I can't help but think, JB, that if Iraq's 'results' and 'decisions' were allowed to be even slightly about Iraq"s future and what THEY want, Blackwater would no longer be doing business in THEIR country and they'd be trying to see if Russian, Chinese or South American oil companies wanted to offer them a better deal for THEIR oil and natural gas, than what the USA, British and Saudi energy consortiums are offering.
The FACT that this would no doubt force the neoCONS to bring another round of 'shock and awe' from the skies, and most likely without ANY effective criticism from the Dems of CONgress when it happens, is all the proof necessary that this geopolitical resource grab crosses the isles in the Capital, and is supported by 'one-party' members from BOTH sides who've sold out to the exact same energy lobbyists.
Righteous analysis, that makes NO friends of the powers that be, and I couldn't agree more.
The Iraq Factor in This Election Cycle
This November, if you want out of Iraq, vote blue. If you want to stay, vote red. That is how the Democrats and Republicans are framing the debate. However, as much as we would like it to be that black and white, sophomoric, and simplistic -- it just isn't so.
Nowadays Americans don't care about political slogans. Instead, they want results. The Iraq war has caused the political opinions of the American people to become so diverse that it is too difficult to predict how this election cycle will unfold -- word to the wise for candidates who think their election/reelection is a sure thing.
I have no situational awareness regarding what it is like on the ground in Iraq since 2004. Therefore, I can't speak intelligently about what really happened in Basra and Sadr city last week (just an example). However, politicians feel a necessity to pontificate about how they are the authorities on the situation -- and that justifies (for them) their belief in deserving your vote.
It seems that every time violence spikes in Iraq, a Democratic politician gets to be the "I told you so" guy. If violence and death show signs of decline, a Republican politician affords himself the same courtesy. As if withdrawing from Iraq or staying the course is the "end all be all." Please, stop treating us like kids who don't know any better.
What gets forgotten in this process is at the end of the day the Iraqis are going to be the Iraqis. They're going to handle things their way. The future of Iraq was always up to them -- not us. It was never a reality for us to give them the keys to a new car called "modern sustainable democracy" to take for a test drive and not expect a crash. That is all based on the assumption this war/occupation is really about freedom and democracy, not oil, or our so-called "interests" in the region.
By removing Saddam we didn't cure the headache by cutting off the head. We created a volatile situation among multiple warring factions that want to kill us too -- cheers.
Did it ever occur to people who want to lead the "free world" that we are trying to moderate people who can't be moderated? Sunnis tribes vs Shia militias. Shias vs Shias. A permanent insurgency vs the Iraqi Army. PKK rebels attacking Turks in the north. Wait a minute -- Isn't it all Al-Qaeda?
Moving right along .....
Last week the Iranians negotiated the cease-fire between Maliki and al-Sadr. At the same time the President tells us we have to fight in Iraq to contain Iran. Are we forgetting the Iraqi government is in total cahoots with them? Birds of a feather flock together...am I missing something? Or are we keeping our troops there to prevent a regional conflict? If so, I'm not sure we have the savvy to pull it off. That would assume that we have the moral authority to demonstrate our power and military might with sanctimony.
I'm not sure the Syrians, Saudis, or the Iranians want us to stop refereeing this mess. Most countries would prefer not to have bribery, alliances of convenience, pitting of sides, civil war, and wholesale destruction spilling over into their territory. Plus, Iraq's neighbors perceive it to be advantages for them if we continue expending our resources in Iraq.
When the ink dries on the history books chances are it will read that preemptive counter-insurgency wars isn't our cup of tea. Just because we prevailed in the past with large scale military operations and embargoes doesn't mean we can successfully fight an invisible enemy that continues to multiply.
Back to the upcoming elections ...
Democrats shouldn't campaign on how terrible the Iraq war is because the American people already get it. What they don't get is how we extract ourselves from the quagmire. That is the doozie.
In addition, candidates should be careful how they craft their plan and message because voters are insensitive & intolerant to disingenuous campaign themes these days. Remember that the Democratic party has held a majority of Congress for the past two years and there has been no change of course as promised in the 2006 election. The party base is more than disillusioned.
Sure, the Republican party destroyed itself with blind loyalty to Bush. However, Democrats can't assume they'll automatically get a "free ride" because they gave the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. When the people spoke in 2006 and demanded action it wasn't intended to come in the form of complacency.
Lets keep in mind that many lifelong Democrats have left the party in droves for alternatives because of their disappointment in how dysfunctional and timid the party has been when dealing with George W. Bush. Especially those Democrats who are politically active -- which makes them competitive -- that makes losing all the time a real "turn off."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
NoFactsJustTruth,
I'm happy you're pleased with the piece. I concur with your analysis as well. Thanks for the comment. V/R John
Another favorite canard is that the Shi"ah and the Sunnis have been at one another"s throats for over 1,000 years and therefore can"t live together.
Well again a bit of historical perspective might help frame this.
First, prior to the invasion, there were mixed Sunni Shi"ah neighborhoods. If these two groups were such implacable foes, why wouldn"t we have seen the sort of white/black segregation we see in our own presumably highly civilized country?
Second, there were a significant amount of mixed marriages.
Third, the historical record suggests that there was more prolonged fighting between the so-called Christian sects of Europe. And more martyrs or heretics killed than in Sunni/Shi"ah fighting.
Does that mean that relations between the two communities are excellent?
Of course not, in general Shi"ah were treated (and still are in many of our brave client states) as second class citizens.
But if we say that because of this, that these two groups can"t live with one another and the country must be partitioned, we get into dangerous territory.
Based on the historical record in our country of race riots and official and unofficial discrimination, do we have to logically conclude that whites and blacks in the USA clearly can"t live together?
Should the senior senator from Maryland be working on a domestic equivalent of his Iraqi plan?
I"d like to use this forum to make some generic comments on what I perceive as a fundamental issue with analysis of the situation in Iraq.
When one gets into a bad situation and one"s plans go awry, a natural reaction is to posit inherent flaws in one"s antagonists. The deeper one's failure the more the psychological need to find timeless fatal deficiencies.
So it is with Iraq.
The first is "Where have all the moderates gone"? "These people are just crazy savages".
Well, reality is a little more complex that our immaturity would lead us to believe.
Iraq was invaded. Its infrastructure further destroyed beyond Gulf War 1 and years of sanctions. Both Sunni and Shi'ah groups (supported by the majority of the pepole) are waging a national resistance against the foreign occupier.
But where are the moderates in such a benign situation?
I suppose one might ask why the Maquis and Vichy couldn't work out their differences.
Or Sherman with (James) Calhoun.
Why didn"t (Joseph) Brant negotiate with Washington?
Were all these folks (and many more from history) decidedly immoderate folk (probably due to some inherent hereditary trait of their religion, national origin)?
Clearly, little more than savages.
Certainly not civilized folk like us.
Rog49Thomas,
Yes, there has been no compromise between our nation's foreign policy decisions and the wishes of the world the community, along with no compromise between our political parties here in America, nothing has been achieved to remedy the situation. V/R John
this is a brilliant assessment of the potential problems for the democrats.
they promised change in 2006 and failed miserably ,whether through design or incompetence.
if all they are running on now is a promise of change, we may be disappointed with the results.
It would be difficult to trust a word from any of the deomcratic leaders after the fiasco of these last 15 months. why would we want more of the same.
we are stuck between more of the same (mccain) or what the heck might they do (obama) or we know what they will do but can we take 4-8 more years of them (hillary)..
no wonder even a whiff of a gore candidacy sends everyone into a twitter.
whimsicalpig,
You summed it up well:
"It would be difficult to trust a word from any of the democratic leaders after the fiasco of these last 15 months. why would we want more of the same." This is what I hear from so many people who are lifelong Democrats who have had it with empty promises from those they elected. Thanks for the comment. V/R John
"Nowadays Americans don't care about political slogans. Instead, they want results"
No, you are WAY off the mark -- Americans want more than simply "results in Iraq."
We want the leaders of this country to apply "Jus ad bellum" (Just war theory) to foreign policy decisions.
For ANY war to be justified the following 6 requirements should ALL be met:
1.Just Cause (paramount) - war must only be waged in response to some "wrong received," or in resistance to aggression.
2. Right Intention - only if we intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause.
3. Proper Authority and Public Declaration.
4. Last Resort - only after exhausting all possible peaceful alternatives to the resolving conflict.
5. Probability of Success - only if doing so will have a measurable impact on the situation.
6. Proportionality - weigh the desired result versus the cost (in life and treasure, of all parties)
The war in Iraq met only 1 requirement -- #3.
Voters are well aware who provided it the proper authority, and need not depend upon future "results" to make their judgement about those who granted this authority.
We want change that we can believe in.
We want Obama answering that phone at 3am.
The Iraqi's that actually want reconciliation seem to be as hard to find as Bin Laden.
In both cases I begin to doubt thier actual existence.
As to the "former" insurgent Sunnis in Anbar....and the dispicable Mouctada and his Mahdi army.....
Never thought I'd live to see the day when our government would be paying, protecting,...even ARMING the SOB's blowing our kids up. Wherever "the looking glass" is......Iraq is clearly on the other side of it.
BRING 'EM HOME!!..............Timetable??....Benchmark???...........YESTERF**KING-DAY...................tm
TM,
BRING EM HOME ---- indeed !!! V/R John
We agree on most issues, John.
1. Nobody has a plan to get us out. What is being touted as a plan by the Democrats, "A RESPONSIBLE PLAN TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ", realistically does not cut the mustard as planning. It's simply a restatement of the Iraq Study Group and the broadest of proposal outlines. There is no actual withdrawal methodology involved.
2. You bet Iraq's neighbors want us there, especially the ones with territory sighted for a Greater Kurdistan. Not to mention that Iran has grown exponentially in influence as we removed their primary natural enemy. However, I can't see how any of this justifies our presence from an American standpoint.
3. The Iraqis will have the same arguments over distribution of oil revenues whether we leave tonight or 10 years down the road. There is NOTHING we can add to the discussion, we can only prolong the problem. There will be violence regardless. If we leave, there's a very real chance it might subside sooner.
4. I said in 2002 that Saddam is indeed a brutal dictator, however there is no other way to hold together this slipshod fusion cobbled together by the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. Nothing since has changed my mind.
Best,
Francois
EspritDeVoltaire,
I could not agree more with your analysis. Too bad that our "so called" foreign policy experts to Bush, and Cheney's influence wasn't discounted or rebuked prior to this mess -- and as you and I know, those who did try were shunned. At this point, hopefully, history will teach the American people that this was the biggest humanitarian & foreign policy disaster in modern history. I long for the day that we can learn from our mistakes, elect leaders who have learned, and try to make the world a better place. I'm pleased to hear from you again my friend -- keep replying, your feedback in crucial. V/R John
When one's foreign policy is based on a delusional view of the world and one's place within the world<
When one's national security interests in a part of the world are conflated with the economic interests of an industry and with the national security interests of another country,
It's very hard not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again
To learn from the mistakes we need to revise our foreign policy "theology"
John, The main thing I took from your comments is that progressives need to hang tough. Letting people who are willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years (if that's what it takes--according to them) is not going to solve the problems in Iraq, or in the USA. We are wasting lives and treasure by trying to make the politics of the past work in today's world. We need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, re-equip our military, let our soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc. have some time with their families, and develop a set of national priorities that include energy independence. We created a mess in Iraq by following up on lies, and nothing we do (other than withdraw) is going to make things better for Iraqis or Americans.
Cutting back the military budget by 75 percent, abandon all the 700-something permanent US-military bases in the World, discharge the 11 supercarriers and all the nuke-carring first-strike-subs and, quitting paying bribes for ANY rogue government in the world, which was willing to do the dirty work for the USA in exchange for dollars, would not only be a good start, but would free hundreds of billons of wastfully spent Dollars for other urgent purposes, like: Rebuilding the infrastructure, universal healthcare, better education, secure retirement-plans, developed renewable energies, etc, etc.
After having read about "The Three-Billion-Dollar-War" in Iraq, it struck me that, with three billioln dollars, the USA could have purchased 30 million barrels of crude - even at today's excessive prices. In pre-war-prices, 3 billion Dollars would have bought the USA over 100 billion barrels of oil.
It's time to make deals, not war.
Montanamotor,
"The Three-Billion Dollar War?" Or the "3 Trillion Dollar War?" Just want to make sure I am reading you right.
But your comment in this regard is great:
"but would free hundreds of billons of wastfully spent Dollars for other urgent purposes, like: Rebuilding the infrastructure, universal healthcare, better education, secure retirement-plans, developed renewable energies, etc, etc."
Yes, indeed , perfect -- thank you for sharing. V/R John
Oops! Correction: It was "Three TRILLION Dollars: so its 33 billion barrels of crude at 100 Dollars a barrel, or a 100 billion barrels of crude at 33 Dollars a barrel.
Montanamotor,
I just got the correction -- my apologies, V/R John
desmirl,
You hit the nail on the head. Thank you -- good to hear from you again. V/R John
I just wanted to say that I am very disappointed that there has been no coverage - here or anywhere else - of the important Iraq hearings held last week and this week by Senator Biden and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I suppose the media and bloggers will take notice during the Petraeus/Crocker round...but, of course, that won't be the best part (ie most informative) of this series of hearings...not by a long shot.
If anyone around here cares, the hearings can be seen in their entirety on c-span.org. I can safely guarantee that you won't be disappointed. In fact, you can bet the farm on that...unless it's in Iowa.
Congressional hearings are similar to and different than posts on HuffPo.
Similar in that they let folks have the satisfaction of venting their feelings without taking any concrete action.
Different in that gasbags in Congress use them to get re-elected.
LizM,
I will indeed watch the hearings - thanks for the reminder. V/R John
I watched those hearings and highly recommend them to anybody that would like to see that there could be light at the end of the tunnel if enough pressure is put on this administration to alter their failing course! Especially encouraging was the Republican's taking part and not trying to spout the 'party line'!
The really depressing thing about all of this is that we are really stuck on the course we're on because there is no amount of influence or pressure that will move this administration off its path to nowhere.
As I see it, the one good thing about what the Bush-CHENEY regime is engaged in is that it may tread water long enough for the next administration to still have time to implement a strategy to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement.
However, that would assume that the next administration had a clue about how to go about that - from my vantage point, that is an assumption we cannot make...regardless of who becomes the next POTUS.
So, where does that leave us? I shudder to think.
The interesting counterpoint to Gen. Petraeus' upcoming testimony to Congress will be al-Sadr's simultaneous million-man protest to US occupation. One wonders how the General will play that wicket.
Iraq as domestic political problem is all about who gets tarred with the brush of defeat. Republicans have always been experts in this regard, so my money is on them. Consider the fact, for example, that they successfully blamed Democrats for losing in Vietnam even though it was two Republican Presidents -- Nixon and Ford -- who presided over our withdrawal.
We truly have a wacky political system and an amazingly loony electorate.
SamThornton,
Agreed -- except they inherited it from President Johnson, who made incredible achievements for civil and workers rights, but Vietnam overshadows that -- as MLK stated in his own way. V/R John
Please, if you can, listen : http://youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
Bruhns,
Good, fair, column and I appreciate it's balance. I for one would love for the good ol' USA to get out of Iraq asap, but don't want a wholesale slaughter of our friends and fear the ensuing chaos. Whether you agree or not about the initial reason's for going to war, we are there now and must make the best of it. There is hard work ahead of course, but hopefully we will develop a responsible plan to get out of Iraq and maybe someday kick our foreign oil addiction. I now drive a smaller vehicle not because of the global warming BS but because I'm sick of sending our $$$ to Arab and others radical countries. Until we get off foriegn oil, we will have to defend our national interests overseas. It's a crazy cycle of us sending oil money overseas, which is then used to fund terrorists, who then attack us and Israel.
kevlarhed
"Whether you agree or not about the initial reason's for going to war, we are there now and must make the best of it."
This is frequently spoken as a given, but it is not. In fact, there is evidence that our presence is making things worse. Our leaving would end the occupation and the situation might improve. Can you explain why your assumption has more validity than my assumption?
Assumptions are not fact driven and tend to close down options. All options have to be openly and honestly discussed before a course of action is decided on.
itmaybetoolate,
It's never too late to do what is right.
I am wondering why you focused on "we must make the best of it". As in life, when things get bad, a positive attitude always helps. It's obvious that we bought it (Iraq), we broke it, and now we have to fix it.
I agree all options must be honestly considered, but I would add the word "reasonable" to our options. To leave Iraq and hope things "might" improve seems highly irresponsible.
Is it worth more American lives & treasure to protect endless thousands of Iraqis from certain slaughter? Absolutelty, you betcha. They trust America and are counting on us to do what is right. "The cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing". disclaimer; I am not saying you are a cynic.
Most assumptions are based on facts & past experiences and can be used to drive decision making. We abandoned Vietnam when the going got tough and millions were slaughtered in that region, for the sake of humanity, let's not risk this with the Iraqi people.
kevlarhed
I guess I could just as easily say to stay in Iraq and hope things "might" improve seems highly irresponsible. As for comparisons to other occupations, it might be more appropriate to compare to other middle east occupations - for example, the Israeli occupation of Palestine. This hasn't worked out so well.
There are also the polls that show that a majority of Iraqis want the US to leave.
An argument could be made that local countries - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey - could do a better job at stabilization of the country - it is in their best interests.
Of course, there is the legal side to this. bush committed an illegal act when he invaded Iraq and our continued presence compounds the crime.
I guess we will agree to disagree.
Kevlarhed,
While we have different points of view, and disagree on certain issues, I very much appreciate your perspective. It is good to hear from you & I'm grateful that you shared your thoughts -- sincerely. Please continue to keep the channels of communication open and please contribute to the dialog. V/R John Bruhns
We have been paying al-Sadr to have his troops stand down so the violence would be down and Bushit can claim that the surge is working! The surge was supposed to give the puppet government a breather to make some political gains. The puppet government has not made any gains and is probably weaker now than before the surge. There is never any mention of the missing of about 1/3 rd of Iraq's oil production!
al-Sadr used the upcoming testimony of Petraeus as a chance to re-negotiate the payoffs if we wanted to keep the violence down! Bushit had no choice, he was out-maneuvered again!
From the testimony of several retired Generals, before Congress, there is a good chance that Bushit won't get the money he wants without some changes in his policies!
Now we can hope that not too much more damage is done before the next administration!
liberalfdr,
When dealing with al-Sadr -- now it's all coulda shoulda woulda. It amazes me that the US military didn't take him out in 04' when his Mahdi army killed so many of our troops. It doesn't seem right to send our troops back over and over again to fight the same Shiite militias, under the cover of "we are fighting Al-Qaeda." The Shiites are not Al-Qaeda -- we opened up a big can of worms. Thanks for the reply. V/R John
Wow, that point about "standing up to Bush" pretty much sums the
whole situation up. He is now committing troops to Afghanistan in
2009, but seems to forget, he's out then. Or maybe he's not.
If he sees a better chance of staying in office by moving on to another
fight, whether it be Afghanistan or Iran, would he do it? Today on a radio
talk show, someone suggested Bush should remain as President
until the "war on terror" is won, since we are in a declared war now.
Scary stuff.
deminmo,
Great to hear from you again -- too bad that caller to the talk radio program doesn't realize that "congress" declares war, not the president. We have to keep speaking up. Our elected officials have to learn this is a government by the people and for the people. Keep it coming. V/R John
Posted April 4, 2008 | 04:03 PM (EST)