The Politics of Aftermath

Of course, there's going to be violence in Iraq after we leave - yes, perhaps even more-so than there currently is. But, I'm telling you, that is going to happen, my friend, whether we leave tomorrow, a year from now (perhaps the most technically feasible option), or 20 years from now. This, I'm saying, in that those various sects and sub-sects are not, NOT, because of our actions/ mandates, going to put aside their animus toward each other. I mean, I'd even go as far as to say that those on the other side of Bush, those who advocate a diplomatic approach to this conflict, are themselves misguided. This, in that sometimes people actually have to fight, sometimes for a long time, and then maybe, MAYBE, they will be willing to talk (as in Northern Ireland, for example).................As to what our troops can in fact accomplish there, sure, our presence does to a certain degree keep a lid on the cauldron. But, seriously, and, yes, clearly understanding the futility of our mission, how can we really justify our own rising death toll? And, no, don't give me all of those lines about Al Qaeda taking over Iraq and making it a safe haven for terrorists. I mean, think about it, Al Qaeda taking over what is undoubtedly going to be a Shia-dominated (Kurdish region excepted) Iraq. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.................This is not, of course, to say that the end-result is going to be pretty. This, in that from what I've heard (Joe Klein, TIME) at least, a very large percentage of even mainstream Shiites have totally fallen for Al Sadr - you know, that guy we probably could have killed a few years ago, HELLO!! And, yes, that, I'm afraid to say, is basically the story here - us, through a short-sighted and arrogant foreign policy, essentially trading in a secular thug (one who was largely contained) for a potentially far more dangerous radical regime WITH CLOSER TIES TO IRAN!! I mean, this is completely beyond belief, what we've accomplished here. TOTALLY BEYOND BELIEF!!