Of course, of course. Since it goes without saying that Afghanistan was he crux of whatever the problem was (is) it tends to not be said; Iraq killed Afghanistan.

With the future so cloudy, no good options in Iraq, Afghanistan in a flat spiral, Saudi Arabia and Iran showing signs of a major break, etc., it begins to look like larger-scale war is in the offing. Thanks, George, and all the regime-change enthusiasts.

Steve Kyle

I remember hearing that it was al Sadr who was the main support for Maliki. Is this true? And if so, wouldnt attacking his militia amount to sawing off the branch we are standing on? Who is next in line to be the US's government?

How quickly the November hopes for a return to rational foreign policy have disappeared. Everytime I listen to the comments from President and the White I shake my head in disbelief. Did I miss someting here? Didn't the election mean anything? The Iraq Commission? I try to imagine what they are thinking and I just can't get there. When I get close, all I see is the spectre of a constitutional crisis and fiscal bankruptcy at home and the end of any pretence at moral authority in the conduct of the war against terror. They can't be serious.

And if you were a Sunni, how would that look to you?

Can 160,000 American troops conquer Sadr City without turning it into a new Fallujah? How many of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths are we willing to inflict in the process?

It was clear from the beginning that installing democracy in a Shi'ite dominated population was going to result in a Shi'ia dominated government, that would be the natural effect of having an open vote. And given that the leadership of the Shi'ias are either friendly to Iran or are Shi'ia fundamentalists or with Sistani both, the expected end result would be a fundamentalist Iranian friendly regime.

It's not like nobody thought about this. Cheney early on was asked what we would do if this result occured. His reply: "That is not going to happen".

Magical thinking. It enfuses this Administration. And certainly it is continuing here. Want a jolt of reality? Attacking Sadr will bring Hezbollah into action in Lebanon and elsewhere in ways that will make the remaining neo-cons blanche. And I would not like to be the average GI taking R&R in Dubai or Bahrain post surge or escalation. Or for that matter in Munich

I can hear it know "Who could have predicted that German club bombing?" "Who imagined Hezbollah would launch massive attacks on Westerners in Beirut? Or send hundreds of rockets into Israel?"

Well anyone who thinks a second about what would happen if we take out Sadr. This surge will result in a flipping disaster. And that is if it works. If it doesn't work we may be talking Dien Bien Phu Deux.

. . . [Afghanistan] where . . . the international terror threat started . . . . Vali Nasr

Munich; Entebbe; Iran Hostage Crisis; Marine Barracks; Klinghoefer; Khobar Towers; East African Embassies; USS Cole?

Oh, I forgot. 9/11 changed everything.

If Democrats can interrupt their book tours and View appearances long enough to stare into the abyss, I hope they will at least make the Bush administration go on the record for every cent past, present and 50 years into the VA's future for what this fiasco is going to cost.

It's probably a mistake to assume "the surge" is actually designed to take out al-Sadr or accomplish any other specific objective.  Remember, we've been hearing a lot of loud rumors about the US taking sides with the Shia in the civil war against the Sunni.  You really can't do that and fight al-Sadr at the same time.  We've also been hearing about air strikes against Iran.  The surge could be useful there as well.  My point: who the hell knows?  We certainly shouldn't be taking the Administration at face value when it says the surge is meant to "control the militias."

If I had to guess, the surge is first and foremost a delaying tactic, since the White House has no idea what it will do next, strategically speaking.  With the surge, the Administration is taking advantage of McCain's foolish attempt to distinguish himself from the President's Iraq policy by taking up McCain's call for more troops.  St. John had been hoping to enter the '08 election saying, "all along I wanted more troops, but the Administration refused."  Now...I'm not sure what he'll say.  At any rate, it's a boon for the White House.

So I think it's a mistake to look at the surge the precursor to any specific plan in Iraq.  The surge could do any number of things for the Administration from giving them more troops for teaming up with the Shia to putting troops in place if they bomb Iran.   What do we know is not on the table?   Withdrawal.  Which is why this is an escalation, not a surge.

Vali: First let me thank you for your excellent posts. It's a pleasure to read someone like you, who clearly knows what he's talking about. I hope you will continue to post here regularly.

While I agree that Afghanistan is falling to pieces and that's not something in which anyone should rejoice, I question its importance in the so-called war on terror. 9/11 was conceived mostly in Germany, Spain, Florida, and Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously think that without the Taliban, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I believe it would have happened anyway. The Taliban harbored al Qaeda but had nothing else to do with terrorism.

London, Madrid, Bali, etc, prove to me that Afghanistant's importance has been greatly exaggerated.

"Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani"

Hasn't Sadr done more to undermine Sistani than anyone else?

If the grand strategy behind Iraq was to transform the Middle East (what Thomas Barnett calls "the Big Bang") the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law. If the idea was to stop people like the Taliban from restoring the Caliphate, Sadr is the main target in Iraq.

Sadr is the front man right now in that battle. If we don't try our hardest to stop him from gaining power, the whole idea was a waste of time. Well, except for the Kurds, but the my point is essentially true.

Waziristan and Bajaur are right up there as well, but the "neo-Taliban" have less influence in Kabul than Sadr has in Baghdad. Aweys might be a close third, and we are going to rely on Ethiopia to do the dirty work there.

Letting these people get their way (i.e. appeasement) is how 9/11 happened in the first place. Maybe if we had "pre-emptively" attacked the Taliban we could have prevented much of this brutality.

Does anyone think that the proposed 'surge' in troop levels in Iraq maybe an attempt to build up troops in preparation for an attack on Iran instead?

Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh were on Democracy Now! this morning and seemed convinced that we are on the path to war with Iran.

Building up troop levels in Iraq may be a disguised attempt to deploy a portion of the troops needed for an attack on Iran.

If the grand strategy behind Iraq was to transform the Middle East (what Thomas Barnett calls "the Big Bang") the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law. If the idea was to stop people like the Taliban from restoring the Caliphate, Sadr is the main target in Iraq.

Indeed, this was the neoconservative theory that underpinned the President's various claims about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's human rights abuses, and Iraq's connection to 9/11.  And that theory has been thoroughly, comprehensively debunked.  I can't say it clearly enough: the neocon domino theory for the Middle East that you advocate is a total and absolute failure on every level. 

The neocons, supported by like good folks like yourself, mistakenly believed that if they toppled Muslim governments, those governments would magically reform as Western-friendly liberal democracies.  It was magical, dangerously deluded thinking, and hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of it.  As we see in Iraq, Palestine, and perhaps now Lebanon, nothing could be further from the truth.  You can topple the regime, but your ability to replace it with something you like is damn near impossible.  Insofar as the neocon plan "succeeded" it did so to America's great detriment, by setting the stage for Islamic fundamentalism to thrive throughout the Middle East. 

With this in mind, it's ironic that you say the following:

Sadr is the front man right now in that battle. If we don't try our hardest to stop him from gaining power, the whole idea was a waste of time. Well, except for the Kurds, but the my point is essentially true.

The war in Iraq has been much, much more than a "waste of time," GHaines.  It has been an unmitigated disaster of immeasurable, epic, mind-boggling proportions.  In every way possible.  We will be living with its ugly results for decades. 

Sadr is nothing more than the next fundamentalist to fill the void in Iraq, followed by the next and the next, if you "take him out."  You can't kill his followers because they are the people you came to liberate.  And if you kill him, his followers will turn on you. You see, Iraq is broken.  The only leaders who stand a chance there are men like al-Sadr, who are willing to kill with impugnity.  This is George Bush's fault.

Actions have consequences.  Sometimes dire consequences.  Take al Sadr, just for an example.  I'll assume you're aware that al-Sadr is the primary source of political support for Prime Minister Maliki, who was hand picked by the Bush Administration.  What do you think will happen if US forces target al-Sadr?  Will the Shiite majority in Iraq support such a move?  Or will we suddenly be fighting a two-front war against both the Shia and Sunnis?  It is a foolish, dangerously deluded idea - like so many things neocons suggest.  It is based on magical thinking rather than evidence-based analysis.  And it gets people killed.

As I said in my post, Grcutter, I think it's a mistake to assume the "surge" is attached to any single objective beyond buying the Administration time.  The escalation could be in preparation of bombing Iran.  It could be preparation for taking out al-Sadr.  It could be the first step in teaming with the Shia to crush the Sunnis.  Who knows?  I don't think the Administration does, at least not with any certainty.

It is an escalation.  With more troops, the White House can do more things (most of them foolish or counter-productive).  In addition, it is a delaying action, since it will take time to ramp up the forces and analyze the results.  

It's important to look at all the possibilities.  Bombing Iran is certainly one of them.

Uh, oh! Watch your language. This is what gets GHaines upset:)

What gets me upset is all the deaths in Iraq for nothing... and all the deaths to come for nothing except W's ego.

Tom

The Taliban were engaged in a form of terrorism against their own people. They also gave Al Qaeda a safe haven from which to gather resources and to work out the plot.

Why does London, Madrid and Bali prove Afganistan is less important? Just because the actual perpetrators were native to those countries? Where did they get their resources. I would agree that Afghanistan might over stressed as Pakistan might be the bigger problem when it comes to terrorism. Whether it is attacks in India or shielding Bin Laden.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

My friend Richard, a military historian with friends who are U.S. officers in Iraq thinks that is precisely the point of the Surge. As he said 20,000 troops translates into about 5,000 combat troops not enough to do much in Iraq but enough to support an air campaign against Iran. He fears a Bush in '08 freed of any personal election worries and able to get around the War Powers Act will launch a strike in the Summer of 2008.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law.

Sharia law is just Islamic law. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been governed under some system of Islamic law, or combination of Islamic law and secular law, for 1400 years.

Do you really think we should go to war against sharia? Isn't the legal system of their own countries a matter for Muslims to decide? Wouldn't Muslims rightly conclude that a war aginst the spread of sharia is a war against Islam?

If we attack the Sadrists, we will be doing the Saudi's dirty work for them, while they pretend clean hands. That would be madness. The Saudis get what they want, while we make more enemies. Sistani has his own death squads. We should not take sides in that particular contest.

If the House of Saud is genuinely concerned about having to take up for the Sunnis if we leave, we should use that as leverage to get the Saudis to make less mischief and actually play a constructive role. We are getting played.

"Sharia law is just Islamic law. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been governed under some system of Islamic law, or combination of Islamic law and secular law, for 1400 years."

Exactly. Look how well that has worked out. Everywhere Sharia Law goes, it proves to be an anchor. We have had our Constitution and Free market economy for a little over 200 years and look where we are.

"Do you really think we should go to war against Sharia?"

We already are and it wasn't our choice. What do you think bin Laden, Aweys, Sadr, the IMU, Hizb ut Tahrir et al are doing? They are trying to spread Sharia law.

"Isn't the legal system of their own countries a matter for Muslims to decide?"

Muslims with guns, or Muslims without guns? I think we should take the side of the Muslims without guns.

If you don't understand the impact of what you are saying, here is some reading material for you:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-rape24nov24,1,1862913.story?coll=la-news-a_section

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050704-115126-3150r.htm

"Wouldn't Muslims rightly conclude that a war against the spread of Sharia is a war against Islam?"

If that is true, then Islam is not worth defending. I don't think it is true, though. There are millions of Muslims who believe women should learn to read, men can shave if they want, etc. They aren't all "chop off your hand" or "mutilate your genitals" types.

I think what we should be talking about on this blog is how do we get those moderate, Muslims to believe in what we offer?

How do we get people in Lebanon to believe in Liberal, free market, Constitutional Democracy instead of Sharia? I think first we have to believe in it. We have to believe in its power to transform people and societies. We have to believe in its empowering abilities. Most of us on this blog certainly do not.
Even if we believed that our system was a gift that we were lucky to have, how to do convince them to believe it? How do we win over the people in southern Iraq?
How do we win over the Somalis?
How do we win over the Uzbeks?

The dictator of Turkmenistan just died, which means those people now have an opportunity to transform their society. Will we help? How do we do that? Can we prevent Islamists from taking the country over?

I would love to hear ideas. I would love to hear creativity. Can we have one positive thread here or does everything have to be negative?

"Most of Saddam's crimes were committed in the course of stamping out Islamic Fundamentalism. Is our position now that he just wasn't moving fast enough?"

No. My position is that Saddam, and people like him fomented Islamic Fundamentalism in the first place. Nasser killed Qutb. Karimov brutally oppresses Muslims. The Saudis kill Islamic Fundamentalists every day.

Iraq was, and is, about getting to the root of the problem that exploded over our heads on 9/11. The status quo of working with dictators has consequences. Toppling Saddam and growing a liberal democracy in Iraq, and stoking the fires so that it spreads around the Middle East is a grand strategy to deflate the tires on the Islamist truck that is barreling at us.

I don't think killing Muslims helps, however we can't establish a safe environment, we can't help them build schools, organize unions, start buisnesses and the like while people are shooting at everyone and blowing up cars near crowds.

In the meantime, a new problem has emerged. People in the Middle East have faith that groups like the Mahdi Army can provide for them, so they can win elections. Hizballah did it, Hamas did it, others can probably as well. The new question is, how do we stop that from happening?
Here is a great paper about the possible strategies and the limitations.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus61.pdf

Aside from the military side to Iraq and Afghanistan, we are running a political campaign. Our candidate is Liberal Democratic western values. Their candidate is Sharia Law.
Sharia Law is backed by Allah. It gives the people something to believe in. It satisfies their hunger to deeper questions. It gives them meaning to life.
Our vision, our values, as you can see from reading many of the posts, is dying. Our vision inspires Americans as much as Joe Lieberman. Patriotism is sneered at. Until we can reverse that problem, we will never be able to compete with Sharia. The sad thing is that our product is so much better, more fulfilling, more empowering, yet we can't, don't and won't sell it because we don't like the product ourselves.

We don't believe that Liberal, free market democracy is good for them, so why should they believe it?

Positive thinking is one thing. Magical thinking is quite another. I don't see any rational basis for thinking that what you and I believe can change objective social realities in Arab countries.

And the power of liberal democracy "to transform people and societies" isn't the issue here. Everybody on both sides knows it can do that. The issues are whether the subjects actually want such a transformation, and whether attempting to bring about such a transformation by force is likely to make the transformation appear more desirable.

We have to believe in its power to transform people and societies. We have to believe in its empowering abilities. Most of us on this blog certainly do not.

Believing in angels or miracles or ghosts is fine in your personal life.  It is no way to build a foreign policy, however.  The magical thinking of neocons has already costs hundreds of thousands of lives.  Why would any rational person continue to believe in it?

Those of us in the reality based community understand that it is possible to influence and even transform authoratarian societies.  One need look no further than Asia, where we have seen communist enemies like China and Vietnam gradually transform into predictable, stable nations through the power of diplomacy and economic incentives.  In the real word, transforming societies takes time, patience, and a willingness to take one step back for every two steps forward.  This process requires experience and knowledge and the professional know-how of people who understand other societies and how the world works.  In other words, it requires grownups, not 23-year old interns from AEI, who (heart) GW. 

(Non-Snark Alert: If you want to see positive, creative ways to influence and transform societies, look at what has worked over the last 30 years.  We won that little thing called the Cold War without ever firing a shot at the Soviet Union.  If you think in terms of decades instead of years, transforming societies becomes a lot more realistic.  If you think in terms of economic engagement and patient-but-hard-nosed dipomacy instead of regime change, your magical thinking becomes realistic.  We now return to our regularly scheduled sarcastic critique of neoconservatism...)

In the magical land of neocons, countries magically transform based on the magic of regime change and democracy.  It is a land where the normal rules of reality don't apply, where wishes are ponies and everyone gets what they wants, without ever having to wait or do any work.  If that's where you want to live, it's fine with me.  But please don't try and sell me on it.  I loved the Lord of the Rings, but in real life, I rely on things like facts and evidence, not magic.

GHaines,

I'm going to respond to your post in a totally non-sarcastic way.

Obviously, both actions and inaction have consequences.  I think we can agree that total inaction in the face of the Taliban or Darfur is a mistake.  So we have some common ground.  Our disagreement stems from the type of action we, as a nation, should take in these circumstances.  We know that regime change in the Middle East is a failure because we've seen it with our own eyes in Iraq.  It is essential that we observe, learn from, and react to reality.  So when we think of about taking action in the Middle East from now on, we need do the following in our minds: regime change.  It simply does not work.

Indeed, Iraq has taught us some harsh lessons about the limits of American's military strength and what can be accomplished through the application of military force in the Middle East.  We can also look to Israel's recent conflict with Hezbollah for a similar lesson - namely that laser guided missiles won't help you against insurgents who embed themselves in local populations with automatic weapons and missile launchers.  Reality has spoken: we cannot win these types of wars.  We must respect reality.

This is not to say that military options never exist, of course.  If a nation is foolish enough to declare war on the United States, they would face the full wrath of the American military and would see their country destroyed.  That's still a pretty strong deterrent, even if guerrilla wars are off the table. 

But if you're talking about a situation like the Sudan or Afganistan in the late-90's, where no threats are being made against the US, but bad things are going on, we must figure out different actions, beyond regime change.  The neocon method is a failure.  That much is clear.

I would argue that a return to the hard-nosed diplomacy of the Cold War and the economic incentives of the post-Cold War period are our best shot.  These tactics need to be reconfigured and adjusted to reflect the new reality, but they are far more proven methods of influencing foreign societies than regime change.  Since 9/11, the president has largely ignored these methods.  (It is no suprise, however, that the President's only success on the North Korea issue came as a result of persuading the Chinese that we share common interests.  This is how diplomacy works.  You locate a country you know has influence on the enemy, and apply diplomatic pressure on that country as a means of influencing the enemy.  It is a tricky mix of persuasion, coercion, and bribery - which is why it must be performed by level-headed professionals, not hot-headed idiots like John Bolten.) 

If the next president picks these methods up and they fail, I will be the first to admit that reality has spoken and that we must find still another way.  For now, however, they represent attractive alternatives to the failed policies of the neoconservatives.

Our vision, our values, as you can see from reading many of the posts, is dying. Our vision inspires Americans as much as Joe Lieberman. Patriotism is sneered at. Until we can reverse that problem, we will never be able to compete with Sharia. The sad thing is that our product is so much better, more fulfilling, more empowering, yet we can't, don't and won't sell it because we don't like the product ourselves.

This is hogwash.  The vast majority of commentors on TPMCafe would love to see the Middle East become a more western-friendly region, with liberal democracies springing up that respect human rights and eschew terrorism for the marketplace of ideas, modernity, and a respect for minority rights.  If we wanted to, GHaines, we too could speak in terms of soring rhetoric about American ideals and the promise of freedom, democracy, and human rights for all.  We don't because reality tells us that something very different is happening in the Middle East.  We see that the actions of the United States are encouraging and enabling Islamic fundamentalism.  We see that for all your soring rhetoric, the policies you advocate achieve the exact opposite of what you urge. 

Here's the reality: Iraq is a blood-soaked, murderous killzone where 50-100 people are found dead, with drill holes in their body, around Baghdad, every single day.  Groups like the Mahdi Army and Hezbollah offer protection from the death and destruction people see around them.  Iraqis and Lebonese and Palestinians are forced to embrace militant groups because they have no hope, or they are so enraged by the actions of the US, or Israel, or their sectarian rivals, that all they can see is revenge. 

How do you expect to "sell" liberal democracy in this environment?  The death and destruction we see on the news in Iraq is a direct consequence of US actions.  You expect Iraqis to response positively to this reality?

I'll try to answer this confusion.

If killing Qutb was counter-productive, why are we encouraging the death penalty for Saddam? Would you apply it to Osama? (It would be nice to have that choice, wouldn't it?)

Our Liberal Democratic values include various human rights, among them the right to sneer at patriotism, although that is one of those straw men you complain about. Note the large number of Iraq vets that ran as Democrats in November. There is no more a war on patriotism than on Christmas.

So the root of the problem was Saddam? News to Osama, that. Wasn't presented that way, either. AQ links were an add-on to the main issue, WMD. Ironically, the only solid link to a terror group is to MEK, who Saddam exploited to harass Iran. He had little control over Ansar-al-Islam, but was content to let them harass the northern Kurds.

The root of 9/11 may have been Qutb, for whom the death penalty was (your point) a mistake, but the development of Al Qaeda found its real flowering in Afghanistan, which is a lesson in failed states. In our zeal to hasten the demise of USSR ( a very mixed blessing) we exacerbated the fragmentation of Afhghanistan, with the observed consequences.

In our zeal to replace Saddam we exacerbated the internal tensions in Iraq, with the observed consequences.

Perhaps we have found a point of agreement, though. You rightfully extol Liberal Democratic values as a contrast to Sharia, which is given by Allah. Our values are chosen by men and women. One thing we have chosen is to argue enthusiastically and resist authoritative Pronouncements.

All should read Jonathan Schell's The Unconquerable World" on this point. These days, if a people decides it is not defeated, it is not (unless dead).

"... doing the Saudi's dirty work for them..." Once again.
Tom

There are plenty of what-if's you can think about.  To even have a chance of "doing it right," however, the Administration would have needed to commit at least twice as many troops from the very start, then fundamentally re-thought every subsequent step along the way.  It's easy to forget that the wheels were already coming off the occupation within two months of the fall of Baghdad.  It's easy to go back now and suggest how things could have been done better.  Yet the facts are the facts: the war was based on an erroneous, dishonest premise (WMD, human rights) and executed in a manner that was so far from adequate that imagining what would have been adequate is just about impossible.

I think an extremely strong argument can be made that even if the post-Saddam plan had been executed perfectly, it was doomed to fail, due to the difficulties inherant in containing a modern urban insurgency.  Moroever, even if it wasn't doomed to fail, it would have taken such a herculean commitment of money, men, and resources that we'd never do it again.

Is your suggestion that things could have gone better "magical"?  Perhaps not.  But it is, at best, an abstract theory, unconnected from the reality we see on the ground in any way, shape, or form.  There is simply is no evidence that suggests that this occupation ever had a chance of succeeding.  Sure we can imagine things that the Administration could have done differently, but it's mere conjecture and theory. 

I find reality much more persuasive.

"I think an extremely strong argument can be made that even if the post-Saddam plan had been executed perfectly, it was doomed to fail"

So then don't waste time criticizing the nation building failures.

Either going in the first place was a bad idea, because we are incapable of effecting change...

OR

We are losing this battle because of poor decision making after we stopped dropping bombs.

I think the latter is closer to the truth. I think the situation is still salvageable even with the mistakes, so it follows that I think without those mistakes, it could have been surprisingly successful and viewed in a much different light.

I think we need to spend a lot more time figuring out how to effectively nation build, and one part of that learning process begins at home.

If we can get into New Orleans and turn it into a place with great schools, low crime, low drug use, low violence, powerful innovative economy, etc., we can apply those lessons to other places. For our sake (as a nation) and the sake of the people in Darfur or Uganda, I think we should focus on this.

Let's examine how we are turning around Harlem. Let's look at the revitalization of Baltimore.
Let's engage the world more, not less. Let's hire more Uzbeks, Arabs, Somalis, etc to work for USAID or the NED. Let's connect people who know how to turn communities around with people who know the local culture in Osh or Baidoa.

Let's learn how to translate our successes into their successes.

Instead of a Department of Homeland Security, how about fixing our international agencies? How about working with NGOs to build a force of Americans that can go somewhere and give people the tools to provide for each other so that they don't have to turn to Hizballah or Hamas for medicine, garbage pick up, hope and a meaning of life?

Can anyone else take my challenge and think about what we can do to have a positive impact on the failed states or transitioning democracies in the world?

With all the bright, educated people on this site, you would think someone can come up with good ideas.

While the West had its role in the in the Middle East you left out the Soviets. Many of the groups including the Taliban, were created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan largely, not not exclusively by the Saudis and the Pakistanis.

The other group you left out are the Arabs. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, in many ways the intellecutal godfathers of all the Sunni radical groups were a response to Nasser's secular military government. Nasser promised glory, getting rid of israel, and a job for every college graduate. He could deliver on none of those promises.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

In re Qtub v. Nasser -- good points. But are Egyptians Arabs? Consider Sadat (Egyptian nationalist) v. Nasser (pan-Arab egotistic opportunist). Your thoughts?

I don't know.  Sulphur content's awfully high.

So a "surge" strategy to attack specific militias must be based on evidence that with less "military" power on the streets their respective political leaders will be more amenable to working together in a national unity government? That is a causal link that I cannot defend, even if in the abstract I assume military success.

But to return to the real world, the probability that that the US surge will substantially reduce the power and motivation of the various fighting forces is infinitesimal.

I keep think of Tom Friedman, on one of the Sunday shows, saying that the primary motivation of each group, Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, is justice. If he is correct, political and street fighters will only stop when each group achieves justice or decides they don't need to anymore.

The opponents of the surge need to keep demanding that the Administration state clearly mission of the new troops or the new mission of the large number of all troops. What the troops do and what their military success will look like?? The best Congress can do is communicate a clear set of questions and measurements before the surge that will be used as the do oversight during the surge.

So "act of terror" means .... what, exactly. Any method of delivering munitions that we don't use ourselves?

Either going in the first place was a bad idea, because we are incapable of effecting change...

OR

We are losing this battle because of poor decision making after we stopped dropping bombs.

Even if the second case is true -- reasonable people can disagree on this -- it simply does not follow that the Iraq situation is still salvageable now.

You believe that it is, but I don't see a reason why, except that you really, really want to believe.

But you