Mass killings on an unimaginable scale

[Dardedar]

DAR
Bush said this in his speech last night:

"Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal."

DAR
Can anyone show that (the bolded text) is not a real possiblity? This is a terrible quagmire with only bad solutions but it seems to me that if this "mass killings on an uninmaginable scale" came true it would be, what's the word, "quite unfortunate"? unacceptable? (there is not word for it). The other option seems to be to endure mass killings on an imaginable scale over a long period of time only to have to leave later.

The only thing that gives me pause about the Murtha plan is the point made in the bolded text above.

What a perfect pickle Bush as put the country in.

D.
----------------------------
I guess we have seen this movie before:

"If we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course."
-- LBJ, forty years ago

[Hogeye]

Few dispute the possibility of mass killings when the US occupation troops leave. But is that a good reason not to leave? I don't think so. By that logic, the US should never have left Vietnam (which resulted in mass killings.)

The flaw in the logic of the US occupying thugs must stay since if they leave there will be mass killings argument is that it compares leaving to nirvana rather than the actual alternative. The actual alternative is to continue occupying Iraq, continue the "moderate" levels of death and destruction, and when/if they eventually leave still have a possibility of mass killings. IOW there is no reason whatsoever to believe that leaving later rather than sooner will reduce the level of mass killings. And even in the remote possibility that such mass killings upon leaving would be reduced, there is no reason to think that the overall deaths would be less than bugging out immediately. I.e. The "moderate" level of deaths for the remaining occupation plus the lesser mass deaths of leaving may well be a higher count than zero remaining occupation deaths (bugging out immediately) and somewhat higher transition deaths. The hidden premise of the argument is ultra-naive Bushian optimism that, somehow, if the milfare thugs stay longer then the Iraq puppet govt will succeed in controlling all the factions and the mass killing when they eventually leave will not occur! If you buy that, then you probably bought the "Mission Accomplished" announcement, too.

Reality: Whenever the occupation forces leave, there will be a transitional increase in killings. Staying most likely only increases the death-count. So the US occupiers should leave ASAP. (Meanwhile, the USEmpire has started aerial attacks in Somalia - providing the next Iraq/Vietnam guerrilla theater.)

[Dardedar]

Forty year anniversary of presidential bullshit:

***
Some excerpts from LBJ's address — exactly 40 years ago tonight. See how it compares to some of the excerpts from President Bush's speech:



LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war–a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.



GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year–or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

More examples...

[Tony]

It is pretty much inevitable that there will be massive continued bloodshed when we leave. Thats what happens when such vacuums occur. Iraq, itself an imperial creation of the British in 1918, has only been held together as a 'State' by the strong arm tactics of authoritarian leaders, all of whom pitched one ethnic group against another. The entire Middle East is literally a Western creation. The Jordanian ruling family (and one of our biggest allies), for example, was installed by the Brits. Every historian I talked to before the war doubted the Bushies would actually invade. The consensus was that not even they, or at least their hired experts, were that stupid. This should have been expected, and by many it was.
There is no easy way out.
As for what now-It can get very much worse. Odds are it will if and when we leave. But the point is, we will always have problems in the Middle East, that is to say, there will not be stability, until they are allowed to work things out for themselves. Few Americans understand that. Every time we meddle, we just undermine the credibility of whatever it is we are pushing. Will the Middle East ever become democratic. Probably. But NOT as long as we push it at the end of a gun barrel. There is less credibility for democracy now then when we began this little adventure. (It still gives me a f*ckin' ulcer when I think about how the U.S. crushed Iranian democracy by overthrowing Mossadegh in the 50's, while we now preach the need for Iranian democracy. Studying History will give me a heart attack one day.)
So here is my take: There will likely be a bloodbath when we pull out. It may or may not be worse, however you want to measure that, but it will likely END quicker than if we stay.
But the real question is: What do the Iraqi's want. Don't we owe them that at least considering what we have done to their country?
Since many recent polls show a majority of Iraqi's SUPPORT attacks on U.S. troops, I think it is safe to assume they don't want us there, unless it is merely to kill us. Case closed right? Leave! Or do we want to justify staying in defiance of Iraqi will? On what grounds? I can give you many from the point of view of U.S. strategic thinking (we dont give a damn about the Iraqi people, just our strategic objectives) But for the purposes of our little public debate, can anyone offer something different.

[LaWood]

Any close-to-sane policy the religio-wacknutcakes arrive at must somehow accomodate 3 parts of Iraq. Eventually it will be a nation of 3 regions to accomodate their 3 religio-wacknuts. Divvy up the oil proceeds equally amongst them after the Shiteheads, Turds, and Sunnys each get their peice of Eden and get the hell out.
_

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

That sums it up, guys - yes, of course, there will be a bloodbath when we pull out. Better to get it over with (fewer total dead and maimed) by pulling out quickly than stay longer and have "moderate" killing and maiming for that period of time added to the dead and maimed of whenever we leave. Sort of like do you amputate the leg below the knee, or do you allow gangrene to move up and then have to amputate at the hip? Part of that leg is coming off. When you do it determines how much of the leg comes off.

Of course, what W can't afford to admit on TV is that we're in there for the oil. The wasp wingnuts all think that's a good idea (the first time I heard, "we got to be over there to protect OUR oil" I thought I was going to lose my lower jaw), but the rest of the nation would have a cow at the admission that the "dirty hippies" were right and our kids are dying to enrich Exxon CEOs. "Stabilizing" the Middle East means puppet governments who will allow the American Petroleum Industry to come in and mine the Middle East's main resource/money maker for a nominal "royalty" paid to the said puppet government - on the specious rationale that this is not just OK, but divinely ordained because we've used up so much of our own oil that we can't provide for our energy needs domestically, and we - being Americans - somehow deserve it.

If the jerks were at least trying to get the U.S. off oil as fast as humanly possible (check how fast the U.S. mobilized industry 1941-42), I'd understand. I wouldn't LIKE it, nor support it any more than I do the current situation, but I would UNDERSTAND a mindset that said, "we need this stuff right now to keep our economy from collapsing, but we'll put a replacement in ASAP so we don't need it any more." Unfortunately, they don't seem to care that this is not a tenable position - give me the money now and I don't care about what happens later.

[Dardedar]

[Dardedar]

This Hardball clip gives a good summary of Bush's blatant contradictions regarding this war.

[Dardedar]

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

It's all a video game to W. He figures as long as he keeps putting in quarters, he can beat the game. When he thinks of the maimed, dying, and dead, he smirks - because he's also a sociopath (I really like the term psy-vamp better, but it's not technically correct). He feeds off other people's pain.