I've done a complete 180 degree turn. We must get out of Iraq.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

After reading Hersch's article along with another account in the LA Times this AM as well as reading the account of Gen Janet Karpinski, I am convinvced we have squandered ANY possibility of having the Iraqi people to trust us to clean up the mess we made.

I was against the war but felt we SHOULD NOT leave as we had destroyed the infrastructure for any security. I had felt we would only increase the carnage of innocent citizens via a "Pol Pot" type of scenario if we cut and ran.

I no longer believe that.

I now believe we should take the BILLIONS we are paying to private military companies ( you know, the ones who lobbied for this war to further enrich themselves via war profiteering) and pay every Iraqi 5 dollars a day to rebuild their own nation. People who have a job and can feed themselves are far less likely to engage.

A true multi-national team must come in to help Iraqi's begin restoring their military and security infrastructure and we need to get the hell out.

We have lost their hearts and minds.

The CEO's of the companies that encouraged this abuse of prisoners should be held personally accountable for their companies' actions...their corporate charters should be pulled and at a minimum they should be barred from EVER vetting any federal or state governmental contracts again.

[burrowowl]

1. And Congress should grow a spine

and impeach Bu$h and Company, then they should be tried and imprisoned and complicit members of Congress, impeached and tried. If the American people don't react, I think we are in very deep do-do.

[teryang]

2. We've killed and maimed too many people

...in Iraq to expect anything other than a guerilla conflict. Our killing goes back a long way. General McCaffrey's excesses alone during the 1991 conflict guaranteed several thousand hardcore resisters. Then there is the matter of the embargo during which tens of thousands died annually. Then the fraudulent invasion. Imagine how you would act if your friends or loved ones were killed by a foreign invader. Breaking into your home, humiliating your family, putting your breadwinners into detention without due process. No promises would diminish the wrath. Violence begets violence.

Colonialism doesn't work in the 21st Century. It is clear that rendering Iraq impotent, changing their foreign policy objectives as an Islamic country and achieving control over their resources and markets were all illegitimate and improbable American objectives.

[randr]

3. Right you are!

The most important lesson to be learned from a war is that the winner is the side that is most willing to die for their cause.
At this moment there are far more Iraqis willing to lay their lives down than we have the stomach for. Our soldiers are demoralized and the industrial mercenaries have shamed us in the eyes of the world.

[bigtree]

4. Bush has lost hearts and minds there

May be impossible to recover. But we must try. We broke Iraq, we should help fix it.

I can't help but feel, though, like I'm waiting outside of the bathroom and Bush is in there clogging up the toilet and using the last of the toilet paper.

Or, maybe outside of the kitchen while Bush wastes all of the food in the disposal, dirties all the dishes, and blows up the stove.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. The only way we can help fix it is to pay for it

The best way to pay for it is to cancel all contracts with the people who vetted this war and give it to the Iraqi's to feed themselves. Mao Tse Tung said, "You can't preach religion to a hungry person." The same holds true for peace or democray. Give all the Iraqi's who have been out of work for a year (save for those that actually WERE guilty of criminal acts under Saddam) the finances and opportunity to rebuild their own nation, their own schools, their own electrical grid...and get the fuck out. Our presence there only insures more death and insurrection.

[Kanary]

10. Just what Dennis was saying so many months ago

We get out, stop the war profiteering by our companies, ask the UN and other countries to help, and our $$$ pays Iraqis for making the repairs.

I don't know why Kerry can't just come out and say this.

What's he waiting for.......... Bush to turn the place into a mushroom cloud??????

Kanary

[bigtree]

23. Where do you get your news on Kerry?

Might I suggest that we heed what he has actually said so far?

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

"To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq’s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk.
I. Make Iraq a Part of NATO’s Global Mission

NATO is now a global security organization and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. Every member of NATO has a huge stake in Iraq’s future. NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq’s border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone.

II. Authorize a High Commissioner for Governance and Reconstruction

An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, the High Commissioner will organize elections and the drafting of a constitution, and coordinate reconstruction. The High Commissioner should be an individual who is highly regarded by the international community and who has the credibility and capacity to talk to all the Iraqi people. The High Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. While the process of establishing the High Commissioner is underway, we must fully support the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi to set-up an Iraqi interim entity.

III. Launch a Massive Effort to Build an Iraqi Security Force

We need a massive training effort to build an Iraqi security force that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed and must be rethought and reformed. Training must be done in the field, on the job as well as in the classroom. This key task should be part of the NATO mission, and units should be put on the street with backup from international security forces. The creation of viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces.
_______________________________

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-08-25-kerry-vfw_x.htm


8/26/2003
Kerry criticizes Bush on Iraq

In his address, Kerry suggested that the Bush administration has not heeded the lessons of Vietnam in its planning on Iraq. "Above all, we learned that the interests of the grunts on the ground come before all politics and all ideology. And what we urgently need now to protect our young men and women in uniform — and America's role in the world — are decisions based on professional military judgments and strategic vision, not politics and pride," Kerry said.

"I believe a lack of planning and the lack of candor with the American people have placed our men and women in uniform in increased harm's way."

He said the Bush administration has "stubbornly refused' to allow other nations to assume risks in Iraq. Kerry urged wider involvement of the United Nations.
_________________________________

Kerry says Iraq burden must be shared
4/14/2004
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-14-kerry-iraq_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday that if he were president, he would be "personally, deeply involved" in urging foreign leaders and the United Nations to help the United States stabilize and rebuild Iraq.
The expected Democratic nominee said President Bush's "stubborn" insistence on an American occupation was a "mistake from Day One, and it is costing us money and I think it is costing us lives."

Kerry said Bush's approach has discouraged Arab and European nations from acting in their own interests to help stabilize and secure Iraq. He called it confounding that most of them are not helping Iraq rebuild and reorganize.

Kerry, of Massachusetts, said the way to draw troops and money from more countries is to share decision-making and reconstruction in Iraq while retaining control of security. "It may take a new president to ... accomplish what we need to. I hope not," he said.
____________________________

The U.N. or any other international body who may want to help in Iraq won't be satisfied with the U.S. cut and run option. We broke Iraq, they will expect us to stay in some force to help facilitate the rebuilding of their infrastructure and the establishment of an authority there independent from the U.S. control that now exists over resources.

[librechik]

11. Jail Cheney and Bush in Abu Gharib and treat em like average

prisoners.

That would be justice.

"Paying for" this monstrous crime called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with dollars is not going to cut it.

I don't know what will.

This is treachery, this is unAmerican and unforgivable. Those two must go. (and take Dummy and Wolfowitz along)

[Kanary]

15. No, paying for it is not enough, but it's the right start

With a crime this huge, NOTHING is enough.

We all knew it was going to be bad, but this has turned out to be HUGE. Something this country will not live down for a VERY long time.

I completely agree that those in charge, including the military brass, should be jailed. Whether that happens or not, however, we have to start by GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!

I'm calling Kerry's office tomorrow...... anybody else?

We MUST start making our demands known!

Kanary

[paulk]

51. You might be better off

calling Bush's office - since he is the president.

[RapidCreek]

21. Yea well like was proven with North Vietnam

The money the US spent killing them into appreciating Democracy could have bought every single family in the country a three bedroom home and put their kids through college. That approach just wouldn't have been as Christian though....


RC

[mopaul]

5. those photos are NOTHING compared to what's going on there

i'm afraid we will soon be deluged with photos of the awful carnage we have wreaked on these already accursed poor people. lots of dead innocents, tens of thousands in fact. these photos may be a good start, but there are worse photos to come, showing the truth of war.

[readmylips]

6. Missouri against bush or Kerry.....so what now?

I have turned totally against staying in Iraq. Pulling our troops out immediately is the sane thing to do. I want to hear Kerry say, troops out now. Of course, bush will not listen but at least, Kerry can point out that this is the time to end it.

This war is like a bad marriage. One person wants to stay in the marriage while the other does not. Sooner or later, the one wanting the marriage turns violent. Someone ends up dead. In this bush war marriage, our soldiers and innocent Iraqi people are ending up dead.

[TahitiNut]

8. I too have sadly come to that conclusion.

While I've not been entirely comfortable, either with the idea of a continued US 'presence' in Iraq or with a 'cut and run' tactic, the revelations of obscene human rights violations convince me that no American can be safe in an Arab country for at least a decade, least of all our military. It's not only the abuses by our military in Iraq, but the rape and pillage by American carpetbaggers.

I was and still am appalled at the way in which this country abandoned the Vietnamese, leading to the panicked evacuation of 25% of the population of South Vietnam. At the same time, I know of no way we could have done it any other way after that debacle of a war. How does one "unring a bell"? I don't know.

I have similar concerns about leaving Iraq: (1) that in being there we've created deep, enraged schism in that culture between those who "collaborate" with American forces and those who don't, and (2) that we, like Saddam, are creating yet another "power vacuum" where no viable political structure will remain upon our departure.

I no longer believe Kerry's strategy of turning Iraq over to a multinational force that includes any American troops (or American corporations) can yield anything we'd call a 'free and civil' society.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. It's a fine line that I am still working out in my own mind

There is a huge Afghan community here in Orange County and when one discusses pre-Taliban Afghanistan, they always say "We welcomed the Americans back in the 80's, but they didn't finish what they started."

Removing all American presence will get us accused of the same by some in Iraq, but we certainly have lost all ability to parade around the nation as a police force capable of keeping the peace.

[KittyWampus]

9. Agreed, Almost Can't Believe It

and Thanks You for posting this....

[balanced]

13. No matter whether we stay or go, whether we have a large force

or a small force, the result is likely to be the same. The shiites will take over and establish an Iranian-style government like the religious flakes in Iran. But this will not be without a civil war with the sunnis and kurds.

[greatauntoftriplets]

14. I am in total agreement -- bring them home NOW.

May I suggest that you read Rashid Khalidi's new book "Resurrecting Empire". Khalidi is an American (I believe of Lebanese extraction) who is a Middle East expert now at Columbia University. For years, he was at the University of Chicago and so was a prominent spokesman on Middle Eastern issues.

I am reading the book (just starting actually) but have heard Khalidi do two NPR interviews on on the book. I have never in more than 10 years of listening and paying attention to Khalidi, heard him so despairing of the Middle East's future -- or Westerners' role in it. And the national origin of the Westerner doesn't matter, the hate is now so deeply ingrained.

[pmbryant]

44. Rashid Khalidi

Thanks for recommending this book. I think I may take a look at that.

--Peter

[Zomby Woof]

16. Every day we are there

Hundreds more terrorists are recruited. There is no agenda - it's an improvised occupation at best.

This is why I support DK's plan to geddafuccouddathere now!

[trof]

17. President Kerry's first official act

(my fantasy)
An Open Letter to the Iraqi People:

I know that no apology can begin to make up for the horrors brought upon your country and people by the previous administration, however my conscience demands that I offer one, both personally and for the American people.

Today we are awakening from the nightmare of the last four years. It will be a very difficult undertaking to re-establish the reputation that we previously enjoyed among the community of nations, but we begin that task here and now.

Nothing that I can say or do will restore the lives lost, bodies maimed, families torn apart, or homes destroyed, but I will do the best I can to make amends. I have just signed my first Executive Order, directing the immediate recall of all military personnel from Iraq. This will be accomplished as fast as is humanly possible. All I ask is that you give them safe passage as they travel through your villages and towns enroute to debarkation points.

If it is your desire that civilian contractors remain, under your authority, to help rebuild your nation's infrastructure, that shall be done. Although no amount of money can begin to repay our debt to you, and although the solvency of our government has been placed in grave jeopardy during the last four years, the treasury of the United States is at your disposal.

Again, our deepest and sincerest apologies to you.
Never again.
John F. Kerry, President
United States of America


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1414093#1414364

Oddly enough, few agreed with me back then.
trof

[greatauntoftriplets]

20. Had I seen your post, trof,

I would have agreed with you at the time.

[trof]

24. Things have gone downhill

even faster than I would have believed then.

[Q]

18. Now you know why the Founders warned against 'standing armies'...

- Nations that keep a large army and stockpile of weapons tend to use them as an occupying force...especially when some blood thirsty nutcake like Bush* becomes the 'leader' of the world's only remaining 'superpower'.

- Those of us who thought it was WRONG to invade Iraq in the first place are at a loss now to give advice to those who felt the attack and occupation was a necessary step in the 'war on terrorism'. Millions of us WARNED this government that an unprovoked attack was not only morally wrong...but that it would lead to the needless deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqi innocents.

- What to do now? STOP DIGGING when you find yourself in a hole. Leave Iraq and devote the BILLIONS of dollars we're now paying to 'private contractors' to the Iraqi people so that they may rebuild their own country. We've taken everything from them...including their personal and national pride. There's no place to go in Iraq but OUT.

[bigtree]

25. Who do we give the money to? Chalabi?

[Guaranteed]

19. Yup.

We're flailing, let's get out.

[Trajan]

22. I disagree .... and here is why ...

Bush's failures run the gamut: from his intentional and nefarious intelligence jigging to his insult of the world community at large .... from his inability to envision the consequences of certain actions to his malfeasance as CiC ...

This is about GEORGE BUSH and the GOP .... These are THEIR failures ... NOT ours ....

The Iraqi people have been harmed ...

They have been harmed by a sadistic party, Saddam Hussien and the Baathists, who ruled over their polity with an fascist iron fist ... NOW they are harmed by a US administration who lies about EVERYTHING and cannot seem to do ANYTHING right, now matter how much they proclaim their own perfection ....

The situation in Iraq today is not unprecedented: MANY conquerors of old have overthrown a land, only to watch as it slid into anarchy and despair ... So goes the failures of petty and impotent dictators ...

WHAT can STILL be done ? ...

First: GEORGE BUSH AND THE LIARS OF THE GOP MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE ......

The ruling clique in the US MUST be overthrown through the Ballot Box ...

The status quo CANNOT be unmade by the same malevolent regime in power in the US .... This problem is much of their making alone ...

Second: the NEXT US administration, shorn of Neocons ... MUST go to their 'former' partners on the world stage, and beg forgiveness of our old friends, who stuck with us when we acted like sane and decent americans, like before Bush became US dictator ... and we MUST declare to the world that WE, the US of A, will again be a force for honesty and integrity within the international arena ...

We must REdeclare our intention to remain firmly committed to MULTILATERAL solutions to world issues, and we must parley with the nations of the world to HONESTLY deal with the major issues we face as a race of beings ....

George Bush is damaged goods: but America is not .... The current problems in Iraq can and SHOULD be laid on Bush's desk, and wheeled to the Van on their way out of the WH ....

FUCK Bush and the GOP ... they have DESTROYED the honor with which the US used to carry itself .... but this is recoverable ...

STOP the unilateral action NOW: bring in the UN, The Iraqi people AND the Arab States, to workout a GOOD solution that satisfies as many iraqis AND americans AND world citizens as possible without creating more ill will in the world in general ....

Simply leaving would be a mistake ...

Getting the UN on board, with the Muslim states helping to provide law and order on the ground under UN dictates .... THAT is a solution that MOST arabs, americans, and most the world's citzens, would admire and abide ...

We only need to remove the OTHER impediment to peace : Bush and the Neocons ....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Oh I don't advocate SIMPLY leaving. There has to be a security force

in place. We just aren't it and even if MOST of our troops are honorable, they aren't the ones the entire world saw...and where the hell were the decent ones when this was going on?

[leftofthedial]

26. welcome aboard

:-)

[not systems]

27. Out Now!

This war will only breed hatred as long as it is allowed to go on.

I think the practice of "out sourcing security" must end
it is creating standing private armies that answer to no
people. There is no democratic over-site and they may act
against the interests of the American people if allowed
to grow and feed off of the public treasury.

[Lavalamp]

28. And for who did most vote for in the primary?

You know I find it amusing to see all these previous (or current) Kerry, Edwards, et al supporters in outrage about Iraqi killed and/or tortured. Oh they care SO much about the Iraqis.

Anyone who voted for anyone other than Kucinich (and possibly Sharpton) don't give a damn about the Iraqis IMO.

Only a fool could believe things will get better in Iraq if we were to stay. A US soldier under Kerry or Bush still looks the same to any Iraqi, and so does that tank on their street.

Put your self in the position of the Iraqis. Let's say the United States was under the occupation of Russia. Let's say the Russian troops killed some (or all) of your family/friends. Let's say in 6 months a new Russian leader who promises a kinder, gentler occupation for the next several years is coming to power. Are you going to give a damn and say "oh, all is forgiven!"? Not bloody likely.

Anyone who voted to keep us in Iraq has Iraqi blood on their hands. Spare me the high and mighty BS. When you see the next group of tortue pictures or dead in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and onward remember YOU helped it happen.

Maybe Kucinich wasn't electable, but there were tons of good former and present dem elected officials (that were "electable") who knew the best option was to get out and were not included in the primary process. Instead the elite chose to give us Kerry and his ilk, while putting down anyone who had a chance of standing up to them. Good job.

Best thing any dem can do now is get Kerry to change his position to pull out of Iraq. Too bad most of those who "care" about Iraqis don't want to do that.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Lavalamp!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[GreenArrow]

32. of course Kucinich was unelectable

so what if he was right, he looks like a gnome. No, we can only select candidates from the list of contenders who are proud of their Iraq votes, bold, optimistic men, who can say with a smile, as did John Edwards, that yes, he was responsible for his vote, but didn't regret it. Said it with a smile most foul.

[Solidarity]

60. Kucinich Would Defeat Bush!

Actually I think Kucinich would be the strongest candidate the Democratic party could nominate.

The idea that Kucinich can't win is a myth perpetrated by the DLC and others who want to marginalize progessives in the Democratic Party.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. I voted for Kucinich in the primaries

I've made no secret of my support for Kerry but I wanted Kucinich to have the votes and support for his future intentions of giving progressives more of a voice.

[mitchtv]

30. I have just about come around to that POV

also. I find it hard to believe that wecan come upwith anything Constructive now.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. I agree with you one hundred percent

but you know--the spoils of the Bush war, illegal as it was, and as despicable as it is turning out to be, are just too provocative to ignore.

Why shouldn't the United States, the most powerful and best equipped military in the world, take advantage of that Bush debacle, and grab those spoils, even though there is an election coming up in which the evil Bush warmonger may be ousted and replaced by another, one or two Democratic warmongers, who gave him the blank check and actually, it seems to me, also want and desire those lucrative oil wells, and those opportunities for a new United States empire ?

I gave up believing that any of them that voted for the war, voted that way because they were "hoodwinked" No way can I believe that and I do not. This loss of innocence has been devastating but also has been an eye opener that leads to better understanding of the situation in reality, and a better more realistic analysis.

They, those who did vote to give the stupid Bush a blank check and in a real big hurry besides, indeed, wanted iti am convinced, and they wanted control over the ME --to appease Sharon for one thing. They gave it to Bush, knowing he would be the first to test the waters and probably not be able to tow the line or be sucessful in it. He is, rather, stupid, after all.

They want that hegemony, I am convinced and although they are not PNAC neocons, are only too glad to be able to blame Bush for the fubar, while they wait on the sidelines to take over and secure the businesses in that area to their and to their benefactors advantage and well as to the Jewish lobby.

Got to keep the status quo and that means having no significant revelations or creative solutions to this slaughter and to this war and the killings and the horrors that have and will take place in the ME

I am sick of this politicking

I want an honest man as my president, and not more cardboard, beltway pretenders out for their own egos. It looks as if I will be forced to vote for one who approved of it--and depending upon his pick for a running mate mayh be forced to vote for two who approved of it.

[GreenArrow]

34. no-one was hoodwinked

of course not, they knew exactly what they were doing. These are not stupid people who were fooled by the transparent machinations of county fair quality magicians. They knew exactly what they were voting for. Policy in the region has been consistent regardless of the party in power. PNAC only spelled out overtly what both parties already agreed was proper policy.

I'm still voting DK in the primaries, soming soon to my state. I might vote for Kerry if he stands a real chance of winning here, a Bush stronghold, but if Kerry chooses an Edwards or Gephardt, then I may simply abstain.

[Malva Zebrina]

36. DK was my choice also in my caucus

How we got to Kerry is a mystery to me, but we are there.

The choice is disconcerting

Naturally, we do not want Bush

and so, here we are--forced to vote for a candidate that was chosen by the media, as we think and as we have come the conclusion.

Kerry is lacking for me, but Bush is ten times worse

and is that not a fine situation we voters find ourselves in? Especially those who do not beieve Kerry will remove us from Iraq.

[hunter]

33. I agree...

On the "hearts and minds scale" we now rate worse than Saddam Hussien. The United States has been demonstrated to be incompetent, corrupt, unpredictably dangerous, and cruel.

Maybe if we transported the entire Bush administration and all their corporate cronies to Baghdad and released them in the streets unarmed and naked for the Iraqi people to do with what they will, well maybe then the Iraq would trust us, but that's not going to happen.

It is time to leave Iraq and pay for damages. We aren't going to win this one in Iraq, or in the court of world opinion. The longer we stay, the greater our liability.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Now that's a fantasy worth considering

Maybe if we transported the entire Bush administration and all their corporate cronies to Baghdad and released them in the streets unarmed and naked for the Iraqi people to do with what they will, well maybe then the Iraq would trust us, but that's not going to happen.

[leesa]

37. Yup. Every American, private or public out of Iraq...and every penney

Haliburton, Carlisle and the rest of the warmongers have made on this bloodbath goes for reparations.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Welcome to the club, Teena!

It has become painfully apparent to many of us that the presence of US troops on Iraqi soil is not helping to curb "instability" at all -- rather, it is the very CAUSE of "instability" in Iraq. So long as those troops remain, regardless of the President under whom they serve, the insurgence will only grow in strength against them.

Of course, elite circles (including the uppermost eschelons of the DNC) have not yet arrived at this conclusion, because they are still concerned with maintaining some kind of control over the region and such inane concepts as "national honor". They have convinced themselves that they CANNOT withdraw, despite the fact that the situation is utterly unwinnable, militarily-speaking.

God help us all....

[Beam Me Up]

40. I question your analysis of their "reasons"

I'll preface this by saying that you know I admire you a lot. You're obviously far better read and informed than am I. Still, I can't help but wonder. Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? It seems to me that is the crucial question we have to answer. We know the reasons given are all false or half-truths at best.

If the real "reason" for invading Iraq is still there--whether it is to control the oil or to destabilize the middle east or punish Sadam for changing to the Euro or to act as proxies for the Saudis or Israel--WHATEVER--then clearly, we can not and will not leave. That's the way it looks to me.

Your comment is solicited.

BMU

[IrateCitizen]

42. Reasons for invading and staying are much the same

And they all have to do with one common theme -- hegemony.

Granted, a Democratic President would never have been quite so bold or foolhardy to deviate from the "humanitarian imperialism" practiced so effectively during the Clinton years and embrace the more overt imperialism trumpeted by the neoconservatives. However, that river has been crossed, Iraq is in US hands, and in elite political circles there is no turning back.

Do NOT expect John Kerry to retreat from Iraq, for several reasons. First, all Democratic administrations are consistently worried about attacks from Republicans for being "weak" on defense. Second, Democratic administrations have many of the same desires for US hegemony as Republicans do, they're just not quite as ruthless about it. Third, there is an innate deference within political circles to such ideas as "national honor" with the equivalency of the way that born-again Christians revere the Bible -- simply, it is an unerring truth.

But, we cannot ignore the effect of insurgency against an occupying power. Right now, neither the Republicans nor Democrats are talking about leaving. Sadly, it will undoubtedly take countless more lives before we do leave. But, eventually, we will HAVE to leave, simply because it will become untenable to stay. Whether this will happen within 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years, none of us know. But eventually it WILL come to pass, most likely with a lot of completely avoidable death, destruction and suffering in the process.

[Beam Me Up]

43. thank you for your reply -- now, about "hegemony" . . .

I'm a dreamer, a mystic, an artist. Intellectually sophisticated enough to know how to read books addressing subtle nuances in philosophy, science, religion and politics--but I am, fundamentally, a self-educated farm boy from Indiana.

I say all this because I DO NOT UNDERSTAND "hegemony". I know the definition--preponderant influence especially of one nation over others--but I still don't "understand" it. Is this something you have to be born into one of those "Elite political circles" you keep talking about to 'get'?

It seems to me there is something fundamentally flawed with the whole notion that one group of people can dominate another group of people. Even as a survival strategy, it seems fundamentally flawed. The COST of hegemony not only for those who are subjugated or oppressed (whether they identify themselves as such or not) but for the oppressor as well, to me just seems out of proportion with any benefit.

If the United States had been practicing what it had been preaching internationally during the cold war years we would not be in this mess, would we? But the fact of the matter is the United States Government does not now and has not for quite some time, truly represented the long-term interests of the people of the United States--much less that of humanity as a whole. Would you agree that that is a fair and accurate statement? I realize it is an oversimplification, but for the most part I think it is true.

What is missing? I keep going back to Martin Luther King who, to me, was an incredibly inspiring man with a vision of a world worth living in, of lives worth living. As a man perhaps he wasn't perfect--none of us are--but he spoke to something in me and spoke to something in a lot of people: He spoke to that longing so many of us feel to be truly free; to work together with our brothers and sisters around the world to create a better life (qualitatively) for everyone on this planet. We feel this need--so many of us feel this need--and we know it is possible.

But something stands in our way, doesn't it? There are all these 'differences' between class, race, religion, nationality--you name it--and all of this is kept fomented, aggravated, exacerbated. How are we EVER going to come together not only as Americans (to re-establish our Democracy) but as "Leaders of the Free World"--something we were, if ever, in name only.

I feel sick and frustrated and, except for how I conduct my own life, quite hopeless.

[dpibel]

45. Another Greek-root word

What you're doing here is properly pairing hegemony and hubris.

Fever dreams of hegemony run through history--Greek, Rome, China under the Khans, the Dutch when they were the great colonial power, France under Napoleon, colonial Britain, Germany under Hitler, and now the US post-WWII. They all meet the same fate, and you have identified the source.

The US is not the first country to believe that it will support its invasions using the spoils of the conquered. Sometimes it even works for a while, or has in the past when the military balance has been properly unequal: it's not so hard to put down Zulu resistance when you're fighting spears with cannons. As the US discovered in the Vietnam war, and is rediscovering in Iraq, you can't occupy a country with high-altitude bombers, and when your soldiers only moderately overmatch the people you are trying to repress, you can't win. (In truth, the Iraqis are horribly overmatched in weaponry, but they rudely refuse to present themselves as easy targets. Overwhelming weaponry is of little use if you want to maintain a patina of civilization over your invasion by declining, in the main, to level villages--although Vietnam shows that the US can get there, too.)

Ultimately, the colonialist fantasy that the moral, economic, and technological betters can dominate their inferiors and extract great wealth collapses under the weight of reality: if you have to fund a military to suppress freedom all over the world, you can't afford it.

Of course, the US has been following that road to hell since the end of WWII, pounding not billions, but trillions, of dollars down the military rathole. One of the greatest secrets of modern American life is that this utter waste of national wealth has left this country teetering on the brink of the very bankruptcy that took down the Soviet Union.

To answer one of your questions: You don't have to be an elite to "understand" hegemony. You have to be insane to believe it's possible. That's hubris.

[Beam Me Up]

56. I appreciate your thoughts

Hubris and or hegemony, they are narrow minded and short sighted attitudes the betray an epistemological error that may yet be the death of us all.

We need alternatives that speak to people.

[IrateCitizen]

63. You know, I tried saying something similar on this yesterday...

... but I just couldn't put it together coherently, so I gave up for the moment.

You just summed it up PERFECTLY, dpibel. Hegemony and hubris go hand-in-hand, they always have with the rise and fall of every empire throughout history.

The American Empire will be no different -- just read Chalmers Johnson for a pretty good synopsis of what we face.

[Jacobin]

41. We can leave now or we can leave later

The only difference will be the number of dead u.s. soldiers and Iraqis we kill.

They don't want us there. The U.S. military could fuck up a wet dream. We have NO sense of their history, beliefs, culture or even a sense of decency, from latest torture reports.

The sooner we are gone, the better off we will BOTH be. Ask the Vietnamese.

[the_real_38]

46. And none of this "support the troops" thing either...

... if you support the troops you support the war - I'm sick of seeing our culture being militarized the way that it is.

[ulysses]

47. and a couple of months ago I'd have strongly disagreed.

Even up to the point at which I read your post, I was waffling. But you're right. The torture is the final deal.

We need to leave.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. I strongly disagreed with myself until this

We cannot win hearts and minds anymore. I don't believe hearts and minds was ever Bush's intent (maybe minds but not hearts). We have squandered any credibility...not to mention, these people guarding the prisons have literally guaranteed that any military or civilians taken prisoner ANYWHERE in the Arab world can expect the same or worse.

It is ironic that in LBN the truckdriver who was freed indicated his captors treated him well giving him a first aid kit and cookies.

[deacon]

49. Bush is leaving a trail of bloodshed and carnage as a result of this

arrogant ill-advised decision. Cheney and rumfilled are equally to blame.

Bush aka Major Screwup aka DC Bob, has dumped this burden on all of our backs and he should just resign do to imcompetance.

[DaveSZ]

50. What does Wes Clark say?

He's usually right.

[Hubert Flottz]

52. What,,,,and leave all that oil behind?

Cheney would never let Bush do that!

[paulk]

53. I'm not there...yet

but it may come to that. The problem is BushCo - they can be counted on to do the wrong thing, no matter what. And really, in the long run, I'm not sure it matters what any of us think - even if he loses, Bush has till Jan 20th, 2005 to fuck things up. The only real solution is the complete repudiation of Bush and his policies by the American people this November.

[rucky]

54. We ARE the security risk!

remove us. remove the security risk.

at least civil war would be more civilized.

[drfemoe]

55. Not leaving without it

Addressing issues related to the US invasion of Iraq, Palast quoted from a 101 page classified State Department document and said it was “a plan for the post-conflict economy of Iraq, written before we knew there was going to be a conflict in Iraq and it has some very interesting statements including this one at page 73 that the state department will approve plans to support private sector involvement in strategic sectors including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases and management contracts – especially those in the oil and supporting industries, privatization of oil and supporting industries , the sell off of Iraq’s oil fields- do not destroy the wells." He added that, "I am not one of those cynical people who says that we went into Iraq for the oil, but we sure as hell are not leaving without it.”

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/030822.html

[Petrodollar Warfare]

61. Three things are barring US withdrawal & UN involvement...

...#1) as stated above, the neocons want to control Iraq's oil before the onset of Peak Oil. Had Dr. Blix been allowed to finish his inspections in the summer of 2003, Iraq would have been declared free of WMD, the snactions lifted, and right now - France, Russia and China would be pouring money into rebuilding Iraq's oil infastructure (these countries iniated contracts w/ Saddam in the late 1990s). The 6 majors in the US/UK oil industry would have been left high and dry.

If the UN involves itself, these contracts, with the Bush/Cheney crew is attempting to void, will become a front page issue - with those permanent/large UN members voting in favor of the original contracts. (ie. TotalELF, Lukoil, Sin-oil, etc.)

#2) The neocons want FOUR permanent US military bases in four seperate quandrants of Iraq to exert maximum flexibility re the projection of US military power as needed: into Iran, Syria, Saudi and up near Turkey re the Caspain region.

If the UN involves itself, these other countries will VETO the idea of four permanent US military bases. Hence, the neocons are desperately trying to get the SOFA (Statement of Force Agreement) agreements done before the transfer of power. It's not working.

3#) If the UN involves itself, and the issues in item #1 come to the forefront, the Iraqi oil will liekly once again be sold in *EUROS* - which was the final nail in Saddam's coffin when he switched in Nov 2000 - which Bush immediately reconverted back to dollars in May 2003 (via UN resolution 1483).

So, if the UN involves itself in control of Iraq, and the US military pulls out: The result will be the US will LOSSING its HEGEMONIC status by virtue of the dollar losing its hegemonic control over international oil sales, and with the US military leaving Saudi Arabia in April 2003, if we leave Iraq too - the US will lose its ability to project power in the Persian Gulf which is the central component of neoconservative strategy.

In other words, the US will loss its Superpower status if it is forced out of Iraq and the UN involves itself. IMO, this is now enivatable, thanks to Bush and crew. It's only a matter of time...but the neocons will waste the lives of thousands of US soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraq civilians in their desperate attempt to prop-up what can not longer be proped-up. I feel very sorry for Kerry.

[spanone]

57. I agree. Declare victory or anything but save our childrens' lives.

There is no real victory. We had to eventually do this in Vietnam. So why not get it over with while we have a shred of dignity left for this nation.

[Junkdrawer]

58. It's simply a question of how radical a theocracy we want in Iraq.

Because that's where it's going now. Question of when, not if, question of how radical, not if.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

59. I Agree With You, T

Tragic that things have come to this. :-(

DTH