WAR timetable

There were a number of retired military and state department officials interviewed on NPR this morning. The concensus seemed to be that the US will have a substantial presence in Iraq of atleast a decade

IMO the timetable hinges on, whether the Bush or succeeding administration will relinquish some control to the UN and whether the UN will assume it. We cannot do the necessary nation building. The sooner that occurs the shorter the timetable. If not we will be fighting a losing battle. We, the Bush administration, has poisoned the air to such an extent with their ineptitude and inability to understand the character and nature of the Iraqi people as to make our position in that regard untenable and non retrievable

Rmember, Rice refered to an effort that will take "generations."
The new mantra seems to be "all war, always."

Is this a new TV Channel? The reality shows did so well, now it's War News Network "All war, Always".

We bring it to you live.



----------
"Personally, I think we die vicariously through others".

The latest I've heard is from military commentators who say, Can't be done in less than two years.

Of course, it depends on how we go about it. It seems to me there should be a heavy build up and extensive border support, while Iraq is put back together. I think if we do this, our time may be two to three years, with a hand off to the UN, although they didn't do too well protecting themselves recently. I imagine an abiding lesson has been learned. Hopefully, they will look at security and the reality of Iraq with clearer eyes.

If we continue to plug the dam with our finger, it could go on ten or more years. IMO.

Well, here's one person's reflection on that. This was the man asked by the CIA and State to investigate the yellow cake charges in Niger. He also offers a new mantra for Bush - pre-election.




“The American Approach is Incoherent”
An Interview with Joseph Wilson
By Pascal Riche
La Liberation

Wednesday 20 August 2003

A private consultant today, in 1991 Ambassador Joseph Wilson was chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, and, in this position, the last American diplomat to have met with Saddam Hussein. He revealed that in the beginning of 2002 he had made a report of an inquiry demonstrating the implausibility of the alleged Iraqi uranium purchases in Niger invoked by President Bush to justify the war.

Do the Americans lack troops in Iraq?

I’m more of the view we should trust our military, who, following the example of General Eric Shinseki (who just left as head of the US Army, en) estimate that “several hundred” thousand men would be necessary in Iraq. But what is particularly lacking are forces properly trained for internal security, that is to say, policemen. The United States is poorly equipped: there’s no national police system in the United States such as the gendarmerie. The FBI is only an investigatory agency. The American administration should solicit other countries’ expertise to put a peace-keeping system in place, but it doesn’t seem to be taking this route.

With the approach of elections, pressure for a pullout of American troops will increase. Can it succeed?

President Bush articulated a vision, the establishment of a pro-Western democracy in Iraq. But I’m under the impression the administration is getting ready to change its criteria for victory. The publicized obsession with finding Saddam Hussein is a sign of it. I’m afraid that starting next spring we’ll hear the following speech: “We’ve liberated the country, killed the tyrant, and given the Iraqis the tools to create their own democracy. It’s time to bring home our soldiers.” Unfortunately, that’s not the way to construct a democracy. It takes time.

Why is the United States encountering so many problems?

The Iraqis are under the impression they’re being occupied. And a country that feels itself occupied always gives birth to resistance movements. It’s not because they detested Saddam Hussein that Iraqis are going to make friends with foreign invaders. For 25 million Iraqis, the Americans and the British are above all the ones who imposed economic sanctions on them for twelve years. The approach being followed is incoherent, from the refusal to ask for a UN resolution to internationalize the undertaking, to the idea of putting Ahmed Chalabi (a pro-American Shiite exile, en) in the middle of the political game… From the beginning we should have done everything to guarantee two key elements: the population’s security and well-being (electricity, water, garbage disposal, medicine…). It was necessary that the Iraqis feel an improvement in their lives. Only on that condition could they have offered themselves the luxury of considering a new system of government...

Does the Bush Administration seek to assure the security and improvement of living conditions for Iraqis?

I don’t see the political will for it. It would be necessary to organize a massive injection of medical aid, food… Everything under international auspices, because, to succeed, we’ve got to get out of this occupation mentality and convince the Iraqis that it’s an international project. Instead, we still hesitate to return to the United Nations. The President ought to allow the State Department to advance on a multinational level, to hold serious discussions with the other actors in the region, and, in Europe, with the Germans and the French…

The Shiite majority seems overall to accept the American presence…

What we’re seeing in the South is more, in my view, a tactical cease fire. It will take time for the Shiite clergy to consolidate their power in the South. They can let the Americans be in charge of the war against the Sunnis. When the Americans don’t find any more Sunnis to kill, the Shiites will figure that they’ve sufficiently consolidated their power and that they’re ready to take over their responsibilities in Baghdad.

Is there a way to evaluate the size of the “resistance movement” against the Americans?

Saddam Hussein could count on about 400,000 men in the armed forces, including the Fedayyin. If we’ve killed 10% of them, that leaves 350,000 men with a certain sense of military organization, the vast majority of whom are Sunni. They were in power for decades. It’s in their interest to return to it, or at least to resist “the invaders” and Shiite ambitions.

Is the “Balkanization” of Iraq one of the scenarios envisaged by Washington?

In their writings the neoconservatives never talk about “democratization”, but only about the fall of the regime. Have they truly absorbed the fact that it would be necessary to stay in Iraq a long time to assure its democratization? Or would they satisfy themselves with a country cut in three between Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, weakened for the long term by its own squabbles? One may wonder…

My vote-never. The US will never give that country back it's oil.

It's obvious that you don't know much about the US since your not from there so I suggest you stick to the australian political scene! It's understandable that most foreign countries consider americans as being self-centered opportunistic trash! So I see where exactly your coming from and I also know you come from australia. I ask to re evaluate the environment you live in such as the political climate and think further beyond that! Oil is a very valuable resource, Bush may want his oil however most americans believe that this happened for the sake of peace within another nation. If we didn't give a **** our forces wouldn't still be down there and by god if we have a chance to get this commodity cheap in exchange for bringing peace food and security so be it! No idiot is gonna pass up on that deal! So tell me why should bush not be concerned about oil? Im tired of paying $2.50 per gallon! It's not like were slaughtering them for oil. Why do you even much have this cynical mentality? I only ask you for the sake of understanding deeply the views of what I consider foriegners to correct what I seem so naieve to!

Interesting suggestion.

What would you say (what points would you argue) to an American who believes the same thing?

Also, using the same reasoning, would other countries be justified to invade the United States anytime they wish, because there are valuable things here?

Based on the response from the French, Russians and Germans to the Powell request for aid. Would you say that they now have us by the proverbial "Short hairs". Unless we give up or at least share control in Iraq none will be coming.
Will the quagmire in Iraq end up being Bush's Achilles heel?

Or, at least, one of them. The economy, his incessant absence from the White House when important events happen, his screwing-over of the middle class and poor, his lies, his imbecility....

Rebuilding, peacekeeping, and other so called nation building is going to cost a fortune, regardless of who does it. These are expenses. Simply rebuilding and exploiting the Iraqi oil fields would not only cost less, would show a distinct profit. So, why are we chosing one over the other? The old American greed thesis as an answer to all questions is beginning to wear thin in the face of difficult and expensive operations being undertaken when contrasted to what a genuinely greedy and exploitive nation in the same position could and would be doing.

Hobitbob
Where he is physically is not really relevant. Since IMO there is never anyone home mentally regardless of where he is.

Pay attention to Redhorn, I have run into many people who hold views similar to her's. For what ever reason the destruction of the middle class economy does not resonate while the idea that we are the biggest bull on the block does.

roger


Agreed, but can we do it alone. Inorder to get the help of the UN and it's member nations we will have to give up at least some control. Bush and company are presently reluctant to do so. As time passes IMO events will force them to do so.

True, AU, but my point was that there was another alternative available to such a greedy country as the US is portrayed here to be.

Do you know any country that has handled capitalism better or equal to us? Im american so I should know! It's obvious that you enjoy knocking off people for the sake of hiding your own insecurity. Come up with something more original and ill give you a real piece of my mind!

Of course not, that's why we went in there to begin with. That's why Bush gave Haliburton the contract for the Iraqui oil fields *BEFORE* the war! Saddam represented an embarassment for Bush's daddy and we wanted oil. We didn't give a damn about the Iraqui people for one second and still don't.