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.

The Insanity of 'Staying the Course' in Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 9, 2006.


At this point, the only people left who think that the U.S. must 'stay the course' in Iraq are Bush's neocons and al Qaeda.
100906story

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

More stories by Joshua Holland

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As the bodies pile up in Iraq, new polls show that most Iraqis want us out of their country, and they want us out soon. At the same time, Al Jazeera acquired a letter believed to be from a high-ranking al Qaeda operative that shows that our worst enemies think a protracted occupation of Iraq is "the most important thing" for the future of their cause.

Yet the Bush administration and its mouthpieces insist that we must "stay the course" in Iraq -- either to bring stability to the war-torn country or out of some misguided belief that we can salvage America's dignity from an embarrassing Vietnam-style defeat.

Underlying the "stay the course" argument is a fundamentally flawed assumption that U.S. troops are at least keeping havoc in check. But every year of the occupation has brought about worsening violence, peaking during a summer that saw thousands of Iraqi civilians killed each month. The Washington Post reported that last month "the number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years," and Reuters added that "bomb attacks in Baghdad have hit an all-time high ..." Studies by the Saudi government and a respected (and hawkish) Israeli think tank found that most of the insurgents in Iraq had never engaged in political violence but were radicalized by the occupation itself. The recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate predicts that with American troops on the ground, the insurgency in Iraq will grow and fester over the next two years.

But more importantly, the U.S. presence creates a Catch-22. One of the biggest problems in Iraq is that its fledgling government has little legitimacy, and a large part of that problem comes from a widespread perception that it remains subservient to U.S. commanders. According to a recent poll by the Project on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), Iraqis, by a 5 to 2 margin, thought that a U.S. commitment to withdraw would "strengthen the Iraqi government." Three out of four believe an American withdrawal would make the various factions in Iraq's parliament more willing to cooperate with one another.

Eight out of ten Iraqis believe the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing," and they're in the position to know best. Just 14 percent said the U.S. forces were having "a positive influence on the situation in Iraq."

The idea that Iraq will spiral out of control if U.S. forces withdraw has been hammered home since the beginning of the occupation by the war's supporters, but while it's a danger, it is also anything but the certainty that's become part of the conventional wisdom. Seventy percent of Iraqis have confidence that their police force can maintain order.

The hawks who brought us this war have gone through an exquisite set of intellectual gymnastics to produce new justifications for why we have to stay the course. The latest is that pulling out of Iraq will "embolden" the terrorists. Vice President Cheney said recently that a withdrawal at this point would only "validate the al Qaeda strategy and invite even more terrorist attacks." The obvious flaw in that argument is that whatever "emboldening" might or might not occur has already happened; before the invasion, the secretary of defense of the most powerful country the world has ever known predicted that the war "could last six days, six weeks" but doubted it would last six months. Yet three and a half years later, a few thousand Iraqi insurgents with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades have kept the leviathan pinned down, and there's no sign that they're anywhere close to their "last legs." They've isolated the United States from its allies, stymied U.S. foreign policy from Singapore to the Sudan and halted Bush's ambitions to "reform" the Middle East. The lesson has already been learned, as evidenced by the Taliban's adoption of many of the Iraqi insurgents' tactics in Afghanistan.


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

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:
No way!
Posted by: Temporary on Oct 9, 2006 12:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Im sure that good old Uncle Sam will stick around untill the war with Iran is a "de facto"

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

out
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 9, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the Bushies and al Qaeda are for US troups to remain in Iraq which indicates that both are terrorists using terrorist means to achieve their ends. Get the Bushie terrorists out of DC and half of the terrorist problem will end!

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

» RE: Non voters Posted by: Edward George
» You're an Optimist Posted by: edith
» RE: out Posted by: arclight
» End the Iraqi Genocide Posted by: LeftWright
Dewine
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Oct 9, 2006 12:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tim Russert asked Ohio Senator Mike Dewine about those Iraqi polls. His response was worth noting (and the boldface is obviously mine).

MR. RUSSERT: Here’s two poll questions that I think caught the attention of a lot of Americans. Let me start with Senator DeWine.

“Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout.” “Most Iraqis.” “A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.”

And then this poll. “Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops. About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces ... [according to] the poll done for University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.”

Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they’re in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?

SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. [He was? They were only slightly worse results than January's PIPA poll.] But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re—have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals—three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.

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

» F**king *what*?!? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: F**king *what*?!? Posted by: reverendg
» 'American families'? Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: Dewine.....for me Posted by: Captainmagic
Let's Not Forget Why the U.S. Is there to begin with
Posted by: Baryy Lando on Oct 9, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, let's not forget what brought the u.s. to that part of the world to begin with--oil, bases, billions of dollars in construction contracts, and not just oil but crucial water resources as well...no way they are going to walk away from that all...maybe withdraw some troops, yes; but never walk away. see my latest blog http://barrylando.com

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

» We're Outta there Posted by: edith
BUSH and His Lies
Posted by: thinkverybig on Oct 9, 2006 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just happened across Keith Olbermann's rant about BUSH and his lies and I think everyone should view and listen to his commentary. It is quite thought provoking, powerful and truthful. Go to Msnbc.com and find Keith Olbermann's commentary about BUSH and his lies and please share it with everyone you know. This message is too powerful for people not to know about it.

I just had to share this with you.


Do forgive me for not being on subject.



Coming soon.... WeMustChange.org

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

» Wake up time. Posted by: Melvin
Yes but
Posted by: edith on Oct 9, 2006 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we all agree except for a few Bushniks that Iraq was wrong from the beginning or was worthless once the insurgency began in earnest. It's W who counts as he is C in C, which courts aside is a big deal in the American system. Note: I don't know if it's legal but All these Presidemts think they are God because of the Commander in Chief clause of the Constitution. G.Washington would disagree, but what did he know?

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

farce of arms
Posted by: Traven on Oct 9, 2006 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I doubt democrats or republicans have though out the bleak prospects that confront them and hence will not, I repeat will not, becuase of their linited thinking,come to any successful strategic solution. When a country throws away 9 billion in lost re-construction funds without even blinking it means it's leaders are either depraved, delillusional or worst.

If they want to act like romans be honest about it and act like romans - say you want the oil and justifiy it. They can't ,they won't because the image in the mirror is not real. So the only course is failure.

Empires succed when the logic of it's spread meets basic needs of it's subjects including the ones under it's heel. HINT: the romans brought many improvements to the people they ruled. NOT a JOKE GO READ ABOUT it.

Western captialism whether it wants to admit it or not has allowed American police tactics in the form of repressive states to ride hurd over the lives of the third worls for too long. And now the brown masses have a new very tricky ally -China.

This is one of the final acts where the US is a coked out crazed war whore dropping bombs and killing for no apparent good reason - while China sits back and watches and sharpens it's many knives for a death of a thousand cuts.

Either the US Army will collasp under the strain or be pushed out by economic forces like China calling in her notes on our debt - thus killing wal-mart overnight. Do I need to draw a picture of those gates of hell - when Americans can not afford a DVD player because the cheapest one which use to be 79.00 is now 300.00.

Pull up a seat and make popcorn - nothing average Americans may want or think matters at this point anymore. Lunatics are not just in charge, they have driven the Uninted States over the cliff and the only reason we haven't figured it out yet is because we are still in free fall.

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

» RE: farce of arms Posted by: mrcentrist
War is a necessity for the world government plan!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Oct 9, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get used to wars. Staying the course is just a euphenism for continuing wars of Democracy. These are needed for a world government to bring all the dissidents and radicals under universal controlled Democratic Dictatorship. The Federal Reserve (That private company of shysters that love to make money) is all too glad to lend money out to any country interested in making war. We have no chance to stop the war machine, we are doomed! The best we could muster would be to leave this mess in America but even that is becoming more difficult. If you are retired you lose your Social Security benefits and we can hardly make it here on that pittance, imagine being in another country. It's a grim picture and voting will not help either.

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

Dream on about Iraq withdrawal....
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 9, 2006 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...the Iraq Study Group (...) may recommend the partition approach."

It's what the major religious groups in Iraq have always wanted. Doesn't mean they'll be happy, but they will be *happier.*

"As the University of Michigan's Juan Cole notes, "If the loose federal plan ends in partition, the situation is set up for a series of wars..."

Isn't Cole the one who said whatever al-Sistani wants he gets? Al-Sistani now is playing second fiddle to his junior achiever. Cole's analysis is as good as....whatever sells? whatever sounds good? whatever AlterNet readers will buy?

Of course there will be a series of wars. That's also what the major groups have always wanted. Only Saddam prevented them from carrying it out. And the US ain't no Saddam.

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

» RE: Dream on about Iraq withdrawal.... Posted by: Joshua Holland
If Democrats take the house and Senate...
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Oct 9, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate main stream media must be broken up back to the rules of the 1950s. There is no news in the media and most of it is made up to support the precepts of presidential administrations and provide noise when significant issues are at stake.

There is no balance either. The one sided Israel war on Lebanon is an example of sham coverage noticed by the entire western world's press. It was beyond pathetic. Most people cannot be engaged in the foreign policy if it is rarely shown, and when it is, is nothing but irresponsible propaganda.

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

No hope left for Iraq?
Posted by: Heath on Oct 9, 2006 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've long been sympathetic to the three state solution in Iraq, but the article brings up a good point that such a solution might only increase the levels of violence and lead to more wars in the region. My concern with Iraq having a strong central government in Baghdad is that it will be Shiite dominated and have the temptation to run roughshod over the Sunnis and Kurds. But I guess a confederation might end up leading to the same thing if Turkey and Iran get pulled into the conflict.

I have no illusions that the situation the Bush Administration has created in Iraq is a mess and that there will be no easy or clean solutions. We never should have invaded in the first place, and now we're dealing with the consequences. But at this point, I'm wondering, are there any political alternatives left at all for Iraq? I think our military should withdraw immediately because things will only get worse if we stay. But it also seems to me like things will only get worse if we leave. Is there any chance for a positive outcome in all of this?

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

» RE: No hope left for Iraq? Posted by: Peyotino
Hillary
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 9, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Question: If Hillary took office tomorrow, how long do you think it would be before those "permanent" military bases in Iraq began to shut down? And how many democrats would stop voting to eviscerate the constitution like they just did right before the Foley "cover scandle" went supernova?

How many democrats even disagree with "stay the course"? Not enough to win a vote on the senate floor, that's for sure.

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

» RE: Hillary Posted by: BlueStateBitch
» RE: Hillary Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Hillary Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The real bipartisan consensus Posted by: Joshua Holland
» My experience Posted by: SteveB
» My own experience ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The real bipartisan consensus Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The real bipartisan consensus Posted by: Joshua Holland
» That DELETE button Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: That DELETE button Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That DELETE button Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: That DELETE button Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That DELETE button Posted by: Conservasaurus
» How is Vietnam different? Posted by: SteveB
.
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Oct 9, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope the US stays in Iraq long enough to get a beating a la vietnam, so we can get another 30 years of peace...and good war movies :D

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

» RE: Good movies Posted by: BillC
» 30 years? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Peace? Posted by: HeroesAll
Joshua, you forgot one war promoter
Posted by: rwa on Oct 9, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote:syndicated columnist Robert Novak who several months earlier wrote that “in private conversation with… members of Congress, the former general [Sharon] leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war.”

Many would argue that a chaotic Iraq sidelines a potential ballancing power in the M.E. Thus the war does serve an ongoing purpose and to some is going along just fine, for Israeli dominance that is.

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

IT Could Not Work
Posted by: glorybe on Oct 9, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The kinder and gentler mode of war which we used in Iraq never had a bit of hope. It is the same nonsense we used in Vietnam.
What we are now seeing are the radicals and terrorists hiding in Pakistan and the border states as we have taught them exactly how to win. The simple fact is that we never needed to know whether there were more terrorists in Syria or where ever. What we needed to do is pick one nation that was resonsible for some degree of the problem and crush them like an over ripe tomato. The lesson to the world would then have been that the US will not be reasonable and will be as barbaric as we need to be to solve the problem.
The same issue confronted us in Vietnam. We should have started with a heavy nuclear strike of all of their larger cities and then follow that up with the use of various gas weapons and bio weapons until they begged to surrender. We would have had little expense at all and we would have lost no American soldiers at all. Further you can bet your last penny that if we behaved like that we would never have heard a peep out of Iraq, Iran, N. Korea or any number of other mud pie nations.

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

» RE: IT Could Not Work Posted by: BillC
» RE: IT Could Not Work Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Wow! 'Kinder and gentler'? Posted by: HeroesAll
» speak for yourself Posted by: edith
» RE: speak for yourself Posted by: yellow
Stay the Corpse or Slay the Course?
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 9, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Expose the torture. Expose the fact that the outcome was deliberate. We scooped people up, tortured them, and sent them on their way with but one simple message: "Raise Hell!" And that's what they're doing.

It's all part of the Bush doctrine of preemption. You see, we have to treat all Iraqis as terrorists because when we're finished torturing them, they will become terrorists! Yes this is preemption. What you heard Bush babbling about is not really what it's about. The neocons even admit it! But they spin it by saying we have to go over there and DRAW THEM OUT so that they won't come here. But when they say DRAW THEM OUT they really mean PROVOKE. (Detainment and torture) It's all part of official US policy, the Proactive Preemptive Operations Group.

We cannot win in Iraq because our plan was not to win but to create the very extremists we set out to destroy. It sounds sick and it is but just because it's sick and twisted doesn't automatically mean it's not true. The sooner people realize that the better. I wish more people would have seen the truth 4 years ago... coming up on 4 years now. We knew this was coming... and we knew for a reason, because it was in the official pentagon documents.

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

Remind me why were REALLY there again?
Posted by: toolband on Oct 9, 2006 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course "helping to stabilize the democrazy" is our supposed reason for STILL being there. But why are we REALLY still here? If you check the PNAC docs it seems the neocons want to establish permanent military bases throughout the world. Is that the real reason, to police the oil? Why does Bush REALLY want us there?

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

» A short answer to that Posted by: HeroesAll
» Sour Grapes!! Posted by: Patriot50
» RE: Sour Grapes!! Posted by: Joshua Holland
"Insanity" the song.
Posted by: Tompatriot on Oct 9, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to http://www.isound.com/known_unknowns and click on Insanity to here a song I wrote about it.

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

What struck me about the above,,,
Posted by: John Rice on Oct 9, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was the picture--seeing the air that those soldiers (not to mention the photographer) were breathing, and knowing that depending upon what that wind carried, we might be watching them breathing in lethal particles of depleted uranium contamination--in effect watching their own death sentences being administered (thanks to bipartisan Congressional support). That is what struck me.

Looking at that photo reminds me that our past three Presidents and Congress are responsible for having in a bipartisan manner, spread thousands of tons of DU munitions, radioactive forever around most of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, and it is killing not only civilians by the thousands, but our own soldiers, too. Anyone doubting this assertion needs to explore what the military calls Gulf War Syndrome, and how many veterans of that short-but-dirty "little" war are now drawing permanent disability. (You will be shocked!) Then look at the picture again, and know that our government has known with the greatest of certainties (since the Manhattan Project of the 1940s) how dangerous radiation poisoning via depleted uranium is to large areas and potentially huge populations of people. And knowing they really do not care, not only about others, but about their own, as well. That is what struck me.

Anyone doubting our bipartisan government capable of lying to the troops about anything, need only ask any (pick one—any one) US Vietnam combat veteran if the government ever told them the truth about Agent Orange, and the answer will be apparent when they almost certainly answer “f**k no”.

The same people in our government structures today are denying DU munitions’ dangers for precisely the same reasons their predecessors denied the risks of agent orange exposure three and four decades ago. Moreover, in the same way compensation has been continuously and recently denied the afflicted Vietnamese, Iraqis will be denied compensation for the radiation we have spread in their nation that will be killing them forever. That is what struck me.

And the fact that each and every one of us who are taxpayers have paid for each and every killing particle of it, and are therefore forced to carry a measure of responsibility for what it does. That is what struck me, and I apologize for any part I might have played in it, and for the misery every tax-penny has paid for.

Regards,,,John
( john_rice@neitherparty.org )

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

Another Vietnam..
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Oct 9, 2006 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, to start, anyone who thought we could just walk in to Iraq as we did (the easy part) then occupy it (less easy) then get out (the hard part) had their head stuck in a sand storm.. Just like vietnam, the dems got us in there and lord knows the plan to get out didnt work out too well.. neither will getting out of Iraq..

but that said the author continues the standard liberal folley. Misleading polls (a favorite of both parties for sure). Downplaying what is obvious. What ever happened to objective reporting!

The polls taken - (and are we to believe any polls taken as most know they can be set to give almost any response the poller wants) ..."Three out of four believe an American withdrawal would make the various factions in Iraq's parliament more willing to cooperate with one another" .... yep, Iranian insurgents will see to that... oh, and ask the Kurds.. and sure seems like the Sunni's and Shia's would love each other..so long as they can forget the bitter hatred of the last 1,200 years!

"Seventy percent of Iraqis have confidence that their police force can maintain order." - are we to believe that.. while I dont care what their police force can handle, they can't even keep themselves from being killed by insurgents or poisioned. So do 70% of Iraqi's actually believe that..seems doubtful!

Here's a good one.. The author is discounting the Bush administration "sales pitch" regarding the fact that pulling out of Iraq (where we shouldn't be to start with) will embolden the terrorists. What a silly proposition, or is it - Well, Clinton didnt believe that in Somolia and a few years later..9-11..!!!!!

So are we to believe democrats again trying to sell us the same nonsense. Instead of saying cut and run, come up with a plan that works to get out!

"Murphy wrote that "al Qaeda itself sees continued American presence in Iraq as a boon for the terror network." - and to this I agree..it keeps us distracted. (Oh for the conspiracy theroists - Al Qaeda are the ones that attacked us -remember???)

Bin Laden is our first priority - other terrorists camps networks come after that.. if that includes Iraq, great.. so long as the US is safe!

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

» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Another Vietnam.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Another armchair general Posted by: HeroesAll
» Find me ONE poll... Posted by: SteveB
» A Troll Among Us Posted by: mirimac
» What an odd statement. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Compare Rumfelds Statement to Kennedy's
Posted by: edgar_michel on Oct 9, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
399 - White House Statement Following the Return of a Special Mission to South Viet-Nam.

October 2nd, 1963
See: The American Presidency Project, John F. Kennedy


SECRETARY McNamara and General Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as of other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgement that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

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

» Patience Posted by: Joshua Holland
» how about china, ? Posted by: denk
How do the troops get out?
Posted by: badkitty on Oct 9, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, has anyone given any thought as to how US troops would withdraw (retreat?) As things get worse and worse, I keep wondering. Marching back to Basra to get to the ships seems to be a problem, since Basra is held by the Shia, and the roads are full of materiel we didn't bother to secure as we marched by Saddam's weapons depots. We don't have a secure road to the Baghdad airport. Going to Kurdistan involves going through the Sunni heartland. Those closest to Jordan are the luckiest, but suppose troops got pushed over the Iraq-Iran border. I can hear Ahmadinejad now, "Gee, I agree with President Bush, Article III of the Geneva Conventions is too vague."

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

Bush Math
Posted by: rusrus on Oct 9, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thousands more need to die in vain to ensure that the thousands who already died didn't die in vain.

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

Wait! How do we protect Exxon's oilfields from the savages if US soldiers pull out?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 9, 2006 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More stories from Iraq the US Press won't touch:

Iraq oil city shut down as troops hunt insurgents

KIRKUK: The northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk was deserted Saturday except for the rumble of military vehicles and the sound of patrolling helicopters as a curfew and
military operations kept residents inside.

Iraqi police and troops were conducting raids across the city, hunting for insurgents and unlicensed weapons in a bid to end a wave of assassinations and bombings.

"These operations are the first of their kind in Kirkuk, with more than 14,000 police and soldiers supported by US helicopters," said Captain Emad Jassim Khidr of Kirkuk police.

He added that all vehicles and pedestrian traffic had been banned and shops closed during the open-ended curfew.

Roads into the city have also been closed and in some cases sealed with newly dug trenches to cut down on rebel infiltration."


The story was published in places like Pakistan, Australia, and India - but the only mention of this I could find in the US Press after a brief search was this sentance in an LA Times article on Iraq:

"A curfew in place since Friday in Kirkuk was lifted after a U.S. and Iraqi military sweep in the northern city. The operation netted 184 terrorism suspects and a cache of weapons, an Iraqi army spokesman said."

No mention of oil - and that's the problem with Iraq, a problem that didn't exist in Vietnam - leaving Iraq means no more control of the oil; you can bet that a US-free Iraq would immediately 'renegotiate' all previous oil contracts.

I mean, all the permanent US military bases (constructed by guess who?) are located on top of refineries or pipelines - and yet the US media won't go near this topic with a ten-foot pole.

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

Troop pull out = less violence
Posted by: greyw on Oct 9, 2006 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a good history lesson for us to remember:

Eruptions of violence between Native American Indians in the midwest and federal troops sent to "secure" major travel routes DROPPED DRAMATICALLY when the Civil War started and these same troops were called away to fight the Southern forces leaving only 200 men behind.

Americans who still want our troops in Iraq, must want war, just as our corrupt leaders want profit.

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

Hole digger
Posted by: Edward George on Oct 9, 2006 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should we just refer to the Bush League as "hole Diggers?"

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

Beware the Murtha Trap
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 9, 2006 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Murtha’s “plan” is “Occupation Lite,” Pulling a majority of the troops out along a periphery into Kuwait and elsewhere. The core objectives remain: control of the Iraqi government, economy and especially the oil reserves...the only difference is a slightly less callous attitude towards the grunts on the ground. The current daily drip-drip of 2-5 American troop deaths is ultimately meaningless to the armchair warriors Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush. We now know that Dr. Kissinger is heavily involved in “advising” Bush...and we all know his wretched track record from a prior quagmire.

A Murtha-type occupation would probably rely more heavily on B-2 Stealth carpet precision bombing, killing scores here and there everyday...but the fatalities would be Iraqi civilians. Withdrawing troops into the periphery would invariably involving bringing them right back into Iraq again with any flare-up.

I have speculated that the Repugs...being the long-term strategic planners that they are...are going for a strategic loss in this election cycle....let the Dems regain power....let them invariably make matters worse with Murtha's "non-withdrawl" withdrawl...thereby taking the heat off of Dubya for this self-made mess. Two years latter...the next “Republican Revolution” will start all over again...with a new breed of young Turk Tom Delays.

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

Iraq's Partition by Moon of Alabama
Posted by: rwa on Oct 9, 2006 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The discussion within the U.S. foreign policy establishment on the future of Iraq has come to a conclusion. The U.S. will, now officially, work to dissolve the Iraqi nation and state into three independend statelets under a powerless sham national government and, of course, total U.S. control.

The current version of the idea was first floated back in May by Senator Biden and Leslie Gelb, both Democrats.

Col. Lang emphasizes, the seeds for partioning were laid when Cheney and the neocon figures around him ordered the Iraqi army to be disbanded and the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government, i.e. its total annulment. The idea of partitioning Iraq may even have been the very reason for the war.

The New Middle East expression goes back to the "Clean Break" document (pdf) prepared 1996 by U.S. neocons as a strategy for Israel's Netanyahu government. The first modern partition Iraq argument was made by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon in 1982. In A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties he recommends:

In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.

The now imminent, new policy of partitioning Iraq is indeed only the announcement of the result of a process that has been the plan and the policy all along.

This is a real "Mission Accomplished" moment.

If the policy is effective, which will be decided on streets of Iraq, this is a huge success for a clique of neocon U.S. supporters of Israels colonial strategy to divide and conquer.

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

Neo-Cons are GONE. Get over it!
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 9, 2006 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neo-Cons were bad, as most idealists are, but the neo-cons have no more real influence on what's happening. The old guard is back in force (Kissenger, Baker, Cheney, etc.) There are not neo-con. They are not idealists. They don't care about 'nation building' (except to gain large contracts for corporate friends and as exercise in brinksmanship.) They don't care about democracy spreading. They are realpolitik of the old school. Balance of powers. Wars to de-stabilise any up-and-comers. They want energy prices high. Keep Iraq oil off the market. Fine with them. If they can't get it then nobody else can. Our friends in Saudi, Qatar, etc thank them for it. If Iran/Iraq go to war (again). Fine with them. That means more destablization, higher energy prices, more excuses for the USA to be world policeman, and less chances that some 'backwards' country gets a nuke or becomes a threat.

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

» RE: Neo-Cons are GONE. Get over it! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Neo-Cons are GONE. Get over it! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Neo-Cons are GONE. Get over it! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Neo-Cons are GONE. Get over it! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» !? HUH!? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: !? HUH!? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Neo-Cons are GONE. Get over it! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Bush gets crazier every day
Posted by: DougScott on Oct 9, 2006 8:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In State of Denial, Bob Woodwood said Shrub told him, "I won't leave Iraq even if only Laura and Barnie [his dog} are supporting me."

That's a lunatic talking, not a president.

Cheers everyone, Doug

PS: For one of the best progressive websites on the Internet with over 70 Bushwacking cartoons and illlustrations, visit: www.King-George.biz

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

» RE: Bush gets crazier every day Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Bush gets crazier every day Posted by: HeroesAll
"The Inevitable"
Posted by: bohdan on Oct 9, 2006 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was published in Ovi Magazine in 2005.


The Bush Administration keeps stating that "we" cannot leave Iraq: until the votes for democracy are complete; until Iraqis establish a democratic government, until Iraqi forces can protect their citizens, not until...

Well, not until we realize The Inevitable will the true Iraqi solution come forth. It's the obvious one, the one that Iraqis are in the midst of forming themselves through violence.

This "insurgency" is not going to end until the most important lines are finally drawn, --- the boundary lines, separating each "tribe" into their own ruling domains.

Mankind has always and will always fight to the end for their country, their territory, their religion, their everything....

That is a Truth of any country, any heritage. Call it nationalism, call it anything you want except an untruth.

Presently, lines already mark territories guarded by numerous militias that answer only to their own leaders.

Therefore --- The INEVITABLE --- divide Iraq into three (countries?): Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. And most important, divide the wealth equally. Then and only then can true nation building take place. That should have been the goal from the beginning.

Iran will control the south no matter what. If Turkey invades the Kurdish "nation" then NATO is nothing more than a farce. Central Iran (Sunni) can then play out it's power over itself, as will the others.

If it's still not too late, perhaps it's worth diverting our efforts towards that solution.

But would the Bush Administration condone such a change in its policy, it would mean admitting a mistake --- and aren't they all infallible --- in their own words, in their own minds, it’s always someone else’s fault - (does “faulty intelligence” come to mind?)

"Stay the Course" has been their eternal mantra, a course mapped by lies.

Truth requires Courage, while Strength requires character, and Wisdom will ensure a lasting and true peace. Yet none of those qualities can be in effect until the curtain of lies is lifted. And that is where Courage still waits its turn.

Does the Administration have the Strength, Courage, and Wisdom to understand the future --- and not use the excuse of, "...nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined."

Republicans used that excuse in their past, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the insurgency in Iraq. It's become an idiot's answer to the very end of time.

If they only saw the Truth..... they could predict the future!

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

Idiocy of the highest order....
Posted by: invacuo on Oct 9, 2006 10:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the beggining we went to afghanistan. Osama was there with his buds. These guys were in bed with the Taliban. The taliban was a government made up of a bunch of HARDCORE Muslim freaks. They outlawed sports and started hanging people from the GOAL POSTS (literally). We had every right to go to Afghanistan and route out every last al-queda, and taliban asshole we could find. As a matter of fact, if we would have NUKED a few areas in and around the mountains, it would of been alright with me. All of this was in response to an event on Sept. 11 2001. ( for those who dont know, I suggest researching the topic).

Our military was doing fine killing al-quada and their Taliban buddies until what was left of them ran across the border into PAKISTAN. Now this posed a problem for Bush and the boys, and rightly so because Pakistan has FISSION technology. God told Bush to stop. The president of Pakistan assured George that he would do what he could to catch Osama, but could only come up