“We’re on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in an Associated Press interview. U.S. and Iraqi officials should be held accountable for the lack of progress, said Graham, a Republican who is a frequent critic of the administration’s policies.
[…] Facing growing impatience with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s failure to stem the carnage, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh said international forces must not abandon Iraq while the situation there remains volatile.
“I do believe there is no option for the international community to cut and run,” he told reporters after meeting Prime Minister Tony Blair in London. He said Iraqis and the international community need to be realistic, “but not defeatist.”
“We need to understand that there is a need of utmost urgency to deal with many of the problems of Iraq but we must not give in to panic,” he said.
Let’s be clear who is panicking here. If the US pulls out of Iraq, most would view it as, at long last, recognizing reality and cutting our losses. But for Barham Saleh and other members of Maliki’s government the stakes are entirely different. For those who participated in or materially aided the US occupation, when the Americans go their lives will be worth a half-soy latte at Starbucks. Panic is not too strong a word for those who don’t already have a place reserved on the last helicopter to leave the Green Zone.
BlogReeder
Surely you jest.
craigie
.
Can you get those in the Green Zone?
Rusty Shackleford
Wtf? When did the Iraqis start speaking from Republican talking points? They even made certain that Saleh didn’t say “stay the course”.
Didn’t we prop up a government in South Vietnam? How’d that turn out for us?
Tim F.
You’re not “most” anymore, blogreeder. People like you poll in the fringe of American opinion these days. Of course international opinion came to the right conclusion years ago, but odds are one in one that you think that international opinion doesn’t matter.
matt
International opinion is what it is because people don’t like America. I really hate this idea that Europe and the rest of the world are these reserved, wise, sages, shaking their heads in disapproval at us ignorant, bumbling Americas. The same folks who would urge us to recognize reality and cut or losses, will be the same folks happily quipping about how we couldn’t get the job done and had to get out. Sure, they might be right, but it’s on a technicality – they’re arrogant pricks, just like us.
Aaaaand for whatever reason, I sound like a Limbaugh rant this afternoon.
ThymeZone
We started (some of us started) talking about this over a year ago. We said that at the end of the day, the main imperative for our involvement in Iraq was meeting the responsibilities we created by going in there in the first place. This item today is one of those.
Then we said, how does this Potemkin government in the US, having lost the confidence of the people, having lied and bulshitted its way into this mess, get the time it needs to meet these responsibilities? There was no good answer forthcoming.
What we got instead was the usual round of “aiding the terrorists,” “stay until victory,” “bush-haters!” crap that we’ve become so familiar with. I stuck the question directly in front of John Cole and got silence. In front of the BJ righties, and got either silence or hoots of derision.
So here we are, flat up against those very questions, just as predicted. And still the chest-thumpers have no answer other than the same derisive and insane crap we’ve heard now for three years whenever reality intruded into their delusions.
You know what? I don’t care what they think about this any more. It’s time to do what is right. If that means rescuing the people we’ve put into harm’s way then let’s start rescuing them and prepare to get the hell out of there. Every month that we delay is just going to cost more American lives, so let’s be damned sure that those lives are being put in danger for a good reason.
Punchy
You really need to either stop comparing costs to things at Starbucks, or own up to being a closet barista. As for leaving the Green Zone via chopper, I’m guessing that would be wicked risky. RPGs and all that jazz.
ThymeZone
No, they are minding their own interests, which is what all sovereign states are supposed to do. And what we do.
mds
I know, I know, I’m stealing from Atrios and Professor DeLong, but: the Cossacks work for the Czar, Senator Graham. Blaming “generals” smacks of that immortal GOP motto, “The Buck Stops Over There.”
Oh, and thanks for annihilating habeas and gutting the Geneva Conventions, you contemptible turd. Wait, is that incivil?
Pb
Glenn Greenwald is on it! :)
BlogReeder
Actually I was emphasizing the last part of the quote. “..recognizing reality and cutting our losses”. No, I think most people will see it as a defeat. Iraq =Vietnam.
Hasn’t this been what you have been saying all along? Which of course you alluded to with the comment “the last helicopter out” If that is not a defeatist attitude, I don’t know what is.
Of course you could have said “When we pull all our troops out and hopefully leave Iraq secured.” or something like that. But no, you jumped right in to how Iraq will fall into chaos. Maybe I’m just reading you wrong.
ThymeZone
If that were doable, and a plan for doing it on the table, we would be HAVING this conversation.
Cut the crap.
John D.
Um, “cutting your losses” is usually viewed as defeat. Here’s a fun exercise: Define any sort of victory that is achievable by the USA in this situation. Not “we have to win”. Goals. Specific goals, and a strategy to get us there.
It is not defeatist to recognize that we lack the manpower to overcome this insurgency short of total annihilation of the populace. It is not defeatist to acknowledge that we cannot identify who is an insurgent and who is not at a glance.
It is realistic.
More to the point, it is NECESSARY.
Now, if you can define victory and provide a useable strategy to achieve victory, I’ll retract the above comments. I won’t be holding my breath, however.
p.lukasiak
it really gauls me when Rethuglicans criticize the Iraqi government because it was Bushco that imposed the form of the government on Iraq, and the Bush regime which rejected the consensus choice for Prime Minister, and insisted that the pro-US and pliant al-Maliki be given the job…
Tsulagi
Saleh, like your measured use of “defeatist” rather than defeatocrat, but still that is sooo last week. Gotta turn on automatic updates. Now you need to be saying “it was never stay the course, it’s always been adapt to win.” That will turn it all around.
p.lukasiak
Great Moments in Circular Logic…via “matt”
Pb
What do you mean, ‘will’ fall into chaos?
Well, I don’t know if he has a plan, but I already described *my* brilliant plan earlier… heh.
matt
Can’t it be both? Because I agree with you, but I still think everyone thinks their shit doesn’t stink, and since I experience the world from an American perspective, their arrogance tends to annoy me more than ours. I know it shouldn’t be that way, but I’m just sayin’.
At any rate, the Iraq war was such a ridiculous idea from the beginning, you shouldn’t get extra points for being against it. You should get normal points, or something. Picking a little league team to beat the Yankees makes you an idiot, but taking the Yanks doesn’t make you a genius.
Maybe I’ve been reading too many right wing blogs, but the deference to Europe and “world opinion” and all that jazz, it bugs, at least when I’m in a sour/tribal/nationalist mood.
BlogReeder
In reference to Vietnam, can anybody here corroborate the story I read that even though we left Vietnam in 1973 the South only carried on until 1975 because of a cut in US aid?
I don’t remember where I read it. I always thought we left and the fall of Saigon happened immediately.
A quick search found this which does seem to say that we signed the peace accord in 1973, funding was cut in 1974 and the fall happened in 1975. Just reading the headlines of course.
I thought it was interesting that I juxtaposed the two events. I could see the same thing happen to Iraq when the democrats eventually win. If they can keep their mouths shut for 5 minutes.
ThymeZone
Yes, that was a hoot.
International opinion of the United States is always based on what happens when other sovereignties look at our position, and actions, and compare and contrast with what they perceive as being their interests. If they see commonality, they’l react accordingly. If they see lack of commonality, they’ll react another way. That’s what they are supposed to do, and it’s what we expect our government to do.
People who deride this simple paradigm are the the kind of people who deride all process, deride the courts, deride oversight … in short, deride anything and everything that looks like an impediment to getting what they want. Like children, they just lash out. Pretty well describes our government for the last 5.8 years, right?
matt
heh. I just meant that there isn’t any inherent wisdom or truth in whatever the world’s opinion happens to be on any given subject. People act like something must be right! or must be wrong! because “international opinion” says so. Like being against the Iraq war automatically qualifies you as some sort of brain trust.
ThymeZone
Sometimes, of course. But it’s not our call. We don’t get to decide what’s in their interests, any more than they get to decide what’s in ours.
That’s what makes diplomacy …. diplomacy. An art which I assume is lost until we get a new government.
srv
People keep defending the military leadership. I can’t fathom why
Yes, you dumbf**ks, the Iraqis will be ready to do what we can’t accomplish. Just give them another 12-18 months. Gen. Casey, you are a liar.
I thought timetables were weak-kneeded liberal things.
Good luck with that hobbled constitution we wrote for you, poor equipment, and even poorer training.
Still blaming AQ for everything – this guy must not know what an insurgency is. As always, no evidence of Iranian or Syrian medling is provided.
Bush is starting to make himself look brilliant compared to the likes of Sanchez and Casey.
ThymeZone
Yes, but that’s really the point here, Matt. It’s not about “brain trusts” as much as it is about trusting people and countries to judge their interests and act accordingly. It’s what democracy is based on. You have to trust others to do what they see as best for themselves first. Without that, you basically have a sociopathic view of the world.
Our current government derides world opinion because world opinion doesn’t support their worldview. It also derides American opinion that doesn’t support their worldview. It derides any idea, any person, any model, any party, any proposal, any story that doesn’t fit their worldview. It’s called delusion and sociopathy. It’s nuts, to be concise.
What’s not nuts is to understand the positions of other countries and work within a framework of reality. Not unlike what John Kerry proposed in 2004. It’s how the world actually works.
matt
ThymeZone, I agree with your last post, so I’m not exactly sure what we’re arguing about, other than (I perceive) that this:
is a quality you want to attribute only to America, where as I’m arguing that most countries think this way. Although I’ll give you that the Bush admin is uniquely bad, so they throw the scale way off.
srv
Republican Mythos. There are books about Vietnam, and the collapse. See Amazon. Read both side of the story, decide for yourself. Revisionists would have you believe the South would have prevailed if we’d just kept giving them aid (which their leaders were just embezzling, etc). The truth is, we would have had to go back in. So we had a choice. Go back in and slog it out for another 20 years or get the f**k out and let it collapse.
In 1973, anyone with a clue expected that the south would eventually collapse. The treaty was just an exit strategy for us. The north was kind enough to accomodate.
The meme will be repeated for generations after Iraq. If we’d just given them more money, they would have prevailed…
Pb
Yeah, but I’m in the US, where the majority wasn’t against it from the beginning–note that support for Bush’s actions in Iraq jumped by 15 points once the war started (from 56% to 71%), and it took at least a year or two for most people to really start waking up–so I should get extra points if they grade on a curve.
srv
And before you-know-who responds, ask your revisionist friends this question “Exactly what, in detail, would have been our strategy for winning in Vietnam had we stayed-the-course?”
They didn’t have a strategy for victory then, they don’t after 30 years of thinking about it, and they won’t have one tomorrow either. For the sequel, see Iraq.
Pb
srv,
Specifically, I think the appropriate word to describe their Vietnam myths, lies, and sick partisan propaganda is Dolchstosslegende.
matt
For the record, I really wasn’t originally addressing governments, I was referring to snobby intellectual types, not intellectual types, mind you, but specifically the snobby kind. I think (and this is probably the only real right wing thinking I have) that these folks really hate our country, and they’re going to hate us no matter what we do.
matt
Fair enough. :)
docg
October 18, 2006 Washington Post:
This kind of jingoist, bullying horsecrap (WE decide what we can do in space and WE decide what YOU can do in space) leads to considerable dislike of America and American policy by other countries. Huge numbers of Americans don’t approve of such behavior, either.
The Other Steve
Please define victory for me.
The Other Steve
Matt, I agree with you… I have no interest in a foreign policy which has no purpose but to try to please foreign interests.
On the other hand, I have no interest in a foreign policy which serves no purpose other than to try to piss off foreign interests.
I’d rather we do the right thing, and quit playing fucking politics with our foreign policy.
Zifnab
I think our strategy of leaving, letting the conflict die out, then returning 20 years later with McDonalds and Buicks to offer against the corpse of a fallen Soviet Union has done a wonderful job of weening Vietnam off of 50’s style militant communism.
I think the Marshall Plan was more successful in Western Europe than every military conflict the US instigated in Central America.
I, personally, am of the opinion that capitalism works amazingly well in instigating regime change and that velvet revolutions are the best kind of nation building.
But I’m just a 20-something kid. What the hell do I know?
Pb
Yeah, I’m suspicious of Tom Friedman myself… :)
matt
Absolutely. I was splitting hairs with my pet peeves and minor annoyances, of course they shouldn’t impact how we actually approach and conduct policy.
matt
The next 6 months…
Krista
Societal factors are vastly underrated. There was an interesting article in this month’s Marie Claire about how satellite TV is creating a lot of change in the Middle East, due to people being exposed to different mindsets, opinions, and ideas. There is a hugely popular version of The View over there, and they’ve covered everything from spousal abuse, to reproductive rights, to education, to politics, and everything in between. You can’t go in with guns, overthrow the government, and say “Okay guys, you’re free. Have fun with your new democracy!” Societal change has to come from within the individual, first. Then, if enough individuals change from within, the country will change from within.
capelza
Well…I am only going by what my husband tells me, but since he was there, in Vietnam, in 1972. I’ll take his word for it. Until he was transferred to Task Force Delta, his job was assisting and transferring South Vietnamese troops who were “standing up so we could stand down” in modern GOP parlance. It was a bloody job, the last US helicopter ( I think) shot down in Vietnam was right next to his, a firey affair, deadly affair…they were transporting SV troops when this happened.
Anyway…he was NOT impressed by the calibre of soldiers, they, for the most part did not want to be there and he certainly did not feel that they had his back at all…overall a very negative opinion of them. He was highly impressed by the South Korean Marines, though…they scared the hell out of him, a Marine himself.
So, long story short…how many more years should we have given South Vietnam to get it together? 1, 10, 20?
The same can be said for the Iraqi army…how many years do we give them? What if they don’t care anyway?
MrSnrub
Victory is George Bush claiming victory, and that he’s pulling out the troops, since they’re no longer needed. That’s been my prediction since July 2003.
ThymeZone
Yes I think we are mostly in agreement with the exception of this one item:
All countries are wired to react basically the same way. But it’s what they do next that matters.
In the case of the USA, for 5.8 years we have had a government that seems not to know how to do diplomacy.
Compare and contrast Bush I / Baker with Bush II / Whomever.
ThymeZone
Oh, well, Chimp McPotatohead has already defined that for us.
He’s leaving it up to a future president.
That was the day I decided that he is definitely drinking again.
capelza
TZ…so the election slogan for 2008 will be “Peace with Honor”?
BlogReeder
Thanks for your comment, capelza.
I didn’t think the South Vietnamese at the time were as motivated as the North. The difference in Iraq is the trouble the insurgence will have if they win. They’ll have to rule like Saddam or the Taliban. The car bombs they’ve employed won’t win many friends amongst the populace.
capelza
BlogReeder…I don’t believe they’ll have rule like the Taliban, more like Iran..which. believe it or not is a huge difference. Iran, to say it best, does not like the Taliban at all..they are too extreme for the Persians…(ironic, perhaps from our eyes) and they are Sunnis, crazy and there was that little thing about shooting the Iranian diplomats in Kabul when the Taliban won.
Saddam was a very bad man…but we broke the whole country when we invaded to take him out. I am one of those who thinks we should fix what we broke, but it isn’t going to happen with this bunch in charge. It most likely will never happen now..whatever happens there, it is out of our hands even though we created it by the extremely stupid things we did going in, like disbanding the Iraqi army, which we have not been able to rebuild in 3 1/2 years…
We screwed the pooch…it makes me so angry.
Pb
I think that to a lesser extent, the same thing has happened to America in reverse, with the increased corporatization, consolidation, and dumbing down of our news and media in general. In short, it’d be nice if my cable company carried, say, CNN International as opposed to just airing an hour or so of it around lunchtime on CNN, but it’d be nicer if CNN itself (or the other networks) covered even half as much news half as well as they did.
ThymeZone
Yes. I think the entire mantra will be:
Peace With Honor and Without a Timetable and In Harmony With the Plan for Victory and Democracy On The March Resulting in Mission Accomplished Again.
ThymeZone
This, and the picture that goes with it, should clear it all up. Just look at his face and tell me he has no fucking plan!
Freedom Is On The March (And Not In The Toilet).
ThymeZone
Just un-fucking believable. Who could make this shit up?