1. kuhnkat said:

In spite of the MSM propaganda, when we left South Vietnam it was able to DEFEND ITSELF. What finally undercut them to the point that the continuously USSR resupplied North Vietnamese army coud defeat them was the withdrawal of supplies and monetary support by the lefty US Congress.

I pray that we do a better job with Iraq than we did for South Vietnam. The cost in human lives was over 2 MILLION. We MUST do better with Iraq. The cost to the world in encouragement of the Islamofascists is incalcuable.

2. doc said:

The good Doctor Kissinger has a wonderful prose style, and he has some stuff correct. I'm sure that he is even more aware of the situation then I am, but he seems to have some stuff wrong. Or maybe they just are things that no man can say: There are no Islaamic extremists. There are just Muslims; they are all extreme.
He is correct in his assertion that a precipitous withdrawal would serve as an invitation to even more vigorous activity on the part of Islaam. He misses the understanding that nothing short of an enormous Muslim body count will bring about Islaamic moderation. After all, they have been doing this for 1400 years. They have suffered defeats before, and they are still at it.
He also seems to miss the point that we won in Vietnam. And we won in every conflict, and we helped bring the Sovietto it's knees.

3. Theway2k said:

This is one of the best insights I have ever read from Dr. Kissinger. There is one other point I think he missed though. I am hopeful that Iraq turns into one of America's premier allies in the Middle East because I think America needs a military presence in the area in case Iran begins any military adventurism. Between the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia and extremist Ayatolla Shi'ites in Iran bad things could turn. I do not think the Saudi regime is as stable as some hope it is. What happened to the Shaw in Iran could happen to the King in Saudi Arabia.

4. Yehoshua said:

We can't exit Iraq until we break the power of the Shiite militias-- dammit, why are the Bushies so stupidly oblivious to the disaster they're creating in Iraq? The very worst result in Iraq would be a government-- (pseudo-)democratic or not-- that's dominated by Iran-allied Shiite theocrats and their militias, like the Badr Brigades. This is exactly what's happened. Why couldn't the Bushies figure out why Sistani (who is Iranian-born, BTW) wanted the elections in such a jiffy? Because he could do so while he still had the ultra-religious, Iran-worshipping Shiites in Najaf, Karbala and Basra at his beck and call, able to practically demand that they vote for the UIA party that's shamelessly allied with Iran. Now the US has fallen right into Sistani's (and Iran's) little trap. Iraq is about to become an Iranian colony.

If Iraq is essentially handed over to Iran, then the interests of the US and Israel in the Persian Gulf are totally f***ed. No other country in the world today is more dangerous than Iran, and guess who's about to become master of the damn region, without firing a damn shot? Thanks to Bush, Condi Rice and Co., Iran is about to become a hegemon with the easiest ride to power since drunken Emperor Commodus in ancient Rome. Iran will have not only its own resources to draw upon, but also those of Iraq-- its vast mineral, oil and human wealth.

This is either stupid, or BushCo.'s secret plot to crush Israel once and for all. Maybe it's Bush's essential stupidity, or maybe it's Condoleezza Rice's elemental hatred of Israel (as some other posters have been suggesting), or maybe it's that the supposed "pro-Israel" neocons don't have the foggiest idea what the hell they're doing. But unless some policy changes are undertaken soon, Iraq is about to become the world's most dangerous place in the hands of a militant Iran. Before the US even thinks about leaving Iraq, the most important task is to turn our firepower and resources against the Badr Brigades and the other Shiite militias. They're the real threat in Iraq, not the Sunni insurgents.

The British in particular need to be doing this in Basra (the heart of Iran's power in Iraq), but so far, the British-- adhering almost perfectly to their historical role as useless, irritating, chickens**t meddlers who can't do anything right unless someone actually competent is covering their ass or bailing them out-- seem content to sit on their sorry asses in their bases rather than actually fighting the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army. Worse than useless! The Shiite militias need to be confronted and broken now, before they turn Iraq into the forward base of Iran's plans to smash Israel and control the region's oil. The Badr Brigades need to be target #1.

5. Ted Belman said:

A week ago I posted Telling it like it is. Kissenger is telling it like it is, so I posted my article again.

6. BobW said:

The article is dated 18 Dec 05. Henry references "Palestine".

Where is Palestine?

Kol tuv,
BobW

7. Ed D said:

Yehoshua, you are a man of my heart. You think as I do so I will not repeat what you stated. Under the precepts that Bush and Rice will protect Israel, I believe that they, along with their Satrap, Wish to destroy Israel and have the Muslims as Allies.

By the way, I believe that the Kurds are entitled to their own country. They have been mostly friendly with the US and Israel in the past. The control of the oil wells in the north would guarantee the supply to the US and Israel.