It’s almost impossible to measure how far America has fallen these days. And it all happened because of a single man: the President.
We went from having a president beloved by the entire world –- Clinton –- to one hated and despised by the universe, it seems.
Poor Bush. Paul Wolfowitz talked him into a neocon dream — to establish a friendly democratic government in the Middle East from where democracy would spread to the rest of the region — and Bush paid off Wolfowitz by letting him run the World Bank.
Now Bush has only Cheney and Rumsfeld to hang on to, as they sit stuck with the shards of the neocon dream — another war lost by America, our biggest loss since we lost the Vietnam war.
Why have we lost the war in Iraq? Because we won’t get anything out of it that we started the war for.
Number one, we won’t get a place to park our troops in the Middle East. The Iraqis want us out. Having wisely decided that Saudi Arabia is no place to park our troops (our troops there being the reason Bin-Laden launched 9/11), the Pentagon will have to accept the fact that the entire Middle East is no place to park our troops (even if it’s found more than 140 other countries around the world to put 'em).
Egypt and Israel may be our allies but they don't need our troops, because they’ve got good armies themselves (in a fair fight the Israelis would kick our butts through our skulls). Afghanistan has our troops but they serve little purpose there, except to put Karzai on an equal warlord footing with the other warlords who'll be running Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.
Number two, we won’t get our oil companies to control or exploit Iraq’s oilfields. Why? Because, number three, we won’t get the friendly “democracy” we wanted.
Our 1953 intervention in Iran led to the eventual fall of the puppet we installed, the Shah, and to his replacement in 1979 by a Shiite theocracy who doesn't like us. Our intervention in Iraq is doing exactly the same thing: Iraq will be a Shiite theocracy (with a small secular Kurdish north) who won't like us. As the only Muslim states with Shiite majorities, Iraq and Iran are natural allies, and it’s high time they got together. So instead of creating an American ally, we're creating an ally of Iran.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
Interesting, thanks
2 - Bennett
Spot on Adam. Can't wait for excusists and appologists to show up. Where the hell is Ant G now that I could use a laugh?
3 - Temple Stark
The original headline had more (harsh) punch and keywords. Too bad it was changed.
4 - Dave Nalle
Just a few clarifications for factual accuracy:
We went from having a president beloved by the entire world -- Clinton -- to one hated and despised by the universe, it seems.
Clinton was certainly not liked by a signficant portion of America itself, which ultimately matters more than how the rest of the world feels about him. Plus a lot of us thought that when Bush was running he might be another Clinton from the other side of the aisle, given his campaign positions and moderate history.
Poor Bush. Paul Wolfowitz talked him into a neocon dream -- to establish a friendly democratic government in the Middle East from where democracy would spread to the rest of the region
That's actually not at all like a Neocon dream. That kind of benevolent foreign policy is antithetical to the Neocon agenda.
Neocons would prefer to install easily controlled puppet regimes rather than self-actualized and independent democracies. The Neocons lost big time on this one and everyone else won.
Why have we lost the war in Iraq? Because we won't get anything out of it that we started the war for.
That's why the Neocons lost, it's not a loss for the rest of us. I don't want to see America go to war for profit. If we come out of the war with a better Iraq and a more democratic middle east that's an enormous victory. We shouldn't take home any direct profit.
Number one, we won't get a place to park our troops in the Middle East.
We already have several good locations for this, and from the very beginning of the war we have repeatedly and specifically stated that we had no intention of establishing a permanent presence in Iraq. This canard from the left just won't go away, but there's not an ounce of truth to it.
the Pentagon will have to accept the fact that the entire Middle East is no place to park our troops
Except that we're expanding the Al Udeid base in Qatar and it looks like that very pro-US country is going to be our main basing partner in the region.
But even more likely is that we'll be massively reducing our troop commitments in all parts of the world. We're clearly going to be pulling substantial forces out of Europe and other areas, not just the middle east.
Number two, we won't get our oil companies to control or exploit Iraq's oilfields. Why? Because, number three, we won't get the friendly "democracy" we wanted.
Wrong on two counts. We never intended to have 'our' oil companies control the oil fields, because 'our' companies are multinational oil companies which are going to control the oil fields no matter what we or the Iraqis do. From the moment the war started there was only one possible outcome for the oil fields - a partnership between major oil distributors and the new government which has nothing at all to do with the US government.
Iraq will be a Shiite theocracy (with a small secular Kurdish north) who won't like us.
Except, of course that this is specifically NOT happening. Perhaps you should read up on the history of Iraq and some current news from there as well. Iraq has a strong history of secularism, including among the shiite population, and the current government building process has the shiites making deals with secularists to create a government acceptable to everyone, which means Kurds and secularists at the top.
Post-election, the Shiite leaders will cut a deal with the Kurds, about how to divvy up oil revenues. Will they allow the Sunnis a cut? Why should they, when the Sunnis are killing Shiite cops every day? The Sunnis will get nothing. Their leaders will either keep the insurgency going and get wiped out, or get used to being second-class citizens in the new Shiite theocracy, or leave Iraq for other Muslim states, where Sunnis rule.
Sunnis who have been participating in the government are getting plenty of support, and that deal you talked about between the Kurds and Shiites already happened about a week ago. But it didn't shut out the Sunnis, and since the government isn't going to be a theocracy most of your other claims don't make much sense either.
Those are the facts on the ground.
Or at least you'd like them to be.
What are our troops doing there? God knows; mostly they're holed up in their bases. Whenever they leave on some moronic "mission" to "kill terrorists," they kill a few insurgents and civilians, upset the locals mightily, and get killed themselves.
You really are remarkably ill-informed and biased. Go read some actual reports from Iraq before you make such ignorant comments. Try some of the more informed sources - like people who are actually IN Iraq, for example Michael Yon or some of the Iraqi bloggers. US forces are regularly active all over the country, not hiding in 'crusader castles'. They've pacified huge areas, the roads are open and running and the cities are increasingly peaceful.
Those are the facts
Or not, depending on whether you rely on propaganda for your 'facts' or actually do some research.
and Bush is either (1) too stupid or (2) too clever to share them with us:
Good thing some of us can go out to reliable sources and find them for ourselves - too bad you bought into propaganda as bad as anything to ever come out of the White House.
There are signs that the Administration may be getting ready to cut and run anyway. Apparently they're not going to ask for more than the $18 billion they already got for Iraqi reconstruction. So if they're giving up on reconstruction, how soon will they give up on having our troops killed?
There's been a timetable for troop reductions for more than a year and I imagine they'll keep following it and we'll be down to 100,000 by the summer and maybe to 50,000 by the end of the year depending on how things go.
My guess is the Republican leadership will force Bush to pull out by summer 2006 when they'll be running scared at the slate of Democratic ex-Iraqi soldier candidates against them in November.
And you'll be cheering all the way, right? The more problems America has the better from your perspective, because it advances your political interests. Screw the country, screw the Iraqis - let's just get some more socialists elected whatever the cost.
In other words, we have lost the war.
And if we all clap and show that we believe in fairies then tinkerbell will come back to life. Wishing WILL make it so!
Dave
5 - Al Barger
Damn, but this is one impressively stilted piece of writing with particularly careful detachment from reality. This is a long and impressively detailed piece of writing, but it's so completely wrong at nearly every turn.
Your stated premises are just totally wrong, besides taking absolutely the strongest worst possible way of interpreting them. For starters, "Because we won't get anything out of it that we started the war for. Number one, we won't get a place to park our troops in the Middle East." Who ever said that was even a goal? Not W.
Also, this business about the Shia crushing and oppressing the Sunnis is SO dumbfoundingly backwards from reality as to defy rational criticism. See, in reality it has been the Sunnis doing the brutal oppressing. We've pretty well ended that, whatever else we do or don't accomplish. So far, in reality, the Shia have not been trying to oppress Sunnis, but to fold them into a democratic process. I can understand being a bit concerned about the possibility of retaliation, but it hasn't happened.
In fact, I'd say the glass so far in Iraq looks to be at least two-thirds full. Beyond the real benefits to the Iraqi people that are emerging daily, we HAVE shut down the Hussein regime from a thousand types of sponsoring terrorism.
There's still some vicious bastards running around, but they're not being sponsored by the government anymore. Indeed, we have the SUPPORT of the emerging government in shutting them down and thinning them out. It's not pretty, but it seems to be in fact making good progress.
Alright, enough reason and empiricism, I return you now to your regularly scheduled Two Minute Hate.
6 - gonzo marx
Bennett sez...
*Can't wait for excusists and appologists to show up.*
your Wish is granted...
i ain't even going to touch this topic other than to say it was an interesting read, but some of the conclusions are tenuos at best...only time will tell for the most part
side note...Abramhoff pleads guilty, and will testify
it's going to be a very weird year leading up to November
Excelsior!
7 - Dave Nalle
I don't believe I made a single excuse or apology, but the post is so riddled with spin and misrepresentations and outright propaganda that I had to say something.
It's prompted me to go out and research another Iraq update article with some REAL news from Iraq, but I had been planning to work on something else, so that's kind of irritating. I just can't stand to let this kind of garbage stand without balancing it out with a bit of reality.
dave
8 - Baronius
Haven't we had this same discussion before? You set up preposterous reasons for the war, then say that we haven't achieved them, so the war is a failure.
One: we fought this war to provide whipped cream for Iraq. But we haven't brought any whipped cream to Iraq! Another Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz lie! Why does Bush allow them to get away with it? Because he's dumb.
Two: not only have we failed to bring whipped cream to Iraq, the people there don't want it. There will be civil war the moment we turn our backs, which admittedly hasn't happened yet, but it's safe to assume that it will, because Bush is stupid. No fantasies about "elections" or a "constitution" or "other things that have actually happened" can make me question my premonitions.
Oh, for the days of Bill Clinton, who left office as the Constitution dictates, and was replaced by someone I don't like. Those were days when America was loved by bin Laden, when Palestine was at peace.
9 - Joanie
It seems that you're laboring under the impression that Iraqis and Afghanis are opposed to their newfound freedoms. If they are, indeed, opposed to self-determination, you're right - we lost the war.
Since that is not the case, it's difficult to imagine how freedom can be construed as a loss.
I have worked with a good number of ex-pats from Iraq and Afghanistan and I can tell you straight out that they are thrilled with the progress made in their countries. For the first time in many years, they are now able to return to their homelands to see the few living relatives they have. Few living because most were killed by brutal leaders.
The only reason that you can claim "we've lost the war in Iraq" is because our government is doing something you don't support.
You've also completely lost perspective by characterizing Clinton as the most beloved president. I voted for Clinton. Twice. But he was far from loved by all - not just in this country, but internationally.
No president will be 100% popular everywhere. Ever. That's just the way it is when you have people with differing agendas - either foreign or domestic.
10 - Justin Berry
I cant get over the Isreal Kicking our ass part. Once I read that I knew you were smoking that shit again.
11 - Pradeep
General Wesley Clark has the wisdom and ability to turn the Iraq mess into a success. I urge you to read his policy papers. It might renew your hope in America’s future.
12 - Dave Nalle
Clark is a weasel puffed up to the size of a buffalo by his own ego.
Dave
13 - RedTard
More wishful thinking from the anti-American left. As usual, American Loss = Liberal Win.
I hope I never sink as low as you guys, wishing death and destruction on the USA just so I can get my favorite candidate in office.
14 - Nancy
I don't think anybody on "The Left", as you call it, wishes death & destruction on the USA for any purpose whatsoever; that's just your ascription of their motives, probably based on your own proclivities. I read it that they decry the fact that W has singlehandedly destroyed what good reputation abroad we did have, alienated all our allies by his arrogance & bombast, & blundered & lied his way into a losing war for personal aggrandizement - because he wanted to be a 'War Prezident like [his] poppy' - and for the enrichment of his greedy billionaire buddies in the oil industry. To date, I haven't heard or read one liberal actually wishing defeat on the US. They just object to stupid or venal people getting the US in deeper than it already is, not to mention doing it in the first place.
15 - adam
RedTard:
What's wrong with your life that you think opening a discussion is about wishing "death and destruction on the USA"? Who wishes death and destruction on the USA? Only terrorists. Don't be crazy: talk things out. Calling people anti-American is not thinking; it just replaces discussion with stupidity.
You people on the far right and the far left think name-calling serves a purpose -- all it is, is emotionality. It's all about yourself and your feelings, not about the issue. You always get so hurt and upset, you're always so sensitive. You need to grow a little skin, dude.
16 - adam
BTW, Nale, Baronius, Al Barger:
It's obvious you guys have drunk the neocon Kool-Aid. Maybe you should read Juan Cole (juancole.com), who reads the Iraqi press every day, to get an idea about what's really going down in Iraq. Take the administration filter off your information, dudes. Wishful thinking is no substitute for real-life politics.
Another BTW, if we didn't go to war for the sake of exploiting oil, planting military bases, or "spreading democracy," why in hell did we? Those are the reasons laid out in the Cheney/Wolfowitz/neocon PNAC initiative, going back to 1992, and 1997.
You guys got any new reasons to add to the reasons these guys already gave THEMSELVES? You know their minds better than they themselves have ALREADY explained them?
I didn't come up with these reasons: THEY did, and they wrote them down, for you to read. Just Google PNAC, for chrissake, and stop bullshitting yourselves.
Those are the reasons they give, and those are the things we're not getting out of our Iraq invasion. Conclusion: we've lost the war. It's that simple.
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
Yuck. Neocon Koolaid is hard to drink because the cup leaks.
Then again it's no better tasting than the liberal Koolaid, which only comes in one flavor -- sour grapes.
18 - RedTard
"You people on the far right and the far left think name-calling serves a purpose"
It certainly got you and Nancy to respond. Must have been a little close to the truth.
This war, as all against insurgents are, is a battle of propaganda and will. The US military cannot be defeated in Iraq, they can only be defeated here by domestic pressure. The eventual outcome is unknown but both positions are basically self fulfilling prophecies.
If you accept winning as the only solution, stand firm in your resolve, and provide an alternative to warfare/suicide for the insurgents you can wear down the insurgency. In that case America wins and that is the position I take.
If you waffle in your cowardice and resign yourself to defeat you offer the insurgents renewed hope. Everybody jumps on the winning bandwagon and a young Iraqi is not going to side with the US if we're already talking about defeat. A defeatist attitude emboldens and swells the ranks of the enemy. That is the position you take.
The purpose of the original article is to convince people of the clear defeat we are facing in Iraq. This type of propaganda is what causes democracies to lose wars. By writing it you are aligning your goals with that of the terrorists even if it is not a conscious decision.
I could go on to make the case that increased insurgency="death and destruction" and that peoples political views have always effected their view of the war but I think these things are self evident.
Also, next time you make a rebuttal for supposed name calling please try and refrain from pointing out the "stupidity" of the opposing argument, it undermines your point.
19 - gonzo marx
RedTard sez...
*If you accept winning as the only solution, stand firm in your resolve, and provide an alternative to warfare/suicide for the insurgents you can wear down the insurgency.*
point of Fact...i can't think of a SINGLE instance in ALL of human history where this has worked
from the American Revoloution itself, to Viet Nam, to Afghanistan when it was invaded by Russia
on and on
militarily, an "insurgency" fighting on it's home turf has such an enormous advantage over any "foreign" invaders that Time is ALWAYS on their side
whenever it has been overcome, even temporarily (such as British Occupation of India bfore Ghandi) it has been due to local "authority" going along with the "invaders"...even then, eventually one of two things happens
either the local population is systematically exterminated(Native American Tribes) or the "invaders" leave (all the other examples given)
this is NOT any kind of admission of defeat, Bog and JuJu know i want this mess to work out for U.S. AND the Iraqis
but the outcome is up to the local population,in the long run, not any outside influence from either other Muslim Nations or U.S.
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
20 - Nancy
My terms "stupid" & "venal" were not directed at you, but at the administration. I should have been clearer on that, you're right.
21 - RedTard
Gonzo,
There are examples on both sides but a significant portion of writings on this topic indicate that most insurgencies lose. It seems that losing insurgencies just seem to be forgotten much easier.
Most of the rest of your post is true and bolsters the idea that this is a battle of minds and wills as much as it is bombs and guns. Certainly, the US leaving Iraq (in better condition than it found it) is part of beating the insurgency and putting this one in the "win" column.
Answer this question honestly.
Would it help the US against the insugents and improve support for the war if Bin Laden and Zarqawi hosted a news conference saying that using suicide bombers and terrorism were mistakes and that they felt their side could not win?
If so, why is the reverse not equally true?
22 - ss
I'll step into the middle on this one:
Adam: Iraq will not be a theocracy in the sense that Iran is a theocracy (ruled by a Supreme Religious Council that vets all candidates). This doesn't mean the fundies will give up, they'll focus on maintaining influence over the courts (as they have in Afghanistan, where a journalist who wrote that Islam should be a choice was recently sentenced to two years in prison). They will also want to control the schools.
Dave: The secular parties were in the minority before this election and it looks like they lost seats, down to 25 by the last projection I saw.
Also, Alawi got attacked and chased out of Najaf while campaigning.
And although religious parties probably won't interfere to overtly in the elections they will get to decide the make up the Supreme Judicial Council that will decide on candidates for the new Federal Supreme Court, AND they'll get to vote on the nominees.
What we'll see in Iraq is what they have in Afghanistan, a democraticly elected government where fundies can use the power of the state to silence their critics.
Better than it used to be, but still well short of free.
I have a brief one word answer to the Iraq=Vietnam v. Everything is gonna be great in Iraq arguement:
Lebanon
23 - Baronius
Adam, I checked out the PNAC, and their focus was always on removing Saddam Hussein because he was a threat. They weren't seeking to exploit oil reserves, although removing Hussein would help to protect them. They didn't mention military bases in anything I saw. They talked about spreading democracy, which is admirable. I don't know why you put that word in quotes.
I think the reason your credibility is so low is your reluctance to acknowledge that Saddam was an evil ruler. You seem to regard democracy as a bad idea, or at least not as an improvement. There was a genocide going on before we got to Iraq. Whether or not there will be one after we leave is unknown, but you focus on the worst-case scenario of the future.
Your position is insulated from good news. The Iraqi Constitution addresses the issue of revenue-sharing from oil sales. It's a tad vague, but it's in their constitution. Yet you say that the Shiites and Kurds may cut the Sunnis out of the profits. You call your speculation about the future a "fact on the ground".
And do you really think that other people are thin-skinned name-callers? You post a stream of insults directed at the President, his staff, and anyone who agrees with them. Then you complain that the rest of us fall back on emotion because can't construct arguments. You probably can't see us clearly because of the plank in your eye.
24 - adam
Baronius:
1) Of course I think Saddam was and is an evil bastard. Who doesn't? Why do you guys have to accuse others of idiocies, like "reluctance to acknowledge Saddam was an evil ruler" or "anti-Americanism"? Jeez, this is so tiresome. It's not an argument, it's got to come from some weird hurt feeling inside you guys, like I said.
2) Thank you for checking out the PNAC, but check a little more. In the PNAC 2000 report, it states that "the presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower" and proposes "a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces."
Translation: military bases.
3) My point is I fear we're not getting a democracy in Iraq, but a theocracy. Evil Saddam ran a more secular state. Either way, you have to keep your mouth shut and your nose down if you want to survive or prosper.
4) As for those, who include Nalle, who keep saying our invasion had nothing to do with oil, tell me this: would we have invaded Iraq if its main export was lettuce and pickles? Don't be naive, dudes.
5) If you think the Shiites and the Kurds won't cut the Sunnis out of oil-revenue sharing, you don't understand human nature. Unless they're all Nelson Mandelas, which they're not, they're going to get the Sunnis back for being such bastards to them under Saddam.
6) I think this President deserves to be insulted, because he has dragged the name of a good country through the mud, and made us the pariah of the world. Remember how admired we used to be, and how hated we are now? History will relate that the US went from an admired to a reviled state under these guys. Christ, even Canada doesn't like us anymore; all a politician has to do there, is run against us to get votes. My God, Canada!? Yes, Canada.
I actually care for America's good name; maybe others don't give a shit what others think of us, but I do.
If there are Americans who want to support people who make America stink in the eyes of the planet, go ahead, be anti-American, but don't accuse me of being anti-American. I want to hold my head high as an American, and Bush/Cheney make it hard for me to do so. Their support of torture puts them beyond the pale for me. They, and those who support them, are anti-American -- not me.
25 - Anthony Grande
"We've Lost The War In Iraq..."
Gee, I thought with Saddam being tried DEMOCRATICALLY, ratification of the Iraqi CONSTITUTION, attacks going down and know this near 80% voter turnout rate in this last election that we won or are close to winning.
And even better: The Sunni minority faction in Iraq are PROTESTING this election. This shows THAT THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR FUTURE.