I recently put up the following comment at Obsidian Wings, responding to a post that propagates the simplistic "terrorist" causing problems in Iraq, which Joe's quick post here also seems to do. That comment applies here, and since I am interested in other people's opinions, and the comment was lost, as it was down in the low 40's, I thought I would repost it here:

My own opinion, is that a significant percentage (minority? majority) of the middle Sunni population is enraged by the change in government. This PARTICULAR population has been "occupied", and is resisting occupation.

I really don't believe that the Sunni population I am referencing is going to be satisfied by the Sunni inclusion in the new government, or satisfied by elections.

Now, I DO believe that the peaceful south, and of course the Kurdish north are not participating in the - you know what? I'm going to call it - civil war. You have an element of Iraqi society that was in power, and now is not, and this element simply doesn't accept the status quo, and are willing to fight, bomb, assasinate, until they are simply spent, or until they are silenced.

The most likely outcome, is the type of bombing we are seeing, continuing for many upon many years.

The only question, and I think it is about 50/50, is whether the current installation of the Iraqi government will be accepted by both the south and the kurds, given the continuing violence that will occur. At what point will these populations declare themselves independent? Or will these populations have a "token" support for the central government, while in reality governing themselves? This is similar to the situation in Afghanistan now, and it is also how the Kurds are setting themselves up.

So again, three situations:

1. Town to town "reconquering" of Sunni areas that believe they should be in charge of Iraq. Again, like all occupations (even the united Iraqi government will seem like occupiers to these Sunni). It seems to me this will inevitably fail - as all occupations fail, long-term.
2. Lip service to the central Iraqi government, with basically independent areas - Sunni, the Shiite south, a Balkanized Baghdad, the Kurdish north, and probably a couple of other independent city-states, such as Fallulah and Ramadi. Perhaps, in the long-term, this will eventually integrate into a greater Iraq, as the illusion of a central government slowly becomes a reality. But this is on the scale of 10-20 years.
3. The actual declaration of independence by various sections of Iraq, and the dissolution of Iraq proper.

I think the most likely scenario is 2 - with a large possibility of 3.

Now, what this means, is this low-intensity bombing and violence continues for the foreseeable future. I can't see an end in site.

You could still make an argument that this is better than a Saddam-or-Uday led Iraq. Vast swathes of southern Iraqis have better lives. The civil war that is being seen now, has been "held in" to a large degree by the brutality of Saddam Hussein. And this civil war could have been much worse without american troops. (and can definitely get much worse.)

By pre-emptively occupying Iraq - even given the violence that has been, and that will continue to be - the US has moderated the Sunni on Kurd on Shiite violence. And have done so, in a way that insures that the oil reserves that are in Iraq, are available to world supplies and world needs.

Yes, this is a far cry from the initial claims of the Bush administration. And this likely outcome is still worse than a lot of the Bush administration is, still, admitting at this time is possible.

But you can still claim that this occupation has:

1. Insured the availability of Iraqi oil in world markets for years to come. And the money from this oil will be (marginally) better spread out among various groups of the Iraqi population.
2. Pre-empted future violence and death in a Saddam-or-son controlled Iraq - whether internally in Iraq by Saddam, or administered through outside sanctions, and the deaths this caused through malnutrition and the like.
3. Freed up millions of people under a brutally repressive government.

Are these 3 accomplishments WORTH, the price? In money, in american lives, in the inflammation of passions in the region?

I don't know. Really, I don't even pretend to have any idea.

But we have to move beyond statments like the "terrorists", and it seems to me there is enough information about those who perpetrate the violence, to make affirmative statements about who is engaged in the violence, and who isn't.

Not so good news.

A British parliamentary committee called for more troops and resources to be sent to Afghanistan, warning the country could “implode” if its fragile situation is not shored up.

Yeah, any Bush supporter care to address this:

Report: Afghanistan could implode

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British parliamentary committee has warned that Afghanistan is likely to "implode, with terrible consequences" unless more troops and resources are sent to calm the country.

The all-party Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in a report released Thursday, said warlord violence and the struggle between U.S.-led troops and insurgents continues to be a threat to security in Afghanistan.

The wide-ranging report on the war against terrorism also said raised concerns over the failure of the UK government and its allies to limit the production of opium in Afghanistan.

"There is a real danger if these resources are not provided soon that Afghanistan -- a fragile state in one of the most sensitive and volatile regions of the world -- could implode, with terrible consequences," the committee says in its report.

Afghanistan, which is grappling with a growing drug trade and sporadic violence, is a key security concern for the West two years after the coalition toppled the militant Islamic Taliban regime for harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

There are about 20,000 U.S.-led troops and 6,500 NATO-led peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

However, warlords have yet to be disarmed and a Taliban and al Qaeda insurgency is persisting in the south and east.

"We recommend that the government impress upon its NATO allies the need to deliver on their promises to help Afghanistan before it is too late, both for the credibility of the alliance and, more importantly, for the people of Afghanistan."

The committee, chaired by Labour MP Donald Anderson, also stressed the need to do more to the win the war of drugs.

"We conclude that there is little, if any, sign of the war on drugs being won, and every indication that the situation is likely to deteriorate, at least in the short term," the report says.

"We recommend that the government, which is in the lead on the counter-narcotics strategy in Afghanistan, explain in its response to this report exactly how it proposes to meet the targets of reducing opium poppy cultivation by 75 percent by 2008, and eradicating it completely by 2013."

The report comes one day after the international relief group Médecins Sans Frontières said it was pulling out of Afghanistan after 24 years because of security concerns and frustrations with the U.S. military. (Full story)

MSF -- or Doctors Without Borders -- blamed the Afghan government for failing to catch and prosecute attackers who killed five MSF workers earlier this year.

The group had about 80 international volunteers and 1,400 Afghan staff working in the country before the June attack.

Marine Buissonniere, MSF's international secretary, told a news conference Wednesday in Kabul that more than 30 aid workers had been killed since the beginning of the year.

MSF also blamed the Taliban, who have specifically threatened its aid workers, and the U.S.-backed coalition for the unsettled situation in Afghanistan.

The coalition has "blurred" the image of aid workers as it attempted to "win hearts and minds," MSF said in a statement.

On Iraq, the committee concluded that Al Qaeda had turned Iraq into a "battleground" with appalling consequences for the country's people.

The committee said the coalition's failure to establish law and order in parts of the country had, in addition, created a "vacuum" into which criminals and militias had poured.

The MPs concluded that an insufficient number of foreign troops deployed to Iraq had contributed to the deterioration in security.

At a news conference, Anderson called for the international community to work together to improve the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and "to make sure that those who wish to wreck progress do not prevail."

"It's overwhelmingly important that we work together to make sure that if things can go either way, that they go the right way," he said.

He warned that the consequences of not ensuring peace and normality in Iraq "may be a failed state and regional instability."

"No one can pretend that everything in the country is going well," he said.

Asked whether the Iraq war had increased the threat of terrorism, Anderson replied: "Clearly there are elements of al Qaeda that are there that were not there before."