Ghost of BiB

Everyone's rhetoric and hyperbole aside, we're well way past that point. I don't want to risk the "Bush Bad pinko commie" crap, but I still don't get why we haven't long since shifted gears. This whole thing wasn't to hard to see coming, without getting into the post mortems.

Pretty much. Maybe not to the degree he indicates, IMO but on enough of a scale to make it a big factor. That's why regime changes and undermining don't work there. As much as Iranians don't care much for their leadership, they circle the wagons when it comes to the US. Looking at history over the last hundred or so years, I can't say I blame them. And, the current leadership there is basically void of any moderation. We had our shot with the last one, but the Mullahs intervened and shorted out his moderate support within the govenment. They weren't going to "approve" a candidate this time where there was any danger of that.

I'm diverting here. Although they'd likely LOVE to, it seems like the wave of the future for the industrial nations is to manuever and marginalize. I can't see China allowing an actual war with Japan, since they'd lose not gain anything.

As Ken points out, likely so. Could it become a watershed if the actual shift of power takes place at that point, rather than before? Status quo might stick with a transition, I'm thinking that their might be a few people over there willing to tip over the apple cart if it's put off until Dear Leader is actually dead.

Interesting points, but wouldn't nK lose the very resources it was trying to gain. ROK has a pretty big economy, who would nK trade with? Seoul would be reduced to rubble. I'd say that the war itself would reduce the timeline to shithole faster than a couple years. Plus, ROK playing nice with DPRK is probably going a long way to make that less attractive. As for Taiwan, I don't think that there is going to be much trouble as long as Taiwan doesn't make it. It's become more and more of a ideology issue than a practical one, with the growing of the Chinese economy and influence in other parts of the world. A shooting war with the US is going to derail Chinas train. They have better ways to marginalize us than that. But, the threat is always there and they are gearing their military and also infrastructure to protect their interests once they gain them. I see some more moves to control the Indian Ocean region rather than going after Taiwan.

From our perspective, sure. The problem is the Iranians, who have a completely distorted view of not only us, but of themselves. I agree with Pollack on that, we basically payed little attention to them for years, but they operated under the idea we are and always were preoccupied with them. I forget Israel not one bit. As melodramatic as it may sound, everything needs to play out with an eye on preventing a nuclear exchange between Israel and players yet to be named. Don't let the map distance fool anyone, lots of ties between Hammas and Iran.

Yeah, I just realized what I said. I had my Potomac Malls crossed up. Think the one in Fairfax is still closer to me.

Cool. Potomac Mills is about a 10 minute drive.

Who covers the costs? As discussed above, no one wants to. nK is a true shithole in every respect except for lots of guns. Rebuilding nK would make Iraq look like a cakewalk, from an infrastructure and organization standpoint. Toss in a horribly brainwashed population...not a pretty picture.

I don't think I'm saying use an outside power base to prop anyone. If anyone has to be propped, everyone loses. I forgot to add in the Persian vs. Arab angle, too, seems like the least of the factors. But, as you say and as everyone realizes, Iran is totally not to be trusted, so I guess going down that road was dumb on my part. All in all, if there actually were some way to get the region more involved in moving Iraq to a coherent process, I think it might be helpful. I don't think we are going to get an American proxy in Iraq, I'm looking at mitigating the future.

Yeah, better way of saying it. I chose 5 years as I think too much changes by then to initially go further. I would look hard at likely results of certain courses of action, and at least have an idea for a plan for things past the 5 year point.

Any read on how they view foreign affairs? They can be as paranoid as they want, but must be able to see the decay. You are way more up on this than I. On the surface without doing the studying I can't fathom it going status quo. My policy towards nK would have this in mind. They are hanging on by a thread, and it wouldn't take much for it all to come crashing down. I'd continue the Bush admin approach on the nuclear issues, and sanctions - but my overall plan would be thinking about what to do when nK falls apart. China doesn't want to fix it, that's probably the biggest reason they prop them now, so they don't have 30 million refugees to feed.

How is that even possible given they share the border? I think everyone is a lot more afraid of nK collapsing right now than anything else. No one is going to want to pick up the pieces.

Which doesn't sit between Syria and Iran. Everything going on right now in my mind is forcing an eventual serious confrontation with Iran. Whatever gets done has to weigh that possibility heavilly.

If anyone wants to discuss it. This colors everything going on, and should affect the next set of elections. Should the US act aggressively and proactively to affect things in other parts of the world? (Not necessarily military) or, should we be observers and react to things we don't like? I think we should stick with the proactive approach, including military action when needed. That said, I don't want ANYONE lifting a finger without a decent at least 5 year plan, including plan B, C, and D if A doesn't work.

Do they see themselves as Iraqis first? Or as Sunnis-Kurds-Shias first? I think the latter, could be wrong. But for that reason, I don't see the value in backing one or another. As for the highlighted part, of that there is no doubt. As to the highlighted parts, there's little doubt that's what they are doing already, so why not try to find a mechanism to make them an overt part of the process, where they can be watched? I know it's really a wild shot, but we have choices of bad, worse, worse, bad and worse. As we can't go back to 2003 and start over, what new thing or combinations is going to work? As for pulling out, I still go back to my basic question. Do we want a country with a foreign policy of pre-emption in world affairs? Or do we want a country where we observe and react to the ones we don't like? That's probably another thread, as it's general and not specific to Iraq. I'll start one and see what happens.

I don't think "Dear Leader" is going to be around much longer. What are your impressions on succession? That would seriously affect my policy decisions.

All of which I'm sure people are busy scratching their heads over. I see the highlighted part as a potential bomb, as that is a lot of the Iranian model, and they are impossible to deal with. I also question how much of this is TRULY sectarian in terms of ideology, as opposed to fear of payback and fairly sharing state revenues? Could some of this be fixed by specifically addressing those two, and once again - bring in other countries from within the region to help mediate? Shia to Shia, Sunni to Sunni. Of course, everyone would have to be watched like a hawk, and some clear ground rules followed. But, this is also very much in their interest. I'm wondering, probably insanely, if bringing Iran into the process somehow could help us with our Iranian problems as well.

I guess. I get your drug analogy now. I still see two totally different situations, though. something that can't be discounted are the ideological issues involved. Some of the worst of the bad guys could care less about oil, and oil money.

That crossed my mind, but it's too risky. I think that would also step up the tempo of outside interference and cause people inside, like Al Sadr to really dig in their heels. The government doesn't have the tools yet to enforce their legitimacy. So unless you draw a line in the sand dated 2205, it might create more problems than solve.

Jesus stood in front of the prostitute, as the angry mob was trying to stone her. Blocking her body with his own, he implored to the angry crowd: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" The crowd, shamed, began to break up and shuffle away, but one little woman grabbed the biggest rock she could carry, ran up and nailed the unfortunate girl over the head. Jesus looked at her and said, "You know I love ya, mom, but sometimes you can be a real pain in the ass."

Hard to answer, as I don't have enough specific detail on internals right now. Also, I would have done a few things quite differently to start, but that would be spilled milk now. All options are bad, so it's a matter of figuring out something the least destructive. My thoughts now are based on now, not really on what I'd like to see. 1. I would not cut and run just yet. I would change the tone and composition of my "occupation" force. Full court press to get Iraqi security and police up to speed, don't waste a dime here. Get the friggen lights working. 2. Full court press to engage other governments in the ME to assist in the reconstruction process, especially in influencing the religious leadership. I would include Syria and Iran overtly, to help prevent them from screwing crap up covertly. Publicly foster through the mosques the ideas of restraint. This would work a lot better if it looked like an regional show rather than an American one. 3. Accept the fact I'm going to have a religious government, hoping for some secular attitudes. As far as the US is concerned, if it's a moderate government willing to work in our interest to some degree, who cares? 4. Maybe modify the three state concept into one country with a three state confederation. This confederation operates autonomously in matters of religious law and custom, but is aligned and allied towards common national issues such as defense but more importantly oil revenue sharing. Civil rights will be a sticking point, especially with women's issues. Most women haven't covered their faces there for a while, and probably don't want to start now. This is probably unworkable as everyone is pretty inter-mixed to a degree right now anyway. 5. Maybe the hardest part, but engage the rest of the world diplomatically as much as possible to quit doing sh-- to screw stuff up. I'll think of more, but this might be able to give the year or two of breathing room to help get things more settled down. I think we've also made an ally in the region that doesn't want us for one. There is probably going to have to be some sort of a defense support package should someone else in the region get froggy before Iraq is ready. A lot of this crap is their own fault. I know, I know - it wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't invaded, but that's water under the bridge for everyone now. I keep going back to engaging the politicals and the religious types from within the middle east. Some way needs to get found to get them to stop fighting themselves. It will be difficult, but not impossible to build a better framework where everyone has the impression they are being treated more or less fairly. Keep in mind, like so many others, Iraq really hasn't been a country long. I keep hearing "We are only 200 years old, and Iraq has been around thousands of years" No, Iraq came about in the 20th Century, after WW1. It's time to become pragmatic, and to quit blowing idealistic smoke up people's asses. We stuck ourselves into a muslim/ethnic mess in Bosnia. What worked there?

Is this Brokeback Linebacker?

And don't call me Shirley.

Welcome to my world.