What Went Wrong?

What went wrong, Bhaskar sahib, is that Bush and Blair forced a war which most (certainly in the UK and Europe) did not want; they thought they could bomb a people to democracy and take control of the oil at the same time. They even thought they`d be welcomed by the Iraqis. This was the height of self-delusion. Bush controls Blair and Bush in turn is beholden to the crazy far Right Christian fundamentalists who believe Armaggedon is necessary before Jesus Christ (upon him be peace) returns.

The solution is to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and at the same time stop supporting dictators in the Islamic world for the sake of cheaper oil.

From 656,000 dead Iraqis -- IRAQ`s message for the Ugly American:

get out -- leave -- scram -- beat it -- begone -- break out -- bug off -- buzz off -- clear out, decamp -- depart -- disembark -- jump off -- egress -- evacuate -- exit -- extricate -- flee -- go home -- go fly a kite -- run away -- scram -- split -- take off -- vacate -- withdraw -- clear out -- dash -- decamp, -- escape -- flee -- fly-- get away-- get lost -- and never come back....

Do we really want to see a blood bath in Iraq?

wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html``>
For all the talk that US should withdraw its forces from Iraq read here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html

Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page A23

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be ``solving one problem and creating five more`` if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won`t make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia`s ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that ``since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited.`` If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.

Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn`t meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn`t attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world`s Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today`s high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran`s ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don`t run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq`s population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.

What`s clear is that the Iraqi government won`t be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq`s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.

There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia`s advice. Vice President Cheney`s visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.

In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia`s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran`s militarist actions in the region.

To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official Saudi policy.

Martin Wolf:

US voters have now repudiated those who sought to impose democracy by force abroad. In spite of the gerrymandering of districts, the advantages of incumbency and renewed recourse to the politics of fear, common sense prevailed. George W. Bush is still president. But he is damaged political goods. That is good, because change is desperately needed.


The signal feature of this administration has not been merely its incompetence, but its rejection of the principles on which US foreign policy was built after the second world war. The administration’s strategy has been based, instead, upon four ideas: the primacy of force; the preservation of a unipolar order; the unbridled exercise of US power; and the right to initiate preventive war in the absence of immediate threats...

...The US must now start again. It must design a foreign policy for the current age. In doing so, it should discard almost everything the Bush administration has proclaimed.

First, the aims of foreign policy go far beyond the misnamed “war on terror”. The Islamist terrorists with which the world should, indeed, be concerned do not even pose the same existential threat as the cold war’s competition among superpowers. Equally important are maintenance of a prosperous world economy, management of the rise of new great powers, economic development, not least in the Islamic world, and management of the global commons.

Second, military power is far less effective than its supporters suppose. The threat of force cannot change the policies of other great powers, except to make them more suspicious of US intentions. It must make potential enemies still more determined to obtain nuclear weapons. As Iraq has shown, vast power cannot even impose stability on a country of 21m.

Third, the legitimacy of America as a global power rests on the ability of the US to command the respect of other countries and peoples. Gerhard Schröder could not have won an election in 2002 on an anti-American platform if the German people’s confidence in the US had not been undermined. Yet more important, the war against jihadi terrorists is a war of ideas. It will be won not by fear, but by making the west’s values more attractive to hundreds of millions of Muslims than those of its fanatical opponents. The willingness of this administration to treat the rule of law as an optional extra has made it far more difficult to defeat the terrorist ideology in the long run.

Fourth, multilateral institutions matter. They turn what would otherwise be clashes of prestige and power into acceptance of shared rules of good behaviour. Above all, only the willing co-operation of at least the world’s leading powers can address many of the global challenges. Shared institutions make such co-operation more credible and more sustained.

Fifth, solid alliances matter. The coalition of the willing has proved a slender reed. Even the UK is unlikely to let itself be dragged into a venture similar to Iraq again, in which it is fully committed but has no influence on how policy is executed. Yet the US has proved unable to achieve what it seeks unaided. Fixed alliances are indeed constraints, but they are also means of securing commitments.

The foreign policy of Mr Bush, arguably the worst president since the US became a world power, has come to a dead end. The big question is what happens now. [my emphasis throughout]

Wolf is perhaps the most distinguished columnist at the FT, and not a man prone to mindless hyperbole. His calling Bush ``arguably the worst president since the US became a world power`` is therefore quite a statement indeed. And if Bush doesn`t start to make major course corrections very soon, that verdict will likely begin to get shared by more and more rational, intelligent observers. Put differently, it is no longer easy to just holler ``Carter!``, or ``Nixon!``, and assume you`ve just proven your case Bush isn`t as terrible as all that. At very best, it`s debatable, as the policy blunders have been that egregiously bad.

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.

The destruction of a muslim economy, tearing apart its infrastructure and letting muslim fanatic groups kill each other and stealing oil, besides killing Saddam and his family were always part of the neo-con plan, though its claims have always been to for democracy, peace and such like.

Of course, the extremists never did say out aloud what they really wanted, as unlike muslim extremists, they do have a public face which needs to get reelected by the people. The use of the judeo-christian media, to give a spin was, as ever, enviable.

the key passage(s) in the article are the following

(a)The countries in the later category belong to that august grouping of Germany, France, India, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. In the immortal words of Mr. Bernard Lewis, the doyen of historians (and with due apologies to him), they all agree on “what went wrong?“

(b)This is causing other countries to worry deeply as well. Germany was very strongly against the Iraq War and a few months ago; found itself miraculously escaping a twin train bombing, which if it had happened, would have been at the same level as that of the Madrid Bombing. France is already facing a huge ground swell of rebellion mixed with other factors. India is worried about what will happen in Kashmir and so is China in its Xingjian province. The Central Asian Republics are thoroughly worried about the potential collapse of Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia wants to raise a fence all along the Iraq-Saudi border, while Pakistan wants to lay down a deep minefield along the Durand Line. Iran is obviously happy, because this is causing the great and small Satan to stop worrying that much about its nuclear programme. Russia is upset and is trying to walk a fine line between supporting Iran and others, while at the same time trying to keep its Chechnya and Dagestan problem under wraps. Therefore, the coalition and frankly the world don’t know what to do.


as they say the proverbial crap is going to hit the ceiling and all the carpers on the sidelines are the ones who are going to be hit, and hit badly.......

Iraq is but a symptom of the malice.....

#6 is that not a tad bit too cynical parthaab babu

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.

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.

#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.

#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.

#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..

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!

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.