=====================================================================================
Disagree - sharply.
Iraqi Shiites have as little use for Iranian Shiites as they do for Iraqi Sunni's. Iraq is still a country of tribal loyalties. If Iran could not win a war with a Iraq led by corrupt and incompetent (if ruthless) leadership, how would Iran succeed against a professionally-trained, competent, and newly-unified Iraq and Iraqi Army? Iran may support insurgents and make what trouble it can, but I don't think there is any support at all in Iran for "Iran/Iraq War II".
I actually think a Democrat is more likely if the Iraq campaign is more visably successful by 2007 (i.e. Iraqi military increasingly independent, and U.S. troops drawing down). Sort of like the Churchill (Winston, not Ward) effect.
Moreover, the "War on Terror" is not an artificial, U.S. contrived fabrication. It exists because state-sponsored combatants declared and executed war on the U.S. and Western allies, and have been doing so for some 15-30 years. It will continue whether the Iraqi pacification and independence is successful, and whether U.S. troops are out of Iraq or not.
As long as the war continues, the U.S. electorate will trust no Democrat to lead the country. Not one; none. The next President is not a Democrat unless the GOP totally botches the next election. I could see Congress changing hands, because the Congress under GOP "leadership" has been so ineffective, disunified, and feckless that there remains little cause for the GOP base to get out the vote. And of course, the Senate will be the first to return to Democrat hands. Until the Senior GOP "moderate" (a.k.a. liberal) leadership that has run the Senate since Bob Michels was the SML retires or are defeated, the GOP Senate will be useless or worse. If a GOP Senate cannot routinely and successfully confirm the GOP President's appointments, the GOP Senate is literally good for nothing.
SFS
Thank you for your excellent response.
"Disagree - sharply."
Fair enough.
"Iraqi Shiites have as little use for Iranian Shiites as they do for Iraqi Sunni's. Iraq is still a country of tribal loyalties."
Well, the news indicates significant high level contacts between Iraqi Shiite leadership and Iran. Accepting your view here for point of argument (I don't know much about it) why would this contact exist? Because the Iraqis are facing political reality. They are living in a sea of Sunnis in the Middle East. The greater tribal loyalty.
"If Iran could not win a war with a Iraq led by corrupt and incompetent (if ruthless) leadership, how would Iran succeed against a professionally-trained, competent, and newly-unified Iraq and Iraqi Army? Iran may support insurgents and make what trouble it can, but I don't think there is any support at all in Iran for "Iran/Iraq War II"."
This conflict would be quite different. Insurgiency (terrorism) and subversion would play a key role. The Russians are a big factor, with the GRU, FSB and Spetnaz playing a role, in my opinion, as they are participants in the current insurgiency (terrorism). (I have no verification of this, sorry). The last Iran/Iraq conflict was between 2 friends of the Russians. This one will be between a friend of Russia and an enemy.
I actually think a Democrat is more likely if the Iraq campaign is more visably successful by 2007 (i.e. Iraqi military increasingly independent, and U.S. troops drawing down). Sort of like the Churchill (Winston, not Ward) effect.
"Moreover, the "War on Terror" is not an artificial, U.S. contrived fabrication. It exists because state-sponsored combatants declared and executed war on the U.S. and Western allies, and have been doing so for some 15-30 years. It will continue whether the Iraqi pacification and independence is successful, and whether U.S. troops are out of Iraq or not."
I agree 100%.
"As long as the war continues, the U.S. electorate will trust no Democrat to lead the country. Not one; none."
Well, Kerry lost the election by 135,000 votes in Ohio. The Dems can win.
"The next President is not a Democrat unless the GOP totally botches the next election. I could see Congress changing hands, because the Congress under GOP "leadership" has been so ineffective, disunified, and feckless that there remains little cause for the GOP base to get out the vote. And of course, the Senate will be the first to return to Democrat hands. Until the Senior GOP "moderate" (a.k.a. liberal) leadership that has run the Senate since Bob Michels was the SML retires or are defeated, the GOP Senate will be useless or worse. If a GOP Senate cannot routinely and successfully confirm the GOP President's appointments, the GOP Senate is literally good for nothing."
I agree strongly with your views here. We have evolved to a new topic, but there is nothing wrong with that!
(I'm sure you share my happiness in DeWine's recent conversion to being a Republican and hope he continues to be.)