Mr. President, Democratic Leadership: There Is No Such Thing as Iraq
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/13/214325/233
Sure, look on a map, and it exists. It’s got a seat in the United Nations. The electrical grid is national, and the people who live within the geographic boundaries are considered, by other nations, "Iraqis." But George W. Bush is trying to fool a nation and a world in to thinking that there is a nation known as Iraq.
There isn’t.
There are Kurds, and they don’t want to be in a nation that includes Sunni Arabs, whose leadership they blame for the genocidal policies known as the Anfal. Expecting Kurds to remain part of the Iraqi nation-state is like expecting Jews to have gotten a national homeland adjoined to Germany after the Holocaust, but expecting the Jews to make nice with the Germans and let bygones be bygones. Most Americans probably don’t realize that it’s ILLEGAL to fly the flag of Iraq in Kurdistan. The Kurds are Kurds. They are not Iraqis, and they never will be.
Iraqs Sunni and Shia Arabs have been in a civil war for several years. In southern Iraq, rival blocs are vying for power in a Shia-Shia conflict. In Anbar--which is NOT a success, and is NOT relevant to the "surge"--we can expect a lot more Sunni-Sunni violence like what we saw today. And if you’re reading this, you know that Baghdad has and remains a horrifically violent place; any minor reductions in violence have as much to do with the "success" of ethnic cleansing as anything else. It’s like declaring Srebrenica a success story because the ethnic cleansing ended.
What’s busted and not working in Iraq isn’t because of Iran, or Syria. It’s because of Iraq. When we invaded and clumsily occupied Iraq—a country that had no cohesive nationalist identification before Winston Churchill and the British drew it on a map after WWI—we unleashed forces beyond our capacity to contain and control, especially as long as we continue to occupy Iraq and be distrusted by ALL factions in the country. Sure, one would have to be naïve to think Iran wasn’t meddling in Iraq. Same thing with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a bunch of other countries. But they’re only bit players. There’s no functioning government. There’s no "Iraqi" military, there are only units comprised entirely of single ethnic/religious groups; there are Kurdish units, there are Shia Arab units, there are Sunni Arab units. But there are NO multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian units.
Iraq is Humpty Dumpty, but we pushed him off the wall, and all the king’s Armored Cavalry and all the king’s mechanized brigades will not put him back together again. The president said this war in Iraq is "just, and right, and necessary." No, the war in Iraq is futile. The American people have figured that out. Now, it’s time to stop talking about leaving our troops in Iraq to train Iraqi military units, because there aren’t any. It’s time to stop expecting progress and the achievement of benchmarks by the Iraqi government, because there’s no Iraqi government that has legitimacy with the population of Iraq. It’s time to stop thinking that we can put Iraq back together again. It’s time to face the reality that Iraq no longer exists, start making plans to remove our troops, and get the leadership of the Iraqi factions and the leadership of the surrounding nations to engage in trying to mitigate the suffering and chaos that will ensue when we leave, but will also happen if we stay.
There’s no good solution for Iraq. There is no Iraq. It’s time to get our troops the hell out.
Amen.
So, the opposition has whipped The Daily Kos, and by extension, you.
:rotflol:
Just another reason that pack of antidemocracy browneyed shit-pitchers shouldn't be given serious regard. They don't want us to win, and never did.
So, a puppet regime centered around Basra and the mouth of the Euphrates, the strings being pulled by the mullahcracy in Teheran -- a good thing, on balance, or a bad thing? It does mean a major petroleum field controlled by unfriendlies, after all. How much of the world's petroleum do we want controlled by unfriendlies?
...So what you're saying is that the whole piece is bullshit?
You, sir, are the REASON we're losing over there. Because you think this is yet another example of righteous america coming as the heroes. You probably agreed with the administration that they'd greet us as liberators, with parades in the street, rather than the occupying oppressors we are.
Until you understand that, UG, we are doomed to defeat in Iraq. We've already lost the war; let's not lose the withdrawal too.
We are not "occupying oppressors," and in that regard I know better than either you or Kos. Accept it, and you'll be saner than eighty percent or so of the Kos crowd.
Now how about the longer range outlook I'm mentioning and you're not, son?
The Stateside opposition has wasted years looking and looking for some -- for any -- substitute for victory. For them our victory would be unconscionable. Fine: we should win, and these people with no faith in democracy should writhe in agonies of shame. They deserve that, and have worked diligently to get it, and they should have all that shame and more.
No one's ever been able to justify the shameful ones' point of view. It's all just fascist sympathy.
The Islamofascist opposition is banking on outlasting us. We should deny them any least hope of doing that, by scourging them over and over and over again until they no longer exist and can't generate any new ones. They have to be made discouraged, and I do not shrink at having to discourage them a lot, or for a couple of centuries. They have to be made discouraged, and it doesn't matter how much discouraging is needed. Simply attend to supplying the need. The antidemocracy, and therefore antihuman, fanaticism must be a way to a too-young death and a certain one.
We are not "occupying oppressors," and in that regard I know better than either you or Kos.
What, you're posting from Iraq?
The only outcome that will not end in wholesale genocide is american-facilitated partition and subsequent withdrawal. And that will still probably end in massive sectarian violence, as it did in India/Pakistan. Truly, now that we've broken it, there's nothing we can do to fix it except install a military dictatorship every bit as bad as saddam's.
What would you have us do, UG? Sit there in Iraq for another generation or two, until every single person that hates america for it gives up and dies of old age? Our staying doesn't help a single iraqi, and our leaving won't hurt a single american. There will be civil war, already is civil war, whether we stay or not. Our leaving won't change that. It may get worse, but it will happen either way. We need to look out for america's interest in this case, as much as I hate to say it. I have no love for america, no more than I have for every other place - but I'm still more pro-america than you are on this, UG. You want us to stay, to no positive end, spending countless dollars and ending the lives of many of america's finest men and women in uniform.
We must leave, now.
I'd like to point out, for the record, the few errors in the Kos blog. A) There are many Kurds that consider themselves Iraqi. They can be compared (amongst these Kurds) to Texans. They're very prideful of their own people, but that doesn't mean they want nothing to do with Iraq. That being said, there are plenty that would like their own country.
B) There are in fact multi-ethnic units in the Iraqi army, bunches of them. Everything I've seen or heard shows me that the Iraqi army functions pretty well (far better than they should, considering how we've "trained them"). The police force is swiss cheese, with a large number of units owing almost no loyalty to state, only to their tribe or militia (usually Jaysh al-Mahdi), but the army's pretty unaffected on the whole.
Aside from that, most of the other things he wrote are true. Not that I agree with it's conclusion, or much of what Kos writes, I think he's inflammatory at best and doesn't do much good except preaching to the converted.
And UG, which of the hundreds of groups that are vying for power, the majority of whom who could give two shits about the US, is the ominous 'Islamofascist enemy' that you keep referencing? This is one of the biggest mistakes you can make about this war. There is not one single enemy that can be defeated with firepower. If we want to be successful at our self-appointed job of nation building, then we'll need the military, but there is not some big enemy we can shoot at, there are almost a dozen major players, and hundreds of minor ones all vying for national or local power.
They're not 'the Islamofascists' and they're not all terrorists, they're each trying to get their piece of the pie. Contrary to popular opinion, for most that pie has almost nothing to do with the US.
by scourging them over and over and over again until they no longer exist and can't generate any new ones.
If you get a strike in every frame, does the bowling ally run out of pins?
We will probably leave Iraq with a dictator.
If you get a strike in every frame, does the bowling ally run out of pins?
People are not as easily set up as bowling pins, Bruce. I think you could use a better metaphor. Bowling pins do not have morale considerations, nor are they influenced by reason.
People, the overall necessary strategy is to reduce the number of Gap nations, evolving them into "seam" nations and in due course into the New Core -- or the Newer New Core if there is some necessity for partitioning degrees of globalization development to keep things straight in the observer's mind.
The troubles for the Core nations (North America and Europe -- the developed nations), sayeth Thomas P.M. Barnett, will come from out of the Gap nations -- the largest swath of which are much of the Islamic world and the bulk of Africa, with South Africa being the notable exception, and I think some non-Gap pockets here and there like the environs of Mombasa, Kenya. He calls this the "Gap" because it's not at all well connected informationally nor economically with the global economy and the developing global culture. He speaks of the Old Core nations (as above) and the New Core nations (Russia, China, India, Brazil), these being the nations and economies that are strongly developing and unlikely to stop or be stopped in their growth and improvement. Part of the Gap's overall troubles are political -- there are just about no genuine democracies in it, just lousy governance that runs the gamut from autocracy to kleptocracy, and mixtures of these may be found in any one country. The symptoms of these undemocratic societies are pretty common and easily observed: unresponsive governments that take no interest whatsoever either in good stewardship or sound national economy, lack of secure property rights, scant education and what there is is often sex-specific -- men only, no public health, damned little public life, and all the rest of the ills the wealthier nations try to address with foreign aid and charitable work and works.
You want less trouble in the world, you remove the political-cultural impediments to repairing all this, and one thing that means is devouring the terrorists, the fascists, and the obstructionists, alive or dead. Conversion of such troublemakers is to be preferred of course, and will happen in many cases -- but the ones immune to reason are not immune to the knife.
This is all I ask. It's all I ever ask. Some jackanapes will tell me I'm a terrible person for asking it. I know what to think of those people.
This is all I ask. It's all I ever ask. Some jackanapes will tell me I'm a terrible person for asking it. I know what to think of those people.
Well presumably you think them jackanapes?
Bowling pins do not have morale considerations, nor are they influenced by reason.
Neither are most people. Reason has to line up with their personal beliefs in order for them to see it.
Now how about the longer range outlook I'm mentioning and you're not, son?
Way to be a condescending dick, good job.
Neither are most people. Reason has to line up with their personal beliefs in order for them to see it.
Way to be a condescending dick, good job.
He's pretty good at that, I've noticed.
...And can I get an amen for cognitive dissonance. There's that college edjukayshun.
Way to be a condescending dick, good job.
Not so. To be condescending, one must be talking down from a higher plane. He ain't on a higher plane.
Oh I think he's on a very high plane indeed. Very fucking high.
They voted alright, for Iranian backed warlords, Wheeeeee!
There is no Iraq. It’s time to get our troops the hell out.
I'd bang her nose crookeder. I loves me some verboten 'tang.
They voted alright, for Iranian backed warlords, Wheeeeee!
It's the "they voted" part which is more meaningful. They don't want to be part of a united Iraq? They voted for it. Maybe they will again.
When you behave like a fool and talk like a fool, I reserve the right to condescend to you. I prefer posters who are using all three digits of their IQ simultaneously and continuously. Buuut, help and salvation are at hand, in the Zen-like idea that a thing implies its opposite: if you don't like being condescended to (though I can think of one veteran poster who might, though perhaps subconsciously), what do you do? And is there any question as to whether you can do that?
Bruce in particular lacks grounds to say anything my moral plane, what with his altogether undue degree of fascist sympathy -- which he seems to be in denial about. See "Politics ad Absurdam," the last few pages. Quite, as I've said there too, the absurd position for someone of his solid understanding of human rights and liberties to take. He's got some of the fundamentals, but won't apply them to dealing with misgovernance, which is where the crying need is.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena.
Cognitive dissonance? Oh that's what's wrong with Bush's face.
[COLOR="Silver"]I always notice there is something off about it and actually whenever I look at someones photo and they have 'that look' my stomach does a sick turn every time.[/COLOR]
Cognitive dissonance? Oh that's what's wrong with Bush's face.
Ahhh.....I always thought he was filling a diaper
[edit: replaced nappy with diaper....]
How tiresome it is to abuse the undeserving of abuse.
It clearly pains you to do so... yet, somehow, you carry on.
Me? I suppose you have some examples in mind -- I can't think of anyone undeserving that I would abuse. Not off the top of my head.
Did you not comment "how tiresome it is to abuse the undeserving of abuse" ???
It's the "they voted" part which is more meaningful. They don't want to be part of a united Iraq? They voted for it. Maybe they will again.
I get it, we stay until they vote for a government we like?
We want you to be independant, but we have these "benchmarks" here that are mandatory.
Exactly.
Yaaaayyyyy you voted your own government in so we can go now... waiiiit a min. we don't like these guys... (plus we have not secured this oil we came for)
We stay until the vote is more powerful than the mobsters.
Oh, let me put that in a way you understand.
We stay until the vote is more powerful than the mobsters, LOL!!!
We don't do that here.
So it never ends I guess.
What if they keep voting for mobsters?!
In truth, the min. we secure the oil fields in western hands we are out of there, except for a perimeter around the oil district.
If they throw out Blackwater, they've actually stood up. Then we should be able to blow the joint, yes?
Did you not comment "how tiresome it is to abuse the undeserving of abuse" ???
Go ahead and arrive at your point; I'm not sure I see it yet.
Go ahead and arrive at your point; I'm not sure I see it yet.
Of course not. His point cannot be seen down the barrel of a rifle.
Not zing. Tw cannot zing me on his best day. He can, however, blather.
If they throw out Blackwater, they've actually stood up. Then we should be able to blow the joint, yes?
It will never happen. They need them. They could be replaced but I somehow doubt it.
The bottom line is this. Most of what comes out of Daily Kos is crap. They are a mouth piece for Soros and the Huffington assholes.
Given that, going into Iraq was a huge frigging mistake and I said so from day one to my wife as we sat in a food establishment on vacation as it went down. I was still on active duty. I remember distinctly telling my wife that they had better be sure that WMD's exist or we were going to lose a bunch of folks for no good reason. When we took the eye off the ball, Afghanistan, we began the slow spiral losing the game in the long run. We are stuck now. We have bought much of it with our blood. So here are the options, tell me what you would do:
1) Pull out, lock stock and barrel and accept the ascension of Iran into the Iraqi power struggle and impending genocide of the Suni by the Shia, and potentially the invasion of Kurdistan by the Turks and possibly the Iranians and potentially a separate genocide.
2) Stay and try to help keep the place stabilized losing more Americans in the mean time with no end in sight. All the while continuing to poor money into the pit of corruption of Iraqi officials and big business interests.
Yeah, blackwater not only provides security for just about every civilian leader that goes to Iraq, but they do security on a large number of our civil projects, etc. No to mention how tight they are with the military because, well, they're 99% ex-military. Usually career types or SF.
The bottom line is this. Most of what comes out of Daily Kos is crap. They are a mouth piece for Soros and the Huffington assholes.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Oh rly? like this little happy bit from Kos?:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/19/18384/0637there are thousands of users, and many many thousands of posts, at Daily Kos. It is impossible to make any kind of blanket statement about the posts there, except that they're of a progressive bent.
Oh rly? like this little happy bit from Kos?:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/19/18384/0637
Who is lurxst? Is he George Soros? Is he a member of the Huffington Post? Or is he a random guy on the internet who put up a provocative title to attract eyes to his one out of thousands of diaries that scroll down the side of the page?
And more importantly, how was his article received? His tip jar got more than twice as many downvotes as upvotes, and only four people recommended the diary.
What point are you trying to make with that example?
Daily Kos-crap is well know for it's positions on a host of subjects. The backers and supporters of the website are well known. It is far from non-partisan and neutral. I just call it like I see it. But let's not pretend it is something it is not.
I didn't say it wasn't partisan. And you are pretending it's something it's not.
On the topic of the original post,
Joe Biden and the Senate told them to divide Iraq in three and, as a result,
today the Iraqi parliament meets to figure out how to best politely tell the US Senate to fuck off.
... the matter does not even require enacting a law because the content of the American resolution flagrantly interfered in Iraq's internal affairs, let alone its violation of the Iraqi constitution.
Qadou noted that the Iraqi constitution guarantees the country's "territorial integrity and national sovereignty," adding the Congress' resolution "can never change Iraq's settled national principles."
He said the U.S. resolution "only aimed to cause Iraq to slide into the pits of a civil war only God knows when it will end."
"It is the duty of all the national powers (in Iraq) to reject such an insolent resolution and to quickly announce their positions in the face of this trivializing with the sovereignty of Iraq," he said.
I guess it is not ironic for the Senate to interfere with the governance of a sovereign nation.
I guess it is not ironic for the Senate to interfere with the governance of a sovereign nation.
What sovereign nation? I guess the government in S Vietnam also was sovereign. Nonsense. What they say is political wallpaper to appear sovereign. What they end up doing is only independent when not ordered by the White House.
The Maliki response is a surrogate response from the White House. There is no ongoing solution to Iraq. Even the White House does not want one. White House strategic objective: make sure "Mission Impossible" is not lost on George Jr's watch.
At this point, the only hope Iraq may have for a settlement without overt civil war may simply be sovereignty of the provinces. However that can only happen if insurgent armies want it. The US can only obstruct solutions - not impose one.
Kurdistan is all but separate from Iraq already. Only reason that Kurdistan is not a separate nation is the political cover afforded by a Baghdad government. The only way that Iraq can resolve their differences (aggravated and ignored by the mental midget) may be an overt and deadly civil war. But then nations often must suffer accordingly before any serious form of democracy can take hold. Not that any real democracy is even realistic.
Bottom line point made by Biden - and on this he is 100% correct: Iraq must do something to resolve their problems or be completely abandoned. Currently we have no interest in forcing Iraq to do any solution. Currently, America's only agenda is to make sure "Mission Impossible" is not lost under George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is massively more important than a solution in Iraq or America's interests.
Biden made the mistake of actually demanding a solution. Even the America public has deceived themselves so as to deny the quagmire. Notice then latest need for cash is not $60billion for the next few months. We must now authorize another
$200billion in short term emergency spending for an unwinnable war that will already cost $1trillion. As long as the massive resulting recession will occur many years later, then Americans will do exactly what we did 30 years ago in Nam - when another president was concerned for his legacy at the expense of all Americans.
Amazing how so many deny what is really the strategic objective: protect the legacy of George Jr.
My definition of "sovereign nation" is...
...it's what the people vote for.
George W. Bush is clearly working on shrinking that Barnettian Gap, tw. Rumsfeld perhaps even more so, during his time in office. You yourself seem, I think, to consider shrinking the Gap a good thing in principle at least. Am I mistaken here?
My definition of "sovereign nation" is...
...it's what the people vote for.
They used to be forced to vote for the guy who was already in charge, now they can freely vote for people who aren't in charge.
It's like we made a bigger, more violent, DC.
@Undertoad: okay, what happens if the people vote to close down future democratic processes and move to a monarchy or theocracy?
At that point it becomes an unrepresentative government. There are degrees of how representative a government is, and it would seem that this one becomes much less representative on day one, and slowly even less representative over time after that.
If a non-representative government is the democratically achieved decision of a people, who are we to say they shouldn't have that form of government?
My definition of "sovereign nation" is...
...it's what the people vote for.
So their government does not hide out in American protected green zones? So they don't travel with Blackwater security? So transportation is provided by Iraqis? When Americans tell them what to do, then what do they do? Either what the Americans tell them or nothing. The Iraqi government is only the latest version of Ahmad Chalabi. Each version changed when the previous one cannot do enough of what America wants.
At least the S Vietnamese government was protected by Vietnamese - not by Americans. At least the S Vietnamese government - president and parliament - did not hide out in American bases. But that too was an elected and American puppet government.
This current Iraqi government gets respect because so many parties (the Kurds, al Sadr, some Sunnis, etc) need the central government as cover or as a channel to work with their otherwise adversaries. The only reason this Iraqi government can remain in existence is completely dependent on the largest military and financial power to protect and finance it.
Today an Iraqi government official was burned in a car bombing. Who was his security, who extracted him from the burning car, and who arranged to have him flown safely back into the American green zone? Blackwater – paid for by the US government. This Iraqi government is independent of America? Hardly.
We don't "have a say" D, but we treat the situation very differently before and after. It's a different situation for a leader who knows there is no end-of-term, and no power to be lost due to bad choices. Whole different chess game.
Well, there have been plenty of 'kingdoms' throughout the ages, and in general, if the people didn't like the king they'd organise to get him killed off. Perhaps that's what drives some rulers to try and do the right thing? Of course, things have changed a bit these days. There's much better protection for leaders now we've all mostly moved out of grass huts.
If a non-representative government is the democratically achieved decision of a people, who are we to say they shouldn't have that form of government?
DanaC, if you can cite two or more examples of that ever having occurred through anything other than a complete deceiving of the electorate I shall be
very surprised.
I postulate that the Weimar German electorate was deceived in 1933.
Iran had a popular revolution and installed Theocracy.
Iran had a popular revolution and installed Theocracy.
Well yea, but they want to believe it is something else. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is barely a theocracy anymore.
Iran had a popular revolution and installed Theocracy.
From what I've heard they didn't really have much of a choice but to go to theocracy. There were two powers at the time, the Shah and the clerics. Most people didn't necessarily agree with the clerics but it was better than the Shah at the time.
From what I've heard they didn't really have much of a choice but to go to theocracy. There were two powers at the time, the Shah and the clerics. Most people didn't necessarily agree with the clerics but it was better than the Shah at the time.
I will give you that, they may have been a better choice than the Shah at the time. But don't be fooled into thinking that "most people" wanted the clerics to be in charge either, agree or not. The take over was a move by the more radical elements at the time and I don't believe that most people in Iran are happy with a Islamic regime. In fact I would go so far as to say (IMHO) that most would prefer a western style democracy. (And I am not advocating that any overt action be taken to assist such a move.)
I am basically on the same page as you. There is really no way to prove it but for as educated as Iran is and wants to be, resistance against the clerics may happen, especially if they keep making an ass out of themselves.
As Iran becomes more educated, I would expect them to start to head towards democracy whether or not they pick up western culture in the process.
As Iran becomes more educated, I would expect them to start to head towards democracy whether or not they pick up western culture in the process.
I don't know about that. They are already quite educated in many areas. I just think that the power of the radical religious elements in the Middle East are to strong and weld a huge influence over the common man. People like to say the US is no different, I don't buy that.
Maybe. I've heard a lot of the people that support Ahmadinejad and the Islamic regime are the uneducated poor but I don't know the proportions and how much education has a play in that.
Merc, I agree, I think they've ended up with a raw deal. But then again, democratically elected leaders in the US and the UK can take power with way less than a majority supporting them.
Merc, I agree, I think they've ended up with a raw deal. But then again, democratically elected leaders in the US and the UK can take power with way less than a majority supporting them.
True. But we {you and I} really do not want to have a majority anything telling us what we can and cannot do, eh?
Maybe. I've heard a lot of the people that support Ahmadinejad and the Islamic regime are the uneducated poor ...
It is believed Ahmadinejad is the choice of the clerics. Once American issues a threat - the axis of evil speech - any opposition to Ahmadinejad completely evaporated. The Iranian reform movement was strong and growing until 2001. Even the reform leaders such as Rafsanjani and Khatami backed away from reform and supported Ahmadinejad.
Meanwhile, don't assume Ahmadinejad is the power in Iran. Real power lies with the clerics - same as Cheney runs the George Jr administration. Ahmadinejad is only a front man. Any reform that would have removed power from the clerics and put power in the presidency completely died when Iran was threatened with unilateral invasion by another nation.
True. But we {you and I} really do not want to have a majority anything telling us what we can and cannot do, eh?
Well, inasmuch as the government can and does 'tell us what to do', I would rather that be based on a majority than a minority...