Okay — at what point do we stop saying this is just expected and unavoidable “residual violence” and admit things don’t look so dandy? When the statistics come in? When Maliki is killed or Kirkuk goes up in flames?
My guess is never.
Iraq was never a country, it was the name of an American misadventure, and now that the lads are no longer dying over there, it has ceased to matter altogether.
From top news to a non-issue in less than two years — I guess congrats to Gen. Petraeus and his A-team are in order.
Well said Jari,
The “Surge” was 100% successful at its intended aims – to kick the can down the road for the next administration / Iraqis to deal with. As a PR and agenda-setting effort in DC it was tremendously successful. It convinced reporters, thin on the ground and without voice in editorial decision-making, to portray – nudge nudge – that things were ‘improving’, ‘heading in the right direction’, ‘better than last year’, and (my personal favorite) ‘fragile but improved’.
I sincerely wonder when both shoes will drop in the Anglo-American media and political landscape. First, that the ‘project’ in Iraq is certifiable as a failure; and, second, that the immense efforts of U.S. forces during this phase was immaterial in its impact on the Iraqi political landscape.
The story missed – the second largest since this all began IMO – was that maybe, just maybe, Iraqis of all political orientations realized that the U.S. was “leaving” – adjusted accordingly – and now are awaiting the ‘new normal’ – crafted by regional influences and Iraqis themselves.
What happens when they all realize that the U.S. won’t ‘leave’ will only add to the approaching competition to shape Iraq’s future.
Mr Jari,
Well more than ever, terps out.
http://www.cponefoundation.org
sorry, I am plugging for a good cause.
=================
Did you read the WaPo by COL Reese? Look, it’s burning because they want it to burn. And have made it very clear it’s time for us to go. Now. For God’s sake they are taking our checkpoints by force.
But we have 1) Removed the regional boil of Al Haffla (Saddam).
2) Quite unexpectedly defeated AQ morally and militarily in the heart of the Arab world. Tarnishing their brand.
3) Given them the chance at better government. Which they’re blowing, but that’s on them.
4) Implanted the virus of democracy in the Arab and Muslim world. We’ll see what happens.
Peace
“Iraq was never a country, it was the name of an American misadventure..”
Wait a minute. Don’t you mean the Brits?
Elf,
no problem, plug away.
—–
I did indeed read Col. Reese’s memo and found it unsettling. I knew things were bad but not quite that bad.
That being said, I don’t think it’s simply a case of “them wanting it to burn”. These destructive forces were unleashed by your invasion, and whatever pieces of paper may have been signed by Bush and Maliki, the mess remains your moral responsibility. Sure, Iraq was a flimsy construct to begin with, but you broke it, and now you own it.
As for the accomplishments you listed, yes, you removed Saddam but replaced him with Shia Islamists who will not tolerate Kurdish secessionism any more than Saddam did. So much for regional stability.
But you’re right, you did tarnish the AQ brand.
Iraq should never have happened.
Once it did, someone should have held up their hand and said “I did it, I am responsible and I will do everything possible to set matters right.”
That too is not going to happen.
@Dara,
You mean the Brits, right?
We’ve already done everything possible to set it right.
Someday when they write the history books, I wonder if any historian might take note that America fell ass backwards into the role of “world policeman” from WWI on because all the Empires — Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian Tsar, China (internally it’s always been an Empire), German, then later the Fascist, Nazi, and later the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and finally British Empire all collapsed in an astonishingly short period of history. Leaving us with the babies, and the neurotic guilt trip.
That’s a bit tangential, but it needed to be written down somewhere, even the internets.
Elf,
Coming from a country which was once considered the jewel of the British Empire, let me assure you that most of my countrymen felt that there never should have been an invasion of our lands and the sooner it was freed of them the better.
Invaders generally seem to be under the impression that they are taking on the burden of solving the world’s problems. The truth is that usually, other then the policemen themselves, no one wants self proclaimed world policemen.
The world, bar a few countries, went hoarse pleading with Bush to show restraint. Iraq should never have happened. A war with no cause or rationale.
Maintaining that everything possible has been done to set things right, just proves that things did go horribly wrong. And the best that could be done was just not good enough.
Even with all the goodwill in the world that the US has built up with its humanitarian work, as far as Iraq is concerned, the point that Jari brought out remains relevant. You broke it, you own it, you fix it.
Dara,
There was plenty of rationale and reason, and in fact 12 years of off/on conflict until we (and for the most part in 2003, the region and our allies) decided after 9/11 that the Saddam finally had to go. Uh, 40 countries supported it by arms, the “world” by 17 UN resolutions…etc, etc. I think you know the history, but to continue the summary;
*12 years of reckless gambling by the brutal dictator – whose luck finally ran out.
*17 UN resolutions.
*History of building, buying, stockpiling and using WMD. Yes, the intel that he still had it turned out to be wrong – intel fed us by Saddam and his agents. He probably dumped it in 98 after Desert Fox air raids.
*Failure of sanctions regime. Due in no small part to UN and member states corruption by same dictator.
*Involvement with terrorism.
*Suspected ties to AQ, partially vindicated in terms of contacts. No operational relationship beyond Ansar Al Sunnah in the north, as it turns out.
*Failure of the Iraqi’s or his neighbors to control, contain or depose him.
*9/11 – gamechanger which meant people like Saddam were out of games.
You don’t want to accept the reasons? Fine. Pretending they don’t and didn’t exist? Dishonest.
We didn’t enter to occupy (which was a fools hope). We entered to get rid of the prick, and foreclose on any further troublemaking. We’re not playing worlds policeman (although oddly I keep seeing protest signs in English on TVeverywhere). We invaded as we saw it in our interests, pre-emptive self defense premier among them.
And the Iraqis then and now bear responsibility for their own actions and failures.
We don’t own it. And they broke it, something that started in 1979. They can continue to break it without our help. Although we are – foolishly – trying to do justice not only for our Kurdish and Shia clients but for the Sunnis as well.
Time to go.
And it’s wrong to confuse us with the British, or Iraq with the Raj.
And on world’s policman….note post above about global order meltdown 8/20 @ 1215 please. It’s more like the worlds busiest fireman…trying to stop another Armageddon like WWII. With nukes.
Peace
Elf,
I don’t agree with most of your reasoning. Its a no win game either way.
To cut a long story short about all them UN resolutions. Please remember, unlike at the start of the Afghanistan operation, Bush took a conscious decision to avoid going to the UN for sanction to invade Iraq. He knew it would not happen. Moreover, within a week after operations began, Kofi Anan is on record at having called the invasion illegal.
The Al Qaeda was hardly ever active in Iraq and whatever proof Colin Powell tried to convince the security council with regarding the link was proved to be decisively wrong.
Getting rid of Saddam was a reason, ok. The time to call a halt to him was when he used Chemical weapons against Iran, if I remember right he was supported then. So why the anguish almost 20 years later? He was far more ruthless at the start of his tenure than he was when he was attacked.
I think Bush quoted 26 countries supported him, it could well be 40 as you say. How many countries comprise the UN? How many of them opposed it outright, including a majority in the Security Council?
Let me also add that while most people supported the US and saw total justification for the Afghanistan war, the majority the world over still think Iraq was a monumental blunder.
I doubt any of this will convince you Elf, so be it. Lets agree to disagree.