Comments on: NIE ON IRAQ PUTS BURDEN FOR PROGRESS ON IRAQIS

By: legaleagle

legaleagle — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:21:54 +0000

Well, how really fascinating; a rightwing analysis of the situation in Iraq without any references to surrender, appeasement, cowardice, treason or cut-and-run. It’s really almost disorienting. Rather ironic, too; if we’d seen this kind of approach from the Right for the past couple of years, or, indeed, even since the election, Bush could have certainly have gotten cooperation for the escalation he’s trying to ram down the throat of the country now. But that, of course, would have meant acknowledging that that strategy in Iraq was wrong in the first place, an admission that is virtually unthinkable. After all, the war in Iraq was always secondary to - and, in fact, always driven by - the domestic war against Democrats, liberals, blacks, Mexicans, feminists, environmentalists, and the various other enemies of Republicanism. Accordingly, there was never an occasion when Bush didn’t declare himself the Decider or Cheney announce that the administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what the Democrats think; when critics of the war weren’t accused of appeasement, cowardice or treason; when - as with the State of the Union - smirking fratboy Bush didn’t sink to the level of Bubblehead Malkin or Michael Savage, by referring to the “Democrat” Party; or just yesterday, in which lackey Tony Snow didn’t once again try to tie Iraq to “the lessons of 9/11.” They just can’t help themselves; Bush’s natural arrogance and vanity would never permit him to admit that he was actually wrong about Iraq (excluding the “mistakes were made” crap), that Saddam Hussein didnâ€™t have a damn thing to do with the WTC attacks, and offer to enter a new strategic partnership with the Democrats.

Nope, Bush is just too petulant to give up the sleazy attacks on his perceived enemies. And now the chicken(hawks) have come home to roost. Sorry, but there’s not a chance in hell the Democrats are going to put themselves on the hook and insulate the Republicans from political fallout, while the Decider keeps repeating the lies that got us into Iraq in the first place, and accusing the Democrats of appeasement and cowardice.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with Gil’s conclusion when he notes, “Congratulations. This is the first time I see a Right Wing blog call it like it is in Iraqâ€¦.. There is still some hope for you guys.” I don’t see any hope at all; what I do see is an appreciable sense of panic that being saddled with sole responsibility for Iraq may consign the Republicans to political exile, combined with the cynical attempt to pawn off some of that responsibility onto the Democrats. Good luck with that.

By: highplainsjoker

highplainsjoker — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 23:46:34 +0000

To gil:
Practical, pragmatic, and real. Great factional wars have ended up with partitions. Korea, Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, etc. Lets get on with the real solution. We cannot make these people like each other.

By: highplainsjoker

highplainsjoker — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 23:35:22 +0000

JR:
So, the Sunnis stole the election from the Shites. Answers all my questions about their feud. And also about the two thosand year old feud between Demos and Repubs…great logic. Where Have I been?

By: Rusty Austin

Rusty Austin — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:33:25 +0000

“For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.”

Whaddya mean our, kemo sabey?

By: Drongo

Drongo — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 09:51:59 +0000

Oh, and on the Karbala attack, re:insurgent spec ops;

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/4-us-troops-announced-killed-troops.html#c117044156539816444

Interetingly complex operation run by Sunni insurgents. I don’t see why they could do this but not the Karbala raid.

By: gil

gil — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:53:52 +0000

A little idea that might work.

Iraq is moving toward partition weather we like it or not.

A little known fact hardly ever reported is that the Kurds are for the most part and for all practical purposes independent now, and have been for the last 15 years. Their independence is so open that they have their own Army (the Peshmerga) numbering about 100,000 highly trained, highly motivated Kurdish soldiers. In fact with the exception of our own U.S. Army, they are by far the best Army in Iraq. Kurds will not under any sircunstance take orders from the likes of al Sistani. That is a fact.

Where am I going with this?

If the entire North of Iraq with some of the largest oil fields and oil reserves in the nation is and will remain off limits to Shiite influence then why do we continue to fool ourselves in pretending that a) there is a Democracy in Iraq we can defend? , B) That Iraq can’t be partitioned if in all but name it already is? C) that the Kurds will accept to be the smallest, and therefore weakest minority in a proverbial real Democracy if it ever comes about. Given the fact that they have the strongest military, are by far the most organized, and are our true natural allies in the region how can any one believe they will just give all that up and be subservant to the Shiite… People they share nothing with? D) As pointed out by this blog, that the Sunni will just give up and accept beeing killed, cleansed out of their territory, and in effect expulsed out of their own country by the Shiite?

The only way out of Iraq is give every one what they want…. Their separate ways. The Kurds already have a Nation as I just pointed out, The SHiite already have a bast region to claim home in Southern Iraq, and the Sunni control the center.

Granted that this has problems, but the problems are by far less complicated to resolve that the quagmire from hell WITH NO SOLUTION that Bush is hell bent in persuing. Bush is delusional incompetent that should have never been President is as simple as that.

Oil is the problem in this idea (Sunni have none), and Turkey does not want a Kurdish state at it’s door step. I don’t know about you, but if these are the “problems” to solve, then by all means SOLVE THEM and get it over with!!…. Or of course we can continue to call each other’s names, see our troops be killed ad infinitum, spend a trillion dollars to get the Iranians have Iraq handed to them in a silver platter, continue to ignore the real war on terrorism fort lack of resources, etc, etc.

Byden might be right who knows. I for one like at least part of the idea. In the end it might just happen by default. Like I said it is already a done deal in Kurdistan.

By: gil

gil — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:26:30 +0000

Home page.

Congratulations. This is the first time I see a Right Wing blog call it like it is in Iraq….. There is still some hope for you guys.

Your analysis is superior, correct, incisive, and above all based in reality not the usual delusion coming from your side.

I am impresed.

By: Joe Helgerson

Joe Helgerson — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 02:45:37 +0000

But Rick, if we have to be a buffer between Sunni and Shia, won’t we have to stay for decades. I’ve read that Arabs will feud with each other for Hundred’s of years. This is a neverending blood feud. Your right, our military can’t solve this problem. When will enough already be enough?

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:22:48 +0000

mmmm…depends on what constitutes “effective.”

I’d say right now we’re keeping the violence to an unacceptable but bearable level. But if we go, it will be a nightmare of a catastrophe - worse than Darfur as I point out. Sadr is dead serious - as serious Milosevic ever was - about cleansing Iraq of Sunnis. That would mean that 5 million people would be on the move - an intolerable situation. Especially since (and I violently disagree with Krauthammer about this) we were the catalyst that freed the Shias to carry out this pogrom.

I say that a mission to save the Sunnis is a worthwhile mission and one we are obligated to undertake - morally and in a strategic sense.

By: TG

TG — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:16:13 +0000

“This most recent NIE, if it does nothing else, will, I hope, disabuse those who are inclined to believe that the application of military power alone by America can do much to solve the long term, systemic political problems that keep the insurgency going. At this point, we can do little more than act as a buffer between Shia extremists who seek revenge and Sunnis who are being hunted down and killed by both regular and irregular forces. For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.”

I was with you for the first two sentences, but the third one doesnt (to me) logically follow. If there’s not much we can do to end things, why is it well worth the effort to stay? I mean, if we were an *effective* buffer between the warring factions, I could see where you’re coming from. But surely experience has shown that we are not truly effective in that role.