Unravelling the Lies: We has [sic] got to win in Iraq!

[Nin`]

"Iraq Is Not Winnable"

[Lucifer: So strange, I could have sworn I said that before it started. Even stranger, there are still a few people on the planet who have not yet realized that not only is it unwinnable, but it represents the most resounding - and most expensive - defeat ever imposed upon a major power. This article goes some of the way to pointing out why. Having been director of policy planning at the State Department and in favor of the Neocon agenda, Richard Haass is not a "liberal" no matter how you define it. Nevertheless, he has read the writing on the wall, and it terrifies him. As well it should. But, you may ask, where is Mr Haass' apology for advocating that America stick its collective dick into this viper's nest? Let's see.]

[Lucifer: As always the color coaded emphasis in this article is mine :-)]

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS

What happens next in the Middle East? SPIEGEL spoke to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, to find out. A widely respected foreign policy expert, Haass warns that the Middle East could become dangerous for years to come.

Source: Der Spiegel On-line
Authors: Not Credited
Dated: 2006-11-13
Interviewer : Georg Mascolo

SPIEGEL: Mr. Haass, were the election results a message from the voters to President George W. Bush that it's time for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq?

Haass: The mid-term election is a signal of widespread popular dissatisfaction with the course of the Iraq war. But it should not be read as a signal of support for a particular alternative. Nor will it lead most Democrats in Congress to call for a quick and complete withdrawal of US forces. Instead, it will reinforce the likelihood that American policy will be adjusted. We can anticipate force reductions and redeployments and possibly a greater emphasis on diplomacy, both within Iraq and with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria.

SPIEGEL: Meaning that the Bush Era has come to an end?

Haass: There is something to what you say, in that Iraq was a war of choice that proved to be much more difficult and expensive than Americans bargained for. As a result, the public is pushing back. However, it is not just premature but wrong to say the Bush era is over. The president will be president for another 800 days. He will be able to take initiatives, especially in foreign policy given that our system favors executive leadership. He also may have a better chance to fashion a consensus on immigration reform. And unanticipated crises almost always provide a president with the opportunity to do dramatic things.[Lucifer: Terrifying thought!]

SPIEGEL: Can you remember a time when US foreign policy was confronted with so many challenges and difficulties?

Haass: The short answer is: No. During the Cold War, the United States faced a single challenge that was greater than any we face now. But I can't think of a time when the United States has faced so many difficult challenges at once. What makes it worse is we are facing them at a time when we are increasingly stretched militarily. We are divided politically. We are stretched also economically, and there is a good deal of anti-Americanism [Lucifer: Self inflicted of course. Worth remembering that in September 2001 all the world was American. Including Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan of course. Just as 911 was blowback, so too is global "anti-Americanism". 'They' don't like us because of what we do. And who can blame 'them'.] in the world. It's a very bad combination.

SPIEGEL: Almost five years ago Bush grouped Iraq, North Korea and Iran together in the now-notorious "Axis of Evil." Now the US is faced with considerable crises in all three countries. What to do?

Haass: We have allowed ourselves to get into three very difficult situations.[Lucifer: Whenever you see the passive voice being deployed like this, dig deeper. It is inevitably used to cover messy situations and faults. In this case, what Haass means is, "We have created three very difficult situations for ourselves through our stupidity, deliberate demolition of International structures including the UN, and inappropriate bully boy tactics.] As the United States has learned to its great cost in Iraq, military force is no panacea. Any option that would be heavily reliant on the Army is not a realistic option, because the only Army we have is busy right now.

SPIEGEL: But diplomacy is still an underused tool.

Haass: In the case of Iran and North Korea, I would be willing to have the United States engage in diplomacy directly with them, essentially offering them whatever mix of political and economic and security benefits in exchange for demanding a package of behavior changes. We need to get away from the idea that diplomatic interaction is a value judgment. History suggests that isolation reinforces hardliners.

SPIEGEL: But it seems as if the Bush administration is still debating whether regime change or diplomacy is the best way to deal with them.

Haass: For quite a few years, there was very little diplomacy, and the emphasis was on regime change which, in my view, was never going to happen. Now you are seeing a bit more diplomacy, but not as much as I would like there to be. I'm not sitting here confident that diplomacy will work, but I think it is worth trying, simply because the alternatives are not terribly attractive. Diplomacy may work; if not, we should demonstrate that we did everything possible to reach a fair and reasonable diplomatic outcome and we couldn't, not because of our policy, but because of theirs. The Bush administration will learn that that puts them in a better position to manage the domestic and international politics of escalation.

SPIEGEL: You just invited Iran's President Ahmadinejad for a discussion in New York. Did you get the impression that he is interested in any kind of deal?

Haass: There was very little, if anything, in that two-hour meeting that was reassuring about his interest in finding any common ground on reasonable terms with the United States. His tactic is to answer questions with questions. At one point, someone raised questions about Iran's internal situation, democracy and human rights, and within 30 seconds, he was talking about what he saw as the imperfections of American democracy. His argument was that Iran was more democratic because it had more candidates for president than the United States.

SPIEGEL: The Israeli ambassador criticized you heavily, saying this was worse then inviting Adolf Hitler for talks.

Haass: I disagree. Meeting with somebody like Mr. Ahmadinejad doesn't mean we approve or endorse him. It's nothing else than accepting that he is the President of Iran and in that position, he matters.

SPIEGEL: Bush's comments on North Korea's nuclear tests seem to indicate that it is no longer the possession of nuclear weapons, but the passing along of nuclear technology to terrorists or hostile states that America is opposed to. Is this a new nuclear doctrine?

Haass: Here, at least, the administration has moved from what you might call non-proliferation to managing proliferation. But I would hope that doesn't become the new status quo. I'm not comfortable living in a world in which an aggressive, hostile, poor and potentially desperate North Korea is sitting on a mountain of nuclear material. That does not fill me with anything except extraordinary alarm.[Lucifer: Having deliberately broken the treaties preventing the DPRK from developing a nuclear weapon capability established by Clinton, this is merely one of the worst of the inumerable ways in which the Bush unregime has made the world much more dangerous.]

SPIEGEL: And then there are Iraq and the Middle East. You just published an article in the journal Foreign Affairs in which you say that the situation is enough "to make one nostalgic for the old Middle East."

Haass: The old Middle East -- an era which I believe has only recently ended -- was one in which the United States enjoyed tremendous dominance and freedom of maneuver. Oil was available at fairly low prices, the region was largely at peace. I believe largely because of the American decision to go to war in Iraq and how it has been carried out, as well as the emphasis on promoting democracy and a lack of any serious energy policy, the Middle East has considerably grown worse. It's one of history's ironies that the first war in Iraq, a war of necessity, marked the beginning of the American era in the Middle East and the second Iraq war, a war of choice, has precipitated its end.

SPIEGEL: So what will become of the region?

Haass: Visions of a new Middle East that is peaceful, prosperous and democratic will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself and the world. Iran will be a powerful state in the region, a classical imperial power. No viable peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is likely for the foreseeable future. Militias will emerge throughout the region, terrorism will grow in sophistication, tensions between Sunni and Shia will increase, causing problems in countries with divided societies, such as Bahrain, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Islam will fill the political and intellectual vacuum. Iraq at best will remain messy for years to come, with a weak central government, a divided society and sectarian violence. At worst, it will become a failed state racked by all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors. [Lucifer: I concur with this analysis. Quite a legacy Mr Bush has created for himself. And US. But then, the USA liked him enough to vote for him.]

SPIEGEL: How long will this dangerous period last?

Haass: I don't know if this will last for five or 50 years, but it's going to be an incredibly difficult era. Together with managing a dynamic Asia it will be the primary challenge for US foreign policy.[Lucifer: In my opinion, this is the wrong question. From the US and European view, any significance to this beyond the 20 year outlook is irrelevant. By then, if we are still around, the energy and climate related issues will have effectively eliminated our interest in anything but the short-term and the local view.]

SPIEGEL: But the Bush administration still seems hopeful, seeing in all this violence only the "birth pangs" of this wonderful New Middle East.

Haass: I hope that they are right. I would love to see them right and me wrong. But I'm afraid they are not.

SPIEGEL: Is Iraq still winnable for the United States?

Haass: We've reached a point in Iraq where we've got to get real. And this is not going to be a near-term success for American foreign policy. The Iraq situation is not winnable in any meaningful sense of the word "winnable." So what we need to do now is look for a way to limit the losses and costs, try to advance on other fronts in the region and try to limit the fallout of Iraq. That's what you have to do sometimes when you're a global power.[Lucifer: Wriggle Mr Neocon, wriggle.]

SPIEGEL: A special commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker will soon present a study on how to go forward in Iraq. Will this be the excuse for Bush to withdraw the troops?

Haass: The commission gives him something of an opportunity to change course. Historically, commissions have often played an important role when the traditional body politic was unable or unwilling to come up with politically controversial but necessary proposals. We see a tipping point not only on the ground in Iraq but also in the political debate in the United States. I believe more and more people in and around the administration are coming to the conclusion that six or nine more months of the same will not bring us anywhere. [Lucifer: It's easy. Leave as fast as possible. Minimize the embarrassment, the costs and the pain and begin the period of rehabilitiation. Or drag it out until you have to leave anyway, stirring up more hatred along the way. Making the right choice is merely a matter of framing the question in the appropriate terms.]

SPIEGEL: The disaster of the last years leads many Americans to doubt the military strength and moral superiority of the nation. Is this country on the verge of a new isolationist phase?

Haass: The danger is an Iraq syndrome. The war is one the American people weren't quite prepared for: They had not been told it was going to be that difficult and expensive. After the military battlefield phase, they thought it was going to be easy. So this has proven shocking. Nearly 3,000 Americans have lost their lives. [Lucifer: As this interview took place a few days ago, this number is seriously out of date. Now nearly 3,060.] Maybe 15,000 - 20,000 Americans have been wounded. [Lucifer: This number is seriously too low, perhaps because the US military has deliberately "not kept a centralized register of injuries." Antiwar cites numbers reflecting twice this level of injuries.] Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. [Lucifer: Taking into account equipment that now requires replacement as well as future medical costs, estimates currently range from a low of $1.5 trillion to highs exceeding $2 trillion.] It has been disruptive on many levels. The danger is that the United States now will be weary of intervening elsewhere, like the cat that once sat on a hot stove and will never sit on any stove again.[Lucifer: Is it only a Neocon that could regard this as a disadvantage].]

SPIEGEL: How long could such a period last?

Haass: It is quite possible that this generation of Americans will be as affected by Iraq as the previous generation was by Vietnam.

SPIEGEL: The world doesn't need the "little sheriff," but it needs a strong America.

Haass: Exactly right. There is no doubt that the world needs the United States. We need to stay active in the world, not as a favor to others, but as a favor to ourselves. We cannot turn inward in an age of globalization. Bad things will happen in the world if we are not trying to manage them. The balance of power in Asia, human issues like Darfur, global climate change -- these are problems that are not going to get solved if the United States doesn't participate actively.[Lucifer: Too late.]

SPIEGEL: Isolationism would be quite a legacy for someone like Bush.

Haass: It would be somewhere between ironic and tragic because this administration has in some ways, like Iraq, been extraordinarily interventionist.

SPIEGEL: What could Europe do?

Haass: The one-word answer is: More. One wants Europe to have more capacity, so it could do more in Afghanistan, or maybe in places like Darfur. One wants Europe to be more internationally oriented. If you could make a criticism that the United States has under-used the diplomatic tool, Europeans often under-use other tools. In many cases, even if anti-Americanism were to fade, there is still a certain lack of preparedness and capability to act. What Europeans have control over is not American foreign policy. What they have control over is their own capacity and willingness to act -- and that is what they ought to focus on.

SPIEGEL: Will Bush leave the world with more problems than he found when he came into office?

Haass: Most likely. That said, the administration still has two years to go, so it is too early to judge. All you can say is that it's sobering where we are. As of now, you would have to say the world is not a safer place.[Lucifer: No hint of an apology. Wriggle, little Neocon, wriggle.]

[Govinda]

Your presented research impresses as always, Lucifer. I raise my proverbial hat to you.

The pretty little neocon is right. (I really never thought i'd say that.)

Anyway, I have something brief to add regarding the progression of diplomacy in the Middle East. Bush and B-Liar (affectionate little UK pet-name for our PM) do indeed seem to be pushing for talks with Iran and Syria, with a view to resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, hoping that this will in turn lead to some progress in Iraq. (Personally, I don't think any amount of Western 'talking' will ever help...)

The Economist had a very interesting article on the subject this week. I'll include some bits of it. I've shortened it as i'm having to type it out, but the essentials are included.

[Economist] - "Talking is no panacea. To invest to much hope in it would be naive in its turn. The first reason for this is that even if they wanted to help, neither Syria nor Iran can, in practice, offer that much to Iraq. Tony Blair...this week said that a "major part" of the answer lies outside Iraq...He is wrong. It is true that outside forces, such as Sunni jihadists and Shia militia aided by Iran, have played a part in forming the violence...Sadly, Iraq is falling apart from the inside.

"As for Syria, it is only a bit player: a conduit for foreign jihadists whose role in what has become a sectarian civil war is diminishing fast.

"Iran's aims include builiding a nuclear weapon, thwarting America in Iraq, destroying Israel and spreading the ideas of its 1979 revolution, which is now...enjoying a second wind. The aims of Syria's President Bashar Assad are to survive as dictator, restore his control over Lebanon...and block progress towards a deal between Israel and the Palestinian moderates by supporting the rejectionists of Hamas.

"Many thoughtful diplomats have called for [a] "grand bargain" between the USA and Iran. But bringing about one such thing would be a very tall order indeed...no American president or Congress would want to give their blessing to a nuclear-armed Iran continuing to threaten the Jewish state.

"Before these sorts of talks, however, America needs a clear idea of what it is actually willing to trade. Let Iran go nuclear in return for some help on the margin in Iraq? Hand Lebanon back to Mr Assad in order to split Syria from Iran?

"The place to resolve America's problems in Iraq is still, unfortunately, Iraq itself." (The Economist, November 18th-24th 2006, p. 12)

So.

Combine this little insight with what the Neocon had to say, and we see...there's really no way out. Melodramatic, speaking to soon and out of turn, whatever. It's really the only way I can see it.

So, haha...how can we fix it? I don't suppose anyone on TFF has the answer, huh? Maybe we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But then again, had we not, the Middle East would still be unstable.

That being said, the 'Axis of Evil' wouldn't have seen America's potential weakness either. Iraq has shown that America and it's Coalition of the 'Willing' are not the indestructible military power they were once thought to be. Both the Americans and we Europeans are losing troops every day; the 'insurgents' are all over us. We've nigh-on incited a civil war.

I don't know how to conclude this post. Just sharing some thoughts.

[Nin`]

[Economist via Shiva] Iran's aims include building a nuclear weapon, thwarting America in Iraq, destroying Israel and spreading the ideas of its 1979 revolution, which is now...enjoying a second wind. The aims of Syria's President Bashar Assad are to survive as dictator, restore his control over Lebanon...and block progress towards a deal between Israel and the Palestinian moderates by supporting the rejectionists of Hamas.

[Lucifer] Substituting reactor for weapon, and striking "destroying Israel", I agree with the above.

[Lucifer] I think that Iran has "got it" when it comes to an energy policy.

[Lucifer] Iran is a composite industrialized developing nation with heavily industrialized areas. Even if they had not been the victims of American machinations for nearly 30 years, they would still need nuclear power to produce cheap electricity and heat to provide them with both water and low cost domestic energy. Burning valuable oil, producing nasty emissions (which are already a problem) makes no sense at all. Particularly as while they are exporters of relatively sweet crude, they are simultaneously net importers of processed petrochemicals, making them highly vulnerable to sanctions.

[Lucifer] Given 30 years of American opposition to Iran's right to possess and operate a complete fuel cycle (Iran has its own Uranium ore), and the experience that Iran has of vulnerability to interruptions in the fuel supply or recycling cycle, Iran would be very stupid not to have the capability of bypassing external constraints.

[Lucifer] Having said that, there is no reason for Iran to seek nukes except for the fact that she has been threatened with them. Repeatedly. By both the US and by Israel. Despite that she asserts that she does not want them, would prefer others not to have them either (which is what the NPT says), and there is not a scintilla of evidence suggesting otherwise.

[Lucifer] So the only reason either the US or Israel, both heavily equipped with nuclear weapons and delivery mechanisms to suspect that Iran might want nuclear weapons are the threats that they themselves have been making against Iran. For years. Can you spell insanity.

[Lucifer] Not only is it insane, but the US is clearly in breach of the NPT in that it is not only not making efforts to reduce its stock in nuclear weapons, but has and is proliferating to Israel. Israel isn't a signatory and possesses some 400 nuclear devices. Meanwhile Iran does not even have the capacity to produce weapons grade fuel and asserts that it doesn't want it.

[Lucifer] I see no grounds for thinking that Iran is a threat to Israel. The statements made by Iran's leaders don't amount to any kind of existential threat to Israel, but an expectation that their god will take care of the problem because of Israel's ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians (I may create a thread based on this subject to shed a lot more light and elucidation on the subject when I have the time). Iran has more than enough problems of its own with, in the absence of oil revenues, an already massively unsustainable population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Shiva] But then again, had we not, the Middle East would still be unstable.

[Lucifer] Had the US not interfered in the Middle East for upwards of 50 years it would be much more stable. Had we maintained our position that Iraq/Kuwait wasn't our problem, rather than been maneuvered into supporting the (rather nasty) royal family of Kuwait, the Middle East would be more stable. Had we not been a major force in stupidly (and utterly illegally) establishing Israel, the Middle East would be more stable. Had we not enabled Israel's Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare programs (the latter only for the sake of completeness) the Middle East would be more stable. Had we not abandoned Jimmy Carter's approach of forcing Israel to parley, the Middle East would be more stable. Had we not single-sidedly supported Israel no matter what she did from the mid 1970s onward the Middle East would be more stable.

[Lucifer] Do you see a pattern here? We intervene. Things get worse. We support a ethically unsupportable group - who are doing their best to make Nazi Germany appear compassionate (Refer Send Hamas leaders 'to paradise': Israeli deputy PM) and things get worse.

[Shiva] Maybe we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

[Lucifer] Give the girl a cookie. Shame that some other 'intellectuals' couldn't all see the sense that Shiva makes here.

[Shiva] I don't suppose anyone on TFF has the answer, huh?

[Lucifer] I think it should, by now be fairly self evident.

[Shiva] So, haha...how can we fix it?

[Lucifer] We could start by stop breaking it. I'd negotiate Saddam's release (on the grounds that prosecutorial misconduct has made any kind of equitable outcome impossible). Part of the surrounding negotiations would include the immediate complete withdrawal of our military from the Middle East, with apologies for our illegal actions. We negotiate to pay Iraq reparations based on 500,000 dead, at $ 10,000 per person, and $500 billion to rebuild the country. Payable over some period of time assuming that the US is not attacked. For any attack on the US where an Iraqi is involved, the amount to be reduced by double the cost of the attack. Amounts to be paid as a small deposit, followed by ongoing payments after the country is sufficiently stable for this to be used for reconstruction. So a trillion dollar cost for fucking them up. Even if that were to double it would be cheap at the price. And $2 trillion or so as an already sunk cost, yielding a total of $3 to $4 Trillion. Making Bush's mistake more expensive in current money than WW II, but not so large as to result in an immediate collapse of the US, no matter how deserved.

[Lucifer] Having completely screwed the pooch, we basically cut military and security expenditure to pay for the cock-up. Reduce US military expenditure to equal the next three countries together. Rather than exceeding the expenditure of the next 40, and somewhat more than 50% of global expenditure.

[Lucifer] Use the balance to secure the deficit and begin to rebuild the country in a sustainable manner. Which effectively means bulldozing suburbia and rebuilding founded on low-impact mixed industrial, agricultural, service and residential basis on a locally sustainable basis.

[Lucifer] When people begin to really grasp the massive cost of this war, most of which is still to come, it should make it easy to avoid ever repeating the mistake.

[Lucifer] Oh, and offer the Israelis the ability to relocate to the US with voting rights some 15 years after moving here, and start paying the Lebanese, Jordan, the Syrians and the Egyptians the 3 to 6 billion a year that has been going to Israel to encourage them to actually help improve life for the Palestinians.

[Lucifer] Finally implement my suggestions (which are abit to long to really place here) on the UN or successor and make sure it has teeth. Once that is achieved, we can cut the rest of our security spending to manageable proportions.

Have a fun, fun day,

Lucifer

[Kaiser Dragoon]

was reading through this post, but there is one, well, I wouldn't call it a mistake, but:

Originally Posted by Lucifer`

I'd negotiate Saddam's release (on the grounds that prosecutorial misconduct has made any kind of equitable outcome impossible). Part of the surrounding negotiations would include the immediate complete withdrawal of our military from the Middle East, with apologies for our illegal actions.

You know that Saddam Hussein was tried and found guilty and sentenced to death on November 5, 2006 via hanging. I honestly don't think it is possible, let alone sensible to try and release him NOW, especially with Iraqi people already expecting his death.

My two cents on the matter
~TheDarkDragoon

[Nin`]

Originally Posted by TheDarkDragoon

was reading through this post, but there is one, well, I wouldn't call it a mistake, but:

*Lucifer looks up with interest, and quizzical expression*

Originally Posted by TheDarkDragoon

You know that Saddam Hussein was tried and found guilty and sentenced to death on November 5, 2006 via hanging.

Thank-you for the up-date DarkDragoon, but yes I am very much aware of this fact.
For some of my opinions on this subject I would recommend you read some of my posts here. Apropos, I would also recommend you take a look over these articles:

Egypt's Mubarak: Hanging Saddam could ignite Iraq
Fair trial for Saddam impossible: watchdog

And if you disagree with anything, by all means submit your argument.

Also, if you would like to see my opinion on the death penalty, refer: Death Penalty--Right or Wrong? Cruel or Humane?

Originally Posted by TheDarkDragoon

I honestly don't think it is possible, let alone sensible to try and release him NOW, especially with Iraqi people already expecting his death.

I strongly disagree. But perhaps you would like to elucidate on your opinion here?

Ah, I almost forgot to mention how very much I disliked the last paragraph in the article: Fair trial for Saddam impossible: watchdog (link provided above).

"At stake is not only justice for hundreds of thousands of victims but, as at Nuremberg, the historical record itself," it said. "Executing (Saddam) while other trials are ongoing will also deprive many thousands of victims of their day in court."

This is clearly a weak argument from utility, dubious at the best of times. In this instance from projected utility, which fails from every possible perspective, particularly in that the tree which lead to the trial is poisoned, so no matter how beneficial to any group the utility is projected to be, there is no way to correct the ethical and legal flaws underlying and fundamental to the current situation.

Even worse, the only people in whose benefit the execution of Saddam Hussein might be, would be the instigators of this horribly illegal war of aggression and tragedy, GW Bush & Co, who might (invalidly) attempt to use this action, which is undoubtedly going to extend and even exacerbate the horror for the people of Iraq, to attempt to justify their illegal actions to the American people (Not the people of Iraq, no matter how convenient they might find this American scheme, I doubt that they are stupid enough to perceive the assertions of justice as anything but hypocritical).

No doubt some of the American people will be stupid enough to swallow this. We've already had it demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that some of this class of fool is capable of swallowing a mountain of shit so long as it is carved into the semblance of an elephant.

Nonetheless, the fact that the instigators are, under American law and in the eyes of the world, clearly more guilty of crimes against peace and humanity than Saddam Hussein, and therefore, by American standards worthy of a rope (their gamble did not come off, their means were not justified by the ends) makes this one of the most blatant instances of "victors justice", which is to say, no justice at all.

Every respected human rights organization I can think of that has issued a statement after evaluating this situation appears to have come to pretty much the same conclusion. So much for Liberty. So much for Equality. So much for Justice. So much for Freedom. And knowing all this, so much for the American ideal. Will anybody shed a tear for our trashed innocence (no matter how undeserved)?

Oh, and welcome to TFF, a little late but welcome.

Lucifer