This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Iraq will soon be free
Published on May 13, 2007 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events
It is a true sign of statesmanship to know when his policies are failing and take corrective steps. George Bush and his ally Tony Blair took their countries into a disastrous war in Iraq after having fudged the data to make a case for the war, ruined a fairly peaceful and stable country and inflicted death on at least 650,000 Iraqis and to top it all stand by idly when a sectarian civil war is tearing the country apart. George Bush would now understand how difficult it must have been to govern Iraq in the past and with the unleashing on the sectarian strife, the political future of Iraq does not seem too bright.

The US is now encouraging the Kurds in the north to assert themselves in much the same way that in the early days of the invasion they fanned the fires if Shiaa Identity politics. With every passing day violence has begun to engulf the northern part of Iraq and the USA seems to want a Kurdish state there. Once again it is certainly not in the interest of the USA to install a Kurdish state as it will exert a baleful influence on the politics of Turkey and the Kurds in Turkey will be encouraged. It appears that the USA wants fire and death in the region and is clearly sending out a message that any group will real or imagined grievances with the existing regimes will receive the patronage of the USA.

The destabilization of Somalia has already led to large scale violence and the horn of Africa is now a conundrum of Islamic nationalists, Al Qaeda Terrorists, war lords and criminals. In Afghanistan the War on Terror has denigrated into a full scale attack on the civilians and just yesterday 21 innocent men and children were killed in a NATO raid launched predictably from air.

The Bush policies have led to the growth of al Qaeda in parts of the world in which there was no trace of that Islamic organisation like Iraq, has undermined prospects of peace and stability in the region, alienated large sections of the non-white world, and has made the world a whole lot less secure. This will be the legacy of Bush and Blair.

During the course of the last two months the insurgency has become extremely sophisticated and even ther US counter insurgency tsar in Iraq Gen Petraeus has admitted that the US military has no response at all to the innovative use of IEDs made by the militias. It is now widely recognised by all that the militancy is sustained by homegrown militants with little,if any, support from outside. The US establishment is blind to the fact that the triumph of the Iraqi militants in Iraq is as much against the interests of the powers of the region as it is against the US interests. Yet US policy has failed to tap into that potential source for squelching the insurgency.

The Democrats have begun to assert their majority in Congress but with the use of the presidential veto there is the fear that the house democtrats are only playing to the gallery: willing to strike but not hurt.

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 23, 2008

WOW he has been silent on this for a while. Maybe he is on vacation? Or maybe he has seen the light and supports the surge now that it is mostly over and a success.

on Sep 04, 2008

WOW he has been silent on this for a while.

Yep, he's abandoned this thread & moved on to his next mistake: thoughtful analysis of the McCain Campaign Disaster - Sarah Palin.

on Sep 04, 2008

WOW he has been silent on this for a while. Maybe he is on vacation? Or maybe he has seen the light and supports the surge now that it is mostly over and a success
Yep, he's abandoned this thread & moved on to his next mistake: thoughtful analysis of the McCain Campaign Disaster - Sarah Palin.

Sorry to disappoint you Daiwaa, I am still on Iraq and have not abondoned this thread. It seems that even the US has admitted that it cannot be in Iraq forever and as for the "surge" in Bushspeak or escalation in ordinary English, the jury is still out on that.

Not on vacation, I am working on a book, I have set on heart on it, and it is on Historical Thought from Ancient Greece down to the Eighteenth century. Right now I am in the middle of Philip Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History. It is just that Iraq at times is so disturbing that it takes days to get over it.

on Sep 04, 2008

It seems that even the US has admitted that it cannot be in Iraq forever and as for the "surge" in Bushspeak or escalation in ordinary English, the jury is still out on that.

No, the "surge", "escalation", "increase in force" or whatever you want to call it HAS worked.  Al Sadr has surrendered, Al Qaeda has retreated most of its fighters from Iraq and regrouped in Afghanistan, and the government of Iraq is assessing what they need to do to take over security and law enforcement.   Monday, the US turned over control of Anbar Province to the government of Iraq.  

If you can read "failure" into all that success, then you are too blinded by hatred to see past your nose.

Whether there are US troops in Iraq for another year, 100 years or forever, remains to be seen, but the "jury" has decided about the "surge" and that decision was "should have happened years earlier"... but then again that may be all hindsight since the facts on the ground may not have been favorable to that particular strategy then. 

 

on Sep 04, 2008

It seems that even the US has admitted that it cannot be in Iraq forever

DUH!  Did anyone ever say the US would be there forever?  Admitted?  Show me where this was a confession of surprise for anyone except idiots?

and as for the "surge" in Bushspeak or escalation in ordinary English, the jury is still out on that.

No, just the admission by those who only see facts when they suit their agenda.  There may be still many arguments about Iraq.  This is not one of them (except for those who still live in a fantasy land).

on Sep 04, 2008

I see how this works, the surge worked so the nuts move the goal post. The next argument is that they are not going to be in Iraq forever. Well no one has stated this as a goal of America. We wanted the bad guys out, the new government to be able to stand on its own and then we walk away. The surge worked while the hate America group was screaming that it was a failure even before it started. Now that it is over and the results are in, instead of admitting they were wrong they say the jury is still out.

on Sep 04, 2008

No Paladin, you got it all wrong. The surge did not work. I mean, if it did, why would we be signing papers with Iraq to be out by, I think it was, 2012? And why would Gen. Petraeus be talking about a possible pullout of Bagdad by July 2009 link

How silly of you to think that things may actually be improving in Iraq and that those who said otherwise were wrong. How dare you contradict Mr Bahu and his (Col Gene style) well wrtitten (cough, cough) articles?

on Sep 04, 2008

My apologies Charles, you are obviously correct. I mistakenly allowed myself to confuse the issues with fact and logic rather than blindly following the dictates of the media and their mindless minions. Sorry, sir. 

on Sep 04, 2008

Sorry, but the Surge is working. I know a soldier in Afghanistan (he gets home tomorrow) who was on deployment in Iraq. So, basically, he says that the Surge is working. Wanna know why? He was greeted as a hero, by the natives of the land. Wanna know why? Because we're the ones who pulled the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan (Afghanistan being mostly successful, and Iraq soon to follow) out of the crapper.

on Sep 05, 2008

My apologies Charles, you are obviously correct. I mistakenly allowed myself to confuse the issues with fact and logic rather than blindly following the dictates of the media and their mindless minions. Sorry, sir.

That's OK Paladin, we should all be equals like the Democrats want so we should all also share in their ignorance from time to time, just to be "fair".

on Sep 06, 2008

No Paladin, you got it all wrong. The surge did not work. I mean, if it did, why would we be signing papers with Iraq to be out by, I think it was, 2012?

I guess it must be because you want 4 more years of wasting extreme amounts of money and resources of our armed forces.  Ooh, or because they wanted to sign something with this administration because if Obama is elected he probably wouldn't stand for that long of a timetable.  Perhaps the issue shouldn't be about the effectiveness of a "surge", but rather why there needed to be one in the first place.  Iraq has been a mess, plain and simple...I can just leave it at that.

on Sep 06, 2008

Iraq has been a mess, plain and simple...I can just leave it at that.

Please identify one war, any war will do, that has not been a 'mess.'

on Sep 06, 2008

There was this one I played with a deck of cards a while back...eh, but I guess that still left a mess of 52 items.  C'mon, Daiwa.  Are you really assuming that I think all other wars have been clean, well-to-do affairs?  All of the circumstances surrounding this entire situation we have going over there are just ridiculous.  Where are those WMDs?  Is this all about building up Iraq's government in our image or is our true goal to just fight terrorism in this "war on terror?"  Seems kinda sketchy to me while they have a surplus and we're left with....well, more than just the one problem of a deficit.

on Sep 06, 2008

That's fine.  To argue the merits & conduct of OIF is, at this point, rather moot, so in a way, 'just leave it at that' was a good thing to say.

on Sep 06, 2008

If we fought Iraq like we fought WWII, it would have lasted far less time, but the left would have had kittens if we fought this one the way we fought that "good war".

4 Pages1 2 3 4