The collapse of the Maliki government has been telegraphed for some time. When the shi'ite block fractures, that probably removes the possibility that the Parliament or the "government" will formally ask the Empire's forces to leave. Bushco won't allow another election ("you can't quit the hard work!"), because we're starting to learn those don't turn out to work so well in the ME.
That leaves the Congress responsible for the decision to withdraw, and one can't hold out too much hope there, eh?
So this increasing chaos brings a big smile to the hideous faces of Deadeye Dick and Nero, who was supposedly shooting off his mouth recently to large GOoPer donors that he wasn't going to let anyone screw up "America's destiny", i.e. a permanent military presence in Iraq. Chaos is the Deadenders ticket to "status quo, January '09".
So Iraq will get worse (it doesn't even seem possible that one could write such a thing) and Americans will become ever more frustrated with our fake, degraded "democracy".
So beat the oppressive heat, hit the roads with your SUV's AC on high and hang out at the lovely malls shoppin' and gorgin' with the kiddies, Summertime in BushAmerica, and the livin' is uneasy....
Posted by euzoius at June 21, 2007 05:07 AM"political reconciliation" ?? What is needed is Religious reconciliation. This is a region governed not by politics in our sense of the word, but by religion. Absent a Dictator to force the factions to live side by side, they are now going about their centuries old ways. Politics??? that's for Karl Rove. If we are waiting for the people living in Iraq to toss religious differences aside and become a democracy (like our horrid example) in order to bring our Occupying troops home, we will indeed be there forever. Except for the 13 that will be coming home today, in the cargo bay of an Air Force plane.
Posted by T2 at June 21, 2007 06:31 AMAbsent a Dictator to force the factions to live side by side, they are now going about their centuries old ways.
So Clinton was correct? It is the Iraqis who need to step up?
I'm trying to figure out what people who advocate an immediate and complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq envision taking place there after that happens. And how that relates to our national interests and the broader interests of the international community. Yes, George Bush broke it. Willfully to boot. But what happens when we pull out our troops and the last C-130 takes off from Baghdad International? No one really seems interested in addressing that.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 06:42 AMsnark, you're starting today as you left yesterday.. Tell us,please, what exactly will happen if the United States stops occupying Iraq territory? And if we stay to "keep the peace" or whatever you believe our continued presence there will accomplish, are you basically, then, jumping on Dick Cheney's ship, i.e. Iraq as a colony of the USA. As far as Clinton being correct....as I said above, anyone who thinks the problems we created in invading Iraq can be fixed by a large group of men who fundamentally hate each other ( and I don't mean GOP/DEM type disagreement, I mean pure hate) can find common ground on politics and remain bitter enemies on a religious level is not facing the reality of the situation.
Posted by T2 at June 21, 2007 07:16 AMsnark, you're starting today as you left yesterday.
Better than twisting with the wind, no?
Tell us,please, what exactly will happen if the United States stops occupying Iraq territory?
I don't know. Do you? That was my question. If you advocate immediate withdrawal what do you think will happen?
And if we stay to "keep the peace" or whatever you believe our continued presence there will accomplish, are you basically, then, jumping on Dick Cheney's ship, i.e. Iraq as a colony of the USA.
Ummmm...'jumping on Dick Cheney's ship'? WTF? I don't think I've ever expressed colonial aspirations toward Iraq. There's no peace to keep right now. And you concede that there won't be peace if we leave. You just want to leave. Whatever happens happens?
As far as Clinton being correct....as I said above, anyone who thinks the problems we created in invading Iraq can be fixed by a large group of men who fundamentally hate each other ( and I don't mean GOP/DEM type disagreement, I mean pure hate) can find common ground on politics and remain bitter enemies on a religious level is not facing the reality of the situation.
Did we create the problem? You said yourself these are centuries old hatreds. We upset the apple cart and now you just wanna leave. Are you saying that Iraqis are incapable of living in peace with each other? That sounds like an awfully 'colonial mentality' to me. The uncivilized heathens just want to kill each other. The barbarians! If the Iraqis can't be the solution and the Americans can't be the solution what's gonna happen when we leave? And is it impossible to consider that our leaving may put us, and the region at large in a worse spot than we currently are? That's all I asked. It's easy to demand that we get out now. It's not easy to think about what happens afterward. Not thinking about what happens afterward is what Bush is guilty of. Do you wanna jump on George Bush's ship?
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 07:33 AMsnark, Saddam had Iraq under control. So yes, we created a problem by removing him. And yes, we also suppported him for many years. And yes I want to leave, whatever happens. And "twisting in the wind" - a perfect description of our American GI's stationed in Iraq. Snark, there are American's dying by the dozen over there, I just don't see that as a good thing that ought to be continued. Apparently, a large majority of Americans agree with me on that. As for what happens..no I don't know the answer, and if you don't either...then whats to say that the doom and gloom scenario perpetuated by the never correct Bush Admin supports your worries about chaos? Where is any evidence or intel that supports that? It's only Bush talking points. It is chaos over there now, and it was not before we invaded.
Posted by T2 at June 21, 2007 07:49 AM.....It's not easy to think about what happens afterward. Not thinking about what happens afterward is what Bush is guilty of. Do you wanna jump on George Bush's ship?
Try milk on the cereal Snark......the Kool Aid is tainting the Musilex......the question is not what happens when we leave, rather, it is a question of prolonging the mess we created and why?....Iraq has had an "iron fist" ruler for decades and our departure will spur another to viciously take over.....the Sunnis will finish off the overblown al Qaeda faction, Turkey will keep the Kurds off balance and pre British Mandate partition will take over.
Until exhaustion takes over the various factions there will be no peace....US presence is one of the problems but will never be a solution....invasion did not cause the factious underbelly, rather, it exposed it!
As for what happens..no I don't know the answer, and if you don't either...then whats to say that the doom and gloom scenario perpetuated by the never correct Bush Admin supports your worries about chaos? Where is any evidence or intel that supports that? It's only Bush talking points. It is chaos over there now, and it was not before we invaded.
You yourself just stated that believing that a bunch of people who hate each other, and have hated each other long before we invaded, can reconcile is out of touch with reality. It's chaos now you say. But the concept that it would be chaos after we leave is a 'Bush talking point'? What's gonna happen after we leave to stop the chaos? Again, you just said that the Iraqi parties can never reconcile. So what's gonna stop the chaos just because we leave? I'm having trouble following the logic.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 07:58 AMGreat conversation, guys! Don't mean to butt in, but I just wanted to interject that when I say "start troop withdrawl now" I understand that to mean what (I think) Abazaid said - a phased withdrawl is the only way to do it properly, and that would take at least 10 months to accomplish. There's no way to safely get all our guys and gear out much quicker than that. So immediate withdrawl is no where near immediate. And there's no way to do it without region-wide support, which we just don't have.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 21, 2007 08:00 AMAhhh...the Kool Aid canard!
How refreshing. Isn't it possible to converse like adults?
I'm not advocating any particular policy here. I just think that the left has notably ignored what they envision happening after our withdrawal.
Iraq has had an "iron fist" ruler for decades and our departure will spur another to viciously take over.....the Sunnis will finish off the overblown al Qaeda faction, Turkey will keep the Kurds off balance and pre British Mandate partition will take over.
Interesting. So we have a new vicious dictator. The Sunnis are gonna handle al Qaeda for us. Turkey is gonna finish off the Kurds. (Nice eupamism there. "keep off balance". Cute.) And the territory will be divided up amongst the clans. (Not sure where that leaves the vicious dictator?) At least that puts a scenerio out there for consideration.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 08:27 AMI'm not advocating any particular policy here. I just think that the left has notably ignored what they envision happening after our withdrawal.
I agree. Not only is it ignored, but apparently when you try to talk about it, you're drinking the Koolaid, which shuts down any discussion at all.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 21, 2007 08:42 AMWithout mentioning any brand name drinks, I would like to have a serious discussion about the consequences of our withdrawl as well.
I agree with the concensus that nobody knows what will happen when we leave. Can we at least agree that our current presence does not, in any way, prevent factionalism, tribalism, corruption on a bewildering scale and utter lawlessness? OUr soldiers are dying at the rate of 3-5 per diem. Not one of the Administration creatures has ever given a legal, humanitarian explanation for just what the HELL we're doing in a sovereign nation with more than 2 armored divisions.
We've slaughtered by estimates which, to me, seem based on sound statistical analysis, more than half a million Iraqis and destroyed their society and infrastructure. Estimates run to about 4 million Iraqis displaced from their homes. About half inside Iraq and the rest burdening the region's resources. We have unleashed hell on Earth for 26 million fellow human beings for nothing more than the vapid greed and ignorance of a handful of sheltered, would-be Machiavellis and Metternichs, yet who only manage socio-pathic disregard for consequences and and the suffering of other human beings.
Even now, after 4 years+ of occupation, we're dropping 500 lb. bombs and Hellfire missiles on crowded, civilian housing. That's a war crime, folks! We hold over 19,000 "prisoners" with very little knowledge of their relative guilt or innocence, but some of them have been tortured or held for very long times. 80% , (in polls, which admittedly, are difficult in Iraq) of the Iraqi population want us gone soon. Only the Kurds like the current arrangement.
Our long suffering soldiers drive aimlessly through the streets, suffering hundreds of attacks a week, trying to "arrest the bad guys". Unfortunately, very few Americans know who the bad guys really are, so they become tools of internecine struggles and actual, hot civil war.
The question is NOT what will happen if we leave. It seems likely, given the history of the region, that there will be widespread violence, ethnic cleansing and maybe even large scale battles for dominance. No wait! That's happening right now, isn't it? American soldiers act as both an irritant and a lubricant for violence in our role as occupiers. The reason our military is breaking is because it was NEVER designed to be an Imperial occupation force
If we stay in Iraq, our Armies WILL BE BROKEN. If we stay in Iraq, we will be killing and capturing Iraqi insurgents(?), patriots(?) mafiosi(?) at the behest of one group which may or may not be our "friends".
It's pointless to simply ask, "what happens if we leave?". We WILL leave with no noble missions accomplished. It's only a matter of how many more lives will everyone will lose. At least 100 Iraqis die every day from violence and instability caused by US. There are, on average, more than 1,000 violent attacks occurring every month.
Since most American "troops" can't tell one Haji from another, have no possible clue as to why they are there, 15 months at a time, while sustaining tremendous damage to their physical and mental health, they cannot accomplish stability no matter how long they stay. When we go, slowly and carefully over a period of 6-12 months, (NOT PRECIPITOUSLY, as Tony Snow likes to claim)the various factions and blocs will finally have to consider their end game.
Shia militia are fighting Shia in Basra. Sunnis are fighting Americans, other Sunnis and Shia. The terr'rists are fighting everyone. Until the Americans stop destructively bumbling around in a country they have no legal right WHATSOEVER to be in, the confusion will continue.
At this point, I don't care what happens when we leave. We broke Iraq, but we sure as Hell don't own anything there, except our own resources. Our own country is being severely damaged by these brain dead policies. For our sake and in the hope of some resolution, we simply cannot stay.
Ask all you want, "what will happen if we leave?". I ask how could we possibly stay?
Posted by DeminNewJ at June 21, 2007 11:03 AMI'm not advocating any particular policy here. I just think that the left has notably ignored what they envision happening after our withdrawal.
I agree. Not only is it ignored, but apparently when you try to talk about it, you're drinking the Koolaid, which shuts down any discussion at all.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 21, 2007 08:42 AM
What a childish remark....obviously some of you believe the way to fix the big hole is too keep digging....framing the debate as left vs right, or repub vs dem is idiotic....the consequences of withdraw or not withdraw are the same....Bloodletting...the difference is American blood can be spared.....sorry to disparage your choice of breakfast beverage, but smell the coffee you two....the US presence is untenable and needs to be stopped immediately.
Hilary and Barack are political animals hoping to sway some of the "dinosaurs lived among us" crowd.....the Iraqis are not the problem, we are and as long as we keep digging the hole will get deeper.
Posted by Goyo at June 21, 2007 11:08 AMWhat a childish remark....obviously some of you believe the way to fix the big hole is too keep digging....framing the debate as left vs right, or repub vs dem is idiotic....
LOL! And 'drinking the Kool Aid" is not a childish left vs right comment? Fucking hypocrite.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 11:20 AMBeat me to it, snark! I don't understand why trying to look at all sides is interpreted as wanting to stay in Iraq and have more troops die. Apples and kumquats, seems to me.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 21, 2007 11:37 AMDeminNewJ,
I don't dispute much of what you wrote. Invading Iraq was a major fuck up. I new that before it even happened.
Obviously, there are no 'good' choices. We can leave and stop the deaths of our soldiers but the killing will go on in Iraq. I'm no fan of the status quo. It just strikes me quite often that those urging us out of Iraq do not do an adaquete job of explaining how abandoning the people of Iraq to the mess we've unleashed in the interest of staunching the flow of American blood and treasure is a prinipled course of action. The conversation too easily degenerates into exactly the type of condescention that I got from Goyo.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 11:53 AMFucking hypocrite what a "Nice eupamism there" or was that euphemism??
Posted by Goyo at June 21, 2007 12:02 PM"Nice eupamism there" or was that euphemism??
So, nothing substantial to add to the discussion then? How disappointing.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 21, 2007 12:27 PMFucking hypocrite what a "Nice eupamism there" or was that euphemism??
Oh my! A misspelling!
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 12:36 PM
Snark,
I appreciate your position. I was trying to make the point that the status quo is potentially worse than the unknowable consequences of our leaving. I am of the view that we are currently exacerbating the violence and chaos by being there at all.
Our clueless and pathologically indifferent leadership is constantly making the wrong choices. This leads to the deaths of more Americans yes, but as importantly, more Iraqis are suffering as well. Irresponsible abandonment of responsibilities has been the hallmark of the neocons' New American (7 1/2 years of a) Century . I will certainly concede that, at this point, we can only choose between hideous choices. Do we want death, more death or utter chaos.
Principles and moral considerations were never a factor leading up to the invasion. If the current course of action promises NO progress or stability, no end to suffering and no end to daily carnage, I just feel it's as much (no MORE) the responsibility of those wanting to "stay the course" to explain to the rest of us how that serves any positive outcome.
I can feel shame at my nations behavior. Illegal invasion, illegitimate occupation, massive death and destruction and obscene war profiteering, all in the name of hoarding control of dangerous fossil fuels from the rest of the world, does not make me proud. However responsible I may feel about the past, I have to consider which course of action is likely to end ultimately, in less death and disruption. In my humble view, pulling out sooner rather than later IS the morally best choice.
If you feel that staying is better, please let me know why. I am genuinely curious.
Posted by DeminNewJ at June 21, 2007 12:41 PMSnark....get a little help with that anger syndrome....and give a heads up to DeminNewJ who has it spot on. Furthermore don't give us the "I've looked at this from all sides" bullshit....you obviously have not....US presence is the FU*KING PROBLEM...staying means more FU*KING PROBLEMS....if you don't want a deeper hole, quit digging.....what part of that don't you get....and you give us the McCain..."we have to do the principled thing" ...meme....what a load of shit...if you continue to do what you do, you will continue to have what you have. Pretty simple, really!!
Posted by Goyo at June 21, 2007 01:16 PMget a little help with that anger syndrome... FU*KING PROBLEM...staying means more FU*KING PROBLEMS.
*snicker* Anger problems? snark? That's a joke, right?
Hey snark! I don't remember when you advocated staying in Iraq, but it appears everyone has gotten that impression. Would someone provide a link or quote to where snark advocated keeping the status quo?
Posted by iamcoyote at June 21, 2007 01:23 PMSnark....get a little help with that anger syndrome....
How did I become the angry one here?
and give a heads up to DeminNewJ who has it spot on.
How's this;
I don't dispute much of what you wrote. -snark to DeminNewJ.
Furthermore don't give us the "I've looked at this from all sides" bullshit....you obviously have not....
Gee, maybe you could point out where I said anything remotely like that?
US presence is the FU*KING PROBLEM...staying means more FU*KING PROBLEMS....if you don't want a deeper hole, quit digging.....what part of that don't you get....
I've got the number of a good anger management councilor I could give you for that.
and you give us the McCain..."we have to do the principled thing" ...meme....what a load of shit...
Well, I did mention principles. They seem to be big around here. See the Carl Levin post above.
if you continue to do what you do, you will continue to have what you have. Pretty simple, really!!
In a closed system, yes, that would be true.
Go calm down somewhere.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 01:40 PMWould someone provide a link or quote to where snark advocated keeping the status quo?
It just strikes me quite often that those urging us out of Iraq do not do an adaquete job of explaining how abandoning the people of Iraq to the mess we've unleashed in the interest of staunching the flow of American blood and treasure is a prinipled course of action.
Sounds like stay the course to me!
Posted by Goyo at June 21, 2007 01:52 PMSounds like stay the course to me!
No where in that quote did I advocate the US remaining in Iraq, let alone keeping the staus quo or 'staying the course'. It is a criticism of what I see as a flaw in the way that the withdrawal policy is often presented.
Posted by snark at June 21, 2007 02:21 PM
Sounds like stay the course to me!
Then perhaps some courses in reading comprehension are in order. Try again!
Point well taken Snark and I am sorry for intimating that you were a koolaider, as I know you are not.....from my end there is only one way to withdraw....simply turn the bus around and go home....I know that sounds abrupt, but Iraq (Mesopotamia)is the cradle of civilisation and has endured Mongol hordes, British Imperialism and American meddling and has proven resiliant. Our leaving (rather US leaving) will not exacerbate the disaster.
I remember well the same "we must stay to avoid the commies overrunning the world" statements during the Vietnam era... and of course that did not happen; similarly, Iraq will not become an al Qaeda training ground nor will we have to fight the "terrists" on Madison Ave. The Sunni minority will polarize and will protect the Sunni Iraqis as the bulk of the officer corp of the old Iraqi army was Sunni and are a tough lot....the Abu Nasir tribe (Saddam's lot) states it will slit the throats of all the foreign fighters within a fortnight..there will be score settling and bloodletting on a large scale, but that is happening now.
So in my estimation the principled course is to withdraw immediately and let the Iraqis determine their future....of course this just won't happen with the kind of jellyfish leadership in the US. JMHO
Posted by Goyo at June 21, 2007 03:38 PMThen perhaps some courses in reading comprehension are in order. Try again!
You should stick to pictures of horsies Coyote...you are like an echo chamber.....a little late and usually distorted.
Uh, Goyo, horsies? Another hallucination? I was right and you were wrong. What's distorted about that?
Posted by iamcoyote at June 22, 2007 08:24 AM