home

Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawal Date


The Times of London reports it has seen a proposed peace plan the Iraqi Government will submit to the U.N., probably this weekend.

The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces. It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of "de-Baathification" and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The amnesty would apply to all but those who killed Iraqi civilians. Meaning, it would apply to those who killed U.S. soldiers -- unless they were members of al-Qaeda or similar "extreme group" considered not to be a legitimate resistance group or otherwise "beyond the pale." What does the Bush Administration think of this? They are divided.

This is very hard for us, particularly at a time when American servicemen are facing prosecution for alleged war crimes -- and others are being captured and tortured," a senior US official said.

With 2,500 US soldiers having died in Iraq, to grant an amnesty would be a "huge political football" before the November mid-term elections in the US, he said. But he added: "This is what we did after the Second World War, after the Civil War, after the War of Independence. It may be unpalatable and unsavoury but it is how wars end."

Whatever it takes, let's get out of there. We didn't belong there in the first instance and any American life that can be saved by not staying a day longer than necessary is worth it. Let them have their country back and let's tend to the problems we have at home. The money this war is costing is obscene. New Orleans is dying and another hurricane and wild fire season is about to begin. Did you see the poverty in Liberty City today? How many other cities are there like that in the U.S.? How many Americans don't have health care? How many millions of Americans have paid a lifetime into social security and are likely to face cuts because of the deficit that will result from this colossal mistake of a preemptive war entered on false assumptions at best and at worst, outright lies?

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home.

< 2nd Cir. Refuses to Require Gov't to Address NSA Surveillance | James Dobson Unmasked >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:01:28 AM EST
    We're too often told by right wing commenters here that there is not enough attention paid to 'good news' developments in Iraq. Well, finally, there is some - the government of Iraq wants the US out of the country, wants to set a timetable to do just that, and wants to do it under UN auspices. It's too bad that so far the only response to this from the bush administration seems to be "this is very hard for us", from an as yet unnamed senior US official. So far bushco has appeared to have no plans to ever leave Iraq, has repeatedly resisted setting a timeline to do so, and has paid the UN only lip service since 2000. It will be interesting to see how their responses will develop over the next few days.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#2)
    by bad Jim on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:41:39 AM EST
    Certainly we can't allow a foreign government to dictate what our troops can do, can we?

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:01:11 AM EST
    Well this is good news indeed. The points cited are all important pieces of any plan with a hope of working. This action should give the present government more legitimacy in the eyes of everyone. Lets all hope this development is successful.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:51:30 AM EST
    Certainly we can't allow a foreign government to dictate what our troops can do, can we? That's not an exact quote, bad Jim, but it's pretty good paraphrasing of the response to G.H.W. Bush's ultimatum to Iraq in 1991 that it must remove it's troops from Kuwait. I didn't know you were such a fan of Saddam Hussein.

    This may be the "standing up" we have been looking for over the far horizon. The murderous factions on all sides do seem to agree on--and base a great deal of their respective appeals on--a desire for an American exit.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:35:12 AM EST
    March 13, 2006 - 'Ask The White House' Ambassador James Jeffrey, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq:
    ...first of all, we do not 'allow' or 'not allow' the Iraqi people to do anything. U.S. and other coalition forces are present in Iraq under a UN mandate passed unanimously by the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, it is the job of the Iraqi government, once it is set up, to decide not only what its policies should be, including the presence of coalition forces, but also what questions to bring directly to the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people's elected leaders decide to have the population vote on this or any other question, they are fully free to do so. And as the President has indicated, if a democratically elected government or the Iraqi people were to ask us to leave, we would do so.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:40:22 AM EST
    too funny by a long stretch. first off, in order to have a "peace plan", it's a basic requirement that all of the engaged parties actually want peace. the only thing that all the parties appear to want is the u.s. out of there. fair enough, and i certainly have no problem with that concept, given that i wasn't all that enthusiastic about them being in there to begin with. that said, once that occurs , the present gov't will be quickly destroyed, by the various organized and highly motivated opposing factions. in short, the country will very quickly devolve into civil war. i don't see this as being particularly fair to the people of iraq, a country we invaded under false pretenses, who's infrastructure we destroyed, and who's safety we're unable, due to lack of sufficient manpower, to guarantee. much like the annual, republican proposed, anti-flag burning and gay marriage constitutional amendments, this is playing to the choir. again, like those hoary chestnuts, it currently stands not a hope in hell of succeeding. just another failure brought to you by bushco, inc.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:00:35 AM EST
    As one who has supported our intervention in Iraq and argued for critics to be patient I also see this as a great development. How can anyone see this as anything but a positive step. The idea all along has been to establish a real democracy. If that democracy wants to set a reasonalbe timeline or exit strategy for US troops, great. Lets hope this is a step in the right direction. I was also glad to see the new prime minister crack down on security in Baghdad this week. Lets hope things get better so we can complete the mission and come home.

    Will the wingnuts say that the Iraqis are cutting and running?

    won't happen, this war is too financially profitable to the republicans

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:15:00 AM EST
    Judging by Slado's remarks, the war side will argue that this is proof that a democratic government exists in Iraq, which was their objective all along, and therefore they can declare the mission a success and catch the first plane home. I have my doubts, though, that the Bush regime will give up those permanent bases so easily.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:35:12 AM EST
    oddly enough, i recall the purpose of this war was to stop saddam from using those WMD's on, i think, manhattan. bringing democracy to iraq was perhaps 8th or 9th on the list of reasons, after the first ones didn't pan out. slado, do they allow you to use sharp instruments in the home?

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:38:25 AM EST
    WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, but Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq
    Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces, Including 9 Out of 10 Sunnis Full Report (.pdf) Questionnaire/Methodology (.pdf) Asked whether "the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq or to remove all its military forces once Iraq is stabilized," 80% overall assume that the US plans to remain permanently, including 79% of Shia, 92% of Sunnis and 67% of Kurds. Only small minorities believe that the US plans "to remove all its military forces once Iraq is stabilized" (overall 18%, Shia 21%, Sunni 7%, Kurds 28%). Iraqis of all ethnic groups also agree that the US is unlikely to take direction from the Iraqi government. Asked what they think the US would do if the new government were to ask the US to withdraw its forces within six months, 76% overall assume that the US would refuse to do so (Shia 67%, Sunni 94%, Kurds 77%). Support for Timetable: Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces.


    the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq You can stop reading right there. No way we're leaving Irag. More likely, this statement will become so heavily conditionalized as to be meaningless.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    cpinva, you're right about bushco's stated purpose for attacking Iraq having nothing to do with establishing a democracy and Slado is mistaken on that point. But I'm also glad to see that, unlike at least so far the trolls who usually wait for someone like Hinderaker or O'reilly or Limbaugh to tell them what they think, Slado has at least stepped up to the plate with his own comment that "I also see this as a great development. How can anyone see this as anything but a positive step."

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:26:19 AM EST
    Et al - Seems like a positive step. I don't see a political problem for the Repubs. All they have to do is say, see: They have had three elections, established a government and are now taking control of their security, something the Demos have been screaming about, and something we have said is necessary for us to leave. I mean, wasn't it Senator Kerry who was complaining about how long it takes to train Iraqi soldiers? Ask and you shall receive. The lack of 100% amnesty may prove a stumbling block, given that amnesty removes one of the reasons for the terrorists to attempt to interrupt the time line. And the problem of them just laying low and then starting back, exists, but they will exist no matter what. From a personal view I would extend amnesty to everyone, even though I am not happy with the thought. Said amnesty would not apply to al-Qaeda. The deal would be simple... to the Iraqis... Get rid of al-Qaeda/all terror groups, come in from the cold and live a long life. Stay out and die. And it would also extend to coalition forces. After all, amnesty is amnesty. Another plus is that it frees up our forces. That, and the airbases many here have complained about, give us a secure forward base to bomb Iran when needed. Note the "when." There is no "if." cpinva - You are correct. Bush wanted to invade Iraq primarily because he believed that Iraq under Saddam represented a threat to the US mainland. There were several secondary reasons, chief among them was that by turning Iraq into a democracy, the nesting place for terrorists would be destroyed, and further pressure would be put on the various dictators and religious nuts in the ME. The question that is never asked is this. Given NO 20-20 hindsight, and given the intelligence Bush had available, would you, as President sworn to protect, decided that you could trust Saddam to not use WMD's, to not cut deals with terrorists, to not attack the US? And if that would have been your decision, what would you have based your decision on? Remember. No hindsight allowed.

    The Worst War Profiteers of 2004. As long as these companies are making tons of money in Iraq, our troops ain't going anywhere, no matter what any "democratically elected" government in Iraq wants. Speaking of democracy, why can't the people in this country vote on a referendum setting a timetable for us to get our troops outta there?

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:35:10 AM EST
    Jim, Saddam Hussein was concerned about one thing: himself. And keeping himself in power. He ASKED us if he could invade Kuwait, for heaven's sake. If we'd have focused our efforts on the real problem -- AQ IN AFHGANISTAN!! -- then I might be able to tolerate talk of spreading democracy. We're out to spread OUR INFLUENCE, first and foremost. If Iraq became a theocracy that signed a treaty never to attack us, and to allow us bases there, and any number of other perks...we wouldn't care a white that they were a theocracy. When the Taliban were only abusing their own people we didn't care. Only when they became a problem to us did we life and eyebrow and express concern for freedom or democracy or any of that.

    PPJ:
    ...would you, as President sworn to protect, decided...
    Hey, let's check with the Decider himself about finding Bin Laden: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." This was from March, 2002, six months after the attacks. The focus was already on Saddam. Bin Laden was not nearly as important according to the Decider. Seems to me that we need a Decider capable of making better decisions.

    this war is not a war but a setup job.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    Ernesto - Because we are a constitutional republic and we have one every two, four and six years that effect various officals. Posted by kirkaracha - Oh, really? And were is your proof? Be specific please. Ernesto - And what does OBL have to do with my question? Dadler - I've never seen any proof that we gave him permission. Confusion and bad performance by the DOS perhaps, but not permission.
    Only when they became a problem to us did we life and eyebrow and express concern for freedom or democracy or any of that
    Well, yes and no. Clinton pretty well ignored the problem for quite a while, and then decided that he should bomb Iraq during his impeachment trial. Some made claims that he was just trying to defocus us, but I choose to give him a pass. But he essentially did nothing about al-Qaeda, including not arresting OBL when he could have, missing a chance to kill him due to quibbling. Bush made an early on decision, probably triggered by the USS Cole attack and intelligence of planned attacks in the US, to go after al-Qaeda. And don't misunderstand. The spread of a democracy strategy is just that. A strategy based on the fact that democracies are, more or less, better players than non-democracies. So, as I have posted before, I am not for "wars of liberation." I though Kosovo was Europe's problem and told my US congressmen to keep us out. Then Clinton went in unilaterally, and I think we are still there. The difference between me and the Left is that after the troops went in, I shut up and supported them 100%.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    Jim, Clinton went into Bosnia with a UN mandate. Gimme a break, ask Richard Clarke how concerned and involved Clinton was in the AQ issue on a daily basis, and how Bush wasn't. They told the Bush administration coming in that AQ was the biggest threat. And Clinton was never offered bin Laden, that's been so debunked for so long it's Cheney-like to keep bringing it up. That's just not serious commentary. We're in IRAQ, which HAD NOTHING to do with AQ. The problem was AQ in Afhghanistan, they were told and told again. But they ignored it to fulfill their deluded wet dreams in Iraq. And the Bush administration CHANGED Clinton policy by getting chummy with the Taliban thugs in the months leading up to 9/11 -- unlike the UN which, on our lead, was sanctioning them for NOT turning over bin Laden. I can fault Clinton until the cows come home about a lot of things, but he is LONG GONE and Bush has this on HIS WATCH, no one else's. And hey, some pretty credible people think BUSH had a chance to get bin Laden and chose not to.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:37:45 PM EST
    The question that is never asked is this. Given NO 20-20 hindsight, and given the intelligence Bush had available, would you, as President sworn to protect, decided that you could trust Saddam to not use WMD's, to not cut deals with terrorists, to not attack the US? Since I was saying BEFORE the invasion that Bush was lying about the WMD and Saddam's ability to mount an attack on US soil, and since all of my predictions, including an ongoing, undefeatable insurgency, have proven to be far more accurate than the president's, DAMN RIGHT I would have trusted Hans Blix and Scot Ritter to do their jobs, since there is no evidence that they had failed at doing what they were paid to do. The hundreds of billions of dollars I would have saved would have built a hospital and school in every county in the United States, our international standing would not have been ruined, and our president would not be regarded by the rest of the world as a baby with a gun, i.e. dangerous and not subject to reason. I didn't go with my "gut." I actually thought about this stuff, noted the bogusness of Mr. Bush's claims, and did everything I could do to prevent this insanity, so yes, I made my statement BEFORE THE WAR and I don't need hindsight to be part of the MAJORITY of Americans who now agree with my position, even if they didn't earlier. BTW and since you asked, it was the invasion of Iraq that swung me to the liberal blogs as a primary source of news and analysis, since they (Markos and Atrios primarily) were consistently more correct about these events and their consequences than any other source. Who wouldn't pay attention to the guys whose predictions are the most accurate? Okay, I'll give you George W. Bush on that one. I didn't leave the conservative blogs. By being so consistently wrong about, you know, everything, they left me.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    I didn't leave the conservative blogs. By being so consistently wrong about, you know, everything, they left me.
    well gee, guy, at least give them credit for being, well, um, consistently wrong. there's something to be said for that. i'm not sure what, exactly, but something.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    What many on this thread proove is that some critics are incapable of having a real opinion about Iraq. Instead of recognizing when something good happens they frame their complaints around untruths and exagerations as a way to justify their inability to admit that progress is being made. However slowly. First of all withdrawing all our troops from Iraq isn't going to happen. Come on guys and gals, lets not kid ourselves. There are still troops in Korea, Okinawa and Germany for goodness sakes. We'll be in Iraq forever but operating on a military base with four walls and actually patrolling the streets are two different matters. If the Iraqi's step up, take the lead, ammend the constitution and we withraw most of our troops then we win. All the naysayers won't be happy anyway because they're still trying to win an argument they lost in 2003. FYI if you want to learn about the links between AQ and Saddam read the weekly standard.

    The question is whether the insurgent groups will accept the government's proposals. This is unlikely, unless the constitution that sells off Iraq's resources is rescinded. So the real question is whether the government of Iraq is willing to negotiate on these terms. That is unlikely, so there is really no hope for these proposals.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    Slado, We don't "win" anything. It all depends on what the Iraqis feel they got. And right now, how is that possibly a positive vote? Can you at least admit this MIGHT indicate the Iraqis feel we are a significant part OF the problem? And what if the Iraqi people DON'T want our bases there period? Which you have to admit is a pretty compelling posibility.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    I really shouldn't have to be posting this, but continual repeated strawmen topic diverting posts regarding intelligence Bush had available prior to his invasion of Iraq are simply that, strawmen, that have been debunked to death. Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims
    (CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller -- a 26-year veteran of the agency -- has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out. He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not. "It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. It's an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley. Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn't: "The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.
    btw, uing the words bush and intelligence in the same sentence is oxymoronic.

    Dadler probably coined a new term with "Cheney-like." We all know what it means. "FoxNews is so cheney." "That spin is so cheney." "Why do politicians think we are so stupid when they cheney us?" Orwellian was kind of out of date anyway.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    Prozac: Orwellian was kind of out of date anyway. Yeah, cheney and bush represent the future anyway...

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#33)
    by Al on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    PPJ, let's assume Bush was told by his people that they suspected Saddam Hussein had, let's say, a nuclear weapons program. Why would Bush not have asked any questions? What weapons does he have? Where are they? What can they do? How can he deliver them? If not now, when? Do we have photographs? Have the Iraqis conducted any tests? How do we counter them? Can we attack the locations where they have these weapons? These are the questions that come to mind when we hear talk of other countries that are perceived as a threat, like Iran or North Korea. So why did Bush and Rumsfeld and Powell and all the rest of them swear up and down that Saddam Hussein had these weapons if they didn't ask any questions? Why was Rice talking about mushroom clouds? Because if they had asked, they would not have received any answers, for the simple reason that the weapons did not, as we know, in fact exist. So why did they swear that the weapons did exist? And Powell, a military man? He didn't think to ask any questions? Give me a break. This notion that they were misled by the CIA is a complete crock, and we all know it. It's a lie, to satisfy simple-minded, uncritical people who would never think of these questions on their own. It was perfectly to everyone with half a brain that even as the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction and not finding anything, that the invasion of Iraq had already been determined and preparations were well under way.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#35)
    by John Mann on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    Dadler - I've never seen any proof that we gave him permission. Confusion and bad performance by the DOS perhaps, but not permission.
    Read this, Jim. I know, I know - you're going to say that the U.S. didn't actually say, "OK Saddam; you have our permission" - but this transcript doesn't require a lot of interpretation. Its implications are perfectly clear.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    The US backed Iraqi government, a national government that meets in the United States Green Zone behind walls, barbed wire, and a cordon of U.S. troops, says it wants a timetable for withdrawal of US forces, possibly providing Bush with a way to appear to extract from the mess he's made of Iraq and try to save face at the same time? And leaving behind at least 14 permanent bases now under construction across Iraq by Halliburton, Bechtel and other war profiteers. 14 Saudi prisoners are sent home from Guantanamo Bay, and all media is banned from Guantanamo Bay, except Fox News? Bush tells the EU summit in Vienna that he wants to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay? Iraq and the November Elections:
    The biggest problem says Karl Rove, the President's political guru, is that "People like this president. They're just sour right now on the war." Rove may be significantly low-balling the damage the past 18 months have done to Bush's personal ratings, but the GOP is mobilizing on the basis of Rove's analysis. Those of us who remember the Vietnam War understand that peace breaks out just before every election. And we are seeing the signs right now.
    Karl, the biggest problem is not that people like this president. You and this president and this administration and US Foreign Policy are the biggest problems. See you in November, buddy.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:11:46 PM EST
    leaving behind at least 14 permanent bases now under construction across Iraq by Halliburton, Bechtel and other war profiteers. Why the United States Invaded Iraq and is Now Thinking About Invading Iran:
    Currently over 60% of the world's oil reserves are in Middle East. Four countries in the region, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait have over half of the world's proven oil reserves. ...the fact is that in 15 years the North American and Asia Pacific oil reserves will be depleted. This will represent a marked reduction in oil supplies worldwide. In other words, within 15 years, if we do not increase oil production drastically in the Middle East and elsewhere, the world will face tremendous oil shortages.


    It wasn't just the oil. The goal was an entire neocon utopia. Baghdad Year Zero
    The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists. Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself. The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:41:38 PM EST
    Read this, Jim.
    Yeah, good luck with that.
    FYI if you want to learn about the links between AQ and Saddam read the weekly standard.
    your fearful leader bush said there's no connection. why do you hate america?

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    And then there is this:
    The US DoE report shows that at today's prices Venezuela's oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq. The US DoE also identifies Canada as another future oil superpower. Venezuela's deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years. The US DoE estimates that Chavez controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil - more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet. Hugo Chavez told Newsnight's Greg Palast that "Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. In the future Venezuela won't have any more oil - but that's in the 22nd century. Venezuela has oil for 200 years." Chavez will ask the OPEC meeting in June to formally accept that Venezuela's reserves are now bigger than Saudi Arabia's.
    bbc Wonder if the threat of socialists controling their oil can get the wingnuts to consider conservation.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:06:43 PM EST
    Prozac - Thanks for the Harpers link. Quite an eye opening article. The Neocons 'greed is good' philosophy seem to have become their undoing - unfortunately at the expense of 2-3,000 Americans and 250-500K Iraqis, and perhaps of the existence of the US in the political form conceived by the founders, and of the world over the next 50 or so years...
    The great historical irony of the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq is that the shock-therapy reforms that were supposed to create an economic boom that would rebuild the country have instead fueled a resistance that ultimately made reconstruction impossible. Bremer's reforms unleashed forces that the neocons neither predicted nor could hope to control, from armed insurrections inside factories to tens of thousands of unemployed young men arming themselves. These forces have transformed Year Zero in Iraq into the mirror opposite of what the neocons envisioned: not a corporate utopia but a ghoulish dystopia, where going to a simple business meeting can get you lynched, burned alive, or beheaded. These dangers are so great that in Iraq global capitalism has retreated, at least for now. For the neocons, this must be a shocking development: their ideological belief in greed turns out to be stronger than greed itself.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    Jeralyn said it best in the last two parapraphs of her post:
    Whatever it takes, let's get out of there. ...this colossal mistake of a preemptive war entered on false assumptions at best and at worst, outright lies? The best way to support our troops is to bring them home.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    erm... 'paragraphs'

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    Squeaky - Chavez must be hiding wmd's in those mountains, and I don't care what kind of 'faulty' intelligence the CIA has... 8-/

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    Creating the Inevitable The CIA visits Iraq in April 2002
    One former officer described how in April of 2002, nearly a year before the invasion, the CIA sent a special unit of eight men to "set up shop" in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. The team had no support from the Pentagon and was told that if it got into trouble, team members would have to get out on their own. At the start the team had fixed communications "windows" when it made contact with Washington, but otherwise operated with little input from CIA headquarters. "[They] had an enormous amount of autonomy," this officer said. One of the team's chief goals was to develop a network of intelligence sources that could support the invasion and, afterwards, the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The team started its efforts with the Kurds. "The key thing was credibility," said this person. "We had to get them . . . fully committed by convincing them that this time we were serious, [that] we would finish it and get rid of Saddam."


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    abi: No way we're leaving Irag. It may be that we are leaving and not leaving, at the same time. Bushco may have realized finally that they've f*cked up and broken Iraq beyond repair and they now want out. So they arrange for their puppet government to demand timetables with UN backing, so that bush can say 'they asked us to leave, and I've said I would if they asked us to'. But we'll leave 14 bases behind and never really leave... Now that they've used Iraq as their practice bag maybe they think they'll be able to get it right in Iran? :-/

    PPJ
    Ernesto - And what does OBL have to do with my question?
    Your question was based on the premise that Bush wanted to invade Iraq to "protect" us. Obviously, if the guy loses interest in finding OBL so quick, then that premise is rather questionable, no?

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:05:38 PM EST
    June 24, 2006, 7:13 PM NEW YORK (Reuters)
    The top U.S. commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects steep reductions in the U.S. military presence there by the end of 2007, The New York Times reported on Saturday. ... According to the newspaper, the plan envisions the first reductions coming in September, ahead of November's U.S. midterm elections, with two of the 14 combat brigades there being rotated out of Iraq without being replaced.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#50)
    by aw on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:16:27 AM EST
    PPJ: Why do you love when your government lies to you?

    edger, Thanks for the Harpers link. Quite an eye opening article. The Neocons 'greed is good' philosophy seem to have become their undoing - unfortunately at the expense of 2-3,000 Americans and 250-500K Iraqis, and perhaps of the existence of the US in the political form conceived by the founders, and of the world over the next 50 or so years...
    That's ok, as long as it's not communism that destroys the world. WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    Clinton pretty well ignored the problem for quite a while, and then decided that he should bomb Iraq during his impeachment trial. Some made claims that he was just trying to defocus us, but I choose to give him a pass.
    Really!? I think you are mistaken ... let's go to the tape:
    Better yet, how many people were killed when he played wag the dog and attacked an asprin factory? And on the day of his impeachment no less.
    Oh he did bomb Iraq a few times, blasted a couple of cruise missiles at OBL everytime he thought he was in trouble and about to be impeached.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    Typical.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    He also voted for Bush "because of the war" and turned against the Dems when "the anti-war Left" took over and made people like Lieberman unwelcome in 2001 or 1968.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    RePack - Glad to know you trust Ritter. in 9/02 he said:
    In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind? I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.
    Now two points. First as President, what do you make of the "I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!" comment? He then follows with some qualifications that would have allowed him to slip through the cracks either way. Link And, the Inspectors went back in and Saddam was given X amount of time to demonstrate and all he did was demonstrate that he was not forth coming. But you, as President would have gambled on the honesty of Saddam, in spite of all of that had happened and all of the "intelligence" available to you. Wow. Of course the clincher was:
    Question: Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left? I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today.


    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    Here an interesting comment from one of Josh Marshall's readers regarding the politics of troop withdrawl. I agree 100% that the dems need to demand immediate troop withdrawl. The repugs have troop withdrawl planned for Sept and will take credit if the dems don't make an issue for immediate wirthdtawl.

    PPJ...we would be much more impressed if you could find Ritter saying that the solution to the problem was to invade Iraq.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#58)
    by Al on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:46:59 AM EST
    PPJ, the time for you to quarrel with Ritter has long since passed. There are no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, and there weren't any for many years before Bush decided to invade. Everybody knows this. The occupation of Iraq has failed. Everybody knows this too. The President of Iraq seems to think the time has come to negotiate terms for ceasing the hostilities, and he's probably right. Whether the parties agree remains to be seen.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:45:31 AM EST
    ppj, you've already been caught prevaricating on this thread, trying to go for 3?
    and all he did was demonstrate that he was not forth coming.
    uhh, bush kicked the inspectors out before they could complete their work. And why do you keep quoting ritter's preliminary conclusions and not his final analysis? Ritter, unlike you, is capable of changing his mind when new facts are presented. Ritter:
    We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance
    there, see how easy that was.

    Re: Iraq to Submit Peace Plan with Troop Withdrawa (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:28:28 AM EST
    FYI if you want to learn about the links between AQ and Saddam read the weekly standard
    Slado and Jim, I have been busy for the last week reading the interviews from the frontline special. Some very interesting stuff and good information regarding the lead up to the war on Iraq. There is a lot of information covered and each interview is lengthy and extensive. It is worht reading the interviews, because you can do the analysis and come to your own conclusions. Anyway, in regards to the Weekly Standard, Saddam, and AQ, CIA analyst Paul Pillar has this to say.
    This has come out of things like articles in The Weekly Standard and so on. It's basically laundry lists of raw reporting in which if you make certain inferences. There's some kind of connection. There was a phone call made, or there was a meeting held. Indeed, there were some meetings held back early in the 1990s between individuals associated with the Saddam regime [and] individuals associated with Al Qaeda. They were mainly in the nature of feeling each other out, certainly nothing that came close to an alliance or a sponsorship or cooperative relationship. But in the world of international terrorism, ... it's possible to link just about anyone to just about anyone else. If you dig hard enough for enough circumstantial reporting, meetings, phone calls, names that come up in the same breath, travel to the same place at about the same time, you and I could be seen to have a relationship, probably, if someone worked hard enough at linking us through such things like that. That's very different from forming an analytic judgment about what is the nature of the relationship we had. ... It becomes very easy to use raw reporting to try to make the case that there is a substantial relationship, losing sight of the fact that relationships can be ones of suspicion or even competition, as well as ones of cooperation. In the case of the one we're talking about, Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, [it] was more the former: suspicion of feeling each other out.