Iraq: we broke it, now nobody can fix it

[dajoki]

August 27, 2005 latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-usiraq27aug27,0,5243213.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Iraq Charter Strife Hurts U.S. Strategy
Bush was counting on a consensual process for a new constitution, but the increasing discord is sinking hopes for peace.

By Tyler Marshall and Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Deep divisions in Iraq over the country's draft constitution carry seeds that could destroy the Bush administration's beleaguered strategy for turning the strife-torn country into a unified and stable democracy.

More than any single act, a telephone call Thursday by President Bush to Shiite leader Abdelaziz Hakim to discuss the process underscored how important the document is to the administration. Even if American pressure forces the Iraqis to reach a deal, few who have followed the negotiations expect that it can happen.

Critics of the drafting process now include some Sunni Arabs the administration had been able to count on in the past, such as Ghazi Ajil Yawer, one of Iraq's two vice presidents. Respected Middle East specialists, including some who have advised the administration in Iraq, worry about the way events have unfolded.

"I see developments on the constitutional side as potentially disastrous," said Larry Diamond, a scholar at Stanford University and former senior advisor in the defunct Coalition Provisional Authority. "I think the Bush administration has miscalculated profoundly by trying to get this constitution done by Aug. 15 at any price."
<<snip>>

Bush was counting on a consensus on the constitution as a sign of progress to counter growing doubts at home and to further his goal of a stable Iraq.
Instead, Middle East specialists worry that the bitterness of the battle over the constitution could turn wavering Sunnis toward the insurgents and add to sectarian tensions.
The likelihood of violence will only increase, experts fear, if Sunnis attempt to defeat the draft in the referendum.

[Amonester]

1. We told them (PNAC Gangsters) so...

Just what they wanted... All the while, these "handy distractions" provide them all the "cover" they need to pump up and steal away tons of oil barrels nobody will ever "see" again, IMO...

:grr:

[Lexingtonian]

2. oh, it can be fixed

It just happens to require Americans relinquishing control of Iraq and a civil war, first.

[dajoki]

6. yep!! n/t

[aquart]

3. If it's any comfort...

It was always going to come to this. After Saddam croaked, though. And without us being at fault.

Had we waited, a hundred thousand or so Iraqis would only then be facing their chances at death. Two thousand of our soldiers would still be home with their families, ten thousands or so more would not be horribly wounded.

We wouldn't be dead broke either...although, with George, I'm sure he would have found another way to loot the US Treasury for the benefit of his yacht-owning pals.

The US would still look like a strong nation, instead of a blundering, heartless monster.

Oh,wait. I was going to be of comfort... Sorry.

[Amonester]

4. Or Iran would have invaded them instead of the US/uk/aussie

Wait...

OK! So Tehran managed to win the war without even bothering with having to invade... ** and his PNAC Idiot$ invaded it for 'em!!

:yoiks:

[gokar]

22. LOL Iran finally defeated Iraq without firing a single shot or

sacrificing a single soldier! Iran could not defeat Saddam's Iraq
militarily after a decade long war, and now they must be laughing
their heads off at Americans & Brits doing the dirty work for them.

[dajoki]

5. you are 100% correct...

it was a matter of time.

[Old and In the Way]

7. If he was as evil as Bush portrayed him to be......why didn't Iraqi's

take matters into their own hands? Just about everyone owns a rifle in Iraq, yet there was no groundswell of opposition that could have brought him down. Maybe because the Iraqi's knew that, in the absence of a strong, autocratic leader, the artificial state of Iraq would disintegrate?

This administration should have been smart enough to consider the downside risk of taking Saddam out. For all his evils, he did maintain a secular government that was the most progressive of all states in the ME. Surely someone must have thought that the removal of Saddam would help in the establishment of a fundie Islamic state. I suspect that Dimson would countenance no opposition to his plan, though. He wanted to be a war pResident and he wanted Saddam gone...his syncophants could only agree with the boy-king.

[dajoki]

8. that's why his daddy didn't...

take him out. he, at least, knew what it would create.

[Amonester]

9. Mobil Oil wanted the "juice" (which is in BIG demand...).

Maybe that's (one of the reasons) why they could only agree with the Petro-boy-king. The other reasons could be found in Halliburton's 284% "boost" (2004)... Not to mention the rest of Carlyle&Co...

Casey and his pals already paid the bill (tragically). :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Lexingtonian]

10. We said so in 2002....

But not all you claim lost is so completely lost.

It will be embarrassing stain on the American reputation, though. The Right of every country is highly embarrassing. The world imagined ours to be far more civilized and competent than it was, sadly enough. It is/was much as vain and idiotic as the rest.

Nonetheless, this too shall pass. Treasure we have enough, and a few good people to set things back aright to some fair degree.

The killed and maimed we cannot revive, though. The ruins and graveyards and photos of the prison camps will remain as witnesses to the horror, folly, and petty vainglory of these morons.

[aquart]

15. Treasure? You sure? In whose hands?

You don't get to claim treasure when all you have is massive debt.

[Amonester]

11. OTOH, SH had his sons "waiting in line" after him, I heard.

If that was the case, one of them may have (perhaps) been worst than him (or just more or less the same?). Nonetheless, Tehran also was kind of "waiting in line" since Iraq's army was pretty much decimated and only weakening gradually.

Now, would re-partitioning Iraq into three different countries (Balkan-style) help solve some of the problems (the British Empire's imposed borders created a real mess, to say the very least)?

Maybe such a "solution" should be examined. I know the Kurds could like that pretty much (but not Turkey for sure...)!

[dajoki]

12. agree they are false borders...

because of british colonization. but the key now is oil. if they go "balkan style" kurds and shiites will control the oil and sunni will not allow that especially after being in power so long. and like you said it is a definate NO for the turks.

[kenny blankenship]

13. Partitioning is a non-starter for us.

We can invade Iraq to "liberate" it, (they have ways of fudging the rule against this) but invading a country and then partitioning it is a warcrime on its face with no mitigating circumstances or fudges possible. This is due to language forbidding partitioning in the UN Charter. Sovereignty and 'territorial integrity' are practically synonymous terms in that document. Basically the UN Charter refuses to address the existence of screwed up borders in post colonial lands because it's such a can of worms. Once a nation becomes a UN signatory that's it--it can neither be carved up by another country or carve up another. (Unless it's Israel, I guess.) Iraq could partition itself, but of course that could only come about as a result of a civil war. What the Bush people went for was federalism, in which the distinct regions of Iraq would have a small (symbolic) measure of autonomy. Unfortunately they coupled that with other decentralizing motives that has led to the situation we have now, in which the Sunnis look to be cut out of any oil revenues, since the proven oil fields are in the south and north of the country, where the Shia and Kurds live. An independent Kurdish state would soon be at war with Turkey, and since Turkey is our ally we'd have another probably worse mess on our hands.

[dajoki]

18. liberating iraq wasn't our first excuse n/t

[Pewlett Hackard]

19. the truth hurts

great post ... kicking back up!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Chimpy was hoping...

Poor wittle Chimpy.



:mad::grr:



















eta: :banghead:

[dajoki]

16. what was * hoping?

are you sure he wasn't hopping?:shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Answers.

1. "Counting on"---"hoping." Same thing.

2. I'm not sure at all.

[laylah]

17. Without reading

the article, I can only apologize to my brothers and sisters of Iraq. We tried to stop the craziness. :hug:

jenn

[dajoki]

20. no matter...

how hard anybody tried, nothing was going to stop this administration from doing what they had planned from the start.