Lengthening Shadows of Iraq War

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Return of sadam,

There is imncreasing evidence that sadam is once again running iraq. Iraquis are being tortured in the same prison that sadam used, and even the instruments appear to be the same. Senior sadam ganerals are moving into falluja.
Then of course, the US soldiers are going to be prosecuted for war crimes. It may be time to remind about vietnam and american trial for war crimes, Leitanant Calley of Mai Lai massacre spent a very long prison term of TWO, I reapeat two, years for war crimes.

One should not forget the free world sense of crime and punishment

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re malik99 #41:

``No sir, all i am saying is that `rise in productivity` is not a true indicator of an expanding economy.``

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. As big as the US economy is, it is commendable that it is still expanding. A rise in productivity is definitely one of the indicators though it may not give the complete picture.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are undercapitalized, I agree. However they are in no danger of collapsing. Quiet moves are afoot to shore up their capital base. You`ll hear about them very soon. Keep in mind financial institutions have razor thin equity on their balance sheets. I doubt if Goldman or Merrill has more than 5%. That is why the assets and liabilities have to be closely matched. Things go out of whack when there is too much volatility in the markets. But the flip side is that more profits are generated when there is more volatility. As quasi-govt. agencies, fannie and freddie need to stop trying to make more money for their shareholders and hedge their balance sheet more strictly. Things are moving in that direction.

``The US economy is in much worse shape than is generally believed by the american public.``

This can lead to a whole new debate. However, I believe that American economy is on the upswing and things are looking up. Remember it takes two to make a market.

later
-sac

sac # 40 - you wrote ``What`s the alternative? Instituting 35 hour work weeks? ``

No sir, all i am saying is that `rise in productivity` is not a true indicator of an expanding economy.

Your observation about China / Japan supporting US (and their) economy by buying US bonds is correct. However, let me state my observation: The US economy is in much worse shape than is generally believed by the american public. If you are following the fine print in Wall Street Journal, you would notice that sometimes burried deep in its pages is occasionally a news about `reforms` at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you understand the criticality of these two instituitions, you will understand the devastating consquences the collapse of one of these two will have on US economy . The `reforms` are really being undertaken becuase there is a nervousness among economists and technocrats that these two instituitions are vulnerable. Remember the near collapse a few years ago of LTC (long term capital) which had to be saved by the intervention of US government? Well, Freddie and Fannie are more than 100 times the size of that.

- Z

re malik99 #38:

States can balance their budgets two ways. By asking the federal govt. for help or by cutting spending. You are right that most often they opt for the latter. Your observations are correct but the lessons you draw are not. States have been perpetually beset by revenue problems. Even during the roaring 90s many states were crying about declining revenues. It is a manifestation of lack of controls and management of govt. spending, not a reflection of a weakening economy.

````rise in productivity`` is a misleading indicator of economic recovery. It could very well mean that companies are squeezing more work out of a smaller work force. People may be working longer hours so as to keep their jobs.``

What`s the alternative? Instituting 35 hour work weeks?

I am sure your admiration for Mr. Krugman is not misplaced. But its probably a better bet to listen to people like Robert Rubin who`ve been bloodied in the trading pits of Wall St. than Lawrence Summers and Co. who can expound at length on the intricacies of Laffer`s curve but would have a hard time figuring out a put from a call. Academics have a tendency to paint a very convincing picture using facts and figures. They are on unsure ground when there are external linkages to the phenomena they are trying to explain that cannot be incorporated into their models.

Forget about Europe. It will take decades to set itself straight. China and Japan are more interesting but would need to open up to the outside world with greater transparency to get anywhere. In the meantime they`ll keep buying US bonds, keep their currencies artificially low to help their exports and let Uncle Sam fight all the necessary evil wars.

later
-sac

I had written an article on the Iraq war, before it started, predicting the mess that would occur. Just out of curiosity, I went back to see how the general Chowk view on the war turned out, in retrospect, from the comments in the replies section. I was surprised to see that most of the repliers had made a correct prediction, of US intentions, desires, and results of the war. The only exceptions I could find were the following”

Arjun_m:

“All these gloom and doom predictions will be a thing of the past one the US does go to war..”

tahmad:

“So, maybe you need to sharpen your arguments a bit, dont you think??”

hari:

“but the final outcome is always going to be good for the Iraqi people if the US were to declare Iraq as the 51st state.

Let us face it. Many citizens of many countries long for US ``invasion``of their countries and many of them already do without realizing it.”

So the Chowk crowd showed more foresight on this issue, than most of the US pundits........

sac # 29 - Yuo wrote ``Mr. Krugman is an academic and worse still an Economist. His musings should be taken with a grain of salt.``

and why exactly that makes him less credible?

Indeed you are correct that by law the states HAVE to balance their budgets. And they will. But where will the money come from? My initial argument that ALL 50 states are currently in red in correct. However, the states, in the absence of money, will balance their budgets by taking money away from social / education programs. Already the states are screaming that they don`t have enough money to implement the new security measures that federal government is mandating.

``rise in productivity`` is a misleading indicator of economic recovery. It could very well mean that companies are squeezing more work out of a smaller work force. People may be working longer hours so as to keep their jobs.

As for your europe and china argument, please read my post # 12. I argued in that post that UNTIL China and Europe become the economic powerhouse ``the world needs US to be economically strong`` for the world to itself prosper economically.

- Z

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Salaam Alaikum!

Hamidm2, my friend...

Iraq was neither a threat to his neighbors nor the world. Saddam functioned under two ``No Fly Zones``--he couldn`t even have antagonized the Kurds to the north. Every single time Saddam challeged the ``No Fly Zones`` he got pounded for it. Again, what threat did he pose?

Tell me this, when Saddam sent those scuds to Israel during the first Gulf War, why didn`t he send nukes on those warheads? Perfect time to take out those ole ``Yahoods``, right? Easy answer. Saddam enjoyed his control and power. Abdication was not an option, even at the expense of taking Israel out. Saddam realizes the gravity of such an offense, which is the same reason he wouldn`t take the initiative to attack the USA. Osama Bin Laden on the other hand has nothing to lose

Lastly, why Iraq? There are many governments that need ousting. If such was the premise for war, the USA would be at perpetual war--would they not? Not too many Americans would be fans of high spending on a war that is of no necessity.

Hakim

re:rozaiba # 15

Thanks for the correction.

re: hamidm2 # 32

As far the Iraqis and their fighting chances are concerned, the Americans have made a mess of it! lol

Ciao

Back to sadam,

At last the yanks have realised that most of the iraquis with some oraganisational and administrative capability are the bathists and military men. Last few months they have recruited some soldiers, now they have expanded to some generals, and the day is not far off when they will ring in sadam. There are now reports that sadam is advising the yanks what to do. That would be a real irony.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re malin99 #26:

Mr. Krugman is an academic and worse still an Economist. His musings should be taken with a grain of salt.

The reason I asked you about the 50 states being in red was that in actuality about 30 or so have less revenues than they forecasted earlier. By law(unlike the federal budget) state budgets have to be balanced. Hence the question of being in the red is academic at best.

As for your other two examples, they cut both ways. Statistics can be taken to draw any inference. If you are indeed correct that manufacturing jobs are on the decline, how would one read the following on manufacturing activity. This came out April 1st.

``The ISM index confounded expectations, rising by a point rather than falling significantly. Especially after yesterday`s Chicago PMI result, this must have come as a shock to many. I didn`t think the ISM would fall by much, but I am still quite surprised that it managed to increase. The composite measure has now been above 60 for 5 straight months, the first such string in 20 years, and 62.5 has historically corresponded to 7.2% real GDP growth. By component, new orders and production essentially maintained the robust pace of increase registered in February. Employment, which had already recorded a 16-year high in February, rose further from 56.3 to 57.0. This is the 5th straight above-50 reading, and I`m hoping that this is finally the month when factory payrolls break into the black.``

If number of jobs are falling but activity is rising, it would lead one to conclude that productivity and efficiency is on the rise. Wouldn`t you think that is a hallmark of an expanding service economy like the US?

As for your example about employment numbers the less said the better. Give me any statistic(CPI,consumer confidence etc.) and I`ll be happy to give you the results you want after taking out the ``irrelevant`` items. For instance you wanted to remove California supermarket numbers and I`d like to add auto sales and gas prices to the CPI!

As for Europe,China and Japan picking up the slack. Just think about this. What do these countries have in common that contributes to their prosperity? Its the giant US economy without which they cannot even dream of economic well-being. What makes you head to New York and not Tokyo to realize your dreams?

All this brouhaha about Bush and neo-cons misses the point as everyone did in the Reagan years. Who could have imagined the roaring 90s when the US went from the biggest creditor to the biggest debtor nation? We are at the same inflection point in history. The Middle East needs a thorough cleansing which it has shown it is incapable of doing from the inside due to the corrosive effects of a largely static religion. There is a lot of pain and suffering ahead for the Muslims and in the end, kicking and screaming they`ll have to be dragged into the 21st century.

later
-sac

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

i can`t believe it!


…….i simply can’t believe that you guys want to deny the poor iraqis the best chance they have had at a decent government since hamurabi ………in five years from now iraq could well be the first democracy in the arab world ……… my only fear is that the americans will not stay there long enough to finish the job and clean up the rest of the neighborhood …………..the only mistake george bush made was in going through the charade leading up to the war …………..instead of going on about wmd and terrorism he should have simply said, “ we are faced with the biggest threat to civilization since communism and we are going to start the clean-up process in iraq and then move on to syria and iran and then to saudi arabia “………… unfortunately the disease has spread far beyond the arab heartland and it will take more than america to clean up the mess ...

“At least 30 died in a raid on a mosque where they were taking refuge from clashes with the army, officials said. Others died during scuffles near police bases, which the attackers stormed in a series of co-ordinated attacks.” ……….no, this is not about iraq – it is today’s fresh news from thailand (thailand?….. go figure)

We should not have gone in.

But can America leave now?

This could take a long time.....

Are the November elections going to

have an impact?


Ras

Isphani Sahib is totally off trak beating with unifocal intensity.
For you consumption the Trinity of Clausewitz is PEOPLE (Social) OPERATIONS)Military) and GOVERNMENT. All three combine to make strategy for war. This is not the Trinity of Christians.
At best, it is prudent not to read your interacts.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

sac # 20 - you asked me to provide the source of statement that all 50 states budgets are in red, as well as what cosmetic changes are being applied to the US economy to make it look good for the november election.

My major source of this information is Princeton University economics professor Paul Krugman who writes a regular column for New York Times. I am not sure if you have ever read him, but he has a large following among the folks interested in the political - economic outlook of US.

As for the `cosmetic` changes to economy and the depressed economic indicators i referred to in my previous post - well, let me give you a few examples:

- One of the closely watched job growth sector in US is manufacturing. Month after month Bush administration has been hammered by the bleak manufacturing job growth report. So guess what the administration`s economy architects did? They `reclassified` jobs. In simple terms, this means that the jobs which previously were NOT considered to be manufacturing jobs are now included in the manufacturing sector to boost the manufacturing job growth numbers. But here is the best part : burger flipping which was previously considered a `temporary` or `seasonal` job is now considered a MANUFACTURING job !!!! The reasoning that was given was that making of a burger is actually manufacturing of burger. So guess what happened? The February 2004 jobs report that came out showed a HUGE boost in the manufacturing jobs. Administration touted its economic policies (and not the job re-classification) as the reason for this boost.

- Another brazen attempt of applying cosmetic changes to the economy is the March jobs report. This report blew away all estimates and indicated that some 325,000 new jobs were created in US for that month alone. Administration was euphoric in claiming credit for this upsurge. However, once you parse into these numbers you realize that the job growth was just as bleak as ever. There was no mention in administrations touting that one factor that contributed to this boost was the end of the California supermarket workers strike which brought back close to 40,000 workers into the jobs. There was also no mention of the fact that the jobless claims had actually RISEN ! Somewhere hidden in the report was the ``re-statement`` of administrations` earlier claims that 2.2 million new jobs will be created by the end of this year. The new figure (which i do not remember at this time) is now much more conservative and modest than 2.2 million.

- Social spending has been cut drastically to help pay for the defense and other expenses. This has resulted in increase of population under the poverty level (set at $25, 000 / year income). Education programs have been curtailed resulting in dissatisfaction among teachers (and hence teachers` union`s endorsement of Kerry). ``No Child Left Behind`` program spearheaded by administration is really a `cosmetic` good-news touch to a deepening crisis in america`s public school education.

I can keep going, put perhaps that should give you an idea of what I was referring to in my previous post about `worrisom` economic indicators.

Zain Malik

malik99 #19: My intentions were not to state that the neo-cons agenda was a noble one. It obviously wasn`t. I was trying to point out that even if we assume that it was, even then, the results are negative.

I do not know much about Brahimi. Thanks for the information.

The USA is truly caught between a rock and a hard place. People like Richard Pearle, and many of the war-supporters on this site, are slowly trying to drift away from their initial stances, and trying to get lost in the crowd. One rarely hears them shouting at the top of their lungs now.

They should still be held accountable.

Once an insurgency reaches the stage it has reached in Iraq, it is undefeatable. If the occupying power uses force, it kills more people, and turns more of them against itself. If it does not use force, then it becomes vulnerable. It is impossible to control such insurgencies, even in invasions like the USSR`s in Afghanistan, which weren`t televised to the whole world.

I think the USA leadership is either in a state of denial, or it is playing the game solely for the next elections. George Bush isn`t even ready to testify to the 9/11 commission by himself. That is how vulnerable he feels. He needs Dick Cheney along with him. During his, ``rare`` live press conference with the reporters, he actually stated that the USA would still find WMDs in Iraq.

One would have to assume that the President of the USA cannot be that stupid. So he must be trying to position himself for the next elections. This requires acting tough in Iraq. Keeping the US soldiers there, regardless of what happens. Linking it again and again to terrorism. And trying to scrape away as much of the Israeli lobby from the Democrats, as possible.

One has to say that Bush has played his election statistics, well. Despite the huge blunder and failure in Iraq, and despite the record budget deficit and extremely slow job growth, he is still neck and neck with Kerry. With his recent deal with Sharon, he should be able to raise the Jewish vote for Republicans, above 33%.

Once he is elected, he cannot be removed for anything he did or did not do in Iraq. It could then turn into an even bigger mess. If Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran start getting involved in it, like Pakistan, India, Iran and others got involved in Afghanistan, then Iraq has had it.

The hatred against the USA in Muslim countries is so high now, that if the neo-con brigade is not stopped, the only groups that will get votes in Muslim countries will be anti-USA religious parties. Osama Bin Laden could not have scripted the situation better, i.e. carry out a terrorist act against the USA, and get the USA to terrorise and destroy a country that had nothing to do with the original terorrist attack.....

I used to consider Arabs the most defeated and cowardly group in the world. Ever since the insurgency has taken hold, I now have a new found respect for them. It will be interesting to see how the USA handles a democratically elected Shia and anti-USA clergy in Iran and one in Iraq.

An intriguing question to ask here would be: Had american government knew before the start of the war what they know now, that is, stiff resistance from Iraqis, collapse of `coalition`, 700 plus american soldiers dead, billions of dollars spent, fewer revenue from occupied iraqi oil, shiite resistance - would americans have still gone to war?

I will put my neck on the line and say YES, they would have still gone to war. For the ideologically driven neo-cons, no price was big enough to achieve their strategic goals. EVEN if, a big IF, the americans are ``defeated`` in the war, they have still managed to ravage a progressive, educated, modern, and secular Iraq to a point that it would not be a threat to Israel for a 100 years. They have also eliminated a regime which was beginning to trade its immense oil wealth in euros, rather than dollars. They have also managed to put american oil companies back in business, who were losing billions to their european rivals by not being part of the Iraqi oil business.

While there is no telling what direction these events will take, it is not entirely inconceivable that when Americans DO leave, Iraq and middle east as we know today will not be there. Iraq, an artificial country brought into existance by lumping together heterogenous groups of people, could very well be divided again into separate countries to help US continue the British policy of divide and conquer.

The sad truth of all this is that it were these very same arabs which at the instigation of British rose up against Ottomans to demand their independence. They did get their independence from Ottomans as promised to them by British, but little by little they lost their freedom.

Zain Malik

romair # 17: You wrote: ``Even if we assume the best and noblest intentions of the neo-cons (their noble aims were to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, in a domino affect). ``

Let me correct you: this may have been their STATED aim, but never really an actual aim and hence nothing noble about it.

You wrote ``I think Brahimi has the right idea. He may form a govt. of technocrats``

Let me again correct you :) that Brahimi is really a cover for US face saving. He has full blessing and backing of US. If you remember, he, not Kofi Annan, was mentioned by Bush during his recent press conference.

By the way, did you know that Brahimi`s daughter, Rym Brahimi - who also happenend to be CNN correspondent in IRAQ during war before getting kicked out for biased reporting by Saddam, is now getting married to the crown prince of Jordan - that other US protectorate? Its funny how ``close knit`` this circle of power is becoming :)

- Z

re mailk99 #12:

``Currently, for the first time in US history, ALL 50 states` budgets are in red``

Please supply the source of this statement.

``While cosmetic changes are being applied to an already battred economy to make it look good in time for November elections, the fact remains that most of the economic indicators in US are worisome.``

What are some of these cosmetic changes? What are the economic indicators that are worrisome?

later
-sac

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#16 by knowledge123

``As I have howled before, the war was thus peddled on what I call the eternal 3-slot revolver (Al-qaida connection, Weapons of Mass destruction, and lastly Saddam`s nefarious reputation). Thus, two out of the three are highly speculative, at best. The final of the trinity was obvious, but Saddam is hardly unique and the only ``obvious evil.``

If you have based your assessment of the Iraq issue on the “stated” reasons of the war then I am afraid you will make a mistake in the result of the war too.
The rationale of the war was none of the above. They had propaganda value and everybody knew there was no truth to them well before the war.

In one of his speech way before the 2nd Gulf War, Bill Clinton raised three points in a ME policy statement:

-Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world.
-This (Iraq) situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf.
-Protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saudi Arab and Israel are the two pillars of US policy in the ME.
The purpose of Iraq war was to provide protection to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and secure the oil lines (US national Interest) Israel and Saudi Arabia were mortified at Iraq’s influence on the radical Arabs.

Saddam was the biggest financier and arms supplier of the Palestinian authority after most of the Arab countries had withdrawn financial support of PLO and he was a financial supporter of Hammas. Thus the US claim that Saddam was supporting terrorism. Saddam was supporting suicide bombers against Israel. Israel considered Hammas as a terrorist organization. The alleged link to Alqaeed was a roundabout way of saying that Saddam supported terrorism. Of course the US govt. knew Saddam had no link to Alqaeeda but he certainly had links to Hammas, which is a terrorist organization. The US could not have co-opted the Israel cause as its own in Public thus the propaganda of alqaeeda link.

Before the first Gulf War when Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait, the most likely country under Saddam’s threat was Saudi Arabia. It was felt in Saudi Arabia, in Israel, and in the US that Saddam’s next target would be Saudi Arabia and if immediate actions were not taken, it would be hard to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam. The first gulf war took place to eliminate threat against Saudi Arabia.

Later on it transpired that removal of Saddam was the only way to remove threat from Saudi Arabia and Israel conclusively.

A major plank of alqaeeda was the US force stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf war. That issue was causing political and religious problems for the house of Saud. Until Saddam was in place in Iraq, The US could not move those forces from the Saudi soil. Yet another reason to remove Saddam.

So four clear reason to remove Saddam
1. Provide protection to Saudi Arabia- the most important reason.
2. Provide protection to Israel and remove the financial and Arms support of PLA and Hammas.
3. Remove US forces from Saudi Arabia to provide breather to House of Saud.
4. Secure oil lines to the west.

The US forces would remain in Iraq until:
All threats to Saudi Arabia have been eliminated.
The PLA and Hammas resistance is broken so that Israel is protected.
A govt in Iraq is in place that would protect Oil lines.

jiyajale#9: The Americans have already prevailed. They are easily the most powerful group in Iraq. The number of Iraqis killed ranges between 10 and 15 thousand. The number of Americans killed is between 500 to 750. So for every American killed, there are around 20 Iraqis killed. This indicates a domination by the Americans.

However, the above is normal for insurgencies, freedom movements and civil wars against occupying forces. Soviets killed 1 million Afghans, and only lost 25000 of their own, yet lost the war. The number of Vietnamese killed were far higher than the number of Americans. Yet Americans lost.

This was a 100% political war. All wars are political, at a high level, but one has to take into account the miltiary aspects, as well. I can make a bet that the US Generals were telling their political leaders not to get involved in this. It is well known that the only one key cabinet member, with major combat experience, Colin Powell, certainly was.

George Bush seems motivated more by a religious destiny and a simplistic division of good and bad, than by human rights, laws and practicalities. He happened to have surrounded himself by neo-cons, who are all prominent in their connections with Israel. This group together was able to get the US population`s approval, by using 9/11 as an excuse, to launch this war.

American population knows next to nothing about Iraq. And hence bought any story provided to them, on why the war had to be fought. In fact, it is only after the insurgency has taken hold, that the Democrats are opposing the war. In principle, they all voted for it.

On top of this, Bush has approved every single UN violation by Sharon, including his recent declartions on West Bank. Obviously, this will furthur infuriate the Arabs, against the USA, creating more problems for the USA. However, it will allow Bush to get more than the 33% Jewish vote that the Republican party currently gets.

Bush and the Republicans (and the Democrats) aims revolve around getting elected. Not around what is better for the Iraqis. Or for the Americans, for that matter. I think Americans are greatly underestimating the mess this leadership has gotten them into, for the long term.

This is the worst kind of war, for the Americans. They have won it, and cannot win it more than they already have. Yet they are still losing........

Ferozek #13: I think you are correct.

The USA has encouraged direct elections in Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan`s security situation is much worse than Iraq`s. Karzai`s hold is only over Kabul. Yet the USA is pushing for direct elections. The reason is that in those elections, there is a chance of a pro-USA govt. coming into power.

In Iraq, the infrastructure, communications system, and society in general, is quite a bit more sophisticated than in Afghanistan. Yet the USA is encouraging indirect elections. The reason is obvious. It does not want a Shia clergy coming into power. Which is exactly what is going to happen, through direct elections. The only organized group in Iraq is the clergy. And Al-Sastani is just one member of it. The USA may kind of be OK with him. But he won`t be there forever. The site of a united Iran and Iraq, under Ayatollahs isn`t exactly why the USA fought this war. But this is what they have ended up producing.

Maulvis are quite difficult to manipulate for the USA, than the more Westernized and secular leaders, like Mubarak or Saddam or Abdullah (or Musharraf, for that matter). This is why the only dictatorships that the USA has alliances with in the region, are all non-maulvi.

This also shows that one cannot just snap one`s fingers and introduce democracy. Even if we assume the best and noblest intentions of the neo-cons (their noble aims were to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, in a domino affect). All dictators were going to fall, once Iraq was democratized. So we heard.

Now they are realizing that there first have to be the pre-requisites of democracy. Those cannot just be introduced through an election. Regardless of what kind of election the USA holds, there will be trouble. Damned if you do, and damned if you don`t, for the Americans and the Iraqis.

If Americans leave, they leave with their tails between their legs, as a defeated nation. That will be the death of the neo-cons, and a big blow to the Israeli lobby. Hence they will be arguing hard against that. If the Americans stay, they will get involved in a civil war, that none of the their soldiers wants to be a part of. The more Iraqis they kill, the more powerful the resistance will become.

If direct elections are held, the Shias will win big time. What happens after that? The Kurds have stated openly that they don`t want to give up the autonomy they are enjoying. The Shais will want them to give it up.

If indirect govt. is formed, the Shias will be upset, because they will have to give up their majority right of ruling the country.

This is why giving too much emphasis to just the act of elections is a huge mistake. The Americans would have been better off trying to judge the pulse of the people. Had they done that, they would have realized that the Iraqis did not want them there in the first place. Iraqis may hate Saddam, but they hate Americans equally.

I think Brahimi has the right idea. He may form a govt. of technocrats, initially, which will not include the USA propped Chalabis. These guys need to be seen as neutral Iraqis. They should then be provided with UN security forces from Muslim countries, and allowed to stablize the country a bit. Get the electricity running, security in place, etc. After that, Iraqis will have to figure out how they are going to form a govt.

It will be interesting to see how democratic Iraq is ten years from now, after some sort of elections are held. My guess is Iraq`s chances of being a democracy are less than Iraq`s chances of breaking up into Shia, Sunni and most prominently Kurdish blocks. The US invasion has created a scenario, where everyone, including the USA is going to be at the losing end. The only winner maybe Iran.

Anyways, the Americans got what they deserved.....Hopefully, this will put a lid on the neo-cons....

Salaam Alaikum

There is no doubt that the Bush Administration laid a big egg. Everything went wrong with the pre-conceived planning for the war whether it was Bushes statement that the serious phase was over or whether it was poor implementation of US troops in Iraq or lack thereof. (Donald Rumsfeld sees no problem with low count number of troops despite the extrovert criticism and barks) Then again, The Bushites will continue to deny that the War on Iraq was a false move.

As I have howled before, the war was thus peddled on what I call the eternal 3-slot revolver (Al-qaida connection, Weapons of Mass destruction, and lastly Saddam`s nefarious reputation). Thus, two out of the three are highly speculative, at best. The final of the trinity was obvious, but Saddam is hardly unique and the only ``obvious evil.``

(a) There is no linkage between Iraq and Al-qaida.

(b) There has yet to be any unearthing of this Iraqi weaponry that is redolent of a nuclear Holocaust.

(c) Saddam was no doubt an impregnated evil but he was hardly the only one. If the premise is that the USA must liberate the world from despotic regimes, why did Rumsfeld make a visit to Uzbekistan and deliver an estimated $12 million dollars while offering no form of criticism against the Uzbekistan president who has hitherto tortured his people with boiling methods? Saddam tactics, is it not?

I`m looking for a concise response from a war supporter who can give a bulk of confidence and assurance rather than remain like my conservative friends and colleagues and play dumb at the issue.


Ends

Ferozk:

Total Vietnamese casulaties during the sixties and seventies were about 4 million (source: Bowling for Columbine documentary).

The point of Ali Sistani refusing to have indirect elections needs to be stressed. This as you point out was the MAIN reason there is such great conflict between Bremer and Ali Sistani.

Fauji-lovers LOVE indirect elections if they are held in Pakistan as indirectly elected officials are easy to manipulate. Yet they will criticize American attempts to hold such elections in Iraq. It is one of the many hypocritical stances one sees with Fauji-Lovers. When it comes to Pakistan, Fauji-Lovers shed all forms of idealism and fair-play.

I am not a big fan of Fauji-Lovers.

malik and feroz:

good posts!...cannot add more

re: jiyajale # 9

Coalition forces may prevail in the end, as you say.

At the end of the Vietnam War during the Paris peace talks, an American colonel told a Vietnamese major that the United States did not lose a single battle. The Vietnamese agreed and asked the American a question and then added, ``Does it matter? You are leaving Vietnam.`` Wars are not about military power, but wars are politically won and the United States has lost the political war in Iraq. If you lose the political peace, no amount of winning the military peace will ensure a success for you in the final analysis.

Al-Sistani understands compromise? Do the Americans understand what compromise is?

Al-Sadr was able to undermine Al-Sistani, because Al-Sistani was discredited by the Americans in terms of politics. The problem of the present debacle in Iraq rests in the terms of the handing over of power to Iraq and the creation of a new Iraqi constitution. Bremer and the Iraqi Provincial Authority wanted to hand pick a governing council, which would make up the new Iraqi constitutent assembly and draft the constitution, after which elections would be held in Iraq.

Al-Sistani disagreed with Bremer and wanted direct elections to pick the Iraqi constitutent assembly, which would write the new constitution. Bremer refused the demands for direct elections and insisted on indirect elections and neither Bremer or Al-Sistani were willing to compromise and when Bremer vetoed Al-Sistani and announced indirect elections, Al-Sistani lost to the radical Shia clerics.

Shias had always refused to join with the sunnis and as long as the shias were non-violent, Iraq was not a problem and the sunni rebellion in the north could have been handled smoothly. The American rebuke to Al-Sistani created a sunni-shia nexus, which Al-Sadr benefitted from and in process, what was a minority based resistence against the Americans morphed into a national insurgency in Iraq. The support for a national insurgency comes from not a sense of nationalism, but from feelings of patriotism towards the country. The Kurds, to the north, are not involved in the anti-American insurgency, which implies that it is not national in its scope. Yet.

In this sense, I agree with Al-Sistani that direct elections were a better choice and were a more democratic option than the indirect elections favored by Bremer, which were not overly democratic in their intent. Does Al-Sistani know how to compromise; no he does not, but then again, he could not because that would have simply poured gasoline on the fire, which was alreading burning in Iraq. The United States is already quibbling over the date of the power hand power and is now hinting that it might be delayed.

The troops from Spain are pulling out and two thousand additional British troops are heading towards Iraq and the Americans have started talking about re-hiring the former Baathist soldiers and bureaucrats to keep the fragile peace from shattering completely. The United States is making ``deals`` witht the former Butchers of Baghdad and what will the average Iraqi think of these acts of the Great Liberating Army of the Potomac? The way things are progressing or regressing, depending on your point of view, one day the Americans might just re-install Saddam Hussein in power and ask to him bring peace to Iraq!

The root cause of the Iraqi insurgency is in the sharing, or lack of it, of the political power.

Body counts of dead insurgents are not going to win the war. The Vietnamese lost a million men and still won the war and the United States lost nearly 60,000 and still lost the war. Remember; peace is a political phenomena not a miltary gurantee.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

War in Iraq is perhaps the biggest foriegn policy debacle in the history of US. As ill cocieved a war as Vietnam was, it still had more palatable logic than the Iraq war. Iraq has tied down a bigger percentage of US military than the Vietnam war did (when the US military size was larger)

Having said this, there is a very remote chance that US will suddenly and completely disengage itself from Iraq. So much prestige, rhetoric, political and economic capital has gone in this war that any step which can be construed as weakness on american part will devastate american influence and leverage on the international stage and may result in severe economic decline.

A big question that has not been adequately addressed is, why a pacified Japan after 50 years has suddenly jumped into a war? Here in lies the clue to the consequences of an american ``defeat`` in Iraq. If US were to be perceived as ``defeated`` in Iraq, the confidence in american world leadership in general and its economic strength in particular will be irrevocably shaken. American currency, already on decline, will continue to do so. Currently, for the first time in US history, ALL 50 states` budgets are in red. While cosmetic changes are being applied to an already battred economy to make it look good in time for November elections, the fact remains that most of the economic indicators in US are worisome. Only the US consumer riding on a strong real estate market has kept the economy afloat. Personal and corporate bankruptcies, as well as foreclosures are at all time high. Japan being the biggest trade partner of US cannot afford to see US decline economically. A decline in US economy will result in much more painful decline in Japanese economy.

My conclusion is this: until and unless Europe and China emerge to lead the world economically, the world needs US to be economicaly strong. With that in mind, europe, China and other countries will eventually help US in Iraq, most likely by bringing in UN (as evidenced by american approval of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi`s efforts to forge a caretaker government). US and Japan being the first and second biggest economies of the world, their alliance in Iraq war is understandable - given the high stakes. A decline in one`s economy will result in the decline of other, and will have a domino effect on the economy of the rest of the world.

Zain Malik

American and coalition forces are being very careful in their hunt of insurgents. Today 50 insurgents died. The insurgents are hiding in the mosques, where if the troops went would cause a negative opinion of them in Iraqis` minds. Radicals are resisting us, but i have got this blind belief, even though this war was based on a lie, that American and coalition forces would prevail in kthe end. This fat guy Sadr is really an asshole. Sastini is better, at least he understands what compromise means.

The war in Iraq is going, as it was imagined and that is, it is progressing beyond the expectations of many people. Some nights ago, I saw the Battle of Algeria. I also thought about Dien Bien Phu not for its military value, but for its symbolic sense.

There are news coming out of Iraq and there are reports coming out of Iraq. If anyone is interested, read the following articles at: http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/index.php

That is a war, which is not covered by the news papers and not shown by the TV.

Ciao

I feel all three perspectives are far far away from reality. USA has created a mess. Middle East in particular and Muslim world in general will suffer the after shocks of this expeditionary adventure for a long time to come.

There is a major flaw in the US post Cold War security strategy. It sees its armies as expeditionary, ever ready to intervene for its interests termed as economic, freedom, democracy and anti terrorism. For Iraq the raison detre was WMD and Terrorism; albeit both false premises. In the meantime, the invasion of Iraq was war gamed playing invariably on the Shia Sunni divide. The eagle has landed on a sticky surface and stuck knee deep. US economic interests and pride are too high to accept a quick volte face. It has pitched the information age Maximilist forces with a rag tag highly motivated Minimalists
in full fury in the urban areas of Iraq in which the would be allies ie Shia have turned out to be the enemy. Disregarding the Doctrine of Trinity put forth by Clausewitz will extract a heavy price. Already, allies have begun jumping the boat.

It can also be said that when shadows of war lenghten and friends begin to forsake, there is something seriously flawed with the legitinacy of the conflict. Only Iraqis can now decide when the conflict will end. No Un, no OIC and to say the least, no USA.

More than high tech and whatever other military jargon, this is a WAR OF HATE.

The situation in Iraq is tragic, for the amount of human sufferings there is enormous. Lives of the brave Iraqis dying to protect their homeland from foreign invasion are as sacred as those of the US marines dying in the line of duty. Both are dragged into a war based on WMD lies by a cowboy from Texas. And as they are engaged in fierce battles, that once-prosperous country is turning into ruins, reminding one of whatever happened to Afghanistan during the last two decades. Ultimately, the US will have to set priorities, and may have to choose between domestic economic recovery and foreign military misadventures. In future, a sensible decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq would also help in toning down the unnecessary hype around terrorism to somewhat realistic levels.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I hope this will help people understand what Iraqis are up against.

Please turn up the volume to hear the conversion. The link is safe.

There were many of us who had predicted the current mess in Iraq. At that time, their was a group that was touting USA`s noble objectives. I wonder if all of them are now willing to accept blame for the mess.

Superpowers, or even regional powers, never spend so much money and so many lives, for the betterment of others. Anyone who believes that, is extremely naive. They do so for their own long term benefits. The problem is that those with unconditional faith in the USA`s nobility are as fanatic as those with unconditional faith in OBL. An even bigger problem is that neither are willing to accept their fanaticism.

The Iraqi resistance deserves a lot of credit. It has stopped the neo-con brigade dead in its tracks. Otherwise the neo-con brigade was going to run over any country that is a real or perceived threat to Israel. Iraq never threatened the USA.

Superpowers need to get a bloody nose, everytime they venture out on such adventures. Hats off to the Iraqi resistanence. The democrats in the USA would still be supporting this war, if the Iraqi resistance had not shown their teeth.

There has been a modern war on in and around Iraq for decades now. The players keep changing sides and forging fresh alliances as well as parleying fresh enmities, that`s all.

Take ALL the countries in the region. Take the last 25 years. See how, at any one time, they have been either enemeies or friends.

Meanwhile, the tankers keep loading, sailing and returning in ballast as the natives go progressively poorer and lesser educated.

“... a peaceful solution can hopefully bring a degree of normalcy in the traumatic Middle East.”

Peaceful solutions after thousands have died? There is no peaceful solution to Iraq now.

Thomas Friedman is a pompous pig and can change his mind in the wink of an eye. Maureen Dowd is a nut. The problem with both Maureen and Tom is that they have to rely on information to write something. Their credibility is next to nothing. At least, Dick Clarke has the ability to assess the situation due to his experience in the trenches.

There are not enough voices in the US admin or in Congress barring may be Ron Paul and that presidential candidate from Ohio against this fiasco. From Scary Kerry to the last peon in the congress, all agree that more troops need to be sent to Iraq. More troops mean more fighting and more killings.

What I ponder on is: whether scary Kerry is a smart face of Bush or a pseudo candidate destined to lose!