DescentBB

Negotiating with Terrorists

The Obama administration ignores a longstanding — and life-saving — policy.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

As the Iranian government’s murderous repression of the Iranian people continues, critics right and left agitate over the deafening silence of an American president who, as a candidate, derided the Bush administration’s ambitious democracy promotion as too timid. They speculate as to why Barack Obama won’t speak out: Why won’t he condemn the mullahs? Is he daft enough to believe he can charm the regime into abandoning its nuclear ambitions? Does the self-described realist so prize stability that he thinks it’s worth abandoning the cause of freedom — and the best chance in 30 years of dislodging an implacable American enemy?

In truth, it’s worse than that. Even as the mullahs are terrorizing the Iranian people, the Obama administration is negotiating with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization and abandoning the American proscription against exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages kidnapped by terrorists. Worse still, Obama has already released a terrorist responsible for the brutal murders of five American soldiers in exchange for the remains of two deceased British hostages.

Prepare to be infuriated.

Read the whole thing here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OD ... ZjNWI4Mjg=

Sell your crazy somewhere else. we're all stocked up here

Both sides in Iran want us to stay out of it, so any U.S. political hack who suggests that we get involved has suspect motives. We're not the end-all be-all of world politics. Not everything has to be all about us.

ThunderBunny in another thread wrote:What is sickening is that people have completely dropped the suffering of Iran's people at the hands of a ruthless gang of murdering mullahs to drool over the death of an (alleged) pedophile pop singer.

I’m posting this here instead of the other thread…for obvious reasons.

If all the people in Iran dropped dead tomorrow, I would still feel more for the “Pervert”, than the people who’s favorite chant is “Death to America”. (and I could care less about MJ)

You haven't been following the news Spidey. It is the theocracy in Iran that was anti-western, not its youth.

Lol, I'm a news junkie.

And a history buff, and the guy the “youth” is trying to get into office, is not much better then the fool that has the office now.

(supports the nuclear program & the revolution…etc)

So, what do you think we should do? Butt in and force them to do things our way? Apply more sanctions than we already do? Instead of accusing us of not caring ... help us find a way we can help that also happens to be a way that isn't wrong in the first place.

Oh, I know ... Let's send some military choppers over to airlift out the youth. It'd be just like what Carter tried to do to get the hostages released years ago. A BAD IDEA.

---- The point is, we haven't \"forgotten\" about the mess over there at all. It's just that we can't do much about it without butting in where we don't belong.

Spidey wrote:Lol, I'm a news junkie.

And a history buff, and the guy the “youth” is trying to get into office, is not much better then the fool that has the office now.

(supports the nuclear program & the revolution…etc)

The big reason to want the overthrow to take place isn't that the replacement is much better but to give momentum and weight to the idea that the people can rise up and effect a change in their government! Once the new guy was put in place by the citizens the mullahs would have to be very careful if they don't want to see a second and third wave of change that would eventually dilute their stranglehold on the country.

As it stands now the mullahs have succeeded in putting their boots on the necks of the citizens and broken their spirit even further. We have squandered a chance to help free the people of Iran from the tyranny of religious nutcases...a chance we were working toward and waiting for for decades!

Obama was afraid to swing the bat for fear he may strike out. It is a character flaw of his that will plague us until he's gone. He doesn't want to take those kind of chances because the only agenda he's ever had was the reparations movement he wants to punish and overthrow the wealthy and prosperous in America because in his tiny mind they are the source of the injustice and strife in this country.

The media has allowed the two party system to devolve into a self serving advertising war between two 'companies'. they failed to enlighten the public to what is going on, failed to demand of the public that they pay attention to the cause and effect of economic and social legislation and instead the journalism product they feed us is merely the running commentary like you get on a televised football game...'Wow that Clinton is a great speaker even when he lies!'....'Oohh that was a dirty shot by Gingrich'....'Obama has the crowd on their feet'...

So with no real journalism going on it's easy for the two party monster to drag down the quality of our representation to a damn beauty contest equivalent and who ever sponsors the beauty contest is in charge of the shows content.

Again, if you're suggesting that we should get involved to help the reformists, then you need to address a fundamental problem: not even the reformists want us to get involved. The reformists are just as highly suspicious of the U.S. as the hardliners given our history of past interferences with their country. Any involvement of the U.S. would immediately end popular support of the protests because it would legitimize the hardliners' claims that the protests are an attack on Iran backed by the West.

The last thing we need now is another conservative president spouting axis-of-evil rhetoric, the kind of rhetoric that hardliners have been using to get elected in Iran for years. I attribute the fact that there even are protests and the popularity of the reformist movement in general to Obama's silence about Iran preceding the election and continued policy of nonintervention afterwards.

If Obama's lack of intervention is a statement about his character, then it speaks to his wisdom and restraint.

Jeff250 wrote:....Any involvement of the U.S. would immediately end popular support of the protests because it would legitimize the hardliners' claims that the protests are an attack on Iran backed by the West....

I don't buy that all or nothing approach that the Obama team wants to hide behind. He didn't have to go all Dubyah style unilateral in order to give moral support to the reform movement.

He had no trouble saying this immediately:

Obama pledged the U.S. to "stand on the side of democracy" and to work with other nations and international entities to resolve the matter peacefully.

The problem is he said it about Honduras not Iran!!

He did quickly speak up about the Iranian situation too when it first happened but unfortunately he sided with the mullahs and so they crushed the rebellion instead of pausing to calculate what the implications would be with Obama leading the other nations to come together and put pressure toward a peaceful democratic outcome...like they are doing about Honduras.

Will Robinson wrote:The problem is he said it about Honduras not Iran!!

Show me the Mohammed Mosaddeq equivalent in Honduras. When radical Iranian politicians say that these protesters are puppets of the United States Government...they have history on their side.

Gooberman wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The problem is he said it about Honduras not Iran!!

Show me the Mohammed Mosaddeq equivalent in Honduras. When radical Iranian politicians say that these protesters are puppets of the United States Government...they have history on their side.

At some point you have to stand up for what you stand for.
Just because Germany at one time supported Hitler doesn't mean they can't have a foreign policy or a military.

Not putting any pressure on the mullahs is condoning their policy.

two minutes in the penalty box for envoking reducto ad hitlerum.

Goob, precedence does not mean reality. Iran's leadership is desperately looking for a boogyman to deflect attention away from them as their populace see the mullahs as living under their beds.

Ferno wrote:two minutes in the penalty box for envoking reducto ad hitlerum.

I think when the analogy compares yourself with Hitler the rule doesn't apply...
Either way the point is valid I think.
If the desired result of having a non-wacko Iran is a good thing then we shouldn't refuse to give as much help as is reasonable to those Iranians who seek to drive out some of the wacko's just because we once went over there with purely selfish intentions!

If there ever was a good time for Obama to try and spend some of that world wide political capital that so many people think he has then this was it but he did the opposite, he basically said 'I'll still talk to you guys when ever you're done crushing the rebellion'.

The excuse that the hard liners over there will point at the west and say we are meddling is weak. We saw they did just that even as Obama tried to be nice and turn a blind eye to their thuggery! Is he that naive or just doesn't give a damn?!?

I don't believe he could have turned the tide but he surely took away any momentum and hope the young people protesting over there might have had that the rest of the world would someday come to their aid if they pushed hard enough for an overthrow of the fundamentalist wacko mullahs and their puppet leaders.

Obama was handed a test and he flinched big time. It's only going to get worse, Kim ill mini me in N. Korea, Putin in Russia and god forbid China decides to test our navy over some arms shipments and Obama backs down....

I wouldn’t equate those scenarios, remember Obama said he would bomb Pakastan if we needed to. As much as I dislike most of Obama’s positions, I have to agree with this one.

And please don’t confuse not understanding the situation in Iran, with not giving a crap what happens there. (as an earlier post seemed to imply)

And I also understand “why” I should care, but I just can’t seem to muster any.

Will Robinson wrote: The big reason to want the overthrow to take place isn't that the replacement is much better but to give momentum and weight to the idea that the people can rise up and effect a change in their government!

Which explains Obama's failure to take the oppressors to task. He looks to abate the citizen's ability to rise up here in this country.

Jeff250 wrote:The last thing we need now is another conservative president spouting axis-of-evil rhetoric, the kind of rhetoric that hardliners have been using to get elected in Iran for years. I attribute the fact that there even are protests and the popularity of the reformist movement in general to Obama's silence about Iran preceding the election and continued policy of nonintervention afterwards.

If Obama's lack of intervention is a statement about his character, then it speaks to his wisdom and restraint.

Come on Jeff, you can't possibly know this. I'm sure that Chamberlain thought he was wise in his dealings with Hitler when he brought back "peace for our time" in 1938, but the "wisdom" of his approach began to be revealed when the Germans soon marched into Prague, and was utterly laid bare when the Stukas and Panzers crossed the Polish frontier only a year later.

If I submit to you that Obama's "lack of intervention" was due to cluelessness or lack of interest or any of a dozen other reasons that don't include wisdom, than I further submit to you that from our current vantage point that you cannot tell the difference. Perhaps you are right about Obama, but only the play of future events, and how he reacts to them, will reveal whether he has "character" or is merely stumbling along.

Yea Iran & Nazi Germany…I can see the parallel. Send in the troops, they’re right next door.

Seriously tho, I haven’t heard anybody say just exactly what we should do, without making things worse. Just a bunch of opportunistic Obama bashing.

Spidey wrote:Yea Iran & Nazi Germany…I can see the parallel. Send in the troops, they’re right next door.

Seriously tho, I haven’t heard anybody say just exactly what we should do, without making things worse. Just a bunch of opportunistic Obama bashing.

Establish a broad coalition of as many countries as possible to isolate Iran, use financial pressure, pass some sanctions that will be upheld to punish them, start patrolling their coasts with some serious naval power, plan to deal with their mining of the waters there...take out their hardware in that regard if you can to let them know you can get in... cut of their weapons shipments in and out, cut off other exports and imports as they need to be, broadcast intel, satellite images etc. over the internet to assist the rebellion. Covertly assist them materially. Call the mullahs bluff at every opportunity to show them as weak and nothing but bluster where applicable to let the rebellion know we are out here and have our heads in the game!
You know, grow some frikken balls!

It doesn't have to be the U.S. says live this way...it can be the whole civilized world refuses to let you continue spilling over into our turf with your poison. Go ahead and build a country of monkey worship if you want to but quit killing people in the name of the big monkey!

Iran is already blaming the U.S. for everything bad in the world regardless of if we do something or not. They already are building nuclear weapons as fast as they can. They have been engaged in large scale terrorism exports since the 1970's with the expressed goal of wiping out Israel and any who defend her. What the hell else can they do to make things worse that they aren't already doing?!?!

Or sit back and give the mullahs free reign to move back the cultural evolution of the planet where ever they can. Let them continue to fund and man terrorist groups in the middle east and repress their citizens in the name of some supreme being they think wants them to do all those terrible things. Oh yea and be sure you put out a press releases of how your inaction is the "smart thing to do" so your Kool-Aid drinkers have something to talk about while they sit around with their heads up their asses!

Spidey wrote:Seriously tho, I haven’t heard anybody say just exactly what we should do, without making things worse. Just a bunch of opportunistic Obama bashing.

Exactly.

Bee

Will wrote:Iran is already blaming the U.S. for everything bad in the world regardless of if we do something or not.

That's the point.

The strength in Obama's restraint, is that it creates a disconnect.

If any good has come out of this Iran uprising, it is that governments have learned that the days of being able to tightly control what their people are exposed to is over.

This is how the situation is vastly different from WWII/Nazi Germany. It is similar to when the Bible was first put into print, people didn't instantly leave their Catholic churches, but many of them saw this disconnect in what they read and what they were preached too, and over time, 'change' happened.

I believe YouTube/Internet is of that same revolutionary magnitude as people being able to read the Bible for themselves.

M. A. says Obama is interfering and that these protesters are Puppets of the American governemnt, and then the Iranians pull up YouTube, hear Obama's speech for themselves, which is something totally different, and in complete contrast from what they have been 'preached' too...

...the disconnect becomes obvious.

Will wrote: start patrolling their coasts with some serious naval power

If the Iranian government claimed that this was an American sponsored event, and Iranians saw "serious naval power" off of their coasts....it would make their case for them.

I'm sorry Will, but you are dead wrong on this one.

Gooberman wrote:...
I'm sorry Will, but you are dead wrong on this one.

I'm wrong only if you think the reformers will be able to take their country back by themselves and you think we should wait for it to happen! It has been close to 30 years since the religious nutbags took over and they have been killing people at home and in other countries since then.

Do you really believe that because of Obama's speech on YouTube they will suddenly see the mullahs for what they are and suddenly find the need to rise up? As if they didn't already have that need before, after all they did rise up BEFORE he gave the speech! Before your "disconnect".

As if they never even thought they had a problem until the internet revealed it to them? Or they never thought of seeking reform because the mullahs were telling them the only one pushing for it was evil America?!?

They want reform because they are living in a stagnant cancerpool of a culture right now. Unless you are an old long bearded cleric who thinks nothing except how to loyally follow the interpretations of the Ayatollah you have very few options living there. That is why they want reform, because they want a life and they didn't need to know America has a new sheriff or that he said he doesn't want to meddle in Iranian affairs before they would try and get free!

And we, as in the rest of the world, don't need to quit pushing for the mullahs to be overthrown just because we're outsiders either because the mullahs have attacked us too many times in too many places outside of their home countries to be able to demand sanctuary in their own homeland!

If all you people who once said "Yes invade Afghanistan because that's where bin Laddin is but don't attack Iraq because they aren't terrorists" then meddling in the affairs of Iran should be the number one priority on your list!!
For 30 years we've put up with Iran exporting it's islamo-fascist terror wing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards like a plague. Groups like Hezbollah are directly put in place and controlled by Iran. Iranian based terrorists have attacked people in more places than any other group in the history of the world!
If the mullahs are overthrown it would be the single greatest defeat for world wide terrorism ever!

Will wrote:I'm wrong only if you think the reformers will be able to take their country back by themselves

If the reformists don't want us to intervene, then why should we? This is supposed to be about helping *them*, right? But I guess we know what's best for them...

I think you missed the “without making it worse” part, Will.

See the problem here also is, you want a revolution, they just want a fair election.

Talk about exploitation.

I think you guys miss the bigger picture. I don't want the reformers to get a fair election for the sake of fair elections. I want them to reform their leadership and evolve a little and I think that involves throwing the mullahs out of power.
If a little bit of diplomacy got them the election turned around that would have been good. Too late though Obama already told the mullahs it's OK to crush the rebellion.

Taking the posture I described would be a sure sign to the reformers of a world fed up with the islamo-facists and one that is ready to back them up if they decide to throw the crazy mullahs out.

The posture Obama took was a sure sign to the mullahs that they had nothing to worry about from him.

Net result is Iran does all the bad things you say I would cause anyway and the rebellion is stopped dead (literally) in it's tracks.
Obama dealt us a loss in that round and with each tick of the clock the world grows smaller and more interconnected due to commerce and technology. As we all become closer we all become more vulnerable to the radicals.

Where we once could ignore the more uncivilized and backwards groups and their dangerous ways in far away dusty places we now have them launching practice nukes at us and sending out suicide bombers to pick us off.
We are their targets because of our secular based governments and equal rights and modern culture that embraces many foreign concepts and practices. The 'progressive' nature that some of you guys think makes Obama's policy so intelligent is the very ingredient that they hate about us.

So don't try and tell me we need to stop interfering because we make things worse! Simply by living our lives our way we are spurring them into their radical frenzy.
In this ever shrinking world even you 'progressives' will have to deal with them soon enough but what will their strength be when that day comes? Will Obama's youtube mojo save you then?

What I proposed isn't invasion, it's a show of strength and unwillingness to accept their radical ways. It makes them uncomfortable and the people under them can see the potential for change. Obama's lack of resolve showed them how helplessly alone they can be under the supreme leaders boot.

Will wrote:Taking the posture I described would be a sure sign to the reformers of a world fed up with the islamo-facists and one that is ready to back them up if they decide to throw the crazy mullahs out.

Will wrote:Obama's lack of resolve showed them how helplessly alone they can be under the supreme leaders boot.

These are all things that Americans would want others to do for us if we were in their shoes, but Iranians are not Americans.

You really have to come to terms with the fact that the reformists don't want us to intervene. We're not going to help them feel supported by doing the opposite of what they want us to do. If and when they do ask us to intervene (although I suspect that they never will), then we can reevaluate whether we should, and they will feel at ease in asking because we will have respected their wishes thus far. But for now, they would rather evolve their government through reform rather than topple it through a coup.

If you want to say that what the reformists want from us is wrong, then you have an enormous burden of proof to satisfy, essentially arguing that you know what's best for them. And even then, you would have to argue that even if you did know what was best for them, then we should violate their right of self-determination, for them to make decisions, even bad decisions, for themselves.

If the Iranian's are happy with Obama's nonintervention policy here, then it's hard for me to be unhappy about it.

You can fluff your position up however you want. Just don't pretend that you're doing the reformists any favors. Spidey's description of it as "exploitation" is appropriate.

Will wrote:Net result is Iran does all the bad things you say I would cause anyway and the rebellion is stopped dead (literally) in it's tracks.

Even if the protests are squashed by their government, then it will be temporarily, and it won't be because the Iranians will have lost their desire for reform, whereas if we do intervene, then we will invoke a sense of nationalism that will be electing hardliners for years, squashing not only the protests but any desire for reform for a long time.

If we learned anything in Iraq, it's that democracy has to be indigenous. You can't make a people more democratic by "patrolling their coasts with some serious naval power." Let the Iranians decide how to reform their government their own way. Not only is it the principled thing to do, but it is the most effective route for the reform of their government as well. How lucky we are when the two correspond!

It's not that I know what's best for them so I would like to drag them into a coup that suits America.

I simply want to be consistant in telling Iran, no matter who is in charge, that if you want to be a terrorist nation and export your terror then you will be contained, meddled with and picked apart in every way we can.
When you decide your leaders are the source of the problem throw them out and we will help in any way, large or small, that you want us to.

Look at how they use the Palestinians as their proxy warriors, strapping bombs on babies to attack the Jews. Look at how they have taken root in Lebanon by creating Hezbollah. Look at how they have forced their way into Hamas to control them. Look at how many terrorist attacks have been executed by Iranian based individuals and groups!
Their every move is of one goal and that is to perpetuate the violence between Jews and Muslims, maintain the fight and grow their numbers so they can overcome the enemy.
They laugh at Obama and his ego driven belief that he will show them he's different and be honorable and treat them with respect so he can win their hearts and minds! They see him as another arrogant American only less of a challenge and more of a fool.
Obama will let things get way out of hand and down the road we are going to pay the price that makes the war in Iraq look like a damn training accident.

Obama, nor anyone else, will ever negotiate the mullahs into peaceful coexistence. Coexistence is completely contrary to the mullahs whole reason for being!
Right now and tomorrow and the next day and every minute of everyday they are in power they will seek to grow stronger and become more and more dangerous to the world. Even in the beginning when they had no real world power they would send out squads of assassins to every region of the world to kill their enemies. Give them the power of a nuclear armed nation and they will become the biggest and most belligerent nation in the middle east. Pull out of Iraq and watch them filter in and rule it village by village until it is all theirs! They will take Iraq and that will make them even more wealthy and powerful. Saudi Arabia would never stand a chance against them so will that be when we return? After Iran has tripled in strength? Or maybe we let them have Saudi Arabia too....
Will Russia jump in to stop them so they can take over? Will we jump in then or let Russia use the excuse of saving the region and become the old Soviet Union all over again only this time with most of the worlds oil supply to support their new empire??

In Chicago a dozen people get shot every damn day! Illinois, Chicago, run by Obama and people just like him... it's a democrat liberal experiment and has been for decades...and it's a disaster!
He couldn't organize a damn city run by friendlies!! Do you really think he can do any better in the middle frikken east?!?!

Based on that line of reasoning, you should probably be happy he has done nothing.

Jeff250 wrote:If we learned anything in Iraq, it's that democracy has to be indigenous.

Oh, please... I guess Iraq is a failure, then? Their elections don't count because of our involvement?

If we learned anything in Iraq, it's that Iran's regime is currently waging war on us by proxy. I'm not saying the best response is to invade, but I do think the best response involves putting pressure on that regime in whatever ways we can. That includes making them VERY nervous about the American troops stationed just across their borders (even if the threat is made only privately.)

Iran is doing what I've been expecting it to do for the last 5-6 years -- the people are finally rising up against a regime that doesn't even remotely represent their interests. In isolation, I'd say we should just let that play out, but when you realize this is the same regime that's been exporting terrorists to fight our troops in Iraq, meddling in Lebanon, etc. I'd say it's in our best interests and in the interests of most of the world to nudge the revolution forward, whether through encouragement, hidden support, covert ops, or something outright. Exactly which bits of that comprise the "best path" is something for the experts to decide.

What “Revolution” all I see are peaceful protests, that are being squashed by force. Now that may indeed lead to a revolution at some point, but it’s a stretch for now.

I think the trickest thing for now will be…does the world recognize the president. This is the only legitimate opening the UN has at the moment. If the UN played its cards right, something could be done with that. (doubtful)

And the reason I say UN is because the US has no clout, with the current state of affairs between the two nations.

Spidey wrote:And the reason I say UN is because the US has no clout, with the current state of affairs between the two nations.

and the UN does???? the UN is a world joke. Heck its own member nations Ignore their resolutions or cannot agree with the interpretation of them. as long as Russia continues to support Iran, Iran will continue to give the rest of the world the middle finger. the same with N Korea and China, except it appears at least publicly that China is getting tired of Kim Jung Il we shall see.

Lothar wrote:Oh, please... I guess Iraq is a failure, then? Their elections don't count because of our involvement?

I still have yet to see any substantial democracy movement in Iraq. Voter turnout has been declining, and the Iraqis don't appear to be willing to own their government. It remains to be seen how well democracy will actually stick down there, but the question of whether they have elections seems like a false benchmark when they never resoundingly asked for this government to begin with. Is a democracy just getting people to walk into voting booths and pull a lever?

For us, the cost in terms of lives, resources, and occupation duration greatly exceeded what we expected, and we were dispelled of the myth that we can "liberate" even tyrannically governed countries and be treated as liberators.

With the advantage of hindsight, we never have not invaded Iraq. I can't argue that nothing good came from our invasion, but we did dispel our misconceptions about how easily we can create and sustain democracies in countries where democracy is not indigenous. The people have to want to be liberated first. It has to start from the bottom up.

Lothar wrote:If we learned anything in Iraq, it's that Iran's regime is currently waging war on us by proxy. I'm not saying the best response is to invade, but I do think the best response involves putting pressure on that regime in whatever ways we can. That includes making them VERY nervous about the American troops stationed just across their borders (even if the threat is made only privately.)

If we aren't willing to invade, then you think that we are better off making empty threats about our troop positions? That may or may not make the regime nervous, depending on how well they can see through our bluff, but it will always alienate the Iranian populace, including the reformists, electing hardliners in the process. The last time we stuck our nose in Iran's affairs, we postponed their political evolution by decades. Pressure for regime change has to come within.

Jeff250 wrote:we did dispel our misconceptions about how easily we can create and sustain democracies in countries where democracy is not indigenous.

I know it's hard to create and sustain a democracy anywhere. Congrats on dispelling your misconception and catching up, though.

It doesn't have to be easy to be worthwhile. It doesn't even have to work the first time to be worthwhile. Iraq isn't about merely creating and sustaining a single democracy; it's about leading the Middle East out of the Middle Ages. They may not build a perfect democracy; it may even fail. But the groundwork has been laid, and other more-or-less legitimate representative governments will rise in the Middle East. It will probably take decades for the transformation to completely take hold, but it will eventually stick, as long as we don't lose our will to encourage and protect those who are working to form their own governments of-by-for the people.

Lothar wrote:I'm not saying the best response is to invade, but I do think the best response involves putting pressure on that regime in whatever ways we can

If we aren't willing to invade, then you think that we are better off making empty threats about our troop positions?

I didn't say we need to be unwilling to invade, or that the threats need be empty, only that we need not NECESSARILY invade. Having troops on Iran's borders creates pressure on them even if it's very unlikely we'll invade.

Pressure on the regime has to come from within AND from outside. Exactly how we produce that pressure to maximum effect is a problem for people with more direct knowledge of the situation than me.

CUDA, I’m no fan of the UN, but this is their jurisdiction, not ours.

Didn’t you see the word doubtful in parenthesis?

Anyway, it’s a shame the UN is impotent…because what better way to do something without actually doing something. The president of Iran is their ambassador to the world…can you picture the scene?

Ahmadinejerk enters the room, but there is no place at the table for him…”I don’t see your name on the list sir, please escort the gentleman off the premises”

But you are right, it’s pretty much up to Russia to lead the way on this.

Lothar wrote:But the groundwork has been laid, and other more-or-less legitimate representative governments will rise in the Middle East.

If we want legitimate representative governments in the region, then we should recognize that a democracy that wasn't prompted by its own people not only has viability issues but issues of legitimacy as well. How can there be a democracy where its own people aren't willing to own it?

Lothar wrote:Pressure on the regime has to come from within AND from outside.

The problem is that repositioning troops might slightly increase the pressure from the outside but remove almost all pressure from the inside. It's not like I'm against outside pressure per se. But we can't ignore the values and desires of the reformists, the people who we are trying to help, especially when they are our greatest ally in the region.

“especially when they are our greatest ally in the region.”

That might be a stretch…

I’ll give you greatest allies in “that” country.

Jeff250 wrote:a democracy that wasn't prompted by its own people not only has viability issues but issues of legitimacy as well.

a minor issue at best.

The key is whether or not the Iraqi people continue to work with the system to seek to improve their representative government. The fact that we had to kick their own government out before they could form this one has very little to do with the legitimacy of this one.

You mention Iraq's voter turnout was down -- it looks like 7.5 million of 14 million registered voters showed up at the polls in 2009, or 53.6%. That's pathetic compared to the bastion of democracy, the United States... oh, wait, our typical voter turnout is in the mid 50%s for presidential elections and high 30%s for midterm elections.

Lothar wrote:Pressure on the regime has to come from within AND from outside.

The problem is that repositioning troops might slightly increase the pressure from the outside but remove almost all pressure from the inside.

Like I said, how exactly to produce that pressure to maximum effect is for people with more direct knowledge of the situation than me to decide. The thing that bugs me about Obama is that he seems content to not create or sustain ANY pressure through ANY means. I'm sure we could create a ton more pressure than we currently are without neutering the pressure from within.