I have a couple of questions:
1. Bush says 'The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive
ideological struggle of our time.'
So his solution to this ideological conflict of our time is...refuse any dialogue with Iran and Syria - two of the most important players in this drama - and stuff a bunch more troops into Baghdad?
Doesn't it seem logical to approach an ideological conflict with ideas and discussions and negotiations with major players? I'm not saying force doesn't play a part somewhere, but gee it would be nice to see some more ideas applied to this ideological struggle.
2. We are giving incentive to al-Maliki to get his [censored] in order behind the threat of a troop occupation that isn't "open-ended", correct? How exactly is threatening him with something he wants supposed to motivate him to do these things? If my wife said, "If you refuse to take the trash out, I will suck your [censored]" I would refuse to take the trash out. Or is there some other reason I'm not aware of that a Shi'a leader who doesn't want to be a leader wants tens of thousands of foreign soldiers in his capital?
Interesting recent quotes from the man we're depending on to make this new strategy work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6226953.stm
[ QUOTE ]
In an extensive interview with a US newspaper, Mr Maliki said he would certainly not be seeking a second term.
A compromise choice, his tenure has been plagued by factional strife within both the country and government, and rumours the US has no faith in him.
"
I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term," he said.
"I didn't want to take this position," he told the Wall Street Journal. "I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, sounds like a man who's ready to take the tough steps necessary to help prop up this new strategy.