An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
I’m curious about the real meaning of the poll numbers. Do 19% believe that victory is still possible if we hang on, or do they think we owe the Iraqis our presence, because we broke Humpty-Dumpty? I am with the 51%, because I believe so much of the insurgency would die down if we left and the Iraqis realized we weren’t hell-bent on a long occupation. There would still be a power struggle- civil war, however.
NBC says it’s a civil war. Powell says there are signs of a civil war. Remember when the White House kept prancin’ around the question about whether or not 2,000 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq? They essentially said, “We have reports that it’s 2,000, but we haven’t reviewed them yet.” If they’re going to give a mealy-mouthed answer about what 2,000 “is,” expect them to deny until the cows come home, that there’s a civil war in Iraq? Why? It’s not hard science. Don’t expect a declaration of war that “We are now fighting a civil war.” Expect “The Decider” to never decide that the fiasco in Iraq is a civil war.
He can’t decide that. For almost 4 years he has been telling us that defeat is not an option in Iraq. If you get that our mission was to establish a democratic, stable, pro-western government there that would be a bulwark against terrorism in the ME, obviously admitting that that government had no power to stop a civil war, would be to admit defeat. He’s boxed himself in, and he can’t retreat from his statements of the previous four years.
With Bush, you can’t look at what he says, but at what he does. He may slowly take steps that signify that he recognizes the changing face of the war, even if his words don’t reflect it. Those steps would include incorporating some of the Baker Commision’s recommendations on the sly, while publicly claiming that he is not backing away from his commitment to stay the course in Iraq.
The Iraq War is a civil war. What do you call factions that are killing each other for their own self-determination and oil revenue gains? What do you call a war that is being fought by people of the same ethnic group for control of the central government and specific geographical areas? What do you call a war that is being fininaced by outside powers for their own nationalistic/strategic advantage? It is called a civil war and will probably go until the United States and Iran – the two main outside powers – have determined that it is no longer in their finincial interest to do so.
All civil wars depend on outside funding sources for their continuance. The Iranian seem to be in the “catbird seat” in this war. The Iranians can supply money, supplies and equipment to the Shites without sending troops or having to contend with internal dissent for their actions at home. The U.S. doesn’t know the area as well as we once thought (Remember VP Cheney’s remarks that Americans troops would be welcomed as liberators – images of Paris and World War II).
The United States is the bear that put its foot in the trap. Unfortunately we have helped the Iranians accomplish their objectives in the Persian Gulf region while at the same time utterly failed in the mission that the era of US involvement in the region is all but over. Are only interest in the region will be to buy oil.
This is such a sad commentary to make when one considers that a short decade-and-a-half ago we were the major military and economic power in the region after a brilliant and decisive victory over Iraq after the Gulf war I. The memories (mythology) of that war are completely destroyed and forgotten by W’s forray in the botched attempt to reenact his father’s footsteps.
I’m curious about the real meaning of the poll numbers. Do 19% believe that victory is still possible if we hang on, or do they think we owe the Iraqis our presence, because we broke Humpty-Dumpty? I am with the 51%, because I believe so much of the insurgency would die down if we left and the Iraqis realized we weren’t hell-bent on a long occupation. There would still be a power struggle- civil war, however.
NBC says it’s a civil war. Powell says there are signs of a civil war. Remember when the White House kept prancin’ around the question about whether or not 2,000 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq? They essentially said, “We have reports that it’s 2,000, but we haven’t reviewed them yet.” If they’re going to give a mealy-mouthed answer about what 2,000 “is,” expect them to deny until the cows come home, that there’s a civil war in Iraq? Why? It’s not hard science. Don’t expect a declaration of war that “We are now fighting a civil war.” Expect “The Decider” to never decide that the fiasco in Iraq is a civil war.
He can’t decide that. For almost 4 years he has been telling us that defeat is not an option in Iraq. If you get that our mission was to establish a democratic, stable, pro-western government there that would be a bulwark against terrorism in the ME, obviously admitting that that government had no power to stop a civil war, would be to admit defeat. He’s boxed himself in, and he can’t retreat from his statements of the previous four years.
With Bush, you can’t look at what he says, but at what he does. He may slowly take steps that signify that he recognizes the changing face of the war, even if his words don’t reflect it. Those steps would include incorporating some of the Baker Commision’s recommendations on the sly, while publicly claiming that he is not backing away from his commitment to stay the course in Iraq.
The Iraq War is a civil war. What do you call factions that are killing each other for their own self-determination and oil revenue gains? What do you call a war that is being fought by people of the same ethnic group for control of the central government and specific geographical areas? What do you call a war that is being fininaced by outside powers for their own nationalistic/strategic advantage? It is called a civil war and will probably go until the United States and Iran – the two main outside powers – have determined that it is no longer in their finincial interest to do so.
All civil wars depend on outside funding sources for their continuance. The Iranian seem to be in the “catbird seat” in this war. The Iranians can supply money, supplies and equipment to the Shites without sending troops or having to contend with internal dissent for their actions at home. The U.S. doesn’t know the area as well as we once thought (Remember VP Cheney’s remarks that Americans troops would be welcomed as liberators – images of Paris and World War II).
The United States is the bear that put its foot in the trap. Unfortunately we have helped the Iranians accomplish their objectives in the Persian Gulf region while at the same time utterly failed in the mission that the era of US involvement in the region is all but over. Are only interest in the region will be to buy oil.
This is such a sad commentary to make when one considers that a short decade-and-a-half ago we were the major military and economic power in the region after a brilliant and decisive victory over Iraq after the Gulf war I. The memories (mythology) of that war are completely destroyed and forgotten by W’s forray in the botched attempt to reenact his father’s footsteps.
Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana