Why We Went to Iraq - Page 2

Of course, Frank's probably the go-to guy on this issue but Senator Jim Webb claimed--on Sunday's Meet the Press--that support for the war among the active military is currently about the same level as it is in the general pop. He, of course, has an ideological prejudice...which is not to say that's he's wrong but could just be playing politics.

Thanks for pointing out the segment that I was unable to view until now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTiuYCZ9Xiw

Webb refers to the NYT and quotes their poll of the military approval rate of the War in Iraq to be at 35%, I searched for a time but never found the poll Webb referred to. If any knows of it could you post it here, as my complimentary perusing wore out. I would be genuinely interested. Not that it truly matters due to the fact I think polls terribly contrived by both sides of the spectrum, but just because I am curious.

Latest poll of US citizens that approve the war to be at 27%, there could certainly be others but this being the most recent I found:
:http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Very interesting reading in this thread as always.

My take on "Why we are in Iraq":

1) The bastard bragged that he had WMD's and in fact did have in 1998, and so did a lot of other folkes believe ( I know my Uncle did).....the rest is up to the historians to document. Fuck him and his psycho/rapist/sadistic sons, hangin was too good for him. No Loss There. US (we) royally fucked up right after knocking over his granite likeness.

2) Oil

3) A pretty damned good strategic positioning of some impressive US forces/bases in the middle East, intentional or not ( I lean to the former).

Note: These were not listed in any particular order.

Some headlines so that we're all current:

New atrocity claims against US troops, not coming to a paper or news show near you

Iraqis are demanding that parliament reject the US-authored oil law

Pentagon balked at pleas from officers in the field for safer vehicles that could have saved over 700 lives

Petraeus ready to change strategy?

Actually, the fuck-up preceded the war.

Actually, the fuck-up preceded the war.

Probably true. Most Americans will be equally happy to see Bush go, if for different but not dissimilar reasons. This doesn't justify invading the United States, and it does not justify invading Iraq. For exactly the same reasons.

You didn't invade Iraq in order to liberate anyone. That's just guff Bush came up with after Iraq turned out to be no threat at all. It was PR. It was fodder for the news. It belongs with 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' and other hollow excuses.

Colin Powell, however, explained to the world in the forum created just for such things why it was that invading Iraq was necessary and justified. It's on tape and everything. His claims were not true.

Yeah, I won't argue with that. Iraq is truly a mess. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to why Iraq was invaded and occupied in the first place.



Well no. I don't. I just know what I see in the news. But legal investigation would show more, I think. If I were shown to be wrong in court, then I'm sure Mr. Bush's acquital would be swift and just.

I notice you didn't say 'because it isn't true' here.

I am oversimplifying the legal hoops that would have to be jumped through somewhat, I admit. The argument the prosecution gave would be, if nothing else, longer. Nevertheless it's hard not to see the attack on Fallujah as anything but retributive killing of civilians, and Bush is Commander in Chief. That's not as personal, but neither is it kosher.


Well, the claims were certainly false. And I cannot believe in such coincidence as would be necessary for this to be anything but PNAC putting their plans into action. The same people who wanted Clinton to invade Iraq are the same people who back a document arguing that the US needs to establish a military beachead in the middle east to 'protect' resources and further their march of goodness, and they're the same people who orchestrated the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq posed an immediate threat. And most of them are the same people who back the US's continued presence in Iraq. And they're all a bunch of liars. We're supposed to believe Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Michael Bremer? And Jeb Bush?

This is all about a permanent American presence in Iraq, and a friendly government that will let Western corporations profit from the sale of Iraqi oil whereas before they did not. I may well be wrong, but I am not making stuff up. These people do exist. They support the ideas I've mentioned. They were instrumental in planning the invasion of Iraq. The US military is hunkering down for the long term; you've expressed embarrasment at the US's failure to do so on your own blog, so you have to admit I'm right about that. A law that will profit western oil corporations is in some state of passage right now. The Bush Administration has shown no hesitation whatsoever in doing what it pleases and either blowing smoke or sunshine up the peoples' collective bum time and again, so it is certainly not above doing what I believe they've done.

Where have I gone wrong?

Probably true. Most Americans will be equally happy to see Bush go, if for different but not dissimilar reasons. This doesn't justify invading the United States, and it does not justify invading Iraq. For exactly the same reasons.

You didn't invade Iraq in order to liberate anyone. That's just guff Bush came up with after Iraq turned out to be no threat at all. It was PR. It was fodder for the news. It belongs with 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' and other hollow excuses.

Colin Powell, however, explained to the world in the forum created just for such things why it was that invading Iraq was necessary and justified. It's on tape and everything. His claims were not true.

Yeah, I won't argue with that. Iraq is truly a mess. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to why Iraq was invaded and occupied in the first place.



Well no. I don't. I just know what I see in the news. But legal investigation would show more, I think. If I were shown to be wrong in court, then I'm sure Mr. Bush's acquital would be swift and just.

I notice you didn't say 'because it isn't true' here.

I am oversimplifying the legal hoops that would have to be jumped through somewhat, I admit. The argument the prosecution gave would be, if nothing else, longer. Nevertheless it's hard not to see the attack on Fallujah as anything but retributive killing of civilians, and Bush is Commander in Chief. That's not as personal, but neither is it kosher.


Well, the claims were certainly false. And I cannot believe in such coincidence as would be necessary for this to be anything but PNAC putting their plans into action. The same people who wanted Clinton to invade Iraq are the same people who back a document arguing that the US needs to establish a military beachead in the middle east to 'protect' resources and further their march of goodness, and they're the same people who orchestrated the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq posed an immediate threat. And most of them are the same people who back the US's continued presence in Iraq. And they're all a bunch of liars. We're supposed to believe Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Michael Bremer? And Jeb Bush?

This is all about a permanent American presence in Iraq, and a friendly government that will let Western corporations profit from the sale of Iraqi oil whereas before they did not. I may well be wrong, but I am not making stuff up. These people do exist. They support the ideas I've mentioned. They were instrumental in planning the invasion of Iraq. The US military is hunkering down for the long term; you've expressed embarrasment at the US's failure to do so on your own blog, so you have to admit I'm right about that. A law that will profit western oil corporations is in some state of passage right now. The Bush Administration has shown no hesitation whatsoever in doing what it pleases and either blowing smoke or sunshine up the peoples' collective bum time and again, so it is certainly not above doing what I believe they've done.

Where have I gone wrong?

No, it was up to inspectors to document. Which they did. None of the pre- or post-invasion claims regarding Iraq's arsenal panned out. Not one. The US's claims were investigated and found incorrect during the months before invasion.

Most western nations didn't believe Bush's claims. That's why they didn't join in. And your Uncle didn't even bother to secure the alleged WMD sites when he invaded. He blew right past them on the way to the Oil Ministry. Nor was he particularly surprised (or regretful, or repentant, or even particularly disturbed) when the hunt for WMDs didn't turn up so much as a radioactive sausage. I question the sincerity of your Uncle's beliefs.

Yeah, well maybe you'll have the privilege of being invaded by China because of your internal politics too. You aren't really claiming its okay to invade a country because it's run by a bastard, are you?

Me too. Either that, or it was an accident. I doubt it was an accident.

No, it was up to inspectors to document. Which they did. None of the pre- or post-invasion claims regarding Iraq's arsenal panned out. Not one. The US's claims were investigated and found incorrect during the months before invasion.

Most western nations didn't believe Bush's claims. That's why they didn't join in. And your Uncle didn't even bother to secure the alleged WMD sites when he invaded. He blew right past them on the way to the Oil Ministry. Nor was he particularly surprised (or regretful, or repentant, or even particularly disturbed) when the hunt for WMDs didn't turn up so much as a radioactive sausage. I question the sincerity of your Uncle's beliefs.

Yeah, well maybe you'll have the privilege of being invaded by China because of your internal politics too. You aren't really claiming its okay to invade a country because it's run by a bastard, are you?

Me too. Either that, or it was an accident. I doubt it was an accident.

And this is why I can't fathom the belief, Frank. I assume anyone with an opinion on the matter is at least as smart as I am, and as well informed if not more so. The above is just so obvious I can't understand why people believe the Administration's humanitarian argument. It's just another lie. Their actions before, during, and after the invasion don't really bear out their claims.

And this is why I can't fathom the belief, Frank. I assume anyone with an opinion on the matter is at least as smart as I am, and as well informed if not more so. The above is just so obvious I can't understand why people believe the Administration's humanitarian argument. It's just another lie. Their actions before, during, and after the invasion don't really bear out their claims.

I knew about the ancient feud between the Sunnis and Shia well before the war and I knew it wouldn't be easy. I was hoping that with Saddam overthrown and a American military presence acting as a deterent and a referee, the revenge killings would be keep to a low enough level while the different sects learned to hash out their differences politically in a democracy instead of with violence. Iraq is rich with oil, there is plenty to be shared by all three groups, the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds if they can get get their act together before we leave.

I think the majority of Iraqis are ready to embrace democracy as shown by the excellent turn-outs for all the elections. It is the groups of extremist idiots on both sides that are ruining it for all of them. I don't think Westerners continually telling the Iraqis that the government they voted for is just a bogus puppet and that America is just out to steal their oil if they don't kick us out is helping the situation any either, it just plays to their fears from the past and invites more violence.

The Sunni and Shia are going to have to learn to live together eventually. Keeping it bottled up by a brutal dictatorship who kept it under control by gassing the Kurds and massacring Shias to keep the peace is not acceptable to me. (It is the peace of slavery!) It was America who was protecting the Kurds & the Shiites from further killings by maintaining the No-Fly zones which could not last forever. The will to keep the sanctions in place was starting to fall apart.

If, god forbid, we leave before the Iraqi government can reach a better level of reconciliation and the Iraqi Army can control the country at a reasonable low-level of violence, the sects will settle their differences with ethnic cleansing instead of with democracy. Democracy can and will work in Iraq if only it could receive more support from free people like you and if our fellow democratic nations aound the world pitched in to help make it work instead of just hoping for American failure.

My name is NoahtheStud and I am a "true-believer" in the power of Democracy. Sorry, Seabass

I knew about the ancient feud between the Sunnis and Shia well before the war and I knew it wouldn't be easy. I was hoping that with Saddam overthrown and a American military presence acting as a deterent and a referee, the revenge killings would be keep to a low enough level while the different sects learned to hash out their differences politically in a democracy instead of with violence. Iraq is rich with oil, there is plenty to be shared by all three groups, the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds if they can get get their act together before we leave.

I think the majority of Iraqis are ready to embrace democracy as shown by the excellent turn-outs for all the elections. It is the groups of extremist idiots on both sides that are ruining it for all of them. I don't think Westerners continually telling the Iraqis that the government they voted for is just a bogus puppet and that America is just out to steal their oil if they don't kick us out is helping the situation any either, it just plays to their fears from the past and invites more violence.

The Sunni and Shia are going to have to learn to live together eventually. Keeping it bottled up by a brutal dictatorship who kept it under control by gassing the Kurds and massacring Shias to keep the peace is not acceptable to me. (It is the peace of slavery!) It was America who was protecting the Kurds & the Shiites from further killings by maintaining the No-Fly zones which could not last forever. The will to keep the sanctions in place was starting to fall apart.

If, god forbid, we leave before the Iraqi government can reach a better level of reconciliation and the Iraqi Army can control the country at a reasonable low-level of violence, the sects will settle their differences with ethnic cleansing instead of with democracy. Democracy can and will work in Iraq if only it could receive more support from free people like you and if our fellow democratic nations aound the world pitched in to help make it work instead of just hoping for American failure.

My name is NoahtheStud and I am a "true-believer" in the power of Democracy. Sorry, Seabass

There will be very little for these groups to share if Bush's "oil-sharing law" is signed, NoahtheStud.

Westerners aren't telling them that. Iraqis are telling westerners that, but the US media is not reporting it because it shows the complexities of what the administration is truly deporting and calling democracy.

If you are indeed a true believer in democracy, then you have to respect the Iraqis' democratic right to have a say in who controls their natural resources.

Here is some information about this from the Iraqi perspective:
More here and here.

This is the reality of the democracy you feel the sacrifice of 3500+ US troops and countless injured is worth -- an oil grab by US corporations.

There will be very little for these groups to share if Bush's "oil-sharing law" is signed, NoahtheStud.

Westerners aren't telling them that. Iraqis are telling westerners that, but the US media is not reporting it because it shows the complexities of what the administration is truly deporting and calling democracy.

If you are indeed a true believer in democracy, then you have to respect the Iraqis' democratic right to have a say in who controls their natural resources.

Here is some information about this from the Iraqi perspective:
More here and here.

This is the reality of the democracy you feel the sacrifice of 3500+ US troops and countless injured is worth -- an oil grab by US corporations.

No one should be surprised that this issue has further polarized an already polarized political dichotomy. Before the War, you would be hard pressed to find level-headed, clear minded rational arguments for or against. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, the same holds true. Then, the majority of the nation was in full favor invading Iraq, and this was used as a political screen for any and every argument for. Now, the majority of the nation is in full favor of getting out, and this too is used as a political screen.

I was against this War from the very beginning. It was plenty obvious to me that we simply did not know what we were getting into. Unfortunately, my opinion was in the minority.

Now that the War Opposition has found a majority presence in the general public, the demand for critical thought has evaporated. It's either Get Us Out ASAP, or you're a Republican stooge. The tables have been reversed, but the national discourse has not benefited.

Like it or not, the United States (and the majority of it's population) wanted this War. It's not George Bush's War . . . it's Americas' War. I'm sure most of us here can understand Colin Powell's maxim 'if we break it, we buy it.' Now that we have broke it, and the price is proving too high, we simply want to leave it somewhere, regardless of our responsibility.

This leaves me very conflicted. On the one hand, the casual violence and mounting death tolls tell me we need to leave now. But the presented alternatives are as short sighted as the original invasion warplan. What happens when we leave? Whatever results in Iraq, whether that be some miraculous turnaround to Democracy, or the more likely descent into open sectarian conflict, belongs to us. Not George Bush. Not the military. The People of the United States. We did this. To simply wash our hands of what happens could implicate us in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more innocent lives, not to speak of the regional impact. If we leave a power vacuum, the result could very likely be far more bloody than what is the currently established Status Quo. The Political Equation here - that the blood shed then will not be American - is devoid of responsiblity, of foresight, and of human decency. We destroyed the countries infrastructure, we disbanded their security services, we opened up the armories . . . and now we leave? Politically expedient, perhaps, but it is not the right thing to do. Believing that is to assume an inequality of human life - that the lives of American Military Personnel are more valuable than than that of ordinary, innocent Iraqis. Obviously this is true for politicians. As part of the American Electorate that abetted this invasion, this leaves me sick.

Obviously the current situation will not work. But by polarizing this debate into either staying the course (Supporting the Surge) or USA Out Now the necessary middleground is obliterated.

Where is the International Community? We shut them out. During the initial reconstruction the United States said 'No Thank You, we got it.' Now that we need help, no is willing. This is the bed that we have made.

I would argue for withdrawing American Troops to Quick Response Forward Operating Bases, preferably outside of Iraq (but more likely within the permanent military bases being built by American Contractors, for American Profit). The United States might not be respected, or even liked, in the global community, but we should not buy into the myth that our political leverage is too weak to do anything. We are still making massive outlays, both financial and technological, to our NATO Allies. We need to lean on them, hard, to come up with a new approach in Iraq.

The United States cannot do this alone. But it is the height of cowardice to demand that the Iraqis do the same. They didn't ask for it. We did.

No one should be surprised that this issue has further polarized an already polarized political dichotomy. Before the War, you would be hard pressed to find level-headed, clear minded rational arguments for or against. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, the same holds true. Then, the majority of the nation was in full favor invading Iraq, and this was used as a political screen for any and every argument for. Now, the majority of the nation is in full favor of getting out, and this too is used as a political screen.

I was against this War from the very beginning. It was plenty obvious to me that we simply did not know what we were getting into. Unfortunately, my opinion was in the minority.

Now that the War Opposition has found a majority presence in the general public, the demand for critical thought has evaporated. It's either Get Us Out ASAP, or you're a Republican stooge. The tables have been reversed, but the national discourse has not benefited.

Like it or not, the United States (and the majority of it's population) wanted this War. It's not George Bush's War . . . it's Americas' War. I'm sure most of us here can understand Colin Powell's maxim 'if we break it, we buy it.' Now that we have broke it, and the price is proving too high, we simply want to leave it somewhere, regardless of our responsibility.

This leaves me very conflicted. On the one hand, the casual violence and mounting death tolls tell me we need to leave now. But the presented alternatives are as short sighted as the original invasion warplan. What happens when we leave? Whatever results in Iraq, whether that be some miraculous turnaround to Democracy, or the more likely descent into open sectarian conflict, belongs to us. Not George Bush. Not the military. The People of the United States. We did this. To simply wash our hands of what happens could implicate us in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more innocent lives, not to speak of the regional impact. If we leave a power vacuum, the result could very likely be far more bloody than what is the currently established Status Quo. The Political Equation here - that the blood shed then will not be American - is devoid of responsiblity, of foresight, and of human decency. We destroyed the countries infrastructure, we disbanded their security services, we opened up the armories . . . and now we leave? Politically expedient, perhaps, but it is not the right thing to do. Believing that is to assume an inequality of human life - that the lives of American Military Personnel are more valuable than than that of ordinary, innocent Iraqis. Obviously this is true for politicians. As part of the American Electorate that abetted this invasion, this leaves me sick.

Obviously the current situation will not work. But by polarizing this debate into either staying the course (Supporting the Surge) or USA Out Now the necessary middleground is obliterated.

Where is the International Community? We shut them out. During the initial reconstruction the United States said 'No Thank You, we got it.' Now that we need help, no is willing. This is the bed that we have made.

I would argue for withdrawing American Troops to Quick Response Forward Operating Bases, preferably outside of Iraq (but more likely within the permanent military bases being built by American Contractors, for American Profit). The United States might not be respected, or even liked, in the global community, but we should not buy into the myth that our political leverage is too weak to do anything. We are still making massive outlays, both financial and technological, to our NATO Allies. We need to lean on them, hard, to come up with a new approach in Iraq.

The United States cannot do this alone. But it is the height of cowardice to demand that the Iraqis do the same. They didn't ask for it. We did.

An admirable quality for sure but regrettably one that is of no help in the current situation. Democracy, at least in the form that we in the west practice it, isn't something that can be handed from above. It has to come from the people. They have to grow into it. And it's a process that takes not decades but centuries to naturally occur. And they are violent and ugly times. Greece, the country that founded the concept is just going through it's first prolonged period of unbroken democratic rule and stability after god knows how many years.

How could anyone expect that just showing up in Iraq and proclaiming to people that haven't experienced a democratic government ever, that they were a democracy, would work just baffles me.

An admirable quality for sure but regrettably one that is of no help in the current situation. Democracy, at least in the form that we in the west practice it, isn't something that can be handed from above. It has to come from the people. They have to grow into it. And it's a process that takes not decades but centuries to naturally occur. And they are violent and ugly times. Greece, the country that founded the concept is just going through it's first prolonged period of unbroken democratic rule and stability after god knows how many years.

How could anyone expect that just showing up in Iraq and proclaiming to people that haven't experienced a democratic government ever, that they were a democracy, would work just baffles me.

On the other hand, Petraeus is a hired gun. The preceding Generals who disagreed with Bush were shown the door. There seems to be a pre-exsting notion in Bush's inner circle as to what the war effort needs to look like. It isn't unreasonable to assume that Karl Rove has a say in this, and that politics are trumping genuine military thought.

I think your statement is constructed wrong. If George Bush doesn't let the military accurately assess the situation and react to it, then the Military will certainly fail. Pertraeus will be given all the time he wants, so long as his direction meshes with Bush's.

What happens then when political support for Bush disappears (as is happening as we speak?). Petraeus, or any successor, won't be given an opportunity to do what needs to be done because Bush pissed it away. This is a failure of leadership at the most fundamental level. It's either impeachment or disaster. Given the collective spine shown by Congress, my momey is on disaster.

On the other hand, Petraeus is a hired gun. The preceding Generals who disagreed with Bush were shown the door. There seems to be a pre-exsting notion in Bush's inner circle as to what the war effort needs to look like. It isn't unreasonable to assume that Karl Rove has a say in this, and that politics are trumping genuine military thought.

I think your statement is constructed wrong. If George Bush doesn't let the military accurately assess the situation and react to it, then the Military will certainly fail. Pertraeus will be given all the time he wants, so long as his direction meshes with Bush's.

What happens then when political support for Bush disappears (as is happening as we speak?). Petraeus, or any successor, won't be given an opportunity to do what needs to be done because Bush pissed it away. This is a failure of leadership at the most fundamental level. It's either impeachment or disaster. Given the collective spine shown by Congress, my momey is on disaster.

Like you, I'm reluctant to represent myself as the spokesman for all people in the Middle East, but as someone who was born and raised there for a number of years, I can tell you that's not exactly whats going on there. It's more than support for oil sheiks or dictators that is feeding the animosity felt by many people against the Western world. It's the sense of helplessness and anger fed by CENTURIES of direct interference and subjugation by Western countries in their race to accomplish their own national interests. Any attempt by outside countries (especially ones from the West) to attempt to directly affect the political situation in Arab countries will just be viewed by their residents as another attempt by the West to control their fate.

Invading Iraq just put the latest nail in that coffin. Rulers and their citizens can only look at the situation there to validate their fears of what Western manipulation and their imposition of their version of self-determination can create. It set back any homegrown democracy efforts who knows how many years. Democracy activists in Iran have even repeatedly called for the US to not get involved in their countries in a effort to not paint themselves as being puppets of American interests. So what's the answer? I don't know, but I do know our current policies of promoting self-determination is condescending and ineffectual at best and actually detrimental at its worst.

Like you, I'm reluctant to represent myself as the spokesman for all people in the Middle East, but as someone who was born and raised there for a number of years, I can tell you that's not exactly whats going on there. It's more than support for oil sheiks or dictators that is feeding the animosity felt by many people against the Western world. It's the sense of helplessness and anger fed by CENTURIES of direct interference and subjugation by Western countries in their race to accomplish their own national interests. Any attempt by outside countries (especially ones from the West) to attempt to directly affect the political situation in Arab countries will just be viewed by their residents as another attempt by the West to control their fate.

Invading Iraq just put the latest nail in that coffin. Rulers and their citizens can only look at the situation there to validate their fears of what Western manipulation and their imposition of their version of self-determination can create. It set back any homegrown democracy efforts who knows how many years. Democracy activists in Iran have even repeatedly called for the US to not get involved in their countries in a effort to not paint themselves as being puppets of American interests. So what's the answer? I don't know, but I do know our current policies of promoting self-determination is condescending and ineffectual at best and actually detrimental at its worst.

I with Zhukov 100%. I was also against the war from the get-go, as I'm sure so many here were. Its understandable, considering the corrupt nature of the administration and the resentment that's hardened among the anti-war left, that people want to get out now.

However, being on the right side of the argument in '03 doesn't justify taking the wrong side in '06/'07. Getting out now should not be an option. This does not mean that we shouldn't begin to withdraw troops--given the right plan.

There are a number of possible paths that have been put on the table--dividing Iraq into 3 states; our troops moving out of the cities to protect the borders; asking for assistance from the Arab League and/or NATO and/or the UN to help tamp down on the sectarian violence; negotiating with Syria and Iran, etc. Any one of these plans might not be effective but a combination of some of these might, at least, lead to some progress.

The Democrats are playing politics right now--getting ready for '08 and trying to appease their base (a nearly impossible feat, considering their uncompromising demands)--while the President, whose incompetence grows more staggeringly obvious by the day, just bides his time.

According to polls, the country hasn't been this united about the War in Iraq since we invaded. Hopefully, in September, cooler heads will prevail...if the surge is a failure (most signs pointing towards this outcome) than the Republicans--free from the chains of loyalty that have bound them to the President for so long--will start discussing openly ways to get out without putting the whole region in jeopardy. And, hopefully, the Dems will be listening and participating.

Everybody knows that Bush is a joke, among the worst Presidents in history, so there doesn't seem to be much point in the left continuing to push this argument. Its time to channel some of that negative energy into a positive push to have our representatives try and fix this.

I with Zhukov 100%. I was also against the war from the get-go, as I'm sure so many here were. Its understandable, considering the corrupt nature of the administration and the resentment that's hardened among the anti-war left, that people want to get out now.

However, being on the right side of the argument in '03 doesn't justify taking the wrong side in '06/'07. Getting out now should not be an option. This does not mean that we shouldn't begin to withdraw troops--given the right plan.

There are a number of possible paths that have been put on the table--dividing Iraq into 3 states; our troops moving out of the cities to protect the borders; asking for assistance from the Arab League and/or NATO and/or the UN to help tamp down on the sectarian violence; negotiating with Syria and Iran, etc. Any one of these plans might not be effective but a combination of some of these might, at least, lead to some progress.

The Democrats are playing politics right now--getting ready for '08 and trying to appease their base (a nearly impossible feat, considering their uncompromising demands)--while the President, whose incompetence grows more staggeringly obvious by the day, just bides his time.

According to polls, the country hasn't been this united about the War in Iraq since we invaded. Hopefully, in September, cooler heads will prevail...if the surge is a failure (most signs pointing towards this outcome) than the Republicans--free from the chains of loyalty that have bound them to the President for so long--will start discussing openly ways to get out without putting the whole region in jeopardy. And, hopefully, the Dems will be listening and participating.

Everybody knows that Bush is a joke, among the worst Presidents in history, so there doesn't seem to be much point in the left continuing to push this argument. Its time to channel some of that negative energy into a positive push to have our representatives try and fix this.

Beautiful post, Ali Mohammed.

Electro97, I had the same thinking as you until I realized that the people in charge of forging this democratic path have never made a single attempt to understand the cultures in Iraq or discussed the people's view of how they want to move forward, and showed no interest in protecting that country's cultural heritage during Shock n' Awe. It has always been top-down dictates designed to facilitate western business interests.

I have since come to believe that that there will never be peace in Iraq as long as the US is there. You talk about the bloodshed that will result, but that's happening now. If the US were to pull out, at least then it would give the Iraqis a chance to resolve their path without worrying that whoever takes power will give their natural resources away to foreign companies.

Throughout this war, I've also noticed a pronounced dichotomy between what the troops on the ground, working with and among Iraqis, observe through their interaction with the people, and what the administration, which has never set foot outside the Green Zone, dictates from their offices in Washington. The insight and understanding of the troops themselves has never been put to work in a substantive way. In on-the-ground news stories I've read, they've always expressed frustration at this disconnect.

Beautiful post, Ali Mohammed.

Electro97, I had the same thinking as you until I realized that the people in charge of forging this democratic path have never made a single attempt to understand the cultures in Iraq or discussed the people's view of how they want to move forward, and showed no interest in protecting that country's cultural heritage during Shock n' Awe. It has always been top-down dictates designed to facilitate western business interests.

I have since come to believe that that there will never be peace in Iraq as long as the US is there. You talk about the bloodshed that will result, but that's happening now. If the US were to pull out, at least then it would give the Iraqis a chance to resolve their path without worrying that whoever takes power will give their natural resources away to foreign companies.

Throughout this war, I've also noticed a pronounced dichotomy between what the troops on the ground, working with and among Iraqis, observe through their interaction with the people, and what the administration, which has never set foot outside the Green Zone, dictates from their offices in Washington. The insight and understanding of the troops themselves has never been put to work in a substantive way. In on-the-ground news stories I've read, they've always expressed frustration at this disconnect.

I think yr 100% right about the Administration and could be right about the need for Americans to leave.

I agree with Zhukov, tho, that we're at a point where it seems like there are only two options: surge or go home. I think there are more options than that and I'm disappointed that the Dems haven't tried (or at least, tried harder) to shift the debate.

At this point, it doesn't seem plausible that we would stay in Iraq (at least at current levels) past Spring '09 and, given the sudden collapse of GOP support for the surge, we might even see some radical changes in policy coming this fall.

I think if the Dems were really concerned with doing the best thing here--not just the thing most likely to insure electoral victories--they would be talking about all the options the admin. isn't exploring and focusing on getting people enthusiastic (maybe the wrong choice in words) about the possiblity of fixing the problem...even if that means getting out. Instead, I feel like they're happy to watch the GOP implode while the situation over there just gets worse.

I think yr 100% right about the Administration and could be right about the need for Americans to leave.

I agree with Zhukov, tho, that we're at a point where it seems like there are only two options: surge or go home. I think there are more options than that and I'm disappointed that the Dems haven't tried (or at least, tried harder) to shift the debate.

At this point, it doesn't seem plausible that we would stay in Iraq (at least at current levels) past Spring '09 and, given the sudden collapse of GOP support for the surge, we might even see some radical changes in policy coming this fall.

I think if the Dems were really concerned with doing the best thing here--not just the thing most likely to insure electoral victories--they would be talking about all the options the admin. isn't exploring and focusing on getting people enthusiastic (maybe the wrong choice in words) about the possiblity of fixing the problem...even if that means getting out. Instead, I feel like they're happy to watch the GOP implode while the situation over there just gets worse.

No one--no one--is seriously advocating Getting Out Now. There is no policy being put forward for commencing immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Here is the substance of the Reid-Levin amendment that was just successfully filibustered by Republicans:

-Commence reduction of forces within 120 days

-Reduction complete by April 30, 2008

-After April 30, 2008, Armed Forces may be deployed or maintained to protect US and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip and support Iraqi Security Forces; engage in counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and al Qaeda-affiliated groups.

So, a nine-month deadline for a reduction in troop levels down to a force still capable of protecting itself, training Iraqis, and fighting al-Qaeda. That's not even close to immediate and total withdrawal.

The push isn't to Leave Now, it's to change the strategic focus from staying to leaving.

No one--no one--is seriously advocating Getting Out Now. There is no policy being put forward for commencing immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Here is the substance of the Reid-Levin amendment that was just successfully filibustered by Republicans:

-Commence reduction of forces within 120 days

-Reduction complete by April 30, 2008

-After April 30, 2008, Armed Forces may be deployed or maintained to protect US and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip and support Iraqi Security Forces; engage in counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and al Qaeda-affiliated groups.

So, a nine-month deadline for a reduction in troop levels down to a force still capable of protecting itself, training Iraqis, and fighting al-Qaeda. That's not even close to immediate and total withdrawal.

The push isn't to Leave Now, it's to change the strategic focus from staying to leaving.

I presume you mean besides the anti-war left, which has been calling for getting out now for a while. There's bumperstickers all over my fair city and weekly protests to this effect.



I still think this is a political move more than an attempt at a realistic policy shift. These measures would be a small element to a bigger plan for Iraq's stability...the other facets of said plan are notably absent, not only in this bill, but from the overall debate. Sen. Biden is, I believe, the only person who realistically talks about what would be needed for Iraqi stability in a more wholistic sense. And--for obvious reasons--his statements are mostly focused on his own '3 state solution'.


This is also, in my opinion, a bait-and-switch. Afterall most people--on either side of the overall issue--agree that there could be big problems after we leave (even if American presence is inflaming the situation, the sects are more than likely going to go after each other a little harder when we leave...). If there is an increase in fighting after we leave, "Coaltion personell and infrastructure" will be targeted, as will "Iraqi security forces", etc. Once that happens, according to this plan, will go back in and be right back where we started.

I feel that, if the Dems really wanted to better the situation (and come up with legislation that could realistically be passed) they'd focus their efforts more on lobbying the Bushies to get the UN, etc., involved. Its ludicrous, to my mind, to talk of removing the troops before we have a plan for what will happen after. That's why the Vietnam pull-out was such a clusterckuf and lead to the Dems getting blamed for that debacle.

I presume you mean besides the anti-war left, which has been calling for getting out now for a while. There's bumperstickers all over my fair city and weekly protests to this effect.



I still think this is a political move more than an attempt at a realistic policy shift. These measures would be a small element to a bigger plan for Iraq's stability...the other facets of said plan are notably absent, not only in this bill, but from the overall debate. Sen. Biden is, I believe, the only person who realistically talks about what would be needed for Iraqi stability in a more wholistic sense. And--for obvious reasons--his statements are mostly focused on his own '3 state solution'.


This is also, in my opinion, a bait-and-switch. Afterall most people--on either side of the overall issue--agree that there could be big problems after we leave (even if American presence is inflaming the situation, the sects are more than likely going to go after each other a little harder when we leave...). If there is an increase in fighting after we leave, "Coaltion personell and infrastructure" will be targeted, as will "Iraqi security forces", etc. Once that happens, according to this plan, will go back in and be right back where we started.

I feel that, if the Dems really wanted to better the situation (and come up with legislation that could realistically be passed) they'd focus their efforts more on lobbying the Bushies to get the UN, etc., involved. Its ludicrous, to my mind, to talk of removing the troops before we have a plan for what will happen after. That's why the Vietnam pull-out was such a clusterckuf and lead to the Dems getting blamed for that debacle.

To be fair, "Bring our troops home in a measured, orderly and sufficiently well-planned manner" doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely. Seriously, "bring our troops home now" is rhetorical. No one with half a brain literally means tomorrow.


While I know what you mean, if it's actually a bait-and-switch, no one told the Republicans. That should tell you something about how far they're dug in.

This is entirely my subjective, out-of-my-ass opinion but I don't think you're going to get any country to touch this clusterfuck with a ten-foot pole. I think that's probably about as realistic an option as hanging around until the insurgency falls asleep. Maybe I'm pessimistic but I think our choices at this point are between bad, worse and worst. There's no way to extricate without blood on our hands, and the longer we dither the worse it gets.

To be fair, "Bring our troops home in a measured, orderly and sufficiently well-planned manner" doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely. Seriously, "bring our troops home now" is rhetorical. No one with half a brain literally means tomorrow.


While I know what you mean, if it's actually a bait-and-switch, no one told the Republicans. That should tell you something about how far they're dug in.

This is entirely my subjective, out-of-my-ass opinion but I don't think you're going to get any country to touch this clusterfuck with a ten-foot pole. I think that's probably about as realistic an option as hanging around until the insurgency falls asleep. Maybe I'm pessimistic but I think our choices at this point are between bad, worse and worst. There's no way to extricate without blood on our hands, and the longer we dither the worse it gets.

I wish you were wrong but commonsense tells me otherwise.

I wish you were wrong but commonsense tells me otherwise.

Not that it would be a surprise, but I think the extreme end of both right and left are lacking brain matter. That being said, much of the Sheehan-oriented anti-war movement is quite serious about getting 'out now'...which I think does hinder the debate to a certain extent. But no more the neocons who'd like to set-up a joint US Embassy/Haliburton HQ in the middle of Baghdad.

Not that it would be a surprise, but I think the extreme end of both right and left are lacking brain matter. That being said, much of the Sheehan-oriented anti-war movement is quite serious about getting 'out now'...which I think does hinder the debate to a certain extent. But no more the neocons who'd like to set-up a joint US Embassy/Haliburton HQ in the middle of Baghdad.

The problem I have with this is that it seems to be backhanding the blame for our failures in Iraq onto the generals (or commanders, or down to the troops). Whereas pretty much all of what I've read has indicated that they're hands were pretty much always tied by orders from the civilian command. I'm glad someone who's had some success under the terrible strategy we've been employing is in charge, but unless he has more autonomy than previous commanders, that strategy is going to be just as unsustainable.

Yeah, there was an excellent Frontline episode recently that examined the role that our generals played in the planning and execution of the war. It pretty much pinned much of the blame on Franks and the other generals around him along with the administration. They had a role to advise, and at times even confront, the civilian leadership with the military realities present on the ground. Instead they just went along with and aided their disastrous policies, like bottling up troops in bases and letting the rest of Iraq go into chaos in an effort to have the inept Iraqi forces shoulder the burden. Great documentary.

I see. Well, they were wrong.

I don't think it was. Partly because I can't comprehend anyone thinking that invading and occupying a country constitutes liberation, partly because it's exactly what the Bush Administration would have to say - they can't talk about invading and leaving the Hussein government intact or invading and leaving total anarchy behind - partly because the motives of the people who planned, executed, and sold this war are not only obvious but public knowledge if one takes a little time to look, and partly because all the other reasons the Bush Administration and his apologists give for staying in Iraq have also turned out to be either ridiculous or outright lies. The only motives that are born out by the actions of the US are oil and soil.

But let's pretend it was all about liberating Iraq. There was no humanitarian crisis present in Iraq that was so dire only a widespread, long-term military presence could stop it. The situation did not justify the US's invasion and occupation.

I didn't say either way - although you know my opinion on the matter - because it doesn't matter either way. The argument for invasion hinged on those claims, the claims turned out to be false, so the argument has no merit.

Or discussing current events. If I'm to believe Bush, he invaded Iraq out of revenge. He's said so publically, and apparently privately as well. A confession isn't a bad place for a legal case to start. I'm not sure what more you want from me. A legal deposition? A notice that I'm suing him in The Wall Street Journal?

I don't think any US military presence or action in Iraq is legitimate, but never mind that. If it was about insurgents, why were refugees being forced back into the city to be killed rather than detained and questioned and either arrested or set free. And as I said, I'm not a strong believer in coincidence. The US government is not above making an example of a city.

It invaded a country for no reason, after all. What's a city?

Yes, I know this. Oil and soil, as I said. What you have to understand is this: I do not care if it is a strategic goal of the United States or not, it does not justify invading and occupying a sovereign nation.

Except the 650 000 (and counting) dead Iraqi citizens, some 5 million displaced Iraqi citizens, countless wounded and maimed Iraqi citizens, and no doubt even more Iraqi citizens whose life was drastically and permanently affected in other ways.

And some 3500 or so dead American soldiers as well.

All of the above are more important than the fortunes of fat white men (and no doubt a few swarthy men) who I will never meet, who will never give me a thought, and who will be dead in a couple decades anyway.

Iraq posed no threat to the US. You aren't saying Iraq was invaded because it was a convenient place for a large-scale, permanent military presence, are you? I'm glad you agree with me in that the US went to Iraq for oil and real estate, but I'm sort of surprised that you think it's okay to do so.

Besides, the War on Existential Threats is best fought through law enforcement, not large-scale military action.

Certainly an argument for unrepentantly invading other nations on false pretenses if ever one there was.

Overthrowing governments because it's convenient for long term strategic goals and economic greed is not promoting self-determination. The answer is minding your own business. If you want to do business with these nations, fine. I'm all for international trade, but not conquest.


I predict . . . six months. It seems to be the standard time measure used in pro-invasion arguments. But that's neither here nor there. You do agree that a permanent US military presence in Iraq was a goal, yes?

Good news.

Well, no. Someone went and messed up the place. No one is able to do much of anything in Iraq at the moment.

I do not.

I don't want that either. I don't want lots of bad but inevitable things to happen. Nevertheless, the US military is a conquering force, I do not agree with the reasons Iraq was conquered, and I want the conquest to fail.

Not just stable and secure, but stable and secure in a way that benefits the US financially. Certainly an argument for unrepentantly . . . oh, never mind.

Admirable, but so what? This is a reason for invading sovereign nations?

Not through invasion and occupation you can't. Nor should you try.

Too late. The blood already spilled is already on your hands, and there will be chaos of some sort, whether you leave in six days, six months, but certainly not in six years. That blood will be on your hands too.

The treatment Gen. Shinseki got for telling it straight was probably a red flag for any generals who might have been inclined to rain on Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney's parade.

Stunning post, Seabass.