Iraq, Iran, the 2008 campaign and Historical Perspective

[vison]

But your ilk apparently, just to 'prove' your point, just to vindicate your hostility to the US invasion, would rather see bloody chaos wreaked upon the poor Iraqi people. To you American failure is the most important thing: a pretty damn callous sort of schadenfreude.

Let's see if this can be translated into simple, clear English, shall we? My "ilk". Yes. Me, a Canadian. I was, like my government, opposed to the notion of an invasion of Iraq. Why was that, do you suppose? Is it because we, the people of Canada, were fans of Saddam Hussein? Had we, like the government of the USA, ever hugged and kissed Saddam Hussein? No, jeez! We had not. But, if we abhorred Hussein and his ILK (wonderful word, ilk) then why would we oppose an invasion that promised, if nothing else, to depose the butchering tyrant? We opposed it because we didn't want to see "bloody chaos wreaked upon the poor Iraqi people". However, we saw it. We saw "bloody chaos wreaked upon the poor Iraq people" by - guess who? Can you guess, solictr? Do you know the answer to that question?

"To you (meaning my "ilk"), American failure is the most important thing." Um, no, solictr. The most important thing is: "the bloody chaos wreaked upon the Iraqi people." My "ilk", or at least ME, I don't give a rat's ass about "American failure". How could I? It's got nothing to do with me. I had no part in it. I take no pleasure in it. I hate to see "bloody chaos wreaked" upon ANYONE in this world and most assuredly I hate to see Americans killed and maimed by their own government because some moron in cowboy boots got a hard-on for war.

"A callous sort of schadenfreude"? My word. Let's get all hotsy totsy, shall we? And whilst doing so, let's ascribe motives to other people, let's read their minds, let's assert that you, solictr (and maybe your ILK) know what goes on in my heart. By all means. But you will allow me the courtesy, since you are so full of "duty, obligations, and honour" of doing the same for you.

Only, you know? I won't. I can't bring myself to use the kind of hateful language you seem to enjoy using. I can't describe what I think of your mindset, your ILK's mindset, in polite enough language for this forum.

America is no longer a young nation. Yet, America has failed, signally, to learn the one lesson a mature man or nation learns: to accept responsibility for wrongdoing, and to realize that there are some mistakes that cannot be erased/fixed/redeemed. The dead cannot be brought to life, the maimed cannot be made whole.

The duty of the USA is to leave Iraq to Iraqis. The obligation of the USA is to crawl home and reflect on the gross monstrosity of the invasion. The honour? *shrug* If you ever had it, you don't now.

[solicitr]

Cerin:

The end of my last post went too far. I apologize. I am not a mind-reader and I must not pretend to be one, nor should I cast aspersions upon supposed ulterior motivations: an unworthy combination of strawman and ad hominem.




However, I maintain that your attitude is too fixated on what is past. The invasion cannot be undone. What has to be decided is what to do *now:* and as long as our presence means that fewer rather than more Iraqis die, as long as there is some sort of upward trajectory from the morass that, yes, WE created, then it is our obligation to do so, not run away and leave the Iraqis to deal with the horrific consequences. The dead and the maimed cannot be restored: but if we can prevent others sharing their fate we must do so. For the people in towns and neighborhoods across Iraq, for now the GIs are their only bulwark against the nightmare returning.

[vison]

However, I maintain that your attitude is too fixated on what is past. The invasion cannot be undone. What has to be decided is what to do *now:* and as long as our presence means that fewer rather than more Iraqis die, as long as there is some sort of upward trajectory from the morass that, yes, WE created, then it is our obligation to do so, not run away and leave the Iraqis to deal with the horrific consequences. The dead and the maimed cannot be restored: but if we can prevent others sharing their fate we must do so. For the people in towns and neighborhoods across Iraq, for now the GIs are their only bulwark against the nightmare returning.

For millions of Iraqis, the GI's ARE the nightmare.

Long ago, at the beginning of this horror, I asked, on another forum, if the US was "in it for the long haul". At the time, I said I feared not. But that was back when, despite my opposition, I thought maybe the USA might, this time as opposed to other times, actually achieve a stated goal. It became quickly apparent that it wasn't going to happen. The "stated goal" was a lie, anyway. To be a good thing, "stay in for the long haul" presupposes that the long haul will lead to a good end.

There is no virtue in stubborness. There is a kind of secondary virtue in recognizing reality, no matter how painful.

There won't ever be a good time to leave Iraq. Blood will be shed, no matter when the US forces pull out. That is the painful reality. How much more of your substance should be spent on this folly?

Put a good face on it. Gather a few of the "democratically elected" guys you've made deals with. Call in the TV crews. Get someone in a tank suit to hold his arms up and shout "Mission Accomplished". Everyone will pretend everything's copacetic.

[Padme]

So after the election, and if Obama and or Hillary wins, what is the next step in Iraq?

This is what I am wondering. I wonder if we do pull out what happens then...does Iran rush in? And what about the Turks? Can the Iraqi people run the country without outside help at this point? What infrastructures are still able to be utilized? And more importantly who will controll Iraqi oil, will it be the Iraqi government, will the money be put into the Iraqi economy or into someone's fat pocket? Because if the Iraqi people don't have some sort of functional economy it won't make any difference if the US pulls out or not. And if the US is to fund the economy, doesn't that pretty much put us in the same place we are now?

[vison]

So after the election, and if Obama and or Hillary wins, what is the next step in Iraq?

This is what I am wondering. I wonder if we do pull out what happens then...does Iran rush in? And what about the Turks? Can the Iraqi people run the country without outside help at this point? What infrastructures are still able to be utilized? And more importantly who will controll Iraqi oil, will it be the Iraqi government, will the money be put into the Iraqi economy or into someone's fat pocket? Because if the Iraqi people don't have some sort of functional economy it won't make any difference if the US pulls out or not. And if the US is to fund the economy, doesn't that pretty much put us in the same place we are now?

Why would Iran "rush in"? The Turks? They have their hands full at home, after all.

As for who controls the Iraqi oil? I could tell you, but I'll let you guess. No, I won't be so mean: the US will control Iraqi oil, as has been the intention all along. There is no actual need to occupy the country. As for fat pockets? The Big Oil Companies do very well. Exxon just reported record and absolutely fabulous profits, after all.

Still, the USA is no longer the only big player in the oil market. China is expected to pass the USA in oil use very soon. They will pay whatever they have to, to get the oil. They are not concernced about profits in the same way Mr. Cheney and his chums are concerned about profits. The Chinese want oil. They have to have oil. They buy oil companies and oil countries if they can, but if they have to they will buy from BP, Shell or Exxon or Mobil, etc. So imagine a scenario where the Chinese outbid the US for some company's output and that company is, oh, let's say Shell. Is Shell going to say, "Oh, jeez, no, we can't sell that oil to you, they need it in the USA"?

See? Ya gotta control the source, to prevent that old market from working.

[Padme]

Um isn't the oil company that China controls now the same company in Sudan?

And I have said that China would be the biggest 'threat' to the US.

But back to the topic...what happens in Iraq once the US pulls out? This is probably not an if, but a when and a when right after the next election.

[solicitr]

For millions of Iraqis, the GI's ARE the nightmare

That's based on what? Perhaps you haven't noticed the torture rooms, the shallow graves, the headless bodies perforated with power drills? The daily public beheadings, including of children? The starvation resulting from insurgent theft of foodstocks? That was the nightmare in town after town after town, before those maligned grunts ran off the bad guys.

China is expected to pass the USA in oil use very soon....So imagine a scenario where the Chinese outbid the US for some company's output and that company is, oh, let's say Shell. Is Shell going to say, "Oh, jeez, no, we can't sell that oil to you, they need it in the USA"?

Excuse me? Chinese oil consumption is less than a third of the US. Moreover the oil market doesn't work that way. It's an exchange. commodity. The Iraqi government does and will continue to control Iraq's oil, selling it at world market price (subject to OPEC production quotas).

[vison]

Sure.

But when push comes to shove? In case you hadn't noticed, the USA invaded Iraq. Let us imagine a time when the USA will stand quietly by while the Chinese outbid them for the oil, shall we? China's oil consumption is skyrocketing, and, while it might not be next week, unless you are over 65, you will probably see the day China uses more oil than the USA.

I always bemoan how politicians think "short term". But then, along comes guys like Cheney and his cadres and, guess what, they DO think long term.

You know, for millions of Iraqis, life under Saddam wasn't bad. It was TERRIBLE for some, as we know. He was indeed a monster and I, for one, am glad he's dead. Had it been up to me, his body would have been thrown into the street for the dogs.

But nonetheless, there was some stability. It was a secular society. It ain't now. Iraq is an occupied country. People don't like being occupied, even when the occupier is there "for their own good". They are living through what amounts to a civil war.

As for the "insurgents". Well, solictr, who turned that particular beast loose? How many "insurgents" were poncing about Iraq before the invasion? Do you think the Iraqi people don't know? How would you feel if your neighbour unlocked the door for burglars to enter your house?

Insurgents is the wrong name, anyway. They would have been insurgents if they had been fighting Saddam Hussein. They are fighting an occupying force, they are fighting each other for supremacy - all courtesy of Uncle Sam. To pretend that there is a democratically elected national government in Iraq for this "insurgency" to rise up against? Whatever.

ETA: I understand the despair of ordinary decent Americans when they see the pickle they are in. It's horrible. I can understand very well the impulse to try to fix things. To hope against hope that things might turn out okay. Just another month/year/decade, and the Iraqis will be safe and prosperous. I can understand the reluctance to face the guilt and shame: because there is guilt and shame. It was wrong. It was immoral. It might even have been illegal.

It brings back nasty memories of another failed imperial adventure, and to that generation (which happens to be my generation) it is a dreadful sight to see the USA once again bogged down in the quagmire of a foolish war in a far-off land. Those who think the USA was "betrayed" by the "peaceniks" at home think they see it all happening again. I even feel sorry for them, although it is a struggle to do so. Losing your illusions is always painful, it's easier to cling to them.

I've lived next door to the USA all my life. I was brought up to admire and respect the USA. I remember perfectly well when Ike was president, when America was the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Maybe it was all bullshit then, probably it was, but it was real enough to fool me. It sure doesn't look that way any more.

[solicitr]

Vision, you're chewing over the past. The past is done. It can't be helped. The question is, what's the least bad option as things stand?

[Primula Baggins]

Part of the reason for my own frustration is that no one—other than the innocent, and soldiers doing their duty—is ever going to be punished for this mess. Those responsible will move from the White House to various silk-lined boardrooms and work on their golf games, assuming they even lose the election. The spineless Democrats in Congress would never be so uncollegial as to object to anything that's been done.

[vison]

Vision, you're chewing over the past. The past is done. It can't be helped. The question is, what's the least bad option as things stand?

Yeah, it's so yesterday, eh?

In my honest, frank, truthful opinion: get out and get out now. Don't, like, have people clinging to helicopter pads, but make it quick, just the same.

The sooner the bitter pill is taken, the sooner the cure can begin.

It's going to be hard. But, with any luck, the whole "pulling out" fiasco can be blamed on a Democratic president and in four years, the revisionists will be able to have a nice, plausible scenario for how the "betrayal" happened.


Sorry. I won't edit away my snarkiness, I'll leave it. But I will add, with no snarkiness at all, that I am NOT going to feel good about any of it. How could anyone? I won't even say, "We told you so."

eta: I doubt that anyone is going to do what I think should be done. But one can hope.

[yovargas]

After pondering sol's views on the war, I've decided that the candidate who publicly says the following would almost certainly get my vote regardless of any other issues or stances they may have:

"I am not in favor of staying in Iraq indefinitely. I am not in favor of leaving Iraq now. What I am in favor of is minimizing any continued death and damage that our involvement in Iraq may have caused. As your President, I will do my fullest to work towards a solution that accomplishes this, whatever that solution may be."



Which candidate do you think could say that?
I wonder if they'd be a Dem or a Rep......

[solicitr]

Yovargas-

[tinwë]

"I am not in favor of staying in Iraq indefinitely. I am not in favor of leaving Iraq now. What I am in favor of is minimizing any continued death and damage that our involvement in Iraq may have caused. As your President, I will do my fullest to work towards a solution that accomplishes this, whatever that solution may be."



Which candidate do you think could say that?
I wonder if they'd be a Dem or a Rep......

Any one of them could say it .

My understanding is that McCain is not saying that, since he is on record saying that he thinks we should be there for another 100 years, which strikes me as the practical equivalent of “indefinitely”. Beyond that, I’m not sure how he has elaborated, except that he would “stay the course”. I’m sure even he would agree that we should minimize any continued death and damage though.

Both of the Democratic candidates espouse policies that follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, namely a “phased redeployment of combat troops”, whatever that means. I know that Obama has said that he would immediately begin to remove combat troops, one or two brigades a month, and have them all out within sixteen months. But even he would keep some troops there to protect our embassy and diplomats, as well as troops to carry out targeted strikes against Al Qaeda bases if needed. I believe he has also said he would continue to help train Iraqi forces and provide humanitarian aid.

I think that comes pretty darned close to your statement, closer than McCain anyway.

I assume Clinton’s position is much the same.

Here’s a good breakdown of Obama’s position on Iraq:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

And Clinton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... n#Iraq_War

[Voronwë the Faithful]

tinwë, both of your links are to Obama's position.

[tinwë]

Oops, sorry. Corrected. I should know better than to post late at night.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's all right. I initially called you "Prim" (until she PMed me to correct the mistake).

[elfshadow]

yov, I'm pretty sure that in one way or another all of the candidates ARE saying that. They all want to leave Iraq at the precise time so that "death and damages" are minimized. It's just that they disagree when that time is. As does just about everyone here in this thread. I don't think there is anyone on this planet who will be able to say, "Yep, this is the time when pulling out of Iraq will minimize the worst effects" and be correct without just making a lucky guess. It's impossible to know when the "right" time is, and the best people can do is give their informed opinions. The situation in Iraq--and with military occupations in general--is so complex that even the wisest and most seasoned foreign policy expert can't truly determine the best time to leave. And I think it's unfair to expect that anyone can, to be honest. There's a good chance that leaving Iraq within the next year will cause more deaths than staying longer. There's a good chance that leaving Iraq in 100 years will cause more deaths than leaving sooner. There's a good chance that leaving Iraq in 7 years will cause more deaths than leaving in 6 years. Etcetera etcetera.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Great post, Elsha.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It was interesting to see all three candidates have the opportunity to address the Iraq war and question General Petreus this week. It's probably no surprise that I was most impressed with Obama. McCain and Clinton seemed to be just repeating their hardened position. McCain seems as blind to the realities as Bush himself (in my opinion), while Clinton seems to just be saying what she thinks is the most politically expedient thing to say. But Obama's comments were thoughtful and insightful, though not particularly politically helpful. The idea that we may need to settle for a "messy status quo" doesn't sound so great, but it is truly realistic given the reality on the ground. The fact that he is willing to face that reality even as a candidate bodes well to me for how he would do as president.

I know that others will disagree, but the latest Petreus/Crocker testimony really bears out how ultimately unsuccessful the current strategy is, despite the apparent surface gains over the past year. The reduction in violence has been as much due to internal developments as to the surge. The problem is that in focusing on the surge, we have failed to take advantage of those internal developments, losing an opportunity for real, long-term progress. Remember the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group? They were to focus on intensive diplomatic and political efforts, as well as focusing on training and integrating the Iraqi security forces so that Iraq could become a truly functional country, or failing that three autonomous countries. Instead, we see a situation where the political progress has been almost non-existence, Iran's influence has only increased, the security forces have demonstrated that they are completely unable to meet their challenges, and will be for the foreseeable future, and the in-fighting has moved from Shia vs. Sunni to Shia vs. Shia and Sunni vs. Sunni. With Sadr poised to formally end his seize fire, the increased violence promises to continue to escalate, despite the "pause" in the drawdown of U.S. forces that Petreus has ordered.

Achieving a "messy status quo" really does sound like the best possible goal that we can aim for, at this point. Pursuing a strategy that has no realistic resolution in sight is just going to make the situation worse in the long run.