I'm always (or often) reluctant to feel I really know what is happening in Iraq. The only people who ever seem really sure of themselves are Bush and Rumsfeld (and, when being interviewed on CNN, the Generals). And they have thus far been consistently wrong from day one.
Buchanan is not speaking from the "left", but, arch conservative that he is, he sometimes speaks a truth even liberals won't face. I have had the feeling for the last six months, affirmed by virtually every bit of news, that the US has lost Iraq (and is also rapidly losing/has lost Afghanistan). The problem is what to do about this, and can the US "leave and still control the oil" (which was the reason for the invasion - not neo-con pressure from Israel, not concern for human rights, not worry about WMD's). Some of you may have read my analysis of the effort by the moderate wing of the peace movement to START withdrawal of US forces by October of NEXT YEAR. I think the US is way ahead of the moderates, and will begin withdrawal of forces long before then. One concern - for those who haven't been able to follow the news carefully - is that the military forces in Iraq that the US is building-up are very worrisome to many of the Iraqis "on the ground". They aren't, for the most part, the remnants of Saddam's old forces, but rather seem to be Shiite militia in uniform, Kurdish forces, and to be threatening to the civilian population. We know how very brutal the insurgents have been - it is no good for any on the left to try to defend or explain why they cut-off heads, the fact is they do cut off heads, they do torture, and their actions have been pretty horrible. And their actions are going to be - already are being - replicated by the "new" Iraqi police forces. This has been discussed openly in the New York Times and elsewhere weeks ago as an effort to deal with the insurgents by going the route the US took in El Salvador. Ie., death squads. The peace movement will see, sooner than it expects, a withdrawal of coalition forces. And it will see a very brutal Iraqi military force engaged in what looks to be a civil war with the US arming and occasionally using air and ground forces to back up "our side". Our demand must be to get the US forces out NOW, not "starting" next October. Peace, David McReynolds Is America's War Winding Up? /////////////////////////// by Patrick J. Buchanan Creators' Syndicate http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6812 July 30, 2005 Is America preparing to pull out of Iraq without victory? Are we ready to leave that war-ravaged land without any assurance a free, democratic, pro-Western Iraq will survive? Is President Bush willing to settle for less than we all thought? So it would seem. For it is difficult to draw any other conclusion from the just-completed Rumsfeld mission. Standing beside our defense secretary in Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari called for the speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. The top U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, also standing beside Rumsfeld, said "fairly substantial" withdrawals of the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq could begin by spring. This seems astonishing, when hawkish critics of Bush are saying we need more, not fewer U.S. troops, if we hope to win this war. What is going on? "The struggle against the Iraqi insurgency has passed a crucial tipping point," writes UPI's senior news analyst Martin Sieff. Casey's comment lends credence to a secret British defense memo that described U.S. officials as favoring a "relatively bold reduction in orce numbers." The memo pointed to a drawdown of Allied forces from 170,000 today to 66,000 by next summer, a cut of over 60 percent. Previously, the administration had denounced war critics who spoke of timetables, arguing that they signal the enemy to go to earth, build its strength, and strike weakened U.S. forces during the pullout. Now, America's top general is talking timetables. Jaafari set two conditions for a rapid U.S. withdrawal: faster training of Iraq security forces and coordinated transfer of duties for defending the cities to the Iraq army. These conditions would seem easily met by the United States. Among growing signs of American impatience with the situation in Iraq is Rumsfeld's tough talk to Baghdad to complete the writing of its constitution by Aug. 15. "We don't want any delays," he said. "Now's the time to get on with it." In October, Iraq is to vote on that constitution, and in December on a new government. The reasons for America's impatience are understandable. First, the poll numbers are turning against the war, with half the American people now believing the United States will not win it. Second, two years into a guerrilla war, the Iraqis, whose fathers and brothers fought Iran to a standstill in an eight-year bloodbath in the 1980s, still cannot cope with an insurgency of 20,000 to 30,000 enemy. Or not enough are willing to fight. Third, while Gen. Casey says the level of enemy attacks "has not increased substantially over the past year," their lethality has increased, especially the suicide car-bombings. "Insurgencies need to progress to survive," said Casey. But it is also true the guerrilla wins if he does not lose, and the Iraqi insurgents are not yet losing. And if 135,000 U.S. troops cannot, after killing and capturing tens of thousands, crush a guerrilla movement, how can the Iraqi security forces, heavily infiltrated, succeed where we failed? Fourth, the new Iraqi constitution is reportedly not going to track the work of Madison and Hamilton, and women look like the big losers. If the new Iraq resembles Iran, Americans are unlikely to support having sons and daughters dying to defend such a regime, elected or not. Then there is the budding Baghdad-Tehran axis. Neither Condi Rice nor Rumsfeld nor any U.S. official has been invited to visit the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Yet, Iran's foreign minister was invited to visit that Shia pope, and Jaafari and eight Cabinet ministers paid a return visit to Iran. There, Jaafari apologized for the Iraq-Iran war and laid a wreath at the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who first branded us "the Great Satan." U.S. forces in Iraq are thus today fighting in defense of a Shia-dominated regime that sees its future in close collaboration with an "axis-of-evil" nation Bush has declared a state sponsor of terror. While Jaafari backed away from an earlier agreement to have Iran train Iraqi troops, we can begin to see the shape of things to come. Sunni terrorists and foreign fighters have begun to target Shia clerics and mosques. And the Shia have begun to retaliate with counter-terror, portending a religious-civil war when U.S. troops depart. Kurds are demanding that their virtual independence be enshrined in the new constitution. Or they veto it. Should civil war break out as Americans depart, Iran would move to fill the gap with weaponry and perhaps volunteers to assist Shia brethren in keeping Iraq in friendly hands. A Sunni-Shia war in Iraq, with Iran aiding one side and Arab nations the other, becomes a real possibility. No wonder the Pentagon sounds impatient to get out. By the way, has anyone heard from Wolfowitz? *** ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hsmmjhc/M=323294.6903899.7846637.3022212/D=groups/S=1705060411:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1122948603/A=2896129/R=0/SIG=11llkm9tk/*http://www.donorschoose.org/index.php?lc=yahooemail";>DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today</a>!</font> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
