Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Five Iraqs
It has become a mantra of sorts among the faltering Republican candidates: Victory is at hand in Iraq. Mitt Romney, in particular, has taken to so openly embracing the "success" of the U.S. troop "surge" that it has become the centerpiece of his litany of attacks on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton.
"Think of what's happened this year," Romney recently implored a crowd in Iowa. "General [David] Petraeus came in to report to Congress and Hillary Clinton said she couldn't believe him. She said she just couldn't believe General Petraeus. Now think about that. He's been proven to be right. He should be on the cover, by the way, of Time magazine, and not Putin."
Clinton, for her part, has stood her ground. Addressing a crowd of voters in Iowa, she took a swipe back at Romney: "We all know the Republican candidates are just plain wrong when they declare mission accomplished about the troop surge." She went on to note that U.S. casualty figures in Iraq for 2007 were at an all-time high, and that for all of the positive reports concerning the surge, Iraq remains a nation on the verge of a civil war, no closer today to a political solution than it was before the escalation. She promised that, if nominated, "I will not hesitate to go toe to toe with Republicans in the debates to end the war as quickly and responsibly as possible."
Therein lies the catch. How does Clinton explain her commitment to quick and responsible withdrawal in the context of the short-term reduction of violence in Iraq achieved by the surge? How does she propose to rectify the admitted internal shortcomings inside Iraq, which she likens to near-civil war conditions, with her pledge for a "responsible" withdrawal? If one takes at face value the alleged successes of the surge, it is difficult to justify the embrace of an alternative policy option. Likewise, if one chooses to criticize the surge as all smoke and mirrors, as Clinton has, and yet argues for a quick and responsible end to the war in Iraq without revealing the details of how this would be accomplished, the rhetoric comes across as remarkably shallow.
I'm not one inclined to speak out in support of Hillary Clinton. She made her bed with Iraq, and she should now be forced to sleep in it. However, she is right that nothing the surge has accomplished so far remotely approaches a solution to these enormously destabilizing realities: a largely disaffected Sunni population which finds the current Shiite-dominated government of Iraq fundamentally unacceptable; a decisively fractured Shiite population torn between an Iranian-dominated government on the one hand (controlled by the political proxies of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, SCIRI, itself an Iranian proxy) or an indigenous firebrand, Muqtada al-Sadr; and a false paradise in Kurdistan, where the dream of an independent Kurdish homeland corrupts a viable Kurdish autonomy and threatens regional instability by provoking Turkish military intervention.
"Quickly and responsibly"? The problem with Clinton is that when it comes to Iraq, she is as shallow as the next candidate, and once one gets past her flowery rhetoric and protestations of expertise, it becomes crystal clear that she, like almost everyone else in the presidential race from either party, hasn't a clue about what is really happening on the ground in Iraq.
There are, in fact, five Iraqs that must be dealt with by a singular American policy. The first is the Iraq of the Green Zone, and by that I mean the Iraqi government brought about by the "purple finger revolution" of January 2005. Those sham elections produced a sham democracy which lacks any viability outside of the never-never land of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. This lack of centralized authority has led some, like Sen. Joe Biden and the U.S. Senate, to advocate the division of Iraq into three de facto states, one Sunni, one Shiite and one Kurdish, lumped together in a loose federation overseen by a weak central authority. Given that the 2005 elections were designed to prevent this very sort of Iraqi breakup to begin with, one can begin to understand the fallacy of any policy that contradicts the very foundation upon which it is built. But this sort of behavior defines the entire Iraq fiasco, one contradiction built upon another, until there has been woven a web of contradictions from which no clarity can ever be found. That, in a sentence, is the reality of the current Iraqi government. It is almost as if by design the Bush administration has cobbled together a wreck incapable of governance. How does Hillary Clinton propose to deal "quickly and responsibly" with such a mess?
The second Iraq is the one being managed from Tehran. This Iraq, stretching from Basra in the south up into Baghdad, exists outside of the reach of the compromised disaster that is the current government of Iraq, and is instead dominated by SCIRI and its military wing, the Badr Brigade. Here one finds the unvarnished reality of the dream of the pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiites, those who reached political maturity festering in the anti-Saddam ideology cooked up in the theocracy of Iran. Given the roots of this political movement, bred and paid for by the reactionary mullahs of Iran, the politics of revenge that it embraces should come as no surprise. However, whereas the mullahs in Tehran seek long-term political stability guaranteed by a friendly, compliant government in Baghdad, the Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiites seem more focused on rapidly reversing decades of inequities, real and perceived. Revenge is not a policy that breeds stability, and yet it is the politics of revenge that dominates the mind-set of SCIRI.
Serving as a major domestic counterweight to SCIRI is the indigenous grass-roots Iraqi Shiite movement controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, the third Iraq. Possessing similar geographic reach as SCIRI, the Iraq of the "Mahdi Army" is one which rejects the SCIRI proxy government operating out of the Green Zone as but a tool of the American occupation, and the SCIRI movement itself as a tool of Iran. While maintaining close relations with Tehran, al-Sadr mocks those who would govern in south Iraq as having Farsi, vice Arabic, as their first tongue. The movement headed by al-Sadr bases its credibility on its pure Iraqi roots, derived as it is from the Shiites of Iraq who actually lived under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Surprisingly, these Shiites are more inclined to find common cause with their fellow Iraqis, including Sunnis who are disaffected with the current government, than with their SCIRI co-religionists. While much has been made of the Sunni-Shiite divide, the fact is that one of the most serious threats to stability in Iraq is the emerging Shiite-versus-Shiite conflict between al-Sadr and SCIRI.
The fourth Iraq is the Iraq of the Sunni. The first three years of the American occupation were dominated by violence emanating from the Sunni heartland as those elements loyal to Saddam, and those opposed to Shiite domination, worked together to make the American occupation, and any affiliated post-Saddam government derived from the occupation, a failure. To this extent, elements of the Sunni of Iraq, drawn primarily from the intelligence services of the Hussein regime, facilitated the creation and operation of al-Qaida in Iraq. The work of this Iraqi al-Qaida has been successful in destabilizing the country to the point that the United States has been compelled to fund, equip and train Sunni militias in an effort to confront al-Qaida, as well as to make up for the real shortfalls of the central Iraqi government when it comes to security and stability in the Sunni areas. The newfound relationship between the Sunni and the United States, especially in Anbar province, is cited as a major factor in the success of the surge.
The fifth Iraq is that of the Kurds. Long hailed as a poster child of stability and prosperity, the fundamental problems inherent in post-Saddam Kurdistan are coming to a head. The inherent incompatibility between the "sanctuary" created by the United States through the northern "no-fly zone" and post-Saddam Iraq is more evident today than ever. The Kurds, pleased with their status as a "special case" in the eyes of the Bush administration, have made no honest effort to assimilate into a centralized system of government. Furthermore, the false dream of an independent Kurdish homeland has not only poisoned relations with the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad (witness the conflict over oil deals in Kurdistan and the Iraqi national oil law), but also between the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey. The Iraqi Kurds' ongoing support of Kurdish nationalist groups in Turkey and Iran has led to increased instability, the most current manifestation of which are the ongoing cross-border attacks into Iraqi territory by the Turkish military. And, given the high level of emotion attached to matters pertaining to Kurdish nationalism, the likelihood of the situation de-escalating anytime soon is remote.
Five Iraqs, and one Iraq policy ill-suited to the reality of any single situation, yet alone the whole. The success of the surge is pure fantasy, a fancy bit of illusion that would do David Copperfield proud, but not the people of Iraq or the United States. The surge addresses events in Iraq based upon short-term objectives (i.e., reducing the immediate level of violence) without resolving any of the deep-seated, long-term issues that promote the violence to begin with. It is like placing a Band-Aid on a gaping chest wound. The pink, frothy blood may not be visible on the surface, but the wound remains as grave as ever, and because it is not being directly attended to, it only gets worse. Eventually the lungs will collapse and the body will die. This is the reality of Iraq today. Thanks to the surge, we do not see the horrific wound that is Iraq for what it truly is. As such, our policies do nothing to cure the problem, and in doing nothing, only make the matter worse.
History will show that this period of relative "calm" we attribute to the surge is but the pause before the storm. Hillary Clinton is correct to label the surge a failed strategy. But her motivation for doing so rests more with her desire to position herself politically on the domestic front than it is a reflection of a thoughtful Iraq policy. So long as American politicians, regardless of political affiliation, seek to solve the problem of Iraq from a domestic political perspective, then the problem that is Iraq will never be resolved, either "quickly" or "responsibly." Iraq is an unpopular war. There are, therefore, no "popular" solutions, only realistic ones.
The five-dimensional problem embodied in post-Saddam Iraq cannot be bundled up into a neat package. America, and its leaders, must do the right thing in Iraq, not for Iraq, but for America, even when doing so requires making some tough decisions. Narrow the problem set from five dimensions to two, and the problem becomes more manageable. For my money, I choose working with the Sunnis and al-Sadr to create a viable coalition, and then cutting a deal with Iran that trades off better relations in exchange for encouraging the current failed Iraqi government to step aside in favor of new elections. And the Kurds? Autonomy or nothing.
My loyalty is first and foremost to the United States, and when we look at the situation in Iraq from a genuine national security perspective, there is no threat worthy of the continued sacrifice being asked of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. As such, the only policy option worthy of consideration is that which brings our troops home as expeditiously as possible. Politicians who embrace a different policy are simply using the sacrifice of our service members as a shield behind which to hide their ignorance of Iraqi issues, and their personal cowardice, which manifests itself any time brave young men and women are allowed to die in order to preserve someone's political viability.
As we in the United States celebrate this holiday season, let us not forget those who serve overseas in uniform, and the sacrifices they make in our name. And as we approach the coming election season, let us never forget those politicians who would have these sacrifices continue in order to safeguard their individual political fortune. This applies to all who seek the nomination for the office of the presidency, even those like Hillary Clinton who claim to embrace an anti-war position but whose words and actions strongly suggest something else.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) , "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, "Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement" (Nation Books, April 2007).
© 2007 TruthDig.com
29 Comments so far
Show AllNo, Mr. "4thefuture", I do not hold you responsible for the actions of the people in powerful places and the injustices that exist in the world. But, I do have an issue with people like you and Scott Ritter who, instead of being a man and standing up against injustices in the world, are making excuses and justifications for the continuation of those injustices. My argument is this: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If freedom and self-determination is good for the 100,000 East Timoris (and the other 185+ members of the U.N.), it should be good for the 40,000,000+ Kurds as well. There is no reason why the homeland of the Kurds (called Kurdistan) should be divided among five other countries and these people should be denied the God-given right to freedom and self-determination. I hope that you will agree with me on this point.
Not "Mr," thank you very much. You indicate that injustice must come to an end, I only wish that it were so. If it were, would it not start with the injustice toward the native peoples of the Americas?
You attack me as if I were somehow responsible for the fact that those in powerful places pick and choose their support for "justice" in particular ways. I was merely trying to point out some of the differences other than the particular religion of the people in question.
You misread my meaning of the national identity remark. I was referring to the land upon which any Kurdistan would be located. This is currently not an option for at least two of those countries in which those lands currently reside. This, and the size of the armies, was by way of an explanation to your assertion that the west supported independence for East Timor because they were Christian, but not for Kurds because they are Muslim. No doubt that was a part, but there was more involved which was my point. Not currently an option does not equate to "until the end of time." Hopefully before then, we will all have abandoned the outmoded and speciescidal thinking that is nationalism. If not, how can our species survive?
So, Mr. "4thefuture", you believe that since both Turkey and Iran have strong armies, we should let them enslave the Kurds until the end of time, right? Are you saying that Indonesia did not have a strong army? The former Soviet Union had the powerful Red Army; but we did not let them enslave the Afghans. Are you saying that the Turkish and Iranian armies stronger than the Red Army? Secondly, who told you that the Kurds are a part of the Turkish "national identity?" Let me tell you my friend, the Kurds might have a small affinity with the Persians in Iran; but the Kurds have absolutely nothing in common with the Turks (or the Arabs). The Kurds are not, and cannot be, a part of Turkish "national identity."
You also say that "we are still dealing with a situation in which 'Justice deferred' is the reality." That might be true. But at the final analysis, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A justice delayed is a justice denied." And that is no good; and sooner or later the injustice must come to an end.
I have always appreciated Ritter's experience and perspective, but he loses my sympathy with this:
"America, and its leaders, must do the right thing in Iraq, not for Iraq, but for America, even when doing so requires making some tough decisions."
And with his statement that the threat isn't worth the sacrifice in lives of US service personnel.
Excuse me, but I believe the US has a moral obligation to do the right thing for IRAQ too. If the threat DID make the sacrifice of US lives worth it, then the deaths of over a million Iraqis, and the displacement of several million more would be ok??!
US foreign policy that only takes into account the costs to the US is neither moral nor just. And truly, the cost of such policies includes a lack of security, by increasing resentment and hatred for the US around the world.
As John Perkins (Economic Hit Man) put it so well in an interview on Democracy Now, our children and future generations can never be safe and secure unless we care enough to contribute to making ALL the world's children safe and secure.
Scott Ritter for president!
Someone was eventually going to say it so I thought I would jump the gun and be one of the first.
I cant say i feel any better.
Knut the German Polar Bear for president!
Hmm, yeah i feel a bit better about that.
Go Knut!
A catastrophe that boggles the mind. In five minutes of reading this I learn more than from months of mainstream media pseudo-journalism. As always, Scott Ritter rocks the boat of lies. This is a LIFESTYLE WAR---an invasion/occupation designed to keep feeding "profit at any cost" into the capitalist machine, cheap oil and goods pouring into the bottomless maw that is the American consumer. Capitalism has ALWAYS had to steal wealth from outside itself so that, by nothing but violence, it "seemed" and still "seems" to work....
"…and when we look at the situation in Iraq from a genuine national security perspective, there is no threat worthy of the continued sacrifice being asked of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines..."
From a national security perspective, Mr Ritter is right. But Bushco is looking at it from oil/gas security perspective.
When Madeleine Albright was asked whether the US sanctions that resulted in the death of half a million Iraqi children was worth it, she responded in the affirmative. If a lousy sanction was worth that much, wouldn't a vast sea of oil and gas be worth the lives of just a few thousand soldiers? That is Bush's perspective, and his answer is a resounding YES.
Happy New Year to all posters, including yours truly.
I like Scott Ritter a lot; he's always been a truth-teller, going back before the Iraq War started, when he was a WMD inspector. His plan for getting us disentangled from Iraq, as briefly stated as it is, is more of a plan than anyone on the campaign trail has given so far. It would behoove some candidate to take up Ritter's proposal.
I also agree with his motivation for getting out of Iraq: for our own good, as much as for Iraq's.
On the bright side, this sketches a map to a future Iraqi Federation.
The Kurds are ready to go, but they have stop the f___ing with the Turks.
The Sunni tribal leaders are protecting their own territory from alqaeda in Iraq. They have to stop being the ethnic bully boys. Saddam is gone.
Maybe the two Shiite factions can reach an accord.
They could start a loose Iraqi federation. The central government would only control greater Baghdad, would have negotiating authority for oil exports and a budget for infrastructure development and maintenance. Regional militias would control the borders and local security. Each province would control the balance between a secular and sharia society.
Then they could have all kinds of fun making the American and British companies bid with everyone else to develop oil fields and infrastructure. Saddam is gone, right? No weapons of mass destruction, right? We're about as big a threat to Israel as Switzerland, right? We are a sovereign nation, right? Then just go home. Go kiss some Saudi behind and leave us alone.
On another subject, its a tragedy the Iraqis have to bear this burden, but with global warming about to really take off, the longer Iraqi oil stays in the ground and oil stays at $100/bbl the better. And the dollar continues to drop like a rock. Something has to force Americans to conserve. It will be an ironic outcome from our cheap oil grab that we have to stop wasting it.
Whatever Iraq's problems are they are made worse by automatic weapon fire, air strikes, and the occupiers. We should leave fast enough that the screen door don't hit us in the ass on the way out.
Notwithstanding that they were Christians, in a predominantly Muslim nation, I think there are some more pressing geopolitical issues around the idea of Kurdistan that weren't in play in East Timor. East Timor was a small area within a Third World Nation that was cobbled together after the end of a long struggle against European Colonialism. Kurdistan on the contrary, has its people spread out primarily among three sovereign nations, only one of which, Iraq, was the subject of Eurpean colonialism. Turkey and Iran being the two which were not. It is one thing to reach a solution giving independence to East Timor against Indonesia, who quite frankly had little sense of commonality with the either the people or land of East Timor, and quite another to try to wrest a Kurdistan away from these other nations. Both Turkey and Iran have strong armies and a keen inclination to retain their current national identity, which includes the land, intact.
So one does not have to be unfeeling towards the idea of an independent Kurdistan to recognize the difference and, at least for now, impossibility of attaining it. Just as an independent Palestine is also something that some of us can hope for and dream of, we can also recognize that we are still dealing with a situation in which "Justice deferred" is the reality. And ultimately, some of us realize that nationalism is in its own way, a non-solution to the problems that are leading the human race to the brink of destruction.
Just thought I would add this short essay written by Mark Twain.
From the New York Herald, October 15, 1900:
I left these shores, at Vancouver, a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific. It seemed tiresome and tame for it to content itself with he Rockies. Why not spread its wings over the Phillippines, I asked myself? And I thought it would be a real good thing to do
I said to myself, here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which had addressed ourselves.
But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Phillippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. . .
It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
Well-- where to start -there are SO many places:
Population of Iraq - say 27 million of which the Kurds are a minotrity. If in the US we followed Mr. Ali's fervor what would WE have- the 10 percent of Hispanics and African American and the 2 percent of Jews. Also we should have atleast 6 United states - and if you include Irish Americans and italian Americanns at least - 7 since German Americans are the most !! Therefore - despite my sympathy for the Kurds- like all peoples of the world - there is a divisiveness in clinging to identity which does no NATION any good.
Although - I would say that by tomorrow -NY and Connecticut could be Jewish independent states if they so wished-especially NYC- if they aren't already but are just TOO polite to declare it- a la Liberman, Spitzer, Bloomberg - ad nauseum.
Also if the US had ACTUALLY kept their treaties with the American-Indians- we would have a nation about one-third of its size today- but hey - lets not get facts and honesty get in the way of debate!
We are back to the age old theme of (for the Westernly inclined) Divide et Impera- or divide and Conquer - and hence the word imperialism. With out division there is no way - any single nation can rule so many.
The topic of multiple of Iraqs is the same as the projected multiple Pakistans (moderate/extreme/cosmopolitan/fundamentalist, Sindh, Pushtan etc)or India or -think of the enormity of contempt in this.
While "IN" the US - there is a HUGE movement to 'assimilate'--- it seems that being a 'separate' identity is VERY important in ALL countries outside the US.
I am continually amazed by how easy it is to ensnare gullible and especially non-criticial opinion in to the web of deception.
I would like anyone to name ONE country that the US helped attain true independence that was NOT European- hmm- Korea- well a bunch of troops for eternity there -is that independence? Japan - whoops same thing ! Germany - their white and SAME thing!! Hawaii- wonderful country except the natives are like destitute- most of them anyway! Phillipines- yup thats it - the glorious bastion of how America spread democracy - whoops corrupt and American troops and mad prostitution and a lot of misery!!
Panama- whoops - invaded and well its not doing too good either actually- wait - Columbia - whoops - same thing - except fr reason after BILLIONS of dollars -they are even more corrupt ad its even more out of control then 20 years ago with reagan!! Speaking of Reagan - does ANYONE even KNOW what Grenada did to get invaded??
Mexico - our wonderful neighbors- whoops - sowwy - same sh*t - fixed elections and a former presiden twho was presiden tog Coca Cola in Mexica - hows that for being objective!!
Somebody help me - I am sure -we (the US ) did some good somewhere?
The article seems to indicate that a Federation Government over three states, one Sunni, one Shiite and one Kurdish, is a bad thing. In fact, the Ottoman Empire ruled over Iraq in EXACTLY that way for over 500 years with virtually NO BLOODSHED. It worked just fine until WWI and the British Empire conquered the Ottoman Empire for oil. If any of the candidates would just study history a little bit, they would see the answer. John G. Stoessinger, Ph.D. (Harvard), professor at U.C. San Diego, has been lecturing about this since before the war. FEDERATION is the key to Iraq!
Herb B
As a 19 year Resident of New Mexico, I can assure you that Bill Richardson is not the man you think he is. Mr Richardson is not even close to The Views of Scott Ritter on the situation in Iraq(well maybe now that he has thrown his fat hat in the ring). As a matter of fact when Dennis Kucinich was campaigning in NM (I worked on his campaign in 2004), Richardson was supporting the war and his president. He shunned DK and his rudeness was very much noticed. He came out to Kiss Joe bidens feet when HE came to town, and lets make it clear, Joe Biden completely ignored Scott ritter at the senate hearings and would not allow him to testify, with all his credentials, for fear that his evidence (no Nukes-no WMD's) and years of experience would shed light and misgivings about what was going to ensue. Mr Ritter also Supported Dennis Kucinich and came with him to New mexico on one occaision.
So if you want the candidate who has always been against the war and has always had a plan for withdrawl, and who's views and plans are closest to Mr Ritter, consider mr Kucinich, not the lying, scheming political hack that richardson is ..en punto!
I agree with Mr. Hassani that the Kurds deserve their own homeland. I think they will get it too. They will also be on their own if they start a war with Turkey or Iran.
I agree with the focus on Hillary . She presents herself as an experienced realist and has no exuse for talking nonsense and making Nixonesque promises of peace with honor.
You can't win a war of aggression anymore than you can win a murder.
All good analyses but too much rhetoric . The "trip"will be over when the "car"runs out of gas and not before. The occupation will be over when soldiers at home desert their units or recruitment numbers are zero.Either one will work and both better than one .
Like Russian soldiers in 1917 American servicemen are slow to catch on but eventually they will. Instead of wringing our hands with inumerable blogs on CD and either sites , try cheering potential deserters and recruitment avoiders.
Any other feel-good protest is like spitting upwind
When I choose to think in the mindset of al-Qaida, I worry greatly about the purported force of 250 Pakistanis they have dispatched with the goal of destroying the Mosul Dam.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL75066020071217
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/25173
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/278B5A68-4C02-4AAC-A864-63800596B638.htm
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look/english/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=59809&NrIs...
Should a second attack succeed, Mr. Ritter's calculus of the five Iraqs would be profoundly, horrificly altered.
I wish they would drain the reservoir.
Or, you know, defend the dam better.
The "Surge" was doomed from the start according to the principles outlined in the US Army's Counterinsurgency Manual ("Manual"). You can find the Manual on the Internet, and it's worth a quick read. According to the Manual, in order to defeat an insurgency, you need overwhelming force to provide the population security and re-orientate the people's loyalties. We simply never had the requisite number of troops for the task.
Instead, it appears that what our "leadership" has done is to pay the Sunnis to stop shooting at US troops. Media reports indicate that the Sunnis tribes are turning against the Al Qaeda foreign troops, but how do we know for sure? Meanwhile, it appears that the Shias have yet to turn against the Americans as they're just biding their time for a US departure.
What a disaster!
Dear Scott,
In your article, you talk about "the false dream of an independent Kurdish homeland". My question for you is: Why a dream for having an independent homeland for the Kurds is "false"? Do you believe that the 40+ million Kurds do not deserve to have a free homeland of their own and that they should always be slaves to the Turks, the Arabs and the Persians? Thanks to support from the U.S. and other Western Powers, the 100,000 East Timories got their independence several years ago. Why shouldn't the Kurds enjoy a similar support? Is it because the East Timories were Christians and the Kurds are Moslems? Do you think that only Christians deserve freedom and independence, and not the Moslems? Have you forgotten the fact that Turkey (a so-called NATO American ally) did not allow the American troops to use its territory to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein from the north; as a result of which hundreds of thousands of Hussein's military forces escaped with their guns and later used those guns against America? Have you forgotten the fact that the Kurds in Iraq are the only group in that country who still support America? Why do you guys always put the interests of Turkey not only above and ahead of the interests of the Kurds, but also above and ahead of the interests of America? You are not on the payroll of the Turkish government, are you?
MiMiCcS said:
"It's always been about the oil, Israel's security, having a military presence in a region which has most of the worlds remaining energy to keep it out of Chinas hands. Empire. Thats us. I can live with it. Unfortunately, those in power do not have the American Empires interest at heart, it is about their Global Empire, which is not bounded by Americas interests. Thats the real tragedy for the US of A's critters."
COMMENT:
The real tragedy for the World's "critters," including humans, is that there are so many Americans like MiMiCcS that find "American Empires interest" something that they can "live with." Something about those who approve evil being evil comes to mind.
The natural resources of other lands may rightfully belong to the country's citizens in which the resources are found or they may rightfully belong to the entire world's people. What is a moral given is that the resources don't belong to any marauding nation that kills people who live in the country and steal the resources from the country's people. Not China nor Russia nor any country and sure as hell not the United States.
MiMiCcS - .. the tribute they pay us...?
You must have appeared out of some juvenile comic book.
So, the USA is lord and master of the world, free to go around slaughtering innocent people for sport, and accepting the tribute they know they should pay. What nonsence.
I guess you must be joking or something - but it's not funny.
Ritter's analyses are, as usual, intelligent and helpful.
His experience with the US and UN on-the-ground in Iraq continues to inform his specially fine insights.
Ritter's right. Failure of the multi-year Bush/Chaney policy and the faulty 'success' of the surge are right on: divisiveness and wounds lie deep and continue to fester. Ritter's suggestions to simplify the challenges, and get back to the respective Iraqi and US interests are good.
Attacking Hillary for her approach and weak policy prescriptions therefore follows. Yeh, she's opportunistic, political, and out of touch about the problem.
But at least she and the other Democrats lean more to getting out than any of the Republican candidates who offer their 'leadership' to the US electorate. (Richardson is even closer to what Ritter assesses and proposes.)
So why limit the criticism to Hillary in this piece? (space limitations?)
What about the Bush Administration for their hubris and multi-disasters.
And increasingly more crucial, what about a critique of all those Republican candidates who muster their macho and display their ignorance about policy and prescription for a better Iraq, America, and the New Year.
Yes, Iraq is a complicated place with a long history of interwoven interests. As Ritter points out, the US entered from a position of near total ignorance, and that condition persists.
The US is in the process of making its own history. As an empire, it will be compared to the other great empires in history - the Roman empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire.
The US is a country that has possessed enormous power that can only have been possible in this modern, fosil fuel powered, highly technological world. It's too bad that a country that could have done so much good for humanity under the right leadership has turned out the way it has. In Iraq it has exposed itself as pursuing the basest human qualities - greed, lust for blood, torture and oppression. What a legacy for a country that touts itself as the greatest country in the world!
The recent weakness of the dollar is prescient of what can be expected for the US in the future. The Euro will continue to advance until it becomes the international currency. After that happens, the US will descend to a second rate power - not so much because it is an inevitable consequence of its war weakened economy, as important as that is, - but because the entire world is fed up with its values.
It turns out Bush was right all along, 'They hate us for our values'.
But how does this allow us to control the natural resourses of the Middle East?
Other goals like peace, stability, and order are optional.
5000 Links on the U.S. Presidential Election:
Use it, help improve it, link it, and share it.
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/index.php?cat=3925
Leaving Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster. We broke it, we own it. Once you decide on the path of Imperialism and Empire, there is no turning back. However, that said, we should stop trying to micro-manage affairs in Iraq. Let the Iraqi's work it out among themselves with the understanding that the tribute they pay us is that we get permanent bases, and the oil gets shipped to where ever we say it gets shipped. And if Iraq ends up fragmented into 5 parts, or united, or whatever emerges after the fight for control is over, we deal with it.
This does not mean I support the war, given what I know now, but the war was over in 2003, this is just a very poorly handled occupation. It's always been about the oil, Israel's security, having a military presence in a region which has most of the worlds remaining energy to keep it out of Chinas hands. Empire. Thats us. I can live with it. Unfortunately, those in power do not have the American Empires interest at heart, it is about their Global Empire, which is not bounded by Americas interests. Thats the real tragedy for the US of A's critters.
Maybe that's too negative a New Year's message, and it doesn't offer anything constructive - so I'll give it another try.
If some good could come out of Iraq, maybe the US could follow this course:
1. Publicly admit its crime of violating the UN Charter, which prohibits aggression against sovereign states. (Tip: forget about 'winning')
2. Ask the UN, without any US participation, to assemble a peacekeeping force to replace US troops within Iraq to assist toward a political solution to the problems caused by the invasion, and to be fully funded by the US.
3. Ask the UN, again without US participation, to assess war reparations against the US for the illegal invasion of Iraq. (Remember: forget about 'winning')
4. Make a commitment to acquiesce to an international task force charged with eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, and conducting regular inspections to ensure ongoing compliance from all nations.
There - that would be a good first few steps toward restoring the kind of values the US claims to hold.
Happy New Year everyone!
A detailed informative article. The US of I will not yet leave Iraq, as the OIL is still what it wants. If Hilary Clinton still wants Iraq, its still for the oil. At what point the quest to hold on to access to Oil is to be abandoned in the face of mounting insolvable conflict, contradiction and cost is a matter for the next administration. It is still to the advantage of the US of I to keep all the different parties to the original Iraq at each others throats, so there is no desire of the US to solve the fundamental conflicts. If fractured Iraqis ever decide to all combine to kick out the US of I, then that will the end of the Occupation. Turkey and Iran will as likely fight over the oil if the US steps out, with Russia and China right behind. The conflict is insolvable until the oil runs out. No one seems to be able to say let us live and let live, and trade with what you live on.