Who Lost Iraq?

spendius wrote:

Bernie-

Quote:
It's quite unclear what you are going on about here. But that's your intention. Narrow is to be avoided.

Of course "narrow" is to be avoided. You can prove anything you wish using specific cases unless one generalises from it.

I was simply trying to make what looks to me an obvious point that the subject of the war only impinges on the chattering classes and then only in between other distractions and for the purpose of sounding high-minded and virtuous.

Nobody ever mentions it in my daily routines.

Perhaps voting rights should be restricted to members of the chattering classes and then all these mistakes would not get made.

An interesting tactic, turning the tables around; so that those who care and discuss world issues are actually, in your world, less knowledgable and trustworthy than those who do not care nor discuss world issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

They are not necessarily less knowledgeable but I consider them more trustworthy because they are not grinding a politically partisan axe and the Theory of the Wisdom of Large Groups bears out my point.

0 Replies

So, in your opinion, it is not possible to discuss pertinent world issues without 'grinding a partisan axe?'

You should realize that I voted for Bush in 2000 and was a supporter of the war in Afghanistan. It wasn't until the Iraq war that I began to wake up about just how badly we had been deceived as a nation. You can call my complaints 'partisan' but that doesn't make them a whit less valid.

And, this -

Theory of the Wisdom of Large Groups bears out my point.

- is utter drivel. You would be hard pressed to support this with any sort of factual evidence.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

spendi said

Quote:

I was simply trying to make what looks to me an obvious point that the subject of the war only impinges on the chattering classes and then only in between other distractions and for the purpose of sounding high-minded and virtuous.

Then, say that. And be prepared to take your lumps if something else you've said a paragraph fore or aft directly contradicts it, or if its logic or factual claims are shown to be fallacious or irrelevant.

If you just wish to have fun writing sentences or proving yourself mercurial, that's fine too. You'll have lots of opportunity to do both. But in terms of analysis or learning - having quite different goals than the others - you'll be playing over on another pitch.

0 Replies

Mr. Mountie, you have, apparently, been so far spared the idiotic drivel which Spurious typically posts at this site. He hasn't often ventured into political threads, though, so that's understandable. He has largely been making a nuisance of himself in the "intelligent design" thread.

His MO is to throw out a load of drivel, with as many references to his heroes--Bob Zimmerman and Norman Mailer--as possible, and without much regard for relevance to the topic at hand. Basically, he is a contrarian, and will simply show up to argue for arguments sake--and not because he has the ghost of a clue.

0 Replies

Quote:

James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economics, Societies, and Nations (New York: Doubleday, 2004)

I only said that the theory supported my point. I didn't say I thought the theory valid although I suspect it might be.

I also didn't say that " it is not possible to discuss pertinent world issues without 'grinding a partisan axe? ". I only suggested that a large number of those who do discuss these matters do have an axe to grind and are therefore less trustworthy. I have no axe to grind and I'm discussing them.

I thought that a Christian nation, following the teachings of Jesus, would turn the other cheek after 9/11 and offer to be smitten again.

And I didn't say that partisan claims lacked validity because they are partisan. I merely hinted that they were more likely to be suspect. Only more likely.

They prove they know that themselves by the way they smarm all over a Republican wobbler.

0 Replies

setanta said

Quote:

Basically, he is a contrarian, and will simply show up to argue for arguments sake--and not because he has the ghost of a clue.

I got to know spendius about the time he first arrived. I'm actually fairly fond of the fellow. My father was an Englishman too, and from a family of brewers, and further, I've always had an affinity for those letters to the editors at the Times, so I'm fairly well acquainted with a particular version of midlands bats in the belfrey stumbling across the soccer pitch contrarianism. On this subject and some others, I don't have time for it, but otherwise he's an acceptable companion.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

And be prepared to take your lumps if something else you've said a paragraph fore or aft directly contradicts it, or if its logic or factual claims are shown to be fallacious or irrelevant.

Sure I will. What have you to show?

We were discussing Iraq. I have no idea why Setanta has come on to discuss me without making any valid points about me and showing no interest in the topic. He posted a load of assertions as usual.

You have to laugh at that about me making a nuisance of myself on the ID thread when I am one of the leading lights on that thread and it puts on views consistently at a fast rate.

He seems to think that saying someone is posting drivel is proof that it is drivel and it implies that only he, or those who he approves of, has a monopoly of wisdom. It's the same with "ghost of a clue".

Anybody who thinks his post has any meaning should seek a course at an elementary education centre for backward adults.

0 Replies

Do you really all think that defending the settled policy of both our Governments which was overwhelmingly voted for by the elected representatives of both Houses in the US and by our House can reasonably be described as "contrarian".

It seems to me that those opposing that settled policy are the contrarians.

The fact that they are in a majority on this site is neither here nor there.

0 Replies

Quote:

THE ROVING EYE
Bury my heart in the Green Zone
By Pepe Escobar

We are in dire need of Iran's help in establishing security and stability in Iraq.
- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, November 27, in Tehran

As dozens of people a day (sometimes a couple of hundred a day), every single day, Sunni and Shi'ite alike, continue to be beheaded, tortured, blown up, shot, kidnapped, struck by mortars and even doused in gasoline and set on fire in a non-stop gruesome ritual, every big player seems to be laying down a desperate game to "save" Iraq. This includes the ongoing summit between Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and his Iranian counterpart Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran and this week's meeting between President George W Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan.

But they all have forgotten to consider the guerrilla point of view; as far as the Sunni Arab resistance is concerned, any summit is guilty of legitimizing the "puppet" Iraqi government.

The Talabani-Ahmadinejad meeting was supposed to have included Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Syria had to walk a careful diplomatic tightrope to evade Iran's invitation without alienating a close ally and at the same time send a signal to Washington it is willing to talk with no preconditions. James Baker's and Lee Hamilton's Iraq Study Group (ISG), after all, will propose a chaos-defying summit between Iraq and all its close neighbors.

Non-stop White House and Pentagon accusations swirl around: Syria facilitates the flow of jihadis into Iraq through their deserted, 1,200-kilometer border. This simply does not make sense (in fact the exodus is the other way around: every day up to 2,000 Iraqis flee to Syria, and more than 1,000 to Jordan, according to the United Nations). Syria may have a Ba'athist regime, but the power elite is configured by Alawites - who follow a branch of Shi'ism completely different from Iran's duodecimals (who believe in 12 imams). The utmost fear of the Assad regime is exactly Salafi-jihadis of the al-Qaeda kind, so Damascus would not be aiding them.

Kurdish warlord-turned-politician Talabani may have been US-protected during the days of Saddam Hussein, but quite a few players in the White House and Pentagon axis will have their reasons to regard the summit in Tehran as a pure "axis of evil". As for the helpless Maliki, there's not much for Bush to lecture him about; his days in power may be numbered. According to various and persistent reports, including from Western and Arab networks, a coup d'etat may be in the works in Baghdad: the US in the Green Zone may have enlisted four of Saddam's Sunni Arab generals with the mission of toppling the Shi'ite-majority Maliki government to install a regime of "national salvation". It would then restructure the Shi'ite-dominated ministries of Defense and Interior and finish off Shi'ite militias such as the Badr Organization of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr.

Speculation but interesting. I can't see the Shiites standing for any Sunnis taking over the government.

Call it the return of the Ba'athists - minus Saddam. Even before rumors of a coup began circulation, one could see the so-called diplomatic strategists of Baker's ISG coming up with the idea of trying to co-opt the resistance into entering a coalition government.

But that does not mean the plan will work. The US might invest in an Asian-style face-saving operation spun by heavy public relations by getting involved in direct negotiations with the Sunni Arab resistance. But only a Saddam-style dictator is capable of assuring a strong, stable central government in Baghdad in charge of security for everyone, with no discrimination. That would mean alienating the Shi'ite religious parties and their paramilitary factions to the limit.

Which shows why we were such damn fools for going in there in the first place. Nearly 2,800 dead Americans and what did they die for? Bush's stupidity and neo-con ideology.

The return of the Ba'athists fits into a "stay the course" pattern. And it also somehow fits into the Pentagon's "go big" (more troops) and "go long" (many years) strategies - which would take at least up to 2015 before Iraqization of the security forces is complete. In the end, these "strategies" amount to little more than a catchphrase - a muddled "go big but short while transitioning to go long".

A web of myth continues to be spun by much of the world's press, according to which Iran, as an overpowering entity, uses the US occupation to crush the Sunni Arab resistance while manipulating Shi'ite militias. This is a two-pronged fallacy. The Pentagon's finest in Iraq are not crushing anything - on the contrary. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has all but installed an Islamic emirate in al-Anbar province, while the Mehdi Army reigns in Kufa, south of Baghdad, and in Sadr City in Baghdad itself.

How can any Muslim nation have any respect for our military might when we can't control a small band of terrorist in a province in Iraq, not to mention the resurgence of the Teliban in Afghanistan. Bush's military policy, like his foreign policy, is an absolute failure.

The 10,000-strong Badr Organization - affiliated with SCIRI - may have been trained by the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, but it does not take any orders from Tehran. As for Muqtada's 7,000-strong Mehdi Army, it is split into at least three different factions (two of them don't even respond to Muqtada anymore). But all of them are opposed to Iranian interference.

The Maliki government is, for all purposes, already dead. Maliki, the No 2 of the Islamist Da'wa Party, controls only 25 representatives in the 275-member parliament. He depends on the SCIRI - which has the majority - and the Sadrists. So obviously Maliki cannot order any kind of crackdown either on the Badr or the Mehdi Army factions. According to the Islamic Party - which has the majority of parliamentarians under the Sunni Concord Front - the police and the army are totally infiltrated by Shi'ite militias. The Sadrists for their part denounce the US "return of the Ba'athists" strategy - and defend the Mehdi Army as patriots who protect Shi'ites from the takfiris (Sunni radicals).

The Maliki government won't go down quietly, though, if judged by its current diplomatic frenzy. The US for its part will accomplish absolutely nothing by trying to take down Muqtada and the Mehdi Army, or even the Badr Organization. If the Pentagon somehow decided to go on an all-out offensive, it would be very easy for SCIRI/Badr - or for Mehdi Army commandos - completely to cut off the US supply route from Kuwait to Baghdad.

What the Shi'ite Islamic parties in power and Tehran agree on is a crucial point: the Sunni Arab resistance must be vanquished. But Muqtada's position is more nuanced: as a true Iraqi nationalist, he does not rule out agreements with Sunni Arabs with the supreme objective of kicking the occupiers out. Meanwhile, the US military will keep being caught in a deadly trap - between the sprawling, underground Sunni Arab resistance and the Shi'ite militias' non-stop rampage.

The fall of the Green Zone
Everyone is guilty in the ongoing Iraq tragedy. The US-trained new Iraqi army is infiltrated by militias, by death squads and even by al-Qaeda in Iraq. The SCIRI, Da'wa and the Kurds are only worried about their own interests, not the interests of Iraq as a nation. And the US - always hiding under the dubious mantra of "Iraqi democracy" - totally evades its responsibility in provoking the appalling chaos in the first place.

Militia hell will remain impervious to any summit. Shi'ite clerical leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani may call for restraint. But Sistani does not control the Shi'ite proletarian masses anymore, Muqtada does. The Americans - attacked at least 180 times a day, every day - will keep "controlling" only one piece of real estate in the whole of Mesopotamia (although an extremely valuable one): the Green Zone.

The ISG may recommend more summits and more covert contacts with the Sunni Arab resistance. Ahmadinejad, Talabani and Assad may even meet again. But Baghdad sources close to the resistance in the Sunni belt have told Asia Times Online of another coup in the making - and that goes way beyond the removal of the Maliki government.

Secular former Ba'athists and Saddam's fighters congregated in the Army of Mohammed - the paramilitary wing of the Awda Party - are already in control of the Syrian border (and not Salafi-jihadis of the al-Qaeda kind).

The next big step for the Sunni Arab resistance - according to sheikhs of the powerful Shammar Sunni tribe - would be to take out the Badr Organization, holed up in the Ministry of the Interior, and the two most murderous factions of the Mehdi Army. That would mean an Iraqi nationalist purge of the hated "Iranians". And that implies an all-out attack on the Green Zone.

The return of the Ba'athists and the fall of the Green Zone: now that's a prime-time double bill to knock 'em dead.

Don't see that happening as long as we're there.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK29Ak01.html

0 Replies

contrarian, spendi style....arguing for the fun of it, keeping oneself fabian so as not to occupy any position which might be assaulted, complete lack of logical discipline in aid of same fabian goal. You do a sort of cross between Socrates and Dylan in interview, but it's 90 % Dylan. You are entertained and, often, so am I. Other times, definitely not.

And that's the last sentence here I'll write on the matter.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

contrarian, spendi style....arguing for the fun of it, keeping oneself fabian so as not to occupy any position which might be assaulted,

That's another incorrect assertion I'm afraid.

Of course I occupy a position and it is often assaulted.

I support the alliance's policy in the ME. I trust our governments have sound reasons for prosecuting those policies even though I might not understand them. I am aware of the difficulties. Isn't any other route anarchy.

The opposition have no policy that I can discern. They are not occupying any position. They are chattering. They seem to be indulging in forms of posturing without the risk of any responsibility in the matter. They are the ones who can't be assaulted because there is nothing to assault.

Further to that position I have another and it has been stated. It is that we don't know enough to offer gratuitous opinions on the matter and that by offering such opinions as the opposition have they generate a feeling in our enemies that we are weakening which naturally emboldens them.

Are those not clear positions Bernie?

And they have been stated and have been assaulted and praised as well.

Another position I have clearly stated is that the focus should be on where we go from here rather than chewing over alleged mistakes in the past which are done and dusted and set in stone.

I see no signs of a possible alternative government in either of our countries which will radically alter the present policies.

If I were to express an opinion, assuming opposing anarchy is not an opinion, I would agree with Saddam Hussein. It is the Mother of all Battles. I'm inclined to hope he was wrong but I see it as a forlorn hope.

I like peace and quiet as much as anyone.

0 Replies

Quote:

Another position I have clearly stated is that the focus should be on where we go from here rather than chewing over alleged mistakes in the past which are done and dusted and set in stone.

Those who are on the side which relied upon lies and deception in order to further their gains often feel this way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I can't think what I might have to gain which in any way is more that what the rest of us will gain or what future generations will gain if the present policy is a success and, if it isn't, we will have to live with the consequences. I am not a shareholder in Haliburton but I would expect that a lot of American pension schemes are as well as in other companies which are making profits from the war.

I don't see any alternative to policies pursued by elected governments because there is no other institution with the capacity to pursue any policy at all. Aside from a cacophony of asserted smears.

You seem to me to be content to reap the rewards of war whilst distancing yourself from the responsibility of it. Nice work.

The aboriginal population of North America was pushed to one side using force and superior technology by people who sought private gain and I don't see much evidence that you are not pleased to be benefitting from that.

0 Replies

Quote:

You seem to me to be content to reap the rewards of war whilst distancing yourself from the responsibility of it. Nice work.

Oh, I'm responsible. Every American (allied citizen) is responsible. I didn't do more to stop the war before it started.

I don't want to 'reap the rewards' of the war. What rewards will there be, exactly? Stability in the Middle East? Cheap Oil? Less threat from terrorism? None of these have come to pass nor do they seem likely to come to pass, as there is every evidence that the opposite of each is the case.

You have the same to gain as all other war supporters: internal self-justification about the validity of your beliefs.

I don't know how you Brits run it, but when we see our government is screwing up the program - and whether or not you think the war was neccessary, there is zero doubt in anyone's mind that the execution of it has been bungled completely - we start making noise until things change. You call this 'chattering,' but it isn't.

There no longer remain any good options for Iraq. This is one of the primary reasons that you don't see alternatives proposed; none of the alternatives is politically acceptable, as they all involve either splitting the country up (against their will, and against Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Iran's interests, which won't help relations), comitting genocide against one ethnic group in Iraq, or leaving entirely. There is no outcome likely to happen other than one of those three, and so the decision will be put off as long as possible in order to save the careers of those who got us into this mess.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Oh yeah,

Quote:

The aboriginal population of North America was pushed to one side using force and superior technology by people who sought private gain and I don't see much evidence that you are not pleased to be benefitting from that.

Well, I wasn't exactly given a choice in the matter, now was I?

I don't advocate giving the whole taco back to the Indians, because the solution to a problem is rarely to do the exact opposite of what the problem is. But every time I am given an opportunity to vote on an issue affecting Indian rights, I try to help them out as much as possible; and in Texas I volunteered for years with my Boy Scout troop to help build housing and road improvements on Indian tribal land, to make their lives a little better.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo wrote-

Quote:

Every American (allied citizen) is responsible.

I didn't say that. Those who deliberately didn't vote, or were not allowed to or couldn't, I would exclude.

Government of the people by the people for the people makes those who voted for representitives who voted for the war responsible doesn't it?

I know you didn't have a choice in the land grab but you have benefitted from it. I saw a newspaper from 1927 with a front page headline saying that the sheriff had got up a posse to "exterminate Indians".

And as things stand that ethnic group can hardly be said to be sharing in the American dream.

Making their lives a "little better", whilst laudable if the possibility of enjoying it is excluded, doesn't sound much.

We don't know what rewards there might be. That's a matter for those who make policy. A bad outcome might be a reward if a worse outcome is the alternative. It isn't a black or white situation. And it is early days. Things looked bleak here in the early 40s. There were voices to make a peace with Hitler.

The danger of another attack on Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia has been removed I think.

Quote:

You have the same to gain as all other war supporters: internal self-justification about the validity of your beliefs.

Nothing of the kind. I have no beliefs about the war(s). I do know that Saddam Hussein was evil and I also know that most of the western world cheered when his statue was toppled. That told me that they were in favour at that time and that only the necessary sacrifice has changed some of their minds. That they were in favour when it was easy and only turned against when it became difficult. That's not much of a principle.

"Bungling" is another matter entirely. That suggests your selection procedures for office are faulty.

I think when you are a party activist and work within the party for your aims you are not "chattering".

There other alternatives. Muddling through as best we can, taking the heat and hoping for the best whilst strenuously working for it as we have done for a very long time in Ireland and it is looking promising there these days.

Another I have seen is to relocate the population of Isreal to Europe and North America but I hardly think that realistic. An even crazier one is to extend Isreal down to the Indian Ocean. There are a few others but they get even more extreme.

It's too complex for us. Try juggling fifty different shaped objects stood on a shaking table. That might give you some idea. If you succeed try it with some cats.

0 Replies

Quote:

It's too complex for us. Try juggling fifty different shaped objects stood on a shaking table. That might give you some idea. If you succeed try it with some cats.

I don't disagree with this. This is one of my main criticisms about the war: it takes a great Hubris to believe you can walk in, stir the pot around a little, sprinkle in some Democracy seeds and everything is going to work out.

Far from it. One of the reasons I was against this war from the beginning is because I have done years of research about the socio-political status of the region, and I still understand little about it! The situation is so complicated that we should take the greatest caution and care before meddling with anything.

It may not matter to you that the case for war - and the urgent nature of going to war - was based upon lies and deception, but it does to me and many others. I don't elect and pay for public officials to lie to me and decide what is best for me based upon motivations that have little to do with the avowed ethics and morals of our country; and I will never give up working to stop the efforts of such people.

When these same people tell me that it is harmful to the country that I work against their efforts, I don't believe them, because they are known liars who have proven they will say what they need to say to get what they want, regardless of the truth.

When they tell me that leaving Iraq will bring more terrorism to the US, I don't believe them, because they are known liars who have proven they will say what they need to say to get what they want, regardless of the truth.

When they say that giving monies to the rich benefits the poor, I don't believe them, because they are known liars who have proven they will say what they need to say to get what they want, regardless of the truth.

et cetera

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's a respectable position Cyclo and quite admirable in some ways but I fear it leads to anarchy.

Politicians have to lie I'm afraid. It is necessary to stitch coalitions of two parties together. Many parties leads to weakness. Then anarchy if there are too many.

These coalitions are difficult enough to unify at the best of times and once the voters have learned how to keep them both on the edge all the time it gets fiendish. I don't know how they would manage without lies.

0 Replies

Poor dumb Bush; he's losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. How in the hell could America twice elect such a pathetic loser?

Quote:

Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato
By Ahmed Rashid in Islamabad
Last Updated: 2:00am GMT 30/11/2006

Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

Western ministers have been stunned. "Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," said one Western official who met the minister recently.

The remarks were made on the eve of Nato's critical summit in Latvia. Lt Gen David Richards, the British general and Nato's force commander in Afghanistan, and the Dutch ambassador Daan Everts, its chief diplomat there, have spent five days in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, urging the Pakistani military to do more to reign in the Taliban. But they have received mixed messages.

Mr Karzai has long insisted that the Taliban sanctuaries and logistics bases are in Pakistan while Gen James Jones, the Supreme Commander of Nato, told the US Congress in September that the Taliban leadership is headquartered in the Pakistani city of Quetta.

Lt Gen Ali Mohammed Jan Orakzai, governor of the volatile North West Frontier Province has stated publicly that the US, Britain and Nato have already failed in Afghanistan. "Either it is a lack of understanding or it is a lack of courage to admit their failures," he said recently.

Gen Orakzai insists that the Taliban represent the Pashtun population, Afghanistan's largest and Pakistan's second largest ethnic group, and they now lead a "national resistance" movement to throw out Western occupation forces, just as there is in Iraq.

But his comments have deeply angered many Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns, who consider the Taliban as pariahs and a negation of Pashtun values. Gen Orakzai is the mastermind of "peace deals" between the army and the heavily Talibanised Pashtun tribes on the Pakistani side of the border, but these agreements have failed because they continue to allow the Taliban to attack Nato forces inside Afghanistan and leave the Taliban in place, free to run a mini-Islamic state.

Gen Orakzai is expected to urge the British Army to strike similar deals in Helmand province. Meanwhile aides to President Pervez Musharraf say he has virtually "given up" on Mr Karzai and is awaiting a change of face in Kabul before he offers more help.

Many Afghans fear that Pakistan is deliberately trying to undermine Mr Karzai and Nato's commitment to his government in an attempt to reinstall its Taliban proxies in Kabul - almost certainly leading to all-out civil war and possible partition of the country.

To progress in Riga, Nato will have to enlist US support to call Pakistan's bluff, put pressure on Islamabad to hand over the Taliban leadership and put more troops in to fight the insurgency while persuading Mr Karzai to become more pro-active.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know