Iraq Leaders Agree on Benchmarks

Could someone call this progress in Iraq?

Iraq’s top Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.

Naaaaaah…. it’s just another Rovian trick. 

1. Owen, did you miss this bit;

   The laws need to be passed by Iraq’s fractious parliament, which has yet to receive any of the drafts.

   I think I’ll hold off on chilling the champagne just yet.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 0332 hrs




2. WaPo buried it on page A9 in today’s edition, under the headline of “Iraqi Leaders Reach Accord On Prisoners, Ex-Baathists.”

   No doubt it’s the same place it’d be if the headline was “Iraqi Government Shatters, Vote of No-Confidence Ahead for al-Maliki.”

   And to think Jim Geragthy told me in person they’re only bias on the local political stories…

   Posted by Kevin Binversie on August 27, 2007 at 0701 hrs




3. Well no, the story wouldn’t be in the same place.  If you can’t understand why I suggest removing your blinders and taking a look at the world the rest of us inhabit. 

   I really hope the Iraqi government pulls a rabbit out of its hat and comes to some kind of agreement which quells the violence there.  I doubt very much whether that can happen now, but I hope it does.  Nothing in this story makes me think it any more likely than it was last week.

   Posted by scott on August 27, 2007 at 0831 hrs




4. I see some major progress in this.  Two months ago the sunni leaders were refusing too even have the conversation that lead this agreement.  I am not going to say this is everything but if you can’t see this as progress then I suggest you are the one with blinders on.

   pjr - your point is valid but with all the factions leaders on board passage, while not guarenteed, is highly likely.  There have not been that many maverack politicians in Iraq.  It has been party leadership driven.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1023 hrs




5. It is progress, and not-so-coincidentally timed at that.  I hope this is the beginning of many new positive developments.  I still believe (unfortunately) that Iraqi politics will be increasingly dominated by Iranian influence in the years to come, but anything that can counter that is a positive (including the long over due integration of Baathists back into civil/military service).

   Patience in all matters military has never been an American trait (at least, post-WWII, that is).  The public relations challenge now, I believe, is that most Americans neither know nor care about the mission goals in Iraq.  What does a stable, friendly-to-America government in Iraq look like?  I don’t think the American public knows.  Hell, most Americans (and a few congressmen) couldn’t even pass the basic test of correctly labeling Iran, a majority of Iraqis, and al-qaeda as Shiite or Sunni.  If they don’t know (or care) what it would mean to American and the Middle East in general to have an Iranian-style government in Iraq, then the American public isn’t going to care all that much about political progress in Iraq—only body counts on both sides.  The American public is much further behind in knowing how to interpret the meaning, goals and strategies in a 21st century war without official armies than our military is at fighting such a new kind of war.  All but a few of our citizens still think of success in war today as “are we killing a whole lot more of them than they’re killing of us?” (without even fully knowing who “them” is).

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1119 hrs




6. “Patience in all matters military has never been an American trait (at least, post-WWII, that is).”

   Well, this war already has lasted longer than World War II.

   Then, the first American soldier killed in Vietnam was in 1945.
   The Vietnam War ended in 1975.  Another Thirty Years’ War, we don’t need. 

   But as we have given more time in Iraq than it took us to say “mission accomplished” to both Hitler and Hirohito, so much for your misinformed talking point and cavalier bashing of a couple of generations of Americans who have gone the distance. 

   Next?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1128 hrs




7. World War II had a clear and sensible goal, one that could in fact be achieved by the means being employed to achieve it.  It is not the difficulty of the task, nor the length of the task that bothers Americans; it is the fact that most people correctly perceive that the problems there cannot be solved militarily, and that too little progress has been made on other fronts.  Military operations there have the unmistakable aroma of futility.

   Posted by scott on August 27, 2007 at 1144 hrs




8. Kay - the winning of the peace in Germany and Japan lasted decades.  This current war, stabilization effort etc. has not outlasted the time spent in Gernmany - it aint’ even close yet.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1200 hrs




9. No, Joe, you’re still confusing terms—and rewriting history.

   Peace was won in Germany and Japan in 1945.

   Maintaining the peace took decades, true.  It probably will take decades of a presence in Iraq for our troops, too—but we already had that.

   This still is war, and a longer war than any world war, and peace has not been won.  Period.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1352 hrs




10. Define the terms in whatever way you like.  The treaty may have been signed in 1945 but if you are suggesting there was no more violence you are simply ignoring reality.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1401 hrs




11. Well, no again, Joe.  The terms are well defined by international treaties (by the way, it took more than one to end World War II, being a—y’know—world war, so we fought many countries on many fronts . . . and still had it done in less time than it’s taking in Iraq).  And the terms are pretty well defined by that guy named Webster, too.  Heard of him?  Wrote a great book you might consider.  And no need to buy it; it’s in every library.

    As for your next point, fine, I’ll bite.  What violence occurred in Germany and Japan in the postwar period?  Now, I don’t mean the sorts of skirmishes that can happen in postwar occupations, when nations look the other way to maintain hard-won peace.  And I don’t mean any violence done by our troops to civilians, although there was a wee bit of that, as there is on every side in every war—and nations look the other way again, since time immemorial.

    Nope, I mean acts of war, when the war was over.  What act of war did Germany take against us?  What act of war did Japan take against us?  How many died?  How?  Where?  When?  Etc. . . .

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 2258 hrs