We need to start scraping together our small change quick, because even if it's not instigated by us, I can imagine that we'll have to figure a way to sell it after the government has fallen. Better to have spin doctors working on that gloomy prospect right now, because it will happen (get back with me on Jan 1 2008) within the year.As far as international politics is concerned, the US just doesn't have the political capital to do another regime change, at least openly. "Sell" the government?
The same spin needs to be figured out on the Al-Sadr thing. Unless he is assasinated by Sunni or AQ elements, he will continue to be the pre-eminent Robin Hood guy around, drawing moderates closer to his sphere. And to any US policymaker who asserts that we need to remove Sadr from the equation, I say that they need to remove the crack pipe from their lips. Any unfortunate demise of Sadr = open and instant civil war. I think it's quite remarkable that we were focused on Ba'athists within government in early 2003, but didn't have a coherent plan to get Sistani to the fore. Then again, I haven't read Ricks' work yet, so if there is evidence to the contrary I'll get to it in a month or two.
Perhaps if we were in the 19th Century, we'd be harvesting the opium crop out of Afghanistan and pushing it into the IZ market to give get the criminals/terrorists to simmer down.
Has Kilcullen been prescriptive on handling the influence of religion, other than getting buy-in from the clerics? I'm curious on his thoughts of how the Sadr/Sistani issue was played.
Bookmarks