NationStates Jolt Archive

Read this in morning paper: Virginia Pilot. Written by Thomas Freidman who writres a foriegn affiars column in the New York Times.

He seems like a republican usually to me so I'm happy he is finally sees the errors with Bush's war in Iraq.

Check out his 6 questions. See if you can answer them. Iraq's freedom depends on it.

I got a btrief glimpse of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield's news conference on Monday, as the battle for Fallujah began. I couldn't help but rub my eyes for a moment and wonder whether I had been transported back in time to some 20 months ago, when the war for Iraq had just started.

Watching CNN, I saw the same Rummy joking with the Pentagon press corps, the same Scratchy reports from the front by "embedded reporters," breifed the soldiers preparing for battle about how they were liberating Iraq.

There was only one difference that no one seemed to want to mention. I wasn't 20 months ago. It was now. And Iraq still has not been fully liberated. In fact, as the fight for Fallujah shows, it hasn't even been fully occupied.

Taking in this scene I had very mixed feelings: A fervent hope that victory in Fallujah will start to tip Iraq in the right direction, and utter scorn at the fact that we are now, once again, fighting a full-scale war in central Iraq, without an ounce of self-reflection by an administration that long ago declared "mission accomplished."

But don't worry. Rummy has it all under control. He hasn;t made any mistakes. Everything is going as planned. The plan was always to start fight running street battles in Fallujaf 20 months after Saddam's fall.
So lay off. Shut up. Watch Fox. We have a flag. Visit a red state. Don't ask how we got into this fix. Shut up. Lay off. Watch fox.

Alas, I am part of that dwindling minority who believe that a decent outcome in Iraq is both hugely important and still possible. But the "deja vu all over again" battle for Falluhag only reminds me that I still have the same questions I had before the Itaq watr started. Free advice: Until you have answers to the following sixc questions, don't believe any hapy talk coming from the Bush team in Iraq.

Question 1: Have we really finished the war in Iraq? And by that I mean, is it safe for Iraqis and reconstruction workers to drive even for the Baghdad airport into town, and for Iraqi politicians to hold campaigns rallies and have a national dialogue about their country's future.

Question 2: Do we have enough soldiers in Iraq to really provide minimum level of security? Up to now President Bush has allpied what I call the Rumsfeld Doctrine in Itaq: Just enough troops to protect ourselves, but not Iraqis, and just enough troops to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Iraq, but not enough to make things go right.

Ah, Freidmen, what fdo you know about troop levels? Actually, not much. Never shot a gun. But I'm not a chef either, and I know a good meal when I eat one. I know chaos when I see it, and my guess is that we are still two divisions short in Iraq.

Question 3: Can Iraqis agree on constitutional power-sharing? Is there a political entity called Iraq? Or is there just a bunch of disparate tribes and ethnic and relihgious comminuties? Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or waqs Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraqis are the way they are -- congenitally divided? We still don't know the the answert o this fundamental question because there has not been enough security for Iraqias to have a real horiziontal dialogue.

Question 4: If Iraqis are able to make the leap from the depotism of Saddam Hussein to free elections and representative government, can they live with whomever they elect -- which will be mostly politicians from Islamic partries? I take a very expansive view of this since it took Europe several years to work out the culture, habits and institutionas of constutional politics. What you are seeing in Iraq today are the neccessary first steps. If Iraqis elwct Islamic politicians, so be it. But is our president ready for that group shot?

Question 5: Can we makea serious effort to achieve a psychological breakthrough with Iraqis and the wider Arab world? U.S. diplomacy in this regard has been pathetic."It is sad to sat this, but after 18 months the United States still hasn't convinced Iraqis that it means well, "Said Yitzhak Nakask, the Brandeis University exper on Iraq,. " We have never been able to persuade Iraqis that we aren't there for oil. There still isn't a basis for mutal trust."

Question 6: Can the Bush team mend fences with Iran, and forge an understandiung with Suadi Arabia and Syria to control the flow of Sunni militants into Iraq , so the situation ther can be stablized and the jihadist killed in Fallujah are not replaced by a new bunch?
This time, let no one claim victory, or defeat, in Iraq until we have the answers to these six questions.


So what is your opinion? Can you answer these questions?

Question 1: Have we really finished the war in Iraq? And by that I mean, is it safe for Iraqis and reconstruction workers to drive even for the Baghdad airport into town, and for Iraqi politicians to hold campaigns rallies and have a national dialogue about their country's future.

Question 2: Do we have enough soldiers in Iraq to really provide minimum level of security? Up to now President Bush has allpied what I call the Rumsfeld Doctrine in Itaq: Just enough troops to protect ourselves, but not Iraqis, and just enough troops to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Iraq, but not enough to make things go right.

Question 3: Can Iraqis agree on constitutional power-sharing? Is there a political entity called Iraq? Or is there just a bunch of disparate tribes and ethnic and relihgious comminuties? Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or waqs Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraqis are the way they are -- congenitally divided? We still don't know the the answert o this fundamental question because there has not been enough security for Iraqias to have a real horiziontal dialogue.

Question 4: If Iraqis are able to make the leap from the depotism of Saddam Hussein to free elections and representative government, can they live with whomever they elect -- which will be mostly politicians from Islamic partries? I take a very expansive view of this since it took Europe several years to work out the culture, habits and institutionas of constutional politics. What you are seeing in Iraq today are the neccessary first steps. If Iraqis elwct Islamic politicians, so be it. But is our president ready for that group shot?

Question 5: Can we makea serious effort to achieve a psychological breakthrough with Iraqis and the wider Arab world? U.S. diplomacy in this regard has been pathetic."It is sad to sat this, but after 18 months the United States still hasn't convinced Iraqis that it means well, "Said Yitzhak Nakask, the Brandeis University exper on Iraq,. " We have never been able to persuade Iraqis that we aren't there for oil. There still isn't a basis for mutal trust."

Question 6: Can the Bush team mend fences with Iran, and forge an understandiung with Suadi Arabia and Syria to control the flow of Sunni militants into Iraq , so the situation ther can be stablized and the jihadist killed in Fallujah are not replaced by a new bunch?
This time, let no one claim victory, or defeat, in Iraq until we have the answers to these six questions.




So what is your opinion? Can you answer these questions?

We have finished when we dare bring our poor abused armed forces home again. All of them. Until then it's just rhetoric.

We would like to have more troops but without a draft and with few sympathetic allies we can't do it.


I think it is possible to build a coalition in Iraq, if sufficient powerful clerics, both Sunni and Shiite, agree. If the radical clerics can be isolated, this can happen.

I think the new government can work if it does not have one strong leader, who will be resented by all the sects and groups he does not personally represent. Instead, have a leadership council, and a parliamentary government with many parties. Diffuse the power, but give everyone a voice. It will be chaotic, but less likely to encourage domestic violence.


We cannot win over Islam because our diplomats and Pentagon people are all living in the past and see the Muslims with whom they deal as ignorant third world people instead of savvy well informed critical thinkers.

Saudi Arabia is about to collapse, so there is little hope of help from that quarter. Iran needs a change of leadership before progress can be made. Syria with new leadership seems ready to mend fences but we do not.

At least in the Groundhog DAy movie, Bill Murray had an eventual change of heart and came to be a thoughful unselfish person. I doubt that will be our national fate.

Taking in this scene I had very mixed feelings: A fervent hope that victory in Fallujah will start to tip Iraq in the right direction, and utter scorn at the fact that we are now, once again, fighting a full-scale war in central Iraq, without an ounce of self-reflection by an administration that long ago declared "mission accomplished."

The mission accomplished thing is taken out of context and spun endlessly by the media. From the speech itself :
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."
He never said there was no work ahead of us.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html

The mission accomplished thing is taken out of context and spun endlessly by the media. From the speech itself :
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."
He never said there was no work ahead of us.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html

The implication was patently clear, smiling and cheering in that flight jacket he never earned the right to wear, on the deck of a combat ship. He was claiming his moment of triumph.

Too soon.

The implication was patently clear, smiling and cheering in that flight jacket he never earned the right to wear, on the deck of a combat ship. He was claiming his moment of triumph.

Too soon.
In the speech he says America and its allies have done a good job - so far. In this respect, he was claiming it as a moment of triumph. What the media - that conservative corporate dominated media :rolleyes: - has left out is that he says at least twice in his speech that he job is not complete.

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

.... Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or waqs Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraqis are the way they are.....
If This question is suggesting than Saddam had to be a Dictator...I Strongly disagree

BTW I agree with all the rest...

In the speech he says America and its allies have done a good job - so far. In this respect, he was claiming it as a moment of triumph. What the media - that conservative corporate dominated media :rolleyes: - has left out is that he says at least twice in his speech that he job is not complete.

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
Isn't it hypocritical to suggest mission accomplished when he says its not mission accomplished?

It may just be me but its very confusing...

Isn't it hypocritical to suggest mission accomplished when he says its not mission accomplished?

It may just be me but its very confusing...
The toppling of Saddam Hussein was accomplished. It was only a few weeks after we took Baghdad, after all.

The toppling of Saddam Hussein was accomplished. It was only a few weeks after we took Baghdad, after all.
But that wasn't the point (at that time anyway) of going into Iraq, was it? I seem to recall it was to prevent Saddam from using his WMDs against the US.
Oops, sorry, just remembered! I guess Bush was right. Mission Accomplished indeed! The fact there weren't any there anyway is a only a minor, rather quibbling point.


I thought Question 4 raises some interesting points. What will Bush do is they do hold free and fair elections, and a radical Islam (a la Taleban) government is formed? If the US refuses to recognise it, it will only make matters worse in the Middle East. And if they do accept, it will only make matters worse in the Middle East. Tough choice.

But that wasn't the point (at that time anyway) of going into Iraq, was it? I seem to recall it was to prevent Saddam from using his WMDs against the US.
Oops, sorry, just remembered! I guess Bush was right. Mission Accomplished indeed! The fact there weren't any there anyway is a only a minor, rather quibbling point.
That was the original point (mainly) to go into Iraq - to prevent Saddam from using WMDs or giving them to terrorists to use. Bush speaks of this, too :
"And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

The mission in the sense of toppling the Iraqi regime and the Iraqi regular army was over. Accomplished, done fast than all the armchair generals ever thought. The "Elite" Republican Guard was swept aside just like all the other Iraqi army units. I believe its clear, if you read the speech, you'll see in the first paragraph that it is indeed the removal of Saddam Hussein which he is talking about :
"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. "

That was the original point (mainly) to go into Iraq - to prevent Saddam from using WMDs or giving them to terrorists to use. Bush speaks of this, too :
"And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

The mission in the sense of toppling the Iraqi regime and the Iraqi regular army was over. Accomplished, done fast than all the armchair generals ever thought. The "Elite" Republican Guard was swept aside just like all the other Iraqi army units. I believe its clear, if you read the speech, you'll see in the first paragraph that it is indeed the removal of Saddam Hussein which he is talking about :
"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. "

Removing Saddam was a side quest not a main mission. Getting rid of his WMDs was the mission. Thus mission unaccomplished.

some one stole my Pilot this morning was it you?

Removing Saddam was a side quest not a main mission. Getting rid of his WMDs was the mission. Thus mission unaccomplished.
No. There is more than one mission. I don't know if you can understand that... but Bush made it clear in his speech that we still did not have the WMDs and that Iraq was fully secure, but the combat fighting was over. There can be more than one mission.