Comments on So Far, So Good...

Go to Bush's War, or The War Of The GulfAdd a commentGo to So Far, So Good...

There has never been a great presence of al Qaedists in Iraq, bpitter.
That's Bush administration propaganda, dismissed by every intelligence agency in the world, including our own.  They're there; there's just not that many of them there.  They're fluid and have either gone to ground or gone into Syria (Sunni), gone to Afghanistan (where the Taliban is resurgent) and Pakistan.  But there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, so there's no worries there.  Al Qaedists taking over in Pakistan is a bit more worrisome possibility, but unlikely, regardless of the current turmoil.  Al Qaeda is the current boogeyman that everybody trots out, including Musharraf, when they feel they're losing control.  They know the United States will jump as soon as they utter the damned term.  I do not think the world will sit idly by and watch Taliban sympathizers take over Islamabad.  It's just too precarious...

posted by saul_relative on December 30, 2007 at 9:28 PM | link to this | reply

The problem is they're not even approaching a unified state, Wavy. The
Kurds are semi-autonomous and have been since the mid-90's.  They don't really care.  The Sunnis want what they used to have, which is power of all of Iraq.  The Shiites, the majority, aren't going to give it up.  The only real way to settle this is to allow for a tripartite federal government or let each become a sovereign nation (which, like I've stated, Kurdish Iraq already is).  Turkey doesn't want this because it gives creedence to the the Kurdish separatist movement within their own borders.  And they're our allies (of sorts).  But this place is going to be a political and military quagmire for years to come.  The 'surge' came at the right time and it looks good.  But it won't hold.  Bet on it...

posted by saul_relative on December 30, 2007 at 9:16 PM | link to this | reply

Saul
I am at odds about staying in Iraq even after realizing both postions for and against troop removal. I believe most Americans feel the same way. If I had a child over there, I wouldn't hesitate to say "bring them home." But now I must think about giving Al Qaeda the opportunity to put their hands on all those atomic weapons. It seems to me that "we're damned if we do and damned if we don't". How do you think we can keep the wrong hands from acquiring those weapons?

posted by b2008 on December 30, 2007 at 2:08 PM | link to this | reply

So Far, So Good....
Saul Relative: If the United States doesn't maintain the surge, more violence will return to Iraq.  The surge in troops is helping to calm things down.  I'm speaking in a relative sense.  It's by no means peaceful but it's better.  Until a legitimate government is established and the vast majority of the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds believe in it and have a stake in its success, the future for Iraq is nebulous and questionable at best.  A good analysis of the present situation in Iraq. 

posted by WavyDavy on December 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM | link to this | reply

They are insurgents if they're fighting the established government, even if
it is a government established under the auspices and oversight of the United States.  And that is what most of the these guys are, regardless of their affiliation.  Bush likes to lump them all together and call them 'terrorists," but that is simplistic buzz-word dropping. 

posted by saul_relative on December 27, 2007 at 9:14 PM | link to this | reply

Wish I could oblige, Corbin, but, no, I'm not disappointed. I want a
more stable Iraq and American troops coming home soon (not to mention a fervent wish that no more of our military personnel suffer so much as a scraped knee).  I just don't see this as very real.  A facade at best; a moment of regrouping. Time will tell.  I hope it is real; I have a cousin whose next tour will put him back in Iraq. 

posted by saul_relative on December 27, 2007 at 9:09 PM | link to this | reply

Interesting views! I hate to call people insurgents in their own country!!!!

posted by Soul_Builder101 on December 27, 2007 at 2:49 PM | link to this | reply

Why Saul......
the cynic in me almost thinks one hears disappointment??? 

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 27, 2007 at 1:43 PM | link to this | reply

I credit Bush with nothing other than getting us into this fiasco to begin
with.  If the stupid sonofabitch had a clue as to what a presidency is, he would have never only entertained information that suited his, Cheney's, and Haliburton's wants.  And Rice hasn't done a damned thing since she's been Secretary of State but be ignored by every nation on the planet and buy Ferragamo shoes while New Orleans drowned.  I credit Petraeus for sticking to HIS guns long enough to get noticed by Rumsfeld (hell, everything else had failed, so why not give a counterinsurgency expert a shot -- right?).  I just get a bad feeling when every time they talk about how LESS violent it has gotten in Iraq of late.  It's like a quiet before a storm, a lull before something devastating happens.  These people didn't fight tooth and nail for four years, then suddenly fold like a house of cards.  They've gone to ground.  They'll be back.  Bet on it... 

posted by saul_relative on December 27, 2007 at 12:05 PM | link to this | reply

I thank Condi for shutting borders at Syria and Iran.
But for better or worse the rats have left Iraq and joined the battle elsewhere. Credit George for sticking to his guns!

posted by kingmi on December 27, 2007 at 11:44 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks, Kayzzaman...

posted by saul_relative on December 27, 2007 at 9:31 AM | link to this | reply

Very good

posted by Kayzzaman on December 27, 2007 at 4:18 AM | link to this | reply