The Bushies saw their chance to destabilize the region and force millions to suffer for generations to come, while hollowing out the U.S. economy in one giant Hallibuster grab. And that just couldn't let that opportunity slip by, could they.

16 months to go, people.

streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

Some useful goals for our own government, as well.

Mikiya the noble Iraqi exile lives in Cambridge Mass. and thinks Ahmed Chalabi was Iraq’s Mandela. Insane.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." -- Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

An intelligent president with a strong sense of history would have seen this coming. Bush launched a war of aggression against a country that was no threat whatsoever to the United States - IMPEACH AND IMPRISON HIM!

I think Kenji has this one right, but the failed administration of George W. Bush has had plenty of help from the Dems in congress as well as a complacent electorate. I fear for the world my grandchildren are inheriting!

ahmed necat is devil

ahmed necat is devil

Well gee, I guess that means no Hydrocarbon Framework law - so notice how the talk has now shifted to dividing the country to "get those oil contracts" for American's vital national interest.

If we can just get a few warlords to sign on. We don't need to stinking Iraqi government.

oops, "We don't need no stinking Iraqi government."

I'm sure Bush promised alot and deliveried nothing to the folks in that little closed door energy task meeting. "Step right up folks..."

Ah, Kevin.

Only a liberal could see bad news in this development.

Human Hamuodi has this one exactly right, Kevin. Streamlining the government, focusing only on the core services a government should focus on, like setting laws and operating a military augmented by contracters -- if these activities are focused on, then political reconcilation will emerge organically. Good government will encourage foriegn investment in the country, new businesses will be set up, young people will leave the dead endism of the insurgency for high profile jobs in offices, which will create more business, etc.

This is a good development, and healthy that the Iraqis have recognized this, rather than bumping their heads on hte wall with some unattainable "reconcilation."

Eggie, aside from the fact that this exposes several years worth of GOP talking points to be frauds, do you realize that this makes the prospect of "victory" in Iraq absolutely impossible?

Didn't think you did.

CN "victory" isn't defined by you nor will it be defined by any liberal. The leftists are only interested in defeat and want it to be declared before President Bush leaves office. Not going to happen. Get over it.
Have you heard all the other candidates say they do not see pulling troups out of Iraq for a long time?

Once a Democrat is in office there will be a miraculous change of heart and suddenly the advancements in Iraq will be touted from this site and Kos - as if the simple election of a liberal suddenly transformed the whole world.

Same old trick - doom and gloom - still trying for payback for the Clinton impeachment.

I find it acutely sad that George Bush believes he is nobly defending freedom and dignity when at the level of nuts and bolts he is dumping our national wealth and prestige down the toilet for the sake of little more than his personal reputation.

(Well, OK, he's also putting in for the military-industrial-complex, but that's ancillary to his main interest which is himself.)

CN "victory" isn't defined by you nor will it be defined by any liberal. ... Once a Democrat is in office there will be a miraculous change of heart and suddenly the advancements in Iraq will be touted from this site and Kos"

Orwell,

It usually doesn't take long for the average right-wing retard to refute himself.

But you were impressively prompt.

CN "victory" isn't defined by you nor will it be defined by any liberal. “Orwell�

Four legs goood, two legs baaad. - Orwell

CN, "victory" isn't defined by President Bush. Nor has it ever been.

Fixed it for you, Orwell.

Same old trick - doom and gloom - still trying for payback for the Clinton impeachment.

Or perhaps you're projecting your unhealthy and ongoing obsession with Bill Clinton's penis onto the rational people in the world.

Ah, Orwell channeling Dana Perino - Perhaps, Marty Kaplan over at HuffPo will write a witty takeoff on you, also, Orwellian - His DP takeoff this morning is excellent.

Over 4 MILLION displaced Iraqis, and a large proportion of a million are dead. To take one problem out of hundreds, cholera may break out in Baghdad because of the chronic water problems.

Yet knuckleheads continue to talk about the possibility for "success"??? Egbert, WTF are you thinking, that some triage placement of technocrats to prevent complete social breakdown is GOOD NEWS? Have you no empathy for the plight of millions of suffering people?

Of course you don't. You're another from the sociopath party that is ruining this country.

Also from the WP article:
"It's critical because now the feeling is that the national unity government has proven to be a failure in the region -- in Palestine, in Lebanon, and now in Iraq," Hamoudi said. "We need a strong government that conducts its duty and not that looks good."
------
Well, so much for the neocon Middle East Democracy Project. We are guilty yet again of turning everything we touch into shit. Another example of the post WWII meddling that continues to backfire and pay negative dividends. "Democracy" has to be built from the initiative of the people in their own culture not imposed from outside by deluded Americans with exceptionalist attitudes. They just want their government to be effective. That's never going to happen while we are standing over their shoulder micromanaging everything. If they split up-so be it-but let THEM do it.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." -- Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

Sure, what the hell would Churchill know about winning a war?

what the hell would Churchill know about winning a war?

A hell of a lot more than your boy George W. Bush, harry.

Naysayers. Someday Iraq will be a stable country when a great leader to replace Saddam Hussein is found.

Naysayers. Someday Iraq will be a stable country when a great leader to replace Saddam Hussein is found.

W, your legacy awaits! Don't forget to take all your friends with you.

Had such high hopes that the Uniter could bring together the Hatfield-akims and the McCoyalakis.

Reconciliation was US policy after the Civil War. It worked eventually, but it was difficult and took a long, long time. The challege of reconciliation in Iraq will be much more difficult.

The first essential step is to stop militias from committing ethnic cleansing. You can't reconcile while people are committing murder. Petraeus appears to be having some success in that area.

I am disappointed that the Iraqi government has failed to adopt an oil-revenue sharing law or other major reconciliation legislation. I must agree with Kevin and the posters here that the lack of good Iraqi legislation is a big problem, which could prevent the country from ever stabilizing.

Reconciliation was US policy after the Civil War. It worked eventually, but it was difficult and took a long, long time.

So long, in fact, that we're still waiting for it.

If reconciliation is such a flop/to-be, then why are so many Iraqis against the Biden semi/partition plan? (Note: Brownback is in on that!) Are they irrationally against the seeming colonialism of it, even though "Iraq" is a synthetic colonial invention to begin with? I don't get it.

sheesh, which remark is stupider, ex-liberal's that "reconciliation" was our policy after the civil war, egbert's belief that everything in iraq is good news, or orwell's series of meaningless syllables that seems to be about "victory?"

so many choices....

If reconciliation is such a flop/to-be, then why are so many Iraqis against the Biden semi/partition plan?...I don't get it.

Because so many Iraqis want to destroy the "others" and rule over a united Iraq remade in their image. (Think Tony Perkins)

You know how the believers will reply:
What's new?
"Reconciliation" was out for some time already,
replaced by: "Bottom Up...".

Has anybody considered the possibility of President Carter and or Dennis Kucinich going to Iraq and talking peace? They are both qualified to do the impossible and bring peace to that troubled part of the world. This government has done so much damage to them. Maybe it would cut some ice if somebody from our country was willing to step up and offer some help.

If reconciliation is such a flop/to-be, then why are so many Iraqis against the Biden semi/partition plan? (Note: Brownback is in on that!) Are they irrationally against the seeming colonialism of it, even though "Iraq" is a synthetic colonial invention to begin with? I don't get it.
Posted by: Neil B. on October 8, 2007 at 12:52 PM
---------
The Sunni Arabs overwhelmingly want the *entire* country back in one piece (no autonomous Kurdistan either), so they don't want to hear anything of partition. The Kurds overwhelmingly want independence. The Shia Arabs are split about 50/50 on federalism, but they generally don't have any problem with Kurdish autonomy and probably wouldn't care much if Kurdistan was entirely independent.

So, the Shia Arabs have the most power to affect partition/soft-partition/federalism/whatever. Oddly, we support the Shia SIIC which wants a greater federalism, but not Sadr which wants to keep the Arabs united. If we got out of there and let the Sadrists try to reconcile with the Sunni Arabs, leaving Kurdistan autonomous, it would probably be the most peaceful solution for Iraq. But, we don't like Sadr and any "reconciled" Arab government would probably be quite hostile to us and we wouldn't control the oil. So, there's the quandary.

Am I the only one who sees "partition" written all over this?

Reconciliation was US policy after the Civil War...I am disappointed that the Iraqi government has failed to adopt an oil-revenue sharing law...ex-lax at 12:20 PM

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.�

---Winston Churchill

Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Iraqi Gestalt Government appears: Bushco uptick is frightening possibility
--cognitorex blogspot--
Such as it is, the Iraqis, in the above discussions, have declared that a government exists.

If you can noodle what gestalt means and apply a little logic here a consensus government now exists in Iraq.

One clarion hint is that everybody, from olde Europeans, to our our dim President to all the squabbling Iraqi interests have agreed on the defining elements of the problem. Lo that it took four years but kicking five million Sunnis down the steps and considering strategies to invite them to return does take a while.

Does this gestalt of a government make a difference. I hate to tell you.

As the idea that a gestaltian Iraqi government has formed progresses from intellectual argument to recognizing that demonstrable progress toward Iraqi peace is inevitable the GOP and Bush favorables are going to go up.

Somebody, or everybody, in the Democrat camp had better plan on ideas, opinions and strategies that include winning in '08 with the situation in Iraq markedly improving. (Co-opt the GOP, give credit to Murtha and relentless drive to bring the troops home if nothing else comes to mind.)

..."You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves"... majarosh at 9:38 PM