Daily Kos

Surrendering the US Military

Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:31:00 AM PDT

It's reprehensible enough when an American president puts soldiers in harm's way to make a political point.  But the GOP has placed American soldiers at the whim of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, turning our forces into pawns between political rivals.

Analysts say Maliki's decision to launch the Basra crackdown, instead of carrying through with a promised offensive against Sunni Islamist militants in the northern city of Mosul, lends weight to the Sadrist accusations of a political agenda.

The attacks have targeted the Mehdi Army while leaving two other powers in Basra, the Fadhila party and the militant Badr Organisation of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- which supports Maliki's Dawa Party -- largely untouched.

Our soldiers may never surrender, but the Bush administration, John McCain, and blind supporters of this war have been more than willing to surrender our forces to outside control. Coming right on the heels of Iraq visits from both McCain and Cheney, it's clear that Maliki knows the real situation.  He knows that he can strike openly at his enemies, and the US military will be forced to expend blood and dollars to back up his threats.  

But there is little prospect of a swift victory. The fighting has spread through southern regions, drew the U.S. forces and led to protests in Baghdad by followers of Sadr, who say Maliki is using force to weaken his political rivals.

As the US is increasingly forced to bear the cost of Maliki's political decisions, and Bush, Cheney, and McCain continue to sing of "progress," you have to wonder if any of these men has learned what Maliki clearly knows.

When the puppetmaster tries to control the puppet, the strings go both ways.  

  • ::

Tags: Iraq (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 137 comments

  •  This is the "nobel cause"... (19+ / 0-)

    for which 4000+ have lost their lives.

    I'm sorry, they died for vanity.

    •  Not so fast..... (8+ / 0-)

      The war is vain.

      The deaths were because we fight for each other. Don't belittle us hornbeck.

      "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

      by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I appreciate your anger... (8+ / 0-)

        I would suggest it is better directed at those who's vanity placed them in harm's way.

        •  It is regularly... (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Hard to Port, greenearth, Theden, carver

          but that doesn't excuse you from posting patronizing crap like that.

          Bush's vanity is similar to yours clucking away over the deaths of what you see as the deluded.

          Like I said before, don't belittle the military. We have nothing to be ashamed of. Its the citizenry of this country who let Bush commit their troops to this war.

          "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

          by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You claim... (16+ / 0-)

            they died for their brothers in arms.

            I say they were put in harm's way by vain preening imperialists and that their sacrifice will not advance the interests or honor of the United States.

            We do have something to be ashamed of- electing war criminals and torturing liars to positions of leadership when we should have known better.

            Every American should be ashamed.

            •  Right. Truth hurts. We Americans need to (5+ / 0-)

              learn that finally. This is the lead-in to tyranny our nation's founding fathers warned us about. Its about time we owe up to the fact that BushCo is sending our troops to battle in vain, or at his own personal whims.
              Tyranny wins in a complacent democracy because tyranny doesn't play by the rules others adhere to.

              "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

              by Skid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How this neofascist regime came into power....... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                xerico

                .......so soon after the downfall of the criminal Nixon administration will be a dilemma over which the historians in the future will ponder.  It also defies logic that this regime was voted back into power nearly two years after the start of the BHush/Cheney illegal Iraq war.  

                Much of the blame lies with the political naivite and ignorance of the American voter.  Let's hope that the same type of thing doesn't happen in the coming general election

                •  Corporate MSM shilling for government (2+ / 0-)

                  didn't/doesn't help matters any either.
                  As a populus, we became comfortable and distracted, while little things were done under our noses or wrapped in patriotic bows. After a while, it all adds up.

                  "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

                  by Skid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:01:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I don't see where the two are in conflict (0+ / 0-)

              with one another.

              "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

              by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:52:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody here is "belittling the military." (8+ / 0-)

            We know the difference between the military and the fools that keep sending them to fight in someone's else's civil war.  Unfortunately, some people have to continue to hide their ego driven mistakes behind our brave soldiers who deserve much better.  They certainly don't deserve to be led by buffoons like GWB & Company.

          •  There was nothing patronizing (6+ / 0-)

            toward's the military in the original poster's words.  There was nothing directed at the military in the words posted other than the fact that 4,000 are dead.  You are really reaching here.  The original poster was saying, I believe, that we have 4,000 dead soldiers because of the vanity of Bush & Friends.

            •  Thanks Katie.... (0+ / 0-)

              but you are incorrect.

              This by hornbeck;

              I'm sorry, they died for vanity.

              Could definitely be seen as patronizing and belittling.

              This by hornbeck clears his intent up nicely;

              I say they were put in harm's way by vain preening imperialists and that their sacrifice will not advance the interests or honor of the United States.

              We do have something to be ashamed of- electing war criminals and torturing liars to positions of leadership when we should have known better.

              "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

              by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:00:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I am willing to criticise the generals (6+ / 0-)

            I do so on the basis of my friendship with a Capitan in the Army who served at Tal Afar

            and a Marine Capitan who served in Anbar province.

            Both are pissed as hell the the generals failed the junior officers and the troops on the professional technical side of war-fighting.

            We needed more courage from the generals after the media and the Repugs beat us civilians in the street and the court of public opinion

            us civilians failed on defending the Republic from fools and imperialists

            but the generals could have lead a come back of common sense by standing up a little taller under fire--political fire that is

            the troops supported each other

            the generals protected their own careers (in large part)

            Tax Paradigms, Feed Imaginations

            by jhpdb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:33:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Generals are cowards... (0+ / 0-)

              There is physical courage and moral courage.

              Physical courage is the easy part yet it gets the most admiration. In the military I saw physical courage every day, it was an incredibly rare act that could qualify as moral courage.

              The careerists were the worst.

              "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

              by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:02:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  the honor is in support for your brothers (4+ / 0-)

        and sisters

        for fighting for making it worth something

        the death however was sadly for vainity

        not soldiers vainity but BushCos

        no one wants the chance to die for their buddies

        they are willing to die for buddies
        in the middle something bigger
        that was supposed to be something better

        it would belittle you more to accept that the troops simply go out to fight for each other

        no small blame falls on the generals who failed the capitans and lts and troops

        for failing to stand up to Rummy, Bushy and Cheney

        and make this somehow viable or at least salvageable

        and a larger fault lies with all of us for letting our Republic get so out of hand that we can't stop something a vast, long-lasting majority oppose

        Tax Paradigms, Feed Imaginations

        by jhpdb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  why the hell do you fight for each other. You (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        andreww

        are supposed to fight for the U.S.A.  If the Bushies put you there to "fight for each other" then the Iraq invasion is not only illegal and pointless, but highly immoral from the standpoint of the soldier put into battle for no god national defense.  The basic training today stresses that you are warriors, and your first allegiance is to your brother and sister warriors.  But this divorces armed service from patriotism and renders the volunteer army a separate class of citizens.  This mindset, which is encouraged and fostered by the Pentagon is an extraordinarily dangerous and subversive situation, and leaves the armed forces cut off from the larger society.  If you only fight for your comrades, then you justify any invasion, and any order from you commanders, legal or not.  Be wary of this.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have an idea...... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          StrayCat

          Stray cat your wits must be astray.

          why the hell do you fight for each other. You are supposed to fight for the USA.

          This mindset, which is encouraged and fostered by the Pentagon is an extraordinarily dangerous and subversive situation, and leaves the armed forces cut off from the larger society

          I will point at another group that actively encourages the divoce between military and society.

          Society itself. Society doesn't want to see the ugliness it supports through its votes or its apathy. The average American clucks over the death of another Marine or troop and then clicks over to American Idol. The negative stereotyping of the military in most popular culture isn't lost on us. Now add in job discrimination and alienation by neighbors and people who think you may have just seen too much and bingo....divorce.

          If you only fight for your comrades, then you justify any invasion, and any order from you commanders, legal or not.  Be wary of this.

          This is inherently untrue. Blind patriotism is the more dangerous component in these scenarios. If you are a warrior who puts his ass and the ass next to him on a higher priority than the words of some detached player you are much more likely to call bullshit on orders that don't have a military or legal basis.

          I agree that there is a growing rift between the military and society. If you want it fixed support a draft and some form of universal service. Then perhaps arguments like yours would be made from a better position of understanding.

          "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

          by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:18:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I support universal service: in fact I have (0+ / 0-)

            for over 30 years.  My plan would require every person in the July of the year they turn 18 to enter service, in 4 separate quarters. 1st, military training, 2nd, community service in areas of conservation, health and social care, construction and other areas of endeavor. 3rd, government service as interns, clerks, and other jobs in the various state and federal governments, and 4th, education in civics, language and history.  Whether this would be over one year or two is a question.  There would be no exceptions for any reason, and no person would be excluded for reasons of disability, political or social connections or hardship.
                these quarters can be rotated, and young people cab be assigned to areas of the country different from where they grew up.  However, while I understand your points in your comment, I still hold strongly to the opinion that creating a class of Helots, in the Spartan mode is an extremely dangerous and negative development for our country.

            Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

            by StrayCat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:45:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The fastest way to end it is Impeachment. (15+ / 0-)

      Pelosi's "Off The Table" is no different than Cheney's "So?"

      Both reflect the arrogance of individuals who think they know better that The People.

      Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!

      by Jimdotz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pelosi is not Cheney. (5+ / 0-)

        Let's please not get carried away.  I believe that Pelosi would very much like to impeach Cheney AND Bush, but she's a realist and knows that if the Democratic Party started that process, it would backfire on them and ruin their chances of a big victory in November.  We can't forget all the fanatics who actually voted for this corrupt duo.  The mistake Pelosi made was to admit that impeachment was "off the table."  Maybe she should have kept them guessing.  She probably made the statement so as not to get caught up in the possibility and waste precious time that could be better spent.

        •  I agree, she never should have said it (5+ / 0-)

          I firmly believe that a lot of the lawlessness that has gone on for the last year has to do with Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" remark.  If she had said nothing and kept them guessing, I think they would not have spent the last year flipping off the Democratic party and "we the people".

          •  Like herding cats, but (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            StrayCat, Jimdotz

            the right thing to do is the right thing to do. I'd think keeping the threat of impeachment on the table would have fared far better.

            "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

            by Skid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:35:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Pelosi made wise decision (0+ / 0-)

            we must remember the Executive Signing orders and the horrific Directive 51 of May 9, 2007 culuminated in what Cheney (ala David Addington) have accomplished, namely the unity president or in plain language (no large thanks to John Wooho) a dictator, the antitheis of what the founding fathers worked so hard to avoid.

            Nancy got my boos early on, but I realized, we must win the big battle to combat the abuse to our constitution, I would not want to waste time and effort getting distracted now in a horrific impeachment battle, costing perhaps a billion dollars while Cheney and Bush and their friends make off with trillions more and we end up with a mess that cannot be sorted out after the election.

            This assumes that a democrat is elected.  

            This assumes that democrat will correct and undue the Ex Orders including 51.  Barack has pledged to do this, to my knowledge Clinton has not.

            The easiest and cleanest way to get justice is to use it correctly, but those best able.  If Barack is elected, he can fix DOJ, correct Siegelman disasters, force the process to adhere to constitutional principles.

            I honestly believe (no matter what Pelosi believes) that this battle should be reserved while we use our engery now, to get a real American leader installed.

        •  The fear of "backfire" and "ruin the chances".. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          StrayCat, Jimdotz

          of big November victory because of impeachment proceedings is precisely what Bush/Cheney counted on as the Pelosi/Reid response! Another way of describing that fact would be to conclude that both parties use the same political play book and that insures the American public really does not have a CHOICE.

        •  Backfire? As opposed to this though? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          ek hornbeck, Jimdotz

          Honestly, how much worse do you think it could get, especially since with impeachment, investigations would be front and center? BushCo stalls and refuses releasing info towards being investigated as it is, so what harm would the added pressure for said info cause that we don't already face from them?

          Yes impeachment would've been hard work, but doesn't the US Constitution demand it when violated?
          If not, then we get what we get out of cowardness and lack of will. BushCo does not share that lack of will.

          "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

          by Skid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats are accomplishing nothing in Congress. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          ek hornbeck

          There is no longer ANY excuse beyond pure Cowardice.

          The time to Impeach is long past.

          Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!

          by Jimdotz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:52:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Trinite, (0+ / 0-)

          let us not forget Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon which turned on the green light for the rethugs to start 'raping and pillaging' our country and laws. Sometimes it is better not to make a comment when our crystal ball is turned off.

    •  all energies should have focused on impeachment (4+ / 0-)

      all the time. all the money. A relentless, unified effort.

      Imagine all the campaign dollars that have been donated to Obama, Clinton, Edwards etc. instead going towards impeachment.

      It would have happened.

      sigh.

    •  Vanity aside Loyalty decides (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck

      the courageous acts of all of our military men and women.  They love their God or spiritual beliefs, their country and take an oath to the consitution of the United States, NOT to President Bush, in many of their minds he and Cheney and the higher up military brass are cowards, stupid and shameful.  

      They live and fight for each other, and something bigger than themselves.

       

      They weep and grieve for their Fallen and lack for sleep.  They know not why they are there at this moment, and have thunderous rage against a CO who tells them to patrol a road they know has IEDs and then loose, another Hero.  

      The fight because the military trained them to do so, with themes of valor and victory and attitudes of viciousness to enemy.  It never occurred to them, these 19 and somethings, they would die for vanity of a few elite myth wealthy wierdos, they never knew they would die for something less than they held in their hearts, love of their country and their fellow Hero. That is their truth which can never be taken away for the truth is in their hearts and minds, not ours.
      Our job is to stand up for them, vote for them choose good leaders for them.  Thanks,
      A Blue Star Mom

  •  Morning Edition yesterday (5+ / 0-)

    Had a piece with a military mouthpiece getting to spout his talking points unquestioned and with back up from the "reporter." Bad enough. But your piece puts it into perspective even more. I didn't really understand until now why the guy was talking about how Maliki was "impulsive" and micromanaging by being down in Basra. Very funny. (If you think the wholesale turnover of NPR to the military and shrubco administration is funny.)

    Republicans can't run a country. All they can run is a smear campaign. ~ GMT

    Vice harms the doer ~ Socrates

    by kdub on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:36:37 AM PDT

  •  Anyone paying attention knows this was a surprise (9+ / 0-)

    Bush comes out and touts it as some great test, but go read the English press!

    This is a total in-the-dark clusterfuck, as far as we're concerned. Bush is putting the pearls on the pig on this one. Jeez, America, wake up!

    •  Maybe Cheney pushed Maliki into it (5+ / 0-)

      Possibly it wasn't a surprise.
      Part of the purpose is to eliminate Sadr's strength before the regional elections which are coming up.
      It would be like Cheney to plan a massacre right before an election.

      born in a poverty pocket, die in one

      by peggy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds like Chaney (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        StrayCat

        Unfortunately it will probably have the opposite effect on the elections.  Maliki is not at all popular and this new "offensive" is such a transparent attempt to eliminate the competition, Iraqi's who were not supportive of al Sadar and his movement are going to be after this.

        On the other hand, I thought that this was strictly an Iraqi army operation.  At least that's the way it started.  Now it looks like the Iraqi army has failed again and our military is having to come in and take over what they started.

      •  Great Iraq info (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        StrayCat

        Hiltzoy of Obsidian Wings has a roundup on this action:http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/...

        born in a poverty pocket, die in one

        by peggy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  plus remember Maliki cancelled Oil Contracts (0+ / 0-)

        unilaterally in mid February 08, next day (the very next day) Maliki pronounced Iraq would only do oil and gas deals with 5 Majors (all US, Exxon Chevron). The Very Next day Oil Ministers from Iraq AND TURKEY make joint press statement that they will begin to sign contracts with 5 Majors.  All multi-national companies that had legally bid on and EXECUTED legal contracts for oil and gas exploration rights and other types of contracts were wiped off table to allow for all US Companies to come in.

        February 2008 Iraq Coup.  The Iraqi Parliment was not in session, Maliki did this with input from Bush, while Iraqi Parliment was not in session, best time to effect a coup. He learns from the best of the bunch. Maliki steals oil for US private corporations.

        ALSO, the 5 Major's contracts are touted as 2 year deals just helping Iraq Oil Minister to keep oil flowing, but as well all known contracts can have side deals, extentions, scope creap, options and money for all the fat cats, including Cheney and his friends.

        I believe Cheney went to Iraq to seal the deal, and make sure the Iraqi people would be crushed out of their right to their own resources. Likely offered up US troops....

        Same old story Resource Wars, that's why Cheney said "So", and Bush dances, the deal is done, they have what they want, a monopoly in Iraq.  

        Now what is left?  How do they ensure the US Military stays put at all those permanent strategically placed bases?????

    •  "go read the English Press", yeah right (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      greenearth, pearlegates

      like  most people would read any press. we are lost to the talking heads either until folks wake up & actually read other presses or we get better talking heads.
      sigh

      "The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing." The Tao Te Ching

      by hester on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  McCain and Iraq. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      greenearth, SpamNunn

      This Maliki guy knows that when the U.S. leaves Iraq, his days will be numbered, so he's trying to kill all his enemies now so we can help him, but the more he kills, the more enemies he will have.  You can't change people's minds with guns, and few people love and respect someone who makes himself a tool of hated outsiders.  We can stay in Iraq if things get better and it's safer, or we can stay in Iraq if things get worse and they need our help?  According to the the McCain logic there's no way out.  McCain and Lieberman were lobbying for this war long before it started.  This needs to be pointed out to the American people.  

  •  wierd thing is Sadr is/was the least pro-Iran (5+ / 0-)

    is the most pro-Iraq

    as in keeping the nation together as currently structured

    would have been (could be) the best solution as far as stability and a pull out

    if you want the thing to end a radical nationalist like Sadr is your best bet

    otherwise we get to referee the equivalent of Liberia for a generation

    if no one wins it'll take a generation for folks to get sick enough it to stop

    Tax Paradigms, Feed Imaginations

    by jhpdb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:37:08 AM PDT

  •  No U.N. control! (16+ / 0-)

    These are the same people who squeal No U.N. control! when there is a peacekeeping mission, but now we've got an army in Iraq that is half mercenary, and if that we're bad enough our guys get drug into being unpaid mercenaries for a weakling government that would like to be the country's strong man when we inevitably depart.

     This, like so many other things, will blow up in our faces, and sooner rather than later.

  •  Five plus years (8+ / 0-)

    of repeated blunders, arming all sides of the conflicts, watching Iraqi police defect en masse, and the U.S. military is forced to take over what the Iraqi Army is incapable of doing.  Does anyone think these airstrikes on Basra are going to do anything other than solidify the hatred against our troops?

    Part of me want this collapse to be wrapped tightly around McCain's neck. The better side of me wants the whole goddammed thing to stop -- enough.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:39:28 AM PDT

  •  Wait a minute (9+ / 0-)

    Wait a minute. Wasn't one of Bush's and the Republicans' arguments against Al Gore in 2000 that Gore was somehow more likely to "place our troops under foreign command"? Why hasn't the irony of this been pointed out by our wonderful and oh so fair and balanced media? Speaking of "fair and balanced", (yeah, right), why hasn't O'Reilly on the rest of FAUX "News" collective heads exploded over this if they really care more about the American service people than their failed ideology?

  •  Sad, really. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    timbuck

    The Republican White House has once again proven that, under their rule, the US loves democracy and blesses its little cotton socks... but it's easier to deal with dictators and petty strongmen. Democratically elected officials might, Heaven forfend, have enough of a sense of responsibility to their people to just say no.

    It makes sense, in a way: Under Saddam, Iraq was more or less stable. In a democracy, it's anything but. So, the US should back the side most favourable to its interests in order to ensure a favourable outcome of a civil war. Sigh. Alta sedent vulnera dextrae.

    Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

    by Dauphin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

  •  The fighting in Basra, (6+ / 0-)

    the leading Iraq "Oil Port" just reinforces the idea that this war is and always has been about the oil. If US troops are fighting and dieing for anyone's whim it is at the whim of those who control "big oil". Maliki is nothing but their pawn just the same as our troops.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:41:39 AM PDT

  •  Saddam v2.0 n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

    by Skid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:43:04 AM PDT

  •  Cheney made that visit to the ME, and the Iraq (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jimreyn, greenearth

    gov't doesn't do much that they aren't told to do.

    What do you wanna bet that some Cheney crony (Halliburton?) made a phone call and said they're having problems getting the oil out of Basra?  So, voila!  Like magic, the Iraqi government makes a move on Basra to deal with whatever oil problem they had.

    Or worse, they wanted to prop up prices with a little skirmish.

    •  Amen, but political ramifications here in US (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      was part of the scheme as well, and are soon to begin revealing themselves further.

      "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

      by Skid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:57:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush's Premature Iraq Elation (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    demnomore, jimreyn, greenearth

    George W. Bush is suffering from another severe case of premature Iraq elation. That's the inescapable diagnosis after a week which featured sunny statements from the President even as Baghdad and Basra descended into chaos.

    Five years after "mission accomplished," Bush is now portraying setbacks as proof of success and escalating violence as a sign of a healthy democracy.

    For the details, see:
    "Bush's Premature Iraq Elation."

  •  Hey, if Bush and Cheney can use the US military (5+ / 0-)

    for political purposes, surely al-Maliki should be able to use the US army for political purposes.

    It's only fair.

    ~Doc~

    -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

    by EquationDoc on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM PDT

  •  Or we can be reasonable (0+ / 0-)

    The reasonable thing to do is extract ourselves ASAP with as little collateral damage all around as possible. Our president f*&ked up and because we all belong to the same club (our country) we have to pay for his mistake/malfeasance. So let's pay our way out of there now. I know there's nuance to be had, so I will not provide any. We made Iraq more poisonous than it ever could have been under Saddam Hussein. We have to leave Iraq. Iraq will have a better shot at getting better with us OUT of the picture. Obvious. Blahbittyblah. But it bears saying every day.

  •  Great post btw n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    greenearth
  •  297 days is too long to wait. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jimreyn, greenearth

    every time i think it cannot get worse, it does

    "The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing." The Tao Te Ching

    by hester on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM PDT

  •  Very difficult situation (0+ / 0-)

    I personally do not support the "get out now" -option. hundreds of thousands of people have died and impeachement is off the table.

    But what can you do? I see a "civil war" as soon as major  US forces have left Iraq.

    Popular Vote theory= "teh stupid"

    by allmost liberal european on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

  •  Political and armed influence (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    Sadr has ordered his people into a cease-fire.
    He is, however, incredibly popular among poor Shia Arabs. (And most of the Shia Arabs are poor.)
    That makes his party a distinct threat to Maliki's party in the proposed provincial elections.
    It's hard to believe that this isn't the reason fro the attacks.

    "The three main issues in this campaign are Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq." -- Bill Foster

    by Frank Palmer on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM PDT

  •  I see Cheney's fingerprints all over it (5+ / 0-)

    Get the Maliki puppet govt to attack Medhi Army.

    Under attack, the Mehdi Army gets support from Iran.

    Attack Iran.

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

    by MAORCA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM PDT

    •  insanity (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      xerico, MAORCA

      BushCo. and the neo-cons (and the Air Force) are clearly itching to hit Iran, soon, either on their own dime or via Israeli proxies, or both. The principal problems are the likely sequellae of such a mad course in Iraq and their political ramifications at home: hell loosed on the US Army there and its supply lines out of Kuwait. (The US Marine Corps is supplied from Jordan.)

      Shiite militias aligned with Iran would be the vector of such an escalation into total catastrophe for the US occupation of Iraq.

      I think what's going on now is something related very closely to Israel's trial balloon attack on Southern Lebanon and the Hezbollah centers in Beirut (which failed spectacularly, of course). Another, much lower-risk but tactically related sort of experiment was the recent, ultra-mysterious IDF bombing of that site in Syria.

      If the Shiite mop-up is more "successful" this time, then it becomes safer, in terms of domestic political realities, anyway, to hit Iran. Time is short, though, unless...

      Bottom line: if this is in fact something like what's going on behind the scenes, there is a strong likelihood of a complete disintegration into regional chaos very soon. This because all the actors here are hacks and/or tactical anarchists who may certainly be expected to fuck up even more cosmically than heretofore. And that's saying a great deal.

  •  Semantics (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peggy, greenearth
    1.  I'm so tired of the regime always talking of surrender or losing.  Who is there to surrender to and how is losing defined.  Better to understand Cheney/Bush cannot win by conventional understanding of victory, unless we just Nuke Iraq and Iran and turn the region into a vast glass lake!  Then what?
    1.  Our forces are fighting for Maliki because Cheney/Bush and Petraeus want them to, in order to support their aims, not Maliki's.  The fact that SIIC is pro Iranian and the Badr militia was trained in Iran doesn't enter their equation.
  •  maliki will be on bush's long list of pardonees (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    Bush "is a yokel on the world stage . . . a Gilligan who cannot find his ass." Bill Maher

    by timbuck on