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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Sep 15, 2008

Are you saying that I've been proved wrong?  Where is that proof?  I'm letting you know how it is not proof, it is just a numerical decrease without a specific causal determination.  Yes, the point Charles makes is valid, but I would like you to recognize that I'm not searching for loopholes in the argument and that I believe the surge has helped reduce violence.  Never once in this thread have I notioned anything otherwise.  Just make sure you look at all angles.

on Sep 15, 2008

Are you saying that I've been proved wrong? Where is that proof? I'm letting you know how it is not proof, it is just a numerical decrease without a specific causal determination. Yes, the point Charles makes is valid, but I would like you to recognize that I'm not searching for loopholes in the argument and that I believe the surge has helped reduce violence. Never once in this thread have I notioned anything otherwise. Just make sure you look at all angles.

So are you saying Obama is now wrong when he admitted the surge worked? Dude, he already gave up the "it didn't work" BS of his, now it's time for you and everyone else to let it go as well and stop ooking for other reasons.

on Sep 15, 2008

I mentioned nothing about Obama at all in this thread.  What are you talking about, Charles?  Are you searching for your own little meanings behind what I'm saying?  I like to search for important, empirical evidence that will prove a point, but I will not just sit back and give up a position because you or others tell me to just admit some sort of defeat.  Looking for other reasons, as you put it, is a part of both scientific and mathematical approaches to reaching a decision, forming new understanding, or stating fact and expressing proof.

on Sep 15, 2008

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.

Before you say "yes you did, kurtin", I'll point it out myself.  I did mention his name in reference to a timetable for pulling out of Iraq, not in the way you have implied that I said Obama is wrong on the surge or that I even feel that way.

on Sep 15, 2008

Hi. I'm one of the armed forces ya'll keep mucking on about.

To clear up a few matters - The wars that weren't a mess? Grenada, The War of the Roses (take my roses will ya, you bastard???), and the War of Jenkin's Ear. (extra points if you know that one without looking it up.

Two - The surge went pretty damned good. We kicked ass and took names. (actually, other people kicked ass, but I told them where to, why? Because I took names. And addresses.......) Whether it gets mismanaged from there who knows?

Three - Suicide vests were, and remain a Sunni tactic. VBIEDs were largely, but by no means exclusively Shia. The change in tactics was caused more due to a heavier ratio of Shia insurgents to Sunni, as the Sunni were driven back by the surge to regroup, and the decreased influx of dogmatic (but not stupid) foreign fighters that made up a large portion of the suicide bombers, while the Shia remained more dominant due to the mostly Shiite government. Not because they ran out of morons. Believe me on that one.

Four - I hate Iraq. Period. Iraq blows hard core. It's hot, the people are uneducated assholes, and everything is as corrupt (morally as well as physically rotten) as you could desire. But I prefer maintaining a military and political commitment, (and I would go back again), to leaving and letting it all go to hell, much less the massive quantity of deaths that would follow. Please don't try to save me for my sake. I'd rather know it meant something, and that Iraq might be worth a shit some day.

Five - Give it a frickin' rest will ya? This bullshit article has been giving Bahu points for almost a year and a half now. Jeez. Write your own damned article and hope somebody reads it.

on Sep 16, 2008

Yes, the point Charles makes is valid, but I would like you to recognize that I'm not searching for loopholes in the argument and that I believe the surge has helped reduce violence.

I rarely comment on a WHOLE article, or entire response, and when I do, I try to reference each part.  My comments are aimed at the statements quoted, and directed to them.  I have read your comments, but since I have not commented on them all, I have not found them controversial enough to warrant a rebuttal.  in other words, I did not state or indicate that you were searching for loop holes.  You may be, but your responses here do not indicate it. 

That also does not mean I agree with you, but that you have posted food for thought, not knee jerk denial.

on Sep 17, 2008

I worded that strangely, Dr Guy.  I was addressing your comment about his quote being valid, but the message was still to be directed for his response.  I was reading both of your statements and included them both in that one sentence without even thinking about it. My mistake.  Glad we're all able to discuss things and maintain order with our reasonings or opinions most of the time; I like the back and forths we have here on JU.

on Sep 17, 2008

I worded that strangely, Dr Guy. I was addressing your comment about his quote being valid, but the message was still to be directed for his response.

Eh, Sorry.  I read it the wrong way.  That is the problem with a written word.  Emphasis and nuance are often lost.  I have often had to explain a response because what I meant is not what it came across as.

Communication is not only about hte spoken word, but body language.  And we often lose that in forums.

Keep posting.  I have not engaged you much because your posts are calm and well reasoned - if in error.

(at least the winky icon is available.)

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4