January 11, 2007
by: jovial_cynic
A prompting by a comment by the conservative manifesto on my previous post has lead me chat a bit about Bush's current plan for Iraq.

What is the goal, Mr. President?

Previously, the stated goal was to topple a dictator and provide democracy to the Iraqi people. Saddam is now dead, and the Iraqi people have their vote. Mission accomplished.

... oh wait.

The US toppled one violent ruler, and now there are many violent rulers, and the land is now a haven and training ground for groups interested in killing Americans, and the life of Iraqi civilians is far worse now than it was before the war. Bush stated in his speech, "Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." Would be? It appears that failure has already been achieved. The mission has failed. What we are seeing on the streets of Baghdad is the consequence of that failure.

Oddly, Bush describes the consequence of failure in a tone that suggests that failure is still a future event, and one that we can avoid. Note the verb tense used.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq. (emphasis mine)

As a side note, the president should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers didn't come from the aftermath of a failed war. They didn't come from a battle-torn land, but instead came from US-friendly Saudi Arabia, where oil profits run freely into the pockets of wealthy supporters of the president.

That said, the "America must succeed" rhetoric needs to die. It is Iraq that must succeed. The US should view itself as support for the higher goal of rebuilding Iraq. Unfortunately, until the sectarian violence ends, there is no such thing as "Iraq." There is only a disconnected people, and wave after wave of violence crashing down on all sides. Without a unified people, there is no nation.

A change in plan

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis.

This new priority is good. The goal of increasing security for the Iraqi people after exposing them to such horrible violence is the right thing, and it certainly requires additional troops. By resecuring Iraq, the Iraqi people can finally organize and begin rebuilding their nation.

...and America can have another functional puppet government in the Middle East.
np category: politics


The Conservative Manifesto said:
A whole post! Just for me? You're too kind.


January 11, 2007

Lucaso said:
While I think ultimately if we could go back in time our entry into the Iraq conflict was ill prepared and that would probably shouldn't have taken it on. Probably because even though the news focuses on all bad news all the time there have tremendous benefits and good things which is why (I think) that so many evil people have risen to the surface. Before they were being appeased with the dictatorship in place. Now their way of life has been destroyed and they face an uncertain future. I think the reactions from the wicked have given us a clearer idea that what we did was good in nature.

My question of whether or not we should have entered into the conflict is less whether good has come, and more of whether the USAs international role should be one of policing peace or focusing on our own problems and letting countries deal with their own issues. I have to admit that entering into a war with Muslims that historically have hated one another (Sunni and Shia) isn't, in hindsight, all too brilliant considering that when we finally leave, nature will take its course and things will probably deteriorate again.

BUT our position in Iraq is incredibly strategic now that Iran has come into the fray as a psychotic led nation with coming nuclear power. The entry into Iraq may prove to be an unintended GREAT consequence for future warfare that may be inevitable?!?

January 11, 2007

betmo said:
well said
January 13, 2007

add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 318538 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address ( will be logged.