Slashdot Mirror
Iraq Study Group Reaches Concensus
reporter writes to point us to a story in the Washington Post reporting that the Iraq Study Group has reached consensus and will issue its 100-page report on December 6: 'The Iraq Study Group, which wrapped up eight months of deliberations yesterday, has reached a consensus and will call for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.' The Post mentions that first word of the panel's conclusions came from the New York Times yesterday. The Times points out that it is not clear how many U.S. troops would come home; some brigades might be withdrawn to Iraqi bases out of the line of fire from which they could provide protection for remaining U.S. operations.
"shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising"
That's how we got into Vietnam.
Where were you when the voynix came?
There are no winners. Only losers. No Correct solution to the problem. Personally I wish we (the US and its allies) would formulate a common long term plan (good or bad) and just stick to it.
Didn't most of the U.S. (government aside) reach this consensus in like 2003?
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
Don't tell anyone we can't win, we Americans hate the truth.
A blog about stuff.
the Iraqi study group is slow. but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the population had this idea in like 2003.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
I wonder if this will, in anyway, help stabilise Iraq as it is now. I hope the final report has something on the lines of -"..before we remove a significant fraction of the soldiers from Iraq, we will plan and implement a self-standing, well trained Iraqi police/armed force..".
Arguing about whether it was right for the US to invade Iraq is rather academic now - however, if the US quits now, you can expect it to be spun as a huge victory for radical Islam. It will also destroy what little credibility the US has left."Laziness is an optimisation protocol"
It's a simple one step process we can follow to its finish:
Step one: Leave Iraq.
Taadaa!!! Problems solved.
A blog about stuff.
... vietnamization. That worked SO well...
Guess in 10-20 years Schonberg and Boublil will do Miss Baghdad?
The US and their Allies went into Iraq, without any proof. They messed up the country (and profited from it) now they have to sort it out.
Not that it really matters since Bush is already planning to ignore what the study group says. He'll just continue to "Stay the course".
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
When reading The Washington Post, always consider the diametric opposite position from whatever agenda the WaPo pushes.
Consider http://newsbusters.org/node/6863
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Was produced a few years ago by Al-Jazeera, well, technically it's not about Iraq but Lebanon.
t _info&products_id=59
n on
http://fineartfilm.com/index.php?main_page=produc
(or watch it on google video)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=war+of+leba
There are 15 episodes, about 12 hours long with english subtitles.. so sit back and enjoy how history repeats itself.. the stage moved to the left, a bit, but it's the same story happening all over again. Iraqi society descending into chaos, neighbourhoods dividing along sectarian lines, intervening regional powers, oh and lots of blood.
I've been a hawk since day one, and don't regret that. I do think that the aftermath of the military victory was handled poorly. I think that completely dismissing the Army and police and starting over new was a bad idea, and helped the insurgency get hold.
That being said, at this point I don't think we have the ability to stop Iraq from descending into civil war. The chaos and widespread murder is unacceptable, and I don't how we can stop it and preserve Iraq as a single entity.
The RevMike Plan
Divide Iraq into three regions. Kurdistan in the north, which would include the border areas around Mosul, the northern oil fields, etc. A central/western Sunni Arab area, and a southern/eastern Shiite Arab area, including the southern oil fields. There might be a treaty that says that the governments of all three areas split the oil revenue by some formula.
The establishment of a Kurdistan is really going to piss off Iran. Good. It will also piss off Turkey. Sucks to be them. Maybe they should have let us invade through the north too, a couple of years ago.
I'm not as worried about the Shiite dominated area. I think that, in the long run, Arab/Persian tension will keep them from being dominated by Iran. It would be nice to have alternative leadership for the Shiite world.
As for the Sunni area? They basically become irrelevant, especially since Baghdad will become Shiite. The Saudis will likely step in and offer some sort of support to stabilize this area.
As part of the deal, anyone who want to move will be given the chance. At the end of it, the two Arab regions should be fairly homogeneous, and the whole religious/ethnic issue will be gone. The Kurd dominated area is already fairly secure, and likely would remain so. The Arabs, Turkmen, and Christians in this are fairly well integrated minorities.
"When reading The Washington Post, always consider the diametric opposite position from whatever agenda the WaPo pushes. Consider http://newsbusters.org/node/6863 [newsbusters.org]"
Reading Newsbusters is as valuable as reading FAIR.org. These so-called "watchdogs" are lapdogs of media that share their own fringe biases, and they bite the media just for not sharing their opinions and political bias.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"A poor plan aggresively executed is better than a great plan poorly executed"
I can't disagree more.
Where were you when the voynix came?
" If this thing goes like Vietnam in reverse then the step after "military advisors" is handing it over to the French."
It's a perfect plan. The French get a lot out of it too: since it is running backwards, the typical French retreat ends up looking like the French charging into victory. "Cheese-vomiting conquest monkeys" indeed!
Where were you when the voynix came?
Speaking from the Whitehouse lawn, President George Bush made a surprise statement today.
"Today's report from the Iraq Study Group has highlighted something that has been on my mind for sometime - my Iraq strategy has failed. I think the right thing for me to do is to apologise to all those people who, during the build-up to our invasion, warned me both publicly and privately that my strategy was unsound and the basis for it wrong. Members of the U.N. weapons inspectors - Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, I would like to apologise to you for deliberately undermining you. Jacques Chirac - Jacques, you were right, and I'm sorry that my adminstration went out of their way to mock you. My good friend Tony Blair, who chose to stand by me even when I acted like a bully and knew you had deep reservations about my decisions. To all of you, I hope you accept my sincere apology."
Dreadful mortality rate brought to you courtesy of Islamofascism via generous donations from Syria and Iran.
While I certainly respect and uphold the /. notion of us controlling government instead of government controlling us, I question why media outlets like the New York Times and others continually print "leaked" memos and information without any consequence? The only explanation is that this "leaked" information, much of which is reportedly classified, is intentionally leaked. When is it considered a security breach, and when is it considered propaganda? Every time I hear someone question the legality of this (on talk radio and such), the respondents never actually address the fact that the information was leaked, only commenting about the leaked information. Shouldn't media outlets be accountable to and responsible for what they publish? I am absolutely for protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but those freedoms are not always without consequence.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
let it become a pile of cards.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Divide Iraq into three regions"
Word of advice from the British Empire: things get really sticky later on down the line when outsiders draw lines on maps and tell locals how it's going to be.
I don't know where Concensus is. Don't tell me we're going to invade there as well?
I supported the conflict initially, but have since come to realize how foolish this little adventure was. Ultimately, we were duped into believing we could do the impossible. The main problem is that Iraq is an artificial state, with little real unifying history, religion, or any common identity. It was created by the European powers at the end of World War I, following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. It was created arbitrarily, for the sole convenience of the Western powers, with complete disregard to ethnicity and religion. THAT's the problem with Iraq. This is a problem at the very root of society. You can't drop some troops in there, and expect a vibrant, healthy democracy to just magically spring out of the Euphrates.
I think occupations can create democracies, by holding a diverse group of people together long enough to develop a common identity. It was done by some European powers, take India for example. The problem is that this sort of colonialism takes a large-scale occupation, much larger than we have now, for a time span of MULTIPLE DECADES. This is economically, strategically, and politically impossible in the modern era.
In order to hold this unstable country together, you either have to be a brutal dictator like Sadam or act like the freaking Romans. I suspect if every time a US soldier was killed we rounded up and killed 500 random people, the resistance would end quite quickly. However, any nation created this way will only last as long as that threat of force is present.
Ultimately, I think the people in charge of this whole charade knew this was going to happen all along. In the minds of the neocons who started this whole thing, the people of Iraq are just one piece in a puzzle. You'll notice lately that US troop casualties have been falling while Iraqi casualties have been rising. This is because our troops have been retreating to fewer, larger bases, performing fewer daily patrols, and patrol in more heavily armored convoys. The insurgents have gone for easier targets, Iraqi army members, and mainly, innocent civilians. Sunnis fight Shiia, Shiia fight Sunnis, the Kurds just want out entirely, and everyone wants a piece of the non-uniformly distributed oil resources.
I think the military is really content to sit back and watch as Iraq destroys itself, while the US troops serve their purpose, guarding the valuable oil pipelines. For the people in charge, as long as the crude is flowing, the whole country might as well just drop dead. Also, the troops presence serves a second important function. By having a large troop presence in the center of the Middle East, the pentagon intends to keep Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and all the major powers in line. While our boys on the ground fight for their lives trying to help the Iraqi people, the people at the top are looking at grand strategic goals.
And that is why we went there in the first place. Not WMDs, not democracy, not anything else. Our troops are there to stabilize Iraq's oil flow, and to keep the whole region in line, stabilizing the larger oil supply. The Iraqi people are meaningless. Our troops will be behind high walls and thick armor, while the rest of the country degenerates into pure chaos.
> The plots at the bottom of this page give a good feel for how much progress we've made in the past 3-1/2 years.
Here is the link.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If I had to predict the consensus, it would be something along the lines of:
(wait for it)
Somebody ought to do something.
Or maybe, "There otta be a law."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We'll be killing each other, until the invaders are humiliated and withdraw in shame.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Stupidity on Slashdot brought to you by NeoFascist trolls via generous donations of talking points from the retard right.
Go team, go!
A blog about stuff.
To all of you naysayers out there who said that the war was hopeless and our leaders' plans lacked foresight, you should be kicking yourselves. The U.S. clearly achieved all of its objectives and can happily retreat^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwithdraw. This just proves that you should not question your leaders because they know what they are doing. I bet the president's approval rating is going to skyrocket when word gets out about our victory!
FTA
"The administration does not want to be in the position of having to adapt all of the Iraq Study Group report's recommendations, U.S. officials say, and its own review will provide an opportunity to pick and choose options."
Shouldn't that be "adopt" instead of "adapt"? Big difference.
Someone at the Washington Post is relying too much on spell checker instead of actually reading their own work.
Read any good sonnets lately?
The Iraqis may be slow but the problem is that the whole country was used to a dictator and it took someone that strong and tyrannical to overcome the religious and ethnic differences between the people. Take away the order of the dictator and nobody knows what to do or to expect. You'd be moving slowly too if you'd never experienced democracy and lacked the overwhelming government infrastructure required to make it work. All we have now is lawlessness, and no clear roles for people or groups. Naturally all the thugs and zealots are struggling to get whatever power they can and it has turned into a civil war. In my opinion, the Iraqis are not going to pull it together by themselves because 1.) they have no experience 2.) the disruptive forces are much bigger than the calming forces and 3.) there's no help from their neighbours or anyone in the world. The only way to avoid a 100 year civil war is to have the UN go in with 50,000 peace keepers along with a coalition of middle east leaders (honest ones) and work for 5-10 years on setting up a functioning government and infrastructure. The chances of that happening are next to zero. Bush wrecked the country
I'll wait until I actually read the report.
Considering the source (NYT), I am highly skeptical of their 'summary' of such a report.
If this report said something on the order of:
1. rebuild Iraqi army
2. rebuild Iraqi police force
3. stabilize civil situation
4. exterminate/disarm Shia/Sunni factions.
(...)
88. Paint the house
89. Walk the dog
90. Reduce American force deployments in Iraq
the NYT would summarise as "Bush is a poopyhead; Iraq Study Group agrees with NYT that US forces in Iraq should be REDUCED immediately!"
Remember, this is the 'newspaper of record' that somehow failed to publicize that the Congressional committee on prewar intel found that the original claims of the administration were widely held at the time to be accurate & that Robert Wilson (you know, Mr Valerie Plame) was a self-aggrandizing liar.
-Styopa
From TFSummary: "out of the line of fire"
Which would be where, exactly? Bahrain? Qatar?
I'm sorry, but when they're blowing up fricking supply trucks, there is no "line of fire". It's a field of fire, and it accounts for large portions of where our soldiers would have to be anyway. Such is guerilla warfare. It's not the Battle of Waterloo, or even Gettysburg, or even Vietnam. It's a different war with its own rules - the b(l)ogosphere and instant mass punditry being among them.
"If Iraq has taught anything, the lesson is to keep a weather eye on the sources."
Aye cap'n, keep a weather-eye out. "The source", the Washington Post, is not near as bad as some claim. Their bullpen of commentators includes strong conservatives as Krauthammer and ol' George Will, and even examples of the rare species known as the moderate (David Broder). The Post also produced a landmark excellent article on the details of Chavez' fascist dictatorship in Venezuela (something a hard-left paper would not do, since the hard-left loves this dictator).
Hopefully, you aren't one of those who holds up the Washington Times as an example of a better paper.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Since we never really had an objective, it would be easy to declare victory no matter the outcome. Disarm Saddam of his WMD? Done--before we even arrived! Regime change? Done. Would've been done sooner, if we hadn't armed and financed him, but let's not dwell on fine points. Pay him back for his support of Al Queida and his role in 9-11? Er, okay, bad example.
But PR can do anything. All they have to do is say "We won! Bush is a great leader!" and trumpet it over and over and over and over, while acting indignant that anyone would ever suggest that Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservatives bear any responsibility at all for anything bad that happened in Iraq (though we can credit them for every flower that bloomed, it seems) and eventually people will come around. If there is ethnic cleansing and tens or hundreds of thousands killed in internecine war, it's not as if the US population is going to sit down and say, "well hell, our President is responsible for that." People consider themselves and the government they voted for responsible for the noble things they meant to do, not what they did. A school opened and a child got a puppy? That's because of George Bush, God bless him. That kid gets killed later that day by a rocket? Not us, Bub. This isn't new--how many Americans felt responsible for the Khmer Rouge? How many Americans care that American financiers helped Hitler? There won't be a reckoning, because there never is. It's too easy to pat ourselves on the back for our nobler motives, and ignore what our decisions actually resulted in.
All of the debate and talk about debates and talks about talks and this and that has seriously bored me beyond caring about this at all. If someone is going to take action, how about they fucking /take action/.
I hope that all the countries that weren't warmongers (that is everyone apart from the USA and UK) would draw their forces the fuck out and leave it to the ones who caused it in the first place. This shit has to be paid with American and British blood!
Who, exactly, are they going to support? The current government is a barely functioning coalition of religious factions, several of which have their own private armies. The only thing stopping them going hammer-and-tongs at each other are the US forces.
Dividing Iraq along ethnic lines has been considered as a strategic option since before the war:
U.S. 2002 Pre-invasion Plan to Divide Iraq Into Three Separate States
I know that it is rather unkind to point this out, but this is the second Slashdot story *today* with a misspelled headline. What makes this all the more inexcusable is that Firefox 2.0, for one, has built-in spell-checking. Do you really have so little respect for the readers or do you simply not care? Is this some post-modern exercise in creative use of the language?
No statement is true, not even this one.
I not only have to look at the gaffe if I come here, but it's showing up loud and clear on my Google homepage under "Slashdot Headlines." Grates on the nerves, yes it does.
The longer we stay in Iraq; the less secure America will be.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
And the waffling on the recommendations of the ISG is just getting underway:c le/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I do think that the aftermath of the military victory was handled poorly.
This is the latest right wing talking point. Don't admit it was a brain dead idea from the beginning, blame the execution. They're trying the same arguments about Viet Nam. It wasn't the intent, it was the execution. It's setting up Rumsfeld to be the patsy and gives the Republican Congress a pass on not doing anything resembling oversight. Where was all this brilliant insight during the build up to the war?
Divide Iraq into three regions. Kurdistan in the north, which would include the border areas around Mosul, the northern oil fields, etc. A central/western Sunni Arab area, and a southern/eastern Shiite Arab area, including the southern oil fields.
ROFL! That's almost as good the pre-war planning. You just alienated Turkey with the independent Kurdistan idea and gave the Kurds a nearly infinite supply of money to fund Kurdish separatists with the oil field revenue. You alienated one of our better allies in the region and funded ongoing instability in a formerly stable region. Off to a great start.
The Saudis will likely step in and offer some sort of support to stabilize this area.
You got that part right but if you think the Saudi money will go to fund stability you need to put the crack pipe down. The Wahhabis supply most of the really freaky, unstable radicals in the region and there's a good chance the bulk of those funds would end up in the hands of Al-Qaida. Everyone who thinks leaving the Sunnis to depend on the most radial elements of radical Islam for funding please raise their hand.
'm not as worried about the Shiite dominated area.
You're not worried about setting up an Islamic regime run by a radical strong man with ties to Hezbollah? Now I know you're high.
You are right that there's no avoiding a civil war at this point, mainly because it's been going on the last year and half. And you're right that we're not going to fix what's broken with the exercise of military power. Pull our troops back to over the horizon bases...an idea which John Kerry suggested and Bush poo-poo'd. Situate those bases so our guys can help control traffic across the Saudi and Iranian borders. Not that leaving Syria and Jordan borders unguarded is a bright spot, but you have less than 100K troops to work with and that's all you can do. Turn over management of our continued presence to the special forces generals instead of regular Army, which was another huge mistake that tends to get glossed over. But when you have so many screw ups to pick from, it's easy to miss one or two.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If there is ethnic cleansing and tens or hundreds of thousands killed in internecine war, it's not as if the US population is going to sit down and say, "well hell, our President is responsible for that."
Well, maybe they should.
According to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, "to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Established facts:
1) There were no WMDs
2) We all thought there were WMDs
3) We are currently in Iraq
4) Most of us think we should not have gone in the first place, largely based on what we know now
I am tired of disputing these topics. We are there, right now, regardless of why, and whether or not you did support/would have supported the invasion. Let's get past that and talk about what to do now to try and make the best of this. This report (which, BTW, none of us have actually read) allegedly starts from the present and tries to figure out the best course of action from this point forward, and I applaud that. I just wish that some slashdotters could do the same thing.
We get it, you hate George Bush. He is not (by a long shot) my favorite president either, but that shouldn't matter right now. Can we grow up and move on to actually accomplish something, or do we need to keep pointing fingers and accomplishing nothing?
The plan is to stay in Iraq until the last helicopter leaves the embassy rooftop...
Dreadful mortality rate brought to you courtesy of Islamofascism via generous donations from Syria and Iran.
Yes, I'm sure that peace will settle upon the region like a cuddly warm blanket once we convince those people to just choose the right religion and cheerfully accept western domination. And what better way to do that than with a lean & mean occupation army and the latest Rumsfeldian techno-wizardry? What could possibly go wrong, unless Iraqi minds are poisoned by outside agitators like Al-Qaida and the bogeymen of Iran and Syria? I can't think of a single thing.
>There's something in the American psyche these days that demands they leave every job half done.
America's inability to wage war has nothing to do with the psyche of leaving jobs half-done.
It has everything to do with modern media.
The ability to use military might to break an enemy's will to fight ended during the Vietnam war. It was that war that first brought the harsh, uncensored, non-propaganda images of the reality of war home in reasonable amounts of time. For the first time, the people back at home could see the reality of war very soon after the events actually happened.
And we found that Americans just don't have the stomach for it.
Consequently, there never will be Dresdens or Hiroshimas again. Because it would be on CNN in 15 minutes, and it would be political suicide for those responsible for "pushing the button".
So now we send troops off on expensive "police actions", where they are never really allowed to take the gloves off and use their might to break the will of the enemy to fight. Instead, they are antagonists that bolster the will of the enemy to fight. Eventually, through a war of insurgent attrition, enough dollars get spent and enough images of the reality of the war get back home until the American public gets sick of it and leaves, without having to accomplish anything.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Have to chuck out #1. They've found 500 WMD of the type that Iraq wasn't supposed to have at all.
>The whole problem in Iraq is that America thought they could win a 21st century war with 20th century tactics.
/use/ 20th century tactics.
No, the whole problem in Iraq is that America couldn't bring itself to
No one has the political will for Dresdens or Hiroshimas anymore, because it will show up on CNN in 15 minutes.
It's a waste of time to send massive military invading forces into another country if they aren't allowed to actually wage war. They will merely become targets of a war of attrition. And that is just what has happened. They aren't fighting and kicking ass, they're just getting sniped and IEDed while the dollars fly out of our pocketbooks at the rate of millions a day.
If this is how we are going to fight wars in the 21st century, why bother?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Isn't slashdot moderated? Goddamn typos and spelling errors in a headline? Jesus Christ! What is this? Digg?
>The US and their Allies went into Iraq, without any proof. They messed up the country (and profited from it) now they have to sort it out.
Sorry, I don't give two shits about their country, if it dissolves into civil war, or dissolves into thin air. I bet most Americans don't. All we want is for Muslims to not fly airplanes into our buildings anymore. (Spare me the "Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11" speel. I don't care. They were a convenient Muslim target to punch in the nose.)
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Declare the Geneva Convention obsolete. Bug the UN. Split NATO. Overthrow a stable military dictatorship and disband the Army the now unemployed members of which will go on to form the future insurgent organisations . Watch the country descend into total civil war, a magnet for every disaffected youth in the middle east. Watch helplessly as the country is infiltrated by insurgents from Iran, Siria and Jordan. Then announce victory and withdraw. Repeat same in Afghanistan. Give legal sanction to torture. Declare victory for democracy.
i entType=Printable, 1157547,00.html
http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&Cl
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/8688.htm
davecb5620@gmail.com
Much as I thought that getting in to Iraq was at best stupid, and much as I think the US really should not be there, simply getting out seems less than responsible. We replaced an insane, cruel, arbitrary dictator who nonetheless kept order (but, of course, for how long) with chaos, foreign occupation and what might seems to be turning out to be an insane, cruel , arbitrary and very disorderly civil war. If there is a way to do it, (which I'm far from sure is the case) we owe it to the Iraqis (and their neighbors and the international community in general) to leave the country with some kind of stability that is likely to last for a bit. Otherwise, we are not only not fixing anything, we have, like a spoiled child , deliberately broken things and are leaving the pieces for everyone else to pick up and try to fix.
It may not be feasible to find a way to manage this. It is almost certainly not going to be feasible without international cooperation which the US administration seems to continue to find distasteful. It doesn't help that they pissed off lots of other countries earlier in the process. It probably will involve a US president going with some serious humility to other countries, hat in hand, to ask for support (which almost certainly means it will not be this US president). But we owe it to the Iraqis to at least do our best to try.
We also owe it to ourselves. Leaving Iraq to fester in civil war will be a legacy that the US will find it hard to overcome. If the civil war involves other Middle Eastern countries, it is hard to see how the US will avoid being seen as the ultimate cause. (Certainly Saddam Hussein also shares a good bit of the blame, but then the US seems to have been at least partly responsible in putting him in power.)
The British Empire (as most empires) drew arbitrary lines along rivers etc and thus split tribes down the middle. The GP is saying "let's draw lines along ethnic divides" which is the way to go.
Now, sure, there'll be some side-effects to that but at least you'll have removed the ethnic split issue.
that this thread will turn into a bash-America fest? I'm guessing that the chances are pretty high considering that ALL threads at /. do. Go ahead...have your fun now. One day you will be crawling back to the US begging for help and I hope and pray that we say F U!
His opinion of Iraq wasn't so rosy, but hey, he was drunk. I'm sure when he's sober he'll be cheery and optimistic about his sacrifice for the War on Terror? Liberty? Iraqi Freedom? I forget why we're there. Maybe you can enlighten me.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Of course there's still war!
The stupid French-Chinese think they have a right to Hawaii!!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
the Congress pulled the rug out from the South Vietnamese and made sure the U.S. gave 0 support.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
>Blah, blah, blah, if only we'd nuked North Vietnam, we'd have won the war, blah, blah, blah.
>
>How exactly would flattening a city in Iraq help? You're going to convince the Iraqis to love you by killing them and
>their relatives?
You are making the assumption that we need to convince the Iraqies to love us, and/or that we yearn for their love.
Love would be nice, but fear works, too. In fact, terror really seems to be a language that the Muslim world appreciates. Ultimately, though, I don't really care if our enemies love, fear, hate, loath, or mildly dislike us. The goal is for them to quit attacking us. I don't really care what motivates them to do this.
Flattening a city in Iraq would help because A) there'd be a lot less Iraqies and B) it would sure-as-shit get the attention of the ones left. Every time someone wrings their hands about how this sort of thing doesn't work I just point to Japan. A whole country full of fanatics ready to fight with bamboo spears to the last person suddently changed it's mind after a couple of mushroom clouds. I'm sure lots of Japanese lost their relatives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm sure a lot of Japanese hated us afterwards, too, but you know what, it sure took the wind out of their sails.
>Is it really that hard to see that you can't win a fight against locals with AK-47s, RPGs and remotely-controlled bombs
>with F-16s? Ok, maybe you kill a handful of them, but then all their relatives have a blood-feud against you, and you
>kill a dozen innocent bystanders with the same bomb, which means that all _their_ relatives now have a blood-feud
>against you. The only way to 'win' a war when killing one of the guys on the other side turns a dozen more against
>you is to kill everyone in the country.
Nah, you just kill enough of the country until you break the will of those left to carry on. Just like Japan.
But this is all academic. There won't be any such displays of force, because it would be political suicide - people like you would vote the "button-pushers" out of office straight away. So military invasions are pretty much now a proven waste of time, money, and lives. They cost HUGE amounts of money, die daily, and don't project military force to any level likely to bring positive outcomes for our side. And on top of this they simply fuel the fires of resistance wherever they are.
Vietnam and now Iraq are excellent case studies that pretty much demonstrate the futility of invading armed forces in the modern era. Boots on the ground are counter-productive, and extremely expensive.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I don't know how much credence this has, but I've heard an alcohol abuse therapist (and a few recovering alcoholics) talk about how your mental development ceases when you begin drinking, and you're frozen at that level of development. Perhaps Georgie started drinking around 12 years old?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Or burn it all down.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Nice analysis, of a quality not often seen on Slashdot.
"shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising"
That's how we got into Vietnam.
That's also how we exited Vietnam.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
If you actually bothered to read the news for the last 4 years the plan has been to train the Iraqi military/police to handle internal security. We have been progressively handing over duties. What the "cut and run" argument was about was setting HARD schedules. In war you don't usually telegraph your moves. But you don't really care about that...please resume your Bush/war bashing rants.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
It aint that simple as they say...
n t), and that Iraq as a modern nation state came out of that at least in part. Hence my original post which was intended to imply "please learn some lessons from our mistakes".
Yup, I'm British, I've studied history, I've travelled to some of the places the British drew lines across. I'm aware of that, I'm aware that our contribution started at least as far back as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreeme
I'm glad we agree ethnic and cultural aspects of identity are very important and should be taken into account. As a PhD student using ethnographical methods in my research, I'd like to paraphrase greater writers than I'll ever be and say: it just isn't simple, identity is a complex thing. Hence my concern at the grandparent post statement:
"The establishment of a Kurdistan is really going to piss off Iran. Good. It will also piss off Turkey. Sucks to be them. Maybe they should have let us invade through the north too, a couple of years ago."
Unfortunately, the impression I have is that this typifies the thinking of people who have way too much influence over how things will turn out. Such measured thinking isn't going to get us anywhere. I will be honest and say I have no simple solution for the mess, save that a long period of dialogue will be required and several nations who seek influence will have to behave responsibly.
The exit strategy is clearly through Damascus and Tehran.
Any "strategy" that leaves IRI intact, is not strategy at all.
ALl source I see with citate the 1 million figure include the irak-iran war, at a time where Saddam was SUPPORTED by the US. Even if you count 1 million over 20 years of regime, that is 50K per year. Since the start of the US invasion there is a rumored 600K dead. If those number are correct then the US invasion caused MORE death than if Saddam was still in power. This is especially true that in the last year Saddam was relatively "calm" due to the number of spotlight on him. He was a butcher and a dictator, but the US invasion caused MORE grief.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>And destroying a country is really gonna win over the hearts and minds, and convince fundamentalists
>not to fly planes into buildings isn't it?
I am not terribly interested in winning hearts and minds.
Further, all fundamentalists do what they do to support a cause. This is THE KEY to dealing with fundamentalists, or any armed aggressor. They will act so long as they believe that their actions will further their cause. The key is to make them understand that their actions will not further their cause, or, even better, that their actions will destroy their cause.
The threat of having your country destroyed, would go a long way to thwarting the actions of fundamentalists, who's cause involves, among other things, dominating their country with their ideology.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Oh and see this : not only in the 2 million they count the war Iran irak but also the death of children due to the sanction imposed by the west !!
Death Count
IF you count Saddam as butcher, then the west hands are full of blood too.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Think the USA should go there next. At least they have a proper military and a nuclear weapon to fight so it will be a real test of military might ;-)
We all know it's all about oil, just like going into Europe in WW2 as all about Bavarian beer and chocolate.
Where were you when the voynix came?
>Punching innocent people in the face for someone else's transgressions is definitely a great way to solve problems.
/think/ you have messed with us, we'll punch you in the face".
You are making the assumption that the Iraqies are innocent. I tend to believe that responsible or not for 9/11, the majority of Iraqies, indeed the majority of the Muslim world in the middle east, rejoiced at it. Further, it is a great way to solve problems. It sends a message: "If we even
>You're a fucking genius.
Thank you, I've always thought so myself.
>A world class citizen, and no doubt loved by all who know you.
I don't know about loved, but certainly respected, which is all I really care about.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Every soldier I have asked who has returned from actual combat in Iraq has said the whole country is fucked and was getting more fucked every single day. The Iraqi military and police are either incompetent or completely infiltrated by insurgents, the Iraqi people almost all hate America, the reconstruction effort has been horribly mismanaged and is almost a complete failure.
I'm sure there are some soldiers out there who love to fight and kill and do all the soldierly things, or who are fanatical Bush supporters, or who can't admit to themselves that their friends died or that they killed people for no good reason - but the fact is, Iraq is a victory for Iran and al-Qaeda, not the US.
"We don't have money for socialized medicine"
That's a good thing, then. The last thing we need is for the government to take over and destroy health care. Health care is just to important to "socialize". Spend the money to reduce the debt, fix broken roads, or other good things. But don't spent it on an ill-conceived program for government to run (and ruin) something it has no business controlling.
"If I had to chose between spending a trillion dollars on Americans or a trillion dollars on Iraqies"
Word that way, I'd not find the choice as easy. Americans are not inherently better than Iraqis!
Where were you when the voynix came?
Established facts:
Facts? No, what you think isn't a fact.
1) There were no WMDs
2) We all thought there were WMDs
All? Over at Metafilter within a week the Yellowcake story was pointed out as being bogus. So not ALL of we were as duped as you seem to have been.
A friend of mine did just that, hauled his family to venezuela and started a business, loves it there. Retired pretty right wing marine, but with a twist, doesn't swallow the globalist CFR nonsense pushed by the right wing commentators (and most of the left as well, they are all of the globalist party, the only one that matters, left and right are convenient fictions to keep the rabble amused), is way more pure constitutional bent, and had the opinion that the US had already gone too far into corporate fascism and decided to boogie out before it got much worse. Pretty worse as in goons with machineguns on the corners and concentration camps and so on, which will be coming as soon as they finish milking out the middle class with their pump and dump credit scams and they drop the hammer on the currency collapse, so that all the true wealth can be transferred into much fewer hands.
Being in the thick of things at a few wars here and there he has noticed they are fought for the blood profits of a handful of multinationals and decided being a pawn mercenary for those folks was pretty stupid. The US multinationals stick in dictators until they are no longer needed, then they decide they are the bad guys now and go in and regime change, then they repeat the process. Endless war for endless profits, works quite well for them.
There are any number of retired military, thousands of them, from generals and admirals on down, who think the current (and past clinton era) US foreign policy is lame and not even all that legal or ethical. There are any nmber now sick or wounded who are getting pitiful care from the VA as well, same as the nam generation faked out fighters got.
Oh, Iraq? A proxy war for Israel, beyond obvious. They (and the afore-mentioned multinationals) are the only ones to profit from the 9-11 attacks and the decision to invade Iraq.
If anyone wants to know the true traitors to the US, look no further than the membership of PNAC and AIPAC, and their public supporters. If you look at the membership there, the ties and agendas, then all the foreign policy makes sense. Fail to look there, it looks like a lot of "mistakes" and "intelligence failures" occurred. They didn't. It was an intelligence and propoganda success. 9-11 was an inside job, to create a "new pearl harbor" and the war in Iraq was planned well before 9-11 occurred. Even the breakup of Iraq into factions was planned on, to keep the islamics fighting with each other.
Personally, I seriously question the perpetrators of a lot of the 'terrorist" attacks going down in Iraq, I think quite a few of them are false flag attacks being done by...guess who.
Bogeyman? I think it is funny that you laugh at Syria and Iran. Syria basically called us a Colonizing nation because of Iraq and said we deserved anything we got. It's that kind of propaganda from out in left field that has the whole region confused as to who is right or wrong in this conflict. Syria has a huge hand in messing up the whole situation in Iraq and not only through destructive comments like that. Don't even get me started on Iran!
Turkey badly needs to get into the EU. They won't do anything aggressive to Kurdistan unless they want to spoil any chance of getting into the EU.
This is admittedly a slight gamble : it's also possible that the Turks will finally give up trying to get into the EU and will go along with a revived Islamic wave coming from Iran. And then we'll have a huge muslim threat right on our (EU) doorstep.
Oh well, we're all doomed anyway.
>"We don't have money for socialized medicine"
/Americans/ than Iraqies.
That's a good thing, then. The last thing we need is for the government to take over and destroy health care. Health care is just to important to "socialize". Spend the money to reduce the debt, fix broken roads, or other good things. But don't spent it on an ill-conceived program for government to run (and ruin) something it has no business controlling.
Regardless of how good or bad socialized medicine might be, my point is I'd rather spend $340,000,000 on welfare for crack-whores instead of tossing it into a third-world shit hole.
>Word that way, I'd not find the choice as easy. Americans are not inherently better than Iraqis!
That's not the point. The point is, American tax dollars are inherently better spent on
If you're going to waste $340,000,000, waste it on Americans.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
You won't win very many arguments or convince the other side that they are wrong by calling them names.
"bogeymen of Iran and Syria?"
Hmmm. The first one is building nuclear bombs and is frequently calling for the extermination of a nation of 5.5 million people (and proclaims its willingness to help this holy cause of genocide in any way it can). That's hardly like a monster under the bed.... unless the monster has a fully-loaded AK-47.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Sad that simple geopolitical facts escaped the group.
But first look on the second page, the list of group members brings up an odd question. Why is Clinton Confidant Vernon Jordan on that list? Why are three out of four of the democrats, people who were under Clinton? Oh right because the Democrats believe he was such a genius. However I think that would make anyone but the most diehard Clinton fans balk. Why is the Fourth democrat a senator who was defeated in an election where he was the only democrat incumbant to lose?
Republicans are slightly better, at least having attorney generals, and Supreme Court Justices from a variety of Area, but there's still a lot of concern to be had there. This just makes me feel there is just reason for anyone to ignore the report.
The bigger problem is they have debated reaching out to Iran and Syria for help on Iraq. Anyone who has a little knowledge of the situation of both countries knows Iran is a quagmire waiting to happen and have likely been sponsoring or instigating the insurgence in Iraq, Syria is normally seen as a group who has in the past conducting state sponsored terrorism, however they have "cleaned up their act" at least enough after 9/11 that we can pretend to work with them. Though both countries would have been better options to attack over Iraq, and still are, the only problem is both have issues that made them less desirable.
Seriously, do those of you who supported this criminal war really think the rest of the world, who could see exactly what was going to happen, will give any reaction except "I told you so"? Now Dubya's got 600,000 dead on his conscience. And I bet he sleeps like a baby.
Beating Saddam Hussein and his government was a monumental military success in spite of the debate about whether the invasion was executed on false pretenses or not.
The execution of the post-war operation however is self-evident as our experiment in "nation building" has been a monumental failure. On top of that the real reasons for invading Iraq which most Americans cannot come to terms with is really a cover for establishing bases in the middle-east for the long-term future. The Dubai Ports fiasco is also related to this and it all has to do with oil and the very survival of the American economy.
The real reality is that for the last 30 years, administration after administration and Congress after Congress has turned the United States into a big fat empire that bullies that maintains its standard of living by bullying the rest of the world through financial tribute. We do this through the American petrodollar. The moment that oil producing nations feel it is OK to abandon the dollar and start trading oil in Euros or some other currency, is the moment that the American economy goes into a severe depression that will make the Great Depression seem like a cakewalk. The signs are already there that America is on the ropes as currency speculators are now betting against the dollar because they see America as a beaten empire that can no longer force the rest of the world to purchase worthless fiat American dollars. Saddam Hussein was about to start trading in Euros and if America let him get away with it, then Saudi Arabia, Iran and everyone else would be tempted to do the same. But as long as America can defend its interests militarily, then countries from Japan to the nations that make up OPEC, are effectively coerced into doing business with the American dollar indefinitely.
America's military in other words allows our nation to essentially run up unlimited debts that we have little intention of ever paying. We don't need to invade nations, slaughter them completely, and take all their gold like the Romans did, rather we just need to force them to do their international business in dollars and most importantly force the oil rich nations to do their business in dollars.
So now the way this will likely play out is that George Bush at some point will be forced to pull out of Iraq or go down trying. The alternative is for America's economy to have the bottom fall out from under it. Maybe the conspiracy theorists are actually right in that it was George Bush's plan all along through "globalization" to hollow out Americas manufacturing base and allowed our internal infrastructure to crumble so that America's political stability turns into another Iraq once the shit hits the fan. Who really knows. But what is pretty certain is that tough times lay ahead for America when the petrodollar party is over. China knows this, Iran knows this, Russia knows this, Europe has the wool pulled over their eyes, and the rest of the world knows this and every nation looking to be a player in the 21st century is just patiently biding their time until America implodes from within.
There is a hell of a lot more at stake in Iraq than just terrorism which is often used as a strawman argument for the larger issues that are scarier than most people can imagine as they are complex and largely financial in nature. All our military might today will mean literally nothing if our country can't pay its troops or buy equipment tomorrow. At that point Al-Qaeda could invade us with an army of camel jockeys and we would fall.
Jesus H Fucking Christ, get some literate editors!
Giggity, giggity, giggity!
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
Showing any sign that in a guerilla fight that the West will cower in fear under Islamic militants is an incredibly stupid idea. They will of course take this to mean that they can spread their ways further and faster.
Last year, schoolgirls were beheaded in Indonesia as "trophies" for Ramadan. Nobody has been arrested, tried or punished in any manner. Indonesia has a majority Muslim population. How long before such trophies are taken in London or Melbourne? How about New York or Detroit?
If we let these people believe they can win in the Middle East, they will. In the face of a pullout Iraq (or at least a good portion of it) will certainly be annexed by Iran. Is this a good thing?
Better think about converting. The choice is coming and it will be conversion or death.
One US Liter.
:(){
I hope Bush and the next president (Repub preferred) tell these asshats to get lost. It took 6 years of martial law to turn Japan around after WWII and that wasn't exactly a fractured and highly charged atmosphere. Friggin' eurocrats and american "instant gratification" weenies. Changing a nation takes at least a decade. If you want to honor and respect the troops, demand Congress stop doing everything to undermine the effort in order to make this into another Vietnam so they can prance around in glory at being successful yet again at humiliating the very nation they dare to live in, and instead finish the job in decisive fashion. Frankly the use of tactical nukes is overdue. Turn it into green glass and the insurgents will quickly get the message. Elements of Japanese and German troops continued to wage operations against the conquering armies long after the War was declared over.
We pull out now and in 5 years we will have the terrortists doing their thing all over the world and with inpunity. Terrorists and insurgents deserve only one fate: slaughter.
The U.N. is falling apart. African countries the half size of Iraq is telling the U.N. they can't come in because they deny genocide is being committed within their borders.
NATO should've been dismantled a decade ago. It was formed to fight the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is gone, mission accomplished. So why are paying billions of dollars to support it?
Stable military? If you count the use of torture and chemical weapons against your own people and troops to maintain order a "stable military" you probably thought Stalin and Mao were the greatest military leaders in history.
A magnet for every disaffected youth? We had THREE places like that before the U.S. entered Iraq; Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian states/Israel.
Yeah, cause we all know Iran, Syria and Jordan want a democratic peaceful Iraq. /sarcasm
Democracy is about the will of the masses. Well if the Iraqi masses want to wage civil war with one another without U.S. interferance, I say give it to them!
You're getting pounded because your "facts" are doo-doo. It is more accurate to say, some people willed themselves to believe Iraq had WMDs, but they were ignoring MORE evidence that they did not. The intel community and most who had access to all the information thought Saddam did NOT have active chemical, biological, nuclear weapons programs. Those that "largely believed that Iraq had WMDs" were only told less than half of the story and did not have the facts necessary for an accurate conclusion.
On top that, even if I grant you "fact #2," so what?? Yes, Saddam was a bad man. Yes, in the long the people in Iraq have at least a shot at a better life without Saddam in change. But the President of the United States' primary responsibility is to the people of the United States! Any WMD Saddam had were a threat to the Iraqi people, were a threat to Iraq's neighbors, but were not a direct threat to the USA.
I'm not an isolationist. I think we (the USA) should be willing to help people around the world. I think it is in our best interest to have a world where more people live under stable democracies/republics, and less people live under stable dictatorships. But our #1 responsibility has to be to ourselves, and as we saw on 9/11 direct threats to the USA do exist. Iraq was not one of those direct threats.
But why does this matter? Isn't this just finger-pointing and Monday-morning quarter-backing? No, this does matter. Iraq is a bigger mess than it was 4 years ago, and the threats to the USA are greater than they were 4 years ago. If you want to reverse that trend, so might want to know a little bit about how we got where we are. Let me put it this way, when you apply for a job, do you decline to provide a resume of your past work because that would just be finger-pointing?
There's a job to be done. Let's look at the resume of the guy in currently in charge of that job. Bush--failed to prevent 9/11 in the first place. Bush--willfully ignored evidence to the contrary after unilaterally deciding Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat to the USA. Bush--puts political considerations above the lives of the fine men and women serving in the USA military. (Admits he had lost faith in Rumsfeld prior to but waited until after the Nov. election to replace him.) Bush--with the USA military active in two overseas conflicts, emboldens enemies to step up attacks against the USA. ("Bring it on.") Bush--has a consistent disregard for facts that, at best, borders on pathological. ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." "Mission accomplished." et al.)
One fact remains: we are there now, and having George Bush in charge does NOTHING to fix that. I'm not arguing about why we are there. Maybe Bush has some daddy complex that made him want to finish off Saddam in a way his father didn't. Maybe all the hold-overs from the first Bush administration felt they had unfinished business. Maybe it was just for the oil. Doesn't really matter; doesn't change what needs to be done now.
Stricly looking ahead, focusing on the best path forward from where we are right now, there can be no argument, the bus in going in the wrong direction, and that will not change until we change the guy behind the wheel.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? :/
Are there any former Yugoslavs on Slashdot?
Would you prefer to still be part of the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" under "President for Life" Tito, or was it better that the country was split up despite the "Yugoslav Wars" from 1991 and 2001 with 100,000 killed and 1.8 million displaced?
Serious question...
I.e. not all mj smokers or drinkers freeze, just those who use it as their only coping mechanism.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It is amazing to me that anyone can think this way.
In short: wrong answer. How do I know that? Ask yourself what you would think if a nuclear weapon were detonated on our soil by any adversary. Would you be cowed into submission and give our attacker free reign? Or would you redouble your efforts in the battle against this hypothetical enemy?
If you thought the latter, congratulations on being human—just like everyone else, including terrorists and insurgents. It is always the case that the greater force one side uses, the greater force the other side will use. You may be familiar with expressions like “arms race” and “cycle of violence”. Conflicts only end under two circumstances: when both sides lay down arms or when one side is completely annihilated. We will never achieve the latter because with every bomb we drop and every bullet we fire, one more person will feel inspired or even compelled to take part in the fighting. Our remaining options do not involve increasing firepower.
The in-out group mentality is so dangerous and counterproductive and I am amazed it persists to this day. Whether it is race or religion or any other distinguishing trait, people continue to dehumanize others because of what are trivial differences. There are endless examples in history which evidence the destructiveness of disregarding the humanity of others. With examples like the German persecution Jews, how could any learned individual think that just wiping out or slaughtering any group of people will solve our problems? Of course I am not trying to feign ignorance that there are people out there bent on destroying us or the West at large (on the contrary, I agree whole heartedly with Sam Harris on this topic), but it should be clear this mentality lies at the heart of the major conflicts transpiring right now.
You mean the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and other American revolutionaries, also once called insurgents by the British?
Why bother.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110003991
:|
Excerpts:
- "57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view."
- "Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."
But, you're right, probably better to wipe them all out. Who cares about what the majority really thinks when you've got you're "beliefs"
No sig.
While Bush has been waiting for this report our men have been dying nearly every day. Why does he need to wait for a report to decide what to do? The situation isn't apparent to him? He doesn't realise the urgency? He's supposed to be the Commander-In-Chief, our leader, yet instead of doing something himself, he's seemingly quite content to let more men die while he waits for other people to tell him what to do and how to lead. For weeks now, since he's begrudgingly admitted that the situation is not good, he's done nothing to change anything. And more damning that that, is there anyone here who thinks that Mr. bush and his advisors haven't already seen the report, probably weeks or months ago? Sitting around and changing nothing while men are dying the entire time? That is a disgrace.
The answer to why Bush has done nothing while he's been "waiting for the report" is very straightforward. He doesn't want to do anything. He doesn't want to change anything. The simple fact is that no matter what this report says, Mr. Bush is going to do exactly as he pleases. And exactly as he pleases is "staying the course", even if he no longer uses that phrase in public. More of the same. He's said as much.
Of course, there is all sorts of political pressure around him to do something, and at this point, anything. But as long as he is "waiting for the report" he doesn't have to do anything. That lets him continue the war longer. That lets him continue all of the contracts to Halliburton and others that much longer (more on that below), and to Mr. Bush, that is a great thing, even if a few more American lives are lost in the process.
And that is why it is truely a shame that this 10 person commission has no authority here. Nor do the Democrats. The commission can recommend whatever they want (heck, they might even have some brilliant ideas, its just that they won't ever be implemented). The Democrats can control as much of the Congress as they want. But at the end of the day, President Mr. Bush is in control of the military. The commission cannot force him to do anything. Neither can the Democrats, at least not without comitting political suicide themselves (yes, technically they could cut off all funding for the war, which would be immediately portrayed as abandoning our troops, rather than brining a just end to an unjust and unnecessary from the get go war)
Mr. Bush wants this war to continue for as long as possible. Its an economic windfall for everyone he cares about - namely his wealthy corporate friends. As long as Bush is President, as long as multi-million dollar no-bid contracts are being handed out to Halliburton and other FOBs (Friends of Bush), and as long as one American soldier still has one drop of blood flowing through his veins, Mr. Bush will continue this war.
And that is truely the way to stop this war, IMHO. Lets not bring home the troops (yet). Instead, lets bring home the contractors. Yes, lets end the plundering by Americans and American Companies of the United States Treasury under the pretext of helping the Iraqis. These guys have been helping themselves - helping themselves to a lot of our money and these are the people that Mr. Bush is beholdent to. End the money parade for US corporations and FOBs, and the motivation for the war will go away. Instead, lets fulfill our stated purpose of helping the Iraqis by helping their economy - lets give the contracts to Iraqis and to Iraqi companies. In fact, if it had really been Mr. Bush's purpose to help the Iraqi's, that is exactly what he would have done, starting on the day Mr. Hussein was forced from power.
Lets stop for a moment and reflect on the fact that Congress is about to consider a $100 billion dollar + emergency funding bill for the war. Are we insane? The Pentagon has even admitted that the Army and Air Force portions of that money are grossly inflated beyhond what they need to be. And since when did the US have a spare $100 billion (on top of what this whole debacle has cost us
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
would create more Indias and Pakistans with nukes!!!
I was never in support of Bush or this war, clearly an administration in the pocket of big oil and the neo-cons... My great disappointment and lagging question is why did Collin Powell depart from his loyality based military mind set and prevent the deaths of all these brave soldiers and civilians by holding up the Powell doctrine when the war was being pushed by Bush's administration? This mess, the arguements for war, and the aspects of the situation that pointed clearly to the diaster that would occur were clearly predicted by the situations failure to meet any of the doctrine points. I would normally simply cross this off to the fact that America can't seem to learn anything from history, even our own. However, the fact that Powell developed the doctrine from the learnings of Vietnam when he was chief of staff and was sitting inside the administation as sec of state during the build up to war, DAMN.... It isn't a secret that Rums, Cheney, etc. successfully neutered Powell within the administration, but if there was ever a time for a soldier (or politican) to fall on his sword, this was it!! I lost great respect for Powell over this and can't believe the Powell Doctrine was never raised as a question during any of the build up to war discussions. Unbelieveable...
I am Iraqi , and I still think that something like 'low level format' is needed for Iraq to start over. The US army did half finished job in 2003 , and the first thing they did there was opening the weapons huge stores all over Iraq for the ppl , it was just like a weapons sale (but for free !) ppl could get even MEG-29 , and sitrella missiles......and the US army was just watching ! most of the soldiers don't feel for any responsibilities , and still they don't...they are careless. I worked with them (IT sysadmin in a civilian unit) for more than 8 months and I saw really bad things.....the army is careless and the special units are opening their fire on anything that moves. Till now , the army their don't know who is their enemy , and how to identify and distinguish the good ppl for the bad ones. The worst thing was opening the borders for the terrorists.....I hate Saddam but I can't deny that he was doing that job very well...the radical terrorists never existed in Iraq , as they are the enemy number one for the Shiaa (60% of iraqis) , and the government was killing anyone with long ugly beard...Saudia Arabia tried to push the radical islam into iraq buy paying $1000 for any iraqi who starts converting....but Saddam treated those us traitors and killed them all in few weeks. now what we have got after 'liberating' iraq ??? Arab radical terrorists from Saudia,Egypt,Yamen...are controlling large areas of the west desert on iraq !they closed the schools , killed anyone who doesn't cooperate and again.....the US army still only watching. Few months before the war Saddam released thousands of criminals for the jails....and now the arab countries are using those to implement their plans in iraq as they are ready for kill their families for few $$$$ Now I have been away from Iraq since about 10 months , and will never think about going back there , the only thing I am missing there is my large room with CISCO 5300 Router and dedicated satellite transmitter !
Misclicked and with new mod system your change is immediate without confirmation as under the old system.
I find being offended by me offensive.
You are right in that Saddam was holding back the ethnic violence with overwhelming brutality, but that is done and over with now. He is gone the Shiites will never let him come back. The obvious problem now is that the US is all that is holding back an all out civil war. Sure, things are ugly now, but what happens when there is no forces available to put a lid on out and out ethnic armies marching down the road taking their time to murder every *fill_in_your_favorite_ethnicity_here*?
Pulling out might be the right thing to do; hell it might be the only thing to do, but as Americans we need to realize what we are condemning these people to. We already set up the conditions for the horrific blood letting we see today, and we are about to open the doors to a Rwanda style genocide. How are we going to feel if Baghdad becomes an open battle ground? How are we going to feel when entire towns are wiped out by ethnic violence? What happens when Iraqi military regulars enter Sunni towns and proceed to kill every single male of military age?
We are about to make this blood bath a lot worse. Sure, we won't be in the middle of it anymore, but we will still be completely responsible for it. Further, no one else is going to pick up this mess. The UN won't touch Iraq with a 10,000 mile long pole. The Arab League is completely impotent. No one is coming to save these people from themselves. The violence is going to end someday, but only because there is a limit to how much killing you can accomplish before one side simply picks up what little the have left and flee.
Sorry that's like the day after next WoW patch, I will be grinding the new PvP honor system!
Here's an idea for the US to somewhat vindicate itself: move the troops to Darfur and set up a safe area for the refugees near the border with Chad. This time most of the international community will support you, the local population will love you, there'll be a clear frontline and you'll do some actual good. Of course there's no oil but I'm sure that doesn't bother the lofty idealists in the white house.
n/t
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
We'd probably be willing to admit that the war was a big mistake (I was against it from the start, as my journals here can testify) if the anti-American left weren't about to astroturf about it the moment we admitted it.
30% of the public is never going to admit that it isn't working because 30% of the public doesn't want to embolden a bunch of traitorous scumbags.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
your thoughts are despicable. I dearly hopes that guys like you and Osama die out one day.
The US can do no right in Iraq in the current state. Pull back from Iraq, but spend the resource to help Afghan national government - she appears to be much more salvageable case, not to mention the US going in there to knock out Taliban is much more justifiable. Once Afghanistan is able to stand on her feet, it may even serve as model for Iraq.
Of course, maintaining stability in Persian Gulf oil lane is a major national interest of the US (and others who are dependent on the oil supply), but can't see how exerting influence from bit more distance (i.e., outside of Iraq's border) would be much worse than how it is at the moment.
It's weapons. Hand-weapons mostly, and stuff you can make improvised bombs out of - if you take out a dictator, and there are more than one peoples trapped inside the same nation, forced to mingle, then everything can still work out. Provided you can stop _any_influx_of_weaponry_in_the_country_. Then, after the shock is over, people will adjust to their new leadership and go on with their lives as they had before under the dictator.
Of course, Syria and Iran were not going to let that happen, if only because individual arms traders were making big bucks. Make no mistake - I thought the invasion of Iraq by the US was a huge blunder, but also consider this: if the US would have been able to seal the border (using millions of soldiers, and therefore impossible) after the invasion, order a big weapons destruction raid, then things would have been a lot better.
But, as I said, it is and was an impossible situation to wish for. This is something that should have been realised from the start.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Make that "consensus"!!
I love to see right wing idiots caught with their pants down, spinning and frothing at the mouth, lashing out at that mean old bitch Reality for daring not to agree with their dogma. The tone of your posts shows an angry, bitter man trying desperately to justify his outrageous assumptions by calling everyone who dares disagree with him delusional.
The fact is, you are the one with the delusions and the rest of the world is laughing at your pathetic attempts to justify your asinine worldview.
You must be so bitter about the failure of the US military, the Republicans, and the whole Neocon ideology. It must make you so angry to see the rest of the country turning away from such idiocy. It must really burn to know that your side are complete losers who like to touch little boys. And that makes me very, very happy. Schadenfreude is a beautiful thing.
It says so in their own kabinet memo of July 23, 2002 (!!!)
/02
And that makes the attack on Iraq a war crime accoring to the rules laid down after WW-II
(see downingstreetmemo.com)
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diff
Please do not try to tell me that any other American President, past or future, would not have done roughly the same thing that Bush did. We had to invade someone. We wouldn't be America if we just sat back and let anyone fuck with us like that. Exactly who the hell do they think they attacked? Spain? Fuck that!
And once and for all, all of you self-righteous Euro-liberals criticizing us while sitting in your 300-year-old cafes sipping your cappuccinos paid for with your generous pension money: there is not a damn thing we have done in the Middle East to protect our interests that you wouldn't have done if you had any balls. As a matter of fact you did do the same things way back when you used to sport a pair.
It is no coincidence that our administration suddenly drummed up an excuse to invade the middle east two weeks after 9/11. Bush knew that given the public's mood immediately following 9/11, we would accept any excuse no matter how half-baked to invade someone in the Middle East. Several past administrations have been looking for just such an opening. Clinton thought he had his back in '91, but it wasn't quite what he was looking for.
9/11 was the catalyst. It was President George W. Bush's opportunity to do what many American Presidents wanted so badly to do for so long: place a U.S. Army base smack dab in the middle of all that oil. And now we have one in Afghanistan, and another in Baghdad, both with nice big airports that can land our massive troop transports. With these new air bases we can now distribute boots on the ground anywhere significant in the middle east, and do so within hours.
Yes I am sure that ultimately we will be forced to wean ourselves off oil. But in the meantime we cannot sit idly by while our oil suppliers threaten and attack us. There are plenty of other countries that are more than glad to kiss any sheik's ass for a discount on crude. Well, we're one of them too, but we eventually get pissed off when the sheik backstabs us by taking our money and spending it on terrorists who then attack us. Fuck them, fuck the Middle East, and fuck anyone who fucks with the United States of America! God Bless.
But don't give me that crap of "bush tried to fix it". Come on!
It has ALWAYS BEEN FOR THE OIL.
I don't have a sig.
The protest in San Francisco was one of the largest, densest gatherings of human beings I've ever seen in the city -- far larger than the annual Pride parade, for example.
The "San Francisco Chronicle" -- owned by the Hearst Corporation, despite the "San Francisco" in the name -- published ridiculously low estimates of the numbers of people who attended this protest, claiming to have figured it out scientifically working off of a aerial photos. If you actually study the photo that they used closely though, you can tell that it was taken near the end of the protest march, when the crowd was already breaking up, to filter their way over to the speaches at the Civic Center, or just to head home. I'm pretty sure I was sitting in a coffee house a few blocks off the route when they snapped that photo.
I would call this a little worse than "under-reported" myself, I would say "falsely reported".
(You know, it's not like conservatives don't have an idea or two in their heads, but you wouldn't know it from the current crop of Bush Regime apologists... if you guys get any further out of touch with reality you're going to turn into extras on Gilligan's Island reruns.)
If I'm inclined to talk about the price in money, it's solely because Republicans have this odd reputation as "fiscal conservatives", and instead they appear to be bankrupting the country.
As for why "war on the cheap" would be expensive -- a lot of the tricks the US likes to use these days are actually quite expensive, e.g. cruise missles. If you try to substitute for ground troops with things like cruise missles, what do you think would happen?
here comes a lot of bull - especially prepared for the dozy persistent vegative state and terminally ill to foreign news american public.