Home > World Events > Time to go home

Time to go home

January 4th, 2007

About the only thing that the supporters of the Iraq war have been able to claim as a success (at least with any plausibility) has been the removal of Saddam Hussein. Now that this removal has been made permanent, wouldn’t this be a good time to declare victory and pull out?

Categories: World Events Tags:
  1. melanie
    January 4th, 2007 at 20:57 | #1

    I agree, but it isn’t the first good opportunity that has been passed up. Others came and went as the WMD were shown to be non-existent, Saddam was arrested, the elections were held and the ‘sovereign’ government installed… oh! almost forgot… and the women were liberated!!!

    The first might have been a bit humiliating, but the others were all good chances to say ‘mission accomplished’. So what are they actually aiming for at this stage? An elusive and in reality unattainable ‘stability’ (with or without democracy in Iraq)? a permanent military presence now that Saudi Arabia is so unreliable? war for its own sake? saving face? (Stanley Karnow said that for LBJ losing the war meant losing the presidency – which turned out to be true).

  2. assad
    January 5th, 2007 at 10:34 | #2

    Replace the word victory with defeat. Whether the Americans stay in Iraq or leave, one thing is clear. They have lost.

  3. Hermit
    January 5th, 2007 at 11:57 | #3

    I haven’t read the comments on earlier posts so this point may have already been made. Saddam was estimated to have killed 300,000 people in 20 years; if Iraq turns into a bloodbath he will look like a saint. Perhaps it is better for foreign meddlers to prolong the current situation indefinitely.

  4. January 5th, 2007 at 12:10 | #4

    Dear John

    It sometimes pays to be the first to comment. Well-said Melanie. I think that the initial aims of the illegal invasion included:
    1. Setting up a model neo liberal economy, dominated by American corporations (Naomi Klein).
    2. Setting up permanent military bases, as Melanie rightly says, because Saudi Arabia could become destabilised – most of the alleged ‘reconstruction’ work has been the US Embassy and several of these bases.
    3. Stealing Iraqi oil for the benefit of US ‘resource security’.

    Since little of this preposterous brigandry has been achieved I would think that another “mission accomplished” announcement would seem to be for an American domestic audience only and irrelevant to the rest of the world. For those who still believe in American ‘exceptionalism’ – why not ask yourself what we should do if Norway and Libya behaved in the same way as the United States.

    My sense is that the US military will shoot their way out to the airport and leave lots of their expensive equipment for which ever militias were quickest to get their hands on it and that this could happen by Christmas 2007, unless delayed by the arrival of the extra 20,000 troops. These troops, many on their third or fourth tour in Iraq, will quickly become demoralised and mutinous and many will be killed by inevitably presenting themselves as ‘more targets’. In this case the humiliating panic withdrawal may be delayed by a year.

    Regards
    Willy Bach
    http://www.willybachpoeticthoughts.blogspot.com

  5. brian
    January 5th, 2007 at 14:15 | #5

    In the midst of all this comment…let’s not forget that the worst of the neo-cons like Leeden, Joshua Moravchik and Elliot Abrahms,not to mention the loathsome Bill Cristol at “The National Standard” ,are saying openly that it is ESSENTIAL that the attack on Iran must be carried out soon,and if need be with nucleur weapons,
    The same line came yesterday from the arch-warmonger in Israel,Netayahu
    He argues that the survival of Israel depends now on a permenent US-Israeli hegemon
    over all the Arab world.!Sometime Netayahu and his mates, sound as if he might be
    channeling Adolf Hitler!
    So is Iran next.??..and what does Howard say then..and by the way Iran is a major trading partner of ours for many foodstuffs like meat,flour and dairy foods.
    Bad news for us if they are attacked!

  6. January 6th, 2007 at 20:43 | #6

    “Saddam was estimated to have killed 300,000 people in 20 years; ”

    Well… we’re much more efficient… that’s a claim I guess.

  7. January 7th, 2007 at 00:31 | #7

    Iran won’t be attacked. This was a major flaw in the neo-con thinking all along. They wanted to sign up for an extended war against a range of states… but political reality always meant that the US was suffer war-fatigue.

    I’m not sure if leaving is the right thing to do now. As bad as things are, it is very easy to believe that sectarian violence will get worse without the US there fighting against both sides. I’m not sure what the answer is.

  8. January 7th, 2007 at 00:32 | #8

    Iran won’t be attacked. This was a major flaw in the neo-con thinking all along. They wanted to sign up for an extended war against a range of states… but political reality always meant that the US was suffer war-fatigue.

    I’m not sure if leaving is the right thing to do now. As bad as things are, it is very easy to believe that sectarian violence will get worse without the US there fighting against both sides. I’m not sure what the answer is.

  9. derrida derider
    January 7th, 2007 at 16:43 | #9

    the Bushies have achieved what I always thought impossible. They’ve made Saddam look good.

  10. wbb
    January 10th, 2007 at 22:40 | #10

    oil

Comments are closed.