http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6946028.stm

- Yeah, scores dead in another bomb. Big deal.
But 175? This made me sick to my stomach. What morning don't we wake up where tens, even hundreds of Iraqi's are being blow up day after day? Iraq before the war was dangerous and oppressive, but now it's unstable, suicidal, deteriorating to the brink, a radar for terrorists, a religious hotbed. Who can deny that Iraq was the biggest failure the West has created in decades? The deathtoll passed 100,000 some time ago - and within 4 years that's pretty scary.

I wasn't totally against going in for the *right* reasons (though I was heatedly against that WoMD crap we made up), but now I think we must all agree it is the biggest fuck up of Western policy, and it's draining lives by the thousands, on a weekly basis.

Why am I posting this? To be honest, it's really a big "I told you so" to all those conservative pricks around here who were wetting their jollies on the eve of invasion. I can't help but think every Iraqi would prefer fresh water and regular electricity to the right to vote for pro-American politicians.

How did it get so fucking bad? 175 dead, that's insane! Does anyone ever see a way out of this?

edit: Oh, and here's a good site dedicated to the Iraq struggle - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm

Nobody saw the point of us bombing the Serbs in Kosovo, and intervening there. Now 8 Years later there is a relative peace to be found, no more violence than you'd normally find in a small developing country (possibly less).

Iraq is 100 times the size, it's going to take longer. Lots longer.

I wonder when they will run out of bombers .... I mean sooner or later someone has to open their eyes and say wait i am going to die and i do not even know if i get my virgins.. or as Robin Williams said Virginian's

They will run out of virgins before they run out of bombers.... do the math....

Nobody saw the point of us bombing the Serbs in Kosovo, and intervening there.Of course there was a point: to prevent further ethnic cleansing and the bring Milosevic and crew to justice. It produced considerable opposition from Republicans, who demanded things like timetables and victory conditions (look at Bush 43's own statements from that time). Fortunately, the operation was handled well, the region lacks the volatility of the Middle East, and violence is at a minimum. The pre-mission cost/benefit could be argued about pointlessly, but in the end it worked out well enough.

Iraq is a disaster in so many ways it's difficult to keep track. The next step in its degeneration will be for our troops to be killed by any of the 190k guns that have disappeared from the record books. I see no effective solution to the current crisis.

Iraq is 100 times the size, it's going to take longer. Lots longer.

Not if we walk away from it. Then, once the ethnic and religious cleansing starts the world will have to get involved and we won't be carrying the whole thing on our back.

"To be honest, it's really a big "I told you so" to all those conservative pricks around here who were wetting their jollies on the eve of invasion."

A big I told you what? That Al-Qaeda is a dangerous organization willing to kill civilians. We already knew that.

"I can't help but think every Iraqi would prefer fresh water and regular electricity [as slaves under Saddam] to the [freedom and] right to vote for pro-American politicians [or whomever else they wish]."

You must have a pretty low opinion of Iraqis (even lower than most Americans) to think that.

Yeah, 'cause they have like tons of freedom.

The freedom to walk down the street without having two limbs blown from their body? No, no, can't be it.

The freedom to drink water that's not from a dirty river? No, again, not that.

Hmm. The freedom to voice their own opinions without being mowed down in some religious factional war killing hundreds a week? EH! WRONG!

The freedom to join the police force without being decapitated and found the next day in a bin!? Noooo!

The freedom to vote for pro-American politicians? Wait.. yeah! The politicians that are about as useful as an anal haemorrhage in a pool full of shit and blood.

No, no, i'm sure they'd still prefer the ability to vote over food and water. That's right.

I would rather not have the right to vote, and still be able to live and let my kids play outside and walk down the street to watch my country in the World cup.

Then to fear sleeping, fear leaving the house, fear for my childrens lives, fear that my family will go missing, fear that i wont have anything to eat, fear i wont have anything to drink, fear getting sick and dieing, fear that i will get home and see nothing but rubble....

Once again.. Its easy to talk when you are sitting at home surfing porn with 1 hand and jacking off with the other. I would think you would appreciate that you dont have to worry about being blown up any second.

A big I told you what? That Al-Qaeda is a dangerous organization willing to kill civilians. We already knew that.Nowhere in the article does it state that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with the bombings. Obviously, Halo meant something quite different.
You must have a pretty low opinion of Iraqis (even lower than most Americans) to think that.Or maybe Iraqis have a high opinion of living at a level of comfort and security relatively higher than the current state of affairs. Compare this to the "opinion of Iraqis" that at the same time says we're trying to bring freedom and prosperity to their country and that emphasizes drawing terrorists there so that we don't have to fight them over here.

You must have a pretty low opinion of Iraqis (even lower than most Americans) to think that.

I guess the Iraqis have a pretty low opinion of Iraqis, by your warped wording, because roughly 10% of them have left the country rather than live with only periodic electric and water service, gasoline mafias, and constant threat of violence to all the people who can do something about it long term (local leaders, educators, police, journalists, social workers, infrastructure workers, etc) with the chance of being blown into several unidentifiable pieces every time they go pick up some bread and tomatoes.

Actually I would expect those that were part of the brutal regime to want to leave.

are you actually saying that the 2 million external iraqi refugees were all part of the brutal regime? wow....completely retarded.

Actually I would expect those that were part of the brutal regime to want to leave.

Actually they stayed. They are known as Sunni Insurgents. They now kill Al Qeada insurgents as part of a deal that was brokered with them by the US.

Hell, we don't care who is on our side anymore, as long as they aren't shooting at us for the moment. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,145910,00.html)

Hell, we don't care who is on our side anymore, as long as they aren't shooting at us for the moment.

Isnt it amazing how this person now has a past and a life that is so important that we should hear about it? Since he has helped our soldiers, now all of a sudden they will talk about his children and how hard life is for him.

Hard to believe that someone who spends their whole life fighting is just as human as anyone else huh? Would be nice if we cared about the ones we are bombing

"I would rather not have the right to vote, and still be able to live and let my kids play outside and walk down the street to watch my country in the World cup."

Well I am certainly glad we had Patrick Henry instead of Jedd and Halo.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

are you actually saying that the 2 million external iraqi refugees were all part of the brutal regime? wow....completely retarded.

No, he's throwing out any justification at all for why his views are unfortunately totally incongruent with reality. It's not retarded, it's merely pitiful.

"I would rather not have the right to vote, and still be able to live and let my kids play outside and walk down the street to watch my country in the World cup."

Well I am certainly glad we had Patrick Henry instead of Jedd and Halo.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

I would fight for my freedom if it were my choice, Being fed that I have to fight is the same as being oppressed by a dictator... What choice do the Iraqi's have?

Between fighting a war that another country is forcing me to fight for myself, and living a comfortable life without fighting... Im sorry but i choose to not fight.

Easy to understand imo

Furtivus - Bringing Logic to you One Retarded Reasoning at a Time.

*puts on his best William Wallace voice*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6947886.stm

- Freeeedddooommm!!

Freedom?!

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.main/t1home.1611.iraq.ap.jpg

The 250 deaths from the bombing can be laid at the feet of Bush and Cheney, along with all the other Iraqi civilians killed in the last four years.

Until we left our campaign in Afghanistan to capture OBL and invaded Iraq needlessly, there was no documented terrorism or Al-Q attacks taking place in that country.

Each event like this bombing makes me, and I am sure many others, all that much more disgusted by our present leadership, who brought the current situation in Iraq into being.

One has to wonder if we had simply continued with our pursuit of OBL, and maintained the status quo with Iraq while strengthening the forces along the northern border, what might now be different: how would all that money have been spent if it were not used for the Iraq war; how many fewer lives would America have lost; would OBL have been captured or killed; would we have those allies still at our sides that have been slowly moving away; would the people of Iraq have risen up in revolt against Saddam seeing what could be there future; would the folks in charge of planning have been able to devote more time to gaining an understanding of the religion practiced in the Middle East and its' varied sects; would we have been in a stronger position to discuss Iran's nuclear program if not occupying the country alongside them with a standing army? There are many more points that could have such vastly different outcomes, but we will never know now.

The decision by Bush to invade Iraq will be among the top of the list of all time leadership gaffes when the history of this civilization is done.

Or in another few decades, it will be like the world wars, korean or vietnam wars; Terrible at the time and the years after but now fading into history as time and the survivors pass on.
What scares me is that we'll leave iraq and everyone will be jumping for joy and such , but a few years later we'll end up with another terrorist act that that will make 9-11 look like a sunday school picnic and people will wonder why we didn't stop it when we had a chance.
You show weakness to the terrorists, they WILL exploit it. Look what happened when they started to kidnap people. One country gave in then all of a sudden people were being kidnapped left and right with no end in sight.
I do think we should get out, but do it gradually and not all at once like a lot of people want. But just my opinion though....:cool:

What scares me is that we'll leave iraq and everyone will be jumping for joy and such , but a few years later we'll end up with another terrorist act that that will make 9-11 look like a sunday school picnic and people will wonder why we didn't stop it when we had a chance.
You show weakness to the terrorists, they WILL exploit it.

Terrorists and Iraq were two separate things, before Bush decided to stop chasing Bin Laden and go after Saddam instead. Now, with "mission accomplished" in Iraq, that country has lost more lives to "terrorists" than most.

Whether we leave in three months, or three years, or not at all makes no difference with regard to our own country being attacked again at some point in the future; that will certainly happen some day. Unfortunately, people will try to find blame where they can, and pointing to those who wanted us out of Iraq will be easy, although not fair and not true. Radical followers of Islam will try to attack us, and other countries of the West, as long as Christianity and Islam both exist, and as long as the West appears to be wallowing in riches while many of those living in the mainly Muslim countries have a much lower standard of living.

We might have been able to stop BinLaden at some point, but that would not have stopped the radical mindset that finds it easier to attack another than to actively try to work to change whatever the perceived problems are. There will always be hate, and at times we will be the victims of it.

It does not matter when we leave Iraq; there will be a bloodbath following our departure. Many of the relatives of those killed will blame the West, and even more "terrorists" will be bred. Bush and Cheney have led us into a no-win situation.

Terrorists and Iraq were two separate things, before Bush decided to stop chasing Bin Laden and go after Saddam instead. Now, with "mission accomplished" in Iraq, that country has lost more lives to "terrorists" than most.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/48279d1187392657-funny-strange-random-pics-mission-accomplished-bush.jpg

oh snap!

The shittiest thing about sticking your hand into a meat grinder is that you have to pull it back out.

The shittiest thing about sticking your hand into a meat grinder is that you have to pull it back out.Except that before the hand went in, you could make a pretty good argument the mess wasn't any of our business, even taking into account the actions of Bush Sr. Now if we pull out we're leaving behind a disaster that isn't going to improve, at least not in the near future, on it's own. There's a pretty good moral argument that we need to fix what we screwed up - except that none of the powers that be seem to have the slightest clue how to do that.

7 members of the 82nd Airborne, about to return from a 15 month deployment, write (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1345176000&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) about their experiences and perspective on Iraq. The opening graf: VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

Now if we pull out we're leaving behind a disaster that isn't going to improve, at least not in the near future, on it's own. There's a pretty good moral argument that we need to fix what we screwed up - except that none of the powers that be seem to have the slightest clue how to do that.

What you, and many in the country are experiencing, is called the "sunk-cost effect"; that is to say a feeling (often irrational and in contradiction to the evidence) that "we've spent so much on XXX, we shouldn't give up now." This is a common phenomenon in many losing-end situations and often has grave (fatal) consequences for a society that sticks to an obsolete or maladaptive strategy because they can't see giving it up after they've invested so much in it, it worked for 200 years, etc.

There is no evidence that our *staying* in Iraq will do any good whatsoever, and in the meantime it costs us hundreds of millions of dollars *per week* which we can scarce afford in any sense of the word - materially, strategically, or in human terms - our troops are exhausted, demoralized, and suicide rates in the military are at a 25 year high.

It might seem like a 'waste', given what we've created through our own hubris, greed, and ineptitude, to leave Iraq in such a state, but I think that it's a pretty safe bet, sadly that *keeping* the troops there, at least at anything resembling current deployment levels, is a far greater waste, given that we can't even tell the players with our *own* scorecard anymore...

Regards,
Nydia

It's a tricky one. Being a historian (or potential, far-reaching potentially one, in my dreams one, perhaps never one!!) I tend to think the best lessons for the present and future are easily seen in the past.


What was this Iraqi War? It was a running conflict which lasted several days wih a consolidation of victory by the US led invaders which came in the following weeks. Four years on it has beome a struggling occupation in which civil and military affairs have largely broken down and appear in no immediate fortune to be remedied. Politics has become a byzantine factional struggle of violence in which an increasingly desprate and enlarged occupational force is playing a Praetorian role in promoting its own side and attempting to establish stability in doing so, but ultimately getting nowhere in a hostile and dangerous environment.

Now, where have we seen this before? A short and sharp conflict followed by a swift victory, followed by years of strugge and turmoil.

Let's see...

Roman Governor Julius Caesar in Gaul [1st Century BC] - Initial sweeping victories over the Gaulish tribes collapsed the moment Caesar turned his back on Gaul. Widespread resistance centred on popular Tribal figures turned the campaign in to a hard-fought gruelling nine years, in which almost every neighbouring power (inluding Germanic tribes from across the Rhine) joined in with raids and pillaging.
Result? Rome stuck it out, determined to absorb Gaul, and over the centuries created a prosperous and stable province.

Roman Emperor Trajan in Dacia (the second War) [2nd Century AD] - The first war with Dacia was never too hard, but was quite lengthy and entailed lots of chasing and large logistics. It was a victory which Trajan enhanced by pulling out quickly and accepting spoils. The second War was won quickly and easily, and Trajan decided to swallow the Kingdom of Dacia whole.
Result? Dacia, north of the Danube, was an expensive conquest and proved counter-productive in the following hundred years when it was finally abandoned due to its vulnerability and its expensive garrison.

Byzantine General Belisarius in Italy [C5th] - Part of the Emperor Justinian's reconquest of the Western Empire lost in the Barbarian invasons, Belisarius was sent to re-take Rome from the Goths. Staggering victory after victory followed, and all of Italy up to the River Po was annexed back in to the Empire.
Result? A heavily taxed, ruined and war-exhausted population proved a burden on the Byzantine treasury, and increasingly hostile. For decades more troops had to be sent to Italy to protect the conquest, and opinion was thoroughly against Italian designs back in Constantinople. Ironically, Byzantium's victory over the Goth's had weakened them so much that the nomadic Lombardi's that swept over the Alps found it only too easy to conquer North Italy and press the Byzantine's hard for the following centuries.

English King Edward I in Wales and Scotland [C13th] - English armies found the conquest of Wales beyond the Marches only too easy, and was concluded within two campaigning seasons. The Scots put up a better fight, but most engagements were overwhelming English victories, and English supremacy soon reigned.
Result? The moment English armies withdrew, a hostile population in both lands rose against isolated and beleagured English garrisons who, although they controlled key points, were far too cut off. Although the English overcame logistical and geographical difficulties in Wales to subdue the population in two seperate campaigns, the Scottish War dragged on for years until exhaustion and war with France forced the English on the defensive, and finally out of Scotland altogether.

French King Louis XII in North Italy [C16th] - When Charles VII fought for his right to the throne of Naples and Milan in 1492, his invasion of Italy triggered off a period of wars that lasted for over 300 years. Upon his death, Louis XII continued his policy, and once again sent troops across the alps to claim his Milanese inheritance. Resistance was meak and allies such as Venice ony too helpful.
Result? Well, as Machiavelli noted in 'The Prince', victory is quite different from conquest. To rule a land, a Prince must live there, or close by, must become like his people, and must walk amongst his people. The French left a Governor and a garrison, and milked Milan for every penny. Two hard-fought campaigns were needed to reclaim Milan and a succession of leagues, especially that led by Pope Julian in alliance with the Habsburgs, caused the French endless turmoil and ultimately defeat.

British Captain Clive in Bengal [C18th] - What started off as a peaceful commercial presence by the British in India ended in a vast territorial empire when the Mughal Empire broke down and French initiatives caused a reactionary set of events that led to the British victory at Plassey in 1756. In response to the Nawab of Bengal siezing the English trading settlement of Calcutta, the East India Company sent Clive at the head of an expedition from Madras to re-take Calcutta and punish the Nawab. A handful of Englishmen led a few thousand Sepoy Indian's against a Bengali army of tens of thousands and defeated them at Plassey.
Result? The British wished only for the spoils of War (commercial gains, prize money, tribute, enlarged settlements, etc) and so instead of conquering Bengal simply changed its Nawab. This "Dual System", in which the British gained all commercial and financial benefits, including the entire tax revenue of Benal while still leaving the civil and administrative responsibilities to the Nawab, caused many revolts by Bengali landowners, raids by neighbouring powers and ultimately the hostility of successive Nawabs. The British, like the Romans, stuck it out, however, and put in place a full civil and administrative government, ruling Benal for two centuries.

French General Napoleon in Egypt [C18th] - When Napoleon wished to break British power in Inda in order to break the deadlock of fighting them at Sea, he landed in Egypt and fought the romantic Battle of the Pyramids against the ruling Mamuleks, and swiftly took control of the Ottoman province.
Result? Napoleon never entirely eradicated the Mamulek's and the deposed Bey escaped to cause havoc across the countries, inciting popular resistance and general rebellion. French occupation, which had initially been welcome when Napoleon converted his entire army to Islam (with the nifty clause that his men would not be circumsized and, more importantly, would be allowed to continue drinking), quickly became desperate and isolated. Garrisons were cut to pieces and expeditions enticed in to the desert and left to die. Opinion in the Parisian cafe's began to turn and thus Napoleon looked to more conquest and success to maintain his position, invading the neighbouring Ottoman province of Syria the following year. When Nelson inflicted severe defeat on the French fleet at the Battle of the Nile, Napoleon's communications and supplies to France were cut, and the Egyptians welcomed British expeditions which converged on Egypt and Syria from Gibralta and India, defeating Napoleon and capturing the French army. Napoleon gave up his dreams of capturing India and fled back to France to re-gain his conquests in Italy which had been lost.

French Emperor Napoleon in Spain [C19th] - When Spanish enthusiasm for the Napoleonic cause began to fail, the newly crowned Emperor launched his invasion of the Iberian Penninsula in 1808. The Spanish Junta quickly collapsed and the French swept in to Madrid, where Napoleon had his brother, Joseph, crowned King. Believing this new addition to his Empire secure, except for some mop-up operations and the optimistic conquest of Portugal being prepared, Napoleon spent barely two months in Spain before returning to Paris.
Result? Napoleon's invincible military machine, the Superpower of its day, had not entirely crushed the Spanish armies, which were now controlled by a military Junta based in Seville, in which popular resistance rallied around. With the repulse of the French armies from Portugal by the future Lord Wellington (at that moment, merely Arthur Wellesley of India fame), the infamous Spanish guerilla movement sprang up and within a year three hundred thousand troops had to be committed to the Spanish theatre. King Joseph's treasury was quickly drained and troops took to plundering civilians for their needs while Napoleon had to committ more and more troops, money, and supply across the Pyrennees. With Wellington's invasion of Western Spain and French garrisons pinned down by the Spanish Junta in the South, the occupation quickly turned in to the Superpower's most vulnerable area. With British and Portugese victories at Salamanca and Vittoria, Wellington was able to cross over in to France and capture Toulouse as the Russians and Prussians chased Napoleon back across Europe after his Grand Armee met desolation and death in the wastes of Russia. His Empire collapsed within the year.

British Governor-General of India Lord Auckland in Afghanistan [C19th] - By the 1840's, Britain controlled all of India besides the Kingdom of Punjab and the Amirs of Sind (today's Pakistan). When they become internally settled, the British looked beyond its borders for security, and Lord Auckland, the Governor-General (although taking their orders from London, because of the distance Governor-Generals were pretty much the defacto rulers of India) determined to depose the pro-Russian Shah of Afghanistan for a pro-British shah in exile in British India, creating a friendly and stable buffer state between India and Russian Asia. Although with hindsight we can see that the so called 'Great Game' fought out between Britain and Russia in Central Asia during the nineteenth century was largely bogus and the threat hardly credible, it was as real back then as the Cold War was to us. Expeditions set out from Bombay and Calcutta, in league with various petty Indian kingdoms with a notable contribution from Ranjit Singh of the Punjab, and the British Army of the Indus descended on Afghanistan, ousted the Shah, and set up their puppet ruler with a British Resident and Garrison.
Result? Within months most of the army was sent back to India due to the crippling costs of maintaining it in the field so far away. However, discontent was simmering and as the British believed the war to have been won began to make mistakes. The new regimes reliance on the British garrison to crush rebellions and uphold the Shah's rule alienated it from the people, the British stopped paying hush money to the mountain pass tribes, and soon supplies and communications were cut-off. The Resident was murdered and the Shah became a prisoner in his palace. The Garrison was exposed on a plain beyond Kabul and slowly encircled by thousands of snipers and Afghan raiders. With no hope of regaining the situation and with a lack of decisive leadership, a retreat was ordered in which the army of 3,000 and its 5,000 camp followers were mercilessly harassed by snipers and ambushes covering the 200 miles in winter through mountains and deserts in thick snow to the nearest friendly territory. One man made it back to Jallalabad, a Doctor. An Army was assembled after this debacle which was named the Army of Retribution that punished and desolated Kabul and its surrounding terriories, and the Britsh, seeing a fight lost, withdrew. Ironically, the deposed Shah returned and became friendly to the British anyway, and the Russian's never had any real designs upon Afghanistan.

Prussian Chancellor Bismarck in France [C19th] - When Bismarck successfully goaded Napoleon III's ego in to war with Prussia, technological superiority in artillery and transport (mobilizing for war using railways) led the hitherto second-rank Prussian in to a lightning victory over the Second French Empire, which was defeated within a year, leaving all of Europe shocked and horrified.
Result? Although the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 was a success (for the Prussians, or now Germans), it nearly all went horribly wrong. When the French field armies were surrounded and beaten in to blood submission and surrender, Napoleon III himself was captured on the battle field. Upon hearing of this, a bloodless coup was enacted in besieged Paris and a government set up that would not, on any account, deal with the Prussians. This was Bismarck's weak point. His German confederation, which his conquering army was built on, was quite frail and certainly not adapted to occupation. Furthermore, Prussia had risen to power in a short amount of time, having humiliated and defeated almost all of its neighbours. A drawn out conflict would make Prussia vulnerable and unable to defend itself. Survivors from the French armies and fresh recruits (many from abroad, such as Garibaldi of Itly) reformed in the South and nationalistic pride kicked in. Austria and Britain became increasingly hostile to Prussia and the treasury was emptying. Furthermore, opinion back home across the Rhine was changing.
But of course with the much needed fall of Paris the following year Bismarck got what he wanted, a hefty tribue and a chunk of Alsace-Lorraine, and a unified Germany. But it almost all went horrible wrong.


You know, I got half way through this list and I think I almost forgot why I was writing it. But looking back over it, I think every one holds valuable similarities (and lessons) for today's conflicts. Whatchya think?

What people are failing to really comprehend is that our presence in Iraq has essentially nothing to do with pacifying extremists there or fighting terrorism in general. You don't build multiple multi-billion longterm military installations to leave them there for other people. We're making a new Okinawa in the desert.

Whatever the "withdrawal" from Iraq ends up being, we're not ever planning on leaving.

You don't build multiple multi-billion longterm military installations to leave them there for other people.

There is that (never mind that the facilities constructed so far both have substantial evidence of slave labor having been used and are uninhabitable (I'll dig up the links when I have time, on a brief stopover between meetings atm)), but the administration hasn't actually *admitted* that part of the Iraq 'strategy' publicly to anyone, nor do the American people want to face that the 'mission' never was about 'freeing' Iraq in the first place.

Now that any form of 'success' in Iraq is looking less and less plausible, the propaganda machine is on to Iran, I was (somewhat) shocked this to hear a more or less verbatim retread of the 2002 WMD line on the major news shows this weekend...

My hypothesis is that actually *engaging* with Iran (as Iraq's prime minister is already doing extensively, much to our chagrin) might cause that long-term base presence strategy to be called into question, which is precisely why we won't do it.

Regards,
Nydia

Halo, you may be on to something.
Perhaps we should make our American Presidents take history lessons before they take office.
Many of the examples you displayed have a "broken record" quality to them.
I'm just hearing the GW Remix being played....
And Malse is correct, we aren't gonna give up on the installations we have built there.
It took us more than 50 years to finally give all the stuff back to the Germans after WWII.
How long do we plan on keeping a presence in Iraq, then?

The iron-clad oil leases were negotiated for 40 years, so at least that long, or until the oil is gone, would be a safe bet, and if 'real' (involving the former imperial powers, as opposed to all those Islamic factions we've pissed off) war breaks out over the power struggle in the region (we're dumb enough to unilaterally or 'preemptively' push Iran hard enough that Russia objects, etc), then we'll need them anyway ;).

Regards,
Nydia

until the oil is gone
To form a rational opinion about the Middle East, that's all that needs to be considered. Until it runs out or we cut our oil dependence, there's just no way we'll step back and be hands off in the region.

If it weren't us, it would almost certainly be someone else. Just wait till China's economic growth runs into a drought of oil. This current mess will look tame compared to what's coming.

What people are failing to really comprehend is that our presence in Iraq has essentially nothing to do with pacifying extremists there or fighting terrorism in general. You don't build multiple multi-billion longterm military installations to leave them there for other people. We're making a new Okinawa in the desert.

Whatever the "withdrawal" from Iraq ends up being, we're not ever planning on leaving.I saw an interesting article about - did I post this already? getting old - Iraq not able to take over new powerstations and other infrastructure items because they didn't have the expertise, and refused to run them as a puppet of the US. The idea was that every there is being controlled by the US, and Iraq only gets to use them if they're following our rules - this was written from the point of view of Iraq. I remember thinking, how easy would it be if I were the leader of a country to start making assurances to the other country that I didn't want to control them, to encourage them to take control of their own country. Then I realized our leaders never intended to leave in the first place.

It's either Okinawa, or a 51st state, or a new colony, or some crap like that. Not really a deep conspiracy, they just aren't being upfront about our long term plans.

It's empire building, for godsakes!!

And I don't mean that in a bad way, so nobody get their knickers in a twist. Pardon the Feargusonian approach, but the US is the natural successor to the UK in terms of Western Imperialism.

The US spread across Northern America like England spread across the British Isles. Once secure and stable (for us, it was generally after the Elizabethan period, but more seriously after the Glorious Revolution, and for the US the turn of the century when the damage of the Civil War had been undone and economic security and growth ensured) the US began a foreign policy that ensured a wealth of colonies, mostly from Spain in the Carribean and Pacific, but also on its own initiative or jointly with the UK (again mostly in the pacific, but also an extensive informal empire in China and Japan).

Just as the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars gained for Britain a host of new colonies and power abroad, so did World War's One and Two for the US.

Of course, you don't have an Empire in the Colonial sense - although the US does control more overseas territory than Britain and France together.
But that's not how real Empire-building works anymore. It's informal Empire. Britian was good at that too. It was most effective in South America. We built the railways, we constructed irrigation works, we were the prime import and export partners, we supplied the banks (something like 4/5th's of countries by the mid-Victorian period had an Anglo-xxx bank) and financed foreign investments. But there was little to no political control or involvement. Just the deterrent that we could send the most powerful fleet in the world to their ports within days.

Sound familiar?

When Kipling urged the US to take up "the white man's burden" when it dithered about its conquest of the Phillipines from Spain (not its first imperial war, mind you - look at the War of 1812, or the Mexican War), there was no underlying motive here, no hidden message. It was simple: Join the club, and don't be ashamed. And it is what happened, and had been happening for a long time.

America's formal empire is small, but still extensive stretching across the Pacific. Her Informal Empire, however, rivals that of Britian's in the nineteenth century.

America will not be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon. It is very much what Persia was to Britain at the turn of the twentieth century. Churchill and Fisher changed the fleet from coal to oil, and from then on Britain's informal grip on its Arab protectorates in the Gulf, on Kuwait and on Persia was tightened and only relinquished in the 1960's. Indeed, in Persia it took two wars to maintain.

Of course sometimes Informal Empire went as wrong as Formal Empire did. In Egypt from the 1870's, British financial control sparked off a nation-wide riot, mainly centred on Alexandria where every Briton was massacred. Gladstone was Prime Minister at the time - Liberal, Evangelical, a typical anti-Imperialist (the same chap who left Gordon of Khartoum to his fate in the Sudan). But even he saw the need of Informal Empire, and sent the Mediterranean Fleet to Alexandria, where it battered the city and gained its submission. Of course this signalled the end of Informal Empire and we annexed Egypt in 1882 until its independence after WW2.

Could Iraq be your Egypt? Or your Persia? Who knows. A broken record perhaps - but there's plenty of examples in history for our current predicament.

It's empire building, for godsakes!!

And I don't mean that in a bad way, so nobody get their knickers in a twist. I meant it in a bad way! And I couldn't agree more with your other post about current leaders needing to look at the past to understand the present.

On the topic of vague, half remembered articles - when Bush was first elected and there was all the religious hubuz about him, there was one angle that talked about people who believed they'd see the end of the world in their lifetime. Since the end was coming, there was no need for things like environmental control, peace on earth, that sort of thing. We really, really need him out of office.

Heh - I love political cartoons.

http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/bagley.asp?Action=GetImage