The unblinking Ðìçk Cheney (as we saw in last night’s “Colbert Report”), along with various stalking horses, keeps saying we must stay in Iraq “until the job is done.”
Now I know it was a long time ago–four years–but as I recall, the job was to get Saddam out of power and to find the WMDs.
Saddam is dead and there’s no WMDs.
Mission accomplished. The job, as delineated by the Bush administration, is done. Saying that departing now is “cutting and running” is like saying that punching out the time clock at 5 PM is “bailing out.”
PAD
• 
We cannot leave. Lord I want to leave Iraq. I worked for the United Nations back in the 90s and once I heard that we were Invading Iraq my friends and I said “we are in there for a long long long time”. Bush either was too ignorant or he lied to the American people”.
When you invade a country you become their government. We have adopted this country till we can fix all the damage we caused. Damage to their government, roads, schools, people. If we leave, its because we are jerks.
Also Bush is not explaining to the people that there are two wars going on now. 1) in Bagdad over different interpretations of their holy book, which is a religious civil war, which we should not be getting involved over and the other is in the rest of the country (yes there is more to Iraq than Bagdad) where there is actual fighting going on between US forces and the terrorist organizations that want us out of their country.
Forget about pulling out of Iraq because the war is over and mission accomplished. We broke Iraq and now we have to fix it. Maybe next time the American people will think more quickly before they vote to over throw another government
“Maybe next time the American people will think more quickly before they vote to overthrow another government..”
Whaaa….?!?
There was no vote. I didn’t vote. Peter, did you vote?
There’s was only an OK by Congress based on flawed, cherry-picked intel given to them by the Bushies. The American people didn’t vote to go into Iraq. Hëll, we didn’t even vote for Bush as President in the first place, if the 2000 popular vote is any indication. 🙂
I realize I’m an incredibly scatterminded grad student… but I’m pretty sure, (especially as a Buddhist!), I would have remembered voting to go to war,…
Peter, you are correct that the “job” as originally described to us by Bush & Co. is done. But Bush and his inner circle have demonstrated at best a severely limited ability to gather facts, assess them objectively, and make intelligent decisions based on those assessments. So I don’t think it makes sense to let them frame the debate.
When we invaded Iraq, we inadvertantly created another “job:” the reconstruction and rehabilitation of a nation. I do believe that a failure to stabilize Iraq will have far-reaching consequences not only for the other nations in the Middle East, but for the U.S. as well.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to lack intellectual agility. The problem in Iraq is clearly both military and political. A political solution would require us to find a way to get the Sunnis and the Shi’a to reach an accord, and that would probably require us to reach out — whether overtly or covertly — to Iran and Syria. Bush won’t do that.
I believe we’ll be stuck on the same stupid course for the next two years. By the time the next president takes office, I believe it may be too late to do anything to salvage the Iraq War. This is a distressing thought, to say the least.
“job is done” = enough additional troops have been added, blame has been shifted, and blood has been spilled to be able to say “we’ve done all we can do, it’s not our fault it didn’t work”
Unfortunately I fear that we’re not taking Iraq seriously any more and the administration is simply holding out for an endgame that makes this somewhat less of a disgraceful failure and can’t be labeled “cut and run” in any way.
This is just a disaster of mis-management. Went in too early to get international support, went in too light to hold the country together, now doing too little when it’s possibly too late.
I didn’t vote…. though I was given many dirty looks and a few heated responses whenever I responded aloud against the plan to and execution of the invasion.
Chris: If we leave, its because we are jerks.
Luigi Novi: There are many legitimate reasons for leaving, and being “jerks” doesn’t have to be anywhere even near the top. If we leave, it’s because we want to do the right thing. Because we’re knee deep in the quagmire of a civil war. Because we’ve lost 3,000 of our citizens, and don’t want to lose more. Because the stated mission for which we invaded in the first place has been fulfilled (Remember “Mission Accomplished”?) Even if one can scrounge up legitimate reasons for staying, I don’t think that therefore, ipso facto, that means that leaving makes us “jerks”.
I suspect that our presence is only making things worse for the people of Iraq.
Part of me really feels that since we made the mess, and came in without a plan, it’s our responsibility, as a country, to fix it. The question then becomes if that’s even possible or if we’re doing more damage by staying. But I do think we have a responsibility.
We have adopted this country till we can fix all the damage we caused. Damage to their government, roads, schools, people. If we leave, its because we are jerks.
I was thinking about the same thing as Matt when I read this, i.e. that while it’s our mess and we should at least try to clean it up, the question right now is whether that’s even something we’re capable of doing.
If it’s just impossible, then there’s no point in spending any more time on a lost cause. All that’s left to be done is to apologize, even though an apology will not make up for the damage done, leave, try to make amends in the future, and above all do our very best to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t ever happen again.
Would you like to qualify “fix all the damage we caused,” or should we assume you mean us to stay there and fight until we find a way to resurrect Saddam Hussein and install him back into power?
I was thinking about the same thing as Matt when I read this, i.e. that while it’s our mess and we should at least try to clean it up, the question right now is whether that’s even something we’re capable of doing.
I don’t think it’s even clear what we’re doing. For example, if I’m not mistaken, many of the same factions the US is supporting also receive support from Iran; some of the factions that oppose the US receive support from Saudi Arabia. With that case, is staying in Iraq serving even our interests?
“Luigi Novi: … If we leave, it’s because we want to do the right thing. Because we’re knee deep in the quagmire of a civil war.”
Yes, a civil war which would NOT have occurred had the U.S. not gone stomping in and upset the balance of power. Remember the line “with great power there must come great responsibility”? It doesn’t only apply to fictional charaters. The U.S. misused their ‘great power’ and now have a responsability to clean up after themselves. Either that, or abdicate their standing. And, if they do that, who takes over in their stead? The U.N.? Yeah, right.
I don’t think America can fix the crisis in Iraq; it’s the U.N. or nothing.
Yeah, I seem to have missed the vote to overthrow Saddam, too. In fact, I distinctly remember someone running for president in 2000 promising to never use our troops on a nation-building exercise. What was his name again?
Maybe the reason why Darth Cheney didn’t blink so much is because the movement puts too much strain on his tiny heart.
Anyway, we have to separate the real mission from the marketing plan. We’re not there to create democracy but to sercure our oil supply. Note that Chimpy even made a point of saying that they threaten “America’s oil supply”. But if it’s our oil supply, why is under foreign countries?
Did the US break Iraq? No, it was full of violent people willing to kill each other long, long before we got there. Like, hundreds of years long ago. We did, however, remove the govnerment that had managed to keep most of those faction in check for the past 2 decades. Yet another misfire by Bush, assuming that simply because the average American wouldn’t chop his neighbor’s head off for professing a different religion, the rest of the world must be like that, too.
Do we need to stay to protect all the innocent Iraqis that aren’t violently acting out? Well, it seems that even with us there, those folks are still in lots of danger. We don’t have enough troops to personally protect every single Iraqi. And so long as we’re there, any Iraqi government won’t be able to do what it needs to in order to secure order. And what people don’t seem to want to acknolwedge is that it took Hussien to control the violence in Iraq. And it might take another violent leader willing to be ruthless to control them now.
Democary only works when everyone agrees to let it work. Iraq has a long time to go before reaching that point. The US can’t wait that long.
Actually, I don’t think the job is done — Iraq’s oil is not completely owned by American petroleum companies yet…
–R.J.
Somehow the mission morphed, so that it is now to establish a moderate non-sectarian democracy. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for that idea among actual Iraqis these days though (if there ever was). Nor does their current constitution exactly encourage that. In fact, in the last election, the kind of candidates the US supports went down in flames. And that was before things REALLY hit the fan. Bush’s goal may be laudable, but it’s not necessarily achievable, and 20,000 troops isn’t going to make any difference in that.
True, Starwolf, but just because we created the mess doesn’t mean that staying there will clean it up. By removing Saddam, we unleased a religious schism that goes back close to 1,400 years. It’s a bit presumptuous, IMO, to think that if we stay (what, a year or two longer? Five? Ten?) will somehow resolve it. It’s not a matter of knocking down a vase and sweeping away the pieces, mopping up the water and buying another vase of equal value. What we did may have been to open a Pandora’s Box (cross the Rubicon, unscrew a lightbulb, pick whatever metaphor you want) that can’t just be “undone”. But if you can explain what we can do in another year or number of years to end the Sunni-Shiite schism (to say nothing of the terrorism problem that our invasion only helped escalate), I’ll listen. 🙂
Luigi: Captain Naraht has in prrior threads advocated a regional diplomatic solution that I believe would give us our best chance, albeit a slim one, to salvage something from the Iraq fiasco. I believe the idea has much merit.
I’d like to see us make some kind of good-faith effort to correct our mistakes in Iraq. By “good-faith,” I mean one that takes into account the cultural, social, economic, and political realities of the region; that relies on accurate intelligence; and that builds sound strategies based on clear-eyed assessments of the facts. If such a good-faith effort failed, I think we could leave with a clearer conscience.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe the Bush administration will allow for any such good-faith effort. I am at a point where I believe a swift withdrawal may be the best we can do at this point. I just wish I believed we could do better.
But if you can explain what we can do in another year or number of years to end the Sunni-Shiite schism (to say nothing of the terrorism problem that our invasion only helped escalate), I’ll listen. 🙂
I think there might be things. But they’ll be things this administration will never do in a million years.
Huh.
See, what cracks me up right now is that there are idiots out there so desperate to praise Bush that they’re saying that his SOTU the other night was his admission that he got things wrong before and that means we should now trust that his new plan is what he is going to use to fix those mistakes. We should just give him the chance to do it.
I’m sorry, no. There are two reasons that his plan will fail miserably.
The first is that the troop numbers he wants to use just won’t cut it. 200,000 might be enough to get the job done. His surge won’t even get close to doing the job.
The second reason is the idea behind the new plan. If we secure Baghdad, then we fix Iraq.
????????????
How much brain power does it really take to see the idiocy in this. That’s like saying that all we need to do is pour all of California’s Law Enforcement Agencies resources into L.A. and that will stop crime in the entire state.
Either do what you have to do and send in the proper number of troops needed or get out.
And even if they use the numbers needed, it’s only a short term solution. I still don’t believe that Iraq will be Bush’s shiny new Middle East Democracy, even if we do everything right, for more then a year after we leave. They’ll certainly not be happy with the U.S. over our selling off something like 70% of their oil fields to oil companies and thus gave away what used to be 80% or more of Iraq’s revenue source.
I really wanna see us do the right thing in Iraq, but two more years of disastrous Bush leadership may create a situation where we have no chance left to do the right thing there. Congress either has to push Bush to follow the military advice of those who know what’s needed and where it’s needed or we have to get out. We can’t continue to jog along on the wrong path like this. Course correct now or get out now.
Bush will do neither. The newly Democrat Congress will do neither. We’re screwed. The troops are screwed. Iraq is screwed.
I hate Bush.
If we don’t stay the course, we are traitors.
And about this SOTU speech.
Bush has shown previously that he will say one thing, yet do another.
Why do people continue to believe him?
“But if it’s our oil supply, why is under foreign countries?”
I knew it should’a taken that left toin at Albaqoique…
If we don’t stay the course, we are traitors.
If reason is treason then let us all be traitors.
Have the last 5 years not been Halliburton’s most profitable? Did the medicare revision not dedicate $1.2 trillion to drug companies over 10 years? Haven’t the wealthy been greatly relieved of the burden to repay these expenses, sapping middle-class savings? Do the readers of Moonie periodicals and Lennie Green Footballs not get to keep celebrating the deaths of Arab Muslims? Hasn’t the kill ratio turned out to be 100-200 Iraqis per US soldier? And we still have over 100,000 soldiers to go. What isn’t there to like about George W Bush?
Unfortunately we can`t turn the clock back. Yes, I absolutely agree with what PAD said. I also remember very well the “Mission accomplished” celebrations after Saddam`s fall. Already then I wondered, are the Americans really so naive and arrogant to believe that? I had a very bad feeling about this.
There are already a lot of troops in present day Iraq that do their very best to fight the symptoms here and there but that is no cure. Giving a so-called “new” strategy a chance is ridiculous because sending more people is not a new strategy whatsoever. You are just sending more people into a wild jungle that is getting constantly more dangerous and unstable.
I wish I had an answer but I am afraid, the damage is done and there is no way out. I see no reason for optimism. I certainly see no justification for sacrificing more lives in this mess.
The unfortunate truth is, you can`t enforce peace. Remove the dictator and all the conflicts that were suppressed come back to the surface. What happened in Iraq is no surprise, this pattern is nothing new. You can give advice, you can use political pressure, too but at the end, Iraq has to sort itself out.
Sending LOTS of troops in order to suppress the violence is not a solution unless you want to occupy Iraq forever.
Already then I wondered, are the Americans really so naive and arrogant to believe that?
Sadly, many of us are. But, when reality came home and it was painfully obvious that the “Mission Accomplished” celebration was premature, the Nero II administration did what any responsible government would do:
They blamed someone else for the banner.
Dude, it’s not 5PM. It’s five minutes to friggin’ midnight. Time to go home already.
Well said, Mr. David.
Bobb Alfred assumes Irak “was full of violent people willing to kill each other long, long before we got there. Like, hundreds of years long ago” and that Saddam’s regime kept things in check while truth is quite the opposite.
Even tho shiite and sunni dont like each other, most muslim countries have a presence of both versions of Islam and they dont kill each other. Irak has been the military playground of Turks and Persians on many occasions, one a sunni empire, the other shiite, but neither ethnically nor culturally arab. On top of that, the Baaz party is a panarabist one, founded by an arab christian and open to all arabs no matter the religion.
Until Saddam came along.
During the war with shiite Iran, he became suspicious of iraki shiite population, purged them of any power in the military and politics and went so far as to forbid their religious practice. He tortured and killed them, allways as suspects of cooperating with Iran, wich they of course started to do. Saddam was not the glue keeping that place together, as many said about Tito. Saddam was the axe chopping it down to pieces.
Even so, most of the violence comes from salafist/wahabist fanatics that come from all over the world, eager to take on the chance to fight the USA. I heard some retired american general a few years ago complaining that this war only gave the terrorists a place where they can expect to find US soldiers easily.
…As to the subject of PAD post, I agree with Chris, the first commentator, as well as with many that followed in the same general direction.
If Cheney wants the job done he should do it himself…Oh wait he’s got Helliburton lackies over there to support no-bid oil contracts…maybe Lynn Cheney can go do daddy’s dirtywork.
This is what we get when we let the “Illuminati” pull the strings.
Ever notice you never see a smiling picture of Ðìçk.
Last Ðìçk we had in the White House didn’t work out so well either.
For El Hombre Malo:
http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2006/12/no-iraqi-civil-war.html
“.. is like saying that punching out the time clock at 5 PM is “bailing out.”
Which – seriously – sounds like the mentality at far too many places I’ve worked over the years.
Or – jokingly! – shows what an easy life writers have 😛
Seriously again, it’s time to dodge out of Hëll and bring the troops home.
“If we don’t stay the course, we are traitors.”
Sigh. NUTPOHS.
Cheers!
Whether the hatred between the Shia and the Sunnis in Iraq is centuries old or merely decades old is largely immaterial at this point. So is the fact that their counterparts in some other Islamic countries may get along better. That’s like saying the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland don’t have a long history of hating each other because Catholics and Protestants in other countries have been able to live peaceably together for centuries. The fact remains that they do hate each other and are killing each other in a sectarian civil war.
If the idea of sending more troops into Iraq shows one thing, it’s that the people in charge aren’t adaptable. I don’t think all the troops that have ever worn an American uniform COMBINED being sent over to Iraq would solve the problem. This is only partially a military problem. It’s more a cultural problem, and I think that’s the biggest problem with all this. The people in charge just don’t understand the Iraqi people. They AREN’T just like Americans that talk funny. IT’s a whole different set of ideas and ideals. Until they DO understand this, and take steps to either fix their own misunderstanding of the situation or turn the reigns over to someone who DOES understand, I can’t see much progress being made.
Now, as to the whole “Until the job is done” philosophy–until it’s done to whose standards? How can we expect to know when the job is done when the people managing the job keep changing the job description?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at January 26, 2007 01:10 PM
Or – jokingly! – shows what an easy life writers have 😛
Oh, man, you are gonna get PWNed…
On a more serious note, I understand why the U.S. ended up in Iraq: Saddam Hussein was Moby-Ðìçk to George W. Bush’s Ahab, and after Sept. 11, 2001, a wide swath of the U.S. public was willing to “drink the Kool-Aid,” so to speak. I am less clear about what motivated Tony Blair to go against British public opinion and commit his country to this nightmare.
I’m not expecting you to have all the answers — after all, I’m guessing you and Blair don’t meet for drinks every night at the pub. But I thought I’d throw the question out there for discussion, in case you did have any insights you’d like to share.
All I know is that it’s a dumbassed idea to pull an American military presence from a country when that gives nasty Evil Muslims (as opposed to any other kind of Muslim) an opportunity to take credit for defeating said American military.
Which seems to be a large problem with some of our wars. We get to leave just when it when makes us look the most weak or stupid.
The harm to the prestige of the US will be unfortunate, but it will not cuse much direct harm (if any )to the US. Tjis is not a good reason to stay in Iraq, especially considering that staying probably cases as much or more harm to US prestige. Yes, the terrorists will take credit for a victory and will be ’emboldened’ but these people tend to be emboldened by anything, loss, victory, stalemate.
But, for those who support withdraw, don’t lie to yourselves. The most optimistic scenario may be that the violence will dwindle as a result of US withdrawl. Or a slightly less optimistic scenario that the violence will remain in Iraq and keep the crazies busy slaughtering each other. But in the Middle East hoping for the best is a risk. It is quite likely that the killing and chaos will increase, sending refugees all over the place, and spread beyond Iraq threatening the stability of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and the Persian Gulf states.
The problem, IMHO, is incompetence of leadership. The top levels of government are incompetent to do the job. When a brief spark of actual, clear thought rears it’s ugly head, the head attached rolls to be replaced by one that knows it’s place.
The current administration is so concerned with staying on message and keeping the population in the dark that the idea of an actual examination of the war and how to get out is impossible.
The ugly, sad, fûçkëd up truth is that to leave now would replace one giant disaster with another. The Bush League and it’s crew of yes-men/women and well trained and assorted apologists and bûŧŧ wìpërš have created such a weakened state that it can only get worse. The only thing keeping some really crazy people from rolling into Iraq now is the large US military presence.
In an ironic twist, it is that very military presence that makes the military presence necessary.
By the by, I’m thinking that May 1st should be declared “Mission Accomplished Day”, dedicated to the memory of all half assed, unfinished, and unnecessary missions.
Pìšš øff a Neo-con! Send a card!
Bill Myers raises the interesting point:
“I am less clear about what motivated Tony Blair to go against British public opinion and commit his country to this nightmare”
There are a couple of schools of thought on that one.
One is that Blair and Bush – despite being leaders of supposedly left and right wing parties – have a lot in common personally, agreeing on religious and pragmatic agendas. There certainly seems to have been a meeting in July 2002 where much of what was to come was thrashed out between them:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11050
A – possibly – deeper view comes when you look at Blair the person, who again and again seems like a man obsessed with making his mark on history, determined to be as close to centre stage as he can be, convinced of his own infallibility, ever eager to jump on the coat tails of people or events that he thinks will further this. He’s currently a lame duck PM, supposedly due to hand over power to Gordon Brown ‘real soon now’ and potentially facing arrest over the ‘cash for peerages’ scandal:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1995512,00.html
One of my favourite quotes is: “The invasion of Iraq; the first time reporters have been imbedded in the front lines, the first time a British Prime Minister has been imbedded in the US president..”
Personally, I think pretty much everything Blair and New Labour have touched in 10 years of unchalleged power has turned to poop around them, and the sooner they are kicked out the better.
Cheers!
“I am less clear about what motivated Tony Blair to go against British public opinion and commit his country to this nightmare”
I think there is a certain appeal to the idea of taking action against dictators. In the past the west was criticized for accomdating murderous dictators in the name of pragmatic diplomacy, economic motives and so forth. In the 90s you already had attempts to use military force to deal with ‘bad guys’, first in Iraq and then in Somalia and Kosovo. It is much more appealing than the kind of pragmatism that is all too often necessary in international diplomacy. In a way it is a left wing kind of an idea. Some of the neo-cons were leftists who turned right.
yeah but are the Tories any better at this point? Nothing I’ve seen from them fills me with any hope–if anything they seem to be more nanny-state than New Labour. I’m not jumping up and down about the prospects here either but I sure don’t envy your choices.
Ah well, maybe the world will come to it’s senses and hand itself over to the Guy Party.
Peter J. Poole, thanks for a very illuminating response!
Bill Mulligan, never underestimate the Guy Party! We’ll take the government by storm in ’08!
Or we’ll just fall asleep in front of the T.V. One or the other.
Posted by: Micha at January 26, 2007 09:51 PM
The harm to the prestige of the US will be unfortunate, but it will not cuse much direct harm (if any )to the US.
I’m not as confident as you are about that. Remember, a single assassination in the Balkans was the flashpoint that led to two World Wars. One can draw a number of parallels to the Middle East: the warring ethnic factions and the tangled mess of alliances come readily to mind.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the U.S. should only be concerned about our own safety. We’re the cause of the current instability in Iraq, and if that instability spreads to neighboring countries, that too will be our responsibility. I’m just saying, I think the U.S. has a more direct stake in this than you believe.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at January 27, 2007 07:43 AM
“yeah but are the Tories any better at this point? Nothing I’ve seen from them fills me with any hope–if anything they seem to be more nanny-state than New Labour. I’m not jumping up and down about the prospects here either but I sure don’t envy your choices”
Fair comment. The Tories have made a truly dreadful job of opposing New Labour and the latest leader, David ‘call me Dave’ Cameron sems determined to market himself as Blair-lite, which in a way is a pretty dámņìņg indictment of what you seem to need to be to win popular support.
I’m half hoping that if they do get in it’ll be a case of “Right, now we’re here let’s drop the nonsense and get back to basics..”
I’m in an even more interesting situation as an Englishman living in Scotland, where there’s a good chance the Scottish Nationalist Party will gain power in May, as one of their manifesto promises is to call a referendum on splitting the Union, making Scotland a seperate nation again after 300 years as part of Great Britain/the United Kingdom..
Cheers.
You tell them — Scotland is FREE!
(Oh, c’mon. Like there weren’t dozens of you tempted to post the same dámņ thing.)
Posted by: Micha at January 26, 2007 09:51 PM
“The harm to the prestige of the US will be unfortunate, but it will not cuse much direct harm (if any )to the US.”
Posted by: Bill Myers at January 27, 2007 08:38 AM:
“I think the U.S. has a more direct stake in this than you believe.”
Americans went to Iraq as a result of a Republican spin. I would prefer it if you decide to remain or leave Iraq based on reliable considerations. It is also very important for me to be truthful in presenting these things, since I’m not an American, I have my own vested interests, and there has been too much spinning, lying, and wishful thinking both from the right and left on this issue as on many others.
As I see it, the only direct risk to the US as a result of withdrawl from Iraq is that oil prices may rise ever further.
Yes the terrorists will be extremely proud of their victory, but it’s not like they lacked motivation to attack US targets before, and the tools to prevent such attacks remain the same. So I don’t know if there is much of an increased direct threat to the US. There is an increased threat to its moderate Muslim allies, and to a lesser degree to Israel.
A withdrawl from Iraq will alsi decrease the preception of power of the US, and may make it more difficult to pressure other countries diplomatically. But only to a certain degree. The US still has much power — military, and more importantly, economic. Despite the disaster in Iraq, some strange things have been happening on the Syrian and Iranian fronts lately. I think some of the Iraninan elite are concerned about to economic harm that the sanctions will cause them, and they are a little fed up with Achminagad. So the direct harm to the US is not that great from that point of view either.
Former Iraninan president Hatami made comments to an Israeli journalist criticizing Achminagad. Of course, like everything else in the Middle East, this too should be taken with a grain (or a whole cup) of salt, and everything has double and triple meanings, but still, it is strange.
“I’m in an even more interesting situation as an Englishman living in Scotland, where there’s a good chance the Scottish Nationalist Party will gain power in May, as one of their manifesto promises is to call a referendum on splitting the Union, making Scotland a seperate nation again after 300 years as part of Great Britain/the United Kingdom.”
It’s amazing that the Scots and English have kept seperate identities for so long.