Letters to the Editor
-
"No exit strategy" is the actual plan
The Bush vision is that we never leave Iraq. His "Marshall Plan" is that we maintain permanent bases there just as we do in Germany -- why else are we building an embassy in Iraq that's as big as the Pentagon? Bush and all his allies need to be challenged repeatedly with this question: isn't it your vision that we NEVER leave?
-
American Interests
Our interests in the region would be best served by a time machine that would allow us to avoid making the horrendous mistake we made in invading Iraq. However, since that's not going to happen, our next best course is to get out as quickly as we can in an orderly fashion.
Those, like Joe Lieberman, who argue that we have to stay to preserve American credibility are apparently ignorant that we have to credibility left to salvage. Our credibility started draining away when we couldn't control the security situation in the first days of the occupation. It drained away steadily after that as the situation got worse and not better.
We will leave Iraq, sooner or later, and it won't be after having transformed Baghdad into Utopia-on-the-Tigris. If we get out now, Iraq will sort itself one way or the other, but we can stop actively harming our own interests. We will never live down the blame for creating the situation in the first place, but if at least if we extricate ourselves, we can stop digging our selves ever deeper into that hole.
-
It is time to face the facts...
* The plan was to never leave
* It was hoped that we could stay inside permanent bases in a stable country
* Nonetheless, we were never leaving
* The top candidates of both parties are clearly on board with this
* Expect a long, long drain on our brave soldiers. countless Iraqis, and endless treasure
* You might get a tax cut if you are rich enough, but watch out for falling bridges.
-
Let's not kid ourselves
There's no diplomacy that's going to save this situation. It doesn't matter what our tastes or aptitudes are. MLK, RFK, JFK, Clinton, and Carter combined couldn't pull it off. It's a blood feud, and it's going to run its course, possibly into genocide. We're not ruthless or devious enough to stop genocide, we're just an iron club.
Secret police, public executions, and a whole lot of undemocratic tactics that have worked since the beginning of time could subdue the populace. That's what Saddam did.
But to make a democracy in a unified Iraq? Any fool could have told you that it would take decades, if it was even possible. The only hope we have of preventing Iraq from becoming an ocean of blood is partitioning. And that's sort of like saying that the only hope you have that your jello will solidify is if you pee in it, and then pick out all the fruit chunks by hand. Great job Shrub!
-
Mullen vs. Petraeus
At least Adm. Mike Mullen is not a venal, self-promoting liar like Gen. Petraeus.
The pressure on the military brass must be so great. They know the situation is insolvent and that our occupation a steady stream of gasoline on the fire raging in the Islamic world.
Yet they weigh the civilian leadership's lack of judgment against saving as many of their people as possible in an impossible situation.
What a tragedy. The military is praised for their courage while the rearguard boys Bush and Cheney make decisions like drunks.
-
We're not going to withdraw from Iraq. EVER.
This war was one of blatant conquest. All the publicly stated reasons (WMDs, al Qaeda, etc.) were/are pure propaganda. The leading Democrats only speak about vague "repositioning" of troops, so don't be fooled by their political posturing, either. Remember: They just gave Bush another $100 Billion.
"We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region. Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress had been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that will change. America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades -- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water."
-Stephen C. Pelletiere, CIA senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and author of Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf
-
This Just In from Camp Cakewalk
"But at this late date, as the political structures in Iraq fall, the war's advocates cannot pretend that their strategy is working." Joe Conason
Oh yeah? Just watch 'em pretend their "strategy" is working. Right through Nov. 2008 -- and beyond -- with the full complicity of the corporate media. They'll claim there's light at the end of the tunnel, and victory's just around the corner, if only "we" stay the course, during, say, the next four years -- especially if a Democrat wins the White House in '08.
Back in the reality-based world, the idea that a Judeo-Christian occupying army from the West could contain a Shia-Sunni rift aggravated by Saddam's reign of terror long enough to establish permanent U.S. bases atop the oil was ludicrous then and is ludicrous now.
-
What "they" know that we don't
Whenever those in charge don't have a supportable reason for doing what they're doing the response is that "they" know something we don't. They have secret information, or claim that they understand the situation better than we do; they then assert that we must agree with their decisions because "they" know.
My answer: B.S. Short of constructing some highly technical gizmo, there is nothing so difficult to understand about the basics of virtually any situation. It's not hard to understand Vietnam. It's not hard to understand the missle defense shield. It's not hard to understand Iraq either. We went in under false pretenses; had no plan of governance and have made one mistake after another. The situation was unwinnable from the start( when has the west ever had any success in the middle east?) because the necessary political institutions for good governance were not in place from the start. Besides,the Middle east powers that be had no interest in changing; their only interest is in maintaining their power. How hard is this to understand? I'm neither a political scientist nor a middle east expert, yet I think I've got a pretty decent understanding of what's going on. Anyone who reads Slate, Salon and the NY Times will probably come to the same conclusions I have.
When we review our follies of the past 50-60 years we pretty much come up with the same answers over and over again: politicians who have no sense of history; leaders who have a paranoid perception of reality who unfortunately have access to a huge military force.
Our leaders may have some details that we don't have but they are not smarter than we are nor do they have better judgment
than we do.They simply have the power, which obviously turns otherwise intelligent people into morons.