Told you so

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Are you saying Islam is a disease? I'd have to disagree, my Dear Sir.

Uh, obviously no. I do think Buckley's characterization is accurate, in that the Iraq situation is now a chronic condition that can't be treated by our current efforts. Unlike conflicts with centralized command, there isn't a tumor that you can remove and have the problem be solved.

Does that make any sense? This is why I think a great deal of war criticism is actually a political decision, not a military one (anybody get the reference!!?). For example, the Speaker of the House wouldn't attend the briefing on Iraq's status given by the general last week due to "scheduling conflicts." This is the comander of your Iraqi operation, and all your going to do is give him a 30 minute phone call (as was Pelosi's excuse)? How long do you think her meeting with President Assad went?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the political maneuvers going on now are irrelevant to whether or not the current strategy is going to work. I hardly pay any attention to them.

As far as I can tell, you're asking me to basically have faith in Petraeus, because you haven't convinced me why the surge is going to work. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (since my opinion doesn't matter anyways), but reading about bombings nearly every day and 100 dead US soldiers in April doesn't inspire much confidence.

And if in six months things aren't really improving, what then? How long before you say enough is enough? Sure maybe if we stay there 50 years, things will improve, but that's never going to happen.

If our mission is truly consistent with stabilizing a truly unstable regime, toppling a dictator, and (now) preventing another radical islamic regime from growing and funding extremism, than we need to stay and finish, despite the opinion on our presence.

There's plenty of extremism already in Iraq, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, we should fix our fucking mess. But to do so is going to require a radical reassessment of our approach to the region. I have no confidence that a direct military solution is the best one. I think Iraq needs to take its destiny into its own hands. It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

What are the other options? If the US magically pulled out tomorrow, we can expect that a) Iran would go to town, and wouldn't stop with Iraq.
or b) it would be a mad scramble, with the secular-atheist democratic factions coming out severely under represented in all the fun.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Uh, obviously no. I do think Buckley's characterization is accurate, in that the Iraq situation is now a chronic condition that can't be treated by our current efforts. Unlike conflicts with centralized command, there isn't a tumor that you can remove and have the problem be solved.

Well if you're going to throw Buckley at me, then you should be willing to embrace his entire position on the war. I'm thinking it's actually pretty different from your own, mostly that we should blame this all on the temperament of the Iraqi people. That, IMO, is a conservative cop out for excusing the operation in the first place. Do you share that opinion?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the political maneuvers going on now are irrelevant to whether or not the current strategy is going to work. I hardly pay any attention to them.

Um, no, they are precisely the point--our elected leaders are playing politics with a fucking war. You can accuse Bush of it, but you can also accuse Reid/Pelosi/Dean of it as well. Like pushing through a bill filled with pork projects that has an arbitrary time table added to it, knowing the president will reject such an outrageous bill, so that they can all go back to their districts and say "well by golly shucks, I voted to end this thing!" in 2008.

As far as I can tell, you're asking me to basically have faith in Petraeus, because you haven't convinced me why the surge is going to work. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (since my opinion doesn't matter anyways), but reading about bombings nearly every day and 100 dead US soldiers in April doesn't inspire much confidence.

You read about bombings every day because 1. There IS BTW A REAL ENEMY OVER THERE, 2. Papers want to sell papers, and 3. Keith Olbermann needs a reason to live.

There are arguments outlining why the surge is working, with most emphasis on how unstable Baghdad was just a couple months ago. I can provide you with a bunch of links if you'd like, but they're pretty accessible.

But I don't think that would matter. I think you don't like this war, you didn't like this war, and you want us to leave. You make a perfectly reasonable argument along those lines, so i don't see why war critics need to keep saying "well there's no progress, we should leave!" There IS measurable progress there, just not what you'd like to hear. It took S. Korea decades to move away from authoritarian rule, with not NEARLY the kind of radical reaction we are finding in the Middle East. How truly democratic is Russia today? How much longer will the effects of Authoritarianism hamper China? Your expectations in Iraq are quite lofty, but I think the progress you want is American troops on carriers coming home. Why not just say that?

I think Iraq needs to take its destiny into its own hands. It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

Wow. So if mass genocide were to begin AFTER our departure, as has been suggested, you would pull a Buckley and wash your hands clean of this?