Peter Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 In reflecting what happened yesterday, I have some lingering questions: 1. Is it certain that Nancy Pelosi will be majority leader? I thought that I heard that she might have some competition. In any event, it is probably best for Republicans going into 2008 that she is the majority leader and the face of the Democratic party. I fully expect that Republicans will make her an issue just like Democrats made Gingrich an issue. 2. Will W finally try to be a uniter rather than a divider? The Dems taking over the House may be the best thing that ever happened to Bush (and Republicans) -- just like (my theory) the Republicans taking over Congress was the best thing that happened to Clinton. It forced Clinton to really be the conservative Democrat that he claimed to be when he initially ran for president. As a result, he was able to trianglulate and get re-elected. Of course, getting BJs from a White House intern did not help him in the long run. As a side note, it is ironic what Bush faces now given that two years ago (in the aftermath of getting re-elected), Bush basically said that it was his way or the highway -- he was willing to work with Democrats as long as they agreed with him on everything. 3. Many of the of new Democrats in Congress actually appear to be conservative Democrats. How will this effect the next two years? It should be interesting to see what happens if they join forces with Republicans in general and/or moderate Republicans. 4. What happens with the tax cuts? Will there be a move to make them permanent in the next two years or will Republicans wait until after 2008. 5. What happens with immigration? Most people in the country want the government to clamp down on illegal immigration and not give amnesty to illegal immigrants or make it very tough for them. Will conservative Democrats join with Republicans on this issue? 6. For those of you that may expect the liberal Dems to get their way on significant issues, I think that will be very difficult. First, Bush will start using his veto more often. As I recall, he only used it once so far (for the wrong issue I may add). Second, given the political make up of the Congress as a whole, I expect it to be more moderate than liberal Democrats may like. I also expect some (if not many) bills to be introduced (with no chance of success because of the veto power etc.) simply to tee up issues for 2008. 7. Last (and most importantly), what happens with Iraq? Iraq is the reason (in my view) why Bush is so unpopular and why there are so many out-of-work Republicans right now. The American public finally caught up with reality on this issue. I have been against this war since the beginning -- actually before the beginning. In the aftermath of 9/11, I could tell that the neocons were trying to gin up support for achieving their pre 9/11 goals of invading Iraq etc. by cynically using 9/11 and diverting us from the real war on terror. Having said that, there is no easy answer to Iraq. The Bush administration opened up Pandora's box. It probably would be disasterous to leave Iraq before there is some stability there. That does not make the initial decision to invade Iraq the correct one. I am waiting with great interest to find out what James Baker's recommendations are. He is a real patriot and a great man (as is Brent Scowcroft). If only W had listened to men like them before deciding to go to war in Iraq. I trust that Baker's recommendations will be a serious attempt to make the best out of a horrible situation. The war was sold based on 9/11, WMD, little cost (in casualties and money) etc. Now, we have a civil war, Iraqis that hate us, thousands of dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis, a pojected cost of up to $1 trillion, an unchecked Iran, a timeline of up to 10 or 15 years by some estimates, and a perception that we are the toothless tiger. As I said, there are no easy answers. I suspect that we will still have a significant number of troops in Iraq when Bush leaves office. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts and questions after yesterday.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 and a perception that we are the toothless tiger. 829498[/snapback] Why is there that perception? Because our enemies know if they let blood at a steady pace and stoke the media to their advantage that EVENTUALLY they can outlast America. Most Americans are weak, pathetic, and uneducated. Most Americans lack spine and moral character. Our enemies know this, and they've already won. They've spilled enough blood to allow the party of "multilateralism" to win a majority. Our enemies our smart. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens aren't.
Peter Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 Why is there that perception? Because our enemies know if they let blood at a steady pace and stoke the media to their advantage that EVENTUALLY they can outlast America. Most Americans are weak, pathetic, and uneducated. Most Americans lack spine and moral character. Our enemies know this, and they've already won. They've spilled enough blood to allow the party of "multilateralism" to win a majority. Our enemies our smart. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens aren't. 829529[/snapback] That and the fact that most of the world thought that we would have had this under control a long time ago. We would have if we had the correct number of troops and had properly planned for the "post war." The administration blundered by rushing in without enough troops and planning. My theory on this is that the Administration knew that it would have lost momentum for any invasion given that the inspectors were in the process of confirming what the American public knows now -- the advertised basis for the war (WMD and mushroom clouds over NYC) was false. The longer time went by, the less likely there would be the political will to achieve Richard Perle's and Douglas Feith's pre 9/11 plan as set forth in a "Clean Break." Once the American public figured out that this war was not about 9/11 or WMD, there would be no political will -- especially if we had been told that this was going to cost us thousands of American and civilian lives, up to a trillion dollars, an unchecked Iran, a country (Iraq) filled with people who hate us and our allies etc.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 That and the fact that most of the world thought that we would have had this under control a long time ago. We would have if we had the correct number of troops and had properly planned for the "post war." The administration blundered by rushing in without enough troops and planning. 829547[/snapback] That I can agree with. Also I think we should have shied away from ridiculous "rules of engagement" and really dealt with "insurgents" as they popped up.
Peter Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 That I can agree with. 829573[/snapback] I am glad that we have found some common ground. I firmly believe that if you are going to invade a country you have to let them know that they have been defeated and take away any will for any insurgency. If we had gone in there and let them know we were boss, there would have been no or little ability or will for an insurgency. I also think that it was extremely important that we succeeded in showing the Iraqi people that we could make the "trains run on time" (i.e., provide electricity and run the place) and that we were better than Saddam and his hench men. Incidents like Abu Ghraib and raping a 15 year old Iraqi girl, setting her on fire, and murdering her family have not exactly endeared us to the locals. Fair or not, whether we succeed is going to be based in large measure by how average Iraqi's perceive us. In a lot of these countries (Pakastan for example), if they had true democratic elections, I suspect they would elect some pretty anti-American and Western governments. It would be horrible to think that, after we leave, the Iraqis may elect a government that is not only anti-American but a puppet or ally of the present Iranian regime -- especially after all of the thousands of American dead and wounded.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 I am glad that we have found some common ground. I firmly believe that if you are going to invade a country if you have to let them know that they have been defeated and take away any will for any insurgency. If we had gone in there and let them know we were boss, there would have been no or little ability or will for an insurgency. I also think that it was extremely important that we succeeded in showing the Iraqi people that we could make the "trains run on time" (i.e., provide electricity and run the place) and that we were better than Saddam and his hench men. Incidents like Abu Ghraib and raping a 15 year old Iraqi girl, setting her on fire, and murdering her family have not exactly endeared us to the locals. Fair or not, whether we succeed is going to be based in large measure by how average Iraqi's perceive us. In a lot of these countries (Pakastan for example), if they had true democratic elections, I suspect they would elect some pretty anti-American and Western governments. It would be horrible to think that, after we leave, the Iraqis may elect a government that is not only anti-American but a puppet or ally of the present Iranian regime -- especially after all of the thousands of American dead and wounded. 829602[/snapback] Which is why you partition the country. I'd like to think that the Shia and Kurdish regimes would be rather friendly or at the least neutral toward us. Then you just let the Sunnis rot.
Peter Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 Which is why you partition the country. I'd like to think that the Shia and Kurdish regimes would be rather friendly or at the least neutral toward us. Then you just let the Sunnis rot. 829606[/snapback] It is going to be interesting to see what James Baker recommends. I really hope that we can solve the problems that we face there.
X. Benedict Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Which is why you partition the country. I'd like to think that the Shia and Kurdish regimes would be rather friendly or at the least neutral toward us. Then you just let the Sunnis rot. 829606[/snapback] A Shia partition would be Iran's best ally. A Kurdish one would be pro-US. A Sunni one would likely blame the US for impoverishing their country by losing the oil-rich Shia and Kurdish regions. In the balance we would only get a pro-US kurdish region which Turkey would never forgive us for.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 A Shia partition would be Iran's best ally. A Kurdish one would be pro-US. A Sunni one would likely blame the US for impoverishing their country by losing the oil-rich Shia and Kurdish regions. In the balance we would only get a pro-US kurdish region which Turkey would never forgive us for. 829658[/snapback] I don't know. I think the Iraqi Shia would not be a puppet state of Iran. Even though they share religious beliefs, the Iraqi Shia are Arabs, not Persians.
X. Benedict Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 I don't know. I think the Iraqi Shia would not be a puppet state of Iran. Even though they share religious beliefs, the Iraqi Shia are Arabs, not Persians. 829660[/snapback] Juan Cole did a piece on this in Salon. He's a Lefty, but he outlines the obstacles to such a program pretty well: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/...iraq_partition/
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Juan Cole did a piece on this in Salon. He's a Lefty, but he outlines the obstacles to such a program pretty well: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/...iraq_partition/ 829675[/snapback] Interesting. Nice article.
Recommended Posts