At first I too found presentateur Madame Apple Anne's last comment by Chou En-lai or Zhou Enlaior if you like, odd at first. But thinking upon it, I remembered Chou, as a young man, had studied in Paris, and was an early proponent of the urban-based revolution theory (more likely the comment was made to Henry the Kiss rather than Nixon).

Was not most of the conflict in Iraq after the run into, and fall of Baghdad, urban-centric to a large degree? If Iraq goes to hell in a hand basket once again, will it not come from the more urban population centers, just as the French Revolution did - perhaps it is too early to tell?

You are right about one issue. Like most Democrats that come into the Oval Office with a domestic agenda in mind, they soon find themselves consumed by foreign affairs. LBJ found he couldn't put butter on the table and bullets on the battlefield (no battlespace back then) and levied a 10% war surtax.

If Obama finds this all an irritant, or a resentment as you phrase it, perhaps he should share it with mainstream America?

Obama is leaving Iraq under tolerable circumstances since he was opposed to Bush’s Iraq invasion to begin with.

The real question is how long will Bush’s democracy last in Iraq after US withdrawal.

Centripetal forces have been tearing Iraq apart ever since Clinton’s imposition of ‘no fly zones’ in 1990s.

Iran will be the real winner when it moves in to help its sister Shiite Iraqi regime first to suppress the Kurdish rebellion and then Al Qaeda-led Sunni insurgency. That is if Iraq’s so-called Shiite democrats can form a democratic government.

How long can current political impasse without the formation of a government last before security situation so deteriorates that some Iraqi Army General decides to take over to prevent further chaos with Washington‘s blessings?

With that will go Bush’s last justification to democratize Iraq and hence the middle east out the window.

All the man and material sacrifices of US will be seen as ’wasted’ since those US soldiers could not have died for a dictatorial Iraq, similar to that under Saddam Hussein.

The Chou En Lai anecdote is absolutely essential to understanding the debate in Washington over Iraq.

Understanding what the Iraq war meant, whether it was worth it, and how long America should maintain its commitment there are held to be subjects about which we can know nothing important until all of us are dead. The risks of unimaginable disaster if the United States does not maintain its military commitment in Iraq until 2020 (or 2050. Or whenever) are different: they are as tangible and fraught with meaning as a reporter's deadline, and no price in borrowed money or other Americans' lives is too great to reduce those risks, or at least help those of us stateside to feel a little better about them.

I think it is hardly possible to hold Anne Applebaum's views on the war, or those of Tom Ricks, without leaning heavily on Premier Chou. You can't say we succeeded in Iraq and need to stay there in force forever, or that we failed in Iraq and therefore need to stay there forever. Forever only works if the meaning and cost of the war to the United States -- the country that matters -- are so obscure we can't make them out, because only such clueless uncertainty can support mortal dread of what might happen when we leave.

I'm sorry Zathras, I've had my bell rung repeatedly over the past 7 years. Would you please explain your meaning of your statement:

"The risks of unimaginable disaster if the United States does not maintain its military commitment in Iraq until 2020 (or 2050. Or whenever) are different: they are as tangible and fraught with meaning as a reporter's deadline, and no price in borrowed money or other Americans' lives is too great to reduce those risks, or at least help those of us stateside to feel a little better about them."

Thanks.

"Meanwhile, in the under-reported Iraq story of the month, the Iraqi army chief of staff said the U.S. military needs to stay in Iraq for another decade."

Geez, we better stay, huh. Otherwise our sunk costs might be lost. Oh wait...

Someone please: what is the vital national interest for the United States in Iraq? Afghanistan? Or is permanent war an interest in itself?

1st, to finish that scene by Shadid. The general, after talking about a coup, asked the politician for a job so i think the whole presentation was a set-up to get employment to a higher position.

I have said this over and over, but there's not going to be a coup in Iraq. I doubt there is any general who wants to deal with Iraq's problems right now.

Neither will there be a renewed civil war. Attacks and casualties are still minimal. The repeated attacks by insurgents against Shiites leads to no retaliation, and Al Qaeda's the only one calling for a return to sectarian war and no one is listening.

Finally, to Tom's comment that the mission for U.S. troops will be more dangerous now than ever, I would say a resounding no. I can only think of one incident in the last six months where the U.S. actually got into a firefight in Iraq. They were on a joint patrol with Iraqis in Maysan I believe, making a raid on a Hezbollah Brigades spot, the militiamen knew about it and there was a shoot out. No U.S. casualties. Otherwise the U.S. troops are just escorting Provincial Reconstruction Teams, training iraqis inside bases, ferrying supplies back and forth, occasionally making a visit to an Iraqi unit, and maining those U.S.-Iraqi-peshmerga checkpoints in northern Iraq which are usually out in the countryside. The only action they see is usually indirect fire by inaccurate rocket or mortar fire and an occasional sniper shot. How is that more dangerous than ever for U.S. troops?

Obama has just shown how Americans are easily misled by the Pentagon and White House, while the corporate media plays along. We have five combat brigades still in Iraq, yet bozos like that model from NBC were happy to film the "last" US combat troops crossing the border into Kuwait

Here is a local story about two combat brigades deploying to Iraq this month.
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=43715

I've tried to interest someone in the major media, but everyone seems afraid of the truth. Perhaps Mr. Ricks knows someone at the WashPost that will permit him to publish the truth, along with the names of our five combat brigades in Iraq. Simply changing their titles to "advise and assist" brigades is silly. I suppose if the Pentagon told everyone to call them "Red Cross" brigades, our media would comply.

So how about it Mr. Ricks? Do you want to make national news by printing the truth?

we leave with many having a latent desire to stay blind and continue to spend money.

The advocates of interests other than our national security and financial health will desire to sustain this chronic situation of slow dissolution until an autocracy or a theocracy, each with a Murdock empire, is established in the capitals under this Babylonian captivity.

How US army likes to fight wars: come in, kick ass, spend shitload, and come back before Christmas. Also creating a democracy in a Middle East means first you must create SECULAR society. Did US archive that ? So sorry, this is a loss. Not as catastrophic as Vietnam but a loss.

Isn't the real issue whether in two years we will see a functioning Iraqi democracy or instead a governing model moving towards a Shite strongman? If the latter, then we will not have had to wait 50 years to know that our Iraqi adventure was a fool's errand.

anne applebaum loses points for being boring. ive been reading gulag. what a mistake.

Ironically, our last KIA in Iraq was killed by a sniper Aug. 31 in Tikrit.
http://en.aswataliraq.info/?p=136361

From now on, any killing of American soldiers will be criminal acts, since they aren't in combat, just like when GIs are killed in Germany. I do credit one reporter with asking the Army if troops will still get combat pay in Iraq. The answer is yes. It will be impossible to get valor awards no matter what a GI does, because none are in "combat."

We'll just pretend our troops are not fighting in Iraq, like we did in Laos. Yes, hundreds of Americans died fighting in Laos, but you didn't read about in the Washington Post.

?????????????????< /?>
?????5819??????5819 < /?>
???? 5819???5819?< /?>
???5819???? 5819 < /?>
???????????????< /?>
?????5815??????5815 < /?>
???? 5815???5815?< /?>
???5815???? 5815 < /?>
?????????????< /?>
?????5825??????5825 < /?>
???? 5825???5825??< /?>
5825??????? 5825 < /?>
????????????????< /?>
???????5803????????5803 < /?>
???? 5803???5803?< /?>
???5803???? 5803 < /?>
???????????????< /?>
?????5854??????5854 < /?>
???? 5854???5854?< /?>
???5854???? 5854 < /?>
?????????????< /?>
???1873????????????????1873 < /?>
???1873?????1873 < /?>
1873???????? 1873 < /?>
???????????????????????< /?>
???????????????5822???????5822??< / 1 >
???? 5822???5822?< /?>
???5822???? 5822 < /?>
???????????????????< /?>
??????????5879??????????5879 < /?>
???? 5879???5879?< /?>
???5879???? 5879 < /?>
???????????< /?>
?????????????< /?>
?????????< /?>
???????????< /?>
????????????<??/ 1 >
???????????< /?>
???????????< /?>
?????<?/ 1 >
?????????< /?>
???????< /?>
?????????< /?>
??????? < /?>
UGG Australia????????< /?>
???????????< /?>
??????? < /?>
?????< /?>

Thanksful, Iraq's adventure tours for thousands of American familys are ended. We waited for this moment for years.

History seems to suggest that for great powers [which America still is, much to the chagrin of progressives apparently] domestic policy and foreign policy are inextricably, unrelentingly joined - in fact America's rise to great affluence and power came on the heels of dramatic foreign policy initiatives - consequently, to aspire to the leadership of a great power and either not understand this dynamic or simply to be in denial of it causes one to conclude that such a person is a fool or dangerously naive.

So I take it Tom this brief parsing of Obama's speech is your way of finally admitting that Dear Leader is a naive fool - well done.

The only way Obama can keep troops in Iraq past 2011 is to break the electoral promise he made to remove him. While those in favor of a longer term policy might respond, "Great, that's what he should do", is it right that those who have opposed the war for the past seven years should have no recourse to conventional politics? Eg., doesn't matter what you think, doesn't matter if the politicians elect say they share your beliefs, the system is rigged and you can't prevail.

Something like this happened in Great Britain, btw, when Blair's embrace of the Bush policy left opponents of the war with no place to go. It took a while to have its effect, but this, more than any other factor, led to the demise of "New Labour" (whose constituents essentially returned the favor--"If that's the way things are I suppose it doesn't matter if we vote for you"). Does Obama really think he could change course and people wouldn't notice?

Lastly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first conflicts the US has entered into where all of the fighting has been done by a professional (ie. volunteer) military. It'll be interesting to see how the wind down plays out (eg. whether the military thinks they should have more influence on policy than has traditionally been the case, and whether veterans back them up, etc.).

Cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom: $748.2 billion
· Projected total cost of veterans’ health care and disability: $422 billion to $717 billion
· Total deaths: Between 110,663 and 119,380?
· Coalition deaths: 4,712?
· U.S. deaths: 4,394?
· U.S. wounded: 31,768?
· U.S. deaths as a percentage of coalition deaths: 93.25 percent?
· Iraqi Security Force deaths: At least 9,451?
· Total coalition and ISF deaths: At least 14,163?- Iraqi civilian deaths: Between 96,037 and 104,7542?
· Non-Iraqi contractor deaths: At least 463?
· Internally displaced persons: 2.6 million?
· Refugees: 1.9 million

Of course these are just numbers on a page. The true cost of the human suffering will never be known. Of course the war monger scum behind this evil laugh all the way to the insolvent bank. War Pigs only see numbers in terms of profits.

Kurds, Sadrists, Iraqiyya, State of Law(SLA) and Iraq National Alliance (INA) are vying for power-sharing; none have been unable to reach a bilateral consensus to form coalitions that would become parliamentary majority blocs that could elect its party leader as candidate for the premiership. al-Maliki and Allawi are vying for the premiership though neither is head of a bloc with enough parliamentary seats to win a slot in an election to be head of state. If Allawi and al-Maliki combine forces to form such a bloc then this would precipitate a fight over the premiership. Should al-Maliki break with Allawi and decide to foster a Shiite alliance with INA, Iraqiyya will dig in its heels arguing such a deal trumps article 76 of the constitution.

The power players are tinkering with types of governance. One proposal is regional power-sharing another is representational party power-sharing. Both are consociational models based on Western democratic ideologies. For Iraq this would amount to too many cooks in the kitchen. And those disparate cooks would not foster internal cohesion due to competing unilateral sectarian and regional goals.

Iraq may well wind up with a slapdash version of rule rather than governance. This will only serve to inflame the simmering ethnic and sectarian divides. Now add Syrian and Iranian influences/interests to this and the tug of war for Iraq looks even bleaker.

Wow, the commentary here (some exceptions) even more moronic than usual.

Though on vacay (I'm like Obama that way! I've been on vacay for months!) I feel the need to clarify.

Yes, Tom Ricks appears to be very slowly returning to sanity. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, is it, Tom? There's a 12 step program for you somewhere.

Be thankful that, unlike some members of the politburo, you did not compare Obama after his speech to Eisenhower. Yes, Obama is just like Ike (well, except for that D Day thing. And some other stuff that Ike may have done that was more than making a moronic speech from the New Oval)

Now. There are two points to make about Obama's speech (actually three, but one is kind of an afterthought).

1. Our withdrawal from Iraq, drawdown of troops, handing over equipment & control to Iraqis, etc, is proceeding in an orderly way for one reason, that is the success of the surge, 2007-2008, which Obama opposed before, during and after its implementation. His spokesclown Gibbs tried to say that Obama had never opposed the surge in the runup to the speech. Sorry Gibbs, we have this video & the internets, so your lies will not stand.

2. The withdrawal of troops and handover of control is pursuant to the Status of forces agreement negotiated and finalized between the Bush Administration and the Government of Iraq in Nov-Dec 2008.

Barack Obama as Senator, candidate, or President-elect had nothing to do with the implementation or success of either 1 or 2.

Obama's promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq by Aug 31, 2010 was therefore meaningless (to rational people only, of course). It is as if he promised that if elected he would only wear blue socks in the Oval Office. And, 18 months later, he makes a speech: I promised that, if elected, I would only wear blue socks in the oval office. And I have kept that promise (pulls up cuff & shows socks).

The reaction, I think, would be: And? So? I care why?
Much like the reaction to Obama's speech on Iraq, and for the same reason. It has no relation to reality. It's meaningless. Utterly vacuous.

Some conservatives/Republicrats give O props for not interfering overly in the schedule of withdrawal, and for mentioning that GWB really cared about the troops and was pretty darn patriotic. I don't.

3. Not coincidentally, Obama's ratings have fallen to new lows following the speechifying. And, today, American troops were involved in a combat-like situation in Iraq, giving support to Iraqi Army. Trying to kill the enemy and avoid being killed, but not combat. No sirree.