the idea that America's continued presence could be the thing that turns an Iraqi civil war into a regional conflagration seems to be beyond most people's imagination. They should think harder.

Indeed true. And then there's the little matter if America actually begins a regional conflagration by bombing Iran. That will cleverly disguise the inflammatory effect of our presence in Iraq.

Uh huh. Yeah, sorry. Now have a nice weekend.

Too bad they hanged the one guy tough enough to hold a country like that together.

If you assume a conflagration will occur whenever we leave, then we're just delaying the inevitable by staying. The sooner we leave, the sooner the bloodshed will begin -- and end. You might say we'd actually save lives by leaving quickly and letting the Sunnis and Shiites start battling each other sooner.

On the other hand, a policy that actually recognized the inevitability of civil war might save lives by anticipating the eventual outcome and trying to reach it in a more controlled way than through war. By, for example, drawing defensible boundaries between Sunnis and Shiites and fostering a relatively peaceful population exchange (as took place between Greece and Turkey), as opposed to the violent ethnic cleansing that's already begun on our watch and will intensify when we leave.

Of course, the most unlikely outcome of all is the farcical idea that we'll be able to turn the war over to the Iraqi army, as some in Washington are still trying to do. The Iraqi army is nothing but one player in the civil war.

Replying to thersites

Civil War in Iraq was probable on Saddam's death even if we had never started this awful war. So there's no point longing for his iron fist. Plus he was a tyrant and a butcher. No pining for him from me.

Nonetheless, I can imagine what could have been had we continued to contain Saddam. At some point, his weakened state could be challenged by the Shiites and Kurds. With UN approval, an international force could have provided safe passage away from the war front (which would have been Baghdad and maybe Tikrit). The number of casualties could have been kept low.

This war is tragedy on so many levels and such a grand scale.

This may be crazy but I'm starting to suspect that perhaps in the not too distant future the US will start to deliberately back the Sunnis, or at least those willing to collaborate. The arming of Sunni tribes with state of the art US weapons, newspaper reports calling Shiite militia (Mahdi Army) 'insurgents,' and the talk of Jafaari, a former Baathist Shiite (secular) and exile who was a CIA asset in the early 90's as a possible PM, leads me to wonder. Also, with our ally Saudi Arabia currently arming Iraqi Sunnis and Iran possibly arming Iraqi Shiites, which side do you think the US wants to come out on top? Even if Iran isn't arming the Shiites, we know where a Shiite Iraqi government's allegiances will lie. Right with another member of the 'Axis of Evil.'
But, I'm probably wrong. Only total cynicism allows me such a conjecture.

The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds will all join hands and sing Kumbaya! And we'll all get ponies, except for Bush, whom History will give the most majestic unicorn.

And all the Serious People will feel foolish for ever doubting this outcome.

I always figured that this was their thinking. What I think they realized was that once the structure in Iraq was destroyed that other players would move in. Most particularly Iran. That is why an integral part of the plan is to hit Iran. I think this is where the plan will fail. I think that the lebanon offensive last year was part of the Iran plan and it's failure set back the agenda.

hmmm.

Thread topics like this one are why I need to see the cats every Friday.

Also the damn tacos.

And in the long run, we are all dead. Iraq will never exist as a unified country with a cohesive central government in our lifetimes. We have destroyed the village to "save" it. Nice job, George.

I bet if the Bush administration had offered Saddam Hussein $20 Billion and his two sons $5 Billion each, they would have left quietly, gone into exile and Bush could have hand-picked Hussein's replacement...with not a single shot being fired, not one bomb exploding, nor any U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq.

Just think of the savings...in lives and U.S. taxpayer money.

Hell, Bush could have also offered $1 Billion each to top Batthist Sunni officials, including in the military, to sweeten the pot, and he'd probably have been able to build as many bases inside Iraq as his little heart desired.

But Bush was apparently out for revenge, to get Saddam Hussein, his sons, and every single member of the Sunni Batthist Party in Iraq. Hussein and his sons are dead, and following Bush invading Iraq, all the Sunni Batthists were thrown out on the streets with their families.

And a war Bush started based on revenge has turned into a civil war where revenge killings, both with a shot to the head or a suicide car bombing, are the norm now in Iraq.

With U.S. taxpayers footing the bill and thousands of U.S. soldiers being killed or maimed for life...to say nothing of the millions of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni (and Kurds), who've been caught in the middle of this disaster created by Bush seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein and the Sunni Batthists.

Heckuva job, Bushie. Your name will go down in history among all the other war criminals.

This is a civil war, and a sectarian war, and a war against the invader and occupier. While civil wars eventually "burn" out as the combatants get taken out of the fight, this sectarian war has been going for about 700 years and it's not likely to end just to help the Republicans win an election. Further, wars against invaders and occupiers do not end until the invader leaves. And the young boys who get recruited into these insurgencies just keep growing up and into the ranks.

No, I don't think I can buy the rationale that this end anytime soon, and certainly not before the next US presidential election.

Ah, Kevin.

who says there's a civil war in the first place? The liberal bloggers? Hmm, they don't have an agenda to grinde, do they?

The fact is, the enemy in Iraq is Al Qeada. You know, the group that the liberals want to "understand?"

The Sunnis have quit insurging and are ready to join the government. They see that they have nothing more to gain by fighting and want to fight for their new role in the government. The Shia and Kurds would of course welcome this rather than have their people continue to get killed. They are learning democracy.

But will President Bush receive any thanks for eliminating AQ in Iraq? Not by the defeatist liberals he won't.

Yglesias has a good summary of the problems:

Even if you had a political accord uniting the two major Kurdish parties, the Sadrist, Dawa, SCIRI, and a sufficient number of Sunnis, the sheer quantity of factions would be a problem.
...
Similarly, on the international front while it's certainly possible that pro-Western Arabs, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Israel would all loyally support a reconciliation accord it would require a substantial change in the regional diplomatic situation.
...
Last, Iraq is one of the most spoils-having countries on the planet.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/putting_humptydumpty_together.php

All that oil; Islamic nationalism; Sunni-Shia sectarian warfare; Turkey and Iran opposed to Kurdish independence; Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations unwilling to see the Shiites gain control of Iraq and its oil; Israel unwilling to see another Islamic state with close ties to Iran ( and did I mention having all that oil?).

And these idiots thought they were going to use this war to motivate democracy in the region.

who says there's a civil war in the first place?

Everyone who is not a drooling, mendacious fucktard.

The fact is, the enemy in Iraq is Al Qeada. You know, the group that the liberals want to "understand?"

I am so fucking tired of you, you fucking idiot. There were no "al Qaeda" in Iraq before the fuckwit in charge launched his vanity war for revenge purposes. Nobody wants to "understand" al Qaeda, you jackass. Point to a single post where one of us has made that assertion. You can't because you are a fucking liar who lives in a fantasy land.

The Sunnis have quit insurging and are ready to join the government.

The Sunnis are taking a shitload of free weapons and ammo, but the Sunni cabinet members have left the government in sufficient numbers that the cabinet can not achieve a quorum and send legislation to the parliament.

The Shia and Kurds would of course welcome this rather than have their people continue to get killed. They are learning democracy.

They are learning Democracy? Google the "Lycean League" you jackass. As to the Shia and the Kurds - you are as fucking clueless as they come.

But will President Bush receive any thanks for eliminating AQ in Iraq?

You mean the guy who unleashed those fucking animals on the Iraqis? Doubtful. I predict when that bastard dies, the church will be filled with people not there to mourn, but to make sure the mother fucker is in the box. I will be wearing a red dress.

This may be crazy but I'm starting to suspect that perhaps in the not too distant future the US will start to deliberately back the Sunnis, or at least those willing to collaborate.

Posted by: nepeta on August 24, 2007 at 10:28 PM

From the UK Spectator a few days ago:

"The first shoots of Plan B — America’s exit strategy — are beginning to appear and it is already possible to discern the architecture of a post-Saddam Iraq. This is likely to involve the withdrawal of American troops, some measure of stability within a unitary, probably undemocratic, Sunni-dominated state, along with a strengthened Sunni coalition that will counter Iran’s influence."

The fact is, the enemy in Iraq is Al Qeada. You know, the group that the liberals want to "understand?"
....
Posted by: egbert on August 24, 2007 at 11:29 PM
---------------

It's hard to believe this isn't merely a lampoon of foolish right wing views, that someone actually believes this nonsense.

But then, they also believed the WMD nonsense, and a whole lot of other stuff that turned out false.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

egbert is tht special kind of stupid that comes only with a government gig. Maybe he is a paid Pentagon troll? I read something about them a while back.

"The latter is more likely, but in any case the final resolution hardly depends on the U.S. presence. The Iraqis are going to do whatever the Iraqis are going to do."

Look, whatever side you choose in the political battle over Iraq war, surely you can't believe that US has zero influence on what happens in Iraq? It may not be possible for US to install a pro-American regime that is also stable and legitimate, that is true enough, but to think that US, with 150,000+ troops, and massive air and naval power, has no influence on which side in the civil war comes out on top? You've got to be kidding me...

Civil war?

100k to 200k troops go halfway around the world, depose a government and set up camp for four plus years. Yes, there is an internal power struggle but I don't think the best historical perspective is "most civil wars eventually end".

How about "most occupying armies eventually go home" or "muslims are hard to subjugate"?

The U.S. effort to install a democracy in Iraq within three to five years was a flawed strategy with little chance of succeeding, U.S. Rep. (R)Peter Hoekstra said Friday

Watch the R-Bots squirm.

The fact is, the enemy in Iraq is Al Qeada. You know, the group that the liberals want to "understand?" Posted by: egbert

Now why would a bunch of so called Godless Atheist liberals [lol@Coulter] want to understand religious fanatical extremists? Now, lets trot back thru history to the Reagan Bush era when these same folks were understood by the R-bots to be Freedom Fighters?

If I want to know about Al Qaeda, I just refer back to stuff written by R-BOTS!!

If the goal all along was to establish US military bases in the region, why not Kuwait or Qatar... where we already have bases? Or Afghanistan, apart from the fact that it might not be considered "in the region" enough, and we can't dock Navy ships there.

Civil War Can Last 1000 years -- Sri Lanka.

From the time the Tamils moved from India into Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and its Sinhalese around 300 BC,
there has probably been Civil war,
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107992.html
This Civil War was noted by "Zheng He" in 1411,
when he sailed an armada whose main ship could hold as cargo all 3 of Columbus' ships.

This Sri Lanka civil war was apparently only interrupted by colonial rulers.

If we follow Sri Lanka's model, the U.S. might interrupt the Iraq civil war by colonizing -- well, maybe not.

The Oracle at 10:53 PM: with not a single shot being fired, not one bomb exploding, nor any U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq.

But, but... One of Bush's passions was to be a War President. For political capital you know, and, well, just the thrill of it all.

And ya can't be a War President if nobody gets killed.

Wow, egbert doesn't approve of liberal bloggers!! (Those crazy coots who think there's a civil war in Iraq.) That poor feller shore do spend a lot of time with 'em, though. I think he may secretly be one of those blogger-lovers we hear tell about.

Something close to the scenario Kevin suggests actually happened in the Balkans ten years ago. A devastating civil war was brought to a negotiated, supervised conclusion when the warring factions had fought themselves to a state of exhaustion and could see no other way forward.

The Clinton administration claimed credit for it -- as it should have done. The war over Bosnia wasn't its fault, and if it made mistakes in the Balkans it made many fewer than the Europeans, who in turn made fewer than the Serbs and Croats. It's possible the White House may have in mind an outcome in Iraq that looks like the Balkan commitment then-Governor Bush criticized during the 2000 campaign -- only more expensive in every sense of that word.

Then again, the White House may be only seeing one move ahead at a time as it tries to put off the day when the signature initiative of President Bush's term has to be admitted a failure.

Just for the record and at the risk of being boring, I will state again that the US thinking they are at war in Iraq, when they are the victorious ocuppiers, is both perverse and damaging. Being the occupier brings responsiblities we have singularly ignored. That's international law, not just obligation. And that ignorance has not only cost lives -- both US and Iraq -- and has distracted us from any course towards resolving conflicts, but has prevented us from persuing the goals we stated.

Everything we've done since April 2003 has been wrong. Mostly because this administration has wanted it so, and ignored all legal obligations.

Civil wars? Let's see. We don't officially accept that there is one yet, right? And we're not one much for history.

Under some official definitions there may not be one! But under any observation, if not, we are so damn close it makes no difference. But let's look at history.

Civil Wars?

Well, the Anglo-Franco 100 years war was essentially a civil war given the territory claimed and owned by baronies, not just the King. Also by marriage, tribalism, blood, obligation and fealty.

The Wars of the Roses lasted from 1455-1487 as a 2-part active war. A war for dominance, not only by the King, but his allied barons, the rich, to claim half the kingdom.

The British Civil War of 1642-1653 also had an hiatus, but then the Commonwealth and Protectectorate, 1649-1659, despite its seeming sensibililty and common sense, was demolished because of it's own shortcomings and disfunction, and a monarchy restored. Significantly first a war for the people and government, but then a dictator.

O.K. That's all the old Brit stuff, ignoring all the rest of Europe, Muslim History, West Asia, China, India, or Africa. Let alone the written and unwritten histories of North, Central and South America.

The US war of independence lasted from 1775-1783 with some following insecruties. How many years would you consider ir took to stabilize the new U.S. states? How lucky to have G. Washington? Come on! How lucky???? All the debate about different forms of government and wanting GW as head of state! He refused!

What the Vietnamese saw as their "War of Independence" started in 1949 against the French, and ended after the US left, in 1976. How would you re-write that? US failure, or Vietnamese success!

The US thinks they won their own war, right?

Walk one mile in another's shoes. One time.

The US is really bad at looking from any perspective but our own.

notthere,

You could add that the the division of Charlemagne's kingdom (whether the central portion should really be part of the east or the west) in the ninth century lead to periodic conflicts that seem to have been finally settled in 1945.

Where is the evidence that the Bush White House sees the move right in front of its face - let alone "one move ahead?"

These are the clowns who are 100% responsible for the bloodbath that is 2007 Iraq.

Not that they didn't have help from a military so enamored of killing that they terrorized the populace of Baghdad on day one. A professional military, willing to defy orders to commit war crimes would have helped, but that's one of the failures of an all volunteer military - it self-selects for those who are willing to commit mayhem merely because some says it's okay. You end up with a rather disturbing proportion of swaggering jingoistic goons.

Aren't you guys forgetting the great ace in the Iraqi Civil War -- who gets to be the leader who can get the Americans to leave?

Merely by agreeing to do what we want (to get the hell out of there), we can give SOMEBODY in Iraq enormous cred.

Every time I read posts and discussion on this topic I come back to this question:

Am I the only one whose primary thought about the U.S. invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq is that it is a horrendous crime that apparently no-one (in the U.S., that is) will pay a price for?

Them crazy Iraqis!! They're like Tasmanian devils in heat.

Good thing we just randomly have a couple hundred thousand troops over there to help quell the bloodshed. Our role as disinterested observers should gain their trust.

JB--
Not the only one. That is the thing that is truly scary. The US will somehow, some point down the line, walk out of Iraq and people will forget that this crime against humanity ever occured.

Sorry to say it, but true justice would demand that we pay a price for this little fucking "adventure", and a heavy one. That is why I can't follow these discussions about the consequences for the US will be with that much interest. If anyone thinks that a government should be able to just get away with doing something like this and should not suffer any negative consequences down the line, I'd say that person just has no sense of justice. The crime has already occured; in the judgment of history it hardly matters if 500,000 or 3 million Iraqis eventually die due to our idiotic little game. That die is cast.

People are now defining victory basically as a return to the status-quo before the invasion:
1) no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
2) a Sunni power to head off Iran.
3) a military dictator to keep things under control.

Apparently, this is what our government committed this crime for, this is what hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for. Maybe we shouldn't be punished so severely for this crime after all. There is a good argument here for the insanity defense.

Hey, I wasn't around when certain trolls got banned. What happened?

Civil Wars eventually end?

Hmmm, how long did Lebanon's civil war last?

Getting a giggle our of egbert and other who think the same, like Stephen Hayes (of WS) last night on Bill Maher defending his SOS book about the connection between Saddham and Al Quaeda in the face of ALL THE EVIDENCE and disclosures to the contrary (including from the WH)...poor, sad, little people that will have to find a way to live with their continuing defense of this lying administration.

Off-topic, but have you seen this?

Iraq corruption whistleblowers face penalties
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/
The headline doesn't do this story justice.

If this is true, it's terrible. Even under control of the Democrats, Congress doesn't seem to know how to raise hell anymore.

Wonder what the overs-unders are for a type of Treaty of Munster in about 26 years, or a reenactment of the Battle of Castillon in about 96 years?

Still so much to be learned from Europe of yore.

"The civil war has to end eventually...

Yeah, maybe it'll end when our own American Civil War ends.

You see, while the fighting was formally over in 1865, many in the south continued the war as insurgents (General Phil Sheridan's own term) in the form of the KKK, vigilantes, the murderers of Civil Rights protesters, etc.--even up to this day.

It is, in part, what the war in Iraq is all about.

h

I predict Iraq will become a loose confederation between two nominally related states, Kurdistan and a Shia theocracy. Kurdistan will be peaceful, but the rest will continue a Sunni insurgency that rises and falls with Saudi funding.

I have no idea why it took so long for Very Serious People to reach this conclusion.

The civil war between jews and arabs in Palestine has been going on a very long time.

Picking a side? hmmmm....I smell an opportunity for civil war derivatives. The Free Market to the rescue!

hancock,

"insurgents of the American Civil War"

Ah, that is what insurgents in Iraq will be called one day - Republicans.

How to really defeat Lincoln; join the party.

Can someone please start talking about the OIL?? What role do the major US oil companies have today in Iraq? What happens to them (and to the oil) when we leave? Maybe the oil was one of the primary (hidden) reasons for the invasion in the first place.

I want to see more discussion/reporting on this subject!!

People are now defining victory basically as a return to the status-quo before the invasion:
1) no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
2) a Sunni power to head off Iran.
3) a military dictator to keep things under control.

Posted by: kokblok on August 25, 2007 at 7:50 AM
--------------------

There were practical reasons why we supported Saddam and other dictators in that region in the first place.

A lot of it had to do with George Kennan's post WWII policy regarding Soviet expansion. But now that communist Russia no longer exists, are we justified in supporting dictators in order to secure oil?

Does our policy of supporting Israel despite its apartheid government make sense now that the Cold War is over; do we owe them something for being our outpost in the Middle East, or is the ledger about even?

How long can we justify supporting the House of Saud?

I think we should be promoting representative governments, not ones which have royal families, or which base citizenship on religion. Those are ideas consonant with our own basic principles of all people being created equal.

On Thursday, I heard an excellent example of the contradictory reasoning about the war.

Mike Gallagher interviewed former head of Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers who contradicted himself in the same breath. The exchange starts at 3:25 in the 8/23 recording:

Gallagher: I think it's inconceivable that the violence in Iraq would stop or subside if we leave.

Myers: On no, I think from a military standpoint I never talked to any military leadership, either in or out, who thought the violence would just stop. We're not the reason for this violence. You know the al Qaeda who has fomented a lot of the sectarian unrest inside has tried to stir this up. They said, here's how we're going to beat the Americans in Iraq. We can't beat them militarily but we can stir up the sectarian violence. And they've done that. That's their simple front, the al Qaeda central front.

We're not the cause for the sectarian violence, even though al Qaeda is stirring it up to combat the U.S.

JB on August 25, 2007 at 7:09 AM:
...a horrendous crime that apparently no-one (in the U.S., that is) will pay a price for?

Oh, we're gonna pay, all right. Maybe not the guilty party themselves, but as a nation we will most certainly pay.

Greg in FL on August 24, 2007 at 10:28 PM:
...no point longing for [Saddam's] iron fist.
No pining for him from me, either. It was intended as satire, although perhaps I let the sarcasm run away from me.

Not disussed very much is the troublesome dynamic of all those Sunni Arabs (and many Baathists) that fled Iraq to Syria and Jordan. I read a few months back that Saudi Arabia was building a wall along the Iraqi border to keep refugees out. I don't think those countries enjoy having all those refugees.

The refugees would probably go back to Iraq if their safety could be guaranteed and they had a role in the government and a share of the oil wealth. The Shia controlling the *entire* country would not be conducive to that. That's why I think the Sunnis are being re-armed and re-empowered. We were hoping the oil law could pass that would satisfy the Sunni with a share of the oil wealth, but as with gold rushes everywhere, the people that are sitting on the wealth want it ALL.

somebody (i wish i could remember who)has
said:

leaving the bush admin. in charge of cleaning up the mess in iraq is like:

giving the bull who has just wrecked the china
shop a broom and a dust pan and putting him in charge of the clean up.

a friend of mine has told me that he thinks
bush's screw ups may perpetuate into the 22nd
century-----i'm afraid he may be right.

If we're unlucky, the war will continue until the Sunni minority is obliterated and one of the Shiite factions has gotten a firm upper hand.

We can be unluckier (and probably will be): our compadres in Riyadh will do whatever it takes to keep the Sunni minority in Iraq unobiliterated while reminding us how terrible-awful the Shia/Persians are.

"Most civil wars end?"

...10,000 years of human history, and you can claim that wars end?

Cain and Abel, man. Cain and Abel.

General Richard Myers (Ret)

The Professor Emeritus of the Doofus Department at his alma mater, Kansas State University.

He was such a diligent student as an undergrad in his major - Honors student in the "Kiss Ass" Department.

Oh. I guess I shoulda read the postscript.

"...George Bush's plan seems to be to hold on and hope that maybe it burns itself out on his watch."

Hope is not a plan.

From today's WaPo, slipped in late on a Summer Friday:

Another senior official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss White House thinking more freely, said he expects the U.S. presence to return to pre-buildup levels of 15 combat brigades and about 130,000 troops a year from now, down from about 160,000. "We all know where we want to get to," this official said. "We all know that there will be a long-term robust troop presence that will outlast this president."

Blue Girl I don't know if your able to read this but I hope so. It's about time we treated these retard criminals with the complete disrespect they deserve ala your dress dowwn of egbert who has repeatedly shown itself to not only have the attention span of a butterfly but the memory of a heroin addict. I'm tired of putting up with their constant lying and pontificating without a shred of evidence to back up what they say.

Will the civil war last until the spring of 2008 - I don't think so.

To say that this Iraqi civil war will end is as much a pipedream as anything else the Bushies have peddled about Iraq.

We could not wait out the ethnic cleansing of Vietnam via an occupation of it. We only prolonged and made the killing fields that much worse via promoting factions within fractions, the same fractions Bush wants now with Prime Minister Maliki and in urging him to signing the administration's Hydrocarbon Law.

There are other problems with occupations, ones other then ethic cleansing - quite a few other problems too so to make a "wait out" game for purely ethic reason is really quite the lie. We won't win Iraq in 10 years, in 20 years or ever - you never win occupations - it just getting worse with time and the killing goes on for NO good reason. Bush is simply another Vietnam memorial wall for another war that we were lied into just like Vietnam.

Yes, our being there is the main reason for the fighting continuing -- likely there could be some resolution without us -- certainly none with us -- there is a reason that Iraq is no longer a British mandate (& it isn't because the British didn't want to control the oil) -- & a reason why Palestine is no longer a British mandate, either. Granted that their departure didn't exactly bring peace, but at least it is no longer British troops who are dying in Palestine. Reagan could have stood tall & strong when our Marines were killed in Lebanon -- I am glad that he decided to cut & run.

"If we're lucky, this one will end when the ethnic cleansing is finished and every region in the country and every neighborhood in Baghdad is fully segregated." - Kevin Drum

I think you meant "lucky" Kevin.

It's more likely that the civil war in Iraq will only be over when everybody is dead or gone.

Thanks, Gandalf. I passed my "had it" point a long flippin' time ago. A 2X4 up side the head is the only thing some of them understand. I am only too happy to oblige them.

From a much earlier comment:

"The first shoots of Plan B — America’s exit strategy — are beginning to appear and it is already possible to discern the architecture of a post-Saddam Iraq. This is likely to involve the withdrawal of American troops, some measure of stability within a unitary, probably undemocratic, Sunni-dominated state, along with a strengthened Sunni coalition that will counter Iran’s influence."

And the Shia majority and Iran will have nothing to say to this?

Anyone catch this oped in the liberal WoPa this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401645.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It's written by a LIBERAL professor from the LIBERAL Brooking Institute.

If this were a world where you people could be reasoned with, this article would shut you up.

Eggie, old chap, to say that you have the attention span of a butterfly, is an insult to all of those beautiful, multi-colored delights flittering about. And that extends to papillons and farfallas as well.

However, you are more of a red, white, and very black Schmetterling of the Sieg H variety.

I think that this whole thing will end up becoming another civil war.

As Theodore Bikel might add, while pounding the table,

"Und, was ist wrong mit Schmetterling?"

"If this were a world where you people could be reasoned with, this article would shut you up."

O'Hanlon supported the war & the Surge, and he continues to make increasingly dubious claims that progress is being made in Iraq.

One example of his dubious claims can be found in the article you cite, in which he makes the apples-to-oranges comparison of Iraqi civilian fatality rates from January to July. The only valid comparison would be one which analyzed fatality rates in, for example, July in 2006 with those of July in 2007. But that's not what Pollack & O'Hanlon did, because that comparison doesn't support their position. Kevin very clearly pointed this out yesterday.

Another worthless point that he makes has to do with the improvement of counterinsurgency tactics. As has been pointed out time & again, the Iraq problem is in search of a political solution, not a military solution. The raison d'être of the Surge was to buy time & space for Iraqis to work out power & revenue-sharing agreements. Since the parliament has splintered even further since the beginning of the enterprise, the Surge can't be seen to have met its goal.

O'Hanlon concludes by stating, "In the end, even if Iraqis cooperate more at the local level, our strategy for Iraq probably cannot work absent major national political cooperation across sectarian lines. With Americans dying in large numbers, it is reasonable that some conclude we have already shown enough patience."

And he uses this as a rationale to continue doing exactly what we're doing.

And... wait a minute. What kind of an idiot am I? I've been reasoning with a troll.

"If this were a world where you people could be reasoned with, this article would shut you up."

ROFL... Oh, the irony...

Eggie, dear, it's a funny thing about us liberals. We actually want real data, something that O'Hanlon very carefully doesn't provide. Moreover, your statements about O'Hanlon and the Brookings Institute are both quite wrong. O'Hanlon has, of course, supported this war and "the Surge" from the very beginning.

But then, you already knew all this and were just trolling like an idiot.

Ebert,

Liberal Brookings? LOLOLOL! Haim Saban funds Brookings and he has an agenda and it ain't to benefit the US!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban

http://www.irmep.org/Tank_Watch.htm

BlueGirl,

Thank you for being so blunt. I've had it too!

Am I the only person who thinks that a lot of what goes on in Iraq is based on the Iraqis' assumption that the US will pull out some time after Bush leaves office, and that in the meantime the only thing to do is position yourself to grab power when it happens? In other words, haven't a lot of the various factions in Iraq decided that America's military presence is pretty much pointless and that even with all those troops and civilian workers in the country, the real enemy is the other factions?

egbert: "If this were a world where you people could be reasoned with, this article would shut you up."

And that, in a nutshell (or nutball), is eggie's idea of "reasoning" with people.

No, you are most definitely not the only person who thinks those things. They really ARE just waiting for us to get out of the way so they can settle their own power struggle.

I think that we WILL get out of the way, not because we want to but because we HAVE to (we're tapped out in lots of ways), but that doesn't mean that after we are *physically* out of the way that we would not support somebody's side and continue stirring the pot. IOW, we will continue manufacturing arms and selling them to whatever side is in most agreement with our interests at the time to further whatever "strategic goals" that we may have. Unfortunately, our conception of what "our interests" actually ARE is flawed and shortsighted.

In short, Gulliver runs out of Dexedrine and the Lilliputians alter the dynamic in a way that actually keeps Gulliver from doing harm to himself.

If I had not seen the Nepeta and Blue Girl comments, I would have had a much more difficult time making it through the week end. Thanks.