A beautiful summing-up, Joshua. Any chance of this article being reproduced in the thousands and nailed to the door of every politician and media reporter in the country?

Or, perhaps, you could engrave it on a big whacking stick, and hit the wilfully ignorant buggers on the head with it until they get the idea.

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

is still being fought, 60 plus years after the invasion.

And Okinawa is the best case scenario for an American occupation.

We Americans have always thought that Okinawans should love us because we liberated them from centuries of domination by Japan.

Wrong.

Even today, in a recent court case, a couple of Japanese have sued to stop the publication of a book which tells how Japanese gave Okinawans hand grenades during the mass suicide jumps off the Suri Cliffs (to avoid being eaten by the Americans).

So Okinawans don't much like the Japanese either.

Yet for decades, Okinawans have protested US bases on Okinawa.
They finally threw off US Administration in favor of the rule (again) by the Japanese.

So it seems that Okinawans dislike like Americans (in general) even more than they dislike Japanese.

Fast forward to Iraq:

A senior aide to al-Sadr just got asassinated.

Al-Sadr's office issued this statement:

“I promise before God and the Iraqi people that I will never forget this blot, and the occupier will never feel safe in our land, while I am alive.”

Seems like Iraqis dislike us Americans even more than they dislike their Sunni, Arab, Kurdish, Iranian neighbors.

McCain and "Stumped" would prefer that we linger around "friendly" Iraq for a century.

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

Sorry to regular readers for being repetitive, but the timetable he’s referring to is a timetable for a troop draw-down, not a troop withdrawal. And that draw-down would leave tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers on the ground, and, more importantly, the infrastructure of the almost universally-loathed occupation in place. And they’d stay for as long as McCain would have them there: indefinitely; both Dems talk about "ending the war," but both have flatly refused to commit to a full withdrawal within their first terms.

Hey, Joshua, I've seen you raising this disturbing issue at length and I just want to say I think what you are doing is important and I, for one, appreciate you repeating the unwelcome news until it sinks in. I think that could be a while, especially given the cognitive dissonance being cultivated by the campaigns and the majority of journalists and bloggers who are given to playing up one or more of the players rather than providing a fair assessment of what is really being said and what it could mean come January.


It was bitterly amusing to hear Bush describe our presence in Iraq as being something that the government of Iraq requested... like the puppet Poland government "requested" the presence of Germany in 1939... Or in Hungary in 1956 when the Hungarian quisling János Kádár "requested" the Russian intervention to crush the free expression of a people suffering a brutal foreign oppression.

Ah, come on, if you bully your puppets long enough and well enough you can almost get them to truthify (sorry, I'm a Colbert fan) your favorite lies. For instance, on a high pass in Bulgaria, overlooking the plain that extends to the northern border of Turkey, there is a huge monument to the Soviet liberators who blessed the Bulgarians with their Cold War era freedom and opportunity in the world by saving them from the terrible Turks (who admittedly were hard to please, but at least they did not seek to completely destroy the religious and folk cultures of the natives the way the Soviets did). It was a genuine, major tourist attraction before the U.S.S.R. unraveled after biting off more than they could could chew in Afghanistan and nearby locales and demoralizing and bankrupting the folks back home. (Not that that has anything to do with current affairs, of course.)

But, yeah, I see what you are getting at. Why should Bush and the boys wimp out now after telling so many over the top lies as they sought to defy any and every law and treaty set before them? I mean, if you are going to rewrite history to your own advantage, don't mess around with arguable details of public opinion or the sincerity of the begging of poodles that were bred and trained to perform as you please. No, be bold! Follow the example of the Chinese, for example, who have simply declared that Tibet has always been a part of China, much as puppet al-Maliki's real-boy predecessor in Baghdad declared Kuwait to have always been Iraqi territory. Now, that's lying like you mean it (even though everyone knows you do not and cannot)!

Um, that is what you meant, right?

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

I just loved your commentary on what you consider to be fantasy.

Are you certain that you can still distinguish between what you consider to be fantasy and what you consider to be reality after your, apparently, long indulgence advancing your conjecture as fact?

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

"If, in the final analysis, the conclusion is that things were better before the invasion, then the pullout will definitely mark the beginning of the end for America's leadership role in the world."

Isn't this statement a little disingenuous? If things were "concluded to have been better before the invasion" wouldn't that logically lead to the conclusion that the "beginning of the end for America's leadership role in the world" was actually the original Invasion of Iraq?

By the way I have always been told this was a liberating police action to save the world not an Invasion of a soverign nation. Isn't Carl actually bucking the Government stance with his own statement?

Thanks for the good work keep it up!

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

There's no need to tell me how thorough you THINK you've been, or how rich your sources are. Those messages should SHOULD come through in your writing. They don't.

Now. I'll tell you how what you've written is fantasy, without ever needing to blow the bugle announcing the qualifiers of my position.

Although, and I'll say this once, at least (if you're telling the truth about your efforts) you have bothered to step foot inside the borders of Iraq before making your commentary. That experience could lead to clarity for many, if your message wasn't so skewed toward agenda.

Back now.

1) Liberation. Liberation means to "set at liberty, or to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power."

Liberation is not an event, it is a process, and it is NOT a permanent state. For a fleeting period of time, Iraq was LIBERATED from its dictator. Numerous witnesses and acocunts of the jubilation of FREE Iraqi citizens after Saddam's fall attest to this fact.

Sectarian violence, longstanding hatred, and foreign influences have since erased that liberation. That is why we are still there.

Do I need to explain how transparently biased it is to argue that there was no value in removing a dictator and making possible future re-liberation for Iraq under completely different political and social circumstances?

2) Violence. The US is NOT quelling violence in Iraq, and we are not there to quell violence. This was fantasy because it was your OWN assertion that quelling violence is our mission there. This precept, though, is in direct conflict with the presence of our combat troops there. (as opposed to, say, a delegation of diplomats.) Our purpose is to DIRECT violence at the appropriate times, places, and targets, and to suppress violence at appropriate times, places and targets.

3) Stability. For the same reasons as 2, above, this is your personal fantasy. The US has no mission to create stability in Iraq.

The US has a mission to nurture conditions under which Iraqis may form their own stability. A foreign power has little ability to create anything that will persist after its exit. The mission is to create conditions that may incubate political and social processes in a new republic. Again - process, not event - and LONG TERM.

4) al-Qa'ida. For all the reasons that you state, al-Qa'ida is a factor. al-Qa'ida, as you'll recall from speaking with all of your Iraqi associates, has operated from areas in Northern Iraq for many years -- well before US troops entered Iraq. (I'm sure you've seen Awda Ila Al Jibal shot circa 2002. No? Well, now you have something new to think about. You're right that they're disliked generally.

5) Stability / Indefinite. This is the big one. The presumption that indefinite means perpetual is an intentional stigma attached to the idea of no timeframe by those who wish to mislead. Stability will not flourish under indefinite occupation. The idea that anyone responsible for policy has announced a perpetual occupation is a fabrication (fantasy). Please read 3, above for elaboration on stability. (Though it's not a complex topic.)

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

If they do this, there may be no Democratic administration to draw down troops from Iraq.

"If the Bush administration, the New York Times, and the Washington Post get their way, the US military will commence with missile and air strikes against Iranian targets before the November elections."

Would they do this to try to get "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain electeed as the "obvious" CIC we need?

Sure hope someone -- Military? Congress? intervenes.

The Coming War with Iran
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_
john_r_m_080412_the_coming_war_with_.htm

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

Well done Josh. As for the unfortunate JWSmith, he's actually doing you a favour by highlighting how utterly unattractive self-delusion, neocorp worship and attempting to justify indefensible horror through mindless acceptance of witless propaganda can be. On the bright side, such rove-inspired circus acts might just win over a few converts: unaware but sane GOP supporters (yes, they do exist) who don't want to be in any way associated with such superficial, intellectually bereft, intentionally provocative, and - not to forget - utterly wrong rightwingnut pap.

As for the article, I have a tiny criticism; not of what's there but what isn't...something which seems increasingly less 'up front' than it has been and certainly should be lately: in-depth examination and analysis of WHY the US invaded, WHY they're still there, WHY it looks like they'll never leave and, most important, WHY all this is becoming something like an acceptable fact-of-life...a distant and apparently irrelevant one for Americans, but an all too imminent fact-of-death and fear for innocent Iraqis and manipulated kid-soldiers on both sides. What's happened to the desperate demand to know and the entirely appropriate revulsion?

This is not a shot at your dependable research and work Josh, just a query about the declining examination of what may be the most important aspect of this debacle. Searching out the truth about the WHY's is crucial if your country is to avoid such stunningly corrupt, amazingly short-sighted and potentially globally-disasterous mistakes in the future.

Cheers.

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

Joshua your article is excellent and important. Comments are well written and also very important. This discussion is what ALL Americans should be "entertaining" themselves with and insisting the Congress joins in.

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

This article is well written and thoroughly well defended. It is an impressive work of journalism, and I am glad to see it from you. Keep up this kind of reporting, and you will definitely make a mark for yourself in the journalistic world.

I was impressed with the way you structured your arguments, and pointed out the fantasies of the Republican Dream Machine. Your vetting of your sources was also re-assuring to see. Now I have just one question: how do you see this situation resolving itself?

I personally am torn on what to do. Part of me wants the killing of our people to end, so I favor immediate and complete withdrawal. Apparently, I agree with Iraqis. I am also enough of an historian to understand that the ramifications of destabilizing an area as volatile as the Middle East and then just walking away could be catastrophic for the locals as their own internal politicians vie for control. A phased withdrawal does not seem to offer an answer either if it is not complete and total. So, where do we go? Do you know if the Iraqis themselves have offered any solutions as to what they want to see happen and how, or are they just expressing the desire to see us gone tomorrow (which by the way, I would not object to either)?

It seems to me that the will of the Iraqi people, if this is indeed a new democracy as the Republican Thug seems to keep insisting, should be what is dominant in the decision. If they want us gone, then we should leave and let them fight it out amongst themselves, like many fledgling democracies, our own included, did.

Perhaps a job for that cow Condi should be to meet with ALL the leaders of the Middle Eastern neighbors of Iraq and Al-Maliki, and require a commitment to support whatever the IRAQI PEOPLE decide to do; keep hands off the internal struggle while they work it out. Then tell Al-Maliki it is up to him to negotiate with these other leaders while he lets his own people, of all religious sects, work locally to correct the problems they face using the oil profits of the nation, divided equally by region. Anything less, and we walk out and let the Iraqis fight it out with their neighbors and let Allah sort out the dead!

Any ideas, Joshua, or is it all just a nightmare of our own making that will go on indefinitely?

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

is that Bush is setting the agenda. The simplest way to leave Iraq is to impeach Bush so that the whole stupid disaster is exposed. We destroyed Iraq and we cannot fix it no matter what we do; it's up to the Iraqis to fight it out for control of their country. We are a foreign occupier and the only generally agreed upon enemy by all the Iraqis. Americans have to be made to accept the truth and reject the Bush lies upon which the disaster rests. If we do not impeach Bush, the republicans will make history say that the democrats lost the war. Even more serious is that we will lose Afganistan(the relevant war) and continue to grind down our military. Regan began the destruction of the US internally, and Bush is extending it externally. The money we have wasted in middle east fighting could have, by now, bought us independence from arab oil. The real defense against arab terrorism is to have as little to do with them as possible; let them stew in their own oil.

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

we can hardly control anything now with all the people we have in Iraq. when the military runs out of fresh meat(and they will). All the Iraqis have to do is continue a steady build up to strength and they will throw us out. hey,they're not monkeys. they are human being with brains the same size as yours and mine.

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

great article How do you get the stamina to reply to some of these blind-faithers and just plain stupid people? It is amazing that some people can't recognize truth no matter how many times or how many ways it is presented to them. these types still think the first people with the bad news about WMD's(that there weren't any)were lying or something.

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

and thank you again, for the reminders...
The US will draw-down and leave when the Iraqi govt signs the HYRDO-CARBON bill. Oil from beginning to end. Crocker and Petreus were pathetic in their testimonies, and the questions asked by those in the House and Senate almost as bad. OIL. The rest is merely smoke and circuses...BTW, sure seems like lots of testosterone in these posts, boyz!

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