U.S. now involved in Iraq longer than WWII.
By on Nov 25th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
U.S. now involved in Iraq longer than WWII.
As of today, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II — three years and just over eight months. “Only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What did they tell us?
November 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pmNo more than 6 months or some such nonsense?
(read: lies)
I seem to remeber the President saying it would take a long time and it wouldn’t be easy.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:20 pmNot when we were building up to go in, Kevin.
Now that we’re in the middle of a civil war that we created, Bush tells us it won’t be easy.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:25 pmWell No Sh*t, Sherlock.
*looking for a gift this season?*
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/11/25/political_stocking_stuffers.html
You’re welcome.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pm:)
After almost 3000 American troops having died for a less than noble cause, this occupation still continues to drag on for no legitimate reason. How many more deaths will it take- perhaps 58,000, about the same number of troops who died for another less than noble cause in a place called Vietnam- before our less than ethical politicians finally decide, as former Senator George Aiken [R-Vt.] declared in 1967, to “declare victory and get out”?
November 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pmErroll,
The deaths in Iraq would have been much closer to Vietnam stats but for the advancements in medical care.
The statistic I’d like to see is how many of our men and women have lost limbs?
Have traumatic brain injuries?
Are suffering from PTSD?
Are disabled? Homeless?
Sad. So sad.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:41 pmAnd it only happened because a little boy wanted to kick in the shin the man who threatened his daddy.
That’s a lot of Friedman’s.
-GSD
November 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pmTrueblue
Certainly you are right about those military personnelwho have returned to this country missing and arm and/or a leg, who have been brain damaged, been blinded, badly burned, and have been pschologically damaged by this illegal occupation. I keep trying to pound this home on different web sites and would often think that I was alone in bringing this topic up for discussion. But my point, along with those who have been killed, was to ask how MANY MORE must needlessly die and become grievously wounded and maimed and crippled before the politicians in this country finally decide to allow the words immediate withdrawal to pass from their lips.
November 25th, 2006 at 5:08 pmAnd it looks like it’s going to drag on and on. A side note, looks like Rumsfeld actually authorized the torture at Abu Ghraib.
November 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pm7 Friedmans = 1 quagmire
November 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pmhahahahahaha! I guess we’re all a bunch of psychics and seers then, right? Anyone with a “brain” knew that it was wrong to go in there – along with the international community. It was a “no brainer” for a no-brain egomaniac – he just couldn’t resist. It’s his mess and he needs to clean it up. Go chimp, go!
November 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pmthough I hate this war, comparing it in terms of longevity with that of World War II is just stupid. They are totally different types of wars. An unconventional war like the one in Iraq against guerilla forces is quite different then fighting conventional military forces in Europe and in East Asia.
November 25th, 2006 at 5:28 pm#8, Erroll: But my point, along with those who have been killed, was to ask how MANY MORE must needlessly die and become grievously wounded and maimed and crippled ….
Yes!
And how MANY MORE must needlessly die and become grievously wounded and maimed and crippled for the sake of a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic which chants `Death to America’ and overwhelming wants the US out of Iraq?
REMEMBER: The debacle in Iraq is Pres Bush direct but inadvertent reponse to the horrific attacks of 9/11.
9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Islamic Fundamentalist Republic?
WTF?
November 25th, 2006 at 5:30 pm#6, trueblue: And it only happened because a little boy wanted to kick in the shin the man who threatened his daddy
As numerous shrinks have pointed out, Boy George really loves his Mommy and hates his Daddy.
Boy George wished to outdo his Daddy in the ME in order to gain the love of his Mommy.
We are talking Oedipus Complex.
Plus, as everyone knows, Bush totally disregards his earthly father for his heavenly father.
November 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pmI can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.
Donald Rumsfeld in an Interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect, November 14 2002
November 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pmAnd all the newly elected congress can do is convene investigations, as they will not cut off funding of troops in the field.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:06 pmHopefully they will uncover enough dirt to quickly impeach the chimp and darth. Perhaps Pelosi can pull the troops out before next year…
My heartfelt condolences to the families of the dead and those wounded.
Something to ponder:
Rumaila Oil Field
The Rumaila Field lies in Iraq and Kuwait and was disputed between the two countries. During the initial years of the “oil boom”, Iraq concentrated on the oil fields up north while much of Kuwait’s oil drilling activity took place at the Burqan Oil Field. However, in 1989, Iraq accused Kuwait for illegally slant drilling into the Iraqi part of the Rumaila Oil Field. Iraq claimed $10 billion including $2.4 billion in compensation for the oil “stolen” from the Rumaila field in Iraq since 1980 by Kuwait’s alleged slant-drilling under the Iraqi oil fields. Even though Kuwait dismissed the allegation as baseless[7], the Iraqi government decided to retaliate to Kuwait’s alleged “economic warfare” by launching a military invasion against it.
WIKI
I remember there was a WH note that gave Hussein the OK to go to Kuwait to compensate for the theft of oil. Hussein was a good US Buddy for the time being of the IRAQ-IRAN war, right?
It’s all about the dough. In good American tradtion of ‘who is better, bigger, richer, ect…’ now the comparison between wars. Sick. Wait till Iraq outlasts Vietnam. Shouldn’t we count the first Gulf War in that equation in the first place? Like there was only a little break in the war, caused by those ‘damn liberal Democrats’? The republicans created some fake reasons to continue where they had left off in 1993. Right?
November 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pm[...] From ThinkProgress: As of today, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II — three years and just over eight months. “Only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer.†[...]
November 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pmBuilt a ‘Zoo’ like structure for the participants of the bush administration to be shown in their ‘cells’ with glass fronts, that the public can meander in the ‘Zoo’ and take a look at these criminals, war profiteers and brute offenders in crimes against human mankind. Maybe the whole structure could resemble the WH, where it all started…
November 25th, 2006 at 6:13 pm“REMEMBER: The debacle in Iraq is Pres Bush direct but inadvertent reponse to the horrific attacks of 9/11.”
What a lie. The agenda pre-dated 9/11 and can be read about when googling PNAC.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pm7 Friedmans = 1 quagmire
Comment by RealScientist
Or
7 Friedmans = 1 comma
November 25th, 2006 at 6:29 pmHere’s the bottom line: Bush must be impeached. If the democrats in congress don’t get it, then we truly have lost representative government.Enough pussy footing around. America must stand for more.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pm…a WH note that gave Hussein the OK to go to Kuwait…
Comment by ItsJustKarma — November 25, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
not sure of the specifics, but i recall it was a message from an ambassador who told hussein the US did not get involved in disputes between neighboring countries… (yea right)… but, in effect, giving him the go-ahead to invade kuwait… another little know factoid…
November 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#6 “And it only happened because a little boy wanted to kick in the shin the man who threatened his daddy.”
And that daddy and his friends have made a boatload of money off of this war. I think that’s the main reason BushCo invaded Iraq.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:48 pmLet’s all sing an Ode to Oedipus George!
November 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pmThis pseudo legitimate war never had one iota to do with WMD, freeing the people from a tyrant, spreading democracy, or any other cockamamie reason the people have been given. It’s about the Oil and control of that oil in the Middle East and Poppy’s Carlyle group and Darth’s Haliburton making megabucks on the backs of the american people (national debt) and at a serious human cost in terms of our fallen heroes and our permanently maimed troops…not to mention the poor Iraqi people whose country has been torn apart due to our presence. How pathetic and how totally criminal it all has become. Heinous & reprehensible are two words which feel apropos.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:24 pmbut, in effect, giving him the go-ahead to invade kuwait… another little know factoid…
Comment by katy — November 25, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
That is true it was a women from our state department and it was along the lines “We don’t have a dog in it”. I am sure some Progs have a link to it.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pmIts unfortunate that Bush didn’t spend as much time in Vietnam as he spent snorting blow at Harvard and Yale. Maybe if he had we wouldn’t have caused a civil war in Iraqnam? His real goal was securing the Iraqi oil fields for his oil company buddies, so to him no matter how long we stay and how many american kids are butchered for his lies, as long as we get the oil his mission will be accomplished.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pmWeren’t we told that US troop presence would be reduced to a custodial force of 30,000 by October of 2003?
November 25th, 2006 at 7:43 pmhas-been,
I’m more concerned about your name.
:(
How about, “evolved”?
“Over it”?
“Smarter”?
See where I’m going?
Put a happy spin on it.
:)
Signed,
November 25th, 2006 at 7:52 pmYour Local Pollyanna.
George will just “beam” when he becomes Gengis Khan.
November 25th, 2006 at 8:00 pm#21, pnac : What a lie. The agenda pre-dated 9/11 and can be read about when googling PNAC. (“REMEMBER: The debacle in Iraq is Pres Bush direct but inadvertent reponse to the horrific attacks of 9/11.â€)
Try reading it again: The debacle in Iraq is Pres Bush’s direct but inadvertent reponse to the horrific attacks of 9/11.
Capisce?
Bush screwed up even further.
What’s he going to do for an encore?
E.g. accidently give N. Korea the bomb?
November 25th, 2006 at 8:24 pmWhile I hope that our involvement in Iraq will not continue much longer, we should be honest when comparing Iraq to WWII. While WWII may have ended in 1945, we were involved in the occupation of Japan until 1951 and Germany until 1955. We have a long way to go until we equal that mark.
November 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pmUS not involved in Iraq longer than WWII, and haven’t accomplished a thing except the insurgency.
November 25th, 2006 at 9:10 pmOops — US [now] involved in Iraq…
November 25th, 2006 at 9:11 pmNo, wrong. You don’t remember that.
November 25th, 2006 at 9:28 pmAnd for all the lip service given to the evils of inaccurate spin by partisan psuedo-media hacks, you certainly don’t mind indulging it as fact when you like what gets spun.
Likewise for indulging manufactured memories for that matter.
Hmmm…. an honest comparison you say ?
November 25th, 2006 at 9:31 pmI dunno, it’s a crazy idea but it just might work.
#35 – camanintx,
November 25th, 2006 at 9:55 pmI would hate to disappoint you, but US forces are still stationed in both Germany and Japan today. In the Middle East, our occupations tend to be a bit shorter as the heat turns up and we tend to leave the scene.
I would hate to disappoint you, but US forces are still stationed in both Germany and Japan today.
Comment by WaltTheMan — November 25, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
How would you be disappointing him ?
November 25th, 2006 at 10:00 pmBy telling hm that instead of Thinkprogress being off by 6 years it is actually 60 ?
You really think he’s the one who looks stupid there ?
#41 – Tank,
November 25th, 2006 at 10:06 pmWWII hostilities stopped in less than 4 years – the occupation still goes on.
Your point being what ? Nuclear attacks on cities are great for pacifying the defeated ?
November 25th, 2006 at 10:11 pmIt won’t be long before we pass the Civil War in length. One of these days, Bush might actually try to win it instead of CYA-ing.
November 25th, 2006 at 10:22 pm#43 – Tank,
November 25th, 2006 at 10:27 pmThe nukes were an unfortunate product of feelings at the time. In case you fail to remember or did not experience the emotions then, the utter fear and destruction on each side in the war wrested human emotion when visualizing the foe as anything but a lesser being. It all started with the Battle of Britain and was annealed by the attack on Pearl Harbor. The rest fell in place as each side vied for an edge.
#38
No, wrong. You don’t remember that.
And for all the lip service given to the evils of inaccurate spin by partisan psuedo-media hacks, you certainly don’t mind indulging it as fact when you like what gets spun.
Likewise for indulging manufactured memories for that matter.
Comment by Tank
However, there is a major gap in Mann’s article. Let’s go back to the first Iraq war in 1991. Mann’s information is the missing link from earlier strange goings on. When Saddam first invaded Kuwait there were unexplained reports about how U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie had told him, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait” and “Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction … that Kuwait is not associated with America.” This was backed up by testimony to Congress by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly that Washington was not taking sides in the dispute between Kuwait and Iraq.
I know you might not trust the source but you can look it up yourself at numerous reliable sources. It is verified to have happened. Knock yourself out. Believe it or not that is your chioce.
November 25th, 2006 at 11:11 pmBush might actually try to win it instead of CYA-ing.
Comment by PoliticalCritic
And what exactly woould constitute a “win”?
November 25th, 2006 at 11:13 pmAnd what exactly woould constitute a “win�
Comment by dlet
I think the operative word was “try.”
I know, it doesn’t help…
November 25th, 2006 at 11:26 pm#49 -
And what exactly would constitute a “win�
Comment by dlet — November 25, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
You’ve got me!
November 25th, 2006 at 11:29 pmPerhaps, we should concentrate on defining a loss.
November 25th, 2006 at 11:32 pmAt least the Aggies won!
November 25th, 2006 at 11:36 pmI know you might not trust the source but you can look it up yourself at numerous reliable sources. It is verified to have happened. Knock yourself out. Believe it or not that is your chioce.
Comment by dlet — November 25, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
Screw the source, try the implication on for size instead. Does that equate to this:
No. So the significance of this appears to be that when dealing with someone who would invade a country if a 3rd party didn’t take sides in a pre-existing oil rights dispute then this 3rd party is somehow responsible for the invasion by stating that they aren’t taking sides in the drilling of oil fields and economic reparations ?
Australia has disputed border oil fields with East Timor. Thailand has no opinion on the matter. How is this not a green light for Australia to invade East Timor ?
Offhand can you think of any nation that had no opinion or was undecided about the WMD intelligence presented to the UN that we could hold accountable for the US invading Iraq ?
This kind of disjointed logic is too fkn stupid to even contemplate for 1 (one) minute isn’t it ?
November 25th, 2006 at 11:52 pmYet 15 (fifteen) years later nimrods are still quoting this same thing about Kuwait. The reason is people keep insisting it is “true” rather than just determining whether it is “meaningful” or “relevant”.
not sure of the specifics, but i recall it was a message from an ambassador who told hussein the US did not get involved in disputes between neighboring countries… (yea right)… but, in effect, giving him the go-ahead to invade kuwait… another little know factoid…
Comment by katy — November 25, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
That was a U.N Sanctioned move. Far from the U.S stopping it on it’s own. Either we agree with the U.N and back them or we don’t, we can’t have it both ways. (yes I realize Bush never got approval for this one and I’m not defending him at all)
November 26th, 2006 at 12:14 amWith the real question being,should any one individual posess enough power within a govt., to take an entire nation to war.
I seem to recall congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
November 26th, 2006 at 12:19 amOffhand can you think of any nation that had no opinion or was undecided about the WMD intelligence presented to the UN that we could hold accountable for the US invading Iraq ?
Comment by Tank
Can you think of any nation invading another country EVEN having the wrong info about that country´s arsenal? So, I guess that when you are undecided about where your wife has been you just beat the hell out of her, right? Just in case.
November 26th, 2006 at 1:23 amWell yeah, it happens all the time. It’s called not having complete intelligence. Hell Israel did it 3 times within a week.
Now was there any fkn point whatsoever to you writing that ?
Did you fail to notice I what I was asking and how I used it as an example in reply to an existing discussion ?
Really, did you just decide to interrupt there to inform us (in November 2006 mind you) that there were no WMDs found in Iraq ?
Gee thanks Juan. You’re of use to literally nobody here or anywhere else for that matter.
November 26th, 2006 at 1:46 amOooppsss, did I f*ck up here???? Probably. If I did, I offer apologies, Tank.
did you just decide to interrupt there to inform us (in November 2006 mind you) that there were no WMDs found in Iraq ?
Well, of course there are, Tank. They are spreaded all over the country…over people´s houses…since the Gulf War I, year after year.
You’re of use to literally nobody here or anywhere else for that matter.
November 26th, 2006 at 2:14 amComment by Tank
Well, thats not what its called democracy, Tank. Im sure you know that.
The debacle in Iraq is Pres Bush direct but inadvertent reponse to the horrific attacks of 9/11.
9/11 was not the cause of the Iraq war.
November 26th, 2006 at 3:54 amBut the desire for a war with Iraq may have been the cause for 9/11.
this is the modern 100 years war…the glue that will keep us there that long is the black stuff under the ground.
November 26th, 2006 at 7:00 amThere were no murders of US solders after WWII and certainly not the torture murder and other horrific things we see every day in Iraq.
The Marshall plan really rebuilt the infrastructure of Germany, Japan and other countries destroyed not the siphoning of almost ALL THE MONEY for war and oil profiteering buddies of the president and vice president.
November 26th, 2006 at 7:28 amDick Cheney’s AboutFace from when he was Bush Senior’s Secretary of Defense in the First Gulf War:
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?”
Cheney said then in response to a question. “And the answer is not very damned many.
So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
“All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,” Cheney said.
“Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.”
November 26th, 2006 at 7:31 amNational Security Archive Email Update, November 24, 2006:
THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR 20 YEARS ON
Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides
Pentagon Nominee Robert Gates Among Many
Prominent Figures Involved in the Scandal
For more information contact:
Malcolm Byrne – 202/994-7043
Peter Kornbluh – 202/994-7116
http://www.nsarchive.org
Washington, DC, November 24, 2006 – The National Security Archive today is posting some of the most important documents to come out of the Iran-Contra affair, which burst onto the public scene 20 years ago. President Ronald Reagan’s press conference on November 25, 1986, explicitly linked for the first time the covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and the secret U.S. backing for the Nicaraguan Contras.
The scandal over covert arms deals with Iran and secret U.S. backing for the Nicaraguan Contras created huge problems for President Ronald Reagan because of his abandonment of long-standing U.S. policy against dealing with terrorists and the public perception that he had lied to cover up the story. Ultimately, the administration’s tactic of focusing attention on thediversion of Iran arms funds to the Contras, which Reagan apparently was unaware of but which was only one of a number of related covert acts he authorized, arguably deflected public attention long enough to prevent his impeachment.
Among the documents being posted are records that relate to the actions (or inaction) of Robert M. Gates, the current nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. Gates came under fire for deliberately looking the other way as the Iran and Contra programs went along, instead of attempting to put an end to them. Questions about his role derailed his nomination to head the CIA in 1987, although he ultimately was named DCI four years later, in 1991, under President George H.W. Bush.
[See link below for the complete article and links to more info.]
The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On (11/24/06) -
NSA Electronic Briefing Book No. 210
The Robert Gates File (11/10/06) -
November 26th, 2006 at 7:34 amNSA Electronic Briefing Book No. 208 http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3378
And given today`s technology,it wouldn`t have lasted even this long if not for the purposeful incompetence of this administration.
And let me guess, we should have been able to carry out the entire campaign without ever putting boot on the ground.
November 26th, 2006 at 9:17 amFunny, that’s exactly how I feel about GOP lackeys still whining & crying about the election’s results of three weeks ago
The GOP lost, deal with it in a grown up manner for a change
No, the point is that the Iraq invasion & occupation should have NEVER taken place at all
Because the dominos are now falling, courtesy of W’s repulsive desire to show up his own father by deposing Saddam Hussein, an act Bush Sr wasn’t stupid enough to attempt
And those dominos include an Iraq civil war spreading throughout the entire region, with Lebanon now teetering on the brink of another round of uncontained violence
With Sunnis & Shia killing each other-and fighting off intergroup antagonists as well-there will quickly be a descent into the horrors now inflicting Iraq on a daily basis, and the worst possibilty of all is that destroying Iraq-Roving death squads operating at will in every middle east country, and that will hurt the oil-dependent economies here in the west, as the oil flow will stop with each group out to make sure others don’t profit from the oil trade
Pipelines attacked, oil workers killed and threatened into leaving their host countries, and the real kicker here is that there’s no individual or group able to get the vast majority of death squads or insurgents to rein in their violence
There will be no face-saving way for W to withdraw forces from Iraq, we’ll be leaving Iraq in the same humiliating fashion we did in Vietnam, and those poor oil conglomerates won’t be able to pacify enough death squads or insurgents to make their oil trafficking profitable enough to stay in a violence-racked country
W has no direct, effective way to lower the violence in Iraq, and the Iraqis aren’t interested in helping W save any kind of face via “Troop Pullout With Honor”
Without a doubt, this is the absolute WORST foreign policy decision in US history
November 26th, 2006 at 11:15 amUSA stop it’s involvement in WW2 by using the nuclear weapon.
I prefer a longer involvement than the vitrification of Iraq.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:36 amthis is the modern 100 years war…the glue that will keep us there that long is the black stuff under the ground.
Comment by Jason Baddo
Exactly.
November 26th, 2006 at 12:31 pmCut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do
Sunday, November 26th, 2006
Friends,
Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.
That’s right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it’s taken the world’s only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven’t even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn’t even include a friggin’ helmet.
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That’s because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to “win” the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
Let’s listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.
There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That’s how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That’s how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That’s how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king’s legions simply leave (sometimes just because they’re too cold). That’s how Canada did it.
The one way that DOESN’T work is to invade a country and tell the people, “We are here to liberate you!” — when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam’s convoy passed them by? I guess ol’ Saddam was a cruel despot — but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. “Oh no, Mike, they couldn’t do that! Saddam would have had them killed!” Really? You don’t think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don’t think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn’t stop them. When tens of thousands aren’t willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren’t going to be willing participants when you decide you’re going to do the liberating for them.
A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that’s what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn’t stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn’t say, “we’re not leaving because we want your natural resources.” They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That’s what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn’t say, “Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they’re going to kill each other over that slavery issue!”
The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them — and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it’s been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke’s been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they’ve been liberated, permanently.
So I don’t want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or “redeploying” them, or waiting four months to begin the “phase-out.” There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don’t want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What’s happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ’til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.
The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!
The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren’t kidding around, Democrats, and if you don’t believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush’s War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.
This is what we demand:
1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can’t win. We’ve lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.
2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.
3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it’s become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.
In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn’t think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn’t know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn’t know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.
But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that “Mission Accomplished” banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.
Unfortunately, we can’t. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.
We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.
Yours,
Michael Moore
November 26th, 2006 at 12:32 pmhttp://www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
Comment by unbelievable
It turned out that Michael Moore was right. Who would have known?/ sarcasm off
November 26th, 2006 at 1:37 pmIt turned out that Michael Moore was right. Who would have known?/ sarcasm off
Comment by Juan C — November 26, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Sadly, the neocons won’t have learned a thing, and I bet the trolls will continue to villify him and anything else he says in the future against their beloved Boy-King on a mission from his god…
I just hope the American people have.
November 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pmFrom the Associated Press, as printed in the Boston Globe, on January 29, 1999 – General Anthony Zinni testified before Congress regarding why the United States did nothing to punish Saddam Hussein after he brutally slaughtered his own people during an uprising in the South, and then gassed the Kurds in the North. His answer? He said that we did nothing in response because any replacement of the current regime will probably be worse.
Clearly.
November 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pmThe first thing which comes to mind are the “appeasers” whom are so despised by then neocons. True that the primary responsibility lies with Iraq as the aggressor. Also true that the League of nations failed apartly due to the non-participation of US and Bolshevic Russia.
November 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pmWWII has been replaying in my fathers brain for for about sixty years, so his concept of this “wars” timeframe has only been a fraction of what he thinks a real war should be.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:54 am(He just turned 85)
#35 – camanintrix
I would hate to disappoint you, but US forces are still stationed in both Germany and Japan today.
#41 Tank
WWII hostilities stopped in less than 4 years – the occupation still goes on.
Commentsby WaltTheMan
You are correct in pointing out that US troops are still stationed in Japan and Germany. However, this at least in Japan’s case (a field in which I have advanced degrees) is not quite the same as the “Occupation,” when the Allied forces, led by the US but also including Australians, Brits, etc., had the power to censor the press and movies, purge local politicians, etc.; and there were PXs in the middle of downtown Tokyo. One of the politicians purged albeit not convicted as a war criminal was Nobusuke Kishi. After the official Occupation ended, he was rehabilitated and eventually even became Prime Minister. His grandson Shinzo Abe is the current PM of Japan.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:07 am