I've been following the reaction to the ISG report - notably the strong reaction from the Reep neocon wing (hated it). I also watched Meet the Press today. The MTP session that included Ken Adelman, Eliot Cohen, Richard Haass, and Tom Ricks was pretty interesting - and telling. Haass and Ricks took the "realist" position that Iraq is spinning out of control. Haass, in particular, was pretty sobering. He thinks a best-case scenario a year from now is the current situation. Ugh. The other two - Cohen and Adelman - took the neocon view that we've got to increase troop levels, threaten (if not invade) Iran and Syria, and held out some hope for the future (I am admittedly greatly simplifying their views here - but just to get the point across). Adelman strongly believes that the invasion was the right thing to do and criticized BushCo for their stupendous incompetence. The whole ISG affair has me interested and alternately optimistic and depressed. I've got a bunch of things on my mind: The good: 1. The emporer truly has no clothes. BushCo has been exposed to be charlatan, a liar and just plain incompetent. (Anyone who dares to give me crap on this point will reqret it; I will not only whup you, but wlll run up the score.) I sincerely hope that the lesson of adminstration browbeating and lying will be lesson learned for future generations - by the American public, the press and the congress. 2. The Neocon babble about American exceptionalism and world domination is now understood to be completely fraudulent. 3. More than ever, a need for a real war on energy is required. Don't expect any action from BushCo, but this will be a major campaign issue. Good. 4. There is a bipartisan way out of the mess that is Iraq. The bad. 1. The neocon dummies who advocated for the war and are left with blaming BushCo incompetence are still at it. Dolts like Bill Kristol want to invade Iran! Other numbnuts want to add 30,000 troops to Iraq. 2. There is no consensus on what to do in Iraq. As long as the neocon nutheads hold sway within BushCo (paging DICK Cheney), Dubya is likely to be made to reject key elements (such as negotiating with Iran and reducing combat troops). 3. Iraq is likely going to get much worse before it gets better (if it gets better). The government could collapse any day. There is no grand coalition or national reconciliation on the horizon. 4. The middle classes have fled Iraq. One person on MTP today called the doctors, lawyers, civil servants, etc as the "glue of democracy." They have fled. 5. We still have two more years of BushCo to rekon with. Two more yearss of the increasingly babbling nonsense of Dubya. One issue within the administation is they are frayed and not on the same page, as was so imfamously so. Look for an adaministration that lurches frequently from one direction to the next.
That could be an interesting Republican primary issue given that potential frontrunner McCain still advocates increasing troops.
Yeah. But, where are those 30,000 troops? There is talk of abandoning the fight in Anbar in order to save Baghdad...
And it may be the right thing to do. Maybe as part of a restructuring of goals, some troop increases would be required. I am not the one to know the answer to that. As I see it, my job is to support those politicians that are competent to direct US policy. The problem here is that the job is Bush's for two more years, and he has proven that he is not the man for the job. Of course, he showed that before the last election, but folks like us elected him anyway.
It seems totally nuts to me. Aside from the Kurds, the only thing the parties can agree on is to kill Americans. Would you want any of your friends or relatives to be the extra guy sent to Iraq because of "a restructuring of goals?" Hell, no!
You won't get much debate from me about tactics; I just don't know enough to make a valuable contribution. It may be 'nuts', but it may make sense. I do know that we have the wrong person in charge. Bush has not shown me that he can capably lead the United States in the face of current threats, and needs to be replaced by someone who can. I hear McCain talking about increasing troops, and he knows a whole heck of a lot more about the military and tactics than I do. That's why I'm not so quick to jump on the idea. It could be connected to pullbacks, redeployments, protection of key areas, who knows? I just wish that he, or someone like him, could replace Bush now, not in two years.
I've decided that Condi's got to go. Apparently the ISG, to support its case for talking to Iran and Syria, pointed out that for 50 years during the Cold War, the US held talks with the USSR, despite them having nukes aimed at our cities. She dismissed that by saying something along the lines of, "Well, Russia wanted to wipe us off the map so in order to change their behavior we held talks with them. But with Iran it's about their behavior and we want them to change their behavior before we'll talk to them." WTF? I've decided that she's either an idiot or she's being disingenous. In either case, I want her replaced with someone more competent.