Ok thanks Rev! Quoting: calin
Seems we are not going to see anything for some time.
You never know. Bear with me, now, because I'm going to put something out there that is more Kissingerian Realpolitik kind of stuff that may be unpalatable to most of our idealistic outlook on how Iraq should have turned out. Bush always said this was about bringing democracy to the Middle East, and I, and I think most of us, wanted to see that play out, but we're all adults here, and I think most of us know that wasn't what this was ever really about.
We've supported quite a few Middle East dictators over the years. Mubarak, the Shah of Iran, Saddam until he stepped over the line invading Kuwait, the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emirs of Kuwait and the UAE, Musharref. The list goes on and on. Heck, when you give them democracy, they elect Hamas (Palestinians) or the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt), which is basically electing Al Qaeda.
In retrospect, it may have been a little overly ambitious to think we could get Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, and even if we managed to get a power-sharing government in Iraq, who's to say we wouldn't just have endless squabbling, like we have now over getting to a power-sharing system? As long as Maliki plays ball, it might not be the worst thing that ever happened.
Hey, they already have more freedom in Iraq, under Maliki, than they do in most parts of the Middle East. They have a relatively free press, women have many freedoms they don't in other places (i.e. they don't have to wear burkas, they can drive, they can be outside the house without their husbands, they can hold office), and as long as you don't challenge the dictator, you really don't have much to worry about.
With the news about us supporting Iraq's exit from Ch7 just yesterday, the relative silence from the international community, and Talabani seemingly siding with Maliki today at the expense of the legislative branch, it may just be that the world has decided that Maliki gets Iraq, as long as he doesn't get too far out of line, just like his predecessor. Middle Easterners don't share power very well, anyway, and a dictatorship, for all its faults, is certainly a stable form of government.
According to the conventional wisdom, nothing was ever going to happen until we got power sharing, right? Power sharing, in its basic form, is really just AN outcome. Dictatorship is ANOTHER outcome. If nothing was ever going to happen until AN outcome happened, why not this outcome? The US has way too much time, effort, blood and treasure invested in that sandy hellhole to ever just walk away. Maybe our deal with the devil here is Maliki is the man, as long as we (US) get paid back for our trouble.