Out Of Touch Elites Promulgate Partition For Iraq That 98 Percent Of Iraqis Oppose
Out Of Touch Elites Promulgate Partition For Iraq That 98 Percent Of Iraqis Oppose
This morning, New York Times columnist David Brooks joined a small chorus including Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and Jackson Diehl, and Michael O’Hanlon in giving up on listening to what Iraqis think. Instead, Brooks wrote that the U.S. mission in Iraq is to partition Iraq:
What we’re really trying to build, in other words, is a road to partition. We’re trying to build a pathway to separation that involves the sort of low-intensity civil war that Iraq is enduring right now. We’re trying to prevent a pathway that is even worse — a high-intensity genocide.
This week’s ABC News/BBC/NHK survey of 2,000 Iraqis found the following:
Nearly every Iraqi — a whopping 98 percent — said the separation of people on sectarian lines is a bad thing for Iraq;
A majority of Iraqis — 62 percent — support one unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad. Even though this figure has declined 8 points since 2005, overall support for a unified Iraq remains strong.
The surge of U.S. troops has seen the number of Iraqis pushed out of their homes double. As widespread sectarian cleansing in Baghdad occurs in the presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops, extremist gangs and militias may push the silent majority of Iraqis closer to some partition scenario. But that doesn’t mean Americans should support the agendas shared by those Iraqi extremists who are murdering others in Iraq’s civil war.
This raises another tough question more Americans should ask: Is publicly advocating partition actually encouraging Iraqis who are conducting sectarian cleansing to accelerate their vicious campaigns?
- Brian Katulis, co-author of Strategic Reset
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
90 Responses to “Out Of Touch Elites Promulgate Partition For Iraq That 98 Percent Of Iraqis Oppose”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When will people understand that how the country is “partitioned” is not our responsibility, nor do we have the authority to make this decision. Just like you can’t force a government on a people and call it a democracy. Forcing the majority of people in a country to live under a government is mutually exclusive to democracy.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pmHe wants to experiment with something called segregation. That is something that David Brooks understands and condones.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:25 pmSomething like the old time America or a new America?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pmDavid Brooks as a marionette. Brilliant!
Somebody send that waste of protoplasm to Iraq.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm.
The Times employes the likes of David Brooks to prop up sales amoung a fashionable group of NewYorkers. Coldn’t be any other reason for the left wing media to have him aboard.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pmYes, re-drawing the boundaries of the Middle East is something imperialists have been doing for centuries. Why stop now, when history shows it works so well?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThese worthless GOP imperial war-pigs are just lying oil-nazi aggressors, to a chickenhawk…
September 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pmTurkey, a nato allie, won’t allow the Kurds to get their own region. It would cause to many problems in the southern Kurd controlled part of Turkey.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThey can care less about the Iragis.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pmSome sort of a ‘wall’ between two sides perhaps? Splitting the nation into an east and west maybe?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pmYes, segregation is the answer. It’s always worked so well.
Who is this “we” that this chicken hawk bootlicker speaks of? Where is it stated that the mission in Iraq is partition? Because I keep hearing the mission is reconciliation and unity government.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmOn this issue I have to take a strong exception to TP’s line of thinking. On one hand, I agree that the will of the Iraqis is more important than the will of the US government but it is the US government that must come up with a workable solution for ending the occupation.
Iraq is not a nation, and without an obvious will on the part of the Iraqis to create a nation — which we have seen very little evidence of in the last four years — it can never be one. If not outright partitioning, some sort of federalism that recognizes distinct territories within the outlines of “Iraq” has long seemed to me to be the most equitable path.
It may, in fact, be only a temporary solution but one that could seriously reduce inter-ethnic tension — always provided that it is a fair and equitable distribution not only of land but of resources. Which is to say: OIL. The natural partition of “Iraq” is into a Kurdish north, a Sh’ite south, with the central region assigned to Sunnis. Unfortunately, oil is not distributed so evenly and is primarily restricted to the north and south. Any partition would need to distribute oil revenues evenly.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmWhy are republicans so stupid? Did they all eat paint chips as kids or something?
Dividing up the country may occur, but thats out of our hands.
Any division we institute will be fought to the end.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmAccording to Bush & Co., Iraq has a functioning government. HOW IS IT ANY OF OUR BUSINESS HOW IRAQ PARTITIONS (OR DOESN’T PARTITION) THE COUNTRY?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pmEr and Joe Biden too.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pmAny partition would need to distribute oil revenues evenly.
Comment by gummitch — September 11, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
And therein lies the rub, gummitch - EVENLY!!!
September 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pmBrooks has as much credibility and relevance as kristol, any time they show up, you know they will be WRONG!
September 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pmThis may be something the Iraqis choose in the end. We need to keep out of it. It shouldn’t be something we put our stamp of approval on. I just hate the idea. It draws in both the Turks and Iranians, and it establishes 3 enemy nations side by side.
Actually, I don’t think we should put our stamp of approval on anything political. It is their country. It’s long past the time where our presence could make a difference politically, and just another reason for us to withdraw now and let them determine their own future.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:43 pmgummitch, why should a foreign power direct how another nation is governed?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:43 pmJust because their government can’t get their act together doesn’t mean we should step in and make them run it how we see fit. That doesn’t help anyone. Least of all us.
Since when did David Brooks become a professional military man? Sheesh. He writes a column for a living and that Krauthammer isn’t any better. David, shut up.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:46 pm#
Er and Joe Biden too.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 11, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Biden tries to make distinctions between partitioning and his idea of Federalism. I was going to read up on his proposal, but what’s the point. Brooks and his pals are going to make sure the country is formally segregated.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:46 pmgummitch, why should a foreign power direct how another nation is governed?
Just because their government can’t get their act together doesn’t mean we should step in and make them run it how we see fit. That doesn’t help anyone. Least of all us.
Comment by Wilco — September 11, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I’m not suggesting that the US impose a partition on Iraq, but selling it to them is another story.
Their government cannot “get their act together”. So what do you suggest? Is it preferable just to walk away, or to provide workable solutions to achieve that goal?
If the Iraqi government, or any significant part of that government was making significant efforts or accomplishments, I wouldn’t support a partition, but under the current circumstances, what would you propose as an alternative?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pmFrom Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” (1982)…
September 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pmThe reality is that the central government if Iraq is a totally lost cause. It is beyond rescue. It is a fool’s errand for us to try to continue to prop up this hopelessly disfunctional government. Therefore the best alternative is to move toward a de facto partition of Iraq without explicitly supporting such a policy. This will permit us to cut our losses as we proceed with a systematic strategic withdrawal from the country.
What we need to do is to support any Sunni insurgents that are willing to agree not to attack our troops and to drive Al Quaida out of their territory, even if they had previously fought us. Such groups should be given our support, allowed to control their territories free of interference from the disfunctional central government, and, if needed, we ahould give them weapons and money, and then remove our troops from these territories and bring them home.
If the Iraqi’s do not want the country to be partitioned, the Shiites will then have to negotiate agreements with the people controlling the Sunni areas. We should, of course, not stand in the way of their doing this.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pmBrooks is Jewish BTW… not that it should come as a surprise to anyone.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pmHey Gummitch,
I understand your argument. Many have argued it is the only way to have peace. At least we agree we need to get out of Iraq.
That being said, what if it is the United States Interference and attempts to force the puzzle pieces together that is CAUSING the violence? What if we are creating an environment where the Iraqis are unable to see the real issues? I feel that we are “muddying” the waters with our large “footprint”. The Iraqis have not had a chance to focus on their problems because we are throwing the US in the mix that creates an artificial problem.
I have talked to Iraqis, and I believe that they will oust AQI and begin working on their differences (initially there will be violence), but they will solve their own issues much quicker if we are not their distracting them and attracting anti-American groups like Al Qaeda, etc… In fact, they will expel Al Qaeda if we leave.
The Iraqis are tired of war, but they don’t want a foreign force occupying their major cities and building these luxury compounds.
Will they be friendly to the US, I doubt it. It will take a while to earn their trust; however, they will at least be stable.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pmReason #4317.86 of why we are in Iraq:
To racially segregate a sovereign nation… and this is Progress, how?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pmIraq is a haven to Al Qaeda and central to the “war” on terror-Not originally, but now it is!!!
Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction-Nope!
Iraq will be a model for spreading Democracy in the Mid East-Nope!
Partitioning Iraq- Oh yes!!! Never mind that Iraqis oppose it!
What a bunch of losers these guys are!!!! They can’t even formulate a consistent story line.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#28 - What does being Jewish have to with Brooks assertion? 83% of Jews vote for Dems ….and I still love them!
September 11th, 2007 at 3:54 pmSuch Sunni controlled areas would also be a counterweight against Iranian control of the entire country of Iraq.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:54 pmThat being said, what if it is the United States Interference and attempts to force the puzzle pieces together that is CAUSING the violence? What if we are creating an environment where the Iraqis are unable to see the real issues? I feel that we are “muddying†the waters with our large “footprintâ€. The Iraqis have not had a chance to focus on their problems because we are throwing the US in the mix that creates an artificial problem.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 11, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Thats got to be the most sound, reasonable, coherent and logical post thats been written in here in a long time.
See folks. Logic.
:|
So easy even a Caveman can do it.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:55 pm83% of Jews vote for Dems ….and I still love them!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 11, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Yea so did Himmler.
No one can polish black leather like a Jew, huh?
September 11th, 2007 at 3:57 pmThe Iraqis have not had a chance to focus on their problems because we are throwing the US in the mix that creates an artificial problem.
And an easy patsy to blame whether or not the blame is earned.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:57 pmWhat if we are creating an environment where the Iraqis are unable to see the real issues? I feel that we are “muddying†the waters with our large “footprintâ€. The Iraqis have not had a chance to focus on their problems because we are throwing the US in the mix that creates an artificial problem.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 11, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Read this again MA. Read it, then ponder it long, and hard. (don’t get excited).
Because THIS, is what the history books will say when this is all over.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pmI thought partition was a good idea a while ago. But since the Iraqi people seem to be against it, I will have to reconsider my idea. I feel the Iraqi’s know more about what’s best for them than I would.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThe reputhuglian party started this war, based on lies, and the thugs of the rethuglican party continue this failed, lost cause, based on lies. The thugs of the rethuglican party are too ignorant to realize they are failures. Go figure. 72% of America knows this while 28% continue to make excuses for the miserable failed little bubble boy.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pmDoes Brooks have the dual citizenship?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pmWhat does being Jewish have to with Brooks assertion? 83% of Jews vote for Dems ….and I still love them!
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Read message #26. Splitting Iraq into sectarian states has been an Israeli goal for decades. Brooks seems to be following through with advocating this plan.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pmPersonally my own non-expert opinion is that likely Iraq WILL be divided up, to some degree. But this will be done on a sectarian basis, probably decided on by who can hold the most ground and still keep the lights on.
But one thing I am certain of.
Any wall or barrier that WE put up, they will tear down.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pmI am sick and tired of this bigoted, uneducated response. Yes, we are allies with Israel, but our Middle East Policy is dictated by OIL, not by our allegiance to Israel. We are using Israel as a foot hold in the region, much more than they are manipulating the US to do their bidding.
Stop trying to blame the Jewish religion for something that our leaders (the majority that are Christian) are doing for their own gain. As was already mentioned, most Jews are Democrats - probably because they actually learned something about persecuting people from the Holocaust.
In fact, the attitude toward minorities that is getting more and more hostile in this country since 9/11 is very disturbing to most Jews that I know. We were taught about the dangers of demonizing people because they are different all the way through Sunday school and Hebrew School.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:04 pmColdn’t be any other reason for the left wing media to have him aboard.
Comment by theswan
that’s buyng the agrument that the nyt is part of the left wing media. and I don’t. The times is just another cog in the corporate media machine. Evidence: their position on impeachment. How many editiorials have called for bush’s impeachment vs clinton’s impeachment?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pmand joe biden’s partitioning ideas are different, how?
i get from listening that he will leave it up to the iraqi citizens,
as there are already separating themselves…
?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:08 pmJPV, Who exactly is Oded Yinon and why is it Isreal’s strategy and not just his? He speaks for the whole of Isreal? TIsn’t that like saying America’s energy policy is based on An Inconvient Truth?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm#44 - “How many editiorials have called for bush’s impeachment vs clinton’s impeachment?” Comment by Bobwurst — September 11, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Well, there’s a BIG difference! Pres. Clinton lied while under oath about consensual sex between two adults. That’s known as perury. (Mighty Aphro can tell you all about perjury, what with her being a lawyer of some type.)
Pres. Bush lied to the entire United States about:
1) WMD’s in Iraq.
2) Iraq being responsible for Sept. 11th.
3) Finding WMD’s in Iraq.
4) How long we’d be in Iraq.
5) The plan to leave Iraq.
6) Just about every single promise he made while running for President.
The difference is that Pres. Bush was never under oath at any time! It’s not perjury to lie all the time when you’re never under oath! That’s why the Republican Majority never required ANYONE in the Bush Administration to EVER testify under oath! (See how that works?)
Pres. Bush has probably never uttered a single honest statement his entire time as President, but until he’s under oath he can continue to lie as much as he wants to lie! Until he’s under oath, none of Pres. Bush’s numerous lies mean diddly-squat! (Much like all Republi-tard promises!)
September 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pmDemocrats need to reject the idea that we must devise a solution to the situation in Iraq. We are not responsible. This war was not our idea. We were not given truthful information about why it was necessary. We’ve not been given truthful information about how it would be conducted. We have not been given truthful information about the situation on the ground. Many of us foresaw the disaster to come and argued strongly against the war. We were called traitors for our wisdom.
We must face the reality that an occupying army cannot mediate a civil war. Humpty Dumpty is broken.
We must remove our troops and hold those who got us into this mess accountable for their crimes. When they have been removed from power and their actions have been utterly repudiated, we can begin to make amends for the evil our country has committed. But it is absurd to think that we can put things right while those who championed this evil are still in power.
Nothing can be accomplished until we’ve impeached and removed this administration. They’ve created this situation; they’ve gotten everything they wanted. Any negotiation with them merely dilutes the redress we would offer. We’re deep in a hole, and they want money for another backhoe. Negotiating for a smaller model is not a solution.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pmkaty, theoretically, federalism is an ALTERNATIVE to partition, not a synonym for it. Like partition, it has the advantage of enabling each of the three groups to avoid total domination by any of the others. Unlike partition, it avoids breaking up Iraq into three relatively weak nations that would be easy pickings for Iraq’s rapacious neighbors.
I think that’s saying federalism is like creating three states within Iraq, rather than partitioning of 3 discrete nations.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pmThat being said, what if it is the United States Interference and attempts to force the puzzle pieces together that is CAUSING the violence? What if we are creating an environment where the Iraqis are unable to see the real issues? I feel that we are “muddying†the waters with our large “footprintâ€. The Iraqis have not had a chance to focus on their problems because we are throwing the US in the mix that creates an artificial problem.
I have talked to Iraqis, and I believe that they will oust AQI and begin working on their differences (initially there will be violence), but they will solve their own issues much quicker if we are not their distracting them and attracting anti-American groups like Al Qaeda, etc… In fact, they will expel Al Qaeda if we leave.
The Iraqis are tired of war, but they don’t want a foreign force occupying their major cities and building these luxury compounds.
Will they be friendly to the US, I doubt it. It will take a while to earn their trust; however, they will at least be stable.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 11, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
I think this is an interesting and hopeful theory. What I haven’t seen is much evidence to support it. There isn’t a lot of historical precedent, either in the region or elsewhere that leaves me feeling optimistic about the theory, either.
The entire region has been carved into unnatural shapes by foreign powers, especially after WWI. During the Ottoman era and the European era, the Sunnis formed the backbone of the bureaucracy and the Shi’a had little to do with the occupiers, which is how the minority ended up running the show. And sectarian violence seems to be the most difficult to resolve of human conflicts; it’s easier to get one country to get along with its neighbor than to get one people divided by religion to do so.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmI am sick and tired of this bigoted, uneducated response. Yes, we are allies with Israel, but our Middle East Policy is dictated by OIL, not by our allegiance to Israel. We are using Israel as a foot hold in the region, much more than they are manipulating the US to do their bidding.
Stop trying to blame the Jewish religion for something that our leaders (the majority that are Christian) are doing for their own gain. As was already mentioned, most Jews are Democrats - probably because they actually learned something about persecuting people from the Holocaust.
Comment by DanCaveman
To be CLEAR. I am not blaming Jews for anything. I am blaming the Israeli government for their despicable behavior. I also blame those Jews, a minority to be sure, for their complicity in the Israeli government’s plans.
There is obviously a difference between that state of Israel and the Jewish people. Certain individuals seem to like to blur the distinction between the two, for their own expedient political needs, by equating criticism of Israel with bigotry. I for one am sick of people that try to stop criticism of Israel, by conjuring up the memory of millions of innocent Jews that were killed in the Holocaust. I find this behavior despicable.
Also… to think that Israel and it’s lobbying groups have no say in US foreign policy, is completely naive, to say the least.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pmComment by Democrat Soldier — September 11, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
That is correct; however, Bush has broken plenty of other laws that are more than Impeachable offenses if congress would stop trying to figure out what would get more votes and just do what is right for this country.
1. The constitution says that any treaty entered into by the United States is “The supreme law of the land”. Bush invaded a sovereign country which broke several treaties.
2. In addition to authorizing the warrentless wiretapping, he continued the program after a federal court had declared it unconstitutional. Regardless if it is legal now, he knowing violated the constitution to continue a program already knocked down by the Judiciary.
There are plenty more with reasonable straight forward arguments here.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pmPeter, I agree with your sentiment, but not with our not needing to clean up the mess. We are repsonsible in that we see someone in trouble, our leaders caused the trouble, and we can help.
Leaving is the first thing we can do to help.
Then, funnelling in hundreds of billions of dollars to compensate the Iraqi people, and rebuild their country is our pennance.
And helping find a way to provide security to the helpless and those who sided with us, is something we just have to do. And THAT means allowing Iran, Syria and the rest of the arab nations to assist in that security, along with the UN.
Once we step aside, and let the arab nations and the UN come in, all we’ll need to do is open up our checkbook.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:21 pmMaybe the U.S. can get a deal on fencing material if they pool their purchase for a fence on the Mexico border with the Iraq purchase. Anyone got Home Depot’s international phone #?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pmHm, so now liberal websites are playing the “these statements embolden the terrorists” card? I thought we were above that kind of rhetoric.
Read the latest Economist for a good description why segregation is largely impossible. There are too many groups mixed at too fine a granularity within disparate cites to realistically divide the country up. Not to mention the impossibility of divvying up oil deposits/revenues in a way that all groups would be happy with.
THOSE are the sound, fact-based arguments that we should be using against this non-starter of an idea. Not that somehow they’re encouraging violence.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pm1. The constitution says that any treaty entered into by the United States is “The supreme law of the landâ€. Bush invaded a sovereign country which broke several treaties.
2. In addition to authorizing the warrentless wiretapping, he continued the program after a federal court had declared it unconstitutional. Regardless if it is legal now, he knowing violated the constitution to continue a program already knocked down by the Judiciary.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 11, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Absolutely correct. And number 2’s the gincher. Ashcroft told them it was illegal. So did Comey. And at the time, Comey was acting Attorney General, meaning they continued on in the program, AFTER the AG told them it was illegal. Bush broke the law, and sooner or later, some Federal prosecutors going to call him on it.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pmJPV, Who exactly is Oded Yinon and why is it Isreal’s strategy and not just his? He speaks for the whole of Isreal? TIsn’t that like saying America’s energy policy is based on An Inconvient Truth?
Comment by Bobwurst
Oded Yinon, was an official of the Israeli Foreign Affairs office…
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/iraq_partition.html
He wrote a paper, in 1982, called “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”…
http://www.geocities.com/ alabasters_archive/ zionist_plan.html
September 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pmThanks dancaveman,
what you said. and to be clear, my point is that the nyt spent a lot of time calling for clinton’s impeachment. As DCM pointed out, bush has done much more harm to our country and has commited crimes much worse than lying to cover up a sleazy afair. but the nyt, part of the “media” hasn’t seen fit to call for him to be tried by the senate to see if what he has done rises to standard of impeachment.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pmIsn’t that like saying America’s energy policy is based on An Inconvient Truth?
Comment by Bobwurst
I think that it’s more like comparing him to the members of the Neocon think tanks like The Project for the New American Century.
Either way, his ideas seem to have be implemented in the region’s recent events.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pmBartlebee @ 53,
I think that the America should eventually assume that responsibility, but only after we’ve held those in charge responsible for their crimes. We must have justice at home before we can pursue it abroad. We cannot hope that an unconvicted criminal will voluntarily redress his crimes.
I also agree that our most effective contribution to the solution will be financial. But, those who have created the mess should have no say in how the money is spent. They must be removed from power.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pmComment by JPV — September 11, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I am not trying to “stop criticism of Israel” by conjuring up the memory of the Holocaust. In fact, I have my own issues with Israel; however, both sides of that conflict are at fault. The point is that Israel has nothing to do with our conflict in Iraq. We are trying to discuss the Iraq strategy and Israel does not enter into the equation. That just takes this thread off topic.
I don’t care that Brooks is Jewish. If the idea is a good one, then lets discuss the idea. If it is bad (which it is), then let’s point out why. Brooks may be Jewish, but he is not Israeli, so it is you who “blur the distinction between [Israel and the Jewish people]”.
The partition idea has been thrown around for a long time from all different idealogical camps. Your original post sounded very much like you were trying to imply that this idea is simply Israel manipulating US policy.
I apologize if I misunderstood you, but maybe now we can drop the “Jewish” issue and get back to whether or not to partition another sovereign country, that we unlawfully invaded and does not want to be partitioned.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pmRe 57
Ok, so how is what he said in 1982 in a paper (after he left office?) the blueprint for current Isreali forigen policy? That’s like saying PNAC’s plan for a new american century is guiding current forigen policy for the US, oh wait…
September 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pmre 59: you posted while I was composing so you stole my joke. So you’re saying that the current leadership is using Oden’s essay and ideas as a guide for current policy? I was making a joke about PNAC, I’m sure there are folks here who know more about policy who could point to position papers written by former gov officals here that are ignored.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:33 pmI think that the America should eventually assume that responsibility, but only after we’ve held those in charge responsible for their crimes. We must have justice at home before we can pursue it abroad. We cannot hope that an unconvicted criminal will voluntarily redress his crimes.
Comment by Peter C — September 11, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Once again I agree with your sentiment 150 percent. All except for the “eventually” part. To me the two go hand in hand.
Arrest Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove and Rice. Hold a special election for president or implement the 25th and put Pelosi in (and give her someone to tell her what to do), and then, with some smart and reasonable people in place, we immediately order a pull out, while at the same time inviting the UN and other nations in to help secure the peace.
When the Iraqi people hear we are leaving, (and opening up our checkbooks), then I think they will be willing to put aside the fighting, and work to build some similitude of a country.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBobwurst,
You are exactly right about the US media not calling for Bush’s Impeachment; however, unlike the Clinton impeachment that was unpopular with the American public, the MAJORITY of the American public is calling for the Impeachment of GW Bush. Our cries are falling on deaf ears.
How many local resolutions were passed (or even put on the table) for Clinton’s Impeachment? I think ZERO, but there have been TONS for calling for Bush and Cheney’s Impeachment.
The people have spoken, but the government “of the people, for the people” is not listening.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:35 pmBut, those who have created the mess should have no say in how the money is spent. They must be removed from power.
Comment by Peter C — September 11, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Absolutely.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:35 pmEither way, his ideas seem to have be implemented in the region’s recent events.
Comment by JPV
the operative word here is “seems”. To be honest here, I haven’t read it so I dont’ know what all is in it. Did it advocate the attack on S.Lebonnon last year? or the wall around the west bank, or other Isreali policy actions?
September 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pmComment by troqua — September 11, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Exactly - an independent Kurdistan will only promote more violence AND terrorism in Turkey, a NATO ally. THAT’S why they didn’t let us use their country for “shock and awe” and are massing troops on the Iraqi border to take care of business, as they see fit. George Bush - speading terrorism throughout the Middle East.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pmI think that’s saying federalism is like creating three states within Iraq,
which is what i gathered biden was talking about…
i could be mistaken…
rather than partitioning of 3 discrete nations.
Comment by troqua — September 11, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
i did not know THAT was part of anyone’s plan…
THAT doesn’t sound like a workable idea…
because, as randi points out, what it will come down to, probably,
is the installation of another tyrant to get control again…
…
troqua, i saw your reply yesterday:
I’ve been a little disappointed with Randi’s position on how Dems shouldn’t send the no funding bill to W over and over again and just let the little weasel veto it, over and over again.
and i gotta say, it disappointed me also… but listening to the
reasoning behind it made me better understand the point…
the most important point being: CALL THE REPUBLICANS -
September 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmMAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE WANT THEM TO
END THIS MADNESS.
08 is coming for most of them also…
…
Right Dan, and neither is the corporate media. They want things to stay the same, just like the democrats. life is too comfortable for these people. On an eariler thread, someone was decrying the protests that disrupted the petreaus hearings as “uncivil” and “primitive”. We could use a little more “incivility” these days. to paraphrase goldwater, incivility in the name of freedom is a virtue.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmBartlebee,
I like your plan. I don’t think we should feel responsible to flesh it out any further until we’ve started on the “Arrest Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove and Rice” part.
Offering funds right away could well help stabilize the situation in Iraq. The first funds we send can be Cheney’s Haliburton retirement account and whatever we can get for the ranch at Crawford.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmThe Elephant in the Iraqi Living room is RELIGION. The Shiites are mostly islamists, and would vote to impose Sharia Law. Most Sunnnis are secularists….that’s why they prefer smoking to Al Qaeda. No progress has been made in revising the Iraqi constitution , because Iraqi’s can’t decide if they want to seperate Church from State.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pmHit on it again Bobwurst….
But action is inconvenient. Since there is little consequence for the rest of the US, not many people are mobilizing. That is why this administration is avoiding a desperately needed draft to sustain and keep our military working properly. They can’t afford to have people weighing the possibility of going to Iraq vs inaction.
Hell, even I haven’t been doing as much as I should. I got back from Iraq and just wanted to enjoy life, but it broke my heart to watch my country being dismantled. It is hard to balance your life and try to make a difference at the same time.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmI can smell Bobo’s aftershave from here.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pmThe first funds we send can be Cheney’s Haliburton retirement account and whatever we can get for the ranch at Crawford.
Comment by Peter C — September 11, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Well Cheney’s Haliburton retirement account should cover the bill, but the ranch at Crawdad?
We’d eat up all the profits from Cheney’s fund just bribing someone to buy it.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pmIt is hard to balance your life and try to make a difference at the same time.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 11, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Yea and while trying to keep the lights on too. But the fact that you served in Iraq and stil are willing to speak out for the truth, I’d think is a pretty good start.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:54 pmOf course Pete, I guess the ranch at Crawdad could be a good location for a landfill.
:|
We’d just have to clean it up a little.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThe Elephant in the Iraqi Living room is RELIGION. The Shiites are mostly islamists, and would vote to impose Sharia Law. Most Sunnnis are secularists….that’s why they prefer smoking to Al Qaeda. No progress has been made in revising the Iraqi constitution , because Iraqi’s can’t decide if they want to seperate Church from State.
Comment by Badger — September 11, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
That comment about Sunnis being secularists would be news to a lot of Sunnis, including the Wahabis. It would also be news to a lot of secular Shi’a in Iraq and in Iran. You simply cannot divide the two sects into “fundie” and “non-fundie”, both sects contain variations on both approaches. It does appear to be true that Sunni Kurds tend to be far less fundamentalist than Sunni (or Shiite) Arabs.
The last sentence is also misleading. “Iraqis” know what they want, they just don’t agree with other “Iraqis.” Some of them want an Islamic state, some want a purely secular state and a significant percentage (most?), like those in Egypt and other countries in the region, want a secular state built on Islamic principles. Whatever that looks like, and I suspect there are multiple variations on that.
The general point of your comment is, however, completely true. Religious differences (and other ethnic issues) are a huge problem and are preventing unification. So are tribal issues and centuries of distrust between Kurds, Arabs, Turkomen, etc.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI’m cutting out, thanks all for the thougth provoking discussion. And thanks to ThinkProgress if they’ve implemented a troll filter, it’s been great. If not, then thanks trolls for giving it a rest.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:19 pmGummitch…your points are well taken. That’s why I used the words “most” and “mostly”. I’m sure there are a whole range of religious opinion among the Iraqi’s. But if it were put to a vote…my bet would be that the Shia would vote for Sharia Law and the Sunni’s would vote to continue the secular views of the Basthists under Sadaam.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:23 pmWhen I said ” the Iraqis can’t decide” I was being both metaphorical and innacurate. What I meant was that the Iraqi People can’t decide.
I just don’t see a lot of compromise in Sharia law…and if majority rules without constitutional protections…that’s what Iraq would get.
David Brooks is bat crap crazy - I only read his stuff because it is unintentionally hilarious.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pmI guess Joe Biden is “bat crap crazy” too?
September 11th, 2007 at 6:27 pmThe Iraqis are going to split three ways into Kurds, Shiite and Sunni states whether they like it or not, whether by design or by bloodbath amongst themselves.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmSomeone with Lexus nexis needs to look around.
Before we invaded Iraq - splitting up the country was thought to be the absolute worst thing that could eventually happen there. I don’t think the Saudis will accept it.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:55 pmI don’t think I have made a post criticizing a position of ThinkProgress… at least not in a long while, but why are you against the idea of a partition? And this post is not entirely honest in saying that it is a “small chorus of elites” …unless of course you include Democratic Senator and Presidential Candidate Joe Biden in that group as well.
The only reason why Iraq was one unified country before our invasion and occupation was because the British pulled the boundaries out of their ass when they were pursuing their own hegemony over the region, and Saddam’s tyrannical rule kept it stable.
The vast majority of Americans, and probably well over 90% of the readership of this blog are against the Iraq war, and believe it was immoral to have gone in in the first place. We must therefore also agree that it is not our position to dictate to the Iraqi people how they decide to organize their political system(s).
A partition of Iraq is probably the most natural and easiest transition the country could make, if and when (some would argue it’s happening now) they decide to go through with it.
Again, we shouldn’t be telling them what to do… and likewise, there is no reason to outright oppose a partition as one of a wide range of options. There are no good options for this situation. As Senator Obama says, “there are bad options, and worse options.”
Lets just be honest about this.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:07 pmI guess Joe Biden is “bat crap crazy†too?
Comment by Jake D. — September 11, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Yea, caring about the troops being killed….. whats wrong with him?
He should be more like you and just cheer them when they get killed. After all, they have rewards waiting for them in heaven, right? Cause they died fighting for truth, justice and the American way, right?
September 11th, 2007 at 7:08 pmWe should stop worrying about what Israel wants and does not want in Iraq and do what we think is best for the United States. Trying to prop up the failed Iraqi central government is a fool’s errand and we should stop trying to do so. What we need most of all is a phased, but systematic and certain, strategic withdrawal from Iraq, which should beging right away and proceed with deliberate speed. But while this withdrawal is proceeding we should make deals with Sunni insurgents who are willing to refrain from attacking U.S. troops and evict Al Quaida from their territory. After all, Al Quaida is the enemy. We should give these insurgent troops our support, allow them to control their areas without interference from the Shiite controlled central government, and if needed, give them money and weapons to be able to do this.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:44 pmYes, that is de facto partition of Iraq without an explicit policy of partition. The latter would be a mistake because the Iraqis do not want it. If the Iraqis then want to retain a united country, the Shiites will have to make deals with the groups controlling the Sunni areas. That is likely to be the only way genuine unity can be achieved in Iraq. We cannot impose it on them by propping up the failed central government.
One has to wonder if the increase in ethnic cleansing in Iraq was an intentional or unintentional side-effect of the Bush surge?
The way I figure it, once the Iraqi ethnic cleansing runs its course, and the fairly fluid (for now) battle lines between warring Sunnis, Shia and Kurds finally drop into place and solidify, then far less U.S. troops will be necessary to “police” Iraq.
Thus, following this logic, the faster that the Iraqi ethnic cleansing runs its course, then the sooner some semblance of ethnic stability will be achieved inside Iraq.
Remember that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t send enough troops into Iraq in the first place to stop any ethnic cleansing from occurring (or even looting). In fact, after launching the March 2003 attack against Iraq, these three war criminals (and other neo-con Republican war criminals) practiced their own variation of ethnic cleansing by firing all the Sunni Baathists and throwing them and their families out on Iraq’s lightly U.S.-patrolled streets. (Which, of course, is exactly what the revenge-minded Iranians and some equally revenge-minded Iraqi exiles and Iraqi citizens-who-stayed desired…setting in motion all the ethnic cleansing that has followed).
So, why would it be farfetched to believe that Bush administration war strategists figured in this increase in sectarian, ethnic cleansing into their surge scenario, possibly in an attempt to speed-up the ethnic cleansing this year so definite signs of improved security in Iraq might occur before the November elections next year…thus giving Republicans a slim, yet improved chance of winning.
Call me a cynic, but I wouldn’t put anything past these nutjobs in the Bush administration. To these guys, other human beings are just game pieces on a political chess board.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:15 pmOnce again, ThinkProgress’ sloppy research (or, more likely, dishonest ‘reporting’) causes the site to embarass itself….
The most prominent proponent of partitioning Iraq is none other than Democratic senator, Joe Biden:
February 15, 2007
Biden Favors Revised Iraq War Resolution, Promotes Partition Plan
By Greg Giroux
“Biden — in a plan he drafted last year with Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the non-profit organization Council on Foreign Relations — proposes essentially partitioning Iraq into a loose federation of autonomous Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions. He is, thus far, the only presidential hopeful in either major party to publicly endorse this option.”
(Of course, since ThinkProgress.org is essentially a branch of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, it is not altogether surprising TP would attempt to undermine one of her Democratic opponents)
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/15/cq_2284.html
Another proponent of partitionong Iraq is Anti-War.com commentator Ivan Eland.
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=9828
So, once again, TP’s dishonesty, in this case trying to portray the proposal to partition Iraq as solely as “conservative” idea, winds up backfiring…Heh! Nice try, “Think”Progress!
September 11th, 2007 at 10:44 pmThese worthless GOP imperial war-pigs are just lying oil-nazi aggressors, to a chickenhawk…
Comment by james k. sayre
To think that the top tier Dems dont advocate the eventual outcome of Iraqs partition is, frankly, naive. They can pretend all they want, but they are as aware of the endgame as the GOP are.
the partition of iraq was always part of the strategy, that much is obvious. and whether the “chaos” spirals completely out of control or not is irrelevant. the Dems will not pull ALL the troops out and will probably be responsible for the consolidation of the permanent post-iraq re-structuring.
You really want to stop wars like this? then i suggest you start looking at your personal oil habits. because until that changes nothing else will change! Bottom line: Your national rate of consumption is partly responsible.
Of course thats a reality not even progressives want to hear
September 12th, 2007 at 9:31 amPetition is a sign that US doesn’t recognize Iraqi soverignty. Shame!
September 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pmPetition is a sign that US doesn’t recognize Iraqi soverignty. Shame!
The United States has a grim track record when it comes to sovereignty. The post-war, cold war, epoch is littered with cases of trampled sovereignty from latin america to western europe, asia and africa. People need to realise the sheer scale of how these ideologues have merely replaced the bete noir of Communism with its new best friend, Terrorism.
Nothing has changed.
Read NATOs secret armies by Daniele Ganser (published Phd).
September 13th, 2007 at 8:47 am“Road to Perdition” is what he really means!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:49 am