War-Mongering News
Leslie Gelb former New York Timesman and no raving liberal has taken note of the Neo-conservative’s push for war with Iran.
Here are his opening lines: “They’re back! The neoconservatives who gave America clueless, unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a near doubling of military expenditures, during the Bush years have risen from their political graves. Someone, maybe a media tiring of President Obama’s interminable plight, pulled the stake from their heart. Now they’ve returned to the op-ed pages, the talk shows, the think-tank discussions, and the advisory ranks of Republican presidential candidates.
“Once again, the neoconservatives mount their steeds. They hint that we need another war or at least a little military strike, this time against Iran. They’re pushing to increase military spending; the China threat, you know. They’re also trying to further weaken Obama by charging that he’s losing Iraq to Iran by not keeping U.S. forces there (without mentioning, of course, that Iraq is throwing them out).” Whole thing here.
What do the neocon Catholics think of when they hear “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” I know they answer that by crushing enemies they will make peace for all. That old canard the just war theory. How many justifications must have there been for the thirty years world among Christians. It is just not among the neocons that we have the bellicose stance. How many progressives are quiet now about their vigorous defense of the Iraq war!
When the neo-cons get those oil money checks from Iraq that they promised us, then I’m for hiring their sons and daughters to invade Iran. That way nobody will ever be hurt.
I would say that President Obama can talk about military intervention in the Mideast from a platform of rock-solid credibility, given the way the multilateral Libya effort has apparently wrapped up with (I think this is true) no American lives lost, and a tiny fraction of treasure spent on the venture compared to what has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now that Obama has announced that the last-remaining troops in Iraq will be withdrawn by December – they can just be shipped over the line into Iran for yet another misbegotten attempt at proving that the US is still the Biggest Kid on The Block.
And all this talk (usually from chicken hawk politicians and parents of those poor kids on the ground) that these troops are defending our safety and security is so abominable that I can just spit each time I hear it. I know that the relatives of the troops on the ground need some form of justification for what their kids are going through, but defending our “safety and security” is not it. As for the chicken hawk politicians – I hope that there is a nice big particularly hot place in hell for them.
Reinstitute the draft for ALL (with rare exceptions for mental and physical reasons) and this warmongering nonsense will go away and fast.
I like that “little military strike.” Just like “partly pregnant,” except that this would go on for far more than nine months.
OK so now we go to war with Oceania. Makes perfect sense. They are the biggest threat to the world.
I would hesitate to call this a victory (or end of a chapter, or a turning of the tide). I am not sure how stable the government is and it is in US (and world interest) to have a stable and prosperous Iraq. Afghanistan and Libya are not very key strategically but Iraq likely is.
But the neocons were dead wrong about how America would be received. I saw an interview with an Iraqi woman who was pretty moderate but she said that whenever she saw an American soldier she wanted to rip his eyes out. People just flat out don’t like being occupied.
At the same time, they require real diplomatic and political support to ensure that they don’t go rogue especially with the oil supply they have. Sorry to be so crass but oil is a pretty important commodity and with the economy in the state its in, stable prices are important.
Let’s just hope that Iraq can return to a positive state and are fully prepared. I think this departure is as much a roll of the dice as the invasion and the US is 0 for 2 on dice rolling in the region!
PS
to be fair this is Obama saving face. From a distance, and this is just a guess, but I just can’t see this as the optimal outcome. Something isn’t right about it. Too abrupt.
Who would have predicted that the Republicans would have continued to inflict so much damage, domestically, on the USA in the last three years? So, yes, they cannot be underestimated: America today, tomorrow the world. And Obama, with his drones (targeting and “taking out”, I hear, even an American citizen in a mideastern country whose only crime was to be a vocal critic), subscribes as much to the ethos of the military Moloch as anyone else.
“Iraqi woman who was pretty moderate but she said that whenever she saw an American soldier she wanted to rip his eyes out. People just flat out don’t like being occupied.”
The Japanese did not mind all that much, relatively speaking, despite the firebombings and the atomic bombings they’d endured at American hands.
Why was America so successful then? Perhaps because it still believed in democracy? Or because it made an effort to understand the country it was occupying?
The Iraq invasion of 2003 was one of the most vicious and stupid actions in history, and enjoyed the support of many Americans. We will all pay the price for a long time; indeed the current global economic crisis may be part of that price.
I recall the incidental horrors of the 2003 invasions — two cases in the early days of shooting into unarmed crowds; the use of cluster bombs; the rape of Fallujah; the torture and degradation of numerous prisoners. America has never faced up to its war crimes anywhere, least of all in Iraq.
If we were to launch another pre-emptive war, I imagine the House Republicans would insist we cut other government programs to pay for it. I saw in the article that Mitt Romney wants to increase military spending; Congress at this juncture seems pretty incapable of authorizing new money. In this instance, is this a silver lining to a paralyzed Congress?
I am so glad we are ending our war with Irag- whether our withdrawal is planned, strategic or tail-between-our-legs, I don’t care, I just want it ended.
I am terrified that a continued bad economy will elevate Mitt romney to the White House. His foreign policy is modeled almost entirely on the failed policies of George W. Bush and his arrogant and foolish neocon advisors. On the campaign trail, Romney gushed about the great job Dick Cheney did as VP and said he wished he could find a running mate with Cheney’s “wisdom”. God save us.
@ George D (10/21, 10:13 pm) “Something isn’t right about it. Too abrupt.”
I’m not sure how you get to the conclusion that Obama’s actions in this case are “too abrupt”.
1 – On Nov. 17, 2008, after months of intense and careful negotiation representatives of the US and Iraqi governments signed a Status of Forces Agreement which, among other things, called for a withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraqi cities in the summer of 2009 and withdrawal of all US forces by the end of 2011. (Note that this occurred during President Bush’s final year in office. Defense Secretary Robert Gates played a key role in negotiating the Agreement and, at President Obama’s request, remained Defense Secretary until the summer of 2011.)
2 – Candidate Obama had called for an orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and a refocusing of US military strategy on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. During the campaign, he supported efforts to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq and as president-elect, promised to carry out the terms of the Agreement.
3 – Upon taking office, President Obama ordered policy reviews for US strategy in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He ordered the removal of US combat forces from Iraqi cities in the summer of 2009 and began withdrawing US troops from Iraq (and redeploying some of them to Afghanistan). In the first year of his presidency, Obama restated his commitment to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011—unless the Iraqi government requested otherwise and the US government concluded that request was in the United States’ interests as well.
4 – Throughout 2010 and the first part of 2011, the combat presence and number of US troops in Iraq continued steadily to decline. The Obama administration repeatedly made public statements that US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011.
5 – Yesterday President Obama announced that all US troops would withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.
We can argue about the wisdom of the Iraq War policy represented in the Status of Forces Agreement signed by one administration and carried out by another.
We can argue about the morality of US policy and actions in the Iraq War—and its behavior in other military actions taken in the past decade.
It’s hard for me to see how we can argue about the abruptness of the US troop withdrawal from Iraq. (But if someone else sees a case that Obama acted “abruptly” here, please go ahead and make it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVO7S7NuSY
Juan Cole has some sober comments on yesterday’s announcements. Headline: “US out of Iraq, but Peace remains elusive.”
http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/us-out-of-iraq-but-peace-remains-elusive.html
Luke:
Okay.
Consider this article from the New York Times:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html
I am opposed to blunt military action but I am not opposed to smart, shrewd, diplomatic engagement. I realize that the US is not in control of every movement that happens. However, clearly, the US administration would have preferred and alternative status of forces arrangement. For whatever reason, they could not make that happen. Thus, the departure, as it is now is actually happening, is abrupt and not part of the responsible analysts, (both Iraqi and American) strategic thinking.
George D: The Times story you cite goes on to say: “But the repeated lesson of Iraqi politics is that putatively final agreements are always subject to revision. Even now, with a definitive sounding statement from the president, the two sides are continuing to discuss a continuing military relationship.”
The story also cites an Iraqi military and a parliamentarian to that effect. That attitude along with the hundreds of private U.S. security personnel suggest the hole in the agreement. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
If the private contractors protect and make possible a nuanced diplomatic effort to encourage political reconciliation and an improvement in the lives of ordinary Iraqis, okay. But exactly what nuance U.S. diplomats and private contractors are capable of remains to be seen. Count me skeptical.
That is why I think meeting the SOFA deadline and the end of year deadline is a step in clarifying the U.S. role and forcing the Iraqis to create their own future. Isn’t that we were there for? Democracy.
I don’t think we ever started the Iraq or Afghan wars to help the people of those countries; it was to protect our own interests, which is fair enough. The problem with the Iraq invasion/occupation is that a lot of us didn’t know then and still don’t know 9 years later why we are fighting there. But I think it is a little disingenuous of some of our political leaders to talk now about how our withdrawal might be bad for the Iraqi people; it doesn’t seem like the well-being of the Iraqis has ever been a factor in any of this.
Mr. Hill – think that the Republican Party needs to hire you to run a class for all of their current presidential candidates. Watching the debates and listening to the likes of Cain, Bachman, etc. reminds me that most of these folks would fail a basic college level 101 course on Foreign Policy.
The rewriting of history via statements that have no alignment even with basic facts is truly outstanding. OTOH, guessing that 80% of the citizens don’t know any better. Another reason why democracy rises and falls with the education of folks.
Example – last debate Backmann criticized Obama over Israeli policy citing that he had moved us farther from Israel than any president. Obviously, she knew nothing about Eisenhower and the 1956 Suez Crisis; she knew nothing about arms sales to Saudi Arabia; she knows very little about Carter’s intervention on earlier accords, etc. The levels of ignorance are truly astounding.
Margaret:
Count me skeptical too. The use of private contractors (aka mercenaries in earlier times) Is very risky. First, the government actually does not have direct control over what they do, and since they are Americans, even if they do something terribly wrong, the US is going to be blamed anyway.
Bottom line is countries that were historically occupiers (USSR, UK, ancient Rome) all met their demise.
I agree that clarification of role is very important but I am not sure the US is even clear about that. Besides, I think the role was “clarified” as the US went along not beforehand.
Not sure foreign policy is going to be on the radar in the next election but I saw an interview with Ron Paul this morning and I think he has it basically right at least as far as foreign policy is concerned.
In the last debate Bachmann indicated that she didn’t know that Llibya is in Africa. She and Palin must have been in 4th grade together. (Palin thought that Africa was one country!)
As to American ignorance of foreign policy, is it any surprise? Thinking that the past is irrelevant it knows no history. Not being sufficiently impressed with the inevitability of scientific ramifications it doesn’t admit the ecological catastrophes that have started to arrive. (See Fr. Imbelli’s new thread about mislabelling fish in Boston. It shows that Bostonians do not not realize that the oceans are being depleted of fish and the fishmongers are, therefore, cheating them.) With doubling of world population expected in a few generations, humanity is doomed. And we Americans continue on our merry way skimping on education because we’re too cheap to pay good teachers what they’re worth compared to other professionals.
We choose to live in the moment. We deserve what we are starting to get.
All you darn peaceniks!!!
We *need* to be building roads, dams, and bridges, etc. —
— in other countries blown to bits by U.S. air strikes and drones and bombs, etc.
Gives work to Halliburton et al.
Good for retirees’ stock dividends.
I mean, Really!
(yes, sarcasm intended)
I agree with Jimmy Mac: reinstate the draft, and we’ll think twice and beyond, perhaps, before intervening militarily elsewhere.
George D… “First, the government actually does not have direct control over what they do, and since they are Americans, even if they do something terribly wrong, the US is going to be blamed anyway.’ yes.. but
I’m not so sure they are all Americans.. like the French Foreign Legion was not all French.
ed
I would put odds on that the private company is Blackwater now known as Xe Service. They are mostly American and contracted through the US gov’t usually although the Iraqi’s themselves may pay for their services as well.
There were a lot of allegations levelled against Blackwater when it started operations in Iraq.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/xe-services-llc/
Wasn’t Blackwater-XE banned from working for the State Department after they shot up an intersection in Baghdad killing several motorists?