--- andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===