Good Ol' Howie always slyly tries to play impartial but it is clear where he stands. US main stream media and its Mideast cohorts like Dar al Hayat (see above) are nothing but shills for the ruling elites. They all remind me of Joe Biden - full of hot air, enomored by their pomposity, full of self-praise and self congratulations, petty, vicious, blatant liars and never take a position until it is long past obvious. Thus they still cover this president and Iraq as if anyone listens or believes what he says anymore. David is just another of those US plants who trolls the blogs.

It is to Iran's (as well as the 9 Shia provinces which will likely merge federally: note Hakim's recent statements) benefit to have the US army bogged down in a tussle with Sunnis and jihadists for the time being.

If the US were to redeploy as per Murtha, Iran would be very nervous about the "eyes/attention" of the US, which would be freer to view a larger scope. As well, Iran/Shiastan would be at risk in getting dragged into their own major tussle with Sunnis, which is already happening at a certain level.

The problem for Iran is that this current situation cannot last indefinitely. Knowing this, the mullahs are quietly planting seeds, putting down roots of a type of stability favorable to themselves. It is the best they can do for themselves at this moment, but they, like the USA, are involved in a situation with no clearly predictable outcomes. "Unforseen consequences" as Jacques Chirac warned pre-invasion.

You have two groups projecting evil on the other: The mullahs with their "Satan America" and the Bush administration with their "axis of evil".

This unfortunately all too common human psychological propensity does not bode well for the idea of peace any time soon in that region.

I must be stupid.

To me, it would seem that if time-tables are insufficiently sensitive to progress (or lack thereof) and "we'll leave when it's the right time" talk is too vague, we should come up with a specific results-oriented withdrawal plan.

That is, when x happens (and y doesn't), then z number of troops will leave.

Nothing would satisfy everyone, of course, but wouldn't this be closer to what responsible critics of the U.S. administration both at home and abroad are seeking?

Clearly I'm missing something, right? Unless we have no idea what x and y equal . . .

Listen for a change! Nobody is going to micromanage the Middle East and the Arabs in particular. I REPEAT! Before the war, while the western media was saying how wonderful it would be if the Middle East was democratic, they were also reporting the people of the region DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT, favor THE WAR WITH IRAQ! In recent polls in Iraq, 80% of Iraqis wanted American troops out of Iraq. 45% thought it was alright to kill American troops. It is very hard to get the Iraqis to agree on anything, but 80% wanted American troops out!
Everybody agrees that this war will only end through a political settlement, but we cannot impose a settlement on them. They live there! They have to get along with each other! They have to come to some agreement if Iraq is to survive!
There are three options, living together as Iraqis, dying in a civil war as Kurds, Shia, or Sunni, or spliting Iraq into three parts.
As for American troops in Iraq, they have never been properly supported in this war. They have had to beg for armor for themselves and their vehicles. God knows how much money was wasted on Halliburton "supporting" the troops in Iraq, but you could probably fielded a couple of more divisions for the price of privatization. This administration is still more interested in tax breaks for the wealthy, then it is in supporting the troops.
The people who are "directing" this war can't screw in a light bulb without help. I'm with Murtha! I want the troops out of there in six months! They don't need to be caught in the middle of a civil war!

Preach on Roger!

I agree with the Americans leaving Iraq as long as they do what they promised. They promised clean water and a sewer system. They promised to create peace for the people there. They can't go in and create chaos and leave the innocent to the terrorists that the Americans attracted to the area. There was not the unrest and violence that people are experiencing now. Before, all they had to worry about was Saddam. Now they have suicide bombers, that never existed in Iraq before. Clean up the mess, take some energy away from protecting a private corporation (Haliburton) and do some good for the people. They deserve it after dealing with two evil empires, America and Iraq under Saddam. Bless those poor people.

You're right Gael. The responsible thing to do now would be to put Saddam back in power and support him for a few months until he can put things back together again. It shouldn't take him long. Let's hope the Bushies wake up before it's too late and he's convicted.

How about George Packer and Courtney Love sharing their feelings about withdrawal with Duke Cunningham on al-Jazeera?

Hey, I notice you didn't quote the French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said any withdrawal "should be co-ordinated with the local situation in
Iraq and the regional situation." "I think that the timetable should be a global
timetable," he said. "The real timetable is the Iraqi situation."

http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com

Morley puts too much spin on these articles. Both are deeply anti-occupation and want it to end.

By the way, I see we're still using the US media definition of "Pan-Arab", ie western-educated elites from Dubai and Beirut.

Amusing that the Dar al Hayat piece accuses Bush of stealing Biden's plan.

All the Iraq plans made in Washington these days are starting to look pretty similar anyway. They're just painted up in different colors.

Hearing the Arabs and the world talk about us makes you wonder why the government bothers prolonging the war just to maintain the illusion of American resolve and staying power. I think that secret is kind of out of the the bag now guys.

I think it's time to engage the rest of the world on helping out the people of Iraq and helping to maintain peace. The negotiations should be done by someone who is not in the Bush administration or is associated with the administration's policies. I believe the rest of the world would actually listen and be willing to take part. There is nothing wrong with circumventing our president, right. If he can't get it done, let's figure a way to do it ourselves. I'd be happy to help.

Bush - Cutting and Running in Iraq

You do the math...in Iraq
* ~2000 US dead.... ~18,000 hurt.. 10/1 ratio
* ~20-30,000 Iraq people dead ratio 10/1... 200,000 Iraq people hurt

The US has already lost. That's why Bush Administration is backing away from their earlier promises. They are cutting and running. And leaving a country that will continue to have to fight. Not what it was like before the occupation.

As Bush says, "Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight."

Ian: The problem for Iran

Iran faces *zero* problems in Iraq.

It is a well-known and well-supported fact that Iran is the chief beneficary of Bush's invasion/occupation of Iraq.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Islamic Theocracy?

This is an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks?

This guy in the white house we call the president DOES NOT GET IT NO MATTER WHAT.He will not listen no matter what.They will run the U.S military to the ground if we let him do just that.He can give 20 more speeches with those stupid banners behind him and that won't fix this mess.He lost the support that had been gained with faulty information.U.S foreign policy is hated by the world.Mr. Bush is hated by a majority in the world.He created this mess himself,the problem is that we the people and our country will pay the consequences, and after he is done in the white house he will try to play the Ronald Reagan that he will never be and we will be stuck with all this crap.

What 'staying the course' really means
By Robert Dreyfuss

Nearly three years into the war in Iraq, the Bush administration tells us that it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction or Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda, but about America's holy mission to spread democracy to the benighted regions of the Middle East. However, postwar Iraq is anything but a democracy. In fact, if Iraq manages to avoid all-out civil war, it is likely to end up with a government that is fiercely undemocratic - a Shi'ite theocratic dictatorship that rules by terror, torture, and armed might.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL01Ak01.html

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

WHAT FREEDOM BRINGS
The United States is engaged in what President George W. Bush has called a "generational challenge" to instill democracy in the Arab world. The Bush administration and its defenders contend that this push for Arab democracy will not only spread American values but also improve U.S. security. As democracy grows in the Arab world, the thinking goes, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is therefore not merely consistent with U.S. security goals; it is necessary to achieve them.

But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound premise? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html

Miguel: we the people and our country will pay the consequences,

Not just we, but our children, our grand children, our great grand children, and our great great grand children, our great great great grand children, and our great great great great grand children.

How so?

In the ME, Ghenghis Khan is still reviled in coffee shops.

Why?

He invaded Bablyon.

This was over 700 years ago.

BTW: In Iran, Alexander is is still reviled in coffee shops and in street plays?

Why?

He invaded Persia over 2000 years ago.

Bush has screwed over generations of Americans.

9/11 + blah:

Either you enfranchise political Islam within a democratic framework, or it will continue to channel energy into destruction (9.11) and/or nuclear proliferation (Iran).

Daunting challenge, yes, but are there any other bright ideas out there about how to deflate Islamic fascism over the long term?

http://www.slate.com/id/2130883/

http://www.slate.com/id/2131189/

A results-driven timetable for withdrawal is a good idea, but it can't be too specific or rigid. Withdrawal now is not a rational option. The country is still broken.

I opposed the invasion before it happened and I haven't changed my mind. But we cannot leave until the country is stable. That would be the worst possible outcome. As the country imploded it would create a new rogue state - a haven for terrorists like the Taliban-era Afghanistan.

Iran can wait, no matter what any foreign power does the Shias will always be very friendly to Iran, maybe even to the point of joining Iran at some point. Meanwhile America and Britain and the other coallition countries continue to be bogged down and criticised by the rest of the world.

By the time America gets out of Iraq (and I doubt they'll fully withdraw in less than five years) Iran will have a crude but effective atomic weapon and it will be too late to do anything effective about them.

c2tbf: Either you enfranchise political Islam within a democratic framework, or it will continue to channel energy into destruction (9.11) and/or nuclear proliferation (Iran).

Says who?

You?

Do you have *any* evidence contra Gause or is that merely Townhall's, Limbaugh's, or some other nut's point of view?

Gause:

As democracy grows in the Arab world, the thinking goes, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is therefore not merely consistent with U.S. security goals; it is necessary to achieve them.

But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound premise? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no.

From:

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005

c2tbf

Even if democracy were achieved in the Middle East, what kind of governments would it produce? Would they cooperate with the United States on important policy objectives besides curbing terrorism, such as advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process, maintaining security in the Persian Gulf, and ensuring steady supplies of oil? No one can predict the course a new democracy will take, but based on public opinion surveys and recent elections in the Arab world, the advent of democracy there seems likely to produce new Islamist governments that would be much less willing to cooperate with the United States than are the current authoritarian rulers.

From:

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005

Mr Blank-Man "":

A couple points.

I don't care if Iran develops the bomb, as long as the people there can realize their political fulfilment as a society. The vast majority of Iranians are pro-Western and even pro-American, with some caveats of course.

Regarding Arabs: If a more democratic Arab ME becomes hostile to the US national interest, so be it. A lot of our own citizens are hostile to our national interest, depending on how you define it, in case you hadn't noticed. They should be free to do so. If increased terrorism results from a more democratic Arab ME: (1) get real, (2) we'll have a hot or cold war on our hands with no compunction whatsoever. I personally don't buy this clash of civilizations theory.

A democratized Arab ME would probably fall somewhere between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking France on the hostility-to-the-US-national-interest scale. Not very scary. Maybe they'd even produce some funny movies again - the Egyptians made real crack-ups in the 50's.

The world is a risky place and pretending it isn't only makes it riskier. There is nothing less risky than a democratic Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or nuclearized democratic Iran for that matter.

Don't believe the convenient fabrications of the Arab autocrats and their publishing but completely useless co-horts at the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard.

They should have let the Muslim Brotherhood be a functioning political party 50 years ago - it even has an innocuous name ! These madrassas would be nothing more than YMCA's with prayer rooms !

c2tbf

I tried to figure out how in any way your posts are related to mine. There appears to be no relationship at all. E.g. I do not care at all if you do not care if Iran develops the bomb: So what?

c2tbf: The vast majority of Iranians are pro-Western and even pro-American, with some caveats of course. [snip] A democratized Arab ME would probably fall somewhere between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking France [snip]

Again, do you have *any* evidence to back your claims?

I do not care at all about your opinion which is mostly likely based upon a lack of expertise in ME affairs.

Evidence please.

I lived there for a few years, Jesus. Do you base your opinions on being the son of God ?

c2tbf: I lived there for a few years, Jesus

Again, so what?

That does not make you an expert on ME affairs.

That makes you one of many thousands of people who have lived in the ME and have an opinion.

Again, do you have *any* evidence to back your claims?

Or is all what you write your unskilled opinion?

It is obvious that while restating his position of leaving Iraq only after Iraqi forces can face insurgency on their own, Bush has started to lay the ground rules as to what constitues ability of Iraqi forces that will allow US to start withdrawing. Bush has already shifted his positions so many times when it comes to Iraq (remember originally it was Saddam's WMDs that posed threat to US and so Bush had to defend American people from that threat in post 9/11 world) that within six months Bush may be declaring that Iraqi forces have been ready and so US is withdrawing completely. Basically US domestic politics is increasingly dictating Bush's Iraqi policy regardless of how Whitehouse spins it.

Naturally the question arises - will US go back if Iran helps out new Iraqi regime in defeating the insurgency? Will US be able to do anything if once insurgency is defeated and Sunnis are supressed with Iran's help, new Iraqi regime turns on Kurds and supresses their autonomy aspirations? Will US reintervene if Iraqi civil war progressively degenerates into an all-out sectarian war between Sunni and Shiite regimes of middle-east, with Iran and Iraq on one side and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria on the other?

Do you see me writing for Foreign Affairs you crackpot? There's no shortage of "skilled opinion" out there, if you want it. I recommend starting with the links above to Christopher Hitchens on slate.com. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), Mr Morley's little red sign says "Post a Comment."

I'm an American who votes relating my opinion to others who hopefully do the same, whether they agree with me or not. As a country, we're doing things like: (1) not currently pressuring Hosni Mubarak to do anything, despite his police-blockade of polling stations just today. In fact, we continue to sign huge checks over to this human farce. We're also (2) holding our Iran policy hostage to Israeli paranoia, which means we're also hamstringing our Iraq policy.

Take or leave my opinions, Jack. But please, enlighten me with your own "skilled opinion" (as if that's gotten us anywhere since 1948).

I have lived through all of the Cold War, and spent over three years sitting on the East German border in the U.S. Army. We were facing a world power fully supplied with nuclear weapons. Because the U.S. was also had a full supply, or even had an over supply, of nuclear weapons. The doctrines of mutually assured destruction and containment kept us from a direct conflict.
After that experience, I am not overly impressed by either North Korea, Iran, or Iraq having nuclear weapons. If one of them fired a nuclear missle at us, it would not be mutually assured destruction, and their country would cease to exist. We still have an over supply of nuclear weapons.
We did not need to go to war with Iraq! Saddam Hussein was contained! None of these countries has ever worried me as a nuclear threat. I opposed the war with Iraq, because they were not a serious threat, and we were involved in the war on terror which was and is a serious threat. I will repeat myself again. The people of the Middle East opposed the invasion of Iraq. We needed the support of these people in the war on terror. It was against our, I repeat our, national interest to invade Iraq. Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. No other state or terrorists group from the Middle East attacked us on 9/11. Most of these "terrorists", unlike al-Qaida, have national goals that do not effect the U.S. directly. Think!

PJ - Very interesting story. Does your figure of people in the ME who opposed the invasion include Iraqi Kurds and Shia ? Pardon me for pointing this out, but these groups happen make up over 70% of the country in question.

c2tbf: I recommend starting with the links above to Christopher Hitchens on slate.com

Hitchens is useless neocon-wannabe who cannot read a stroke of Arabic.

He cranks out what Frankfurter calls "Bullshi_t".

How can you voraciously eat up such drivel?

Wow!!

HINT: McSlate is NOT an acceptable source of expert info in re to the ME.

Good luck!

HINT: You don't have to know Arabic to know what you stand for. Get it? Mabrook!

c2tbf: HINT: You don't have to know Arabic to know what you stand for. Get it?

Really?

How profound?

If one wants to understand the ME language proficiency is a minimum requirement.

Hitchens is illiterate.

And so are you.

Later loser.