The Two Central Myths of the Iraq War

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Yesterday on our show I talked about the two central myths of the Iraq War:

1. There is no central government of Iraq who can take over as soon as we leave and run a peaceful, stable and flourishing Iraq.

2. More time in Iraq is not going to produce any more gains for us because we're headed in the wrong direction. More time might help if you're headed in the right direction, but only hurts your cause if you're going the wrong way.

Normally, I would write about this, but I think I explained it best yesterday on the show. Think about the business analogy at the end of this video -- under any other circumstance, we would never give more time and money for a failing enterprise like this:

And on top of this, of course there is the Petraeus Paradox -- if we're doing well in Iraq, that shows the extra troops helped so we have to stay; if we're doing poorly that shows we need more troops and have to stay longer. Hence, according to Petraeus logic, we can never leave Iraq.

Watch more of The Young Turks here.

Comments

[normathumb]

One of the major myths about Iraq is "we are better off without Saddam". When challenged about the lies to justify this quagmire, this junta trots out this truism to squelch all other objections. Truth is Saddam was bogged down by the same sectarianism as we are now. Cheney simply made it ours, Iraq was contained and containing the insurgent factions. Sooner or later he would have died and passed it to his sons. This same factionalism was inevitable. The sons would have gone at one another for supremacy but the Sunni, Shia and Kurds were (and are) going to go at one another hammer and tong. All we are doing is putting off the inevitable and making sure the blame is ours. Putting it off only ensures more American deaths.
The horror is, in fulfilling the PNAC dream, we are guilty of the things we were accusing Saddam of. We invaded a country we were nominally at peace with, though we had been bombing Iraq regularly for over a decade. All our "collateral damage" amounts to thousands of innocent civilian deaths. We kidnapped people off foreign, (not necessarily), Iraqi streets, held them without charge for years in secret prisons and tortured them or turned them over to others for torture. We have acquiesed to domestic spying, suspension of habeus corpus and a presidency bound by no law. They have taken the position that neither courts nor congress can bind the executive's hands and declared a war without end.

[ihavenobias]

You nailed it again Cenk. Awesome post.

[desmirl]

General Betrayeus will get out of Iraq when he retires, or is fired by a Democrat President. The troops will still be there, and some of them will be dying violently in an occupation based on lies and greed.

[GOP4MoreTears]

The myth (more exactly: the prevarication) that there was ever a though or intention to leave Iraq after going in to occupy that land for strategic purposes is a ruse purportrated on everyone that bought that BS.

[HeevenSteven]

Great minds think alike, eh brother? I just called it "strategic geopolitical engineering" on Nathan Gonsalez's piece.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Brother indeed!

[bigdaddyvike]

Count me in. We finally have our presence in the Middle East and we ain't going anywhere. Joe Blow has no idea why. Neo Chickenhawk certainly does. Everyone still thinks this is about Iraq. PNAC! Read it! We're living it!

[carfino]

There is a third myth.....surprised it was missed!

The US in NOT engaged in a war in Iraq. We are up to our collective keesters in an OCCUPATION. The problem with extricating ourselves.....we haven't yet figured out how to win an occupation.

When you allow the village idiot to decide national policy and set the tone of a discussion....what you end up with is people arguing about the wrong topic. This is a classic example.

The issue is and always was........should western forces occupy a Muslim nation and not expect immense unrest?

Read a little history.....the answer has already been provided.

[BMBTHC]

Read? What are you kidding? Only liberals read?

[Lon]

I agree with the intended content of this post, but the presentation is backward. You do not give a list of the two central myths of the Iraq war, you give the two reasons that the two central myths of the Iraq war are misguided. It would have been a lot clearer had you actually started with the myths and went from there.

Of course this is a presentation issue rather than a substantative one. But I was puzzled on reading 1) as to why it was supposed to be a myth until I realized it wasn't.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Think about the business analogy at the end of this video -- under any other circumstance, we would never give more time and money for a failing enterprise like this."

I don't know who you are referring to as "we", I guess.
The RepubliCons would.
They love corporate welfare for failing banks, airlines, etc.

[schatsie]

It is not a Paradox, it is a win win situation, he is correct either one way or the other....
This is typical Republican Speak, correct either way, but strong and courageous, not waffling...Jeez, here we go all over again, just like Ground Hog Day!!!

NO MORE ENDLESS WAR.

[Henry]

I think what we are looking for is a government that is a cross between the Shah of Iran and Pinochet of Chile. Native leaders who accede to the wills of corporate America. It did not work in our sordid past, there is no liklihood that it will work in Iraq, no matter what sort of marketing face they put on it.

[rwe2late]

Meanwhile, Iraqis march in protest to US occupation:

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=100281

[rwe2late]

To be precise, the faction the US backs is "unprepared to take over".

The reason is that faction does not have the popular support of Iraqis.
Most Iraqis view them as corrupt quislings who survive only by foreign US military support. Furthermore, except for those quislings, most Iraqis do NOT want to yield their oil reserves to the control of US corporations.

Thus, they are "unprepared", and can be expected to remain "unprepared" despite being showered with US arms and training.

[GOP4MoreTears]

HELLO! There is no such faction that the U.S. as prepared to take over, there is not nor has there ever been an effort to prepare one. Iraq will become a U.S. protectorate much like Puerto Rico.

[rwe2late]

Maliki and his fellow collaborators and followers can be said to constitute a "faction".