There for 100 Years

[Chilly]

My initial reaction is to exclaim "No one's that stupid."

 

My next reaction is to realize: "Of course there's people that stupid."

 

But after actually thinking about it...who's best interests is this in? Who would benefit? Absolutely no one. And the Independent claims to have had leaked to them this secret plan...which is apparently not secret enough to be publicly commented on by the only people who would benefit (e.g.Rafsanjani) by the leak whether the story was factual or not.

 

So I'm calling bull sh--. The story makes no sense.

 

Unless Bush is worried that his legacy of fixing Iraq might be in trouble, but keeping our troops there would insure that people kept working on it.

[SilverNRed]

Bed Baath and Beyond

 

Gonna be tough to top that one.

[erynthered]

Baghdad Bobs Pearle Vision Centers.

[DC Tom]

Unless Bush is worried that his legacy of fixing Iraq might be in trouble, but keeping our troops there would insure that people kept working on it.

 

Again, initial reaction is "No one's that stupid..."

 

But again...there's no upside. Occupying a foreign nation for a hundred years is not equivalent to a legacy of fixing said country...

 

 

...and as I type that, I flash on PastaJoe insisting that Hillary Clinton's primary loss is actually a win and doesn't matter because the presidential election hasn't been held yet. Never mind...

[Chilly]

Again, initial reaction is "No one's that stupid..."

 

But again...there's no upside. Occupying a foreign nation for a hundred years is not equivalent to a legacy of fixing said country...

 

True, its likely that doing so would just screw it up more; however, Bush could be gambling that somewhere along the line, if we kept troops and major operations there, someone would want to fix said country, and he would get credit for putting that into motion.

 

...and as I type that, I flash on PastaJoe insisting that Hillary Clinton's primary loss is actually a win and doesn't matter because the presidential election hasn't been held yet. Never mind...

 

lol

[Ramius]

Bed Baath and Beyond

 

 

Is that near Qur' An Fabrics?

[DC Tom]

MuhDonalds

 

Actually, it's MaDonal.

[Cornerville]

Bed Baath and Beyond

 

 

:lol:

[OCinBuffalo]

My initial reaction is to exclaim "No one's that stupid."

 

My next reaction is to realize: "Of course there's people that stupid."

 

But after actually thinking about it...who's best interests is this in? Who would benefit? Absolutely no one. And the Independent claims to have had leaked to them this secret plan...which is apparently not secret enough to be publicly commented on by the only people who would benefit (e.g.Rafsanjani) by the leak whether the story was factual or not.

 

So I'm calling bull sh--. The story makes no sense.

Ya think? I love it near the end where it contradicts itself in 2 sentences. Sunnis have been supporting guerrilla war but would support the accord at the same time? WTF?

 

Worse, I see a whole lot of innuendo. One of about 10 examples = "the US diplomat has been trying to force this through", with absolutely 0 factual reports to back that up. How in the hell does the author know that's the case? Based on what? What facts support him saying that this is the thinking, never mind actions of our diplomat? Can he read minds too? Hell I am sure I could walk back down to Chippewa tonight and get somebody to tell me that aliens abducted them. I probably can get another drunk to corroborate it. Does that make it true?

 

For the record, I am saying that DC Tom is a bad dancer. In fact many "people" agree with that sentiment. One poster/source here has said that his dancing is "just a tactical subterfuge". His dancing risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought by girls who support club music vs. guys who know it sucks. Mr. Tom is determined to force us to celebrate his dancing skills by the end of the month. But they are already being condemned by girls and members of the gay community as a continuing effort to dominate the dance floor.

 

See, I can do it too. :lol:

[chicot]

Ya think? I love it near the end where it contradicts itself in 2 sentences. Sunnis have been supporting guerrilla war but would support the accord at the same time? WTF?

 

Worse, I see a whole lot of innuendo. One of about 10 examples = "the US diplomat has been trying to force this through", with absolutely 0 factual reports to back that up. How in the hell does the author know that's the case? Based on what? What facts support him saying that this is the thinking, never mind actions of our diplomat? Can he read minds too? Hell I am sure I could walk back down to Chippewa tonight and get somebody to tell me that aliens abducted them. I probably can get another drunk to corroborate it. Does that make it true?

 

For the record, I am saying that DC Tom is a bad dancer. In fact many "people" agree with that sentiment. One poster/source here has said that his dancing is "just a tactical subterfuge". His dancing risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought by girls who support club music vs. guys who know it sucks. Mr. Tom is determined to force us to celebrate his dancing skills by the end of the month. But they are already being condemned by girls and members of the gay community as a continuing effort to dominate the dance floor.

 

See, I can do it too.

 

as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

 

It says Sunni Arab leaders will support the accord (actually I doubt that) and that the Sunni Arab community has broadly supported guerilla war. There is no contradiction.

[DC Tom]

Ya think? I love it near the end where it contradicts itself in 2 sentences. Sunnis have been supporting guerrilla war but would support the accord at the same time? WTF?

 

Worse, I see a whole lot of innuendo. One of about 10 examples = "the US diplomat has been trying to force this through", with absolutely 0 factual reports to back that up. How in the hell does the author know that's the case? Based on what? What facts support him saying that this is the thinking, never mind actions of our diplomat? Can he read minds too? Hell I am sure I could walk back down to Chippewa tonight and get somebody to tell me that aliens abducted them. I probably can get another drunk to corroborate it. Does that make it true?

 

For the record, I am saying that DC Tom is a bad dancer. In fact many "people" agree with that sentiment. One poster/source here has said that his dancing is "just a tactical subterfuge". His dancing risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought by girls who support club music vs. guys who know it sucks. Mr. Tom is determined to force us to celebrate his dancing skills by the end of the month. But they are already being condemned by girls and members of the gay community as a continuing effort to dominate the dance floor.

 

See, I can do it too.

 

But I am a bad dancer.

[OCinBuffalo]

It says Sunni Arab leaders will support the accord (actually I doubt that) and that the Sunni Arab community has broadly supported guerilla war. There is no contradiction.

So apparently the reverse has been true, that the Sunni leaders didn't support the guerrilla war before? Of course they did, till about a year ago. So of course their is a logical contradiction built in, and what's worse? This guy is predicting the future, and he has backed it up with nothing but idle speculation and 0 facts, quotes, or anyone actually going on record saying anything besides one sentence. I am certain that the "politicians" he talked to had more to say than one sentence, or phrase, so why not print what they said as a whole? Maybe he should start predicting the weather, he's probably gonna do better with that.

[DC Tom]

So apparently the reverse has been true, that the Sunni leaders didn't support the guerrilla war before? Of course they did, till about a year ago. So of course their is a logical contradiction built in, and what's worse? This guy is predicting the future, and he has backed it up with nothing but idle speculation and 0 facts, quotes, or anyone actually going on record saying anything besides one sentence. I am certain that the "politicians" he talked to had more to say than one sentence, or phrase, so why not print what they said as a whole? Maybe he should start predicting the weather, he's probably gonna do better with that.

 

The flaw in your argument is in assuming that "Sunni" or "Shia" or "Kurd" are somehow monolithic power blocks in Iraq. They're not; they're very factionalized in and of themselves. Whereas we tend to see the entire region divided along broad religious lines, the reality is that the divisions are more tribal than religious, and if you look at it solely in terms of broad definitions of "Sunni" or "Shiia"...well, you'll basically end up having no understanding of the dynamics of the region.

 

Not that understanding the tribal divisions will give one much of an understanding either. You'd just be less wrong.

[OCinBuffalo]

The flaw in your argument is in assuming that "Sunni" or "Shia" or "Kurd" are somehow monolithic power blocks in Iraq. They're not; they're very factionalized in and of themselves. Whereas we tend to see the entire region divided along broad religious lines, the reality is that the divisions are more tribal than religious, and if you look at it solely in terms of broad definitions of "Sunni" or "Shiia"...well, you'll basically end up having no understanding of the dynamics of the region.

 

Not that understanding the tribal divisions will give one much of an understanding either. You'd just be less wrong.

Buddy, that's the precise argument I am making. Perhaps I am not writing it very well?, but that's exactly what I mean. That's the contradiction I am pointing out: How can this guy determine who is going to support what and that they will do it in unity, i.e. the Sunni "community is not likely to support it". What community? In which town? From which tribe? Same questions for the Sunni "leaders", especially since they changed their position already? Well, at least most of them did. And that's the point.

 

His conclusion assumes behavior that has yet to be evidenced. He is stating that they will act in unity, while at the same time he is saying that they have not been historically unified? Edit: they being the leaders and the "community". The fact is that no one has any idea how each individual leader will react as much as they don't know how the "community", as if there was one, will act either. And again, which town/tribe are we talking about?

 

Lucky for you I fully understand the tribal loyalties and dynamics of that region from now back a 1000 years, so I don't need your "help". It's too bad that our war planners didn't, but that's another argument all together.

 

Edit: and you do realize that I just randomly picked you for my bad dancer analogy right?

[DC Tom]

Edit: and you do realize that I just randomly picked you for my bad dancer analogy right?

 

Oh yeah, I know. I was just amused that you were correct.

 

 

And I couldn't give you help understand the tribal alliances in Iraq. I don't understand them (though not for lack of trying, but they're friggin' byzantine), I just know they're 1) there, and 2) not likely understood by anyone above General Petraeus. I'm just shocked at how FEW people lack even the basic understand that the conflict is tribal in nature.

[Steely Dan]

I'm pretty sure this has been a goal from the outset so the only surprise is how long it took the media to get real information on it.

 

I agree it's been known from basically the beginning of the war.

 

 

My initial reaction is to exclaim "No one's that stupid."

 

My next reaction is to realize: "Of course there's people that stupid."

 

But after actually thinking about it...who's best interests is this in? Who would benefit? Absolutely no one. And the Independent claims to have had leaked to them this secret plan...which is apparently not secret enough to be publicly commented on by the only people who would benefit (e.g.Rafsanjani) by the leak whether the story was factual or not.

 

So I'm calling bull sh--. The story makes no sense.

 

I was thinking the same thing when I read it but these are undeniable facts that started in 2003

 

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

 

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

 

''There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan,'' said one senior administration official. ''The scope of that has yet to be defined -- whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access.''

 

These goals do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq, officials say. The United States is acutely aware that the growing American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of empire-building and may create new targets for terrorists.

 

In Afghanistan and in Iraq, the American military will do all it can to minimize the size of its forces, and there will probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops.

 

Permanent access is all that is required, not permanent basing, officials say.

 

Administration officials express keen awareness that they must show humility, and not hubris, in the aftermath of their quick victory in Iraq. ''We need to be flexible, and modulate our actions according to the political interests of our allies,'' said one senior administration official.

 

I've also heard a lot of people say the U.S. has been building 14 permanent airbases their for a long time. I can't find a reliable source to back that up though.

 

While I'm skeptical of that exact report I'm sure something like that has been planned from the beginning.

 

The flaw in your argument is in assuming that "Sunni" or "Shia" or "Kurd" are somehow monolithic power blocks in Iraq. They're not; they're very factionalized in and of themselves. Whereas we tend to see the entire region divided along broad religious lines, the reality is that the divisions are more tribal than religious, and if you look at it solely in terms of broad definitions of "Sunni" or "Shiia"...well, you'll basically end up having no understanding of the dynamics of the region.

 

Not that understanding the tribal divisions will give one much of an understanding either. You'd just be less wrong.

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh yeah, I know. I was just amused that you were correct.

 

 

And I couldn't give you help understand the tribal alliances in Iraq. I don't understand them (though not for lack of trying, but they're friggin' byzantine), I just know they're 1) there, and 2) not likely understood by anyone above General Petraeus. I'm just shocked at how FEW people lack even the basic understand that the conflict is tribal in nature.

I work with Orthodox Jews some days. They have a large presence in health care, especially nursing homes. I have been learning a lot about them and I have been doing it long enough that they don't repress their normal speech as much anymore. I think they might even trust me a little. One of the things I find fascinating is that they they still to this day define themselves by tribe. In fact, one cat said to me last month: "Well I know him, but he's not in my tribe." I wanted to ask him what that meant strategically, but thought better of it. It's amazing how they have been able to keep that history and tradition for as long as they have. What's also clear is that their own laws, courts(yes they have them), and legal system operate mostly separately but within the state's.

 

I don't understand much of their system, but I do know there's no way you could lump them into a group or assume that they would agree by default on much of anything. You'd have to work within their tribal structure to get them to unify on something, and that would mean leader by leader, tribe by tribe.

[Simon]

Target

[DC Tom]

I agree it's been known from basically the beginning of the war.

 

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing when I read it but these are undeniable facts that started in 2003

 

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

 

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

 

''There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan,'' said one senior administration official. ''The scope of that has yet to be defined -- whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access.''

 

These goals do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq, officials say. The United States is acutely aware that the growing American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of empire-building and may create new targets for terrorists.

 

In Afghanistan and in Iraq, the American military will do all it can to minimize the size of its forces, and there will probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops.

 

Permanent access is all that is required, not permanent basing, officials say.

 

Administration officials express keen awareness that they must show humility, and not hubris, in the aftermath of their quick victory in Iraq. ''We need to be flexible, and modulate our actions according to the political interests of our allies,'' said one senior administration official.

 

I've also heard a lot of people say the U.S. has been building 14 permanent airbases their for a long time. I can't find a reliable source to back that up though.

 

While I'm skeptical of that exact report I'm sure something like that has been planned from the beginning.

 

I think there's a qualitative difference in a long-term arrangement of basing rights with a soverign nation - which was outlined in the original plan going all the way back to Wolfowitz's position paper back in '79 - and a long-term occupation of a conquered nation as outlined here. It's the difference between West Germany in the '80's and...I don't know, maybe the Philippines around 1910. And that plan existed in concept through the invasion - one of the arguments for invading Iraq being part of the Global War on Terror was that a stable friendly Iraq that would permit us basing rights would then allow us to pull completely out of Saudi Arabia, thereby eliminating the "occupation of Mecca and The Holy Land" excuse for al Qaeda's war. (Obviously, that's a complete joke of a rationalization.)

 

But the relationship was also predicated on soverignty - no doubt a measure of guilt, indebtedness, or gratitude was expected to be leveraged to establish that relationship, but nonetheless soverignty was required to be established under the original plan on the principle of Exporting Democracy. Can't export democracy without the democracy being soverign, can you? (Again, pretty much a joke - democracy at the barrel of a gun is by definition not.)

 

And that's really the key point in the Independent's article: soverignty. The original plan involved the expectation of at least nominal soverignty for Iraq and a treaty arrangement that would allow us basing rights - and says so in the article you quote. What the Independent outlined is more along the lines of colonization - and is written in such a hysterical tone that I can only believe it is AT BEST highly exaggerated.

 

And that's beside the point that it's virtually impossible for an administration to present this as a fait accompli to the country and make it stick, as the Independent mistakenly claims. Even if that exact agreement were put in place...come next January 20th the new Commander in Chief is perfectly free to countermand it at least through the expident of ordering "Leave Iraq. Now." Beyond that, the House can simply refuse to fund anything associated with it...or the Senate could claim their Constitutional right to approval and nullify it on those grounds.

 

And don't you find it odd that information that was "leaked to" the Independent you apparently found references to five years ago? That should tell you right there that the story is an example of British tabloid journalism at its finest.

[Steely Dan]

I think there's a qualitative difference in a long-term arrangement of basing rights with a soverign nation - which was outlined in the original plan going all the way back to Wolfowitz's position paper back in '79 - and a long-term occupation of a conquered nation as outlined here. It's the difference between West Germany in the '80's and...I don't know, maybe the Philippines around 1910. And that plan existed in concept through the invasion - one of the arguments for invading Iraq being part of the Global War on Terror was that a stable friendly Iraq that would permit us basing rights would then allow us to pull completely out of Saudi Arabia, thereby eliminating the "occupation of Mecca and The Holy Land" excuse for al Qaeda's war. (Obviously, that's a complete joke of a rationalization.)

 

But the relationship was also predicated on soverignty - no doubt a measure of guilt, indebtedness, or gratitude was expected to be leveraged to establish that relationship, but nonetheless soverignty was required to be established under the original plan on the principle of Exporting Democracy. Can't export democracy without the democracy being soverign, can you? (Again, pretty much a joke - democracy at the barrel of a gun is by definition not.)

 

And that's really the key point in the Independent's article: soverignty. The original plan involved the expectation of at least nominal soverignty for Iraq and a treaty arrangement that would allow us basing rights - and says so in the article you quote. What the Independent outlined is more along the lines of colonization - and is written in such a hysterical tone that I can only believe it is AT BEST highly exaggerated.

 

And that's beside the point that it's virtually impossible for an administration to present this as a fait accompli to the country and make it stick, as the Independent mistakenly claims. Even if that exact agreement were put in place...come next January 20th the new Commander in Chief is perfectly free to countermand it at least through the expident of ordering "Leave Iraq. Now." Beyond that, the House can simply refuse to fund anything associated with it...or the Senate could claim their Constitutional right to approval and nullify it on those grounds.

 

And don't you find it odd that information that was "leaked to" the Independent you apparently found references to five years ago? That should tell you right there that the story is an example of British tabloid journalism at its finest.

 

?