Tags
( – promoted by hotflash)
Recognition of the realities of the situation that has been created in Iraq is all well and good and important, but… and it’s a big but.
This from Jay Ackroyd’s post at TPMCafe really bothers me:
If you saw Taylor Marsh at YKos, you heard a clear delineation of this DC consensus. This isn’t a matter of reflexive use of force as the only solution by crazy neocons. This is a recognition that Iraq is a failed state without a sovereign government and without the capacity to defend itself. The US Congress passes resolutions declaring what laws Iraq must pass, while the Pentagon makes all military decisions. Iraq’s government plays no role other than certifying US policy. And, these days, we’re hearing talk of changing the government. That talk is taking place in Washington. And there can be no freely elected, sovereign government in Iraq, because, in the Washington consensus, those bases are more important than a reprentative government–and no represesentative government would permit military bases defending Israel and threatening Iran.
This leaves the Democratic candidates in a very difficult position. They are part of this Washington consensus.
Iraq is a mess. That’s undeniable reality. It’s not going to be fixed easily. I think that’s also undeniable reality.
Taylor Marsh is describing another separate reality, however. The Washington Consensus. Which appears to distill down to the attitude that Washington must make the decisions for Iraq, almost as if Iraqis are incompetent children who cannot manage their own affairs. And I see nearly no recognition if any at all, even grudging recognition, that it is Iraqis who are going to make the decisions. As they are doing now, successfully or not from their point of view.
The whole of the “recognition of reality” by the Washington consensus described in Ackroyd’s post seems to me to be excuses and justifications for imperialism/colonialism/control of Iraq and the countrys resources, regardless of and without concern for what Iraqis want.
One of the things we know Iraqis want is to NOT be occupied by American military.
Every time Iraqis kill another American soldier, it is, in my view, a “request” to Washington to withdraw all the troops. Some of the puppet government of Iraq would deny that I think. But they are a puppet government, and a large percentage of the social groups in Iraq are rejecting that puppet government and doing their damnedest to force it to collapse.
Iraqis don’t want US troops in their country, and they don’t want a US puppet government running their country for the benefit of America. I think that’s also undeniable reality.
The “Washington consensus” is focused only on what the “Washington consensus” wants.
I don’t think Iraqis, in the main, care in the least what the “Washington consensus” wants, and I think that’s also undeniable reality.
It can be very helpful in seeing the situation in Iraq more clearly, if we put ourselves in Iraqi shoes for a moment, and look at it from their point of view, unpleasant as it may be to do so.
I think that if there are any “benchmarks” to be set or to be met, or “decisions” made by anyone about what is or is not “progress” for Iraq, rightfully those benchmarks and those decisions should be being set and made by Iraqis. Required benchmarks to be met by Washington for the “right” and the “privilege” of being allowed to stay and “help”. And I believe now that in actual fact that is exactly what is now happening in Iraq.
Both the rate, with upwards of 10,000 Iraqi deaths from foreign terrorism each month now, and the total number of Iraqi deaths from foreign terrorism, are huge problems, that are probably creating hundreds of thousands of people who absolutely hate America and would like to kill as many Americans as possible.
Saba Ali Ihsaan, Baghdad, Irak
The American “surge” as with everything else they have done is a failure…
All I care about is that your country has its troops in my land raping its people, raping its resources, slaughtering our children, and defiling our Holy Places…
The Americans in Irak are reflecting their culture. Racist, callow, shallow, and seemingly unable read a map, it’s just that they are a little more honest, a little bit more openly barbaric about it.
There is only one measure of progress that matters in Irak and that is the progress in chewing the invader forces into pieces and then spitting them out. Progress on that is excellent.
They came here as predators and now they are prey. The only thing an American understands is force, we sand nig*ers know a thing or two about that.
I think that, for good or for ill for the people of Iraq, it is not up to anyone in the US to decide for Iraqis what is or is not “progress”.
To metaphorize a bit, since we destroyed the infrastructure of the house before we started the fire and made no effort to rebuild it, once we stop throwing fuel in and get out of the way before we are thrown out of the way, someone else will rebuild it.
It probably won’t look anything like what we’d like it to when they’re done, but too bad.
It’s their business, in other words. Not America’s. Regardless of how often the “national security interests” line is uttered.
It is in Americas interest obviously, to NOT have a failed state of anarchy in Iraq, and to not have Iraq aligned with Iran.
But that can’t be forced on Iraq. Iraqis have the right to, and will, decide for themselves.
And they are.
All that Washingtons “help” has ever done for Iraq is make the situation worse. Continually. Never better. Only worse.
Iraq will get fixed. Eventually.
But it will not be republicans or democrats, or even the U.S. that fixes it.
The U.S. presence in Iraq, and the U.S. refusal to leave, is the problem.
When Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah opened the Arab Summit in Riyadh […] speaking about Iraq as a land where “blood flows between brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism,” he offended many policymakers in Washington. But the statement was only one signal among many that, in the face of explosive conflicts that the Bush administration has caused or failed to contain, the king is out to assert Saudi Arabia’s role as an independent leader in the region. The goals–to stabilize Iraq, build an Arab-Israeli peace and contain the growing influence of Iran–are the same as Washington’s. But the means to those ends are very different. In an exclusive interview, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal sat down with NEWSWEEK’s Christopher Dickey to trace the dramatic changes in his country’s policy over the last year.
What will fix Iraq is not staying there and fantasizing that continuing to do the same things that are causing the problems there will somehow magically begin to solve the problems.
What will fix Iraq is not “doing” something.
What will fix Iraq is “not doing” something.
Not that I expect it will ever happen, but not funding the occupation any longer and complete and total withdrawal of all U.S. military from the country is what will begin fixing Iraq.
Along with massive reparations paid to the Iraqi people, perhaps equal to the trillion dollars spent to destroy their country.
A couple of things that I sometimes think about. Ever wonder why it is taking so long to “train” Iraqi troops/policemen? Are they subhuman with subnormal IQ’s. No. They once had one of the most literate societies in the Middle East, with a large professional class. They once had an elite army. They had a modern infrastructure. Could it be that they don’t want to learn. Could this be passive resistance. We send our troops after (hopefully ) 3 months of basic training or less and the expectation is that they are fully battle ready. The worn out exhortation, “when they stand up we will stand down” may sound romantically patriotic to some, but it is just fluff. Iraqis have signaled loud and clear that they do not wish to work with the US. And so they do not.
And after all the hoohaa about “the Sunnis are working with us” and we are arming them like allied forces, just how is it going to be framed by the administration when the Sunni “buddies” turn. They hold zero loyalty to american forces and will turn in a minute. This is retarded and dangerous policy which could result in the slaughter of american forces.
But hey! Those oil deals are not yet sewn up. We wait to see if they are going to be sewn up. The steaming about Iran is because Iran is coooperating w. Iraq and beginng to really rebuild infrastructure and the US is scared silly that Iran will somehow get their mitts on the oil fields in Iraq. Oh God! and then they (the Iranians) would control Iranian plus Iraqi oil. That would be about one third of the proven world oil reserves. Now Bush thinks about making a “strike” against Iran. To give them a warning. He should heed. A “strike” against Iran will not go unretaliated. Meanwhile America parties on.
Just had an afterthought. With the Brits pulling out of Basra, does that mean that the southern oilfields are unsupervised. And the huffing and puffing about Iran making the IEDS and already being in southern Iraq. Could this mean that Iran is closer to control of some of the oil fields that we know. That would prove most interesting. Iranians are master chess players.I feel a chess game coming on. Has George ever learned how to play chess. Or has he tabled that until he learns how to read.
Yes I am sure that Iran is more than prepared. And Bush has been advised, at least via the press, that Iranian Missiles can make hash out of the fleets in the Gulf. A strike against Iran could unleash a bloodbath in the Gulf. Iran is not Iraq and someone needs to tell Dear Leader that. The 2500 year history that Iran enjoys is significant, but unfortunately George has not advanced that far in his reading class to be able to assimilate such historical facts. It is not the Iranians I am concerned about. It is Dear Leader.
George attempts to paint the Iranian people as some sort of a demonic race. He is very handy with the term evildoers. The truth is that Iranians are an intelligent, educated, and highly civil people. My daughter has just returned from Australia where she visited with an Iranian cousin. His position is calm and confident and says not to worry, that Iran is very strong. We Americans just need to rein in Dear Leader.
and of course I agree with your penultimate sentence:
I noted today that Reuters UK, the BBC and the Guardian UK are all reporting that the last British base in Basra is being evacuated w. only 500 troops still there. There are currently about 5000 troops that have been relocated to an outpost near the Basra airport. But Britian is going and will be gone likely within the next two weeks. They are supposedly turning over control of the area to the Iraqi Army.
Basra sits just south of the area where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers join to form the highly disputed Shatt al-Arab River which flows directly into the Persian Gulf. This river forms the boundary b/t Iran and Iraq and has been disputed for centuries. The current boundary lies somewhere in the center of the deep shipping channel.
I read in the same news outlets mentioned above that although the Brits are giving control of Basra to the Iraqi Army, the Madhi army is standing by to fill the void. And of course the Madhi Army will have no difficulty in cooperating w. Iran. I would not be surprised if someday in the future, Iran annexed the southern part of Iraq.
The immediate problem might be that Iran could control the entire Shatt al-Arab. Where does that leave Dear Leader. His best route is fast intense diplomacy w. Iran.
They keep tabs on the votes they can get. Pelosi has 30-35 Blue Dogs to deal with. She doesn’t have the votes to defund the occupation.
I agree that if the Democrats got us out of there, they’d be instant heroes, but quite a few of them are corporate owned–possibly by Exxon Mobil. They won’t vote to take us out of there until their corporate masters want it.
I had forgotten that Pelosi had the power to simply keep any bill from being brought to the floor.
As for the “blame” thing, I was being deliberately a little provocative. Of course, pushing Pelosi and Reid is simply holding them accountable.
my earlier response regarding the Brits leaving Basra is another complication due to the fact that American resupplies travel via the Basra route. I see Bush’s options narrowing, I see Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths and distancing themselves from Bush and I wonder if the Democrats are trying to hold out for the war to be lost on Bush’s watch.
Could this be passive resistance.
I think they are not stupid. I think that they learn. And I think they turn around and use that training, and the American weapons they buy, against American troops…..
Their goal is obviously to take their country back, whatever way they can.