Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiConsequences From The Disaster We Could Have Avoided Will Plague The World Long Into The Future.
Iraq is over. Iraq has not yet begun. These are two conclusions from the American debate about Iraq.
Iraq is over insofar as the American public has decided that most U.S. troops should leave. In a Gallup poll earlier this month, 71% favored "removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1 of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts." CNN's veteran political analyst, Bill Schneider, observes that in the latter years of the Vietnam War, the American public's basic attitude could be summarized as "either win or get out." He argues that it's the same with Iraq. Most Americans have now concluded that the U.S. is not winning. So: Get out.
Because this is a democracy, their elected representatives are following where the people lead. Although the Democrats did not get the result they wanted in an all-night marathon on the floor of the Senate, from Tuesday to Wednesday this week, no one in Washington doubts that this is the way the wind blows. Publicly, there's still a sharp split along party lines, but leading Republicans are already breaking ranks to float their own phased troop-reduction plans.
President Bush says he's determined to give the commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, the troop levels he asks for when he reports back in September, and the White House may hold the line for now against a Democrat-controlled Congress. Leading Republican contenders for the presidency are still talking tough. However, the most outspoken protagonist of hanging in there to win in Iraq, John McCain, has seen his campaign nosedive. Even if the next president is a hard-line Republican, all the current Washington betting will be confounded if he does not, at the very least, rapidly reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. After all, that's what the American people plainly say they want.
The American people's verdict is remarkably sharp on other aspects of the Iraq debacle. In a poll for CNN, 54% said the United States' action in Iraq was not morally justified. In one for CBS, 51% endorsed the assessment - shared by most of the experts - that U.S. involvement in Iraq was creating more, not fewer, terrorists hostile to the United States. If once Americans were blind, they now can see. For all its plenitude of faith, this is a reality-based nation.
So Iraq is over. But Iraq has not yet begun. Not yet begun in terms of the consequences for Iraq itself, the Middle East, the United States' own foreign policy and its reputation in the world. The most probable consequence of rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in its present condition is a further bloodbath, with even larger refugee flows and the effective dismemberment of the country. Already, about 2 million Iraqis have fled across the borders, and more than 2 million are internally displaced.
Now a pained and painstaking study from the Brookings Institution argues that what its authors call "soft partition" - the peaceful, voluntary transfer of an estimated 2 million to 5 million Iraqis into distinct Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions, under close U.S. military supervision - would be the lesser evil. The lesser evil, that is, assuming that all goes according to plan and that Americans are prepared to allow their troops to stay in sufficient numbers to accomplish that thankless job - two implausible assumptions. A greater evil is more likely.
In an article for the Web magazine Open Democracy, Middle East specialist Fred Halliday spells out some regional consequences. Besides the effective destruction of the Iraqi state, these include the revitalizing of militant Islamism and enhancement of the international appeal of the Al Qaeda brand; the eruption, for the first time in modern history, of internecine war between Sunni and Shiite, "a trend that reverberates in other states of mixed confessional composition"; the alienation of most sectors of Turkish politics from the West and the stimulation of authoritarian nationalism there; the strengthening of a nuclear-hungry Iran; and a new regional rivalry pitting the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies, including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.
For the United States, the world is now, as a result of the Iraq war, a more dangerous place. At the end of 2002, what is sometimes tagged "Al Qaeda Central" in Afghanistan had been virtually destroyed, and there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. In 2007, there is an Al Qaeda in Iraq, parts of the old Al Qaeda are creeping back into Afghanistan and there are Al Qaeda emulators spawning elsewhere, notably in Europe.
Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The U.S. government's own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland.
The U.S. has probably not yet fully woken up to the appalling fact that, after a long period in which the first motto of its military was "no more Vietnams," it faces another Vietnam. There are many important differences, but the basic result is similar: The mightiest military in the world fails to achieve its strategic goals and is, in the end, politically defeated by an economically and technologically inferior adversary.
Even if there are no scenes of helicopters evacuating Americans from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, there will surely be some totemic photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops.
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done terrible damage to the U.S. reputation for being humane; this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful. And Bin Laden, still alive, will claim another victory over the death-fearing weaklings of the West.
In history, the most important consequences are often the unintended ones. We do not yet know the longer-term unintended consequences of Iraq. Maybe there is a silver lining hidden somewhere in this cloud. But as far as the human eye can see, the likely consequences of Iraq range from the bad to the catastrophic.
Looking back over a quarter of a century of chronicling current affairs, I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster.
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
66 Comments so far
Show AllBefore reading anything about Bush, Iraq and Democrats, I scan for the words 'war crime', 'mass-murderers' and 'Hague' and if I can't find them, I don't bother with the article.
I see more widom, yes I said wisdom, and clarity in the likes of baska, bidelo, SarahConnah, and Saila along with partial remarks form others than all the tripe put forth by the "Scholarly' approach by the MR. Ash.
For they have connected the dots of information and drawn a conclusion, that is wisdom in thought, where as having information and MR Ash's writing is no more than a demigogic repeat of those who establish parameters of thought, dogma.
The invasion, occupation and divisions in Iraq were a planned endeavor; bin ladin is a minor, although a disruptive and somewhat chaotic player, within a much larger enterprise.
That by taking just Iraq and a few individuals while not figuring in past events detracts from the truth of matter, US foreign policy, the society that protects and projects it in all of its many facets point to the cause and effect, energy at rest put into motion, opposite and equal reaction, that sound minds can figure out.
MR. Ash just follows the black versus white of established thought.
How COULD Mr. Ash-- that punch-puller-- do Quagbush's propaganda about Iraqi Team Al Qaeda "cummin tuh get us"?!!!??
Some people in this string have declared Mr. Ash's article strong and good. Not I. The fellow tries to have things both ways. The catastrophe occurred. The fallout once we leave will continue about the same OR IMPROVE.
As a better in sports, I prognosticate attack on the United States by some other group in the Al Qaeda farm system before Team Iraq.
Bane--
One significant difference in the WWIdotcom comparison, though. Germany's infrastructure and sizeable percentage of working men were bombed to smithereens, and it was under some crippling conditions imposed on the outside.
The dotcom bust, on the other hand, was a disappearing money trick. No bombs, no sanctions from the remainder of the world, etc. The money may have disappeared, but it wasn't bombed away. For each dollar that someone lost, someone else gained a dollar. It was a massive wealth transfer, just as the '29 crash, the subsequent foreclosures, the S&L fleecing, modern "subprime" problems, etc.
We're in the War Market for profit. In Nazi Germany, the Wehrmacht really began to ramp up output, when the time was right. Similarly after the Bush/Cheney military coup and the 9/11 stimulus. Both in Germany and in the US, the events are a planned escape from economic troubles. In Nazi Germany,
a rise from crushing conditions after WWI, and in the US where dot com had imploded in trillions of evaporated capital.
Wealth is being created now, Boeing, GE,Lockheed Martin, GD, etc with great jobs for a relatively limited few. The stock market's rise, is also a significant benefit to a relatively smaller class of US power.
War is bring outsourced - not the way the MSM may touch upon the idea of outsourcing, rather, we are in Iraq for the benefit of other foreign powers. The US is doing the bombing and the shooting, as other countries have financed the US to do.
Look, if you want good health insurance, enough pay to handle your debt, and freedom from the worry about the evisceration of social services, get work with ITT or Booze Allen or train for a security position. Help jail, punish or be completely indifferent to your distant suffering neighbor, as today's economy demands.
did I read you correctly? Divide the counstry in 3 parts and leave an american force there to police sthe area? Fuck off! Get the fuck out of there. Leave them alone. You'll only make it worse. Don't you get it? this pisses me off so much that I can hardly type
My mind is still reeling from Gulf War Part I. Since when is it America's job to restore a monarch to its throne -- indeed, a country in which the great majority aren't even citizens?
To call us a democracy, or even in charge of ourselves and our own national destiny, is a total misnomer. We've been a plutocracy probably from the get-go, with an illusory democracy to keep people in check, provide them with the notion that they've had a voice.
I remember how righteous it seemed for the first Bushie to go after Saddam and get him out of Kuwait. We were sold a line then. I guess like father like son!!
RE: MAKING 'NOT WINNING' THE BASIS FOR GETTING OUT OF IRAQ LEAVES INTACT THE REASONING THAT GOT THE U.S. IN
RichM July 19th, 2007 8:43 pm
"Ash continues, 'Most Americans have now concluded that the U.S. is not winning (in Iraq). So: Get out.'
"This phrasing conceals something important. The American public is increasingly seeing that the war is CRIMINAL and IMMORAL. There's...more to it than simply feeling that 'we're not winning, so we should get out.'"
REPLY: Yes. Opposition to invasion has been on moral grounds; whereas the idea of getting out because the US is not "winning" obscures this opposition. Worse: the criterion of 'victory' implies that it was ok to support the invasion because 'we had a chance to win,' and to go on supporting it as long as it could be argued 'we could still win.' And this outlook legitimizes not only the great destruction of the invasion - by implication, it also legitimizes the original, declared purposes of the invasion.
The criterion of winning is, indeed, as RichM writes, connected to the "'incompetence' meme" of weak anti-invasion voices, because both judge the invasion by its practical success - in the case of "winning," the practical goals of the invasion are to be taken at face value and made the invasion acceptable; in the case of "incompetence," the invasion is to be called off only because the implicitly legitimate goal of 'winning' was botched.
Unsheathe your blade and hasten to the ramparts.
Now that Republicans have consolidated all power unto themselves, all three branches of government and the Monopoly Media, they will never relinquish that power. Forget elections, they've rigged them in the past and have increased their ability to do so in the future. Bound by no scruples, they have a huge advantage over bungling, tongue-tied and frightened Democrats who answer to the same corporate masters as Republicans.
Americans have no legal recourse to reverse the Republican Coup d'etat because we have no leaders to unify and lead us. None of the corporate sponsored predators and parasites in Washington will save us, because they profit from the corruption they have so carefully crafted. Systematic corruption long preceded and enabled the Coup d'etat. Until American's accept these facts, we are stalemated.
So what then are our options?
We all know the answer to that.
But hey, we're a get along, go along kind of people willing to just hunker down and hope for the best. All things come to and end, and besides, what's the worst that could happen?
Germany survived the Nazis, and so can we.
The Jews, gypsies, lefties, intellectuals, feebleminded, and inferior races, however, are on their own.
We've got to make "sacrifices for the good of all."
No Worries for "our" survival.
.
For a "progressive" website there a lot of angry people ready to do battle with the bushites, me included. I wonder how deep the potential insurrection really is and if the enemy is listening?
EJMURPHY: Excellent points, except I disagree with your "time line." It's not just 8 years... these neocons have been planning their takeover for years, and the Reagan presidency furthered it by giving greed a facelift. (Nor were some of Clinton's "centrist" policies such as NAFTA and media deregulation especially helpful to the "cause" of democracy.)
RICH M: Great points, as per winning, the word itself speaks to the MILLIONS addicted to sports which have for them become an ersatz religion. It's such a powerful buzz word for Joe 6-pack in particular, and who exactly IS the Repub base?
ALDOUS: I'm on the same cosmic page... your insight is right on!
April 1st, 2008: GWB swaggers out onto the Whitehouse lawn...
"My fellow murkans, fool me once shame on you... fool me... er... shame us... APRIL FOOLS DAY!"
No troops withdrawn, no bases dismantled, no change in president. No change.
There is another blowback people don't often talk about it's of a spiritual nature. It's called God. I think of Sodom and Gomorrah. Rome, Israel,Germany all of these countries fell under God's wrath. You can't spill that much blood without drawing the almighty's attention. America has sown to the wind and we will reap the whirlwind!!
Violence should always be the very last option, however if bush brings his praetorian guards (Blackwater etc.) to try to enforce his form of democracy on us as he is with the Iraqis then we had all better be prepared.
New Hampshires' motto "Live Free or Die" is not just some quaint New England saying. It's a reminder of how fragile our hard earned freedom is and it's not going to be compromised by some nasty little stubborn vengeful weasel of a man.
Yankee Doodles,
Bravo! Hardly anyone couldn't have said it better. Tell me something, over here where I am now, I can watch more than 600 channels on the satellite, including Aljazeera that Bush bombed it branch offices and wanted to bomb its main office when Tony, the ex-lapdog, reportedly stopped him.
I have heard that in your free country you pay around $50-$60 per month to Charter Communications, and it allows you to tune in only 100 channels, 20 of which are church, another 20 shopping advertisement for Bloomberg, and the rest cheap entertainment. Is this true?
I've seen it written -
"Freedom is contained in four boxes:
- the "Soap Box"; - the "Ballot Box"; - the "Jury Box", and; - the "Cartridge Box"
Have we seen that none of the first three have worked against bushcon?
How many of you have guns?
Glock 17
I second that motion. To the Hague.
It is amazing that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is still having any currency even among critics of Bush administration and American system as a whole. You arguments about impossibility of small band of people with no connections to international corridors of power to play ANY role in shaping course of history fell on death ears and rightly so.
We live in the culture, in which such statement as "There is no such thing as society", pronounced by British Prime Minister does not cause its author to be put into mental asylum. In which Big Labor, representing tens of millions of people, is equalized to Big Business, representing 12,000 members of real owners of this planet. In short, in this culture the notion that few hundred people can bring 300 million strong nation to their knees by fear alone is definitely laughable, but it is not arguable to the slightest.
I agree with ejmurphy414 that Ash typifies an analysis that, either intentionally or tacitly, fails to consider the big picture surrounding Iraq. This picture has to look at several themes at once: our rapacious lifestyle that is destroying local and global ecosystems and producing social injustice on a massive scale; an imperialistic grab for the energy to sustain this consumerist lifestyle; and the development of dangerous forces such as terrorism, the threat of nuclear war, horrific pollution such as DU, and the loss of democracy at the hands of a fascist government. But the biggest picture may actually be that Iraq, global warming, and most else is due to a tragic disconnection of human beings from their roots in the natural environment. It appears more and more obvious that we must adopt the holistic worldview of our ancestors, reconnect in a primal way with the earth, and make a personal and global transformation to a sustainable lifestyle. Iraq represents a catastrophic swing away from all of these necessary developments.
Ya know everyone, there is one thing that just confirms the cronyism that permeates the Bush Administration and the President's bereftness of intelligence, logic, and commonsense. Today, a reporter asked him if he would pardon the two border patrol officers who are serving prison sentences for shooting a drug smuggler/dealer in the ass. Bush's reply to the reporter was the prosecutor "is a good friend of mine... and I trust his judgment." The reporter was surprised. Don't give the President a pair of scissors, he might run with them and cut himself.
As a former post stated (more or less) there is no way OLN could have forseen the chain of events that happened and are still happening in the U.S. And also true it is documented that the neocons planned to go into Iraq which was supposed to show a) be the showcase for "democracy", B). stabilize the supply of oil to the U.S. C)not documented but it must have been on their minds to head off the possible change from dollars to Euros as the currency oil is traded d) Once and for all solve Irael's problems.
Going back to the "Clash of civilizations" there was another post that said what I have tried to tell people who have never traveled or lived in the Middle East, the concept of any consolidated Arab army is laughable. The few well educated may play financial games with us but the Arab masses will not.
ejmurphy414 July 19th, 2007 8:14 pm
And don't forget the corporate mainstream media - another complicit in the downfall of our nation
Though many here seem impressed by Ash's article, I think it's terrible. Basically, it reinforces several dangerous & widespread misconceptions about the way US society works.
Here are some examples. // In the 2nd paragraph, he quotes Bill Schneider, the friendly avuncular-looking guy on CNN. In real life, Schneider himself is a fellow at the AEI, along with all the PNAC authors. He's a closet rightwinger himself. (Ash is now a fellow at the Hoover Institute -- another rightwing institution.)
The Schneider quote says that in the latter years of the Vietnam War, the American public's basic attitude could be summarized as "either win or get out." Ash continues, "Most Americans have now concluded that the U.S. is not winning (in Iraq). So: Get out."
This phrasing conceals something important. The American public is increasingly seeing that the war is CRIMINAL and IMMORAL. There's much, much more to it than simply feeling that "we're not winning, so we should get out." And in Vietnam as well, this point applied in spades. The whole f*cking thing was criminal mass murder & utterly immoral. Ash mentions later in the piece that the public is coming to see the war as "not morally justified," but he plays this down. He emphasizes, & gives first billing to, that "we're not winning."
Then Ash says "Because this is a democracy, their elected representatives are following where the people lead." Is there anyone here who doesn't see that this is simply untrue? The US is NOT a democracy, and Congress does not at all follow where the people lead. To assert such stuff is to be disseminating dishonest propaganda.
A bit later, Ash says "If once Americans were blind, they now can see. For all its plenitude of faith, this is a reality-based nation." Again, this flatters the American public with cliches that are not true & not earned. America is not a reality-based nation. I don't think it's neccesary to go through the proof of that, here.
Then follows some discussion about the potential terrible consequences yet to come, stemming from the Iraq debacle. NOWHERE does Ash portray the US as a vicious ruthless predator that came into Iraq in order to steal the oil. He concedes that the US reputation in the world may suffer, as a result of Gitmo & Abu Ghraib -- but he implies that this would be in the nature of a black eye or a blemish on an otherwise respectable world citizen. He is very carefully staying away from any characterization of the US as a ruthless & brutal predatory monster -- which it unfortunately is.
Finally he caps it off with "Looking back over a quarter of a century ...I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster." Did he say "avoidable?" That word is manifestly inappropriate. Here we have one of the most monstrous actions of any great power in the last 100 or so years -- and Ash calls it "avoidable." If you were discussing Hitler's misdeeds, would you call them "avoidable"? They should be identified as monstrous, hideous, repulsive & criminal. Otherwise we're soft-soaping the truth.
In a way, the whole article is an amplified example of the "incompetence" meme used by MSM commentators to "criticize" Bush in a restrained & superficial way. One accuses the Bush regime of incompetence -- while the reality is far, far worse.
A few decades from now historians will be in fundamental agreement that the 21st Century decline of America stemmed from several clearly definable factors:
1. The Neo-Cons whose naiveté and lack of morality led them to advance the ghastly charade of "the New American Century"
2. The horde of aberrant political figures, led by Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld, who gained power in Washington and led us to war and world ignominy
3. The craven members of Congress who bowed to Bush's flimsily based plan to conquer Iraq and supported his mismanaged occupation year after dismal year, destroying both Iraq and the American image
4. The insensitivity of American voters whose myopic conservatism kept Bush and his Republican lackeys in power for 8 disastrous years
5. And the lack of vision and courage within the Democratic Party, which could not rise above its cautiousness and fear to pose a robust alternative to Bush's ruinous and clumsy policies at home and abroad.
How sad to see two centuries of America's inspirng world leadership crumble in the space of eight years!
Impeachment is not on the table because all the liberals (and I am one of them) are too lazy, content with their fat bellies, or compassionate, when we should be building gallows for the Right Wingers who are ruining our country and tumbrils to carry them to their death through the streets. But we won't do it because Bush/Cheney, the next dictatorship of the proletariet have control of the money and the finks of big business who think they can squeeze one more million bucks to add to their thousands of millions and they don't care how they get it. Millions of us white and black Americans will die at their hands, and that is one reason Bush has done absolutely nothing to stem the tide of Mexicans pouring into this country, which once was ours but now is theirs -- except at the end of the day they will get theirs the same way.
Get rid of Congress by voting everyone out in the next two elections, and hear the bullets whizzing. They are all cowards, opportunists, without shame and without a shred of loyalty to their country, with a few, very few, exceptions.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!
"....I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster...."
.... not to speak of lying to the Congress, breach of the Geneva conventions, dismantling our constitution (e.g. spying on Americans), bankrupting our moral high ground in the world, bankrupting our "soft power", bankrupting our budget,....
Ms. Pelosy:
Are you asleep?
Ms. Pelosy:
Why is Impeachment not on the table?
Good posts here.
One of the greatest poets and writers of the German language, Wilhelm Busch (hopefully not related...) created a proverb (unknowingly) around the turn of the last century:
"...hier wie ueberhaupt, kommt es anders als man glaubt!" Which translates into
"...here as well in general, things develop differently from what we believe."
Sorry, that doesn't translate to well but I think You get the idea. It's common human wisdom to ponder about the consequences of one's actions. That lets one to believe that everything that happens in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran will ultimately kick back and hit (the) US.
The real problem are the believers. People who believe do not know.
If You would only know there wouldn't be a need to believe. So Bosh/Chainee and their henchmen have easy game to 'make the public believe" that their atrocities, their torture and nation-destruction was and is necessary to protect America.
I agree, why waiting with the revolution until after the 2008 elections? When the Damnocratic candidate concedes to the Repiglicon contender? A fool who trusts paperless voting machines and the government that is owned by the manufacturers as much as it is owned by the banks, the military industrial complex and the pharmaceutical bloodsuckers.
Why don't any of these learned journalists simply own up to the fact the Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are wholly owned subsidiaries of the administration. We financed them, we trained them, and they do exactly what Bushco wants, popping up to save his reamed out ass (see Jeff Gannon) whenever Baby Caligula gets in trouble. I'm quite sure they'll launch another "terrorist" attack to prop up their boy in the White House. Talk about a marriage of convenience.
RE: CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS? ETERNAL ENEMY? EVIDENCE, PLEASE...
capt.clevariant July 19th, 2007 4:16 pm
"Nor is Al Qaeda going to be satisfied with our defeat and humiliation in Iraq. Whether we like it or not, we are engaged in a war to the death with radical Islam. The war in Iraq has raised an army of radicals against us and other western powers-"
Yea, yea, the big clash of civilizatons. Do you have evidence they threaten the US now? Where is that "army"?
"Extremely difficult" to change? Do you believe that "radical Islam" could attract support if the US pursued different policies towards Israel and the ME?
To change things, we will not only have to rid ourselves of the administration, but of the entire Republican Congress and judiciary and most of the Democratic Congress. If that seems impossible now, check out:
http://www.nationalinitiative.us/
The Clash of Civilizations: Anyone who as ever traveled in a Muslem country would laugh to think they could dredge up the organisation and discipline to mount an invasion of a modern country. A Muslem boy grows up in an environment with women not allowed to discipline the boy children and of course the men don't provide that necessary function either. The boys grow to manhood without ever having been made responsible for their actions, hence things working there the way they do.
RE: AL-Q. FORESAW IRAQ? IMPLAUSIBLY SPECULATIVE
capt.clevariant July 19th, 2007 4:16 pm
"while we may not absolutely know or understand what Osama bin Laden's thought processes were, I believe absolutely that he had short-term and long-term goals...He had to know and understand that the attack would invite retaliation, and obviously expected and wanted that to happen. He probably knew that Bush and his co-horts were looking for an excuse to attack Iraq, and it is not too big a stretch to imagine he wanted that to happen as well. "
1) He must have "believed," he "had to know," he "probably knew..."? And did he also know that a Democrat would win the US election, but that a Republican would be installed by the Supreme Court and be in office at the time of the attack - which had been planned years in advance? Did he predict that the administration would fabricate an al-Q-Iraq link - yoking together al-Q and his stated enemy, Sadaam - to justify an attack on a country that had nothing to do with 911? Did he prognosticate the creation of an executive department that would falsify evidence? Did he predict a lie-down media and Congress? Did he foresee an end-run around the UN, in violation of international law? Did he anticipate the reversal of intelligence asessments that Iraq was boxed in, its WMD's destroyed, and no threat to the US?
Iraq? ImPLAUSibly speculative, captain clairvoyant.
"He certainly knew that attacks on Muslim countries by America and other foriegn powers would result in a backlash by Islamic peoples against those countries, and persuade Muslims in great numbers to support Al Qaeda in a jihad against the west."
2) Actually, you're on speculative grounds there, too. First, attacks on the 'west' have their own political payoff in the ME, in terms of strengthening fundamentalist religious-political positions within particular countries. And - calls for Jihad to the contrary - that may have been his main goal. Second, without Iraq, it is arguable that even the destructive invasion of Afghanistan would have backfired for OMB, and not, alone, gathered the support al-Q might have hoped for.
The total US withdrawl will probably be followed by a wave of fighting and blood spilling, but this is unlikely to last very long. Huge street demonstrations by the ordinary people both Shia and Sunni demanding peace would have tremendous pressure on all the factions. Some have already taken place under Moqtada al-Sadr's auspices, but a country under foreign occupation cannot stop it's resistence. Iraq will be very ant-US for generations, and there will be plenty of Iraqi Al Qaeda look-alikes attacking US operations all over the place. But the government that finally does emerge and bring peace to the country will be much more concerned in rebuilding the country than in mounting attacks on external enemies. It will need a lot of foreign aid and thus need to strongly clamp down on the mad Salafi bombers.
What We the People do not know for sure is if Osama ever got off the CIA payroll. That whole thing stinks of something rotten right here at home. I wonder if we will ever have the courage to dig deep enough for the truth and convict the real perp. (uh, that would be President Shit-for-Brains)
TO THE HAGUE, BUSH!!!
In the 1980's I worked with two Iraqi's, one shiite and one sunni. They would barely speak to each other, and only then to trade insults. This is spite of the fact that they were the only two foreigners in the office. I don't know if this is indicative of the state of affairs of the shiites and sunnis at the time, but they sure hated each other. If the U.S. pulls out, I guess we will find out how the two groups feel about each other.
OBL had very little to do with 9/11. What he may have done would have been following instructions from the white house.
Duh.
I believe that most Americans do not want to see the Iraqi people killing each other, but the anger we have over what Bush and the neocons did to get us into this mess is so overwhelming that we want to be done with it and let the responsibility for it be burned into Bush's epitaph, as well as his forehead. I have yet to hear anyone say we should not have gone into Afghanistan. I have yet to hear anyone say we should pull out of Afghanistan. I have yet to hear the news media point out the distinct differences in how Americans feel about the two fronts. Because Bush refuses to think in any other way than he has to date, we all perceive that following him will just be more of the same. We have fought this "war on terror" stupidly and predictably. No wonder we have squandered so much money, so much good will, and so many lives!
"Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The U.S. government's own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland".
The above paragraph from the article in question has recieved several comments from commentors questioning its veracity, even likening it to "bovine scatology", whatever that is. But while we may not absolutely know or understand what Osama bin Laden's thought processes were, I believe absolutely that he had short-term and long-term goals when his followers attacked the World Trade Center. He had to know and understand that the attack would invite retaliation, and obviously expected and wanted that to happen. He probably knew that Bush and his co-horts were looking for an excuse to attack Iraq, and it is not too big a stretch to imagine he wanted that to happen as well. He certainly knew that attacks on Muslim countries by America and other foriegn powers would result in a backlash by Islamic peoples against those countries, and persuade Muslims in great numbers to support Al Qaeda in a jihad against the west. So it is my belief that indeed, America did "fall into the trap", exactly as bin Ladin had hoped, although he may not of known exactly how it would happen.
Nor is Al Qaeda going to be satisfied with our defeat and humiliation in Iraq. Whether we like it or not, we are engaged in a war to the death with radical Islam. The war in Iraq has raised an army of radicals against us and other western powers, and they are our greatest security threat and are likely to remain so for a long time. The ultimate goal of Al Qaeda, I believe, is to establish the rule of Islamic Sharia law world wide, either by converting or killing all heretics, in accordance with their religious beliefs.
So I believe the article as written is essentially correct, and a good assesment of our current situation. The idea that we can fight radical Islam with tanks and guns is rediculous. Bush and his cohorts committed grave crimes and created a mess that will take generations to overcome. We gave up the moral high ground, and have been brought down to the level of the people who are trying to destroy us. Turning that around, in ways that other commenters on this article have articulated, will be extremely difficult.
Baskra, wake up. Look at your comment two. Don't you remember that is exactly what OBL and George Bush are, chess playing buddies from Arbusto days? If( which I strongly doubt) OBL is responsible for September 11, 2001 disaster initiation, it's only because two business people had a falling out over some deal gone ugly.
Sorry, I remain skeptical of this "civil war" stuff.
The spectacular market and mosque bombings so sensationalized by the media represent less than 15 percent of the Iraqi deaths.
The most common cause of deaths are shootings by uncetain groups (many no doubt the US or US aided death squads), followed by US airstrikes, followed by criminal activity. (per the Lancet and IBC reports)
And even many or most of the car bombings are likely done by covert CIA-supported fanatic groups, or false-flag operations by the CIA themselves. It's all part of their SOP - divide and conquer. Many Iraqis have stated over and over again that this whole supposed long-standing animosity between Shia and Sunni is nonsense, thay got along as well as Catholics and Protestants do in the US.
My kids remind me often of certain "duh" things. At this level they are there too.
-Duh, U.S. trained, funded and protected the formation of Al Quida and probably still directes some aspects as U.s. needs a global enemy to justify it's global reach
-Duh, U.S. fomented suni/shia violence when traditionally they coexisted relitivly well. Divide and conquer? Oldest play in the book.
-Duh, Permanent bases and oil contracts are never discussed therefor central to the issue.
-Duh, our willing disbelief obscures the obvious next step for criminals caught in a corner... more violence. Media "noise" is up, prepare for a terrorist attack to quiet the critics and preempt the election.
seattlepatriot is almost 100% correct. Keep in mind that in addition to trashing the constitution, BushCo is looting the treasury. They will soon take another shot at turning the social security trust fund over to Wall Street.
bidelo is 100% correct. With the upcoming completion of the Bagdad Control Center (disguised as a 120 acre U.S. Embassy campus) and completion of air bases in Iraq, the military (uniformed and mercenary) will be deployed to secure oil reserves in other Asian nations so the corporations can start pumping.
Bottom line: The Bush Reich won!
With all the DU left laying around and all hatred towards the U.S. for invading their country, killing their people and stealing their oil, I would say we have only begun to reap what we have sown.
Yes baska and Saila. Bush/Cheney has never been concerned with terriorism, otherwise they wouldn't have invaded Iraq. An eight-year-old could have predicted it would only make terrorism worse. This was the ruse. The real reason was control of the oil supply. $30 per barrel before the war, now $70. Mission accomplished.
"soft" partitioning?
Remember how "soft" the partitioning of post-colonial India was.....
My take is: If the USA publically declared it had made a terrible mistake, impeaches Bush and Cheneym apologized profusely, threw huge amounts of money Iraq's way, and slinked out of Iraq TODAY, the Iraqis majority Shi'ites themselves would turn on Al Qaeda in Iraq ( a SUNNI Organization)
Otherwise, the USA will continue to turn the entire muslim world, all 1.2 BILLION of them, into pan generational blood enemies of the USA, and further strenghten Ossama's hand.
Of course it's not about terrorism, Katrina showed us its about contractors with their hand in the cookie jar. All government services are being contracted to private companies these days. The bidding for these contracts is not scrutinized!
Baska,- OBL, knew the nature of sabotage, which is what Al-Qaeda is all about. The tactic is to divert resources from the global war on democracy, and that is a costly job (chasing down insurgents) that the defense contractors drool over. Maybe OBL and Bush are in this together they are both corrupt businessmen.
That said, I think Al-Qaeda is bigger than OBL and most decisions are out of his hands. It's all on automatic now so yea, I would say that PNAC's plan was a success. Osama? He just dealt the hand he was given by the U.S..
The rest of us? We are supposed to keep shopping and shut up.
"If once Americans were blind, they now can see." Except Cheneybush believe that only a select few elite can really, really "see," (the rest of us being, you know, stupid,) and, hence, will continue their traitorous agenda until perp-walked into the poky.
"Maybe there is a silver lining hidden somewhere in this cloud." Sure there is - we arrest Cheneybush to show the world America is seriously sorry, then bribe a new "coalition of the willing" with pieces of the oil/reconstruction pie in exchange for peacekeepers, political aides, trainers, etc. Meanwhile, we figure out a way out of the Embassy Theme Park (make it the coalition HQ,) and make sure the three main players share the wealth. If Shiites get more oil rev than the Sunnis, it's compensated with more reconstruction bucks and gov aid. Kurds get to manage what they have but within the family, and they have to share. The civil war is declared a tie.
Then we draw down our forces while quietly reminding the rest of the sons-a-bitches out there that if they don't play nice, we'll seriously f**k you up.
Then, of course, Iraq will switch to Euros and knocks us to our knees anyway, the day before China calls in their markers...
"Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap."
Bovine scatology!
Hey, Mr Ash, where have you been? Have you not read or heard that the plan to attack Iraq was drawn up well before 9/11? They knew damn well that they were going to grab the oil and have a foothold there to control other neighboring nations.
"The U.S. government's own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland."
Another bovine scatology!
This is what Bush the Warmonger Chief has been saying all along in order to continue the war forever: if we don't kill 'em there, they'll follow us here to the American homeland. I'm not sure if the author is not doing Bush's propaganda, but it sure looks like it.
The "benefits" to BushCo of the invasion, war and occupation are too numerous to allow for any consideration of putting an end to this disaster. First, it's making them all wealthy beyond their wildest dreams; second, Bush's assertion that his powers as commander-in-chief are virtually unlimited requires him to claim he's a "war president" -- hence he needed a war; thirdly, it has provided him the political distraction he needs to continue his unprecedented grab for power and the evisceration of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. With all that going for him and his cronies, there will be no end to Iraq until the end of the Bush junta.
The devil is in the details. Cheney, his trained monkey, and his co-conspirators in the legislative branch are still trying to figure out a way to keep enough troops in long enough to force the Iraqis to endorse the great oil give-away, aka the oil law, and to keep enough troops afterwards to protect the US and other foreign companies as they rob Iraq of its oil wealth.
In the US press, it is always implied that the Iraqis refuse to go along with the US-drafted oil law because of its revenue-sharing components. The problem is that the lion's share of the revenue, up to 80 percent, goes to US and other foreign companies. I think Cheney convinces the feeble-minded on the right, including the monkey, that is all for the best because that way the Iraqi civil war cannot last too long as the Iraqi factions will only be fighting over the crumbs.
The Bush serial killing family, brings death,suffering an bombing to all people who do not wish to be made in our image. And thats the way it is folks, if you don't like it tooo badddd.
Mr. Ash is one the most intelligent humans on the face of the Earth. He's right on all this horrible mess, wrought by swaggering, arrogrant, greedy Neocon Republicans. Most of the bonehead decisions and acts of the Bush Administration can be traced to Cheney. Now he's pressing for a military attack on Iran. This man needs to be impeached. Thank God for patriots like Ohio's Dennis Kucinich who threw that ball into Congress' court. Get these men out of power before they completely wreck our country and the world. It's all about oil. It is not and never has been about combatting terrorism. They used it as an excuse to seize the richest oil fields outside Saudi Arabia and Russia. It is so obvious. Further, Russia and China, not to mention India, will not sit idly by while the U.S. attacks Iran. Impeach these bozo's now! Stop this craziness.
I have to concede that Mr. Ash is correct in saying that we haven't even begun to see the fallout from the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.
What is worse is that the same people are making decisions and the U.S. Congress is about as hapless as they could be. Using erectile dysfunction as a metaphor, I would say that Congress as ED, whild Bush and company are need to get off the viagra- appologies to the ladies, except that the one who should make a difference, Nancy "Poloser" deserves the insult for failing to exert leadership and carry out her duties as Speaker of the House.
The damage, pain and contamination we've wrought in Iraq will last for generations. This is not a simple blunder but a premeditated crime of historic proportions. It makes the crime of the WTC attacks miniscule in comparison. The perpetrators can never be brought full to justice but our only redemtion is to bring all possible justice to bear.
I am opposed to the war, but the problem is that this administration has invested so much of our economy into this war. We no longer have industry at home, it has all been shipped overseas. And what the Republicans are afraid of is if we pull out, our economy will collapse because it is all based on this war now. What we need to do is start taxing the businesses for outsourcing thereby encouraging industry at home. Its unAmerican not to pay your taxes. Taxes is what supports our country. And it is propoganda to say that business will go under. Once we have industry at home (one of an honest nature) a pullout now would not throw us into a depression worse than 1929. Right now, the way our economy is set up there would be nothing for U.S. to sustain ourselves with. Remember the severe recession we had after pullout out of Vietnam? We had industry at home then. I do remember. We've been set up. So that's why the Republicans are not going to pull out. When the Democrats take office, they'll pull out but the economic devestation will hit (on the Democratic clock) and the American people will suffer blaming the Democrats (even though they weren't responsible). The Republicans will then blame Democrats for everyone's financial woes. And the American people with their short term memory will blame the Democrats. This is a lose lose situation. And so far Edwards is the only candidate that has said bring industry home. I think he is right. We need to prepare ourselves for severe economic times caused by this administration. There is no out of it. Sorry for sounding so negative.
^Cyberbrook.
I couldn't have said it better if I tried. The funny thing is, this is what a Gov't should be doing for its people in the first place. But somehow the 1% managed to make everyone in congress think other wise.
This is a scary time in the US. If someone who is of minimal intelligence can set us back 20-30 years and ruin hundreds of thousands of lives. Imagine what would happen if someone who was a scholar managed to get elected. We did nothing to stop this (As a whole). We just sat here and took it. It makes me scared to see what it's going to be like here in the next 10 years. We have a good chance of loosing our "Democracy"(already lost). And being forced into a police state, fascist Gov't with no rights and no way out. (Border Fence).
I think that's a brilliant article, well done (again) Timothy Garton Ash...
And now for the follow-up article: "BushCo. Hasn't Even Begun."
Impeach and jail the Bu$hCo. gang! Vote out whoever still supports them politically. Boycott whoever still supports them financially.
Close all foreign military bases.
Stop developing nuclear weapons, stop using cluster bombs, depleted uranium, land mines, white phosphorous and other chemical weapons.
Apologize. Many times.
Redirect military budget to reconstruction there and here, to national healthcare, to universal education, to housing, to jobs, to cleaning up superfund sites and other environmental wastelands, build more schools, parks and playgrounds, hospitals and clinics, invest in renewable fuels, support organic agriculture, stop promoting dictators and militaries, rein in corporations, democratize the mass media, expand mass transportation, support peaceful prosperity....
RE: BY INVADING IRAQ, CHENEYBUSH "FELL" INTO BIN LADEN'S "TRAP"?
"Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap."
1) What evidence is there that al-Q had any such "plan"? None.
2) 'OBL wants us to invade Iraq' - that was heard a lot, particularly among the liberal anti-invasion crowd. As though OBL and CheneyBush were chessplayers plotting moves.
What bullcrap. CheneyBush exploited 911 as an excuse to lie the US into an invasion that had nothing to do w/al-Q in order to boost his US strength - not to fight terrorism. CheneyBush were not suckered into anything.
This "trap" idea unwittingly buys into the US vs. the terrorists reasoning that BushCheney have used to engage in an 'invasion of choice' and f.-over civil liberties in the US.
Until the criminals in the whitehouse are brought to justice, the horror story of Iraq will not be concluded.
"Maybe there is a silver lining hidden somewhere in this cloud."
yeah, there is enough evidence to put on trial and punish the leaders of this criminal administration for war crimes and other crimes against humanity.....