We can't really complain if the Iranian crazies want to take down the Al Qaidian crazies, and vice versa. Throw in the Zionists and the pot is complete. Partitian will work in both Iraq and Israel. Anything short of a nuclear confrontation will be a success.

How in the world do we get out of this
mess Pres Bush has caused in Iraq? The Brits(Churchill himself in Cairo)created Iraq after WWI. They had charge of it under the League of Nations, and beyond, for about 40 years. They even gave Iraq its Independence in 1932. They finally gave up and went back home. Didn't Pres Bush know this past history of how tough it is to turn Iraq into a viable "Nation?" Rip, Tallahassee, FL (WWII Vet)

The U.S. cannot solve Iraq's problems. Only the Iraqis solve them. It is time for the U.S. to leave. As long as the U.S. is there, we will catch flak from both sides.

I don't mean to be patronizing, but let's be serious one second. With regard to Iraq, the U.S. invaded, killed, injured, destroyed, occupied, brought chaos to civil life all over the country, emprisoned, humiliated, tortured and murdered, maimed countless children (including so many to be born, through the use of depleted uranium), did as it pleased (with the help of its cronies) re: public security, the army, the police, the constitution, justice, the elections, the economy, petrol, etc. And today, legally, the US still have all the international responsibilities that go with being the occupier in Iraq...

How can then one expect (let alone demand) that the U.S. not be blamed, the world over, for the situation that now prevails in Iraq?

History will remember that the vast majority of the world population did oppose the Iraq adventure and did call upon American citizens not to let the American administration invade Iraq. To no avail. The then president was even to be re-elected by more than 57 million Americans!

One day, one day at last, Americans may know how much of their souls they lost in Iraq!

Truly a sad sad situation. I only hope that the American public realize our misdirection as we head into yet another election year, and not be wooed by the very Politicians that let this happen and led us into this disaster.

I don't want to sound depressing, but these are indeed the signs of the endtimes!

What a bunch of civilizationally-challenged cry babies!

If I went and killed innocent civilians, could I blame the US government as well? Or maybe I should blame televeision? Certainly I could at least blame George Bush?

But wait, no. I would have to blame myself because it was my decision. Just like those killing in Iraq.

Paul is no military man.

1. If I went and killed innocent civilians, I could blame the government that put me in the situation that led me to commit those crimes, on the false pretense I would be welcomed with flowers, and as a liberator by the Iraqi people. ("New war, new concept: no pain, no death, and you'll be loved!", wrote, ironically, the poet against the war, before it all began)

2. If I went and killed innocent civilians, I should blame television and the media for contributing to my false perception of what that adventure was all about. That's called "deception". Remember, for instance, CNN's "Showdown Iraq", for months on end? I do!

3. If I went and killed innocent civilians, certainly I could at least blame George W. Bush, his administration and the Armed Forces for sending me to Iraq on the false pretense that it had something to do with 9-11 and continued to threaten the U.S. (and the world!...) with weapons of mass destruction.

4. If I went and killed innocent civilians, I could also blame all those who gave me the orders I was given, which led to my killing innocent civilians.

5. If I went and killed innocent civilians, I would also blame myself, of course, so much so that I would most likely suffer from "post traumatic war syndrome", possibly for the rest of my miserable life.

In society, it so happens that responsibilities are shared.

c2tbf: why don't you forget the "cry babies", the "reality checks" and all other expressions used by the impotents, and come up with some arguments for a change?

Lets remmember what we went to Irag for, to get Al qyuida for bombing us on 9/11, and to stop the Iraqis from nuclear bombing us. This is why we must stay the course and pray for Bush. Im sad to see everyone here is so unpatriotic. Put your faith in jesus, he will lead us and the chosen people of Israel, to victory.

While it's true that the insurgents and terrorists must bear the direct blame for the atrocities taking place in Iraq, the United States (of which I'm a citizen) also shares the blame.

The President -- for whom I did *not* vote and spent countless dollars and hours working to convince others not to vote for -- successfully convinced the nation with lies that Iraq and Saddam were behind or connected to the atrocities of September 11th, 2001.

Then we embarked upon this foolish war, which has had no beneficial result -- with the arguable exception of removing Saddam from power -- and which has destabilized the entire region. In retrospect, it's very clear what Iraq -- and in fact everything in the USA since 9/11/01 -- has been: a land-grab for power and money by a corrupt administration. While some in power may really believe the lies they spew, they are lies nonetheless. We (Americans) are *less* safe now than before we invaded Iraq. The region is now *less* safe and *less* democratic (you cannot have a democracy under mortar fire) than it was. We (Americans) are almost a half *trillion* dollars poorer.

Mission accomplished? Are we talking about the same mission, here?

That the U.S. should be held responsible for sectarian violence in Iraq is a charge made by those ignorant of history. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other since the death of the prophet over a thousand years ago. My claim to knowledge? A degree in Middle East history from the Woodrow Wilson Scool of Foreign Affairs at the University of Virgina.

That the U.S. should be held responsible for sectarian violence in Iraq is a charge made by those ignorant of history. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other since the death of the prophet over a thousand years ago. My claim to knowledge? A degree in Middle East history from the Woodrow Wilson Scool of Foreign Affairs at the University of Virgina.

Robert:

I think you wax a little too poetic in your analysis. America is not "losing its soul" in Iraq. Here are a few things to consider.

In both financial and human terms the Iraq "war" has been small scale. We don't even need to compare it to WWI or WWII. We can just compare it to the much smaller wars in Korea or Vietnam.

Human costs: To date, about 2,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. More than 36,000 were killed in Korea, and more than 58,000 were killed in Vietnam.

Estimates on the numbers of Iraqis killed seem to vary wildly. I've seen figures as low as 20,000 and as high as 100,000. Given that most of these figures are generated by groups with one agenda or another, it's reasonable to assume that the real number lies somewhere in the middle.

Given that during Saddam Hussein's tenure as ruler his regime purportedly killed 300,000 Iraqis and caused wars with Iran and the West (as a result of Kuwait) that killed hundreds of thousands more, it's not at all clear to me that life in Iraq is any more dangerous now than it was before.

Despite the daily smattering of killings during the U.S. occupation, most Americans seem to understand the scale of the previous carnage and are not, therefore, feeling significant guilt for having removed Hussein's regime. (That's not to say that most Americans wouldn't now prefer to reverse course if we could.)

Financial cost: During the wars in Korea and Vietnam, US military spending reached 15% and 11% of annual GDP, respectively. Today US defense spending is about 4% of GDP.

Indeed, the (on average) $100 billion spent per year on Iraq represents less than .1% (1/10 of 1%) of overall US wealth. (Admittedly, that last figure is an estimate on my part. I haven't seen any recent calculations on overall national wealth, so I'm extrapolating today's national wealth from today's GDP by using average ratios of GDP to national wealth from the 1980s and 1990s.)

Put another way, if you as an individual had assets of $1 million and you spent $1 thousand annually on a project that turned out to be a dismal failure (which Iraq could become), that would be equivalent to the financial costs of Iraq to the United States.

Of course, there are some indirect costs not included in the above numbers. Joseph Stiglitz (the former Columbia U. and World Bank economist) recently estimated that the increased price of oil could double the overall cost of the Iraq project. (That assumes, of course, that increased oil prices are a direct function of Iraq. In reality, there are other forces in play--e.g., the increasing energy consumption of China and India.)

In any event, that's still a small fraction of America's overall wealth. And, in the long run (yes, I'm aware of Keynes's admonition about having too much concern for "the long run") increased oil prices are a good thing. Increased oil prices means decreased oil consumption, which is good for the planet and for the average American waist line. (Of course, I'd prefer that those increased prices came in the form of taxes rather than market forces that make oil companies richer.)

Every time I return to the States from a trip to Europe, I'm reminded of how fat many Americans have become. They need to get out of their oversized cars and spend more time on foot or bike. That would lead to decreased health care costs which would, of course, result in an offset of savings to the overall economy and...would be good for their souls.

In other words, despite some of the hype and hysteria, the Iraq "war" is a small scale conflict. It has the potential to have larger implications, but not all of those implications would be bad.

Thanks for the "few things to consider", i.e. what you call human and financial costs. I quite agree, mathematics shows that the country lost neither its power nor its wealth in that Iraqi adventure. But I was talking about its soul. Not a metaphor, not a poetic entity either. Soul has to do with values (individual and collective), with fundamental reasons for living and dying, with what gives meaning to our lives and to our deaths. Loss of soul is loss of one's humanity. How could anyone possibly present here the mathematics of the soul?

Individuals, groups and nations lose their soul when they betray the human values they claim to stand for. They lose their soul when they commit war crimes that they can't even stand to watch and face squarely, as has been the case with Abou Ghraïb, Guantanamo, Fallujah, etc. They lose their soul when they commit crimes against humanity such as using depleted uranium against innocent civilians, thereby destroying humanity's genetic material and crippling future generations of Iraqis. Signs of loss of soul can be seen amongst those assassins in uniform who commit and witness such atrocities, who later suffer from post traumatic war syndrome, and who most of the time never fully recover.

Individuals, groups and nations lose their soul by being lied to and deceived by their "leaders" on an ongoing basis, more particularly on matters of war and peace, of life and death. They lose their soul by becoming confused as to what reality is, as to what is human and what is inhuman, as to what is right and what is wrong, even as to what words mean! Nations loose their soul when they no longer respect international law and international human rights conventions. It is a sure sign a nation has been loosing its soul when its citizens accept seeing their civil rights infringed upon and eroded, day after day.

While I respect you for what you wrote, it still makes my blood freeze in my veins that we could be arguing together here, the mathematics of other people's deaths, by the scores or hundreds of thousands, rationally, dispationately, as something "small scale" and therefore something "not to feel significant guilt" over. To do this would be for me to engage in a monstrous exercise, the epitomy of soullessness. And I know that even if I were to point out, in my next breath, that the other guy (Saddam Hussein?) was worse than I was, that would never give me my soul back.

You may ask why any non-American like me should care about all this?

I care because humanity looses part of its soul every time one person looses its own. Which means we all loose in the process, given humanity is all of us, including the dead.

This is why, in 2003, writer Margaret Atwood had concluded her "Letter to America", published in the International Herald Tribune, with those words:

"The British used to have a myth about King Arthur. He wasn't dead, but sleeping in a cave, it was said; in the country's hour of greatest peril, he would return. You, too, have great spirits of the past you may call upon: men and women of courage, of conscience, of prescience. Summon them now, to stand with you, to inspire you, to defend the best in you. You need them."

Regards.

Sorry about that. The previous message was to LWP by me, Robert Rose.

LWP: Your facts may be correct, but I doubt your conclusions. This "little war" is far from over: I shouldn't go putting a price tag on it just yet. And whilst its "potential larger implications" may not all be bad, some are quite horrific. As a native Londoner, I've experienced a few already.
Robert:Things might be worse.Your proud nation might have been dragged protesting into the least popular war in its history by a Prime Minister who ignored the misgivings of his own cabinet (and the resignations of the bravest) and instead placed British soldiers lives at the disposal of a President whose motives, honesty, and even intelligence are - at best - questionable. How can such things happen in a democracy?

Alicia, I lived in England for four years and have a lot of respect and affection for the British people. To the very end, I was sure the British, unlike others, would resist. Truly a sad situation. And still a long way to go indeed. Obviously, "democracy" and democracy (both notion and reality)ought to be revisited soon.

Blame is a fun game to play, but I think it is more important to discuss solutions. I believe if troops were pulled from Iraq it would plunge into civil war. Part of me does wish that the US would just pull out and let extremist battle it out, but I know too many innocent people would die.

What is the problem, right now, in the Middle East?

I feel that the US occupation has given the extremist an excuse to kill their hated rivals, but I do not believe they are the reason people are killing each other right now.

The unrest in Iraq, who is causing it? And what are the solutions? These are the questions that should be asked and answered. Imagine yourself in the situation of an iraqi suicide bomber. Are you killing your fellow iraqis out of hate for america or because evil men have told you that is your path to heaven?

If I were in Bush's shoes, I would be making the same decisions he is (not to say I agree with every decision he made previously).

Paul, if I may.

There are more than one way out.

Let's abandon altogether this pervasive and perverse logic of WAR that has taken control of our whole mental universe. Let's forget provocation, confrontation and violence for a day or two. Let's put aside the four disgraceful B's (brainwashing, blackmailing, bribing and bullying)at the source of murderous "coalitions", for a few weeks or months. I agree, very difficult things to do under the tyrannical rule of the Beast: the military-industrial complex.

What are the alternatives?

One used to be called "diplomacy".

Another was once called "disarmament" (Canada was once a leader at it).

Yet another was called "peaceful coexistence".

And there were others... Remember?

Do yourselves a favor and read Hitchen's review of Fukuyama's new book on slate.com. Alicia or Robert, can you answer Hitch's three questions ?

Alternatively you can read Robert Kaplan's piece in today's Washington Post. I read it as a qualified endorsement of the Iraqi invasion with advice for the future. Any other takes ? I've loved Kaplan since reading the Arabists about 12 years ago.

c2tbf:

I did myself a favor...

and with all due respect, any serious observer of American politics during a lifetime, and of "Showdown Iraq" on a daily basis, knows better. What matters are the facts, the true origins, the true causes of that "tragedy", examined critically within a true analysis. Not figments of people's imaginations.

All those rationalizations and fanciful suggestions, all after the fact, are only attempts at defending the indefensible, at justifying what is unjustifiable, at rewriting history while claiming to be writing it. "Instant histories" that contradict shamelessly everything we know and have seen unfolding before our own eyes... and in front of the United Nations, for the whole world to see and appreciate.

The major difference between the people you refer to and us is that we have nobody to prove right. We are nobody's apologists.

As an aside, it is both offensive and farcical: 1. to claim that America is trying to "create legitimate, functioning institutions in utterly barren landscapes", 2. to suggest that "Hosni Mubarak is merely the latest in a line of Nasserite pharaohs" and "enlightened", 3. to express sorrow and nostalgia at the thought of the "demise of the shah of Iran".

c2tbf,
I haven't read Kaplan - and it probably shows. But you asked for another take.

1. What is the problem, right now, in the Middle East?
Well, which part of the M.E., and which problem? The problem in Saudi where a repressive regime has created a murderously extremist underground movement led by Bin Laden? or the problems created by the flowering of democracy in Iran and Palestine, which has resulted in the election of more murderously extremist Islamists??
My view is that many of these problems were originally created by the British, who parcelled up swathes of the Middle East (and India) and handed them out to 'friendly' tribal leaders, ignoring traditional tribal, ethnic and religious divisions, and storing up problems for centuries to come.
It worries me deeply that the world's current superpower is in the process of repeating the same mistake, and I hope that partition is not, once again, on the cards.
2. Who is causing the unrest in Iraq?
Frankly, since the bombing of the Samarra shrine, who isn't? (The Kurds?).
Al Quaeda; the new 'Al Quaeda in Iraq' faction; Moqtada Al Sadr; Baathists from Syria; Baathists from Iraq; extremist Sunnis from Saudi and Jordan; extremist Shiites from Iran, angry Iraqi Shia seeking reprisals, angry Iraqi Sunnis seeking reprisals, etc. etc. etc.

When the Americans and Brits removed Saddam, they took the lid off a pressure cooker, and the unfortunate citizens of Baghdad are now enjoying the result.
About the only thing that all of these people have in common is the desire to see the backs of the "Occupying forces". A recent survey published in the UK suggested that 66% of Iraqis - regardless of religious or ethnic group - wanted the British to leave. I can't imagine the Americans faring much better.

3. What are the solutions?
This is an unholy mess. There is no quick fix. There are lots of things that can be done to improve the situation.

a) Build bridges with the Islamic world, NOW. This entails a radical revision of current US foreign policy.
- Chastising Iran for developing a nuclear capability whilst rewarding India for doing the same does not make sense.
- The Palestinian people elected Hamas because they were less corrupt and infinitely better at providing basic social services than their predecessors. They do not deserve to starve for this.
b) Eat humble pie.
Whilst the U.N. appears to be a dirty word in US political circles these days, the phased replacement of a substantial proportion of US and British forces with a UN Peacekeeping force during the run-up to an agreed "Hand-over" date might smack a little less of "Occupation" than the current arrangement.
c) Make Iraq a magnet for investment - not just terrorists.
I currently live in a non-democratic country, but one in which Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian co-exist in relative harmony: Singapore. The fabric which binds this society together is simple - it is wealth.The rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure, and the reparation of its oil fields ought to be providing massive opportunities for local employment, and bringing in investment from everyone from China to Dubai.
Instead, contracts have been handed out to cronies of the current US administration in the least transparent manner possible.
The situation is shameful, and until it is put right Muslims the world over will continue - rightly - to question U.S. motives.

The US government and its neo-fascist army of killers (who are just doing their job, we know!) are responsible for all the destruction, death and suffering that happened in Iraq since the illegal invasion occurred.

This stands true for all voters who supported this nasty war.

If the US government is not responsible for this, then who is??

Who destroyed and dismantled the entire state institutions, including the police, in Iraq?

If the US believes the police and other government agencies are USELESS (because supposedly civilized Americans do not kill each other!!), then why don't they DISMANTLE THE POLICE FORCE IN THE US (that is known for its brutality against blacks)? You could save a lot of tax payers money too.

We Arabs just don't dislike the US government for fun or because it happens to be called America.

We dislike it because we believe that it is a brutal government that KILLS FOREIGN PEOPLE with IMPUNITY, just like some of our own governments.

More than 100,000 civilians were killed in Iraq because of the US government war.

That is 1/3 of what Saddam was responsible for during his entire rule.

Democracy can very well produce tyranny and neo-fascist governments.

Wasn't the good ole USA democratic was it had racist laws against its own black citizens?

What makes people think that the same country wouldn't produce or tolerate a tyrannical government that treats well its citizens (just like it treated well whites) and oppresses/kills foreign people (just like it oppressed its own black people)?

We are in the 21st century, and yet we still hear from army apologists that the neo-fascist soldiers WHO KILL FOREIGN HUMAN BEINGS are just doing their JOB!!

Why don't those soldiers walk away from those killings??

The mosque that was partially destroyed was built in 944.

Why wasn't this mosque ever attacked during the last 1000 years except when the US government invades the country?

Even during the British occupation, there wasn't so much chaos and destruction.

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN?

Alicia - Great stuff. By your last points regarding Singapore, you simply MUST READ Kaplan's piece from a couple days ago. I'm sure it's still available right here on wa po dot com.

Karim - Grow up. Seriously.

c2tbf,

Stop condoning and making apologies for the reckless murder of foreign people who live 5000 miles away from your home, people don't speak your language, who never set foot in your country, who haven't tried to invade your country, etc.

I read Kaplan's piece. Another apologist for US foreign policy. He seems to blame the failure of the neo-con project on us Arabs, not on the reckless-ness and disregard of human life by the current US government.

In my life I have not seen a nation that is afraid religiously and fanatically to condemn its own army that does the actual killing of people.

Even in our not-so-free Arab countries, you will always find people/activists who will condemn their own armies (which is part of the government), and even pay for it in prison. I would NEVER serve in any of their armies.

People in America do condemn their own police forces for their brutality, why not the Army? Well I know the answer.. it is because your army is not killing Americans. It is only foreigners who are dying, especially when it is a bunch of ragheads in the desert.

Your politicians have turned your military into a SACRED institution that is more respected than the actual elected congress (correct me if I am wrong).

Sometimes I wish it was not America that saved the world from Hitler and that it was another country, maybe a coalition of many countries. That said, I am still grateful to people who died fighting the Nazis.

In my opinion, that was the turning point that has given the American military a "sacred status" that has become off limits to any criticism. Anyone (whether in America or outside) who dares to point the finger at it is slapped with "We saved you from Hitler, so shut up" in the face.

Enough is enough! stop the killings.

Ambassador Khalilzad thought that his macho diplomacy would work in Iraq as well as the neocons mistakened (or they did?) that Iraq would be a replay of Afghanistan. Khalilzad should have used backroom diplomacy tahter then openly denounciating the Shiites when he criticized them over Sunni relations. True, Sunnis should be included in the next government, but Khalilzad failed to walk the fine line of diplomacy when he should not have given Sunni grievances such legitimacy in public. Shiite "death squads" is more hype and buzz and no match to killing of Shiite civilians infilicted by Sunni insurgents in the past three years. It is probably the word "insurgent" that dims the inhumane slaughtering of Shiites while the term death squad brings to mind and imagination the vivid picture of brutality. Not the Kurdish, nor the Shiites, it is the Sunni leadership that is the most dishonest. They need to forcefully condemn the terror that is brought upon US army and Iraqi civilians and not to forget aid workers and journalists. Have we missed the que that whenever there is an expression of grudge by the Sunni political leaders, the bombings intensify? Is it not fair to think that Sunni "political" leaders are actually coordinating with the "insurgents" terrorists? And please, ambassador Khalilzad, stop the coup attempt against the Shiites by helping to form a coalition against the Shiites. It will back fire and make you less of an honest broker in the eyes of the Shiites (the majority) like your last unwise statement.

Ambassador Khalilzad thought that his macho diplomacy would work in Iraq as well as the neocons mistakened (or they did?) that Iraq would be a replay of Afghanistan. Khalilzad should have used backroom diplomacy rather than openly denounciating the Shiites when he criticized them over the inclusion of Sunnis in the government. True, Sunnis should be included in the next government, but Khalilzad failed to walk the fine line of diplomacy when he should not have given Sunni grievances such legitimacy in public. Shiite "death squads" is more hype and buzz and no match to killing of Shiite civilians infilicted by Sunni insurgents in the past three years. It is probably the word "insurgent" that dims the inhumane slaughtering of Shiites while the term death squad brings to mind and imagination the vivid picture of brutality. Not the Kurdish, nor the Shiites, it is the Sunni leadership that is the most dishonest. They need to forcefully condemn the terror that is brought upon US army and Iraqi civilians and not to forget aid workers and journalists. Have we missed the que that whenever there is an expression of grudge by the Sunni political leaders, the bombings intensify? Is it not fair to think that Sunni "political" leaders are actually coordinating with the "insurgent" terrorists? And please, ambassador Khalilzad, stop the coup attempt against the Shiites by helping to form a coalition against the Shiites. It will back fire and make you less of an honest broker in the eyes of the Shiites (the majority) like your last unwise statement.

I predict:

1. The Shiites will pay back the Sunnis for past oppression and the Iran Iraq war.

2. A slow burn civil war has already begun and will not end for many years.

3. As soon as we leave, the Shiites in the South will invite the Iranians to help stabilize their country (and help massacre the Sunnis).

4. The strategic oil fields in the South will end up in Iranian hands, the Baghdad area will remain in chaos and the Kurds in the North will cut a deal to stay out of the fighting.

5. The Turks will invade the North and take back their disputed (and oil rich) land from the Kurds as soon as they think the world is not watching.

6. Iraq, as we knew it under Saddam will never exist again.

7. We will do nothing to prevent any of this. We may bomb Iran to try to curb their nuclear appetite, but we will be gun shy due to the Iraq debacle.

The grand experiment in forced democracy upon an unwilling and culturally foreign nation has been a dismal failure. Only a strong dictator like Saddam (or Tito) could hold together so many ethnically diverse populations under one rule.