Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Channel the Violence
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting. I tend to think in terms of either going big or going home. Any recommended reads on how Bosnia came about?
Nick:
Do you think that is where the Baker Commission is going too?
How do you think the growing political uncertainties generated by the approach of the 2008 election will affect prospects for bipartisanship on a lowered-expectations, let-them-exhaust-themselves-first scenario? And how will the militias and insurgency forces, and the forces outside Iraq who must be giving them a lot of logistic support, behave? (Don't you think $60 oil would have made it much more difficult to resolve Bosnia?) And do you think they can be induced to coooperate without a bigger deal that emcompasses the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Do you think that is where the Baker Commission is going too?
How do you think the growing political uncertainties generated by the approach of the 2008 election will affect prospects for bipartisanship on a lowered-expectations, let-them-exhaust-themselves-first scenario? And how will the militias and insurgency forces, and the forces outside Iraq who must be giving them a lot of logistic support, behave? (Don't you think $60 oil would have made it much more difficult to resolve Bosnia?) And do you think they can be induced to coooperate without a bigger deal that emcompasses the Israel-Palestine conflict?
The Baker commission is an inside the beltway shop which will release a report with a lot of platitudes and no real mechanism for action.
Larry Johnson raises a similar point at his blog:
Talk about chutzpah, not only did the Iraqi leaders, whom we are funding and
protecting, bury the hatchet with Damascus, with the tacit approval of
Teheran, but they also called on the United States to stay in Iraq for the
time being. Why should they fight the Sunni insurgents when America can do
the dirty work?
The restoration of Iraqi/Syrian ties comes on the threshhold of an Iranian,
Iraqi, and Syrian summit. So, while the United States displays its
impotence against Iran and Syria, Iraq is moving ahead with plans to enlist
its neighbors in a concerted effort to quell the Sunni insurgents.
Talk about chutzpah, not only did the Iraqi leaders, whom we are funding and
protecting, bury the hatchet with Damascus, with the tacit approval of
Teheran, but they also called on the United States to stay in Iraq for the
time being. Why should they fight the Sunni insurgents when America can do
the dirty work?
The restoration of Iraqi/Syrian ties comes on the threshhold of an Iranian,
Iraqi, and Syrian summit. So, while the United States displays its
impotence against Iran and Syria, Iraq is moving ahead with plans to enlist
its neighbors in a concerted effort to quell the Sunni insurgents.
What if we threatened to switch sides and go after the Mahdi Army first if no political solution is reached? Would that alter the balance of power enough to get the Shi'ites to the negotiating table and would that be enough to get the Sunnis to disown the insurgents and look ot us?
TheHeretic:
That is yet another pipe-dream.
You guys (Americans of all political stripes and persuasions) do not seem to get it; you just do not have the (realized) power to steer the course of events for an alien people half-way across the world.
Yes, I know - WWII and all that. That can be repeated at an enormous cost to US - but you are not willing to pay that price.
So follow what Odom says and leave.
Post a Comment
That is yet another pipe-dream.
You guys (Americans of all political stripes and persuasions) do not seem to get it; you just do not have the (realized) power to steer the course of events for an alien people half-way across the world.
Yes, I know - WWII and all that. That can be repeated at an enormous cost to US - but you are not willing to pay that price.
So follow what Odom says and leave.
<< Home