Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Agreed.
I think there is more of a chance with a Sunni successionist movement. The Kurds and Shiites seem to agree on most everything. They both want a federated state and don't seem to conflict much. It is the Sunnis that are the problem and they are a small minority.
The problem is the Sunnis want their cake and eat it to. The want a centralized government and they want control. The reality is if they want control then the country will have to divide. The Sunnis and Kurds don't have a problem with that. The Sunnis do. They are upset with the constitution because it is not central enough. They also want control, but in a unifed democrat government they will not have control. They are just slowly have to come to terms with the fact that they do not have the divine right to run Iraq.
The problem is everyone wants us to fail. The other Arab states don't want a functioning demcracy because that will put on pressure for them to form a democracy. The rest of the world will not help because they don't want to be proven wrong in their opposition to the war.
It is my understanding that we have trained many police units and are training more.
I think that we should stay three more years and that is exactly what is going to happen. Until Bush leaves office (or the insurgency dies) we are going to be there. In three years we will be able to train the Iraqi military so they can handle the insurgency. Bush will pull out only when he thinks it is a good idea. We might as well argue what strategies the Giants will use next season. We have just about the same influence. And three years is plenty of time to get the Iraqis up to speed. What is going to happen is going to happen. We and the Senate and the Congress can debate it all we want, but in the end it is Bush's call I think we all know how he is going to handle it. The issue is what will his replacement do, but by then we will have trained anough Iraqis to pull out. So it is a moot point.
|
First, the idea that we shouldn't debate it because Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do is simply silly. We are Americans. We debate. And, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, leaders listen to shifting winds in public opinion that come from debates.
Admit it, you didn't really mean that.
Secondly, I think you prescribe a "stay the same course", which means continuing to do it all ourselves with only token assistance and continuing to assume that if we do the same things but with increasing aid from Iraqis trained by us, the insurgency will ultimately die. The best historical precedents I can think of here are Latin American countries like Peru and El Salvador, but note that El Salvador's insurrection whithered after we essentially withdrew. So, it is possible, but, I think, unlikely. You also assume the Kurds and Shiites will continue to get along, but I think the only thing that unifies them is beating up on the Sunnies.
Most importantly, staying the same course means getting entangled in the Iraqi government as it develops, which strikes me as likely tangling us up in a Civil War. If we stay the same course, I fear we will turn around one day and be in still deeper, and Iraq will be a ball and chain around our country's ankle for a protracted period.
So, if Bush has to eat crow with the UN or has to negotiate hard to involve Egypt or the like involved, I think he should do it.
