How Long Do We Need To Stay in Iraq?

By Mimikatz

President Bush has said, "As long as I'm President", which is to say let the next guy deal with the problem; I can't figure it out.  This is wholly irresponsible for a leader in time of war, as Josh Marshall says.

The Generals and some foreign policy hawks say ten years, fifty years, who knows?  Look at Korea.  This is supposed to be a serious position.

The top three Democratic candidates all talk of withdrawing most of the troops but leaving a "residual force" of 30,000 to 50,000, but none of them explain what the force would do beyond "training," something a much larger force has failed to do effectively, "force protection," which, as I understand it, simply means protecting the forces we have there, and thus is a somewhat circular objective, and "fighting al Qaeda," which is in Iraq because we are, and that is where they can fight us most easily.   The assumption seems to be that in January, 2009 order will miraculously have been restored to the point where our forces will not be in the middle of a multi-party civil war as they are now, and we can concentrate on al Qaeda in Iraq.  This is also considered a serious postion, though less so than endless war and/or occupation.

Yet a fourth position could be summed up as "sure we made mistakes in Iraq, but if we go into Iran we can get it right this time."   This is the Cheney/neocon position and is considered crazy except by those who believe it, and they consider it the only really manly position.

Getting out in an orderly fashion, beginning this fall, is not considered to be a serious position, and yet it is the only one that truly makes sense.

The position of the three top candidates (Richardson would remove all troops) seems to me the worst of all worlds--leaving troops with no clear, attainable objective and much less capability than the 150,000 troops that are there now.  It would require permanent bases, something most Iraqis oppose, and would thus continue to inflame the situation.   And none of the candidates explains how we magically get from here to a point where we could withdraw two thirds or three fourths of our forces.

Iraq is in no way like Korea, Japan or Germany.  In the latter two cases we were not the aggressor, and we were dealing with a vanquished foe and a country large parts of which had been reduced to rubble.  We were there not to prevent a resurgence of Naziism or Japanese militarism, but to keep order in the most basic sense (there was no real threat of civil war in either country) and repel any advances by what was then viewed as a Communist monolith controlled by Russia.  In Korea we went in after the North Koreans invaded the South.  After we invaded the North the Chinese came in on their side, and the war ended in a stalemate roughly where it had begun.  We left an occupying force in the South, the side we had aided, to prevent another invasion from the North.

Our occupation of Iraq has nothing in common with these situations.  We are the aggressors, and although many Iraqis undoubtedly appreciate the toppling of Saddam Hussein, they do not appreciate the reduction of much of their country to rubble and the complete loss of order that resulted from our invasion and occupation.  Moreover, we are a predominately Christian (and Israeli-allied) country occupying a Muslim country that sits at the Sunni-Shia divide and is riven by tribal and sectarian conflicts, right in the center of probably the most unstable part of the world.  The legacy of the ideology-driven post-war debacle of the Rumsfeld-Bremer "Coalition Provisional Authority" and our failure to allow the Iraqis to forge their own governing structure from the outset have left most Iraqis hostile to any continued occupation and deeply suspicious of American motives.

We cannot make the Iraqis get along and our presence only postpones the day when they will have to resolve their differences or split.  If the idea is to prevent incursions from Iraq's neighbors (read Iran), then we need our troops out of Iraq, where mobility is a hazard, and redeployed to some less hostile ccuntry like Qatar, Dubai or somewhere else nearby that will have us, or at sea or island bases.  All we need to do is redefine the mission--redeploy our troops to better fight terrorists.  Bring others into the mix by making it clear that we will not keep trying to solve the Iraqis' problems.  Step back and listen to the ideas of others, and bring them in as partners. 

This is truly the only responsible position after the disaster caused by the ill-conceived, ill-planned and thoroughly mismanaged Bush War, and the sooner at least one more candidate faces up to that and makes it plain to the American people, the better.

Comments

[Stan]

This is an excellent post -- are you willing to go all the way and say that, as awful as the prospect is, even if Iraq descends into mass killings (say thousands of deaths per week instead of the current dozens/hundreds) our troops should not return?

[Mimikatz]

If we left a residual force it would undoubtedly be drawn into the middle of such a situation. If we withdrew and a bloodbath happened, what would we do if we went back in? Send our men and women to stand in the middle and get shot at?

I think Vietnam is in many ways a better parallel. We left (somewhat ignominiously) after Nixon and Kissinger concluded the war could not be won. The government we propped up fell within a few months after the North Vietnamese came in. But of course they had a functioning government (unlike the South, or Iraq). There was much hardship, and many people fled, as boat people and to refugee camps in Thailand and elsewhere. Vietnam invaded Cambodia. But Southeast Asia did not fall to the Communists, and after a period of time we normalized relations with Vietnam. Not ideal, certainly, but not as bad as many feared.

I don't know whether there will be a genocidal civil war if we leave Iraq, and if there is, how long it would last. If there were, I suspect there would be an immediate call for involvement countries besides the US to deal with it, and the neighbors (and Europe) would have more incentive to become involved than they do now.

I supported military action in the former Yugoslavia and believe it is sometimes appropriate to intervene on the side of the uderdog to limit the damage. I don't see Iraq as being analogous, because while the Shi'a have the numbers, the Kurds and Sunnis have other assets, and besides, there are multiple fault lines. Fundamentally I think the Iraqis are the only ones who can decide either to get along or split.

Of course, if we withdraw we lose control of the oil, but that would provide us with an incentive to be more self-reliant and frugal with the oil we have. Besides, it isn't ours; it's theirs. We mostly used ours up, and now we need to concentrate on finding alternatives. The war sucks up so much money that it prevents us from strengthening our own country in ways that it really needs.

[BearCountry]

I think that your analysis is mostly correct, but I have a couple of quibbles. That w will keep the troops there as long as he is President is not because he can't figure out what to do. Keeping them there is exactly what he wants to do. It was ill-conceived, but it was not ill-planned or mismanaged. The plan has been to keep maximum upset in the area to maintain the rationale for our continued presence in Iraq. We know that there was no real justification for invading Iraq; they simply were able to use 9/11 for their own plans. The only ones still defending that position are either completely deluded or cynical.

The reason for invading Iran is not because of any real threat; it is just a way to get the US population to rally around the "leader." Most of the population would probably be inclined not to support Ahmedinejad if we keep out. If w chooses to side with cheney, we will have to start nuking Iran. Wouldn't that be wonderful? To keep them from starting a nuclear war, we would have to start one.

I know that it is heretical, but I want the draft to come back, but I want no exceptions. I never wanted it to cease. Once it is back, the fighting without clear purpose of defending the US will disappear. The middle class people, parents and kids, will not put up with actually having to go and fight. Why do you think that w or romney or almost anyone supporting the war is so willing to talk so tough? They are not forced to serve.

[Seamus]

Another part of the GOP perpetual war is the money it makes for their buddies at Lockheed, Halliburton, et al. This serves two purposes. It makes them all rich, and it also keeps the government perpetually broke, and unable to fulfill the social contracts that they despise. For them, perpetual war is win/win.

[bilzim]

Alright, I just got a call from one of the anti-war organizations I have supported. They're buying a full-page ad in the NYT this week calling for impeachment hearings. And I said 'good luck', I've donated a zillion times in the past, I've marched in Washington and New York, there's nothing I'd rather see than this entire bunch impeached and frog-marched to the Hague, tried for war crimes and executed (and I'm opposed to capital punishment, but what the hell, these people have murdered tens of thousands of live people), but, shit, all the marches, all the full-page ads, all the petitions, all the t-shirts and buttons, and bumper stickers, and all the rest, haven't amounted to shit. Yeah, when someone says 'bring your pitchfork and torch and report to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I'm there. And if some politician says he (she) is ready to take these bastards on frontally, I'm mortaging the house and contributing big time. But everyting I've done, everything I've contributed, every time I've got off my ass and put it in the street, has amounted to exactly nothing. Bullshit! Is there nothing I can do to call these bastards to account? They laugh at us, they ignore us, they violate our laws and constitution at will. Give me something that might work. Please.

[Ishmael]

Mimikatz - the plan was never to leave Iraq, it was the first piece of the New American Empire, on the way to Iran and the rest of the Soviet Stans, but I believe that a prompt withdrawal with a reconstruction plan is the best solution - the McGovern plan, although the MSM would laugh themselves silly because it says "McGovern" even though it would go a long way to restoring the reputation of the US very quickly. It seems to me that following Bush, the sensible AND moral policy solution is to ensure that there is some type of peacekeeping force following the withdrawal of all American forces - the suggestion has been made that Muslim soldiers of India's army be recruited for this purpose, with the US bearing the cost. (Please insert joke about outsourcing to India.) Seriously, India would not be perceived as an occupying power, they have a professional military, and they are not Arab Muslims, and therefore would be perceived as neutral. A gradual, division for division replacement would take place, while the Iraqi factions realize they have to make deals with each other. Combined with this will have to be some kind of true reconstruction, an Iraqi Marshall Plan, with the benefits of the contracts going to the Iraqis and not Halliburton or Bechtel, at a fraction of the cost of maintaining the occupation. I know, "Imagine", you may say I'm a dreamer, etc., but such a gesture on the part of the US would do more than anything else to restore the world's peace.

[Sara]

Ishmael, maybe you have forgotten but the Brits used Muslim Indian Army Units in Iraq during World War One, again in the early 1920's and then again in 1942 when the Government in Iraq tried to do an alliance with Hitler. The deaths for the Glory of the Empire were mostly either Indian Muslims or Irish outfits, Irish outfits created before Home Rule. I don't think history minded Iraqi's will be forgetting such any time soon -- they tend to remember for centuries. And today, India and Iran are very closely linked trading partners. There is much to factor in.

The solution has always been political, and that means just what is the subject of the Baker Hamilton Report -- the meetings, the dialogue, the ideas of all of Iraq's neighbors. They all want Iraq unified and with limited military power, but they do not oppose a strong Iraqi economy in which they could participate. Turkey, Syria and Iran want the Kurds restrained -- good government, good economy, but no greater Kurdistan, No places of support for Kurdish Nationalism in Iraq's territory. Jordan and the Saudi's demand protection for the Sunni minority. They've lost place as the minority governing class -- but they must have protection and some special rights. (Remember all the Sunni's in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are tribal members first, and members of a nation of sorts only in the last century.) The Shia are the majority, and demand to govern with little restraint. But they are also Arab, in many cases members of tribes that also are in NE Saudi Arabia and parts of Jordan, and Iran is a totally different culture, never governed by the Ottoman, ancient Persian Culture, Shia yes, but culturally quite apart from the Iraqi tribes of the south.

As I have argued earlier, I do think the German Occupation model offers good ideas that could have benefited the Iraqi effort, had any of the folk around Bush ever read any George Marshall. What the Military Government of Germany did was hold hundreds of very local elections within about 6 months of the end of the war. (fall, 1945) and as they could take things in hand, considerable responsibility was passed to these local councils. And they were elected under a re-born party system excluding the Nazi's obviously, but traditional from Weimar and before. Doing governance things like replacing broken windows, filling bomb craters, collecting the rubble -- these became the objective measures of capacity to govern. The US closed down travel in Germany -- you had to have a pass to buy a train ticket. But that did not last for long -- as capacity was demonstrated, the regulations were lifted or modified. Compare that to Rumsfeld's notion that "Freedom is messy" and all. Remember Bremer actually stopped local elections and never dealt with local councils.

I do not think the US should remain as a military force -- but I think we have an obligation to set in motion a regional political effort to avoid civil war or genocide that could spread in the whole region. I don't believe anyone in the Bush Administration is capable of doing this, but I think Democrats should agree on some means and ends. UN is good for some tasks, totally incapable of large scale projects -- that has to be designed by the regional powers, along side the Iraqi people who wish to participate.

[der fuhrer]

the usa will stay in Iraq until the last drop of Oil is sucked out from the sands of that country.

the usa will stay in Iraq for as long as isreal tells the usa to do so.

the usa will stay in Iraq until the usa treasury is sucked dry ( and the usa taxpayers are burdened with an unpayable deficit ) and those monies are turned over to the ' death and destruction ' people / industries.

the usa ain't never ever leaving Iraq. never. not in our lifetime.

[Paul in LA]

"President Bush has said, "As long as I'm President", which is to say let the next guy deal with the problem; I can't figure it out. This is wholly irresponsible for a leader in time of war, as Josh Marshall says."

Josh Marshall supported the invasion in the first place.

• Permanent airbases and a 120 acre Citadel embassy are ALREADY INSTALLED.

Unlike naive and hapless bloggers, the PNAC planners have NEVER had any problem understanding their strategy.

1. Genocide, followed by

2. Massive oil wealth control.

If you need any more clarifications of the policy, just ask Dick Cheney. He hasn't had a laugh in a few days.

[Paul in LA]

"I think Vietnam is in many ways a better parallel. We left (somewhat ignominiously) after Nixon and Kissinger concluded the war could not be won." --Mimikatz

No, the Congress cut the funding for the Cambodia and Laos missions, and after Watergate, for any SEA missions.

Nixon and Kissinger were considering NUKING N. Vietnam, and in any case intended to restart the bombing of N. Vietnam after the midterm elections. They had ZERO intention of leaving SEA.

[Paul in LA]

"But everyting I've done, everything I've contributed, every time I've got off my ass and put it in the street, has amounted to exactly nothing." --bilzim

That is nonsense. Have you had any look at the public polls? Our antiwar movement (including the blogs) has been a primary reason that a war which has cost very little in US lives (comparatively) has been OUTED as a criminal act with no justification other than military-industrial profits.

• Impeachment, however, is off the table, unless that group can get 20 or so REPUBLICAN Senators to join with us in that process.

Indictments are imminent. That's how Nixon was removed, and that's how these felons will be removed.

Protest is how America keeps its morality to whatever degree it can or has. WE protesters have nothing to be so negative about, unless you had too many expectations going in. Me, I protested Vietnam as well, and I'm back in the streets TOMORROW, and again on Friday, and again next week, and on and on, forever until this disaster ends. WITHOUT REGRETS.

[profmarcus]

look... let's get something straight here... the plan that was in place PRIOR to 9/11 was to depose saddam, occupy iraq, and REMAIN THERE... any discussion of democratization, standing down as iraqis stand up, withdrawal, and/or the sovereignty of iraq is only an elaborate game of mind-fuck, helping us to believe what we WANT to believe, that our government has pure and noble, albeit poorly executed, intentions... nothing could be further from the truth... construction began on those bases as soon as the country fell... we're there to stay, folks, and if the iraqis continue to slaughter each other and more of our troops have to die, it's just part of the inevitable price our masters would have us pay to insure that they remain in power, control the vast majority of the world's resources, and keep the rivers of cash flowing... we WANT to believe the bush/cheney cabal is incompetent... they are very fracking far from incompetent... they have managed to create precisely the conditions for expanded terrorism and endless war that will allow them to continue to manipulate through fear and reduce our constitutional, democratic republic to an authoritarian state... and, unfortunately, the majority of our elected democratic leaders are complicit... a democratic president and congress in 2009 will change nothing as much as we desperately want to believe it will... we've had cosmetic makeovers before, as recently, in fact, as this past november... there is really very little else for us to do but take to the streets... with the sopranos and american idol over, there isn't really much else to watch on tv anyway...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[Ishmael]

Sara - excellent points about the need for local elections and control, as capacity is increased - this is something that the Bushies could use from the WWII history. As for the use of the Indian Army, while I would not discount the Iraqi historical memory, I do think there is a difference between the British use of colonial soldiers from India as part of an offensive against the Ottomans, and what I would view as a peacemaking and peacekeeping force operating under a Security Council mandate.

[Mimikatz]

Nixon and Kissinger had concluded that the war could not be won; what I said was correct. Congress actually never cut off funding for the war as such--in their final bill they limited the amount of money that could be spent on the country to shore up the South Viet government after the troops pulled out. Nixon and Kissinger were elated to get as much as they got.

I thought from the beginning the Iraq War was a mistake and not likely to turn out well. However, there were things that could have been done in the beginning to secure the country and turn government over to the Iraqis ASAP, as Sara says. But Rumsfeld didn't want to get his hands dirty with nation building, Feith kicked out all the experts, and the military never planned to stay longer than a year, so had no strategy. As the insurgency unfolded, we made one mistake after another, so that I feel it is now too late. We can't afford to keep 200,000 troops there for 5 years, which is what they are talking about with the latest escalation. We just can't afford it--there is too much that needs to be done at home.

Thucydides understood 2500 years ago, the Brits finally learned after India and Ireland--democracies can't do occupation. Not occupation of a hostile country. It requires a rejection of ideals such as equality, humane treatment, self-government in favor of torture, tyranny and militarism. The Israelis are finding out too. It just doesn't work.

This is not going to end well, and we will pay as a country for years.

[pow wow]

Well said, Mimikatz. As the details finally emerge about what has really been going on in Iraq, the picture is certain to only grow more damning for us. A huge step in the direction of lifting the propaganda veil hiding the details on the ground in Iraq has just been taken by the Global Policy Forum. Thanks to their efforts, we finally have an authoritative, independent report backing-up, elaborating upon, and footnoting all of the miscellaneous bits of truthful information about the scene in Iraq that the corporate media and Congress (nevermind the administration) have diligently blacked-out and withheld from the American people for more than four years now.

Huge credit to the Global Policy Forum, for this comprehensive, scathing report cataloging our reckless, heedless, brutal, and downright depraved behavior in Iraq, as we treat Iraqi civilians as subhuman, throw around taxpayer debt like monopoly money, and cause who knows how much damage to brainwashed troops who (think they) are forced to carry out criminal orders:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/index.htm

It's a horrific indictment of our Executive and Legislative Branches and of our unleashed Armed Forces command, as well as of the AWOL "free press" that has colluded for years to hide these truths from Americans and the world.

[John Palcewski]

Back in the 60s and 70s it seemed to me that ending the Vietnam war was taking way too much time, it just dragged on and on and on, no matter how many peace marches we went to or how many full page anti-war ads appared in the New York Times. Remember John & Yoko's? "WAR IS OVER!" covered the whole page, and at the bottom in small type: "If you want it." Now, however, I get the feeling that ending the war in Iraq is taking even longer, despite the fact that time appears to move more quickly for an old coot like me, since each day is a smaller percentage of my total life span. Anyway, I agree with a post above that things are gradually improving. The Chimp's numbers continue to fall. Karl Rove is starting to sweat, and I'm allowing myself to believe that pretty soon he and the rest of his fascist swine criminals will be indicted, tried, convicted and sent off to do some serious jail time. But then I've always been an optimist.

[alabama]

What does someone--anyone--think of Americans at all? And in Iraq?

If someone doesn't like Americans--and lots of people don't, to the point of thinking that "the only good American is a dead American"--then the keeping of Americans in Iraq is something to pray for (with the cost to Iraq being a secondary one).

If someone likes Americans, but not their presence in Iraq--then, again, "the only good American (in Iraq) is a dead American" will prove to be the logical, if unfortunate, conclusion to draw (given their refusal to leave).

If someone likes Americans, then their getting out of Iraq is of course the thing to pray for.

[Paul in LA]

"a democratic president and congress in 2009 will change nothing as much as we desperately want to believe it will... we've had cosmetic makeovers before, as recently, in fact, as this past november..." --profmarcus

Jesus, what a DOWNER you are on.

This is a CAUCUS government.

We need a larger caucus. In the last go round on Iraq, we had 140 House Democrats and 19 Senate Democrats voting NAY on cloture. That's not enough, so we didn't stop the bill.

IF we had actually had LEGAL elections in 2006, or IF the conspirators hadn't shut off the Abramov (et al.) grand jury process, we would have better numbers in the caucus, and be dictating more than we do now.

Being on a bummer is not the proper method. It's GETTING LEGAL AND FAIR ELECTIONS BACK so we can add to our 140 + 19 (includes the Speaker of the House). A larger caucus, more success.

Downer exaggerations that refuse to count the votes? WORTHLESS.

[calugg]

One of the top or second tier presidential candidates needs to screw up the courage and state the obvious: The Iraq War is a colonial war waged by the US on behalf of the military-industrial complex (including big oil). It has nothing to do with democracy and, in fact, is antithetical to democracy. Additionally, it has nothing to do with "the global war on terrorism" since that's a fiction. (Al Queda is the Sunni version of the Bader Meinhoff gang, with better enginering skills).

The US Colonial War needs to be repeated loudly and frequently. The entire terms of the "chatter about Iraq" needs to be redefined as "Colonial War." The possible repsonses to disengaging become quiet different.

[JB]

You are too kind in characterizing the Iraq occupation as "ill-conceived, ill-planned and thoroughly mismanaged".

It is far more importand to describe it as:

illegal and immoral

The fact that neither of these words is used by mainstream politicians when referring to Iraq is the clearest possible indication that basically they all think that America has the right to do this kind of thing.

In a rational world it would be incumbent on America to take responsibility to fix what it has broken. But, to its everlasting shame, not only does it clearly have no interest in doing so, its influence with the dominant factions in Iraq is so clearly damaged beyond repair that it probably could not accomplish meaningful rebuilding anyway.

Eventually some American troops will leave and the politicians will trumpet the fantasy that "we won", regardless of the reality on the ground.

Sickening, just sickening.

For my money Arthur Silber [http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/] is the only one who truly calls a spade a spade.

[croatoan]

We also definitively defeated Germany and Japan. I've read several reports that indicate that Iraq planned on post-invasion guerilla fighting before the war, so it's not clear that we ever won in Iraq. (I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we won the war but are losing the occupation.) A war's not over when we say it's over, it's over when we make the other guy say it's over. (And of course there's no one "other guy" in Iraq.)

[ezdidit]

I don't see any mention of the Saudi threat to back the Sunnis anywhere, but that is exactly what we are doing.

My friend Manny, who stands 5'1", told me how he managed to survive so well thus far: "If they're smaller than me, I beat 'em up. If they're bigger, I buy 'em off."

Amen to the surge. It's a no-sweat giveaway. We buy 'em off....clear-hold-build my ass.

[P J Evans]

mimikatz, I'm with you on this. We need to get out as fast as we can. We broke it, we have no way to fix it even if we had any idea of how to fix it, and there's going to be sectarian violence whether we're there or not - the Shi'a and the Sunni have a thousand years of practice at this: does anyone think they'll stop soon?

And people need to tell the folks in DC that all their talk about the 'war on terror' and 'fighting them there' is BS of the finest kind. Write to the talking heads and the newspapers and say so. Don't let them get away with claiming the public supports the war/occupation.

Start taking pitchforks (or spading forks, or even shovels) and tiki torches to demonstrations. All the demonstrations, everywhere. (H*ll, placards of pitchforks and torches, even.)

[oldtree]

We, the reasonably rational, can continue talking about it, but the obvious conclusion is the oil is running out, and we are going to be there to make sure about what is left. what the hell is would make everyone in the congress to let a psychopath child to as it pleases. Are they concerned that he is going to send them out in the corn field?
instead of doing anything to protect the country, they have sold us out to the arab terrorists that they claim we are fighting. I am not so stupid as to believe anything my government says any longer. they have said nothing but BS for so long now, it isn't possible for them to tell the truth about how they have mangled the world into their image

[ab initio]

Mimikatz, an excellent post.

IMO, Iraq's myriad factions will inevitably fight to determine who gains power. It seems the "stay-the-course" crowd including Bush-Cheney, the Republicans and many Dems prefer this since they don't have to make a decision and can kick the can down the road, while hundreds more American soldiers die and many more thousands Iraqis perish or get displaced.

Those that oppose the withdraw now strategy use the canard that there would be genocide if American military forces leave. Despite being in "power" the Shia factions have not been able to stop the myriad Sunni insurgents. Its much more likely,IMO,that the Shia factions and the Sunni factions will realize that they cannot defeat each other entirely and that there would always be an insurgency unless there is political reconciliation. That will happen in earnest only when American forces leave. There is no way it will happen as long as the US military is in the middle of a factional and sectarian civil war, since it has not happened after all these years of occupation. There is no incentive to compromise on the part of the Shia factions since they have defacto "power" right now.

The leave a residual force camp like Hillary, Obama, et al are IMO delusional. If a larger force right now is under constant attack and cannot dominate any section of Iraq how would a smaller force protect itself? If they are garrisoned in those large "permanent" bases - its only a matter of time until those bases and the land supply chain from Kuwait get attacked. Militarily its incredibly dumb - exposing the smaller force to increased danger. So, would that mean the withdrawn US forces would be replaced by mercenaries to provide force protection?

Inevitably, the US will have to withdraw entirely from Iraq - unless all the Iraqi factions agree, which will never happen since there is so much water under the bridge and too many that hate the Americans for what they have done to their families and tribes. Better to withdraw now than later since the outcome will be the same. Or to use Kerry's words - how do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?

[Paul in LA]

"Nixon and Kissinger had concluded that the war could not be won; what I said was correct."

They intended to bomb N. Vietnam after the midterms. They also considered using nuclear weapons. Do you REALLY think that Kissinger cared or cares about 'winning' or 'losing' in Vietnam? His attitude is entirely genocidal -- BIG STICK -- like his blood brother Podhoretz.

"Congress actually never cut off funding for the war as such--in their final bill they limited the amount of money that could be spent on the country to shore up the South Viet government after the troops pulled out. Nixon and Kissinger were elated to get as much as they got."

I am refering to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, signed on 30 Dec 1974, which provided a limit of $3 million to any foreign gov't -- which was totally insufficient to prop up the SV gov't.

Nixon had resigned and been pardoned by that time. If Nixon and Kissinger were elated, you would have had to have a magnifying glass to see it through the sweat.

"the military never planned to stay longer than a year, so had no strategy." --Mimikatz

That's HILARIOUS. The military knew from the start that they were to install major airbases and stay in Iraq FOREVER.

"As the insurgency unfolded, we made one mistake after another,

They have made NO mistakes. It has been a flawless execution of an entirely ILLEGAL policy. And when Bushco failed to guard the tens of thousands of tons of high-explosives and munitions distributed to looting hostiles after the invasion, the genocide was ARMED.

[Paul in LA]

"If they are garrisoned in those large "permanent" bases - its only a matter of time until those bases and the land supply chain from Kuwait get attacked."

WHAT land supply? All four major permanent bases are large enough to land C-5As without risk of being shot down by shoulder-fired missiles.

Inevitably, the US will have to withdraw entirely from Iraq - unless all the Iraqi factions agree," --ab initio

The policy is GENOCIDE. As Kissinger was overheard saying to his Saudi clients in early 2004: "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories."

An attack on Iran is imminent, and with a theater war underway, the FORMER-Iraq airbases and the 120 acre armored Citadel will be under intensive use. That's been their policy -- whether or not they are still able to carry it out -- and the head-buriers around here are still squeaking about 'mistakes.' It would be funny, if it wasn't possibly the end of the world.

[Paul in LA]

"David Kay, the former chief US weapons inspector said that looting was so bad during the fall of 2003 that Iraqis were going in at night individually and in trucks. “There were just not enough boots on the ground, and the military didn’t give it a high enough priority to stop the looting. Tens of thousands of tons of ammunition were being looted, and that is what is fueling the insurgency.”7 The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) confirmed Kay’s account and in a 9 November 2003 DIA report, noted the vast majority of explosives and ordnance used in anti- coalition improvised explosive devices have come from pilfered Iraqi ammunition stockpiles and prewar established caches.”

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil72.pdf (Klingelhoefer Report)

• We know that Al-Qaqaa's high-explosives are GONE, and Klingelhoefer notes that "“The munitions at Al Qaqaa were at most around 0.06 percent of the total" in Iraq, much of which was also looted.

Focus on one tiny part of that less than 1% of high-explosives: 8.4 metric tons of PETN, the stuff that Richard Reid tried to blow up in his shoes, and the stuff that ONE POUND of which blew up the Lockerbie airliner.

Bushco by FAILING TO GUARD supposedly "Captured Enemy Ammunition" released enough PETN from Al-Qaqaa alone to blow up 16,000 airliners.

People who are focusing on the insurgency will know how many explosions are in Iraq each day (hundreds, nearly 1,000 on some days). Explosions throughout the region are also presumably being fueled by that looted munitions.

This was not a mistake. The head of the IAEA himself contacted Rumsfeld to warn him about guarding Al-Qaqaa, and especially the 274 metric tons of HMX, the top-of-the-line dual-use high-explosive. Rumsfeld wasn't interested -- why should he be? The IEDs blowing up our troops is just the cost of setting up a GENOCIDE.

Dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of half-strength uranium on Iraq is also an act of genocide, and a violation of the Hague Conventions (which bar use of poison munitions). Future children in the region will be receiving their dose of uranium, which preferentially replaces calcium in their growing bones, and that poison will remain buried in their bones to cause leukemia and other cancers.

Getting real about what is really going on is the KEY to having any grasp of what we're up against. Even if we leave Iraq, those uranium poisons will be there FOREVER. Even if we leave, those high-explosives will be blowing people up in the region for 50 years at least.

• The mercenary squads Bushco has created are now one of America's main enemies. Bushco is trying to put private military bases around America (Blackwater) -- and in California, the governor (by illegal elections) has offered them a no-bid contract to 'help out' after an emergency -- presumably because our National Guard was blown away in Baghdad.