Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

HP: #110

Thanks for writing a detailed discussion on American misadventure in Iraq. You took issue with my article on several grounds. I’ll try to respond to some of them here.

Regarding Shia-Sunni divide, I had used the phrase “the stronger faction had always dominated the weaker.” Domination does not necessarily imply violence. There is however evidence of violence also in history. In fact this divide began with violence.

Iqbal wrote:

Qatl-e-Hussain asl mein marg-e-Yazid haiy
Islam zindah hota haiy har Karbla kay ba’ad

Ever since, we are engaged in reviving Islam on the lines of Karbla.

It was not my intention here to outline why the U.S. army is in Iraq and continuing its occupation. I had given the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq from Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” in my book review which was published at Chowk on April 12, 2004. Five of the reasons outlined by Clarke are as follows:

“The justification for invading Iraq was due to the following five reasons “attributed to three senior advisers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) and to President Bush:

•To clean up the mess left by the first Bush administration when, in 1991, it let Saddam Hussein consolidate power and slaughter opponents after the first U.S. – Iraq war;
•To improve Israel’s strategic position by eliminating a large hostile military;
•To create an Arab democracy that could serve as a model to other friendly Arab states now threatened with internal dissent, notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia;
•To permit withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia (after twelve years), where they were stationed to counter the Iraqi military and were a source of anti-Americanism threatening to the regime;
•To create another friendly source of oil for the U.S. market and reduce dependency upon oil from Saudi Arabia, which might suffer overthrow someday.”

However, President Bush had a plan to invade Iraq even before he became president and many of our brothers facilitated him by casting votes ‘en mass’ for him in 2002.

Whether it is ‘last gasp’ or not, only time will determine although I do hope it is the ‘last gasp’. When President Bush invaded Iraq, majority of the Americans were with him; now they have deserted him and are working to stop him from entering into further misadventures.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

#112 by bulleya

Romair, there`s the privatised war angle to this as well. Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech of raising a `civilian` army.... meaning Blackwater. What do you think about that?

Watch this:

Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush`s Undeclared Surge.

...i can`t see how long the usa can keep going in iraq......even some of the republican congressmen are openly starting to go against it.....there is no way, the next us president can get elected on a pro-iraq war agenda.......mccain is the only one pushing that and he will have to drop it soon....

......isrealis are still trying to recover from their first ever defeat in an arab-israeli war.....they have slowly fired their military high command.....and olmert isn`t looking too stable either.....so they are probably not going to be pushing for any more hot wars.....

......so it is only the us executive branch that is now pushing the iraq war......and the uk executive branch to a smaller extent.......the populations of every country in the world (including iraq and usa), other than israel is against this war....the legislative branch of the usa is against it now.......the judicial branch of the usa has over-ruled the executive on issues related to the war......the retired us generals are against it.....

.......basically, it is bush and cheney that are keeping the war going, and creating problems for everyone in the world.....the scary part is that, if they want, they can start another one in iran......and there is a pretty good chance that they just might do that.......

i have a feeling these two will keep the usa military in iraq, until the military breaks........which is going to happen soon......i would say another year or two, and the usa military will break.......already, far too many us soldiers are getting injured.......and far too many have to rotate in and out of iraq..........and i don`t think even the usa can afford 80 billion per year, on a war for such a long time.......

these two guys, more than obl and mullah umar etc. are the real threat to the world......i am not the only one saying this......

#110 by HP

I see that Cheney`s remark of `enormous successes` in a different light. He has fractured a great Islamic country, and that`s indeed an enormous success.

Your views on the whole situation are not only half-baked but dangerously come close to being called ridiculous. I understand that you don’t have some hidden agenda and might just be someone who would like to see this whole situation end peacefully but promoting falsehood would not help your good intentions.

“Historically, Shias and Sunnis have not ever lived peacefully with each other; the stronger faction had always dominated the weaker.”

Shia and Sunni are two factions but for centuries, despite religious differences and occasional minor flare ups, they have pretty much lived peacefully throughout the centuries. Could you please cite any major conflict between these two sects or groups that can be of the same scale that we are watching in Iraq? Even in Baghdad, and we all know that it is a Shia majority city for the last 1200 years, there have never been any violence between the two communities and they have lived either side up side or in separate boroughs of Baghdad with NOT many incidents of violence. During the Saddam days when he was fighting Iran and later when he was crushing Shia insurgency in south Iraq, there was no violence between the two communities in Baghdad.

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be, just might be some reasons beyond the control of common man that helped create the chasm between the communities for the benefit of the occupying army?

There were no Shia or Sunni issues in 2003 when the US announced Mission accomplished and the President was talking about “bring ‘em on” and when they really showed up, we saw a steady decline in Sunni Shia relations in Baghdad. Ever wonder why that happened?

“American army in Iraq is haplessly trapped in the sectarian civil war. “

Haplessly trapped in Iraq? Sir, the united state President sent the army there and he can always withdraw them thus ending the state of haplessness. Have you ever tried to analyze why the US President won’t end the state of US army’s haplessness? The US army is not hapless in anyway in Iraq it is actively involved in escalating the violence and fighting. We read the reports that come out of Iraq every day. Perhaps you ignore them or don’t have the stomach to look at the Abu Gharib pictures.

“This kind of sectarian trouble was foreseen by President Bush Sr., who wisely had abstained from occupying Iraq in the first Gulf war. “

Could you please cite a reference which shows that Bush sr. had actually foreseen the Shia Sunni violence? It is a made up story and there is no evidence of any such thing. The fact of the matter is that the Bush sr. admin encouraged Shias to stand up against Saddam and then betrayed them in the face of the Saddam reprisal attacks against Shais in South Iraq.

“President George W. Bush ignored the sane advice of his father’s well-experienced advisers and went ahead to occupy Iraq.”

Sounds like you are following the myth that is created by the media that somehow Bush Jr. went into Iraq to finish the unfinished business. That is very simplistic. The Bush admin went in to Iraq with some specific purpose; the unfinished business meme is for simple people. A lot has been written about the real purpose of the attack and I see no reason to repeat all that here. You can do a Google search and find out what different analysts have said about it. But no serious minded person would ever mention the “sane advice” as there was none.

The US was in trouble in 2004 and since then we have seen different enemies emerge in Iraq and disappear. First they were dead Enders, then Insurgents, then Zarqawi and Alqaeeda, then Baathist, then Shia Sunni violence and now it is moving from the Mehdi army to Irani interference. Has it occurred to you why we seem to have new enemies every six months in Iraq?

Is it really the last gasp?


Besides many other considerations, here is one more that will help you understand what is at stake in Iraq now. In the last 230 years of the US history no US president has lost a war. The Vietnam War was officially over in Gerald Ford days, who was not an elected President. Nixon was removed on some trumped up and very cleverly designed charges and that saved him from losing the Vietnam War.

President Bush carries a heavy burden of the History on his not very bright shoulders. If he moves his armies out of Iraq, he will become the first American President to lose a war. Obviously, he and the people around him too would go down as losers in the US history. So the war will continue until the President leaves office. In the meantime, his only saving grace would be to escalate the war as much as possible, create enormous amount of chaos and if possible, extend the war to Iran so that the people asking to end the war are silenced.

The sectarian violence or the security issues are just some very convenient excuses. The surge and Rice aptly called it an augmentation is just a way to buy some more time. The effort to move the war towards Iran is also meant to buy some more time and keep at least one justification of the war going until the President’s term is over.

This admin is in desperate states and that is not good for the union. Have you had a chance to see or read Cheney’s interview where he talked about “enormous successes” in Iraq? Read that again until you figure out that he does not even consider Iran, Shia, Sunni or any other group as the real enemy but he claims the real problem are people who oppose the war.

#107 by hamidm2

The report you mention is correct. That procession was being guarded by a police party headed by the Police Chief. The bomber attacked the police party, and not the procession itself. Check out Pakistani newspapers today,

Abdul v/s Abdul...

Report: Saudi King says attempts to spread Shiite faith among Sunnis will not succeed

KUWAIT CITY: Saudi Arabia`s King Abdullah said in an interview published Saturday that attempts to convert Muslim Sunnis to the Shiite branch of Islam will not succeed, and that Sunnis would always make up the majority of the world Muslims.

Although Abdullah did not mention Iran by name, his comments — rare for the Sunni monarch — appeared aimed at easing Arab concerns over the Persian Shiite nation`s growing influence in the Middle East.

Arab media have claimed that Iran seeks to spread Shiism among the region`s predominantly Sunni Arab countries as a way of increasing Tehran`s political power.

``We are following up on this matter and we are aware of the dimensions of spreading Shiism and where it has reached,`` Abdullah told the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassah daily.

Re: # 106

zeemax,

....... based on the following, i don`t know about your conclusion .....

``Superintendent of Peshawar Police Zaibullah said the unidentified bomber detonated explosives strapped to his body when police stopped him from entering the procession, which was to be taken out from Qasim Ali Khan Mosque.``

......... i don`t have to wish for shia-sunni strife in pakistan - you guys have been killing each other for years ........

#104 by bulleya/ #97 by hamidm2

Correction. It has now been established that the bombing in Peshawar was not aimed at Shias, but at the police party led by the Police Chief in a targeted killing. Obviously the promised blowback of tribals.

Hamidm, sorry to dash your hopes. Much as you wish for a shia/sunni strife in Pakistan so they can kill each other instead of heading in your direction, it doesn`t appear to be happening as of now. Your boss Negreponte still has a lot of work to do before your dreams will come true.

#104 by bulleya on January 27, 2007 8:17pm PT


to the best of my knowledge, pakistan had never experienced suicide blasts, prior to it joining the US GWOT........the local shia-sunni terrorism has always been drive by shootings or bomb explosions....never suicide bombings......


Actually the suicide bomb blasts are the result of pakiland using islamic terrorism as a foreign policy tool..the paki army doesn`t have the balls to make kashmir banega pakiland so it sends jihadis to try what they`ve failed repeatedly at..

what? You didn`t hear?...the suicide bomber who blew up himself up in the marriot was a kashmiri (indigenous) freedom fighter..

Al-Furqan ‘involved in Islamabad bombing’

By Shakeel Anjum

ISLAMABAD: Sensitive agencies after a preliminary investigation believed that a militant group, ‘Al-Furqan’ led by Abdul Jabbar, was involved in Friday’s suicide bombing at the Marriott hotel.

Abdul Jabbar earlier belonged to Jaish-e-Muhammad (JM) and remained a close aide to Masood Azhar, the chief of JM. He later formed Al-Furqan after developing difference on the concept of Jihad, sources said. The sources said Abdul Jabbar was involved in the bombing at the Church in Taxila.

.......these suicide bombings are all a product of pakistan aimlessly joining the battle


Oh so NOW you think it`s aimless..after your business selling t-shirts with paki flags went out of business...a little more than 5 years ago you wanted to quit your job and join the American army in invading Afghanistan...

Capt Clueless: I don`t know if you`re deluded or stupid...surely even the most frikking deluded paki couldn`t have believed the whole t-shirt thing...if the t-shirt thing was an attempt at propaganda, you missed the memo..the idea of propaganda is to get the enemy to fall for it...not yourself...

hamidm2 mian: `` bomb blast in Pakistan`s north-west city of Peshawar has killed at least 15 people - mostly policemen including two senior officers........ i think it is about time you did some introspection under your gariban instead of looking under the bed for imaginary foes ........ stop playing the victim - it is pathetic .......``

to the best of my knowledge, pakistan had never experienced suicide blasts, prior to it joining the US GWOT........the local shia-sunni terrorism has always been drive by shootings or bomb explosions....never suicide bombings......

........these suicide bombings are all a product of pakistan aimlessly joining the battle that americans should be fighting, on their own.....i have never quite figured out why the rest of the world has to get involved in every war the usa gets into......is it ethically mandatory that all countries participate in wars the usa wants to start?.......why do such wars get labelled as, ``global`` wars.......

........its kind of like the, ``world`` series,`` and, ``world`` championships in the usa......the usa plays sports internally, yet the finals are called world series in baseball and other sports.......even though no other country is participating!!

.........ditto on wars........pakistan got involved in a usa war against ussr in afghanistan earlier.......and look what it did to pakistan......drugs, klashnikovs, taliban, madrassah culture, etc..............now it has jumped onto another one......and this phase includes suicide bombings in major cities........

its about time, pakistani policymakers realized that they should only concentrate on battles that pakistan is directly involved in.....let the palestinians and iraqis and americans fight their own wars......america has created a mess for itself, due to its support for israel and of arab dictatorships.......let america fight those wars.......

this isn`t a global war on terrorism.....it is an american war on terrorism.....all other countries are only becoming targets, if they join this war......why not just stay away from it.....since terrorism is being committed by usa and al-qaeda........why join either side?.....

Dear nasah:

Thanks for your correction also. I understand what you mean.

In fact, I started publishing at Chowk after I had published a few articles at Secular Web. The editor at Secular Web was very demanding and wouldn`t accept any article for publication unless it was thoroughly reviewed first both for content and composition. One of my articles was reviewed by a professional philosopher.

But I am quite receptive to positive suggestions.

``Haiy justjoo keh khoob sey haiy khoobtar kahan```

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

``wasiq:
Thanks for your advice. I`ll invest more time to write the articles.``(Dr. Gill)

Dr. Gill -- let me `correct` you too -- you could have written the last sentence as:
I`ll invest more time to the ``the placement of articles`` -- from Chowk to somewhere else.....:)

wasiq:

Thanks for your advice. I`ll invest more time to write the articles.

Mohammad Gill

Mr. Gill
Though I agree with your argument, I find the writing here to be quite mediocre. Sorry to say so, but you may want a more fluent English writer to help you a bit with editing, particularly the placement of articles (which are missing in many spots) and quite a few phrases are marred by awkward sentence structures.

#96 by freethinker

Agreed Sir.

The Muslim world will resolve itself. It`s just that it doesn`t need to be taught what to do. It knows what to do. It has seen enough ups and downs to have determined what is best in any given situation. That`s all.

Cheers.