sometimes I wonder if our country will ever wake up to the truth: our country tries to bribe politicians; if they refuse; they conspire to overthrow that person; when THAT is done, they set up a dictatorship or throughly corrupt politician like themselves folks: who will do their bidding. THIS is exactly what went down in Iran: the USA went to Saddam Hussain, bribed, flattered, weaponed him up to overthrow the Gov that would NOT accept bribes from USA conglomerates; so: they set up the Shah; when he was overthrown, the USA is once again in the process of overthrowing Iran: and multiple other Gov’s across the globe; for THEIR interests which is NEVER in the benefit of the people HERE or THERE; but for the pocketbooks of the wealthy; like they say: we have gotten away with it in the USA for years: let’s take it globally. Every single other country & nation EXCEPT the USA understands, & recognizes this. And wonders WHY we accept enslavement to Corps: instead of freedom such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden & multiple other countries do; we are the deceived; NOT the free; nor even of majority vote. It’s kind of like school: when THAT is the only reality you know while attending it, you BELIEVE it IS the reality; when indeed it is NOT. Or the man who beats his wife while continually telling her “I am the best thing that ever happened to you”; same psychology being used folks; and off we march to be blown to bits, missing arms, legs; coming back to be told “no $ for medical care for YOU.” and the Gov saying “all military personnel have mental problems & the Corps saying we are not going to hire them”; in the interim lots of $ to illegals; going to pay for all college schooling for them; but to the disabled Americans who returned living: no jobs, no medical, no pensions; and the Christians: well, it was decided by a judge that no Christian school graduates could attend colleges in Calif; they “didn’t” measure up to the “requirements” (aclj); figured it out yet folks?

To me it’s a very important principle that generals must follow the orders of the President or resign. Shinseki properly resigned. Petraeus decided to take the job. Making that decision is tantamount to being willing to put up with all kinds of abuse from anyone politically opposed to the war. I thought he has been careful to stay away from the kinds of political claims that the Republicans make about the success of the “surge” which I take to mean Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy, which certainly involved political components such as buying off the right people. The level of violence did diminish for various reasons of which this new strategy seems to be one. Why not give him a little credit? He’s not the one that got us into this mess. He’s just a soldier.

Barack Obama is absolutely right and has been right all along that that the basic political problems have not been solved, and we are still spending $10 billion a month there to no good purpose. There is nothing to do but get the troops out of there and let the people living in the area work it out, and that is what I expect to see over the next year.

The article is good, but a wee bit coy about the tons of $$$ being paid to the Sunny to stop aiming their guns at US soldiers and aim them instead at al-Qa’ida, which was never popular at all and, as the author says, overplayed its hand. al-Qa’ida is a gang of serious nut-case religious fanatic control freaks whose bloody tactics make Sunni insurgents look like boyscouts. Turning Sunni insurgents against them for piles of loot was not difficult. “Here’s the cheque”.

Iraq under Saddam was rough, but it also was a sophisticated society with a lot of freedoms particularly in the 70s and 80s before things got bad with the war with Iran. But before then, there was lots of money from oil, western-style dress was popular (for women as well as men), women went to university, etc. Not at all like Saudi Arabia.

Saddam, it must be remembered, was a ‘socialist’ (of a very weird authoritarian kind…huge fan of Stalin!!) and deeply afraid of the religious nuts, hence the war with Iran—supported and encouraged by the US. (Imagine the supidity of trying to link him to al-Qa’ida, his biggest enemy; to al-Qa’ida, Sadam was exactly the kind of leader—Godless socialist!!—who had to be replaced by a theocratic gov’t.

So the Sunnies, who had been the ruling elite, had enjoyed the good life, and the austere, nasty, life-denying religious extremism of al-Qa’ida didn’t interest them at all. Plus, al-Qa’ida wanted to take over and control. So getting paid by the US to fight these idiots was a serious win/win/win for everybody. Sunny insurgents got money; they stopped killing Americans; and they put the run on al-Qa’ida. Effective, but not exactly tactical military brilliance. How long for that loot, though??

And as the author says, by the time Patraeus took over, the Shiites had won the civil war and had pretty well ‘cleansed’ all Shiite neighbourhoods of Sunny families, so of course the violence naturally went down.

So, Patraeus is a “good” general?! Here’s what his superior at the time (Adm. William Fallon) thought of him :  Fallon told Petraeus [in March, 2007] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say.

Re TheRealFish, September 18 at 2:10 am #

Petraeus should certainly feel the future is “fragile” but a little less proud about this supposedly “huge success” of that surge…’

——————————————————————————
TheRealFish,

It’s McCain who called the “surge” a “huge success”. I haven’t noticed Petraeus ever saying this. He seems to be rather modest and self-effacing in public. I give him credit for doing the best that could be done in a bad situation. I think he was told by Obama that it is time to leave Iraq, but last I heard he was heading in the direction of Afghanistan, where Obama has said he will send two brigades. Perhaps we will get to see how his counterinsurgency strategy works in Afghanistan under an Obama administration.

Right away I can see Folktruther and a host of others here pouncing on me saying this prospect only proves an Obama administration will just be a continuation of the Bush foreign policy. The way I see it, if Petraeus happens to be a good general, Obama should use him. Good generals are hard to come by.

If Mac could reach is own back He would have broken his arm patting it. The troop numbers are still higher than prior to the So called ‘Surge’- which was nothing mroe than finally sending the necessary troops which were not deployed to begin with.
“Powell Doctrine” OVERWHELMING FORCE Was NOT followed so the Surge was nothing more than rectifying this admin (Rummy’s) Fuck Up!
These Rhetorical mind games have not fooled most Americans- Those Who Still Think for themselves.
As for it “Working”- we had no doubt if you gave the Armed Service adequate numbers they would succeed in squelching violence in general. However we are well aware that Militant attakcs would continue. Waht th e’Surge ’ did Accomplish is putting our kids between multiple sides of a Civil War, while draining the OUR Bank! I prefer to call ‘McCains’ Surge’ ..‘The Great Purge’ 10 Billion a month to rebuild a country we had NO Right to invade to begin with (Mac’s falsifying evidence in regards to Anthrax), Who can’t reconcil their own differences and destroy anything that is rebuilt at our expense.
Petreaus has done nothing but split hairs for this administratins debackle- ‘progess tenttive and Fragile’..Means we have NOT Suceeded! Now he’ll take his Puppet show on the road to Afghanistan too. More hair splitting and LYING!
and who did this New Bozo blow to get the Iraq assignment. Apparently some of the Commanders could not lower themselves or dishonor Military serivce by LYING for this Admin, Petreaus seems to lack that personal conviction and Sense of Integrity. Seems that is the New Way of being a ‘Patriot’. McCain has proven, regardless of Military training the phrase ‘Country First’ is nothing more than a Slogan, not a conviction.
Although I found the reaction to Returning Vietnam vets a disgrace, I’m beginning to see such figures as McCain and Petreaus as good Reasons to question Military Allegiences. Which Country have you been Referring to Mac…The one your Corp Buddies are Building on our Dime? Lest We forget Benedict Arnold Was also a ‘Military Man’.

I agree with Jobart…

•  “…Putting career before country is not patriotic, it’s treason. Not treason that is punishable, but actions taken that are self serving and against the country’s best interests should be seen as such..”

That’s just the way it is.

Now of course if the good general HAD the balls, he would never have been left in the position, or put in it to begin with. (you see what happened to Fallon, among others). So, it is career before country, and our troops, and civilians in Iraq, have continued to die and be maimed, and to lose their minds, and to be left homeless and starving in the months when Petraeus was credited with ‘decreasing violence’.

Now of course every time I read that ‘decreased violence’ I just get pissed off all over again. Decreased from WHAT? Same thing with the complaints that we are refereeing a civil war. What? The civil war the Dick Bush initiated? THAT civil war? And how did that happen anyway? By building walls around the neighborhoods, and turning them all into little Gaza’s?

Let’s get real here. Petraeus did what Cheney told him to do. He made it possible (for the first time in over 35 years) for the OIL ROBBER barons to gain access to Iraq’s OIL, and that’s that. That’s why the ‘surge’ was done…because the ‘insurgents’ weren’t letting the troops or the contractors get to the oil. Paying off the ‘insurgents’ and walling the rest of them in, made it possible to get to the oil. So, let’s just call it what it is.

No doubt Cheney et al will eventually explain it all. I mean, what else could they do? If those damn ‘insurgents’ hadn’t tried to keep him away from the oil, he wouldn’t have had to kill over a million of them, and displace another 4 plus million. It’s all their fault. They should have just handed over the oil when Cheney et al first demanded it over 6 years ago. If they had done it then, they would by now be assigned as slaves to their respective oil plantations, and order would be restored.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/

A good measure of petraeus will be where he goes from here. If he winds up on several weapon’s industries boards or just one of them, then he is just another opportunist unworthy of the position he held in our military.
For me it also includes his non-action in doing what he could to with draw our troops out of Iraq.

Of course the Iranians are the big winners and of course the Iraq war was and is a complete disaster from every conceivable point of view. The most that can be said is that Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy, which had both military and political components helped to bring down the level of violence and casualties caused by a disasterous policy.

Big B, wish that I could agree with thee but alas & alack! ENSLAVEMENT to the giant Corps & stealing it all at the top just like it’s done in USA for years is what it is all about; am sure the chemical companies have already started their diabolically evil deeds of poisoning every single thing there; and soon this nation will be #2 in babies deaths every single year with USA leading yet again & it is NOT due to “poor” prenatal care folks; they are there for more slaves: poisoining folks to their graves: all for their own pocketbooks; just like in the USA; all the world sees us enslaved;***Saw a commercial today: people in Iceland live better & live longer: of course they do; almost in every single country this is true: Germany for years has had cancer treatments even Ronald Reagan got treated there & lived 17 more years: denied in USA cuz the $ for their pocketbooks folks; lots of business with round robins & all for their own benefit & none for the people or the land;

Ah, gen. betrayus, we hardly knew ye!

Lets all keep in mind the master plan of the last 15 months or so, we PAID the enemy not to fight with us!

And that piece of genius will continue to work, at least until the checks start to bounce.

We are there for the duration kids, I mean the duration of the oil. Once it’s gone so will we be.
looking back without regret, at the first nation we raped for it’s natural resources. But worry not, for we will be working on raping country number three or four by then, regardless of who wins the white house.

WE ARE IN IRAQ FOR ONE REASON, PETROLEUM, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. We are hoplessly addicted, and we still show no signs of starting our 12 steps away from oil(despite what Al gore thinks) We are americans, our obstenance is a large part of what made us great. Now it will be the prime ingredient in our downfall.
It was a hell of a ride! Lets just hope we are magnanamous enough not to take the rest of the world with us.

But hey, we are after all, americans.

After all that, the neo-cons wind up with an Iraqi Shia government that is allied with Iran.

As for the millions of refugees, they practically don’t exist so far as the U.S. mainstream media is concerned.

My impression of Petraeus is that he is a competent general who did the best job he could under the most difficult political circumstances. There is only so much that can be done militarily. His counterinsurgency strategy appears to have been as sound as one could hope for under the circumstances. He is certainly no more to be blamed for the Iraq war itself than “the troops”, and it would be just as stupid to do so.

After a pause, hostilities will resume. In effect they have won, because of Bush’s bankrupting this nation.

Tell the truth nigga-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0
some radically hot stuff here boy.

Farewell, General—but Did You Bring Iraq Hope?

So, who cares?  The premise of the question is bullshit!

Cockburn points out that Iran is the likely “winner” in Iraq, without having to fire a single shot. This fact should be no cause for alarm to the USA, which has no business picking sides in these conflicts, anyway. There is certainly nothing wrong with Iran, a country with a huge Shi’ite majority, being friendly with Iraq, a nation with a slight Shi’ite majority.

Iran, remember, has not attacked another country in several centuries. It was Iraq under Saddam that started the disastrous 1980’s Iran-Iraq conflict, goaded on and armed by the USA, which also(let us not forget) supplied the raw materials for Saddam to make chemical WMD’s.

The best strategy now is for the US to withdraw all troops from the Middle East, let the countries involved solve their disputes in their own way, and focus on fixing up our own country (which, by the way, is facing an economic meltdown).

Or, we could stay in the Middle East, continuing to spend billions of dollars we don’t have, plunge the value of the dollar to near zero, and become a third world country ourselves.

While I agree the big beneficiaries of all our time wasted in Iraq are the Iranians, and while this article appears generally accurate, I notice a fair slip in its “truthiness” right in the middle. Mr. Cockburn writes:

“During the period in which General Petraeus was in command in Iraq, the Sunni Arab insurgency, responsible for inflicting losses of 4,150 dead and 30,000 wounded on the US army, largely ended its uprising against the US occupation.”

This completely ignores all the death and mayhem caused by Al Sadr and his Sadr Brigade/Mahdi Army—an all Shi’a group of insurgents—and the fact that the Surge would likely have had far less real impact had Al Sadr not voluntarily called a halt to the killing by his faction. I admit that most of his energies focused on ethnic cleansing against the Sunnis, but I recall many, many reports of rocket attacks and road-side bombs attributed to this group (aside from the out-and-out direct fighting in Basra and elsewhere).

Petraeus should certainly feel the future is “fragile” but a little less proud about this supposedly “huge success” of that surge, especially since the main stated reason for Sadr’s truce hinged upon the US setting a defined timetable for withdrawal.

Even though splintering of this group is also reported, it still does not alter the apparent fact that all members of the Mahdi Army voluntarily followed his statement of truce—hinging upon a clear plan for the US to leave Iraq.

This, all things considered, still agrees with Cockburn’s idea that the Iranians are the big winners and, unless the US withdraws, the future is fragile and that some version of the Shiite Mahdi Army would rise again.