http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/52135/

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/53230

Honestly, I think the sweetest short-term revenge for the Iraqis against the United States and Britain would be to quickly transition to a peaceful, cooperative post-occupation state – to ‘one up’ us but good, as it were. There will obviously and definitely be challenges to achieving that – such as the criminal gangs now emboldened, armed and roaming, the foreign fighters and Al Qaeda remnants who are now experienced guerrilla fighters, much lingering resentment from families of victims of the revenge killings of Shiite and Sunni fighters and the other lawless contingents who have simply been able to take advantage of the chaos that our failed occupation has spawned.

But the Iraqis know that they have a rare opportunity, post-occupation, to come up with at least a semi-democratic form of government, with the finances to back it up and spread the wealth to all, that has been denied to them for far, far too long.

I don’t think they’ll blow that chance in any more unnecessary bloodshed and violence. And as with all overseas news aside from Israel/Occupied Territories, the American media will quickly drop Iraq from the news without a backward glance, once U.S. troops have left the country (see Vietnam). Our corporate media, our president, and many in Congress really don’t give a damn about what happens to the Iraqis themselves, once “our interests” are taken out of the equation. That reality will only help Iraq to do its own thing in peace, and I believe such an outcome is very much within their grasp, once they’ve transitioned to civil order, without us.

But there’s a mighty big caveat at the top: provided that Iraq is not forced to give away most of its oil wealth to foreigners and in the process divide in three. The longer we try to keep our boot on their throats to force that imperial outcome, the longer the fighting will continue and intensify. John Kerry seems desperate to redeem some value for us from Iraq in honor of the lives already lost there. But I’m afraid that’s a fool’s errand – there won’t be any making of silk purses out of this sow’s ear, for us [except perhaps for re-establishing the preeminence of our Congress in matters of war by a Clause 11-type Constitutional showdown]. But Iraq can and will rise again, I believe, if we just let it, after executing as graceful an exit as we can manage, while working to bring Iraq’s neighbors into negotiations with the legitimate representatives of the Iraqi people.

The reason I “jumped” you is because, like most of the people who post here, you don’t want to talk about the events that are most likely to happen when our troops start to draw down.

Again: When you guys keep hammering the dems to start forcing troop drawdowns, with NO help from the people who sent them, you are saying that you believe what follows in Iraq will somehow be to the political benefit of the people who have opposed this war from the start. I think that is nonsense, and I challenge you again, to put up the logic behind that belief.

You guys have been bashing Pelosi and the democrats like you were republicans. I’m asking:

Why do you want the democrats to let bushCo off the hook for the end result of what is almost certainly coming down the pike in Iraq, at the same time, putting themselves (and us) ON the hook? IF they do it, in 2008, we could lose everything we’ve gained.

I promise you, Karl Rove has wet dreams about having the democratic congress unilaterally force troop withdrawals on george bush, while he and the repubs shreik that what follows is all the democrats’ fault.

If, between now and the 2008 elections, Pelosi and company somehow ram that down bush’s throat, the results in Iraq will be so violent, and so pregnant with more and worse complications, that it will be worth 25 percentage points to the GOP in the elections.

And, PowWow, I’m not asking because I want the troops to STAY. I’m asking because I think the “ending” is going to be so violent and so bad, that if the democrats don’t wait for events and voter-pressure to force the GOP to at least join them in forcing bush to start bringing the troops home (remember, he can do this with the stroke of a pen. No dealing required. No “bipartisanship” needed) thkey will be committing political suicide.

I’m also asking you guys for YOUR post occupation scenarios, because there is not the slightest reason that I see, to believe that the Joint Mesopotamian Chorus of Sunnis and Kurds and Shiites will start singing Beethoven’s “Ode to Kumbayah”, when the troops there now, start leaving, and the lid really comes off the civil war that bush has created.

Question: Do either of you think Iraq is going to stay together if bush doesn’t keep troops there to enforce that totally bogus “unity”?

Please tell me that you don’t believe that. :o)

And if you admit that partition is what’s for dinner, then will you, or anyone else posting here, tell us why you think that what follows a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk and it’s environs, with all those oil reserves, in the north (remember the constitutionally-mandated referendum on that, for later this year?) and the results of this or that militia taking control of the even larger reserves in the south, with all of the economic power that both takeovers will entail, is going to be something that won’t cause HUGE ongoing problems for the region?

I very much want the troops home.

Yesterday.

I wanted them never to be sent, I’ve been fighting the good fight for 4 and a half years, but bush has created the goddamndest Hobbesian La Brea-east imaginable, and the blame for it HAS to go to the republicans, and it WILL go to them…IS going to them…(SEE: the mid-terms) Why in plu-perfect hell should the democrats rescue them from having to take responsiblity for what is nearly certain to happen in post-occupied Iraq?

Unfortunately, it IS a game of chicken, and we have to play it.

Happily, we have much the bigger and meaner truth-bird. Let’s not break his leg before we throw him in the ring. :o)

As ol’ Jerry Lee used to say:

” ‘hink about it…”

Democrats in Congress write an appropriations bill that specifically covers the projected expense of removing all of our troops from Iraq. No timetable. No benchmarks. Just a troop “escrow account” covering the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. A support-the-troops “escrow account” that remains on “standby” until the order is given.

Then, when the next Iraq Occupation funding bill is considered, the “culture of corruption” Republicans cannot claim (though you know they will anyway) that Democrats, in attempting to stop the war by defunding it, are somehow leaving our troops in harms way in Iraq, especially if a deadline is approaching at which time presumably funds will run out, like the scenario that unfolded recently.

No, the Democrats can say. Money has already been appropriated to cover the expense of getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and expeditiously as possible, and if Bush doesn’t sign the future appropriations bill, for whatever reason, then the war in Iraq will end (for U.S. ground forces at least) and the money set aside in this troop “escrow account” can be used to extract them.

Of course, Bush probably will veto this appropriations bill that solely covers the expense of gettng our troops out of Iraq, but I’d love to hear him try to explain how his veto supports the troops, since all thie Democratic-initiated bill does is pay for getting our troops out of Iraq, when that time comes.

Unless, Bush (at least during his last few months in office) has no plans to ever remove our troops from Iraq, and could give a damn about actually supporting our troops, which this Democratic-initiated bill would do.

“so discouraged about the country”. Less than 100 years ago millions died in WWI. At least that many die in 1918 of the Great Influenza. Millions die in WWII. Tens of thousands die in Korea and Vietnam, and you pathetic panti wastes are depressed and discouraged because you can’t bring an end ot the war in Iraq. I hope you yellow bellies never get the full scope of government you want because you couldn’t stomach any real conflict with the Islamo-fascist who want to kill us. Thank god a few blue dogs still see the danger we face.

I’m sorry, but I worry about someone who cannot spell this – panti wastes – correctly. Let alone the inaneness of the logic…..

but

there is one thing they do have they were born with -

voices.

they need to use those voices persistently, daily, to criticize bush and to explain democratic alternatives.

those voices can provide the leverage and the power the democrats now lack, but they have to be raised in protest.

the congressional democrats need to establish a day-by-day commentary to the public (and the media)

with rotating democratic congressmen -

waxman, leahy, conyers, kennedy, nadler, schumer, maybe byrd, et al.

in short, they need to create their own noise machine to counter the msm/republican noise machine that is the only source of information americans hear these days.

the dems need to focus on accurate criticisms of the bush administration’s

and accurate descriptions of democratic alternatives-

none of the evasive, dishonest, partisan rhetoric we get daily now from the white house and the rnc.

by nature, congressional democrats are not to keen on doing a lot of speaking out publicly since that usually just helps bog down legislative negotiations.

but these are unusual times,

and the democrats in congress are the only spokespeople the party (and the american public) have at the present.

the main stream media have abandoned the nation in favor of corporate well-being.

the democrats in congress need to get on this NOW

and

keep at it for the next 1 l/2 years -

each day a press conference.

each day a specific topic

each day a congressman talking about:

- the bush bush admin’s dishonesty in dealing with specific policies or programs in the foreign affairs realm

- the bush admin’s incompetence in carrying out specific policies and programs in the foreign affairs realm

- ditto the admin’s dishonesty or incompetence for policies and programs in domestic affairs.

it astonishes me how oblivious the congressional democrats seem to be about the importance of telling their side of the story.

they need to stop wringing their hands

and start using their voices.

Wordsmith, WADR, if the democrats CAN force troop withdrawals by themselves, without the names of the republicans who have, nearly unanimously, supported the shitmire, they have a TON to lose….If you, or anyone else on here thinks that what is going to follow our withdrawal will be tolerable or explicable, to the world and to american voters; pleaseGod, put up the happy scenario by which this will come to be.

And you’re ‘jumping me’ because – WHY? I don’t know what WADR indicates. Is it an acronym?

This entire fiasco means absolutely NOTHING to many members of Congress. It really is a game of who has the wherewithal to do whatever to prove no point. The insularity of Congress, the White House, those living in D.C. who think ‘the world’ is that place is unbelievable.

Does it matter that Iraqis are suffering? No because if those who are still there had the wherewithal, they’d would probably seek safety elsewhere (perhaps).

So the U.S. should just stay indefinitely because we don’t want to lose power in Congress? We don’t know what will transpire if & when troops are pulled out of Iraq so we can never leave? Yeah, yeah – whatever.