Talk about cutting and running: "The most influential moderate Shia leader [Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani] in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war." This article appeared on Sunday, the day after Sistani met with PM Maliki, who then dispatched Mahdi to Washington.

Also on Sunday, unknown assailants (although the money is on al-Sadr's group, the Mahdi Army) assassinated Shaikh Hasan Muhammad Mahdi al-Jawadi, one of Sistani's senior aides. Thus, it appears that al-Sadr has weighed in on a rebuttal to Mahdi's message.

A day earlier Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani ordered that the Iraqi national flag not be flown in Iraqi Kurdistan. Only the flag of Iraqi Kurdistan will be flown at government offices, schools, etc. The announcement drew strong criticism from PM Maliki.

Meanwhile, Salih al-Mutlak, the head of the National Dialogue Front (the largest Sunni coalition in the Iraqi government), strongly criticized Maliki for meeting with Sistani, arguing that such contacts "could lead to the establishment of the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent in Iraq" (a reference to the Iranian theocratic system, in which the chief cleric heads up the government). Maliki, you see, was a prominent supporter of Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini (the first one). He was also a member of the Hezbollah party of Iraq, and still a strong supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

That's the downside. The upside is... these guys are sometimes given to hyperbole. But all in all I can't say things are looking up.

Rico....study your history.

Nothing happens in a day. It's not a video game. It doesn't happen in a year or two years or three years either. Or own revolution took more than 7 years.

Stop being so defeatist and keeping score by the day, you will live longer.

What the Iraqi Leaders Want

The Iraqi leaders would help themselves and Iraq if they would tell the American people directly-through news stories and commercials-that they want the American troops to stay in Iraq. Iraqi leaders should make a series of commercials thanking America for giving them their freedom and democracy. This website and video from Iraqi Kurds are terrific and very effective.

Thank You, America!

Correction: this is the right link: Thank You, America!!

Rico & Mark

The two articles that each of you present paint soemwhat different pictures of the same situation. Its hard to say which one is the closest to being correct. I suspect the situation is very difficult but with the proper time and commitment on the part of the Americans and its coalition partners the situation can work out. I think this is the key question. Will the Aemrican people be willing to commit the time and the resources necessary to have any chance of achieving an allied, stable, and democratic Iraq? If we are willing to commit the proper resources the goal of an allied, stable, and democratic Iraq is probably achievable. At least a stable and allied Iraq should be achievable. Whether or not Iraq can become a Western type Democracy will largely be up to the Iraqis.

I suspect Sistani's statements that he can no longer prevent a civil war may be a power play on his part to get something he desires from the Americans. He correctly acknowledges that the Americans need him more than he needs the Americans right now. In any event, I would have to say right now the enemy appears to have the upper hand in Iraq but this is a long war. It has its ups and downs for us. If we are willing to make the appropiate course corrections and are willing to display the appropiate level of commitment to this, we should be able to achieve our goals.

After 9/11 the President had a mandate from the American people to find and kill those who were responsable. Read my lips: that was ben Ladin and al'Quaeda. Did he? No. They are still hiding out in Afghanistan or Pakistan plotting more terrorist attacks while Bush and Co. are bogged down in Iraq trying to refight the first Gulf War. Bush failed America. To attack the wrong enemy is not patriotic, it's stupid.

Again, who is the enemy we are supposed to vanquish in Iraq? Over whom should we be "committed to absolute victory"?

As Rico portrays, the situation in Iraq is fairly complex. It is not the easy "us against the terrorists", or "us against evil" formulas the Bushbots are desperately wanting it to be.

Right now in Iraq we have a goverment that predominantly consists of conservative Shi'a who are dedicated to establishing an Islamic republic in Iraq along the lines of Iran. Dawa, the party of conservative Shi'a clerics, largely controls the legislature and the executive branches. To the extent they want US forces to remain fighting in Iraq, it is so American soldiers will stamp out their opposition among the Sunni community. They do not want the US to leave until the Sunni opposition is neutralized, at which point they can proceed to implement a strict Islamic republic.

Is this what we are fighting for? Who is the enemy? The Sunnis? The Shi'a? Just saying it's the "terrorists" doesn't cut it. Which side of this civil war are we on?

In deciding whether or not we wish to keep a significant troop prescense in Iraq, American leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, will need to ask some very basic questions. We need to ask ourselves who our most dangerous enemies are. We will need to rank them in order of how dangerous they are. Once we know who our enemies are and how big the threat is from each of them we need to devise strategies to defeat them or to at least contain them. Based on my analysis of the situation America's most dangerous enemies are, in this order, 1.) Russia, 2.) China, 3.) Venezuela, 4.) Iran, 5.) Syria, 6.)Al Qaeda and the various other terrorist organizations that are supported to varying degrees by the five countries mentioned above and 7.)The Iraqi insurgents and Iranian backed militias who receive varying degrees of support from the afore mentioned groups.

The question to ask is does keeping a significant military force in Iraq help us or hurt us in trying to defeat or contain our most dangerous enemies? I think, if we can achieve a situation in Iraq where the country is allied with the US against these enemies, this would be a huge benefit to us. To maximize our chances of achieving these goals, we will probably need a greater commitment of resources and time. Right now I would say keeping our military in Iraq is not helping our cause but this can change with the proper commitment. If the American people are unwilling to commit to this, we should withdraw without delay or at least scale the mission back to something that will require less resources. For example American troops and military resources could be withdrawn to Kurdish areas and we could work to secure the borders between Iran and Syria in an attempt to cut off supplies to the militias and the insurgents. This strategy will probably require fewer American troops in Iraq. Once the borders are sealed, we can then decide which militias we are going to support. In other words, do what the Russians and Chinese do extremely well. Get proxies to fight for you. Its a dirty messy business but, if we are unwilling to commit the proper resources to this, this may be our best option. Of course we will need to be prepared for the counter moves that will be made by Russia and China.

Kiamichi

Iraq provided active support for terrorists including Al Qaeda. As such, Iraq is and was a legitmate target. Perhaps the timing was wrong. Maybe we should have waited until after we finished Afghanistan. If so, the sanctions probably would have collapsed by now and Iraq would have been even stronger. The GWOT is far bigger than simpy Bin Laden and his group. In any event, we will need a larger military to confront all of the threats we face. Even, if we withdraw from Iraq, those forces will likely be needed elsewhere. At this point, I really don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican who suggests a significant increase in the size and strength of the Army is needed. This candidate would likely have my support.

Again, who is the enemy we are supposed to vanquish in Iraq? Over whom should we be "committed to absolute victory"?

As Rico portrays, the situation in Iraq is fairly complex. It is not the easy "us against the terrorists", or "us against evil" formulas the Bushbots are desperately wanting it to be.

Right now in Iraq we have a goverment that predominantly consists of conservative Shi'a who are dedicated to establishing an Islamic republic in Iraq along the lines of Iran. Dawa, the party of conservative Shi'a clerics, largely controls the legislature and the executive branches. To the extent they want US forces to remain fighting in Iraq, it is so American soldiers will stamp out their opposition among the Sunni community. They do not want the US to leave until the Sunni opposition is neutralized, at which point they can proceed to implement a strict Islamic republic.

Is this what we are fighting for? Who is the enemy? The Sunnis? The Shi'a? Just saying it's the "terrorists" doesn't cut it. Which side of this civil war are we on? That's what you'll have to explain to the American people.

My previous post still has not shown up and it has been quite some time, since I submitted it. In the event of multiple posts, please accept my apologies.

So far the biggest winner in the Iraq war has been Russia. The instability this has caused in the middle east has played a large role in the increase of the price of oil. Russia is a huge oil producer and exporter. They have used this increase in the price of oil to significantly upgrade their military capabilities. Russia is the leading supporter of all of the leading Islamic terrorist supporting states. Russia is America's most dangerous enemy. We need frank assessments from America's leaders of what we face instead of the catchy slogans that both parties are famous for.

Aarontime

Al Sistani has said he does not want an Islamic style Iranian theocracy, however, it is unkown to me how much influence he still holds. In the final analysis, I really don't care what kind of Republic they have just as long as they will be allied with us against the likes of Iran, Russia, China, and other terrorist organizations. To this end, who we support will depend on who will be allied with us. According to Iraq's constitution the country is not to be used as a base for terrorists. It reamins to be seen, if they will live up to their constitution or not.

Personally I think the Bush administration has put to much stock in this "Democracy" thing. The fact that people vote really does not matter. What matters is how they vote. So far their voting record is not exactly a good one.

And Aarontime, nor is it as simplistic to suggest Iraq isn't or wasn't complicit in terrorism.

To suggest that Iraq was clean on terrorism (as you and others have suggested that we attacked the wrong country) is pure poppycock.

Iraq isn't the only one, but they were identified years ago as the Axis of Evil. Enough so that President Clinton identified them as viciously evil and worth a regime change.

Guess what...Bush did a regime change.

Aarontime

My understanding is Ali Sistani has said he does not want an Iranian style theocracy, however, it is uncertain to me how much power he still wields. Iraq's constitution states that it will not allow its territory to be used as a base for terrorists. Itn remains to be seen whether or not Iraq will live up to its constitution. The side we take should be the one who will be allied with us against the likes of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and the various terrorist organizations.

Personally I think the Bush administration puts to much faith in this "Democracy" thing. The fact that people vote really does not matter. What matters is how they vote.

In the final analysis, I really don't care what kind of Republic Iraqis choose for themselves just so long as it is allied with us against the afore mentioned enemies and does not support terrorism. You and Rico are right to point out that the situation is complex.

Warriornation

You are correct to point out that Iraq was involved in terrorism. I think there is no question that Iraq posed a threat. I think the question is the magnitude of the threat. Specifically was the threat great enough to justify invasion? I'm not sure what the answer to this question is.

I think, if were to leave Iraq now, either the former regime, Iran, or some combination would take over the country. In other words, we would be worse off than we are now. If we continue with our present level of commitment, we might achieve our goals or we might not. Frankly I'm finding it hard to be optimistic. If we made a greater troop commitment, this would enhance our chances to achieve our goals. Unfortunately the domestic political situation may not allow for the additional troop commitments to be made. Also, I'm uncertain, if the Army has the man power, at this time.

Another option would be to pull our troops out of Iraq and reposition them in Kurdish areas. We could seal the borders between Iran and Syria and allow the militias to fight it out. We would support which ever group is most consistent with American national interests. This plan could probably be done with fewer troops than we are currently using.

I'm uncomfortable with the amount of influence Iran has in the country right now. In event, the former regime elements or the Iranians must not be allowed to gain control of Iraq.

B.Poster -

"Al Sistani has said he does not want an Islamic style Iranian theocracy..."

Yes, but Sistani has given up the ghost. He no longer pretends that Iraq can avoid all out civil war, and has openly said so. Moreover, Sistani is not a memeber of the government. And finally, may I remind you that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini also said that he did not support a theocracy or clerics being involved in politics... and then he went on to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran once he got into power.

As far as the Iraqi constitution saying that the country will not be used as a base for terrorists... well, everyone has their own definition of "terrorist". Do we really believe that once the Shi'a take over in full force in Iraq that the constitution will mean anything?

It seems to me that there is a whole lot of naivete going on among the right regarding Iraq - the kind of starry-eyed naivete that the right usually accuses the left of in foreign policy. Just because you desperately want to believe in your deluded fantasies about Iraq does not make it reality.

And when, oh when, are one of you going to identify our enemy in Iraq? Which side of this (predictable) civil war are we on? You know - the civil war porecipitated by our ill-advised invasion. Are we with the Shi'a because they currently hold power in the government? Are we against the Sunni insurgents defending themselves against Shi'a militia? Or the other way around?

What the F*** are we doing there? Who is the enemey, and what constitutes "victory"? With the blood and enormous amounts of our tax dollars being spent there, can you at least explain to the American people what the hell we are doing there? And no, "fighting terrorism" is not an adequate answer. An answer that is at least somewhat connected to reality, as opposed to empty-headed platitudes, would be appreciated by we the tax payers (and not to mention by the families of US soldiers killed). Do you think you could do us that favor?

B.Poster -

"Al Sistani has said he does not want an Islamic style Iranian theocracy..."

Yes, but Sistani has given up the ghost. He no longer pretends that Iraq can avoid all out civil war, and has openly said so. Moreover, Sistani is not a memeber of the government. And finally, may I remind you that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini also said that he did not support a theocracy or clerics being involved in politics... and then he went on to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran once he got into power.

As far as the Iraqi constitution saying that the country will not be used as a base for terrorists... well, everyone has their own definition of "terrorist". Do we really believe that once the Shi'a take over in full force in Iraq that the constitution will mean anything?

It seems to me that there is a whole lot of naivete going on among the right regarding Iraq - the kind of starry-eyed naivete that the right usually accuses the left of in foreign policy. Just because you desperately want to believe in your deluded fantasies about Iraq does not make it reality.

And when, oh when, are one of you going to identify our enemy in Iraq? Which side of this (predictable) civil war are we on? You know - the civil war porecipitated by our ill-advised invasion. Are we with the Shi'a because they currently hold power in the government? Are we against the Sunni insurgents defending themselves against Shi'a militia? Or the other way around?

What the F*** are we doing there? Who is the enemey, and what constitutes "victory"? With the blood and enormous amounts of our tax dollars being spent there, can you at least explain to the American people what the hell we are doing there? And no, "fighting terrorism" is not an adequate answer. Nor is conjuring up misplaced imagery of WWII an adequate answer. An answer that is at least somewhat connected to reality, as opposed to self-serving empty-headed platitudes, would be appreciated by we the tax payers (and not to mention by the families of US soldiers killed). Do you think you could do us that favor?

I forgot to include in my previous posts that we will need to a better job of PR. When lies about the United States are allowed to go unchallenged, this does not help our cause. This holds true whether we ultimately decide to reamin in Iraq or if we decide to withdraw.

Aarontime,

Again, who is the enemy we are supposed to vanquish in Iraq? Over whom should we be "committed to absolute victory"? Posted by: Aarontime

The enemy in Iraq is Al-Qaeda terrorists and those Iraqi insurgents who seek to destroy the current democratic Iraqi government. Iraq is the most important front in the Global War on Terrorism/Islam. This is clearly spelled out in President George W. Bush's speech which can be found at GOP Bloggers:

"We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously. So today I'm going to describe -- in the terrorists' own words, what they believe… what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it. [..]

They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.[..] This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us.[..]

We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. [..]

...they've made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq -- the nation bin Laden has declared the "capital of the Caliphate." Hear the words of bin Laden: "I now address… the whole… Islamic nation: Listen and understand… The most… serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War… [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war,"

Update on the European front of the Global War on Terror/Islam: Britain's hospitals endorse Islamic misogyny-(Breitbart.com) "British hospital introduces burka-style gown for Muslim patients."
*****

On the Southeast Asia front of the Global War on Terror/Islam: Thailand Jihad Death Toll: The Guardian Unlimited reports that in the jihad in South Thailand, at least 1,730 people have been killed and 2,510 people were injured since January 2004.

Freedom

As you know, Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the US invasion and even during the Clinton administration. The Baathists had a working relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. This was probably not based on ideolgy but was more likely based on the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The fact is the Baathists were not above working with Islamic terrorists.

The fact that Hussein had a working relationship with terrorists including Al Qaeda does not necessarily mean an invasion was justified. For example, Islamic terrorists operate in Darfur and, as you point out, Islamic terrorists operate in Thailand but we do not invade those places because it does not serve American national interests or at least we don't think it does.

I'm not entirely convinced that an invasion of Iraq was the best foreign policy. We may have been better served to have used the troops we are using in Iraq in Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden and his followers. Also, a better use of the American military might have been to secure the borders.

A better use of human intellegence might have been to monitor American mosques instead of usig it in Iraq and other places. Its not politically correct to say but we need to start profiling. We know which groups the terrorists fall into and we know what their religon is. To not do this is to play with fire. You play with fire long enough and you will get burned. In light of the recent incident at the Georgia mosque, profiling is even more imperative.

It is my understanding that some of the 911 hijackers were here illegally. Had we enforced our immigration policies, perhaps 911 could have been prevented. I think a moratorium on immigrants from Muslim countries is in order.

Meanwhile our borders are STILL wide open. I'm not necessarily suggesting the Iraq invasion was bad policy. I'm suggesting, in March 2003 when the invasion was launched, we had other options.

I actually think the Iraq invasion was not a failure in policy but, to date, has not been as succseful as it could have been in execution. The biggest mistakes were failing to commit enough troops and allowing Islamic extremists into the democratic process. Islamic extremists are incompatible with liberty. As such, they have no place in a democratic process.

Warriornation [to me]: "Rico....study your history."

Which history book would that be, Warrior? And I presume you're referring to post-hostilities nation-building, right? Or are you conflating things? What history should be my guide?

Okay, I'm obviously an idiot. So you tell me... how many allied troops, per capita, were in Germany following WWII? Likewise, tell me how many troops, per capita, were in Japan? How many of those troops died in hostile incidents in each place in the post-war, reconstruction/nation building period? How many civilians?

Or maybe you think those are inappropriate questions to ask. But if so, why?

Freedom1 [quoting Bush] "We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously..."

By implication I suppose we are to conclude that we must take "the terrorists" seriously, but not any of the other players. For example, we shouldn't take PM Maliki seriously in his support of Lebanon's Hezbollah. And we shouldn't take Ayatollah Sistani seriously when he says he's washing his hands of the whole affair. And we shouldn't take al-Jawadi seriously when he says Iraqi Kurdistan rejects the Iraqi flag.

Therein lies the dilemma. Who are we to believe? For that matter, who are the terrorists? At this point you need a freakin' score card. Moreover, it doesn't appear as though any given score card is good for more than a month or so. They change players more often than the Dodgers.

GO DODGERS!!

Frankly though, I'm not inclined to take any of them at face value. All these guys are very good at hyperbole. Nonetheless, the fact that all of them are engaging in it at the same time (not to mention the fact that Mahdi shows up in DC with a quick note for W directly from Sistani) does suggest that Iraq is at a crisis point.

It is not the stated position of the Democratic Party to get out of Iraq immediaitely. If you liberals want that - talk to them.

Unless, you assume they're lying? Interesting.

Aaron

As you can probably tell from my posts here, I'm no fan of the Bush administration or Republicans in general. The Republicans and the Bush administration only pay lip service to Conservative values while doing very little to implement them and actively opposing them where and when they can.

The Washington Post and the UK paper seem to tell a different story about how powerful Ali Sistani actually is. The Washington Post suggests he is the most infuential figure in Iraq. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between what the Washington Post reports and what the UK paper reports. In any event, he still apparently has the power to send the Iraqi VP scurrying to Washington. Also, I should point out, men like George Soros do not hold elected positions in the US but they wield ENORMOUS influence over the political process.

Both Ali Sistani and the Aemricans know that the Americans need him more than he needs the Americans. This is not a good situation for us but this is how it is. As such, I suspect by his statements that he no longer has power he is trying to get something from the Americans. In any event, just becuase the Telegraph or the Washington Post report something does not mean it is necessarily correct. When reports conflict, time will tell which one is right. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. This may not work out but the final results on Iraqi democracy are not in yet.

If Iraq ultimately chooses an Islamic theocracy, I have no problem with how they run their internal affairs. I have a problem with it, if they support terrorists that are trying to attack the US or try to attack the US directly. Right now we have the abiltiy to influence the process. I think we need to make it known that should they choose terrorism there will be consequences, on this note, the USAF is not particularly busy right now. If used decisively, it can inflict some serious consequences. During Operation Iraqi Freedom the USAF and the rest of the military was not used decisively enough. The Army, that's another story. It is spread pretty thin right now.

I agree with you that allot of people on the "right" are naive and allot of the policies we have are based on hope. We hope the government of the liberated Iraq will be allied with us. We hope that democracy will spread throughout the middle east. We hope the Iraqi forces we are training will be allied with us. As I have mentioned before, on this blog, I hate polices that are based so much on hope. If we can commit the resources necessary to bring security, disarm the militias, smf secure the borders we should get an ally out of this. Elsewhere, on this thread, I suggest what we can do, if we are not willing to commit more troops. I am by no means naive here. I fully understand that this may not work out. I agree with you that many on the "right" are naive. I'm also dismayed that many on the "left" seem willing to give up so quickly. I think we should not be naive but we should not give up so quickly.

Who is the enemy? Its complicated. The enemies are the former Baathist members who make up the bulk of the "insurgency." The enemy is any one who supports Islamic extremist terrorism. We do not know, at this time, if the new Iraqi government will support terrorism or ally with Iran or not. The Iraqi shia did not join Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Will they now? We can head off the possibilty of them allying with Iran, if we will commit more troops to secure the country and to secure the borders. If we borders. If we withdraw prematurely, it is likely that the former regime elements will take over or the Iraqi Shia will merge with Iran to prevent that. This would be an unmitigated disaster. The sad truth is due to a number of factors that include significant mistakes what began as a war of choice may have morphed into a war of necessity.

What constitutes victory? A stable Iraq that is allied with the US in the GWOT would be a vicotry, as far as I'm concerned. The previous regime was a major terrorist supporter. In a post 911 world, the US along with 30 other countries decided leaving the Baathists in power was an unacceptable risk. In the final analysis, if we have to replace the elected government to achieve this, we must do this. I don't think we are there yet.

The GWOT has many similarities to WWII. That said whether or not Iraq is the appropiate battle field is a matter of debate. In one of my earlier posts, I lay out questions that need to be answered by ploicy makers to determine if we should remain there. The bottom line is unless we are willing to commit to it we should withreaw without delay. We can take our stand against the terrorists who have taken up residence in Iraq elsewhere.

I'm glad you are concerned about the cost. Come to tink of it I'm concerned about how much we are spending on a number of useless social programs. We should divert some of these taxes to increased military or give them back to the American people. I propose using them to increase the size and strength of the military. Even if we withdraw from Iraq, we are probably going to need this increased military elsewhere.

Rico

I agree with you. Iraq clearly seems to be at a crisis point. You are also spot on that we need to identify all of the players. Earlier in the thread I identified who I think the major threats to American national security are. Once they are identified we can determine if remaining in Iraq is helpful or detrimental to American national security. I would like to do all we can to help the Iraqis achieve a stable democracy, however, this should only be done in a manner that is consistent with American national security.

B.Poster,

With regard to Iraq, we are there now. There are 2 possible outcomes in Iraq-victory or defeat. Defeat is NOT an option.

Its not politically correct to say but we need to start profiling.

Absolutely. Profiling Muslims is essential. As you said, we must also monitor American mosques. Mosques are Islamic terrorist breeding grounds.

I think a moratorium on immigrants from Muslim countries is in order.

Absolutely! I cannot tell you how strongly I agree with you on this.

Meanwhile our borders are STILL wide open.

Believe me, this frustrates me to no end. President Bush needs to listen to Tom Tancredo and at the very least secure America's borders, immediately.

Islamic extremists are incompatible with liberty.

Agreed.

As such, they have no place in a democratic process.

Right. The US and the Iraqi government must find a way to get rid of Al-Sadr. He's a major impediment to Iraqi democracy and a major cause of the continued Shiite milita violence in Iraq.

Rico

I think you are spot on about the need to know who the players are. We need to evaluate each of them and how much of a threat they are to the US. I want to give the Iraqis every chance to acieve a stable democracy but this can only be done in a manner that is consistent with American national security interests. If being in Iraq is inconsistent with meeting threats to American national security interests, we will need to be prepared to withdraw.

It appears to me that you are right about Iraq being at a crisis point.

Ricorun,

First, GO DODGERS!:) Second, I think you put it best when you said that "there are many species of terrorists". (trademark that!:))

By implication I suppose we are to conclude that we must take "the terrorists" seriously, but not any of the other players.

I see no such implication.

For example, we shouldn't take PM Maliki seriously in his support of Lebanon's Hezbollah.

We certainly should take his support of Hezbollah seriously. Hezbollah is a vicious terrorist organization created and armed by Iran. His continued support of Hezbollah is simply unacceptable.

And we shouldn't take Ayatollah Sistani seriously when he says he's washing his hands of the whole affair.

That would be good news, to me. Iraq's democracy is supposed to be (mostly) secular anyway. Sistani's support is great, but Iraq's democratic government certainly should not be dependent on what an Islamic cleric says.

And we shouldn't take al-Jawadi seriously when he says Iraqi Kurdistan rejects the Iraqi flag.

That's understandable, but as Rumsfeld would say it's "unhelpful".

... does suggest that Iraq is at a crisis point.

Iraq's Sunni Triangle and especially Baghdad are indeed a mess. But, Kurdish Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq are relatively peaceful. Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq is extremely difficult. No question about it. But, in 3 years the Iraqis have written a constitution and held several democratic votes. That's faster than America's own democratic process. America declared its independence on July 4, 1776. The United States of America didn't even have a written Constitution until 1787-over a decade later.

Ricorun,

Methinks you are actually trying to overcomplicate things because you just won't ever admit that President Bush has it right.

How about we turn it around - rather than ask who are enemies are in Iraq, how about asking who our friends are?

Right now there are millions of Iraqis who went out and voted multiple times - and will vote again.

Right now there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi volunteers in the Iraqi army - and they keep coming in droves to fill up the ranks.

Right now there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi volunteers in the Iraqi police - and, just like the army, they keep coming in droves to fill up the ranks.

These are the people who are our friends - and anyone who wants to kill them, who wants to oppress them, who wants to take away their freedom - well, they are the enemy. YOu can call them what you will - insurgents, militias, what have you...but they all use terror as their only method of battle, because none of them are strong enough to even take on the Iraqi police, let alone the Iraqi or American army. Additionally, all of them wish to impose some sort of fascistic government on the Iraqi people - some are more Islamist than others, but all are equally fascist.

If you can't steel yourself to fight against these people, and fight for those Iraqis who have come forward to join us in the good fight, then you are simply to cold, narrow minded and bigoted to be taken seriously.

Freedom1: "Iraq's Sunni Triangle and especially Baghdad are indeed a mess. But, Kurdish Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq are relatively peaceful."

Perhaps so, but the Kurdish north and the Sunni south are largely under the control of sectarian militias. That is the condition about which Sistani's "emissary" Mahdi warned when he got to DC. I don't know if you've noticed, but more than 90% of the Iraqi government is composed of representatives of one or another sectarian faction. Unlike Afghanistan where political parties were banned (and thus each candidate was required to run on his own merits -- nominally anyway), the Iraqi elections were party-oriented, meaning that individual candidates did not appear on the ballot. Only parties did. The parties then nominated their representatives to parliament. It was done that way not out of any sense of political expediency, but dictated by security expediency. In other words, it was deemed too dangerous to have actual candidates appear on the ballot. Because the likelihood that they'd get assassinated was too high. Also, the original formulation was that all political parties were supposed to reject any ties to any militia connections. Some of them did -- sort of. But guess where the reality led them? Virtually every party now has their own militia. Moreover, the vast majority of the Iraqi security forces (whatever type you want to mention) are assigned to their native provinces. That was done partly out of economic expediency, but also out of another pragmatic consideration -- if they didn't do it that way, desertion rates would be unsustainably high. So guess what? Just about everybody in every branch of the Iraqi security forces has divided allegiances. Some more, some less. The Kurds are obvious about it. The others, not so much. But that doesn't make it less true. That doesn't bode well for the future -- assuming the future is an extented version of more of the same.

Call me a pessimist if you will, but I would call it realism.

You mention the fact that more than a decade spanned between the Declaration of Independence and the passage of the Constitution, forming the United States. That is true. But the DoI did not signal the end of hostilities. Rather, it essentially marked the beginning of a coordinated resistance. The official end of hostilities -- the "Mission Accomplished statement, if you will -- didn't occur until April 11, 1783. And the American Constitution was the first of its kind. True, certain city-states in ancient Greece were the first to incorporate democratic ideals, but no where, at any time, was the concept extrapolated to incorporate anywhere near the magnitude that the American Constitution did. It was a truly remarkable achievement.

Iraq is not a remarkable achievement. I'm with B.Poster on this one: poop or get off the pot Mr. Bush. Finally, at long last, put in the troops you need to get the job done or get the hell out of the way and let them kill each other until they're all dead or until they're too tired or too slippery with blood to hold a gun. Either way, what we're doing now is nonsense. Interestingly the pariah, Jack Murtha, suggests almost exactly the same. I guess because my conclusion -- and B Poster's conclusion -- coincides with Murtha's, we should be banished to the moonbat hall of infamy. Perhaps the only difference is that I (and I think I can include BP here) want to win this thing.

Rico

You are right. I do want to win this. I have friends currently in Iraq. Thiis is very serious business. My preference would be to commit more troops. I think this would give us the best chance of achieving a stable, allied, and Democratic Iraq.

I think Murtha's suggestion was to redeploy to Okinawa, Japan. At least this is my understanding. That would likely be to far away to have a significant influence. In my post, way back near the top of the thread, I suggest redeploying to Kurdish areas and working to secure Iraq's borders. Other commentators have made simillar suggestions. If we are unwilling or unable to make the necessary troop commitments, this may be our best option.

Should we be banished to the moonbat hall of infamy for attempting to offer constructive critiques, so be it. Right now I don't think either major politcal party is as serious as they need to be about the GWOT. For example, our nuclear arsenal is getting old. We need to upgrade it. Neither party is seriously suggesting it. Whether we use it in Iraq or not, we need a larger Army. I have not heard either party seriously suggest this.

I'm concerned that due to a series of missteps what began as a war of choice in Iraq may have morphed into a war of neccessity. If there is a silver lining here, I think mismangement of the post WWI situation created the conditions that led to WWII. WWII ended well for us. God willing the GWOT will end equally well for us.

Sorry, the Jack Murtha link in my last comment wasn't formatted correctly. I mentioned it because it's the first time I've heard him mention anything about staying since he started advocating leaving.

Rico

I read the article at the link you posted. I must say the piece by Rep. Murtha was well written. He is correct we need to increas the size of our Armed forces. Whether we use them in Iraq or not we still need a larger Army.

A bit off topic but one of the strategies of the "left" and to a lesser extent the "right" is to throw out lies that are mixed with elements of truth to them. Murtha's assertion that we need to go on a war footing is correct, as is his assertion that we should have had more troops in Iraq, however, his article contained a lie that needs to be addressed.

The lie is "tax cuts for the rich." I am a tax accountant, as such, I can tell you that there is no question that the Bush tax cuts helped the rich. They helped everyone. The chief benefactor of these cuts was not the rich but the middle classes and lower middle classes. The implication from Murtha's statement and the statements of other "liberal" commentators is that the Bush tax cuts screwed the poor and the middle class. This is not the case.

Murrtha correctly points out that Iraq has lasted longer than other wars such as Korea or WWII but in both of these wars the American people had to make a much bigger sacrifice than is being asked of them in Iraq. A big sacrifice may be neccessary to win but if we are going to do it now is the time. If we are not going to commit, we should withdraw without delay.

B Poster, to tell you the truth, I didn't pay much attention to Murtha's comments on tax cuts. I didn't think it was relevant except as a bridge to the point where he called for a draft -- assuming Bush was serious about his overall plan for the ME. If he is serious about attacking Iran, we're going to need more troops. LOTS more troops. To assume they aren't going to retaliate if we just bomb a few nuclear installations seems to me the height of wishful thinking. In other words, it would be another example of relying on Plan A to such a degree as to exclude even the contemplation of a Plan B. And that, I would argue, has been our problem all along. IMHO, this should have been considered five or more years ago. But the problem would be seriously exacerbated by an attack on Iran... or whoever.