How to be part of the solution?

[RainDog]

It's easy to criticize, but hard to find solutions. In "real" terms, i.e., where we are now, and in light of the different possible outcomes of different suggested solutions, how would you address the following statements that someone emailed to me? (if you dispute these statements, do you have links to back up your response?)

1. The United States has been seeking greater involvement of the international community.

2. The United States is moving to involve Iraqis in the solution of their own problems.

3. American officials are working hard to establish an Iraqi police force and effective local governments.


The crux of the matter now is this: we must ensure that Iraq does not become a failed state

4. beyond the interests of the Iraqis, in the interest of our own security and prosperity, we cannot leave Iraq in a condition that breeds terrorists or festers as a symbol of American failure in the Middle East

because-

5. such an outcome would expand anti-U.S. resentment, weaken our international influence, undercut prospects for broader peace settlements in the region, and possibly encourage other rogue nations to pursue weapons of mass destruction.

6. The outcome in Iraq is central to whether Americans will enjoy peace and prosperity in the coming decades.

7. The September 11 attacks had severe economic consequences for our nation. If we experience additional attacks, especially those involving weapons of mass destruction, economic growth and progress in our own country could be undermined for years.

My personal opinion is that as long as the Bush league is in power, we cannot deal effectively with the mess that exists in Iraq now. My solution is one which would not happen, because the legislative branch would not take action against the Bush regime.

So, I wonder, if my option ain't gonna happen, what options does our nation have for the time being?

[RainDog]

1. I'm kicking this myself

because I really hope someone can and will talk about these things.

[JailBush]

2. My response...

"1. The United States has been seeking greater involvement of the international community."

In Iraq??? We've been tyring to get other nations to cover the costs of OUR mistakes. Bush has been very reluctant much of a say in how Iraq is run.

"2. The United States is moving to involve Iraqis in the solution of their own problems."

Again, he's largely recruiting Iraqis to replace our troops. Iraqis fighting Iraqis would be the Republicans' best dream. And Bush obviously wants to leave a pro-U.S. government behind after we pull out.

"4. beyond the interests of the Iraqis, in the interest of our own security and prosperity, we cannot leave Iraq in a condition that breeds terrorists or festers as a symbol of American failure in the Middle East."

Bush got us into a nice Catch-22. The above statemenet is basically true. Yet staying in Iraq only maintains its current status as a terrorist magnet. Retreating would indeed be seen as a symbol of failure and weakness, yet staying in Iraq is also inflammatory. I worry that success would inspire the neocons to invade other nations. Wars as sleazy as this one should not be allowed to succeed.

"5. such an outcome would expand anti-U.S. resentment, weaken our international influence, undercut prospects for broader peace settlements in the region, and possibly encourage other rogue nations to pursue weapons of mass destruction."

Again, Bush has left us few options. The bastard has already started a new global arms race, which will continue regardless of what happens in Iraq.

"6. The outcome in Iraq is central to whether Americans will enjoy peace and prosperity in the coming decades."

That's very likely true - and the prospects for our continued peace and prosperity look very gloomy, regardless of what happens in Iraq. Hell, they looked gloomy before we invaded Irag, remember?

"7. The September 11 attacks had severe economic consequences for our nation. If we experience additional attacks, especially those involving weapons of mass destruction, economic growth and progress in our own country could be undermined for years."

Most of the economic impact following 9/11 was actually an example of corporate whores exploiting 9/11. Additional terrorist attacks could obviously do far more damage, depending on the nature and scope of the terrorist attacks. A nuclear explosion in a major city could obviously throw a monkey wrench in things. A good microbe scare could be just as deadly. Thanks a lot, Bush, you bastard.

"My personal opinion is that as long as the Bush league is in power, we cannot deal effectively with the mess that exists in Iraq now."

We can't deal effectively with ANY problem as long as the Republicans are in charge. Frankly, I think the Democrats could do only marginally better. We need to work much harder at reforming the Democratic Party even while battling the Repugs.

The #1 strategy for fixing things is focusing on LOCAL politics. Yet we wasted Campaigns 2002 and 2003; both were total disasters. With 10,000 corrupt school boards either pulling for Bush or the most corrupt Democrats, we're really screwed.

[blm]

3. BUMP. Please read folks.

.

[Toucano]

4. No energy to respond right now.

But will kick for others to consider.

Thank you.

[LeftyLover]

5. I don't understand what has happened!!!

Ah the good ole' days when we owned Congress and the Presidency!!!

What happened? I really thought we were gaining ground during the first 2 years of Bush's Presidency and then the 02 elections happened and we took a major loss!

So then Iraq happened and I thought for sure Ok, the people are awake now!! And we lost California and just the other day Kentucky and Mississippi!!!!!

WTF!!!

Why are we not gaining ground with all the right wing debacles?
IE the tax cuts, the deficits, the war, all that stuff.

I think Dean (and now that I really think about it, Clark)
has the best chance at the nomination.

[Toucano]

6. CA, MS, and KY

Are really anti-incumbent statements.

The states are all in turmoil due to the pressure put down by the Feds. I think the electorate is saying they want change. That will be good for us in 2004.

If we had an election here in Ohio, they'd have certainly lost Taft.

Don't be so discouraged yet! :)

[LeftyLover]

7. 04 losses?

I've been doing a serious reality check lately.
Anti-incumbent or not our side has taken some serious beatings lately.
There is a trend especially after some major losses in 02.

Why is the country seemingly moving to the right?

We are the civilized side!!

What is it we are saying that the public isn't picking up on???!!!!????

I think Dean is our only chance at the nomination in 04 but if he is landslided we could lose footing for a long time!!! Has anyone thought of this?

We could potentially lose 5-6 more Senate seats and 10 House seats!
Doesn't this scare anyone?

[RainDog]

8. Fear

Yes, it scares me for more and more extremist Republicans to gain more and more power.

I think that it is important for dems to point out, no SCREAM OUT the errors of the Bush gang that led to this unnecessary war.

At the same time, America is still uneasy and needs to feel the person they elect can insure national security. Yeah, I know Bush hasn't, but perception is that he has, with some people.

There are many people in this country who think that we do have to take "pre-emptive" action and remove any threats or potential threats to us in the middle east.

Not to say that's rational, but I think that's a pretty basic feeling as a response to 9-11.

But the issue, to me, is beyond politics.

We are really in a big mess right now. If I were prez, I would lean heavily on Sharon to make him dismantle settlements and to help those settlers find new homes outside of the Palestinian areas. The threat of a loss of funding would probably make Sharon more reasonable.

A withdrawal would take away some of the talking points for the al-qaeda faction.

Of course, now it's not just the trigger of the Israel/Palestine deadlock, but a perceived occupation of Iraq as a way to motivate hatred toward the U.S.

Again, I think it would be such a positive change for the Legislature to call the Bush administration on this unneeded war. The Legislature needs to reclaim it's powers and rescind the powers given to Bush...a serious breach of their constitutional duty, imho.

If Bush and his administration were removed and tried for lying about the war, if they were tried as war criminals, I think that would do much to stablize the world...

It would be a way to deal with Iraq with the idea that we are committing to repair what Bush boy broke...things like long-standing alliances and the ability to get peace-keeping forces from other nations to help rebuild Iraq.

I don't believe Bush can do this, nor does he want to.

But as long as we are the sole occupying power in Iraq, I don't see how things can settle down.

[Pobeka]

9. There is only one chance

That Bush is really and truly saved by a genuine personal revelation about the true nature of humanity.

And then he walks into the U.N. and apologizes, admits his mistake, takes full blame for the situation, and hands total control over to the U.N.

At that point we might be able to get international support that would make a difference, but even that is a long shot, as Bush is known round the world for his lying.

The USA installed this administration, and while I don't think the rest of the world thinks all of us citizens are creeps like the Bush & Repubs, it is our problem to fix, not the rest of the world's problem to fix.

It's ironic, that one of the pieces of logic that keeps us out of other nation's political disasters is that we sometimes say "they have to fix their own problems".

And now, as a society, we have to fix our own.

Polish up those hammers folks...
--
On edit: Changed "elected" to "installed"

[RainDog]

13. in other words...when pigs fly?

Can you imagine Bush apologizing for ANYTHING?

Your possible solution is as far-featched as my thinking that the Legislative branch should rebuke Bush. Not with republicans, and many extremists at that, will that happen.

Or at least I cannot imagine a way that would happen.

Bush is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In order to stop his madness, the dem candidate, it seems to me, must address the issue of Iraq at this time in a way that addresses the concerns of Americans for national security but also concerns about a quagmire without end.

And, yeah, Bush needs to let go of the oil. Did he have to give a little recently to put the oil money under UN control?

But if Bush does let it go, I wonder if the Saddam loyalists who are fighting would stop attacking the pipelines?

Do they want Iraq to succeed without them in power?

I don't remember the blogger, maybe Juan Cole, but someone noted that the Shi'as are saying they want to cooperate for now with the coalition, but ultimately they think Iraq will be an Islamic state because they are the majority of the population.

I'll try to find the link.

At that point, will Iraq have a civil war, no matter how successful the U.S. tries to be in fixing its own mess?

[RainDog]

14. here's the comment from Juan Cole

Cole is a professor with lots of knowledge about Iraq. If you don't read his blog, I highly recommend it.

the following is his take on Wolfowitz's comments about Abdul Aziz al-Hakim as a believer in democracy for Iraq, and a potential leader.

this is from nov. 3rd or so.

http://www.juancole.com/

first wolfie-

"....with leaders like that, particularly coming from the Shia clerical community, which so many people have told us we have so much to fear from, I think in fact there is strong reason to be hopeful."

This picture of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its leaders is not just rosey but frankly bizarre. They did lead what was essentially a terrorist organization from Tehran, hitting Iraqi government targets from across the border, for 20 years. They were close to Ayatollah Khomeini (did they speak out about his mistreatment of religious minorities, including Jews and Baha'is?) and then to hardliner Ali Khamenei.

I wrote of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim for Le Monde Diplomatique last summer that on April 18 "he gave an interview from Kut with Iranian television in which he laid out his party's two-stage plan for Iraq. He said, "We will first opt for a national political system," in which all parties and sects were represented. He continued, "but eventually the Iraqi people will seek an Islamic republic system." He added that in a democratic system, the will of the Shiites for an Islamic government would prevail, since they are 60 percent of the population. That is, SCIRI plans to begin with a representative government but ultimately to move to a tyranny of the Shiite majority, whether the Sunnis and secularists like it or not."

Abdul Aziz has also called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Although Wolfowitz keeps talking about women's rights in Iraq, he seems blithely unaware that Baath secularism was much better on that particular issue than the positions of people like Abdul Aziz al-Hakim will ever be, and that his friends the hardline Shiite clerics will do everything they can to withdraw rights from women.

[blm]

10. bump for a great post.

.

[RainDog]

15. thanks for the kicks, bumps, whatevers.

After hearing a bit of Bush's speech today, I wonder if anything he said reached anyone other than his American audience?

I mean, would people who have lived with us propping up monarchies (and Saddam), who have populations with muslim versions of Ashcroft and Falwell ready to jump in to a leadership void... would Bush's speech mean anything to them?

has our support of these monarchies weakened the possibilities for democratic institutions? has that support made us too suspect, along with our actions in Iraq...including Bush's horrid statement at the outbreak of our attack telling them not to destroy their oil wells?

I mean, this was the first thing Bush had to say to them. Then, nuclear waste was looted in Tuwaitha while our troops guarded the oil ministry?

Again, how can the rest of the world believe in any good intentions from us with the oil whores in power now?

[scipan]

11. it's not the police, it's the oil

The US should put control of the oil -- revenues, contracts, who to sell to and at what price -- under UN control. Let the UN dole out the contracts and keep the revenues in trust for the Iraqi people.

Your #1 and #2 are possibly true if you just look at the last month or so, but not indicative of the larger trend, which is unilateralist both in the world in general and Iraq in particular. I think it is important to make Iraq a success, and what is needed is to win over the support of most of the Iraqi people. Bush isn't doing that. There are a lot of reasons why, but the main one is probably mistrust of our intentions (with good reason, I think). Terrorists and Saddam loyalists would not be able to operate, at least not very well, without support of the regular Iraqis.

Bush won't turn over control of the oil. We need to elect somebody who will.

[maggrwaggr]

12. You forgot #8. "Someone else would take our oil"

That oil's ours, damnit! OURS!!

This whole thing reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Homer's got his hand stuck up the coke machine. Finally someone asks him if he's hanging onto a can of coke. He is. All he has to do to get out of his predicament is LET GO OF THE CAN OF COKE.

All Bush and the US has to do in Iraq is let go of the fucking oil! Give it away! Divvy it up!

That will bring in the U.N. We'll have all the international support we could ever want if Bush would just let go of the fucking OIL!