McRinocain is welcome to move there himself. Permanently.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *The Deadenders * > *John McCain wants us back in Iraq *by Justin Raimondo, November 01, 2013 > > While the rest of the nation has long since passed judgment on George W. > Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, a few "deadenders" – as Donald > Rumsfeld dubbed the Iraqi insurgents – persist in hailing this disaster as > a "victory," albeit one that has been betrayed by the Obama administration. > Even as the most ideological neoconservatives have, one by one, disavowed, > apologized for, or otherwise sought to distance themselves from what > retired Lt. Gen. William Odom called the "greatest strategic disaster in > United States history," the two Republican Senators most identified with > this catastrophe have continued to insist they were right. Now Gen. David > Petraeus has joined the tag-team of Senators John McCain and Lindsey > Graham and taken to the pages of *Foreign Policy* magazine to make the > case – and, in doing so, have merely succeeded in underscoring why they > were so wrong to begin with. > > Gen. Petraeus’s fifteen thousand word apologia – egregiously titled " How > We Won In Iraq"! – is mostly jargon-filled gobbledygook combined with the > tone of an Emmy Awards speech: in it, he seeks to paint a portrait of the > so-called "surge" as a great victory, which somehow slipped from our > fingers. The piece is a panegyric to himself interspersed with mentions of > all the people he believes contributed to his great success. Ignoring all > that nonsense, however, and focusing on the substantive parts, one is > forced to conclude that the General lives in a parallel universe, one where > up is down, right is left, and the "Arab Awakening" wasn’t a case of massive > bribery but a "surge of ideas" that simply swept away Al Qaeda-in-Iraq > and led our forces to a glorious triumph. > > Left unmentioned by Petraeus is the fact that we had to bribe the > foot-soldiers of the so-called Arab Awakening, and that whatever gripes > they had with Al Qaeda or other "extremist" forces had little or nothingto do > with their actual motivations for cooperating with US forces. And > while the General has no problem trumpeting his own genius in creating this > Sunni auxiliary to the occupation forces, the Office for the Inspector > General for Iraq Reconstruction could find no documentation supporting > the General’s self-congratulatory conclusions of "success." The Inspector > General "conducted a review of 98 SOI [Sons of Iraq] project files and > found little information on project accomplishments or successes." One > lengthy section of the report is entitled "Sons of Iraq May Have > Contributed to Reducing Violence, but Lack of Documentation Precludes > Drawing Empirically Based Conclusions." So I guess we’ll just have to take > the General’s word for it…. > > Petraeus puts much emphasis on how the "surge" wasn’t just a military > strategy but also a political tactic that involved giving the people of > Iraq a real stake in supporting or at least tolerating the occupation. > Reconstruction efforts, propaganda initiatives, and other "civil society" > projects are touted – but once the US military departed, these supposed > "success stories" evaporated like morning dew. The reason is because they > were never real to begin with, but only the byproducts of the General’s > confirmation bias and the grandiose delusions of his neoconservative > supporters in Washington. > > The reality is that the "surge" was "successful" only insofar as the extra > 20,000 US troops it required could continue to tamp down the insurgency by > simply outgunning it. Neutralizing the insurgency’s periphery by means of > bribery no doubt had some effect, but putting thousands of Sunni fighters > on the US government payroll indefinitely was never an option. Once the > money dried up – along with the patience of the American people – these > elements reverted to their old ways. Indeed, a good number of them are > among the frontline fighters of the Islamist rebels in Syria – and back > on Uncle Sam’s payroll. > > While Petraeus is mainly concerned with salvaging what is left of his > reputation, Sen. McCain is more concerned with somehow proving the Iraq war > was not only a great victory, but that US troops should still be in Iraq. > As unlikely – indeed, crazy – as this sounds, it highlights how committed > McCain (and Graham) are to the wrongheaded notions of the Bush era, which > deluded our political class into believing they could conquer, occupy, > and transform a country thousands of miles away from our shores, turning it > into the Middle Eastern equivalent of Kansas. > > McCain’s polemic takes up where Petraeus leaves off. While the General > never says he wants US troops back in Iraq, and only implicitly criticizes > the Obama administration for leaving, the Senate’s most consistent Mad > Bomber and his sidekick openly declare we should never have left. We "lost" > Iraq, says McCain-Graham, and the country is gong to pieces because the > Obama administration didn’t negotiate an agreement to keep at least 15,000 > US troops in the country: > > > > *"Nowhere was the Obama administration’s failure more pronounced than > during the debate over whether to maintain a limited number of U.S. troops > in Iraq beyond the 2011 expiration of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement > (SOFA) – a debate in which we were actively involved. Here, too, the > administration is quick to lay blame on others for the fact that they > tried, and failed, to keep a limited presence of troops in Iraq. They have > blamed the Bush administration, of course, for mandating the withdrawal in > the 2008 SOFA. This does not ring true, however, because as former > Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made clear, the plan all along was > to renegotiate the agreement to allow for a continued presence of US forces > in Iraq. ‘Everybody believed,’ she said in 2011, ‘it would be better if > there was some kind of residual force.’" *Everybody, that is, but the > Iraqis. The Americans thought any government that came out of the > occupation would be pro-American: they were wrong. The government of Prime > Minister Nouri al-Maliki was and is pro-Iranian, sectarian Shi’ite, and > at the time contained elements unalterably opposed to a US military > presence of any size. Without the support of ultra-nationalist Muqtada > al-Sadr and his fellow Sadrists in the Iraqi parliament, the Maliki > government would have fallen. > > Remember all the triumphalist guff we had to endure when the Iraqi > elections were held? The neocon blogosphere was awash with images of > ink-stained > fingers held aloft, and the moment was hailed by Bush as a "resounding > success," while his amen corner in the Anglo-American media agreed. “The > world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East,” > Bush bloviated. “In great numbers, and under great risk, Iraqis have shown > their commitment to democracy.” Every network television station broadcast > the news, showing Iraqis patiently standing in line to vote and proudly > displaying their stained fingers. The neocon army to "liberate" the Middle > East was on the march, and the few naysayers were ignored and/or mocked. > > As I repeatedly and insistently pointed out at the time, however, the > results of those elections did not bode well for the neocon dream of a > “democratic” Iraq allied with Washington. The megalomaniacs in charge of > the Occupation Authority thought they could get away with instituting a > system of "caucus" elections that could be easily manipulated to ensure a > "pro-American" result: those were the days when embezzler, " hero in error" > (and Iranian agent) Ahmed Chalabi was being touted by Danielle Pletka and > the gang over at the American Enterprise Institute as the future leader of > a "democratic" Iraq. > > But Chalabi, who was on the US payroll, had no support inside Iraq, and > his "Iraqi National Congress" was simply the creation of Washington, > which had funded the INC in return for the outrageous lies that passed for > "intelligence" on Iraq’s alleged "weapons of mass destruction." > > Aside from that little problem, there was the big problem of the Grand > Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the powerful leader of Iraq’s majority Shi’ite > sect, who was demanding direct elections. When the Occupation Authority > tried to go ahead with the "caucus" plan anyway, Sistani called his > followers out into the streets and the result was pandemonium. Forced to > retreat, the Bush administration had no choice but to accede to the > Ayatollah’s demand – or else face the prospect of a really massive > rebellion that would make the Sunni insurgency seem like a Sunday school > picnic. > > It was inevitable that if truly democratic elections were held in Iraq the > result was not going to be to Washington’s liking, and that is precisely > what occurred. McCain doesn’t say it in so many words, but he would have > liked to have seen Maliki simply issue an executive order approving the > Status of Forces Agreement – with the boilerplate stipulation, encoded in > every SOFA where US forces are stationed, immunizing American soldiers from > prosecution by local courts. That provision was a deal-breaker for the > Iraqi parliament, and particularly for Maliki’s own party and his coalition > partners. > > The legal immunity provision is the insignia of American hegemony in the > countries where we have bases and "interests." By limiting the sovereignty > of the empire’s provinces in this way, and on their own territory, > Washington formalizes their subjugation in a "legal" sense. Maliki did not > and could not agree to this – not without provoking a head on collision > between the majority Shi’ites and the occupying forces. > > If the " COINdinista" strategy advocated by Petraeus had any validity, we > should have won at least enough hearts and minds in Iraq to make the > presence of some 15,000 to 26,000 "residual" US troops somewhat palatable. > As it was, not a single Iraqi party with parliamentary representation > supported continuing the SOFA. In the end, even the 3,000 " trainers" who > were supposed to stay on were asked to leave – a far cry indeed from the > "they’ll greet us with rose petals" scenario projected by the armchair > warriors over at Neocon Central. > > McCain blames the Obama administration for the failure of the SOFA > negotiations, but is vague about what, specifically, US officials should > have done short of forcing the Iraqis to comply with our demands and simply > refusing to leave. > > Iraq is in chaos today for a simple reason: we blasted the Iraqi > Humpty-Dumpty to bits and there’s no putting it back together again. > McCain and Graham complain that the Sunnis are up in arms, Al Qaeda is > back, and the Kurds are growing restive – and yet it was the “two amigos” > who were loudest in their support of a war that destroyed the only force > that had kept the country together since the 1960s. > > While "what if" is, properly speaking, a category of fiction, it’s useful > in this case to construct a likely alternative history. What if George W. > Bush had rejected the advice of his neoconservative advisors and > "Operation Iraqi Freedom" never happened? Given that the "Arab Spring" was > already in the cards, and the conditions prevailing in secular > dictatorships like Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia were replicated in Ba’athist > Iraq, Saddam’s regime would likely have fallen to the same turmoil that > engulfed Hosni Mubarak and Qadaffi. If only we had waited, we would’ve seen > Saddam’s > end in the by and by. > > While this may not have resulted in a political system up to the standards > of the National Endowment for Democracy and "Freedom House," one can hardly > imagine it would have been worse than what we see in Iraq today. > > The very idea that we have "lost" Iraq is indicative of the Senators’ > mindset, and the whole reason why the invasion will go down in history > along with the Vietnam war as an unmitigated disaster for the United > States: *Iraq was never ours to begin* *with*, since it is, you know, a > *foreign > country*. We have no more "lost" Iraq than we "lost" Mexico after > withdrawing from that country in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war. > > Like Teddy Roosevelt, whom he clearly patterns himself after, McCain is > an out-and-out advocate of imperialism: Teddy wanted to annex Cuba, *and*the > Philippines. McCain and Graham clothe their expansionist agenda in > "democratic" raiment, but the idea is the same: he wishes US troops were > still in Iraq, as they would be in Syria if he’d had his way there. > > It was Max Boot, one of many neocon Napoleons, who wrote a piece for the > *Weekly > Standard* openly making " The Case for American Empire," and the > McCain-Graham duo have been its biggest advocates. Yet they are completely > isolated, at this point, even in their own party – or, I might say, > *especially* in their own party, where the dreaded "isolationists " (i.e. > anti-interventionists who reflect the views of the American people) are in > the ascendant. > > I don’t know what the McCain-Graham-Petraeus triumvirate is trying to > accomplish with their revisionist history project, beyond scoring some > points off the Obama administration: perhaps there’s some ass-covering > involved, too. Because the only occasion we’ll see US troops back in Iraq > in any numbers is in the event of war with Iran, in which case what > Petraeus insists on calling the Land of the Two Rivers will be a big part > of the battlefield. > > This is an outcome McCain and Graham would dearly love to see, but they > are swimming against the political tides. Because it wasn’t just the > resistance on the part of the Iraqis that made the continued presence of US > troops in Iraq untenable – by the time the SOFA negotiations were going > full swing, the American people were done with Iraq – and with the entire > region. If the Obama administration had kept our troops there, they would > have faced an open rebellion in Congress, in their own party, and in the > country at large. Just like Maliki, they faced a choice: either get US > troops out of there, or else risk their own political legitimacy. > > McCain still hasn’t learned the lesson of the Syrian debate, when the > country rose up and demanded that President Obama abandon his plans to > intervene in Syria’s civil war. The American people don’t want an empire – > they want out of the "world leadership" business. They don’t want another > Teddy Roosevelt – they want someone like Dwight Eisenhower, who ended the > Korean war, cut the military budget, and warned against what he called the > "military-industrial complex." > In the early years of this decade, it wasn’t so clear that the McCains and > Grahams of this world were and are the voice of that Complex: today, > however, they’ve quite clearly been unmasked. Their days as forces to be > reckoned with have already passed. They just don’t know it yet. > > http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/10/31/the-deadenders/ > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
