‘a) Ensure that Iraq will not destabilize like a gigantic Kosovo, or fall victim to an unfriendly neighbor that might be tempted to take advantage of the resultant power vacuum??

b) Establish a positive relationship with the Iraqis despite the fact that we abandoned them?’

Well.

The key point about Kosova (whatever one thinks about the Serbs, whatever one thinks about the bombing) is that Kosova is now a neo-colonial state run by the ‘big five’ in the security council via the UN. That’s a fact. The reason is simple. The Kosovans did not WANT to be ‘saved’ by us. They wanted to be independent (actually they probably wanted to be part of Albania but that’s another story). Current ‘diplomacy’ in the region is predicated on the (false) idea that the Kosovans can be talked out of this. The result: stalemate.

This situation is actually pretty similar to the one in Iraq. In both cases, ‘we’ will leave, goodness, of course we will, whoever thought otherwise…..

as long as certain conditions are met.

In Kosova ‘we’ will leave as soon as the Kosovans ‘see sense’ and decide to be ‘reintegrated’ with the people who were, ten years ago, trying to exterminate them.

In Iraq, ‘we’ will leave, as soon as the Iraqi security forces are set up and can fight our wars for us safeguard the ordinary iraqi people from democracy.

In both cases, for different reasons, both these scenarios are going to be a looooooooooooong time coming and function in effect as licenses for time unlimited occupation.

(given that both these aims are impossible, Bush and Blair’s claims that ‘we’ will leave as soon as they are achieved should be taking as having the same meaning as ‘we will leave as soon as we have developed a faster than light drive’ or ‘we will leave as soon as we develop a perpetual motion motion’.

As for the unfriendly neighbour idea, you should be aware that there is a school of thought that this whole war was actually set up by Iran via Chalabi (the Iranian spy honest Iraqi businessman) with the intention of toppling one of the last secular regimes in the area and helping to recreate a de facto new Persian Empire.

Whether this is the plan or not, it certain seems to be working.

As for the rest:

‘How do we establish a positive relationship with the Iraqis….’

Let me just stop you right there.

I find it amusing that the same kinda folks who castigate the left for advancing big theories about making the world a better place whle failing to take into account the vagaries of human nature, are now doing just that about Iraq.

a) Ensure that Iraq will not destabilize like a gigantic Kosovo, or fall victim to an unfriendly neighbor that might be tempted to take advantage of the resultant power vacuum??

b) Establish a positive relationship with the Iraqis despite the fact that we abandoned them?

It’s awfully hard to read “the anti-war left being characterized by Moore and Sheehan [is] a plus for the Republicans” as anything other than criticism of M & S.

(sputter, cough, sputter). This isn’t even ironic in Alanis’ sense. Since the CT isn’t a front for the DNC, it shouldn’t be surprising that if a republican says something reasonable someone might comment positively on this.

My understanding is that Hilary has actually cosponsored a bill to send another 80,000 US troops to Iraq. (Where they’re supposed to come from, I have no idea.)

If Iraq is in fact the new Vietnam, Hilary and Joe Biden are locked in a life-and-death struggle to be the new Hubert Humphrey.

Yes, how awful they are, Mooore and Sheehan—so awful you don’t even have to say why they’re so awful, since all Responsible Liberals know that the corect response to any mention of Moore and Sheehan is instant repudiation.

Thank you, lemuel—that needed saying. It sounds like Chuck Hagel is just getting around to realizing what Michael Moore knew 2 years ago. Which one deserves more respect?

with the anti-war left being characterized by Moore and Sheehan

Yes, how awful they are, Mooore and Sheehan—so awful you don’t even have to say why they’re so awful, since all Responsible Liberals know that the corect response to any mention of Moore and Sheehan is instant repudiation.

In any case, neil is certainly right that, rather thean defend Cindy Sheehanb from the slime machine, a much better approach is to wish that someone immune to it would somehow appear and represent opposition to the war.

‘A three-day visit by a reporter working for the Guardian last week established what neither the Iraqi government nor the US military has admitted: Haditha, a farming town of 90,000 people by the Euphrates river, is an insurgent citadel.

That Islamist guerrillas were active in the area was no secret but only now has the extent of their control been revealed. They are the sole authority, running the town’s security, administration and communications.

A three-hour drive north from Baghdad, under the nose of an American base, it is a miniature Taliban-like state. Insurgents decide who lives and dies, which salaries get paid, what people wear, what they watch and listen to.’

By the time the Americans leave, it is safe to say that most of Iraq will be in the control of hard line Jihadists and, ahem, ‘Islamo-fascists’.

Another triumph for American foreign policy. I know I’m sleeping safer in my bed.

It does strikes me that much of the anti-war argument almost assumes Bush is running again – so much energy is aimed at him. The war happened, the troops will start to come home, Republican presidential hopefuls will seek to differentiate themselves form Bush. It is they who may gain from center voters’ disenchantment with the war.