ok, keogh… time to put down the snow shovel and go back and learn who is “sitting down” with Iran and Syria and who called for the Middle East summit… that would be our democracy loving friends and constitutionally elected govt leaders in Iraq… and the US agreed to attend.

Does that mean Iran can take our participation in a braoder summit as proof we’ve withdrawn from the NoTalks til nuke weapons production ends position? No.

We’re helping out our Iraqi allies. Simple as that.

Ouch, how much does it hurt when you’re decidedly wrong, over and over? Oh, I see… you meant only the WOT-Iraq and not the broader effort, right? Nice dodge but the reality ball still hit you square, bubba.

If I had access to a pollster, I’d stick in a question like:

“Would you be more likely to vote for a Republican President if, before the election, you saw major improvement in Iraq as compared to now?”

The obvious 180 degree opposite is that people who say yes to this, will be more likely to vote for Dems if they perceive things as going badly. Not that there’s anything wrong with that–it’s perfectly reasonable to decide whether or not to pull out based on whether you think the war is still a good idea. In fact, that’s the best criterion on which to base the decision.

So I’m not bashing people who vote that way. But look what it obviously means for the Dem candidates: they will get more votes if Americans perceive the situation in Iraq as going badly. So they have a brilliantly obvious incentive to attempt to convince Americans that things are going badly.

It’s no big secret Dems are campaigning on the platform of pulling out ASAP. Obviously they want the American people to think we should pull out ASAP (if we agree with that, we will vote for them–if not, we won’t). And convincing us of that will require that we believe we’re not winning/making progress. If you dare to bring this up in polite company, people freak out (it’s worse than calling Edwards a f****t or wishing death on Dick Cheney). But it’s so obviously true!

Further, I don’t think any of the Democratic candidates (not even St. Obama) are capable of maintaining the position that they want us to win, they want the situation to get better, but also want us to pull out. No politician is skilled enough to walk on that razor blade. They will slip up, there will be a gaffe, and we will see that they’re really hoping for failure to give them cover for their cut and run plan.

“Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump

Regards,
Peter H.

That is fine with me. Its nice to see that Bush has come to his senses and has begun talks with Syria and Iran. Who knows? Perhaps he will finally realize you can’t win this struggle with brute force! And the oil law is very vague and seems to give a lot of leeway to multi-national firms. Sunnis and Shitie groups will be screaming about imperialism but it does give significant amount of autonomy to the Kurds to sign their own contracts and possibly spread their wealth as they see fit. It appears they are in Iraq under name only. Its only amount of time until they declare a state…

In a way, you’re right. Remember how we dropped leaflets into Fallujah and other enemy strongholds to announce “we’re coming”? We did so to minimize civilian casualties and to disarm anti-war douchebags. Same song, different verse I suspect.

first major push into the area since an American-led security sweep began last month

I thought the Iraqis were supposed to be in the lead for this.

U.S. officials spoke daily with community leaders in Sadr City before entering the stronghold.

So everything was well-coordinated with the Sadrists. That suggests to me it’s all for show. It sounds increasingly that the escalation is going to be made to look like a success and with the potential meetings with the Iranians and the Syrians this month, Bushco is getting ready to internationalize it all, declare victory and leave.

It’s $2.45 a gallon here in Houston for regular unleaded. So much for the “war for oil” argument.

Regards,
Peter H.

I wish I could be more hopeful, but I don’t think this conflict will end until Iraqis decide to quit fighting one another and see themselves and each other as Iraqis rather than Kurds vs. Them or Shiites vs. Them or Sunnis vs. Them. (The end of our involvement is another and very complicated though related matter.) For example, the distribution of oil revenues shouldn’t be based upon the distribution of reserves but on national interests (transport systems, national defense, etc.) and representation (distribution of population). I haven’t read up on this development (though I plan to), but the snippet you quote implies that the Kurds want greater control over ‘their’ oil reserves. This is exactly the mindset that must be recognized, understood, confronted, and resisted; Balkanization is at the heart of the problems in Iraq (and virtually every other nation with civil strife) — mixed with a highly explosive religion and history of retaliation, it seems only a tyrant could hold it all together. It is important that its tendency be addressed while Iraq is still in the process of forming its government institutions and laws.

I know it’s early on, but I think this war has been handled pretty badly and it worries me that while we preach about spreading democracy (a dubious undertaking in my estimation), we allow old resentments to control policy in a newly-born nation. Even the United Kingdom which (prior to being the U.K.) gave us John Locke and our national philosophy has a distribution of oil revenues that the Scottish have always thought unfair. This may or may not be justified, but Scottish nationalists (secessionists) point to the North Sea as a possible component of future economic viability because like the Kurds, they think it ‘theirs’. Resentment will remain alive as long as it is taught, revered, and regarded as the crown jewels.