Clear as Mud

[Plane]

if the United States loses the Iraq War, the consequences will be dire -- and a Democratic president elected in 2008 may well have to deal with them.

That president could inherit an Iraq in all-out civil war, regional chaos pitting Sunnis against Shiites and -- worst of all -- the collapse of American influence and the triumph of radical Islamist forces, Iran in the lead.

Iraq will not be the last theater of combat between radicalism and moderation, but wherever the next confrontation is -- in Lebanon, Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia -- the United States will be at an automatic disadvantage if it loses in Iraq.

..................http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/democrats_should_give_bush_fin.html....................

Now that they have taken over Congress, Democrats have a responsibility to do more than simply oppose Bush and his policies. If there is any possibility that the United States and its interests can still succeed in Iraq, they need to help it happen.

It's very possible that America will fail. If so, Democrats should give no one the opportunity to say that they precipitated it.

[Plane]

Nobody understands the new Washington power dynamic better than Emanuel, who helped create it. As chief strategist and fundraiser for the Democrats' recapture of the House, he understood before most others that the nation was angry with Bush and his party. Now, with Bush attaching himself even more firmly to an unpopular war, Emanuel wants to use that rising public anger to make the Democrats the nation's true governing party.

With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel plans to use Bush's Iraq speech to pose what amounts to a vote of "no confidence'' in Bush's leadership -- framing the new strategy as a congressional motion and voting it up or down. Emanuel is certain that it will lose, and that a sizable number of Republicans will join the Democrats in rejecting the president's military escalation. Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness -- which will make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/democrats_wait_to_pick_up_the.html

And here's what Emanuel doesn't want to do: Fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care and he shakes his head. Four smart presidents -- Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton -- tried and failed. That one can wait. Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky. If the president wants to propose big changes to entitlements, he can lead the charge.

The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, they're waiting to pick up the pieces.

[Michael Tee]

The "dire consequences" of America "losing" Iraq are non-existent.  They are basically the same "dire consequences" that the fascists and militarists promised if America "lost" Viet Nam.  Both countries that (a) are not America's to lose and (b) have every God-damn right to determine their own destiny for good or for ill WITHOUT the "assistance" or "help" of a foreign invading army that nobody invited in.

Both cases postulate future conflicts in unspecified places at unspecfied times with the "same enemy" that the U.S. happens to find itself fighting at the time.  The "Politics of Fear" at its most basic level. 

But since the prime driver of the enemy is the most basic form of nationalism conceivable (resistance to foreign invasion) the "enemy" can ONLY be found when the U.S. acts as a foreign invader either by actively invading another country or by overthrowing its government by covert action and maintaining a puppet regime in power over a captive citizenry.  The simplest and most commonsensical relief is available, "Don't fuck with other people and they won't fuck with you."

Sept. 11, 2001 was a message for America, clear and simple:  You are fucking with people who have finally figured out how to hit back at you.  Stop fucking with them.  The lesson America's moronic leadership took from the attacks seems to be:  "Let's fuck with them some more and see what happens."  Fair enough.  Now you can SEE what happens.  When is the message finally going to sink in?

[sirs]

since the prime driver of the enemy is the most basic form of nationalism conceivable (resistance to foreign invasion) the "enemy" can ONLY be found when the U.S. acts as a foreign invader either by actively invading another country or by overthrowing its government by covert action and maintaining a puppet regime in power over a captive citizenry.  The simplest and most commonsensical relief is available, "Don't fuck with other people and they won't fuck with you."

False premise --> can't take anything else very seriously.  Then again, what else is new coming from reading the Tee leaves?

[Plane]

The "dire consequences" of America "losing" Iraq are non-existent.  They are basically the same "dire consequences" that the fascists and militarists promised if America "lost" Viet Nam.  Both countries that (a) are not America's to lose and (b) have every God-damn right to determine their own destiny for good or for ill WITHOUT the "assistance" or "help" of a foreign invading army that nobody invited in.

The majority of Iraq walked through fire to vote.

A violent minority wants to be in charge on the basis of their own virtue above the people.

If you are for the right of Iraq to determine its own destiny you can't be against President Bush , who is for exactly that.

To give Iran over to the insurgency is not diffrent in any important way from giveing up te US to the KKK or Germany to the Natzi party.

[fatman]

Sept. 11, 2001 was a message for America, clear and simple:  You are fucking with people who have finally figured out how to hit back at you.  Stop fucking with them.  The lesson America's moronic leadership took from the attacks seems to be:  "Let's fuck with them some more and see what happens."  Fair enough.  Now you can SEE what happens.  When is the message finally going to sink in?

I dispute this statement, MT.  The message was anything but clear and simple, clear and simple would have been taking out an advertisement in the New York Times, or paid television spots.  What September 11 truly illustrated was that a group of fundamentalist Moslems decided to martyr themselves for the cause.  And what was the cause?  Was it to stop American interventionism?  I doubt it.  The Arab world is smart enough to know that such an action as killing innocent citizens is likely to enrage the US into taking hostile action.  At the time, the hi-jackers were a Moslem minority, remember the solidarity with the US immediately after 9/11 from the Mid-East, the Iranians praying for us, even Qadaffi sending his sympathies and condolences?
These hi-jackers did this in order to promote their cause, fundamental Islam.  They did it so that they could use the actions of the maddened US to promote their view of Western decadence, and weakness.  To say that they did it to put a stop to American interventionism is an absurdity.  Where we went wrong, in my opinion, was going after Hussein at the wrong time when we could have concentrated our efforts on Al-Qaeda and those who support them.  I'm not sad about toppling Hussein, but I am sad about the price we are paying and going to have to pay for it.  From the 9/11 tragedy to today, when we come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon, it truly saddens me.  I'm not going to second-guess the President, I don't have his job and wouldn't want it, but obviously better choices could have been made.  Trumpeting partisan bullshit isn't going to soothe any wounds though, on either side of the political aisle.

[sirs]

What September 11 truly illustrated was that a group of fundamentalist Moslems decided to martyr themselves for the cause....These hi-jackers did this in order to promote their cause, fundamental Islam.  They did it so that they could use the actions of the maddened US to promote their view of Western decadence, and weakness.  To say that they did it to put a stop to American interventionism is an absurdity.....From the 9/11 tragedy to today, when we come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon, it truly saddens me.  I'm not going to second-guess the President, I don't have his job and wouldn't want it, but obviously better choices could have been made.  Trumpeting partisan bullshit isn't going to soothe any wounds though, on either side of the political aisle.

This is why I miss Fatman's posts.  Good to seeyas Fat.  And good to see those great posts, even when I'm in disagreement of them

[Plane]

What September 11 truly illustrated......

Hmmmmm............


Good points.

The Al Quieda is hardly made up of impoverished victims of eploitation , more ike the sos of the middle class which is new to their culture.

[Xavier_Onassis]

the collapse of American influence and the triumph of radical Islamist forces, Iran in the lead.

======================================================
Iran is Shiite. The Islamic fundamentalists are Sunni. They are never going to be allies.

American influence has diminished every day that Juniorbush has engaged in this useless war.

Maybe if we hung the bastard and his vicebastard Cheney for their numerous war crimes, they would come around

[sirs]

Maybe if we hung the bastard and his vicebastard Cheney for their numerous war crimes, they would come around

Yea, that's all it'll take.  Gads, why didn't we think of this the 1st time they tried to take down the WTC.       

[Xavier_Onassis]

ea, that's all it'll take.  Gads, why didn't we think of this the 1st time they tried to take down the WTC.     

Juniorbush and Vicebastard Cheney were unknowns abroad at the time that happened.

The problem is not the small number of Al Qaeda types who have never liked our governments, it is the greater number of non-fundamentalists who have come to realize that we have conquered Iraq for its oil and are willing to stay until the last Iraqi is dead before the US oilmen who got us into this godawful mess can gain the right to occupy Iraq and such and sell its oil.

There was absolutely no connection between the 9-11 attacks and Iraq UNTIL the utter buffonery of Juniorbush and Vicebastard Cheney incompetently destroyed the government of Iraq and allowed anarchy there, thus inviting Al Qaeda into Iraq.

These two morons are to the Arab world what Saddam represented to most Americans, after all the propaganda about him was spread all over the place.

I propose a civilized hanging, officiated by Rev Billy Graham himself. No raucous shouts from Unitarians and Wiccans at all, following a more civilized sort of trial. It could show the world how Iraq should have gotten rid of their most despicable leader

[sirs]

Juniorbush and Vicebastard Cheney were unknowns abroad at the time that happened.

Yea, and?  Seems to you, they're the cause of militant Islam festering and causing all the ruckus that they are.  String them up, and all will be well with the world, right?

I propose a civilized hanging, officiated by Rev Billy Graham himself. No raucous shouts from Unitarians and Wiccans at all, following a more civilized sort of trial. It could show the world how Iraq should have gotten rid of their most despicable leader

LIke I said, apparently that's all that's needed to make nice nice with militant Islam, Muslim terrorists, and Insurgents bent on returning to a dictator status quo

[Michael Tee]

<<The majority of Iraq walked through fire to vote.>>

Well, that's obvious bullshit, for many reasons.  First of all, the "elections" were held under the guns of a foreign occupation army and its chosen puppets.  You would have to be a pretty stupid fucking Iraqi NOT to vote when the puppets and their masters told you to vote.  These people understand that the party in power makes lists, and if you get on one of those lists, very bad things can happen to you.  So it really boils down to, Who are you more afraid of, the Resistance who MIGHT get you or the Occupation which can and will?  The elections have no legitimacy whatsoever.  They're an illegal sham conducted under an illegal occupation.  Fooling exactly nobody.  Except maybe you.

Secondly, I really don't know where you get this "majority" BS.  There has never been any kind of legitimate accounting for this figure.

<<The percentage of turnout supplied by Ayar [Farid Ayar was the Vice President of the Iraqi Higher Independent Election Commission]  came to 57% (happily rounded off by the press to 60%). This was based on what was described as 14 million potential voters divided by those 8 million who braved the potential bullets and bombs to go to the polls.
<<On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day. >>

The issue of the 14 million was raised by a reader-contributor to Daily Kos:

<<there hasn't been a reliable census in the country in ages, and estimates of the population vary widely, with 25 million being at the very low end.  In early 2003 (pre-invasion), the Iraqi Ministry of Trade and Planning released the figure of 27.5 million (this number was to be used for calculations for the Oil-for-Food Program), while the CIA's World Factbook gives an estimate some 2 million lower.  It would seem like the 14 million figure was merely derived by taking the low-end estimate of the entire population and multiplying it by 56%, the share of the population estimated (again) to be of voting age. >>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/134855/3139

In other words, the 57% figure (automatically inflated to 60% in most Western MSM accounts) is the result of the eligible-voter figure, which is based on . . . nothing.  60% can be adjusted up or down depending on where you want the eligible-voter number to be.  Once again, it seems, you have been conned.

 
Report, IRIN, 12 January 2005

<<Q. There are rumours that people have been told at food rations distribution centres that if they don't go to vote they will not receive their food rations in 2005. Is that true?

<<A. It's a democracy; we won't do that, but if there are people forcing others to vote it's something out from our hands. Maybe they are doing that to persuade people to vote.>>

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1780.shtml

So, whatever that "majority" walked "through fire" for could just as easily been ration cards as democracy.

But even if there had been a real majority of the eligible voting population (60% as the MSM falsely claimed) that voted, it wouldn't mean much.  The split was clearly along religious lines.  The Shi'a voted because they knew the democratic constitution would give them power over the Sunni.  The Sunni didn't vote because they knew the system was rigged to give power to their religious adversaries.  

For democracy to work, you need first and foremost the consent of most of the population to abide by the results of the vote.  If you have a determined minority who won't abide by it, it just won't work.  What you are lacking is the consent of most of the population to the system.  51% or even 60% isn't nearly enough.  I know it's not fair, but it's life.  You're an individualist.  You wouldn't like the Federal Government taking your money for things you don't approve of, even if it's a majority government.  Why would you approve of them forcing a whole method of decision-making down your throat if you don't agree to it in the first place?  

[Michael Tee]

Excellent post, Fatman.  I oversimplified and I'm afraid didn't express myself clearly.

<<The message was anything but clear and simple, clear and simple would have been taking out an advertisement in the New York Times, or paid television spots.  What September 11 truly illustrated was that a group of fundamentalist Moslems decided to martyr themselves for the cause.  And what was the cause?  Was it to stop American interventionism?  I doubt it. >>


You are quite right.  I should have said the root cause was American interventionism in the Middle East, creating puppet states whose subordination to U.S. and Israeli interests enrages every self-respecting Muslim.    This rage produces fanatics whose primary targets are the puppet states led by fake Muslims, either in thrall to the U.S. or too cowardly and self-interested to champion the cause of downtrodden and oppressed Muslims in their own corner of the world.  The actual purpose of the Sept. 11 attacks was to provoke U.S. attacks on Muslims, which succeeded.  The attacks in turn radicalized millions of Muslims and brought them into line with al Qaeda thought, estranging them from the "Westernized" puppet rulers presently supported and maintained in power by England and America and their silent Israeli partner.

I really should have spoken in terms of lessons to be learned rather than messages sent.  But what I wrongly termed the message is in fact the lesson:  Don't fuck with these people and they won't fuck with you.  You have your corner of the world, let them have theirs.

 <<The Arab world is smart enough to know that such an action as killing innocent citizens is likely to enrage the US into taking hostile action.  At the time, the hi-jackers were a Moslem minority, remember the solidarity with the US immediately after 9/11 from the Mid-East, the Iranians praying for us, even Qadaffi sending his sympathies and condolences?>>

I think what was expressed by the leaders was not what was felt in the street.  If you read Baudrillard's article, "L'esprit du Terrorisme," an English translation of which (highly abridged) was published in Harper's (sorry, I don't have the reference, the photocopy I have says only "Readings" at the bottom of the pages, but memory says this was from Harpers) he is, IMHO, quite correct in pointing out that "The moral condemnation and the sacred union against terrorism are directly proportional to the prodigious jubilation felt at having seen this global superpower destroyed, because it was this insufferable superpower that gve rise to both the violence now spreading throughout the world and to the terrorist imagination that (without our knowing it) dwells within us all." 

Baudrillard was speaking of the highly repressed, unconscious  Western reaction to the attacks, and with tremendous perspicacity, I might add, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is the Middle Eastern reaction that concerns us, and in that regard, I would expect that whatever the official condolences, the "solidarity" of the Middle East, Iranian "prayers" notwithstanding, was probably largely illusory.

<<These hi-jackers did this in order to promote their cause, fundamental Islam.  They did it so that they could use the actions of the maddened US to promote their view of Western decadence, and weakness.  >>

You're right, of course.

<<To say that they did it to put a stop to American interventionism is an absurdity.  >>

Well, by "purifying" their own society, American interventionism would obviously have to be ended.

<<Where we went wrong, in my opinion, was going after Hussein at the wrong time when we could have concentrated our efforts on Al-Qaeda and those who support them. >>

Ahh, that's bullshit.  There's always going to be an al Qaeda as long as the Arabs aren't masters in their own home and as long as the Jews continue to  inflict misery and oppression on the Palestinians.

<<I'm not sad about toppling Hussein, but I am sad about the price we are paying and going to have to pay for it. >>

Yeah, that sucks but I'm a little bit sadder about the price the Iraqis have had to pay for it - - torture, rape, murder and the deaths of hundreds of thousands,  seems a tad more onerous than the deaths of 3,000 highly trained professional killers.   

<<From the 9/11 tragedy to today, when we come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon, it truly saddens me.  I'm not going to second-guess the President, I don't have his job and wouldn't want it, but obviously better choices could have been made. >>

Not by that gang.

<< Trumpeting partisan bullshit isn't going to soothe any wounds though, on either side of the political aisle.>>

Soothing wounds can wait.  There's a war to be stopped.

[fatman]

The actual purpose of the Sept. 11 attacks was to provoke U.S. attacks on Muslims, which succeeded.  The attacks in turn radicalized millions of Muslims and brought them into line with al Qaeda thought, estranging them from the "Westernized" puppet rulers presently supported and maintained in power by England and America and their silent Israeli partner.

This is close to my enough to my premise for me to agree MT>

I really should have spoken in terms of lessons to be learned rather than messages sent.  But what I wrongly termed the message is in fact the lesson:  Don't fuck with these people and they won't fuck with you.  You have your corner of the world, let them have theirs.

I disagree on this one MT.  Just because you leave a nation alone doesn't mean that they won't attack you, look at Kuwait, Poland (though that is a complex one, admittedly), Japanese-Russian Manchuria.


Baudrillard was speaking of the highly repressed, unconscious  Western reaction to the attacks, and with tremendous perspicacity, I might add, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is the Middle Eastern reaction that concerns us, and in that regard, I would expect that whatever the official condolences, the "solidarity" of the Middle East, Iranian "prayers" notwithstanding, was probably largely illusory.

It may surprise you MT, but I am in agreement with Baudrillard on this.  I believe that there were a lot of powers in the world who consciously or not, enjoyed seeing the US get a black eye.  However, I disagree that the majority of Middle Easterners, at the time, were overjoyed.  They had to have an idea of what was coming.

Ahh, that's bullshit.  There's always going to be an al Qaeda as long as the Arabs aren't masters in their own home and as long as the Jews continue to  inflict misery and oppression on the Palestinians.

Just because there is always going to be unrest in the Middle East does not mean that it justifies the action of Al-Qaeda against innocent people.  It disgusts me that terrorists feel that the best way to win support for their cause is to kill a bunch of civilians, rather than flying jetliners into say, the Capitol, White House, etc.  Kidnapping civilian hostages.  What the hell happened to Ghandi or MLK?  If every displaced people in history were to resort to this crap, what do you think would happen?  Should the English start hi-jacking Concordes and flying them into the Eiffel tower because they lost their territories on mainland France in the 100 years war?  Should Germany load rail cars with bombs and detonate them in Danzig (Konigsberg until after WW2) Every people throughout history has been displaced at some point.  It does not justify terrorism.  Period.

Yeah, that sucks but I'm a little bit sadder about the price the Iraqis have had to pay for it - - torture, rape, murder and the deaths of hundreds of thousands,  seems a tad more onerous than the deaths of 3,000 highly trained professional killers.

I too am unhappy about civilian deaths in a war that seems to be going nowhere fast.  I've never been a fan of this war and have come in the past year to disagree with it totally.  That said, how many innocent Iraqi's are killed by US forces, and how many are killed in the sectarian violence currently tearing that nation asunder?  The fault does not lie squarely on the shoulders of the US, though quite a bit does.

Soothing wounds can wait.  There's a war to be stopped.

Agreed, but there is no easy end to this.  Each possible outcome is riddled with uncertainties.  If we pull out immediately, Iraq is definitely destabilized, probably so for quite awhile, until a strongman comes along and takes charge.  How many innocent Iraqis die then MT?  If we pull out gradually, there is no guarantee that the government will hold.  See the first part of this reply.  If we stay indefinitely, well, that's just not going to work and I think that we all know that.