Skip to main content

View Diary: No Way Home? (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (4.00)
    I suspect that dear old Wesley is being, er, massively disingenuous in this: he is well aware that the US military simply doesn't have the troops to accomplish this, and that any attempt to rectify this now will simply lead the US into an even worse situation by igniting a widespread Shia revolt in the South. The MoD has been pretty explicit on this point - it simply cannot get in the way of the evolution of local politics without running the risk of getting snuffed out of existence.

    The brutal reality is that Iran won the political game back in June of 2003 when Sistani was flipped into interventionism, and ordered his civil Jihad against the occupation. The fact is that there is now a Teheran-tilting government in Baghdad, and this will continue after the December elections. Wesley can complain as much as he wants about the US losing the strategic battle - but this was always the likely scenario if the Shia parlayed their numerical domination into power in a voting proces; it's all very well singing about democracy, but you have to accept that it will produce outcomes that don't correspond to your strategic requirements.

    •  Or, He is very aware that we don't have the troops (none)
        He knows that Bushco will not begin a draft to try to do this belatedly (or too late) properly! Thus, our only real option is to redeploy to the outskirts and help the Iraqis from Bin Ladins' boys.  Where is Bin Ladin since our president has told us that he is not concerned about him?  Isn't Bin Ladin our WAR on TERROR? Is he Bushes buddy or something?
      •  Bin forgotten (none)
        Imho, the person of Osama Bin Laden has basically become immaterial to the BushCo equation.

        Having successfully forced the implementation of the PNAC strategy thanks to the 911attacks (their 'Pearl Harbor'), the Iraq engagement itself has created sufficient reason for the continued 'war on terror' -- so that all Al Qaeda need do is provide a name for the omnipresent enemy.

        Bin Laden's served his purposes as righteously as US policy continues to serve his,  but it seems BushCo's basically done with him.  

        •  Erratum (none)
          Meant to say, 'Bin Laden's served their purposes etc.

          I must've been thinking of Bush himself -- but he's basically immaterial too, as an individual. Any impressionable, intellectually incurious figurehead would've served equally well; GWB's placement was just convenient.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site