[lit-ideas] Re: Okay, ready to switch sides?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:55:35 -0400
I'm reading Peter Galbraith's book, also heard him interviewed. There is
no Iraq and hasn't been for a while. There isn't even an Iraqi flag
anymore. The Kurds were never, except forcibly, part of the country and
they're 25% of the population. The U.S. had a lot to do with creating the
problems in Iraq, beginning with Reagan. As one example out of a laundry
list, Bush, Sr. made an apparently glib remark following Gulf I that led
the Shiites to think he was telling them to rebel against Saddam; the
Shiites rose up against Saddam thinking they were going to be supported by
the U.S. and instead the U.S. stood back as Saddam slaughtered (to put it
mildly) something like 300,000 Shiites in putting down the rebellion. The
Shiites think the U.S. tricked them into it; they therefore have no extreme
love for the U.S.
Galbraith says forget Iraq, there is no more Iraq. They're in civil war
and Bush is unwilling to commit the massive resources it would take to
squelch it. (Galbraith says at least 300,000 to 400,000 troops; the
militias now number 100,000; Lawrence of Arabia once said that something
like 900,000 troops would be needed to take and hold the country.) Why
won't Bush commit the resources? In part because the results would be
uncertain, in other words, it would likely be a wasted effort (never
something that stopped Bush) and mostly because his presidency is defined
by Iraq. To admit Iraq is in civil war is to admit that his presidency
failed.
A representative of the Brookings think tank says the factional problem is
made worse by a lot of young men running around with literally nothing to
do; there's no work there. Answer? Give them jobs. Galbraith says the
only way out, since there is no more Iraq, is partition the place into
threes. Beyond that, there is nothing we or anyone can do. Instead, Bush
wants to "stay the course". The fear about al Qaeda is that they will form
a base inside the Sunni sector and then be virtually impossible to remove.
They are hardly irrelevant given their virulent anti-Americanism.
Ironically, they're also ignored in this "war on terror". (My comment: we
treated these people like they were there to give us oil, and here we are.
The worst part is, all this experience is like it's not happening and now
the administration wants to invade Iran. The Americans are stunning in
their imbecility.)
> [Original Message]
> From: Andreas Ramos <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 8/17/2006 12:59:33 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Okay, ready to switch sides?
>
> > "In the dusty plains of western Iraq, al-Qaida is gaining strength...
>
> Yeah, but... al-Qaeda isn't the enemy anymore in Iraq. The Sunni, which
were leading the
> anti-American insurgency, aren't the enemy either.
>
> Now it turns out that most of the killing (60%) is by the Shiites, our
partners in Wilsonian
> democracy.
>
> The USA is trying to make Iraq safe for the government, but actually, it
should be trying to
> make Iraq safe FROM the government.
>
> How about it, Lawrence? Time to switch your opinions around again?
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
