And, as far as I can see, my theory is just as proven as yours.

What theory did I express?

The fact you even saw a theory in my empty snarky remark, should tell you something.

Only New Orleans, Gulfport, MS, and Detroit lost more jobs in the last year than Milwaukee. Numbers don't lie......

He is doing it again. The ratbags have lost in Iraq. They are making a lot of noise and killing people but essentially they have lost.

He wants to get everyone together and have a conference. He wants to give credibility to those who deserve condemnation.

He has gone back to the 70s. A conference will extend the killing and give the ratbags hope that they can reverse three elections.

Ah. Well, there's two deadlines in Kerry's suggestion. In the post, I was reacting mostly to the second but in my response to you I was reacting to the first.

So, the May 15 deadline would likely cause and increase in attacks to make it harder to meet.

But let's say they meet it anyway. The second deadline would create a different incentive--to keep their powder dry until the U.S. forces left, under the reasonable assumption they wouldn't be coming back.

Without a deadline the attacks are just bumps in the road. With, anything that pushed negotiations past May 15 equals Game Over.

The incentive argument is plausible, to be sure. But deadlines are double edged.

Basically, we give the terrorists even more incentive to disrupt things if all they have to do is run out the clock for six weeks. A couple of well timed attacks could surely derail things past the magic May 15 deadline.

1. There's no actual national unity. Unity governments require some underlying unity of purpose.

2. The current incumbents don't need progress. They've already got jobs. The checks keep coming in. They still get to feather their beds with patronage; the ones in charge of Things That Go Bang (Interior and Defense) still get to attack their enemies and the ones in charge of Raking In Gobs Of Cash (Oil and Construction) still get to skim the cream off the top of ministerial business.

Actually agreeing to a new government puts the power and perqs of the "interim" regime members at risk. If there were some "accountability moment" looming - frex, if failure to form a government in, oh, 90 days meant a new round of elections in which the principals risked discipline at the hands of a disgruntled electorate - they'd have some incentive to make a deal, but so far as I know there is no such provision.

That's why Straw and Rice are a lot more anxious to get a new government officially formed than Messrs Jafaari and Jabr (among others). For the latter two, there's nowhere to go but down.

Kerry's plan, for all its flaws, at least provides a stick to thwack Iraq's elites into doing what we at least theoretically want: get their act together on normalizing the country's governance.

Things in Iraq are going a lot worse than that.

If you're right, it just proves that we have one of the most incompetant governments in history. If I'm right, our government is doing something that they should - protecting our national interests.

I know I should have expected that kind of response. To many, it sounds like one of those conspiracy-theory-nut-job rants. But after looking at all this for some time now, I can't find any better rationale. And, as far as I can see, my theory is just as proven as yours. Just remember, this is starting now and will be in full swing within 5 years.

Welcome to the age of the resource wars.

When hot air becomes the most cost-effective source of energy, watch out.

As an aside, Kevin Drum is right when he criticizes the administration for trying to do Iraqi democracy on the cheap

I am not sure about your characterization of Drum's criticism, James. His main point is that Bush doesn't give a damn about democracy in Iraq (and the middle east, for that matter)--Drumm argues that the record shows that he never has. Is this what you are agreeing with?