Seattle's finest...
Good editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today.
The title is: Iraq Occupation: This war can't be won.
Go down to the bottom of the editorial and check out the little poll they have there. When I participated, it told me that 65.8% of respondents had voted for immediate US withdrawal...
Helena
You keep seeing and show some editorials in same stream that this war not winnable...
Ok US also had same wars in Latin American; can you tell us if US wins those wars?
I believe Iraq will be in same status, same US polices that US set to occupied countries directly or indirectly through fake democracy (through native government but its set by US, as we see in Iraq and Latin America before and still their).
So as I see it just US through the dust towered our eyes to shadowy what they planed very well from DAY ONE for this war its clear now J. Gardner, followed by Paul Bremer III they had complete plan and understanding what to do.
What we see now it’s just a new touch for the final plan for Iraq future, in the realty just last month your house approved more billions for war in Iraq so if there is objections growing with the political ground how this money approved? How GWB convinced the house to get the money?
I think US administration says things apposite what they acts…..
Please don’t try to convince us that your campaign winnable one of opposing this war, it’s very clear it’s about MONEY, OIL, POWER to control the world…
This is kinda off topic, but not really. Did everybody catch the news that the Chinese have launched a hostile bid to acquire Unocal? The implications of this are staggering. It has already sent the editors at Forbes running for cover. What, did we say free market? What we meant to say was "before China gets too enamored with buying U.S. companies, we need to promulgate a set of rules of what we will allow and what is out of bounds." Yeah, that's the ticket. Otherwise, we'd be "selling our patrimony."
This is one of those moments in the life of orthodox Republican capitalist free marketeers when they suddenly feel the earth shifting beneath their feet and the world looks like a big scary place again.
"orthodox Republican"
Did they really religious? Or their religion MONEY..... MONEY..... MONEY.......
Just today
“Rumsfeld noted he twice offered his resignation to President Bush last year during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and that Bush declined to accept it. "That's his call," Rumsfeld added”
Poor guy…… he should transferred to The International Criminal Court not offered his resignation, for the war crime he is responsible in Iraq from 1985 when he shacked hands with Saddam and helped him with chemicals to the Iraq invasion crimes done under his eyes (without class, so he can not see what happened)
The other major news of the day was, of course, the 5-4 decision by the so-called "liberal" justices on the U.S. Supreme Court that poor and working class people's houses can be confiscated and given to rich people to build hotels, casinos and "upscale" housing. This is the first time I've ever found myself 100% behind Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in their dissenting opinion. Here's a link to the opinion. Read it and weep.
Sorry, Helena, I'll stop.
The newspaper editorial has a headline that says the war can't be won, but the content of the editorial is much milder, and really focuses on the idea that we should care more for the Iraqi people than perhaps we have. And to call for more financial aid.
One way, of course, to care for the Iraqi people is to make sure that the insurgents of Baathists and jihadis and power-hungry Sunnis does not take over the country. That is simply not an option.
However screwed up the process of getting into the war was, the fact is, that we are in it and we are now responsible for how it turns out. Leaving behind a huge civil war where the factions in Iraq are slaughtering each other in large numbers is not an option, either.
The US can draw down when the new Iraqi government is established and the Iraqi government has a much better control on the civil war (insurgency). The Baathists explicitly believe in rule by terror and the al-Queda style of rule is not too different and would be murder on the Shiites.
'Leaving behind a huge civil war where the factions in Iraq are slaughtering each other in large numbers is not an option, either'
Calling current situation 'huge civil war' is hyperbole, but I think we are seeing factions in Iraq slaughtering each other in large numbers already - and the Coalition policies are partly to blame for this (shaping a political culture centred on sect or ethnicity, favouring Kurds and Shi'a above Sunni, repressing indigenous political currents in favour of exiles, disbanding national army whilst tolerating some militias etc). Therefore I don't see much change if Coalition leave. Most of Iraq is already basically fragmented into micro-states run by the various militias anyway - for example, Badr Corps run most of Basra, with some Mehdi army and other areas whilst the Brits tend to stay on their base on the edge of town, patrolling intermittently.
"Those officials also should have paid attention to analysts who disputed the administration’s claim that “liberating” Iraq would resemble the post–World War II U.S. occupations in Japan and Germany. For example"
The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government
http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16
WarrenW
"The US can draw down when..."
Did you use it in meaning of: "Starting the complete withdrawal (of all troops)process" ? I noticed recently this term "draw down" having been used more and more - kind of substituting
(more clear-cut) "total withdrawal" term. Hm, is there any taboo here ?
Warren wrote : "However screwed up the process of getting into the war was, the fact is, that we are in it and we are now responsible for how it turns out. Leaving behind a huge civil war where the factions in Iraq are slaughtering each other in large numbers is not an option, either"
Dave has already offered a good comment, indicating that Iraq is already thorn by a civil war and showing of the Americans political strategy is largely responsible for it.
The hawks had a very clear strategy to bring the US people to war and also has one in order to continue the war.
During the first phase the hawks and war mongers lied to the US citizen about the real goals of this war, about how easy it would be to win and about how the oil money would pay for reconstruction. Their main goal was to get there, because once you have your boots on the ground it's difficult to get out.
During the second phase they painted everything in pink color, adding other lies to the first ones : see we are winning, see we are reconstructing, see how successfull the elections were etc. etc.
Third phase, when things begins to look worse and citizens get the first doubts : well, there are still some old nostalgic of Saddams regime and a handfull of terrorists, but we are in control, we are making progress, we are forming the new Iraqi police and army. It's more difficult than we assumed, but we have to stay the course untill the new Iraqi army is ready. We will leave when the job is done and the Iraqis are ready to take security in their hands.
Now it seems that we are entering a fourth phase, where people in the US begin to see the lies for what they are. Where citizens begin to question the reason of the war and the expected benefits, for US or for the Iraqi themselves. So now the government hawks have initiated another song : we can't withdraw, because because Iraq would fall into civil war and chaos, a chaos which could spread through the entire region. We can't withdraw because we it would be a blow to our prestige and power (ha.. finally a truth).
This is a clear hawk's strategy : the main thing was invading Iraq and bringing the military there. Then they can stay for a long, long time because it's more easy to begin a war than to end it. I'm sure that many Democrates will fall in that trap and refuse a withdrawal, fearing that US would be humiliated and weakened by such a defeat. Please US Dems' don't fall in the trap of the Rep hawks. Try to think in other terms.. I've much doubts concerning the UN solution proposed by Juan Cole, but it's stirring up a lot of discussion.
The Bush administration has no plans to leave Iraq, ever. The sole reason for this war was to have permanent access to mideast oil. For this they need a permanent presence of troops somewhere in the Mideast. Iraq was the easiest target with the most oil resources. The US is busily constructing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq which they will use to establish a hegemony in the region. They just ain't gonna give up on this.
Mark
"Despite the ongoing U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, the Commission has imposed another 33 billion dollars in war reparations against that country, which are yet to be paid."
Do you thing this money goes to the Kuwaitis really?
I doubt it, rethink again GWB or who ever come after him will draw US troops!!!
I believe this is a jock...
"Despite Regime Change, Kuwait Debts Keep Mounting"
http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=29171
"latest polling data do not indicate a ”tipping point” where the Bush administration may be forced to withdraw, in part because no credible leader has stepped forward with an alternative plan that can assure the public that withdrawal would not make the situation worse."
This is a worse disaster than Vietnam....in that case Nixon and his pal,Kissinger,could eventually meet the North Koreans;et al ,in Paris and made a deal and than run to the exits. In Iraq there is nobody in the insurgents ranks to negotiate with to end it all. I seem to have a memory of Osama Bin Laden saying that he would destroy the USA in Iraq as he destroyed the Soviet Union (with US help ) in Afgranistan ...we will now have to wait and see..and what then does the future hold for their Israeli masters !!!Just you wait and see ,as the old song says.
Dave:
The Kurds and Shiite are somewhat secure as long as the US is around. If the US is gone, and the Sunni/Baathis/Jihadist insurgency threatens to really take over, the only solution might be a much much more massive attack on the Sunni civilians and infrastructure. Otherwise, you are correct.
Andrew:
I don't know of any taboo nor why I chose those exact words. I think "draw down" was a phrase I read somewhere.
Christiane:
You are regurgitating a history as if it was all planned that way. They aren't that smart. I don't think the "Neocon hawks" really wanted to stay very long. I think they wanted a quick victory, a year or two of administration and out. Clearly, the Bush administration is playing it by ear.
The UN might do for Iraq what it did for the Congo. Or heavens, what it has done for the Palestinians...
Mark:
Permanent access to oil does not require permanent military bases in Iraq. In fact, the US had access to Iraqi oil before the invasion. It's all sold on the same market at market prices. In any case, the US can have all the bases it wants or needs in Israel, and that is certainly in the mideast. And from Israel, they can easily reach anywhere. Besides, the stealth and other bombers can reach anywhere on the earth from mainland USA.
The only reason for troops in Iraq before now was to protect Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran from SADDAM. And to get the UN inspectors in.
brian:
If the Israelis were the masters of the Bush administration, they would not be getting out of Gaza.
I see a lot of paranoia here today...
"Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11
Is it the time to stop these lies on the American and admitted Iraq war were serving a group in this administration only.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/25sat1.html?oref=login
I see a lot of paranoia here today...
I see you are so cynical in all your comments..
Dave:
The Coalition did not start ethnic-based politics in Iraq; Saddam did. The wisdom of purging Ba'athis can be argued both ways, but it's incidental that high-ranking Ba'athis are mostly Sunnis, the US did not start that.
And who could blame the Kurds for wanting autonomy?
"igh-ranking Ba'athis are mostly Sunnis"
Really? Then how do you explain the fact that about 2/3 of the faces on the U.S. "most wanted" deck of cards are Shi`is?
While American soldiers wandered around central Baghdad, Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf explained that the Iraqis were in full control;
“No, I am not scared, and neither should you be!” “Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected.” “Who are in control, they are not in control of anything – they don’t control themselves!”
Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf can be the symbol of what the war in Iraq was all about, I wonder if Defence Minister Donald Ramsfield become a symbol of US administration by replicating Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf , keep denying that US having trouble time in Iraq…
"House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) introduced bipartisan legislation today to repeal the 22nd amendment, which states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
ohh, is it true? GWB then will be president as long as he wish....
Ok US troop stayes in Iraq as GWB wish
http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=1028
"The only reason for troops in Iraq before now was to protect Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran from SADDAM. And to get the UN inspectors in."
So, how do you explain the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran were both opposed to the war?
And, it seems you forgot, the UN weapons inspectors were IN IRAQ when the war was started by Bush.
And there was no history of strife between shias and sunnis before the US army showed up. I think the Bush administration is playing "let's you and him fight" like they are doing in Lebanon and they did in South American countries for years and years.
No history in Iraq of suicide car bombers, although the CIA sponsored some ordinary car bombs back in 1994-95.
"The only reason for troops in Iraq before now was to protect Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran from SADDAM. And to get the UN inspectors in."
Oh Yah, 13 years US sold weapons to those stupid kings and Ameers in the Gulf on falls story that Saddam their he might come to you as he did in1991.
After the Kuwait back to this sick Ameer, Kuwaiti government spent 75% or more on Weapons all of it from US, in addition they had agreement to give a free oil supplies before and after the Iraq invasion (the Kuwaiti official visiting Washington next week to discuses this I believe)...
Saudis not better off than Kuwaitis they spend in early 1970, US$72 million paid to
Halliburton (Halliburton was at the edge of bankruptcy after Vietnam's war) to trained there special forces for what no one knows!
For 13 years the military spending for buying weapons just went mad and unjust, needlessly Iraqis were suffers badly because the inhuman sanction which all UN and the world said this harmed the peoples of Iraq not the regime, and then the Think-Tank in US demitted this was right…..
So this well known lies provided by US media and administrations sadly still peoples believe in all this funny things, they do not try to look to the reality what US up to in ME.
And, it seems you forgot, the UN weapons inspectors were IN IRAQ when the war was started by Bush.
The funny part of this story is when US invaded Iraq they refused to let the inspector in till now, they paid till now for doing nothing from Iraqi money
"Really? Then how do you explain the fact that about 2/3 of the faces on the U.S. "most wanted" deck of cards are Shi`is?"
Which ones? Do you have a cite for this surprising statistic?
http://www.answers.com/topic/most-wanted-iraqi-playing-cards
Full list is here. I count 18 al-Tikriti alone.
correction:
19 al-tikriti including hussein
Warren,
I'm not the only one to say the US invaded Iraq in order to stay there for years. That was a win win game for the Bushies : if things go as promised to the credulous US citizen, all the best. If not there is no exit strategy and the US will have to stay. Some experienced and informed military officials already said it in summer 2002 as is shown
in this report :
"Back in September 2002 James Webb, assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, raised a specter that has come back to haunt us. "The issue before us," he wrote in the Washington Post, "is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
"Webb had warned about our not having an exit strategy. In an August 2002 television interview, Charles Krauthammer, the well-connected columnist, explained why not. "We don't speak about exit strategies," he noted. "We are going to stay." "
Also, concerning the inspectors : if the US invaded Iraq in order to bring in UN inspectors, why did they prevent the return of the UN inspectors after the invasion ? Why did they block Blix and his other skilled inspectors ?
WarrenW wrote: "However screwed up the process of getting into the war was, the fact is, that we are in it and we are now responsible for how it turns out. Leaving behind a huge civil war where the factions in Iraq are slaughtering each other in large numbers is not an option, either."
Good of you Warren, to care so much for the Iraqi people. You along with Bush and Co. should get the "Good Simaritan" medal of honor, or something.
Sarcasm aside, let me ask you an honest question: what evidence is there of a civil war?
You suggest, as does the administration, that the insurgents are terrorists fighting Iraqis, when by all accounts it seems clear that it is Iraqis fighting against the U.S. occupation, and killing anyone who cooperates with the enemy. Logically it would then follow that our withdrawal would end the fighting.
But lets assume you're right and our withdrawal would precipitate a civil war. Why do you care? Why do Bush and Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al care so damned much about the "poor Iraqis?" The U.S. didn't care during Desert Storm when they bombed a civilian bomb shelter, incinderating 300 women and children in their sleep, they didn't care when they firebombed a retreating army on the "Highway of Death," they didn't care during 12 years of sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqi children, they didn't care during "Shock and Awe" that bombed Baghdad back to the stone age, a second time. They just don't give a damn about the Iraqis, and I strongly suspect neither do you.
So why all the pretense of caring so much.
Time to cut our losses and go home.