Walid Pharis on Irans plans for Iraq...

[vta]

It's a bit long, but worth the read, from a man who knows the people of his own region better than we do.

-----------

Iran's plan for Iraq (http://worlddefensereview.com/phares090507.shtml)

by Walid Phares, Ph.D.
World Defense Review columnist



[Part one of a series on "Freedom Lines," adapted from seminars conducted for the U.S. House of Representatives' Caucus on Counter Terrorism, summer 2007]


In March 2003, the United States made a strategic decision to send troops into Iraq and defeat the Saddam Hussein regime militarily. This decision is still being debated nationwide and internationally as to its legitimacy and rationality.

One camp claims Washington didn't have a right to change the regime and engage in an armed confrontation with Iraqis. Another camp says Saddam was a threat, the region is now better off without him, and Iraqis have been liberated from a bloody dictatorship.

In reality, only historians will determine if it was the right decision at the right time for one simple reason: While U.S. military operations aimed at dismantling the regime's military power ended in April 2003 – very successfully as a matter of fact – the second much longer road for the following set of U.S. goals is now under scrutiny.

Should American and Coalition forces withdraw immediately, begin pulling out, or staying the course, is the center of the ongoing debate. But to answer, one has to understand the goals of the adversaries in this ongoing conflict. Al Qaeda has a plan for Iraq, and U.S. forces are fighting it along with Iraqi units. But the direct geopolitical threat that is linked to the role of U.S. troops in that country is the Iranian regime and its allies in the region and inside Iraq. How does Tehran see the American presence, what are its plans for Iraq, and what will happen if U.S. forces are withdrawn abruptly?

Prior to 2001, the Iranian regime had developed regional ambitions, including a military alliance with Syria, continuous support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and a slow-pace development of a nuclear weapon. In the 1980s, its proxies delivered blows to the U.S. in Beirut and by May 2000, its allies in Lebanon had reached international borders with Israel.

During the decade following the first Gulf War, the Pasdaran were training and arming Iraqi militias for future mission in Iraq. The Khomeinists and Hafez Assad had an Iraq plan years before the U.S. invaded in 2003: overrun the Shia areas in the center and the south and open a land bridge between Iran and Syria.[1] But 9/11 shook off the foundations of the Iranian plan. By December of that year, U.S. and Coalition forces removed the Taliban and opened the path for a democratic government in Afghanistan.

The regime change in Kabul was a first problem for the Mullahs in Tehran: democracy defeating a Jihadi regime wasn't a good example to watch. By April 2003, a second catastrophe hit the Islamic Republic: Saddam was removed, but worse, democratic elections were succeeding each other in Iraq. But more dramatic was the fact that U.S and NATO forces were deployed to the East and to the West of Iran.

In strategic reading, the Khomeinist project was geographically contained: no more bridge to Syria and a greater menace was hovering over the nuclear program. Even more catastrophic was the proximity of two democratic experiments to the Iranian society. Students, women and workers have been challenging the theocratic regime since the late 1990s.

To Khamanei's ruling elite, successes across the borders meant a condemnation to the regime inside Iran. Thus the Pasdaran were tasked with a plan to destabilize Afghanistan and crumble the political process in Iraq. Since the summer of 2003 and for the following four years, Iranian backed Terrorism against civilians, Syrian passage for the Jihadists and pressures against U.S. and Coalition forces aimed at provoking a quicker and chaotic pull out.

If Washington withdraws catastrophically from Iraq what would the Iranian regime do? In about six to nine months, this is what would happen:

• The pro-Iranian militias (SCIRI, Badr Brigade, Muqtada al Sadr, act.) would seize the control of two thirds of Iraq between Baghdad and Basra. The militias would create "security enclaves," perform several terror acts and assassinations leading to a crumbling of the central Government, and a pro-Khomeinist regime established.


• Most moderate Shiite politicians and liberal elements in those areas would be eliminated, as did Khomeini with his partners in the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Within less than a year, most Shia partners of the Pro-Iranian forces would be eliminated.


• And as it was practiced in Lebanon in 1990, the pro-Iranian future regime of Iraq will call in Iranian "brotherly" forces to assist in security and in the defense of the borders. The Pasdaran and the Iranian army will deploy in the southern Oil fields, along the borders with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and would connect with the Syrian forces across the borders. The latter will be asked to help in the Anbar province.


• The Sunni areas will be left to be dealt with later, along with Syrian interventions.


• The Kurdish areas will be submitted to isolation, pressure and internal divisions, in a concerted effort with Syria and the Islamic Government of Turkey.

This is not a theoretical scenario. This is the projected reality if U.S. forces would prematurely and abruptly withdraw from Iraq before achieving one major strategic objective in Iraq and the region: Helping the independently minded Iraqis to reform and solidify their Government, erect their Army to a regional level and along with U.S. forces establish a containment system for Iranian expansionist ambitions. Any lesser goal achieved in Iraq is a direct invitation to the Iranian regime to become the greatest threat in the 21st century against Peace and Security, in the region and worldwide.

[Eric_Boyer]

This guy has been living in the states for the last 17 years. He is a neo-con talking head.

Just keep that in mind when reading his doom and gloom.

[Sasquatch]

This guy has been living in the states for the last 17 years. He is a neo-con talking head.

Just keep that in mind when reading his doom and gloom.

If the object of the invasion was to counter the regional ambitions of Iran, which seems more credible than the bogus WMD argument, wouldn't the invasion be considered an even greater failure since the exact opposite has happened? The Iranian's have been outspokenly recalcitrant precisely because the threat of an all-out military attack is no longer credible. And why would you remove a regime that has been a traditional bulwark against Iran if your ultimate objective was to hold it in check?

[zrinkill]

Good post VTA


Nice to see an article written by someone who actually knows the region and the people, instead of someone speculating about a place they have never even been.

[Eric_Boyer]

Good post VTA


Nice to see an article written by someone who actually knows the region and the people, instead of someone speculating about a place they have never even been.

His predicitons actually closely match what several presidential candidates suggest we do as a solution - Split the region into three seperate states.

That's what is going to happen regardless. It's a matter of when, not if IMO.

[iceberg]

If the object of the invasion was to counter the regional ambitions of Iran, which seems more credible than the bogus WMD argument, wouldn't the invasion be considered an even greater failure since the exact opposite has happened? The Iranian's have been outspokenly recalcitrant precisely because the threat of an all-out military attack is no longer credible. And why would you remove a regime that has been a traditional bulwark against Iran if your ultimate objective was to hold it in check?

anything to cite this as a failure, right? i've yet to see you ever give one ounce of possibility this could be a good thing and even when we seperate the military victory from the social aftermath, you have to mix it up to make it look like we're so bad and evil.

geez man. let the hate go, k?

[vta]

This guy has been living in the states for the last 17 years. He is a neo-con talking head.

Just keep that in mind when reading his doom and gloom.

Be that as it may, and fairly noted; the word of an educated man on his own people and region is worth considering, don't you think? Or is anything remotely casting the people we're fighting in a light other than oppressed and mal-treated victims, simply open to character denigration of those putting forward the idea (Phares himself)?

An extremists says the 'liberals' want defeat. Conversely an extremists disregards, out of hand, anything not resembling his/her own thoughts on the subject.

I naturally keep in mind all possibilities; he's worth the consideration.

[Eric_Boyer]

If the object of the invasion was to counter the regional ambitions of Iran, which seems more credible than the bogus WMD argument, wouldn't the invasion be considered an even greater failure since the exact opposite has happened? The Iranian's have been outspokenly recalcitrant precisely because the threat of an all-out military attack is no longer credible. And why would you remove a regime that has been a traditional bulwark against Iran if your ultimate objective was to hold it in check?

This is precisely why I think we will be at war with Iran soon. The only reason to fight Iraq - is we are setting up a base of operations to fight Iran.

We basically have them sandwiched right now. The only hurdle remaining is America doesn't want another war.

Of course we didn't want WW1 and WW2 either. There are ways to change the publics mind on the matter but it takes time and time is one thing the neo-cons don't have much of at the moment.

[Eric_Boyer]

Be that as it may, and fairly noted; the word of an educated man on his own people and region is worth considering, don't you think? Or is anything remotely casting the people we're fighting in a light other than oppressed and mal-treated victims, simply open to character denigration of those putting forward the idea (Phares himself)?

An extremists says the 'liberals' want defeat. Conversely an extremists disregards, out of hand, anything not resembling his/her own thoughts on the subject.

I naturally keep in mind all possibilities; he's worth the consideration.

I don't really challenge what he is saying but you overstate his familiarity in the region.

His predictions of what will come to pass is what will happen anyway. I don't wish to go further into debt to push back the inevitable.

[Rackat]

I don't really challenge what he is saying but you overstate his familiarity in the region.

His predictions of what will come to pass is what will happen anyway. I don't wish to go further into debt to push back the inevitable.
It is only inevitable if we allow it to happen.

[vta]

If the object of the invasion was to counter the regional ambitions of Iran, which seems more credible than the bogus WMD argument, wouldn't the invasion be considered an even greater failure since the exact opposite has happened? The Iranian's have been outspokenly recalcitrant precisely because the threat of an all-out military attack is no longer credible. And why would you remove a regime that has been a traditional bulwark against Iran if your ultimate objective was to hold it in check?

Not really. The slight of hand nuclear squabbles are for the public to see, while the broader war which is being waged, physically and psychologically is largely unclear from the perspective of the home viewer.

From our standpoint and according to most reporting, Bagdhad, with a few outlying areas, is Iraq, where all is in shambles. Our troops are fighting 'insurgents', in the middle of a 'civil war'. It paints an unclear picture of what's really happening.

Phares said it himself, and you know I've said it a million times, history will tell if it is a failure or not.

[vta]

I don't really challenge what he is saying but you overstate his familiarity in the region.

His predictions of what will come to pass is what will happen anyway. I don't wish to go further into debt to push back the inevitable.

Well, a guy born and raised and educated in the region does have some clout, I'd think.

As for his predictions, I won't be as bold as to say anything definitively, I'll just be open to assertions from either angle.

These are our opinions, so...

[Eric_Boyer]

It is only inevitable if we allow it to happen.

American history shows we don't have the stomach to lose America Lives unless our own nation is in jeopardy.

It is inevitable that at some point we will stop using our military to fight a political war in the region.

[Eric_Boyer]

Well, a guy born and raised and educated in the region does have some clout, I'd think.

As for his predictions, I won't be as bold as to say anything definitively, I'll just be open to assertions from either angle.

These are our opinions, so...

This is really a form of bigotry.

The guy lived in Lebonon - and has spent the last 17 years stateside.

he must be an expert in the region and the issues of the people in Iraq and Iran because of why? Because he lived in Lebonon 17 years ago?

He is the poster boy of the neo-con movement as it pertains to the mid east conflict. So I will read his take - but I wont treat it as gospel.

[Sasquatch]

Be that as it may, and fairly noted; the word of an educated man on his own people and region is worth considering, don't you think? .

Chalabi anyone?

[vta]

This is really a form of bigotry.

The guy lived in Lebonon - and has spent the last 17 years stateside.

he must be an expert in the region and the issues of the people in Iraq and Iran because of why? Because he lived in Lebonon 17 years ago?

He is the poster boy of the neo-con movement as it pertains to the mid east conflict. So I will read his take - but I wont treat it as gospel.

:lmao2: Bigotry.

'Living' in Lebabon is more than simply existing, as I'm sure you can attest from the experience you have of living in the U.S. Even more so if you had studied it and it's neighbors on the continent.

I don't know how he's a poster boy, he just writes articles stating his assertions. Does that make Chomsky a poster boy for the left, or simply a guy with views that he put forth?

I'm not preaching gospel here, I posted an article, relevant to current world issues.

[vta]

Chalabi anyone?

Come on Sas, you're more articulate than that.
What about him?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Come on Sas, you're more articulate than that.
What about him?

Actually I thought that same name when I was reading through the thread.

I think you know why he said it.:cool:

[Eric_Boyer]

Actually I thought that same name when I was reading through the thread.

I think you know why he said it.:cool:

I think we all were thinking it.

[vta]

Actually I thought that same name when I was reading through the thread.

I think you know why he said it.:cool:

Don't make assumptions, I make myself pretty plain in these discussion. I don't need to lie to anyone.

:cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Don't make assumptions, I make myself pretty plain in these discussion. I don't need to lie to anyone.

:cool:

Not accusing you of lying at all. Just figured you knew what he meant by it.

[burmafrd]

Interesting how some who are all for certain people writing articles that reflect their own point of view- and how many of them have ever even lived in the region. yet this guy- who did- suddenly is a neo-con.

[iceberg]

Interesting how some who are all for certain people writing articles that reflect their own point of view- and how many of them have ever even lived in the region. yet this guy- who did- suddenly is a neo-con.

on the other board i was told i need to put up articles for my information as to why i feel a certain way. i hate that practice and this is why. people have their opinions formed and a writer who doesn't support their views is bad.

so what's the point of putting up articles if all it does is shift the argument? never figured that one out.

[Eric_Boyer]

Interesting how some who are all for certain people writing articles that reflect their own point of view- and how many of them have ever even lived in the region. yet this guy- who did- suddenly is a neo-con.

search youtube - I recall a video interview where he describes himself as a neocon.

[vta]

on the other board i was told i need to put up articles for my information as to why i feel a certain way. i hate that practice and this is why. people have their opinions formed and a writer who doesn't support their views is bad.

so what's the point of putting up articles if all it does is shift the argument? never figured that one out.

In the absence of any tangible opposition to the meat of the matter, it quickly becomes about the guy who wrote the article, then degenerates down to the guy who posted it.

If anything it's telling.

[Eric_Boyer]

In the absence of any tangible opposition to the meat of the matter, it quickly becomes about the guy who wrote the article, then degenerates down to the guy who posted it.

If anything it's telling.

funny - I gave you something concrete to debate about.

On this particular essay by gripe is that what he feels would happen if we pull out is what I feel will happen no matter what we do.

And as I laready mentioned, several presidential candidates on both sides have basically called for a solution to do this very thing. Split the nation up and allow self determination of like peoples.

[vta]

funny - I gave you something concrete to debate about.

On this particular essay by gripe is that what he feels would happen if we pull out is what I feel will happen no matter what we do.

And as I laready mentioned, several presidential candidates on both sides have basically called for a solution to do this very thing. Split the nation up and allow self determination of like peoples.

I didn't read your replies to other people, but to further avoid any of that, I'll drop it.

As to dividing up the country, I don't think the ideas put forth were to have it divided up amongst longtime enemies of the U.S.

A Kurdish region, a Sunni and a Shi'ite region are what I think they had in mind. Not Syrian, Iranian and Turkish, and/or al Qaeda.

Iran is already boasting about filling the vacuum and America's presence is based on avoiding that possibility.

[Eric_Boyer]

I didn't read your replies to other people, but to further avoid any of that, I'll drop it.

As to dividing up the country, I don't think the ideas put forth were to have it divided up amongst longtime enemies of the U.S.

A Kurdish region, a Sunni and a Shi'ite region are what I think they had in mind. Not Syrian, Iranian and Turkish, and/or al Qaeda.

Iran is already boasting about filling the vacuum and America's presence is based on avoiding that possibility.

By creating a Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish "free zones", we are essentially drawing the neighboring states into the conflict. Turkey isn't going to sit back and watch as the kurds get their own country directly to their south. Iran is certainly going to play a role in any Shiite community that wields political power. The only way to preent it is to remain a presence in the region indefinitely, and the American People won't stand for it.

Nither of us ever bought the WMD angle for this invasion.

I was under the impression we both knew this was about reshaping the middle east in a manner that increases our "allies" in the region - and potentially using our newly aquired positions in Iraq and Afghanistan to wage a war or to engage in effective sanctions against Iran.

My problem all along is that removing Saddam left no other choice but to split the country. It was always a matter of when - as it is completely dependent on American Resolve, which I have little faith in.

[Sasquatch]

Come on Sas, you're more articulate than that.
What about him?

Sorry, a bit busy today. Not trying to be cute. Just meant that proximity to a culture, people, and history isn't a guarantor of sound judgment or analysis although in some instances it helps. How's that for going out on a limb? :)

[Sasquatch]

Hey Eric_Boyer ... I'm reading 1984 right now. Just noticed the quote.

[vta]

By creating a Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish "free zones", we are essentially drawing the neighboring states into the conflict. Turkey isn't going to sit back and watch as the kurds get their own country directly to their south. Iran is certainly going to play a role in any Shiite community that wields political power. The only way to preent it is to remain a presence in the region indefinitely, and the American People won't stand for it.

Nither of us ever bought the WMD angle for this invasion.

I was under the impression we both knew this was about reshaping the middle east in a manner that increases our "allies" in the region - and potentially using our newly aquired positions in Iraq and Afghanistan to wage a war or to engage in effective sanctions against Iran.

My problem all along is that removing Saddam left no other choice but to split the country. It was always a matter of when - as it is completely dependent on American Resolve, which I have little faith in.

Yes, your impression is correct. But I'm not 100% sure keeping an indefinite presence is what is in mind. With the other actions of the U.S. as a guide, it seems to me that the idea is to mitigate or otherwise neutralize the Iranian threat.

Turkey is on a fence, they have American troops on their land and on the surface behave like allies. Their inclusion in Iraq will be with American cooperation.

Syria is a lesser threat than Iran and as Iran goes, so does Syria. If America, either by way of war or otherwise, nuetralizes Iran, Syria will do nothing.

What Pharis is mainly talking about is a sudden or chaotic, as he put it withdrawal.

Like you said, what was inevitable would be that Sadaam wuld eventually be gone, and to fill the vacuum would have been U.S. enemies. The U.S.' best option would seem to be, get involved and try to deter this.

Despite all of the silly catch-phrase rhetoric he's known for, the key words in many of the Presidents speeches about the war have been in mentioning the time it's going to take, knowing full well the consequences of removing Sadaam and the effort it would take to face them and ultimately win.

I'm functioning under this impression, based on what I see.

[vta]

Sorry, a bit busy today. Not trying to be cute. Just meant that proximity to a culture, people, and history isn't a guarantor of sound judgment or analysis although in some instances it helps. How's that for going out on a limb? :)

You daredevil.
I'm not suggesting Pharis is the final word, just worth listening to.

[Eric_Boyer]

Hey Eric_Boyer ... I'm reading 1984 right now. Just noticed the quote.

I try to make it a point to read that book every 6-8 years.

Same with Atlas Shrugged and Crimes and Punishment.

They keep me centered.

[jterrell]

The author has written in previous works that this would happen.
He wrote it before 9/11, after 9/11 and before and after Desert Storm.

He is an educated man with a sense of the region but he hasn't actually lived anywhere near Iraq or Iran in about 25 years.

His best selling work is called 'a Future Jihad'.

This is political spin. Now the war is good because....

The war is not good, never has been good, and nothing suggests if we stay there 5 more years Iran can not at that time still infiltrate the Iraqi gov't.

Shiites account for the majority in Iran but also Iraq and could win a democratic election.

-------------------------\\\\\

By some estimates, approximately 10-15% of the world's Muslims are Shia. There are an estimated 130 to 190 million Shia Muslims[2] (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaidis) throughout the world, about three quarters of whom reside in Iran (which has the highest Shia population), Pakistan, India, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan.[3][4]

A large portion of the world's Shia live in the Middle East. The Shia Population of the Middle East[5] constitutes a majority in Yemen, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Bahrain and especially Iran, where 90% of the population is Shia, giving it the highest percentage of Shia Muslims of any country in the world[3]. In Lebanon Shia form a plurality, and they remain as significant minorities in Afghanistan, Syria, India, Pakistan, Turkey and Yemen. Among the smaller Persian Gulf states, Qatar, Kuwait (~30%) and the United Arab Emirates (~16%) also have significant Shia minorities, as does the (Eastern Province ~33%) of Saudi Arabia.

[arglebargle]

Yes, your impression is correct. But I'm not 100% sure keeping an indefinite presence is what is in mind. With the other actions of the U.S. as a guide, it seems to me that the idea is to mitigate or otherwise neutralize the Iranian threat.

Turkey is on a fence, they have American troops on their land and on the surface behave like allies. Their inclusion in Iraq will be with American cooperation.

Syria is a lesser threat than Iran and as Iran goes, so does Syria. If America, either by way of war or otherwise, nuetralizes Iran, Syria will do nothing.

What Pharis is mainly talking about is a sudden or chaotic, as he put it withdrawal.

Like you said, what was inevitable would be that Sadaam wuld eventually be gone, and to fill the vacuum would have been U.S. enemies. The U.S.' best option would seem to be, get involved and try to deter this.

Despite all of the silly catch-phrase rhetoric he's known for, the key words in many of the Presidents speeches about the war have been in mentioning the time it's going to take, knowing full well the consequences of removing Sadaam and the effort it would take to face them and ultimately win.

I'm functioning under this impression, based on what I see.

The bolded section is part of my problem here: I don't think they 'knew full well' anything about removing Saddam. There's pretty good evidence that they thought they would be greeted as liberators, the oil would flow, the country would be peaceful, and we'd only have a 40,000 or so troops left in our new operational bases in Iraq. They refused to plan for any adverse consequences, and censured, sidelined, or removed those who tried to counsel them otherwise. But then, they tend to only listen to those who tell them what they want to hear. Hence Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress....

(Is the author of the original statement related to them? His credibility would suffer then, imo)

The present problems in Iraq fall squarely on the shoulders of the present American administration, due to their hubris and short-sightedness. I don't think they have a solution either, I think they just desperatly want to hold on long enough to dump this on their successors, so they can then claim, 'Oh, we could have finished it up right!'

That said, I think the results of a precipitous withdrawal could well be exactly what the author describes. And with Eric, that that will probably happen regardless of our actions. We've put a corrupt, Iranian leaning government into power in Iraq, one whose interests are not nearly close to ours. They can just wait and win. I am pretty sure that the present situation is not the rosey picture that Wolfwitz, et al, painted to the President. Given that this was a neocon ideological underpinning from the 90's on, it is amazing to me how poorly thought through the whole enterprise was. Built on sand....

[vta]

The bolded section is part of my problem here: I don't think they 'knew full well' anything about removing Saddam. There's pretty good evidence that they thought they would be greeted as liberators, the oil would flow, the country would be peaceful, and we'd only have a 40,000 or so troops left in our new operational bases in Iraq. They refused to plan for any adverse consequences, and censured, sidelined, or removed those who tried to counsel them otherwise. But then, they tend to only listen to those who tell them what they want to hear. Hence Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress....

Well if you consider the actions of the U.S. outside of Iraq, namely having a military presence on all borders of Iran, I think you can see that maybe they did have something broader in mind.

Like I've said, the talk before hand was transparent. I knew it wasn't about WMD's, or liberating Iraqi's. Present already in Afghanistan, then in Turkey, followed by Iraq and finally in Azerbaijan and the Gulf, I don't think it was last minute scrambling. I think it was planned. Did they expect what's ongoing in Iraq? I don't know, if they did, like everything else they're keeping to themselves.

(Is the author of the original statement related to them? His credibility would suffer then, imo)

Related to whom? Chalabi and the INC? I don't believe so, his bio has him as a "Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies" in DC.

His credibility is open to scrutiny as much as anyone. I'm just open to the fact that he may very well be on the right track in his thinking.

The present problems in Iraq fall squarely on the shoulders of the present American administration, due to their hubris and short-sightedness. I don't think they have a solution either, I think they just desperatly want to hold on long enough to dump this on their successors, so they can then claim, 'Oh, we could have finished it up right!'

Yes, the responsibility does fall on this administrations shoulders and it appears they don't mind that. The problem existed before this administration and past Presidents (regardless of political party) chose to put off the inevitable: deal with a growing problem in an area that has intense American interest.

We can't deny our reliance on the regions resources. Not simply to drive cars, but to have the lifestyles we have. Why? Because instead of putting everything we as citizens have into surviving through energy, we get oil cheaper than the rest of the world and spend our time freer to pursue other things. Things which are petroleum based. The computers you and I are sitting at. The office chairs our butts are planted on and unless you're wearing 100% cotton, the synthetic fibers in our clothes and fabrics throughout our homes. The components of our luxury items. The components of our necessities. All petroleum based. Walk into a hospital and it's not only powered by oil, but the tools used are petroleum based.

Can thes items be replaced with our own natural resources? Of course they can, but it's either drop everything and retreat a few decades in our progress or ween ourselves off. We can damn our government in a lot of ways for a lot of things, but not in trying to safeguard the things which have propped up this country's strengths.

That's a bit of tangent, I know, but feel it's relevant.

That said, I think the results of a precipitous withdrawal could well be exactly what the author describes. And with Eric, that that will probably happen regardless of our actions. We've put a corrupt, Iranian leaning government into power in Iraq, one whose interests are not nearly close to ours. They can just wait and win. I am pretty sure that the present situation is not the rosey picture that Wolfwitz, et al, painted to the President. Given that this was a neocon ideological underpinning from the 90's on, it is amazing to me how poorly thought through the whole enterprise was. Built on sand....

It's not a neocon ideology, it just falls on this Republican administration to carry it out. You'll notice Congress' weak attempts to really fight for any change; just anecdotal talking points to keep the natives pacified. That's all we get, a lot of talk. They're not as divided as you may think or as they have made the population of this country.