The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War & yet... Does the U.S. plan to be in Iraq forever?
August 20, 2005 10:30 PM Subscribe
It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible... As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy. The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War... See also, Iraq at the Gates of Hell And yet, Does the U.S. plan to be in Iraq forever? Via James Wolcott, among others.
I think this problem will be solved the old fashioned way.
By invading Iran and then hoping everybody forgets about Iraq, the way they have about Afghanistan.
I hope I'm wrong.
posted by mosch at 10:53 PM on August 20, 2005
By invading Iran and then hoping everybody forgets about Iraq, the way they have about Afghanistan.
I hope I'm wrong.
posted by mosch at 10:53 PM on August 20, 2005
Unfortunately, as long as there are few people who still believe that the invasion of Iraq was somehow a Good Thing, y2karl will have to keep posting.
Prediction: the next step will be blaming the "lack of support from the liberals" for the miserable failure in Iraq. I hope even Americans aren't dumb enough to buy that one.
But every time I write a sentence like that, I'm proven wrong. I never ceased to be amazed by the stupidity and self-destructive nature of Americans.
If they were my kids, I wouldn't send 'em to Iraq not nohow-- but after over 20 years in this country I frankly do not see any evidence that Americans in general really care about their kids that much, particularly other people's kids.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:57 PM on August 20, 2005
Prediction: the next step will be blaming the "lack of support from the liberals" for the miserable failure in Iraq. I hope even Americans aren't dumb enough to buy that one.
But every time I write a sentence like that, I'm proven wrong. I never ceased to be amazed by the stupidity and self-destructive nature of Americans.
If they were my kids, I wouldn't send 'em to Iraq not nohow-- but after over 20 years in this country I frankly do not see any evidence that Americans in general really care about their kids that much, particularly other people's kids.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:57 PM on August 20, 2005
Don't forget this: US gives ground on Islam to meet deadline for Iraq -- US CONCESSIONS to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraqi law marked a turn in talks on a constitution, negotiators said yesterday as they raced to meet tomorrow's deadline to clinch a deal.
Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before. ... The Kurdish negotiator rushed to make clear his outrage at a deal on Islam. "We don't want dictatorship of any kind, including any religious dictatorship. Perhaps the Americans are negotiating to get a deal at any cost, but we will not accept a constitution at any cost," he said ...
posted by amberglow at 10:57 PM on August 20, 2005
Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before. ... The Kurdish negotiator rushed to make clear his outrage at a deal on Islam. "We don't want dictatorship of any kind, including any religious dictatorship. Perhaps the Americans are negotiating to get a deal at any cost, but we will not accept a constitution at any cost," he said ...
posted by amberglow at 10:57 PM on August 20, 2005
Have you been reading too much Metafilter when you know who made a post without having to check?
I thought the same damn thing. Then I thought: "Goddamn I love y2karl sometimes."
What a fanatical, obsessive attention to detail.
posted by loquacious at 11:37 PM on August 20, 2005
I thought the same damn thing. Then I thought: "Goddamn I love y2karl sometimes."
What a fanatical, obsessive attention to detail.
posted by loquacious at 11:37 PM on August 20, 2005
For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people
I think this problem will be solved the old fashioned way.
Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
/here on Metafilter out of self-defence
//for violation of U.N. S.C. resolutions
///as a humanitarian effort
////to help build democracy
/////as part of my "War on Reason"
posted by dreamsign at 11:40 PM on August 20, 2005
I think this problem will be solved the old fashioned way.
Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
/here on Metafilter out of self-defence
//for violation of U.N. S.C. resolutions
///as a humanitarian effort
////to help build democracy
/////as part of my "War on Reason"
posted by dreamsign at 11:40 PM on August 20, 2005
Good overview of the situation now.
Unfortunately, as long as there are few people who still believe that the invasion of Iraq was somehow a Good Thing, y2karl will have to keep posting.
Really? And I thought metafilter was about finding good links? I guess I should read the guidelines again. I missed the "saving the world" part.
(Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the post, but if you think posting on metafilter is a tool to change people's minds you're delusional.)
posted by justgary at 11:43 PM on August 20, 2005
Unfortunately, as long as there are few people who still believe that the invasion of Iraq was somehow a Good Thing, y2karl will have to keep posting.
Really? And I thought metafilter was about finding good links? I guess I should read the guidelines again. I missed the "saving the world" part.
(Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the post, but if you think posting on metafilter is a tool to change people's minds you're delusional.)
posted by justgary at 11:43 PM on August 20, 2005
>>>For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people
>>I think this problem will be solved the old fashioned way.
> Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
What do you think of what Nixon did?
By the way, justgary, are you sure you're not justjealous? I am a little, but then I'm lazy enough to be happy to let y2 do it.
posted by davy at 11:46 PM on August 20, 2005
>>I think this problem will be solved the old fashioned way.
> Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
What do you think of what Nixon did?
By the way, justgary, are you sure you're not justjealous? I am a little, but then I'm lazy enough to be happy to let y2 do it.
posted by davy at 11:46 PM on August 20, 2005
Does the U.S. plan to be in Iraq forever?
Absolutely. Like most wars, this is all about calories. In an age of dwindling petrolium stores, there is no greater impetus than securing them.
posted by sourwookie at 11:46 PM on August 20, 2005
Absolutely. Like most wars, this is all about calories. In an age of dwindling petrolium stores, there is no greater impetus than securing them.
posted by sourwookie at 11:46 PM on August 20, 2005
We lost this war at Abu Ghraib. The Iraqis will never accept us, or any government we attempt to impose. We showed them the true nature of our leadership and about 50.1% of the voters; they know that we're full of bluster and loud claims of freedom and democracy, but when the rubber actually meets the road, we're not really that much different than Hussein. Torture is just fine with the American people. We don't give a rat's ass about rights... if you're not an American citizen (and maybe even if you are), we reserve the right to just toss you in prison and apply electric shocks to your genitals. And keep you, without charging you, as long as we like. Maybe forever.
And people actually have the gall to wonder why the Iraqis aren't falling all over themselves to help us and turn in the terrorists. I know if I were an Iraqi, I'd probably figure my psycho cousin Abdul was a lesser evil than the foreign invaders.
The good ship America, land of the free and home of the brave, the grand social experiment, has been listing badly and taking on water for years. I can't help but wonder if Iraq is the rock against which it will founder. We're not unsalvageable yet, but the people need to wake up and start paying attention now.
posted by Malor at 12:56 AM on August 21, 2005
And people actually have the gall to wonder why the Iraqis aren't falling all over themselves to help us and turn in the terrorists. I know if I were an Iraqi, I'd probably figure my psycho cousin Abdul was a lesser evil than the foreign invaders.
The good ship America, land of the free and home of the brave, the grand social experiment, has been listing badly and taking on water for years. I can't help but wonder if Iraq is the rock against which it will founder. We're not unsalvageable yet, but the people need to wake up and start paying attention now.
posted by Malor at 12:56 AM on August 21, 2005
Thanks, Y2karl, for putting the problem before us. Maybe some bright MeFite will think of a solution before the US suffers more losses. The deaths are horrible, but the exposure to the disregard for human dignity is horrible too. When the surviving troops come home, with their traumas and haunted dreams, how will the country cope?
Are psychiatrists being recruited by the Veterans administration? Or are VA funds being cut as more patients need care?
posted by Cranberry at 1:18 AM on August 21, 2005
Are psychiatrists being recruited by the Veterans administration? Or are VA funds being cut as more patients need care?
posted by Cranberry at 1:18 AM on August 21, 2005
Fast, face-saving (for America) solution:
Impeach Bush and Cheny, send them, with Rummy, off to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes. Remove troops from Iraq and apply resources to restore the civilian infrastructure in Iraq, with our apologies.
Gee, that was simple. Next question?
posted by Goofyy at 1:53 AM on August 21, 2005
Impeach Bush and Cheny, send them, with Rummy, off to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes. Remove troops from Iraq and apply resources to restore the civilian infrastructure in Iraq, with our apologies.
Gee, that was simple. Next question?
posted by Goofyy at 1:53 AM on August 21, 2005
but if you think posting on metafilter is a tool to change people's minds you're delusional quoth justgary.
it's funny, i can see where a metafilter post might be a tool to change some minds, and yet my psychiatrist insists i am not delusional (out of all three of his mouths at the same time, i might add).
so what you're really saying, justgary, is that you're only participating for the sheer joy of being a cock anonymously over the internet.
else surely you'd allow for the possibility that in the process of acquiring new information (ie, "the links"), what one thinks about that new information may vary from what one has previously thought about the topic. you know, new facts coming to light and all that.
to put it simply, in deference to your limited intellectual faculty, reading/learning about new things, and therefore countenancing the possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
or do i have it all wrong?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:59 AM on August 21, 2005
it's funny, i can see where a metafilter post might be a tool to change some minds, and yet my psychiatrist insists i am not delusional (out of all three of his mouths at the same time, i might add).
so what you're really saying, justgary, is that you're only participating for the sheer joy of being a cock anonymously over the internet.
else surely you'd allow for the possibility that in the process of acquiring new information (ie, "the links"), what one thinks about that new information may vary from what one has previously thought about the topic. you know, new facts coming to light and all that.
to put it simply, in deference to your limited intellectual faculty, reading/learning about new things, and therefore countenancing the possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
or do i have it all wrong?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:59 AM on August 21, 2005
Malor: We lost this war at Abu Ghraib.
Sorry, I don't mean to offend, bull shit!
The war was lost from the very beginning. Go back and check some sources - I'm sure y2karl's posting history is enough - you will see.
At a bare minimum you needed more troops and more international cooperation... However, those are minor really, if Bush wasn't such a diplomatic buffoon he could have had them. Much more difficult - still 100% necessary - was a detailed plan for the re-organization of the Iraqi government, in place immediately upon invading. Without a very strong structure people lose faith very quickly! Abu Ghraib type situations might cause some disillusionment, but not much compared to everyday chaos.
We could spend all day wondering about possible routes to 'success'. The list of options was virtually unlimited: continue with the status quo of sanctions, allow the inspectors to do their job, start funding and arming a credible paramilitary opposition, keep carving little bits off the way Kurdistan had already been liberated, etc. etc.
The real question is, was the Bush administration just wrong or is this what they wanted all along? Of course this is a bit of a false question, there is lots of room for other possibilities...
Anyway, there was one thing that most everybody in the world knew wasn't possible - the Bush line about liberating Iraqis and establishing a new democracy. So, like I said, the idea that the current failures have anything much to do with Abu Ghraib is just plain wrong.
posted by Chuckles at 2:02 AM on August 21, 2005
Sorry, I don't mean to offend, bull shit!
The war was lost from the very beginning. Go back and check some sources - I'm sure y2karl's posting history is enough - you will see.
At a bare minimum you needed more troops and more international cooperation... However, those are minor really, if Bush wasn't such a diplomatic buffoon he could have had them. Much more difficult - still 100% necessary - was a detailed plan for the re-organization of the Iraqi government, in place immediately upon invading. Without a very strong structure people lose faith very quickly! Abu Ghraib type situations might cause some disillusionment, but not much compared to everyday chaos.
We could spend all day wondering about possible routes to 'success'. The list of options was virtually unlimited: continue with the status quo of sanctions, allow the inspectors to do their job, start funding and arming a credible paramilitary opposition, keep carving little bits off the way Kurdistan had already been liberated, etc. etc.
The real question is, was the Bush administration just wrong or is this what they wanted all along? Of course this is a bit of a false question, there is lots of room for other possibilities...
Anyway, there was one thing that most everybody in the world knew wasn't possible - the Bush line about liberating Iraqis and establishing a new democracy. So, like I said, the idea that the current failures have anything much to do with Abu Ghraib is just plain wrong.
posted by Chuckles at 2:02 AM on August 21, 2005
Chuckles, much of what you're saying is true, but the fundamental fact is that the Iraqis needed to trust that we had their best welfare in mind. (or at least not automatically distrust us.) All the rest of what you say doesn't matter if they don't believe our motivations are good; if they're sure we're evil imperalists out to destroy Islam, they'll fight us reflexively, in exactly the same way we'd fight an invader we believed hated Christianity.
Abu Ghraib was proof of those fears. We showed them that we were no better than what they had before. After the way Bush handled that, you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Iraqi rights and welfare were anywhere on his list of priorities. Sadly, the Iraqis are not idiots.
The only way to win against terrorists is to convince the people they trust that they're wrong. We had to teach the families of terrorists that terrorism was not in their interest, and that their loved ones would be treated fairly and would receive justice when turned in to the authorities. Instead, knowing how they would be treated, no Iraqi in his or her right mind would turn in someone he or she loved to the authorities.
This was ALWAYS a war for hearts and minds, it was never really about bullets. Abu Ghraib lost the psychological war, and after that, it's just a matter of how many body bags we pile up.
All the stuff you're mentioning is true, but ultimately they are details. We had to win the war of ideas at the same time as doing the rest of what you're talking about. Both were required. Neither were even remotely fulfilled.
posted by Malor at 2:37 AM on August 21, 2005
Abu Ghraib was proof of those fears. We showed them that we were no better than what they had before. After the way Bush handled that, you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Iraqi rights and welfare were anywhere on his list of priorities. Sadly, the Iraqis are not idiots.
The only way to win against terrorists is to convince the people they trust that they're wrong. We had to teach the families of terrorists that terrorism was not in their interest, and that their loved ones would be treated fairly and would receive justice when turned in to the authorities. Instead, knowing how they would be treated, no Iraqi in his or her right mind would turn in someone he or she loved to the authorities.
This was ALWAYS a war for hearts and minds, it was never really about bullets. Abu Ghraib lost the psychological war, and after that, it's just a matter of how many body bags we pile up.
All the stuff you're mentioning is true, but ultimately they are details. We had to win the war of ideas at the same time as doing the rest of what you're talking about. Both were required. Neither were even remotely fulfilled.
posted by Malor at 2:37 AM on August 21, 2005
Argh. "neither was". Verbs is supposed to agree with their subjects.
posted by Malor at 2:39 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by Malor at 2:39 AM on August 21, 2005
Sadly, the Iraqis are not idiots.
Even more sadly, the American voting public are idiots.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:50 AM on August 21, 2005
Even more sadly, the American voting public are idiots.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:50 AM on August 21, 2005
Great post, Karl. Keep up the good work.
posted by crunchland at 3:01 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by crunchland at 3:01 AM on August 21, 2005
More on the Goofyy Plan - I'm all for it.
Great selection of links, as usual, y2karl - thanks.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:07 AM on August 21, 2005
Great selection of links, as usual, y2karl - thanks.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:07 AM on August 21, 2005
In hindsight it's clear to see that the war was lost before it ever started. When you go to war on a falsehood (deliberate or otherwise) and this becomes obvious, you no longer have a leg to stand on. Protestations that Saddam was an evildoer just don't cut it.
posted by PurpleJack at 3:27 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by PurpleJack at 3:27 AM on August 21, 2005
I don't think it's possible to judge the war a failure or a success until we know the real reason for it. It wasn't about wmds, or oil, or Saddam, that's clear.
But if it was all some ploy so Dubya could get his hands on the Ark of the Covenant or something... for all we know, it might have been a complete success.
posted by crunchland at 3:41 AM on August 21, 2005
But if it was all some ploy so Dubya could get his hands on the Ark of the Covenant or something... for all we know, it might have been a complete success.
posted by crunchland at 3:41 AM on August 21, 2005
Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
Ja.
1) Declare victory
2) Fuck off
3) ?????
posted by Wolof at 3:42 AM on August 21, 2005
Ja.
1) Declare victory
2) Fuck off
3) ?????
posted by Wolof at 3:42 AM on August 21, 2005
Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.
While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, forces represented by the militias and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents say they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.
Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South
posted by y2karl at 4:08 AM on August 21, 2005
While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, forces represented by the militias and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents say they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.
Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South
posted by y2karl at 4:08 AM on August 21, 2005
The war coulda been a beautiful play:
1) Remove Saddam & Sons (5 VPs)
2) Put INC folk in charge of the oil
2a) Take Iraqi oil sales off Euro and back on USD (10 VPs)
2b) Cancel the French, German, Russian contracts (20 VPs)
2c) Send oil infrastructure business to cronies (30 VPs)
3a) Dismantle ailing Arab Nationalist quasi-socialist system... (20 VPs)
3b) ...in favor of good ol' American Enterprise (30 VPs)
4) Build out some strategic air bases (10 VPs)
So IME Bush's got 85 VPs in the bag and 40 VPs left to get. hmmm, 85/125 = 68% = C-. Pretty much par for the course as far as Bush is concerned.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:01 AM on August 21, 2005
1) Remove Saddam & Sons (5 VPs)
2) Put INC folk in charge of the oil
2a) Take Iraqi oil sales off Euro and back on USD (10 VPs)
2b) Cancel the French, German, Russian contracts (20 VPs)
2c) Send oil infrastructure business to cronies (30 VPs)
3a) Dismantle ailing Arab Nationalist quasi-socialist system... (20 VPs)
3b) ...in favor of good ol' American Enterprise (30 VPs)
4) Build out some strategic air bases (10 VPs)
So IME Bush's got 85 VPs in the bag and 40 VPs left to get. hmmm, 85/125 = 68% = C-. Pretty much par for the course as far as Bush is concerned.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:01 AM on August 21, 2005
(Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the post, but if you think posting on metafilter is a tool to change people's minds you're delusional.)
plus
Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
Take those two and add them together. BushCo supporters DEFINE themselves by supporting this war. This argument is defined by the goalpost. We need to redefine their support for this war and give them an out. Stop expecting the cheerleaders to admit they were wrong, and get them to admit that they were lied to and their trust abused.
posted by rzklkng at 8:06 AM on August 21, 2005
plus
Isn't the old fashioned way just changing the goal posts so you always win?
Take those two and add them together. BushCo supporters DEFINE themselves by supporting this war. This argument is defined by the goalpost. We need to redefine their support for this war and give them an out. Stop expecting the cheerleaders to admit they were wrong, and get them to admit that they were lied to and their trust abused.
posted by rzklkng at 8:06 AM on August 21, 2005
The way I understood it, the US is going to build military infrastructure in Iraq so they can relocate all the stuff that's in Saudi Arabia. The rationale is that SA is headed for Whabbist revolution, oil production's already peaked, and the Yanks want to already have moved out when the situation becomes untenable.
(grasping at yet another opportunity to be dead wrong...)
BTW -- even though sometimes I feel like this is y2karlFilter, I do enjoy his posts.
posted by alumshubby at 8:09 AM on August 21, 2005
(grasping at yet another opportunity to be dead wrong...)
BTW -- even though sometimes I feel like this is y2karlFilter, I do enjoy his posts.
posted by alumshubby at 8:09 AM on August 21, 2005
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush via
posted by caddis at 8:24 AM on August 21, 2005
--George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush via
posted by caddis at 8:24 AM on August 21, 2005
We hear a lot about how the only trouble is in the Sunni triangle and the rest of the country is relatively peaceful, but that's only the case because Kurds and Shiites expect to gain power (and in the Kurds' case, maintain autonomy) in the new government, and the Kurdish and Shiite militias control those parts of the country. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis all want contradictory things, and I'm skeptical that a new constitution, even if they do manage to come up with one by the deadline tomorrow, will be able to appease all three groups. Having the US ambassador giving pointed advice on how to write the constitution doesn't really square with the idea that Iraq is a fully sovereign country.
We would have been more successful if we had involved the Iraqis in the reconstruction of the country and hadn't been so blantantly crooked in dishing out contracts. Instead we gave massive contracts to companies like Bechtel and Halliburton when we could have gotten Iraqi companies involved for much less money. There's still not enough access to water and electricity.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:44 AM on August 21, 2005
We would have been more successful if we had involved the Iraqis in the reconstruction of the country and hadn't been so blantantly crooked in dishing out contracts. Instead we gave massive contracts to companies like Bechtel and Halliburton when we could have gotten Iraqi companies involved for much less money. There's still not enough access to water and electricity.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:44 AM on August 21, 2005
BushCo supporters DEFINE themselves by supporting this war. ...get them to admit that they were lied to and their trust abused.
Wouldn't this require a press corps that had the balls to persistently point this out? It does not seem that the media consider this fact to be newsworthy any more.
posted by RMALCOLM at 8:58 AM on August 21, 2005
Wouldn't this require a press corps that had the balls to persistently point this out? It does not seem that the media consider this fact to be newsworthy any more.
posted by RMALCOLM at 8:58 AM on August 21, 2005
Thanks for these links, y2karl. You're a true educator, for those with any willingness to be educated.
posted by languagehat at 9:07 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by languagehat at 9:07 AM on August 21, 2005
I find it interesting now that it is not just the "loony left" saying that Iraq is hopeless: you've got folks from the Army War College, retired generals, and former big wigs at the NSA coming out and saying that we've already lost. You've got Chris Matthews saying than the generals and Pentagon officials that he interviews say, off air, that Iraq is FUBAR, even if their public face is a smiling, happy one. That's pretty grim (Of course, the 50% or more of the people that opposed the war weren't the "loony left" to begin with, but that's what they were to the war trumpeters a little while ago).
But those trumpeters seem to be dwindling away. Things seem to have shifted in America's perception of Iraq.
One thing opponents of the war need to be aware of is what lupus_yonderboy mentions. Polticos on the right absolutely will try to blame everything on liberals if they can't find some way out of Iraq. If we are still in Iraq come 2008 and a Democrat wins, expect the entire right wing to become instant doves and blame all of the problems on that President the day of the inauguration.
We also need to get Bush to be completely explicit about American bases: because by the infrastructure being invested in, it sure looks like he envisages a significant American presence there for decades. It's long past time to call him out on that. It's absolutely shameful that we are 2+ years into a war, and we still don't know what our long-term plans are.
But it sure does seem that what alumshubby talks about is exactly right: the actual plan, although unstated, was to move the American Middle Eastern, oil-reserve, just-in-case force out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq. The hope was that Iraq would be a 100% America-friendly secular democracy to house the bases for a few tens of thousands of troops to project American power. The trouble is that the Bush administration really seems to have hoped this would happen by magic, because they did almost nothing to ensure that it actually turned out that way. And yet, they still seem to cling doggedly to that goal of American military bases in Iraq for decades to come.
posted by teece at 9:16 AM on August 21, 2005
But those trumpeters seem to be dwindling away. Things seem to have shifted in America's perception of Iraq.
One thing opponents of the war need to be aware of is what lupus_yonderboy mentions. Polticos on the right absolutely will try to blame everything on liberals if they can't find some way out of Iraq. If we are still in Iraq come 2008 and a Democrat wins, expect the entire right wing to become instant doves and blame all of the problems on that President the day of the inauguration.
We also need to get Bush to be completely explicit about American bases: because by the infrastructure being invested in, it sure looks like he envisages a significant American presence there for decades. It's long past time to call him out on that. It's absolutely shameful that we are 2+ years into a war, and we still don't know what our long-term plans are.
But it sure does seem that what alumshubby talks about is exactly right: the actual plan, although unstated, was to move the American Middle Eastern, oil-reserve, just-in-case force out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq. The hope was that Iraq would be a 100% America-friendly secular democracy to house the bases for a few tens of thousands of troops to project American power. The trouble is that the Bush administration really seems to have hoped this would happen by magic, because they did almost nothing to ensure that it actually turned out that way. And yet, they still seem to cling doggedly to that goal of American military bases in Iraq for decades to come.
posted by teece at 9:16 AM on August 21, 2005
Just a quick anti-troll ward here:
If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:29 AM on August 21, 2005
If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:29 AM on August 21, 2005
Polticos on the right absolutely will try to blame everything on liberals if they can't find some way out of Iraq. If we are still in Iraq come 2008 and a Democrat wins, expect the entire right wing to become instant doves and blame all of the problems on that President the day of the inauguration.
Please stop pretending that Democrat=liberal & dove cuz it just ain't true.
In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."
The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.
The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:31 AM on August 21, 2005
Please stop pretending that Democrat=liberal & dove cuz it just ain't true.
In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."
The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.
The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:31 AM on August 21, 2005
What you say is all true, leftcoastbob (and it bothers me greatly), but I guarantee you that Republicans won't give a rat's ass. The Democrats are their opposition. They will be blamed for the failure in Iraq if past Republican action is any indicator. In order to do so, the entire Democratic party will be the same thing as the farthest fringe of the anti-war left to the Republican marketing efforts. They've done it before. Facts don't even enter into the picture, rather, the only thing that matters is which way is effective in tarring the opponent.
posted by teece at 9:36 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by teece at 9:36 AM on August 21, 2005
US concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law:
U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.posted by kirkaracha at 9:37 AM on August 21, 2005
U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.
Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.
But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the", not "a", main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.
"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."
so what you're really saying, justgary, is that you're only participating for the sheer joy of being a cock anonymously over the internet.
No. I'm saying that metafilter is a filter for links on the web, hopefully good ones. Using it to preach and convert isn't the purpose (not to mention that you calling someone a cock is comical).
Good links, great (which these are). Posting for the purpose of changing minds, not really. Believing that you actually are changing enough minds (to make a difference) by linking on a website is delusional. Exactly what part of that is difficult for you?
possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
If you truly believe that nonsense you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Email me and I'll spell it out in BIG words just for you.
posted by justgary at 9:47 AM on August 21, 2005
No. I'm saying that metafilter is a filter for links on the web, hopefully good ones. Using it to preach and convert isn't the purpose (not to mention that you calling someone a cock is comical).
Good links, great (which these are). Posting for the purpose of changing minds, not really. Believing that you actually are changing enough minds (to make a difference) by linking on a website is delusional. Exactly what part of that is difficult for you?
possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
If you truly believe that nonsense you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Email me and I'll spell it out in BIG words just for you.
posted by justgary at 9:47 AM on August 21, 2005
Oh never mind. I forgot the whole nofundy connection. 2 minutes wasted.
posted by justgary at 9:52 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by justgary at 9:52 AM on August 21, 2005
And folks wonder why the American public has become so disillusioned. I believe that for a huge number of Americans, the Government has become a literal Other. A creature, completely detached from them, that operates however it feels without the people having any control over it whatsoever.
The majority of The People at this point are against the war. Check any poll. Yet, judging by the rhetoric, the majority of the government is for it. This is utterly irreconcilable. A government cannot claim to serve its own people and behave in such a manner.
And then to claim it can "spread democracy" while utterly ignoring its own public (except when maniupulating them) goes straight on into the astounding.
At this point I don't even just blame the Administration. I blame the Democrats at least as much, if not more, for being the most useless opposition party in history, and for simply getting sucked into the political game and getting every bit as detached from the people they claim to serve as the bastards who are leading all this.
I cannot feel that there is anyone in the government whatsoever that gives a shit about me. And I'm not the only one.
posted by InnocentBystander at 10:03 AM on August 21, 2005
The majority of The People at this point are against the war. Check any poll. Yet, judging by the rhetoric, the majority of the government is for it. This is utterly irreconcilable. A government cannot claim to serve its own people and behave in such a manner.
And then to claim it can "spread democracy" while utterly ignoring its own public (except when maniupulating them) goes straight on into the astounding.
At this point I don't even just blame the Administration. I blame the Democrats at least as much, if not more, for being the most useless opposition party in history, and for simply getting sucked into the political game and getting every bit as detached from the people they claim to serve as the bastards who are leading all this.
I cannot feel that there is anyone in the government whatsoever that gives a shit about me. And I'm not the only one.
posted by InnocentBystander at 10:03 AM on August 21, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq
"One day before the deadline for Iraq's new constitution, Sunni Arab negotiators appealed Sunday to the United States and the international community to prevent Shiites and Kurds from pushing a draft charter through parliament without Sunni consent.
An Iraqi government spokesman suggested that if the factions cannot agree on a draft by Monday night, parliament may have to amend the interim constitution yet again to extend the deadline and prevent its dissolution.
...
The deadline for a new constitution already was extended by a week last Monday after negotiators failed to reach agreement on a number of contentious issues, including federalism, distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, power relationships among the provinces and the role of the Shiite clerical hierarchy in Najaf.
The 15-member Sunni Arab bloc issued its statement after complaining that it was being sidelined by Shiites and Kurds, who were cutting deals without them.
...
The statement urged the United States, the United Nations and the international community to intervene to prevent a draft constitution from moving forward without unanimous agreement, "which would make the current crisis more complicated."
...
Shiites and Kurds have enough seats in parliament to push through a draft even without the Sunnis. Because so many Sunni Arabs boycotted the Jan. 30 elections, they won only 17 of the 275 seats in the National Assembly. Sunni Arabs form an estimated 20 percent of the national population.
But Sunni Arabs could in theory scuttle the constitution in the Oct. 15 referendum. Under current rules, the constitution would be defeated if it is opposed by two-thirds of the voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces. Sunni Arabs form the majority in at least four."
posted by taosbat at 10:20 AM on August 21, 2005
"One day before the deadline for Iraq's new constitution, Sunni Arab negotiators appealed Sunday to the United States and the international community to prevent Shiites and Kurds from pushing a draft charter through parliament without Sunni consent.
An Iraqi government spokesman suggested that if the factions cannot agree on a draft by Monday night, parliament may have to amend the interim constitution yet again to extend the deadline and prevent its dissolution.
...
The deadline for a new constitution already was extended by a week last Monday after negotiators failed to reach agreement on a number of contentious issues, including federalism, distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, power relationships among the provinces and the role of the Shiite clerical hierarchy in Najaf.
The 15-member Sunni Arab bloc issued its statement after complaining that it was being sidelined by Shiites and Kurds, who were cutting deals without them.
...
The statement urged the United States, the United Nations and the international community to intervene to prevent a draft constitution from moving forward without unanimous agreement, "which would make the current crisis more complicated."
...
Shiites and Kurds have enough seats in parliament to push through a draft even without the Sunnis. Because so many Sunni Arabs boycotted the Jan. 30 elections, they won only 17 of the 275 seats in the National Assembly. Sunni Arabs form an estimated 20 percent of the national population.
But Sunni Arabs could in theory scuttle the constitution in the Oct. 15 referendum. Under current rules, the constitution would be defeated if it is opposed by two-thirds of the voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces. Sunni Arabs form the majority in at least four."
posted by taosbat at 10:20 AM on August 21, 2005
If the U.S. government doesn't plan to occupy Iraq for any longer than necessary, why is it spending billions of dollars to build "enduring" bases?--...Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 "enduring" bases across the country—long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely. John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group GlobalSecurity.org, has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard "military city" that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square-mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Marez, next to Mosul Airport, where, in December, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the base's dining tent, killing 13 U.S. troops and four KBR contractors eating lunch alongside the soldiers.
At these bases, KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that works in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been extending runways, improving security perimeters, and installing a variety of structures ranging from rigid-wall huts to aircraft hangars. ...
posted by amberglow at 10:24 AM on August 21, 2005
At these bases, KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that works in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been extending runways, improving security perimeters, and installing a variety of structures ranging from rigid-wall huts to aircraft hangars. ...
posted by amberglow at 10:24 AM on August 21, 2005
At this point I don't even just blame the Administration. I blame the Democrats at least as much, if not more, for being the most useless opposition party in history, and for simply getting sucked into the political game and getting every bit as detached from the people they claim to serve as the bastards who are leading all this.
Amen.
The least dangerous, least courageous thing to do over the last four years has been to support the war and the tools in our military (whose only job is to be Really Good Followers). We have few leaders -- only tired, scared old Chickenhawks and their equally gutless (but dwindling) supporters.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:25 AM on August 21, 2005
Amen.
The least dangerous, least courageous thing to do over the last four years has been to support the war and the tools in our military (whose only job is to be Really Good Followers). We have few leaders -- only tired, scared old Chickenhawks and their equally gutless (but dwindling) supporters.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:25 AM on August 21, 2005
justgary, where do you draw the line between selecting and presenting interesting information, and "using it to preach and convert" ?
To me, it seems that there is no such line. Every time you choose to say something, particularly on a public forum, you are preaching, in an attempt to convert the listener/reader to your view.
Here, for example, you seem to be preaching that MeFi shouldn't be used to present political speech.
(I was going to say "controversial" political speech, but y2karl's post is not controversial at all; no commentator has disputed the veracity of his points).
I disagree with your view - I think free political speech is a good thing - but I do think you're perfectly entitled to "preach" it to your heart's content, and I don't think you're "delusional" for doing so. Hopefully, in any case, I've just changed your mind. :-))
posted by cleardawn at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2005
To me, it seems that there is no such line. Every time you choose to say something, particularly on a public forum, you are preaching, in an attempt to convert the listener/reader to your view.
Here, for example, you seem to be preaching that MeFi shouldn't be used to present political speech.
(I was going to say "controversial" political speech, but y2karl's post is not controversial at all; no commentator has disputed the veracity of his points).
I disagree with your view - I think free political speech is a good thing - but I do think you're perfectly entitled to "preach" it to your heart's content, and I don't think you're "delusional" for doing so. Hopefully, in any case, I've just changed your mind. :-))
posted by cleardawn at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2005
amberglow, I'm quite sure we'll leave Iraq with the same speed we left Germany & Japan after WWII.
posted by taosbat at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by taosbat at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2005
Man, I wish there was a viable third party in this country.
posted by VulcanMike at 11:30 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by VulcanMike at 11:30 AM on August 21, 2005
The first link is a bit of a lame op-ed, y2karl; its dime-a-dozen predicting could use a few clear connections to current on the ground reports. Without them, it's just a series of assertions from authority - the kind of thing we've seen a hundred times before. The second piece is a much better op-ed, supported with pointers to other articles with sharp quotes and data. And this at the end:
Yet there are slivers of light amidst all this darkness. Reports out of Ramadi tell of Sunni Arab tribesmen bravely fighting off the insurgents who had come to drive away their Shia neighbors.
was really fascinating. Can anyone find us more info about that? My news searching hasn't pulled up anything, and it would be an interesting companion piece to y2karl's "Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South" link above.
The third piece is another good roundup of links that raise an important issue not getting enough attention (here or elsewhere). More like that, y2karl, and less opining-from-above prediction pieces, would be my request as you continue your Iraq-a-thon. Which I generally appreciate, I should add.
posted by mediareport at 11:48 AM on August 21, 2005
Yet there are slivers of light amidst all this darkness. Reports out of Ramadi tell of Sunni Arab tribesmen bravely fighting off the insurgents who had come to drive away their Shia neighbors.
was really fascinating. Can anyone find us more info about that? My news searching hasn't pulled up anything, and it would be an interesting companion piece to y2karl's "Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South" link above.
The third piece is another good roundup of links that raise an important issue not getting enough attention (here or elsewhere). More like that, y2karl, and less opining-from-above prediction pieces, would be my request as you continue your Iraq-a-thon. Which I generally appreciate, I should add.
posted by mediareport at 11:48 AM on August 21, 2005
You forgot the fourth criterion for victory: that gumdrop trees and jellybean bushes sprout up across Iraq, so that the Eurphrates River flows with sweet raspberry juice for all the good children of the country. Seeing as how this is unlikely at this point, I concur in your assessment and declare the war in Iraq officially over -- it's Bush's fault.
posted by esquire at 11:51 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by esquire at 11:51 AM on August 21, 2005
I wonder if, in the future, my future grandchildren will ever forgive my generation.
posted by Balisong at 12:00 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by Balisong at 12:00 PM on August 21, 2005
gumdrop trees and jellybean bushes sprout up across Iraq
Don't be a fool, esquire. If you have intelligent criticisms of the points raised in the links, let's hear them. The war is a disaster, and has been filled with disastrous mistakes from White House civilian leaders - often ignoring their military counterparts - from the start. And the setting up of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq is about as clear a sign that the invasion wasn't about any of the reasons we were told it was about, and those bases are just going to keep fueling the anti-U.S. attacks.
Those are the facts asserted. Let's hear your non-juvenile response.
posted by mediareport at 12:10 PM on August 21, 2005
Don't be a fool, esquire. If you have intelligent criticisms of the points raised in the links, let's hear them. The war is a disaster, and has been filled with disastrous mistakes from White House civilian leaders - often ignoring their military counterparts - from the start. And the setting up of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq is about as clear a sign that the invasion wasn't about any of the reasons we were told it was about, and those bases are just going to keep fueling the anti-U.S. attacks.
Those are the facts asserted. Let's hear your non-juvenile response.
posted by mediareport at 12:10 PM on August 21, 2005
mediareport: Yet there are slivers of light amidst all this darkness. Reports out of Ramadi tell of Sunni Arab tribesmen bravely fighting off the insurgents who had come to drive away their Shia neighbors.
was really fascinating. Can anyone find us more info about that? My news searching hasn't pulled up anything, and it would be an interesting companion piece to y2karl's "Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South" link above.
Google yields WaPo:
"BAGHDAD, Aug. 14 -- Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said. The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of six American soldiers.
Dozens of Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe established cordons around Shiite homes, and Sunni men battled followers of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for an hour Saturday morning. The clashes killed five of Zarqawi's guerrillas and two tribal fighters, residents and hospital workers said. Zarqawi loyalists pulled out of two contested neighborhoods in pickup trucks stripped of license plates, witnesses said."
Please note this quote from page 2:
"Statements posted on walls declared in the name of the Iraqi-led Mohammed's Army group that 'Zarqawi has lost his direction" and strayed "from the line of true resistance against the occupation.'"
posted by taosbat at 12:49 PM on August 21, 2005
was really fascinating. Can anyone find us more info about that? My news searching hasn't pulled up anything, and it would be an interesting companion piece to y2karl's "Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South" link above.
Google yields WaPo:
"BAGHDAD, Aug. 14 -- Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said. The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of six American soldiers.
Dozens of Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe established cordons around Shiite homes, and Sunni men battled followers of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for an hour Saturday morning. The clashes killed five of Zarqawi's guerrillas and two tribal fighters, residents and hospital workers said. Zarqawi loyalists pulled out of two contested neighborhoods in pickup trucks stripped of license plates, witnesses said."
Please note this quote from page 2:
"Statements posted on walls declared in the name of the Iraqi-led Mohammed's Army group that 'Zarqawi has lost his direction" and strayed "from the line of true resistance against the occupation.'"
posted by taosbat at 12:49 PM on August 21, 2005
Man, I wish there was a viable third party in this country.
Agreed. Until there is, however, we can at least refuse to vote for republicans or their mirror image party. I have voted in almost every election for the past 15 years, and almost never for a republicrat or demopublican.
posted by telstar at 1:00 PM on August 21, 2005
Agreed. Until there is, however, we can at least refuse to vote for republicans or their mirror image party. I have voted in almost every election for the past 15 years, and almost never for a republicrat or demopublican.
posted by telstar at 1:00 PM on August 21, 2005
I wonder what would have happened if Badnarik were president...?
posted by Balisong at 1:05 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by Balisong at 1:05 PM on August 21, 2005
Herbert Walker and his posse sure seems pretty damn saavy now though don't they?
posted by srboisvert at 1:35 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by srboisvert at 1:35 PM on August 21, 2005
Sufism, generally considered a branch of Sunni Islam, is divided into orders, the most famous being that of the Mevlevi, or whirling dervishes. Sufis seek, through dance, music, chanting and other intensely physical rituals, to transcend worldly existence and perceive the face of the divine. Their mysticism has contributed to their pacific reputation. But in Iraq, no one is ever far removed from war. In a sign of the widening and increasingly complex rifts in Iraqi society, Sufis have suddenly found themselves the targets of attacks. Many Iraqis believe those responsible are probably fundamentalist Sunnis who view the Sufis as apostates, just one step removed from the Shiites. Sheik Ali al-Faiz, a senior official at this Sufi shrine, or takia, rattled off a list of recent assaults - the leader of a takia in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi was abducted and killed this month; a bomb exploded in a takia in Kirkuk earlier this year; gunmen beat Sufi worshipers at a mosque in Ramadi in January; a bomb exploded in the kitchen of a takia in Ramadi last September and a bomb in April 2004 destroyed an entire takia in the same city.
Sufis Under Attack as Sunni Rifts Widen
Since the start of the insurgency in Iraq, the most persistent danger to U.S. troops has come from the Sunni Arab insurgents and terrorists who roam the center and west of the country. But some U.S. officials are worried about a potentially greater challenge to order in Iraq and U.S. interests there: the growing influence of Iran. With an elected Shi'ite-dominated government in place in Baghdad and the U.S. preoccupied with quelling the Sunni-led insurgency, the Iranian regime has deepened its imprint on the political and social fabric of Iraq, buying influence in the new Iraqi government, running intelligence-gathering networks and funneling money and guns to Shi'ite militant groups--all with the aim of fostering a Shi'ite-run state friendly to Iran. In parts of southern Iraq, fundamentalist Shi'ite militias--some of them funded and armed by Iran--have imposed restrictions on the daily lives of Iraqis, banning alcohol and curbing the rights of women. Iraq's Shi'ite leaders, including Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, have tried to forge a strategic alliance with Tehran, even seeking to have Iranians recognized as a minority group under Iraq's proposed constitution. "We have to think anything we tell or share with the Iraqi government ends up in Tehran," says a Western diplomat. Perhaps most troubling are signs that the rising influence of Iran--a country with which Iraq waged an eight-year war and whose brand of theocracy most Iraqis reject--is exacerbating sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites, pulling Iraq closer to all-out civil war.
Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq
White House wants to lower expectations about model democracy, US military victory in Iraq.
Christian Science Monitor: Reality check for Bush administration in Iraq
Retired four-star Army General Barry McCaffrey said to Time Magazine: "The army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months. We are now in a period of considerable strategic peril. It's because [Pentagon chief Donald] Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, 'I cannot retreat from my position.'"
Cindy, Don and George
See also Is Sheehan a Spark or a Flicker?
posted by y2karl at 2:07 PM on August 21, 2005
Sufis Under Attack as Sunni Rifts Widen
Since the start of the insurgency in Iraq, the most persistent danger to U.S. troops has come from the Sunni Arab insurgents and terrorists who roam the center and west of the country. But some U.S. officials are worried about a potentially greater challenge to order in Iraq and U.S. interests there: the growing influence of Iran. With an elected Shi'ite-dominated government in place in Baghdad and the U.S. preoccupied with quelling the Sunni-led insurgency, the Iranian regime has deepened its imprint on the political and social fabric of Iraq, buying influence in the new Iraqi government, running intelligence-gathering networks and funneling money and guns to Shi'ite militant groups--all with the aim of fostering a Shi'ite-run state friendly to Iran. In parts of southern Iraq, fundamentalist Shi'ite militias--some of them funded and armed by Iran--have imposed restrictions on the daily lives of Iraqis, banning alcohol and curbing the rights of women. Iraq's Shi'ite leaders, including Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, have tried to forge a strategic alliance with Tehran, even seeking to have Iranians recognized as a minority group under Iraq's proposed constitution. "We have to think anything we tell or share with the Iraqi government ends up in Tehran," says a Western diplomat. Perhaps most troubling are signs that the rising influence of Iran--a country with which Iraq waged an eight-year war and whose brand of theocracy most Iraqis reject--is exacerbating sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites, pulling Iraq closer to all-out civil war.
Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq
White House wants to lower expectations about model democracy, US military victory in Iraq.
Christian Science Monitor: Reality check for Bush administration in Iraq
Retired four-star Army General Barry McCaffrey said to Time Magazine: "The army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months. We are now in a period of considerable strategic peril. It's because [Pentagon chief Donald] Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, 'I cannot retreat from my position.'"
Cindy, Don and George
See also Is Sheehan a Spark or a Flicker?
posted by y2karl at 2:07 PM on August 21, 2005
Thanks, taosbat; using the word "defend" in your search was a smart touch. I just kept getting repeats of the most recent Sunni/Shiite mentions. I like the bit about "So many ties of friendship, marriage and compassion," and think it's great there are folks fighting to keep those. Still, I can't help remember that similar ties existed in the Balkans, too, before the horrible episodes of genocide erupted.
posted by mediareport at 2:16 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by mediareport at 2:16 PM on August 21, 2005
It's interesting that the Kurds have been quietly consolidating power in the north. Does anyone have any information about Turkey's reaction to this? From what I understand that was one of the major problems that Turkey had with supporting the Iraq war, they didn't want an independent Kurdistan setting a precedent (or inspiration) for the Kurds that have been living under their thumb for god knows how many years.
posted by sic at 3:08 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by sic at 3:08 PM on August 21, 2005
the gist of my original statement: reading/learning about new things, and therefore countenancing the possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
justgary's selective edit and retort: possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
If you truly believe that nonsense you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Email me and I'll spell it out in BIG words just for you.
classic. a convenient omission. in your wee little mind, presenting new information (something that y2karl does very well) that you rigidly disagree with because of your robotic political thinking is to "preach and convert," regardless of its factual merits. woe unto him who posts links trying to "convert" people into the belief that the world is not flat -- justgary'll be all over the poster like moles on your grandma.
2 minutes wasted.
i bet you hear that a lot. from women.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:18 PM on August 21, 2005
justgary's selective edit and retort: possibility your mind will be changed, is the whole point of this flippin' site!
If you truly believe that nonsense you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Email me and I'll spell it out in BIG words just for you.
classic. a convenient omission. in your wee little mind, presenting new information (something that y2karl does very well) that you rigidly disagree with because of your robotic political thinking is to "preach and convert," regardless of its factual merits. woe unto him who posts links trying to "convert" people into the belief that the world is not flat -- justgary'll be all over the poster like moles on your grandma.
2 minutes wasted.
i bet you hear that a lot. from women.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:18 PM on August 21, 2005
mediareport writes "Still, I can't help remember that similar ties existed in the Balkans, too, before the horrible episodes of genocide erupted."
& Rwanda...
We sure started a mess.
posted by taosbat at 4:28 PM on August 21, 2005
& Rwanda...
We sure started a mess.
posted by taosbat at 4:28 PM on August 21, 2005
...I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.--asshole willing to sell out millions of Iraqi women, and former Middle East specialist for the CIA, Reuel Marc Gerecht, on Meet The Press today
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on August 21, 2005
The democrats who supported the war at the start had better start making it clear that "they trusted the president" and "he lied to them." I never understood why Kerry didn't hammer this line during the campaign. Absolutely the Bushistas will try to pin declining support at home for the war on "the liberals" and use that as an excuse to back away from their once lofty (and always BS) goalsn to "democratize" the country. The only resistance to that Swiftboating bullshit is to say "we (congressional dems) supported the war because we believed there were WMDs/terrorist connections/blah blah because Bush told us so." It's idiotic, since it was obvious to any thinking person (including Brent Scowcroft and many retired generals) that the Iraq was was going to be a boondoggle from the very beginning.
It's Bush's millstone. MAKE him wear it. Ironically, I see more moderate republicans making this point (Chuck Hagel especially) than prominent dems. But on the other hand, we've always had John Conyers. I seriously dream of a Conyers/Sheehan ticket in '08.
Bush lied. Thousands died. It's that fucking simple.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:59 PM on August 21, 2005
It's Bush's millstone. MAKE him wear it. Ironically, I see more moderate republicans making this point (Chuck Hagel especially) than prominent dems. But on the other hand, we've always had John Conyers. I seriously dream of a Conyers/Sheehan ticket in '08.
Bush lied. Thousands died. It's that fucking simple.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:59 PM on August 21, 2005
you're right, real, but most won't. They saw what happened to Kerry and how it was spun. I think some of them feel stuck, and some are just idiots.
digby: ...The fact is that under Saddam, in their everyday lives, one half of the population had more real, tangible freedom than they have now and that they will have under some form of Shar'ia. The sheer numbers of people whose freedom are affected make it the most glaring and tragic symbol of our failed "noble cause."
Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:45 PM on August 21, 2005
digby: ...The fact is that under Saddam, in their everyday lives, one half of the population had more real, tangible freedom than they have now and that they will have under some form of Shar'ia. The sheer numbers of people whose freedom are affected make it the most glaring and tragic symbol of our failed "noble cause."
Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:45 PM on August 21, 2005
"Are psychiatrists being recruited by the Veterans administration? Or are VA funds being cut as more patients need care?"
Wasn't that one of the big "Shame. Shame!" stories that was supposed to give Kerry an edge in the 2004 election, that soon after the Iraq invasion Bus Inc. did in fact start cutting tropps' benefits? I've got to get some sleep sometime, I had a big day at the State Fair today, so I'd appreciate it if somebody else would run with that.
And realcountrymusic, it's not only a Bush millstone nor can only one Major Party be blamed: the whole U.S. political system fucked up AGAIN, AGAIN at a horrible cost, AGAIN showing what's been wrong with this country's ruling class all along. The War of 1812, Trail of Tears, the 1848 conquest of half of Mexico, all the court decisions and acts of legislation protecting and extending chattel slavery, the 1860-65 Civil War, the Spanish-American war to liberate Spain's colonies (so "we" could have them), etc. etc. It's all of a piece, and what's been in in that bathwater for 100 years is a cranky decrepit evil greedy dirty old man.
posted by davy at 7:56 PM on August 21, 2005
Wasn't that one of the big "Shame. Shame!" stories that was supposed to give Kerry an edge in the 2004 election, that soon after the Iraq invasion Bus Inc. did in fact start cutting tropps' benefits? I've got to get some sleep sometime, I had a big day at the State Fair today, so I'd appreciate it if somebody else would run with that.
And realcountrymusic, it's not only a Bush millstone nor can only one Major Party be blamed: the whole U.S. political system fucked up AGAIN, AGAIN at a horrible cost, AGAIN showing what's been wrong with this country's ruling class all along. The War of 1812, Trail of Tears, the 1848 conquest of half of Mexico, all the court decisions and acts of legislation protecting and extending chattel slavery, the 1860-65 Civil War, the Spanish-American war to liberate Spain's colonies (so "we" could have them), etc. etc. It's all of a piece, and what's been in in that bathwater for 100 years is a cranky decrepit evil greedy dirty old man.
posted by davy at 7:56 PM on August 21, 2005
Veterans Groups: VA Must Change its Funding Formula: Recent announcements that the Department of Veterans Affairs had underestimated their fiscal 2005 and 2006 health care budgets by billions came as no surprise to the four veterans' service organizations who co-author The Independent Budget, now in its 19th edition.
Senior leaders from AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars were outspoken in their efforts to tell the administration and Congress that the VA's funding formula was flawed, and even though The Independent Budget recommendations proved to be far more realistic than the administration's, there's no gloating — just concern. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on August 21, 2005
Senior leaders from AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars were outspoken in their efforts to tell the administration and Congress that the VA's funding formula was flawed, and even though The Independent Budget recommendations proved to be far more realistic than the administration's, there's no gloating — just concern. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on August 21, 2005
davy: it's not only a Bush millstone nor can only one Major Party be blamed: the whole U.S. political system fucked up AGAIN, AGAIN at a horrible cost . . .
Sure, of course. But watch what's already happening. Having failed in Iraq, the Bushites are already focusing their usual slander machine on the "left's" anti-war bastions with the specific message of "this is why we lost popular support for the war, and this is why we're going to lose the war and leave behind a hundred thousand soldiers, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, a theocratic state on the verge of civil war, and a disneland for terrorists." They are shameless. They lied directly and straight to our faces, over and over again, dragging us all through this fiasco of a boondoggle of a folly.
But . . .
They never admit a mistake or a screwup. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault with them. Yet disaster follows them around like a shadow. We aren't going to change the plutocratic, autocratic, kleptocratic oligarchy anytime soon. I will settle for accountability for the man at the top, under whom America has become a meaner, uglier, more brutal, less free, and more shameful place to hang the hat of citizenship in just five years, than it has ever been in my lifetime. I blame Bush. He claimed to stand for a new level of accountability and truth and a "new tone" in Washington when he ran in 2000. Let him account for his failings, then we'll tear down the castles of privilege.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:10 AM on August 22, 2005
Sure, of course. But watch what's already happening. Having failed in Iraq, the Bushites are already focusing their usual slander machine on the "left's" anti-war bastions with the specific message of "this is why we lost popular support for the war, and this is why we're going to lose the war and leave behind a hundred thousand soldiers, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, a theocratic state on the verge of civil war, and a disneland for terrorists." They are shameless. They lied directly and straight to our faces, over and over again, dragging us all through this fiasco of a boondoggle of a folly.
But . . .
They never admit a mistake or a screwup. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault with them. Yet disaster follows them around like a shadow. We aren't going to change the plutocratic, autocratic, kleptocratic oligarchy anytime soon. I will settle for accountability for the man at the top, under whom America has become a meaner, uglier, more brutal, less free, and more shameful place to hang the hat of citizenship in just five years, than it has ever been in my lifetime. I blame Bush. He claimed to stand for a new level of accountability and truth and a "new tone" in Washington when he ran in 2000. Let him account for his failings, then we'll tear down the castles of privilege.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:10 AM on August 22, 2005
The executions are carried out at dawn on Haqlania bridge, the entrance to Haditha. A small crowd usually turns up to watch even though the killings are filmed and made available on DVD in the market the same afternoon... Children cheered when they heard that the next day's spectacle would be a double bill: two decapitations. A man named Watban and his brother had been found guilty of spying. With so many alleged American agents dying here Haqlania bridge was renamed Agents' bridge. Then a local wag dubbed it Agents' fridge, evoking a mortuary, and that name has stuck. A three-day visit by a reporter working for the Guardian last week established what neither the Iraqi government nor the US military has admitted: Haditha, a farming town of 90,000 people by the Euphrates river, is an insurgent citadel.
Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel
Finding a way to head off civil war is at the heart of all the major initiatives - including the talks over a new constitution - in Iraq. But by most common political-science definitions of the term, "civil war" is already here. "It's not a threat. It's not a potential. Civil war is a fact of life there now,' says Pavel Baev, head of the Center for the Study of Civil War at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway. He argues that until the nature of the conflict is accurately seen, good solutions cannot be found. "What's happening in Iraq is a multidimensional conflict. There's international terrorism, banditry, the major foreign military presence. But the civil war is the central part of it - the violent contestation for power inside the country."
Does it matter if you call it a civil war?
posted by y2karl at 9:47 AM on August 22, 2005
Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel
Finding a way to head off civil war is at the heart of all the major initiatives - including the talks over a new constitution - in Iraq. But by most common political-science definitions of the term, "civil war" is already here. "It's not a threat. It's not a potential. Civil war is a fact of life there now,' says Pavel Baev, head of the Center for the Study of Civil War at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway. He argues that until the nature of the conflict is accurately seen, good solutions cannot be found. "What's happening in Iraq is a multidimensional conflict. There's international terrorism, banditry, the major foreign military presence. But the civil war is the central part of it - the violent contestation for power inside the country."
Does it matter if you call it a civil war?
posted by y2karl at 9:47 AM on August 22, 2005
2 minutes wasted.
i bet you hear that a lot. from women.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:18 PM PST on August 21
You crack me up!
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:38 AM on August 22, 2005
i bet you hear that a lot. from women.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:18 PM PST on August 21
You crack me up!
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:38 AM on August 22, 2005
...if the American military presence in the region lasts another five years, the total outlay for the war could stretch to more than $1.3 trillion, or $11,300 for every household in the United States.posted by y2karl at 3:10 PM on August 22, 2005The Trillion Dollar War
I still can't believe that Bush doesn't know the phrase is "Let Freedom Ring" and that "Reign" has a totally different meaning.
posted by Balisong at 3:46 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Balisong at 3:46 PM on August 22, 2005
I visited Ground Zero for the first time yesterday and was completely overwhelmed by the experience. I was surprised when my angush turned out to be more about what we've become in the world since the attacks and less about the life that was lost in that spot. How we've lost so much more than what we lost at that spot in downtown New York. That realization only deepened my angush further.
What honor can there be in anything we do when the spot that started it all cannot as a memorial unto itself?
posted by VulcanMike at 11:19 PM on August 23, 2005
What honor can there be in anything we do when the spot that started it all cannot as a memorial unto itself?
posted by VulcanMike at 11:19 PM on August 23, 2005
...cannot stand as...
posted by VulcanMike at 11:19 PM on August 23, 2005
posted by VulcanMike at 11:19 PM on August 23, 2005
« Older Story Corps | Heed! Pants! Muuuve! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Justinian at 10:49 PM on August 20, 2005