<p>Oil production is so low in Iraq today that abandoning the pipelines would be roughly the same as hitchhiking away from a car that is smoking by the side of the road after spitting the crankshaft thru the block. What we are spending in Iraq today dwarfs any potential oil revenues.</p>
<p>The Brookings suggestions do call for a defensive force around the port complex in southern Iraq in an attempt to preserve some infrastructure and deter Iran from an invading. The Brookings call for border camps is as much to keep neighbors out as refugees in until the Iraqis are finished killing each other.</p>
<p>My own personal preference would be to forget the refugee camps. Let the refugees overrun Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan. But, I understand that others may legitimately take a more humanitarian view.</p>
<p>Why would Iran need to invade if they already will control oil production and the port through their new Shia client state?</p>
<p>Are the Dems really prepared to double the number of Shia states in the Middle East (not that they really have a choice), or is that they just haven’t thought it out?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, another U.S. “intelligence” (a-hem) fiasco:</p>
<p>I don’t think most folks buy the U.S. intelligence crap anyway, other than in the U.S., so it’s interesting when it even makes the foreign news.</p>
<p>It’s not going to be a peaceful end-game after we leave. The Saudis, Egyptians, and even the Israelis are determined to fuel the Sunni resistance. Brookings war games end with Iranian forces crossing over into Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Dems on the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees are well aware of the political situation in Iraq and what a US pull out means. All of them have endorsed aggressive diplomatic talks with Iran beginning immediately.</p>
<p>Biden quite reasonably points out that the trained and heavily armed ARAB Shia factions in Iraq aren’t necessarily a bed of roses for the rulers of Iran (a country where a large majority of the population doesn’t love its own government). In some ways, Iran has the same kinds of concerns that Turkey has about the Kurds on its border: the threat of Iraq’s instability spreading. He uses this as an example of the kinds of topics the US should discuss with Iran in seeking Iranian assistance for some basic level of stability in Iraq.</p>
<p>“My own personal preference would be to forget the refugee camps. Let the refugees overrun Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan. But, I understand that others may legitimately take a more humanitarian view.”</p>
<p>Ah, but like the response to the Clinton child murder, and the response to Carter’s torture machine, it isn’t just humanitarian. Over here, neither of these are talked about much; over in Iraq and Iran, they are such common knowledge for virtually every family that they are the background to every political discussion. In this case, you take your most secular, most pro-Western, most-intellectual, most professional part of the Iraq population and place them in countries where their hatred of everything American runs rampant, and they raise their kids to spit on everything American, and let that infect what little is left of respect for the U.S. in these countries (Jordan and Saudi Arabia in particular) and pretty soon the U.S. is totally without allies, or even neutrals. Then the permanent U.S. bases become even more critical, and you don’t have 'em.</p>
<p>Every new refugee and every death of an Arab (justifed or not) at the hands of an American is another nail in the U.S. hegemonic coffin.</p>
<p>(As I suggested before, and I’ll bet everyone reading made a big killing, buy oil futures.)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t object to refugee camps. But, you are one grilling the Dems on “permanent US bases”. The refugee camps would probably be required for five to ten years. So, if you advocate for them, you have to ease up a bit on the “permanent US bases” thing.</p>
<p>It’s moot for two more years. The Dems don’t have the votes in the Senate to impact US policy. With Johnson incapacitated and Lieberman a card-carrying neocon, the Dems only have 49 of the 60 votes required to pass anything.</p>
<p>They can make life miserable for Bush by attaching Iraq admendments to every spending bill…as they intend to do next week. But, at the end of the day, the ball is still in Bush’s court.</p>
<p>Now, here’s a surprise, huh? Golly gee willakers. You mean we might not be able to turn security over to the Iraqis at the “end” of the “surge” later this year?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, finally, a journalist who actually read Gen. Petraeus’ book on counter-insurgency, especially the part about counter-insurgent operations lasting five to ten years. “Surge” seem a rather disingenuous term for an escalation intended to last the better part of a decade:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BTW, it appears that the stuff about the Iraqis taking the lead in Baghdad was just so much hot air, too. All the news reports I’ve seen suggest a completely US operation. IMO, the Bush administration is still lying thru their teeth to the US people.</p>