My position on Iraq (1) their is a civil war between two parties with a third party ready to get into if anyone pulls them in (2) the government of Iraq and US forces can do very little to limit this in the short term (3) their is no chance AQ takes over any piece of Iraq, both the Shia's and the Baathists want them out, so the terrorism increase is minimal (4) given US public opinion we'll have to be out by '08. No chance our people will let us be in Iraq to nation-build for ten years.
This means we should withdraw to Kurdistan and Baghdad. Make the Kurds feel secure to prevent them from declaring their own state. Talk to Syria and Iran, give them limited cooperation and some carrots, to make sure that the sectarian civil war is limited and does not spread. Civilian and Shia/Sunni militia life would be lost. So would police and Iraq armed forces. Some American life would be lost in the pull out and in Baghdad. It's the least bad option.
RA
Friday, 1 December 2006
OBAMANIA?
The prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president has been present since before the '04 election. Coming into this year's midterm elections, it was pretty clear that she was the front runner for the '08 Democratic ticket. Now, while Hillary remains the safe choice, and significantly ahead in the polls, another question has emerged: What about Barack?The Senator from Illinois has thrown himself into the candidacy limelight rather forcefully in the last week. Obama has recently gone from coast-to-coast making appearances at various Democratic Congresspeople's compaigns, spent a good deal of time supporting his now New York Times bestselling book: The Audacity of Hope, made his first venture to New Hampshire, and now may be forcing Senator Clinton to make an earlier entrance into the '08 presidential primary race than she would have liked.
According to Tom Curry of MSNBC, Hillary's first inclination to make the other candidates await her arrival may have been altered by the rising popularity of the young Obama. Others, such as Democratic consultant Dan Gerstein do not believe Obama will affect Hillary's choice of entrance time, but may affect her ability to get elected:
I don't think Obama's water-testing is going to affect Hillary's timing. She is pretty disciplined, and there is no reason right now to deviate from her plan. But I do think that Obama's potential poses a significant threat to her, primarily because he, better than any other candidate, magnifies her greatest weakness — likeability.
Personally, I don't think that Gerstein could be any more right about the last point. He does have the charisma the party needs, and is far less divisive than Senator Clinton. Obama in '08, wouldn't that be something?
Turning of the Tide?
For the last six years, Democrats have sat in a stunned, jaw-on-the-floor silence as the GOP took control of the government in nearly all spheres. Despite calls for unification and leadership amongst its members, the Democratic Party failed to produce a candidate with an ounce of charisma or political intelligence (see John Kerry). Complete political ineptitude has ravaged the party and sent moderate Democrats reeling to the right. Instead of unifying against the opposition, the party gradually collapsed, falling into the trap of in-fighting. Now--without overstating its significance because there is still a long way to go--we do have an indication, courtesy of the midterm elections, that the political tides may be turning. As the Democrats take control of the House, and potential '08 candidates gear up for their run at the Oval Office, the parties seem to have switched places. A formally united Republican party has begun to splinter over issues of education, immigration and now, the war in Iraq. In his most recent article entitled My Kind of GOP, Chester E. Finn explains that the Republican party has a lot to figure out before '08:
For most of the past 30 years, Republicans were America’s smart party, the party of ideas. Conservatism was intellectually respectable, abounding in imaginative people offering fresh approaches. But where will tomorrow’s ideas come from? When the Democrats ran out of ideas and tilted toward their own extremists, some wise folks started the Democratic Leadership Council, a charter member of which was Bill Clinton, the most successful (despite his character flaws) Democratic politician of my adult life. Where is its Republican equivalent? Who will lead it? Shouldn’t we be addressing those questions before the 2008 primaries begin?
For over six years, it has been hard to be a Democrat, let's hope Hillary or Barack can change all that.
For most of the past 30 years, Republicans were America’s smart party, the party of ideas. Conservatism was intellectually respectable, abounding in imaginative people offering fresh approaches. But where will tomorrow’s ideas come from? When the Democrats ran out of ideas and tilted toward their own extremists, some wise folks started the Democratic Leadership Council, a charter member of which was Bill Clinton, the most successful (despite his character flaws) Democratic politician of my adult life. Where is its Republican equivalent? Who will lead it? Shouldn’t we be addressing those questions before the 2008 primaries begin?
For over six years, it has been hard to be a Democrat, let's hope Hillary or Barack can change all that.
Iraq Debate
The debate over ''What do we do in Iraq?'' rages on. We would like to weigh in. Because we will all have different points of view on this topic, each of us will sign the bottom of our posts to indicate whose position you are reading.
Two days ago, Thomas Freidman of the NY Times, argued that the US has two polarized options that will determine whether the US military is in Iraq for 10 months or 10 years. Freidman argues that either the US military begins a phased withdrawal immediately that will have all troops out in 10 months, or they revamp the military efforts with a redeployment and an increase of 150,000 troops and stay in a rebuilding effort for 10 years. Interestingly enough according to the NY Times, Pentagon planners are considering sending 3,000 more troops, not 150,000. Really? REALLY? Ever heard the adage: ''Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?'' Granted this assessment for the number of troops needed is not for the type of forceful military effort described by Freidman, but isn't that precisely the point. The objective of controlling the country and saving it from devolving into civil war cannot be won by minor troop enlargements every three months. If there is going to be a move made, it has to be made decisively with extreme force. The insurgents can be put down, but not lightly. If we are going to make an effort to control this situation by force, the let's control it by FORCE. The US military showed they are capable of securing an area with brutal force, see Afghanistan. The only necessary condition is the correct deployment of troops. If there are enough troops, the US military will get the job done. In all honesty, the situation in Iraq was never that simple, it was probably doomed to a disaster of some magnitude from the beginning. But did we have to botch it this badly?
Simple Answer: No.
The question then becomes, why didn't we do the right thing in the first place? Oh that's right, Donald Rumsfeld. The Donner was positive that the most brilliant military minds in America were incorrect when the said we needed more troops. He had no question about it in his mind; he was starting a new, sleeker, more efficient type of military campaign. Doesn't get much more sleek that three years of turmoil, and thousands dead. Bye, Bye Don. Thanks for the help.
As it is, when to remove troops may not be the president's or the Iraq Study Group's choice at all. Prime Minister Maliki said yesterday that US troops have six months, not ten, six. And after Bush’s promise that he would only stay in Iraq as long as the US military was wanted by the new Iraqi government, he might not have a choice but to move out.
I am aware that this post does not give a definitive answer to the question, that's because I don't have one yet. I will continue posting options as the discussion continues. For now, here is the Andrew Sullivan's view.
ajc
Two days ago, Thomas Freidman of the NY Times, argued that the US has two polarized options that will determine whether the US military is in Iraq for 10 months or 10 years. Freidman argues that either the US military begins a phased withdrawal immediately that will have all troops out in 10 months, or they revamp the military efforts with a redeployment and an increase of 150,000 troops and stay in a rebuilding effort for 10 years. Interestingly enough according to the NY Times, Pentagon planners are considering sending 3,000 more troops, not 150,000. Really? REALLY? Ever heard the adage: ''Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?'' Granted this assessment for the number of troops needed is not for the type of forceful military effort described by Freidman, but isn't that precisely the point. The objective of controlling the country and saving it from devolving into civil war cannot be won by minor troop enlargements every three months. If there is going to be a move made, it has to be made decisively with extreme force. The insurgents can be put down, but not lightly. If we are going to make an effort to control this situation by force, the let's control it by FORCE. The US military showed they are capable of securing an area with brutal force, see Afghanistan. The only necessary condition is the correct deployment of troops. If there are enough troops, the US military will get the job done. In all honesty, the situation in Iraq was never that simple, it was probably doomed to a disaster of some magnitude from the beginning. But did we have to botch it this badly?
Simple Answer: No.
The question then becomes, why didn't we do the right thing in the first place? Oh that's right, Donald Rumsfeld. The Donner was positive that the most brilliant military minds in America were incorrect when the said we needed more troops. He had no question about it in his mind; he was starting a new, sleeker, more efficient type of military campaign. Doesn't get much more sleek that three years of turmoil, and thousands dead. Bye, Bye Don. Thanks for the help.
As it is, when to remove troops may not be the president's or the Iraq Study Group's choice at all. Prime Minister Maliki said yesterday that US troops have six months, not ten, six. And after Bush’s promise that he would only stay in Iraq as long as the US military was wanted by the new Iraqi government, he might not have a choice but to move out.
I am aware that this post does not give a definitive answer to the question, that's because I don't have one yet. I will continue posting options as the discussion continues. For now, here is the Andrew Sullivan's view.
ajc
3 Civil Wars at the same time? Contd.
A reader writes:
Your points are valid. A large part of the Iraq study group's report seems to focus on this option of holding an international diplomacy conference, in which all of the main powers in the Middle East will attend. Of course, it is probably asking too much to get Iran and Syria to work out a peaceful agreement with nations like Israel and the US. Nonetheless, I still believe that it is nice to hear members of our government talking about diplomatic, rather that just military, options. Let's face it, Mr. Bush probably won’t want to resort to diplomatic options, but it is nice to hear someone is telling him he should not forget that diplomacy is US tradition. Even during the Cold War, the US still talked with Soviet leaders. Diplomacy may be difficult, tedious, and stressful, but it is a better option than trying to solve every dispute militarily.
Point taken and thank you for the post. What we do not wish to do, is rule out a reinvigorated, large scale military campaign in Iraq. That debate is still being hotly contested (more later). But with regard to Iran, despite the myriad of reasons for sidestepping the Iranian landmine, Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of detente, a policy which, as the reader points out, may have saved the world from nuclear destruction during the Cold War, expresses a slightly different point of view in his interview with Bernard Gwertzman for the Council on Foreign Relations: (Full Interview Here)
BG: What do you think of the policy that’s being followed to try to stop Iran’s uranium processing through negotiations?
HK: I agree that we should try to stop the processing and probably, tactically, it’s very useful to let the Europeans do the negotiating and we back it up. But the fact is, at some point in the relatively near future, we will have to decide whether those negotiations are working or whether they are not simply a way of legitimizing a continued program. That will be hotly disputed. Then we have to decide, we together with our allies, what measures are appropriate, and then we will face the question of how far we are willing to go to prevent nuclear-weapons technology in Iran. Iran will get us probably beyond the point where non-proliferation can be a meaningful policy, and then we live in a world of multiple nuclear centers. And then we’d have to ask ourselves what the world would look like if the bombs in London had been nuclear and 100,000 people had been killed.
BG: Am I right to think you’re not adverse to some kind of military action down the road?I’m not averse to thinking about it, but I think it has to be very carefully looked at.That would be quite a quagmire.
HK: I’m not recommending it but, on the other hand, it is a grave step to tolerate a world of multiple nuclear-weapons centers without restraint. I’m not recommending military action, but I’m recommending not excluding it.
So although you won't see any of the writers here endorsing military action in Iran anytime soon, it is interesting to read this position from the man who successfully negotiated the United States through the most tense time in American Foreign Relations in the last one hundred years...
Your points are valid. A large part of the Iraq study group's report seems to focus on this option of holding an international diplomacy conference, in which all of the main powers in the Middle East will attend. Of course, it is probably asking too much to get Iran and Syria to work out a peaceful agreement with nations like Israel and the US. Nonetheless, I still believe that it is nice to hear members of our government talking about diplomatic, rather that just military, options. Let's face it, Mr. Bush probably won’t want to resort to diplomatic options, but it is nice to hear someone is telling him he should not forget that diplomacy is US tradition. Even during the Cold War, the US still talked with Soviet leaders. Diplomacy may be difficult, tedious, and stressful, but it is a better option than trying to solve every dispute militarily.
Point taken and thank you for the post. What we do not wish to do, is rule out a reinvigorated, large scale military campaign in Iraq. That debate is still being hotly contested (more later). But with regard to Iran, despite the myriad of reasons for sidestepping the Iranian landmine, Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of detente, a policy which, as the reader points out, may have saved the world from nuclear destruction during the Cold War, expresses a slightly different point of view in his interview with Bernard Gwertzman for the Council on Foreign Relations: (Full Interview Here)
BG: What do you think of the policy that’s being followed to try to stop Iran’s uranium processing through negotiations?
HK: I agree that we should try to stop the processing and probably, tactically, it’s very useful to let the Europeans do the negotiating and we back it up. But the fact is, at some point in the relatively near future, we will have to decide whether those negotiations are working or whether they are not simply a way of legitimizing a continued program. That will be hotly disputed. Then we have to decide, we together with our allies, what measures are appropriate, and then we will face the question of how far we are willing to go to prevent nuclear-weapons technology in Iran. Iran will get us probably beyond the point where non-proliferation can be a meaningful policy, and then we live in a world of multiple nuclear centers. And then we’d have to ask ourselves what the world would look like if the bombs in London had been nuclear and 100,000 people had been killed.
BG: Am I right to think you’re not adverse to some kind of military action down the road?I’m not averse to thinking about it, but I think it has to be very carefully looked at.That would be quite a quagmire.
HK: I’m not recommending it but, on the other hand, it is a grave step to tolerate a world of multiple nuclear-weapons centers without restraint. I’m not recommending military action, but I’m recommending not excluding it.
So although you won't see any of the writers here endorsing military action in Iran anytime soon, it is interesting to read this position from the man who successfully negotiated the United States through the most tense time in American Foreign Relations in the last one hundred years...
Thursday, 30 November 2006
3 Civil Wars at the same time?
Talking about the stalled Palestinian process, Lebanon's killings and ethnic tensions, and the increasingly tragic situation in Iraq, King Abdullah II of Jordan warns:
...that unless the turmoil in Iraq is addressed on a regional scale there would be the “strong potential” for three civil wars in the region, including among the Palestinians and in Lebanon, in the coming months. “And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands...it is time that we really take a strong step forward as part of the international community and make sure we avert the Middle East from a tremendous crisis that.. .could possibly happen in 2007."Sounds promising (saracasm intended). Meetings with regional powers -- Iran and Syrian included -- seem to be part of the Baker commision report. If Seymour Hersh is right this is all window dressing. Summary:
A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran...If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran.
Given the success of the military option in Iraq, of course this is the logical next move.
Vilsack to Challenge for Democratic Bid
The wait is over. We have our first official announcement for presidential candidacy in '08. Tom Vilsack, the Democratic Governor from Iowa will attempt to ride the wave of Democratic approval offered by the recent midterm elections right into the White House. The question becomes: Who's next? Hillary, Barack, we're waiting...
Frist a No-Go
Bill Frist (Tenn-R) the Senate Majority Leader from Tennessee has officially withdrawn his name from consideration for the 2008 presidential election, explaining that ''God tells us there is a season for everythingand for me, for now, this season of being an elected official is closed''. His withdrawal may be the first of many in preparation for what some consider to be the most wide-open presidential election season in history. More here.
Hillary: We Have Problem
{Image Provided by bbc.co.uk}
Although the most recent poll from CNN shows that Senator Clinton (NY-D) is the Democrats' first choice for '08, with a commanding lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama (IL-D), a recent US popularity poll ranking the top 20 American political figures shows Rudy Giuliani, John McCain (AZ-R) and Obama outranking the potential candidate. Chuck Todd of the National Journal Group gives six reasons why Hilary could bring down the Democrats in '08, and Andrew Sullivan questions whether Hilary is actually the right choice.
If the Democrats go through another ruthless primary like they did in '04, they may not come out of it with a single candidate that is intact enough to challenge for the White House.
If the Democrats go through another ruthless primary like they did in '04, they may not come out of it with a single candidate that is intact enough to challenge for the White House.
Introductions
30 November 2006
Welcome to the SCU Informer. Today marks the beginning of a new Political Discussion forum. Over the course of the following months, we will attempt to tackle the major political issues of our time, both domestic and international in scope. This blog will be dedicated to political musings from three Santa Clara Political Science Majors: Anthony Colello, Ruchit Agrawal and David Eitelbach. We will attempt to both: comment on the major political events of the week, as well as open discussions about controversial issues that continue to divide peoples worldwide. Posts will come in varying formats and may include: essays, short paragraphs and even simply general comments. Blogging is about opinions. We make no apologies about that. We will be readily expressing our own views, while attempting at the same time, to inform the reader. We realize that our opinions may not matter to you, and that is fine. The purpose of this blog is not to convert you, not to get you to think one way or another but instead to open up lines of communication and provide a forum for debate. Our goal being as such, we have taken two major steps to ensure its achievement. First, we are going to provide polarizing views on each major issue we discuss. While the three of us do not share the same political ideology, the breadth of opinion offered will not be sufficient. Therefore, we will be linking, and posting works from other credible sources to offer varying opinions. Secondly, we will be accepting comments from all readers and be posting some of them on the blog alongside our own commentary. We look forward to getting involved with any and all readers in political conversation. In a time of political upheaval both domestically and abroad, conversation and discussion is not only important, it is a necessity. --Writing Staff
Welcome to the SCU Informer. Today marks the beginning of a new Political Discussion forum. Over the course of the following months, we will attempt to tackle the major political issues of our time, both domestic and international in scope. This blog will be dedicated to political musings from three Santa Clara Political Science Majors: Anthony Colello, Ruchit Agrawal and David Eitelbach. We will attempt to both: comment on the major political events of the week, as well as open discussions about controversial issues that continue to divide peoples worldwide. Posts will come in varying formats and may include: essays, short paragraphs and even simply general comments. Blogging is about opinions. We make no apologies about that. We will be readily expressing our own views, while attempting at the same time, to inform the reader. We realize that our opinions may not matter to you, and that is fine. The purpose of this blog is not to convert you, not to get you to think one way or another but instead to open up lines of communication and provide a forum for debate. Our goal being as such, we have taken two major steps to ensure its achievement. First, we are going to provide polarizing views on each major issue we discuss. While the three of us do not share the same political ideology, the breadth of opinion offered will not be sufficient. Therefore, we will be linking, and posting works from other credible sources to offer varying opinions. Secondly, we will be accepting comments from all readers and be posting some of them on the blog alongside our own commentary. We look forward to getting involved with any and all readers in political conversation. In a time of political upheaval both domestically and abroad, conversation and discussion is not only important, it is a necessity. --Writing Staff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)