open Democracy News Analysis - Washington’s Iraqi anchor, Bob Burnett - Comments

hari_1 on "Washington’s Iraqi anchor"

hari_1 — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:58:33 +0100

My comment is rather simple. As long as Arab culture and civilization is not adequately or properly understood by POUS, decision-makers will be constraint to know ways and means to get out of Iraq quagmire which will remain GWB legacy in the region. One alternative proposed by the Iraq STudy Group was not followed simply because this WH is stubborn or black and white in its policy framework as it affects Arab politics. It has committed all its marbles to protect Zionism as its focal point of regional politics. APIAC has succeeded in forging WH decision-making, including Moosad intelligence, when Sharon sought and got GWB to boycot Arafat from visiting this WH. That, in my view, was the most serious error of judgement and histroy will have to deal with it. On current US politics, there's no shred of evidence that Clinton will do any better than GWB in the region. The Arab - divided between Sunni and Shia sects - will continue with their inter-Arab discord until Iran finally emerges as a nuclear power. At which time, the politics in the Arab world would have tilted in favour of Iran. Historically Iran is not an Arab culture but principally Persian and, therefore, with a different global perpective and understanding of the world around it including SouthAsia. It was an empire long before America was founded! It might just be the power to teach US some modesty in dealing with the Arab world. I've a very low opinion of above analysis since it's focul point is American policy NOT Arab.

Jack Schitt on "Washington’s Iraqi anchor"

Jack Schitt — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:45:20 +0100

So, after 18 months and a Democratic victory, we will see the end of Iraq as an issue? I can think of about half a trillion reasons why you are wrong. It´ll take more than unfavourable polling results to derail this gravy train. Without bothering to look up the details, I recall that all the major Democratic candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, and most recently they have been falling over themselves to threaten nuclear attacks against Iran. Some endgame. Sorry Bob, this kind of partisan analysis is tiresome and unedifying.

Washington’s Iraqi anchor, Bob Burnett

Grace Davies — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:19:09 +0100

In the face of President George W Bush's unwillingness to change course in Iraq, Democrats in the United States Congress have a choice: capitulate or attempt to stop the war. They've decided to battle Bush for the rest of his presidency. Their endgame strategy sees a win for Democrats no matter what move he makes.

On 17 July 2007, Democrats held a marathon Senate session in an attempt to force a vote on a resolution specifying a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This extraordinary proceeding was necessary because the arcane rules of the Senate dictate that voting on any subject requires the approval of a super-majority of Senators. After an all-night debate, Democrats were able to gather only fifty-three of the sixty votes needed for closure. As a result, Iraq policy discussion was postponed for two months amid increasing polarisation in Congress.
Bob Burnett is a writer based in Berkeley, California. He can be reached here Also by Bob Burnett in openDemocracy:

"A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"(27 February 2007)

"America's choice: imperial vs constitutional rule" (10 May 2007)

"The road not taken: the Iraq Study Group" (21 May 2007)

"Alberto Gonzales's cookery lesson" (30 May 2007)

"Bush's failed freedom agenda" (25 June 2007)

"Bush's Iraqi endgame" (17 July 2007)

Read the rest of this post...