When Saigon fell to the NVA, it led to the unification of Vietnam. When the Green Zone falls to the insurgents, it will lead to the dissolution of Iraq. Will anyone supply and arm the Kurds’ peshmerga? Will Turkey seize the oilfields around Kirkuk? Will Iran become our main ally in preserving the Shi’a elected government? Lord only knows what hell and disruption will be unleashed.
What seems increasingly clear is that the U.S. does not have the staying power, will, resources, or strategy to stick this out until the central government is strong enough to maintain order.
As was the case in Vietnam, the draw down of troops will be blamed on anti-war activists, and a critical domestic press. Given the repercussions of failure for our national prestige, our geopolitical standing, our military basing, our imperial ambitions, and to powerful people’s pocketbooks, we can expect some extreme measures will be undertaken to buck up American resolve.
But no amount of black-ops and propaganda can maintain our support for a war based on a pack of lies, a war poorly executed, a war that has tarnished our record on human rights, or a war with no light at the end of tunnel. And then there is the sheer cost of the endeavor.
It is not our fault that Rumsfeld used too few troops, ignored the State Department’s recommendations for the reconstruction period, and failed to anticipate the resistance, or their tactics. It’s not our fault that Bush failed to get our allies to provide troops, or the UN to rubber stamp the invasion. None of this is our fault, and yet we will be blamed.
The following quote, pretty much says it all:
It is not our fault that Rumsfeld used too few troops, ignored the State Department’s recommendations for the reconstruction period, and failed to anticipate the resistance, or their tactics. It’s not our fault that Bush failed to get our allies to provide troops, or the UN to rubber stamp the invasion. None of this is our fault, and yet we will be blamed.
It’s also not our fault that the whole premise for war was a big fat hairy lie perpetrated with the full complicity of the press. It’s not our fault that the administration, the military, the Dept of Defense, and the CIA is packed with incompetent yes men who couldn’t conduct a successful war if it came with foolproof instructions. It’s not our fault that Bush and his inner circle are drunk with power and undoubtedly the most corrupt administration in our history. The fact that public opinion has gone against the war is really amazing considering the unprecedented (for this country) control of the press. Yet when the insurgents finally go marching across the Green Zone, it will be the fault of the Democrats, Clinton, Liberals, the press, France, Martians and whoever else they can think of.
Hey folks, I know this is a little off topic, but please check out my diary on current conditions at Gitmo.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/25/12412/5099
the administrations of first Johnson and then Nixon did at least want to achieve a military victory, despite the absurdity of that idea given the context, and despite the pentagon suits’ gross incompetence in running that incursion.
But in Iraq, the Bush regime’s goal has nothing to do with “winning”; has nothing to do with military victory, or liberty for the Iraqis, or stability in the region.
This “war” is engineered to perpetuate itself; the apparent failures in strategy and planning and tactics are deliberate acts designed to insure permanent instability and spreading violence.
The very idea that this invasion was about WMD and stopping Saddam and bringing Democracy to the Middle East is the foundational lie out of which all the other lies flow. This is the true nature of the atrocity wrought by Cheney and his band of neocon psychopaths.
although I hear it a lot.
They may have disbanded the army to make our ongoing occupation necessary, but they thought they could control events.
The certainly did invade Iraq with the goal of electing an Iranian friendly government, only to leave with their tail between their legs. No, they fucked this up, even by their own standards.
I have to cautiously agree. A friendly (puppet) regime that provides affordable oil (with only a few bases to keep them friendly) would score political points and leave the troops available for another grand adventure.
Iraq doesn’t have, in itself, enough oil to satisfy the Cheney gang, and, in order to launch the troops off on another insane invasion, Cheney & Co need the violence and instability in Iraq to help create their pretext for other aggressions. (Example; If they want to invade Syria, they can claim Syria is facilitating terrorist getting into Iraq. Ditto for Iran.) If Iraq was stable and independent, these excuses wouldn’t be so readily available to them. They’d have a much harder time going after other regimes. Much easier for them to just keep the pot boiling over in Iraq.
the point that we are decisively losing the war in Iraq by any measure. Their allies in Congress are getting wobbly. It’s already been leaked that we and the Brits are going to start drawing down our troops next spring. It’s over.
My point is that we never intended to “win” this one. Iraq is a battle. It’s not the war. If, as a result of the invasion, we’ve increased the number of violent terrorists a hundred fold, then, if the pressure get’s too great from home to pull the troops out of Iraq, all that’s needed is another significant terror attack here at home in the US and the rationalization for remaining in Iraq is re-established in the blink of an eye.
I would like to think, as you say, that it’s over, that sometime soon pressure will be so great that the govt. will bring our troops home. I’d like to believe it but I don’t. I can’t even think of a Democrat who might make it to the presidency who would be able to bring the troops home from Iraq anytime in the forseeable future. I’m very sorry to be so pessimistic, but I think we’re deluding ourselves if we think the neocon lunatics are going to give up so easily and so soon.
and think about this for a second.
The GOP and the neo-cons are not the same thing. The neo-cons have lost all their credibility. They won’t go easily, that’s true. But their plans for Iraq are dead. We have given up. The plan now is chaos with honor.
We simply cannot afford politically or economically to sustain the effort. And we won’t.
Now, if you are arguing that the neo-cons will stage a massive terrorist attack against America in order to salvage their plans, well… we’ll see.
I certainly would hope not.
The neocon’s plan now is to widen the war by going after Iran. Their main problem with their Iraq plan is not that it’s screwed up, it’s that it wasn’t screwed up enough to be effective in inflaming the outrage of the Iranians and Syrians enough to draw them in to the conflict in a way that would have created the pretext for us to have attacked those 2 countries already.
Listen to Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen. They are certainly losing some knee-jerk GOP support, but they’re still capable of engineering enough trouble to ratchet up the violence on the world stage in order to reclaim enough support to continue advancing their plan. If they can’t get the votes they need to fund their aggression,they’ll look for a way for another major terrorist attack to happen.
you think London is part of that effort?
I know that they are capable of taking actions to maintain support for the war. But you are essentially predicting that they will opt for a draft, more billions of spending we don’t have, and they will do a 9/11 operation to get it done.
That’s a very cynical view.
I don’t think the London events were engineered by the Cheney gang. But I have no doubt they would facilitate such atrocities if they felt they needed to to maintain support for their war agenda.
As to the idea of the draft and billions more dollars, I think widening the war into Iran and Syria, for instance, wouldn’t necessarily require more “boots on the ground” in the near term. A few bomber and fighter squadrons with missiles and bombs would be sufficient to ignite the broader conflagration. and once that happened the violence would spread at an exponential rate. And if this widening sphere of violence resulted in more attacks against the West, such an environment of escalating terror could very likely make it much easier for the neocons to press for a draft a few years down the line, (after Bush is put out to pasture on the farm.) I’m not saying this would happen, and indeed I can see how future plans could be stymied, either by a democratic majority or a real economic crisis. all I’m saying is that it could happen, and that I think such calculations are an integral part of the neocon game-plan.
I’m reminded of Graham Greene’s excellent book “The Quiet American”, which explores a similar theme in the context of French controlled Vietnam. (A recent film updates the context to the American incursion into Vietnam).
I’ll say it again. I have no doubt that the Cheney cabal of lunatics would barely hesitate to facilitate a terrorist attack on innocent civilians if they believed doing so would advance their cause. In my bones, I’m certain Cheney and Perle, etc. were celebrating in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, happy that the stupid fool binLaden gave them their pretext for war on a platter. Cynical? Perhaps. but I for one would rather be suspicious of proven bloodthirsty liars than invent some way to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think there’s an element of realism in my view, as uncomfortable as it makes me feel.
BooMan, it would be interesting to know your opinion of this scenario. (At Eurotrib, apparently, noone had an opinion about it…)
more inclined to see the raid on Chalabi’s offices and the rumor that he leaked our codebreaking to the Iranian’s as an elaborate attempt to rehabilitate him in the eyes of Iraqis, and it seems to have worked, considering his current position in the government.
Thanks. A valid hypothesis.
BTW.
Thanks much!
We’re all racing towards the crematorium at a speed of 24 hours a day…
Like Karl Rove “bugging” his own office.
Do you think most Iraqis now support Chalabi? I’m more inclined to think most view him as Riverbend does. (Great post From her: “Chalabi for the Nobel Peace Prize….” Iraqi snark.)
Most Iraqis probably blame Chalabi for the chaos in their country. They think he is a scoundrel. But double-crossing the Americans certainly improves their impression of him.
Even now they’re counting on the so-called Iraqi govt. disintegrating under the pressure of Suuni/Shia/Kurdish/insurgent rivalry.
I don’t think the Bush gang cares one whit whether the Iranian’s have more influence or not because they want their war to spread to Iran anyway. And if Iran get’s too busy in Iraq, that will help them create the excuse for bombing Iran.
Here’s the broader point I see. I think it’s important for the rest of the American people to begin to understand that the apparent “failures” in Iraq are not due to incompetence; that these “failures” are in fact deliberate because the goals of the Bush gang require violent instability throughout the region over decades to come.
Had Cheney allowed Bush to come forward and tell the American people; “We are going to invade Iraq because we need to transform the Middle East in a way that will allow us to gain control of the petroleum reserves. The only way we can achieve this is through war and it’s a process that will take decades.” Would the American public have supported something like this? I think not. You can read up on this idea in PNAC’s seminal doctrine Rebuilding America’s Defenses, and you can also get a much better and more coherent view of what I’m saying by reading Jay Bookman’s excellent article here.Here’s one small quote from the PNAC document.
Since I am only a member of the public without any sort of inside access to info, my knowledge of events is limited to what I pick up from the news and the internet. I have to say though that, try as I might, I haven’t been able to identify one single major policy or strategy decision out of the Pentagon or the White House that indicates any evidence of a desire or a plan to “win” in Iraq. Maybe you and others here can think of one, and I’d love to hear about them, but I cannot.
I accept the idea that it’s extremely hard for normal, rational human beings to admit that their leaders are capable of such ruthlessness, such disregard for their own citizens and soldiers. I can barely imagine, for instance, how difficult it must be for parents to finally admit that what their child is telling them about being raped by the parish priest is true.
But I see this like that. Just as pedophile priests count on their authority to discourage their victims from exposing them, so too highly placed officials often rely on the reluctance of the public to believe them capable of such crimes.
Cheney and his warmonger pals are sociopaths and psychopaths. Their first and only allegiance is to themselves and to the insane agenda they’re so infatuated with. The best interests of the country are only incidental to their maniacal ambition for empire. 1768+ American dead? To them this is a small price, an inevitable price, some else must pay in order for their dreams of empire to be realized. The sooner we, the public, realize this about them, the sooner we can begin to effectively deal with extricating our soldiers from Iraq and begin restoring the honor and principles of the country.
We need to reveal to the world that we recognize the monstrous nature of the Cheney cabal and that we repudiate them completely. Without being able to do so, I think it’s doubtful we’ll be able to restore any international trust in America for generations to come.
That theory doesn’t work.
They wanted to install Chalabi, sign lucrative contracts to drill and pipeline oil, build permanent bases in Iraq, and then roll up Syria, and Lebanon.
Having completed that mission, they would turn to Iran.
However, it all went wrong when they ran into Sistani.
The prerequisite for carrying out their plans was a quick and decisive victory in Iraq, the retreat to barracks of our troops, the building of new airbases, and the continued support and adulation of a successful war President, here at home.
Some degree of chaos was ginned up initially, but they have failed utterly in their master plan. We will be leaving soon. And we will gained nothing of what he hoped to gain. Once more, their dream of rehabiltating the American public’s Vietnam malaise will have failed, and will be reinforced.
“The Iraqis proved themselves unworthy,” will be the mantra. “We served them freedom on a silver platting, and they declined it.”
Rush Limbaugh already said this a year ago. In a year from now it should be possible for officials to say it, in suitably euphemistic terms.
Sounds like the same rhetoric used by Clinton against Arafat in Camp David (not to open a new can of worms).
If they wanted to establish stability and control in Iraq they would have secured the ammo dumps immediately after the invasion, they would have hired the Iraqi army rather than send all 400,000 of them to the unemployment lines, (where their anger and frustration would finally drive them to take up arms against the occupier), they would not have allowed the idiotic “De-Baathification” process to be implemented in a way that virtually guaranteed the various ministries and schools and hospitals and vital infrastructure facilities within Iraq could not function, and they would have immediately started pumping money into local Iraqi contractors hands for rebuilding the infrastructure and getting the economy going again, rather than giving 90+% of the money to outside, coalition contractors. They would have seen the wisdom of embracing Sistani early on inorder to prevent his position from being able to evolve so easily into an Iranian-friendly one. Maybe yousee all of this as mistakes, but I see such blatantly obvious oversights and as evidence of deliberate negligence and provocation.
I don’t expect to convince you to agree with my assessment, but I cannot imagine that any military commanders could have neglected to secure ammo dumps or been so cavalier in permitting the dismissal of the Iraqi army with out even disarming them unless they were ordered specifically to do so.
I think you’re both right. They wanted a stable Iraq (remember the original plan for 16 military bases) AND a disintergrating region outside of Iraq.
Don’t listen to the BM. Your dead on. The Administration’s goal is to decrease regional stability and increase anti-US sentiment for the long term.
Like the painful strategy of stalemate in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has allowed for Israeli resource domination in disputed areas (water especially), the Administration feels that this will provide political cover for preserving our preferred access to natural resources and transportation routes, and if necessary to expand that access.
They Bushies’ ability to influence the interpretation of events into history is critical to this strategy. They produce a stream of white noise distractions, lies, red herrings and rumors about the veracity of all information sources (including themselves, it sometimes seems) so that all information on the subject is in doubt.
Once the flow of real information is shattered, the guy with the power and the information control gets to right history. Bushies don’t need to control all media, as long as they control the one who knows how to interpret the history of events before they are occur.
If you consider the idea that America the nation can lose a war while it’s corporations can win it? How much more money did defense contractors make in Vietnam, precisely because it was a ridiculous, ineptly managed slog. How much more politically entrenched?
Has it occurred to you that that plan won’t work if the neo-cons lose public trust and support at home?
Even if they wanted to keep a level of chaos in Afghanistan so we could maintain our air bases in Central Asia, the plan falls apart if they get tossed out of office for 40 years.
They fucked this up. First we suffer, the corporations suffer later.
Has it occurred to you that BOTH parties are beholden to these same folks, that neo-cons provided a convenient ideological excuse for general war mongering and have always been expendable. It is a mistake to pretend that the Dems aren’t knee deep in blood money as well. They just have happier domestic policy. That’s great for quelling domestic unrest here in the states while the world burns for our blood. A few terms of Dem control of one or two branches will make folks like you quite happy but do absolutely bupkiss towards putting out the fire this guy has started. Even if we try to stop, they won’t.
Unlike the cold war, the Judeo-Christian Empire vs. Islam has no mutual deterrence. It will stay hot for a generation or two. And since “Value” is equivalent to human suffering (refute that!), it’s big money for those willing to tuck into the bloody communion of War’s ‘necessary’ sacrifice of the innocent.
If the goal is to get one party in or out of office, then fine. Bush is a screw up. If the point is to represent the interests of his constituencies (the famous military-industrial complex), he has been a terrific success. How many years before there is any sort of rollback in defense spending? Or in DHS spending?
Tell me my hat is made of foil, but don’t say I’m wrong. It will haunt you.
Has it ever occured to anyone that some people actually believe in their convictions even though most people here find them ridiculous?
Wolfie is a friend of Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama’s book The End of History outlines much of this thought. I don’t know if you have read it or are familiar with it, but thet basic hypothesis is that the end of history, history meaning great large battles with parties of different ideology, occurred when Napoleon defeated the Prussian army at Jena in 1806 and since then the ideas of the Enlightenment and of the French Revolution have become universal. He basicallly thinks that free, democratic societies fit (wo)man’s nature and that no person who has lived in one of these societies would want to anything less.
Now, I don’t agree with the full text, but I think that this ideology is apart of the neo-con movement. That is perhaps why Wolfie thought the Iraqis would greet us with open arms.
It really doesn’t matter what the salesman believes as long as he’s a closer.
Interesting how people reach back in history to grab a reference point. I suppose it’s all in the name of politics, but drawing a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is comparing apples and rocks. Vietnam was not “regime change”. It was an extension of a conflict fully engaged in 1945 between a colonial power and it’s surrogate government, and a revolutionary army.
Quibble. The facts are not in evidence that Baghdad – or any other region of Iraq – will “fall” in any sense of the word. I suppose if you view the conflict from this side of the Atlantic your analysis makes sense. However, I doubt the perspective is the same in-country.
The “insurgency” is not driven by a well-organized force, but rather elements of ex-Baathists, terror cells, internecine religious battles, personal revenge killings, and a substantial group of common criminals. In a country created by lines on a map by Britain & the Ottoman empire.
They are engaged in the process of creating a new country from scratch in less than three years – actually less than one. Given that most of the country is an armed camp (thank you Rummy, et. al.), it’s a wonder the casualty figures aren’t higher. The constitutional process moves forward with the return of the Sunni contingent this morning, and they are on track to meet the deadlines imposed by UNSCR 1546.
Most important: we have yet to see the real damage. Our forces are holding back on limited mission objectives while the Iraqi forces are being slowly deployed around the country. As they are deployed we will begin to see how the new Iraq will be governed. It won’t be pretty. But it will be theirs.
That is the tension of the moment, and has little to do with a “multinational force”. We are tolerated as a necessary evil until such time as the Iraqis assume full police powers over their country. Bush (strangely) got what he wanted: an independent Iraq. Free to contract with half the planet, and recently sign agreements with it’s long-suffering neighbor – “axis” member Iran – for military and commericial development.
Never underestimate the power of the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny. Our politicians and planners will suffer ignominous defeat at the hands of the electorate in ’06, but Iraq will survive.
that the sitting government can hold off increasingly well-armed and coordinated attacks by different militias after we leave.
Yes, right now the it seems that the more likely scenario (after we leave) is chaos. Hopefully I’m wrong about this. But given the insurgency’s “success” with it’s limited resources, I can’t imagine things will be much better after the pullout short of something dramatic happening.
I’m assuming the well-armed Iraqi forces will simply exterminate anyone they believe to be fighting against the government. I’m also assuming the Iraqi people will not tolerate further killing of innocents, and will therefore assist in the stabilization efforts of their government.
Blowing up a group of children, kidnapping teachers, doctors, and friendly foreign envoys will not endear those “militias” to the population.
Oh sure, there are oodles of parallels, but there is one very, very important difference:
Um, what anti-war movement?
Since the outbreak of the war, there have been no significant anti-war protests in the US. Yes, there were gigantic ones before the war, but nothing worth mentioning since. Congress has bent over backwards to give Chimpy what he wants. The left has bitched and quibbled, but no one is spitting on soldiers in airports or staging any of the large-scale antics which characterized the Vietnam-era anti-war movement. Today’s anti-war movement, such as it is, bears a lot of resemblance to the President’s National Guard service: mostly AWOL.
The right will not be able to blame this one on us, unless they want to blame the left for not doing enough to stop them.
Anti-war activists weren’t spitting on soldiers during the Vietnam years. This was a right-wing myth created to discredit Vietnam veterans who were active in the anti-war movement.
There is an erroneous idea that the anti-war movement was a major force in America throughout the war. It grew gradually, fueled by returning veterans telling their stories, organizing in groups such as the VVAW. By draft deferment categories shrinking so that more and more middle class young men were forced to choose between boot camp, prison, or exile. By – eventually, but not in the first years – TV newscasts showing the reality of war on the evening news.
This Iraq war has been happening for a little more than two years. Having lived through both times, the American public’s support for this war, now, is much less than the support for the Vietnam “police action” was in 1967. It was not until the 1968 presidential elections that the antiwar movement began to reach any kind of critical mass and truly widespread, large scale protests began in late 1969 when the draft lottery was enacted, and grew even larger in 1970, following Kent State.
.
The Kurds will be seen as pro-American corroborators against the Arabs of Iraq, perhaps a position as the Vichy administration in France.
The Kurds are completely surrounded by their enemies: Turkey, Syria, Iran and the Arabs of Iraq. Their plea for an independent state will be suicidal, as history has repeatedly shown.
Perhaps General Bush’s last stand: the Kurdish oil triangle Kirkuk – Mosul – Arbil.
Syrian Alawites
In 1971 al-Assad became president of Syria. Alawite status was significantly improved and in 1974 Imam Musa al-Sadr, leader of Twelver Shiites of Lebanon proclaimed that he accepted the Alawites as real Muslims. Until that time, Muslim authorities – both Sunni and Shiite – had refused to recognize them as true Muslims.
Excellent diaries BooMan and Sirocco!
~~~
The Bush gang won’t help defend the Kurds either.
Its like if that scene in the movie Bear. At the end a little cub bear is being attacked by some other animal (forget what, lets say a wolf). And the cub howls and you hear this really loud noise and then the camera backs up and you realize it wasn’t the cub that was howling but it was the cub’s mom. Well we are the cubs mom, and when we leave the Kurds will be that lone cub dealing with the wolves.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel+kurds+mossad&btnG=Google+Search
WAKE UP PEOPLE
Israel continues to and will aid the Kurds.
.
Thanks for link – the natural resources alliance with the Kirkuk – Mosul – Arbil are indeed powerful.
The reporting of Israeli Mossad infiltration in Southern Kurdistan provides a microcosm of the problem Kurds face in perception in the world–as judged by the reaction to the news by the Israeli and Kurdish governments, the enemy states surrounding Kurdistan, and the global opinion. The veteran American journalist Seymour Hirsch brought this information to light with the same aims he had upon his unearthing of the scandal at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.
News of Kurdish “collaboration” with the Israeli Mossad was meant to be a revelation of how the Bush adventure in the region was spiraling into instability, news that is pleasing to the ears of progressive Europe and the liberal elite in America. The Turkish foreign ministry leaked the “secret” to Seymour Hirsch with at least two aims in mind. [First] to embarrass the Israeli government, as relations between Israel and Turkey are going through a rough period, and to deceive the Americans into thinking how once more the interests of the Turks are ignored in Kurdistan.
While the reaction of the enemies of Kurdistan and the progressive global opinion is understandable, the purpose of the vehement denials of the existence of a relationship between Israel and Kurdistan by their leaders is not clear. This attitude is detrimental to both Israel and Kurdistan. The Israeli and Kurdish people have a great deal in common, from their determination to live in freedom to having a mostly common enemy. These are good reasons for Israel to ally itself with Kurdistan. For Israel, a strong Kurdistan will be a major buffer against the Arab and Islamic world. For Kurdistan, a strong alliance with Israel should bring much needed military strength and critical access to the seat of power in Washington.
Kurdistan Observer/Editorial July 27, 2004
~~~
.
BAGHDAD July 25, 2005 (LA Times) — Three men in an unmarked sedan pulled up near the headquarters of the national police major crimes unit. The two passengers, wearing traditional Arab dishdasha gowns, stepped from the car.
At the same moment, a U.S. military convoy emerged from an underpass. Apparently believing the men were staging an ambush, the Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The sedan’s driver was hit in the head by two bullet fragments.
The soldiers drove on without stopping.
This kind of shooting is far from rare in Baghdad, but the driver of the car was no ordinary casualty. He was Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit. His passengers were unarmed hitchhikers whom he was dropping off on his way to work.
“The reason they shot us is just because the Americans are reckless,” the general said from his hospital bed hours after the July 6 shooting, his head wrapped in a white bandage. “Nobody punishes them or blames them.”
~~~
~~~
You left this part out:
“Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition,” said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. “The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them.”
I love this site and all of archive!
You are a great webmaster
成人用品 伟哥 阴茎增大 成人用品 伟哥 阴茎增大 成人用品 伟哥 阴茎增大 注册上海公司 虚拟空间 域名申请 条形码 条形码 注册商标 商标注册 商标 安利 培训系统 考试系统 学习系统 电话营销 企业名录 市场营销 手机查询 电话查询 性病 尖锐湿疣 服装进销存 海南旅游 三亚旅游 海南酒店 三亚酒店 条码打印机 销售管理 客户关系管理 crm软件 安利 成人用品