I don't trust that this administration is interested in stability in Iraq. We are there to make sure that their oil resources (read US national interests) are controlled and exploited by US multi-national corporations at the expense of Iraqi nationals.
I would not be a bit surprised to learn that much of the bombing in Iraq is sponsored by covert US entities. We need a reason for our continued presence there and the constant civil strife provides that justification.
Iraq's oil reserves are that last of the easy to get at, low lying fruit of sweet crude left in the planet. Those who control it's distribution will decide who suffers first from the oil demand/supply imbalance that is ever increasing. It is a fact that world oil production is down 1 MBD from 2006 and demand has risen 1.5-2 MBD.
Instead of leading America away from it's suicidal over consumption economy into a geologically certain new economic paradigm, our leaders have chosen to militarily seize the easily harvested oil that remains.
Again, short sighted thinking is dominating policy making here in the good old U.S. of A. to the detriment of our children's future.
Posted by brisa at July 18, 2007 06:17 PMIt doesn't represent a narcissistic preoccupation with itself. In the first instance, it reflects a desire to see Americans stop killing Iraqis, particularly when the armed services long since stopped trying to identify an "enemy," and think that all Iraqis are enemies. This attitude has contributed to torture, rape, murder, killing over 400 Iraqis at checkpoints because they misinterpret directions (one picture I particularly remember had a mother and father shot dead in the front seat with their blood spattered all over their three girls in the back seat of their car), and convoluted rationales (identifying all dead iraqis as "al-Quaida," for example.) Americans who are there, and all of us who fund them, are now killing Iraqis--and driving upwards of two million Iraqis from their homes--just to be killing. Callling for an end to that is not "narcissistic" but its opposite.
Charles
Posted by charles moore at July 18, 2007 06:51 PMI agree with you. We have a huge financial obligation to these people for what we've done to them since 1991. But we have no obligation to keep shedding American blood there, and no moral right to keep asking Americans to do so.
Besides, our very presence in Iraq just incites more violence. The Guardian has an interesting article today about a coalition of different insurgent groups whose goal is to kick us out. They are also united against al Qaeda.
That doesn't sound like the doomsday scenario we are told will happen if we pull our troops out.
But even if all-out sectarian civil war did break out after we leave, it's up to the Iraqis to deal with it. We're responsible for a lot of misery in Iraq, but we're not responsible for the hatred between sects.
Posted by abi at July 18, 2007 07:01 PMIt's pretty much a given that nothing we do will amount to anything as long as Bush and Cheney and their bootlickers are involved.
We have no standing in the Middle East, and it would take a President/Administration along the lines of a Jimmy Carter to even think about regaining standing there. We don't have any models to follow really, think about all of our Presidents since McKinley, and tell me who was humanitarian and recognized our hubris as a nation.
At the same time, dammit, we ARE Americans, we have something, just barely, that nobody else really has, a live Constitution that actually shapes and controls our lives, as it is meant to do.
Yes, people are people all over the world. And you and I don't like everybody we meet, either. Which makes things difficult at times. But packing up and leaving, as many have noticed, really won't work very well. And even though many of us opposed this whole nightmare, from his selection on down to the response to 9/11, we do get to bear the burden of responsibility, some day sooner or later, like it or not.
So how much responsibility do we want to carry? Depends on how much blood is on our hands, and how hard we tried to stop some of it.
The first Democrat who comes up with a real, viable, plan for getting out of Iraq, which includes a discussion of responsibility and its consequences, who works on recompense for the Iraqi's, all of them regardless of their "flavor," who talks about some kind of way that reconciles or deals with the ugly realities on the ground, is the one who wins the honor of making things right in Iraq.
Here's what I think are some of the things that need to be done. First, repudiation of Iraqi oil. We don't get any, our companies don't get any. This shows some sacrifice and shows taht we are giving up on the reason we went there in the first place, in Dick Cheney's fevered brain of course.
Then, we start compensating Iraqi families. Maybe we set up a system of savings bonds, like EE Series bonds here, that you cash in 5-7 years down the road, plus some cash payouts now, I don't know.
Then, stop trying to undermine all of the states in the Middle East that we're undermining one way or another, which has left out Saudi Arabia and Israel and the Gulf States, Dubai and Kuwait etc to this point. You know, declare support for the democratic facts on the ground, that Hamas won their elections, that the Iranians aren't killing US troops with al Qaeda, that Syria is not terrorist lovers. These countries are what they are, and we need to treat them like wee treat anybody else. Check that, treat them like we're supposed to treat everybody else, Right Hugo?
Then show them that we regret our actions in Iraq, by allowing The Hague to try Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush et al for war crimes if they choose to. And maybe by recusing ourselves from UN deliberations on Middle Eastern issues, or maybe give our UN Security Council veto to some deserving state, you know, announce to the world that we will allow blank country or person to control our veto, if they say veto something we will on ME issues, like Iceland or Sweden or Jordan or Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi or the Dalai Lama, and stick to it.
I don't know if humility is the right approach, it's a bit gone beyond emotional acts at this point, it's like the apologies for slavery by individuals, unlike a governmental apology which expresses a policy change, they're nice but usefully meaningless, but we do need to DEMONSTRATE what our values are through actions.
And removing Bush and Cheney from office would be a bout the best DEMO we could make. It would give us a starting point, without their removal from the stage, there will be no starting point on the road to recovery.
Posted by Duckman GR at July 18, 2007 07:28 PMit does seem a valid point about helping the iraqi's. they can't or won't help themselves for a variety of both valid and absurd reasons. They don't know how is one of the valid, that they are trying is not. The government is bought. It was set up by another government that is bought. It is meaningless to any reality in iraq. It is a puppet, and it gets all the money. Sort of a palestine where you give all the money to the yassar, and everyone else can eat dirt.
but how do we help them through this? the only volunteers seem likely to be those with the desire to own their chunk. there is no one honest that anyone would trust because they are honest.
we destroyed their country and government. the same people that did this have little reason to change this, it is something they are profiting by enormously. all of our equipment has to stay when we pull out. means another windfall for the arms and war toy makers. means whomever can control what is left in iraq, gets to keep it. it is comforting they didn't leave any submarines and troop transport ships and the like to allow them to come over here.
if we can't get out and can't stay, the choice becomes obvious. it is time to consider our own people now. they deserve better than being spent for nothing. but that is what we have always thought. and that is how they have always been used for the gain of some. it is the people that put our people in this, and destroyed the government and killed the hundreds of thousands that need to pay for this.
is there anyone that can deny that this is a war crime? when the UN can determine a million have died, will this qualify? is it a magic number? the people of the united states will never be welcome in the world again unless we send our government to the Hague to submit to trial for crimes against humanity.
watch the neo fascist machines in this country move their operations to opec nations. it has all ready begun though, hasn't it?
the circle must be broken
Posted by oldtree at July 18, 2007 08:48 PMAccording to K.O. earlier this evening, the army did a study (wargaming, and other studies) of what would happen if we left Iraq. The one thing that they concluded absolutely would NOT happen - Iraq becoming an AlQuida stronghold. Not gonna happen. Nada.
Posted by jwrjr at July 18, 2007 08:51 PMI fought in the first gulf war, I was part of a small detachment which was hunting for and blowing up scud missile launchers in the western Iraqi desert. I have traveled widely in Iraq. I speak fluent Arabic and have broken bread with bedouin in their tents, sheiks in Anbar province, Kurdish families in Kuridstan, and many other Iraqi people.
Both the right and the left have a totally inaccurate picture of what is going on in Iraq. The predominant political leaning in Iraq is nationalism, not pro-America, not pro-Islam, not Sunni, not Shia, but nationalism. The Iraqis are proud people, BUT they are proud IRAQIs first. This Shia-Sunni divide is mostly artificial, being imposed from the outside. Prior to the US media being so constantly hysterical about Sunni vs Shia, most Iraqis didn't really pay that much attention to whether someone was Shia or Sunni.
The current Iraqi government, not the parliament rank and file, but the leadership, has no credibility because it is made up of exiles who were brought back to Iraq after long periods of having lived abroad.
The real power in Iraq is not within the green zone. The real power in Iraq lies in the tribal leaders.
The presence of the US military, in its role of propping up a government which most Iraqis view as being illegitimate, is ensuring that the Iraqi leadership will not have to face the really tough decisions that are keeping the country from uniting around their nationalism and desire for real democracy. See, the Iraqis don't view their present government as "democratic". Yes, they voted in elections, but the people at the very top are not "representative" of Iraqi thought.
The current government will never face the tough decisions of power sharing, revenue sharing, nation building, de-Baathification, rehabilitation for ex-Sadaam loyists, and the myriad other tough issues facing them as long as American troops are there keeping them in power.
The solution to the mess in Iraq is real simple. Order the American forces to withdraw from the urban areas to base camps in more remote areas with orders to defend themselves but not to intervene in Iraqi affairs. Then give the Iraqi leadership an ultimatum - "make the tough decisions that you are obligated to make both by the Constitution, promises made during the elections, and promises made to the coalition forces, and pass meaningful legislation to move forward on these decisions, or all US forces will immediately depart the country and all US aid will be cut off". This ultimatum should be broadcast to the Iraqi people in every possible way so that the politicians cannot just continue protecting their own interests. But, before this ultimatium is made the current government should be forced to bring the real power brokers in the country into the government. We know who they are, and they want to participate, but they want to participate in a government that is not a stooge of American interests. It has to be made very clear that American interest in Iraq is to help rebuild the country, then leave as soon as is practical.
Along with this approach, the borders of Iraq have to be secured. The Kurds have a 100,000 man army known as the pesh merga which has pretty much been sitting the war out in Kurdistan. Based on the troop ratios per mile of border of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Runamia, Hungary, Poland, and other Warsaw Pact powers, it takes 250,000 troops to secure 1200 miles of border. Iraq has roughly 1200 miles of border with Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. The US should call up its reserves, fully mobilize the national guard and fully mobilize the Pesh Merga and create a 250,000 strong force to secure Iraq's borders. This will stop the flow of weapons, money, and foreign fighters into Iraq. Then force the government to stop hiding behind the protective shield of American troops and get on with the tough decisions required to create a real country. Make the consequences of failing to do that quickly far worse than the pain of taking the difficult actions.
This would force the Iraqis to stop squabbling over their selfish interests and work together on their nationalist agenda. Al-Qeda will try to disrupt this process, but each Iraqi village, town, city, and province can be given the right to create self defence forces following the model used in Bosnia for the defence of the local community. These forces would be enough to defeat al-Qeda. One thing that Iraqis are is xenophobic and most of the al-Qeda members are foreigners. Given the right tools, the Iraqis could make short work of them.
Curious
Posted by curious at July 19, 2007 03:03 AMThank you Curious for taking your time and explaining your position on returning Iraqi control to their Country.
Posted by Judith at July 19, 2007 04:34 AMWe broke it and we have a moral obligation to fix it. Bringing those who are responsible to justice is the only way I see of healing the wounds of aggression and destruction. The saddest part of this story is that justice will never be served until then, and not likely to happen.
Posted by Judith at July 19, 2007 04:46 AMThe United States invaded a country using a PR campaign to garner public suppport for non-existent threats. We are now in the 5th year of occupation with no sign that we intend to ever leave. We have destroyed the urban scape and killed uncounted civilians. We are now fighting the citizens of that country who are trying to drive us out. Our government calls them Insurgents, Militia, Al Qaeda and other names, but they are Iraqi citizens trying to drive out an invading force. We need to leave Iraq and provide whatever monitary help we can to help them rebuild what we have destroyed.
Posted by T2 at July 19, 2007 06:30 AMThis will stop the flow of weapons, money, and foreign fighters into Iraq.
No it will not. All you are supporting is a new S. Korea mission. You are partially correct with your statements about the tribal leaders and control of Iraq, but only outside of the major urban areas. Saddam held that country together -in part- by controlling the tribal leaders through cash payments and brutality when necessary.
The way out of Iraq is to leave. We have our bases in other countries surrounding Iraq and the Kurds seem amenable to our presence. Your suggestion will lead to a situation where we must maintain a massive presence to forestall the inevitable.
The Iraqis will do what they must do once we are gone. What will happen is that some ruthless fuck like Saddam will come along and grab power. I prefer that over us being ruthless fucks to grab the oil.
Posted by phidipides at July 19, 2007 07:10 AMMy comments at War in Context might sometimes be a bit cryptic. In this case, the "help" that I'm suggesting the US seeks is not in the form of foreign troops to replace American troops. The war is already lost and its way past time for the US to engage in the Iraqi political process by bringing together all the parties that have an interest at arriving at a political solution -- that includes Iran and Syria and insurgents who are open to engagement. For more on this, see my follow-up comment.
Posted by Paul Woodward at July 19, 2007 02:40 PM