Time to Abandon the Rose-Colored Glasses
Well, surprise, surprise. NBC is now finally admitting the obvious: Iraq is mired in a civil war. I’m not sure exactly when this war-torn nation crossed the line from merely being occupied by an invader to being bogged down in internal strife, but that point was definitely passed some time ago. I can’t find it now, but I vaguely recall someone in our gummint saying that if Iraq descended into civil war, then it was definitely time to get the hell out of Dodge.
Yet the “cowboy” by the name of Smirk who says he makes all the decisions refuses to acknowledge the obvious, and says that we’re staying put “until the mission is complete.” Funny, that. I also seem to recall a certain banner on a ship somewhere, a banner that said, “Mission Accomplished.” That was quite some time ago, yet we still haven’t “completed” the mission. What we have completed is destroying a nation. Sure, some will say there’s “good news” and that we’re rebuilding the country, repairing damage. Sure we are– damage that we caused. Instead of investing in our own nation’s infrastructure and people, we went over there, bombed the hell out of the country, toppled its ruler, and then stayed.
Well, lemme tell you something: like houseguests, armies stink after about three days. Our troops have been over there longer than we were involved in World War II. At this stage, Smirk intends for us to be there at least through 2009, as he stated last spring. Instead of facing reality square in the face and realizing what a mess he’s made, he’s now claiming that the civil war isn’t really a “civil war;” instead, it’s an Al-Qaeda plot. Sorry, Smirk, but I don’t buy it; trotting out the Iraq-terrorist link is trying to rely on a old canard that has already been mercifully taken out behind the barn and shot some time ago.
Even though we’re supposed to gird ourselves and keep a stiff upper lip, and not question anything, it’s really hard to believe anything this gummint says anymore, on the matter of Iraq. Smirk and others have changed their rationale for this war so many times now, it’s practically become a parlor game. I fully expect to wake up tomorrow and find yet another excuse reason why it was right for us to go over there in the first place, and squander our national budget and military on warfare when there things like, oh, a country to take care of right here.
We aren’t even wanted anymore, Smirk. Back in January, Uncle Walter echoed his famous take on Vietnam, and said that we should pull out. Unlike LBJ, who had an entire brain more than you have, you have either been unwilling or unable to admit that perhaps Cronkite is right. You certainly didn’t listen to the Iraqi gummint last year; I pointed out then that the welcome mat had been pulled, and perhaps it was time to say adieu to Baghdad. It’s kind of funny too, because that nice Mr. Bremer that you gave that shiny medal to said way back in 2004 that if we were asked to leave, we’d pack our bags and head out the door– something we haven’t done regardless, obviously. If all that isn’t enough for you, the people of Iraq– you know, the ones that were supposed to be paving the way for us with cheers and flowers– have indicated in a poll that, ahem, the linens in the guest room really need to be changed, and perhaps it’s time for us to leave and go home? That certainly jibes with the view of the majority of the American public, which also thinks its time to perhaps cut things short. That seems to be the view too of your Iraq Study Panel, headed by Daddy’s good friend Mr. Baker. The New York Times will publish an article in Thursday’s edition that says this group recommends we start pulling out- oh, not overnight, no, but definitely stop sending troops over. Even your former Secretary of State suggests that perhaps you recognize it’s now a civil war, and act accordingly.
Here’s my suggestion, Junior: it’s time to put away the rose-colored glasses, and start thinking about the actual consequences of your actions, and act like a man, instead of being a stubborn, petulant child administrator who doesn’t want to have to admit that maybe Daddy was right after all for not marching off to Baghdad. Civil wars are messy, and it’s never a good idea to be in the middle of one. Let’s hope this is the last Christmas our soldiers have to spend abroad.
War is a racket, and always will be.
For those who still have steadfast faith in Bush the Younger, the book, “War is a Racket”, written by Smedley D. Butler, will enlighten you to the wonderful benefits of war for corporations and businesses.
There is no civil war in Iraq. Just a sectarian religious conflict between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites in Iraq, been going on for over 1400 years, with no end at sight. Saddam kept the conflict between them down through sheer terror and dictatorship and he is culpable for not allowing any mutual dialogue and tolerance between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites while he was in power. The United States just inherited and got caught in the middle a 1400+ years old sectarian religious conflict.
The mainstreamed US and foreign medias have not been telling you the whole truth about what’s really going on in Iraq for the past 3 years and they are culpable in reporting too many negative reports too many times and completely ignore the positive news, creating a false picture of “quagmire” in Iraq, falsely comparing it to Vietnam, inadvertently encouraging and emboldening Al Qaeda militants and Islamic fundamentalists to foster more conflicts and jihad in Iraq. The US/foreign medias are just as guilty for the mess in Iraq as Rumfeld’s.
I presume you didn’t care for the largely ignored facts that Iran and Syria have been aiding and abetting the militants in Iraq with more weapons and improvised explosive devices since 2003 and they’re just pretending they are interesting in peace and dialogue?
Well, that might not matter to you as long as you hate and blame President “Smirk”, right?
MKULTRA, good to hear from you again. I’ve never heard of or read that book- I’ll have to check it out. Thanks for the recommendation! One for you in return– it’s a comic book, but well done, and worth checking out: Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can’t Kick Militarism, by Joel Andreas. If you get a chance to read it, let me know what you think.
Take[s] One to Know One: I can tell we’re gonna be such good friends, eh?
I agree with you that this is a sectarian conflict, but I’d also disgree and stick with my original conclusion, and that is, yes, Iraq’s in a civil war, and has been for some time. A civil war is, according to Merriam-Webster, “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.” Wikipedia, while not as authoritative a source, says a civil war is “a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area.” Since the Shi’ites and Sunnis are, as of now, citizens of Iraq [which denotes society and nationality as well], and they are in conflict with each other, it’s safe to say they’re involved in a civil war. Add in the Kurds, who would prefer their own nation (which is often what happens in a civil war– the fight for political power or the right to secede), and you’ve got a mess, aka a civil war.
I agree Saddam was able to somehow keep tabs on the whole thing, but “we” did not “inherit” it– we went in and invaded the country, overthrew its leadership, and have occupied the country since. I firmly believe we never should have been in there in the first place, and most rational people today realize that it’s time to get out.
I agree that the media has done a terrible job, and that most journalists could be doing better, but I don’t think it has anything to do with “good news.” When you have dozens of killings every day, soldiers standing by watching people burn themselves, U.S. troops raping and murdering civilians, and people in Iraq looting hospitals, you know that whatever semblance of order there was is breaking down, and fast. That doesn’t sound like “good news” to me.
I agree that comparisons to Vietnam aren’t as parallel or similar as some would lead us to believe, but there’s enough similarities that I think we should heed the lessons of Vietnam, especially now. What Vietnam was all about, after the Vietnamese threw out the French, was a civil war between the North and the South. Lesson #1 in foreign policy: never, never get involved in someone else’s civil war; you’ll never get out alive.
I don’t think the media “fostered” an environment for outside forces to stir up trouble in Iraq; I think our “intervention” prompted that. Saddam was not friends with Al-Qaeda, and viewed them as troublemakers. Al-Qaeda in turn had no love for Saddam either. They only came to Iraq after the government became destabilized in the wake of the invasion. Instead of taking care of them in Afghanistan like we should have been doing, our gummint insisted we had to go to Baghdad, and thus we imported Al-Qaeda.
I think Iran and Syria have their own problems and issues that they should be concerned with (and we should be concerned about too, especially in Syria), but they are wary of this war in Iraq spilling over. I genuinely believe they do not want potential destabilization of their *own* governments, and thus see it to their benefit to try to contain, if not end, the situation in Iraq. As for Iran’s current government and positions, we’re partly culpable for that. Try looking at some of our history with Iran…
I don’t “hate” Smirk. I detest his actions and policies, and yes, I do blame him for pulling us into this unnecessary war.
The facts and truth DO matter to me, actually– it’s partly why I’m not a member of either party. I don’t think we have very responsible leadership or media in this country, and the rest of us are paying the price for that.
Mr. Sandman, the media wanted to tell us that Iraq is in a “civil war” because they wanted to paint this sectarian religious conflict between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis as a “civil war”. There is NO civil war in Iraq. Period. A civil war involved citizens taking POLITICAL sides against each other for political or nationalist policy reasons, not religious sides. It is the same with the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants, there never have been a civil war in Northern Ireland for decades.
I agreed with some of your points. However, I disagreed with your minor defense of the media as I’ve paid more attention to how the media have been shaping the war in Iraq in manners that were fostering an environment of doubt, uncertainty, anger and sheer negativity with the world over Bush’s decisions and prosecution of the war in Iraq. I’ve watched how the media manipulated us with more cons than pros in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002-2003 and still manipulated us with negative reports on what things were going badly in Iraq in 2004-2006 in a subtle effort to undermine the public confidence in Bush. There were plenty of evidence of the media taking sides with the Hezbollah over Israel’s war in Lebanon last summer, presenting false pictures in order to blatantly criticize Israel worldwide and never mind Hezbollah launching rockets after rockets onto Israel’s civilian zones.
The US and foreign medias are culpable in painting a “terrible war” in Iraq with false impressions and poor perceptions in the most apparent, blatant effort to slam and criticize President Bush.
I agreed that some mistakes were made after the quick collapse of Saddam’s government in April 2003 but, as I’ve learned, the insurgency against the US/coalition troops were well-planned by Saddam long before the war began (of course this was a necessary tactic in warfare - as you see, in a similar historical event, the SS established an insurgency against the Allies in case Hitler lost the war and the resulting Allied occupation of Germany).
In hindsight over Iraq, I think the US intervention in Iraq was necessary: Saddam cannot be trusted for his continued role in the Middle East affairs, undermining the world and the US wasn’t taking any chance with him any longer. It didn’t matter whether Saddam thought al Qaeda as trouble-maker, geopolitical factors may force him to align with al Qaeda through his intermediaries had Saddam remain in power and still crafting his WMD program secretly through his son, Qusay.
Sure, Bush have made some bad policy decisions over Iraq but is it no different than President FDR’s bad policy decisions he made in World War II?
By the way, you said Iran doesn’t wanted the conflict to spill over into Iran? Well, Iran is definitely looking forward to the spill-over of the conflict.
Here’s this largely overlooked media report: http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.
Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.
While the New York Times reported that as many as 2,000 Iraqi militia fighters had received training in Lebanon, one of the senior officials said he believed the number was “closer to 1,000.” Officials say a much smaller number of Hezbollah fighters have also traveled through Syria and into Iraq to provide training.
U.S. intelligence officials believe the number of Al-Sadr’s Mahdi army now includes 40,000 fighters, making it an especially formidable force.
Hello again… I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree, but I think that when Webster’s defines a civil war as “a war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation,” and you have majority Shi’ites in one geographical area of Iraq and Sunnis in another and Kurds in a third, and the Shi’ites and Sunnis fighting for political control (if they were fighting for religious power, it’d be a much larger conflict, since there are Sunnis and Shi’ites in other nations) of Iraq and to protect their own territories, then I’d certainly call that a “civil war.” Additionally, most scholars, as per this International Herald Tribune article, agree that what’s happening in Iraq meets the definition of a civil war. See: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/26/news/civil.php
I’d love to see your evidence for the media painting Iraq as something we shouldn’t get involved in in the pre-war period– while a number of editorial pages may have called for caution, quite a few newsrooms published largely uncritical articles or articles slanted towards the administration’s stance; this is part of the reason why Judith Miller got in so much hot water over at the New York Times– her articles on WMD weren’t exactly 100% truthful. In this piece from Media Matters, the author dissects some of the pre-war reporting: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150008
As for today, while the situation is bleak, and even the neo-cons are regretting their support of the war, along with liberal/progressive and “liberal” outlets (see this, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53812-2004Jun18.html),
a number of other members of the Corporate Media (aka the mainstream media) are resisting supporting a pull-out: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/44404/
Obviously no matter the source, you and I can pick and choose which articles support our contentions, and some of the pieces may very well be slanted, while others will be from more general sources that nevertheless have their own bias (the NYT is a good example: their editorial board differs often from what the newsroom chooses to cover/report).
As for Israel last summer, their actions in Lebanon constituted a much harsher reaction than necessary, and a lot of people, organizations, and groups that normally are very pro-Israel condemned their behavior. Since the invasion of Lebanon over the summer, Israel has admitted it used phosphorus gas, and it looks like they mined a good portion of the country. Not exactly acceptable behavior for most people…
As for Saddam Hussein, there’s no real evidence that he planned anything in terms of the insurgency we are now seeing. In fact, just this October, it was reported that Saddam was willing to accept the U.S. ultimatum– hardly the act of someone saying, “Come on, get me.” (see: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061030/nym224.html)
The fact that no WMD has been found, and that Bush has changed his rationale more often than an actor changes his costumes makes me very skeptical about any claims from our government regarding Saddam’s intentions.
Again, I disagree with you: in hindsight, this war was even more unnecessary than I thought it was at the beginning of 2003, and the majority of the American public agrees with me. If we have to take military action, I would prefer we intervene in Darfur, where genocide is taking place, or conduct some REAL diplomacy with North Korea, which I view as far more of a danger than Saddam and Iraq.
As for Iranian arms being used in Iraq, thanks for the link. While I wasn’t aware of that, I don’t see that it makes a whole lot of difference– tons of nations sell and ship arms to other nations. In my opinion, any nation that does so is complicit in any armed conflict that results. This includes the United States, who likes to export arms to Israel– not exactly the actions of a neutral power-broker. That doesn’t necessarily mean Iran has a desire to see the conflict expand beyond Iraqi borders– a number of refugees could end up in Iran, especially Kurds (the Kurds currently are spread over Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq). That could lead to pressures that in turn destabilize the country. Iran wants Iraq weak, I’ll agree on that (their past history doesn’t help), but I don’t think Iran really wants a regional war. By working with Iran and Syria to solve the problems in Iraq, it could open a door for us to talk with them about other issues. Not extending an offer of diplomacy means we aren’t going to have a seat at the table– we’re already in enough trouble because of our past history in the region.