For you, DRUNK

[Bonham]

I remember a post of yours in your own thread where you claimed Iraw was beginning to stabilize, so I'd like your thoughts on this, please.

10/05/2008 10:58:00 AM GMT

http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=116033

For some time now, significant American majorities have wanted out of Baghdad, out of Iraq. And yet, the U.S. path to Sadr City is one that even an imperialist should want to turn back from.

By Tom Engelhardt

The last war and the next one

The last war won't end, but in the Pentagon they're already arguing about the next one.

Let's start with that "last war" and see if we can get things straight. Just over five years ago, American troops entered Baghdad in battle mode, felling the Sunni-dominated government of dictator Saddam Hussein and declaring Iraq "liberated."

In the wake of the city's fall, after widespread looting, the new American administrators dismantled the remains of Saddam's government in its hollowed out, trashed ministries; disassembled the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party which had ruled Iraq since the 1960s, sending its members home with news that there was no coming back; dismantled Saddam's 400,000 man army; and began to denationalize the economy. Soon, an insurgency was raging against the American occupation.

After initially resisting democratic elections, American occupation administrators finally gave in to the will of the leading Shia clergyman, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and agreed to sponsor them. In January 2005, these brought religious parties representing a long-oppressed Shia majority to power, parties which had largely been in exile in neighboring Shia Iran for years.

Now, skip a few years, and U.S. troops have once again entered Baghdad in battle mode. This time, they've been moving into the vast Sadr City Shia slum "suburb" of eastern Baghdad, which houses perhaps two-and-a-half million closely packed inhabitants. If free-standing, Sadr City would be the second largest city in Iraq after the capital.

(Watch video: Baghdad's Sadr City death toll mounts)

This time, the forces facing American troops haven't put down their weapons, packed up, and gone home. This time, no one is talking about "liberation," or "freedom," or "democracy." In fact, no one is talking about much of anything.

And no longer is the U.S. attacking Sunnis. In the wake of the President's 2007 surge, the U.S. military is now officially allied with 90,000 Sunnis of the so-called Awakening Movement, mainly former fighters, many of them undoubtedly once linked to the Baathist government U.S. forces overthrew in 2003.

Meanwhile, American troops are fighting the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, a cleric who seems now to be living in Iran, but whose spokesman in Najaf recently bitterly denounced that country for "seeking to share with the U.S. in influence over Iraq." And they are fighting the Sadrist Mahdi Army militia in the name of an Iraqi government dominated by another Shia militia, the Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, whose ties to Iran are even closer.

Ten thousand Badr Corps militia members were being inducted into the Iraqi army (just as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was demanding that the Mahdi Army militia disarm). This week, an official delegation from that government, which only recently received Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with high honors in Baghdad, took off for Tehran at American bidding to present "evidence" that the Iranians are arming their Sadrist enemies.

At the heart of this intra-sectarian struggle may be the fear that, in upcoming provincial elections, the Sadrists, increasingly popular for their resistance to the American occupation, might actually win.

For the last few weeks, American troops have been moving deeper into Sadr City, implanting the reluctant security forces of the Maliki government 500-600 meters ahead of them. This is called "standing them up," "part of a strategy to build up the capability of the Iraqi security forces by letting them operate semi-autonomously of the American troops." It's clear, however, that, if Maliki's military were behind them, many might well disappear. (A number have already either put down their weapons, fled, or gone over to the Sadrists.)

How the reverse body count came -- and went

The fighting in the heavily populated urban slums of Sadr City has been fierce, murderous, and destructive. It has quieted most of the talk about the "lowering of casualties" and of "violence" that was the singular hallmark of the surge year in Iraq. Though never commented upon, that remarkable year-long emphasis on the ever lessening number of corpses actually represented the return, in perversely reverse form, of the Vietnam era "body count."

In a guerrilla war situation in which there was no obvious territory to be taken and no clear way to establish what our previous Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, once called the "metrics" of victory or success, it was natural, as happened in Vietnam, to begin to count. If you couldn't conquer a city or a country, then there was a certain logic to the thought that victory would come if, one by one, you could "obliterate" -- to use a word suddenly back in the news -- the enemy.

As the Vietnam conflict dragged on, however, as the counting of bodies continued and victory never materialized, that war gained the look of slaughter, and the body count (announced every day at a military press conference in Saigon that reporters labeled "the five o'clock follies") came to be seen by increasing numbers of Americans as evidence of atrocity. It became the symbol of the descent into madness in Indochina.

No wonder the Bush administration, imagining itself once again capturing territory, carefully organized its Iraq War so that it would lack such official counting. (The President later described the process this way: "We have made a conscious effort not to be a body-count team.")

With the coming of the surge strategy in 2007, frustration over the President's unaccomplished mission and his constant talk of victory meant that some other "metric," some other "benchmark," for success had to be established, and it proved to be the reverse body count.

Over the last year, in fact, just about the only measure of success regularly trumpeted in the mainstream media has been that lowering of the death count. In reverse form, however, it still held some of the same dangers for the administration as its Vietnamese cousin.

As of April, bodies, in ever rising numbers, American and Iraqi, have been forcing their way back into the news as symbols not of success, but of failure. More than 1,000 Iraqis have, by semi-official estimate, died just in the last month (and experts know that these monstrous monthly totals of Iraqi dead are usually dramatic undercounts). Four hundred Iraqis, reportedly only 10% militia fighters, are estimated to have died in the onslaught on Sadr City alone.

American soldiers are also dying in and around Baghdad in elevated numbers. U.S. military spokesmen claim that none of this represents a weakening of the post-surge security situation.

As Lieutenant General Carter Ham, Joint Staff director for operations at the Pentagon, put the matter: "While it is sad to see an increase in casualties, I don't think it is necessarily indicative of a major change in the operating environment. When the level of fighting increases, then sadly the number of casualties does tend to rise." This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense.

In April, of the 51 American deaths in Iraq, more than twenty evidently took place in the ongoing battle for Sadr City or greater Baghdad. Among them were young men from Portland, Mesquite, Buchanan Dam, and Fresno (Texas), Billings (Montana), Fountain (Colorado), Bakersfield (California), Mount Airy (North Carolina), and Zephyrhills (Florida) -- all thousands of miles from home. And many of them have died under the circumstances most feared by American commanders (and thought for a time to have been avoided) before the invasion of Iraq -- in block to block, house to house fighting in the warren of streets in one of this planet's many slum cities.

For the Iraqis of Sadr City, of course, this is a living hell. ("Sadr City right now is like a city of ghosts," Abu Haider al-Bahadili, a Mahdi Army fighter told Amit R. Paley of the Washington Post. "It has turned from a city into a field of battle.") As in all colonial wars, all wars on the peripheries, the "natives" always die in staggeringly higher numbers than the far better armed occupation or expeditionary forces.

This is no less true now, especially since the U.S. military has wheeled in its Abrams tanks, brought out its 200-pound guided rockets, and called in air power in a major way. Planes, helicopters, and Hellfire-missile-armed drones are now all regularly firing into the heavily populated urban neighborhoods of the east Baghdad slum.

As Tina Susman of the Los Angeles Times wrote recently, "With many of Sadr City's main roads peppered with roadside bombs and its side streets too narrow for U.S. tanks or other heavy vehicles to navigate, U.S. forces often call in airstrikes or use guided rockets to hit their targets."

Buried in a number of news stories from Sadr City are reports in which attacks on "insurgents," "criminals," or "known criminal elements" (now Shia, not Sunni) destroy whole buildings, even rows of buildings, even in one case recently damaging a hospital and destroying ambulances.

Every day now, civilians die and children are pulled from the rubble. This is brutal indeed.

And it no longer makes any particular sense, even by the standards of the Bush administration; nor, in the post-surge atmosphere, is anybody trying to make much sense of it. That rising body count has, after all, taken away the last metric by which to measure "success" in Iraq.

Even the small explanations (and, these days, those are just about the only ones left) seem increasingly bizarre. Take, for instance, the convoluted explanation of who exactly is responsible for the devastation in Sadr City.

Here's how military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Stover put it recently:

"'The sole burden of responsibility lies on the shoulders of the militants who care nothing for the Iraqi people…' He said the militiamen purposely attack from buildings and alleyways in densely populated areas, hoping to protect themselves by hiding among civilians. 'What does that say about the enemy?... He is heartless and evil.'"

Mind you, this comes from the representative of a military that now claims to grasp the true nature of counterinsurgency warfare (and so of a guerrilla war); and you're talking about a militia largely from Sadr City, fighting "a war of survival" for its own families, its own people, against foreign soldiers who have hopped continents to attack them.

The Sadrist militiamen are defending their homes and, of course, with Predator drones and American helicopters constantly over their neighborhoods, it's quite obvious what would happen to them if they "came out and fought" like typical good-hearted types. They would simply be blown away. (Out of curiosity, what descriptive adjectives would Lt. Col. Stover use to capture the style of fighting of the Predator pilots who "fly" their drones from an air base outside of Las Vegas?)

By the way, the last time such street fighting was seen, in the first six months of 2007, the U.S. military was clearing insurgents ("al-Qaeda") out of Sunni neighborhoods of the capital, which were then being further cleansed by Shia militias (including the Sadrists).

So, to sum up, let me see if I have this straight: The Bush administration liberated Iraq in order to send U.S. troops against a ragtag militia that has nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein's former government (and many of whose members were, in fact, oppressed by it, as were its leaders) in the name of another group of Iraqis, who have long been backed by Iran, and… uh…

Hmmm, let's try that again… or, like the Bush administration, let's not and pretend we did.

In the meantime, the U.S. military has tried to partially "seal off" Sadr City and, in the neighborhoods that they have partially occupied with their attendant Iraqi troops, they are building the usual vast, concrete walls, cordoning off the area. This is being done, so American spokespeople say, to keep the Sadrist militia fighters out and to clear the way for government hearts-and-minds "reconstruction" projects that everyone knows are unlikely to happen.

Soon enough, if the previous pattern in Sunni neighborhoods is applied, they and/or their Iraqi cohorts will start going door to door doing weapons searches. As a result, the American and Iraqi prisons now supposedly being substantially emptied -- part of a program of "national reconciliation" -- of many of the tens of thousands of Sunni prisoners swept up in raids in Sunni neighborhoods, are likely to be refilled with Shia prisoners swept up in a similar way. Call it grim irony -- or call it a meaningless nightmare from which no one can awaken. Just don't claim it makes much sense.

As in Vietnam, so four decades later, we are observing a full-scale descent into madness and, undoubtedly, into atrocity. At least in 2003, American troops were heading for Baghdad. They thought they had a goal, a city to take.

Now, they are heading for nowhere, for the heart of a slum city which they cannot hold in a guerrilla war where the taking of territory and the occupying of neighborhoods is essentially beside the point. They are heading for oblivion, while trying to win hearts and minds by shooting missiles into homes and enclosing people in giant walls which break families and communities apart, while destroying livelihoods.

Oh, and while we're at it, welcome to "the next war," the war in the slum cities of the planet.

"There are no exit strategies"

Remember when the globe's imperial policeman, its New Rome, was going to wield its unsurpassed military power by moving from country to country, using lightning strikes and shock-and-awe tactics?

We're talking about the now-unimaginably distant past of perhaps 2002-2003. Afghanistan had been "liberated" in a matter of weeks; "regime change" in Iraq was going to be a "cakewalk," and it would be followed by the reordering of what the neoconservatives liked to refer to as "the Greater Middle East."

No one who mattered was talking about protracted guerrilla warfare; nor was there anything being said about counterinsurgency (nor, as in the Powell Doctrine, about exits either). The U.S. military was going to go into Iraq fast and hard, be victorious in short order, and then, of course, we would stay. We would, in fact, be welcomed with open arms by natives so eternally grateful that they would practically beg us to garrison their countries.

Every one of those assumptions about the new American way of war was absurd, even then. At the very least, the problem should have been obvious once American generals reached Baghdad and sat down at a marble table in one of Saddam Hussein's overwrought palaces, grinning for a victory snapshot -- without any evidence of a defeated enemy on the other side of the table to sign a set of surrender documents.

If this were a normal campaign and an obvious imperial triumph, then where was the other side? Where were those we had defeated? The next thing you knew, the Americans were printing up packs of cards with the faces of most of Saddam's missing cronies on them.

Well, that was then. By now, fierce versions of guerrilla war have migrated to the narrow streets of the poorest districts of Baghdad and, in Afghanistan, are moving ever closer to the Afghan capital, Kabul.

And even though the "last war" in Iraq won't end (so that troops can be transferred to the even older war in Afghanistan that is, now, spiraling out of control), inside the Pentagon some are thinking not about how to get out, but about how to get in. They are pondering "the next war."

With that in mind, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently gave two sharp-edged speeches, one at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, the other at West Point, each expressing his frustration with the slowness of the armed services to adapt to a counterinsurgency planet and to plan for the next war.

Now, there's obviously nothing illogical about a country's military preparing for future wars. That's what it's there for and every country has the right to defend itself. But it's a different matter when you're preparing for future "wars of choice" (which used to be called wars of aggression) -- for the next war(s) on what our secretary of defense now calls the "the 21st century's global commons." By that, he means not just planet Earth in its entirety, but "space and cyberspace" as well.

For the American military, it turns out, planning for a future "defense" of the United States means planning for planet-wide, over-the-horizon counterinsurgency. It will, of course, be done better, with a military that, as Gates put it, will no longer be "a smaller version of the Fulda Gap force." (It was at the Fulda Gap, a German plain, that the U.S. military once expected to meet Soviet forces invading Europe in full-scale battle.)

So the secretary of defense is calling for more foreign-language training, a better "expeditionary culture," and more nation building -- you know, all that "hearts and minds" stuff. In essence, he accepts that the future of American war will, indeed, be in the Sadr Cities and Afghan backlands of the planet; or, as he says, that "the asymmetric battlefields of the 21st century" will be "the dominant combat environment in the decades to come."

And the American response will be high-tech indeed -- all those unmanned aerial vehicles that he can't stop talking about.

Gates describes our war-fighting future in this way: "What has been called the 'Long War' [i.e. Bush's War on Terror, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq] is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity. This generational campaign cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies."

"There are no exit strategies." That's a line to roll around on your tongue for a while. It's a fancy way of saying that the U.S. military is likely to be in one, two, many Sadr Cities for a long time to come. This is Gates's ultimate insight as secretary of defense, and his response is to urge the military to plan for more and better of the same. For this we give the Pentagon almost a trillion dollars a year.

The irony is that, in both speeches, Gates praises outside-the-box thinking in the military and calls upon the armed services to "think unconventionally." Yet his own thoughts couldn't be more conventional, imperial, or potentially disastrous. Put in a nutshell: If the mission is heading into madness, then double the mission. Bring in yet more of those drones whose missiles are already so popular in Sadr City. This is brilliantly prosaic thinking, based on the assumption that the "global commons" should be ours and that the "next war" will be ours, and the one after that, and so on.

But I wouldn't bet on it. John McCain got a lot of flak for saying that, as far as he was concerned, American troops could stay in Iraq for "100 years... as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed." Our present secretary of defense, a "realist" in an administration of bizarre dreamers and inept gamblers, has just cast his vote for more and better Sadr Cities. In a Pentagon version of an old Maoist slogan: Let a hundred slum guerrilla struggles bloom!

It's a recipe for being bogged down in such wars for 100 years -- with the piles of dead rising ever higher. No wonder some of the top military brass, whom he criticizes for their bureaucratic inertia, have been unenthusiastic. They don't want to spend the rest of their careers fighting hopeless wars in Sadr City or its equivalent. Who would?

The rest of us should feel the same way. Every time you hear the phrase "the next war" -- and journalists already love it -- you should wince. It means endless war, eternal war, and it's the path to madness.

Vietnam… Iraq… Afghanistan… Don't we already have enough examples of American counterinsurgency operations under our belt? The American people evidently think so. For some time now, significant majorities have wanted out of Baghdad, out of Iraq. All the way out.

In a major survey just released by the influential journal Foreign Affairs, similar majorities have, in essence, "voted" for demilitarizing U.S. foreign policy. In their responses, they offer quite a different approach to how the United States should operate in the world.

According to journalist Jim Lobe, 69% of respondents believe "the U.S, government should put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic foreign policy tools in fighting terrorism," not "military efforts." (Sixty-five percent believe the U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq either "immediately" or "over the next twelve months.") But, of course, no one who matters listens to them.

And yet, the path to Sadr City is one that even an imperialist should want to turn back from. It's the road to Hell and it's paved with the worst of intentions.

-- Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.

Copyright 2008 Tom Engelhardt

[DRUNK]

Ok. You provide a propaganda piece by someone who hates the war, as evidence of what is really happening over there? Are you kidding me?

By the way, ceasefire: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080511/ap_on_...Ui.8wwy9his0NUE

[SteveAJones]

-- Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.

...just consider the source ^^ . Another author pushing his own anti-American agenda.

[Pb Derigable]

you know drunk, if nobody got killed in Iraq this week and one person died next week, they would write a story about the surge in violence.

[electricmage]

...just consider the source ^^ . Another author pushing his own anti-American agenda.

Why is it that, anyone who speaks up against the war in Iraq is considered "Anti-American"? Are you really that ignorant to believe that?

[electricmage]

Ok. You provide a propaganda piece by someone who hates the war, as evidence of what is really happening over there? Are you kidding me?

By the way, ceasefire: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080511/ap_on_...Ui.8wwy9his0NUE

We all know that Cease fires work well. Ask the Israelis about the definition of cease fire.

[SteveAJones]

Why is it that, anyone who speaks up against the war in Iraq is considered "Anti-American"?

This particular article is just a laundry list of perceived American failures in prosecution of the war, with obligatory references to "piles of dead" included. There is no argument presented here, no alternative strategy proposed, no solutions suggested. Just another

dose of Anti-Americanism.

[SteveAJones]

In a major survey just released by the influential journal Foreign Affairs, similar majorities have, in essence, "voted" for demilitarizing U.S. foreign policy. In their responses, they offer quite a different approach to how the United States should operate in the world.

According to journalist Jim Lobe, 69% of respondents believe "the U.S, government should put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic foreign policy tools in fighting terrorism," not "military efforts." (Sixty-five percent believe the U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq either "immediately" or "over the next twelve months.") But, of course, no one who matters listens to them.

So a journalist and his respondents to a poll should dictate American foreign policy? What are their qualifications? Where is the compelling evidence to support their position that terrorism can be defeated without military efforts? How absurd this viewpoint is.

If no one who matters listens to them then they are not an influential journal!

[Hermit]

Ask DRUNK, or any other other blinder-wearing war supporter, to..

1. identify the specific indicators of actual "progress" in Iraq, and

2. to identify the specific measures that will indicate "victory" in Iraq, and

3. to assess what their answer to #2 tells them about their answer to #1..

..and the response, predictably, will be either a resounding silence or their usual fact-ignoring rhetoric about how "we're winning.. because.. losing is not an option".. or some tired, stale variation thereof.

[zosodude13]

This particular article is just a laundry list of perceived American failures in prosecution of the war, with obligatory references to "piles of dead" included. There is no argument presented here, no alternative strategy proposed, no solutions suggested. Just another

dose of Anti-Americanism.

soooooo.............

the 1st amendment gives us the right to voice our opinions and even disagree with others... correct?

what makes us American is our freedoms we have... correct?

therefore, our opinions are the most American freedom that we have... correct?

as a side-note, steve, would you consider yourself a conservative? and if so, how conservative?

[DRUNK]

Ask DRUNK, or any other other blinder-wearing war supporter, to..

1. identify the specific indicators of actual "progress" in Iraq, and

2. to identify the specific measures that will indicate "victory" in Iraq, and

3. to assess what their answer to #2 tells them about their answer to #1..

..and the response, predictably, will be either a resounding silence or their usual fact-ignoring rhetoric about how "we're winning.. because.. losing is not an option".. or some tired, stale variation thereof.

1. Anbar province being turned from the most dangerous and deadly area in Iraq and the world, to being turned to one of nearly non violence. Anbar is now self governed, and secured by its own Iraqi Police force.

Anbar was considered unwinnable, a lost cost, and by far the worst situation in Iraq. This was not long ago.

2. The surge has reduced sectarian violence as well as overall violence. With the Americans having some of the lowest numbers of casualties in the war.

3. When the splintered portions of Shiite militias, specifically Al Sadr's, stop doing what they are doing. When Iran stops supporting them. This is already on its way to happening, as Al Sadr has cooperated, and the majority of his people are listening to him. Iran has slowed down support at various times. I am not sure about the answer to Iran. It would be in Iran's best interests to stop, because if we were to leave, Iraq would a situation they would have to deal with, and it won't be good for them. That's a whole other topic. They know we will not leave Iraq, so they can continue to influence what is going on without those fears.

Victory is Iraq requires more time and patience. Once the violence further reduces, more rebuilding can take place. More rebuilding=more jobs=fighters working instead of fighting=less violence=more security=building of economy=building of economy=better quality of life. This is already happening in many areas.

The Iraqi's fighting us know the end is near. The US is succeeding. The election is coming up. They will try anything and everything to make Iraq look worse.

Anbar is the model. Diyala province was a nightmare, and has now significantly changed as well.

Iraq is getting better, period.

The government can only do so much when there is violence. But, we have an Iraqi Army which is capable now, and a Police force which is becoming more capable. Both of these forces are functioning and are securing Iraq. They have taken a larger role. There have been infiltration by militia members, but that is expected, and has been a minor problem so far.

We had a hard time figuring out how to win this, but we have figured it out, and it is working.

[SteveAJones]

Ask DRUNK, or any other other blinder-wearing war supporter, to..

1. identify the specific indicators of actual "progress" in Iraq, and

2. to identify the specific measures that will indicate "victory" in Iraq, and

3. to assess what their answer to #2 tells them about their answer to #1..

A full-on dissertation would be wasted effort given flippant nature of the request so I'll simply say two very specific indicators of progress is Saddam Hussein's regime has been

overthrown and democratic elections have been held.

A specific outcome that would indicate victory in Iraq would be a central government

fully capable of exercising lawful authority recognized throughout the country by all

factions. Personally, I believe this would be achieved more easily by dividing the country

into distinct ethnic enclaves similar to what was done in Bosnia-Herzegovina but this is

more problematic in Iraq given that most of the oil refineries are located in the North.

The United States occupation is a facilitator for the continuation of progress; ultimately

the outcome and fate of the nation will be determined amongst the Iraqis themselves.

[SteveAJones]

the 1st amendment gives us the right to voice our opinions and even disagree with others... correct? what makes us American is our freedoms we have... correct?

therefore, our opinions are the most American freedom that we have... correct?

as a side-note, steve, would you consider yourself a conservative? and if so, how conservative?

I don't recall the First Amendment being called into question. The freedoms Americans

enjoy are protected by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. The protection they afford is a birthright (or acquired through naturalization) of it's citizens, which makes them Americans. I think to say "opinions" are the most freedom Americans can have is highly subjective. You may have meant to say "freedom of speech" but regardless, it's still subjective.

I do consider myself conservative (conservative with a small c, not a capital C which

would denote a specific political affiliation). How conservative? Apparently, more conservative than my previous posts may have lead you to believe.

[Hermit]

A full-on dissertation would be wasted effort given flippant nature of the request so I'll simply say two very specific indicators of progress is Saddam Hussein's regime has been overthrown and democratic elections have been held.

A full-on dissertation would be a wasted effort because the facts

do not support the claims that progress is being made in Iraq.

In citing evidence of "progress" in Iraq you are limited to referring to two specific events that took place five years ago and two-plus years ago, respectively. Citing those two events, it seems you're (conveniently?) ignoring the current state of affairs in Iraq.. ie, the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Pray tell,.. what practical "progess" does the overthrow of Saddam's regime and

elections amount to for the Iraqi people, to Americans, and to the world at large?

Bear in mind the fact that Iraqi citizens live in a world immersed in daily violence and bloodshed; they have no safety or security; they have no infrastructure; they have electricity for only a few hours a day; and their country has moved no closer to unity and reconciliation. In other words, for the Iraqi people, there is no peace, safety, or security anywhere in sight. Plus there's the little fact that 86,000 Iraqi civilians have died (and who knows how many have been maimed) since Saddam was overthrown, and 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. You call that "progress"?

Also bear in mind the fact that since he was no threat to America to begin

with, Americans have not been made any safer by the ousting of Saddam.

Also bear in mind that more than 4,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq (in many cases leaving children without a parent), tens of thousands more have been maimed and/or are permanently disabled.

Also bear in mind the fact that both America and the world at large has been made more unsafe by the invasion of Iraq. Acts of terrorism have increased worldwide since the invasion of Iraq; OBL is still at large; al Qaeda has been able to set up shop in Iraq (where they did not exist before the invasion of Iraq); the invasion (and Abu Ghraib and Gitmo) have served as jihadist recruitment tools; and in Afghanistan the Taliban and AQ have made a strong resurgence.

A specific outcome that would indicate victory in Iraq would be a central government

fully capable of exercising lawful authority recognized throughout the country by all

factions.

Bearing in mind that there has been no progress whatsoever over the past 2 years (since the elections in Iraq) toward unity/reconciliation/revenue sharing, do you still maintain that progress is being made toward achieving the goal of Iraq having "a central government fully capable of exercising lawful authority recognized throughout the country by all

factions"?

Based on the "Iraq having a central government fully capable of exercising lawful authority recognized throughout the country by all factions" measure you've identified that'll indicate "victory" in Iraq,.. what does that tell you about the indicators of "progress" you cited (Saddam's overthrow and the election being held) above?

[it should tell you that the indicators you cited are essentially irrelevant

as indicators of progress in assessing the current state of affairs in Iraq].

..ultimately

the outcome and fate of the nation will be determined amongst the Iraqis themselves.

In other words,.. democracy cannot be imposed on Iraq by outside forces.

In other words,.. US forces cannot dictate the outcome in Iraq.

In other words,.. US troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

A civil war between Iraqi factions.

No progress being made toward peace.

No guarantee of an outcome that is beneficial to America.

US troops should keep dying in Iraq because??

With all due, respect, Steve,.. it seems to me you've fallen well

short of presenting a case that "progress" has been made in Iraq.

Dissert away, muh-man!

[marolyn]

amen, hermit!!

[SteveAJones]

A full-on dissertation

Dissert away, Steve!

I restricted myself to citing two specific milestones.

One practical measure of progress the overthrow of the Hussein regime afforded the people of Iraq is they no longer live under state-sanctioned terror. Peace, safety and

security is something which must be established and maintained. It don't come easy.

Saddam's threat to the United States is up for debate. Oil is the lifeblood of American society and by securing Iraq's reserves they have secured a vital energy source for

many decades to come.

The influx in terrorism and use of world events for recruitment was inevitable, IMHO.

Democracy has been introduced by outside forces but it cannot be maintained by them.

Ultimately, Iraqis must accept the responsibility of rebuilding their nation. I hesitate to

characterize the events there as a "civil war" because it implies the collective is on the

march. I think it is more accurate to say there are insurgents and foreign-born fighters who persist in rebelling against reconstruction. There are few guarantees in life, but I

remain convinced the pursuit of liberty is noble and just.

Liberty Tree - A Song by Thomas Paine (1775)

"In a chariot of light from the regions of the day,

The Goddess of Liberty came,

Ten thousand celestials directed her way,

And hither conducted the dame.

A fair budding branch from the gardens above,

Where millions with millions agree,

She brought in her hand as a pledge of her love,

and the plant she named Liberty Tree."

"The celestial exotic stuck deep in the ground,

Like a native it flourished and bore;

The fame of its fruit drew the nations around

To seek out this peaceable shore.

Unmindful of names or distinctions they came,

For freemen like brothers agree;

With one Spirit endued, they one friendship pursued,

And their temple was Liberty Tree.

"But hear, O ye swains ('tis a tale most profane),

How all the tyrannical powers,

Kings, Commons, and Lords, are uniting amain

To cut down this guardian of ours.

From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms,

Thro' the land let the sound of it flee:

Let the far and the near all unite with a cheer,

In defense of our Liberty Tree."

[StringBender]

Saddam's threat to the United States is up for debate. Oil is the lifeblood of American society and by securing Iraq's reserves they have secured a vital energy source for

many decades to come.

And I, speaking as one who once supported the war and has seriously reconsidered it over the last year, this statement of yours further makes me lean towards the conclusion that I have come to, namely: the Bush administration led us into a war in which they had no clue of why we invaded in the first place.

No doubt, Steve, you would've pounded the table as I did several years ago about Saddam and his WMD and how he as a threat must be removed. Then when this turned out to be a load of crap, then changed your tune to we are there to "spread democracy".

Then when this turned out to be more than just a snap of the fingers, the statement was made last year that we would basically accept nearly any form of government as long as it was "stable". When this comment was made that is when it become ever so clear that we don't have a freakin' clue of why we are there.

Which leads us to now, as your statement above clarifies, that we are there to secure the oil reserves.

Sad.

Very sad.

If that is the case, then we oughta do it right, and declare war on the Saudi's, then more than 3/4 of the world's oil supply will be in our control, wouldn't you agree?

Face it. Iraq will go down in history as one of the greatest screw-ups ever committed. And at so great a cost. A cost measured by thousands of our sons and daughters (along with the Iraqi people) laying in body bags for a war that we have yet to be given one concrete, solid reason for being involved with in the first place.

I've said it before, sending our sons and daughters into war is to me, the single, most important a President can make and to be given a different reason every few months is sickening and makes it very clear: we had no idea what we were doing.

That is something that myself, along with millions of others will remember on election day and when the prospect of putting another "Bush" in office is layed before us.

[Suz]

Sorry, Stringbender. We're waaaaayy too friendly with the Saudis (and their fabulous human rights record) to do that. What are ya, NUTS???

[DRUNK]

Iraq wasn't about securing oil reserves.

[marolyn]

Iraq wasn't about securing oil reserves.

ok...glad you cleared that up

[DRUNK]

ok...glad you cleared that up

I sense sarcasm. That's ok. Just understand, when someone explains something so many times before, that person might not feel like re-explaining everything.

The truth is, there are a lot of possible ideas for why we went into Iraq. I don't believe oil is one of them. We didn't go there to take Iraqi oil, but I believe having a military presence in the middle east, is probably in America's best interest. Why? It prevents other powers from storming into the middle east and taking it for themselves. Like, China........

A lot of this is because of China. Instability in the region creates high oil prices. High oil prices limit the amount of oil that can be afforded. So, China, which is growing rapidly, is slowed down by high oil prices. When they can't afford as much oil, they can't grow as much, and it will take them longer to become the world's biggest superpower.

This is one of the explanations of high oil prices. Let's pay to slow China's growth.

Returning to the Iraq topic though, I believe there was a greater plan to bring democracy to the middle east. Remove regimes, establish democracy, bring them into the modern age, build their economies, improve quality of life, reduce the terrorist threat. It works like that.

What better way to enhance the world economy by bringing 1.2 billion Muslims into the mix. Most of the populations of these countries are poor and still living like they lived thousands of years ago. What are they going to contribute? They will still sit there, governed by Islam, with a brewing of western hatred, due to their isolation, hatred of the west because it is a threat to Islam etc.

If we can improve their quality of life by showing them the western way, then why will they hate the west? They will see our side, see our quality of life, and once they are living it, they'll understand what we're about.

The best way to neutralize the terrorist threat, is to expose them to this. Otherwise, we will continue to be interpreted as a threat to Islam, and we will continue to be in danger. Western influence reduces Islamic influence, and reducing Islamic influence reduces terrorist threat.

These are some basic ideas, but there is a whole lot more possible ideas.

For instance, Saddam wasn't a madman. We knew Saddam quite well, and he was stable. But as Saddam increased in age, and with death approaching, what would happen to Iraq? Iraq would have likely been inherited by his two sons, who were well known sadistic maniacs. What would have happened then? Probably complete instability in the region. Throughout their lives they were shown to be impulsive, violent, and flat out insane. Very risky to have them in power.

As far as the WMD argument goes, Iraq had them. Unfortunately, Saddam knew probably a year in advance that the US would invade, and he disposed of them. People will deny that, but it doesn't make sense for them to. With that advance warning, of course they would get rid of the WMD's!

Saddam and Iraq was a big threat, but so are many of the countries in the middle east. Why was it better to invade Iraq? Well, maybe because the US had been there before, and knew quite a bit about Iraq. It would make sense to invade a country that you were most familiar with. Being more familiar with something likely makes the success rate that much higher. It was safer to invade Iraq than somewhere like Iran.

[SteveAJones]

No doubt, Steve, you would've pounded the table as I did several years ago about Saddam and his WMD and how he as a threat must be removed. Then when this turned out to be a load of crap, then changed your tune to we are there to "spread democracy".

Which leads us to now, as your statement above clarifies, that we are there to secure the oil reserves.

If that is the case, then we oughta do it right, and declare war on the Saudi's, then more than 3/4 of the world's oil supply will be in our control, wouldn't you agree?

The WMD threat was deemed to be the single most compelling reason for military action. However, it was just the best among many reasons taken into consideration and it was chosen for its political expediency potential. The Bush Administration was determined to

remove Hussein from power, make no mistake about that. The Chicken Hawks like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld beat the war drum loudest and longest and it was music to GWB's ears.

Overthrowing the Saudi Arabian monarchy is another matter altogether. For one thing, it is the very outcome Osama bin Laden seeks to fulfill himself. For another, Saudi interests

own a significant slice of prime American real estate and properties. Finally, the Saudi Royal Family is politically very well-connected to Washington, as opposed to the Iraqis.

I can only hope the USA does not fail and fall on the wrong side of history. It is worth

noting the war against terror was originally dubbed Operation Infinite Justice, but it was changed to Operation Enduring Freedom after Muslim religious leaders cited that moniker as insensitive for only Allah (God) can bestow infinite justice.

[wanna be drummer]

The WMD threat was deemed to be the single most compelling reason for military action. However, it was just the best among many reasons taken into consideration and it was chosen for its political expediency potential. The Bush Administration was determined to

remove Hussein from power, make no mistake about that. The Chicken Hawks like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld beat the war drum loudest and longest and it was music to GWB's ears.

Determined to remove Sadaam from power...you mean after we put him in power?

If thats the case, we should be in North Korea right now. We desperately don't want Kim Jong-Il in power anymore, and his WMD are much more serious and real than anything thats ever been turned up in Iraq.

Agree?

Overthrowing the Saudi Arabian monarchy is another matter altogether. For one thing, it is the very outcome Osama bin Laden seeks to fulfill himself. For another, Saudi interests

own a significant slice of prime American real estate and properties. Finally, the Saudi Royal Family is politically very well-connected to Washington, as opposed to the Iraqis.

I can only hope the USA does not fail and fall on the wrong side of history. It is worth

noting the war against terror was originally dubbed Operation Infinite Justice, but it was changed to Operation Enduring Freedom after Muslim religious leaders cited that moniker as insensitive for only Allah (God) can bestow infinite justice.

We're not helping any situation in the Middle East by securing Iraq...in fact, people there are much more upset at what we've done then they're happy. This is the kind of shit that gets us on the wrong side of people. If we were going to invade, we should've had a damn better policy and plan before we lit up the sky. Instead, we threw everything we had at them and it was a mad rush to get to certan cities and find Hussein. And then, once we found him, we found ourselves in this situation: "ok...now what?"

And that's the situation we'll be in for the decade or so.

Wonderful

[fenderguy]

Iraq wasn't about securing oil reserves.

It sure as hell should not have been. The fact that we started the war under false pretenses is of major concern to me.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush is a major league blockhead.

[bouncing~ship]

interesting article but such weak arguments...

the first three posts say it all.

poor source