Captain's Quarters -

"Speaking of which, what will Congress have to say now that significant progress has been made both politically and militarily?"
The Dems will deny any progress.
Also the earth is flat and pigs can fly.

Democrats will say - good job troops, now pull out and go home, without any regard for the slaughter that would follow a quick pull-out of US Troops.

What will they say? They'll complain that the agreements haven't been translated into law by the parliment. If that occurs, they'll complain that the laws haven't been signed. If that occurs, they'll complain that the laws haven't been implemented. If that occurs, they'll complain that it's all an evil Rovian plot, doubly evil because Rove conceived of it and put it into motion long before he so cunningly left the White House to avoid taking responsibility for yet another perfidious usurpation of the Constitution. And if that doesn't work, they'll demand that we fight the real war in Afghanistan, and why haven't we caught Osama Bin Ladin anyway? Darned right wing conspiracies!

GOOD!

I knew Maliki was getting work done! He's even gone to Damascus, and given Assad a rope out of the mess syria is in! And, he's done this, TOO. So, it's not just paperwork in parliament.

Maliki lived in the Mideast. Though NOT in Saddam's IRAK! And, when the people went to vote, they voted him into office. Now, that doesn't mean 100%. Or even 90%. But he got the job!

And, for some reason our press never gets it.

Olmert got elected. ANd, the press went to town. Trying to prove that between them, and the lawyers, (something Israel's "rich" in), Olmert would go flying out of his prime minister's chair.

Oh, folks. This doesn't happen! One of the things most politicians know how to do is to build the machinery SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET THROWN OUT OF OFFICE!

The other thing has to do with our current crop of fascist democraps. Who are the hind-quarter remnants of the affirmative action crowd.

ANd, boy, are they angry!

It started with the sore loser, Algore. And, the total breakdown, of one segment of our society; who were incapable of "coming on board."

Yeah, there are dorks in the GOP. From Newt Gingrich, who wasted away, in a dozen years, what came with the victory of becoming the majority party in congress. (You don't believe me? Go read Tom DeLay's book! He spells it out.)

Also, Tom DeLay "took the hiatus" offered by Ronnie Earle. So? One day that sucker is gonna dissolve in court. And, the worst winds to blow through the GOP, which came in the 2006 election; will be a storm that's passed. And, DeLay can come back. None of the charges Ronnie Earle has made will stick to him.

WHile politicians, if not politics, is always in flux.

The other side of the democrapic dilemma, is that they're gonna "cut and run." Maliki knows that, too. (But our military are fighting better than ever. They are not, democraps, for the most part. Even though there are a few 4-starred-general-turkeys who played politics at the pentagon. And, got to the top.)

Like Richard Armitage, they're powers are waning.

And, the American people aren't buying.

Doesn't mean the moonbats are not there. But, when I look at parades, they sure look "low in number." So, let them go for it, and rally round Cindy Sheehan. Or the others who end up "leading their parades."

It's very possible the current crop of democraps will sell like EDSELS. (When the marketeers take over, and then, all you got are the unions to pressure the empty suits) ... Well, there are examples out there of what you do get.

This early primary business has collected around a feeling so many Americans had that Bush's ship was without a rudder.

At least he's not in the dog house, anymore. It seems TNR, in going after our military, actually gave Bush a boost.

And, what happens ahead?

Well, that's a good question.

Maliki can take care of himself. Just as Olmert did. The press, however, are gonna implode.

One way or another, their antics could show up on the bottom line. Not that I foretell the future. Only that business is business. And, who sez the blue doesn't go red down there?

you guys are going to have to do better than this. you obviously want to have it both ways: no political settlement means we have to stay until there is security for a political settlement; apparent political settlement means we have to stay or the political settlement will unravel. which is it?

i speak as a taxpayer who is sick of this b.s. this "war" is a boondoggle of the highest order. i'm sick of paying for it.

and besides, as the captain points out, the government has been on vacation. why should i believe this announcement isn't just another in the long string of lies that this administration has told to continue supporting their cronies?

don't call me a looney lefty or a moonbat. i'm just telling you that if bush had said it was going to cost $9 billion a MONTH and go on for five years plus, NO ONE would have thought this was a good idea.

You deceived right-winger! What they were REALLY doing on their break is conspiring with VP Cheney on how they can funnel money through Haliburton for the Iraqi leaders to embezzle, skimming off a few percent for IEDs and Al Qaeda support. Long live John Kerry!

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Yes, but did they raise the Iraqi minimum wage?

english teacher

You should have seen what WW II cost per month; you' have had us bail out of that too I suppose.

By the way "english teacher", in the English language sentences begin with capital letters. You must teach English in college.

Well, it's interesting how I learn about political news; because I use the Net. Nothing else.

And, today, up at Drudge, he led with Howie Dean's pulling the DNC "delegates" credentials, away from Floriduh. Seems the democraps are rather angry about all this "who goes first" business. And, to prevent other states from doing what Florida's just done ... Doing their primary on January 29, 2008 ...

It brings to mind that Maliki's got his bases in Irak COVERED. See? He faces the next election in 2009. (And, Guiliani's on record saying he won't accept "islamification" over there. They can vote it in, perhaps. But then the Iraqis will have to "sit on it."

Meanwhile, the Iraqis are secular. (Well, so, too, were the iranians, when the Shah was in charge. They then picked "islamification"). So I'm glad Guiliani's clear, here.

But ya know what? The candidates will probably get chosen early in 2008.

Will the fun and games then begin?

How does Hillary (for argument's sake), sustain her run if she's got to run for as long as it takes a woman to carry a baby?

For the GOP, I don't see the same problem. Once the candidate is chosen, I see the running to be more or less of a breeze. Between the two parties, it's the republicans that are able to come around and support a front-runner.

The press? You expect much? I think they're a bunch of hyenas.

And, Maliki is strong enough to show them a thing or two.

WHile the stuff that the Bonkeys have picked; that they can enrage most Americans against the military, I think they're gonna lose.

Congress is already in the shit-hole.

Now you have Howie Dean getting tough with "State's Rights." So it should get interesting.

Sure. If people get unhappy with front-runners chosen early ... then what's next? Could get exciting, ya know, at the Convention; if political hands have to fix what's broken.

And, then? If it's a matter of trust, and your trust is at a low ebb, how does that affect the voters? After the primaties every single political operative will be worried about the mainstream. New caterers come up. Will you chow down baloney?

I guess Republican leader Mitch McConnell will regret saying that the "Maliki government is a complete failure by any objective standards" and "should be criticized" on Fox News Sunday today.

I'm interested in knowing more about the oil revenue sharing. The article didn't contain any details. It's obviously a national resource but as I understand it most of the fields are located in the northern part of the country. (I might be wrong about that). And of course it has to be piped to the ports in the south so I guess all parts of the country are involved in one way or another. So I wonder what they came up with and what safeguards are going to be in place since I would think this will be an area ripe for corruption.

I'm also interested in finding out about their reconciliation program, for the former Baathists. I've wondered before why no one's considered something along the lines of what South Africa did after the end of apartheid. Perhaps someone has and I just don't know it.

What they will REALLY complain about is the lack of earmarks for the districts of our 535 aristocrats. I mean, how dare the Iraqis not share the wealth with the men and women (of Congress) that set them on this pedestal? Have they no compassion?

BTW "english teacher", if we weren't spending the money over there, Congress would just be flushing it down some sewer somewhere else, that YOU wouldn't get to vote for, either.

english teacher blustered:

"don't call me a looney lefty or a moonbat"

Yeah, you're right. ALL teachers are righty earth ants.

Just calling yourself "english teacher" invites all sorts of comparisons.

If you're an "english teacher" at the public school level, it's safe to say you're not a Republican.

And if you're an "english teacher" at the university/college level, the same applies.

Thanks, this is great entertainment.

The ONLY reason for the change in their tune is the ever-increasing doubts being voiced in the press. This further underscores the absolute need for Bush to start making good on the threatened prospect of a US redeployment! They will listen to FORCE, and by that I mean, clear unambiguous THREATS of withdrawal. They do NOT want that.

The ONLY reason for the change in their tune is the ever-increasing doubts being voiced in the press. This further underscores the absolute need for Bush to start making good on the threatened prospect of a US redeployment! They will listen to FORCE, and by that I mean, clear unambiguous THREATS of withdrawal. They do NOT want that.

Yesterday, or today, I read that we're INCREASING MILITARY PRESSURES (on Sadr). Sadly, I can't recall where.

But I don't think Bush is standing still, when it comes to Irak. And, I think he gave Maliki a green light, to do the "discussions" he did in Damascus. Because the "deal" means reviving the pipeline that goes from Irak, into the port, in Tripoli. (REALLY SCREWING IRAN, and other terror supporters in the Gulf. Because they thought we'd use the Straits of Hormuz.)

As a matter of fact, DEBKA says the anger level in Tehran is HUGE. THey'd take out Assad, now, if they could. While Assad runs syria with a very tight grip.

Changes happen, just like traffic patterns, when you use recognizable red and green lights.

I think the press is getting caught with their pants down. And, it started with the fire TNR tried to cause. But only burnt the "hosts."

I also read, today, (probably at Little Green Footballs), that Maliki spoke to the press, and told Hillary that she should stay out of the "village" when she has no idea about who the villagers are. He slapped her around. I guess arabs are good at that, huh? They're not afraid of women. And, it shows. My next guess, since Hillary has a choice; she's been named. Is to come around "and submit," or to "get lost." Either position won't work, ahead, in politics.

And, most Americans hold congress in low regard. What does that mean in terms of Hillary, when the whole lot of 100 are getting to single digit ratings? Bush isn't liked? Man, he's popular, in comparison to congress!

I guess Howie Dean can telegram Maliki "that his votes won't be counted." Where? Oh, "where-ever."

Man, wouldn't it be great if this were true! Imagine the lives and money that would be saved.

Unfortunately at this stage... (a group of leaders agreeing with each other in the absence of input from their parliament).... I can't really see how the headline differs in any way from this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/washington/18immig.html?ex=1337140800&en=e82857f37edf37b7&ei=5088&partner=rssn

And we all know how THAT turned out...

Dear "english teacher,"

"i speak as a taxpayer who is sick of this b.s. this "war" is a boondoggle of the highest order. i'm sick of paying for it."

Well then, show the courage of your convictions and don't pay your taxes. Yeah, you might go to jail, but, hey, that's the risk you run for being morally superior.

"and besides, as the captain points out, the government has been on vacation. why should i believe this announcement isn't just another in the long string of lies that this administration has told to continue supporting their cronies?"

Long string of lies? Really? No sh**? Please specify and don't think your claims are all so "self-evident." Slogans and half-baked assertions, strung together with chewing gum and chicken wire, do not automatically produce reasoned, supportable arguments.

"don't call me a looney lefty or a moonbat. i'm just telling you that if bush had said it was going to cost $9 billion a MONTH and go on for five years plus, NO ONE would have thought this was a good idea.

Let's look at it this way: if you think this war is costing too much, how much do you think the next war will cost if we don't crush AQI once and for all in Iraq?

Here's a teachable moment: since you're an "english teacher," I propose you walk up to nearest history teacher you know and declare, "The Union Army should have redeployed North after taking Atlanta in 1864...and the Allies should have redeployed to England after invading Normandy in 1944 because those wars were too expensive and cost too many lives."

I've got ten bucks that say your pal will laugh you out of the room. Care to make a friendly wager?

Hiltery and Levine made great progress in forcing Maliki to negotiate, to come to the table, to dialog, to go on a listening tour ,see the power of Hitlery threatening to fire the thug. Now if she could get rid of W. Well that will have to wait till she pulls out the troops, now that they are not needed.
Then she can get on with spanking Guliana and saving the world. NOT!
Hopefully, Guliana or whomever the nominee turns out to be has had experience dealing with man hating,unhappy, bitter, frustrated, control freaks like Hitlery. She was for the war before she was against, she just said she was against to get those kos kids to come around. she was really for our magnificent troops.

Filistro:

well but then there's this one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-17-patriot-hold-up_x.htm

And we all know how THAT turned out.

We could play this game all night. But then what would be the point? The Iraqi leadership has to start somewhere and perhaps it is good that the representatives of the main factions have something to take to Parliament. If it all falls apart, well then you can come back and tell us you told us so.

This is more good news on the part of the Iraqi government. One by one, all the complaints are being eliminated. I wonder how Congress will receive this once they've returned from their recess? Will they acknowledge this or will they continue to insist that the Iraqi government is a failure? I don't care what the candidates say while campaigning, that's just electioneering, but I do care that our Congress recognizes the hard work and determination the Iraqi government, especially Maliki and his efforts at reuniting all of Iraq and forming an actual coalition government with regional support. Our Congress should officially recognizes this hard work and present the Iraqi government with well deserved praise for these recent achievements.

english teacher,

It's not having it "both ways". It's recognizing the reality that one follows the other; two steps going the same way. You don't play football on newly laid sod; you keep the cleats off until it takes root.

Also, this isn't "just another in the long string of lies" by the administration. Had you read the linked article, you would know that this was announced by Maliki along with "President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd; Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi; Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and Masoud Barzani, president of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region." Perhaps their vacation was more in name than not?

Ray, they should, but instead they will move the goal posts again.

rabidfox,

If they keep moving the goal posts long enough they will return to their original position and then Congress won't have anything to complain about as the Iraqi government will have out scored them. It'll be the end game for congressional opposition.

I don't know if anyone else noticed but members of Congress have been complaining about these reforms for several months now and the Iraqi government didn't do anything about it. President Bush brought up this subject just a week or two ago and now the Iraqi government has agreed to several reforms. It looks to me that the Iraqi government pays very little attention to congressional rhetoric but they seem to be playing a lot of attention to what Bush says and are actually doing what he suggests. Chalk one up for the Bush administration!

"don't call me a looney lefty or a moonbat. i'm just telling you that if bush had said it was going to cost $9 billion a MONTH and go on for five years plus, NO ONE would have thought this was a good idea."

I think english teacher (aka ee cummings) was trying to make the point that he/she wasn't meaning to come off as a lefty troll, that he/she questions the amount of time and money the Iraq war has cost us and if we had known back then what we know now, would any of us really still say that invading Iraq was a good idea. And that is a fair point.

But he/she doesn't need me defending him/her (and I really just posted about it because I wanted to get the ee cummings bit in).

I think a bit of caution might be in order here. From this news item, posted today at FOXnews.com, it sounds as if the Sunnis were NOT involved in the meetings. Doesn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294664,00.html

About 10 paragraphs down the page...

"In the latest in a series of political crisis meetings, Iraq's top leaders failed again Sunday to convince the main Sunni bloc to join a new alliance of Shiites and Kurds to break the political impasse.

"This month's decision by the Sunnis' Iraqi Accordance Front to bolt the al-Maliki government plunged the country into a political crisis.

"During the meeting, attended by Crocker, the leaders endorsed holding provincial elections, releasing prisoners held without charge and changing the law preventing many former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from holding government jobs and elected office...."

"We congratulate Iraq's leaders on the important agreement reached today in Baghdad," said White House spokesperson Emily Lawrimore."

(Wheeze..pant...pant...)Hey...(pant...pant...) You Dems! Give us a break already! (pant..pant..pant) You got us workin' 24/7 (gasp...pant...pant)

Bennett said:

"Filistro:

well but then there's this one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-17-patriot-hold-up_x.htm

1. Why a story about the Patriot Act? We're talking war in Iraq here.'

2. The story you link to is almost 2 years old.

It's time for Bush to moive the goalposts: TO TEHRAN!

Del:

In questioning how the Iraqi leadership could announce a deal without first consulting with Parliament, Filistro posted a headline (link) about how Senate leaders had announced a bipartisan deal on immigration and as we all know that bill never passed or got signed into law.

I then posted a headline (link) about how a bipartisan group of Senators had agreed to make substantial revisions to the Patriot Act renewal and as we all know those revisions were ultimately stripped out of the bill and it was signed into law pretty much as the White House wanted it.

So in both instances leaders announced a deal, one for passage of a bill (immigration) and the other for no passage (Patriot Act). Despite the agreement, in the first instance the bill didn't pass but in the second one it did.

The ultimate point (if you're still reading this) is that we can always find examples to prove one point or another. I think Filistro probably got where I was coming from but I'm not surprised everyone else was scratching their heads!

Let's hope it's true, in which case, the response of Congress should be "Great, we won. Let's bring the troops home." If it's not true, let's not tell anyone so we can say, "Great, we won. Let's bring the troops home."

Since the cost of the war has been mentioned again I was curious and found this info. It's from a so-so source, if anyone has better info I'd be curiuos to read it.

Value was the big marketing buzzword a few years ago and I, for one, expect the most for my war dollar. /sarcasm

WWII Cost per month: $14.5 billion (in 1990 dollars)*
Current War Cost per month: $8.6 billion

WWII Casualties per month: 819,833
Current War Casualties per month: 1,456 (highest estimate)

*not clear to me if the $29.05 billion per month cost was the allied cost or a combined allied, axis and civilian cost. I tried to err on the conservative side and divided by half.

Filistro, the Sunni's, in Irak, are on the ropes. People hate them almost as much as they hate the Saud's.

Up at Iraq The Model, one of the brothers, after much work, got accepted into an advanced degree program, somewhere at an American university. He IS an Iraqi SUNNI. And, he wrote to tell about his experience. The visa wasn't delivered to Baghdad. For some reason,Sunni's need to go to Amman, Jordan. To pick up their American visas. (No. I don't know why.)

But I do know that Omar was put thru 17 hours of torture; after landing in Amman. In other words? The plane goes from Baghdad, to Amman. And, ALL the Iraqis are shoved onto a police line. And, the Sunni's are separated out. And, NOT ALLOWED TO GO ANYWHERE. Just stuck in a room, with all the others, not allowed entry into Jordan.

Stuff goes on in the Mideast. Most people don't know a thing about arabs. Don't know about their tribalism. And, don't know what's on the table, here.

But I'll tell ya; Maliki going to Damascus; signing a deal that will put the old pipeline back into place, moves the pieces around a bit. Iran's out in the cold. (And, probably furious at Assad!) And, the Straits of Hormuz have competition. Since the pipeline that was closed in 1967, goes from Iraq. Thru Syria. So the syrians get to process the oil. Before forwarding to ships at sea; waiting at the port in Tripoli. On the Mediterranian.

Bush doesn't talk much.

But he's a man of action.

And, I also read that there's been a military Bush pushing us further into cleaning out Sadr's militia.

Maliki 100% popular? You'd be a fool to think in a democracy anyone holds the stuff that despots do.

But Maliki was elected. And, so far, he's the leader picked by the people, who voted. His block got the most. And, the Sunni's? Well, at first they opted out, totally, from the Iraqi elections.

Most politicians can count. Maliki knows he's stronger with the Kurds on his side. And, it's the Sunni's who have very little leverage. Even with the horrors unleashed by the Saud's. Where they thought terror in Iraq would turn the tables ... It didn't work.

Steven Donegal: That's very funny!

I don't know how we can really compare global war, carried on in at least three theatres (Pacific, Africa, Europe) with war in one country.

Either way, the cost of war is astronomical and either way it's ultimately not about the money. It's about the human cost I think. The cost in lives. And on that we can't place a dollar amount, it's incalculable.

And not to wax philosophical but in the end what we don't know yet is, has it been worth it? We know that about WW II I think, but not this war. I really hope the Iraq war has been worth it. And not because of the money.

I'm not sure what Fox was talking about in the bit I posted above. It's certainly clear that Al-Hashemi is involved in the talks:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- The future of 42,000 Iraqi prison inmates tops a national reconciliation document aimed at easing the political tension in Iraq, it was reported.
The fate of the prisoners -- many jailed at U.S. and Iraqi-run facilities without court orders -- is a priority at the talks among Iraqi's five most influential political parties, the Kuwait News Agency, KUNA, reported Sunday. The reconciliation document -- due in a matter of weeks -- is also expected to address militias, outlawed armed groups, constitutional law and financial and energy resources, KUNA reported. The talks include Nassir Al-Ani, head of the Iraqi Presidential Court; President Jalal al-Talabani and his deputies, Tareq al-Hashemi and Adel Abdulmahdi; Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Kurdistan leader Massoud Barzani.

Maybe he's acting on his own without the support of the Sunni bloc? Seems highly unlikely. I look forward to more clarification.

Great, great news if true, though!

filistro,

The Fox news story is based on AP reports and the Yahoo story is based on Reuters reports. That could explain why Fox news (or most likely the AP) left out some details from their report like:

"I hope that this agreement will help Iraq move beyond the political impasse," Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told Reuters. "The five leaders representing Iraq's major political communities .... affirmed the principle of collective leadership to help deal with the many challenges faced by Iraq.

Maliki's appearance on Iraqi television with the four other leaders at a brief news conference was a rare show of public unity.

The other officials present were President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd; Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi; Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and Masoud Barzani, president of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region." (emphasis added)

This is a quote from the Reuters report in the Yahoo news link Ed provided. You should check it out.

It looks like the Sunni' are ready to work together again with the Iraqi government and the other powers are willing to let them as Reuters reports that "Committees had also been formed to try to ensure a "balance" of Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds in government."

This is a very good development. Why are you trying to dampen enthusiasm? Why the doubt? Don't you want the five leaders to work together? Or don't you think the Iraqi government, Iraqi TV, and Reuters is telling the truth and only AP and Fox news reports the truth?

BTW, the differences between the AP and Reuters reports highlights the reason why people should try to access as many news sources as possible as no single news source can include all important information and some may even exclude information which they feel isn't "newsworthy". Like how the AP apparently felt that having all five leaders appear together on Iraqi TV to announce an agreement is not "newsworthy" and therefor not worth reporting. Shame on Fox news for relying on just one news source.

Ray... we've got to stop meeting like this! ;-)

By, gosh, he did it. I've been proven wrong. Last week, the Captain reported that Maliki ended the insurgency, and this week he's brought a multi-ethnic government to work together. I see now, as I hadn't even one minute in the last four plus years, that democracy is flowering in Iraq, that we were liberators, and that peace is breaking out all over the region. It's particularly heartening that Maliki's forged a friendship with Iran that will help us disperse tensions over their nuclear aspirations, and the whole geo-political map of the region has had a tectonic shift. The visionaries were right.

Now we can arm Saudi Arabia proudly, the Iraqi army fully, and I wouldn't be surprised if Turkey granted the Kurds dual citizenship, and if the West Bank Palestinians stand with their brothers the Israelis against Hamas, and the Palestinians in Lebanon stand with their brothers the Christians to shame Hezballah into giving up their weapons. Assad will see that he has no friends left and will capitulate.

This is a great day, english teacher, and Bush was right to completely distort costs and time involved because we wouldn't have gone with him, but now it's all so clear. The broad-minded leadership in Iraq will show the world, and we will all be safer for it, and the costs, once we see the magnificence of victory, will paint a very astonishing picture of our president and his leadership.

skeptical,

I realize that you're being facetious, but it looks like this is what is actually occurring and we are witnessing an historic moment. The insurgency IS beginning to fail, the Iraqi people ARE working together to form a coalition government, and all our hard work WILL lead to another democratic government in the Middle East if we continue to give Iraq the support it needs to survive and prosper. It may take several more years, but it CAN happen if we are willing to help. I see that as a good thing, don't you?

Bennett,
I think you made a fair assessment. I'll just add I hope we never become casual about our decision to go to war. And, like you, I hope the cost in coalition and civilian lives isn't for naught.

English Teacher -

The thing is: it's not 2003 anymore. Why in the world do discussions about Iraq always devolve into discussions about the initial decision to go? Are you that obsessed with how George W. Bush is viewed by history?

Frankly, I think you're right: knowing what we now know, I think a lot fewer people would've supported the invasion in 2002/3 than actually did. I know that I wouldn't have.

But that's way, WAY gone. Today we have to make our decisions based on what's in our best interests going forward considering where we are now...not where we think we'd be if we'd taken a different path way back when.

Everybody should read Ralph Peters' latest column, written from Iraq, and take a deep breath. Things are going in our direction and there's no reason to believe that they won't continue moving in our direction.

Would it really make sense to change direction at the very time that we're seeing marked progress? Like you, I want this phase of the war overwith. The broader war, of which this is a part, rages on until somebody wins and somebody loses. But the Iraq front has dragged on a long time and it's cost us a lot in blood and gold.

We're in a great position to, finally, secure victory there -- if we just keep our political nerve.

A post in the WSJ on the 25th said that some pretty high-powered SUNNI and SHIA religious leaders from Iraq had met in Cairo and made a remarkable joint statement.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118800616417608640.html

The implications of this along with the potential political advances portends a turn-around in Iraq. Perhaps we will be having a "September Surprise" that will take the wind out of the Donkey's sails!

you obviously want to have it both ways: no political settlement means we have to stay until there is security for a political settlement; apparent political settlement means we have to stay or the political settlement will unravel. which is it?

Neither. Our long-term commitment to security of the Iraqi state is not dependent on a legislative agenda.

and besides, as the captain points out, the government has been on vacation. why should i believe this announcement isn't just another in the long string of lies that this administration has told to continue supporting their cronies?

For one thing, it comes from news sources in Iraq. For another, most governments take working "vacations".

CAROL writes: "Most people don't know a thing about arabs."

Yup:

"And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all."

- Bill Kristol, 2003

The oil deal, in particular, has been held for months due to political stonewalling. To get a relatively even deal in for all Iraqis, the Sunnis looked to just that: equal payments. The government put forward the concept the per-capita payment goes to the governates/provinces for more localized control. Those wanting National Government control didn't like that as it shifted a funding source via the oil profits out of Baghdad. The major oil producing regions wanted more cash for maintenance and expansion. Then came the report that the western provinces had enough oil to boost Iraq's known reserves into third place globally. Future income suddenly would depend on Sunni provinces and giving more to such by law would mean... yes more to them in the future. The coalition in Baghdad was already teetering, but that was a shockwave to it. Japan and India both started up negotiations on future oil exploration... in Sunni western Iraq. Yes, I can think of how quickly politicians started to change their tune by 180 degrees from the Sunni and Sadr groups.

What this does point out is that the current provincial/governate ruling groups are appointed, not elected, and National election laws need to be crafted. Suddenly that is not a joking matter as funds for the Nation will now hinge on local outlook and the mayors of places like Mosul, Tal Afar, Ramadi and Baqubah are taking a 'can do' attitude towards getting things done. If you can't get a reliable provincial/governate system for electing government in place, the very same folks who have been driving out al Qaeda and JaM, namely the mayors and local officials, will start pushing on Baghdad. These are not people that the National politicians want showing up at their offices demanding (yes demanding) their rightful share of what the Nation promises for their people.

Iraq was at a slow churn before all this, with rampant terrorism, deadlocked parties and the ability of the government to actually govern in question. The 'surge' put the lid on, the review of oil deposits turned up the heat, and the tribes in Anbar snapped the lid down and in-place by turning on al Qaeda. As local government gets more capable, like the factories opening in Ramadi and the flour mills in Baqubah, the heat gets turned up higher. What is even more interesting is that most of the National parties have *no* local party capability. The 'Iraq Awakening' out of Anbar and now Diyala and other provinces are shaking the Sunni side away from sectarianism and gaining some affiliation with Shias and Kurds who see non-sectarian government as necessary.

The heat continues to mount in Iraq. Let us hope it can remove the bacteria of sectarian strife brought in by outsiders and not explode. The explosion, however, would be this government falling... if the mayors start to head to Baghdad you will see this concept of 'federalism' at work.

Great, are we back the 'things are going great in Iraq line'? Perhaps this indicates that Bush's policies will achieve victory only after a 20 year occupation. Yes, the surge is working- the problem is that surge strategy wasn't implemented on the first day that the US occupied Iraq and applied to the entire country, esp. the borders.
And when you complain about the attitude in Congress, are you referring to Warner, Lugar and Hagel? Because their positions are clearly not aligned with Bush.

Maliki is merely a figurehead with almot no real power or support among his people. To say that the political situation in Iraq has fundamentally changed is ill-informed and very premature.

"The oil deal, in particular, has been held for months due to political stonewalling." - ajacksonian

There is little doubt in my mind that oil revenue sharing is the toughest nut to crack - and quite frankly, I doubt the current agreement comes even close.

But, an agreement on oil isn't by far the biggest problem standing in the way of any kind of national reconciliation or progress toward a more peaceful Iraq.

The same problem that has existed since day-one still exists - virtually unchallenged... and it isn't Al Qaeda - it is the home-grown Iraqi terrorists, primarily Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army and the Supreme Islamic Council's Badr Corps. Both still exist, both have enormous amounts of funding and plenty of outside-Iraq support. Both have been virtually ignored, both have been given a virtual free-pass by US military and US government agencies.

I'll only get excited about Iraqi government actions when both of these well funded organizations are outlawed and the leadership tried and hanged. That'll be a cold day in hell, in my view. But, I'll continue to hope that the Iraqi people will eventually demand as much - but, not expect it.

And when you complain about the attitude in Congress, are you referring to Warner, Lugar and Hagel?

Sure. Why not?

bayam wrote: "Great, are we back the 'things are going great in Iraq line'?"

What is the deal with you guys? Are you so averse to even the possibility of good news that you have to dismiss anything resembling it?

Nobody knows what this is going to mean. It could go down in flames in the Iraqi legislature. Or, it could be adopted and fall apart later. Or, it could be the first significant step towards a broader political consensus.

Who knows? Time will tell us what we need to know, if we give it the chance to. But all of the critics of the surge are saying they don't see political progress -- and, no matter how this agreement turns out, it still is political progress. Why not cautiously celebrate it, if that's what you're really looking for?

Or is it what you're really looking for? You'll have to answer that for yourself. But, personally, I can't help but get the impression that good news is welcomed as bad news by so many -- perverse as that may sound. And the reason for this is that they don't want success. They don't necessarily want failure, either. But it seems to me they want the quickest end to our involvement there as possible....and it just so happens that this comes by way of forfeit.

We all want our involvement to end as quick as possible -- and news like this is good news for those of us who not only want it to end, but also find a compelling reason to support only those ends which serve our long term interests.

bayam wrote: "Great, are we back the 'things are going great in Iraq line'?"

What is the deal with you guys? Are you so averse to even the possibility of good news that you have to dismiss anything resembling it?

Nobody knows what this is going to mean. It could go down in flames in the Iraqi legislature. Or, it could be adopted and fall apart later. Or, it could be the first significant step towards a broader political consensus.

Who knows? Time will tell us what we need to know, if we give it the chance to. But all of the critics of the surge are saying they don't see political progress -- and, no matter how this agreement turns out, it still is political progress. Why not cautiously celebrate it, if that's what you're really looking for?

Or is it what you're really looking for? You'll have to answer that for yourself. But, personally, I can't help but get the impression that good news is welcomed as bad news by so many -- perverse as that may sound. And the reason for this is that they don't want success. They don't necessarily want failure, either. But it seems to me they want the quickest end to our involvement there as possible....and it just so happens that this comes by way of forfeit.

We all want our involvement to end as quick as possible -- and news like this is good news for those of us who not only want it to end, but also find a compelling reason to support only those ends which serve our long term interests.

What's all this? I thought we'd heard that Iraq is embroiled in a bloody sectarian civil war?

As to the Iraqi Parliament taking an August vacation I assume that it is damn hot in Baghdad during the summer -- just like Wash D.C. I hazard a guess that the U.S. Congress hasn't never met in Washington in August either.

As to the stumbling steps taken by the Iraqi government in it's first few years, I urge detractors to take a look at our own problems in setting up a viable Federal government following our revolution. One might want to bone up on the poor results of the Articles of Confederation prior to our adoption of the Constitution. We also had a shaky start in the formation of our Republic -- and we didn't have the remnants of the British Army running around the countryside causing havoc.

Finally, as to the incompetence of the Iraqi congress at passing legislation -- our present congress is equally comprised of partisan nincompoops -- and we had a 200+ year head start.