Comments: Don't let the door hit you....

If the Iraqi Government wanted coalition forces out, the resolution would have clearly given an timeframe as opposed to the generic "specified timetable."

The language regarding "resistance is legitimate" gives the Sunnis cover to come into the political process. Given the tribal nature of the society, the Sunnis need a way to participate while still "saving face." Goodness, political posturing and compromising to get a consensus soundbite document out to the media by politicians running for office...sounds almost "democratic."

You choose to portray this story in a cynical light. This resolution is just posturing. -Another perspective would consider this action as good news for the Coalition and the pro democracy forces in Iraq. Given the country (most of the region) has only a history of authoritarian regimes, the agreement is a positive sign of cooperation. An easy one to be sure given a common foil; however, we are at the 10 year anniversary of the Dayton Accords and Bosnia is now just reaffirming the intent to move beyond the weak power-sharing structure set up by that agreement.

Shouldn't we be encouraging baby steps as opposed to looking at every event as an opportunity to knock something down?

Posted by Col Steve at November 23, 2005 08:51 AM

Yes, I'm cynical about it. We've heard so many lies and seen so much evidence of wrongdoing coming from the Bush Administration around this war that everything about it makes me cynical...except the body counts, which make me sad.

If the 'warring 'factions' in Iraq are coming to a democractic consensus on any issue, yes, it's a good thing. The fact that the one thing they're united around is the idea that they don't like us is not so inspiring.

(snip) (Okay. I went off on a rant, but I deleted it.)

Posted by Anne at November 23, 2005 09:57 AM

Anne -
It's a stretch to interpret the resolution words as saying they don't like us. What they don't like is US forces staying indefinitely to provide security as opposed to them - “immediately setting up a national program to rebuild the armed forces in a way that will allow them to control the security situation and put an end to terrorist operations.

Guess what? We don't want to be there indefinitely either.

Posted by Col Steve at November 23, 2005 10:39 AM


But I still maintain that the most logical interpretation of the resolution is to say, "they want us to leave."

It's hardly necessary to put forth a formal resolution saying, "hey, we'd rather not be an occupied territory forever and ever."

It isn't as though a nation needs to say that or the world will assume they're thrilled with being overrun by foreign troops, you know. I think most sane people just sort of assume that a nation doesn't want to be occupied by uninvited foreign troops.

And I still think there could be more to the "insurgency is legitimate" clause than you think there is, but I'm willing to stop for a while and consider the "face-saving" option you suggested.

Posted by Anne at November 23, 2005 11:29 AM