What year is it?

"It is the return of Realism in Washington foreign policy. You need the Iranians, as I maintain, for a soft landing in Iraq? So you do business with the Iranians. This opening may help explain why Ahmad Chalabi went to Tehran before he went to Washington, and why he was given such a high-level (if unphotographed) reception in Washington.

Likewise, it helps explain the Cairo Conference sponsored by the Arab League, the results of which were an effort to reach out to the Sunni Arab guerrillas. The Iraqi government even recognized that it was legitimate for the guerrillas to blow up US troops! This is a startling admission for a government under siege with very few allies. But it recategorizes the Sunni Arab leaders from being terrorists to being a national liberation force. You could imagine dealing with, and bringing in from the cold, mere nationalists. Terrorists are poison."
Juan Cole

The rumor mill is running full steam. There are rumors, on Rush today there is talk of Bush sounding the retreat, according to Rush it's not a retreat at all but the completion of the Bush plan. But it's not 1984, it's 2005. It's hard enough to believe that the Bush administration signed off on an agreement that legitimized the killing of US troops. I just can't bring myself to believe he would do such a thing, as at least to me, that would rise to the level of treason. Cole goes on to say

"But who cares? If the US dealing with them can get our troops home and prevent a regional war that screws up the whole world, it will be well worth it."

Worth it?