"Catch-22" in Iraq?

[mnaz]

US troops cannot return home until the insurgency is defeated. However, the insurgency will not cease until US troops leave....

I am of the opinion that although the war was a blatant lie and an unnecessary waste of life and resources, and that Bushco planned this war from Day One and went in with a significant measure of larceny in its collective heart, one could still pin their hopes on a positive ending eventually emerging from the entire mess. I mean, the US is trying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and enable the Iraqis to have a brighter future, even if it is going to lay claim to the new Iraq.... (military bases, keeping Iraq's gov't on a short leash, etc.).

And as such, I've generally been of the opinion that US troops should stay until sufficient stability and security is established, but now I'm not so sure. What if the mere presence of US troops is the one factor which virtually insures long-term instability and insecurity? What does the insurgency aim for? They are a fragmented and ragtag group. Would they press on if US troops pulled out? Or would they back off and begin to work with the new government, having accomplished what they set out to do?

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments?

[jimboloco]

I have it from one of my sources, "Dick McManus", a pseudoname for the editor of News and Views you don't have to lose, that

What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.

http://www.irc-online.org/content/choms ... y-iraq.php

In other words, the "new government" will be clearly focussed on security matters and also getting the oil infrastructure secured for the big oil companies.

If they try to become independent and make it with Iran, what can we do, really?
It would be a Bushie nightmare.
But I don't care if Iraq makes friends with their neighbor, Iran.
It's fine with me.

[Zlatko Waterman]

Dear mnaz:

I think your cross-examination of motives and outcomes is fine as far as it goes, but one thing I am continually reminded of ( by my friendly Maoist KPFK radio station if nothing else):

Try changing your frame of reference when you think of Iraq. We tend to assume that God intended us to build the universe OUR way-- the USA-way.

Now you and I, mnaz and Z, have never seen it that way to begin with.

But the way our frame of reference can become tinctured by relying upon US government information and data ( I try to avoid doing so, but even with the Internet, European, Asian, African, Austrailian news coverage is automatically limited by what the US will allow-- we have the guns, you have the notepads and paper, that sort of thing . . .) is insidious.

What if we imagine that an extraterrestial superpower ( viz, the new Spielberg take on H.G. Wells's "War of the Worlds") established its own way of doing things on US ( "Us", pronoun-- the US-- United States)?

What if, "for our own good" we were forced to consider living under a government at least largely created by that Power-- what if we were entirely subject to the "security" imposed by that power on us-- arbitrary searches, checkpoints, torture, "rendition" ( to a third Power who wasn't averse to torture)?

What if that Power occupied our public places, our streets and our homes, 24/7? What if it controlled our electricity and water, but just couldn't, with all its technological superiority, get them to work properly for us?

What if, in the process of "liberation", it had killed twenty thousand of us, and because of its incompetence, created an environment where more of us were killed every day?

What if, in order to "free" us from the nasty dictator and authoritarian regime under which we lived, that Power decided it had to stay in place, doing all the things cited above, for ten to twelve years?

And what if, in the process of doing all these things, that Power lied, and lied again? What if its very presence near us, "protecting" us, and maintaining this deadly environment in which we are being forced to live daily, was completely predicated upon lies?

What if the disruption caused among factions of us by the conduct described above had brought us to the brink of a civil war?

And last of all, what if that Power maintained its hegemony among us by carrying weapons of deadly force everywhere-- weapons of mass destruction we might call them-- and were clothed (uniformed) or appeared in such a way as to make their purpose abundantly clear and create not the slightest ambiguity about what those deadly weapons ( which weapons were sometimes accidentally used and resulted in accidental death or maiming) were for?

Well, I try to imagine how seeing things in that frame of reference might make ME feel.. .

It's a healthy sort of imaginative exercise, at the very least.

By the way, Spielberg might have been making more than a passing allusion to "9/11" in his "War of the Worlds" film:

(link)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/ ... edrich.php

Some interesting speculations by Frank Rich at the above link.



Zlatko

[jimboloco]

: USA Today founder Neuharth Calls For U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq

Neuharth Calls For U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq, Says Bush 'Lied'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000972429
By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 10:50 AM ET

USA Today founder Al Neuharth, who caused a stir last year
when -- a bit ahead of the curve -- he told E&P that he favored a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, re-iterated his position Friday, with even more force.

"I'm convinced the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring
them
home.
Sooner rather than later," Neuharth, a Bronze Star winner in
World War II, declared. He also compared President Bush to President Lyndon B. Johnson, saying that both presidents "lied to us in wartime."

Neuharth added, in his weekly column Friday in the newspaper he
founded: "The crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that there is no Cronkite to call Bush's bluff. Without a strong, trusted, non-political voice, too many of us remain Bush-blinded. Bush tried keeping the wool over our eyes again Tuesday on national TV by repeatedly tying Iraq to 9/11. That charge is as phony as his discredited prewar claim that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction."

Pointing to his own experience, Neuharth wrote: "Most of us who have had personal war experiences strongly believe this great country is worth fighting for at risk of lives. My World War II Bronze Star and Combat Infantryman's Badge on the wall behind my desk remind me of that daily.

"They also remind me that war is hell, that we must fully support our servicemen and women and put their lives at risk only for honest and just and noble causes."

[mnaz]

Well, Z....

You and I pretty much see eye to eye on the illegitimacy of this war. Did we ask the Iraqis if they wanted to be "liberated" to the tune of many tens of thousands of destroyed or shattered lives, along with the inevitable dangerous factional instability that was predicted by so many credible experts before the invasion? We took polls here in the US.... but did we bother to poll the Iraqis?

I guess I'm raising two points here (and one is more a question than a "point"). No. 1)....Though I will never forgive Bushco for steamrolling its way into an unnecessary war built on a passel of outright lies and fueled to a large extent by imperial lust, I nevertheless try to hope for the best possible outcome. And No. 2).... Toward that end.... how best to try and neutralize the insurgency at this point, so that healing and rebuilding can begin?.... by remaining at full troop strength and endlessly trying to fight shadow groups with conventional heavy-handed military tactics?.... or by starting a serious troop withdrawal now to demonstrate materially that the US might just be serious about Iraq's sovereignty? Is the insurgency best put down at this point by stubbornly remaining as essentially an upopular occupying army
or by initiating a substantial troop withdrawal? That is the "Catch-22" to which I refer.... the one many experts are now debating more seriously these days.

And Jimbo.... the deception and lies just keep flowing from this bunch. When Bush continually tries to link 9/11 and Iraq and the amorphous, blank-check "War on Terror" all together, I do a slow burn.... in fact I can't even listen to his speeches on the subject anymore. I've been lied to enough by now. Really, it is pointless to listen to any more of it.

[jimboloco]

Old Dubya, now 59 and blowing candles in the wind, is disliked by the kidz in Western Europa, they'll make changes or not, my hope is with them, I don't see any real changes for US on the horizon. You can justify the continuing occupation on those grounds, yes, which is what thay want you to do, real politick, like potluck, it's their schmorgasborg, Sven.

Step back, look at what would happen if US withdrawz now, surely chaos and pandemonium would result, yes, another Yugoslavia.
Or would the Shihites keep their businesses open, and the Sunnis do the same? Unfortunately, it is their path and a US imposed regime with a steady background of violence is the one thing we can be sure of as the alternative.

Never mind the impact the war and occupation is having on this country, the pseudo-democracy and the fear factor in two part disharmony.

Wow, that would have been "good duty" making a Speilberg movie
as live on-duty military service. "We're shipping out for Quantico, gonna be in a Speilberg movie, yes, with lots of action!"

So does "War of the Worlds" reinforce the administration's fearmongering? I don't believe that popular culture would make that connection, certainly the US military would not knowlingly lend itself to an anti-Dubya flick, altho Tom Cruise would, as Ron Kovic in "Born on the Fourth of July". What pop cultural currents are flowing, how is the wind blowing. One hopes for a more enlightened governance some day.

Oh, excuse me Tom, I am abbout to go back on anti-depressants, man.

[Zlatko Waterman]

Dear mnaz:

The "collapses" in Somalia and Lebanon are rarely discussed, but Ridley Scott ( another proficient sci-fi director) DID make a film about the snafu in Somalia.

That was a "rescue" mission also, but one with substantive goals and humanitarian purposes in mind, not "cooking" intelligence so we could launch an oil war.

Your "Catch-22" point is a good one and well taken.

Short of military adventures like Grenada, which didn't prompt an "insurgency" of significant size, we're never going "in and out" quickly and painlessly.

And what entity of any substantial size is going to tolerate the conditions I outlined in my last post being imposed on them?

The whole subject of "assymetrical warfare" is fascinating.

Thus went the American Revolution, to some extent, ( with us as the "terrorists") with a lot of helpful hammering from Big Brother France, of whom we now make so much easy fun.



"I needed a vacation, I needed a real job with a raise, I needed a home I could call my own. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun."

--Raymond Chandler, "The Long Goodbye"

Zlatko

[jimboloco]

US troops cannot return home until the insurgency is defeated. However, the insurgency will not cease until US troops leave....

"Living in the Wasteland of the Free"
song-poem carries emotive perception.
arer you speaking about mutually exclusively categories here?
(US troops versus the insurgentz) vs creative flow,
when you think about it, interesting that these two conceptual realms exist at all, beyond hunting and gathering and will o th wisp fire ceremonies to war machines and hypocritical Christianz.

All that you have is your soul.
do'nt you bleed at the bitter truth.
Hunger only for a taste of justice.

I'd make a deal with the authorities,
but the deals' already been made.
I rebelled and was let go, in return, I became an outsider,
away from the currents of power, money, social recognition,
fine with me, a life of penitence to follow but I got my estranged acquaitnences too,
a counter-culture, waiting, dispersed, gathering n pockets.

One day, we'll break the deals, and we are trying, slowly,
to regain the momentum, the self sacrifice,
the outrage and the freedom of youth.
Maybe old folks just fade away and go slow and online,
Oh where is my soul gonna go in the here-after?
Fuck it. I don't care. Stupid bullshit.
Be here now. Where is my soul gonna go in the here and now?

[whimsicaldeb]

I was reading over at Working For Change ... and found this article, that fits this subject. Thought I'd pass it on. ~ Deb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/23293

A Blogger's Response from Iraq
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted July 1, 2005.

Iraqi blogger Faiza Jarrar says her country's fate is in the hands of an American government that knows nothing about what Iraq and its people are about.

AMY GOODMAN: Faiza Jarrar is on the line with us. She is an Iraqi blogger, who actually right now is in Amman, Jordan. Her son Raed is known for his blog RaedInTheMiddle. Faiza Jarrar, your response to the situation right now in Iraq, to the call in this country by Congress members for the President to set a timetable for withdrawal?

FAIZA JARRAR: Yeah. Hello, Amy. I was in the States. I came before two days a month. I went to--

AMY GOODMAN: You were just visiting the United States?

FAIZA JARRAR: Yes, I visited the United States. I stayed for one month, and then, now I am in Amman. Maybe after many days I can go back to Baghdad, I hope.

In the States, I met staff for the Senators, different staff. And I talked with them about Iraq and what is happening in Iraq these [last] two years, and I discovered that they knew nothing about Iraq. And for me, it was very sad, because we can see that the fate of Iraq and Iraqis now is in the hands of people who should be responsible about Iraq and the Iraqi people, and I understand nobody knows what is happening in Iraq and what is the future of Iraq.

And this is very hard for Iraqi people, because, you know, my dear, every day when you see on the media all over the world and inside the state or outside the state, it is always the bombing cars and the occupation force standing away and President Bush giving a speech or justification for staying in Iraq.

And nobody cares about Iraqi people. Where's the Iraqi people? There are more than 25 million population. Who will go to ask them: What is your attitude about this war? What is your future? What is your plan to live? What is your plan for the future of your kids? Nobody will take care about Iraqis or come to ask one of us.

The media is working outside of Iraq, and this is a very dangerous situation, because like Iraqis, a part of the American government, and they are dealing with it like it is their issue, it is not an Iraqi issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you something, Faiza Jarrar: The question that is asked in the media in the United States is if the U.S. troops were to leave, wouldn't that leave Iraqis worse off? What is your response to that?

FAIZA JARRAR: Yeah, we talked about this issue many times. First, we are not dreamers or naive. We will not ask the troops to go out of Iraq without arranging or without fixing what they have done in Iraq. Because when I came to Vermont, I studied about peace-building. And then I told my participants...I gave a presentation about Iraq, and I told all of the people that I can see now that the American government made the conflict [build] in Iraq, they didn't make peace- building, because they divided the people between Sunni and Shia, and they kept them fighting for the power or the authority or everything, and telling the world that, 'Look[at] Iraqis, they cannot live together.'

But yesterday they were sisters and brothers. You can't believe this story, because we are living inside Iraq and we know these people are our brothers and sisters. But now there is another agent that somebody tries to put in Iraq.

So if really the American government tries to put a time or schedule for pulling out the troops, they have to make a kind of announcement for the parties inside the government and outside the government to sit together around a table to make a kind of agreement or national dialogue...to start the peace operation in Iraq. After that, yes, you can say the troops can leave Iraq after six months or one year. Just put to the beginning of the operation of peace in Iraq. This is the best solution, we think.

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

--end excerpt from http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/23293

[jimboloco]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 29/1434221

This is the direct link to that segment of the Democracy Now interview with Faiza Jarrar , you can watch it....

Salaam.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you something, Faiza Jarrar: The question that is asked in the media in the United States is if the U.S. troops were to leave, wouldn't that leave Iraqis worse off? What is your response to that?

FAIZA JARRAR: Yeah, we talked about this issue many times. First, we are not dreamers or naive. We will not ask the troops to go out of Iraq without arranging or without fixing what they have done in Iraq. Because when I came to Vermont, I studied about peace-building. And then I told my participants...I gave a presentation about Iraq, and I told all of the people that I can see now that the American government made the conflict [build] in Iraq, they didn't make peace- building, because they divided the people between Sunni and Shia, and they kept them fighting for the power or the authority or everything, and telling the world that, 'Look[at] Iraqis, they cannot live together.'

But yesterday they were sisters and brothers. You can't believe this story, because we are living inside Iraq and we know these people are our brothers and sisters. But now there is another agent that somebody tries to put in Iraq.

So if really the American government tries to put a time or schedule for pulling out the troops, they have to make a kind of announcement for the parties inside the government and outside the government to sit together around a table to make a kind of agreement or national dialogue...to start the peace operation in Iraq. After that, yes, you can say the troops can leave Iraq after six months or one year. Just put to the beginning of the operation of peace in Iraq. This is the best solution, we think.

Yes indeed, thankyou oh Whimzy One.
Salaam.

[Zlatko Waterman]

I'd like to juxtapose a quotation from Amy Goodman's interview with what I said in my "what if" imaginative exercise ( above) and my post before that . . .:

(paste)

"In the States, I met staff for the Senators, different staff. And I talked with them about Iraq and what is happening in Iraq these [last] two years, and I discovered that they knew nothing about Iraq. And for me, it was very sad . . ."

( end paste)

A person from Iraq, known for her close commentary on the situation there, comments thus.

Does "the Power" understand? Does it care to understand?

In two years has it tried to understand?

And yet, some on this very board are so naive that they ask:

"What's this big deal about Iraq?"

Others ask the same question about Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The karma is floating somewhere, Jim.

Thanks for your post, Deb.


Zlatko

[mnaz]

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"..... I keep coming back to that one when I rewind this war.....

It just seems that the US long ago exhausted its credibility in the region.... making self-interested deals with oppressive regimes for decades, most notably the Saudis.... supporting and arming Saddam against Iran.... and most recently, manufacturing a false case to invade a Muslim country in the name of "fighting terrorism", while steamrolling world consensus and concern in the process, only to label the relative handful of international troops which were sent in with US troops as a "Coalition".....

I just get a sense that as long as the US maintains a visible presence in Iraq, militarily in particular, the attacks will keep coming.

[Zlatko Waterman]

The capsule history of another US "regime change"-- this one also involving an "enemy of liberty" who just happened to be a former employee of the United States:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/ ... panama.htm

Nice detail and timeline in this article.

By the way, what about our (US) "credibility" in Latin America?



--Z

[Zlatko Waterman]

mnaz:

By the way, the chief "coalition partner" in the American War on Iraq, Great Britain, will begin withdrawing its troops soon:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 80,00.html



--Z

[Zlatko Waterman]

With an interesting free-for-all discussion ( after a thoughtful article) on the possibility of resuming the military draft here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/23308/


--Z