Pentagon considering Petraeus for top NATO position.
By on Jan 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Pentagon considering Petraeus for top NATO position.
“The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year, a move that would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration.” A “senior Pentagon official” who spoke to the the New York Times said that “he is a candidate for that job, but there have been no final decisions and nothing on the timing.”
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
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
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
Good pick, but maybe not what he wants. Chief of Staff of the Army, yes; SACEUR…. Who knows?
January 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pmOf course….
January 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pmThousands of U.S.-Bought Weapons Lost in Iraq under his watch.
Wrong lost? There are so many…
January 20th, 2008 at 11:01 pmMaybe it was this article in ‘07
The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles
The big question: who will replace him? The odds are for a democratic win, which will leave all the military Bushies looking out for their own individual careers.
I’d nominate Gen. Van Riper, if he could be enticed out of retirement.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:12 pmI have total confidence that Petraeus would be a fine selection, but I would rather have him continue his work on Iraq. He’s probably the best general we have for this particular mission and I wouldn’t want to derail that.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pmThey want one of their guys in a Democratic administration – isn’t Petraeus the one who lost tens of thousands of arms in Iraq that he dismissed as bookkeeping. ( I see others have already noted this. )
Isn’t he the guy who was left after Bush had gone through several others who didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear?
This is the guy they want to push forward?
When we dump Bush in a year – I’d like to see everyone associated with that failed administration to be out of sight.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:26 pmHow can the defense department today propose to make a decision on behalf of the next administration? Who is the Commander-in-Chief? Who calls the shots?
January 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pmNO, no, no…..leave him where he is. Don’t move him out of the ME. He has to stay there to see out his strategy; he was pulled once before and things went to hell – keep him in the fight. NATO is a political post. Unless Paksitan gives us an all clear to invade Waziristan from the West, leave NATO to the political generals and keep Petraeus in Cent-Com.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pmI mean really – he is going to oversee the Kosovo occupation? Didn’t Bill tell us we’d be out by Christmas…?
January 20th, 2008 at 11:59 pmHe’s probably the best general we have for this particular mission and I wouldn’t want to derail that.
Comment by thirdparty —
January 21st, 2008 at 12:00 amSomebody please inform me what the mission in Iraq is…. what is winning this massacre we did? Why are we there?
“I mean really – he is going to oversee the Kosovo occupation? Didn’t Bill tell us we’d be out by Christmas…?”
Comment by Keltoi at Night
What’s the death toll from that operation – compared to operation Iraqi freedom?
Inquiring minds…
January 21st, 2008 at 12:02 amOf course, there is a chance Petraeus could turn the tide in Afganistan if he were NATO commander. But only if the NATO troops there were willing to fight.
NATO – the new UN: All the peace you can enforce so long as the enemy isn’t too violent.
Otherwise, just shrug and pull your troops out. Good vote getter, that.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:03 amNATO – the new UN:
What do you suggest? NATO – the new Spetznatz?
January 21st, 2008 at 12:05 amOr how about: NATO – the new GRU!
January 21st, 2008 at 12:06 amWhat’s the death toll from that operation – compared to operation Iraqi freedom?
Inquiring minds…
Comment by barfly — January 21, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Ah.. .if only we had pounded the crap out of Saddam’s police state from the air like we did Milosevich.
We won a tactical victory in bum-rushing Bagdhad. It was not a totally crazy strategy, but that was assuming there were any plans in place for the aftermath, which, obviously, there were not.
Then you parachute Bremer in to F–K every possible decision up that COULD be F–d up.
I am no fan of Bush’s execution. There are those that say he deliberatley screwed the pooch so as to sow fear and chaos and enrich his friends. I’ll admit, it is at least possible, it would explain a lot.
But – I still think keeping Petraeus in Iraq is good. He is the only guy that has shown any understanding of how to fight a counter-insurgency.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:11 amBut only if the NATO troops there were willing to fight.
NATO – the new UN: All the peace you can enforce so long as the enemy isn’t too violent.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Okay, tough guy, why don’t you volunteer for service in Afghanistan, and show those whimpy NATO troops just how a “real” soldier fights?
They weren’t attacked on 9/11, and yet here they are fighting alongside Americans.
I’ve had the pleasure to meet numerous NATO troops when I was in the Army, and found them to be just as professional as American servicemembers.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:17 am“But – I still think keeping Petraeus in Iraq is good. He is the only guy that has shown any understanding of how to fight a counter-insurgency.”
Comment by Keltoi at Night
That’s only one leg, of a three legged stool…
January 21st, 2008 at 12:17 amWhile the strategy has yielded short-term reductions in violence in selected areas, It is unworkable on the whole country, as Petraeus himself has acknowledged. The logistics just aren’t there.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:21 amI’ve had the pleasure to meet numerous NATO troops when I was in the Army, and found them to be just as professional as American servicemembers.
Comment by RickS — January 21, 2008 @ 12:17 am
I bow to your experience, and I hope you will accept my thanks for serving.
I do not mean to disparage the courage of the NATO troops who have indeed had our back in Afghanistan. If that was how my comment was perceived – especially by someone who did serve there – I retract and apologize.
What I was driving at is that the governments in Europe that comprise the NATO contingent in AFG have been reluctant to send their troops into harms way. That is politicial policy, no reflection on the gallantry of the men in the field.
I think I’ll shut up now, Ricks, and thank you again for serving.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:26 amWhy are we in South Korea? Kosovo? Bosnia? Germany? Afghanistan?
Personally, I don’t view these deployments as winning vs. losing. To me, the standard is whether our military power, and the political and diplomatic influence that comes with it, is advancing the American interest. Sometimes that’s a national security interest, sometimes a human rights once, sometimes both, or at times another type of interest.
In Iraq, the first thing I think we have to recognize is there are no good options there. I don’t think anyone can pretend that their favored proposal will be without negative effects. Withdrawal, as I see it, would risk empowering radical, militant elements that have ties to either Iran or Sunni militant groups. Iraq, because of our failures, has become a security disasater, economic disaster, and human rights disaster – not that it wasn’t one under Saddam Hussein. So the question for all of us, regardless of political persuasion, is what is in America’s best interest.
Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I would assume there’s some consensus that it is in our interest for Iraq to be as stable as possible while limiting the risks to security, economy, and humanity. That is what our “mission” ought to be, no matter whether there are troops there or not. To my mind, the reduction is violence this year has helped advance that interest. But it will not produce long-term results without political and economic progress. Despite some economic gains, political progress has been largely limited to the local level.
Is there an opportunity for political gains to be made in Iraq? I believe so. Although I understand the criticisms of the new de-Baathification law, I don’t completely subscribe to TP’s dim view of it. As the NY Times reported, and they’ve been skeptical about it for sure, “there was still room to interpret the legislation liberally, allowing more former Baathists in while still satisfying the pride of Shiites who have been dead-set against conciliation toward officials who worked for Mr. Hussein.” Another striking observation from that article says:
I’m gravely concerned about the security vacuum that will emerge from an American withdrawal. I know there’s a lot of disagreement on that here, and I look forward to hearing it. Hopefully the disagreement will be substantive, rather than an attack on me for trying to share my views with you guys.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:26 amSo I ask you Keltoi, how long can one balance on a one-legged stool, and function? The political physics of the situation dictates that political reconcliliation, and equitable distribution of national resources must accompany a reduction in the violence to be a successful strategy.
A three-legged political solution.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:27 am“I’m gravely concerned about the security vacuum that will emerge from an American withdrawal.”
Judging from this weekend’s developments, the security situation is as abysmal as ever – outside the areas of the “surge.”
January 21st, 2008 at 12:31 am“Iraqi legislators said Sunday that they were making progress on two more key benchmarks urged by the Bush administration: the approval of an oil revenue sharing law and the settlement of competing claims to the contested northern city of Kirkuk.”
And of course there is no way to quantify this so-called “progress,” other than to take their word for it – again.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:33 amSo I ask you Keltoi, how long can one balance on a one-legged stool, and function? The political physics of the situation dictates that political reconcliliation, and equitable distribution of national resources must accompany a reduction in the violence to be a successful strategy.
A three-legged political solution.
Comment by barfly — January 21, 2008 @ 12:27 am
I did say I’d shut up….sorry, RickS, he asked.
Corruption is so rife in Iraq they could give Haliburton lessons on it. It is the way there, has been since Alexander the Great showed up thinking he’d change things for the better.
That said, if we leave chaos in the wake of our withdrawal we do indeed give hope to our foes in the Radical Islamic world.
It is pretty clear that the Dems willl get the WH next. What WILL they do with it, I wonder…
January 21st, 2008 at 12:34 amGood Evening, all.
Happy MLK Day.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:37 am“That said, if we leave chaos in the wake of our withdrawal we do indeed give hope to our foes in the Radical Islamic world.
It is pretty clear that the Dems willl get the WH next. What WILL they do with it, I wonder…”
Comment by Keltoi at Night
And how many of these “radical islamic foes” were there before the invasion of Iraq? The islamic world condemned the attacks of 9/11, but when we attacked Iraq, we lost their support. There will inevitably be a re-allignment of the troop posture after our election – by necessity. Regardless of the winner. We cannot keep it up, especially during a deep recession.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:39 amActually, the AP reports that violence at this time of the year – during the period of Ashura – is down from past years.
“Despite two days of fighting that killed at least 72 people farther south and a series of attacks north of Baghdad, the high holy days in Karbala passed without the slaughter of pilgrims witnessed in the years since the U.S.-led invasion nearly five years ago. Iraqi authorities had flooded the city with 30,000 police and soldiers.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:40 amCorruption is so rife in Iraq they could give Haliburton lessons on it.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 21, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Perhaps, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s not much about the subject that Halliburton doesn’t know…
January 21st, 2008 at 12:40 amFollowing up, one question I would ask is: would this reduction in violence have occured without a change in policy over the last year? Would a different policy, such as “strategic redeployment,” have generated a similar reduction?
To be fair, I don’t think reduction in violence is the end all and be all of whether we should be in Iraq. It’s just one component, but a significant one nevertheless.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:43 amthird party, you write just like a spokesman for the imperial order. NATO is a superannuated piece of dreck that belongs in the dust-bins of history. We are in Germany, Korea, Pakistan and all over the world to maintain our empire. NATO troops are not going to fight in Pakistan; we gave the locals the weapons and the training. Only the dumb Brits. have done our bidding. It’s the twilight of the gods.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:54 amBush & Co. have done a number on what is left of our fragile Republic.
able as
Able as, do you advocate a withdrawal from Korea? Seems to me that it would jeopardize international and regional security and would alienate us from our allies (even more than we already are!). Also, if we are training counter-insurgency forces in Pakistan, is that a bad thing?
I regret that I sound like an administration spokesman to you, but I’m not going to apologize for my views. I have many critical thoughts about our foreign policy, and would probably agree with you that troops in Germany seem unnecessary. Still, especially on NATO, I think the bombing of Kosovo proved that organization’s worth.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:06 amthird party, I agree that we should remain in South Korea. However, most of the bases are simply imperial over-reach. Germany and many of the rest tolerate us because we’re good for the local economy.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:27 amSadly, our days are numbered. China, Russia and even emerging India will not tolerate our rampaging manner. We cannot bully Iran without running into Russia and China. We might as well get used to reality: we’re no longer the only super power, and that only in the sense of military play things. Our military has run aground fighting an enemy, al Quaida that has gone AWOL for the past 5+ years. We’re fighting enemies we’
able as
ve created
Able as, I agree with your points on the role of the US as a super power. Indeed, we’ll have to get used to a world where our hegemony wanes. But so be it – we still have very strong economic ties to the world, and our military is still relied on by our allies in those cases where there is agreement on when force should be used. However, I’m not as bleak as you are. I see us withdrawing from Iraq eventually, which will reduce the stress on our forces, which ought to expand anyway. Our military has fought nobly in Iraq, and that should be commended. I think the long-term prospects for American well-being will depend on who our leaders are, but we are not yet condemned to a future of futility.
On Iran, for instance, the level of the threat is questionable. We are best advised to try to contain them and the spread of nuclear power in the region, but it’s unclear to me where things are going. I don’t think the next US administration will be as hard line on Iran because McCain would surround himself with more moderates (I think he’ll be the GOP nominee), and the Dems are the Dems. This (US power) is a broad subject and I don’t have the energy to address it much (I much prefer to keep focus on the narrower topic of Iraq), but I think we would have a lot of agreement on it.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:43 am#20 Comment by thirdparty — January 21, 2008 @ 12:26 am
To me, the standard is whether our military power, and the political and diplomatic influence that comes with it, is advancing the American interest. Sometimes that’s a national security interest, sometimes a human rights once, sometimes both, or at times another type of interest.
In real world terms I suppose I am naive. That said, I can’t get passed the thought that we had no right to invade Iraq and we have no right to be occupying the country now. You list “American interest” as if it is paramount in the world. There is no mention of the rights of other countries, how they feel or see things. Your position comes across to me as something you might call “a justified empire.” We do what ever we want, whether positive (as in human rights) or negative (as in preemptive war.) Other countries views are almost non existent.
This, to me, starts from the wrong place. It starts from a self centered arrogance and uses military and economic power as the club to achieve its ends.
Regarding Iraq, we need to understand we have created grievous harm there based on lies and deception. We need to start our thinking based on that, instead of some “American interest.” The invasion was based in “American interest” with virtually no concern for the country or the people of Iraq. To propose “solutions” based in that “American interest” is shortsighted and wrong in my view. Blowback is the inevitable result.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:56 amI was unaware that the requirements for NATO commander included the ability to parrot the phrases “yes” and “how high’, ‘what color’ when ordered to shit.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:30 amMerlin,
I appreciate your points. A couple bullet-points:
- I’m not sure how you define “right” regarding invasion/occupation. Does a nation have a right to self-defense or to defend collective security? If our belief truly was that Saddam Hussein was a threat, then it, as the UN charter says, has a right to that self-defense. I ask this out of curiosity for what our standards are here, because I just want to clarify. To be clear, I’m not suggesting we had a right to invade.
- I tend to agree, though, that there was no need for self-defense regarding the invasion. So let’s talk about the present situation – is there a right to occupy? The United Nations authorized and re-authorized our occupation. Furthermore, it is up to the Iraqi government to decide what troops “occupy” it. Please tell me what your standard is for the right to occupy.
I believe the views of other countries matter. But I’m trying to separate the current occupation from the invasion. We have a crisis in Iraq and if there is UN approval and Iraqi government approval of the occupation, we should recognize that.
I’m more than happy to take your global perspective on policy. In fact, that’s one reason I support the “surge” and other policy changes – I think an American exit from Iraq would destabilize the country, the government, and reignite the feuds and bloodletting that declined dramatically in the past several months.
So, I think I can support my point from both the “American interest” approach and the “global interest” approach. Putting that aside, let me briefly argue why I do think the American interest is vital. If we abandon that perspective, we will effectively sign away our foreign policy to other countries and organizations. That, as Democrats and Republicans alike will acknowledge, is unacceptable. For one, other countries may be just as wrong as we are. Two, when the world is divided, how do we determine which policies to adopt?
Ultimately, we need a hybrid approach that values the US interest – not relinquishing our rights to act, as John Kerry said – while taking into strong consideration the views of the world community. The two are not mutually exclusive.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:47 am#20 Comment by thirdparty
January 21st, 2008 at 3:28 amYou are fishing for excuses and you have put mush effort into your post in trying to justify our country’s actions on Iraq…. maybe because in your heart you know this has been a horrific war crime.
Bottom line – no matter how well written there are NO words, phrases that can justify our murderous actions towards that already war torn third world country.
I believed in 2003 as I do now, the invasion was preemptive, not defensive. Iraq did not attack us nor aid the people who did. I don’t believe in the “right” of preemption.
Regarding the “right” of occupation, in Iraq, if we had no right to invade, we have no right to be there. Using the UN as a justification to be there does not change anything. If I decide to break into your house with guns, etc. because I want the resources you own, and then it becomes known that I had no right to do that, do I have the right to stay there because some outsider says so? I think not.
If our belief truly was that Saddam Hussein was a threat, then it, as the UN charter says, has a right to that self-defense.
Preemption is not self defense in my view.
Furthermore, it is up to the Iraqi government to decide what troops “occupy†it. Please tell me what your standard is for the right to occupy.
The situation in Iraq is so distorted that you can make a “valid” justification for any view. For instance, The Iraqi government “represents” the people? They are essentially our picked leaders. Our hands were all over the election. So to say the Iraqi govt. is the one to say yes or no is right, and yet it is not necessarily a govt of the people, regardless of the purple fingers.
How to determine the right to occupy? My view is to get out as fast and safely as possible. (I personally doubt that there will be protracted fighting once all foreign fighters i.e. the coalition of the coerced… er willing are gone. Turmoil, yes, but not for long.) Then after things settle down and the country has stabilized, if they want us to “occupy” their country they can ask us to come back. If we wish to do that under peaceful terms so be it. I expect that the Iraqi people will be able to handle their own affairs asv well as any people as long as there is no outside interference from the outside.
We have a crisis in Iraq…
No! Iraq has a crisis that we created. We have no crisis. Your view here is based on “American Interest” as you call it.
I support the “surge 
I don’t for reasons already stated. This escalates what we have no right to be doing.
I think an American exit from Iraq would destabilize the country, the government, and reignite the feuds and bloodletting that declined dramatically in the past several months.
I agree that there will be instability and a period of turmoil and that may well be the price to correct the terrible wrong we have done. Terribly sad but probably true.
If we abandon that perspective, we will effectively sign away our foreign policy to other countries and organizations.
I don’t agree with this. We can still have tremendous importance in the world. You are presenting a dualistic choice when there are really shades of gray. This has been BushCos position. “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” It is simply manipulative and wrong.
when the world is divided, how do we determine which policies to adopt?
How about starting with honesty, fairness and an interest in other countries and the world as well as our own interests and needs. That is not apparent in your view, as far as I can tell. You place “American interests” above all others.
Ultimately, we need a hybrid approach that values the US interest – not relinquishing our rights to act, as John Kerry said – while taking into strong consideration the views of the world community. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, this I can agree with, except that what I bolded is code for preemption. Purposefully not clear. (As I mentioned a dozen times, I am against preemption.) Pro “war” without admitting it. I don’t care for John Kerry because he is representative of all the DLC stands for. As does Hillary, but probably worse. They both support preemption in my view. This is their way of talking. The DLC coined the term triangulation if I am not mistaken, and they both believe it is good, and use the technique.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:45 amFor Had Enough, the question is this – how can we justify a withdrawal now if it creates a security vacuum that results in even more horrific crimes of war?
January 21st, 2008 at 4:24 amI’ll blockquote and respond to Merlin’s points. I won’t get to everything because some areas clearly just create a circular debate; e.g. whether preemption is self-defense. Here we go.
This debate began with a question as to what the standard is for a “right” to occupy. What if a country says you can? What if a credible international body says you can and codifies that via a resolution? This is not just some outsider; rather, the UN is a legitimate source of international understandings and laws and the fact remains that they have approved our occupation.
Proof that our hands were all over that election and we handpicked those leaders? I never realized we handpicked all those Sadrists who came to power…
With all due respect, I think this is a fanciful view of reality in Iraq. First, what happens if we get out “fast and safely” and the situation worsens? Would we at some point have a responsibility to go back in there? No one wants to leave and then come back to remedy our mistake. Second, I disagree vehemently with this view, shared by many others, that our departure will usher in an era of peace because the occupiers are gone. This conflict is not about being occupied; rather, it’s about power and ideology. Will Iranian-sympathizing Sadrist Shiites really get along with the Sunni terrorist organizations? I suspect that the security vacuum created by our departure will be filled by radical groups, like al Qaeda (now on its heels but could return vigorously with our departure), the militias like JAM, and the CLCs who are working with us now.
Wait, I thought you supported a global view of things? How is Iraq’s crisis not ours? Isn’t injustice anywhere tantamount to injustice everywhere? Yes, Iraq has a crisis, but so do we, because there are humanitarian problems, economic ones, and most importantly, the threat of festering terrorism and pro-Iranian elements that could ultimately threaten regional and global security. Imagine a base for terror in Anbar – would that be in the US or global interest? I don’t think so, regardless of which point of view one takes.
I’m glad we agree. I think the results of the past several months show that “surge,” coupled with other tactical changes, can produce beneficial results, in contrast to reckless withdrawal. Unfortunately it seems our disagreement boils down to one of philosophy – whether we should be there now.
You mistake my view. I don’t think it’s with us or against us at all. I think it’s simply that, to not have any sense of the American interest is to become far too reliant on the views of other countries. As I say, they can be wrong also. We ought to be responsiblity for our own policies, based partly on what’s in our interest and partly on global considerations, and make the best judgment we can, as long as we’re prepared to deal with the bad results as well as the good.
The problem with this is I don’t believe anyone has a monopoly on “honestly” and “fairness.” Nor do I think we can ever determine what honest and fair is – it’s always subjective. I think we actually agree, but just phrase things differently, when you say we should consider other countries “as well as our own interests and needs.” I agree with that, but the disagreement is over what you emphasize more.
Finally, we disagree on preemption. But I’m surprised, since I would expect people to favor preemption when a terror strike is imminent – for instance, bombing terror camps to preempt future terror strikes. Or, if feasible, striking a nuclear facility, like Israel did with Syria.
I’m glad we have a healthy disagreement without the ridicule and venom I often see at this site.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:43 amReminds me of the “Bolton Move”…
January 21st, 2008 at 6:20 amThe resolution says the UN should be running the operation, not the people who illegally invaded. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest should be in the Hague right now.
And the Iraqi people don’t want an occupying force there so it was foolish to codify something like that.
We got got rid of person the Shiites wanted to be Prime Minister (al-Jaafari) and got him replaced with the current Prime Minister (Maliki). Now the Neocons are looking to get rid of him.
With all due respect, I think this is a fanciful view of reality in Iraq. First, what happens if we get out “fast and safely†and the situation worsens? Would we at some point have a responsibility to go back in there? No one wants to leave and then come back to remedy our mistake. Second, I disagree vehemently with this view, shared by many others, that our departure will usher in an era of peace because the occupiers are gone. This conflict is not about being occupied; rather, it’s about power and ideology. Will Iranian-sympathizing Sadrist Shiites really get along with the Sunni terrorist organizations? I suspect that the security vacuum created by our departure will be filled by radical groups, like al Qaeda (now on its heels but could return vigorously with our departure), the militias like JAM, and the CLCs who are working with us now.
This is all hyperbole. The Iraqis will determine the future of their country. We have no right to dictate what path they take. And Al Qaeda is a non factor in Iraq. It’s a red herring.
Again, more hyperbole. The Iraqis will determine the future of their country. We have no right to dictate what path they take.
We shouldn’t be in their country plain and simple. We had no right to invade their country and we certainly don’t have a right to occupy it now. The violence is irrelevant to this.
The only people who have an interest in Iraq are the U.S. oil barons and the imperialists/Neocons.
It’s very hard to determine whether a strike is imminent or not. The best solution would be the diplomatic route to avoid needless killing.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:33 amPreemption is a made-up term. Aggressive, illegal war is the real term. It is a war crime, plain and simple.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:08 ampetraeus is full of crap. from cnn, October 2004:
“MCINTYRE: There’s a big dispute, Paula, about whether the Pentagon is overstating the number of Iraqis that are truly combat ready.
But the general who’s in charge of the training, very respected general, General Petraeus, insists that 100,000 is the right number out of 164,000 in Iraq.
And the bottom line, the Pentagon says, is that Iraqi forces are actually fighting and dying in greater numbers in some cases than the U.S. forces. Just yesterday, 2,000 Iraqi troops took part in a major operation to retake Samarra from insurgents. And the Pentagon says the equipment is getting better all the time.â€
heckuva job.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:52 amThe repugs will have this “war hero” running for prez in 2012.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:53 am#4 — Gen. Van Riper’s name sounded familiar to me so I did a quick search and remembered why. He is quite a leader and anyone who can make a fool of the established hierarchy deserves kudos in my book.
See: http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php
Van Riper would be an outstanding commander for NATO as opposed to a political ass kisser like Petraeus has proven to be.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:14 amGetting to a few of Nat’s points…
As far as the Iraqi leadership being picked by the US and al-Jaafari being pushed out by the US…
The step which ended months of political deadlock in Iraq was the announcement by the interim Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, that his political future should be decided by the Shia alliance which had nominated him for the job.
In reference to my expectations for a post-occupation Iraq if we withdraw now, you said:
Again, more hyperbole. The Iraqis will determine the future of their country. We have no right to dictate what path they take.
Frankly, I’m not sure how you can expect a country to determine it’s own future if it is overrun by extreme elements. Sure, there may be a long run prospect of ostracizing those groups, but I don’t realistically see that happening. I think you’re way off-base to suggestion I’m being hyperbolic, since most experts will tell you that the militias will continue to provide security while killing both Shia and Sunni, and the Sunnis will in turn look to strong yet brutal groups for reprisals. That is what will fill the vacuum in Iraq. Also, it’s too early to describe al Qaeda as a non factor in Iraq; yes, they have been damaged greatly in the past year, partly due to the Awakening but also partly due to increased security and a change of strategy, but to count them out would be foolish.
This is something I’ve heard a lot of, and it touches on your original assertion. But I would direct you to this report: “Iraq wants the United Nations Security Council to extend the mandate of the United States-led multinational force in Iraq only through the end of 2008, then replace it with a long-term bilateral security agreement, Foreign Ministry officials said Saturday.” I don’t see evidence that (a) the UN authorization has been mishandled or disregarded and (b) that we lack a right to be there, considering that we have this and other agreements with the government regarding our presence.
Really? Is that why Joe Biden went out of his way to advocate for a “soft partition” plan that would keep us interested in Iraq? Or why leading Democrats suggest we’ll need a combat force in Iraq still? Face it, Iraq is one of the most pressing matters to nearly all on the world stage, regardless of their role in the situation. Clearly it is something the UN cares about, for instance.
I don’t see us getting far in this portion of the debate, but I would add that sometimes diplomacy won’t work, particularly if there is a terrorist action on the horizon, or if there is a terrorist base that poses a short and long-term threat. Whether it is preemption or prevention, the point is sometimes strikes are necessary before we are hit ourselves.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:14 am“The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year, a move that would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration.â€
I know that Bush is trying to put his favorite neocons in jobs he thinks will be permanent in the next administration, but that isn’t necessarily the case. I see no reason why a new President can’t just fire all the neocons in the new administration and put his/her favorite people into the positions. What…that may violate the law. So what. If this President doesn’t have to follow the law, neither does the new President. That’s the precedent that Bush is setting.
I do hope the new Democratic President does clear out the nest of vipers that Bush is trying to leave behind. And I hope our new Democratic President goes after Bush and his Crime Family with a vengeance. I think we should start asking our Presidential candidates what they would do about all the crimes that this administration has committed. If the candidate says “let’s just forget about it and have a fresh start” then I won’t vote for that person. If these crimes are not prosecuted, we will forever be doing away with the rules of law.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:26 amPreemption is a made-up term. Aggressive, illegal war is the real term. It is a war crime, plain and simple.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
I agree….how the hell could anyone do anything positive at the UN that has supported this aggession in Iraq?
With Moon and betrayus at the UN it will be like bush and rummy running the US….
January 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am“I don’t see us getting far in this portion of the debate, but I would add that sometimes diplomacy won’t work, particularly if there is a terrorist action on the horizon, or if there is a terrorist base that poses a short and long-term threat. Whether it is preemption or prevention, the point is sometimes strikes are necessary before we are hit ourselves.”
Comment by thirdparty
More imminent threat rhetoric? That’s what got us into this mess. Diplomacy (and weapons inspections) were working. Given more time, the facts of Saddam’s weapons programs would have been revealed, making him strategically weaker. Perhaps at that point, his internal enemies might have overthrown him. This we will never know. What we do know is that it was a mistake to invade, given the circumstances.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:32 amI guess I misread it…..NATO….but that makes very little difference….supposed to be peacekeepers….how can that work with betrayus involved.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:33 amWatch all the rats leave the ship before Iraq falls back into a full scale resumption of it’s unresolved civil war.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:37 amI know that Bush is trying to put his favorite neocons in jobs he thinks will be permanent in the next administration, but that isn’t necessarily the case. I see no reason why a new President can’t just fire all the neocons in the new administration and put his/her favorite people into the positions.
Comment by bilbobaggins
This was the only true mistake that Jimmy Carter made. He out of good faith, thinking that americans would pull together no matter what their party affiliation left many repulicans in positions of power and they did what we now know they will always do…they betrayed America to advance thier party’s agenda.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:41 amWatch all the rats leave the ship before Iraq falls back into a full scale resumption of it’s unresolved civil war.
Comment by Alvord
I hope mcrazy is the republican nominee if that happens….
January 21st, 2008 at 11:42 amWhat I was driving at is that the governments in Europe that comprise the NATO contingent in AFG have been reluctant to send their troops into harms way. That is politicial policy, no reflection on the gallantry of the men in the field.
I think I’ll shut up now, Ricks, and thank you again for serving.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Actually, NATO is slow to send in troops where they would be sticking their noses into other people’s business. It has nothing to do with “harms way”.
As far as your “shutting up”, we can only wish.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:45 amBarfly, I’ve never claimed that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. In fact, I think the invasion was a mistake. But separate that from where we are today, and my belief that among our options – all of which are bad – withdrawal right now would exacerbate the problem there and potentially force us to return to Iraq. Please read my previous comments and arguments on thread if you are interested.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:49 amWhy are we in South Korea? Kosovo? Bosnia? Germany? Afghanistan?
Comment by thirdparty
I was unaware of the fact that we are currently occupying South Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany and Afghanistan. The things you learn on blogs!
That is the difference loon. We are not occupying those countries and we ARE guests with their permission to be there.
Are you aware of the fact that a majority of the citizens of Iraq want us gone? Are you aware of the fact that a majority of the elected officials (the only elected officials) in parliament want us gone? We are an occupying force in Iraq and they don’t want us there. That is the difference.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:49 amThat said, if we leave chaos in the wake of our withdrawal we do indeed give hope to our foes in the Radical Islamic world.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Our occupation of Iraq not only “gives hope” but also fuels the so-called “Radical Islamic” world (whatever that is). Every day we stay there against the will of the people, killing innocents, we make new terrorists. Bush and Company have made 10 times as many terrorists as they have killed. That is not going to change until we get the hell out of their country and allow them to determine their own destiny.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:53 amBut separate that from where we are today, and my belief that among our options – all of which are bad – withdrawal right now would exacerbate the problem there and potentially force us to return to Iraq. Please read my previous comments and arguments on thread if you are interested.
Comment by thirdparty
“Force us to return” to a place we never should have been in the first place. We have no right to be in Iraq and we never did. And our being there is exacerbating the problem, at least that is the opinion of the majority of the citizens of Iraq. A recent poll asked them if they felt safer or less safe with the US in their country and a vast majority said they feel less safe.
Don’t you care what the people of Iraq want? Don’t you care what the elected officials in Iraq want? Who in the hell are we to tell Iraq what is right for their country after we have been responsible for destroying it?
January 21st, 2008 at 11:56 am57 & 58
January 21st, 2008 at 11:57 amWhy the hell is this so hard to understand? It seems like such common sense to me. How can anyone, whether you are paying strick attention or not, when confronted with these simple realities dissagree with it?
More imminent threat rhetoric? That’s what got us into this mess. Diplomacy (and weapons inspections) were working. Given more time, the facts of Saddam’s weapons programs would have been revealed, making him strategically weaker. Perhaps at that point, his internal enemies might have overthrown him. This we will never know. What we do know is that it was a mistake to invade, given the circumstances.
Comment by barfly
And lest we forget, Saddam said that he would leave Iraq for something like a billion dollars. Considering how much money we have spent to get rid of him, that would have been a bargain.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am57 & 58
Why the hell is this so hard to understand? It seems like such common sense to me. How can anyone, whether you are paying strict attention or not, when confronted with these simple realities disagree with it?
Comment by Fred
Because they live in a fantasy world where “reality” is what they want it to be. Besides, truth has a liberal bias, and the righties are never going to accept truths for fear of being accused of being liberal.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pmI didn’t realize “occupation” is defined by whether we are wanted there or not. In fact, based on a prior exchange I had on this threat, I thought there was some agreement that we were occupying those countries.
But, let’s be clear about who has the final say regarding our presence there. “While officials routinely focus on the annual deadline for formal review of the United Nations mandate, the government of Iraq retains the right to exercise the powers of a sovereign nation and unilaterally end the mandate at any time, Pentagon and administration officials said.”
This report also sums it up compellingly:
“In the past, members of the Iraqi Parliament have complained that allowing the continued presence of international forces abrogates the country’s sovereignty. While some of the complaints can be labelled political rhetoric, there is also a real underlying resentment that the nation still needs American help.
At the same time, though, many Iraqis say they do not want the American troops to leave right away because they fear the country will drift into chaos.”
January 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pmFrankly, I’m not sure how you can expect a country to determine it’s own future if it is overrun by extreme elements.
Comment by thirdparty
So, please tell me how we can expect a country to determine it’s own future when it is under occupation, against their will, by another country?
Iraq will never be able to determine their own future as long as we are occupying it and as long as we are interfering with their legislative process.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:05 pmI didn’t realize “occupation†is defined by whether we are wanted there or not. In fact, based on a prior exchange I had on this threat, I thought there was some agreement that we were occupying those countries.
Comment by thirdparty
Oh come on…..you thought we occupied all of those countries?
January 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pmThird party – for your edification, here are the definitions of a military occupation as determined by the the Hague Conventions of 1907.
It sure does sound like what we are doing in Iraq.
Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army.
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
And please don’t tell me that Iraq has any “authority” or determination as to their country will be run. It is being run by corrupt Bush sycophants who were placed there solely for the purpose of allowing the US to take over Iraq’s vast oil resources. If you believe anything different, you are in serious need to mental health care.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pmBut, let’s be clear about who has the final say regarding our presence there. “While officials routinely focus on the annual deadline for formal review of the United Nations mandate, the government of Iraq retains the right to exercise the powers of a sovereign nation and unilaterally end the mandate at any time, Pentagon and administration officials said.â€Comment by thirdparty — January 21, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
The problem with this is that the United States recognizes, as the “government of Iraq” only the people they placed in a position of power, like Maliki. And these corrupt Bush sycophants all have a vested interest in keeping us there. The only elected officials in Iraq, the Parliament, has a very different opinion of our occupation.
Here’s what happened back in May, 2007:
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq’s parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.
So, if Bush really does think that Iraq is a Democracy, with democratically elected officials, then he should recognize the authority of the Iraqi Parliament rather than the officials our government chose. If that was the case, we would be leaving since that is what the Iraqi government wants us to do.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:18 pmBilbo, as Able as said earlier, “We are in Germany, Korea, Pakistan and all over the world to maintain our empire.” That’s a view people have – that we have a military occupation in these countries. These occupations just seem much more benign because we aren’t losing lives there. But let’s take Afghanistan, where we are losing lives – are you suggesting that is not an occupation?
You also said, “Iraq will never be able to determine their own future as long as we are occupying it and as long as we are interfering with their legislative process.” First of all, I have not seen substantive evidence that we are tampering with the legislative process there, so please provide that for me if you can. Second, I reject the idea that they cannot determine their own future. In the political negotiations that are ongoing at the local and national level, Iraqis are trying to determine their future. But, the fear that exists is that “many Iraqis say they do not want the American troops to leave right away because they fear the country will drift into chaos.
There is a UN mandate for the occupation of Iraq right now. It is approved under international law. Hopefully, if we can stabilize Iraq, they will be able to have even greater independence, meaning there is no need for a UN mandate. They are trying to get to that point within the next year, but it won’t be easy. At the end of the day, though, Iraqi politicians will determine whether the US is there or not.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pmBilbo, thanks for the research. However, there are all sorts of problems with that definition, in that it makes it seem as though Iraq is not an occupation. Hostile forces? I would contend that we are hostile. And yes, as you predicted, I do believe the Iraqi government has authority over their country. As best I can tell, the selection and election of Iraqi leadership was not done by the US, as some articles indicate.
But, to pose a question to you, don’t our permanent bases around the world make it seem as though we occupy a lot more than Iraq?
January 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pmBut, to pose a question to you, don’t our permanent bases around the world make it seem as though we occupy a lot more than Iraq?
Comment by thirdparty
no
January 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pmThere is a UN mandate for the occupation of Iraq right now.
Comment by thirdparty
seen any un people involved in Iraq lately???
January 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pmMore responses to Bilbo…
I’m sorry, but you have your facts wrong. Again, it was the Iraqi’s who ousted Jaafari. Furthermore, Maliki was elected, not placed in power, both when he first joined the parliament and when he was elevated to PM.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Iraqi politics. Do you think that when something is approved in the US by the Congress it always takes effect? That petition, as I understand it, never became a bill that passed. As in the US, symbolic legislation does not instantly become law; there is a process through which that must happen.
Still, for your knowledge, the petition was not entirely black and white:
“But in another respect the petition brings the majority of Iraqi legislators into agreement with the Bush administration: both argue that an American withdrawal should depend on the readiness of Iraqi troops.”
January 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pmBilbo, as Able as said earlier, “We are in Germany, Korea, Pakistan and all over the world to maintain our empire.†That’s a view people have – that we have a military occupation in these countries. These occupations just seem much more benign because we aren’t losing lives there. But let’s take Afghanistan, where we are losing lives – are you suggesting that is not an occupation?Comment by thirdparty
You certainly are trying hard to spin the word “occupation”. We have a military presence in those country, we don’t have a military occupation. Please show me a definition of the work occupation that includes “having a permanent military presence” in a country. Since you seem to be confused as to what the word “occupation” means and ignored my prior post that told you what the Hague defined it as, here is the dictionary definition:
6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.
7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Danish resistance during the German occupation.
So, please tell me how we have “siezed and controlled” any of the countries you are saying we are occupying. Or tell me how we “control a territory” in those countries.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pmComment by thirdparty – If you think that Maliki is anything other than a Bush sycophant and that he presents the will of the people or Iraq, you are in serious need of mental health assistance. If Maliki is representative of the Iraqi Parliament and of the people of Iraq, then why is the Iraqi Parliament resisting his push to extend the UN mandate for our presence in Iraq? According to the Iraqi parliament, he does not have the power to do that without their approval.
Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew U.N. Mandate for Occupation
by Raed Jarrar
and Joshua Holland
On Tuesday, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council extending the mandate that provides legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq for another year.
The move violated both the Iraqi constitution and a law passed earlier this year by the Iraqi parliament — the only body directly elected by all those purple-finger-waving Iraqis in 2005 — and it defied the will of around 80 percent of the Iraqi population.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=14633
So, thirdparty, please don’t try to tell anyone that Maliki represents the Iraqi people or the will of the Parliament.
As far as Maliki being elected, he was not. He was appointed, there is a difference, I hope you know.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pmThere is a UN mandate for the occupation of Iraq right now.
Comment by thirdparty
seen any un people involved in Iraq lately???
………………………………………………………………..
January 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pmStill, for your knowledge, the petition was not entirely black and white:
“But in another respect the petition brings the majority of Iraqi legislators into agreement with the Bush administration: both argue that an American withdrawal should depend on the readiness of Iraqi troops.â€
Comment by thirdparty
Spin…spin…spin. The Iraqi troops are never going to be ready to defend their country as long as they can hide behind the US military. Why should they risk their lives when the US is willing to do it for them?
January 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pmThere is a UN mandate for the occupation of Iraq right now.
Comment by thirdparty
Prove it. Link to anything that says there is a UN mandate for the “occupation” of Iraq.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pmBilbo, thanks for the research. However, there are all sorts of problems with that definition, in that it makes it seem as though Iraq is not an occupation. Hostile forces? I would contend that we are hostile. And yes, as you predicted, I do believe the Iraqi government has authority over their country. As best I can tell, the selection and election of Iraqi leadership was not done by the US, as some articles indicate.
But, to pose a question to you, don’t our permanent bases around the world make it seem as though we occupy a lot more than Iraq? Comment by thirdparty
That definition fits us to a “T”. We invaded an unarmed country against their will and we are currently holding that country under our control by our military.
And stop saying that our government cares one whit about the will of the people or the true government in Iraq. When both the people and the Parliament want us out, if we cared what they wanted, we would be gone.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pmFred asked me, “seen any un people involved in Iraq lately???”
My response:Sure. On top of that, there are volunteers representing the UN in Iraq. If you still have doubts…
January 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Or why leading Democrats suggest we’ll need a combat force in Iraq still? Face it, Iraq is one of the most pressing matters to nearly all on the world stage, regardless of their role in the situation. Clearly it is something the UN cares about, for instance.
You are wrong. The leading Democrats do not suggest we’ll need a combat force in Iraq. They have said that we will need a peacekeeping force to protect our interests. I have a problem with that, though, since I don’t believe we have any “interests” in Iraq other than stealing their oil which is morally reprehensible.
I don’t see us getting far in this portion of the debate, but I would add that sometimes diplomacy won’t work, particularly if there is a terrorist action on the horizon, or if there is a terrorist base that poses a short and long-term threat. Whether it is preemption or prevention, the point is sometimes strikes are necessary before we are hit ourselves.
Following your line of thinking we should be invading Korea, China and Russia since there is always the possibility that they may hit us.
Iraq was no threat to us just as Iran is no threat to us. There was and is no reason to invade those countries. If you think different, again, you are in serious need of mental health help.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pmI think we’re delving into a semantic argument about what a military occupation is. But to give one example, I think in Kosovo there is a current NATO occupation, and rebel groups describe NATO and the UN as “modern occupiers.” I will concede that, when we use technical terminology here, then yes, our presence in Germany and Japan is not an occupation. Still, there are occupations elsewhere, like Afghanistan.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pmFred asked me, “seen any un people involved in Iraq lately???â€
Comment by thirdparty
I don’t see any blue helmets…….that is what you see when the un is involved….
also from your volunteers link see below……..30 volunteers?
Duma, Syria: The conflict in Iraq has produced a largely silent exodus: an estimated 40,000 Iraqis flee to Syria every month. In Douma, they are received by 30 UNV volunteers working as registration clerks at the country’s largest registration centre for Iraqis refugees.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pmBilbo, I said Maliki was elected to parliament. That’s true.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pmBilbo, are you suggesting they are not risking their lives currently? You’re wrong.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pmBilbo says:
This is a surprising comment, since your own ZNet link describes the mandate as providing “political cover for the occupation.” I’m not sure what your interpretation of the mandate is, though. Maybe we’re parsing words, and you expect the word “occupation” in the mandate? I’m not sure. But I am.
Keep in mind that the mandate, “Recognizes the important role of the Multi-National Force Iraq (MNF-I) in supporting UNAMI, including security and logistical support, and further recognizes that security is essential for UNAMI to carry out its work on behalf of the people of Iraq.”
January 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pmNo, Bilbo, you are wrong. And just as Hillary Clinton wants those combat operations, so too does Barack Obama:
But wait, there’s more! Even John Edwards would continue the combat operations that would seemingly continue the occupation. He said:
So, yes, leading Democrats suggest we will need to maintain a combat force.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pmSorry, but your logic fails here. You are having me make a leap from suggesting preempting terrorism to preempting unlikely threats from other countries. I don’t think the Chinese and Russians are threats to us militarily, and I don’t view the North Koreas that way currently. I’m speaking more about terrorist bases and the harboring of terrorists. Though, I wouldn’t go quite as far as Hillary Clinton, who said, “”Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”"
January 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pmFred says:
Fred, if UN people means blue helments, then you’re right. Unfortunately, you are wrong, because it doesn’t mean blue helmets. I was referring to the UN mandate, which you dismissed, seemingly trying to assert that there was either not a UN mandate or not a UN presence that is significant. Well, I think the political and humanitarian work they are doing is crucial, regardless of whether there are blue helmets (who would probably be ineffective, to tell the truth). Fred, you can deny the UN mandate all you want, but it exists.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pmhave it your way third….I’ve moved on and you have made up your mind. I just thought for a second you wanted to be realistic about the situation…..
January 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pmFred, I’m sorry you feel that way. I know we have an honest disagreement, and that’s fine. But I think we’re both trying our best to be realistic, although that is hard when we are so distant from the situation.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pmBilbo, I said Maliki was elected to parliament. That’s true.
Comment by thirdparty
No, a political party was elected to parliament and Maliki was a member of that party. He was not elected.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pmBilbo, are you suggesting they are not risking their lives currently? You’re wrong.
Comment by thirdparty
Prove it. Show me links to how many Iraqi units are trained and willing to fight for their country. The only place where this is happening is in Basra and the reason why is because the British left and allowed them to determine for themselves how they want to protect their area.
Don’t you find it interesting that when the British left, the Iraqi’s stepped up to the plate and took charge? Do you really think that won’t happen if we leave Baghdad and the rest of Iraq? They certainly aren’t going to step up to the plate as long as we are there, they have proved that to be the truth.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pmLOL, I was wondeirng where “republicans hate facts” was with his typical vitriol and caps-lock-itis. Sometimes I wonder if you are a conservative trying to make liberals look bad…
January 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pmSorry, but your logic fails here. You are having me make a leap from suggesting preempting terrorism to preempting unlikely threats from other countries. I don’t think the Chinese and Russians are threats to us militarily, and I don’t view the North Koreas that way currently. I’m speaking more about terrorist bases and the harboring of terrorists. Though, I wouldn’t go quite as far as Hillary Clinton, who said, “â€Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.—
Comment by thirdparty
Iraq was never a threat to us and it never was a base for “terrorism”. It is now, because we made it that way. The country that is harboring terrorists is Pakistan. So, I guess we should invade Pakistan, don’t you agree.
So you are saying that because Senator Clinton say “they are going to pay a price” she means she will invade that country? That’s a pretty big leap, even for a rightard. She has also said, on numerous occasions, that she will always try diplomacy first.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:32 pmNo, Bilbo, you are wrong. And just as Hillary Clinton wants those combat operations, so too does Barack Obama:
Obama said that we should be “as careful getting out (of Iraq) as we were careless getting inâ€. He said, as President, he would pull one or two brigades out per month and the “only troops that would remain would be the troops that would have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counter-terrorism activities in Iraq.â€
But wait, there’s more! Even John Edwards would continue the combat operations that would seemingly continue the occupation. He said:
And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.
So, yes, leading Democrats suggest we will need to maintain a combat force.
Comment by thirdparty
Spin, spin, spin….you are a master of spin. Leaving troops to protect bases and conduct counter terrorism activities is not the same as leaving “combat” troops in Iraq and you know it. And launching “targeted missions to foot out and shut down terrorist cells” is, again, not leaving combat troops in Iraq.
To tell the truth, what we are doing in Iraq is not combat, it is occupying.
From Wikipedia:
Combat in warfare involves two or more opposing military organizations, usually fighting for nations at war (although guerrilla warfare and suppression of insurgencies can fall outside this definition). Warfare falls under the laws of war, which govern its purposes and conduct, and protect the rights of soldiers and non-combatants.
Do you want to tell me who the opposing military organization is? The insurgents, AQI, Saudi nationals, Iranian nationals, people trying to throw out the occupying force? What we are doing in Iraq isn’t even war. It is an occupation, and nothing more.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pmBilbo, on our discussion of Maliki, you said “As far as Maliki being elected, he was not. He was appointed, there is a difference, I hope you know.” First, by being on a list, we’re already a long way from being placed into power by the US, which is where our discussion was. But this is how Iraqi elections work, and it isn’t as simple as saying someone is appointed, which would be undemocratic. A rough comparison that I see is between being elected Vice President in the US – you’re on the ticket, but you don’t lead it. Anyway, the heart of the matter is whether he was chosen by the US to be in parliament in the first place, and I don’t see the evidence for that.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pmFor turdparty, about the “mandate” by the UN:
James Paul, director of the Global Policy Forum, which follows the United Nations’ intrigues, said that while “there’s concern in many delegations at the United Nations about what is going on,” Security Council delegates “are under instructions from their governments to lay low and pass the U.S. resolution.” According to Paul, the move “shows the despotic power of the U.S. government to force everyone to knuckle under, no matter how much the law is violated.”
It was an egregious assault on Iraq’s nascent democracy, as well as its supposed “sovereignty,” and can only encourage more bloodshed. Yet the commercial media has so far ignored the story entirely, reporting only that “Iraq” had requested that the mandate be renewed.
The real picture is dramatically different. Just as some congressional Democrats in Washington have tried desperately to limit Bush’s ability to maintain troops in Iraq forever — inserting various conditions into the endless series of supplemental spending bills that have financed the occupation — and been thwarted by the administration, so too has a majority of Iraq’s parliament come out against renewing the mandate without attaching conditions to it, including a requirement that the United States set a timetable for withdrawal.
That’s a process story, unsexy by definition, but that doesn’t change its importance. This move speaks to the degree to which occupation and democracy are mutually exclusive, and to how Bush and Maliki must run roughshod over the Iraqi legislature (not to mention the U.S. Congress), sacrificing opportunities for political reconciliation along the way, in order to maintain an almost universally despised American military presence in the country.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=14633
The UN extended the mandate for one reason only. Because Bully Boy Bush and the US told them to. I have to say that it amazes me how the UN caves to the United States when we haven’t even paid our dues for years and constantly bad-mouth the UN. Bush is only interested in the UN when he can use them to achieve his illegal purposes, otherwise he disses them every chance he gets.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pmLOL, I was wondeirng where “republicans hate facts†was with his typical vitriol and caps-lock-itis. Sometimes I wonder if you are a conservative trying to make liberals look bad…
Comment by thirdparty
no, that’s just what happens when you try to talk to someone that has their own set of facts that they want you to accept, even if they are based on nothing. You just want to talk this thing to death until you get it your way…..you have no interest in reality.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pmAnyway, the heart of the matter is whether he was chosen by the US to be in parliament in the first place, and I don’t see the evidence for that.
Comment by thirdparty
Nouri al-Maliki (formerly Jawad al-Maliki) was selected to be Prime Minister on April 21, 2006.
He was selected. And are you going to try to tell us that the US had NOTHING to do with this selection? If they had it to do over, do you really think the Iraqi Parliament would again choose Maliki as their Prime Minister knowing what a stooge he is for the United States? Do you really think that Maliki is acting in the best interests of the Iraqi’s? If you answer yes to any of those questions, I question your mental health.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pmno, that’s just what happens when you try to talk to someone that has their own set of facts that they want you to accept, even if they are based on nothing. You just want to talk this thing to death until you get it your way…..you have no interest in reality.
Comment by Fred
You’re almost there Fred. He doesn’t want to “talk this thing to death”, he wants to spin this thing to death. Everything he has written is nothing more than his rightard spin version of reality. There is no truth in what he says and no reality in what he says.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pmYou’ve put words in my mouth. I never said Iraq was a base for terror, and I agree that it is not a good claim to make. That doesn’t mean Hussein didn’t support terror, but to say it was a “base” is an exaggeration. The point was about terrorism in general; if we know a base exists somewhere, perhaps we should go after it.
Thanks for calling me a “rigthard,” that’s a great way to keep this discussion respectable. Anyway, you’re defending Hillary Clinton, and that’s your prerogative. I’m just suggesting that her rhetoric was just like Bush’s on the “with us or against us” idea that the left, and myself, usually despise.
Look, I don’t think the quotes I’m raising from Hillary and others is all that relevant to the substance of this debate. But I can’t help put point out the hypocrisy of these politicians when they are attacking Bush on both substance and style and then act an a similarly egregious fashion. I gave you an example of style with Hillary, here’s some substance from John Edwards after the Iraq war began:
And then when asked, “If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway,” Edwards replied:
January 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Maliki was chosen by the US to be the Prime Minister for one reason and one reason only. They knew he could be corrupted and that’s exactly what happened.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pmFred, I take offense to that. Please point out my factual inaccuracies as you see them. Have you ever considered that you have your own reality? Is it possible that you might just be wrong, ever?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pmFred, I take offense to that. Please point out my factual inaccuracies as you see them. Have you ever considered that you have your own reality? Is it possible that you might just be wrong, ever?
Comment by thirdparty
man, are you plunger?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pmDon’t tell me that Hillary doesn’t support combat missions when the facts are readily available to you:
You go on, Bilbo:
Perhaps you should ask Hillary, John and Barack what they are aiming to target with troops when they are inaugurated.
Moving on, I just request some evidence of US tampering with Maliki’s elevation to Prime Minister, if not evidence for him being “selected,” as you say, by his party and then by voters.
You guys, predictably, accuse me of not being in touch with reality, talking this to death, spinning to death, etc. That’s fine, it comes with the territory here and on blogs generally. When someone has an honest disagreement, that debate may hold up for a little while but eventually it collapses into name-calling. Again, that’s fine and that’s your choice. But I’ve been answering your questions gladly, and you’ve done an OK job of addressing my points as well. As I believe one of you acknowledged earlier, there aren’t good options on Iraq.
Still, in the past year, we have set back al Qaeda and managed some economic and political gains at the local level. So, I don’t see this as being endless and hopeless – I see a light at the end of the tunnel, although it is distant. We have CLCs helping us and greater cooperation among Shia groups, although we are still a long way away from stabilizing the country. It’s just that I see progress being made in the form of dramatically reduced violence, mainly, and I fear what will happen if we withdraw and create a security vacuum.
To open this debate up more, if you guys would like, are there specific proposals you favor on Iraq?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:16 pmNo, I’m not plunger. Who’s that?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pmTo clarify, when I said: “Moving on, I just request some evidence of US tampering with Maliki’s elevation to Prime Minister, if not evidence for him being “selected,†as you say, by his party and then by voters,” what I mean is that I want evidence that the US had a role in putting him on the party list, thus getting him into parliament in the first place.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pmTo open this debate up more, if you guys would like, are there specific proposals you favor on Iraq?
Comment by thirdparty — January 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
You know, as long as you believe a single word from this government about anything, you’re going to have credibility problems. Bushco has engineered this debacle all along to fail, as soon as the situation went south shortly after the invasion and “Mission Accomplished”. If Clinton is going to keep combat troops there to engage Al Qaeda, they won’t be there long, since Al Qaeda is vitually non-existent, and only grows in response to the wholesale presence, illegally, of many thousands of Aemrican troops. You have no idea why, or even if, violence is actually down, you have only the words of proven liars and sociopaths. The Bush regime is playing for time; every move is calculated to run out the clock and leave the mess to the next administration.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pmI mean is that I want evidence that the US had a role in putting him on the party list, thus getting him into parliament in the first place.
Comment by thirdparty — January 21, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
From whom do you want this evidence? The very people that did exactly that? Try holding your breath. You have to be very loyal to ignore all the evidence there is that nothing happens there without American money and power getting directly involved. it’s the only reason it’s still such a disaster there.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pmI realize there is a lot of American power and influence in Iraq, but it only goes so far. Furthermore, I think there’s a recognition that we need to let the Iraqis choose their leaders and parliamentarians. The power of the Sadrists in Iraqi politics is evidence of the limits of US influence. Furthermore, all indications from what I read in the news demonstrate that it was the Iraqis who pushed aside Jaafari in favor of Maliki.
As far as questioning whether violence is actually down, if you cannot trust the numbers you might want to turn to anecdotal and descriptive evidence. Here’s one report that demonstrates the improvements in security lately:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/20071120_BUILDUP_OVERVIEW.html
January 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pmComment by thirdparty — January 21, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
You send me to the New York Times? Please. Try the various veterans’ blogs and publications; their viewpoint is quite at odds with the bought-and-paid-for stooges at the Times.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:38 pmWhy don’t you send me there? I’ll gladly read their accounts, even if it doesn’t argue that violence is not up, which would support the idea that the government and media accounts are wrong.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pmThis would keep his career on track for a later run for US President, perhaps in 2012. This also reminds me of Bush rushing to sign an agreement with Iraq that would tie the next President’s hands. There seems to be nothing to outlandish for Bush going forward. Bush should be subjected to a mental health examination. Normal people don’t act in this manner.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm