Putting politics aside to save Iraq

[radioguy]

Putting politics aside to save Iraq
By Henry A. Kissinger

Two realities define the range of a meaningful debate on Iraq policy: The war cannot be ended by military means alone. But neither is it possible to "end" the war by ceding the battlefield, for the radical jihadist challenge knows no frontiers.

An abrupt withdrawal from Iraq will not end the war; it will only redirect it. Within Iraq, the sectarian conflict could assume genocidal proportions; terrorist base areas could re-emerge.

Under the impact of American abdication, Lebanon may slip into domination by Iran's ally, Hezbollah; a Syria-Israel war or an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities may become more likely as Israel attempts to break the radical encirclement; Turkey and Iran will probably squeeze Kurdish autonomy; and the Taliban in Afghanistan will gain new impetus.

That is what is meant by "precipitate" withdrawal - a withdrawal in which the United States loses the ability to shape events, either within Iraq, on the anti-jihadist battlefield or in the world at large.

The proper troop level in Iraq will not be discovered by political compromise at home. If reducing troop levels turns into the litmus test of American politics, each withdrawal will generate demands for additional ones until the political, military and psychological framework collapses.

An appropriate strategy for Iraq requires political direction. But the political dimension must be the ally of military strategy, not a resignation from it.

Symbolic withdrawals, urged by such wise elder statesmen as Senators John Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, might indeed assuage the immediate public concerns. They should be understood, however, as palliatives.

The argument that the mission of U.S. forces should be confined to defeating terrorism, protecting the frontiers, preventing the emergence of Taliban-like structures and staying out of the civil-war aspects is also tempting. In practice, it will be very difficult to distinguish among the various aspects of the conflict with any precision.

Some answer that the best political result is most likely to be achieved by total withdrawal. In the end, political leaders will be held responsible - often by their publics, surely by history - not only for what they hoped but for what they should have feared.

Nothing in Middle East history suggests that abdication confers influence. Those who urge this course of action need to put forward what they recommend if the dire consequences of an abrupt withdrawal foreseen by the majority of experts and diplomats occur.

Full story (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/17/news/edkiss.php)

[Bill]

After Bush is out of office and all the political hacks are thrown out of Iraq, we can send in people that can actually help the Iraqis.

It won't make up for the years of incompetence, and we'll still be committed to giving Iraq another trillion dollars in services to make up for our atrocious behaviors.

Not to mention fortifying the oil infrastructure, and a permenanet military presence.

We'll have spent 4 trillion dollars before we leave iraq.

But we may have assuaged some of our guilt for destroying an innocent country.

Too bad for the poor people of America.

[disrupter]

Exactly WHEN did we annex the Iraq territory to the United States of America?

Did we unleash a mess,
of course.

have we spent 5 years & 2 trillion dollars fumbling around trying to 'make' it work?
yes.

do we really have a FURTHER moral obligation to force a solution upon people who just don't seem to want it?

NO!

let Iraqis make of Iraq what they will.
the organic, non-artificial forces will have to work themselves out for them to find whatever [semi?]stable configuration they will.

Americans can be so pompous. The great, grand dispensers of all the magic fruits of western democracy & western capitalism & western culture [and stealth western religion] imagine themselves the great civilizing force in the world.

Hmmm, remind you of the British Empire, 'imposing' civilization on people at THEIR expense?

Just say no to empire,
get the hell out of iraq.

Bush will never instigate a diplomatic envoy to the region, which is one of the few constructive things that might be done.

[Smurf-Herder]

RadioGuy,

You'll never get anything resembling common sense, as we would think of it from the Left. I tried for 4 years on another board, that just ceased to exist a few days ago (hundreds of wasted posts, that no longer exist :( ).

All you'll get is a paranoid slant, looking at everything from a domestic political mindset. And when it looks like you've proved them wrong on something, beyond all question - "It's all lies!" is what you'll get for a response.

I find it extremely frustrating ... it's like people want it to be 1969 again, and "they're sticking it to the man", mentality.

[Linkster]

I cannot believe that anyone even listens to the man in that article anymore - and if you dont know what Im talking about I suggest you go look up Cyprus and Kissinger or maybe AIPAC

There is no one in the US that has done more to cause the conflicts in the middle east under the pretense of "peace" than that man - and making sure Israel continues to exist without requiring the Israelis to cooperate with its neighbors is his only goal and always has been

As far as the 1969 comment in the other post - I really dont remember but maybe a handful of people in that time that had that attitude - although its been glorified by tv and movies - there were a few outsiders that took that principle - the rest may have called cops pigs and that was pretty justified back then - but the rest of people were sane and everyday citizens who really hated the war and the president at the time

[Smurf-Herder]

As far as the 1969 comment in the other post - I really dont remember but maybe a handful of people in that time that had that attitude - although its been glorified by tv and movies - there were a few outsiders that took that principle - the rest may have called cops pigs and that was pretty justified back then - but the rest of people were sane and everyday citizens who really hated the war and the president at the time

The Neo-radicals ... circa 2007 ... (the enemy within)

[disrupter]

smurf-turder & radioactiveguy are the enemy within.

We CAN'T 'solve' Iraq [whatever that means] with the level of resource currently being used.

Either we spend 3 or 4 TRILLION & institute a draft & ship at least 300,000 troops over there or we quit piddling around over there, creating more problems for ourselves.

That is when the American people will stand up to these traitors in our midsts.

I say leave iraq & let the INEVITABLE organic processes, however appalling they may be occur so that whatever natural organization & structures will arise.
When they arise, if we haven't burnt too many bridges perhaps we can make some new connections with what arises.

NeoNut are such compulsive forcers, essentially rapists on every level.

[Linkster]

The Neo-radicals ... circa 2007 ... (the enemy within)

Are you referring to the American Nazi Party or the economists that call themselves neo-radicals?
seems the answer you posted has nothing to do with what happened in 1969 - were you there?

[radioguy]

smurf-turder & radioactiveguy are the enemy within.

Boy, you really burned us with those. :disbelief:

Here's another one I remember from my kindergarten years you can use in your name calling game, "I know you are... But what am I?"

[disrupter]

Kissinger?

For those of you who aren't familiar, Bohemian Grove is an all-male 'club' of the high & mighty who perform mock human sacrifices,
i guess to get them ready for positions of power?
So they will have practice sacrificing subordinates.

Henry Kissinger, secretary of state from 1973 to 1977, shares a lodge at Bohemian Grove with Riley Bechtel and Stephen Bechtel Jrhttp://www.pehi.eu/organisations/grove/2003_06_18_on_Bohemian_Grove_members_and_Bechtel.h tm

Bechtel Corp., for the uniformed is the primary looter & war-profiteer in Iraq & in Katrina graft.

http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/bohemian/bohemiankissingerlewisjpeg
Dr. Henry Kissinger, shown here en route to the Bohemian Grove with Drew Lewis of Union Pacific in 1986, likes to attend the Grove gathering and has been featured as a speaker at the "Lakeside Talks" that occur daily during the two-and-one-half week long Bohemian Grove encampment. At the Grove, Kissinger often host guests who have included foreign dignitaries and clients of Kissinger's consulting firm. Like George Shultz, former Secretary of State Kissinger is affiliated with the "Mandalay" camp, as is Drew Lewis.http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/bohemian/photosone.html

The neocon have such classy, statesman-like leaders?
Try sleazy, insiders & gangsters.

[Smurf-Herder]

I say leave iraq & let the INEVITABLE organic processes, however appalling they may be occur so that whatever natural organization & structures will arise.
When they arise, if we haven't burnt too many bridges perhaps we can make some new connections with what arises.



Now that's a strategy! :doh:

[Smurf-Herder]

Are you referring to the American Nazi Party or the economists that call themselves neo-radicals?
seems the answer you posted has nothing to do with what happened in 1969 - were you there?

Hello?

I said:

"it's like people want it to be 1969 again, and "they're sticking it to the man".

The same type of mindset as the radicals of '69.

A quasi-nostalgic radicalism.

[Linkster]

It is actually great strategy - and if you knew history you would know that it is exactly what the British ended up having to do in Iraq decades ago and worked perfectly - they even ended up with a democracy - go figure

[Smurf-Herder]

It is actually great strategy - and if you knew history you would know that it is exactly what the British ended up having to do in Iraq decades ago and worked perfectly - they even ended up with a democracy - go figure

Ummm ... I hate to tell you this. But the geo-political situation has changed since then.

[Linkster]

Ummm ... I hate to tell you this. But the geo-political situation has changed since then.

It has? In what way? Please provide references as Im really interested in this :thumbsup:

[Smurf-Herder]

It has? In what way? Please provide references as Im really interested in this :thumbsup:

Duh! :doh:

[Linkster]

Does that mean you dont have any references or historical background to prove this? Are you basically just talking out of your ass? Maybe when you grow up and can talk about history and politics from an intellectual level - you should come back and join us

[Linkster]

The NHK (Japanese news) , BBC annd ABC combined forces to do a new poll in Iraq which is very eye-opening - hopefully some will read it and take to heart what is being said ny the numbers

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1043a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf

[disrupter]

'Save' iraq?

What are we? Nurse Nancy?

When did we become the globe's caretaker?
if we are we are doing an insanely horrific job of it.

just because turd-hurder's mind is stuck to the tar-baby of Iraq,
that is HIS compulsive-obsessive disorder, not mine, lol.

do you scrub your hands till they are bloody too?

these guys are neurotic.