What Went Wrong?

Re: # 23

see my reply below to Tahmed32 unkil!

Re: # 17 #16 you are spot on..By the time I go to the top I hope to see a number of replies on this esp from our friend zeemax, masadi meow et al.

its a nice to know that there are some extremely cynical guys around and boy I would not want them to be running for office!

#17 by tahmed32

tahmed, let the politicians play their games. They always do. That doesn`t change what has to be done in `national interest` which in any case is determined by the military-industrial-think tank combine in USA. Where the politicians failed is to properly sell it to the public. Of-course they couldn`t say ``We want Iraqi Oil`` to justify the war, and the slogans they used instead like WMD and freedom/democracy etc fell flat, therefore someone has to pay.

In any case, republicans have served their two terms and now it`s the turn for Dems, who will follow the same path. Then it`ll be Republicans all over again and so forth. Both are one & the same.

#16 by bbabu

Turkey and Iran are the wild cards in this scenario. However Turkey appears to have arrived at some understanding because it`s presence in Iraqi Kurdistan has been increasing since a year or so, and it is involved in a lot of construction including the government buildings etc. So I don`t believe Kurdistan will be an independant state, but a Turkish dominion of some sort in exchange for oil transportation through Turkish Mediterranean Sea ports, which answers your second question.

Bush will go down in history as the president that went terribly wrong. This stupid invasion of Iraq has actually added oil to the fire of Islamic terrorism. Saddam might have been a baddie but he did not really pose a threat to Western interests in the region as he did not have WMD , the only folly on his part being the occupation of Kuwait. He had the jehadi elements on a tight leash, and one might say his state had a stabilising effect in middle east politics. He was no supporter of Al Qaida either, so he did not qualify as an enemy in the War on Terror.

With him gone, the civil war that we see in Iraq was to be expected. The English speaking American Arab cronies who are ruling Iraq hardly enjoy any public support.

Whether Americans pull out or stay back, unfortunately the damage has been done, Iraq will never be the same again, sectarianism will not go away and common people will suffer.

Americans must understand that they cannot thrust democracy on the Iraqis, it is best to get out and let the Iraqis sort out the mess created by Bush

A couple of points:
(1). The Iraq invasion was definitely the wrong thing to do. But that depends on how you define ``wrong``. I don`t think Bushy and family get any sleepless nights thinking about the innocents they`ve bombed into oblivion, what sectarian schisms they`ve caused/internsified, etc. They are more worried about the increasingly dim view Americans are taking of the whole exercise in the first place, which AGAIN is a simple factor of number of young Americans killed overseas and little else. If America pulls out troops tomorrow and the sectarian chaos continues, do you think any Amreeki will waste his time thinking about an obscure little Arab country in the desert? Don`t think so...
(2). However wrong the war in Iraq is, doesn`t take away one iota from the fact that bloodthirsty fanatics planned and executed one of the most horrifying acts of terrorism killing nearly 3000 INNOCENT people of a free country in a time of peace, who were doing little more than going about their work as usual. So those enlightened individuals who are using the Iraq war as an example of big bad America being responsible for all the woes in the Islamic world could just shut up.

I suppose from the American point of view it should be sufficient if they can control the oil regions of Iraq. The rest of Iraq and Afghanistan don`t really matter.

Regards

further to #17: but dont let me interfere with the spinning wheel of conspiracy theories on this board. :-)

#16 hmmmm.....in that case, the Republican plan called for Republicans to become unpopular, Bush to see his popularity dip to historic lows, and for neo-cons to lose both houses of the Congress.


hmmmm...that makes a lot of sense (joke). :-)

zeemax #13

`` Contrary to popular perception, the Iraq invasion - and Afghanistan - have ALWAYS gone to plan. As far as the neo-con strategy is concerned, Iraq has been an great success.

This is the correct view and I`ve been saying this for some time. The outcome is as per plan and certainly not unexpected. The aim from the outset was to instigate a civil war and to divide the country into three parts, with the Kirkuk oil fully under control alongwith US allies the Pesh Marga, and the Shia oil in the South ensured through a proxy Shia Govt which is in place right now. This leaves the Sunnis sandwiched in the middle and perhaps US was hoping for them to make a compromise of some sort, which hasn`t happened yet and that`s why Bush is in Jordan. This is the only unforeseen hurdle as of now.

Contrary to the author`s view, which is mostly shared by public opinion, US will never leave Iraq, though it may need to be content with just the Kirkuk Oil and not the South. The turf war now limited to Baghdad will spread to the central/Southern regions and will decide the ultimate map of Iraq. That`s the only part US may withdraw from to save casualties. ``

The above views have too many flaws.

1. Turkey will not tolerate independent Kurdistan. It has an impact on its 10+ million Kurds.

2. Iraqi Kurdistan has oil. But it is landlocked. How are you going to ship the oil ? Your choices are Syria, Turkey, Iran and rest of Iraq.

3. If Iraqi Shites in the South form a separate country they could destablize Gulf states with significant Shia populations.

4. If USA and Iraq`s neighbors have no trouble with Kurdish state in the North and Shia state in the south please tell me what your Sunnis in the Central Iraq are going to do ?
They have no oil, no cash, no heavy weapons to reclaim the lost states. They can launch a few bombings here and there.

It did go wrong and it did so terribly!

For Iraqis off course. People who see the chaos in Iraq as American defeat are grossly mistaken. For Americans it is a distant country, the land of Ali Bab and the magic. One day the GIs can come home. The problem is for the Iraqis and their immediate neighbors.

Out of frying pan and into the... holds true for Iraqis. I mean going from saddam`s golden rule to the rule of militias. Wow! What a progress!

Americans miscalculated big time. They did not know the Arabs will be so vicious! With each others!. It is like an Arab Sunni gets mad at Americans so he goes and kills a Shia, then all hell breaks lose thanks to Sadar`s militia. Totally insane!

#6 whereas it has been true that whatever the US has ``touched`` with its foreign policy has turned into lead - afghanistan in the 80s being a prime example - what you advance is a very cynical and incorrect view. A secular, oil-rich nation that is friendly to israel and the US in the middle east would have been highly desirable from the pov of the neocons but it was not to be. The US has been a failure in planting democracy anywhere in the last 50 years and it didn`t help that it has perhaps the most incompetent man for president when embarking on another venture abroad..

#6 by parthaab

Contrary to popular perception, the Iraq invasion - and Afghanistan - have ALWAYS gone to plan. As far as the neo-con strategy is concerned, Iraq has been an great success.

This is the correct view and I`ve been saying this for some time. The outcome is as per plan and certainly not unexpected. The aim from the outset was to instigate a civil war and to divide the country into three parts, with the Kirkuk oil fully under control alongwith US allies the Pesh Marga, and the Shia oil in the South ensured through a proxy Shia Govt which is in place right now. This leaves the Sunnis sandwiched in the middle and perhaps US was hoping for them to make a compromise of some sort, which hasn`t happened yet and that`s why Bush is in Jordan. This is the only unforeseen hurdle as of now.

Contrary to the author`s view, which is mostly shared by public opinion, US will never leave Iraq, though it may need to be content with just the Kirkuk Oil and not the South. The turf war now limited to Baghdad will spread to the central/Southern regions and will decide the ultimate map of Iraq. That`s the only part US may withdraw from to save casualties.

#11 one can always build either a skeptical case or a cynical case for any event in the world. Only information and history will reveal the truth (if at all).

However, I do feel that the US did go in with good intentions. But good intentions often do not work if the people are not willing to help themselves in building a prosperous future. as a result the world will leave them to their own devices as long as their activities do not impinge on the world.

This is where the ``islamophobia`` (to use BD`s word) comes in. It is not islamophobia that is at play here - but rather an intention to keep them at arms distance and ensure that only those in sync with the views of the rest world of are allowed to enter their societies.

And as long their views are opposite to the rest of the world you will find more and more stringent and stricter conditions being applied. The islamic world should take a leaf out of Mahathir and malaysia and forget Soodi Arab or Iran for a moment.

Re: # 8

One could argue that the motives of the US were never actually in doubt to neutral observers, except for the western media which was confusing, by spinning the `good intentions` of the US to suit its own audience.

Re: # 8

One could argue that the motives of the US were never actually in doubt to neutral observers, except for the western media which was confusing, by spinning the `good intentions` of the US to suit its own audience.