The Chicago Tribune continues to embarass itself. They have been beating the drums to have The Current President added to the faces of Mount Rushmore for all he has done to preserve Peace on Earth, keep our country fiscally strong, and protect our environment. Now in an
editorial they are practically begging other Arab nations to come and help fix the fine success Bush has made of the Iraq invasion. These bastards have no sense of shame.
Now For Something Completely Different....The Sox are making me crazy. Rick Morrissey has an intersting
column this morning. I find myself firmly in the camp of those who don't believe in the Sox. But I come by my pessimism honestly. Even in the ninth inning of the fourth game of the 2005 World Series, I didn't think the Sox would win. It was all too unreal.
The fact is though they did win. It was an amazing season, and quite frankly I don't ever expect to see it again. My only expectations now are for winning seasons, not necessarily championship seasons.
It's kind of like the Bears. The 2nd best sports season of all time was the 1985 Chicago Bears. No disrespect to all the great Bulls teams, but the city was truly on fire for the Bears. The expectations were that it was the first of several Bears champions to come. Then it all fell apart. But we'll always have '85.
Just like we'll always have '05.
I think you may have to have a log in ID to read the Trib editorial online so I am posting it here without their permission. I'm sure I'll hear from their lawyers."Iraq and Arab pride
Published August 9, 2006
A couple of months ago, soon after the new democratic government of Iraq was installed, hopeful reports surfaced that some Sunni insurgent groups wanted to talk. They were willing to lay down their arms, if the right deal could be reached. There was a sense that the new government, headed by the no-nonsense Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, could turn the corner, tamp down the rising sectarian violence, and save Iraq from a slide into civil war.
That hope seems to be flickering. Last week, two top U.S. generals delivered an intermittently gloomy assessment of Iraq's sectarian violence. The generals and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslim militias was taking a toll on efforts to bolster a new Iraqi government, restore security and begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular," Army Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and chief of the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "And that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."
You might have missed, though, what else Abizaid had to say. "Despite the many challenges, progress does continue to be made in Iraq and I am confident that there are still many more people in Iraq trying to hold the country together than there are trying to tear it apart," he said. He asserted that "the prospects of the militias over time disbanding are good."
And: "I believe the Iraqis are capable of succeeding. I believe they do want to succeed. I believe they are honorable people who want to live a better life and have security for their children just like we do."
As Abizaid noted, the security situation has morphed from a Sunni insurgency to sectarian violence, as "Al Qaeda terrorists, insurgents and militants compete to plunge the country into civil war." Some believe a civil war has already started. Some believe it is irreversible. In a bid to turn the momentum, the U.S. is sending more troops into Baghdad. The hope for significant U.S. troop cuts by September is fading.
Is Iraq a lost cause?
No. It is not, and more important, it cannot be.
Abandoning Iraq to the merciless militias and terrorists is not a strategy. U.S. forces that left tomorrow would be back soon, under even worse circumstances. An Iraq torn apart by civil war, a failed state, would be a homeland for terrorists worldwide, much as Afghanistan was.
There are encouraging signs that the Iraqi Army is standing up. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani recently predicted that Iraqis would take over security in all provinces by year's end. American commanders have praised the improving performance of Iraqi troops. In gauging the performance of Iraqi security forces, Brig. Gen. David D. Halverson, the deputy commander of the American division that oversees Baghdad, told a reporter: "I tell you this personally, the Iraqi forces have stood up and fought very well."
Iraq's chances, though, would be immeasurably boosted with some help from its Arab neighbors. Forces from Arab countries could function much as the U.S. troops do, as backups in many cases to Iraqi forces. How could Arab countries sell the idea to their populaces? Well, they could start with a simple notion: Iraq divided against itself cannot stand. The country that would benefit most from that disintegration is Iran.
Why can't the Arab world unite to help Iraq tame the violence? Why can't the Arab League declare that its policy henceforth is to send troops into Iraq, at the request of the duly elected Iraqi government, to help fellow Arabs create a stable state in the heart of the Middle East?
Yes, we know the reasons why they won't. We know that for autocrats in many of these regimes, such a move would be anathema. A thriving democracy in Iraq threatens their grip on power. These countries would rather take their chances with a nuclear and belligerent Iran than attempt to quell the flames in Iraq and be seen as helping the United States. The leaders consider that self-preservation. They're wrong."
