Skip to main content

By now we have seen that Republicans are more than willing to ignore ongoing genocides in the name of "fighting terrorism" elsewhere.

We have seen that they are willing to support indiscriminate and ineffective collective punishment of an entire country's population in order to stop "terrorism."

We have seen that they are willing to accept massive so-called collateral damage on civilian populations while invading harmless countries in the name of doing something about "terrorism."

But now they've taken it to a new level: respected commentators are now directly advocating genocide in the name of fighting terror.

Now, this isn't terribly new for the fear-addled wingnut masses like Ann Coulter: they've been urging indiscriminate bombing of Muslim countries for a while now.

But today it's military experts advocating genocide in Iraq "to stop the terror."

Case in point: Brian Dunn, respected military expert and author of the blog The Dignified Rant.  In a blog post written on Sept. 12th, he notes the ongoing debacle in Anbar province, which coalition forces have effectively already lost:

Recent reports that Anbar province is not being pacified by our troops out there are probably accurate. I've noted the problems we've had in subduing the region. The Post article says:

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

Anbar was largely ignored except for air strikes until the months leading up to the 2005 constitution referendum. We've been trying to move in with our forces over the last year to knock down the Sunni gunmen and allow Iraqi forces to set up and police the region. Thus far, we haven't had enough success in getting effective Iraqi forces out west.

You know, that's what happens when you invade a country without any understanding of its sectarian divisions, inflame tensions, disband the only army capable of stopping the violence, piss off every major power group in Iraq, torture its people, and let corrupt American companies siphon off all the reconstruction money without getting anything done.

And, apparently, terrorism coming out of Anbar province is at an all-time high.  What would it take to stop it, according to this military analyst?  Genocide:

But this does not mean the battle is lost. The enemy is resisting. They do that. That's why they aren't friends. And it is true that this is not a military problem but a political one.  Short of killing every third military age man out there we won't be able to subdue the enemy in Anbar.

Stay the course, apparently.  Sounds like a plan to me.  And then comes the advocation:

All we can do is hold the line and buy time while the Iraqi government builds the capability to move into Anbar in force to subdue the enemy. The Iraqis will have more street smarts in identifying bad guys without guns in their hands. And the Iraqis will be able to make deals with the local tribal leaders (as some tribes have done already). More ominously, if the Sunnis won't deal, the Iraqi government will be able to kill every third man of military age in the province if that is what it takes to end the terrorism.

Yes, that's it!  We need genocide--but we can let the Iraqis do it for us!  That's the ticket!  All we need to do is stay the course until the Iraqi troops can commit genocide for us!

But the key point here is this: "terrorism" has become such an evil in these people's minds that sheer, outright genocide has somehow become seen as a lesser evil by contrast.  In other words, genocide is now acceptable in the name of fighting "terror".  Personally, I can think of nothing more terrible or terrifying than genocide--but that's just me.

And moreover, this has become acceptable discourse not just for Ann Coulter and Little Green Footballs, but for respected military analysts whose papers are published in journals like the Institute of Land Warfare, Army magazine, Military Review, and Joint Force Quarterly.


This is the stuff nightmares are made of.

Insistence on the false belief that terrorism can be quelled predominantly through the use of force on foreign lands, that there are a finite number of terrorists who can be killed, and that terrorism is somehow a greater and more fearful enemy than Hitler, Hirohito and Jefferson Davis all combined, has greater repercussions than what we have simply seen out of this malAdministration to date.  This sort of thinking has truly horrific consequences.

When people are driven to abject fear and hatred of something or someone that they do not begin to understand, the results are absolutely horrifying beyond even what Bush has wrought.  This was the basis of the Salem Witch Trials; of the Nazi holocaust; of the Turkish holocaust of Armenians; and every genocide and hate crime, major and minor, worldwide and throughout history.  This served--and continues to serve--as the basis for Islamism and the 9/11 horror itself.  Bin Laden and Bush have simply made themselves two sides of the same coin.

Our government does not understand the roots of terrorism.  Our people--even the respectable analysts--have become more afraid of "terrorists" than they are of genocide.  One and only one conclusion can follow from this line of thinking: indiscriminate genocide of people thought to harbor "terrorists."

This government and its ideology of fear, terror, and "ends justify the means"--even if the means are genocide-- must be stopped at all costs; failure to stop it will have consequence that I dread to imagine.

Get to work.  Pound the pavement, the phones and your wallets to get these people out of government.  To get American troops out of Iraq.

Please.  Before the it gets so bad that the we have to see just how far these people are capable of going.  Because that is that stuff of nightmares; the place where Godwin's Law meets harsh reality, and the unthinkable becomes possible.

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing]

Originally posted to thereisnospoon (David Atkins) on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:12 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips (116+ / 0-)

    for sanity.

    Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

    by thereisnospoon on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 02:57:58 PM PDT

  •  This is why I'm concerned about the idea (7+ / 0-)

    of us rapidly disengaging from Iraq and leaving Iraqis to cope with the vacuum: Genocide.

    •  Well...I don't know what makes you think (31+ / 0-)

      genocide isn't taking place there already.

      Already we have death squads of Shia and Sunni running around executing each other for being the wrong religion. That's a qualification of genocide...the express desire to kill all members of one group. We've got people doing that on either side.

      In addition to that, of course, we also have genocide taking place in Sudan that we're practically doing NOTHING about ourselves...and the rest of the world isn't doing much better than we are. And no one seems to care about that.

      •  It is and it is bad! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise, greenearth

         Our soldiers in Iraq are in huge trouble.  They can do nothing to help the Iraqis and are being used politically by the Bushco/Cheney/Rice/Rummy cabal which will never admit the failure and the deaths are going to sky-rocket!  My SSG son just returned home in July from Afghanistan and can't settle down and is not sleeping because his best friend (since they were toddlers and joined the "Guard" together) is in such huge trouble right now, outside of Baghdad in the Anbar Province-  struggling to keep himself and his guys alive until December.  We need to jail this corrupt and chickenhawk, lying Bushco Cabal. War Crimes and War Profiteering was their mission and they need those two charges against them TO APPEASE our military and the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq!  Our soldiers need to come home NOW from Iraq... Afghanistan could use some of them but that is another story!

    •  it may seem that way, but you must remember (20+ / 0-)

      that most the stiffness of the resistance in Anbar is a direct result of the presence of American, occupying forces.

      It may be that if we leave, there will be some major problems.

      But we will leave eventually--and the longer we stay, the worse the eventual problems will be.

      And our presence certainly won't help if our own government and our own military themselves see genocide as a possible "solution."

      Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

      by thereisnospoon on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I heard that US troops were pulling out (8+ / 0-)

        I heard on NPR that US troops were pulling out of Anbar to take up positions in Baghdad, because that's "where the need is" according to the military.

        They also said that this "doesn't mean we've lost Anbar."  

        Temporarily misplaced, maybe.  Not lost.  

        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

        by kmiddle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:29:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Trite but true - Shuffling the deckchairs on the (7+ / 0-)


          The problems stem back to lack of troops. Gen. Shinseki  said we neede 300,000 troops. The National Security Council estimated, in spring of 2003, that 500,000 troops would be needed. In contrast, Rumsfeld forced the Joint Chiefs of Staff to accept an invasion force of only 100,000, which was good enough to win the war but not enough to secure the peace. link

          Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

          by digital drano on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:37:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe they could have secured the peace... (7+ / 0-)

            ...if the Bremer team hadn't shoveled all the reconstruction money to Republican cronies. Maybe, if the Republicans hadn't been thieves, 100,000 troops would have been enough. About 20 billion dollars is just plain unaccounted for. Presumably, it's in Swiss bank accounts. That money could have bought a lot of tranquility

            Bob Iger must pay. Mickey Rat must die. Disney must be destroyed.

            by expatjourno on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:54:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only if those 100,000 troops ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... were keeping watch over units of the Iraqi army working at keeping the peace ... Sunni units in Sunni neighbourhoods and Shia units in Shia neighbourhoods.

              The Bush regime is like the kid who calls in a bomb threat because he didn't study for his mid-term

              by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:18:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure, now. (0+ / 0-)

                But right after the invasion, before the insurgency took hold, things might have been different. And maybe not. There was a lot of looting.

                Bob Iger must pay. Mickey Rat must die. Disney must be destroyed.

                by expatjourno on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:21:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If they had only disbanded the Republican Guard . (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  digital drano, alizard, kilo50, godislove

                  ... and not the regular army, then it would have quelled the looting in two ways ... one, more people to watch more places, and two, more people who in the event were doing the looting under military orders and facing court martial penalties for engaging in looting.

                  The problem was in both going in with too few soldiers to occupy the country and disbanding the existing army. You can do one or the other, when you kick in the door and uproot the existing government, but you can't do both and hope to have a successful occupation and transition to a stable government.

                  I know it does not get into the news, but there are boatloads of examples of successful and failed government overthrows by external forces in Africa over the past 20 years. You use the army (or sometimes armies) of the country or bring enough people to take their place and enforce military control until a new government can become established.

                  The Bush regime is like the kid who calls in a bomb threat because he didn't study for his mid-term

                  by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:46:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Not only because of the corruption (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mjd in florida, godislove

              Bechtel & Haliburton and others imported thousands of third world nationals to do work Iraqis could have done. This while unemployment was over %40. This helped the contracters profits, But many Iraqis had only 2 choices to support their families,join the insurgency or join the Iraqi security forces. I think the biggest mistake the US made was not putting IRAQIS to work rebuilding their own country. Projects built and maintained by Iraqis would have been defended alot more zealously and the money used to build them would have stayed in the Iraqi economy and helped it grow. The failed rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan are the biggest causes of population discontent.

              Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. ~James Bryce

              by california keefer on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:07:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Joining the Iraqi (0+ / 0-)

                security forces seems to only lead to death anyways...Isn't it Bremer who helped pass laws that the Iraqi's couldn't get the rebuilding contracts? I remember reading something regarding this several months ago.

                •  Complete privitization and a capitalist dream (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mjd in florida

                  were Bremers goals. Firing the Iraqi army got alot of publicity, but he also fired the entire beaucracy. That included teachers, doctors and engineers. Naomi Klein wrote an article about this several years ago that is even more germaine today.
                  When people as diverse as Naomi Klein and American Conservative Magazine point to the rebuilding effort as a major reason for our failure in Iraq, you know there must be something to it.

                  Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. ~James Bryce

                  by california keefer on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:30:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  California keefer, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                california keefer

                It isn't even as if Cheney/Bushco no-bid, no oversight corporations even do the jobs!  Many are missing totally or fraudulently charged with our tax dollars and the amazing thing in Afghanistan was that many sub-sub contracts are given to Pakistanis that also, steal everything further off of a truck or contract! My SSG son ran an Afghani National Army Depot and he is totally sick by our government corruption at the Depot and in his camp.

                •  American Conservative Magazine said it best (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  expatjourno, mjd in florida

                  When the final page is written on America’s catastrophic imperial venture, one word will dominate the explanation of U.S. failure—corruption. Large-scale and pervasive corruption meant that available resources could not be used to stabilize and secure Iraq in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), when it was still possible to do so

                  American Conservative Magazine

                  Corruption and incompetence are the defining attributes of this adminstration. In Katrina, In Iraq and Afghanistan and in how they run the country. Democrats need to hammer that point in to voters.

                  Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. ~James Bryce

                  by california keefer on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 08:01:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wish I could write better as I would like (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    california keefer

                    to hammer it into every Americans head that we taxpayers, our military and the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have been fleeced by Cheney/Bushco corporate corruption!  It is severe and has ruined our military and our foreign neighbor respect!  The bombing of innocent civilian areas for expediency is WAR CRIMES, on top of their torture programs which turned the populace of both countries against us and our military.  DO NOT allow Bush to change the Geneva Conventions because he is trying to cover his own corrupt ass which must rot in jail with the rest of his enablers, to hopefully regain some of our international respect!

                  •  Interesting: I hadn't read this... (2+ / 0-)

                    ...when I posted above.

                    This strikes me as a real campaign issue. Corruption is a choice.

                    Bob Iger must pay. Mickey Rat must die. Disney must be destroyed.

                    by expatjourno on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:22:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  We haven't lost Anbar---riiiight (0+ / 0-)

          We're just advancing in the direction of Baghdad.  Freedom is on the march and it's hard work, but we're staying the course and turning the corner . . .and one of these days we're going to find those Iraqis with flowers and candies, too.

          "Going to church does not make us Christians any more than stepping into our garage makes us a car." --Rev R. Neville

          by catleigh on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:15:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am a totally pissed Military Mom! (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kilo50, clammyc, godislove, Matt Z

          My Staff Sgt. justed returned from Afghanistan in July and his best friend is a Warrant Officer camped outside of Baghdad in the Anbar Province.  His friend is just trying to keep his troops alive and they do nothing in that 1/3 of the country and their only mission is to stay alive!  Is that any way to treat our military???  I am too pissed right now to say much more except that I expect the entire Bushco Cabal and their enablers to be tried for War Crimes and War Profiteering in Afghanistan and Iraq!!  My son and his soldiers are giving up their 20 year, 2nd career plans in our military.  They joined before 9/11 and the Cheney no-bid, no oversight corporate corruption against our troops and the poor people is a travesty with missing services, security, supplies and infrastructure repair..  The bombings of innocent civilian areas for expediency is a War Crime(along with their torture methods) and it turned the populace in Iraq and Afghanistan against our country and our soldiers...   My son ran an Afghani National Army Depot in Kabul, Afghanistan for a year and made Afghani friends.  His interpreter had several degrees and speaks 5 languages fluently!  The poor Afghani and Iraqi citizens and our military deserve our corrupt decider-in- thief, CHIMPY McDryDrunk (thanks clammyc for that moniker) and his entire cabal tried for War Crimes and War Profiteering!

        •  More Wack a mole. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mjd in florida

          The game that has been going on for several years now. We practically destroyed Fallujah to save it. Yet it continues to be a hot spot of violence. The fact that Baghdad has not been subdued speaks volumns about our success there. Baghdad is the capitol, its where the Iraqi government governs the green zone, its where the main hubs of commerce are located, its where the world press is located.If we haven't been able to secure the most visible of targets, who is to say what the rest of the country is like. The press is afraid to go anywhere else.

          Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. ~James Bryce

          by california keefer on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:56:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A little off-topic, but... (7+ / 0-)

        ...and let corrupt American companies siphon off all the reconstruction money without getting anything done.

        Shouldn't Democrats bring this up a little more often? The Bush Regime is rightly criticized for sending in too few troops, disbanding the Iraqi Army and carrying out "de-Baathification" so incompetently, but don't you think that the situation might have turned out differently if all that reconstruction money hadn't been embezzled by Bush family cronies?

        "We have civil war in Iraq because the Republicans, with their culture of corruption, stole the reconstruction money. Instead of rebuilding the country, the Republicans lined their pockets. Our troops are dying out there as a result." Some soundbite like that, perhaps?

        Bob Iger must pay. Mickey Rat must die. Disney must be destroyed.

        by expatjourno on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:48:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I meant to make that clearer... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eleanora, Albatross, suburi

      sorry, I'm not feeling well, so my mind is all over the place.

      What I meant to say is that imo we're in the earlyish stages of genocide in Iraq already and our soldiers have been able to do almost NOTHING to stop it. In other words, our presence there isn't preventing anything.

      •  Third possibility = "something better" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snakelass, Elise, maryru, Rumour95

        I agree with you and others respondents that the US involvement to date in Iraq has resulted in civil war, chaos and the beginnings of genocide.

        I maintain that simply pulling our forces out of Iraq could very well result in worse genocide, as in, an order or two of magnitude worse genocide.  And I would argue that major genocide is worse than beginnings of genocide.

        And, furthermore (and here's the point I keep failing to make clear), I would argue that it is possible (bear with me) that there might exist a better solution than simply pulling out that would give better results than a major genocide.  

        I'm not sure what this 3rd and better path is, but I'm convinced it would involve diplomacy, international cooperation, sound military leadership, and humanitarian efforts to restore order, security, and infrastructure, and this will never happen while the Republicans are in charge.  

        •  Well, I personally think an international (7+ / 0-)

          force is going to be required...unfortunately, I don't see us getting to that point diplomatically as long as Bush is in, unless we win majorities in the House and Senate and impeach his ass...I don't see us making those necessary changes.

          The ideal - a time machine...

        •  Third option: Break it up! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snakelass, suburi

          I know this is probably not very popular, but the country was already divided during the "containment" era, remember the "no fly" zones??? Northern and Southern?

          Obviously, there would need to be some way of equitable distribution of resources (money) derived from oil exports.  But I honestly don't see another alternative that doesn't involve either turning the country over to total chaos and/or civil war.

          I don't think we had legitimate reason for going into Iraq in the first place, Saddam or no Saddam...and I am not in favor of "Staying the course" AT ALL...but at this point I think the
          Bush-ites have staked their reputation on this, so I don't forsee them being willing to back to the UN and try to generate a legitimate international peace-keeping force.

          49 reasons all in a line, all of them good ones, and all of them...LIES!!!

          by Rumour95 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:48:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  to restore order in Iraq (5+ / 0-)

          is going to require an international peacekeeping force the US has no connection to other than helping pay for it.

          When America leaves, that force is most likely to come from the neighbors, having that kind of massive civil disorder next door is something nobody wants. But the Arab world will NOT send troops to pull Bush's coals out of the fire, particularly since the US military is part of the problem and it can't be solved by anybody until after a US withdrawal.

          NO solution that leaves American troops in place can work, Bush has destroyed American credibility in that part of the world.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:12:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Our presence is inflaming it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, Elise

        First, our presence is inflaming it in the normal way that occupation forces provoke local opposition.

        Second, our presence is inflaming it because we put in place a Constitution without proper checks and balances, so that the confidence of minority groups in the Constitution is based on their confidence in staying in the good graces of the majority in control of the Representative Council.

        The Sunni Kurds, with long entrenched local autonomy and a working political arrangement with the Shia majority, are therefore willing to respect the Constitution as long as the civil war stays out of Kurdish provinces.

        The Sunni Arabs, with a long standing previous position as top dogs keeping the Shia majority down, are not in that position.

        I diaried this this other day, but to summarize, the goal of the occupation is to have a stable government with democratic institutions. The goal is not to have US troops on the ground ... they are supposed to be a means to an end.

        It is a lot more likely that the Sunni Arab militias can be brought to heel as the Provincial Guard of their provinces under control of a democratically elected provincial government than brought to heel by killing so many that they are too scared to fight. After all, given the ruthlesslness that the Hussain government visited on the majority Shias, either the US army or a Shia-controlled Iraqi army will be scaring a large number of people into fighting, if they try to go the route of brutal repression of national minorities.

        The Bush regime is like the kid who calls in a bomb threat because he didn't study for his mid-term

        by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:29:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The country is going to have to be partitioned. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Albatross, Rumour95

      It's the only way. It took Saddam hussein's brutality to keep order and now that that's gone, it's going to take something worse -- like genocide -- to keep order. It's not in the American interest, and quite obviously not in the Iraqi people's interest, for the U.S. to carry out genocide.

      Bob Iger must pay. Mickey Rat must die. Disney must be destroyed.

      by expatjourno on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:33:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you're assuming (9+ / 0-)

      that there's some good we're doing now.

      I don't see what that could possibly be.

      There is no military solution to any of this.  So why is our military there?

      Our military is part of the problem, not the solution.

      Nothing is going to change unless our guys leave.   They're the gasoline in the fire.  

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

      by theyrereal on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:34:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not picking on you specifically (8+ / 0-)

      But this line of argument always befuddles me.  First, it was exactly what the Soviets said to justify their refusal to leave Afghanistan.  No one took that seriously, so I don't see why the same sentiment mouthed by Americans should be deemed a good argument.  Furthermore, think of the consequences of accepting it: you've just made illegal aggression a self-justifying act.  Second, the prospects of our ever pacifying Iraq are nil, and the longer we stay -- the more violence and mayhem we cause -- the more we ensure that the most brutal and extreme elements of Iraqi society will dominate when we eventually leave, because they are the only elements that can survive the onslaught.  This is exactly what happened in Vietnam.  If we had gotten out in the early to mid 60s, the aftermath would have been a lot less harsh and despotic than what we got: a destroyed society ruled over by ruthless extremists.

      We need to get out.  Now.

      "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

      by scorponic on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amen Brother (sister?) PREACH IT!!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        US OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!!...AMEN!!

        49 reasons all in a line, all of them good ones, and all of them...LIES!!!

        by Rumour95 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:52:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please understand (0+ / 0-)

        that I am not claiming we're doing good now, or that we should continue doing what we're doing now.  

        I never said that, and I don't believe it.

        All I'm doing is questioning whether abruptly pulling out and washing our hands of Iraq is the best course of action.  There might be some other course worth considering.  Some course involving a mixture of military forces (temporary) for stability and security, ramping up international participation, diplomacy, and implementation of humanitarian initiatives on a massive scale.

        If I dare to hint at such a possibility around here, I'm immediately rebuffed with responses that assume I'm advocating "staying the course".  This is not a binary decision.  There are other options.  I see other people bringing up ideas like partitioning Iraq, which may or may not be the right approach, but it shows that some people want to talk about alternatives to staying-the-course and leaving wholesale.

        I fling this mesg into the void because I'm responding so late.  Had a busy day.

        •  False choice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Getting out is not the same thing as "washing our hands" of Iraq.  We can pull all our troops out while internationalizing the solution to the conflict, getting others to come in and replace us in terms of nation-building, etc., at least in places where the Iraqis can provide adequate security, continuing to provide advice, funding and other support for civilian projects, and so on.  We owe the Iraqis billions in reparations, if nothing else, and a whole lot more in terms of support in manpower, know-how, technology and the rest.

          But you fail to address either of my two points.  I.e., whether we have a legal or moral right to choose anything other than getting out since, in fact, we committed illegal aggression, and whether our staying and continuing to apply violence only guarantees that the aftermath will be worse than it would be if we got out now.

          "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

          by scorponic on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:00:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay, points taken, and to respond (0+ / 0-)

            to your two points:

            1. We had no legal or moral right to invade.  Having done so, and botched things horribly, we have no legal right to fix things, but perhaps a moral obligation.  That could be argued.
            1. Staying and continuing to apply violence (and little else) is clearly bad.  I.e., staying the course is bad.  I did address that point.  

            I'm advocating a measured withdrawl while ramping up non-military initiatives and increased international involvement.  Perhaps the main difference between my vision and your "internationalizing the solution" idea is the rapidity of withdrawl.  Yanking the troops out vs. sliding them out while others slide in.

    •  It's a popular rebellion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, alizard, godislove

      If we leave it won't end the killing, but it is a necessary step to achieving a lasting peace.

      "A man who won't die for something isn't fit to live." -MLK

      by gjohnsit on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:21:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm finding it hard these days (14+ / 0-)

    restraining myself from going back to an old insult...

    an insult that didn't quite fit the first time around because it was of course, miscommunication...and you can flame me if you want...

    but I'm really wanting to call Republicans like I see em lately. And I see them as SAVAGES.

    I hate saying things like that...I hate dehumanization...but I'm sorry, at what point does the behavior of Republicans start to speak for itself? Is there any other name for this mentality besides "SAVAGE"? I certainly can't find any.

    Their inhumanity is absolutely repulsive.

  •  That Seems The History of Humankind (10+ / 0-)

    When a group wants to perform some monsterous act, like genocide, they simply pave the road with claims that the victims-to-be are "monsters." Thus, indians become "barbarians" so that our ancestors could act barbarically; the Jews of Europe were "less than human' so that the Germans could act in a less than human manner-- and today, the Iraq insurgency is comprised of "terrorists" so that we might bring them the ultimate terror that is genocide.


    "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy"-- James Madison

    by Bad Cog on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:13:53 PM PDT

    •  Which makes my above comment (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shayera, snakelass, Albatross, godislove

      just as horrible as I thought it was.

      What happens when we classify Republicans as inhumane savages? Does that make it okay for us to treat them poorly? Or is that the difference between us and them...we don't do that sort of thing yet they do?

      •  That's what makes us different from Republicans. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise, Gorette, godislove

        We don't tend to denigrate and dehumanize them. Republicans certainly don't bother to return the courtesy.

      •  It's Understandable To Call People Names (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snakelass, Elise, godislove, lemming22 the midst of a struggle. But as always for people who actually value justice, there is the burden of proof.

        Using terms like 'barbarian,' 'savage,' and what not may feel good in the moment, you might even feel it's true, but lacking an empirical definition, that's all one's got: a bit of stress-relieving name-calling. Somew words are just terminally subjective.

        BushCo. knows all too well the value of rhetorical trickery, including exploiting subjective words like these. That's why I think we're always better off using terms as often as possible that can be born out through the evidence. Anything less can become the fodder of the self-serving.

        "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy"-- James Madison

        by Bad Cog on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:32:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We don't want to kill them. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snakelass, kilo50, Elise, Bad Cog, godislove

        And that makes all the difference.

        Right now, the Republicans are hell-bent on a plan that's just as destructive as any Cold War showdown -- and this time, there's no one who can stand up to them and shout them down.  Between global warming, peak oil, massive environmental damage, and opposing serious efforts to reduce overpopulation, we're running the serious risk of at least a massive die-off of the human race over the next few generations.  Meanwhile, the Rethugs are busy 'liberating' nations that don't want us and making plans that will ensure that we are hated by a large fraction of the population for the next generation or two.

        I think we need to make a distinction between people and culture.  We -- as Democrats -- want to change a culture, and we have every right to do it.  And we do that through persuation.  Rethugs want to eliminate a threat, and they're doing that through genocide.  There's a massive difference there, and that's what makes them wrong and us right.

      •  That's how evil wins. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Good people have principles, which evil people see as obstacles to be discarded. Unencumbered by these 'obstacles,' they are free to do whatever it takes to win.

        The system has evolved in such a way that psychopaths rise to the top.

        And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that... these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. For it is judgment that defeats us.

        -Colonel Kurtz

  •  Neca eos omnes. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise, Thorby Baslim, esquimaux

    Deus suos agnoscet.

    OK, these are Brian Dunn's sentiments ("kill every third man").  Who is he other than an Ollie North type ex-military guy with some degrees?  Who listens to him and why should we?

    I don't meant this confrontationally, these are reprehensible sentiments; but not out of the wackjob right mainstream.

  •  I am very worried (6+ / 0-)

    about what is going to happen after the November election either in Iraq or Iran or both. I do not think that the Bushies are capable of getting out or not doing somethin awful in Iran. The best hope to stop them is the saner heads in the military who can see where this is all going.

    •  Step one of ANY viable plan or solution is (5+ / 0-)

      to get the Repubs and Bushies out of power and replace with saner heads.

      •  Please excuse me (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, kilo50, lotlizard, godislove

        if I'm not thrilled by the notion of replacing incompetent, congenitally dishonest imperialist elitists with more competent, somewhat more honest imperialist elitists.

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:06:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no, not thrilling (0+ / 0-)

          but we have to take what we can get, and keep working for something better.

          •  I've always thought that, too (0+ / 0-)

            "politics is the art of the possible" and all that.  But lately I just don't feel that way any more.  The USA is an empire in rapid decline.  Unless we face that and undertake massive, fundamental reforms, we're going to experience an enormous, disastrous crash.  Yes, we could experience that crash without passing laws officially legalizing torture.  And we could experience that crash with a few more people getting some health insurance.  But practically everyone in Washington, everyone who's even within sniffing distance of a position of power in our society, is fully, totally committed to Empire, and is going to happily lead us down the road to disaster.  Doing so without deliberately violating the law is cold comfort to me.

            It might be too late to avoid the decimation of our society, no matter what we do.  America is a deeply, deeply f**ked up society, and I fear that while we're undertaking the (best-case scenario) multi-generational effort to create a decent and sustainable society, the unalterable facts of economic collapse and environmental disaster will wipe us out.  It's like pulling the cord on your parachute too close to the ground --SPLAT!

            We don't have all the time in the world.  We don't have forever to start turning things around in a fundamental way.  And although I look forward to the schadenfreude of watching a bunch of loathsome, evil, criminal creeps lose elections in November, the notion of a former Reagan Administration official (Webb), or an anti-choice, anti-immigrant, pro-WOT legacy boy (Casey), or, yes, even an anti-Iraq-War political neophyte who went out of his way to assure the Wall Street Journal that he was really just a Committed Capitalist and budget-balancer in netroots clothing (Lamont), hardly fills me with excitement.

            "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

            by Pesto on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:09:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The military is hardly blameless (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jett, snakelass

      Why would anyone here trust the Pentagon?  The higher ups pursue 2 goals:  (1) furthering their careers; (2) enhancing the power of the Institution and protecting it from criticism or oversight.  They are consummate bureaucrats, whose "bureau" is tasked with killing people and providing muscle for the American Empire.

      Occasionally one or two wanders off program and actually behaves in a humane way (a good deal of these folks end up at the Center for Defense Information).  But if our big hope is to be redeemed by the Pentagon?

      Then it's too late to even rearrange deck chairs -- we've already hit the iceberg.

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:05:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The military often at least recognizes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jett, snakelass, kilo50

        a losing situation when they see it which is more than one can say for the Bushies and idiots like Kristol. They are bureaucrats and as such they want to maintain the long-term viability and effectiveness of their bureau.

        I am only looking for something that will stand in the way of the madness that emanates from Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush between November 2006 and January 2009 when they will not face an electorate. Impeachment hearings might get their attention, but I do not think that they are likely to happen however much they are deserved (even with a slim Dem majority in both Houses which is at best 50-50).

  •  Partition Iraq Now (8+ / 0-)

    I've been reading Galbraith's End of Iraq.  It's a hard book to read, because reading his recounting of the layers of stupidity in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld policies is heartbreaking.

    Galbraith is convinced that a partition is the only solution.  I'm becoming convinced.  Kurdistan has been defacto partitioned for about 15 years now.  There's just the "details" of Kirkuk and Mosul to sort out.

    The Sunnis and Shias need their own areas of autonomy.  That won't end the violence -- the Kurds had to fight a civil war about 8-10 years ago to sort out their internal issues.  But it will put some bounds on the situation.

    Sadly, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration and their allies in the neocon punditry are still wed to the fantasy of a unified Iraq.  We need to be helping the parties negotiate an armistice between three autonomous regions, and need to be doing it NOW, not in 2009.

    •  I've heard Galbraith (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, kilo50, Albatross

      advance that argument several times in speeches and he's quite convincing. But there are also seemingly strong arguments that partitioning could set off its own string of unintended consequences.  Chief among these are an unending Sunni insurgency, since they will be left with no oil; and Turkish reaction to an independent Kurdish area.

      Not that I have a better suggestion. And it looks increasingly like this will be the end result of our great Iraqi adventure, no matter how long we stay.

      •  negotiated armistice (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kilo50, lotlizard

        A sustainable solution would have to have certain elements ...

        • sharing of oil revenue between autonomous regions
        • defendable borders
        • security for Iraqi Kurdistan from Turkey -- perhaps with US troops in place, and mentioned by quaoar (of the Kuiper belt)
        • security arrangements for mixed cities (e.g. a partition of Baghdad)
        • and much more that I'm sure I'm missing

        Here's the deal, Iraq is done.  Over.  Kaput.  It had an eighty year run, but it's over.  We should face the reality of the situation, and focus on harm minimization.  

        The Bush "plan" is to pretend everything is okay.  Denial doesn't help.

    •  The big problems when it comes to partitioning (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kilo50, catleigh, Albatross
      The first big problem with this plan is that Turkey won't have it. If we create an independent Kurdistan, Turkey will probably launch an invasion in order to prevent Turkish Kurds from staging a nationalistic revolt.

      The other big problem is that Iran will probably end up running, directly or indirectly, the southern oil fields.

      The last big problem is that this would still leave a lot of poor, extremely pissed off Sunnis right on Saudi Arabia's doorstep. Isn't that now an Al Qaeda stronghold?

      It may be the best of a bunch of bad solutions, but I'm loathe to believe that it's a better solution than another strong-arm puppet fascist a la Saddam.

      -5.88, -4.21 / Kossacks! Become a Precinct Captain!

      by maxomai on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Turkey won't do anything (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Not if, as part of a partition plan, American forces are withdrawn to bases in Kurdistan.

        Non mi placent, O Pincerna. Virent Ova! Viret Perna!

        by quaoar on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:09:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  2 state vs. 3 state (0+ / 0-)

        Since the primary animosity is between the Shia and Sunni factions, perhaps if the Shiites get their own state and the Sunnie and Kurds share a state in which the Kurds still maintain their semi-autonomous region that could be a more palatable solution.  

        "The power to dominate rests on the differential possession of knowledge" -Foucault

        by Jett on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:42:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kurds will fight for independence if they have to (0+ / 0-)

          The primary tormenters of the Iraqi Kurds, for decades, have been the Sunni Arab overlords of the central government.  The Kurds want nothing to do with the Iraqi Arabs.  They are and have been essentially an autonomous region for well over a decade.  At most, they will tolerate a loose federation and some revenue sharing.

    •  And once again (0+ / 0-)

      the moderates in the middle -- a la Riverbend -- get screwed over.

      God, this whole situation was better when Sadaam was in power.  Maybe there was once a way of doing this right, but I'm not sure what it was or how we could've done it.  And whatever it is, it's long gone now.

      We're on the path to empire, and God help the little people who get killed on the way.

      •  does anybody know if Riverbend's still alive? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryru, lemming22

        Her last post was August 5th, and that's a very long time in Iraq.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:20:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          She's had long pauses before.  Is there anyone anywhere online who would be able to contact people if she died?

          There's one or two other Iraqi bloggers I'm worried about, too -- some of whom have been gone for a whole lot longer.  Does anyone know what the electricity situation in Bagdad is like at the moment?  Or the Internet?  I suppose they have cell phones, but I'm not sure that that's enough to allow decent Internet access.

          All we can do is hope she shows up eventually.

    •  There's a middle ground between partition ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... and the present over-centralized government, which guarantees that the army will be in the hands of the Shia and forces the Sunni Arabs to fight.

      Sorry, repeating myself.

      Asking Bush to lead a country to democracy is like hiring a tone-deaf choir director.

      The Bush regime is like the kid who calls in a bomb threat because he didn't study for his mid-term

      by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:34:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kurds are already separate (0+ / 0-)

        The Iraqi Kurds are not going back.  They're going to have a degree of autonomy somewhere between very loose federalism and full independence. So really, the issue is whether the Iraqi Arabs can live together or need to live separately.  The discussions about Iraq in the US government and media are almost never about this, the central issue.  Sadly, the framework for discussion Iraq is the delusions of an ignorant Yankee from West Texas.  We need to change the frame to reflect reality.

        •  Yes, that was the point of my diary ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... though in my haste to get it down, there was not any juicy bits.

          Take the present constitution. Amend it with a "Bill of Union" to entrench democratic provincial governments. Establish Provincial Guards, to operate inside their own areas, with the army restricted to border security and the capital, unless invited in by a majority of both houses of the provincial government.

          Establish a Constitution in which the bulk of government occurs at the provincial level.

          And yes, very, very loose federalism ... closer to US circa 1800 than US circa 2000.

          The Bush regime is like the kid who calls in a bomb threat because he didn't study for his mid-term

          by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:52:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  while your proposal not unreasonable (0+ / 0-)

            deciding what the future government(s) in the place we call Iraq is something the people currently called Iraqis will have to decide themselves without American "help".

            America has neither the moral authority nor the firepower (I doubt that even nuclear would work) to dictate the future form of the Iraqi government(s).

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:23:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The US has one realpolitic card to play ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... which is the withdrawal card.

              There is no sense in which it has the power to impose, but it still has the opportunity to propose.

              However, the first thing to establish for the hoped-for lame-duckancy of George Bush is what is the alternative. That calls for understanding that the present Constitutional arrangement is untenable and why, so that whomever is involved in negotiating a peace settlement between the Shia and the Sunni Arabs, whenever that occurs, a proposal is made that does not guarantee that a new round of fighting will break out.

              The Bush regime is like the kid who calls in a bomb threat because he didn't study for his mid-term

              by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 07:05:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  The Aspens are turning (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Bush Administration my be preparing a partition, or a coup replacing al-Maliki. Did you read that the Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani just flew to Colorado to have a special private meeting with Condoleeza Rice at Aspen? And US forces seem to be preparing for defending parts of Baghdad from siege: they're having their Iraqi fellahin dig a moat around the city.

      Something interesting (and probably staggeringly stupid) is about to happen.

  •  great diary, as always (4+ / 0-)

    your rant was very...dignified

  •  the thing is... (19+ / 0-)

    ... that nothing gets rid of terrorists except pushing them to the fringes of society.  True radical rightwing extremists like Timothy McVeigh were on the fringe because there's nothing in our society that made him - or his buddies - mainstream.

    You can't fight a "war on terror" by pounding the shit out of a country.  You'll just make people coalesce around anyone offering them any sort of feeling of belonging to a cause, any sort of purpose, when your home and family and everything you love has been obliterated.

    Israel sure fucked that one up with what it just did to  Lebanon (Hezbollah is anything but fringe, and it offers the "belonging" and help that people want now).

    And we're pounding the shit out of Iraq - you can bet that we're making radical/fringe elements, and their methods, mainstream.

    Hell, I don't know what to say.  Things are so far beyond any sort of repair in Iraq... what can we do?  What do we do now?

    Not even genocide would "work".  If you kill almost everyone, whoever's left will just be the latest incarnation of someone who wants to kill the opposition.

    God, what a horrifying, heartbreaking disaster.

    ... You're fighting to get your children into the 21st century, and to hell with the rules. -- David McTaggart, founder of Greenpeace

    by Page van der Linden on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

    •  War is in the Service of Terrorists (11+ / 0-)

      It always is.  By acting as we have, we've allowed Bin Laden to turn the US military into his tool.  We've conducted a three year campaign of destruction, acting as recruiting agents for Al Qaeda.

      The terrorists only have as much power as we're willing to give them.  Trouble is, we've given it all.

      Theobromine -- does that come in chocolate?

      by Mark Sumner on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:30:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We are not battling terrorists (7+ / 0-)

      We are battling groups that are vying for control of Iraq. Until we admit that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war or a complete state of anarchy, we cannot hope to resolve the problem. We need to give up this fantasy of creating a democracy in Iraq and try to negotiate a peaceful settlement between the various factions that may result in a loose federation of autonomous states sharing common economic resources if that's what it will take to bring about peaceful co-existence.

      •  View from Iraq (6+ / 0-)

        A quote in Dahr Jamail's column the other day, from an Iraqi author named Rizgar Khosnow:

        I have concluded that there is no way on earth that Iraq will recover, as one country, in the next ten to twenty years. We need a new generation here if we are going to see any kind of peace. There have been so many killings here that there is no way one will forgive the other. I personally know many people in Baghdad who are waiting for the right time to seek revenge on others that have hurt them. There has been so much hurt here that you can never imagine it.

        Iraqis have given up on peace in Baghdad especially. There is no hope. What you see on TV is propaganda and controlled by the USA and is absolutely not true. There is no such thing as "reconciliation" between Iraqis. There has been too much blood spilled and Iraqis are VERY well known not to forget and forgive.

        Just one person's opinion, but it doesn't inspire optimism. The whole column is interesting, if difficult reading here

        •  Yes, that's one of the most realistic pics (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of Iraq, and sounds right, but totally tragic.

          He's the best, isn't he?

          "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

          by Gorette on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:36:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Shades of _The True Believer_. (0+ / 0-)

      It hit me awhile back that terrorist movements were just mass movements with added violence.  I'm going to have to reread Hoffman; I don't think he offered any solutions, but he might have offered mitigation stratagies.

      Of course, we've got a mass movement of our own going, what with the Rethugs and all.  I keep intending to do a diary on that, but haven't gotten around to it so far.

    •  Both fundies and non-religious neocons (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, kilo50

      believe in forcing every conflict to a crisis -- the fundies because that's the way to fast track Armageddon, when their very own Giant Sucking Sound pulls them up to heaven, and the neocons because they can't see how it helps the World's #1 Bully to avoid beating the shit out of everyone.  Their whole world view is based on a sort of "no constraints, by the most extreme means available" sort of approach.

      So they probably expect at some level that murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people would create WWIII.  That prospect excites them.  As someone whose name I can't quite place once said, "Bring it on!"

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:10:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anything but fringe? (0+ / 0-)

      To Lebanese Shi'ites, Page.  Beyond that, not so much.

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We must step down, or they won't stand up (10+ / 0-)

    Why should they?

    Why should the "government" of Iraq take responsibility for this mess as long as we're willing to stand by acting as the fall guy?  Unless we demand that the Iraqi government take responsibility and US forces immediately step back, they will be happy to avoid the fragments while we continue blundering through the china shop.

    The idea that our continued presence represents any sort of "progress" is the key illusion.  The longer we stay, the harder it will be to leave.

    If we ever hope to get out, we must tell them that they have to take control, not wait until they are "ready."

    Theobromine -- does that come in chocolate?

    by Mark Sumner on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:28:24 PM PDT

    •  I like that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Devilstower, RiaD

      I hope that catches on

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

      by theyrereal on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:32:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which is why Murtha's proposal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Devilstower, maryru

      for phased redeployment makes the most sense. Get out of the direct line of fire but be close by in case the troops are needed.

      "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein

      by scoff0165 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:00:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  PSAB (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kilo50, scoff0165, jkilkullen

        One major problem with redeployment is that the best base we had the area was Prince Sultan Air Base located in Saudi Arabia. We spent well over $1B to create this base and suddenly, mysteriously, vacated it after 9/11/01. Thereby allowing Osama one of his best victories - making US forces leave the holy land of Saudi Arabia.

        Can you say appeasement?

        Do you remember Matt Maupin?

        by sharilynn on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:34:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are other options, but you're right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          about Saudi appeasement. But a part of the cause for our problems in the first place, though, is that we've interfered for too long, and in a lot of very bad ways, in the region.

          "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein

          by scoff0165 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:19:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Their policy really is "destroy the village (8+ / 0-)

    in order to save it," and the logical end result of that policy is genocide.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:28:25 PM PDT

    •  That always was the policy (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, Elise, maryru, Albatross

      Just as 9/11 served as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi resistance now acts as an excuse to conduct slash and burn operations through the population.

      That was the goal all along.

      Theobromine -- does that come in chocolate?

      by Mark Sumner on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:32:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Destroy the Middle East to "save" it. (0+ / 0-)

      But wouldn't it be cheaper to convert them all to Christianity at gunpoint, declare them all "Freedomized", & then quickly leave while no one is looking?

      "... Just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB, 12/18/00

      by Bob Love on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:17:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, they just want to save us, really. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

        by Gorette on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:36:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But Bush and company want the oil . . . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kilo50, Simplify, lotlizard

        and they won't leave until they get it, either through US occupation or a government that the U.S. can control.  They never planned for post-war Iraq because these morons really believed that they could, in essence, stage a coup and install Chalabi as the next dictator of Iraq.  He, in gratitude for the neocons' help, would then shower them and their oil company buddies with petroleum.  They were too stupid and in love with their own self-perceived cleverness and boldness to realize that Chalabi didn't hold the cards he thought he did and wasn't even playing the same game as the neocons.  Not to mention that there might be other players who had their own plans for Iraq.  The resultant disaster is all too painfully clear.  But one thing hasn't changed--Bush went to Iraq for oil and he ain't leaving until he's got it.

        "Going to church does not make us Christians any more than stepping into our garage makes us a car." --Rev R. Neville

        by catleigh on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:28:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And they keep on doing it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Iran with Kermit Roosevelt, Venezuala attempt recently...  It's like the fight over ANWR, no matter how many times they lose or blow it, they're always back.  Like cockroaches.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:29:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  but there are no parallels (5+ / 0-)

    to Hitler.  No, none whatsoever.

    These people aren't fascists.  How dare I even utter the word!

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:31:28 PM PDT

  •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlyNormal, CTLiberal

    It is less painful to see the inability to get a politial solution because the Bushies intend the military to stay permanently in Iraq. That's what keeps the insurgency alive.

  •  Because they refuse to call it anarchy or civil (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snakelass, Elise, maryru, Albatross

    war. It's not terrorism we're fighting. Until we first admit that it is not terrorism and never was terrorism that we are fighting in Iraq, we cannot even begin to take the first step in a successful resolution of the conflict. I'm sure that the Iraqi sectarian groups that are battling each other don't consider themselves terrorists either and calling them terrorists only causes further agitation. It seems that the Bush regime refuses to recognize and deal with this basic fact, probably because they have to maintain their raison d'etre as fighting terrorists.

  •  Spoon! Excellent Thanks... Pound the pavement. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thereisnospoon, Elise

     We Americans are better than our government!

    Thank yo....


  •  In order to save Iraq.,, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole, catleigh, Albatross

    it has become necessary to destroy Iraq. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam is it?

    "Gentlemen, Chicolini may sound like an idiot and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you, he really is an idiot ." Rufus T Firefly

    by irate on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:40:28 PM PDT

    •  Beengo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irate, catleigh

      after all, it's not what's on the surface that counts-- it's all that phat crude oil just a few feet below the sand that counts here.

      "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

      by Superpole on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:59:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Neocons love Cockroaches (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal

    All the neocon strategies lead to the same conclusion – kill everyone.  Well, yeah with everyone dead the world will be peaceful – for the cockroaches.

    Do the right thing 'casue it feels better.

    by John Boy on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:42:36 PM PDT

  •  We Did This In Viet Nam.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As you can see Viet Nam is communist...Krist On A Krutch...When do we stop this....??!!??? God, I'm starting to get depressed... I watched Lou Dobbs tonight.... And sitting there is Ed Rollins telling the planet that the Republicans are going to hold on to the House & Senate because he thinks that the Republicans are going to use "all politics are local", as in the Repub Rep. has done more for his constituents locally than his Democratic opponent will do for them if he's elected... And Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush & if we can't tie them to Bush & Iraq & torture ...Rollins may be right...We may not win the House or the Senate...

    Take Care All... PLHeart..

    by PLHeart on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:53:25 PM PDT

  •  "oh, help yourself!" (0+ / 0-)

    "...we've been trying to kill you for ages!"

  •  I heard a story on NPR yesterday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that stated every family in Baghdad was allowed to have an AK47 in their home for protection.  The story also said that every citizen in Baghdad had two forms of ID, and they showed the 'proper' ID to whichever militia it was that was questioning them.  Then I applied that knowledge to my own little community here in the United States.......

    Last summer in this quiet little burb known as Gulf Breeze, Fl there was a 17 yo who had snuck into his neighbors house, to rob or to plunder?, but certainly not to kill. He did get killed, because he startled that elderly neighbor and he was shot and died at the scene. It was a horrible story, for the man who did the shooting and for the victim's family, and for our small community.....just imagine an AK47 in every home in your city, town, burb.  

    Bring our troops home now.  The citizens of Iraq are armed now, and they are going to shoot, who can blame them?  But please don't let them shoot at our troops, who are there under the command of an idiot.

    "If you can't stand behind our troops, then, please, feel free to stand in front of them."

    by panicbean on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:56:57 PM PDT

    •  automatic weapons in every home? (0+ / 0-)

      It's been tried.

      Do you know of any place on earth with less civil disorder than Switzerland, where every male adult (presumably, with the usual exemptions) is an armed member of the national militia and in the event of a militia callup, is expected to show up armed and with ammo?

      Last time I looked, Switzerland isn't peaceful because it has no living citizens.

      As for the 17 year old, I don't have any sympathy for him. I don't know what he really intended after breaking into somebody's home and neither do you.

      We have enough trouble in Iraq without you bringing your pet gun control issue into the discussion.

      When the government is incapable of guaranteeing civil order, people arm themselves, legally or illegally.

      Culture and situation have far more to do with what people do with privately owned weapons than the kind of weapons they have.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:39:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, you missed my point, but I want to (0+ / 0-)

        expressly say that I do not support gun issues or weapons armament by any people, us, the Swiss, the Iraqi's or you, my point was the mayhem, the disbelief, the chaos, that having citizens armed could cause!

        We have enough trouble in Iraq without you bringing your pet gun control issue into the discussion.

        You have misunderstood my whole arguement, much to your chagrin, and I feel for you.

        "If you can't stand behind our troops, then, please, feel free to stand in front of them."

        by panicbean on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:10:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you'd be better off learning to (0+ / 0-)

          think for yourself rather than feel for me. You need the practice badly, especially if you have no talent for it.

          my point was the mayhem, the disbelief, the chaos, that having citizens armed could cause!

          Why don't you go to Switzerland and explain this to the Swiss in person.

          I find the idea of you surrounded by land full of scenic beauty and boringly tranquil people howling a warning to the Swiss that the automatic military weapons in their homes will immediately turn their peaceful land into a bioody ruin strangely heartwarming.

          Armed citizens in a country that's peaceful by custom (unfortunately not this one) and tradition or disarmed citizens have a similar violence level. Not much and not a whole lot.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:26:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  R'd But What's New (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catleigh, lotlizard, Rumour95


    as a warm up to Iraq, the U.S. Air Force carpet bombed the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan for seven weeks using B-52's and B1 bombers. at one point they dropped a 15,000 pound bomb and "blew them to bits" according to a recent Rolling Stone article.

    U.S. companies (back when Saddam was still "our boy") sold Hussein chemical weapons. Rumsfeld was the go-between.

    now that Hussein got busted and is on "trial", a recent witness who testified regarding his genocide demanded U.S. companies pay reparations to the families of Kurdish victims.

    That wasn't reported in the mainstream media here, of course.

    make no mistake: the U.S. and Israel will deal out as much as death as necessary to teach the opposition a lesson-- and to make it clear to everyone concerned that the oil is ours.

    "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

    by Superpole on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:57:56 PM PDT

    •  New, isn't it, to call it what it is, genocide! (0+ / 0-)

      I haven't seen that before, and it makes the point extremely well.

      "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

      by Gorette on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why Start Using (0+ / 0-)

        the term now and not ten years ago when Iraqi citizens were suffering under U.S.-demanded UN sanctions-- and hundreds of thousands of children died?

        that wasn't genocide?

        "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

        by Superpole on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 05:19:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't know that hundreds of thousands (0+ / 0-)

          of children or adults had died in the past ten years, due to sanctions. Where can I find out about that? Guess I can google. But I never heard anyone accuse the sanctions of genocide before.

          "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

          by Gorette on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 06:42:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is what it comes to. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole, Rumour95

    Really, now isn't war all about killing off a people?  This country Iraq that we have invaded will never get on it's feet as a free people, they will always be prisoners of the immeasurable devastation we have brought to them.  It really ends with us waging peace in earnest, or it ends with us leaving the Sunnis to be killed off by their own countrymen.    The third alternative is we "stay the course" and effectively kill off the Sunnis ourselves.

    Whic do we choose as a Nation?  Will we wage peace in Iraq?  Will our newly elected Democratic Congress seek to wage peace in Iraq with effective conflict-resolution tools?  Will a new leadership in 2008 seek to repair the fragmented country through serious buildup of Democratic structures?  Will we be too afraid to counter the horror with meaningful solutions?

    We need to do some serious soul-searching as nation, our troops are not safe as long as we play footsie with Democracy in the Middle East while gutting our own.  We need leadership that does not put our troops in danger frivolously, antagonize the enemy by inflaming old rivalries, and politicize the strategic movements of war.

  •  What will quell the terrorist myth? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, smokeymonkey

    The myth that Iraq is a front in the war on terror has been propagated ad nauseum by this administration. Iraq has never been a front in the war on terror and never will be. Yet this administration steadfastly clings to this lie as the reason we must remain in Iraq. Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, perhaps even total anarchy. There is no hope of a democracy taking root there at this time. There are too many divisions between the various factions to find the common ground that is necessary to establish a democratic republic. Saddam held the country together by force or the threat of force and a network of informants that kept tabs on his enemies. The best we can hope for in Iraq at this time is peaceful co-existence between autonomous regions in some sort of loose federation. And we are not the ones to negotiate that settlement. The UN needs to get involved and we need to get out. Of course, this means that the oil interests that got us into Iraq in the first place will be out of luck, which is why they need to perpetuate the myth of Iraq as a terrorist front. We need a fresh approach in Iraq - one that deals openly and honestly with the issues instead. Using the unrealistic threat of terrorism to advance a hidden agenda is not only wrong, but it only prolongs the conflict.  

    •  Unfortunately, they say that now there are (0+ / 0-)

      maybe 50,000 al Qaida, many of whom are in Iraq now, whereas there were less than 10,000 before we went into Iraq.

      "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

      by Gorette on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:41:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Our government doesn't understand the (10+ / 0-)

    roots of terrorism because our government doesn't want to face the truth that our foreign policy is a major factor in driving terrorism against us.

    Essentially America is an empire. And when you set out to run an empire you make enemies. Most past empires have recognized this basic fact. In fact, every school kid knows this. If you are going to run an empire, policies sometimes have to be changed and locals 'appeased' in some way in order to soften the yoke of imperialism and make it easier to govern the empire. The better an empire has been at accepting and dealing with this fact, the longer it has tended to last. No empire has ever been successfully governed by force alone.

    But the United States has placed itself in the paradoxical position of being an empire that denies, even to itself, that it is an empire. America's history as a representative democracy founded as a rejection of empire has led to this paradoxical result. And both political parties live in this paradox, not just the Republicans.

    However, the Bush administration pushes the problem of the paradox to the limit. Not only do they accept empire, they aggressively seek to expand the American empire. But they have to do so within the boundaries of a political system that was never designed to rule an empire. Thus, they have long chosen to simply lie to the people about it. This is the essence of Straussianism and neoconservativism. As Straussians, lying comes naturally to them.

    At no time must it ever be acknowledged to the public that America is an empire. Thus we are told that America has the power it has because it is so inherently great; because it believes in democracy; because it has so many freedoms. America seeks only to do good in the world. It seeks only to bring peace, prosperity, democracy and enlightenment to the benighted regions of the earth. These are the lies that are told to get the people to support an empire that they might otherwise not support if they really understood what was going on.

    Consequently, when America makes enemies, they can only be explained in a manner that fits in with the lies told about American empire in the first place. We are great, so our enemies are jealous of our greatness; we have democracy and freedoms, so our enemies must hate us for our democracy and our freedoms. Because we want only good for the world, our enemies must want only bad. We are good, so they are evil. And so on.

    In short, no attempt is even made to understand the real reasons for why we have enemies. And don't even consider making the attempt, for you will be instantly dismissed as 'hating America', 'appeasing the terrorists', 'blaming America first', or by whatever frame is necessary to avoid a frank discussion of the fact that America is an aggressive empire.

    Running an empire through a democracy is hard work.

    •  I Wish I Could Recommend This Twice n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  it seems that American policy in that region (0+ / 0-)

      is designed to get us unquestioned access to the oil there for the 10-20 years that there's going to be anything in the Middle East worth pumping.

      It doesn't make sense to spend $500 billion on that when $500 billion can be used to develop and deploy alternative energy/ green replacements for oil which will be far less harmful to the environment.

      What we're going to have assuming the neocon dream can be worked out in a generation is an empire in the Middle East consisting of pumped out oil fields and the massive environmental damage that goes with them that will cost us, not profit us, gigatons of greenhouse gases making trouble for us, and nothing to replace the oil that simply won't exist in a generation using the most optimistic assumptions.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:45:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who is he/she kidding?? (0+ / 0-)

    Anbar was largely ignored except for air strikes until the months leading up to the 2005 constitution referendum.

    Anbar province encompasses Fallujah, Ramadi, I believe Najaf and many other high profile towns and cities like Tikrit. Anbar has been the problem since the insurgency first started in the summer of 2003 so Brian Dunn is either a dunce or intentionally misleading.

  •  Well, then . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kilo50, lotlizard

    I suppose they'll be doing that!  Kill them rag-heads!

    Heh.  Whaddya gonna do, call up the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague?  Start a lawsuit?  Vote 'em out?  Hey, that's a fucking hot one!

    Whaddya think those ES&S/Diebold/Sequoia machines are for?  "Glitch?"  What are you, a moron?  The ability to hack into the systems and change voting outcomes is a fucking FEATURE!!!  And you and I, friends, have paid with our tax dollars to have our franchise gifted, essentially, to Karl Rove and his laptop!

    The program figures out where votes are needed to assure continuing Republican control without, hopefully, appearing TOO obvious, and voila, the votes are changed accordingly to meet the need!

    And, as we spread Diebold Democracy at the point of a bayonet, "free elections" will increasingly be Diebolded all around the world!

    Freedom is definitely on the march!

    Think I'm paranoid?  Well, let's talk after November.  The only scenario in which I can imagine a Democratic Congress or President is if things get so miserably fucked up that they install a Democrat, a corrupt one whom they can control, to writhe in agony with insoluble programs created by the Republicans for a year or four, maintaining the illusion of democracy while shifting blame for much of the Republicans' malfeasance and outright crimes to the Democrats.

    I hope I'm wrong, of course.

    9/11/2001 NEVER FORGET. "Things do not happen. They are made to happen." (John F. Kennedy)

    by Oatmeal Porridge on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:18:49 PM PDT

    •  actually, h4x00ring the vote (0+ / 0-)

      is now a game anybody with the technical skills (x86 assembly code, I think) who's willing to do some research on the Net or can get physical access to a voting machine and/or Diebold documentation can play.

      Do you think Karl Rove can write a voting machine virus? Do you think that his employees are the only people capable of writing them?

      I wouldn't be all that surprised if the top vote getter in 2008 has 1,335,000,000,000 votes and is NOT a Republican.

      At that point, I think even the GOP will demand a do-over with paper ballots.

      "Security" on these machines is so loose as to defeat the purpose of having one side able to fix elections. Though the GOP probably won't get this until they wake up and find that cartoon characters compose the new Congressional majority.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:52:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Erich Kaestner's postwar children's book, (0+ / 0-)

        ... Die Konferenz der Tiere* (Germany, 1949), the animals of the world organize a giant peace conference.

        The attendees, as shown in the book's illustrations, even included Mickey Mouse and Babar the Elephant.

        If that is allowed to count as a tongue-in-cheek example, cartoon characters would probably do a better job than the war-criminal-enabling politicos we Americans elect in such abundance.

        [* footnote] Link (in German) to a book review written by a parent:

  •  Anyone that's ever studied history (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal, kilo50, catleigh

    knows that the only way to stop a popular rebellion is to raise the level of killing to genocidal levels.

      Either that or you can stop what is causing the rebellion in the first place - the occupation.

    "A man who won't die for something isn't fit to live." -MLK

    by gjohnsit on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:19:25 PM PDT

  •  This is crap... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roysol, smokeymonkey

    ...and I don't buy it for a second.  The entire premise of this is that a blog post from a former guardsman who has been occasionally published is being taken seriously by the military establishment of the nation.  There is no evidence of that in your diary or elsewhere.

    Moreover, I don't support the notion that anything must be done "at all costs"; such invocation is almost always a convenient excuse for unthinkable things.  I'd note that such language is used by those who wish to see a "war of civilizations" on the neocon side of the debate.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:19:42 PM PDT

  •  What if DoD ignores new law? (0+ / 0-)

        Perhaps the greatest crisis of this admnistration will occur when the DoD and military officers decide to not sit on the jurys of tribunals or practice the circus acts contrary to Article III.  
       However, I still think this is a play for presidential power- most in the military do not like to torture prisoners or ignore the rules of evidence.  However, a win in the Senate will be very symbolic.

  •  This is why I'm making the History of Iraq diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Number four of the series is coming out this weekend.

     You can't know what is going on until you know where the country has been.

    "A man who won't die for something isn't fit to live." -MLK

    by gjohnsit on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:24:58 PM PDT

  •  What's wrong with you spoon? Why do you hate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kilo50, thereisnospoon, catleigh

    the president?

    Apparently you don't know this but America does not do genocide, just like we don't do torture!

    Anyhow, killing every third man of military age does not qualify as real genocide! Get your definitions straight, okay?


    "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

    by Gorette on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:26:10 PM PDT

  •  Well, Bush is in a pickle (0+ / 0-)

    Will he leave Iraq before America gets tagged with the term 'genocider'?

    First of all, what can we do to prevent this from getting worse than it already is? Anything?

    "One of the hardest parts of my job is to try to connect Iraq to the war on terror." George W. Bush, CBS Evening News 9/6/06

    by danger durden on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:35:37 PM PDT

  •  the real reason we're still in Iraq (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catleigh, Rex Manning

    is the collective egos of Bush, Cheney, and Rummy.

    That's it.  Ego.  Nothing more.

    They will not stop this war.  Not as long as they're in power.  

    That's the bottom line, and that's why they need to be removed from power right away.  

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:44:07 PM PDT

  •  'The Ground Truth' and 'My Country, My Country' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snakelass, Gorette

    The following was broadcast on the NPR 'Morning Edition' on 9-15-2006

    Documentaries View the Iraq War from Two Sides

    Morning Edition, September 15, 2006 · Two new documentaries are out about the Iraq war: The Ground Truth and My Country, My Country. My Country shows what the war has been like for Iraqis, while Ground Truth concentrates on the personal traumas U.S. soldiers have to deal with when they return home. Both movies offer compelling views of the costs of war.

    Visit the site link to Listen to the Report on these two Documentaries

      "The Ground Truth" opens Friday, September 15    
     Host a "Ground Truth Gathering"    
       From October 4th - 11th, join 1000's as we gather across America in churches, universities, community centers, town halls, coffee houses and living rooms to screen THE GROUND TRUTH, engage in conversation, and listen to Iraq veterans.

    THE GROUND TRUTH depicts with ferocious honesty the terrible conflict in Iraq, a prelude to the even more challenging battles fought by soldiers when they return home to personal demons, an uncomprehending public, and an indifferent government.

    Theatrical opening Friday, September 15, 2006 at Landmark Theaters in the following cities:
    Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin,
    Washington, D.C., San Francisco

    *Additional screening nationwide - For details, go to: The Ground Truth


    Purchase a DVD through this link and VFP recieves a portion of the proceeds. Price is $14.98    
       Purchase DVD now!    
    Veterans Working Together for Peace & Justice Through Non-violence. Wage Peace!
    Click here to donate.

    PTSD: "You didn't fight Alone Than, You needn't fight Alone Now!!"

    by jimstaro on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:44:22 PM PDT

  •  This comment: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snakelass, thereisnospoon, godislove

    Short of killing every third military age man out there we won't be able to subdue the enemy in Anbar.

    It reminds me of soldiers saying that they were told to kill every man of military age, at times.

    "....nobody would believe....that any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality." - Al Gore

    by Gorette on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:45:24 PM PDT

  •  Not Recommended (0+ / 0-)

    I have two questions:

    1.  Why would you advertise for a complete nutjob?  There is virtually no traffic to that site that I can tell.
    1.  Why is this on the recommended list with such a title?  I understand it is someone else's opinion, but I'm not getting it.

    Otherwise, I would say it is simply an example of the effort to shift debate as far right as possible to justify the simpler fascism that might pass unnoticed.  These people want to control every aspect of every person's life.  Don't spread their views.

    We're all just monkeys burning in hell.

    by smokeymonkey on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:10:02 PM PDT

  •  BOH-ring (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thereisnospoon, Halcyon, godislove

    the Iraqi government will be able to kill every third man of military age in the province if that is what it takes to end the terrorism

    Can't these guys at least come up with ORIGINAL inhuman ideas?

    you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down

    No one should be surprised - not on the same day that the Leader Of The Free World says,

    What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"?

    Proud to be an American, lemme tell ya.

    Great diary, TINS.

    As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

    by occams hatchet on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:43:55 PM PDT

  •  Blood borders (0+ / 0-)

    Blood borders
    How a better Middle East would look

    By Ralph Peters, Armed Forces Journal, June 2006
    Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

    As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

    Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works. (Emphasis mine)

  •  Not only is this simply a horrible thing to do, (0+ / 0-)

    it is incredibly short sighted. Military age men also happen to the same guys that are going to do most of the rebuilding in Iraq (yes, I know that women are capable - if allowed to do so).

    So while this 33% strategy might stop the insurgency, it's going to leave Iraq requiring major immigration, and that's only likely to upset the ethnic balance even more.

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:51:11 PM PDT

  •  This WSJ op-ed in May seems to me to be (3+ / 0-)

    one of the first to call for brute force, and perhaps indiscriminate killing in Iraq, reading between the lines. See what you think:

    White Guilt and the Western Past
    Why is America so delicate with the enemy?

    Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
    Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.

    This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.

    This gives a whole new meaning to the 'race card' and George 'Macaca' Allen. It's all part of the neocon strategy to soften us up for genocide. But they're only scary dark-skinned furriners who worship a false god, so no big deal, and we won't have to sully our beautiful minds with any pictures, unless we're into war-porn, in which case we can find plenty of trophy photos on the internet, for our titillation.

  •  Certainly advocating terror to fight terror (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's the entire torture and permanent imprisonment incommunicado thing.

  •  After wmds and terrorist ties I thought (0+ / 0-)

    liberating Iraqis from a genocidal dictator was our last reason for invading Iraq. How does this fit into the GWOT ? There weren't any Iraqis on those planes.

    Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. ~James Bryce

    by california keefer on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:16:36 PM PDT

  •  Reagan did it too in Latin America (0+ / 0-)

    Genocide doesn't happen in the heart of Europe on the industrial scale of Auschwitz, but it's spread around happening here and there like "controlled burns".

    It's not "out of control" like the conflagration that hit Europe during the Third Reich, but it's smoldering along quite effectively in the absence of concern of the corporate media.

    I guess it's happening again because the "American Left" - if there was such a thing during the Reagan years - was on it's heels the 80s.

    Some folks called Reagan out for supporting genocidal regimes like Rios Mont who slaughtered Guatemalen villagers.

    American Reich-wingers have never had a problem with genocide. After all, the settlers aquired America through genocide. It's an American tradition, I suppose.

    We ought to start pointing the finger at Bush for genocide, because Negroponte is operating in Iraq. I believe it was them, not us who used the phrase the "Salvador Option".

    I suppose most Kossians are reluctant to call a spade a spade. I suppose I should expect nothing more from the "American Left".

  •  If Kerry were Prez and the Dems were in Power... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There would be no war in Iraq, we'd have caught OBL, and we'd be leading the F'in way in D'world in Africa to stop the killing.  Bottom line: there would be hundreds of thousands of more people alive on Earth.  That's the difference between Dems and Repugs, no deFUCKing debate required!

    Morality is a biaaatch.


    The November Tsudemi Approacheth

    by Public Servant on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 07:18:15 PM PDT

  •  We must kill Iraq. (0+ / 0-)

    to save Iraq.

    Anyone up for Fallujah II?

    This is well beyond a war on al-qaeda.  This is entirely Hitler-style war of aggression we are diving into.  Bill Kristol has already stated that Rumsfeld is weak, and that we need to go in and really pound Iraq to force them into submission.  Does that sound familiar to anyone?  A little more Guernica-style mass murder, anyone?

    We are past the point of no return.  Kicking Bush out will not help us one bit.  We are stuck with no way to leave Iraq, and yet we must leave Iraq.  Due to our circumstances we are forced into two positions:  WWIII with Iran, etc. or collapse of the US empire.  Of course, both will result in the collapse I believe.  The exception is one option we will go out with a massive bang.  A massive bang.

    To ever leave Iraq, we will have to deal with Iran.  And if that's not enough, we will not be able to leave Iraq helpless in midst of a mild civil war.  And yet, the civil war will not become large enough to cause us political damage to force us to leave.  So Iraq really is suicide for us.

    War is the health of the state, and the Iraq war is seemingly designed to be a permanent never-ending Orwellian-style war.  To rebuild America's defenses.  To keep us #1, baby.  And yet, China and Japan sure aren't going to pay for it indefinitely.  It's going to come to an abrupt end sooner or later.  My guess is very soon.

  •  genocide versus appeasement (0+ / 0-)

    I've been saying to my friends for 6 months that there are only 2 ways to win the war on terra.

    1. Kill every Muslim on the planet.
    1. Engage the terrorists in negotiation such that the Arab world then decides to discard totally the very concept of terrorism.

    The first option is staying the Bush course.  Now they may not say outright that they plan on killing every Muslim alive, but this is the only result that their course holds.  Bush's foreign policy creates more terrorists, thus more people to be killed, so we kill them, resulting in more terrorists.  It can never end till they are all dead.

    The second option has been colored as "appeasement".  So we can't go there.

    Therefore---> genocide.

    Sadly,there are a lot of Americans who have no problem with option one.  I take solace in the fact that none of the people who think this way are in the Democratic party.  

    Sadly for those Republicans who are honorable and decent, it must sadden them to realize that people who embrace option 1 embrace the Republican party.  

  •  Your Tax Dollars at Work (0+ / 0-)

    You have signed on for this genocide, however it ultimately "plays out", and whomever it ultimately disposes of in its insane fury.

    And YOU will have paid the killers' salaries and bought the decomposing heaps of headless, power-tool tortured bodies.

    And YOU will have faintly protested, with your biennial vote (counting only in some contested districts), while your money goes on doing Hitler's legacy proud.

    Yes, inflamed "rhetoric", my friend.  But reality, nonetheless.  Just imagine if it were you -- what would you wish to say to the lemming masses back in 'Murica who buy your suffering from their couches in TV Land, just before the lights go out on your life?

    Can you not offer some resistance slightly stronger than you do now?  In our time, a great evil is being worked -- several of them -- and mere blahvulating on our precious blogs does not meet the test of History or our Duty to posterity.

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 08:31:54 PM PDT

  •  ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (0+ / 0-)

    They make a desert and call it peace -- Tacitus

    I was told almost 2 years ago by a friend of mine who is
    a real right winger that if the sunni didn't stop resisting
    US Occupation, they would end up being ethnically cleansed
    from Iraq.

    So i said "Our objective is now the death or displacement of
    4 million people from Iraq?" his reply "It's not the
    objective but could well be a by-product".

    I informed him the palestinian diaspora brought nothing but
    pain and misery to the people's of the mid-east.
    He had no comment.

    So let's see Iraq had WMD's well that was BS.
    Then Iraq was tied up to 9-11, well that was BS.
    Then Hussein was murdering his people, well, now we are.

zzmarkzz, Mark Sumner, wozzle, bink, maxomai, MediaFreeze, pb, Upper West, April Follies, Ben P, Rayne, teacherken, natasha, mooncrow, mickT, TaraIst, Dump Terry McAuliffe, tiggers thotful spot, RunawayRose, Bob Love, Maryscott OConnor, Jambro, scorponic, Wintermute, shayera, LEP, Beet, lilorphant, grndrush, expatjourno, Creosote, Cecrops Tangaroa, Florida Democrat, bronte17, rktect, wonkydonkey, baba durag, nyceve, CalvinV, Dante Atkins, roses, chechecule, celticshel, Janet Strange, Barbara Morrill, BurnetO, Dallasdoc, HenryDavid, Boppy, yet another liberal, attydave, snakelass, inclusiveheart, kilo50, eleanora, Steven D, AaronBa, sxwarren, greenskeeper, davidincleveland, Fabian, chumley, saodl, farleftcoast, Elise, baccaruda, theKK, mjd in florida, Superpole, panicbean, clammyc, Bad Cog, Brooke In Seattle, Dire Radiant, Morrigan, nailmaker, jimstaro, annefrank, lotlizard, Joy Busey, abbeysbooks, aerdrie faenya, Warren Terrer, wulidancer, dsteffen, JanL, Dr Benway, zapmama, viscerality, hatdog, Asinus Asinum Fricat, maryru, RiaD, coolhappyMax, trashablanca, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, njr, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, rcald, allmost liberal european, kestrel9000, theyrereal, johnsonwax, Albatross, greenearth, global citizen, StrayCat, OneCrankyDom, sharilynn, Ningen, callmecassandra, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, Dreaming of Better Days, scoff0165, Public Servant, kidneystones, DBunn, tikikiki, cornball, grassrootsbloggerdtcom, Cronesense, california keefer, offgrid, Teitge, suburi, Positronicus, BruceMcF, lemming22, Rumour95, DrWolfy, Flirtin with Disaster, Heyroot, PaulGaskin

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site