My column calling for a total, speedy, and generous US withdrawal from Iraq is in today’s CSM.
In it, I write:
- The interests of both Americans and Iraqis have been badly harmed by the three-year US occupation of Iraq (though far more Iraqis have suffered than Americans). If these two peoples are to be saved from further – even cataclysmic – harm, then Washington must quickly devise and implement a withdrawal strategy that’s total, speedy, and generous to the Iraqi people.
Some Americans seem not to understand how deeply, in most postcolonial societies, including Iraq, the fears of foreign domination still linger. So long as President Bush refuses to set a date for withdrawal, these fears will continue to multiply. No Iraqi political forces, except some in the Kurdish north, can be expected to support a long-term US troop presence in their country. (Kurdish leaders who think this might be a good idea would do well to remember the lawless condition of Kosovo, six years after its partial “liberation” by Western armies.)
I then go on to respond to some commonly voiced objections to this proposal…
Read it and tell me what you think.
Interesting to note that the rightwing Republican Congresswoman from Flordia Ileana Ros-Lehtinen yesterday succeeded in attaching to a bill on US international spending a (non-binding) amendment opposing a “premature withdrawal” of US troops from Iraq and stating that setting any date for the withdrawal would “embolden” terrorists.
Congressional Quarterly reporter Gayle S. Putrich– sorry, no link– wrote that Ros-Lehtinen said from the floor that,
No insurgency can be beaten using military means only – and Washington has produced no plan for a political endgame capable of rallying the Iraqi citizenry around an anti-insurgent platform.
The fact that the US left her ambassade in Iraq headless since the departure of Negroponte may be interesting to bring out in this context : are there still internal fights between the State Department and the Pentagon explaining this long delay ? Or is it the symptom of widespread contempt toward any political solution ? Anyway, it has the advantage to state things clearly; the US is occupying Iraq and thus the military rules, not the State Department.
[sarcasm here] Now that Jaafari has imagined a political solution of his own, the Bushies are probably delighted of the outcome. Read the provocative piece of Juan Cole on this matter : The Iraq war is over and the winner is.. Iran.
”A vehicle-mounted version of ADS called Sheriff could be in service in Iraq in 2006 according to the Department of Defense, and it is also being evaluated by the US Department of Energy for use in defending nuclear facilities. The US marines and police are both working on portable versions, and the US air force is building a system for controlling riots”
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18725095.600‎
All this and some keep saying there is no opposition to US occupation.
Slow human killing Helena, the deployed Uranium not enough to kill Iraqi and Cluster bombs,
BTW, 20 Iraqi tested every day having a Cancer now days!!!
Good on GWB, you
I’m sure all the American servicemen fighting the Germans in WW II would have loved to withdraw, go home, and be with their friends and families. But they realized we were at war and they wanted to win.
We are at war with religious zealots who hate us and want to kill us. They are cowards who are unwilling to fight us man to man so they continue to kill innocent civilians including women and children. What would you have us do? Abandon the fight? Retreat so that the enemy thinks he has won?
History shows us that when you want to appease your enemy and show weakness, then he attacks you and shows no mercy. Ask the Tibetans how non-violence worked against the Chinese.
Dear Paul Sedan,
Paul, hi. I’m sure you’re right when you write, I’m sure all the American servicemen fighting the Germans in WW II would have loved to withdraw, go home, and be with their friends and families. But they realized we were at war and they wanted to win. However, the two situations are very different indeed. In WW2, the US did not join the war against the Germany-Japan Axis until after it had been attacked. Its participation was certainly valid under the reigning doctrines of self-defense. Moreover, later, when it became clear that the Allied powers would be winning and would end up in control of the lands of both Germany and Japan, they made many very thorough and wise plans for the rehabilitation of those two societies.
Neither of these things is true of the US’s increasingly chaotic involvement in Iraq. The war was launched voluntarily and aggressively by the US, with various neo-con aims in mind. The US had a chance to work effectively and respectfully with Iraqis in the aftermath of Saddam’s fall, but instead they sought to remake the entire country in an alien (to Iraq) free-market mold. The greatest body of opinion in Iraq now is called by experts “pissed-off Iraqis” (POIs). Pissed-off with US policy, that is.
Most Iraqi opponents of the US presence in their country are not “religious zealots”. Some are. It’s important to understand that point, and to understand the depth of plain old nationalist resentment of foreign military rule. I think that, were matters transposed, most US citizens would be heartily opposed to a foreign invader who came and tried to rule over us, don’t you?
We are at war with religious zealots who hate us and want to kill us.
Paul, as you should know, according to US military sources, relatively few of the insurgents in Iraq are foreigners. Most of the foreigners decided to start fighting the US because of the invasion. (See “Studies challenge Bush’s claim on why foreigners are fighting in Iraq”.
If we hadn’t gone to Iraq, obviously we would not be having problems with 99% of the people who are currently fighting us there. We created these people as enemies, and the CIA has said that we are creating more every day that we stay there.
PS – there was prolonged guerrilla resistance to the Chinese in Tibet. The Tibetans, BTW, were defending their own country.
I basically think Helena’s right when she says that most of the Iraqis fighting us are doing so because we are foreign occupiers. However, there are other motives as well, including the wish to maintain Sunni dominance in Iraq. I am concerned about whether the withdrawl of the US would precipitate a full-fledged civil war. But Iraq seems to be headed in that direction already, unfortunately.
“They are cowards who are unwilling to fight us man to man so they continue..”
It always amuses me when I hear (or read) this sort of argument. (irony alert): Sure, give them the same Appachie helicopters, the same M1 tanks, the same best weaponery, and they will stand and fight like ‘man to man’, and you know what: they would win, beacuse of their determination. Otherwise no one is foolish enough to be vaporized by 500 lb laser-guided bomb, dropped from a ‘safe’ height of 2 km (collateral damage notwithstanding).
“there are other motives as well, including the wish to maintain Sunni dominance in Iraq. I am concerned about whether the withdrawl of the US would precipitate a full fledged civil war. But Iraq seems to be headed in that direction already,unfortunately.”
I think you are not right in this
Iraq had many times occupied by invaders so Iraqi learned from thousands of years how to fight shoulder to shoulder for the victory without looking to ethnic differences. unfortunately the invader imposes and enlarge the differences between them, they are smarter, for two years American trying to ignite the civil war they sent the mastermind for this John D. Negroponte
( The Atrocities Of A Pale Rider
Helena,
The US joined WWII before it was attacked by Germany. It was only attacked by Japan. Presently we were attacked from Afghanistan but not from Iraq. At the moment the Iraqui insurgency and Al-Qaeda are on the same side. The second London atttack along with its prceding threats from Al-Qaeda and the credit they take are very explicit about that in spite of Blair’s denials. London is being punished and intimidated because of Iraq.
At the moment the Iraqui insurgency and Al-Qaeda are on the same side.
Yeah, because we attacked Iraq. If we hadn’t attacked Iraq, the Iraqis would not be fighting us. If we invade Iran, the Iranians, Iraqis, and al Qaeda would ALL be fighting on the same side. I guess in your view that would make you even MORE correct.
The US joined WWII before it was attacked by Germany. It was only attacked by Japan. Presently we were attacked from Afghanistan but not from Iraq.
After Japan attacked us, Hitler declared war on us. I must have missed Saddam Hussein’s declaration of war.
I just cut some very off-topic things David wrote.
David, your attempts at “logic” are quite amazing. Germany and Japan were in a military alliance in 1941. Al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime were certainly not in any kind of an alliance in 2003– despite the efforts of many Bushies to continue to “persuade” us that this was so.
The present Iraqi “insurgency” didn’t even exist in any recognizable form in March 2003. Like Hizbullah in Lebanon it emerged after and in response to the fact of foreign military occupation.
In Iraq prior to March 2003, the only recognizable “pro-Qaeda” figure was Abu Musaeb al-Zarkawi– whose hideout was in the zone patrolled and protected by the US no-fly zone. Go figure.
No Pref is right. The Nazis declared war on the USA before the USA declared war on the Nazis.
But the German-Japanes alliance was not quite so straightforward as Helena has it, I think. For example, there was no war declared between the Soviet Union and Japan until a few days before the US dropped the nuclear WMD on Hiroshima.
Let’s take that one more time, but the other way round. A few days after the US ally, the Soviet Union, declared war on Japan (and just after it, the Soviet Union, had defeated the Nazis) the USA dropped a nuclear WMD on Hiroshima. This was definately not done to “save Soviet lives”.
We were at war with Iraq since 1991.
Helena, your censorship is bad form, per their own words the Iraq war and the London attacks are connected. How can you say that they are off topic and remove them. Have the guts to say that you disagree with my conclusions and with the gloating at my predictions coming true. What is going on in London is part of the same war, the British muslim reactions as they are torn between ideology and personal interest are an intriguing human story. The “shoot to kill” modality the British police entered into illustrates the striking dilemma that even the most progressive societies face when confronting terrorism. Going from policemen having batons and whistles to shooting dark skinned males carrying backpacks…
Just like the Iranians censoring one third of the internet content, removing opinions based on your own doesn’t speak well of your site.
Respectfully,
David
David
”We were at war with Iraq since 1991″
Correction for this
we were at war with Iraq since 1973 after Iraq nationalist his oil….
Thanks Salah for your correction. You may be right, I was thiking about declared war.
David
I don’t recall any declaration of war in “Desert Storm”. On the contrary, the practice of the USA is in contempt of the diplomacy of war. No ultimatum, no declaration. The USA even violates its own internal regulations. Congress is supposed to have the sole power of making declarations of war. Has that ever happened, in the3 last 100 years, say?
I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure WarrenW is “trying it on” here. When a troll has bored everybody to the point of being ignored, he starts floating big Goebbely ones. I’ve seen it before.
No Preference,
“I basically think Helena’s right when she says that most of the Iraqis fighting us are doing so because we are foreign occupiers”
Richird Pape, who has been invited to discuss his analysis with a bipartisan group of US congressmen, collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for the suicide bombings phenomenon worldwide.
He said that most suicide bombers are well-integrated and productive members of their communities from working-class or middle-class backgrounds.
My apology this is the link to the Richard Pape
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-06/05/article01.shtml
Dominic,
I recall a long debate and vote in the US Congress before Desert Strom, I also recall a UN resolution.
BTW, what is that you were mumbling about Warren W? I don’t see any Warren W opining throughout this thread. Did Helena also censor him or paranoia is getting the best of you?
David
In Iraq prior to March 2003, the only recognizable “pro-Qaeda” figure was Abu Musaeb al-Zarkawi
Perhaps, perhaps not, but to the extent the assertion purports to prove that there was no alliance of interests between Hussein & OSB, it misleads: “IN RESPONSE TO THE FOUR-DAY WAR, Saddam Hussein, in his darkest hour, turned to Osama bin Laden in his quest for exacting revenge. We know this because the worldwide media reported it. Countless analysts, reporters, and even Clinton administration officials knew something was afoot in one way or another. We know this was not the last of the reporting on the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden’s al Qaeda. Reports continued right up until the eve of the war in Iraq.” .
I do beg your pardon David. How could I have mistaken you for WarrenW? My mistake.
A UN resolution is not a declaration of war as far as I know. As for US Congress debates and votes, there are many of those. In the matter of war, it is necessary to be precise. Unilateral, aggressive war is the principle war crime, which the UN was set up to prevent.
I’m sure you know very well that the Downing Street Memo, among many other pieces of evidence, show that the current occupation of Iraq has been such a war crime.
Your attempt at defence is to displace the question, by alleging that the previous aggressive war was declared legally and that the previous war never stopped, neither de facto nor de jure. Well, it is ingenious, but it hasn’t got a chance of standing up in court.
That would be the International Court of Justice, I suppose, which your government does not want to recognise. Nor does it recognise the Geneva Conventions. And so it goes on. A slimy story of serial evasion, to which you are happy to contribute another layer. Shame on you.
No problem Dominic, I guess all the interlocutors with whom you disagree are lumped into one in your mind. My point was that desert storm was a declared war, with a Congressional authorization behind it, a UN sanctioned vote, and a broad coalition including an eccletic mix of Saudi dollars and soldiers, Egyptian frigates, Japanese gadgets, and even Argentinian ship(s). The only pariah excluded from the party, of course, was Israel in spite of being actually one of the few parties attacked by Iraq. Why? You know, sensitivities of certain peace loving religions.
Technically speaking that war never ended, and US/UK attacks continued along with the sanctions regime in the background.
No shame in my tax dollars and my soldiers standing up to radical Islam. Shame goes to Spain for their week knees. And so far britons are standing up well, even though their right to criticize the US response is fading fast in light of their killing a poor brazilian with little due process. See, when it hits you things are a bit harder than the whte gloves criticism of others. Let’s see what Dave Londoner has to say about his police actions now.
David
You know, sensitivities of certain peace loving religions.
Yah, Sharon very peaceful man and leader
“Did Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, run a covert program with operatives in high-level US government positions to influence the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq? The FBI wants to know.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=dreyfuss
I’m not even sure what Tyroler’s trying to get at by producing that totally unsourced and rather strange link there… “Alliance of interests” between Saddam and OBL? (Or, “OSB”, as he writes.)
The whole concept of any third party judging there to be a possible “alliance of interests” between two other parties is a far, far cry from there actually existing a political-military alliance between those two parties to which both actually subscribe.
For example, many folks close to Abu Mazen today say that there is a strong and “objective” alliance of interests between Sharon and Hamas, both of which seem to act as if they want to weaken rather than strengthen Abu Mazen…
Does this mean that, since Hamas is designated by the US as a “foreign terrorist organization”, the US should immediately go in and bomb downtown Tel Aviv and generally effect total regime change inside Israel? This would seem to follow by analogy from your extremely tortured reasoning re the “justification” for the war against Saddam’s regime.
Now that would indeed be a novel proposal, Tyroler… But perhaps you were suggesting something else?
I’m not even sure what Tyroler’s trying to get at by producing that totally unsourced and rather strange link there
If you read the linked article, Cobban, you will see that it recites a number contemporaneous Clinton-era media reports of OBL [thanks, BTW, for the editorial correction] and Hussein. Do those mainstream media reports actually actually prove any sort of hand-in-glove activity bewteen AQ and Baathist Iraq? No, of course not. But as the author of the linked article cautiously suggests, the sheer multiplicity of such reports indicates the likelihood that something was afoot. You know, smoke, fire.
Why the bother? For the simple reason that those who so casually and confidently assert that AQ & Baathism were oil and water and couldn’t possibly have conjoined under any circumstances may well turn out wrong. (And wasn’t that the conclusion you wanted readers to draw from your assertion of no real AQ presence in Iraq prior to 3/03?)
Your analogy to Hamas and Sharon is odd; interesting, but odd. Sharon wants to leave Gaza, Hamas doesn’t seem to want him to succeed. I’m not quite sure how that adds up to an “alliance.” But you’re obviously being polemical, so the point needn’t be pursued.
Mr. Tyroler,
“Mainstream media reports” regularly ciculate all kinds of nonsense. The prevalence astrology columns in US newspapers prove human credulity, not the truth of astrology. The media regularly “convict” people that juries later exonerate. Didn’t the media, by “proving” the Spaniards blew up the Maine, get the US into an earlier war?
Precisely what documents, prove your insinuation that Saddam was an AQ sponsor or complicit in 9/11? Victims and enemies of Saddam were anxious to blame him for anything that might get the US on his case. Saddam was rotten enough to forfeit presumption of innocence regarding many things, but the weight of proof of his AQ connection looks meager–especially when compared to others.
Prior to 9/11, there was far more AQ presence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan than in Iraq. Today there may be more AQ operatives in the UK, Morocco, or Spain than in pre-1993 Iraq. Is that a reason to invade, bomb, or “Gitmo-ize” those countries?
Saudi charities subsidized AQ training (aka “missionary”) camps right up to 9/11. Saudi jihadis make up a fair share of the suicide bombers to this day. Yet I don’t think any of these locos have anything but contempt for Saddam. They never needed him to fuel their hate, give them sanctuary, or instruct their actions.
Regardless of whether there were six or half-dozen AQ people in Iraq in 2001, and regardless of whether they were under house arrest or got Saddam’s kiss on the cheek, aren’t there almost certainly more AQ in Iraq now? Exactly how is anyone safer or better off? Iraq remains a lethal place. It may one day settle into a an anti-US Shi’a theocracy, but how does this vindicate W & Co. or help anyone in Peoria or Petworth?
All this trouble, blood, and money over Iraq, and so little over capturing OBL! People twist logic, invent fatuous causes, and let the real perpetrators go at large. The disconnect is so striking–so crazy–that it give credence to some coverup conspiracy by oil tycoons. However, the truth is that W loyalists “stick to their guns” on their original 9/11 and WMD theories out of pride and fear. They are terrified to reckon with a monstrous self-deception and waste of lives and money.
Kudos to the original backers who now show the courage to recognize the mistake. Unfortunately, it may be a year or more before this group acquires the influence or resolve to act. Meanwhile, they will be harassed and criticized by those who, to protect their own pride, prefer to continue half-believe in the mobile bioweapons labs, the yellow cake, the centrifuge tubes, or that Iraq’s new police and army, with drills and training, will ever take over counterinsurgency operations.
“They are terrified to reckon with a monstrous self-deception and waste of lives and money.”
-jmkoch
Exactly right. The question we hate to ask ourselves is, what do we have to do to help them get us all out of this spot they’ve got us into?
im trying to think of a way to courteously call you a young fresh nosed ignorant cunt but there is none…so there it is…your writing is misinformed , you dont know your history and you make way too many assumptions…but thats to be expected…because you are…as i said…a dumb ignorant cunt.
im trying to think of a way to courteously call you a young fresh nosed ignorant cunt but there is none…so there it is…your writing is misinformed , you dont know your history and you make way too many assumptions…but thats to be expected…because you are…as i said…a dumb ignorant cunt.