The war in Iraq isn’t over yet, but — surge or no surge — the United States has already lost. That’s the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. “Even if we had a million men to go in, it’s too late now,” says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. “Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again.”
Those on the panel — including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander — agree that President Bush’s attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style “quagmire.” The surge won’t bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq’s northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.
“Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future,” says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden. “By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey — and from Turkey into Europe.”
[McPeak:] America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn’t make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.
Pardon me for asking, but… What the hell is Rolling Stone doing an article like this?
Okay, we’ve seen what the proverbial “C student” can do — next time can we at least TRY to elect s SMART person? Please?
#1
Because until Hurricane Katrina, the ‘serious’ media was too busy fellatiating Bush to provide useful information making alternative media like Rolling Stone and the Blog-o-sphere necessary.
GREGALLEN POLL OF DVORAK READERS:
QUESTION: When did you first conclude that we’d lost the Iraq war?
I, personally, thought we would PROBABLY lose this war before it even was launched. When Rumsfeld ignored the looting, that probability was affirmed in my mind.
But it was the Abu Ghraib photos that made me accept the reality that this war was lost.
Why? Because I knew all moral authority was lost and you can’t maintain an occupation without it.
How about you? And why?
>>Mac Guy
No problem asking. Rolling Stone has always done these kind of non-music articles, as long as I have been reading it, which is about thirty years now. (holy smokes I feel old.)
It’s not their main thing, obviously, but it makes their magazine stand out from most. They also have done some terrific fiction and photography.
So why doesn’t Playboy do more of the same? I thought we read it for the articles…
#4,
I was against the war until it started, then I supported it until “mission accomplished”. That cod piece was too much for me, and I couldn’t support the the war after that.
In the end, I thing it was a result of the constant fellatiating from the MSM. You know, same effect as a penis pump, a radically freakishly too large member. But, like a penis pump enhancement, useless and limp.
Greg,
I too disagreed with the Iraq invasion. I thought it pretty foolish to pull the inspectors out before they had finished their job. As well, when General Shinseki was condemned for suggesting it would take several fold the number of troops to “conquer” Iraq and was fired for the remark, it was obvious things were not looking good. And, when the looting progressed right behind the advancing troops, it was crystal clear that the war was lost to the extremists. This was confirmed when the Republican Guards were sent home by Saddam.
I took a lot of grief around these parts for my beliefs. The number of times I heard the White House lies thrown back at me. The most irritating came from an older woman who commented “better we kill them over there then they kill us over here”.
We may loose the Iraq campaign but not the war. All it is going to take is one more monstrous attack like 9/11 and this country will clear the decks of all these left wing sophomoric wanna be generals who haven’t a clue about what it takes to defend a civilization against an invader whose only advantage is their ungodly ruthlessness in killing enemies and innocents.
GregA — so you supported the war for few weeks!
I remember well: that cod piece victory charade gave me a sick feeling that Bush was not taking the war seriously. This this was all a big PR game for them.
Now we have whole books of solid proof that this was the case.
I think the best is “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone” by Rajiv Chandrasekaran
>>Pekuliar
Give me one reason to believe that the GOP and Bush would handle a second 911 with more competency than they handled the first.
When, of course, they made everything WORSE rather than better.
I am retired US Air Force and I can tell you that General McPeak is a bigger idiot than George Bush. If you substitute “make USAF Chief of Staff” for the phrase “elect president” in his last remark, it becomes slightly more accurate.
Of course, I hate to admit the fact that he is right in this case. However, even an idiot who never stops talking will say something that sounds smart every now and then–sort of like a million monkeys monkeys typing…
Iraq was lost from the beginning. It distracted us from what we really needed to do: eliminate Al Qaeda and their protectors, the Taliban. While Saddam was definitely not a nice guy, he kept Iraq more or less stable through his terror.
#10,
I was against it until Bush pulled the trigger.
Call me naive, but once I saw Bush willing to go to war in Iraq, my thought was, they wouldn’t do it unless they had a really good reason. A textbook example of assumption.
By the time of ‘Mission Accomplished’, and it was apparent the whole effort was falling apart, and the justifications all fell short I was against it again, and have been ever since.
#9,
It almost seems if you want that to happen. How patriotic of you.
GregA, you supported the war for about 6 weeks then? I’m sot sure what ‘fellating’ you are seeing from the media, as they are always talking about how bad things are, and almost all the troops that come back say the same thing about how successes aren’t covered. Large parts of the media have become an arm of the Democrat Party and have an interest in seeing George Bush fail in Iraq. The only chearleading might be from Fox News.
Mr. Fusion, Shinseki’s ‘firing’ was known well before he made his comments, and he simply wasn’t reappointed.
#15,
Awww, that one bombing a day sure does make the rest of it look bad.
And aside from that, where is your empirical evidence that the war is going good? For the first year of the war, the average American daily body count was one soul a day. Going into the fourth year of this war, the average daily body count is hovering at just under three souls a day. Also, there is no indication that the ‘surge’ (some say escalation) has had any effect at all on the American casualty rate.
That is a crude analysis, because the Iraq body count is now reaching Rwanda genocide proportions, and I don’t take that into account at all.
Also, I note that the Iraqgoodnews.com blog has not been updated in over a year. So where is all that good news buddy?
Oh here is some, it seems they are finding fewer unidentified bodies in the streets of Baghdad.
http://tinyurl.com/34skcl
Good news indeed!
As for the press fellatiating Bush, the clearest example that comes to mind is the fall of Baghdad. Remember that scene when the statue of Saddam was pulled down by US troops and about 20 Iraq people stood around and watched, and the media characterized it as ‘jubilant crowds’
Or just a few weeks ago when Saddam was executed? Before the real video was released, the press made it look like the execution was a calm and civil thing. Then the real video surfaced on the internet, and it turned out it wasn’t that at all. That the media had been willing pawns of the Bush administration and told exclusively their story until it cost them too much credibility to continue with it.
Or. Or. Or… I have to take the little one too school now, I will be back in a bit to pound on the ashen dust of your “Iraq good news” syllogism some more in a bit.
So, basically, they’re saying that Iraq is Bush’s Bosnia?
Cripes, 17 – can’t you come up with a better non sequitur than that? Obviously you know little or nothing about history – but, just quote the usual talking point sources. You know, Rush, O’Reilly, Snow, Goebbels, Torquemada.
I thought you guys were already losing the war.
I never cease to be amazed at how many people refuse to acknowledge the truth of that “mission accomplished” banner.
These self-same people will cry to the heavens about lies while perpetuating one themselves. Fascinating.
Only the idiots think that we didn’t win the war: The “Mission Accomplished” banner echoed the successes of that three week time period.
The occupation is another story, but until you can separate the two you’re not creditable enough to speak on the subject.
Hacks.
#4. When did we lose the war? When we decided to start it.
Why? Because I doubted that any of the reasons that were espoused were actually real, and the fact that the polling showed that most American’s thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11. That fact alone told me that despite what the administration said, somebody that wanted to make the American populating think that was obviously at work.
Four years later, do we know who are enemies are?
Support the troops? Hell, I have to, one way or another. I’ve got two MPs in the Army, once currently in the Iraq, and the other one preparing to go to Iraq for the surge.
#9, Pekuliar, I’m wih #11. The current administration will not do the right thing if another 9/11 happens. Again. We had the world by their hearts after that and we threw it away like that was nothing.
#15, see my remark about Iraq and 9/11. Faux News is certainly still fellating Bush as I type. I don’t think we really know the bad stuff yet! If you push too hard against this administration, you’re automatically branded as unpatriotic and as a traitor. Can they really not stop?
Things are bad. My MP in Iraq has had his vehicle blown up and totaled twice in the past 6 months. His nickname is Guardian Angel because everybody that was with him at least survived. One is missing a leg, so it still sucks.
malren, James Hill,
You guys are idiots. Go back to school, it was a mistake for you to drop out, you haven’t learned to read yet. I said that is the moment that I lost faith in war, and that boosh looked like a tool in that cod piece. Not that I thought the war was over.
None the less, your thesis is simply wrong. That mission accomplished banner will be regarded as iconic of why this war was a failure by history.
Here you go, this provides some insight as to why the solders are still on the mission, but acknowledging the war is lost.
http://www.defensetech.org/ Watch the video on the latest post.
Make sure you watch the video to the point where she starts sobbing because a boy was shot in the face four times while the father was getting the gunmen some water.
Suck on it, and enjoy your war. Please keep repeating your radio talking points ad nausium, becuase it helps rational people to see the folly of this war.
I told you so,
Iv been saying it for a few years…and now its in print.
We removed a despot, for some strange reason related to UN inspections from the last war with Kawate.
A despot that was already fighting religious groups trying to foster ‘their own’ in his nation. fighting religious fanatics, INSIDE and Outside his nation, to keep some type of peace.
We took him out and we have HIS problems now. We can see what he was fighting, and WHY he was Doing what he did(mostly).
How do you fight anamosities from 2000+ years of infighting, in these groups. You cant. We dont even know what they are fighting for, or about. this is as bad as the infighting of the old churches in the 1400’s in europe.
2 things are happening.
civil war, Civil infighting, over menial things, and Old injustices.
Then the fun part, you have those from the OUTSIDE fostering their own accord to bring about the countries downfall, so that they can take over and have THEIR own country.
So what can be done…?
Segragate the populas, and build walls between the sections.
LET EACH group monitor their OWN section.
If you cant fight a gorilla war, GET OUT of the city. surround the city and monitor the in/out of the populas. Dont go into the city unless requested. They need to RULE themselves, NOT with our help. its the only way they can LEARN this.
losing? Not only have we entered Sadr City and set up a joint Iraqi/US police station in what was the former stronghold of the most powerful resistance in the country. The British have cut their forces in the South because the Iraqi’s have stood up and have taken control.
While there may have been setbacks and missteps (as there are in any war BTW) I for one see these as signs of winning not losing.
#25,
Your misunderstanding of this conflict is shocking. The shiites are no longer fighting us because we are handing the country over to Iranian control. Back when the war started, losing Iraq to Iran was listed under the column, “Total military and political defeat.”
But Im with you, anything that gets the US military out of there at this point is a good thing.
Sorry if the chuckling is obvious; but, guys – the Brits are leaving because Labour would like to win something more than dogcatcher in the coming elections.
And “the South” is as strongly under Sh’ite control as is Sad’r City. You don’t win guerilla wars – especially urban wars – by confronting the invaders in pitched battle, every day.
Going in was the right idea: http://tinyurl.com/dwvdw
Mistakes after the initial victory – different story.
#21. You’re right James. The president puts on a flight suit and lands on an aircraft carrier.
That’s not a victory lap. That’s a cautious optimism lap. Not ‘Mission Accomplished,’ but ‘Fine So Far.’
I confess I was in denial about the war at first. I couldn’t believe that, with no UN, no actual evidence (I saw Powell’s puppet show at the Security Council and was not impressed), and with the war in Afghanistan not over yet, that Bush would actually attack Iraq.
You could say that I misunderestimated the folly and arrogance of the Bush Administration.
From that point on, I figured we were screwed. As the Administration’s magic bullets (interim govt, elections, capture of Saddam) turned out to be duds, brief flickers of optimism died.
But I guess the thing that really made me believed that the effort was almost certainly doomed was when the elections were entirely sectarian. Sunni parties, Shiite parties, no Iraqi parties.
Via Kuwait News Agancy
” BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) — The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.”
…
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
But we are still losing, right?