What are your thoughts about the war in Iraq? Who is telling the truth about how well the war is going: the soldiers or the media? Don't hesitate to post thoughts on what the US could be doing to improve the situation in Iraq.
Here are my own thoughts: At this point, we shouldn't be bickering over whether or not we were right to go into Iraq. Let's leave that question to the history books. Right now, we should be focusing on what we can do to improve life for the Iraqis, taking the fight to the insurgents, and then formulate a realistic exit strategy.
So, go ahead and post any thoughts or ideas that are Iraq-related.
But tell me, how are you going to keept all the people from killing each other just because "THEY" disagree? If you remember, a few Presidential candidates were killed just because they thought differently. The mesure of a man there, is by the gun they carry. Can that be stoped? NO, no one will stop that for thy sake of democracy. I don't have an answer, but I know, were in to deep just to walk away. Maybe we should just back up and see what happens? Who knows. I know we went there under false pretents.
Tee
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
Please, tell me how we are going to help stablize the government over in iraq if,
1. Men, women and children there are carring AK-47 and RPG's
2. We can't even stablize our own country.
I don't think we should have ever gone in there to begin with.
Just a thought man..
Tee
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
So, you support the Murtha plan then , Barkdull???
And you still haven't answered my questions on the Judicial system...
Should district attroney's, police and regular citizens (whose father's work in the Courthouse) be granted "absolute immunity" to commit and suborn perjury by the FEDERAL Courts?
Everytime you 'call me out' ; I'm gonna repeat that question.
Now, are you gonna libel me again by calling me a "felon"????
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
About the only person on the Democratic side that makes any consistant sense on Iraqi War is James Webb. I agree with him that need to have some sort of diplomatic initaitive in the region (like having Syria give up the WMD's Saddam shipped to them before the war, or Iran ending its nuclear program)
The sad fact is, until something like that is achieved, the biggest bargaining chip the US has is the troops in Iraq.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
"Who is telling the truth about how well the war is going: the soldiers or the media?"
I believe both of them: The war is going horribly. Let's get out today.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4564399.html
The sad fact of war is "people die".
If John "slow bleed" Murtha gets his way, all 3000+ deaths will have been in vain.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Bush got his incompetent way and all he has to show is 3000+ deaths and specious results at best(Oh and an empowered Shiite Cresent that is scaring the Sunnis). Talk about slow bleed!! Talk about Community Empowerment. Sad lack of Strategic Context!!
If John Murtha got his way, we would have gotten out before the number hit 3000. If W gets his way, there will be 5000+ deaths in vain.
In the long term, if Murtha got (or gets) his way, there will FAR more American deaths than 3000. And many of them will be people who didn't volunteer to go in harm's way.
Unless you actually believe Murtha's bull-plop that "once we leave Iraq, Al_Queda will no longer be a factor".
As Brit Hume said this past weekend, Murtha is becoming more and more delusional.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Here are Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C.:
"Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.
"And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year."
When Bush/McCain/Giuliani get their way, lots of Americans die in the short term and in the long term.
Yaknow, all the "experts" thought both WW1 and the Civil War were going to be over in a matter of weeks, don't ya?
And the quote about liars, damn liars, and statistics, right?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This week's Prime Minister's questions (available on CSPAN.org) deal rather deeply with Britain's wirhdrawl plan and how it effects American policy.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Elephants trumpet and Donkey s bray
- in a mindless cacophony
While the Eagle soars in aimless flight - - over a hapless polity
Political posturing/maneuvering by both parties over a non-binding resolution on Iraq is a disservice to our men and women in uniform and the American public. We look to our elected officials to be not only well informed on the issues, but to provide creative solutions.
The United Nations, formed after World War II to provide for a peaceful, prosperous world, goes our legislators’ one better in ineptitude. The civil war in Iraq threatens regional stability; and Al-Qaida is a world-wide threat whose defeat should be by the full (not token) military participation of the international community, starting in Anbar Province. As an international forum, the UN has the capacity through the member nations to seek the engagement of the leading ulemas, jurists, imams, scholars etc. of Islam (Sunni& Shia) to issue fatwa's condemning the senseless fratricide and wanton killing of innocents as contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an. Framed by UN edict, that would constitute a step toward ending the civil strife, stopping the fatricide and wanton killing of innocents, and toward providing a disincentive for terrorists (and recruitment therefor) worldwide. As a ‘resolution’, that would be at least morally binding. .
I think that most of us can agree that the situation in Iraq is a disaster, and that America has failed in its attempt to produce a stable democracy. There are, of course, the diehards who refuse to accept that the situation is lost, and I know that they will object vociferously to my assertion, but let's try to stick with the mainstream point of view. The real policy issue facing us is, how do we extricate ourselves from this mess without turning Iraq into a nest of terrorists?
One possibility is to partition Iraq into three parts: Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia. This is unlikely to work because the Sunnis would refuse to accept a deal in which they get stuck with the only territory in Iraq that doesn't have oil. Moreover, the three sides would never agree on a clean border, and would certainly fight wars to resolve border disputes. Lastly, neither the Iranians nor the Turks nor the Saudis want to see Iraq partitioned. So we can dismiss this possibility.
The best shot we have, I think, is to turn assemble a regional conference and, in effect, turn the management of Iraq over to a consortium consisting of Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. This would be dangerous because Iran and Saudi Arabia could come to blows, but I suspect that the end result would be an under-the-table partitioning of Iraq into four spheres of influence. The Kurds would be the greatest losers from such a deal, and would likely refuse to accept it, unless Turkey promised to give the Kurds pretty much the same level of autonomy that they now enjoy.
The end result will be a big boost in prestige for Iran, but I think that this is best we can hope for. If we don't cut a deal with Iran, they'll just end up running the place anyway.
There remain lots of other possibilities, but I think we have to agree on the basic fact that we blew it, we've lost, and our best course is to start planning for the least damaging withdrawal we can put together.
The original mission to depose Sadaam Hussein as one of several perceived threats to our national security, regardless of how justified, has been long ago accomplished. In the process, a breeding ground for al-Qaida has been fostered, and the propensity for sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni, brutally suppressed under Sadaam’s totalitarian government, has been unleashed. Disregard of the principles of engagement and its ramifications, both from a regional, sectarian, and historical standpoint, clearly understood by our partners and us during the Gulf War (including Syria and Saudi Arabia), are the reason for the present dilemma, not because of inadequacies in the military effort, or lack of manpower.
We are embroiled in a conflict against several adversaries: Sunni and Shia extremists seeking our early departure and sectarian domination of the government, resurgent Ba’athists, al-Qaida, and Iran’s quest for regional dominance. Underlying the struggle for power is the age-old ideological conflict between Shia’s and Sunni’s. We can flatter ourselves that we brought that country ‘democracy’, but the reality on the street is an understanding that these factors, and the desire for Kurdish independence in the north, trumps any realization of lasting national unity. Unless the minds and hearts of the people can be won over to a national purpose, realistically under a federation as a prior comment suggested, force of arms alone will never end the civil strife, allowing democracy to develop. Syria and Iran, and the Middle East in general, have a large stake in the outcome, not only from an ideological standpoint, but the potential for destabilization of their of governments, and perceived threat to their sovereignty, arbitrarily established by the Western powers after World War I.
Yep I would have to agree. We overstretched this Iraq thing a great deal by doing it on the cheap and poorly. Then we mission-creeped big time to do the Democracy thing. Our policy has been a combo of keystone cop incompetencies taking place with a total lack of Strategic context esp in the battle against jihadi militant salafi fundamentalists. We've tried to paste together a bunch of feathers and call it a duck.
Fortunately now we are starting to realize (albiet 3.5 years to late) that things are a tad more complicated in Iraq and there are a lot of shared interests out there amongst us and the locals in stabilizing Iraq and that includes the Syrians and Iranians as well. So I think you are right on. Use the locals - they have the vested interests in area that just might be in accord with ours if we are willing to explore those options. We are just starting to explore it seems some viable options rather than well-intended pipe dreams devoid of any Strategic Context!
Mike Huckabee was just on MSNBC discusing the Iraq War. He asserted that while the military has done a superb job in Iraq, the politicains and diplomats have failed.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I agree with him! But realize the politicians/diplomats he is referring to are the Administration directed ones and related bureaucrats (Rummy, Feith, Condi, Wolfie, Tenet, Bremer, etc) and all the others that willy-nilly tossed away all the excellent accumulated 15 years of planning/gaming/intel by the military prior to March 2024 by Zinni/Shinseki as well as the State Dept BIR intel.
They tried to do Iraq on the cheap and the experts in the field were telling them based on allthe best intel that you can't do Iraq on the cheap! The military did a superb job given the diplomatic failures and military planning failures in the leadup to the war and the subsequent incompetencies that the bureaucrat politicians gave them in the once the war ensued.
And they succeeded - in the worst possible way....
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Their theoretical premise was a good one. However they failed to tie it into a valid workable multidimensional Grand Strategy and thought they could get away on the cheap with a seat-of-the-pants domestically politically oriented policy rather than basing in realistically in what was happening on the ground in the Middle East and the World in general. Thus the vast ends-means disconnect and the debacle we have seen. They can't blame that failure on the Demos and the Demos better not let them.
The Neo-Cons practitioners have to account for their incompetencies for sure, but we still need to address the present situation realistically and not make a bad situation worse by aprecipitous withdrawal. It will be a hard learning process for all for sure but one that is vitally needed in order to start to delineate a decent workable multidimensional Grand Strategy for the US for the rest of the 21st Century. I am confident we can learn that all important lesson!
John, I once believed as you did that a precipitous withdrawal was ill-advised. But now I have come to believe that remaining there any longer accomplishes nothing positive, and may make matters worse. I rejected from the outset the notion that we would turn Iraq into a democracy; my most optimistic assessment was that we'd get a stable pro-American dictatorship. It appears that even this is out of the question. Given that a strong majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave, I think that we should do so immediately.
Any actions we take now in the ME mustr be done in a Strategic Context and cheif amongst the concerns is the ongoing Sunni-Shiite conflict. If not contained in some way in Iraq then thconsequences of spill over to the Saudis, Jordan, and the rest of the Sunni ME is immense. So any withdrawal must be taken in that political/diplomatic context.
If the Government of Iraq now wishes us to leave we should of course. If they do not, it would be just like false promises we made to The Kurds and the Shiite back in 1992. Our word and credibility (what's left of it and there IS still some) would be nil throughout the ME! That would have severe Geo-political consequences and NOT be in our National Interest! It be feel-good domestic politics but lousy strategy! Gotta Go!
I agree that we need to concentrate on our strategic interests, and the Sunni-Shiite conflict is a matter of enormous importance to us. Our problem is that our continued presence in Iraq does not advance our strategic interests. Our military is not powerful enough to damp out the civil war there. We must either escalate to a force level that can achieve our strategic objectives -- and that would take about 500,000 men -- or pull out. Hanging on with just enough troops to provide plenty of targets but not control the situation is not good strategy.
People like GEA whine and moan about how I post too much on here, yet when I post an innocious comment it draws half a dozen responses in 12 hours.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I agree with Huckabee, too.
That's why I have some hope in Petraeus's plan, as it is 80% political and economic, as opposed to military.
And I've grown rather tired of listening to Democratic 'snake oil' being peddled by my esteemed Congressman John 'I won't accept a bribe....at this time' Murtha.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The failure is attributable, at least in part, to a lack of politicians' and diplomats' understanding of what governs the everyday life of most Iraqis and Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East; i.e. Sharia Law.
For Example - a small self-procaimed group of ‘secular muslims’ from North America and elsewhere met in St Petersburg recently . The agenda was a new global movement to correct the assumed wrongs of Islam and call for an Islamic reformation. At the same time, in Ft Lauderdale the CAIR(Council of American-islamic Relations), a Washington –based advocacy group, characterized the first group as radicals and the notion of a reformation as another attempt by the West to impose its history on the Islamic world. The views of CAIR more closely reflect those of the majority, both in the US and worldwide per a recent Washington Post article. The article concluded "Instead of championing the load voices of a secular minority who are capturing media attention with their conferences, manifestos, and memoirs, the US would be wise instead to pay more attention to the far less loquacious majority".
It went on to state, “Even in the US, more and more American Muslims, particularly the young, are embracing Islam in ways their more secular immigrant parents did not”. An Imam in Brooklyn with substantial following “summarized the aspirations of mainstream muslims in the US and around the globe: What we need to do is borrow from the West that we admire and reject those we don’t. The political future of the Arab World is likely to consist of Islamic parties that are far less tolerant of what has historically been the US foreign policy agenda in the region and that domestically are far more committed to implementing Sharia Law in varying degrees”.
Sharia (meaning the path or the way) Law deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, and social issues. Institutions in democratic countries with sizable muslim populations (and the European Court for Human Rights) go so far as to say that Sharia Law is incompatible with a democratic state.
An added justification for the invasion of Iraq was to bring our brand of democracy to the Iraqi people. Given the foregoing, the realization of that objective( and western-style democracy as the wave of the future in muslim countries of the Mid-East), may be as likely as finding weapons of mass destruction turned out to be.
- This maybe be true even if the surge brought about a 'permanent stabilization' and the militias weren't simply maintaining a low profile.
While your observations about Sharia Law are on point and accurate, laying the blame on our Politicians is a cop out .. click on ..
www.america-21stcentury.com and learn the truth !
I'm making this point for only one reason : IF WE DON'T FACE THE TRUTH & CHANGE THINGS IN 2024 = we're destined to suffer more consequences for our blindness and refusal to make the hard choices.
The problem is not just Iraq - we must find a way to help broker a peace in the Middle East, before pulling our combat forces out ..
Peter K. (Citizen)Evans of Boynton Beach, Florida
While I certainly understand the desire of Muslims to retain their moral system while embracing portions of Western culture, I fear that they are in for sore disappointment. Yes, Western civilization has many decadent components, and it tolerates a lot of sleaze. I understand why Muslims would want to keep that kind of Western sleaze out of their societies. What they don't understand, however, is that you can't have the butter without the bread -- Western civilization did not make an arbitrary decision to tolerate sleaze. That decision was forced upon us by all manner of social processes, and every time we tried to perform a sleazectomy on our culture, we found that we were cutting out a great deal more than sleaze.
We cannot expect Muslim culture to learn this lesson from us; they'll have to learn it for themselves. I think it best that they pursue sharia law in some Muslim states to see how well it works. Once it becomes obvious that sharia law is inimical to modernization, I'm sure that Muslims will choose modernization. Our task is to steer clear, let them undergo their social evolution without us getting our noses caught in their business.
One of the most concise and astute presentations of the facts of life when dealing with Devoutly Religious peoples - it does however overlook one vital observation ..
It Was The Refusal Of Previous Great Societies TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN FREEDOM & SLEAZE - that caused their downfall !!
Congressional Legislators have perverted our Constitution so as to cross that line and remove all barriers, the sleaze is now a cancer that's going to be extremely difficult to place in remission and cure !!
popo (pke)
Governments cannot teach your children to be good citizens or how to eat well or how to protect the future from their own actions. This is the role of parents. It doesn't really take a village to raise a child. It takes engaged parents.
Whatever barrier a government erects against the wishes of its citizens is eventually destroyed (at times along with those governments that erected said barriers) by those citizens.
In our public/political lives, we need to understand both the abilities and limitations of governmental actions and resources. Senselessly applying resources to matters unbefitting governmental oversight undercuts those things for which a government should be responsible for and responsive to.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
And this site can't effectively control libel.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
That's what a Texas Congressman called the House Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq. He then went on to list the 'pork' included within the bill until stopped by Rep. David Obey's objection to his use of the term "Bribe as you Go" and forced to retract the statement.
What I found REALLY ironic about the the whole incident was the acting Speaker at the time (does Nancy Pelosi EVER actually do HER JOB as Speaker?) was Alcee Hastings, a former Federal Judge who was impeached for..........Bribery!
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The war, whether justified or not ended with the deposing of Sadaam and the Ba’athist regime; when no weapons of mass destruction were found; and sovereignty was restored under a new government by free election. Logically this is when the phase down of our military presence and transition to an advisory role should have happened. Since, we’ve been using the military as constabulary to contain the resultant civil strife; a role they still remain untrained in except for those still physically able to 'profit' from experience gained on multiple tours there. It could be argued that this is simply an extension of the war, and from a morally culpable standpoint not much effort would be required to make the case - certainly more credible than the assertion that the dedication of a major portion of our military is required there to fight the war on terror (al-Qaeda). If anything, it detracts from this effort.
Further contradiction: ‘Political license’ has it that we fought a police action in Korea – a conventional war that ended in a truce between governments, and that we’re fighting a 'war' in Iraq which has evolved into more of a ‘ police action’ from the standpoint of skills required on the ground in Baghdad. Certainly police action is a term more appropriate when describing the ‘War on Terror’ since we’re engaged with other governments around the world against the criminal, anti-societal activity of al-Qaeda that can never end in a truce.
Finally, contradicting reality: a picture of a smiling Speaker Pelosi with her intellectual-appearing cohorts appeared on the front page of the Washington Post this morning depicting an obvious sense of accomplishment of having done the 'people’s work' after passing a bill in the House yesterday authorizing another $100 billion for the ‘war'. . Correct that, $100 billion for the troops less the pork bribes to some members in compensation for being shortchanged when morality/ethics were handed out. Let’s hope it did not come out of the training part of the bill. .
Just about Iraq, this Middle East Turmoil has been festering since the crusades : this is about the infidels trying to enforce their will and way of life on the whole Arab World ..
There was a time when Wiser Men and Cooler Heads - from both worlds, could have sat down together and created a grande strategy for world peace and progress ..
Until the wiser men and cooler heads are in power throughout the Middle East, America - and the world : the whole world stands in jeopardy !!
If UNITY08 can prevail in America in 2024, maybe we can start the ball rolling, by contributing our ideas for the new Grande Strategy for World Peace and Progress !!
popo
Both of you seem oblivious to the fact that the Bill has NO CHANCE of becoming law.
And that means American troops will go under-funded in Iraq.
So much for "supporting the troops".
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Thanks for the insight re: the President's intended veto, it was pointed out in the article accompanying the picture of Speaker Pelosi as well. The commentary's theme and text was intended to illustrate the contradictory, politically convenient actions and usage of terms on the part of our elected leaders; and underscore Unity '08's mission to bring about a more representative, accountable government.
Today, the House passed by 4 votes the Supplemental funding bill (laden with pork) that calls for a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq.
I doubt it will pass the Senate, and even if does, it will simply be vetoed.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
And President Bush promptly excoriated the House in statement this afternoon and said the bill has no chance of becoming a law.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Oh, and Bush also called the House Bill "political theater"; one of the most truthful statements he ever made.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
While it is true that we have to deal with Iraq as it is now, I do not agree to let history decide whether we were right or wrong to go in - I think we need to look at the motives - control of Iraq's oil - and deal with that. Whether there was belief in WMDs or not, it is abundantly clear that info was cherry-picked, and the case for the imminent threat of Saddam was overplayed. It was a war of choice, and aggressive war. We need to admit that, set our slate clear with the world, be honest for once, and then proceed.
The Iraq study group, former generals, and many in congress say there has to be a diplomatic solution, not a military solution to Iraq, and I agree - BUT - look at our history in the region. We installed and propped up the Shah in Iran, we did "let's make a deal" with Iran selling them arms to get our embassy hostages. We armed Iraq in it's war with Iran - I love the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam - we stood back while Kurds were gassed ........
We have proven to be untrustworthy in our dealings. For diplomacy to succeed, it should start with honesty and admission that we were wrong to invade Iraq. That would signal a change, that we're ready for a real solution.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I've been enjoying your recent posts here Quicksilver and just wanted to point out an related excellent prescient New York Times Op-Ed 3/26/07 Op-Ed, “What We Can Do” from Rory Stewart who has written excellent analyses and books on his recent on the ground experiences in Afganistan and Iraq last of which was “The Prince of the Marshes”. Was reading on the metro last nite and would urge all at Unity to read here this article at this link:
http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/03/rory-stewart-what-we-can-do.html
some ecerpts: "...the paralyzed leaders, afraid of their impotence, flit from troop increases to flight, from engagement to isolation. We must prevent this by acknowledging our limits, while recognizing that although we are less powerful and informed than we claimed, we are more powerful and informed than we fear....
we can continue to protect our soil from terrorist attack, we can undertake projects that prevent more people from becoming disaffected, and we can even do some good. In short, we will be able to do more, not less, than we are now. But working with what is possible requires humility and the courage to compromise.....
We will have to focus on projects that Iraqis and Afghans demand; prioritize and set aside moral perfectionism; work with people of whom we don’t approve; and choose among lesser evils. We will have to be patient. We should aim to stop illegal opium growth and change the way that Iraqis or Afghans treat their women. But we will not achieve this in the next three years. We may never be able to build a democratic state in Iraq or southern Afghanistan. Trying to do so through a presence based on foreign troops creates insurgency and resentment and can only end in failure.
“You are saying,” the politician replies, “that we ought to sit back and do nothing.” On the contrary I believe we can do a great deal. But ought implies can. We have no moral obligation to do what we cannot do."
I recommend reading the article in full! Gives wonderful insight and perspective as we go forth with meaningful and vitally important Grand Strategy delineation in this country.
Thanks for that, John.
Good article but at odds with the ideology present in the current administration. Even McCain has become a twister - McCain reported that Petraeus can now travel in an unarmored Humvee - A reporter countered with the fact that yes, but he's surrounded by 6 or 7 armored humvees with an attack helicopter overhead.
Denial of reality, ignorance of the indigenous population's beliefs and customs, suppression of criticism and calling it unpatriotic are eerily familiar - it's Vietnam all over. The dire consequences predicted if we let Vietnam become communist never materialized either. Why should Cheney "We'll be greeted as liberators" or Bush "major combat operations are over" be listened to when proven to be so wrong?
Democracy is not a panacea - Hamas gained control via elections. Iran holds elections. Is it an accident the Iraqi leaders speak perfect English? The current Iraqi government is our puppet, and I don't think the Iraqi people are fooled. Democracy cannot be thrust upon a people that aren't familiar with it, and not with patsies.
Bremer, along with Rumsfeld, got us in the fiasco we're in. Bremer disbanded not only the army and police, but state-run business so the majority are unemployed. You tend to care less about politics when unemployed. You are more likely to become angry and violent when unemployed and when there is no authority.
Shia and Sunni Iraqis did band together against Iran, and died by the thousands not for Saddam, but to defend Iraq. How to recapture that is the question. We, as a foreign occupying force cannot do that, except to get them to unite against us. There isn't a military solution to an insurgency - we had 500,000 troops in Vietnam, but unless you have the people of the country behind you, you won't "win".
We need to start with a world-wide apology that we were wrong to invade, and hope that we can get Iran to take our word, even tho we've proven our word wasn't good in the past.
The article's thrust is to ask What can we do, not what do we wish for. A good starting point.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Another source of insight or commentary regarding the future of Iraq can be found here --> Iraq's Civil War
It's a long read, so bear with it. The basic point is that regardless of past intent or future wish, the present situation in Iraq is following a fairly prosaic script of post-colonial civil war.
While not rife with options, the basic premise is that the US cannot significantly influence this war by essentially propping up a Shiite government that is using the US as a shield against it's own Shiite enemies as well as Sunni insurgents.
The article likens the current Iraq situation with that of Lebanon in the 80s and posits that a unified Iraq will probably be the result of either:
A. A clear victory on the battlefield by one of the many antagonists.
B. War weariness where all antoganists come to realize that violence will not achieve their goals.
The US would do well, then to democratize our approach to the factions in Iraq (instead of singling out one party that is "official).
It is clear that democracy cannot be gained at the point of a gun where the basic prerequisites (respect for the rule of law, functioning governmental agencies, an impartial judiciary and the willingness by all parties to accept defeat at the ballot box) do not exist.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
Kacz that reminds me British Historian Michael Howard's Three Golden Rules for getting involved in a civil wars: 1) Don’t; 2) If you must get involved, choose a side; and 3) Choose a side that is likely to win and make sure they do!
Iraq was not in a state of civil war in March 2024, but our bungling and failure to stabilize the situation early on with Shinseki and war-gaming like forces and due diligence in-area diplomacy and seeing the Sunni-Shiite rifts underneath waiting to be unleashed guaranteed a civil war or sectarian fratricide or what ever you want to call it. When we pushed for democracy before the ground was prepped (if it could ever be prepped)and the situation stabilized and de-Baathified Iraq, we tried to have it both ways and not choose a side unrealistically. We were guaranteeing the Shiites dominance and a Sunni reaction and a civil war/insurgency that we could not control. We are now as a result at Howards’s Golden Rule Phase 3 - limited to propping up Maliki and hoping for the best half -heartedly with Petraeus. 1,2,3 you’re out!
Although Petraeus is the best of the best in my estimation, it may just be “to late” (as McArthur was wont to say in describing military disasters) to save Bush’s sorry policy a**. Bush it seems is like Mr. McCawber in Dicken's David Copperfield – always hoping against hope that “something would come up.” Well somebody better get that Plan “B” in place if the Petraeus Surge comes up a cropper and it better have some bipartisan Strategic Context to it or we are all in big trouble. And THAT is the key difference with Viet Nam folks. Viet Nam was NOT a geo-strategic imperative like Iraq and the Mid-East is today! And THAT makes ALL the difference!
Since I see Vienam mentioned, it really irks me to hear the neo-cons say that we could've won Vietnam except we lost our will. Horesfeathers. We could not win Vietnam for the same reason we're now screwed in Iraq - the majority of the native population don't want us.
Neither Vietnam nor Iraq are/were solvable by military means, because there is/was no army to fight - you're fighting the native population.
You don't know who the enemy is.
While the whole premise for the Iraq invasion was bogus - it's for the Iraqi oil - it still could have turned out better if Powell ("You break it, you own it") hadn't been overruled by the arrogant and incompetent Rumsfeld; if Bremer hadn't dissolved the Iraqi military and police, and shut down all government business. Without jobs and without order, the chaos was inevitable.
Cheney should be forced to have a tattoo on his forehead that says "we'll be welcomed as liberators" , and Bush "Major combat operations are over" as a reminder to anyone who thinks of listening to what comes out of their mouths.
Oh, and I like the charge, "The liberal media doesn't report the good news from Iraq". Like? "Only 12 soldiers killed today"? The good news is that Halliburton did very well in Iraq.
Where are the Fox or Washington Times reporters in Iraq ? - I haven't seen any. It's easier to make stuff up and report it as news....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Fox News does indeed have journalists in Iraq. We can be sure they are dutifully reporting the "good news" from hotel bars inside the Green Zone.
I agree for the most part Quick, but on taking Saddam out no apologies are in order. We have nothing to apologize for taking Saddam and his Sons and top Baathist thugs out. We have LOTS to apologize for how we conducted the post-Saddam follow up as Ricks Trainor, Chandrasakran, etc have all brilliantly, graphically and sadly portrayed in their books. But Saddam and Co - he was the worst of the worst! Nope! No apologies there. You will say sure but there are others like him around the planet and do we take them out? Saddam was a special case for sure due to his proximity to the key oil lanes (it IS about oil for sure, but much much more esp in the context of 9/11), Saddam’s past decrepit record in human rights (UN reports that his policies resulted in 10 to 12 thousand Iraq deaths per month after 1991 up to Feb 2024), his proven ties to all sorts of Al Qaeda franchise groups and Abu Nidal and various jihadi/salafi and secular terrorist groups not to mention the ones responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, reward funding of Palestinian suicide bombers’ families, ignoring 17 UN resolutions, firing on planes monitoring the no fly zone for those UN resolutions, gasing of the Kurds, draing the Shiite swamps, etc, etc. Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11 I believe, but still well well (even more) deserving of being taken out competently nonetheless.
EVERY intel group in the world as well as the UN itself (including Saddam’s generals as it turned out) thought they had the WMD. That he didn’t have them and did not account for them with the UN inspectors and that he used them for breast beating and bragging rights in the tough neighborhood that is the Mid East, was his bluff and error. His peoplepaide the price and he did not give a lick for them! So please no tears for Saddam and his couterie of thugs in a very geo-strategically key part of the globe. If left to his own auspices he would in due time become in my estimation terrorist-central (jihadi and non-jihadi) and proceeded to kill at his 10 thou/month rate if not more. He and hissons would have been a source of instability in region for decades to come!
Whether it would have been a better situation 4 years on than we have now, we should leave to the prognosticators of History and parallel dimensions. If we had done things competently like the military had planned/gamed for since 1991 and State Dept intel clearly laid out (nothing has happened in Iraq that was not predicted) and what happened in Bosnia/Kosovo, we would all be in a lot better shape and at least Iraq would have had a much better chance than remaining under Saddam and Company. Plus in all this we missed the biggest impact we would have in the area – inflaming the Sunni-Shiite divide and empowering Iran and the Shiias. If there EVER was a finer example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, then I know not of it!
I’m not going to apologize for Bush and his dysfunctional incompetencies by a long shot because you are spot on Quick that he did cherry pick the intel and choose the bad intel (from 5 shaky sources in Iraq) and ignore the accurate legit (State BIR intel and Zinni/Shinseki/Powell war gaming scenarios after Gulf War I) on what was likely to happen after the fall off Saddam and setting off the Shiia revival in region by doing Iraq badly. Bush took a big big risk by doing this on the cheap and ignoring the commanders in the 1990’s and BIR in covering the gapping ends-means disconnect and failing to do priority one – stabilization of Iraq! Doug Feith at DOD OSP was esp criminal in this regard if you ask me. And George Tenet as well when he said the “Slam Dunk” on WMDs and Condi for failing to properly vet the intel, and Rummy/Powell disconnect in blowing the diplomacy in the lead-up to the war in Not getting Locals (Turks, Jordanians, Egypt, Saudi more solidly, even Iran/Syria to some extent and more of the EU on board). Sending Rummy to do the diplomacy thing esp in Europe was the height of folly! The blame for this Keystone Cops dysfunctional effort will be legendary in the annals of US Foreign Policy for sure. As Tom Friedman points out frequently, Bush asked for a Global War on Terror (a la WWII in his rhetoric) and we’ve gotten the invasion of Grenada and a poorly executed one at that! The End-Means disconnect is sadly breath-taking.
If Bush would have had done the due diligence diplomacy that was sorely needed and done the James Baker full-court diplomacy thing and listened to the State BIR intel laid the plans for stabilizing Iraq accordingly, we might have mitigated what a great. Then Bush and Company mission-creeped to do the Democracy thing in Iraq. I knew we were in big big trouble when they (Bremer et al) were talking about incorporating a Caucus-like system in Iraq for the elections. Under the best of circumstances in Iowa (I’m originally from Iowa and go back there twice a year) it is a decrepit process that gets lousy candidates that tend to the extremes. Doing such in pre-democracy Iraq was the absolute height of folly! Enough said about the past. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The question now is what to do about where we are and the way forward that has some semblance of Strategic Context. That IS the key question and a tale for another missive!
Sorry again for the ramble!
Saddam was okay with us when Rumsfeld shook his hand and we armed him to go into Iran. He was a bad guy then, but we "made a deal". The Shah in Iran was no great humanitarian, either.
N Korea is starving. They have Nukes. They test missiles to deliver them. I am NOT for attacking N Korea, but my point is, why did we attack Iraq and not N Korea? OIL.
Iran is next - OIL.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
What was it somebody said about the Middle East - "the Enemy of your Enemy is your Friend". We'll we took that to much to heart and a little to seriously and did not also realize the key rejoinder to that - the enemy of your enemy is not ALWAYS your friend. That is the way of the Middle East - things ebb and flowand we need to keep up and keep things in Startegic context. We learned that the hard way in Afganistan with our "friends" we helped out in the 80's there...and we learned the same with Saddam in the 90's as well.
I agree with the comments of Quicksilver and suggest that the "real solution" is for the congress to summon up the nerve to make a vote of conscience and end funding for this insane war, stop the killing now - Once the American military is out of Iraq work diplomatically and with financial aid to help clean up the mess -