Most underreported big story of the week: Iraq alliance
Michael Hirsh reports on the fact that events in Iraq are moving along in such a way as to make it more difficult for a subsequent Democratic administration to undo them.
Oh, I have little doubt that where there’s a will, there’s a way; if the next administration—Obama as President, for example, and a strongly Democratic Congress—is utterly determined to leave Iraq ASAP, I assume it can be accomplished. But time appears to be making that prospect far more difficult even as Bush-haters continue their countdown to the Big Day.
This must seem to be the longest administration on earth to those who think it’s also been the most disastrous. Those who believe Bush won the election by thievery might also believe he’s somehow managed to stop time, so slowly have the last couple of years gone for them. And, in fact, although it’s hard to believe, Bush’s leavetaking is still slightly over a year away.
A year. A lot can happen in a year. A year ago the surge was just beginning, and took months to really get going, but now it is widely considered a success beyond even the most sanguine of expectations. That represents a problem for the Democratic Presidential hopefuls, but they seem to be up to it. The formula? De-emphasize the surge’s gains and focus on the fact that there is still no perfect political agreement in Iraq (unlike here!), and then attribute whatever gains are acknowledged to Sunni fear of the Democrats pulling the money/troops plug post-2006 Congressional election.
So, what is actually going on between the US and Iraq right now? According to Hirsh:
Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries…The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush’s Iraq coordinator in the White House…
Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements.
No wonder Hillary Clinton “urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval.” It doesn’t look as though Bush will listen to her; the pact will probably not rise to the level of a formal treaty. The result, as Hirsh writes, “is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans.”
I, for one, am glad.
George Bush, the President with the power to STOP TIME!
George Bush, rope-a-doping Democrats since 2000 A.D.
As I posted elsewhere, Bush could end up with an excellent legacy. And if he does, the assorted fools on the left and far right will have proven much dumber than Dubya.
How soon we forget that the Bush team has slid by so far by having NO PLAN for ending the war.
Hirsch seems to think that committing to a long-term military presence–it’s just so funny that he forgets to mention what happened in Saudi Arabia–is some sort of guarantee that the long-term situation will reverse and Iraqis will miraculously decide that they like hosting Israel’s biggest ally.
Democrats have every reason to celebrate this for two reasons: firstly, at least the administration is committing to a policy based on something other than perpetual warfare in Iraq. Setting such a policy at least acknowledges the need for goalposts, whereas the admin so far as been unwilling to define success or failure in even the vaguest terms.
Secondly, such a plan gives a launching point for a critique of the broader strategy. Will U.S. bases in Iraq become like those in Saudi Arabia, a rallying point for bin Ladenists? Who will pay for it and how?
Maybe the Bush team has good answers for these questions. The record shows that haven’t in the past.
Yes, Iraq could become a thriving democracy. So could Afghanistan. Or at least stable Islamic monarchies, like the one in Kuwait??
I might also win the lottery, after finding a ticket on the sidewalk. But I think we can all agree I shouldn’t plan my retirement around that possibility.
How soon we forget that the Bush team has slid by so far by having NO PLAN for ending the war.
If we vote for Democrats maybe we can get a Five Year Plan.
How soon we forget that the Bush team has slid by so far by having NO PLAN for ending the war.
The war actually ended when we overthrew Saddam. Since then we have been on to another phase: rebuilding Iraq. The rebuilding phase started off well, but was sidtracked by the Mosque bombing, and Gen. Sanchez wasn’t up to the task of getting things in order. Bush’s single biggest failure may have been retaining Sanchez as long as he did. But if iraq goes well, that’s a small point.
The Democrats have no plan whatsoever, except to blame Bush. They never had any fundamental grasp of the issue of Islamic Terror, aside from blaming America. Aside from that they have demonstrated an opportunistic and gutless lack of leadership.
I agree that the Democrats have no realistic plan for Iraq.
That’s a big disappointment for me, but not nearly as costly in blood and treasure as the Bush team’s poor planning and/or lack of planning.
Yet again, some people insist on sticking to a rigorously speculative viewpoint on Iraq “if Iraq goes well” indeed.
If I win the lottery….
For some reason, the Dem response to events reminds of Bill Clinton’s response to various scandals:
Deny
Obstruct investigation
Deny
Obstruct
Deny
Obstruct
Deny
Obstruct
x 100 days, or
x 200 days, or
x 2 years.
When the inevitably, necessarily(due to obstruction) elongated investigations concluded, and showed evidence of Clinton wrongdoing, the Clinton team every time responded:
The Clinton team followed this script again and again, from the smallest scandals: infidelity; to the largest: Chinese money buying Lorell missile guidance technology for China.
Now, vis a vis Iraq, as you so accurately point out
This new strategy is an update of Bill Clinton’s 1990s strategy. The new:
deny (surge success)
obstruct (the surge via legislation and propaganda)
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
When awareness of surge success becomes too well known to any longer deny, then, this:
How exceedingly odd that recent troll-like commenter “McLovin” and recent troll-like commenter “Jack Black” hail from exactly the same burg in Australia, home of many of my old trolls. One wonders.
Troll-like?
What does that mean?
I give my opinion, and I respond in kind to attacks. Sometimes, I answer ad hominem with the same, but I never initiate it. Never.
Neo-neo would sooner ban liberals than respond to their points. Trouble is, she doesn’t know how to do it with 100 percent effectiveness.
She could, of course, require registration, but she knows her hits would dwindle into the single figures…
What a beautiful illustration this is…
Here’s the deal: don’t ban McLovin and he won’t have to show up under other names.
I went to Israel once. stayed in a hostel.
in the room with me was a guy from Australia and a guy from New Zealand.
McLovin HAS THE NERVE to accuse a class of people of being whiners?!
My God.. I couldn’t stand being in the room with those two guys.. all they did the entire time was each fight with the other about whose country was better. And they whined and complained about everything in Israel.
I never saw more negative people in my life.
I find Leftists on the whole to be insufferable.. but get two lefties from Australia/NZ in a room, and you’ll want to kill yourself.
So McLovin, when you live in a glass house STFU.
Let’s do be fair, however. McLovin and even Jack Black haven’t clearly crossed the line into trollhood (?), in my view.
And the extrapolation from a couple of guys to a whole country is a big one indeed. I shudder to think what a similar extrapolation from a few unfortunately selected Americans would yield.
Occam’s Beard:
Well obviously I was stooping to his level.
Well, I can say I don’t find conservatives insufferable.
Some of the nicest, most intelligent people in the world are conservatives. That doesn’t make them right, of course. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I’ve found that political views seldom translate to particular behaviors.
Occam’s Beard: they are very much on the troll border, because of the taunting tone of their comments, although they have not crossed over.
I’m not extrapolating to a whole country. Not all Australians are trolls by a longshot, but it’s an interesting fact that almost all of my worst trolls were from either Australia or New Zealand. And these two—if they are indeed two separate people (because most of these Australia and New Zealand trolls have had proxy/shifting IP numbers)—don’t just hail from the same country, they hail from the same rather small suburb of the same city in Australia.
Ah, and I just read McLovin’s 11:06 PM comment:
Here’s the deal: don’t ban McLovin and he won’t have to show up under other names.
I rest my case. Apparently not only a troll, but a troll we’ve seen here before.
I have no problem with commenters who disagree. In fact, I enjoy a lively argument in the comments section. But I do have trouble with people who come here merely to taunt (or insult), mount the same tiresome ad hominen arguments over and over, keep moving the goalposts, and who also come back after being banned for behavior much worse than that.
Fair enough, neo. You have more (and better) info than I do. I’m just trying to bend over backwards to be fair.
My comment about extrapolation was actually directed to the comment by Vince, with whom I generally agree, not to yours about the IP addresses.
Occam: I find myself having less and less patience to deal with Leftists who are only interested in unproductive fighting. I sensed this immediately in McLovin.
I’m not one of those “elevated” types.. if some lefty wants to engage in the typical 2nd grade type antics its likey i’ll engage with him in a tone I normally dont because ultimately he doesnt care about the issue or what the hell i say.. so there’s no sense in actually taking him or his farcical arguments seriously and waste my time coming up with a thoughtful response.
Vince, my brother, believe me, I understand. I struggle mightily to keep a temperate tone, sometimes with more success than others…
Thanks for understanding 🙂
I have a feeling this year is going to be a rough one.
Leo Tolstoy in “War and Peace” (actually, more exact translation of the title is “War and Society”) gave the best satire at reliance on pre-planned warfare: “First column marches… second column marches…” Kutuzov, in his portrait of the man, seems to me much like Gen. Petreus in his refuse to micro-manage the war in accordance with pre-existing plans, but, instead, take bet on unpredictability of situation on the ground and quick, situation-driven response to what actually happen.
I can propose a nice three-point withdrawal plan:
1) Defeat enemy.
2) Stabilize Iraq to the point it can stand resonably long by its own devices.
3) Withdraw.
Each point should be launched after the previous is completed.
neo,
But I do have trouble with people who come here merely to taunt (or insult), mount the same tiresome ad hominen arguments over and over,
What about your “troll” Vince P?
dose he still “on the troll border”?
did crossed over with his “merely to taunt (or insult)mount the same tiresome ad hominen arguments over and over”?
I wonder what the plan was in WW2.Probably to win .
It is idiocy to think that you can plan from A to B to win a war.You fight and adjust,fight and adjust.
Who could have know what would happen after Saddam’s fall.Only guesses.
Did anyone know that Iran would be sending in people to kill our troops?
Armchair generals existed in every war.You all look foolish.
I agree that the Democrats have no realistic plan for Iraq.
That’s a big disappointment for me, but not nearly as costly in blood and treasure as the Bush team’s poor planning and/or lack of planning.
The only plan the Dems have has to do with obtaining political power.
Bush in fact has a big picture plan for the war on Islamic terror. It may or may not be the best, but the nuts and bolts failures in Iraq don’t negate its validity.
The cost in blood, so far, has been light.
Yet again, some people insist on sticking to a rigorously speculative viewpoint on Iraq “if Iraq goes well” indeed.
Iraq is going well. The question now is will the trend continue.
Not to stray from the “comments on other people’s comments” motif this thread has become but…
In terms of Bush’s signing a new “treaty” with Iraq, bravo for him. All this talk of leaving Iraq immediately is horribly impractical, unrealistic, and cruel. By cruel, I mean that we can’t leave the job half-done, and we can’t send the message that we are only out to bring the people of this world “freedom lite.” Freedom and democracy are meant to be complete packages. If our planning was rushed, and our execution not as polished as it could have been in Iraq, that doesn’t mean we also have to screw up the final exit. It’s time people stopped chanting anti-war slogans and actually thought about this from a global and human perspective. What is the cost of early withdrawal? Probably more bloodshed, and certainly a huge rallying cry and morale boost to the terrorists and the Middle-Eastern rogues states that fund them.
There is more to this war and rebuilding effort than people think. It’s far too easy to chant slogans about peace, and not think about the consequences. Peace is not always won without a fight…
Erik: I’ve never had so much uncertainty about the future of this country then I have once teh anti-War Left started getting itself into gear in 2003/2004, and it’s only been worse from there.
I think it’s transparent to most people that the Lefties really don’t care about dead Iraqs.
Our having left in the midst of on-going violence means that we are removing ourselves as the restrainer, and are passively unleashing even more death and destruction. A horrible conflageration would have descended onto Iraq if we ddn’t do what we did in 2007. We woud have been responisble for swooping into iraq, destroying its government, and then leaving.. leaving in the middle of bloody vicisious killing… with us leaving, the killing would have been so much worse, with much involvement from syria, lebanon, iran, and saudi arabia doing their best to keep the killing going.
We would been blamed for the barabaric rivers of blood that would be unleashed… ALL MUSLIMS around the world would witness the fratricide in Iraq. knowing that our weak society is the blame for that.
Does anyone think the Muslims and the Iraqis in particular would forgive us?
Hell they hate us enough now and we’ve done more to protect thier unworthy asses than they ever did for us.
But Leftists dont care. What they care agbout is having it be a disater so that can point to Bush and say “This is the result of him”
They do not care how many must die to achive their goal of destoying ush.. disempowwring me
It’s shocking just how cynical these Leftists are… they have no qualms about the deaths their policies woud result in. I lament thay have any posion of influence.
destroying its government, and then leaving.. leaving in the middle of bloody vicisious killing… with us leaving, the killing would have been so much worse,
One wonder the killing starts after ONE year after the invasion of Iraq.
If there were “bloody vicisious killing then we should saw that early days or weeks of US invasion of Iraq but it took one year to starts.
I’m sure the Left will come up with a way to break more international agreements than they have to this day.