Exit Strategy- Iraq

[Tim Casey]

I'm from a blue state. This isn't my war. In fact, I'm one of those intellectual liberals from Massachusetts (gasp!) who reads too much. I guess that makes me one of the US Government's enemies.

The only thing I can do now is to try to talk the kids in my classes out of joining the ROTC (it's an urban public school - the army recruits heavily among poor minorities). I hate seeing them get killed for no reason. They're just babies.

[Fieryjack]

Awolski wrote:

Among these promises were exhausting all diplomatic avenues first (another inspection was scheduled to happen, but then we invaded instead)

We DID exhaust all diplomatic options, over a course of MANY YEARS. The UN proved itself amazingly incompetent and Sadam Hussein played diplomacy like a flute.

Awolski wrote:

that we would make sure we had international support for our actions (most of the world was against us)

83 nations supported us. Just because the rest of the world didn't doesn't mean that it was wrong. France, Germany and Russia certainly didn't support it because they were in bed with Iraq, getting enormous revenues out of oil deals, weapons deals, money laundering, the list goes on...of course they wouldn't support it (under a veil of moral higher ground? Get real...skumbags).

Awolski wrote:

that long and careful planning would be done to ensure a quick victory and a short occupation (no, we rushed into it)

Agreed, that the tactical part was blundered. It wasn't blundered because "we rushed into it". It was blundered because the fall of Baghdad was only the beginning when everyone (including the U.S. news media) thought it would be the end.


IMO, the ultimate outcome of a democratized Iraq and Afghanistan will be better than what we had before: a dictator pillaging and murdering his own people, influencing generations of fanatics and criminals. Countries like France, Germany and Russia looking the other way, shirking their responsibility as world citizens.

The U.S. did the right thing (and paid LOTS for it, in human lives and $$)despite the tactical blunders, and other countries SHOULD have been with us when we needed them. Our troops know this (there's overwhelming support for the initiative on the ground), and I guess that's all that really counts.

[Scodiddly]

Awolski wrote:

Among these promises were exhausting all diplomatic avenues first (another inspection was scheduled to happen, but then we invaded instead)

We DID exhaust all diplomatic options, over a course of MANY YEARS. The UN proved itself amazingly incompetent and Sadam Hussein played diplomacy like a flute.

This might surprise you, but Saddam didn't even have any WMD... and Bush's "evidence" turned out to be wishful thinking.

And guess who kicked out the inspectors? Bush! Saddam was pretty much bottled up with the inspections going on. But now we've got tens of thousands of DEAD CIVILIANS, and while we stopped Saddam's torture program, we fucking started our own in its place.

And some people wonder why Arabs are pissed at the USA. Here's a clue, it's not because they hate freedom, it's because they hate being invaded by profiteers.

[Fieryjack]

Scodidly wrote:

Bush's "evidence" turned out to be wishful thinking.

This "evidence" originated from Bush? I don't think so. Revisionist history.

Scodidly wrote:

Saddam was pretty much bottled up with the inspections going on

Containment would never have worked. I suppose you think the "Oil For Food"program worked, too. Damn, we should have let the UN solve it.

Scodidly wrote:

they hate being invaded by profiteers.

Profiteers? You could have fooled me! How is it a profit when 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars are lost? Must be our lust for oil, huh? Yeah, we went in there for oil...I forgot. Bush and his Texas cronies, right?

[Scodiddly]

Scodidly wrote:

Bush's "evidence" turned out to be wishful thinking.

This "evidence" originated from Bush? I don't think so. Revisionist history.

I think you need to look up "revisionist history" and perhaps do a critical reappraisal of your own memories.

But anyway, by "Bush" I meant "the Bush Administration", which includes various fun things like having Colin Powell present already-debunked "evidence" to the UN.

Saddam was pretty much bottled up with the inspections going on

Containment would never have worked. I suppose you think the "Oil For Food"program worked, too. Damn, we should have let the UN solve it.

The Oil for Food program may not have been perfect... but have you bothered to read any of the news articles about Halliburton and other companies having major problems accounting for govt. property and money over in Iraq? Does the phrase "empty convoys" ring a bell? Bear in mind that somehow none of this sort of thing gets reported on Fox News.

they hate being invaded by profiteers.

Profiteers? You could have fooled me! How is it a profit when 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars are lost? Must be our lust for oil, huh? Yeah, we went in there for oil...I forgot. Bush and his Texas cronies, right?

Yes, exactly. What's weird about it is that you're staring it in the face, and you still try to deny it. Look into Cheney's background sometime. He's still getting money from Halliburton...

OK, 1,000 American lives dead and billions of dollars spent. But from the White House's perspective, so what? They aren't Bush's kids who died, and those billions are going to Halliburton and other companies at a much faster rate than in peacetime. That's why it's profiteering.

[kcrusher]

Awolski wrote:

Among these promises were exhausting all diplomatic avenues first (another inspection was scheduled to happen, but then we invaded instead)

We DID exhaust all diplomatic options, over a course of MANY YEARS. The UN proved itself amazingly incompetent and Sadam Hussein played diplomacy like a flute.

Awolski wrote:

that we would make sure we had international support for our actions (most of the world was against us)

83 nations supported us. Just because the rest of the world didn't doesn't mean that it was wrong. France, Germany and Russia certainly didn't support it because they were in bed with Iraq, getting enormous revenues out of oil deals, weapons deals, money laundering, the list goes on...of course they wouldn't support it (under a veil of moral higher ground? Get real...skumbags).

Awolski wrote:

that long and careful planning would be done to ensure a quick victory and a short occupation (no, we rushed into it)

Agreed, that the tactical part was blundered. It wasn't blundered because "we rushed into it". It was blundered because the fall of Baghdad was only the beginning when everyone (including the U.S. news media) thought it would be the end.


IMO, the ultimate outcome of a democratized Iraq and Afghanistan will be better than what we had before: a dictator pillaging and murdering his own people, influencing generations of fanatics and criminals. Countries like France, Germany and Russia looking the other way, shirking their responsibility as world citizens.

The U.S. did the right thing (and paid LOTS for it, in human lives and $$)despite the tactical blunders, and other countries SHOULD have been with us when we needed them. Our troops know this (there's overwhelming support for the initiative on the ground), and I guess that's all that really counts.

FieryJack - what reality are you living in? Are you watching too much FOX news, perhaps? Long before the war, the inspectors were saying there were no WMD's - read what Scott Ritter had to say about that. The info about nuclear material being imported from Africa was debunked LONG before Bush used it as 'evidence' in his state of the union address.

AS for those 83 countries - take a close look at who they are and their monetary ties to the U.S. - seems pretty odd that almost invariably they are tiny countries who only provided support in words only because they have no army and no money OR they benefitted heavily from U.S. subsidies. Out of all of those, only the U.K. provided anything of worth.

Have you not read the PNAC documents? What do you have to say about those?

Indeed, we DID rush into this war - and the effects are now being felt by the boys on the ground there. We took away vital military resources from Afghanistan and allowed bin laden to escape. Why didn't we seal the borders when we knew he was there? Because HE wasn't the primary goal for the neocons - Iraq was, they just wanted an excuse to go in there.

Isn't it also funny that oil companies are now reporting record profits? What do you have to say about that?

So what's up with the torture scandals? Is that just a few bad apples, despite all other evidence? Why are all our 'allies' now pulling out? Because they're finally clueing in to the fact that Bush and Co. are inept and are taking this country down a very dark path.

Any excuses about 'well, if you had it your way Saddam would still be in power' is fucking idiotic. NO ONE liked that he was in power, but the handling of this 'regime change' has got to be one of the worst examples of how to do it properly.

I'm absolutely disgusted that you can even say that France, Germany and Russia were shirking their duties because they were in bed with Iraq. Seriously man - do some research before spouting regurgitated mass media b.s. You can start with the Duelfer report.

[awolski]

83 nations supported us.

Um, where does this number come from? Granted, I am pulling all of my information from wikipedia, not from a variety of sources, but I believe at last count there were 49 nations in the "coalition of the willing". There were 15 nations in the "coalition in the not willing to be named", who wished to remain anonymous.

On the opposing side, you had the nations you mentioned, plus The European Parliament, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Finland, Vatican City, Belarus, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, the African Union (all 52 nations), China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Pakistan, India, the Arab League (Kuwait was the only Arab country to support the war), Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and New Zealand (though they did offer non-combat support).

How does this somehow indicate a mandate for the U.S.' unilateral actions?

The diplomatic options? When the UN inspectors said there were no WMDs, Bush chose not to believe them. He'd prefer to believe intelligence reports which have now proven to be faulty.

But you're right about Sadaam. The dictator is gone. Now fundamentalist fighters from all over the world are helping to slaughter Iraqi people. You're fooling yourself if you think Iraq, and the world in general, is safer now.

I could argue about this all day long.

[awolski]

Dammit, I'm snowballing now and I can't stop.

Plus, how can one take the moral high ground about removing Sadaam (which I agree was a monster) when our government actively courted the support of Rwanda, Uzbekistan, Uganda, etc. for this war? It's OK for Rwanda to have genocide (oops sorry "ethnic displacement"), but it's not OK for Iraq?

[ottokbre]

We DID exhaust all diplomatic options, over a course of MANY YEARS. The UN proved itself amazingly incompetent and Sadam Hussein played diplomacy like a flute.

How long were the inspectors there to do the job? What did the cheif inspector himself say? Why are the weapons inspectors still frustrated with the White house to this day?

Lemme give you a clue; it doesnt start with Bush OR Saddam. Saddam did'nt kick the inspectors out in 98, we did.

Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.

--Washington Post, 12/18/98

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.

--USA Today, 12/17/98

You can rightfully say that Saddam played diplomacy like a flute, who doesn't. The part you desperatly need to grasp is that we did and then some. Every time Iraq started acting like, oh, I don't know, a soverign nation maybe, we got pissy, overrided the UN and sent in warplanes. It happened under Clinton. Thats some rather disingenious diplomacy.

83 nations supported us. Just because the rest of the world didn't doesn't mean that it was wrong. France, Germany and Russia certainly didn't support it because they were in bed with Iraq, getting enormous revenues out of oil deals, weapons deals, money laundering, the list goes on...of course they wouldn't support it (under a veil of moral higher ground? Get real...skumbags).

First, you have to ask what practicle support these 83 nations gave to us, and under what sort of democratic opinion, to give that real weight.

a) which of those nations sent support in the way of troops?
b) which of those nations sent specialists?
c) which of those nations sent funding?
d) which of those nations did anything more than state diplomatic approval?

There were, in fact, 33 countries that "provided" troops. The interesting fact is that this included all "non-theater". If you were to break down which nations "went to war" with the US, that list would be three nations; United Kingdom (3,500), Japan (200) and Austrailia (600). Not even Poland sent troops into combat.

Thats not insignificant, but it does show which nations are willing to risk real assets, i.e. people, to fight this war. Frankly spoken, it's nations that benefit from it, i.e. trade partners. All others simply need to pledge allegence to a nation into which they are in colonial debt with. Honduras pulled it's forces after an extreme slap in the face by appointing the very proconsul that once ruled over them, John Negroponte.

Then lets look at the support. Mass protests in every major city acroossed Europe, with severe intensity in our "allied" countries homelands. To such an extent that many lost political clout under the intense scrutiny of local democratic forces. It's truley a sickening thing to watch a leader talk about spreading Democracy while supporting the repression of democracy in his allies homelands.

Second, lets examine the fresh new PR campagin about those that opposed the War, namley Russia, France and Germany.

The assumption is that because secular forces within those countries were profiting by cashing in oil vouchers for rock bottom prices and laundering the money back to Saddam. Well, I think it's valid to implicate the loose connections that lead back up to Putin and Chirac. If that is the standard we are going to use, then we must apply it to the US as well. What does that bring us?

Well, that brings us a man that the right are talking a lot about, Billionaire Marc Rich. The NYPost was all over this calling Rich "We think he was a major player in this - a central figure," and of course that was because of the famous pardoning him by Clinton. The ikky thing about revealing this fact is that Marc Rich had a someone to lobby and defend him that is now in the white house, Lewis "Scooter" Libby who worked with since 1985. Thats pretty much as clear of a connection as anything else being propped up by the neo-con media.

In fact, thats just one instance of how complicit the US themselves are in the UN-Saddam "scandle";

Harpers
The much-vaunted kickbacks on import contracts also turn out to be not quite as advertised. Saddam, the claim goes, inflated the price of import contracts by 5 to 10 percent, then received the difference in cash from the contractors. Thousands of contracts, stretching over years, were involved; how could the UN have been so incompetent as not to notice? In fact, prices inflated by only 5 or 10 percent were difficult to detect precisely because the amounts were so small and often within the normal range of market prices. But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the attention of the 661 Committee, the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts--$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002--it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented.

If there were something genuine about making claims to an Iraq scandle, it would be how billions have been misused that were to go to the Iraq rebuilding. Not a soul questions this in the pro-Bush media when it is proportionatly a much larger issue. In fact, compare the heat on Kofi, who immediantly issues an investigation, versus someone like Paul Bremer, who did nothing to source the major accounting issues on the appropriation funds.

Annan fired security chief Tun Myat, demoted assistant secretary-general Ramiro Lopes de Silva and transferred him to a job with no security-related component, and charged Paul Aghadjanian and Pa Momodou Sinyan with misconduct and brought them before a disciplinary panel.

Now, in its administration of Iraq, the CPA was involved in corruption and misallocation of Iraqi revenues on a scale far greater than any U.N. officials could have dreamed of. The International Advisory and Monitoring Board for Iraq, created by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, did an audit in which it found numerous "control weaknesses" from accounting procedures to contracts awarded with insufficient competition to, ominously, a lack of metering of Iraqi oil production (so we'll never know how much oil might have been skimmed off the top for other purposes than being deposited in the Development Fund for Iraq). Misappropriation and misallocation of Iraq's money by the CPA runs into the billions of dollars. And this is on top of the fact that the CPA repeatedly used Iraq's oil revenues to award contracts to U.S. firms that should have been paid for out of the U.S. congressional allocation. Some of the smaller crimes are being investigated internally, although there's virtually no news coverage of this. But nobody high up in the CPA has been charged with any crime related to this massive defrauding of the Iraqi people. It is actually true that the U.N. bureaucracy is fairly corrupt and unaccountable. But it can't even hope to match the U.S. military-industrial complex in that.

For the record, the official payoff to Kojo Annan by his invested energy firm was a whopping 2,500 USD a month.

Now, I have no dellusions about political forces within France, Russia and Germany being suseptable to a pay-off. Thats pretty much what politics is about. But I think you would have to have a truley warped pathology for implicating everyone else while overlooking the gross misconduct of the nation you do have a voice in and can change. But maybe thats just me.

Agreed, that the tactical part was blundered. It wasn't blundered because "we rushed into it". It was blundered because the fall of Baghdad was only the beginning when everyone (including the U.S. news media) thought it would be the end.


IMO, the ultimate outcome of a democratized Iraq and Afghanistan will be better than what we had before: a dictator pillaging and murdering his own people, influencing generations of fanatics and criminals. Countries like France, Germany and Russia looking the other way, shirking their responsibility as world citizens.

The U.S. did the right thing (and paid LOTS for it, in human lives and $$)despite the tactical blunders, and other countries SHOULD have been with us when we needed them. Our troops know this (there's overwhelming support for the initiative on the ground), and I guess that's all that really counts.

You have no right to determine peoples future if they are not of consent. I think thats what this nation was actually founded on. I do think Iraq is better off without Saddam, how can there be any doubt of that. But the people of Iraq are not estatic about his defeat, they are simply relevied. But it has been reported time and time again by real journalists that the common opinion is that many would rather have the predictable (thus avoidable) elements of Saddams dictatorship over the seemingly irattional whimsy of the sporadic urban invasions and police state of the occupation.

The idea of major powers smirking their responsibility implys that we somehow have discovered our own idealology for one, which I think is true. Weather its the Monroe docturn or Manifest Destiny, it doesnt matter. What does is that we can continue to kill hundreds of thousands and still convince our people that it is for a greater good that a single individual enemy is worth so many lives. A ravaged army and 55 oil scamming whakos are not that hard to find and bring to justice. Assulting entire cities and classifying the inhabitants who are males from age 8 to 65 as terrorists, is tandamount to classic Imperialism. But still, the scary thing for me as an American is that people are convinced its worth supporting unanimously as a humanitarian effort. It's utterly Owrewellian.

[bad_dude_69]

[andyg666]

Don't be mislead by mainstream media. It's about the oil... And it's not just profiteering, it's about the fact that we're teetering on the edge of a major global economic collapse like the world has never seen before... And instead of redoubling our efforts to find new ways for humans to prosper... well, read on...

First, we are using energy much faster than we are replacing it with new reserves. Fossil fuels are finite resources. The world is currently consuming four times more oil than it is finding, and the gap will increase exponentially in the coming years as demand and supply run in opposite directions. Thus the current fossil fuel driven world economy just can't be sustained, even if it were desirable that it should. Sober and respected energy analysts like Mamdouh G. Salameh expect chronic shortages of oil to develop as early as 2010.

The second reason why we "can't" maintain the status quo is less easy to predict with pinpoint accuracy, but still rooted in science. As surely as we are running out of oil, so too are we increasing the amount of carbon gasses in the atmosphere and raising the earth's temperature. It is impossible to gauge the exact consequences of this, but there is a consensus that the effect will be a qualitative change, of a degree dependent upon current and future emissions. This temperature change will most likely have severe effects on every aspect of life on earth; it is hard to imagine that any of them will be good.

These would seem two unanswerable arguments against continuing down the path that served us so well in the last century. What could be more compelling than these two declarative statements? 1) It is technically impossible for us to continue indefinitely, and 2) even if we could it would kill us. Threatened by this double-whammy, the US government--representing the world's largest economy and hence the largest possible engine for change--has a choice. It can dig into a fantasy world in which the status-quo is permanently maintained through a combination of supply-side policies, increasingly perilous games of geopolitical chess, and rapid environmental degradation, or it can tap the huge potential of demand-side manipulation, throw massive resources into the development of sustainable sources of energy and begin to lessen the world's growing dependence on diminishing reserves of Middle East and--coming soon to a nightmare near you--Central Asian oil. It is a choice between willfully ignorant and enlightened leadership; between representing your colleagues in the oil business and representing the human race.

Famously, the Bush Administration has chosen the first of these and is following it to a pathological extreme....

[kcrusher]

Not to heap it on too thick here, but you may also want to read the France response to the oil-for-food scandal allegations, particularly the section entitled "American Participation in the Oll for Food Program"...

http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/sta ... od2004.asp