Elonka wrote:
] I scanned it. It's definitely a different perspective, but I
] don't think it's been carefully thought through. And I think
] that anyone who thinks that Saddam and Iraq were "contained"
] or could be "controlled" or should be given power back if they
] "made certain promises" has a very limited and unclear view of
] the situation.

If that is what you are responding to, then yes, the proposal to re-enstate Saddam was not serious. Its a thought game. Are things actually better off then they were when we started?

] I won't argue the fact that things are messy in Iraq right
] now. Elections are going to take place. They
] won't be perfect (heck, ours aren't either!), but I think it's
] far preferable to stick to the plan and let the Iraqis at
] least try to decide for themselves what they want, than for
] anyone to propose putting Iraq back under a brutal dictator.

"Ours aren't either" is as gross oversimplification. We don't have a problem with vast areas of the country being too consumed with violence to hold an election in.

"I think that anybody that thinks that you can hold elections in the Sunni Triangle by the end of January is really smoking something." - Francis Fukuyama

"Bush's rhetorical flights notwithstanding, this will not be about building democracy. The one obvious lesson learned in Vietnam is that you do not do nation-building in the midst of a guerrilla war.

The United States will neither bring an end to the guerrilla war, nor will it bring democracy to Iraq."

- George Friedman, founder of Stratfor

Jordan's King Abdullah has said it will be impossible to hold fair elections in Iraq in the current state of chaos.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told senators it might not be possible to conduct voting in some places targeted by militants.

On Thursday, he told a Senate committee that if the election could be held in three-fourths or four-fifths of the country, but violence was too great for a vote in the rest of the country, “So be it. Nothing’s perfect in life.”

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Thursday that January elections “may not be 100 percent safe.”

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggested last week that there could not be “credible elections” if violence doesn’t abate.

The United States has been pressing the United Nations to send more people to Iraq to help with elections, but U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said this week that any such increase “is critically dependent on the overall security environment.”

-=-=-=-

3/4ths of the country. Would an election in the United States be credible if 1/4th of the geographic area (specifically the populous urban areas) were unable to participate in the election? Would your reasonable response be "So be it, nothing's perfect in life."

RE: BarlowFriendz: Exit Strategies (updated)