New York Times calls for immediate withdrawl

[butchersapron]

Some of the cracks in the US ruling class are starting to widen - shades of the larger papers turning against the continuation of the Vietnam War - this is (part of) the editorial in todays NYT - The Road Home

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward...

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

 

[Detroit City]

you really think this will change anything?

 

[butchersapron]

In terms of what? Larger agendas? Immediate priorities? Political impact in the US? Life in Iraq?

 

[Genghis Cohen]

Fuck them in their stupid faces.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

It's always about what it costs them they couldn't give a shit about the hundreds of thousands they've murdered.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I suspect they're just bullshitting by way of public relations prior to the next presidential election. I don't see any way that the US can pull out of Iraq. Having turned it into a failed state and the world's largest terrorist training camp, it's very hard to imagine them pulling out and leaving its oil reserves to fall under the control of whoever comes out on top in the ensuing mayhem. There's a lot more at stake for them here than there ever was in Vietnam say.

 

[moono]

My own take is that the Israel Lobby, who surely have a marked impact upon the NYT, would rather the US attacked Iran than slowly bled to death in Iraq.
Bernie's view is more rational, but when was the AIPAC ever rational .

 

[butchersapron]

I suspect they're just bullshitting by way of public relations prior to the next presidential election. I don't see any way that the US can pull out of Iraq. Having turned it into a failed state and the world's largest terrorist training camp, it's very hard to imagine them pulling out and leaving its oil reserves to fall under the control of whoever comes out on top in the ensuing mayhem. There's a lot more at stake for them here than there ever was in Vietnam say.

This is spot on the money for me. No major power just abandons its long term strategic thinking and aims, they might adapt the forms in which they pursue them as events dictate, but they do not just drop them, which is exactly what complete withdrawl would entail. The form of occupation may redrawn by the strategists, in fact that's what already going on via various differenet methods, but the core aim will not be abandoned.

And yes, this is a very different situation that Vietnam, which is why some of the glib comparisons between the two annoy me. The strategic thinking and the contect in which Vietnam took place were very different - firstly the existence of a rival superpower acted to constrain the US action in some ways, there is little restraining influence other than internal (ruling class)pressure this time around. More significantly, the US was fighting a war that could be seen (and was by the planners) as defending an outpost of the empire - if it fell, they could retreat back to the next defensive postion - it was, despite the terrible cost in lifes and resources a battle on the outskirts.

This time Iraq and the various plans put forward for the middle east, whilst geographically being distant from the US are actually central to the mid-long term future of the US and global capital - if they lose contorlo of this area then they're going to be facing a potentially life-threatening and world changing situation. They could walk away from Vietnam, they cannot walk away from this one.

 

[butchersapron]

The editorial piece was nicely summed up in todays WS as

Exuding a sense of hopelessness and despair, riddled with internal contradictions, raising more questions than it answers, the editorial reflects more than anything else the perplexity of the US political establishment in the face of a catastrophe of its own making.

[...]

As one reads the statement, it becomes clear that the newspaper is not really calling for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, but rather a redeployment leading to a permanent US military presence in Iraq and an expansion of American forces in the region.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/nyti-j09.shtml

 

[London_Calling]

Seems to be suggesting forgoing full-scale occupation in favour of the already much developed ‘enduring bases’ strategy i.e. bunker down and concentrating on the asymmetric war with al-Qaeda and Co – while being available to friends in the Iraqi government.

This is pretty much the only viable option anyway, it’s just a question of time-scale and it’s interesting that the NYT is declaring open support now for what is effectively the post-Bush strategy.

This is what it seems the Ed is about, preparing the ground for post-Bush when the bunkering down strategy will begin to dominate – as for Bush, he just has to try and hang on ‘til then with a series of ‘new’ ideas.

 

[TAE]

They are going to hold on until their 104 acre embassy fortress is completed:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

 

[moono]

They must be drawing straws for who gets billeted closest to the helipad.

 

[Crispy]

They're building permanent bases all over iraq - nobody's leaving except in the most trivial and newsbitey manner.

 

[teqniq]

/naive mode

What on earth do they need a 104 acre embassy fortress for?

/naive mode

 

[bluestreak]

/naive mode

What on earth do they need a 104 acre embassy fortress for?

/naive mode

to control the country from.

104 acres, because they'll need to keep a permanent garrison there, as well as do everything from inside, because of this bit... the fortress is needed because it's going to be fucking dangerous for american interests for the next 20 years at least.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I see this just as an indication of one end of the set of acceptable mainstream political positions. This is what counts as "hard anti-war"; the other side would be huge escalation. Neither is actually going to happen. NYT editorials are really only useful for judging Washington mood.

It's rude about Bush, but that's just partisanship.

 

[teqniq]

to control the country from.

104 acres, because they'll need to keep a permanent garrison there, as well as do everything from inside, because of this bit... the fortress is needed because it's going to be fucking dangerous for american interests for the next 20 years at least.

Sorry bluestreak I was having a cynical laugh. The mere presence of this 'embassy' give the lie to any pull-out in the normal sense of the expression. I suspect they're planning on staying in substantial numbers until hell freezes over or the oil runs out. Probably the latter.

 

[moono]

Crispy;

They're building permanent bases all over iraq - nobody's leaving except in the most trivial and newsbitey manner.

The intent is to stay, sure, but it just might come to pass that they are evicted.

 

[ViolentPanda]

/naive mode

What on earth do they need a 104 acre embassy fortress for?

/naive mode

To house all the "defensive weapons" and personnel they'll need to retain control of the embassy site?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Crispy;


The intent is to stay, sure, but it just might come to pass that they are evicted.

They've already experienced the ignominy of eviction from one of the Central Asian bases that the neo-cons were oh-so-recently boasting about having "a long lease" on.

 

[TomUS]

The intent is to stay, sure, but it just might come to pass that they are evicted.

Eviction is likely considering how American domestic support for the war/occupation continues to fade. Despite what the top US general in Iraq says.

The head of US forces in Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus, has told the BBC that fighting the insurgency is a "long term endeavour" which could take decades.

Gen Petraeus is due to return to Washington in September to report on the campaign's progress. However, correspondents say the clock in Washington is running fast.

In recent days four Republican senators have withdrawn support for President George W Bush's Iraq strategy, adding their voice to a growing number calling for a new plan.

And this week will see a contentious debate in the US Senate over a major defence spending bill.

According to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, the debate is moving so fast in Washington that Gen Petraeus's efforts, which might have saved the day for the Bush administration if they had been introduced three, or even two, years ago, may well have come too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6285156.stm

 

[butchersapron]

Can the US be 'evicted' from the middle east? Do people really think that's possible? Are you mad? Naive?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Can the US be 'evicted' from the middle east? Do people really think that's possible? Are you mad? Naive?

I don't think they can be forced out militarily.

I do believe that they've got a hell of a public relations war to win to even begin to make a case, especially to "the people back home" for continued large-scale involvement and/or an expansion of operations in the ME.

I'm hoping they lose that war, or at least the major battles. That way they're less likely, unless they reinstitute the draft, to have the manpower to upscale their operations.

 

[moono]

I'm hoping they lose that war

Too right, and a great many Americans are going to be proud of their part in that defeat.

Americans aren't all slavering imperialists with a wife and three SUVs to support.