Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq: Poised to Explode
While everyone's looking at Iraq's effect on American politics -- and whether or not John McCain and Barack Obama are converging on a policy that combines a flexible timetable with a vague, and long-lasting, residual force -- let's take a look instead at Iraqi politics. The picture isn't pretty.
Despite the Optimism of the Neocons, which has pushed mainstream media coverage to be increasingly flowery about Iraq's political progress, in fact the country is poised to explode. Even before the November election. And for McCain and Obama, the problem is that Iran has many of the cards in its hands. Depending on its choosing, between now and November Iran can help stabilize the war in Iraq -- mostly by urging the Iraqi Shiites to behave themselves -- or it can make things a lot more violent.
There are at least three flashpoints for an explosion, any or all of which could blow up over the next couple of months. (Way to go, Surgin' Generals!) The first is the brewing crisis over Kirkuk, where the pushy Kurds are demanding control and Iraq's Arabs are resisting. The second is in the west, and Anbar, where the US-backed Sons of Iraq sahwa ("Awakening") movement is moving to take power against the Iraqi Islamic Party, a fundamentalist Sunni bloc. And third is the restive Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is chafing at gains made by its Iranian-backed rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
Perhaps the issue of Kirkuk and the Kurds is most dangerous. Last week, the Kurds walked out of parliament to protest a law passed by parliament to govern the provincial elections. The law passed 127-13, but it was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. Juan Cole, the astute observer, says : "The conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk is a crisis waiting to happen." He cites Al-Hayat, an Iraqi newspaper, as claiming that not only do the Kurds want to control Kirkuk, an oil-rich province in Iraq's north, but they plan to annex three other provinces where Kurds live: Diyala, Salahuddin, and Ninewa. That's not likely, but they do want Kirkuk, and the vetoed election law would have limited the Kurds' ability to press their gains there.
The election law was supported by Sadr's bloc and backed by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraq National List. Another nationalist party, the National Dialogue Council, has demanded the ouster of President Talabani over his veto of the law. Other Iraqi parties are backing the now-vetoed law, too, which also restricts the use of Islamic religious symbols by political parties seeking to corral illiterate, religious voters.
Because of all this, it now looks like there won't be provincial elections this year at all. The ruling bloc of Shiite religious parties and Kurdish warlords is split over the crisis, weakening Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and members of the ruling coalition are trying to patch things up. I don't think they'll succeed. Many Shiites in the ruling bloc, including ISCI, have criticized the law as divisive, but as Arabs it's hard for them to endorse a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk. ISCI and the Badr Brigade, its armed wing, are holding parlays to decide what to do. Interestingly, all three members of the ruling presidential council, including Talabani, the IIP's Hashemi, and ISCI's Adel Abdel Mahdi, voted to veto the law, putting ISCI and the IIP on record as supporting the Kurds. Bad for them politically.
The IIP says that it wants to mediate the crisis. But the IIP is in a very, very weak position. Having just rejoined the Maliki government, it is under siege at home in its base in Anbar province, where the Awakening is flexing its muscle. This could be the second explosion. The Sunni Arabs are still seething over the divisive Iraqi Constitution and their continuing exclusion from political power, and the Awakening movement sees the IIP (correctly) as wildly unrepresentative. So the Awakening, representing Sunni tribal powers and former resistance fighters, wants in, at the expense of the IIP. That time bomb is ticking, too.
The final crisis-to-be is the Sadr vs. Badr one. The Times today suggests that Sadr is weakening:
The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
Don't believe it. Sadr's rivals, ISCI, don't have anything like the popular base that Sadr has. And underneath Sadr is a volatile mix of neighborhood, local and regional militias, mosques, and economic fiefdoms that won't yield easily to ISCI and Maliki. Because Sadr's forces are dependent on Iran, however, for arms and cash, Iran may be in the driver's seat. Just the other day, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps crowed that the United States has failed to install an anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, and he's completely right.
So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I'm not sure either "plan" will work.
Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in politics and national security. He is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam and is a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone, The American Prospect, and Mother Jones.
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
55 Comments so far
Show Allwsws- on the cost of the war. not positive on these numbers but, i gather the cost of the war is about a trillion dollars. ( btw- that's a lot of 0's).
a solar array for the average home is approx 30,000. ( insert any alternative solution here). there are 90 million homes in the US. multiply that and you get 240 billion.
the cost of a prius- approx 20,000. multiply that by the number of cars on the road today: about 250 million = 400 billion.
so for half the cost of the war ( brought to you by chinese bonds).. we could have made the need for more oil obsolete.
And think of the number of new jobs that would be created in accomplishing something like this? that alone would cause it to pay for itself.
I am not advocating this as a solution- but it casts the costs of the " war" ( occupation? exploitation?) in a new light.
They tell us we cannot afford universal health care ( which I have reservations about, as it will further create a nation of legal-addicts.. to pills, doctors and sickness- another discussion)..
but we could throw in health care as a bonus and STILL have funds left over after spending that trillion dollars.
A war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan -- oh, the "peace candidate" doesn't stopped there. Obama has also threatened to invade Pakistan. Quoting Obama from the above-cited July 14th New York Times op-ed piece:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
In the July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."
And last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale."
Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).
So the peace candidate, in reality, was never a peace candidate at all. Rather, it sounds like Barack Obama wants to be a war president, just like his "opponent," George Bush.
All this guarantees that the 2008 election will, again, *not* be a referendum on war or peace.
Mission accomplished!
One wonders how many times the DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) will continue to support candidates who have historically and systematically sold out any number of broad-based, grassroots movements. One might start with the Democrats selling out the Populist movement in the 1890s … then there was the labor movement in the 1930s … then the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the antiwar movement. The four most recent betrayal of the antiwar movement being the four mentioned above – 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. (Does anyone see a *pattern* here?)
The Democratic Party insinuates itself into these broad-based, grassroots movements, promises to represent the interests of these movements, and then once those who support these movements sell out to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, in turn, sells out *their* interests.
At first, certain reforms are made -- as in the case of the Populist movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the environmental movement -- but after a while things go back to "normal," the status quo prevails, and all the while the political consensus in the United States moves further and further to the right.
How many times does the liberal-left have to be betrayed before they catch on that the Democratic Party is the graveyard of one broad-based, democratic-inspired movements after another.
And it's all happening ... again.
So that now Obama tells us that his position (all along!) has been that he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field. Meaning: Obama's position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush. If the commanders in the field say we should stay, we stay.
Considering the fact that any commanders in Iraq who may have questioned the War have been either fired, demoted, brought home or pressured to retire early, what Obama is saying shouldn't be too hard to figure out -- "Don't make any bets that we'll be out of Iraq soon … suckers."
Not content to betray the antiwar movement by in recent days "clarifying" his position on Iraq, Obama now wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
(Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000. … Note, too, that *the day after* Obama's aforementioned "New York Times" op-ed piece, in a White House press conference, George Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a "surge" in Afghanistan.)
(Continued)
Now flash-forward to the 2008 primaries. How does the American public now feel about the war in Iraq? Polls show that two-thirds of the American public want the US out of Iraq.
If millions of Americans were against the War in the days of "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom clouds over New York City" … and if millions of Americans were against the war in 2004 and in 2006 … they are now, in 2008, even *more* Americans against the War: in fact, a clear majority.
Enter, Barack Obama, the king of the con men.
Barack Obama won the Democratic Party nomination to a large extent because he gave the appearance of being a peace candidate. The average voter associated Barack Obama's campaign with his position, taken in the primaries, that he had a 16-month timetable for leaving Iraq.
However, wasting no time, *immediately* after he became the presumptive Democratic nominee – I mean, within a couple of *days* -- lo and behold, Obama "clarified" his position on the War. On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability."
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.
(Continued)
Now flash-forward to the 2006 Congressional elections. The general population in 2006 was even more opposed to the war than it was in the days leading up to the war in 2002; and even more opposed to the War than in was 2004! In fact, exit polls showed that the number-one issue for voters in the 2006 Congressional elections was the war in Iraq.
So that despite the political establishment's ongoing efforts not to make a presidential election or a Congressional election a national referendum on war or peace, the 2006 elections appeared to be just that – with the Democratic Party being swept into power, suddenly (and, to a large extent, unexpectedly) in control of both houses of Congress.
A stunning victory owed in large measure to the general population's opposition to the War.
And how did the Democratic Party respond to this dramatic antiwar sentiment? What? -- you need me to remind commondream.org readers what happened? We all know what happened. We all know how the Democratic Party *again* betrayed the will of the people.
Immediately following the Democrats dramatic victories in the 2006 Congressional elections -- I mean, in just a matter of a couple of *days* after the Election -- the Democratic leadership made it clear to the general public that despite "the will of the people," they had no intention of stopping the war in Iraq.
The Democratic Party continued to rationale away the reasons for withdrawing from Iraq; they continued to fund the War; and, with the Republicans, they continued to make threatening remarks regarding Iran and Pakistan.
(Continued)
Now flash-forward to 2004. The general population is, again, questioning the war in Iraq. And from out of nowhere an unknown Vermont governor, Howard Dean, becomes a rallying point for antiwar sentiment throughout the United States. He raises an unprecedented amount of money for his campaign, an unprecedented amount of small donations via the Internet and, above all, an unprecedented amount of support by virtue of his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Were Dean to have gotten the Democratic nomination, the Election would have been, in effect, a national referendum on the war in Iraq.
So what happened to what was shaping up in 2004 to be a national referendum on war versus peace, Bush versus Dean? Well, we all know what happened. Dean "yelped" and his candidacy tanked.
Enter John Kerry, the war candidate.
John Kerry in a July 16, 2004 interview he gave to the "Wall Street Journal" was asked: If you are elected President, how long do you think the US will be in Iraq? … Kerry's answer: Probably to at least the end of my first term.
So that far from representing the antiwar sentiments of millions of Americans, John Kerry *embraced* the Iraq War. … Far from being a peace candidate, Kerry's position was that the war in Iraq was fundamentally right, that the United States *should* be in Iraq -- it's just that Bush was conducting the war incorrectly, inefficiently.
A Kerry administration, John Kerry told us, would prosecute the war more effectively.
… And so what could have been a national referendum on the War (Bush versus Dean) was "taken off the table."
(Continued)
Notice how regularly, how systematically and how cynically those in power take the antiwar sentiment of millions of people "off the table." …
Consider the 2002 Congressional elections. This was the period of time in which the Bush Administration was claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many people believed otherwise. … What did the Democratic Party do?
The Democratic Party made it quite clear to the voting public that the 2002 Congressional elections would not be about whether the United States should or should not go to war. You may recall the famous picture (the "photo op") of the Democratic Congressional leaders standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican Congressional leaders right after the vote was taken authorizing the invasion of Iraq. The message to the American public was clear: "Don't expect the Democratic Party to serve as an oppositional party to the president's war -- invading Iraq is a bipartisan decision."
In other words, the Democratic Party was saying, loud and clear -- "Don't think that this Election will be a referendum on war or peace; it won't."
And so the Democratic Party made the 2002 Congressional election about "other issues." The war in Iraq, as far as the Democrats were concerned, was "off the table."
Indeed, rather than act as an oppositional party on the issue of the War, the Democratic Party went right along with it, authorizing the invasion as well as every subsequent funding of the War.
(Continued)
What would happen if there was a national referendum on the war in Iraq? … Beyond that, what would happen if there was a national referendum on war itself, war in general?
Perhaps we should ask the question another way. … Why do those in power *not* want a national referendum on war; a national referendum on either a specific war or war in general?
The political establishment in the United States – the United States possessing the largest, most powerful military in the history of the world – will never allow the general public to vote on war or peace. And the reason is simple: the average person, in any country in the world, not just America, doesn't want war.
The United States is spending $15 billion per month on the war in Iraq. Ask the average American how they would like that $15 billion per month spent … on war or on peace?
See the following -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home -- especially the part of this website that outlines how *else* that $15 billion dollars per month can be spent -- how $15 billion dollars per month can be spent on health, education and welfare, instead of war.
Those in power know damn well that if a national referendum were held on the question of "WAR OR PEACE, WHICH DO YOU PREFER?" that the overwhelming majority of people would vote for peace.
(Continued)
Good morning my friend...
Flush all the incumbents is definitely worth consideration.....we could start with Ted "Do me a favor" Stevens and William "Cold Cash" Jefferson ...there is two that need to be out of my Government
I really don't have much to add to this thread (hope to converse on another)..and thanks for the concern about my boy...as he has told me recently when I ask what they're doing: "We patrol the neighborhood, we settle disputes, we look for suspicious activity"...hopefully it will stay quiet
SnowWolf July 30th, 2008 4:30 am
(perhaps we should flush ALL the incumbents and start over?)…
Best idea going!
Torture never gets you anything thats worth more than what you lost indulging in it. As to the Terroists, if we don't accord them the same treatment we would expect, then we lose when they indulge in much worse torture.......its a no win situation.
From what I'm seeing on CD and other places it indeed looks like Obama may very well lose. If enough votes are diverted to third tier candidates, if he can't find some way to repair the damage he's done with middle class and the center........McCain could win.
We should always bring them back. We should always take them alive if possible. They might just be Iraqi defending their home. Who knows.
The biggest problem I've had talking to people here is thaty the are not combat veterans, haven't even served in the military and can't possibly understand what its like.
But there are many fine people here and most will welcome your opinions as you've stated up front your position.
Tell your son to KEEP HIS HAT ON.
Pax
SnowWolf July 30th, 2008 4:30 am
(perhaps we should flush ALL the incumbents and start over?)…
Best idea going!
Torture never gets you anything thats worth more than what you lost indulging in it. As to the Terroists, if we don't accord them the same treatment we would expect, then we lose when they indulge in much worse torture.......its a no win situation.
From what I'm seeing on CD and other places it indeed looks like Obama may very well lose. If enough votes are diverted to third tier candidates, if he can't find some way to repair the damage he's done with middle class and the center........McCain could win.
We should always bring them back. We should always take them alive if possible. They might just be Iraqi defending their home. Who knows.
The biggest problem I've had talking to people here is thaty the are not combat veterans, haven't even served in the military and can't possibly understand what its like.
But there are many fine people here and most will welcome your opinions as you've stated up front your position.
Tell your son to KEEP HIS HAT ON.
Pax
I never lived under Bush as a Govenor...so I will take your word on that...you were there...
I do feel that Carter is still worst Prez ever...I wasted my first ever vote on him too...and I agree with you on the Borders issue also...The Dems won't stop it because they want Hispanic votes and the Repubs won't because they want cheap labor (perhaps we should flush ALL the incumbents and start over?)...we will part a bit over Geneva...Al Quaeda isn't a bona fide military organization and aren't entitled to its protections...(Law of Armed Warfare and all that)...as far as water-boarding etc...I concede that its torture...but having been in the military myself I know that Navy SEALS and Special Warfare folks in general get to experience it...just to show them how easy it is to get you to talk...the only reason to take them alive is for intelligence purposes...so if we can't interrogate them and with the recent asinine ruling of the Supreme Court regarding detainees...I figure we'll just adjust to direct action missions and not bring them back...
Also...you are right about some of the people Bush has appointed...Grants Presidency was very similar...He was a good man but unfortunately his appointees were disapointments also...
As far as the next administration...I think Obama has peaked...and he won't make it...His biggest problem right now isn't McCain...its Hillary...the Clinton smear machine is working overtime to get the dirt on Obama ...and if she doesn't get to be VP she'll make sure McCain gets elected...I'm willing to make a small wager on that...if she DOES get to be VP...Obama better watch his back...I'm only half joking too
SnowWolf July 29th, 2008 6:07 pm
The things you say about Lincoln and Roosevelt are true.
Bush was our Govenor and I can tell you he was the worst we ever had. As far as I am concerned he is the worst President we've ever had.
He was probably led down the garden path by Perle, Wolfewitz, Cheney and other neocons, but he rushed into an attack that should never have been made.
When the Sec. of the Department of Justice that you appointed declares the Geneva Convention a quaint document, declares that he has the power to decide things that are excluded from his power by our Constitution, allows the graft and corruption that is so great its even turned most conservatives against him, appoints people that are so inept to offices that are so important, even declares that he will selectively enforce laws at his decision, that allows our borders to remain wide open years after 9-11............
As you can tell, we don't share the same opinion of George.
Look at it this way, they claim that for our security, we need to approve various forms of torture, suspend certain Constitutional rights, etc and at the same time actively oppose controlling our borders, allowing access to our ports and facilities by choice.....I can't see how anyone believes their claims.
As to the fight them there or fight them here line, we both know Iraq wasn't about to invade.
Just remember the examples you used and the fact that we faced nothing like those situations.
Pax
I'm just curious about your brethren here that really believe Bush is out to destroy the Constitution in some sort of weirdo power grab...have they never studied Lincoln during the Civil War or FDR during WWII?
I believe Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and had the entire Maryland state legislature put in jail till they signed an "oath of allegience" to the Union
I KNOW that Roosevelt was aware that he was committing a grave civil liberties offense against Japanese Americans in the internment camps and it must have pained him...but he had to weigh that against the consequences of having people possibly sympathetic to the cause of the enemy running loose...I don't blindly think Bush is infallible but I know he has to do what he has to do...lives depend on it...possibly ours
SnowWolf July 29th, 2008 5:19 pm
Thomas More…thank you
"I do worry about him…I for one are glad he's in a quiet sector"
As am I and I hope it stays that way. I'd bring them all home tomorrow if I could. But its going to take some time to disengage. From the looks of it about a year and a half. And thats when we finally start.
Pax
Thomas more...I like it here because MOST can debate without getting stoopid about it...I see your points...and I respect them...the Bush=Hitler=destroyed the Constitution crowd doesn't add anything of value to the debate...thank you being intelligent and using argument, not vitriol
Richard Paine...let me guess...you're a charter member of move-on.org...right?
Thomas More...thank you
I do worry about him...I for one are glad he's in a quiet sector
SnowWolf July 29th, 2008 11:33 am
I have to go along with the fact that we have won nothing.
That the surge worked is undeniable. It should heve. It was a good tactic and the dunderheads finally put an able officer back in charge. But its just a tactic, not a strategy.
Iraq is a no win situation for us, the biggest strategic blunder since Viet Nam. A tragic waste of lives and resource's. And a real tragedy for the Iraqi.
Bless your son and tell him to keep his hat on.
Ali peace loving? Kinda like the bombs the Kurdish seperatists set off this week in Istanbul? My ass. I know the Turks are also awful and have bombed Kurdish Northern Iraq and the Kurdish regiosn in Turkey but please don't label yourselves as peace loving when evidence says otherwise.
"Iraq is slowly becoming a stable Democracy…you are probably safer there than on the Streets of Chicago"
Right...
Iran/Iraq (and the overall-ME) has a LONG way to go before it has even the benefit of the so-called "stable-Democracies" it once-had -- before our&Israel's covert-'Patriots' (in WallStreet's CIA/Mossad) de-stabilized them -- pre-Shaw/Saddam. 'Instability' was the the exact-intent for the resource-rich ME since the Brit's took-over from the failed Ottoman Empire...and deliberately 'drew the map' for strife/Division/'terror' (easily-exploitable for enforced 'Western-Interests').
Any 'democracy' formed there now, with all-'meddling'/Interests considered, will resemble Franklin's definition: "Two-wolves and a Sheep, voting on whats-for-dinner".
There is no stable-Democracy (or Socialist-state) anywhere on the planet. There is only rising/competing Corporatism.
For good/ill/indifferent, that is our World-Politic -- and our immediate-Future... Corrupted-Monarchies and their selfish-Interests fell to corrupted-Corporations, and their selfish-Interests. [I see no major-differences betwixt Feudal-Subjects and Capitalist-Consumers -- do you? The same Mythos supports/enables both Monarch or Corporate-board...]
Nothing but a botched armed robbery.There's no 'winning' a WAR CRIME.
SnowWolf turn-off corporate propaganda.Ignorance is BAD CITIZENSHIP.
SnowWolf
So your son is bored and the republicans have won a war......and Iraq is slowly becoming a stable Democracy......have I got this right? Stable democracy like right here in the good ol' U S of A? Where we no longer have a Constitution, our economy is terrible, the national debt continues to rise as the dollar devalues, Corporate bail outs while people starve and are without proper medical care? Outright Corruption and moneys disappear by the millions and billions in Iraq...not to mention the death count of both sides.......or that the infrastucture of Iraq is gone as in water and electricity.
And hey if it is safer in Iraq than on the streets of one of America's biggest cities you've won what? Oh by the way I thought it was only the justice department jobs you had to be a republican to get....you infer it is the military as well... plus the fact that although this might look like a war...legally it isn't.
Is it time to wake up yet?
Rob Roy...I am a Veteran...are you?
My son is in the 101st ABN in Bagdad (JSS Thrasher) right now...so "I got skin in the game" as they say....He emails me a couple times a week...they are bored...NOTHING is happening in their sector...its all happening in Mosul...AQI is getting a royal butt-whupping everytime they raise their heads...Iraq is slowly becoming a stable Democracy...you are probably safer there than on the Streets of Chicago
I'm in denial?...too funny...I can't wait to drop by here when McCain wins the election...THEN you'll see denial
SnowWolf July 28th, 2008 2:38 pm "...that war is over and won..."
Holy @#$%&*!
There is no "won" in the Bush Iraq war, other than the inevitable victory we handed Iran the day we launched the invasion. We could garrison Iraq for every week of McCain's cherished 100 years, except that it would bankrupt us, and the day after we leave, in 2010 or 2110, it's going to be Yugoslavia all over again.
The war we're supposedly "winning" with the "Surge" hasn't even started yet.
Those people have grudges against each other that were already ancient a thousand years ago. What we do makes absolutely no difference to the outcome, except that the longer we keep killing civilians, the more America-hating recruits we make for Al Qaeda, the IIP, and the Mahdi Army. Not to mention, the more innocent blood will be directly on our hands.
Snow Wolf - utter codswallop and absolute bollocks.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And btw it would have been marvellous if Republicans like yourself had fought and "won" the war but no the repugs are only ever "armchair warriors" who leave the fighting to others.
Dreyfuss is a prime example of the adage ' someone who can see both sides of an issue has limited vision.
He has completely missed the question of the Turkoman population in Kirkuk and the related potential of Turkish military action if the Kurds take over Kirkuk. The Turkish gov't has warned it will invade to protect Turkoman interests.
That will be the gasoline poured on the fire - so to speak.
When it comes to Iraq, McCain is hopeless, and Obama is not getting the best advice from his advisors, and most of the rest of us have not been able to discard the notion that our leadership (of both parties) persists with the attitude that only the "good old U.S of A. can solve the mess in Iraq (and in the whole of the Middle East, for that matter!). When was it that McGovern and Roth published their book "Out Of Iraq"?.They drew upon the lessons of history to build an excellent case for getting us out of Iraq and helping the Iraqi's restore their homeland and end the strife there as well as the infrastructure which still is nowhere near providing a decent place for the remaining populace to live. Sure, there's still a lot of combat going on there, but it's really not a "war" anymore in the strict sense of the word, and the U.S is not and has not been any kind of a real mediator - - we have too many vested interests involved. This is a situation where the U. N. should be acting in its role as mediator/arbitrator and peacekeeper along with the assistance of a heavy dose of other neighboring middle East nations. We should be obliged to provide the wherewithal for reparations (which would be far cheaper than the huge deficit the military and non-governmental contractors are piling up for our future taxpayers to contend with). Learn from history (from Britain's experience with What is now Iraq in the 1920's, for instance). Obama's 16 month goal is sort of commendable, but it is not likely to happen unless there are other approaches to the problem than anything that is on the table now - - McCain's "100 year" gaffe may be more realistic - - if the U.S. is able to survive that long under the burden we have inherited from the Bush Administration, the neocons and the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Economics alumni courtesy of the regimen of the late Prof. Milton Friedman.
2cent2....Everything is fine, if you read the newspapers and watch television....Good Grief! They only get the weather report right about half of the time so how can you trust what you read and watch? We are in Wonderland where up is down and down is up and after living topsy turvy you begin to believe it because it appears everyone else believes it and none of us want to step on any toes or rattle any cages and after all upside down really isn't so bad after all. Sarcasim can be very truthful....
Weelll of course the Kurds are war lords if they won't sign over oil rights to what once were the 'seven sisters'(big oil)...and further they don't wish to be ruled by Baghdad, must be something wrong with them.
Another something this article brings up is all the different groups and parties there are in Iraq....while here in 'merica we have but two...who like the double mint gum commercials are really two yes two in one.
And we are to worry about the IRAQI CONSTITUTION
while our own US CONSTITUION has been relegated to the trash heap and our economy isn't far behind.
IS IT TIME TO WAKE UP YET?
Impeach and Prosecute Now all who have broken with OUR US CONSTITUTION save America!!!!
Dear Mr. Robert Dreyfuss,
I don't know whose payroll you are on and to which devil you have sold your soul. You sound more like another Kurdish-hater that I know, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. Anyway, I just want to remind you that the Kurds are not "Pushy" or "Warlords". They are a peace-loving nation of 40+ million (the third largest ethnic group in the Middle East) without a state of their own (thanks mainly to the imperialistic policies of the Western Colonial Powers who have nothing in mind except their own national interests). All the Kurds in Iraq wants is that the Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution to be honored and put into effect. This Article calls for a referendum to be held in Kirkuk to determine whether or not the population of the province wants to be ruled from Baghdad, or it wants to join the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. The Iraqi Constitution, I may add, is a document that was prepared under the supervision of the representative of the U.S. in Iraq and was approved by about 90 percent of the Iraqi population. Why do you call the Kurds "Pushy" while all they want is to uphold the country's Constitutional Law?
Dear Mr. Robert Dreyfuss,
I don't know whose payroll you are on and to which devil you have sold your soul. I just want to remind you that the Kurds are not "Pushy" or "Warlords". They are a peace-loving nation of 40+ million (the third largest ethnic group in the Middle East) without a state of their own (thanks mainly to the imperialistic policies of the Western Colonial Powers who have nothing in mind except their own national interests). All the Kurds in Iraq wants is that the Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution to be honored and put into effect. This Article calls for a referendum to be held in Kirkuk to determine whether or not the population of the province wants to be ruled from Baghdad, or they want to join the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. The Iraqi Constitution, I may add, is a document that was prepared under the supervision of the representative of the U.S. in Iraq and was approved by 98 percent of the Iraqi population. Why do you call the Kurds "Pushy" while all they want is to uphold the country's Constitutional Law?
2cent2 - Don't you know? The Obscenely Wealthy are just marking time until they board their Scientology patented golden DC10-shaped spaceships to fly 'Star Trek (tm)' style to reclaim their martian homeland. Mars, where humanity first evolved, and migrated to Earth to avoid a war that destroyed the planet that used to be where the asteroid belt now is.
Or they are just obeying the orders of our reptilian overlords who live in the eighth dimension, and whose human hybrid offspring are Queen Elizabeth II and George W. Bush, among others. Just as David Icke.
Or they don't give a tin-plated god-damn because they KNOW they will be taken up bodily in The Rapture (tm), as foretold by the great Republican guru and Blackwater buddy Tim LaHay.
Okay, enough 24 carat sarcasm.
But the views I outlined above are REALLY out there, and have millions of believers.
My local television news (NBC) just reported 57 dead, over 300 wounded in Baghdad and Kirkuk today. The information was presented in a ho-hum way, in a report that lasted about 20 seconds. A lengthy report of the Virgin Atlantic space program followed.
It's almost like everyone just wants to pretend everything is fine.
Like that other part of the former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Iraq is a slow-motion disaster waiting to happen. Right now, the USA is acting like an inept version of Marshall Tito. Just like the Yugoslav break up, a messy multi-sided war with shifting alliances and enemies that could very draw in some of the neighbors is in the offing.
If you think the surge worked, Obama, you must also think band-aids take care of cancer. NADER, NADER, NADER.
busterkikki---all that done to the tune of Randy Newman's "political science" (let's drop the big one, no one likes us anyway)
Bernice, I'll accept that Sadr is popular and not the monstrous badguy the US military wished they could believe and portray him as, but a follower of Gandhi and King? No, he is the head of an armed militia that glorifies martyrdom and deals out draconian punishments to "immodest" women, etc.
And yes, he's a nationalist, but the Sunnis and Kurds loathe him and so does most of the Shiite hierarchy, so he's got a way to go before he can claim the mantle of national liberation leader.
Unfortunately, after decades of imperialism, Saddam, war and Anglo-American brutality, Iraq's sectarian/ethnic divisions have not been tempered by modern national development and the country is pretty well screwed. About the only hopeful scenario I can come up with is that their collective anger at us unites them enough to throw us out - but after we go, it's still going to be a bloody mess.
WMD's, did we ever find them? Oh right... found those 6 lost ones on the B-52 that was probably deploying further forward because we're at DEFCON 2. Also found those WMD's in congress members mailbox. And ofcourse we're drawing up designs for new ones, does that count? What you say, US WMD's don't count?
Watch out now. Here comes the Big Chief who knows how to handle every contingency. McCain will bomb Iran. That's his style. Unless you are a coward, you will either join up or if you are too old, you will wave the flag.
When Russia intervenes, we will need another 400,000 troops. They won't volunteer for this one (rember the old saw: screw me once, shame on you: screw me twice, shame on me.) They know they are only fighting for Cheney's oil.
So we draft 400,000, but only 200,000 show up. Canada's population increases again. So McCain nukes Iran and Russia nukes Israel. McCain nukes China and India nukes Pakistan. But McCain will not back down. He wants his war and he wants his graves covered with American flags. He should have starred in "Dr. Strangelove."
He dies from a broken heart when Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans and Pittsburg are nuked. But he lived long enough to nuke North Korea for the hell of it and he is going after Darfur because of all the Aids.
And so on....
Were you serious ~Snowwolf~?
You couldn't be.
Thank you, Chris Horton (2:48pm)for your comments on Moqtada el-Sadr. In addition to popular support, I believe he also is supported by a majority of Iraq's parliament. He, and they, want full sovereignty for Iraq and for the US to end its illegal occupation (and oil grab).
Except for firing in self-defense, Sadr's followers held his August 2007 ceasefire through US and Iraqi attacks. (No wonder they have been "weakened.") Sadr also organized a large, non-violent march for peace in Baghdad that, to me, indicates that he and his religious advisors may be followers of Gandhi and King.
That the election law has not passed may be a good thing if it delays a parliamentary decision on the so-called oil law that is NOT just about sharing revenues, but also includes giving control and 75 percent of the profits from all new drilling to oil companies selected in early 2001(way before 9/11) as "suitors" for Iraq's oil after our successful, brief invasion.
Drefuss's article, like today's terrible hard news about the multiple suicide bombings in Baghdad and in northern Iraq, are reminders of just how ephemeral all signs of "progress" are when the observer is caught up in a highly unpopular military occupation, superimposed upon somebody else's civil war.
Just keep right on whistlin', right past the cemetery.....
Bill from Saginaw
SnowWolf July 28th, 2008 2:38 pm
The surge worked…there might be a slight uptick before the elections but that
war is over and won…we just need to stay a couple more years till Iraq is a more
stable Democracy…sorry kids…I know it pains you to see Republicans win a war
Snow Wolf, you've been hitting the red pill a little hard this week or you're being
facitious. Unfortunately, i think you're for real. Thanks for reminding the rest of
us what mindless, republican thinking spawns.
snowwolf lives in the most populous state in the union - the state of denial
he needs to be renditioned to gofuckistan for some good old fashion waterboarding - i'm sure he agrees that its not torture
maybe he should be dropped in boiling oil - that is not torture either
so says cheney
SnowWolf above must be from the Holly Golightly Wing of the GOP. They believe their own BullSh*t.
America actually won the Unnecessary Iraq War, i.e. Operation Iraqi Liberation, in 2003. But they couldn't leave as W had to be a "War President", the Afghan war was over and the GWOT is pure Bullsh*t.
If we had left the Iraqis to figure it out for them-selves, about 4000 Americans would not be dead, and Iraq would probably be a very stable secular state. But the Masters of Disasters, the NeoCons and W, wanted to turn Iraq into the Right Wing Wet Dream. So they imposed the dream on Iraq and gave Tax money to their Friends to "rebuild Iraq".
As with everything the GOP does, it is good for their Friends and bad for America.
The Arabs have very long memories, and believe in "1000 years for Revenge", America will be the target and it will be personal. It may make 9/11 look like a picnic. You can thank you GOP friends for it.
The surge worked...the surge worked...the surge worked...just repeat it over and over like a parrot with avian spongiform encephalopathy while the country bleeds hundreds of billions each year...and the Empire slowly circles in the toilet bowl...
I'm trying to train my dog to say it "Sssuurge woofed..." because I think I can get her a high profile (and high paying) spot at Fox News ... if not there then maybe NPR for a little less green.
Or she could ask for a cabinet post in Captain Fossil's Administration...if the little Locomotive that could runs out of steam by November.
Missing from Dreyfuss' column is mention of Sadr's stature as symbol and leader of Shiite resistance to the occupation and to the oil giveaway, and his long history of calling for Shiite-Sunni unity. Also missing is any mention of the Iraqi labor movement, including the powerful oil workers union, fierce supporters of Iraqi political and economic sovereignty.
Sadr has led his movement in morphing into a vehicle for political and popular struggle. He is a militant nationalist, and I would be wary of attempts to paint him as a tool of Iran. When Maliki and the occupiers start backsliding on US withdrawal and trying to push through permanent agreements, the result could be quite a dramatic national uprising!
The surge worked...there might be a slight uptick before the elections but that war is over and won...we just need to stay a couple more years till Iraq is a more stable Democracy...sorry kids...I know it pains you to see Republicans win a war
the surge boss the surge
mccain is like tattoo on fantasy island, except a lot older - has anyone carbon dated him yet
the american body politic is so dysfunctional it has to ignore the imperial empire building exercise that is iraq totally and focus on the fictional "war on terrorism" as expressed by the shaky non-concept that is the "surge"
these conflicts, however, are all good for the occupying forces and they demonstrate the need for "security"
don't be surprised to find the american corporations behind all of these "conflicts" - the more the merrier for them
dead bodies = profits
dead bodies = oil
dead bodies = occupation continuance
good news for bechtel, dynecorp and kbr to mention a few
now that maliki has reneged on his promise to be a traitor to his own people and sign the sofa agreement don't be surprised to see him turn up dead one day real soon
no doubt at the hands of some terrorist soon to be glaring out your tv screens on abc, nbc, cnn.........
we may even get a newer, revised, bigger and better than ever version of osama bin laden out of this yet
this will all be further proof that the "terrorists" still "hate american freedom"
and will speak to the need for a continuing or residual force - at least til the oil is gone anyway
Disaster is the Neo-Con's only real product.
Look for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to destabilize.
America is already falling apart. Bush is looting our treasury as I write this to feed Fanny and Freddie's investors. His Conservative Brownshirts are shooting Liberal Christians. And so it goes - protect yourself and 'short' the Dow.
Good to see ya Doom & Gloom! We saw this one coming a long time ago. The economic hurricane is about to make landfall. An "explosion" in Iraq/Iran might just elevate the the rating a bit, however.
Dreyfuss is the best source of real info about what is going on in the middle east. It would be wise to at least listen to what he has to say. If he's right, and if any one of these time bombs goes off, the landscape in the U.S. will be more devistated than than in the middle east. I wonder how the sheeple will react? We do indeed live in interesting times.
It makes no difference what America does in Iraq. Iraq will be what Iraq is, sooner or later.
Now, America is rotting from the inside, easily evidenced by the lack of health care, low incomes, increasing debt, financial weakness, and military industrialization.
Distinctions are blurred as change accelerates, and solutions are unclear. Problems accumulate faster than they can be solved. Congress approves wrong-headed solutions written by K Street. The downward spiral is systematized and shows no evidence of meaningful correction. The system is designed to fail. Thoughtful people sense the real danger. As the dollar falls in value the likely tipping point will be in the hands of the Saudi's. When the Saudi's decide to accept Euro's instead of dollars for oil our troubled financial system will collpase. Bin Laden wins and the American empire ends.
Do you have enough food, water, and medicine to last for six months?
Isn't Obama's plan to slowly withdraw predicated on the assumption that the "surge" worked?