NYT: White House preparing for fall of democracy in Iraq

[grytpype]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

At the end of this report of how the insurgency is worse that it has ever been, is an indication that the White House is getting ready for a catastrophic collapse of the elected Iraqi government.

Insurgent Bombs Directed at G.I.’s Increase in Iraq

By MICHAEL R. GORDON, MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER
Published: August 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 — The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

...

The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

...

Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive.

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

[karlrschneider]

1. How to 'drift away' from something they never had (or got)?

:eyes:

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Didn't they vote in a new government?

Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[karlrschneider]

14. They did indeed, the problem is that nobody will admit to being

elected...

:eyes:

[ERF]

39. Come on! We gave them one election. That ought to suffice

for the next 40 years or so.

[Beetwasher]

2. I Don't Believe It, When The Hell Have They EVER Prepared for ANYTHING???

I call bullshit. Ok, maybe they're preparing the talking points, but that's about it.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Preparing to explain how it's all Murtha's fault

He killed democracy in Iraq :cry:

[grytpype]

16. Good point, this would be a first for them.

[grytpype]

3. Maybe they can put Saddam back in charge.

If they haven't executed him first.

[jmowreader]

37. That's what I was thinking

Gee, I dunno guys, Saddam was a total asshole but under that total asshole a thousand Iraqis a day weren't being killed, four or five American GIs a day weren't being killed, power wasn't off sixteen hours a day...also, because that total asshole was running a secular government, women had the right to be treated no more badly than men and non-Muslims had an equal place at the table. Remember Tariq Aziz? Saddam's right-hand man? He was a Christian!

Right now, the ONLY way we can close out this mess and (1) still have an army at the end of it is and (2) not wind up with West Iran (the current Iraq) and East Iran (the current Iran) is to either find someone like Saddam--a total asshole who will run a purely secular government--and install him right away, or let Saddam out of jail and fly him back to Baghdad. Believe me, if you held an election right now and the choices were (a) the duly elected government, UN embargo lifted when peace reigns in Iraq, US remains to provide security, or (b) Saddam back in power, UN embargo lifted now, US gone in three months, Saddam would win in a landslide. And he'd have peace in two months. The only thing we'd have to do is let Saddam know that spending all his government's money on Baghdad is unacceptable, but you know what? Right now I trust Saddam to do the right thing more than I trust Bush to, and I don't trust Saddam as far as I can throw him. (That ain't far. He's bigger than I am.)

[magellan]

50. It would never work now

It would have to be a Diebold election, much like the ones Saddam used to hold where he'd win 99% of the vote. But there'd really be no point because we've removed Saddam's Ba'athist military/secret police apparatus, and in any case the Shias outnumber the Sunnis and have armed themselves to the teeth. Saddam wouldn't stand a chance of quelling their rage. He'd be offed before he took two steps into daylight.

There was a point a couple of years ago when this might have worked, but there's no way even Saddam could put the genie back in the bottle now. BushCo have royally screwed Iraq.

:cry:

[sushi]

73. Yes, you're right

It's way too late now. The Shiites have taken over.

[greiner3]

67. I think you have hit upon a pattern there;

The same was true for Tito in Yugoslavia. Look what happened there soon after he died! And the same goes for Haile Selassie I, ruler of Ethiopia for most of the 20th century. When he was deposed, the country fell into complete chaos for several decades and is still not very stable. Emperor Montezuma II whom Cortez killed was another such ruler. His death signaled the end of the Aztecs by a few hundred Spaniards. A fourth one I can think of is Alexander the Great. He conquered the 'known' world in 12 years and died. His generals fought bitterly and after years of disasterous civil wars there was nothing left but memories.

[JHB]

51. They'll do what Poppy tried to do back in '91

One of the more infamous elements of the '91 war was Bush41's call for Saddam to be overthrown, but then letting Saddam's troops massacre the uprisings that intended to do just that. Why did he do that? Because what he was really calling for was for someone in the Iraqi army to stage a coup d'etat, for Saddam to be replaced by someone just like him but without the Bad Press. (Johnny Bravo politics: all that matters is that he fits the suit.) An actual uprising would change Iraq in ways that were unpredictable (and not likely to be in Washington's favor), and he didn't want to deal with that, so he allowed Saddam to reassemble his Republican Guards and use his attack helicopters to put the uprisings down.

But it would have been impolitic for Bush to openly say so (you get better poll numbers calling for "democracy" than for "coup"), so tens of thousands of Iraqis died because they made the mistake of taking a Bush at his word (especially the Shiites in the south. Less the Kurds, who'd already been burned by Bush when he was head of the CIA).

[sushi]

72. Maybe that's the answer

It must have crossed their minds!

[Drum]

4. Not to worry...

with the resurrection of the JonBenet mystery, A significant portion of the USA won't even notice.
:mad:

[Tin Man]

7. So true.

:crazy:

[ginnyinWI]

5. they should also prepare for the return of democracy in the USA

After election day, when the Dems gain control of Congress. :patriot:

[grytpype]

9. If Bush thinks he's screwed now, just wait...

[Drum]

12. Amen!

[saltpoint]

6. Sounds like a job for Bernie Kerik. Yessir. Ol' Bernie'll get those

ungrateful Iraqis to straighten up and fly right.

[DeadManInc]

11. How do you lose what you never had?

[grytpype]

13. I wonder what the next excuse for the war will be?

When "Democracy Promotion" is as forgotten as WMDs, what will the Bushists come up with next to cover Dub's big, big mistake?

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. Maybe they've already got WMDs planted for the ultimate "we told you so"

.
.
.

I wouldn't put it past them PNACers

Evil yes,

Stupid?

I don't think so

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. "They are sitting on a huge oil reserve"

He said it today. No more excuses, he's desperate.

[malaise]

74. Freedom

from life -there's nothing left except the real reason -oil.:rofl: :rofl:

[skids]

18. If they cut and run from democracy...

...the frame should be what is obvious:

BushCo failed at creating democracy because they DO NOT KNOW WHAT DEMOCRACY IS.

They have no respect for the tenets of Democracy. The Democratic party knows all about Democracy. If you want it here in the U.S. let us show you how.

[EVDebs]

19. Hastening another Islamic republic in the ME wasn't part of the gameplan

but nothing this administration, with its reverse Midas Touch (everything it touches turns to turds), does comes out right.

[oxbow]

20. I blame us

If we had gotten behind the President and this noble mission from the beginning, if we had been REAL Americans, we would all never be in this sad situation. Can't you see DU, how our defeatism has ruined the Iraqi Parliament??? The terrorists are being emboldened because of us. Do you think they don't read DU? I'm trying to be series hear!

[lostnfound]

57. "they might have become depressed suicidal were it not for us.."

On the Jon Stewart show, one of the newer 'correspondents' said that the other night... Terrorists have a deep need for affirmation from us, and would likely have become depressed or even suicidal were it not for us..

[LuckyLib]

21. They'll blame those "long-haired, dope-smoking, non-bath-taking,

leftist, liberal, pinko communist freaks" -- oops, wrong war.

[yorkiemommie1]

22. Better luck in Iran!!

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

33. that made me laugh

In a sadistic sort of way :)

[Clarkie1]

23. "Other possible outcomes" would be a more accurate way of putting it.

They need to be planning for several possible contingencies over which they have little control.

[Jamastiene]

24. Can't run a democracy at home worth a damn and

can't run a democracy away worth a damn either. Yep, that's Chimpy.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. OH, SADDAM!

[BlooInBloo]

26. As usual... A day late, a dollar short.

[PinkyisBlue]

27. IRAQ: Just one more failed venture in the life of George W. Bush

Too bad so many people have to die when he fails, though.

"Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,"...

Now the Bushies will want to find someone who can control the different Iraqi factions the only way that will work, through force, terror and manipulation. Someone like.........Saddam!!

[Carla in Ca]

30. So true

So sad and disgusting to see such a miserable underachiever get to a place of such power. A nightmare that will take a long time to recover from. A nightmare so many will never come back from. God help us all.

[Trajan]

28. Remember the un-protected Weapons Depots ? .....

Now you do .....

I swear: .. this is 'Desert One' X 1000 ....

Rumsfeld is a fucking numbskull ...

[lpbk2713]

29. Time to break out the *Mission Accomplished* pics.

It looks like what Captain Flightsuit wanted was anarchy because he has fought hard and long to achieve it.

[Old and In the Way]

31. This might be the shortest life of any democracy in history.

What a joke...as if any country can impose their idea of a proper government on another country. Someone ought to tell the Bush braintrust that democracies are homegrown, you can graft it and expect it to miraculously appear. Of course, the real problem is occupation...the people of Iraq had a 'democracy' in name only. In fact, if we had left Iraq alone, their secular institutions might well have naturally transitioned, peacefully, to a democratic state once Saddam's reign was over. This administration has set back democracy in Iraq for generations, if not forever. I suspect that Iraq will soon be balkanized and fragmented into territories that reflect religious/ethnic majorities.

[Justice Is Comin]

32. I'd like to see something drift away alright

right over Niagra Falls. Don't need a barrel either.

[ninkasi]

34. Ok, Chimp

Are your daddy's rich fiends going to bail you out of this one? You wanted so much to be a "war president", that you own this war. It's yours. You and your cronies are the ones who lied, fabricated data and drummed the necessity for invading Iraq into gullible American's brains, so you could have the glory. Well, the glory has turned to shit, the country is bankrupt, and things in the Middle East are much, much worse than before you stole the presidency.

The economy, except for your base of haves, and have mores, sucks, more people are falling into poverty, more are uninsured, and the mood of the country is restless and surly. These, Chimp, are the things you've inflicted on America. In your obsession to invade Iraq, and exaggerate your WOT, you have shredded our Constitution, taken away our civil liberties, and left our country in far, far worse shape than it was before your pals on the Supreme Court twisted the law to allow you access to the people's house, the White House.

If there is any justice in this world, it will be many, many years before we let you and your corrupt buddies steal elections, and complete the rotten work you started.

[tinrobot]

35. They'll call it 'Totalitarian Democracy'

...or something like that.

[springhill]

36. They don't give a damn.......

about democracy in Iraq, and they never have. That was never their true objective.

[annabanana]

40. Democracy in Iraq is just as important to them as

Democracy in America.

[LaPera]

38. It's Clinton's fault!

[PaDem]

53. Actually they'll blame it on us..........

the "liberal blogosphere" and anti-war liberals in general. Somehow this will all be laid at our feet.

[CJCRANE]

41. Elections in Iraq

was just a PR stunt.

First they tried Jay Garner as Governor of Baghdad and that didn't work because it was too obvious it was colonialism.

Then there was Bremer and the CPA, but they embezzled all the money.

Then the elections (and the whole purple finger thing) to try and put in a puppet govt to make it less obvious who was stealing the money.

[Postman]

42. It was NEVER about democracy. They want a Saddam whose name isn't Saddam.

It's about control of the oil.

[Disturbed]

43. The Busholini Regime tried hard to force the lie that

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the leader of the Insurgency. He was not. He was the leader of a small group. The Insurgency consists of around 20 different groups. I still suspect that he was set up by al Q. because he refused to follow al Q. orders to quit killing innocent Iraqis, especially Sunnis since al Q are comprised of Sunnis.

The Insurgency is also comprised of Shi'ites who's goal is to drive the US/UK out of Iraq.

[grytpype]

63. They wanted Chalabi, but that fell through.

[bklyncowgirl]

44. Neocons in Fantasyland from the very beginning about "Democracy"

Good God. What the hell did these people think was going to happen.

They invade a country that did not attack us to remove an admittedly vile dictator. Removing Saddam is the first step toward a new middle east where democracy will flourish. Right.

They sit by while law and order collapse and sectarian militias arm themselves to the teeth.

They then hold elections thinking that somehow the formerly oppressed minority will somehow be able to see beyond the prospect of screwing the formerly ruling minority will vote for the non-sectarian, pro-western, party that they have been pushing since before the invasion.

Their candidate of choice doesn't even make it into double digits they try to get the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds into a coalition government. Good luck. Shiite militias (often government cops & soldiers) form up into death squads, Sunnis start blowing up everything in sight and the Kurds--well they just want out of there--give us our own country please--but of course Turkey doesn't want that so they're stuck too.

The neocons were living in Fantasyland. "We create our own reality." they said. It may be now that they may be starting to understand that things are not what they theorize.

These are the same jokers who thought it was a good idea to funnel money to Bin Laden and the Taliban in order to drive the Soviets from Afganistan.

These guys never learn.

[Hubert Flottz]

45. White House preparing for fall of democracy in America!

They are working on it day and night! Chipping away at our freedom as I type!

[Philosoraptor]

46. NO SHIT

[joeunderdog]

47. As Steven Colbert once asked:

How's that New American Century goin'? Quite a Project, eh?

[ClintonTyree]

48. 'Empirical data"

"The nine-page D.I.A. study, titled “Iraq Update,” compiles the most recent empirical data on the number of attacks, bombings, murders and other violent acts, as well as diagrams of the groups carrying out insurgent and sectarian attacks, the officials said".

Since when has anyone in the bush administration paid attention to "empirical data"? Since when has the GOP paid attention to "empirical data". Since when has ANY right leaning organization, religious or political, paid attention to "empirical data"? The words empirical data" aren't within their vocabulary. Now, "belief", THERE'S something you can hang your hat on! They'll believe things all day long without a shred of proof to back them up, but "empirical data"? No stinking way, they're not going to fall into that "fact" trap. They'll just keep on "believing". Life is SOOOOOOOOOO much easier that way. :eyes:

What, pray tell, are the "alternatives other than democracy"? :shrug: This was all about bringing democracy to Iraq, wasn't it? Well, I know that was the second or third excuse they used to justify the invasion but they've went with this excuse the longest. To "cut and run" from establishing democracy in Iraq will send the wrong message to Al Qaeda, won't it?

Yet the White House continues to insist everything is on schedule in Iraq. "Stay the course", "we're making great progress". Even the most rabid reich-wing lunatic has to see the handwriting on the wall. Bush has been a total, abject failure. Worst. pResident. Ever. :grr:

[pinniped]

49. Why those ungr8ful Iraqis, they will accept demockracy if it kills them.

See, this demockracy stuff is for the birds.

[leftchick]

52. So what Happens To Our Permanent Bases?

We get to keep them don't we? Damn what a mess.

[thereismore]

59. I believe those are called "enduring" bases. nt

[JohnyCanuck]

54. Bush Administration = The Peter Principle in Action n/t

[PaDem]

55. If this happens, does anyone think we learn from it?

Highly unlikely. We'll be into Iran in no time with even worse results. It's crazy to think that the experience in Iraq won't sway the neocons from pursuing their goals.

[Junkdrawer]

56. Laying the groundwork for for Phase III.....

NOTE: The following is just a guess based on many, many events that seem to suggest it as a possible BushCo strategy. It is extremely brutal and I hope I'm wrong.

Pretend that you have absolutely no morals whatsoever and that your goal is to capture and exploit the world’s largest underexploited oil reserves - Iraq. You don’t want to start the pumping while your Saudi business partners still can meet demand, so let’s say your time frame to start pumping is 5 to 10 years out. Your problems are:

1.) The population of the country is 65%+ Shia, many with links to Iran and many more decidedly Anti-American.
2.) Immediate installation of a Pro-American puppet regime would be opposed, not only by Iraqis, but also by most of the world, especially Iran, Russia and China.
3.) Oil fields and pipelines are easy sabotage targets for any well-manned insurgency.

So invading with a sufficient force to bring post-invasion stability brings a Shiite regime with a pro-Iranian tilt. Joy, just what you don’t want. So what do you do? Try this little three phase plan:

Phase I:
Invade with a force sufficient to overcome Saddam’s weakened defenses, but insufficient to create stability. Leave plenty of weapon caches lying about because you want an insurgency. Why? Because an insurgency provides cover for:
1.) The expulsion of the U.N.
2.) The expulsion of unfriendly media
3.) The building of permanent military bases
The insurgency also creates the core of a brutal, professional colonial army – something you’ll need for Phase III.

Phase II:
Instigate a civil war and then retreat to the bases you built in Phase I. You can, at this point, talk about an “orderly withdrawal” because you really just need a small core of provocateurs to keep the civil war raging. This is when the real killings occur – the pacification if you will. The idea is to reduce the population of anyone who will oppose your later occupation. The magnitude of the killings during this phase will be so severe that there will actually be cries for your return, both at home and within the international community. See Bosnia.

Phase III:
Remember those military bases and the brutal, professional colonial army you built during Phase I? Now is when you use them to bring about your actual goal: a puppet government propped up by a brutal military presence. You can refer anyone who complains at this point to the atrocities of Phase II and suggest that your forced stability is the lesser of two evils. Oh, by the way, you can pump the oil now.

Well, there you have it. As I said, I hope I’m wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1503947

[NNN0LHI]

58. Iraqis aren't getting sucked into the "civil war" Bush had planned for them

The Iraqis are smarter than Bush and his minions.

Same thing happened to the Brits about a hundred years ago. The Iraqis all united against them and their mercenaries too.

Don

[yellowcanine]

60. "We have to destroy the democracy in Iraq to save it "- latest meme.

Fits right in with "War is Peace" and other Bushco Orwellian prognostications.

[Festivito]

61. Our new strategy to ADAPT. Adapt to inability to create democracy in Iraq.

Couldn't figure why the CONs changed "Stay the course" to adapt... something.

We'll have to adapt to lowered expectations, then lowered again and again and again.

[Jacobin]

62. Gee, the Vietnamese didn't like the puppet 'elected' government

in South Vietnam too much either, that we imposed upon them.

But, hey, that worked out wel....oh wait, nevermind.

[oc2002]

64. If Iraq colapses, it would be the biggest US defeat in since Veitnam.

It is possible that the insurgency will really start up now that Israel/US plans to beat up on Hezbolah have backfired.

[mike_c]

65. neocolonialism doesn't work....

You'd think they would have learned that by now. The neocons lust for the good old days of the white man's burden....

[young_at_heart]

66. Perhaps they will cut and run

But not until after the election!

[ConcernedCanuk]

68. Some people seem to forget that Clinton kept the sanctions on Iraq alive

.
.
.

Thousands died in Iraq as a result of those sanctions,

birth defects rose by 400% as a result of the Depleted Uranium spread around in Gulf War 1

Their military was slaughtered in GW1 on what is known as "the road of death" in 1991 as they tried to race back to Baghdad - and the "Superpower" shot them in their backs on their own soil when they had obviously given up the offensive, reducing their ranks from over a million to close to 400,000.

Now we have MORE, much more DU spread around, and the genocide will continue as kids die, are born malformed, all because of the USA's use of DU

Clinton supported the sanctions, the no-fly zones and basically assisted in emasculating Iraq

The Democrats may be better that the Pugs

But don't kid yourselves . .

With a 2 party system like y'all got down there, and that district/redistricting thing - you only got the choice between two evils.

Your government(s) are about as fair and balanced as FOX News

And has been since they offed JFK

Sure - go try the Dems again,

But don't expect any miracles

Because the rest of the world knows better

USA is going DOWN!!

To heck will all your super weapons and threats

We'll take our chances

Peasants have ALWAYS ousted the most powerful dictators/empire builders if they went too far . . .

And the USA just went too far in 2003

Cuz we are still watching their dismal failure in 2006

And will still be doing so in 2007

And probably much longer

(sigh)

[aaronbees]

69. Real democracy would entail....

kicking the U.S. right the fuck on outa there. BushCo can't have that. Hell, they can't even support democracy here -- what makes anyone think this administration is interested in it overseas in Iraq?

[JPZenger]

70. NYT: No. of US Wounded Almost Doubled in Iraq

The amount of news coverage of the war in Iraq has greatly decreased because it has been replaced by stories about Lebanon. The headlines about the number of dead US servicepersons in Iraq have also become less common. This could lead someone to believe that the violence against the US forces has diminished in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth, as uncovered in the New York Times article from August 17:

"The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”...

The increased attacks have taken their toll. While the number of Americans killed in action per month has declined slightly -- to 38 killed in action in July, from 42 in January, in part reflecting improvements in armor and other defenses -- the number of Americans wounded has soared, to 518 in July from 287 in January. Explosive devices accounted for slightly more than half the deaths.

An analysis of the 1,666 bombs that exploded in July shows that 70 percent were directed against the American-led military force, according to a spokesman for the military command in Baghdad. Twenty percent struck Iraqi security forces, up from 9 percent in 2005. And 10 percent of the blasts struck civilians, twice the rate from last year."

[Supersedeas]

71. but but but w/out WMD's, the atomic Democratic bomb was the whole purpose.

...right???

Another justification down the tubes???