Letters to the Editor
-
Petraeus, he say
When asked by Hewitt what strategic interest the United States has in Iraq: (emphasis mine)
DP: Well, I think just first of all, we have an enormous responsibility, because of course, we did liberate this country. And so right off the bat, a lot of us feel, certainly, that degree of responsibility. Beyond that, obviously, Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world. It is blessed with other mineral wealth as well that is very substantial, and has enormous potential in the global economy. It sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines, fault lines between Arabs and Kurds, fault lines between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and also has substantial populations of other elements, Christians, Yazidis and some others. It is important in regional terms, needless to say, against surrounded by some neighbors that are Sunni, others Turk, and of course, they have, Turkey, they have a substantial Turkoman population as well. And then or course, Shia to their east. So there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region.
So there you have it: our troops must fight and die and Iraqis must continue to die or be displaced, because of our responsibility for the invasion/liberation. We can ratchet down our military involvement only as calm is restored, but even then, we can't give up our strategic interests in Iraq, the oil and the other mineral resources (water?), that are and will be so essential to the world economy, which perforce, the United States must dominate. And Iraq is an ethnic crossroads, which means, apparently, that by controlling Iraq, the various ethnic groups in the region are also controlled.
Let's be blunt. Petraeus has just let the world know that the Iraq debacle is a purely Imperialist adventure, existing for no other reason than to acquire and hold territory, resources, and people. If a native puppet regime can be relied on to ensure US strategic interests, so much the better. If not, American forces will have to do it.
Period.
-
Petraeus is a fraud
W just kept firing generals until he found one who'd drink the kool-aid. When robots like Newt G. or Tony S. or whoever say, "We're not going to let politicians run the war, we're going to let our commanders on the ground run the war," I want to hear someone remind the 'bots that Bush is a politician, not a war hero -- and that there have been many commanders on the ground whose advice was not taken.
-
The point = pointless death, dismemberment, and destruction of our national interest
So what's the point?
The point is that the boggy status quo in Iraq is as good as a loss for the U.S. Our national interest is damaged by the continuing chaos in Iraq (despite improvements in desolate, sparsely populated Anbar.) Gen. Petraeus has been consistently optimistic about it and remains 'guardedly' optimistic about the present surge strategy. Come September, he clearly won't be presenting a report that will upset the Administration's apple cart. His report will be used to maintain this bloody, damaging status quo.
In the article, Greenwald refutes exactly NONE of the General's statements.
1) This is not a fact. Some of his refutations are not in this post, but Glenn always addresses the broad failure of Administration policy in Iraq -- and that failure is the only one that matters. Sporadic, occasional successes on the ground won't do jack for U.S. interests in the region. We invaded; we actually need to effect a concrete "win". Definition of "win" = The militias need to be disarmed and politically neutered. The electricity, gas, water ans sewers need to work, 24/7, 365 days a year. IEDs and mine fields need to be cleared, schools need to reopen, and the population must be able to go about its business free of fear of murder, rape and kidnapping. Perpetual stalemate won't cut it.
Gee, a slightly hopeful, not-horrendous report came out about Iraq, I wonder if Glenn Greenwald will say it's a lie? -- Pocoroba
No. He will demonstrate that a slightly improved Iraq is still a foreign policy disaster for the U.S., and a personal disaster for many 10s of thousands of people. Therefore, Iraq is a loss for us.
-
Die buckische Blechtrommel
Could it happen? -- bucky1
Yes. Will it happen? Very likely, or so it seems at the moment. Is anyone attempting to do anything about it? Yes. Have you not been paying attention to what Democrats have been saying in this comment section, and elsewhere, all along? If not, I urge you to go back through the archives and look again.
What you overlook, as you always seem to do in your comments, is the fact that historically, the right has always been the principal repository of xenophobia and American exceptionalism. This was as true when it was hiding its collective head under the pillow, or making fact-finding trips to the Third Reich in the 1930's as it is now when it advocates raining death from the skies on any upstart ethnicity or religion which challenges American hegemony over world affairs.
That liberals and Democrats have been complicit in this is beyond question, but to suggest that all liberals or Democrats have been is not only disingenuous, it smells of an agenda-driven solipsism which is ipso facto as unlovely as anything you constantly accuse others of here.
-
That the Lord Siva for the blathering class here.
Oh let me tell you about my blog which blogs about the other blogs blogging about me. Aren't we precious.
Did you see this? GG got scooped by slashdot, or, it's not chatty enough to rise to the level of serious business here at Salon.com?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Breath Deep the Fumes and keep on bloggin bout the media.
-
What about the Iraqi Shiite hidden agenda?
I find little to disagree with in Glenn’s article or the many wise postings. Despite what the Bush 43 administration’s, or the neocons’, or the oil guys’, or the military’s hidden agenda was pre-invasion, few seem to talk about the Iraqi Shiite pre-invasion agenda and how it is affecting all these other agendas.
Once the Iraqi Shiites learned that aligning with our government as they did in the Bush 41 confrontation with the Iraqi Sunnis and subsequent slaughter of Shiites by Sadam, their hidden agenda obviously was to support an invasion, let us destroy the Bathists, let a civil war ensue and then finally control and run Iraq. The al-Maliki or any Shiite driven administration is only interested in pretending to install a secular Iraq while waiting for us to become impotent and be forced to leave by the American people and if necessary have to put up with some U.S. military basing. After they have prevailed in the civil war, they will ask for Marshall like assistance.
Prolonging our stay or getting involved in a civil war where the enemy of my enemy is my enemy and so many hidden agendas abound is only killing and wounding more of our military. If we had any realistic, pre-invasion open agenda, Joe Biden’s weak federal government and three-way partition would have had to be it. Realizing that, realistic leaders, of which we had damn few, would have concluded not to invade and empower al-Qaeda and create millions of refugees and deaths.
Those of us, who see through all the hidden agendas and unimportance of any Gen. Petraeus report, have to continue to help awaken enough of the American people to detest these hidden agendas and give support to senators like Lugar and Warner to force a withdrawal, so that realism, open government and humanity can be more of a major player in the political mess we find ourselves. And, just maybe, we could elect a president that could help us start on a new path. Let the optimistic pessimists prevail.