Is the insurgency over?

[HershOstropoler]

"So if someone says they believe in progressive taxation cause islam believes in charity to the poor, does that make them Islamist"

Having views on specific issues that are influenced by religion does not turn a religion into an ideology.

"No, the real concern is a either an imposition of Sharia law in a wide variety of normally secular areas, or the establishment, as in Iran, of a formal role in govt for the religious hierarchy - neither of which is very likely."

I think that is quite likely.

"the shiites as a group will run the country, effectively, since they are the majority."

Unlikely. The US needs the sunni establishment.

"And the foreigners will just get themselves killed."

Which is part of the definition of suicide bombers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"
"the shiites as a group will run the country, effectively, since they are the majority."

Unlikely. The US needs the sunni establishment.

".

the reason we went in was to change the region - to "drain the swamp" so its no longer a source of terror. A democratic Iraq is, therefore, part of our strategy. If we empower the sunni arab "establishment", we will have thrown away the fruits of victory. Its not impossible, given that that is the desire of the Saudis, and their friends in the Department of State and the CIA, but Paul Wolfowitz and the entire neo-con "conspiracy" and their friends in the press and in Congress are on guard for it.

[HershOstropoler]

"the reason we went in was to change the region"

That was one reason at best.

"A democratic Iraq is, therefore, part of our strategy."

That's far from clear. So far, there is no obvious post war strategy.

"If we empower the sunni arab "establishment", we will have thrown away the fruits of victory."

Left with the choice of an anarchic or islamist Iraq vs a stable Iraq, what will the admin pick?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"the reason we went in was to change the region"

That was one reason at best.

"A democratic Iraq is, therefore, part of our strategy."

That's far from clear. So far, there is no obvious post war strategy.

"If we empower the sunni arab "establishment", we will have thrown away the fruits of victory."

Left with the choice of an anarchic or islamist Iraq vs a stable Iraq, what will the admin pick?

Empowering the sunni establishment would be a very good way to generate instability. Best way to avoid an anarchic or Islamist Iraq is to patiently build democracy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

"A democratic Iraq is, therefore, part of our strategy."

That's far from clear. So far, there is no obvious post war strategy.

"

Whether there was an adequate strategy to get to democracy is debatable. That democracy is part of the grand strategy is quite obvious.

[HershOstropoler]

Obvious by what?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Obvious by what?

Ok perhaps obvious overstated it. Based on extenisive discussions of strategy in public by Paul Wolfowitz, based on evidence from well connected columnists like Jim Hoagland and sources like Stratfor that this is the admin's private strat as well. Some of these sources, like Stratfor, are skeptical of the wisdom of admin strategy. They do not, AFAIK, dispute that that is what it is.


Now perhaps you could tell me how you know that an Islamic state in Iraq is inevitable?

[HershOstropoler]

"Ok perhaps obvious overstated it."

I see a desire for bases, corporate interests, being nice to Israel and playing along to stablise oil prices. All irreconciliable with a democratic Iraq.

"Now perhaps you could tell me how you know that an Islamic state in Iraq is inevitable?"

Where did I say that? I say that trouble with Islamism is inevitable.

[Sava]

5 days and you are claiming all's clear?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Ok perhaps obvious overstated it."

I see a desire for bases, corporate interests, being nice to Israel and playing along to stablise oil prices. All irreconciliable with a democratic Iraq.

Oil could have been served better by simply supporting an end to sanctions.

Corporate interests would have been better served by simply cutting corporate taxes.

Israel will not be well-served if the US is weakened in the region, which will certainly happen if we dont democratize Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Now perhaps you could tell me how you know that an Islamic state in Iraq is inevitable?"

Where did I say that? I say that trouble with Islamism is inevitable.

"I think it's just a matter of time until the islamists take over"


Thats where you said it.

[HershOstropoler]

"I think it's just a matter of time until the islamists take over"

Take over the resistance from the Baathites, not the country. Sorry for cutting that short.

[Pekka]

I hope it's over, but I think it's only quiet because they're planning something bigger, or getting more organized, regrouping and more effecient.

[HershOstropoler]

"Oil could have been served better by simply supporting an end to sanctions."

Would have still left the Saudis in charge. But that target is some years off, though some remarks from the admin may indicate they thought the oil would flow instantly. But who knows what they believe behind all the lies.

"Corporate interests would have been better served by simply cutting corporate taxes."

Pork spending, oil concessions etc are better to target.

"Israel will not be well-served if the US is weakened in the region, which will certainly happen if we dont democratize Iraq."

You'll be weakened either way, unless you get a democratic government in Iraq that loves you. A tad bit unlikely.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I think it's just a matter of time until the islamists take over"

Take over the resistance from the Baathites, not the country. Sorry for cutting that short.

Geez. Im sorry. But also puzzled. Wasnt it clear from my responses that i was assuming you thought the Islamists would take over the country, not the resistance?

They may well take over the resistance - more likely sunni islamists then Shiite islamists, though. Even the most anti-US Shiite pol, Sadr, has held back from violence. And of course Sunni islamists will have the disadvantage of being less well trained, armed and financed than the Baathists. And they need to get started soon, while US actions in the anti-Baathist campaign are pissing off iraqis in the sunni triangle. Once things settle down, and life improves, it will be that much harder to get a guerilla campaign started.