Allen Zadr's Journal: Politics re: EGlamkowski - Middle East Change

EGlamkowski's recent journal mentions that much of the old guard leadership in the Middle East has died in the last 6 years, or will be dead soon - which, it is asserted, is an excellent time for American Republican (but maybe not Bush) leadership to affect positive change.

I was, back in 1990, one of those folks that thought we needed to conquer Iraq. When we turned back after reaching the suburbs of Baghdad, I was one of those yelling - what the hell are we doing? I kept this opinion until someone took the time to explain to me the basic facts of Iraq and Iran, and the minor issue that the majority of the Iraqi populace is religiously loyal to Iran anyway - so what would stop Iran from simply annexing the entire region.

I've never heard an explanation for why the need for such caution has supposedly changed after 15 years - it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Iran. I doubt it has to do with Iraq either. Most likely it's the confidence that comes from forgetting. So, in this way - I'm probably a little left. Proceed with extreme caution is a mantra that I would stick by. Now, how following 15 year old advice from sage conservative hawks makes me a little left is merely the winds of politics around something that is - to me - an opinion I've never changed (nor been convinced to change).

I find it wholly obnoxious that Clinton did nothing to change things. It's not like our soldiers ever left. We had been policing No-Fly zones for all those years in-between, and Clinton presided over a battle of his own (another great opportunity to make a real change, for left or right - but no change at all). Heh, he "stayed the course", and here I am thinking he was dumb for that.

Attempting to broker change anywhere is serious business. Worse, it's only noble if you both succeed, and leave the region in a stronger position than it was in before. Given the early history of WWI and WWII, any suggestion that we not be actively policing the entire world is taken as an "isolationist" position - yet - can't America find a balance? When Kuwait was invaded, hell yes - strike, and strike hard! Earthquake, send help - and a lot of it, fine. But we shouldn't just sit idle for years, hovering in a foreign land, waiting for something that "might" happen.

---

Back to the current situation. For most purposes the Iraq war was over, pretty much when Bush announced it was over. We are now there as a police presence. This duality has been lost on many on both sides...
First, the Iraqi government was toppled - thus the war was over. The war against Iraq, under Bush, was fast and decisive. He didn't really explain that (maybe he didn't even understand it at the time) - and nobody on the news cared to report it in the full context. During the few days of war against the Iraqi government - another, familiar, enemy entered the picture. An insurgency, a terrorist insurgency, but an insurgency none-the-less. Worse, the insurgency isn't organized in a recognizable way, and uses civilian obscurity as cover. The insurgency draws parallels to Vietnam - because we are fighting an enemy that we cannot recognize, and won't until they are a charred blood-stain in the center of dead victims. So, for all who like to jab that it's not at all like Vietnam - well - there are parallels to be made, especially from a tactical viewpoint.

So, back to EGlamkowski's journal - this is where we are. Where do we need to be? The leadership is dead or dying. Sadly, like in the case of Iran, they are sometimes being replaced by zealots instead of statesmen. Is this a tactical end-game that we need to play? Is this a diplomatic mission that needs to be executed? Can the insurgency end without facing the root issues that generates this endless supply of people willing to kill themselves in the name of furthering their cause?

War over

[nizo]

I don't think the war is over until we are able to pull the majority of our troops out and the country remains stable. It will be a long, loooong time before that happens. Granted the major fighting is over, but believe me if we left tomorrow, all hell would break loose and piles of people would die. The ultimate irony is we probably have handed Iraq over to Iran, now that people with similiar religious ideologies run both countries. Brilliant. So now I forsee attacks on Iran happening in the near future (h

no change

[Bill Dog]

The leadership is dead or dying.

AFAIK the hate factories (some schools and mosques) are not. AFAIK the Saudi govt. still says one thing internally and another externally. There'll be no change until the governments of the Mid-East crack down on the problem portion of their population, and the problem within themselves.