Political Progress in Iraq

Good. Can we leave yet?

So what happens when they all realize that the one thing that unites them all is their hatred of us?

then our Job here will be done

Because God knows the only thing keeping the Sunnis and Shiites at each other's throats has been substandard legislation.

"No Decapitations without Representation!"

So is saying that we're keeping the area stable. I was joking. Are you?

Is any of this going to return the billions of dollars wasted or the countless lives (American, British, Iraqi) lost? No.

Pardon me if I don't really care about any of the talking points you posted. I understand them, I'm sure you're very well informed, and I applaud you for caring.

All I say is thus: All that blood and money for what exactly? Abstract concepts of "freedom"? Bringing Western Democracy to the savage horde? Blue Jeans, Coca Cola and Wal-Marts on every street?

Mmm, that's good Kool-Aid.

Hey, the Surge is working!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23338831/

Now what, exactly, was the surge supposed to be doing?

Keeping the country from swinging back to the Democrats. It doesn't seem to be working.

Yep. That's what I meant. Good call, good call.

It is a waste and the ultimate hubris in thinking we could just march into a country, sell a line of bullshit to them, us, and the world and then walk out with a Coke and a smile while Iraqi children serenaded us with sweet songs about their "liberators".

War, as foreign and economic policy, is bullshit. This war is the ultimate example of that type of bullshit. You can wrap it up, put a pretty little bow on it, but it'd still a box full of shit. I can't sit here and let people justify this any longer. I don't care what happens henceforth...billions of dollars gone and thousands of lives lost for nothing but the wet dream of a cabal of men with delusions of a 21st Century American Neo-Empire.

Noah, how many Americans need to die in order to "secure" Iraq? Just curious.

I made it up Noah. I'm very creative.

Hahahahahaha. Ahhh, thanks for the laugh. That was funny.

I joke about Iraq all the time.

Then I realize how just plain shitty the entire clusterfuck really is and how it should have never happened. That's when I cry.

Followed closely by masturbation.

Your question was a joke. I responded in kind.

It's been made clear on many occasions that there's little point in engaging you on this subject, in much the same way that there's little point in trying to convince a creationist of evolution. It's gone beyond a matter of facts, and become an article of faith. There's no arguing with something that you've willed yourself into believing.

Here's my take:

The surge is, in fact, working insofar as the term applies to improving the day-to-day security situation in Iraq.

Politically, however, Iraq has a long way to go before the band can strike up Pomp and Circumstance and Uncle Sugar can wipe away a tear. Yes, the Iraqi Parliament has passed some decent laws. However, the Kurds still want their own republic and there is no indication that the Shias and Sunnis actually want to get along.

With Al-Sadr operating politically instead of militarily and the certain knowledge that US troops will draw down regardless of who next occupies the Oval Office (You can's maintain a surge forever. It's a surge.), I think the Shi'ites will at least put some powdered sugar on the shit sandwich they're about to serve the Sunnis and the Sunnis will eat it instead of accept another period of intense warfare.

And then Iran will become the dominant foreign power in Iraq. You're welcome, Iran! Consider this our graduation present to you!

Rolling Stone article on The Myth of the Surge.

Kettle, meet pot. Pot, kettle.

Such wonderful progress.

Click on the link. There's a cool photo.

In the past two weeks we've seen:

- The deadliest day for American troops in months.

-Several rocket and mortar attacks that have killed dozens upon dozens of civilians.

- A kidnapped Archbishop found dead.

- A group of Iraqi tribal leaders petitioning the U.N. to take over Iraq from the U.S. to "save the country from it's dark future" (their words).

- The pentagon feeling the need to allay fears that the increase in attacks after a brief lull aren't part of some bigger trend....then turning around and saying "We have fears that the insurgents are planning something huge."

Hooray for progress!

All that great political progress and the people get the shaft. This article makes me weep because it's a direct indictment of American policy. The Bush administrations' grand experiment in "economic liberation" is doing nothing more than giving the people an excuse to flock to the extremists. At least those wacky "terrorists" will take out the trash.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/2878538

Who the hell is rooting for bad things to happen in Iraq? People are simply pointing out the disparaging differences between the talking points and the reality of what's happening.

You know, this was almost cute until you said that. Are you fucking insane? There is a great big goddamn difference between pointing out the things that are happening there (and these are not in dispute - they ARE happening), and "rooting for bad things to happen". What do you think, that if we all kept happy thoughts, and didn't talk about any of the shit going down, that it would all turn out alright? That we can solve the entire problem with a positive mental attitude? That if we just stick our heads in the sand and trust our government, it will all turn out okay?

Jesus, you're a jackass.

Noah's been around for at least a year, is this really the first time you've noticed him?

I guess I just didn't realize that his favored strategy for Iraq was adapted from the work of J.M. Barrie.

How about
LEAVE


Also, you must have your head far up sphincter to accuse the anti-war crowd of wanting to bad things in Iraq. We're not the ones who wanted to go to war in the first place, so point your wagging finger elsewhere (probably at self.)

Noah, the point that others are trying to make with you is that passing a law is so incredibly insignificant in terms of ACTUAL progress in Iraq when compared to what's physically happening at the same time that law is being passed.

I can legislate at a problem all day long, but that doesn't mean it's gonna throw up it's hands and give up.

Exactly. They are incapable of providing sufficient power, water, sanitation, or public safety. Passing a few laws that they haven't the manpower to adequately enforce or benefit from is progress only in the most technical of definitions.

Does it matter that elections are held if the new boss has no more resources to work with than the old boss? Until they have an adequate infrastructure, passing new laws is just busywork.

I think Pop Zeus was suggesting that WE leave IRAQ, not that you leave the boards. Hope that doesn't burst your persecution complex.

And, to justify your bitterness about us bringing up depressing news about Iraq, this is certainly depressing.

Just stay the course, a lot of these insurgents will eventually die of old age.

It's interesting. By taking himself to be the implied subject of my little outburst, Noah yet again misses a chance to contemplate the very notion of leaving Iraq. Its like his mental blind spot he doesn't comprehend. I have a hard time debating with people like that.

Perhaps, but you seem blind to certain realities, or interpretations of the situation. Stability in Iraq is something of an illusion that was created the minute we failed to secure the peace (its debatable whether securing the peace was ever possible.) And your rationale for keeping troops in Iraq when violence is up and also when violence is down is strikingly narrow-minded, not to mention not borne out from the facts.

The pro-war people also seem to be blind to the fact that our very presence is an impediment to political progress, something which has interestingly not been disproven by the pro-war camp. I think it ties into the general ignorance of Iraq that seems to suggest that its okay to have permanent bases there because it worked in Germany and Korea. As if those countries are like Iraq. At all. Or that somehow the legitimacy of the war on which that occupation was predicated is somehow comparable (they absolutely are not.) WWII was seen as a just war by most of the planet. Iraq is not.

For all of McCain's "experience" on military affairs, its sort of amazing that he thinks its okay to clumsily and erroneously compare Iraq to Germany. And for all the neo-con talk about how this is "a new kind of war" it shows a cluelessness on your guys' part to try to cram a cold war strategy on this "new war" crisis. Bu then again, making sense has never been your guys' strong suit.

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything McCain's had to say on this subject in the last couple of years. I honestly don't think he believes half the shit he's been spouting. He's just been toeing the party line in an attempt to be electable. If he wins, we may see a very different person in office than we did on the campaign trail, particularly if he gets a second term.

Of course, neither of those things are likely to happen.

I think that the other side is vastly overstating the progress because the surge is a marketing ploy on which to hang a political campaign. The violence has gone down slightly, but even that is unsustainable as the last, oh I dunno, 5 years have shown us. And if the surge has proven anything, it is that a temporary respite in violence is not what is needed to bring political and diplomatic progress to the region. If anything, we've seen a weakening of the Maliki government and a further factionalization of the Iraqis. I don't see how anyone can put a positive spin on Shiites now fighting Shiites as well as Sunnis. Its patently absurd and everytime I hear Joe Lieberman or John McCain get up there and blatantly ignore reality in favor of blustery spin, it saddens and angers me.

This is what $25 billion has gotten us:

* 43% of population lives in absolute poverty
* prior to war 19% of children suffered malnutrition; today 28%
* last year 75% elementary-aged kids went to school; now 30%
* prior to war 50% lacked access to clean water; now 70%
* only 50 of 142 primary health care centes are open to public
Link.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) said that, because of the Iraq war, “we’re at a point where we’re really strained and stressed out.” “I hate to agree with Sen. Feingold,” he added, “but I think Osama bin Laden is sitting back right now looking at this thing [and saying] in effect, ‘We’re kinda bankrupting this country.’ We are eating our seed corn. We’ve got some really big problems today, and we are in a recession, and God only knows how long we’re gonna be in it.” Link.

Well, that would make him about as far from the "straight-talk express" as humanly possible.

[eta]

Yt makes a good point. We need shift greatly towards non-military expenditures if we are to really help facilitate Iraqi political resolutions.

I could've sworn in past threads that you were making the case for keeping troops in Iraq (or for supporting the surge for that matter) based on how it would effect the level of violence.

What I'm saying is that if we leave, then all of a sudden all the key regional players have an above-the-table stake in Iraq. With our current occupation, the regional players have the luxury of sitting back and fiddling with the margins, keep their influence under-the-table, so to speak. They can tilt things in their favor with very little nudging because the spotlight and pressure is all on the US to perform. If Iran, Turkey, Syria et al are all of a sudden forced to deal with other directly on Iraq, then whatever they choose to do, the results of their actions (on or off the record) will be the issue. Thus, their interest and reputation as it pertains to Iraq is raised to a level that could never be achieved if the US were to stay.

That said, I'm not gonna be so naive as to say that violence won't go up should our military withdraw. It very well could go up. But what has been proven in the last few years is that political progress will not happen given the current situation, surge or not. The US leaving Iraq might suck worse for the Iraqis in the short term, but there is a chance that it could be a 'darkest before dawn' situation. Frankly, it could be the only way that Iraq resolves it's sectarian conflicts. The other advantage to withdrawing is that ,going forward, the US can legitimately claim to not have such a craven interest in controlling Iraq's oil fields. That way, should we leave and shit goes from bad to hell, our military can reenter the country without the suspicion that we're doing it for our own self-interest. Because, hey, we already gave them back their car keys and they really fucked it up.

I didn't mean to state that you, Noah, supported a permanent occupation. But most pro-war people don't have a problem with that particularly awful policy. This is evidenced by the fact that the right never criticizes this policy. Instead, they choose to get on the anti-war crowd's case for why its bad to leave. To be fair, I did tie this issue to John McCain and the Republicans (not you) further on down in my post. But the bottom line with this policy, whatever you think about the war (should we pull out now or in 16 months or 30 months,) is that the idea of a permanent military presence in Iraq is so obviously a huge mistake that it deserves to be singled out as a giant fucking mistake.

Noah, I don't think you understand that the only Iraqi oil sharing law that will be acceptable to Bush, Cheney and friends is the one that gives non-Iraqi multinational oil corporations control of oil in Iraq for the next 30 years.

This is from an article in the Independent last year.