Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Will, I am sure subjectivity ensures that we all read different things and we all interpret what we read differently.

I can't say I have come across the 'position' that the Arab world blames all of its problems on the Israel/Palestinian conflict as you and Lisa Beyer infer.

My sense of it is that the Arabs, and many others throughout the world are unanimous in the view that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will help to diminish anger in the region toward Israel and the US and this will then diminish anger in general. The unresolved conflict and the egregious bias which the US displays toward Israel serves to pour fuel onto the many fires 'banked' throughout the region, and kept 'alive' as you point out, by injustices at home as well as injustices abroad.

Take away the Palestinian issue and there is some chance of attention in these countries being turned where it should, inward.

There is no denying at all much of what Beyer says and I can't recall anyone saying..... if you have links then post them ..... that the Arabs blame this conflict for all of their woes.

I would have thought it was the opposite. Logic suggests that given the problems in these countries and the dictatorial nature of their governments that it would be in their interests to have the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unresolved because it distracts their citizens from the parlous state in which they themselves live.

That may well be why America has failed so utterly to be an honest broker. Given that Saudi and Egypt and Jordan are all supported by the US one could reason that it is hardly in the interests of America to have citizens of those nations turning their gaze inward instead of outward. I am not saying this is the case but merely that it makes sense in a way of the role America has played, or failed to play, in order to free the Palestinians from occupation and to bring Israel some hope of peace.

I also think that Beyer's position is yet another ruse to deflect attention away from the core issue of the Occupation and continued colonisation of Palestine.

If the finger points at the Arabs then it is not pointing where it should.... at Israel and the US. These are the nations responsible for this injustice and the only ones who can resolve it.

The reality is that fingers should point at the Arab states in regard to justice, law and human rights but they are going to have far greater effect if the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is resolved. Without this the Arabs can just turn to the actions of Israel and those of the US in its support and point their own finger in regard to the lack of democracy, human rights and justice.

Bryan Law: Geez, if John said that it must mean those commies have learnt some civility. Guess they’re now off the Phillip Adams dinner list?

Anyhow, if the world goes well hopefully it is catching in other regions.

Jay White said: “Today outside of a few aging hippies you are not going to find to many people with a nice word to say about the present or past communist Vietnamese government.”

On 20 November 2006, that aging hippie John Howard said "I am pleased to officially open BlueScope Steel's Phu My plant. It is indicative of the increasing economic linkages and complementarity between Australia and Vietnam, which has seen our two-way trade increase significantly to A$5 billion in 2005-2006”. Also present was the Vietnamese Minister for Industry.

If you’re just going to make it up, Jay, at least try to make it believable huh?

Jay White said: “Bryan Law, you were the one that made the prediction the US would be out of Iraq by now, no? Sent packing by some united Iraqi resistance or what not?”

I had a bet, Jay, with C. Parsons that 50,000 US troops would leave Iraq before the US Congressional elections in November. I fully admit my error. I was wrong. It turns out the US administration is even stupider and/or more vicious than I had believed.

Now it seems Bush and HoWARd are contemplating committing even more murderous behaviour in the months and year(s) left to them.

Criteria for losing:

There is less peace and security in Iraq.

There is less peace and security in the Middle East.

Several hundred thousand Iraqis have died.

A new and expanded generation of terrorist candidates has been created, trained and resourced.

The power and influence of Iran and Syria has been expanded.

The US and its allies are more widely and virulently hated.

We’ll be paying for this for the next forty years.

On the other hand we did get the photo of George playing soldier in front of a banner claiming “Mission Accomplished”.

And, oh yeah, the oil companies have made a zillion.

Are those your victory criteria?

What a great idea ! ... Off you go !

(... and good luck ! ... keep your head down and your mouth shut and you might survive !) 

Roslyn Ross More than that, Iraqis will be prepared to lose thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people in order to defeat the Occupier and you know as well as I do that the Americans will not be prepared to lose tens of thousands let alone hundreds of thousands or millions (if they had them) so it is only a matter of time before every last one of them is gone.

Now where ya gunna find that AK-packing Gandhi? Rather then spruiking perhaps you should be looking, no?

Bryan Law, you were the one that made the prediction the US would be out of Iraq by now, no? Sent packing by some united Iraqi resistance or what not?

Bryan Law: ”All Jay has to do to win this debate is ape Lord Downer and insist we’re winning. In this respect Iraq is identical to Vietnam.”

Like I have said before: what are the criteria for losing? In Vietnam it was to stop the spread of the red menace. It did not work in that nation; however it did stop the spread further south.

Today outside of a few aging hippies you are not going to find to many people with a nice word to say about the present or past communist Vietnamese government.

The neo con theory was to have a strong centralised democratically elected Iraqi government. The strong centralised and probably democratic is now all but impossible, I would think. A government that would take under its wing and support all creeds and religions. The theory was this would spread across the region allowing for a better life for many and taking away some of the anger generated into terrorism.

However, Bryan, some people calling themselves the "resistance" decided this was not going to be the case. And this "resistance" has been supported every step of the way by otherwise normal western everyday people. Why? Because in some bizarre way they saw it as hurting America if the local people, all Muslims mind, begin murdering each other. Hence the C Parsons correct term of "Klu klux klan resistance".

Now let's return to the Vietnam subject, shall we? If the spread of communism was the greatest fear in those days, what do you think it would be now? A reminder that communism has all but passed into ancient history and capitalism and globalisation is all the rage.

If I were to take a stab in the dark I would suggest unified extremism. And what worse place for that to occur than in the Middle East? It does still control a large whack of the world’s oil reserves. And whilst this alone is not enough to come close to destroying the western dream it sure as hell can do some damage.

I believe this would be the thing most feared. The reverse of that would make it the thing that people such as yourself would probably most like to see: teaching the evil west a lesson and all that jazz. So why in God's name would you be out and about supporting the "Klu klux klan" resistance? The exact thing that is going to make this dream all but impossible?

If this conflict continues and spreads it has not only the very likely potential of killing one Arab voice on even the most basic issues, it has a very real chance on killing even agreements such as (in hushed tones) things like OPEC.

Now who has lost the war?

One reason that some are so keen to continue to talk up the "united Arab" resistance perhaps is that truth of the situation is starting to dawn. I also expect that in the not to distant future many will be jumping off the "resistance" like it was the Hindenburg mark II.

Anyone for a peace-keeping mission?

A former senior UK diplomat has some revelations about prewar intel and warnings.

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

...

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

A survey of Iraqi opinion.

More than 90 per cent of Iraqis believe the country is worse off now than before the war in 2003, according to new research obtained by Al Jazeera.

A survey of 2,000 people by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies found that 95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces.

But the Commander sleeps well at night ...

All must be fine in the bubble he inhabits.

Key to understanding Jay White and his Elk is to realize that Jay doesn’t need to connect with Iraqi reality in order to pursue his Australian political goals i.e. the justification of Liberal foreign policy around pandering to the US alliance – and the ateendant war-mongering slaughter of innocents.

All Jay has to do to win this debate is ape Lord Downer and insist we’re winning.  In this respect Iraq is identical to Vietnam.

Plus you have Ku Klux Distractions from C. Parsons, and monstrous lies about how things could be even worse.  (Yes, present policy is making them worse.  We could keep going with it!)

By the time the Liberals were held account for Vietnam, public support for the government had collapsed amid mediocrity, hubris and incompetence across a wide field of issues.

Am I deluded, or is the same thing happening now across the anglosphere?

David Hicks has been in Guantanamo for five years and Philip Ruddock appears about to choke on it.  C U later, Johnny.

 
Bon appetit!

Roslyn Ross: "Jay, that's a very big hole you have dug for yourself there. It is going to take some time to climb out of it, if ever".

Have I?

Roslyn Ross: "Your 'funny feeling' runs counter to the lessons of history and everything that is known about human nature."

Does it?

Roslyn Ross: "During the Suez War of 1956 the Brits and French had similar crazy ideas as the Americans had about Iraq. Let's invade and the people of Egypt will rise up against their government and welcome us with open arms was the gist of it. 

The Egyptian dictatorship is one of the best friends America has in the region. In fact, such good friends they are now openly talking about gaining "nuclear power". Now what would their majority religion be again?

Roslyn Ross: "You are right to say that one group will win in the future and that group will be the Iraqis."

What is Iraq and who are Iraqis?

The war was never about nations versus nations. It has always been a war about ideas. I still have a funny feeling of who's idea's will win out. As has happened in Vietnam.

You predict on numerous occasions how religion will be the undoing of Israel. I agree, religion will always be the undoing. Take for example one thousand years of the dark ages.

Your mistake though, is at this present time you are looking at the wrong religion.

Jay, that's a very big hole you have dug for yourself there. It is going to take some time to climb out of it, if ever.

Can you demonstrate any war of occupation which has been won in modern times?

I don't just mean subjugation. I mean won, as in victory, success, where the Occupier has complete control over a passive and accommodating people and can do whatever it wishes whenever it wishes?

As things stand, more than 80 percent of Iraqis now want the Coalition gone and more than 60 percent fully support killing as many Coalition soldiers as possible?

These percentages have been on a steady increase and will only continue to increase.

How then does an Occupying force turn such hatred into passive acceptance and co-operation?

What is the magic 'bullet', ooops, sorry, wrong choice of word, the magic pill, which will transform the enraged Iraqis into a docile society which is content to remain an Occupied people at worst, or a satrapy, a semi-Occupied people with a Government made up of US stooges?

Your 'funny feeling' runs counter to the lessons of history and everything that is known about human nature.

During the Suez War of 1956 the Brits and French had similar crazy ideas as the Americans had about Iraq. Let's invade and the people of Egypt will rise up against their government and welcome us with open arms was the gist of it.

Wrong again. Surprise surprise, those pesky Egyptians actually resented the invaders and rose up not against their Government but the foreign invaders.

Human nature.

I never cease to be struck by the .... is it arrogance, or ignorance, or both .... of the Western powers who go misty-eyed thinking about Brave Brits holding firm against the Blitz, Brave French fighting those evil Nazis and even the Brave American rebels fighting the evil English ..... and yet can imagine, or even seriously believe, that other (perhaps inferior races) people will not react in exactly the same way to invasion occupation or subjugation.

Human nature.

All though meaningless in the larger context it will be interesting to see how "our" western "intelligentsia" extricate themselves from the "resistence".

In the future years to come I have a funny feeling the "resistence" will not turn out to be all some perhaps hoped for. One group is going to be a winner and there is going to be a lot of losers. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

In five years they (so called intelligentsia) will be all talking about America's proxy war. Throwing blame and retribution to all quarters. Everywhere except themselves. You just wait and see how wrong I am.

The American and capitalist presence will not ever be leaving now that it is there. And large numbers of troops are certainly not needed to make sure it stays.

Michael Park, unless year-by-year data sets operate on the same basis, there are problems in making statistical comparisons. This partly explains the apparent rise in terrorism. See the US National Counterterrorism Center Report [pdf] on this matter. There is a problem also of classification. Is a given terrorist act a crime, or an act of war, particularly given that since 9/11 terrorist crime has occurred in the context of the ‘War on Terror'?

The Beslan school incident in Russia, and numerous incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir provide statistics to boost the rise in ‘terrorism’ from 2003 to 2004. Yet all of these are arguably relate to ongoing international (Kashmir) colonial (Chechnya) and civil (Iraq, Afghanistan) wars, while say, the Bali bombing was not. As well, acts of state terror (by Saddam against Iraqis while in power; by the Taliban in Afghanistan likewise) are not counted.

What I and everyone else using the term at the time assumed ‘acts of terror’ to be were things like 9/11 and the Bali bombing. That is, acts carried out by terrorists to further their own political ends within the context of countries internally at peace. The London and Madrid bombings were related to the Iraq War and should be counted amongst terrorist acts consequent upon that war.

Obviously, if you choose to go to war, you are going to have to deal with the other side’s acts of war, carried on with whatever means they have at their disposal. But without desiring to get into a debate over definitions and admissible statistics, I think the original point I made still stands.

Of course, to open this Pandora’s Box even further, we have to consider the political records of governments of the countries in question going back at least until WW2. And that is a major topic.

Thanks for the clarification, Jay. I'll just check with you that I've got all this right.

The disaster that is Iraq was most likely not planned as such.

And it's not actually a disaster, it's an opportunity from the point of view of the eventual 'winners', who are the ones that matter.

And it's just rotten bad luck for the losers, such as the Iraqi people.

The bad stuff is the fault of the 'neocons', but not of the people 'waiting in the wings', who will now take control of a blame-free opportunity.

I think you've hit upon an important principle here: The winners are, or will be, those in a position to win. Planning and discipline, meanwhile, don't enter into the equation.

Now, if you would just identify who these winners will be, I'd like to invest heavily in companies with which they're associated. There's got to be something in this for me too.

Jacob So was that all planned, Jay? What a diabolical plan!!! Apparently not even the Prez or Rummy knew it. (Or did they...?? ... your wisdom, please Jay...)

NO I NEVER said it was planned. What I said is that the war is not lost. To make a statement on those grounds I would have to know the requirements used to judge the "lost war". I also said American presence will not be going anywhere.

When Bush was first elected his foriegn policy was quiet conservative. Isolationist even. Threre was a strong believe in many circles that Clinton had involved himself in adventures that did not make US priorities number one interest. Serbia comes mind. That to much weight was being given to playing the worlds police man for the UN.

If you remember in the lead up to the 2000 election Bush was critised around the globe for wanting to pull troops out of these adventures and not wanting to take part in new ones.

Then 9/11 and indeed inside the halls of power the world DID change. The neo con belief is a simple one. It suggests that tyranny around the world can be wiped out with the spread of democracy, forcefully if need be. Now this idea had some merit because 9/11 had happened,  in the early days (before conspiracy nonsense) it was believed that the US policy of supporting tyrants (at different times) and supporting proxy wars and the like had caused 9/11 to be a direct consquence. The chickens had come home to roast so to speak.

That the idea gained merit (spread of democracy) and that the idea was tried (in Iraq) never meant that in every circle the idea was ever accepted or believed it could actually work.

Now the people who had their doubts would not have gone into Iraq to start with. This was seen by passed administrations. The fact is that somebody did go in there though. The fact is that they are there. And the fact is that being there has opened up a multitude of options and opportunities. Blame free ones at that.

You have at the moment nations like Jordan and Saudi not wanting the US to leave. I am tipping that they will soon be asked to pass around the hat so to speak for this privelege. You have the likely event of a full scale civil taking place. Putting Iranian backed Shia against Sunni, now which side will (Al qaeda) be taking do you think?

A proxy war with two equally ruthless sides and well armed sides and the eventual winner unimportant. Both weakened to such a point that a deal will eventually have to be struck. All happening in somebody else's backyard far far away from good ole middle America.

Now when it gets really messy and it will, who is going to heed the calls to put a stop to it? The UN? Not on your life, where are they going to find the numbers? No Jacob, deals will be struck favourable deals at that, and they will be struck with the only viable alternative, which of course is the US.

Jacob, no it was not planned but that does not mean a opportunity has not presented itself. Nor does it mean it will not be taken advantage of.

Bob Wall: "G'day David Roffey and thanks for the link. The article reminds us that the dangers were known and also of one of the reasons Bush I stopped the Gulf War short of going to Bahdad. Destabilising the region."

For all those other "intellectuals" still "supporting the resistance", it's important to know what sort of political allies you will have in the struggle ahead...

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official."

"The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh."

"The New York Times first reported the conversation Wednesday, saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq's Shiite majority."

This news will be surprising for some "analysts" though....

"But don't assume that some cataclysm is going to shake the entire Middle East, either. It is just a US defeat, not the end of the world, and the wild talk about chaos spreading across the whole region is an almost exact parallel to the "domino theory" that held sway in the US the last time it was losing a war, in Vietnam."

- Gwynne Dyer

But then, the eventual winners in Vietnam actually had majority support. 

Didn't they?

Jay White: "... what you have is the big possibility of the perfect chaos. That is when everyone of your enemies does the decent thing and, if not destroy each other, at least severly deplete each other."

So was that all planned, Jay? What a diabolical plan!!! Apparently not even the Prez or Rummy knew it. (Or did they...?? ... your wisdom, please Jay...)

JW: "The USA's greatest problem at home is one of perception. The perception that its boys and girls are being killed in a worthless war..."

Jay, it's not just a perception, is it? Nearly THREE THOUSAND American "boys and girls" have been killed ... murdered ... wasted ...  (And hey, we'll put aside the matter of 650,000 dead Iraqis for the moment...) All in the service of the aforesaid master plan...??

Please explain, Jay... is this 'plan' supposed to be 'clever' or something?

Since we are on Vietnam comparisons here is one for you. The single biggest problem in Vietnam was knowing who the enemy really was. This problem is not a problem in Iraq. All can be considered the enemy. And listening to one or two soldiers of late I am pretty sure all are until proven otherwise.

One little thing that as scarcely if ever mentioned on here is John Howard knocking back the offer to "embed" Iraqi soldiers with Australian forces. Guess it did not play into the meta story of being subservient to the US or some such nonsense.

John being a student of Vietnam would be well aware of the problems dead soldiers coming home can cause. He would also be well aware of the professionalism of Australian soldiers. No help needed thanks mate, may have been the reply to the offer.

His name might be Johnnie but it ain't silly Johnnie.

Marek Bage, the Vietnam war ended April 30 1975. This would be roughly 31 years ago. I thought 20 was a good number being as it was just before the collapse of the Berlin Wall and communism as any serious threat.

Michael Park: "There are no backers? That would be why Baker and others have suggested to involve the "players". You know, countries like Iran and Syria. Countries that  - according to your silly view - back no group in this civil war. George bush won't talk to them either - are you advising him Jay"?

Yes but not for one distinct group. In fact what you have is the big possibility of the perfect chaos. That is when everyone of your enemies does the decent thing and, if not destroy each other, at least severly deplete each other. There is always the after pieces left to be picked up Michael.

The USA's greatest problem at home is one of perception. The perception that its boys and girls are being killed in a worthless war. A serious problem and a legitimate concern. Take away the death toll of US soldiers and you take away that number one concern.

The way to do this is not put themselves in harm's way. And when in harm's way make sure it is only for national reasons such as the Green Zone being attacked, etc. Allow Iraqis to take care of their own security concerns and WAR. This in effect is the strategy most likely to be employed. Because as far as I can see not one person in power in the US on either side of politics is talking about leaving.

Michael Park: "What we now put up with as situation abnormal in Iraq was forecast in advance of the invasion. The advice was niether accepted nor welcome. Those who offered it were sidelined or suffered careerus interuptus."

Do you really believe that "America" was ever going to seriously ditch fifty years of policy that worked? Do you really believe that many behind the scenes were not aware of what was going to be the ending? Do you really believe many sitting back did not know their time would come?

Michael, these people you say are were sidelined were only ever waiting in the wings for their chance. Neocon hour was amateur hour and those days are well and truly over. When Condi Rice blamed past American policies I knew the jig was up. There was never a chance they were ever going to be changed. They were just too damn successful.

What we are witnessing now is a situation of the perfect blame-free opportunity. I see no evidence whatsoever that any future President, nor either of the major parties, are about to throw it away.

Now repeat after me: It was the neocons fault. This will be the new blame-free catch cry.

This is not necessarily something I wish to see, it is just something I am fairly sure I will be seeing.

There are no backers! There never have been and there never will... aw shit!

Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq

Which segues nicely to my next point.

What on earth would possess the Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal, to abruptly resign his post and return to Saudi Arabia? No warnings, no explanation and not even a glass of bubbly and Bon Voyage. Just up and went he did! I wonder what he could be pissed off about?

G'day David Roffey and thanks for the link. The article reminds us that the dangers were known and also of one of the reasons Bush I stopped the Gulf War short of going to Bahdad. Destabilising the region.

As to Iraq, Robert Dreyfuss considers possibilities.

G'day Roslyn, duplication is bound to happen sometimes. Given some claims that are made, here is a survey from Worldpublicopinion.org on American attitudes.

A majority of Americans believe that the way the United States has been using the threat of military force has diminished U.S. security.

Two out of three believe that countries around the world have grown more afraid that the United States will use force against them and the same number thinks this is bad for U.S. security, according to a WorldPublicOpinion.org poll. The public believes overwhelmingly that fear of the United States has increased “the likelihood that countries will try to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

Large majorities also reject the idea that the United States’ military strength means it need not be concerned about international goodwill and they do not think that the U.S. government should announce that it seeks regime change in problem countries.

It is a lengthy and detailed survey.

Mr. White said: "Who would have guessed twenty years ago Vietnam would be hosting a economic summit? Who would have guessed there would be a Nike factory there? The best way of life gets 'em all in the end."

Vietnam? Would that be the country that the US tried to obliterate 42 years ago because it might go communist? Would that be the country that has been a single party communist state ever since? And now they're hosting an economic summit. How is this relevant to the Vietnam War?

DON'T ANSWER! I'll do it for you... Jaysez: Did I say that was relevant to the Vietnam War? No. Those were your words.

Blah, Blah. Yeah fair enough. So tell me Mr. White; What happened to Vietnam 20 years ago, in 1987, that made it unlikely, in your estimation, for it to be able to host an economic summit?

DON'T ANSWER! I'll do it for you... Jaysez: Jeez Mr. Bage, you can be a real asshole sometimes. Anybody can see that when I wrote 'twenty years ago' that it was a typo. What I meant to write was 'forty-two years ago'. Everybody knows that the Vietnam War started 42 years ago. I just made a simple mistake. Don't tell me that you're perfect.

Yes, Mr. White, I'm an asshole and, no, I'm not perfect. In regard to both conditions, I appreciate your company.

Onto the Nike factory. Indeed who would have guessed that there would be a Nike factory in Vietnam? Well not me. I would have guessed that there would be at least twenty (Not a typo, I actually mean twenty). Still I would be wrong. There are actually 34 Nike factories in Vietnam.

So indeed, Mr. White, "the best way of life has got 'em in the end". Not only in the end, but in every other available orifice. And good 'n hard at that. And all that for forty-two cents an hour (Oops, that was a typo! I meant to say twenty cents an hour).

I guess it's a lucky thing that the US lost that war. Had democracy been 'installed' in Vietnam, then Nike would have had to look elsewhere for their slave labour Gooks. Whadaya reckon?

DON'T ANSWER! I'll do it for you... Jaysez: Well, any job is better than no job.

Hmmm. Where have we recently heard that?

Roslyn Ross, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Merely Baby boomer nostalgia.

Vietnam had  well organised groups (communist China and Russia) backing it. Iraq has no such thing. What Iraq is, is a hotpotch put together nation. Where it differs from Vietnam is that it has no clear leader to take over. It also has no clear backer.

It has money flooding in from all around the globe supporting one group or another. A recipe for chaos.

Somebody will eventually be there to pick up the pieces. Hence my prediction that America under any government will not be going anywhere. Troop numbers perhaps. Presence, not on your life.

Welcome to the big leagues.

C Parsons :" ... those who openly support the murderous thugs of the so called "resistance" (reactionary, racist militias) must be never allowed to deny it - or forget it."

I can well understand and respect the views of people who opposed the war from the outset.

I have no difficulty at all with people who have come to believe that the war was a grave error at some point since.

I can only nod and sigh and listen quietly to those who say there were big mistakes made, after the initial phase of the war, and I am interested in the views of those who think the war may well be eventually lost.

But I have nothing but the coldest contempt for those who cheer on the "insurgents".  Those who celebrate the killers of AQ and the rival ethnic gangs and the grubby vestiges of Saddam's cutthroats? Those who would smile with satisfaction at the crushing of the dreams of millions for peace and the right to vote? To live under the rule of law? Those who sneer at the vast numbers of brave Iraqis in the liberal parties, the labour unions, the free media, the universities and schools, and who encourage, even champion those who would send these courageous people to a cruel death? 

In short, those who support what they term, with breathtaking scorn for any sense of decent moral order,  the "Iraqi resistance"? 

These people are beneath disdain. They are cowardly to a degree beyond tolerance and utterly unworthy of "debate" or even a hearing. They should be shunned and I mean that literally. We must remember who they are no matter how things end up in Iraq.

Bob, greetings in return. Thanks for the links. I have realised I posted one of those you posted as well. All good stuff though.

Jay, given that international law experts have called Saddam's trial flawed and disappointing it is hardly going to be recognised as legal in any true sense. Even the experts who helped set it up are disappointed:

The current trial of Saddam and seven co-defendants on another charge, often disrupted by violence and courtroom theatrics, has so far disappointed international law scholars.  And they say enormous challenges lie ahead as the case goes forward.  

You said: "You have a strange concept of justice. Those that are never charged and are never in a Court room are "criminals" and those that have been are not." 

No, you merely misinterpret and misrepresent. Those who have not yet been charged may be accused of war crimes and those who have been charged and put on trial, like Saddam, in flawed legal circumstances may well be criminals but have not had a fair trial. At the end of the day in a civilized democracy even criminals should get a fair trial.

Well, I think they should even if you do not. But I believe in rule of law.

You said:  "What I said was America had not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11."

Your inference was that the invasion and occupation was instrumental in this outcome when all the evidence clearly shows there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and there were no terrorist groups there either before this invasion.

You said: "I read here constantly how terrorists are flooding into Iraq. I am merely repeating it. If one was to say, live in New York, one would at least think better there than here."

So, to keep the people of New York feeling secure it is fine to invade and occupy a sovereign nation which posed no threat and was no threat and to murder 650,000 people (and counting) and maim millions?

I am glad most people do not think like you.

You said: "I am sure not having to fight terrorist battles on one's homeland would be seen as little victory."

You said: "It seems they hate each other even more than America. That is if the everyday news is anything to go by. Muslim against Muslim is the best killing in town."

This comment is tasteless.

Timothy Garton Ash in today's Guardian: Bush has created a comprehensive catastrophe across the Middle East:

What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse. 

...

Many a time, in these pages and elsewhere, I have warned against reflex Bush-bashing and kneejerk anti-Americanism. The United States is by no means the only culprit. Changing the Middle East for the better is one of the most difficult challenges in world politics. The people of the region bear much responsibility for their own plight. So do we Europeans, for past sins of commission and current sins of omission. But Bush must take the lion's share of the blame. There are few examples in recent history of such a comprehensive failure. Congratulations, Mr President; you have made one hell of a disaster.

Roslyn Ross: "The battle to topple Saddam and occupy Iraq was won in a month, but the war to secure the occupation and put in place a US friendly government and Americanize Iraq is most certainly lost."

Well, if it is, then those who openly support the murderous thugs of the so called "resistance" (reactionary, racist militias) must be never allowed to deny it - or forget it.

Though I bet they're working up their alibis already.

David,  I was trying to find the Jon Stewart quote on the thread but failed. If the quote has come from elsewhere I am curious as to what you find relevant about it. Perhaps some elaboration on your point might be useful because it sounds interesting.

For those following the Iraq disaster, this article (excerpt) is worth reading:

The recently released report of the Iraq Study Group echoes the military assessment that the status quo in Iraq is hopeless. But their proposals are non-starters, since our history of occupation in the Arab World from Palestine to Iraq shows our bias for outside interests and our lack of credibility to take part in negotiations. The time for diplomacy was March 2003. After the death and utter destruction that “liberation” has brought to Iraq, we have no choice but to exit and exit now.

No human being, regardless of race, creed, skin color, ethnicity, or religion, accepts humiliation and subjugation. As such, our military death toll will grow until the day when the rape and pillage of the “New American Century” ends and the troops come home. How much more agony should we force the children of Iraq and America to take.

This war could only ever have been a disasterous failure for the invaders because it is simply impossible to win a war of occupation in the modern world. Israel has been trying for half a century and has failed miserably and will continue to fail because the only way such wars were ever won was through genocide and that is simply unacceptable to this day and age.

What is so surprising is that given this recognisable fact so many supported this illegal and immoral war and those who opposed it could see quite clearly that it was doomed from the outset.

Not that the blood of 650,000 murdered and millions maimed in Iraq is worth any 'I told you so.'

And as Martin said, if there had been no oil there would have been no war. The poor Iraqis, cursed by their oil and cursed by their leaders.

Although again, how the Americans believe they can control Iraq's oil and maintain their bases in Iraq ..... yes, they are on schedule, along with the 'embedded' American 'government' in the GreenZone 'palace,' which will supposedly be home to 3,000 Americans.... is beyond me.

The arrogance and ignorance with which the Americans have handled this is astonishing. Even I was surprised to read in the paper this morning that the Americans have six Arabic speaking staff in Baghdad and two dozen more who have a smattering of Arabic out of a 1,000 people.

What arrogance or incompetence or both, can have a country planning to go to war for a couple of years at least according to more recent reports, and yet not be training people fluent in the language of the country you wish to invade and control. It beggars belief. Surely anyone with half a brain would reason that to do the job properly you must be first able to communicate with those you occupy, other than pointing a gun at them, and then you must be able to understand them.

This of course presumes that you wish to understand them and that you yourself understand any language other than bombs and bullets.

If anyone can explain to me how you 'win hearts and minds' when you don't even speak or understand the language I would be delighted. Surprised, perhaps shocked, but delighted.

One is left feeling that given the level of incompetence and arrogance and ignorance the Americans deserve to lose and deserve to lose badly. Despite being against this war from the start even I could see that in the very first weeks there was a window of opportunity for the Americans to succeed in their occupation and all they did was blow it all to smithereens, literally and metaphorically.

And now they seemingly believe that they will be able to safeguard the Green Zone, control oil supplies and guard their bases ..... when they cannot even control the road from the Green Zone to the airport.

And every day more and more Iraqis hate them more and more and want to kill more and more of them. It is only a matter of time before someone manages to get a bomb into the Green Zone, or drop one on it, or tunnel one into it and blow the place up.

Walls and fences and soldiers and guards and guns and tanks are no defence against an Occupied people who live only to see you gone.

An Iraqi 'Saigon' is a given. It is not a matter of 'if' but 'when.' The only thing standing between that moment and now are yet more Iraqi and American dead and maimed, yet more destruction of Iraq, yet more hatred of America and its allies in the region and across the world, yet more recruitments to Islamic militarism and yet more suffering in a world which manages to suffer deeply enough as it is without any help at all.  

Here is the transcript of the latest Bush press conference.

A suggested solution. 

Pepe Escobar. 

On the Rumsfeld theme, Robert Scheer imagine's Rummy's parting thoughts.

G'day Martin and David - lots of thanks you owed to people like Jon Stewart for golden streams of illumination when all around is dark.

G'day Roslyn, you wrote of someone I don't waste much time on - even to contemplate motivations. Not worth the time or effort.

Roslyn Ross: "The battle to topple Saddam and occupy Iraq was won in a month, but the war to secure the occupation and put in place a US friendly government and Americanize Iraq is most certainly lost."

Well Saddam is gone. And there is a democratically elected government in Iraq. I think you continually refer to it as a "puppet government". Though I would not agree with this, I certainly would not call the Iraqi government anti-American.

Add to that an entire region known as Kurdistan is very pro-American. Not perfect by any means, but an okay start.

Roslyn Ross: "A small amount of reason clearly demonstrates that when a US leader, spokesperson, official, military chief or even the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates says 'we are not winning in Iraq,' what they mean is 'we are losing in Iraq.'

Winning what? I never understood this statement when it was made. I would have to know exactly what areas he was referring too.

Craig R: Perhaps I can help with your problem in understanding what Gates' has said the US is not winning Jay.

He was talking about the same 'war' that President George W. Bush was talking about today. Bush said he had a productive meeting and "fruitful discussion" on "how to win a war that we now find ourselves in".

Read the transcript of Gates' nomination hearing and note the question from Senator Levin, Gates' response, the clarifying question from Senator McCain, and Gates' response to that. Then look to Senator Clinton's question and Gates' response to that.

Roslyn Ross: "You are dealing with someone who has no respect for rule of law and who considers the trial of Saddam Hussein to be legitimate, instead of the US manipulated farce which it is and which it has been dubbed by many in the world's press and international lawyers."

Well it is a legally recognised trial. Even if some people do not wish it to be so.

You have a strange concept of justice. Those that are never charged and are never in a Court room are "criminals" and those that have been are not. Just plain weird and I am glad the world does not take its cues from you.

Roslyn Ross: "You are dealing with someone who can take pride in the building of the world's largest embassy while Iraqis drink dirty water when they can get it, survive without power most of the time, fight to feed their children, and wade through pools of blood in order to survive."

Did I say I took pride in it? No, they are your words. I merely stated a fact. A fact that I would find hard to believe if a nation had just lost a war.

Roslyn Ross: "You are dealing with someone who, despite all of the evidence to the contrary including statements made by the CIA and members of the Bush Administration, still links Iraq to the events of 9/11. Even the majority of Americans no longer believe this egregious lie as told by Bush and his cohorts. But Jay does."

Nope never said this either. What I said was America had not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11. I read here constantly how terrorists are flooding into Iraq. I am merely repeating it. If one was to say, live in New York, one would at least think better there than here.

I am sure not having to fight terrorist battles on one's homeland would be seen as little victory.

Roslyn Ross: "You are dealing with someone who is capable of believing that the US will be able to maintain its Occupation, in some form or another, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. If Saigon could not be saved with half of Vietnam fighting with America then no one of reason could possibly believe that Baghdad could be held when more than 80 percent of Iraqis want the Americans to leave and more than 60percent support attacks against the American occupiers."

Who would have guessed twenty years ago Vietnam would be hosting a economic summit? Who would have guessed there would be a Nike factory there? The best way of life gets 'em all in the end.

Roslyn Ross: "You are dealing with someone who believes that the Americanization of Iraq is something which has begun when the Americans cannot even control the road from the Green zone to the airport and when, three years on, most of Iraq still lies in ruins and the Iraqis hate the Americans and everything they stand for more than they ever did in the past...... more even than they hated Saddam."

It seems they hate each other even more than America. That is if the everyday news is anything to go by. Muslim against Muslim is the best killing in town.

I also do not believe any future government will ever be packing up and leaving everything. The goalposts and blame will merely be shifted. Most people do not believe in the neocon theory of bringing democracy to every corner of the globe. They do believe finding friends in every corner of the globe is possible though.

There will always be a "American presence" in Iraq from this time onward. Just you wait and see. Brute force never is the best way, there are many much more subtle and effective means.

I expect they will begin to take shape in the not too distant future. I would be very careful of writing the history books before the history takes place.

If there was no oil in Iraq, then there would have been no war.

In the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998, the goals were implied in this quote:

"if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction... the safety of (1) American troops in the region, of (2) our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and (3) a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard." [my numbering added]

And we have the results:

1. The safety of American troops in the region has been put at hazard. About 3,000 are dead, and 20,000 have been injured.

2. The safety of Israel and the moderate Arab states is now lower than it could have been because the resources spent on Iraq could have been spent on: a) developing better relationships, rather than damaging relationships; b) building moral authority for future endeavours, rather than damaging moral authority.

3. And safety of the oil...? That's been secured.

That's 1 "good" result out of 3.

Bob,  I think Jay says it all in his post and it's a scary mindset against which reason and fact will have no impact.

You are dealing with someone who does not know the difference between a battle and a war.

The battle to topple Saddam and occupy Iraq was won in a month, but the war to secure the occupation and put in place a US friendly government and Americanize Iraq is most certainly lost.

A small amount of reason clearly demonstrates that when a US leader, spokesperson, official, military chief or even the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates says 'we are not winning in Iraq,' what they mean is 'we are losing in Iraq.'

You are dealing with someone who has no respect for rule of law and who considers the trial of Saddam Hussein to be legitimate, instead of the US manipulated farce which it is and which it has been dubbed by many in the world's press and international lawyers.

You are dealing with someone who believes that a trial where lawyers are murdered, witnesses are murdered, politicians meddle, judges are dismissed and lies are given as evidence is not flawed and can stand as credible and just to intelligent human beings in the world at large.

You are dealing with someone who can take pride in the building of the world's largest embassy while Iraqis drink dirty water when they can get it, survive without power most of the time, fight to feed their children, and wade through pools of blood in order to survive.

You are dealing with someone who has no problem with 650,000 dead Iraqis and millions maimed because of an invasion and occupation which was based upon a lie.

You are dealing with someone who, despite all of the evidence to the contrary including statements made by the CIA and members of the Bush Administration, still links Iraq to the events of 9/11. Even the majority of Americans no longer believe this egregious lie as told by Bush and his cohorts. But Jay does.

You are dealing with someone who believes that the war against Iraq has made America safer when intelligence analysts, military analysts, and even American and British politicians, say that it has had the opposite effect and has fuelled a deep and abiding hatred of America and all those involved in this war and put those nations at even greater risk than any they might have faced before.

You are dealing with someone who considers basic human rights, rule of law, democratic principles and plain old fashioned justice to be 'lofty goals' and not vital principles which must be maintained to save the civilized world.

You are dealing with someone who is capable of believing that the US will be able to maintain its Occupation, in some form or another, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. If Saigon could not be saved with half of Vietnam fighting with America then no one of reason could possibly believe that Baghdad could be held when more than 80 percent of Iraqis want the Americans to leave and more than 60percent support attacks against the American occupiers.

You are dealing with someone who believes the destruction of a nation, the slaughter of its men, women and children, the subjugation of a people, the exploitation of another nation's wealth and the use of bombs, bullets and chemical weapons are justified against a people who made no threat and were no threat, constitutes a gift to the next US administration instead of the curse which most people now clearly recognise it to be.

You are dealing with someone who believes that the Americanization of Iraq is something which has begun when the Americans cannot even control the road from the Green zone to the airport and when, three years on, most of Iraq still lies in ruins and the Iraqis hate the Americans and everything they stand for more than they ever did in the past...... more even than they hated Saddam.

You are dealing with someone who has a very strange idea of victory.

With beliefs such as these there is simply no ground for communication.

Bob Wall, lost the war? Huh?

The war was won in under a month. The leader of the defeated government has been removed, faced trial and is about to be hung. War lost? What a strange statement to make.

The US is still in Iraq. It has completed the building of the worlds largest embassy. It has also successfully defended its own nation from any further terrorist attack since 9/11. Being is most terrorists seem to be hanging about and pre occupied in Iraq does go some way to helping this cause.

The only thing being lost is the lofty goals set by a group of people no longer in charge. What is apparent is that the US and its presence is now slap bang in the middle of the ME. Troops might at a future date be withdrawn but presence never will be. This will be the case under any possible future US administration.

Life is about opportunity and whom ever is lucky enough to lead the next American government is presented with a gift. Simply move the goalposts and blame past administrations for any blunders.

One thing is for sure the Americanisation of Iraq has begun. And it will not be stopping anytime in the near future.

War lost? I would hate to see these peoples' ideas of victory.

Starting with Tom Engelhardt and Michael Schwartz. Tom relates a tale about fixing the game - an act that presaged what was to come.

In July 2002, he got the chance to test that proposition. At the cost of a quarter-billion dollars, the Pentagon launched the most elaborate war games in its history, immodestly entitled "Millennium Challenge 02." These involved all four services in "17 simulation locations and nine live-force training sites." Officially a war against a fictional country in the Persian Gulf region -- but obviously Iraq -- it was specifically scripted to prove the efficacy of the Rumsfeld-style invasion that the Bush administration had already decided to launch.

Lt. Gen. Van Riper commanded the "Red Team" -- the Iraqis of this simulation -– against the "Blue Team," U.S. forces; and, unfortunately for Rumsfeld, he promptly stepped out of the script. Knowing that sometimes the only effective response to high-tech warfare was the lowest tech warfare imaginable, he employed some of the very techniques the Iraqi insurgency would begin to use all-too-successfully a year or two later.

Such simple devices as, according to the Army Times, using "motorcycle messengers to transmit orders, negating Blue's high-tech eavesdropping capabilities," and "issuing attack orders via the morning call to prayer broadcast from the minarets of his country's mosques." In the process, Van Riper trumped the techies.

"At one point in the game," as Fred Kaplan of Slate wrote in March 2003, "when Blue's fleet entered the Persian Gulf, he sank some of the ships with suicide-bombers in speed boats. (At that point, the managers stopped the game, ‘refloated' the Blue fleet, and resumed play.)" After three or four days, with the Blue Team in obvious disarray, the game was halted and the rules rescripted. In a quiet protest, Van Riper stepped down as enemy commander.

Millennium Challenge 02 was subsequently written up as a vindication of Rumsfeld's "military transformation." On that basis -- with no one paying more mind to Van Riper (who, this April, called openly for Rumsfeld's resignation) than to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki when, in February 2003, he pointed out that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, the "transformational" invasion was launched -- with all the predictably catastrophic results now so widely known.

"We create our own reality." But reality had its own script.

Leon Hadar asks - Too little, too late?

Michael S. Rozeff - Compounding the Folly.

A NYTimes editorial - time's a wasting.

The Pentagon wants more troops.

Bad losers.

To The Daily Show and Jon Stewart bid adieu to Donald Rumsfeld. And the language that he used. Video.

"Enough with the 'golly,' 'gee willikers' and 'oh my'," Stewart complains about Rumsfeld, with regards to the war in Iraq, before unleashing a bleeped-out barrage of curse words.

An example "Others just want to open their mouths and yell 'You incompetent beeeeeeeeeeeeeep'" Think three syllables. I agree that "golly" etc just aren't appropriate.

Jenny Hume: "Would anyone here be putting their faith, let alone their money, into any US company whose business depended on future contracts with Iraq? As I see it, it will be Iraq that will ultimately call the shots, not the US and the likes of Halliburton."

Halliburton is small potatoes when compared to the companies I believe Michael is referring to when he uses the term "big oil". He is thinking more along the lines of Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Conoco Phillips, Chevron and to a much lesser extent BHP.

I do not look at any of these companies as being from a particular nation. With open share registeries and the number of countries these companies do business in, they are effectively stateless in my book. Have a look at some of their treatment in regards to taxation and you will get my drift.

Halliburton has grown into a company of monolitic perceptions because of some of the shareholders who, by the way, are just as likely to own parcels of much bigger stakes in some of the aforementioned names. Actually, if you are part of a fund somewhere down the track you likely own a small slice of your own.

So no, I do not think the problems with the US will be a detriment to any of these companies doing business. The "best deal" will win out in the end.

Jenny Hume: "And there are plenty of so-called friendly to the US countries out there that will be more than willing to help it do so, just as they helped corrupt the oil for food program."

No doubt there are a few state owned operations that could and would be happy to do the job. It does not mean they will do it for a lesser price. And it does not mean they will do a better job. Added to this the perception of having your only important industry owned lock, stock and barrel by another nation does not sometimes play so well.

Michael Park: "The thing is that these are neither beneficial nor required for Iraq."

I do not agree with that. And anyhow what road are you suggesting Iraq should travel down?

Remember PSAs are what the oil companies are seeking. The report only makes recommandations. Iraq can say no at any time. Oil companies also have the option of opting out of something they do not wish to be a part of. So solutions will have to be found one way or the other.

You make comparisons to places such as Kuwait. Remember Kuwait is not a nation run along the same lines as Australia. It is a dictatorship and effectively all the profits belong to the Royal Family not the people. The Kuwait dictators have the option of sharing some of those profits, sure. They also have the option of withdrawing from that "sharing" arrangement at any time. Saddam had the same option and we saw where that all went.

Iraq could opt to take care of business by themselves. However, given most funds, power, and know how are locked away amongst a select few, I imagine they could be missing out on a lot. Not to mention the difficulties running a project of this size would be for a nation that cannot even run some of the very basics.

On top of this it will also lead to a large diversion of much needed cash away from education, health, police etc in the early years with no guarantee of huge success. Added to this is the diversion of funds away from investment in other areas. Because, and let's be honest, when the oil dries for many of these places, that will be it. Back to the stone age.

Alternative industries cannot be called a joke. To even be called a joke one must first exist.

Anyhow, like Venezuela, it is ultimately their choice. I hope for their sake they choose wisely.