The British, I think, just accepted that they can’t prevent the inevitable outcome of Iran’s domination of Basra. Iran is investing heavily there (Najaf airport and other develpment projects) Eventually, it might end up having to deal with the tribal and militia conflicts in the area to protect its investments. That would require bribes or funding. I’m hoping that Iran will overextend its economic capabilities with its outside projects.
This would be a great time for Europe and Russia to step up economic pressure on Iran, but, or course, they have their own agenda.

Because they know that the war is more unpopular than ever in the US, and that we may begin pulling out a lot sooner if they keep interfering. I think this pressure has been applied to Maliki-even without timelines and he knows the government would collapse without our presence. Its the last card we hold.

If you follow Juan Cole regularly, you’d see that Basra is actually little more than a den of local Shi’ite warlords who regularly shoot each other up, and who terrorize all non-Islamists. It gets much more play in the British press than in the American media because the British are around it. The South is nothing like the Kurdish North.

Engel mentioned that he believes that the Shiites are holding back to allow the US and Iraqi army to defeat the Sunni insurgency. They know that they will be the ones dominating the country eventually if they just hold out. That’s why Sadr disappeared temporarily. Its a smart move- why should they be fighting us and the Sunnis at the same time?

I had also read a while back that the WH was looking at lowering the goal in Iraq from democracy to stability, so that our military can be used for other global threats if need be. They know that a prolonged presence will spoil the GOP’s chances in ’08, and so will kill a few bad guys, declare victory and then start to follow the British out of the country.

I could be wrong and don’t have links (MSNBC.com has the Engel interview if you’re interested) but that’s what I think the plan is for the endgame.

I don’t mean to sound totally ruthless, but there is going to be a surge in bloodletting whenever the US withdraws. It seems to me logical to withdraw earlier…and then the US isn’t contributing to the slaughter at least. Get the mess of settling accounts out of the way, and the country might be able to move forward earlier.

I mean, I would hope you are right, but I do not see signs of Bush thinking beyond an open-ended committment. Just an add more troops and stay the course strategy.

Is there something I’ve missed?

Unfortunately, I completely agree. I find this extremely puzzling, as it seems to me almost supernaturally stupid.

A couple of years ago, I thought there was some game plan in place…a model or criteria for withdrawal…leaving a few bases/airfields etc.

“I take no pleasure in this. We simply have had a president who has been in way over his head from Day One. It is a tragegy of incalculable proportions.”

We can’t know until the histories get written, but my feeling is that you are correct in focusing on Bush. There seems to be something odd…stubborn…behind this business. No planning…just stubborness…that reflects his character.

God, what a business…

The U.S. has no endgame and never has beyond the vague notion of growing democracy and letting a central government run the show.

Growing democracy has been a sham despite the earnest wishes of a majority of Iraqis. The central government is a front for Shiite ethnic cleansing.

The U.S. ignited the fire that became the civil war and then has kept throwing gasoline on it. It is now in a position where it has to take sides. That would be taking sides with the Shiites even though its biggest friends in the region — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — are run by Sunnis. What a mess!

I am simply unable to envisage a U.S. endgame as have the Brits in a far smaller and far less turbulent corner of Iraq.

I take no pleasure in this. We simply have had a president who has been in way over his head from Day One. It is a tragegy of incalculable proportions.

By most accounts, the south of Iraq is quiet, as the Shi’a dominate.
Much the same can be said of the north where the Kurds dominate.

I doubt there are any conditions under which Bush would be allowed by the MSM to say the US job in Iraq was done. All the insurgents need to do is denotate one suicide bomb, and the media would point to it as failure.

But it does seem that way to me that the war is winding down, to be honest.

There is no possibility of a Baathist return. Saddam and his dynasty are exterminated. The Sunni cannot hope for revival, only survival. The government, corrupt and brutal like most in the region, is more secure with each passing day.

After this Surge/Sweep, it does not seem to be to be any constructive reason for a massive US presence that I can see. RE: Shaun’s quote of the British general, foreign troops would only be “exacerbating security problemsâ€?.

So what is the US endgame?