Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Malaki and the Next Big Thing in Friedman Units

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:43 AM
Original message
Malaki and the Next Big Thing in Friedman Units
Once we hit mid-summer, the strategy for supplying additional Friedman Units to the Iraq catastrophe took on two distinctive forms:

1) The surge is working, so another Friedman Unit will allow it to work
2) The surge is working, but the Iraqi Government is failing

The logical next step, then, is the replacement of the Iraqi government. This is what is going on now, and if you think it's gonna end the war, you're delusional. The drumbeat coming from the Very Serious People, including Great Seer Friedman himself, goes like this: If Malaki - an ineffectual leader - is replaced by somebody more forceful, then the two components of American Victory (tm) will be in place: military victory on the ground, and political victory in the formation of a stable government. THEREFORE, Malaki must go, and we must have another 6-12 months of war in order to allow the new government to take shape. Because, you know, you couldn't possibly pull out just when we - er, the Iraqi people - have established a new government, could you? This new line of reasoning explains the seemingly war-opposing anti-Malaki narratives that have emerged in the last few weeks, including among the Democrats (can anyone say hook, line, and sinker?). When Friedman publishes a gloomy assessment of the situation in the New York Times, you should not be fooled. He is merely angling for another Friedman Unit, and this one, dear God, shall work! When Senator Warner inveighs against the situation, he is merely setting up an argument that will prolong the war: Malaki Out, Six-to-Twelve months more, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yep - I agree this seems to be the way it will go
I guess those purple thumbs didn't turn out to be all that important after all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. So, we need two things.
1. More time. 2 or 3 Frieman Units oughta do.

2. Another Saddam Hussein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. So, a Coup de tête to get Malaki out and replace him with a U.S.
....selected strong man, perhaps someone with the same traits as Saddam Hussein. But that was who Bush took out and hung and spent nearly a trillion dollars and 3,800 American lives and 750,000 Iraqis killed and wiped his ass with the U.S. Constitution to establish democracy in Iraq for! Do I hear a :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. coup d'etat.
Coup de tête is more or less what they did to old saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Let's sing it: you say d'état and I say de tête ....Uhmmm...let's call the whole thing off
...bothe were sudden, both were by force and both were illegal, but mine was wrong! Thanks for the correction

Define: Coup d'état

a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A coup d'état (pronounced 'kū dā ta'), or simply a 'coup', is the sudden overthrow of a government, usually done by a small group that just replaces the top power figures. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system. The term is French for "a sudden stroke, or blow, of a state". ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. Change of gov't should be good for at least a year's worth of gracetime
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 11:27 AM by kenny blankenship
to year and a half. In fact we've already been down this road before. In the spring of last year, Nouri Al-Maliki was packaged as the "Unity Gov't" solution to the problems of the Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari. Jaafari was in office little over a year when an alliance of Kurds and Sunnis withdrew support from his governmnent.

So not counting the premiership of Ayad Allawi who led the interim government (after we handed over "sovereignty" to Iraq but before the Transitional Government which was to draft and ratify a constitution was installed), governments in Iraq are lasting only about 13 - 15 months. But when they are changed there is a flood of sentiment in the media about fresh starts and praising the new leaf turning; everyone is asked to set their doomsday clocks back at least a year out of respect for the new beginning that is taking shape in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. Malaki has to go.
He has been unable to deliver on the oil deal, its as simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. According to this logic, Malaki will be gone by Labor Day
It's not Friedman angling for another Friedman unit; Friedman gave up on the war. It's Bush and Cheney angling for one. Early on, Friedman was under the delusion that Bush and Cheney would fight the war he thought should be fought and bring American democracy to the Iraqi people rather than the one they planned, which was to bring Iraqi oil to American capitalists.

Other than that, this looks pretty good.

To sell Congress on extending the war by another Friedman unit, Malaki must be out of power by the time the Petraeus White House report on Iraq is presented. Then Bush and Cheney can argue that the additional troops improved security (at least where they were while they were there) and that there is now a new government in place that will (or might or could, maybe) have the political courage to unite Sunnis and Shias and Kurds under one free nation.

In the post title, I make reference to an American holiday. This is apt, since once again Iraq's future is being discussed in Washington without consulting Iraqis. Those idiots in Washington, both in the White House on the one hand and on the other those in Congress who refuse to impeach and remove them from office, are very used to paradox of touting democracy and not listening to the voice of the people. One real lesson from Vietnam to which Mr. Bush made no reference the other day is that political solutions for a nation's strife is not likely to be found in a foreign capital and certainly won't be found without the consent of people of that nation. The Vietnamese people did not want to be governed by a bunch of crooks in Saigon imposed on them by Americans.

The debate about the fate of Iraq is for the domestic entertainment of the American people. Unfortunately for the idiots in Washington, We, the people, are not amused. We learned that lesson in Vietnam. Why haven't the politicians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Never install a new puppet in August...
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC