But whoever succeeds the Bush administration... will have little alternative but to keep US troops in Iraq to help clean it up.

When does the official transition to clean-up duty begin? What constitutes cleaning-up versus whatever we're doing now? Can we just start cleaning up now so we can get out sooner?

Yeah, that part gave me pause as well. Seems a little like saying, "Now that you've given somebody AIDS, you have to stay with them until you cure them."

Apostropher: objectively pro-giving people AIDS and then deserting them.

Ted Koppel announces that the whole business is a terrible mess, but Very Seriously reaches the same conclusion as the hawks anyway. Colour me shocked.

So clearly Ted Koppel DOESN'T get it.

Our staying to "clean up" IS the Plan B - because it's a mess, we just gotta keep our troops there, along with out permanent bases - to keep them from ever working out a modus vivendi on their own. This is the recipe that keeps the pork brokers in charge and busy feeding the fat defense establishment.

So the secret here is that while we talk about wanting the local government to be "responsible", we are forever either enabling irresponsibility or actively blocking responsibility, since if they are responsible, thr troops and other pork can be cut back, and the pols lose what they can otherwise skim.

I think your complaints are misguided. Koppel cuts directly through a good number of the large sized bull turds we've been fed over the last 4 years, then laments what is at this point even a tactical reality: even a hastened withdrawal could not be completed, much less done remotely responsibly, before Bush leaves office.

Above and beyond that, it is not even close to a political reality for that speedy withdrawal to commence immediately. And whatever the least-worst option is, it will include a number of US military personnel still located within Iraq in a much lower-profile capacity.

even a hastened withdrawal could not be completed, much less done remotely responsibly, before Bush leaves office.

I understand that, I guess what I'm asking is: what do we have to do start the clean up process now? Even if the current administration has no plans of seriously reducing troop presence in Iraq, can us grownups have a conversation about all of the necessary steps to get out once that's possible?

I know there are real impediments to a speedy withdrawal, but I don't really understand all of them and I'm trying figure them out.

"it will include a number of US military personnel still located within Iraq in a much lower-profile capacity"

Where? In a massive embassy and in permanent bases?

So what problem have we actually solved, then?

it is not even close to a political reality for that speedy withdrawal to commence immediately

In part because talking heads like Koppel keep giving the numb repetition of the meme that the US must stay to "clean up the mess" a gloss of respectability.

Of course no withdrawal can be completed under Bush. The crew in power won't stand for it and there apparently exists no real means to restrain or discipline them, Congressional majority or no. But make no mistake, the occupation is the mess. It's time to start calling people like Koppel out for continuing to sell the depraved fantasy that it can "clean" anything up.

(I also suspect that with the possible exception of Kurdistan, the notion of keeping US bases open in a lower-profile capacity is fanciful. Iraq is not Germany or Japan; the cost of keeping such bases supplied and secure in the long term would likely be prohibitive.)

"Do you think we will just pick up and walk out of India?"
-Arrogant and pompous British bureaucrat

"Yes, I think that is exactly what you will do."
-Mohatma Ghandhi

It's really that simple, now as it was then. The faster the better.

11: Indeed, it really is high time the British got out of India.

12:

Oh come on you rascal, you know what I meant.

What similarities do you see between India during the 1st half of the 20th century and Iraq in 2007? Regardless, Mountbatten stayed on with his military entourage as Governor General until the Republic was declared in 1950, 3 years after nominal independence.

Iraq is an outpost of the American Empire, at best a client state and more accurately a colonial outpost. India was an outpost of the British empire.

When were elections held in Iraq? I think the Grand Ayatolla al-Sistani demanded them, when was it. Should be coming up on three years now.

The prize of this "colony" is an elevated price of oil for various vested interests in the US and in the Saudi wing (being facetious here, but only slightly) of the Republican Party. This price is kept high by keeping vast amounts of it off market and in the ground. Another part of the prize is an expanded geopolitical footprint measured in miles of airstrips; the more adversaries hear the roar of American F-15s overhead, the more they cave in to demands. Plus, if or when Saudi, Venezuelan, North Sea, and Nigerian crudes dry up, the USA gets to be in the catbird seat.

The prize for the British in India was control of global commerce with multiple ports of call and controlling the trade of its colonies. And they got lots and lots of tea from the deal, and could pat themselves on the back for "civilizing" them and carrying on that condescending Kiplingesque white man's burden.

No, not justifying occupation, just talking about the similarities.

It ain't a perfect match but there are definite parallels.

Here are more. The Indians wanted the British out. The Iraqis overwhelmingly want the Americans out. The British colonial system benefitted a few vested interests but eventually helped to bleed the UK dry of cash. The Iraqi colony is bleeding America dry, with a price tag numbering in the trillions. The British occupation of India lasted centuries. The Americans are planning on maintaining a presence in Iraq for at least 50 years.

Anyway, the biggest similarity of all is the sheer brass-balled arrogance of the mentality of people who want to maintain an occupying force over a very different people with a different language and history and culture.

No not perfect. I don't think Britain had the equivalent of Colin (Colon), Cheney (Dick), and George (Bush). ...if you've watched George CArlin you know the next few lines.