Iraq has already polarised and those polarities are frozen. Very few people will change their vote over perceptions of “improvement” in Iraq unless Obama chooses to make it an issue. Intelligently, he is declining to do that.

Even more than in 1992, “it’s the economy, stupid”. Unless McCain can yank the Bush albatross from his neck, the economy will sink him.

It seems that McCain isn’t a “Republican” any more. He’s a “Maverick” according to his propaganda.

Pity about McCain’s voting record but. It shows that this “Maverick” is a 90% Bushie.

The GOP’s protection of Palin against press interviews doesn’t bode well for the “smashing the glass ceiling” aspect of her vice-presidency, and kinda shows it up for the pantomime that it is. The Republicans don’t really understand the concept of female autonomy, after all. They tend to conflate relating to women in a “good” way with that deeply misunderstood and misused concept, chivalry. This has the effect of publicly infantilising Palin.

That link to Vanity Fair is just so interesting. Imagine no more Fox.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/wolff200810?currentPage=2

And Katz: Why do you say that Bush agreeing to a troop withdrawal is a defeat?

Too easy!

As far as I can see he’s agreed to move toward withdrawal because Iraq is becoming steadily more stable and the sovereign Iraqi government quite correctly wants the occupation to end as soon as possible.

Nonsense. The US sunk billions into building “enduring bases” in Iraq. Bush has had to dump that pipedream.

The US always said that it would leave when the Iraqis could manage on their own.

Nonsense. See above. Might I suggest that you retrieve some of your double plus inconvenient unthink from your memory tubes.

Opponents of the war said that this would never happen because Iraq had descended into hopeless civil war and that the US would either hang on for years, mired down in an “unwinnable war” or have to leave in defeat.

Some may have predicted this. I didn’t. I always predicted that the US would withdraw when US domestic priorities dictated. 2008 is a presidential election year. Do you want to debate with me or a straw man of your own creation?

The current situation is that the goal of the Iraqis managing on their own was not unachievable after all, and the US is doing exactly what it said it was. How is that a defeat?

Because one part of the Iraqi people have ethnically cleansed another part of the Iraqi people with the help of the US. How could you possibly have missed the fact that the Sunni population of Iraq is now less than 50% of the size that it was when the US invaded? Is this what the US intended?

And al Maliki is Teheran’s man. Is this what the US intended?

Your fact-free “arguments” are risible.

You argue that the real world outcome for the Iraqi people has probably caused them to suffer more than they would have under Saddam.

Undoubtedly there has been horrific suffering in Iraq and some of it could have been avoided with better management and more US troops. The problem there was of course that the US had enormous trouble winning support to send even the number of troops that they did. That was a complex strategic issue which I won’t go into here.

On the question of has the suffering been worth the outcome (what looks to me like an immature, but developing democracy), you need to engage in a bit of counter factual historical reasoning.

If Saddam’s fascist regime had been left alone (with or without the continuation of sanctions? And with or without the continuation of the US/British no-fly zone?) it would have eventually imploded, possibly upon Saddam’s death. Until that point, the Iraqis would have continued to live under a fascist state.

Upon the collapse of Saddam’s regime, what would have happened? A likely possibility is that another Sunni Baathist dictator would have taken his place. It’s also possible that there would have been another Shia uprising and another bloody defeat, followed by more long years of fascism.

What if there had been a Shia uprising which was victorious? As far as I can see that would have unleashed even worse sectarian violence than what we have seen following the US overthrow of the regime. And not only that, I can’t see the neighbouring regimes having been prepared to stay out of it. The most likely outcome would have been a full regional war.

These are the things that need to be considered in assessing what actually happened.

And Katz: Why do you say that Bush agreeing to a troop withdrawal is a defeat? As far as I can see he’s agreed to move toward withdrawal because Iraq is becoming steadily more stable and the sovereign Iraqi government quite correctly wants the occupation to end as soon as possible. The US always said that it would leave when the Iraqis could manage on their own. Opponents of the war said that this would never happen because Iraq had descended into hopeless civil war and that the US would either hang on for years, mired down in an “unwinnable war” or have to leave in defeat. The current situation is that the goal of the Iraqis managing on their own was not unachievable after all, and the US is doing exactly what it said it was. How is that a defeat?

A goody, but reckon she is anchored down near Anchorage.

Iran wants the bomb because for it to possess the bomb makes it a regional hegemon. They get to push Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan etc around a bit. If it gives Hezb’allah the bomb, a host of negative consequences arise for it — maybe the Syrians end up with the technology; Hezb’allah might even turn it around and act against Iran’s interests in using it. In the modern context atom bombs are much more credible threats if you don’t actually have to use them except as a demonstration in some remote desert or Pacific Island. The test is the use. Additionally, deploying a large and sophisticated – and easily detected – device like a bomb to a target requires sophisticated delivery mechanisms and likely, Hezb’allah isn’t it. Hezb’allah might be a threat with a “dirty bomb” but that threat if it is real (i.e. Hezb’allah both wants and can carry out such an attack), is real right now, this very minute, and the fact of Iran’s atomic weapon status isn’t really a factor (it’s nuclear production industry, though, might be).

Obama handled O’Reilly pretty well … but really I am tiring of the general media’s (let alone the Fox news echo chamber) complete mis-understanding of these sorts of issues. What those tools apparently fail to see is that the Iranian’s bomb program is really about Iraq and the USA is giving Iran some concessions there and in response, Iran is controlling the factions that it controls and the situation is stabilising. That’s why Obama sees that negotiations with Iran are imperative – to continue, as they have been underway for at least a year now. Fucking duh to both McCain and O’Reilly.

The American troop ‘surge’ of 2007 when 30,000 additional US troops were sent to Iraq to pursue more aggressive tactics was not the main reason for the fall in violence in Iraq over the last sixteen months says Mr Woodward in ‘The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008.’

Instead he claims that “ground breaking” new covert techniques enabled US military and intelligence officials to find, target and kill insurgent leaders in rebel groups, particularly in al-Qa’ida in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bush-spies-monitored-iraqi-allies-woodward-book-says-920602.html

The Surge = (2) the victory of Shiite, pro-Iran theocrats without ever being compelled to mount their own “Tet Offensive” to underwrite their victory over their Sunni enemies.

I would have thought that Shiite theocrats were soulmates to Republican born-again fundamentalists.

There is a win-win there.

ATM Palin is an attractive package who may one day carry an adequate payload of GOP talking points. At present she is a dangerous loose cannon.

Therefore, she must be banished to Alaska to ensure that she never channels Spiro T. Agnew.
______

The Surge = (1) the “defeat” of AQ that didn’t exist in Iraq until the US invaded the country.

The Surge = (2) the victory of Shiite, pro-Iran theocrats without ever being compelled to mount their own “Tet Offensive” to underwrite their victory over their Sunni enemies.

And now Bush has surrendered by agreeing to a timetable of troop withdrawal.

Some success.

Remember a couple of years ago when Rosen also said the the Republican strategy was to drive down the medias positives and drive up their negatives?

McCain is trying that again, but I think that broadly (outside the usual mouthpieces)the MSM is wise to that now and appear to be challenging the narratives where once they just wrote ‘em down and regurgitated them.

If she is as good as they say then they should let her speak for herself in the same way Obama does in pushing his case as a legitimate candidate.

I think it’s part of the game plan as mapped out by Jay Rosen the other day. Keep her away from teh liberal meejah, let the said media work itself into a frenzy, and reinforce the whole outsider monstered by elite theme. Whether it works is another thing.