| Remember this cartoon? Beware of short cuts. |
Preemptively invade a country, topple their dictator, fire the army and dismantle
the infrastructure, then make a move towards “reconciliation,” but
when the former ruling party bucks the occupation, walk away from them.
Nice.
The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation
efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds,
who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials.The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White
House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S.
outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned
that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the
Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies
in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.Some insiders call the proposal the “80 percent” solution, a term
that makes other parties to the White House policy review cringe. Sunni Arabs
make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 26 million people. …
We learned earlier this week what this might mean.
Regional war?
James
Fallows also weighs in.
… Enter the Saudis. We were warned earlier in the week. But to put a wrench
in it, let's also remember that Dick Cheney was summoned right before the piece
below came out. I guess Mr. Bush ignoring the Sunnis would be one way to get
neighboring countries involved. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are run by Sunnis. Also, I'm sure King Abdullah of Jordan won't be thrilled about Mr. Bush's screw the Sunnis approach, which I've been talking about all week. Jordan now has between 850,000 to 1 million Iraqi refugees that likely have no intention of returning home. So he's got one hell of a mess on his hands.
In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi
foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would
be “solving one problem and creating five more” if he removed Saddam
Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the
brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of
Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who
said in a speech last month that “since America came into Iraq uninvited,
it should not leave Iraq uninvited.” If it does, one of the first consequences
will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias
from butchering Iraqi Sunnis. …Stepping
Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves (more from Steve
Clemons)
Are we leaving? Absolutely, but I'd still be looking for around 70,000 troops
to be left, though I hope I'm wrong. More here. Let's also remember that the Iraq Study Group isn't saying anything
that hasn't already been said. They're just putting a bow around it. I'd read
this take,
too, though he's actually being optimistic.
But this is the dumb
ass article of the day. “Rapid withdrawal” was always a construct
of the corporate snits. The “pull the plug” scenario was never uttered
by anyone in the Democratic Party, though Murtha came the closest. However,
that was over one year ago. But no one ever subscribed to “rapid withdrawal.”
Sanger is just being silly.
We've also got other big troubles brewing. Check out Lebanon
today. Not good. Watch that one closely.
Comments are closed.