cognitorex

.

To extricate one's arm from a toilet, it's a necessity to first let go of the large shiny object you've wrapped your fist around.

I've been laughing for a day or so now.

The source of humor was the description of the Iraq situation from one of the usual 'inside' narcissistic bright minds. He said that figuring out the Iraq situation was like "playing three dimensional chess in the dark while you are being shot at."

The actuality of how to deal with and accommodate or not accommodate the various parties goals and motives is logically inordinately simple.

A. America can neither stay in Iraq nor leave Iraq and have easy, cordial, aligned interests with any eventually arising central dominant force/government.

B. If America semi 'stands down' behind a multinational force the chances for a settlement and a hopeful future for Iraq (and the region) brighten.

C. Alternatively, if America insists on a continuing presence they should henceforth implement a tri-part Iraq. Post establishment of same, the U.S. could implement massive aid to each faction and a return to the time honored foreign policy of "bribe-the-dictator."

The metaphor I prefer for the Iraqi quagmire is that America forcefully shoved its arm into a deeply murky toilet to retrieve a bright shiny object. To extricate itself it simply needs to unclasp its rigid grasp and withdrawal will easily proceed.

This simple and logical opinion arrives at the same conclusion as that of the Iraq Study Group. Their advice was:

A. Inform the Iraqis et al that the U.S. will eventually disassemble their major bases in Iraq and leave. ("Let go of the shiny object!")

B. Form a multinational force (preferably with Arab country participation) to oversee security and policy making for Iraq. ("Take your arm out of the toilet.)

Craig Johnson

Labels: Iraq, surge, tri part solution, withdrawal

.
Seriously. Why don't the President and his veep approach the major oil companies for ten billion dollars to tide the surge over for a month or two.
That way they can veto the troop shrinkage legislation and be assured of war bucks.
Of course it would also be nice if the major oil companies paid part or all of the tab for the global security we provide for them gratis.
--Craig Johnson--

Labels: funding, Iraq, surge, timelines

.
A just released Washington Post ABC Poll (here) shows that by a two thirds, one third margin American voters are against deploying increasing numbers of troops to Iraq.
I don't believe that Americans are truly voting against this military option. I believe they are, in numbers approaching shock and awe proportions, voting for new leadership.
Ask me if I am against the surge and increasing troop numbers in Iraq and I will vociferously say yes.
Ask me to sign a petition, demonstrate or take a poll and I will gladly lend my name that no escalation should be forthcoming.
Do I believe that I have sufficient information to intelligently second guess anyone on military tactics in Iraq?
No, no and emphatically no.
Then, you might ask, why are you willing to go to the length of demonstrating miles from home if you don’t feel qualified to second guess the decision to surge in Iraq.
Answer: I oppose the surge because I am vehemently opposed to a continuation of George Bush et al as the military and policy leadership of my country and my military.
My ‘No-surge’ vote is a vote of no confidence in our present leaders.I believe most Senate and House votes against escalation are in essence a no confidence vote for the President; a political statement first, a military tactics’ statement only by default.
I suggest a polling question that would illuminate my proposition that the no surge vote is a political no confidence vote rather than a strong feeling on how to proceed in Baghdad would useful.
To wit:
Part A: Do you support or oppose the President’s plan to send 40,000 additional troops to Iraq, the surge plan?
Part B: If the Iraq war military decision making leadership was turned over to a new commander in chief who had strong military and foreign policy credentials would you then support or oppose a similar surge plan if backed by this new leadership?
(Yes? No? Undecided?)
Voting against surging in Iraq reflects a deep desire for competent and accountable leadership. Or did you know that already?

Labels: escalation, Iraq, surge, vote of no confidence