Letters to the Editor
-
Partition won't work, but ending the airstrikes might
"a purely military solution won't work,"
we periodically hear politicians, both republican and democratic, as well as sundry military brass and pundits, say this over and over. And sometimes Bush scolds Maliki, sometimes very publicly, for "not doing enough" to achieve a diplomatic solution-- and stupidly enough, some democratic politicos chime in, strengthening Bush's position, never questioning if perhaps Maliki's hands are tied by Bush's actions.
But what exactly, would a meaningful diplomatic solution entail? One thing it would require would be a unilateral cease-fire by the US, a complete cessation of our airstrikes, which mostly kill noncombatants.
What if, for example, Petraus offered to stop airstrikes, say for a week, in return for sunni insurgent groups and shi'a militias, et al, agreeing to a similar cease-fire, including a week-long end to laying down IEDs and attacks on both Iraqis and US forces?
You want meaningful negotiations? That's one way to start.
But if Petraus actually did this, how long would he keep his job?
-
Negotiation could work
@Johnathan Versen
Negotiation might work to get us out with more of our own boys blood still in their warm bodies. But to stop them from killing each other? Oh, they had that idea long before we showed up. They're gonna get right to doing that as soon as we leave.
Airstrikes do seem fairly unlikely to work against an insurgence. I don't know enough about the situation to agree that they mostly kill civilians, but it sounds fairly probable. To tell you the truth, I wasn't aware we were doing very many. I had the impression most of the operation was ground work.
It's kind of a strange philosophy that says 30 of our innocents dying on a bridge is a terrible national tragedy that we need to fix, but can't spend money on, while blowing up 30 Iraqis by accident is.... umm.... an "oops," I guess?
So I guess I'm saying that you're very well spoken, and argue well, but you're just naive if you think we can stop their fighting each other with our words. All we did to start that was to kill Saddam. They got to killing each other right away, as any number of scholars said they would. We in the U.S. didn't acknowledge it as anything other than sporadic violence until the explosions could be seen from outer space, but they were just waiting for someone to come along and kill Saddam so they could go back to killing each other.
Arming the Sunni and the Shia against each other is not such a fantastic idea either, but that ship has SAILED.
It's purely arrogant to think you can solve this problem with diplomacy. Watch the episode of Frontline from America at the crossroads, where a massively armed convoy of a dozen trucks rolls up to a checkpoint, the occupants obviously all Iraqis wearing U.S. issued uniforms.... and masks. The American officer asks them why they're wearing masks. They say they have a secret mission. The American says it's against the regulation to wear masks. The masked man says those are his orders.
He calls it in, but what can he do about it? Stop 60 people with automatic weapons?
You're telling me that's all our fault, and that we can fix it with pretty speechifying? No way in hell, man. No way.
-
Take your pick, A or B . . .
As I see it, there are two possible explanatins for why Bush won't get us out of Iraq any time soon:
A. He knows that pulling out while the country is in chaos will make him look bad, like a clueless loser who got himself and the entire country into a situation he/we did not understand--and he figures the best policy is to stall and rationalize until January 2009, then hand this nasty problem to his successor;
B. He defers all important decisions to Dick Cheney, who knew over a decade ago that the oil fields of Iraq needed to be "made secure" for American corporate interests, and who knows now that the invasion of Iraq truly will have proven pointless if we leave without guaranteeing ourselves perpetual oil access.
Take your pick, A or B. In either case, we ain't gettin' out until Cheney/Bush get out.
-
WashDC plans on staying in Iraq...non-exit from Iraq is agreed upon betwixt DC DEMS/GOPers And Pentagon
While there are many Americans who may well believe that "we"(the Americans) are the "good guys" in any ME storytell or narrative it is very likely more often we are not the "good guys" in ME today nor have been since WW2 was ended.
Reading elsewhere earlier today about what Condi Rice had to say about Palestinian matters one is only left to wonder how she can stomach telling the lies she tells over and over.
Condi Rice is a Big Lie Tell practitioner of the first rank.
Does she do it because she is deceitful or ignorant? Or worse still--both?
As for the American Invasion/Occupation of Iraq perhaps it would prove more accurate(surely more honest)to now describe the American intent and presence in Iraq as being a 21st century prime example of newly re-introduced ME colony grab and hold American ME conduct.
Iraq is slated in WashDC to become an American ME economic/military garrison colony. The Iraqis may not agree with/to that idea but clearly the Americans(via Western corporatism mainly) are intent on control of Iraq (hence Iraqi oil,water and air space primary control)--hence Iraq becomes an American ME "colony" where China,Russia or others must first pass American/western corporatist interests review/approval/denial.
Next in consideration is American ME militarism and being in Iraq is directly beneficial to American ME militarism and then too American ME political hegemonism.
There will be no American exit from Iraq unless the Iraqis fully and completely request,then demand and finally force the Americans to leave Iraq.It is possible to envision WashDC decision to kill Iraq to stay in Iraq. Brutal Israeli conduct these days(for decades?) in WestBank and Gaza or Lebanon seems to not disturb WashDC very much. Ask Condi Rice or Elliot Abrams.
Upon doing so/having done so Iraq will land where Iran is today.
And how truthful is WashDC and in turn many Americans about what the USA did to Iran in 1953 or enabled prior to 1953 in Iraq?
As for the Shah and what American support of him led to in 1979 we Americans still behave like that must have been some other "USA" that had a hand in all that. As seems to be the case with historical American support(covert and in open) of Saddam when it suited American ME purposes or desires. See Iraq-Iran War for direct evidence of American Saddam backing.
Its the Big Lie Tell. Over and over.
For those who may desire or seek more about American conduct in Iraq/ME regarding oil,militarism and hegemonic intents I suggest this current entry at zmag.org./znet site. It is a long piece but worthy of a read.
Go to zmag.org to znet site. The article is under the August 2 entries. The article is titled "It's The Crude,Dude" and was written by Stephen Lendman.