Looking for reasons to stay longer in Iraq?

[bigtree]

It must be like whack-a-mole at the WH . . . knocking down generals who pop up to insist we're bound to stay longer in Iraq than the administration agreed to.

There was Gen. Odierno who hinted earlier this week that we'd be staying past the agreement deadline. The next day he was dialing all of that back, and, there's been at least one official a day since reassuring that we're 'on schedule' with the withdrawal plan.

Today, another U.S. commander in Iraq popped up to say that US forces are 'ready to stay beyond deadline in Mosul'.

Army Colonel Gary Volesky, (who commands US troops in northern Iraq’s Ninevah Province) in the violence-wracked region, said in a teleconference from Iraq that, "If the Iraqi government wants us to stay, we will stay." (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_passiraqdeadline_041409/)

It's not just the foot-dragging that gets me about this delayed withdrawal. It's the way in which every action is still being framed by the administration and the Pentagon as if there's some legitimacy and sense to the military mission there. The military is still being allowed to obsess about 'terrorists' in Iraq and the commanders are being allowed to conduct themselves as if there wasn't any fault at all in the way our forces have been held in Iraq for the political pipe dream of achieving 'stability' and 'progress' in their cynical defense of the Maliki regime.

The most baffling and incredible justifications for digging further in have been assertions like this Army Colonel makes as he insists the Maliki regime will make the ultimate decision about whether we stay. In my view, the administration has not moved far enough away from the lies which propelled our forces into Iraq and kept them bogged down there just to buck-up Bush's political position during his re-election and for the benefit of the politics behind the congressional races.

The justifications from the new administration for continuing the military posture in Iraq are very much like nonsense the last administration tried to sell us. There are the knowingly false assertions that the upcoming 'elections' our forces are supposed to be facilitating in Iraq (and in Afghanistan) are going to provide some perpetuating measure of the 'stability' and 'progress' the administration and Pentagon have opportunistically adopted as their rationale for prolonging the military mission there.

Then, there's this hyped notion that the resistance in Iraq who've identified their violence with the U.S. al-Qaeda nemesis are some sort of threat to the U.S.. They certainly do pose risks to the military's pet Iraqi regime. But, those risks can't be defended against by our forces indefinitely. At some point, the U.S. has to decide where our true national interests lie in Iraq. Continuing there can't credibly be about the phony 'war on terror' which the new administration has rhetorically mothballed.

In Iraq, the primary effect of our military presence and activity has been to 'foster and fuel' even more combatants than our forces have been able to dispel or eliminate. Our military may well be capable of moving lines on a map as they wage bloody assaults and bombings to occupy territory; only to pull back again, claiming some sort of victory or success. But, at some point, the administration has to decide that enough is enough. There's nothing in Iraq which is even a remote threat to our national security. The idea that our forces are stopping someone there from 'plotting against America' is an insult to the intelligence of even those folks schooled entirely by network propagandists.

If the Obama administration is thinking about waiting for a moment to exit Iraq with the 'honor' that's been implied by the president, they'll have to adopt the same jingoistic lies about our involvement there that the last WH used to wrap their fiasco in glory. I am, frankly, tired of playing along with their patronizing bullshit about patience and pottery barns. Been there, done that.

If you're satisfied with our troops hanging around in Iraq waiting to achieve some sort of 'victory' or some sort of defining 'progress' then you must have been just fine with Bush's foot-dragging. Does anyone really believe it makes a difference in hell whether our troops are engaged in Iraq for a year under Obama, rather than committed to stay there for the duration of Bush's term? There will not be any lasting 'stability' in Iraq which can be attributed to the prolonged presence or activity of our military forces.

The invading and occupying U.S.A. military force is the disruptor in Iraq, not the savior that any 'honorable' exit would imply. The very idea of the need for a lingering 'residual' force is an admission that we are mere wardens in Iraq, not liberators. And every time some son-of-a-bitch officer presumes to justify keeping our troops fighting there longer by pointing to those phony aims, I curse this administration for cynically adopting the old lies and fearmongering which insist the continuing assaults against the population there are, somehow, in our national interest.

Admit that the military mission in Iraq is a mistake and inherently counterproductive to even the stated goals of the administration . . . and, get out. Dancing around that verdict to accommodate either Iraqi or American politics, while the death toll (both U.S. and Iraqi) creeps upward, is infuriating and insulting to those of us who never bought into the lies behind the nation-building overthrow and occupation.

Time for the administration to dial back on yet another Pentagon enthusiast bent on committing us to following those lies to a seemingly endless string of destructive militarism. Hopefully, the WH is still committed to whacking these military moles down and moving expeditiously forward with their promised disengagement from Bush's political, Potemkin of democracy in Iraq.

[bigtree]

1. .

[Mari333]

2. they just dont want to give up their fucking military empire nt

[bigtree]

4. should have cleaned house

. . . these empire-builders in the Pentagon are addicted to conquest.

[orleans]

5. they totally should have cleaned the fucking house. n/t

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[Demeter]

6. To the Greatest Page, With Sorrow and Rage

We need a new mindset in this country, not the same-old.

[barbtries]

7. this line expresses it to a T:

It's the way in which every action is still being framed by the administration and the Pentagon as if there's some legitimacy and sense to the military mission there.

it's literally maddening. there was a post on DU yesterday from someone in the navy explaining that we can't go rolling after every pirate because among other reasons, "we have two wars...."

so stop the fucking wars! should not have happened in the first place. aaarrrgh

bookmarking to read later when i have time. off to work.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Welcome To The Pottery Barn...

The big lie is that Iraq is either "stable" or doing better or some illusion that the invasion has been "successful". Far from it. It's our military that separates the various factions in that country that have long hated one another and are just biding their time to go after one another. Petreus bought off tribes and walled Baghdad to resemble Beirut. There's very little reported in this country of what's going on there...outta sight, outta mind.

The clock is ticking as to when the guns we gave the various factions start taking aim at one another...all that's preventing widescale slaughter are our forces. Now we can try to get those troops out safely using diplomacy (something this country hasn't done) or we can shoot our way out. There are few other options.

Yes, we need to bring the troops home from Iraq, but I want them out safely. We also have a responsibility to try to leave that country without inflicting even more damage and suffering for those people.

[bigtree]

11. of course, we want out troops out safely, KharmaTrain

But the idea that there's something that our forces can do to prevent the violent struggle for power in Iraq belies the violence that our own forces generate and commit in the effort to sustain the present regime in power and authority. There isn't going to be a defining moment where we can be certain that some militarized force in the future won't upbraid all of the nation-building we've committed behind the sacrifices of the almost 5000 of our US force killed there.

The entire episode illustrates the utter madness behind the premise of the original invasion; that our troops were somehow 'liberating' the Iraqis in some unified way which would bring the country together as a democracy. It would have been better for everyone there and elsewhere if we had managed our regime-change efforts without troops on the ground. The original invasion was the fault line in Iraq. We've seen the earthquakes of uprisings from the factions and tribes kept apart by the dominating influence of Saddam. Now, comes the aftershocks and instability we've fostered and fueled. There isn't any credible or effective way our aggravating forces can mitigate or suppress those impulses indefinitely.

More ridiculous, now we'll have to bend to allow regional nations, like our nemesis Iran, to assume responsibility for much of the 'security' and control of the resistant forces which will move to take advantage of the power vacuum after we leave.

I would have been more supportive of this administration's disengagement effort if they'd stop posturing as if our forces were just closing some loose ends, rather than just holding our collective fingers in the holes in the dike as most everyone else admits. The more they cling to their ridiculous notion that our forces are helping Iraq, the more their denial and delusion persists in their reasons for remaining longer. I'd appreciate the truth about our involvement there. I think most Americans would settle for a chagrined exit, as well, rather than this posturing as if we're the protectors and guardians of stability in Iraq. We're just another oppressive regime of intimidation and self-interest in Iraq. We'll be the lucky ones, leaving with whatever we can manage to hold together.

[KharmaTrain]

13. The Dilema...

I agree with a great deal of what you say. This invasion has been one disaster after another...the anger and frustration I have surrounding the origins and the "archetects" won't be satisifed until I see the whole cabal on trial in The Hague. That said, there's no easy options here...on several levels.

Malaki is a puppet, and the longer we remain the bigger the divides become the higher the tensions boil. The military is heavily invested here...not just in material, but in reputation and blood. A "bug out" or quick withdrawl would crush the already low morale and I see President Obama as very sensetive to pushing the Pentagon too hard. It backfired on Bill Clinton and again during the booosh years. The balance, right or wrong...is "saving face"...or a "peace with honor" that allows us to declare whatever and fade away. In the meantime, more Americans will die (hopefully fewer as the military moves out of cities), money squandered and the underlying tensions continue to boil.

There's one other component at work here that wasn't in the past. Diplomacy. The only safe way out is one with cooperation of other powers in the region. For 8 years, many important bridges were burned (Turkey for example) that would provide a bit of cover for a safe withdrawl as well with other states working with us. This also is a tricky game that is best played under wraps as it is the Iranian, Saudi and others money that will fill the vacuum once we're gone.

I was heartened by Ordierno saying we'd definitely be out by 2011...but I wish it were a lot sooner.

[RalphieD]

9. Get out now!

We need to leave Iraq now.  We need to leave Afghanistan now. 
They need to stop military spending and use the money to help
people at home.

[Time for change]

10. Well said bigtree

[bigtree]

12. the TFC

. . . mark of approval. Thank you. :)

I saw some troops yesterday who were deploying to Iraq for another year. So sad, to have not ended this for them already.

[AmyCamus]

14. With W's Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense - we stay.

It's the generals who fail to use the cover story that get pounded down. We'll still be in Iraq when the next Republican administration is voted in.

[rcsl1998]

15. These Are W's Toadies

...Obama's got to clean out 8 years worth of (embedded) trash...