Exceptional NYTimes article - "Taking stock of the Forever War"

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11OSAMA.html?ex=1126584000&en=aafb41666d3b55af&ei=5070[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11OSAMA.html?ex=1126584000&en=aafb41666d3b55af&ei=5070&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is a thorough article written by a UC Berkeley/Bard College professor and appropriate for the anniversary of 9/11. It is long, well written and provides an interesting overview of the history of conflicts in the mideast - how we are inextricably linked as well as the consequences of our policy making and this administration’s reaction to 9/11. </p>

<p>And before making comments I recommend actually reading the article.</p>

2

<p>I liked the firm stand the writer takes on solutions. Oh wait, he did not have any.</p>

3

<p>Similar to what Thomas Friedman said before the invasion. If we don’t win the war clearly and decisively, we will be in the same poistion as Israel; ie having won the six day war… fighting the seventh day forever after.</p>

4

<p>Solution, the President doesn’t have solution…pointing out a mess created by the Administration who, by the way, should have the solutions…</p>

<p>Barrons, what soultion or ending do you invision, what is the outcome of this war that you want or hope to see</p>

5

<p>So what is your solution, citygirlsmom?</p>

6

<p>I don’t have one, and its not my job, but this mess we are in, well, the people that put us there have no answers</p>

<p>I never said I had the answers, but Barrons seems to think that anyone critisizing this war should have solutions. While our own Government does not</p>

<p>I would never have gotten us into this mess in the first place</p>

<p>How to solve this nightmare, </p>

<p>A couple of things</p>

<p>First the Truth about why we are there
Second, the truth of what is happening
Third, who is there- from Halliburton to Blackwater
Fourth, how much are those companies making for Patriotism
Fifth, admit, for once, what this war is, so at least the cards are on the table, admit we have private military there, admit who “contractors” are, admit the carnage of did Iraqi citizens, admit the illnesses of our soilders, admit the difficulties recruiting, admit the shortage of soilders, admit the use of National Guards and Reserves (while they are good people and doing their best) was not an honest way to go to war</p>

<p>Once we have honesty from this government, then maybe, we could come up with solutions</p>

<p>But since even our government doesn’t have a goal in the War on Terror, or what victory would be, I would like those that support it to tell me what they think victory is or what an end to it the endplan is.</p>

7

<p>Here is an excerpt:
"As the Iraq war grows increasingly unpopular in the United States - scarcely a third of Americans now approve of the president’s handling of the war, and 4 in 10 think it was worth fighting - and as more and more American leaders demand that the administration “start figuring out how we get out of there” (in the words of Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican), Americans confront a stark choice: whether to go on indefinitely fighting a politically self-destructive counterinsurgency war that keeps the jihadists increasingly well supplied with volunteers or to withdraw from a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq that remains chaotic and unstable and beset with civil strife and thereby hand Al Qaeda and its allies a major victory in the war on terror’s “central front.” </p>

<p>Four years after we watched the towers fall, Americans have not succeeded in “ridding the world of evil.” We have managed to show ourselves, our friends and most of all our enemies the limits of American power. Instead of fighting the real war that was thrust upon us on that incomprehensible morning four years ago, we stubbornly insisted on fighting a war of the imagination, an ideological struggle that we defined not by frankly appraising the real enemy before us but by focusing on the mirror of our own obsessions. And we have finished - as the escalating numbers of terrorist attacks, the grinding Iraq insurgency, the overstretched American military and the increasing political dissatisfaction at home show - by fighting precisely the kind of war they wanted us to fight."</p>

<p>The author doesn’t propose a solution… He is just laying out the facts and taking a critical look at what has gone wrong. That’s what journalists are supposed to do.</p>

<p>Admitting failure is step #1 in figuring out what to do and that won’t happen as long as Bush supporters and Republicans stand by their man. The rest is difficult and demands attention, thought and the ability to look beyond short term political gain -something Bush is lacking as a leader.</p>

<p>The article has a thorough history lesson explaining the origins of Al Quaeda and how it has changed since the war in Iraq - enough so that it should give pause to anyone who thinks “we have to fight the war over there so we won’t fight it here”</p>

8

<p>Right now my solution is to support the creation of a new government in Iraq to the extent possible. I happen to think partition is not a bad idea either as Iraq is an atificial construct of a country. </p>

<p>Clinton was just as likely to hire Halliburton as anyone. Few firms in the world can do what they can. They are not making big $$$ in Iraq. It has been a drag on earnings.</p>

9

<p>“First the Truth about why we are there
Second, the truth of what is happening
Third, who is there- from Halliburton to Blackwater
Fourth, how much are those companies making for Patriotism”</p>

<p>CGM, would you feel BETTER if the government told you we want to Iraq to secure our supplies of oil for the next 30 years? For one, it would make the french “titis” say " I told you so". </p>

<p>You simply spew criticism after criticsm without EVER acknowledging the replies you receive, especially when the data does not support your mostly unverifiable positions. </p>

<p>So, what is the big deal about Halliburton? It is easier to write hollow criticism than actually do some reading about the company. Halliburton does NOT need the work in Iraq. Their KBR division is DRAGGING down the profit margins of their other divisions. Of course, to figure than one out, you’d need to venture away from the moronic blogs you so favor. By the way, didn’t your own prodigal son (Bill Clinton) also use Halliburton for pursuing that “crucial deflecting” mission in the Balkans? Oops, I forget the issue was forced upon him by a corrupt Pentagon. So, CGM, why did we REALLY go play in the Balkans? To enrich Halliburton and help them spruce up their books? Maybe, Bill wanted a Chrismas card from someone in Dallas. </p>

<p>So, what about Blackwater? Would you like to do the job of that company. You cannot focus on the fact that they are paid to do a job without acknowledging that our military has been unwilling or unable to perform the job on its own. </p>

<p>You cry about the oil prices and criticize the President for failing to deliver gasoline at a price YOU like. So, what if we went into Iraq to get THEIR cheap oil?</p>

10

<p>Yes. I would, at least it would be honest</p>

<p>And only after we have a disastor does Bush say “gee concerve”</p>

<p>Not that they were unwilling or unable, you have so little respect for our military, it was that Blackwater employees do jobs that morally our soldiers will not do.</p>

<p>About Halliburton, they are profitting from war. Simple as that. They could to the work and not make obscene profits. I don’t see any evidence of patrotism with what they do. </p>

<p>IF they had said, we are going to war to get oil, do you think our allies would have joined the so called coalition. If we had gone to war for oil. </p>

<p>My facts are accurate, and if you look at the polls, many people agree.</p>

<p>But keep deluding yourselves. </p>

<p>So, is our NOBLE CAUSE oil? Did peoples sons and daughters die for oil? </p>

<p>My moronic blogs…at least I look for facts. </p>

<p>Oh, weren’t their some people here who told me that I was mistaken when I talked about mercenaries? Yeah, I remember.</p>

<p>Did I whine about oil prices? When prices are artificually inflated for profit during war and disastor, I am angry. Its called profiteering.</p>

<p>And its unpatotic, Its greed.</p>

<p>But if you choose to believe all your moronic blogs. Feel free. This is America after all.</p>

11

<p>The “solution” for the situation we’ve created in Iraq is the same as the “solution” for the situation we got ourselves into in Vietnam.</p>

12

<p>Xiggi, I have noticed that arguments often go through phases, two of them I see here, deny what an opponent is saying until it becomes undeniable… then say…so what, of course that is why we are there.</p>

<p>In this democracy, the citizens and their elected officials should know why we are doing something. There are some of us who will voluntarilly ride a bike or drive a smaller car before we support sending family and neighbors into war for oil. It might be uncomfortable for some, but reducing or restricting the use of petroleum driven recreational vehicles could be tried before we took parents from their young children.</p>

<p>Our foray into Iraq drew us away from Afghanistan, lost us respect in the world and introduced a major recruitment tool for our enemies and drew needed emergency equipment and personnel from our home states so they would not be available during a predicted crises.</p>

<p>I acknowledge I have never trusted George W. Bush, I don’t think he has ever been up to the job…That opinion has not always been as acceptable as it is today…I think a politician who tricks people into supporting him, regardless of party, is doing an injustice to the country. I realize that it is part of how politics operates but it doesn’t make it acceptable, it is one of the reasons I left the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan won so many years ago.</p>

<p>So now that it is out, that this war is about oil…lets see if there are alternatives and let us work together to find ways to resolve the division that has worsened under this man who once claimed to be “a uniter not a divider.”</p>

13

<p>“CGM, would you feel BETTER if the government told you we want to Iraq to secure our supplies of oil for the next 30 years?”</p>

<p>Paul Wolfowitz was very clear and public about why the war was being fought: control of pipelines, not just in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East; and the need for permanent U.S. military bases in the Gulf, outside of Saudi Arabia. He is a brutally honest man, and always has been. Rumsfeld added to the set of goals in stating publicly that the U.S. occupation of Iraq would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. They DID tell us that.</p>

<p>Under Wolfowitz’s assumptions, the goal has never been to leave Iraq. On the contrary, the need is to create the political conditions where U.S. troops can stay permanently, preferably without being under constant attack, and again, paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. </p>

<p>So why would you ever set a timetable to get out if the ultimate goal is stay in?</p>

<p>Xiggi - on one point, your economics need more nuance. Corporate enterprise is not always about profit margins, but often about “throughput”. The size of a company, and its global reach, increases the worth of a company, even if its net profit margins decline. The idea is to always be bigger than the competition, with the idea of eventually gobbling them up. That’s why so many companies show little in the way of net “profit”, and plow “margin” back into operations.</p>

14

<p>“Not that they were unwilling or unable, you have so little respect for our military, it was that Blackwater employees do jobs that morally our soldiers will not do.”</p>

<p>I have the greatest respect for our military. Do you?</p>

<p>“About Halliburton, they are profitting from war. Simple as that. They could to the work and not make obscene profits. I don’t see any evidence of patrotism with what they do.”</p>

<p>For the nth time, your argument is pure horse manure. The profits margins of KBR in Iraq are indeed obscene … but obscenely dismal. Operating margins of between 1% are 4% are well below the profits reaped by Halliburton in their other ventures. Not seeing the patriotism of providing the services in hostile areas at the risk of the lives of their employees is a matter of who does the “looking”. Political blinders come to mind!</p>

<p>“IF they had said, we are going to war to get oil, do you think our allies would have joined the so called coalition. If we had gone to war for oil.” </p>

<p>Most of our “friends” and so called “allies” obvioulsy preferred to purchase oil from Iraq and benefit from the corrupt practices in place. </p>

<p>“My facts are accurate, and if you look at the polls, many people agree.”</p>

<p>Your “facts”? Allow me to laugh at that comment. I could go back to your latest 100 posts and have a really hard tome to find any correct facts. In the past weeks, your information about the levees, the budgets, the Corps of Engineers were abjectly tinted. Your facts are almost always copy/paste jobs of dubious sources -which I doubt you even read before posting. </p>

<p>“My moronic blogs…at least I look for facts.” </p>

<p>Even if a bling hod finds an occasional acorn, you’re not so lucky. </p>

<p>“But if you choose to believe all your moronic blogs. Feel free. This is America after all.” </p>

<p>I only read blogs when someone links to one. Blogs are not considered credible evidence on CC - and for valid reasons. Any lunatic with a 400 dollars computer is now becoming an expert as long as he or she can hit the kevboard. The more red meat one tosses to his blind followers, the better seems to be the motto. Repeating the same lies ad nauseam does not make it the truth.</p>

15

<p>Mini, I understand your point. However, it is noteworthy to mention that Halliburton will punt its KBR unit as soon as it can emerge out its bankruptcy and be able to survive by itself. The acquisition of Dresser Industries had turned out to be a gigantic nightmare. Halliburton will be much better off without the KBR division, regardless of the value of its business in Iraq. </p>

<p>The issue that is debated herein is profiteering and cronyism.</p>

16

<p>“Xiggi, I have noticed that arguments often go through phases, two of them I see here, deny what an opponent is saying until it becomes undeniable… then say…so what, of course that is why we are there.”</p>

<p>Is that what I was doing? I have posted about our presence in Iraq in the past, and my position is still the same: the jury is still out about the long term benefits of our actions. In the end, all the sacrifices might very well be worth the ultimate gains in the area.</p>

17

<p>Mini said, “Paul Wolfowitz was very clear and public about why the war was being fought: control of pipelines, not just in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East; and the need for permanent U.S. military bases in the Gulf, outside of Saudi Arabia. He is a brutally honest man, and always has been. Rumsfeld added to the set of goals in stating publicly that the U.S. occupation of Iraq would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. They DID tell us that.”</p>

<p>Mini, I don’t doubt that Wolfowitz said all that , but he’s not exactly a visible spokesperson for the Bush administration. If that was a rational, it wasn’t communicated as a primary one. If that had been stated as the primary goal of war, there would have been a more concerted effort to oppose it.</p>

18

<p>It was stated in June, four months after the invasion. He doesn’t lie - never has (I knew him in graduate school) - and is brutal with the truth. The fact that he wasn’t a spokesman makes him all the more credible.</p>