This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Some suggestions
Published on June 26, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The domestic debate over the setting of a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has been most instructive. On the one hand it dlearly demonstrated to the whole world that there is dwindling support for the war in Iraq and the Republicans barely managed to stave off defeat in the Senate because Democrats like Hilary Clinton went along with the majority. However we have not seen the end of the debate. The Democrats made acrucial tactical blunder by emphasing the timetable for troop withdawal instad of highlighting the conduct and strategy of war. Had they concentrated their attack on the muddled and incompetent manner in which the war is being conducted along with loud and imaginatively constructed wails of protest against the brutal nature of the American occupation in Iraq, the Democrats would have made a better show. The Republicans did a superb job of defelecting any criticism by trumpetting the canard that even suggesting a timetable for troop withdrawal is unpatriotic and anti American. Thus the Democrats gave a crucial tactical victory to the Democrats.

Yet disturbing questions remain. Three years after the War Iraq is nowhere near stability and reconstruction. The fatigue induced by this senseless war would mean that the US will abandon Iraq sooner than later. A wounded, bleeding Iraq will become a bigger recruiting soil for the Al Qaeda. Infact, before the invasion of Iraq there was not a single Al Qaeda cell in Iraq except perhaps in the Kurdish noth which was insulated by a no fly zone enforced by US airforce. Now Iraq is chalk-a-block with terrorists of very colour, ideological hue, and training. The USA remains clueless about the next step.

The much vaunted elections in Iraq have not helped to bring stability to the country. A devastated civil society can hardly throw up national leaders with strong plitical base. The quislings who call themselves Iraq's political leadership will not survive single day after the exit of the US troops. In fact those quislings have realised that by hitching their political wagons to the American band wagon they political future will lie burried in the sands of Nineveh like the palaces of Nebuchenazzer. So they hit upon a most cynical ploy. Amnesty to all those who have not shed Iraqi blood. Think of the implications of this move. It is a massive vote of no confidence in the American Occupation and the fact that amnesty covers the killing of American soldiers meabns that the present Iraqi regime asees the US occupation as a period of hostile action and hence kid glove treatment to those responsible for killing US troops. 2,569 soldiers of the US 1562 American civillians have been killed since Bush accomlished his great mission. Of the Iraqi dead and wounded there is no count. The shallow rooted political system of al-Maliki and his goons will not outlive the exit of the Americans and everyone knows now that the US exit is only a matter of time.

The entire fabric of Iraqi society has been torn by the fissures created by American style Identity politics. In Iraq Shiaa, Sunni and Kurd were by and large coexiasting, I am not saying peacefully, but they were not slaughtering each other like the way things are happening now. In fact even the few Green Zone supporters of the Occupation admit in private that US has made conditions far far worse in Iraq than they ever were. The proliferation of private militias has made the so called central government extremely fragile and the INsurgency is becoming more sophisticated after the killing of Zarqawi. Now the Iraqi nationalists and the Baathists have joined hands with the Shiaa resistance groups and are to a large exten appropriating the political space vacated by the retreat of the Malaki regime. Indeed the average Iraqi has unmitigated contempt foral Maliki and his supporters who are seen as traitors.

Will the USA be able to set the Agenda in Iraq. Froam all accounts the USA has realised that it cannot hang on to Iraq in this manner and the strategy of fashioning an Iraqi political government has come unstuck.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 26, 2006
Yeah? Really?

Well down the hatch.

*Cloaks oneself in the American Flag*

Democracy for all, just look out for what you say on the phone and if you don't have anything to hide, you'll be fine.

Don't forget to support that all-important flag burning amendment y'all.

...suckers...
on Jun 26, 2006
You are way off base about much of this.

Zarqawi was in Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan. Iraq has turned the corner and militant Sunni interests are getting less approval all the time. They killed far too many Shia and Sunni thinking they'd be too stupid to realize that they were trying to get a civil war started. The last interview I saw with journalists who travel with insurgents stated plainly that they were not in favor with the Iraqi people.

The amnesty is a reasonable move, and I doubt you'd expect everyone on the losing side of a war to be considered a murderer. You misrepresent what they said when you imply that terrorists will receive amnesty, because they have stated plainly that they had no intention of granted them such.

As far as infrastructure you are going on the assumption that the Iraqis had good services to begin with. In reality they didn't have much better in most of the country. I'll ask you the same question I asked before. When your predictions don't pan out, will you retract this article, or offer an apology for the mistargeted claims?

I'll happily come back and admit you were right, will you come back and admit you were wrong?
on Jun 26, 2006
"Don't forget to support that all-important flag burning amendment y'all."


Yeah that Clinton woman sure will do anything to play to the polls, won't she?
on Jun 26, 2006
Zarqawi was in Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan. Iraq has turned the corner and militant Sunni interests are getting less approval all the time


I have sasid that in my blog, but I also mentioned that the Baghdad Government has not enjoyed much authjority there.
on Jun 26, 2006
No, you said that there were Al Qaeda in the kurdis areas, refering to Ansar al Islam. Zarqawi is said to have been positioning himself in the Sunni triangle right under the nose of Hussein's authority.
on Jun 26, 2006
Yeah that Clinton woman sure will do anything to play to the polls, won't she?
- Bakerstreet

I'd say I whole-heartedly agree but I think there's much more to her condemnation then simple poll-watching...
on Jun 26, 2006
Zarqawi is said to have been positioning himself in the Sunni triangle right under the nose of Hussein's authority.


Infact there is a grweaT DEAL OF AMBIGUITY OVER THIS QUESTION.Powell in his address to the UN justifying the US attack on Iraq in 2003 stated that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq is proof of Saddam Hussein's patronage of Al Qaeda. Since then it has come to loght that Zarqawi may have been in the Kurdish areas out of the reach of Saddam Hussein and therefore when the Jordanians asked for Zarqawi, Saddam prevaricated saying that he will not surrender the terrorist, when in reality he just was helpless in this matter.
on Jun 26, 2006
Bahu, you're an outsanding analyst. You watch the news, you're informed, you draw deductions and you seem to think for yourself on many matters.
That said, if you weren't so damned anti-American (and anti-Bush) in your stance and so gleeful in reporting your predicted doom and gloom, I may take much of what you say on a more serious level. As it stands, you're just a saner shade of Col Gene.

I'd say I whole-heartedly agree but I think there's much more to her condemnation then simple poll-watching...
--deference

No there's not; everyone knows that poll-watching is what the Clintons do best. It's why Bill never got himself a legacy; kind of hard to take a firm stand on any issue when you jump around according to the polls.
on Jun 26, 2006
I disagree, Rightwinger, there's more substance to this then some old bag floating with the polls (which I'm certain she does to some degree as do all major industries, other politicians, consumer advocacy groups, major industry leaders such as Ford, Sony, etcetera, etcetera) .

If she truly were going strictly by the polls (and which ones do you believe she favors most?), don't you think she'd be calling for troop withdrawal immediately - in accordance with the latest from Zogby and other major polling groups?

Hillary has already been labeled a turncoat by most Democrats I know, so don't think she's got her finger on the pulse of anyone via polls - she's certainly not acted on the figures by any means which is par for the course in regards to most politicians considering this subject and the popular whims of the public at large.
on Jun 26, 2006
That said, if you weren't so damned anti-American (and anti-Bush) in your stance and so gleeful in reporting your predicted doom and gloom


I am not anti American atr all, though I must say I think George Bush has been a disaster to the US and the world. Believe me when I say that I do want the WAr against Terror to succeed in Afghanistan and am distressed by the repeated failure of the coalition to nail the Taliban criminals.

However, on Iraq it is a whole different game. Iraq did not possess WMD, did not give aid and comfort to the Al qaeda, did not encourage Terrorism but Bush and the Bushmen destroyed the coutry on a whim and I think that is bad.

The rampant killings in Iraq will shame any decent human being and the US Administration does not have a clue about what to do. Like a wounded elephant flaying in pain and terror, the USa is just bogged down in Iraq.
on Jun 26, 2006
It's why Bill never got himself a legacy; kind of hard to take a firm stand on any issue when you jump around according to the polls. - Rightwinger

I must call you on this. Blowjobs aside, many argue President Clinton was one of the most successful Republican presidents we've ever had.

* He put tens of thousands of cops on the beat nationwide in signing the 1994 Crime and enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.

* He signed the Welfare Reform Act

* His administration promoted and he signed the NAFTA free trade agreement Reagan and Bush Sr. would have given their right arm for....

* He allowed Janet 'Butcher of Waco' Reno to strong-arm the cult group Branch Davidians utilizing the ATF and FBI in an echo of Ruby Ridge which also occurred under his watch displaying a favour for federalistic displays of power

* Trampled states rights Bush Jr. - style in his administration's attempts to quash Arizona and California propositions 200 and 215 regarding the regulation of state drug laws...

The list goes on and on, there are more similarities and complicities between the Clinton and Bush Jr. Whitehouses than any administrative pair before them within this last century. Read up on it then smack yourself - hard.

I know I did.
on Jun 26, 2006
dbl post
on Jun 26, 2006
Wow. It's amazing how people turn facts to their own whim.
Three years after the War Iraq is nowhere near stability and reconstruction.

Three years is quite a short time to rebuild a country that has been devestated for much, much longer. You think we can just rebuild an entire country overnight? Iraq has long suffered, not just from this war, but from the first Gulf war and the penalties placed on them since then. Even before that time, they did not have a good infrastructure.

Infact, before the invasion of Iraq there was not a single Al Qaeda cell in Iraq except perhaps in the Kurdish noth which was insulated by a no fly zone enforced by US airforce.

Really? I'd like to know where you get your facts from. I work in military intelligence and I hate to tell you, you are very misinformed.

Amnesty to all those who have not shed Iraqi blood. Think of the implications of this move. It is a massive vote of no confidence in the American Occupation and the fact that amnesty covers the killing of American soldiers meabns that the present Iraqi regime asees the US occupation as a period of hostile action and hence kid glove treatment to those responsible for killing US troops.

Wow, have you even heard the actual speech? The Iraqi government reiterated *several times* that there will be no pardons for those who have participated in the violence. This is an "olive branch" for those who might have been disillusioned with the government, or hated the US... but have not actually committed attacks. At no time has there ever been an offer of amnesty for the actual insurgents.

Please get your facts straight.
on Jun 26, 2006
I would have to agre with Rightwinger.  You are a blind man trying to discern an elephant by touch alone, and drawing the wrong conclusions.  And your facts are distorted as well.  Iraq may not be eden, but it is not hell in a hand basket either.
on Jun 26, 2006
However, on Iraq it is a whole different game. Iraq did not possess WMD, did not give aid and comfort to the Al qaeda, did not encourage Terrorism but Bush and the Bushmen destroyed the coutry on a whim and I think that is bad.


Actually Saddam did all three of those things. We have proven all of them.

I love how the two most anti-Bush people here keep saying amnesty is being granted for people who kill U.S. soldiers. That has not been proven but it doesn't stop them saying it as fact.
2 Pages1 2