Reply With Quote
There's military inteligence for ya
In the list of "stay the course" courses, the following course, Kurds, Shia, Sunnis failing to cohere THIS WEEK, by next Monday's deadline, under a cons ution, breaking Iraq even more irretrievably, is just a probable as it is undesirable.
Even if the participants of the "cons utional convention" cohere enough to produce the do ent, the do ent will be severely tested "on the ground". The Lion and The Lamb Lie Together in the Christian Bible, but the hateful, murderous Shia/Sunni animals aren't going to follow that script, and the Muslim clerics feel NO allegiance or deference to a civil cons ution.
On the brink, indeed.
But shrub needs "to get on with my life", to live The Tone-deaf Insanity of King George the Tool.
=====================================
washingtonpost.com
Iraq on the Brink
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; A13
It looks increasingly as if President Bush may have been off by 74 years in his assessment of Iraq. By deposing the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, Bush assumed he would bring Iraq to its 1787 moment -- the crafting of a democratic cons ution, the birth of a unified republic. Instead, he seems to have brought Iraq to the brink of its own 1861 -- the moment of national dissolution.
No, I don't mean that Iraq is on the verge of all-out civil war, though that's a possibility that can't be dismissed. But the nation does appear on the verge of a catastrophic failure to cohere. The more the National Assembly deliberates on the fundamentals of a new order, the larger the differences that divide the nation's three sub-groups appear to be.
It's not the small stuff that they're sweating in Baghdad. They can't agree on whether the new Iraq should be a federation, with a largely autonomous Shiite south and Kurdish north, or a more unified state, which the Sunnis prefer. They can't agree on just how Islamic the new republic should be, and whether the leading Shiite clergy should be above the dictates of mere national law. They can't agree on whether religious or state courts should hold sway in Shiite-dominated regions, or even the nation as a whole; they can't agree on the rights of women. They can't agree on the division of oil revenue among the three groups. They can't agree on whether there should be a Kurdish right to secede enshrined in the cons ution.
In short, they can't agree on the fundamentals of what their new nation should be. And the more they deliberate, the less they agree on.
These are not unanticipated disagreements. Before the war began, many critics of Bush's rush to war, including some in the State Department and the CIA, argued that while overthrowing Hussein would be relatively easy, building a post-Hussein Iraq would be devilishly difficult. Bush's defenders argued that Iraq was a largely secular land in which many Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds lived together amicably and frequently intermarried. They weren't entirely wrong, but one could have made the same argument about o's Yugoslavia before it dissolved into genocidal violence. They missed the deep resentments and the growing fundamentalism that Hussein's thugocracy smothered, and that exploded once he was removed.
What neither Bush's critics nor defenders could foresee was his administration's mind-boggling indifference to establishing security in post-Hussein Iraq. In the absence of a credible central authority, the fragmentation of Iraq is already an established fact. Once-secular Basra, the largest city in the Shiite south, is now controlled by clergy sympathetic to Iran, with posters of the Ayatollah Khomeini adorning the town. Recently the mayor of Baghdad was forcibly removed from office, not by official forces but by a Shiite militia. Iraqi governmental officials protect themselves from terrorists with guards from their own tribes. And if the efforts to build a national republic founder, it's a safe bet that the Iraqi army, in which America has invested so heavily, will devolve into very well-armed factional militias. Should that happen, as Henry Kissinger recently observed on this page, "the process of building security forces may become the prelude to a civil war."
And what exactly is the role of U.S. forces, whether or not there's a civil war, in an Iraq that has split into a Shiite Islamic south, a Kurdish north and a violent and chaotic largely Sunni center? What is our mission? Which side are we on?
Indeed, the Bush presidency is perilously close to one of the greatest, and surely the strangest, foreign and military policy failures in American history. We lost in Vietnam, to be sure, but Vietnam would have gone to the Communists whether or not we intervened. The dissolution of Iraq, however, should it proceed further, is the direct consequence of Bush's decision to intervene unilaterally and of the particular kind of occupation that he mandated. And that dissolution, we should recall, goes well beyond the political. Unemployment in Iraq exceeds 50 percent. Electrical power is on, in midsummer Baghdad, for four hours a day.
At great expense in resources and human life, we have subs uted one living for another in Iraq. Things may yet turn out better than I fear they will. But right now there's a sickeningly good prospect that we will have set in motion a predictable chain of events culminating in the creation of both a sphere of terrorist activity and a sub-state allied with the mullahs of Iran.
Last week U.S. forces in Iraq discovered what looked to be a cache of chemical weapons, but determined that the arsenal had been assembled by the insurgent thugs who emerged after Hussein's fall. We have created the very dangers we intervened to prevent. Some policy. Some president.
Last edited by boutons; 08-18-2005 at 08:39 AM.
There's military inteligence for ya
Since when do the liberals care about womens rights in Iraq?
That's a first.
I wish I thought it was more than just an excuse to ...but I know better.
This liberal does and always has.
And if some get their way, women won't have much more rights than they did before.
Then why aren't American Liberals protesting to put pressure on the US Govt to pressure the Iraqis to grant women equal rights....all I see you guys protesting is for us to pull out. and what ever we leave behind...the worse it is the better for liberals...more to blame W for...
Like that crap in Crawford...why not put pressure to the administration to make sure we actually do accomplish something in Iraq...since we are already there...but I don't see that the liberals care anything about that...they just want to be anti-bush and stand for little else.
Oh, yeah. Like conservatives weren't all anti-Clinton when he was in office.
Get real Whottt. Did you read the other thread about the crap conservatives were saying during the Clinton years and how they've flip-flopped now that their beloved Dubya is in the White House?
And not all liberals feel that way.
I know we cannot pull out of Iraq now..the damage has been done and we must save face. FUBAR does not mean we leave.
And how much support did the conservatives have when they were anti-Clinton?
None. I didn't like it when they did that...I didn't notice it having a big impact on Clinton's popularity...in fact it helped him IIRC.
But the anti-Clinton rheteroric never even came close to the "Bush is Hitler" rhetoric going on these days...and the Democrats know they backed this war in the first place.
Politicizing a war is the absolute worst thing an American can do...it's something we've largely avoided in the history of this country...and it's a damn shamn that our troops are nothing more than political pawns...it's possible to be anti-Bush without underminding the war effort you know. In fact...he'd probably have been beaten if that was what the Dems did...but the American public knows when politics are in play.
Politics are in play every election by all sides.
And apparently you were not listening to Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh during the Clinton years..and we all know they are the heart and soul of conservative republicans.
I think everyone considers Rush a strict right winger...Ann Coulter is more entertainment value than anything else...neither of them have anything to do with the Republicans gaining control of the country...
Both are more centered than the prominent lefties these days...
A lot more middle of the roaders among the Republicans than the Crats right now.
And attacking Clinton in no way had anything to do with the Republicans gaining popularity.
C'mon..the Republicans got as far away from Pat Buchannan and Newt Gingrich as they could...they are more centered.
Of course it did. That is the purpose of attacking your opposition.
You make a point though because Michael Moore is just like Ann Coulter..maybe even better looking...more entertainment than anything else. There are plenty of middle of the roaders amongst Democrats it is just that you've bought into the whole "liberal" crap that the repubs have been spewing.
It had zero impact on Clintons popularity...If Clinton had run in 2000 he'd have won the election again.
No...Michael Moore make Louis Farakan look centralized....it's not entertainment value when you guys stick him next to President Carter...bad gamble on the part of the crats...Americans still love America.You make a point though because Michael Moore is just like Ann Coulter..maybe even better looking...more entertainment than anything else. There are plenty of middle of the roaders amongst Democrats it is just that you've bought into the whole "liberal" crap that the repubs have been spewing.
Won't argue with you there. , I think he'd get elected if he ran now.
Like I said before...Michael Moore is NOT good for the democratic party and I agree that was a foolish move.
Too bad many conservatives actually believe that liberals hate America when there are thousands serving in Iraq right now.
This is the fault of the Democratic Party...many anti-war elements are anti-american causes...like it or not it's the truth...
The Democrats tried to ride anti-war sentimen into the white house...bad gamble, they underesimated the mentality of the American people in the time of war....and they picked up a lot of extremist baggage in the process...it's now their job to separate themselves from it...not the Republicans.
It's their job to show people what they stand for now...calling Bush Hitler is not good enough for the American people....just like Clinton getting blown...
I am noticing certain ideological shifts in the Democratic Party now...
Like declaring states of emergency over immigration...
IF the Republicans tried that they get branded as racists...but as always, the Democrats can pull it off.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
