it's just a series of rationalizations for a big mistake. i mean, wouldn't you do the same if reality had proved you so resoundingly wrong?
Resoundingly wrong how? The history about Saddam's regime which you seem to remain ignorant of is a fact. The condition of the sanctions and weapons embargo, the primary means of containing him had collapsed as has been factually shown.
The one thing you continued to be wedded to is finding or not finding WMD weapons after Saddam's removal. But the necessity of removing Saddam never depended on those results.
Everything else continues to be on track in terms of rebuilding and developing Iraq.
violence in Iraq is increasing, and it's only going to get worse when the US -- bankrupt as we are -- pulls out in 2011.
The general trend in Iraq since the surge is that violence is decreasing. So far this year, Iraq has had several months where the murder rate was lower than the murder rate in the United States, November 09 and January 10 specifically. More importantly, the Iraqi security forces have finally been developed enough that they are now providing security for the entire country. The US military is only helping with logistics, planning, intelligence, and special operations and some limited air support.
the point of "the surge" was never to reduce violence, which it did for a while, but to create the stability for non-sectarian political reconciliation so that the US could leave without a bloodbath.
Reducing violence is part of creating stability. Its absurd for anyone to state that the surge did not involve reducing violence. There has been enormous political reconciliation among the various factions since 2006. Allawi, Maliki, Sadr, and the Kurds have all been meeting and discussing ways to get a new government going since the elections. Allawi, a Shia, is the leader of the winning party in the election which has majority sunni support. Maliki's own coalition is also very mixed.
i wish "the surge" had worked. i really do.
LOL You were solidly opposed to it, and continually claimed that it was not succeeding in doing anything except increasing US casualties. You described it as a failure despite facts that showed it was not.
Of course, every time there is a sudden spike in violence, or a political impasse, there is an attempt to resurect these ideas.
But most people can see the general trend that Iraq is going in political, economic, and security development.
but the fact remains that Iraq remains Iraq, which is to say a "country" that, so far, can only be held together by an iron fist.
You would describe Malaki as holding Iraq together with an Iron fists?!
Do you still think Iraq should be split into three different countries?
after all this blood and treasure, only Iran's interests have been advanced.
Really? What about Kuwaits interest? Do you think Kuwaits interest would best be served by keeping Saddam in power? What about Saudi Arabia, Israel?
Do you think Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait would prefer Saddam to be the leader of Iraq instead of Malaki or Allawi?
Do you think the United States interest would best be served by keeping a dictator in power that they had already fought on major war against and continued to threaten United States security interest in the region?
Both Malaki and Allawi are not puppets of Iran. Malaki launched the Iraqi 2008 offensive in southern Iraq which dislodged Sadr's militia from several of its strongholds despite Iranian support.
Iran's support has been based around Sadr's party which came in a distant third in the election. Iran has no troops in Iraq and no relationship with the Iraqi military. Iran certainly benefits from the removal of Saddam as do all countries in the region. But it basically stops there.
Iran has also benefited from the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well. Strange that this is never brought up.
and the Iraqis want us to stay until 2020
Has the United States suffered from having a military presence in Bosnia and Kosovo, that reduces every year as conditions improve?
The Iraqi's may elect to keep to the January 2012 schedule, but it would be wise to have a withdrawal pace that was slower than that. Having 10,000 US troops in country to continue to logistically assist the Iraqi military is not going to crush or end anyones "fantasy empire".