And Now, The Real War Begins...

It may not be safe to give congratulations at this time for such a stunning military victory in Iraq. But we'll give it a shot. Saddam Hussein is now history, his regime toppled. The President, Defense Secretary and especially our troops in the field deserve all the praise for their efforts. And of course, let us not forget the vast majority of Americans who supported the troops and the war. Yep, those anti-war folks were put in their place, and a few Hollywood folks will soon be looking for new careers. Alas, we have proven once again that we are the most powerful country on earth. Smile. Breathe deep. Enjoy it. And now that the euphoric 'high' is beginning to wear off, it's time for the reality checks to begin.

We'll start here. I thought about letting this one ride a little bit longer, but no sense holding back. While everyone seems to keep using that term, I have heard no person of note mention the more honest assessment: Try - 12 years and 27 days. No, we're not knocking the military here. But the 1991 actions, followed by 12 years of UN sanctions, no-fly zones and a whole lot of sorties in between can sure help soften an enemy for when the time comes to destroy them completely. Keep this in mind before we all get on the 'let's kick Syria's butt' bandwagon. Here's a nation that still HAS an air force and air defenses. I'm sure they don't want a war, and if one comes, they will lose too. But no doubt, they'll put on a better fight. Let's move on.

An Arab American friend of mine, who has been watching the events in the Middle East as much as anyone says "Creating democracy in Iraq will be as easy as turning Vatican City into a Protestant state." We're beginning to see evidence of this already. But before I get into hot water of the use of the word 'democracy', we'd best explain to the world what we mean - as in, the different 'flavors' of democracy.

Democracy A: Mob Rule - This may be the 'exit strategy' for this administration. People vote. Majority Rules, and that's it. If the majority all vote to unleash violence and kill the minority (and anyone else they don 't like), oh well...at least the 'minority' can die saying they had a taste of free speech.

Consider the Shite of Iraq constituting about 70% of the population, thus a virtual super-majority of the vote if election time ever comes. (Yes, I said "if". If you recall, we 'liberated' Kuwait, and we're still waiting for their first election since being 'liberated'). The Shite are the same batch of folks we now see on that pilgrimage, cursing the Americans (and Israel) with every step they take. Guess there's more work to do in the 'winning the hearts and minds' department. No doubt allowing free elections at this time would produce some type of 'democracy' that would quickly show the Americans the door, to say the least.

Democracy B: Stacked Elections - The preferred method in cases of "none-dare-call-it-occupation" policy. This actually worked in ante-bellum America. Simply don't allow people we don't like to the voting booths on election day. This will, of course, lead to a civil war in Iraq, and last we checked, these folks ain't exactly 'civil'. Stacked elections are made flavorful by controlling the media, public gatherings, threats, and outright bribes. Now, you're watching the news from over there, and you can see much of that taking place now. You ARE still watching, aren't you? Or were you told it was over and should now focus on tax cuts and killer viruses from Asia? Our civil affairs folk in the area say 'the new leader in Iraq will be an Iraqi'. That's about the only thing certain at this time. Question is, will this Iraqi like us, or will he stab us in the back later?

Side note to that next Iraqi leader: Remember who got Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq. He was our 'friend' for about 10 years. Remember who took him out. Think about that when you take the oath of office.

Democracy C: "You vote, we certify" - Equate this to the "If you vote for him, our troops will leave" guy. Rest assured that when you hear that, this is our guy. The other lesser votes (mayors, representatives, judges, etc.) will be meaningless. It'll remain a puppet regime, and they'll still hate us anyway.

Democracy D: True American flavor - this is the case where we really don't give two cents over who's in charge and what kind of government it is. So long as the medium of exchange is U.S. greenbacks, and there's a McDonalds and Starbucks on every other corner, MTV beamed into every home, U.S. corporations (friends and relatives of politicians from both parties) get fat contracts, and every drop of black juice pumped out of the ground is property of the U.S. government (er - I mean Iraqi people), the Iraqi people are 'free' and "Democracy" will blossom..

Free that is, until the Tigris and Euphrates Branch of the IRS opens for business in Baghdad.

Which leads to me agree with my Arab friend - forget creating a democracy over there unless we're ready to watch about a million Iraqi's kill each other making it happen. This may seem like a shock that I take this position, but I vote for full occupation of the place until this 'war on terrorism' is over. Military Bases? Sure. Four is a good start.

I'll pause here while many from the pro-Bush division place their eyeballs back in their sockets. You see, most if not all of the Fox News addicted, "Rumsfeld is God" crowd have learned not to question anything that comes out of Washington these days - even if it make no sense whatsoever. I'm just the guy who's been trying to keep their stories straight. Last I checked, this Iraq take down was just another feather in the cap of the War On Terrorism (World War III - start date: September 11, 2001). We all see how much 'love' there is for our forces over there (we're still getting shot at, with others giving us looks that could kill, according to our military on the ground). So, we blow up the place, spill blood, then just leave thinking all is right with the world?

Get Real. If we're being told that other countries in the region are 'shaking in their boots', logic dictates leaving a U.S. military presence in the area for at least a few decades so long as it keeps Johnny Jihad in check. What - you think Turkey will be happy to allow U.S forces to launch attacks on Syria from their soil?

In short, if this Iraq campaign is REALLY part of the War on Terrorism, it would be hypocritical to pull out anytime soon. Sen. Richard Lugar (R- IN) stunned the media by stating it would take about 5 years before 'democracy' could be realized without our forces in the area. By the way things looks, that's a conservative estimate in my opinion. If Rumsfeld's policy is realized (no military bases, no long term presence), some very serious questions should be raised in DC.

Yes, I was hoping not to bring up this ugly subject, either. But we HAVE to address this one. Many are thinking that a recent New York Times story cleared that matter up. How convenient. Still doesn't make sense why Rumsfeld didn't embrace the story when asked in Monday's press conference. If I were him, I would have expanded on the story, gave the embedded reporter a pat on the back, then produced (declassified) even more information related to the matter. But regrettably, not yet.

Now, I know there are some of you out there that believe finding WMD's in not relevant anymore. "We came, we saw, we conquered, and the Iraqi people have been liberated." Save the spin. I don't care how you feel about this war, pro or con. Fact is, even much of the hard core antiwar crowd is hoping SOMETHING is found over there worth talking about. No need to remind the reader that WMD's are the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place (please don't preach to me about 'liberation'). American credibility is on the line. If we never come up with any major stash, think about how much the rest of the world will believe us the next time. We are going to look like fools. Notice I didn't say "Bush" - I said 'WE'. We will look like a bunch of war mongering idiots, that used the WMD boogey man as an excuse. Even if the next country HAS them, no one will believe us until it's too late.

So find them - fast. If the UN boneheads want in to help, let them. No need to be accused of planting something. If I were Rumsfeld, I'd make hay over those suicide vests that were found. If they were used against Israeli civilians, ask the surviving families if they consider those vests to be 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Side note: I'm sure no one wants to really explain all the boatloads of cash that's turning up all over the place, but it's something Congress and the Department of Treasury should be investigating on their own. Counterfeiting a nation's currency is a justification for war. Then again, it's not our currency notes, anyway. It belongs to the Federal Reserve.

Well, here's a royal 'circle jerk' for you. With all the disgust over the UN actions about this conflict, anyone want to tell me why we're still sending a delegation to this place? Why are we still members? There is no simple answer. Keep in mind that another reason we were justified in this war was the enforcement of UN resolution #1441. Now, the UN wants inspectors back in Iraq to make sure they have no WMD's. We're saying 'take a hike'. Go ahead and raise your fist in the air, but perhaps the U.S should make a list of what UN resolutions they will and will not enforce ahead of time so no one gets confused.

WARNING: Some of you won't like hearing this: According to the majority of the UN Security Council, their last resolution on Iraq called for weapons inspectors - not a military occupation. That's why those sanctions were never lifted. Alas, we now say Saddam is history and the sanctions should be lifted for the sake of the Iraqi people. The French are now on board, and your headlines will read, but alas - they want those inspectors back and a condition of 'suspending' the sanctions.

Yes, those pesky French. I must admit I was impressed over how everyone got worked up over those guys, boycotting everything French, while not boycotting caviar, several brand name Vodkas, 90% of Wal-Mart's retail stock (made in China),and everything produced by Mercedes Benz (including the Chrysler Corp.). No one bothered to rename German Chocolate or Russian Roulette or for that matter - Chinese Checkers. Those other mentioned nations all have veto-power on the UN Security Council, too. And since we're on the UN sanctions kick, since we're in favor of lifting the sanctions for the sake of the Iraqi people and Saddam is history, what's the chance of turning back on that oil spigot to Syria? As we were told, the oil pipeline was turn off due to 'illegal' sale of oil to Syria. Well, according to us, it's no longer 'illegal', is it? Not that I care mind you, just trying to keep all the stories straight.

- The United States unilaterally decides a 'material breach' (UN res. 1441) and takes it upon itself to 'enforce the UN mandate'. The majority of the Security Council disagrees. They were in favor of continuing sanctions.

- With hostilities over, the Unites States has called for the 'end of the sanctions', implying that UN resolution 1441 has been enforced. Other nations disagree. Point: Nothing's changed at the UN. The only thing that has changed is...US.

Sorry, we can't have it both ways, folks. Of course, we could just leave the UN. That's my vote. But for some reason, that probably won't happen. Getting thrown out in the near future is probably a better prediction. Be a non-American for a moment: With our diplomatic posturing over the last 6 months, would you consider the United States and 'honest broker'?

No matter how much we say or want to believe this war is NOT about oil, a bunch of folks believe it IS about oil, and there isn't much we can do (or have done) to convince them otherwise. It may explain why we'd like those sanctions lifted all of a sudden. At issue are two major contracts: Elf Aquitaine of France, and Lukoil of Russia. The latter included a 27 year contract to pump oil out of southern Iraq. Sure, we're the U.S., and we don't care. It was war, and we've off'ed the guy that inked the deals. These are the new rules, right?

So if that's the way the game is played, how about we just end the drug war since is was based on a treaty with the German Nazi government of the 1930's?

No, that's not the way it works, and rest assured, folks ain't happy about losing their revenues (we're talking billions to trillions). Perhaps this may explain why other folks aren't exactly ready to drop those sanctions. By keeping the sanctions, no oil can leave, and the Russians and French get better leverage. One can easily see how multi-billions in lost revenue can cause nations to take hostile positions (especially when their economies depend on it).

The typical American position: I didn't see it in the American media, so it' s meaningless. The American media hasn't reported Russia military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and other key places around the world. I haven't seen any news stating everyone will just 'giving up' their rights. Just people getting more 'standoffish' about the Good Ol' USA.

Meanwhile, we work on pushing some guy into a leadership position that other Arab states say 'isn't qualified to run a grocery store'. Jordan would love to get their hand on one Ahmed Chalabi. He's already been convicted of fraud. He steps over the line or the long arm of Jordainan Law finds him, he'll sit in the big house for 25 years. I'm sure that will sit well with the U.S. military brass if, God forbid - something like that happened.

Perhaps it would just be easier for all of us just focused on "shock and awe" , savor the victory, and pray to the Good Lord all that depleted uranium (DU) doesn't come back to haunt our troops out there. By the way, if I used a bunch of DU while 'liberating' Iraq, the last thing I'd want roaming around are weapons inspectors that aren't under our control. Never know what they might come up with.

Be a non-American for a moment: With our diplomatic posturing over the last 6 months, would you consider the United States and 'honest broker'?

Yea and Hans Blix is th only one who can give us an "honest" assessment.

depleted uranium (DU) doesn't come back to haunt our troops out there

Sounds like you believe the LIES about depleted uranium?

My advice: take a valium and try to look at the glass as "half full", there's always plenty to worry about, then we die.

I have expressed various forms of these ideas over the last couple of weeks, but I really enjoyed the author's conversational style.

It's good to hear that there are some people looking beyond the sis-boom-bah of it all. The way most people like their conflicts, all neat & tidy, evil-guy-superhero, with-us-or-against-us, just doesn't match reality.

Afghanistan was simple: they attacked us. Iraq was relativaely simple: they attacked another nation, we got involved, and the current conflict was the resolution of that. After that, things get real messy, no matter where you turn. If more people took as lucid and serious a look at the state of the world as this guy, I would be just a little less worried.

I totally supported this effort BUT the war is not over. I'm sorry but until Iran, Syria and Lebanon are liberated, this war will continue at home and in the Middle East. Sadly, at some point, I'm concerned we will over play our hand. Let's hope that the technocrats at the Pentagon know what the hell they are doing or we could end up with a very, very wide world war, especially since Iran and Russia have signed a mutual defense treaty. The rose colored glasses must come off. Now the dirty war has begun.

LOL, hey, you have to use the "lingo". Those nations do need to be liberated. Sadly, by invading Iraq only, we are inviting World War IV, not preventing it. But I'll hold those thoughts to myself. Just keep an eye on the Ruskie engineers and the Iranian uranium processing plant. That will dictate the next 6 months of action in the region.

"democracy" worked in America because it was a product of the internal Christian conscience
99% of the nearly 400 + founding fathers were Chistians
Without this internal document written in the citizens heart...democracy cannot prevail...
only authoritarianism will....
As American deconstructs...a good example...
Not every man is fit in "his present condition" for democracy...imo
How much freedom is found in the natural state of Islamic dominated nations?

I think many who supported the war are feeling rather used and getting an empty feeling in their stomachs with reports about how great it is to 'free' the Iraqi people. Fox News is telling them how great they should feel for 'liberating oppressed people' and yet for their first time, they have doubts.

They are not quite sure what that feeling is, but they get the urge to take a shower and are considering that maybe 'group think' while I mildly pleasurably drug, leaves a nasty hangover.

I think that you are not in a position to claim to know what a great many people think. You may have these feelings of sudden self-loathing, but I guarantee you that I do not, nor have I come across anyone yet who "gets the urge to take a shower" because of their support for the war.

I am willing to bet that you never really supported this war, and now you are looking to justify your reservations. That's fine, but for God's sake don't project your convoluted feelings onto the rest of us.

A viable democracy in Iraq may turn out to be impossible with the culture and demographics that exist in Iraq as a whole, but my primary reason for supporting this war was to protect our national security. All of the leaping around about the liberation of a people does not change that view. My desire to see Syria and Iran dealt with properly arises from that same reason. This may involve further and more severe sacrifice, but so will inaction. That is what I and "many others" believe, so get used to it.

protect our national security

Which is why you should relate to this article that demands full attention be given to finding 'WMDs.'

Only a small portion of this article was about demanding full attention be given to finding WMDs. The rest is nothing but a cynical rant with an anti-American flavor, and I say anti-American because this guy still attributes the worst of intentions to the US for starting this thing (reread his Democracy D paragraph), as well as assuming that the administration running this show doesn't have the same level of information and understanding of the region that this genius has.

The way I see it, we went into Iraq for 3 reasons, and George Bush stated them all clearly: 1) WMDs 2) Iraqi ties to terrorism 3) liberate Iraqis from evil dictator. So far, we have completed the liberation and have found terrorist training camps and equipment left and right, as well as actual terrorists themselves, all over Iraq. We haven't found WMDs yet, but DAMN, we just finished the shooting part.Now we're looking for them full throttle. Even if we never find any significant WMDs, I figure 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

So what is this guy's reason for complaining and making snide insinuations about US success and credibility in Iraq? As far as I can tell, he just wants to spout off about how much smarter he is than the Bush administration, just like the rest of the lefty establishment. He can bite me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.