Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (23379)	10/23/2006 5:24:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"Major Change Expected in Strategy for Iraq War" Power Line That's one of the two headlines on the front page of today's Washington Post. As usual with the Post, however, there is little in the story to suggest that the Bush administration actually will make the kind of major change the article contemplates -- partition of the country or withdrawal pursuant to a timetable or enlisting Syria and Iran to help stabilize the country. The best the Post can come up with is a quote by Richard Haass, a former Bush administration official (ages ago, it seems) who predicts "change will come" and the statement of author Robert Kaplan that when he met with the president, Bush was "open to any new direction or tactic except withdrawal." I think Kaplan is on the money. Bush probably is open to any new idea other than withdrawal. And he should be, considering the limitations of the approach we're using now. But I wouldn't expect a major change for the sake of a major change or for political purposes. Recall that last year at this time, many here in Washington were predicting that 2006 would see a major reduction in troop levels to coincide with the election. That didn't happen because the president concluded it was the wrong way to go. And he will have less incentive in 2007 to change course than he did in 2006. Thus, I would expect "major change" only if Bush can be persuaded that a new course will better achieve his goals. That will be a hard sell. Partition is probably not practical because the Sunnis and the Shiites are intermingled. How do you partition Baghdad, which represents one-fifth of the country and a bigger proportion than that of the country's troubles? And wouldn't the Shiite portion of a partitioned Iraq be drawn to Iran out of fear of hostilities with the Sunni portion? And how would our long-time ally Turkey feel about an autonomous Kurdish state on its border? Nor can I imagine Bush turning to Iran and Syria to help us solve the problem. Right now, we may not be winning in Iraq, but we're not losing either. Outsourcing the problem to our enemies would represent a double defeat -- we'd lose in Iraq and strengthen Iran immeasurably. Sending more troops, though not an option considered by the Post, may have merit. If re-deploying so many troops to Baghdad has led to a resurgence of the enemy in Anbar province, then sending a large new force to crush the enemy in that province seems like a good idea. However, it's not clear that even with a substantially larger force we could ever bring peace to Baghdad, a city of five million that resembles Los Angeles in size, through military means. It's also doubtful that the long term commitment of substantially more troops is politically sustainable. Kaplan and the Post suggest that even maintaining current troop levels is politically unsustainable. To be sure, strong Democratic gains next month would increase the pressure on the administration to begin withdrawing troops. Such gains would not only increase the number of anti-war Dems but would also scare more Republicans into questioning the war. However, if the president wants to hang tough, it's unlikely that Congress would force him to cut and run, by withholding funds, for example. Certainly, most Republican Senators would be taking a huge risk with their base if they turned on the president to that extent. And presidential politics on the Democrat side might counsel against an all-out struggle with Bush on this issue. Would the Democrats prefer to be the author of a cut-and-run defeat in Iraq or would they rather still have a war to beat Republicans up with in 2008? powerlineblog.com washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23379)	10/23/2006 6:16:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"Stay the course" within reason Power Line Jed Babbin looks at the alternatives on the table for changing course in Iraq -- partition, strongman, and withdrawal -- and correctly finds them wanting. Babbin thinks the answer lies in forcing regime change in Iran and Syria. But that, I'm afraid, is not in the cards. What should we do? First, if the situation in Anbar province is truly deteriorating due to the re-deployment of troops to Baghdad, we should immediately send more troops there to clean the situation up. Preventing the establishment of a terrorist stronghold in Iraq is, in my view, the most compelling reason for not withdrawing from the country, and we should act accordingly. As for Baghdad, we need candidly to assess whether we can substantially reduce the violence, and at what cost. This is a sprawling metropolitan area of at least 5 million people. Thus, it may not be possible, at an acceptable cost, for the U.S. military to police it effectively over the long-term. If we come to believe that this is the case, we should turn primary responsibility over to the Iraqis (while continuing to train them) even with the knowledge that may not be up to the task. Preventing bloodshed in Baghdad remains a worthy objective, and I think we have a moral obligation, within reason, to try to accomplish it, as we have. However, I don't believe that U.S. security interests are substantially threatened by Sunni-Shia strife in Baghdad or by the outcome of that strife, absent the establishment of an al-Qaeda type terrorist enclave. Again, we should act accordingly. powerlineblog.com spectator.org