open Democracy News Analysis - Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat, - Comments

RhodGates on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

RhodGates — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:23:30 +0000

Iraq will probably have the same fate as Cuba and Veitnam: sanctions and tabooness, once the occupiers are driven out.

alan.peterson on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

alan.peterson — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:58:56 +0000

New Zeal, One minor correction: "3. There was no continued violence following allied victories in Japan/Germany" Not entirely true. Although not to the same level, the last Nazi attack against allied occupiers in Germany occured in 1950, five years after the war ended. (It was a bombing)

New Zeal on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

New Zeal — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:17:16 +0000

The anger and dismay caused by 9/11 not being sufficiently assuaged, even after the attempt to settle accounts in Afghanistan with what has come to be known as Al Qaeda. Thus the US lashed out again by invading Iraq. In our country this is called Utu (revenge). If a strong Maori tribe beat a weaker tribe in battle, the weaker tribe would later go out and beat up an even weaker one in retaliation. Humans will always be humans. In this context we do not know how much Bush himself was politically motivated by Karl Rove’s electoral calculation with regard to the November, 2003, Congressional elections (there have been reports that Rove suggested that an invasion of Iraq would be seen favourably as strong leader’s action to pre-empt further terrorist activities against the US. It would be easy to depict Saddam Hussein as a demoniacal enemy. All human motivation is inherently complex and driven by an infinite number of stimuli. The important thing at this stage is to work out how to deal with the situation from here on. A demonstration of US military technological might which would not incur great cost in lives lost and would act almost as an Expo for its military prowess and thus intimidate potential rivals. In other words a real ‘war game’ that would be observed by military top brass of potential enemies or rivals and send a shiver through them. I think that the US was buoyed by its success in Desert Storm and wanted to play that game of victory again and be global heros. However they didn't think about the consequences of the invasion, which includes, in my view a clear expose of american military weakness, which Arab insurgents are now exploiting. I paint the withdrawal as a retreat, because insurgents/Islamists will paint it as a victory, and in many respects it will be. The mere presence of increasing disorder in Iraq is evidence of defeat for US aims. What is presupposed is that the US is facing relative decline as an economic power and is preparing to substitute military power in order to avoid being slowly submerged. As this occurs, other western nations have to take up the moral baton with regards to Iraq and the Middle East. If Matt's concept of 'liberal interventionism' is what I think it means, then European influence in Iraqi outcomes have to kick in at some stage. The prediction I am making in this thread is that it won't happen until the end of Bush's term at which point the 'defeat' will be fully evident, if not acknowledged. My prediction is, that the next US president will be more willing to work in with the UN and Europe and together stage a 'retreat' (using different terminology of course!) from Iraq and the rest of the ME in coordination with a programme of alternative energy production. China will need the ME more than the west because they are growing fast and because their technology belongs more to the fossil fuel age. Friction occurs between the rate of US (and the west)'s withdrawal from fossil fuel dependency and China's rise into the fossil fuel market. What happens to China after fossil fuels run out is anybody's guess.

san_1 on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

san_1 — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:23:32 +0000

The US should never think of leaving Iraq unless and until the trioka of OBL-Mullah Omar-Al Zawahiri is brought to justice. If O-M-As want that the US should leave Iraq or Afganistan as early as possible, they must end their so-called War against Kafirs and surrender. The ball lies in their court.

brolly3 on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

brolly3 — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:45:33 +0000

I am posting a response which I had prepared for another thread but think that it also has some relevance here. It is addressed to Matt Murrel, because of a comment he made. Matt Murrell, ["How anyone can look at the mess created in Iraq and still believe that those surrounding George Bush genuinely believe in spreading democracy and freedom is beyond me".] This is exactly the point. The motives of Bush and the neocons were, from the outset, suspect and events and evidence since the invasion confirms what was first thought by many. Your argument for 'liberal interventionism' is not inconsistent with decrying the invasion of Iraq. The criterion for ‘liberal intervention’ that I would apply is underlying motivation. On this count the US has disqualified itself by its actions. It has attempted to sell off Iraqi assets to foreign investors long before there was any widely based and properly legitimate Iraqi Government. It has taken billions of sequestered Iraqi Dollars and fed them to ‘rogue’ US contractors, many of which are cronies of its leadership. It has caused a large number of innocent deaths in Fallujah and elsewhere. It has attempted to install hand picked ex-patriot puppets like Ahmad Chalabi and Ayad Allawi. The problem of assessing motivation is often difficult because there are factors which we believe may have entered into the reckoning, in more or less degree, but we cannot know how much weight each one had. However I would maintain that on balance the motivation of the US was not what it proclaimed but far more sinister in its implications. A catalogue of the factors is as follows, although the order I have placed them in does not relate to any priority assigned. The anger and dismay caused by 9/11 not being sufficiently assuaged, even after the attempt to settle accounts in Afghanistan with what has come to be known as Al Qaeda. Thus the US lashed out again by invading Iraq. This enabled Bush to be seen as a strong war leader, who would take pre-emptive action against any State that could become a threat to US security. In this context we do not know how much Bush himself was politically motivated by Karl Rove’s electoral calculation with regard to the November, 2003, Congressional elections (there have been reports that Rove suggested that an invasion of Iraq would be seen favourably as strong leader’s action to pre-empt further terrorist activities against the US. It would be easy to depict Saddam Hussein as a demoniacal enemy. A demonstration that the US will come down heavily on any State that it suspects has connections with terrorist organizations. A demonstration of US military technological might which would not incur great cost in lives lost and would act almost as an Expo for its military prowess and thus intimidate potential rivals. In other words a real ‘war game’ that would be observed by military top brass of potential enemies or rivals and send a shiver through them. Much of the Bush and neoconservative aims and ambitions are spelt out in ‘Rebuilding America’s Defence’, which is part of ‘The Project for the New American Cantury’. See: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf I have quoted some significant extracts below with my comments in regard thereto: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein," says a relevant passage in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring American military presence" What are ‘enduring US security interests’ other than oil and Israel, although in the latter case, it could be considered to be as a large, self garrisoned US military outpost. "The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" Today’s economic rivals could easily become tomorrow’s ‘rogue’ states, with the support of a right wing media and the fear factor that can so easily be sown and cultivated in the US. One wonders how North Korea and Iran can undermine US leadership, given the relative size of their military forces. The reference here is to small States but the power that is really being implied here is China. What is clearly signalled is that the US will be the intimidator of any State that flaunts its will or might stand in the way of its economic interests. The US is girding itself up to deal with a time when it is in a real struggle for vital resources and markets, as other major powers move up alongside it in economic strength and are poised to overtake it. What is presupposed is that the US is facing relative decline as an economic power and is preparing to substitute military power in order to avoid being slowly submerged. "Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia". What exactly are US ‘strategic’ concerns in East Asia, if they are not the containment of China. How would the US feel if the Chinese positioned naval battle groups off the coast of California. “American military pre-eminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary". Once again the thought that arises after the ‘brainwashing’ of the American public, who were led to believe the Iraqis had WMD that were at the ready and that there was a direct connection between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, is how easy it would be to designate any regime as hostile and requiring removal in the interests of security. “America’s adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battle-field what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors". How much part was played by Jewish neoconservatives in influencing US foreign policy towards invading Iraq, with the ulterior motive of eliminating one of Israel’s enemies. A substantial number of signatories to PNAC, and authors of ‘Rebuilding American Defenses’ were Jews, most of who have connections to the Likud Party. Can there be much doubt that these same people would now like to see Iran humbled and a subservient ‘democratic’ government installed. As stated earlier, it is impossible to know the degree of influence that any one factor had in the decision to invade and occupy Iraq but we can be confident that 9/11 provided the opportunity.

New Zeal on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

New Zeal — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:47:11 +0000

ttrry, I used the word defeat because US aims in Iraq as follows have not been met: 1. No WMD 2. democracy and order not established 3. oil not pumping at pre-war levels You may not consider it a defeat at this stage, and Bush certainly isn't, and probably never will, but in a couple of years time his actions will probably speak as such. As I said, I think that the US will stay the course even after an election, because of all the ancilliary issues such as protecting US interests in the Middle East (spelt O I L). Although it won't be characterized by the administration as such, withdrawal from Iraq will essentially be a retreat from a situation that has proven more fraught with difficulty than first anticipated. That reality is already evident and the UK are pulling out the first 800 troops, not on the basis of any success but on the basis of getting-to-hell-out-of-there. A colonial occupier does not train an indigenous army to take its place, or stand down while local authorities hold three elections and a constitutional convention in one year to determine its own future. This is what Britain did in India, Malaysia, New Zealand and Australia to mention just a few of its ex-colonies. US and coalition presence in Iraq is comparable to Allied presence in Germany and Japan following WW2. Those commitments successfully turned two fanatic countries into model democracies. Both successes took longer than the current commitment in Iraq. Differences between Iraq and Germany/Japan are as follows: 1. Here the US is the aggressor doing the unprovoked invasion. 2. Iraq is the product of post-colonial arbitrary map drawing, while both Japan and Germany were hugely cohesive and nationalistic before the war. 3. There was no continued violence following allied victories in Japan/Germany 4. The US invasion has caused any prewar violence to escalate 5. While the "free west" fully supported the invasion of Japan/Germany, that is not the case in Iraq. Our allies in the Mideast (who far outnumber terrorist groups) would lose faith in our commitments if we let a few fanatics alter US policy Your allies in the ME didn't support the US invasion of Iraq, denying the use of airfields etc. Given that the aims of the invasion can only be considered to be defeated, then it seems appropriate to call the withdrawal a retreat. Fukuyama and Buckley have both already admitted defeat and have retreated from their previous pro-war positions. It's just a matter of time for the trickle up effect to reach Bush and the rest of the so called neo-cons.

Ttrryosborn on "Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat"

Ttrryosborn — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:03:40 +0000

NZ, GRADUAL DEFEAT? You think a presidential election would alter events in Iraq? Not at all. John Kerry would not have pulled US forces from Iraq if elected in 2004. You can forget that notion right now. He might have tweeked US presence a little, that is all. He would have definately stayed the course which Bush is following. Why is that? Because Iraq involves more issues than just itself. Let's look a just one. Our allies in the Mideast (who far outnumber terrorist groups) would lose faith in our commitments if we let a few fanatics alter US policy. Israel and most Arab governemnts have been fighting terrorists in their own midst for decades. They haven't collapsed, or changed policy. The US is a newcomer at this. Other governments in the Mideast would not trust our resolve in the future no matter who was in the Whitehouse. Democrats and Republicans may be tempted to use Iraq as a political football. That hardly means they would walk out on US interests and global interests just to get elected. GRADUAL RETREAT? You may like to think the US has assumed the role of a colonial occupier, but you haven't explained how. A colonial occupier does not train an indigenous army to take its place, or stand down while local authorities hold three elections and a constitutional convention in one year to determine its own future. US and coalition presence in Iraq is comparable to Allied presence in Germany and Japan following WW2. Those commitments successfully turned two fanatic countries into model democracies. Both successes took longer than the current commitment in Iraq. Military presence in both countries was much larger. Both countries were smaller in size than Iraq. RETREAT? US policy has always been to leave (not retreat)from Iraq. Painting it as something different is dishonest.

Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat,

New Zeal — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:37:51 +0000

Iraq: Gradual Defeat and Retreat The US is not going to pull out of Iraq in a hurry. Bushs aim is to stay the course whatever that might mean. It will take 2 years for the complex machinery of US democracy to replace him, and there is probably enough in the recent defense budget to keep things going for that long. The US can minimize GI casualties by focusing on training Iraqi military and supplying weapons and aerial support rather than conducting missions itself. Gradual defeat: it may take until the next presidential elections for the general consensus to be that US aims in Iraq were defeated, to replace the present administration and to change Iraqi policy. Read the rest of this post...