Questions about Iraq
Post-invasion iraq - - Posted on April, 9 at 12:32 pm by Ken L
Another of the think tanks that infest the USA, the somewhat ironically named United States Institute for Peace, has released a report about the Iraq war occupation problem (Iraq risks becoming the US version of ‘the Irish question’ that bedevilled UK politics for a century or more). The report is notable for a couple of things.
First, it sets out the ‘five paramount interests’ that ‘U.S. policy in Iraq should aim to serve’:
* Prevent Iraq from becoming a haven or platform for international terrorists
* Restore U.S. credibility, prestige and capacity to act worldwide
* Improve regional stability
* Limit and redirect Iranian influence
* Maintain an independent Iraq as a single state
It’s interesting that bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East doesn’t rate a mention. In fact the implications for the Iraqi people are absent from the whole report. Securing a supply of increasingly scarce oil for the USA doesn’t get a guernsey either, so I guess the Bush Administration might not endorse these alleged objectives. That in turn raises the obvious question: just what are the objectives of the war occupation ‘commitment to Iraq’? It speaks volumes for the dishonesty and lies and sheer incompetence that have marked the Iraqi exercise from the outset that even now, more than five years after it began, it has no clearly specified goals. All kinds of people support it but they do so for all kinds of different reasons.
The report concludes by suggesting 14 questions that Congress might like to ask the Iraqi regents Crocker and Petraeus. Here’s a selection:
- When can we expect Iraqi security forces to take over responsibility for security throughout the country?
- Is it wise to continue to try to strengthen the central government, or should we focus more on local governance?
- The question of U.S. bases in Iraq is a sensitive one throughout the region. Have plans been made and funds requested for transfer of our current bases over to Iraqi authorities? Are there plans for a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq?
- The surge has had some success, but the Administration is still arguing that we need to stay in Iraq. If the absence of progress means we must increase our forces and progress means we must stay, under what conditions will we be able to withdraw the majority of our combat forces from Iraq?
- There appear to be fewer insurgents infiltrating from Syria and fewer attacks using Iranian-origin weapons against U.S. forces, at least until recently. Are Syria and Iran cooperating more in helping to stabilize Iraq? If so, why?
- How can we obtain stronger support for Iraq from the Arab world?
There’s a whole bunch more, the sum total of which suggest that civilians in the USA have no friggin’ idea what’s happening in Iraq or how things are likely to develop in future. It is shameful that members of Congress should defer to a general and an ambassador over issues like these that are fundamental to the whole American war occupation commitment. It indicates that they’re desperate to outsource both the decisions about the future of the exercise and the responsibility for its outcomes.
It’s also noticeable that none of the questions concerns the welfare of the Iraqi people. Again to the shame of the US ruling classes, the Iraqis’ lives, health and happiness have never been factors in their grandiose imperialism.
The end result is a war occupation commitment with confused objectives, about which there is insufficient understanding to make informed judgements about alternative courses of action. No wonder the best Petraeus could give Congress was ‘a plan to definitely come up with another plan, at some point’. In the absence of goals and intelligence, what else is he supposed to do?
Posted in Post-invasion iraq |
April 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The United States Institute for Peace is actually funded by the Congress. Can’t bite the hand that feeds.
There is no ‘exit’ strategy because there is no ‘exit’ planned. Not for a hundred years at least.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
LOLROFLLMAO!
a. Agrred.
b. No.
c. Shhhhh.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
It’s also noticeable that none of the questions concerns the welfare of the Iraqi people. Again to the shame of the US ruling classes, the Iraqis’ lives, health and happiness have never been factors in their grandiose imperialism.
Fear not, ‘humanitarian concerns’ will no doubt be trotted out as a neat rhetorical device when US leaders next need to justofy the ongoing occupation of Iraq.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
There was nothing particularly new about Frontline’s Bush’s War on SBS last night but it was frightening to see it all spread before us. The amorality of the key players in the Iraq invasion was astonishing. Most aren’t even prepared to defend themselves anymore. How did people fall for it? Well some people.
I tuned in after seeing Kite Runner at Broome’s Sun Pictures. Perhaps it was the outdoor atmosphere, in particular planes landing on top of us, but I quite liked the film. The anti-Russian and anti-Taliban sentiments did not dominate too much. I enjoyed the fact that it is an Afgahan languages film with little English even in the US scenes.
If Iraq may need a 100 years occupation, as John McCain has suggested, then Afghanistan may wait millenia for sanity to prevail.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
If the US military and its neo-con masters appear bumbling or inept it’s only because they choose to appear like that. Personally I think the Iraq invasion has gone largely according to plan which was first and foremost to remove Iraq as any sort of threat to Israel. Not content with simply hobbling the country militarily, Iraq has been completely smashed and destroyed and the people demoralised. Allowing the destruction and looting of antiquities from mankind’s earliest civilisation, our first recorded history, was no accident. It was a war crime aimed at the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. “You no longer matter. Your whole society and culture no longer matter.”
The pro-Israel crowd don’t want to leave a functioning and viable country because a functioning and viable Iraq could one day be a threat. So government functions have been completely closed down, the brightest people murdered or forced to flee the country by ‘militias’ and infrastructure left in ruins. What people are left in the post apocalyptic hellhole that is Iraq will spend the next two generations tearing each other apart just to survive and maybe in 50 or 100 years get back to where they were before the 10 years of sanctions gutted the country.
The same people who launched the attack on Iraq are now pushing for an attack on Iran. They won’t be held back by an inability to occupy Iran because they don’t want to, they just want to destroy it and watch it descend into the same lawless anarchy as they have produced in Iraq. The tactics being used in Iraq are eerily similar to those being used in Palestine,with Fatah / Hamas and Shiite / Sunni easily interchangeable.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I have some bad news for the Iraqi people. “Victory” for the USA now consists solely of avoiding humiliation for the war party claque that confected this war. To achieve this - and it is most unlikely that it is achievable - the Iraqi’s will have to pay a further heavy toll in destruction and life.
This is the most ill-informed and ignorant war in history. The allies are really foes, the foes are really allies. Every step taken is the wrong step. As chess players say - vague plans are bad plans.
The only part that I can see as encouraging is that there is a confluence of interest between the broad publics of the Western democracies, such as in the US and Australia, the government of Iran, the nationalist Shi’a under, or allied to Al-Sadr, and other supporters of peace for Iraq.
However there is no doubt that the forces opposed have the upper hand at the moment. If the could invade countries, as they have invaded and conquered the media, and co-opted the institutions of Iraq, as they have the USA then there would be no debate.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security … the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
The welfare of the Iraqi people was never part of the deal. Wolfowitz admitted as much very early on. The Bushistas knew it wouldn’t “play” with the American people, so they stampeded the herd with the WMD/Osama bullshit.
As far as there being “confused objectives” in the US approach… that was bound to happen when you have a bunch of thugs joining in a marriage of convenience and fabricating a war for their private motives. With the Zionists, militant capitalists, militarists, paranoid bible-thumpers, imperialists (and goodness knows who else) all having their own agenda to push, they were always going to end up tripping over each other.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:50 am
You’ll notice that Condi Rice is an Ex officio officer. That says it all. I suggest you write them and ask when they will change the name of their institute the U.S. Institute for War, as that is what they preach. They are oh so wise, you know, that the people should defer to their betters…
April 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs, that American intelligence services (with Pakistani help) began to arm and train the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet invasion.
President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski was thrilled at having “opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war”. He admitted that supporting the Mujahadeen sucked the Soviets into what he called the “Afghan trap”. Apparently Islamic fundamentalism can be useful.
…and how was this supposed to benefit the people of Afghanistan? Anyone?
April 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
And let’s not forget that the American government’s own 2006 National Intelligence Estimate warned that “the Iraq conflict has become the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating support for the global jihadist movement”
How come NOBODY saw this coming?????
April 10th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
US Institute for Peace how “Orwellian” similar to Howard’s “Workchoices” hopefully it will also end up on the scrapheap.
Now what about our own “The Sydney Institute” privately funded not-for-profit organisation, where do these spring up from, history shows Gerard Henderson left Howard’s employ to “work” for it way back or have I got my facts wrong, conspiracy theory anyone
April 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Mars said: With the Zionists, militant capitalists, militarists, paranoid bible-thumpers, imperialists (and goodness knows who else) all having their own agenda to push, they were always going to end up tripping over each other.”
too right.
Yes, what’s interesting is how many Israel lobby group members are Christian Evangelical “bible thumpers”.
I try to make it clear, but should do so more often, that when i’m referring critically to Extreme Zionists or certain Israeli Lobby groups (AIPAC etc.) i’m not playing the anti-semitic card but rather referring to both Christians & Jews who are so ardent in their support for Israel that they approve of the Bushevik’s aggressive militaristic posture & policies…or look the other way…& sometimes attempt to shut down debate…& even have some influence in the media that leads to a reluctance to discuss the issue.
Certainly there are plenty of critics who are worried about the influence certain Israel lobby group members have on American, British & other Nation’s foreign policy…but it’s also important to remember, as Mars has, that there are plenty of other organisations & institutions…& Corporations who have a vested interest in flaming the fires of sectarian violence & War in general in the Middle East & its surrounds…and/or Nation Building.
W/ some of the anti-Semitic crap we see running thru the blogs these days it’s best to avoid reductionism…which can happen when rushing out comments.
I find this quote from Noam Chomsky to be worthwhile:
“there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.”
(Wikipedia: Israel lobby in the United States)
It’s a cornucopia of interests sucking the COW’s taxpayer’s dry…& now they’ve got us into one fine mess
…let’s just hope the Chinese listen to sane reasoning - Rudd seems to be doing a positive job over there whilst still pointing out foreign policy differences - ’cause the last thing we need is the dragon swinging her tail defensively & going PROTECTIONIST & overly NATIONALIST due to a mass consumer boycott of Chinese goods and the Olympics…& roaring flames aggressively just as they’ve got into defense treaties w/ Russia…whilst America and it’s NATO & Asia-Pacific allies are dealing w/ a major economic & morale downturn thanx to corrupt and negligent war-mongers and finance & investment crooks.
We need each other…let’s hope sanity prevails & the Chinese make some compromises on Tibet & on Human Rights in general…the Iranians tone down the “nuclear” rhetoric…the economic downturn doesn’t become another BUST but rather leads us to a more SUSTAINABLE economy…& Obama makes it to the White House.
Bloody Busheviks
April 10th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Did I mention the racists, political opportunists and war-porn junkies?
The unholy alliance that comprises those who deeply desired the war in Iraq makes picking out a single motive impossible. And that is (and was) a big part of the problem when trying to explain this debacle to those who have not been paying attention. Our society has been conditioned to accept the quick, simple answer… even if it is wrong.
So the easy answer all parties agreed on was the WMD/Osama connection. Bingo!