|
|
May 22, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Time for the Iraq Debate to Move OnPosted on Jun 18, 2008By Marie Cocco It is inevitable that at some point in the presidential campaign the Iraq debate will turn from recriminations over how did we manage to get in to the question of how do we reasonably manage to get out. The fury of anti-war Democrats and their determination to punish Hillary Clinton for her 2002 vote authorizing the military incursion gave an enduring lift to Barack Obama’s primary run. The simplest calculation would now have it that the solid majority of Americans who are sick of the war and have come to agree that it should never have been waged will also swing to Obama and help carry him to the Oval Office. This is the idea behind an emotionally charged new advertisement, paid for by MoveOn.org and other Democratic interest groups, depicting a young mother bouncing her cherubic infant, Alex, and speaking to the camera as if she were face to face with Republican John McCain. “John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.” Leave aside the fact that with an all-volunteer military, no president can automatically “have” an American child to send into battle. The premise is that since McCain voted for the war—and has been stalwart in his refusal to set a firm timetable for withdrawal—the logic of the anti-McCain argument on Iraq is clear and simple. But the politics of Iraq already are turning out to be not so simple. Advertisement The findings are noteworthy in good measure because they are strikingly similar to those found in a May survey by the Pew Research Center. When asked which candidate would “make wise decisions on Iraq,” McCain was chosen over Obama, 46 percent to 43 percent. That’s down from the advantage McCain enjoyed in April, when he led Obama 50-38 on the same question. The polls were taken before this week’s blast in a crowded Baghdad market, a flare of sectarian violence that, at the very least, reminds Americans that Iraq remains a deadly and dangerously confusing place. For all the apparent progress in subduing violence that has resulted, in part, from the American military surge, the Iraqis have not achieved the political progress that was supposed to follow. At the same time, it seems, the American public hasn’t reconciled itself to what the United States should do next. Sentiment for withdrawal is strong—but even this has ebbed slightly, according to the Post poll. The percentage of those saying the United States should withdraw from Iraq to avoid more casualties, “even if that means civil order is not restored there,” has dipped from 59 percent last July to 55 percent in the most recent survey. This is one reason why the political debate must shift from an argument over who was right six years ago to who will set the right course now. Obama’s planned withdrawal is, ultimately, the correct course. But he has so far given insufficient explanation of what, in his view, would amount to a successful—or even a successfully managed—outcome to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Likewise McCain’s stubbornness in refusing to lay out a clearer path toward withdrawal allows what his critics contend: an unconditional commitment of an overstretched military that allows the Iraqis to postpone reconciliation. An unasked question also begs to be heard: What do we owe the Iraqis? Their hospitals, schools and other institutions suffer. The humanitarian situation is dire. In many ways, the foundations of orderly society have crumbled. What is the American obligation to reconstruct it? Americans do not want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. But neither do they seem to want the leave-taking to be marked by symbols of failure—no moment that captures the absurdity of American involvement like the famous 1975 photograph of a helicopter on a Saigon rooftop, its operators powerless to evacuate a throng of Vietnamese civilians clamoring to get on board. The political debate on Iraq does, indeed, have to move on. It must come at last to the point where the candidates confront how best to do so.  Previous item: The Hymen Controversy Next item: Taxes, Integrity and Character 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. |
Lock Up Washington
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Marshall, June 23, 2008 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
By Tony Wicher, June 22 at 9:27 pm #
“Their decision to nationalize was an assertion of the right of these supposedly soveieign countries to control their own oil and also their own politics.”
And look how well that’s worked out - Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea. Western Europe has privatized its oil industries over the last couple of decades - a vast improvement.
In reference to your original point that the U.S. attacks countries that nationalize their oil, I’d like to point out that the list of nationalized oil countries is far longer than the list of countries we’ve gone to war with. Ultimately, these countries just hurt their own people.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
Re By Marshall, June 21 at 12:21 am #
Tony - I think you have it backwards. Most of the countries that chose to nationalize had already decided they were our enemy; it was part of what precipitated their decision to nationalize in the first place.
Report this——————————————————————————
Their decision to nationalize was an assertion of the right of these supposedly soveieign countries to control their own oil and also their own politics.
By dale Headley, June 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
To even discuss when we might leave Iraq is based on one huge false assumption; that we intend to leave Iraq at all - now or in the future. Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, the Bush Administration has finally realized its real “Mission Accomplished.” That mission was from the beginning and continues to be to create a permanent colony in Iraq - complete with 58 permanent military bases with which to cower the middle east; and a ready supply of Iraqi slaves to extract the oil from the ground. Now that a few leaders in the Iraqi government have caved in to American bribery and intimidation, Iraq’s oil has effectively been turned over to American oil companies. Furthermore, don’t expect Obama or any other president to change that.
Report thisThose who deluded themselves into thinking the slaughter of a million innocent Iraqis and the forced exodus of another 2 million would lead to cheaper oil prices here are going to be sadly disillusioned. Exxon Mobil and other megacorporations rule this country and if they wish Iraq to be their colonial outpost, so will it be. If they wish to charge $5.00 a gallon (if we’re lucky) for gasoline, so, too, it will be.
Nearly the entire Iraqi population wishes the U.S. out of their country as soon as possible, and have the effrontery to believe that the oil beneath their feet belongs to them; but, like the American people, they have bought into the faux debate about WHEN we will leave, not realizing we have no intention whatsoever of EVER leaving.
By kath cantarella, June 22, 2008 at 3:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The debate can’t really move on until you’ve prosecuted the criminals responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Report thisIt may be too late to start impeachment proceedings, so put them (all of them, Bushco, the CEOs, and the know-everything dick-swinging Generals too) in a court of law and make them defend their actions. This needs to happen to deter future war crimes.
That’s just common sense, right?
An ordinary person kills once, and they go away for life. You can’t let these other people off just because they are rich and powerful. Bring them down. Hard.
By moineau, June 21, 2008 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
there were bombings in iraq last week? i didn’t see it on my tv…
seriously though, as to your second question on iraq, obama has started to say that he thinks the iraqis have plenty of money to pay for their own reconstruction and that we need to spend our money at home, to which, i should add, he got enormous cheers. (of course, whenever the candidates pause, that’s what happens. i think the american public is brain-dead, frankly. but it’s not their fault. (review my initial question)
we owe the iraqis… that’s the third condition of the IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR and it’s not only humane, it’s logical. somebody said, you break it, you own it. but we’ll find a way to make them pay. they made us drop all those 500 lb. bombs, didn’t they?
as nir rosen once said on DEMOCRACY NOW!, the way to get out of iraq is to get in a truck and head for the border. we better take his advice and soon; i fear the worst right now. with the oil companies—exxon mobil, shell, chevron, bp, and totale of france, our new best friend—coming back into iraq and the security forces agreement being “negotiated”, against the will of the parlament and the iraqi peoples, the various insurgencies may begin all out war again.
bush may think this is the final nail in the coffin, but i worry that the nail is going into the coffins of our soldiers. when we suffer greater casualites, we’ll withdraw. it’s like that in every war.
Report thisBy Marshall, June 21, 2008 at 1:21 am Link to this comment
By Tony Wicher, June 19 at 9:41 am #
Tony - I think you have it backwards. Most of the countries that chose to nationalize had already decided they were our enemy; it was part of what precipitated their decision to nationalize in the first place.
Report thisBy yours truly, June 20, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why Not A Baghdad Rendition Of That Last Minute Helicopter Take-Off From Saigon?
“But what about us Americans not wanting ‘leave-taking to be marked by symbols of failure?’”
“Not only symbols of failure.”
“What more?”
“Failure itself.”
“And the ‘My country right or wrong?’”
“Shattered.”
“Trust in authority and in our so-called leaders?”
“Evaporated.”
“And then what sort of world?”
“It’ll be up to us.”
Report thisBy Zack, June 20, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“What do we owe the Iraqis? Their hospitals, schools and other institutions suffer. The humanitarian situation is dire. In many ways, the foundations of orderly society have crumbled. What is the American obligation to reconstruct it?”
How did these institutions get into such a dire state in the first place? US bombing from the first Gulf War through Clinton’s presidency, coupled with the sanctions regime, crippled much of Iraq’s infrastructure and left little capacity to rebuild. Hussein’s manipulations of the UN Oil for Food program certainly played a big role in keeping things bad, but this does not erase the fact that the US was continuing an ultimately anit-humanitarian campaign against the country for over a decade, the effects of which are still being felt.
So what is the American obligation for reconstruction? Obviously the Iraqi government has some work to do, but I get a little fed up with the blame-the-victims rhetoric and hypocritical conquerors’ chastisement of what is still essentially a puppet government. Like Colin Powell said before the administration started this war: “It’s like Pottery Barn: you break it, you buy it.”
Report thisBy dihey, June 20, 2008 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
Who lost China in 1948/49? Nonsense, we did not own China. Who will lose Iraq (in the future)? Same nonsense, we do not own Iraq. It is that simple. Regrettably nearly all politicians that count seem to believe that the Iraqis “owe us something” and prate like colonial Vice-Roy’s. Just yesterday the Democratic-led house passed legislation which demands that Iraq pay 50% of all costs for what the “Coalition of the Destroyers” destroyed or failed to protect. This is analogous to having demanded in 1918/19 that the Belgians pay 50% of the costs to repair what the Huns had destroyed in that country(such as the library in Leuven!). Unbelievable. With such “friends” who needs the Imperialist Right’s as enemies? This criminal piece of legislation will now go to the Senate. Keep track of who will object (vote no) to this abomination. Clinton? Not on your sweet bippie. Obama? He, the Master-Coward of Washington will be “too busy running his election campaign” and be absent(my prediction).
Report thisBy Circuit Rider, June 20, 2008 at 6:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Time to move on? Hardly. We must never forget that George W. Bush and his neo-con co-conspirators originated their criminal policy of preventative invasion, and we must never forget that neither they nor the U.S. Congress has yet to foreswear doing it again. As a matter of fact, they are preparing to invade Iran, in our name and on our taxes, based on pure suspicion and their bloodlust. Hillary Clinton lost her chance to be President, not just because she voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq, but because she buys into Bush’s traitorous policy.
Report thisBy purplewolf, June 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment
Bushco broke Iraq-they bought it! Make them take it with them when they leave office, all expenses to be paid for from the Bush/Cheney legacies and all the oil monies and other business’s monies they shall exploit in the future from this illegal war activities.
Get out of Iraq. As long as we are there, the people in Iraq will not step up and take over so we can leave. We train our youth and in many cases send them into Iraq after being enlisted for only a few months, not trained enough and this administration did admit that in the past. Then how come after 5+ years we cannot train any Iraqi people to fight for for their won country?
Report thisBy mill, June 19, 2008 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment
Obligation to Iraq?
Leave, as soon, as orderly, and as peaceably as possible. Take all our war stuff so it doesn’t amplify the civil strife.
I doubt Iraqis care much what the US government thinks; except we say it pointing the gun of occupation, so they can’t look like they’re not listening.
Let the Iraqis sort it out.
And resist the neo cons who want to attack Iran before Bush is no longer president
Report thisBy Arabian Thoroughbred, June 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“A U.N. report Tuesday estimated the number of the worlds displaced refugees in 2007 at 11.4 million, a majority of which the U.N. says come from the
U.S.-led conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Analysts also say the number of refugees threatens to grow even more due to new concerns such as climate change, environmental degradation and increasingly scarce resources.” (TD)
=================================
A keen observer and a concerned universal humanist does not need to wait for the yearly U.N. official report to tell him or her that this humanistic disaster is getting worse with every passing day.
Just as a result of the criminal U.S. war in Iraq, and Afghanistan over 3 million people were made miserable refugees. If we add this number to the almost one million Palestinian refugees created by Israels wars, then that tiny part of the world, called the Middle East, has born the heaviest percentage of refugees’ victims resulting from criminal colonialist wars.
Forget about the thousands of deaths and the untold level of destruction to infrastructures, Israel and the U.S. are responsible for the misery of those, at least four million refugees, many of whom in their misery would envy the dead!
Sad as it might be to be reminded about this explosive humanistic and world security problem, I am a little relieved that there were no media gimmicks used to obscure one of the major causes of these man- made disasters by stating that the majority of which the U.N. says come from the U.S.-led conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sadly, however, what the U.N. report does not touch upon is that this huge and increasing number of refugees constitutes the most serious threat to world security. So, the next time the U.S. is hit by another terrorist attack, it would be only a case of chickens coming home to roost!
And though we would always keep saying that two wrongs dont make a right, nevertheless, because its part of the helpless human nature, many would continue to believe and say that revenge is the sweetest thing to do in the absence of universal justice.
Report thisBy Double U, June 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment
How is it that Marie Cocco isn’t flipping burgers?
Report thisBy cyrena, June 19, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
All excellent comments, except of course they’re wasted on this tabloid piece from Marie Cocco. She’s in another world as usual.
Meantime, we’re after Iran now.
More than threats, this is the reality of what AIPAC is currently attempting to force upon the US Congress.
House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Americas powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress
By Andrew W Cheetham
Global Research, June 18, 2008
A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.
H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”
Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.
In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a weeks time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.
AIPAC’s Endorsement
Congressional insiders credit Americas powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ‘‘Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.
AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.
The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.
Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. “It is my hope that this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways,” said Congressman Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. “The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island,” he writes.
These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills
would signal US intentions of war with Iran.~
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9377
By the way, this IS an act of war.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 19, 2008 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
It is very simple. Any country with oil which allows U.S/British oil companies such as Exxon, etc. to operate there is our “ally”. Any country which does not is our “enemy”. Iran nationalized their oil in 1953 and the government was overthrown. The Shah made deals with U.S./British petroleum and he was our ally. The Ayatollahs would not deal with them and they are our “enemies”. Saddam nationalized Iraq’s oil so he was our enemy. Ditto Venezuela, Bolivia. It has nothing to do with anything else. The nature of imperialism is to use military force primarily for the purpose of opening up markets for U.S. corporations. Look at what is happening now in Iraq:
From the NY Times June 19:
Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back
BAGHDAD Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraqs Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraqs largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraqs Oil Ministry.
Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.
For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the worlds dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity.
While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the worlds oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts.
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Report thisBy Purple Girl, June 19, 2008 at 3:50 am Link to this comment
This agruement that regarding our ‘volunteer ‘Army Fails on Numerous Levels.first who are recruited- Kids unable to afford a college education- rural & inner city.Second the repeated & longer Deployments.Demographics is telling US we can Not sustain these levels without serious detriments to those already serving and the need for new truely able bodied recruits. They are sending back in those who would be other wise kept back due to mental & physical disabilites resulting from the previous Tours.
Report thisIf Mac Gets in a Draft will have to be instituted to keep up the numbers- so the commerical is correct if this war goes on for the next 18 yrs ‘Alex’ will be taken. Considering the numbers and age of those willing to continue attacks on US troops in the M.E. there will be no choice. We have already seen the increase of Youth and Women being Utilized for attacks- their Populations are much younger then Ours.
Also the longer we stay the more legitimate their claims to Imperialism. And the Longer the Iraqi Officials can drag their feet and Point at US from the hardship their people are experiencing.Anthropology ( historical perspective) and Sociology alones indicates this venture was misguided from the start. An Authority in these areas specializing in the Middle East could have told this Admin this was going to be a No Win Fiasco from the Start. This is why HW only got Saddam Out of Kuwait and Clinton Only bombed- So Rudy can shove his head right back Up his ass again.That man does not know Jack about Shit! Pick up a History Book- See how long they will fight and who they are willing to use to win. This is Not our Culture, and they have been Pissed for millenia, the Oil Industry was poking at a Hornets nest and they knew it,and left US holding the Bag with One big Black eye (9/11).We now have Proof this Adminstration Mislead US we should take this Opportunity to Get Out and prosecute them for their Crimes.Thyye have created a siuation we will be Paying for, for god Knows How long.that Culture can Hold a Grudge forever. Heckova Job Georgie! you’ll be remebered no doubt- but not the way you had hoped and for as long as they see it as a justified pay back.
By Immediately Withdrawing and prosecuting these Criminals in office WE will be sending a clear message WE are Not a Nation of Impearialist and Are a True Democracy. Leading by example is far more Powerful a tool then force.
By SamSnedegar, June 19, 2008 at 3:19 am Link to this comment
It’s plain as day that Hillary voted for the war because AIPAC wanted her to, and she capitulated to their demands, though it ought to be supposed also that BILL knew full well that we have to go marauding for oil to survive economically.
What’s the point is supposing, but suppose for a while that we never invaded and Saddam still ran Iraq with an iron hand. Unless we managed to scare him fecusless, he’d be selling his oil for euros, as would Iran, and the two of them MIGHT just have joined together to spit in Uncle Sam’s eye. They also might have secretly supplied al qaeda with dirty bombs they got from using the Pakistan wizard to develop their “nuclear power.”
The only reason we still can function in the global economy is because we CONTROL a tenth of the known oil reserves on earth. Leave Iraq, and we control nothing, not even our voracious appetites and our debt to China.
Don’t cry for us Argentina; we’ll be there soon.
Report this