Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I attempted to open this myself and could not, without registration/payment. Are you vouching for the whole quote, including the last line???

David K '47

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that quote.

i also cannot vouch for the accuracy of the rumor that Mr. Peretz has changed his name to Kurtz and abandoned his dark heart of Africa routine for a real life gig as king of the Arab pygmies in southern Sudan.

Storm over Blair 'Iraq disaster' remarks

Blair made the mistake of touching bases with the reality of the situation as perceived by the Arabs when appearing on Al-Jazeera. His lackeys have had to violently back spin in presenting a different reality to his own people. The fine art of speaking out of both sides of one's mouth has been set back a few years.

Originally Posted by cbailey

You know, people tend to react that way when they see others get cancer and die from radiation. My particular viewpoint was developed after I watched my father and a great many of his co-workers in the U.S. uranium mines of the 50s, 60s and 70s, die from oats cell lung cancer. Technology could have been used that would have saved them from that fate, but sometimes in America (surprise!), business and the government just look the other way.

Same goes for those of us unlucky enough to have been downwind from those "harmless" tests in Nevada. Tends to make you cautious.

I realize there is no free lunch, at least in the universe I live in. With that said, I'd prefer moving on to nuclear technology over the alternative of sticking with 19th century fuels like oil and gas. The death rates from the alternatives are all conjecture, but I'm sure if today's neoLuddite attitude was around in the 19th century, we'd still be riding around in horse and buggies and dying off from infectious diseases. Likewise, sticking with dwindling fossil fuels would make some sort of conflict likely. Most of the remaining oil is in the Mideast. I'd venture to say that any future war there would involve the use of some sort of nuclear device or material (dirty bombs). We also have all this plutonium sitting around. Thorium plants seem to be a reasonable approach. They actually "burn" off the plutonium as a knock on to reduce the amount of that stuff lying about that nefarious countries or groups could use. Sticking with the thread, I think we did this major FUBAR in Iraq due to oil, FWIW. Back to the testing, well I think quite a few poeple took a hit from those. Here's an article with some maps of where the fallout landed. I'd also guess and it's only that, a guess that folks born in 1962 got exposed to fallout at a vulnurable time, that is to say in the womb or from Sr-90 in milk as toddlers.
And yes, 1962 cohorts aren't the only ones that happened to be unlucky here. I just move and and go with "living kills you".

Originally Posted by Mikebert

At the national level debate will continue to revolve around the threat of Chinese-backed married gay terrorists. Once we finally come to realize that the gay terrorist threat was overblown, about when the Nomads will be taking over, we will find the Crisis will have ended and the High begun.

I got a chuckle over this, even if no one else remarked about it. Cynicism and frustration really do wonders to fuel your sense of humor!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Storm over Blair 'Iraq disaster' remarks

Blair made the mistake of touching bases with the reality of the situation as perceived by the Arabs when appearing on Al-Jazeera. His lackeys have had to violently back spin in presenting a different reality to his own people. The fine art of speaking out of both sides of one's mouth has been set back a few years.

Blair has committed a gaffe, as defined my Michael Kingsley--he inadvertently expressed his true feelings in public.

David K '47

Originally Posted by Finch

Are you sure that last line is really in there? I don't have a subscription, so I'll have to take your word for it.

The last line isn't in there. Here's the full editorial, which is actually quite mealy mouthed, even if they showed more courage than the Adelmans and the Perles.

Obligations
by the Editors
Post date: 11.16.06
Issue date: 11.27.06

[ Editor's Note: Today, The New Republic unveils a symposium titled "Iraq: What Next?" Even George W. Bush concedes that the United States needs a new policy in Iraq. In our issue, 14 strategists, historians, policymakers, political theorists, and journalists of varying ideological stripes offer their versions of a "new course." While few of the contributors agree on prescriptions, they fall into two broad camps when assessing Iraq's future: grim and grimmer. TNR Online will be rolling out the contributions over the course of the next two weeks. ]

All the study groups, all the Council on Foreign Relations white papers, and all the magazine symposia in the world won't change the equation: There is no policy for Iraq that will provide moral and strategic satisfaction and no reason to believe that we might achieve something that could be plausibly described as victory. The coming debate over timetables and troop levels will likely generate much anger, shattering postelection illusions of bipartisanship and provoking intra-party squabbles. But, in the end, this struggle will be over the difference between a largely intolerable outcome and a completely intolerable one.

This magazine has long advocated deploying U.S. power to halt the mass slaughter of innocents. Saddam Hussein distinguished himself at the mass slaughter of innocents: About this, there can be no dispute. Yet, in this case, we supported an invasion that has led to the same savage result. [italics added]. Without an occupying power--and, perhaps, with one--Iraq could soon witness refugee crises, the sectarian mêlée spilling into neighboring countries, Al Qaeda bases sprouting across the Sunni Triangle, and massacres still greater than those that have already transpired.

America's role in creating this Mesopotamian hell does not diminish our moral obligations. It increases them. Even an arch-realist like Colin Powell understood that when we broke it, we owned it. And, before we throw up our hands and enjoy the catharsis of walking away, we must exhaust every attempt to minimize further nightmares.

While the Republican defeat on November 7 may have politically foreclosed the possibility of sending more troops to Iraq, it was never clear where those troops would come from anyway. And, though it closed off one option, the election has also created new, if limited, possibilities. It sent an important message to Iraq's elite: The U.S. presence in Iraq will not last long. Perhaps this new political reality will serve as shock therapy, scaring Iraq's warring factions into negotiations that can prevent the worst sectarian warfare. But perhaps not.

More importantly, the elections may terrify the Bush administration into a new course. While the administration's defenders claim that it has exhausted diplomatic possibilities, this is true only in the sense that it has conducted grudging and occasional conversations with important regional players. But diplomacy is not just a cozy exercise in endless speech acts. It, too, must be brutal: It must include threats and promises, alliances and coalitions--with the threat of being left out. A new campaign should lay the groundwork for agreements prior to the calling of a peace conference that would include Iraq's parties and its neighbors, as well as the United States, the European Union, and Russia. What kind of agreement could be worked out? Separate states, a loose federation, a unified government? That's not clear--and won't be until the parties involved make their wishes known and negotiations begin. After all, Iraq was artificially created by the British after World War I. Its citizens may not be able to come together except through the imposition of a dictatorship. It may be that a federation is more appropriate, as it has been in the Balkans.

Many Democrats have embraced a proposal called "phased redeployment," a politically expedient way of saying immediate withdrawal. Their proposal, which calls for departures beginning in four to six months, doesn't allow the time and space for the arduous work that a political settlement requires--the kind of agreement that will ultimately allow us to leave with the least damage to the Iraqi people and our own interests. Proponents of "redeployment" might argue that the president will enact any new course as ineptly as he did before--a very reasonable fear. But, having achieved new majorities, the Democrats must use their oversight capability to ensure that this does not happen. This can no longer be a one-party war.

At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom. But, as we pore over the lessons of this misadventure, we do not conclude that our past misjudgments warrant a rush into the cold arms of "realism." Realism, yes; but not "realism." American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs.
the Editors

They could not even bring themselves to admit the obvious--that slaughter in Iraq is now far worse than it ever was under Saddam.

I was reading the Sunday morning Iraq articles. At this point, no one can accuse the main stream media of spinning the White House party line. Two examples stand out. The New York Times is focusing on the perspective of a MP unit on the ground in Iraq. The Washington Post has one from the perspective of a disillusioned Neocon. For discussion purposes, a snippet from the latter...

"It seemed like nobody was getting it," Adelman said. "It seemed like everything was locked in. It seemed like everything was stuck." He agrees he bears blame as well. "I think that's fair. When you advocate a policy that turns bad, you do have some responsibility."

Most troubling, he said, are his shattered ideals: "The whole philosophy of using American strength for good in the world, for a foreign policy that is really value-based instead of balanced-power-based, I don't think is disproven by Iraq. But it's certainly discredited."

I personally don't advocate a balance of power perspective unless there is an aggressor power that needs to be balanced against. At this point, the United States seems to be the power most apt to use its military, political and economic influence to its own benefit. And, yes, values based foreign policy has been dealt a significant blow. People will think twice now about exporting values by force.

In a highly idealistic Star Trek role playing game, I once played an android programmed with the Prime Directive, not to interfere with the normal development of any society. My character learned to distinguish between helping a society move in a direction both the Federation and the local culture wanted to move, and using force or coercion to move a society in a direction it did not want to go. A little more awareness of this distinction might be prudent.

This is what I think about Iraq.

Originally Posted by Michael O'Hanlon

"With the Iraq mission on the brink of outright failure, some analysts are contemplating a "Plan B" - pulling out and trying to prevent the war from spreading to other countries. But rather than accept complete disaster, outright civil war and the likelihood of genocide, we should try to develop a strategy for achieving some minimal level of stability, even if it requires discarding our loftier aims for Iraq.

There is what might be called a "Plan A-" option - facilitating voluntary ethnic relocation within Iraq while retaining a confederal governing structure. We should offer individuals who want to protect themselves and their families the chance to move to an Iraq territory more hospitable to their ethnicity and/or religion.

To a substantial extent this is happening already, but the 100,000 or more internally displaced Iraqis have received scant help or protection to date. With Plan A- as a policy, not an accident, the international community and Iraqi government could help offer housing and jobs to those wishing to move, as well as protection en route. Houses left behind would revert to government ownership, to be offered to individuals of other ethnic groups who wanted them, in what would largely become a program of swapping. Funds for some new home construction would be needed as well.

Obviously, this idea would only work if Iraq's government, through a strong consensus of its Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds, endorsed it. Most Iraqis, in fact, still say they want an integrated country, but if the civil war gets much worse, that option may no longer exist. In that case, reluctant Sunnis could be persuaded if it was made clear that the confederal governing body would distribute all Iraqi oil revenue equitably on a per capita basis, not by geography. Former Baathists, up to a certain rank in the party, also should be quickly "rehabilitated" and allowed to hold jobs and run for office.

For Americans who cherish the notion of multiethnic democracy, actively facilitating voluntary ethnic segregation would be a tough pill to swallow. Some might even go so far as to claim it unethical, making a mockery of the moral purpose we claimed to be furthering when we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein's cruel rule.

But what would truly mock our initial goals would be outright defeat followed by genocide - perhaps similar to what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s. There, 200,000 people died; in Iraq, which has five times the population, the death toll could be much worse.

Originally Posted by cbailey

... My particular viewpoint was developed after I watched my father and a great many of his co-workers in the U.S. uranium mines of the 50s, 60s and 70s, die from oats cell lung cancer. Technology could have been used that would have saved them from that fate, but sometimes in America (surprise!), business and the government just look the other way.

Same goes for those of us unlucky enough to have been downwind from those "harmless" tests in Nevada. Tends to make you cautious.

Unfortunately, this is no less true for other forms of energy. Just ask the coal miners with Black Lung Disease. And the life of the roughneck in the world's oil fields isn't exactly high on the safety chart either.

Add to that, the effect on the general populous from particulate pollution (coal) and green house gases (all forms of fossil fuel). There is no easy solution ... not for the bulk of our energy needs. It would be nice to have an all-renewable energy paradigm, but that's not likely unless we drastically cut usage. I don't see that happening any time soon - if ever.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Add to that, the effect on the general populous from particulate pollution (coal) and green house gases (all forms of fossil fuel). There is no easy solution ... not for the bulk of our energy needs.

Actually there are easy technical solutions. Particulates can be (and are) removed from coal emissions. You probably remember when smokestack exhaust was actually smoke (black in color because it was full of carbon particulates). They are white now thanks to particulate removal technology. Superior removal can be achieved with current technology, but old coal-burning plants that were grandfathered in in 1970 (and still are being run) are not required to use this technology. You want to get rid of particulates, simply have the EPA require LAER (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate) on all utility permits.

Greenhouse gases. Coal gasification with sequestration does this for coal-fired plants. Nukes, wind and hydropower don't emit greenhouse gases. Together these sources provide 80% of electrical power. Double nuke power and you can get 100% of electricity greenhouse-free.

As for automotive. Place a 20% tariff on imported oil to rise 10% every year until it reaches 100%. Watch hybids explode in popularity. Watch E85 become avaialble everywhere. Watch ethanol from biomass (not just corn) become reality in 5 years. Watch the deficit fall

Place a carbon tax on all fuels except those made from waste (e.g. pyrolysis fuels like TDP-derived diesel).

You do this and the CEOs and the back office suits will scream bloody murder, but it also means lots of jobs for regular workers and Chem E's like me. Besides, we (former Upjohn) got slapped with LAER in a 1990 consent judgement by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and we survived. So will they.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Actually there are easy technical solutions. Particulates can be (and are) removed from coal emissions. You probably remember when smokestack exhaust was actually smoke (black in color because it was full of carbon particulates). They are white now thanks to particulate removal technology. Superior removal can be achieved with current technology, but old coal-burning plants that were grandfathered in in 1970 (and still are being run) are not required to use this technology. You want to get rid of particulates, simply have the EPA require LAER (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate) on all utility permits.

Greenhouse gases. Coal gasification with sequestration does this for coal-fired plants. Nukes, wind and hydro-power don't emit greenhouse gases. Together these sources provide 80% of electrical power. Double nuke power and you can get 100% of electricity greenhouse-free.

As for automotive. Place a 20% tariff on imported oil to rise 10% every year until it reaches 100%. Watch hybrids explode in popularity. Watch E85 become available everywhere. Watch ethanol from biomass (not just corn) become reality in 5 years. Watch the deficit fall

Place a carbon tax on all fuels except those made from waste (e.g. pyrolysis fuels like TDP-derived diesel).

You do this and the CEOs and the back office suits will scream bloody murder, but it also means lots of jobs for regular workers and Chem E's like me. Besides, we (former Upjohn) got slapped with LAER in a 1990 consent judgement by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and we survived. So will they.

I was a bit over the top with cbailey on the "no nukes" issue, but I was trying to make the point that there's no free lunch. No matter the choice, there's a cost for using energy that's above and beyond the obvious direct cost. Most of the "best choices" involve $$$ being added to the direct cost, but so be it. It's better than the higher indirect costs from fixing what others have fouled.

Here in Virginia, we have a large percentage of our electricity provided a very cheap prices by legacy coal-fired plants in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio. There's no question that our air pollution is higher than it needs to be, but the worst effect is in the coal fields.

Coal companies are cutting costs by going cheap on safety, hence the current spate of minor to serious accidents, and by new mining practices that basically remove mountain tops, dump the removed material in the closest ravine, and mine the coal directly. Eventually, the Mountain State, will be the High Plain State.

I agree that we need a variety of energy sources, at least for now. Eventually, ITER will be become viable, and real production devices will be fielded. Fusion energy should outlast the planet.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Greenhouse gases. Coal gasification with sequestration does this for coal-fired plants. Nukes, wind and hydropower don't emit greenhouse gases. Together these sources provide 80% of electrical power. Double nuke power and you can get 100% of electricity greenhouse-free.

As for automotive. Place a 20% tariff on imported oil to rise 10% every year until it reaches 100%. Watch hybids explode in popularity. Watch E85 become avaialble everywhere. Watch ethanol from biomass (not just corn) become reality in 5 years. Watch the deficit fall

Do think $300 billion could have pulled that all off? Can we ask Iraq for it back?

One more thing, I understand that solar power collection is making great strides. With more improvement, and improvement in the versatility of batteries, we'd have further options than those you even stated. All we need is a REAL leader to get us there, and some more PAIN to make the population willing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Eventually, ITER will be become viable, and real production devices will be fielded. Fusion energy should outlast the planet.

Construction of ITER was announced today. It'll be in France, which should be no surprise to anyone. The current plan is 30 years of operation followed by migration to a fully operational version. BTW, ITER is being touted as a Latin word for "the way", which is both symbolic and coincidental. ITER is the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

... I understand that solar power collection is making great strides. With more improvement, and improvement in the versatility of batteries, we'd have further options than those you even stated. All we need is a REAL leader to get us there, and some more PAIN to make the population willing.

Other than the desert Southwest, I don't see solar as being more than a secondary system. But where it works, and space permits, it makes a fine addition to the country's energy portfolio.

Our expectations of Eurasians


Why did our little brown brothers go so badly astray? The bastards!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Other than the desert Southwest, I don't see solar as being more than a secondary system. But where it works, and space permits, it makes a fine addition to the country's energy portfolio.

Visit the solar house of Maine.

Originally Posted by The solar house people

"The 4200 watt array generated 4.246 megaWhr of electricity in 1998, even though June and November were particularly cloudy months. We "imported" 2.417 mWhr of power from Central Maine and "exported" 3.008 mWhr to the grid. Therefore in 1998, we generated 591 kWh more than we used."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Construction of ITER was announced today. It'll be in France, which should be no surprise to anyone. The current plan is 30 years of operation followed by migration to a fully operational version. BTW, ITER is being touted as a Latin word for "the way", which is both symbolic and coincidental. ITER is the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor

ITER may wind up being bypassed. Dr. Robert Bussard, one-time assistant director of the Atomic Energy Commission, has been sequestered by DARPA for the last eleven years trying to make Farnsworth's old ideas about fusion work. He now claims to have made it work. I don't know if he's right or just begging for more funding but the rewards of fusion are so great that eventually someone will at least try it. An electrostatic fusion system is so much smaller and cheaper than a tokamak that if anyone publicly demonstrated it ITER would be dropped like hotcakes -- the economics have gotten worse and worse every decade. And fusion plants would solve a LOT of our problems.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Other than the desert Southwest, I don't see solar as being more than a secondary system. But where it works, and space permits, it makes a fine addition to the country's energy portfolio.

It could become primary in about twenty or thirty years, once costs drop far enough. Unfortunately our problems are more immediate.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

ITER may wind up being bypassed. Dr. Robert Bussard, one-time assistant director of the Atomic Energy Commission, has been sequestered by DARPA for the last eleven years trying to make Farnsworth's old ideas about fusion work. He now claims to have made it work. I don't know if he's right or just begging for more funding but the rewards of fusion are so great that eventually someone will at least try it. An electrostatic fusion system is so much smaller and cheaper than a tokamak that if anyone publicly demonstrated it ITER would be dropped like hotcakes -- the economics have gotten worse and worse every decade. And fusion plants would solve a LOT of our problems.

It could become primary in about twenty or thirty years, once costs drop far enough. Unfortunately our problems are more immediate.

Welcome back. Are you still up in Cambridge?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Other than the desert Southwest, I don't see solar as being more than a secondary system. But where it works, and space permits, it makes a fine addition to the country's energy portfolio.

We just had a guy assess our house for solar. Unfortunately, as I suspected, it won't suit our situation because we have too many trees in the "wrong" places. We have turned our thermostat down considerably compared to other years, and we're going to replace our water heater with a more efficient model.

Measuring Iraq in whole or partial "Friedman Units" (FU = 6 months) -

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2884

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
(New York Times, 11/30/03)

Good compendium of FU (whole or partial) thinkers -

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_sitrep_11-2006.htm

A Sampler of Quotes by the Good and the Great about the Iraq War
Note: bold emphasis added.

[Note: The quotes by Thomas Friedman are from “Tom Friedman's Flexible Deadlines.”
May 16, 2006
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2884]

“And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
February 7, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, then-Secretary of Defense
Speaking at a “TownHall Meeting” held at Aviano Air Base, Italy

"I think the next few months will be crucial."
July 3, 2003
Senator Pat Roberts (Republican - Kansas)

"Looking at what we have today in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, and looking at the whole region and how infectious it can be for positive or for widespread trouble in the world, I think we may be going through a series of weeks and months that are crucial to the future history of freedom and stability. The determination of the British people, the Royal Airforce (RAF) and the Battle of Britain and Dunkirk success, if it was a success, probably saved not just Britain, but the Western world at that time. I am convinced that there is going to have to be a determination by the American people, military, particularly American military, quality and quantity, not just presence but capability, and a confidence in the Iraqi people that they can have a stable and representative government.
July 10, 2003
Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat - Missouri)
Speaking at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee

[Question: When you speak of victory, how do you define it today in Iraq?]

MCCAIN: Probably when the people of Iraq are governing themselves. That's probably the best benchmark, and that probably could happen sooner rather than later, as far as being directly related to the return of the basic services – the electricity, the water, the sanitation, the law enforcement – those kinds of things. … And I'm not sure how long it would be, but I don't think that we have time on our side. I think it's critical that we act quickly by sending more troops there. And if not, we run the risk of the Iraqi people turning against us.

[Question: Are you thinking 6 to 12 months? Or do you think that's dreaming at this point?]

MCCAIN: I don't know because I don't know how quickly we're going to act in the form of sending troops. I don't know how quickly we're going to be able to provide them with the security. So, it's sort of up to us. But I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical.
September 10, 2003
Sen. John McCain (Republican - Arizona)
Speaking on CNN’s “American Morning”

"The next six months in Iraq – which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there – are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
November 30, 2003
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

"The next six to seven months are critical."
December 1, 2003
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat - NY)
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

"The important thing is to realize we are about to enter into a very critical six months … We have got to get on top of the security situation properly and we have got to manage the transition. Both of those things are going to be difficult."
January 4, 2004
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Speaking during a surprise visit to Iraq

"Iraq now faces a critical moment."
May 24, 2004
President Bush
Speaking at the United States Army War College

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of – I know a lot of these guys – reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
June 3, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air”

“The next few months will be critical as the new government must establish security, continue to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, and prepare the Iraqi people for national elections scheduled for January 2005.”
July 22, 2004
Senator Richard G. Lugar (Republican – Indiana)
Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

More from -

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_sitrep_11-2006.htm

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
October 3, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS's “Face the Nation”

"Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."
November 28, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“There are rare occasions when two distinct geopolitical processes reach a pivot point at the same time, that precise place where the evolution of a process takes a critical turn. Last week saw three such points. In Iraq, the security network around the guerrilla leadership appeared to be breaking wide open.”
March 1, 2005
George Friedman, Stratfor

“As the political process evolves, further government victories could be in the offing. Intense negotiations on the formation of the Cabinet, involving the United Iraqi Alliance, Kurdish List, Sunnis and other factions, have already begun. With Sunnis incorporated into a new government, progress on the political front likely will lead to further success on the battlefield as U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to keep pressure on the insurgents with raids, arrests and all-out offensive operations. These developments ultimately will support the U.S. strategy of turning the combat burden over to an emboldened and maturing Iraqi army.”
March 23, 2005
Stratfor

“Washington has moved beyond the military stage of the U.S.-jihadist war and is now in the phase of negotiated settlements.”
April 6, 2005
Stratfor

"I think the next nine months are critical."
June 29, 2005
Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Speaking on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered”

“This attack probably will be instrumental in turning the Iraqis against the militants, especially the transnational jihadists who are not only seen as using the general insurgency in Iraq for their cause (which has very little to do with the Sunni community's grievances or Iraqi nationalism), but now seem to have reached the point where they will not shirk from killing children as part of their attack plans.”
July 13, 2005
Stratfor

“I think the next 18 months are crucial."
July 18, 2005
General Barry R. McCaffrey, retired
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

“I have long been invested with ensuring the development of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. We are nearing the resolution of that process, and the next months will be critical.”
August 4, 2005
Ambassador John Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Statement to the Security Council

“But the fact is these next six months are going to be very critical in Iraq, not just the constitution writing, referendum, the election, but also within that six months' period, we're going to see whether the Iraqis are really going to be capable of defending themselves, governing themselves and supporting themselves.”
August 18, 2005
Senator Chuck Hagel (Rep- Nebraska)
Speaking on CNN’s “Situation Room”

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election – that's my own feeling – let alone the presidential one."
September 25, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on NBC's “Meet the Press”

“The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens”
September 29, 2005
General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq
Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

"… Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
September 28, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“And the developments over the next several months will be critical – as General Casey and General Abizaid and the secretary made very clear over the course of last week – as the constitutional referendum in the mid part of this month, the general elections in mid-December and then the subsequent formation of a new government all take place.”
October 5, 2005
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, Former Commander, Multi-National Transition Command Iraq and NATO Training Mission Iraq
News Briefing

As always, whenever the Bush administration helps to pull off an election in Iraq, you have to hand it to them. Poor job on occupation, no doubt, but this thing keeps muddling through. … Meanwhile, a lot of Sunnis are shifting from fighting the system altogether to working within the political process. This is crucial. … Iraq is doing just fine given all poorly planned occupation (F to the neocons, C+ to the officers doing their best in a crappy situation on the ground).
October 17, 2005
Thomas P. M. Barnett

“We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict. …

“To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. …

“To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. …”
October 26, 2005
Senator John Kerry (Democrat – Mass)
Speech at Georgetown University

“And we're seeing a lot of them [officials from the Iraqi government] because this is a critical time in Iraq going into the elections, and it is very important that these elections produce an outcome, that it reflects the will of the Iraqi people, that results in a government – that is broadly based, drawing from all elements of the Iraqi society, that gets stood up quickly and is a strong government that can take the kinds of difficult, economic and security decisions that the new government is going to have.”
November 10, 2005
Steve Hadley, National Security Advisor
Comments at White House Press Briefing

"We've got, I think, six months."
Nov. 17, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

“Instead, we need to refocus our attention on our mission — of our mission on preserving America’s fundamental interests in Iraq. And there are two of them, in my view. One, we must ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not before the war — emphasize “was not before the war” — a haven for terrorists, a jihadist stronghold. And we must do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that runs the risk of turning into a regional war. To accomplish that more limited mission and to begin redeploying our troops responsibly, it seems to me we have to make significant, measurable progress toward three goals, and you only have about the next six months to demonstrate that progress.”
November 21, 2005
Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat - Delaware)
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations

“What the debate is telling us is that we have come to a defining moment in the war and in U.S. policy toward the war. … The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. …”
November 21, 2005
George Friedman of Stratfor

“I served in the last year of World War II in the Navy. Franklin D. Roosevelt did just exactly that. In his fireside talks, he talked with the people, he did just that. I think it would be to Bush's advantage. It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public, and we've got to stay firm for the next six months. It is a critical period, as Joe and I agree, in this Iraqi situation to restore full sovereignty in that country and that enables them to have their own armed forces to maintain their sovereignty. …

[Question: “What happens if not enough Iraqis step forward to defend their country?”]

“At that point then we have to come to the realization that the program has not met the target and we have to determine what we're going to do. I would not want to posture what that decision would be. You'll have to wait. You shouldn't speculate. We'll have to wait for those six months.”
November 27, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press”

And the 'final' batch of FU statements --

But it was necessary for the president to go out and reinforce to our troops and the other coalition forces and to the world that we have a resolve in these next four to six months in Iraq which are critical to bring about achievement of our goals. … We should not at this time in these critical four to six months be worrying about a timetable to withdraw or even talking about it.”
November 30, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
PBS “Online Newhour”

"[The Iraq elections are] necessary, not sufficient … [the] next six months are going to tell the story. Two important things. What’s the government going to look like? If it’s Mr. Mahdi who ends up representing the SCIRI Party, who’s aligned with Iran, then we got a real problem.
December 18, 2005
Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (Democrat - Delaware)
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
December 18, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation”


"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election – you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it."
December 20, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on PBS's Charlie Rose Show

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it – and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."
December 21, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“We have reached a crucial test in Iraq. … Whatever the explanation, this is the crucial moment. The elections were held and a political track was set. If this offensive derails the negotiations, it will be a defining moment in the war. If the negotiations go forward anyway – for any of the reasons discussed above – then the probability of a drawdown in the war in 2006 is very real. In the end, the reasons for the offensive are less clear than its potential significance. As they say, this is it.”
January 6, 2006
Stratfor

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand."
January 23, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on the Oprah Winfrey Show

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."
January 31, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS; program is uncertain and not been verified.

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
March 2, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on NBC's “Today”

“Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, told the Security Council in an open briefing this morning that the next six months in Iraq are going to be critical.”
March 15, 2006
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/...asp?HighID=522

“If there is ever going to be an end game in Iraq, we are now in it. Operation Swarmer, launched Thursday, seemed designed to attack jihadists in the Sunni regions. The key to the U.S.-Sunni conversation has been getting the Sunnis into the political process and, as a result, getting the Sunnis to help liquidate the jihadists. If Swarmer was launched on the basis of Sunni intelligence, and if that intelligence turns out to be accurate, it will be a key event in recent Iraqi history. Those are big "ifs," of course. At the same time, if the Sunnis are joining the political process, then it is time for Iran to negotiate its final price on Iraq, and that appears now to be happening. Taken together, this is not the end, but the beginning of the end game, and success is not guaranteed.”
“The Beginning of the End Game”
Mar 17, 2006
Stratfor

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."
April 23, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on “CNN Late Edition with Wold Blitzer”

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months – probably sooner – whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."
May 11, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on MSNBC's “Hardball”

“We would say that the next six weeks, rather than months, will show us where things are.”
“Core Issues in Iraq”
May 22, 2006
Stratfor

“The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency – or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the deal holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful. Thus, we are at a break point – at least for the Americans.”
“Break Point”
May 23, 2006
George Friedman, Stratfor

“The next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war. If the government fails to achieve this, it will have lost its opportunity.”
June 7, 2006
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
Interviewed in Der Spiegel

“Second, international oil companies have been waiting for two things before investing in the Iraqi oil complex: a domestically chosen, internationally acceptable representative government, and an end to the insurgency. The first has happened; the second may finally be in sight.”
“Iraq: The Implications of Al-Zarqawi's Death”
June 08, 2006
Stratfor

“If we are right and this is the tipping point, then things just tipped toward a political settlement. This will become clearer over the next few days. Violence will certainly not disappear, but it should reduce itself rather rapidly if the Sunni and Shiite leadership have put out the word. We thought this was the week for something to happen, and something has. Now to find out if it was what we were waiting for, and to find out if it will work.”
Jun 09, 2006
“Al-Zarqawi and the Tipping Point”
Stratfor

“This is a decisive period for everyone and everyone knows it. The next six months will determine the future of Iraq.”
October 5, 2006
General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq
Official statement after a 39-nation meeting in Warsaw to discuss “the challenges facing Iraq and the US-led coalition."

"Time is short, level of violence is great and the margins of error are narrow. The government of Iraq must act. The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon and the citizens of the United States that it is deserving of continued support. The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services."
September 19, 2006
Lee Hamilton, former Congressman (Democrat – Indiana), member of the Iraq Study Group

“The next six months are likely to be critical in determining whether the situation in Iraq turns worse or whether we may yet salvage a measure of political stability that addresses our long-term security interests in the region.“
Rep. Mark Udall (Democrat - Colorado)
June 22, 2006

Whether we "go big, go long or go home"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...462713,00.html


does anyone doubt it will be measured in Friedman Units?

I bet we'll "go long" and give it just one more FU to see if it works. And of couse, this next FU "is a critical time."

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/....html#comments

JOURNAL: A political "fix" for Iraq?
The current US solution for Iraq is founded on the belief that it is possible to staunch Iraq's chaos through a political "fix" that involves direct negotiations with Iran. Unfortunately, the truth is more complicated. Iraq's non-state guerrillas aren't mere proxies of Iran. Instead, they are largely autonomous.

First, these groups don't rely upon Iran for their operating income since they can manufacture income through participation in black globalization's multi-trillion dollar economy. A classic example of this is the decentralized and open source marketplace for the transnational smuggling of gasoline. In a June 2006 report, Ali Al Alak (the inspector general of the Iraqi Oil Ministry) detailed how guerrillas and militias were using the calculated disruption of Iraqi pipelines/refineries, the arbitrage of government subsidies for gasoline, and bribes/hijackings/tampering to generate nearly $100 million a month in income from imported gasoline (30% of Iraq's total fuel imports).

Second, this income provides these groups with the ability to fund their own violence. For example, they can purchase weapons from global arms markets (more black globalization) and hire local mercenaries (to fuel the marketplace for IED attacks and hire militiamen). From the perspective of these groups, an Iranian puppet state is as much a threat to their continued existence as a US dominated Iraqi government. Vive le chaos!
Posted by John Robb on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 01:54 PM | Permalink

Originally Posted by salsabob

Whether we "go big, go long or go home"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...462713,00.html


does anyone doubt it will be measured in Friedman Units?

I bet we'll "go long" and give it just one more FU to see if it works. And of couse, this next FU "is a critical time."

Perhaps it's no coincidence that "FU" stands for something else as well. Add "BAR" to that, and you have an accurate appraisal of our situation in Iraq.