Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It would not be very wise to read too much into what is happening in Anbar. As Petraeus said, every part of Iraq is a separate unique problem. And if one were to think about it, Anbar was not overrun by Al-Qaeda prior to the invasion in 2003, so if we do remove Al-Qaeda in that province we are merely moving back to that earlier pre-war situation. The situation elsewhere does not appear to be improving, and if anything is worsening. Sadr's recent speech should give an inkling of the thinking among the Shia.

My hunch is that Bush will begin a troop drawdown after September, coming out with a "new" solution to the Iraq "problem." This will be forced by the GOP decision that losing power in 2008 is not acceptable, no matter what theories of the "war on terror" have been offered in the past. When this happens, the GOP machine, including talk radio will sing quite a different tune with regards to "staying and fighting." There will always be some way to spin it so that the Dems are traitors.

Already we see evidence that the ISG report and the Surrender Monkeys are beginning to define where we are going. Todays WaPo reports of talks and possibly more talks with the Iranians. The Syrians may not be too far behind.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 29, 2007 10:02 AM

It would not be very wise to read too much into what is happening in Anbar.

Man, that was easy. If something goes right, its not worth noting. If something goes wrong, suddenly ALL of it is a mess. TNT is a journalist by proxy.

Even a return to prewar situation is a plus TNT and successes need to be seen as such as much as failures.

Posted by Mac at May 29, 2007 10:28 AM

It would not be very wise to read too much into what is happening in Anbar... Sadr's recent speech should give an inkling of the thinking among the Shia.

Otherwise stated: Ignore the facts in Iraq and instead listen to Sadr's propaganda.

Please click the link, Rand provided, rather than ignoring it and going on some mindless rant about US politics.

Posted by Leland at May 29, 2007 10:34 AM

Mac,
I was merely pointing out that the model and theory Rand was talking about is unlikely to fit a situation which is so non-homogeneous as it is in Iraq, and that Gen. Petraeus has himself drawn attention to this fact.

Leland,
Please stop insinuating that every contrary or critical poster must somehow be so addled that they simply spout rubbish without reading the post. Also, why is this a mindless rant about US politics? Are we talking to the Iranians right now or not? Was this something the GOP spin machine had trashed for years? Be honest. I'm saying that the ISG recommendations are working their way into policy. Do you disagree?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 29, 2007 10:56 AM

The simple reason that some of the sheiks in Anbar are cooperating more with Americans is that Petraeus bribed them. It was, screw all of that stuff about battlefields, democracy, security, unity, secularism, monogamy, etc.; here's a suitcase of cash if you tell your tribe not to attack us. With the war costing $100 billion per year, it's easy to shunt off a small fraction to make these sheikhs rich.

You also don't need some "evolution of cooperation" theory, nor otherwise a PhD in economics or sociology, to know that money talks. It's obvious, but it's not an explanation that Johannes, Yon, et al can accept. Their problem with it, of course, is that it's dishonorable.

Actually, there has been so much dishonor in the Middle East in general, and in the Iraq war in particular, that they shouldn't mind that. For instance, bribery is the main way to broker peace between Israel and its enemies, e.g., Egypt. It's better than the alternatives. Bribery is also a big part of the American victory in Afghanistan. But bribery is only a good idea if it's connected to something else more honorable. In Iraq, it isn't. Eventually there will be a breakdown of trust in Anbar. The attacks will ramp up and the bribes will end, in one order or the other.

Posted by at May 29, 2007 11:18 AM

Please stop insinuating that every contrary or critical poster must somehow be so addled that they simply spout rubbish without reading the post.

I did no such thing.

I insinuated that you, TnT, are so adled that you simply spout rubbish without reading the original post. I point as proof the Epilog from the story which makes one wonder why some would then comment:

As Petraeus said, every part of Iraq is a separate unique problem.

I mean, it sounds very similar to J. D Johannes:

When I get home in a few weeks people will ask me, "how's Iraq?"

I will tell them, "I don't know, but I can tell you about the areas that I saw first hand and spent a few weeks living in."

Each area of operation is different. Khalidiyah is only 35 kilometers from Kharma and Kharma is only 33 kilometers from West Rasheed, Baghdad, but they are nothing alike.

Anyone who says they can speak with definitive knowledge about all of Iraq is a fool or a liar or both.

Posted by Leland at May 29, 2007 11:44 AM

Leland,

And the similarity with what I said shows I must not have read the link? Is there another interpretation possible, namely that I was commenting on the second sentence in the original post, as to how one could take the events in Anbar and extend them through Iraq?

And why is the related comment on discussions to pacify Iraq (talking to the Iranians, which we are now doing, despite all the name calling at the original proponents of the idea) disconnected in your mind from the topic of "Evolving Peace" in Iraq, to the extent that my bringing it up is a "rant?"

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 29, 2007 12:52 PM

talking to the Iranians, which we are now doing, despite all the name calling at the original proponents of the idea

Yeah, really, the Iranians and the Syrians both. After wild accusations of treason and Chamberlainism, they do it themselves. Whenever people condemn a proposal and then quietly follow it anyway, it means that they are caught between saving face and doing the right thing.

Well, what else do you expect from people who think that all diplomacy is cowardice, that every agreement is the Munich agreement.

Posted by at May 29, 2007 01:05 PM

In addition to talking to the Iranians and Syrians, we should definitely be talking to Sadr. Take his last statements at face value that he wants peace among the Shia the Sunnis and Christians. It is better to deal with those who can actually affect the situation in Iraq, rather than conversations with a powerless Iraqi Government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6664457.stm

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 29, 2007 01:11 PM

Evolving GOP policy (via Josh Marshall):

I don't disagree with the diplomatic decision, but it's worth noting that after years of saying talks with Iran would be reckless and irresponsible, the Bush gang is grudgingly accepting the reality that Dems have been pushing for quite a while.
Would it be rude to point out how often this has happened of late? Dems said Bush should talk directly to Syria; Bush said Dems were weak to even suggest it; and Bush eventually came around. Dems said Bush should talk to North Korea and use Clinton's Agreed Framework as a model for negotiations; Bush said this was out of the question; and Bush eventually came around. Dems said Bush should increase the size of the U.S. military; Bush said this was unnecessary; and Bush eventually came around.

And Dems said Bush should engage Iran in direct talks, particularly on Iraq. It took a while, but the president came around on this, too.

For years, all we've heard from the right is that Bush is a bold visionary when it comes to foreign policy, and Dems are weak and clueless. And yet, here we are, watching the White House embrace the Dems' approach on most of the nation's major foreign policy challenges.

Posted by Bill White at May 29, 2007 02:45 PM

We engage the Iranians, and the former administrator of Evin prison, puts three
Iranian Americans under espionage charges,
many sources see the Fatah al Islam splinter
faction (coming from Nahr el Bard, the same
refugeee camps that provided the muscle for
the Munich massacre and later the assasination
of Noel and Moore in Khartroum) as being tied
to Syria, just as the Jund al Shams, another
Islamist site tied to not surprisingly Assad won another of those 100% turn out elections, Farid
Ghadry and other Syrian liberals were
marginalized. Ultimately, though, the Alawite
dynasty is under as much threat as any other regime; and I don't say that just because Osama
is half-Syrian. The new NK framework, shows no signs of really succeeding; their missile tests last week, should give you that clue

Posted by narciso at May 29, 2007 07:24 PM

Incoming British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is about to face a serious test of his resolve. Five Brits abducted:

Five Britons have been kidnapped from Iraq's finance ministry in Baghdad, the British government has confirmed. Those abducted include four bodyguards from security company Gardaworld and a finance expert.
Witnesses and sources told the BBC that the kidnappers wore police uniforms and arrived in up to 40 police vehicles.

Forty police vehicles were involved in the abduction? Welcome to Whitehall, Mr. Brown.

Posted by Bill White at May 29, 2007 10:02 PM

So tell us Mr. White why talking to Iran and Syria is a GOOD thing. Anything other than a short "Stay out of Iraq" will make us look weak and them look strong. Because the Dems said we should doesn't make it a good idea and Bush is wrong to do it. Before you or anyone brings up the ISG, look who was on it. These "realists" were worthless when dealing with the Middle East. Tell me why legitimizing a thugocracy and a theocracy is good foreign policy? We should be formenting revolution in both countries and providing support to those who would work towards that end.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 29, 2007 11:34 PM

Because it is not related to the article. It is a tangent, along with the political screed, that you want to take.

Keep in mind, TnT, that my previous comments have called for morons to quit calling the situation in Iraq a military disaster and note the diplomatic disaster. I have commented before that President Bush and his Department of State have dropped the ball all diplomacy. Still, that discussion is hardly the point of your rant on GOP campaign strategies.

As far as Nancy Pelosi's trip, the Speaker of the House has no authority under the US Constitution to represent the US in foreign affairs, unless authorized by the President. Here's a more legal explanation. That's just the facts. If you go back to that thread, you can read my comments which end with:

That said, the Logan Act is rarely enforced. Furthermore, I'm not up-to-date on the particulars of the formation of the Iraq Study Group. If Bush commissioned them, and the Senate ok'd it, then that could play a factor in Pelosi's defense.

Now, lets see where we are in this topic. Rand started a thread about current events in Iraq, and pointed to a thread that barely mentioned Iran and nothing about Syria. TnT then diverted the topic into a screed against the GOP and rehash of the debate over Pelosi going to Syria.

Posted by Leland at May 30, 2007 07:41 AM

Well TnT does have something related:
In addition to talking to the Iranians and Syrians, we should definitely be talking to Sadr. Take his last statements at face value that he wants peace among the Shia the Sunnis and Christians. It is better to deal with those who can actually affect the situation in Iraq, rather than conversations with a powerless Iraqi Government.

The best strategy is to undermine the secular Iraqi Government by by-passing it and negotiating peace with a Muslim cleric? Why go through the effort of building a nation on democratic principles only to reinforce theological ideas of government?

It should be the Iraqi's government role in dealing with Sadr, whether it be negotiating an end to hostilities or apprehending him for trial. The US’s role should only be that of reinforcing the Iraqi government and providing it aid. Undermining the government is counter productive and foolish.

Posted by at May 30, 2007 08:01 AM

The above was my post...

Posted by Leland at May 30, 2007 08:01 AM

The best strategy is to undermine the secular Iraqi Government by by-passing it and negotiating peace with a Muslim cleric?

The Iraqi government isn't secular. Sadr is a pillar of support for Prime Minister Maliki. So your question is exactly backwards. It undermines the Iraqi government to pretend that it's secular and that Sadr has nothing to do with it.

The idea of the Iraqi government apprehending Sadr is ludicrous. Until he pulled them out, Sadr had six cabinet ministers in the government. Sadr has no intention of arresting himself.

Posted by at May 30, 2007 10:17 AM

So tell us Mr. White why talking to Iran and Syria is a GOOD thing.

Because, even though Iran and Syria are in many ways enemies of the United States, they are potential allies compared to the monster between them. And the White House is starting to admit it. Bush has tried mightily to agree with you about Iran and Syria for four long years, but by now he just can't; it's no longer tenable.

Posted by at May 30, 2007 10:53 AM

A while back I posted the observation that unless we killed/captured Sadr, the so-called "surge" was merely political theater for a domestic US audience. Kick the can down the road and buy Bush some time.

Isn't there a warrant for Sadr's arrest that we backed down from serving on Sadr in Najaf? (As an aside, Cindy Sheehan's son died fighting Sadr's militia in Najaf -- if we back down from arresting Sadr, then isn't it fair to say that he did "die for nothing")

Anyway, as for Sadr, fish or cut bait. Arrest/kill him OR negotiate his role in the government.

Posted by Bill White at May 30, 2007 11:31 AM

Anonymous Moron wrote:
Because, even though Iran and Syria are in many ways enemies of the United States, they are potential allies compared to the monster between them.

As Instapundit says, "they are not anti-war, they are just on the other side."

Again, read the original link and tell us again about this monster.

Posted by Leland at May 30, 2007 12:54 PM

A while back I posted the observation that unless we killed/captured Sadr, the so-called "surge" was merely political theater for a domestic US audience.

So we go back to my first comment:

Ignore the facts in Iraq and instead listen to Sadr's propaganda.

Oh, and then we have the moon bat propaganda:
(As an aside, Cindy Sheehan's son died fighting Sadr's militia in Najaf -- if we back down from arresting Sadr, then isn't it fair to say that he did "die for nothing")

Posted by Leland at May 30, 2007 01:10 PM

Kill Bill ?!

I mean Bill, did you really say we should kill Sadr. As in extrajudicial? This is the amazing thing, if WE kill Sadr, it must be OK. After all Saddam killed the rest of his family, so we should just finish the job? The right to do so derived from where exactly? This is the slope we've put ourselves on. The ends justify the means. They don't. Especially when there is no end in sight.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 30, 2007 07:35 PM

TnT -

Only if he resists arrest and we cannot otherwise detain him should Sadr be killed. Or were those arrest warrants in place before the Najaf standoff invalid?

As a practical matter, the Shi'ite storm that would erupt if we did actually arrest Sadr (or kill him trying) would be disastrous and thus NO prudent US or Iraqi force will attempt such a thing.

And if we are unwilling/unable to arrest/kill such a flagrant violator of Iraqi law as Mookie Sadr "the surge" is exposed as a transparent sham.

Thus, Sadr can only be negotiated with, not as a matter of justice but due to our lack of power.

Same story as with Syria and Iran.

Posted by Bill White at May 30, 2007 10:20 PM

It's about time a wave of pacification spread out from the centres of Baghdad, Tehran, Riyadh, Mecca, Medina and Islamabad - at about Mach 1, the speed of a shockwave in air.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 31, 2007 04:17 PM

Post a comment