Al Qaeda Losing Sunni Arab Support

"The high turnout in two elections and the clear approval of a new constitution in Iraq "should" be sending shock waves throughout the Middle East and particularly in the Muslim theocracies."

Well, I added quotes to the word "should" in your sentence. Yes, it "should" have that effect. But will it? Unfortunately, the answer hinges on naked military power, not the hearts and minds of people.

If the Iraqis cannot create an army by 11/2008 capable of maintaining order inside Iraq, that means the Republicans will have to go to the American people and ask, essentially, for another 4 years to try to solve this problem.

It makes some freepers angry to even hear this, but I simply do not believe that the American people will say "yes." I believe they will say "no." No means the election of a Democratic president, and in my opinion, the immediate withdrawal of all US troops by 6/2009.

If this happens, the MSM, the UN, the EU, and the Democrat Party, led by President Hillary, will all begin rewriting history to explain how the Iraqi people never wanted US forces in their country at all, at any time. The sitting Iraqi government will either be overthrown or essentially allow itself to be brought under the control of Iran.

The raw facts of military power on the ground will determine what will happen in Iraq, and what lessons will be drawn from Operation Freedom. Even if we fail, we have already disproved the notion that the people in Arab countries do not want to have freedom and not want to have democracy. We Republican conservatives can rest assured that this is true. However, even future Republican presidents will not be eager to get us into a situation similar to the one in Iraq.

If on the other hand, the Iraqis can create an army by 11/ 2008 that can maintain order inside Iraq, US troops will be able to retreat into a ring on the edge of Iraq---completely sealing off the border and protecting Iraq from invasion. US casualties would drop almost to zero in this situation. US air support would still be available to the Iraqi army.

In this situation, the Republicans can win the presidential election in 11/2008. Then indeed, all of the good things. we envision for Iraq can gradually unfold. As some in this site have pointed out, these changes will take time. However, realistically, these changes will not happen if the U. S. Army is pulled out of Iraq by 6/2009 as a result of the election of a Democratic president.

The references to the American Revolution are well taken, but the differences are worth noting as well. The American people began the revolution themselves and defeated the British (one of the greatest powers in the world, in many ways, the greatest power) in that struggle. That in itself is quite different from what happened in Iraq.

In addition, it is quite true that America went through a long process that could be compared to "childhood". However, for country to undergo such a process, it must be singularly blessed geographically. America has never had a local enemy that has posed a dire threat in the New World. This is quite an extraordinary set of circumstances. It is hardly duplicated anywhere in the world, and is quite far from the case of Iraq. There will be no grace period for Iraq, unless created by the Coalition armed forces.

In addition, some will argue (and have come close to arguing) that the improving political situation in Iraq will cause the insurgency to completely fizzle out, making the job of policing Iraq quite easy. I simply disagree with this view, though it is difficult for me to articulate why. The WOHL will stop at nothing to maintain the insurgency. Essentially, the optimistic views expressed on this site will be proved correct if the insurgency dies. In a very real sense, Iraq is a life or death struggle for the WOHL. for that very reason, the full powers of the WOHL, including that GRU and the FSB, will be expended to keep the insurgency alive. These people are not only ruthless, but highly skilled, and extremely devious.

Of course, I hope the optimistic views are right and I am wrong. But in my view, the insurgency will continue. Our only hope of victory, in my view, is if the Iraqi army can reach the point of being able to contain the insurgency themselves before our next election. Because this is true, however, the WOHL will expend every effort to derail the attempts to make an effective Iraqi army from the inside. These attempts could be defeated, of course, but it would require very competent counterintelligence work on the part of the US. I wonder if anyone in the US government is even seriously thinking about this problem. If not, needless to say, I did not believe that we can win.

I have responded to all as well as I could in post # 21.

I did not respond to the question of the nature of Baathism. the fact is, while I may be wrong on its origins, the Soviets took over the role of supporting the Baathist states and did so for many years. In this case, certainly the transition from a Nazi orientation to being Soviet-related did not seem to be difficult.

Thank you for sharing your analysis.

As with just about all ideologically-based dictatorships that remain in power for a long time, the Baathists retain little of their ideological purity. They will now do whatever it takes to stay in, or to regain, power. That includes allying themselves with whomever they must.

Don't fret. It was a good and informative post.

"Thank you for sharing your analysis."

Glad you found it interesting.

"do whatever it takes to stay in, or to regain, power."

no doubt.

" Don't fret. It was a good and informative post"

thanks.

1960, that's when I first got really interested in politics. I was raised Catholic so needless to say we were all for JFK. Actually (as I recall) He put an end to that pretty quick by confronting it.

Interesting tidbit, until the 1960 election JFK and Nixon were pretty good friends.

but I simply do not believe that the American people will say "yes." I believe they will say "no."

All depends on who the candidate are.