General Rose: we can't win so let's leave Iraq

[TomUS]

I don't know what's been more extraordinary in the past 6 years, the capitulation of the press, the capitulation of the Constitution, or the speed with which any sense of moral imperative has vanished from the body politic.

The capitulation of the press since 9/11 has been the biggest dissapointment for me. They swallowed the bush war machine propaganda with little question & then fed it to the public. Most of our "journalists" were cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion- ain't it cool, we get to ride on the tanks! But since public opinion has turned against the war, they're starting to grow some balls & ask some tougher questions. But most are still wimps, still talking about "intelligence failures" & saying those who oppose funding for the war are against funding for "the troops."

The body politic? Look at this fool (foul) politician.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/24/video-boehner-gets-emotional-during-iraq-war-funding-debate/

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Thank you for this excellent evalution of my insight, but I'm afraid my position and my realism prevents me from changing my views.
Occupation of the heartland of the ME, furfilling the dream of having such a geo-strategic advantage over all other nations combined, creation of the political, social, civil, economical, educational barren ground required to control its political, social, civil, economical, educational future, is exactly the intention and goal.

You are failing to persuade me that you're right though. What advantages were the US to gain from bases in Iraq over those already existing in the surrounding countries?

Or were you ranting on a tangent?

 

[jonH]

You are failing to persuade me that you're right though. What advantages were the US to gain from bases in Iraq over those already existing in the surrounding countries?

Or were you ranting on a tangent?

Iraq has huge oil reserves and 2 major rivers

 

[phildwyer]

What advantages were the US to gain from bases in Iraq over those already existing in the surrounding countries?

Not much advantage to the US, loads of advantage to Israel. Saddam was the Arab leader most actıvely ınvolved ın supportıng mılıtary actıon agaınst Israel. Wıth hım gone, and hıs country ıncapacıtated, they just need to take care of Syrıa and Iran and they're ın the clear.

 

[nino_savatte]

You are failing to persuade me that you're right though. What advantages were the US to gain from bases in Iraq over those already existing in the surrounding countries?

Or were you ranting on a tangent?

What were the advantages of the British having bases in Iraq/Mesopotamia from 1921 to 1958, when they had plenty of bases in Transjordan, Kuwait and Palestine?

Iraq = Oil

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Oil yes, bases no. One makes perfect sense, the other doesn't (or not much anyway, i'm sure there are limitations to what forces the US are allowed to base in the current ones).

 

[nino_savatte]

The bases are there, ostensibly, to act as both the eyes and ears as well as to offer muscle should the need arise. Oil is a precious commodity and the control of it depends almost entirely on military might.

 

[dylanredefined]

No you need a stable country to exploit oil.The infra structure is an insurgents dream to attack .You get conflict diamonds ,you don't get conflict crude.
Considering what the iraques did to kuwait when they were they there,Pretty happy to have colation forces there.
Saudi arabi wanted the west to defend it from saddam .Shouldn't have bothered is the opinion of most people who served there. .
There may be a plan to build bases in iraq ,but,the troops really believe they
are there to defeat al queda and bring freedom and democracy to iraq.

 

[Barking_Mad]

*ponders why the US is building the worlds largest embassy in Baghdad*

Maybe they just like big buildings?

 

[slaar]

No you need a stable country to exploit oil.The infra structure is an insurgents dream to attack .You get conflict diamonds ,you don't get conflict crude.

Not true I'm afraid. Conflict oil is less common than conflict diamonds, but it is certainly out there. Nigeria is the main example, but there are others. Up to 1/5 of oil exported from Nigeria is actually stolen from pipelines, often with military backup from factions of the army or local militias, and exported by them. A stable country makes things easier, but it is possible, in the short term, to keep exporting a lot of oil with local security protection and enclaves. Especially when the oil is recovered from under the sea.

There may be a plan to build bases in iraq ,but,the troops really believe they are there to defeat al queda and bring freedom and democracy to iraq.

What the troops believe is neither here nor there. What matters is what the politicians and industrial backers think.

 

[ZAMB]

There may be a plan to build bases in iraq ,but,the troops really believe they
are there to defeat al queda and bring freedom and democracy to iraq.

As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

These bases are already established or being built. Together with those working on building the 'embassy' think what all those construction workers could have done if they had been concentrated on reconstruction, resupply of essential services, or indeed anything for the benefit of the Iraqi people - the unfortunate victims in the great US scheme of empire. It's obscene that all of this has been built while the people are without 24 hour essential services like power and water.

As Chomsky has often said, the US attitude is that 'We own the world' - and they have built bases all over the world to make sure they maintain their grip on it. This is why they do not want anything resembling genuine democracy established in Iraq, but rather a puppet govt. under their thumbs. Bush wouldn't want 'freedom and democracy' - he wants what every US President has wanted for years, an obedient puppet in Iraq. Saddam used to be that puppet, then he started wanting more of the pie for Iraq.

 

[TomUS]

Saudi arabi wanted the west to defend it from saddam .

I think you should check your history. Polwell & Schwarkopf went to Saudi to convince them to allow the US to launch the invasion of Kuait/Iraq from Saudi territory. They told the Saudis that Iraq was massing forces on their border which later was shown to be doubtful if not false info.

 

[Michel Aflaq]

Quite, the US has literally taken over the role the British enjoyed between 1917 and 1958.

All the more depressing as it means the military led revolt against the British puppet regime of Iraq's former 'royal' family on the 14th of July, 1958 has turned out to have been made pointless and everything in Iraq is now back to square one.

Despite Brigader Abd al Karim Qasim (Iraq's 1st leader after the overthrow of the puppet monarchy) being mistaken to have not joined up with Syria and Egypt in the United Arab Republic (UAR) and instead insisted on a inward looking Iraqi policy as opposed to a policy that could have united Arab nations into one Arab nation which could have offered a chance of keeping the Middle East free from both Soviet and US interference, Qasim never the less freed Iraq from imperialism.

Since April 2003, all that transpired in Iraq, good or bad, has now been made irrelevant, as if it never happened.

You are failing to persuade me that you're right though. What advantages were the US to gain from bases in Iraq over those already existing in the surrounding countries?

The logic of power does not always correspond to moral or scientific logic. It may sound mad or surreal, but there are reasons why the US has decided on having military bases in Iraq:

1.) To counter and encircle Iran, which now has two US occupied nations (Afghanistan and Iraq), NATO ruled Turkey and a pro-US Pakistan on it's borders. No wonder the Iranians feel threatened.

2.) To control Iraq's oil, as many have said, but also it's water supply as well.

3.) To keep the US in a state of permanent war so as to justify to US voters the over funded defence budget and America's bloated and vast war machine.

4.) To assist the Zionist regime in occupied Palestine in it's hitlist of Arab nations to remove as potential rivals to it's supremecy in the Middle East.

At a WH news conf a couple days ago Bush said the terrorists were trying to drive us out of the Mid East.

First off, there are no news conferences at the White House, just scripted propaganda speeches and yet more lies and cover ups presented to establishment 'journalists' and the corporate media by cronies of the current US regime, as much as a joke and as comical as the so-called news conferences presented by the former Iraqi Minister of Inforomation during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As to 'terrorism', well before April 2003, I don't recall Iraq being awash with terrorism, Jihadi cells, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, bombings, hostage taking or sectarian strife.

The US is not being pushed out of the Middle East by terrorism, the US is pushing terrorism on the Middle East.

 

[ZAMB]

The US is not being pushed out of the Middle East by terrorism, the US is pushing terrorism on the Middle East.

Well said!! Saddam would have nothing to do with AQ or Bin Laden - he detested them. The USA has brought terrorism into Iraq along with their illegal invasion.

 

[nino_savatte]

No you need a stable country to exploit oil.The infra structure is an insurgents dream to attack .You get conflict diamonds ,you don't get conflict crude.
Considering what the iraques did to kuwait when they were they there,Pretty happy to have colation forces there.
Saudi arabi wanted the west to defend it from saddam .Shouldn't have bothered is the opinion of most people who served there. .
There may be a plan to build bases in iraq ,but,the troops really believe they
are there to defeat al queda and bring freedom and democracy to iraq.

I think this has been dealt with. Stable countries are unneccessary in the exploitation of oil. The US has shown this. Indeed the first boots on the ground weren't those of the USMC but of Halliburton. The US military provides the muscle and so do the many mercs on the ground.

 

[slaar]

Niger Delta

Just to reinforce that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6734173.stm

 

[dylanredefined]

The oil companies are loosing 25% of production cannot gurantee secruity of their employees and might have to consider contuined operations .And thats in nigera .
Quick google points out that iraq oil production has never even come anywhere near even 2000 levels .It is possible to pump oil out of a non secure
enviorment .Much easier and profitable if it is safe.

 

[Peet]

i saw a story on the bbc introducing the idea of sunnis fighting amongst themselves, maybe the baath party could help now.

By killing everyone?

 

[dash_two]

You'd think Iran would want the British and Americans to remain in Iraq, as the situation there has been so very helpful for them. They've been the main regional beneficiary of the conflict by a long way.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think there's some sense in what you say dash_two. While the US/UK are there, they act as the focus of discontent and the Iranians can just sort of sit on the sidelines. If the US/UK pulled out, the situation would become much more dynamic and the Iranians would have to decide how overt they were going to be in trying to influence it. If they got too overt about it, then they'd almost certainly provoke a lot of nationalist reaction. On the other hand, not intervening would also be a risky approach for them, especially if outside backing for groups unsympathetic to their interests were at all significant.

 

[slaar]

I think there's some sense in what you say dash_two. While the US/UK are there, they act as the focus of discontent and the Iranians can just sort of sit on the sidelines. If the US/UK pulled out, the situation would become much more dynamic and the Iranians would have to decide how overt they were going to be in trying to influence it. If they got too overt about it, then they'd almost certainly provoke a lot of nationalist reaction. On the other hand, not intervening would also be a risky approach for them, especially if outside backing for groups unsympathetic to their interests were at all significant.

Right. At the moment they can quite easily play the "it's all your fault" card to the Americans, unsurprisingly, as it was their war in the first place. But if the US leaves (presumably with special forces and intelligence left behind to hunt down Al-Q types) it'll leave a much trickier situation for Iran. Many Iraqis really don't like Iran very much, especially if they try to get all imperialist themselves.

 

[dash_two]

Bernie: Yes, the Iranians have played a very astute game, the fact of which tends to be obscured by some of President Borat's grandstanding rhetoric.

As long as Iran maintains its thorough infiltration of both Sunni and Shia sides in the conflict, they can sustain a level of aggravation optimal to their interests, with the Coalition forces functioning like control rods in a reactor.

Plus of course Iraq is now a vast research-and-development lab in which not only can new IEDs and tactics be tried out at arm's length, but in which the capabilities and habits of the Coalition forces can be observed at leisure.