EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Wants Us To Forget the Lessons of Iraq
The Iraq war? Fuggedaboudit. "Now, it is time to turn the page." So advises the commander-in-chief at least. "[T]he bottom line is this," President Obama remarked last Saturday, "the war is ending." Alas, it's not. Instead, the conflict is simply entering a new phase. And before we hasten to turn the page-something that the great majority of Americans are keen to do-common decency demands that we reflect on all that has occurred in bringing us to this moment. Absent reflection, learning becomes an impossibility.
For those Americans still persuaded that everything changed the moment Obama entered the Oval Office, let's provide a little context. The event that historians will enshrine as the Iraq war actually began back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Iraq's unloved and unlovable neighbor. Through much of the previous decade, the United States had viewed Saddam as an ally of sorts, a secular bulwark against the looming threat of Islamic radicalism then seemingly centered in Tehran. Saddam's war of aggression against Iran, launched in 1980, did not much discomfit Washington, which offered the Iraqi dictator a helping hand when his legions faced apparent defeat.
Yet when Saddam subsequently turned on Kuwait, he overstepped. President George H.W. Bush drew a line in the sand, likened the Iraqi dictator to Hitler, and dispatched 500,000 American troops to the Persian Gulf. The plan was to give Saddam a good spanking, make sure all concerned knew who was boss, and go home.
Operation Desert Storm didn't turn out that way. An ostensibly great victory gave way to even greater complications. Although, in evicting the Iraqi army from Kuwait, U.S. and coalition forces did what they had been sent to do, Washington became seized with the notion merely turning back aggression wasn't enough: In Baghdad, Bush's nemesis survived and remained defiant. So what began as a war to liberate Kuwait morphed into an obsession with deposing Saddam himself. In the form of air strikes and missile attacks, feints and demonstrations, CIA plots and crushing sanctions, America's war against Iraq persisted throughout the 1990s, finally reaching a climax with George W. Bush's decision after September 11, 2001, to put Saddam ahead of Osama bin Laden in the line of evildoers requiring elimination.
The U.S.-led assault on Baghdad in 2003 finally finished the work left undone in 1991-so it appeared at least. Here was decisive victory, sealed by the capture of Saddam Hussein himself in December 2003. "Ladies and gentlemen," announced L. Paul Bremer, the beaming American viceroy to Baghdad, "we got him."
Yet by the time Bremer spoke, it-Iraq-had gotten us. Saddam's capture (and subsequent execution) signaled next to nothing. Round two of the Iraq war had commenced, the war against Saddam (1990-2003) giving way to the American Occupation (2003-2010). Round two began the War to Reinvent Iraq in America's Image.
With officials such as Bremer in the vanguard, the United States set out to transform Iraq into a Persian Gulf "city upon a hill," a beacon of Western-oriented liberal democracy enlightening and inspiring the rest of the Arab and Islamic world. When this effort met with resistance, American troops, accustomed to employing overwhelming force, responded with indiscriminate harshness. President Bush called the approach "kicking ass." Heavy-handedness backfired, however, and succeeded only in plunging Iraq into chaos. One result, on the home front, was to produce a sharp backlash against what had become Bush's War.
Unable to win, unwilling to accept defeat, the Bush administration sought to create conditions allowing for a graceful exit. Marketed for domestic political purposes as "a new way forward," more commonly known as "the surge," this modified approach was the strategic equivalent of a dog's breakfast. President Bush steeled himself to expend more American blood and treasure while simultaneously lowering expectations about what U.S. forces might actually accomplish. New tactics designed to suppress the Iraqi insurgency won Bush's approval; so too did the novel practice of bribing insurgents to put down their arms.
Yet as a consequence the daily violence that had made Iraq a hellhole subsided-although it did not disappear.
Meanwhile, once hallowed verities fell by the wayside. U.S. officials stopped promising that Saddam's downfall would trigger a wave of liberalizing reforms throughout the Islamic world. Op-eds testifying to America's enduring commitment to the rights of Iraqi women ceased to appear in the nation's leading newspapers.
Respected American generals-by 2007, about the only figures retaining a shred of credibility on Iraq-disavowed the very possibility of victory. In military circles, to declare that "there is no military solution" became the very height of fashion.
By the time Barack Obama had ascended to the presidency, this second phase of the Iraq war-its purpose now inverted from occupation to extrication-was already well-advanced. Since taking office, Obama has kept faith with the process that his predecessor set in motion, building upon President Bush's success. (When applied to Iraq, "success" has become a notably elastic term, easily accommodating bombs that detonate in Iraqi cities and insurgent assaults directed at Iraqi forces and government installations.)
Which brings us to the present. After seven-plus years, Operation Iraqi Freedom has concluded. Operation New Dawn, its name suggesting a skin cream or dishwashing liquid, now begins. (What ever happened to the practice of using terms like Torch or Overlord or Dragoon to describe military campaigns?) Although something like 50,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, their mission is not to fight, but simply to advise and assist their Iraqi counterparts. In another year, if all goes well, even this last remnant of an American military presence will disappear.
So the Americans are bowing out, having achieved few of the ambitious goals articulated in the heady aftermath of Baghdad's fall. The surge, now remembered as an epic feat of arms, functions chiefly as a smokescreen, obscuring a vast panorama of recklessness, miscalculation, and waste that politicians, generals, and sundry warmongers are keen to forget.
Back in Iraq, meanwhile, nothing has been resolved and nothing settled. Round one of the Iraq war produced a great upheaval that round two served only to exacerbate. As the convoys of U.S. armored vehicles trundle south toward Kuwait and then home, they leave the stage set for round three.
Call this the War of Iraqi Self-Determination (2010-?). As the United States removes itself from the scene, Iraqis will avail themselves of the opportunity to decide their own fate, a process almost certain to be rife with ethnic, sectarian, and tribal bloodletting. What the outcome will be, no one can say with certainty, but it won't be pretty.
One thing alone we can say with assurance:As far as Americans are concerned, Iraqis now own their war. "Like any sovereign, independent nation," President Obama recently remarked, "Iraq is free to chart its own course." The place may be a mess, but it's their mess not ours. In this sense alone is the Iraq war "over."
As U.S. forces have withdrawn, they have done so in an orderly fashion. In their own eyes, they remain unbeaten and unbeatable. As the troops pull out, the American people are already moving on: Even now, Afghans have displaced Iraqis as the beneficiaries of Washington's care and ministrations. Oddly, even disturbingly, most of us-our memories short, our innocence intact-seem content with the outcome. The United States leaves Iraq having learned nothing.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
87 Comments so far
Show AllThe Only difference between Obama and Bush is that the lefty media didn't like Bush.
Which lefty media is that?
"Which lefty media is that?"
Why, TIME magazine, of course. A crypto-communist publication if ever there was one.
The Nation, KOS, Huffpo, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, MoveOn, and the endless stream of forgetful, faceless bloggers and writers that back this scumbag, murdering Uncle Tom. Or, basically anyone deemed appropriate to debate for the Left on commercial television, websites and magazines of popular political culture. Kinda like pornography... you know it when you see it. :)
Yes, I love how the "left" - mistaken as anyone who supports Obama by the MSM - stand by their man regardless of what he does or does not do. Regardless of the number of Bush Policies that he has continued or even accelerated, they stand by him and make excuses for it, usually using the old "he's better than Palin or McCain" bullshit, although when you ask them to expand on how he's better than them, they can't.
If it was Bush who was doing the things Obama is doing - throwing trillions at Wall Street, accelerating the Afghanistan "war," expanding it into Pakistan and other countries, stating on national TV that he, as President, has the inherent right to make up an "assassination list" of Americans and then have them executed without trial anywhere in the world on his say-so, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - those same Obama-bots would be frothing at the mouths for Bush's impeachment.
But when their "Democrat" Golden Boy does those things?
Silence....
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Where does Foxed up News fall into this?
True enough, Today!
Sheesh -- almost a decent historical synopsis until shortly before the end, when he got to speculation about Round Three. Key points omitted: 1) Surge was utter failure -- it was supposed to achieve a reasonably secure window in which elections could be held and a government formed for a post-US combat Iraq. That did not happen. 2) We await the post-US combat blowback once the rebels who took the money use it to buy weapons once the US disbursement office closes and their enemy is a weak, fraudulent Iraqi regime with an army that is untrained and laced with rebels. And most importantly, 3) there are still 50,000 US troops, around 100,000 US-contracted mercenaries, a billion dollar US embassy that will need constant protection, and vast oil fields that rebels don't have any interest in leaving in the hands of corporations from the Western empires that invaded them, which will need a lot more protection than the embassy, protection of "US interests" that are, by US doctrine, under the protection of the US army. And by the way, I do not consider what I typed to be a comprehensive list. It's early, and I need more coffee, and there's a 1000 word limit. So instead of criticizing me for the things I left out, just add them.
Nobody in the US understands the purpose of the "the Surge" or what actually led to a reduction in violence. All they know is that violence decreased and many fewer Americans were getting killed. And that is exactly the way repubs and apparently Obama want it.
The repubs want everyone to give Bush credit for "the Surge," but want everyone to forget that Bush led us into a war of choice based on lies and thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for no reason.
In addition to Repubs praising the surge, Obama praised it in his speech last night and gave it tacit approval in September 2008 when he never responded to John McCain's allegation that the surge was a success.
You did a good job, touching most of the bases.
Wait till you read the Bacevich Bashing below one by one from some of the party purists nobody will ever completely satisfy! These habitual posters,erudite but too angrily ideological, foolishly "throw out the baby with the bath water."
Bachevich, a former self-confessed Spear Carrier who is against the ever-growing MIC Death Machine, needs to be supported, not impulsively excoriated!
sim....i'll be brief and tell you i agree with ardent and richm.....this man purports to be expert enough to "tell the tell"....and yet he leaves out the "great game" and the great game players?????....why would any one support this?....peace
I accept your point of view. I'm in the middle of reading his latest book. His style is hard to follow, but he's telling me all about Allen Dulles, Curtis LeMay,Johnson's advisors and all about how the MIC came to such power. He obviously could be more expert!!! peace,too
sim...thanks for the shout back...it seems that humanity can't resist the search for heroes....and as we ALL KNOW...our heroes all have "feets of clay" (some more than others of course)...i personally am awaiting the return of the true Savior---Diogenes!...
anyhow, good on ya... and me too...bletspeg
Good for you, Simonsez -- I'd add only that in addition to "leaving out" matters that others want "put in" (I had the same thought after finishing Moby Dick, Thucydides, the Iliad, Anna Karenina, the Ring trilogy . . . ), Mr. Bacevich also left out that as he was opposing the war his son went off to fight in it, came back dead, and Mr. Bacevich continued to address the issues that actually have a chance of convincing enough people to do something to change this country's course. Those wishing to focus instead on "the great game" and its "players" should by all means do so, and I truly wish them success, but I cannot say that those seem the issues most likely to convince more than a handful of people to do -- what, write blog posts about them?
hector...this is of small import i know, but my motivation in mentioning "the great game," had nothing to do with a desire to CHANGE "the great game" (or for that matter to change any ones opinion about the importance of realizing the significance of said game).
i was SAYING, that an EXPERT had to at least have mentioned it in passing for crissakes!!!!!( for the permanent record, not mentioning it makes you either a liar or a fool).
EVERYTHING HAPPENS is an idea i do not promote, (some on cd will recognize the phrase) those that come here believing their words will influence things, are as you say, "free to do so"...i just come here to have a boiler maker or two, see some of my "old" friends, and play a little peggy lee on the juke box...peace
when i read what obama had to say about "time to turn the page", i could hardly contain my revulsion...the "cool" way in which obama refers to the US withdrawal is so disgusting that i would really like to slap the man's face for his insolence...be that as it may, i'm sure iraq will be a great place for after-war-profiteering just as it was a great place for trying out new weapons and battlefield gear..or at least trying to figure out how to avoid home-made WMD...dare we hope that iran will benefit from out experience?
"I would really like to slap the man's face for his insolence . . . "
Insolence is the least of Flopco/Obama's numerous crimes.
the congress forgot about Vietnam when they voted to go into Iraq so why not forget again!!
Why do I feel like I am living in a two universe reality.
One which the common people inhabit,( those not in office or who have no 'wealth fund, or gobs of money. And the other, those rich and powerful or are in high office and hence about to become moneyed. And do not these entities hide behind the legal fiction of corporate personhood insulating their persons from legal responsibility for their actions? Is it just me or is the US government a thing unto itself and it's corporate puppet masters? And are we not all lubed by the media into believing whatever fiction the moment requires?
America is obviously suffering dementia as it stumble to it's fate as a once self correcting calamity of errors and injustices.
After all, is not justice the only principle that separates raw power from despotism. And as we practice despotism on our victims do we not need apologists and disseminators to balm what conscience remains in the cathedrals of the self in each of us.
Yes we are a religious people who need our priests and saints,
to sell us to ourselves once a week, that we may go forth and be wicked once again. How else could we make of the world, it's people and it's resources our whore and still hold our heads high.
Mr. Bacevich is failing to see the Tyrannosaur in the room.
The only reasons the United States of Global Domination and its entourage of ass-kissers have been involved in the "Middle East" since the 1920's are primarily the growing dependence upon petroleum, the monetary profits from petroleum, and the enlargement of the military (which is heavily dependent upon the petroleum) for further domination.
All of the talk about "freedom", "democracy", "withdrawal", is a sugar coating on a bloodbath.
The lust for the profits is still there.
The next major assault (Iran) is being planned along almost identical lines.
I remember in May or June of 2003, Paul Wolfowitz gave an interview for Vanity Fair Magazine in which he more or less said that portraying the war as an attempt to democratize Iraq was simply a PR stunt for the United States public. He told the interviewer that the invasion really was about securing Iraqi oil reserves and protecting access thereto. Mike Malloy, a talkshow host on the now defunked Air America Radio network made hay out of that little gem from Wolfy for several weeks.
Actually, it was the decision to focus on WMD as the reason to invade as it was "easiest."
This is half truth.Wolfowitz is right about the selling of the war on WMD. He is knowingly wrong about oil.If oil were the reason,US could have accecpted the deals offered by Saddam many times over. The attack was about securing Israel by fragmenting Iraq as was well doumented.
American Prospect, “The Apprentice,” indicates that wrecking Iraq as a nation state was intentional:
David Wurmser — Perle’s protégé and ally at the American Enterprise Institute, the neoconservative think tank that named its conference room after Wohlstetter – [urged] in 1997: that if Saddam Hussein were driven from power, Iraq would be “ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,” and out of the “coming chaos in Iraq and most probably in Syria,” the United States and her principal allies, namely Israel and Jordan, could redraw the region’s map.http://www.amconmag.com/blog/iraqs-dysfunctional-democracy/
The American Conservative.Also Phillip Zelkow essentially said same thing to the students of ?Virgginia University as reported by Asia times and IPS
BIRD BRAIN: You made the point I would have made. It makes one wonder if someone who's been inside the MIC machine for years no longer has the capacity to recognize the difference between THE SELL to the public, as opposed to the REAL purpose behind the planned aggression.
That he's still arguing for the PR over the purpose makes me wonder if he's brain-dead, or paid to maintain the "official storyline."
There was the odd reporter in Iraq who said at the time that the surge consisted of bribing Sunni chiefs with enormous sums of money and we must not forget that Bill Clinton was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with his savage sanctions and that Hillary and many democrats voted for America's invasion and occupation of Iraq so to expect Obama to go against the official mantra of the establishment is as naive as expecting him to really reform health care.
Among the most critical lessons to be learned is that our leaders can, and will, lie us into war - and be facilitated in doing so by a boot-licking media establishment.
Published before the latest round of the Iraq war began, the following article dissects the litany of falsehoods. After being turned down by numerous US media outlets, it was finally published in New Zealand.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3350402
A greater crime against the republic can scarcely be imagined than to use blatant lies to launch horrific wars. That Bush is being allowed to get away with it bodes ill for us all . .
"A greater crime against the republic can scarcely be imagined than to use blatant lies to launch horrific wars. That Bush is being allowed to get away with it bodes ill for us all . ." -- What is your take on the culpability of Obama and other Democrats for what they are currently, affirmatively, doing, as opposed to what they are simply not doing (i.e., discharging their obligations under international treaty, and thus US law, to investigate Bush and others for possible engagement in torture)?
As much as I would like to like Bacevich, I simply cannot.
He always seems to start on the right tack but then quickly gets blown off course. Same with this piece. The first paragraph is quite good, but then he starts playing loose with history. He claims Iraq II was Bushbaby's decision after 911...when in fact it had been on the neocon drawing board since the mid 90's (see: Project For A New American Century)authored by Cheney, Rumsfeld, (Zionists R US: Kristol, Wolfowitz,Kagan,Zoellick,Perle,Libby,Podhoretz, Abrams, Pipes and others)
Christ, the contributers reads like the Tel Aviv phone book.
These assholes had been known in Washington circles for decades as "The Crazies".
They were so crazy that, of course no one would vote for any of the lot (they would need to be "appointed" to sensitive "Power" slots by someone electable... enter the tin-hat drugstore cowboy circa 1999. The rest is history (come to your own conclusions re 911... just a lucky coincidence?)
Here is my point - you simply cannot overlook this slice of history when recounting Iraq (1990-2010) - it is absolutely critical to understanding the entire picture... in fact it is the canvas upon which the Iraq tragedy is painted.
Bacevich, through convienient omission, leads one to believe that Iraq II was Bushs' decision when in fact he was just the dimwitted cowboy poster-boy who was just cornpone enough to get elected(though he didn't...and the office had be be highjacked by daddys' friends).
Bacevich is a lot like the Dem pols, in that he will make it seem he is on your side so as to keep you from bolting the Establishment Parade for independent action. He just doesn't cut it.
Although I do generally respect Bacevich's work and honesty about his personal path from indoctrinated military man to enlightened scholar, I have to agree with Kalki that his account here of very grave matters is definitely lacking in crucial respects.
The fanatical members (among whom Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Jeb Bush and ideologues such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Krauthammer) of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are the ones who formulated the project of invading and occupying Iraq, and they did so already at least in 1998, as evidenced by their 1998 letter to President Clinton in which they call for the removal of Saddam Hussein (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/
lettersstatements.htm).
Their position paper of September 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (RAD, available in pdfile at http://www.newamericancentury.org/
defensenationalsecurity.htm) is the blueprint of the Bush regime, both of its foreign and domestic policies. George W. Bush was merely their puppet, their docile and "presentable" front man (note that Bush himself is conspicuously absent from the membership of PNAC; one can bet that that is no accident). This is so down to the fact that on p. 51 of that document one finds a thinly veiled wish for the attacks that took place exactly a year after its publication: "Further, the process of transformation [transformation of military affairs brought about by various technological innovations], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
We now know what political and military capital (what mana sent from heaven) the events of 9/11 have been for the above clique of fanatics and their military doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance, the backbone of their agenda of unchallenged U.S. domination of the world (what they call Pax Americana (pp. 1 and 13 of RAD) or 'American peace' (p. iv of RAD)).
Indeed, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," which was published in September of 2002 and written by Philip Zelikow (who was to be appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission and who had total editorial control over the writing of the Commission's report), and which embodies the doctrines of the PNAC, we may read this remarkable assessment of 9/11: "The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunites."
Anticipating this assessment, Donald Rumsfeld had alreay stated in an interview with the New York Times of October 12, 2001, that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world." Condoleezza Rice, too, shared that perception of 9/11 when she spoke of "capitalizing on these opportunities" (reported in Nicholas Lemann, "The Next World Order...," New Yorker, April 1, 2002).
Incidentally, it must be said again that the occupation of Afghanistan, too, was planned before 9/11.
Generally speaking, I would say then that Bacevich, despite his admirable efforts at unconcealing the workings of Empire, has not yet grasped the full depth of deviousness and insidiousness of the mechanisms of U.S. imperialism (and such would include its presence and machinations within the homeland itself, in the form of think tanks such as the PNAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, massive lobbying presence in Washington and corrupting effect on Congress, our universities, the huge interests of the military-industrial complex and Wall Street, and, of course, our lobotomized mainstream media).
OIKOS: Great post! Your 3rd paragraph explains a key reason why I believe 911 was NOT an accident... and likely some sort of inside job.
9/11 an inside job? Fat chance !
Thank you, big boy, for your illuminating interjection.
Ever heard of Operation Northwood? Ever heard of the secret army Gladio?
Ever heard of Operation Northwood?
Yep, has nothing to do with 9/11. Kennedy rejected it and fired the Joint Chiefs of staff. The 9/11 truthers just use Operation Northwood for nothing.
Ever heard of the secret army Gladio?
Yep, again nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing to prove the allegation that 9/11 was an inside job.
Operation Northwood and the secret organization Gladio are examples of conspiratorial behavior on the part of governmental bodies.
If 9/11 is a conspiracy involving not merely foreign operators, then these two conspiracies provide historical examples of domestic conspiratorial behavior.
So much for having nothing to do with. That'll be my last intervention in this respect (not because of your flippant ways, mind you, but because of Common Dreams' policies).
You still not proving anything. Operation Northwood and the secret organization Gladio still have nothing to do with 9/11. Nada, zilch. You're just saying that just because some conspirational behavior happened that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Any idiot can blabber that because conspiracy A happened that conspiracy B happened. 9/11 happened at a different time. There is no connection to Northwood or Gladio unless you can prove that it exists. Sorry to bust your 9/11 truthie thingie again. What does Common Dreams' policies have anything to do with this?
The reality of Operation Northwoods is that the US government would plot to attack its own citizenry to spark a war of revenge, just as 9/11 was used. And no, the JCS wasn't comepletely fired as a result of the planning, yet another lie from your keyboard. Not long after Northwoods was shelved, the chimera of Tonkin Bay occured, which was every bit as effective as Operation Northwoods and 9/11. Lots of crimes were committed by the US Empire during the 50s and 60s--illegal wars, assassinations, coups, kidnapping, torture--a lot of what we have today, which is to say that little has changed regarding the evilness of the US Empire from 1945 to today. Confronting and exposing that evil is what civilized people ought to be about. So, get with the program Shawn, and stop being a Barbarian.
You're still not getting it. You're just repeating someone else's claim without proving it. Nothing you said proves that 9/11 was an insider's job. Anyone can invent a story about past events and say 9/11 happened just because that happened.
Re: "And no, the JCS wasn't comepletely fired as a result of the planning, yet another lie from your keyboard. "
Yes he was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
"Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963. American armed forces leaders began to perceive Kennedy as going soft on Cuba, and the President became increasingly unpopular with the military, a rift that came to a head during Kennedy's disagreements with the service chiefs over the Cuban Missile Crisis."
Re: "Not long after Northwoods was shelved, the chimera of Tonkin Bay occured, which was every bit as effective as Operation Northwoods and 9/11."
Cuba and Vietnam were unrelated.
Re: "Lots of crimes were committed by the US Empire during the 50s and 60s--illegal wars, assassinations, coups, kidnapping, torture--a lot of what we have today, which is to say that little has changed regarding the evilness of the US Empire from 1945 to today. Confronting and exposing that evil is what civilized people ought to be about. "
What does that have to do with proving 9/11 and insider's job? Nothing, nada, zilch.
Re: "So, get with the program Shawn, and stop being a Barbarian."
Oh yeah right, and just believe that the building demolished right when the planes were about to hit them. What a silly cartoon ! The 9/11 truthers are too funny.
What is Berry so crazy about? The CIA had many ties to Osama... The US government has been involved in middle eastern affairs up to its eyeballs since the 50s. Christ... Carter even spelled it out in a sotu speech. The Carter Doctrine it came to be called.... So yes... The government is to blame for 9/11. Did they secretly support the terrorists? Who knows? Who cares? It doesn't matter the result is the same. The US government got what it wanted. An excuse to expand the reach of the empire... At home and abroad. You are nothing but a fool for arguing nonsense.
Re: "The CIA had many ties to Osama... The US government has been involved in middle eastern affairs up to its eyeballs since the 50s"
Has nothing to do with proving that 9/11 was an insider's job.
"You are nothing but a fool for arguing nonsense."
Unable to prove that 9/11 was an insider's job? Poor you. Have a whopper.
Oikos,
Thank you for doing our homework.
Oikos, Kalki, Siouxrose, and others -- Everyone's account "of very grave matters is definitely lacking in crucial respects" -- Bacevich's, yours, mine - that's why it's essential to have more than one speaker, and more than one political party, as I fear we effectively do not. I think that when one sees what one deems omissions in a piece the more effective approach is to begin with an expression of gratitude for what has been said, and the effort made to say it, and then to add, "I do think it essential to focus as well on . . . ".
Does your sharp-edged post, which is more behind-the-scenes people-specific, diminish Becevich's approach? I think not. Why throw out the baby with the bath water? Have you actually read his latest book? Your last paragraph really "just doesn't cut it." In my book Bacevich deserves support, not impulsive excoriation.
There is no throwing the baby out with the bath water: I praised Bacevich on two occasions in the above post and, as such, I support his work. However, praise need not entail uncritical acceptance of every one of his assertions or analyses.
See also the post I left in the thread attached to Bacevich's article of last week, "The Unmaking of a Company Man," here at CD.
I leave you the responsibility for describing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the other PNAC hoodlums I listed as behind the scenes people.
Furthermore, if that description of yours is meant to downplay or minimize the more shadowy actors and operators of the political life of the United States, then you have not grasped the import of my comment and are still laboring under a certain political myopia, as is Bacevich.
You lie ! You bedwetting purists don't like practical writing so you whine 24/7/365/4. Go to freerepublic.com where you belong.
Ok Rich, you win for being nice for once. But you know that most progressives also still stay practical. I want better too just like you but where's a proving winning strategy for the Democratic Party? Here's a giveaway. Find us a proven winning strategy for third parties so that the majority of progressives and liberals including me voting Democrat will trust that new party. You know they're getting good with local elections and I've voted for a couple of them before.
The New Republic certainly IS NOT a "LEFTIST" publication, but why get so hysterically worked up! Excoriating Bacevich and CD like you do clearly shows how difficult it is, OR EVER WILL BE, for "leftists" to achieve the required unity of purpose to come to meaningful political power!!, not to mention a paucity of MONEY!
Quite right -- re-writing hisotry is hardly proper.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/april.html?q=ARTICLE5/april.html
APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT
[...]
" U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)"
[...]
I am least pleased to have discovered what is at the bottom of Orwell's 'memory hole'; it is the internet.
Mr. Bacevich has candidly and forthrightly written of the intellectual arrested development required or imposed by his long and successful military career. I wish him well, and hope he continues to progress and evolve.
But, as previous commenters have noted, Bacevich still has a propensity for incorporating "hallowed verities" of his own in his analysis.
Others have already justly criticized the suggestion that the still-mysterious events of 9/11/01 caused Dubya to scapegoat Saddam and invade Iraq, though it's clear that 9/11 was merely a pretext or cover to launch a unilateral attack that had been intended, conceived, and planned long before that date.
I also winced at Bacevich's facile thumbnail sketch of the First Gulf War being launched by George I pursuant to his drawing a "line in the sand" to contain a reckless and belligerent Saddam. He seems unable or unwilling to consider Amerika's own role in manipulating the crisis, and even drawing out Saddam, by seeming to green-light Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Perhaps such superficial allusions are artifacts of Bacevich's attempt to be concise and blandly summarize points for the sake of discussion, but he comes across as one who still hasn't drilled DOWN sufficiently to consider the broader motivations, hidden agendas, and deep politics that drive the events he attempts to comprehensively analyze.
Again, a sublime phrase from Dylan's "Queen Jane Approximately" comes to mind: "Trying to prove that your conclusions should be more drastic..."
I couldn't agree more.