The Iraq surge is working (much to the chagrin of some) - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: The Iraq surge is working (much to the chagrin of some) (/showthread.php?tid=11535)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: The Iraq surge is working (much to the chagrin of some) (/showthread.php?tid=11535)
Pages:
1
2
The Iraq surge is working (much to the chagrin of some) - The Horrible Esthete - 02-22-2008
Democrats Dug In For Retreat
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 22, 2008; Page A23
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102157.html?sub=AR">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... tml?sub=AR</a><!-- m -->
"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
-- Anthony Cordesman,
"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008
This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.
Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.
We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.
After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.
"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.
Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.
The objection was not only highly legalistic but also politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.
First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.
Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue -- about 85 percent of which is from oil -- to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.
What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenue year by year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?
Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?
- NegPhil - 02-22-2008
Nice try.
Democracy Now!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/29/bush_touts_outcome_of_iraq_troop">http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/29/b ... iraq_troop</a><!-- m -->
AMY GOODMAN Dahr Jamail, it’s pretty much is universally accepted in the corporate media, the surge has worked. We speak just after five US soldiers were killed in Mosul, but what about that?
DAHR JAMAIL Well, the surge and what is very interesting too, is not only do we have a US surge according to Mr. Bush, we have an Iraqi surge, two Iraqi surges actually. The first of which he mentioned in his talk last night, the concerned citizens or the awakening groups. It is really interesting that the same time last year as Mr. Bush was happily doing during his speech, comparing where were we last year to this year, well last year, these same people, these concerned local citizens according to the US military were called Al Qaeda or insurgents or terrorists. And now that there are 80,000 of them on US payroll, they’re concerned citizens and they’re an Iraqi surge. These same people, as we look at the situation on the ground, this is causing a deepening of the political divisions in the country. US backed President Nouri Al-Maliki has been vehemently opposed to this concerned citizens group backed by the US military in Iraq. These people, most of which are former resistance fighters, because they are now a threat to the Iraqi government forces. So that is causing huge problems on the ground in Iraq today. If we look at the situation the military recently announced within the last month that there was a sevenfold increase in the use of air power last year. So these are some of the reasons why right now there are fewer US troops dying but in reality, they’re paying off resistance fighters to stand down. And Muqtadr Al Sadr who commands the largest militia in the country, has his militia on stand down until next month, where that stand down might end and things might change.
AMY GOODMAN Wire of a standing down now?
DAHR JAMAIL He put them on standout almost six months ago to basically re-vet people coming in. His militia had been infiltrated by what he called foreign elements. They’re were people posing as militiamen going out and committing atrocities, etc. I think there are other political reasons obviously as well. Why they are on stand down, but that’s about to end.
AMY GOODMAN Raed Jarrar explain who these people are who are on the US payrolls, the citizens’ groups, militias.
RAED JARRAR The new citizens from Al-Anbar and other provinces in the west a middle of Iraq, is nothing new. The US has trained and supported private militias and governmental militias during the last few years. Mostly, from the shiites and from the kurds. So there were shiite and kurdish militias either working as a part of the governmental forces or independently from the governmental forces, who have been trained and funded and supported and protected by the US forces in Iraq during the last few years. Now, the US added a new sectarian force that is mainly sunni to its payroll. A new sectarian militia. So now we have three major sectarian militias, sunni, shiite, and the kurdish militias, that are trained and funded by the US whether they were inside or outside the government. And these three major militias are actually a part of a bigger US policy of supporting sectarian leaders in Iraq who are sectarianly and ethnically cleansing the country and cutting it and partitioning it demographically. Now, the new group of tribal leaders who align themselves with the US, their numbers may reach up to 70,000 or 80,000 mercenaries or private militias, they will not change this US foreign policy in Iraq or US policy in Iraq of supporting a minority of Iraqis whether they were sunnis or shiites or kurds, against the majority of other sunnis other shiites and other kurds who are nationalists, who are for keeping the country united, and ending any type of foreign intervention. So there is nothing new about the support other than finding new partners in Al-Anbar, who are willing to take US government money and oppress and kill their own people and support the foreign powers. So If this policy continues, we will continues seeing the number of Iraqi internally displaced people increasing and the ongoing project of splitting Iraq into three confederations, going – funded with US taxpayer money and US protection in Iraq.
- The Horrible Esthete - 02-22-2008
You demonstrate his point perfectly, Phil.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-22-2008
The point that he's making and you're missing, Esthete, is that "stabilizing" Iraq by showering weapons and money on various factions is not likely to have the long-term effect that Krauthammer suggests.
In El Salvador and Guatemala, giving weapons and money to "the good guys" and looking the other way as they murdered anyone they didn't like, "bad guy" or not, did not have that result. 25 years after the fact, those countries are barely stable and are serious regional concerns for the US.
Showering weapons and money on the Afghan mujahadeen to help them fight the Russians also did not have that result -- rather than finding themselves with helpful, friendly allies in the region, the US (lest you've forgotten recent history) found itself short two very large Manhattan landmarks and four passenger aircraft.
The Iraqi factions accepting those arms and money are not necessarily going to remain friendly. They are not stupid. They understand that the US will soon withdraw. It makes sense for them to play nice for a while, and then pursue their domestic agenda when the American forces have gone home.
Krauthammer is counting unhatched chickens through the a pair of decidedly rose-coloured lenses.
But why pretend? Neither you or Krauthammer give a shit about who's winning in Iraq. You're just looking for sticks with which to beat your ideological opponents.
- NegPhil - 02-22-2008
O.K., I'm "emotional invested in defeat and retreat".
Yeah, by responding to the question I prove your point. The Neo-Cons are masters of misinformation and circular arguments.
Whatever, the jig is up. Justice is inevitable and the Bush administration will be held before the court and tried for their crimes against humanity.
- The Horrible Esthete - 02-22-2008
NegPhil Wrote:O.K., I'm "emotional invested in defeat and retreat".
Yeah, by responding to the question I prove your point. The Neo-Cons are masters of misinformation and circular arguments.
Whatever, the jig is up. Justice is inevitable and the Bush administration will be held before the court and tried for their crimes against humanity.
When I posted my response to you, all that was showing in your post were two words: "nice try".
- The Horrible Esthete - 02-22-2008
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:The point that he's making and you're missing, Esthete, is that "stabilizing" Iraq by showering weapons and money on various factions is not likely to have the long-term effect that Krauthammer suggests.
...
The Iraqi factions accepting those arms and money are not necessarily going to remain friendly. They are not stupid. They understand that the US will soon withdraw. It makes sense for them to play nice for a while, and then pursue their domestic agenda when the American forces have gone home.
You're being just as speculative as you accuse Krauthammer of being.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:But why pretend? Neither you or Krauthammer give a shit about who's winning in Iraq. You're just looking for sticks with which to beat your ideological opponents.
Actually, I'm just posting a viewpoint that you rarely hear from this country's major media outlets these days.
I admit that the surge is likely not succeeding at the level Krauthammer might suggest, but far more than Campaign Machines and pundits would like us to believe.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-22-2008
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:The point that he's making and you're missing, Esthete, is that "stabilizing" Iraq by showering weapons and money on various factions is not likely to have the long-term effect that Krauthammer suggests.
...
The Iraqi factions accepting those arms and money are not necessarily going to remain friendly. They are not stupid. They understand that the US will soon withdraw. It makes sense for them to play nice for a while, and then pursue their domestic agenda when the American forces have gone home.
You're being just as speculative as you accuse Krauthammer of being.
No, I'm not. Or to put it another way, I'm being openly speculative, while he pretends that only one outcome is possible.
Skippy: "not likely to," "not necessarily"
Krauthammer: ....
That's right: no caution, no qualification. The only qualified statements are made by the guy he quotes.
That one qualification is pretty telling, though: "If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government...."
There isn't one politician in the United States who intends to do that. The only reason for the troop surge is political -- to calm Iraq before the election, so that the Democrats don't get a freebie with which to hammer the Republicans. And right on cue, we have a right-wing mouthpiece proclaiming that victory is at hand, Bush is vindicated, etc.
The US does not have the military strength to sustain the push for the long term. This is not a game of months, but a game of years. No American politician will propose sustaining this surge for a period of several years, instituting the draft if necessary to provide the necessary bodies.
No, the game here is very simple: ramp up, declare victory, and bug out.
Krauthammer knows that. He's being disingenuous.
- VioletlightHeron - 02-23-2008
Skippy, you are ignoring one major difference between what happened in Central America and Afghanistan with the current situation in Iraq. With Afghanistan, after the Soviets pulled out, we also pulled out whole hog and let the various factions fight it out until the Taliban imposed their evil brand of peace on the populace. I'd say the Western world is indirectly responsible for 60 percent of the mayhem, bloodshed and violence in Afghanistan leading up to the Taliban era simply because it wasnt a priority for the US and the West to intervene militarily. Politicians and activists on the left rung their hands and bemoaned the violence while doing little while politicans on the right were paying more attention to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany.
In Central America, while the US was funding the contras and the other right wing death squads in Guatemala, etc the Soviet Union was actively supporting the Sandinistas and other Marxist groups like FARC who weren't exactly behaving like saints.
With Iraq, we are insisting on legislative and non-military safeguards like the oil laws, readmitting low level Baathist supporters back into mainstream Iraqi society and essentially trying to make the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis realize that they can not survive on their own without making political concessions to the other ethnic groups. Each ethnic group would scare the living shit out of outside powers if they tried to dominate and control the Iraqi political process. The Kurds, if they decided to declare independece, would probably see the Turks invade en masse to pre-empt their own Kurdish minority from joining the Iraqi Kurds. The Sunni's don't have control over the major oil production and if they tried to take over, the Shiites would revolt and probably get help from Iran. Likewise for the Shiites if they tried to take over. I believe that the political leadership in each ethnic group is slowly coming to this realization and I think the recent extension of the ceasefire by the Mahdi Army is part of the proof.
Withdrawing all our troops like Obama plans may satisfy his base, but it would put the US in a world of hurt both on a geostrategic and international diplomacy level. Our allies would distrust us and not be willing to commit any solid economic or military power to solving future conflicts peacefully. Political leaders in other countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea, to name a few, would see the US withdrawal as carte blanche to do what they please. The war in Iraq was bungled politically and militarily after the conventional fighting was done, no doubt about it. But the cynicism and stupidity of the Democratic leadership in refusing to believe the battle in Iraq can be won is mind boggling. I truly believe they will not be satisfied until we retreat with our tails between our legs.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-23-2008
VioletlightHeron Wrote:With Afghanistan, after the Soviets pulled out, we also pulled out whole hog and let the various factions fight it out until the Taliban imposed their evil brand of peace on the populace.
Utterly and completely irrelevant. Not one Afghan mujahadeen faction was friendly to the US. They were allies of convenience.
Demonstrate that this is not the case in Iraq. Answer carefully: every ethnic group in Iraq has learned, to its cost, that the US is an ally of convenience: Kurds who became the enemy after the Shah fell, Sunni who became the enemy once Iran was safely contained, and Shiites who answered the call to rise up against Saddam and were slaughtered for their pains.
Do you seriously think throwing some weapons and money to these people will make long-term allies of them? They know the score.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:In Central America, while the US was funding the contras and the other right wing death squads in Guatemala, etc the Soviet Union was actively supporting the Sandinistas and other Marxist groups like FARC who weren't exactly behaving like saints.
That has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that funding death squads doesn't build democracies, whether the opposition is supported by the Soviets, by Iran, or by whoever. 25 years later, Guatemala and El Salvador are still a mess.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:With Iraq, we are insisting on legislative and non-military safeguards like the oil laws, readmitting low level Baathist supporters back into mainstream Iraqi society and essentially trying to make the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis realize that they can not survive on their own without making political concessions to the other ethnic groups.
Perhaps you can make them sing Kumbaya, too.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Withdrawing all our troops like Obama plans may satisfy his base....
Since I'm not supporting Obama, or anyone else in your farcical election, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Argue that the column is not bullshit; that's the point under discussion.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Our allies would distrust us and not be willing to commit any solid economic or military power to solving future conflicts peacefully.
Here's a tip: that horse left the stable in 2003.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:The war in Iraq was bungled politically and militarily after the conventional fighting was done, no doubt about it.
Actually, there is a great deal of doubt about that. I think most people would now agree that the war in Iraq was bungled politically before conventional fighting began.
- beanmedic - 02-24-2008
Makes you sound like a fucking fascist (or worse).
War is never good.
I'm glad to hear that your war is 'going well'. (?)
- VioletlightHeron - 02-24-2008
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Utterly and completely irrelevant. Not one Afghan mujahadeen faction was friendly to the US. They were allies of convenience.
Demonstrate that this is not the case in Iraq. Answer carefully: every ethnic group in Iraq has learned, to its cost, that the US is an ally of convenience: Kurds who became the enemy after the Shah fell, Sunni who became the enemy once Iran was safely contained, and Shiites who answered the call to rise up against Saddam and were slaughtered for their pains.
Do you seriously think throwing some weapons and money to these people will make long-term allies of them? They know the score..
If the United States and the West had made more of an effort to provide money for basic infrastructure after the withdrawal of the Soviets, some of the more moderate Tajik factions might have become long term allies. But again, we dropped the ball after the withdrawal of the Soviets.
I don't follow your line of thinking with regards to the Kurds being our enemy after the Shah fell, perhaps you could elaborate? With regards to Iraq and the Kurds, I would prefer to see the Kurds get some sort of semi-autonomous state in the north, but the tricky part will be to grant them to power to run some of their own affairs without breaking up Iraq and without antagonizing the Turks. I don't possess a clear enough crystal ball to argue that is totally feasible.
Allying ourselves with Saddam to counterbalance the threat of Iran was a pragmatic geostrategic move. Not pretty and not anything to be proud about, but given the choices facing the leadership at the time; i.e. letting the Ayatollah's army cream Saddam's forces and threaten Saudi Arabia or supplying Saddam with the weaponry and intelligence he needed to stalemate Iran was a logical choice. Because, you see, what the financial market is doing now with regards to the price of oil would be child's play if Iran did manage to take over Iraq and its oil production as well as threaten the rest of the oil supply in Saudi Arabia. Which, by the way, is the Iranian leadership's long term strategic aim anyway since it would give them tons of cash as well as control of Mecca and Medina. So we allied ourselves temporarily with a mass murdering scumbag. Wouldn't be the first time we did that, i.e. that charming bag of shit named Josef Stalin.
I agree with you that encouraging the Shiites to rise up after Operation Desert Storm and then refusing to provide help when they were getting slaughtered by Saddam's minions wasn't our finest hour. But again, Washington did its best to ignore or minimize its mistakes.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:In Central America, while the US was funding the contras and the other right wing death squads in Guatemala, etc the Soviet Union was actively supporting the Sandinistas and other Marxist groups like FARC who weren't exactly behaving like saints.
That has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that funding death squads doesn't build democracies, whether the opposition is supported by the Soviets, by Iran, or by whoever. 25 years later, Guatemala and El Salvador are still a mess..
Perhaps you missed my point about Central America and Afghanistan, Skip. I;m pointing out the fact that this time the US is making more of a concrete effort to stabilize Iraq and help it become a multi-ethnic democratic system by funding basic infrastructure and services that help win the hearts and minds of the populace, rather than just providing weapons and money to one faction and ignoring the rest of the problem.
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-24-2008
VioletlightHeron Wrote:If the United States and the West had made more of an effort to provide money for basic infrastructure after the withdrawal of the Soviets....
But they didn't, so the assertion that we might have had long-term allies falls flat. The fact is that, historically, it hasn't worked.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:I don't follow your line of thinking with regards to the Kurds being our enemy after the Shah fell....
When Iran was still a US ally, and Iraq was buying its weapons from the Soviets, the US supplied weapons and advisors to Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq. When the Shah fell, the advisors gathered up the heavy weapons, and said "Sayonara." Saddam then overran the Kurdish rebels and kicked the shit out of them, and once they translated from the Japanese they became rather cynical about US support.
The Kurds are already providing the example of why long-term stability is very much in question, unless "stability" is having the Turkish army play tag with the PKK across Northern Iraq.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Allying ourselves with Saddam to counterbalance the threat of Iran was a pragmatic geostrategic move. Not pretty and not anything to be proud about, but given the choices facing the leadership at the time....
Etc., etc. That's all very well and good, but you're doing a fine job of proving my point, by taking with one foot planted in the land of Kumbaya and the other in the world of realpolitik. Do you think that the United States is the only player here that's capable of taking a pragmatic view of it's alliances and partnerships? As I said, every faction here has been on the shitty end of the pragmatist's stick at one point or another in the past thirty-odd years. They've learned the disingenuous handshake from the masters.
Expecting that throwing weapons and cash to various Iraqi factions will create a stable democracy or a long-term ally doesn't give them much credit -- a Shih Tzu learns faster than that.
What you're missing here is that I'm not arguing what was or wasn't Washington's finest hour. I'm arguing that it's naive to expect to build a land of happy, friendly allies in a stable democracy by giving weapons and money to assorted thugs whose loyalties (and commitment to a stable Iraq) is very much in question. That's what the column is suggesting.
You want a happy, stable, democratic Iraq, you have to commit forces there for much longer, and at a much higher level, than any politician in the US is willing to do.
- NegPhil - 02-24-2008
Notorious Neo-conservative and Faux News Corporation pundent Charles Krauthamer, sets up a false argument in his propaganda statement. The current state of affairs is precisely what the war planers intended. The Democrats will have no choice. They will have to execute the "Three State Solution" just as the Council on Foreign Relations planed.
The problems will not resolve until we admit that the billions of dollars in oil, natural gas and drugs are the target. Until those issues are dealt with in fair and equitably terms the conflicts will continue and stable government is impossible.
- VioletlightHeron - 02-24-2008
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:If the United States and the West had made more of an effort to provide money for basic infrastructure after the withdrawal of the Soviets....
But they didn't, so the assertion that we might have had long-term allies falls flat. The fact is that, historically, it hasn't worked.
Are you arguing here that providing basic infrastructure and social services aid as part of a long term stabilization plan doesn't work? I could mention the Marshall Plan but I think you already know that so I'm confused by what you meant here.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:When Iran was still a US ally, and Iraq was buying its weapons from the Soviets, the US supplied weapons and advisors to Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq. When the Shah fell, the advisors gathered up the heavy weapons, and said "Sayonara." Saddam then overran the Kurdish rebels and kicked the shit out of them, and once they translated from the Japanese they became rather cynical about US support.
The Kurds are already providing the example of why long-term stability is very much in question, unless "stability" is having the Turkish army play tag with the PKK across Northern Iraq.
Thanks for the history lesson here. I'm not sure the PKK has the level of support from the Turkish Kurd/Iraqi Kurd populace to remain more than a irritant to the Turkish and Iraqi governments. If you remember, the PKK is strongly influenced by Marxist thought and there were a couple of articles in Foreign Policy and NY Times suggesting that the Turkish Kurd populace has basically grown tired of the low-level terrorism the PKK has inflicted on the populace they are supposedly fighting for. I don't believe the recent incursion by the Turkish Army into Iraq is anything to go into a Chicken Little panic about. I think Gates and Washington are doing what they should be doing; pressuring Turkey to withdraw its troops and pressuring the peshmerga leadership to help US troops root out PKK bases in the mountains of Northern Iraq. How much success Gates will have doing this is a mtter for the future.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Etc., etc. That's all very well and good, but you're doing a fine job of proving my point, by taking with one foot planted in the land of Kumbaya and the other in the world of realpolitik. Do you think that the United States is the only player here that's capable of taking a pragmatic view of it's alliances and partnerships? As I said, every faction here has been on the shitty end of the pragmatist's stick at one point or another in the past thirty-odd years. They've learned the disingenuous handshake from the masters.
Expecting that throwing weapons and cash to various Iraqi factions will create a stable democracy or a long-term ally doesn't give them much credit -- a Shih Tzu learns faster than that.
What you're missing here is that I'm not arguing what was or wasn't Washington's finest hour. I'm arguing that it's naive to expect to build a land of happy, friendly allies in a stable democracy by giving weapons and money to assorted thugs whose loyalties (and commitment to a stable Iraq) is very much in question. That's what the column is suggesting.
You want a happy, stable, democratic Iraq, you have to commit forces there for much longer, and at a much higher level, than any politician in the US is willing to do.
I'm beginning to think we were reading two different articles.
Krautkramer Wrote:"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008
This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.
Krautkramer is no Pollyanna in this article, nor is he suggesting that everything is hunky-dory in Iraq. What he is critcizing is the short-sighted impulse by the Democratic presidential candidates and their Congressional leadership to abandon a crucial foreign policy battleground simply because their base is behaving irrationally and pandering to this irrationality will get them votes and political power. I agree that the new political leadership that will be elected in 2008(I'm hoping it's McCain, despite his drawbacks in other areas) will need to sell the American people on the need for a long term political and economic comittment to the people of Iraq.