it appears that the bush administration is in the midst of changing direction on iraq...the british are withdrawing, so there is pressure mounting in anticipation of an upsurge of violence in the south...the following assessment of the situation on the ground in iraq, summarized in today's guardian, is pretty grim:
source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2023865,00.html
so it appears that the bush squad is beginning to explore other, potentially more viable-to-sane avenues, including (a) engagement with iran and syria.
the following assessment from this morning's ny times includes recent changes in relation to north korea, and so wanders just a bit from this point:
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...hp&oref=slogin
now here's what it looks like to me:
a) absent a more elegant way of putting it, the shit is sliding toward the rotating fan blades in iraq. the present bushlogic for conducting this debacle is self-evidently as flawed as was their "evidence" for justifying this adventure in the first place---but at the same time, i can;t see a scenario in which the kind of collapse warned about in the guardian piece could possibly be construed as a good thing for the united states.
so scenario number 1: diplomatic overtures to alter the general situation are too little too late, or are not extensive enough to change fundamentally what is unfolding. what do you imagine the consequences might be of this, if this turns out to be how events unfold?
scenario number 2: the diplomatic efforts yield some fruit, and...well what?
i can't figure this one out yet--it seems to me that a wider net needs to be cast, something that would enable an internationalization of the occupation and an american roll-out---i dont see overtures to syria and iran as being big enough to enable that--so what do you see the thinking behind these moves as being?