The U.N. and Iraq

The Washington Times ^ | 9/4/2004 | Paul Craig Roberts

[JohnGalt]

Do you remember the ridicule neocons heaped on critics who predicted a quagmire in Iraq? Now neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagen are calling for more troops and more money

[JohnGalt]

Broadside from Paul Craig Roberts in the Moonie newspaper.

[JohnGalt]

I think the summation paragraph is worth the read.

He offers a simple political strategy to correct the course of this administration.

[Pikamax]

"It will not be the neocon press or Fox News that does it. These folks hide behind superpatriotism, but their real motive is to make the Middle East safe for Israel. "

ah yes.. those people are the cause of all of this.

[dirtboy]

Our situation in Iraq is already bad.

That's the problem with the premise of this article - by any historical military standard, things are going very well. Iraqis are taking over more and more local and regional government functions, there has not been any significant ethnic strife, and more Iraqis are cooperating in turning in former regime members who are causing problems. And for all the dismay expressed about the bombings last week, the two largest were against targets that had turned down U.S. protection.

It's a fair debate about how much being in Iraq helps the war on terror and what our strategic goals should be going forward. But to claim that things are going badly shows a gross misunderstanding of military history by folks who, in most cases, do NOT want to understand such, as it would run counter to their own personal biases and opinions.

[dirtboy]

It will not be the neocon press or Fox News that does it. These folks hide behind superpatriotism, but their real motive is to make the Middle East safe for Israel.

Is it the Joos?

Sooner or later, even the brain-dead are going to realize that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, was not a threat to us (until neocons got us mired down there) and had nothing to do with the events of September 11.

Uh, even most critics of the war believed that Saddam had these weapons. Considering it tooks us months to find buried jets (which were only revealed when a tail fin started poking out from a sand dune), what makes Roberts think that finding buried WMDs is going to be easy?

And, as far as tying Iraq to 9/11, the point is, Iraq was for a long time a state sponsor of terrorism. The critics of this war are mired in their analysis of tactics while completely ignoring the strategic components that driving out Saddam brought to the table. THEIR strategy seems to be for the United States to withdraw from its interests and to simply hope that no one attacks us again. That might have worked 100 years ago, but it simply isn't viable now.

[JohnGalt]

I think the key is in the last paragraph.

Many of us anti-war types remain Bush supporters but nevertheless want to see some consquences for the folks that misled the President, intentionally, or unintentionally.

On some levels your points are valid, but conservative generally don't care about nation building nor believe that the military is to be used for anything but breaking things; conservatives deal with the world as it is and right now the national defense policy has the United States ill prepared to defend from real threats, which Iraq at this moment is not.

I do believe the President can drape the war in liberal terms so long as he supports a policy of bringing the boys back home, but until then, conservative of all stripes should be dubious of supporting nation building operations.

[dts32041]

Wonder what the problem with this is.

Oh I know Roberts is a closet convert to the religion of peace and doesn't want Israel to exist at all, much as his friends in china don't want Tibet to exist.

Now I understand.

[JohnGalt]

"strategic components that driving out Saddam brought to the table."

Again, Conservatives take the world as it is, traditionally, and the President did not sell the war as such leaving the populace ill prepared to deal with the cost of the campiagn, creating the real possibility that a half-assed job will be done.

While you may have been led to believe that the Likuds represent all Jews, they do not. Its akin to saying that those who are against the IRA are anti-Catholic.

[steve50]

After watching Rummy, Wolfowitz, and the crowd rant and ridicule any opposing positions I think it's time Bush asked for their resignations myself. I won't be voting to leave foreign policy is such obviously incapable hands.

[mr.pink]

But to claim that things are going badly shows a gross misunderstanding of military history by folks who, in most cases, do NOT want to understand such, as it would run counter to their own personal biases and opinions.

I think if things were going according to the war architects plans (remarkably poor post war planning that should have gotten quite a few at DOD fired), the Bush admin would not be trying to figure out how to get U.N. troops in there.

[JohnGalt]

With all the D's indicating that they will up the commitment in Iraq 'should they get elected', Bush's only political opportunity would be to become the 'Bring the Boys Back Home' candidate which would isolate the neoconservatives and force their hand to come out for the Democratic nominee more or less as they did in 1992.

[billbears]

The alliance of neocons with white Southern evangelicals is not enough to control U.S. foreign policy. Sooner or later, even the brain-dead are going to realize that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, was not a threat to us (until neocons got us mired down there) and had nothing to do with the events of September 11.

Sorry, going to have to take a bit of issue with that. As a 'white Southern evangelical' I was never for this 'police action'. I was losing interest in Bush even before 9/11. But he is right in stating that some are starting to wake up and realize WMDs were nothing more than wishful thinking

Voters will begin to wonder why Mr. Bush doesn't sack the neocons who have brought him such deep embarrassment. The longer Mr. Bush waits before sacking the neocons, the more voters will wonder why they voted for him.

Sack the neocons? It would be an entirely different administration. Would there be anyone left? Cheney,Wolfowitz,Perle,Rumsfeld, heck half of the well known talking heads for this administration would be gone

[dirtboy]

The last paragraph is key, eh?

Many people much smarter than neocons gave these warnings in response to the neocons' promise of a cakewalk. It is time Mr. Bush replaced his delusional neocon advisers with wise people of integrity.

Well, the war itself WAS a cakewalk. And the subsequent occupation, by any historical standard other than the modern desire of some for bloodless war, has gone extremely well.

Stop thinking tactics for a moment and look at regional strategy. What is the biggest economic wildcard in the world? The surplus oil capacity of the Saudis. There is another nation that could have a similar capacity - Iraq. I think both you and I would agree that the Saudis are the primary problem state when it comes to Islamic terrorism. But they were protected by the fact that they were the only reliable source of surplus petroleum capacity in the world, which they have used to stabilize oil prices. And you can be sure they remined the Bush Admin at every chance about that weapon they held in their back pocket.

Now, we're in a position to create another oil-producing behemoth in the Middle East. We're already moving out of our bases in Saudi Arabia. Within a couple of years, we'll be able to tell the Saudis to stuff their surplus capacity, and will be able to start applying some serious leverage against them.

And we're also on the flanks of the two other problem countries in that region, Iran and Syria. Terrorism is a regional problem, and now we're in that region like a big dog. And the little dogs who sponsor terrorism are taking notice. That is the strategic position I see the Bush Admin taking here - one that is firmly in our national interest and in the interest of the world in general, to change the entire dynamic of the cancer that is the Middle East. Is it risky? Very. But it also has the potential for a stupendous payout in terms of security and political change.

[dirtboy]

I think if things were going according to the war architects plans (remarkably poor post war planning that should have gotten quite a few at DOD fired), the Bush admin would not be trying to figure out how to get U.N. troops in there.

I didn't say things were going as planned. I said that things were still going fairly well. That doesn't mean that things change - war is known for waylaying initial planning.

And I don't think it is an admission of failure that we want some U.N. troops in place. Instead, it will spread around the post-war burden, after the heavy lifting has been done, the kind of heavy lifting that the U.N. tends to screw up. But they're OK at guarding checkpoints.

[Spruce]

This article has it all!

• Quagmire
• Conspiracy of NEOCONS
• Brain-dead, flag-waving robots controlled by propoganda
• Desperate President
• Misrepresentation of conditions in Iraq
• Alliance of NEOCONS and white Southern evangelicals
• Threats of conscription and nuclear war
• And last, but not least...THE JEWS!

[Coop]

Mr. Bush is trying to get other countries to send their soldiers to occupy Iraq. So far, success has eluded him.

Then I guess his definition of success is more than 40 countries helping out. I saw today Gen. Myers saying there were 40 countries on the ground in Iraq.

He offers a simple political strategy to correct the course of this administration.

Simple? Or lying.

[dirtboy]

True enough, that's a pretty good inventory there. Sometimes it gets hard to tell the far right and the far left apart.

[JohnGalt]

All that might be true, but I would only ask that you concede on the slightest that the war was not sold to fulfill that agenda who laid out. The second point of the article was that the US does not have the troops for this policy which could only lead to back to the draft--perhaps over stated perhaps not.

But don't be coy, come out and say that if the military needs a draft, then well, we need to have a draft.

[Cronos]

He is right about one thing -- Blair's political life is nearly over and Labour's going to lose badly in the UK, and José Maria Aznar's case seems worse.

[JohnGalt]

Why do you intentionally confuse criticism of Likud supporters with criticism of 'Jews' ?