LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 22, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Lock Up Washington

Rise Up or Die

Revenge of the Bear: Russia Strikes Back in Syria

How America Became a Third World Country: 2013-2023

California Man Sues Officers He Says Nearly Beat Him to Death

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * The Path of Hubris and War
 * NEW! * Glaciers Are Melting Slowly but Surely
 * NEW! * How America Became a Third World Country: 2013-2023
 * NEW! * Lock Up Washington

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

Joe Conason: Staying the Course, Without a Map

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 28, 2006

In the acrid debate over Iraq, the president’s supporters will say anything. They will question the patriotism of those who disagree with “staying the course.” They will insinuate cowardice on the part of those who would “cut and run.” Even though they themselves may have avoided military service, they will denigrate the records of decorated veterans like John Kerry and Jack Murtha. They will even accuse the war’s critics of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the legal definition of treason.

Then the White House will turn around after days of encouraging such vilification of their opponents and leak the commanding general’s optimistic plan to start withdrawing troops, which would proceed according to the same timetable proposed by those weak and pusillanimous Democrats. That is meant to reassure the majority of Americans, who realize that invading Iraq was a strategic error and a tragedy that must be concluded as soon as possible.

All the slanders and all the maneuvers are performed for political expedience, not national security. In pursuit of Karl Rove’s electoral strategy, the Republicans will spend a trillion dollars and squander thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and the prestige of the United States. There is only one thing they won’t do. They will not speak honestly about the war, because the truth cannot accommodate their crude partisan rhetoric. The unfortunate reality is that President Bush has no “plan for victory.” On some days, he cannot foresee removing American troops during his presidency and says that withdrawal will be a decision for “future presidents” to make. On other days, he contemplates removing two-thirds of our combat brigades there by the end of next year. On some days, his ambassador to Baghdad discusses amnesty for the insurgents with the Iraqi government and other negotiable items. On other days, those difficult subjects are utterly taboo. He has no plan, because the invasion of Iraq didn’t proceed according to the expectations of the White House and the Pentagon. The Bush war cabinet had formulated a sketchy plan at the outset, with vague, implausible notions of how postwar Iraq would be pacified, rebuilt and governed.

Among the ill-conceived schemes originally contemplated by our ill-advised leaders was the installation of exile Ahmed Chalabi as Baghdad’s strongman. That dubious daydream had to be abandoned, along with the flower-strewn parades and the reimbursement of our expenses with oil revenues. What we got instead was suicide bombings, an intractable insurgency, an ethnic civil war and a government allied with Iran.

While the Bush administration has no plan, the government of Iraq seems to be considering a negotiated peace. Iraqi officials have been talking with representatives of the Sunni rebels, in the hope of convincing them to lay down their weapons and engage in democratic politics.

Advertisement

Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki recently offered a limited “reconciliation” initiative meant to bring together the country’s warring factions and reduce support for the insurgency. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad has assisted this effort, although his help is limited in the White House political agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda blocks the Iraqis from dealing with the real problems motivating the insurgency.

Most Sunni insurgents, unlike the followers of the late and unlamented terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, might be drawn to the bargaining table under certain conditions. Credible press reports indicate that those conditions must include a broad amnesty for fighters who have attacked American troops and a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the end of the occupation.

The Iraqi government might well be inclined to discuss those issues. But the Bush administration insists that there can be no broad amnesty and that any exit timetable would only encourage the terrorists.

When Bush visited Baghdad for a few hours on June 13, Iraqi Vice President Tariq al Hashimi, a Sunni leader, urged him to set a date for ending the occupation. The Iraqi president, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, who has been talking directly with insurgent representatives, said he supported Hashimi’s request.

Polls in both countries show substantial agreement between the peoples of Iraq and the United States on ending the occupation. Seventy percent of Iraqis wish that foreign troops would leave their country by the end of next year, and nearly 60% of Americans want our troops home by then, or sooner. But no matter what the Iraqis may want and no matter what the American generals may recommend, don’t expect Bush to “cut and run”—or at least not until after November.

To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By John, July 6, 2006 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In regards to comment #13014 by Tony Zackin, the comparison is not absurd.  What are the reasons we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo?  Genocide, oppression, war crimes, etc.  OK genius, what are the reasons we went into Iraq?  Violations of U.N. resolutions, weapons of mass destruction, oppression, and war crimes.  Now, as to the cost:

For Bosnia, the most recent figures I could find were from 1996, and they came to roughly $2 billion a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/nbos017.htm

For Kosovo, the most recent I can find are 1999, and they say about $1 billion a year.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/U.19990322.Potential_Cost_Of_/U.19990322.Potential_Cost_Of_.htm

These figures govern only the U.S. military.

And, in regards to your question of how many terrorists were created as a result, allow me to pose a question of my own.  How many Muslim friends did we make because of our intervention to stop the oppression of the Muslim populace?  Last time I checked, nearly every terrorist attack against the United States in the past 15 years has been claimed by a militant Muslim terrorist group.  So, given the figures cited above, it comes out to close to $40 billion dollars for both Bosnia and Kosovo (not counting billions in aid to Middle Eastern governments.)  All just so we could still be number one with a bullet (or a plane, or a suicide bomb) on the Islamic terrorist most wanted list. 

Now, since you are going with the liberal line of calling me absurd while at the same time presenting absolutely no facts to back up that accusation, I pose these questions to you. 

Based upon the facts presented here, what have these operations done to improve the reputation of the United States in the world opinion?  How much longer are you willing to allow these operations to go on?  (Keep in mind that the reason we are there is to prevent those countries from collapsing into civil war, the same reason we are still in Iraq.  Therefore, to answer one question, you have to apply the same answer to the other.}  Lastly, you obviously believe that the world was a safer, better place with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power.  I’d like to hear your justifications for that.  Remember, either the world was better when they were in charge, or it was worse.  No happy medium.  If it was better, then I’ll respect your opinion.  If your answer is that the world was a worse place, then you have to stop complaining about how they were removed.  You can’t have it both ways.

Report this

By Tony Zackin, July 5, 2006 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re comment #12879: How many Americans were killed in Bosnia?  How much has NATO (this was a NATO operation after all) spent in toto saving the lives of thousands of Muslim Kosovars?  How many terrorists were created as a result?  How much was the US image in the world tarnished from this operation?  In other words, the comparison is absurd.

Report this

By John, July 3, 2006 at 11:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You know, I keep wondering why I never hear anything from the liberal left concerning end dates for the military presence in Kosovo or Bosnia.  Could it have something to do with complete political bias based on the fact that it was Clinton that got us into those messes?  I’m a little rusty on my history here, but I am inclined to say that Bosnia has been over 10 years, and Kosovo is creeping up on a decade.  What say you, lefties?  I’m absolutely dying to hear your justifications for this.  I’m all for equal opportunity, which means you have to defend the decisions of those you support, just like I do.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, July 2, 2006 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...W isn’t a moron, he’s a C student frat boy tool and he’s in the hands of some very skillful operators, don’t kid yourself…”

If he’s not a moron, then find me one cogent thought or idea he is ever reputed to have had. There certainly OUGHT to be something that someone could say about the way his mind works…..unless it doesn’t. The nearest thing I can think of might be when he supposedly said something to the effect that they ought to give a tax cut that affected the middle income people more, but Karl shut him up by saying, “stick to principles.” No, it wasn’t HIS idea, it was something he heard someone ELSE say, and he thought to impress people with his “idea,” except that he was too dim to know that no tax cuts were EVER contemplated for anyone but the filthy rich. People like Conason and Scheer and Franken and Ivins and Lyons and Clinton and all the rest of the ones who don’t want to talk about oil or more importantly what will happen if we do NOT steal mideast oil.

Report this

By native child, July 1, 2006 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Breakthrough

According to an AP report three days ago (on English Aljazeera) Iraqi groups opposed to the Iraqi government, working through mediators, have offered to immediately stop attacks on US led forces if a two year timetable for withdrawal of US soldiers is agreed upon.
What an opening for those of us opposed to this illegal and immoral war.  If our president doesn’t follow through on this, we the people still can make it happen.  How?  We flood his office with demands that he immediately accept this offer from the forces of the Iraqi resistance.    We make him do this and, presto, we’ll be on our way to peace on earth and good will to all living beings,  and nice going in advance.

Report this

By felicity smith, July 1, 2006 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

CV, I know they’re not cops but I think of them as doing police work because all they’re trying to do is KEEP THE PEACE, which is what the police do. Would that they could be proper soldiers and engage in military-type battles; as it is they have no defined enemy, no people, no nation to conquer. They’re keeping the peace and in the meantime sacrificing their lives to make a few people very rich. There are those who subscribe to “the fly-paper theory” - keep the war there to keep it from here - which is yet again one of The Decider’s meaningless drools. I mean when did Iraq declare war on us - I must have missed it.

Report this

By sulphurdunn, July 1, 2006 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Our government has no exit strategy for the Iraq occupation because we don’t intent to leave. Talk of troop reductions notwithstanding, permanent bases are being constructed along the lines of the new US embassy, strategic islands of forward deployment, crusader castles and Guantanamo Bay like daggers pointed at the heart of Eurasia’s resources. It is the same imperial strategy we have employed since the end of WWII toward friend and foe alike.

Report this

By CV, June 30, 2006 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey SamSnedegar, W isn’t a moron, he’s a C student frat boy tool and he’s in the hands of some very skillful operators, don’t kid yourself.
jkoch has a point and I don’t think it’s a Karl Rove Approved Talking Point. Whatever conditions we set for our departure, if they are even achievable, short term, will be swept away after our departure. The longer we stay, the worse it gets til we are forced out, down the Highway of Death as we so charmingly named it in Oil War 1. Think: the Fall of Saigon crossed with Blackhawk Down.
We may have set off the Dark Ages in Mesopotamia with our terrible blunder.
felicity smith, Problem is, our military are NOT cops, they are not doing police work, they are soldiers.
David Newell you’re right about the Bases thing, (Include “Bush’s Palace”, the new, huge embassy on 145 prime acres in Baghdad, I’ve heard as many as 14 other bases being built) there is a Thug element at the core of the misAdministration that has NO plan to leave, these are the PNAC types. (BTW, they hijacked the Republican Party on the way to hijacking America. Old-school republicans, what’s left of them, are as appalled as Lefties and Dems are). If they don’t plan on leaving, that explains why they won’t make a timetable, right?
It also explains why the reason for invading Iraq kept changing, too. Because invading Iraq and occupying it for the next sixty years, to put half a million troops and huge caches of vehicles and weapons right on top of the Persian and Caspian Energy deposits and right at China’s western edge, would be rejected, out of hand as criminal by most Americans.
So they lied.
And they continue to lie.
And Congress helped them.
And the Media let them.
And the Wingnut Chorus is still singing: “stay the course” without having the faintest idea of where we are going.
Thanks Joe for the rejoinder: “Show me the map!”
Reject talk of “Victory” or “Defeat”, the War is Over, we won, remember “Mission Accomplished”? The aircraft carrier? The stuffed flight suit? Since then we’ve been occupiers.
You don’t win or lose an occupation, you finish this job by going home.
Nice to know that most American agree with most of the Iraqi people and in fact most of the people in the world, that the illegal occupation of Iraq must end and the sooner the better. Too bad neither of our party’s “leadership” can see past the Rove smoke.

Report this

By dumdum, June 30, 2006 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Jkoch,
Given the stats about people keeping on reading sites that do not represent their views, I am left wondering how much you make on the GWB administration payroll for bul$hi#ing around.
Hey, smile, at least everybody can see you work hard.

Report this

By Greg Mucha, June 30, 2006 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi, Joe et al…

We need to give Steven Jones’ report some legs, in my opinion.  Not because we need to make everyone feel terrible about allowing these monsters to hold court in our country, but because we need to spark revolutionary fervor within the country.

I think it’s pretty clear that plenty of text has been written regarding the state of our once great nation.  People are too busy contributing to the delinquency of our First Family to realize that everything that can be said, has been.  The talk has become quite cheap if for no other reason than the sheer volume of it.

Start thinking about doing what you can do to bring this house down without bringing the good people with it.  We have a Constitutional method, but there is no will to use it as yet. 

That only leaves extra-constitutional means to rectify the wrong that has been done to humanity by these thugs.

Consider this as you contemplate letting another day go by having done nothing to stop these people from creating a climate of bloodshed and civil war—within the US, not abroad.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, June 30, 2006 at 4:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Funny that Joey should mention the truth when he won’t tell it himself. I hear that Conason no longer orders a salad for fear someone will mention oil in his presence thereby risking his big bucks from publishers who get queasy any time any of their stable of so-called investigative reporters looks like he might discuss the real reason for the USA’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Notice too that Scheer no longer tells the truth either . . . learned his lesson by being fired by the LAT for talking about oil and wanted to publish his newest book, so he caved.

Two verities they won’t touch? (1) it’s about oil, and (2) Bush is a moron.

I guess another reason is that most Americans don’t want to contemplate lying, coveting, stealing, and killing, when it’s their government breaking God’s commandments daily.

Report this

By felicity smith, June 29, 2006 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush has “no plan for victory” because WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ.  We’ve got 100,000 plus American policemen wearing military uniforms over there fighting crime in the streets. The only difference between police actions over here, and it’s glaring, is that over there suspected criminals have no day in court, are presumed guilty and killed. Their homes are bull-dozed, their children and wives are terrorized. In our name, crimes of immense proportion are being committed which will ultimately, if not stopped over there, find their way over here.  The rule of law under this administration is fast giving way to the rule of a police state.

Report this

By Jkoch, June 29, 2006 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What sort of “insurgent” would boast that he never attacked US troops?  What kind of “truce” would survive the withdrawal of US forces?  Will most Sunnis accept minority status or cease to provide refuge to killers who want otherwise?

Answers: none or not likely.

No exit is likely to be tidy.  Rove will certainly finagle a way to blame the debácle on the “cut & run” Dems, especially if they advance in November.

Report this

By David Newell, June 29, 2006 at 7:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With the construction of 3 Main Street USA bases, how can ANYONE really believe that US troops will EVER leave Iraq?  The debate is all for show.  The Republican party intends on occupying Iraq until we are driven out by overwhelming force.  And now with the party in power able to redistrict at will, get used to a permanant Republican majority, permanant occupation of Iraq, permanant redistribution of tax burden to the working classes and permant subserviance of the American populace to corporate masters.  We been coup’d, dude.  Support the troops, leave ‘em in Iraq.  America is dead, long live Amerika.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.