In the past few days, the United States has finally entered the conflict in Georgia in a clumsy and cautious way--but America has entered the conflict, and America is instantly a central part of everything that is going on.
The interesting thing about the way that the US is stumbling into the conflict zone is that we're not being led by George Bush, the State Department, or the command structure at the Pentagon as much as we're being led by the articulate and passionate statements about liberty--a battle cry--by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. He is someone we cannot say "no" to without saying "no" to our own identity. Ultimately President Bush, architect of the Forward Strategy of Freedom, cannot say "no" to him either.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Uh, pardon me, but this is just plain nuts - proliferations of nuclear weapons to our "friends" in Eastern Europe?
Suppose we started assisting Georgia with the development of nuclear weapons then turned around and did the same thing with Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic States. What do you think Russia would do? How would they respond? They'd go absolutely stark, raving crazy is how. If they felt threatened that South Ossetian separatists with their vague connection to Russia might be overrun and assimilated by Georgia, how do you think they'd respond to nuclearization of everyone surrounding them?
#2
REDDIT [paraph]> the emplacement of an effective AMD/BMD System by one side [USA = USGMD in East Euro]so close to the borders of its primary opponent [Russia] may induce the latter to launch a PREEMPTIVE FULL-SCALE NUCLEAR STRIKE BY OR BEFORE YEAR 2012???
#6
Yeah, when you start talking about adding nuclear weapons states, then you just lost about 95% of your readers. The NATO-Eastern Bloc sounds reasonable, giving fledgling democracies the burden of nuclear deterrence does not.
#7
we definitely should not give the Poles nukes. Certainly not at least as long as Iran doesnt have nukes. When Iran DOES have nukes, we should rethink things. We should let Russia now that we will rethink things. Remind them that Iran NOT having nukes is very much in their interest.
Some defense organization of New Europe seems a reasonable idea, though I dont now that Id exclude Hungary, Czecho, and Slovakia. Anyone whos willing.
But note, a mutual defense clause doesnt transitively bind NATO. NATOs pledge to Poland and the Baltics is to come to their aid if THEY are attacked. If Poland signs a treaty with Ukraine, and Ukraine is attacked, and Poland goes to their aid, and Russia fights Poland, we arent obliged to Poland.
#8
For proof of how little Western Europe has the stomach for, see Nicolas Sakozy's capitulation to Russia, which casts him in the Neville Chamberlain role in this new Munich crisis.
This is a little bit unfair. Sarkozy was the negotiator because France held the EU presidency at the time of the invasion. Sarko went as representative of the EU.
#9
Yeah, when you start talking about adding nuclear weapons states, then you just lost about 95% of your readers. The NATO-Eastern Bloc sounds reasonable, giving fledgling democracies the burden of nuclear deterrence does not.
That's why the Russians are going to prevail. They're not scared to be crazy enough to help Iran get The Bomb, but we're gonna be Captain Responsible about Poland.
we definitely should not give the Poles nukes. Certainly not at least as long as Iran doesnt have nukes. When Iran DOES have nukes, we should rethink things. We should let Russia now that we will rethink things. Remind them that Iran NOT having nukes is very much in their interest.
By that time it's too late and you're already being blackmailed by proxy.
#10
They're not scared to be crazy enough to help Iran get The Bomb,
there behavior on Iran has been just a tad more complex than that, which is why I phrased mine the way I did. Certainly Im not against helping Poland build a peaceful nuclear power plant (are they off brown coal yet? We should ALL want them to generate electricity in ways that reduce CO2 emissions) nor am I against providing them the latest air defenses.
#11
Nukes, no. Alliance with American soldiers based there to act as a "tripwire", yes. They don't need nukes as long as we have a treaty in place that promises if anyone launches a nuclear attack on them, they have launched a nuclear attack on the US and the United States will respond accordingly.
However, with the Eastern Alliance armed with the best anti-air and anti-armor weaponry the US has, with an American F-22 wing in support of Allied planes, Russian would think twice to three hundred times before attacking. They have a good core of soldiers to act as the tip of the spear, but chew up those few divisions and all they have left is a piece of wood to try to punch through with. Russia simply can not afford to have a long and/or bloody war with the west. They don't have the vast reserves of tanks, planes and men anymore. In fact, the US now outnumbers Russia in population by 2-1 and Russia is losing about a million people a year in total population. The days of hordes of Russians coming across the horizon to attack the west are over.
We are seeing the last, dying gasps of a dying empire, frantic to try to reclaim the glory days.
#12
The idea is not bad. Create a buffer of nations between Russia and NATO. Get the ex-satellites to stand together rather than fall separately. Hopefully such a buffer, which would have no ability to actually invade Russia, will help to lesson the bear's paranoia.
Who knows, it might even become a market for Russian military goods giving the Russians some benefit.
#13
I believe NATO will bifurcate with the newly freed and similarly minded NATO nations forming bilateral agreements with each other and with those needing protection. Old Europe will remain in their comfort zone and will be ignored.
Posted by: ed ||
08/19/2008 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
NATO is meeting in summit at Brussels. Sixty years after the alliance was signed, can anyone tell me what it's for?
The revival of Russian revanchism might seem to answer that question. Except that NATO has been conspicuous by its absence from the Georgian conflict. Let's conjecture that Russia tried something similar in a NATO state. Say it moved troops into Latvia following inter-communal rioting. (It wouldn't declare war, of course. No one ever declares war these days.) Say that, as in Georgia, it agreed to remove its forces but somehow didn't quite get round to pulling them out. Does anyone really believe that this would trigger an all-out NATO counter-offensive? That Turkish troops would surge up through Georgia to harry Russia's south? That the Norwegian and Icelandic navies would blockade Archangel? That American and Canadian and British and Belgian forces would be dispatched to relieve the Baltic States?
It seems likely that that a Soviet attack on West Germany during the Cold War would indeed have triggered a military response. Certainly the possibility was strong enough that the USSR never took the risk. In that sense, NATO was a triumphant success. But is it still the best possible vehicle for the advancement of its members' collective interests?
I ask the question with genuine regret. In the days when NATO had an obvious purpose, I was one of its biggest supporters. As a teenager, I was a member of an organisation called Peace Through NATO, which used to hold debates against CND supporters. Our side would always begin by smugly reminding the CNDers that it was thanks to the nuclear deterrent that we were free to hold such debates at all. How tiresome they must have found us.
The end of the Cold War removed NATO's foundational rationale. In order to find itself a new role, the alliance took to expanding rapidly. But, in doing so, there is a danger that it has made a fiction of Article V: the clause that treats an attack on one member as an attack on all.
I hope I'm wrong. I'd certainly be in favour of fighting for the freedom of the Baltics. Britain did so once before. The only direct clash between our Armed Services and the Red Army was in Estonia in 1918. We lost a number of sailors, who were buried locally. When the Soviets annexed Estonia, they dynamited every monument that dated from the independence period. But the graves of the British sailors were kept hidden and tended by local patriots. They are still there. I hope the British would fight again. But would the rest?
Posted by: john frum ||
08/19/2008 15:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sixty years after the alliance was signed, can anyone tell me what it's for?
Getting America to foot their military welfare system they devised when they figured out that the American politicians were gullible enough to allow them to. They were/are prepared to die to the last American [and in a massive exchange that included the citizenry back in North America]. In exchange they'd spend their budgets and future income on massive socialist welfare programs to remain in power back home.
#4
Krauthammer tonight on Brit's Special Report (minus Brit), "We all owe Former Sec of Def an apology for the problems he encountered for his Old Europe, New Europe remark, because we are now seeing Old Europe and New Europe's response to this. Old Europe willing to do nothing, and New Europe standing beside Georgia."
(some paraphrasing there, but that was his message.)
#7
its obvious that it MATTERS whether one is a member state or not. Thats why Georgia so much wanted to be IN NATO, and why Russia so much didnt want them to be. Ditto the Ukraine. I dont know how people, in that context, jump from NATOs failure to go to war for a NON-MEMBER to the notion that they wouldnt go to war for a member.
That's why Germany's veto, preventing Georgia and Ukraine from even starting the process of applying to be considered for membership, was such a green flag for Russian aggression.
David Gergen, AC360° Contributor, CNN Senior Political Analyst
Heading into the candidates' appearances on Saturday night at Saddleback Church, the conventional wisdom in politics was Barack Obama should have a clear upper hand in any joint appearance with John McCain -- one the young, eloquent, cool, charismatic dude who can charm birds from the trees, the other the meandering, sometimes bumbling, old fellow who can barely distinguish Sunnis from Shiias.
Well, kiss that myth goodbye.
McCain came roaring out of the gate from the first question and was a commanding figure throughout the night as he spoke directly and often movingly about his past and the country's future. By contrast, Obama was often searching for words and while far more thoughtful, was also less emotionally connective with his audience.
To be sure, Obama held on to the loyalty of his own supporters -- many have written in blog sites since how much they respected both his nuanced answers and the honesty of his convictions, especially his Christian faith.
There is no evidence that he lost ground through Saddleback. Moreover, Democrats can poke lots of holes in McCain's arguments and can charge that he is too much the warrior who would be too quick to send troops hither and yon. So, there is much for Democrats to chew on.
But the point is that McCain showed that he can be a much more formidable and effective campaigner in a joint appearance than hardly anyone imagined. The debates this fall are going to be pivotal to the final outcome of the election, and McCain gave a clear wake-up call to the Obama team that he may be much tougher to beat than expected.
Moreover, McCain is now on a sustained roll in his campaign. Since the time he shook up his organization a few weeks ago, he has been much more focused and has started to get through to voters. Democrats -- and the press -- didn't like the quality of those ads, but they seem to have worked politically. His stand on drilling and on Russia have also strengthened his aura of command. And now Saddleback.
That's quite a run and it is reflected in the polls: not only have the national numbers tightened up but McCain has actually moved ahead (slightly) in three key battleground states: Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.
A web site that averages all significant polls, RealClearPolitics.com, has previously projected that just looking at polls, Obama was ahead in states with over 300 electoral votes; now he is down to 275 -- a tiny cushion since 270 is the magical number for winning.
At Saddleback, Obama surely held on to his base support but McCain strengthened his and probably appealed to some undecideds, too.
In short, the tide is moving for the first time in the Republican direction. And the realization is setting in that McCain might just win.
We are still many weeks away from the election and the overall landscape clearly favors the Democrats, but these latest developments put pressure on Obama and his party to pull themselves together or face a stunning upset. What must they do? For starters:
Obama must select a running mate who gives a lift to his campaign and can also hammer home a message in the convention and in the vice presidential debate this fall. He definitely needs a fighter by his side. (For my money, Hillary Clinton looks better and better; if not her, Joe Biden is probably the best fighter -- perhaps Evan Bayh, or a surprise choice.)
The Democratic convention in Denver has to be a roaring success, not only uniting the party but sending a much clearer, crisper message about why 4 more years will be 4 more years of tears.
Obama himself must find his voice again, not only in his acceptance address but in the debates. He needs to bring passion as well as inspiration, a clear sense of what the choice is, and a compelling sense of why he is strong enough as well as wise enough to lead the country through tough times.
In the meantime, the message of the moment is that John McCain is no old fuddy-duddy who isn't sure where he is going; he was on fire at Saddleback and for the first time, he looks like he could win in November.
#1
I'm casting my vote for McCain. Hope he picks Romney for VP. Don't know if the Mormon thing would be too much, but Jindahl is good too, although inexperienced. Everyone else is too gay or too stodgy.
#3
Word on the street today says Ridge has already been picked. In my mind, a mistake. Why Ridge? Don't they know they need a conservative not married to Bush II? Why not Pawlenty? What the hell does Ridge bring to the table?
#4
I'm willing to wait for the announcement. This election is about the presidential candidates; it won't be decided on who the candidates pick for their #2. If it were #3, that would be different, of course. ;-)
After his first year at the Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the United States Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant during the Vietnam War. He earned the Bronze Star, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. Later he was offered a position as an officer but turned it down when he learned that it would require an extra year of service.
In 1994, despite being little-known outside of northwest Pennsylvania, Ridge ran for governor of Pennsylvania, winning the election as a pro-choice Republican. He was reelected in 1998 with 57 percent of the vote in a four-way race. Ridge's share of the vote was the highest for a Republican governor in Pennsylvania (where Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost 500,000) in more than half a century.[2] Ridge served as Governor until his resignation to become the Director of Homeland Security in 2001.
As governor, he promoted "law and order" policies, supporting a three-strikes law and a faster death penalty process. A death penalty supporter,[3] Ridge signed more than 224 execution warrants[4] five times the number signed over a 25-year period by the two previous governors and oversaw three executions. On social issues, he opposed gay marriage, and, in spite of being a Roman Catholic, is pro-choice on abortion issues.
#6
So, is being pro-choice not a liability in this campaign where conservatives are already weary of McCain? That being said, Penn. has more NRA members than any other state, and they are a bit bitter as am I. Rush Limbaugh, whatever his comments are worth, came out today and warned against Ridge because of his pro-choice stance. Homeland Security director...a liability or an asset. I haven't heard anything from conservatives related to Ridge except from Limbaugh.
#7
Hey, I think it would be cool if Tom Ridge got picked as VP for McCain. Why? I went to high school with him - we were classmates in German class for two years.
Other than that, though, I would not pick him - although he is nominally Catholic, he has long been pro-abortion.
The problem is, that since the choice is only between McCain and Obama (or Hillary), on balance the Republicans are more pro-life than the Democrats.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
08/19/2008 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
Megan's Fourth Law of Politics: The party that starts looking for implausible and unprovable conspiracy theories about the opposition candidate is in trouble.
This spring, it was bizarre accusations against Barack Obama: he's a closet muslim, his wife is a black nationalist, etc. Now, suddenly, the Democrats are the one frantically hunting for buried treasure. . . . there are the insinuations swirling around McCain's performance at the Rick Warren event, which his supporters are calling a win, and which Obama's supporters are calling a draw, from which I infer that he won. Since we all know this is impossible, of course he must have cheated:
John McCain reportedly was somewhat more coherent than average at Rick Warren's forum. But there's now some doubt about how he achieved that. The two constestants candidates were asked the same questions, with Obama going first. To avoid giving bachelor #2 McCain an unfair advantage (beyond the unfair advantage of an audience of rich people who had shelled out $500-$2000 per ticket), McCain was supposed to be in a "cone of silence" (Warren's term) while Obama was on.
But he wasn't; he was in his limo on the way to the church. His staff says he didn't listen; maybe that's true. But nothing would have prevented a staff member from listening and calling McCain on his cell phone. (I believe that he does know how to use a cell phone.) McCain didn't bother to correct Warren when he told the audience about the "cone of silence," and Warren seemed surprised to learn that McCain hadn't been in the communications-free room.
This was a serious misstep on the part of the Obama campaign, and his supporters could best help him by never mentioning it again. Sure, it's conceivable that this could have happened. Is there any way to get any evidence that this happened? No. There are two possible scenarios:
1. After a bad showing, they make an accusation they can't possibly prove, thereby looking like bad sports.
2. After a bad showing, they make an accusation they can't possibly prove, and the McCain campaign produces his cell phone records, thereby making them look like jealous toddlers.
I've obviously seen the tightening national polls, and what I'm starting to hear is that among likelies and battlegrounds, McCain's gaining a commanding lead. Since I'm hearing that from McCain supporters, however, I've been a little sceptical. Less so after this weekend's performance.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/19/2008 08:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If BHO asnwered honestly what could McCain do to "cheat"? BHO sounded very lawyerish and not commited to one side of any issue. Came off sounding like a cheap John Kerry knock-off.
#2
It depends on how you take the poll. If you poll Boston, during the day, including voters not likely to vote anyway, I'm sure obama is blowing him away.
Now if you take a national poll, in the evening, including only likely voters. Well, that might show a different picture. Frankly I think most of the polls we see are cooked, I can't imagine that a majority of our country wants this tool as president. I find it hard to believe that 20% wants him, but alas, I digress.
#4
While I don't believe McCain cheated, Barak Obama's performance was abysmal. All this talk from progressives about McCain cheating, is just a smoke screen to keep people from focusing on how terrible 'The One' did. Wont work, though. BO. after the convention, has several debates that he can't wiggle out of and he will bomb there, too. The guy is a really inept speaker who sucks energy out of his audience instead of infusing them with enlightened vision. That is, if he has to come up with and deliver the words spontaneously. Reading scripted words written by someone else, the guy is great. But, he's just another teleprompter messiah. Ho hum.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/19/2008 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Warren did ask McCain how he felt in the cone of silence and McCain answered jokingly that he had his ear to the wall. Nobody said anything about limousines or cell phones.
I thought Obama was doing OK until McCain came on and did so much better. His answers were so much more concise. You knew right away what his answer was instead of having to ponder the meaning of Obama's equivocations. When asked if there is evil in the world, McCain talked about al Qaeda strapping bomb vests onto retarded women in Iraq and sending them into a crowded market. It made Obama's answer about abusive parents and street thugs in America look silly. I'm still having serious issues with McCain but it looks to me like Obama is in trouble. He can cry about Britney and Paris all he wants but he's a rookie up against an old pro and his glitter is wearing off. If the rest of the campaign goes like it did at Saddleback, Obama's gonna get a drubbing.
#6
Both candidates received a note from Rick Warren outlining the kinds of questions that would be asked, from what I understand. Which means that Candidate Obama's people did not prepare him properly. He should not only know what he thinks about the subjects on which the questions were asked, he should be able to provide soundbite answers as well as be able to expand his answers intelligibly.
#7
McCardle's commentary is semi-OK but sort her usual obvious blather, with one big error. The weirdos raising questions about Obama's religion etc. back in the day were fringe folks - the people pushing the absurd "cheating" idea are "mainstream" Obama types, including their press agent Andrea Mitchell. Big difference.
BElection '08: Barack Obama's fierce attack on Jerome Corsi's best-selling book, "The Obama Nation," has backfired. He has been forced to confirm things he'd hoped would stay buried.
Obama, for example, for the first time has acknowledged that the mysterious "Frank" in his 1995 autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," is in fact Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis, who during the height of the Cold War was investigated by both the FBI and Congress as a pawn of Moscow.
As we've noted, the late Davis was Obama's early mentor with whom he shared whiskey and rage while growing up in Hawaii. The militant black poet influenced the young Obama's decision to become a pro-labor community organizer and agitator in his hometown of Chicago.
Continued on Page 49
#4
How much of this before Hillary gives her "He's not the senator I thought I knew!" speech and shoves Barry under the bus as Barry threw Wright?
I have this lovely fantasy where she makes a speech at the convention after her name is put in and drops that other shoe on him. Then she either wins the nomination as the Supers run like the rats they are; or she is perfectly positioned for 2012 to run against McCain or his successor.
#6
The acorn does not fall far from the tree. Obama's mother, father and white grandfather were Socialists and Communist sympathizers. It was his grandfather that set up Frank the Commie to be Barak's mentor.
Does 1/2 the voting public really expect this guy to put American interests before Putin's NeoSSR?
Posted by: ed ||
08/19/2008 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"militant black poet"
Damn theasaurus is useless. What rhymes with "exploding honkey"
The election result of February 2008 was perceived as being against Pervez Musharraf rather than in favour of any reform strategy. There is no indication that the federal model will combine regional identities with national security and self-government in a manner that will usher in any real change from the past. Unless the mainstream parties connect with the needs and aspirations of the masses, religious zealots will fill the political vacuum, and this will lead inevitably to the re-emergence of the army in politics. None of this generates optimism regarding the suspension of trans-border terrorism into India from Pakistan.
Given the role of its feudal rural elite and of the military, Pakistan has not been able to develop sustainable democratic norms. In the absence of these, the army plays a dominant role. Most countries have an army, but as they say, in Pakistan the army has a country. Many will now blame Musharraf for all the ills in Pakistan but the army must also take some of the blame, although the military in that country is a holy cow that is beyond criticism.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The biggest challenge now for the Pakistani army, and for the politicians, is how to ward off intense American pressure to act against militants on the Afghan border
Their biggest challenge is to work against us. Got it.
U.S. officials privately admit being concerned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki has become "overconfident" about his governments ability to manage without U.S. combat troops, according to an Iraq analyst who just returned from a trip to Iraq arranged by U.S. commander General David Petraeus.
Colin Kahl, a fellow at the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) -- which has supported a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq -- told the press this week that there was "a certain degree of grudging respect for al- Maliki" among officials with whom we met, "but more often concern about his emerging overconfidence which is making it difficult to interact with him."
That assessment contrasts with statements of George W. Bush administration officials implying that al-Malikis public demands for a timetable for U.S. military withdrawal are merely negotiating ploys or political grandstanding. U.S. officials admitted that al-Malikis overconfidence has influenced the status of forces negotiations, according to Kahl. None of the U.S. officials in Baghdad would "lead off with badmouthing the prime minister," Kahl said in an interview with IPS, but upon probing further, "you get a sense they are concerned that the al-Maliki regime has an inflated sense of his power."
The Bush administration hoped negotiations with al-Maliki on a status of forces agreement would legitimise a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq and control over a number of military bases, but the Iraqi leader refused to go along with an agreement that lacked a timetable for withdrawal of all U.S. troops.
Al-Malikis new sense of confidence has been accompanied by a new political identity as a nationalist foe of the occupation, according to Kahl. "He is successfully fashioning himself as an Iraqi hero who kicked the Americans out. That makes him difficult to negotiate with."
One of the consequences of al-Malikis perception of the new power relations in Iraq is that he is even less inclined than before to make accommodations with former Sunni insurgents now on the U.S. payroll in the militias called Sons of Iraq. Kahl said in the briefing that, of the 103,000 Sunnis belonging to those militias, the Iraqi government had promised to take into the security forces only about 16,000. But in fact, it has approved only 600 applicants thus far, according to Kahl, and most of those have turned out to be Shia rather than Sunni militiamen.
"Theres even some evidence that [al-Maliki] wants to start a fight with the Sons of Iraq," said Kahl. "Al-Maliki doesnt believe he has to accommodate these people. He will only do it if we twist his arm to the breaking point." Kahl said al-Maliki has made a series of moves that have consolidated his personal power position within the state apparatus as well as in relation to various armed groups in the country. He has put intelligence agencies directly under his control and has set up major military operation centres around the country which report directly to the prime ministers office.
Even more important, however, Al-Malikis power position has also been bolstered by the decisions by nationalist Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr not to launch a concerted military resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government campaigns to weaken his Mahdi Army in 2007 and then to give up his political-military power positions in Basra, Sadr City and Amarah in 2008 without having been militarily defeated.
Petraeus and the U.S. military command in Iraq have asserted that al-Sadrs decisions reflected the fact that the Mahdi Army had been weakened by U.S. military pressures. However, the broader set of developments over the past year suggests that the primary reason for Sadrs willingness to give up military resistance was a strategic understanding with Iran to shift to political and diplomatic resistance to the U.S. military presence.
High officials in the al-Maliki regime asserted repeatedly last fall that it was Irans intervention with al-Sadr that brought about the unilateral ceasefire of Aug. 27, 2007. Sadrs decisions to give up military control of Basra and Sadr City before his forces were defeated were taken in the context of Iranian mediation between al-Sadr and the al-Maliki regime.
Irans strategic relationship with al-Sadr accomplished what the U.S. military never believed would be possible even in its most optimistic scenario -- the neutralisation of the most potent political-military threat to the regimes stability. The ability of Iran to deliver that benefit to al-Maliki -- as part of a broader shift to an anti-occupation regime policy -- almost certainly strengthened the case that Iran made to al-Maliki for a demand for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal in the status of forces negotiations. Kahl is sympathetic to the official U.S. concerns about al-Maliki. Both Kahl and CNAS have called for negotiation of a U.S. military presence in Iraq going well beyond the 2010 deadline for complete U.S. withdrawal that al-Maliki has put forward publicly. In an unpublished paper for CNAS last April, Kahl advocated that the U.S. should keep 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq into late 2010 in what he called a "sustainable over-watch posture".
Despite the change in the power situation, Kahl and CNAS still takes the position that Iraq needs long-term U.S. support so badly that the Bush administration should use its leverage to get the al-Maliki regime to make the political accommodations necessary to achieve longer-term stability in the country. For example, the Iraq governments need for U.S. help in recovering illegally exported funds and properties, which were included in the statement of principles governing the negotiations last November at Iraqi insistence. Then there is the threat of immediate troop withdrawal if al-Maliki does not toe the line. Kahl said he was told in Iraq that, in one of the regular videoconferences Bush holds with al-Maliki, he said, "If the negotiations crash and burn, I will be forced to pull out all U.S. troops by Jan. 1."
That Bush threat "got al-Maliki's attention," Kahl believes. He advocates the use of such threats to force al-Maliki to accommodate the interests of the Sunnis as well as those of the Sadrists, in order to bring them fully into the political system. Otherwise, Kahl argues, the security gains of 2007 and 2008 will ultimately be reversed.
Al-Maliki is no longer dependent on Washington as he was a year or two ago. That major shift in power relations -- now reluctantly acknowledged by the Bush administration -- has brought into sharper relief the contradictions between the interests of the Iraqi government and those of the administration.
The al-Maliki regime is a Shiite-dominated government that views its Sunni Arab neighbours -- who have generally opposed Shiite rule in Iraq -- with intense distrust and looks to Iran for support against them. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has forged closer relations with Sunni regimes against Iran. The short-term Shiite dependence on the U.S. occupation to establish Shiite control of the state apparatus is giving way to a more fundamental distrust toward U.S. power in Iraq and the region.
#1
This guy's basically a second Saddam in the making, with the essential difference that Saddam at least fought his way to power, whereas we anointed this guy. I simply cannot understand why we did not make Iraq a protectorate for perhaps a decade before letting Iraqis vote.
#2
To be effective, it would have needed to be more like 20 years, minimum, to let an entire generation grow into useful institutions. Look at how long it took the Koreans. And these guys are in a much worse snake pit, domestically and internationally.
As long as we can avoid a Philippine exit, things should work out in the long run. But that is the big risk.
We should make sure that we keep ties with all parties so that things can be balanced appropriately.
#1
Don't rule out stepped up efforts prior to the election.
The left and radical Islam have a confluence of purpose, to take out the West. Our various agencies charged with preventing attacks will have their work cut out for them. Putting in BHO with a Dem controlled Congress would serve their common purposes.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/19/2008 5:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Stepped up efforts by the jihadis will pretty much guarantee a John McCain win... and more Republicans going to both houses of Congress.
#5
That updated list doesn't even include all the new 'Treasure Trove' e-mails discovered on Aafia Siddiqui, once married to the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, associated w/Ramzi Yousef, also a relative of KSM, and other '93 WTC conspirators and with connections to Adnan Shukrijumah, pilot and possible 'fixer' for 9-11. I can't find where I read it but the name 'Mohammed Siddiqui' also rang a bell, besides the posted article on plots against the Queen. I think it was in an article regarding Africa about the time of tracking down Saddam's sources and suppliers. Then there is Usama Bin Ladens brother-in-law, Muhammad Jamal Khalifa, found dead near his gemstone mine on Madagascar. Aafia also was carrying diamonds, and AQ also said to have invested in tanzanite mines as well as other gemstones for financing. Any connection between Aafia and Mohammed Siddiqui? Hopefully any future attempts will be pre-empted, too, with all the data recently discovered!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
David Gergen, AC360° Contributor, CNN Senior Political Analyst
U.S. officials privately admit being concerned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki has become "overconfident" about his governments ability to manage without U.S. combat troops, according to an Iraq analyst who just returned from a trip to Iraq arranged by U.S. commander General David Petraeus. 
