A few perceptions that seem obvious to me, but – as I read the newspapers - not to everybody:
o The elections in Iraq must take place as scheduled because they are essential to the Bush Administration’s single, overriding new goal for the Middle East – getting the Hell out of the quagmire.
The White House no longer requires a democratic Iraq. Its prayers are for any government stable enough to ask the US to leave, at which point we will run, not walk, to the exits. (Inking a few oil deals, maybe, before we ship out.)
o The Bush strategy on Social Security "reform" parallels its strategy on Iraq. Step One: turn a problem (Iraq/ long-term financial woes) into a crisis.
Two, push a policy (war/privatization) that will benefit your friends (military-industrial complex, including Big Oil/Wall Street).
Three, flavor liberally (!) with idealistic rhetoric (bringing democracy to the Arab world/creating an "ownership society.")
The Administration may achieve the same success with Social Security (destroying it) as it has in Iraq (destroying it).
o Re Iraq, why not give up on re-creating it? Why not three entities – Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish? Turkey and Iran would hate a Kurdish state making eyes at the Turkish and Iranian Kurds across the borders, but coping with that can’t be harder than it’s been trying to rebuild an artificial unity. Or have we created and/or imported so many terrorists there that none of the trio would survive?
o Re Social Security, I see no consideration in the press of the wisdom of moving big money into a system prone to thievery. The latest on that, January 14, from AP:
"Federal regulators are preparing to charge the New York Stock Exchange with failing to police the specialist firms that manage stock auctions on the exchange floor, thereby allowing them to cheat investors…."