<p>“I think we need to call a hostile, aggressive occupation for what it is”</p>
<p>Mini, you may have missed the finer points in the debate, but when a sovereign government invites you to set up a base in their country it is not a “hostile, aggressor occupation”. I doubt that the people of Qatar or Kuwait feel that they are being occupied. Likewise, should there be a mutual desire to have a base in Iraq, it would not be as an occupying force anymore than military bases in Korea constitute an occupation.</p>
<p>As for the dieing for oil piece, please recall that comment the next time you fly on a plane to India or for a tax deductible trip to attend your child’s graduation. Also, remember that the next time that you get a paycheck or a speaking fee that the world’s economy that is robust enough to afford such frills as your employment is based on oil, much of which comes from the Middle East. If you feel comfortable belittling the efforts of those that die to keep the economy of the world going, so be it, but pardon me if I withhold my respect for your numerous snide comments to that effect.</p>
<p>Edit: ID, we cross-posted. I direct the same same comment regarding the “hostile occuaption” to you.</p>
<p>"Mini, you may have missed the finer points in the debate, but when a sovereign government invites you to set up a base in their country it is not a “hostile, aggressive occupation”.</p>
<p>No one “invited” the U.S. into Iraq. That was Clinton’s hope of course when he tried genocide, and failed. What’s the fine point I’m missing? </p>
<p>“I have no fundamental issue with a goal of occupying Iraq in perpetuity, with permanent military bases. I assumed that was the real objective of the invasion in the first place, along with the stealing the oil.”</p>
<p>I believe you really do believe that, or that you think you do. But to confirm, try a little thought experiment (FF, you can do it too). Make a little chart. Down the left hand column, put the names of your relatives, starting with your children, then your wife, then nieces and nephews, then others. Then along the top make several columns: # of barrels of oil, price, total - and then figure out how many barrels of oil - to you, of course - your daughter’s life is worth, or your wife’s leg, or nephew’s arms. It isn’t difficult to do, and is the kind of math done in the risk management industry all the time.</p>
<p>When you finish the exercise, let us know if you have any “fundamental issues”.</p>
<p>In case you missed it, there was an election in Iraq about a year ago. Hence, not only is it a sovereign government, it is a democratically elected sovereign government.</p>
<p>Got it - glad we agree that the “sovereign Iraqi gov’t” in the Pork Zone has not invited the U.S. to set up permanent bases, take ANY of the oil revenue, or defend ANY “U.S. vital interests”.</p>
<p>mini, your silly exercise makes no more sense than doing the same thing for items made from wood (very dangerouse profession) or hauled by a truck (also very dangerous).</p>
<p>I didn’t say that I am FOR permanent military bases in Iraq. I said that I could envision permanent installations, under certain circumstances, as a legitimate policy option for discussion. In other words, as a hypothetical possibility, I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.</p>
<p>For example, I don’t reject out of hand the permanent command headquarters in Quater.</p>
<p>As for Iraq, I would like to see us lose no more US lives in that black hole. At a certain point, the whole house goes up in flames and all you can do is pull your people out and let it burn. That’s pretty much where we are at in Iraq.</p>
<p>“At a certain point, the whole house goes up in flames and all you can do is pull your people out and let it burn.”</p>
<p>No, the better analogy is that despite a new fire chief who has implemented a new plan which shows some promise for containing the fire, you pull your family out but leave all of the others in the building to die. And you also allow the neighboring buildings to catch fire and also burn. And the neighboring buildings happen to be the town’s primary source of employment.</p>
<p>Edit: upon further thought, the analogy can be expanded to:</p>
<p>When the new fire chief comes back to the town council to report on his efforts the president of the town council says that unless he hears the chief say that things are hopeless, the fire chief is lying. He then chortles that the loss of the building will increase the number of votes that his party gets in the next election.</p>
<p>Don’t give me that nonsense. Check the number of Iraqi refugees the Bush administration has accepted into the United States. It’s criminal.</p>
<p>For the money we are currently throwing down the drain in Iraq, we could provide enormous refugee support.</p>
<p>When we pull out, we’ll see the continuation of the Sunni/Shia civil war in Iraq with elements of a proxie war funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia. We don’t know the outcome of that war and, as a matter of US policy, should avoid trying to pick a winner. Our efforts should be focused on humanitarian refugee assistance. When the Iraqis tire of killing each other and agree to a political settlement, we should be prepared to offer reconstruction assistance.</p>
<p>Our number one priority should be diplomatic, specifically regional diplomacy and opening direct diplomatic channels with Iran. Our diplomatic policy right now is a total nightmare. We are single-handedly pushing Iran towards developing nucluear weapons. Everything we are doing (economic sanctions and threats of military action) are giving them more reason to do so (from an Iranian perspective). We should be trying to REDUCE their incentives.</p>
<p>“When we pull out, we’ll see the continuation of the Sunni/Shia civil war in Iraq with elements of a proxie war funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.”</p>
<p>This is far from a forgone conclusion. The Shia and Sunnis in Iraq have intermingled (and intermarried) for years and if you had listened to your Charlie Rose interviews with both ears (not just your left one) you will have heard that prior to the successful campaign by al Qaeda of stoking sectraian violence, many Iraqis didn’t even know if their neighbor was Sunni or Shia. Fight and win the war against al Qaida (which is the catalyst) and then the sectarian differences can be addressed.</p>
<p>Only fools like Senator Dodd on one of last Sunday’s talk shows believe that the crux of the battle with al Qaeda is still in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>“We should be trying to REDUCE their incentives.”
Ummm … don’t look now but there are incentives on the table as well.</p>
<p>That all sounds very good, but is four years out of date. The US imposed elections that were strictly along sectarian lines. The entire government (such that it is) is structured along sectarian lines.</p>
<p>There is no “table”. We won’t talk to the Iranians until they agree to end their enrichment program. Why would they agree to that when that is precisely the topic of the discussions? </p>
<p>We’ve pushed the discussions off on the Europeans, who have no bargaining chips. The Europeans already have diplomatic and commercial relations with Iran.</p>
<p>One could say that the US govenrment is structured along racial lines (special districts set up to assure black representation in Congress). This doesn’t mean that violence is the expected result.</p>
<p>The crux of the battle with Al Qaeda IS on the Afghan/Pakistan border. That’s where the Al Qaeda leadership directs the worldwide operations. By diverting our attention away, we gave them exactly what they needed: a couple of years to regroup.</p>
<p>First, we never diverted our attention away from Afghanistan. There were more troops in Afghanistan after the Iraq war began than before.</p>
<p>Secondly, listen to the leaders of both sides of the war (OBL and Petraeus) - both say that Iraq is the primary battlefield - as does the latest intelligence community report. </p>
<p>We could divert 150,000 troops to Afghanistan and after some mopping up of non-strategic areas, they would be sitting in their base camps playing cards while OBL thumbed his nose at them from the safety of the Pakistani border. If we crossed the border to give chase, we could de-stabilize a nuclear power and give OBL exactly what he wants - a nuclear bomb with a destination address of USA.</p>
<p>You can’t be serious. You are trying to compare the US political structure to Iraq? About the only similarity is that Bush’s and Malaki’s job approval ratings may be equally low.</p>
<p>Aside from that, I would say that it takes a lot of nerve for a Republican to talk about redistricting and minority representation.</p>
<p>So who’s voting for Hilary in '08? After Bush boards Air Air Force One for the last time, and most of us heave a great sigh of relief, how will things REALLY change in Iraq? What will the elected Democratic President do differently? (Is there really any doubt that the Democrats will win the White House, as well as the a larger majority in both houses of Congress? It’s their turn in the cycle.)</p>
<p>I pretty much suspect that the democrats will maintain a continued and significant presence in Iraq, stating that it is now very much in the defense of U.S. “vital interests” (As Mini has often pointed out, Hilary seems to be the only one honest enough to come right out and say it), that the irresponsible actions of the Bush Administration and the prior Republican Congress have left us between a rock and a hard place, and that, “It’s not our fault. We’re just trying to contain the fire!”</p>
<p>They’ll get away with that argument, and not be blamed for our continued war weariness—As long as we can see “improvements” in other areas of concern (health care, development of alternative fuels that APPEAR to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, across the board increases in minimum wage, etc. Even if we suffer another devastating act of domestic terrorism, the Democrats can still blame Bush, et al, for the whole mess, citing increased Anti-American rage fomented to a veritable boil by the invasion of Iraq. The kool-Aid drinkers in both parties will continue to knock back the punch, and foam at the mouth with righteous indignation. You know…SSDD. But where will that leave the average American?</p>