[Winstonm]

Sunday night on 60 minutes, General Abizaid made these comments:

Quote

"If Iraq destabilizes and moves to civil war, it will be a point where Shiite extremists and Sunni extremists will be emboldened and will achieve safe haven, and it will create a problem not only for us but for everybody in the region. That will only lead to more conflict, not less."

Do you think this is an accurate assessment? To me it sounds similar in nature to the domino theory from the Vietnam Era. How could a more severely destablized Iraq affect the stable regimes surrounding it?

Quote

"Victory in Iraq is the nation at peace with its neighbors. And Iraq hasn't been at peace with its neighbors in a long time. It is a country that respects the rights of its citizens," Abizaid explains. "It's a country that can defend itself. It's a country that's not a save haven for terrorists.

I cannot help but hear the tone of nation-building in this quote - it sounds to me like a statement of what the U.S. wants not only Iraq to do but the entire region - the sentiment of imposing our will instead of some type of detente with the region.

Do you agree or disagree with the General's assessment?

[pbleighton]

Abizaid's "domino theory" is possibly correct.

It also has little policy meaning, since the instability has got worse every year the U.S. stays. Does U.S. presence mitigate against civil war? The evidence strongly suggests no.

We've screwed things up royally, and have no way to put Humpty together again.

Peter

[Winstonm]

To get any stability in this land looks like it will require a total victory for either the Sunni or the Shiites - and how Iran and Syria can help is beyond me.