strategy changes on iraq? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 03-01-2007, 10:41 AM

it appears that the bush administration is in the midst of changing direction on iraq...the british are withdrawing, so there is pressure mounting in anticipation of an upsurge of violence in the south...the following assessment of the situation on the ground in iraq, summarized in today's guardian, is pretty grim:

Quote:

US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse

Elite officers in Iraq fear low morale, lack of troops and loss of political will
Simon Tisdall
Thursday March 1, 2007

Guardian
An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.

But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations.

"They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," he said.

By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.

But the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:

· Insufficient troops on the ground

· A "disintegrating" international coalition

· An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave

· Morale problems as casualties rise

· A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad.

"The scene is very tense," the former official said. "They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do."

The team is an unusual mix of combat experience and academic achievement. It includes Colonel Peter Mansoor, a former armoured division commander with a PhD in the history of infantry; Colonel HR McMaster, author of a well-known critique of Vietnam and a seasoned counter-insurgency operations chief; Lt-Col David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian officer and expert on Islamism; and Colonel Michael Meese, son of the former US attorney-general Edwin Meese, who was a member of the ill-fated Iraq Study Group.

Their biggest headache was insufficient troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by President Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said.

According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, written by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short and the deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad.

"Additional troops are essential if we are to win," said Lt-Col John Nagel, co-author of the manual, in an address at the US Naval Institute in San Diego last month. One soldier for every 50 civilians in the most intense conflict areas was key to successful counter-insurgency work.Compounding the manpower problems is an apparently insurmountable shortage of civilian volunteers from the Pentagon, state department and treasury. They are needed to staff the additional provincial reconstruction teams and other aid projects promised by Mr Bush.

The cut in British troops in southern Iraq, coupled with the actual or anticipated departure of other allies, has heightened the Petraeus team's worries that the international coalition is "disintegrating" even as the US strives to regain the initiative in Iraq, the former official said.

Increased violence in the south is expected, caused in part by the "displacement" of Shia militias forced out of Baghdad by the US crackdown. American and Iraq forces entered the militant Shia stronghold of Sadr City on Tuesday for the first time since the surge began. No other major operation has yet been attempted there but "we or the Iraqis are going to have to fight them", one US officer said.

According to a British source, plans are in hand for the possible southwards deployment of 6,000 US troops to compensate for Britain's phased withdrawal and any upsurge in unrest.

Morale is another concern in the Green Zone headquarters: American forces are preparing for a rise in casualties as the crackdown gathers pace. In a message to the troops after he assumed overall command last month, Gen Petraeus praised their sacrifices while warning of more "difficult times" to come.

"We serve in Iraq at a critical time ... A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder to shoulder with our Iraqi comrades we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher," Gen Petraeus said.

"It's amazing how well morale has held up so far," the former official said. "But the guys know what's being said back home. There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates."

The advisers are also said to be struggling to prevent the "politicisation" of the surge by the Shia-dominated government. The fear is that any security advances may be exploited to further weaken the position of Baghdad's Sunni minority.

Despite progress this week on a new law sharing Iraq's oil wealth, the Petraeus team believes the government is failing to work hard enough to meet other national reconciliation "benchmarks" set by Mr Bush.Yet it is accepted that the US is asking the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do what most politicians in normal circumstances would refuse to contemplate. "What we're doing is asking Maliki to confront his own powerbase," one officer said.

Possibly the biggest longer term concern of Gen Petraeus's team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war. Steven Simon, the national security council's senior director for transnational threats during the Clinton administration, said a final meltdown in political and public backing was likely if the new strategy was not seen to be working quickly.

"The implosion of domestic support for the war will compel the disengagement of US forces. It is now just a matter of time," Mr Simon said in a paper written for the Council on Foreign Relations. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and at least somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition... or to a series of unexpectedly sharp reverses on the ground," he said.

"If it gets really tough in the next few months, it will throw fuel on the fire in Washington," the former official said. "Congress will be emboldened in direct proportion to the trouble in Iraq." If the policy was not judged to be working by Labor Day (the first Monday in September which marks the start of the new political year), Mr Bush could lose control of the policy to Congress and be forced to begin a phased pull-out, he suggested.

A senior Pentagon official said this week that it was too early to gauge the strategy's chances of success - but preliminary reports were encouraging. "There are some promising signs. There is a new overall Iraqi commander in Baghdad. A number of joint operations have just begun. The number of political murders has fallen. Iraqi forces are showing up as promised, admittedly a little bit under strength, and are taking up some of the responsibilities that Maliki said he would,"he said. "We have to be realistic. We're not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves."

US officials say they also have rising hopes of a breakthrough in Sunni-dominated Anbar province where tribal chiefs are increasingly hostile to al-Qaida and foreign fighters - and are looking to build bridges with moderate Shias.

But this week's US decision to join talks on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is nevertheless seen as an indication of the administration's growing alarm at the possibility of a historic strategic failure.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2023865,00.html

so it appears that the bush squad is beginning to explore other, potentially more viable-to-sane avenues, including (a) engagement with iran and syria.
the following assessment from this morning's ny times includes recent changes in relation to north korea, and so wanders just a bit from this point:

Quote:

News Analysis
In U.S. Overtures to Foes, Signs of New Pragmatism
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 ? In the span of just two weeks, the United States has agreed to hold high-level contacts with Iran and Syria, and to start down the path toward formal diplomatic recognition of North Korea.

Has the Bush administration gone soft on its foes?

As recently as Jan. 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeated what has been a constant of Bush foreign policy: a refusal to bestow on Iran, Syria and North Korea the legitimacy of diplomatic engagement as long as they refuse to bend on disputed issues.

?That?s not diplomacy,? Ms. Rice said before a Senate panel, in defending the administration?s stand on Iran and Syria. ?That?s extortion.?

Administration officials insisted Wednesday that the new overtures, including an agreement to join Iran and Syria in talks on Iraq, did not mean there had been a change in policy. ?There is no crack,? the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said. ?A number of people have been characterizing U.S. participation in a regional meeting as a change in policy; it is nothing of the sort.?

But foreign policy experts, administration critics on Capitol Hill and former diplomats disagreed, saying the administration appeared to have recognized the extent to which it had tied its own hands by insisting on talking only to friends. Even Ms. Rice had called the opening to Tehran and Damascus a ?diplomatic initiative.?

?The question isn?t whether the axis of evil is dead; it?s alive as it was yesterday,? said Daniel P. Serwer, a vice president at the United States Institute of Peace and a former diplomat who served as executive director of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. ?The question is whether the concept, as it was applied, is dead. And it?s absolutely clear to me that you have to talk to who you have to talk to, in order to get things done.?

Within the administration, there has long been a tug of war between advocates of engagement, represented by the diplomats at the State Department and sometimes led by Ms. Rice, and those who have sought to isolate enemies, a group led by Vice President Dick Cheney and defended by the former United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton.

In the period leading up to the start of the Iraq war in 2003 and in the years immediately after, those pushing for isolation appeared to have the upper hand.

But last November?s election results, along with the morass in Iraq and a yearning for some foreign-policy home runs as the clock winds down on the Bush administration, have made room for proponents of engagement.

A senior administration official who advocates at least limited contacts with America?s enemies said, ?There wasn?t one big ?Aha!? moment, when suddenly we were being heard.?

But, he said, ?there seems to be more of a recognition of the limited success? of the approach.

At a dinner and lecture on Tuesday night at the Library of Congress, it looked like a reunion of the pro-engagement crowd. Seated at the front was former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, along with the new deputy secretary of state, John D. Negroponte; also in attendance was Robert L. Gallucci, the former chief United States negotiator during the North Korean nuclear crisis of 1994.

It was a veritable bevy of advocates of realpolitik, headlined by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who told the audience, ?America must be prepared to talk to our enemies.?

Ms. Rice has come under criticism from conservative hard-liners, both in and out of the administration. So far, her close relationship with President Bush has allowed her to prod the administration toward more engagement, while at the same time taking pains not to push Mr. Bush further than he is willing to go, administration officials said.

In the North Korea case, Ms. Rice pressed for United Nations Security Council sanctions after it exploded a nuclear device in October. Then, three months later, she telephoned Mr. Bush directly from Berlin, where she was traveling, to get his approval for the United States to pursue an accord with North Korea on nuclear issues. In doing so, she bypassed layers of government policy review that had derailed past efforts to negotiate an agreement, administration officials said.

The State Department announced Wednesday that as part of the agreement, in which North Korea agreed to shut its main nuclear reactor in exchange for food and fuel aid, the United States and North Korea would hold ?working group talks? on Monday and Tuesday on the normalization of relations.

In the case of Iran and Syria, Ms. Rice followed a similar strategy. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday?s shift, she joined the rest of the Bush administration in increasingly confrontational oratory toward Iran. She accused Iran of aiding Shiite militias in attacks against American troops. She referred to ?increasing lethality? in those attacks, which she said the United States would not stand for.

One senior administration official said the hard line helped Ms. Rice answer critics who accused her of being too soft. It also allowed the United States to sit at the table with Iran and Syria from a position of strength, the official said.

?The government of the U.S. now feels as though it has leverage,? another senior administration official said. ?People ask, ?What?s changed?? That?s what?s changed.?

It remains unclear whether an administration that has been committed for so long to not talking to its enemies can make a sincere about-face. At this point, administration officials caution that they have no plans to negotiate one-on-one with Iran or Syria.

But they said the same thing about talks with North Korea, maintaining that Washington was willing to talk to the North only within the context of six-nation talks, while American officials were actually meeting one-on-one with their North Korean counterparts.

Still, there are not many people in the administration who believe that Vice President Cheney has suddenly changed his mind, and now favors engagement.

That means that Ms. Rice will be under pressure to show results quickly, a tall task. ?You can?t expect miracles here,? said Lee H. Hamilton, a co-chairman, with Mr. Baker, of the Iraq Study Group, which advised the United States to engage Syria and Iran.

?There has to be a sustained effort,? Mr. Hamilton said. ?Successful diplomacy requires very careful preparation and very extensive follow-through.?

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...hp&oref=slogin

now here's what it looks like to me:

a) absent a more elegant way of putting it, the shit is sliding toward the rotating fan blades in iraq. the present bushlogic for conducting this debacle is self-evidently as flawed as was their "evidence" for justifying this adventure in the first place---but at the same time, i can;t see a scenario in which the kind of collapse warned about in the guardian piece could possibly be construed as a good thing for the united states.

so scenario number 1: diplomatic overtures to alter the general situation are too little too late, or are not extensive enough to change fundamentally what is unfolding. what do you imagine the consequences might be of this, if this turns out to be how events unfold?

scenario number 2: the diplomatic efforts yield some fruit, and...well what?
i can't figure this one out yet--it seems to me that a wider net needs to be cast, something that would enable an internationalization of the occupation and an american roll-out---i dont see overtures to syria and iran as being big enough to enable that--so what do you see the thinking behind these moves as being?

aceventura3 · 03-01-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it appears that the bush administration is in the midst of changing direction on iraq...the british are withdrawing, so there is pressure mounting in anticipation of an upsurge of violence in the south...the following assessment of the situation on the ground in iraq, summarized in today's guardian, is pretty grim:

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2023865,00.html

so it appears that the bush squad is beginning to explore other, potentially more viable-to-sane avenues, including (a) engagement with iran and syria.
the following assessment from this morning's ny times includes recent changes in relation to north korea, and so wanders just a bit from this point:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...hp&oref=slogin

now here's what it looks like to me:

a) absent a more elegant way of putting it, the shit is sliding toward the rotating fan blades in iraq. the present bushlogic for conducting this debacle is self-evidently as flawed as was their "evidence" for justifying this adventure in the first place---but at the same time, i can;t see a scenario in which the kind of collapse warned about in the guardian piece could possibly be construed as a good thing for the united states.

so scenario number 1: diplomatic overtures to alter the general situation are too little too late, or are not extensive enough to change fundamentally what is unfolding. what do you imagine the consequences might be of this, if this turns out to be how events unfold?

scenario number 2: the diplomatic efforts yield some fruit, and...well what?
i can't figure this one out yet--it seems to me that a wider net needs to be cast, something that would enable an internationalization of the occupation and an american roll-out---i dont see overtures to syria and iran as being big enough to enable that--so what do you see the thinking behind these moves as being?

I have never assumed that Bush or "we" held all the cards so to speak in negotiations with Iran, Syria or North Korea. In negotiations you can not "play your hand too soon", if you do you will surely loose. I think Bush had to take a hardline extreme position in order to be taken seriously. In your analysis you failed to review the reasons Iran, Syria and North Korea might be interested in joining the US in talks. Both sides on all fronts have made some extreme statements. It is our responsibility to present an opportunity for compromise and we are doing that, but at the same time they know Bush is a Craaaaaazzzzzy man who will do what he believes is right regardless of the consequences and popular opinion. As I keep saying - Bush still has his "balls".

. Just like Reagan. Looks like Bush's "hail Mary pass" might work before is term ends.

host · 03-01-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

.....so scenario number 1: diplomatic overtures to alter the general situation are too little too late, or are not extensive enough to change fundamentally what is unfolding. what do you imagine the consequences might be of this, if this turns out to be how events unfold?

scenario number 2: the diplomatic efforts yield some fruit, and...well what?
i can't figure this one out yet--it seems to me that a wider net needs to be cast, something that would enable an internationalization of the occupation and an american roll-out---i dont see overtures to syria and iran as being big enough to enable that--so what do you see the thinking behind these moves as being?

kinda long, roachboy....get with it and use the hide= tags....

The "political will" references in the articles that you posted, are a "set up" for what is already happening......and I've seen the same tired ole "movie", before.

Quote:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007...ory-today.html
Monday, February 26, 2007
Tomorrow's Revisionist History Today
All but the most hardcore <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/29/cheney-half-glass-full/">reality-deniers</a> readily concede at this point that Iraq is a mess. And that presents a real problem for the Republican Party because there are only two plausible explanations for how things came to be this way: either our mission never had any chance of succeeding, or success was made impossible (or at least unlikely) by virtue of bad decisions on the part of the Bush administration post-invasion. In other words, our current predicament is either the result of an epic strategic blunder on the part of the Bush administration or colossal incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. Either way, the blame falls squarely, and unavoidably, on the Bush administration.

That said, I promise you that future generations of Republicans will subscribe to some alternative narrative which absolves the Republican party of responsibility for this mess and shifts the blame somewhere else. Just look at how most conservatives explain the outcome of the Vietnam War. We didn't lose in Vietnam because we were fighting an unwinnable war against a determined and popular local insurgency. No, we lost in Vietnam because liberals back home undermined the war effort and caused the nation to lose its will to fight. We were <a href="http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html">"stabbed in the back,"</a> so to speak.

This same charge is being repeated by neoconservatives today who accuse the "liberal media" of undermining the war effort and assert that all we need to achieve victory is the will to persevere. This argument is incredibly stale at this point, though, and has lost much of its resonance. What conservatives desperately need is some other revisionist narrative, some other bogeyman on which to pin their failures.

This is where Iran comes into the equation. I'll make you a prediction right now: whether or not we end up going to war with Iran, the standard right-wing talking point about Iraq ten years from now will be that our invasion of Iraq would have been a glorious success had it not been for the sinister meddling of Iran, the Supreme Enemy of all that is Good and Right in the world. Sure, they'll probably tack on some gratuitous swipe at Democrats and the liberal media for good measure, but you get the gist: IRAN + Democrats = failure in Iraq.

Over the last few months, the Bush administration and its surrogates have repeatedly alleged--with little evidence or logic to back it up--that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq and is intentionally fomenting chaos there in order to undermine U.S. objectives. Many bloggers and journalists (including myself) have speculated that this is an effort by the Bush administration to establish a casus belli for attacking Iran. That may well be true (which is terrifying).

But regardless of whether these allegations lead to actual conflict with Iran, they clearly serve a political purpose for the Bush administration. By giving Iran a more prominent role in the Story of Iraq, conservatives hope to dilute the blame for their own failures. Suddenly there's a new bogeyman, a new Supreme Enemy on which to heap blame. Indeed, conservatives can point to Democratic opposition to military action against Iran as evidence that the Bush administration was hamstrung in its efforts to deal with the "real culprit" behind our failures in Iraq.

I don't know how successful Republicans will be in painting this revisionist narrative of the Iraq War, but I guarantee you they'll try. The Republican party's chief political asset over the years has been its perceived strength on issues of national security. Republicans cannot afford to lose that advantage. With the blame for the Iraq debacle now resting squarely on their shoulders, Republicans are desperate to plant the seeds of tomorrow's revisionist history. And Iran offers the most fertile ground.

.....but...I'm much too partisan....and unapologetic....because, after all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Too bad "facts based" can't come before "opinion".....

ratbastid · 03-01-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush is a Craaaaaazzzzzy man who will do what he believes is right regardless of the consequences and popular opinion. As I keep saying - Bush still has his "balls".

. Just like Reagan.

But what happens when what he believes is right... is wrong?

Have any of the Bushteam's ballsy declarations about Iraq been correct? I can't think of one. The thing that flat-out terrifies me about Bush is that he'll do what he believes is right regardless of consequences and popular opinion.

This is the problem with a black-and-white worldview, ace. It's all too likely you end up steering the plane into the ground at full throttle.

aceventura3 · 03-01-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

But what happens when what he believes is right... is wrong?

Then "we" have a problem. However, I voted for him twice. He says what he stands for, says what he is going to do and does it. When he ran for re-election he said he was going to "stay the course" and he won. He stayed the course. If "we" didn't want him to stay the course "we" shouldn't have voted for him. He changed strategy after the Congressional elections, but his plan is the same. If "we" think his plan is wrong, "we" need to force him to change it. But "we" (in this case Congress) has "no balls"! So Bush will continue with his plan until the end.

Quote:

Have any of the Bushteam's ballsy declarations about Iraq been correct? I can't think of one.

We removed Sadaam from power.
Iraqi people formed an intrim government.
Iraqi people held elections, adopted a Constitution.
We are fighting the war on terror in other nations.
We have terrorists on the run.
Sadaam was held accountable for his crimes.

Need more?

Quote:

The thing that flat-out terrifies me about Bush is that he'll do what he believes is right regardless of consequences and popular opinion.

Being a leader takes guts. I am happy some of our leaders have had guts to do what was right rather than what was popular, like Lincoln.

Quote:

This is the problem with a black-and-white worldview, ace. It's all too likely you end up steering the plane into the ground at full throttle.

Correct. You land the baby, or you crash it - with full throttle attitude! Ain't no room for half-stepp'n.

roachboy · 03-01-2007, 02:32 PM

host: i chose to not emphasise the recurrence of that tedious discourse of political will mostly because i am sick of talking about it here--it is obviously absurd, it is obviously meaningless, it is equally obviously a favorite of the right because it links to their neofascist conception of the nation and its mission and sets up the usual critique of dissent as division of the will etc etc etc: but you're right in pointing that out, and in this context i perhaps should not have allowed my boredom with this topic in this forum to erase it from my take on things.

the scenario that features the republicans re-running the fascist arguments concerning the treaty of versailles will be no surprise.

at the moment, though, what is interesting to me most is the relation (if any) between these steps toward diplomatic engagement particularly with iran and the potentials they may have for derailing the (potential) attack on iran that it (still) appears is in the works.

ace: your assessment of cowboy george is really something. "balls" you say. is that a technical term? where you see evidence of "balls" i see evidence of a kind of myopia. where you see righteousness, i see an almost irrational inability to admit error, to change course. where you see achievements in iraq, i see fiasco--this one is easy peasy, however, in that yours is at the very best a selective reading--selective to the point of arbitrariness--but whatever, i am not interested in going through this particular debate again.

all i'll say is that you have at best a tenuous connection to reality in your interpretations of the actions of the bush squad.
if any of what you are saying had weight, i doubt seriously that any of the shifts outlined in the articles that i put together would be happening.

aceventura3 · 03-01-2007, 02:59 PM

[QUOTE=roachboy]

Quote:

ace: your assessment of cowboy george is really something. "balls" you say. is that a technical term?

No, it is symbolic of a person having convictions and standing by them in the face of adversity. I use the term because I get a kick out of the way some liberals respond to it. I am guilty of that.

Quote:

where you see evidence of "balls" i see evidence of a kind of myopia.

I agree. And I have stated that several times in several ways. The only thing that will snap Bush out of his myopia on Iraq is if something forces him to. That is why I say Congress has "no balls". Because they say one thing but won't act in a meaningful way.

Quote:

where you see righteousness, i see an almost irrational inability to admit error, to change course.

Again, I have stated several times, I think we should leave Iraq now, because our presence has no support. My view changed after it was made clear what the American people want during the Congressional elections.

Bush is not going to change course voluntarily. I know it, you know it, Congress knows it.

Quote:

where you see achievements in iraq, i see fiasco--this one is easy peasy, however, in that yours is at the very best a selective reading--selective to the point of arbitrariness--but whatever, i am not interested in going through this particular debate again.

Let's play fair - and look at my response in context. The issue is what Bush said would happen compared to what actually happened. Also, we have to acknowledge a change in Iraq when the insurgency went from a minor to a major issue. I simply give credit when it is due, and blame when it is due also. Bush clearly let the insurgency get out of control. He should have acted sooner with more force.

Quote:

all i'll say is that you have at best a tenuous connection to reality in your interpretations of the actions of the bush squad.
if any of what you are saying had weight, i doubt seriously that any of the shifts outlined in the articles that i put together would be happening.

And in your analysis you still have not taken into consideration why Iran Syria and NK would want to sit down with the Bush administration when he has no support from his own country, the UN, Russia, China, and now with england removing troops from Iraq.

powerclown · 03-01-2007, 03:13 PM

I am encouraged regarding this new initiative undertaken by the administration to strengthen US diplomacy in the region through talks with Iran & Syria. Such diplomatic initiatives really deserve more press coverage than they are getting. It's a clever move on Bush's part to reshuffle the deck and provide this country and this administration with new opportunities. No doubt Iran is eager to ease tensions in the UN regarding its nuclear weapons program. The recent arrest of Iranian agents meddling in Iraq also has had a certain...sobering...effect in Teheran as a show of force. And with Iran continuing it's violation of UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment programs, it remains for the members of the UN to further assert themselves on this issue, as well on issues on Iraq. It would be wise imo for the nations of the UN to take this opportunity to capitalize on Bush's moment of flexibility.

aceventura3 · 03-01-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I am encouraged regarding this new initiative undertaken by the administration to strengthen US diplomacy in the region through talks with Iran & Syria. Such diplomatic initiatives really deserve more press coverage than they are getting. It's a clever move on Bush's part to reshuffle the deck and provide this country and this administration with new opportunities. No doubt Iran is eager to ease tensions in the UN regarding its nuclear weapons program. The recent arrest of Iranian agents meddling in Iraq also has had a certain...sobering...effect in Teheran as a show of force. And with Iran continuing it's violation of UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment programs, it remains for the members of the UN to further assert themselves on this issue, as well on issues on Iraq. It would be wise imo for the nations of the UN to take this opportunity to capitalize on Bush's moment of flexibility.

I wish i could write as good as you, because that is exactly what I think.

dc_dux · 03-01-2007, 03:19 PM

Foreign Policy magazine has a series of articles that address the question...what institutions, countries, ideas, or individuals are better off because of the war? Who, in essence, are Iraq’s winners?

Quote:

The top 10 winners:
1. Iran - After nearly 25 years of wrestling with Saddam Hussein, Iran’s Shiite rulers have the war to thank for their newfound power.

2. Moqtada al Sadr- How a radical Shiite cleric became the most powerful man in Iraq.

3. al Queda - The terrorist network was on life support after September 11—until a new front opened in Baghdad and revived its mission.

4. Samuel Huntington - The man who envisioned a clash of civilizations looks more prescient than ever.

5. China - The United States’ missteps in Iraq have given a rising superpower in the East room to grow.

6. Arab dictators - The Middle East’s strongmen were under pressure to reform. Now, they rest easy.

7. The price of oil - The war in Iraq triggered record oil prices, and the region’s petrostates will enjoy the windfall for years to come.

8. The United Nations - Suddenly, the global body’s brand of multilateral diplomacy doesn't look so bad.

9. Old Europe - Four years on, Europe’s naysayers are looking wise beyond their years. But can they do any more than sit back and gloat?

10. Israel - The war in Iraq eliminated several of Israel’s biggest enemies—even if it made a few new ones along the way.

The US?...sadly, after $1/2 trillion and 3,000+ lives, what have we won?

Quote:

I am encouraged regarding this new initiative undertaken by the administration to strengthen US diplomacy in the region through talks with Iran & Syria.

I too am encouraged by the newfound willingness to engage in diplomacy. However,without involving the other powers in the region that have the confidence of the Iraqi Sunnis (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) to balance the perceived (and defacto) tilt of Iran towards the Shiaa majority), the Sunni leaders (and insurgents) in Iraq are not likely to buy into it..

ratbastid · 03-01-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I am encouraged regarding this new initiative undertaken by the administration to strengthen US diplomacy in the region through talks with Iran & Syria. Such diplomatic initiatives really deserve more press coverage than they are getting. It's a clever move on Bush's part to reshuffle the deck and provide this country and this administration with new opportunities. No doubt Iran is eager to ease tensions in the UN regarding its nuclear weapons program. The recent arrest of Iranian agents meddling in Iraq also has had a certain...sobering...effect in Teheran as a show of force. And with Iran continuing it's violation of UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment programs, it remains for the members of the UN to further assert themselves on this issue, as well on issues on Iraq. It would be wise imo for the nations of the UN to take this opportunity to capitalize on Bush's moment of flexibility.

I agree. This willingness to talk before opening fire is a refreshing change of tone from Bushco, and I too am encouraged by it. The "Bush is secretly plotting war against Iran" drum that some people are thumping, while frighteningly plausible, is somewhat disingenuous, given what appears to actually be happening.

reconmike · 03-01-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

kinda long, roachboy....get with it and use the hide= tags....

The "political will" references in the articles that you posted, are a "set up" for what is already happening......and I've seen the same tired ole "movie", before.

.....but...I'm much too partisan....and unapologetic....because, after all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Too bad "facts based" can't come before "opinion".....

Host this post had me laughing my as off, "fact based" coming from a op-ed piece on a site called anonymousliberal.com, holy crap I think I just pissed myself.
At the moment I am doing research on a site called girlymenwanttogiveterroristshugs.org I'm looking for a good op-ed piece there to prove my opinion with facts.

Now back to the original topic:
In war there are always several strategy changes, it changes according to what is happening on the ground.
I hope whatever strategy General David Petraeus attempts it works this time,
because we can not afford to lose this war for numerous reasons.

The main one being that we can not have our enemies thinking that the American public can dictate how the military fights its wars.

As for GW's ability to consider the possibility of using neighboring countries to try and help stabilize Iraq he should be applauded instead of being chastised
for it.

Is this not what all you left leaners want? Let us talk with these people!!!! Diplomacy!!!! Hugs before guns!!!!!
And when it occurs it gets spun badly also by you people.

Why is it that the left wants the US to lose this war so badly?

It is not like that there are too many leftys that fight in any war, so it is not like you are losing alot of your voting base, on the contrary republicans are being killed in Iraq, while your base is waitng for that monthly government teat to roll in.

filtherton · 03-01-2007, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Host this post had me laughing my as off, "fact based" coming from a op-ed piece on a site called anonymousliberal.com, holy crap I think I just pissed myself.
At the moment I am doing research on a site called girlymenwanttogiveterroristshugs.org I'm looking for a good op-ed piece there to prove my opinion with facts.

The even funnier thing is how you can support an administration who only really "supports" the troops when they're in iraq. Once they get home, they can apparently go fuck themselves, as far as the current admin is concerned.

Quote:

Now back to the original topic:
In war there are always several strategy changes, it changes according to what is happening on the ground.
I hope whatever strategy General David Petraeus attempts it works this time,
because we can not afford to lose this war for numerous reasons.

The main one being that we can not have our enemies thinking that the American public can dictate how the military fights its wars.

As for GW's ability to consider the possibility of using neighboring countries to try and help stabilize Iraq he should be applauded instead of being chastised
for it.

Is this not what all you left leaners want? Let us talk with these people!!!! Diplomacy!!!! Hugs before guns!!!!!
And when it occurs it gets spun badly also by you people.

Why is it that the left wants the US to lose this war so badly?

It is not like that there are too many leftys that fight in any war, so it is not like you are losing alot of your voting base, on the contrary republicans are being killed in Iraq, while your base is waitng for that monthly government teat to roll in.

I think the people you think are liberal complain when shit like this happens because they already suggested these ideas and when they did they where pooh-poohed.

It's too bad we can't go back in time, maybe if we could the bush admin, and all the douchebags in congress who voted for the war, could embrace and take credit for realizing that invading iraq was a horribly irresponsible thing to do.

Instead we get people who would rather "not lose" a little while longer because somehow they think that if they "don't lose" long enough they will actually win.

It's not that anyone wants us to lose this war, it's that what is currently going on in iraq is so ridiculously wasteful and ill-conceived that cutting our losses and leaving the place in turmoil seems like a reasonable alternative to staying in there and watching the place crumble. What's going on over there certainly can't be easily confused with anything resembling "winning".

As much as i like the idea that we can stick around an make shit right, we can't. We fucked shit up over there irrevocably. Whatever bullshit saddam was doing is still being done, just by different people. We aren't doing enough good over there to justify all of us that are dying.

reconmike · 03-02-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

The even funnier thing is how you can support an administration who only really "supports" the troops when they're in iraq. Once they get home, they can apparently go fuck themselves, as far as the current admin is concerned.

Is this statement based on opinon or fact? Because I don't see anything that supports your statment. Get with it, cut paste cut paste.
I am sure that anonymousliberal.com has some "facts" for you to support your claim.

Actually this administration is doing alot more for veterans than the Slick one's did.
I see it first hand, the VA centers and hospitals were shit when Clinton was in office, atleast when I go now I know that I wont have to wait 3 months to see a doctor while my paperwork gets into the system.

ubertuber · 03-02-2007, 05:13 AM

reconmike:

Surely you think it is embarrassing that it took the press to figure out how bad the situation at Walter Reed was. For crying out loud, that hospital is like 20 miles from the Pentagon!

reconmike · 03-02-2007, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

reconmike:

Surely you think it is embarrassing that it took the press to figure out how bad the situation at Walter Reed was. For crying out loud, that hospital is like 20 miles from the Pentagon!

So because of a few nco's and low level officers not doing their job the whole system is shit?
It all falls down to the chain of command, and I guess it is Bush's fault that building 18 occured?
The VA is a very flawed system I don't deny that, but it is better than it used to be.

ubertuber · 03-02-2007, 07:18 AM

This problem is about way more than Building 18 - which in itself was some egregious shit right down the street from those who claim to be represent the antithesis of that situation. It's a systemic issue where people are experiencing huge delays in getting necessary treatment - or not getting the proper treatment at all.

I'm just saying that "supporting the troops", which is this administration's trump card for most things is turning out to be a lot like supporting the Iraqi population, supporting the war on terror (Mullah Omar? OBL?), and supporting the reconstruction. There's a lot of talk about what we're supporting, but very little "boots on the ground" perspective from those doing the talking. And the people who deserve and need help are suffering for it even as those dropping the ball are scoring points for talking about it.

roachboy · 03-02-2007, 09:21 AM

let's think about this strange accusation that mike brings to the table above: that "the left" wants the americans to loose the war in iraq.

1. as a simple statement, it is self-evidently rooted in projection--it must be difficult for the few remaining inhabitants of conservativeland to cope with the debacle that the bush administration has turned out to be. political survival in the short-to=medium run for the right requires that someone anyone else be blamed for what bushco has wrought for itself in iraq--whence whatever appeal this claim of mike's may have.

it is doubly strange to read his initial post to this thread, in which he starts off by ridiculing the edito that host bit above only to follow that with a recapitulation of what the edito warns against--conservative revisionism on iraq. but whatever.

i dont think the desires of "the left" are of much consequence, frankly: those of use who opposed this debacle from the outset are i am quite sure divided on what outcome we would like to see---it would be quite easy to link the illegitimacy of the arguments for war, the ineptness of its execution etc. to a desire for defeat as a kind of poetic justice--but i also think that is too simple.

2.

what is the war in iraq? it is a function of the neocon view of globalizing capitalism, of the arrangement of power that the neocons understood to be desirable. that order is one in which conservative politics can still operate--at least in the states--because it is rooted in the preservation of the american nation-state as an ideological unit--the idea was to use iraq as a means to assert american military domination--and by way of that to position the united states as the hegemon that presides over what any sane person would have to understand as a global neocolonial system.

so iraq was an element within, and a defense of, a radicalization of the status quo, and attempt to lock one version of the global political order in place and to prevent the political consequences of globalization/neocolonialism from swamping the ideological space from within which american conservative politics can function.

in other words, the iraq adventure was never about the confrontation of Cowboy George and the Evil Saddam Hussein at noon in front of kitty's saloon in an Important Gundown draw pardner.
it was from the outset a conflict that only made sense within a much bigger context.
the war on terror, whatever that is, was simply a pretext. like wolfowitz said at the time, it sold well. it was expedient. it explains fuck all.

so what would be at stake with the increasingly likely american loss in iraq?
the present neo-colonial order is not sustainable--it is not sustainable politically, it is not sustainable economically, it is not sustainable ethically, it is not sustainable practically. it is a system of economic domination with the mind-bending incompetence of the imf/world bank etc. at its center. it has sold itself to itself first and to the world second across the ideology of neoliberalism, the fiction of free trade, the fiction of free markets--all of which have been shown, empirically, to be charades---"free trade" in the context of overwhelming economic assymetry is colonialism--"freedom" in that context is a word you get to use to not describe the reality under which you live--freedom is a term that functions to rationalise domination, to rationalize being-dominated.

this is what it looks like to be "free" under the aegis of neocolonialism american-style: you cannot build infrastructure, you are hobbled by debt; you cannot develop an autonomous agriculture, you are hobbled by debt; you cannot maintain social programs, you are hobbled by debt; you give up power to shape fundamental economic policies, you are hobbled by debt. you are forced to remove tarrifs, you are hobbled by debt. you are forced to watch the destruction of entire local economic sectors, forced to accept the dumping of american agricultural overproduction, you are hobbled by debt. you find yourself dealing with social and political turmoil but can do nothing, not really, because the prerogatives to shape policy that would address causes have been signed away. you are hobbled by debt.

not only that, but this debt comes with interest rates that would make the most predatory credit card companies blanche.

why? there is alot to say about this---in the end, this line of too complicated for a messageboard format--too many variables---but let's take one as a little allegory:

since the 1980s, the imf has been one of the central generators of social and economic crisis in the world. within the united states, we talk about free markets. we think it means what it says--but for the rest of the planet, subject to the chaos that follows in the wake of imf actions--you know, structural adjustment, shock therapy, etc etc etc---which are effectively geared around enabling the united states to not adjust its interior economic organization---so it happens that one of the main effects of imf policies is not greater economic or political freedom--quite the contrary--one of the main effects IS the enabling of american dumping practices. the irrationality of the present system of production, particularly in agriculture, in the united states is dumped on the south across the modalities of "structural adjustment" (for example)...so the underlying dysfunctions of the existing economic organization of the united states are duplicated--the institutional framework, dominated by the americans, that fundamentally shaped neocolonialism, forces the southern hemisphere to develop as the mirror-image of american internal dysfunctions.

hwo did this happen? well one explanation is the idiocy of neoliberalism. another is that the americans--particularly the american right--cannot imagine how to address the effects of the structure of the american economy, cannot imagine how to change directions or rethink anything--their actual demographic--not the populist one, the actual one---benefits mightily from the existing order--so teh present neocolonial system is built around it.
but the main explanation is simple: the imf is a relic of the bretton woods arrangement: it was set up to function within that logic. it now operates in an adhoc manner, without particular coherence, wreaking havoc everywhere. that the actions of the imf--to take just one example (there are many) remains a mystery to most americans is to my mind anyway, nothing short of astonishing....the bubble is stronger than it looks.

and this is just one part of the system over which the americans presently preside, the defense of which was a significant element in shaping the iraq war.

so if you want to talk about the consequences of that war, you cannot look only at iraq, or at the mythological framing of iraq that the right has fabricated--you have to look at the system within which the american presently function, the entire neocolonial system, what it enables, what it does not enable, and ask yourself whether that system is functional, whether it is desirable--or, another way, ask yourself whether you think that the systematic exploitation of what we call the 3rd world is justified by the middle-class debt-bubble driven "way of life"....

if it is the case that the propping up of the present order, and the transformation of power arrangements within it to the ADDITIONAL benefit of the united states as the right dreams it, was the motivation behind the iraq debacle, then maybe an american loss there wouldnt be such a bad thing on its own terms--simply because, taking conservative logic and simply standing it on its head, a defeat for the americans in iraq is also a defeat of the neocolonial order for which it stands.

on the other hand, if this is true, a consequence of it would be--would have to be--a reordering of the present political situation. in the longer run, i think this is necessary--in the shorter run, it will probably be unpleasant for the inhabitants of the american ideological bubble, the one that enables folk to imagine that american capitalism has anything to do with "freedom".

since i live here too and am not at all optimistic about the ability of the present system to be coherent about changing its organization--when it is clear that ideologically at least, it cannot even be clear about what is entailed by the reality is operates within now--i am concerned about the consequences of an american defeat as well.

but if i had to say what i wanted--what follows from my political position logically--i would have to say that the existing system must change and if the only way to engender that change lay across defeat in raq then so be it. the problems are structural and require structural change. the present "american way of life" is among the most significant obstacles to it. so maybe that has to change as well.

depends what you want, really: if you want a coherent global system in which the maximum number of people have better lives, the only way to that system would be through the destruction of this one.

filtherton · 03-02-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Is this statement based on opinon or fact? Because I don't see anything that supports your statment. Get with it, cut paste cut paste.
I am sure that anonymousliberal.com has some "facts" for you to support your claim.

Since when are you the type to need facts to base your opinion on? cough..wmds..cough

Look, the fact that vets were getting boned in the healthcare department has been public knowledge for years. Now that it's starting to get some play in the press you get some action from your homey bush. Kudos to you if you can convince yourself that everything is peachy because you think it's better than it was under clinton.

Quote:

Actually this administration is doing alot more for veterans than the Slick one's did. I see it first hand, the VA centers and hospitals were shit when Clinton was in office, atleast when I go now I know that I wont have to wait 3 months to see a doctor while my paperwork gets into the system.

This admin is doing more for veterans? How so? By ensuring that they are being senselessly maimed and killed? By placing a higher priority on saving political face than saving veteran's lives? Interesting. Did you mean that this admin is doing more to fill up the VA centers than "slick willie" did? As far as i could tell 3000+ veterans didn't die because of a gross miscalculation on the part of "slick willie". You'd think a veteran would favor a president who has a little restraint with the military, as opposed to the one we have now, who could seemingly care less.

It's nice that you don't have to wait three months, some folks still do.

host · 03-02-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

.....This admin is doing more for veterans? How so? By ensuring that they are being senselessly maimed and killed? By placing a higher priority on saving political face than saving veteran's lives? Interesting. <b>Did you mean that this admin is doing more to fill up the VA centers than "slick willie" did? As far as i could tell 3000+ veterans didn't die because of a gross miscalculation on the part of "slick willie". You'd think a veteran would favor a president who has a little restraint with the military,</b> as opposed to the one we have now, who could seemingly care less.

It's nice that you don't have to wait three months, some folks still do.

....I can predict that the troops themselves, in significant numbers, will respond to your (IMO....) perfectly reasonable observation above, with the response that you are "insulting" their judgment.....they volunteered "for this", they "knew what they were getting into".....your comments are "insulting"....it is about "honor".....and, you are the one who must apologize to them....not Mr. Bush, who sent them to Iraq, or Mr. Rumsfeld, who opted to use a machine to affix his "signature" on condolence letters to their families. "Support the Troops" means respecting their "service", and the "orders" of their CIC, unquestioningly, just as they do. GOT IT?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

......since i live here too and am not at all optimistic about the ability of the present system to be coherent about changing its organization--when it is clear that ideologically at least, it cannot even be clear about what is entailed by the reality is operates within now--i am concerned about the consequences of an american defeat as well.

but if i had to say what i wanted--what follows from my political position logically--i would have to say that the existing system must change and if the only way to engender that change lay across defeat in raq then so be it. the problems are structural and require structural change. the present "american way of life" is among the most significant obstacles to it. so maybe that has to change as well.

<b>depends what you want, really: if you want a coherent global system in which the maximum number of people have better lives, the only way to that system would be through the destruction of this one.</b>

...outrageous leftist statements, roachboy.....if a "liberal media bias" was a reality, I'm sure they'd be all over your "better lives", notion. In a country such at the U.S., with two right wing politcal parties dominating the politics and the discourse, and a mirror image, corporate owned and consolidated media, your notions, your entire post, seems queerly out of place, but nonetheless, "spot on", IMO! Don't mind me, though.....I'm a centrist !

Elphaba · 03-02-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

So because of a few nco's and low level officers not doing their job the whole system is shit?
It all falls down to the chain of command, and I guess it is Bush's fault that building 18 occured?
The VA is a very flawed system I don't deny that, but it is better than it used to be.

My apologies, roachboy, for continuing a threadjack but I'm compelled to correct the above statement. The Veterans Administration has nothing to do with Building 18 or the hospital. Those facilities are under the direction of the Department of Defense. The VA actually serves veterans, not returning soldiers, and has a reputation of doing a reasonably good job of it.

/threadjack

03-01-2007, 02:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	host: i chose to not emphasise the recurrence of that tedious discourse of political will mostly because i am sick of talking about it here--it is obviously absurd, it is obviously meaningless, it is equally obviously a favorite of the right because it links to their neofascist conception of the nation and its mission and sets up the usual critique of dissent as division of the will etc etc etc: but you're right in pointing that out, and in this context i perhaps should not have allowed my boredom with this topic in this forum to erase it from my take on things. the scenario that features the republicans re-running the fascist arguments concerning the treaty of versailles will be no surprise. at the moment, though, what is interesting to me most is the relation (if any) between these steps toward diplomatic engagement particularly with iran and the potentials they may have for derailing the (potential) attack on iran that it (still) appears is in the works. ace: your assessment of cowboy george is really something. "balls" you say. is that a technical term? where you see evidence of "balls" i see evidence of a kind of myopia. where you see righteousness, i see an almost irrational inability to admit error, to change course. where you see achievements in iraq, i see fiasco--this one is easy peasy, however, in that yours is at the very best a selective reading--selective to the point of arbitrariness--but whatever, i am not interested in going through this particular debate again. all i'll say is that you have at best a tenuous connection to reality in your interpretations of the actions of the bush squad. if any of what you are saying had weight, i doubt seriously that any of the shifts outlined in the articles that i put together would be happening. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-02-2007, 05:13 AM	#15 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	reconmike: Surely you think it is embarrassing that it took the press to figure out how bad the situation at Walter Reed was. For crying out loud, that hospital is like 20 miles from the Pentagon! __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-02-2007, 07:18 AM	#17 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	This problem is about way more than Building 18 - which in itself was some egregious shit right down the street from those who claim to be represent the antithesis of that situation. It's a systemic issue where people are experiencing huge delays in getting necessary treatment - or not getting the proper treatment at all. I'm just saying that "supporting the troops", which is this administration's trump card for most things is turning out to be a lot like supporting the Iraqi population, supporting the war on terror (Mullah Omar? OBL?), and supporting the reconstruction. There's a lot of talk about what we're supporting, but very little "boots on the ground" perspective from those doing the talking. And the people who deserve and need help are suffering for it even as those dropping the ball are scoring points for talking about it. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-02-2007, 09:21 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	let's think about this strange accusation that mike brings to the table above: that "the left" wants the americans to loose the war in iraq. 1. as a simple statement, it is self-evidently rooted in projection--it must be difficult for the few remaining inhabitants of conservativeland to cope with the debacle that the bush administration has turned out to be. political survival in the short-to=medium run for the right requires that someone anyone else be blamed for what bushco has wrought for itself in iraq--whence whatever appeal this claim of mike's may have. it is doubly strange to read his initial post to this thread, in which he starts off by ridiculing the edito that host bit above only to follow that with a recapitulation of what the edito warns against--conservative revisionism on iraq. but whatever. i dont think the desires of "the left" are of much consequence, frankly: those of use who opposed this debacle from the outset are i am quite sure divided on what outcome we would like to see---it would be quite easy to link the illegitimacy of the arguments for war, the ineptness of its execution etc. to a desire for defeat as a kind of poetic justice--but i also think that is too simple. 2. what is the war in iraq? it is a function of the neocon view of globalizing capitalism, of the arrangement of power that the neocons understood to be desirable. that order is one in which conservative politics can still operate--at least in the states--because it is rooted in the preservation of the american nation-state as an ideological unit--the idea was to use iraq as a means to assert american military domination--and by way of that to position the united states as the hegemon that presides over what any sane person would have to understand as a global neocolonial system. so iraq was an element within, and a defense of, a radicalization of the status quo, and attempt to lock one version of the global political order in place and to prevent the political consequences of globalization/neocolonialism from swamping the ideological space from within which american conservative politics can function. in other words, the iraq adventure was never about the confrontation of Cowboy George and the Evil Saddam Hussein at noon in front of kitty's saloon in an Important Gundown draw pardner. it was from the outset a conflict that only made sense within a much bigger context. the war on terror, whatever that is, was simply a pretext. like wolfowitz said at the time, it sold well. it was expedient. it explains fuck all. so what would be at stake with the increasingly likely american loss in iraq? the present neo-colonial order is not sustainable--it is not sustainable politically, it is not sustainable economically, it is not sustainable ethically, it is not sustainable practically. it is a system of economic domination with the mind-bending incompetence of the imf/world bank etc. at its center. it has sold itself to itself first and to the world second across the ideology of neoliberalism, the fiction of free trade, the fiction of free markets--all of which have been shown, empirically, to be charades---"free trade" in the context of overwhelming economic assymetry is colonialism--"freedom" in that context is a word you get to use to not describe the reality under which you live--freedom is a term that functions to rationalise domination, to rationalize being-dominated. this is what it looks like to be "free" under the aegis of neocolonialism american-style: you cannot build infrastructure, you are hobbled by debt; you cannot develop an autonomous agriculture, you are hobbled by debt; you cannot maintain social programs, you are hobbled by debt; you give up power to shape fundamental economic policies, you are hobbled by debt. you are forced to remove tarrifs, you are hobbled by debt. you are forced to watch the destruction of entire local economic sectors, forced to accept the dumping of american agricultural overproduction, you are hobbled by debt. you find yourself dealing with social and political turmoil but can do nothing, not really, because the prerogatives to shape policy that would address causes have been signed away. you are hobbled by debt. not only that, but this debt comes with interest rates that would make the most predatory credit card companies blanche. why? there is alot to say about this---in the end, this line of too complicated for a messageboard format--too many variables---but let's take one as a little allegory: since the 1980s, the imf has been one of the central generators of social and economic crisis in the world. within the united states, we talk about free markets. we think it means what it says--but for the rest of the planet, subject to the chaos that follows in the wake of imf actions--you know, structural adjustment, shock therapy, etc etc etc---which are effectively geared around enabling the united states to not adjust its interior economic organization---so it happens that one of the main effects of imf policies is not greater economic or political freedom--quite the contrary--one of the main effects IS the enabling of american dumping practices. the irrationality of the present system of production, particularly in agriculture, in the united states is dumped on the south across the modalities of "structural adjustment" (for example)...so the underlying dysfunctions of the existing economic organization of the united states are duplicated--the institutional framework, dominated by the americans, that fundamentally shaped neocolonialism, forces the southern hemisphere to develop as the mirror-image of american internal dysfunctions. hwo did this happen? well one explanation is the idiocy of neoliberalism. another is that the americans--particularly the american right--cannot imagine how to address the effects of the structure of the american economy, cannot imagine how to change directions or rethink anything--their actual demographic--not the populist one, the actual one---benefits mightily from the existing order--so teh present neocolonial system is built around it. but the main explanation is simple: the imf is a relic of the bretton woods arrangement: it was set up to function within that logic. it now operates in an adhoc manner, without particular coherence, wreaking havoc everywhere. that the actions of the imf--to take just one example (there are many) remains a mystery to most americans is to my mind anyway, nothing short of astonishing....the bubble is stronger than it looks. and this is just one part of the system over which the americans presently preside, the defense of which was a significant element in shaping the iraq war. so if you want to talk about the consequences of that war, you cannot look only at iraq, or at the mythological framing of iraq that the right has fabricated--you have to look at the system within which the american presently function, the entire neocolonial system, what it enables, what it does not enable, and ask yourself whether that system is functional, whether it is desirable--or, another way, ask yourself whether you think that the systematic exploitation of what we call the 3rd world is justified by the middle-class debt-bubble driven "way of life".... if it is the case that the propping up of the present order, and the transformation of power arrangements within it to the ADDITIONAL benefit of the united states as the right dreams it, was the motivation behind the iraq debacle, then maybe an american loss there wouldnt be such a bad thing on its own terms--simply because, taking conservative logic and simply standing it on its head, a defeat for the americans in iraq is also a defeat of the neocolonial order for which it stands. on the other hand, if this is true, a consequence of it would be--would have to be--a reordering of the present political situation. in the longer run, i think this is necessary--in the shorter run, it will probably be unpleasant for the inhabitants of the american ideological bubble, the one that enables folk to imagine that american capitalism has anything to do with "freedom". since i live here too and am not at all optimistic about the ability of the present system to be coherent about changing its organization--when it is clear that ideologically at least, it cannot even be clear about what is entailed by the reality is operates within now--i am concerned about the consequences of an american defeat as well. but if i had to say what i wanted--what follows from my political position logically--i would have to say that the existing system must change and if the only way to engender that change lay across defeat in raq then so be it. the problems are structural and require structural change. the present "american way of life" is among the most significant obstacles to it. so maybe that has to change as well. depends what you want, really: if you want a coherent global system in which the maximum number of people have better lives, the only way to that system would be through the destruction of this one. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-02-2007 at 09:24 AM..

03-01-2007, 03:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I am encouraged regarding this new initiative undertaken by the administration to strengthen US diplomacy in the region through talks with Iran & Syria. Such diplomatic initiatives really deserve more press coverage than they are getting. It's a clever move on Bush's part to reshuffle the deck and provide this country and this administration with new opportunities. No doubt Iran is eager to ease tensions in the UN regarding its nuclear weapons program. The recent arrest of Iranian agents meddling in Iraq also has had a certain...sobering...effect in Teheran as a show of force. And with Iran continuing it's violation of UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment programs, it remains for the members of the UN to further assert themselves on this issue, as well on issues on Iraq. It would be wise imo for the nations of the UN to take this opportunity to capitalize on Bush's moment of flexibility.