Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

When I say finish what we started I mean "see Iraq through to self sustainable government" as I said right after "finish what we started" in an attempt to clarify that.

I think it will take decades, I think we need to accept that and start to deal. Yes I think its horrible that Bush has put us in this position and we never should have gotten to this point, but I think we are worse off if we leave before Iraq really is a viable country with a government.

I also think the legacy of Bush should be one of a complete failure in terms of foreign policy. An abject and utter disgrace to the states and the reason we will be mired in a decades long mess OR leave and leave behind a much bigger mess than when we invaded. Neither choice is pretty because of the actions of the Bush administration (and for that matter because of the people that voted for him and put the "Soldier of Fortune" crew in the oval office) but I think staying on, for even the decades it will take, is the better choice.

I am not sure a Balkan's style civil war is avoidable in Iraq at this point. At the same time, that whole "Pottery Barn Rule" is in full effect here. We broke it, we have a responsibility to pay for it.

I think a "self sustainable government" in Iraq won't be what Richard Perl fantasizes about in some orgasmic contagious democracy way, but it is possible, even if it means accepting a rather authoritarian Shia rule.

Thw whole "weeks not months" thing and the "rebuilding will pay for itself" shit the administration sold were either lies of the grandest magnitude or incompetence of such a level I shudder to think seriously of it. Either way, the half assed way we have run this whole war is a shame.

Any occupation -- ask the Brits -- is about getting local forces trained to an appropriate level, and it can't be rushed like we are trying now. We should have ponied up and accepted at 10 year occupation and spent several years building a professional officer corp in Iraq's civil and national defense infrastructure. Remember, one of the reasons the armies of autocrats tend to suck next to their size, is the autocrat eliminates any real leaders in their ranks because they might be a threat to him.

At any rate, the whole "negotiation with the Sunni insurgents" thing is seriously costing what little moral authority we had here.

David Brooks in the Times the other day talked about what a cost to US power and prestige an abject failure in Iraq would be. Well, you know what, that might not be such a bad thing. Everyone with half a brain now knows that the American Century is over and it isn't about to become the American Millennium. This century will belong to central and south Asia. Certainly in terms of our military prowess and economic might Bush has ushered that in faster than it would have come on it's own, but whatever.

at any rate, what do we have left to lose in Iraq? It is already a training ground and exporting highly trained terrorists to North Africa. Without removing all our troops from ROK and Germany, something that might not be a bad idea, but would never fly, we simply don't have the boots to put on the ground to control it the way we need to-- historically about a 1:50 relationship-- and our civil defense infrastructure is starting to crumble. God forbid we have a bad hurricane season and need the National Guard.

I know this is off topic but why isn't there a big push to impeach Bush? Every one knows he and his staff knew they were inflating their evidence about the WMD's. The outing of the guys CIA wife - if that wasn't a 'everyone opposed keep your mouth shut' statement I don't know what was. They had to have been receiving competent military advice that this would not be a quick campaign. Didn't they fire the General in charge after he told congress the troop estimates were way low? Why is the country just taking this? They are lying at about this at every turn. I still can't see a photo of the VP without thinking of that 'they will be throwing flowers at our feet' crap.
We employed Kenneth Starr for almost the entire Clinton presidency over incidental things and heresay - and yes getting a blowjob in the Whitehouse was a bad thing, but people are getting killed out there - isn't that more serious?
I really just don't get it.

Did I mention it took Bush 0:0:45 to mention Sept 11 and 0:0:47 to say "they hate freedom"?

One more thing

I think this is spot on I am not sure a Balkan's style civil war is avoidable in Iraq at this point. At the same time, that whole "Pottery Barn Rule" is in full effect here. We broke it, we have a responsibility to pay for it.

I think a "self sustainable government" in Iraq won't be what Richard Perl fantasizes about in some orgasmic contagious democracy way, but it is possible, even if it means accepting a rather authoritarian Shia rule.

I dont think we will ever achieve a circle jerk loya jurga based "democracy" but I simply meant a "self sustaining government" whatever it looks like. Sure the more democratic and more secular the better, but stability becomes more important than non realistic ideals. It likely will be a religiously dominated Shia government, not a "beacon" of democracy, but at least a government and the US can then leave (and will that government be better off than before we went in, hmmmm, lets see, depends on whether you are a Shia or not I suppose).

Absolutely true Shmooze. This administration continues to lie and mislead and thats just unacceptable. If ever there was a time we needed to just tell the truth and deal with it, its now, yet Bush cant seem to do that. (Linking Iraq and 9/11 is total bullshit, even if its just innuendo, and linking Iraq and al Quaeda BEFORE the invasion is also bullshit - the only Iraq terrorist ties ever proven to exist were Abu Nidal et all in the early 90s and BEFORE THEN, not in the 2000's and such - that is why what the President says on these matter simply further denigrates the position of the US around the world and further exacerbates the Iraq matter.)