Centerfield

Not to speak for all of the "pro-war" folks but the answer would be "yes". However,IMHO, such a statement "should" not come from the Opposition leader in the heat of an ongoing political battle.

Oh yeah and thanks Brian for trying to breath some life back into Centerfield (i.e. three posts in a row)

IN a strict sense, the US can't really LOSE a war if you think of it as losing in the conventional sense of being physically forced to concede defeat, a la Germany and Japan. The issue is whether the prospect of achieving the goal is too remote or the cost too high to make the war a sensible proposition. The pro-war people will never concede that a particular is either (1) not in our best interests, (2) unjust, or (3) not amenable to a desired solution. And this makes the debate almost impossible. You can ALWAYS posit that if we just stayed long enough or were committed enough or if liberals didn't betray us or our allies were better or something that we would win. While in theory they might acknowledge the possibility of a war the US can't win, in reality, they will never find one that we couldn't win if we just tried a little harder. so anyone that shows doubt is a defeatist (if not a traitor). And, of course, the problem is you can always find examples (such as the Civil War) where the naysayers were proven wrong. But the point is not whether we can win in some abstract sense but whether it would be worth the cost even if we did.

what i want to know is what should we do now, if the war is lost?

What should we do PERIOD? (Um, well, I guess QUESTION MARK)

What I really want to know is: if we leave, what do we do about those who have both put their trust in us and settled down to create a peaceful civil society? Specifically (just for the sake of discussion), if we depart the rest of Iraq, do we relocate significant forces to Kurdistan? Or do we set up for a repeat of the 1990s, when we left the Kurds in the lurch?

Yes, I know that there are others in other parts of Iraq, who may be similarly situated. But the Kurds make the most clear-cut case where there is no "loss cause" to come home from. And where the down-side of leaving is most obvious.

So anyone arguing for departure needs, I think, to have figured out what they want to do there. And it would certainly clarify whether they are making a reasoned judgement on the situation, or want anything that makes Bush look bad, or just want to turn their back on the nasty outside world.

Not to distract from the conversation, but that post is by Ross Douthat, from The American Scene, who's guest blogging on Sullivan's site.

Is Senator Reid prepared to take responsibility if we do pull out, like he suggests, and the country becomes a real bloodbath?

Is President Bush willing to articulate what kind of victory conditions he's actually looking for that will allow American troops to pull out?

Things have become so bad in this country that it's impossible for one side to think the other might have any facts on their side whatsoever. The Opposition must be Utterly, Completely Wrong. With no middle ground.

Well, I'll respond this way, and say that I certainly am not prepared to call this war lost (as I support the war). If I felt this war was unwinnable, then I could not support it. I think it's clear that Reid shouldn't have said what he said, as it is not only bad form, but counterproductive to the troops' mission. As far as calling Reid a traitor, I don't ride on that train.

Unless of course he really believes that there is no way to win, in which case he, and all Dems who feel the same way need to vote to end the war TODAY. The consequences would be dire, but you can't have it both ways. If the Dems aren't prepared to end the war now (which they're not, BTW) that then is a recognition that there is hope to tuen things around, and that premature withdrawal has real consequences.

But does he eat cheese?

Is Senator Reid prepared to take responsibility if we do pull out, like he suggests, and the country becomes a real bloodbath?

Just as much responsibility as the Democrats took for the slaughter in SE Asia after they pulled the plug on all assistance to Vietnam and green-lighted the NV and Cambodian takeovers. Namely, none at aall.

Hizb'Allah is being invited to speak to Congress?

Hamas responds to Hoyer's meeting with the Brotherhood (Hamas) in Egypt

Syria prepares for war following Pelosi's trip to meet Assad.

So what is the Democrat's plan? Three gestures returned by contempt and war preparations? Democrats have no plan and any senisble strategy is silent now fearing backlash by antiwar base. Even Colbert whimped out to Sean Penn. Sad. As long as Democrats claim we have already lost (months ago) and that we need to reverse American strategy, Iraq is not about stabilizing the country, but rather a fight here about the Long War on terror and extremism. That war is far from lost. It is quite possible that we could lose this struggle.

Recent polls indicate 52% of Europe believes a just military confrontation with Iran is coming. Iran hasn't fared this low in EU polls in thirty years. Russia has been as low in polls since the Wall came down. Many countries are expressing alarm at China's military build up and support of Sudan. The UN rails against Syria and Iran as AQ spreads into North Africa. I do not think our allies take the Democratic view.

Reid is making his appeal to Huffington crowd playing politics as usual. 100 Days has produced nothing but politics.

An additional point is that the people who really are demoralized by such talk are not our troops, who would be brought to safety back here if we end our involvement, but the Iraqis who work with us, who will be left high and dry.

This hawk is in about in that very position - feeling we''ve come horribly close to losing by failing to provide internal security, as any successful occupation must.

I'd only back leaving once it's clear extremist groups have won. If Al'Sadr had been allowed to build power indefinitely, there'd be no point to staying, IMHO. Leaving would change little. Hopefully, we'd provide sanctuary for many Iraqis on our side, but there'd be no point in encouraging them to stay.

There is another important wrinkle - the Bush Administration has failed to explain the surge well, shows limited understanding of events in Iraq in his surge speeches, and is impossibly optimistic in his projected surge timeframes. Under these conditions, it's hard for many centrists to see how the surge really could help. I'm tempted to suggest Bush is bad as Reid, since the public needs a real explanation to back continued, even higher war spending and troop levels. It's his duty to explain his war well and plausibly to the people.

If we "lose" the war I say we ask for financial aid from the winners.

Onward Fenwick!

One issue which receives very little attention, George Packer being a notable exception, is the treatment we have given the Iraqis who have helped us. This is a major strategic issue because we need their help in order to succeed, yet we raise their risk of cooperating more than it has to be.

This war, is not a war of territory or attrition but rather a battle of wills. Whether we win or loose this war is ENTIRELY determined by whether our will to continue the struggle is stronger then the insurgents.

That is why a PUBLIC statement like Reids isn't just an OBSERVATION about the course of the war, it is a CAUSATION that effects the course of the war. This war will be won or lost as much in the halls of the U.S. Congress and the court of American Public opinion as it will on the streets of Bahgdad or Fallujah. Reid would have done less damage to the war effort if he had personaly wiped out an infantry battalion.

If Reid really believes what he said then the responsible thing for him to have done was to have made his statements IN CLOSED CHAMBERS.... where it wouldn't have an effect on our enemy and on our troops in the field. Unlike, Joe protester or 99% of the rest of the country Reid DOES have the opportunity to have what he says in private have an effect on U.S. policy.

Personaly, I am convinced that Reid and other members of the senior Democratic leadership don't WANT us to win.... they have too much politicaly invested in our defeat.... regardless of the situation on the ground, they are going to try to make sure that we don't achieve victory.... because that would be a political defeat for them.
I don't think TRAITOR is too strong a word to use for something like that.

If we do loose this war (and I don't believe that we will)....it won't be the soldiers on the ground or the generals or the administration that will have allowed our defeat....it'll be Harry Reid and Co., along with the major media and the anti-war movement..... because THEY DO have the power to cause us to loose the war REGARDLESS of what happens on the ground..... and our childrens children will have to answer in blood and tears for that betrayel.

Is Senator Reid prepared to take responsibility if we do pull out, like he suggests, and the country becomes a real bloodbath?

Just as much responsibility as the Democrats took for the slaughter in SE Asia after they pulled the plug on all assistance to Vietnam and green-lighted the NV and Cambodian takeovers. Namely, none at all.

Personally, I do agree with the idea that Democrats ought to take their share of the responsibility should we withdraw and things go to utter hell. We're between a rock and a hard place here. It's going to be really bad for Iraqis if we leave. But if they can't step up and make their government work, there's legitimate reason to question the worth of our staying.

We all know that if the US withdraws, the majority of pro-war folks will start claiming that things would have worked out if we had only stayed, and try their damdest to place the primary blame for the catastrophe upon democrats.[ Exhibit A, Cengel just did it.] And since if it comes to that, we'll never know, they can make this argument with relative impunity...

At the cusp of our invasion, I really don't remember too many folks from either the GOP or the Democratic Party who suggested we really ought not to get involved in the internal affairs of Iraq, that we might make things with a nation that was still voilent and dangerous, and which would also be way more unstable. Some folks did make this argument, but none of the party leaders did, IIRC.

I sure didn't start this thread to apologize for the opportunist Reid, that's for sure. But the question posed to pro-war folks remains:

Is there any imaginable point (other than the dreamed for stable established sustainable demoocracy) where we'd concede that our continued presence was not beneficial, and that we'd thus withdraw?

For all the warts of the democrats and the small group of "anti-open-ended-war" GOP folks like Olympia Snowe, they can at least describe, however vaguely, conditions under which we'd be willing to stay. So I don't think it's all that unreasonable to ask pro-war folks to describe the type of negative conditions under which we'd consider leaving.

The silence on this question endures.

This war, is not a war of territory or attrition but rather a battle of wills. Whether we win or loose this war is ENTIRELY determined by whether our will to continue the struggle is stronger than the insurgents.

That's one way to look at it, that it's a battle between America and the insurgents. But where do the rest of non-insurgent Iraqis come into this pespective?

See that's MY problem. Ultimately it's up to THOSE folks, and they aren't incorporated into your structure. We've had 4+ years now to wins those hearts and minds to the idea of a stable democratic Iraq, and well, sales are slow. The smart self-interested ones are not voting to cointinue to lay their lives on the line in the crossfire you describe. They're just voting with their feet. World is that a million or way more have already done so. Because as long as they are caught in this crossfire of the test of wills, they don't believe that they can win.

How long can such a test of wills go on? A pretty long fricken' time. Ask Israel and Palestine. And that's the far grimmer specter we ought to seriously contemplate. Forget Vietnam. Iraq could become our Palestine. Yeah, we might not "lose" conventionally. We have the forces and firepower to stay as long as we decide to do so. Fine. Granted. But if Iraq doesn't start to show signs it can get better as everyday folks embrace democracy, what's our motivation to stay, besides the fact that we orchestrated the mess?

BK,

I don't know whether the Iraqi's are loosing confidence in the idea of a " stable democratic Iraq" or not. I would submit that trying to discern that by the number of people displaced is utterly the wrong statistic to use. All that tells us is that Iraq is percievied as a dangerous place right NOW (no big surprise)... it tells us nothing about peoples expectations or desires for the future.

Let me put it this way, suppose you and your family are living in a violent crime-ridden city. A couple of years ago, the police department initiated an anti-crime program. You believe with absolute confidence that 3-4 years from now that program will bear fruit and your city will become a peacefull, safe place to live.....but in the intervening time there is going to continue to be alot of crime and violence until that plateau is reached. Being, the smart pragmatic person that you are....what decision are you going to make.... stick it out for the next 3 years or at least get your wife and kids to safety NOW before they become a statistic and bring them back AFTER things have become safe?

People are NATURALY going to displace from anywhere there is fighting... regardless of who they think is going to eventualy win. Furthermore, you think there is a refugee problem now??? Let us pull out and lets see how many Iraqi's start scrambling for the exit? You do remember what happaned after we pulled out of Vietnam right?

The Iraqi people lack confidence about achieving a stable and democratic Iraq? Can't say I blame them.... if I were an Iraqi and was listening to public speeches from Harry Reid, watching the U.S. media reports about anti-war rallies, etc... I'd be DAMN nervous about the U.S. pulling the rug out from under me too.... especialy if I knew the U.S.'s past history of such things.

You do know that's OUR reputation right? We talk a good talk, but when the going gets tough we'll duck and run and leave you holding the bag. Let me ask you a question... if we bail on the Iraqi's now, why should anyone EVER trust us again in future? Smart, pragmatic people are willing to stick out thier necks for things they believe in IF they know they've got reliable support systems to fall back on..... what do they do if they know thier support will fold when things get tough?

The bottom line is that the government which the people of Iraq ELECTED has NOT made any request of us to leave. There are still queues of (very brave) Iraqi recruits to join it's own security forces (who typicaly take about TWICE the number of casualties or more than our own forces do) and those forces are taking responsibility for more and more areas of the country. Although every death or injury is a tragedy, in a historical context our casualties are very light.... only a fraction of those suffered in Vietnam which itself was not particulary bloody in comparison to most modern conflicts. Finaly despite continuing violence it does not seem that the majority of Iraq's ordinary citizens have taken up arms either against us or each other. As long as all these factors remain true, I do not see any reason to abandon our effort in Iraq....especialy when the ramifications for doing so are so severe.

What basis should I use to determine that things are no longer tennable in Iraq?

Harry Reids proclamaition from the Senate floor that it is so?

The political need of the Democrats to declare it so, in order to score points against the GOP in election rhetoric?

The drumbeat of DOOM, GLOOM, and BLOOD that the Media hypes in order to sell papers and satisfy thier own sense of self-importance and manufactured outrage?

The constant drone of the Anti-War movement used to vindicate thier own world view and to direct venom and blame against some-one else so they can avoid taking a good, long, hard look in the mirror?

Show me objective facts, on the ground, that indicate the position has become untennable and I will consider them. At worst, what I see now is a stalemate.... more realisticaly like gruelingly slow progress.... not the best that we wished for... but not anything to throw our hands up over either....especialy considering, what I believe, the potential cost of failure to future generations. This is unlike Vietnam in one important way.... we loose there, the enemy will not stop fighting us... they WILL follow us over HERE.

I ask again, what is the ostensible indicator that the situation has become untenable? All I see is Talking Heads repeating that mantra to each other over and over again.....until they have convinced themselves, that by "consensus" that it must be accepted as true. That is NOT basis for rationale, pragmatic people to base decisions on. Show me cold, hard, objective data...and I'll consider it.

bk, I hope you're not holding your breath while waiting for your answer.

Cengel, as always, you make many good points. They are, however, in many respects non-responsive to my queries and concerns. For example, I've not defended Reid. Not interested. Not my point. Neither have I suggested that we are overflowing with reasons why we MUST withdraw NOW.

What do you say to the notion that as time passes, a stalemate may itself become "untenable" in some respects? As I've said above, we have the superior military capability to maintain a substantial presence indefinitely. I think that's a given. The question is under what circumstances does it really make sense for us to continue to stay, given that we are militarily able to stay indefinitely, if we want to.

What makes little sense to me is to regard this as a d!ck-measuring contest, a stare-down. I'm fine with granting that our reputation is poor in regard to resolve, that we deserve this reputation, and that if we withdrawal, we'll reinforce that view. IMO that's a good but still insufficient reason to stay. I'm not interested in proving our reslove by staying unless there'a realistic chance we'll establish a stable democracy. If we can't, there's little good to be accomplished by staying.

"How long can such a test of wills go on? A pretty long fricken' time. Ask Israel and Palestine. And that's the far grimmer specter we ought to seriously contemplate. Forget Vietnam. Iraq could become our Palestine. Yeah, we might not "lose" conventionally. We have the forces and firepower to stay as long as we decide to do so. Fine. Granted. But if Iraq doesn't start to show signs it can get better as everyday folks embrace democracy, what's our motivation to stay, besides the fact that we orchestrated the mess?"

The same motivation that Israel has to keep fighting .... the alternative is infanitely worse.

Can Israel give up and stop fighting? What do you think thier enemies want? I'll give you a hint... it's not PEACE it's VICTORY...and that translates into Israel's Death.

What do you think our enemies in Iraq want? Do you think it's simply us out of Iraq? Don't kid yourself... Maybe that's a short term goal for SOME of them. What about the rest? What about long term? Do you think if our enemies win in Iraq and have a chance to consolidate thier gains there won't be a ROUND #2, Do you think ROUND #2 will be any less bloody if we let them win Round #1?

Maybe the former baathists would be willing to see things end if we just pulled out of Iraq and left it as thier playground (not really even convinced on that point) but just what percentage of the insurgency do you think those former baathists comprise these days anyway?

What about all those moderate muslims out there we keep talking about? What is thier motivation to stand up and be counted, if the see us bail on Iraq (just like we've bailed on others in the past). Wouldn't the smart, pragmatic choice on THEIR part to keep thier mouths shut and not stick out thier necks.... because the U.S. will just leave them swinging in the wind if things get dicey? Isn't that the conclusion YOU would reach if you were them and saw that? I sure as heck know it's the one I would reach.

What hope do ANY of us have for the future.... if the moderates in the islamic world don't feel enough confidence to start standing up? What message are you sending them by bailing on Iraq now? What message are you sending our enemies?

Things may not be great now. My question to you is how is bailing today going to make them any better tomorrow? Show me the long term ramifications of your proposed course of action and tell me how they make things BETTER not WORSE.

From my perspective we are sitting on a cliff ledge and there is a jagged piece of rock sticking into our back. Your telling me "All we have to do is jump off the cliff and that uncomfortable rock won't be sticking into our back anymore". That may be true, but it doesn't tell me your proposed reccomendation is desirable..... There are heck of alot worse alternatives then having to deal with a piece of rock poking you in the back.

BK,

Again, demonstrate to me that leaving will achieve more desirable long term results then staying?

I'm not trying to be obstinate here. You are (I think) asking me what factors would cause me to consider it not worth it to stay anymore, correct?

I'm giving you a very straight answer, factors that indicate that pulling out would have better long term ramifications then staying. I have yet to see them. All I keep hearing is the mantra of how painfull it is for us to stay.... nowhere am I seeing any consideration or discussion of the real costs to us and others of pulling out.

When you make a decision, you do want to consider the ramifications of BOTH alternatives right?

Furthermore I've given you a pretty concrete list of things that would cause me to consider whether it was time reconsider our presence:

1) The democraticaly elected government of the people of Iraq officialy requests us to leave.

2) Iraqi's stop volunteering to join the security forces.

3) The operational capability of the Iraqi security forces starts declining rather then increasing.

4) The majority of ordinary Iraqi citizens (we're talking MILLIONS not thousands) start taking up arms to actively fight us or each other.

5) Our rate of casualties become significant
( Say 20,000 killed a year)

What part of that concrete list did you NOT catch?
Have we met ANY of those conditions yet? Just because you may not LIKE any of the answers I've given, don't accuse me of not having given any.

There are situations that would require changing tactics in Iraq, apart from premature pronouncements by Democrats advocating surrender. These scenarios do not include responding to a real breakout of civil warfare. Note: there are no limits put in the Democratic bills regarding private security forces. There are 100,000 in Iraq now Democrats have stopped bitching about. Some Democrats even suggest that 150,000 security agents and a small US support force of 50,000 could achieve better results than our present deployment. I call this the private sector solution. I don't follow the logic, but these other events would change the present force and battle orders.

1. War between Israel, Hizb'Allal and Syria.

2. Conflict with Iran (including strikes on nuclear facilities by the US and/or Israel)

3. Introduction of CW/Radiological weapons and missile attacks in Gulf

4. Major terrorist attacks (see Britain and the US)

5. Major events in Pakistan, North Africa, Central Europe or Asia

6. Turkey launches Kurdistan attacks

AQ is facing increased Sunni opposition in Iraq. Sadr cannot assemble much force without it being targeted. Iran and Syria have strong international pressure on them with Bush's clock a ticking. France may move Center cementing a stronger unity in Europe against jihadists and their Russian/Chinese help. This is one reason numerous terrorist experts imagine AQ trying very hard to attack England and the US now as well as hitting the leadership of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Since Democrats don't want to advocate any foreign policy that deploys military threat or force, they cannot state their position regarding thwarting the extremist's next obvious chess moves. It is still “NOT BUSH” and negotiations with the enemy. It is far more reasonable for people to ask how we can best prepare for the next escalation. Calling the battle lost and offering nothing is a fool's gambit. Once Obama and Clinton get past the chance of other entries, they might get more serious about foreign policy. Things will get much hotter in the world this summer and I'm not talking about GW.

For any technical buffs, answer this: how hard is it to convert a nuke into a neutron bomb? Detonated over a battle field or port would deliver an EMP and how much radioactive fallout? Why wouldn’t they be rational in bunker buster building? The point I am making is that the rules have changed a bit and I wonder if a comeback for the neutron bomb plays any tactical role in both jihad and Counter jihad strategies. Sounds like using a neutron bomb would be more rational than nuking an Iranian port or city in response to a WMD attack by Iranian proxies. Of course, the radioactive fallout might be far more than advertised.

This last reality of CW and WMD will require a rethinking of our forces in Iraq as well as elsewhere. Several stories have raised the specter of AQ pursuit of WMD. Western media indicate more advanced missiles are flowing into jihadist hands. To lose this battle and judge it through the prism of Iraq would be the greatest mistake America has ever made to date. Democratic efforts to make one blame-proof will prove to be futile. The good news is that the EU may be willing to wake up and smell the coffee. China really fears economic stumbling leading to civil unrest and Russian gas and oil in the ground produce few rubles. Reid doesn’t get it..

Cengel,
Americans won't accept 20,000 a year to arbitrate a civil war. One must accept that Bush made numerous mistakes. Together with the Democrats and our adversaries, a perfect storm has rolled in, but this too can pass. Patience is not a great American virtue, nor is it a jihadist one.

Can Israel give up and stop fighting? What do you think thier enemies want? I'll give you a hint... it's not PEACE it's VICTORY...and that translates into Israel's Death.

To my knowledge, few folks arguing for withdrawal (and I'm not one of those folks, by the way) from Iraq believe we ought to entirely give up on opposing terrorism. Instead, the argument is that we may not be achieving much that's positive on the ground in Iraq. Surely you acknowledge that Israel's priorities in Palestine must be driven in part by geographical considerations. If Iraq were located where Mexico is, I think this argument of yours would hold more force. You contend, in essence, that America can not afford to withdraw. Of course it can. The price may indeed be heavy, but we can afford to do it, and re-group around a revised appraoch. It's quite possible.

What about all those moderate muslims out there we keep talking about? What is thier motivation to stand up and be counted, if the see us bail on Iraq (just like we've bailed on others in the past). Wouldn't the smart, pragmatic choice on THEIR part to keep thier mouths shut and not stick out thier necks.... because the U.S. will just leave them swinging in the wind if things get dicey? Isn't that the conclusion YOU would reach if you were them and saw that? I sure as heck know it's the one I would reach.

Quite true. However, you must acknowledge that even our continued presence does not guarantee that we can continue to rely on these folks. We're not the only ones driving the price of cooperation with us. So are the insurgents. There are already plenty of folks working with us at times while keeping their mouths shut at other times and declining to stick their necks out in many situations. That's the reality of it on the ground from day to day. It would certainly go worse for such folks should we withdraw, theres no doubt about that. But our staying and continuing to makew promises may not keep them with us. You ought to be man enough to face that, which is what I've been trying to get you do by asking the "are there any imaginable circumstances..." question.

Here's another point about moderate muslims. The fact of their cooperation with the US government (when it happens) can quite easily damage their credibility with the folks they seek to convert to the cause of a more modern, tolerant, and open-minded islam. Such battles for hearts and minds tend to need to be fought and won in a free market, not a market where one side has the backing of strong men. Sadly, what it may take for Iraq to someday flourish as a modern democracy that supports moderate islamic thought is our complete absence. Possibly, Iraqis may listen to moderate preachers only when they can be sure such preachers speak from their hearts as inspired by allah and not at all influenced by Uncle Sam.

Tell me you don't think that's a credible possibility.

OK, Cengel, I'll bookmark that list for future reference so that we can come back to it if necessary. I do have a couple follow-up questions.

Regarding that democratically-elected government, what if it collapses, or there is a coup, or it "virtually" collapses in the sense of failing to function from day to day in large portions of the country? If it becomes de facto illegitimate, ought we to prop it up and continue to insist it's the true government? If so, for how long?

Regardng brave Iragi security force volunteers, how sanguine are you that these security forces are filled more by patriots than by opportunists? An ugly question, but I think a fair one that MUST be asked.

Again, demonstrate to me that leaving will achieve more desirable long term results then staying?

I'm not trying to convince you that we ought to withdraw. That's not my position. My position is that I don't know what we ought to do, and that I harbor serious doubts that our continued presence will bring the results we want. I can't "demonstrate" what ALL of the future outcomes of withdrawal will be any more than you can demonstrate ALL the future outcomes of our staying for a lot longer.

What I do know is that it's quite possible that our presence may at some point come to RETARD the progress of Iraq. I don't know whether that point has been passed, is impending, or is far off. But I do know that ultimately Iraq can only be a true democracy when we cease orchestrating events there.

The thing that's going to push it one way or the other is what the majority of everyday Iraqis come to believe is true. How much longer will these folks continue to believe that Iraq is about to turn the corner? My gut says that if the corner doesn't come soon, they'll start to believe in droves that the corner aint coming. The sniff is in the air that we may retreat, and that means that smart Iraqis are well along in their plan Bs.

There seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy in the "stay or go" proposition we've been discussing, which I think has been addressed at least in part. It really is a matter of what the best, most productive thing to do given what we think is in our best interest over various time frames. It's complicated, and, as bk said, no one can demonstrate conclusively how any of the options worthy of consideration will ultimately play out. Judgment will have to be exercised.

Not that it's relevant to discussing under what conditions we should consider a major change in course in Iraq, but I personally think it was monumentally stupid of Reid to say the war in Iraq was LOST. We may be heading in the direction of a loss, but we haven't lost. And saying we lost does what for whom? As a majority leader, he's a bit embarrassing, perhaps tone deaf.

And I agree with bk that we can't continue to conflate the war on terror with our every aspect of our current efforts in Iraq. In fact, not only could one argue that our presence in Iraq, as it currently exists, is a retardant to the progress that the Iraqi government can make toward self-sufficiency, it may also be a less-than-optimal use of resources in the overall war on terror.

BK,

What alot of comments/questions you have....

"You contend, in essence, that America can not afford to withdraw. Of course it can. The price may indeed be heavy, but we can afford to do it, and re-group around a revised appraoch. It's quite possible."

No I'm contending that the results of withdrawing are far more disadvanageous to us then the alternative of not withdrawing. What "revised approach" do you postulate that would both be more effective and benefit from our withdrawl?

To use an analogy, if this were WWII, we are currently fighting the Battle of the Bulge, you seem to be inviting me to consider the possibility that abandoning the Continent and retreating to England to "regroup" will somehow prove more beneficial to achieving our ultimate goal of reaching Berlin. I have to respond that I can't envision a scenerio where such a postulate proves plausable. I do not, however, claim omnipotence....so I accept the possibility that there MAY be a particular set of circumstances that I am missing where such a postulate is true.... I am, however, going to require that such circumstances be described to me in specific detail before I concede the point.... to which entreaty I recieve nothing but a resounding silence and vaguries.

If you've got a plan of how 25 circus elephants will fit on the head of a pin.... go ahead I'm all ears. However, in the absence of actualy having the details of such a plan explained... forgive me if I make certain assumptions about it's plausability.

.......

"Possibly, Iraqis may listen to moderate preachers only when they can be sure such preachers speak from their hearts as inspired by allah and not at all influenced by Uncle Sam. "

In reference to moderate muslims, I was not just speaking about ones inside Iraq, but throughout the Muslim world in general. Our withdrawl from Iraq would certainly have ramifications beyond Iraq's borders. I take it as a given that such moderate voices will ONLY be effective if they are percieved as genuine and not simply schills for the West. I'm not neccesarly even advocating that the moderates should closely associate themselves with us. However associated or not, such voices DO gain real benefit (and confidence) from our continued support, even if it's only indirect support... if only because we focus the targeting recitle of the extremists somewhere other then squarely on thier foreheads. Let's face it, radical islam is not noted for it's tolerance of dissenting opinion...even from within the Islamic community. In order to have ANY chance of influencing that community, moderate voices have to at least continue breathing long enough to finnish a sentance. Right now, the only ones presenting any sort of realistic constraint on the radicals doing whatever the heck they want to whoever the heck they want is US. If the perecption is gained that we are no longer willing or capable of doing so.... there is going to be alot less confidence among moderates to do the sort of things we really benefit from them doing.

.......

"If it becomes de facto illegitimate, ought we to prop it up and continue to insist it's the true government? If so, for how long?"

I don't have a quick and easy answer to that. It would depend upon the circumstances at the time and what the alternatives are. Obviously the ideal is that there is a legitimate, stable and democratical elected government in Iraq that is not directly hostile to our interests. If that government becomes no longer "legitimate" then whether and how long we continue to prop it up depends upon what we expect it will be replaced by. As a short answer, I would vastly prefer an "illegitimate" but reasonably amicable or neutral government then a hostile "legitimate" government that will be prone to orchestrating Jihads against us. If that makes me an imperialist...I really don't care.

...........

"What I do know is that it's quite possible that our presence may at some point come to RETARD the progress of Iraq. I don't know whether that point has been passed, is impending, or is far off. But I do know that ultimately Iraq can only be a true democracy when we cease orchestrating events there."

Absolutely, I'm not advocating that we stay forever. I'm simply advocating that we stay long enough to insure that a moderately amicable or neutral government won't flounder and fail. If it becomes evident that our presence is hindering rather then helping that goal then I'll certainly entertain withdrawl.... but I have yet to see any remote indication of that... and until I do I'm not going to shift my position on the matter.

Furthermore, while Iraq as a freindly or neutral "true democracy" is the ideal... as I've mentioned before, I'll take a freindly or neutral tyranny over a hostile democracy any day.

Cengel,

It seems that you have very high standards for consideration of suggested course changes in Iraq, but that you conclude in a forgone manner that what we're doing now is just fine. What makes what we're doing now so less in need of explanation than other options? Am I missing something in your logic?

'm contending that the results of withdrawing are far more disadvanageous to us then the alternative of not withdrawing.

Well, as I've said, we all know that we CAN stay. If we do, we may face chronic casualties and little or no improvement in the situation. Or Iraq may turn a corner. What little I've read about the refugee problem suggests to me that there may be some deterioration. I recall that several years ago there where reports of folks migrating TO Iraq, and now they are headed the other way. But I don' have data. If my impression reflects reality, the change in the trend tells a tale. Not the entire story, granted, but a very troublesome chapter.

What "revised approach" do you postulate that would both be more effective and benefit from our withdrawal?

I don't. I'm simply claiming it's possible. It's something we can do. Notice how you quickly go on to analogize to the battle of the Bulge. It's not clear to me why you're so convinced it's appropriate to make this analogy, why you think this may be our battle of the bulge. What, in your view, makes it so? I'm not arguing or being contentious, I'm just wondering. So many folks insist that success is so crucial it's virtually non-negotiable. Did we make this so by the act of invading?, Why now, why this place ? Is iIraq's importance related to the fact of America choosing to place its (let's call it) prestige on the line in the wake of 9/11?

If so, I don't have a problem with that, It's plausible to me that many folks feel that our main response to 9/11 is Iraq, and that we need to put it in the win column because of that. It's a defensible position, but not one I see articulated. Or is it more a matter of the strategic importance of Iraq within the middle east, its location and its politics?

If I were to talk about a revised approach, I'd only be hypothesizing. One obvious and I think defensible approach would be one where we'd maintain an agressive defensive posture on the borders of the middle east, and leave the middle east itself to its denizens. Plusses and minuses? Of course. Tons. I'm sure you could give me chapter and verse on the imaginable negatives. The primary positive of course, would be that over time the plausibility of the radical argument scapegoating the US for all that's wrong in the middle east would diminish.

The giant worry is the specter that the ME, left to its own devices, would quickly populate itself with madman governments equipped with WMD and the psychotic eagerness to use them. I am somewhat agnostic on the likelihood of this. It's a nonzero probability, of course, but how much does our physical presence truly diminish that probability? That's where my doubts are at their greatest and most serious.

Your point about the need for muslim moderates to survive if they are to someday flourish is indeed valid. The unanswerable question is deciding when we may have begun to retard things.

I am not on the ground in Iraq. Fropm the beginning I have not felt that everyday Americans get anywhere near enough information to allow us to feel Iraq's pulse. All I really have is the ongoing vague impression that the people of Iraq are failing to sufficiently coalesce emotionally around the idea of a democratic nation called Iraq as a primary organizing force. Other allegances seem far stronger. That's a problem.

In closing, let me just echo WHQ. I agree with him that you seem to have far higher standards for alternative approaches than you have for the current approach. If you have any optimisim in you for our chances for success in Iraq, I'd love to hear them.

I tend to side with Cengel on Iraq, but as I mentioned earlier, we should not weigh what we do in Iraq apart from the overall war on terror. It appears that the administration has given a green light for the EU to discuss with Iran the possibility of selective enrichment. What? Gates says diplomacy with Iran is working. Really? I could swear Democratic statements, accelerated enrichment and capturing soldiers has shown some promise to the Iranians. Syria is making the moves for a possible war this summer. Hizb’Allah declares it takes orders from Iran while Hamas is now firing missiles at Israel. Has Pelosi's gesture worked? The only time Saddam blinked and Iran was helpful was with our forces deploying. Like I said, a perfect storm with blame for all. Hizb'Allah openly declares we are retreating. Islamic scholars debate the legal use of wmd on Western civilians. Hoyer speaks to the Brotherhood.

We should not lose sight of a. the signal our retreat sends to the world or b. the dangers of force used in Iraq detracting from force needed elsewhere. Perhaps we should send more private contractors. I listed several growing threats that would question the use of our troops and resources in Iraq. It costs billions to move us out of Iraq. It will cost billions when the Gulf is in flames. It will cost billions when nukes fly in the Middle East. All these things must be taken into consideration, but sending out a signal that America has had enough of confronting extremism endangers us even more and has already shifted our negotiations with Syria and Iran to their advantage. I commend this board for examining this issue beyond ideology. I sense everyone here supports Western Hegemony, rejects extremism, seeks the best application of force when necessary and does not hide from the threats that are coming our way. At least Bobby seems to have been successful in turning Sunnis against AQ in Anbar.

Since the Iraq invasion's goals continue to undergo ever more modest redefinition as previous goals prove to be unrealistic fantasies or political cover stories, we will reach a point where victory is sufficiently downwardly-defined to be achievable. So the US can't lose.

Some interesting comments and discussion, my 2 cents for what it’s worth. First off both parties are pandering to their base, Democrats talk about withdrawal but have no comments on the incredible disaster that might result if we do. They have the take that somehow these warring parties will all of a sudden come to their senses and start talking to each other over tea after we go. The Republicans want to stay the course, but no measure of what defines success or any idea as to how long it will really take, as if the American people will support watch bombings day after day for another 10 years without question.

The second issue is Iraq itself, there is a lot going on in the dynamics of the situation. In order to unify the country you must get people to get over their anger over the loss of family members, anger over being forced out of homes, bombing of religious sites, and for the Baathists, anger over loosing positions of power. Even within groups there is conflict, the Mahdi Army and SCIRI for example. Add to this the religious and tribal tensions, with their attendant militias, and you have a real witches brew of shifting alliances and hatreds.

Will the surge allow the government to end the violence long enough for these groups to reconcile and overcome theses differences? I have my doubts but I think that if there was some definable measure of success we should at least try, at least the Iraqis should have a timetable and know the consequences of failure. If the Democrats did not have to pander to their “get out now” a timeline with clear goals is what they should be proposing. If the Republicans were not pandering to their base they could agree that there is a limit, that we can say that there are situations beyond our control to influence and it is time to go.

If the surge does not work what then? Just leaving is inviting a regional disaster, if we are lucky it would be confined as a massacre driven civil war between Iraqis., at worst a regional conflict as the Iranians, Turks, and Saudis move in to support or suppress the factions, This is the situation that the Democrats absolutely must address to make a case for withdrawal that is more than just pandering to the “get out now” zealots.

The number of people killed has made, in my opinion, the idea of keeping the country unified impossible. The Kurds have already just about staked out a separate state, the national flag is not shown in their territory and their fellow Iraqi citizens are not allowed in. That for me is the key to this puzzle, if we leave we should partition the country to separate the factions into well defined territories and at least remove some of causes conflict. This is not by far a perfect solution, there would be plenty of opportunity to cross borders for creating havoc, but once in power the ruling parties would have to contend with a war weary population more interested in education, sewers and power distribution than getting revenge and engaging in endless warfare. Just staying or just going are not reasonable options, there must be a plan where eventually withdrawal is coming and is a well thought out plan.

BK,

Iraq is important simply because it is a major theatre of operations (probably THE major theatre of operations) in the War on Terror. It is a place where we are fighting to support a (relatively) moderate Islamic government against radical fundementalist insurgents. Victory is NOT optional here, we MUST win (IMO) or the next 50 years are going to be very ugly for us and the rest of the world. It sets the boilerplate for what is going to happen in the rest of the middle-east.

There is nothing inherent about Iraq, geographicaly, which makes victory so important.... the same battle could be fought in Darfur or Somalia or the face of the moon, for that matter.... it is the opposing forces which make this battle one we cannot afford to loose and cannot afford to be seen to loose.

If this was just a battle between us and the Baathists, victory wouldn't be so important. However AQ and other extremist islamic groups (i.e. Iranian backed Shiite forces) have made this THIER showcase battle. THAT makes this a fight we can't afford to loose.... or even worse ABANDON.

Going into Iraq was optional, I supported our doing so for various reasons... and still do... but it wasn't something we HAD to do. However once we commited to it.... there was no choice BUT to see it through to the end.

We MUST demonstrate that if moderates in the Islamic world are willing to stand up and face the fire of extremists we WILL support them... and not abandon them to the wolves when the going gets tough.... especialy when they origionaly commited themselves at OUR PROMPTING. Furthermore we cannot afford to let AQ and other islamic extremist organisations have something which WILL be precieved as a major victory against us.

We withdraw from Iraq, AQ and other islamic extremists will gain a SURGE of new recruits... because they will be percieved as being able to BE victorious. They will gain a base of operations from which to consolodate there efforts. Finally, NO ONE in the Islamic world will EVER be inclined to trust us again when we say "We'll help you...all you have to is stand up and be counted". It'll be a pattern we've repeated too many times to be trusted.

We did it in Afghanistan back in the 80's when the Muhajadeen were fighting the Soviets... as soon as that battle was over, we and the aid we had been supplying were nowhere to be seen when those people we had been supporting DESPERATELY needed it. We did it in Iraq after Gulf War I, we prompted the Shiites and marsh Arabs to rebel against Hussien.... and when they did, and Saddams government didn't topple right away...rather then go in and help.... we sat back and let them get massacered. We did it in Somalia.... what do you think happaned to those Somali's that were helping us AFTER Clinton pulled the troops out?

You want us to do it again? No way, we can't afford it. "Reputation" is a mild way of describing what is at stake here. We are going to NEED the cooperation of moderate and freindly Muslims if there is going to be chance to head off the firestorm that is brewing in the Islamic world.... we need them to know that when we say we are going to stand by them, we can be trusted to mean it.

We also NEED the rest of the Islamic world..... the ones who aren't neccesarly so warmly inclined toward us right now....but who aren't suicidal... to understand that AQ and the extremists have NO CHANCE of winning.... we need to convince them that throwing in thier lot with them is a DOOMED proposition...... We don't do that by granting them a major victory.

It's THAT simple.

Thanks a bunch for stopping by Grognard. You make a lot of sense, and you don't sound overly committed to either side's ideological take on the situation.

I am starting to come around to the idea of some sort of timetable myself. While I still hope Iraq can somehow become a genuine unified and independent democracy, I am not especially optimistic that it will come to pass, pray though I may.

Oh, and Cengel, a pleasure to disagree with you where we have done so, as always.

Yes, good comments.

Grognard:

Cengel is right about Iraq being THE center of operations. It is more important than a similar struggle in Darfur or Somalia because of the closeness to ALL the parties including Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hizb'Allah, Pakistan, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which is buying alot of military capability (protested by the Israelis).

If one understands that adversaries in Gaza, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Gulf, Afghanistan are closely connected to this “front” in Iraq, we might want to back away from the two option solution of either retreat or a limited surge. If we retreat and support de facto separation, Turkey may invade Kurdistan (see who is running for their Presidency). There would be forced migrations of Sunnis and Shia and many other problems of escalating violence including bases of terror made more difficult to locate and strike..

The other option is to stay, but this too does not have to be black or white. A war between Syria, Israel and Hizb'Allah may require a shift to the Syrian border. A conflict with Iran may require a shift to the Iranian border. Introduction of missiles may require a change in tactics as would the introduction of radiological and CW weapons. We might be better served defending those who request our help, the oil and ports as well as any government. Attacks by Sadr's forces may require a concentration of force. Timetables and declarations of defeat do little to help our strategic options. Democrats make a big thing about the effect of their efforts to force Iraqis to get it together. The other side of the equation is that without determination of force, political solutions would degenerate into sectarian fighting. History doesn’t show many examples of fair resolutions absent sufficient force. A Culture of Dependency will simply be replaced by the Ideology of Extremism. Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Turkey and others sharply disagree with Democrats. In fact, the biggest defenders of the Democratic position are AQ, Taliban, Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizb’Allah. Doesn’t that seem very disturbing? Come on guys, if they were your supporters, wouldn’t you question your position? Not Ried, Murtha or Pelosi.

I tend to agree with Cengel that because of the importance in the wider war, Iraq should not be viewed in isolation. It makes sense to have force there. Even if civil war breaks out, the US could be a critical spoiler and protect key officials and populations. Again, the US presence probably prevents Turkish and Iranian intervention. Remember firefights have occurred between Iranian and US/British forces. So I would argue the strategic importance of Iraq, which Dems ignore, exists. As Tully said, "just look at the map". I think that was an accurate quote. This was not the strategic situation in Korea, Viet Nam, Granada, Panama or Afghanistan.

The fact that most here would be ridiculed as Neocons by the left says it all. I find this political stalemate extremely dangerous. Already the EU is talking about selective enrichment for Iran. The silence on strategy by Democrats reveals a huge hole in their argument. They will do everything possible protecting this hole all the way to 2008. As a liberal of sorts, I will continue to rail against this pathetic ploy to gain power through political manipulation despite Republicans using a similar tactic.

Here's a thought that might combine Brian and Cengel (Brigel) LOL. I actually don’t think their sentiments are much different.

Let us put a timetable on Malaki to pass the oil sharing bill. If it is not passed then the Kurds make a deal with the Sunnis and divert revenue to them under a separate oil sharing without cutting off the central government completely.. Then have the Sunnis and Kurds demand international auditing of oil production to prevent the black market from fueling violence and corruption. We move some troops to Kurdistan to 1. stop the PPK so Turkey is pleased and 2. keep AQ in Kurdistan and the Sunni Triangle from making havoc. We try to make an alliance between Sunnis opposed to AQ and the Kurds while putting some muscle near the Iranian border and against AQ from the North. We also invite Turkish officials to US bases and help in counterinsurgency efforts.
Now Bobby might say this would bring down Malaki, but we are talking end game here. One must weigh Sunni opposition with revenue for Malaki’s government. There are ways he could increase revenue.

One could go through all the benchmarks and set clear US actions if the government fails to act. This would not cause a strategic retreat but a change towards de facto separation minus the concerns of Turkey, Sunnis and even some Shia. The Kurds would accept Federalism, but a gradual Federalism that first deals with local problems and violence that would follow a simple declaration of Independence by the three regions.

What I'm suggesting is that we need plans that are not driven by the artificial divisions of our domestic politics. I don't see any plans along this line of thinking from Republicans or Democrats (not in the way I set one out).. I understand Brian's concerns and Cengel's clarity. Between these two views, one can fashion transition states, benchmarks and new alliances without loosing sight of the wider war or the need to pressure Iraqis to change their behavior without alienating various players by creating a divided Iraq on the map..

Any thoughts?

Max, excellent posts.
Your points are valid on the strategic importance of Iraq, but I still feel that there is no longer the political will to engage in a long term commitment, at least at the troop levels we have now. Also the cost of this operation is a big part of the loss of support, the enormous amount of money going into Iraq is something that could be spent domestically, or not spent at all depending on your political outlook.

Your post on Federalism has merit, one good result is that the groups would be under control by their own people, and allows the Ba’athists to come back into power in a limited way. The Federation also give the illusion of a united Iraq, so regional powers will be reluctant to intervene. The Federal governments would need to be responsible for local police, already AQ has worn out it’s welcome in Anbar and the Sunnis would have no problem eliminating them, what they don’t want is the national, mostly Shiite, army doing it for them The Kurds also don’t want the national army patrolling the border to prevent Turkey from retaliating against PPK attacks, so that situation might calm down also. I still think there would have to be some movement of people to segregate the factions, it might be temporary or with incentives to make the divisions permanent. There is the opportunity for cross border conflicts between groups but again domestic considerations will be in play as far as roads and basic services and getting back to normal. The problem remains that the Federal system could disintegrate into warring states, but that is a situation beyond our control and ultimately it is up to the Iraqi people have to stand up and end the fighting, we can’t separate them forever. All in all this might be the best solution available.

Max,

I like your ideas too. I'm not against switching up strategies in Iraq or making some requirements of Malaki in order to continue our support. I am simply against bailing on Iraq altogether because we've gotten frustrated with the way things are going.

Unfortunately, I think the Democrats have too much invested in defeat right now to give any strategy other then surrender a chance to work out. Their rhetoric has been too strident and pervasive to let them give victory in Iraq a chance. Thier afraid that if Iraq does ultimately work out... it's the GOP that will be reaping the political windfall for it.... and they'll get branded as nay-sayers who could have caused a disaster.

It's sad, because coming together as a nation on this and showing our resolve is our best shot for things to work out in the long term.... and the Dem's could have been a big part of that. Their message could have been "This is important... and we're not manging it well... here's how we manage it better" . That would have been the responsible thing to do.... and I think it would have resonated well with the public.... especialy if it included a detailed plan for exactly what changes in the management of the situation they'd do..... instead, thier pushing for a re-run of Vietnam.

Grog,
Intelligent and crisp, but I believe the cost of defeat outweighs the current price of staying. It can't be forever, but India and Viet Nam are good examples of the carnage that follows retreat (not that I thought Viet Nam was a great idea). The point is that such violence in the middle of the Middle East would have greater consequence than the two examples I gave above. The Democratic response is: you have been so wrong why should we believe your predictions now? Amazing rebuttal.

Others have proposed Federalism before including Biden. I am against splitting up Iraq into three autonomous regions. This is not what I was suggesting. I was proposing a pathway towards an internationally acceptable Federalism as an alternative to Malaki’s failure to promote a unified Iraq. My pathway deals with OUR concerns, not his. We don't like AQ. We don't want Turkey invading Kurdistan, nor do the Kurds. We don't want Sunnis helping AQ because the Shia won't give them a cut of the oil. So from OUR strategic vantage point, it makes sense to move the players into an alternative mode, should Shia fail to unite the country. I was just showing how such a move could happen which prevents ethnic cleansing (a consequence of de facto division), support of AQ and threats from Turkey. These are big sticking points to Biden’s plan. Of course a central government could one day pass laws that ALL parties could accept, but in the absence of such agreements, plan B makes more sense. Again, regional alliances and agreements in the face of Shia failure can move Iraq towards Federalism in a way that doesn’t alarm.. This puts more pressure on Shia, while satisfying international concerns about de facto splitting of Iraq.

Again, the cost. We invested alot into Germany and Japan. Perhaps you can share a cost/benefit analysis that compares the worst-case scenario of A with the worst-case scenario of B. There is no excuse for past mistakes made and billions of lost money. I am worried about our military readiness and future enlistment. I don't think however, we can put a price tag on our future security. The consequence of a strategic retreat from the Middle East, will, in my opinion cost us dearly in the future. That is why we need real alternatives in how we put pressure on Iraqis to get it together.

Cengel,
Agreed, as I think most here do. Imagine how I feel. I have never voted Republican. This is a complete Democratic abdication of national responsibility in the name of political fortunes. I wish I could clean both houses - for both Parties share in this sad mess.

The number of people killed has made, in my opinion, the idea of keeping the country unified impossible.

Uh, Grog, I hope I can interest you in rethinking the separation thing a bit. Because it IS, in fact, stereotyping and racism.

There's a media meme about vast numbers of Iraqis wanting Iraq to break up, but it's only substantiated by facts in Kurdistan, where it's a reality. It's reality there because, first, Hussein tried to suppress the Kurdish identity, causing the Kurds to feel like Kurds rather than Iraqis, and then the Kurds were ahead of the rest of Iraq in forming a democratic state. But most Iraqi Kurds prefer a peace on decent terms to fighting with other tribes.

Elsewhere, mostly the extremists want separation. It wouldn't take many interviews with random people on the street to see that, or looking at Iraqi blogs, but when that question is popped among the media supporting this idea, it mostly seems to go to extremists or experts here in the US.

Think about it. It amounts to a stereotyping of what a big group (Iraqis, sometimes Arabs) want - that they just want to fight other tribes and Americans. And a stereotyping suggesting that Iraqis are unready for that hard Democracy stuff. That should sound familiar from history classes, because that's the same thing the Imperialists told Puerto Ricans and Filipinos, and countless other oppressed peoples all over the world.

Worst, any such agreement by us to support a division by group would be signing off on ethic cleansing (yet another clue that something's not right here). Even Kurdistan would require ethnic cleansing, because no way would they go without a nice oil city with plenty of non-Kurds. Ethnic cleansing means millions moved from their homes, often by force and killing while we look the other way. Unacceptable, especially if it's to service a myth.

I think Jon has it right which is why I was VERY SPECIFIC in how I was proposing FEDERALISM. Biden and others have separation plans, which I disagree with for reasons Jon has stated. I also agree that there is a certain racism (promoted in this case by Democrats) in this attitude, forgetting the clear opposition for division from the international community. The point I was making is that we could pressure Malaki by starting to Federalize (not divide) Iraq in a way that starts with allaying concerns from Turkey and Sunnis while defending the Kurds and going after AQ. We need to think about OUR INTERESTS in Iraq and those of patriotic Iraqis seeking a just peace. To propose simple de facto separation will lead to ethnic cleansing because Sunnis live in Shialand and Shia live in Sunniland. Baghdad is a veritable mixture of everyone.

We should stop thinking black and white and start dealing with the end game. Kurds and Sunnis could form agreements respecting minority rights in both regions to avoid the ethnic cleansing. The Turks and others could be asked to monitor and play some role in showing how Federalism could work by promoting a precursor model of Federalism in the Sunni and Kurdish part of Iraq. This would balance the extremist forces in Shialand that resist a unity government. We can even put Turkey on the Spot as well as Sunni nations by challenging them with a role that SERVES THEIR INTERESTS as well as normal Iraqis.

The post-war mission is to defeat AQ and stabilize a human rights-abiding country that is no longer a threat to the region. We need to do this now and project strength towards Syria and Iran. The pressure we CAN bring is to form regional alliances within Iraq. like we do in the world absent international consensus and action. How about a pipeline from Kurdistan to Turkey? We can put a lot of Kurds and Turks to work on that project while showing Sunnis they will not be ignored. We need to change the game. We need something bold.

It is fine to talk about Federalism, but talk is just talk. Let’s show how federalism works. We need to bridge the divide without racist and dangerous attitudes or defeatism. We went to Iraq to change the status quo that promoted WMD, terror and extremism. It is time we did it having removed Saddam to the delight of most people including Iran. We have done a miserable exploiting our efforts. Malaki needs our help to convince the majority of Shia that if they don't compromise then the world will support a new regional alliance between Sunnis and Kurds with the help of Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the international community. The Kurds want peace. The Sunnis want a role in government and a share of the oil. Most hate AQ. Many Shia want peace and prosperity and don’t like taking orders from Iran or Hizb’Allah. We have to do something bold to change the status quo which favors AQ, extremists, Syria and Iran. It is really that simple when faced with the growing defeatist chant from within America. If Democrats had any balls they would be pushing ideas instead of defeat.

As Cengel explained; they have succumbed to a combination of Bush tactics and Leftist infusion which stakes everything on defeating Republicans through a media generated opposition to everything Bush rather than producing positive results in the Middle East. I am concerned about administration approach to Iran and Turkey as well as putting all the eggs in a surge basket. We need to do something bolder. We have invested a lot in Iraq –much more than the Democrats have invested in their NOT BUSH approach to political victory. Think of that cost when advocating withdrawal as well as the backlash against the only hegemony protecting the principles espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike. The great irony is that Bin Laden tried to kill Cheney and Democrats seek to impeach him. We have dropped the ball with our soldiers and security on the line. This isn’t political anymore, its about unethical behavior risking our way of life and values of our Constitution in an attempt to gain political power. Had the Democrats refrained from acting like Republicans, American might be engaged in a real conversation about our future security and the well-being of all who live in the Middle East. Yes, being more liberal than not, I hold the Democrats to a higher standard. They are failing me in a most dangerous way.

Iraqi reaction to senate vote

today in Iraq

Note actions by Kurds in dealing with bomber as well as sacrifices by Iraqi soldiers standing up to terror.

Please click the link below...

Am I crazy or are we missing the big picture? I suggested a pipeline earlier this morning. Now I noticed this

So we leave and the Kurds do what? And AQ in Syria can help foster the sea change in Turkey while the Russians promote a pipeline that Saddam used to get rich despite the sanctions? Seems everyone is waiting for that timetable to go in effect.

One more time...We leave our buddies the Kurds so Syria and Iran can work with Russia to reshape the conflict to their advantage. Kurds use Russia (seeing us leave) to deflect Turkey while Syria gets Iraq oil and fuels its foreign policy which buys Russian arms to point at Israel. Sounds like a great plan. It is the US that should be shaping events to US and the Iraqi's advantage.

Are the Russians being more clever than us? Or at least more clever than the Democrats?

Sure, lets leave our blood and money in Iraq as a gift to our enemies and psuedopartners. It is only fitting that I repost a statement Tully linked today at SF. This is what Obama thinks......

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement after the Senate approved the supplemental funding bill that sets a target date to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq:

“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home.”

“I opposed this war from the start. I said then that it would distract us from pursuing those who attacked us and would entangle us in an occupation of undetermined length, cost and consequences. This war has no military solution, and the Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own future.”

“That’s why I believe that my plan for a phased withdrawal with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 is still the best way to pressure the warring factions to reach a political settlement necessary to end this war. This similar plan responsibly redeploys our troops from Iraq while protecting our interests in the wider Middle East. It ensures that we are as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.”

“All of us have been touched by the heroic sacrifices troops have made in service to our country. With the stroke of a pen, President Bush can bring them home to the families who love them and to a country ready to honor them for their service.”

Jon, my opinion on separation is based mostly on the history of the region and how the nation of Iraq came into existence. If Wilson’s fourteen points had been followed the Kurds, as a distinct ethnic group, should have had an independent state, in fact they were at the Paris peace conference in 1919 lobbying for a state. The problem was that the British did not want a country that was unified by ethnic or religion, a unified nation was seen as a challenge to British colonial rule. Iraq was purposely set up as a nation where no group had an overwhelming majority, a state the British could manipulate and set one group against another as they did during the 1920 revolt. If the Shiia in the south were part of a larger Iran, the Kurds of Turkey and Iraq united as one nation, and the Sunni tribes part of Syria, the British would have has an impossible task keeping them all under Imperial rule. I view the nation as an artificial construct designed to maintain British colonial rule, and since the days of the Empire are long gone I don‘t see any reason this nation needs to remain united.

I'm also disappointed with Obama on this one. You need a real foreign policy to govern. So far, all Obama's got on that front is kowtowing to the crowd, and a handful of hints and leaks.

Hillary has this one down right, I think. She understands that the problem here involves screwed-up plans rather than unworkability.

grog said:
I view the nation as an artificial construct designed to maintain British colonial rule, and since the days of the Empire are long gone I don‘t see any reason this nation needs to remain united.

Wilson et al went through looking Europe and populations as they really were in that day, not 80 years earlier. And that's what's missing in the separationist notions.

If you think about it, at this point, the imperialists've succeeded to a large extent. All but the Kurds think of themselves as Iraqis, and there is vast intermingling except in much of Kurdistan. Where would you run the lines through so that there won't be huge massacres on the "wrong" sides?

Iraqi blogs, blog-reporting, and polls have convinced me that most Iraqis, including in Kurdistan, prefer peace and democratic state-building to war over borders and oil, or to more ethnic cleansing, the necessary results of any split. The violence is being done by minorities of extremists, which we've been failing to stop until recently.

Obama flunked tonight. Besides not even bringing up race (consider the location) he fumbled the response to "What if AQ attacks the US?" Hillary was the only Alpha Dog there. Edwards avoided questions about his own wealth. He was invisible. He was afraid to bring up his two America speech.

Then there was a moment for candidates to say what they would do as C and C if attacked. Hillary didn't seem to care if Democrats disliked her sounding like a warrior. She said she would hunt down the adversary and destroy them. Meanwhile, Obama gets his antiwar shroud pulled by warnings about nuking Iran from Mr. Impeach Cheney. It was a sad display. Gravel made Hillary look centrist, but the effect seem lost on Obama. Overall, Gravel hurt Democrat's appeal nationally.

Want to know where AQ is? IN Iraq, Syria, North Africa, Afghanistan. AQ is even in Iran and Pakistan, Gaza and Southern Lebanon. Maybe these candidates should purchase a map. What are these candidates proposing to prevent attack and contain terrorists and the regimes that help them? Increase money for first responders? Yep, Obama, a great idea. Also a talk with the international community is another great idea. Can you imagine a real attack with such a strategic vision? Hell, Hillary wanted Bill to bomb Kosovo. Does Brian still think Obama is still triangulating or a bit less smart as we thought?

This is the problem presented on BK's thread above. Obama has high expectations. Hillary loves low expectations. Obama has only one route. That is being exceptional, sharp, strong, non-pandering, interesting, detailed, PREPARED. He has acted like none of these things are in his blood. Again, Democrats have become the antiwar Party. Hillary was the only one who showed any balls. Obama didn’t seem prepared for security questions. He showed little improvisation. He walks away as Mr. Hype having gotten Tully’s fatuous comment of the Day award and that was before the debate.

Now watch his poll numbers go up. Kos put Gravel neck and neck with Hillary. Pat Buchanan compared Hillary with Reagan.

JFK would have slapped these candidates silly.

Grog,
A client of mine is a successful businesswoman. An Iraqi Jew, her family came here in the fifties. Her many relatives moved here as well (fortunately), but loved the place they once lived. I have seen many old pictures that show a beautiful place and many different religions co-existing. Iraq was a place (early 50s) where Jews, Shia, Kurds and Sunnis lived peacefully. They had a thriving economy and intellectual discourse. Yes, it’s hard to believe. Many were very educated and sophisticated by today's standards. Much of that changed because of the internal dynamics of the Islamic world. Even the creation of Israel did not immediately change Iraq. It is a mistake that disunity is inbred. Muslims actually desired Jews and had a Jewish community until the modern dynamic and gangster politics appeared. To blame this on Britain or the West is less than accurate.

P.S. Debate--Hillary was inaccurate about her changing views on Iraq. She has flipped views and did not answer a question on her Iraq position correctly. However, talking about Katrina is not the response to terrorist attacks on the US.

Jon, you will have to send me some links to show your view, my take is different. The Kurds, for example, have been in revolt against both Turkey and Iraq, Saddam gassing them in the 80;s and Turkey reports something like 30,000 casualties from separatists attack. The Shiia believe that in the 1920 revolt they were betrayed, that the Sunnis started the revolt and after the Shiia joined in the Sunni made peace with the British in exchange for becoming the ruling group, [they were until now] and did nothing as the Shiites were wiped out in the south. One of the groups in Iraq takes their name from this revolt and betrayal, the “1920 Brigades”. The Shiia also have been denounced as a heretical sect by some Sunni religious leaders, and by Osama.. I am not sure about polling data, I don’t know if any questions were asked about separation or federation.. Your story about Iraq is anecdotal, I also know of an anecdotal story that is interesting. Early after the fall of Saddam there was a pilgrimage by Shiia over a bridge, due to crowding some people fell off into the Tigris. Sunnis in the nearby neighborhood leapt into the water to rescue the Shiites, saving many. The Shiia and the Sunnis were interviewed recently about that day, in the Sunni neighborhood they said they regretted saving the Shiia, that they should have let them drown. In the Shiia neighborhood across the river they denied that any Sunni helped save Shiites, that all thy did was watch from the bank as Shiia drowned. Needless to say both neighborhoods had been subject to a number of insurgent attacks. I don’t make any claim this is inbreed, but in the case of these two neighborhoods opinions have changed as a result of the violence.

The Shiia and the Sunnis were interviewed recently about that day, in the Sunni neighborhood they said they regretted saving the Shiia, . . . I don’t make any claim this is inbreed, but in the case of these two neighborhoods opinions have changed as a result of the violence.

Yep. In fact, it's well documented that the violence has been getting worse, to a point that IMHO brings us close to failure. But you know you have to take media reports with a grain of salt; they're selling eyeballs, not facts. I can trivially google for news of US ethnic violence, but that doesn't make it the rule.

So what IS happening? Until the Surge, we've been failing our occupation security responsibilities by failing to confront any big extremist gangs that doesn't shoot at us. Killing, raping, looting Iraqis, whatever. The result was that increasing violence spiral. Here's a post with supporting links I wrote on the increasing spiral in militia violence.

Fortunately, I was half-wrong about one thing; Bush appears to be clueless, but Gen Petraeus, whom he put in charge, understands perfectly and appears to be doing his job well. So, until he's replaced, or funding is cut off from Bush' failure to explain well, we're moving in the right direction.

This increasing violence spiral is no new thing. We've seen it in many, many countries that reverted to warlordism, like pe-Taliban Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, many Dark Ages European nations, etc.. It happens whenever central authority does not confront gangs for long periods; the biggest grow and grow, with less and less general safety, until one becomes powerful enough to take over, like the Taliban did.

An Iraqi poll. Check out Q14, "which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future?" 58% wanted a unified Iraq. The percentage is down, reflecting a worrying rise in warlord popularities in these polls due to dependency on those warlords and maybe the increased reality of violence.

A few Iraqi blogs: Baghdad Burning, Iraq the Model, Iraq at a glance.

Interesting stuff Jon. Remember, the recent polls showed SHIA want us to stay and the SUNNIS seem to want us to go. However, more and more Sunnis are rejecting AQ amd working with forces like those including Bobby. It seems strange that Sunnis want us out, because they are the minority Sadr would like to crush. Without us, that seems more likely. If we leave the Kurds may be forced into things like a Russian sponsored pipeline to Syria. Kurdish opposition to Turkey is another matter. It involves the oppression of many Kurds in Turkey and their desire for autonomy. (note that the Turkish military today warned against an Islamist candidate while the EU warned the military not to intervene). Very smart.

I have talked to many Iraqis that came to the US in the late fifties. Their stories suggest Iraq was not the sectarian mess it is today. There used to be a significant Jewish population. Most attribute the change to Iraqi political forces and not the mere lines on the map. In Iran at the time, nationalists, not the Mullahs were making a push for throwing the British out. Secular nationalists made strides in Egypt, Syria and other Muslim countries. While they used anti-Zionism as a marketing tool, they did not represent the fundies and extremists tearing things apart today.

Why Democrats are wrong

And here is another interesting read. Riedel explains why AQ needs failed states like Iraq would become upon our departure.

P.S., I didn't mean I agree with Riedel on Iraq or Iran, just that he makes some interesting points. In fact, he warns against any force against Iran and doesn't worry about the Islamic State of Iraq (AQ) after we leave. His views are a part of the thinking behind some of the Democratic positions.

I have continued to post some relevant links though this thread has run its course. This last link highlights the dangers of partition that might be defused by a plan for proto-federalism with Turkish involvement suggested above. The partition Grog suggests following our retreat does not address this growing threat. The dynamic might force the Kurds to look elsewhere for support. I am surprised there has been little media coverage about Turkish troops massing or Russian talks with Syria concerning Kirkuk oil. Does anyone doubt the wolves are sensing our departure?

The present situation with the Kurds here. Talk about complicated. Last one for this thread. Hope the links were useful.

Max, thanks for the posts. Even if Iraq remains united the cross border problems with Turkey might remain, but you make a good case that a Shiite dominated government would take a dim view of the Kurds dragging the rest of Iraq into a conflict with Turkey and do something about it. On the other hand if the Kurds were independent you could also make the case that they would curb the PPK out of fear that they could loose everything in a war with Turkey. You are right, a very complicated situation.