U.S. Sides With Iran's Allies in Iraq Civil War

   Here's a nice little piece from Iraq Slogger which is saying that even if the surge in Iraq lowers the death count in Baghdad, the U.S. could be stuck in the country for decades, not just a few years, or months.

                  Iraq Slogger:     Entire Article

New Foreign Affairs Piece Urges U.S. Step Back From Conflict

 February 19,2007

James Fearon, professor of political science at Stanford:

"In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.

    As the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad proceeds, the weak Shiite-dominated government is inevitably becoming an open partisan in a nasty civil war between Sunni and Shiite Arabs. As a result, President Bush's commitment to making a "success" of the current government will increasingly amount to siding with the Shiites, a position that is morally dubious and probably not in the interest of either the United States or long-term regional peace and stability....

    As long as the Bush administration remains absolutely committed to propping up the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or a similarly configured successor, the U.S. government will have limited leverage with almost all of the relevant parties. By contrast, moving away from absolute commitment -- for example, by beginning to shift U.S. combat troops out of the central theaters -- would increase U.S. diplomatic and military leverage on almost all fronts. Doing so would not allow the current or the next U.S. administration to bring a quick end to the civil war, which most likely will last for some time. But it would allow the United States to play a balancing role between the combatants that would be more conducive to reaching, in the long run, a stable resolution in which Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interests are well represented in a decent Iraqi government. If the Iraqis ever manage to settle on the power-sharing agreement that is the objective of current U.S. policy, it will come only after bitter fighting in the civil war that is already under way."

 

Technorati tags: U.S., Iraq, Iraq Civil War, Iran

 

Russia to Target Poland and the Czech Republic Over U.S. Missile Defense System

    Remember the story about Russia getting a little miffed because the U.S. wants to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic?

   Well, the Russians, as they have been prone to do, are saying that both of these countries will be targeted by Russian missiles if they let the U.S. proceed with the plan.

President Vladimir Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that it wants to deploy missile defense components in Europe to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia could take retaliatory action.

   Not that I care for Putin all that much, but if I were him I would not trust us either. Not with the Bush Crime Family residing up in the warlords castle.

   By the way. Unless Iran plans on waiting for many years to attack anyone, these missile defense systems will not be up. At last report, they were a few years away, which that may have changed so I guess that I'll have to look it up.

 

Technorati tags: Russia, U.S., Poland, Czech Republic, Missile Defense System