Scowcroft: Elections in Iraq Won’t Help
Elder-Bush national security advisor Brent Scowcroft had words for the younger Bush during his remarks at a centrist think tank luncheon yesterday. From the WaPo: Scowcroft skeptical vote will stabilize Iraq.
According to Scowcroft, the election in Iraq will not make things better. In fact, it could well impel the country into civil war, as the insurgency morphs into an open Sunni rebellion against Shiite rule, with the Kurds then seceding.
I realize we’ve been hearing this “Iraq is on the brink of civil war” stuff for a long time now (basically since the invasion, if you count Steve Gilliard’s frequent predictions). But the predictions carry more weight from someone like Scowcroft, and apparently he’s not alone in thinking that way, at least among people who actually analyze things to determine likely outcomes before choosing a course of action.
Fortunately for the life-expectency of the current US policy (which, yes, would be “unfortunately” if you’re concerned about achieving positive results), Bush isn’t one of those people, so we can expect this hole-digging operation in Iraq to continue uninterrupted, even if (actually, especially if) it fails to deliver any measurable benefits.
January 7th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
You mean unfortunately right?
January 8th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Referring to the campaign to stabilize Iraq, Mr. Bush said: “I know it’s hard, but it’s hard for a reason. And the reason it’s hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom.”
What an ass we have for president. He alone should be able to clear Iraq of a handful of insurgents
January 9th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
What “insurgency”?
This word is a misnomer for “National Iraqi Resistance”. No people in this world would succumb to foreign occupation by ruthless greedy mercenaries.
Facts of the matter, Saddam Hussein remained as popular as ever among most Iraqis, regardless of US spin media demonisation.
Otherwise, brave Iraqi fighters would not be able to hit then melt into the population undetected.
January 10th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Yes, Myself, the demonization of Saddam Hussein was a bit much, wasn’t it? What do you think, John?
I also agree with you wholeheartly about the misrepresentation of the “National Iraqi Resistance” as “insurgency.” Just because people are willing to succumb for decades to the abuses and tyranny of ruthless, greedy, homegrown mercenaries and their Western allies is no reason to believe they would quietly succumb to foreign occupation by ruthless greedy mercenaries, or that they might not bravely support ruthless greedy mercenaries from neighboring Arab nations to reinstate the homegrown tyranny they loved so well in the first place.
January 10th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
I agree. Kurds has announced that they won’t get along with the whole of Iraq, and wants their own State just like Palestine.
Sunnis said the same thing. There will be Civil Wars after the January Elections, and you can count on it.
At least, Saddam Hussien had control of Kurds and Sunnis in one place in one Country of Iraq and now Bush opened a can of worms and caused not just more insurgents, but more Civil Wars to come. I know and don’t like Saddam killing about 200,000 of own people but at least the Kurds and Sunnis are in their place and he was in Control over them. Now it is out of control and more in chaos. More Deaths over almost a Million or Millions after when it is done. (I mean When Civil Wars started and over with which will take 10 years or so depending how far they can win).
It will be like the New Israel War with new Palestine, very much like it. And the terrible thing is that the Iraqi People will never be free once the Civil Wars will start. :(
(I wonder about the outcome if Saddam Hussien remained in Power and keeping the Kurds and the Sunnis at bay?- all in one Country of Iraq instead of seperate?- that is a rather complicated question and no one knows the real answer to the real problem and how to solve it. There were Centuries of People being imprisoned and was freed but it would take years for them to settle down in a new place with food, job, families and Children and freedom).
January 11th, 2005 at 6:24 am
I couldn’t agree with you more Gen – tyranny and genocide are certainly tolerable as long as they keep the rabble at bay. This point is often lost, and I thank you for putting on the table with such atypical clarity.
January 15th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
We were supposed to be saving the world from WMD (none found) and we were told we’d be welcomed as saviors from Saddam (didn’t happen). What, then, has NOT been a lie from the Bush government?
Why is the resistance growing in popular support among both Shiite and Sunni Muslims everywhere? Because of the stupid policies of George W. Bush, that’s why. Can anyone think of a way to make more enemies? Short of attacking additional innocent countries, we can’t.
February 1st, 2005 at 5:19 am
There is a difference between telling a lie like Clinton, and telling information you really do believe that turns out to be false, like your beloved UN and our european “allies” take on Saddam’s WMDs, traitors.
If you ever want to win elections anymore, you’re going to have to learn several things, so get these into your thick skulls if you ever want to have a chance;
1. Your opponents are not stupid.
2. You are dealing with people who sincerely believe that they are doing the right things.
3. This country is not made up of people who believe they are victimized.
There are many other things you’ll probably need to realize to win next time, but I’ll just leave you those for now. On second thought, you probably also ought to realize that
4. Most people believe that Good and Evil exist in the world, and many but not quite a majority of Americans that the United States ought to use it’s military to pound Evil into the mud where it belongs.
February 1st, 2005 at 5:31 am
“Can anyone think of a way to make more enemies?”
I can. Try winning an argument with a liberal.