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.