April 5, 2006
THE VIEW FROM THE CABANA:
Two Deadlines and an Exit (JOHN F. KERRY, 4/05/06, NY Times)
WE are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.
You probably have to be as smart and as much a Realist as Senator Kerry to think that there's any other issue involved in those three than whether the Sunni minority will allow itself to be democratically governed by the Shi'a majority. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 5, 2006 3:03 PM
Flip-flop, flip-flop.
Hanoi John is still doing it. We're doing too much, we're not doing enough.
There is one unifying theme, however.
Surrender. Surrender to the Communists, to the Sandinistas, and now to the Sunnis.
Hanoi John wants to give the Baathist werewolves Loni Guiniere-style proportional representation. He advocates rewarding terrorism as he used to advocate rewarding aggression and subversion.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 5, 2006 3:22 PM
So, we've won two wars in as many years and it's critical that we bail on the third before resolution?
Posted by: Mike Earl at April 5, 2006 3:26 PMAhh, the tyranny of the majority; is there any other issue about the war in Iraq other than the half dozen reasons the administration has planted in the media so as to capture the support of as many Americans as possible. And now, for Orrin Judd, it seems to be implanting a system as corruptable as ours over the most oil-rich land in the world?
Posted by: Stoner at April 5, 2006 3:43 PMstoner, is cuba your model of un-corrupted government ? or maybe cambodia c 1975. is our system corruptable when democrats win ? just because that humanities degree only gets you a job at radio shack, doesn't mean the system is broken.
Posted by: toe at April 5, 2006 3:54 PMCertainly anyone who opposes the American system ought to have supported leaving Saddam in place rather than democratizing Iraq.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 3:56 PMoj - No, that's settled, the Sunni have embraced democracy and entered the government. What's now at issue is will Iran allow a unity government to form that will, with US aid, disarm Iran's proxy militias in Iraq (notably, Sadr's Mahdi Army).
From the US point of view, achieving the latter is triply important. It secures Iraqi democracy, weakens Iran, and satisfies U.S. promises to the Sunni which caused them to abandon the insurgency, enter the government, and turn on al Qaeda. The Sunnis fear the militias much more than the elected government.
The brief "civil war" was just Iran-backed Shiite militias killing a few Sunni US allies, and Iran/Syria-backed Sunni militias killing a few Shiite US allies, in the hope of inciting a wider Sunni-Shiite conflagration. But the Iraqi army put that down quickly, the Iraqi people saw what was going on, and the Sadrites had to back down and try to recover political standing. Of course, Iran's been trying to incite a civil war for years without success. Why would these incitements work now, when success is closer than ever?
Posted by: pj at April 5, 2006 4:27 PMIt has nothiong to do with Iran, that's a neocon game.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 4:36 PMno, of course not, iran wants iraq as peaceful as possible so we can pack up our troops and leave the region. guffaw. pull the other one, it plays "Jingle Bells".
Posted by: toe at April 5, 2006 5:59 PMHe didn't mention the fouth war, against the MSM and the Demsocrats. It's the most important.
Posted by: jdkelly at April 5, 2006 6:42 PMPj, that is a brilliant analysis and very encouraging.
Posted by: Perry at April 6, 2006 9:08 AM