Note from the salt of the earth

[scarfman]

I half-listened to Mitch McConnell and John Kerry on Wolf Blitzer this morning. Mitch failed to convince me that the president's new plan for Iraq isn't just bigger and better what's already not working. John convinced me that the opponents to the president's plan* don't lack alternatives besides a summary pulling out. In any case, I'd like the proponents of the president's plan to try to convince me why a summary pulling out is worse than what's already not working.

* Notice I don't define the two sides of the argument by party lines. Because they aren't.

Comments

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The key point of dispute is, quite simply, whether or not the Iraq situation has gone beyond the point of no recall. Bush's supporters (who are pitifully few nowadays) claim it hasn't, that the US can still produce a stable democratic Iraqi regime. Bush's opponents are, at present, evenly divided between those who believe there's nothing the US can do to save Iraq and those who believe that a radically new path- either the Iraq Study Group proposal or something equally divergent- is required to save things.

The Bush plan is that, once security and stability is firmly established in Iraq, the general public will stop supporting the tribal and sectarian militias and support the central government that keeps things stable. In the case of the "surge," they claim that the vital difference is that the Iraqi government will no longer interfere with American or Iraqi army efforts to capture or destroy known militia and insurgent strongholds.

There are several problems here, though. First and foremost, the current Iraqi government is for the most part a coalition between Shiite militia groups (the strongest being that of Moqtada al-Sadr) who want a Shiite-dominated (or particularly al-Sadr dominated) Iraq... and Kurds who only play lip service to the fiction of being a part of Iraq while conducting business as if an independent Kurdistan is already a done deal. The Kurds aren't going to be enthusiastic about propping up Iraq, and the Shiites only want Iraq if they can be the undisputed rulers.

Second, the single thing Bush objected to most in the Iraq Study Group's proposal was that the ISG recommended that the Iraqi government face consequences- including a withdrawal of support- if it fails to cooperate. Bush has repeatedly stated his unconditional and unlimited support for the Iraqi government, so if (and when) Iraq blocks American efforts to establish stability, it's highly probable Bush will do nothing about it.

Third and finally, as has been demonstrated frequently, Bush is a pathological liar. He lies even when the truth- for example, that Rumsfeld was out on his ear after the 2006 election no matter what- would do nothing but help his cause. Absolutely nothing Bush says or claims can ever be taken as truth on its face...

... which means we have no proof that the Iraqis are willing to cooperate, we have no proof that Bush & Co. actually think a 25,000 man reinforcement will have any positive effect, and we have no proof that Bush is trying to accomplish anything more than ensuring Iraq doesn't collapse until after he leaves office...