RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Time for Somber Reflection, Then Action

By SusanUnPC on September 21, 2007 at 2:30 AM in Bush/Cheney, Current Affairs, Iraq

The following, which reflects the deeply knowledgeable views of Thomas Ricks, Washington Post reporter and author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, left me somber and sad. It’s been on my mind, that we’ll be in Iraq for many years. And that, no matter what presidential candidates may promise, they won’t be able to get out fast. (It never works like that anyway.) I’ve felt like shrugging and resigning myself to it. Yet, Thomas Ricks calls on us to act, and so we must.

Ricks of ‘Wash Post’: U.S. May Still Be at War in Iraq 15 Years from Now

Even in a time of growing pessimism over the prospects of disengaging from Iraq — and on a day when the U.S. Senate turned backed another serious effort to do that – the comments from Thomas Ricks, military reporter at The Washington Post, on Tavis Smiley’s PBS interview show last night were startling.

[Ricks suggested] that in some ways Gen. Davis Petraeus’s recent report on the “surge” left much to be desired. Then … he remarked that President Bush’s current strategy was simply to make sure there are at least 100,000 troops left in Iraq when he leaves office in January 2009. Further, Ricks said he wouldn’t be surprised if “we are still fighting in Iraq” when the next president’s term ends.

Smiley, perhaps not believing his ears, asked if he meant the next president’s first term or possibly his second? Ricks said it could be the latter.

Then Ricks added that he had been watching kids in kindergarten going off to school lately and the thought occurred to him that they might very well be fighting in Iraq “when they grow up.”

The Editor & Publisher staff — what an important conduit they are for the important news — then explored a recent online Q&A with Ricks, and found this:

Ricks replied to a question about antiwar Americans feeling helpless this way: “This sense of despair worries me. I was on tour last month for the publication of the paperback edition of ‘Fiasco’ and as I gave talks and readings from Massachusetts to Texas to California I was struck by how many expressed this sense that they hate this situation but feel they can’t do anything about it.

“I would say that however you feel about the war, you can have an effect. Talk to your member of Congress. Write letters to the editor of your newspaper. Speak up. Iraq isn’t going to go away anytime soon, so the participation of American citizens could help the situation.”

I hope so.

:::::::::

Note: I first learned of the E&P story by reading McJoan’s “Thomas Ricks on Endless War” tonight.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    Greenspan admitted publicly what many were afraid to say: The war was about the oil. Therefore, we’ll stay in Iraq as long as we need to in order to protect the US and British oil companies’ exclusive right to exploit Iraq’s oil.

    It’s hard to walk down a street and look at all the gas-guzzling SUVs and Humvees on our roads, which are being driven by people who will never think twice about how many people died to maintain their lifestyle.

    • Shirin

      Leslie, it is not about getting oil for people’s SUV’s, it is about gaining control of the oil as a tool of world dominance.

      • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

        Shirin,
        In the 2nd paragraph, I wasn’t referring to the Bushies, but the people on the street.

        • Shirin

          I know, Leslie. And it sounded as if you were saying that people had died to get oil to make into gasoline to fuel their lifestyle. Therefore, I pointed out that it is not about getting oil for American SUV’s, but getting control of the oil as a means of world domination. I don’t think the neocon’s give a damn about the lifestyle of the SUV drivers.

          • Leslie

            No Shirin,
            What I’m saying is that many people in America don’t follow the news closely enough to know why we’re in Iraq and they don’t care. Most Americans don’t have family members risking their lives in Iraq. The only sacrifice they’ve been asked to make is to go shopping.

            • Shirin

              Well, I agree with you there. So, perhaps you misspoke when you implied that people have died in Iraq to maintain the lifestyle of those blind, deaf, and dumb SUV-driving shoppers. :o }

  • Sandy

    “Bush’s wars are about American hegemony, not oil. The oil companies did not write the neoconservatives’ “Project for a New American Century,” which calls for US/Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East, a hegemony that would conveniently remove obstacles to Israeli territorial expansion.

    The oil industry asserted its influence after the invasion. In his book, Armed Madhouse, BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast documents that the US oil industry’s interest in Middle Eastern oil is very different from grabbing the oil. Palast shows that the American oil companies’ interests coincide with OPEC’s. The oil companies want a controlled flow of oil that results in steady and high prices. Consequently, the US oil industry blocked the neoconservative plan, hatched at the Heritage Foundation and aimed at Saudi Arabia, to use Iraqi oil to bust up OPEC.

    Saddam got in trouble because one moment he would cut production to support the Palestinians and the next moment he would pump the maximum allowed. Up and down movements in prices are destabilizing events for the oil industry. Palast reports that a Council on Foreign Relations report concludes: Saddam is a “destabilizing influence . . . to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East….” (clip)

    September 20, 2007
    http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts09202007.html

    Greenspan and the Economy of Greed
    As the Empire Slips

    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    • Shirin

      Sandy, I do not agree with Greg Palast’s analysis here. (Disclosure: I am not a fan of Palast, who has a tendency to exaggerate to the point of distortion what serves his argument and ignore whatever calls it into question. I also do not care for his hyperbolic style of reporting. I do not find that it adds to his credibility.)

      In fact, there is ample evidence that oil was a major factor in the decision to invade and take over Iraq.
      And it is not about keeping the price of oil high any more than it is about obtaining oil to maintain Americans’ lifestyle. It is not about corporate profits – that is just a nice side effect. It is about much, much more than that. It is about controlling the supply of the world’s single most essential resource. He who controls the oil controls the world.

      • lidia

        Yes, Europe, Japan and China all depend more or less on the ME oil. USA imperialism needs to be able to control ME oil against its economical and political rivals. And it needs to control Russian’ one as well, because of it USA rulers loved drunk scounderl Elzin and hate Putin.

  • Mart

    The same thought occurred to me after seeing a Saturday afternoon of football interspersed with very slick military recruiting ads. A cousin was recently baited into re-enlisting with a cash carrot – a 41 year-old with 2 kids who may end up in the same fiasco. His reasoning was the money would fix many of his problems and help his family.

    As time flows Congress seems to be more of a sideshow of scandals and sexcapades, while Dark Lord Cheney rules the world atop the Pentagon.

  • Thinker

    I’ve been saying this all along. Though this “war” is about many things, the motivation for US troop involvement is the protection of National Asset – oil. Humanitarians can go hang – regardless of the spin.

    But remember Saddam was being prosecuted by the American Corporations (Bush & co – Zapata) for daring to nationalise the oil industry.

    And there is still the looming Israel versus the entire Middle East gunfight at the OK Corale just waiting to happen.

    Let’s face it, oil will eventually run out so the World, or rather the hallowed corporate community is faced with some harsh choices in the future. I think oil is in place because there is a general reluctance to fix something that isn’t broken – even though it is broken.

    But Susan, and thankyou for your article, why stop at 15 years, why not 50 years. Or, why not forever. If the headline read, Iraq may occupy the USA for 15 years, people may look at it in shock. Though Shirin might protest that I am devaluing the state of Iraq by what I say, I will make this suggestion anyway. Hasn’t the USA also been occupied by Iraqis and other muslim peoples who have had the opportunity to gain political members who have had the effect of ammending or producing new laws. Granted, the choice of a national facing the barrel of a gun seems rather more stark than those who are trusted to follow the law of the land. But even in the most accute situations the people will only pay lip service to laws that they don’t intend to follow.

    The deeper question is this. Does anyone have the right (God given) to possess anything and if so why? It seems to me that sovereignty is the very start and end of the problem. If you remove national identity then everything becomes fair as noone can plunder…in the name of….

    They can only plunder because they are tyrants.

  • mudkitty

    A quagmire by definition…

    But since the Bushies broke it, let’s not pretend they are qualified to fix it.

    As for Iran, the Bushies have lied time and time again. Why should anyone believe them now?

  • RussGirl

    OIL IS MUCH TOO IMPORTANT A COMMODITY TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS.” ~Henry Kissinger

    “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” ~Henry Kissinger

    “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy..” Henry Kissinger
    —————–
    AMERICA’s problem = people who had the power to change things during NIXON – DID NOT. The RATS plotted and festered, the CANCER SPREAD.

  • Linda

    Of course a war of colonial subjugation is going to go on for decades. No matter how much the US beats down a country (and with Iraq, they had the first Gulf war and 12 years of sanctions), people still want self determination. They also want to control their own oil which is the main bone of contention no matter what anyone says.

    The war will go on forever also, because niether of the two corporate parties want it to end. None of these laws the democrats are trying to pass would end the war and they refuse to do the one thing they could do to stop it (cut the funding).

    I heard Pelosi lie on a talk show this morning. She said that even if they cut the funding, there was enough money to carry them to the end of next year (which may be true) and that the senate wouldn’t allow their no funding bill. The way she stumbled when saying this made it obvious that she knew she was lying. The senate could do nothing if the democrats in the house refused to allow a bill out of committee.

    I have also heard that the oil companies were opposed to the methods of neo cons (but not the goal). Destroying secularism, manipulating religious groups (who are so eager to collaborate) and then arming both sides may hinder a national liberation movement in Iraq but it also creates a lot of chaos and volitility in oil supplies. Another thing it may end up doing is endangering the Dollar’s position as a reserve currency – something we are beginning to see the effects of now.

  • Pingback: www.hikingforyou.info » Time for Somber Reflection, Then Action

  • http://buying-wholesale-cars.opelfam.cn/mazda-tribute-2001-front-door-lock.html Makis

    Nice