And there it is.....
We all knew this was coming,
This article hits two points I've been making for awhile. 1) The September report will not offer the clear answers that either side seeks. There will be the same "treading water" balance that has kept us in this quagmire thus far.
And, 2) No matter what the report, the answer offered will be to continue "the surge."
Conditions in Iraq will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of U.S. military forces, the top commander in Iraq said yesterday.
This article hits two points I've been making for awhile. 1) The September report will not offer the clear answers that either side seeks. There will be the same "treading water" balance that has kept us in this quagmire thus far.
And, 2) No matter what the report, the answer offered will be to continue "the surge."
posted by mikevotes at
9:34 PM
6 Comments:
We are told that if we leave Iraq all hell will break loose. It will become a terrorist haven; a launching pad for global destruction; a catapult from which countless jihadis will magically spring into American suburbia to rape and pillage.
I say phooey. Prove it. I'd rather take on a real and defined threat than continue in the insanely ineffective slashing at phantoms in which we are now engaged.
We are led by liars and madmen. I'm done caring about what they have to say. And that goes for the addle minded fear-mongers who would be the next GOP president as well
By
-epm, at 9:44 AM
Good point about phantoms.
I would argue that the most likely outcome is a real civil war where Al Qaeda in Iraq will find a temporary home with the Sunnis because of their usefulness to them.
But without the Americans there, they will slowly drift out.
The eventual outcome is Shia domination.
By
mikevotes, at 1:42 PM
"The eventual outcome is Shia domination."
But I suspect that this is the eventual outcome regardless of our military presence. Any harmony, any unity, is only as a result of coercion or corruption.
The role of al Qaeda in Iraq and how it is -- or would be -- dealt with by Iraqi nationals eludes me. And despite the pontifications of the beltway punditry, history has shown them to be no more prescient than I in predicting the future of Iraq... maybe even less so.
The bigger problem with our Iraq intervention, occupation, or what ever you want to call it, is that the American leaders lack all credibility. From Bush right down to the assistant to the assistant to the deputy to the SecState, all have demonstrated either their disassociation with reality or with truth. All we can be sure of is that the current US power structure doesn't have a clue what they're talking about, and to follow their "leadership" is an exercise in stupidity.
Our country has survived the Reign of Bush through sheer inertia... Let's hope we can coast into 2009 without completely collapsing under the weight of our own incompetence. And then let's hope we get a competent leader and not another "messiah" figure.
... kinda rambling here....
By
-epm, at 2:15 PM
Right. Shia control is the outcome through any permutation.
I guess the question is whther the Iraqi Sunnis would gain or lose by having Al Qaeda protected among them. On their plus side, Al Qaeda brings weapons, money, and fighters. On their minus side, any Sunni community thought to be harboring Al Qaeda would be an immediate Shia target.
I wouldn't expect Al Qaeda in the long term, but in the short term, one of the thousand Sunni leaders might harbor them, but, frankly, the Al Qaeda who remain in Iraq will end up tied down fighting tghe Shia and not pose any real threat.
The bigger issue is what happens to the outflow of fighters. Without some control of the borders, we give them a free pass to their next fight.
(if you're gonna do the flypaper strategy, it's really important to make sure they don't freely leave the fly strip)
By
mikevotes, at 5:47 PM
Just speculating.... I see the Sunni/Al Qaeda alliance having a short term plus and long term minus. In the long term the Sunnis care about their nationalist interests in Iraq and Al Qaeda cares about fundamentalist revolution and world (or regional) domination under their dictate, and nothing about national, man-made borders. In the short term Al Qaeda bring guns and fighter that advance the Sunni power position. But in the long term their priorities diverge.
I think this point of divergence may be exposing itself as Sunni insurgents begin to feel the "al Qaeda" stigma working against them in the big picture. If the Sunni can maintain their power position without al Qaeda, I think they'd do it. If the Sunni can get guns and money from the US in the guise of fighting al Qaeda, that will be good for them. The can push back on al Qaeda nut jobs and at the same time those US guns and munitions can be pointed anywhere else they please.
By
-epm, at 7:21 PM
Right, and I would add from the Iraqi side, that stigma you're talking about. Everywhere Al Qaeda is, the US, and later the Shia government, will focus on those areas.
Also, don't leave out the fact that in the last year or so, the mainline Sunni insurgent groups have built their own channels for weapons and money. When this thing started, Al Qaeda was the main inflow, but now the Sunnis have established their own support and smuggling efforts from the "Gulf states."
The Us weapons are just gravy , but the broader effort gives them a veneer of legitimacy to conduct operations the way some of the Shia militias do.
By
mikevotes, at 9:02 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home