The hesitation and uncertainty expressed in the post has as a premise that Iraq wouldn't be better off period with us out. While it's a basic premise of all US spin that Iraq needs us there, it's not obviously true.
Our presence in the region as powerbroker is at the heart of much of the violence. The shia resent our refusal to allow them the sway their numbers would entitle them to in a democratic government. The various Sunni factions resent the way various non baathist turncoats like Chalabi, most of them crooks and swindlers, have been given a privleged position. For the resistance we polarize the situation by dividing it into collaborators and resistance.
We've been acting according to the US must stay theory for a few years now, and it's not working. That should make one wonder about the validity of the underlying theory. It doesn't mean it's false, but it should make one pause and start thinking about what it would mean to act on the basis of a competing theory - that Iraq is better off without us there.
Also you are naive if you think Cantwell's (or Obama's, etc.) concern is really with what's best for Iraq. There is so much money involved in the Iraq war. It's the number one US product right now.
There is a story here, but it starts with a detailed examination of just who is lobbying Cantwell for what, and what alliances exist in the senate. It has nothing to do with the ideas, because it never does.

(I'm reposting my spew in this freshest thread-zone 'cause you guys have been cutting the old threads so quick.)

By the way, the best reporting I've seen about current conditions in Iraq was on C-Span this afternoon.

Here's the tag:

On Saturday, May 20 at 7:00 pm and Sunday, May 21 at 4:00 pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Insurgency in Iraq
Nir Rosen, Ahmed Hashim, Anne Garrels

Description: From the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, Nir Rosen and Ahmed Hashim talk about the insurgency in Iraq and the possibilities of a full-blown civil war occurring there. Both participants, who have authored recent books on the subject, describe the development and changing nature of the resistance forces in Iraq and the Bush administration's strategy to combat them. Mr. Rosen and Prof. Hashim also discuss the rise of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his army, who the authors say wield a huge amount of power in Iraq now and are responsible for a series of recent attacks on Iraqi Sunnis. Following their remarks, both authors answer questions from the audience. The discussion is moderated by National Public Radio (NPR) foreign correspondent Anne Garrels.

Author Bio: Nir Rosen is a freelance journalist/filmmaker and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC. He has worked Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia. For more information, visit Mr. Rosen's blog at www.nirrosen.com. Ahmed Hashim, a professor of strategic studies at the Naval War College, worked as an advisor to American military officials in Iraq between November 2003 and September 2005. He is the co-author (with Anthony Cordesman) of "Iran: Dilemmas of Dual Containment" and "Iraq: Sanctions and Beyond."

Publisher: (for Hashim) Cornell University Press www.cornellpress.cornell.edu (for Rosen) Free Press www.simonsays.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm going to start checking out Nir's Blog.

Hashim's book was called "Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq."

The news was depressing. Consensus view was Iraq will probably break into it's three basic constituencies with ethnic cleansing unleashed in areas with mixed Sunni/Shiite populations. Kurds will come out ahead while Sunnis and Shiites mess with each other. Civil society flourishing in Kurd regions. Older Kurds see business opportunities in Turkey and Post-War iraq. Rosen expects states on the periphery to get involved, citing western Sunni tribal relations that extend into Syria and Lebanon. Sadr/Shia militia most significant force. American's described as Sunni protectors, particularly in light of Al-Sastani & Shiite relations w/Iran ( a Shiite republic).

Any remnant middle-class is now trying to flee the country. The population was not traditionally segregated along severe religious and ethnic lines but the current level of day-to-day violence (particularly since the massive bombing of the mosque in Sammarrah (sp?)) forces local populations to seek protection from armed militias who are motivated to advance their particular sectarian agenda.

Rosen's opinion was that the level of violence was going to increase despite anything the US might try to do, though yes, the US presence is doubtlessly holding down the current level of violence somewhat. On the other hand, the central state we are supposedly helping them build has no legitimacy except as a puppetshow to engage and distract the american public and policy-makers with a pageant of milestones of alleged self-governance.
>>>>>>>>>>
I don't trust Joe Biden but from time to time he has a knack for saying things that seem fresh and sensible. His suggestion of a three-part Iraq, and in general a rapid "Internationalization" of any peace-keeping forces (that's not a pull out but an exchange of our forces for somebody else's) seems sound to me, or at least the start of a conversation toward new ideas.

The current policy, or Cantwellian mute-ness while the primary geo-strategic region of the world goes apocalyptic, is dead on arrival.

I believed the Bush lead-in to the war was a sham and I wrote a series of letters to Sen. Cantwell begging her not to grant him military authority. She sacrificed my support when she took that vote. Turns out she was wrong, but there's no sign that she will take responsibiltiy for her mistake, nor does she seem to have made any significant effort to become particularly well-informed about events on the ground there.

If the Dems want to be sure of winning, they should find a candidate that better represents her constituency. Short of that, maybe a significant vote for someone else in the September primary will send the message that she needs to turn over a new leaf.

It would be one thing if Cantwell were the only Dem afflicted with this 'war-blindness'. Her position is clearly (mis)guided by some kind of Party leadership strategy. To my way of thinking, this strategy fails to motivate popular passions around traditional Democratic values and that failure is what put George W. in the White House and confirmed his re-election.

Thankfully, I think there's a post-Deaniac, Air-America listening, blog-engaged popular progressive movement afoot that's ready to help clean house. If Maria were the clever, "new economy' politician I thought she was when I voted for her in 2000, she would be on the right side of this movement instead of standing in the way.

So I'm pondering a question. Which is more important: having Cantwell re-elected or electing Darcy Burner?

My first pass on this is that Burner's race might actually be more important. Getting back the House is critical, this is the chamber that is utterly ruled by the wingnut kooks. Most of the vitriol and stupidity of the past 12 years originated in that chamber. The Senate, in contrast, is a pretty civilized and reasonable place. And Cantwell really provides very little value added. She's been good on the environment (as it affects the NW), but little more than worthless on civil liberties, judicial appointments, drugs, the war, ad nausem.

Yeah, I'll vote for her, but only after having my daily raw toad first.

Josh, I'm disappointed you don't believe the U.S. has to start leaving Iraq now pursuant to a transition plan that allows other to step forward. As long as the U.S. controls the country (military bases, massive embassy, control over contracts and infrastructure, etc.), other entities will not step forward. The U.S. has to make the first move and it has to be a legitimate pull-out on many levels.

The U.S. invaded Iraq and continues its presence in an attempt to control the oil in Iraq and the Middle East. The U.S. has no legal or moral right to occupy Iraq and the majority of people in Europ and the Middle East understand this. Weak or false justifications for our continued dominance in the region will continue to increase the chaos, hatred and loss of life.

Why is it that we can look back and see clearly the failed U.S. policies in prior occupations but we are reluctant to admit we are in the midst of an illegal and horrific adventure? Is it because it would be too painful to acknowledge that our country supports policies that kill people and destroy countries? Or is it because deep down we think our country is entitled to pursue policies that supposedly benefit our national and corporate economic interests? Are the constructs of Manifest Destiny, Survival of the Fittest and the Wild West still part of the U.S. mindset and long term agenda?

Its time to be more honest with ourselves and the broader public.

How about some coverage of Aaron Dixon's campaign for U.S. Senate?

www.info@aarondixon.org/

p.s. Dixon is the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Washington. He supports the most logical solution to the the war which is to bring all of the troops home immediatly. Fuck the 'mission"

Aaron Dixon is a good example of no one takes the Green Party seriously. I mean, they obviously don't, so why should we?

I cannot take seriously the idea of throwing away my vote on Cantwell. She supports the war, Dixon opposes the war. I am voting for Aaron Dixon out of principal. I march to bring the troops home. Why would I vote for somebody (Cantwell) who wants to continue the war? If Dixon plays the part of the spoiler it will serve Cantwell right if the war costs her the senate seat. There are thousands of us who take Aaron Dixon seriously. He will be on the ballot and I trust be involved in any candidates debate.

The Stranger has already given Dixon press. Thing is, Cantwell is facing two homespun Democratic challengers, Mark Wilson and Hong Tran, in the September Democratic Primary, two months before she would face Dixon and McGavick in the general election.

The Stranger has not mentioned Tran or Wilson outside of the Slog. . . yet.

My political assessment: Anti-Cantwell activism is unlikely to derail Cantwell, but reasonbly likely to derail Darcy Burner (vs Reichert in WA-08) and very likely to give the BIAW two new tools on the Supreme Court of Washington.

My assessment as a Stranger reader: WTF?

Josh and Maria hold indistinguishable positions (tidy up before cutting out), but Josh tirelessly reports, misreports and (weirdly) editorializes for critics who insist at once that Iraq would be at peace if we just left, and that Iraq will never be at peace.

Maybe it's all part of some empire-sized meta-thematic tapestry, hung on a Byzantine hook ... but seriously, now, WTF?

It’s nice that we can all sit around comfortable offices in North America and debate solutions to something that has no solution.

There is no way out of Iraq.

There will be a huge sectarian civil war ( even bigger than the one now)
We destroyed Iraq.
We committed crimes against humanity in Fallujah
The media has been complicit in the mass killing of civilians, yes even sex advice columnists who bought into the original bull crap of going to war
More than 100,000 thousand Iraqis have died

There is no hope for peace. Iraq is now a haven for fundamentalists and Islamofascists. There are Shia and Sunni death squads running around.
Al Queda runs parts of the country
The army is nothing more than Kurds and Shiites who hate Sunnis

We leave or we don’t leave, Iraq is hell on earth.

The US is not tiding up, the US staying or leaving will make no difference in the carnage that the Iraqi people will live for years and years to come.

The US is building bases, super embassies and green zones where they can stay away from the chaos they created. They are simply barricading and by next year they will continue to move troops out and move them into these compounds, away from the carnage. Yes ,they will continue to lose some soldiers, but they never really cared.

Yes, All casualties are horrible, but as far as war goes, two thousand, three hundred is nothing to war generals in terms of a war that big, they lost that many in 2 days in Stalingrad or a month in Vietnam. They probably killed that many Iraqis in 2 days of bombing in Fallujah. Soldiers suffer in war, yes, but the vast majority of the troops live inside compounds that have Burger Kings and all kind of amenities, in the army they call it the rear. The soldiers that see combat, become hardened as the war goes on. The longer soldiers stay in combat, the more brutal they become, that is a fact and nobody is going to change that.

There is no way out, we destroyed a nation and killed and humiliated them. Shame on us all, and while we can sit and be cute about our stands, we will not make this ever go away. Those children whose family we slaughtered will grow up one day and they re going to want to inflict harm on somebody and they’re not going to give a rat’s ass about democracy or regime change, and they’re not going to care who they bomb, just like we didn’t care who we bombed or what car we shot at in the streets of Baghdad. The Islamo fascists are in heaven recruiting and lying to young people who have been left with nothing left to live for.

All the ones who supported this senseless war should fucking hang themselves. They had no clue what we were getting into. This war is going to make the Balkans look like a walk in the fucking park. It makes no difference now to the Iraqi people whether we leave or not, except of course for US soldiers whose lives will be spared. I guess that is noble enough, but trust me is not about saving Iraqi lives, no one cares about them and the media, ( Stranger included) does not publish their suffering in pictures, but will come running to the rescue of the Danish because oh how the Danish suffer!! The civil war will explode to even bigger proportions and the US will either leave or barricade themselves in a fortress and watch the fireworks.

Oh yeah and Aaron Dixon doesn’t have a damn clue. He is not going to make a dent in Maria and that’s his fault. He could have really put her against the ropes. Instead he is a damn joke. Look at his damn event calendar, is empty, except for attending his wife’s film festivals. What kind of campaign is that? If I were a Green, Id shoot myself.

Josh's position on his own journalism is no less tortured than his view of Cantwell today on Iraq.

One day, Josh is a traditional journalist. The next day, he's an advocacy journalist. Is his head spinning as he says this... "I'm her sister, I'm her mother...."

Now Josh, as the chief enforcer of consistency-ism, if you can't keep your positions or your roles straight, what sort of verbal gun slinging opportunist are you?

I'm with SEME.

Mass suicide for Green's and Neo-Cons.

don't worry, Maria got a lot of person-to-person questions about this exact topic at the 43rd District Spring Party on Saturday night, where she showed up unannounced on the same stage with another US Senator, Russ Feingold, who actually had good things to say about her.

it was a very crowded room, and I got some really sweet Mariners tix for tonights game. yes, I did buy the sheets for my son, and he loves them - even took digital pics to show his peeps at school.

oh, and I should point out I wore a Burner button that night - it's way more important IMHO.

"The Democratic Party's role is to convince us to accept the GOP agenda"

California Green Party cnadidate for Governor Peter Camejo