Don't pay any attention to political pronouncements,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
I knew that - except for the words Kufr and Takfiri :eek:- but when we're moving troops to take part in inter shiite battles it's a lot harder to argue that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."
just watch what goes on. To my knowledge, no one other than politicians and pundits uses that phrase. What, precisely, does Central Front mean in any event?
Not that, even were that 'central front' statement remotely sensible, would it be negated by the fact that we're moving troops to take part in inter Shiite battles. That occurs on almost a daily basis there. Given a fight of any kind in Iraq, we're almost certainly going to be at least peripherally involved. Look at Najaf in '04. What difference does that make?
Having spent more years in an environment where
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
I'm an ad guy. "Not remotely sensible" is what I do. Not remotely sensible can also decide elections. Just my opinion, but I think "bring home the troops who are not fighting Al Qeada" could win votes.
doing things that were not highly sensible would get you killed, you'll not mind if I agree with you on deciding elections and even on the bit about winning votes while pointing out that such an attitude has no place in geopolitics (See Kennedy, J; Johnson,L; Carter, J. Reagan, R; Bush G.H.W.; Clinton W.).
IOW, there's a time and place for not being sensible and one for being very sensible. It's sort of important not to conflate the two...
That doesn't mean for a second that bringing the troops out precipitously would be sensible and I'll also suggest that it might not buy nearly as many votes as you think. Further, the majority of those it did buy would be voting against a party, person or issue rather than for the issue cited.
I don't know of anyone who isn't ready for Iraq and Afghanistan to be over and done with. They aren't and won't be for a while. Why we're in either place is not irrelevant because the 'why' is directly related to the failure of four previous administrations from both parties to confront an obvious threat. That's hard for the western mind to grasp but it's harsh reality. A precipitous departure from either place will be touted as another failure. That, too is hard for western minds to grasp.
Whether you or I would have done it the way it was is immaterial; it was done that way. What the future holds is murky but I'll wager one thing -- if we leave early, we'll be back there (and it will be far harder) during your lifetime.
Sort of like Ron said above -- gotta think about the aftershocks...
Keep following that track
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
And the assumption is that the Iranian interests, in this case, do not align with Iraq's interests in long-term stability? A "federal region with near-independent powers" sounds like a description of Kurdistan.
It sounds like the criteria of success hinges not on what is accomplished, but how. ISF was only able to get this far because Sadr stood down. Nassirya may be under control now, but not before JAM seized the initiative. Why did Sadr tell his goons to stand down? Was he feeling generous? Was JAM incurring too many losses to sustain? Was he acting upon advice from Iran?
And I think we'll find that this may come down more on the side of an IO/IE failure on the part of ISAF than on actual capability to accomplish the mission.