My comments on Saddamâ€™s death are a bit slow. I was just thinking that I hadnâ€™t said anything on it, perhaps because the moment was anti-climatic. Then I slowly realized the real implications.
Itâ€™s been nearly four years after the invasion;
I havenâ€™t made any wide-sweeping comments in awhile on
Joseph Bidenâ€™s largely sensible plan for decentralization, following the model of the Dayton accords, is probably also doomed because itâ€™s a Democratic plan; I canâ€™t see Bush, who has exhibited virtually no humility since his initial comments on the November elections, caving that far. More than likely, his new â€˜planâ€™ announced in January will be nothing more than fast talking and various stopgap measures to minimize causalities between now and 2008, when the GOP can throw the presidential election and blame the Democratic winner and Congress for â€˜losingâ€™ Iraq, thus setting the stage for the 2010 elections when they can retake the House and Senate.
I would be pleased, of course, to be proved wrong. Bushâ€™s upcoming State of the
T.E. Lawrenceâ€™s requirements for a successful insurgency, laid out in that odd book of his, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, still hold true. The most damning of them all is passive support of the populace. For every article or story I hear about how most Iraqi want â€œfreedom,â€ I think of all the other Iraqi – a sizable number indeed to support such such a prolonged resistance – that want their piece of the Iraq pie. As long as