open Democracy News Analysis - The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq, Zaid Al-Ali - Comments

alfredo.bremont on "The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq"

alfredo.bremont — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:13:01 +0000

Iran must be let alone as it is the only nation that has some credibility and some reasonable stability.

it is simply a question of understanding. it is the peninsula the one that is in danger. Iraq, syria Lebanon, Jordan Israel Saudi Arabia. this is were the problem is and will be. that area is wild is a mess a total disaster and the chaos will gradually increase. poking Iran is a very dangerous mistake, the west will not win against Iran,but the real problem is stability as once Iran become unstable the whole of Africa and the orient will fall. Pakistan will crumble and the indo-chinese axes will be force to impose order.

Afghanistan is close to collapsing, and will certainly follow Iraqi's fate. the only hope is retreat change the picture and return with a new face a new policy and a new realm. there is no other choice, persistence will bear no fruit only disgrace.

alfredo.bremont on "The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq"

alfredo.bremont — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:53:37 +0000

the iraqi nightmare has no solution at the present time. the middle east has become a very large wild west, militias will probably keep their own territory and even Al-Queda might find it difficult to function on those conditions, were anyone is anyones enemy. the mess is not shrinking it is enlarging and vandalism, disorder chaos is everywhere from Lebanon to Baghdad via tel-avid and landing in riad. more precicely this area is barbaric, very wild uncontrollable. the action to take is to take all foreign troops out of the area, otherwise they will face such a chaos that they will be force to leave and never return.

however, the aim is not to leave the area, and hope for the best. but a wise retreat is a must! once that achieve them the return can be plan with a different face, but the actual picture must be erase before anything can be done.

alba909 on "The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq"

alba909 — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:02:59 +0000

The question is not what is good for the people of Iraq. The US has to be concerned about what is good the the US. The pratition will momentarly increase the level of violence. So what? This is not a problem of the US. Quite the contrary. When our enemies (shia and sunni) fight is is good for the US.

We should not mind the partition and move the troops at once to the Iraq - Iran border military bases. Once removed from the direct fighting in Iraq these forces will serve as a weapon ready to strike Iran if it does not plan ball with the nukes. Iran will most likely not play ball and these US forces should in a lightning strike move into Iran and destroy their nuclear capabilites. Once this mission is accomplished the US need to declare victory and move out.

NicoloM on "The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq"

NicoloM — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:43:15 +0000

Clear honest decisions can't be made in Iraq without a clear and honest understanding of why the US invaded.

On April 29, 2003, Rumsfeld flew to Saudi Arabia to announce the withdrawal of both the US military airbase and command center from Saudi Arabia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

From the Khobar Towers bombing through the 9/11 attacks, Saudis and Islamists had been demanding the withdrawal of the US military from what they regard as holy lands. On April 29, 2003 the 9/11 attackers' goal was achieved, so, by definition they 'won.' Certainly Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld knew they were conceding the 'terrorist' objective, and probably did so to prevent subsequent attacks (or significant attempts to attack) in the US.

The airbase and command center in Saudi Arabia had been necessary to enforce the 'no-fly' zone over Iraq which was a consequence of the botched conclusion of the 1991 war. By invading Iraq, the administration eliminated the need for the airbase and was able to withdraw the military. At the time, the administration's actions were concealed by other claimed justifications, which have proven false and unsubstantiated. Becasue of the dysfunctional corporate media, little attention has been given to what actually transpired in Iraq-- it enabled a strategic retreat from Sadui Arabia to prevent further attacks in the US.

Since Bush Sr., with the advice of Cheney and Robert Gates, decided to stop the first gulf war ground offensive at 100 hours without a coherent resolution or strategy, the military has known that it would need to eventually correct the situation. As late as 1999 it war-gamed an Iraq invasion and determined over 400,000 troops would be inadequate to clear and hold the country. Rumsfeld could not afford to delay the retreat from Saudi Arabia long enough to build a great enough invasion force to achieve those goals, and the administration was sure its fraudulent cover would not withstand the scrutinty which would result from adequate preparations. The military was sure it could finish the job since it was stopped in 1991, which was to topple Saddam, so those were the only orders given. Rumsfeld refused to allow debate of post invasion missions, so that no commander could object or request additional resources. For the administration or 2008 candidates like McCain to blame the military is absurd, and ignores the accountability of the fundamental breakdown of the media and the political system to ask the tough questions in 2002 when the Bush administration realized the 9/11 terrorists had them 'checkmated'.

So, the advertising slogans of the administration of 'pursuing terrorists in Iraq', 'winning', 'staying the course' or 'establishing democracy', were and are ad hoc Machiavellian political rationalizations-- which have led to a theocractic Iraq and civil war. Let's clear the air of false presumptions, so that we have an accurate understanding of why we are there-- a longstanding lack of a comprehensive and coherent policy in lands where we get substantial amounts of oil.

The nomination hearings for Robert Gates could provide the new Congress an ideal forum to sort out all the mistakes of the past 30 years of mytholigical thinking, like the chaotic stop to the first gulf war which resulted in the tradgedy of 9/11.

We purposefully ignore the shortcomings of the Saudi royals (and other the other oil rich aristocracies in the region) because of their investment in this country at our own peril. The Bush administration, including its allies like James Baker have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to oil barons, foreign and domestic, resulting in the concealment of this country's actions from the openess of democratic processes (secrecy is the natural foe of democracy). It's not just opening the Senate report on the Saudis and 9/11, it has current significance as well. The Saudi royals suffered a bombing of their production this past February, about which we were misled, and for which we paid over $3.00 per gallon for gasoline. See: Abqaiq's message to Washington http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/abqaiq_4080.jsp Any discussion of Iraq, necessarily involves a discussion of the region, and a discussion of Saudi Arabia and our port managers, the UAE.

So, Sidney Blumenthal is right, we may be on the verge of a Republican implosion, http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/implosion_4098.jsp because future candidates will face having to tell 'the emporer that he has no clothes' or be saddled with the frauds themselves. Right now, no one, Democrat or Republican has the guts to point out that by the actions of Bush Cheney Rumsfeld, the 9/11 terroirsts 'won', and they created a mess to allow it. Imagine when the Republican base understands that the administration gave in to terrorist demands and invaded Iraq to avoid further attacks here. Reality will bring the Rovian "Kitsch" crashing down.

bevandavies on "The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq"

bevandavies — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:37:41 +0000

Having yet another election in Iraq may or may not help to stabilize the country. It might also so enrage the militias and their supporters that true reform would become meaningless. Without a complete disarming of these groups, hardly likely in a country awash in arms, any solution will be difficult. The militias and extremists will continue to assassinate liberal politicians, leading to further bloodshed and more instability.

It is all well and good to have a code of conduct in Iraq, but with no teeth to enforce it, what will change, really?

Bevan Davies, New York City

Not logged in on "The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq"

Not logged in — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:13:51 +0000

The argument here seems to be: partition (a bloody affair) or new elections AND then a new constitution. My question: what role can or should the coalition forces have in promoting either option? Withdrawal favours the first; a temporary increase in troop levels might favour the latter if it made new elections less open to control by various militia. But for that to be at all realistic there would have to be a new mission statement for the Coalition presence; and more resources for reconstruction. Both are unlikely. Iain Orr biodiplomacy@yahoo.co.uk

The US votes: the road ahead for Iraq, Zaid Al-Ali

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0000

United States politicians are rethinking their options in Iraq. But would a new policy resolve or intensify the war? Zaid Al-Ali assesses Washington's evolving agenda. Read the rest of this post...