Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben,
That's because no one actually knows.
You are absolutely right, no one actually knows what would have happened if Saddam was still in power. But you can make reasonable predictions can't you? In fact you need to, don't you?
How the is any country supposed to run itself other than by making its best predictions of what is likely to happen in the future and what it should do about it?
-
Andrew,
If the US hadn't gone into Iraq, then I presume Al Qaeda would have put all their effort into beating the Yanks in Afghanistan, but so what? They had to be dealt with somewhere, and from the US' persepctive, it is better to play an away game than a home game.I don't think, infact I am sure the US did not anticipate Al Qaeda showing up in Iraq the way they did, but when they did, what else are you going to do but fight them? And beating them in Iraq is great news.
-
The other aspect no one pays much attention to is what would be the situation in the Middle East if Saddam was still in power today.
The sanctions would be off, Saddam would be cranking up his nuke programs just as fast as he could, just like the other set of nutters next door in Iran.
So most likely we would have Iraq and Iran, both run by crackpots, in a nuclear arms race, with much of the world's oil within a very short distance. Nice, really nice.
So the choices were either really bad, or really, really bad. No good options to be had. Glad I don't have to make those kind of decisions.
-
Tom,
Have you been paying attention to what has been going on in Iraq, or do you get your news on Iraq solely from Mother Jones?
Read the link I posted.
-
Somehow I think pointing out that, over a million Iraqi have died...
Iraq Body Count has 76k to 83k dead since 2003 due to military or paramilitary activity.
millions are on the run...
No doubt about that. Most of those are Sunnis. Their leaders made a very bad decisions in 2004 to join with Al Qaeda and launch an insurgency. Bad decisions can often have bad consequences, especially when your Al Qaeda buddies try to cause a civil war by killing Shias, and the Shia after showing a lot of restraint, react in a predictable manner.
Still the Sunni who remain have made better choices recently so maybe over time many of the Sunni Iraqis who fled will be able to return.
-
You want good news on Iraq? It is there to be had if you look around.
How about Al Qaeda has had its ass handed to it in Iraq and Bin Laden admitted as much in his recent tape. How is that for good news? That is huge. The big bad Islamic super dude has gotten a good ole butt whipping in Iraq from the weak cowardly infidel USA and other Iraqis, his fellow Sunni Muslims to boot. How do you put a positive spin on that if you are Al Qaeda’s PR guy? Not good for recruitment or morale or fundraising, not good at all.http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20071027.aspx
Iraqi casualties down more than 75% from 3500 in Nov 06 to 804 in Sep 07.
US casualties down from 126 in May 07 to 36 in Sept 07 despite more troops on the ground and an increased operational tempo.As Muslims around the world have woken up to how many of their fellow Muslims Al Qaeda has killed in Iraq, support for Al Qaeda has dropped significantly over the last few years.
All of the above can only be described (rationally) as good news. More proof of the reality of the changes in Iraq is the fact that the political conversation on Iraq in the US has changed radically.
Rather than the problems in Basra, the biggest immediate problem is up in Kurdistan with the PKK and Turkey. If Turkey invades to beat up on the PKK, which they have good reason to do, and might do after the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan visits with Bush in the next few weeks, that will really be a problem.
There is still a long way to go in Iraq and many things that could go wrong, but it seems to me that rather than “dead end neocons” being blind to reality in Iraq, it is dead end lefties that are refusing to acknowledge that things have taken a turn for the better that are suffering from cranial rectal inversion.
-
Simon,
While we certainly can't draw conclusions that the surge in Iraq has been a success, the fact that in Nov 06 there were 3500 Iraqi casualties and in Sept 07 there were 884 (a 75% reduction) proves that the surge is succeeding, to date, in one of its key objectives (reduction of violence). The 75% reduction is consistent with Petreaus' testimony and is not hype, or spin or opinion, it is a fact and I don't see how it can be disputed (credibly).That is not to say that the recent progress couldn't all fall apart, which it would most likely do if the US upped stakes and withdrew as soon as possible, as the anti war crowd and the Dems want to do. Then I think the most likely scenario would be a Rwanda like (or worse) blood bath and I don't understand how people who probably think of themselves as humanitarians and nice people could possibly advocate for a policy with that likely result.
One aspect that RB briefly and begrudgingly touched on in one of his posts on this thread (only begrudgingly probably because it is positive development in Iraq and reflects well on the US) that is greatly underplayed and is really of huge strategic significance is that Al Qaida, which wants to ignite a great revolution in the Muslim world, has been rejected by its fellow Sunni Muslims in Anbar, and this is being reported in the Middle East media and across the Muslim world. That is a huge deal, what a slap in the face for the great Osama Bin Goat Screwer.
According to Al Qaida’s view of the world, if any group of Muslims in the world should have been ripe to become enthusiastic adherents to Al Qaida, it should have been the tribes in Anbar, who are fellow Sunnis and had been invaded by the Great Satan. But the Sunnis of Anbar got an upfront and personal look at Al Qaida and the way they want to run the Muslim world and they not only said “Fuck off’ but enlisted none other than the great Satan to help them kick Al Qaida out of their land. It is a massive turnaround. How would you spin that one if you were Al Qaida’s media relations guy?
There is strong evidence that Iraq is now on the right track and the key issue is to keep it on the same track for a number of years and many of the remaining issues and disputes will get worked out or become part of the political domain. As the Iraqi Army gets bigger and better, it can deal with situations like the problems in southern Iraq described in the article by Galbraith. The biggest obstacle to the better Iraq that is possible is the Iraqi culture of corruption, and we won’t know the answer to that question for a number of years.
Here is a detailed article with a lot of detail on some of the positive developments in Iraq. I think the best description I heard about US efforts in Iraq was "Winning ugly". That sums it up quite well.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804
-
RB,
I am glad to see that you noted that Democrat Senator Joe Biden's stupid Iraq partition idea that he has been peddling for years was roundly condemned, especially in Iraq. I couldn’t agree more that it is a stupid idea and hubris, but that won’t stop ole’ Joe from harping on and on about it. Another stupid Dem idea. Add it to the pile.Disappointed that you peddled the tired old crap about the Army being “po’ black” folks. The average US Army soldier has attained higher educational achievement and is more likely to be white than the average US citizen.
The extended and repeated tours are definitely putting a strain on the Army; one of Bush’s biggest mistakes was not increasing the size of the Army pretty soon after Sept 11, after which it was highly likely that there would be increased military activity. But my understanding is that the majority of military people and their families want to “see the job done” and that a premature US withdrawal which just about everyone (including most Dems) understand would plunge Iraq into much worse carnage than that which has transpired over the last 5 years, is not what military people and their families believe to be the right thing to do.
How many more billions will Iraq cost over the next 5 years? I don’t know, but quite a few hundred of them. Iraq could all still fall apart at the seams, no doubt about that, but if it stays on the track it is on now, Iraq in 5 years could be something like Kurdistan now, still far from perfect but progressing in the right direction, a positive influence in the region and destabilizing to the remaining Middle Eastern dictatorships.
As for what Sadr and Co would do if the US bombed Iran, absolutely, that is one of the many complicating factors. It all comes down to what you believe is the lesser of two evils, the potential fall-out from bombing Iran, or Iran with a nuke in 2 years or 10 year (who knows) and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? As I said, glad I don’t have to make the choice.
Simon,
As for your contention that Petreaus’ testimony is a load of rubbish, that is, well, a load of rubbish. You really do have your head stuck in a dark smelly place on that point. In fact it is so obvious that the surge is reducing the violence in Iraq that even the BBC can’t ignore it. Here is an article from yesterday:Iraq violent death rates 'plunge'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stmHave you read any of the posts written by on the ground journalists like Michael Yon, Micheal Totten or Bill Roggio? Their stuff is pretty compelling, and they are right out there on the ground in Anbar and the other provinces where the surge is going on.
In terms of the politics of the war in the US, you can see how far things have turned by the fact that yesterday the Senate passed the Defense Appropriation bill by 93-3. Yes, that is right, 93 votes in favor of Bush’s request. Any way you slice it, it is a capitulation of the Dems anti Iraq war strategy.
Democrats had threatened to hold up the Defense appropriation until George Bush bent to their will on Iraq. Harry Reid had petulantly taken the bill off the table in July, attempting to hold it to the last minute in order to pressure Republicans to change course in Iraq. Instead, as the success of the surge became more and more apparent, Reid found the ground falling out from beneath him.
None of this means that the Iraq war or Bush will suddenly become popular as a result, it just means that a reversal of Bush’s Iraq policy in no longer on the cards in the foreseeable future and it does give him more leeway on Iran. The recent rhetoric of Monsieur Sarkozy helps in that regard as well, but that is another subject.
-
This is interesting, just got this in an e-mail from Stratfor:
Stratfor has seen indications that Iran is planning to up the ante in Iraq by supplying its militant proxies with shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). These man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) are short range and are only able to shoot down helicopters and other low-flying aircraft. The U.S. military also announced Sept. 30 that it had seized Iranian-made surface-to-air missiles called Misagh-1s being used by insurgents in Iraq.
Iranian military and logistical support to Iraqi Shiite militant s is nothing new. But adding SAMs to the weapons mix opens up a whole new can of worms.
The Iranians probably are well aware that they would be heading for trouble if the SAM threat materializes. For now, the prospect of Iranian-supplied SAMs to Iraqi insurgents is enough to get Washington's attention. As long as this threat is used as a pressure tactic, negotiations between Washington and Tehran have a chance of going somewhere. But if U.S. choppers start going down, a shift in Iranian thinking will immediately be made apparent -- and it will be Washington's turn to make a decision on grand strategy in Iraq. -
I would never rely on anything Hersh reported, he is an agenda driven individual, not an impartial reporter, but in this instance, what he wrote is more or less consistent with a lot of reporting from a wide variety of sources over here, but it is nothing new.
Bush started banging the Iran drum harder at the beginning of the year as one of the justifications for his Iraq surge and he has been sailing his carrier fleets up and down back and forth for most of the year.
I haven't read any great enthusiasm for bombing Iran over here, those that advocate for it put it in the nature of a "bad or worse" choice. Bomb Iran and goodness knows what will happen but at least you have a decent shot at setting them back a few years from getting a bomb, let Iran get a bomb and we can all watch an instantaneous nuclear arms race in the Middle East with the Saudis getting one from Pakistan quite quickly (the Saudis paid for Pakistan’s nuke program) etc. or the possibility of Iran giving a nuke or some nuke material to a terrorist group. Which is worse? Take your poison, glad I don't have to make the call.
I think it is pretty obvious to most that the kumbyya option will never happen. No one in their right mind would trust the current Iranian regime. Not when the subject is nukes.
Whatever you do, or don't do, the options in that part of the world are not easy.
I haven't seen anything to the effect in the NZ media (not that I am suggesting that readers on PAS only read the NZ media), but the Iraq debate has changed pretty dramatically over here. Not only did the Petreaus report reset the clock so Bush can have a large troop presence in Iraq until the end of his term, but now even the major Dem Presidential candidates wont pledge to have all US troops out of Iraq by the end of their (theoretical) first term in 2013, five years away, as long again as the US has already been there. I wouldn’t have thought that scenario was possible at the beginning of the year. That must piss off a lot of anti war protestors / activists etc.
The better news from Iraq probably has given Bush the leeway he needs to take a swing at Iran, if he chooses to. I read a hypothesis that March April next year is the optimum time from a US domestic perspective, after the main primaries and still 6 months before the election. It is a lousy way to decide when to take that kind of action, but unfortunately everything over here is politics. Either way, the next year is going to be interesting.