Heck of a job, Bushie. I'm sure he'll give post-departure planning as much thought as he gave post-invasion planning.

I'm for Packer's visas.

Well, one argument is that a massive influx of Iraqis of any stripe might complicate the cozy relationship of AIPAC to Capitol Hill--if Arab voters start havign real flex in states like Michigan and Ohio, we might see some interesting ripples in our Israeli policy. And so it should not be allowed! say the sensible men.

But what are the odds that anyone in the Bush administration will ever allow this to happen?

I'm guessing this next in Atrios's "Easy Answers" series . . .

One day they will be hmong us.

Practicality be damned. Not a single thing about this damned war has been practical, and now, with even more lives at stake, is not the time to start.

As for housing the refugees, I suggest we start with the following locations:
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Camp David
Dick Cheney's Undisclosed Locations #1 - 100
Crawford, TX
Kennebunkport, ME
And, of course, Don Rumsfeld's collection of palatial homes...

Packer has a point, but surely some of the "good iraqis" are not good at all. Risking your life to join the Iraqi police isn't heroic if your goal is to cleanse your neighborhood of Sunnis.

Do we really want to be defending war criminals from extradition ten years from now? Part of any withdrawl plan should be discussions with Iraq's neighbors that include exile deals.

Perhaps this is what they had in mind when they were wailing about teh terists following us home.

This really proves my thesis that Bush and Cheney are a sleeper Al Qaeda cell, sent here 40 years ago to destroy the US. This must be part of their plan. First, they create violent extremists where there were none before, then they get them shipped here with visas on US government planes!

It's mind-boggling in its genius.

Which is how I stumbled onto their nefarious plan. No actual Republican could come up with something this clever. No actual Republican could make breakfast without first blowing up the house next door.

God please help us, another Vietnam redux. We left so many behind . . . Remember the people crawling the ladder onto the last helicopter out of Saigon?

We really are reaping what we have sowed. I agree, there's a moral imperative to give these people safe harbor in the U.S. On the other hand, that really does raise a security concern, doesn't it? Yet another impossible choice that this stupid Iraq venture foists upon us.

Ah, this is all sooo Vietnamish.

And the sad part of it is that I'm not that surprised. I've been surrounded for so long by so many people who so convincingly convinced me that they had absolutely learned nothing from Vietnam.

Except how to wear a chips on their shoulders and pout.

We should pull out of Iraq and give grants to the Iraqis as they need them for their reconstruction. We have already caused them enough damage and pulling out is the only chance they have for long-term unification. It would give them a chance to reduce the increased poverty and hunger levels and any real chance for development. It would be in line with the Millennium Development Goals, which the US have yet to address. The Borgen Project is working to encourage our leaders to be accountable to the world's poor. Giving grants to the Iraqis would be the first step to address the MDGs.

Cool, Iraqi expat party at Cheney's house!

Yes, there are obvious security issues here. Really obvious. That's why it would take genuine study to figure out if it could be done.

Well, this is certainly the government to implement a sensible study and then abide by its conclusions. Yes sir.

Oh, and dimwit, Chicken Little said the sky was falling, when it wasn't. The sky has already fallen in Iraq. We're just arguing now about who cleans up the mess, and when.

Damn, If you look at the number and source of massive refugee immigration to America you will find that these mass migrations since WWII have come from places that our foreign policies have fucked.
Vietnamese, Hmong, Montagnards, Salvadorans, Korean, Mexican, Nicaraguan, Cuban, Iranian, so why not Iraqi now?

The question we should all be terrified of at this point is: which one of these new Iraqi Exiles is going to play the part of Chalabi in 15 years when we have to do this shit all over again to take-out the evul terrorist Sadr government? (who will no doubt be threatening our close allies and bastions of democracy in the region; Israel and/or Saudi Arabia).

Wow, and I thought the idea of chickens coming home to roost was a metaphor. Who knew?

cluck, cluck, cluck

Yes, there are obvious security issues here.

For whom? The ultimate irony will be the stories of Iraqi refugees detained and "interrogated" because they stepped out of line at the airport.

One day they will be hmong us.

Too. Fucking. Funny.

My concern would be letting terrorists into out country.
Posted by: Cheney on November 27, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. Like the MEK office next-door to the State Department. Or like terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

One day they will be hmong us.

Yes, I was hoping that wasn't a typo. Nice one.

I'm real partial to the homegrown variety like McVeigh. The al-kaders snuck him in as an infant and machinated him washing out of special forces training. It was brilliant really and all very wag-the-dog worthy.

Will Ashcroft be crooning Happy Birthday at the festivities?

On the plus side, we can look forward to literally thousands and thousands of Iraqi restaurants opening throughout the US in the next few years....

Yes, it will be a problem Kevin. And some of the commenters here have pointed out some reasons why.

In the case of Vietnam, it was our elites rescuing some of the South Vietnamese elites. Not a very attractive scene.

Who gets rescued? Yep, a real human problem.

And don't forget the motels. The pissed off Patel lobby is going to be phe-phucking-nomenal.

...we can look forward to literally thousands and thousands of Iraqi restaurants opening throughout the US in the next few years....

I wonder if Iraqis have a dish called "Mensef", which I know is a Palestinian favorite. Don't shit your pants trolls, but Mensef means explosion.

It's always the same groups that suffer when a body politic implodes: gays, intellectuals, writers, liberals, etc.

I think Packer's idea has merit - it will allow the conservatives to self-reflect (if they even have that ability) about their support of immigration quotas and how to balance what this country was founded on (the ability to start a new life) vs. their xenophobic tendencies....

On the plus side, we can look forward to literally thousands and thousands of Iraqi restaurants opening throughout the US in the next few years....

You laugh, but I've eaten at an Iraqi restaurant and it was very good. All well-prepared Middle Eastern food is.

Anyway, can we slap silly the next troll who accuses us of Bush Derangement Syndrome? Is there really enough hatred in the world to be appropriately applied to the people who created this situation with their arrogance, lies and self-serving shortsightedness?

Who is this Perpetually Inquisitive person? He/she is busting me up.

We should tap into our vast reservoir of Christian missionaries, who will evangelize and convert them all to a religion of peace and pro-American consumerism.

I apply the Yankee Doodle technique to Bush Derangement Syndrome. IT doesn't affect us. It affects those 30% who are so fucking deranged they think he's doing a good job and that Saddam brought down the towers and made it home in time for dinner. BDS now applies to the deranged foam-flecked followers, not us.

And as to the appropriate amount of hatred: that would be however much hatred it takes to propel these war criminals to The Hague. There is your appropriate amount.

I'm all for it as long as it explicitly excludes Chalabi.

There is no reason to assume that any such thing would happen, but for insurance, let's trade them 1 neo-con for every 100 Iraq civil servant immigrants. The quantity of resultant newspaper columns alone will confound their nefarious plans.

Speaking of Chalabi, does anyone know where he is these days?

Is he in the Green Zone? Is he even in Iraq?

You laugh, but I've eaten at an Iraqi restaurant and it was very good. All well-prepared Middle Eastern food is.

No argument from me. Quite a lot of very good Yemeni, Syrian and Lebanese restaurants in my neighborhood.

And anyone who lives in Orange County can attest to the transforming effect losing a war and taking in tens of thousands of refugees can have on the local restaurant scene.....

Chalabi is mostly in London these days, according to a NYT Magazine article of a few weeks ago, now for-pay-only:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30916F6395B0C768CDDA80994DE404482

Chalabi is mostly in London these days, according to a NYT Magazine article of a few weeks ago, now for-pay-only:

For-pay-only? Which one, Chalabi or the article?

"We should be ready for desperate and angry crowds at the gates of the Green Zone..."

Might be wise to be ready for desperate and angry crowds inside the gates of the Green Zone.

Thanks CDC. (Here's the link for those who don't have Times Select. Gotta love that picture of Chalabi on top.)

And Chalabi still considers Paul Wolfowitz a friend. What a guy. With friends like that, who needs neocons...

oh man, they had to go all the way to germany to get a guy who would regurgitate the same nuggets of wisdom we could have gotten out of an editorial writer here. josef joffe is THE CW writer for Germany from his perch as the publisher/editor of Zeit. it helps his cause tremendously the world over that he's a genuine article german jew, but that doesn't make his insights any more profound. the guy is a walking distillation of what the european elite thinks and should probably, on that basis, be ignored. i know, i know, bad form, ad hominem. have you ever DEALT with the european intellectual elite? if you had, you'd sympathize. they're precisely as detached and incapable of diversifying their thoughts as our champions of elite discourse.

Sorry Ahmed, you fucked up. You trusted us!

/then we get in our helos and depart.

Quite a lot of very good Yemeni...

Dude, Bint-us-Sahn (Daughter of the Plate) is the best dessert ever.

Ethiopian is my favorite. Love me some tibis wat.

Jesus, you defeatist democrats are really getting annoying. It's funny how the troops who are over in Iraq don't think we've lost. Of course, I guess you freakin' armchair quarterbacks know more than they do.

What the fuck is your inside track?

Nah, we'll just work out a refuge program with Turkey, or Jordan, or the Saudis, heck doesn't Kawait owes us, and at any rate, I don't know if Irag and the Green Zone will be another fall of Saigon, but for this to be happening, Bush didn't make ANY headway whatsoever with his cheap talk about "as they stand up, we'll stand down" bullshit.

I mean, WTF has Bush been doing in Iraq all this time? That SOB hasn't made ANY progess whatsoever, because it appears there was NO "stand up" policy, and the GOP clearly didn't care if Bush was making headway or not.

Jeebus, what a nightmare.

Kevin Drum: How would we address the obvious security problems inherent in a relocation program?

If Iraq collapses (and there is no guarantee that this will yet happen) then it is too late for this question.

America must take them all because it is America who put them in danger and failed to build the solution they promised that would have guaranteed their safety. America took on that moral responsibility when they first invaded Iraq and then secondly employed them. Equivocating about security risks if it all goes pear shaped is unacceptable, that lesson was learned in Vietnam decades ago.

One fortunate thing is that Syria and Iran, rgardless of Dead-Eyed-Dick's position are engaging with the Iraqi government.

Regardless of their prior involvement with the insurgency, the poachers are turning game-keeper as they cannot afford to have Iraq dissolve into chaos on their doorstep. The impact on these states would be too great.

The forced return of the Hmong/Mong was staunchly opposed by many American conservatives and human rights activists.

This information on the Hmong people was brought to you by the good people at Wikipedia, who have substituted for Cheney's complete inability to think on his own since 2003.

The question is-- when are we going to learn? Apparently Vietnam and all the refugees from that conflict didn't teach us anything.

Oh, right. Taught SOME of us a whole bunch. Unfortunately, the ones in charge spent the war at fraternity parties whooping it up and didn't notice anything big going on.

The only way to know is for people with experience to study the issue and create a plan.

Not so. The only way to know is to carry out the plan.

That's how we know what would really happen if we remove Saddam Hussein from power; if we withdraw from S. Vietnam; what will happen if we nuke the Japanese and then write a constitution for them; and it's how we'll know, if we ever do, if we can favorably affect the events in Darfur.

War plans are always perfect til the first shot is fired. Then all bets are off.

On moral grounds, it's hard to conceive of any argument against Packer. The only question is: Is it practical? Can we actually do what he suggests? How would we address the obvious security problems inherent in a relocation program?

In the moral universe, your question is not operable. Whether it is practical or not for us to try to save those who have helped us, it is imperative. If we're to salvage any shred of honor and self-respect from this brutal military adventure, we must try to honor our obligation to people who risked their lives and families to cooperate with us.

We can't save everyone, but to leave (and we will) without trying would be unconscionable.

Jesus, you defeatist democrats are really getting annoying.

Defeatist? Don't be silly. We're already looking forward to a wave of good restaurants. Remember, liberals are the ones who enjoy life. That's why we annoy you guys so much.

"We should start issuing visas in Baghdad, as well as in the regional embassies in Mosul, Kirkuk, Hilla, and Basra. We should issue them liberally, which means that we should vastly increase our quota for Iraqi refugees."

importing a bunch of Iraqis after "liberally" issuing visas would be ultimate irony of 'fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here'. The cult of republicanism is so amazingly F'ed-up its indescribable.
.

Jesus, you defeatist democrats are really getting annoying.

Win one lousy election and we're suddenly defeatist. Would you all concern trolls kindly just blow it out your collective ass and STFU?

No one could have anticipated that there would be refugees.

The US will leave. Iraqis collaborating with the US will have a good incentive to betray our soldiers before their collaboration can be retaliated against. It might save their lives.

Like after Viet Nam, the US will have to absorb collaborators, war profiteers and extremely corrupt bureaucrats after it leaves. This was easily predicted in 2003. If we had allied with the eventual winners in Iraq from the beginning, a lot less suffering and cost could have been avoided.

If we had allied with the eventual winners in China, Viet Nam, South Africa, Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, etc, a lot less suffering and cost could have been avoided.

Packer? TNR?

No thanks. They can suck it.

"War plans are perfect until the first shot, or arrow is fired"

Oh, how true, how true.

Many of the South Vietnamese started restaurants in Orange County, CA.

Many of the Hmongs raise and sell flowers at Farmer's Markets in the Northwest.

Suggest Chester County, Pennsylvania for the Iraqis. Many fine three car garages could house them and rdw could be their spiritual leader.

"One day they will be hmong us."

As long as we de-Laos them on the way in, we'll be fine.

Or they could emulate Garden Grove and have a Ky to the City presented.

No collaborator left behind. Bugler sound retreat.

I refuse to register at TNR, but I think from the exceprt that for once I agree in principle with George Packer. And right after I wrote The New Yorker to tell them Packer is a delusional schmuck. That guy drives me nuts.

As to the other question: let's see ... save the Iraqis who were unfortunate enough to believe our bullshit from certain slaughter, or leave them to their fate because a few baddies might sneak in with them and hurt a few Americans, who have spent the war driving SUVs and not enlisitng, like nothing was going on and it was their birthright to cheer for war and watch the soliders on the teevee while burning all that lovely oil like it still came from Texas. Gee, let me think about it ... Dear God, my countrymen make me nuts.

[You heard it here first - we're going to leave 'our' Iraqis to be slaughtered.]

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 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 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒

"We should start issuing visas in Baghdad, as well as in the regional embassies in Mosul, Kirkuk, Hilla, and Basra. We should issue them liberally, which means that we should vastly increase our quota for Iraqi refugees."

Uh, as soon as you do this there will be a mass exoduc of Iraqi staffers and officials. I guess it's fair to assume many of them already had enough and don't want to run the risk of waiting too long to get themselves and their families to a secure place. Everybody knows of the chaos that spread during the last days of Saigon. Nobody wants to be left behind at the gate of the embassy.

This also happened in VietNam when we pulled out.
Several VietNamese I had worked with were exicuted by the VietCong. Whole familys were lined up and shot in the head , simply because they worked for us.

Kevin, three points about refugee resettlement:

First, it's not "immigration". Immigrants are people we WANT. Refugees (and asylees) are people we won't turn away.

Second, refugee resettlement is always a foreign policy issue, e.g., we take some so other countries will also take some. (When we turn away Haitians, Nigeria turns away Sierra Leonians.) It's Never Again, Squared: the commitment of the world is that never again will we send people back to be murdered (as in the Holocaust), but also, never again will we let whole peoples grow up in 'temporary' camps (as in the rise of the Palestinians).

(Although it is also true that when we re-settle substantial #s of folks, it is ONLY because they have some domestic constituency, e.g., Central Europeans during the Cold War, Cubans after Castro, the boat people after Vietnam, Soviet Jews, etc. What's the domestic constituency for Iraqis?)

Finally, the security issue means that each refugee and his or her family will have to be screened, which given the volume will take years. It also makes for precisely the delay between the mob at the gates scene that is so horrifying, and the actually getting to the U.S. which is what will prompt people to charge the gates.

So it's one more test of the Bush administration's character, not to mention the Congress.

A sensible thing for Democrats in Congress to DO, then, would be to provisionally authorize a substantial number of refugee visas for Iraq, with a Bush okay necessary, and for both temporary shelter AND a screening mechanism, and leave it to Bush to choose what to do.

I doubt the Baker Commission will propose that, though, for fear of generating the mob at the gates. Anybody disagree?

Minor point, well maybe a major one. I do think that this is not controlled violence (as per GWB’s statement today). Even AQ could not stage manage the blood lust sweeping the birth place of civilization. I feel that if the current trends continue, the military will find itself having only two (in theory) options left. Massively escalate or get out.

It is pretty damned certain that we can not do the former. If the bottom drops out sooner than later, how do we evacuate?

The bulk of our troops are deep in country, with what – one highway south to Kuwait – a thin line that was compromised several times during the initial invasion.

I fear the ultimate irony of payback. That same highway was used by US troops as a killing field during Saddam’s retreat in ’91.

Under such conditions, I doubt that we will take much of the war material we have there. It would slow up departure way too much.

With in months, every militant group who wants to spill blood (whether that blood be Arab, African, European or American, and especially Israeli) will have a whole new collection of toys to use.

Yet another gift to Osama from George.

I'm sure that after the initial relish of an extended family of 15 or so showing up on Michael Ladeen's front porch--or better yet, Simone's (Daddy!!)--is diminished by the thought that said refugees have suffered enough betrayals.

As one poster noted, they'll probably show up in large numbers here in Michigan--Dearborn is one of the largest Iraqi immigrant centers in the US, and they seem to prefer the term Chaldean, and who wouldn't. Bring 'em on. You're probably talking about the cream of the crop, and there's nothing wrong with more smart people who work hard and vote often.

There are some simple, clear-headed principles that policy makers need to understand in order to extricate America from the Bush quagmire with some degree of self-respect:

1. The only way to end the nightmare that the civilian population is currently experiencing [and that it will continue to experience if the civil war continues unabated] is a massive troop presence, soldiers with weapons on every street corner. At this time it may take as many as 1-1.5 million soldiers taking aggressive action to disarm the militias. That is what will work. That is what has always worked throughout history.

2. America's troops cannot be a part of the occupation army that will end the violence in Iraq. One rather obvious reason is because it would require a military draft and we can be confident that the American people would not consent to such a desperate measure. Even if we did so, we would soon find that we only succeeded in uniting the Sunni and Shia factions in a combined effort to make us pay for our attacks on them. (During the past couple of years, American troops have tried to stay out of the limelight, providing only 'support' for Iraqi security forces. This gave the Sunni/Shia militias the freedom to organize themselves and spend their time on attacking each other. If we were to again try to disarm them, they would simply unite again against their common enemy---America. This is why American troops cannot be a part of the solution.)

3. If we want to (A) save Iraq's civilian population from the mess we've created, while (B) withdrawing ourselves from the mess we've created, we need to arrange for some other countries' troops to replace us. These troops will only succeed where we failed if they show up in very large numbers.

4. Few countries in the U.N. that opposed our invasion would be willing to sacrifice their own youth in order to clean up the mess that America created. That leaves us with the only solution that makes any sense: Invite a coalition of Muslim nations to take over the security problem in Iraq.

There are a number of reasons why we might prefer to have troops from non-bordering Muslim nations to take over the security mission. I'm optimistic we could put together such a coalition because I suspect they'd prefer it to the only other alternative available, which is to allow Syria, Turkey, and Iran to basically carve up Iraq between themselves.

This final option---abandoning Iraq to Iran, Syria, and Turkey---would effectively end the Iraq Experiment that the British set up many decades ago. Would it be an outcome that we just couldn't tolerate? Of course not. It would achieve the two most important goals that we, as a nation, have at this time: (1) get American troops out of the quagmire, (2) spare the lives of perhaps millions of civilians Iraqis. We'd stop paying the price in blood and we would not have turned our backs on the civilian population of the region.

We can't even begin to hope for a better Escape From Iraq than that.

Lasting Peace in the Middle East

So we should provide sanctuary for a bunch of (in their countrymen's eyes) quislings?

They chose their own path, as far as I'm concerned. We keep getting assured that those who sympathize with Bush's Iraq policy make up the "overwhelming majority of Iraqis."

If this is the case, I think they'll be able to defend themselves. If, however (as I suspect), they actually make up a small minority, then [shrug].

And James Kroeger, that whole idea about millions of Muslim troops coming into Iraq?

Ain't gonna happen.

No one is going to come bailing Junior out of this one, I'm afraid, least of all millions of Muslims who hate what he has done to Iraq and whose governments have enough problems on their hands without becoming bogged down in a rapidly escalating foreign civil war.

Put down the crack pipe and clue into reality. The least worst option - withdrawal - will leave a power vacuum and there will be a lot of killing, but now that's unavoidable at this point, isn't it. Probably should have thought about that before starting this war.

Someone name of James Kroeger>

If we put up the funding (our penance for messing things up so badly) to pay a lion's share of the cost of maintaining a Muslim Coalition Army, we just might be able to get nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, etc., to contribute the troops needed to carry out the mission. If they are not willing, we should probably approach Egypt to bear most of the burden.

Captain Sensible notices you have attempted to think through these issues, and that is commendable. However, the notion that a Pakistani, Malaysian or Indonesian soldier is going to accomplish anything inside of Iraq is ludicrous beyond belief. Do you know that, aside from the cultural and language barriers, you might as well send Uruguayan commandos on llamas into Iraq for all the good that it would do? The operative term inside of Iraq is mayhem; the killing of Muslims does not matter to the purveyors of mayhem. Sorry, but that is a wrongheaded notion that isn't going to accomplish anything. Iraq must be solved politically, not militarily.

There are a number of reasons why we might prefer to have troops from non-bordering Muslim nations to take over the security mission. I'm optimistic we could put together such a coalition because I suspect they'd prefer it to the only other alternative available, which is to allow Syria, Turkey, and Iran to basically carve up Iraq between themselves.

They already have decided to carve up Iraq, which is why the United States should align itself with the creation of a free, independent Kurdistan and champion the Kurds as an ethnic minority that deserves statehood. First and foremost, the support of an independent Kurdistan gives these people their own place and identity, sorely lacking because of a century of colonialism. Secondly, it gives us an ally in the region. Third, it gives the US credibility vis a vis Israel, since guaranteeing the existence of Kurdistan shows that the US is committed to supporting oppressed people, no matter who they are.

This final option---abandoning Iraq to Iran, Syria, and Turkey---would effectively end the Iraq Experiment that the British set up many decades ago. Would it be an outcome that we just couldn't tolerate? Of course not. It would achieve the two most important goals that we, as a nation, have at this time: (1) get American troops out of the quagmire, (2) spare the lives of perhaps millions of civilians Iraqis. We'd stop paying the price in blood and we would not have turned our backs on the civilian population of the region.

The Iraq experiment was more a matter of colonial practicality. There are no Iraqis; there are now three distinct parties and they cannot coexist now that the identity that Saddam Hussein forced upon his people has been stripped away. Any attempt to force the country to stay united as is will continue to kill Iraqi citizens. The greatest threat to peace and prosperity is not the US occupation--it is the civilian militia that abducts and murders hundreds of Iraqis each week and performs 'ethnic cleansing' in the areas around Baghdad that are mixed.

The Americans won't be turning their backs on the Iraqis; that happened long ago, when the policy of disbanding the Iraqi government--the "de-Baath-ification" policy--was enacted.

Iraq is an example of what happens when you foolishly strip away the institutions that hold a society together. When you remove the judges and courts, the police and the Army, the ministry officials and the bureaucrats, all other aspects of the society are then vulnerable to the predations of the mob that rushes in to fill the power vacuum. That mob was the Baath party, not so much al Qaeda. They're not going to go quietly now, after three years of fighting.

Understand why that power vacuum happened in the first place, and you can put the Humpty Dumpty back together, but Captain Sensible doubts there are enough pieces left to do so.

As I said, I have no problem studying it, but we are certainly not to the point of implementing it yet -- George Packer does not think the whole of "Iraq is well and truly lost" either -- the sky has not fallen in Iraq.

Wow, thanks for the encouragement, Cheney. Pretty far fucking short of the "Mission Accomplished" days where you gloated about how glorious Junior's crusade was, how we'd all been proven wrong, etc.

But since, according to Cheney, the sky has not fallen in Iraq (only 3,000 dead civilians in 20 days), then let's not think about any possible future negative scenarios. Heck, not thinking about what could go wrong is what got us this far in the first place, right?

Idiot.

This whole 'Oh, goody, more neat funky ethic restaurants for us boho elites.' thing...please tell me you're being self-parodic.

Otherwise it's about a idiotic as it can be.

Today's essays from their "What To Do About Iraq" issue include two pieces, both by political science professors, that are diametrically opposed and yet still manage to contain not a single glimmer of intelligent thought between them.

Political "science" is one of the biggest oxymorons going. A political science degree is an excellent qualification for cleaning toilets, or perhaps, for the more diligent, serving french fries. Paul fucking Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney are two products of political science curricula.

We could set up a refugee camp at Guantanamo...

Moving past my loathing for political "science", we don't have any choice but to offer safe haven to Iraqis who've collaborated (yeah, I know it's a loaded term; it's also apt) with us. But since few people in the States really truly give a damn about Iraqis, I expect that we'll leave a lot of people high and dry when we finally do scuttle away -- after we've pissed away at least a trillion dollars and 8-10 thousand dead grunts.

Packer is right on. I think we can use the analogy of the bull in the china shop. If our bull destroys the china shop, we are morally responsible to clean up the mess afterwards and not just walk away.

Bush and company have made a horrible cleanup job. The least we can do is make an effort with our European and Middle Eastern allies and the well-intentioned people in Iraq to stabilize the state and stop the bloodbath. We cannot just walk away and pretend it is someone else's problem.

We also should forget about looking for "success" in this debacle. Our government must acknowledge the disgusting failure for what it is.

If omens mean anything, the fact that Bush has stated today that the US will not leave Iraq before the mission is complete means that the US will be leaving Iraq shortly.

Captain Sensible would be shocked if the man had a passing acquaintance with the notion of telling the truth.

This whole 'Oh, goody, more neat funky ethic restaurants for us boho elites.' thing...please tell me you're being self-parodic.

Were we too subtle?

We could set up a refugee camp at Guantanamo...

I hear Bush has been clearing out space for them all at a ranch near Crawford Texas.

Were we too subtle?
Posted by: shortstop

Hey. I said, 'Please.'

'The elite now send other people’s children off to fight and die in wars that are unwinnable. On the home front, a two-tiered economy has been put in place in which a small percentage of the population does extremely well while a majority of working Americans are in an all-but-permanent state of anxiety about job security, pensions, the economic impact of globalization, the cost of health care, college tuition, and so on.' - Bob Herbert

Oh, and it turns out I was mistaken about one of my local falafel dispensaries - several of the guys turn out to be Jordanian.

It's the owner who's Syrian. Now I know what all the snickering is about.

It's pretty good falafel. But the kibbee ain't anywhere up to the standard of the nice Lebanese lady at my corner grocery in Lake Charles. 'Mizz Anna' made the best kibbee in the known universe.

Wrong:

The least we can do is make an effort with our European and Middle Eastern allies and the well-intentioned people in Iraq to stabilize the state and stop the bloodbath. We cannot just walk away and pretend it is someone else's problem.

News flash, puppies... We ain't walking outa there, nope. As I alluded to earlier, the US military is going to have to fight its way out of central Iraq. Blood will be flowing freely and it will be the single ugliest mess that the US military will have ever faced.

So let's stop being deluded that we can do anything to make this morally more appealing. Given the logistics of what we will have to do, we will be lucky if we get our own asses out of there, let alone any other's.

Discuss.

The marines have long since coined the word to describe this: FUBAR

Captain Sensible writes:

They already have decided to carve up Iraq, which is why the United States should align itself with the creation of a free, independent Kurdistan and champion the Kurds as an ethnic minority that deserves statehood.

LOL! That's a good one!

So we create this Kurdistan over the objections of . . . let's see . . . our NATO ally Turkey (pretty critical player in the Iraq region), Syria and Iran (all of which have their own Kurdish problem), and that's just for starters. Did I mention that Turkey has stated flatly that it would consider such a Kurdistan a serious threat to its security? Would we be willing to fight Turkey over the Kurds.

C'mon Captain Sensible: it's time to get some sleep and call us back in the morning.

So we create this Kurdistan over the objections of . . . let's see . . . our NATO ally Turkey (pretty critical player in the Iraq region), Syria and Iran (all of which have their own Kurdish problem), and that's just for starters.

Captain Sensible says absolutely, yes, it is a reflection of reality; there already is a Kurdistan, thanks to the millions of Kurds who live in the region. The fact that the Kurds are technically a stateless people is an opportunity to achieve some good in the region. Perhaps if the US supports the creation of a Kurdistan, it will then be consistent for the US to support the creation of a state for the Palestinians. How much good might come of that?

Iran and Syria have their own interests in the region, and perhaps creating an ally AGAINST them is better than leaving Iraq for them to carve up on their own. Unless you think kissing their backside is a good strategy, I would think creating an ally in the region might be a good start. We're a bit short of these allies, you know, what with the insistence on destroying our own credibility and abandoning our efforts to bring stability to the region.

Did I mention that Turkey has stated flatly that it would consider such a Kurdistan a serious threat to its security? Would we be willing to fight Turkey over the Kurds.

Fight Turkey? No, we wouldn't end up doing that. Since the collapse of the Former Soviet Union, Turkey's strategic profile has declined and it has now resorted to trying to join the EU. Don't forget that it was the Turks who blocked the deployment of the 4th Infantry Division through their territory, simply because they didn't want to deal with any fallout. Don't forget that Turkish commando units have regularly operated in Northern Iraq, and not in our interests. If any good is to come out of this folly in Iraq, perhaps ending Turkey's persecution of the Kurds would achieve something; we've already stopped Saddam Hussein's persecution of them, as you well know.

Do you really Turkey they will turn to Iran and Syria for common cause? Something that would certainly jeopardize their membership in the EU, their relationships with Europe as a whole and the billions that it promises? Why not give the Turks the opportunity to be rid of their Kurdish problem by giving ethnic Kurds in Turkey the opportunity to relocate to northern Iraq?

This failure to think of the possibilities is what troubles Captain Sensible. There already is a Kurdish people who are creating their own state, whether anyone in the region wants to believe it or not. There already is a dearth of allies in the region. Why not be pragmatic and consistent on this notion of supporting the creation of nation/states for displaced minorities?

>>Why not be pragmatic and consistent on this notion of supporting the creation of nation/states for displaced minorities?
Posted by: Captain Sensible

Kashmir?

>>Why not give the Turks the opportunity to be rid of their Kurdish problem by giving ethnic Kurds in Turkey the opportunity to relocate to northern Iraq?

Oh, like that's gonna happen.

Next.

Secular Animist asks: What's the domestic constituency for Iraqis?

Besides guilt-ridden "humanitarian intervention" supporters like George Packer? The substantial, mostly Shiite Iraqi-American community in southeast Michigan, many of whom arrived after the 1991 Gulf War and the Shiite uprising and Ba'ath slaughter and repression that immediately followed.

In considering Packer's proposal and the case he makes for it, I think it's important to be honest about the number of Iraqis who've already been killed because they work with the invaders/occupiers. It's quite large, yet there's been no call for increased refugee/immigration permits. And U.S. troops have not been providing any significant protection for them.

We've killed thousands of Iraqi civilians with no connection to the occupation in checkpoint shootings and as "collateral damage" of shelling and bombing Sunni cities, while refusing to take responsibility or even be honest about the scale of civilian casualties. Yet calls for an immediate or even quick end to our occupation have been met with protests from the Packer element that this would lead to greater slaughter.

This resettlement proposal is not a morally serious one; it's an effort to mitigate U.S. guilt.

Check Decent Interval out from your library now. There's going to be a waiting list soon.

Gee, Nell -- remind me never to be in a lifeboat with you: "the attempt to save the people in this boat is not a morally serious one; it's merely an effort to mitigate our guilt cuz the boat sunk."

Someone name of CFShep said>

Kashmir?

Point? Kashmir is a dispute that has Muslims inside of Hindu India when the intention was to separate Muslim from Hindu and create Pakistan. The Kurds were left standing without a chair when the music played by the colonial powers stopped. You might want to pay a visit to this site and read a bit on the notion of what is an intractable conflict; then you can lecture Captain Sensible on what his views should be. Ongoing regional conflicts are destabilizing; resolving them gives credibility (which is badly needed right now) to the parties that help resolve them; typically, they cannot be resolved until some long-standing grievance is addressed in a substantive manner.

To do nothing is your choice? Sorry, there already is a Kurdistan and we might want to become an ally of it before we become an enemy of it.

Captain Sensible asked>

>>Why not give the Turks the opportunity to be rid of their Kurdish problem by giving ethnic Kurds in Turkey the opportunity to relocate to northern Iraq?

CFShep said>

Oh, like that's gonna happen.

Just because you say so? Currently, there is peace in the Balkans. Ask yourself how that came about. Perhaps it was because the Serbs were prevented from killing the Kosovar Albanians, the Croats and the Bosnians and perhaps the fact that those ethnic minorities now have the beginnings of their own nation/states is the reason. If there continues to be peace, hopefully it is because each ethnic minority has its own political process and its own nation/state apparatus through which to address political differences. If you want to guarantee an insurgency, strife, conflict, war and terrorism, simply take an ethnic minority and put them under the heel of your boot.

Failing to allow yourself to consider alternatives will not solve anything; please tell us how you think the conflict can be resolved.

It's wasted on the likes of Cap'n, but there is another Vietnam parallel to keep in mind -- unlike Miami Cubans, Vietnamese-Americans have generally favored stronger ties with the country they were forced to flee, despite its government, and are arguably a major force in freeing its economy.

So there COULD be a significant constituency in the U.S. for resettling Iraqi refugees, and perhaps even a silk purse in the long run from this sow's ear.

It's wasted on the likes of Cap'n, but there is another Vietnam parallel to keep in mind -- unlike Miami Cubans, Vietnamese-Americans have generally favored stronger ties with the country they were forced to flee, despite its government, and are arguably a major force in freeing its economy.

Polite discourse is wasted upon you, so-called Americanist. Trading in stereotypes now?

So there COULD be a significant constituency in the U.S. for resettling Iraqi refugees, and perhaps even a silk purse in the long run from this sow's ear.

By all means, let them into the country. What's a few IEDs among neighbors? The fact that the insurgency has infiltrated the Green Zone, virtually all of the government ministries and the Iraqi police might be a tip-off that we had better be careful as to who we allow to come to this country.

Do you think with that brain Americanist, or does it come with a warning label and an escape hatch? Perhaps a little button that causes the propeller on top of your beanie to spin wildly whenever you start to get worked up over nothing...

Take it up with Chris Hitchens why don't ya?

>>A similar chaos and misery gave the upper hand to Mullah Omar's forces in Afghanistan, who were able to present Talibanism in the 1990s as providing a measure of stability and who currently hope to repeat the same strategy with (as before) a little help from a Pakistan that needs an Afghan colony for "strategic depth" in its campaign for Kashmir.

http://www.slate.com/id/2154504/nav/tap1/

LOL -- I first heard that analysis of U.S.-Vietnamese relations at a meeting of the Vietnamese-American Chamber of Commerce in Orange County, California, shortly before the first round of normal trade relations with Vietnam was authorized.

Which, naturally, sounds like a "stereotype" to the Cap'n.

Take it up with Chris Hitchens why don't ya?

I disavow any knowledge of what that drunken swine would advocate; if that's your way of ducking out after dropping a few pithy comments, so be it.

Captain Sensible wonders if Americanist is a drinking buddy of poor Chris Hitchens...

The self-styled Captain must be enrolled in the Wishful Thinking School of Foreign Affairs.

The self-styled Captain must be enrolled in the Wishful Thinking School of Foreign Affairs.

No, just the school of thought where reality exists. Seems to be a smaller and smaller school of thought on blog threads such as this. Wishful thinking is bad? Captain Sensible wishes all the strife in the world could be ended so the human species can move on to more important matters. But, until then, there is a school of thought that says that creating three separate states out of what is now Iraq might be one way to solve the problem.

Pragmatically ending a conflict by recognizing fledgling nation/states actually has a track record, unlike dropping pithy comments into a blog thread in order to have a titter and a laugh.

"..die hideous deaths if we abandon them: "

Whenever Freepers go to war, they generally lose an