For those of you who missed the address last night--mainly: me--here is the lovely link to WhiteHouse.gov's video of it. Oh, you can trust it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.v.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.v.html
And yes, I still am completely inept at making links look intelligent.
I need to watch it completely and read some things. I actually am preparing myself to start that little project I mentioned a few weeks or something back. So...if you're reading, and you care, something good is yet to come.
Serious Side-Note: I do believe the carrier that was deployed to the gulf is the same ship that is now blockading the Somali waterfront. I mentioned, in a very short post, "Nuclear Ambitions Met with Maritime Strength", the ship's deployment in mid-December: "Naval carrier on the move, deployed earlier than planned to the gulf coast. Most likely, the carrier will not be used. Many are saying the deployment of this ship is simply to send a message to Iran." Maybe a little bit of luck, how we managed to deploy an extra ship to the Persian Gulf less than a month before we would be back in Somalia? It's interesting how these things happen. But, I may be wrong about that.
Also: I really wish I could be as amazing as Andrew Sullivan. That is all.
The Only Way Out is Through
Update:
My question is: if the Iraqi government doesn't step up as the plan is asking them to, what will we, the U.S., do?
I thought it was in interesting tid-bit I saw on CNN this morning, before I switched over to Comedy Central to catch The Daily Show rerun, that more American troops are going to be embedded within Iraqi brigades, training them as they go. Because of this, American troops will be able to invade neighborhoods and areas we were once unable to. We will be given the "green light", as Mr. Bush says. "Political and sectarian interference" is going to end, then? The Prime Minister has pledged that there will be intolerance for those forms of interference and that, therefore, more neighborhoods and cities "housing" insurgents and terrorists can be reached and dealt with.
In the address, the President was very forceful in demanding what Iraq must do. "America's commitment is not open-ended"...the Prime Minister is promising that Iraq will crack-down on policies and be more forceful when it comes to law. There will be a "well-defined mission" for our troops, and it looks almost as if we have a time-table, something like November for Iraq to take complete control. The whole plan revolves around Iraq, and its government finally taking that control of its nation. So, this raises the question of whether Maliki can be trusted. Sadr City is one of the neighborhoods American troops will finally be able enter; which is said will probably look something like the past few days' battle for Haifa Street. As I may remember hearing, Moqtada al-Sadr himself supported the United Iraqi Alliance during the 2005 parliamentary elections, in which the UIA obtained the majority of seats--140 out of the 275-seat National Assembly. The question is whether these ties--if they are in fact accurate and hold today--will affect the ability of embedded troops to reach Sadr City, and other areas like it, with any impact.
Also, there was mention of Syria and Iran in last night's address. From the way I see it, Iran is looking for an American/Iraqi failure in Iraq, so that, when the U.S. pulls out--having failed to over-come insurgent powers--Iran can move in--a second-coming of the Persian Empire, if you will. Syria, being the weaker of the two nations, is looking to get a strong hold within Iraq, so that if and when the U.S. pulls out, Syria can step up as an aiding force to Iraq in its weakened state. Syria, if unable to strengthen ties with Iraq, could fall short to Iran, and fall prey to its growing power. All of this, of course, is hypothetical, but in the minds of Iranian and Syrian officials, as well as in the minds of the citizens of both nations. Syria cannot allow Iran to grow as an imperialistic state; Iran cannot grow in power without expansion and nuclear ambition. And Iraq, if the government fails to step-up to America's demands, could tumble into advanced civil war and become the sickly prey of two power-hungry nations--neither, at this point, the United States.
Whether or not this plan goes over well with Congress, whether or not we are going to send more or bring home, I agree that Iraq needs to set up, take control, and trust their government to find their own way forward. I don't think it should be, or is, America's responsibility. If indeed Iraq wants to continue as a democracy, than they should meet the challenge and stand on their own. If they wish to find their own way of government, or attempt a different form of governing, than they should work toward it, discover it, and try to make it work...hopefully in a less-detrimental way than we've seen in the past.
To Pull Through, We All Must Trudge Through the Muck
Update:
My question is: if the Iraqi government doesn't step up as the plan is asking them to, what will we, the U.S., do?
I thought it was in interesting tid-bit I saw on CNN this morning, before I switched over to Comedy Central to catch The Daily Show rerun, that more American troops are going to be embedded within Iraqi brigades, training them as they go. Because of this, American troops will be able to invade neighborhoods and areas we were once unable to. We will be given the "green light", as Mr. Bush says. "Political and sectarian interference" is going to end, then? The Prime Minister has pledged that there will be intolerance for those forms of interference and that, therefore, more neighborhoods and cities "housing" insurgents and terrorists can be reached and dealt with.
In the address, the President was very forceful in demanding what Iraq must do. "America's commitment is not open-ended"...the Prime Minister is promising that Iraq will crack-down on policies and be more forceful when it comes to law. There will be a "well-defined mission" for our troops, and it looks almost as if we have a time-table, something like November for Iraq to take complete control. The whole plan revolves around Iraq, and its government finally taking that control of its nation. So, this raises the question of whether Maliki can be trusted. Sadr City is one of the neighborhoods American troops will finally be able enter; which is said will probably look something like the past few days' battle for Haifa Street. As I may remember hearing, Moqtada al-Sadr himself supported the United Iraqi Alliance during the 2005 parliamentary elections, in which the UIA obtained the majority of seats--140 out of the 275-seat National Assembly. The question is whether these ties--if they are in fact accurate and hold today--will affect the ability of embedded troops to reach Sadr City, and other areas like it, with any impact.
Also, there was mention of Syria and Iran in last night's address. From the way I see it, Iran is looking for an American/Iraqi failure in Iraq, so that, when the U.S. pulls out--having failed to over-come insurgent powers--Iran can move in--a second-coming of the Persian Empire, if you will. Syria, being the weaker of the two nations, is looking to get a strong hold within Iraq, so that if and when the U.S. pulls out, Syria can step up as an aiding force to Iraq in its weakened state. Syria, if unable to strengthen ties with Iraq, could fall short to Iran, and fall prey to its growing power. All of this, of course, is hypothetical, but in the minds of Iranian and Syrian officials, as well as in the minds of the citizens of both nations. Syria cannot allow Iran to grow as an imperialistic state; Iran cannot grow in power without expansion and nuclear ambition. And Iraq, if the government fails to step-up to America's demands, could tumble into advanced civil war and become the sickly prey of two power-hungry nations--neither, at this point, the United States.
Whether or not this plan goes over well with Congress, whether or not we are going to send more or bring home, I agree that Iraq needs to set up, take control, and trust their government to find their own way forward. I don't think it should be, or is, America's responsibility. If indeed Iraq wants to continue as a democracy, than they should meet the challenge and stand on their own. If they wish to find their own way of government, or attempt a different form of governing, than they should work toward it, discover it, and try to make it work...hopefully in a less-detrimental way than we've seen in the past.
To Pull Through, We All Must Trudge Through the Muck
2 comments:
Like it!! Nice post.
hehe I too just adore Mr. Sullivan. I so want to have dinner with him and pick his brain. He is smart and so very witty it drives me batty!!!
You see, I want to be like THAT. I want people to want to have dinner with me to pick my brain and be all driven batty from my wit and smarts. ...dammit.
I also want to be caught up in the news SO BAD...I am going to have to start getting up earlier, I think. Gah.
Post a Comment