Without particularly great insight or inside sources, I pass along the opinion that Iran is pulling so many strings regarding Iraq right now that its having a major impact on our policy and even our election campaign. Maybe a peaceful Tehran is more dangerous than a belligerent Iran.
There's been a lot of surprise and wonderment about why the Maliki government has done an about-face and demanded that the United States remove its troops by 2010 -- which came as a complete surprise to the Bush administration. On its own, the idea is not a bad one. The success of the surge means the Iraq army can protect most of its own land, our benchmark for when we start to pull out. And we need more military resources in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been more active than usual recently.
However, nothing in the Middle East happens on its own. The place is not a vacuum. Events always seem to be inter-related.
Therefore, my theory is that Maliki didn't just come up with this withdrawal idea just by himself.
A timeline of events clears the muddle:
-- Maliki needed to clear southern Iraq of Iranian-backed Shiite militants in order to continue improving the country's security situation, so he sent troops into Basra, the main city in the region. His troops were mauled until U.S. forces came to stabilize the situation. The extremists who held out for days suddenly leave after an accord is reached with the assistance of Iran.
-- Extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who lives in Iran so he's not assassinated, agreed to keep his personal army from fighting Iraqi soldiers.
-- Maliki continued his offensive, successfully, in the teeming Shiite Baghdad slum of Sadr City and in a southern border town that is the crossroads of smuggling from Iran.
We've called this series of events a great victory, and it has been for the most part. But how did Maliki turn what appeared to be a massive military setback into this stunning win?
He gained a ton of prestige from his success. What price did he pay for it?
The removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, that's what. Iran thinks it can delay nuclear provocations until after President Bush is gone, but what happens after that is unpredictable. The farther away heavy U.S. combat forces are from the Iranian border, the better for the mullahs. That the withdrawal scenario has played into Barack Obama's hands in U.S. presidential politics, so much the better. Guarantee that they'd rather deal with Obama, who wants to pull out, than John McCain, who will be confrontational.
The gains made in southern Iraq and other Shiite areas are hard-won and real. No disrespect for the soldiers who made them happen. But bigger political forces are also at play and could be pulling the strings.
---
All that said, it would be interesting to see if there was some miscalculation by the Shiites here. The people who live in Basra in particular are enjoying the new security situation and freedom to be themselves. While Iran and other Shiite leaders are biding their time before we leave and they take power again, the citizens in those areas might go too far along with their newfound freedoms and be far more hostile to the mullahs aims.
---
The first Atlantic hurricane to truly threaten the United States is finally set to arrive, possibly making landfall on the Texas coast -- in late-July. Can't wait for someone to blame global warming.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Reason For Split Between Public/Economy
Sen. Phil Gramm was right, sort of, when he said recently that America was experiencing "a mental recession," but the qualifier leads us to some places where John McCain's chief economic adviser is certainly wrong.
There's absolutely a disconnect between the public's perception of the U.S. economy and overall economic performance as a whole. While things have obviously slipped, things are nowhere near what they've been in the past. I've been through several recessions and slowdowns, and what we're going through right now is pretty typical. Unemployment, for example, is just a tenth of a percent above the average since 1990.
However, consumer confidence is at it's lowest point since 1980 -- right before President Carter lost his re-election bid thanks to high rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Yet, in macro-economic terms, we're nowhere near there.
Republicans such as ex-Sen. Gramm have failed for years to view economics from less than macro-economic terms, however. It's one reason why the GOP no longer controls Congress. At the family level, there's major issues no matter how well the national economy is faring. It's been going on for several years, too.
Very simple. EVERYBODY is stuck with higher food prices and higher gas prices. The half (I think) of us who invest our savings have been hit with lower stock values. Homeowners have seen the value of their property decrease. Some have suffered foreclosure. Rental costs are skyrocketing because of sudden demand. Some employees have lost their jobs and been forced out into a contracting job market.
So Gramm is idiotic to suggest that this is a "mental recession" because people are, at best, inconvenienced, and at worst, hurt severely. This is a sector-driven slowdown we're in, with financials and petroleum-based industries being hurt the worst. So we're not all here being wiped out. Those with the foresight to get their investments out of financials and into commodities a year or so ago are doing quite well. But those who are hurting were struck hard.
---
Who do you want to run our economy, Republicans or Democrats?
It turns out that despite the prodigious fundraising by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee has less money on hand than its GOP counterpart because they've been spending like crazy. Sounds like Congress. The DNC and Obama combined have about $92 million in the bank, McCain and the RNC $95 million.
---
The Jesse Jackson controversy lately has been funny. Reaction ran from "he said what?" to "he's still around?"
---
Republicans have a huge opportunity on the energy policy. If gas is still over $4 most places in November, it could cause a political version of an earthquake. But only if the GOP is smart enough.
Drill, drill, drill isn't going to cut it with the public. You can only take new drilling for oil so far. If Republicans smartly couple it with the promotion of development of fuel cell technology and credits for wind and solar energy projects -- which work on individual projects -- then they might have a shot at reclaiming some lost seats.
---
The New Yorker magazine cover with Barack and Michelle Obama was right on point, once it was explained to everybody. If you have to explain your magazine cover, it didn't work.
There's absolutely a disconnect between the public's perception of the U.S. economy and overall economic performance as a whole. While things have obviously slipped, things are nowhere near what they've been in the past. I've been through several recessions and slowdowns, and what we're going through right now is pretty typical. Unemployment, for example, is just a tenth of a percent above the average since 1990.
However, consumer confidence is at it's lowest point since 1980 -- right before President Carter lost his re-election bid thanks to high rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Yet, in macro-economic terms, we're nowhere near there.
Republicans such as ex-Sen. Gramm have failed for years to view economics from less than macro-economic terms, however. It's one reason why the GOP no longer controls Congress. At the family level, there's major issues no matter how well the national economy is faring. It's been going on for several years, too.
Very simple. EVERYBODY is stuck with higher food prices and higher gas prices. The half (I think) of us who invest our savings have been hit with lower stock values. Homeowners have seen the value of their property decrease. Some have suffered foreclosure. Rental costs are skyrocketing because of sudden demand. Some employees have lost their jobs and been forced out into a contracting job market.
So Gramm is idiotic to suggest that this is a "mental recession" because people are, at best, inconvenienced, and at worst, hurt severely. This is a sector-driven slowdown we're in, with financials and petroleum-based industries being hurt the worst. So we're not all here being wiped out. Those with the foresight to get their investments out of financials and into commodities a year or so ago are doing quite well. But those who are hurting were struck hard.
---
Who do you want to run our economy, Republicans or Democrats?
It turns out that despite the prodigious fundraising by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee has less money on hand than its GOP counterpart because they've been spending like crazy. Sounds like Congress. The DNC and Obama combined have about $92 million in the bank, McCain and the RNC $95 million.
---
The Jesse Jackson controversy lately has been funny. Reaction ran from "he said what?" to "he's still around?"
---
Republicans have a huge opportunity on the energy policy. If gas is still over $4 most places in November, it could cause a political version of an earthquake. But only if the GOP is smart enough.
Drill, drill, drill isn't going to cut it with the public. You can only take new drilling for oil so far. If Republicans smartly couple it with the promotion of development of fuel cell technology and credits for wind and solar energy projects -- which work on individual projects -- then they might have a shot at reclaiming some lost seats.
---
The New Yorker magazine cover with Barack and Michelle Obama was right on point, once it was explained to everybody. If you have to explain your magazine cover, it didn't work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)