Well we agree, at least, that things are a mess.
There is chaos in Iraq now, and there will be for the foreseeable future, so I'm not sure that saying my plan will lead to chaos is really a significant point. What plan on the table does not lead to chaos?
But stepping back a little, I think the U.S. is creating a monster, and it is almost - but not quite - too late to stop it. If the U.S. pulls out there will be a vacuum, and the different regional factions will fight it out to fill this vacuum. But if the U.S. does not pull out then it looks like there is a real chance these different factions will unite against the U.S. This is the big danger I think.
For example, the Shi'a and Sunni working together. Or the reports of Sunni groups working with Al Qaeda in the north. Who would have thought this possible? These are long time enemies.
I don't particularly want Iran and Turkey and Syria in Iraq. But I'll take that (with them and the various local militias all fighting each other,) over the muslim world uniting in one giant nuclear equipped global jihad against the U.S. I don't think my fear is close to being realized, but do we really want to push it? And for what? So that we can impose democracy like we are doing in Falluja right now?
Some might want to argue here "well, be patient, it takes time." But how much time? Another 6 months? Another year? We can't keep moving the line.
I love this David Brooks op-ed which to me is representative of the ridiculously flawed thinking coming from our leaders. "Everything is fine", "No problems", "The sky is not falling", blah, blah, blah, and then in the second to last paragraph he slips in this one little reservation: "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up." But despite his strong language, it's a complete afterthought in the article. He spends 99% of the article explaining that things really aren't that bad and we shouldn't be worried. And then, oh yeah, except maybe it could be super duper bad. Except don't worry it's not.
What I'm saying is let's get our heads out of the sand make sure the fucking gates of hell do not open up. That is priority number one. And it is rather urgent at the moment. Pulling U.S. troops out will have the negative short term consequences for Iraq that you outline, but I think those are far better than the worst case scenario if we keep pushing.
|
There is chaos in Iraq now, and there will be for the foreseeable future, so I'm not sure that saying my plan will lead to chaos is really a significant point. What plan on the table does not lead to chaos?
But stepping back a little, I think the U.S. is creating a monster, and it is almost - but not quite - too late to stop it. If the U.S. pulls out there will be a vacuum, and the different regional factions will fight it out to fill this vacuum. But if the U.S. does not pull out then it looks like there is a real chance these different factions will unite against the U.S. This is the big danger I think.
For example, the Shi'a and Sunni working together. Or the reports of Sunni groups working with Al Qaeda in the north. Who would have thought this possible? These are long time enemies.
I don't particularly want Iran and Turkey and Syria in Iraq. But I'll take that (with them and the various local militias all fighting each other,) over the muslim world uniting in one giant nuclear equipped global jihad against the U.S. I don't think my fear is close to being realized, but do we really want to push it? And for what? So that we can impose democracy like we are doing in Falluja right now?
Some might want to argue here "well, be patient, it takes time." But how much time? Another 6 months? Another year? We can't keep moving the line.
I love this David Brooks op-ed which to me is representative of the ridiculously flawed thinking coming from our leaders. "Everything is fine", "No problems", "The sky is not falling", blah, blah, blah, and then in the second to last paragraph he slips in this one little reservation: "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up." But despite his strong language, it's a complete afterthought in the article. He spends 99% of the article explaining that things really aren't that bad and we shouldn't be worried. And then, oh yeah, except maybe it could be super duper bad. Except don't worry it's not.
What I'm saying is let's get our heads out of the sand make sure the fucking gates of hell do not open up. That is priority number one. And it is rather urgent at the moment. Pulling U.S. troops out will have the negative short term consequences for Iraq that you outline, but I think those are far better than the worst case scenario if we keep pushing.
- jim 4-10-2004 8:26 pm