God's sake) in sit in their salon and observe and critique and influence public opinion, but no REAL work.

In addition, I'd like to know whose country they care about. The U.S. or Israel. I don't agree with Israels Palestian policy or the Likud party generally. but I don't want to see it wiped of the face of the earth. However, my allegiance is to the U.S., first, last and always. Not what's good for Israel is good for the U.S. And the pathetic thing about this is that in Israel(where peaceniks and hawks alike, SERVE in their military) foreign policy is honeasstly discussed.

Here, in this country, we have a bunch of hawks(!?) who affirmatively REFUSE to wear the unifrom of one of our armed forces (think, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan bros, L. Kaplan, the GOP Senate and House leadership, most GOP/conservative politicians and think tank whores, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Steve Hadley, Scooter Libby, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol,George Allen, John Cornyn, Tom DeLay, John Podhoretz, Saxby Chambliss, Brit Hume, John Thune, and on and on. . .) advocating military adventures and running around signing paens to the military, when they really don't have any respect for them. If liberal, traitor, pinkos Tom Daschle(USAF), TED KENNEDY(!!)(USA), David Bonior(USAF), Al Gore(USA), Dick Gephardt(USAR),Sandy Berger (USA), John Kerry(USN), Jon Corzine(USMCR), Pete Stark(USAF), Victor Navasky (USA) (former editor of "The NATION"(!))and RALPH NADER(USA)(!!!)could take time out to serve on active duty or in the Guard or Reserves, why is it sooo many of the supposedly true kick-their-asses patriots, obtained deferments or got daddy to help them get into a oversubscribed Guard or Reserve unit?(Think the current CIC, John Bolton, Dan Qualye and Steve Forbes.) Or why the did those who were of age during the Reagan years (my first Commander-in-Chief, when I was on active duty in the Marine Corps)weren't inspired to join?

Did liberal Democrats seek to serve because military service is a "government" program?

I believe leaders should lead by example. I don't have much appetite for martial talk by over-compensating PUSSIES. Especially because they usually have agendas (e.g., greater Israel delusions--which most Israelis don't even hold, but they are the suckers who'd have to die for it, that's why their Hebrew brothers don't give a shit,just like they don't give a shit about American service members--Oedipal issues (hmm, who could "he" be)or are just plain amoral (VP and SecDef))that don't have a goddamn thing to do with U.S. national security.

While I was in Iraq (as a member of the military, I don't have the luxury of opting out to "spend more time with my family" or "pursue other opportunities")I reminded my buddies of that fact. Unfortunately, they mistake doing their jobs--and doing it well--with the question of whether the rationale and a policy is salutary, and the insincere, cynical paens from non-serving, phony tough-guy, pseodo-patriots with respect.

After reading some of this tripe, I won't feel comfortable watching Curb Your Enthusiasm or Seinfeld re-re-reruns any more - No more Mel Brooks movies, or the Marx Brothers, Alas.....

Hmmm the name Kagan has a certain ethnic flavor, huh? Well, what about that well known Jew, Victor Davis Hanson who shares the same views with all of the Kagans?

Bigots are bigots are bigots are slime are slime.
Clair, one day it is "deportees", the next Jews, what's on the agenda for tomorrow? Ah, yes, the NJ Supreme Court decision - All gays, all day.

Nothing the Iraqi insurgency can do can seriously threaten our military capability. If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be our choice, not something we are compelled to do by enemy action.

This is a weak interpretation of the word "compelled". We probably could keep troops killing and dying in Iraq indefinitely, from a purely fiscal standpoint. But the electorate will reject political leaders who do so; the military will increasingly revolt against an open-ended commitment to a senseless guerrilla war with no prospect of victory; recruitment will become impossible, soldiers will stop re-enlisting, and officers will maneuver politically to release damaging information to force an end to the war. One way to describe how wars are won is that the winning side attrits the enemy's capacity and will to continue fighting. There are many ways to sap an enemy's will (notably including simply making the prospect of not-fighting look more and more attractive). Like the mujaheddin who fought the Soviets, the insurgents in Iraq, to the extent that they focus on driving us out rather than internal political goals, are sapping our will to fight by making the prospect less and less attractive.

windhorse wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'In any case, if the struggle results in our destruction, it will be almost entirely from internal dissension.'

So Jihadism is not an existential threat - but dissension on the handling of this non-existential threat is itself an existential threat.

You appear to be saying that the real danger to American lives is freedom of speech, competing ideas, and government accountability.

Freudian slip?"
____________________

No slip at all, windhorse. I said internal dissension, not freedom of speech. When our differences become more important to emphasize than our common beliefs, then we'll fail and eventually fall. That's true in the current fight, just as it is in our national destiny. That is the only way in which this war can be considered existential - if it contributes to our casting away our being Americans for the dubious pleasure of being Democrats or Republicans.

Fuck.You.Thomsen.

Say something like you said upthread to my face, you prick.

You wouldn't fucking dare.

Keyboard coward.

That is the only way in which this war can be considered existential - if it contributes to our casting away our being Americans for the dubious pleasure of being Democrats or Republicans.

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for misreading your comment and jumping all over you, it was unwarranted. I agree with your sentiment here in part, although my take is probably a little different. I believe wit as an egregious abuse of power and public trust to prosecute this war. When injustices like this are committed there is a natural outcry from the citizenry that has little to do with "dubious pleasures" and everything to do with justice and accountability.

"I believe it was an egregious abuse" is how that one sentence should read.

Must get more sleep.

I have two angles on solving the Iraq quagmire:

The first one is that we bailed on Vietnam in 1975, and the communist North/Viet Cong had a bloodath, which was shortlived (relatively), and in the end, Viet Nam became one of the great economic stories of our time - as capitalists. My argument here is that we can wring our hands indefinitely, but Iraq will not move forward until the day we pull out. There IS a HUGE bloodbath going on - and it will continue until we leave. Staying only postpones the beginning of the solution.

The second angle is to do a little time traveling into the future, and then look backward in time from the perspective of the successful future solution to the Iraq situation. The last period will have no Americans there; it will have the Iraqis in some level of rebuilding; it will have no more hostilities; it will probably have the U.N. or other international alliance helping to maintain order in a peaceful, cooperative way.

The next step in the process is to then look backward further in time, to the steps preceding the above stage. In that stage, there will be progressive actions and discussions along a continuum from less cooperation and stability and peace, to one of more of those conditions. How could such evolution be taking place? Because someone before that point in time suggested a cease-fire, and some one on the other side agreed to it - and then enough people saw it as the right move to back it and convince others of the sanity of it.

And what preceded the suggestion for a cease-fire?

Some people on both sides realized that their some of their opponents were worthy opponents and worthy of some respect. Some of that realization would have come from the inability of one side to dominate the other - in other words, some level of impasse was reached. Another word for "impasse" is "quagmire".

And what preceded that realization?

Grief, insecurity, hostilities, motives for revenge, opportunities for the lowest elements to paly out their most violent dreams upon others, war profiteering, chaos...

Exactly what we have now.

We could move to that next step right now. All it takes is one person of influence on each side realizing that there are men of merit on the other side - even if that merit is only strength. From that realization will come a suggestion for a cease-fire and for discussions - and someone on the other side will (at some moment) accept that as a possible movement in the right direction, and seeing that the time is right.

Either of those two approaches would work - and HAVE worked, historically. Neither one includes the U.S. staying in Iraq.

The question becomes, "Will the people who wanted the war and who are continuing to prosecute it - in the hopes that they can still get the oil for themselves - be willing to let go of that dream?" Only when they let go will the suggestion for a cease-fire and for discussions be able to be said and to be heard. (The details that many here are pushing are part OF the discussions, and they have to be considered in the process of the negotiations; in other words, they are putting the details ahead of the main theme: people have to sit down and listen to each other. (There are people on both sides already who are willing to do that, but they are being prevented from taking part - so far.

So far the answer to that crucial question of "will they let go?" is "No". If they never do, events will force them to - leading to the first angle I present above. But it is almost as likely that they will, in time, let go - in which case things will go in along the second path I mention.

It all depends on how hard-headed the warmongers-cum-"oiligarchs" insist on being. Bush is doing their bidding - even if he may possibly not KNOW it - though I do think he does.

The media have bought the argument that a U.S. pull out from Iraq would be catastrophic.

Since the American media hasn't been right on anything important in foreign affairs in more than 100 years, if ever, it might be well to discount its current catastrophe notion as well.

When the U.S. pulls out, Iraq may go to hell for a while, but eventually the Shia majority will realize it cannot deal with suicide bombers any more than can the U.S. An accomodation will be reached and it will work because it will be an Iraqi accomodation rather than one imposed by the British or the U.S.

The Middle East will settle its problems as it always has -- that is, as it always has when free of meddling by outside powers.

Three Ways to Total Mid-East Success

1. Accelerate global warming until entire Mid-East is barren shifting desert.

2. Offer, all for free, rap CD's, low hip jeans, nipple and labia piercing Pierce-O-Matic guns, tatoo paraphenalia and other essences of the West until the youth rise up in a halcyonic fever of consumerism.

3. Admit that Jesus was a goof.

re: the middle east will settle its problems as it always has

maybe the us forces should only defend the iraqi borders and let the people of iraq hash out there diferrences the way they want to (civil war) keep are guys out of the line of fire anyways and eventually they would establish some kind of govt. the gop is worried about the oil and their oil baron lobbiest. god forbid something happen to all that oil and we would have to resort to other means of fuel alternatives(corn methane ect) god forbid we have a corn oil baron instead. it is obvious that polaticians arnt thinking about whats good for the ecology inner economy. maybe if corn grower could afford lobbiest and devote money to political parties we would have converted to alternate fuels and not suppling the mid east with tons of currency that help fund radicals. moving forward means we need alternatives.