Oh, you're tough!  But this just makes it all the better :)

So I am unrealistic... for wanting to see Iraq at peace, for wanting the Middle East to move beyond the stagnation and cultural impasse.  Yes, I do severely lack an in-depth understanding of Iraq and the Middle East, both culturally and politically.  But that is because I am not Iraqi or Middle Eastern or Arab or Muslim or Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurdish.  And what I know of the region is through books, the internet, and the beer-goggled media.  And I think this is probably true of the vast majority of people.  In short, my lack of a direct relation to the situation means that I do not have a true grasp of the situation- so I should buy into the belief that Iraq is a last cause?  Utterly hopeless?

I understood your hyperbole very well.  I just considered it irrational.  To satisfy you, if a tyrant were to come to power in the US, I believe the American people would resist internally and welcome the help of other nations.  Yes, I really do believe that.  When we were under the rule of Britain (a tyrant), we banded together and fought, and we asked the French for help.  So the Iraqi people did not band together.  So we assume they wanted Saddam in power and despise us for removing him.   So lets withdraw immediately, and leave them with a new dictator.  How about a nice man in the way of Pol Pot?  Is that more to your liking?  Would you have us become isolationists once again?  Like Switzerland... they don't do anything, but at least they don't piss anyone off...

Ok, so the Iraqi people are not stepping up to reclaim their country (as you insist) because they don't want democracy (as you imply).  They want theocracy (which I don't believe clashes with democracy, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it does) and they are intolerant of any other religion or culture besides their own.  This splits Iraq into thirds... so lets split it.  What happens?  First we'll need to force many people to pick up and leave- to move into the appropriate religion "zone".  Second... what?  We leave them to form their own theocracies?  We leave them open to the influence of Iran?  We leave valuable oil lines vulnerable?  How about we just stop using oil all together... quit cold turkey (thus crippling ourselves in the process)... and leave the Middle East to fend for itself.  How about we break alliances with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other US-friendly countries?  How about we prepare for war on a scale as never before seen? 

Do you think that will bring the soldiers home?

Oh okay, we're just being silly now. I get it.

;)

No, I was being quite serious.  At this juncture, I consider the US to be a stabilizing presence rather than an instigating one.  And I, accepting that my mind is restricted by insurmountable ignorance on matters of humankind and the future, feel that this is an accurate assessment of a likely outcome.

But if you feel we've reached an impasse, then so be it.  It was a lovely debate :)

No silliness? Really!?!  [/Stan from Southpark voice]

All right then, I'll bite: what's your definition of "stabilizing"?

Based on your answer, please then tell me if you would consider missing 15 of 18 benchmarks set for Iraq either a good sign, or a bad one, as far as our stabilization goes?

http://www.reuters.com/arti...

All right, I'll bite back:  A presence is stabilizing when it prevents all hell from breaking loose.  We went in there and messed a lot of things up- why would we just leave it to degrade into something even worse?  Though how I got into a position of having to defend Bush's current plan is beyond me.  I've said from the beginning that it was faulty and needed to be changed.

I am reading up on the benchmarks, not having known exactly what they are.  This is the source I am reading from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
It appears that these are the areas we have satisfactorily completed (and I quote them verbatim):  (1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review, (2) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions, (3) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committes in Support of the Baghdad security plan, (4) providing three Trained and Ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations, (5) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] secratian or political affiliations, (6) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Iraq, (7) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected, and (8) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Benchmark vii, "Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq" is not recommended to proceed yet, even by the UN.  Benchmarks 10 and 11 would probably be of the most interest to you.

BTW, this document is an interesting read into the situation:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
And this is interesting too: http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
You might see them as propaganda, given the source, but they are an intriguing view into the situation from the viewpoint of the Executive Branch.

So I'll ask again: if the Iraqi government is determined to have missed 15 of the 18 benchmarks, does this mean "all hell has broken loose"? If the number of deaths in Iraq hasn't been reduced, if the necessary basic services (water, electricity, jobs) haven't been provided to the civilian population, if the number of young Iraqis being rounded up to "clear" an area has increased, do any of these mean we aren't as "stabilizing" a presence as once believed?

I'd also still like to know, in your opinion, how democracy can overcome the lack of national cohesion in Iraq. How long do you think it will take to bring tolerance of religion to Iraq, something that's necessary for a diverse people to live together without killing each other?

I think you need to seriously evaluate your definition of "all hell breaking loose".  Missing some goals does not mean that all hell has broken loose. (And BTW, I failed to find what the news articles were talking about when they said that only 3 goals were met- did you even read the benchmark assessment report? I posted a link.)  I believe I already went through the scenario of "all hell breaking loose" in a previous post and you considered it outright silly.  Apparently even though we are involved in a war in a region you consider to be not cohesive, you think that if we pulled out, war would be just "silly" and improbable.  We are stabilizing because, if we left there would be war and it would be a very ugly war.  If you would like to see what kind of weapons and armaments there are in the region, see this website: http://www.globalsecurity.o...

I don't know how long it will take for tolerance to come about- that is not something anyone can predict.  Perhaps when they remember that they are all human beings and recognize the rights of others.  It took the United States a long time to recognize the rights of women and Black Americans.  And we were a fully functioning state prior to this recognition.  Do you recall that America is considered a melting pot for the world?  We have first-hand experience in diversity and it has proven to be one of our greatest strengths.

Democracy by it's very nature is perfect for overcoming diversity.  The formal definition is: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.  Could you suggest a better form of government for a diverse population?  Democracy enables all citizens to have a voice- not just the elite, not just one religious group, not just one ethnicity.  Please, if you know of a better form of government, let me know.

I posted a link, also, which apparently you neglected to read. This is a telling omission, madkow. From the link:

"A draft of the report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said Iraq met only three out of 18 benchmarks, The Washington Post reported. The report is to be delivered to Congress on Tuesday.

The findings appeared at odds with a more positive assessment the White House gave in July that Iraq had made progress on eight out of 18 benchmarks."

So, based on past experience with the way Bushies twist & spin information, who are you gonna trust: the investigative arm of Congress, or the White House?

;)

We have no idea what will happen when we leave Iraq. Here's a pretty good essay covering the subject:

http://www.commondreams.org...

I hope you read this one. From the article:

"The honest (though not very satisfying) answer is that no one really knows what will happen in Iraq after the United States leaves. Interestingly, a poll in March found that a majority of Iraqis thought the security situation would improve immediately after a U.S. withdrawal. But things could also get worse — and anyone who claims to have a crystal ball is lying."

Here's another question for you to ponder: based on your definition of democracy, how does that mesh with the reality of muslim clerics & their involvement in government? Sure, we have the occassional minister who runs for congress, but they (pretty much) leave Leviticus at home when they decide how to vote. No one here advocates stoning mixed-fabric wearers, for instance.

Who are we to say that democracy is the best form of government for everyone? Maybe it simply can't work in Iraq because, as oohchild said, they have a much more theocracy based view of how the country should be run.

Honestly, I don't trust either the White House or Congress for delivering an accurate report- they both have their own agendas.  Likewise with the media (Reuters is well known to be liberal-biased, like many other media outlets [not that I would trust a conservative-biased outlet either]).  I don't trust the news stories unless I can read the document they are reporting on.  The reason I was going by the White House report is that I couldn't find the GAO report.  But, ah, then I looked over your article again and it said that the report hasn't been released yet- it is being released on Tuesday.  I withhold my conclusions until I can read the actual document.  If you can find a copy of the report, I would love to read it.

BTW, your news article stated :"We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from 'not met' to 'met'," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.  And this was a quote from Tony Snow: "If you're trying to do an overall judgment on what's going on in Iraq, the idea that somehow your standard is everything completed or nothing completed seems to me to be a pretty high standard to meet."  As you can see from the White House version, several of the benchmarks have benchmarks within them, and though some were deemed satisfactory, if there were any that were unsatisfactory they were marked as unsatisfactory overall.

I read the article by Common Dreams.org.  Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community.  The article was originally from the LA Times (gee, that's not biased...)  And it includes as it's main source the Center for American Progress... have you looked at their website?  Could you find a more biased article?  I include specific quotes: 

First, accompany a U.S. troop drawdown with strong support for a robust U.N. presence in Iraq, a move that even Shiite militia leader Muqtada Sadr has indicated he would welcome.  Yes, Muqtada al-Sadr, a man accused of murder and genocide... who wants to establish a Shi'a government much like Iran's...  sounds fascinating to work with.  And I haven't heard- does the UN even want to go into Iraq?

Then, get serious about engaging Iran, Syria and other regional powers in stabilizing Iraq. All have plenty to lose if Iraq falls apart entirely.  According to (your much hated) White House report, 80% of suicide bombers are foreign-born... and guess where they're coming from and how they're getting there.  What do they stand to lose if Iraq falls apart?  Perhaps that war and in-fighting would embroil the entire region?

Next, recognize that Iraq’s fate — and the continued rise of Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism — is linked to ongoing Arab-Israeli tensions, and redouble efforts to resolve that long-running conflict.  I'd like to see someone try and solve this one.  It's not going to happen anytime soon.  Arab-Israeli tensions exist due to the fact that Israel exists.  Or should we just take Israel away and kick the Jews out?  That would help, no?  (Don't bother with the "silly" argument this time... I'm being sarcastic.)

To it's credit, the report did mention allowing more Iraqis to enter the United States, which I 100% agree with as long as the proper security checks are followed.  But, question of questions, why would Iraqis want to come here??  I thought they all hated us and don't want to live in a democratic nation with a separation of church and state.

Sorry this is so long, but I have to address the final point of Muslim clerics and their involvement in government.  It has been my understanding that Muslim clerics do not directly participate in government, which is why Muqtada al-Sadr did not run for office during the elections (according to polls, he would have gotten 2% of the vote anyway).  And, really, is it so bad for government officials to involve religion in their official duties?  They are all Muslim (except the tiny, and decreasing, number of Christians).  Like you have said, a theocracy can be successful-- as long as they take human rights into consideration.  And, as a quest, find me one truly religious American politician that doesn't take their religion into account when making their political decisions.  We may have separation of church and state, but we do not have separation of church and soul.

Well, if you want to be technical about it, the US is not a democracy-- it is a Democratic Republic.  The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and it functions wonderfully.  Germany is a Federal Republic.  I think the main goal is that Iraq's government be based on a fair constitution that guarantees rights to every Iraqi; thus the first benchmark being "Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review" (rated satisfactory- by the White House review).  I'm not certain the review even mentioned a preferred form of government.

This is an interesting way to breakdown forms of governments:
Anarchy- rule by no one
Democracy- rule by majority
Republic- rule by law
Oligarchy- rule by minority
Autocracy- rule by one

Here I admit a flaw in my argument that democracy and theocracy can co-exist.  I was defining theocracy as a form of government having a state religion that influences the government and laws.  The actual definition of theocracy is either a government by divine guidance or, more commonly, a government by or subject to religious institutions and leaders.  Furthermore, theocracies are either oligarchies or autocracies. 

The elimination of the people's power, putting it into the hands of a minority or one individual, is frightening to me.  Maybe it isn't to other people.  But in a country where genocide has occurred to the minority, I would want the minority to have full rights, including the right to live.

You forgot one whose elements transcend most of those listed above:

Plutocracy - rule by the rich

I believe plutocracy falls under the category of oligarchy- and I read that the US has been accused of this (internally and externally).  Thus the corruption that most Americans feel is pervasive throughout all levels of government.  And thus why I argue for a smaller federal government and stronger state and local governments to increase our effectiveness at holding politicians accountable... but we've already discussed that.

Or are you arguing Plutocracy in Iraq?  I don't know how valid that argument is- I don't know whether the wealthy rule there or not.

I'm quite aware of the spin already being applied by the White House, madkow. Sounds as if you accept it as truth. Let me know if you ever change your mind when you read the GAO report.

Thanks for reading my links, BTW. I'm glad you actually responded to some of the points raised, since just trashing the messenger(s) as being too liberal really weakens your own case.

You asked what should be done instead of just supporting the surge; you wondered what our options were. I gave my response, & even showed you that there are alternative, well-thought out plans for redeployment. Throwing good soldiers into a situation that can't be fixed by security alone is insane. One commonly quoted definition of insane is: repeating the same action & expecting a different outcome. That's what I see us doing in Iraq.

Here's one last comment for you, madkow. You should read what JFK said about his personal religious beliefs regarding his performance as President. Remember, one of the chief complaints about his candidacy was his (supposed) allegiance to the Pope. How's that for an American politician separating his religious convictions from his political decisions? BTW, there's plenty of Catholic politicians who are pro-choice politically, but personally (& religiously) are opposed to abortion. Those are just some examples just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find plenty of others, if you still insist American political leaders are just as swayed by religion as their Iraqi counterparts.

 

If we get into a conversation of spin versus truth, we'll be here for a long long time :)  Every document/speech/etc coming from a government office that is meant for public ears is going to contain some amount of spin.  The reports coming out of Congress are no exception.  And I was happy to respond to your points- I wouldn't accuse someone as being too liberal, because being liberal or conservative is just a matter of opinion.  I am only annoyed when people are too near-sighted, close-minded, or emotional to the point that they are blind to logic.

I agree that pouring our soldiers into a bad situation isn't going to solve anything.  As I've said several times before, I don't agree with the way that the war is being handled.  I'm very glad you submitted a plan of action, and I put to question some of the points of that plan, because some of the points (the Arab-Israeli one in particular) were wholly unrealistic or ill-advised.

I'm still researching JFK, but what I have read so far, I know that he fully agreed with a separation of church and state.  He of course had to make that quite clear to be elected as a Catholic, underscoring some of the prejudice that Catholics have faced over the times.  But it would be easy to make the argument that by separating his religious beliefs from his political beliefs, he was being a bad Catholic.  Most religious people cannot make that separation and we elect people every election that do not make that separation- and I would be wary of a person that did easily separate them.  I think it is vile for a person to be against abortion personally but support it in public- that is two-faced and they are not trustworthy.  A true believer does not make the distinction between what they believe and what the public thinks they believe.