#10 Still focused on "inclusion" of Sunnis, are we? Then sorry, this latest chapter is as doomed as the earlier ones. The Sunnis (as a whole) have shown time and again - and there are thousands of dead US soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis to prove it - that they do NOT accept the new order.
Yes, yes - many do. But until and unless they EFFECTIVELY help end jihadi terror and home-grown "insurgency", things stay as they are. The preposterous and reckless premise of Casey's campaign plan of '05 - that Iraqis were close to ready to start assuming major responsibilities without deep US involvement - has been replaced by the only slightly less absurd implicit premise that finally pacifying B'dad will somehow usher in this magical condition. Iraqis will get there - but in time, not on US political or media time.
And Steve, sweeps and body counts have been almost unheard of in Iraq. Even that level of military activity, and that degree of common sense in setting the terms of public discussion, would have far exceeded our actual performance. The uniforms still have a mindless fear of body counts, and the administration remains invisible or feeble in its public affairs efforts. Limited ops to set the conditions for three elections (plus of course the murky rampaging of Task Force Black and like outfits) have been about it until now. Fallujah II excepted, naturally.
I'm assuming inertia - in this case, fear of dramatic change in course of the sort that would signal US retreat against global jihad and Sunni chauvinism - will in fact make McCain's public opinion-led withdrawal very unlikely, even if the Dems, incredibly, are given a hand on the national tiller. The Dems' political cowardice exceeds their fervent cluelessness.
Speaking of which, while I enjoy a good laugh when people spin fanciful scenarios of the Dems needing to be in power in order to broaden support for the war, it is deeply naieve. While the mindless self-centeredness implied is in fact there (i.e., some actually would support identical policies if THEIR guys were the ones signing the orders), you couldn't fill a medium-sized conference room with Dem officeholders - or, critically, their staff - who have a clue about international security. I worked with/around these folks for years, before many of them rose to unbelievable - appalling, actually - heights under Clinton.
These are the sorts of folks who cannot even understand pre-emption, and sincerely believe AIDs is a "national security" problem. Their intellectual unfitness for any serious jobs cannot be over-estimated. Even the few exceptions, who show some spine and brain on occasion (Holbrooke, Bayh), lack the force of personality or confidence or will to change the general drift.
And those who think the Army's problems are/were confined to the Casey/Chiarelli fiasco are misinformed, I believe.
|
