Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWho Lost Iraq?
Is the Maliki Government Jumping Off the American Ship of State?
As the Bush administration was entering office in 2000, Donald Rumsfeld exuberantly expressed its grandiose ambitions for Middle East domination, telling a National Security Council meeting: "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond."
A few weeks later, Bush speechwriter David Frum offered an even more exuberant version of the same vision to the New York Times Magazine: "An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States, would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans."
From the moment on May 1, 2003, when the President declared "major combat operations... ended" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, such exuberant administration statements have repeatedly been deflated by events on the ground. Left unsaid through all the twists and turns in Iraq has been this: Whatever their disappointments, administration officials never actually gave up on their grandiose ambitions. Through thick and thin, Washington has sought to install a regime "aligned with U.S. interests" -- a government ready to cooperate in establishing the United States as the predominant power in the Middle East.
Recently, with significantly lower levels of violence in Iraq extending into a second year, Washington insiders have begun crediting themselves with -- finally -- a winning strategy (a claim neatly punctured by Juan Cole, among other Middle East experts). In this context, actual Bush policy aims have, once again, emerged more clearly, but so has the administration's striking and continual failure to implement them -- thanks to the Iraqis.
In the past few weeks, the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made it all too clear that, in the long run, it has little inclination to remain "aligned with U.S. interests" in the region. In fact, we may be witnessing a classic "tipping point," a moment when Washington's efforts to dominate the Middle East are definitively deep-sixed.
The client state that the Bush administration has spent so many years and hundreds of billions of dollars creating, nurturing, and defending has shown increasing disloyalty and lack of gratitude, as well as an ever stronger urge to go its own way. Under the pressure of Iraqi politics, Maliki has moved strongly in the direction of a nationalist position on two key issues: the continuing American occupation of the country and the future of Iraqi oil. In the process, he has sought to distance his government from the Bush administration and to establish congenial relationships, if not an outright alliance, with Washington's international adversaries, including the Bush administration's mortal enemy, Iran.
Withdrawal Becomes an Official Issue
Perhaps the most dramatic symbol of this new independence is the Iraqi government's resistance to a Washington proposal for a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) that would allow for a permanent and uninhibited U.S. military presence in Iraq.
With the impending expiration of the UN resolutions that gave legal cover to the U.S. military presence in Iraq, the SOFA negotiations are crucial. They began with a proposal that expressed the full extent of Washington's ambitions to utilize Iraq as the base for making the U.S. "more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans." The proposal first leaked to the press in June 2008 was essentially a major land grab, including provisions like the following that would not have seemed out of place in a nineteenth century colonial treaty:
*An indefinite number of U.S. troops would remain in Iraq indefinitely, stationed on up to 58 bases in locations determined by the United States.
*These troops would be allowed to mount attacks on any target inside Iraq without the permission of, or even notification to, Iraqi authorities.
*U.S. military and civilian authorities would be free to use Iraqi territory to mount attacks against any of Iraq's neighbors without permission from the Iraqi government.
*The U.S. would control Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet, freeing the U.S. Air Force to strike as it wishes inside Iraq and creating the basis for the use of, or passage through, Iraq's air space for planes bent on attacking other countries.
*The U.S. military and its private contractors would be immune from Iraqi law, even for actions unrelated to their military duties.
*Iraq's defense, interior, and national security ministries (and all of Iraq's arms purchases) would be under U.S. supervision for 10 years.
When leaked (clearly by Iraqis involved in the negotiations), this proposal generated opposition across the political spectrum from parliament to the streets. It was even denounced by the usually silent Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shia Ayatollah. Soon, Prime Minister Maliki made clear his own rejection of the proposal, setting in motion a chaotic negotiating process in which the Iraqis seem to have argued vehemently for a more modest, briefer U.S. presence, as well as a definite deadline for full withdrawal -- a proposal that was anathema to the Bush administration.
By early August, when the details of a new proposal endorsed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began to leak out, it was clear that U.S. negotiators had given way, granting significant concessions to the Iraqi side. According to Iraqi insiders, the new draft agreement called for U.S. troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraqi cities, where most of the fighting usually takes place, by the summer of 2009. All U.S. troops -- not just the "combat" troops usually mentioned when Democrats talk about withdrawal timelines in Iraq -- would have to be gone by the end of 2011.
If the leaked draft were implemented, the U.S. would leave behind those 58 bases, including the five massive "enduring" bases into which the Bush administration has poured billions of dollars. Moreover, the unhindered scope of action Washington had originally demanded for its forces would be dramatically limited: The U.S. would not have the right to attack other countries from Iraqi soil, its ability to conduct operations within Iraq would be circumscribed, and immunity from prosecution would be restricted to U.S. military personnel (and then only when they were participating in approved military actions).
Symptomatic of the loosening U.S. grip on its Iraqi client government were the reactions of the two sides to the leaked provisions of the new version of the agreement. Secretary of State Rice declared it "acceptable" and explained uneasily that the timeline proposed was not the sort of fixed withdrawal date that the Bush administration had long adamantly rejected, but an "aspirational" "time horizon" that would depend on "conditions" in Iraq.
Maliki, in all likelihood responding to the fervor of public protests to Rice's comments, immediately declared the agreement unacceptable unless the deadline for withdrawal was time-based and unconditional. In a well publicized speech to a gathering of tribal sheiks, he said that any agreement must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame." In further clarifying his remarks, a key aide told the Associated Press that "the last American soldiers must leave Iraq by the end of 2011, regardless of conditions at the time."
The latest reports suggest that a further round of secret negotiations had restored some U.S. demands, including full immunity for American soldiers (but not mercenary fighters), and application of the withdrawal deadline to combat troops only. Such concessions by Maliki, however, appeared certain to trigger another round of protest and resistance in the streets and in the Iraqi Parliament.
Whatever their outcome, the still-unfinished negotiations point to something quite new in the relationship between the two governments. Until recently, the Iraqi leadership faithfully sought to enact whatever policies the Bush administration favored (though its capacity to implement them was always in question). With the proposed SOFA, this posture disappeared, replaced by a clear antagonism to Washington's desires. With its formidable weapons (including 146,000 soldiers on the ground), Washington is bound to win at least some of these confrontations, but what we may be seeing is the end of the dream of a regime "closely aligned" with U.S. policies.
The Re-emergence of Oil Nationalism
Nothing better highlights this transformation than oil policy. From the beginning of its occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration sought to quadruple Iraqi oil production by delivering control of the industry to the major international oil companies. Once given free rein to act on their own discretion, Washington policymakers believed that the oil majors would invest vast sums in modernizing existing fields, activate undeveloped reserves using the most advanced technology available, and discover major new fields utilizing state-of-the-art exploration and extraction methods.
Up until 2007, the Iraqi government was an active ally in this enterprise, even though the vast majority of Iraqis -- including the powerful oil workers union, the religious leadership, and a majority of Parliament -- vehemently opposed these plans, demanding instead that control of the industry remain in government hands. In 2004, the U.S.-appointed Iraqi government enthusiastically endorsed an International Monetary Fund agreement that mandated the development of major Iraqi oil reserves by international oil companies. When those companies found the legal basis for such investment too fragile to risk vast sums of capital, the Iraqi government (surrounded by American advisors) immediately began work on an oil law that would presumably provide a more secure foundation for their investment. In the meantime, informal advice was accepted from the oil majors, whose technicians were placed in charge of various engineering operations within the country.
In 2007, when the oil law was finally delivered to the Iraqi Parliament, it met with unremitting opposition. The always strong oil unions immediately began a ferocious resistance campaign that stalled the law.
None of these developments altered the Bush administration's determination to push the law through. They did not, however, anticipate that the Maliki administration itself would become a further source of opposition. As Charles Ries told journalists on leaving his position as U.S. Economic Ambassador to Iraq in August 2008 after a year of failure, "When I got here... I was quite optimistic it was only a month or two [before the petroleum bill would be passed, but the] more I understood what the real issues were... it was clear this was going to be a major political challenge."
While Ries was on the job, even the leadership of the Ministry of Oil, until then a pro-American bastion, went into opposition. One symptom of this was its failure to complete five no-bid contracts (that did not include either investment or extraction rights) with oil consortia led by the usual suspects -- Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron -- designed to increase Iraqi production by 500,000 barrels per day. Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahrastani told the Wall Street Journal that a key reason for the faltering negotiations was the desire of the oil companies for "preferential treatment for future oil-exploration deals." This comment, like the faltering negotiations, hinted at the abandonment of the Bush administration's long-desired version of Iraqi oil policy.
The new attitude was underscored when the Oil Ministry revived a Saddam-era agreement with the China National Petroleum Corporation, which was now granted a $3 billion contract to develop the Ahdab oil field. Given the growing U.S.-China rivalry over the control of foreign oil sources, the symbolism of this act couldn't have been clearer -- especially since the earlier contract had been unceremoniously canceled by the United States at the beginning of the occupation in 2003. No less important, this was a "service contract" whose terms did not follow U.S. guidelines calling for the reduction or elimination of Iraqi government control of the oil industry.
Soon after announcing this new agreement, Oil Minister Shahrastani offered what might be seen as a declaration of oil policy independence. "[Global] oil supplies," he declared, "meet and may slightly exceed current world demand." The world, that is, had plenty of oil, and so there was, he insisted, no global need to rush pell-mell into oil development agreements that might not, in the long run, be of use to Iraq.
This represented an attack on the fundamental premise of U.S. oil policy -- that, as Vice President Cheney told an oil industry gathering back in 1999, "By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Significantly, back in 2001 -- and before 9/11 -- the Cheney Energy Task Force, working with the National Security Council, would make this commitment the centerpiece of administration Middle Eastern policy, defining the world situation as one in which the supply of oil must be drastically increased to meet the demand for an "additional fifty million barrels a day."
Oil-producing countries of the Middle East never embraced Cheney's analysis and consistently resisted U.S. efforts to encourage, induce, or coerce dramatic increases in oil production. Instead, they viewed the "shortage" of oil as a natural result of market forces, beneficial to their own economies.
With the success of the U.S. invasion, the Iraqi government threatened to become a maverick among the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), endorsing U.S. supported plans that, theoretically, would have quadrupled Iraqi production within 10 years. So Shahrastani's comments were a signal that Iraq was rejoining OPEC's ranks and potentially opening a new era in post-invasion Iraqi politics in which the government he represented would no longer be a reliable ally of the United States.
A Nail in the Coffin of American Defeat?
Implicit in these actions is a new attitude toward, and assessment of, the U.S. presence in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki and his cohorts appear to have adopted the viewpoint of journalist Nir Rosen that "the Americans are just one more militia," just the most powerful of the rogue forces that they have to manage and eventually eliminate.
As the Iraqi government accumulates an expanding lake of petrodollars and finds ways to shake them loose from the clutches of U.S. banks and U.S. government administrators, its leaders will have the resources to pursue policies that reflect their own goals. The decline in violence, taken in the U.S. as a sign of American "success," has actually accelerated this process. It has made the Maliki regime feel ever less dependent for its survival on the American presence, while strengthening internal and regional forces resistant or antagonistic to Washington's Middle East ambitions.
The respected Iraqi newspaper Azzaman pointed to one of these forces in a recent editorial: "Iran has emerged as the country's top trading partner. Its firms are present in the Kurdish north and southern Iraq carrying out projects worth billions of dollars. Iranian goods are the most conspicuous merchandise in Iraqi shops. Iraq, though occupied and administered by America, has grown to be so dependent on Iran that some analysts see it as a satellite state of Tehran."
To support this contention, Azzaman asserted: "The Ministry of Oil and other key portfolios such the Ministry of Interior and Finance are in the hands of pro-Iran Shiite factions." Citing Oil Ministry sources, it suggested that recent changes in oil policy actually reflected Iranian pressure to "exclude U.S. oil majors from contracts to develop the country's massive oil fields."
Azzaman may be overemphasizing Iranian influence, since there are myriad internal Iraqi influences that continue to press against Washington's desire for a client regime. Parliament, the Sunni and Shia religious leaderships, powerful unions, and the Sunni and Shia insurgencies have all registered broad opposition to continued U.S. presence and influence.
As all this occurs, U.S. leverage over the Iraqi government, though still formidable, is in decline. The Bush administration -- or its soon-to-be elected successor --- may face a difficult dilemma: whether to accept some version of the withdrawal demands of the Iraqi government or re-escalate the war in yet one more attempt to create a government that is "aligned with U.S. interests." The recent declaration by the Pentagon that only the most modest of troop reductions is militarily feasible in the foreseeable future may be a symptom of this dilemma. Without a full complement of U.S. troops, after all, it will be increasingly difficult to convince the Maliki regime to re-embrace policies favored by Washington.
The question remains: Can anything reverse the centripetal forces pulling Iraq from Washington's orbit? Will the President's "surge" strategy prove to have been the nail in the coffin of its hopes for U.S. dominance in the Middle East?
If this turns out to be the case, then watch out domestically. The inevitable controversy over "who lost Iraq" -- an echo of those earlier controversies over "who lost China" and "who lost Vietnam" -- is bound to be on the way.
82 Comments so far
Show AllAccording to a number of articles John McCain is known to have killed a number of innocent peasants in Vietnam. He is a perp who deserves to die. He certainly does not deserve to be president. McCain needs to be executed. People who advocate war for no good reason also need to be executed or jailed at the minimum.
Justice demands retribution for the USA's imperialist sins including the punishment of the perps. If we choose execution that would be a lot of bodies. So let us say we only execute every third or fourth murderer of innocent peasants. That is still going to leave us with a lot of dead Ameriscum. Take for example the Ameriscum specimen who said that we ONLY killed one million Vietnamese. That might be true technically but that is not how death from wars are counted. Wars kill many multiple of people beyond those shot or bombed. Wars kill many many more by famine and disease and other factors directly attributable to war. The usual way to estimate the people killed in a war is to estimate the number of people before the war started, subtract the number of those thought to be killed, add the number who would have been born in the period and do a census of those alive after the war. Calculate! It is usually estimated that the dead from the Indo-China wars was between 6 and 11 million people. Approximately 100 die each year from unexploded ordnance to this day and life expectancy is greatly decreased because of illnesses caused by chemical warfare used in VietNam. The 4 million guestimated is an underestimate according to a number of analysts.
Who deserves the blame for the colossal disaster that is breaking our military, bankrupting our treasury, losing our friends, lost our honor, killed our children, mortgaged our future, and made us a nation of habitual hypocrites? Or, possibly even more degrading - a laughing stock, a gaggle of buffoons lead by a clown. Who gets the well earned loser label for the next 50 years as to why we will ultimately be kicked ignobly out of Iraq, not matter what we call it to disguise the defeat?
Hmmm. Let's see. It was Bush who picked this fight, in fact already sought it well before the excuse arrived. It was Bush who ignored evidence an invasion of Iraq was not needed and then lied to us about what he was going to do and why. It was Bush who abandoned as "quaint" all the time tested, non-lethal, inexpensive options to accomplish the alleged goals. It was Bush who insisted we could do it on the cheap and that the Iraqi's would strew our path with flowers. It was Bush who got absolutely everything he wanted to play with. Troops, weapons of mass destruction, literally pallets of cash were all his for the asking. He even got, although he did not openly ask for it, a secret trashing of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the New Testament, not to mention just about every useful history, social studies, psychology, games theory and statistics book ever written. It was Bush who fired all the guys who guessed right about what would happen and promoted all those who got it horribly hopelessly wrong. It was Bush festooning his disciples with so-called "Metals of Freedom" for crushing freedom. It was Bush who continues to close his ears (and what passes for his cognitive mind) to the advice of those who have proved far wiser and more experienced than anyone around him on the subject of the Middle East factionalism.
It was Bush who chose to ignore the one successful military tactic his pappy proved could work in the Middle East given our small army relying on high tech toys; i.e. build a genuine coalition, smash the enemy hard, then promptly leave after announcing "We'll be back if you ever scare us again." That actually accomplished what was needed. (Yes Georgie, Saddam did have a nuclear weapon program; however, between the Israelis and your dad, it was smashed long before 9/11.) If we had done that (i.e. quick thrashing and exit), we not have exposed our vulnerabilities. There would not have been time to play on our divisions. They might still be scared of us if we had done that. Not anymore.
Even without the coalition, we could have destroyed Saddam's offensive capability and not totally destabilized the region for our few friends if we just got out quickly. We could actually have done it on the cheap with few men; provided, we skipped the "nation building" you yourself claimed wouldn't work. Flipflopper.
Granted, we'd still have been an aggressor nation to launch a pre-emptive strike, the kind we used to say we despised when others did it. The killing of innocent men and women without a real cause has a cost, but it could've worked for the limited purpose originally claimed of insuring no nukes. Laughable though it may sound today, we might have been applauding Bush as a genius if he had simply followed his father's play book. Think about it. That route could have avoided almost all the disasters that have followed from Bush Junior's attempt at a "Penny Ante Putsch." Bush would still be an embarrassing, merit less hack. Nevertheless, at least he would not be going down in history as the worst President - EVER.
So, since it was the Great "Decider," Bush the Second, from day one choosing absolutely everything as to why, when, what, where, who and how and who continues to make all the wrong decisions on strategy and tactics. Since it remains Bush, Bush, Bush, gleefully smirking, taking vacations, and announcing Mission Accomplished despite every evidence to the contrary that his course was and is folly. And, since the only surge is in flag draped body bags, WHO LOST IRAQ?
Why, the Congressional Democrats of course. Them and, their dithering diarists, the Main Stream Media.
What? You thought I would say Bush? That would be like picking on a flounder for being flat. YES, of course he did all those things alluded to. Maybe we should convert the Chief Crazy Horse Mountain carving into a Chief Crazy Bush sculpture. We need something that large to depict the monstrous scale of his frat boy follies.
At the same time, there was a force in existence that could have, should have, stopped that infantile infection on the body politic. A force that was educated, trained and put into place for the primary reason of distinguishing fact from fiction and doing something about it. Unfortunately, the Congressional Politicians and the Press seem to be too gullible, too clueless, too lazy, too gutless and/or too ineffective to discover, prevent or halt the child hiding in the Oval Office from wreaking his malicious malodorous mischief. For that reason, as the "adults" on the scene, to their everlasting shame, it is the Congressmen and the Press who lost Iraq.
There is still a chance to redeem themselves. No, not "win" Iraq. Not restore our soldier's lives or our lost trillions. None of those are possible any more. That may have been possible at one time, but it cannot be done now, not at any price a sane person would be willing to pay.
Hint: the Democrats currently in charge and any political pundits with credibility left might try reading the Constitution. Humbled and marginalized though it has become, there is still some pretty good reading there. Try Article II, Section 4 for starters. Take away Bush's and his protege, McCain's, dangerous toy, the Presidency.
The United States pulverized Iraq physically and culturally and now we're driving around in an old Chevy with the corpse of Iraq in the back seat. All we really want to do is find a vacant lot on the edge of town so we can dump the body and make a clean getaway, but every time we stop the car some old lady from Neighborhood Watch wanders up and asks us what we're doing.
"Just admiring the view," we say.
"Bullshit," says the little old lady. "You're looking for a place to dump the corpse of Iraq. Not on my block!"
Who lost Iraq?
Nobody lost Iraq, Mr. Schwartz. That's exactly the problem.
Jacob Freeze
I know the author is preparing us for the inevitable blame-game that comes after some incredibly stupid and expensive debacle. But honestly I could not even read the article carefully. I had such mental resistance to the definitions.
What would winning look like in Iraq? You must know that before you can talk about losing.
Since1492 says it for me. Iraq is not ours, never was. An invasion was just a criminal act. Does a murderer "win" if the victim dies or a rapist win if the victim falls in love with him? We are in some twisted thought universe I cannot seem to enter.
Joe
I suppose I forgot the "doctors and surgeons" who make money of these kinds of "procedures", I suppose to them this is some kind of success.......
Only mad-men would put cancer (or war, if you don't like analogy) in a body, and then pat themselves on the back when a round of chemo/radiation (or a "surge") make the cancer a little better. I can't believe there are still people out there that believe that anything about this war is a success.
"Iranian goods are the most conspicuous merchandise in Iraqi shops. Iraq, though occupied and administered by America, has grown to be so dependent on Iran that some analysts see it as a satellite state of Tehran."
As you can see, US policies have kept Iraq weak and unable to build its industrial production. So now, Iraq depends largely on Iranian production, because Iraq has very little of its own. Iraq has thereby become an effective economic/political satellite of Iran, thanks to US "laissez-faire" policies.
Had the USA conquered/occupied Iran, impossible of course, but to illustrate the point, the same devastation would have happened to Iran - BOTH Iraq and Iran production would be dismantled and become dependent on regional suppliers, Turkey, Jordan, etc, thanks to US "laissez-faire" capitalist policies.
Bush speechwriter David Frum deserves a sound thrashing.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
I don't care what anyone says, the Iraq War has been nothing but a ghastly success for its architects. They have made their money and basically accomplished what they set out to do. Bush and Co. could care less about stifling terrorism or liberation then or now.
The elites have won, but they can still be brought to justice for their international, imperialstic, genocidal crime spree.
All US troops should be removed NOW, not in 2-3 years, NOW. No one should be left behind, gov't contractors, no one. Then Iraq should be given reparations and all of those who orchestrated and profited from this war should be arrested, put on trial, convicted, and then executed.
True.
Joe
"...U.S. leverage over the Iraqi government, though still formidable, is in decline."
Let's not forget a rather solid history of "dispatching" puppets that don't quite perform to specifications. Don't think for one moment that option is ever off the tactical tables of various US agencies under the guidance of the ovals.
There was more than one reason that the US dedicated personnel and resources to watch... (okay, spy on) Maliki. Not only do they want to know what he does and thinks all the time for the most benign of reasons... but they also want to know when the revolver door option is needed... a little lead up time is needed to string up another puppet.
Although I have not personally read the details, I gathered that Maliki was not happy when the scope of the surveillance on his daily activity was revealed. However, I find it hard to believe that it was a real revelation. He must have been exposed to some US history footnotes relating to "ownership" of political puppets.
Meanwhile, the drones circle overhead and crosshairs are dutifully joysticked for precision targeting... just waiting for the word.
Wouldn't losing Iraq also require a full withdrawal and us giving up our bases?
Also doesn't this article leave out how easy it would be to replace Maliki? Consider that he said this, "I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term. I didn't want to take this position. I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6226953.stm
All these military bases around the world are a complete waste of taxpayer money especially since homeland security in the US itself is a complete joke ! Maliki was nothing more than a US puppet for the Big Oil interests and at some point, his borrowed time is going to have to dry up. Better sooner than later. Good for the US, good for the Iraqis !!
America LOST Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan BIG TIME and there's no denying it no matter what the rightwing motherfucking lunatics want to try to spin it as. America must sit down, shut the fuck up, accept its failure, and correct itself or it will never recover, PERIOD
The Military didn't lose Vietnam...the Politicians did...and we learned from our mistakes (which is why Gulf War I went so well)
like they ALMOST did this time in Iraq...Afghanistan is still unclear...we will have to see if you got one out of three...but so far I'm putting my faith in our side...So long as the Politicians don't go spineless again
Politicians lose every war, genius - what's the big news? The polirticians ARE our side, you twit. If Gulf War I went so well why did we need GWII? We lost in VietNam and in both Iraq and Afghanistan before we ever started because there was never anything in any of them to win. Pull that flag you're waving over your head and go back to sleep.
Are you celebrating the fact that our politicians comitted our boys and girls to these mistakes? Do you find something wrong with the flag of the United States?
The flag, no - it's a symbol just like every other flag, nothing more. Hiding behind it, waving it blindly, supporting those who do permits our politicians to make those deadly mistakes over and over again. You cannot separate the Army from its command, and that includes the politicians. It's not the flag that needs to be protected, it's the people who live under it.
And don't pull this celebrating crap - you should know me better than that by now. I am not celebrating anything of the sort - just pointing out that if you can't praise the fighting man without praising the politicos who sent them to war. If the politicians had followed my ideals, none of our boys and girls would have been committed to these ideological mistakes. You are the one who seems to think you can live by the sword without dying by it - it doesn't work that way.
You must be one of those young guys with dark glasses on; either that or clueless.
Oops! I'll have to disagree, no matter what the politicians did in Viet Nam, we could never win that war. We had no better chance than the Chianese, Japanese or French in winning that one. We won every battle, every major engagement but in the end we didn't actually lose, we had to quit. Same as losing to me.
Remember too, a lot of the kids here think the NVA was some rag tag militia. They were well armed, well trained, with battle hardened leaders and usually outumbered us, but they could never beat us in the open field. But they didn't have to, did they? You have to have the majority of folks on your side to win a war like that. We didn't.
We had a golden opportunity and we it by going to Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and all claims of WMDs have been not only disproven but even the administration was forced to admit that it was all a mistake on their part. Though I know they did it on purpose.
"...but they [NVA] could never beat us in the open field..."
You're forgetting your history a bit in your enthusiasm to vindicate the American fighting man, Tom. Au Shau Valley was one the US didn't win in the field; there were others. The Confederacy won more battles in the Civil War; still lost the war.
Au Shau Valley? An incursion into the A-Shaw is not what I'd call a major battle, especially when its stiff with anti-aircraft guns and has about 7000 troops in place to defend against our ...I think it was about 500 or so lifted in. Withdrawn in bad weather, but as I remember it, I don't think we were planning to beat the little guys with our 1 to their 14.
The American fighting man needs no vindication that I know of.
Tom, if it's not considered a major battle it's because the brass tried to squelch the ambush they sent their men into and then denied they were out-thought and out-fought. If the American GI needs no vindication, please stop trying.
"The Military didn't lose Vietnam...the Politicians did"
Spin it the way you want. The undeniable truth was America LOST in Vietnam, PERIOD
"and we learned from our mistakes (which is why Gulf War I went so well)"
No we did not and that's why America's FAILING MISERABLY and GOD IS SEVERELY PUNISHING AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION ! Gulf War I was just a resource war for oil and a total waste of taxpayer money. America had no business plunging into further debts.
"like they ALMOST did this time in Iraq..."
Wrong again. America's nowhere close to "victory" in Iraq and you can't deny it.
"Afghanistan is still unclear..."
Nice try, but the minute America pulled out of Afghanistan and plunged into Iraq based on lies, we already lost Afghanistan. The Taliban have been regrouping and reaching out to disaffected villagers. Fuck, man, Karzai himself is lucky to be holding on and he'll be stepping down next year which pretty much means the Taliban will snatch the last part back.
"we will have to see if you got one out of three...but so far I'm putting my faith in our side...So long as the Politicians don't go spineless again"
Well, you can keep waiting but as history has already shown, America is FURTHER LOSING in Afghanistan. We had no business thinking about Iraq until we had finished crushing Al Queda and the Taliban. We had a golden opportunity and we FUCKING BLEW IT by going to Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and all claims of WMDs have been not only disproven but even the administration was forced to admit that it was all a FUCKING LIE. CASE CLOSED !
Wake me up when all the Sunni and Shia insurgents are ready to sit down and sign the armistice.
Even though the Iraq fiasco was created and executed quite badly by the Repugs, don't be surprised that when this thing goes badly, they will tar the Democrats with it. The Democrats, whom have yet to come to terms with the fact that American politics is a bare knuckle street fight, not a Marquis of Queensbury bout, will probably let them and have another albatross around their neck that they do not deserve (except of course, for the Democrats who voted for the war, like Hillary Clinton).
Most Wars initially go pretty Rocky...till you find the right Guy to run it...Petraeus is Bush's Grant...I'm sure even you'll have to admit his Plan for the surge went better than most people thought it would...
The Others before Him with the exception of Franks (who performed pretty damn good) were modern McClellans, Burnsides and Hookers
Petraeus has got CENTCOM now...give him a bit of time to sort it out and you'll see results
Most wars don't last this long, especially going-on six year ones sold to us as lasting no more than six months. Bush ("Mission Accomplished") and the Republicans and every one of their kiss-ass chickenshit generals (and I paraphrase on most officers' opinion of Petraeus) have been given more than enough time, blood, and treasure. Petraeus is a tool and a sycophant, much like you. We'll see the results, and they won't be what Cheney, Rummy, or Condi was selling six years ago. The results won't have been worth it. You can take your militarism and shove it up your howitzer.
Yeah, why don't you hold your breath.
Too bad America LOST in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, believe it or not. General Betrayus can go fuck himself as he's nothing more than a Bush/Cheney puppet and a POMPOUS FRAUD. The surge in Iraq was a MAJOR FAILURE no matter who wants to deny that truth otherwise and you can't prove that it was a success. It's time to return to fixing the broken infrastructure here at home and cut down on Big Military. Government that governs the least governs the best and that includes military as well.
If the Republicans somehow allow Obama to win, they'll Carter-ize him alright. They're a very nasty party. At this rate, Mccain might as well have his seat, renounce to Palin and Palin might as well sit in the White House to 2020 and finish wrecking the country or what's left of it.
It's so basic.
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS
,WHAT,WHO,WHY,WHERE,WHEN
FREEDOM
WHAT is this thing called freedom that some say they have and don’t? Is it that the one claiming freedom is still walking around and not behind a guarded fence? The leaders who say that we must let them keep us safe but must give up rights that lead to freedom? And the ones behind the fence with no guilt or proof of guilt? This is freedom?
who would have this thing, this philosophy, this right called freedom? Is it just the strong that would proclaim it and use force to drive home that they are free and all the rest of peoples should be like them? Is freedom granted with a gun or like money; the more you have the more free you are? Does this sound like my country and is it exclusive to it? Yes to the first and an emphatic no to the second. When all the me’s understand that it is the “we” peoples of the whole planet that have the right, there will be no freedom for any. All we have is a mirage.
why would anyone care if the strong dominate the weak and impose their version of what would pass as freedom because they said so? Has it been ever thus? There is no sanity in any of this and The Creator; even with giving all free will had surely hoped and desired that all the created would think as a “we” peoples and not as a me people that used freedom as a word and not as a right that all deserved and had a right to.
Where on this planet should there be freedom? Is it just for certain races, peoples, nations, regions, Where is it written that only certain ones would be granted this most basic rights of all humans? My fundamental thought is that if all peoples were to practice the “we” concept there would be no more war and with all the divergent groups, nations and peoples doing their own thing trade and other commerce would flourish and with all the different climes strife would be minimized. Without the “we” concept freedom cannot be for any.
When is this ever going to be and has it happened before? It has happened before because if I thought of it then it has been out there before. Solomon had it right when he said that “there is nothing new under the sun”. So many chances in history from many parts of the globe and it just does not matter how old a person thinks the human race is it is still many failed chances. Hope reigns eternal though in my heart and soul for it to come to fruition.
Tony 9/4/08
It's so basic.
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS
,WHAT,WHO,WHY,WHERE,WHEN
FREEDOM
WHAT is this thing called freedom that some say they have and don’t? Is it that the one claiming freedom is still walking around and not behind a guarded fence? The leaders who say that we must let them keep us safe but must give up rights that lead to freedom? And the ones behind the fence with no guilt or proof of guilt? This is freedom?
who would have this thing, this philosophy, this right called freedom? Is it just the strong that would proclaim it and use force to drive home that they are free and all the rest of peoples should be like them? Is freedom granted with a gun or like money; the more you have the more free you are? Does this sound like my country and is it exclusive to it? Yes to the first and an emphatic no to the second. When all the me’s understand that it is the “we” peoples of the whole planet that have the right, there will be no freedom for any. All we have is a mirage.
why would anyone care if the strong dominate the weak and impose their version of what would pass as freedom because they said so? Has it been ever thus? There is no sanity in any of this and The Creator; even with giving all free will had surely hoped and desired that all the created would think as a “we” peoples and not as a me people that used freedom as a word and not as a right that all deserved and had a right to.
Where on this planet should there be freedom? Is it just for certain races, peoples, nations, regions, Where is it written that only certain ones would be granted this most basic rights of all humans? My fundamental thought is that if all peoples were to practice the “we” concept there would be no more war and with all the divergent groups, nations and peoples doing their own thing trade and other commerce would flourish and with all the different climes strife would be minimized. Without the “we” concept freedom cannot be for any.
When is this ever going to be and has it happened before? It has happened before because if I thought of it then it has been out there before. Solomon had it right when he said that “there is nothing new under the sun”. So many chances in history from many parts of the globe and it just does not matter how old a person thinks the human race is it is still many failed chances. Hope reigns eternal though in my heart and soul for it to come to fruition.
Tony 9/4/08
Too bad the people that should, don't read Tom Dispatch or CD.
There is nothing wrong with the brains of most Americans; but, most Americans can't stop doing what it takes to get by for very long.
What is wrong is the failed governments, one right after the other, and the immunity from consequence enjoyed by the children of privilege.
What is wrong is that the patriots in America are not the one's who can afford to be elected and pampered by the lobbyists.
What is wrong is that avarice has become something to be rewarded.
What is wrong is that war criminals everywhere are free to strike out and kill our children for their own amusement and/or profits.
What is wrong is that people are being abused by police and the murderers in our government are being protected from justice.
Baloney.
This is a democracy and it's the ignorant public that puts these criminals into office time after time because they pander to their stupidity.
"Baloney.
This is a democracy and it's the ignorant public that puts these criminals into office time after time because they pander to their stupidity."
Nah, they put themselves in power. The people aren't stupid. They're just worn down, disillusioned, distracted, and are made to feel powerless. Let's stop kicking around ordinary people. They are victims.
Take this voters test to see if you are an informed voter.
http://www.countercurrents.org/jackowski020808.htm
Is this really your idea of an informed voter? Are these the issues you would like someone to cast their vote by?
It is an indication of the voters grasp of US Foreign policy. It is estimated that the US is responsible for the deaths of perhaps as many as 3 million Iraqi civilians since the US bombing started in 1991. Foreign policy should not be ignored.
Basing a vote on issues - past history- etc sure beats casting a ballot on charm, religion, age, political affiliation, or which candidate you would most like to have a beer with.
as many as 3 million Iraqi civilians since the US bombing started in 1991.
Bullshit...try fact checking...unless you are saying with the (U.N. Approved) sanctions...but you can drop that one in Saddams lap...he was the cause of his peoples suffering...While U.N. Officials and Politicians Worldwide (That means you too George Galloway) got massive Bribes in the Oil for Food scandal
But your neocons were actually "rewarding" Saddham for making his people suffer. The neocons didn't bother to stop Saddam back then. It's clear that the only reason we went to Iraq was for oil. The minute we pulled out of Afghanistan, we lost it to the Taliban and currently the Taliban is stronger in Afghanistan than it was before 9/11. And what about the Big Oil companies who were also involved in that scandal? You're so desperate to bring up old lies that were disproved.
If it weren't for the labor unions, you wouldn't be rambling like a rightwing lunatic.
They are not my Neocons...I promise...I don't have any Neocons...they are our Government (like it or not)...and as Lincoln said..."We must use the tools we're given"
Neocons are neocons and they deserve to be ABOLISHED if we the people have to BLOW down both parties to do it. I'm all for a 3rd party takeover on all levels. Fuck, even Bob Barr got somewhat of a brain transplant by now.
It is an indication of the voters grasp of US Foreign policy. It is estimated that the US is responsible for the deaths of perhaps as many as 3 million Iraqi civilians since the US bombing started in 1991. Foreign policy should not be ignored.
Basing a vote on issues - past history- etc sure beats casting a ballot on charm, religion, age, political affiliation, or which candidate you would most like to have a beer with.
3 million? I'd sure check whoever you got that estimate from. These things seem to grow by themselves. I remember hearing we had killed 4 million Vietnamese civilians when in fact it was less than a million and a great number of those were killed by the NVA and Charles Vic.
I would certainly agree that voters should be more aware of past history, but how about who the candidates really are, what do the parties say they stand for, which party got us into this mess and how, which President put us in the present military fix, who fooled congress, etc?
Its amazing how America keeps muddling through with a population that is so stupid it won't listen to people that know whats best for them.
I don't think people are stupid. They're distracted because there are no true populists standing up for them. If Obama were to be a populist and quit pandering to the rightwing, more people would be listening to him and he would be in a landslide instead of a "close" race.
Sorry Frederick that was meant for the people that keep saying that all Americanss are stupid. trouble with this format again.
But I'd say your statement is 100% true. Other than his carachter questions, that is what is bothering me.
Like China in 1949, Iraq was never ours to lose . . . or to win. Harry Truman once said that the only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know. It seems what he really meant to say was that the only thing new under the sun are the small variations in the fundamental stupidity and arrogance from decade to decade and century to century of the world's rulers. The neocons, those drug store Teddy Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilsons, the posturing, puffed-up phony tough guys, are merely this nation's latest incarnation of this fundamental stupidity and hubris. McCain and Palin are waiting for George Wanker Bush and Fat Death Cheney to pass the baton to them and sprint to glory in our own bloody, political Olympic Games.
The sad fact of the matter is that most Americans simply aren't intelligent enough to make any kind of informed decision. 90% of Americans don't know where Iraq is on a map. Some don't even know where America is. They think Barack Obama is a muslim fundamentalist and John McCain is a decorated war hero. (Also that we WON Vietnam due to McCain's heroism)
PLEASE - If you don't believe me take a world map, go to the mall, and ASK people. See for yourself.
This is MOST of America and they will vote for whatever candidate they LIKE the best. The one that looks the best. Thats' why McCain picked Sarah Palin.
Issues like the Iraq, housing, economy, gas prices, etc. are meaningless to the voter. Each candidate says they will fix it. The American voters will NOT do the research nor do they really care to see how their candidate really stands on issues.
This is why we are in a dead heat. This is why McCain is likely to win.
America is clueless about Iraq.
America is clueless about Iran.
America is clueless about AMERICA.
America is clueless about anything that's not written down for them in their bible.
Or on prime time TV.
i don't know what this guy is talking about - the war was about freedom and democracy
or al queda
or wmd
i think it also had something to do with the cowboys not winning last year's superbowl
i think...........
cheers, b
"i think it also had something to do with the cowboys not winning last year's superbowl"
Now that WAS a national tragedy....but will be remedied this year!
I think you may be right...doesn't look like New England is (Brady is Hard Down) ...ouch...right out of the gate too
'Who lost Iraq' - I didn't know it was missing. The real question is who lost the tiny bit of democracy that used to exist in the US. The answer is the voter. I bet that 90% will continue to vote for war in the upcoming election. Any takers?
I'd take that bet. I believe most Americans would end this terrible thing tomorrow if they could.
They can. People have the right to vote their representatives out for continuously funding the war-turned-occupation in Iraq. Primary them and/or vote them out in the general election. Another thing, protests must go local. It's easier to nail one's rep locally. Find people in your district who share your views and get together, kind of like a vigilante without the guns. The more Congress people are forced to listen to their constituents and not keep falling for the media and monied interests, the more success we the people can SHUT DOWN THIS ILLEGAL WAR.
I won't take that that bet...
Theres still the matter of the Taliban to settle.... and Al Queda moving into Africa...
The Funs just beginning
"Theres still the matter of the Taliban to settle.... and Al Queda moving into Africa..."
If we had actually crushed them in Afghanistan and not allow them to regroup and spread rather than going to Iraq for the Bush cronies, the Taliban wouldn't be alive today. And you can thank your buddy Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocon gang for giving the Taliban backdoor funding. Besides, why don't you sign up for the army if you're so interesting in continuing endless wars? Are you afraid of the truth? Better yet, since you claim to be "better off" because the labor unions saved your ASS, why not donate your big fat blubber towards energy production and save the country from depending on foreign oil? Don't worry, the revenue generated from that blubber being manufactured will "pay for itself" ! LOL !!
If we had actually crushed them in Afghanistan and not allow them to regroup and spread rather than going to Iraq
Good God...We FINALLY agree on Something...I'm going to frickin faint
and actually...I'm a disabled Vet...they won't take me back
Who Lost Iraq?
The Democrats...Lost it as an Issue
"The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined"- Barack Obama
Ah-Ha....but you can't lose an issue when the original issue was the attack should never have been made.
As to that..."The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined"- Barack Obama...nothing new there, any idiot could see it was a sucessful tactic. But its a tactic, not a strategy...right?
Any idiot could see it was a sucessful tactic BUT By the Iraqs, they have figured it out
John Negroponte, the United States' first ambassador to Iraq was the architect of Battalion 316. the most notorious death squad in Nicaraguan contras arsenal , he supported and implemented - the "dirty war" tactics
It was a death squad that kidnapped and tortured hundreds of real or suspected "subversives"
These death squads were implanted in the Iraq war
The American death squads in Iraq uses shape shifting techniques, disguised as the opposition Shiites Sunnis or Alkyda. accordingly
They attack and kill both Sunnis Shiites alike fanning the flames of confrontation and fermenting deception whenever necessary.
This is the highly Improved version of the old British colonial strategy of “divide and rule”, but on steroids high speed and stealth anathema to past colonialists
Yes...I agree with you...but as a tactic it was successful...
The Democratics were hoping it would fail solely to give them a Hammer to beat the Republicans with...now they look rather defeatist...
it was partly luck and some good breaks...but I think most Americans are of the "Alls Well that Ends Well" School and repercussions of a poorly led SUCCESSFUL War are much less than a poorly led defeat...surely you'll cede that point to me?
but I did enjoy your ah-ha moment...smiled when I read that
"repercussions of a poorly led SUCCESSFUL War are much less than a poorly led defeat...surely you'll cede that point to me?"
I would cede that point. But we have no idea how this is going to turn out yet.
Better no war at all.... surely you'll cede that point to me?
Better no war at all.... surely you'll cede that point to me?
Absolutely I would...but now reality bites us both on the bottem...
I see it like this...right now...this moment...it is quiet and its getting more stable every day...I expect if they are able, that the Iranians will try something next month to try to influence our elections (Iranian backed Iraqi's trying to cause something that LOOKS worse than it really is)
but every day they wait the more difficult that becomes...if we can make it through the elections as it is now...then the Commanders will definitely start to draw them down...and try to surge up in Afghanistan
So knock wood...but I think mostly the one in Iraq has been over a couple months now...Heck...we turned Anbar over to the Iraqi's last month...ANBAR...the center of the insurgency
isn't quite Peace yet...but it sure as hell isn't War either
"isn't quite Peace yet...but it sure as hell isn't War either"
Going up against the Iraqi's was never a war, it was more like Little Bo Peep against Goliath. We created the problem with a completely botched occupation. And I know you can't disagree with that!
I don't believe Iran will do anything at all to tell the truth. By doing nothing they win.
We created the problem with a completely botched occupation
No...that part I agree with
I don't believe Iran will do anything at all
I hope you're right...but not for the same reason
Saturday, 16 August 2008
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iraqi assassination squads are being trained in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and Lebanese Hezbollah for attacks in Iraq, a US military official said Friday.
Thomas,
Don't let that rightwing lunatic Snow Wolf bully you. He, unfortunately, needs a SUPERTOUGH SPANKING AND THRASHING from Mccain/Palin. When he loses his job as Mccain/Palin push for more union busting, as if 28 years wasn't enough, and/or his company lays him off, he'll be singing a different tune.
Just rolling my eyes...
Thomas...am I Bullying you?....enquiring minds want to know
(although a spanking from Sarah Palin sounds interesting)
Yeah you old troll....I bet you'd like a spanking from Palin.
Don't worry Frederick....SnowWolf and I spar plenty about Iraq! I'm sure he's going to admit any day now I'm completely right!
Oh...any day now...you're running rings around me logically...*wink*
Sarah has that Naughty Librarian look...*LOL*
And yet another illegal and immoral US-military-backed and government-sponsored corporatist attempt to control foreign oil crashes and burns.
Saddham Hussein was expected to be a US puppet when he was "installed". Too bad that backfired. Amazingly, the new puppet is catching on faster especially since he knows that his own country's opposition will kill him faster than an US bullying no matter how much money the US tries to bribe/bully him with. I guess that goes to say that when it comes to leadership, at some point, even the puppet must answer the people's call.
"Who Lost Iraq?"
Whoever doesn't write the history.
You can't lose something you never possessed.
Hoa binh
Exactamundo!
I still see signs that Maliki is going to run-out-the-clock, allowing the UNSC mandate that allows for the US military presence to expire without voting on the SOFA, thus rejecting it and instituting an immediate US troop withdrawl. Only 114 days to go. In this case, Maliki is in the driver's seat, leaving BushCo up a creek.
Immediate troop withdrawal? No....Occupation without a fig leaf is more likely. It will then be clearly NAKED aggression....................lizard
There won't be any "inevitable controversy" over who lost Iraq....GWB did the moment he let Cheney and the Neocons talk him into attacking.