Sunday, August 14, 2005

Easiest way to declare a victory?

Lower the definitions

In a suprisingly honest move, it has been admitted:

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

Those are some selected paragraphs from the Washington Post article linked above. I for one am glad some of these realizations are being made. Some of it is what alot of us have been saying for quite some time, especially in trying to make Iraq our idea of what a democracy is.

My only fear is that the expectations will be lowered to the point that will necessitate us to have to keep returning to Iraq. If some of the experts like Pape are correct once the US leaves the suicide bombings will decrease, then Iraq might stand a chance on it's own.


Aaron said...

Well spin is spin and you will always have that. History repeats but it doesn't mean you can always predict what the outcome will be.

Nonetheless, I predict after the US pullout, whenever that may be, the rate of suicide bombings will go down. They are mostly used when a security situation is hopeless (or ineffective) for more conventional combat. They are almost seen as a form of civil disobedience by militant Islam. Militant leaders like them because the unstablizing affect they have on the masses helps to consolodate their power, and add a sense of urgency to their cause.

Government, police, relgious, and militia violence will go up for a period in the middle and south of Iraq. Iran will continue to back a Shiite lead country while Sunni's fight with more and more desparation. Kurds will get sick of the undeclaired civil war, eventually throwing their hands up and trying to break off for their own, which will piss off Turkey. This will destabilize some of the Kurdish areas of Turkey similar to the Pakistan/India tit for tat fighting you saw over Kashmir for all those years.

Back to Iraq, eventually Sunni's will fall under the Shiite state and things will be relatively peacefull as before so long as some degree of amicable fairness is maintained.

Militant islamics will continue to thrive from oppressive (or seemingly oppressive) hot spots like Chechnia, Northern Africa, southeast Europe, Indonesia, and of course Palistine. Our only hope to take the wind out of their rhetoric laiden sails is to address and resolve human rights and organized crime issues in those hot spots. The problem with that is the US does not make a good world police. No one does. Each situation requires slightly different approaches that must be implemented regionally, overseen and supported by the more stable nations (Globally).

This post goes a bit farther than I planned but I had a stream of thought. Thanks Lisa for the great blog.

Lisa Renee said...

Aaron, thank you for contributing, not only on this thread but even the "mars" one - lol

You made some very valid points that I agree with. I value your input and it is thanks to posters like you who do contribute your thoughts that makes this all worthwhile.

Lisa Renee said...

And to

Who claimed I was a favorite, gee after checking out your site I wasn't listed anywhere, so that appears to me as to being a spam attempt on your part.

Call me cynical but I think you were lying to me, so until I see my site listed on yours? I deleted your ad here.


Jonathan said...

Damn, Lisa...that's two spammers (that I know of) to my zero spammers! What's a guy gotta do to get spammed on his own blog?!?

Maybe I need hamsters... :)

Anonymous said...

I would think post-war Iraq, if there isn't a splintering into some sort of confederacy, will be dominated by the Iranians.

Its really anybody's guess.

Cyberseaer said...

I just love the people who will "speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity". This is where my cynical side rears its ugly head on believing these people. Yes, I know that most of them are telling the truth, but to be hidden in secrecy, there is a little bit of me thinking who is telling reporters the truth and who is just yanking chains. It is something that I have to deal with, but it doesn't mean it isn't a valid point.

The more that the US is in Iraq, the more it is looking like it is a mistake to install democracy there. Look at the old Soviet Union and China. They tried to install Communism in countries that didn't have big industry. That system didn't work in the Soviet Union and it looks like China's version is crumbling and will be replaced. When? I don't know.

My point is that forcing a nation to change from outside factors only breeds comtempt. How would we like it if another country forced the US to run a socialist government? Maybe the best thing for the US to do is cut the losses, pull out completely and let the Iraqi decided how they want to run their country. It made not be a democracy, but as long as there is peace and way of life without fear, it is better than when Saddam was ruling and better than what is in place now.

Of course that would mean that the Bush Administration would have to admit that it was wrong and that is something that it doesn't like to do.