Lofty ambitions reduced to one: Iraq must not be seen as a failure

[muriel_volestrangler]

British foreign and defence policy is now reduced to avoiding embarrassment for Bush (and Blair, but that's secondary).

In contrast to the official line that British forces will remain until the job is done, the Foreign Office wants to engineer a set of circumstances in which both Britain and the US can begin to reduce troops next year. But the speed with which unrest and violence is growing is making this harder.

Ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private. A Foreign Office source said the goal of the US administration to turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East had long ago been shelved. "We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along," the source said.
...
From May 2003, the month after the fall of Saddam Hussein, until this spring, the line at Foreign Office briefings to journalists in London and Baghdad was unremitting: that security was improving; that the media focused on violence in Baghdad and the central belt, ignoring the relative calm in the other 90% of the country; and that the infrastructure was gradually being rebuilt, again unreported. Since then, the briefings have changed. The tone and content are now a more realistic reflection of what is happening. These days there is little or no optimism.

Before the war, Washington saw Iraq not only as a likely beacon for democracy but also as potentially a stable source of oil and a well-positioned strategic base. Reflecting lowered expectations, the source said the priority for withdrawal was merely that "George Bush is not seen to have failed. He will have to have at least set Iraq on the road to democracy". Iraqis are scheduled to vote on October 13 on a new constitution and in December in a general election: allowing Mr Bush to claim he had put down democratic roots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1575399,00.html

It's all about perception. Because Bush is the King Midas of Crap, and everything he touches turns to shit, they're looking for some gold spray paint, and hoping people will ignore the stench.

[applegrove]

1. The one thing PNAC wanted was precedent for pre-emptive war.

That is why they didn't want to go in with the UN (which could have happened in a few years). They didn't want to go in on humanitarian grounds.

All they wanted was the precedent. That will allow them to continue the perpetual war economy & empire - at a later date.

IMHO

[Eric J in MN]

22. I doubt they could have convinced a majority of Americans

that we should attack a country which ISN'T planning to attack us for humanitarian reasons, unless there was genocide.

[Atman]

2. "George Bush is not seen to have failed." Hear that America?

Our sons and daughters are dying to save George Walker Bush, by all accounts a Career Failer, from having to add the ultimate failure to his already well rounded resume of dereliction. Not freedom. Not democracy. Not even the laughable WMD...we're killing our kids and bankrupting our country to widdle Georgy doesn't have his widdle feewings huwt, er, hurt. We should all be so proud!

[ClintonTyree]

9. Don't forget his "legacy"....

his precious "legacy". He SOOOOO wanted to be remembered along with Ronald Reagan as the Conservative's Savior. Not too long ago the freepers were saying they'd put his image on Mount Rushmore. I shit you not! They were actually saying that! :puke:

[emrenz]

14. Mount Rushmore!

I had heard that as well. What a joke! This poor excuse for a world leader has proved yet again that he fails in every major undertaking or business that he does. His remaining years will be focused on trying to restore that image he had just after 9/11 (which the media created) so that he may leave some sort of legacy. It is with great glee that with each added pressure and catastrophe that I get to watch him continue his downward spiral, but at the same time I'm saddened that so many have to suffer as a result of his dysfunctions and inactions.

Mount Rushmore you say?

I wouldn't let him clean out Lincoln nose.

[ClintonTyree]

16. Amazing, isn't it?

When I first read that I couldn't stop laughing, it hurt! I hope they've lowered their expectations somewhat. Maybe a statue in a corner of the Mall somewhere, where the pigeons could crap all over him along with the occasional graffiti artist's handiwork.

Mt. Rushmore! :eyes: Just goes to show you how ignorant these people are, and they think their geniuses. :rofl:

[jimshoes]

3. Clearly,

(neocons love to use that word) the perception is that Georgie's little misadventure in Iraq is being seen as a failure more and more. It IS a failure all the way through. Top to bottom, front to back, East, West, North and South somewhat, in Tikrit, in Basra, in Baghdad, in Mosul and everywhere in between, it is a failure. Good luck with that "must not be seen as a failure bullshit". It's a failure! It's over . It's Viet Nam on crack. It's a clusterfuck, FUBAR, a "catastrophic success", the propaganda can't be catapulted any higher, a miasma, a quagmire, it's a little slice of Hell on Earth,

It's georges albatross along with his non-existent Katrina response. Pssst, hey george, aren't you glad they don't make you take a piss test? This is exactly what the planet needs is for you neo-con assholes to be seen as the vile scum that you are so you will disappear for the next 50 years while the world recovers from your insane world domination nightmares. It's been awful, hope the door smashes your tail bone on the way out MF'ers.

[Inland]

4. The reason for the mission is the mission.

Sorta like the joke about the space shuttle: the purpose of the space shuttle is to repair the shuttle in space.

[grytpype]

5. Recommended!!!!

Lowering the bar of success down to about an inch off the ground, but can Duhbya clear it????

allowing Mr Bush to claim he had put down democratic roots.

Yep. That is the only claim left to Duhbya. Didn't find WMD, didn't create a democratic, safe, friendly Iraq, didn't transform the ME, didn't do shit except put down "roots" that are going to be washed away by civil war as soon as we pull out. FAILURE. THAT IS WHAT FAILURE LOOKS LIKE.

[Lexingtonian]

6. $300 billion spent, 35,000 dead overall...

withdrawal from Iraq: priceless.

The coming civil war will make sure that Dubya has nothing left to tout about Iraq in a few months.

[Martin Eden]

7. The Brits would like to quit

But don't bank on Bush backing out. The neocons have no intention of abandoning those bases, and I doubt that a president Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden -- or John Kerry for that matter -- would engineer a complete withdrawal either.

But things can change, and eventually all the gold spraypaint in the world can't hide the stench. If we want out of Iraq, the PEOPLE are going to have to demand it.

[ClintonTyree]

8. There isn't enough lipstick in the world.........

to cover the lips of this pig. bush has fucked this up to an extent where there will never be a chance to withdraw with any semblance of "victory". Whether we leave right now, this minute, or if we leave after the elections etc. it won't make a bit of difference. Iraq is a country that will be completely unstable for decades to come. All because of some half baked PNAC objective of taking over the world.
What bush has started cannot be undone. The harm is done and things will never be the same again because if it.

[TankLV]

18. You can't push the toothpaste back into the tube.

You can't unring the bell.

I wonder how many other alliterations we can come up with?

[PATRICK]

10. This is missing the point

Although Straw seems to be missing it too, but then he is not so financially invested in Carlyle and money interests as Blair.

IF there is no crushing or taking or whatever of the Shiites in Iran, the Crusader castles, the oil tentacles of the West, cannot endure. THAT is the utter failure Bush is worried about. Few in the world perhaps are even thinking about the inevitable march to war against iran. If it didn't happen it would simply be off the radar of a puzzling grandiose botch up by Bush. One of many that either made no sense or hid their worst plans.

The Shiites in Iraq will make the Americans go away or at least liberate the oil in Chavez fashion to help their people and causes. Note: that is IF they are sincere about letting the Shiite Iraq democracy go creaking along naturally. Their real mammoth goal versus the piously hypocritical pretext. The latter will vanish in utter humiliation even if staved off for a naive Dem President. The former is a sour victory especially for other equally insincere and pious pronouncements on advancing the rights of Muslim women, whose only virtuous spin-off for America would have been
pacifying the radical male extremist influence.

They don't need democracy in Iraq. That is less than a fig leaf and not worth a drop of the innocent blood shed. They need to make war on Iran, even if it means empowering Iranian Sunnis to counterbalance Iraqi Shiites- which is as insane as anything else in this ill advised imperial adventure.

War may not happen, but too many are not musing at all on the true ulterior thoughts of our miserable national regimes. Bush doesn't care about his legacy or the good he did for people or his country(bitter LOL). No Bush ever did. They care about the money, the persistence and the endgame. That is inscribed in the graveyards of their victims.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Reduced to a face...

...saving exercise is exactly right---just like Vietnam.

[LynzM]

12. Yup.

I heard on NPR this morning some astounding quotes from the leader of the pro-Bush pro-war rally for this weekend... he basically said that Vietnam was not a failure until the public turned against it, and the war in Iraq is not like Vietnam, and not a failure, unless public support turns against it.

Excuse me for misunderstanding, but I don't think public perception changes how dead the dead are.

[PATRICK]

13. Nor does public perception

change the deceitful real policies which are hidden(often in plain sight) both to the public and the soldiers.

[savemefromdumbya]

15. As most Britons were against the war from the beginning

I wonder who the British government speak for? A mere handful - Tony Blair's cabinet. They certainly don't speak for the majority of the people in the UK?

[TankLV]

19. The Blair government - labour - speaks for the torries. THEY support

the war, and that's the only thing they support him on.

[Mich Otter]

17. George has "THE POOPIE FINGER", Randi Rhodes said so.

Everything Midas touched turned to gold. Everything Bush touches turns to SHIT.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. I posted this in GD under "Oh fer three."

More will die because of these massive egos. Criminal.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Martin Eden]

23. "still the right thing to do"

What is the "thing" to which you refer?

Assumming that you're referring to the war in Iraq, I think it's very important to define what that "thing" IS.

We were told it was to disarm Saddam Hussein. He was not armed.

Now we're told it was to spread democracy. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the costs of this war are worth the installation of a Shiite government in Iraq, guided by Shariah law, with close ties to Iran? And that's a good case scenario. Very likely, there will be more civil war, terrorism, and chaos than a stable democracy for all of Iraq.

The costs of this war include:

Soon to be 2,000 US dead, and 20,000 wounded.

$200 billion so far, with no end in sight.

America more deeply divided than ever.

Unprecedented anti-Americanism in the world.

Iraq turned into (according to the CIA's National Intelligence Council) a recruiting and training ground for the next generation of professional terrorists.

Constant violence and death, from US operations like Fallujah & Tal Afar, and from jihadi suicide bombers, producing a higher mortality rate in Iraq than in the years preceding the 2003 invasion.
................

The rationale that this war was the "right thing to do" because of the benefit the Iraqis have derived from it is belied by the hell they're going through now and the fact that this war was not fought for the benefit of the Iraqis.

Nations go to war for their own perceived interests -- in this case, the neoconservative theory that we can install our political/economic system in the Middle East at the point of a gun, and that this is a necessary first step to achieving a benign world hegemony through the application of US military dominance. Combine this delusional and dangerous ambition with corporate power and interests, strategic oil resources and the petro-dollar, and an admistration using patriotism and the fear of terrorism as a domestic political weapon while taking our nation to war under false pretenses -- and you have a much more accurate definition of the "thing" that you state was "still the right thing to do."

The bottom line should always be the well-being and security of the United States of America, which this ill-advised and horribly mismanaged war is damaging -- and all supposedly for a dubious democracy in Iraq while our own democracy at home -- founded on the informed consent of the governed -- was subverted by the deliberate misinformation campaign that brought us this war.

Still think it was "still the right thing to do"?

[thebigidea]

24. whenever I hear someone preface a statement with "frankly..."

... I know i'm about to be fed a line of complete nonsense.

So what reconstruction are you especially pleased with? Care to point something out?

Anything?

Electricity/water still not at pre-war levels, maybe? That's going real well.

[Martin Eden]

25. The guy had 3 posts ...

... and I knew it was only a matter of time before he was freeper'ed outta here, but I was kinda hoping to see his response before he was deleted.