On Mar 21, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Obviously, this analysis tends to lead one to conclude that we
can't just
stay in Iraq. Yet, it isn't a call for a quick, immediate withdrawal.
Rather, it seems to call for a transition from the US being the
controlling
force to Iraqi forces controlling Iraq. Ideally, of course, it
would be the
forces belonging to the elected central government. More
realistically,
both militia power and the power of elected representatives would
need to be
considered in Iraq. That is probably the best case scenario we can
now hope
for.
Absolutely agree. I don't think anyone is actually calling for the
USA to up and leave TODAY NOW DAMMIT, just to start looking at how to
pull out leaving the best they can.
Worst case is a civil war that turns very ugly, drawing neighboring
countries into the fight. I do not think the Sunni governments
around Iraq
would stand by and let Sunni civilians be killed by the tens of
thousands,
for example.
:/
One final point: it appears that we finally have competent people
on the
ground in Iraq. Training the Iraqi military and having an
ambassador who
actually understands the region are gigantic steps over our initial
foolishness. If we implemented the present strategy, if Bush used
the post
war plan developed by the State Department from the very beginning,
it is
probable that things would be significantly better than they are now.
Indeed, history may show that Bush succeeded, through his
arrogance, in
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
That is possibly the most honest assessment I've seen. Bush's
arrogance (ignorance/incompetence?) has been a vast part of the
problem all along. His desperation to get Saddam at all costs from
the start of his office blinded him to any decent analysis or
contingency for what to do after he'd got him.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
