A new poll found that 51 percent of Americans see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader anti-terror effort. I disagree slightly — though not the way that President Bush argues.
I think Iraq is a frontline fight against terrorism, but that it became one because of our invasion and botched occupation. As columnist John Young wrote on Tuesday’s Opinion pages, "What we did in Iraq was create a cataclysmic vacuum that has drawn blood-oath jihadists like flies to a carcass."
I also think John Kerry was correct that international police work and shared intelligence should be the focus of the war on terror, not invading countries that had no meaningful ties to al-Qaida.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
81 Comments
I agree that our invading Iraq only invited more terrorists and has made us look like the bully on the playground. The only way to win the Iraq war is by changing Muslim minds and that is NOT by bombing and killing every day. We need a new strategy and I don’t mean cut and run. I mean to repair our own relationships with our allies and get the world involved. As it is currently, we are viewed as having gone basically by ourselves because of some bravado strategy.
So now we have McCain, very publicly and very explicitly, criticizing the Fearless Leader’s approach to the war in Iraq. This is absolutely hilarious – watching the rats flee the sinking ship is sweet, sweet schadenfreude.
McCain, and other right-wingers, have begun to step up their criticism of the conduct of the war, saying things like “There were not enough troops after Saddam’s fall;” “There has been a lack of leadership;” and finally, the funniest of all “The administration did not tell the American people what this war would truly cost. The American people needed to (and didn’t) know the requirements going into this war.” What utter BS. Yes, the administration clearly lied and spinned the whole time, but to suggest that there was no one YELLING what the true cost would be is a lie. Millions upon millions of Americans tried to have their voices heard in the runup to the war; these people laid out, pretty damn presciently, what the reality of this war would be. These citizens were ignored by the media, called traitors, terrorists and all the like. But guess what? WE. WERE. RIGHT. The problem with what has happened is not the conduct of the war, or the lack of leadership or troops – the problem was going to war in the first place.
Haven’t you noticed that McCain will sway with whatever he thinks will get him the most press? I used to like him but in the last several years – he is just like the rest of the Bushies. Dont’ trust him.
WMDS! 9/11! SADDAM FLEW THE PLANES! STAY THE COURSE! CUT-AND-RUN! YOU’RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!
Trudy Rubin has some good insight
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/15335148.htm
If you want to understand the wider repercussions of the war between Hezbollah and Israel, buy a brilliant and very readable new book called “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future.”
The author, Vali Nasr, is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and a top expert on Shiite Islam and the historic conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
The United States is now caught in the middle of the Shiite-Sunni conflict in Baghdad, and the Lebanon war has worsened the precarious U.S. position. This sectarian struggle will determine the outcome of America’s Iraq venture. Nasr believes it will shape the future of the entire Middle East.
Check out this video of bush admitting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and also some more blubbering about Iran and Iraq…
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=73312“ target=”_blank
http://iraqforsale.org/
Thanks, ddub. Great post.
It was a pack of lies from day one.
Now McCain is attacking himself by saying there was “a lack of leadership.”
It’s all part of the re-writing of history to make it seem like Republicans had nothing to do with this idiotic war, but they would have WON if only the liberals had let them.
That’s how they spin Vietnam.
That’s how they’ll spin this one.
Whenever republicans fail, it’s because those mean old liberals stabbed them in the back.
“A new poll found that 51 percent of Americans see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader anti-terror effort.”
In this poll, of those seeing a link between the war in Iraq and the broader anti-terror effort, 32% saw Iraq as a “Major part of the effort”, 12% saw Iraq as a “minor part of the effort” and 5% did not know… – and of the latter 5%, 2% were not sure which country they themselves lived in… :-)
I wonder how many of the 32% are those who think Iraqis hijacked the planes?
And how many of the Seven Dwarves can they name?
“I also think John Kerry was correct that international police work and shared intelligence should be the focus of the war on terror, not invading countries that had no meaningful ties to al-Qaida.Posted by Phillip Brownlee”
THEN WHY DID THIS EDITORIAL BOARD CHOOSE BUSH OVER KERRY????
I STILL HAVENT FORGAVE YOU GUYS FOR THAT!!!!
This says it all about the preznit:http://www.slate.com/id/2148197/?nav=tap3
Saddam definately supported terrorism, that he did not direct 9-11 is about as relevent as the fact Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor.Hitler and Japan were allies.Saddam was allied with terrorists!Saddam trained and supplied and financed terrorists!http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
The 51% are wrong Ben.Truth is not subject to majority vote.This pole only proves the White House is doing a poor job on the PR war.
I’m a person that agrees that the Iraq war is critical to our interest and the right thing to do.
Paul – there was no connection between our former ally Saddam and alQuada. You little adventure has made America LESS secure.
Not only did it draw terrorist like flies, but provided the ideal environment for the propagation of terrorist. Bush didn’t want to ’swat at flies’, so he devised an incubator where the flies could multiply.
Joe – you are also a person who falsely claims that a majority of Democrats believe that Bush/Cheney did 9/11.
Easy to pick out the two people on this thread that are part of that 32%! Unfortunately, Kansas has a disproportionate percentage of the 32%, I’m thinking the constitute about 22% of the faithful.
“Truth is not subject to majority vote” apparently not…..see: Florida, 2000; Ohio, 2004
“I’m a person that agrees that the Iraq war is critical to our interest and the right thing to do.” Why Joe? Why? I’m really trying to get a handle on your line of thinking, and I just can’t do it…..why? I don’t agree, but I’m trying to understand……I just don’t see it…..
Excellent post, Phillip.
Gary C., maybe I’m wrong but–was Rick Thames still at the helm then {shudders}? One unexpected benefit of his tenure (or so I’ve heard): the man’s hallucinated über-conservative worldview convinced a minor staffer named Mike Marlett to take a hike, and start F5 magazine. . .
. . . which, despite rumors to the contrary, no longer exists. The content and ethos of F5 will return on August 31 or thereabouts, under Marlett’s impeccable direction, and be called the “Wichita City Paper.”
(Sorry for the somewhat-off-topic advertising digression–I have no involvement or financial interest in the matter.)
Thanks for the update, Rage.
The old F5 rocked.
Haven’t seen the new one, but I’m glad to hear that Mike Martlett is back in bidness.
JFran–
“I’m a person that agrees that the Iraq war is critical to our interest and the right thing to do.” Why Joe?
Because Joe is willing to fight this war with the money of future generations and the last drop of somebody else’s blood.
Paul F. Rosell – “Truth is not subject to majority vote.”
Actual truth is subject only to reality and validity.
Perceived “truth” (sic) is subject to lies and misinformation — for examples, see Paul’s claims re Ken Lay (Lincoln bedroom), Arctic Refuge oil, Willie Horton, etc.
‘Terrorism Havens Iraq – Council on Foreign Relations’http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513“What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?:Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes.”
You are correct, sir (cosmos).
It was Saddam’s enemies the Kurds who had Abu Musab al Zarqawi (remember him?).
Al Qaeda wanted to take out the secular, socialist-leaning Saddam from day one.
Saddam only made one mistake in his life.
Gassing the Kurds? No, Reagan, Cheney, Rumsfilled still supported him and actually said the Kurds were killed by Iranians!
Invading Kuwait? Hell, no, he had already pissed off the de facto government of the United States long before when he . . .
NATIONALIZED the oilfields.
He had the unmitigated gall to keep the profits from the 2nd largest oil reserve for his own country instead of giving it to Halliburton, Shell, Exxon, BP, etc.
Once he did that, he was a dead man.
We invaded Iraq for one purpose and one purpose only–to put the oil profits back in the pockets of the big oil companies.
The WMD’s, the “democracy,” the fighting terrorism . . . it’s all shit.
A huge steaming pile of total and complete horseshit.
Thanks, Cap’n.
BTW–the purple chicken finally got around to other matters.
Paul F. Rosell,”This pole only proves the White House is doing a poor job on the PR war.”
“PR war”? That’s a tactic used by dictators, who use state-controlled media to control their subjects.
Also, it seems the “lap-dog” media are giving the WH lots of assistance.’Media coverage of Iraq debate steeped in GOP talking points’http://mediamatters.org/items/200606300009
Bin Laden and Al Quada are the ones we need to be after. They are the ones who call for the destruction of America. Only God Knows why we lost track of this guy around the area of Torra Borra but its been reported that there werent enough American troops on the ground to close him off.
Iraq has been nothing but a disaster , and has lost our focus on efficient ways to fight terrorism. If all the reasons were true for going to war in Iraq, then we probably would not be having these blog wars with Joe, Nathan and the like.
Bush has manipulated a war!Bush has alienated the world!Bush has done nothing to protect our borders and our ports!Bush has given the terrorist movement a cause!BUSH IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AND HAS MADE US LESS SAFE!!!!
YES I SAID IT JOE AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT!!!
I disagree with you Gary!
Question! What did Clinton do to protect our borders and ports. They are more safe now than in Clinton time.
Also! The Terrorist movement had the cause long before Bush came to office. Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis…. skip to Clinton. First attack on the WTC, boming of our Embassies in Africa, USS Cole, Mogadishu.
The Terrorist have already had their cause and their movement has been ongoing long before Bush.
It is now time to face up to them.
REGROUP, STATEGIZE, STRIKE. The last post states we shouldn’t cut and run, but there is something to be said about spinning our wheels in the sand – ie military forces expended, dollars expended not to mention the toll on our psyche so stated. I don’t like the idea we should get out and leave a vacuum for terrorist groups to fill up but that is what I’m going to suggest. Numerous times we’ve had to withdraw from a conflict – only to Regroup, Stategize – then Strike.Aleutian islands 1942, several platoons dug in, dusk arrives, America’s first encounter with the enemy – a Banzai charge. Intelligence estimates a small garrison – Wrong, more than 2000 regulars. My fathers unit overrun, but able to regroup, leaders strategized, Struck. The same unit went on to several other campaigns in the South Pacific – Japanese defeated.Vietnam, Communism in full swing, War Powers act executed. We won the battles but lost the war. American forces subjected to guerrilla warfare, we survived but at a tremendous toll. 1975, fall of Saigon, America nor any other country succumbs to communism.Iraq 2006, Americans subjected to guerrilla warfare – over 2500 dead Americans, not much to show – my cousins son survives IED, but his sargent and humvee driver die. Its time to a) Regroup – pull out of Iraq and lick our wounds, restrengthen our military. b) Strategize – revive the CIA back to pre 1992 for infiltration of these extremists, and then Strike. America will not succumb to these extremist.
WHY DO you always jump back to Clinton every time somebody attacks Bush!!
Clinton forewarned the admin. that terrorism would be a huge priority and well Bush dropped the ball on that one didnt he.
Bush really has not made any major use of any technology, and or search initiatives regarding cargo or border patrol. Remember just a short time ago the border was a hot issue because of its lack of security with the illegal immigration issue.
Regarding your question Joe, Yes I will agree with you that Clinton kept the status quo on border patrol and cargo. At the time we did not see this as a hot issue and I believe thats why nothing was implemented.
By the way Joe, Mogadishu was a military battle not a terrorist attack. And also I like your little attack on Carter and Clinton involving the years of terrorist attacks. Lets not forget that in between their presidencys Reagan/Bush were arming Saddam with chemical and biological weapons(that we destroyed after the 91 gulf war) and we were also arming Osama to help him rid the russians from afghanistan.
But back to what I was saying in a earlier post. Bush is a basically a loser and we will be paying for his stupidty down the road.
You’re right!
Except the fact that the current Iraq War is the right thing to do in mine and many other peoples opinion.
The reason I use Clinton, because everybody makes it out that terrorism started on 9/11 and that everything is Bush’s fault. It isn’t. Yeah! His administration made plenty of mistakes, but so did Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Carter.
I believe the Iraq War is a good decision. The execution and plans for that decision was done poorly and we paid the price for it, but it is still and will continue to be a good decision. It is a proactive stance and that is hard to judge until the conflicts in that region have been greatly reduced or doesn’t exist. But that isn’t going to happen for a long time.
Be prepared! We are in there for good, just like we have been in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea. We aren’t leaving any time soon.
Even if there is a Democrat controlled Congress and a President in 2008. Hillary will not bring the troops home. This is permanent. We might as well get used to it and stop talking about time tables and bringing all the troops home.
Sighhhhhhhhhh….
Why do I even bother with Joe anymore?
Joe says (or rants)
“What did Clinton do to protect our boders and ports?”
Joe? Check the comparison of busts of employers of illegal immigrants under Clinton vs. those under bush.
Joe? I also don’t recall Clinton attempting to farm out security and handling of cargo at ports to the middle eastern nation of Dubai, as bush so tried to do.
The public aint buying the war on terrorism anymore because bush won’t do the simple things. YOU know, like close the border or inspect all incoming container ships.
bush is very good at doing less effective and more domestically scary things like spying on phone calls and restricting the press. He is also good at launching wars that create terrorists and give them Americans conveniently local for killing.
The scare stuff doesn’t work anymore Joe.
Joe Williams re Iraq “Be prepared! We are in there for good…”
Sell THAT to the voters Joe.
Joe you seem to be light on the knowledge of the issues. If you want to talk about Clinton and terrorism you are out of luck. Some Republicans criticized Clinton because he was too obsessed with combating terrorism. If you’ll remember after the first WTC bombing the people involved were caught and arrested.
However Clinton inherited the problem. Bin Laden wanted Americans soldiers out of Saudi Arabia and that was his justification for the attacks. Who put the soldiers there? It was Bush Sr. Clinton’s problems with the WTC and Somalia happened right after he got into the White House, they were all problems he inherited from Bush Sr. and was left to sort out.
When Bush Jr. took over he decided he wasn’t going to do anything about terrorism. Gore’s recommendation about increase airline security was ignored (but later adopted after 9/11). When the Taliban offered Bin Laden Bush rejected their offer and said he was going to bomb the country. As for the defeat of the Taliban we’re still waiting for that one. Bush still has the Taliban to deal with but now the problem of opium production has been created as well, two failures where there was zero when he first took office.
Clinton worked his ass off for peace between Israel and Palestine. Bush comes in and blows off that region and conflicts happen again.
Clinton has Iraq contained and it wasn’t a threat, no Americans were dying in that country. Bush comes in and invades it, refuses the nation to quickly form their own government, and a civil war breaks out and 3000 Iraqis die each month.
The Republicans opposed Clinton’s anti-terrorism:
mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml
And no surprise the Republican controlled Congress remain weak on terrorism trying to create as many as possible because the only Republican platform is to keep America in fear.
Why did Bush ground the Predator, which had been after bin Laden, shortly after he took office in 2001?
I really hate to take up all the bandwidth again, but it seems there are some short memories.
Clinton Admin’s Record on Terrorism
Clinton Administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
–Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
-Clinton Administration increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
-Clinton Administration tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton Administration detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-Clinton Administration created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-Of Clinton Administration’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”
-Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton Administration left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”
Now what has Dubya done again?
RD – Thank you, the bandwidth you used was very worthwhile.
Joe says: “It is now time to face up to them.”
Do you understand who “them” is? I suggest you carefully read the informative column by Trudy Rubin that Ben recommended up-thread,
‘Lebanon makes U.S. plight even worse’http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/15335148.htm
Joe, you believe the Iraq war was/is the “right thing to do”.Estimates are that it would take about 1/2 million troops to suppress the civil war there — and the results after that are unknown. Are you okay with those costs, and unknown results?
CosmosKen Lay and Enron were TIGHT with Gore and Clinton :bhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/14/124745.shtmloth
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/14/124745.shtml
“Joe, you believe the Iraq war was/is the “right thing to do”.Estimates are that it would take about 1/2 million troops to suppress the civil war there — and the results after that are unknown. Are you okay with those costs, and unknown results?”
Do you think they really care about the ‘results?’ Let’s be perfectly frank here: this war is political now, nothing more, nothing less. The whole “America will be destroyed if we lose in Iraq…we will be attacked relentlessly if we leave Iraq…the Middle East will fall to the terrorists if we leave (neo-Domino Theory” its all designed to keep people afraid and voting Republican. No plan for ‘victory,’ whatever that is, just hyperbole. The reality is that Bush and the Republican Party are inextricably linked to the Iraq war. Leaving now, or even changing directions, is an admission of failure, which is anathema to all politicians.
So more of our nation’s finest will die, many more Iraqis will perish, and the Middle East will only get worse as a result of the chaos, and for what? So Bush and the GOP can save face? So all of the people who think this ‘war is a good idea, PROACTIVE [we're talking about a war here, not re-enacting a scene from The Office], taking the fight to the terrorists, planting the flag of democracy [anarchy], etc’ can avoid admitting how tragically wrong they were, and keep voting Republican with a clear conscience? In my opinion, they are just trying to delay paying the piper for their collective insanity and criminal behavior; some think they can put paying this debt off forever. I got news for you – you have two months before we collect.
51% of the American public evidently has taken notice of a famous utterance from ‘ol GW.
http://www.depresident.com/bush-fool-me-once-video.asp
No surprise to see Joe Williams still beating the drum for the biggest strategic disaster the history of American foreign policy. It’s going to get lots and lots worse if we DO attack Iran. Can you say, “120,000 hostages on the ground in Iraq”?
But I do agree with Joe Williams that U.S. troops will probably be there for a long, long, long time–regardless of what folks like me (who haven’t been wrong yet about ANY of this, by the way) write on obscure weblogs for other folks. World’s second largest proven crude oil reserves, after all.
CFSaddam was training, funding and hiding terrorists.Libya swore off terrorism after we toppled Saddam.How in the world can you call this such a horrible blunder?Ever hear of Omaha Beach?We have had several battles where we have had more casualties in a single day than what we have had in Iraq.Every life is important, of course, but your hyperbole is over the top.WW2 was full of grotesque errors, but intel and command blunders. Still, the country pulled together for survival.I think Vietnam was a noble and just cause but I am in the minority there, at least in this Blog — How can you say that Iraq is worse than Vietnam?
The problem is Paul that the extremeist wanted this invasion. Recuilting is up and Iran can rally the other Arab states to their side.
Thank you RD, I did not have a clue how Clinton had fought the terrorists till I read Richard Clarke’s book “Against all enemies”. But the list just reaffirmed it.
And Paul counters with Gore and Clinton was tight with Enron.Little of topic there Paul.
Sure Paul, he was hiding those terrorists right next to those WMD and nukes. He hid them so good that nobody can find them yet. Did you use your Capn’ Crunch magic decoder ring to find the terrorist hiding behind Waldo? Your intel will be very useful, perhaps the Bush administration, CIA and military can use the information you have that they don’t have.
Bush has toppled the balance of power in the mid=east in Iran’s favor. Iran will soon be a world player.
The problem with Iran? Ike started it by elevating Shah Pahlevi. Note for the next project of propping up dictators, take them out yourself before the their trodden mass found out the hard way. Set term limit for tyrants.
ddub! I know what you’re saying. Yes! It has become political, because elections of representatives will be won on the support or non-support of the war.
Do I believe in the domino theory; That Iran will try to consume the Middle East? I believe they do.
There are so many old grudges in that region. Iran never forgave Iraq, Iraq never forgave the British giving a portion on their land to Kuwait, hell even Clintons Balkin Wars were old grudges from the Ottoman Empire days.
Radical Islam wants to dominate the world and they are well funded, well equiped, trained in warfare, very determined and very brutal and dangerous.
You only have to look at terrorist attacks to see what is happening.
But the Iraq War has had serious set backs and many problems arise due to many mistakes made. Some of them Bush, some of them Rumsfield, some of them Military Brass, some of them the Intelligence Community and some of them Policy Makers a.k.a politicans. Enough blame can go around.
While the rebuilding plan was poorly planned and executed and right now we are streched pretty thin to the point that it is looking like another Vietnam, which was a war of religion and communist containment (a failed strategy that caused serious paybacks.) But I do agree with the concept and plan that our “Freedom Agenda”, that is the seed to plant real Democracy in the Middle East, is the right thing to do. So I agree with us being over there in the first place and getting rid of Saddam. Sure! We can talk about the failures and mistakes overthere time and time again, but there are also many successes and I’m betting that we do succeed there.
“We’ve done a lousy job but we could have done even worse!”
Maybe even BushDaBum is seeing that this isn’t working:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14473431/
Bush shows pessimism on IraqPresident shifts tone as he makes case for U.S. policy
Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was “progress.”
For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.
Joe Williams,
Democracy doesn’t take root through top-down, big government military solutions. It’s a bottom-up, grassroots phenomenon. And tragically, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has gone a long way towards eroding the two necessary precondition for democracy–the existence of a stable middle class, and the existence of a functioning civil society. The bloodletting and flight of the Iraqi professional class (doctors, lawyers, technical professionals, and yes, college professors) makes it very difficult to envision how democratic institutions will be able to function and take root. And as things get worse, and political instability gets worse, people will be willing to accept any degree of domination in the interest of safety.
Not favorable conditions for democracy if you ask me. At this point, it ain’t going to happen in Iraq. Too sectarian, too fragmented, too violent.
While Joe Williams is correct that the Jihadists want to extend their control, I suspect that wish isn’t shared by the majority of insurgents in Iraq. They probably just want us the hell out.
And a point to remember: so long as we stay in Iraq, and so long as Israel continues with its counterproductive rampages in South Lebanon, Sunni and Shia have a reason to unite. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has brought together our enemies.
Paul Rosell,
I don’t know if you’re an idiot, but you certainly repeat stupid things. At Omaha Beach we knew who the enemy was. In Hue and Saigon we did not. And you’d better believe that U.S. forces have NO CLUE which of their Iraqi colleagues are working with the insurgency. Save the analogies for your AIPAC cronies.
The U.S. occupation of Iraq is not a military engagement. It is a political one. That means the metrics for success and failure have nothing to do with numbers of casualties. It also means that the margins of error are much narrower. Killing people is easy. The U.S. does it better than anybody. Nation-building, not so much.
This absolutely is worse than Vietnam, for two reasons. First, South Vietnam did not become a failed state when the U.S. left. Rather, it fell under Northern occupation which, while harsh and undemocratic, preserved the structures of civil society and did not devolve into anarchy. I can only imagine the bloodbath that would be a failed Iraq. That’s what has Jordan, Syria, and yes, Iran so nervous. Who wants that on their borders? For the record, something similar happened in Southeast Asia, as evidenced in the conflicts within Cambodia and Laos. Only the former could have been considered a ‘failed’ state, and the horrors of the Cambodian genocide and the invasion by Vietnam in 1978 give a taste of what could happen in the Tigris-Euphrates.
The second reason this is worse is that little three-letter word that makes supporters of this fiasco squirm: oil. As I’m fond of reminding you rah-rah-rah-war-is-good chumps, Iraq has the second largest proven reserves in the world. That’s why we’re there, after all. By driving Saddam out, we’ve handed eventual control of Iraq to the Shia majority headed by Al Sistani. And thus to Iran, his patron state. Iran couldn’t get rid of Saddam. We did. Now Iran can reap the oily benefits.
So, yeah, Paul F. Rosell, I think this is undoubtedly the biggest fuckup in the foreign policy history of the United States of America. It is hard, frankly, to comprehend the extent of the delusions and fantastical thinking on the part of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld. They should be in straitjackets rather than riding on Air Force One or sitting in their bunkers.
I can only imagine how gleeful the Mullahs in Iraq must be, and the incredulity of the Chinese leadership at our monumental, short-sighted, rapacious doltishness.
This whole idea that we will “impose democracy” by invasion remonds me of an old workplace joke: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
CF – Cambodia was a reasonably stable state under Prince Norodom Sihanouk until the CIA deposed him and installed dictator Lon Nol. His collapse is what opened the door for the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.
CF
You really need to stop and think about what you’re saying here.
“First, South Vietnam did not become a failed state when the U.S. left. Rather, it fell under Northern occupation which, while harsh and undemocratic, preserved the structures of civil society and did not devolve into anarchy. I can only imagine the bloodbath that would be a failed Iraq.”
Are you really that far out there?
Good letter in today’s Eagle
Are we repeating
British mistakes?
In 1917, the British took Baghdad. Then, as now, the invaders proclaimed that they came to Iraq to “liberate” the Iraqi people. In 1920, after it was announced that British-occupied Iraq would remain under British trusteeship, a full-scale revolt erupted. Then, as now, the insurrection had religious origins; Iraqi leaders and the British clamped down hard, resulting in high civilian casualties, blaming the agitation on aid from Syria.
Britain responded to critics by warning that withdrawal would create anarchy. British leaders called for more men and money in Iraq, and slow steps toward democratic institutions.
Britain installed a Sunni monarch, King Faisal, in 1921, and relinquished its mandate in 1932, giving Iraq “limited sovereignty.” But the British military occupation continued for years after.
In 1958, the Iraqi military overthrew the British-installed constitutional monarchy, killed King Faisal II, and declared Iraq a republic, beginning the reversal of the monarchy’s pro-Western policies. Subsequent coups resulted in the rise of the Baath Party and the rise of Saddam Hussein in 1979.
As the newest imperialist power on the block, we just seem to be repeating Britain’s mistakes. Are we just clearing the way for some future dictator to take over the playing field?
MARY WEHRHEIMWichita
Heckler,
Are YOU really that far out there?
Totalitarian states try, with varying degrees of success, to provide for their citizens’ needs. Failed states cannot. There is no comparison between Vietnam and Somalia. None. The latter is a failed state run by warlords with little to no civil society and functioning infrastructure. The former is not. Given a choice between totalitarianism and anarchy, most people choose the former (look at the U.S., for example).
Former dictatorships may eventually make the transition to stable, functioning democracies. To that extent, they are preferable to failed states. Name me ONE former failed state, Heckler, that has made the transition to stable democracy. When civil society, infrastructure, and the social fabric are lacking, you can forget about democracy. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
If your knee-jerk anti-communism prevents you from soberly assessing the capacities of different sorts of states to preserve civil society, that’s your limitation; not my problem. It’s a measure of your own extremism that the presentation of facts strikes you as “out there.”
Ben Huie,
Indeed. My point was just to say that internal conflagrations can spill across national borders and engulf weak neighboring states. Cambodia, after all, was invaded by Vietnam in 1978 partly to stop cross-border incursions by the Khmer Rouge. Likewise, had it not been for Vietnam, the CIA wouldn’t have been in there messing about.
I work with a couple of Vietnamese women who fly back home every year. Seems their country is open enough for them to do that; they also still own property there with family.
There was a story in last weeks (I think) New York Times about the Bush administration giving consideration to installing a government in Iraq that was not democratically elected. Team Bush adamantly denied that story.
Bush announced this week that we will be in Iraq through the rest of his term. One suspected that would be the case, but he clearly confirmed that recently. This commitment to Iraq raises the question of what would be the best role for the U.S. military to assume in the middle of this sectarian civil war? Is there anything besides counting casualties that we could be doing?
As for me, I can’t see where we can do much of anything, but try to stay out of the line of fire. Not a good place to be. And, if this is the best we can do, how can we have any alternative but to bring our troops home?
Bush wants democracy but only if the US can be the puppet-master pulling the strings.
Case in point is the attempted coup of Hugo Chavez in Venezula in 2002. He was democratically elected twice.
Doncha love how the reich-wing downplays the deaths in Iraq by comparing them to the D-Day invasion or car accidents or something?
The difference, Paul, is those deaths are for a reason–stopping Nazism or meeting transportation needs.
The deaths in Iraq are a total waste. And entirely preventable.
CF
First of all, we haven’t failed yet in Iraq, as much as some people seem to hope we do. Second, it WAS a bloodbath in South Vietnam after we left. I have friends and co-workers who lived through it. What I find astonishing is that you seem to think that it was OK because a somewhat stable government took over. GOOD GOD CF, there was a stable government in place before the North invaded!!!
What twisted logic CF, you must be a college professor.
Heckler–
Your ignorance is appalling . . . you must be a right-winger.
The only thing stable about the South Vietnamese gov’t was their ability to salt their secret bank accounts with US taxpayer money.
But who could blame them?
After the CIA shot dead President Diem for not being enough of a U.S. puppet, no S. Vietnamese with any brains would take a “leadership” position.
They all knew S. Vietnam was going to fail. That’s why they made plans to bail out and used graft and corruption to fund their escape.
It’s what any thinking Iraqi in this charade of a government is doing too.
Heckler,
Don’t try to lecture me on the aftermath of the fall of South Vietnam. My family hosted a former South Vietnamese guerrilla from 1978-1979. I was at least as close to what happened there as you, and probably closer, since my church in Southern California, St. Anselm’s Episcopal, was a central actor in the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees in Garden Grove (known as “Little Saigon”).
Was there a bloodletting in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon? Absolutely. But that wasn’t my point, which, predictably, you seem to have missed. My point was that the situation in Vietnam is PREFERABLE to the situation in a failed state such as Somalia. I did not say it was “OK” on its own terms. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.
More to the point, the numbers associated with the fall of Saigon range from a low estimate of 65,000 people killed to double or triple that figure. A lot of folks, to be sure. To date, in Iraq, the civilian body count ranges from 40,092 to 45,144. That’s the baseline. If full-blown civil war develops from the current, limited sectarian war that is currently underway, the numbers could go way, way higher. And as should be obvious, none of us want to see that.
Finally, the good Cap’n is right: the government of South Vietnam was hardly a “stable” government. Try “puppet state supported to further U.S. interests.”
Historical accuracy, Heckler, historical accuracy. College courses are calling you!
CF – you left out the couple of million Vietnamese killed in the occupation/war. If the Iraq civil war continues we can expect that kind of bloodshed followed by failed state status.
“They all knew S. Vietnam was going to fail. That’s why they made plans to bail out and used graft and corruption to fund their escape.”
That’s about as accurate as it gets. I was in Vietnam late (71-72) and everybody in power was making plans to get out. And they happily sold us out to do it.
Why did we forget the lessons of Vietnam? How could all you republicans so conveniently forget history?
History tells us that no occupying army has ever defeated an insurgency. It’s never happened before…it ain’t gonna happen now.
Joe,”Sure! We can talk about the failures and mistakes overthere time and time again, but there are also many successes and I’m betting that we do succeed there.”
Define “succeed”. If by succeed you mean we’ll leave a democratically elected government that lasts more than a year and a stable country, I got $100 that says you’re all wet. Care to put some money where your mouth is?
XXX – sounds like a safe bet to me. After all, tinfoil-hat Joe claims that a majority of Democrats believe that Bush blew up the WTC.
Ben! They do!
They also believe that Republicans stoled and cheated in the elections of 2000 and 2004.
You haven’t came up with any proof the says otherwise. I posted my link with the poll numbers that proved it.
Next!
Here is a plan for Iraq and very similar to one I have advocated before:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html
There are downsides to the plan not mentioned in this op/ed. Would Turkey invade an independent Kurdish country? Would Iran have a pretty strong influence on any Shi’ite state? The majority of Sunni’s don’t live in parts of the country where there is much oil — can they be given enough of the oil wealth?
These downsides are definitely challenges, but grappling with them might be better than “stay the course — and try to stay out of the line of fire” Bush plan. His plan is to hand off the mess to the next president. Great plan, huh?
“If by succeed you mean we’ll leave a democratically elected government that lasts more than a year and a stable country, I got $100 that says you’re all wet. Care to put some money where your mouth is?”
Hey Joe, if you take this bet, could you let some of the rest of us know. I’d like to talk to you about betting some serious money!
Joe – PROVE that Saddam didn’t hide the WMDs on the far side of the moon. You can’t. PROVE that the majority of Republicans don’t believe that Saddam flew the planes on 9/11. You can’t (but I did provide links to GOP leaders saying much the same thing).
Joe – YOU are the one making the wild accusations. It is YOUR job to provide proof. You have failed to do so.
NEXT!
By the way, according to my sources, Bush likes to ‘play’ with little boys when he is stoned on crack. PROVE THAT IS NOT TRUE!
The below from Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.********************************************************************Michael Hirsh writes in Newsweek: “It is the sort of moment when peace and history could be hanging in the balance for a generation to come — the kind of tipping point when American presidents can no longer leave the negotiating to underlings. They must take the world stage themselves to find a new way out, simply because no one else has the globo-oomph to do so. There is a grand American tradition behind this sort of personal involvement of America’s chief executive.”
Moments like these have tested the resolve of previous presidents, Hirsh writes.
“George W. Bush is going to Kennebunkport, where he’ll test his golf skills with Poppy.”
********************************************************************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Gotta admire ol’ BushBot Joe for his style – prove a negative! Prove Saddam didn’t fly the WMDs to the moon. Prove he didn’t beam them over to Syria. Notice that he just makes wild accusations and then demands that they be proved false.
Prove that McCain DIDN’T sire an illegitimate child at some point in South Carolina.
But, when confronted with similar demands he just dodges like a typical BushBot.
Ya gotta love it!
Check these out:
Chris Matthews and guest Republican–TX-17 candidate Van Taylor (with guest Paul Hackett) on Hardball debating the Iraq war.http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/22/paul-hackett-on-hardball-2/(This is priceless!)
“They call themselves the Band of Brothers, about 50 men – and a few women – all Democrats, all opposed to the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, and all military veterans. One more thing: They’re all running for Congress this year. Not since 1946 have so many vets from one party come together in a political campaign, they claim. Their wildest dream is to give the Democratic Party the extra edge it needs – by boosting its weak image on defense and patriotism – to end Republican control of the House.… (more)”http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html
I call ya the “Queen of the Links” RD though I don’t know if you play golf.Well done!
Amazing clip. As if we needed any more proof of exactly how vapid, and sadly, brainwashed most Republicans are. That guy from Texas was a joke.
RD – PROVE THAT THESE GUYS ARE NOT DESERTERS!
Joe,
Sure, they’re deserters. That’s why they’re able to appear on a widely viewed television show.
Prove that you’re sane.
Prove that you have an ounce of common sense.
And while you’re at it, prove that you’re nothing but a troll.
The Judge in Plame’s case isn’t buying HER story! lolhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0825061plame1.html
Poor deluded Pauly, he’ll support bush and his criminal cabal at all costs!
Blaiid, when, exactly, did Bush or anyone in his cabinet commit a crime??Scooter Libby is charged with a false statement to investigators, pretty light stuff, after 6 years in office, to have only one man charged with a trivial, derivative offense.
Bush and Co. should be impeached, tried and convicted by the Senate. Ditto for Cheney. Both should do prison time. This is the most corrupt administration in US history bar none. History will remember 2001-2009 as the dark ages of the United States of America.