Iraqi Pols Better Learn To Take A Hint

This from the NYTimes:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 5 — A top adviser to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Wednesday that the visit this week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain had backfired, prolonging a deadlock over a new government and strengthening Mr. Jaafari's resolve to keep his post.

"Pressure from outside is not helping to speed up any solution," said the adviser, Haider al-Abadi. "All it's doing is hardening the position of people who are supporting Jaafari."

He added, "They shouldn't have come to Baghdad."

It sounds to me like some over-inflated egos in Iraqi politics better learn to take a hint. Young Americans fought and died to free them from the oppression of Saddam Hussein and if they don't learn to appreciate it, eventually they are going to be left with a ruined country torn apart by sectarian strife, or all out civil war.

If they continue to show arrogance in the face of sound advice, if not a warning, from the free countries which liberated them, they will come to regret that day much earlier than they think.

We aren't over there organizing the Rose Parade. If Iraqi politicians continue acting like homecoming queens, there won't be a bouquet of roses there for them when terrorists come knocking at their door.

Comments

[Phoenix]

"...homecoming queens.." ?

Hear, hear. :)

Nice way with words, Dan.

[MrsLevy]

You get what you pay for.

Impeach Bush.

MrsLevy

[Laertes]

"eventually they are going to be left with a ruined country torn apart by sectarian strife, or all out civil war"

This is, alas, precisely what they're going to get. And precisely what we will have spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to create.

Who still thinks this was a good idea?

[annie]

Laertes

Go buy yourself another white flag, then you'll have one for each hand!

[Laertes]

annie: Clap louder.

[The Observer]

" Young Americans fought and died to free them from the oppression of Saddam Hussein..."

Well, they have fought and died anyway... As far as fighting and dying to free them from Saddam, I doubt that. We seemed to be just fine with oppressive Saddam for the many, many years he was working with us. No, I suspect we wanted (and have proceeded to build) big military bases in the region. Iraq was the weakest link in the area, so we removed Saddam on trumped up charges and built the bases we need to ensure our influence in the area. Our military will be there for many years to come, I suspect...

[Phoenix]

And just think of the lives we might be able to save by having military bases in that region. Do you have a problem with us having a military presence in the Levant - surrounded by nuked-up countries, many of which do not like us? Pick whatever reason you want for going in to Iraq, it was the right thing to do. Getting rid of Hussein was the perfect bonus. If we can help spread democracy to other countries, even better. But to whine and snivel about the dangers of the Middle East and not do anything about it? What? Wait until Israel is blown off the map and the warheads are aimed our way? That better? You think we WANT influence in the area? Not by a long shot. We just don't want to be caught off guard by the biggest threats to our safety we've seen since the Cold War. There's a name for this kind of neo-con thinking: Prevention. And it is not as if we have made up the need for it.

[The Observer]

I don't think saving lives is really a factor is such matters. The result of our invasion of Iraq has been the loss of 2,500 of our soldiers and many, many thousands of Iraqis. At what point is the "life saving" supposed to begin? Who are we trying to save? Plus, the loss of life does not look to slow down any time soon.(If saving lives were a critera for the application of U.S. military force, we would have invaded Rwanda when mass slaughter was taking place there about 10 years ago.)

Regarding our presence in the Middle East, I think to a certain extent we are forced to have a military presence there as a result of past European involvment there, and then our desire to supplant the British as the dominant world power. For example, I believe the Brits and the Germans were there to extract oil from the region fairly early in the 20th century. Their involvement stirred things up quite a bit. Then European Jews who were looking to find a place to call their own after WWII decided to reside in a hornets nest. Since Israel exists because of U.S. subsidies, we will be involved with them for a long time, thus involved in the region. Also, because we've become so dependent on oil and can't replace oil on a large scale with a resource we have lots of (like coal), again, we'll be there for a while. That doesn't mean we have to overextend our military and treasury to take care of "threats" however... (I'm kind of reminded what a threat Vietnam was to us and what a threat they were to U.S. freedom. I guess if they hadn't been communist for the last 30 years after we left, we'd be more free? :o)

I disagree that going to Iraq was the right thing to do and I don't believe any reason for attacking them is a good reason. First, did they attack us? Could they attack us? How were they a threat to our freedom? They did not attack us. No link to 9/11, no missle attacks, nothing. Not only did they not attack us, but they were not capable of attacking us. They had be so severly beaten the first time around, that there was no way they recovered from that in such a short time. I don't know how they could have been a threat to our freedom, so maybe someone else can answer that question. We didn't consider them a threat when Saddam was our buddy and we were arming him. We didn't buy much (if any) oil from him, so it wasn't like he was going to threaten our oil supply. Since they weren't a threat, the "reasons" given to us for going to war were complete BS, then the obivous question is what the heck is going on?

What warheads are aimed our way? What does Iraq have (or would they have had in 10-20 years time) that could have hit us?

Obviously I do think we want to influence the area. 100%. It wouldn't have been popular in the U.S. if Bush had come out and said "we want to invade Iraq so we can establish a long term presence in the area." Instead, he cast them as a threat and invaded. Totally false, but good enough in his eyes. (Ah, a man of faith...)

What could catch us off guard if were not careful is the damage being done to our military as a result of such a long occupation, and the damage be done to our treasury by the reckless spending that is taking place.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political
connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements,let
them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

-George Washington

[Phoenix]

" It wouldn't have been popular in the U.S. if Bush had come out and said "we want to invade Iraq so we can establish a long term presence in the area.""

This, I agree with you on. The rest is hindsight. Try some foresight and many of your thoughts on this might change.

I can't address everything you said, but one statement is out of kilter so badly that I have to address it. WE made it a point to become a superpower over Britain? Your exact words - "...then our desire to supplant the British as the dominant world power...." It wasn't our desire, our goal. We just did. We were a free country full of individuals ready to work and make something of ourselves. We've never been imperialists, so why would we care, or have as a motivating force, supplanting Britain as a super power? We did want them to mind their own business..

Minor point..... doesn't matter.

The Israelis shouldn't have tried to reclaim the land God gave them? ??? Hmmm. Where should they have gone? They weren't exactly welcomed anywhere in Europe.

Ohhh well.....

Your 'writing' is certainly a pleasure to read. Thanks.....

[The Observer]

I disagree that is wasn't a goal of ours to supplant Britain as the dominant world power. At the start of WWII, Britain was broke and the U.S. stepped in and financed them (lend-lease). It wasn't done as an act of good will. I don't believe the American people themselves are imperialistic at all. I don't believe the average Joe in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 90s had any desire to fight in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), et cetera, but our foreign policy speaks for itself. Listen to the following mp3:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/fsn2005-0924-2.mp3

You may not agree with it, but I think you'll find it quite interesting.

Regarding Israel, I think they should have chosen a place where they wouldn't have to live on a constant war footing. God may have given the land to them once, but they didn't manage to keep it. :o) If my memory serves me right, land in Africa was considered as well...