The solution that Diamond provided targeted at narrowing the base of insurgents in Iraq. Since this base draws strongly from Iraqis afraid of an indefinite U.S. occupation, it must be made clear to them that we are not seeking permanent military bases in Iraq.
“It has baffled me why the administration has been so reluctant to make a clear and declarative statement in this regard,” Diamond said. The only reason he could offer for this is that the U.S. has in fact been seeking permanent, long term military bases in Iraq.
I posted a comment on the website (so, does that make it a blog?) that went something like this:
Is professor baffled, or just being mendacious?
Professor Diamond says that he is 'baffled' why Bush hasn't said "no permanent bases" in Iraq, but he need not be baffled. I, for one, do not believe that he is baffled - he is being dishonest, and should be ashamed of himself. As a self-proclaimed 'expert' on Iraq policy, Professor Diamond would do well to read the tons of literature about U.S. military bases the world over, but as per Iraq, he can start with a simple little ditty from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html), which dicusses at least 12 'enduring bases'. It took Chalmers Johnson a couple of decades, apparently, to figure out how U.S. foreign policy worked (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm) - let's hope it doesn't take Professor Diamond quite as long. It's disgraceful that an evidence-averse organization like the Hoover Institute can 'occupy' Stanford. It's a tragic blight on the University, and Professor Diamond's mendacious observations show why.
One other thing he apparently said that pissed me off was this:
At the same time, Diamond stressed that the troops cannot withdraw immediately — in a matter of six months as one senator proposed — because it would cause an eruption of regional strife.
The conflict would have regional implications because Iraq’s bordering countries “think they have a stake” in what happens in Iraq, Diamond said. The Sunni countries Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to aid the Sunni Iraqis, while Iran would support the Shiite Iraqis.
Sometimes it's tough to tell when these wingers are lying, and when they're actually that stupid, but these graphs convinced me that he was lying - covering for Bushco.
Memo to Professor Diamond, this little thing we got going on in Iraq - call it what you want - I'd call it a 'conflict', or maybe a 'war', or something similar, but whatever it is, it already has regional implications. And if Iraq's bordering countries "think they have a stake" in what happens in Iraq, it's because they do. Is the Professor actually arguing that Iran/Syria do not currently have a stake in the final outcome of our Iraq invasion, as long as we don't pull out? Is this guy for real?