Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Is Bush 'Succeeding' In Iraq?

By Robert Dreyfuss, Tomdispatch.com. Posted June 23, 2006.


The time has passed for both 'bringing the troops home now' and continuing to stay the course in the lost cause of Iraq.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

One of the most unfortunate myths pervading American culture, the American psyche, and the whole American weltanschauung -- and it's one for which we might as well go ahead and blame movie director Frank Capra -- is that in most situations the good guys win. Morality triumphs. The greedy and self-interested, the cruel and mean-spirited are defeated. Ultimately, or so the myth goes, the bad guys win some of the battles, but in the end the good guys win the wars.

Sadly, in the real world, good doesn't always win. Sometimes, good isn't even there. When it comes to Iraq, the left, the liberals, the progressives (for the sake of argument, the good guys) sometimes seem to have their heads in the clouds. That's true in regard to the crucial question of whether President Bush's stay-the-course strategy can succeed. The answer, unfortunately, is: Yes, it can.

The Bush administration's strategy in Iraq today, as in the invasion of 2003, is: Use military force to destroy the political infrastructure of the Iraqi state; shatter the old Iraqi armed forces; eliminate Iraq as a determined foe of U.S. hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf; build on the wreckage of the old Iraq a new state beholden to the U.S.; create a new political class willing to be subservient to our interests in the region; and use that new Iraq as a base for further expansion.

To achieve all that, the President is determined to keep as much military power as he can in Iraq for as long as it takes, while recruiting, training, funding, and supervising a ruthless Iraqi police and security force that will gradually allow the American military to reduce their "footprint" in the country without entirely leaving. The endgame, as he and his advisors imagine it, would result in a permanent U.S. military presence in the country, including permanent bases and basing rights, and a predominant position for U.S. business and oil interests.

Marshaling the bad news

Many progressives scoff at such a scenario. They argue, with persuasiveness, that the American project in Iraq is doomed. To prove their point, they cite (what else?) the bad news. And there certainly is a lot of it.

First of all, the Sunni-led insurgency, metastasizing continually, is a hydra-headed army of armies representing former Baathist military, security, and intelligence officers, assorted nationalists and Islamists, tribal and clan leaders, and city and neighborhood militias. It has shown remarkable resilience. The elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not likely to put much of a dent in the Sunni resistance and may only strengthen it.

Second, Iraq's Shiites are restive, at best, and bitterly divided among themselves. The two most powerful blocs, with the two most important militias -- the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq with its Badr Brigade and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army -- are to varying degrees unhappy with the American presence. The up-and-coming Fadhila bloc, one of whose leaders was just arrested in Najaf (allegedly for planning IED attacks against U.S. forces), is brooding. Throughout Iraq's mostly Shiite southern regions, Shiite parties and armies are battling among themselves for the control of important cities, including Basra, and of Iraq's Southern Oil Company, which produces the vast bulk of Iraqi oil and has provided a valuable stream of corrupt cash for Shiite party leaders. Some of them -- possibly all of them -- are turning to various factions in Iran for support.

Third, the Kurds, ensconced in the Alamo-like Kurdish region in the north, are happily waxing pro-American even as they quietly prepare for a unilateral grab of the key oil city of Kirkuk, of Iraq's Northern Oil Company, and of other territory contiguous to the Kurdish region -- thus threatening to set in motion an almost unavoidable clash with Iraq's Arabs, both Sunni and Shiite, and possibly nearby states as well.

Fourth, the American project to create an Iraqi army and police force is going badly. So far, at least, the main army and police units have been reconstituted from the Badr Brigade and Kurdish pesh merga militiamen, none of whom are loyal to the concept of a unitary, nonsectarian Iraq, nor have they been unable to grasp basic notions of human rights. The Shiites, in particular, are engaged in a bloody campaign of death-squad killings and kidnappings, along with targeted assassinations aimed at Baathists. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for the United States to use war-hardened, embittered, and power-hungry Shiite and Kurdish forces to keep peace in Sunni areas, including western Baghdad.

Fifth, of course, the economic reconstruction of Iraq is, shall we say, not going swimmingly.

Not surprisingly, many politicians and generals and most progressives have adopted a worst-case outlook. With bad news mounting, they argue that the American project in Iraq is lost. In truth, I've made the same argument, at various points over the past three years. Last November, in an article entitled Getting Out of Iraq for Rolling Stone, I wrote: "George Bush is just about the only person in Washington these days who doesn't know that the United States has lost the war in Iraq." I quoted former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who told a congressional hearing organized by House progressives that the United States had better get out of Iraq before the resistance overruns the Green Zone. "We need an exit strategy that we choose -- or it will certainly be chosen for us," said the grievously wounded Vietnam veteran. "I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).

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

Advertisement
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 Military: The New Face Of America
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 23, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Mr. Dreyfuss regarding our ablity to sustain a military presence in Iraq for years to come. As for control of the region I disagree. Iraq is now aligned with Iran by their shared Shiite heritage, which is thicker than blood in that region. Sunnis have only Suadi Arabia as their ally and they have no resolve other than to protect their own kingdom. So the oil reserves in Iraq and Iran are controlled by a group that has no intention of ever trusting Americans and by the rhetoric of Iran feel no need to even pretend. They are now making their resources available to China and India (as is Russia). Our adventure in Iraq make succeed only by physical presence there but we do not have the diplomacy, cultural respect or religious tolerance to ever be regarded as partners or associates in that region. The face of America is now the military, and that never has and never will win friends or influence enemies in the long run. And no leader in this country yet, that I have listened to or read about, understands the rest of the world beyond Manhattan or the Pentagon.

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

The "current" Bush Strategy...
Posted by: adp3d on Jun 23, 2006 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is not the same as what they told us in 2003, we can all agree on that. The five points in Marshaling the bad news can all point to the one initial shortcoming in this whole misadventure: That American troop strength was and continues to be woefully inadequate. So the question now is since the administration doesn't give two hoots about public opinion, why are there not at least twice as many troops there, dealing a correspondingly heavy hand on the insurgency? I have opposed this thing since the very beginning and I feel that we need to get out yesterday. This war is nothing but a way for profiteers to loot the national treasury with the blessing of the administration, who cares if a few lives are lost along the way( grrr...). Yes this has been one huge mistake since its inception. I can't stand to see the suffering we have imposed on these people and I can't blame them for saying that life under Saddam was better than it is now.

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

worst possible scenario
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 23, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst possible scenario that could come out of Iraq would be for the Bushies to succeed in Iraq and be able to have a military presence there indefinitely. This is so because if the Bushie criminals succeed there, there is a chance they could eventually control the entire world through death and destruction. A fascist America controlling the world would be the end of decent human civilization. The present trend is toward Bushie failure. If that trend continues then we have a chance of survival for democracy and decency.

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

» RE: worst possible scenario Posted by: nergohs
» RE: worst possible scenario Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: worst possible scenario Posted by: peacefulaim
» RE: worst possible scenario Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: worst possible scenario Posted by: sidewinder
Wonderful
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Jun 23, 2006 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really really great to see democrats finally come on board and support the war in Iraq. With support from both parties, we can keep the defense industry humming along for decades at the expense of only a few tens of thousand iraqi and american lives.

All you democrats really have to do is keep suppressing the antiwar movement. Of course, I don't mean the faux-liberal antiwar wing of your party. I mean the real antiwar left. The one you've been supressing since dear leader started the glorious Iraq war.

Now that the democrat echo chamber has joined the republican echo chamber into ONE GREAT REPUBLICRAT MEDIA MACHINE, there's no reason why war throughout the middle east can't be sustained indefinately, through many many administrations both republican and democrat.

So, well done Progressives! Excellent job! Keep up the good work supporting our wars of aggression, keep pretenting you're somehow "left" of dear leader's administration, and above all, keep that antiwar movement marginalized!

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

» RE: Wonderful Posted by: nergohs
sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jun 23, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Bush keeps stomping us farther down the toiletbowl and China's economic power grows, we are going to lose more and more mideast oil to China and India due to being out bid in the marketplace. Bush's alienation of the South American oil producing countries will make us one squeaky wheel

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

» RE: sickofsleaze Posted by: mrcentrist
» RE: sickofsleaze Posted by: nergohs
» RE: sickofsleaze Posted by: mrcentrist
Coalition building
Posted by: lamar on Jun 23, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember back when we had a huge anti-war rally in NYC before the invasion of Iraq: there were plenty of pro-choice signs, animal rights signs, and GLBTQ signs mixed in with anti-war signs. I thought, why are we selling hamburgers at a jewelry store? I was there against the war, not in protest of fur. I think the anti-war movement marginalized itself with sheer dilution of message. Some of us had very different reasons for being there, and these differences were never ironed out, and are easily used by Bush&Co to divide the anti-war movement. I'm not completely anti-war, I'm 100% anti-this war, and we can argue the merits somewhere else, but it seems that we had a large movement of people who wanted to bitch and moan about fur and gays rather than war, and if we did get into it, they wanted to chastise me for differing as to why Iraq was a terrible idea.

Longwinded as it is, my point is that this article calls for unity and rational coalition building in the anti-war movement. It's long overdue both for the war and partisan politics in general.

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

Agreed!
Posted by: indy675 on Jun 23, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I whole-heartedly agree with the author. This nightmare in Iraq is not a mistake. A mistake is something I make monthly when balancing my checkbook. This war was planned long before 9/11; long before Bush was selected by a Supreme Court that had no business interfering in a national election.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is no less than the mother of all war crimes, and everything that has flowed from it since is, therefore, a war crime, crimes against the peace and against humanity. The people responsible for it must be held accountable to the fullest extent of constitutional and international law, no matter how long it takes.

To this day, the American people, who are paying for the carnage in Iraq (unless they have had the moral courage to refuse), have not been told what the administration's goals are. Do the Democrats in Congress know? Do the Republicans in Congress Know?

All we really know is that quite a few people are becoming obscenely wealthy off this war and they are all big contributors to the GOP and some, to a lesser degree, contribute to some Democrats.

Basically, what we have here is a "protection racket" just like organized crime used to run.

I don't have a problem with talking to insurgents, resistance fighters, whatever one wants to call the people in Iraq who do not want their country occupied and their natural resources stolen by multinational corporations.

When the soldiers of any nation invade a foreign country, after bombing it back to the stone ages (shock and awe), they can expect to find some unfriendly people waiting for them.

Our soldiers were lied to, just as we all were. Many of them and us were actually deceived. Our soldiers believed that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They believed that Iraq posed a continuing, grave and gathering threat to our country. They didn't go to Iraq to liberate anybody. They went there for purposes of vengeance, based on lies by the administration.

I applaud attempts by anyone to do whatever it takes to stop the carnage. If that means amnesty for certain Iraqis whose only goal is to remove occupiers from their homeland, so be it. I do hope, for their own sakes, that the government of Iraq (if it really is a soverign government) and the Iraqi people will be careful to whom they grant pardons. Quite a few people, in any country, who are attracted to war and killing are basically sociopaths and psychopaths to begin with, and find a psychological home in killing fields. For the sake of the society, these people should not be pardoned.

I know how difficult it is for Americans to understand, in any real way, how it feels to live in an occupied country, let alone how it feels to have your country bombed and your children, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters and neighbors shot in front of your eyes. It is difficult, because it hasn't happened here, since the Civil War. Think about what we would do under those circumstances. Would we fight back, or cower in our homes, hoping and praying that we or someone we love would not be the next victim.

As the old saying goes, war is hell. That is why we should never enter into one lightly. This one is illegal. It is a crime.

That is the truth of the matter, and it is that truth that the anti-war forces must coalesce around and our so-called leaders in Washington should be bold enough to say.

Until that truth is accepted and dealt with, our country has no moral authority nor will it be trusted by the rest of the world; a world that waits, none too patienly, now, for the American people to rise up and say NO MORE!

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

» RE: Agreed! Posted by: peacefulaim
is our imperialism anything new?
Posted by: Democritus on Jun 23, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Dreyfuss clearly outlines the Bush strategy for continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely, in concert with mainstream Democrats. But is this anything new? Since the Mexican War we have covered our imperialist designs with appeals to patriotism, freedom, and democracy. The Spanish-American War allowed us to subjugate the Filipinos; our invasion of Panama kept control of the Canal Zone effectively in our hands; our CIA plotters helped in the coup of Chile's Allende; our operatives in Haiti helped overthow Aristede; our illegal aid to the Contras in Nicaragua weakened the Sandinistas there; our machinations almost toppled Chavez in Venezuela. The list goes on and on. When we cannot get governments we like in other countries, governments that allow our corporations to enrich themselves at the expense of people living in those countries, we trump up reasons to go to war, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. These practices will only cease when the American public denounces imperialism and elects those who vow to adhere to the principles of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

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

More Reverse Psychology
Posted by: symcokid on Jun 23, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this more reverse psychology to make the Draft Dodging, War Mongering Dolt look like an all encompassing ALL AMERICAN HERO. The MORLOCK should be tried for WAR CRIMES along with his cronies side by side with Hussein!!! I wonder if they started constructing the direct oil pipeline connection flow to ISRAEL yet, don't worry, that's coming.

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

How the Left Is Wrong About Iraq?
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 23, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How the Left Is Wrong About Iraq? What left?

If the author is talking about the Democrats, they're not the left.
They don't represent us so they don't speak for us.

If the author is including all Americans that identify with the left such as most of the posters on Alternet, we'll we weren't wrong four years ago when we advised the country against a premature or unnecessary war and they called us traitors, America haters, appeasers, cowards and probably more.

And we're not likely to be wrong now either when recommending that withdrawal plans to begin immediately. Who really believes that a continued presence of the American military in Iraq will lead to a stable, democratic government?

Whatever horrors are in store for the Iraqis when the US leaves the region and the three local factions are free to do battle openly, there is no reason to think that those horrors will be mitigated by anything that the US military could or would do there. Whether it's tomorrow or ten years from now, as soon as they can, these groups will go to war with one another somebody stops them, i.e., until another police state arises and suppresses the warring. How could it be any other way?

So, tell me again how the left is wrong about Iraq.

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

And what about the Iraqi government?
Posted by: lb on Jun 23, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the story in today's London Times about the impending "peace" plan of the Iraqi government that includes the withdrawal of ALL US troops?

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

Dreyfus is naive
Posted by: daw13 on Jun 23, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if he imagines that anything short of Regime Change in this country can result in what he would consider to be a most healthy solution. This follows directly from his insistence that the war was not a "mistake" but a well thought out intention.

To oppose the war is to oppose the Clash of Civilizatons unilateralism that now defines our government. If insisting upon immediate withdrawal is not totally rational in terms of the needs of Iraquis, given the threat to US citizens by this government, it is the most rational way for us to create the organization we need to protect ourselves.

Moveon and DailyKos should not ask their members to contribute one thin dime to any democratic politican unwilling loudly and aggressively to declare opposition to the war. Any organization claiming to represent grassroots interests that tacitly accepts the war should be labeled False Activist, and suspected of having been created, however cleverly, to serve the interestes of the Current US Regime.

In short, Dreyfus focuses on how our gang of thugs threatens people's abroad. The most important way in which the Iraq War was not a mistake, was in how effectively waging it has increased their ability to transform this nation into a place where the Bill of Rights now longer applies, the First Amedment no longer applies, and a government of checks and balances no longer exists.

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

» RE: Dreyfus is naive Posted by: outsidea
A Pyrrhic Victory
Posted by: Shakti on Jun 23, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Such "victory" of which the author writes -- a permanent military presence in Iraq and a puppet government -- is likely to do immense harm to the U.S. in the long run. Firstly, it is incredibly costly in human lives and treasure. Secondly, it is unlikely to last very long. How long did our puppet government in Iran last? In Libya? Whenever we try to do this, the U.S. backed leaders invariably get deposed and a rabidly anti-U.S. government takes over.

Using U.S. military might to muscle in on sovereign nations in an effort to secure our economic domination of a region or resource (i.e., "empire") is bound to fail eventually. The situation in Iraq is just the latest manifestation of the American Empire. It is not in keeping with the highest ideals of the U.S. and not in line with the way most Americans see our country.

If you recall, American-style capitalism was supposed to spread throughout the world on its own merits, without the use of military force. (It was the nasty Communists who used force to spread their ideology.) Remember that story? That is what allowed the U.S. to feel morally superior, to refer to this country as the "land of the free." And even though it was not wholly true, to the extent that capitalism really worked and our representative democracy functioned, America really did stand for something good.

If the neocons achieve their "victory," I predict that 1) it will cause the U.S. to travel even further down the path of empire, thereby eroding what was best about America, and 2) it will not last very long.

Iraq really is about oil and empire and what kind of nation we will be over the next generation or two. Remember that the Roman Empire crumbled rather quickly: the crises that marked the beginning of the end took place in a span of about 50 years (expanding military, hyperinflation, unstable leadership, civil war, economic collapse). If the U.S. government continues its empirical policies, it is just a matter of time before we experience the fallout from empire -- hordes of angry warriors from the provinces who seek to strike a dagger at the heart of the beast. Oh wait ... I guess that already happened.

The U.S. still has a chance to tone down its imperial stance and negotiate with other world powers - "speak softly and carry a big stick." But we have to get out of Iraq, apologize for our brutish behavior under the Bush Administration and mend our fences. Then we can rejoin the international community and avoid the eventual fate of all empires - the crash and burn. That would be a real victory.

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

Bush wasn't the 1st leader of Pax Americana
Posted by: RhodesVan3000 on Jun 23, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is only another figure head on the road to empire.
Clinton in the Balkans laid the ground work for Bush's regime.
Not to day Clinton was the 1st monster to hold the White House.
You know the leading Democrat contenders for POTUSA are mearly the other side of the same coin. DLC and so called liberal Repugs are the same in policy. HRC is a case in point.

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

Bush may "succeed" with the ruling class dream of Pax Americana.
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Jun 23, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush won't succeed where others have only tried because he has any qualities of intellect or leadership---far from it! But the rise of corporate power, launched under Reagan, has now co-opted civil society.

Government is bought and paid for by the ruling class; elections are rigged (wherever "victory" can't be achieved through character assasination, and fear mongering); and "we the people" have been force-fed jingoism and outright lies 'til we don't recognize truth when it stares US in the face. Not even when our sons and daughters are being thrown into the sacrificial fires of war, set alight in homage to the false gods of unbridled capitalism.

Of course, the ultimate "victory" will not belong to the United States. The "pax Americana" will not last nearly so long as the ancient "pax Romana" lasted. And when the Barbarians arrive at our gates, our view of the enemy will be like looking in a mirror.

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

Not a bad article.
Posted by: kryptx on Jun 23, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't agree with the analysis of the state of the war in Iraq, or the analysis of Bush's reasons for waging it (to be clear, I don't dispute that the reasons given above were probably among those for the war, I just think there are more reasons that weren't mentioned) but I do agree with one of the larger, more salient points in the article: that we are suffering from an inability to see the forest through the trees. Once this war is over every progressive and every conservative will see the war the same way. We will know, once and for all, which side was right all along.

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

Opining is great but...
Posted by: diogenes on Jun 23, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with everything said, so all I can add, is keep up the good work. Opinions are needed, but I shouldn't have to remind anybody what Tip O'Neill said about all politics being local. This whole country is controlled by the Registrar of Voters in each of the 3,086 counties in the U.S., and if any of you lives in a county that uses electronic voting machines, you need to get rid of them asap. Make no mistake about it, these machines are made by Republicans, sold to Republicans to guarantee Republican victories, always with a winning margin more than what is required to trigger a recount. We absolutely need to get back to paper ballots that are counted by hand at each precinct. It is the only way that we can achieve an honest election, which apparently no electronic voting tabulator can be relied on to do. Stalin said, "They who cast the ballots decide nothing. They who count the ballots decide everything", especially if the counting takes place behind closed doors. Write letters to your newspapers,file law suits (instructions can be found at www.votetrustusa.org.), start petitions, do whatever you can to rid our country of this plague.

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

All this Sound and the Fury Signifying Nothing
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Jun 23, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This post raises a lot of valid points in a blind run to nowhere...

Yes, the lines between "the good guys and the bad guys" are blurred to the very state of confusion.
Yes, we can't "...Stay the Course" (because there isn't one).
Yes, we can't just pull out, because we've made a mess and we need to at least try and clean it up.
Yes, the war was a mistake, and it was a war crime, but nobody seems to care enough to bring charges against the "Criminal-In-Chief" and his "Merry band of outlaws."

So let's just negotiate our way out of it? Why didn't someone think of that sooner? Oh... we don't negotiate with terrorists, (I heard that somewhere).

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

Call the UN
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jun 23, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, if the USA just had the guts to leave Iraq and let the UN station peace keepers there to facilitate a long restructuring... and hey, it's worked numerous times before.

But that's not mentioned in this article.

The anti-war movement, around the world, had staged the largest protests seen in history against the invasion of Iraq.

But that's not mentioned in this article.

The USA, just as it's done in Central America for the last few decades, Vietnam, and the Philapeans in the past, has used it's military to murder citizens of another nation illegally, set up a US friendly elite class, and secure resources (OIL) for US consumption.

This article seems to think shit happens.

This article mentions how the future US governments should just accept this? What the fuck is this supposed to tell me? War happens, accept it and gain some sort of victory?

This is typical American thinking... if thinking is what it may be called. Rationalizing the past in favour of a future plowed by America, and no one else. Despite the world wide disapproval of the Occupation of Iraq (Japan and Italy just left) and a majority of Iraqis saying they want the US out (because they are still killing us!) the only stratagy a writer for Rolling Stone can come up with is... *shrug*... stay the course???

Ignorant bastards. Swallow your bullshit hubris and call the UN.

Oh, but the US would never do that. The US stands alone.

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

» RE: Call the UN Posted by: outsidea
Win? Lose? Depends which game you're playing
Posted by: disgustedandamused on Jun 23, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our author has a point in recognizing that, in their terms, Bushco hasn't lost. But means recognizing at least two points:
1. while they use rationales based on defense of our republic and expansion of democratic realms, their behavior belies a gameplan better explained in terms of imperial politics. That's part of our problem in the US: Republicans & Democrats traditionally fight with each other over whether policies support republican defense of liberties/ property, versus democratic expansion of participatory space in the polity and society that intertwines with a capitalist economy. What neither really dwells on, officially, is how our republic AND democracy (both exist, indeed co-exist) along with an empire. Progressives only acknowledge this as a deviance from a democratic norm, & classic conservatives deny its reality on Page One by referring to the "freeworld" facade (while daily discussing its usefulness on the business page, and debating its administration in foreign/ military/ intel pieces on the opinion pages). But the empire has always been there, evolving along with the US republic and democracy. And it will probably still be there even in a post Peak-Oil (Iraqi war rationale), successfully sustainable US economy. The only questions will be its extent, institutions, functions and practical success.
Our 1st empire was the lands beyond the 13 colonies, it's goal was the drive to the Pacific, & its rationale was Manifest Destiny.
Our 2nd phase empire was Latin America & the Pacific Basin/ SE Asia/ China connection, its goal was parity with the European empires w/o direct conflict w/ Britain etc., & its rationale was a rehashing of the White Man's Burden.
Our 3rd phase empire coalesced the European empires into a multi-national coalition after WW2, with USA leading the coalition via NATO/ OECD, & its rationale was leading the freeworld (coalition & their neo-colonialized empires) in the Cold War against a Marxist Russia & China.
This is our 4th phase of empire. It's extent? Not yet decided. It's institutions? Still in the making. It's purpose? I'm betting it's all about the barrels. Keep as much of the planet's last half (post Peak) oil production for us, or at least deny China Inc unfettered access to geo-resources for growth of its own budding capitalist empire.
Moralists on left and right have always opposed each imperial phase and deviances from the ideal republic or democracy. You might as well yell at the players and referees at a football game for violating the rules of baseball. Honey, they're not playing your game, never meant to. Any realistic critique of Iraqwar, v2003 needs to start with that.
Debate this:
A. Does Empire #4's institutions (Patriot Act, 9/11 & Anthrax Inside Jobs, etc) threaten the foundations of the US republic AND democracy? Will success at this empire kill off freedom and socio-economic opportunity at home?
B. Are the policy aims of this empire (cornering planet's oil supply, for what it's worth) worth winning? Especially if it stands in the way of building a post-petrol infrastructure? Are we trying to win the wrong game?
(more...)

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

Thanks to the neocons, Iraq is a NO-WIN war -- just like Vietnam.
Posted by: HughEScott on Jun 23, 2006 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On June 15, 2006, White House press secretary Tony Snow, Fox news commentator turned Bush propagandist (an obvious redundancy), said the deaths of 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq weren't in vain.

Oh really, Mr. Smile? Tell that to 58,000 Americans who died in Southeast Asia four decades ago, only to have the Pentagon's top neocon, Don “I’m right, you’re wrong” Rumsfeld, fly to Hanoi and kiss up to our new Commie “friends.”

And what about 40 years from now, when Iraq may well be an Islamic republic run by radical Shiites friendly to Iran with Red China buying all the oil? What will future neoconservatives say to the 2,500 dead GIs then? Oops?

Face it, folks. We the people -- Democrats, independents and Republicans, liberals, moderates and conservatives -- have been played for suckers by the rightwing GOP -- draft-dodging neocon cowards like Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove who split our nation apart for personal profit and political gain.

For the truth about the treasonous neocons, visit:
www.FreedomCentralUSA.com

Hugh E. Scott, author, investigative journalist, Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican and Goldwater conservative with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776.

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

» correct link this time (tested) Posted by: aurora2484
albiegf13
Posted by: albiegf13 on Jun 23, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"George Bush is just about the only person in Washington these days who doesn't know that the United States has lost the war in Iraq."

I don't know why we continue to refer to the "WAR". We are no longer in a state of WAR. We are "OCCUPYING". We have INVADED, FOUGHT, WON the WAR and DEFEATED the ENEMY. Now we are OCCUPYING. So long as we continue to refer to our OCCUPATION as a WAR, we are arming those who want to continue the OCCUPATION. It is a virtue to WIN a WAR, it is a SIN to OCCUPY.

We desperately need to change the language of this debate in order to state the TRUTH. So long as the American people believe that by leaving Iraq or cutting and running as our friends would say, means loosing the WAR, they will support half baked efforts to continue in this OCCUPATIONAL engagement. Once it is made clear to Americans that the WAR was WON and that the ENEMY was DEFEATED and that all that we are doing now is ENGAGING in OCCUPATION and interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, even the most conservative of our freedom loving American Brothers will demand that our troops be withdrawn from this slaughter and brought home imediately.

PLEASE QUIT WRITING ABOUT THE WAR AND START WRITING ABOUT THE OCCUPATION.

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

Don't stay the course, correct the course.
Posted by: margoday on Jun 23, 2006 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that the Republicans are winning their political wars with catchy slogans and false choices. The most glaring recent example is that the U.S.A. must either "stay the course" or "cut and run".

I think that the Democrats need to turn these slogans around with short, pithy (and true) slogans of our own.

My suggestion for starters is to respond to the "stay the course or cut and run" rhetoric. Let's give America an honest choice: "The U.S.A. must decide whether to "STAY ON AN ILL CONCEIVED COURSE" or "CORRECT THE COURSE".

Please, please, please start using this phrase: CORRECT THE COURSE, CORRECT THE COURSE, CORRECT THE COURSE. Democrats want to CORRECT THE COURSE. Republicans want to stay on an ill conceived and losing course.

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

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL BUSH ABOUT IRAQ
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 23, 2006 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has no idea what goes on in Iraq. The war was orchestrated by others "close to the WHite House" and they ain't saying. It's clear that the Prez is out of the loop. I don't know why we continue to support this bloodbath. Clearly, there can be no winner. There will never be a good time to leave so why not now. We have no right to expect any more from our military. We have a moral obligation to bring them home and tend to their needs. Our leaders behave shamefully and we allow it. It doesn't have to be this way.
Thanks, ANNA

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

jennherne
Posted by: jennherne on Jun 23, 2006 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS "WAR" IS NOT A FAILURE!
Administration cronys are getting rich, money is disappearing by the truckload, civil liberties are a thing of the past, the American Taliban is in the ascendency.
This "war" is no failure, it is accomplishing everything it was designed to do.

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

Succeeding; but at what?
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Jun 23, 2006 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, I've no doubt that Bush has succeeded at doing something in Iraq, but I don't think it was at all what he intended. Or, at least, what he stated the intent was. Kind of hard to round NBC Weapons that only exist in your fevered imagination, for instance.

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

Of course he's succeeding in Iraq!!
Posted by: xbj on Jun 23, 2006 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course BushCheneyCo are succeeding in Iraq!


Let's look at what they've accomplished (and these figures are the exact figures from the President's own personal estimates):


Offense contractor profits up a zillion percent.

Offense contractor stocks up a zillion points.

GOP contributions (mob tribute) from offense contractors up a zillion percent.

Democratic contributions from offense contractors up a tenth of a zillion percent.

Oil prices and oil profits up a zillion percent.

Islamic Terrorism recruiting (and resulting endless source of patsies for BushCheneyCo terrorism against America and
American citizens) up a zillion percent.

American goodwill throughout the world down a zillion percent.

American military casualties up a zillion percent.

Enemy military AND civilian causalties up a zillion times ten percent (but not sure on that; we don't count those, those lives are not important to the American scheme of things.)

Amount of innocent blood spilled to make BushCheneyCo richer; up a zillion percent.

Over a zillion dollars missing from the Pentagon.

Over a zillion dollars in reconstruction funds allocated by Congress missing in Iraq.

Over a zillion human beings worldwide afraid that the United States will attack Iran, and in doing so, start all-out WWIII nuclear war between a combined China and Russia against the US with resulting fallout, nuclear and economic.

Dollar value dropped a zillion percent against world currencies.

National debt increased by a zillion percent.

Bankruptcies and foreclosures and homeless; up a zillion percent.

Child school test scores; down a zillion percent.

Mainstream media journalists' fear at being fired for telling the truth; up a zillion percent.

Fear and mistrust of the US government throughout the globe; up a zillion percent.

Amount of votes not counted correctly in the 2000, 2002, 2004, and upcoming 2006 elections: a zillion.

Amount of likely anti-Bush legitimate voters turned away from the polls; up a zillion percent each election.

Amount of hatred worldwide for American People not rising up and removing their evil dictator; up a zillion percent.


Now anyway you look at it, that's some kind of success!


So god bless George Bush, absolutely and singlehandedly the most bestest and most successful and most decidingest US President EVER IN HISTORY.

Hell, the top leader in all of humankind, out of ZILLIONS.

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

Saddam was a winner too!
Posted by: jbloggz on Jun 24, 2006 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq had won the war with Iran, despite the fact that the war had not gained a centimeter for his country and a war which caused a couple of million deaths. Likewise after his defeat in the Gulf war he said yet again that Iraq had acheived a glorious win. Now then, you can see how easy it is to make a 'win'. No matter what is said to the contrary, Bush and company will always say they won. Especially as they have acheived almost all their objectives. Control of the oil, permanent Iraq bases, a puppet government in Iraq despite it's leaning towards Iran. It also means that it's just a few bombing minutes away from Iran by air, enough to control any ideas that the Iranians might have to upset the gulf oil supplies. And of course it's protection of it's other unwritten US state Israel!

Deaths of soldiers don't matter that much. There are some who just say "it's just a number'. Outrageous? But that so called spokeman got away with it. Why? Because the American public don't care. They continue to elect their representatives come what may, knowing full well that there is effectively NO political divisions in the USA. Perhaps they too are frightened and have good reason to be. The patriot act means that anyone and everyone can be /is a target. That the authorities can read their mail, listen to their phone calls enter their bank accounts with impunity! Jail them without recourse or even a warrant!

Yes this Bush 'adventure' has been successful and largely predictable. After all the anthrax scare, the 9/11 hit, set it all nicely in motion. A bit extreme, but it sure was effective. It even gained so much sympathy from the Europeans, that, they too introduced lots of nice measures, to add to the removal of rights of their citizens.

Amnesty for killers etc is no problem. Britain had imprisonment without trial in Northern Ireland against the IRA. Which was incidentally well supported by the USA. Okay it allowed some prisoners to starve themselves to death whilst in custody, but when the time came for talking, all the killers and bombers were released onto the streets again. They now pursue more lucrative work in organized crime! So all was not lost.

Now what next? Well this exclusive club called NATO which was after all a defensive alliance, is now being used to provide military control in other countries. They used it in the Balkans and now Afghanistan. Allowing the US to quietly remove it's forces from harms way. Even out of the picture altogether whilst retaining control of things. How come? Well all those new countries that join up, need modern weapons such as those nice F16s amongst other things. Eager to placate the US, the former East Europeans cannot get in fast enough. Borrowing huge sums of money to buy these planes from the IMF/World bank to do this. Nice one!

So when NATO gets it's part done then the good ole UN is cajoled into taking over the hard bit. That is maintaining some kind of control. Short of resources and money but big on US criticism it struggles through. Though now, where it's really needed in other places which, have not caught the eye of the American imperialists. You know Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. After all there's no oil there.

So my friends get used to the talk of winning. No politician is gonna save you, whatever his/her stripe. They worked it out long ago. That power allows endless possibilities for them and their families to make a veery nice life, on the backs of all the problems that they create.

Problems ahead? Well there might be one or two incy wincy ones. Like the growing need for the black stuff in countries such as China, India etc. They are not yet at the stage where they will threaten potential suppliers with war. But....they will soon have the financial clout to outbid those gas guzzling Americans.

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

How I know for sure this is a good piece. . .
Posted by: peacefulaim on Jun 25, 2006 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .not one post from the likes of feller and cryOfan, that's how.

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

Underestimating the NeoCons
Posted by: TheCoyote on Jun 25, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this was an excellent article as far as it went. I'm concerned that Progressives are mocking and understimating Bush and his advisors. I think they've been a lot cleverer than we give them credit for.

First, with their policies they've either indirectly or directly reignited hostilities between Sunnis and Shiites. Iran is essentially Shiite, Egypt, to name another Muslim nation, is essentially Sunni. By fomenting hostilities between these nations the Bushies have guaranteed that there'll be no united Arab front to jeopardize our oil interests, or even our long-term presence in the Middle East.

Second, this expensive war, and the Bush tax policies, have exhausted our treasury. Bush's wildly extravagant spending have prepared the way for Grover Nordquists policy of "starving the beast" - ending what NeoCons call the "welfare state" becuase of lack of finance. (If Bush gets his line item veto, guess which items he's going to veto? Iraq War items or social welfare and educaiton items?)

Third, by dividing the country sharply over this "War" Bush has set the scene for a confrontation over the powers of the Executive vs the Congress. By declaring, unilaterally, a faux "War" - (What's next, a War Against Crime? A War Against Corruption"? A war against some other nebulous and rhetorical enemy?) Bush and his cronies have declared that the system of checks and balances built into the Constitution no longer apply to the Presidency. If this usurpation of power, along with the derisory "signing statement" in which the Bushies declare just what parts of what legislation they're going to let themselves be bound by, is allowed to stand, the Congress becomes irrelevant and a quaint anachronism with no power to represent us. The checks and balances are gone. Does anyone really think, in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions by the newly packed court, that they'll limit the President's power in any way?

So, we mock and laugh and cry about the lies and the phony war, and the NeoCons pursue their stated agenda with single-minded focus and intent.

Who'll laugh last?

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