9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 01:07 pm
I'd like to point out that people warned these reasons were invalid far before the invasion began. And yet, no apology has been given to them, who were insulted for holding these opinions, and no admission that they were right.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 01:29 pm
Interesting quote from FrancisFukuyama ("America at the Crossroads"):
Quote:
It seems very doubtful at this juncture that history will judge the Iraq war kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, training ground, and operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 01:35 pm
Fukuyama is a neocon who should never address policy - he's an excellent historian, but mostly on the Nietzsche-Marx timescales - and he has no clue on geography.

EDIT service here will not accept f u k u y a m a - too, too ridiculous Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 02:57 pm
xingu wrote:
ican wrote:
"There's an AQ camp in an area of Iraq that Saddam Hussein has no control over."

You at least got that much straight, but you didn't get the rest straight.


Well I'm glad to see you finally realized that Saddam Hussein had no control over that terrority. It took you long enough.
...

Laughing

You continue to not get it straight.

Over the last 8 months, I've repeatedly posted here the following (underline added by me):

Senate Select Committee wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

Rolling Eyes

By the way, while Saddam knew he did not control (i.e., have jurisdiction over) northeastern Iraq, he nonetheless invaded a major city, Irbil, in northeastern Iraq in 1996. It has been alleged that someone in northeastern Iraq invited him to do that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 02:58 pm
What exactly does 'al-qaeda affiliate' mean to you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 03:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What exactly does 'al-qaeda affiliate' mean to you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn


[emphasis added]
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=affiliate&x=31&y=8

Main Entry: 1 affiliate Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: fil t also a -; - d.+V
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: Medieval Latin affiliatus, past participle of affiliare to adopt as a son, from Latin ad- + filius son -- more at FEMININE
transitive verb

1 a : to attach as a member or branch : bring or receive into close connection
<the> <the> <a> <everyone> b : to join as a member : ASSOCIATE <detached> <affiliated> <lumbering>
intransitive verb : to connect or associate oneself : COMBINE -- usually used with with <he> <these>
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 04:10 pm
Quote:
By the way, while Saddam knew he did not control (i.e., have jurisdiction over) northeastern Iraq, he nonetheless invaded a major city, Irbil, in northeastern Iraq in 1996. It has been alleged that someone in northeastern Iraq invited him to do that.


He did that at the request of the Kurds. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 05:05 pm
xingu wrote:
Quote:
By the way, while Saddam knew he did not control (i.e., have jurisdiction over) northeastern Iraq, he nonetheless invaded a major city, Irbil, in northeastern Iraq in 1996. It has been alleged that someone in northeastern Iraq invited him to do that.


He did that at the request of the Kurds. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Which Kurds? They had a few waring factions at that time.
...
...
...
This may help you answer correctly:


Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ wrote:

www.britannica.com

In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a "safe haven" in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions?-the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south?-contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Irbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control?-particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk?-that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.

It would seem that back in 1996 poor ol' Saddam didn't know he ought not try to control anything in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. I guess he learned so later in say 2002. :wink:
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 06:42 pm
while the u.s. forces have handed control over kurdish territory in iraq to kurdistan regional forces , turkey threatens to invade the territory where - they claim - kurdish nationalists find a haven .
another little prickly problem to solve .
solve one problem , create another one , that seems to be the motto in the middle-east these days .
hbg



KURDISH NEWS REPORT
--------------------------------

Quote:
Iraq's Kurdish provinces take control of their own security 30.5.2007

US forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces in Iraqi Kurdistan region to the Kurdistan regional government, Sulaimaniyah, Erbil and Dohuk provinces are ruled by the Kurdistan Regional Government from today.

May 30, 2007

Erbil, Kurdistan region (Iraq), May 30, 2007 ,-- US forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces to the Kurdistan regional government Wednesday, in a move that may bolster its separatist ambitions.

While officials said the autonomous region will work closely with the national government in Baghdad, the symbolism of the moment was not lost on the former guerrilla fighters who attended the hand-over ceremony.

"It's a sort of independence," Colonel Shadman Ali of the peshmerga, the Kurdish security force, told AFP. "We are very glad and proud and have been waiting for this day for so long. It gives us a great source of hope."

Sulaimaniyah, Erbil and Dohuk provinces are ruled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, which has its own executive and ministries and has been spared much of the unrest wracking the rest of Iraq.

"Today is another success in the process of rebuilding Iraq," Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said at the ceremony, which was held at the Erbil convention centre and included a parade of peshmerga soldiers.

"This is the result of the experience of 16 years," he said referring to Kurdistan's history of de facto independence since the 1991 Gulf War weakened Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's grip on the mountainous north.

Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security -- a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability.

"The Kurdistan Regional Government is a good example for security and democracy for all provinces," National Security Advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie said at the ceremony.

"Reinforcing the security of Kurdistan is reinforcing the security of Iraq."

Unlike the rest of the war-torn country, the Kurdish provinces and their comparative security have attracted the interest of foreign investors, which has fuelled a construction boom in the region's cities.

"You're an example for the rest of Iraq," Major General Benjamin Mixon, the commander of US troops in Kurdistan (northern Iraq), told the assembled dignitaries.

Turkey, which has large and restive Kurdish population of its own, has long expressed dissatisfaction with the increasing independence of Iraq's Kurds.

Ankara accuses Iraq of allowing the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) of using the region as a rear-base to launch cross-border attacks, despite the United States listing the group as a terrorist organisation.




source :
KURDS TAKE CONTROL OVER THEIR TERRITORY



THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE REPORTS
-------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Turkish military ready to cross into Iraq, general says

The Associated Press
Thursday, May 31, 2007
ANKARA, Turkey: Turkey's top general said Thursday his army ?- which has been massing troops on the border with Iraq ?- was prepared to attack separatist Kurdish guerrillas in a cross-border offensive and accused Turkey's allies of supporting the rebels.
Gen. Yasar Buyukanit said the military was ready and awaiting government orders for an incursion, putting pressure on the government to support an offensive that risks straining ties with the United States and sparking tensions with Iraqi Kurds.



Quote:
...accused Turkey's allies of supporting the rebels ... one has to wonder who those ALLIES might be ?





link to complete article :
TURKEY THREATENS IRAQ
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:38 pm
Quote:
Words from the front-lines

"I'd like to punch him [Rumsfeld] in the gut. He treats us like we're not human. He acts like he's not destroying families." - NCO, 4-24 Infantry Battalion, 172nd Stryker Brigade, Baghdad, Iraq.

"The world keeps turning and so does the fighting in Iraq. Yesterday, my soldier and friend was shot and killed. He is the first one in our platoon to be killed. His death has started an uproar of emotions in the platoon. … No one understands why we are here and what our mission is. This war is lost. We aren't helping these people. We are just dying and getting injured." - Sergeant Ryan Kahlor, Task Force 1-36, Hit, Iraq.

"Nobody is pro-American in this city. They either tolerate us or all-out hate us. If we do leave, the city will be a lot better and they'll build it a lot better. … Nobody wants us here, so why are we here? That's the big question. … If we leave, all the attacks would stop, because we'd be gone." - Major Brent E. Lilly, Marine civil affairs unit, Hit, Iraq.

"It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we're driving around waiting to get blown up. That's the most honest answer I could give you. You lose a couple friends and it gets hard." - Specialist Tim Ivey, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baghdad, Iraq.

"No one wants to be here, you know, no one is truly enthused about what we do. We were excited, but then it just wears on you - there's only so much you can take. Like me, personally, I want to fight in a war like World War II. I want to fight an enemy. And this, out here, there is no enemy, it's a faceless enemy. He's out there, but he's hiding." - Sergeant Christopher Dugger, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baghdad, Iraq.

"At this point, it seems like the war on drugs in America. It's like this never-ending battle, like, we find one IED, if we do find it before it hits us, so what? You know it's just like if the cops make a big bust, next week the next higher-up puts more back out there." - Specialist David Fulcher, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baghdad, Iraq.

"The first time somebody you know dies, the first thing you ask yourself is, ?'Well, what did he die for?'" - Specialist Joshua Steffey, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baghdad, Iraq.


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/9.06.words.php
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:41 pm
Quote:
"They hate us over here. I'm in the worst possible place you can be in this country. I want to come home." -Michael J. Stanley Jr., 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, Ramadi, Iraq.

"No one told me why I'm putting my life on the line in Samarra, and you know why they didn't? Because there is no ******* reason." - Specialist Michael Pena, 2nd platoon, Bravo Company, Rakkasan Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, Samarra, Iraq.

"I don't know. I suppose insurgents. Trying to get rid of us, I guess. I guess they hate us because we done blown up half their country." - Private Patrice Gittens, Camp Stryker, Baghdad, Iraq, when asked who is responsible for mortaring her unit's base.

"How can we know who is our enemy when we don't even know why we're here?" - Specialist William Clark, Camp Stryker, Baghdad, Iraq.

"See these oil fires? This is why we're here, guys. We're not defending freedom." - Tomas Young, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, Baghdad, Iraq.

"I don't know what the mission is; I haven't known for a long time. … I'm tired of putting kids in body bags." - Sergeant Sherwood Baker, 82nd Airborne Division, who died protecting the Iraq Survey Group that was sent to find Iraq's non-existent WMD.

"We can't fight this enemy. … They could be right in front of you and you wouldn't know it. They have an enemy. We don't." - Staff Sergeant Emmitt Adkins, Pnd Platoon, A Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82PndP Airborne Division, Kandahar, Afghanistan.

"?'I don't know who my enemy is. It's a worthless, senseless war, a war of religion. We'll never win it." - Seth Niederer, Iskanderiya, Iraq. These were his last words to his mother before he returned to Iraq and was killed by an I.E.D.


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/7.06.words.php
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:56 pm
Some of the soldiers with some brains are beginning to speak up about the no-win war in Iraq. Bush and his minions will not stop this war - or as they say "cut and run." They're so stupid, they still think there is some semblance of "success" to be had in a civil war and insurgency.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 10:42 am
What leads me to conclude that all these quotes about the Iraqi people hate us and/or want us to leave are malarkey, is the absence of an organized request by a majority of the Iraqi people, or a specific resolution by the Iraqi government requesting us to leave.

Given either request, I'd be 100% in favor of our leaving ASAP. Absent both these requests, I am in favor of persisting in Iraq to exterminate al-Qaeda in Iraq, and training the Iraq military to defend their country themselves without our help.

By the way, to actually exterminate al-Qaeda in Iraq will require that we exterminate their supporters as well as their actual and potential mass murderers of non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:45 pm
Ican

Try reading the news. The Sunnis are already revolting against AQ. If AQ is to be expelled from Iraq it should be the Iraqis who do it and not us.

Quote:
The U.S. says there's a new trend in Iraq: Sunni tribes rising up against the Sunni terrorists in al Qaeda.


http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/168806.aspx
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:48 pm
Remember the good ol' days when bad ass Bush said we would never negotiate with terrorist?

Guess what happens when you get your butt kicked in up to your eyeballs.

Quote:
Odierno: U.S. reaching out to insurgents

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 1, 2007 16:35:27 EDT

U.S. commanders in Iraq are beginning to take a seemingly giant step in the effort to defeat extremist insurgents: negotiations with the enemy.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said he has told other U.S. commanders "at all levels" to "reach out" to insurgents "because there are insurgents reaching out to us ?- which is the most important thing. So we want to reach back to them. And we're talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq, or against coalition forces."

Odierno said the effort is just getting underway.

"It's happening at small levels," he said. He didn't specify which groups were involved.

He also said he thinks a high degree of reconciliation between rival sects and groups is possible, adding that perhaps 80 percent of the sectarian elements within the country are "reconcilable." That would include "very few" members of al-Qaida, he added.

Odierno, speaking from Iraq on Thursday via a satellite link, also said the high number of U.S. troop deaths in recent days has been caused both by their closer proximity to enemy forces while disbursed into joint security stations and combat outposts, and by the enemy's efforts to build "bigger and bigger" improvised explosive devices and burying them more deeply ?- as well as using them to form defensive perimeters.

See PowerPoint presentation

See PDF version of PowerPoint presentation

"What we're finding is the insurgents and extremists use IEDs as their own little security and support zones," Odierno said. "They use large, buried IEDs, in areas we have not been before. And some of them have been somewhat effective ?- which has raised our death toll.

"We are working very hard to counter this," Odierno said. "I have confidence that we'll be able to do that over time. But it's going to be some hard sledding here."

Odierno said he won't be able to make his first assessment of the ongoing surge of troops until August ?- but that if he had his way, he'd want more time beyond the much-awaited September time frame, when an assessment is due to Congress.

The answer, he said, might be that the surge troops haven't been on the ground long enough to make a fair assessment.

"The assessment might be, ?'I need a little more time,'" Odierno said.

The assessment could also conclude that the surge has been effective, or that it hasn't been, he said. "But right now, if you asked me, I'd tell you I'll probably need a little bit more time to do a true assessment," Odierno said.

To date, Odierno said, "We've made small progress here. We have not made the progress that I think is necessary yet."

If progress is made, U.S. troops, even at a reduced level, could be in Iraq for many years to come. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Wednesday that President Bush believes U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq long after a major combat role is finished. He mentioned the "Korean model," referring to U.S. troops' decades-old presence in South Korea following the Korean War.

Odierno said that while that decision is a matter for the two governments to decide, "I think it's a great idea. I think it'd be very helpful to have a force here for a period of time to continue to help the Iraqis train, and continue to build their capabilities. ... If they want us to continue to stay here and fight al-Qaida for a period of time, we certainly will do that and develop our force accordingly."

Odierno said he's still optimistic about the success of an intensive search for two soldiers still missing following an ambush south of Baghdad nearly three weeks ago.

"Of course I have hope," Odierno said. "We continue to get tips. We continue to go after them aggressively as we get them."

But, he admitted, "As time goes on, it gets tougher. And that's the bottom line. ... But we're not going to give up, and we will stay very focused on trying to find those Â… great young men."

He added that "we are doing everything we can" to also locate five British citizens recently kidnapped by gunmen from the Finance Ministry in Baghdad.

"If I was a betting man, I would bet that it's Shia extremists" who conducted that kidnapping, he added.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:51 pm
These fools can't seem to understand that Iraq and South Korea are not alike, just as WW II and Iraq are not alike.

Quote:
US in Iraq for 'long term'
1.6.2007

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the United States is looking to a long-term military presence in Iraq similar to the one it has in South Korea.

Gates told reporters here that plans still call for an assessment of the US "surge" strategy in September but he was looking beyond that to the type of mutually agreed military presence the United States will have in Iraq over the long term.

"What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans ?- mutually agreed with mutually agreed missions ?- is present for a protracted period of time," he said.

Mr Gates, who was visiting the US Pacific Command here on the way to security talks in Singapore, pointed to South Korea, contrasting it to Vietnam "where we just left lock, stock and barrel."

US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, with US generals in charge of combined US-South Korean forces in time of war.

"The idea is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions," he said.

"The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan is another," he said.

President George W. Bush also has alluded to the strategy shift in talking about a "Plan B-H," that would incorporate recommendations from a commission head by former secretary of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission proposed a phased reduction in US forces but leaving a small force to protect Iraq's borders and fight Al-Qaeda.

At the same time, Mr Gates said US military commanders should not feel constrained by political pressure in Washington for a decision in September on whether to begin reducing US troop levels in Iraq.

Currently, there are about 147,000 US troops in Iraq but the total is expected to swell to about 160,000 over the next could of months.

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the number two commander in Iraq, earlier told reporters in Washington via video link from Baghdad that he may not be able to make a full assessment by September of whether the buildup is succeeding in stabilising Iraq.

Mr Odierno said last month that the extra troops will be needed at least through to early next year.

Asked about Mr Odierno's latest comments, Mr Gates said, "I don't think the goal post has changed really at all."

"I think he was saying basically that report can go a number of different ways, one of which is 'I need a little bit more time.'"

"When we receive the report from General (David) Petraeus and General Odierno we want them to focus on what is going on in Iraq," he said. General Petraeus is the top US commander in Iraq.

"Our military commanders should not have to worry about the Washington clock. That is for us in Washington to worry about," he said.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:54 pm
Kurds, Turks and Iranians-should be interesting.

Quote:
TEHRAN, May 31: Seven Iranian soldiers, including two generals, have been killed in clashes with rebels in a Kurdish populated area in the north of the country, the IRNA reported on Thursday.

The soldiers appeared to have been killed in clashes on Monday with "counter revolutionary elements" which the military has already said resulted in the deaths of 10 rebels.

The commander of the Aba Abdollah al-Hossein second brigade Brigadier General Ali Reza Talaie and the head of intelligence of this unit Ghorban Ali Ebrahimi were killed, along with their comrades, an army statement said.

It said five other rank-and-file soldiers were killed in the clashes near the town of Salmas in Iran's West Azarbaijan province, 30 kilometres from the border with Turkey.?-AFP


http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/01/int11.htm
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 06:01 pm
Interview

Quote:
The World Today - US may collapse as a superpower: analyst

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1939849.htm

Friday, 1 June , 2007
Reporter: Eleanor Hall
ELEANOR HALL: A US military analyst who's served in the armed forces and has written on international affairs for more than two decades, is issuing a warning today about the collapse of the United States as a superpower.

In his latest book, The Mess they Made: the Middle East after Iraq, Gwynne Dyer says there's no doubt that the US will withdraw its troops from Iraq once President George W. Bush leaves office.

But he predicts that already that war has set in motion events that will radically transform not only the Middle East but the role of the United States in the world.

Gwynne Dyer is in Sydney this week and he joined me earlier in the World Today studio.

There've been a series of conflicts in the Middle East over the last 40 years, why do you see this latest war in Iraq as likely to be so transformative for the region?

GWYNNE DYER: Well the Americans actually have never committed troops in the Middle East, never actually fought a war in the Middle East, the United States, before. I think this is having an impact on the American public, comparable to the impact on the American public in the Vietnam War though the casualties are far lower this time. So now, there is developing, a Middle Eastern allergy in American public opinion, rather similar to the South East Asian allergy that you had by the end of the 1960's.

That is transformative because if America is not there enforcing the status quo, the status quo probably collapses. It is very old and shoddy. The regimes of the Arab world, with zero exceptions, except for Iraq, where the Americans overthrew Saddam, have all been in power for at least forty years.

They're all dictatorships or absolute monarchies, most of them are corrupt beyond imagining. So this is a very unstable status quo, maintained by American subsidies, American troops, American guarantees, and when those are withdrawn, I think that there will be very large changes in the Middle East.

ELEANOR HALL: You're certain that all of those will be withdrawn, not just the US troops, but the US subsidies as well?

GWYNNE DYER: Not all and not right away, but enough to create a momentum, in which Congress will be reluctant to vote new funds, Congress will be very suspicious about new commitments to support Arab regimes, and meanwhile the momentum in the streets in the Arab world will be moving very rapidly in the favour of the revolutionaries. And that's what they are, after all, the Islamists, after all, are political revolutionaries, they're not just religious fanatics.

ELEANOR HALL: So what will be the shape of the Middle East at that point?

GWYNNE DYER: I think that you're going to see some, I can't tell you which ones, but some Arab regimes fall in the next five years, fall to Islamists of various variety. Some of them perhaps very radical, some of them less so.
ELEANOR HALL: So what would this mean for terrorism in the West

GWYNNE DYER: I think it would drop. I mean the terrorism in the West has two sources, really, first of all the actual 9/11 attacks were a strategic move by a revolutionary Arab organisation, al-Qaeda, to trick the United States into invading Muslim countries. If you pull the troops out of the Middle East, and the West is no longer occupying Muslim countries, I think the wind goes out of the sails of that particular interpretation.

ELEANOR HALL: There's not a danger that having Islamist republics in the Middle East might inspire terrorism around the world?

GWYNNE DYER: No, I don't see why, because I mean, once they're in power, what do they need to bother us for?

ELEANOR HALL: You suggest that the Iraq war could also transform the role of the US in the world, that it's actually done far more damage to US power and prestige than the Vietnam War. What are you predicting for the US?

GWYNNE DYER: Well, think about the Vietnam War for a moment. The United States suffered a humiliating defeat and frankly the US armed forces were a complete shambles for 10 years after that. And yet, within five years, it was all forgiven and forgotten. And in the world at large by the end of the 1970's, the United States was back as the leader of the free world - trusted, beloved by all, well, by most. That could happen again, if the US pulls out of Iraq, as soon as Mr Bush leaves power.

Which is what I think will happen. About 10 minutes after the inauguration of the next President in January 2009, the evacuation starts. However, there is the possibility that the United States before Mr Bush leaves will attack Iran. And if that happens, I think we have a very different outcome. Former National Security Adviser in the United States, Zbigniew Brzezinski is on record as saying if the United States attacks Iran, it will lose its place in the world. And I think he's right.

ELEANOR HALL: What do you think the odds are though, of the United States attacking Iran?

GWYNNE DYER: I have no idea, I change in my view from week to week on this, which presumably means they're about 50/50. I mean, the forces are in place, the runways have been lengthened, you know, the extra carriers are in the Gulf.

ELEANOR HALL: And yet there are constant denials from the Bush administration…

GWYNNE DYER: Well of course there are, but that's what you'd have in this situation, so it means nothing. Could all be bluff, and I hope it is, but if it isn't, then it is imaginable that the Bush administration decides to roll the dice one last time. If they attacked Iran, they would lose, and of course, the Iranians would close the Gulf to the tanker traffic, and so suddenly there's a global economic crisis, and then in two or three months we get America off the hook, somehow and get the Gulf reopened. But by that time, frankly, I think NATO will have broken up, I think the Russians will have decided they'd better make a deal with the Chinese, it would change the look of the chessboard very dramatically.

ELEANOR HALL: Why would it change it so dramatically, when you're saying that the Iraq war, you're expecting that the world and the American people will forgive the Bush administration, why wouldn't they equally forgive it for a disastrous war in Iran, were that to happen?

GWYNNE DYER: It's the rogue state phenomenon. I mean, this could be another unprovoked, illegal American attack on a sovereign state. It would actually convince a great many people that the United States is congenitally a rogue state.

A senior Japanese diplomat said to me, last year, he said "You know the United States is a twelve year old with a shotgun". And what he meant was that as the United States begins to suspect that it's past the apogee of its trajectory, its on the way down, as a great power no longer on the way up or at the top securely, that it is becoming extremely erratic, that is lashing out in all sorts of ways to try and slow or stop what it perceives as insipient decline.

So there is concern that we're getting into rather deep water here, that we may be going into an era where the Americans become highly unpredictable and quite dangerous.

ELEANOR HALL: Gwynne Dyer, thanks very much for speaking to us.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 06:47 pm
xingu wrote:
Ican

... The Sunnis are already revolting against AQ. If AQ is to be expelled from Iraq it should be the Iraqis who do it and not us.

...

If they can do it by themselves without our help, we should let them do it. If they want our help doing it, then we should help them do it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 09:27 am
What is victory in Iraq?

Quote:
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term , Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term , Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term , Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/11/2026 at 08:37:29