(Can we leave NOW?) U.S. Scales Back Political Goals for Iraqi Unity

[babylonsister]

U.S. Scales Back Political Goals for Iraqi Unity


By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: November 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

Bush administration officials have not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually. They say that even modest steps, taken soon, could set the stage for more progress, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side.

A senior official said the administration was intensifying its pressure on the Iraqi government to produce some concrete signs of political progress.

“If we can show progress outside of the security sector alone, that will go a long way to demonstrate that we are in fact on a sustainable path to stability in Iraq,” the senior official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1195948833-q+wNYsUae3zKogJ4cvQ+4g&oref=slogin

[spanone]

1. so what is the point of this war??? political progress?

[babylonsister]

2. The occupation itself? Not wanting to lose face? Not being challenged

enough on getting out?

http://alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/68705/

snip//

The point of the occupation, at this point, is the occupation itself, and I'm not sure why so many people fail to see that. After all, the U.S.-led "coalition" could, reasonably, claim to have successfully:

* Guaranteed that Iraq does not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons, including those which Donald Rumsfeld said were known to be "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"

* Deposed the evil dictator (the one we helped to power and supported for three decades), and killed his devil-spawn sons

Yet after both of those previous rationales for keeping U.S. boots on the ground evaporated, there was no widespread call for declaring victory and pulling out. Instead, U.S. forces became necessary to A) keep Iraqis from slaughtering one another wholesale, and, later, B) to keep "al Qaeda in Iraq" in check. Both arguments were, in my view, ridiculous on their face -- "unembedded" journalist Dahr Jamail addressed the first one best when he said: "The bogus idea that if the U.S. leaves things will worsen is both inherently racist and ignorant," and Raed Jarrar and I have argued that only the occupation itself has allowed al Qaeda in Iraq to operate -- but they were accepted by the media and political establishments as legitimate rationales in their time.

And the dance continues to this day. Last month, the military declared that it had defeated al Qaeda in Iraq, yet no new calls for withdrawal followed the announcement.

[Myrina]

3. "... on a sustainable path to stability ... "

.... blah blah blah ... been hearin' that for 6+ years now ... blah blah ... la la laaaa ....

Mighty damn long path, if you ask me.


:mad: :puke: :mad:

[gateley]

4. I don't understand why no steps have been taken to implement the Biden Boxer

Brownback amendment. It's an attempt toward a SOLUTION. We're just cutting and running now (or beginning to) which is Viet Nam all over again.

Biden said -- "mark my words" -- we'd be watching TV and see the last guy leaving Iraq hanging from the helicopter as it plucked him off of the embassy roof just like in Saigon.

What absolutely horrifies and saddens me, is that we let this happen again. I NEVER thought we would allow it. :cry:



EDIT - typo

[AlertLurker]

6. The US will never willingly leave - at least not completely...

Iran and Iraq are two of the very few countries in the world where LARGE new oil fields are still being discovered. The Saudis and UAE have hit peak, and now have to pump saltwater into the wells just to get at the oil. Oil sands/ shale mining in safe parts of the world can cost more than $30 / barrel to exploit. Saudi or Iraqi oil is still under $5.00...

Every day of sturm and dreng is another day the US has CONTROL over these resources. They don't have to exploit the resources to control them - you just have to exploit the FUD.

You didn't think that they built 18 shiney, new military bases and a $400 million FuhrerBunker just to walk away now, did you?

If you are not outraged, you have not been PAYING ATTENTION...

[gateley]

7. Not outraged? I become absolutely apoplectic when I discuss this fucking war

with people. Outraged doesn't even describe my revulsion, anger and feelings of betrayal and shame regarding this. I'm not sure why you would say

"If you are not outraged, you have not been PAYING ATTENTION..."

[AlertLurker]

8. Not meant as pointed commentary, honestly.

I understand and empathise COMPLETELY. This is the point. It's in quotes because it is actually a SLOGAN.

Have you never seen this before?

Bumperstickers, even!

[gateley]

9. Thanks for the clarification. Even if it had been a pointed commentary

it would have been okay if I'd understood what triggered it. Since it WASN'T directed at me personally, no wonder I didn't get it! :7

I have seen and heard the slogan before (and totally agree, natch), but as is obvious now, I misinterpreted your comment.

Carry on! :hi:

[AlertLurker]

5. Pass the OIL RESOLUTIONS! Pass the OIL RESOLUTIONS!

As soon as the oil fields are "privatised" and properly divided into the appropriate corporate fiefdoms, the USA can scale back in preparation for Iran...