Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Iraq War: Despair is Not an Option

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2006.


The administration has released three pages of the 30-page report. We may see the rest of it, but not 'til post-election.
Ivins

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins AlterNet Archive
An archive of the great progressive columnist's writings.
Jun 21, 2007

Stand Up Against the "Surge"
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders and we need to raise hell.
Jan 12, 2007

Now They're All For Bipartisanship
Apparently, the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists!
Nov 15, 2006

More stories by Molly Ivins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

One reason despair is not an option is because things can always get worse, and then what'll we do?

I was actually trying to figure that out when I came across a remarkable article written for the The Nation magazine (known for its liberalism for 141 years) by Richard J. Whalen -- a conservative in good standing, a former Nixon staffer. Whalen has undertaken the singularly valuable task of talking to dissenting generals about the war in Iraq.

I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq.

"The only question is whether a war serves the national interest," one retired three-star told Whalen. "Iraq does not."

Whalen writes: "The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation's last strategically failed war -- that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve."

During Vietnam, senior soldiers kept quiet. But after it ended, officers, including Colin Powell, "vowed it would never happen again." But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the other civilians in charge overruled the military minds and ignored the possible consequences.

Some of Whalen's and the generals' clearest points come from breaking the silent ban against comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War. Don't know if you noticed this, but from the beginning anyone who spoke right up and said, "This is just like Vietnam," had the experience of right-wingers landing on them, screeching: "This is not like Vietnam. This Is Not Like Vietnam. THIS IS NOT LIKE VIETNAM." Of course it is. We just haven't wasted 57,000 American lives yet.

Odom tells Whalen that "our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases to defeat. These were (1) 1961-65, 'containing' China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with U.S. tactics, leading to 'Americanization' of the war and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding 'Vietnamization.' Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third."

In late September, it was reported that the National Intelligence Estimate for April said the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists: "A large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists ... are increasing in both number and in geographic distribution. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide."

The administration has released three pages of the 30-page report. We may see the rest of it, but not until after the election.

It's difficult to argue this war with people who look straight at you and say: "Stay the course. Don't cut and run." We can't even get reasonable discourse on the report, the work of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and signed by Bush's man, John Negroponte.

Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health now estimates about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. All the work in the study fell to a knee-jerk response from conservatives, "Oh, that can't be right." Yet the methodology employed is the same as is used by the federal government to decide how to spend millions of dollars every year. It is, as they say, the industry standard.

Speaking of money, though 'tis a pittance compared to lives, we are also wasting billions, as the new "showcase" Iraq police academy demonstrates. It seems we are trying to create a police force in Iraq loyal to the state by housing them in a place with water and feces running down the walls. Further, we're going to have to spend millions and millions to investigate how we frittered away billions and billions.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: ivins, bush, iraq, war, despair, molly

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Boy Prince
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 17, 2006 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anytime you see James Baker III suddenly come out of obscurity you know that George Jr. is in trouble. Our whiny Connecticut prep-school, underachieving prez who cross-dresses as an "ah-shucks" common-folk Texan has once again gotten himself into big trouble and as always, there are men there to bail him out...it's always been that way. Whatever the problem is: business failures in Arbusto and Harken Oil...there's always daddy's connections or members of Royal House of Saud to directly/indirectly bail him out. When Jr. needed to bravely protect the Texas and Alabama coastlines from Vietnam insurgents, higher men from the top again made sure that he didn't have to waste time in some jungle in Nam....When news of Dubya's DUI arrest came out days before the 2000 election, causing the stalemate....the big guns came yet again to let the Supreme Court appoint the president. James Baker III recently said that Iraq is a "Helluva Mess." Good luck getting us out....Junior sure won't

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US should react to Euro-promoted Islamic Terrorism and Christian Extermination
Posted by: Megalommatis on Oct 18, 2006 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Europe promotes Islamic Terrorism and the Extermination of Oriental Christians

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

The US failed to grasp that a main pillar of the colonial plan carried out by France and England in the Middle East is the extermination of the Oriental Christians. Only an Aramaean state built upon the ashes of Iraq and Syria can allow them survive in Peace.

The atrocious act of beheading in Mosul an Aramean priest, father Paulus Iskandar, kidnapped in the district Al- Sina’a on Monday 9 October 2006 by a unknown Islamic group in Mosul, illuminates very well the reality of a hidden war: that waged by the Atheist, pseudo-Christian, West against the Eastern Christians.

When today at 13.00 hour (Iraqi time) the funeral of the Aramaean priest took place, the British and the French should have been lowered, and honours of Hero offered by the respective ambassadors in Baghdad. There is no doubt that behind the murderous Muslim hand the European colonial empires have been hidden.

The fact that political and diplomatic classes in these countries may dismiss this historical conclusion as conspiracy-oriented illusion changes nothing in this regard.

Diachronic Western Christian Hatred against Oriental Christians

Missionaries sent at the times of the Ottoman Empire spread division instead of the union they were repeatedly promising, and for centuries. The first arrived there in the middle of the 16th century, and since the Aramaean Christians were settled in the Eastern Ottoman provinces and in the Western Iranian provinces, missionaries were long playing politics, promising help (hat never arrived) instead of religious doctrine modification.

The Christian Aramaeans were either Monophysitic (the term is conventionally used) or Nestorian, whereas non Christian Aramaeans were Gnosticist Mandaeans. By those days they consisted in at least 35% of the respective provinces that cover vast parts of today’s Western Iran, the entire South-Eastern part of Turkey (around ¼ of the country’s area), plus Syria and Lebanon. They were speaking various dialects of Syriac Aramaic, later phase of Jesus’ own language, a language and scripture of which originate Arabic.

The Western missionaries, although ruling the countries they came from (contrarily to the Eastern Christians who were minorities within the two superpowers of the Islamic World), must have felt a severe complex of inferiority towards the Aramaeans, whose language and scripture was the international language par excellence for many long centuries before and after the Islam, being used from NW Africa to China, and from Central Asia to the Eastern Coast of Africa. Latin and Ancient Greek had also been vehicles of international communication, but in a far more restricted area than Aramaic.

European Christians exposed Oriental Christians to Ottoman /Iranian punishment

After the perverse work of the criminal, bogus-Christian missionaries, Aramaeans within the Ottoman Empire were exposed through various activities (that were taken because of the false promises) in favour of Safevid Iran, and then severely reprimanded.

In the same way, Aramaeans within Safevid Iran were exposed through various activities (that were taken because of the false promises) in favour of the Ottoman Empire, and then thoroughly chastised.

European Christians split Oriental Christians

Furthermore, all the Aramaeans were exposed to further division, as some Nestorian Christians (renowned for more than 1000 years for their aniconic cult - they were not using icons or statues - and their rejection of Jesus’ divine nature) conditioned ...

to read the rest go: http://newsbusters.org/node/8392

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

point
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 19, 2006 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of the article is that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld don't know what the hell they are doing in Iraq except killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans. The reason for this is clear: their prime purpose for their wars is to make a few people of wealth even more wealthy, regardless of how steep the cost is for the poor and for the economy and for the debt. It is narrowminded maniacs leading America and the rest of the world toward atomic and environmental suicide because they know not what they do because they are freaked out on narrowminded greed and religious mumbo-jumbo not unlike that of their "enemies". It is the blind fighting the blind toward extinction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

awacoguy
Posted by: wacoguy on Oct 19, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had a small epiphany the other day. Such an obvious one, I almost missed--or dismissed--it.

Ms. Molly's article reminds me of it (in the indirect way of such things), so I will pass it along. Maybe epiphanies are transferable!

I will admit that most of the time, for most of my voting life (pre-W running for Pres.), and on the whole, I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats. This was true at the state and local level, as well as in national voting scenarios.

As a native Texan (5th generation), and not some Connecticut carpet-bagger, all hat and no cattle macho-prancing dilletante like some mincing around in DC, I grew up in the one-party-rule-by-Democrats excesses that plagued the South for over a hundred years (although, if the truth were told, Texas was always a bit better in its recognition of the political spectrum than most other Southern states, because of the indigenous and healthy populist streak that resides in the core of traditional Texans.)

But, the one-party excesses affected me, and the effects led, in a large part, to my willingness to vote cross-party lines.

For the same reasons, I was always completely turned off by the idea that anyone should vote a straight ticket, or, in other words, that anyone could possibly imagine that it was a good and proper idea to merely vote on the basis of a party membership.

I thought, and still think, that such a mindset is fundamentally un-American, and, more importantly, represents an abdication of responsibility on the part of individual voters.

But---I had an epiphany.

The Republicans in office at the Federal level--collectively and individually--have shown a complete inability to reign in those who are excessive, to counter those who would commit unconstitutional acts, or to stop those who are corrupt or immoral.

It is now clear to me that voters have a moral responsibility to deny those individuals the ability to continue in their positions.

The failure of voters to go to the polls in November and cast votes in opposition of Republican office holders and candidates would represent a passive condoning of immoral, corrupt and un-Constitutional behavior.

So, for the first time im my life, I am going to literally attempt to "get out the vote" against candidates and office holders of a particular party. I am going to plead and cajole. I am going to try to get voters to the polls on election day and I will attempt to influence them towards voting against anyone running as a Republican.

Simply put, my epiphany was: at this critical moment in our country's existence, we are obligated to do no less.

Please think about this, and please recognize the need for the same direct action.

And, then--act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE NEED MORE HEAVY HITTERS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 19, 2006 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jim Baker is a good choice. We need a collection of sane heads and smart people. How about: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright, both authors of "Cobra II" Jay Garner, Colin Powell (if he promises to tell the truth), Jack Murtha and others who qualify. No one in the current administration should be considered. It's time to get serious. This is morally unacceptable. There has to be a way.
Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]