The WaPo has a surge of its own—of reason, regarding Iraq
Yesterday’s WaPo editorial, “The Iraqi Upturn,” is an indication that improvements in Iraq have gotten so noticeable that even the MSM is having trouble maintaining its denial of that fact.
The subtitle of the piece acknowledges as much when it says [emphasis mine]: “Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.”
Now, why do you suppose the Wapo would jokingly caution its readers not to look, as though viewing news of success in Iraq requires a person to glance away or to peek through the fingers as though repelled by a sight in a horror film? Shouldn’t the news be welcome?
My questions, of course, are rhetorical. We all know the answer: success in Iraq means trouble for the Democratic Party and for its likely nominee Barack Obama.
The editorial is an exercise in walking a tightrope, acknowledging the major progress in Iraq and the fact that it challenges the Democrat narrative on the war, while trying to minimize the need to chastise the surge’s opponents for their lack of foresight and judgment.
Here’s how it works (quotes in italics are from the editorial):
There’s been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks—which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.
Odd? Hardly. That the lull in coverage coincides with the upturn in good news is no accident; it’s because good news reflects poorly on both the Democrats and the MSM itself. Does anyone think for a moment that if the news were bad—a bombing a day, and record casualties of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians—that there would be a similar lull in coverage, no matter how exciting the Presidential race might be?
While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran.
To reiterate, lack of coverage is not because Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere. Granted, the election campaign has been an unusually active one as far as news goes, but if the Iraqi developments had been such that they were advantageous to the Democrats and Obama, we’d be hearing no end of Iraqi news. And why does the Wapo say that military analysts were “astonished?” Isn’t this what they’d planned? Could it be that the Wapo editors might be projecting just a bit?
The editorial offers some straightforward reportage about the gains in Basra, Mosul, and against al Sadr. The piece also makes it clear that these advances are not just the work of US forces, but that the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate more than ever before and are becoming an effective force as well. Then we have the advice for Obama, including for the first (and only) time a mild critique of his nay-saying and the foot-dragging of the entire Democrat establishment:
[T]he rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments—and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama.
Yes, it ought. The editorial goes on to cite the testimony of General Petraeus that Iraqi forces are having tremendous success. The paper calls this news “inconceivable a year ago”—but neglects to add that it was eminently conceivable to Petraeus, the military, McCain, Lieberman, and their supporters; and was only inconceivable to the MSM, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Hillary “willing-suspension-of-disbelief” Clinton, and most Democrats.
The WaPo has a series of helpful hints for Obama:
[T]he likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
Excellent suggestions, as far as they go.
But the WaPo ignores the implications of what it’s saying. If Obama must change in midstream and admit how wrong he was (and adopt what is essentially the Republican/McCain position), what does this do to whatever might remain of the shreds of Obama’s credibility? What does it say about the edifice on which a great deal of his campaign has been built, his negativity on Iraq? What does it say about his judgment? What does it say about his lack of faith in America’s military? What does it say about the message of US defeat that he is ever so willing to give to our enemies, and that of abandonment of the Iraqi government during its times of struggle?
And what does it say about his opponent John McCain, who was on the money about the surge from the start, despite being in the extreme minority at the time?
And if Obama doesn’t change course and accept the advice of the WaPo, what does it say about his intransigence, his blindness, his lack of flexibility, and his unwillingness to admit error and regroup? After all, even the evil Bush was able to do so when he got rid of Rumsfeld and promoted Petraeus. Can Obama show at least an equal ability to learn from his own mistakes?
What it should tell the WaPo’s readers is that they should broaden their reading a bit. longwarjournal.org, strategypage.com, and various milblogs have been good sources.
Good old American know-how isn’t dead. It’s just in a coma induced by progressive education and faith in institutions ahead of one’s self. It’s time to wake that sleeping giant again.
What the WaPo doesn’t say is even greater, though. We defeated Iraq’s army and government. Now we are giving this “occupied” nation a new army, trained throughout to an effectiveness that the old one only approached in its most elite units. Take a deep breath and think about that. Right now, that sword is aimed at counterinsurgency. With further training and the activation of air support units (now underway) it will be keeping the mullahs of Iran up at night.
Pingback:Legalize Adulthood! » Pay no attention to the good news from behind the curtain, comrade!
Dimmicrats/Copperheads: “The war is lost. WITHDRAW.”
Dimmicrats/Copperheads: “The war is won.WITHDRAW.”
As an indication of the viewpoint of the Democrats, several years ago I received an unsolicited survey in the mail from the Democratic National Committee. The survey had only one question on Iraq, regarding withdrawing troops. 1) three months 2) six months 3) a year 4) two years.
is an indication that improvements in Iraq have gotten so noticeable ….having trouble maintaining its denial of that fact.
here its not the problem with maintaining its denial the fact is after more than five yeras when US went and invaded iraq with rossy promiss in that stae the distarction of state although we here what we heard of democarcy, food, travel in first massage to Iraqis how much it takes from a supper power to be with thier promissis.
Now we hear day after day we here more intersting talk what haoppen perior to war and during the invasion (you keep your maintaining its denial to them) but they are there in the media books and on the stareets.
Is there trouble maintaining its denial of that fact.
The Progressives want very much to deliver another defeat to the US as their forerunners did a la Vietnam. And of course blame the defeat on the US. What does it say about such a group that the only way they can gain the Whitehouse is through an unnecessary and engineered American defeat? It says they are the lowest of the low, feckless and utterly uncaring of the sacrifice by all concerned in Iraq.
We might also consider those who while not directly desiring defeat have spent an inordinate amount of energy bemoaning and second guessing Bush’s ‘mistakes’ during the waging the war. They have been giving fuel to the Progressives from the beginning.
No war or Commander in Chief has been without error, especially in the beginning. From the War for Independence through the Civil War to WW2 there have always been mistakes. Mistakes are inevitable – the norm.
Saddam made a mistake when he invaded Kuwait and compounded that mistake by not accepting defeat but instead standing defiant for 13 long years after he was driven out of Kuwait. What a dope.
It took Lincoln 3 years to find Grant – about the same amount of time it took Bush to find Petraeus. Now certain Progressives and pundits are sad over the prospect that Bush will be looked upon kindly by history. Disgusting.
Bush launched into what he described as a “confused” pep talk
Yes, but only confusing to those who were counting on defeat. What’s confusing about “kick ass!”? I’m amazed that an American General would find such exhortations confusing. Thank Providence Sanchez was removed early on.
OIL PRODUCTION:
_Prewar: 2.58 million barrels per day.
_May 25, 2008: 2.52 million barrels per day.
ELECTRICITY:
_Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 4-8.
_May 26, 2008 nationwide: 4,110 megawatts. Hours per day: 9.9.
_Prewar Baghdad: 2,500 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 16-24.
_May 26, 2008 Baghdad: Megawatts not available. Hours per day: 7.3.
_Note: Current Baghdad megawatt figures are no longer reported by the U.S. State Department’s Iraq Weekly Status Report.
TELEPHONES:
_Prewar land lines: 833,000.
_April 4, 2008: 1,360,000.
_Prewar cell phones: 80,000.
_April 30, 2008: More than 12 million.
WATER:
_Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water.
_April 30, 2008: 20.9 million people have potable water.
SEWERAGE:
_Prewar: 6.2 million people served.
_April 30, 2008: 11.3 million people served.
(Note: The number for sewerage has not changed in the newest SIGIR report.)
INTERNAL REFUGEES:
_June 1, 2008: At least 2.7 million people are currently displaced inside Iraq.
EMIGRANTS:
_Prewar: 500,000 Iraqis living abroad.
_April 29, 2008: Some 2 million, mainly Syria and Jordan.
___
All figures are the most recent available.
Sources: The Associated Press, State Department, Defense Department, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, The Brookings Institution, Iraq Body Count, U.N. High Commission for Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Working Group, International Organization for Migration, Committee to Protect Journalists, National Priorities Project, The Brussels Tribunal, Department of Labor.
AP researchers Julie Reed and Rhonda Shafner in New York compiled this report
Iraq oil output,exports hit post-war high
Sheikh Paul BremerIII refused to import and install new meters instead of those looted (oil fields were first places secured before and during the war by Special Forces includes Iraqi oil ministry) to be used for monitoring oil production/export of Iraqi oil
He left behind 100 Consultants to make sure those meter not installed, few months ago few meters imported but no one knows if it’s installed or not.
How they count the oil productions/export? God’s knows.
Let call call it progress now that Is there trouble maintaining its denial of that fact.
I wrote the following to my sister Nov. 27, 2007
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280108621532510
At the end of this article you’ll find the question I have been asking myself for somewhat longer than nine months now, to wit, “what will they do if we win?” I used to ask, “if we win” but at this point it really is beginning to look like a foregone conclusion, so how about “when” instead of “if”. I think the mere obviousness of the question should prompt ordinary prudence (the politician’s preeminent virtue, always consonant with his own interest) to demand a different answer than that which the Dems are offering now. “Don’t paint yourself into a corner” is one of the first lessons every politican learns. So, how can it be that these seasoned professionals have put themselves (and the rest of us with them) in this soon to be, if not already, untenable stance? Genuine, meaningful, philosophical questions about the ‘nature’ of reality aside, the overwhelming weight of evidence coming out of Iraq (not to mention the evidence that sits in the brains of all our soldiers, airmen and marines, who are, after all, voters; who will be coming home eventually: who are over there, experiencing the changes for themselves and who must be wondering, “what the hell are they talking about back in Washington and why are they denying the reality we’re living every day?”) will soon overtake the posturing, obfuscation and goal-post moving going on in the press and Democatic Party. So what then?
Of course I already know the answers the ideological enablers offer to the question “how can they have put themselves here?”…..like: “they have to do this to please their base”, “they just can’t stand allowing Bush to have a win”, “they promised they would put an end to this stupid war”, but it seems to me that these sorts of answers miss the point altogether or should I say, mistake the question? When the proposed solution to a problem is the metaphorical equivalent of “here, get in this car, drive it over that cliff and expect it to fall up”, surely it must occur to some sentient agent in the process to say “Wait. We need to stop and re-think this thing here”. Yet, I see no sign, not the tiniest hint of anyone in authority in the party stopping to try to find the right question. (There is one (D) congressman I can think of who has changed his mind on whether the surge would work, but he is a minor figure in the party without enough power to sway anyone else. This is what he got for his hopeful report on the ‘surge’ ). I mean, really, when I stop to think it through, it is stunning. Political parties are enormous co-operative enterprises with millions of adherents working together to find the right policy to fit their and the nation’s perceived interests. How can it be that millions of smart people can agree to take the one position practically guaranteed to blow-up in their faces? Yet here they are, still in the car and it is speeding right over the cliff edge. Again, they are in the car, not us, it is their future prospects, their very personal political interest involved here. It is a self-inflicted harm. So why? How? The major damage will be to them and them alone, yet they insist on proceeding to their detriment (which is not to say that there isn’t ancillary harm to the troops in Iraq and thus, to the rest of us, but I don’t think the Dem’s decision can even approach changing the ultimate outcome there).
I still don’t get it.
The one congressman (D) referred to in the previous post is Brian Baird of Washington state. On the same day I wrote that e-mail the Washington Post published a story by Jonathan Weisman titled “Politics Creates Odd Pair: Sanchez and Democrats”. Here are the first to paragraphs:
“It may be among the strangest of political alliances: a former commanding general in Iraq, blocked from a fourth star and forced into retirement partly for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the speaker of the House, desperate to end a war that the general helped start.
But in partisan Washington, the enemy of one’s enemy can quickly become a friend, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the new marriage of convenience between Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez.”
True to form, Gen. Sanchez was advising Speaker Pelosi last Fall that the “surge” was a failure. Today, on his book selling tour of the MSM he says (with caveats) that the surge has succeeded. What will Mrs. Pelosi say about her advisers about face? She won’t be asked.
I never once doubted American military could pull this off. Hell it was my son, and his friend down the street, and the quirky kid from the next block over.
I can’t help but throw up a little bit in my mouth just thinking about how these self agrandizing democrats have denigrated these fine young men and their mission.
Dems never understood
1) talented Iraqi Army commanders existed who wanted their nation to be free
2) those commanders were being identified, trained, and seasoned even as the bumpy times of 2005 and 2006 progressed.
3) once those commanders were vertically integrated throughout Iraqi Army brigades and regiments: it was going to be a new day for the bad guys in Iraq.
I have always waited on the Iraqi Army to be operational enough and large enough to win the day(with backing of American firepower).
I read, all through 2005 and 2006, that the problem was, especially, the development of commanders and command structure inside the Iraqi Army. Not only did loyal and dependable leaders need to emerge (all through the integrated vertical structure of command), but those leaders needed training and seasoning. I read, in several places, this training and seasoning took a couple of years. It could not and would not emerge overnight. An
Army needs talented and dependable commanders through all levels: from the ground up to the top.
Gen. Petraeus actually commanded the effort to build the Iraqi Army – from Oct 2004 to Sept 2005 – as head of NATO Training Mission- Iraq.
This was always the craziness of the Dems vis a vis Iraq: those integrated, bottom to top Iraqi Army commanders were developing right along the way – even as Dems ranted that Iraq was lost. It seemed the closer and closer the Iraqi Army was to being a forceful force, the louder the Dems screamed Iraq was lost. It was crazy and illogical.
Now Barack will pay the price for his ignorance and illogic (I hope). I wish Harry and Nancy would, but it looks like they won’t.
” because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.”
If you want proof that they consider the Iraq war to only be about internal politics and how it affects the Dems that right there is it.
There is *nothing* militarily special about may – those most important times have mostly been and gone. The only thing happening now that is special is if Iraq is going to play the narrative that the dems bet all their money on and around now is when it has to start doing that – if it takes till next month it is going to be tough to get it to affect the election. Especially given that the main candidate they support is a Defeat America candidate.
And why does the Wapo say that military analysts were “astonished?” Isn’t this what they’d planned? Could it be that the Wapo editors might be projecting just a bit?
No, what it wants you to believe is that their newspaper people who are analyzing things and making judgments and statements are “military analysts”, not “analysts of the military”. Which is not the same thing at all.
We assume, quite rightly, that military analyst are analysts that belong to the military, not any person who has an opinion as to whats going on. the news has its own analysts, but they are only news analysts. So by playing with the words they can conflate news analysts looking at the war and make them into military analysts.
This is how they can be surprised, and how you don’t get it!
[same old leftist playing with words!!!!! As I quoted cardinal ratsinger, the new pope pointing out]
Military analysts have been at odds and a bit peeved at the press for a while, and for reasons such as this. the news is reporting that their leftist communist benidicts are surprised. Are they surprised to think that their jobs might be at stake for being wrong? naw, just surprised that stating the reality so much didn’t actually create the reality they were magically chanting for.
They are surprised because they think that the premises of ideology actually gives you answers. so they plugged in the data to their ideology calculators since that’s actually easier than finding answers in reality, and they got, America bad, America imperialists (even though we haven’t held onto anything), etc.
In that kind ofcomputer the scale always tells them that they are fit and trim… even when people are argying that theya re so fat they have to pay for two seats, they still thinkt heya re fit and trim.
So they are surprised that this is the otcome.
I can show you the exact same kinds of statemtns from psych studies in which they find out that familes are important. you will get the researchers basically saying something like. We investigated domestic violence and we found, quite surprisingly, that women and men commit violence to their partners in almost equal amounts. Meanwhile, there is 30 years of such studies that are ignored as ideologues poison the well of science for the agenda. (though you have to hand it to the few that find out something different and report it! kudos to them for having morals)
You can see this in all the areas where ideology dicatates an outcome. in genetics you can see it when they find out that a gene controls behavior. There is a company that can take a DNA sample and give you a physical description based on that sample. the most news worthy find was they caught a serial killer. The profilers had him as a white guy in his 40s, and the company told them that it couldn’t be a white guy, it was a black Caribbean man. the company is about to go out of business… as you have lots of quotes from politicians saying… “if I could destroy this technology I would”.
Now why is that? why wold they destroy a technology that would allow them to know who did a crime with some certainty?
Because the uncertainty can be skewed.
Well, by replacing the military analysts with news analysts and calling the same thing, the uncertainty can be skewed.
But when the truth comes out, they either surpress it. (waiting till it turns bad again and they can claim on the down that they are right), or they have to step out and claim how they wers surprised.
Why?
Because an analyst that is surprised, and you bite, is an analyst that gets to keep analyzing! If they are not surprised then they are wrong, and if they are wrong, then what?
So they have to be surprised, that way they can continue giving opinion as analhysis and claim to be predictive if right, but surprised if wrong,.
Same thing as heroes if right, had good intentions if bad happened.
Same thing as heads I win, tails you lose.
There was a term came under the light early days of invasion of Iraq, the term is “Nation Building” raised by Noah Freedman.
Wonder if US commander words about “Kill’m All” is that what Noah calling “nation building” followed by successes in Iraq and wining in Iraq today?
We got now after more than five years of democracy and freedom:
1.5 Million Internal refuges
2-2.5 Millions In niegburing countries
5-6 Millions more a round the worlds before and after 2003
50% of Iraqis under poverty line
So now looking for the progress of “a New” nation emerged from distractions of a UN member state now with Genie out the bottle may be hired again to be the Parisian Gulf Policeman aging as US did in 1953
“military analysts”, not “analysts of the military”. Which is not the same thing at all.
May I am been wrong here, but I rcall the name “Artfldgr ” talking about he is a big guy 235 compared himeself withTyson 225!
Wonder if same argument can be taken between big Guys analysis Which is not the same thing at all with small guys” analysis?
استنساخ صدام Øسين شيعيا !!
Opoplogies for those who can’nt read in Arabic as this artical in Arabic talking what called it “Cloning Saddam as Shiites!” so we ending of thousendes of Saddam alike in today progressed Iraq.
The fact that Iraq is turning around finally hardly invalidates Obama’s judgement that the whole operation was a mistake. Naturally, the idea that Iraq would remain in the same unstable state forever was never likely; none of us who felt the war was a mistake thought Iraq would remain a disaster in perpetuity. The question is, would the benefits of intervention remotely approach the risks and costs? And I think the answer to that is already an unequivocal no. It’s great to see Iraq finally improving, but we still have to deal with the massive financial cost, the cost in lives, the cost in American prestige, the fact that we’ve diverted troops and money from the war in Afghanistan, the fact that we look weak (when, prior to the Iraq war, we looked nearly invincible), the fact that bin Laden and his cronies have rebuilt their training camps in Northern Pakistan, and on and on, all to get rid of an old dictator who was a small and manageable threat, who was hostile to our primary enemy, and who was not even remotely close to obtaining nuclear weapons.
So yes: Iraq is going to get better. But no: the war was not worth it, and unless things change far more radically than I think is ever likely, the hole we’ve dug for ourselves because of this war is not likely to be filled for quite a while.
Mitsu
all to get rid of an old dictator who was a small and manageable threat, who was hostile to our primary enemy, and who was not even remotely close to obtaining nuclear weapons.
Well siad Mitsu, But why?
US paying the price for “Why”
We got now after more than five years of democracy and freedom
What we have now is an Iraq that is no longer a threat, an Iraq that is a better Iraq than the Saddam-era Iraq – both for the world at large and its own citizens. And getting better all the time.
The writer doesn’t seem to comprehend that refugees are an unfortunate product of war but that war cannot be disavowed because of concern for creating refugees; if that were so it would be impossible to conduct war, which would be ridiculous.
I wonder also if the writer believes the enemy shares his concern for the refugees or poverty lines.
Obama’s judgment has never been informed. His was not an informed judgment when he made his pronouncements while in the Illinois Senate in 2002. It was not an informed judgment when he proclaimed the “surge” certain to fail in early 2007. It was not informed when he proclaimed the surge failing in the Fall of 2007. It is not informed now as he steadfastly refuses to meet with the knowledgeable Commanders on the ground in Iraq (or in Afghanistan for that matter). He is, to put it simply, an ignorant young politician who for reasons of his own prefers to stay that way. He is not fit for the job he seeks. So much the worse for him.
an Iraq that is a better Iraq than the Saddam-era Iraq
Agreed.
The writer doesn’t seem to comprehend that refugees are an unfortunate product of war
You are right if the war was targiting Iraqis nor regime chane and its tooles.
You might the witer forgot the refugees was started after one yeras from the war “complishied” due to to
1-
2-
3-
I leve the list to us what happend by the invador caused the mass refugees flode in Iraq?
I wonder also if the writer believes the enemy shares his concern for the refugees or poverty lines.
Wounder both Scott McClellan and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and other more may coming “believes the enemy shares his concern for” Iraq
Apologies for the miss I did. Here is better after editing again
Apologies neo please if could delet the old one.
an Iraq that is a better Iraq than the Saddam-era Iraq
Agreed.
The writer doesn’t seem to comprehend that refugees are an unfortunate product of war
You are right if the war was targeting Iraqis nor regime change and its tools.
You might the writer forgot the refugees was started after one years from the war “accomplished” due to
1-
2-
3-
I leave the list to us what happened by the invader caused the mass refugees flooded in Iraq?
I wonder also if the writer believes the enemy shares his concern for the refugees or poverty lines.
Wonder both Scott McClellan and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez (more might coming) “believes the enemy shares” their concerns bout Iraq
Mitsu writes that the invasion was a mistake b/c it cost too much blood and treasure.
Such cost vs. benefits debate can only be held AFTER debaters have agreed on what constitutes the threat which the blood and treasure are being expended to meet.
Without definition of threat: debate about possible benefits cannot be held, and all mention of costs is pointless.
I think the Iraq War was cheap.
We could be facing an Iraq – Iran nuclear arms race right now.
Mitsu: I was going to add on to this post a section about what I thought a typical liberal/Left response to the good news would be, if such a person could acknowledge it’s now going well. I left it out because the post was already long enough, but you’ve managed to provide one of the possible responses, which is to say “it wasn’t worth it.”
I think you’re wrong, but that you also completely miss the point. The Democrats who were wailing that the surge had failed before it was even tried, and who were screaming to pull out no matter what, were no longer debating whether the war itself was worth it. They were saying that the surge was not worth it. I think it’s clear it has been worth it, and that if their counsel had been followed the situation would have become disastrous.
I dont know how you can conclude that maintaining a moral and ethical conviction makes us look weak. Especially when the political expedient “cut & run” and to hell with the Iraqis would have been much easier. It looks to me as if we finally stopped running. What’s the price tag on that? It seems liberals are only interested in the cost of something if they cannot deduce an imediate bennefit to themselves.
Again, you’d have to be of a particular ideological bent to believe defeating Al Qeada will be seen as a weakness. I’m not sure with who.
As for Obama; will he cut & run from his position? Or is he far too beholden to his political base too admit victory is possible? How much will that cost Obama and which position will Mitsu claim is a weakness?
Stay tuned…
It’s great to see Iraq finally improving, but we still have to deal with the massive financial cost, the cost in lives,
To deride the war because of monetary cost is to overlook the obvious: Wars are always costly. But even more expensive, eventually, in terms of American lives lost and treasury, are wars that are declared a defeat and unnecessarily given to the enemy as won.
the cost in American prestige,
I confess to finding the above one of the more puzzling, yet evidently lovingly cherished memes put forth by the anti-war crowd, namely the dubious assumption that American prestige would be enhanced by losing in Iraq.
Was our prestige higher following the Embassy takeover and hostage-holding after Carter decided to do much of nothing about it? That’s really when this all began. Many unfriendly eyes, already treated to the shameful spectacle of the US’s earlier abandonment of Vietnam, were further excited by the American failure to deal decisively with Iran.
The events on 9/11 were the culmination of many years of flaccid, reactive US foreign policy. The US cannot afford to sit back, trying to buy off(always unsuccessfully) those ME states that foster terrorism as a way of warring on the US by proxy. A couple more geographically important allies in the ME lining up with Israel, Turkey and the acquiescence of oil fiefdoms in nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could change the doleful balance that existed before Bush. If Bush and hopefully McCain can pull this off they will certainly be praised by future historians.
the fact that we’ve diverted troops and money from the war in Afghanistan,
In strategic terms if Iraq is abandoned Afghanistan is also probably going to be given over. If the anti-war crowd cares about Afghanistan they should be doing everything possible to see that the US not abandon Iraq.
the fact that we look weak (when, prior to the Iraq war, we looked nearly invincible),
To the contrary, the US was obviously looked upon as weak before Iraq. Oh, POTENTIALLY dangerous, perhaps, but if you used terrorists to do your dirty work you could easily avoid retribution. If the US abandons Iraq that appearance of weakness would only grow more pronounced, and justifiably so.
the fact that bin Laden and his cronies have rebuilt their training camps in Northern Pakistan, and on and on, all to get rid of an old dictator who was a small and manageable threat, who was hostile to our primary enemy, and who was not even remotely close to obtaining nuclear weapons.
Bin Laden’s group is on the wane according to the latest intelligence. Time enough for him later if disease or assassination doesn’t get him first. Invading remote areas of Pakistan to try to hunt him down isn’t politically feasible at this time. My guess is that if we win in Iraq the Pakistanis themselves will put an end to him. As for the manageable threat of Saddam I refer the readers to the below link which has videos of many prominent anti-war figures opining about how dangerous Saddam was – all before Bush was ever in office.
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Neo
They were saying that the surge was not worth it. I think it’s clear it has been worth it,
Yes it’s worth it from US point view but on the ground Iraqis were divided as “Gated Communities” which much that the surge did for them, consequently reduced the civil war that outside/criminals fingers was widely to be blamed, those finger just stooped for now but they still their hangaring around
If US showing any sign of weakness they might destroy Iraq again.
The surge failed to build strong Iraqi society that can facing much greater threat from inside/outside players with supported government far from Sec. behaviours and Parisian proxy attitudes which severally damaged US roll in Iraq with lost having wining hearts and mind of Iraqis.
Obama’s judgement? Obama’s judgement??
Obama’s judgment stinks, obviously. Even if you buy his twisting, turning, shucking and jiving re TUCC, his judgment in attending it was lousy. If he couldn’t foresee the problem his attendance was going to cause, he shouldn’t be allowed to cross by himself, much less be President.
Realistically, re Iraq, Obama just bought a lottery ticket early on in the hopes that it might work out for him. If it didn’t, no harm done; no one would remember.
Recall how many on the left gave dire warnings about Afghanistan (graveyard of empires, the British, the Russians, the winters, the terrain, etc.) Try now to find someone who will admit to saying that.
The writer doesn’t seem to comprehend that refugees are an unfortunate product of war
You are right if the war was targeting Iraqis nor regime change and its tools.
The US has never willfully targeted Iraqi civilians. The enemy does that well enough.
You might the writer forgot the refugees was started after one years from the war “accomplished” due to
1-
2-
3-
I leave the list to us what happened by the invader caused the mass refugees flooded in Iraq?
I wonder also if the writer believes the enemy shares his concern for the refugees or poverty lines
The refugees were created by terrorism fostered and caused by the enemy. But the assumption that the war did not go on after the regime of Saddam was toppled is entirely off-base. Civil control had to be established and has yet to be entirely finished. The US left the enemy in power after the Gulf War and was rewarded by 13 years of shenanigans. Hopefully, not this time. A new governmental superstructure has to be erected, which takes time.
I doubt the average Iraqi is more impoverished than during Saddam’s regime but my concern is not directly with the economic well-being of Iraqis, although such a situation is to be desired, but more about the long-term cost of giving Iraq to the enemy. But on the economic front the Iraqi economy will certainly prosper if the Iraqi government succeeds. The best hope for that is if the US wins in Iraq.
Wonder both Scott McClellan and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez (more might coming) “believes the enemy shares” their concerns bout Iraq
Perhaps if the writer would provide more than a fragment of a quote and cite the source I would have more of an idea of what he means. Is it Sanchez or McClellan he’s quoting? Surely they can’t have said the exact same words
Civil control had to be established and has yet to be entirely finished.
Under international laws invaded power responsible of secure and protect civilians on the invaded land till established of national one. during this time Iraqis suffer hugely for the lack of this understanding and taking responsibility from looting and distractions of public services due to the terrorists run wild in the country that left it without protection for those terrorists to run wield. I thing any mindset can under stand that and denial its not an option here what happening.
but more about the long-term cost of giving Iraq to the enemy.
Yes you destroyed one Axis of Evil enemy and left out of bottle another one on same ground the only difference here Iraqis caught between US and her Gennie enemy that came out of of bottle in Iraq.
Looks the writer good in “a fragment of a quote” here also.
I just want to address Truth’s contributions to this forum and the various commentaries. I have had difficulty understanding Truth’s messages at times because of imperfect grammar and language skills, I commend Truth for all the efforts. It’s clear from many references that Truth seeks out information and is aware of more than one perspective existing among us Americans (not to mention others around the world). But Truth is engaging in conversation with those of us “on the other side” of the war,” and, I think, is trying to help us see or feel what it is like to be on the ground in Iraq — not as part of the military, but as citizens who must live with the effects of the war — both the intended and unintended. I think war is a terrible thing but ironically, is sometimes the only way to achieve a greater peace throughout regions and amongst different peoples. I think Truth’s efforts are great, and hope there are many people — all over — who thanks to the Internet — seek out as much information and personal perspectives. We’re all very different and thus our opinions are based on different experience. I would also like to say to Truth that for those of us who believe this war was right, are not ignorant of the suffering of people in Iraq. Also, most, if not all of us, believe that the worst possible thing our military could do would be to leave Iraq and leave the people of Iraq on their own to fight the “Genies” that have been “let out of the bottle.” Healing and rebuilding take time, and time is an elusive reference as it differs with relevancy. The U.S. is only 232 years old. Let’s see — Saddam ruled Iraq for some 35 years…. That is some 15% of the time the U.S. has even been in existence! More to the point is the fact that the Iraq is being rebuilt — or really, built for the first time since it will be a brand new Iraq. One of the areas in which our military has concentrated, besides the actual fighting, has been in training first a police force, and then a military so Iraq will have it’s own to defend the people. As for certain comments Truth has made with reference to Shiites, and I assume to the fact that because they are in the majority, population-wise, there is fear that they will endeavor to help all of their own and conquer those in the minority. This tribal contention was probably one of the major things many of us Americans had great difficulty in understanding. Though that way of life in your country is centuries old, those of us born in the U.S. have grown up for the most part learning that tolerance of others’ differences is what makes our country work. No matter any individual group’s numbers, there are so many issues to contend with in daily life, and people are bound to disagree about numerous things. We agree to abide by the opinion of the majority, and accept that for a working government we must also choose representatives that will act in our interests. That is a democracy, and most of us, not to mention the millions and millions of people around the world who want to live here, believe that is what makes our country great. We agree to disagree and trust that our democracy gets things right most of the time. I think that will be Iraqis’ most difficult task: to understand this completely different way of thinking and to learn to trust that basically, most people have the same goals for themselves and their loved ones. They want safety; they want educational opportunities; the ability to receive good healthcare; and the freedom to prosper. That is the one thing the U.S. forces cannot provide you with. That is a state of mind that you all have to learn and adopt, if you do not want the ugliness of oppression to return. I believe many of us understand how difficult that must be for those who have not benefited from the tolerance and freedom we live with everyday and sometimes take for granted. For all our differences — and as you can see in our many headlines, they are countless — what we want most is happy and secure way of life. I sincerely hope that is the eventual result of these difficult years, and I respect your efforts to venture forth, ask questions, and attempt to understand different perspectives, while sharing those of your own experience, too. Thank you
cSimon:
Line breaks please!
Naturally, the idea that Iraq would remain in the same unstable state forever was never likely; none of us who felt the war was a mistake thought Iraq would remain a disaster in perpetuity.
Wow! That’s gotta be a new record in the Goal-post sprint!
>The Democrats who were wailing that the surge had failed
>before it was even tried
That is true, many Democrats did deride the surge, however I was not one of them — I thought the surge might actually do some good. I was an early proponent of the idea. The fact that Iraq is doing better now, however, doesn’t validate the war which I believe was not worth it even if it ends up stabilizing (as it was eventually going to do anyway).
In fact, in many ways the current stabilization only points out how horribly the war was conducted in the first place. To a large degree the change in strategy came in the aftermath of a punishing rebuke of the 2006 elections, when Bush finally appointed a man with intelligence to lead the operation (Petraeus), and Petraeus reversed course on many fronts, ranging from increasing troop levels (against Rumsfeld’s stubborn insistence that wars could be won on the cheap in terms of Army presence) to engaging with the local population including insurgents more effectively (talk about the benefits of talking to your enemy), to putting more soldiers on patrol (a form of military “community policing”) and so forth. Some of the changes were also due simply to Iraqis themselves taking more responsibility for stabilizing their own country — perhaps to some degree fueled by the realization that we might be leaving Iraq soon, as the war had become unpopular.
That a government of Iraq doesn’t have a vendetta against us and isn’t building nuclear weapons is enough validation for the war for me.
I feel sorry for the Iraqis but no nation can afford to defer war because of the refugees that might be created – since refugees are next to inevitable in any conflict such a rule is tantamount to declaring that the ability to wage war is abandoned altogether – a rather foolish policy to my mind.
I am also sorry that the Iraqis came to be ruled by a despot that led them to ruin. If Saddam had left Kuwait alone or at least adhered to the post-Gulf War conditions he could no doubt still be merrily torturing and murdering to his heart’s desire. But fate and an absolutely ruthless will elevated a regime that gambled their well being and lost the game for them.
A deeper vein within most anti-war themes is the unstated assumption that Iraqi well-being should take precedent over any other policy goal. To my way of thinking the President of the US, as well as other politicians, should put the well-being and safety of America before any other consideration. If others can be helped, such as the Iraqis, without hindering that first principle I’m all for it.
But to eschew war altogether because it would adversely affect, even temporarily, civilians in the prospective theater is to declare defeat whenever faced with any possible conflict – and in my opinion a recipe for continual harassment, wider, more virulent wars and deadlier 9/11-type acts of terrorism.
That is true, many Democrats did deride the surge, however I was not one of them – I thought the surge might actually do some good. I was an early proponent of the idea. The fact that Iraq is doing better now, however, doesn’t validate the war which I believe was not worth it even if it ends up stabilizing (as it was eventually going to do anyway).
In fact, in many ways the current stabilization only points out how horribly the war was conducted in the first place. To a large degree the change in strategy came in the aftermath of a punishing rebuke of the 2006 elections, when Bush finally appointed a man with intelligence to lead the operation (Petraeus), and Petraeus reversed course on many fronts, ranging from increasing troop levels (against Rumsfeld’s stubborn insistence that wars could be won on the cheap in terms of Army presence) to engaging with the local population including insurgents more effectively (talk about the benefits of talking to your enemy), to putting more soldiers on patrol (a form of military “community policing”) and so forth.
Some of the changes were also due simply to Iraqis themselves taking more responsibility for stabilizing their own country – perhaps to some degree fueled by the realization that we might be leaving Iraq soon, as the war had become unpopular.
Well, at least the writer was for the surge. But it reads like he thinks the Coalition should have pulled out of Iraq immediately after the deposal of Saddam and left the Iraqis to their own devices – an attitude bewildering in its impracticality.
Yes, Iraq might have eventually stabilized but with what group in charge and with what pacts made with which hostile states? Only the ruthless prosper under such conditions as would have prevailed if Iraq had been abandoned immediately after Saddam’s regime had been destroyed. To have to depose another Iraqi regime sometime in the near future would be even more costly.
Stable governments after a regime change don’t come into being overnight, the right military leaders may take years to ferret out and mistakes in wartime strategy are commonplace, with many precedents in previous wars such as WW2. Any wartime President can be second-guessed after the fact. I don’t demand strategic perfection in Bush but instead hold him in esteem for his steadfast willingness to engage the enemy.
cSimon,
I think you are very precise in reading my mind and my effort here about what I am thinking and commenting here, I really appreciate defining the lines I am following here to reach the other side of people who are far from what Iraqis went through for a series or wars they have no say or control to stop although few had tried but ending dead under dictator fist.
Yes I quite understand that I see Iraq from the half of half glass of water and I rely appreciate those who care about Iraqis as human first and as citizens they caught in the middle of the war for sick mad dictator.
I am not against Americans as some they think and gave me their label I am against the war and specially how those few who direct the war after ward who helped to bring the chaos to Iraq clearly lack of knowledge and understanding Iraqis and their cultures however their is also big portion of the drama of neighbouring courtiers the seek to dominate Iraq or they done like Iraq be democratic prospers and free society going forward follow the rest of the world.
As far I can see and find most US and other westerns have close experience or lived in Saudi and gulf states but not Iraq, Iraq is very different from those societies in many ways, I think Americans learning more from Iraqis in last five years than what learned for decades in the gulf state and Saudis living and working.
Lest not forget that in Iraq none a single western killed because by Iraqis before 2003 and there is no single Iraqi who joint any terrorist acts against the west before 2001 and after
Grackle
Thank you for feeling sorry for Iraq hope its time turn other way and get things move in right direction with help of good American and sensible people like you.
What lessons do we take away from the problems of the “occupation” in Iraq? Do we say “This is so hard we must never do it again” or do we say “Now we know what not to do. If we have to do it again, we can avoid those mistakes” ? Do we gain or lose confidence from a learning experience?
If, in the course of (say) twelve years, Iraq gains a working representative government, a modern and capable military capable of integrated air-ground operations, effective national and local police forces, and a sound economy it will be a historic achievement. And since it was accomplished without total war against the government and populus alike, it will stand not in the shadow the rebuilding of Europe and Japan but alongside them.
The obvious strategic benefits of Iraq war are almoust complete routing of Al-Qaeda as centralized organization capable to plan attacks at 9/11 scale; overall decreasing of terrorist acts everywhere by 40% during last 5 years; marginalising of Islamists in Algeria and weakening of popular support of them in many Arab countries.
Everyone bought into the Republican Guards of Iraq being a serious threat, which bespeaks leadership, capability, discipline etc. so why wouldn’t they be very competent under a different government and political leadership?
Looking down the economic road there is no reason that Iraq should not obtain the level of prosperity that South Korea presently enjoys. Having a couple of democratic countries(Iraq and Afghanistan) on their borders who are doing well may do more to end the influence of the Mullahs in Iran and their wholesale promotion of terrorism than in any other factor in the equation. Such despots must be uneasy about the prospect of being sharply contrasted with neighboring flourishing democracies, just as East Germany was during the Cold War period. Some of this influence may even affect Syria and other trouble-makers in the region.
Truth:
Tyson is 5 11.5, I am 6’3″
as of an espn article today he now comes in 239 lbs. (Nielsen weighed in at 259 – my top weight years ago. i still have the chin to prove it).
what this has to do with the disingenous use of the term “military analysts” a la “what color is my parachute”, is beyong me! (ever balance a checkbook? you have experience in double sided book keeping, etc).
Wonder if same argument can be taken between big Guys analysis Which is not the same thing at all with small guys” analysis?
No… but it sounds like your diminutive in several ways… (big guys also have bigger, well, ya know).
look, there is a big difference between someone who went to military school doing analysis and someone who took womens studies and english and now rights leftist press. the latter would be surprised by real outcomes in the military as they would not actually analyse reality, but what reality should be as seen through the crystal ball of ideology.
“military analyst” is a specific job description, of course leftists can only swim in the shallow end of the knowlege pool, which is why they get snarky as to people and ad hominem them. they would drown them in the pool of history, but the end is too shallow, so they splash them.
http://www.cia.gov/careers/jobs/view-all-jobs/military-analyst.html
Minimum requirements: The DI requires a bachelor’s degree with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. A master’s degree, relevant work experience, or foreign language capability is desired but not required. The DI desires specialists who have military history, political science, international relations, or security studies degrees, or those with military experience — either as officers or enlisted — but particularly with backgrounds in operations or military intelligence.
that level of knowlege is very different than an english major working in a news room spouting propaganda for the cause bceause thats all their ideological view can spit out. their group mind will not let them challenge the higher thoughts of the collective on any issue.
the pentagon also has a military analyst program.
do you really think that REAL military analysts who have been keeping up with everything in Iraq in detail would not know that the surge is working. would not know the difference between imperial actions and liberation actions? (Heck, young Frenchmen seem to not know the difference despite not speaking German or Russian instead of French).
Mitsu:
The fact that Iraq is turning around finally hardly invalidates Obama’s judgement that the whole operation was a mistake.
It does, since the basis of his argument has no basis. Obama’s argument against war (that he voted FOR every vote till he started his candidacy), is a non argument. Its not steeped in anything. its blind assertion for those who have no idea.
The question is, would the benefits of intervention remotely approach the risks and costs? And I think the answer to that is already an unequivocal no.
I will bet in a second that the NO comes from the same lack of imagination as to how the real world works as other empty assertions. Lets see…
It’s great to see Iraq finally improving, but we still have to deal with the massive financial cost, the cost in lives, the cost in American prestige, the fact that we’ve diverted troops and money from the war in Afghanistan, the fact that we look weak (when, prior to the Iraq war, we looked nearly invincible), the fact that bin Laden and his cronies have rebuilt their training camps in Northern Pakistan, and on and on, all to get rid of an old dictator who was a small and manageable threat, who was hostile to our primary enemy, and who was not even remotely close to obtaining nuclear weapons.
Where to start?
You think that after a double airline torpedo into the financial heart of world economy made us look nearly invincible.
And you think that Obama willingness to give concessions with no preconditions to those who do these things against the US, as a sign of strength.
Up is down, down is up, war is peace, arbeit mach frei.
Diverted troops and money would first have to show that we don’t have enough for both! As a true socuialist you only see zero sums, and there isnt anything else. where did the troops for the surge come from if we are taking from one theater of operation and putting them in another? so the premise is wrong, so under true normal logic, the rest is wrong.
To quote another author on the kind of broken schooling you got:
Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, “my truth” is just as good as “your truth”, so don’t tell me what to think or how to behave. As Nietzsche, the “God is Dead” philosopher, would later say, “There is absolutely no absolute.” Now 2 + 2 can equal 5, or 17, or whatever you feel is right. (Hint: This is why our schools are failing. All teachers are certified on Benjamin Bloom’s work. He said “…we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places”)
This logic doesn’t actually work. but it allows someone like you to make false assertions like your making and still think you can reach correct conclusions! Cute stuff.
Anyway… bin laden just wrote as to his failure in iraq. The camps were not rebuilt. They have been empty since they are targets. Hiding in the mountains is not the same as running training camps.
Hopefully you can see where your adding 2+2 and getting any answer you want out of it.
And then your assertion that sadam was a small and manageable threat is incredible. Are we talking threat to the US or threat to the poor helpless people around him that you only care about when we hurt them?
Your all over the map in contradictions since your ideas are hanging disconnected from each other.
We know now that it was saddam that created the anthrax that came to the US. we know that he released gas to kill the kurds and in war with iraq. He killed how many kuwatis?
What I am getting from leftists like you is that its ok for this despot to do this to all these poor people who live below subsistence… but its not ok for the US to stop that…
So what your saying is that the better course of action would be to let saddam remain, and let him torture the poor. Because its ok for saddam to do it without limitation, but its not ok for the west to do it with serious limitations.
is it ok to use human rights watch?
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/#Table%20of
the issues with saddam was not about nuclear weapons, but things like BA. (anthrax), and issues of sarin and other nerve gasses.
You talk in cost of lives… look up Karbala-seven.
most of rural Kurdistan was declared prohibited, and villages were marked for destruction regardless of whether the villagers abetted, harbored, or supported the saboteurs. The first phase ran from April 20 to May 20 while the second was conducted from May 21 to June 20. The final phase culminated in the Anfal campaign, characterized by the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish population and lasting from February to September 1988. The word Anfal is mentioned in the Koran (eighth sura) and literally means spoils. It is cited within the context of a hard battle won by the first Muslims who perceived it as vindication of their new faith.
If the US was like saddam, we would have exterminated everyone in Bagdad to get rid of the insurgents!!!!!!!!
On April 20, operation Termination of Traitors proceeded with a swift pace and wide scope. As documents reveal, the regime aimed at the elimination of villages located in an area extending from north Sulaimaniya to Zhako in northwestern Iraqi Kurdistan. This area, encompassing hundreds of villages, constituted roughly the middle, northeast and northwest of Iraqi Kurdistan. It ran from near the border of the Ninawa governate south of the important oil-field region of Mosul to the Iranian border and from north of Kirkuk to Zakho. All the villages considered prohibited for security reasons in this area were to be destroyed. But villages not designated as prohibited could also be destroyed with the approval of Majid.(17)
You see.. after we went in, we got all their documents. We got to read the facts. Like we did with mitrokhen and the KGB, and others too.
The Baath regime launched 39 gas attacks on the kurds beginning at night on march 17 88. the city of halabja was bombarded with 20 chemical and cluster bombs.
The city had a population of 70,000
You will complain that with precision guided weapons the US has the lowest collateral damage and civilian causalty in war rates, yet you think a man who would bomb a city of 70,000 with gas, to be “a small and manageable threat”.
You are defending a man saying he is no threat to you, even though you’re an enemy, and he has killed his OWN people? What makes you think he thinks more of you than he did his own Kurds? Oh yeah, commands of leaders of ideology.
I bet your not old enough to remember the photos that came out of that city of 70,000?
5000 people were murdered… was that enough cost to do something? Nope… since you think what we are doing is wrong, then these civilians have to be nothings.
Maybe you need to see some of his sons work?
memoriastorica.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/halabja1.jpg
web.krg.org/grafik/uploaded/tragedy_halabja_30.jpg
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/a562_kurds_gassed_halabja_2050081722-18673.jpg
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/images/Halabja_15.gif
http://www.hetawikurdistan.it/halabjia.gif
http://www.mideastyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/halabja1.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/thecollectingswede/TROJNE/chemical_ali_halabja.jpg
like pompei, they all ran trying to get air, and survive. Like the camp victims they tried to shield the children from the gas with their bodies. (in the german camps the parents and others tried to cover the children. in korea, they gassed them in cages and analysed what the parents would do. you can read about that too.).
so I guess what your saying is that an authoritarian state gets to do what they want to their own people to create the future they wish to have. no? cause that’s exactly what stalin did, pol pot, mao, castro, saddam, etc all did.
From Power’s account:
“It was different from the other bombs,” one witness remembered. “There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire.” The planes flew low enough for the petrified Kurds to take note of the markings, which were those of the Iraqi air force. Many families tumbled into primitive air-raid shelters they had built outside their homes. When the gasses seeped through the cracks, they poured out into the streets in a panic. There they found friends and family frozen in time like a modern version of Pompeii: slumped a few yards behind a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel.
By the way, this is what he did while we were negotiating…
By 1989, 4049 kurdish villages had been destroyed…
Why had the United States not acted? Back then your commrades were yelling that we should do something! But we didn’t…
Now that we did do sometrhing, your yelling that we shuoldnt.
What you don’t get is that you’re a soldier in a hegelian war where you are always to take the opposing side!!!!!!!! not to have a moral valid side which is why you are part of it, but because the concept is to smash everythign that is not from the left.
So if the left does it, its ok… but if anyone else does it its bad.
If we don’t act, then its bad… but if we do act, then its bad.
Its constant and contradictory and the people doing it, like you M, don’t get that that’s all they are doing.
Years later James Baker explained:
Diplomacy–as well as the American psyche–is fundamentally biased toward “improving relations.” Shifting a policy away from cooperation toward confrontation is always a more difficult proposition–particularly when support for existing policy is as firmly embedded among various constituencies and bureaucratic interests as was the policy toward Iraq.”
Domestic special interests had a stake in the survival of Saddam. Exports to Iraq of American agricultural products were large: 23 percent of U.S. rice exports went to Iraq; a million tons of wheat. When members of Congress threatened to pass a sanctions bill against Iraq, the White House opposed the measure.
So the whitehouse was doing what you said they should do!!!!!!!
But then ater this incident it took years to change the tack, and a war in kuwait.
It took literally more than 100k people being murdered before we could stand up and say no more killing of people for their heritiage, their language, their religion. No more killing civilians and leveling towns.
Why don’t you go here and read about the other things that he did. remember he was only in place from 79 to 03… not that long.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein’s_Iraq
take some time to read about the anfal attack… low numbers are 50,000 dead.
But that’s one event, in april 91 almost a quarter million more killed.
So I wonder, how many dead poor proletarians before its worth doing something?
Meanwhile, you are fighting for the same outcoem as vietnam!!!!!!!!!!
We didn’t get peace after vietnam. We lost 50,000 men (and 8 women).
The vietnamese lost more than 1.5 million FAMILIES trying to escape. 200k went to re-education camps. Then they invaded cambodia, and another 3 million died. You remember that cool movie, the killing fields.
More than 5 million dead after we left…
I would also like to echo cSimon and Grackle regarding Truth’s efforts. It is not easy to communicate in a second language. From working overseas I know that.
From the protracted interchanges, we have established some common ground, some things we can agree on. I was very pleasantly surprised from a previous thread to see that there were some things we agreed on.
its nice we can “dialogue to consensus” and create a…. heck lets all read havelocks manual and do it. we could all then be agents of change…
only in the modern era would a person look for similarities between devils and angels and be happy when finding them.
[by the way… devils are angels, so its not so absolute as simpletons want to paint for convenience]
On the topic of the original thoughts of the left….
[comments are telling]
Was the Iraq War Worth It?
By Jeff Lukens
June 02, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/was_the_iraq_war_worth_it.html
and on the issue of afghanistan M
U.S. Reports Gains Against Taliban Fighters
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?ref=world
Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan are fleeing to the Pakistani border after being routed in recent operations by the United States Marines, the American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said on Monday.
a clear sign that they are not in rebuilt training camps.
Artfldgr
The word Anfal is mentioned in the Koran (eighth sura) and literally means spoils. It is cited within the context of a hard battle won by the first Muslims who perceived it as vindication of their new faith.
You need to review your info how much biblical terms and words was used /using by westerns in their wars, weaponry and events borrowed words from Bible Holly book and how they use it to justified their goals.
The simple example come to mind is “MOAB Bomb” which used in recent war in Iraq and other part of the world. So it’s not just Muslims implied same way using their holly book to name events or wars.
I doubt you know much about Anfal? As much as MSM told you, which is that same MSM that told you that Iraq had WMD all those scary stories that made the run to the catastrophic war in human scene.
There are many stories that gives the other side of the looses in that crime, although I don’t have now the links but as I recall the team or the lead of the team said he have not discovered that Iraq link using chemical material at that time (I know you strongly oppose the idea) but there is thing like that.
Anyway if you like info from the ground I tell this:
While Iraq military troops busy fighting Iranians in north Iraq the Iraqi army was exposed from its back by terrorists who are at that time with the Iranian they fired on the Iraqi army from the back that make many loses within Iraqi army while they defending their land and their state what the regime did as all the time it’s a complete collective punishment (Israelis use same tactics in Palestine, or Gaza now) and what’s happened its happened.
But let say if your army have same incident of same position that some citizen loyal to outsider trying to destroy or kill your national army what you do with them? Are you kissing them?
But I feel sorry for those civilians who caught in that massacre as same as my feeling that Iraqis who died and dieing every day due to US invasion of Iraq.
only in the modern era would a person look for similarities between devils and angels and be happy when finding them. ….devils are angels
Yes they are but how you figureout the differences?
Is looking to their acts and behaviours which make no doubt they are Devils although they are Angels.
>it reads like he thinks the Coalition should have pulled out of
>Iraq immediately after the deposal of Saddam and left the
>Iraqis to their own devices – an attitude bewildering in its
>impracticality.
Indeed it is an attitude bewildering in its impracticality, which is one of the reasons it’s not and never was my attitude. My attitude was we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place. However, once we did go in, of course we had a responsibility to stay as long as it takes to help stabilize. As noted, I supported the surge, but moreover a lot of the other moves which I think were at least as important if not more so than the mere increase in troop levels. Robert Gates is far more competent than Rumsfeld, and obvious Petraeus is a brilliant general.
typo: obvious -> obviously
However, once we did go in, of course we had a responsibility to stay as long as it takes to help stabilize.
There is very intersting artical in CSM telling more about “Iraqis to their own devices – an attitude bewildering in its
impracticality.” right now which have much to do with niegbouring states than Iraqi as such:
the heart of Iraq’s civil war
Conclusion
Strategies for Promoting Democracy in Iraq
By Eric Davis
> What does it say about the edifice on which a great deal of his campaign has been built, his negativity on Iraq? What does it say about his judgment?
Isn’t it obvious?
“Mr. Obama was against the war, before he was for it”
Interesting article that Truth linked to. Here’s my take on the article:
First, nearly half of all ongoing civil wars (46 percent) involve religion in some form. Second, Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars. Third, religious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory.
Trust an academic to be breathless about the obvious. Yes, the 2 main Islamic sects frequently come to blows and not just in Iraq but in many parts of the Islamic world. This has been happening for centuries. Long term, after(hopefully) a stable Iraq emerges and the region is a bit more balanced in regards to democratic governments rather than primarily a region run by hostile dictators some thought can be given as to how Western nations may assist with peacemaking between the 2 sects. However, in the end I think it is a problem that will have to be resolved by Islam itself. But first things first – the winning of the Iraq war should take precedence over all else.
Despite the author’s false characterization of the war as one of liberation the war was actually undertaken primarily for strategic reasons – to destroy Saddam’s regime because it was troublesome and a threat. The author seems to believe that if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait or that if Saddam had tried to adhere to the post-war stipulations following his defeat in Kuwait that the US would still have invaded Iraq in order to liberate the Iraqis. I can’t buy that particular unstated assumption – I believe that if Saddam had never invaded Kuwait or had acquiesced post-Kuwait he would be still be brutally ruling Iraq. The democratization of Iraq represents icing on the cake – important for a really nice cake but not as important than the deposing of Saddam.
In Iraq, a negotiated settlement is going to be very difficult …
But why should a negotiated settlement between hostile Islamic sects be undertaken in the first place? The violence in Iraq has been in steady decline since Petraeus’s tactical implementations; there has been significant improvement on the political front and the Benchmarks; you would think from reading the author that the opposite were true. Let us at least see if the trend toward Iraqi civil control continues.
What then can the United States and its allies do to bring about a negotiated settlement? Ironically, the best way to support a negotiated settlement would be to leave Iraq.
Academics LOVE irony like a bee loves pollen. Tragically leave Iraq, or shamefully for sure, but “ironically”? Oh, the stale detachment of the arrogant academic.
The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq’s predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians. The longer the US and Britain stay, the more they facilitate a shift away from the identity that long unified Iraq to the religious identity that is tearing it apart and facilitating its manipulation by Iran.
By “Persians” she means Iranians. Ah, yes, “common interests” between Iran and Iraq. I know what Iran’s main interest is and it’s not good for the US. What she’s attempting to gloss over with bland language is that in her feckless scenario Iraq may ally itself with a virulent state, a state that imports terror like Japan imports cars. Yikes!
The author seems to assume that the Coalition will lose the Iraq war. But this is a pre-surge assumption. I consider that outcome probable if Obama is elected but I also think McCain and Petraeus, if McCain is elected, may well win it. My guess is that in the author’s frame of reference the on-going success of the surge is an annoying, dark spot on the x-ray of the basic assumptions of her analysis.
In essence what she proposes is to abandon Iraq, let whatever factions that may want to do so fight it out, that the US deal the best it can afterwards with whoever emerges the victor of the religious civil war that will ensue after the US bails. She must be advising Obama because that’s what he wants to do.
It would be a death sentence to many who have helped the US in Iraq, but no matter. If the refugees are a problem now they would only be a greater problem as the result of a civil war due to the US pulling out of Iraq prematurely. She grudgingly acknowledges that the hypothetical new regime may be unfriendly and may have garnered some hostile-to-the-US allies along the way – but oh well, that’s life – la de da.
There are three obvious downsides to this approach.
First, the end of violence in Iraq following a US withdrawal would lead to the emergence of a nonsecular, nondemocratic government in Iraq.
How can she be sure that a new Iraqi regime emerging from the civil war she postulates may happen when the US leaves be non-secular? She’s already asserted that a religious civil war is likely. Isn’t the likely outcome of any religious civil war a theocracy?
It would be more friendly toward Iran (though not Iran’s puppet, as currently feared), but less friendly toward Israel, although a democratic Iraq would be no improvement in this regard.
So we get a theocracy that’s allied with Iran and hostile to Israel. What a deal!
Second, since US withdrawal has been conditioned on a de-escalation of violence in Iraq, the Bush and Brown governments would be left the unenviable task of explaining to their countries that “withdrawal is the best way to create the conditions for, withdrawal.”
I really cannot see Bush abandoning Iraq. No way. The author is dreaming. But that’s what they do in La De Da Land – spend their time thinking up disastrous policies based on false assumptions. And they are paid handsomely for this.
Third, withdrawal before violence has fully ceased will look like failure to most Americans and Britons.
What an unrealistic expectation! Hell, “violence” has not “fully ceased” in the Bronx, or Hoboken. But that isn’t that the unstated assumption at the bottom of many anti-war memes? That the US has to make Iraq safer than downtown Chicago before the war can be looked upon as a victory.
The idea of victory versus failure is really a false dichotomy, however. The real choice for US and British policymakers is between the more costly failure that will obtain from current policy and the less costly failure that might obtain from a well- thought-out and well-executed withdrawal.
This writer is firmly convinced that the US will fail, even though the surge says otherwise.
Finally, not until 2007 did the Pentagon acknowledge that Iraqi sectarian violence had crossed a threshold to become a civil war.
Aw, that BAD Pentagon. It just isn’t fast enough for this author.
But policymakers still haven’t come to terms with the implications of that fact. If they did, they’d see that a wisely executed withdrawal of US-led forces could well be the surest path to peace. That’s because withdrawal is likely to transform the fighting in Iraq into a defensive struggle for power in a nation-state, as opposed to an offensive battle rooted in religion.
The surest path to peace is bloody civil war. Sounds nice. Maybe she can pitch it to the Obama campaign strategists.
Sectarian conflict in Iraq was previously limited to fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. But today, the conflict has grown to include Shiites against fellow Shiites. Despite signs that security has improved, the religious civil wars in Iraq may have only just begun.
So the US should leave, even though the leaving would probably result in a disaster on many levels and have far-reaching adverse consequences, all because of something that “may” happen. What nonsense.