Presidential Race

Parent Cafe
421

<p>Don’t mind me, but if I could make a constructive suggestion. Rather than continuing to post name calling back and forth, go to </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.charlierose.com%5B/url%5D”>www.charlierose.com</a></p>

<p>and watch the one hour interview with NYTimes correspondent John Burns, just off the plane after four and a half years in Iraq.</p>

<p>Rose is brilliant. Burns is brilliant. The two of them lay out the situation more effectively (and painfully) in one hour than a year’s worth of network or cable TV news coverage.</p>

<p>BTW, Burns lays out a much more effective case for the “surge” and a rationale for continued effort in Iraq than anyone in the administration has done – not because it has a particularly good chance of success, but because it’s really the last thing anyone can come up with to try. Burns believes that when the US leaves Iraq, the violence will escalate to levels the world has not seen in a civil war, a civil war that is occuring along the “fault line” of a 1300 year old religious conflict.</p>

<p>In any case, the interview touches on ALL of the issues: the historical underpinnings, the players, the regional interests, and on and on.</p>

<p>So, watch the interview and then let’s talk about the substantive issues, not the name-calling, OK?</p>

<p>Or, not.</p>

422

<p>Thanks for the suggestion. I will.</p>

423

<p>

</p>

<p>Trouble is the surge is really nothing new. It’s the same troop level we had not too long ago. And it’s not really “the last thing anyone could come up with to try”. There have been plenty of other recommendations, including partition. The Prime Minister of Iraq himself has offered other solutions. </p>

<p>It’s just the only tactic the administration is willing to try. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.brainshrub.com/surge-iraq-vietnam[/url]”>http://www.brainshrub.com/surge-iraq-vietnam&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>This site explains why it probably won’t work:</p>

<p>

</p>

424

<p>Petreaus wrote that for troops to control an urban area in Iraq, there needs to be 1 for every 20 people. </p>

<p>That would be 250,000 troops in Baghdad alone. </p>

<p>What surge? (and where did this silly term come from? why not “paltry increase in aggressive occupying forces?”…)</p>

425

<p><a href=“I%20think%20Giuliani%20has%20a%20good%20chance%20to%20beat%20Hillary–so%20get%20to%20work!”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hereshoping, you do realize Giuliani is pro-choice (including that late term abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion) and pro gun-control, don’t you? I wouldn’t have thought he was your sort of Republican.</p>

426

<p>Well that in a nutshell shows just how much you (and everyone else here) know about me, doesn’t it, mathmom?</p>

427

<p>I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said that there was nothing anyone could do to affect change in the Iraq war…or to apologize to the other posters for lying to them about me.</p>

<p>Luckily, I’m not holding my breath on either.</p>

<p>And I’m not surprised that you may support Guilani. I think you’d support anyone who is male and has an R after his name.</p>

<p>Mathmom: Guiliani is a Catholic who lost a lawsuit when he tried to censor a museum exhibit in violation of the First Amendment. HH’s support make sense now?</p>

428

<p>Thanks for the link, idad. I look forward to listening to it tomorrow.</p>

429

<p>I still think you owe me an apology for making something up out of whole cloth then claiming I said it, but at least what you are has been exposed for everyone to see.</p>

430

<p>

</p>

<p>The surge is actually something new, for reasons that have nothing to do with troop levels. What’s new is that the US forces, for the first time, will leave their protected bases and go door to door in Bahgdad. Totally exposed. It’s a frighteningly new tactic, but it is new.</p>

<p>Partition is a nice sounding word. But, it really means is the total ethnic cleansing of the Sunni population in all of the urban areas of Iraq, starting with Bahgdad. Partition only works for the Shiia and the Kurds.</p>

<p>As for Malaki’s “plan”. Sure, his plan would work. It’s the plan both Mini and I have talked about since day one. Wipe out the Sunnis. Put a Shiite government in place. And you have stabiity (after some years or decades of ethnic cleansing). The problem with that “plan” is that Saudi Arabi, Barain, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Israel, and the United States are 100% dead set against that happening.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Nobody really thinks the surge is going to work. However, there is an (admittedly pollyanna) scenario where it could work.</p>

<p>a) Temporarily tamp down the violence that has paralyzed Baghdad for the last nine months (mostly because the Shiia militias and Sunni insurgents doing the killing fade into the woodwork for a little while as is the common military strategy in the region).</p>

<p>b) Hope that the two or three months of breathing room allows the Iraqi people and the Iraqi neighbors to stop and reflect on the risks of an all-out Sunni/Shia civil war following the imminent departure of the US.</p>

<p>That’s what is meant by the notion that there will be no military solution, that any solution must be political, and that a political solution really means that the killing continues to the point where it is exhausted. The reason the “surge” won’t work is that the Iraqi’s aren’t nearly finished killing each other. But, the thinking behind the surge is to give it one last ditch pause in the hopes that the killing can be averted. Otherwise, you are probably looking at a Lebanon situation where the killing will continue until there’s basically nobody left standing. Remember, Iran and Iraq went at it for eight years.</p>

<p>You know my personal feelings. Bring our troops home and let the Iraqis knock themselves out. However, I do appreciate the rationale, even though nobody in the administration has been able to articulate it.</p>

431

<p>Well, there will probably be breathing room anyhow. Doesn’t the level of violence normally go down for two or three months at this time of year? I’ve heard that the timing of the surge is suspect, because putting in increased troops at the time that violence normally drops will fool people into thinking it’s working.</p>

432

<p>Interesteddad: Thanks for the reference to Rose. I listened to it. I thought Burns was extremely interesting and extremely cautious in his characterizations. I hope the surge works; we should all hope for total success. I think it is a waste; but I also thinks it’s going forward whatever posturing is done in Washington. What struck me in Burns’ interview is that he says a number of things essentially adding up to: “in the strange kaleidoscope of possibilities in Iraq, there is a chance at 5 minutes to midnight, it could do some good. Though it is on a very slender reed.” He also said that if we don’t see results in 3 months, it should essentially be then discounted/written off. He said there is a great likelihood of a large surge in US casualties. And he generally decried the incredible regional conflagration between the Shiites and Sunnis that would follow a departure of the US. </p>

<p>The surprising thing to me is that he characterized the US and being the most in control in Iraq, and that on this basis there is some hope.</p>

<p>I will confess that I found his statements so couched as to be nothing close to a resounding argument in support of the surge. And much more a statement of strong dejection about what happens if we fail.</p>

<p>As one who initially opposed this war, but hoped (vehemently) for a doubling or trebling of our troops after we went in and rapidly were seen to fail to assert control. I hope with all my heart that the surge does some good. But I believe that it is, as Burns concurred, a slender reed.</p>

<p>If the surge has not worked by July, it will be time to pull out recognizing that we have failed in this war, in my opinion. There should be no endlessly open blank checks.</p>

433

<p>Here’s the latest Brookings Institution PDF file with running indexes of everything in Iraq from killing to electricity. It’s updated twice a week:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex[/url]”>http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The chart on page 22 (monthy attacks by Shia militia and Sunni insurgents since the invasion) shows little evidence of “lulls”. There have been a few spikes, but mostly just a steadily rising curve that has increased exponentially for the last 12 months. It’s a soberingly graphic presentation of a situation spiralling out of control.</p>

434

<p>Yeah, Burns painted a pretty grim picture along these lines too. Sigh…</p>

435

<p>

</p>

<p>Right. I don’t think Burns was arguing in support of the surge. Rather, he was simply articulating the logic behind it.</p>

<p>To me, two things Burns said really help understand the situation. First is the reference to Iraq as a kalaidescope that is constantly changing. Those hundreds of shifting colors and patterns and alliances and religious and political pressures make it an inordinately complex situation. </p>

<p>Second is the quote from General Casey last week, “The God damn thing is just so convoluted…”</p>

436

<p>I guess I was just thinking about the death toll for U.S. troops. Ethnocentric of me, sorry.</p>

<p>Although it’s true that the level of fatalities from hostilities is increasing for US troops, except for 2003, Feb or March is always the lowest point of the year. It’s pretty striking. (Chart on page 4 of the pdf).</p>

437

<p>What I LIKE about the paltry escalation of aggressive occupying forces is that they’ve given up all pretense of “training” the Iraqi “military”. When it fails, they won’t be able to blame the victims. (They’ll try, of course.)</p>

<p>I think all kinds of things can happen once the occupiers leave. Some of them are even good. (well, not good, but not disastrous either.) Of course, the occupiers will leave their uranium casings behind, and lots of little kids will contract cancer and die, and there will be thousands of kids born with birth defects, and…</p>

<p>If you ask the Iraqis, they say it is the occupiers who have caused things to spiral out of control. They understand there are tough times ahead, and the secularists are all leaving the country. The Administration gave up on Coalition of the Very Small years ago, and now they’ve given up on the Iraqi military. The Iraqis know what kind of “stability” the occupiers bring to the
country, and uniformly and overwhelmingly and regardless of religion or ethnicity want to kill them.</p>

<p>Why do folks assume that the escalation has much to do with Iraq at all, and not Iran? (not meant as a rhetorical question)</p>

<p>Alternatively, remember the old Republican canard that if the U.S. wasn’t fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, we’d be fighting them somewhere else? Well, let’s make believe it wasn’t a rhetorical flourish at all. After all, Al-Qaeda WASN’T in Iraq until the occupiers got there. What puppy does Al-Qaeda have in the fight when the occupiers leave? Why wouldn’t they just follow them out? (to Saudi Arabia or wherever) Al-Qaeda has a big stake in having the occupiers stay; if they didn’t, why should they?</p>

438

<p>

</p>

<p>James Kurth agrees with the prognosis, but disputes that such a conflagration would necessarily be bad for US interests. His argument is that that five or ten or twenty or a thousand years of regional Islamic civil war would pull the rug out from under any notion of an Islamic jihad against the West. They would be too busy killing each other to worry about the Great Satan. It’s a cold Kissingeresque realpolitik view, but one that may have some merit from a US standpoint.</p>

<p>The reason Burns is so distraught is that he obviously hangs out with educated, middle-class, secular, moderate Iraqis – of which there has historically been a large number. Those people are going to be the big losers. It’s really a shame.</p>

439

<p>I think Kurth is so ignorant of the long history of peaceful Sunni-Shia relations in most of the Islamic world as to be useless. It’s like assuming that Protestants and Catholics will forever slaughter each other because of the 30 Years War in the 17th Century. </p>

<p>He needs to spend some time in Hyderabad, or for that matter, in Kurdistan. Shia Iran happily supports Sunni Hamas; Sunni Syria happily supports Shia Hezbollah (and in a very big way); Sunni Kurdistan and Shia Iran have had excellent relations for two decades. Minority Shia have long lived alongside majority Sunni in Saudi Arabia, and the what are now the Gulf States. Indonesia? Same story.</p>

440

<p>

</p>

<p>Al Queda may find themselves “bogged” down in Iraq after the US leaves. Certainly, Sunni dead-enders will be streaming into Iraq (funded by Saudi Arabia) to fight the Shiia. Those are Al Queda’s “people”. It will be interesting to see if Al Queda can untangle themselves and get out of dodge.</p>

<p>You are correct. Al Queda’s only interest in Iraq is killing American’s guerrilla style. It’s Afghanistan and the Russians all over again.</p>

<p>Even after America leaves, I suspect that Iraq is going to remain “so God damned convoluted…” for quite some time.</p>