In other words, we have to wrest power from this administration.  I seriously doubt they'll give it up.  Between the ideologues, deaf and blind to everything but the echoes in their heads and the power mad, Cheney, and the pig-headed Bush, and the my-plan-will-work-eventually-Rummy it's not going to happen.  Just try to put Rove in the back seat.  Your suggestion makes good sense, but it takes people with good sense to appreciate it, and your projected audience has not one iota of good sense.

 You have a great idea Reed!  In addition we need to put the homeland security department under the command of Jimmy Carter and GHWBush, put the Labor Department under the command of Mary Matalin and her husband, put the Justice Department under the command of Janet Reno and Mits Romney, and, and..........    I'll let  you be the one to bring this all about.  You might want to seek divine powers first, just to help a little.  While you are at it, be sure to buy a winning ticket in the next $100 milion lottery for me.

Hoppy in Sacramento

And don't forget to put the FCC under Reed Hundt and Ed Whitacre! Now, that would be fun, fun, fun...

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Pardon my schadenfreude folks...I am told I get a grade of A from the a--hole dept

Muqtada Cemnts Alliance With Sunni Islamists

On February 24, 2006 - 9:48pm jexster said:

J. McCutchen " JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Radical Shiites blew up their own mosque. They did it to marginalize the Sunnis, stir up their "base" and kick us out the door. It's perfect. It's their Reichstag moment.

 Perfect?  Want perfect. Here's perfect:

The Salafi jihad  painstakingly designed the operation so that Sunnis would blame Shiites and Shiites would blame Baathist insurgents, everyone would blame the US and no one would blame Jama'at al-Tawid wa'al Jihad. 

• Curtains for  the lasest Bush Agitprop Farce for Sucess  the National Unity Government Show.
• The Shiite militias win big and tighten grip on security forces.
• Hostility toward the Occupation grows among all factions; as Sadr's withdrawal position gains important UIA allies, his stature grows among Sunnis and with it his political power. As fears of deepening civil war and the specter of chaos loom larger, Sunnis and Shiites (perhaps even Kurds) look to Muqtada to restore national unity, peace and good order - a Hail Mary shot at the buzzer 

That's perfect - a perfect anarchy.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Reed ain't wrong.  Impeachment in place is long shot for sure but just as surely something has to be done before Bush makes a horrible situation more horribler

Highly recommended reading: "THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT...Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush" by Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's March 2006.

This long, well-documented feature article of March "Harper's" is a must read. It concludes as follows

"If, however, the [Senate Judiciary] committee rises to the recognition of its constitutional task--that of correcting the imbalances of power that sometimes can foul the machinery of fair and honorable government--it will take to heart the meaning of the word 'remedy'--a corrective measure, not a punishment. It isn't the business of the Congress to punish President Bush. Any competent court in the country could arraign the President on charges identical to those brought against the crooked executives at Enron and Tyco International (fraud, misuse of stockholder funds, manipulation of intelligence) and send him off to jail dressed in an orange jump suit. Nor is it the responsibility of Congress to sit in moral judgment; the sermons can be left to the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Yale Divinity School. It is the business of the Congress to prevent the President from doing more damage than he's already don to the people, interests, health, well-being, safety, good name, and reputation of the United States--to cauterize the wound and stem the flows of money, stupidity, and blood."

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

cauterize the wound and stem the flows of money, stupidity, and blood."

I read the other day that the Vatican Congregation for the Causes of Saints  was investigating John Paul II"s first miracle

I think I found Miracle 2

 And from the sacred to the profane, Better Late Than Never Caucus..

U.S,. experts explore Iraq exit strategies

By LUCY STALLWORTHY
UPI Correspondent

In a past life, I litigated Corps of Engineers contract appeals for construction contractors.  So may be it's just me, but I never saw a plan that didn't have a milestone for exit

Sooo, as I was fond of reminding (hectoring?) clients' construction managers, "if you do not have a plan, your plan is to fail"

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Some sort of sick joke right?

Stick to media, Reed.

Your plan isn't even remotely possible, let alone feasible.

First of all, the people you suggest as replacements for the idiots in power are basically toadies and don't have any particular ability to solve the problems themselves. Not to mention that the neocons and the forces behind them aren't about to let themselves be tossed out of power that easily. Only a mass revolt by the US population at the polls which basically got rid of every major Senator and Congressman currently incumbent would stand the slightest chance of this - and that isn't even remotely possible. Most of the bozos behind the Iraq war were not elected, they were appointed by the bozos who were elected. Unless you get rid of Bush, Cheney, and the entire Cabinet, these same neocon bozos will remain at the UN, Defense Department and State Department and Department of Justice and continue their conspiracies to destroy this country.

So unless you're advocating immediate impeachment of the entire government, fergeddaboutit. 

Second, the Secretaries of Defense and State need to be removed immediately not just "put at someone's disposal" - that was a joke, right? Since when are Cabinet level officers "at someone's disposal?" Good luck getting that to happen - you might succeed with Rumsfeld, whom everybody agrees is an arrogant asshole (as the late Colonel Hackworth described him), but you'll never get rid of Rice.

Third, getting Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to negotiate a "regional peace plan" without Israel is a total waste of time. Not to mention that Iran is unlikely to cooperate while it faces an immediate threat of military attack by both the US and Israel.  And Turkey is not going to go along unless it gets guarantees that the Kurds will NOT get a federated state with access to Kirkuk's oil revenues - and the Kurds will never go along with that, so there goes your plan.

Fourth, "security zones"?  Since when is Iraq anything like Germany? How do you propose keeping people inside their little "zones"?  Iraqi troops? Don't make me laugh. US troops? So how do they leave then?  A wall like Israel's? Right, that will work...

Fifth, allocation of resources among factions? And how would that happen? Let's leave aside the fact that merely taking cash from the US is enough to make you a collaborator with the occupation in Iraq, if you allocate according to population, the Shia get the bulk of the resources - and the Sunnis and Kurds won't go along with that. There goes that plan.

The only thing you got right was in withdrawing US troops - which needs to be done YESTERDAY. Forget the pipe dream of preventing the collapse of Iraq into an anarchy occupied by terrorists - that's already happened. Get the troops OUT before they all get killed (or have to kill half the Iraqi population) in a civil war should be the US's priority right now. 

Like I said, stick to media issues, Reed. You're useless at geopolitics.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Well, I think the President should appoint a bipartisan Commission on What is to be Done About Iraq.

The fact that GWB won't accept this is what makes it brilliant.  Because if Dems win control of either house of Congress, they could refuse to approve of new funding for Iraq (or something else Bush wants money for). Which means the 2006 elections offer a chance to the American people to make Bush do something he doesn't want to do--hand off control to someone more competant. And this strategy doesn't just stop at Iraq--homeland security, Katrina reconstruction, or any other place in which competance is an issue gives the Democrats a chance to make the election a referendum on the President's past abysmal progress.  It avoids the problem of a lack of consensus on the Dem side on exactly what we should do in Iraq--because there is wide consensus that whatever the current strategy is, it's being implemented incompetently.

I appauld Mr Hundt's idea. But Bush already passed up an opportunity two years ago when there was, perhaps, a chance for a better outcome. Back when the Abu Ghraib horrors first hit the headlines, I wondered if Bush might trim his sails and alter course: fire Rummy and put Powell in charge at the Pentagon, demand Cheney's resignation and move to form some sort of coaltion government with the Democratic leadership. Riiiight. The idea of our mulish, idiot president admitting error, even if it's only to himself, has about as much chance to happening now as it did then. None.

You think the FCC under Michael Powell and it current chairman is better? Daniel A. Greenbaum

I watched it on CSPAN2 and posts a very brief summary about it. It was very interesting. They all want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later.

[Independent Institute www.independent.org/events/detail.asp?eventID=115]

I hope this helps.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Nothing could beat the hypothetical Hundt-Whitacre discussions on the existence or not of natural monopolies in the telecom industry, and the subtleties of intra and inter modal competition...

I hope Reed has his hat and boots ready for some Texan-style Lux and Veritas 

 The unfortunate fact is that the bozos behind the bozos behind the bozos who engineered the Iraq disaster, and ultimately those responsible, are those who voted for an obviously incompetent Bush.  If that don't frost you enough, recall that they then turned around and did it again.

Hoppy in Sacramento

If Saddam would take the job give it to him.

He might be the only guy that can enforce the law west (and east) of the Euphrates. It would spoil Iranian plans. Most Americans would forget the whole thing by the next Super Bowl. Given control again, Saddam might even cut some deals with Halliburton.
 

It could be sold to the Bush base Red states as 'the ragheads deserve him'. 

Why would any leftist or moderate be happy if a politcal party rode to electoral victory by attacking Bush from the paranoid anti-Arab right? I think this dust-up helps to expose the fear-mongering, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim militarist foreign policy of a future Clinton or other DLC Democrat administration. And, of course, we are repeatedly well-informed by the silences: about new Abu Ghraib revelations, about the near civil war breaking out in Iraq, and about the renewal of the Patriot Act (with the lone exception of Senator Feingold).

Great idea Reed, but I'm afraid VLaszlo has it nailed. The Bush Administrationn continues to catapult the propaganda that everything in Iraq is just fine.

I think we'll know when they're ready to admit that they don't have a clue about what to do in Iraq.

It'll be when they start blaming Liberals for the Civil War.

 -Dave Adams-

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Why doees this man still have a job?

"Theres a growing unease with the course of reconstruction, (that) in a sense, we dont really know what were doing," Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East specialist with the Brookings Institution think tank, wrote this month.

Pollack, who calls 2006 a "make-or-break year" for the Americans in Iraq, suggested they rethink their military strategy and provide security for people in central and southern Iraq rather than chase insurgents in the West.

The flatulence of failure

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Blackeyed looks from that Quran book

Bush's salvation is his worst nightmare

Violence began to recede following calls for restraint from Islamic religious leaders, including radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose own militia was blamed for many of the attacks on Sunnis.

On Saturday, al-Sadr's movement joined Sunni clerics in agreeing to prohibit killing members of the two sects and banning attacks on each other's mosques. The clerics issued a statement blaming "the occupiers," meaning the Americans and their coalition partners, for stirring up sectarian unrest.

"We demand that the occupiers leave or set a timetable for the withdrawal," the statement said.



AP

The "Firey" Cleric. That young man is going places.

Why Powell?  Didn't he disgrace himself buy giving his dog-and-pony show to the UN when he knew the intel was false?  This is  an ex-soldier who knew what he was setting up for the young recruits who trusted their government not to do exactly what he helped them to do -- put them in harm's way for a pack of lies.

Powell's name should not be confused with the Powell of the first Gulf war.  The new Colin Powell gave away the honor he had earned.  He gave it to this administration, and he surely knows it.  Why did he do it?  I hate the "good soldier" moniker, because a good soldier does not stab his men in the back.  You want a general?  How about Wesley Clark?  At least he isn't afraid to tell the truth.

I think even Dick Clark, Or Petula Clark, for that matter, have more credibility than Colin Powell.

Jan Knaus

So the bozos (voters) behind the bozos (James Baker, Katherine Harris, et al.) who stole the 2000 election for the bozos(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.)who got in power & appointed the bozos (the neocons) who engineered the Iraq war are at fault. There is another bozo in there also - the Secretary of State for Ohio (Blackwell?) who as co-chair of Bush/Cheney in 2004 in Ohio performed the same election stealing role as Katherine Harris (Secretary of State in Florida in 2000 & co-chair of Bush/Cheney in Florida) did in 2000.

So get out your big fake red nose & giant shoes. Bozo the Clown lives in many reincarnations.

Tom

Isn't bozi a possibility?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

In all my entusiasm to dump on the supporters of this Greatest of All Disasters, I neglected the issue at hand, the main problem with it.

Let's assume that a significant number of Democratic "leaders"  summon the courage to do the right thing. Let's assume further that after they confess their culpablity, the push for just the solution Reed urges...

1. My conlaw expertise doesn't extend much beyond what I learned in First Year, but I suspect that there are separation of powers issues aplenty here
2. Whether or not such an arrangement would pass constitutional muster, with so many potential objections, the Republican true-believers and Coverup Committees could tie this this thing up for at two Congresses
3. None of which is to say that Reed's idea isn't still a viable or even a good one, but just not for the direct objective. Rather, win or lose or buried, Reed has nailed the central issue in Ammerican politics today. Too bad our leaders have their heads so far into Karl Rove's Box they'll never see it

If you are talking about alternative peacekeeping forces, remember the Arab League proposal, introduced by Saudi Arabia, that these be made up of forces from countries that do not directly neighbor Iraq. Otherwise, you are risking severe conflicts of interest.

While I'm not advocating them, why did you leave Syria and Kuwait off the list?

Aside from inherent national biases (e.g., Turkey and Iran having reasons to suppress Kurds, Iran to support Shi'ites and SA against Shi'ites), isn't there something lacking here, such as people from countries with some effective peacekeeping experience? The countries you describe have very little experience in that role. There's no perfect provider, but Pakistan, several Scandinavian nations, Canada, and possibly Malaysia come to mind.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

One of Juan Cole's readers posteda comment about that very idea, an Iraqi as I recall.

There's some concern that the Arab League would only exploit the Sunni disaffections

I suggested AL peacekeeping in Sunni provinces in an email exchange with Cole last summer.

For his latest proposal and reader comments here

Bozo n. - idiot (from the original Latin bozus, pl. bozi)

Using Latin originals in sentences. 1. George W. Bush (maybe Dick Cheney) is Bozus Maximus.

2. The neo-cons are Bozi Minimi.

Tom

I'm sorry, but this triumphalism reeks of failure.

"Progressives" have neither been right nor wrong on Iraq, because the word "progressive", like "conservative", is politically meaningless. Conserve what? Progress towards what? This big-tent vocabulary is great for building coalitions, but in the process, in its lack of a clear and necessary commitment to ideals, loses all claim to right or wrong.

Now there's certainly been an anti-war crowd, but they've been just as likely to be right as wrong. To the extent that the anti-war crowd resisted America's transparent drive for imperialism, suspected that the administration was made up of lying fascist con-artists, and distrusted both competence and motives of both the present administration and its bureaucratic network, they were absolutely correct in their opposition to the war.

But to the extent that they opposed the goal of invading Iraq (i.e., because it was a sovereign nation), they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Nobody disputes that Hussein was scum, yet only some people commit themselves to a policy of taking serious action on the problem. Moral conviction that is empty of action, either symbolic or institutional, is hardly moral at all. Also, Iraq (among many, many others) have long since given up its sovereignty through abuse of human rights.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Call the men in white suits...alert the asylum..
 

Incoming

Iraq unrest offers 'opportunity' for unity: top Bush aide

 

You'll note in the above that "Maverick" McCain has aligned himself foursquare behind his Lord...

No wonder Ken Mehlman's signed on to McCain 2008 for fundraisng eh

 Well the Democratic Party quislings had better unf**k themselves fast lest they get f**kt again

Hillary, Joe..that means you

Dear CVille Dem: I'm just being upfront and leaving a note, unlike you above, explaining why I would rate your post as a 1 ... Your comment about Colin "My Lai cover-up" Powell was right to the point. Although your attempt at the end of your post was lame... Like I'm soooooo SO sorry that my tongue-in-cheek comment didn't meet your higher standards for humor... get a good grip on yourself and watch out for that pie... And please... It does take all kinds so don't fail to check out a little bit of my background here at the Cafe ~OGD~ BTW -- I do hope that all's fine with you and your family and that your new employment has been satisfying...

p.s. Don't people get it? Worldwide, this Iraq, what happens there, it is going to be labeled with YOUR name, America's name. Not just Bush's. It's our reputation at stake. If we are so lucky as to have a Dem Congress after 2006, and a Dem president in 2008, they will be blamed for what is going on in Iraq by the rest of the world whether we have troops there or not. It's ours, we own it. Get used to it and start thinking on that level. You can't shake it off because you were against the war. It IS bi-partisan.

You missed artappraiser's point. Just because someone else created a problem doesn't mean it's not your problem now.

Exactly, Art. For strategic rather than political reasons, I was against the invasion in the manner in which it was done, and especially with the wishful thinking about how easy it would be to keep the peace. That being established, I have said I would be happy to be wrong about the strategic wisdom, should it indeed have a major effect on Jihadist terror.

Republican majority or not, I believe Congress shockingly avoided its Constitutional responsibility in essentially rubber-stamping the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), not debating it seriously or debating a formal declaration of war.

Regardless of the domestic politics, the US, on invading, took on some Geneva Convention roles of the Occupying Power, and there's nothing partisan about it. At this point, a total failure affects the US as a whole, with people worldwide who don't know the US political parties.

US operations there have changed and gotten more focused on the problem of helping the Iraqis develop their own security forces. Yes, there may be continuing terrorism and sectarian warfare, but reports I get from people in Iraq suggest that there is slow but steady progress in improving the Iraqi ability to control areas.

Hate to do it, but I have to bring up my standing offer yet again.

If you people had paid me one billion dollars in advance, I would have taken out Saddam Hussein within ninety days - and saved the US $449 billion (so far), over 2,000 US lives, thousands of US casualties, a hundred thousand or more Iraqi casualties (not counting the million dead Iraqis under the economic sanctions), and so on and so forth.

You now have the same offer for Osama bin Laden (not that I particularly care about bin Laden - or Hussein, for that matter.)

You want to take it before the next 9/11 or what?

If not, shut up.

As for taking out Saddam, that was none of the US's business, morally or otherwise. Certainly not before taking out most of the politicians in the US who are just as corrupt (they just aren't as crass about it as Saddam since our society doesn't allow that - yet, anyway.)

In any event, without the US's cleaning its own house vis-a-vis its policies in the Middle East, attempting to manipulate or support the Iraqis against Saddam would have been hypocrisy on the highest order.

Do try to remember that it was the UNITED STATES WHO PUT SADDAM IN POWER INITIALLY!  He was a CIA asset for years before coming to power! And then the US  supported him in the Iran-Iraq war!

And now you want to proclaim the US has business installing and uninstalling dictators in foreign countries? Is there some difference between you and a neocon?

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

No, we don't wait for denial, unless the goal is purely partisan, making the White House look as bad as possible. The most constructive approach is working on the Congress, possibly breaking Republican control of the House, but in any case, making it easier and easier for Republicans to stand up to the White House.

Yeah Buchanan and Bob Novak (yes THAT Bob Novak) were against it.

Tom

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, or, in this case, House? Is it really plausible to rush to impeachment until you have a consensus, if not control, in Congress?

Saddam was part of a 1963 coup that the CIA was involved in as part of our Cold War approach to reality back then. That was about as wise as our involvement in Vietnam turned out to be.

Tom

Oh dear, the National Question.  "Iraq:  the Switzerland of the Middle East."

I just had this weirdest vision run through my head reading that. Jane Curtin interviewing George Bush - him getting that Roseanne Rosanna-Danna cross-eyed look and muttering "Nevermind". Oh where is Jane when we need her?

Which is why, when the rest of the world finally gets fed up with the United States and takes it down - which historically is inevitable - most of the US citizens will deserve their fate.

Which reminds me of a conversation with a Venezuelan that included the following - "when the allies divide the U.S. into 50 little countries that can never again harm the world......" It was not said in jest, nor in defiance, nor in anger. It was just part of the ongoing conversation in Latin America.

Hey, Olden, Sorry if I hurt your feelings.  I gave you a "2" -- not a "1" because I thought your post was hard to understand.  It didn't make sense to me.  By the way, I never give a low rating because I disagree with the sentiment; I tend to just let those posts go, figuring we are all here to get other points of view.  I base my ratings on how well I feel the post extends the conversation; how informative and thoughtful it seems.  Sometimes humor is an important part of a message.  Sorry (again) if you didn't like my lame attempt a humor. 

I do give low ratings when a post is just mean, or lowers the thread by getting off message with the point of just insulting someone.  Yours didn't do that; I just thought it was not really coherant.

Jan Knaus

I understand the arguments that are made that having a unified Iraq acts as a counterweight to other countries of the region. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile noting that the Kurdish area is operating with considerable autonomy. It does so, in spite of the concerns of Turkey and Iran with a "greater Kurdistan."

Unfortunately, the other regions are far less plausible as independent states. I agree that Arab Shi'a share less with Iranian Shi'a than many analysts assume; I do not conclude that a split would automatically federate the South with Iran.

I am less clear what would happen to the Sunni triangle, which, in many respects, is the most resource-poor. Of the regions, this might be, without external intervention, the most likely to fall under the control of another country: Syria.

The best that Dems can do - for themselves and for the country - is focus in on the Administration's weak spots and try to exploit them.  With Iraq, I continue to believe that a well coordinated, steady campaign to relieve Don Rumsfeld of his duties could eventually work.  Bush will never fire Rummy, of course, but if he becomes enough of a political liability, he might be put out to pasture by Rove.

Given its precarious political situation, I think the Administration would feel a decent amount of pressure to appoint a halfway competant, respected person to replace Rummy.  Pushing Rummy out would be a significant victory for Dems.  Replacing Rummy with virtually any carbon-based lifeform would be a significant victory for the country. 

Policy-wise, Democrats have no power in Iraq.  But the Party's political power is steadily rising in direct proportion to the Administration's dimming star.  If Dems use their emerging political strength wisely, they can begin indirectly nudging the policy in new directions.

Much of the discussion on the TPM Café has turned to asking what can be done – a very good sign. Reed Hundt’s proposal to have Congressional leaders insist on a drastic White House reshuffling, however, strikes me as too narrow a focus, since the Congress and the Courts also badly need fixes. The next American President is not likely to be a significant improvement over the incumbent unless we focus on the power elite that has given us all three branches of the current federal government.

Its oligarchy is actually quite fragile  How many of us, for example, frequent retail chains that contribute generously and exclusively to Republicans? How many of us subscribe to a certain financial publication that recommends torture (eg. its 5/17/04 lead editorial)? When the fuel gauge reads low, how many of us drive by the major integrated oil company that spends the most to deny the existence of global warming? Why are we devoting this wonderful forum to what can be done in theory when there is so much we can do in fact?

I understand most clearly how to focus on reorganizing the Congress. Without fear of losing office now, or actual changes in November, the Congressional leadership isn't going to have the leverage to reshuffle the White House.

How do you propose to fix the judiciary?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

It's all right here!

 IRAQ
An Anarchic Civil War
Center for American Progress

What is to be done? (Reed Hundt a Leninist?)

That is all right here

3. Americans don't like to intervene militarily in civil wars.  This is one of the most consistent findings in my own research about public opinion, and it confirms the findings of many others, most prominently Bruce Jentleson, but also Eric Larson at the Rand Corporation. Public Opinion on Iraq -Richard Eichenberg  

 

Will the Democratic "Leadershp" connect the dots and actually do something about Iraq? That wasn't really a question.

 

I find this argument more compelling than many of the others I've heard. But the fact is, I can still say with a clean conscience that all tyranny ought to be dismantled, along with its causes: it's just that your point indicates that I cannot say in the context of Hussein (or any other dictator of the 20th century) without adding, "The American bureaucracy and foreign policy institutions are themselves tyrannical".

Look. Governing my intuitions on this subject is the doctrine of negative responsibility. It seems to me that a person can be responsible for the wellbeing of another even if they haven't caused the miseries in that other person's life. One example of this concept was the Kitty Genovese case, where a woman was beaten to death in New York, and witnesses did nothing at all to help her: we feel badly about this because the witnesses were responsible. In the same way, we are responsible for the preventable miseries that happen on the world stage. And I just can't see any solutions along these lines that don't involve armed intervention. The question is whether I'm missing some alternative solutions. I'd like to hear them.

Dear Jan: Although I do sincerely acknowledge the apology, my feelings were far from being hurt. In the context of what Ellen had posted where my reply was directed, it may have been quite odd if not taken in the sense of the tongue-in-cheek that I intended. A bi-partisan commission at this stage in relationship to the unadulterated Catch-22 we find ourselves in in Iraq is as illogical as an episode of Soupy Sales' pie throwing making a difference in the jungles of Vietnam circa late 60s... Also, If you'll notice I have elected to re-rate your post from a "1" to a "3" in light of the fact that you took the time to respond and explain your action and I wish not to mess with your Karma rating. I hope that this provides you with more than enough information for a more coherent understanding. That is all. Thanks again for your attention to this minuscule matter.

bluebell

Who said it is fixable?  Some of us who opposed the war from day one did so because we never believed it was doable.  This isn't a tactical problem.  It's a strategic blunder based on a cascade of false assumptions.  The US never could fix Iraq and never can fix Iraq.  Only Iraqis can do it and they aren't likely to do it until they've fought about it long enough to either exhaust all sides or until one side achieves unconditional surrender. 

As to our reputation -- that's already lost.  We ignored the advice of genuine allies.  The world sees our prison camps.  It recognizes our contempt for international conventions and rule of law.  We are left with the monumental folly of kicking off a civil war and sticking ourselves right in the middle of it.  If there is a dumber foreign policy, it would be hard to find it.

bluebell

What you are missing is one of the major lessons of adulthood -- not all problems are fixable.  That's why the addicted pray "Lord grant me the serenity to accept those things I cannot change, the courage to change those things I can and the wisdom to know the difference."  With neo-cons, you have utopians addicted to a delusion of control and power that they do not in fact have.  They claim the power of the gods to reorder the universe for good.  They don't have the power.  We don't have the power.  We can do some things.  We cannot do all things.  We require the wisdom to tell the difference.

I wasn't suggesting things are, overall, going well in Iraq. I am also, however, aware of specific things that say it is not completely bleak.

They may be going poorly, but there are still humanitarian and stabilization things that can be done; I cannot support, in good conscience, an abrupt pullout.

On pretty much a daily basis, I'm in contact with people, military and civilian, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan seems to be improving. At the same time, I hear tiny steps of progress from some people in Iraq.

While I absolutely did not support going in with the Administration's assumptions about the force requirements -- this was long before the WMD issue -- I tend to hold with the Cordesman/CSIS, and indeed some of the key thinkers in the US Army -- that developing Iraqi security forces is the key to the situation. If you are interested, I can point you to the WWII occupation plans for Germany, which were immensely more realistic even given a more familiar culture. Those who forget the past...(reaches for the Santayana Memorial Clue Bat)...

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Some seem to labor under the false impression that the current civil war in Iraq is "low-level" characterized by "sporadic violence" and relatively "minor" casualties.

Without getting into the Lancet argument a few points:

• All deaths aren't reported - especially death squad victims
• Deaths reported in connection with this or that attack are not all deaths that ultimately result from wounds etc inflicted during the attack - people die later
• To understand the true dimension of any casualty count casualty count muliply by 11.3
  • Iraq's Deadly Surge Claims 1,300
    Morgue Figure Eclipses Other Counts Since Shrine Attack
• That would be approximately 15,000 dead in the US - thus far - more on the way to the morgues

Well, artappraiser, I was just riffing, but I appreciate the thought that you put into it on the other thread.  It makes me want to read up on the Ottoman Empire.

It is interesting to look at a map of the area under the Ottomans:

http://unimaps.com/iraq1914/

The Vilayet of Mosul matches up pretty well with the area now under the control of the Kurds.  The Vilayet of Basra falls far short of encompassing the region of Shiite dominance.  But since they were bitter enemies of the Ottomans, it is not surprising.

This region came under Ottoman domination about 70 years after the "former Yugoslavia", at that empire's high-water mark under Suleiman II the Magnificent.  Bosnia succumbed in 1463.  Baghdad fell in 1534.  The first siege of Vienna in 1529 resulted in the loss of Hungary to the Turks.  A century later, in 1634, the Empire concluded a peace with Persia, with borders that endured until 1918.