Iraq Study Group Reaches Concensus 621
reporter writes to point us to a story in the Washington Post reporting that the Iraq Study Group has reached consensus and will issue its 100-page report on December 6: 'The Iraq Study Group, which wrapped up eight months of deliberations yesterday, has reached a consensus and will call for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.' The Post mentions that first word of the panel's conclusions came from the New York Times yesterday. The Times points out that it is not clear how many U.S. troops would come home; some brigades might be withdrawn to Iraqi bases out of the line of fire from which they could provide protection for remaining U.S. operations.
Iraqi's are slow (Score:4, Interesting)
Legality of sources? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Word of advice from old British Empire... (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran wanted Saddam removed because they want a Shia superstate. This little gem of an idea was on the news for about 10 minutes a couple of years ago, when the Pentagon opined that Chalabi was an Iranian double-agent who duped the US with bad intel so Iran could foment a regime change to destabilize the region so the Shia majority could take control. But when the news agencies realized that they were saying that the entire Executive Branch of the US Government had been suckered by selective intelligence into doing the bidding of a known sponsor of terrorism, the story sort of dried up and went away. We're still working for Iran and Israel. Two masters, though with incompatible ends, but both being served by our own Wilsonian idealistic crusade mentality. It's an interesting, if depressing, situation.
Re:Shhhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in that tiny little place caleed "the rest of the World", and I can guarantee you this war was considered a disgrace ever since your president started talking about it. Face it, nobody bought Bush's crap outside of the US, in spite of the great effort from our media corporate machine to convince us otherwise.
Only some right-wing politicians (and Blair, the poodle) gave their approval, but they would suck the American President's dick any time, no matter who he is or what party he belongs to.
Re:Shhhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
Some nations need strong, nay extreme leadership to keep them together because they're so volatile. Saddam was a nasty piece of work but he was at least reasonably predictable. As one Iraqi noted in an interview, at least under Saddam he knew if he did x, y or z he'd get tortured and maybe killed. Now he fears that just for going down the shops.
It's a huge mistake to assume everyone in the world feels and thinks like we do. They do not and htings that might seem trivial to us are big deals for them and vice versa. Sometimes these people need someone who is a bit of a psycho to keep a lid on things and we are now seeing in Iraq what happens when rule with a rod of iron is taken away. Something similar happened in Yugoslavia, strong domineering leader dies, everything goes to crap and people who apparantly got on with each were suddenly at each others throats.
Re:Why we are really there. (Score:2, Interesting)
Thirdly, and mainly, it was more of a gut-level, emotional thing than a logical thing. Sadam was obviously a total bastard, and the world would be better off with him at the end of a rope. However, there are a lot of people like that in the world. We can't go invading every one of them.
It was basically like this, "the guys a monster, he's supporting terrorists, and he's trying to get nukes, we have to act now before he gets them."
That worked out well....That's how the Bush administration sold the war, and I, like most of the US population, fell right for it. They completely glazed over the much more important social/ethnic/religious problems Iraq has, and how difficult any occupation would ultimately be. Also, 9/11 was always portrayed as "this generations Pearl Harbor." After all those lives lost, we got what felt like a small-scale invasion of Afghanistan. It just didn't "feel" like the kind of response the attack required. At that point, I could have probably been lead to support an invasion of just about anybody. Bush saw this feeling in the American populace, and used it to "finish what Daddy started."
Ultimately, I think we probably picked the wrong country. I don't know if an invasion of Iran would have gone any better, but at least we wouldn't have Ahmoud "the Holocaust never exhisted" Ahmadinejad on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb. Now I get the feeling that in a few years we'll find ourselves invading Iran, with our troops already spread thin in Iraq, right as I'm getting out of college and in prime draft age. WONDERFUL, JUST WONDERFUL....
/rant
Re:Shhhhhhh (Score:3, Interesting)
I admit I've only talked to a few soldiers about it, but the 'realistic picture' they painted was that Iraq is a complete mess, marked by gross incompetence in managing the war, and cover-ups in hiding that incompetence.
Like I said though, that was only a few soldiers opinions, so it might not be representative of what's going on all over the place. However, hearing it from them made it sound a lot worse than even the media has been portraying it.
Well the one I asked (Score:3, Interesting)
His opinion of Iraq wasn't so rosy, but hey, he was drunk. I'm sure when he's sober he'll be cheery and optimistic about his sacrifice for the War on Terror? Liberty? Iraqi Freedom? I forget why we're there. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Re:Shhhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
What the grandparent post was saying, but I guess a typo got in the way of the message coming across, is that at least in America it's *really* difficult to get objective information about how the war in Iraq is going. Each news source might have a different idea about it, might be talking to different officials that, yes, are ordered to stay on message, or might have ulteriour motives that prevent it from delivering unbiased information. In addition, yes, soldiers and media are extremely limited in what photographs they're permitted to send back home.
Why do you think it is that all the *retired* generals in the US army seem critical of the war in Iraq? Once they're retired they're no longer under orders to stay on message, and the message that the administration has chosen is that everything's under control. It isn't, and I think most people accept that there's little possibility of it getting under control the way things are going now. I've talked to soldiers, I've read blogs, I've done enough research to satisfy myself that the "quagmire" of Iraq has turned into a "shitstorm" and it's time to get out.
Turkey will behave ... maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
This is admittedly a slight gamble : it's also possible that the Turks will finally give up trying to get into the EU and will go along with a revived Islamic wave coming from Iran. And then we'll have a huge muslim threat right on our (EU) doorstep.
Oh well, we're all doomed anyway.
Re:In other words (Score:3, Interesting)
Say that neocon claims are right, and there would have been a campaign of terror attacks in the US had we not done what we have[1]. There could have been thousands more US civilian deaths[2] and trillions of dollars in damage and economic disruption. Are the lives of a few thousand volunteer soldiers worth that? They knew what they were signing up for. None of them were forced into signing up[3].
[1] Ignoring the all the terrorists and anti-USA sentiment that the Iraq occupation has created. If the GOP cared about the future, they'd raise taxes and pay down the national debt.
[2] Also ignoring all the dead Iraqi civilians, 'cause they're just ragheads, right?
[3] Also ignoring the stop-loss people, but the contract does say Uncle Sam owns their asses for 8 years once they sign.
Re:meh (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, the NYTs only purpose is that it still seems to have some of the best contacts of any paper and can get leaked copies of memos and reports before anyone else. I do not trust them to accurately represent the contents, but at least the memos' existence gets in the news to be covered by other news outlets.
Re:Why we are really there. (Score:1, Interesting)
Guess which two countries secret services (hint: the same two that invaded Iraq) staged a coup by sending fake death threats to key religious leaders, spreading lies about the government, flying the son of the old Shah back in, backing gorilla forces, and creating violence in the streets (Operation Ajax). Interestingly enough, this little exercise in democracy topling was viewed as so successful that it was followed up with another in Guatemala a year later (Operation PBSUCCESS), and that by several more. I guess the sad truth is, a friendly dictator is much more amendable to foreign exploitation than a democracy, and out elected leaders we have been more interested in the former than the later.
The double irony of the matter, though, is that the puppet Shah they instated went on to have an absolutely dreadful humanitarian record that it set the stage for the revolution that created the current government with its understandable western paranoia. Still, it is a step up from the Shah, and, who knows, there is still a lot of forward thinking Iranians. Given another fifty to a hundred years, they might be back somewhere close to where they had arrived in the 1950s on their own.
Re:Why we are really there. (Score:3, Interesting)
All the information was out there. The UN inspectors said there were no WMDs. Half the people in Bush's cabinet had been saying "We need a friendly Muslim democracy in the Middle East to support our interests" for a decade, long before they'd been in a position to make policy.
Even if there had been WMDs, it would have been nothing more than a pretext. We see that with North Korea, and it is utterly foolish to invade a country based on what they might do. I mean, did Iraq support the 9/11 Hijackers, give 'em a supply of stealth box cutters? Anthrax? The CIA later admitted that a "gifted high school student" could have made that particular "WMD".
That regime (which we set up) sucked, but the lesson to be learned there is not to set up crazy dictators in the first place. The bulk of the genocide that we're blaming Saddam for happened after Gulf War I, and because we encouraged groups to rebel against Saddam, to make things easier for us, then abandoned them when we pulled out.
And are we safer now? Did anyone honestly think invading an Islamic country would make us safer? Apparently so.
So now we throw more money and lives at it because the people at the top cannot admit to mistakes, and if they keep it going long enough, it'll be someone elses legacy.
And why? Because the public bought it. They didn't bother to look at the damn facts.
The question to ask is, are you going to learn anything from this? If you do, you'll be in the minority.
Re:Shhhhhhh (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoa... you've extrapolated quite a bit from that remark. 'The Truth' was not what GWB told Americans when explaining why we needed to go to war. You talk about war protestors wanting to live in a totalitarian gov't. Those in protest of the war are thinking the same thing about war proponents. GWB actively trying to break down the balance of powers in our gov't, torturing, spying on americans, without trying to get consent from those he's trying to protect and represent. There's more than a small scent of totalitarianism in that.
And since these arguments have been repeated ad nauseum, I'll just say screw you, go to Iraq and get killed since you believe there's no other option. Meanwhile, those against the war will try to divert our nation's resources back from the government war contracters and into things that make a difference, like education, so boneheads like you can learn to see the difference between propaganda and real national defense.
BTW, have you thought about writing dialogue for action movies?
Can't you just picture Bruce Willis, the experienced staff seargent in a Vietnam setting, ripping into the good-intentioned, but hot-headed Lieutenant Leonardo DiCaprio when the young recruit starts having existential doubts?Re: You break it you buy it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well from what I've seen, it looks like you suffer and then die.
Maybe next time america won't be so hasty to take other peoples land. The best you can hope for here is a long bloody lesson in not randomly fucking people. Responsibility isn't always a pretty thing to learn.
Re:Thanks, Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
And leaving the criminals who started this fiasco in power does EVERYTHING to prevent any possible reasonable solution.
Allowing terrorists to keep their jobs running America rather than throwing their asses into the chair as they have earned is a huge part of the problem. Without fixing that *first* we can't possibly fix the whole thing.
The fact that many of your "facts" are wrong, and that you keep repeating idiotic lies about who thought what when what you're saying is *wrong* does nothing to help your case.