Amazing. That’s really happening? Real ‘defeat in Iraq’? Worse then Hussein? Why haven’t I heard about this already? I’m not in America and I don’t deliberately follow the news … just turn on the news stations when commuting to work, etc … but I would have thought I would have heard this trumpeted over the airwaves.

Although I guess that’s the whole point of your blog entry, isn’t it? They’re skulking around in the background.

Shocking news. My goodness it’s going to be interesting in a few years time to see a) how Bush went down in history, and b) what happened to Iraq. I felt a real anger aimed at the insurgents, though, while reading your blog entry. Such a bloody huge pity that b—-rds like those vermin can wreck a country like that. Or that religious brainwashing can do that to a world.

Luis, what is really driving these insurgents, at the core? Are there bloggers within the militants who are talking? Or are the Arabic news channels (which I only hear about when they’re showing movies of westerners being beheaded) telling their side of the story, sort of? Are they being driven by a sincere fear that the USA was going to take over and never get out? Or is it one religious/ethnic faction just trying to take over?

Sorry, I know I’m being woefully ignorant, I hear about the Sunnis and Kurds and all the others every day, but after a while it all translates into “one big mess, there’ll never be peace in the Middle East, where is that Rock & Roll radio station again?”. I guess I’m one of those gullible citizens whom the white house will succeed in confusing.

Could you summarise – in two sentences or less, don’t want to make demands on your time just because I’m lazy – just who is doing all the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq? Religious clerics of brand XXX who feel they should run the country?

Shocking news. My goodness it’s going to be interesting in a few years time to see a) how Bush went down in history, and b) what happened to Iraq. I felt a real anger aimed at the insurgents, though, while reading your blog entry. Such a bloody huge pity that b—-rds like those vermin can wreck a country like that. I will only note quickly that probably a lot of Arabs and Islamists feel exactly that way about the United States. Ask yourself this: are they unjustified?

But for the terrorists and insurgents, that’s the whole idea, isn’t it? Wrecking things. Terrorists, for example, claim to be helping their own people, but they are keenly aware that things are best for the terror groups when things are worst for their people. They know that in order to make themselves a true force, they have to do and say things to arouse the anger of their enemy so as to rain destruction on their own people–only then do they get martyrs and disciples to join in throngs. If all their people were comfortable, they’d be against the terrorists, not for them.

As for insurgents, they are doing the same thing insurgents always do: fight a guerrilla war, a war of contrition, picking off soldiers here and there, creating havoc everywhere, turning everyone against everyone else so that the country will collapse and the invaders leave–so they can then step in and control things, if they can hang on to power against new internal rivals. It’s all about power and control of wealth, land, resources, and people. That’s why Bush decided to invade Iraq, that’s why all of them do it, except for the few true religious fanatics (they actually want the same things, just for different reasons).

It’s just too easy to tip a society into instability. Only the ones that have been stable for a while, with established institutions, can stand up well; they fall from interior rot, but otherwise remain stable.
Luis, what is really driving these insurgents, at the core? Are there bloggers within the militants who are talking? Or are the Arabic news channels (which I only hear about when they’re showing movies of westerners being beheaded) telling their side of the story, sort of? Are they being driven by a sincere fear that the USA was going to take over and never get out? Or is it one religious/ethnic faction just trying to take over?I don’t know. A few things you can be sure of: (1) we only hear what the loudest and most violent are saying, filtered through what is essentially a propaganda machine grafted onto a restrained press; (2) there are so many different groups here that establishing a single mindset is impossible and irrelevant; and (3) we will never know 99% of the shit that’s going on there.

In short, it’s a mess. But as it is, it’s an excellent example of the virtue of “the devil you know over the devil you don’t.” I hate to say this, but things were better when Saddam Hussein was in charge. More people are dying (and we’ve taken over as the torturers and executioners, with the help of the insurgents), more people are without homes, schools, hospitals, electricity and so forth. We had Hussein contained, he wasn’t making WMD, he wasn’t cooperating with terrorists, there was no looming mushroom cloud. He was a vile, treacherous, sadistic thug–and it’s telling of how bad Bush screwed up that things are actually worse now than they were under Hussein.

Think about it: under Clinton, terror was held at bay (al Qaeda was foiled in the Millennium attacks), Hussein was contained, Iran and North Korea were not making nukes, and we had good standing in the world with tolerable allies.

Under Bush, terror got through their guard, the country is in a siege mentality, we are in a quagmire that could have been won but that Bush has made unwinnable, Iran and North Korea and building nukes (NK already has a few probably), the world is against us, and we’ve made allies like Pakistan, an extremist Islamic country which still to a large degree supports Al Qaeda and people like the Taliban, whom they helped create. Oh yeah, Pakistan has nukes, released info on how to make them to Iran, and Bush did nothing, just like his father did nothing when Iraq fired a missile at the USS Stark. Deja vu, anyone?

With all do respect, it is a well known concept of civics, if only they taught it anymore, that institutions are a functions of belief systems and belief systems emerge out of a country’s experiences.

You can’t just march into a country and chop off its totalitarian head and expect it to grow a democratic one. There has to be an historical social convergence towards democracy.

And I know conservatives like to pull the Japan and Germany had dictatorship et al. But before they had dictatorships they had functioning democracies, established by internal forces, and but then lacked the constitutional checks against ultra conservative movements (not unlike what is happening in America right now).

On the off chance that Democracy succeeds, because Iraq is 60% Shia and Shia’s have gotten shabby treatment by Sunni’s throughout history, Iraq will close ranks with its Shia neighbor next door, Iran. (That is one of the reasons why Bush the elder left Saddam in power – as a check on Iran).

What this means is that our soldiers are fighting, dieing and being wounded in Iraq to liberate them from Bathist so that Iraq can become an Iranian satellite. Another likely outcome is all out civil war in which Iran still might become an Iranian satellite, of a larger war between Turkey and Iran over the left over pieces in Iraq.

You see what a mess Bush and the Neocon’s have made of things? Furthermore, Saddam could at least control Iraq’s borders. But Saddam had 500,000 men in arms. He had enough soldiers to control the borders. Bush won’t even supply Iraq with a force large enough to control Iraq’s borders. That means weapons are flowing into Iraq from Syria and Iran almost at will. That means Bush is allowing our soldiers to be used as target practice for the insurgency over there. And he won’t provide the necessary armor to protect soldiers either.

What’s more is he has no intention of putting an end to any of this. He is content to allow Iraq to bleed the Marine corp. and the rest of the U.S. Armed forces and the U.S. treasury dry. He does not want out right victory, he does not want out right defeat, he wants perpetual war because it gives him perpetual war time powers granted under our constitutional system and perpetual war time profits to his economic cohorts.

Finally, I will say that I stumbled into some military people in New York City there for a convention in late july, as was I – sort of, in a hotel bar off of Times Square, many officers included, and to a man they all thought that Bush was trying to wreck the military, piece meal, by over committing and under supporting it to death.

1800 Americans, 2000 total allied, having died are not large casualties for war by historical proportions. But when you consider that they died to help make Iraq a satellite for Iran then all, like I, should be enraged. Also consider the fact that roughly 25,000 soldiers have been wounded and maimed in Iraq.

All things considered after wounded and killed and others no longer serviceable for various reasons, that’s a force of roughly 30,000 soldiers no longer deployable, in an environment where the most you can plant over there is 150,000 in peak situations. Under those conditions, 30,000 are a lot of soldiers. It means we are less likely to have the number of soldiers available over there necessary to contain the borders which is necessary to reduce American casualties.

The formula is one where we continue to bleed to death. If you can’t ever win, that means ultimately, with time, you can only lose. It means you just bleed to death slowly over time. Which means we are indeed losing this war, but at a very, very slow rate. All of this makes Bush’s inept conduct in the field of international affairs tragic and criminal.

And it is worse than Vietnam. Vietnam had no strategic value. When Iraq becomes an Iranian satellite, Iran will control nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Nothing will stand between them and there combined populations of nearly 100 million from staring down Saudi Arabia and its 20 million people along with the other postage stamp states of the Gulf – especially the 2 million people in Kuwait who will be practically surounded by Iran/Iraq, and they with oil reserves nearly as great as Iran or Iraq.

Furthermore nothing will stand between Iran and Israel but tiny, barren and minute Jordan. There is a reason why Bush the elder left Saddam in power. A Saddam led Iraq that was hostile to Iran and secular, was a barrier that prevented Iran from asserting influence throughout the Gulf region and the entire Mid-East east of Suez. When Iraq becomes an Iranian satellite the whole balance of geopolitical power will change. This whole scenario is quite dangerous and there is slim to no chance for strategically positive outcome, especially without a massive influx of American or Allied troops and even so it would depend upon competence coming out of United States policy makers which is definitely not in the offing.

Prior to the Iraq war, Iraq’s GNP was only $50 billion. We have spent $300 billion, we could have bribed Saddam into being more benevolent, or even selling the whole country to us without blowing up the infrastructure etc… for a third of the price this war is costing us.

Bush is a failure on almost any level, but Iraq is the ultimate misadventure.

Very interesting. Thanks Luis and Tim.

You think we’ve lost the war because there are problems during it?

That’s totally screwed up logic.

Even Democratic (self-described Presidential candidate for ’08) Senator Joseph Biden stated on Meet the Press that although he disagrees with much of the administration’s policies regarding Iraq, he agrees that it is “better that Hussein is gone.”

Look, it’s been said all along. You can’t call something a failure until you actually fail. There were people set and ready to call Iraq a “quagmire” and “another Vietnam” before troops even set foot on Iraqi soil. When real positive news comes up, like Marines finding a factory for car bombs or 28 insurgents being captured by security forces, it’s all hush-hush or “oh yeah, there is some progress but it’s all hopeless.” This is defeatist thinking. Try to be positive sometimes. So you don’t agree with the mission in Iraq. So what? That is no longer something you can change. But Senator Biden said it best, “we have to win.” There is no other way.

When the consitution is finalized and voted on, it will be a major step forward. Why aim for failure when we don’t have to fail? Give the troops some credit here people.

By the way, the post and article you refer offer unquoted statements about “officials and analysts” who say that they no longer expect to see Democracy in Iraq. umm, the President has not said this. None of the officials I’ve seen interviewed have said this. Perhaps this is another case of wishful thinking on your part, or even worse, bad reporting like we’ve often seen in articles of this type. The kind that has an agenda to make the public further lose faith in the situation?

You think we’ve lost the war because there are problems during it? That’s totally screwed up logic.You think I said that? That’s totally screwed up reading. In case you missed it, the Bush administration itself is saying it can’t meet the objectives it set out in almost every area. You think they’re all lying?

Even Democratic (self-described Presidential candidate for ’08) Senator Joseph Biden stated on Meet the Press that although he disagrees with much of the administration’s policies regarding Iraq, he agrees that it is “better that Hussein is gone.” And what makes you think that I follow Biden’s public statements as scripture? The problem with Democratic politicians is that they’re too much slaves to public opinion; they need more backbone, to express their ideology and gain support. All too often they say what they think they have to in order to avoid offending voters; in this respect, they go too far in the opposite and equally indefensible direction that Republicans take of cramming ideology down everyone’s throats. Biden likely said that because he was afraid that if he said things are worse now than they were under Hussein, he’d get gang-smeared by the right-wing as being “pro-Hussein.” If he actually believes it, then he’s wrong. I don’t care if he’s a Democrat or not.

Look, it’s been said all along. You can’t call something a failure until you actually fail.Then why is the Bush administration admitting it will fail? They have said they can’t stop the insurgency, they can’t bring representative democracy to Iraq, they can’t turn it into a financially stable society, and they’re gearing up to bug out upon an arbitrary decision that “victory” has been reached.

You tell me: will they be able to defeat the insurgents? Realistically? Will they be able to have a democracy instead of an Islamist state? Exactly how, when their constitutional framers are making Islamic Law central to the constitution? Or are you, as another commentator so deftly pointed out, OK with 2000 US soldiers dying to make Iraq into an Iranian satellite?

When the consitution is finalized and voted on, it will be a major step forward.This is the third time we have a “major step forward,” and every time it’s been billed as a turning point where the insurgents will lose steam. Both times in the past (“handover of power,” and the first election) there was no effect on the insurgency. There is no indication that insurgents will lose anything by Iraqi politicians signing a constitution. To believe so is the height of naivety.

In fact, there is not even an indication that there will even be a constitution, at least any time soon–that committee is still in gridlock over a variety of different points. The Shi’ite majority is demanding Islamic Law, for example. But the constitution will make little or no difference to the insurgents, and as long as unemployment is 50% and higher, as long as infrastructure is malfing, as long as violence from insurgents and extremists continues, the Iraqi people are not going to be served by that constitution and the problem will not be solved.

Why aim for failure when we don’t have to fail? Last time I checked, I’m not in charge of the war; I’m not “aiming” for anything, I am observing. Second, once again, this is the administration spelling out the terms. Go ask them. Don’t expect a straight answer, however, unless it’s off the record or as an anonymous source, end even then.

Give the troops some credit here people. What is that supposed to mean? Have I at all dissed the troops here? I’m sick of conservatives acting like any criticism of Bush or the war being somehow an attack on the troops. The troops are fantastic. the troops are doing the best they can with what they’ve been given. Bush is the screwup here. And your insinuation that I’m laying it on the troops is insulting and completely dishonest.

By the way, the post and article you refer offer unquoted statements about “officials and analysts” who say that they no longer expect to see Democracy in Iraq. umm, the President has not said this.Look at the main thesis of the post: the president says victory while the anonymous officials slowly leak the setup for pulling out. Pay attention.

None of the officials I’ve seen interviewed have said this. Perhaps this is another case of wishful thinking on your part, or even worse, bad reporting like we’ve often seen in articles of this type.You think that I’m making this up? Or that the Washington Post is? Based on what evidence? Because you don’t see it on Fox News? The Bush administration has always heavily relied on anonymous sources for exactly the reasons you’re espousing: they can deny it. Don’t expect me to allow them a free pass because they want to hide from scrutiny.

The troops are fantastic. the troops are doing the best they can with what they’ve been given.

I’m getting tired of this “support our troops” mentality. (I admit I’ve seen less of it since Abu Graib.) Is there no one who believes that American soldiers should share at least some of the blame for war crimes, killing and torture that they’re committing?

99%+ of the troops, I would guess, are not the ones at Abu Ghraib or like them. Some troops do commit the crimes you speak of, and they should be prosecuted for that, including the senior officers who allowed or encouraged such acts to happen.

But you insinuate that most if not all soldiers commit such crimes. Unless you have some sort of evidence to support this, kindly restate and specify your idea. I find it difficult to believe that more than a tiny fraction commit “war crimes, killing and torture” (“killing” being outside standard combat situations, I presume you to mean). Even at 1%, that would be well over than 1000 US troops raping and pillaging. You think so?

The troops that are doing their best under harsh circumstances deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people; if you don’t like what’s going on in Iraq, that’s not the troops’ fault; they simply signed on to serve, they didn’t choose the war or how to fight it.

There must be a strict differentiation between the troops fighting the war and the politicians who sent them.

I’m not blaming the American soldiers for the war. I’m very much aware that they didn’t request this war. But does that mean they should be given a moral carte blanche to do as they please?

No, I have no clue as to how many soldiers are commiting atrocities and war crimes. And neither do you. (Although, the articles that I’ve read do not give a flattering image of the Americans; this is mostly in The Guardian.) But someone is commiting those crimes, yes? And there are lots of them. That claim that only 99% of them do not engage is a shot in the dark. Where did that come from? Why don’t YOU say that probably only the marginalia of soldiers are brave and heroic, and that most of the troops aren’t like THEM? Where’s YOUR evidence to the contrary? (After all, many soldiers aren’t even expected to fight. They’re just part of the supply train.)

Your statement that war criminals “should” be prosecuted is a utopian claim. So, what if they aren’t?

I try to be realistic. Of course any war begets war crimes. Certainly, soldiers of the world’s strongest and best army (probably Israel’s) aren’t necessarily going to be prosecuted for acts that are a part of any occupying army’s strategy.

That said – and forgive me for repeating myself – that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable morally at the very least. This attitude that American soldiers are automatically “the good guys” is frustrating. It’s also frustrating that it’s considered fair that no regular rules apply to Americans. If they’re heroic and brave, I have no problem. Good for them. And if they commit war crimes, shouldn’t that be credited for them as well? It’s that kind of attitude that’s probably causing these sorts of crimes.

Ok, Luis. I’ll back down a bit here. Maybe you aren’t personally wishing for defeat in Iraq. Maybe you aren’t personally saying the President is wrong on everything. It just seems that way.

(Do you even read the comments when they’re down so low on the page?)

“You tell me: will they be able to defeat the insurgents? Realistically? Will they be able to have a democracy instead of an Islamist state? Exactly how, when their constitutional framers are making Islamic Law central to the constitution?”

There are no guarantees. I’m an optimist. I believe that we (the U.S. forces) have made significant progress many times in Iraq, only to find some of that success compromised by “insurgents” (really terrorists). Yet, unlike many, I do not blame the administration or our forces for these twists and turns. They are doing what they can to succeed, since there is no alternative available.

As for a Democracy in Iraq, this is where my deep connection with the President lies. He has spoken passionately about his belief that the Iraqis desire the freedom to govern themselves peacefully. I don’t think that their government will be a clone of ours, but that we will eventually see a freer, fairer government and a potential ally in the not-so-far future. President Bush believes that this is vital to the goal of changing the destructive path of the Middle East, which for centuries now has been prone to hatred and violence toward one another. Recent history has shown only an increase in this dangerous mindset of radicalism. Because of the President’s advocacy for peace and stability, he has convinced me (as has common sense that this is the best way) that this is a reachable goal.

How? well, that’s a difficult thing to guage, since this has never been done in that country. Saddam Hussein pretty well crushed and stifled the people for decades. So, they are starting from square one. Given this, they are making incredible progress on the political front. Elections, which we all saw, were quite a sight. Now they are trying to draft a consitution. As of this writing they seem poised to actually agree on a proposed draft.

As for our military strategy, I think we have to focus on finding more of their bases (like the car-bombing factory found last month) and capture more top opposition leaders. We also have to convince the insurgents through perseverence, that we aren’t going away till Iraqi forces are strong enough to engage them, which might also convince them they can’t win outright. Only then will Iraqis be able to complete their journey from wartorn country to peaceful free country. Yet this can’t be done without continuing our efforts there.

It’s interesting that some people don’t think the adminstration has acknowledged mistakes or the difficulties in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has said a few times that mistakes were made by saying that it’s “two steps forward, one step back.” I think some people are just too eager (and have been from the beginning) to see this fail, because they can’t fathom a free Iraq or the administration being right about this conflict.

It’s premature to call it a failure and it’s incredibly foolish, I think, to say that this is another Vietnam. Vietnam was clearly unwinnable the way it was waged, but Iraq is winnable despite some problems.

(Do you even read the comments when they’re down so low on the page?)Movable Type generates an email every time someone comments. You can comment on any post in the blog, no matter how many comments, and I’ll get it by email and read it.
I believe that we (the U.S. forces) have made significant progress many times in Iraq, only to find some of that success compromised by “insurgents” (really terrorists).In this context, “terrorist” is an incredibly plastic word. By some people’s definition, any insurgent anywhere could be called a “terrorist.” But if you draw any distinction between the word “terrorist” (e.g., a member of a group like Al Qaeda) and an “insurgent” (someone fighting for national control through guerilla tactics, e.g. a rebel or revolutionary), then the insurgents are not by a long shot all “terrorists.” Most are former Baathists and other Iraqis that want the US out by any and all means. To call all of them terrorists is to be oversimplistic–yes, they are terrorizing the people of Iraq, but by that definition, anyone from muggers to serial killers is a “terrorist.”

Yet, unlike many, I do not blame the administration or our forces for these twists and turns. They are doing what they can to succeed, since there is no alternative available.For the troops, you are exactly precise. For the administration, you are dead wrong. The administration has had many options from the start (including letting the inspectors continue their work or to continue containing Saddam and not invade), but they have, at every step, chosen a bullheaded path that was never designed so much to win the war as it was to serve their own political and ideological needs. They had the alternative of containment; they did not exercise it. They had the alternative of inspection and control; they did not exercise it. They had the alternative of building a strong case for invasion, strong enough for the real international community (not a lame, patched-together and often bribed group of “willing” countries) to accept and join in a true international effort; they did not exercise it. They had the alternative of waiting until they had an exit strategy; they did not exercise it. They had the alternative of committing the right number of troops to the engagement; they did not exercise it. They had the alternative of stopping the looting that was easily predictable; they did not exercise it.

But most critically, after the initial fighting was over, they had the alternative of opening up to the international community and letting them in to share real control; they did not exercise it. This option was open to them for a long time, with many different landmarks allowing them an opportunity to make such a transition, but they never chose that alternative.

If, after the invasion was first complete, had the US said, “look, the deed is done, Saddam is on the run and we’ll get him, but we need stability, and that’s what the international community can provide,” that was the way Iraq could have been stabilized. Something, for example, with a great deal of Arab involvement, from the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians and other countries in the region that we could get along with; and behind them, U.N. support. But most importantly, the U.S. willing to let go of monolithic control over Iraq’s industry and government and handed it over to the world, with a believable promise of self-rule–that more than anything else would have stopped the insurgency in its tracks. More on this, but it is addressed in your next point:

As for a Democracy in Iraq, this is where my deep connection with the President lies. He has spoken passionately about his belief that the Iraqis desire the freedom to govern themselves peacefully.Sorry, but here’s where the science fiction begins. Not yours–you just believed the fiction. Here’s a bitter pill of truth that you really have to swallow: the Iraqis are not free, and they do not and will not govern themselves.

Let’s face something here: the U.S. is in control of Iraq, and we will be for quite some time. We are trying to give the Iraqis the illusion of freedom, but it’s not close to being real. First of all, our troops occupy the nation, and will for at least four years (by Bush’s recent statement, but in truth it’ll be a lot longer–can you say “14 permanent military bases”?). Good rule of thumb: if the armed forces of another country occupy yours, you are not “free.”

Second, the Iraqis do not rule their nation. Even if they are able to patch together the constitution and have elections and the U.S. “hands over power” (again), they won’t rule their nation. Oh, it will seem like it in some ways–they’ll make decisions and we won’t interfere visibly (but don’t think we won’t have “advisors” and “consultants” and that we won’t be “sending messages” all the time), but that government won’t have real control.

Disagree? Then ask yourself this: they get a constitution, they have elections, they then are “free” and a “democracy.” Then they decide to nationalize the oil industry, which is the right of a democracy if they so wish. And you think we’ll let them? Not a goddamned chance in hell. Or they decide that they will ally themselves with Iran and demand that our troops leave–the Iranian army is invited in and will help them get rid of the insurgency. Will we let them do that? Again, not a chance in hell.

Unless you believe that we would allow them to do that, then you cannot make any claim about them being “free” or having a “democracy.” Unless they have full and complete control of their own destiny, so long as they are not invading other countries, committing mass internal genocide or preparing for war by producing WMD and showing intent to use them against others, then they should have the freedom to do what they want. They do not.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying that I want them be be allied with the Iranians or anything. I am simply pointing out an unpleasant fact: we control them. They are not free. Which means that the budding “democracy” is a sham. Did you know that the U.S. still has the power to veto any political candidate it wants and bar them from competing in an election? That and a few hundred other rules that were left behind when Bremer left and we “handed over” power.

And if you think that the Iraqis are not aware of this, then you are missing the biggest point of the entire issue.

An insurgency cannot survive without the support of at least a good chunk of the native population.

The fact that the Iraqis are not free and that the US does and will control them is a key issue. Had the international community been invited in early, had arab faces been on many of the patrolling troops and the international community had real control over things, the Iraqi people would have seen real hope of self-rule. And the insurgency would have been cut off at the knees.

But Bush has consistently refused to take the only reasonable and real path to stability in the country, and for that matter, the region.
… Recent history has shown only an increase in this dangerous mindset of radicalism. …Sorry, but here’s where you’re a bit blinded by the PR game. You think that the invasion of Iraq has dulled the radicalism or even promises to? It has sharpened the edge of radicalism. Iran is now plowing forward with a nuclear program faster than before. Terrorist groups are now flooded with followers. People in the region hate the U.S. more than ever, and more than ever see this as a religious as well as an ideological war. Even in Iraq, the “democracy” is leaning towards Islamic rule, which Bush & Co. will tolerate so long as they can keep control of the oil and if Iraq does not ally itself with anyone we don’t like. Screw women’s rights, screw human rights–we’ve never given a rat’s ass about that kind of stuff so long as oil flows and dictators smile at us. That’s been the rule and it still is.

That’s why Bush & Co. are willing to give up on the insurgency, and that’s why they’re willing to allow Islamic rule–because security, freedom and democracy in Iraq are not and never have been their goal.

There’s a lot more, but I gotta book. Sorry to disagree with you, but we see this whole conflict on entirely different levels.

“But if you draw any distinction between the word “terrorist” (e.g., a member of a group like Al Qaeda) and an “insurgent” (someone fighting for national control through guerilla tactics, e.g. a rebel or revolutionary), ”

Are you calling these people REVOLUTIONARIES?

That’s asburd. What is their revolution? To avenge the ousting of a dictator loathed by the majority of the people of that country? To regain radical militant control of a nation, so they can oppress the people again? To suicide-bomb even Muslims for the sake of some half-assed, nonesensical, non-existent cause in the false name of religion?

These are not revolutionaries. They are clearly terrorists. Sorry to burst your bubble about the big, bad invading Americans being the root cause of the “insurgency,” but while America has comitted sins in the past that inadvertently allowed certain people to rise to power, we certainly are not responsible for the terrorists who who want to destroy and use their religion as an excuse for murdering hundreds of people.

This is not about a revolution against the Americans, especially at this point in time, when the Iraqis are now in the process of negotiating a constitution. We have no say in the kind of government that will eventually reside over the land there. If we weren’t there, there would still be terrorists in the world, intent on gaining power and trying to compete with the world powers. They might not all be migrating to Iraq for this showdown, but they’d be there, planning and plotting as they have for a long time now. This is the true connection to 9/11, an abstract connection, that terrorists exist and they are of the very same mindset that the people who committed the atrocities of that day. These are the people who are fighting our troops in Iraq. Not “revolutionaries.”

“They had the alternative of containment”

Yeah, and that’s what the umpteen U.N. Resolutions and sanctions were supposed to be for. But it was revealed that Saddam was using Oil-for-Food and other deals to soften support for these sanctions, so he could go back to searching for and obtaining weapond of mass destruction. While we may not have found WMD in Iraq, there is no doubt that the dictator wantd them, had them in the past and would have been perfectly happy to use them again.

“They had the alternative of inspection and control”

Yeah, and that’s why it was so difficult for them to do their work when Clinton was in office and he was forced to withdraw them. They were consistently being averted, lied to, and blocked from doing their work. Why do you think it would have been any different in 2001-2003?

“They had the alternative of building a strong case for invasion”

They did. Or they thought they did. Intellgence they had suggested that Saddam had WMD. In books, I have read that
the administration was originally going to include in fairly equal measure Saddam atrocities and other subversions along with their case for WMD, but decided that WMD was their biggest angle, so they used that when they went to the U.N. Now the fact remains that many of the countries most opposed to taking Saddam out (France for one) were involved heavily in deals and bargains with the dictator, providing weapons and equipment right up until President Bush ordered troops to Iraq. They didn’t want to lose lucrative deals. They wanted Saddam to stay, as long as they were getting their end. So even if they made the most airtight, fool-proof case, some of those countries would still not have helped. Why do you suppose the U.N. council voted for all those resolutions telling Saddam to comply and saying that they felt he was hiding something and then proceeded time and again to do nothing when he ignored them?

“they had the alternative of opening up to the international community and letting them in to share real control”

This would have been rather incredible. The countries who stood by and did nothing when they voted for resolution 1441 so they could hope that Saddam survived to keep up his deals, were now supposed to come on board and be greeted like they had something to do with Hussein’s defeat?

Consider this. Some of those same countries were willing to help in Afghanistan and other places, but not Iraq. Why? Oh the story is that they disagreed that Saddam was a major threat. But there’s more to it. In those other places they had nothing at stake. They did in Iraq.

“Sorry, but here’s where you’re a bit blinded by the PR game. You think that the invasion of Iraq has dulled the radicalism or even promises to?”

No. But they were there already. They have just moved more toward the fight in Iraq. Recruiting people under the guise of religion, which is utterly disgusting. Young boys recruited into a cause under the falsest of pretenses. You might come back with “oh what about WMD.” This is nothing more than political ranting, since the administation had every reason to believe that they were there. In other words, they weren’t lying about it. They just thought they would find them. IN the case of religious radicals, they aren’t defending their religion, so much as hijacking it. Nowhere in their religion does it say they must kill in the name of Allah or God. They do so for their own selfish gains. They are lying about their motives. They aren’t fighting for their religion. They are fighting for power. If Iraq becomes a peaceful nation that shuns terrorism, that fights terrorism, they will have less power. They don’t have a national shield, because eventually any country concealing or aiding them will be out-maneuvered by those countries who loathe such activities.

Maybe you call me naive, and who knows? Maybe you’re right. But in the end, your pessism and comforting notions about “revolution” aides the opposition more than their seething anger about losing their base of the Taliban or Baathist Party Leadership. They feel they have a cause as long as people are willing to consider them “revolutionaries” for no other reason than that they happen to be fighting the United States. (other than that if this were nearly any other president, you might actually be supporting this effort).

Are you calling these people REVOLUTIONARIES? … That’s asburd. What is their revolution? To avenge the ousting of a dictator loathed by the majority of the people of that country? To regain radical militant control of a nation, so they can oppress the people again? To suicide-bomb even Muslims for the sake of some half-assed, nonesensical, non-existent cause in the false name of religion?First, calm down. Obviously you misunderstand a lot of stuff, like the definition of words. You appear to believe that the word “revolutionary” has an innate positive connotation, which is untrue. It is an objective term to describe a clinical observation. From the Oxford English Dictionary: To be a “revolutionary” is to be “engaged in or promoting political revolution”; a revolution is the “forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.” Are you saying that the insurgents are not trying to overthrow the American rule so as to install their own again? Of course they are. I didn’t use the term “founding fathers,” so settle down.

Second, you really are locked into a single, monolithic, subjective view. To us, we ousted a bloody tyrant; to Baathists, we overthrew their guy. Remember, Hussein was not cruel to everyone; a lot of people served him and want him back. Now, I expect you’ll go all half-cocked again and accuse me of admiring or supporting these people, so if you are, remember, I am simply reporting facts to you right here, not an opinion.

Additionally, even if a lot of people hated Saddam, that does not mean that they love us. Imagine there is a U.S. president who becomes tyrannical and oppresses his people, throwing out the constitution and becoming a cruel, fascist dictator. Then the Chinese invade and throw him out. Fine, you think–but then the Chinese start turning us into a communist puppet state for China. Will you still love the Chinese? Or will you lead an insurgency against them?

And finally, there are simply people who see a chance to grab power by creating a vacuum if the Americans leave. All three of these groups strive towards a political goal of overthrowing U.S. control and instating their own. They do not have to be al Qaeda, they do not have to be religious.They are clearly terrorists. Sorry to burst your bubble about the big, bad invading Americans being the root cause of the “insurgency,” but while America has comitted sins in the past that inadvertently allowed certain people to rise to power, we certainly are not responsible for the terrorists who who want to destroy and use their religion as an excuse for murdering hundreds of people.Again, your extreme subjectivity and ignorance of the facts are showing. First, you imply that I somehow favor the insurgents; kindly point out to me any such words I have written. You will not find them. Second, how can the American invasion (your “big, bad” comment is petty and facetious) not be the cause of the insurgency? What caused it then? The weather? Third, your view of the insurgents is incredibly cartoonish; you believe that all they want to do is kill people. Not only is that incorrect, but it even defies your limited description of these people as terrorists–terrorists have a political goal (go ahead, look it up). People who kill for the sake of killing are simply murderers.

I attach no subjective, emotional meaning to the terms “terrorist,” “insurgent,” or “revolutionary”; I simply use them in their clinical, dictionary sense. In other words, accurately.”They had the alternative of containment” Yeah, and that’s what the umpteen U.N. Resolutions and sanctions were supposed to be for.And guess what? They worked.

But it was revealed that Saddam was using Oil-for-Food and other deals to soften support for these sanctions, so he could go back to searching for and obtaining weapond of mass destruction.Ah. So you agree–they did work.

While we may not have found WMD in Iraq, there is no doubt that the dictator wantd them, had them in the past and would have been perfectly happy to use them again.Interesting. You dismiss the sanctions because even though they prevented Saddam from having any WMD, they did not prevent Saddam from wanting WMD?

As you seem to agree that the sanctions prevented him from searching for and obtaining WMD, instead of invading why not just push to continue the sanctions? Boy, I wish I’d have thought of that, just containing Saddam. Oh, wait! That’s was my suggestion!

Yeah, and that’s why it was so difficult for them to do their work when Clinton was in office and he was forced to withdraw them. They were consistently being averted, lied to, and blocked from doing their work. Why do you think it would have been any different in 2001-2003?Because the inspectors reported “significant progress and cooperation” and that the inspections only take more time.

“They had the alternative of building a strong case for invasion”

They did. Or they thought they did.No they didn’t. Just because you bought the lies they were peddling, it doesn’t mean that everyone did. Even as the administration was making its case, it was clear that Bush was cherry-picking and exaggerating the information, inflating the estimates of Saddam’s power, misleading the people about his links to terrorism and 9/11, and falsifying a need to invade before Saddam attacked us. In retrospect, this is even more clear. While some of the intelligence was wrong about Iraq, most of the inaccuracy came from the Bush administration’s willing distortion of the intelligence to their favor.

An excellent example of this is Joe Wilson’s report on Niger. He went over there and observed that the reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger were untrue. He reported this back to D.C. The Bush administration looked at this intelligence, saw that it worked against them, and so dismissed their own intel and went with a British report that said the Niger story was true, and embedded that into Bush’s state of the union address. Clinton had the same intel, remember, and saw no reason to invade Iraq.

The countries who stood by and did nothing when they voted for resolution 1441 so they could hope that Saddam survived to keep up his deals, were now supposed to come on board and be greeted like they had something to do with Hussein’s defeat?What in the world are you talking about? 1441 was a resolution drafted and pushed by the US and Britain, which called for weapons inspections. It afforded Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council.” It was, not to mention, a resolution that Hussein actually complied with; Bush was the one who stopped the process when no WMD were found, and so he concluded that Saddam must have been hiding them from the inspectors. You say that the other countries “stood by and did nothing” after voting for 1441; what exactly were they supposed to do? They voted for 1441, Hussein was complying, inspections were going on. If you are suggesting that they should have joined the “coalition of the willing” and helped with the invasion, then you are suggesting that they violate the resolution they agreed to.

Furthermore, whether or not they were involved in the invasion is irrelevant. In the end, they were right to resist as Bush’s case turned out to be wrong. But even if not, the U.N. would have brought legitimacy to an occupation and reform which the Iraqi people would have favored and believed in; to deny this contribution because they did not join us in the invasion would be nothing more than petty spite, condemning the Iraqi people of the best chance of a true resolution to the whole mess out of small-minded vindictiveness. This is supposed to be about helping the Iraqis, not punishing the world stage for disapproving of what Bush did.

Oh, by the way:Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.
Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.”We should start figuring out how we get out of there,” Hagel said on “This Week” on ABC. “But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”Hagel said “stay the course” is not a policy. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning,” he said.

Well ok in a certain light you could call them insurgents rather than terrorists. It’s just so noble-sounding.

But let me back up to an earlier post.

“Sorry, but here’s where the science fiction begins. Not yours–you just believed the fiction. Here’s a bitter pill of truth that you really have to swallow: the Iraqis are not free, and they do not and will not govern themselves.

Let’s face something here: the U.S. is in control of Iraq, and we will be for quite some time.”

Ah, but this is what the process is for. After occupation and hand-over, we go on to the next step. We’ve given them a hand-over, told them that we will let them decide their consitituion and government without our direct interference. This is happening as we debate.

Of course they aren’t totally free yet. Only an idiot would assume that they are. They haven’t even accepted the constitution yet.

But Bush is hoping that once they have their referendum and elect a permanent government, we will finally have the ability to say, hey our job is done. I’m sure we will leave some troops there for back-up and, if they need serious help in the future, I’m sure that we will do so. At that point in time, however, Iraq will be in the hands of the people. This is what is aimed for. We are not going to be governing Iraq. At most it’ll be like Japan, where after drafting a constitution after WWII, we maintained military presence there for decades. The difference between what history has shown and what you suggest about Iraq are completely different. Japan has its own Democracy and it’s own leaders. They are not a puppet government, as you suggest Iraq will be. Our government has never been comfortable keeping imperial control over other countries. If we did such things, we would be a physical empire like Ancient Rome or something. This is not how we conduct our military or government business.

“Additionally, even if a lot of people hated Saddam, that does not mean that they love us. Imagine there is a U.S. president who becomes tyrannical and oppresses his people, throwing out the constitution and becoming a cruel, fascist dictator. Then the Chinese invade and throw him out. Fine, you think–but then the Chinese start turning us into a communist puppet state for China. Will you still love the Chinese? Or will you lead an insurgency against them?

This is rather simplistic, though, and maybe purposefully so. Yet this isn’t exactly accurate, since the world knows that we have elections every 4 years and that congress can impeach a President who oversteps his bounds. Since it is clear that a President who intended to oppress the American People has to answer to them, and to the congress, this scenario cannot occur. Now if we made it a bit less dramatic and just said that the Chinese, who rely on our trade, decided to invade us and succeeded without a nuclear war. This would have the effect of creating a revolution. And a revolution isn’t simply ousted forces trying to take out those who successfully took out their leaders. It has to do with a more nationalistic approach. Since many of the insurgents in Iraq are from foreign countries, this is not exactly the case. Baathists were well-fed and trained, protected by Saddam because he wanted to have some people he could depend upon to suppress the people. However, Saddam himself didn’t even trust most of these people. He had food-tasters and other methods of keeping those around him from killing him and taking over themselves. Baathists were not a majority of the people and are most likelt not considered especially welcome. They are still fighting because they don’t want the Iraqi people to govern themselves. This is a major defeat for the insurgents, because it makes it more difficult for them to regain control in a political sense. They may have the ability to rig car bombs and use suicide bombers, but they aren’t equipped to take over in the long run. Maybe this is too optimistic, but the increase in violence has more to do with this than anything else.

“Oh, by the way:

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

“We should start figuring out how we get out of there,” Hagel said on “This Week” on ABC. “But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”

Hagel said “stay the course” is not a policy. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning,” he said.

Hagel is partly right here. IN the sense that it is a major burden on the people of America to stay there at that level for that long. He’s wrong when it comes to the winning part. How long was WWII fought? Many wars last longer than 2 1/2 years and are still won. The point is that this is not the usual run-of-the-mill military conflict and there is the added goal of a stable political front. IN WWII, our goal was not to take out the leadership of Japan or Germany, as much as it was to defeat them militarily. Regime change was not a stated goal and it was not something we were trying to acheive while we were still fighting. (some also point out that we were attacked by Japan and not Germany, but we still fought them too.)

The clear implication of Hagel’s statement is that we can’t win in Iraq. I don’t believe this, and apparently neither does the administration. In 2 1/2 years more progress has been made than is given credit for. Personally, I don’t think that we will be in Iraq at the same level for more than four years. I believe that once the referendum takes place and a new election decides a permenent government, we will pull out most of our troops. Some will stay, since that has been traditional practice in all of our conflicts. Hagel is exagerrating

But Bush is hoping that once they have their referendum and elect a permanent government, we will finally have the ability to say, hey our job is done. I’m sure we will leave some troops there for back-up and, if they need serious help in the future, I’m sure that we will do so. At that point in time, however, Iraq will be in the hands of the people. This is what is aimed for. We are not going to be governing Iraq. At most it’ll be like Japan, where after drafting a constitution after WWII, we maintained military presence there for decades. The difference between what history has shown and what you suggest about Iraq are completely different. Japan has its own Democracy and it’s own leaders. They are not a puppet government, as you suggest Iraq will be. Our government has never been comfortable keeping imperial control over other countries. If we did such things, we would be a physical empire like Ancient Rome or something. This is not how we conduct our military or government business.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. You are taking the setup at pure face value; I am not. I would still like to hear your answer to the question, which I believe you have not answered: The Iraqis go through all the steps described, constitution, elections, etc. and–according to you–they are free, not a puppet state of the U.S., not under our control. Then they nationalize the oil industry. Do you really think that could happen without the U.S., before, during or after, stopping it? Add to that an election in which Islamic extremists win power and start normalizing ties with Iran; and/or the Iraqis demand a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. These are the kind of things that Japan could do if it wanted, and the U.S. could not stop them, defining the difference between Iraq and Japan which you believe will not exist. But do you really believe that any time in the next few decades or even longer that the Iraqis could choose to do this and not have to answer to the U.S.?

I think that is the real test; not about the Iraqis having nominal control over their own country and destiny, where they can run day-to-day things like who and how to tax, what traffic laws there will be, or whether women have whatever rights. Not just whatever needs governing so long as it doesn’t affect America too much. But freedom means being able to do anything they want even if it goes against America’s interests. If America has veto power over what Iraq does, then they are not free. And quite frankly, I believe that America will not give up that veto power, and I think it is naive to believe that it will be anything other than that. Puppet states are always self-governing up to the point where they conflict with the interests of the controlling state–and that is exactly what Iraq is and will be for the foreseeable future.

They are not “free.”

and/or the Iraqis demand a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. These are the kind of things that Japan could do if it wanted, and the U.S. could not stop them, defining the difference between Iraq and Japan which you believe will not exist. But do you really believe that any time in the next few decades or even longer that the Iraqis could choose to do this and not have to answer to the U.S.?

Luis-

Well, according to President Bush, if the Iraqis want us out we’re out. I agree that this sound too simplistic at this point in time, given all the circumstances in Iraq. The truth is that we probably would interfere, as Bush tried to this week on the constitution, but it’s not quite the way you imply. We can try to inject ourselves into a debate or conflict, such as an oil national plan, but they can now veto us rather than the other way around. However, I see your point. If they did that, we (the U.S.) would definitely try to get them to scratch that idea. This is because we are too dependent on their oil. This is not Bush’s fault. Our country has been content for years to use foreign sources of energy. It is one of the leading problems that need to be fixed, and it is one of the few things that Bush has little in the way of options for dealing with.

Again, though, the central question being raised by protesters is “why can’t we bring troops home?” Well this has been answered time and again. It was a question during last years election, to which the President replied resoundingly that it would not happen until the job is done and the Iraqis can fend for themselves. He won re-election with that being a huge theme in his campaign. Now people decide to complain? Please! If you vote for these policies, don’t complain about them when they are followed through on. President Bush is only doing what he promised he’d do. Isn’t it a little confusing to say “yes we want you to continue” and then turn around and say “umm, we want you to do something different now.” Granted, I think most people who voted for Bush are willing to concede that this is what he said he would do. No pulling out until we had completed the stated goals. It makes sense to me.