« Heading out | Main | The classic torture joke »

September 27, 2006


Daniel DiRito

I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives", then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I'm of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations...which seems unlikely at best.

Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.

Read more here:



allow me to state the obvious: Well, duh!


As the one who started the original debate in the first place, may I just say that I feel vindicated that while a whopping 92% oppose the coalition forces, only a piddling 75% or so want them to leave.

Er, yeah. So I win on a technicality, but, as you say, the point remains valid.

Jay C.

"...the prospect of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq in the wake of an American withdrawal is an unrealistic bogeyman which should not guide American decisions [regarding] its Iraq policy."

"Unrealistic bogeyman" or not, AA, the incessant promotion of al-Qaeda as the face of "the enemy" in Iraq does serve a far greater purpose, AFAICT, for this Adminstration: it makes a great political talking-point to be used to convince/scare/mislead American voters into supporting George W. Bush and his Party's policies. For that reason, if no other, Osama bin Laden has had to become functionally immortal, and "reality" tossed by the wayside.

Danny Yee

Adam, maybe 17% of respondents oppose coalition forces but don't want them to leave because they're having too much fun plantin IEDs and lobbing mortar rounds at them.


Haven't you heard? Dear Leader has annointed a new bogeyman for why the US cannot leave Iraq: Iran. It's not al Qaeda al Qaeda al Qaeda anymore. It's Iran, Iran, Iran. Why, if the US left Iraq, the Iranians would just waltz in and take over the place!

Now, why they would do that, when one of their puppets *already* rules the place, I dunno. Seems to me they've see the Americans having their dick shredded in the armed wood chipper that is Iraq, and would avoid doing something equally stupid (I have not, in general, noticed that Iran's leadership lives in a delusional alternate universe of spin and belief in their own propaganda the way the US leadership lives). But hey, who cares about reality, when there's spin to be done and profits to be made?!


Nice work on this. The most interesting part is the bit about 94% of Iraqis disliking the AlQ political platform. I'm curious, however, what the breadown would be if, forced to choose, they had the option of a)U.S. or b)AlQ.

I know watching the carnage might be one way to answer that question, but I'm curious if it has been asked.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad