<p>Perhaps optimistic compared to the NY Times.</p>
<p>Idad, at first you are hard boiled real politik. Invading Iraq to set up bases is in the strategic interest of the US, so do it.</p>
<p>Now naivete. Ever seen the Mexican Constitution, with its beautiful language or rights for all at all levels and respect for the environment? I believe the old Soviet Constitution had some nice language in it, too.</p>
<p>In another day Bush I, Powell, Cheney etc. , basing their conclusions on real experts other than Chalabi and sycophants instructed to have happy talk, forsaw just about all the mess that has been created by our invasion.</p>
<p>Sadly, it was a war for oil and a son trying to resolve Oedipal issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still am. I think the US interests are served by having a forward military presence in the region. </p>
<p>That being said, I have no reason to root gleefully against a stable, quasi-democratic Iraq as so many seem to be doing these days. </p>
<p>I think Mini’s prediction is probably quite likely. But, I wil always applaud (the admittedly rare) efforts by the United States to support freedom and democracy and I am willing to be a patient observer to see how the process plays out in Iraq. I’m not dancing a jig at every morsel of bad news.</p>
<p>What’s the worst case? Iran becomes a Shi’a dominated theocracy? Even in this worst possible outcome, we will have demonstrated our ability to work with Sistani’s “people” in a political process and gained valuable experience in doing so. Anything that improves the ability of Islamic regimes and the US to work with each other is a positive gain, IMO. It is in our national interest to be able to do so. If you notice, even the most hardline political leaders in Iraq are not railing against the US in any meaningful way.</p>
<p>Even if Iraq becomes a Shi’a theocracy, it is unlikely that it will follow the Iranian model. The people of Iraq are vigorously engaged in political discourse. It would be difficult to put that back in the bottle. Actually, Iran can’t put it back in the bottle, either. Their theocracy will eventually crumble, just like the Berlin Wall.</p>
<p>As for the draft Constitution. Comparisons to Mexico are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the language on several key points is more moderate than many experts believed likely in the context of a Shi’a majority political process. The document has the earmarks of politicians who understand that they must address “the needs of the people” in order to achieve legitimacy. Doesn’t mean they aren’t self-serving scoundrels (just like politicians anywhere). But, it does tends to indicate that “the people” do have a voice in Iraq.</p>
<p>IDad, you might be right on some of your points. Especially about the theocracy in Iran eventually crumbling. We may be able to work with Sistani to a certain point. Although I think it is just as likely Sistani, as an Iraqi patriot who has thus far refused to meet with the occupation, will tell us to take our bases and shove them.</p>
<p>Baathism would have crumbled, too. No need to kill hundreds of thousands. Hopefully you are not eager to invade Iran, since you view it as changing, unlike apparently some of the neocons around Bush.</p>
<p>I reject killing hundreds as thousands for strategic reasons when Iraq was really no threat to our country. I think most Americans do, too, and that is why Bush had to have the whole wmd charade.</p>
<p>I don’t root against a stable “quasi”-democratic Iraq, though I do think that it is important for humanity that US aggression not be rewarded with permanent bases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I don’t believe that an invasion of Iran would make sense. I do, however, think it’s a good idea to keep the ruling Ayatollahs nervous about a hundred thousand US troops next door. I also like the signficantly upgraded intelligence channels that our presence in Iraq surely provides. I also like the capability of a quick air-strike should we spot Osama Bin Laden lounging poolside at one of his compounds in Iran.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I’m in favor of making Syria nervous as hell, too.</p>
<p>Just to be clear…based on the fact that our intelligence turned out to be a disaster, I am not sold on the wisdom of invading Iraq when we did. But, that is water under the bridge. The only issue really on the table (in my mind) is where we go from here. </p>
<p>All of the experts I’ve listened to and read express the belief that the political process IS working in Iraq and that the new political leaders are making a good faith effort to reach compromise and forge a state that actually works. It is never going to be a clean process and the result will be a stew of good and bad (from almost every perspective). But, the constitutional law experts with first-hand knowledge of the process see a lot to like.</p>
<p>You forgot to address that geo opinion. What do you forsee??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not with Kofi Anan and the United Nations propping up Saddam Huissein with the corrupt Oil For Food program. Due to corruption on the part of our allies, the “sanctions” actually served to strengthen Saddam’s iron fist.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think relying on our “allies” (the UN, Egypt, Saudi, France, etc.) to protect our interests is the height of folly.</p>
<p>My thoughts were more on the order of when will we be compelled to go into Saudi Arabia to defend the Royals in exhange for a guaranteed price or supply of light sweet crude??? I can see that this is just a matter of time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the resolve the US has shown is important to keeping our “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on edge, as well.</p>
<p>Musharaf was quoted years ago as telling Bin Laden that he may have to “appear” to be against terrorism in his dealings with the US, but not to worry – Pakistan’s support for terrorism would continue.</p>
<p>That fundamental equation has changed, in both the Pakistani and Saudi governments, now that the US has finally gotten serious. US resolve makes everybody in the region “nervous” and it’s a region that needed a lot more “nervous” leaders.</p>
<p>Defending Saudi Arabia was essentially what we did in Gulf War I when Sadaam invaded Kuwait.</p>
<p>What about the Wahhabs/Wahhabism? How did we resovle that in the prior military war? So you don’t see any chance for the “other” than royals to have a civil war or go more against the royals?? Perhaps I am not understanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fighting radical Islamic terrorism requires a three-prong approach:</p>
<p>1) Relentlessly take the fight to the terrorists.</p>
<p>2) “Encourage” the Islamic regimes in the region (and moderate Muslims in general) to stop supporting terrorism.</p>
<p>3) Address the underlying conditions that allow terrorist leaders to recruit. In many ways, this recruitment is no different from the conditions that allowed Lenin to come to power in Russia, Castro in Cuba, Mao in China, or the Ayattollah in Iran. When you have autocratic regimes who create conditions where their masses have no true hope for the future, you are asking for trouble. IMO, the US needs to put constant pressure on the Saudi Royal family to address these issues in their country with real reforms.</p>
<p>I think our current foreign policy is doing an OK job addressing the first two points. I’m not sure about the third.</p>
<p>Of course, the radical sects are a threat to the Saudis. That’s what led to the orginal deal with Iran and Osama Bin Laden for the Saudi’s to provide funding for terrorism as “protection” payments. The explicit deal was “here’s money in exchange for your promise to leave the Saudi royal family alone.” In many ways, I see the recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia as being beneficial to US interests. Clearly, “the deal” is off and I suspect that the Saudi royal family now understands the need to join the fight against terrorism.</p>
<p>I have a brother in law who is ex 20 years retired special forces. After getting out of the military roughly in 1993, he went to work as a civilian contractor training the Saudi military in roughly 1998. He told me that the Saudi troops told him frequently that they hated the corrupt Saudi Royals. He felt that our troops were there primarily to keep the people from overthrowing the monarchy. </p>
<p>It was shown that Sadam had no intention of attacking Saudi Arabia before Gulf War I. The St.Peterburg Times alone among mainstream media ran the story with the proof that Bush I had used faked satellite photos to convince Saudis that the Iraqis were massed on the Saudi border. This was to get the Saudis to use Saudi Arabia as a staging area in Gulf War I.</p>
<p>This little gambit led to the presence of US troops in Saudi to this day and arguably 9/11-- at least according to Bin Laden.</p>
<p>One thing that Interestedad fails to take into account, is how our attack on Iraq has made the British and us more prone to be victims of terrorism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s valid. </p>
<p>After all, 9/11 took place before the invasion of Iraq, so how much more prone could we really be? Isn’t having 3000 Americans killed in the World Trade Centers about as “prone” as can be?</p>
<p>When an enemy has already attacked the United States, do you not respond because doing so might make you more “prone” to subsequent attacks?</p>
<p>It angers me to see arguments that attribute any rationality to Bin Laden’s motivation.</p>
<p>Well the recent British bombers were apparently motivated by the Iraq War. Polling showed that 85% of the British people realized this.</p>
<p>I ddn’t t think we werre talking about hunting for Bin Laden</p>
<p>Hopefully you aren’t getting back to old canard of Iraq or Sadam as involved in 9/11. Though he implied it constantly and still does, President Bush to preserve credibility, when asked directly about this, acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I reject attributing any rational motivation for Al Quaeda suicide bombings. If there were no Iraq war, it would just be something else.</p>
<p>It’s like saying, “if only we had done something different, Hitler wouldn’t have been so evil.”</p>
<p>Point of information on the time line… The attacks on the World Trade center occurred after The United States invaded Iraq during the gulf war and as you are well aware, the attack on 9/11 was not from Iraq. Certainly the Americans wounded or killed in the past year could be described as victims who were more prone to terrorism since they left home. </p>
<p>How many of you have heard from military personnel who are frustrated by the politicians running this operation?</p>
<p>Sounds to me like people advocate just giving in to all of Osama Bin Laden’s demands as a solution to terrorism.</p>
<p>No, but stupidly playing into the hands of OBL’s propaganda doesn’t help either. What’s cosmically funny is that there are more anti-American terrorists in Iraq as a result of our invasion than Bush & Co. ever dreamed of Saddam Hussein encouraging. Iraq is part of the battle against the jihadists now…only it is we who have made it that way.</p>
<p>Btw, IntDad, just because something comes from the NYT doesn’t a priori mean its false, biased, or anything else. I read from lots of sources, including After Action Reports forwarded on from the field and snippets from someone involved as an editor in a project distilling something like 100,000 letters & e-mails home with viewpoints from all over the perspective. I think it’s impossible to have a completely accurate picture of what’s happening in Iraq but I sweat to have a better picture than most.</p>
<p>I mostly rely on the NYTimes and the Washington Post for national and international news. I’d say the NYTimes is a pretty reliable source; I’m sure that more than 50% of what they publish is true.</p>
<p>They missed the boat on the clash in Najaf today. Apparently what really happened is that Al-Sadr attempted to re-open his headquarters. Local Shiite residents promptly burned it to the ground. So much for vast popular support for Al-Sadr.</p>