it's terrible.
we shouldn't have disbanded the army. and we should have had limited local elections already. and the june 30 date was a mistake. and i wish we had more troops there.
and i know you guys opposed this from day one, and predicted, accurately, that just this kind of opposition would be the inevitable result.
but now that we're here, where do we go?
a few options i can think of...
option 1: more troops, more violence, move the transition date, impose muscular martial law (the Sharon strategy).
option 2: hand over to interim governing council as scheduled, withdraw US troops from cities, allow local militias to take over (the Karzai strategy).
Neither one's very appetizing.
I think the key issue is NOT the june 30 handover - that's an artificial, Bush-created date. The key issue is the timing of national elections. That's what the Shia want and have continually pressed for - national, democratic, one man one vote elections.
Until there's a hard date on the table and a firm UN pledge to administer elections, there's no reason for the Shia _not_ to be in open revolt.
If we made Sistani happy on elections, OTOH, he could probably broker a deal for peace with the Sadr-ites.
thoughts?
|
we shouldn't have disbanded the army. and we should have had limited local elections already. and the june 30 date was a mistake. and i wish we had more troops there.
and i know you guys opposed this from day one, and predicted, accurately, that just this kind of opposition would be the inevitable result.
but now that we're here, where do we go?
a few options i can think of...
option 1: more troops, more violence, move the transition date, impose muscular martial law (the Sharon strategy).
option 2: hand over to interim governing council as scheduled, withdraw US troops from cities, allow local militias to take over (the Karzai strategy).
Neither one's very appetizing.
I think the key issue is NOT the june 30 handover - that's an artificial, Bush-created date. The key issue is the timing of national elections. That's what the Shia want and have continually pressed for - national, democratic, one man one vote elections.
Until there's a hard date on the table and a firm UN pledge to administer elections, there's no reason for the Shia _not_ to be in open revolt.
If we made Sistani happy on elections, OTOH, he could probably broker a deal for peace with the Sadr-ites.
thoughts?
- big jimmy 4-09-2004 12:22 am