Question on the Iraq War--Your Opinion Wanted

'Llo All,

FYI, I was vehemently against the Iraq war before the Bushies launched it. After the invasion, I went from thinking that salvaging any sort of relatively positive result (i.e. a reasonably stable, not-quite-so oppressive Iraq) was very unlikely under the current, astonishingly incompetent Administration. I now think that, given that Bush will be in power until 2008, that this puppy is lost, and that all that can be hoped for is leaving 'Iran-lite' (not Lebanon II) in our wake.

But...

Here is a (sadly) moot question: say a competent Administration were take over tomorrow; could they possibly 'win' this war? (Understand I mean achieve something like the 'positive result' I describe above; I think a truly Democratic Iraq is unachievable.)

Any and all feedback greatly appreciated.

Robert

and I've never been to Iraq, and believe next to nothing of anything I read or hear about it, so I'm clueless.

Common sense tells me there will still be an element really pissed off to see the US Marines in the street.

I don't believe it is a situation that is "winnable". We can bomb them into extinction, but we will never force a western style democracy upon them. Even if we mysteriously came up with enough money to sustain this thing.

You will never see a true western style Democracy in those countries because of the intermingling of the peoples need of a mixture of religion -- and of its different groups.

The power grab that these groups would use, would be something you would see daily in the news. (Bombs; assassinations; etc.)

be improving rapidly in repelling those who harm their interests. We should be clear that it is US/British forces, first and foremost, that are the enemy of the Iraqi people.

Consequently, the United States military will be FORCED to leave a nation it invaded in blatant disregard for international law.

It is up to us to do everything possible to make that day come as soon as possible.

would first have to get a handle on who all the players are in the game. Then call the game over..and start from scratch. The Iraqi people are not going to change their attitudes towards the US troops after all the death and destruction they've endured. And the US troops probably are not too keen about the Iraqi's either. International peace force...and maybe small local governments could be an answer. But of course, then, you still have the oil companies jockeying for position...and private military companies could start it all over again in Syria.

This is functionally a get or be given war.

Will the US "get"? Yes.

What will US "get"? A boatload of trouble to some, big money for others and power for the Bushies.

What will the US "be given"? Not a damn thing. There will be no later accolades for the US in this mess.

What will the Bushies claim the US has been "given"? Freedom from insecurity, what else. In reality, oil profits for those who are so far removed from the average tax paying citizen as to be obscene.

I've seen yet.
You are right, the win-lose scenario is nothing but the RW media machine at work.
As long as it is the focus of the debate, * still does not have to explain why we ever went there in the first place.

Do understand that what I am talking about (and again, it is obviously a moot question) is just how 'salvageable' Iraq would be, given a competent Administration; I mean damage control, not 'victory.'

In any case, there is not now, nor was there ever, a military solution in Iraq. There may have been a time shortly after the invasion when, given able leadership and sufficient resources, Iraq could have been stabilized to a reasonable degree and some sort of quasi-theocratic, authoritarian but relatively benevolent government established. (Then again, there very well might not have been.) We will never know, obviously. Yet even if this had come about, balanced against the degree of ill-will engendered to the US on a global scale, along with the dangerous precedents set for international law, the war would still have been a highly ill-advised endeavor.

I guess my question is a dim one, really. After all, an Administration with the capability of achieving a reasonably positive (all things considered) result in Iraq, would have had the sense not to even consider launching the damned fool thing in the first place.

Robert

I was talking about the RW talking point "win-lose' which simplifies things for the masses, but is entirely unrealistic. I know that you are talking about something else - something that we really do not have an unambiguous answer for at this time.

Before the war, Saddam Hussein was a dictator suppressing three warring factions. Remove the dictator and you have three warring factions.
Like George Carlin said this morning - thousand year old hatreds with modern weapons.

I believe we need a competent leader to extricate our troops from this mess. The US will never be able to solve the centuries of hatred that exists between the three groups.

That is what it is all about. If we can put in place some sort of government that allows us full access to the oil we will tell the people that Liberation has happened and Democracy is in force. we will pull about half or two thirds of our forces out and maintain a presence in the area. That is what we will call a win...Will the killing stop, I doubt it..

You're part of the 6 billion a month that is spent in Iraq. Maybe you own some oil stocks and so maybe you have a smidgen of control in that way. But the reality is, elites and power factions have control over Iraq and its oil. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.

New Year's, wishbones on Thanksgiving, its all good. Iraq? There aren't enough wishes or prayers for that place. Its a mess and its going to stay a mess. The only question is how long and how much will it cost us.

at least through whatever government there is. That is the only "win" here other than the permenant military presence.

I hope everyone realizes that this basically is the reestablishment of the Roman empire (dominate the Mediterannean).

I knew, knew that somewhere some PNAC asshole was fantasizing the way Young Repubicans do about playing Risk and in particular about outdoing Alexander, Hannibal and the British, and succeeding in securing a land corridor between South Asia and the Central Asian/Caspian region. And lo, I find that Douggy Feith, head of the Office of Special Plans during the time in question, makes a hobby of that particular instant in history, and that works about the British experience in India and the Mideast dominate his private library. The culprit has been found. The Mediterranean may be a Christian lake, but the real challenge is in the Kush, where the tribesmen have a habit of teaching trespassers about it means to be a woman (speaking their language for a moment). No invader has succeeded in controlling the region between India and Central Asia, where Pakistan and Afghanistan lie today, but there are some pubes in DC who are darn well going to give it the old Ivy League try. That's my guess at what the Sunday afternoon daydream aspect of the motivations here is. Too bad schoolboys are supposed to grow up and get a little more in touch with reality, isn't it ? Imagination uninformed by a firm grasp of existing conditions isn't worth much.

Interesting I didn't know that about the dumbest man on the planet.

You probably have seen this but check out "The Men from JINSA" on The Nation. Iraq is the military pivot, Saudi Arabia is the political pivot, Egypt is the goal.

Colonialism its worked every time*
*except the times it hasn't.

they've been performing a public service with the articles they've been running for the last 3 years - starting with the Hersh exposure of the stovepiping of intel, but many others from other authors as well. I'll check your cites, the more you read, the better you feel (in some ways, but the Truth Shall Set You Free).

Double post

It is impossible to restore what has been lost. The whole thing was an exercise in hubris and has backfired in every respect.

Whatever small credibility America had in the ME is lost. What small credibility it had in the rest of the world is similarly lost.

Our military is now (rightfully) seen as useless against determined "insurgents", "rejectionists", or whatever other appelation bestowed on the guerillas.

Our government is seen as malicious, predatory and dangerous. Not to mention inept.

There is no way to bring about a "victory" in Iraq or cover it up with announcements of "peace with honor" or "mission accomplished".

The longer we stay in Iraq, the higher the price we will pay, and the we have only just begun to pay.

The real reason that we are still there is to cover the politicians' sorry asses. The time to leave is NOW.

been on England's wick for 900+ years. Struggles all over the world have become generational. That is what this one will be as well. those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. also, the democratic process has never been part of the region and to expect it to take route probably anywhere
is hopeless thinking.

we should leave now. IMO Iraq will become an Islamic state run by Sharia law and in all likely hood a full scale civil war will happen or full on ethnic cleansing will take place. It's bad all around, i keep trying to see some light but sadly i don't.

Since Doober and his profiteering oil goy lackeys handed them the wheel, it was a tough proposition. We are there, the material fact is that we need to extricate ourselves successfully. Failure means another Afghanistan, and more destabilization in an area where there is already more than enough, and where other wannabe realpolitik nation state actors like Iran are itching for opportunities for influence. This is bigger than a fight between the GOP (Greedy Old Pigs) and the Democrats, this is about America's national interest, and that needs to be safeguarded by We the People regardless of which set of self-important clowns presumes itself to be qualified to occupy leadership positions in the nation's governmental structure. When the cameras and the lights are back in their cases and the poseurs have gone home to their townhouses, we still need to make sure that we have a country to wake up to the next morning. Hence we cannot just say "oops, our hometown clowns fucked up, bye"; rather, we need to leave having extricated ourselves from our desire to colonize the oil suppliers of the world (even if we do not have an alternative source of energy; our intention is what matters) and having given ALL Iraqis, including the ones who scare us, like those who care more for their country than international power dynamics, the right of self-determination.

The invasion of Iraq was a war crime. It's a war of aggression - which is a war crime.

Does a new President change anything about the invasion of Iraq?

Does it change Abu Ghraib?

Does it change GTMO?

Does it change that soldiers have died for lies and continue to die for lies?

Does it change all the Iraqi dead for lies?

Was the invasion of Iraq wrong? And I say it was - then a new President can't change that.

As long as soldiers die in Iraq, they will continue to die for a lie, regardless of who is President or how many years go by. ..and well..how do you ask a soldier to be the last one to die for a lie...to paraphrase Kerry


and a "war crime" can't be won - why would anyone want to spin a war crime into a victory anyway?(unless you have something to gain from it - or something to hide) ...once you do, it ceases being a war crime that matters....who tries the "winner" for war crimes? (Hitler didn't win - but if he had - the Nuremberg Trials would have never happened)

Iraq is not a true nation. It's a colonial construct. The English put Iraq together so that it contained warring factions so that the nation could only be ruled by a strongman - i.e. dictator. England could control the dictator.

Iraq is still composed of those warring factions. No US President can resolve that. This is one of the reasons we did not invade Iraq in '91.

I say take credit Saddam is gone, there are no WMD's and exit stage left claiming victory.