Is Bush going to give in to the insurgency and delay elections? I think this would be a very bad precedent to set. IMO Bush should insist on holding the elections on schedule. But then I am not a Bush partisan. What do his supporters think? Should Bush delay the elections?

I've heard tale that Allawi wants to delay the elections, but that Bush is standing firm on January 30.

From the view of sovereignty this is atrocious - shouldn't the Iraqi leader get to decide when the elections are held, not the US occupation leader?

I obviously can see why Bush is so "resolute" about January 30. He has no other political way out of this mess other than to "keep on keeping on."
He has spent his political (and our monetary) capital.

But really - it should be Allawi's decision. Putting off giving the Iraqis responsibilities now only delays the moment at a later date. If not now then when? February 1?

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

I've heard tale that Allawi wants to delay the elections, but that Bush is standing firm on January 30.

From the view of sovereignty this is atrocious - shouldn't the Iraqi leader get to decide when the elections are held, not the US occupation leader?

I obviously can see why Bush is so "resolute" about January 30. He has no other political way out of this mess other than to "keep on keeping on."
He has spent his political (and our monetary) capital.

But really - it should be Allawi's decision. Putting off giving the Iraqis responsibilities now only delays the moment at a later date. If not now then when? February 1?

No it should not be Allawi's decision because it is US resources that are being used to secure the country. Once the Iraqi government has the resources to take care of their own security, then it will be their decision.

On another note, Allawi did not say he wanted to delay the elections, he was merely sounding Bush out on the topic. Allawai will not ask for a delay unless Bush has already agreed to it.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Is Bush going to give in to the insurgency and delay elections? I think this would be a very bad precedent to set. IMO Bush should insist on holding the elections on schedule. But then I am not a Bush partisan. What do his supporters think? Should Bush delay the elections?

This mess should have been easily predictable, but obviously, 'easy' was on vacation that day. So starting from where we are...

In 1956, Eisenhower 'delayed' elections in Vietnam; the political situation worsened. From that precedent, you can argue either way. Personally, I think Bush stepped in it big time by committing to elections now. They should be scheduled when things stabilize - whenever that might be.

Does anyone know if FOX News calls them "insurgents?" Me, I'd call them at least "guerillas," if not good, old-fashioned "terrorists."

Weren't George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams etc. "insurgents?"

Which goes to show that the basic foreign-policy ethos of American liberalism (which dominates the media that chooses to use the term "insurgent" in this manner) has remained unchanged since 1946: Always give America's enemies the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

No it should not be Allawi's decision because it is US resources that are being used to secure the country. Once the Iraqi government has the resources to take care of their own security, then it will be their decision.

This is a more explicit statement of how modern democracy works than usual. The party that is contributing the most money makes the decisions. There is unfortunate truth in this notion -- he who has the gold makes the rules -- but I'll make a token protest that this is not necessarily be how things 'should' be.

So long as the perception persists that the American are buying the Iraqi government, with the Americans believing that this is how it should be, the insurgency continues.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

So long as the perception persists that the American are buying the Iraqi government, with the Americans believing that this is how it should be, the insurgency continues.

How can it be anything else? Allawi wasn't the choice of the Iraqis, he was the choice of the US. This is why elections were proposed so quickly. Whoever wins this election has the potential to be seen as the choice of Iraqis. That is why it is so important that it not be delayed.

The best outcome would be if Allawi loses the election and the winner asks the US for a timetable for withdrawal. Then the US gets just about all it set out to do, get rid of Saddam, replace him with an elected government, and get out in a reasonably short time. If we are asked to leave then we cannot be accused of abandoning the Iraqis. Furthermore, withdrawal would prove to the Arab world that the US wasn't after Iraqi oil, because we left when we were asked to. We said we wanted regime change and elections--we got them--and now we went home.

If Allawi wins he will ask the Americans to stay and the occupation will grind on for years. We won't be able to leave ever unless we do a Somali-style retreat.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Does anyone know if FOX News calls them "insurgents?" Me, I'd call them at least "guerillas," if not good, old-fashioned "terrorists."

Weren't George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams etc. "insurgents?"

Which goes to show that the basic foreign-policy ethos of American liberalism (which dominates the media that chooses to use the term "insurgent" in this manner) has remained unchanged since 1946: Always give America's enemies the benefit of the doubt.

From Meeriam-Webster (www.m-w.com):

• Main Entry: in?sur?gent
  Pronunciation: -j&nt
  Function: noun
  Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
  1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
  2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

That sounds pretty accurate to me. You're trying to overlay a value judgement, which is supposed to be what the 'Liberal Media' do.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Which goes to show that the basic foreign-policy ethos of American liberalism (which dominates the media that chooses to use the term "insurgent" in this manner) has remained unchanged since 1946: Always give America's enemies the benefit of the doubt.

You left out the other half of their foreign policy ethos, which is, "But ALWAYS automatically assume that America is inevitably in the wrong." :evil:

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Does anyone know if FOX News calls them "insurgents?" Me, I'd call them at least "guerillas," if not good, old-fashioned "terrorists."

Weren't George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams etc. "insurgents?"

Which goes to show that the basic foreign-policy ethos of American liberalism (which dominates the media that chooses to use the term "insurgent" in this manner) has remained unchanged since 1946: Always give America's enemies the benefit of the doubt.

Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were more like "clerics."
The Sons of Liberty and Green Mountain Boys and all the other tar and feathering, effigy burning, riot inciting marauders were more like the "insurgents."



Can you find the insurgents in this picture?

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Which goes to show that the basic foreign-policy ethos of American liberalism (which dominates the media that chooses to use the term "insurgent" in this manner) has remained unchanged since 1946: Always give America's enemies the benefit of the doubt.

You left out the other half of their foreign policy ethos, which is, "But ALWAYS automatically assume that America is inevitably in the wrong." :evil:

This is total crap. Progressives have won every single war of consequence in United States history, while conservatives have always either done nothing (James Buchanan), or aided the enemy (Prescott Bush).
Right wingers would rather declare war on the American people than win a conflict for them.
Witness how they used the Cold War to destroy the lives of regular American citizens with the House on Un-American Activities Committee hearings, or the Vietnam War to declare war on leftists through Nixon's COINTELPRO - counter intelligence program.
Today the ring wing is more interested in winning the contest against its new enemy (Librools) than even defining the war on terror, who a terrorist is, and how we plan on winning that war - complete with acheiveable objectives.
The war is just a backdrop to their greater mission - making Americans earn less, pay more, and have less rights.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were more like "clerics."
The Sons of Liberty and Green Mountain Boys and all the other tar and feathering, effigy burning, riot inciting marauders were more like the "insurgents."



Can you find the insurgents in this picture?

I think the creator of the image was the insurgent. (Revere?) That is a classic example of propaganda, as the incident wasn't as pictured.

While I've been enjoying your tour of the Blue States, I think you have misplaced Sacramento. Your star should be just northeast of San Francisco Bay, not well up the coast to the north.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

While I've been enjoying your tour of the Blue States, I think you have misplaced Sacramento. Your star should be just northeast of San Francisco Bay, not well up the coast to the north.

Huh. I just figured he'd located the capital of California somewhere around Weed...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

While I've been enjoying your tour of the Blue States, I think you have misplaced Sacramento. Your star should be just northeast of San Francisco Bay, not well up the coast to the north.

Huh. I just figured he'd located the capital of California somewhere around Weed...

Well we have a new probationary blue state - the one with the blue legislature and governor. Now all we have to do is take North Dakota and a few northern Idahoan counties and we can create our "land bridge" between the Blue Upper Midwest and the Blue West Coast.

I think that NoDak will be a tough one to crack. Western Minnesota is also very conservative.

Originally Posted by james76

I think that NoDak will be a tough one to crack. Western Minnesota is also very conservative.

The key is to stress civil liberties and to wage class warfare.

Originally Posted by james76

I think that NoDak will be a tough one to crack. Western Minnesota is also very conservative.

NoDak is the home of state owned enterprises. The Nonpartisan League?was an alliance of farmers to secure state control of marketing facilities by endorsing a pledged supporter from either major party. It was founded in North Dakota by a Socialist, Arthur C. Townley, in 1915, at the height of the Progressive movement in the Northwest.

The Farmer in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party is a creature of the Red River Valley Nordic-Americans. The Blue Zoners can elect DFLers in MN and Dems in ND if they are pro-life and pro-gun and pro-government subsidy to agriculture--witness the Hon. Collin Peterson (MN 7th DFL).

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The Farmer in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party is a creature of the Red River Valley Nordic-Americans. The Blue Zoners can elect DFLers in MN and Dems in ND if they are pro-life and pro-gun and pro-government subsidy to agriculture--witness the Hon. Collin Peterson (MN 7th DFL).

We've got two out of thre down. Dunno about pro-birth

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Which goes to show that the basic foreign-policy ethos of American liberalism (which dominates the media that chooses to use the term "insurgent" in this manner) has remained unchanged since 1946: Always give America's enemies the benefit of the doubt.

You left out the other half of their foreign policy ethos, which is, "But ALWAYS automatically assume that America is inevitably in the wrong." :evil:

This is total crap. Progressives have won every single war of consequence in United States history, while conservatives have always either done nothing (James Buchanan), or aided the enemy (Prescott Bush).
Right wingers would rather declare war on the American people than win a conflict for them.
Witness how they used the Cold War to destroy the lives of regular American citizens with the House on Un-American Activities Committee hearings, or the Vietnam War to declare war on leftists through Nixon's COINTELPRO - counter intelligence program.
Today the ring wing is more interested in winning the contest against its new enemy (Librools) than even defining the war on terror, who a terrorist is, and how we plan on winning that war - complete with acheiveable objectives.
The war is just a backdrop to their greater mission - making Americans earn less, pay more, and have less rights.

Nothing much will change until 13ers gain control of the Democratic Party, and re-make it into a saecular counterpart to the Lost-dominated Republican Party of the World War II years.

Remember that the very army that crushed the racialist Nazis was itself racially segregated, and while we were dispensing victor's justice at Nuremberg for crimes against the Jewish people, our own universities were still imposing quotas on how many Jews could attend and Jewish children were being forced to recite Christian prayers in public schools. How come no one - not even the Communist Party after Pearl Harbor - whined about the "hypocrisy" then? (Hint: Hands off the evangelicals, Dems, if you ever want to see the White House again in the next 20 years).

And since you brung up Colin Peterson, Virgil, did you know that he is one of the co-sponsors of the so-called Fair Tax?

With Democrats like Peterson, who the hell needs Republicans?

The Sunni Muslim Scholars Association just handed Bush his last best hope of avoiding catastrophe in Iraq, offering support for the election outcome, even if it means Shiite dominance, in exchange for a timetable for American withdrawal. Bush refused, and now the most likely outcome of the election is not a democratic Iraq, but an historical tragedy - civil war. We'll be damn lucky if the mess doesn't start bleeding out over the borders, and sucking the whole miserable region into this disaster.

The war is lost. Don't kid yourself into believing otherwise.

Originally Posted by kenof98112

The Sunni Muslim Scholars Association just handed Bush his last best hope of avoiding catastrophe in Iraq, offering support for the election outcome, even if it means Shiite dominance, in exchange for a timetable for American withdrawal. Bush refused, and now the most likely outcome of the election is not a democratic Iraq, but an historical tragedy - civil war. We'll be damn lucky if the mess doesn't start bleeding out over the borders, and sucking the whole miserable region into this disaster.

The war is lost. Don't kid yourself into believing otherwise.

Even assuming that the WMD issue justified the war, and even assuming that Iraq's political and military infrastructure needed to be scrapped and started anew . . . even assuming these things, Bush's pursuit of this case of nation-building is horrible. You cannot commit us to such a project and have only 140,000 troops in there to do everything.

Right now the insurgency grows every quarter, both quanitatively and qualitatively. Crap flows in largely unhindered from Syria and Iran. Contractors are afraid to work due to shootings, kidnappings and beheadings. Iraqis are afraid to work for us due to assassinations and threats to their families. The situation, at least in the Sunni Central Iraq, is getting more and more out of control.

But Bush refuses to pursue the Powell Doctrine and bring in overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy. Instead his administration is now contemplating "hit squads" a la El Salvador. Amazing!

The current path is clearly untenable. One of three things must happen:

1. Bush must dramatically increase troop deployments, which wil require a draft.

2. Bush will continue down the current path largely unchanged and we have a full blown Vietnam situation on our hands including scores of body bags US bound every week.

3. Bush declares victory and leaves. As a result, the Shi'ites slaughter the Sunni's in a horrible Civil War, Iran gains strong influence over it's now Shi'ite dominated neighbor, the Kurds refuse to join, declare an independent Kurdistan, and are in turn invading by Turkey. At that point Iran invades to "protect" Iraq and . . . God knows what happens from there.

What a frickin' mess.

Oh, and by the way, explain to me why Bush doesn't think Osama bin Laden is important anymore?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Bush declares victory and leaves. As a result, the Shi'ites slaughter the Sunni's in a horrible Civil War, Iran gains strong influence over it's now Shi'ite dominated neighbor, the Kurds refuse to join, declare an independent Kurdistan, and are in turn invading by Turkey.

A couple of observations. First a Shiite Iraq would still be hostile to Iran. The two nations have a history of distrust. Similar religion means nothing: Catholic Spain was hostile to Catholic France in the 16th century; Protestant England was hostile to the Protestant Netherlands in the 17th.

I don't see a Shia Iraq letting the Kurds go their own way--unless they leave the oil, which they won't want to do. Hence the Kurds will be part of any civil war and the winner will likely get the whole country.

I don't see this as such a bad outcome from a US perspective. It gets the US out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It decreases stability in the region, which I believe was a cause of 911. Bin Laden and his ilk want to establish theocratic regimes in their own countries, not wage war on the US. But the American-maintained stability of the pre-911 Muslim world meant it was impossible to make progress in any place other than shitholes like Afghanistan and Sudan. With the US out of the picture they can now try to promote Islamic revolution in leading Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt or rich ones like the Gulf States.

With a potentially threatening Iraq and more threat from Islamicists, the Saudis and Eqyptians will have to stop sitting on the fence and come down hard on Islamicists and build up their military and security apparatus, making them more dependent on US military hardware for which they need US dollars.

Positive outcomes includes (1) oil stays priced in dollars (2) Muslims squabble amongst themeselves rather than target an all-powerful US. Negative outcomes include oil prices becoming more volatile and higher than in the nineties. The purpose of US Mideast policies before 911 was to produce stability, leading to reduced volatility and lower oil prices. 911 overrided this objective in favor of preventing future 911s.

In other words, Bin Laden would win his jihad, getting the US out of the Mideast, just as an earlier generation of Mujahadeen got the USSR out of the region.

The Bush adminstration's ballsy move was to try to put a spoke in Bin Laden's plans before withdrawing by injecting a Western meme (democracy) into the mix. Look at all the mischief another Western meme (Communism) made in other parts of the post-colonial world.

It now looks like they failed to inject that meme, but that still doesn't mean we won't end up better off with Saddam gone. This is why I supported the invasion from the beginning, remember I never bought the cock and bull story about the "threat" of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Bush declares victory and leaves. As a result, the Shi'ites slaughter the Sunni's in a horrible Civil War, Iran gains strong influence over it's now Shi'ite dominated neighbor, the Kurds refuse to join, declare an independent Kurdistan, and are in turn invading by Turkey.

A couple of observations. First a Shiite Iraq would still be hostile to Iran. The two nations have a history of distrust. Similar religion means nothing: Catholic Spain was hostile to Catholic France in the 16th century; Protestant England was hostile to the Protestant Netherlands in the 17th.

My understanding is that that could go either way. Yes there is the Arab vs. Persian ethnic animosity. But OTOH the rest of the Arab world hates the Mesopotamian Shi'ites almost as much as the Persians and there could be goodwill, esp. if Iran offers them much-needed help to get them started.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't see a Shia Iraq letting the Kurds go their own way--unless they leave the oil, which they won't want to do. Hence the Kurds will be part of any civil war and the winner will likely get the whole country.

Could the Shi'ites put down both the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds at the same time? I think, at least at first, they'd have their hands full with the former. In the meantime the already 3/4 autonomous Kurds can declare independence. That's when things with Turkey get really sticky.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't see this as such a bad outcome from a US perspective. It gets the US out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It decreases stability in the region, which I believe was a cause of 911. Bin Laden and his ilk want to establish theocratic regimes in their own countries, not wage war on the US. But the American-maintained stability of the pre-911 Muslim world meant it was impossible to make progress in any place other than shitholes like Afghanistan and Sudan. With the US out of the picture they can now try to promote Islamic revolution in leading Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt or rich ones like the Gulf States.

With a potentially threatening Iraq and more threat from Islamicists, the Saudis and Eqyptians will have to stop sitting on the fence and come down hard on Islamicists and build up their military and security apparatus, making them more dependent on US military hardware for which they need US dollars.

Positive outcomes includes (1) oil stays priced in dollars (2) Muslims squabble amongst themeselves rather than target an all-powerful US. Negative outcomes include oil prices becoming more volatile and higher than in the nineties. The purpose of US Mideast policies before 911 was to produce stability, leading to reduced volatility and lower oil prices. 911 overrided this objective in favor of preventing future 911s.

In other words, Bin Laden would win his jihad, getting the US out of the Mideast, just as an earlier generation of Mujahadeen got the USSR out of the region.

The Bush adminstration's ballsy move was to try to put a spoke in Bin Laden's plans before withdrawing by injecting a Western meme (democracy) into the mix. Look at all the mischief another Western meme (Communism) made in other parts of the post-colonial world.

It now looks like they failed to inject that meme, but that still doesn't mean we won't end up better off with Saddam gone. This is why I supported the invasion from the beginning, remember I never bought the cock and bull story about the "threat" of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists.

First, I don't agree that Bush had a larger plan to disengage from the Middle East. Second, I think your analysis makes way too many rosy assumptions and is far, far too optimistic.

First off, if we leave, our macropolitical power would be severely damaged, and that can have dangerous consequences for us. I am (somewhat) with Xenakis that our loss in Vietnam helped create the first oil crisis. A lot of American economic presitge, as well as political, is wrapped up in our military superpower status. Pulling out of Afghanistan drastically reduced the Soviet Union's leverage in the world, and at home.

And having chaos in the Middle East could eventually have it's postive outcomes. Maybe. But in the meantime the risk of widening war and oil disruptions would be high.

I am also not convinced that bin Ladenism will be satisfied to merely see us leave. I think that in this shrinking world our very existence is a threat to that vision of Islam. They will surely think of some excuse to hate us and attack us. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow Iberia and beyond.

Finally, the Shi'ite massacre of Sunni's (and the eventual massacre of the Kurds by either them or the Turks) will be on our conscience. I don't want to live with the ghosts of 200,000 slaughtered men, women, and children that America failed to stop because our President was a fideistic nutjob. And you KNOW it won't be pretty when the Shi'ites finally get their turn at power. Eeeeeek.

I'm in the Sean Love camp as far as foreign policy is concerned. Things are way too messy and unpredictable for anyone to finesse anything. I doubt Bush and the neocons even gave it a thought. They just wanted to a powerplay, and got one ... more than they counted-on, I suspect.

I agree with Mike on everything economic, though. I think between the two, we're in for a rough ride.

"First, I don't agree that Bush had a larger plan to disengage from the Middle East. Second, I think your analysis makes way too many rosy assumptions and is far, far too optimistic."

Yes. The neocons' plan, which Bush apparently bought, was to use Iraq to get a permanent foothold in the mideast, using Iraqi bases to launch regime changes in other Arab countries. The PNAC is not about American disengagement from anywhere.

"And having chaos in the Middle East could eventually have it's postive outcomes. Maybe. But in the meantime the risk of widening war and oil disruptions would be high."

I agree, and tend to think Bush is more likely to deepen our involvement in the region, including in Iraq, however bad an idea that may be. Right now the American people would scoff at a draft, but what about when our lifeblood (oil) is genuinely threatened? In any event though this whole 4t just has the whiff of hubris and unsustainability. I wouldn't be so sure the gods are smiling on these prophets.