RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Why John Murtha is Right!

by
Larry C. Johnson

John Murtha’s courageous call for American troops to leave Iraq is the right policy at the right time. The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha’s patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a bronze star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.

The situation in Iraq is clear. The United States does not have enough troops on the ground to contain and destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters. These groups represent a spectrum of beliefs ranging from secular nationalists to hard core jihadists. The only thing they agree on is that they hate the invader; which is us.

To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple–either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.

How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optomistic scenario).

In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don’t think so.

Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents. But our kill capture effort is producing a blowback–Iraqis who are incarcerated and the surviving relatives of those killed respond to our effort by joining the insurgents. Instead of reducing the insurgency our efforts are providing a catalyst that recruits new insurgents faster than we can kill them.

There also is no doubt that our efforts are providing a recruiting poster for jihadists. Last year, for example, the number of terrorist attacks that resulted in people being killed and wounded was the highest number ever recorded since the CIA started keeping statistics in 1968. The Al Qaeda groups have reduced the planning time required for mass casualty attacks. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda carried out such attacks every 18 months. Now, they are able to mount operations in only three or four months. The trend line is going in the wrong direction

I see no political will on the part of the American public to accept a draft and to accept 90,000 casualties during the next four years. The elections in December will not produce a political outcome that will persuade the various insurgents to lay down their weapons and focus their energies on political debate in a legislature and in newspapers.

Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents. Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran. The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?

We have two key long term strategic interests. First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constiturion enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife. Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists. Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations. The Beatles had it right–we can get by with some help from our friends.

Given these facts, John Murtha is right. We must withdraw, sooner rather than later, from Iraq. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam. Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world. John Murtha and Chuck Hagel are patriots who understand this dilemma. We have lit a fuze on the next generation of jihadist terrorism. We must douse the fuze with water, and put it out sooner rather than later.

  • Mr.Murder

    “The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha’s patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a silver star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.”

    The entire premise of the initial war resolution was flawed in that it asked America to expect wise use of force from two men who never learned such discipline.

    “The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters.”

    Very conservative estimate there.
    “Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents.”

    Killed on suspiscion, so much for due process…
    “Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents.”

    Hmmmm. We did this and the secular person was named Saddam.
    “Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran.”

    We’ve done so already. One really thinks when there are Americans on Holy Soil they’d blow up each other’s Mosques instead of attack the Outsiders?

    “The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?”

    The actual neocon agenda is to wedge all of Muslim faith in this by forcing the Sunni and Shi’ia to fight until it fractures the varying schools of belief entirely.

    Think of it of Catholics v. Protestants, redux.
    “First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constiturion enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife.”

    Well some of us want to promote secular society, not the GOP.

    “Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists.”

    Have to argue there. The initial idea was to protect our interests there but by bringing these in we lose influence logistically and by proximity. The original war in Iraq was the result of planning against Russia where we’d be welcome as liberators against the totalitarian atheist Communists. We never had to plan for occupation it was assumed we’d be welcomed under the umbrella of Abraham’s bodies of Faith against the Atheist infidels…

    Perhaps the red flag rallies indicate they’re wanted there more. Along the lines of perhaps nationalized assets like oil… seems like we didn’t want this at one time.

    “Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations.”
    John Kerry-like, wonkish statements that will be sure to draw 9-11 comparisons… agreed this should have been the claim from the start but we’ve lost the moral high ground…

    “Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world.”

    They’re attacking businesses- see also Jordan. The worm’s about to turn on Bush when business realizes the price it must pay.

    But we’re training terrori- errr, Iraqi army in Europe where they’re sure to learn ways to blend in there and assimilate before staging ops for or against…

    There’s no easy solution. Why not be Libertarians, withdraw and let Iraq develop a market economy of scale that decides the outcome for itself?

    What kind of water to douse these fires? How many of Arab allies practice true democracy? Not the Saudis…

    The best strategic objective would be to bring Turkey into the EU, repatriate Kurds in a three state solution, and peg assistance by the world community to the assimilation of Sunni rights with the remaining portion. The Kurds of course seems to be a group we’d most likely claim as secular or distinct (aside from Chalabi).

    They’re less likely to go after us, more likely to subvert Iran. We want to supply some of them, yes?

    Unfortunately the seeds of retribution will grow out to branches.

    A confederated republic is the hope. Enough EU work via Turkey to stabilize the Kurds on a fast track in harmony.

    If we can one sovereign and secure state from the three wounded demographics, it’s a start.

    Then again the entire nation is a Holy Land ready for pilgramge from around the Muslim arc of influence. New generations can rebuild the legacy and recount how Westerners were such a threat to it.

    That is a win-win solution?

    Oh, what if we draw down to staging points and decide to invade Iran or Syria from there instead?
    We need to change who is at the wheel if we are to expect any deployment in the MidEast to be welcome.

  • Pingback: Duplex Dude

  • http://atotallysecularmohammad.blogspot.com/ Mac Nayeri

    In the interests of full disclosure, I have never picked up a weapon of any kind or served under any uniform, but I do have extensive experience in MidEast affairs, both academic and professional including a stint in DC with an unnamed agency.

    The point is while Representative Murtha is clearly an expert on military affairs, we are in too deep to simply withdraw when withdrawal itself may precipitate the fissuring of Iraq. I respect his opinion but only wish he spoke up in 2001/2. It was clear to me (and many others, General Shinseki) then that we would be in a situation similiar to that we find ourselves in today.
    Here is calculus of risk as I see it now:

    “the burden of adding substantially more troops(nominal) versus the probabiltiy of the country’s falling apart if we don’t(extreme) versus the magnitude of the harm to broader US interests if it does splinter(far reaching)”

    I am not defending the administration – my concern first and foremost is the viability of the Pax Americana.

    Peace

  • EasyRider

    John Murtha may also be concerned that Bush and crew may use the troop in country to attack Syria and Iran. These attacks would be for political gains and not national security just as the attack on Iraq was.

    If we remove the troops from the area Bush would have no toy to play with his hollow leadership.

    Yes, begin planning the return of the troops and how to rebuild our miltiary. It is about time time to shine a powerful light up this administration’s ass and it is best that we do it while they are not screwing our troops.

  • glasnost counterthought

    Someone picked up this argument and broadcasted it on dailykos recently. I have some experience in thinking along the lines of this argument, but I don’t agree that 400K troops would do the trick.

    Can you cite an example of a counter-insurgency campaign successfully won by a western democracy since WWII? I can think of very few, and the losers outnumber the winners by vast margins.

    The truth is that all the solutions were bad. They were bad on 9/11, and they are still bad. However, by invading Iraq in response to 9/11, we have fulfilled Bin Laden’s wildest hopes and dreams. Terrorists crave confrontation and they crave punishment, especially collective. You are exactly right in assessing this war’s effect on recruiting, passive and financial support, and training/organization for mideast badguys. The last thing we should have done post 9-11 was start a general war in the middle east. We can’t control that environment anymore than we can control the world.

    We did have a failed paradigm in the Middle East and it need radical action to change, but the best thing to do would have to have rapidly ended all military and financial support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab dictatorships that did not agree to radical changes. There’d have been chaos in the mideast, just like now, but we would not have been blamed by the street.

    Which leads to the conclusion of my argument: I don’t think 400K troops would beat the insurgency. You might see a downturn in our casualty rate, maybe, but contain is the best you can expect in the current regional climate. However, you would definitely create a polarized and repressed populace government and create a power-drunk, american-backed iraqi government that would go on to create a pro-american dictatorship of the same sort that got us in this situation in the first place.

    Bad, bad, bad bad news.

    So, I also disagree with your emphasis on secularism. Again, you’re swimming upstream. Ayatollah Sistani is just fine. Some important people in Iraq have learned from Iran and don’t want to be like that. That’s the key to the whole thing- letting people learn from their own mistakes.

    State-sponsored religion has failed and will fail in the end. It’s already failed culturally in Iran, though the government may not fall immediately. We should indeed use agressive law-enforcement /CIA methods to take out anyone with an interest in going overseas to kill americans. Other than that, we should just leave the place the hell alone, support whoever the population of Iraq supports.

    It’s vastly unlikely they’ll agree on someone without bloodletting, but our presence and use of force does not improve the odds.

  • Bill Arnett

    This is a great site, but I think the depth and breadth of Bush’s lies have not even begun to be exposed or understood. He is in Iraq for oil, has added that to the list of reasons for which we cannot leave, and I believe he NEVER intended to do anything else BUT gain control of the oil fields.

    Why else is Ahmed Chalabi still being feted by all the neocons? He’s promising to deliver the oil.

  • Mr.Murder

    Ahmed is extoritng COngress during the budget appropriations debate… lots of eople swallowed in DC.

    Republicans are all wearing the blue dress, you too mcCain.

    There are better odds that it works if we leave than if we stay.

    Our presence creates hgostility, no government can claim legitimacy as such.

    The closest comparison we have in the modern era to an event where we were feared to this extent was Nicaraugua/Guatemala.

    We left, elements of both sides saw through to peace because they were tired of warfare.

    Negroponte is the person who accompanied the timeline of Mosque carbombs. He is a false falg subtrefuge profile and the country has erupted more so since that course of action was undertaken.

    We feared a union of Shi’ia and Sunni, so Negroponte put the screws to it.

    We stropped a united effort against us, now they hate each other and us. The claim that we stay until violence cedes is a red herring, it will always be there with outside presence.

    The difference with Bosnia-Kosovo? Well defined goals, boundaries, objectives, and rules of engagement. Competent leadership in the Ranks working closely with diplomatic powerbrokers.

    The combination was able to sustain dialog with little in the form of casualties, and minimized collateral damage.

    Get Turkey within the EU, start a repatriation process with the Kurds, establish a secure northern border on their behalf to the point we don’t lose influence to the rpesence of Russia/China.

    Turkey will get financial leverage(their leader already proved bribe worthy).
    Kurds will get theirs. We gain an ally on Iran’s border for the next phase(admit that it’s coming this war created it).

    The Sunni and Shi’ia will work theirs out, they have more similarities than difference. ‘Commonality’ as it were, being they have to develop a new national identity.

    The Kurds will part of the new paradigm. We still have a base in Turkey and assistance there will facilitate our mideast presence like the neocons/PNAC long argued.

    The Turks joining into the EU could let NATO work true leverage into the region and put theregion on a fast track for infrastructure and underwriting capital.

    The only other solution would be a confederated republic with two Kurd regions, one Sunni, and three Shi’ite to trhe point the Kurds and Sunni work together to maintain a tie with the Shi’ia and learn to forge working relationships as a whole.

    Three state solution worked in Southeast Europe, similar circumstance.

    Three states within one as a republic may well work too. Of course it would mean a return of the republican guard in some form but we knew that all along.

  • Mr.Murder

    Final note, the subcontract work sets up parallel interests who are outside Geneva’s scope and beyond the control of the Intelligence Community, thinking any results there will ever lead to a stable peace and an end to terror is to be ignorant of the motive that led to these events with the gov’t backing of transnationals.

    It happened in Iran, it will happen in Iraq.

    This time let’s get the American face off it and let things run their course.

    The demand will create a supply need for business. Iran never had a stone thrown at IBM , its building perched two blocks away from the embassy. Nobody protested IBM because you can always follow the money and a place giving a fair shake will get the same treatment. Their Asian headquarters was in Tehran during the hostage crisis.

    Then again expecting fairness out of neocons in any matter is a red herring. They oppose fair elections, fair taxation, fair transparency, fair discourse, fair Constitutional process.

    Why should we expect them to create fair business background to develop stability on the world stage?

    Not enough money in it for them. See also Abramoff.

  • http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/ Cernig

    Hi Larry,

    Have you seen William Lind’s strategy for withdrawal? Makes a lot of sense – and from a rightwinger, even. Lind, mind you, is one of the world’s greatest experts on counter-insurgency warfare. He literally wrote the book.

    I’ve a post up here:

    http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/11/william-s-linds-iraq-exit-strategy.html

    Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

  • Ryan

    “Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months.”

    Unless things have changed since I was in, I believe that “six months” should read “six weeks.” The idiots out there will take a minor typo and make a mountain out of a molehill.

  • John Howley

    As Murtha explained and as amplified here, our nation faces a stark choice: Withdraw over the next six months and preserve some semblance of an army. Stay the course and in twelve months there will be no functional U.S. Army. It seems to me to be a simple, stark and clear choice that touches clearly on the safety and security of our nation. However, what troubles me the most is that our collective decision-making process, our political system, seems completely unable to handle it. This bodes poorly for the future.

  • http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/ Cernig

    The curent administration has Field Marshall Haig Syndrome

    -C

  • http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com/ Drew

    Clearly, the Bush administration and in particular, the neo-conservatives, have plans for the military beyond just Iraq. Iraq gives them a central base of operations from which to intimidate and potentially attack surrounding regimes in countries such as Iran and Syria. To bring the troops home would completely unravel their grand plans, and I don’t think they’re going to give in so easily.

    Rep. Murtha’s points are well-taken. Either implement a strategy to win the conflict in quick fashion or get the hell out. We didn’t do that in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

    But I go back to the neo-con agenda, which isn’t to win quickly and get out. They have no intentions of leaving the area militarily. In fact, a quagmire, per se, suits their aims as well as anything, along with a President and Vice President who bait their own constituents – the American people – with the “Americans don’t run and hide” or “Americans don’t give up” propaganda. Consequently, we’re forced to remain indefinitely.

    We have to come to the realization that this is not, in fact, a war. It is mind games. And the neo-cons must control the minds of Americans in order to effect their grand vision for the Middle East… and the world. The attacks of 9/11 happened for a reason. Never underestimate that.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/CCK/ Sometime-CIA-Defender

    While I wouldn’t charge the neocons with orchestrating 911, it certainly helped their cause. Otherwise I agree with what Drew said. Turn the Middle East into a boiling cauldron as Ledeen called for, that’s the plan. Dems like Murtha are getting in the way of that, so now he’ll be investigated for nepotism.

  • Anthony Scott

    The sickening attempts by Bush and Chenney to deflect the proper opprobrium due them concerning the dishonest way their administration took the country to war should be seen for what it is – a vicious, desperate attempt to escape responsibility for this terrible war. These two characters would have Americans believe that Bill Clinton, the C.I.A. & democrats in general were responsible for the decision to go to war. Only one man can make the decision to go to war (unless Georgieboy deferred to Uncle Dicky) and that is the President. Their contempt for the American people is such, that in the face of overwhelming evidence that the intelligence concerning pre-war Iraq was at best manipulated, at worst fabricated, they believe a few staged managed hissy fits should quiet any further questioning. Quoting statements from members of past administrations or timorous democrats like Jay Rockefeller won’t make the awful truth go away. The United States was taken to war based on a series of lies propagated by virtually every member of the Bush administration. The lies are too many to list but here are a few examples of their perfidy: Only the Bush administration, the neo-cons and a small circle of Brits promoted the belief that Iraq was an imminent strategic threat that needed to be invaded and occupied in order to avert nuclear, biological or chemical calamity from befalling America. Only the Bush administration forecasted that the Iraqi gambit would be a cakewalk.( Brave young Soldiers are dying on their 3rd tour of duty in a war that Dick Chenney predicted would last only six months) Only the Bush administration claimed the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq could be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. ($200,000,000,000 and counting) The Bush administration willfully transmogrified an ongoing (but contained) strategic concern relating to Iraq into an imminent threat to the United States not for the stated purposes- The eradication of weapons of mass destruction but to fulfill their warped vision of the middle east. Now we are confronted with the dystopian reality that is occupied Iraq and the instigators of this mess blanch and yelp in mock indignation at the notion that honest criticism should come their way.

    Now, it is an ugly truth that many democrats lacked the courage to challenge the administration as they rushed headlong into disaster. The tsunami of baseless propaganda, the attendant war fever and the powerful memories of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 made opposition to going to war with Iraq a difficult proposition. Those who did so had their patriotism questioned in the vilest of fashion. Fearing a political backlash and desperately buying into the illusion that the Bush administration would precede responsibly once given the authority to go to war, many democrats ceded their authority as an opposition party. The real tragedy is that the very evidence now cited as proof that the Bush administration employed innuendo, half truths and outright lies to take the country to war was readily available for use in a proper debate for anyone with enough courage to do so. Individuals ( Risking or even abandoning their careers) throughout the Intelligence community did their level best to propose countervailing deductions concerning the raw intelligence at hand that debunked the wild assertion that were being made by the proponents of the war. We are now painfully aware, that they were correct. Nowhere, not on Capital Hill, not in the print media and certainly not by those sniveling idiots in the Cable news business was there a good faith effort to balance the debate concerning pre-war intelligence. The war became a fait accompli.

    2 ½ years on, over 2,000 dead, over 15,000 wounded and no end in sight, the Bush administration has the temerity to demand a form of blind obsequiousness from not just the members of their own party but democrats and the totality of the citizenry as well. Stark reality and latent courage on the part of the democrats( and some republicans) hopefully won’t allow this pernicious conceit to stand. Now, as before the war, anyone who rises to voice opposition to the “ Stay the course” mentality is once again having their courage and patriotism questioned. One need only witness the attack on John Mirtha( a decorated marine) by that harridan, Jean Schmidtt(sic?) in the service of Dick( Draft deferment Dickie) Chenney to understand the pathological nature of the administrations orchestrated responses to legitimate criticism. These vile attacks must not deter those who have a clear eyed assessment of what Iraq has become and have the courage to think anew about how to extricate ourselves from this quagmire. America’s credibility in the world and more importantly the lives of the men and women serving in Iraq depend on it.

  • A. Citizen

    Same exact goddamn arguments this nation went through with the Vietnam war. Same words, same theories, remember the domino theory. All bullshit, total bullshit. Folks, America is involved in an illegal war against a country that never attacked us. Any argument which results in our armed forces spending a millisecond more in Iraq that absolutely necessary is the argument of a war criminal. Rep. Murtha is right on every point he raised in his speech; the first words of sanity heard on the Hill since the criminal Rumsfeld and Cheney took over.

    Immediate withdrawal followed by massive reparations paid directly to the Iraqis is the only honorable course of action. It has the simultaneous benefit of being an effective course of action to attempt to bring peace to Iraq.

    Yes, we broke it and we need to fix it. But we cannot fix it by staying in country and continuing to break it.

  • Mike

    “…when you have a purple heart and a bronze star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.”

    I don’t agree with it, but these tactics seemed pretty effective in the last election.

  • searp

    The current conventional wisdom is that we have to stay some amount of time to be “responsible”.

    I believe we ought to leave immediately, because we are not and cannot really have an impact on the underlying conflict.

    The proper analogy is Bosnia. There are 3 primary groupings in Iraq jostling for power. We cannot do anything about this, whether we leave tomorrow or stay another 10 years. The groupings and the aspirations of those groupings won’t change.

    All we can do is ping-pong between the groups, who will support us to the extent we assist them in obtaining their goals.

    Admittedly, if we contemplate an indefinite presence, like South Korea, then over a few generations we may have an effect. The Iraqis themselves will never permit this, and I certainly wouldn’t support it.

  • http://atotallysecularmohammad.blogspot.com/ Mac Nayeri

    Did anyone see the Sunday morning talk shows?

    Not very inspiring to say the least.

    I think the mainstream media realize that the American people are coming to terms with the enormity of the debacle this government’s MidEast policy is and are doing a CYA action so that they can appear as if they were not the cheerleaders for war that they most definately were.
    Blitzer actually held their feet to the fire for a change, although it’s too little too late. I hope the public see’s the mainstream media for what they are – complicit.

    Peace

  • max

    the American people deserve a plan to win. Cheney is accusing others of not having a backbone.It’s already like Vietnam.

  • Granite State Destroyer

    There is the story of miners who use the “canary in the coalmine” to determine if there is gas and danger to the miners.

    I look at Murtha as the canary in the coalmine for the US military in Iraq.

    If something isn’t done soon, there will be an umitigated disaster. It appears that this is the cry that needs to be heard. Bush/Rove and Crumbsfeld are so stubborn that they are unwilling to change in order to save face.

    The hallmark of a great or good leader is the willingness to adapt and to be corrected by others if and when needed.

    The correcting better happen soon because the bus is heading for the cliff.

    Maybe Crumbsfeld can hire ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown as a consultant. He has experience with unmitigated disasters.

    -GSD

  • Deb in DC

    This is really the best site for political discussion concerning Iraq.

    Just a hearty thanks to Larry for your efforts.

    You don’t know how important and cleansing work is.

  • Dan

    So much has been written above and I agree with the bulk of it, but I have to get a few points off my own chest as well.

    First, as the son of a bronze star winner in WWII Pacific theater (Phillipines), what I find “reprehensible” is the attacks on decorated military veterans by those who did not serve at all, never mind actually win an honor for their service. We all know the list – McCain, Kerry, Murtha. Murtha certainly does not need me to say this, he said it himself in his response to Cheney’s comments, but I cannot resist.

    What conflicts me, however, as that I cannot support Murtha’s proposal. While I’m studying it and getting more comfortable with it, because he does not call for “immediate” withdrawal, but withdrawal as soon as “practical.” I guess it al depends on how we specifically define “practical.” I do fear what may happen to our interests at home and abroad if we let Iraq spiral further out of control by withdrawing prematurely. I am more supportive of McCain’s or Larry’s thoughts of 300-400k troops to truly take control of the country. If we’re going to occupy it, then let’s occupy it rather than playing “bonk the mole” in the insurgent hot spot of the day. However, the political will to that will never be there (draft, more casualties, more money, etc.) so I’m losing hope that that plan is practical.

    What conflicts me even more regarding the statements above is that I never supported the war (unlike certain members of Congress, I don’t have to admit mistakes and espouse “if I only knew then what I now” excuses), I don’t believe it was ever necessary and it detracted from true “war on terror” activities in and around Afghanistan. Now that we’ve created the mess, however, there are real implications to our national security if we don’t exit in a well-planned and organized fashion (that I still believe is less effective to our national security than a 300-400k troop force).

    So, I hate the fact that this unnecessary war that I was against forces me to take a position that we actually stay in Iraq longer with more troops, more death, and more debt. It also forces me to trust that these people who have botched every aspect of this war will somehow get it right even with more troops (we’ll be treated as liberators, we’ll pay for this with Iraqi oil, “Mission Accomplished” over two years ago, etc., etc.).

    If anyone is still reading this, you can see I’m arguing with myself and I hate this administration for it. We shouldn’t be there, never should have, and I have say we need to stay…maddening. Somebody help me out.

    And why is Chalabi, under investigation by the FBI, has his office raided and is accused of giving US secrets to Iran, and a convicted embezzler who would be doing hard time in Jordan if he ever set foot back there, allowed to meet with all of the administration higher ups, paraded out on every national media outlet, and no one says crap? Liberal media? If it were, there would have been shouts from the rooftops about this felon cavorting freely with our government officails and he wouldn’t have free reign on our airwaves.

    And last week Bush says we won’t leave until we have “victory.” Maybe I’m playing semantics games, but what’s the difference between “Mission Accomplished” and “victory.” Doesn’t Mission Accomplished at the very least insinuate victory was attained? Again, if we truly had a liberal media, he’d be skewered for making statements like this, and no one calls him on the obvious, blatant fact if we still are seeeking victory, we was dead wrong proclaiming Mission Accomplished. But admit a mistake? Can’t be done, which is why we’re doomed to be in Iraq forever with insufficient troop strength.

  • http://doublequotes.blogspot.com Charles Cameron

    Came here via John Robb’s blog, glad to find this place.

    >>> Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran.

  • Sandy

    http://afr.com/articles/2005/11/24/1132703276123.html

    Iraqis miss oil fortune: report
    Nov 24 ’05 AFP Australian Financial Review

    Up to $US194 billion ($263 billion) in Iraqi oil revenues are going to multinational oil companies under long-term contracts, and not to the Iraqi people, a social and environmental group said.

    In a report, the group known as Platform said that oil multinationals would be paid between $US74 billion and $US194 billion with rates of return of between 42 per cent and 162 per cent under proposed production-sharing agreements, or PSAs….

  • Sandy

    As Bill Arnett said:

    Louise Richards, chief executive of aid charity War on Want, said: “People have increasingly come to realise that the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder.”

    “Iraq’s oil profits, far from being used to alleviate some of the suffering the Iraqi people now face, are well within the sights of the oil multinationals.”

    The Carlyle Group?

  • Sandy