Nov 19 2006
Success Is Still An Option In Iraq
I have always felt Bush allowed the House and Senate Republican leadership to dictate the themes and tones of this past election cycle. Why wouldn’t he? It was their butts on the line. Bush is very accommodating and would, within some boundaries, work with the House and Senate leaders to run the national elections. But with the stunning losses, Bushes hands are now freer to do what he thinks is best. So now we see new ideas coming out as if Bush’s resistence to new ideas has suddenly dissipated. Of course, if people understood how long it takes to formulate and concur on policy changes (especially international ones which involve other governments) people would realize anything coming out from here to January was aleady in the pipeline. Only the media believes the country runs on a reactive, 4 hours news cycle.
So I am not surprised to see the tactical adjustments (or in some cases, simply continued progress) coming out on Iraq. Take this reporting for instance:
On his first visit to the country, the Chancellor met British soldiers in Basra, saying it was crucial for Iraq to be seen to be ‘running its own affairs’ and offering £100m for economic reconstruction. Unemployment is thought to be a factor in helping to recruit insurgents.
The Chancellor’s pledge came as Tony Blair travelled to Pakistan to announce a doubling of aid to that country to shore up moderate Islamic influences, a package which will include more funding for state schools. The money will support President Pervez Musharraf’s strategy of ‘enlightened moderation’, and could reduce the spread of hardline religious schools.
Brown told soldiers from the Princess of Wales’s Regiment that Britain was very proud of them. Asked if Democrat gains in the US elections could hasten troop withdrawal, he said: ‘This is a rich country with a rich future.
‘We have got to help the Iraqi economy get back on its feet so we can see Iraq running its own affairs, and we could see a reduction in troops over the next few months.’ Blair suggested last month that British forces could be home from Iraq within the next 12 to 18 months.
The political offensive comes as escalating violence in Iraq prompts a rethink of tactics, with US strategy under review by a panel led by the former US Secretary of State James Baker.
There is nothing new in these proposals. Economic incentives has been on the table forever. And from day one people have been working to ‘enlighten’ the ME through broader choices or views than those being pushed in the Madrassa aligned with Islam-fascists. More of the same here:
The Tories will demand that moderate Arab Muslim neighbours such as Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf states be drawn into negotiations; that more support be given to the faltering Iraqi government to get a grip on internal affairs; and that a tougher line be taken with the White House to ensure British priorities are built into America’s new strategy. They will not, however, demand troops be pulled out immediately.
Nothing in this article shows a shift of any kind, from the overplan to stabilize Iraq to the hope Iraq will stand on its own in 12-18 months. Why is the media showing a change of heart? It’s obvious. If the Democrats do not show signs of success they will lose in 2008. And so we see the makeover of Iraq as a success, as Democrats come in and change little to nothing on Iraq. The Blogosphere will need to keep an eye on the media the next two years as they try and create the illusion the Iraq success was all part of the Democrat takeover in Congress. Watch for Bush to acknowledge the shift towards his positions now that the election is over. He will thank those for finally accepting his strategy and joining for success on Iraq! It will be fun to watch – once the EU liberals try and sneak a little further onto his plank and cannot retreat without looking totally two-faced.
I think there might be another push now that the election is over and the ISG does not call for troop withdrawal, if anything it calls for an increase in troops in the near term.
I think a greater effort will be made to draw Kuwait and Jordan and Turkey into helping and I think there will be more pressure placed on Iran and Syria to ease off meddling. But how much pressure?
Pressure from whom? Pressure from us alone unless backed with some physical force isn’t going to amount to much. Strongly worded memos aren’t having any impact. Turkey isn’t likely to get interested except possibly to wack some Kurds who are giving them problems.
Syria is Iran’s sidekick and will do whatever Iran says. Until a way is found to somehow bust Irans chops, their meddling is going to continue in Iraq, and in Lebanon, and in Somalia.
Well, Crosspatch, we could force Israel to give Syria back the Golan Heights to pry the latter from Iran. But nobody is going to bust Iran’s chops.Koppel admitted today on Meet the Press, I believe, nothing
will stop Iran from getting the bomb, Thank you George Bush.
So let me get this straight, forcing countries to do things is wrong unless we are forcing Israel to do things it doesn’t want to do, in which case it is right?
Besides the fact that the Golan Heights has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq and the US has absolutely nothing to do with it’s status, how do you come up with the notion that somehow “forcing” Israel to give up the Golan Heights will somehow stop Iraq Sunnis from killing Iraqi Shiites? While we are going around forcing people to do things, maybe we should also “force” Italy to give South Tyrolia back to Austria. Maybe that will help too.
Croisspatch
Perhaps you didn’t notice—Blair implies, correctly, we need Syria’s
help. And we didn’t subsidize Italy’s grip on South Tyrolia, which
in any case the Austrians have no grievance with America
about-unlike the teeming masses of the Moslem world have with
us about , for example ,NOT ENFORCING UN edicts against
Israel while ENFORCING UN edicts (against the will of the UN
in this case) against Iraq.
if Ken were a serious thinker,
he might be an asset to AJ’s blog.
but there’s that *if* clause.
Saddam didn’t need Syria’s help and he was in a defacto state of war with Syria (who was allied with Iran) for several years.
Bottom line is that ending the troubles in Iraq is up to the Iraqis themselves, not us. Until there emerges a leadership in Iraq that can command the respect of the people, they are going to continue this jockying for position that we are witnessing now.
Most of the killing in Iraq is Iraqis killing Iraqis and there really isn’t a whole hell of a lot the Syrians can do about it. What can Syria do to prevent Shiites from killing Sunnis? What can Iran do to prevent Sunnis from killing Shiites? Not much in either case. Until the Iraqis themselves find a way to work it out, all this talk of engaging Syria and Iran is simply political posturing.
In the old days we would have simply selected a winner and quashed all resistance to that solution. Today we would call that “barbaric” but it would have cost a lot fewer lives and brought about order by now.
Iraq needs a strong leader and instead decided on a weak one. All the factions wanted a leader that they could live with. In the end, they have a leader that many are dying with. Until someone emerges that can command respect among the various factions and weilds power enough to keep the trouble makers under control, we are going to continue seeing mayhem.
Image a nationwide gang war between the Blues and the Reds where the Blues control the police forces and the Reds control the Army and the Blues represent 2/3 of the population. That is basically what we are seeing in Iraq. The various religious factions are nothing more than armed gangs. Everyone that was in the old secular government has been fired. Add to that a culture where bribery and other corruption are a cultural norm and you have mayhem until someone rises to power that can control both sides and install a government that isn’t controlled by a religious faction.
What we are witnessing in Iraq is a struggle between Sunni and Shiite Islam for the control of a country. Involving Iran and her sidekick Syria in any kind of a solution is not going to work long term because Iran has a vested interest in one side of the conflict. You can only involve them AFTER a solution has been reached by the Iraqis themselves. Involving them now guarantees disaster, in my opinion.
Crosspatch
People like Strata, if not he himself, have been accusing Syria &
Iran of aiding and abetting the insurgency and private militias and
of direct infiltration in Iraq and direct involvement in certain instances of increasing the anti-American unrest. Including taking up residence as citizens falsely.
Let no one accuse me of not occasionally reaching out from my ultimate position-“immediate withdrawal and who cares what poodle Blair has to say?” But it would be better to reach out to Syria and Iran
than to ignore them.
Oh Lordy, what else would you expect a French Guy to say?
Syria is on record requiring the Golan for co-operation with the US on Iraq. And what else would you expect but for a prototype, if superannuated, “ugly American” to say but “don’t negotiate,continue to lose in Iraq.”
How quick people forget history! The British, et al, did not go down and conquor Africa and the Middle East just to expand their empires. The Barbarians from Africa and the Middle East were regularly raiding the European coast, taking hostages, white slaves, especially women, and looting and burning everything in sight. The only way to stop the pillaging and killing was to tame the beasts. Ergo…They invaded and conquerored the countries hosting the pillagers, and left occupying troops. Back in the 1700’s and early 1800’s Africa and the Middle East had nothing worth pillaging. Except for gold and diamonds from isolated mines, their only export was disease and misery. It wasn’t until a use for oil was found that their “natural resources'” attracted outside interest. And giving “the devil his due” the European occupiers gave back much more than they took out of these countries by building schools, hospitals, clean water supplies etc. If you notice, since the “great Satan” Europeans were expelled, most of Africa and the Middle East has reverted back to their old ways of survival of the fittest, pillage, rob, murder and plunder, instead of putting down roots and working to better their lives. Everyone there is so busy trying to defend himself and his family and what few possession he has that nobody has time to do anything else. It’s little wonder the whole continent is going to hell in a hand basket. If there was a way to keep them all hemmed up there, I’d say we’d be better off letting them kill each other. Unfortunately, they are once again feeling their power and want to expand their activities to include those of us who know how to behave and prosper, and just want to be left alone. My suggestion is to drop the bomb on the whole continent and write them off.
momdear if you’e talking to Ken, you’re way over his understanding ability. Need to drop down to K level.
For Enforcement
You’re exposing your pre-school nursery room status again:
First, MomDear1’s parting barbarian comment vitiates her
previous remarks, which, if meant for me were again misplaced.
I never said I opposed the British Empire or its effects on its
subjects, by and large. I only said it could have helped sustain
it by not engaging in war with Germany and noted the irony of
Churchill’s vow to keep it in his wartime speeches.
Ken, no matter how many times you try to avoid the issue, you made a flat out statement that the British Empire crumbled under Churchill. I asked you to name the countries that left the empire while Churchill was in office of PM. to date you have named none.
We all knew that you didn’t know what you were talking about.