perhaps in the end, labels of pro-withdrawal or pro-war end up doing nothing but drowning in rhetoric ... but, nevertheless, when i say you are pro-war when you see war as a means to an end, and it appears you do, i choose to define that as pro-war ... this does not mean you enjoy war or you're some kind of psychotic who chooses violence as a means to an end, but it does mean you are choosing war, at least in this case, over "not war" ... perhaps it's all in how one defines the terms ...
so let me make some statements about what i hear in your, and in Clark's position on Iraq ... this is the essence of my disagreement with him and the others who aren't calling for immediate withdrawal ...
first, you believe something positive either is or can be achieved in Iraq that requires continued US occupation ... you either see that progress is being made and/or you believe it can be made ...
No, I do not see progress being made. I never felt there was any *winning* to this war and I would not have chosen it. The only Iraq invasion, multinational in support of UN intervention, I would have condoned would have been back when Saddam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians. Going to war against mass murdering facists is something I actually wish the world would do more of, for example, today, in the Sudan. I support war in two instances: 1) in defense when attacked or allies are attacked; 2) in fighting crimes against humanity. I am no pacifist, but I am no war hawk, either, although I once was a pacifist: Diplomacy first. War as a very last resort. That's the best we can do in this world.
In the case of the Iraq War, it can't be *won* - that goes without saying. There is no military solution. But the fact that we do have a military presence, like it or not, is a factor in providing a measure of space for international negotiations. It's leverage. The only positive I see, and Clark sees, and it's slim, I know, is a negotiated settlement that would result in a federal government that administers oil wealth. Because the alternative is three distinct state entities: wealth in the north and south, benefiting Kurds and Shia, for the most part; poverty in the midsection, where the most highly-trained, ex-military Sunni fighters are concentrated. This is an inevitable invitation to full blown civil war. The Sunnis will not stand for it. It also forces neighboring countries to formally provide allegiance, to openly take sides, to ramp up support for one or other of the positions until the entire ME is fighting. Turkey has made no bones about invading any independent Kurdish state to their south. Iran would want to cement its leadership in the Shiite world and would back the Iraqi Shia more expansively than now. The Saudis and other Gulf states would have to come to the aid of the Sunnis. Israel could possibly enter fighting the Sunnis or the Turks or both. The energy consequences of burning oil fields would be catastrophic. Millions of deaths, rather than tens of thousands.
Sure no death is best, but without constitutional protections of federal rights for the Sunnis, which can only be practically negotiated with international oversight, the above is a very probable scenario.
stretching these inferences a little further, you either have faith that bush will "hear Clark's counsel" and choose a better strategy and/or you believe bush's strategy, however flawed, is making progress and/or you are willing to wait for Democratic control of the Congress or the WH ...
because if all the above assumptions are not correct, it's unclear what all the talk about regional diplomacy or training Iraqi troops or any of the rest of it is really all about ...
I think I explain that above, but as far as Bush goes, no, I do not have any faith. Whether he hears Clark's counsel, I can only hope so. Clark, however, does have counsel with Iranians of political stature, as he does with other ME countries, although I don't know the personalities involved. He has said that all segments of the Iranian political leadership are not in absolute sync on critical matters, such as Iraq and nuclear weaponry, and that many Iranian leaders are hopeful of a thaw in diplomatic relations with the US so that these two crucial situations can be resolved diplomatically. Today's news is that the Iranians and the Bush Administration will hold talks on Iraq, which the Iranians hope will lead to nuclear talks. Will Bush fuck it up? Probably.
But the important thing to recognize is that every country in that region has its own interest in a stable Iraq. Regional war is not good for any of them and they know it.
1. Do you trust bush's MOTIVES for this war? by motives, i mean his real motives, not the lies about WMD and the aluminum tubes and the initial justifications he lied about ... Do you believe, however inept his strategy, that he seeks legitimate (e.g. US security and better lives for the Iraqi people) objectives in Iraq?
2. If you don't trust his motives, how can you advocate to keep funding and supporting his occupation?? the point is, you and I might fully agree on desirable outcomes but I can't understand allowing bush to spend another day in Iraq ...
3. If you do trust his MOTIVES, why???
Of course I don't trust Bush's
motives. I'd be an idiot if I did. But whatever he had hoped to gain by this tragedy, and we both know what it was, he's not getting it. There is no way. No way for American control of ME oil; no way for permanent bases in Iraq. As far as Bush goes, he has lost his war. Now, funding the occupation at this point, is something else, because I don't advocate doing so for Bush or his motives. I believe we have got to help that region pull back from the brink of regional conflagration. We owe it to them and the rest of the world. I hate to see the money going out, or the lives snuffing out, but I don't see we have a choice, not with the current alternatives. I hold out a small hope for the global community to effect better conditions on the ground that will let our troops withdraw responsibly. It's what Clark calls the "C solution." The "F solution" is what will come with immediate withdrawal. See above.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
