|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
Joe Conason: Time to Face Facts in IraqPosted on Nov 30, 2006By Joe Conason As someone who has never displayed any great aptitude with words, President George W. Bush shouldn’t become preoccupied with the proper terminology to describe the ferocious communal violence in Iraq. Whether the chaotic situation that he and his government have created in that country is or is not called a “civil war” by newspapers and broadcasters matters very little. Whether the president can bring himself to pronounce those words matters even less. What matters is that when even the war’s most enthusiastic proponents can no longer avoid acknowledging the disastrous result of their cherished crusade, the president cannot face failure honestly. Instead, he continues to speak in pat phrases and stale excuses. In his most recent pronouncements, he still clings to old illusions about the upwelling of democracy across the Middle East and the possibility of stabilizing Iraq if only we stay the course (although he no longer utters that pat phrase). To reject these illusions is to be accused by the president of “pessimism.” Yet if there is any way to prevent a total conflagration in Iraq—and there may not be—then he certainly will not find it unless he confronts the war’s realities and abandons policies that have not worked. Those realities include more than the depressing toll of bombings, assassinations and militia attacks around Baghdad that have increased so rapidly. The “coalition of the willing” is heading for the exits. The United Kingdom has announced another sharp reduction of its forces, while Poland and Italy are withdrawing altogether—even as the Bush administration considers a substantial increase in U.S. troops. Conditions in the Sunni-dominated provinces outside the capital are deteriorating beyond our capacity to control or even influence them. The shaky Maliki government depends on the patronage of radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Efforts to train and deploy an effective Iraqi national army and police force have served to arm the sectarian militias and death squads. Advertisement Actually, the Baghdad government revealed its plan this week, when President Jalal Talabani visited Tehran to plead for help in reducing violence and combating terrorism. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad happily responded that his government would gladly assist its “brothers” in Iraq. That initiative followed the resumption of diplomatic relations between Iraq and Syria, more than two decades after those ties were broken during the Iran-Iraq war. The United States does not speak directly with either of those nations, whose governments are targets of “regime change” for the neoconservative policy-makers in the Pentagon and the White House. American policy toward both Tehran and Damascus has been shaped by the same mindset that declared Iran, Iraq and North Korea to be an “axis of evil” beyond the pale of diplomacy. The consequences of that stupid approach include a radical alliance between Syria and Iran; an ineluctable trend toward nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea; and a military quagmire in Iraq that has damaged our military, bankrupted our treasury and discredited our international reputation. But the results are absurd as well as awful. The government that we are spending American lives and dollars to prop up in Iraq is seeking assistance from Iran, which has exercised enormous influence over that government from the outset. We won’t speak with the Iranians or the Syrians, yet we are subsidizing the Iraqis, who talk to them every day. The Bush administration’s diplomatic quarantine of Iran and Syria has defeated our own purposes in the region. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Syrians worked with Western intelligence services against Al Qaeda, which was rightly regarded by the Baathist government in Damascus as an enemy. In the months following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iranians secretly sought to open negotiations with the U.S. on a broad range of issues, from terrorism to proliferation to trade. Our own brand of “rejectionism” only radicalized those regimes, notably with Ahmadinejad’s election in 2005. Rumor in Washington indicates that the Baker-Hamilton commission will urge the president to end his aversion to talks with Iran and Syria as part of a broader strategy to negotiate our way out of Iraq. The question is whether he will remain deaf to such sane advice. Previous item: Robert Scheer: Learning to Live With the Ayatollahs Next item: Susan Estrich: Taking Temperatures New and Improved CommentsIf 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 A Khokar, December 4, 2006 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Some time back a journalist (Hamid Mir Pakistan,) in an interview asked Osama bin Laden; Dont you know, every time you come out with your statement or video. That helps George W Bush in his war on terror and he grows stronger?
Hamid Mir says his reply was: Yes He knows; but George Bush is the only one who can destroy Americas might!
Report thisBy jon eden, December 3, 2006 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Seems to me:
There are two hurtles here, the second being nearly insurmountable. Number one is Bush negotiating with the Iranians. I can see that happening just to get everyone off his back for not doing so. The tougher hurtle for Bush (and our gov.) is facing up to what is required to get Iranian cooperation in securing a stable Iraqa guarantee of Iran’s security (without restriction to their possible violations of the non proliferation treaty) as our Get Out of Iraq Card.
Reality says foregoing our option to bomb Iran is not a problem here (except for people in denial.) First of all, any bombing of Iran would mobilize the Shia in Iraq against us and thus further destabilize that situation, as well as inflame the rest of the Arab world. For these reasons in the context of the general instability in the region, the rest of the world will not stand by and let Bush proceed with any such insanity.
The question is: How many more lives and how much more money and prestige are going to have to be spent before we face up to this ignominious defeat. Since Bush and almost no one else in our government want to own up to our having made Iran the major player in the region, the status quo seems the best option for a President concerned with his legacy, and a country not wanting to lose it strategic position in this most important part of the world.
Of course, while we dilly dally, it may evolve into a regional war.
Maybe, just maybe, this disaster will lead to a rethinking of who we are, and how we want to relate to the rest of the world.
Jon
Report thisStudentsForTheEarth.org
By fromunderthesphinx, December 3, 2006 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It seems we are in the rather odd situation of having to ask the rest of the world not to hate us Americans because of our challenged, so-called leaders. Yes, we Americans elected them, maybe, hard to tell with the voting machine fiasco, but maybe the world leaders and the terrorists will be patient and not allow the world to blow up while we Americans get our act together and get rid of these rather vile and apparently stupid, perhaps just greedy, men from their offices. Of course we then have a globalist agenda to turn our attention to, another group of bad, greedy, zealots more concerned with their bank accounts than the health of the world. Indeed, God help us!
Report thisBy Jackie T. Gabel, December 2, 2006 at 2:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
RE: “Rumor in Washington indicates that the Baker-Hamilton commission will urge the president to end his aversion to talks with Iran and Syria as part of a broader strategy to negotiate our way out of Iraq. The question is whether he will remain deaf to such sane advice.”
>>>>> As if
he ever had any say in any of it. The Baker-Hamilton commission is more smoke and mirrors. Essentially it’s to rein in the Strange-Love faction whose push toward WWIII (e.g. bombing Iran) is scaring even old cynics like Kissinger; and to do it as off the record as possible. The suffering of the Iraqis won’t weigh in the balance; not much chance of shutting down Negroponte’s Death Squads before they kill off most of the intellectuals in Iraq like they did in Latin America. Moreover, it’s unlikely the new Dem. Congress will show any mettle. Look for little fight on Gates confirmation.
As for Joe Conason, just expect him to keep on being cute with his buddy Al Franken. Man alive, are these guys just self-styled onanists or “rich assets” placed to divert serious analysis? Yeah, yeah, they need a break a little levity…Gulé, gulé, AL; Gulé, gulé, Joe Go Smiling.
Report thisBy Marshall, December 1, 2006 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This reminds me of all the other ventures that W involved himself in. That is, involved himself in running those projects into the ground and depending on his father’s friends to pull him out of the quagmires. The only difference I see this time is that he seems to be avoiding the advice of the Baker-Hamilton Commission whenever it conflicts with his own position.
Poor little man, still pretending to be competent while rejecting the lifeline offered, and not realizing that if he is ever going to leave a legacy his best chance is to start listening and admit his mistakes.
Report thisBy yours truly, December 1, 2006 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Will he remain deaf to such sane advice? Count on it! No problem though, provided we see to it that Congress passes the Kucinich bill to cut off all funding for the Iraq war, because after Congress does that our president is sure to be impeached, following which he’s off to the International Court of Criminal Justice for his trial on the charge of crimes against humanity. And it couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
.
Report thisBy mr JJ, December 1, 2006 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hold King Georg’s feet to the fire!!!!!
Go thru this bill with a fine tooth comb.
Iraq Spending Bill to Test Democrats
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100344.html
Report thisBy SPIIDERWEB, November 30, 2006 at 9:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Quagmire. Arghhh!
Report this