That winger reality problem is showing again! Are you seriously proclaiming the Iraqi people are on the verge of "freedom"?!?!?!

Assuming the process actually works as it was laid out, they get to vote as a referendum on Oct 15. But if three provinces vote 67% or more AGAINST, the entire process is over and goes back to square one (national elections to write a constitution). Right now, the Sunni's care clear they will NOT vote for this constitution, and they have an overwhelming majority in two provinces, and are the majority in two more. Most are experts believe they will have no trouble getting 3 provinces to say no by a 2/3rds majority. So unless the constitutional process is trashed, reverting to a Saddam-like strongman gov't, its likely two years have been wasted.

And if they fail to get it, well, Dumbya may be proclaiming such a thing is wonderful, but for the U.S. and the region it turns into lose-lose. Very likely, civil war. The Sunnis are not just going to squat down on the oil-free center of the country with nothing to exist on but sand (and note the careful wording of the Shi'ite/Kurd written constitution that says FUTURE oil can be claimed entirely by the section of the nation that finds it, cutting the Sunnis out), so they will likely actively support the insurgents, spreading the violence to outright civil war with our soldiers stuck in the middle. Other option, we get an Islamic Iraqi gov't, dominated by the mullahs. Indeed, Iran was praising Bush for his assistance in the creation of another Islamic Republic, one that has strong and friendly ties to Iran. If this happens, FYI, some area experts are already predicting within five years they will again be agitating to develop a nuke (Israel has them, as does Pakistan; Iran is developing them, and Egypt has refused to join in a non-proliferation treaty because they too want "the bomb").

Wishful thinking is no substitute for thinking.

There will be ups and downs, and much pain, but those purple fingers mean that the age of the tyrants is coming to an end. Nothing terrorists or whining Democrats can do will stop it.

Is a civil war really such a bad outcome? It would be remarkably stupid for the Sunni, who would most likely be cleansed or exterminated. But it's very hard to believe an insurgency would exist a year after the Shia and Kurds cut loose on the Sunni.

Lefties salivate at the thought of civil war, and would gladly sacrifice Iraq to hurt Bush, but I think it's too late for that.

Civil war by who? The Sunni Arabs are less than 20% of the population, and they are not a unified group that could ever arise en masse. Lots of them are already geting involved with electoral poliics, or have become disgusted with the brutality of the "insurgents." And the Shia and Kurds are no longer cowed or powerless, and are enjoying peace and prosperity in large parts of Iraq.

There's a lot of semantic confusion right now, because the lying media and wishful Dems are portraying the current terror campaign in terms similar to civil war, and suggesting Iraq is falling to pieces. But compared to the size of the population, the terrorist attacks are not large. One would guess that about 2,000 Iraqis are born every day! Much of Iraq isn't even experiencing attacks. The situation is nothing like a civil war.

Car bombs and IED's are not war. Try for a moment to imagine the Sunni forming Sunni armies, with hundreds of thousands of recruits, an officer corps, tanks, artillery, a rebel government with money, lines of supply, allies, defensible territory...it's a joke.

And the "insurgency" could be ended instantly if ruthless force was applied. If a few towns were flattened, al Anbar would shape up quick. We don't want to do that, but it's stupid to imagine that we or the Iraqi government are really in a position of weakness.

It's also utterly stupid to imagine Iraq is going to become an Islamic theocracy. They live right next door to one that's an utter abysmal impoverished failure, and they get to hear about all it from millions of Iranian pilgrims, refugees and job seekers...

Two years wasted?

This is a typical mindset---there is no iteration, no learning.

Were the nearly ten years of the Articles of Confederation to be viewed as "wasted"? I suppose so---after all, the Founding Fathers didn't immediately formulate a firm Constitution (and this, with nearly eight years of war within which to do it!).

Most historians, however, would argue that the failure of the Articles were what laid the groundwork for public acceptance of a far stronger central authority (by 1776 standards and expectations), and the recognition that a loose affiliation of states would doom all the former colonies.

Is it that Arabs are just more stupid, or more myopic that the likes of Zoomie deny even the possibility that they, too, may recognize the need for change and adapt?

In fact, we already see many Sunnis coming to the conclusion that it was their very failure to participate in the elections of earlier this year that have resulted in a constitution that at least some have found unacceptable. As with the Democrats here, so w/ the Sunnis there---losing elections has consequences.

Moreover, as Winds of Change and other web-sites have noted, part of the reason for the failure is that, while the Shi'ites and Kurds offered several compromises, the Sunnis arrived with last minute demands that virtually demanded they be given the reins of power. I suppose for Zoomie, the equivalent of losing the White House and Congress is no reason for the Democrats to not be able to pass legislation and make appointments, but in the real world, again, losing elections has consequences.

But that's alright. The Zoomies will carp and the rest of us will move forward.

For those who haven't seen it yet, Christopher Hitchens recently had an essay in the Weekly Standard that makes a similar point to Ruffini. As usual, it's great.

While I think Bush has gotten most of the policy right (or at least as right as possible when it comes to something as thoroughly unpredictable as war), I don’t think that Bush will ever be confused with "the Great Communicator".

My favorite line, referring to the initial reasoning for going to war: "Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them."

Here is the whole thing:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=2

Sorry - the URL above takes you directly to page two of the article.

As a soldier who spen a year in Iraq I couldn't agree more. General Downing summed it up pretty succintly on Meet the Press yesterday: The media needs to report the successes as well as the casualties. We accrue these casualties because we are doing things that the insurgents don't like. If their media was half as defeatist as ours we'd have wrapped this up already. For More see:
http://punditsmyass.blogspot.com

None so blind...

so sad...

Yeah Zoomie, another "progressive" problem. In psychology it's called projection.