CHESTER HAS MOVED!: Monday Morning Update

Monday, January 10, 2005

Monday Morning Update

Mark Steyn’s latest column on tsunami relief is worth a read. ---------- This article mentions every possible reason why Bill and W seem to get along well except one: could it be that W’s Christianity inspires him to try to get along with everyone? ---------- Washington is abuzz with statements by Brent Scowcroft last week in which he indicates that Iraq is on the verge of civil war.
"We may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."
When reading this, we immediately thought, “what access does he have that gives him some inside scoop?” It was only in reading Maureen Dowd’s latest bit of extreme vituperation that we learned that Scowcroft sits on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. We also learned that he has been asked to leave his position there. Hmmm. Might make one a little upset. Scowcroft’s statements must therefore be taken with a grain of salt. The New York Times (same article above) also reports that the corridors of power are considering how best to withdraw from Iraq. The article concludes that the most likely way for a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be if the Iraqis asked us to do so. Note that requesting US troops withdraw from Iraq is one of the main platforms of the United Iraqi Alliance, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of the leading candidates in the election. We also read yesterday that many think the only possible outcome in Iraq is a Shi’ite theocracy. We’d like to make a prediction: the United Iraqi Alliance will win the election and ask US troops to speed up their timetable for departure. The US will reduce its presence dramatically, but not its influence, and its involvement in the training of Iraqi security forces will continue apace. Iraq may fail, splitting into three separate “states” but a Shi’ite theocracy will not be one of them. Later today, the Army vs. Rummy, and more!

2 Comments:

Blogger SMSgt Mac said...

Yes! There's something about the enigmatic Scowcroft that has bothered me for quite a while. A lot of his stuff from when he was a key 'player' and later concerning airpower and force projection issues is really impressive. I've used some of his work as a reference in my own. But whereas he seems really sharp at some levels, he has a penchant for being Wrong-Way Corrigan on others. I think possibly the further we move from the Cold War era, the less valid his reference frame becomes. It seems his intellect is held captive by a Detente-era mindset. He could also have a problem with the scale of ideas: when he was an advisor, he provided a piece of the perspective that policy-makers used and NOT the whole picture. Now he seems to be trotted out as an expert ON the big-picture policy. Or perhaps, as a co-worker (EE PhD) often puts it "maybe he just knows a whole lot more than he understands"

January 10, 2005 at 8:50 AM  
Blogger El Jefe Maximo said...

I think your predictions about Iraq are spot-on. The Sunnis are setting up a situation where elections will go forward without their particpation or consent, resulting in a Shiite/Kurdish dominated government that will arrange the American departure, and proceed to raise largely Shiite armies which will proceed to exact revenge on the Sunnis for generations of oppression, while the Kurds, in every way but legally, leave Iraq. The Americans are going to, in the background, arm and train the Shiite forces.

The Sunni leaders have in effect chosen suicide rather than participation in a government they will not be able to dominate.

January 10, 2005 at 9:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise