Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert Dreyfuss: "Apocalypse Not" Time to stop buying into worst case scenarios about leaving Iraq.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:06 AM
Original message
Robert Dreyfuss: "Apocalypse Not" Time to stop buying into worst case scenarios about leaving Iraq.
Apocalypse Not

Much of Washington assumes that leaving Iraq will lead to
a bigger bloodbath. It’s time to question that assumption.


The Bush administration famously based its argument for invading Iraq on best-case assumptions: that we would be greeted as liberators; that a capable democratic government would quickly emerge; that our military presence would be modest and temporary; and that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for everything. All these assumptions, of course, turned out to be wrong.

Now, many of the same people who pushed for the invasion are arguing for escalating our military involvement based on a worst-case assumption: that if America leaves quickly, the Apocalypse will follow. “How would (advocates of withdrawal) respond to the eruption of full-blown civil war in Iraq and the massive ethnic cleansing it would produce?” write Robert Kagan and William Kristol in the Weekly Standard. “How would they respond to the intervention of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran, Syria, and Turkey? And most important, what would they propose to do if, as a result of our withdrawal and the collapse of Iraq, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups managed to establish a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the United States and its allies?”

Similar rhetoric has been a staple of President Bush’s recent speeches. If the United States “fails” in Iraq—his euphemism for withdrawal—the president said in January, “(r)adical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions … Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.”

<snip>

But if it was foolish to accept the best-case assumptions that led us to invade Iraq, it’s also foolish not to question the worst-case assumptions that undergird arguments for staying. Is it possible that a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces will lead to a dramatic worsening of the situation? Of course it is, just as it’s possible that maintaining or escalating troops there could fuel the unrest. But it’s also worth considering the possibility that the worst may not happen: What if the doomsayers are wrong?


Great analysis -- please go to the link and read the whole piece! Get the ammunition you need to counter the "we have to stay in Iraq" arguments!

sw

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. to a degree, i don't care if the doomsayers are right
but the goal of the jihadis is to drive america from the region in humiliation. if they accomplish that, the air goes out of the recruiting balloon.

if iraq becomes a precipitating event that leads to a re-ordering of the middle east into a single nation resembling the ottoman empire's size & power, so be it. if it leads to partition of iraq into 3 states in a bloody civil war, well, we lived through india's disintegration.

you cannot put humpty dumpty back together again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. "Jihadi" or not, if I were a Middle Easterner, my goal would be to end Western interference in my
homeland, period.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. i agree
but i would hope the suicide bombings become less frequent after defeating the great satan.

and that's the jihadis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. the PR campaign is all about the FEAR 24-7
What are the REAL motivations? Ask the neo-cons, obviously still holding sway over bush, now spouting that we'll be in Iraq for a long, long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. & of course they never ask what the Iraqi people want
and the majority don't want us there

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. "The al-Qaeda myth"

This is excellent sw! Thank you!


The al-Qaeda myth

To understand why it’s a mistake to assume the worst, let’s begin with the most persistent, Bush-fostered fear about post-occupation Iraq: that al-Qaeda or other Islamic extremists will seize control once America departs; or that al-Qaeda will establish a safe haven in a rump, lawless Sunnistan and use that territory as a base, much as it used Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The idea that al-Qaeda might take over Iraq is nonsensical. Numerous estimates show that the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its foreign fighters comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the Sunni insurgents’ forces. Most Sunni insurgents are simply what Wayne White—who led the State Department’s intelligence effort on Iraq until 2005—calls POIs, or “pissed-off Iraqis,” who are fighting because “they don’t like the occupation.” But the foreign terrorist threat is frequently advanced by the Bush administration, often with an even more alarming variant—that al-Qaeda will use Iraq as a headquarters for the establishment of a global caliphate. In December 2005, Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a briefing in which he warned that al-Qaeda hoped to “revive the caliphate,” with its capital in Baghdad. President Bush himself has warned darkly that after controlling Iraq, Islamic militants will “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

The reality is far different. Even if AQI came to dominate the Sunni resistance, it would be utterly incapable of seizing Baghdad against the combined muscle of the Kurds and the Shiites, who make up four fifths of the country. (The Shiites, in particular, would see the battle against the Sunni extremist AQI—which regards the Shiites as a heretical, non-Muslim sect—as a life-or-death struggle.)

<snip>

It’s also worth questioning whether the forces that call themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq have any real ties to whatever remains of Osama bin Laden’s weakened, Pakistan-based leadership. Such ties, if they exist, have always been murky at best, even under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. With al-Zarqawi’s elimination in 2006 and his replacement by a collegial group, these ties are even muddier. Although it’s convenient for the Bush administration to claim that al-Qaeda is a Comintern-like international force, it is really a loose ideological movement, and its Iraq component is fed largely by jihadists who flock to the country because they see the war as a holy cause. Once the United States withdraws, Iraq will no longer be a magnet for that jihad.


...... I sure wish some Baghdad reporter would make these points out loud on TV!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. They can't let go of the al-Qaeda bogeyman -- it's SOOOO convenient!
You know, what pisses me off more than anything is the underlying assumption that the Iraqis are somehow incapable of pursuing their own interests. It's not just patronizing, it's racist: "The Great White Father must protect you."

Thanks for excerpting more of the article. And thanks as always for having my back here on DU! :loveya:

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Michael Ware on CNN is the worst with the Al-Q myth
I think he likes to hear himself say it, over and over....

:eys:

<snip>

CNN could not independently confirm the report and CNN's Michael Ware in Baghdad said Iraqi officials would not say whether al-Masri was in custody.

The U.S. military -- who wrongly reported last October that al-Masri had been killed -- referred reporters to the Iraqi government.

Al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, is an Egyptian who took over the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq in June after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Iraqi Interior Minister Muwaffak al-Rubaie estimated in October 2006 that al-Masri had been involved in making more than 2,000 car bombs that killed more than 6,000 Iraqis in the past two years.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/15/iraq.main/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. They spin layers and layers of fantasy and bullshit. Unfortunately, it works.
Edited on Fri Jun-15-07 10:22 AM by scarletwoman
It leaves people confused and misinformed -- and most importantly, frightened. Add in the unquestioned assumption of "American Exceptionalism" and you have the perfect mix for a malleable populace.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
6. Great article. The United States has become, IMO, irrelevent in the conflict.
The American forces serve only as a focus for all sides in the conflict. It will be settled by the Iraqis and the countries surrounding Iraq, no matter what the geniuses in Washington and the Pentagon do. We are only extending the lost war to save the faces of the politicians and generals who started it. And, that effort is blatantly a failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Well, the puppet Maliki needs U.S. support to keep his position, so he's in no hurry to see us leave
If U.S. forces are withdrawn, he's toast and he knows it.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The Americans have to defend Maliki, which means taking sides with the Shi'a.
Or, at least, one faction of the Shi'a. Which is a recipe for disaster. Or, should I say, a worse disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. k&r
sw rocks!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Thanks, LC... You rock, too!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. aw, I do not
I am a follower of cool folks like you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. evening kick... (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC