He is right about some things. The crusade is not in the interest of the US. Iraqis are united in opposing invasion and occupation by a horde of brutes.
But he is wrong when he says that this condition came about as a result of the Abu Ghraib photos. And he is wrong when he says that the problem can be solved by shifting the gunmen to one or more nearby “bases” where they will remain poised, guns trained, coiled like a python ready to strike. That may be freedom from occupation in the eyes of Americans, but no one should deceive themselves that the populations of the target region will have the same view.
Murtha has a lot of company in this notion that somehow what the US corporate media shows the American public is the problem.
Out of sight, out of mind, say some. Just take the whole thing underground, make it a “covert” crusade. By far the most popular suggestion for better crusade management (not specifically mentioned by Murtha, but loudly championed by others: outsource the wetwork. Rent some expendables from whichever “leader” is the biggest dollaho and watch those “US casualties” taper off.
I will be the first to acknowledge that doing that would have a dramatic effect on US public opinion. No one can deny that media reports of war crimes, graft and profiteering have impacted mainstream Americans, and inspired some questioning of their country’s policies.
Granted, the internet and other advances in technology present new challenges to keeping covert operations covert, but the US controls the internet, and can merely shut it down in countries where it conducts its covert operations, and undertake similar measures to restrict use of cell and satellite phones and other communications to US operatives and selected in-country collaborators.
And it would certainly be possible to crack down on US media, make sure that Mr. and Mrs. America see nothing but Rendonews, and any reports of US activities are confined to local, far away newspapers that are not even in English.
Just like the doings at the Ghraib, and the details of the Fallujah massacre were originally. Just unreliable reports from terrorist propaganda organs. And just like most of what the US does outside its borders still is. The policy implementation depicted in the Abu Ghraib photos may have been news to Murtha, but it was not news to the victims and their families and friends.
I guess you could make the argument that under the circumstances, it doesn’t matter much. The corporations are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what the American people want. There is still plenty of money to be made from the crusade, and it is not likely that any of the entities who are making all that money are going to say, well I guess we will just forfeit that next billion or so, because some of the public saw some pictures of melted children on a website and heard a disgruntled ex-employee of somebody on a television program.
Regardless of all the political shenanigans, regardless of all the internecine beltway feuding and jockeying and backbiting and airblowing, and regardless of whether it is televised or Pentagon-briefed or published in the Washington Post, American tax dollars are going to continue funding the slaughter of Iraqis, and the stuffing of the pockets of war profiteers, and the threat to the safety and security of ordinary Americans that all that entails will continue to march apace.
Keeping it all out of the press and on the down low might provide, no, it definitely will provide an immeasurable amount of psychological comfort to a sizeable percentage of the American public.
However, the thoughtful should keep in mind that simply because CNN or WaPo does not report it, and therefore the mainstream US public does not know of it, that does not change the larger reality, and it is that reality that determines the safety of Americans, not the doings of politicians and media companies.
The questioning, the debate, such as it is, that takes place among mainstream Americans about how best to impose US will on the oil producing region may be a perception problem, from Washington’s point of view.
However, from the point of view of the victims, it is not a perception problem, but a reality of military aggression problem, a colonialism problem, a murder and maiming and kidnapping and torture problem.
And it is in the hands of those victims, and their surviving friends and family, as well their neighbors in the region, that US has chosen to place the security of American citizens, and the future of American children.
I’m a long way from saying that his plan is perfect. But I’ve always liked the saying that “the perfect” shouldn’t be the enemey of “the good.” His plan is a step in the right direction, even if I wouldn’t adopt all his reasons, and even if I believe that his plan would only be a start toward a total dismantaling of the U.S. imperial regime.
Precisely. He’s wrong, but his plan is a good start.
Has outlined and everything that he has said. His idea though of having us poised and ready allows Iraq to be Iraq and blows that whole withdrawl date aiding the terrorists thing to shit. See, we withdrew to allow Iraq to be Iraq but we will come back if anybody gets too stupid during this shake out. It gets our soldiers the hell out of the middle and places putting them back in there on the table to be debated and negotiated!!!! Sorry, but having people I love in the middle of all of this and hearing the other sides arguments it was the exact same conclusion that I came to that would appease the arguments that America is having right now and gets our guys/gals out of there. Abu Ghraib did forever change everything and it has nothing to do with the media showing things that aren’t supposed to be shown……..Iraqi’s will never “get over” Abu Ghraib nor should they. Abu Ghraib is done though now and we have no credibility in the area and our presence feeds the insurgency so it is best that we withdraw, but placing our troops temporarily in place where we can come back in if things get too stupid shoots the “cut and run” argument right out of the air. I find his arguments and plans brilliant.
and has the advantage of offering that segment of the public who have begun to question how Washington is running the crusade the appearance of a cessation, while maintaining a large number of gunmen in the region in order to serve the interests of the corporations and facilitate covert operations.
You are correct that US has no credibility in Iraq, nor in the region, and the client states that would be used for surveillance and covert operations do not wish to host these activities, that is, the populations do not, and propping up the dollaho leaders and funding “crackdowns” on those populations is increasingly expensive, increasingly ineffective, and puts US gunmen and torturers, both covert and overt, increasingly at risk.
Just as, as you say, Iraq will not “get over” Abu Ghraib, they will not “get over” any of the crimes against humanity committed in this crusade, and they have not gotten over 8 decades of colonialist adventurism and all those attendant crimes against humanity, either.
The risk to Americans, not only American torturers and gunmen, but American civilians living in the US, is not what the US public knows or perceives or sees on TV or reads in the paper about US activities, but the actual reality on the ground in the crusade theatre.
While Mr. Danger frequently refers to Iraq as the center of his war against those who would stand between America and its oil, US policies have made the crusade a regional reality. People in the region have a very clear understanding of US intentions, and the number of families whose lives have not been negatively impacted by US policies is shrinking.
Enthusiasm for being killed or tortured by the Americans remains low throughout the region, and it is not realistic to suppose that this will change.
One of the things that Murtha is right about, namely that US presence is not in the best interests of the US, does not mean that US presence in Jordan or Kuwait will be in the best interests of the US, at least not the expendables deployed there, or the civilians at home.
It will, of course be in the best interests of the corporations, who do not care either about the expendables or about their families, or ordinary Americans in general. And the politicians are there to serve the interests of the corporations, not yours.
One thing that I do not know if Murtha is right about or not, he says mainstream America and the politicians do not agree. Whether he is right or wrong does not matter. What the people of the US think, or want, does not matter, nor does their safety matter to the crusade’s intended beneficiaries.
America’s chance at a future, at security, lies in repatriation, not shoving peas around trying to hide them under the broccoli.
but on this I do. Murtha has not outlined where we would be “waiting in the wings” should things flare up nor have we talked numbers needed to wait in the wings. If the numbers needed are compared to anything like what we have in South Korea per actual existing threat…..then three or four soldiers will have to stay back (ha ha, just a small joke there). Having us withdraw to behind the lines positions is exactly what the corporations fear the most. They want a troop presence on the damn ground in the middle of hell until they can establish various puppets in Iraq who will do their bidding (which hasn’t worked so well thusfar but they continue to hope). Truth is that anything remotely resembling a democracy in crazy Iraq will never serve the Corps because the other two groups of assholes there with you will always point out that you are siding with the exploiters. Leaving Iraq to it’s own devices and only entering the fray again if horror is taking place is exactly what the corporations fear the very very most……they have lost everything they hoped to exploit if we fall back into the wings and let a true democracy take Iraq! If all we do is insure that Iraqis are all fairly distributed throughout the government and genocide ain’t happen there, then nobody will be exploiting shit for awhile until old enemies can decide to be new friends! That is why Bushco can’t seem to make up its mind who are really their friends over there. We despise Iran, but the Shia are the majority so currently we are buddying up with them so that we can throw goodies their way and hopefully they will bow before us like dogs…..and we will beat the shit out of the sunnis for them. We haven’t released the Kurds though from our “friendship” though just in case the Shia get too far out of line like Iran out of line or something. In order for this spoils of power/victim system to work we have to have our victims and the Sunnis have of the three groups played the easiest into our hands for that! To declare that Iraq doesn’t need us unless the country is burning down is to cut all the corporate lines that the corporations are trolling through the powers that could end up running Iraq with. They would rather slit my throat and eat my children raw than have such a thing take place!
go for it.
The crusade is regional. US already has operatives in Syria, has for months, as you probably know. They have NATO doing flyovers, to map out whatever anti-aircraft is there. They have moved huge numbers of gunmen and weapons to the Jordan border, and flooded the place with even more mercenaries than are necessary for Abdullah the Hashemite to take a safe pipi.
It is not necessary to keep them in Iraq proper, in fact, they can’t keep too many of them there and spread democracy on Syria at the same time, much less on Iran, which, as you know, is 3 times the size of Iraq, has 3 times the population, which is not half-starved after 12 years of softening up, plus Iran has an air force.
The “civilian contractors,” as one posted here just yesterday, favor covertisizing Iraq. As domestic questioning grows, so do media reports that are critical of everything from the practices of Halliburton to the role Blackwater “contractors” in “training” the Iraqis.
I am not going to make any predictions about when the Kurds will wake up. They are like the proverbial neer do well cousin who stays in an abusive relationship and develops denial into an art form. One would have thought they would get the message, if not back in the Bay of Baghdad scam, during all those years of Good Kurd Bad Kurd in Turkey. But no, they just keep on coming back for more.
But I digress. If the corporations can keep the game going and keep making money, they don’t really care if the gunmen sleep in Kuwait or in Mosul. And they might be marginally safer in Kuwait, today, than in Mosul, but once they have been there for a while, and US policies continue to be implemented, however covert and away from CNN cameras, outsourced or not, that margin of safety will go away.
What the corporations do not want and will not do is – you guessed it – cease aggression, disarm, and repatriate. That would mean an increase in safety for Americans, both civilian and military, but it would also mean a decrease in revenue to the corporations, and business is business.
merc’s be there? The Bush administration has justified them being there by saying that they are body guards for American representatives and they guard military convoys that the soldiers are too busy to guard and such things as that. If American forces aren’t in Iraq then there isn’t any reason for the merc’s to be there other than they are being employed by Iraqi’s. Look, we attacked Fallujah because of what they did to our “mercs” who were supposedly guarding a food convoy (such utter bullshit). But if our forces aren’t in Iraq then our Mercs ought not to be in Iraq and if they are and they get their fucking asses shot off and their heads lopped off it ain’t any of my business or yours…….it’s just a free market economy in the middle east and that’s what that is. Your argument still isn’t making any sense to me Ductape! Without our troops to back them up Blackwater ain’t shit in the big desert! They’re just another fuckin thug with a gun then and they tend to have short lives in that desert! If they want to be these volunteers fighting in Iraq that I hear about so much let em go it until they are fried up and snuffed! I for one do not give a shit and they ain’t anything special and black ops aren’t anything special either….fuckin Rummy is all about the spookey mysterious black ops and he has his ass handed to him in Iraq numerous times now!
that the reason they will be giving for having US gunmen in Kuwait a year from now, being very optimistic and assuming that there will be a US or a Kuwait a year from now, will be to protect the “civilian contractors” as well as the “Iraqi army” and “covert aspects of the war on terror.”
The warlords are more malevolent than even you may suspect.
Look, we attacked Fallujah because of what they did to our “mercs” who were supposedly guarding a food convoy (such utter bullshit).
There is a problem with this contention tho. Gen Sattler, who replaced the previous field commander for Fallujah (Conyers), Sattler was on record as stating that we were ready to roll on Fallujah, the killing descration of the mercs was not a “trigger”.
There was an extended quote (longer than the truncated versions that appeared elsewhere from the same interview) that slipped into Space.com. (later scrubbed) a longer version of a reply he made in a small pool reporters interview with him while he was still at Centcom, tho it was (iirc) announced he would be coming to Fallujah. Sattler is a heavy duty “crusader” type, quite differnt from Conyers who gave some pretty open (for that stage of the war) interviews at the close of his command. Plus in my opinion, the mil knew it would most likely carry out the Thanksgiving campaign against Fallujah, long history of rebellion in that region and int hat town, more than just “Sunni”. That town defied Saddam and the British.
I fully expect thsi to move to privatised, paramilitary and AF based war.
The country needs (for appearance) to move minimum 30 -50 K (20K bump up due to elections, in any case) out of the war theatre over the next few months, move to hardened bases, and reduce the KIA in country. they won’t be aboandoning the permanent bases (nobody talking about those, I notice) nor the oil/water/resources, nor the geopolitical strategic position.
To my view, America is largely irritated the war did not go better (as if wars do, but there will be no ticker tape parade, like for GW1, down 5th Ave…) that gas is high and they do feel some discomfort over the continueing “bad news”.
About where it is at. IMO.
Security, stability, liberty and functioning Democracy are definitely anathema to the creatures in the US who initiated this war
I am happy that Murtha sees that our cause is hopeless in Iraq. But we can’t be satisfied just because one prominent hawk flipped. We need to keep pressing Congress to come up with better plans that they can sell to the public.
Funny how Iraqis went from being a literate, well educated people before the invasion, with many scientists and doctors and so on, capable of understanding complex systems and situations, and a ‘threat’ to the US and the world, for these very reasons…
…to being a mostly illiterate, childlike people after the invasion, incapable of understanding the simplicity of democracy, or of deciding for themselves their system of government, their security or the fate of their country – a ‘threat’ to the US and the world unless we either help them or in fact make the decisions for them.
I think Murtha’s plan is a start, in that it has at least gotten people to the point of talking and thinking about maybe planning to plan to one day leave Iraq, maybe.
who before the crusade, presented the argument that Iraq should be invaded because Iraqis possessed the intellectual capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, John was stepping out of his mainstream cultural reference in order to make his case for war.
Even on here I have seen people argue that only westerners are capable of understanding complex processes and intricate concepts. It is funny and charming in its own wacky way, but it would be more so if it were not weaponized. If only the Americans would simply stand on their porches and shout these things at passers-by, as opposed to slaughtering multitudes, the world would be a safer place and America would have a world class tourist attraction.
To address your other point, I do think that discussing US policies could have some benefit for Americans, and I agree that if political hijinks cause this, it will be a good thing, and may even encourage reading and independent thought in some sectors that have remained steadfastly untempted by these vices.
However, I do not think that it is realistic to suppose that public discussion will have an impact on what the warlords do. At some point, yes, a correction will occur, as happens with empires, but sadly, this seldom occurs as a reasoned and gentle process born of thoughtful discussion.
I do think that more lively discussions will take place in Washington, Crusade expansion plans are simply not compatible with the current level of resources deployed, and while few will disagree that there is a trend toward privatizing more of the wetwork, as Tracy points out, the commercial gunmen do require the backing of US large weaponry, as the commercials simply do not have that on the same scale as the US military, and because covertization, if it is to be effective even domestically, would require such dramatic restrictions of electronic communications that it raises the spectre of even more lively discussions among the corporations themselves.
Which reminds me of an unusual panel discussion on Saudi-Occupied Arabia TV shortly after the 911 events. The panel consisted of Arabian “intellectuals” not generally accorded blocks of air time. The sense of their view: that the immediate war is not between US and the oil producing region, but rather between US corporations whose primary business is “defense” and those whose primary business is not. 😉
Ductape, If you diagree with him, what is your plan.
Repatriate your gunmen, do not move them over to the side a little, or shift a third of them to Syria. Take them home where they belong and keep them there.
I will repeat the analogy I have used before. If your brother is beating his wife and children with a two by four, do you tell him that he should go stand on the other side of the room with his two by four in case he decides he would like to beat them some more? Do you suggest that he pay someone else to beat them? Do you recommend that he tell the neighbors he is not beating them, and paint his windows black so they cannot see it? Do you tell him he should beat them with something else?
No, you tell him to put down the two by four, stop beating them, and leave the premises never to return.
the Middle East operation is a corporate project, who exactly is there in the United States with the actual practical authority to bring it to a close?
This plan strikes me as equally logical, moral, but impossible as Kucinich rolling out a schedule for setting up the Department of Peace.
Hi Ductape. Thanks for another thought-provoking post.
Lots of irony in the situation. First, Murtha’s suggestion is, as you suggest, a diabolically clever stab at maintaining the US grip on Iraq. However, it has been spun as get-out-now-full-stop by the Rethugs and the media, which has in turn ratcheted up the antiwar noise domestically. So, do progressives deplore the imperialist subtext, applaud the short-term gain of withdrawing most troops, and/or try to use Murtha’s statement as fodder for the antiwar noise machine?
Further irony, and my biggest fear: If Murtha’s plan or something like it were put into effect, this would free up enough troops for Georgie to make a serious stab at Syria, or even Iran.
Any way you slice it, a lot more people are going to die before this shit is over.
reports almost nothing about that. The soldiers are too fatigued and getting the hell out as soon as they can, and in order to use National Guard units and Reserve units again for some new venture George would have get the approval of Congress again and I don’t see that happening. While our troops are still in play over there is his only hope of getting them involved in Syria or Iran because it was an “emergency situation” and they were there on the ground so they had to “put down an open hostility against U.S. forces”. Once it’s on the table that our guys are pulling out and withdrawing and once they are holed up someplace on the perimeter in Jordan or Kuwait and not hanging out on the Syrian border while Bush hopes that someone takes a potshot at them, his chances of being able to pick a fight with someone else become slimmer and slimmer because he has to be open to debate putting the troops back into play again! Murtha is right on and Bush knows it and he is pissing his britches in Asia somewhere.
the emergergency situation” potential of both Kuwait and Jordan. Especially Jordan. The bipartisan compromise has already been delivered to Rumsfeld. They propose to begin “phasing” a “draw down” of 60 thousand after the Dec. 15th “elections.”
I would caution against assumptions that “draw down” refers to sending them home for more than a week or two.
You are correct that the Wal-Mart doctrine has not resulted in an improvement in the condition of US human assets. Even if they were in fine shape, there are simply not enough of them to fully occupy both Iraq and Syria.
It will be a challenge merely to “hold” the permanent bases in Iraq, and as you have pointed out, it is unlikely that the mercenaries will agree to do that without backup of US weaponry.
All but 3 members of the Congress are now on record as opposing the withdrawal of US gunmen, even in a “sense” vote, which is sadly about all the Congress can do anyway, even if they were eager to defy their corporate sponsors, which they are not.
Imperialism means not having to piss your britches or give a flying cheneyfart what the public thinks, what the troops think, or what their families think.
Please understand, I would like nothing better than for the American people to make Washington look like Caracas the day after the coup attempt, and exercise their constitutional obligation to change their government.
However, I do not think that such an event is likely, I will give benefit of the doubt and suggest that most Americans do not in fact realize how extreme the situation is, and many would oppose such an action as it might violate the Patriot Act, and be harmful to the morale of troops who might suffer stress at being re-deployed to spread democracy on American insurgents on US soil, which would undoubtedly spark some more C-span drama, but the victims would probably miss it.
But there are some things that you just don’t understand about the U.S. military. #1. All troops are over there with their own equipment and when they leave they take all of their equipment with them. They cross into Kuwait and then they have to hose off everything and scrub it clean and it doesn’t matter how many bars or stripes you have….get your ass scrubbing. That takes about a month, then they load all of their equipment on ships…….and then they get to come home. They can’t go back in few weeks! They will have to turn the ships around, unload all of their equipment in Kuwait or Basra and scream across the desert all over again. Commanders are on tight budgets, they aren’t throwing money at the Army, they are throwing money at Halliburton and Middle East middlemen. Nobody is leaving their equipment over there because they don’t have any equipment when they get home then. The armored Humvees will be left and all other Humvees too….the Humvee was never designed to be armored as it has been and it has torn the shit out of all of them. The unarmored Humvees have had the shit torn out of them too……real war in Iraq seems to be more than a Humvee can handle. Only Humvees left though dude….everything else is washed, bubble wrapped (whole helicopters bubble wrapped!), and placed onboard ship. Conspiracy theories are great fun but this one just doesn’t pass the smell test dude! Murtha is right…….give Murtha what the fuck he wants and let’s be done with this Iraq fucking mess.
60 thousand pieces of equipment.
I don’t know about any conspiracies, US has been very candid about its goals and objectives in the region, and I cannot know whether what Murtha wants is to be done with the Iraq mess or not.
Unlike Mr. Danger, I do not have the power to see into men’s souls.
What I can do is state that moving the troops to Jordan or Kuwait will not result in being done with the Iraq mess, and whether that is Murtha’s hope or not, it is not the hope of the people who make the decisions.
For all I know, Murtha might be just as surprised as you if the bipartisan compromise was replaced with his plan, and six months later Tim Robertson was on CNN reporting about the problems US troops were having with IED attacks from the Jordanian and Syrian insurgents, and while the Kuwaitis of course are grateful as always for any non-Kuwaiti scum the Americans can exterminate for them to save them from having to wash their own clothes, their domestic help have suddenly become foreign fighters, and here is a tape from Zarqawi who was just killed for the fifth time, telling you so.
But Murtha is one hell of a smart smart smart patriot. If we draw down to 60,000 troops waiting in the wings if something happens, the Repub argument about cutting and running carries no weight because they cannot say that that is what we are doing then! 80,000 troops and their equipment go home and there is no easy turning back, the Guard and Reserve Troops that would be part of that drawdown can’t return to Iraq without Congressional approval….to leave exclusively Guard and Reserve behind in Iraq is to admit to manipulating the public and being a liar about your “reasons”. 60,000 is not enough for George to get into a new war with and he only has the ability to get our active troops in a scrap. After Vietnam the Pentagon decided to cut active troop levels so that it would require activating the Reserves to really get into a big war and that requires Congressional Approval…..yes, once upon a time even the Pentagon threw in a check and balance on the President. Why do you think the President attempted to deny LA aid after Katrina unless she federalized her troops? Peer deeply into the Crystal Ball Ductape……they are running out of troops and they don’t have full control of the Guard like they want to……if they could activate the entire United States National Guard they could probably do another two years in Iraq but the Governors aren’t going to allow that! What Murtha has outlined though is the beginning of the end of Iraq and without Congressional approval after the drawdown ain’t NOTHIN HAPPININ over there!
is to draw down 60 thousand, not draw down all but 60 thousand. nerdified link.
Please understand, I do not consider that there is a conspiracy, which implies some degree of secrecy, and even US covert operations have of late been somewhat lacking in secrecy. I’m not even sure they care about secrecy any more, after the Amman operation.
As I said before, I have no reason to doubt Murtha’s sincerity, for all I know he may even be under the impression that checks and balances are in place and believe that the constitution has some significant relationship to US policies and their implementation.
What I am saying is, while I truly understand the psychological impact of Murtha’s remarks, I would advise caution against illusions or false hope that they signal an end to the crusade, or the spark of a general uprising and revolution, either among civilians or the military.
to start shit then why is it an illusion to go with Murtha? Even if they have 80,000 troops in the wings it isn’t enough to do anything with once they have pulled back! It they pull back they don’t have the positions in the heart of things….they would have to fight their way back in. They thought that they could do Iraq with 120,000 and they are now at 160,000 and having their asses handed to them every single day. They aren’t going back in with 80,000 unless total shit hits the fan!!!! And that’s okay by me…..pulling even 60,000 out right now and and damn near 50% of the equipment and pulling out of positions right smack in the middle of Iraq is the total beginning of the total end and I do not give a shit of you want it to not be so Ductape, because it is!!!
that this is an issue that you are very close to that I am suggesting that you exercise emotional caution.
I do not think that it is likely that your perspective regarding checks and balances, congressional approval, etc and those of the warlords enjoy a great deal of common ground.
Believe me, I oppose the crusade. What I want to be so is that it end. I do not think that US politicians are going to cause that end, nor am I confident that they could if they wanted to.
You are someone who people listen to in the blogosphere so when you put a diary up like this one and it is bullshit I’m gonna call bullshit. You don’t know the military has had to conduct its operations on the ground level like I do. You don’t understand why the Guard and the Reserves are serving a year and half to two years over there while the active military is doing one year rotations like I do. You don’t understand that the Guard and Reserves have always trained with Army castoff equipment so they have poor equipment over there and are most likely who they wouldn’t leave over there. You seem to have overlooked that in order to start trouble if there is a drawdown over there Bush has to go back to Congress for approval……..this diary is bullshit and people are reading it and they listen to you. Damn right I’m emotional……this diary gets more soldiers killed the more people who agree with it and find fault with Murtha where no fault exists and in fact his proposal is nothing short of brilliant because it gets our soldiers out of the middle of it and brings about the beginning of the end of the Iraq war!!!!!
and not only about people listening to me, which I can assure you they do not 😉
But I think that you are allowing the hopes of your heart, that US policy will change without any drastic and violent upheaval, hopes that I understand, and believe it or not, share, to cloud your head.
I am not “finding fault” with Murtha per se. I do disagree with his premise that the Iraqi’s opposition to being invaded and killed by Americans is related in any way to what American media reported about US activities and when.
Once again, I do not question his sincerity. I am saying that it is irrelevant.
He is a respected enough politician so that someone felt obliged today to have Mr. Danger repeat after his earpiece that he will now permit criticism of the running of the crusade:
That does not mean that the power-grab of the “neocons” is going to be reversed overnight.
Bush, or whoever the symbolic figurehead may be, needs congressional approval in the same way that a US citizen cannot be detained indefinitely without charges, the same way that the US does not torture.
Murtha, no matter how respected and sincere he may be, cannot change that with a speech.
What is causing the deaths of US gunmen are US imperialist adventures, involving the presence of those gunmen outside US borders, not what I or anyone else, even someone who is listened to, posts on the internet.
And I cannot over-emphasize just how much I am not listened to.
you, but unlike most of your diaries this one is bullshit! What is this shit about U.S. policy? Murtha didn’t say shit about changing U.S. policy….he is about getting our guys home. We can’t do and be everything for everybody everyplace, that is just ignorant to even desir and therapists every day make big bucks lining people out on that fact of life….it is wanting to play God. The War was a fucking lie and Murtha gets it over with….home soon cuz nobody can pull any shit legally from there. Last I knew those existing laws still applied too.
He did not suggest bringing the gunmen home.
He proposed moving them to one of the many US bases in the region.
US policy is that it will impose its will on the region and that it will use force, meaning US gunmen, to do so.
That is not a conspiracy, that is a matter of public record and actual fact on the ground.
The people of the region do not wish to have US will imposed on them, the prevailing view is that their lands, their oil, their sand, is all theirs.
US gunmen anywhere in the region are subject to the same resistance that Iraqi, or Syrian, or Jordanian gunmen might find were they to arrive to impose the will of another nation on your street.
I do not believe that the Washington warlords share your views on laws and legality.
I will presume to say that Jose Padilla joins me in wishing that they did.
that U.S. policy is that it will continue to impose it’s will on the region. And my husband isn’t a fucking “gunman” Ductape, he is a United States Soldier who has sworn an oath as such and he isn’t for sale and he refused to obey an illegal order over there right to his fucking Commanders face, so I don’t know what the fuck you are talking about with this gunman thing! Blackwater has nothing legally to do with the U.S. government..no matter who their friends are and they take their chances over there. One more time Ductape….we have been getting our asses handed to us over there so we aren’t winning anything where are over there right now and “imposing our will ain’t been lookin so good”…..our troops on some base and not in the heart of things takes us OUT of play! Blackwater ain’t shit…..it isn’t the size of our military, it’s a hand full of thugs….it doesn’t have tanks and such, you are dreaming!!!!
Mr. Danger and his henchmen have made. It is written in the PNAC documents.
As you have pointed out yourself, and may be too upset to recall that I agree with you on this, the US has no business imposing its will on other nations, or as you put it, “playing God.”
And like you, I oppose the policy, and the practice.
I have not suggested that Blackwater or its colleagues have tanks, on the contrary, I am also in agreement with you that increased privatization would be compromised without at the very minimum, US resources close enough to provide “air support.”
And I have never, here or elsewhere suggested that you or your husband were the intended beneficiaries of the crusade.
When Washington speaks of “winning,” they do not mean you.
They mean this.
All this hullabaloo about “Mr. Danger”…..he has also had his ass handed to him and this is no time to stall on making “Mr. Danger” toothless. If Mr. Danger really scares you so much Ductape than pull the teeth you can readily get at……all those Guard and Reservists over there that make Iraq even possible for him to do right now! He can’t up and put them back in for shits and giggles once they are deactivated back home!
scenario of make believe, what Murtha has outlined isn’t such an abstract make believe…..it is a doable reality and BushCo serverly has it’s hand tied trying to drum up any new war without Congressional approval. It answers all the arguments and fears about Iraq right now and it is the beginning of ending the Iraq War.
I agree with pretty much all that Ductape says here, and I also agree with much of the commentary that follows.
For me, the US simply has no legitimate business being in Iraq. The invasion was wrong, the rationale for it was a set of false constructs, and every minute we remain there makes things worse for Iraqis and for the world at large.
I also agree that Murtha’s having characterized the atrocities at Abu Ghraib as being a proximate cause of the mess in Iraq is a form of denial, a deflection from the larger and more elemental point that we never should have invaded in the first place.
In the end, I think all Murtha’s talk about the mission, and about how the soldiers have done all they can do there belies a mindset that refuses to question the mission itself, but rather uses the military rhetoric of performing the mission as a self validating excuse for initiating grave and deadly aggression against people and a country we had no legitimate reason to attack.
But, as much as I understand the simple idea of “withdraw immediately”, (which is not what Murtha is proposing and I agree with Ductape on this also), I recognize that people aren’t always moved by such simple and unequivocal ideas. People tend to cling to their beliefs often long after those beliefs have been shown to be erroneous in substance and usefulness. And it is this reluctance to admit that one’s beliefs have been wrong that often means that an incremental approach to change is sometimes necessary.
Whether one is learning to drive a car or master a new home electronic component, whether one is in therapy to deal with a difficult patch in life or whether one is starting a new job, there is usually a “learning curve”, and a “willingness to embrace new ideas curve”, and a “jettison old ideas in order to make room for new ideas curve” in play; it’s how we learn and evolve. And sometimes the path of learning and evolving involves tricks. If you leave bits of cheese along a particular path in a maze that leads to escape from that maze, the pursuit of those cheese bits provides the incentive for the mouse to achieve his own liberation from that maze.
This is how I see the situation regarding the opinion about what should be done concerning Iraq and the US activity there. The simplest and most direct solution is simply not always the one that’s most likely to work. People sometimes need to be led to the water before they can drink it.
hidden conspiracies don’t work worth a shit in this case. Murtha is a military man and he has access to good military info right now too and HE KNOWS that once we start pulling the whole deal as far as war is OVER! Murtha is right!!!
I’m not sure what you seem to think I was saying, but the “Good God” expletive indicates to me that there may be a misunderstanding.
I applaud Murtha’s call for withdrawl, even though I don’t necessarily agree with some of his premises as to why we’re in the mess we’re in in the first place.
I don’t necessarily agree with you, (or with Rep. Murtha if that’s what you think he believes), that an “over the horizon” withdrawl signals an end to war in Iraq. I think the continued large US military presence in the region is a virtual guarantee that regional instability and violence will continue to mount. But, as I tried to clarify with my remarks abut the incremental nature of the process by which people change their minds, I think Murtha’s proposal is an excellent first step along the road to a more enlightened approach that would finally repudiate the entire false rationale for this destructive war and would ultimately bring all our soldiers home from this insane conflict. (I want to add that I think it’s vitally important for the leadership of my country, the US, to, in fact repudiate this war in it’s entirety if we as a nation are going to be able to recover any real credibility in the world or to be looked upon favorably as a nation of stature that truly does stand for honorable principles.) Then we might even be able to respond effectively with strategies for counteracting the real terrorist threats posed by zealots everywhere.
I don’t happen to agree with Ductape that the greed of corporate America has driven this Iraq debacle. Certainly such greed plays a part in all of it, but I firmly believe that the primary, pivotal motives for this invasion are much darker. I never believed the Cheney gang had any intention of establishing stability or security, or a functioning Democracy in Iraq. I never really believed they gave much of a shit about Saddam, (their former friend) either. I have always felt this invasion was the beginning salvo in a campaign to destabilize the entire, oil and gas-producing region in the Middle East with the ultimate objective being to exploit the instability in a way that leads to US control of virtually all the energy reserves in the region.
Maybe you think such thinking represents an obsession with hidden conspiracies, but I do not, and I would challenge anyone to offer even one bit of evidence of any sort that might cast even a particle of doubt on this view.
I applaud Murtha’s actions because of the uproar he’s created and because of the possibility that his remarks have now created an environment where political ambition may result in the termination of this war. Just as it was with Vietnam, that war came to an end not because we the people convinced our government the war was wrong and a disaster. No, the Vietnam war came to an end because we the people scared the congress into fearing they might lose theirrespective elections ion their home districts if they continued to support pouring more money into that black hole.
I’m hopeful Murtha’s words will stimulate a similar response, but I have to say that I’m very concerned as to what the bloodthirsty neocon warhawks might do when they truly understand that congress won’t approve payments for their war anymore. This crowd of warmongers now make the ambitions of the Nixon gang look like altruism by comparison.
is on just how dark greed gets. 😉
I see “greed” as separate and distinct from “lust for power”. Certainly there are many congruencies between these two unfortunate characteristics, but I think the megalomania typical of a power-hungry extremist quite often trumps the economic, Mammon-based greed of his own supporters in the end.
that comes into play at some point, I don’t know if it matters much what it is called, it is what I was referring to in the Evildoers who hate greed blogrant:
Forgive me for quoting myself. It is a disgusting habit, but very economical of finger tissue.
I agree there’s a pathology that “kicks in” somewhere along this trajectory. I think the pathology is power-centric, as in power-over-others-centric, rather than personal-aggrandizement-centered.
Greed to me, is usuallyrooted in a fearful pathology that compels people to accumulate “wealth” even when they don’t need it. The compulsions in a power-oriented pathology frequently go beyond that, because a power-centric pathology requires that power be used to subjugate others in one way or another.
So, for me, the two afflictions are related, but not identical either in origin or breadth of expression.
Even this very moment, but America isn’t doing much about that. If we have a drawdown and in order to UP things up again and go back into the heart of it all requires Congressional approval then we have debate which causes people to all bring their case forward and their solutions. The use of military isn’t the only solution available to solve political problems! I’m not arguing with you that the neocons didn’t do what they did to attempt to control the oil in the region, but if our troops pullback right now they control nothing……they have no puppets in place that they can count on, they don’t have shit yet! What Murtha has proposed extinguishes all the arguments out there why we can’t leave, leaves Bush unable to launch an attack on these people again with only his nod, and leaves Iraq’s oil to Iraq because they don’t have any decent puppets yet. I bet they’re scrambling like hell though right now trying to set up the best puppet theater they can because Murtha has scared the SHIT out of em! Desperation has never gleaned the best puppet though so I wish them all the luck in the world. If we all back Murtha their desperation multiplies exponentially!
I don’t think we disagree generally. As I said I applaud Murtha’s proposal as a smart way to maneuver towards bringing sodiers home.
I’m sure the Bushistas are really worried that public pressure is going to cause many defections amongst their congressional supporters, thanks to Murtha’s strong statements.
IMHO, there is going to be increased violence in the Middle East for the next several decades thanks to the Cheney/neocon agenda, whether we are in Iraq or not. Murtha’s idea of moving our troops “over the horizon” would have the desirable effect of helping reduce the violent deaths of our own soldiers, and might lead to the broader perspective that we should truly get out altogether.
But, if we don’t as a nation, repudiate our entire rationale for invading Iraq, our own national security will not be enhanced, the violence in the Middle East will continue to spread, and more American’s will be targets.
Strategically, it’s probably better Mr Murtha himself doesn’t acknowledge this need to repudiate. His plan has a better chance of being the catalyst for change even if Idisagree with him on the substance of his stated perspective.
happy place to be and live and what can we really do about it except become energy self reliant and stop feeding the monsters who for greed and power do what they do that brings about the terrorists who fight them and in turn do what they do? We are not responsible for all that the middle east is nor are we their babysitter! We shed mucho blood birthing and keeping our democracy alive…….they will have to do their own work for their way of life.
This is part of one of the central points I was making above. We have no legitimate business doing what we’ve done to Iraq. There’s no legitimate reason for usto have invaded that country or to be there now either as an armed force in country or an armed force “over the horizon”.
Our major problem in Iraq is not the Iraqis and others who are attacking us, it’s the fact that we’re there to be attacked in the first place. Jack Murtha’s proposal begins to address that, but it’s important, IMHO, for us to understand that his idea, if implemented, would only be a first step in a long and complicated process. We need to develop a real strategy for thwarting the true threat that is international terrorism, and in order to do that we need to keep public support for that idea. As it is now, because Bush has made the idiotic mistake of linking the Iraq invasion with the (supposed) war on terror, BushCo’s mishandling of Iraq threatens to ultimately drag down the very necessary public approval for an effective counterterrorism program.
In short, their blundering and their lying have actually created a situation where our own national security is even more jeopardized. The invasion of Iraq has strategically impaired our own governments ability to gain it’s own public’s support for doing an effective job against the threat of international terrorism
constitutes a threat to the people of other nations, there might be some who will be surprised at how all those threats to the US will dissipate.
If I may concur with a point you made in another post, the situation in the ME or any region that has been the victim of colonization and imperialism did not happen overnight, in all fairness, it did not even start with Mr. Danger’s installment, it goes back a ways, and recovery will not be overnight either.
By the same principle, neither will US recover overnight from the damage that its warlords have done, regardless of whether the correction comes voluntarily and from the people of the US, which would be my preference, or otherwise.
I also agree that the domestic economic conditions will, if anything domestic will be, the catalyst. That is borne out through history, and the domestic effects alone of the US transition to feudalism are moving inexorably toward that point, despite the traditional meekness of the US underclass. Though undeniably remarkable, in my opinion, it cannot be counted on indefinitely.
US will have plenty of “threats” inside its own borders and not a lot of resources with which to worry about what other countries are or are not doing.
As you say;
It’s imperative for this regime to completely suppress any inkling in the public mind that our own (US) actions and policies actually have a causative link to the actions of those who oppose us.
Weaponizing the ignorance of the public on this topic is of paramount importance to the warmongers and propagandists. The idea that we might deserve to be violemtly opposed must not be allowed to germinate in the public mind, for that would spell and end to the whole aggressive charade.
Murtha is right if his intention is to bring about the beginning of the end of the war. I agree with Tracy that if troops, all or a portion, are drawn back to some perimetir point, then the effect will be that the U.S. completely loses what little control it clings to now and will effectively be removed from the conflict. I don’t know Murtha’s long term goal, if there is one but it is certain that Bush will do all in his power to see that it never happens because he or his puppetmasters understand that doing so would permanently weaken his/their precarious hold on the region.
I believe that Murtha has begun a fight that will eventually bring about the end but I also believe that we haven’t seen the worst yet as Bush and henchmen become increasingly desperate and determined. Besides, we haven’t seen the event that will cause the U.S. to call for a general draft yet, and it’s coming as it must. It is the only logical way that Bush can carry his big picture forward because even he isn’t ignorant enough to believe that we can take on Syria, let alone a powerful nation like Iran with the troop strength that we now have.
There will be much more blood shed on all sides before this comes close to being over, Murtha or no Murtha.
I have followed this discussion with much interest.
My two cents:
Murtha has started the US military towards a withdrawal from Iraq because the people of the US (and I suspect the leaders of the US military) no longer support this war. The US corporations will stay in Iraq as long as there is a buck to be made.
I am unsure what will happen in Iraq. I pray it is not chaos.
Some things to consider:
No matter what Bush says about staying the course, he has always cut and run his whole life when things get tough. He will do it again.
The way to control US corps is to control the money.
Let’s assume, for the sake or argument, that you are correct, and that the leaders of the US military do not wish to continue the crusade.
As Tracy has pointed out, commercial gunman participation will be difficult without military resources.
And as you point out, the corporations are not going anywhere as long as there is money to be made, and there is still plenty of that.
So at what point is the US public brought face to face with the unpleasant answer to the question (which is not so much of a question to non-Americans), namely, just who do US gunmen serve?
Now I know that children are taught in school both soldiers and politicians serve the people.
Will the US public use the opportunity provided by Murtha’s speech to consider the answer to that question?
And if asked, how will the military answer?
In my opinion, it is not chaos in Iraq that should concern Americans.
I think the most hopeful thing offered by Murtha’s proposal is the chance, albeit small, for some long-overdue chaos in the US itself.
It’s almost always domestic economic isues that lead a citizenry to finally oppose an expensive policy (or war) in sufficient numbers that congress finall stops approvingf fuds for that policy/war.
This was the case with the Vietnam War and I expect it to ultimately be the case with Iraq. However, because of the incredibly destructive agenda of this Bush regime, the Middle East will remain engulfed in violence for decades now, andit will take supreme acts of diplomacy worldwide to prevent that violence from engulfing the entire planet.
Even if we could clap Cheney and his neocons in irons tomorrow and lock them away fro the rest of theirlives, the violence they precipitated has a life of it’sown now that will transcend their terms in office.
I posted the preceeding in the wrong place. It was intewnded as a reply to “supersoling”s comment above.
The way to control US corps is to control the money.
yes but no one does, nor will anyone. The proof, one of them, is the contracts awarded to KBR/others for New Orleans. More and more just controls and regulations fall everyday. And less and less taxes can be collected from the corporations.
Much of what BushCo has wrought will not be rolled back, not any time soon… and in any case he is an outcome, which the Democrats/moderate Republicans are loathed to elucidate….
We travelled across years and decades to get to Bush 2.
My few cents… 😉
we built the highway.