Two ways:#1- I think it ends when a US President says "it's over, we're done". Absent that proclamation, it will meander along just as it has.
OR #2- the various forces in the region step up the battle, US casualties skyrocket and it becomes clear that a DRAFT will be needed. In that case, see #1.
I think it's pretty simple. Saddam did what he had to do to get people of the various sects of Iraq to live together, using violence, secret police or whatever he had at his disposal. As a result people lived together without strife, and even Iraqi women found freedom. george bush in his supreme ignorance and for all the wrong reasons destroyed Saddam's regime, unleashing the demons that Saddam delt with and placated. To make matters worse, perhaps an Iraqi could restore the balance Saddam created using the same tactics Saddam used, but an outsider in Iraq will never accomplish the feat. So Saddam accomplished something gwb will never, bringing some peace to an unhealthy land. My guess is that in the long run Saddam will be recognised for that, at the same time as he is recognised as a brute. But gwb will be recognised as an unholy brute, but without the recognition of accomplishing anything.
Truth can set us free, too bad about the millions killed for nothing, but we can't do anything about that now. Just get the fuck out.
Posted by jimbo at April 9, 2008 11:56 AMIt ends when our own country collapses. No, probably not even then.
Posted by Sharkbabe at April 9, 2008 12:20 PMI enjoyed this post, and there is no actual end.
The problem is that our non-stupid elites know we went in for Iraq's oil, and they think that we need to remain there to control its disposition and to make sure that BigOil will be involved (and protected) to extract it. And that we also invaded to "protect" our lil' buddy Israel from Saddam's suicide bombing payola racket.
Since the world is running out of accessible oil, the quick answer is that these elites don't want "it" (the occupation) to end, but are unhappy that the jig appears to be up and that "it" has cost a bundle.
Many dumb Repubs cogs and neanderthals think that we went in to "spread democracy" and kick a little terroristic A-rab ass and we can't leave with anyone arguably "unpacified" and unwilling to kiss our soldiers asses. It's an "honor" thing for most of these ass-clowns like Repub leader John (Cryin') Boner and his minions. So back-benching Repubs have no interest in getting out---military and national "honor" is everything and they see it being "stained" everywhere and thus their "manhood" feels threatened. This won't change.
That means that only a small minority of the Congress (and no one in the executive branch) really want to stop occupying Iraq, and thus we keep funding it, and sit in a total logjam of historic proportions, bleeding our country of funds and Iraq of blood.
Dems have decided to Wait Till 2009, as T2 has said several times. That's true, but it assumes that McSame can't win. What happens after he wins and we've got another Dr. No in the WH for another 4 years?
I guess at that point you start the knock-down fight to actually stop funding and when McSame vetoes it, you tell him he better start a pro-war bake sale 'cuz there ain't gonna be no more money from Congress after X date, and all Hell breaks loose.
That's the little constitutional "scene" that Dems have sought to avoid with the vile Cheney---but they may get to play the scene out anyway.
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2008 01:03 PMeuzoius, the Dems are waiting because they have no choice. Haven't you heard, in a 100 vote group, 60 is the majority (not 51 as we were stupidly led to believe).
Posted by T2 at April 9, 2008 01:07 PMYeah, I know, T2, but they're going to have the same problems with Prez McSame.
And BTW, why exactly didn't any of the senators reference Bacevich's NYT op/ed and ask his nicely written out, excellent questions? You'd think Hillary (or her staffers) read the NYT. And to be fair, doesn't Obama?
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2008 01:15 PMIran condems the violence Sadr's people are involved with. al Sistani sides with the PM Maliki and tells Sadr to comply with the national government. And we have you fine folks wanting answers for questions that you won't listen to. You're minds are made up. Bush Derangement Syndrome is amongst you. The fever over powers all sorts of decency, honor, and pride for our country.
We ALL support our troops, both you and I. I'm aware, I'll admit we've made errors, mistakes along the way. When will you fine folks admit our troops are doing a super job right now? The 'surge' is working because of our troops performances. Y'all want to strike at the president, but you're striking at our troops instead by telling them the job they're doing isn't worth the doing. Not recognizing their accomplishments.
The president will return home to Texas next year. Our troops will still be there for years to come. Who ever becomes our 44th president will not alter that fact.
Posted by peter at April 9, 2008 01:26 PM"they're going to have the same problems with Prez McSame." No, with McSame the majority will be 70 votes. Seriously, euzoius is correct in saying that protecting our buddies in Israel will continue to be, along with oil, the two behind the scenes reason for taking over the Mid-East...yes, the whole darn place. Thats what the PNAC intended all along.
Posted by T2 at April 9, 2008 01:32 PM"The fever overpowers all sorts of decency, honor, and pride for our country"
Thanks for proving my point about Repub cogs like you, peter---you want the troops to stay until every Iraqi kisses their asses, just as you do in your nightly dreams.
Petraeus has now got the Imperial Sturmtruppen intervening in internal political battles to affect the outcome of upcoming provincial elections. That's what our troops are doing---attacking densely populated urban areas with aerial bombing runs in support of Maliki's efforts to destroy the Sadrist party's organizational structure and base. So that the shi'ite parties most congenial to keeping the oil occupation going win the coming elections, and the anti-occupation, nationalist forces lose the elections.
Not the noblest endeavor by Our Heroes in my view. But dream your sweet dreams of do-goodin' soldiery.
I "support the troops" by wanting them to be fully and completely withdrawn according to a timetable negotiated with the various major player of Iraq, as finalized by a regional conference, most specifically including Iran.
I then want the absurdly bloated US military cut by 75% over the course of the next 15 years---but don't worry, just the cost of follow-on disabilities and Iraq vets health care will cost hundreds and hundreds of billions over the next twenty years, so your wingnut "honor" in paying enormous continuing "defense" bills can be preserved.
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2008 01:48 PMBy Peter: "We ALL support our troops, both you and I. I'm aware, I'll admit we've made errors, mistakes along the way. When will you fine folks admit our troops are doing a super job right now? The 'surge' is working because of our troops performances. Y'all want to strike at the president, but you're striking at our troops instead by telling them the job they're doing isn't worth the doing. Not recognizing their accomplishments".
More rightwing horseshit, lots of words saying nothing. bush will accomplish nothing in Iraq except to continue killing our troops, and more tens of thousands of Iraqis. When we finally pull our heads from our asses and leave Iraq will be the same as before Saddam wrested power. Any change has to come from its people, and they show no inclination to change. Even if they wanted they can't overcome the power of the religionists.
So Peter, you're the one who harms the troops, by refusing to accept reality. Bring the troops home now, then you can go off on some other rightwing jerkoff(the Clinton impeachment comes to mind), without being responsible for all the death and destruction.
"lots of words, saying nothing".
Exactly, and eloquently put.
Meaningless platitudes and slogans masquerading as "thought" or "analysis". That's "conservatism".
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2008 03:29 PMeuzo,
they're conserving thought and analysis for those who know how to use them...
Posted by Turkana at April 9, 2008 03:34 PMWhen are we getting out? Hell, our great leaders don't know how to get out, much less when.
Posted by Judith at April 9, 2008 03:45 PMThe end is near.
Russia leapfrogs Canada and invades from the North.
China swoops in from the West.
Mexico and Venezuala push up from the South.
The Iranian Navy steams into New York harbor.
They take the US in 9 weeks. Bush is caught in the Rose Garden, kneeling in an ascension robe while clutching an empty bottle of Jack Daniels.
Who's gonna stop them? The Army, Marines, and National Guard in Iraq?
Who can blame them? They just couldn't take another day of Bush fucking up the world.
I think Sharkbabe's suggestion is closer to the truth of the final outcome. Collapse, and not any expression of political will, is the most likely way this sorriest chapter of American history will end. The war lovers and empire builders and oil men will go on destroying the army, wearing them down past the point of recovery, in service of the most debased economic agenda imaginable. Some forms of madness defy any possiblity of intervention, and must play out to a grisly end in a Bunker.
The time will probably come when we even despise ourselves for often parroting the phrase "We support the troops...of course, we support the troops." Fascist society always devolves to such trite slogans as their marvelous young troops keep butchering their way into as yet untouched populations. One day we will be unable to support this nonsense.
Posted by Copeland at April 9, 2008 06:49 PMHere's how it ends. American troops Massacred on the Basra road as they run out of Iraq.
Posted by Salo at April 10, 2008 06:43 PM