Also from that cite:
Which is exactly what Bush is proposing.
Mmm, except that securing the country and doing the above are inseparable. Bush is proposing “independence” without security. Which is another way of saying he’s offering to put up a curtain over the chaos, and hope no one bothers to look around the curtain and see what’s happening on the other side.
Dishonest, and not designed to make the situation get any better; merely designed to attempt to cover it up until after the election is over.
Firstly the adminsration is explicitly saying that US troops will stay in Iraq after the power transfer (assuming it actually can happen on time).
Secondly, I believe the electorate will dump Bush if Iraq turns into an anarchic mess or a civil war breaks out. And this will happen regardless of how many US troops are in Iraq or not. You may think you are able to read the minds of the adminisration, but I prefer reasoned analysis to your claims of clairvoyance.
My biggest complaint about the occupation has been the lack of goals and timetables. This is the first time I’ve seen a timetable for anything put forth, and I’m glad someone is finally put a stake in the ground.
So, the USA installs a puppet government in Iraq and predicts that said puppet government will remain on friendly terms with the USA. This is such a ridiculous joke. Is anybody buying this shit any more?
Well, that’s just dandy - if you believe that the US troops in the absence of a real, functioning, responsive-to-the-Council Iraqi Army won’t constitute real authority, or that the Iraqi people won’t think they do (and I doubt they’re that gullible).
What will this “power transfer” really consist of? From everything I’ve seen or heard or thought reasonable about the Chalabi operation, this is a bunch of thieves (cf. Chalabi’s banking experience in Jordan) that can’t even make decisions about what to have for lunch, much less how to responsibly and effectively administer a fractious, restive country. Hell, even Thieu at least showed us something. The US, as represented by its armed forces, are still going to be in effective national charge, although some local administrators might be effective (until caught and killed for collaborating with the occupiers, that is).
You make it sound as if almost any government that can be called Iraqi will do, as long as it gets the US out promptly afterward. If so, then what the hell was the war for? Why are all these good people dead? Saddam is Iraqi, for instance; will he do? If not, is there any reason to think another neofascist leader (and perhaps Saddam himself) won’t be able to recoalesce power himself, supported by enough elements of the ancien regime to make life there just as miserable as before? What other effective Iraqi power center will there be to combat it - Chalabi’s Council?
Maybe, but with only a few months between this sham exercise and the election, it might not reach a crest in time, especially if the US troops are still there, as you agree they will be. If it’s after the election and Bush wins, he can’t run again in 2008 anyway, so your point escapes me.
An audacious bit of claimed clairvoyance yourself, I might add.
John Mace, apparently. Though I’m sure Sam Stone and Brutus would be glad to sign up, if you’re compiling a list of fools.
Hardly fair, rjung, to make such a presumption. Sam’s reasoning is often tortured into confession, but it is reasoning, nonetheless. At least let the man speak for himself before you mark him down on the fool’s list.
As Mr. Clemens has it “It is better to be silent and taken for a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
As the rate of casualties is growing (two more helicopters shot down) the issue is taking a certain urgency.
He is right, of course. The problem is that, as the shit gets deeper, it will be more difficult to enroll other countries with the cleanup.
The USA is not going to allow a truly free Iraqi government for the simple reason that such government would not welcome the Americans.
My prediction is that the USA will not leave Iraq voluntarily. If it can it will remain in Iraq and control it through a puppet government which will “invite” US forces to stay and which will reward US companies with juicy contracts. This government will not have a majority support of the Iraqi people as it will be seen as the puppet which it is. The only way it can remain in power is with massive US backing and this will probably mean a continued state of guerilla civil war.
The other possibility is that things get to be so bad and so tough for the US that it cannot maintain the occupation and has to cut loose. Iraq will then probably slide into a civil war and the USA will be helping some of the combatants.
So, I do not think the USA will be totally uninvolved in Iraq for a long time. It just depends how much presence and control it can project. It may be there supporting the puppet government or it may withdraw and support it from outside but I do not think it can withdraw totally like it did in Vietnam. In any case, Iraq has been destabilized and screwed for years to come.
OK, he’s not a fool per se, but is still easily fooled by RW propaganda purporting to be fact. That enough of a distinction for ya?
If not, toss in his decemberesque filtration of facts before beginning this “reasoning” of which you speak, and you get something that is not meaningfully different in its result from “fool”. Except that such use of “reasoning” is more pernicious than the simple parroting and saluting we get from most of the other Usual Suspects, since it does appear on the surface to be reasonable.
I’d feel better about this ‘time table’ if it included the details for specific signs, for example, we are in the process of transitioning responsability for routine patrols, responsability for their court systems,
and, of course, I suspect that the IRaqis would feel a whole lot better about it all if their decisions/actions etc weren’t subject to US veto (as with their first attempt at a constitution. what the fuck was that about anyhow? if we’re serious about ‘freeing’ the Iraqi people, shouldn’t their decision about what their form of government should look like, be like, their right? or do I have this Orwellian view of “self rule” problem?)
I would agree with your first point, if I didn’t have a gut feeling that the only reason this news was only released to convince us that progress is being made, in light of the recent casualties. I’d like to know precisely what will occur in June '04.
A better plan? I will honestly admit that I have no idea how we’ll be able to extract our soldiers, end the war, capture Saddam, and bring peace and love to the region. And it’s fine time that the U.S. stopped entering wars they can’t win. Let’s just cut off our oil addiction, bring in some electric cars, and stop pretending we’re trying to “save” other countries when it’s rather obvious we have financial issues at stake.
I apologize for the typos, the server is running unusually FAST tonight!
As Lilly Tomlin remarked, “No matter how cynical you get, its still impossible to keep up.”
Some of the neo-con theologians really believe what they are saying: that the US can, and should, impose democracy on the Middle East by any means necessary. They posit the charming notion that democracies don’t fight each other, that a democratic and middle class Iran will be all cozy and nice with a similar Iraq.
This may even be true, though I admit I find such roseate scenarios rather odd coming from men who tend to pride themselves on a stern realism that borders on cynicism. But there you have it.
As I said, a charming notion. But is it solid enough to spend lives and treasure? Of course, our soldiers lives are more precious than our money, but we will run out of the latter more quickly if we have to spend a gazillion bucks every time we pull this trick.
And, of course, it presupposes that the people, given the opportunity, will naturally gravitate towards and elect the kind of people we approve of.
But what if they don’t?
And Kinky Freidman said “Objects in the rear-view mirror may be closer than they appear.”
I, for one, and tired of explaining this war to my children. It is impossible to win a war against those who are willing to die to win a free ride to Heaven. The U.S. should bring our soldiers back home, and cut off our dependence of products from the Holy Land.
And, let’s catch Bin Laden - throw $87 billion towards that end.
John Mace, I’d like to know where I was being clairvoyant. Just so I can see later if I was right.
If you’re talking about the claim that troops can’t be kept past March, it’s in the CBO report I posted. DoD policy since Vietnam at least has been to rotate soldiers out of a combat zone after a year. March is one year after the start of this war. That’s not clairvoyance, that’s a fact.
In other words, the situation is not secure, and is in fact getting less secure every day. The response of this Administration is not to do something that would improve the security situation, but to try to cover up the mess with a fig leaf, while not saying anything in public about what it will do come March when they will be forced to start rotating the troops.
I’ve got news for you: it’s already anarchic over there. In case you haven’t noticed, the UN suffered its worst bombing ever over there, and the International Red Cross is only in Basra, having pulled out of Baghdad. This kind of thing is unheard of.
I have no objection to giving Iraqis more say, Lord knows. But we have a responsibility to fix the mess we created. We’re responsible, and it’s about time our leaders started acting like it, by responding appropriately when things go wrong. If the number of attacks and casualties go up, the appropriate response is to concentrate on getting that problem solved first, because without security nothing else can be accomplished.
With the 17 dead in the helicopter crash, that’s more than 50 combat deaths so far this month. We’re on our way to having 100 combat deaths in a single month, half a year after Bush pulled his carrier deck stunt. Don’t think this is going to go unnoticed.
We pull out: June 2004.
Saddam takes back over, July 2004.
Genocide of Opponents: August 2004.
Back to Square One: January 2005.
Fine with me. Not like anyone cares anymore.
The fact that this war was stupid beyond belief to enter into, in large part because of the problems connected with an occupation, doesn’t change the fact that there are more and less honorable ways of trying to extricate ourselves, now that we are there.
It appears to me to be immediately obvious that there will be no authority in Iraq sufficient to hand power over to, seven and one-half months from now. So either this is one of the less honorable ways to try to extricate ourselves - more like a cruel joke on the citizens of Iraq, really - or this is really just another meaningless bit of BS intended solely for US and Western political consumption. In which case it’s just one more instance of the Bush Administration’s fundamental lack of integrity. Let’s hope it’s merely the latter.
In one of the Iraq threads lately, someone had resurrected the Bushie statements from spring that troop levels would be down to ~30K by this fall.
Stating a timeframe doesn’t mean it means anything, unless there’s a plan that goes with it. So far, the only plan I’ve seen consists of one word: “democracy.” We want them to have it, although we’ve never been clear what we think that might mean, in view of the racial and religious divisions of the country, and how we plan to walk them through the minefield to get there, given those and other difficulties.
I offered one here.
Like I said there, I don’t guarantee that such a plan would work: maybe nothing will work, despite our good intentions. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than what we’re doing.
One more thing I needed to add, though: we’ve probably got to outline for them some possible choices for the ultimate shape of their government. Nobody knows how this is supposed to work, with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, without its either breaking up or ending up with one of the groups dominating the others. If we can’t propose some ways that this can be done, why should we expect them to find their way there?
Oh, what a load of crap this all is.
The U.S. isn’t going to cut and run unless things get a lot worse than they are now. No, it will be quite the opposite; Iraq will remain a puppet of the USA, with its civilian administration nominally run by hand-picked bobos friendly to U.S. interests, interests that will of course be backed up by American firepower. Iraq isn’t going to be an independent country anytime soon.
But at Bush’s last press conference, when asked if there would be more or fewer troops there a year from now, he called it a “trick question”.
The writing of a constitution is supposed to be their (Chalabi’s) role.
It appears that the pickle in Iraq is even more rotten than that dang libr’ul press had been letting on: