Robert, Well, how will they disarm the Iraqi insurgents? If they couldn't do it with a 150,000 troops, how can they expect to with a drastically reduced force? And of course we are in no condition to go to war with Iran.
Joanna, I guess I was unclear in my musing. I didn't mean how the ruling class will get away with it. Of course they will, because the Dems & the GOP both seem to think it's a good idea, at least until the helicopters have to lift of the embassy roof.
What I meant is how the _Dems_ expect to get away with it. Their prospects are looking pretty good right now because the war is increasingly unpopular. If they stick with the war, even if the GOP does as well, their prospects are not going to be so good. It will be their war then and people will refuse to turn out in droves, losing them seats and maybe a second term presidency.
--- Robert Wrubel <bobwrubel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andie N wrote:
> "This is what I expected and feared. But how can
> they
> > get away with it? Won't continued occupation come
> > back to bite them?"
>
> I can see a way -- a horribly maimed, divided and
> disfunctional state, not to mention disarmed -- in
> which the Americans could stay in their fortified
> bases without further American casualties. Iraqi
> caualties would of course vanish from view.
>
> But this state is unimaginable with Iran next door,
> so
> my fear is that this imagined "stable" state in Iraq
> would also require the dismantling of Iran. That's
> the
> scenario I dont see how they can get away with.
>
> BobW
>
>
> --- andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > This is what I expected and feared. But how can
> they
> > get away with it? Won't continued occupation come
> > back
> > to bite them at mid-term and even the next general
> > election? This isn't like Korea, where the killing
> > and
> > dying mostly stopped after the armistice. As long
> as
> > we are there the body bags and maimed and damaged
> > will
> > be coming home. Besides. What's magic about ten
> > years?
> > What reason does anyone have to think that in ten
> > years things will better enough so that whatever
> is
> > impelling them to stay in Iraq that long will be
> > fixed?
> >
> > --- Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174844/having_a_carnage_party
> > >
> > > posted October 02, 2007 4:33 pm
> > >
> > > Tomgram
> > >
> > > We Count, They Don't
> > >
> > > By Tom Engelhardt
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Counting to Five, to Ten, to Fifty
> > >
> > > Right now, leading Democrats, as well as
> > > Republicans, are focused on
> > > counting to both five and ten, which turn
> out
> > to
> > > be the same thing.
> > > In a recent debate among the Democratic
> > > candidates for the
> > > presidency, for instance, the top three (by
> > > media and polling
> > > agreement), Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama,
> and
> > > John Edwards refused
> > > to commit to having all American troops out
> of
> > > Iraq by 2013, the end
> > > of a first term in office -- five years from
> > > now, and 10 years from
> > > the March 2003 launching of the invasion.
> > >
> > > Like much else of recent vintage, this
> 10-year
> > > count may have
> > > started with our surge commander in Iraq,
> > > General David Petraeus,
> > > who, for some time, has been telling just
> > about
> > > anyone willing to
> > > listen that counter-insurgency operations in
> > > Iraq could take "up to
> > > a decade." ("In fact," he told Fox News in
> > June,
> > > "typically, I think
> > > historically, counter-insurgency operations
> > have
> > > gone at least nine
> > > or 10 years.") Now, it seems, his
> > > to-the-horizon-and-beyond Iraqi
> > > timetable has largely been subsumed into an
> > > inside-the-Beltway
> > > consensus that no one -- not in this
> > > administration or the next, not
> > > a new president or a new Congress -- will
> end
> > > our involvement in
> > > Iraq in the foreseeable future; that, in
> fact,
> > > we must stay in Iraq
> > > and that, the worse it gets, the more that
> > > becomes true -- if only
> > > to protect the Iraqis (and our interests in
> > the
> > > Middle East) from
> > > even worse.
> > >
> > > Conservative New York Times columnist David
> > > Brooks put it this way
> > > on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: "[The
> > Democrats
> > > in Congress are]
> > > not going to cut off funding, and we've seen
> > and
> > > we saw in the
> > > debate this week, there are going to be
> > probably
> > > U.S. troops in Iraq
> > > there 10 years, regardless who's elected. So
> > > they're not going to
> > > win on this." Liberal warhawk George Packer
> in
> > > the New Yorker
> > > recently wrote a long article, "Planning for
> > > Defeat," laying out
> > > many of the reasons why Iraq remains a
> > disaster
> > > area and discussing
> > > various methods of withdrawal before
> plunking
> > > for a policy summed up
> > > in the suggestion of an anonymous Bush
> > > administration official,
> > > "Declare defeat and stay in." Packer
> > concluded:
> > > "Whenever this
> > > country decides that the bloody experience
> in
> > > Iraq requires the
> > > departure of American troops, complete
> > > disengagement will be neither
> > > desirable nor possible. We might want to be
> > rid
> > > of Iraq, but Iraq
> > > won't let it happen."
> > >
> > > Retired Brigadier General Kevin Ryan,
> > > representing the military
> > > punditocracy, offered the following: "I
> don't
> > > see us getting out of
> > > Iraq for a decade." In fact, increasingly
> few
> > in
> > > official Washington
> > > do. (An exception is presidential candidate
> > Bill
> > > Richardson, who
> > > launched a web video this week from a total
> > > withdrawal position that
> > > began: "George Bush says the surge is
> working.
> > > Gen. Petraeus says it
> > > will take more time. Republican presidential
> > > candidates say stay as
> > > long as it takes. No surprises there. But,
> you
> > > might be surprised to
> > > learn that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and
> > > John Edwards would all
> > > leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq")
> > Iraq
> > > is, of course,
> > > acknowledged to be the number-one issue in
> the
> > > upcoming presidential
> > > campaign; the ever growing unhappiness of
> > > Americans with our
> > > presence in that country is considered a
> fact
> > of
> > > political life; and
> > > yet it's becoming ever harder to imagine
> just
> > > what the future Iraq
> > > debate among presidential candidates will
> > > actually be about, if
> > > everyone agrees that we have at least five
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/