"We are now fighting Saddam's war". Succinctly put. Makes you proud, doesn't it? I wonder if George will grow a big bushy moustache now too.
I can totally see Bushie on a balcony at the White House firing a shot gun in the air.
Or at least Dick Cheney on a balcony firing a shot gun into his friend's face.
Well, considering that the initial proscription against Baathists holding any positions in the new government basically eliminated for consideration most of the people who would have been competent in those positions, some sort of rapprochement with Saddam's loyalist base was inevitable. That we are four years into this occupation and looking to create stability by imitating Saddam's own tactics also seems oddly inevitable. All we need now is a U.S. -friendly strongman to be "democratically elected" and the circle of stupidity will be complete.
That's what happens when you let a roomful of drunken howler monkeys draft your foreign policy.
What a waste of US tax dollars this whole farce is.
Frankly, getting another secular strongman in power is probably the best possible outcome at this point. Anything else is going to equal massive religious warfare once we leave. Oh, and anyone who says that we (Americans), the world, or Iraqis are better off without Saddam in power is a fucking asshole.
* bangs forehead repeatedly on desk *
Whenever I think the "war on terror" can't get any worse, it does.
It seems inevitable now that there is no way to extricate ourselves from this disaster during Bush's reign. Let's just hope he doesn't invade Iran too, to double our fun.
Eh. Considering that we'll soon be fighting the Russians in proxy wars throughout the world, just like the good ol' days, Iraq is gonna seem so passe.
Of course, this is America, so Bush has much more expensive toys to play with.
@3: FTW! LOL!
Without reading much about it, including that NYT article, I am struck by how strange this development is. Not only the irony of gathering former Saddamites into alliance. It's also weird in that Al Qaeda is a Sunni rather than Shiite organization. But isn't it also important to note that the "Al Qaeda" that is being discussed is the grown-in-post-Saddam-Iraq bunch, Al Qaeda in Iraq, rather than the original OBL group? What is the connection between those two Al Qaedas? Is there any Shiite, pro-Iran influence in Al Qaeda in Iraq? How do the Iraqi Shiites feel about the US joining up with these Baathist factions? Does this whole development signal an end to any US goal of a pluralistic democratic Iraq? Is this simply the US retreating back to where it used to be--pro-Sunni/Saudi, anti-Shiite/Iran? Maybe I should watch Wolf Blitzer more--no doubt he's on top of it.
fixo @ 11,
It's a good thing you're asking these questions, because no one in the US Government is!
Continuing on Fixo, I'm not surprised by this development at all. We ended up on the wrong side of the war as it was. We supported the Shiites, who are pro-Iran and pro-Syria, and were fighting against the Sunnis, who share the same denomination as our pals the Saudis. Can't Jesus get a hand clap?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).