The U.S. can’t bind Iraq together

In a gambit designed to make him appear a strong leader of a proud nation — in advance of a national election, of course — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered some security measures put in place earlier to be discontinued. In particular, he ordered some roads in Baghdad re-opened to vehicle traffic and security barriers discarded.

The street where the blasts occurred had been reopened to vehicle traffic just six months ago. Shortly after, blast walls were repositioned to allow traffic closer to the government buildings — all measures hailed by al-Maliki as a sign that safety was returning to the city.

Helpless civilians have paid for that, as the death toll from two huge blasts yesterday continues to rise.

As the floodwater from broken water mains and sewers drained away, workers continued to hunt for victims amid the wreckage from Sunday’s bomb blasts, recovering still more bodies on Monday as the death toll climbed to as much as 155 — including an uncertain number of children — with more than 500 wounded.
The extent of the damage was even worse than initially feared, with three major government buildings destroyed rather than the two reported in the hours after Sunday’s pair of suicide vehicle bombs.

This tragedy is likely to be followed by calls from U.S. neo-calls for President Obama to delay pulling U.S. troops of of Iraq, even as those same neo-cons demand Obama send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. No. The U.S. should never have invaded Iraq; and we certainly shouldn’t be in the middle of sectarian warfare.
Besides, the Iraqis have asked us to leave. We should, sooner rather than later.

T

32 comments Add your comment

mike

October 26th, 2009
3:53 pm

Hmm. So Tucker criticizes Malaki for relaxing security and her solution is for us to pull our troops out.

Makes sense.

jconservative

October 26th, 2009
4:21 pm

The US is bound by a treaty Bush signed that requires US troops to be out by a date certain. There is nothing to discuss.

If Maliki wants to re-neogiate the treaty all he has to do is call the US Anbassador & tell him. But he will not do so. National partisan politics in Iraq.

Commom Sense

October 26th, 2009
5:34 pm

Heck, the U.S. can’t even bind the U.S. together. Oh, perfidious nation.

letroy williams

October 26th, 2009
6:33 pm

These kinds of tragedies will continue regardless if we stay or leave, we cannot afford to have military troops on two fronts. We should stay with time table and leave Iraq.

Common Sense

October 26th, 2009
8:31 pm

From one of the best books on the Vietnam debacle ever written:

“I have the sense from time to time that I am not alone, and I suspect that despite the limited understanding we have of events in distant places, there will always be those among us who have the gleam of the quest in their eyes. They are people of every sex and station and they yearn to be challenged to a cause. They will always be looking for that wrong to right, that ill to cure, that song to sing; and there will always be those who will go to arms in aid of the helpless and the downtrodden. Ignoring the political issues of the moment, these people will champion the weak and the poor in the face of evil and tyranny. And no matter what the outcome, in their romantic hearts they will always keep the secret, if secret it must be, that they are better men for having held the lamp beside the golden door”. David Donovan “Once a Warrior King”

TnGelding

October 26th, 2009
8:40 pm

That’s why it was foolhearty to introduce troops in the first place, unless the U.S. was prepared to stay forever. Apparently Bush was. The country was already divided into three zones. It should have been kept that way by decree.

Political Mongrel

October 26th, 2009
9:37 pm

The Iraquis have to make their own bed and they have to lie in it. We can’t be their nanny. Let them cure their own problems, or not.

Common Sense

October 26th, 2009
10:13 pm

If there is any immorality in the Afghanistan war, it is that while American soldiers are dying, our perfidious politicians wring their pallid hands on what to do, our spineless generals try to protect their next star and our busy at the mall citizens fail to rise up and put a stop to the madness.
I think many Vietnam (and now Afghanistan) veterans will always feel much the way someone does who spends time in prison for a crime they never committed – simply betrayed by the system.

Thogwummpy

October 26th, 2009
11:27 pm

Tucker just can’t bring herself to admit that the Iraqis were paying a heavier price living under Saddam’s despotism. If you think history won’t give a nod of vindication to Bush…simply for the removal of Hussein, you don’t know how history works.

ck hall

October 27th, 2009
5:17 am

Long after the USA is gone (from the armpits of the world),these losers will be killing each other. Maybe they will kill off their entire populations and the world will be a better place. Maybe we should provide weapons for them to hurry up the process.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
5:34 am

Political Mongrel

October 26th, 2009
9:37 pm

They were doing okay until the U.S. rudely bombed them out of their beds. Yes, Saddam was brutal, but he provided for the ones with enough sense to play along until a better day. He could have been “toppled” without an all out war that destroyed the country’s infrastructure. But I guess somebody thought corporate America would rebuild it.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
5:59 am

Common Sense

October 26th, 2009
10:13 pm

Nobody knows what to do. After 8 years and being back at square one, why the rush now? Go to Bookman’s blog and link to the piece by Paul McGeough.

I’ll be surprised if Obama sends in more troops since most of al Qaeda apparently has left. He’ll let the Afghans deal with the Taliban and go after al Qaeda in Pakistan.

“Afghanistan and Pakistan: Understanding a Complex Threat Environment”

By Peter Bergen, New America Foundation

March 4, 2009

“The war on terror, sometimes known as the Global War on Terror or by the clunky acronym the GWOT, became the lens through which the Bush administration judged almost all of its foreign policy decisions, which was dangerously counter-productive. The GWOT framework propelled the Bush administration into its entanglement in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 but was launched under the rubric of the war on terror and the erroneous claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that he might give to terrorists, including al Qaeda to whom he was supposedly allied, and that he therefore threatened American interests. None of this, of course, was true.”

“What then is the war that the US is engaged in? The United States is clearly at “War against al Qaeda and its Allies.” And instead of the Bush formulation of “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” the American policy in this war should be, “Anyone who is against the terrorists is with us.” After all it is only al Qaeda and its several affiliates in countries like Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria and allied groups such the Taliban that kill U.S. soldiers and civilians and attack American interests around the globe. Everyone else in the world is a potential or actual ally in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates because those organizations threaten almost every category of institution, government and ethnic grouping.”

“When President Bush left office the Taliban were stronger than at any point since they had lost Kabul seven years earlier. The Taliban, which in 2002 had barely been more than a nuisance, now control large sections of Afghanistan’s most important road, the 300-mile Kabul to Kandahar highway. And the south of the country is not only the source of the vast majority of the world’s heroin, but it is also quite dangerous for those the Taliban deems an enemy, which, in practice, means pretty much anyone who isn’t part of their movement. By mid-2008 more Americans soldiers were dying in Afghanistan every month than in Iraq. In early 2009 a US official involved in Afghan policy put the number of Taliban fighters somewhere between 12, 000 to 18,000. Whatever the exact number the Taliban today is obviously a larger force than they were in 2006 when US intelligence officials in Afghanistan estimated that they numbered at most 10,000.”

h t t p : / / w w w . n e w a m e r i c a . net/publications/resources/2009/afghanistan_and_pakistan_understanding_complex_threat_environment

(Remove the blanks.)

dmac

October 27th, 2009
6:38 am

Dear Mrs. Tucker,

Thank you for posting the photos and video.

As former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clark once said, when we leave Iraq, there will be chaos. It doesn’t matter if we leave today or ten years from now, or years ago. There will be some degree of chaos. There’s no avoiding it. The real question is does our presence in Iraq improve the situation. Will our presence reduce the degree of chaos? It appears that the answer is no.

Paul

October 27th, 2009
7:09 am

Still using ‘neocon’? Not the best way to further a discussion. As defined here, neocons want more troops in Afghanistan. Sen Diane Feinstein’s a neocon?

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said the counterinsurgency strategy pursued by McChrystal is “really critical.” She said the American people don’t have the stomach to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years, but that the mission there is in “serious jeopardy” and Obama has an obligation to follow his commander’s advice.

“I don’t know how you put somebody in who was as crackerjack as General McChrystal, who gives the president very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations if you’re not going to pull out,” Feinstein said on ABC’s “This Week.”"

Democratic neocons from California. Who’da’ thunk -

Joey

October 27th, 2009
7:36 am

Cynthia;

You use “neo-con(servative) as a derogatory term. What is your definition of a neo-conservative?

Turd Ferguson

October 27th, 2009
7:44 am

The US was in Iraq long enough. They either want to have a Country or they do not. If the US were intelligent we wouldve gone in and obliterated everything, taken over the oil fields and gotten out.

I am in agreement with ck…just losers all of them.

Common Sense

October 27th, 2009
7:56 am

To TnGelding:

Like I said, “betrayed by the system” …………… there are those who talk and those who do.

Right now it’s only 850 (Afghanistan) vs. 58,000 (Vietnam). Give it time.

Thanks for the input.

dw

October 27th, 2009
8:03 am

All the “progressive” journalists, with all the answers should move to Iraq and solve it’s problems too. I’m sure they could do it in no time at all. (sounds of laughter…)
Just an aside, when we leave and Iraq eventually goes back to it’s normal mode of operation, let’s (U.S. troops) not go back again. Let’s just use our resources here (including drilling, gasp), so we don’t have to entangle ourselves in the quagmire that seems to befall this region.

truth

October 27th, 2009
8:14 am

Cynthia you are correct as usual. The “war” was pre conceived to control the oil supply, period. cheney knows that (halliburton=$$). The iraqis will be killing each other long after we are gone. You simply cannot force democracy on a muslim country, DUH.

reality

October 27th, 2009
8:20 am

Hey ck hall. you said “Maybe we should provide weapons for them to hurry up the process”. Well check yoru history, the cia DID provide them weapons, including the gas that saddam used on his own people.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
8:22 am

I would say yes, in a large enough capacity. But the Iraqis are the ones that have to eventually reconcile.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
8:27 am

Turd Ferguson

October 27th, 2009
7:44 am

Your attitude is why we will always be known as the Great Satan in the Islam world, and much of the rest of it as well.

dmac

October 27th, 2009
6:38 am

My 8:22 was in response to you. But it would take decades (generations?) in Iraq or Afghanistan.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
8:34 am

Common Sense

October 27th, 2009
7:56 am

I would modify that to say betrayed by their presidents. But we, the people, sat on our hands and let it happen. Why weren’t we in the streets by the millions? In that sense, I guess it was the system. So far I don’t think Obama has betrayed them. Let’s see if he measures up and can avoid doing so.

The author of the link I provided thought it would take 600,000 troops to take, hold and reconstruct Afghanistan.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
8:37 am

dw

October 27th, 2009
8:03 am

The irony is we don’t need oil from there now, but Europe and Asia do. Let’s hope that there will be no need to go back, if ever completely withdrawn.

TnGelding

October 27th, 2009
8:38 am

reality

October 27th, 2009
8:20 am

Not only there, but the rest of the world as well. But hey, a fella has to eat.

William

October 27th, 2009
8:41 am

Until you are ready to kill everything in your path then this is a costly war.

You can not kill just the armed men at the time. The terrorist teach their children to become terrorist. For instance, a child born to a terrorist in the first gulf war is now a seasoned militant for the terrorist causes. Yeah and a 10yr old in 2001 is now a seasoned militant with American blood on his hands.

Of course liberals can not lead, liberals can not follow, and liberals can only give socialist views. It does not matter who is in charge(president) at the time, the liberals and special groups will ensure the war will not be fought with extreme prejudice. Terrorists have no value of life–such as using mosques for arm storages, using schools for direct and indirect fire, and simply using public places to hide and discharge their tactics.

These tactics are a conumdrum for the socialist liberals who are void of any military intelligence or skills. Remember, most liberals use the military to get college funds or simply go to college and avoid the military. Even a tour with the military for the liberal is not for patriotic duty but for selfish reasons.

Yes this is going to become a costly war. The US will eventually withdraw in defeat. The radical muslims will establish a religious regime and its citizens will lose freedom and be at the mercy of religious doctrine. Thanks liberals! The terrorist salute you! Cynthia praises you!

clyde

October 27th, 2009
8:42 am

You betray one group by staying.You betray another by leaving.Cynthia is right.Pull out and let them have at it.Iran will take over and it’s problem solved for the group they wipe out.

As soon as we become less dependent on Middle East oil we can pull out and let this happen. In the meantime,we’re not there to unite them,we’re there to keep them from killing each other.

William

October 27th, 2009
9:27 am

Clyde:

We can not be less dependent on Middle East oil while the liberals are starving an oil based economy of oil. I heard on the radio this morning that our tax dollars were going to green companies that are making green cars that cost 90k and 100k each. Also those companies are overseas companies. I guess our employment needs do not matter to the speical whacko green liberals.

Common Sense

October 27th, 2009
9:47 am

To TnGelding:

Like I said ……….. “some talk, some do.”

Scott

October 27th, 2009
4:43 pm

TNgelding,
“They were doing okay until the U.S. rudely bombed them out of their beds. Yes, Saddam was brutal, but he provided for the ones with enough sense to play along until a better day.”

Really??? We did much, much less harm to Iraqi people than what Sadaam did. He was a brutal dictator that killed people who disagreed with him on a regular basis. It is funny that you bleeding heart liberals are all in favor of using military action to stop other genocides, but when Bush led us into a war to do that very thing, you complain about it. Which is it? Save lives or don’t save lives?

Saddam ignored UN sanctions continuously. Something needed to be done. I know, I know here comes the lack of WMD claim too. If you do not think he had them, then you are seriously delusional. The Clinton admin acknowledged he had them and was in the process of developing more. Many other politicians, Dems included, agreed with the assessment as well….well before Bush ever was in power. To think they didn’t go somewhere like Syria perhaps is just flat-out ignorant.
Last, throw in the Saddam sponsored terrorism as demonstrated by his well-documented policy of paying the families of suicide bombers. We said we would fight terrorists and those that sponsor them. He fit that description too.

Was the invasion in America’s interest? Yes. Sadaam was about to inflict the damage to the US dollar that we are seeing now by starting the process of getting oil traded in Euros versus dollars. We would have seen the same destruction to our economy that we are seeing now. Bush needed a way to get that problem taken care and he used the reasons above as a basis to do it. Our troops went over there and took care of business and for the most part, they did it the right way. There was collateral damage, but that damage pales in comparison to the terror that Saddam put these people through. Trust me….I was there. Not sure whether you could say the same thing, nor do I care. For the most part, in contrast to what the news organizations wanted everybody to believe, the Iraqi people were happy to have us there. We made a difference in their lives. We need to continue to support their country’s development. We cannot listen to morons like Cynthia who have no clue.

Eric von Stromheim

October 27th, 2009
8:47 pm

Man, you are so right. I agree with everything you say. You’re the only one who seems to have a handle on the situation that’s getting out of hand.

If things are binding in Irak, they need to take a laxative. We just cannot allow this binding situation to continue. Cyth, you need to take your stand to Washington. We support you; you know what you’re talking about. Make them listen to you, gurl. In one day I bet you could have this whole situation of spending too much money under control and within a week, I believe you could have the whole Middle East problem solved.

You deserve a raise, gurlfriend. You’re the only voice in the wilderness who’s talking sense. Everyone else is a hater but you’re talking sense. You haven’t failed us yet, don’t fail us now. Keep on going, going, going.

Chester Felds

October 30th, 2009
7:11 pm

Those neo-cons must be stopped! We cannot allow neo-cons to walk our streets and worry our children. We must put a stop to these neo-cons.

I urge you to write your congressman to pass a law, ASAP, to ban neo-cons from our society. This cannot be allowed to continue.