News Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[turbo]

In August of 2002, I composed this letter, and sent it to my local newspaper, and they refused to print it:

A View From an Independent

The Bush administration is anxious to rush into a war against Saddam Hussein, and is using Dick Cheney and others to spread the word that Saddam is evil and intends to use weapons of mass destruction, and that war is inevitable and necessary for the protection of American security. The Bush team has not supplied a single shred of evidence that Saddam is about to unleash chemical or biological weapons, nor have they tendered any proof that he even possesses such weapons. Since we are "at war with terrorism," a simple assertion by the President is evidently sufficient cause for action and no debate is required. Lots of reasonable people, including some very senior Republicans, are asking for corroboration, but that's now a moot point, because just yesterday Bush's own lawyers asserted that he has the right to declare war against Saddam without consulting with Congress or anyone else. Isn't that handy?

What will Bush and his friends gain if he declares war on Saddam this fall?

1) A strong spike in oil prices heading into the winter heating season - a huge plus for his biggest backers. The big oil companies and the companies that supply them, including Halliburton (from whence Cheney crept back into public office) will suck billions of dollars out of the American people in windfall profits if war is declared. Just the threat of war is already driving up prices, which of course result in immediate consumer oil and gas price hikes, even though the crude oil was bought months ago. Don't worry, investors! - gouging and price-fixing in the gasoline and heating oil markets is widely accepted and even expected, so buy some oil company stocks now - they'll just go up.

2) Bush will enjoy the temporary but sadly inevitable boost in opinion polls that occurs when a large sector of the electorate chooses to wave flags instead of engaging in productive debate about foreign policy. This same herd mentality allowed the Reagan/Bush administration to wage an unauthorized and illegal war in Nicaragua and to finance it by committing treason (the theft of weapons from the US arsenal, and the sale of those weapons to Iran - a terrorist country that was an avowed enemy of the US). Until I did some research, I did not know this, but apparently the penalty for treason is hanging ONLY if you are a regular citizen. If you are the President, the penalty for treason is having a national airport named after you. Of course, adultery by a sitting President carries the risk of impeachment, at least if the perp is a Democrat.

3) If the timing is right, an invasion of Iraq could lead to the strengthening of Republican candidates on Election Day, and a possible swing to Republican control of the Senate. This would inevitably pack the Judicial Branch with even more conservative judges, since there is a very large backlog of judicial appointments. This backlog was created by the Republicans who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration and who refused to schedule hearings to consider his appointees to the bench. Today, the Republican minority loudly proclaims that this eight-year backlog was created by the Democrats, who only recently gained control of the Senate. That's pathetic, and it's insulting to the intelligence of any voter who was not in a coma during the Clinton administration, even if you happened to agree with the ideology and tactics used by either side.

4) The American public's attention will be diverted away from corporate scandals and the Department of Justice's prosecution of (or failure to prosecute) the case against Enron's top executives. Kenneth Lay has not yet even been publicly mentioned by the DOJ, which seems to be selectively focused on only the financial division of Enron. Why is that? Surely, Lay's lavish donations to George W. Bush cannot have bought him immunity from prosecution...this isn't a country where bribing public officials is condoned, is it?

What do the American people stand to gain if Bush orders our armed forces to invade Iraq?

1) We will lose the already-tenuous support of our few Middle East allies. We will also lose the support of the UN and our NATO allies. Publicly, only Tony Blair has made positive noises about the invasion, and recent polls find that the majority of the British do not share his views. Other NATO countries are adamantly opposed to a new war in Iraq.

2) We Americans will be called upon to sacrifice to support the war effort. The war will cost us many billions in taxes and in higher fuel prices, and it will cost us any hope of a timely economic recovery. W’s war will place the lives of thousands of our young people in jeopardy and the loss of life will certainly be higher than during the incursion of Bush the Elder. Saddam will not fight in the desert this time, but will hunker down in cities, hoping that a large number of civilian casualties will gain him sympathy in the court of world opinion. He also hopes that a large volume of returning body bags will dim America's enthusiasm for adventure in Iraq.

3) Saddam's missiles are not capable of reaching US soil, so if he truly has weapons of mass destruction, and if he becomes desperate, he will lash out at Israel, which he regards as the US's surrogate. Israel has already stated that it will not forgo retaliation in the face of an attack. Iraq may not have nuclear weapons, but Israel does, and Sharon is just the man to employ them in a "just cause". The Muslim/Arab backlash from such a strike may not totally destroy Israel, but it will likely lead to a widespread and brutal conflict in the entire region, including Northern Africa, the Middle East, and perhaps Indo-China. When you factor in Iran's close relationship with China and Iraq's close relationships with Russia and France, you easily have the makings of a complex and unpredictable situation that could quickly turn into a world-wide conflagration. Targets of opportunity will likely be struck during such uncertain times, perhaps including Taiwan, Kashmir, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and North and South Korea, to name a few. Russia may also choose to reassert itself in Eastern Europe or the oil-rich Southern provinces. Bush's people must have advised him of these, and similar scenarios, but you'd never know it to hear him talk about his Iraq war.

W, you should come back to Maine and have a long talk with your father. You are about to screw up "big-time" to quote your VP, and you need to listen to somebody other than your handlers. This is no simple zero-sum "payback" situation, by which you can enrich your friends at the expense of the poor, the elderly, or the environment with no personal repercussions. This is the real deal, and many millions of people may die or suffer because of your lack of understanding of world affairs. It's too late to cram for this test - get some expert advice or we will all pay for your ignorance.

Some advice for the savvy investor: if you believe that King George will invade Iraq, you should call your broker right now, and invest in oil companies, defense companies, and producers of American flags and yellow ribbons. You'll make a killing - really.

 

[edward]

In August of 2002, I composed this letter, and sent it to my local newspaper, and they refused to print it:

That wasn't a good time for letters of that nature. I wrote one myself which was never printed and died with my old computer. I like yours better anyway. At that point Bush was god and Cheney was our savior.

Frontline really nailed the entire period with it's program. Press reviews of the presentation have been very good overall.

David Zurawik, The Baltimore Sun
"... Ultimately, Bush's War might also come to be judged a first-rate work of history. It certainly feels like history with its richly textured and strongly supported narrative of cause and effect helping explain a bewildering rush of events that have left thousands dead. ..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/etc/press.html

 

[mheslep]

Report on Saddam on his use of terrorists including AQ.
Posted on FAS
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

Abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a de facto link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

The five volumes of the report are huge
http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB120631495290958169-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB120631495290958169-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI2ODMyMTg0Wj.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I can see why Turbo, the truth at that moment in time was far from what most newspapers wanted to hear. If I'm getting the timing right, a letter like that to my newspapers would of been equally disparaged. Because most newspapers were pro war. Maybe The Independent would of printed it but even then? Anyway what reason did they give for not printing your views? Seems alarmingly prescient and reasoned. But perhaps the timing was wrong?

 

[turbo]

mheslep, the Bush administration relentlessly pushed the idea the Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda, and was intent on attacking the US. Both of those concepts are soundly refuted in this report. There is no need for the Bushies to cheer over this one.

The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.

As for Iraq cooperating with terrorists, every single government in the world does the same, including the US. Do you think that the right-wing death squads that the US trained at the School of the Americas are not terrorists because they wear uniforms? Do you think that the Badr Army in Iraq, that enjoys US taxpayer money (and which operated death squads and torture operations out of the Department of the Interior during the ethnic cleansing of Iraq) are not terrorists because they wear uniforms? Tell me that when they are drilling holes in your father's head to get you to tell where your weapons are stashed.

 

[turbo]

I can see why Turbo, the truth at that moment in time was far from what most newspapers wanted to hear. If I'm getting the timing right, a letter like that to my newspapers would of been equally disparaged. Because most newspapers were pro war. Maybe The Independent would of printed it but even then? Anyway what reason did they give for not printing your views? Seems alarmingly prescient and reasoned. But perhaps the timing was wrong?

Other people could see much the same lies, problems, and possible outcomes that I saw, but they didn't speak up or weren't allowed a public forum like a spot in a newspaper. The editorial board said that my letter was too long and needed to be edited at the least, and they took exception to some parts of it as being "speculative". I refused to let them cut it up, and they refused to print it as-is.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Other people could see much the same lies, problems, and possible outcomes that I saw, but they didn't speak up or weren't allowed a public forum like a spot in a newspaper. The editorial board said that my letter was too long and needed to be edited at the least, and they took exception to some parts of it as being "speculative". I refused to let them cut it up, and they refused to print it as-is.

Hmm, I can see both sides. I wouldn't want to cut that down it's very well stated, but at the same time, I suppose column inches. Speculative, but unusually prescient as well. But then at the time, that counts for nothing. I really appreciated reading that, because although it had an American slant and thus it wasn't directly applicable to my viewpoint, it echoed a lot of the things I was feeling at the time. Kind of a throwing me back to the exact same doubts I had. I guess I never felt strongly enough, as you did, to say it in print. Considering some of the things I've said in print, it makes you wonder why not? At least it says free speech and damn the consequences, even if that is in the eye of the editor.

 

[turbo]

I don't see that letter as particularly prescient. If you follow the money, and look at who benefits from war, and who has the power to push us into war, the story unfolds pretty naturally. At my age, I remember the lies that got us into Viet Nam and the lies that kept us there. The players have changed, but the lies (and the war-profiteers) haven't changed much.

 

[Astronuc]

Tracking a Marine Lost at Home

The cost of war

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/31war.html

Here in Southwest Florida, the Iraq war is no stranger. Tampa has both the headquarters for Central Command, responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan, and one of four hospitals that care for the nation’s most severely wounded soldiers. Since 2003, at least 34 families from Clearwater to Fort Myers have endured the chest-crushing pain of a knock on the door that leads to a funeral.

Mr. Hall’s story, to many, sounded familiar. And in the end, it connected military families from coast to coast. He was among the thousands who had been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq more than once. When he came home in 2005 after being wounded by a bomb that killed his close friend, he was forced to endure repeated surgery, post-traumatic stress and the loss of his career in the Marine Corps.

At his parents’ home in Indiana one day, he told his mother that he no longer fit in.

“Everyone is moving on,” he said. “Look at me. I’m not.”

Among marines and soldiers recently returned from Iraq — including men like Billy Huether who helped search for him — Mr. Hall’s combat horrors rang true. His failure to readjust, in a society that often seems more concerned with Britney than bombs, also made him a brother to Vietnam veterans here, like Charlie Shaughnessy, who camped out for several nights looking for Mr. Hall.

And in the struggle of Mr. Hall’s loving Midwestern family, many here and outside of Florida came to recognize a sad and unavoidable truth: that wars do not always end when the warriors come home. On the home front, they last a lifetime.

An Iraq Veteran

Mr. Huether, an outgoing father of two, worked as an Army recruiter from 1998 to 2003 in and around the town where Mr. Hall disappeared. He had served for more than a decade when he received the assignment, and the task became easier after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when scores of Americans signed up to serve their country in the fight against terrorism.

Even then, he said, the war in Iraq seemed inevitable and area residents seemed ready for its consequences.

“The American flags went up, the yellow ribbons came out,” he said. “Instead of Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ flags outside their windows, they were flying the American flags.”

One in five of Port Charlotte’s 46,000 mostly middle-class residents is a veteran, above the national average of 12.7 percent, according to the 2000 Census. In neighboring Punta Gorda, a smaller community, the share of veterans is even higher, 29 percent.

But it didn’t take long for support of the Iraq war to fade. When Mr. Huether, 40, came home from a yearlong deployment to South Korea in the spring of 2004, he noticed that the community had become more skeptical, describing Iraqis as squanderers of freedom or outright killers. Even members of his family began to question whether the war could be won.

The change could be seen in the neighborhoods, where tracts of one-story homes opened onto screened-in patios. Some of the American flags had come down. A few weeks after he returned, he noticed signs on light poles and on plywood at construction sites, which appeared to be memorials for someone named Michael.

. . . .

 

[turbo]

How about that surge, folks? Al-Sadr has demonstrated that the "progress" attributed to the "success" of the surge (the neo-con mantra) can be turned on and off at will. His ability to declare a unilateral cease-fire and rescind it at any time demonstrates that quite clearly. It will be interesting to see how Petraeus spins this situation when he does his surge dog-and-pony show for Congress. Unfortunately, we won't have Fallon's assessment in testimony - honesty is a career-killer under this administration, and few in Congress will have the guts to hold Petraeus' feet to the fire.

 

[quadraphonics]

Al-Sadr has demonstrated that the "progress" attributed to the "success" of the surge (the neo-con mantra) can be turned on and off at will. His ability to declare a unilateral cease-fire and rescind it at any time demonstrates that quite clearly. It will be interesting to see how Petraeus spins this situation when he does his surge dog-and-pony show for Congress.

The stated purpose of the surge was to create space for political progress; there was never any suggestion that security gains would outlast the surge, independent of political progress (which isn't to say that the security gains aren't the main reason that the surge has been politically popular in the United States). As far as political progress, we won't really know how it's turned out until some more elections have taken place (there are some scheduled for later this year, and more for next year). But, short of that, the Iraqi government is now willing to confront Sadr, something they never would have dared do in previous years. This undermines Sadr's appeal, in that he is no longer fighting against the Hated Occupiers or Sunni Oppressors, but rather engaging in an open power struggle with an elected Shiite government, which he cannot sustain for long (hence the relatively quick cease-fire). Also, let's not forget that Sadr's reach does not extend to the Sunni or Kurdish areas, and so his antics have no bearing on progress made there (Al Qaeda is still marginalized, although the PKK is still causing trouble). This is of course far short of the grand reconciliation that the surge planners had wished for, but I don't think it will require too much spin in Congress, as the Shiite infighting will have died down by then, and people are only so interested in raking a lame duck over the coals anyway. All Petreaus will have to do is trumpet the political gains that have been made (specifically regarding Al Qaeda), and then blame any failures beyond that on the Iraqis' failure to capitalize on the space created by the surge. Should be a cake-walk. Maybe someone else will get blamed for not pushing the political parties harder, but it certainly won't be Petraeus, as the security component, which was his responsibility, will have been seen to work.

However, it's already very clear that the surge did indeed fulfill its actual purpose very nicely, which was to sustain support for the Iraq war through the end of Bush's term, and reduce its importance as an election issue.

 

[turbo]

You are correct in your assessment that the surge was an attempt to prolong the untenable situation in Iraq. Should McCain get elected, he is content to stay in Iraq "100 years" and any swings in violence will be laid at the feet of the Iraqis, not his mismanagement of the situation. Should either Democrat get elected and start withdrawing troops, any upswing in violence will be laid at the feet of the Dem president. Bush has left a mess that has no military solutions, and he has been unable or unwilling to pursue political solutions, which should involve neighbor-states that he refuses to talk to. As for the provincial elections and the quid-pro-quo for Maliki's attacks on al-Sadr's army:

To quell the Sunni insurgency and create an image of gradual progress, the US has insisted provincial elections be held in Iraq this October, one month before the American elections. The expectation is that disenfranchised groups who boycotted the 2005 elections will gain significant representation in the Iraqi parliament, a prospect that threatens the sectarian coalition of Shi'a and Kurdish parties now controlling the regime. The Shi'a bloc includes Maliki's Dawa and the former Supreme Command of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI]. Their rivals are the impoverished Shi'a followers of Moktada al-Sadr of Sadr City and many towns in the South, whose military forces are known as the Mahdi Army.

Maliki agreed to the provincial elections, it appears, in exchange for Bush's and Petraeus' permission to launch a crushing offensive against the Sadr forces who have come to power on the streets of Basra in the wake of Britain's withdrawal. Maliki and his US sponsors call them "criminal gangs", but it is clear that Maliki's intent is to weaken or destroy the Sadr forces before the election.

The four-day offensive has failed so far, provoking widespread violence from Basra to Mahmudia, Hilla, Diwaniya, Kut and the streets of Baghdad. Hundreds have been killed or wounded. Maliki's forces are being exposed as unable to fight without US airpower bombarding positions as small as those for mortar crews. The prospect of US or British intervention in Basra grows by the hour. Tens of thousands of Shi'a are protesting on the streets of Sadr City.

So much for the surge. The US is now in panic mode, trying to ensure the survival of its unpopular client regime in Baghdad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/iraq-crisis-threatens-bus_b_94037.html

The problem with Maliki's government is that it is widely seen as a puppet of the US occupation. If we insist on propping up that very unpopular government, we will be in Iraq forever, because our departure will trigger a civil war. The Bush administration has no interest in a real political solution for this situation as long as they can pull Maliki's strings and protect his rule with the blood of US soldiers. Maliki's army cannot defeat al-Sadr's army, even with the help of US air-strikes. There will be civil war when US troops pull out, unless there is a legitimate, sovereign Iraq government in place first with at least some semblance of compromise and unity. That's a tall order.

 

[quadraphonics]

The problem with Maliki's government is that it is widely seen as a puppet of the US occupation. If we insist on propping up that very unpopular government, we will be in Iraq forever, because our departure will trigger a civil war.

Ah, but that's the whole point of the next rounds of elections: the outcome will, presumably, either shore up the legitimacy of the incumbents, or usher in a new government. Either way, legitimacy will be up, and the government will be less dependent on the Unied States military. It's true that they're still not an independent force, but even the ability to fight with US air support is a big improvement. A year or two ago, the participation of Iraqi forces was nominal, and they were often intentionally excluded from planning and decision-making, told of operations only at the last moment. Now, although they still require help, they are actually taking initiative and doing the bulk of the ground operations (which works out to fewer Haditha-type incidents on American hands, among other things).

There will be civil war when US troops pull out, unless there is a legitimate, sovereign Iraq government in place first with at least some semblance of compromise and unity.

Probably so, which is why US troops will not pull out any time soon. Even in the heat of the primaries, the Democratic candidates' proposals for withdrawl are rather modest, slow and contingent. The actual policy we're likely to end up with will probably not differ much from the status quo, barring some major surprise.

 

[baywax]

There will be civil war when US troops pull out, unless there is a legitimate, sovereign Iraq government in place first with at least some semblance of compromise and unity. That's a tall order.

Did Lincoln need another nation to end the US civil war?
What are the US (and a small percentage of other countries) doing in Iraq anyway?
Wasn't this war about "WMD"s and an immediate threat to America?
Why didn't the troops pull out as soon as it was established that there were no threats to America to be found in Iraq (and avoid an escalation of violence)?
If the US thinks Iraq can sustain a war between US troops and insurgents, is the US ready to provide the same battleground?
Are we going to send troops into China where there are lots of WMDs, no human rights and many barrels of undiscovered oil? Or do we just pick on the little guys?

 

[turbo]

Did Lincoln need another nation to end the US civil war?
What are the US (and a small percentage of other countries) doing in Iraq anyway?
Wasn't this war about "WMD"s and an immediate threat to America?
Why didn't the troops pull out as soon as it was established that there were no threats to America to be found in Iraq (and avoid an escalation of violence)?
If the US thinks Iraq can sustain a war between US troops and insurgents, is the US ready to provide the same battleground?
Are we going to send troops into China where there are lots of WMDs, no human rights and many barrels of undiscovered oil? Or do we just pick on the little guys?

You're right, of course. Iraq posed no credible threat to the US. It was a target of opportunity, and an opportunity for Bush and Cheney to enrich their neo-con backers with a war that was outsourced to them with no-bid contracts and little oversight, at great expense to the US taxpayers. Meals, laundry, water, transport, private security, etc, etc. All things that the US military used to be able to supply for themselves. Not to mention a puppet government that could steer valuable oil-related contracts to Halliburton, KBR and others. Cheney is probably a billionaire by now, with his Halliburton stock options. The next president has a hell of a mess to clean up.

 

[baywax]

The next president has a hell of a mess to clean up.

Damn straight! There's a whole lot of domestic cleaning to do, including major investigations and so on. There's a whole lot of image clean up in the Middle East too. I don't mean just perception either. I don't know how to do it now that the hornet's nest has been kicked around so much over there. We can't exactly send in a bunch of white guys as doctors and nurses to fix some of the collateral damage. Heck, we can't even send in a bunch of construction workers to get the hospitals and schools back in order either. This is because those people will need protection from the absolutely freaked out and pissed off population there now. The worst thing we could do is send money, at this time, since the Govt, like most Govts, is going to syphon off as much of that cash as possible. Leaving none for reconstruction. This is a tough position to be in. I do not envy you or your brave military or pretty well anyone who jumped into this thing without looking.

 

[mheslep]

NY Times foreign correspondent John Burns has left Iraq after five years there. Burns won two Pulitzers, one for Sarajevo in '93 and another for the Taliban in Afghanistan in '97. He enjoys wide respect from his peers.

"Iraq: Five years in"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/19/news/19fiveyears.php?page=1

...The harsh reality is that many Iraqis, at least by the time of the two elections held in 2005, had little zest for democracy, at least as Westerners understand it. This, too, was not fully understood at the time. To walk Baghdad's streets on the voting days, especially during the December election that produced the Shiite-led government now in power, was inspiring. With 12 million people casting ballots, a turnout of about 75 percent, it was natural enough for Bush to say that Iraqis had embraced the American vision.

In truth, what the majority produced was less a vote for democracy than a vote for a once-and-for-all, permanent transfer of power, from the Sunni minority that ruled in Iraq for centuries, to an impatient, and deeply wounded, if not outright vengeful, Shiite majority...

 

[aquitaine]

The US had no exit plan for Iraq because I don't think it ever intended to leave. They have been building many permanent military bases, investing several billion dollars for them. If they ever planned on leaving, why bother investing so much in a permenant presence?This would also explain why all the candidates suddenly decided they supported staying in Iraq last year even though it was unpopular.And if anyone isn't sure of what I am talking about when it comes to "permenant bases in Iraq", here are a few stories for you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/23/iraq.usa

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1123

 

[edward]

We aren't about to leave Iraq. The permanent bases are there so that we can have permanent military bases in the middle east in general.

I wonder who will be president when the American people are finally told the truth.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/bases.htm

 

[mheslep]

We aren't about to leave Iraq. The permanent bases are there so that we can have permanent military bases in the middle east in general.

I wonder who will be president when the American people are finally told the truth.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/bases.htm

Claims that the US never intended to leave Iraq are clearly in conflict with your earlier post on the PBS Iraq series https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1663703&postcount=362"
See Part II, Chapters 6 & 7 covering late 2003 and early 2004. DoD (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz), Rice/Hadley/Blackwell all were telling Bremmer they didn't like his three year plan to get an elected Iraqi government in place. Instead they wanted out of Iraq in a year, leave. Bremmer bucked that and had to be told directly by the President, per the Ricks interview "by the way Jerry, we're out of here in July". Its clear everybody except Bremmer's CPA wanted to declare victory and go home. That was inline with the rest of the irresponsible prewar planning that never considered the possibility of an insurgency in the first place.

Edit:
More of the same Part II, Chapter 8. Kagan interview: plan was to turn Iraq over to Iraqis "and leave"

 

[aquitaine]

I'm sure that is what was initially happening, but that very quickly changed. Going all the way back to 2004 they were building 14 so called "enduring bases".But here's something I don't get: If we aren't in there for oil, why is it that directly after the collapse of the regime the only things we protected from the looting was the oil infrastructure & oil ministry building?

 

[edward]

Claims that the US never intended to leave Iraq are clearly in conflict with your earlier post on the PBS Iraq series https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1663703&postcount=362"
See Part II, Chapters 6 & 7 covering late 2003 and early 2004. DoD (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz), Rice/Hadley/Blackwell all were telling Bremmer they didn't like his three year plan to get an elected Iraqi government in place. Instead they wanted out of Iraq in a year, leave. Bremmer bucked that and had to be told directly by the President, per the Ricks interview "by the way Jerry, we're out of here in July". Its clear everybody except Bremmer's CPA wanted to declare victory and go home. That was inline with the rest of the irresponsible prewar planning that never considered the possibility of an insurgency in the first place.

Edit:
More of the same Part II, Chapter 8. Kagan interview: plan was to turn Iraq over to Iraqis "and leave"

Your link is back to post 362 where I stated:

Frontline really nailed the entire period with it's program. Press reviews of the presentation have been very good overall.

The program covered the entire period better than anything so far. On the other hand it could not have included information that was not covered, nor information that was held in secrecy.

The part of the program you are referring to; a quick in and out, happened before the invasion and is admittedly not openly indicative of a long term occupation at the time.

No one knows what was on the minds of those who insisted we must make plans to attack Iraq, especially those who started the planning on the night of 911. For that matter include the people who started planning to invade Iraq the day they took offfce.

Perhaps you should start with post #1 and question everything everyone has stated.

 

[edward]

But here's something I don't get: If we aren't in there for oil, why is it that directly after the collapse of the regime the only things we protected from the looting was the oil infrastructure & oil ministry building?

I agree and as I have posed many times: If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, would we have invaded??

 

[Astronuc]

No one knows what was on the minds of those who insisted we must make plans to attack Iraq, especially those who started the planning on the night of 911. For that matter include the people who started planning to invade Iraq the day they took offfce.

Bush was planning an attack on Iraq in 2000, before he was elected president. The attack of 9/11/01 provided a convenient justification.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I agree and as I have posed many times: If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, would we have invaded??

It's doubtful. Although that wasn't the sole reason to invade, it's hard to see why there would of been a need to without that as a consideration. After all there are plenty of ruthless dictators in power at the moment that America has no real concern for, or should I say Bush. I'd of felt better if they'd of just not bothered invading, I know Saddam was an arsehole, but ~1,000,000 dead civilians is too high a price to pay for toppling that jackass. He'd probably of been assassinated or deposed at some point. That's democracy at the barrel of a gun for you.

There's a simple equation that sums up the last 8 years rather well.

N=I

Where N=neocons
and I=idiots. It's a law, which derives directly from N=c

where c=crazy.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum I'm afraid.

 

[Poop-Loops]

You're forgetting that the Democrats have been completely spineless, too. They had ample opportunities to fix or at least challenge the situation, and they've just bent over and taken it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You're forgetting that the Democrats have been completely spineless, too. They had ample opportunities to fix or at least challenge the situation, and they've just bent over and taken it.

Not everyone has been spineless all the time, and in the divided Congress that we have today, it takes only a very small number of invertebrates to invert the fate of a bill.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You're forgetting that the Democrats have been completely spineless, too. They had ample opportunities to fix or at least challenge the situation, and they've just bent over and taken it.

Ok fine so the government of the US in general are to blame, which means the American voting public are at least somewhat to blame, in the same way I am for voting in TB even though I didn't vote in the last 3 elections, because none of the candidates warranted a vote. But the democrats are not reponsible for Iraq II. That would be the Republicans.

 

[Astronuc]

Crackdown on Militias Raises Stability Concerns
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html
By JAMES GLANZ and STEPHEN FARRELL, NYTimes, April 8, 2008

BAGHDAD — A crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia is creating potentially destabilizing political and military tensions in Iraq, pitting a stronger government alliance against the force that has won past showdowns: the street power wielded by the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s military operations against the Mahdi Army that Mr. Sadr leads have at least temporarily pacified Sunni political leaders, who had long called on Mr. Maliki to fight Shiite militias with the same vigor that his forces use against Sunni insurgents.

And both the Kurds and some of Mr. Maliki’s Shiite political rivals, who also resent Mr. Sadr’s rising power, have been driven closer to Mr. Maliki. This may give him more traction to pass laws and broker deals.

But the badly coordinated push into Basra has unleashed a new barrage of attacks on American and Iraqi forces and has led to open fighting between Shiite militias.

Figures compiled by the American military showed that attacks specifically on military targets in Baghdad more than tripled in March, one of many indications that violence has begun to rise again after months of gains in the wake of an American troop increase. Overall attacks on Baghdad more than doubled, to 631 in March from 239 in February, reflecting new strikes against the Green Zone, the fortified headquarters for Iraqi and American officials, as well as renewed fighting in Sadr City between the Mahdi Army and American and Iraqi forces. . . . .

Meanwhile, back in Washington . . .

Petraeus Likely to Advise Against More Troop Cuts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89452053
by Scott Neuman

NPR.org, April 7, 2008 · Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are expected to tell the Senate on Tuesday that there should be no further pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq after a planned withdrawal of 20,000 soldiers in July.

Crocker and Petraeus, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, are likely to face tough questions from two Senate panels, amid an upsurge of sectarian violence that broke out late last month in the southern city of Basra and in the Shiite-dominated areas of Baghdad.

In one of the deadliest days for American forces in months, seven U.S. soldiers were killed on Sunday, according to a military spokesman.

. . . .

 

[WheelsRCool]

Ok fine so the government of the US in general are to blame, which means the American voting public are at least somewhat to blame, in the same way I am for voting in TB even though I didn't vote in the last 3 elections, because none of the candidates warranted a vote. But the democrats are not reponsible for Iraq II. That would be the Republicans.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was President Clinton who made it U.S. policy to take out Saddam Hussein, not the Republicans. After 9/11, there were numerous reasons for invading Iraq, which are arguable (people can argue they were good enough or not good enough) with regards to the global war on terror, but I think overall that Iraq can be salvaged.

Remember, counter-insurgency wars on average take nine years to complete, sometimes longer. Iraq requires a lot of work, but in the future, the U.S. staying the course in Iraq may be viewed as one of the main things that contributed to bringing more stability to the Middle East.

Yes the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, but so did the Catholics and the Protestants, but after all their fighting, they grew to tolerate each other and this led to the Age of Reason, which then led to the Industrial Revolution and modern civilization. I believe the same things can occur in Iraq, but it takes some time.

In Northern Ireland for example, much of the violence that was occurring there has decreased due to the economic prosperity Ireland is increasing. When people start getting lives, like cars, TVs, Internet, cellphones, books, etc...they lose interest in killing each other constantly.

We can see this in our own ghettos even, where gangs constantly shoot each other; when you create prosperity, this disappears. Much of the violence in Iraq I believe has been between various religious gangs.