Bush, Blair Defend War in Iraq Together
Standing side by side in the Rose Garden, the two leaders said they had no regrets about the decision, contending Iraq has become the main battleground in the war against global terrorism.
Iraq Withdrawal Move Thwarted in Senate
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.
Senate Dems fail to cut off war funds
WASHINGTON - Anti-war Democrats in the Senate failed in an attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq war on Wednesday, a lopsided bipartisan vote that masked growing impatience within both political parties over President Bush's handling of the four-year conflict.
5 comments:
The house of cards appears to be falling:
There is not 'one' civil war, nor 'one' insurgency, but several civil wars and insurgencies between different communities in today's Iraq. Within this warring society, the Iraqi government is only one among many 'state-like' actors, and is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic, and political life. It is now possible to argue that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation. These are some of the key findings of Accepting Realities in Iraq a new Briefing Paper written by Dr Gareth Stansfield and published today by Chatham House.
and is Afghanistan next?:
In January 2006, security was taken over by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (NISAF), with units from a large number of countries - Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Estonia, Norway, France, Italy, New Zealand. However, most of these countries were skittish about the use of their troops - each establishing different rules of engagement and insisting on particular locations for them (often preferring Kabul, the safest place to be). And now in virtually each of these countries, there is active political debate about whether to maintain the troops there.
So, the Taliban are back, and in force. NISAF may not survive much longer. And it is unlikely that the secular modernizers who were the Communists could reemerge. Do we really think some angel is looking down upon the Western world, and saying "job well done"?
There will always be gloomy commentary from anti-war lefties. It just seems odd how these people seem to gloat at the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You seem to be hoping for failure in Iraq? You will be sorely disappointed.
Iraq Report: the Coalition has Regained the Initiative
Increased stability provides industrial opportunities in Iraq
Wake up and smell the coffee
I am not hoping for anything. I am simply spelling out the direction that history is heading. Whether you "like" it or not is of little consequence.
Remember this "lefty"? William F. Buckley Jr. said on Feb. 26, 2006: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
Or what about these recent "about-faces" on the Iraq invasion from key people that formerly supported the policy?:
According to [Richard] Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."
Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, … . Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."
Here is another one of your cherished assumptions dashed on the rocky shores of reality (again, note that the source is not a "lefty" one but one of your right wing gospels):
The chart tells a striking story: the countries that are economically and politically free are underper¬forming the countries that are economically but not politically free. For example, unfree China had a growth rate of 9.5 percent from 2001 to 2005. But China was not the whole story—Malaysia’s GDP grew 9.5 percent from 1991 to 1995, Singapore’s GDP grew 6.4 percent from 1996 to 2000, and Russia’s grew 6.1 percent from 2001 to 2005.
The unfree governments now understand that they have to provide a good economy to keep citizens happy, and they understand that free-market econ¬omies work best. Also, nearly all of the unfree nations are developing countries. History shows they grow faster, at least for a while, than mature nations. But being unfree may be an economic advantage. Dictatorships are not hamstrung by the preferences of voters for, say, a pervasive welfare state.
Sigue soñando con pajaritos preñados.
Post a Comment