|
|
|
Two more years? A lot of hard things were said back in those turkey-shoot days of Operation Desert Storm, when the fateful decision was taken to cease fire and let the southern Iraqi people rise up and deal with a supposedly weakened Saddam. The ODS forces were not an army of occupation anyway. Who today would argue that the cautious voices of 1991 were wrong? This time round, of course, it was going to be entirely different. An allied army of liberation - not occupation - would be greeted everywhere with sweets, music and flowers. Two and half years and tens of thousands of lives after those seminal pictures of Saddam’s statue toppling in Baghdad flashed around the world and the music and flowers seemed a genuine possibility, we are at last told by the military how much longer “liberation” will take.
What impact can it possibly have but to tie American - and, no doubt, British - forces to the task for at least that same period? And then, the Iraqi Army’s operational integrity is not really the trigger for final American withdrawal. Its operational effectiveness is (together with the effectiveness of a police force 75% of which is said by British sources in the south of the country to be untrustworthy). In that respect, the vital assessments which are missing here are those for, on the one hand, the growth of the anti-American insurgency (2004 CSIS pdf) and, on the other, the drift - one might say drive - towards civil war. How effective are the Iraqi security forces ever going to be against that? My guess is not very. A democratic government, even a democracy of the kind operating in Iraq, is simply insufficiently despotic to get the job done. Where is the evidence to suggest that Iraq can hang together as a country without a despot’s hand at the tiller? So unless a cut-and-run mentality suddenly takes hold in DC we can certainly anticipate two more years of hell for both our armies. But then in two years another factor enters the equation. Domestic electoral considerations will be to the fore in America and in, presumably, Gordon Brown’s Britain. Neither government will want to go into an election with this disaster hanging over them, though Brown will have more wiggle room. In 2004 John Kerry set three conditions for troop withdrawal:- 1) to measure the level of stability in Iraq, That formula won’t wash again ... four, maybe even five years after Gulf War Two. Providing the Dems can justify “cut and run” and face down the Israel-first lobby they have a golden opportunity to sweep the neocon GOP from the White House. It could be the best thing to happen to the GOP since Pat Buchanan. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:51 | # Martin, Your historical leanings are showing. I will accept your blandishments over Gulf Ware One. But irrespective of the character of Bush junior, the gathering disaster in Iraq has to be confronted through the medium of the Iraqi security services or we have to give up on them and go. The option to quietly withdraw while the Iraqi Army shows us how good it is just isn’t on. The Iraqi Army won’t be any good because the country is slipping into a civil war and the Army will not survive intact. It’s very odd to my mind that everybody said after Tito died that Yugoslavia would not hold together. When the bust-up finally came we didn’t pretend that the pieces could be made to fit through the agency of democracy. Just so in Iraq. Democracy will not hold the country together against the greater cultural and historical enmities which exist there. I don’t care whether lefties agree with me or not. This disaster isn’t worth the blood of one more American or British solider. 3
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:18 | # The occupation of Iraq may never end, as it was a neocon colonial war from the start. Iraqis are unlikely to force out the Americans, partly because 1) the oil’s worth $6 trillion, 2) The neocons and Israel are profiting while sustaining little of the costs(bottom line: Jewish profits > Jewish costs= good for Jews), 3) the skill at divide & conquer, propaganda (they’ve rejigged the Iraqi media and educational system), foisting a false democracy, etc will result in a future Iraq like Germany is today, defeated by Jews (as told by Benjamin Freedman), occupied, and yoked under their custom-crafted hate crimes/political system/media complex. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:37 | # “There’s a way of doing Iraq right, as we [Brits] did in ‘21-25 [...]. Needless to say, Bush/Blair didn’t do it that way. In 1990/91, particularly if Maggie hadn’t been ousted, we could have.” (—Martin) There may be something to this: the way the Brits are running things in their Basra sector does seem more enlightened, intelligent, and acceptable to the locals than the way the Yanks are running things in their Baghdad sector. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:31 | # “as told by Benjamin Freedman” Tournament of Champion’s mention of Benjamin Freedman refers, I think, to the following materials by Freedman—and I link some related stuff, all of which I discovered a few days ago, at two sites (I for one have no idea whether Freedman is sound or not, as opposed some kind of crackpot, except to note the obvious value of those of his accounts and versions of things which are first-person accounts: he was actually present when they took place or knew personally, or at least personally talked to, the principle actors, or took part in or was an observer at the actual conferences and meetings): <u>here</u>, <u>here</u>, <u>here</u>, <u>here</u>, <u>here</u>, and <u>here</u>. 6
Posted by Phil on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:42 | # American and British withdrawal will come eventually but it will be heinously ugly to watch - so gruesome that when we see it, we would wish we had never thought of that Godforsaken country in our lives. Funnily enough, I made this point before the war began at some neo-con blogs and quoted Paul Craig Roberts a few times back then (and Roberts argued against it soberly). All the Jewish bloggers laughed at me. I wonder if they are still laughing. I guess they are because the number of Jews who have died fighting for the US in Iraq could be counted on fingertips (if that). The War was a fatal consequence of the convergence of interests of the Oil issue (I hate using the word “Oil Lobby” - it is more compliacted than that) and the Israel First American “Patriots”. They’ve screwed America royally on this one. Of course, we should have had the good sense to stay out. But with a deluded man (daydreaming of his great place in history alongside Winston Churchill) in the shape of Tony Blair, it didn’t happen. There is nothing “wimpish” about avoiding wars that cause more harm than good. As a rule, Wars that are clearly beneficial must be pursued in the national interest. But those that damage the national interest are the engagement of fools. There is no “way out” now. It will be brutal to watch. There is some consolation for me in being proved dead right at least. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:47 | # That last link in my comment above doesn’t work. Those interested can try pasting the URL in the browser window: http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/Pastore_Investigation_of_ 9-11/chapter_3—Zionism_and_WWI.htm (it’s another article that claims Zionist Jewish influence was a major factor in the U.S.‘s entering World War I). 8
Posted by Phil on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:48 | # There’s a way of doing Iraq right, as we did in ‘21-25 (in which my grandfather participated—you can see his photos and memorabilia in the Museum of the British Empire in Bristol.) Needless to say, Bush/Blair didn’t do it that way. In 1990/91, particularly if Maggie hadn’t been ousted, we could have. Of course, the difference between that generation and the current is like night and day. We cannot use those methods any more because we aren’t the people we used to be. 9
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 05:54 | # A reason I mention Freedman is because I’ve seen key pieces of his account supported in bits and pieces here and there in various independent and neutral history books and accounts. It used to be that I could never figure out what the US gained by entering WWI or the European portion of WWII as: 1. “spreading democracy” – a justification for WWI is not a good reason to waste 100,000s of lives and billions of dollars For instance, some time ago I read the Jewish authored A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People
Despite this first diplomatic victory for political Zionism… vanquished and humiliated, many Germans consoled themselves with the “stabbed in the back myth” That’s amazing. First the author David Engel terms getting the U.S. into the war a “diplomatic victory” for Jewry then he claims the Germans had no right to be feel betrayed - events exactly as Freedman (and also Hitler in his works) described in greater detail. That’s just a tidbit of course, but it’s a sample of how BF’s stories are supported elsewhere. 10
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:39 | # As I said above, going into Iraq was a marginal decision, and the Jewish neocons played a big role in it (as they did also in Germany’s loss of WW1, though Hitler, who was no Einstein didn’t face up to the fact that getting into WW1 in the first place was a colossal bluder on BOTH sides—German as well as British—and the Jews had very little to do with that.) On the purely factual question of whether Iraq is descending into civil war, I disagree, though we’re by no means out of the woods yet. The leftist media and their friends in Al Jazeera have every incentive to play up every minor atrocity, but the level of support for the two elections, and the flat or declining trend of US/British casualties, suggests to me that civil war is not imminent. There are lots of bad guys in Iraq, but by no means all of them are Iraqi—the Neocons were absolutely right in their claim that Hussain was working with Mohamed Atta, though the Dems and the press won’t admit it. I remain cautiously optimistic, though contemptuous of the pig’s breakfast aspects of the execution. I also generally believe that even though isolation is the best policy we need to whack a Third World fruitcake every decade or so to show them who’s boss. 11
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:06 | # Martin, I don’t disagree with all of your positions mentioned above, but I’d like to make one comment about this assertion > a good policy is to whack a Third World fruitcake every decade or so to show them who’s boss. If you study the history of Latin America, Africa, and Arabia (with the possible exception of East Asia and Persia ) these people if left alone will kill themselves and destroy their own socities. They simply are incapable of building unified and cooperative organs of government. If any whacking is to be done it ought to be the a whacking of Arabs, Mexicans, and Blacks WITHIN our own lands. It only when we interfere in their societies that they unify and directly channel their energies against us. 12
Posted by Matra on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:36 | # the Neocons were absolutely right in their claim that Hussain was working with Mohamed Atta, Evidence? Are you suggesting Saddam played a role in 9/11? Bush certainly has not made that case. I also generally believe that even though isolation is the best policy we need to whack a Third World fruitcake every decade or so to show them who’s boss. Meanwhile in the US, Canada, UK, and much of Europe (where we actually live) it is the Third Worlders who act like their the bosses. They may not be the elite but they sure as hell have more rights than the average working or middle class white. I’ve a hard time getting worked up about the plight of the Kurds when I can see with my own eyes the deterioration of the country I live in. Liberation begins at home! Besides, if we have to intervene in the Third World I’d say Zimbabwe would be a better choice with South Africa a close second. Does anyone know if many of the South African Jews have remained there since black rule began? 14
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:47 | # Evidence? Are you suggesting Saddam played a role in 9/11? Bush certainly has not made that case. Oh, don’tcha know, they met in Prague (perhaps astrally)... 15
Posted by Phil on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:54 | # the Neocons were absolutely right in their claim that Hussain was working with Mohamed Atta, though the Dems and the press won’t admit it. Martin, It is sad that an educated and intelligent man like yourself still believes this. If there was any evidence to this, the Bush Administration would never have stopped talking about it. In fact, Bush admitted before TV cameras after the toppling of Saddam that there was no evidence that there was any link between Iraq and 9-11. Bush admitted this. What remians of this theory then? Why would he publicly admit this if it was possible to keep hinting at a link in any way? 16
Posted by Phil on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:59 | # Does anyone know if many of the South African Jews have remained there since black rule began? Most South African Jews relocated just before the end of Apartheid. Many of these Jews were the same people who played a major role in the anti-apartheid movement. The most blatant example of this is the family of the famous Jewess Helen Suzman. Many of her children and grandchildren left South African soil either just before or just shortly after the end of Apartheid even though she was herself absolutely instrumental in ending apartheid. Good old fashioned Jewish idealism at work. 17
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:32 | # My first ex-wife is Jewish and was a strong supporter of apartheid; she knew Helen Suzman well and regarded her as a dishonest leftist. She is still in Cape Town (very cheap living costs) but planning to relocate to one of her other passports, British or American, in due course. As I’ve said before, she would agree with almost all of this site except the occasional anti-Semitism. 18
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:36 | # The Atta meeting in Prague, authenticated by the Czechs, is pretty convincing evidence. Nobody has ever explained to me why Hussain and Osama WOULDN’T have worked together; the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a core principle of Middle Eastern politics. The fact that the CIA and State department messed up as usual on finding ou who was doing what is no surprise. 19
Posted by Phil on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:09 | # As I’ve said before, she would agree with almost all of this site except the occasional anti-Semitism. Martin, The furthest my “anti-Semitism” goes is in saying that the overwhelming number of Jews pursue far-Left (not in the economic sense but in the cultural Marxism sense - William Kristol is a far leftist from that perspective) causes when living in (White) Gentile societies but do not apply the same principles to themselves or to Israel. So in the US, the same Jews who support Sharon and Likud also support open borders for America (and are outraged if anyone points out that the two are completely inconsistent). That, I would say, is the crux of my criticism. I wonder if your ex-wife would (perhaps privately) disagree with that. I should add that none of this alters anything at the personal level and I know some Jews who are not political in any way and do not identify with any political causes. However, they do not appear to form the most influential or largest faction among Jewry. 20
Posted by Phil on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:09 | # The Atta meeting in Prague, authenticated by the Czechs, is pretty convincing evidence. Then why did Bush confess that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? 21
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:28 | # My ex-wife is certainly no Zionist,and would certainly agree with your opposition to Jewish politicians who favor high immigration etc. There have after all been Jewish politicians who were fundamentally sound on most things, e.g,. Sir Keith Joseph, an early hero of mine and I suspect of GW’s. I honestly forget if GWB “admitted” Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; he’s quite capable of doing so for short term political gain (take the question off the front pages) even if it did. My own belief is that Saddam almost certainly knew about 9/11 beforehand, Atta having briefed his guy in Prague, but probably wasn’t directly involved beyond maybe a little $$$ or logistical support. Saddam knowing about 9/11 beforehand is not in my book sufficient cause for invasion, the only real justification for which was to finish the job so disgracefully left undone in 1991. Once the West had decided to push Saddam out of Kuwait, they had to punish him properly, to set an example for other loonies, and they didn’t. Having stopped in 1991, it then became difficult to restart the invasion; even so I would have supported on balance such a restart at any point in or after 1991, my support declining only gradually to approximate neutrality by 2003 (because we’d done nothing for 12 years, so why do something now.) As you will see, I take a 19th Century view of how the West should deal with recalcitrant Third World dictators. Generally leaving them alone is the best policy, but complete passivity encourages them, so is not adviseable. 22
Posted by Phil on Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:38 | # As you will see, I take a 19th Century view of how the West should deal with recalcitrant Third World dictators. Martin, But the West isn’t what it used to be in the 19th century. We have lost control of our borders, our Universities, the media hates the West, academia preaches hate towards our past and our ancestors. And the young are raised in this lethal poison from the day they enter school. In a time when we are rapidly losing control of our own destinies, I can’t say I have ever felt excited about giving a third world country a whack when our own towns are turning into mirror images of the third world. We talk about whacking Saddam. And yet we don’t have the spine to whack the Thugs who are doing this to our towns and cities. Misplaced priorities I think. 23
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:28 | # I agree both are necessary, I also agree whacking Saddam will do no long term good, but simply provide a short term reminder to those who (partly for justifiable reasons such as Hollywood) hate us. However ignoring foreign bad guys altogether is no more sensible than the current policy of ignoring many of the domestic bad guys Post a comment:
Next entry: Hurricane can-do in Cancun
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:42 | #
Sorry, I disagree with your premise. We had 500,000 troops in the Gulf in 1990, and Saddam’s opposition both north and south was stronger and more reliably pro-Western. There is no doubt in mind that only that unspeakable liberal wimp Bush 41 stopped us finishing the job then, as we should have.
This time, going in was a marginal decision, probably better not, but close either way. However execution has been appalling, largely because of the quislings in the State Department, who wouldn’t let us install Chalabi as we should have, thus making us run for 22 months with the unspeakable Bremer and the corrupt and useless Allawi. Once we FINALLY got round to having the first election in January, which should have been in June 2003, things started looking up. Now they’ve (presumably) voted for the constitution, and we’ve had the elections in 2-3 months time, we should be able to begin winding down.
Iraq will never be a beacon of democracy—Bush’s Wilsonism is an evil fantasy—but in the end it’ll be a lot better, happier and less dangerous than it was under Saddam.
The other HUGE mistake was allowing the Iraqi government access to the oil revenues; they should be held in a trust fund for the Iraqi people, managed by the Singapore Provident Fund, who are non-European and uncorrupt.
Just because Bush is an inept big government liberal Wilsonian, and his father was an inept liberal wimp, doesn’t mean one has to buy into the leftie fantasy world.
There’s a way of doing Iraq right, as we did in ‘21-25 (in which my grandfather participated—you can see his photos and memorabilia in the Museum of the British Empire in Bristol.) Needless to say, Bush/Blair didn’t do it that way. In 1990/91, particularly if Maggie hadn’t been ousted, we could have.