<p>As promised, the surge is already showing results. The Malaki government is making the hard political decisions necessary for reconciliation.</p>
<p>Last week, the Iraqi Parliament passed significant legislation that placed the Mahdi Army militia in charge of security for Baghdad’s most sacred Shia Mosque. As a demonstration of Iraqi capacity for assuming a greater security role, the legislation also barred US military personell from approaching closer than 2/3 mile to the mosque!</p>
<p>The hard political decision is how hard they want to kill Americans. The overwhelming majority already do, it’s just a question of their intensity. </p>
<p>Don’t worry, though: if Hillary has her way, they’ll have plenty of targets defending “vital U.S. interests” to shoot at for a long time.</p>
<p>Actually, I think you are attributing too much relevance to the American forces in Iraq. I don’t think the US has much if any role in the underlying political dynamics of Iraq. We are there simply marking time while waiting for the Iraqis to play it out. We are spending a few billion dollars and 100 US dead per month to delay the inevitable. Figure each Friedman Unit costs $50 billion and 500 US fatalities.</p>
<p>That would be just over three Friedman Units. </p>
<p>But, give it one more Friedman Unit and then we’ll see progress.</p>
<p>Note: The great thing about Friedman units is that they are sliding. So, around Christmas, the administration was saying that in just one more Friedman Unit (mid-summer), we’d know if the surge was working and plan accordingly.</p>
<p>Now, they don’t even need to distribute new talking points. It’s still just one more Friedman Unit (fall) before we’ll know. And, of course, when Petraeus reports this fall, he’ll say that we just need one more Friedman Unit to tell if the “signs of progress” can be sustained.</p>
<p>Two more Friedman Units after that and Bush will have run out the clock. He can go home and blame the Democrats for “losing Iraq”.</p>
<p>Baaawaaahaaaahaaa! Reconstruction period. That’s a good one.</p>
<p>But, let’s assume that there ever was a reconstruction period in Iraq. The Army Generals…you know, the ones Bush fired…all agreed that it would take 300,000 ground troops to “lay down the law”. Stupid generals. What do they know?</p>
<p>"I have no tolerance for the idea of a politically correct war that both american parties seem to be embracing. "</p>
<p>There IS NO WAR! The war ended in 2003. Now just a hostile, aggressive occupation.</p>
<p>It is likely true that U.S. is helping to prevent internecine warfare, at least initially. Not because we play any role in pacifying the place, but because we have become so universally hated, we are a common target. That will continue under Hillary’s plan to protect “U.S. vital interests”.</p>
<p>I’d preferred if we’d just thrown out saddam, then left.
.
I’d preferred if we’d never have gone. How would you have felt if we left the country in shambles, I wouldn’t be surprised if what was left of their country became radicalized. </p>
<p>Something in the pit of my stomach tells me we’re going to go into Iran starting something big which no troop surge could <em>win</em> Scary thought.</p>
<p>I’d preferred if we’d just thrown out saddam, then left."</p>
<p>But then two of three bipartisan goals of the war would not have been met: 2) control of the oil pipelines (read: U.S. vital interest); and 3) permanent U.S. military bases in the middle east outside of Saudi Arabia (read: U.S. vital interest).</p>
<p>“Deadline threatens Iraqi government
Iraq’s top Sunni official has set a May 15 deadline for pulling his entire bloc out of the government – a potentially devastating blow to reconciliation efforts within Iraq. Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi told CNN: “If the constitution is not subject to major changes, definitely, I will tell my constituency frankly that I have made the mistake of my life when I put my endorsement to that national accord,” he said.”</p>
<p>And while the Bush administration might not accept deadlines and benchmarks our allies in Iraq are far less opposed to them.</p>
Yeah, proving bin Laden’s point that we come to occupy instead of liberate would be just one more deft touch in an unbroken series of deft touches by this administration. But they actually thought something like that was going to happen, except that Ahmed Chalabi proved to be less popular in Iraq than a skunk at a picnic.</p>
<p>Or, as Senator Clinton put it last week, the Bush admistration has no problem cutting off education funding for 4th graders if they don’t meet firm benchmarks, but won’t agree to benchmarks on the Iraqi government.</p>
<p>Bush is trying. The plan is for a pre-emptive strike using nuclear tipped bunker-buster bombs. The problem, or so the reporting goes, is that the Joint Chiefs have told Bush they will resign en masse.</p>
![http://agonist.org/files/active/1/finalfugl2.jpg[/url]](http://agonist.org/files/active/1/finalfugl2.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
