Kagan's a neo-con.
Posted on 03/11/2007 10:56:39 AM PDT by srmorton
Robert Kagan ia a neocon.
Kagan's a neo-con.
How can this possibly be? The Democrats in Congress told us before it happened that it will absolutely, positively, utterly and unambiguously fail, fail, fail!
The argument over which dead Kalib is the rightful heir to the Prophet Mohammed isn't even limited to Iraq. It is region-wide... mainly a religious and territorial struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Considering that the Saudis back the Sunnis (which comprises Al Queda) in Iraq with money and weapons to kill our troops and the Shias are tied to Iran, which funds Hezbollah and is helping to train the Maghdi Army (currently lying low at the request of Maliki to show that the "surge is working")... which side do we expect help and support with in building this "democracy" all those "Iraqis" voted for?
I don't doubt you are sincere in your belief (centuries-old arguments over religeous interpretations aside). I guess I'm curious which side we are going to establish a democracy and long-term relationship with, Hezbollah or Al Queda?
Yeah baby! The dems are once again on suicide watch!
Semper Fi'
Jarhead
This is Robert Kagan. Kagan is one of the top conservative foreign policy analysts. It must be an op-ed column. George Will is the regular WashPo house conservative columnist.
When Iraq is totally self efficient in security, the headlines will read: "Thanks to Murtha, Pelosi, etc threats, the Iraqi government was FORCED to change tactics and succeed."
I don't ignore that. The reason that has happened is because we are there. We have three distinctive cultures in what is called "Iraq." Two of them have been arguing for over a thousand years as to which Kalib is the rightful heir to the Prophet Mohammed. With or without our troops there, the argument will continue. As great as our troops are there is nothing they can do about this. I also don't think you can discover "Founding Fathers" inside a stupid and destructive, centuries-long situation like this. JMO, nothing more.
I disagree.
I believe that Al Qaeda and Iran have instigated a few to make the so-called Sunni/Shiite argument, violent.
Most people there like most people around the world prefer to wake up in the morning and have nothing to do with violence.
BTW, did you ever notice how the troublemakers on each side never kill the other troublemakers. They instead kill woman and children in markets and students in universities.
That's not a civil war. That's the instigators, Iran and Al Qaeda both being on the same -- side.
What this article basically says is that the original "clear and turn over to Iraqi" strategy didn't work. The new strategy is to "clear and hold" with American/Iraqi troops.
The "hold" part is new.
The clear implication is that we will be in Iraq much longer then originally anticipated.
The original strategy had to come first. As a test of the Iraqis to see if they could "hold". If they were successful we could depart early. They weren't so now we have to stay longer.
The entire campaign from initial invasion to the present has been conducted with great skill. Anyone familiar with previous American conflicts can attest to that.
We are however losing the war of "perceptions". Due to our treasonous media.
The old Associated Press as well as the academic style, are just plain bad and ugly writing -- that have been exposed as such because we see a greater diversity of writing (styles) on the Internet now.
It's easy to be the big, pompous, bloated fish when they can eliminate all the real talent and knowledgeable people in the world and just present themselves as the smartest, and in the case of Helen Thomas, "the most beautiful and sensitive" person in the world.
That's why a lot of the so-called "news" is all about themselves -- and what they say, as the cult of the media icons. It gets boring very fast -- after saying the one thing they have to say over and over again, and their clueless syndicates paying for the same article with a different title as though they're really new(s).
I like your response, so I'm just going to say...... DITTO.
Exactly correct. If we leave Iraq before we crush terrorism there, the consequences on "us" will be worst than the most horrible nightmare we can imagine.
And, in the long run, the Democrat's treasonous efforts may be a good thing.
Before, the democratic Iraqi Government acted as if it was willing to fight to the last American while they bickered among themselves.
The lesson of the Iraq War is that, in any future war under a Republican President, the most dangerous enemies of any U.S. war effort will be, in order:
1. The Democrats.
2. The liberal news media.
3. The enemy on the battlefield.
Now that the Iraqi Government realizes that the Democrats are a greater danger to the U.S. war effort and their own survival than all the al Qaeda, Baathist, Sunni and Shiite terrorists put together, it knows that it must defeat their enemies in detail which means that the democratic Iraqi Government must do all that it can to defeat the weaker enemy, (the terrorists) before the full force of the stronger enemy (the Democrats) is brought to bear to bring about an American defeat in Iraq.
Oh I see the confusion: "stem" is not the same thing as "get rid of entirely and permanently"
Sectarian violence (pssst, civil war) hasn't been declared repeatedly as needing to be ended?
It needs to be "ended" in the sense of, brought down to a tiny fraction of what it is now, sure. But such violence has not been fully ended in this country (KKK? gangs? homegrown militia-based terrorism?), let alone Iraq. So to point out that we're probably not going to do so in Iraq isn't really saying as much as you might think it is.
It hasn't been acknowledged (belatedly) as the biggest problem facing the new government in Iraq by our politicians and by our generals?
Of course it's the biggest problem. Yes, we are talking about two different things. You were raising the point that some insurgents could be lying low/waiting out the "surge" as evidence that the "surge" can't possibly succeed. I was just pointing out that this conclusion is premised implicitly on the idea that success = get rid of every last insurgent and/or convince every last person to stop wanting to, er, insurge. I'm saying that's a silly standard for success. But it remains true that sectarian violence is a big problem. I'm not disputing that it's a problem, I'm disputing how some people here interpret the results of our trying to help deal with that problem.
The ones who support a democratic government -- i.e., over 70% of the population, regardless of ethnicity and religious ties. This comprises virtually all of the Kurds, the vast bulk of the Shia and a majority, at least, of the Sunnis.
There is a minority of Shi'ites (Mookie and his clan) who are fostering "sectarian strife", along with an even more pitiful minority of domestic Sunnis (ex-Ba'athists) for whom it's not about "sectarian strife" but "political power" (now lost). The only Sunnis concerned with the Caliph are al-Qaeda -- mostly foreigners.
I guess I'm curious which side we are going to establish a democracy and long-term relationship with, Hezbollah or Al Queda?
There are more than two choices, my friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.