Quote:
Originally Posted by FibrillatorD
There is almost total overlap.
If you disagree, then where do our interests diverge? Is it over the preferred price of oil?
|
Hi FibD,
Well, for starters, Washington's stated, fervrent interest in Iraqi political reconciliation does not seem to.be fully shared, if you are willing to take progress to date as a metric, at any rate.
As to the preferred price of oil, the state of the Iraqi oil business was well understood before the rush to war and would not have represented much of an incentive to a rational actor, one would think.
If those two oil men in the White House were thinking Iraq was an out for energy security issues, they might just be as dumb as their more loopy critics would have us believe.
Quote:
|
That is defeatism. Iraqis are as rational as anyone. They'll find a way to make things work, once we start pulling the rug out - slowly and steadily.
|
That smacks of paternalism and paternalism is part of the reason we are in this whole mess in the first place.
Quote:
|
We can't leave our foot in the door either if we're going to be credible.
|
If that is the case, than why all this talk of decades long commitment in some quarters? Sounds like some would like to leave a Hell of a lot more than just our foot in the door credible or otherwise.
Even after the conquerors leave, the carpet baggers with ties to State and Others will surely remain.
Quote:
|
I don't buy that. If we can get out and leave behind a state that can stand on its own two feet, and can satisfy the major voices in society enough to NOT incite rebellion, then we will have succeeded.
|
There is a school of thought that holds we went to Iraq precisely to remove a state that could stand on its two feet.
As to major voices in society, if the Congress chooses to clearly define targets that will influence policy if they are not met, any minor player will have a shot at derailing the whole shebang.
Besides, a stable, sovereign Iraq would sort of contradict Neo Wilsonian policy imperatives.
Quote:
|
Thus, one of the bigger security things left to do before we leave completely is to DIVERSIFY the Iraqi security forces.
|
Methinks that may be a hard sell to our little Southwest Asian brothers
Saddam Hussein clearly demonstrated Mao's dictum on the point of origin of political power via monopolization of the states security apparatus in the acquisition, accrual and maintenance of power. What makes you think that his successors are blind in the light of such a glaring example and deaf to its Siren?
At any rate, I still say the Democrats idea of tying the funding of our programs to their progress is a bad idea. It shows our house divided against itself and that should be enough to put the brakes on if no other reason can be found. After all, what kind of message does that send to the Iraqis, our allies, and our enemies?
Hope you have a good weekend.
William